An understated cartoon by Amr Okasha published in the online version of the opposition newspaper al-Dustour, aptly expressed the pessimism that many people have about the upcoming parliamentary elections.
Okasha’s cartoon shows the distinctive dome of the Maglis al-Sha‘b – the Peoples’ Assembly. A smirking general standing in front of it. The caption says “Businessman’s Assembly (formerly People’s Assembly).”
As the cartoon implies, no doubt seats in the parliament can be bought (as of course is also the case in the American Congress). But more importantly, whatever the percentage of opposition candidates allowed to take parliamentary seats by the ruling National Democratic Party, the neoliberal businessmen’s agenda will remain untouched.
Privatisation of public services will continue, inevitably pricing many out of “markets” for services they had formerly received from the state. Society will be more sharply polarised between the few who benefit spectacularly from free market fundamentalism and the many who are increasingly impoverished by it.
An effective minister of parliament can bring some public or private money to his or her district, but nobody has the slightest expectation that parliamentary elections will create momentum towards democracy. The protection of powerful economic interests at the expense of democracy is business as usual in the logic of a neoliberal regime.
Possibility of transition
But this does not mean that interest in Egypt’s November 2011 parliamentary election is low. The election itself is not the real story. It is rather the possibility of a transition from the Mubarak era to something else that has powerfully caught the public’s imagination.
In this wider context, interest in politics is intense. Jaded intellectuals who would otherwise consider this sort of politics a bit vulgar argue vociferously about the fortunes of ElBaradei and the intentions of the Muslim Brotherhood (MB). One sees such unfamiliar sights as men standing in the street having heated discussions about the latest headline in an opposition paper. An unfamiliar excitement is in the air.
The most important aspect of the parliamentary election is not how many seats are won on election day by opposition parties (or how many the NDP decides to let in the door). It is the decisions made by the major players to either participate in the NDP’s rigged game, or to boycott the elections altogether.
The players
The major players are not political parties. One is Mohamed ElBaradei, the retired head of the International Atomic Energy Agency. He is admired as a native son who reached the highest levels of international diplomacy, and stood up to the Americans on the issue of nuclear weapons inspections in Iraq.
ElBaradei has skillfully built a network of local advisors, and until recently has blunted any accusations that he is out of touch with Egypt after a career spent abroad. The NDP is alleged to have begun an offensive against ElBaradei’s character by anonymously publishing photos on facebook of his daughter in a bikini and the family swilling alcohol.
ElBaradei is thought to have presidential aspirations, though he has never said so unambiguously. He has, however, formed a non-partisan “National Association for Change” which aims to reform the constitution, most crucially an article that effectively prohibits independent candidates for running in presidential elections. Whether or not ElBaradei ever becomes president, he is immensely important as a symbol of alternatives to the continuation of the current regime.
Ayman Nur of the Ghad (tomorrow) party played something of the same role in the 2005 election, and he was able to ride the momentum of the Kefaya movement (kefaya means “enough,” i.e. of rule by Mubarak, his son Gamal who is being groomed to succeed his father in the presidency, and the NDP). But Nur was a former MP himself, and too much of a political insider to inspire the same hopes as ElBaradei. When Nur was incarcerated after the 2005 election on blatantly trumped up corruption charges there was no popular uprising in his defence.
Untouched but in touch
By contrast, ElBaradei is seen as both a genuine outsider untouched by the rampant corruption of the Mubarak era and, thus far, as genuinely in touch with the political frustrations of average Egyptians. It might not be as easy for the state to push ElBaradei off the political stage as it was to neutralize Ayman Nur.
ElBaradei has already declared publicly that individuals and political parties should boycott the parliamentary election.
This, he believes, will strip the NDP of all legitimacy and force a turn to true democracy. The country now awaits the decision on boycott of the other important non-party participant in the elections, namely the Muslim Brotherhood. The MB has not been allowed to form a political party (though some of its adherents spin this as a tacit arrangement whereby the MB stays formally out of politics in exchange for the government ceding “the people” to it).
However MB candidates ran as independents in the 2005 election, and currently occupy 20% of the seats in parliament. It would cause a political earthquake if they joined the boycott, but it is unlikely that they will do so. Nor is it likely that secular opposition parties such as the liberal Wafd or the socialist Tagammu' parties will stay on the sidelines.
Hereditary succession?
Hovering over the entire parliamentary election process is the spectre of taurith – of Hosni Mubarak’s son Gamal Mubarak inheriting the presidency. Gamal Mubarak has no natural constituency. He would be the first post-independence president to have attended a private university (the American University in Cairo) rather than a state institution. He never had to work his way up through the vast political patronage system of the Egyptian state, and he has never held a meaningful ministerial post.
No doubt there are sincere Gamal Mubarak supporters somewhere, and a somewhat larger number of Egyptian citizens who support him as “the devil we know.” However it would be fair to say that most of the country loathes the prospect of a Gamal Mubarak presidency. Hence the real issue in this election is not how many seats opposition parties might win, but how the political players position themselves through the election for the upcoming challenge of ElBaradei.
Dreaming of real democracy
It is still unclear whether the elder Mubarak is ready to retire. The presidential election is scheduled for 2012, and it is not inconceivable that Hosni Mubarak will announce that he is game for another term in office.
However even if he does defer the expected attempt to handoff to Gamal, ElBaradei’s constitutional challenge will not disappear, and it ultimately implies a rejection of the endlessly extended “State of Emergency” law that has been in place since Anwar al-Sadat’s assassination in 1981. It is the State of Emergency that underpins the Mubarak regime and the rule of the NDP.
Hence one might be able to posit a scenario in which the state is left with no choice but to throw the political system – both the parliament and the presidency – open to true competition. The emergency law would be abolished, state torture and police brutality would be curbed, and corruption would be tamed.
However one can just as easily see this scenario leading full circle back to Amr Okasha’s cartoon. Would a freely elected government follow the businessmen’s neoliberal agenda? If not, would the businessmen and the army allow it to stay in power? Probably not. It is almost impossible to imagine the NDP allowing enough MB candidates into parliament to govern, but if the unthinkable happened, how would the United States react?
Brutal sanctions imposed on the democratically elected Islamist government in Gaza perhaps give a hint as to how the US would deal with a Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt. A similar policy applied to Egypt would cause immense suffering, but the US has shown itself capable of such actions.
If Gaza is not enough of a warning, one recalls the time when former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright was asked to comment on allegations that American-led sanctions against Iraq had caused the deaths of up to half a million children, she did not dispute either the claim or the numbers. Instead she replied that, “we think the price is worth it.”
Hopefully no such price will ever be levied on the Egyptian public for daring to dream of real democracy, but it cannot be denied that the coming cycle of elections will be both exhilarating and perilous.
Dr. Walter Armbrust is Hourani Fellow and University Lecturer in Modern Middle East Studies at Oxford University. He is the author of Mass Culture and Modernism in Egypt (Cambridge University Press, 1996).
The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial policy.
Thursday, 30 September 2010
The Algerian Wing of Al-Qaeda displays French hostages
The Algerian and North African wing of al-Qaeda on Thursday released photographs of seven hostages held in Niger, the first since the group was kidnapped earlier this month.
The photos released to Al Jazeera show the group, which includes five French nationals and one each from Madagascar and Togo, sitting on the sand as several gun-toting men in Bedouin clothing stand behind them. It is impossible to identify where the photos were taken.
A spokesman for the French foreign ministry declined to comment on the photographs.
The group was abducted earlier this month, and are reportedly being held in a mountainous region in northwestern Mali. French officials say they have not received any demands from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group that carried out the kidnapping.
The hostages are employees of two French firms, Areva and Vinci, which do business in the mining town of Arlit in Niger.
Anne Lauvergeon, the head of Areva, arrived in Niger on Thursday evening to meet with president Saloui Djibo about the hostages.
Joint intelligence centre
Previous AQIM kidnappings have ended with multi-million dollar ransoms. The Spanish government, for example, reportedly paid nearly $5 million to free two aid workers from Mali last month.
Kidnappings have netted more than $65 million for the group over the last five years, according to analysts.
Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the Algerian president, used his United Nations General Assembly speech earlier this week to criticise countries that pay ransom to AQIM.
He said the money helped strengthen the group, which is a growing concern for countries in the arid Sahel region. Intelligence chiefs from Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Algeria met in Algiers earlier this week and agreed to set up an intelligence-gathering centre focused on AQIM. The centre will reportedly be based in Algiers.
A US citizen, Mohamed Omar Debhi, was arrested in Spain earlier this week for reportedly sending more than $80,000 to AQIM.
A spokesman for the French foreign ministry declined to comment on the photographs.
The group was abducted earlier this month, and are reportedly being held in a mountainous region in northwestern Mali. French officials say they have not received any demands from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), the group that carried out the kidnapping.
The hostages are employees of two French firms, Areva and Vinci, which do business in the mining town of Arlit in Niger.
Anne Lauvergeon, the head of Areva, arrived in Niger on Thursday evening to meet with president Saloui Djibo about the hostages.
Joint intelligence centre
Previous AQIM kidnappings have ended with multi-million dollar ransoms. The Spanish government, for example, reportedly paid nearly $5 million to free two aid workers from Mali last month.
Kidnappings have netted more than $65 million for the group over the last five years, according to analysts.
Abdelaziz Bouteflika, the Algerian president, used his United Nations General Assembly speech earlier this week to criticise countries that pay ransom to AQIM.
He said the money helped strengthen the group, which is a growing concern for countries in the arid Sahel region. Intelligence chiefs from Mali, Niger, Mauritania and Algeria met in Algiers earlier this week and agreed to set up an intelligence-gathering centre focused on AQIM. The centre will reportedly be based in Algiers.
A US citizen, Mohamed Omar Debhi, was arrested in Spain earlier this week for reportedly sending more than $80,000 to AQIM.
Algerian Christians face jail sentence for breaking Ramadan fast
29/09/2010 / ALGERIA
On October 5, an Algerian court will hand down its verdict in the trial of two construction workers arrested on August 12. Their crime? They took a lunch break and drank water at their work place in the middle of the Ramadan fasting period.
The two men are Christian and therefore not religiously compelled to observe the Muslim fast. They were charged and detained in accordance with an Algerian law that bans any Algerian citizen from "causing offence to the Prophet and the Messengers of God, or denigrating the dogma of Islam". The public prosecutor has called for a three year prison sentence.
On September 21, dozens of protesters gathered in front of the courthouse in Aïn el-Amman, in northern Algeria, where the two men’s trial was held to call for greater freedom of religious expression for Algeria’s Christian minority. The Algerian ministry of religious affairs estimates there are 11,000 Christians living in the country, but Christian leaders say that figure is grossly underestimated.
