Palestina en Israël #202 Rellen op de Tempelberg

quote:

Op maandag 3 augustus 2015 09:24 schreef Toga het volgende:
Heel simpel, je gaat even naar hun site en daar lees je "In Nederland is Likoed geen politieke partij maar een vereniging.". Maak je geen zorgen, ze zullen geen partij oprichten die de VVD en PvdA van hun troon duwt en alle Nederlanders dwings joods te zijn.
Blijkbaar beschouwen ze zich onderdeel van Likud World, een organisatie gericht op rechten en veiligheid van joden wereldwijd.

quote:

Het is een liberale, seculiere en democratische partij en als zodanig een zusterpartij van VVD en D66.

quote:

Ik heb niet de gehele monoloog aangehoord, maar al skippend vond ik het nogal een éénzijdige kijk en zonder onderbouwing (afgezien van wat hij "gehoord" en "gelezen" had van geheime (?) notities) en totaal geen weerwoord vanuit het publiek.
Als voorbeeld de pre-emptive aanval op Egypte; hij claimt dat hij gelezen had dat het Egyptische leger nog minstens 1,5 jaar nodig had om een succesvolle aanval te kunnen maken.
Ja, dan kun je twee dingen doen; wachten of die dreiging vroeg wegnemen. Niemand vraagt zich af waarom het Egyptische leger zich in grote getale nestelt bij de Israëlische grens? Oefeningetje?

Ach, de beste man kreeg de kans z'n boek te verkopen met "nieuws". Ongetwijfeld is er een markt voor.

quote:

Likoed Nederland houdt zich bezig met het kenbaar maken van onze politieke ideeën middels:

het publiceren in de Nederlandse pers, op radio en televisie,
het stelling nemen tegen foutieve berichtgeving over Israel en de Likoed in de media en elders,
het onderhouden van contacten met de Nederlandse politiek,
het organiseren van voordrachten,
het medebesturen van de Federatie Nederlandse Zionisten,
het vertegenwoordigen van joods Nederland in de Wereld Zionisten Organisatie en in de Likoed Wereld Organisatie (Likud Olami),
deze internet-site, die onze politieke ideeen wil presenteren en die aandacht wil vragen voor het tegen Joden en Israel gerichte Arabisch extremisme.

quote:

Door Bas Levinsohn, verbonden aan Een Ander Joods Geluid.

Onlangs verscheen op de opiniesite De Dagelijkse Standaard een artikel van een bestuurslid van de Nederlandse afdeling van Likoed, Awi Cohen. In dat stuk geeft Cohen aan waaruit volgens hem de fundamentele verschillen in waarden tussen de Palestijnen en de Israëli's zouden bestaan. Het stuk van Cohen beoogt een weergave van feiten te zijn, maar de werkelijkheid van Cohen blijkt een nogal primitieve opsomming van vooroordelen, halve waarheden en flagrante leugens. Het heeft niet zoveel zin op dat niveau een discussie aan te gaan.

Toch is wat Cohen schrijft wel van belang omdat het een inzicht kan verschaffen in de manier waarop veel rechtse Israëli's denken. En hoewel Awi Cohen niet het officiële Israëlische regeringsstandpunt verwoordt, ligt zijn gedachtegang in de lijn van de opvattingen van een aantal geradicaliseerde Israëlische kabinetsleden.

In zijn stuk zet Cohen uiteen dat de Palestijnen zich altijd wraakzuchtig en moorddadig hebben gedragen. Dat is een onderdeel van hun cultuur, aldus Cohen. De Palestijnen willen ook eigenlijk geen vrede. "De Palestijnen hebben elk internationaal compromis geweigerd om het conflict definitief te beëindigen door een tweestatenoplossing. De Israëli's hebben ze allemaal geaccepteerd: die van de Volkerenbond in 1937, van de Verenigde Naties in 1947, en die van de Verenigde Staten in 2000/2001 en 2014", zo schrijft hij.

Op de stelling dat Israël in het verleden elk internationaal compromis heeft geaccepteerd valt heel wat af te dingen, maar dat dat ook in 2014 het geval geweest zou zijn is gewoon lachwekkend.

