zaterdag 2 oktober 2010

Peter Giesen van de Volkskrant 2


De Volkskrant-journalist Peter Giesen beweert:

Veel mensen geloven dat de islam inherent gewelddadiger is dan het christendom.

Nu mijn vraag: waarom beweert Giesen dit? Wie zijn die 'veel mensen' waar de afgestudeerde historicus Peter Giesen het over heeft? Is daar wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar gedaan? En indien deze bewering juist is dan volgt de onvermijdelijke vraag: Peter Giesen, hoe zou het komen dat veel mensen dit geloven? 'Veel mensen' hebben nooit ook maar 1 boek over de islam gelezen, dus waar baseren 'veel mensen' hun mening op? Juist Peter, op beweringen van journalisten zoals jij en de opiniemakers van jouw Volkskrant. En zolang journalisten van jouw slag vooroordelen blijven herhalen, worden ze vanzelf wel een waarheid als een koe. Of dacht je dat het anders in elkaar zit? Zo ja, laat iets van je vernemen.

Het Extremisme van Likoed Nederland

Likoed Nederland heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "Obama 184" achtergelaten: 

Misschien eens het boek over de Arabische lobby lezen voor wat evenwicht? 

Beste Likoed Nederland,

Uw extremistische standpunten ten aanzien van het Midden-Oosten daargelaten, constateer ik tevens dat Alan Dershowitz buiten zionistische kringen als een zot wordt beschouwd. Bovendien: wanneer de Arabische lobby in de VS even machtig zou zijn als de joodse pro-Israel lobby aldaar, dan was 'de Joodse natie'  allang gedwongen geweest zich aan het internationaal recht te houden. Dat zult u toch met me eensw zijn. Met andere woorden

Peter Giesen van de Volkskrant

Dead French soldiers in Argonne. Man began immune to such images. And began more brutish. When will it all end?

I have this picture of Guillemont. It was taken in September 1916. After hours with a magnifying glass I am quite certain that it is the same location as the previous picture posted.
That being the case now go read Storm of Steel pages 97-98 etc (Hofmann's translation 203, Penguin) and compare. The main text is
“The defile proved to be little more than a series of enormous craters full of pieces of uniform, weapons and dead bodies. The country around, so far as the eye could see, had been completely ploughed by heavy shells. Not a single blade of grass showed itself. The churned up field was gruesome. In among the living defenders lay the dead. When we dug foxholes we realised that they were stacked in layers. One company after another, pressed together in the drumfire, had been mown down, then the bodies buried under showers of earth sent up by the shells, and then the relief company had taken their predecessors place. And now it was our turn”

Foto's uit de Eerste Wereldoorlog, toen de westerse barbarij naar binnen sloeg. Ik constateer dit nog eens aangezien ik bij terugkeer in Nederland de volgende bewering las van de Volkskrant-journalist Peter Giesen:

Veel mensen geloven dat de islam inherent gewelddadiger is dan het christendom.

Nu mijn vraag: waarom beweert Giesen dit? Wie zijn die 'veel mensen' waar de afgestudeerde historicus Peter Giesen het over heeft? Is daar wetenschappelijk onderzoek naar gedaan? En indien deze bewering juist is dan volgt de onvermijdelijke vraag: Peter Giesen, hoe zou het komen dat veel mensen dit geloven? Veel mensen hebben nooit ook maar 1 boek over de islam gelezen, dus waar baseren 'veel mensen' hun mening op? Juist Peter, op beweringen van journalisten zoals jij en de opiniemakers van jouw Volkskrant. En zolang journalisten van jouw slag vooroordelen blijven herhalen, worden ze vanzelf wel een waarheid als een koe. Of dacht je dat het anders in elkaar zit? Zo ja, laat iets van je vernemen.