The two men are Christian and therefore not religiously compelled to observe the Muslim fast. They were charged and detained in accordance with an Algerian law that bans any Algerian citizen from "causing offence to the Prophet and the Messengers of God, or denigrating the dogma of Islam". The public prosecutor has called for a three year prison sentence.
On September 21, dozens of protesters gathered in front of the courthouse in Aïn el-Amman, in northern Algeria, where the two men’s trial was held to call for greater freedom of religious expression for Algeria’s Christian minority. The Algerian ministry of religious affairs estimates there are 11,000 Christians living in the country, but Christian leaders say that figure is grossly underestimated.
Contributors
"In that case, why don't they just jail all the smokers?"
Mourad Sadi, 46, lives in Paris, but he travelled to Algeria to take part in the protest supporting the two workers.
This comment was written by our Observer, it does not represent France 24’s views.
We narrowly avoided a confrontation with armed forces, which had been sent en masse to the protest site. The crowd left the premises around noon.
The State says that not observing the Ramadan fast is against the Algerian Constitution. This is nonsense, and it is unacceptable. In that case, why don’t they just jail all the smokers who inhale smoke during Ramadan? These arrests violate the principle of freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by a UN convention that Algeria has signed, but does not comply with.
There are Islamists in positions of power putting pressure on the whole government. But they can’t force everyone, including non Muslims, to follow the precepts of Islam! The Kabyle people are not Arabs, many have no real attachment to Islam. In any case, if the two men are sentenced to jail, people will not accept the decision. It could cause a direct confrontation between Christians and Muslims."
This comment was written by our Observer, it does not represent France 24’s views.
There were several hundred of us protesting in front of the courthouse. There were Christians singing hymns, atheists, members of the movement for the autonomy of Kabylie (a northern Algerian province). The crowd was very angry, shouting slogans like "The government is a murderer!" and "Freedom to Kabylie!"
We narrowly avoided a confrontation with armed forces, which had been sent en masse to the protest site. The crowd left the premises around noon.
The State says that not observing the Ramadan fast is against the Algerian Constitution. This is nonsense, and it is unacceptable. In that case, why don’t they just jail all the smokers who inhale smoke during Ramadan? These arrests violate the principle of freedom of religion, which is guaranteed by a UN convention that Algeria has signed, but does not comply with.
There are Islamists in positions of power putting pressure on the whole government. But they can’t force everyone, including non Muslims, to follow the precepts of Islam! The Kabyle people are not Arabs, many have no real attachment to Islam. In any case, if the two men are sentenced to jail, people will not accept the decision. It could cause a direct confrontation between Christians and Muslims."
Amnesty International has expressed concern over the sentencing of an Iranian-Canadian blogger to more than 19 years in prison
According to the Iranian website Mashreghnews, Hossein Derakhshan was convicted by Branch 15 of the Revolutionary Court of “cooperating with hostile states“, “propaganda against the system”, “propaganda in favour of counter-revolutionary groups, “insults to the holy sanctities”, and “the set-up and management of vulgar and obscene websites”.
The site also said that the court sentenced him to 19½ years in prison, a five-year ban on political and journalistic activities and “repayment of received funds of 30,750 Euros, US$2,900, and UK£200 British Pounds”. The site did not provide further information about what the funds were allegedly for.
“As far as we can tell, Hossein Derakhshan has been very harshly sentenced by the Iranian authorities after an unfair trial, merely for exercizing his right to freedom of expression. If this is the case, he should be released immediately and unconditionally,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui, Deputy Director of Amnesty International’s Middle East and North Africa Programme.
As is common in cases portrayed by the authorities as relating to “national security”, Hossein Derakhshan’s lawyer has not been given a copy of the verdict nor yet had adequate opportunity to take note of the full details of his conviction and sentence.
Hossein Derakhshan, 35, who wrote his blog mostly from outside Iran, is credited with helping to spark a surge in blogging on reform issues in Iran in 2001 by posting simple instructions in Persian on how to set up a site and begin writing online comments.
“The Iranian authorities routinely resort to bringing vaguely worded charges relating to national security, which do not amount to recognizable criminal offences, against those who peacefully express dissent,” said Hassiba Hadj Sahraoui.
“We know from long experience that the fairness of trials before Revolutionary Courts is seriously compromised. This blogger spent well over a year held without charge in a legal limbo in circumstances where he was prevented from receiving visits from his family and lawyer. Many others held in such circumstances have later stated that they were tortured or otherwise ill-treated while held”
At first a journalist in Tehran before moving to Canada in 2000, Hossein Derakhshan returned to Iran at the end of October 2008 and continued to blog from there but was arrested at his family home in Tehran on 1 November 2008.
He has 20 days in which to lodge an appeal and is believed to be held in Evin Prison, Tehran.
http://www.amnesty.org/en/news-and-updates/prominent-iranian-blogger-jailed-more-19-years-2010-09-29
Write to Canadian Authorities please
- http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gW6uJcKIYfINsVrdXeeTkWh5jJuwD9IGU2R80?docId=D9IGU2R80
This sentence is Intolerable and our voices count. the decision is confirmed, Hossein will leave the limbos of his prison at 55 years old.
We call on canadian officials to react and ask his immediate release. The place of journalists and bloggers is not in Prison.
What we can do :_________________
**You can copy/paste the petition (http://www.freetheblogfather.org/) and send it to :
- To The Prime Minister of Canada Mr. Stephen Harperpm@pm.gc.ca
- To The Speaker of the canadian Senate Mr. Noël Kinsellakinsen@sen.parl.gc.ca
- To The Speaker of the House Mr. Peter MillikenSpkrOff@parl.gc.ca
- To the Canadian Embassy in Tehranteran@international.gc.ca
We will launch soon a site which will allow us to campaign and organise for his release as well as to write to iranian authorities for his immediate release.
Please, sign and share the petition asking his immediate release.
http://www.freetheblogfather.org/
J Street Exposed, Crashes
AS readers know, I have been writing about how J Street is an anti-Israel group shielded by the mass media. I pointed out how it had worked with Iranian leader Ahmadinejad's lobby last year to try to block sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.
In the last few hours it has been shown that the organization lied about not receiving large-scale funding from George Soros. Now it has come out that it organized the Capitol Hill visit of Richard Goldstone, author of the extremely anti-Israel UN report on the Gaza Strip. As a result, Colette Avital has resigned as the group's representative in Israel. Please let people know about these developents. Here are some links:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/29/israel-lobby-aided-hill-visits-un-report-author/print/
Israel lobby aided Hill visits for U.N. report authorBy Ben Birnbaum and Eli LakeThe Washington Times
Jewish Group Falls From Favor At White House </span><span>Revelation about funding sources prompts distancing from J Street
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/27/jewish-group-falls-from-favor-at-white-house/
In the last few hours it has been shown that the organization lied about not receiving large-scale funding from George Soros. Now it has come out that it organized the Capitol Hill visit of Richard Goldstone, author of the extremely anti-Israel UN report on the Gaza Strip. As a result, Colette Avital has resigned as the group's representative in Israel. Please let people know about these developents. Here are some links:
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/29/israel-lobby-aided-hill-visits-un-report-author/print/
Israel lobby aided Hill visits for U.N. report authorBy Ben Birnbaum and Eli LakeThe Washington Times
Jewish Group Falls From Favor At White House </span><span>Revelation about funding sources prompts distancing from J Street
www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/sep/27/jewish-group-falls-from-favor-at-white-house/
BUYcott Ahava! Come and stand up to the bullies, and buy Israeli goods.
| Time | Saturday, November 20 at 10:00am - November 21 at 5:00pm |
|---|---|
| Location | Ahava shop 39 Monmouth Street, Covent Garden, |
| Created By | |
| More Info | Every second Saturday, a nasty group of bullies stands outside the Ahava Dead Sea beauty products shop in Covent Garden, disrupting trade and chanting anti-Israel slogans. Their aim is to shut down this Israeli business because they believe in boycotting Israel. On the weekend of 20-21 November 2010 we will show them that we refuse to be bullied. And we need YOUR help! The more people who turn up during that weekend to buy some of... the wonderful products from this shop (all enriched with amazing minerals from the Dead Sea), the more we will show our refusal to be bullied. The protestors will be there on Saturday from 10am to midday, and we want them to see a constant line of people filing into the shop to buy products. But our BUYcott lasts all weekend, so please come any time you feel comfortable with. This is a perfect opportunity to buy these wonderful Israeli products which are great for the skin in time for Chanukah or Christmas. They make perfect presents. And for that weekend only, if you mention that you are part of the ZF's BUYcott at the till, you will get TEN PERCENT OFF! Please support a shop being bullied for selling Israeli products. Please support Israel. We are relying on you and your friends, so spread the word. [you can read more about the protestors here: http://is.gd/fAdVb ] |
Wednesday, 29 September 2010
Very Lala, Leftists Support Terrorist Gaza
Israel's Lala Leftists are enamoured with the Gazan Arab terrorists who actually want them dead.
Arab terrorists don't distinguish between Jews of different ideological stripes. These clowns are just too lala to comprehend reality.
I'm proudly pragmatically Right, not wrong.
Un affront aux juifs de France
Par Shmuel Trigano
Quelle est la signification de la réception de « personnalités juives » par Mahmoud Abbas à Paris si on la met en parallèle avec ce qu’il a déclaré au début du mois d’aout lors d’une rencontre avec la presse égyptienne ? Il y dévoilait le fond de sa pensée sur la nature du régime d’un éventuel Etat de Palestine et son rapport aux Juifs.
En envisageant la possibilité qu’une troisième force, comme l’OTAN, puisse être chargée de veiller à l’exécution de l’accord envisagé, Mahmoud Abbas s’est senti obligé d’y mettre une condition : qu’il n’y ait aucun soldat juif ni aucun Israélien. “Je suis prêt à accepter une troisième partie qui contrôle l’exécution de l’accord, par exemple les forces de l’OTAN, mais je n’accepterai pas qu’il y ait des Juifs dans ces forces ni un Israélien sur la Terre de Palestine”.
Ainsi prend tout son sens la déclaration maintes fois répétée par les dignitaires de l’Autorité palestinienne, et notamment Saeb Erekat, son “ministre” des affaires étrangères, de ne jamais reconnaître en Israël un État juif, un argument systématiquement ignoré par la presse occidentale mais qui est infiniment plus grave que les fameuses « colonies » parce qu’il fait entendre un refus massif de la paix. Il prend son véritable sens, à la lumière de ce codicille sur l’OTAN. Comment qualifier en effet la condition de Mahmoud Abbas quand il demande aux États européens, membres de l’OTAN, d’exclure des rangs de leurs forces leurs citoyens juifs ? Imagine-t-on la situation et les dispositifs juridiques que ces États devraient mettre en œuvre pour écarter les Juifs de leurs citoyens ? Il frappe plus fort que l’Arabie saoudite, qui avait permis qu’au sein des forces américaines, lors de la guerre du Golfe en 1990-1991, il y ait des militaires américains juifs sur son territoire qui, pourtant, selon le Coran, est « sacré » et ne doit accueillir aucun non musulman.