Binnen het Israëlische kabinet bestonden vanaf het begin bezwaren tegen het Amerikaanse vredesinitiatief dat minister van Buitenlandse Zaken Kerry een aantal maanden geleden lanceerde. Likoed minister van Defensie Moshe Ya'alon liet zich bijvoorbeeld in het openbaar uiterst denigrerend uit over de persoon Kerry en over zijn poging tot vrede te komen. Ook de Israëlische regering als geheel werkte Kerry tegen. Ze stelde steeds andere eisen aan de Palestijnen, ging door met bouwen van nieuwe nederzettingen in bezet gebied en trok zich tenslotte terug uit het vredesoverleg dat dan ook mislukte. De Verenigde Staten uiten bijna nooit in het openbaar kritiek op hun bondgenoot Israël, maar ditmaal was zelfs voor de Amerikanen de maat vol. Ze betitelden Israëls opstelling tijdens de onderhandelingen als sabotage en dat was het natuurlijk ook.

Wat was de achtergrond van de opstelling van het Israëlische kabinet? Een aantal ministers was van mening dat het onmogelijk maar ook onwenselijk is dat Israël met de Palestijnen tot een vergelijk komt. Net zoals Cohen doet, redeneren ze dat de Palestijnen daarvoor te onbetrouwbaar zijn en sowieso de vernietiging van Israël wensen. Het maakt ook niet uit of ze Fatah of Hamas of iets anders heten. Palestijnen zijn één pot nat. Naar buiten toe verkondigt de regering echter het standpunt voorstander te zijn van een zelfstandige Palestijnse staat.

Het lijkt een van de lastigste opgaven voor de huidige Israëlische regering om de feitelijke afwijzing van een tweestatenoplossing te combineren met de lippendienst aan een onafhankelijke Palestijnse staat, die ze geacht wordt na te streven. Men doet dit door, wat er ook gebeurt, de Palestijnen altijd de schuld te geven van het mislukken van het vredesoverleg. Het is een beproefde tactiek die in het verleden zijn vruchten heeft afgeworpen. Als de Palestijnen niet akkoord gaan met de Israëlische eisen is het volgens de Israëlische propaganda duidelijk dat ze niet in staat zijn een compromis te sluiten en zelfs dat ze eigenlijk geen onafhankelijk Palestina willen.

Het is ook de retoriek waar Cohen zich van bedient. Hij schrijft 'altijd weigerden de Palestijnse leiders een eigen staat omdat de tegenprestatie was, dat men dan akkoord moest gaan met een Joodse staat'. Het is een bizarre stelling. Al was het alleen maar omdat bij de Oslo Vredesakkoorden die in 1993 tussen Israël en Palestijnen werden gesloten die erkenning van Israël werd vastgelegd. De Oslo Akkoorden hebben geen vrede gebracht en daar dragen de drie regeringen die geleid werden door Netanyahu een mede-verantwoordelijkheid voor. Niet verbazingwekkend overigens want Netanyahu heeft zich altijd tegen deze zelfde Oslo Vredesakkoorden gekeerd.

quote:

Op zaterdag 1 augustus 2015 14:09 schreef Toga het volgende:
Dimona, gesticht in 1953 met voornamelijk immigranten uit Noord-Afrika.
Ook het thuis van de Noord-Afrikaanse "Hebreeërs" (die menen als slaven via de VS uiteindelijk in Israël terecht zijn gekomen). Veganisten die de Talmoed afwijzen en menen ze dat de huidige joden niet werkelijk afstammen van de twaalf stammen van Israël en dat "blanke joden" de taal, religie en cultuur gestolen zouden hebben van de "echte joden".
Het is echter nogal generaliserend als iemand zegt dat de gehele bevolking van Dimona achter deze uitspraak staat, maar misschien heeft iemand's vlucht uit Noord-Afrika er iets mee te maken.

quote:

Op maandag 3 augustus 2015 11:39 schreef Smack-a-jack het volgende:

[..]

[..]

Maar waarom liegen ze daarover? Het lijkt mij dat dit gewoon een propagandamachine is..

[..]

quote:

Trouwens, ik zie niet in wat het belang is van een Likoed in Nederland...

quote:

Ik krijg wel een beetje de kriebels als ik dit lees:

quote:

Op maandag 3 augustus 2015 12:21 schreef Toga het volgende:

[..]

Ik denk dat ze bedoelen: "een partij die overeenkomsten heeft met... en daarom beschouwen we Likoed als dochter van...". Ik heb Likoed hier in ieder geval nog nooit op de stemlijst gezien.

[..]

quote:

Ik zie ook het belang er niet van in, er is al een CIDI bijvoorbeeld. Ik denk ook dat ze zich groter voordoen dan ze zijn.
[..]