Obama 185

Rahm's gone: New day, new tone for the White House

Barack Obama, Pete Rouse, Rahm EmanuelAP – Outgoing White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, center, looks back towards President Barack Obama, …
WASHINGTON – Reshaping the tone and tenor of the White House, President Barack Obama on Friday replaced the colorful and caustic Rahm Emanuel with the private Pete Rouse as his chief of staff, shifting to a new phase of his presidency with a drastically different aide as trusted gatekeeper.
Emanuel's decision to quit the White House and run for Chicago mayor had been so well known that even Obama mocked the lack of suspense. But it still felt like the most important transition to date for the Obama operation, which has been fueled for nearly two years byEmanuel's demands, drive and discipline.
At an emotional farewell, Obama said, "We are all very excited for Rahm, but we're also losing an incomparable leader of our staff." Emanuel choked up as he said his goodbye.
Into the breech steps Rouse, an Obama senior adviser known around the White House as a problem-fixing, media-shy strategist and organizer. Rouse is expected to serve as interim chief for several months and may eventually get the permanent job, as the White House is in the midst of reviewing a broader shake-up.
Considered the most consuming and influential staff job in American politics, the chief of staff shapes nearly everything at the White House — how the president spends his time, how he pursues his strategies on foreign and domestic policy, how he deals with a politically deadlocked Congress and a skeptical electorate.
Distinctive, profane and combative in his approach, Emanuel was a bruising but successful manager often known simply as "Rahm." The jarring contrast between the outgoing and incoming chiefs of staff was on full display as Obama spoke of both men in the grand East Room, which was packed with staff members.
Emanuel waved to colleagues, whispered to his children in the first row and stood familiarly with his hands on hips, as if ready to get going. Rouse was quiet and stoic except for the occasional smile. He almost seemed to shy away into the background even as Obama lauded his skills and his results.
"It's fair to say that we could not have accomplished what we've accomplished without Rahm's leadership," Obama said. The president singled out Emanuel's work on signature health care and financial reformlegislation, hugged him more than once and told his audience: "I will miss him dearly."
Emanuel choked up when his turn came. He spoke of his family's immigrant background, the opportunities he's been afforded, his pride in Obama.

Can a shakeup of the White House staff invigorate the Obama presidency?

"I want to thank you for being the toughest leader any country could ask for," Emanuel told his boss.
In a nod to the political sensitivities of Emanuel's move, he never directly mentioned that he was running for mayor, and Obama didn't touch that, either. Emanuel, sure to be cast as an outsider by his competitors in the upcoming mayoral campaign, did not want to announce his run from Washington.
Instead, referring to the Chicago that both he and Obama call home, Emanuel said: "I'm energized by the prospect of new challenges, and eager to see what I can do to make our hometown even greater."
He is expected to formally announce his bid in the coming days, already the biggest name in a crowded race.
As for the more introverted Rouse, Obama joked: "Pete has never seen a microphone or a TV camera that he likes." Indeed, Rouse never spoke. He is not expected to become a public face of the administration or do the activities he has long avoided — appearing on the Sunday talk shows or attending political dinners.
He will move into Emanuel's giant corner office, though, and command the job of keeping the staff focused on Obama's directives. A veteran of Capitol Hill politics, Rouse offers Obama continuity and comfort, having served as his Senate chief of staff, campaign adviser and resident White House fixer.
Valerie Jarrett, one of Obama's senior advisers, put it this way: "When I walk into a room and see Pete, I feel better. And everybody else does, too."
Still, within the building, the confidence in Rouse came packaged with a sense that Obama had lost a leader.
Emanuel's biting words could get him in trouble. And his preference for results over ideology made him a sometimes hated figure for Obama's liberal base of supporters, especially when it became known that Emanuel was pushing a piecemeal approach on health care reform. (Obama trumped him on that.)
He offered, though, a force of personality and range of political experiences that worked for Obama. He swore and yelled. His stamp was everywhere.
"All of that will be missed," said David Axelrod, a top Obama adviser. "There's a talented group of people here who are ultimately motivated by the president and more than capable of carrying on. It may be that portfolios will change and be expanded because Rahm took up so much real estate. But I think we'll be fine."
Axelrod himself is expected to leave the White House next year to help shape Obama's re-election bid. Obama has already seen key departures among his economic and national security teams and is likely to see more, including Cabinet changes. It is a part of the rhythm of the White House, a grinding place to work.
Emanuel has a huge challenge ahead in the mayor's race, where other candidates have hardly been scared away by his intentions. They are all going for the seat long held by Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, who announced in early September that he would not seek a seventh term.
Ever the political operative, Emanuel got a reminder of his own ways earlier Friday.
Before a smiling collection of senior staff members in the Roosevelt Room, economic adviser Austan Goolsbee gave Emanuel a dead fish wrapped in Chicago newspapers. An angry Emanuel had once famously done the same thing to a Democratic pollster with whom he was less than pleased.

