Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Woensdag, 4 Augustus, 2010 | Kern.pundicity.com | Door Soeren Kern

Een speedboot escorteert de Mavi Marmara (van de Gaza Vloot) naar de zuidelijke havenstad Ashdod nadat het ingenomen was door Israëlische commandos. (Foto: Menahem Kahana/AFP/Getty Images)

Het Misbruiken van Internationaal Recht als Oorlogswapen Tegen Israel

Drie Spaanse activisten, die aan boord waren van de Gaza Vloot met hulpgoederen voor Gaza en door Israëlische commando’s op 31 mei geënterd werden, hebben een aanklacht ingediend tegen de Israëlische premier Benyamin Netanyahu, zes leden van zijn kabinet en een hoge militaire officier voor oorlogsmisdaden en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid. De rechtszaak is de tweede poging van pro-Palestijnse activisten om Israëlische politieke en militaire leiders voor de Spaanse rechter te vervolgen door gebruik te maken van het “universaliteitsbeginsel” in het internationaal recht.^[1]

Laura Arau, David Segarra en Manuel Espinar Tapial zijn de drie Spanjaarden die aan boord waren van de schepen, en die de klacht op 22 juli ingediend hebben bij het Spaanse Nationale Hof (Audiencia Nacional). Ze zeggen dat ze illegaal werden gearresteerd in internationale wateren, gemarteld en onder dwang afgevoerd naar Turkije. De 86-pagina’s tellende aanklacht werd ingediend namens de drie eisers door een niet-gouvernementele organisatie genaamd Comité de Solidaridad Con La Cause Arabe [Solidariteits comité voor de Arabische Zaak], dat is gevestigd in Madrid.

Naast het aanklagen van premier Netanyahu, worden in de aanklacht ook de namen genoemd van de Israëlische minister van Defensie Ehud Barak, minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Avigdor Lieberman, vice-premier en minister van Inlichtingen en Atoomenergie  Dan Meridor, vice-premier en minister van Strategische Zaken Moshe Ya’alon, minister van Binnenlandse Zaken Eli Yishai, minister-zonder-portefeuille Benny Begin, en vice-admiraal Eliezer ‘Chiney’ Marom van de Israëlische marine.

Volgens de aanklacht, werden de eisers “illegaal vastgehouden, gedwongen verplaatst naar Israël en gedeporteerd naar Turks grondgebied buiten de bepalingen van het internationaal recht om.” Echter, het meeste van de rest van de aanklacht is binnen de bredere context van de gehele Palestijnse zaak opgenomen, waaruit de politiek gemotiveerde aard van de rechtszaak blijkt.^[2]

De aanklacht beweert dat de acht verdachten samen kwamen “vanaf het moment dat ze van het vertrek van de vloot vernomen hadden” om “een operatie te plannen … in het kader van een systematische en wijdverbreide aanval tegen de Palestijnse burgerbevolking” met het doel om “elke en alle pogingen tot gemeenschappelijk optreden om het Palestijnse volk te helpen af te breken. ”

De Spaanse rechter moet nu beslissen of de aanklacht ontvankelijk is. Het Spaanse parlement heeft in juni 2009 een wet aangenomen om rechters te beperken in het vervolgen van gevallen van marteling of oorlogsmisdaden begaan in het buitenland onder het begrip van het universaliteitsbeginsel. De Spaanse wet stelde eerder aanklagers in staat om vermeende mensenrechtenschendingen te onderzoeken, ongeacht waar zij zijn begaan of waar de verdachten wonen.

De vrijblijvende interpretatie van het universaliteitsbeginsel heeft geleid tot het massaal misbruiken van het Spaanse juridische systeem door linkse groeperingen die erop uit waren om hun politieke agenda voort te zetten, en door op media beluste activistische rechters die meer geïnteresseerd waren in het scoren op politiek vlak dan in het handhaven van de wet. Medio juni 2009 voerden rechters bij het Spaanse Nationale Hof meer dan een dozijn aan internationale onderzoeken uit naar vermoedelijke gevallen van marteling, genocide en misdaden tegen de menselijkheid in verre plaatsen als Tibet en Rwanda. Maar de meeste van deze gevallen hadden weinig tot geen connectie met Spanje.

Onder de nieuwe regels, kunnen gevallen op basis van het universaliteitsbeginsel alleen worden vervolgd voor de Spaanse rechter als er sprake is van betrokkenheid van Spaanse burgers. De advocaten in dit laatste geval stellen dat het Spaanse gerecht bevoegd is, juist omdat de drie eisers in deze aanklacht Spaanse burgers zijn.

Dit was niet het geval in een eerdere poging van pro-Palestijnse groepen om Israëlische politieke en militaire functionarissen te vervolgen in Spanje. Het Spaanse Hooggerechtshof aanvaardde in april 2010 een beslissing van het Spaanse Hof van Beroep tegen het uitvoeren van een onderzoek naar zeven huidige of voormalige Israëlische functionarissen over een luchtaanval in Gaza waarbij Salah Shehadeh, een top Hamas militant, werd gedood in juli 2002.

Andere zaken tegen Israëlische functionarissen zijn nog hangende in verscheidene andere Europese landen.

In België hebben advocaten op 23 juni namens Palestijnse eisers een aanklacht ingediend tegen 14 Israëlische functionarissen op beschuldiging van oorlogsmisdaden die zouden zijn gepleegd tijdens de Gaza-oorlog, een drie weken durende gewapende conflict dat plaatsvond in de Gazastrook tijdens de winter van 2008-2009. Onder de aangeklaagden ook de Israëlische oppositieleider Tzipi Livni voor haar rol als minister van Buitenlandse Zaken tijdens de oorlog, de voormalige Israëlische premier Ehud Olmert, vice-minister van Defensie Matan Vilnai, en andere Israëlische ambtenaren van het leger en inlichtingendiensten.

De 70-pagina’s tellende aanklacht is gebaseerd op een rapport van rechter Richard Goldstone, die beweert dat door een Israëlische aanval op een moskee in de buurt van het Jabalia vluchtelingenkamp in de Gazastrook 16 burgers, waaronder vrouwen en kinderen, werden gedood. De eisers, onder wie ook één met Palestijns-Belgische nationaliteit en dertien inwoners van de Gazastrook, waren ofwel gewond of verloren familieleden tijdens de aanval.

Pro-Palestijnse activisten kondigden op 13 juni in Frankrijk aan dat zij een aanklacht zouden indienen tegen de Israëlische minister van defensie Ehud Barak, zowel in Frankrijk en bij het Internationaal Strafhof in Den Haag. De Internationale Burger Campagne voor de bescherming van het Palestijnse Volk (CCIPPP) en het Comite voor een goed doel en steun voor de Palestijnen (CBSP) vervolgen Barak vanwege de aanval van het Israëlische leger (31 mei) op de Gaza Vloot waarbij negen activisten werden gedood. De beide comités zeggen dat Barak persoonlijk verantwoordelijk moet worden gehouden voor de gedode activisten.

De aanklacht dwong Barak om medio juni een bezoek aan Parijs te annuleren. Pro-Palestijnse activisten hadden de Franse politie opgeroepen om Barak te arresteren op het vliegveld bij aankomst in het land. Het Israëlische ministerie van Defensie zei dat Barak besloten had in Israël te blijven “totdat het team van deskundigen onderzoek doet naar de overval op de Gaza Vloot.”

