Israel als een Schurkenstaat 323

Voor het volgende heb ik al enige malen gewaarschuwd op mijn webblog: het verder etnisch zuiveren van Israel zodra er een Palestijnse staat komt. Daaraan zal het Westen meewerken, net zoals Europa meewerkte aan het deporteren van joden tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog. De redenering is deze: als er een Palestijnse staat komt dan moet er ook een Joodse staat komen en dat wordt Israel. Toen ik vier jaar geleden in Israel met Palestijns-Israelische vredesactivisten sprak wees ik ze daar op, maar geen van hen geloofde me dat het zionistisch regime zo ver zou gaan. Uit de onthullingen van Al Jazeera blijkt tevens hoe weinig de Palestijnse leider Abbas van de zionisten begrijpt. Hij was bereid van alles weg te geven, maar daar draait het helemaal niet om. De Palestijnen hebben verloren, waar het 'de Joodse staat' nu om draait is de Palestijnse-Israeli's. De zionistische leiding wil een etnisch zuivere staat hebben waar ze met z'n allen Joods kunnen zijn. Maar ook zij zijn te stupide om te begrijpen dat op dat moment de onderlinge strijd over de eeuwige vraag wie en wat is een Jood in volle hevigheid zal losbarsten en over een eeuw er geen sprake meer zal zijn van een Joodse staat. Want wie wil nu in een etnisch zuivere staat leven? Zo'n staat is niet levensvatbaar, dat wil zeggen: even levensvatbaar als een klooster waar geen kinderen worden geboren. Het probleem is het fanatisme van de extremistische zionisten. En het Westen steunt dit extremisme. Een week geleden schreef ik dit:

Pieter de Gooijer daarentegen, directeur-generaal politieke zaken op het ministerie van Buitenlandse Zaken is door het rechtse kabinet Rutte afgelopen vrijdag voorgedragen om ambassadeur van Nederland te worden bij de Europese Unie, dit met goedkeuring van de joodse minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Uri Rosenthal die de banden met Israel wil aanhalen en de 'Joodse staat' dus beloont voor de schendingen van het internationaal recht. Interessant hierbij is dat ik uit betrouwbare bron weet dat dezelfde Pieter de Gooijer in zijn functie als directeur-generaal zich in een gesprek liet ontvallen dat wanneer de Palestijnen een eigen staat zouden krijgen de Palestijnse Israeli's daar kunnen gaan wonen, desnoods gedwongen, en dat Nederland dan bereid zou moeten zijn troepen te sturen om de bezetting van Israel over te nemen, dit alles natuurlijk in het kader van een zogeheten 'vredesmissie'. Toen De Gooijer erop gewezen werd dat dit in strijd zou zijn met het internationaal recht antwoordde hij dat dergelijke zaken nu eenmaal wel meer in de geschiedenis gebeuren.

http://stanvanhoucke.blogspot.com/2011/01/pieter-de-gooier-loyaliteit.html

Het gaat in feite over de Joodse identiteit, en we zullen getuige zijn van een wedstrijd met als inzet: wie is de ware Jood. Over het Joodse identiteitsvraagstuk schreef de Joods-Israelische auteur in 1988 Amos Oz het volgende:

‘De ware strijd die vandaag de dag de natie verdeelt is allang niet meer een geschil over gebieden, politieke partijen, veiligheid, voorvaderlijke rechten en grenzen, het is een strijd over het wezen van het judaïsme en het mensbeeld… De vraag is: wie zijn wij?’ 

En twee jaar later:

‘Achter de discussie over de toekomst van de bezette gebieden ontkiemde een vraag die veel dieper ging: wat kwamen we hier doen? Wat willen we zijn en moet het gezag gebaseerd zijn op de wil van het volk dan wel op de godsdienstige geboden? De beslissing werd, als vele andere, uitgesteld en verdrongen onder het voorwendsel dat er niemand was om mee te praten, en we de hindernis wel zouden nemen zodra die zich aandiende. Omdat het leek dat het antwoord op de vraag waar de grenzen moesten komen, kon wachten, ontweken we ook het antwoord op de vraag wie wij waren en wat we hier kwamen doen, een vraag die niet los gezien kan worden van het probleem over de toekomst van de bezette gebieden, de rechtvaardiging van de oorlog en de waarde van vrede. Het grote debat over de grenzen van de macht was bedoeld om diepgaandere discussies tot zwijgen te brengen en te verdringen, zoals die over het doel van het zionisme. En intussen worden wij door onze eigen macht aangetast en gecorrumpeerd.’ Amos Oz, 1990

Sonja heeft een nieuwe reactie op uw bericht "De Nuance van de NRC 183" achtergelaten:

Deze is belangrijk Stan:

A dangerous shift on 1967 lines

US position on borders perhaps opens the door to dangerous Israeli ambitions to transfer non-Jewish citizens.