Israel as a Rogue State 113

 If the layout comes out chaotic or you can't read this properly click here
אם הפריסה בעיתית או קשה לקרוא את זה לחץ כאן
Gush Shalom releases
The Jewish Peace Boat, sailing on this day, Sept. 26,
 in the direction of Gaza, is a reminder of
the isolation which we in Israel bring upon ourselves.
הספינה היהודית מפליגה ביום גורליהפלגת אוניית השלום היהודית היום הזה 26.9
לעבר עזה היא תזכורת לבידוד שאנו מביאים על עצמנו
for being awarded this year's Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood).
מזל טוב לרופאים לזכויות האדם
שזכו לפרס נובל האלטרנטיבי לשנה זאת
ספני השלום: הקומנדו הימי הפעיל אלימות ושוקרים חשמלייםהממשלה אינה מחמיצה שום הזדמנות להציג
 לעולם את פניה של ישראל המכוערת, הכוחנית והברוטלית
The government does not miss any opportunity to present
to the world the ugly, aggressive and brutal face of Israel.
Soldiers on boat approached me  to take me to a Navy boat.
Me and Rami hugged each other – the strongest hug I have ever given to anyone!
A soldier threatened if I did not let go they would hurt me,
then tasered me on my right shoulder and shot twice – it was very painful –
but not as painful as the next shot where he pulled aside my life jacket,
put gun on my chest and fired (...)  if we were Palestinians or Muslims
they would have shot with live ammo.
 on the Jewish Boat to Gaza website, where more testimonies will be posted soon

       Ad in Ha'aretz,  Oct. 1, 2010 
The whole world
The bulldozers
Are starting
To build
In the settlements –

And to dig
A grave
For Israel.

Cheques to help us continue the ads - and campaigns to: Gush Shalom, P.O.Box 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033


Uri Avnery 

Two FingersEHUD OLMERT raised his hands before his face, two fingertips almost touching: “We were that close!” ... Full English text at the end 




Adam Keller

מודעה  ב"הארץ" 1  באוקטובר, 2010
העולם כולו
לבנות בהתנחלויות –

למדינת ישראל
את הקבר.

עזרו לנו במימון הפעולות והמודעות. צ'קים לפקודת גוש שלום, ת"ד 3322, תל-אביב 61033

אורי אבנרי
קשתי אצבעותירב את האצבעות זו לזו עד למרחק של שני סנטימטרים ואמר: "כך היינו קרובים זה לזה!"
הוא התכוון למשא-ומתן שניהל אישית עם...