[..]

Ik zie voornamelijk dat ze opkomen voor joden tegen valse mediaberichten en anti-semitisme,

quote:

zo zijn er nog honderden instellingen die in Nederland opkomen voor een minderheidsgroep, liever dit dan instellingen die juist in de aanval gaan tegen minderheden.

quote:

BUITENLAND In Israël is vandaag de leider van een “joodse extremistische groep” gearresteerd. Dat melden de Israëlische veiligheidsdiensten. Meir Ettinger is de eerste verdachte die is aangehouden sinds de brandstichting die vorige week het leven kostte aan een Palestijnse peuter.
Dat meldt persbureau AFP. De 20-jarige Ettinger werd volgens de veiligheidsdienst in het noorden van het land gearresteerd “in verband met zijn activiteiten binnen een extremistische joodse organisatie”. Hij zou verdacht worden van “nationalistische misdaden”. Een woordvoerder van de veiligheidsdienst zei niet of de man verdacht werd van rechtstreekse betrokkenheid bij de dood van het Palestijnse kind.

PROTESTEN
In de nacht van donderdag op vrijdag werd een brandbom gegooid op een huis in een dorp op de Westelijke Jordaanoever, waarbij de Palestijnse peuter Ali Dawabsheh van anderhalf het leven liet. De ouders en een vierjarig broertje wisten gewond uit het huis te vluchten.

De aanslag leidde tot veel verontwaardiging en zaterdagavond gingen duizenden Israëliërs de straat op om hun onvrede met het geweld te uiten. In een zeldzaam gebaar belde de Israëlische premier Benjamin Netanyahu met de Palestijnse president Mahmoud Abbas. Netanyahu noemde de aanval “een verwerpelijke terroristische daad”.

quote:

Op maandag 3 augustus 2015 12:27 schreef Smack-a-jack het volgende:

[..]

Daar gaat het niet om. Het gaat erom dat ze claimen zusterpartij van D66 en VVD te zijn. Ik ben zelf lid van D66 en weet dat dit pertinent onjuist is. Ik snap niet waarom ze daarover liegen? Geeft mij een gevoel dat dit een nogal onbetrouwbaar clubje is.

Wat ik van ze zie is dat ze fora en nieuwssites afstruinen om de aandacht weg te halen van fouten die het regime van Israel maakt en de standaard reactie gooien: "Ja, maar de palestijnen..." "Ja, maar de Arabieren." Een propagandamachine dus.

quote:

Op maandag 3 augustus 2015 21:06 schreef Smack-a-jack het volgende:
Goed nieuws.

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 08:13 schreef Karrs het volgende:
http://www.spitsnieuws.nl(...)an-palestijns-kindje

Die kolonist die die fatale woningbrand heeft veroorzaakt met dat Palestijnse kindje, is dus in de bak gesmeten zonder proces. Mooi dat ie wordt behandeld voor wat ie is: een terrorist.

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 10:17 schreef Smack-a-jack het volgende:

[..]

Daar kan ik dan niet voor juichen als jurist. Zelfs de grootste terrorist heeft recht op een proces.

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 08:13 schreef Karrs het volgende:
http://www.spitsnieuws.nl(...)an-palestijns-kindje

Die kolonist die die fatale woningbrand heeft veroorzaakt met dat Palestijnse kindje, is dus in de bak gesmeten zonder proces. Mooi dat ie wordt behandeld voor wat ie is: een terrorist.

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 10:37 schreef BlauweTijger het volgende:
Ik sprak op vakantie een Israëliet en die zei dat Israël alleen maar acties uitvoert ls er eerst iets tegen hun gedaan wordt. Dus soort retaliate war. In hoeverre is dit waar?

quote:

The disparity in responses to the Iran deal between Israel and its Western allies is a further sign of a growing rift that threatens to only widen
The day after the Iran deal was concluded in Vienna, Labour MP Ian Austin accused UK Foreign Secretary Philip Hammond of backing an “absolutely terrible deal” that had left “people…utterly dismayed in Tel Aviv”. Hammond’s response was blunt, and worth quoting in full:

The question we have to ask is what kind of a deal would have been welcomed in Tel Aviv. The answer, of course, is that Israel does not want any deal with Iran. It wants a permanent state of stand-off, which I do not believe is in the interests of the region or in our interest.