One of the more astonishing revelations in The Palestine Papers -- detailed records and minutes of the Middle East peace process leaked to Al Jazeera -- is that the administration of US President Barack Obama effectively repudiated the Road Map, which has formed the basis of the "peace process" since 2003. In doing so it has backed away even from commitments made by the George W. Bush administration and blown an irreparable hole in the already threadbare "two-state solution."

But even worse, the US position perhaps unwittingly opens the door to dangerous Israeli ambitions to transfer -- or ethnically cleanse -- non-Jewish Palestinian citizens of Israel in order to create an ethnically pure "Jewish state."

En meer:
http://english.aljazeera.net/palestinepapers/2011/01/201112411450358613.html 

A dangerous shift on 1967 lines

US position on borders perhaps opens the door to dangerous Israeli ambitions to transfer non-Jewish citizens. Ali Abunimah Last Modified: 24 Jan 2011 19:42 GMT Email Article Print Article Share Article Send Feedback

One of the more astonishing revelations in The Palestine Papers -- detailed records and minutes of the Middle East peace process leaked to Al Jazeera -- is that the administration of US President Barack Obama effectively repudiated the Road Map, which has formed the basis of the "peace process" since 2003. In doing so it has backed away even from commitments made by the George W. Bush administration and blown an irreparable hole in the already threadbare "two-state solution." But even worse, the US position perhaps unwittingly opens the door to dangerous Israeli ambitions to transfer -- or ethnically cleanse -- non-Jewish Palestinian citizens of Israel in order to create an ethnically pure "Jewish state." Shortly after it took office in January 2009, the Obama administration publicly called on Israel to freeze all settlement construction in the occupied West Bank, including East Jerusalem. After months of grueling shuttle diplomacy by US envoy George Mitchell, Obama eventually made do with an Israeli promise of a ten-month partial settlement moratorium excluding Jerusalem. While those talks were ongoing, frustrated Palestinian negotiators tried repeatedly to wrestle a commitment from Mitchell that the terms of reference for US-brokered peace negotiations that were to begin once the settlement moratorium was in place would be for the establishment of a Palestinian state on the 1967 line with minor, agreed land swaps between the Israeli and Palestinian sides. This, the Palestinians argued, was the position the Bush administration had endorsed and was contained in the Road Map peace plan adopted by the Quartet (US, EU, Russia and the UN) in 2003. But in apparently contentious meetings between Mitchell and Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erekat and their respective teams in September and October 2009 -- whose detailed contents have been revealed for the first time -- Mitchell claimed the Bush administration position was nonbinding. He pressed the Palestinians to accept terms of reference that acquiesced to Israel's refusal to recognize the 1967 line which separates Israel as it was established in 1948 from the West Bank and Gaza Strip where Palestinians hoped to have their state. Dropping the 1967 border On 23 September 2009, Obama told the UN General Assembly that his goal was for "Two states living side by side in peace and security -- a Jewish state of Israel, with true security for all Israelis; and a viable, independent Palestinian state with contiguous territory that ends the occupation that began in 1967, and realizes the potential of the Palestinian people." Related Expelling Israel's Arabs, without their consent In 2008, Israeli negotiators - including then-foreign minister Tzipi Livni - proposed "swapping" some of Israel's Arab villages into a future Palestinian state, even though a vast majority of Israeli Arabs oppose such a plan. But this did not satisfy the Palestinians. The next day during a meeting at the US Mission to the United Nations in New York, Erekat refused an American request to adopt Obama's speech as the terms of reference for negotiations. Erekat asked Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs David Hale why the Obama administration would not explicitly state that the intended outcome of negotiations would be a Palestinian state on the 1967 borders with a third party security role and a staged Israeli withdrawal. Hale responded, "You ask why? How would it help you if we state something so specific and then not be able to deliver?" according to Palestinian minutes of the meeting. At the same meeting, which Mitchell himself later joined, Erekat challenged the US envoy on how Obama could publicly endorse Israel as a "Jewish state" but not commit to the 1967 borders. Mitchell, according to the minutes, told Erekat "You can’t negotiate detailed ToRs [terms of reference for the negotiations]" so the Palestinians might as well be "positive" and proceed directly to negotiations. Erekat viewed Mitchell's position as a US abandonment of the Road Map. On 2 October 2009 Mitchell met with Erekat at the State Department and again attempted to persuade the Palestinian team to return to negotiations. Despite Erekat's entreaties that the US should stand by its earlier positions, Mitchell responded, "If you think Obama will force the option you’ve described, you are seriously misreading him. I am begging you to take this opportunity." Erekat replied, according to the minutes, "All I ask is to say two states on 67 border with agreed modifications. This protects me against Israeli greed and land grab – it allows Israel to keep some realities on the ground" (a reference to Palestinian willingness to allow Israel to annex some West Bank settlements as part of minor land swaps). Erekatargued that