In Groot-Brittannië heeft een rechter in december 2009 een arrestatiebevel uitgevaardigd tegen Tzipi Livni voor haar rol in Operatie Cast Lead. Livni, die tijdens een bijeenkomst in Londen zou spreken, annuleerde haar komst. De rechtbank vaardigde het bevel uit op verzoek van de advocaten van Palestijnse slachtoffers van de oorlog in Gaza. De Criminal Justice Act van 1988 geeft rechtbanken in Engeland en Wales universele jurisdictie in gevallen van oorlogsmisdaden.

In oktober 2009 sloeg Moshe Ya’alon een uitnodiging af voor het bijwonen van een diner in Londen voor het werven van fondsen, nadat hij was gewaarschuwd dat hij misschien gearresteerd zou worden op verdenking van oorlogsmisdaden. Ya’alon was stafchef van de Israëlische strijdkrachten in 2002-2005 en wordt in de gaten gehouden door pro-Palestijnse groepen voor zijn vermeende rol in de dood van Shehadeh.

In september 2009 werd een Britse rechtbank verzocht om een arrestatiebevel tegen Ehud Barak uit te vaardigen, die een vergadering bijwoonde tijdens de Labour-partij conferentie in Brighton. Hij ontsnapte aan de arrestatie nadat Buitenlandse Zaken stelde dat Barak, als minister in functie, immuniteit genoot onder de State Immunity Act uit 1978.

In september 2005, arriveerde gepensioneerd Israëlische generaal-majoor Doron Almog in Londen met een El Al-vlucht, en ontdekte dat een Britse rechter een arrestatiebevel tegen hem had uitgevaardigd wegens vermeende schending van de Conventie van Genève van 1949 in de Gazastrook. Almog bleef in het vliegtuig en keerde onmiddellijk terug naar Israël.

In februari 2004 wees een Londense rechtbank een verzoek om de arrestatie van de Israëlische minister van Defensie Shaul Mofaz af voor naar verluidt het plegen van ‘ernstige schendingen’ van het Verdrag van Genève in het omgaan met de Palestijnse intifada. De rechter in deze zaak voerde aan dat Mofaz als een minister in de regering, in aanmerking kwam voor immuniteit.

In Noorwegen wees hoofdaanklager Siri Frigaard in november 2009 een klacht af van een groep Noorse advocaten die Olmert, Livni en Barak beschuldigden van het plegen van oorlogsmisdaden tijdens de Gaza-oorlog. Frigaard zei: “Er is geen goede reden” voor de Noorse autoriteiten om het verder te onderzoeken. Ze zei ook dat Noorwegen “met grote zorg moet omgaan” bij de beslissing om vermeende oorlogsmisdaden gepleegd door personen zonder een verbintenis met Noorwegen te onderzoeken.

In België heeft de hoogste rechterlijke instantie van het land in september 2003 een aanklacht vanwege oorlogsmisdaden tegen de Israëlische premier Ariel Sharon vernietigd. Het Hof van Cassatie oordeelde dat Sharon immuniteit geniet voor het onderzoek in België over zijn vermeende rol in een bloedbad van Palestijnse vluchtelingen in 1982.^[3]

Hoewel geen van de aanklachten tegen de Israëlische leiders in de Europese rechtbanken zijn doelstellingen heeft bereikt, laten de recente gevallen van ‘lawfare‘ in Spanje, België en Frankrijk zien dat de Palestijnen en hun supporters in Europa vastbesloten zijn om te blijven proberen totdat ze zullen slagen.

Overzicht van de aanklachten tegen Israel

[2] Aanklachten op basis van het universaliteitsbeginsel tegen Israël zijn slechts het exploiteren van rechtbanken in democratische landen met het oog op het lastig vallen van Israëlische politici met civiele rechtszaken en strafrechtelijk onderzoek naar “oorlogsmisdaden”, “misdaden tegen de menselijkheid,” en andere vermeende schendingen van het internationaal recht. Terwijl de NGO’s beweren dat deze zaken gaan over het verkrijgen van “gerechtigheid” voor de Palestijnse slachtoffers, zijn ze eigenlijk een deel van de grotere politieke oorlog tegen Israël. De tactiek van het universaliteitsbeginsel (lawfare) werd aangenomen op het NGO-Forum van de 2001 Durban Conferentie, en is een integraal onderdeel van de Durban-strategie die erop gericht is Israël te demoniseren en te delegitimizeren.

[3] De Bloedbaden van Sabra en Shatilla.

Related posts:

1. De Dubbele Moraal Tegen Israel
2. Boycotcampagne tegen Israel ‘Misleidend’ en ‘Oneerlijk’
3. Israels Recht in de ‘Betwiste’ Gebieden

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. | Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

July, 2008 | JCRC | By Yitzhak Santis

Hamas, an Arabic acronym for Islamic Resistance Movement,²⁴ was elected to a position of leadership in the Palestinian Authority in January 2006. By December the two main Palestinian factions – Fatah and Hamas – had engaged in a seven month civil war, leaving hundreds of Palestinians dead, and many more wounded. On June 14, 2007, Hamas defeated Fatah in Gaza and took complete control of the territory, from which Israel unilaterally withdrew in August 2005.

The Hamas emblem consists of the Dome of the Rock, two crossed swords, and two Palestinian flags embracing the Dome with the phrases, "There is no god but Allah", and "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah." At the top is a map encompassing the boundaries of the State of Israel, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, with "Palestine" written under the picture and a strip at the bottom stating "Islamic Resistance Movement‐Hamas."

Hamas’ rise to power was a tremendous blow to prospects for peace between Israelis and Palestinians. In addition to Hamas’ violent record as a terrorist organization, it possesses a radical Islamist ideology that explicitly calls for the killing of Jews¹, destroying the State of Israel² and replacing Israel with a radical Islamic theocracy. This ideology is based on an underpinning of blatant anti‐Semitism³ adopted from one of Europe’s darkest periods (the Holocaust), and embedded deeply in Hamas’ ideological manifesto it calls a “Covenant.”

Since 2005, Hamas has launched thousands of rockets indiscriminately into southern Israeli towns and cities, most notably Sderot where, according to Ha’aretz, between “75 percent and 94 percent of Sderot children aged 4‐18 exhibit symptoms of post‐traumatic stress.”⁴ Since June 2008, Israel has entered into an Egyptian‐brokered ceasefire with Hamas.

To better understand current situation, it is important to have a fuller understanding of Hamas’ background, ideology and track record.

Radical Islamism: A Brief Background

Almost every country in the Middle East is affected by radical Islamist movements. In addition to Israel, Arab regimes throughout the Middle East are under increasing attack by radical Islamists, and Islamist violence has become endemic from the Philippines to Chechnya. Attacks against the U.S., Spain, England and other countries have increased dramatically in recent years.