אדם   קלר

קראו עוד

Help Us Replant Saffa!
Palestinian, Israeli and international activists will do the work
your donation - to give them the tools
Uri Avnery
        Two Fingers
EHUD OLMERT raised his hands before his face, two fingertips almost touching: "We were that close!"
He was talking about the negotiation he had conducted personally with Mahmoud Abbas, just before he himself was forced to vacate the Prime Minister’s office.
That was the climax of the speech he made last week at a meeting of the "Geneva Initiative". Before analyzing it, a few words about the host and about the speaker.
THE GENEVA INITIATIVE rose like a meteor and fell like a meteor in the early 2000s.
At its center was a serious effort to draft a full and final peace agreement with the Palestinian people. It came after a draft prepared by Gush Shalom and resembled it in many ways. But there were two big differences: the Geneva Initiative had an identified Palestinian partner, and it was far more detailed. While the Gush Shalom draft only laid out the principles, the Geneva draft went into detail and covered 423 pages, plus maps.
When this draft was unveiled in an impressive ceremony in Geneva, in the presence of senior international personalities (and in the absence of the "radical" Israeli peace camp, which had been boycotted by the initiators in order to stress their "mainstream" character), it was an international event.
For some months, the initiative was at the center of world attention. Many governments found it interesting. I, too, was active on its behalf, in spite of the fact that I had not been involved. I spoke about it with several statesmen, including the President of Germany and the German Foreign Minister. Everywhere I found a very positive attitude. Everybody appreciated the initiative and was eager to help.
And then it disappeared, as rapidly as it had risen. The coup de grace was delivered by Ariel Sharon, the Prime Minister, who drew from his hat the rabbit called separation. Its implementation was accompanied with much drama and melodrama, and the world forgot about Geneva.
What remains is a group of supporters, one peace association among many, who publish ads from time to time and convene the occasional meeting. Olmert’s speech was made at such a meeting.
In the meantime, something strange has happened to the Initiative. Its spiritual father was Yossi Beilin, a person with a fertile – some say, over-fertile – mind. Beilin started his chequered career in the Labor Party, as an assistant to Shimon Peres. When he did not make their Knesset list, he joined Meretz, became its leader and led it to disastrous election results.
Recently, a bizarre situation has arisen. Beilin is still the chairman of the Geneva Initiative, but now he opposes the idea of a full peace agreement that would put an end to the conflict. He claims that such an agreement is impossible, and that the aim should therefore be an interim agreement - the very opposite of the Geneva Initiative.
The Oslo agreement has shown that an interim agreement is but the continuation of the conflict by other means – not a precursor to a final agreement, but a mechanism for its prevention. The initiator of the initiative has become its undertaker.
FROM THE host to the speaker. Ehud Olmert is the most unpopular politician in the country today (quite an achievement, given the competition).
Right from the beginning of his political career, a cloud of suspicions has hovered over his head, and in the course of time it has become thicker and thicker. As of now, half a dozen criminal trials and police investigation are in progress against him, concerning bribes, fraud, forgery and more. Quite possibly he may end up in prison, to be greeted by several of his colleagues, including his finance minister.
As if this were not enough, Olmert is conducting a bitter campaign against his former ministers, and especially Ehud Barak, hurling at them a barrage of accusations. One of the most serious (in his eyes): that Barak had tried to shorten the Cast Lead operation.
Amid all this clamor, Olmert has found the time and the energy for the speech at the Geneva Initiative meeting, in which he described in detail his efforts to achieve peace with the Palestinians. With the help of his two forefingers, he asserted that peace had been very close, and that a full and final agreement could be achieved now. Thus he adopted a position that is far to the left of that renowned leftist, Yossi Beilin.
From the practical political point of view, the speech carries little weight. The public is much more interested in his forged accounts and the dollar-stuffed envelopes that he received. The part of his speech in which he belabored Barak ("Ehud vs. Ehud") completely overshadowed the part devoted to peace.
YET IT is worth taking notice of what he had to say. Especially since it comes from a person who grew up in a right-wing home and who has spent his whole career in right-wing parties.
For half an hour, speaking fluently without recourse to notes, Olmert dealt with the core issues of the negotiations with the Palestinians.
As far as the borders are concerned, Olmert argued, agreement had been almost reached. The border would be based on the (pre-1967) Green Line, with exchanges of territory that would leave the large settlement blocs in Israel.
In this matter, it seems, a consensus has gradually come into being. But only in principle, because two large boulders block the way to an agreement.