It was a brief exchange - but a telling one. For here was a Conservative foreign secretary telling Parliament in no uncertain terms that not only does Israel want “permanent” conflict with Tehran, but that, on this occasion at least, Israel’s perceived strategic interests diverge from those of the UK.

The story of the Iran nuclear agreement, and the responses to it, is the latest indication that suggests Israel’s relationships with its traditional allies are headed towards troubled waters. The disparity in the reactions to the deal by Israeli leaders on the one hand, and Western politicians and policy centrists on the other, speaks to a more substantial, and long-term significant, gulf.

In Israel, the deal with Iran was slammed not just by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and members of his cabinet, but also by key opposition figures; Labor chair Isaac Herzog, for example, called it a “bad” agreement that “endangers [Israel’s security interests,” and declared himself “more extreme than Netanyahu” when it came to security-related matters.

It wasn’t just the politicians - the vast majority of mainstream Western foreign policy-focused analysts and think tanks were also positive about the agreement. But it was the on and off the record comments by US officials that were the most striking contrast with Netanyahu’s hyperbolic talk of an “existential” threat.

Unnamed Obama administration officials echoed Hammond’s comments, telling Israeli newspaper Haaretz how “they had reached the conclusion” that Netanyahu “was not interested in any nuclear arrangement with Iran - except for one in which Tehran completely capitulates but is denied sanctions relief in return”.

In a White House press conference, Obama mocked Netanyahu’s claim that Iran ultimately seeks to “take over the world,” while Secretary of State John Kerry slammed talk of an alternative deal he called a “unicorn arrangement.” Obama has also stated his intention to prevent Israeli efforts at swaying Congress, and called out the “money” and “lobbyists” working against the deal.

While the differences over the Iran deal constitute an important signpost, the issue is also likely to accelerate a process that is itself a second important signpost: the transformation of Israel into a partisan issue in American political life.

Earlier this summer, a survey conducted by political consultant Frank Luntz - who has previously advised Israel advocates on how best to defend West Bank settlements - found that support for Israel is dropping amongst so-called “Democratic opinion elites”. 47 percent of Democrats polled, for example, agreed that Israel is a racist country - compared to just 13 percent of Republicans.

According to Luntz, this was evidence that “Israel can no longer claim to have the bipartisan support of America”. A Bloomberg poll in April indicated a similar trend, “a shift that may represent a watershed moment in foreign policy and carry implications for domestic politics after decades of general bipartisan consensus.” As one contributor to Haaretz put it, Israel is “becoming a partisan issue in the United States, and with alarming speed”.

These poll results follow similarly interesting findings almost exactly a year ago, when a Gallup poll conducted during ‘Operation Protective Edge’ found that 51 percent of American adults under-30 considered Israel's attack on Gaza to have been unjustified, compared to 25 percent who thought it justified. Amongst people of colour, it was a similar difference: 49 percent versus 25 percent.

The third signpost is the growing impatience amongst European Union (EU) leaders, including from those governments who have been among Israel’s strongest allies. Last month, during a visit to Israel, Czech Foreign Minister Lubomir Zaoralek attacked West Bank settlement construction, and even used the dreaded “A word”.

We want to avoid initiatives against Israel, but it is getting more difficult with the current government and with the opposition to the two-state solution. What is the alternative, to deteriorate towards apartheid?

Anonymous Israeli “political sources” cited by Yedioth Ahronoth said that the FM’s criticism “reflects our situation with the European Union. Our friends also feel the tension. [Zaoralek] considers himself a friend and came here to tell the truth as he sees it. The Czech Republic is no longer in our pocket."

On 16 July, Hammond went to Israel and met with Netanyahu. Prior to their discussions, the pair held an awkward, press conference where the British diplomat stated that without progress in the comatose peace process, there was a real “risk” that “Israel's standing with public opinion around the world will decline further”.

Support is growing for the EU to close the gap between its stated commitment to human rights and Palestinian independence, and its practical policies, and notably its reluctance to pursue punitive measures targeting Israeli impunity. In January, 63 cross-party MEPs urged EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini to suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement. More recently, 73 MEPs called for the EU to stop funding Israeli military companies through research programmes.

For now, there remains a “copy and paste” quality about EU condemnation of Israeli steps that consolidate occupation. On 29 July, a settlement expansion announcement was greeted with a familiar-sounding statement reiterating Brussels’ expectation that the Israeli government should “demonstrate its commitment to the two-state solution not only in words, but also through its actions”.