The year 1979 was a watershed for radical Islamism. Although the Egyptian‐Israeli peace accord was a setback for Islamist ideology, the Islamic Revolution in Iran and the strong resistance of the Afghani mujahedeen, (among whom was Osama bin Laden) against the invading Soviet army invigorated the movement. The same year the Grand Mosque in Mecca was seized by Islamic radicals, which led to the deaths of hundreds of people, mostly pilgrims on the Hajj, in a battle with the Saudi army. Two years later Egyptian President Anwar Sadat, the first Arab leader to sign a peace treaty with Israel, was assassinated at the hands of the Takfir wa‐Hijrah – a splinter of the Muslim Brotherhood.

Hamas’ Ideology

Hamas is a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, a militant Islamic movement founded in Egypt in 1928 by Hassan al Banna and dedicated to purging Egypt of Western influences, particularly British colonial rule. According to Prof. Ephraim Karsh, of Mediterranean and Middle Eastern Studies at King’s College, University of London, Hamas views

“the struggle for Palestine as neither an ordinary political dispute between two contending nations (Israelis and Palestinians), nor even as a struggle for national self‐determination by an indigenous population against a foreign occupier. Rather, it sees Palestine as but one battle in a worldwide holy war to prevent the fall of a part of the House of Islam to infidels.”⁵

In the 1960s and 70s, under the leadership of Said Qutb, the Brotherhood experienced a resurgence of popularity in Egypt, Jordan, the West Bank and Gaza Strip. The Brotherhood built

“an impressive social, religious, educational and cultural infrastructure, which gave them a political stronghold, both in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank.”⁶

Hamas carries out da’wah activity as part of its overall strategy to gain popular support. The military and social support wings of Hamas are inseparable, and mutually dependent.

The popular‐social base is maintained materially by the charity committees and ideologically through instruction, propaganda and incitement delivered in the mosques and other institutions and through leaflets. This base is the source for the recruitment of members into the units which engage in riots and popular violence.⁷

Hamas draws primarily from two ideological fonts: the universalistic Islamist principles of the Muslim Brotherhood, which endeavors to return Arab‐Islamic society back to a traditional Islamic state, and the Palestinian tenet of popular liberation coupled with the goal of establishing an Islamic state in all of Palestine.

“The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of the Muslim Brothers in Palestine.” Hamas Covenant, Article 2

Hamas: A Branch of the Muslim Brotherhood

After its founding, the Muslim Brotherhood’s popularity spread rapidly. During World War II it had actively allied itself with Nazi Germany toward the goal of ending British rule in Egypt. Also during this time the Brotherhood spread throughout the Arab world.

In 1948, after Israel’s establishment, the Brotherhood’s founder, Hassan al Banna, proclaimed that,

“Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” (Hamas placed al Banna’s quote in their Covenant’s preamble.)

In 1966, Egyptian President Nasser executed the Brotherhood’s leadership. Eventually the Brotherhood regrouped, and today it holds 20% of the seats in Egypt’s Parliament. It boasts a very complex international financial network connecting the operations of 70 Brotherhood branches worldwide. Hamas is but one of these branches.

The movement has not changed its basic ideology in the nearly eighty years of its existence, and holds a long-term view for achieving its goal of a pan-Islamic state ruled by a Caliph.

A Portal for Anti‐Semitism

By the late 1930s, Nazi Germany, seeking to undermine the British, established contacts with the Muslim Brotherhood, which in turn saw in Germany an ally that could further their cause. Before long the Brotherhood adopted fascist trappings, including a creed of unconditional loyalty to the leader, and a paramilitary organization whose slogan “action, obedience, silence” echoed the “believe, obey, fight” motto of the Italian Fascists.⁸ From the Fascists al Banna also borrowed the idea of heroic death.⁹ Hamas’ glorification of “martyrs” dying in the act of suicide bombings echoes this fascist mode.

After al Banna’s murder in 1949, his successor Sayyid Qutb wrote a manifesto called “Our Struggle with the Jews.” The book has more than a passing similarity to Hitler’s Mein Kampf, which in German means “My Struggle” and whose main subject is the battle between “Aryans” and “the Jews.” Qutb adapted and transformed Hitler’s formulation of “the Jews” as “eternal enemies” of the “Aryan race” to “the Jews” as the “eternal enemies” of Islam. Qutb’s main theme is “the Jews” use Christianity, capitalism and communism as weapons in their war to subvert Islam, and are responsible for all sorts of evils, including Marxism, psychoanalysis, materialism, sexual depravity and the destruction of morals. For Qutb and his followers, all these imagined assemblages of incarnated evil known as “the Jews” represents a mortal, existential threat to Islam.¹⁰

Paul Berman writes,

“The revolt against liberalism (e.g. totalitarianism) that got underway after 1914 has never run out of energy, and the impulse for murder and suicide continues to rocket around the globe, and nothing from the twentieth century has come to an end.” The only difference, he explains, is the “scripts in which the revolutionary manifestos” are published: first Gothic German and Cyrillic, but now in Arabic and Farsi.”¹¹

As the Palestinian arm of the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas fully adapted this Judeophobic imagery in its core ideology. Its covenant states that the Jews

“have been scheming for a long time … and have accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money, they took control of the world media… With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the globe… They stood behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we hear about… With their money they formed secret organizations ‐ such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions ‐ which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests… They stood behind World War I … and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made hugh financial gains… There is no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it.”¹²

The Palestinian – Nazi Alliance

The father of Palestinian nationalism, Amin el Husseini, the Mufti of Jerusalem, was the Brotherhood’s official representative in British Mandatory Palestine. He was a close collaborator with Nazi Germany at the highest levels, including Adolf Hitler, Heinrich Himmler and Adolf Eichmann.¹³

Grand Mufti Amin Al Husseini becomes close friend of Heinrich Himmler, Head of SS (Nazi Officers). Amin Al-Husseini is given a private tour of Aushwitz death camp by Himmler, where he insists on seeing first-hand the murder of Europe’s Jews. 1943, Amin Al-Husseini Visits Nazi Death Camp Aushwitz with Head of SS Heinrich Himmler. Grand Mufti of Jerusalem Amin Al Husseini had plans for construction of a concentration camp in Nablus (Palestine) to implement the “final solution” to exterminate the Jews there as an extension of Hitler’s plan in death camps like Aushwitz. The Mufti’s “hatred of Jews…was fathomless, and he gave full vent to it during his period of activity alongside the Nazis (October 1941-May 1945). His speeches on Berlin radio were anti-Semitic to the core: “Kill the Jews wherever you find them - this pleases God, history and religion. This saves your honor God is with you.”

On November 28, 1941 el Husseini met with Hitler in Berlin, where they discussed bringing the Holocaust to the Middle East. Hitler told el Husseini that once German forces defeated the British in North Africa, Hitler

“would offer the Arab world his personal assurance that the hour of liberation had struck. Thereafter, Germany’s only remaining objective in the region would be limited to the annihilation of the Jews living under British protection in Arab lands.”¹⁴

According to German historian Wolfgang G. Schwanitz:

“From 1941 to 1945, he (el Husseini) lived for the most part in Berlin as a guest of the German government. The Nazis provided office space, vehicles and money, so that the Mufti and his entire entourage could stay active. In return, the Mufti used his influence in the Middle East on the Nazis’ behalf and recruited Muslims for the Nazi war effort. On the airwaves of nazi Germany’s Arab language radio service, he called for a Holy War, a Jihad, against the allies and the Jews.”

