De Israelische Terreur 867

 Next week, thousands of New Yorkers will be doing the hora on 5th Avenue in the annual Salute to Israel Parade. Their website calls it, “the largest event in the world celebrating the Anniversary of Israel’s Independence. As we look towards the 61st Anniversary year, we will once again be joined by 100,000 participants, stepping off on Fifth Avenue, cheered on by an expected one million spectators.

Parade spectators will watch a sea of blue and white, kachol v’lavan, as community leaders, American and Israeli dignitaries, celebrities, floats and marching bands come together with spirit, joy and enthusiasm.”

I was wondering what Israeli journalist Gideon Levy would think of this. He would be embarrassed. I was on KALW in San Francisco with him on Friday where he spoke of the way the Israeli and our press speak of a “conflict ” but not a 60 year occupation of Palestinian land and society. How many traipsing down 5th Avenue every think of that?

Israel’s leaders of think of that. And they are determined to keep it going:

LBN: NETANYAHU DEFIES OBAMA ON ISRAELI SETTLEMENT FREEZE:

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Sunday rebuffed U.S. calls to impose a freeze on all settlement activity in the occupied West Bank, setting the stage for friction with President Barack Obama.

AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer – Sun May 24,

JERUSALEM – Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said Sunday that Israel will continue to build homes in existing West Bank settlements, defying U.S. calls to halt settlement growth.

The comments came days after a contentious visit to the White House and threatened to widen a growing rift with the Obama administration. The U.S. considers the settlements — home to some 280,000 Israelis — obstacles to peace since they are built on captured territory the Palestinians claim for a future state.

FAR RIGHT WANTS “LOYALTY OATH”

AP: JERUSALEM – An ultranationalist party headed by the Israeli foreign minister said Monday it has prepared legislation linking citizenship to an oath of allegiance, in what amounted to a threat to the country’s Arabs to swear loyalty to the Jewish state or risk severe punishment.

The bill follows a separate proposal Sunday by the same party that would make it illegal for Arabs to mourn the “catastrophe” (NABKA)— the term Palestinians use to describe their defeat and exile in the war that surrounded Israel’s founding.

Zie: http://www.newsdissector.com/blog/2009/05/24/memorial-day-musings-israel-stands-by-occupation-many-want-war-as-long-as-iranians-suffer/

Pieter van Os van de NRC

Hoe verkopen de portiers van de neoliberale ideologie hun ideologie? Door domweg net te doen alsof het neoliberalisme, de geloofsleer van de vrije markt, geen ideologie is, terwijl men tegelijkertijd stelt dat kritiek op het neoliberale geloof wel ideologisch van karakter is. Men krijgt dus artikelen als dit op de voorpagina van de NRC:

Ideologie sluipt in debat over de crisis

Gepubliceerd: 25 mei 2009 14:28 | Gewijzigd: 25 mei 2009 14:28

Door onze redacteur Pieter van Os

Den Haag, 25 mei. Het duurde even, maar de crisis heeft ook de Nederlandse politiek ideologisch wakker geschud.

Gisteren leverde PvdA-partijleider Wouter Bos in Buitenhof zijn bijdrage door premier Balkenende toe te voegen dat hij „wat minder naïef” moet geloven in de kracht van de markt. Hij reageerde op een artikel van de premier vorige week, waarin de CDA-leider de crisis niet aan marktfalen, maar aan „menselijk falen” weet. Bos: „Als er een inbraak is, moet je niet alleen de inbreker aanspreken, maar ook je sluitwerk verbeteren en zorgen dat er politie op straat is.”

Internationale ontwikkeling

De leiders van de twee grote coalitiepartijen volgen hiermee een internationale ontwikkeling. Want in het buitenland sloop de ideologie al eerder, en opzichtiger, in het crisisdebat. Protagonisten van de vrije markt proberen daarbij het debat te beperken tot financieel toezicht.'