Ce qui pourrait passer pour une exigence de type nationaliste ressemble à du racisme.
Ce refus de reconnaître le caractère juif de l’État -pourtant inscrit dans la décision de partage de l’ONU, juif et arabe désignant dans ce document deux nationalités- est d’autant plus choquant que la Palestine, elle, sera arabe et musulmane. C’est ce qui est inscrit en toutes lettres dans le projet de constitution du futur Etat2 : « Cette constitution se fonde sur la volonté du peuple arabe palestinien » (Art. 1), « le peuple palestinien est une partie des nations arabes et islamiques » (Art. 2), « la souveraineté appartient au peuple arabe palestinien » (Art. 10), « le caractère légal du peuple arabe palestinien sera incarné par l’État » (Art. 13). « L’islam sera la religion officielle de l’État » (Art. 6).
Nous pouvons vérifier ce dernier principe (l’islamité de l’État) à la lumière de l’étrange catégorie juridique (l’article 6) forgée par cette constitution pour les non musulmans : « L’islam sera la religion officielle de l’Etat. Les religions monothéistes seront respectées ». Qui sont ces étranges “monothéistes” (et quid des Indous, des confucianistes, des bahaïs, etc., interdits de séjour en Palestine ?) sinon une version politiquement correcte du vieux statut de dhimmi imposé aux non musulmans par la loi coranique ? En l’occurrence, il ne s’agirait que de chrétiens, puisque de Juifs, il ne devra plus y en avoir dans l’Etat de Palestine... En Palestine, les Juifs ne seraient théoriquement pas des citoyens, car ils ne sont ni « arabes » (clé de la nationalité palestinienne, selon les articles 10 et 13), ni « musulmans » (clé de la loi nationale palestinienne selon l’article 6) ; ils seraient, quoique « respectés », hors souveraineté nationale, privilège exclusif des Arabes (art. 10), qui peuvent être chrétiens ou musulmans, certes, mais avec cette réserve que, puisque la loi sera conforme à la loi islamique, les Arabes chrétiens ne seront que des citoyens de seconde zone, soumis au statut que leur impose la loi coranique, un statut qui les exclut de la loi générale s’appliquant aux musulmans, assorti d’un “privilège” cependant : comme ils échappent aux règles du droit national (islamique) pour leur statut personnel, ils sont autorisés à le gérer de façon autonome, dans le cadre de leur loi et de leurs tribunaux religieux.
C’était déjà le cas avant l’ère coloniale, avant que l’islam ait perdu tout pouvoir sur les non musulmans, et c’est bien ce que prévoit la constitution palestinienne dans son article 7 : « Lesrincipes de la Shari’a islamique sont la source première de la législation. Le pouvoir législatif déterminera la loi du statut personnel sous l’autorité des religions monothéistes conformément à leurs confessions, dans le respect des dispositions de la constitution et de la préservation de l’unité, de la stabilité et du progrès du peuple palestinien (sous-entendu “musulman”) ».
Comment le statut du monothéiste nous renseigne-t-il sur la vision que l’Autorité Palestinienne a de ce que devrait être cet État d’Israël qu’elle ne veut pas reconnaître comme ”juif” ? Comment peut-elle reconnaître les “monothéistes” et pas le caractère juif de cet État ? “Juif” ne désignerait donc pas à ses yeux un “monothéiste” ? C’est la compréhension du statut dudhimmi qui peut nous aider à clarifier ce qui n’est une contradiction que pour ceux qui ne comprennent pas les catégories de la culture musulmane. Le statut du dhimmi n’est pas individuel mais concerne des collectivités, des “nations” (millet, du temps des Ottomans) politiquement soumises au pouvoir islamique depuis la “conquête”. Dans cette perspective, on ne peut reconnaître en droit un État juif (et en fait tout État qui ne serait pas musulman), ce qui impliquerait l’autodétermination et la souveraineté d’une collectivité, dont le seul statut possible sous l’islam est celui de dhimmi. La charte de l’OLP décrétait déjà que « les Juifs ne constituent pas une nation unique avec son identité propre ; ils sont citoyens des États auxquels ils appartiennent » (Art. 20).)
Si l’on fait le rapport entre l’exigence du retour des “réfugiés” de 1948 dans l’État d’Israël et le refus de reconnaître un État juif, un paysage tout à fait différent de la doxa contemporaine apparaît : d’un côté une Palestine pure de sang juif et de l’autre un État d’Israël où vivent déjà un million d’Arabes israéliens, eux pleinement citoyens, submergé par 5 millions de « réfugiés » où les Juifs deviendront donc une minorité. La charte du Hamas est, elle, très claire sur leur devenir « les fidèles des trois religions, l’islam, le christianisme et le judaïsme, peuvent coexister pacifiquement. Mais cette paix n’est possible que sous la bannière de l’islam » (art.7). « Deux Etats pour un seul peuple » donc. Arabe.
On ne peut qu’être accablé par la visite rendue par certaines personnalités juives, et avant tout le président du CRIF, au chef de l’Autorité Palestinienne où siège le cerveau du boycott mondial d’Israël, dont les retombées sont si graves pour les communautés juives d’Europe. L’admiration et l’émotion qu’elles ont exprimées devant les médias à cette occasion sont encore plus insoutenables. Elle portait réversiblement accusation contre l’intransigeance d’Israël.
Dans cette affaire, l’incompétence le dispute à la désinvolture ou plutôt au narcissisme. Hélas, la politique est cruelle et ces personnalités n’ont fait que prêter la main au plan de communication pour l’Europe du leader d’une société profondément belliciste et antisémite. Toutes à leur suffisance, elles ne se sont même pas rendu compte que si la première visite à Paris d’Abbas était destinée à la « communauté » juive, ce n’était pas pour tenir compte de son « importance », mais pour un effet de pub frappant sur la corde symbolique, à l’avantage de la cause palestinienne.
Le jour même, le spécialiste de la société palestinienne, journaliste au Jerusalem Post, Khaled Abou Toameh, écrivait un article pour le Hudson Institute3 « , « Pourquoi Abbas veut tuer les Palestiniens qui font du commerce avec les Juifs ». Le 28 septembre, le même journaliste révélait dans les colonnes du Jerusalem Post que c’est Yasser Arafat qui avait commandité les attentats du Hamas au début des années 2000, démontrant ce que tout le monde sait, le partage des tâches entre l’Autorité palestinienne et le Hamas, tournant en ridicule « l’admiration » de certain « pour la ténacité d’Abbas à la recherche de la paix » et la confession d’un autre pour « sa sincérité » et sa conscience de « la violence du Hamas ».
Si cette rencontre était seulement marquée du sceau de l’indignité, cela serait sans importance, mais il y a infiniment plus grave, elle annule sur le plan public le patient travail d’information mené depuis 10 ans par les forces les plus vives du judaïsme français. Ce jour-là pourrait bien avoir été signé l’acte de décès d’une communauté juive française, dans le sens où une « communauté » suppose du « commun » à partager. Tout dépendra de ce que les Juifs feront après cet affront.
Quelle est la signification de la réception de « personnalités juives » par Mahmoud Abbas à Paris si on la met en parallèle avec ce qu’il a déclaré au début du mois d’aout lors d’une rencontre avec la presse égyptienne ? Il y dévoilait le fond de sa pensée sur la nature du régime d’un éventuel Etat de Palestine et son rapport aux Juifs.
En envisageant la possibilité qu’une troisième force, comme l’OTAN, puisse être chargée de veiller à l’exécution de l’accord envisagé, Mahmoud Abbas s’est senti obligé d’y mettre une condition : qu’il n’y ait aucun soldat juif ni aucun Israélien. “Je suis prêt à accepter une troisième partie qui contrôle l’exécution de l’accord, par exemple les forces de l’OTAN, mais je n’accepterai pas qu’il y ait des Juifs dans ces forces ni un Israélien sur la Terre de Palestine”.
Ainsi prend tout son sens la déclaration maintes fois répétée par les dignitaires de l’Autorité palestinienne, et notamment Saeb Erekat, son “ministre” des affaires étrangères, de ne jamais reconnaître en Israël un État juif, un argument systématiquement ignoré par la presse occidentale mais qui est infiniment plus grave que les fameuses « colonies » parce qu’il fait entendre un refus massif de la paix. Il prend son véritable sens, à la lumière de ce codicille sur l’OTAN. Comment qualifier en effet la condition de Mahmoud Abbas quand il demande aux États européens, membres de l’OTAN, d’exclure des rangs de leurs forces leurs citoyens juifs ? Imagine-t-on la situation et les dispositifs juridiques que ces États devraient mettre en œuvre pour écarter les Juifs de leurs citoyens ? Il frappe plus fort que l’Arabie saoudite, qui avait permis qu’au sein des forces américaines, lors de la guerre du Golfe en 1990-1991, il y ait des militaires américains juifs sur son territoire qui, pourtant, selon le Coran, est « sacré » et ne doit accueillir aucun non musulman.
Ce qui pourrait passer pour une exigence de type nationaliste ressemble à du racisme.
Ce refus de reconnaître le caractère juif de l’État -pourtant inscrit dans la décision de partage de l’ONU, juif et arabe désignant dans ce document deux nationalités- est d’autant plus choquant que la Palestine, elle, sera arabe et musulmane. C’est ce qui est inscrit en toutes lettres dans le projet de constitution du futur Etat2 : « Cette constitution se fonde sur la volonté du peuple arabe palestinien » (Art. 1), « le peuple palestinien est une partie des nations arabes et islamiques » (Art. 2), « la souveraineté appartient au peuple arabe palestinien » (Art. 10), « le caractère légal du peuple arabe palestinien sera incarné par l’État » (Art. 13). « L’islam sera la religion officielle de l’État » (Art. 6).
Nous pouvons vérifier ce dernier principe (l’islamité de l’État) à la lumière de l’étrange catégorie juridique (l’article 6) forgée par cette constitution pour les non musulmans : « L’islam sera la religion officielle de l’Etat. Les religions monothéistes seront respectées ». Qui sont ces étranges “monothéistes” (et quid des Indous, des confucianistes, des bahaïs, etc., interdits de séjour en Palestine ?) sinon une version politiquement correcte du vieux statut de dhimmi imposé aux non musulmans par la loi coranique ? En l’occurrence, il ne s’agirait que de chrétiens, puisque de Juifs, il ne devra plus y en avoir dans l’Etat de Palestine... En Palestine, les Juifs ne seraient théoriquement pas des citoyens, car ils ne sont ni « arabes » (clé de la nationalité palestinienne, selon les articles 10 et 13), ni « musulmans » (clé de la loi nationale palestinienne selon l’article 6) ; ils seraient, quoique « respectés », hors souveraineté nationale, privilège exclusif des Arabes (art. 10), qui peuvent être chrétiens ou musulmans, certes, mais avec cette réserve que, puisque la loi sera conforme à la loi islamique, les Arabes chrétiens ne seront que des citoyens de seconde zone, soumis au statut que leur impose la loi coranique, un statut qui les exclut de la loi générale s’appliquant aux musulmans, assorti d’un “privilège” cependant : comme ils échappent aux règles du droit national (islamique) pour leur statut personnel, ils sont autorisés à le gérer de façon autonome, dans le cadre de leur loi et de leurs tribunaux religieux.