In one such radio broadcast on November 2, 1943, Amin el Husseini declared:

“National Socialist Germany knows the Jews well and has decided to find a Final Solution for the Jewish danger which will end the evil in the world.”¹⁵

Amin el Husseini’s influence is still felt today. Hamas’ Covenant includes references to the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion.”¹⁶ (The Protocols are a forgery purporting to be the minutes of a secret meeting of international Jewish leaders plotting to take control of the world. It forms the Judeophobic basis of Nazi ideology, and has been called by historians a “warrant for genocide.”)¹⁷ Other parts of the Hamas Covenant read as if they were lifted directly from Mein Kampf.¹⁸

Hamas: Its Growth and Evolution

With the outbreak of the first Palestinian intifada in 1987, Hamas evolved into a militant organization which directed its activities not only against Israel, but also against Yassir Arafat’s Fatah, the primary group within the PLO, whose ideology is primarily nationalist and does not emphasize Islam.

During the 1990’s, Hamas emerged as a “spoiler” as it began to use suicide bombers as a means of disrupting the peace process. By the time of the “Al Aqsa” intifada in 2000, Hamas already led the way in a war of terror against Israeli civilians.

Hamas receives funding from a variety of sources: direct financial aid from Iran, donations and membership fees, fund‐raising in the Arab world and the West, from Palestinian expatriates, and private benefactors in Saudi Arabia and other Arab states.

Hamas’ Alliances: Iran, Syria, Hezbollah

“The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: ‘O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’” Hamas Covenant, Article 7

Syria serves as an important base for Hamas, providing crucial infrastructure for its operational, political, military and propaganda activities. Hamas’s High Command resides in Syria and runs its operations from the Hamas’ political office, headed by Khaled Meshaal, in Damascus. This High Command is in daily contact with Hamas including its terrorist wing, Izz Al‐Din Al‐Qassam (named after a Brotherhood leader “martyred” in the Arab Revolt of 1936 in British Mandate Palestine).

The week prior to Hamas’ electoral victory in the Palestinian elections in January 2006, Meshaal met in Damascus with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for Israel to be “wiped off the map” and the deportation of Israeli Jews to Europe or North America, and has denied the Holocaust.

Meshaal praised Ahmadinejad for these comments. In December 2005, he met Ahmadinejad in Teheran and Al Jazeerah reported that Meshaal

“praised Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, for his ‘courage’ in having dismissed the Holocaust as a myth and calling for Israel to be moved out of the Middle East to Europe or North America.”

The Lebanese terror group Hezbollah also developed a close relationship with Hamas. Shi’ite Iran is Hezbollah’s main sponsor. In 1993, Hamas became the first branch of the Sunni Muslim Brotherhood to open an official office in Teheran. In April 2001, Iran hosted an “International Conference of Support for the Intifada and the Islamic Revolution in Palestine” in Teheran, which included Hamas and Hezbollah. It is not coincidental that Hamas began using Hezbollah tactics, such as the choice of certain explosives, and mortar attacks on civilian populations.

Hamas Terrorism

“The people who carry out suicide bombings are not martyrs, they’re war criminals, and so are the people who help to plan such attacks.” Kenneth Roth, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch

Hamas is responsible for 426 terrorist attacks since 2000, primarily targeting civilians. Fifty‐eight of these attacks were suicide bombings, resulting in 377 deaths and 2,078 injuries.

Among the most heinous:

• August 9, 2001: Sbarro Pizzeria bombing in downtown Jerusalem in which fifteen people were murdered, including six children ranging in age from two to sixteen. Another 130 were maimed.
• March 5, 2003: Suicide bombing that murdered 17 people and wounded 53 in a suicide bombing of a passenger bus on en route to Haifa University. Nine of dead were children, including an Israeli Arab. Another Israeli Arab was also killed.
• August 19, 2003: Twenty‐three people were killed and over 130 wounded when a Hamas suicide bomber detonated himself on a passenger bus in Jerusalem. Five of the dead were children, including a three year old and an 11 month old.
• August 31, 2004: Sixteen people were killed and 100 wounded in two suicide bombings within minutes of each other on two Beersheba city buses. Among the dead was a 3 year old child.

During the Oslo peace process (1993 – 2000), Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad carried out at least 30 suicide attacks, killing 120 Israelis, mostly civilians. These attacks were aimed at stopping or slowing the Oslo peace process, and were a major contributing factor to Oslo’s failure. Because these attacks were deliberately aimed primarily at non‐combatants with the aim of killing as many civilians as possible, the U.S. and European Union have declared Hamas a terrorist organization.

The “ceasefire” between Hamas and Israel: Implications for the future

In March 2005, Hamas agreed to a unilateral ceasefire with Israel. The ceasefire was brokered by Egypt in Cairo, where Hamas and twelve other Palestinian groups met (Israel was not invited to the talks). The Cairo Agreement, as it became known, called for a period of calm (tahdiya). Notwithstanding this “calm” Hamas continued attacking Israeli targets, including firing dozens of Qassam missiles from the Gaza Strip into Israeli towns and a number of attacks in the West Bank. Hamas leaders made it clear that this was but a “tactical” move, and they were still committed to their goal of destroying Israel. Hamas leader Mahmoud Zahar said after Israel’s Disengagement from Gaza in August 2005:

“Neither the liberation of the Gaza Strip, nor the liberation of the West Bank or even Jerusalem will suffice us. Hamas will pursue the armed struggle until the liberation of all our lands. We don’t recognize the state of Israel or its right to hold onto one inch of Palestine. Palestine is an Islamic land belonging to all the Muslims.”¹⁹

The 2005 “ceasefire” fell apart when Islamic Jihad and other Islamist groups that were not parties to the ceasefire continued their rocket attacks on Israel, and Israel responded militarily to try to stop the attacks.

Since then, thousands of rockets were fired into Israel by Hamas and other groups. As this document goes to press, Egypt succeeded in brokering another “tahdiya” between Israel and Hamas. Middle East observers hold various opinions on why Hamas negotiated this ceasefire. Some say they did it out of weakness, others say it was from a position of strength.

The tahdiya calls for a halt in all Gaza‐Israel violence for six months in exchange for Israel’s easing its blockade of Gaza, allowing in more vital supplies to enter Gaza. Talks are supposed to begin on opening the Rafah crossing between Gaza and Egypt, and for an exchange of prisoners including Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit, held for two years by Hamas.

The “position of weakness” analysis:

Retired Israeli General Amnon Lipkin‐Shahak argues that:

Some say the organization is gaining power, but the agreed‐to ceasefire may be out of weakness rather than strength. Hamas promised its people that it would gain independence through violence, but that policy has led to only misery. Since its takeover of Gaza, the organization has replaced Fatah in terms of corruption. Hamas members and officers are the only people with gas in their vehicles; they have the best jobs, and seem to be doing fine while the rest of the population struggles. Although it has made improvements in terms of law and order, Hamas does not offer much to the people. Considering these facts, it is debatable whether it has gained support since the election.