Yet behind such responses, and those of a “deeply concerned” US State Department, is a growing impatience with a rejectionist Israeli government that refuses to play the game. Meanwhile, at the level of civil society, both Europe and the US are witnessing the growth of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) campaign, whose activists are demanding that their elected representatives, trade unions, pension funds, and universities, end their complicity in Israeli apartheid.

It is not impossible that these trends could be reversed - but this is unlikely, given the more fundamental direction of Israeli politics, and longer-standing trends within Jewish Israeli society. Nor is a clash between Israel and its allies unprecedented - AIPAC, for example, has taken on the White House twice previously (and lost both times).

But there is currently a convergence of developments that point to something more troubling for Israel’s longer-term relations with its Western allies. When even a stalwart Israel-backer like Democratic senator Dianne Feinstein is warning Netanyahu that “demolishing Palestinian homes, displacing residents, and seizing additional Palestinian territory in the West Bank” would be “a step away from peace,” then you know that the times are a-changin’.

- Ben White is the author of ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide’ and ‘Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy’. He is a writer for Middle East Monitor, and his articles have been published by Al Jazeera, al-Araby, Huffington Post, The Electronic Intifada, The Guardian’s Comment is free, and more.

The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.

Photo: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu chairs the weekly cabinet meeting at his Jerusalem office on August 2, 2015.
- See more at: http://www.middleeasteye.(...)J0BwBR.PfDwbRC1.dpuf

twitter:

shiapulse twitterde op woensdag 05-08-2015 om 10:35:33 Iranian Jewish MP MoreSedegh to @asrirannews: #Iran's Jews support #IranDeal, Netanyahu isn't the speaker of the Jews http://t.co/ZjAJPcqNSW reageer retweet

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 10:37 schreef BlauweTijger het volgende:
Ik sprak op vakantie een Israëliet en die zei dat Israël alleen maar acties uitvoert ls er eerst iets tegen hun gedaan wordt. Dus soort retaliate war. In hoeverre is dit waar?

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 10:54 schreef Yasmin23 het volgende:

[..]

Vind je dat goed?

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 16:09 schreef Karrs het volgende:

[..]

Wat precies? Dat ie met een grote boog in de bak is gesodemieterd als de terrorist dat het is, of dat daar verder geen proces bij komt kijken?

Dat eerste:
Het tweede heb ik niet echt een oordeel over. Mensenrechten moeten gerespecteerd worden, maar terroristen hebben een groot risico op recidivie. Wat komt dan eerst: mensenrechten of de bescherming van je bevolking?

Bovendien gaat er een potentiele afschrikwekkende werking vanuit. En heb ik persoonlijk geen enkel medelijden met terroristen.

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 16:11 schreef Yasmin23 het volgende:

[..]

Ja bedoelde het vastzetten zonder proces natuurlijk. Op welke gronde zetten ze iemand vast, is er wel enig bewijs dat deze persoon er bij betrokken is etc.

Vind dat ongeacht waar die persoon van verdacht wordt niet acceptabel.

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 16:23 schreef Karrs het volgende:

[..]

Zij wel.

En ze zullen hun redenen ervoor hebben. (En dat weten wij eigenlijk ook wel).

quote:

rly on Friday morning, two masked men entered Duma, a Palestinian village in the West Bank, where they smashed the windows of two houses, threw firebombs inside, and fled. One house was empty; the other wasn’t. Ali Dawabsheh, an eighteen-month-old baby, died. His parents and four-year-old brother remain in critical condition. On the house, the attackers spray-painted, in Hebrew, the words “Long Live the Messiah King” and “Revenge.”

Israeli politicians condemned the fire as an act of terror. “Terrorism is terrorism,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Friday, as he vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice. “It is difficult to see that there are those within my people capable of such acts,” President Reuven Rivlin said. He added, “The shame is great, though the pain is greater.” Netanyahu and others said that they were “shocked” by the attack. They shouldn’t have been.

For nearly a decade, a radical minority among Jewish settlers has carried out “price-tag attacks” in response to Palestinian violence or any action by the police or military that these settlers deem unjust. The attacks have included the destruction of property—setting fire to cars, livestock, and homes—and the desecration of mosques and churches. Some attacks, such as the vandalism of a military base in 2011, have been aimed directly at authorities, but more often they target Palestinians. “These quote-unquote hilltop youths tried to form an equation that told us—‘You evacuate a settlement, we will hurt the Palestinians,’” Avi Mizrahi, the former head of Central Command, told Israel’s Channel 10, in a report on the phenomenon in 2013.