Zie: http://www.nrc.nl/binnenland/article2251260.ece/Ideologie_sluipt_in_debat_over_de_crisis

Met andere woorden: de crisis die zoals iedereen weet veroorzaakt is door de neoliberale ideologie van de vrije markt (die overigens nooit vrij is geweest) mag in wezen niet met feitelijke argumenten worden bestreden, want die feitelijke argumenten zijn per definitie ideologisch in de ogen van de neoliberale ideoloog. Vandaar de kwalificatie 'sluipt' van het werkwoord sluipen, als een dief in de nacht. De ideologisch gemotiveerde NRC-redacteur Pieter van Os schrijft vervolgens dit: 'Protagonisten van de vrije markt proberen daarbij het debat te beperken tot financieel toezicht.' Let op de kwalificatie: protagonist, de hoofdrolspeler dus van het dramatisch gebeuren, die lijnrecht tegenover 'de antagonist' staat, de querulant die het tegenovergestelde wil en zijn best doet het zo moeilijk mogelijk te maken voor de protagonist. En wat doen de NRC protagonisten van de vrije markt? Wel, die 'proberen het debat te beperken tot financieel toezicht', kortom die willen dat het debat zich beperkt tot de feiten. De antagonist daarentegen komt met ideologische nonsens aan. En zo weet de ideologische gemotiveerde redacteur Pieter van Os van de NRC net te doen alsof niet het neoliberalisme het probleem is, maar al die antagonisten met hun ideologisch gesluip. Fantastische krant, en zo genuanceerd ook.

Amanda Kluveld van de Volkskrant

Dit schreef vorige week de econoom Eduard Bomhoff in de NRC: 

'CDAers moeten trouwens weten dat het Oude Testament van de Bijbel teksten biedt die wreder zijn dan alle soeras in de Koran. Bijvoorbeeld Psalm 139, die oproept om de zonden van de vaders op de meest gruwelijke wijze te vergelden aan de kinderen: Welgelukzalig zal hij zijn, die uw kinderkens grijpen, en aan de steenrots verpletteren zal. Zon tekst staat nergens in de Koran waar dezelfde God juist waarschuwt om de overtredingen van de ouders nooit in rekening te brengen bij hun kinderen. Als Samuel Jackson in de film Pulp Fiction van regisseur Tarantino het vuur opent, hoeft hij ook niet uit de Koran te citeren, maar kiest hij het boek Ezechiël. Misschien riposteert Wilders dat bij de moslims een grote meerderheid het heilige boek letterlijk leest en bij de christenen alleen een minderheid binnen de EO, maar dan wordt een tweede inconsistentie zichtbaar. Wilders heeft zich immers altijd onderscheiden van Fortuyn en zo veel anderen, door niet selectief radicale of fundamentalistische moslims aan te vallen, maar de openbaring en de profeet van hen allen.' 

Lees verder: http://archief.nrc.nl/?modus=l&text=bomhoff&hit=1&set=1

Bomhoff heeft gelijk. Hij had ook uit de Apocalyps in het Nieuwe Testament kunnen citeren, waarin nog meer geweld en gruwelijkheden worden beschreven. 

Ik ben dan ook altijd weer verbaasd wanneer een of ander ideologisch lichtgewicht in een van de Nederlandse kranten schrijft dat 'niet de islam maar de westerse cultuur superieur [is],' zoals een mij onbekende Amanda Kluveld in de Volkskrant beweert. Mevrouw Kluveld heeft kennelijk een dwingende behoefte om zichzelf en haar geloofsgenoten te overtuigen dat 'de westerse cultuur superieur'  is. Het is een duidelijke illustratie van onzekerheid en onwetendheid. De westerse cultuur is al vele eeuwen gebaseerd op hetzelfde christendom waaruit het antisemitisme en uiteindelijk de Holocaust voortkwam. Voor intellectuelen mogen Hiroshima en Auschwitz redenen zijn om te twijfelen aan de voortreffelijkheid van Amanda's 'cultuur', maar voor ideologen geldt de werkelijkheid niet. Voor hen geldt: wij zijn de goeden, zij de kwaden. Zonder externe vijand is er geen interne cohesie mogelijk. De retoriek van dit soort tribale ideologen is altijd absurd, de gevolgen ervan zijn maar al te vaak desastreus, niet voor de opiniemakers zelf maar voor hun slachtoffers elders. 