The “position of strength” analysis:

Khaled Meshaal, head of Hamas’ Political Bureau, told Al Jazeera that it “is not unusual for the resistance…to escalate sometimes and to retreat a bit sometimes… The tahdiya creates a formulation that will force Israel…to remove the siege…and if it happens it will be a remarkable achievement.”²⁰

While this explanation may be “spin” for domestic consumption, this does not diminish the group’s ideological foundations. For Hamas, this tahdiya is not a ceasefire nor a truce, but a “temporary” cessation of hostilities that does not commit it to anything beyond six months. Hamas can use any pre‐text to renew rocket attacks, and it can “outsource” its “work” by having other Palestinian groups attack Israelis.

The tahdiya also gives Hamas an opening to boost its military build‐up for the next round of violence against Israel. Following Hezbollah’s strategy, Hamas is seeking to acquire longer‐range and more destructive missiles to be used against Israeli civilian targets. Already, Hamas has fired Iranian‐made Grad missiles into Ashkelon.

Politically, according to Jonathan D. Halevi, former advisor to the Policy Planning Division of Israel’s Foreign Ministry:

“Another diplomatic consequence of the tahdiya will be increasing pressure on Israel to accept a reconciliation agreement between Hamas and Fatah in the future. That could lead to increasing demands on Israel to negotiate a permanent status arrangement with the joint Hamas‐Fatah government, while Hamas remains committed to its political program for the elimination of Israel.²¹

Is Hamas moderating its position?

Over its entire existence to the present, Hamas spokespeople have not changed their anti‐Israel message. For instance, Khaled Meshaal, speaking on Al Jazeera on January 29, 2008 said:

“We will not withdraw from our fundamental principles, from our rights and our strategic goals. The map of Palestine, for any Hamas member… is the well‐known Palestinian map… As for recognizing [Israel] and amending our charter, Hamas is not the kind of movement that succumbs to pressure.”

Meshaal asserts Hamas’ commitment to its core ideology, what he calls their “fundamental principles. His reference to the map of Palestine “well known” to “any Hamas member” is clear: Hamas’ Covenant defines exactly the parameters of the map, as being “every inch of Palestine.”

‘The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinguished Palestinian movement, whose allegiance is to Allah, and whose way of life is Islam. It strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine.’ Hamas Covenant, Article 6

And recently, answering a reporter’s who asked, “What is your vision of a final, long‐term settlement?” a senior Hamas leader in Gaza said,

“I can quote (assassinated Hamas leader) Sheikh Yassin: Hamas rules out recognizing Israel.”²²

Even many Palestinians have serious doubts that Hamas will change. Prior to the 2006 elections, one Fatah official said:

“Hamas is trying to replace the PA. Since 1988 their goal has been to replace the PLO. The strategy remains the same but the tactics are different. It’s the Muslim Brotherhood strategy of infiltration.”²³

Hamas’ long‐term strategic goal remains, as always, Israel’s destruction. The current tahdiya is but a tactical move in this long‐term strategy, which Hamas expects to take generations to accomplish. Its core ideology remains permeated with anti‐Semitism. Hamas is allies with the most anti‐Semitic regime today, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s Iran, and its own ideology is woven through and through with a deeply antisemitic worldview. As such, a final, lasting and comprehensive peace is made all the more impossible so long as Hamas remains a major force in Palestinian politics.

You can download a copy of the “Hamas Covenant“, here.

You can download a copy of the “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion“, here.

You can download a copy of this article as pdf, here.

¹ “The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight Jews and kill them. Then, the Jews will hide behind rocks and trees, and the rocks and trees will cry out: “O Muslim, there is a Jew hiding behind me, come and kill him.’” Hamas Charter, Article 7.

² “Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it.” Hamas Charter, Preamble.

³ See Appendix B.

⁴ “Study: Most Sderot kids exhibit post‐traumatic stress symptoms,” Ha’aretz, January 17, 2008.

⁵ Jerusalem Issue Brief, Vol. 7, No. 37, 30 April 2008 (Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs with the Wechsler Family Foundation).

⁶ The Institute for Counter‐Terrorism at the Interdisciplinary Center, Herzliya, Israel. Background Report on Hamas.

⁷ Ibid.

⁸ “Terror, Islam and Democracy,” Ladan Boroumand and Roya Boroumand, Journal of Democracy, Volume 13, number 2, April 2002.

⁹ Ibid.

¹⁰ See Muslim Anti‐Semitism: A Clear and Present Danger, by Robert S. Wistrich, American Jewish Committee, April 2002.

¹¹ “Terror and Liberalism,” by Paul Berman, W. W. Norton & Company, 2004.

¹² Hamas Covenant, Article 22.

¹³ See “Icon of Evil: Hitlerʹs Mufti and the Rise of Radical Islam,” by David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann, Random House, 2008 and “Jihad and Jew‐Hatred: Islamism, Nazism and the Roots of 9/11,” by Matthias Kuntzel, Telos Press Publishing, 2007.

¹⁴ From notes taken by Dr. Paul Otto Schmidt as quoted in Gerald Flemingʹs Hitler and the Final Solution, p. 101‐104, University of California Press (1988). Also Geheime Reichssache 57 a/41, Records Dept. Foreign and Commonwealth Office Pa/2.

¹⁵ Text of Amin el‐Hussein’s speech of 2 November, 1943, National Archives, Washington, D.C. T60/2576066‐9.

¹⁶ See Hamas Covenant Article 32: “Zionist scheming has no end, and after Palestine, they will covet expansion from the Nile to the Euphrates River. When they have finished digesting the area on which they have laid their hand, they will look forward to more expansion. Their scheme has been laid out in the ‘Protocols of the Elders of Zion.’”

¹⁷ See “Warrant for Genocide: The Myth of the Jewish World Conspiracy and the Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” Norman Cohn, Serif Publishing; New edition March 1, 1996, and ʺAntisemitism: Protocols of the Elders of Zionʺ, the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum at ushmm.org.

¹⁸ See Hamas Covenant Article 22: ʺThe enemies have been scheming for a long time … and have accumulated huge and influential material wealth. With their money, they took control of the world media… With their money they stirred revolutions in various parts of the globe… They stood behind the French Revolution, the Communist Revolution and most of the revolutions we hear about… With their money they formed secret organizations ‐ such as the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs and the Lions ‐ which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests… They stood behind World War I … and formed the League of Nations through which they could rule the world. They were behind World War II, through which they made huge financial gains… There is no war going on anywhere without them having their finger in it.ʺ

¹⁹ Asharq Al‐Awsat, August 18, 2005.

²⁰ Al Jazeera April 26, 2008.

²¹ “The Hamas Interest in the Tahdiya (Temporary Truce) with Israel,” Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, Vol. 8, No. 4, 19 June 2008.

²² Reuters, February 17, 2008.

²³ Cited in Enter Hamas: The Challenges of Political Integration, Middle East Report N°49 – 18 January 2006, International Crisis Group Conflict Prevention Partnership, European Union.

²⁴ The Islamic Resistance Movement, Al-Harakah Al-Muqawama Al-Islamiya –commonly know as Hamas- was officially founded by Sheikh Ahmed Yassin, Abdel Aziz al-Rantissi and Mohammad Taha of the Palestinian wing of Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood, on December 14th of 1987, though its beginnings can be traced further back than that date.