Friday’s attack came during the same week that an Israeli court ordered the demolition of two illegal apartment buildings in the West Bank settlement of Beit El. It has also been described as retaliation for the drive-by shooting of four Israelis in the West Bank last month, which left one dead. The price-tag attacks at once stoke Palestinian violence and feed off it; they are cyclical and create a chilling sense of déjà vu. The murder of Ali Dawabsheh took place a year after another Palestinian, a sixteen-year-old named Muhammad Abu Khdeir, was burned alive. That killing, too, was an act of revenge, for the kidnapping and murder of three Israeli teen-agers last summer, which led to a full-blown war between Israel and Hamas in the Gaza Strip.

The first price-tag attacks took place in 2006, in response to Israel’s withdrawal from the Gaza Strip and evacuations of Jewish outposts in the West Bank, which riled and radicalized the settler camp. The attacks grew rampant in 2008. The Yesha Council, the main body that represents settlers, denounced the attacks as immoral in 2011. But the Yesha Council’s authority has weakened dramatically in recent years, as violent far-right settlers, backed by extremist rabbis, have taken the law into their own hands. The group behind these attacks is estimated to range from a few hundred to some three thousand members. As it has become more radical, so have its attacks, which have evolved from property destruction to torching Palestinian homes at times when residents are likely to be in them. Last year, for the first time, the U.S. State Department included price-tag attacks in its annual terrorism report. It recorded nearly four hundred cases in 2013. In 2014, the number dipped slightly, to three hundred and thirty.

New evidence shows that these attacks aren’t caused by a few “wild weeds,” as they are called in Hebrew, but are supported by settler councils, which have grown more extremist and are paid for, in large part, by taxpayer money. A report by the liberal think tank Molad revealed settler-council correspondence that describes price-tag tactics as a legitimate means of protest against the government. “What does this have to do with targeting Arabs?” the head of a Samaria settler council asked rhetorically in one document. He answered, “We believe that the borders of the struggle are wide,” and called on settlers to act “creatively.” Itzik Shadmi, another settler leader, justified the targeting of Israeli soldiers in a letter to settlement residents. “We must treat our opponent as a criminal—full stop. As a robber who wishes to uproot you from your home and hand it over to murderers and liars,” Shadmi wrote.

While Netanyahu’s denunciation of Friday’s attack was swift, it seemed to exist in a vacuum. Two days earlier, as settlers rioted in response to the demolition of the illegal buildings in Beit El, Netanyahu approved the construction of three hundred new housing units in the buildings’ stead. That same day, Naftali Bennet, Israel’s education minister and the leader of the ultranationalist Jewish Home Party, showed up in Beit El; he called the rioting settlers “my brothers” and described the military’s removal of these apartment blocks as a “hasty, extremist, and inciting act.” There is now real, worrisome potential for conflagration. Hamas declared Friday a “day of rage” and stated that “every Israeli is now a legitimate target.” On Saturday, Palestinians and Israeli security forces clashed in Duma and in a refugee camp near Ramallah. On Monday, an Israeli woman was injured when a firebomb struck her car in Jerusalem.

Fifteen Palestinian homes have been set on fire in recent years, but not one of the arsonists has been put behind bars. While the police opened investigations into twelve of the cases, ten of them ended without indictments, according to Yesh Din, an Israeli human-rights organization. (The three others were closed after the victims dropped charges.) It is undeniably difficult to gather enough evidence to bring the perpetrators of these attacks to trial: the settler community, which numbers more than three hundred thousand in the West Bank, covers assailants in a shroud of silence. In 2010, a far-right activist who spent hundreds of hours in the interrogation rooms of Shin Bet, the Israeli internal-intelligence agency, circulated a manual among settlers on how to avoid divulging any information that could be used as evidence in such cases. Tips included not talking to government-appointed lawyers.

Still, some on the left blame the police and military for the lack of prosecutions. In a statement on Friday, the human-rights group B’Tselem said that the latest attack was the result of “the authorities’ policy of not enforcing the law against Israelis who attack Palestinians and their property.” Others say that the government should be doing more to criminalize the attackers and the rabbis who hide behind them. “These rabbis have names, addresses, yeshivas,” Carmi Gilon, the former head of Shin Bet, said at a rally on Saturday in Tel Aviv. Gillon called on the government and the legal system to “deal with them just as you would deal with the religious leaders of Hamas.”