The settlements hard on the border should not pose too much difficulty. The Etzion Bloc, Modi’in-Illit and Alfei Menashe are located almost on the border, and can be exchanged for Israeli land.
But two settlements that are located deep in Palestinian territory – Ariel and Ma’aleh Adumim - pose quite different problems. Ariel is located 20 km from the Green Line, near the spine of the West Bank (the Nablus-Jerusalem road). Together with the road that connects it to Israel proper, Ariel cuts up the Palestinian territory.
If Ma’aleh Adumim were to be connected with Jerusalem by an extension of Israeli territory, this, too, would almost cut the West Bank into two. Traffic between Nablus and Hebron would be forced to take a wide detour.
The evacuation of these two big settlements would pose a huge problem. Their continued existence would pose an even bigger one. Perhaps creative solutions can be found: staying there under Palestinian sovereignty, or remaining as small enclaves inside the Palestinian state. Some think of connections such as tunnels, bridges or special roads, like the one that once connected West Berlin with West Germany.
The solution will largely depend on the nature of the border between Israel and Palestine. If it is an open border, with the free movement of people, everything will be easier. Much as traffic will move freely between Gaza and Hebron through Israeli territory, it may move from Ariel to Kfar Sava through Palestinian territory. However, it is uncertain whether the Palestinians would agree.
ACCORDING TO Olmert, the Jerusalem problem can be solved along the lines laid down by President Bill Clinton: what is Jewish will go to Israel, what is Arab will go to Palestine.
This will necessitate a further big concession on the part of the Palestinians, since some Jewish neighborhoods have been built as settlements beyond the Green Line. For their readiness to allow them to be joined to Israel, the Palestinians would have to receive very large compensation.
But the main thing is that Olmert has finally laid to rest "Jerusalem reunited, the eternal capital of Israel". He has put the partition of Jerusalem squarely on the table, without subterfuges like Barak at Camp David and without Beilin-style creative tricks.
BUT THE most important breakthrough in Olmert’s speech was on the refugee front.
Olmert agreed that Israel should admit its part in the creation of the problem, and proposed to Abbas a comprehensive plan for the re-settlement of all refugees, including the return of some tens of thousands to Israel.
The importance of this point cannot be exaggerated. The refugee problem has profound emotional ramifications. It touches the very roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Until now, all Israeli governments have denied our responsibility and refused to discuss the return of even one refugee (except some miserly "family reunion" cases).
To my mind, the number proposed by Olmert is less important than his agreement to allow the return of refugees at all. As the joke goes, after the respectable lady agreed to sleep with the gentleman for a million dollars, "now that we have agreed on the principle, we must discus the price."
If the negotiations are no longer about "whether" refugees will come back, but about "how many", no doubt agreement can be reached. (Gush Shalom proposed 50 thousand a year for ten years. The Geneva Initiative proposes a complicated formula which boils down to the return of some tens of thousands.)
WHY IS this important? With Olmert’s popularity approaching zero, does it really matter what he says at all?
Olmert is an optimist and has a lot of self-confidence. He believes that he will get out of his troubles somehow and return to the political arena. He really believes that he can become Prime Minister again.
No one denies that he has very sharp political instincts. If a person with such ambitions proposes an agreement, it means that he is convinced that these positions are now accepted by the great majority.
That’s the reason I suggest taking a good look at Olmert’s fingertips.        

Daily updated occupation-related reading and data
    יומן הדפיטיסט 
הומניזם כאג'נדה פוליטית בישראל

To receive a weekly compilation of anti-occupation articles, including oppositional articles in the Israeli media
subscribe to The Other Israel
by writing in the subject line 
"Send me TOI" to:
Most recent compilation at

Ongoing protests against the occupation photographed at

now in a book
Gush Shalom email address for correspondence, also if you want to (un)subscribe  
correspondence   @   gush   -   shalom   .   org
 (without the spaces!)
Address for contributions:
GUSH SHALOM p.o.b. 3322 Tel Aviv 61033
Статьи Ури Авнери

   רשימת חרם                                                  boycott list                                                        
!תודה על העידכונים שקבלנו ושיופיעו בקרוב ברשימת החרם

To unsubscribe, send mail to 

and write the word unsubscribe in the subject line.

In some programs it is enough to use the following link:
send it again but now to and we will do it manually 

If you got this forwarded and you want to subscribe, send mail to 

and write the word subscribe in the subject line.
...or use the link

For assistance:


  S.L. Kanthan @Kanthan2030 Western politicians are absolute clowns, but they have no self-awareness. “Iran’s actions are reckless!” Surpr...