• Jewish Community Federation of San Francisco, the Peninsula, Marin and Sonoma Counties,
• Jewish Community Federation of the Greater East Bay.

Yitzhak Santis is Director of the JCRC Middle East Project.

Related posts:

1. Flotilla Activists Linked to Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Other Terror Organizations
2. Hamas plans to liberate Palestine in its entirety
3. ‘Gaza Flotilla’ Organizer Bülent Yıldırım at Hamas Rally in Gaza 2009

Published: april 05, 2010; Wall Street Journal Online.

by Jay Solomon,

Jordan’s King Abdullah attended President Obama’s Nuclear Security Summit (april 12 and 13, 2010). He spoke with The Wall Street Journal’s Jay Solomon on a wide range of issues before leaving for Washington to attend the summit. The following are excerpts from that interview.

King Abdullah's (left) previous visit to Washington, april 2009 to speak with Obama about the Middle East Peace Process.

WSJ: When you meet with the president, what is your message as far how to get the peace process going? Do you want the U.S. to come in and say: These are the parameters; let’s get going; we’re wasting too much time?

HM: I think wasting too much time is something that we all have to be very concerned about because there is tremendous tension (in the region). Over the Israeli-Lebanese border; if you spoke (to some Lebanese) today they feel there is going to be a war any second. (It) Looks like there is an attempt by certain groups to promote a third intifada, which would be disastrous. Jerusalem as you are well aware is a tinderbox that could go off at any time, and then there is the overriding concern about military action between Israel and Iran.

So with all these things in the background, the status quo is not acceptable; what will happen is that we will continue to go around in circles until the conflict erupts, and there will be suffering by peoples because there will be a war. On the U.S. side, obviously, American domestic politics has been a priority for the administration and I think that’s very well understood. The economic challenges have also not helped in prioritizing the peace process. having said that I know very well that Obama and his administration are extremely committed to the two-state solution and moving the process forward. But they’ve had other things to deal with on their shoulders. The problem is what happens over the next couple of months. …

The job of Jordan and the other countries in the international community is to keep common sense and keep hope alive until America can bring its full weight on the Israelis and the Palestinians to get their act together and move the process forward.

We’re sort of the power brigade … us and other countries, trying to see where issues of contention between Israelis and Palestinians and make the atmosphere more amiable. With the background that evil does not sleep. There are those out there on all sides unfortunately, rejectionists, I think that’s maybe a good term to use these days, who will do everything they can to spoil the future of Israelis and the Palestinians.

WSJ: Considering the history between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and you and your father, do you think he can deliver in the peace process?

HM: I think the overlap that happened between me and Prime Minister Netanyahu 10 or 11 years ago was not very pleasant. It was actually the three most unpleasant months in the relationship between Jordan and Israel. I met Benjamin Netanyahu; he was sitting here this time last year. I was extremely optimistic by the vision he had for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians and the Israelis and the Arabs. However, I have to say that over the past 12 months, everything I’ve seen on the ground has made me extremely skeptical, and I’m probably one of the more optimistic people you will meet in this part of the world. And therefore, there’s been a lot of words, but the actions on the ground have made me extremely concerned about how straightforward Israeli policy is. And at the same time we have continued provocations in the West Bank and Jerusalem. Jerusalem specifically engages Jordan because we are the custodians of the Muslim and Christian holy places and this is a flashpoint that goes beyond Jordanian-Israeli relations. This is something that could ignite Muslim frustration and anger, which we do not need today. So there are elements that are playing with fire and so, this has been an uphill struggle for the past couple of months. And unfortunately, for the first time since my father made peace with Israel, our relationship with Israel is at an all bottom low. It hasn’t been as bad as it is today and as tense as it is today.

WSJ: What is your message when you meet with the Israelis?

HM: I think the long-term future of Israel is in jeopardy unless we solve our problems. Fifty-seven countries in the world, a third of the United Nations, do not recognize Israel. In a way, I think North Korea has better international relations than Israel.

So when you look at the Arab-Islamic peace proposal what you are talking about is 57 nations reaching out to Israel for a long-term future. In America specifically, you hear, well, why doesn’t Jordan take the Palestinians into our country? … That would create tremendous instability. So if the Israelis want to push the Palestinians into Jordan, I don’t see how that makes sense and how the international community will accept that because that would be an exodus of 1.8 million Palestinians from their homes into Jordan, Lebanon and Syria. And that would bring even more instability on their borders. But it still does not solve their long-term problem … because the Arab-Israeli population in Israel proper, in eight to ten years, will be 50% of Israel. The Israelis have a major challenge on the future of their existence.

Wouldn’t it be better today when you’re in a stronger position to make peace not only with your neighbors but with the whole Arab-Islamic world than kicking this problem down the road two or three years where your options become reduced? And there are Israelis out there that understand this and are reaching out. They are very concerned. And friends of Israel around the world, of whatever religious background, that also see this calamity being created and are very concerned. America has a saying it’s been using; it’s time for a bit of tough love for all of us to get this problem solved.

WSJ: How different does the language from the Obama administration look from here? Some Arab and Palestinian leaders I talked to are describing the conflict as a national security threat to the U.S., which seems to be a shift that is driving this tough love.

HM: It’s not a shift. If you look at military and intelligence positions from the 1950s, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has always been against American national interests. What has happened is that President Bush finally came out and said that the future has to be a two-state solution. And President Obama took it one step forward and said what has been known by all of us for decades: Unless you solve this problem, the continuation of the Israeli-Palestinian problem and therefore the Israeli-Arab Muslim problem affects the direct national interest of the United States. I don’t think that’s gone down to the think tanks and politicians; they don’t see it that way. But the generals and the intelligence officers and senior political leaders do realize that unless you solve this problem … I mean, you are involved in two wars in our region. The Israeli-Palestinian issue is the core issue and this is the problem we have with American decision-makers. It’s always been a challenge of connecting the dots. The Israeli Palestinian issue is used by everyone who has an axe to grind against the West. So resolving this problem does not mean that this evil will evaporate, but definitely, it will take a big chunk out of the challenges that we have in this region.

WSJ: This kind of division between the U.S. and Israel, does it make you nervous at all in the sense that Israel could take actions on its own that would really prove destabilizing?

HM: I personally think that Israel has a tendency to take action on its own anyway. But obviously when there is tension between any countries, the atmosphere is never conducive to moving people forward, so I look forward to the Israelis and Americans improving their relations but based on the national security interests of both the Israelis and Americans, which is solving this problem.

WSJ: When you talk about Jordanian-Israeli relations at a low, it’s just because there has not been that trust on this issue?

HM: The political trust is gone, there is no real economic relationship between Jordan and Israel, for Israeli businessmen to get into Jordan he takes a visa that day; it is almost impossible for a Jordanian businessmen to enter Israel. So economically we were better off in trade and in movement before my father signed the peace treaty. I mean, obviously there was the golden period of the wonderful relationship between my father and Prime Minister Rabin, and after the death of PM Rabin, again there was a resurgence with PM Barak, but it’s just been a decline since then.

WSJ: President Obama came with such high hopes and such affection for him globally. How do you think he’s doing? The standoff with Netanyahu could be either a sign of strength or weakness depending how you look at it.