De Israelische Terreur 866

Ministers okay bill banning Nakba Day

By Tomer Zarchin and Jack Khoury

The ministerial committee for legislation yesterday approved a bill that would make it illegal to treat Israel's establishment as a day of mourning, effectively banning Israeli Arabs' commemoration of Nakba Day. The proposal, which was initiated by a member of Yisrael Beiteinu, sparked charges that such a prohibition would infringe on freedom of expression and increase alienation and extremism rather than encouraging cohesiveness.

The private member's bill was proposed by MK Alex Miller and calls for a violators. It will be brought before the Knesset for a preliminary reading. The explanatory notes accompanying the bill call for "harsh punishment for those who take advantage of the democratic and enlightened nature of the State of Israel to bring it down from within."

"I opposed the law because I believe that it could impair freedom of expression and freedom of protest and achieve the opposite goal - increasing alienation and strengthening extremists, who are on the margins of Arab society," said Social Affairs Minister Isaac Herzog. "The law won over the representatives of Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu because it's easy to support, their reasoning being that we must protect ourselves from these elements. I don't believe in such legislation."

Lees verder:  http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1087978.html

Premier Wilders

Vandaag schrijft Mohammed Benzakour in de Volkskrant dat Wilders maar snel premier van Nederland moet worden, zodat even snel duidelijk wordt dat deze praatjesmaker geen enkele oplossing heeft voor de wezenlijke problemen van onze samenleving. Wilders zal ontdekken dat ook de Nederlandse regering zich zal moeten houden aan afspraken, regels, wetten en internationale verdragen. En uit is dan zijn spel van het consequentieloos schreeuwen vanaf de zijlijn. Ik ben het helemaal eens met Benzakour. De verrotting moet er op een of andere manier eruit. Dan maar zo.

Obama 105

Fixing America, Erasing Bush

Sunday 24 May 2009

President Obama gave a speech on Thursday praising the excellence of the American experiment, and claimed his own life was made possible by the promise of the documents and the ideals that founded this nation. As usual, his delivery and diction was perfect. Unfortunately, his behavior of late has fallen far short of the ideals he has given such eloquent lip service to.

    Two thousand pictures of Americans performing acts of savage torture on prisoners will not be released to the general public if Mr. Obama gets his way. Military commissions will continue to try prisoners outside the scope of American law, and will be free to use brazen hearsay as "hard" evidence against defendants. Mr. Obama continues to cleave to the most abhorrent aspects of Bush-era secrecy policies, and has moved to block a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) on behalf of former CIA agent Valerie Plame, who was outed by Bush administration officials in order to silence her Iraq whistleblower husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson.

    Melanie Sloan, Executive Director of CREW, responded to the Obama administration's stance regarding the Plame suit with a statement that succinctly sums up the distance between Obama's words and his administration's deeds. "We are deeply disappointed that the Obama administration has failed to recognize the grievous harm top Bush White House officials inflicted on Joe and Valerie Wilson," said Sloan. "The government's position cannot be reconciled with President Obama's oft-stated commitment to once again make government officials accountable for their actions."

    Indeed.

    These issues of torture and secrecy lead directly to the office of the President of the United States, and the manner in which Mr. Obama has proceeded thus far offends the very nature of the nation he presumes to lead. Mr. Obama sang the praises of our founding documents on Thursday, while failing utterly to live up to the oath he swore to them. In particular:

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

    That is the Fifth Amendment to the word, which as much as anything else is what makes America a special place. The notion of American Exceptionalism raises hackles all across the world, but within the lines of that Fifth Amendment are the ideals that do make America truly exceptional. Lees verder:

http://www.truthout.org/052409A

Iran 267

Ha'aretz: Obama quashed Israel military option against Iran
Yossi Melman, Haaretz Correspondent
http://www.uruknet.info/?colonna=m&p=54500&l=e&size=1&hd=0

May 22, 2009

Israel's military option against Iran has died. The death warrant was
issued courtesy of the new U.S. administration led by Barack Obama.