this position had been explicitly endorsed by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice under the Bush administration. "Again I tell you that President Obama does not accept prior decisions by Bush. Don’t use this because it can hurt you. Countries are bound by agreements – not discussions or statements," Mitchell reportedly said. The US envoy was firm that if the government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu did not agree to language in the terms of reference the US would not try to force it. Yet Mitchell continued to pressure the Palestinian side to adopt formulas the Palestinians feared would give Israel leeway to annex large parts of the occupied West Bank without providing any compensation. At a critical 21 October 2009 meeting, Mitchell read out proposed language for terms of reference: "The US believes that through good faith negotiations the parties can mutually agree on an outcome that achieves both the Palestinian goal of an independent and viable state encompassing all the territory occupied in 1967 or its equivalent in value, and the Israeli goal of secure and recognized borders that reflect subsequent developments and meets Israeli security requirements." Erekat's response was blunt: "So no Road Map?" The implication of the words "or equivalent in value" is that the US would only commit to Palestinians receiving a specific amount of territory -- 6258 square kilometers, or the equivalent area of the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- but not to any specific borders. "Two states for two peoples" This is an earthquake. It not only up-ends the two-state solution as it is conventionally understood, but opens the door to possible future American acceptance of Israeli aspirations to create an ethnically-pure Jewish state by "exchanging" territories where many of Israel's 1.4 million Palestinian citizens are concentrated. This would be a violation of these Palestinians' most fundamental rights and a repudiation of the universally-accepted self-determination principles established at the Versailles Conference after World War I. It potentially replaces the two-state solution with what Israeli officials call the "two states for two peoples solution." Then Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni elaborated what this would look like during a November 13, 2007 negotiating session with Palestinian officials, confidential minutes of which were also revealed among The Palestine Papers: "Our idea is to refer to two states for two peoples. Or two nation states, Palestine and Israel living side by side in peace and security with each state constituting the homeland for its people and the fulfillment of their national aspirations and self determination." Livni stressed, "Israel [is] the state of the Jewish people -- and I would like to emphasize the meaning of 'its people' is the Jewish people -- with Jerusalem the united and undivided capital of Israel and of the Jewish people for 3007 years." Livni thus makes clear that only Jews are guaranteed citizenship in Israel and that Palestinian citizens do not really belong even though they are natives who have lived on the land since before Israel existed. It negates Palestinian refugee rights and raises the spectre of the expulsion or "exchange" of Palestinians already in the country. Yet Livni's troubling statement appears to reflect more than just her personal opinion. A 29 October 2008 internal Palestinian memorandum titled "Progress Report on Territory Negotiations" states that Palestinian negotiators rejected the notion that Palestinians could be included in land swaps. But, according to the document, "the Israelis continued to raise the prospect of including Palestinian citizens of Israel" in such swaps, during negotiations between Palestinian officials and the government of former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. In September last year, Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman presented a plan the UN General Assembly in which Israel would keep West Bank settlements and cede to a future Palestinian state some lands with highly concentrated populations of non-Jewish citizens. "A final agreement between Israel and the Palestinians,"Lieberman said, "has to be based on a program of exchange of territory and populations." While Lieberman heads the ultranationalist Yisrael Beitenu party, and Livni the Kadima opposition (often inaccurately perceived as more "moderate" than Israel's current government), the two politicians' views are symptomatic of increasingly overt racism within Israeli society. The Obama administration's failure to press Israel to accept the international consensus that the Palestinian state would be established on all the territories Israel occupied in 1967, except for minor adjustments, dooms the two-state solution. It may well be that a US administration that came to office promising unparalleled efforts to bring peace, ends up clearing the path for Lieberman's and Livni's abhorrent ideas to enter the mainstream. This is not only catastrophic for Palestinian rights and the prospects for justice, but represents a return to nineteenth century notions, banished in the wake of two world wars, that population groups can be traded between states without their consent as if they were mere pieces on a chess board. Ali Abunimah is author of One Country, A Bold Proposal to End the Israeli-Palestinian Impasse and is a contributor to the newly-released book The Goldstone Report: The Legacy of the Landmark Investigation of the Gaza Conflict. He is a co-founder of the widely read online publication The Electronic Intifada, an award-winning online publication about Palestine and the Palestine conflict. He has written hundreds of articles on the question of Palestine for publications all over the world, including Al Jazeera.