C’était déjà le cas avant l’ère coloniale, avant que l’islam ait perdu tout pouvoir sur les non musulmans, et c’est bien ce que prévoit la constitution palestinienne dans son article 7 : « Lesrincipes de la Shari’a islamique sont la source première de la législation. Le pouvoir législatif déterminera la loi du statut personnel sous l’autorité des religions monothéistes conformément à leurs confessions, dans le respect des dispositions de la constitution et de la préservation de l’unité, de la stabilité et du progrès du peuple palestinien (sous-entendu “musulman”) ».
Comment le statut du monothéiste nous renseigne-t-il sur la vision que l’Autorité Palestinienne a de ce que devrait être cet État d’Israël qu’elle ne veut pas reconnaître comme ”juif” ? Comment peut-elle reconnaître les “monothéistes” et pas le caractère juif de cet État ? “Juif” ne désignerait donc pas à ses yeux un “monothéiste” ? C’est la compréhension du statut dudhimmi qui peut nous aider à clarifier ce qui n’est une contradiction que pour ceux qui ne comprennent pas les catégories de la culture musulmane. Le statut du dhimmi n’est pas individuel mais concerne des collectivités, des “nations” (millet, du temps des Ottomans) politiquement soumises au pouvoir islamique depuis la “conquête”. Dans cette perspective, on ne peut reconnaître en droit un État juif (et en fait tout État qui ne serait pas musulman), ce qui impliquerait l’autodétermination et la souveraineté d’une collectivité, dont le seul statut possible sous l’islam est celui de dhimmi. La charte de l’OLP décrétait déjà que « les Juifs ne constituent pas une nation unique avec son identité propre ; ils sont citoyens des États auxquels ils appartiennent » (Art. 20).)
Si l’on fait le rapport entre l’exigence du retour des “réfugiés” de 1948 dans l’État d’Israël et le refus de reconnaître un État juif, un paysage tout à fait différent de la doxa contemporaine apparaît : d’un côté une Palestine pure de sang juif et de l’autre un État d’Israël où vivent déjà un million d’Arabes israéliens, eux pleinement citoyens, submergé par 5 millions de « réfugiés » où les Juifs deviendront donc une minorité. La charte du Hamas est, elle, très claire sur leur devenir « les fidèles des trois religions, l’islam, le christianisme et le judaïsme, peuvent coexister pacifiquement. Mais cette paix n’est possible que sous la bannière de l’islam » (art.7). « Deux Etats pour un seul peuple » donc. Arabe.
On ne peut qu’être accablé par la visite rendue par certaines personnalités juives, et avant tout le président du CRIF, au chef de l’Autorité Palestinienne où siège le cerveau du boycott mondial d’Israël, dont les retombées sont si graves pour les communautés juives d’Europe. L’admiration et l’émotion qu’elles ont exprimées devant les médias à cette occasion sont encore plus insoutenables. Elle portait réversiblement accusation contre l’intransigeance d’Israël.
Dans cette affaire, l’incompétence le dispute à la désinvolture ou plutôt au narcissisme. Hélas, la politique est cruelle et ces personnalités n’ont fait que prêter la main au plan de communication pour l’Europe du leader d’une société profondément belliciste et antisémite. Toutes à leur suffisance, elles ne se sont même pas rendu compte que si la première visite à Paris d’Abbas était destinée à la « communauté » juive, ce n’était pas pour tenir compte de son « importance », mais pour un effet de pub frappant sur la corde symbolique, à l’avantage de la cause palestinienne.
Le jour même, le spécialiste de la société palestinienne, journaliste au Jerusalem Post, Khaled Abou Toameh, écrivait un article pour le Hudson Institute3 « , « Pourquoi Abbas veut tuer les Palestiniens qui font du commerce avec les Juifs ». Le 28 septembre, le même journaliste révélait dans les colonnes du Jerusalem Post que c’est Yasser Arafat qui avait commandité les attentats du Hamas au début des années 2000, démontrant ce que tout le monde sait, le partage des tâches entre l’Autorité palestinienne et le Hamas, tournant en ridicule « l’admiration » de certain « pour la ténacité d’Abbas à la recherche de la paix » et la confession d’un autre pour « sa sincérité » et sa conscience de « la violence du Hamas ».
Si cette rencontre était seulement marquée du sceau de l’indignité, cela serait sans importance, mais il y a infiniment plus grave, elle annule sur le plan public le patient travail d’information mené depuis 10 ans par les forces les plus vives du judaïsme français. Ce jour-là pourrait bien avoir été signé l’acte de décès d’une communauté juive française, dans le sens où une « communauté » suppose du « commun » à partager. Tout dépendra de ce que les Juifs feront après cet affront.
A small slip (again and again) by the BBC but it has consequences
28-Sep-10: A small slip (again and again) by the BBC but it has consequences
Israel's self-imposed ten-month long moratorium on construction in Judea and Samaria expired on Sunday. If its purpose was to encourage the Palestinian Authority leadership to join discussions with Israel on a peace process, it was no great success. For most of those ten months, Mr Abbas the head of Fatah and of the PA flatly refused; then agreed to indirect talks where the Israelis would not be permitted to be in the same room at the same time as the Israelis; and then - just a few weeks ago - consented to actual face-to-face talks which started earlier in September.
Large parts of the Israeli public never understood why we would be expected to stop constructing houses, schools and communities in towns that we regard as our home. And having nevertheless agreed to do exactly that, many of us never understood why the other side's refusal to then sit down and talk was accepted at large (by the media, by international agencies, by most countries' diplomats) with almost complete equanimity. But that's how it was.
Now the parties are talking, and every rational person hopes they will find a way to reach common ground and a basis for peace.
Which brings us to the BBC.
The unilateral construction moratorium has ended, and life goes on, as normally as it ever is here. But the BBC, arguably the most important source in the world for information about current events, has the facts quite wrong and you have to ask yourself how and why.
On yesterday's 8.30am report, BBC presenter John Humphries said:
‘At midnight last night the moratorium on Israelis building new settlements in the West Bank came to an end. It had lasted ten months.’
New settlements?
He passed the mike to Middle East editor Jeremy Bowen, who surely knows, to provide background. Bowen said:
‘They began the moratorium because there had been a great deal of American pressure for them to stop building settlements anywhere, in east Jerusalem or in the West Bank.’Stop building settlements?
On the BBC World website, accompanying text for this segment reads:
‘Israel has urged the Palestinians not to abandon peace talks despite the fact that the moratorium on new settlements in the West Bank has expired.’Moratorium on new settlements?
That's three substantial mis-statements, and it's not a small point. The tug of war over Israeli settlements is emotive, even explosive, and misrepresentation of the facts is a large of why this is.
The voluntary, one-sided Israeli moratorium was always on construction within existing settlements. Jeremy Bowen (at least) certainly knows this. Why then would the BBC's expert on the ground deliver such misleading and factually wrong analysis?
Bowen surely knows, as an Israeli spokesman said today, that existing communities in Judea and Samaria (settlements, if you prefer - though the word itself is inaccurate and prejudicial) have not expanded. New communities in the area have not been authorized by the government of Israel since the early 1990's. The moratorium was of construction within Israeli communities. Its end means that Israelis can go back to constructing their communities, subject to getting the needed permits, within existing communities (or settlements).
Do you see the BBC correcting itself? No, nor do we. Being accurate about the facts, and drawing a line between history and propaganda, are critical to the pursuit of peace in our troubled times. Defeating the terrorists absolutely demands that people know to distinguish between politics and polemics.
And for the record, the obsessive focus on so-called settlements is not and never was what the conflict here is about, though large swathes of the news media would mischievously try to have you believe they are at the heart of the conflict. When Arafat and the PLO got started in 1964 with their campaign of wiping Israel and Israelis off the map, the total number of "settlements" and "occupied" "territories" was zero.
Toll banner removed after pro-Jewish, anti-Zionist graffiti in Glasgow
A ROSH Hashana banner at Eastwood Toll has had to be removed after being vandalised.
The banner was erected by East Renfrewshire Council, along with one for the Muslim festival of Eid.
But vandals scrawled 'Love Jews, Smash Zionism'.
The Council tried to clean the banner, but a new one will have to be made.
East Renfrewshire Labour MSP Ken Macintosh said: "It's another unpleasant reminder that even in this educated and tolerant constituency, we have to be vigilant about prejudice which singles out the Jewish community.
"I hope that the Scottish Government is taking note this time."
West of Scotland Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw said: "Members of the local Jewish community approached me about this matter, which I heard with considerable concern.
"It has been a long established tradition that festivals important to all faiths are recognised with the display of banners at Eastwood Toll.
"Each faith group should feel free to take advantage of this while celebrating festivals of importance to them, and should be able to do so without disrespectful acts of this nature, which can never be excused or tolerated.
"Those responsible should hang their heads in shame."
Mark Gardner, CST director of communications, added: "Damaging a shana tova banner with anti-Zionist graffiti - that claims to be pro-Jewish - reveals a twisted mentality and says a great deal about today's so called anti-Zionism."
The banner was erected by East Renfrewshire Council, along with one for the Muslim festival of Eid.
But vandals scrawled 'Love Jews, Smash Zionism'.
The Council tried to clean the banner, but a new one will have to be made.
East Renfrewshire Labour MSP Ken Macintosh said: "It's another unpleasant reminder that even in this educated and tolerant constituency, we have to be vigilant about prejudice which singles out the Jewish community.
"I hope that the Scottish Government is taking note this time."
West of Scotland Conservative MSP Jackson Carlaw said: "Members of the local Jewish community approached me about this matter, which I heard with considerable concern.
"It has been a long established tradition that festivals important to all faiths are recognised with the display of banners at Eastwood Toll.
"Each faith group should feel free to take advantage of this while celebrating festivals of importance to them, and should be able to do so without disrespectful acts of this nature, which can never be excused or tolerated.
"Those responsible should hang their heads in shame."
Mark Gardner, CST director of communications, added: "Damaging a shana tova banner with anti-Zionist graffiti - that claims to be pro-Jewish - reveals a twisted mentality and says a great deal about today's so called anti-Zionism."