All the administration's senior officials, from the president to his vice
president, Joe Biden, Defense Secretary Robert Gates and others are sending
strong, clear hints that Israel does not have permission to strike Iran.
Yet, given their familiarity with the Israeli client, they have not made do
with simple hints and intimations. Washington dispatched the new CIA
director, Leon Panetta, to Israel. Panetta made clear to Netanyahu, in so
many words, that an Israeli attack would create "big trouble."

Perhaps Israel at one point had just a small window of opportunity to
exercise the military option, or, in other words, the possibility of
attacking sites in Iran to prevent it from developing nuclear weapons. This
is assuming, of course, that Israel indeed has the military capability for
carrying out such a mission - an assumption that raises many questions.
This is a mission that requires gathering pinpoint intelligence, to
identify the precise targets without harming thousands of innocent
civilians.

Simply put, one of the targets of such a strike is the uranium enrichment
facility in Isfahan, which lies in the heart of a congested civilian
population. A realistic military option is also contingent on fighter jets
finding undetected routes, as well as carrying a sufficient payload of
bombs and missiles to inflict heavy damage on the targets.

Let us assume that Israel does, indeed, have a reasonable military
capability which would enable it to strike at the targets, inflict heavy
damage and set Iran's nuclear program back a few years. The opportunity to
realize this capability arguably presented itself to Israel a few years
ago. Iran at the time was subject to an intense international offensive.
Inspectors of the International Atomic Energy Agency repeatedly exposed its
lies and levied sanctions against the Tehran regime.

Threats made by President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad to wipe Israel from the map
and his insistence on denying the Holocaust aroused great sympathy for
Israel. This sympathy was buttressed by the Olmert government's willingness
to hold peace talks with Syria and seek an agreement with the Palestinians.
Above all, this friendly international atmosphere was backed by an
accommodating Republican administration and a president who was ready to
support (or to turn a blind eye to) any Israeli operation. In addition,
Iran's ability to respond to an attack with missiles was limited.

But all this is now in the past. The sanctions are stuck. Ahmadinejad has,
for the time being, softened his bellicose rhetoric. The production of
Iranian missiles has doubled.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is not ready to recognize the right of
the Palestinians to a state of their own, nor does he have any intention of
holding serious negotiations with Syria, regarding withdrawal from the
Golan Heights. This position reduces international support for Israel. Yet,
most importantly, there is a new president in Washington, one who has
outlined a new policy vis-a-vis Iran. He has announced the start of
negotiations with Iran, and even though he mentioned that the talks will
have to be concluded by the end of this year, he did not set a clear
deadline. All these factors, including the explicit statements made by
administration officials, put Israel in its place.

The supreme tenet of Israeli defense policy states that Jerusalem must not
launch any strategic initiative that stands in contradiction, or places in
harm's way, the clear interests of the United States. This stance has
underpinned every fateful decision taken by Israel relating to matters of
war and peace. Israel embarked on the Six-Day War only after it was
convinced that the U.S. would not oppose. In the hours leading up to the
Yom Kippur War, Israel refrained from launching a preemptive strike for
fear that Washington would blame it for starting the war. Israel invaded
Lebanon in 1982 only after Defense Minister Ariel Sharon came under the
impression that the U.S. would view the move with understanding. During the
first Gulf War in 1991, the U.S. did not permit Israel to respond to Iraqi
scud missiles, and Israel obliged.

If this tenet remains the cornerstone of defense policy, then Israel once
again will not act against the explicit wishes of the U.S. Thus, when
Israeli leaders say that "all options are open," this is nothing but a
dog's bark being louder than his bite. Or, if you will, a mouse that roars.
If the U.S. does not alter its policy, then Israel no longer has the
military option at its disposal - if it ever had such an option at all.