If Netanyahu is serious about stopping price-tag attacks, he should not only call the perpetrators terrorists but also treat them as such. Israel routinely holds suspected Palestinian terrorists for long periods of time without trial, under a controversial procedure known as administrative detention. Administrative detention has been used in the cases of just two Jewish Israelis, but this looks likely to change following an emergency meeting of the security cabinet on Sunday, during which it approved measures allowing the administrative detention of Israelis who attack Palestinians.

On Monday, Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon vowed that he would “fight Jewish terror without compromise” and recommended that the government “implement the drastic measure of administrative detention.” That same day, the police arrested Meir Ettinger, a far-right activist and the grandson of the militant Rabbi Meir Kahane, for suspected involvement in an extremist cell. Ettinger isn’t tied directly to the attack in Duma, but he is believed to be behind a group, calling itself “the Revolt,” which has plotted violent crimes against Palestinians in the past year. So far, he isn’t being held in administrative detention, but Haaretz reports that if he refuses to coöperate with the investigation, he will be.

“The idea of ‘The Revolt’ is very simple,” Ettinger wrote in a 2013 manifesto. “Israel has many weak spots: issues that are tiptoed around so as not to create riots. All we need to do is light up the explosives.”

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 20:18 schreef Smack-a-jack het volgende:

[..]

quote:

Op woensdag 5 augustus 2015 20:43 schreef Karrs het volgende:

[..]

[ afbeelding ]

quote:

As tensions flare in the occupied West Bank following the burning to death of a 14-month-old Palestinian baby at the hands of Israeli extremists, a recent image circulating the web has inspired some hope for a peaceful future in an area torn apart by conflict.

Israeli Extremist Detained Without Trial After Deadly West Bank Arson
The incident began on Saturday, when a group of Israeli settlers attempted to prevent Palestinian farmers from working on the field in the village of Qusra in the Esh Kodesh settlement, north of Nablus. Clashes ensued between the two groups, and although the details of the unrest are still unclear, Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) were called into the area after reports of rock throwing.
When security forces arrived at the scene, the two groups were pelting each other with rocks. According to TheBlaze, the security forces were targeted by rocks when a police officer pulled a stun gun at a Palestinian villager.

In the middle of the fighting, photographer Shaul Golan with the Yediot Ahronoth newspaper, managed to capture an image that truly stood out from the violence.

"Amid all the chaos, I saw this female officer. She was really scared," Golan said. "She was abandoned in the field and her so-called enemies were guarding her. I knew right away it was a special moment."

One of the men, standing to the officer’s right and wearing a blue shirt, was later identified as Zakaria Sadah, a Palestinian field worker with the Israeli organization Rabbis for Human Rights (RHR). The group of Israeli rabbis was founded with the goal of raising public awareness about Tel Aviv’s human rights violations.

Campaign to Save Susiya in West Bank Gets Social Media Support
According to RHR, the image shows Sadah calling out "Don’t shoot!" at the police. He then proceeded to escort the policewoman back to the Israeli security forces.

While the image, which was quick to circulate the web, offers a rare glimpse of hope in a long history of conflict, many were quick to criticize the two men for their act. Speaking to TheBlaze, Sadah said that he is being accused by many as a Palestinian traitor for protecting the Israeli woman.

"There are those who are writing against me in the Palestinian social media because we protected a policewoman, as if we’re 'traitors,'" he said. "On the other hand, I see that settlers are attacking me. So you feel you’re under fire from both sides."

The criticism toward an otherwise simple and humane act can easily be dismissed as cynical, but has become emblematic of the decades long and seemingly endless Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Sadah, however, remains hopeful and seems as dedicated as ever to preach for peace by example.

"I will continue my way. I don’t care what people say or do," he said. "For me a person is a person. A life of a person is important. At the same time I protected both the policewoman and Palestinian lives. Both are important to me and I will continue my peace activism."

quote:

Palestinians protect Israeli policewoman as Jewish settlers clash with farm workers.
http://www.belfasttelegra(...)orkers-31427997.html

quote:

Op donderdag 6 augustus 2015 11:23 schreef Gerolsteiner het volgende:
Je moet het zo posten:

[..]

quote:

Study of Holocaust survivors finds trauma passed on to children's genes | Science | The Guardian

New finding is first example in humans of the theory of epigenetic inheritance: the idea that environmental factors can affect the genes of your children

New finding is first example in humans of the theory of epigenetic inheritance: the idea that environmental factors can affect the genes of your children

Genetic changes stemming from the trauma suffered by Holocaust survivors are capable of being passed on to their children, the clearest sign yet that one person’s life experience can affect subsequent generations.