Tuesday, 28 September 2010
ADL: UN Human Rights Council Report On Gaza Flotilla "Undeniably Biased"
The mandate of the committee charged to investigate the May 31, 2010 incident aboard the Mavi Marmara predetermined the predictable approach of the report: "to investigate…Israeli attacks on the flotilla of ships carrying humanitarian assistance."
Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director issued the following statement:
Once again an investigative committee appointed by the Human Rights Council produced a predictably prejudiced report with one goal: to demonize. Moreover, this report is unnecessary given the fact that Israel is currently conducting a thorough and transparent investigation into the incident through the Turkel Commission, and a committee was established by UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to monitor the progress of the Israeli and Turkish investigations. Israel
For the HRC to conduct its own investigation in light of these other efforts is superfluous. For it to issue its undeniably biased report now is disruptive of the recently resumed negotiations betweenand the Palestinian Authority. It is a travesty that the Human Rights Council wastes its time and funds with the sole intent of condemning and demonizing Israel . Israel
The HRC report itself lacks any context. It fails to address legitimate Israeli security concerns, nor the terrorist nature of Hamas and its repressive rule over the people of, and glosses over the myriad of rockets that have rained down on Israeli civilians. The panel hypocritically relied on testimony from passengers aboard the very ship being investigated to draw its overwhelmingly biased conclusions against the Jewish State. Gaza
The investigative committee was established on June 2, 2010 and although Israel
UK Government brands SPSC "offensive"
Mick Napier, Chair of Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign, is upset that the HMG has branded his organisation "offensive".
In an exchange of letters via his local Member of Parliament Napier, who recently marked Holocaust Remembrance by inviting a Hamas supporter and Holocaust denier to a SPSC lecture on that subject and has openly boasted of attending a memorial event in Gaza honouring the memory of the late terrorist murderer Dr George Habash, complains bitterly why he and his organisation should be side-lined from respectable society.
British Government censors mention of Palestine as 'offensive'
by Mick Napier
A letter from Andrew Stunnell MP, writing on behalf of the Minister for Communities in the UK coalition government, attempts to justify the decision earlier this year of the UK Government's Holocaust Memorial Day Trust to censor all mention of a speaking tour by Dr. Hajo Meyer, a survivor of Auschwitz, on the subject of Israeli crimes in Gaza.
It suggests that Dr. Meyer was censored because SPSC publicity for the event was 'offensive'. Our attempts each year to include discussion of Israeli mass killings in Palestine during Holocaust Memorial Day was 'offensive'.
A reply on behalf of the Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign asks for clarification of the following issues:
1. What are the criteria for inclusion in official HMD events?
2. What was deemed to be offensive in SPSC having an Auschwitz survivor talk across Scotland on the world’s “largest prison camp” (David Cameron)?
3. Can groups campaigning for Palestinian human rights participate in HMD 2011?
4. Is any reference to Israeli crimes in Palestine considered ‘offensive’ within the context of HMD?
5. What do we need to do in future to avoid giving ‘offense’?
6. Are Holocaust survivors during Holocaust Memorial Day permitted to explain their non-Zionist political conclusions, their commitment to universal values?
7. Is official Holocaust commemoration constrained by British Government support for Israel?
8. Can one invoke the genocidal racism of the perpetrators of the Holocaust to warn against any of these:
a. nuclear weapons that can exterminate whole populations?
b. Israeli massacres of Palestinians from 1948 till today?
c. the ongoing programme of dispossession of Palestinians by settlers backed by the Israeli State?
Despite the HMDT's crude censorship during HMD 2010, Dr. Meyer's speaking tour was successful attracting large numbers of people to the meetings and, via the Scottish press, reaching huge numbers more.
Help Scottish PSC break this censorship. We can work together to see that Nazi mass killings against Jews, Gypsies, Russians, Poles, Serbs, disabled people, homosexuals are remembered AND the lessons drawn that we must stop ALL mass killings, especially when our own government arms and supports the killers.
We must remember the most revolting example of European state-directed racism to re-dedicate ourselves to oposing ALL state-directed racism, including the vicious form of apartheid existing in Israel today.
Mick Napier
Edinburgh 26th September 2010
Mr. Avigdor Liberman speech to the UN
Israel
H.E. Mr. Avigdor Liberman, Deputy Prime Minister
LANGUAGE: ENGLISH
28 September, 2010
- Statement: English (Check against delivery)
Statement Summary
AVIGDOR LIBERMAN, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Israel, said that his country was facing many pressures, which made his work as Foreign Minister difficult. On the other hand, it was also easier than before, because the country had a stable coalition, a stable Government and the support of the majority of its citizens. Israel was ready for a fair solution and to cooperate with the international community. “However, we are not ready to compromise our national security or the vital interests of the State of Israel.” Despite the impression given in the international media, Israel was not divided; everyone wanted peace and stability. Rather, the controversy in Israel centred on the specific question of how to achieve peace, and how to reach security and stability in the region.Despite the efforts of good people with the best of intentions, such as Yitzhak Rabin, Shimon Peres, Benjamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon and Ehud Olmert, despite the Camp David and Annapolis summits, there was still deadlock, he said. In fact, contrary to the prevalent view, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was not at the heart of instability in the Middle East. Further, neither the so-called “occupation” nor the settlements in Judea and Samaria, and settlers themselves were at the root of the problem. Peace agreements had been concluded with Egypt and Jordan despite the settlements; on the other hand, flourishing settlements had been evacuated in Gush Katif and more than 10,000 Jews transferred, yet Hamas was in power and thousands of missiles deployed. It was also misguided and irresponsible to claim that the Palestinian issue prevented a determined international front against Iran. That flawed argument was akin to saying that the Palestinian issue prevented action on North Korea or piracy in Somalia. Just as the Khomeini Revolution had nothing to do with the Palestinians, so, too, was the Iranian decision to develop nuclear weapons unrelated to them. The connection between Iran and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was precisely the reverse: Iran could exist without Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Hizbullah, but terrorist organizations could not exist without Iran. “Relying on these proxies, Iran can, at any given time, foil any agreement between Israel and the Palestinians or with Lebanon.” Therefore, in searching for a durable agreement with the Palestinians, one that would address the true roots of the conflict and endure for many years, the Iranian issue had to be resolved.
There was an utter lack of confidence over issues such as Jerusalem, recognition of Israel as the nation-State of the Jewish People, and refugees, he said. Under such conditions, a focus needed to be placed on coming up with a long-term intermediate agreement, something that could take a few decades, so as to raise an entire new generation that would have mutual trust and not be influenced by incitement and extremist messages. As was true everywhere, where there have been two nations, two religions and two languages with competing land claims, there has been friction and conflict; on the other hand, where effective separation had been achieved, conflict had been avoided, reduced or resolved. Thus, the guiding principle for a final status agreement must not be land-for-peace, but exchange of populated territory. That was not about moving people, but about moving borders to better reflect demographic realities. That a mismatch between borders and nationalities was a recipe for conflict was a virtual truism in the academic community. “Right-sizing the State” was the term coined to capture the idea that States must be in balance to ensure peace. That was not a controversial political policy. It was an empirical truth.
Beyond empirical truth, there was historical truth, he said. The Jewish people had an unbreakable bond to its homeland. “ Israel is not only where we are. It is who we are,” he said. He referred to a quotation by the Jewish prophet Isaiah to be found outside the Headquarters of the United Nations that begins “They shall beat their swords into ploughshares…”, and hoped that the deep wisdom of those words would guide two peoples in two nation-States to live in peace and security.
Sharia law don't do freedom of speech
An Iranian news website says a court has sentenced a well-known Canadian-Iranian blogger to more than 19 years in prison.
The conservative website, Mashreghnews.ir, which is close to Iran's presidential office, says Hossein Derakhshan was convicted on charges of cooperation with hostile countries, spreading propaganda against the ruling establishment, promotion of counterrevolutionary groups and insulting Islamic thoughts and religious figures.
The report says Derakhshan can appeal.
Derakhshan, who made trips to Israel and blogged in both English and Farsi, has been in prison since 2008. It's unclear if he would benefit from time served.
Iranian authorities have arrested numerous bloggers in recent years in a bid to clamp down on Internet dissent.
The conservative website, Mashreghnews.ir, which is close to Iran's presidential office, says Hossein Derakhshan was convicted on charges of cooperation with hostile countries, spreading propaganda against the ruling establishment, promotion of counterrevolutionary groups and insulting Islamic thoughts and religious figures.
The report says Derakhshan can appeal.
Derakhshan, who made trips to Israel and blogged in both English and Farsi, has been in prison since 2008. It's unclear if he would benefit from time served.
Iranian authorities have arrested numerous bloggers in recent years in a bid to clamp down on Internet dissent.
UNHRC abuses human rights
By DANNY AYALON
09/27/2010 03:23
09/27/2010 03:23
Once again, a report has blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other party.
Talkbacks (5)Unsurprisingly, a United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) report has once again slammed Israel’s acts of self-defense. The recently released report ostensibly investigating the events that surrounded the interception of the Gaza-bound Mavi Marmara in May is a modern blood-libel, and another nail in the coffin of the council’s credibility. The full report is scheduled to be officially presented to the council on Monday.
While its name would seem to indicate a worthy body, the UNHRC has two sole functions: to defend serial human-rights abusing nations from reproach, and to revile and attack Israel.
The UNHRC, created in 2006, is the successor to the thoroughly discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). When the mandate for the new council was debated, certain basic reforms and standards were proposed to ensure the commission’s failures were not repeated. Unfortunately, few of the reforms received substantial support in the UN General Assembly, which refused to adopt them.
Those that were adopted have been abused.
The General Assembly resolution that created the council merely required member states to “take into account” a candidate’s human-rights record when applying to the UNHRC. Not even a nation under sanction from the UN Security Council for human-rights abuses need refrain from seeking election.
During the application process, candidate nations make pledges of adherence to human rights standards by way of justifying their candidacy. These statements have been described as Kafkaesque in their deviance from reality and historical record. One glaring example is that of Saudi Arabia, which claimed a “confirmed commitment to the defense, protection and promotion of human rights.”
The reality of course, is very different.
The US State Department’s annual human rights reports consistently criticize Saudi Arabia for its serious human rights failings, including arbitrary arrest, discrimination against women, restriction of worker rights and lack of religious freedom.
However, Saudi Arabia is hardly alone, as only 20 of the 47 nations on the UNHRC are considered “free” by Freedom House, an independent NGO which monitors human rights and political freedoms. This means the majority of nations currently represented on the UNHRC do not allow basic freedoms for their own people, let alone concern themselves with global human rights.
Another example of this farce was the recent election of Libya to the UNHRC.
Libya received support from 155 of the General Assembly’s 192 member states in a secret ballot, angering a coalition of 37 human rights organizations which described Libya as one of the most repressive societies in the world.
ONE OF the root problems is the influence of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) within the UNHRC.