HM: We all knew that whatever the policies of President Obama would be, whether Middle East, health care, economy, there was such an over-expectation of the president that it has been unfairly challenging for him to deal with these issues. … The challenge now, and the challenge I have in discussions with Arab and Muslim leaders, is the question of U.S. credibility. (The credibility of the whole peace process) is at an all-time low because expectations were so high, maybe unfairly high.

Obama is being tough on the issue of settlements, but again the American public (needs to see that) it’s not just Obama; you’ve got to realize the Europeans, the Russians, the Chinese and the international community are very frustrated with Israel politics. So again when I talk to the American public, you can’t just hold President Obama in isolation because he is showing displeasure …

Remember you don’t do anything in isolation. The extremists around are saying, hey look, nothing is happening, dialogue does not work, communicating with the Israelis is not the way to go forward, the idea of resistance, the spread of fear and hatred is the message they put forward, is the way to go. Even in the Arab Summit in Libya, you had to be careful where some countries were hinting, how long are we going to give you moderates a chance to peruse peace. Because really, look everybody, their way of doing it is not right.

WSJ: Are you really worried that a third intifada or more violence in Jerusalem might break out?

HM: There are elements that are actively pushing for a third intifada. There are heightened tensions. Gaza, as you’ve been seeing, is not all that stable. Jerusalem is a time bomb that I fear is just waiting to go off. Those are the things we see on the ground and then there’s the overriding problem in the background of what happens if Israel hits Iran, and then action, reaction. It’s a Pandora’s box.

WSJ: What do you think when you look at Iran and international policy. There’s a lot of talk now about how active Iran is in Iraq as far as trying to push their political clients. Do you see it active in Hezbollah/Lebanon? In the Palestinian territories? Is the engagement track working?

HM: Again, I look at it from a different angle. If there are those that are saying that Iran is playing mischief, then I say it is being allowed to play mischief. The platform they use is the injustice of the Palestinians and Jerusalem. So if you start taking those cards off the table, then Iranian influence on the Mediterranean through Hezbollah and Hamas in Gaza diminishes or becomes non existent. My view is that I am really against any military action in Iran, that is Pandora’s box. But by dealing with the core issue, that’s when you start taking cards away from the Iranian regime.

WSJ: Do you think that President Obama gets that?

HM: Absolutely. I am very, very comfortable with the understanding of the intricacies that Obama showed me in my meeting with him last year. Obviously, Secretary of State Clinton and General Jones and Senator Mitchell (also understand that).

WSJ: Are you optimistic about Iraq, seeing how things are going there?

HM: I am optimistic about Iraq because I believe in the Iraqi people and the vision of their nation to move forward. Now whether that happens in one year, 10 years or 15 years depends on a lot of influences we see. But I’ve described Iraq as a slow, steady pace towards the light. I believe that we as Arab countries have been negligent in not standing with the Iraqis more. I understand that Arab countries sometimes don’t know how to deal with Iraq. But I think this is a new phase in their lives with this new election and we should be there for them. I’m optimistic and I believe in the national spirit of the Iraqis.

WSJ: Can you give a sense of what else you are hoping to achieve in the U.S.? You will have business meetings?

HM: In the old days I used to go and we used to arrange a breakfast or lunch and say Jordan’s a great country, come visit. And we’ve been much more effective recently by targeting major corporations and saying here’s your opportunities in Jordan, here’s what we are willing to provide and here’s the market.

WSJ: Do you think the fact that you also have this kind of this bigger vision to address the bigger challenges to Jordan, i.e. water, power.

HM: I think the mega-projects make a big difference because a lot of countries want to get involved in the mega projects, but from my limited economic experience, the mega projects, you don’t actually see the railroad being done, the nuclear power plant, the Red-Dead Canal, although these are going to be tremendous in infrastructure and in positioning Jordan. It’s sort of the IT companies, big business coming in where the private sector sees and gets energized and excited. So the buzz of the country is those companies setting up in Jordan, more than the mega projects although the mega projects (are major and essential for the future of Jordan).

I am saying the mega projects have tremendous interest from companies and corporations because these are huge billion-dollar deals. But we don’t see them in the newspaper the way you do when Yahoo sets up or when Google sets up.

WSJ: Are there any other things in the US-Jordanian bilateral relationship that you are focusing on? In counterterrorism there has been a lot of cooperation?

HM: In Afghanistan we’ve been asked to send more medical and combat engineers to help rebuild the country and this is something we are trying to negotiate with the Afghan government: How do we support the Afghans in transforming their lives. There has been interest from the European Union and the US to bring Afghan police and soldiers to be trained here. We have excellent facilities and we’ve had tremendous experience doing it with Palestinians and Iraqis. So Jordan is playing a more vital role in stability building in Afghanistan as a Muslim nation reaching out to help the development of another Muslim nation. I’m very excited and proud of that.

WSJ: How many soldiers are in Afghanistan?

HM: We’ve got a couple of hundred at the moment. It’s a field hospital and support elements and a combat engineers. Maybe transportation assets. Maybe a couple of hundred more (will be sent)? … I am actually going to Washington to discuss what is our commitment.

WSJ: One factor in all of this, and no one can really see where we are headed, is Syria…How is Jordan’s relationship with Syria and how do you see that?

HM: Jordan’s relationship with Syria is better than it has been in a long time; probably the best it’s ever been. … So the engagement now between the Syrian and Jordanian government on economic cooperation are at an all-time high. The Israeli-Syrian issue is obviously high on their priority list.

WSJ: The message you get from Syria is they’re ready to talk?

HM: Yes, they are ready to talk but again I think everyone is still trying to decide what this Israeli government is all about. The rhetoric is positive, but actions on the ground show us something completely different, so there is frustration from Syria towards Israel.

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. The Abdullah Azzam Brigades
2. An Interview with Vijay Kumar
3. The Israel-Jordan Peace Treaty

The Israeli Minister of Foreign Affairs – Avigdor Lieberman – visited The Netherlands 0n 11 november 2009 (together with Danny Ayalon) and had a meeting with the Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs – Maxime Verhagen -  as well as the parliament committee for foreign affairs. In the evening Lieberman held a speech at a meeting with representatives from Jewish organizations in The Netherlands. In that speech Lieberman explained more about Israels foreign policy. The following is a report about the speech from Lieberman at the Golden Tulip Hotel in Amsterdam.

By Crethi Plethi

On 11 november 2009 a small group of demonstraters are waiting on the arrival of Israels Minister of foreign affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, at the Golden Tulip Hotel in Amsterdam. They are yelling slogans as “Lieberman – Doberman” and “Intifada.” Lieberman was invited by the CIDI to give a speech about Israels policy on foreign affairs and he said rather cynical at the beginning of his speech that “I’m a bit disappointed about having just this small demonstration against my visit to Holland.”

Demonstraters in Amsterdam

Liebermans meeting with the dutch Minister of foreign affairs, Maxime Verhagen, was criticized by some PM’s in The Netherlands, because the dutch Minister is not willing to meet with Hamas leaders. Lieberman has made controversial comments in the past and is even called a racist by his critics. Therefore some members in Dutch Parliament thought it would be a case of double standard to meet with Lieberman and refuse to meet with Hamas leaders. Personally, I believe that any comparisant between Lieberman and Hamas leaders is totally out of balance. Hamas is an Islamic terrorist organization which don’t recognize the existence of Israel and hold no democratic values. Lieberman is democratically chosen by the people of Israel, and is willing to make peace with the Palestinians and even to leave the settlements from the Westbank if that would mean peace with the Palestinians.