The conclusion from a research team at New York’s Mount Sinai hospital led by Rachel Yehuda stems from the genetic study of 32 Jewish men and women who had either been interned in a Nazi concentration camp, witnessed or experienced torture or who had had to hide during the second world war.

They also analysed the genes of their children, who are known to have increased likelihood of stress disorders, and compared the results with Jewish families who were living outside of Europe during the war. “The gene changes in the children could only be attributed to Holocaust exposure in the parents,” said Yehuda.

Related: Holocaust survivors' grandchildren call for action over inherited trauma

Her team’s work is the clearest example in humans of the transmission of trauma to a child via what is called “epigenetic inheritance” - the idea that environmental influences such as smoking, diet and stress can affect the genes of your children and possibly even grandchildren.

The idea is controversial, as scientific convention states that genes contained in DNA are the only way to transmit biological information between generations. However, our genes are modified by the environment all the time, through chemical tags that attach themselves to our DNA, switching genes on and off. Recent studies suggest that some of these tags might somehow be passed through generations, meaning our environment could have and impact on our children’s health.

Other studies have proposed a more tentative connection between one generation’s experience and the next. For example, girls born to Dutch women who were pregnant during a severe famine at the end of the second world war had an above-average risk of developing schizophrenia. Likewise, another study has showed that men who smoked before puberty fathered heavier sons than those who smoked after.

The team were specifically interested in one region of a gene associated with the regulation of stress hormones, which is known to be affected by trauma. “It makes sense to look at this gene,” said Yehuda. “If there’s a transmitted effect of trauma, it would be in a stress-related gene that shapes the way we cope with our environment.”

They found epigenetic tags on the very same part of this gene in both the Holocaust survivors and their offspring, the same correlation was not found in any of the control group and their children.

Through further genetic analysis, the team ruled out the possibility that the epigenetic changes were a result of trauma that the children had experienced themselves.

“To our knowledge, this provides the first demonstration of transmission of pre-conception stress effects resulting in epigenetic changes in both the exposed parents and their offspring in humans,” said Yehuda, whose work was published in Biological Psychiatry.

It’s still not clear how these tags might be passed from parent to child. Genetic information in sperm and eggs is not supposed to be affected by the environment - any epigenetic tags on DNA had been thought to be wiped clean soon after fertilisation occurs.

However, research by Azim Surani at Cambridge University and colleagues, has recently shown that some epigenetic tags escape the cleaning process at fertilisation, slipping through the net. It’s not clear whether the gene changes found in the study would permanently affect the children’s health, nor do the results upend any of our theories of evolution.

Whether the gene in question is switched on or off could have a tremendous impact on how much stress hormone is made and how we cope with stress, said Yehuda. “It’s a lot to wrap our heads around. It’s certainly an opportunity to learn a lot of important things about how we adapt to our environment and how we might pass on environmental resilience.”

The impact of Holocaust survival on the next generation has been investigated for years - the challenge has been to show intergenerational effects are not just transmitted by social influences from the parents or regular genetic inheritance, said Marcus Pembrey, emeritus professor of paediatric genetics at University College London.

“Yehuda’s paper makes some useful progress. What we’re getting here is the very beginnings of a understanding of how one generation responds to the experiences of the previous generation. It’s fine-tuning the way your genes respond to the world.”

Researchers have already shown that certain fears might be inherited through generations, at least in animals.

Scientists at Emory University in Atlanta trained male mice to fear the smell of cherry blossom by pairing the smell with a small electric shock. Eventually the mice shuddered at the smell even when it was delivered on its own.

Despite never having encountered the smell of cherry blossom, the offspring of these mice had the same fearful response to the smell - shuddering when they came in contact with it. So too did some of their own offspring.

On the other hand, offspring of mice that had been conditioned to fear another smell, or mice who’d had no such conditioning had no fear of cherry blossom.

The fearful mice produced sperm which had fewer epigenetic tags on the gene responsible for producing receptors that sense cherry blossom. The pups themselves had an increased number of cherry blossom smell receptors in their brain, although how this led to them associating the smell with fear is still a mystery.
Bron: www.theguardian.com