The UNHRC heavily weights membership on its council to nations from Africa and Asia – two continents where the OIC has considerable influence. The OIC controls the lion’s share of the world’s energy resources, including oil, gas and uranium.
The OIC and its allies have an automatic majority on the UNHRC, and this is represented in the council’s workload.
Human Rights Watch claims that the OIC has “fought doggedly” and successfully within the UN Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel. The OIC’s mantra has been that the council should work cooperatively with abusive governments rather than condemn them.
This has led to the absurd situation in which Israel is condemned 33 times by the UNHRC out of a total of 40 countryspecific condemnations, while the UNHRC expresses only “deep concern” over Sudan and praises its cooperation.
In addition, the UNHRC adopted a unique decision to discuss human rights violations committed by Israel in all of the council’s meetings. It has also been criticized for redirecting attention to the fate of Muslim minorities within non- Muslim countries, but diverting attention from the treatment of ethnic minorities in Muslim-majority countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Al-Akhdam in Yemen or the Berbers in Algeria.
Furthermore, the OIC has been at the forefront of silencing freedom of expression.
An amendment to the duties of the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, passed by the Human Rights Council on March 28, 2008, has acted against this very freedom. The OIC and its allies have sought to ban anything they deem as criticism of Islam. Some nations were outraged by this amendment, which they claimed “turns the special rapporteur’s mandate on its head.”
Nevertheless, it is on the subject of Israel that the OIC appears to have unique influence. When the UNHRC discussed issues relating to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, four of the council’s independent experts reported the findings of their visit to Lebanon and Israel. State after state from the OIC took the floor to denounce the experts for daring to look beyond Israeli violations to discuss Hizbullah’s as well.
This sent a very clear message that experts filing reports for the UNHRC involving Israel should never look at the conduct of any other party. Justice Richard Goldstone understood this very well, as was reflected in the report he gave the UNHRC. In an interview given to Al Jazeera in 2009, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the OIC, explained how his organization not only initiated, but drove the Goldstone process from start to finish.
THE PANEL of experts compiling the report on events surrounding the flotilla has clearly understood its mandate well. Once again, a report has singularly blamed an event almost solely on Israel while refusing to assign responsibility or even suitably investigate any other actor. What makes the report so absurd is the recent release of many first-hand accounts by people on the Mavi Marmara.
These accounts, written by some hostile to Israel in the first place, depict very different scenes to those described in the report.
In his recently released book, Turkish journalist Sefik Dinç, while sympathetic to the militant IHH, writes that the crisis was “calculated” by those on board, and reportedly describes how the IDF soldiers did not open fire until after other soldiers were taken hostage. Dinç describes in his book, with the aid of photographs, how preparations for confronting the Israelis on the Mavi Marmara were “not going to be that passive.”
Our internal investigations indicate that not only did the soldiers only open fire when their lives were threatened, but that the first shots were fired by those on the boat; there are reports that one soldier suffered a knee injury from a non-IDF weapon as soon as he came on board.
This biased, libelous report indicates that the OIC has once again achieved its aim of condemning Israel through its proxies in the UNHRC. One again, it has proven UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson’s criticisms that the council acts according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. In fact, the report stands as an affront to the secretary- general’s own panel of inquiry, with which Israel is fully cooperating.
General Assembly President Joseph Deisss warned recently against the marginalization of the UN itself by stating the need for urgent reforms, like reviewing the UNHRC. At stake is the plight of millions of victims of human-rights violations around the world.
It is high time for democracies to reassess their participation in a council that places political calculations over the protection of human rights while providing cover to some of the world’s most brutal regimes.
We must give a voice to the oppressed, justice to the abused and equity for all of humanity. None of this will be achieved by always attacking and condemning Israel while allowing totalitarian nations to hijack the international human-rights agenda.
The writer is the deputy foreign minister.
While its name would seem to indicate a worthy body, the UNHRC has two sole functions: to defend serial human-rights abusing nations from reproach, and to revile and attack Israel.
The UNHRC, created in 2006, is the successor to the thoroughly discredited United Nations Commission on Human Rights (UNCHR). When the mandate for the new council was debated, certain basic reforms and standards were proposed to ensure the commission’s failures were not repeated. Unfortunately, few of the reforms received substantial support in the UN General Assembly, which refused to adopt them.
Those that were adopted have been abused.
The General Assembly resolution that created the council merely required member states to “take into account” a candidate’s human-rights record when applying to the UNHRC. Not even a nation under sanction from the UN Security Council for human-rights abuses need refrain from seeking election.
During the application process, candidate nations make pledges of adherence to human rights standards by way of justifying their candidacy. These statements have been described as Kafkaesque in their deviance from reality and historical record. One glaring example is that of Saudi Arabia, which claimed a “confirmed commitment to the defense, protection and promotion of human rights.”
The reality of course, is very different.
The US State Department’s annual human rights reports consistently criticize Saudi Arabia for its serious human rights failings, including arbitrary arrest, discrimination against women, restriction of worker rights and lack of religious freedom.
However, Saudi Arabia is hardly alone, as only 20 of the 47 nations on the UNHRC are considered “free” by Freedom House, an independent NGO which monitors human rights and political freedoms. This means the majority of nations currently represented on the UNHRC do not allow basic freedoms for their own people, let alone concern themselves with global human rights.
Another example of this farce was the recent election of Libya to the UNHRC.
Libya received support from 155 of the General Assembly’s 192 member states in a secret ballot, angering a coalition of 37 human rights organizations which described Libya as one of the most repressive societies in the world.
ONE OF the root problems is the influence of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) within the UNHRC.
The UNHRC heavily weights membership on its council to nations from Africa and Asia – two continents where the OIC has considerable influence. The OIC controls the lion’s share of the world’s energy resources, including oil, gas and uranium.
The OIC and its allies have an automatic majority on the UNHRC, and this is represented in the council’s workload.
Human Rights Watch claims that the OIC has “fought doggedly” and successfully within the UN Human Rights Council to shield states from criticism, except when it comes to criticism of Israel. The OIC’s mantra has been that the council should work cooperatively with abusive governments rather than condemn them.
This has led to the absurd situation in which Israel is condemned 33 times by the UNHRC out of a total of 40 countryspecific condemnations, while the UNHRC expresses only “deep concern” over Sudan and praises its cooperation.
In addition, the UNHRC adopted a unique decision to discuss human rights violations committed by Israel in all of the council’s meetings. It has also been criticized for redirecting attention to the fate of Muslim minorities within non- Muslim countries, but diverting attention from the treatment of ethnic minorities in Muslim-majority countries, such as the oppression of the Kurds in Syria, the Ahwaz in Iran, the Al-Akhdam in Yemen or the Berbers in Algeria.
Furthermore, the OIC has been at the forefront of silencing freedom of expression.
An amendment to the duties of the special rapporteur on freedom of expression, passed by the Human Rights Council on March 28, 2008, has acted against this very freedom. The OIC and its allies have sought to ban anything they deem as criticism of Islam. Some nations were outraged by this amendment, which they claimed “turns the special rapporteur’s mandate on its head.”
Nevertheless, it is on the subject of Israel that the OIC appears to have unique influence. When the UNHRC discussed issues relating to the Second Lebanon War in 2006, four of the council’s independent experts reported the findings of their visit to Lebanon and Israel. State after state from the OIC took the floor to denounce the experts for daring to look beyond Israeli violations to discuss Hizbullah’s as well.
This sent a very clear message that experts filing reports for the UNHRC involving Israel should never look at the conduct of any other party. Justice Richard Goldstone understood this very well, as was reflected in the report he gave the UNHRC. In an interview given to Al Jazeera in 2009, Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, secretary-general of the OIC, explained how his organization not only initiated, but drove the Goldstone process from start to finish.
These accounts, written by some hostile to Israel in the first place, depict very different scenes to those described in the report.
In his recently released book, Turkish journalist Sefik Dinç, while sympathetic to the militant IHH, writes that the crisis was “calculated” by those on board, and reportedly describes how the IDF soldiers did not open fire until after other soldiers were taken hostage. Dinç describes in his book, with the aid of photographs, how preparations for confronting the Israelis on the Mavi Marmara were “not going to be that passive.”
Our internal investigations indicate that not only did the soldiers only open fire when their lives were threatened, but that the first shots were fired by those on the boat; there are reports that one soldier suffered a knee injury from a non-IDF weapon as soon as he came on board.
This biased, libelous report indicates that the OIC has once again achieved its aim of condemning Israel through its proxies in the UNHRC. One again, it has proven UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and former high commissioner for human rights Mary Robinson’s criticisms that the council acts according to political considerations as opposed to human rights. In fact, the report stands as an affront to the secretary- general’s own panel of inquiry, with which Israel is fully cooperating.
General Assembly President Joseph Deisss warned recently against the marginalization of the UN itself by stating the need for urgent reforms, like reviewing the UNHRC. At stake is the plight of millions of victims of human-rights violations around the world.
It is high time for democracies to reassess their participation in a council that places political calculations over the protection of human rights while providing cover to some of the world’s most brutal regimes.
We must give a voice to the oppressed, justice to the abused and equity for all of humanity. None of this will be achieved by always attacking and condemning Israel while allowing totalitarian nations to hijack the international human-rights agenda.
The writer is the deputy foreign minister.
Six UK Men Jailed as Racists for Burning Koran
When Australian lawyer (and atheist) Alex Stewart allegedly rolled marijuana “joints” from pages of the Bible and Koran and smoked them on YouTube, he quickly learned that many Muslims do not share the sufferance demonstrated by Western Christians, who have become accustomed to such conduct. Neither the Australian government nor Christians posed a threat to Stewart, but Muslim leaders were quick to try to avert violence from their community; Stewart found it necessary to go into hiding. However, six men in the United Kingdom are finding that their government will not be as forbearing of such shenanigans as their Commonwealth brethren "Down Under,” at least when it comes to tolerating actions deemed to be anti-Islamic. Their decision to burn two copies of the Koran on the anniversary of September 11, and then post the video (like Stewart) on YouTube, has resulted in their being taken into custody.
According to an article in the online edition of the Telegraph:
Officials have been desperate to frame opposition to Islam as racist, a charge which seems all the more peculiar given the fact that the same government officials will no doubt insist that Jihadists cannot be racially profiled. Of course, Islam is no more a "race" than any other religion, and one may object to the tenets of Islam just as one may disagree with those of any other religion, without such disagreement being “racist.”
According to the Telegraph,
The men, all but one of them members of the far-right English Defence League, set fire to what appears to be the Muslim holy books on the anniversary of the 9/11 atrocities in the United States.
They say they carried out the “private joke” as a riposte to historical images of Muslim extremists burning American flags and effigies of western leaders.
However, all six insist that they have no idea who actually posted the video onto the Internet, and say they now “bitterly regret” the stunt. All are now on bail pending further police inquiries.