Lieberman also adresses another often quoted remark of his that he would want to nuke the Gaza strip, because he compared the war against Hamas (Operation Cast Lead) with the war of the USA against the Japanese during WW2. “If I would bomb Gaza with nuclear bombs than this would mean I’m suicidal, because the distance between Gaza and Israel is only a few meters.”

This is the speech from Avigdor Lieberman:

“Let me explain to you my view of the problems in the Middle East:

There’s a misunderstanding about this conflict. We don’t have a conflict with the Palestinian people. We have a conflict with the extremist Palestinians. That’s the real clash that takes place. Recently, Tony Blair, visited Jenin and he was surprised about the progress that was made since the last intifada. So much progress, rebuilding of Jenin, economic growth, less roadblocks. Let me make this clear, the Palestinian Authority cannot survive without Israels support. And we give them support, even now. The real threat for Israel, but also for the PA is Hamas and the Jihad. It is the radical Islam who is fighting this war and Israel is on the frontline.

Another misunderstanding about the conflict. This war is not about territory. This war is about ideology, about ideas. It’s all about Jihad against the free world. When the Taliban destroyed the Buddha statues in Afghanistan, no Muslim leader complaint about it. When the Danish cartoons about Muhammad were published, all Muslim leaders condemned the publishing of the cartoons. Therefore, Israel is an excuse for Arab leaders to excite the Muslim crowd against Israel and in doing so to distract them from their own domestic problems. Syria, lebanon, Algeria, Marocco, Egypt, Iraq, Iran… they all have their domestic conflicts with minorities. If you put this in numbers, you will see that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict only makes 2% of all problems and conflicts in the arab world.

There’re only 2 peace agreements in the Middle East: 1 between Egypt and Israel. And 1 between Jordan and Israel. So it is possible to have peace, but there’s no magic solution in this world for all conflicts.

I believe that Iran is the biggest problem and threat in the Middle East. And not only towards Israel, but also towards the whole world… if they obtain nuclear possibility. This would also provoke a nuclear race in the Middle East, because it’s unacceptable for countries like Iraq and Saoudi Arabia that Iran would have nuclear possibilities. All these countries would try to get the same nuclear possibilities. And think, Iran is exporting it’s revolutionary idea’s around the world. They are involved with the Iraqi Jihad, with Hezbollah, with Hamas. They would do the same with their nuclear possibility. Iran is penetrating Africa and South America. They have a frontbase in Caracas, Venezuela. The man responsible for the bomb attacks on the Israeli Embassy in Argentina (1992) and the Argentine Jewish Association in Buenos Aires (1994) is now Irans Minister of Defense. So what can we expect? Iran trains rebels in Jemen and Somalia. They recruit mercenaries from Africa to fight in Afghanistan and Pakistan. Iran denies the holocaust and denounces Israels right to live. But nevertheless, Iran trades with the European Union. Iranian officials travel in the European Union. Is this not a double standard?

What about our relation with the Palestinians and the settlements? Our point of view: we accept a two states solution if that brings peace. We are ready for direct talks with the Palestinians. We enter these talks without preconditions. And what do the Palestinian Authority do: they want talks, but make new preconditions every day again. On the international platform they continue to make Israel look bad. But to talk with eachother, you need a trustworthy partner. Abbas is not even able to come to terms with Hamas, they don’t have talks together. No, Abbas is attacking Lieberman. But before Lieberman, there were so many nice Ministers to talk with. Ehud Barak, made an offer to withdraw to the borders before 1967, divide Jerusalem and accept Palestinian refugees. What was Arafat’s answer: NO.  Israel left the Gaza strip according the disengagement plan from Sharon in 2005 and what did Israel get? Hamas in power and rockets on the cities of Israel. Olmert made a peace proposal by accepting Palestinian refugees, allowing a Palestinian state on the Westbank and Gaza and part of Jerusalem under International control. What was Abbas answer: NO. So, the PA is plotting against Israel, constantly. It’s hard to make a deal with such a partner.

Israel/MFA

The European Union thinks that the settlements are the biggest obstacle for peace. But the opposite is true. We made peace with Egypt in 1979 when we had settlements build in the Sinai Peninsula. We can achieve comprehensive final peace without further claims on both sides. I’m ready to evacuate my settlement where I live. Let us start in 1967. What was before 1967, between 1948 – 1967. The Arab world was in control of the Westbank and they never tried to establish a Palestinian state in that period on the Westbank. What did we have during this period? Friction, terror, attacks, etcetera. What was before 1948, before the existence of israel? The same. Friction, terror, progroms against the jews living in British Palestine. We all know how the Moefti of Jerusalem visited Hitler 3 times in Berlin and signed an agreement with Hitler. I think that everybody who is saying that the settlements are an obstacle for peace is trying to avoid direct talks with Israel.

What can we do? And this is what I explained to Minister Verhagen:

1. Direct talks with the Palestinians

2. PA: Not plotting against us in the International arena; cannot negotiate peace and plot against us at the same time

3. strengthen the PA security forces and promise prosperity

4. PA: no to terror and violence. The PA should learn from GreatBrittain and Argentina (Falkland Islands); Russia and Japan (Kuril Islands); Greece and Turkey (Cyprus). Both sides decided to stay on the political track without continues violence and terror.

If I ask 10 people on an Israeli street about the intentions of the Palestinians, than 9 out of 10 will answer that they do not believe in good intentions of the other side. If I ask 10 people in Ramallah about the intentions of the Israeli, than also 9 out of 10 will answer that they don’t believe in good intentions of the other side. It’s difficult to achieve peace, security and prosperity in such circumstances.

Despite this, Israel is a strong state with a strong economy, strong science and a strong army. We also have strong bonds with the jewish communities around the world.

What about our strategic alliance with the USA? Our strategic alliance with the USA is strong, no doubt, but we also try to help ourselves without the USA. The USA has many challenges around the world, so they have to divide their attention. What can Israel do? For example, the last visit of a Israeli Minister to Brazil was 24 years ago. How is that possible? The last visit to Africa was 46 years ago. What kind of understanding do we expect? I was asked to give some arguments why I should visit Africa? I answered: I give you one argument why I should visit Africa. In 2009 which countries visited Africa? France, Russia, China, USA. And Ahmadinejad visited Africa 3 times this year and also 20 officials from Iran visited Africa. That’s why I should visit Africa also, to explain, to build a stronger economy between Africa and Israel. We try to be creative and walk new roads and to put more diversity in our politics for new ways.”

Thank you, Mr. Lieberman

________

Mazzeltov,

Crethi Plethi

Note: There is an email link embedded within this post, please visit this post to email it. Note: There is a print link embedded within this post, please visit this post to print it.

Related posts:

1. President Ahmadinejad speech to the UN General Assembly sept 2009
2. Terrorism and Israeli-Palestinian conflict
3. Benjamin Netanyahu in desperate effort to appease US