The clip, recorded in the back yard of a public house [pub] in Gateshead, Tyne and Wear, has been broadly condemned by other YouTube users, some of whom have expressed concern that British soldiers in Afghanistan could be targeted as a direct result.
They were marshalled by a man wearing a jacket bearing the logo: “English Defence League, Gateshead Division.”
As in the case of Rev. Terry Jones (the Florida minister who also proposed burning the Koran on the anniversary of the terrorist attack by Islamic extremists), the ironic invocation of national security simply highlights the homicidal tendencies of the Jihadists. The histrionics displayed by the governments of the U.S. and U.K. when citizens propose to burn a few copies of the Koran demonstrate not a concern for protecting the rights of minorities, but rather a fundamental agreement with the political assessment of those who propose to burn the books: that is, the view that adherents of Islam are inclined to acts of extreme violence when provoked, and the slightest provocation may unleash a wave of Jihadism which even highly trained armed forces thousands of miles from the alleged offense will be unable to contain.Officials have been desperate to frame opposition to Islam as racist, a charge which seems all the more peculiar given the fact that the same government officials will no doubt insist that Jihadists cannot be racially profiled. Of course, Islam is no more a "race" than any other religion, and one may object to the tenets of Islam just as one may disagree with those of any other religion, without such disagreement being “racist.”
According to the Telegraph,
On the video members of the gang are heard shouting: “This is for the boys in Afghanistan. September 11, international Burn a Koran Day, for all the people of 9/11. This is how we do it in Gateshead, right.”
They are then shown burning a second book.
Police visited The Bugle [pub] last Wednesday after the video was posted online and two men were arrested on suspicion of stirring racial hatred. They have since been released on bail.
Four more men were arrested and bailed on Wednesday pending further inquiries, Northumbria Police said.
“The arrests followed the burning of what are believed to have been two Korans in Gateshead on September 11,” a spokesman said.
He added that the men were not arrested for watching or distributing the video, but on suspicion of burning the Koran.
One must wonder whether the contemplation of charges of stirring racial hatred for the Koran-burners will be followed by similar charges sweeping the United Kingdom after the annual observance of Guy Fawkes Day on November 5. After all, if the age of political correctness and tolerance now declares religion to be a matter of race, and expressions of religious disagreement are now to be interpreted (and prosecuted) as racism, one may legitimately wonder how the government will respond to similar expressions of religious disagreement. If the "Gateshead Six" are to be tried as racists for burning two copies of the Koran, what ought to await Richard Dawkins and his ilk is something similar to the Nuremberg Trials.
Algeria and Iran Cooperate in Hajj Affairs
An agreement was signed by head of Iran’s Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization and head of Algeria’s Hajj, pilgrimage and religious affairs ministry for cooperation in issues related to the Hajj.  |
Ahlul Bayt News Agency ; According to Islamic Culture and Relations Organization, the agreement was signed with the presence of Hojat-ol-Islam Qazi Asgar, representative of the Supreme Leader in Hajj affairs, Iran’s ambassador in Algeria, and a number of Algerian officials. The two sides agreed to cooperate in organizing various educational courses, sending Algerian clerics to Iran to acquire more knowledge, exchanging practical experiences, and holding joint forums.
It was also agreed that the second joint meeting between Iran and Algeria featuring the Hajj be held in Tehran with the presence of Iranian and Algerian scholars and thinkers.
Referring to the importance of the agreement in the religious cooperative spheres of the two countries, Hojat-ol-Islam Qazi Asgar said that it would facilitate mutual interactions.
The Iranian delegation is on a visit to Algeria to attend a seminar featuring “Hajj and Its Educational and Ethical Effects” which was held in Dar-ol-Imam Center in Algiers, capital of the country, with the presence of political and cultural figures and thinkers from Iran and Algeria.
Present at the seminar were Hojat-ol-Islam Qazi Asgar, representative of the Supreme Leader in Hajj affairs, Mehdi Mostafavi, advisor to the president and head of Islamic Culture and Relations Organization, Hojat-ol-Islam Akhtari, head of Ahlulbayt (AS) International Society, Ali Layali, head of Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization, Algeria’s minister of religious affairs, and other scientific and cultural figures of the country.
The seminar was held with the cooperation of the Supreme Leader’s representative, Islamic Culture and Relations Organization, Ahlulbayt (AS) International Assembly, Hajj and Pilgrimage Organization, and Iran’s embassy in Algeria.
Hamas not thrilled with "Jewish" ship to Gaza
| A ship of some 9 Jews is now being intercepted by the Israeli navy en route to Gaza. The Islamic Jihad newspaper Palestine Today notes, that, unlike other flotillas and vessels, Hamas has been ambivalent at best towards the entire idea of this particular pseudo-aid ship. The reason? Because it has some Israelis on board who do not fully support the destruction of Israel.  Political writer Dr. Issam Shawar wrote that the reception of these peace activists in the Gaza Strip means recognizing the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation of the areas occupied in 1948. Even though they claim to recognize the right of the people of Gaza and the West to exist, they do not recognize the right of the majority of the Palestinian people to return to their homeland and do not recognize as well as the crime of occupation for the rest of our territory. Those people are trying to ignore the usurpation of people's rights, and trying to mask the ugly face of occupation with this photo-op. Do not fool us this trick, which is widely practiced in the West and the rest of the world....This is much different from allowing Israeli journalists [into Gaza] as that does not imply recognition of the [Zionist] regime. |
Sunday, 26 September 2010
Groups set boycott of Israeli troupe in N.Y.
It is time to change the standard defensive, explanatory response which automatically follows such attacks. Instead of repeatedly pleading against a boycott of Israel, the Jews around the globe should take a new approach, which does not unwittingly support the self-appointed role of those who seek to boycott Israel or like here, the Israeli troupe. Those who would like to boycott Israel are not, as they would like to believe, our judges, juries, and executioners.
We, as Jews or neither Israel are not on trial, and the bigoted idiots and who are behind the repeated boycott attempts, are in no position to level charges at the thriving, diverse Israeli academic world, culture or science.
Renaud Sarda
(JTA) -- Two New York-based groups have organized a boycott of performances by Israel's national dance company.
Adalah-NY: The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel and the New York chapter of Artists Against Apartheid announced the boycott in an open letter to the Batsheva Dance Company, which is scheduled to perform in New York from Sept. 21 to Oct. 3.
The letter said the groups were calling the boycott because of the company's "collaboration with the Israeli state and its Brand Israel campaign." Brand Israel is a government public relations initiative designed to reshape preconceived notions about Israel.
"Batsheva continues to affirm its relationship with the Brand Israel campaign, as evidenced by the funding you receive from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the co-sponsorship of your New York performances by the Office of Cultural Affairs, Consulate General of Israel in New York," the letter contended.
The groups said that the boycott is part of the growing Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement.
"We hope that one day soon Batsheva will take a strong, unequivocal stance against Israel's treatment of Palestinians and in support of justice and equality for all," the letter said. "Until then, we will continue to urge a popular boycott of your performances in New York City and elsewhere."
Meanwhile, renowned architect Frank Gehry and conductor Daniel Barenboim signed a letter in support of an Israeli artists' boycott of performing in the West Bank. They join some 200 signatories, including actors Ed Asner, Cynthia Nixon, Mandy Patinkin and Theodore Bikel, and playwright Tony Kushner.
The statement was drafted earlier this month by Jewish Voices for Peace, which praised the "brave decision" by Israeli theater professionals not to perform in Ariel.
We, as Jews or neither Israel are not on trial, and the bigoted idiots and who are behind the repeated boycott attempts, are in no position to level charges at the thriving, diverse Israeli academic world, culture or science.
Renaud Sarda
(JTA) -- Two New York-based groups have organized a boycott of performances by Israel's national dance company.
Adalah-NY: The New York Campaign for the Boycott of Israel and the New York chapter of Artists Against Apartheid announced the boycott in an open letter to the Batsheva Dance Company, which is scheduled to perform in New York from Sept. 21 to Oct. 3.
The letter said the groups were calling the boycott because of the company's "collaboration with the Israeli state and its Brand Israel campaign." Brand Israel is a government public relations initiative designed to reshape preconceived notions about Israel.
"Batsheva continues to affirm its relationship with the Brand Israel campaign, as evidenced by the funding you receive from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the co-sponsorship of your New York performances by the Office of Cultural Affairs, Consulate General of Israel in New York," the letter contended.
The groups said that the boycott is part of the growing Boycott Divestment and Sanctions Movement.
"We hope that one day soon Batsheva will take a strong, unequivocal stance against Israel's treatment of Palestinians and in support of justice and equality for all," the letter said. "Until then, we will continue to urge a popular boycott of your performances in New York City and elsewhere."
Meanwhile, renowned architect Frank Gehry and conductor Daniel Barenboim signed a letter in support of an Israeli artists' boycott of performing in the West Bank. They join some 200 signatories, including actors Ed Asner, Cynthia Nixon, Mandy Patinkin and Theodore Bikel, and playwright Tony Kushner.
The statement was drafted earlier this month by Jewish Voices for Peace, which praised the "brave decision" by Israeli theater professionals not to perform in Ariel.
To some Gideon Levy is a Hated man in Israel, to others he is the Most Heroic....
To some Gideon Levy is a Hated man in Israel, to others he is the Most Heroic....
by Renaud Sarda on Sunday, September 26, 2010 at 8:08pm
he says;
“My biggest struggle,” he says, “is to rehumanize the Palestinians. There’s a whole machinery of brainwashing in Israel which really accompanies each of us from early childhood, and I’m a product of this machinery as much as anyone else. [We are taught] a few narratives that it’s very hard to break. That we Israelis are the ultimate and only victims. That the Palestinians are born to kill, and their hatred is irrational. That the Palestinians are not human beings like us? So you get a society without any moral doubts, without any questions marks, with hardly public debate. To raise your voice against all this is very hard.”
I say;
I was told that Levy often describes himself as an Israeli patriot. So what is his take on Operation Cast Lead? Was Israel supposed to stand by applaud everytime a Kassam rockets reached its target on the town of Sderot? Why in you last visit to Scotland, you were wined and dined by Scottish Solidarity, Scottish Friends of Palestine and others who spend most of their energy destroying Israel Image. Let me remind you, Levy that you offer nothing more than the ideological opinion offered by some lefty Israeli scholars, under the banner of free speech and pluralism, at these conferences with the same anti-Israel objectif. Can you and these idiots for once in your lives are able to go to any conferences or tours around Europe or the US with a neutral or positive view about Israel? In my view you belong to the same people you chaired a platforms in Edinburgh who joyfully Bash-Israel, and by doing so you are causing an untold damage, harm to Israel as a democratic state. You are helping the Anti- Israel boycott campaign which is forcing all Muslims, and Scottish shops and stores to ban all the sale of Israeli goods here in Glasgow.
Levy, I saw you when you came here In Edinburgh dressed casually and relaxed in the campany of these people who stand against Israel democracy, and existence. You often blame Hamas for launching the Kassams, and forget to mention that Fatah and Abbas who share the same idiology .
Gideon Levy's reductionist vision of Israel
This was published at Just Journalism
Today’s interview with Gideon Levy by Johann Hari in The Independent is a perfect example of how criticism of Israel can be distorted abroad to fit the preconceptions of the foreign media. Levy’s narrow focus on the ills of his country matches perfectly with Hari’s blinkered perspective, and is therefore presented as the only valid viewpoint – the ‘truth’ about Israel.
‘Is Gideon Levy the most hated man in Israel or just the most heroic?’ asks the headline of the interview. Over the course of the five and a half thousand word article, Hari argues that he is the former, stands a good chance of being the latter and, of course, that Levy’s supposed pariah status is the result of his staunch bravery in the face of adversity.
Gideon Levy is an editor and columnist at Ha’aretz, a liberal Israeli daily newspaper. According to Hari, Levy has done ‘something very simple, and something that almost no other Israeli has done. Nearly every week for three decades, he has travelled to the Occupied Territories and described what he sees, plainly and without propaganda.’ Taken literally, this is probably true – after all, only a very small percentage of Israelis at any one time are columnists at a national newspaper, and the amount of them that have been reporting for thirty years on the trot would be smaller still.
This, however, is not what Hari means. He seeks to suggest that Levy’s concern for Palestinians, and his objections to the occupation of their land, marks him out from his fellow Israelis, who are characterised as violent and racist. According to Hari, Levy ‘patiently [documents] his country’s crimes, and [tries] to call his people back to a righteous path.’ While Levy offers Palestinians empathy, ‘so many others offer only bullets and bombs.’
But it’s not just that Israeli’s don’t care about these issues – they are, in the myopic portrayal of Israel that is conjured up in the interview, actively trying to prevent Levy from speaking out as well. Many people, according to Hari, want Levy ‘silenced’, and if the ‘attempt to deride, suppress or deny his words’ is successful, then ‘Israel itself is lost.’
Read the complete article here
http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-hari-and-levy-s-reductionist-vision-of-israel
Today’s interview with Gideon Levy by Johann Hari in The Independent is a perfect example of how criticism of Israel can be distorted abroad to fit the preconceptions of the foreign media. Levy’s narrow focus on the ills of his country matches perfectly with Hari’s blinkered perspective, and is therefore presented as the only valid viewpoint – the ‘truth’ about Israel.
‘Is Gideon Levy the most hated man in Israel or just the most heroic?’ asks the headline of the interview. Over the course of the five and a half thousand word article, Hari argues that he is the former, stands a good chance of being the latter and, of course, that Levy’s supposed pariah status is the result of his staunch bravery in the face of adversity.
Gideon Levy is an editor and columnist at Ha’aretz, a liberal Israeli daily newspaper. According to Hari, Levy has done ‘something very simple, and something that almost no other Israeli has done. Nearly every week for three decades, he has travelled to the Occupied Territories and described what he sees, plainly and without propaganda.’ Taken literally, this is probably true – after all, only a very small percentage of Israelis at any one time are columnists at a national newspaper, and the amount of them that have been reporting for thirty years on the trot would be smaller still.
This, however, is not what Hari means. He seeks to suggest that Levy’s concern for Palestinians, and his objections to the occupation of their land, marks him out from his fellow Israelis, who are characterised as violent and racist. According to Hari, Levy ‘patiently [documents] his country’s crimes, and [tries] to call his people back to a righteous path.’ While Levy offers Palestinians empathy, ‘so many others offer only bullets and bombs.’
But it’s not just that Israeli’s don’t care about these issues – they are, in the myopic portrayal of Israel that is conjured up in the interview, actively trying to prevent Levy from speaking out as well. Many people, according to Hari, want Levy ‘silenced’, and if the ‘attempt to deride, suppress or deny his words’ is successful, then ‘Israel itself is lost.’
Read the complete article here
http://www.justjournalism.com/media-analysis/view/viewpoint-hari-and-levy-s-reductionist-vision-of-israel
Jewish Boat to Gaza sets sail from Occupied North Cyprus in a attempt to Bash Israel
Northern Cyprus vs. Israel
A boat full of Jews for Justice for Palestinians and other such organizations is setting sail today for Gaza from Northern Cyprus, as reported in the press. The pious group, no doubt, thinks they are fighting occupation through acts of kindness.
There is, nevertheless, a certain irony in the fact that they use Northern Cyprus as a staging ground for their activities — like the Mavi Marmara-led Flotilla did last May. Here’s the irony — Northern Cyprus is an illegally occupied territory that belongs to the EU as part of its member state, Cyprus; it was seized by force in 1974 by the Turkish army; its legal status as a fictionally independent state is only recognized by Turkey (the occupying power); Turkey forcibly removed hundreds of thousands of ethnic Greeks from that territory and settled its own population to permanently alter the ethnic balance of the area – and, in the process, encouraged the building of what one could characterize as settlements.
Now doesn’t this sound awfully familiar — the kind of accusations that organizations such as the JFJFP would routinely level at Israel’s presence in the West Bank and, until 2005, in Gaza? These are the kind of things that get such enlightened Jews agitated enough that they need to spring into action — if the alleged perpetrator is Israel. If it is a country that bombs neighbors with impunity, uses heavy-handed tactics to fight what it brands as terrorists, while denying basic cultural rights to the ethnic minority that constitutes 20 percent of its population while it practices state-sanctioned genocide denial, well then, its government is Islamist and its actively helps Hamas, so there’s no problem relying on their services and glossing on their blatant and continuing violations of international law to bash Israel.
How do you say coherence in Turkish
Who are the so-called Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Jews for Justice for Palestinians is a network of Jews who are British or live in Britain, practising and secular, Zionist and not. We oppose Israeli policies that undermine the livelihoods, human, civil and political rights of the Palestinian people.
Now doesn’t this sound awfully familiar — the kind of accusations that organizations such as the JFJFP would routinely level at Israel’s presence in the West Bank and, until 2005, in Gaza? These are the kind of things that get such enlightened Jews agitated enough that they need to spring into action — if the alleged perpetrator is Israel. If it is a country that bombs neighbors with impunity, uses heavy-handed tactics to fight what it brands as terrorists, while denying basic cultural rights to the ethnic minority that constitutes 20 percent of its population while it practices state-sanctioned genocide denial, well then, its government is Islamist and its actively helps Hamas, so there’s no problem relying on their services and glossing on their blatant and continuing violations of international law to bash Israel.
How do you say coherence in Turkish
Who are the so-called Jews for Justice for Palestinians
Jews for Justice for Palestinians is a network of Jews who are British or live in Britain, practising and secular, Zionist and not. We oppose Israeli policies that undermine the livelihoods, human, civil and political rights of the Palestinian people.
Turkey's cultural destruction in Cyprus
There is irony in the fact that while Istanbul basks in the limelight as Europe’s City of Culture for 2010, Turkey, an aspiring EU member, continues to vandalise and destroy Europe’s cultural and Christian heritage in Cyprus.
The ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots was followed by cultural destruction. Desecrated graveyard in Eptakomi, occupied Cyprus (2007).
"Over 650 monasteries and churches have been destroyed, turned into stables or toilets. Irreplaceable icons and other works of art have been defaced or looted"
It is well known that in 1974 Turkey carried out an illegal invasion of Cyprus, as a result of which virtually all Greek Cypriots in the north of the island were ethnically cleansed and driven out of their homes.
But what is less well known is the appalling destruction and vandalism begun in 1974 but continuing to this day to the churches, monasteries and cemeteries of Cyprus. This has been done for cynical political purposes – to create the impression that the northern part of Cyprus somehow is and always was Turkish and to ensure that the Greek Cypriot lawful inhabitants never want to return, at a time when pressure is being brought to bear on them to accept the partition of the island. However the division of Cyprus into two ethnically separate areas overlooks one important factor – the historical, geographical and cultural reality that has existed in Cyprus for thousands of years.
Greeks have lived for thousands of years in what Turkey refers to as ‘northern Cyprus’ but Greek Cypriots call the occupied area. Greek language, culture, and religious practices have been part of the fabric of Cyprus for some 3,000 years.
Since the early days of the Apostles, Cyprus has possessed a rich Christian heritage. When the Apostles left the Holy Land to spread Christianity, Cyprus was one of the first places they reached and St Paul and St Barnabas established Christian communities there. St Andrew was shipwrecked in Cyprus and a famous monastery is located at the site. (Sadly it has been deliberately allowed to decay by the illegal Turkish regime). There are churches containing the bones of St Lazarus, icons painted by St Luke and monasteries commemorating visits by other disciples.
But this Christian heritage, Europe’s heritage, has been systematically desecrated since 1974. Over 650 monasteries and churches in the occupied area have been destroyed, turned into stables or toilets. Irreplaceable icons and other works of art have been defaced or looted, often sold at auction houses around the world. Greek place names have all been changed to Turkish. In short, every attempt has been made to obliterate the rich Greek and Christian heritage of the northern areas of Cyprus. Even today, archeological sites are being bulldozed to make way for militaristic statues and monuments to bolster the existence of the illegal regime in the occupied area.
It is important to appreciate that there had never been separate Greek or Turkish areas in Cyprus. Greeks lived throughout the island even after the Ottoman Turks seized Cyprus in 1578 from the Venetians. Prior to the invasions of 1974, the Christian Greeks and their comparatively new neighbours, the Muslim Ottoman Turks, lived side by side in villages and towns across the island. The ethnic cleansing of Greek Cypriots from the northern part of the island by the Turkish army was in order to enable the Turkish Cypriot community, which in 1974 made up just 18 percent of the population to create their own geographical area in 38 percent of the island.
Turkey has brought in over 180,000 illegal immigrants from Turkey to re-populate Greek Cypriot lands to engineer a change in the demographic composition of the occupied area. Before the invasion, land owned by Greeks amounted to about 82 percent of the occupied area. Turkey’s pseudo state issued illegal title-deeds and gave Greek Cypriot property to colonists from Turkey or sold the property to developers using bogus title-deeds. Greek Cypriot homes and lands have been concreted over to try to create a new political reality on the ground. No Greeks Cypriots are allowed to return to their property or live in their ancestral lands.
These actions represent disregard for the basic EU principles of freedom of movement by Turkey, a country that aspires to EU membership. Recent court decisions such as that in the UK of Apostolides v Orams emphasise the dangers in buying stolen Greek Cypriot land. In that case an English couple have been ordered to demolish a villa they built on stolen land. They risk losing their property in the UK to pay for damages and court fees.
We all owe the preservation of Cyprus’ cultural heritage to the people of Europe, who deserve to share in the culture and history of Cyprus. 35 years of vandalism must not be permitted to triumph over 3,000 years of European culture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)