Posts tonen met het label Midden-Oosten. Alle posts tonen
Posts tonen met het label Midden-Oosten. Alle posts tonen
Wim Lankamp zit het "Palestina Komitee Nederland" voor en ijvert voor de ondergang van Israël. Eén van Lankamps laatste wapenfeiten is de campagne "Koop geen Israëlische Apartheid" die nog tot 31 december 2009 liep. Net zoals in België door bijvoorbeeld de "Actiegroep Boycot Israël", is het doel voor Lankamp en consorten het economisch op de knieën dwingen van Israël, in hun ogen een heuse schurkenstaat en het enige obstakel voor vrede in de regio. Normaal zou ik aan de absurditeit van dit soort acties geen enkele seconde tijd willen spenderen, maar "Joods Actueel" reikte ons deze maand het allerbeste argument aan om Wim Lankamp en zijn horde Palestijnenknuffelende vriendjes weg te lachen.
Onderstaande brief werd door een bezorgde Vlaming naar Wim Lankamp gestuurd en ook afgedrukt in het jongste nummer van "Joods Actueel". Eén enkele brief met feiten zegt genoeg.
In 1939 kozen de Nazi's deze foto als cover voor hun scholierenmagazine "Hilf Mit!" als ode aan de puurheid van het Germaanse ras. We zien een gelukkig "Arisch" gezin kerstmis vieren en door een raam naar de winter buiten kijken. In 2009 plaatste "Joods Actueel" een soortgelijke foto op de cover van het decembernummer. We zien een gelukkig joods gezin chanoeka vieren en naar de winter buiten kijken. Waarschijnlijk zonder het zelf te weten, incarneert deze cover dus de ultieme triomf van het joodse volk over de gruweldaden van het Nazisme. 70 jaar later zijn de Nazi's niet meer en wordt hun nalatenschap overal uitgespuwd, maar het joodse volk viert nog steeds chanoeka zoals het al duizenden jaren lang doet, en daar heeft een Holocaust, hoe gruwelijk ook, niets aan kunnen veranderen. Gelukkig maar. Ik vond de bovenstaande cover in december 2009 trouwens per toeval in het - zéér pakkende - NS-museum in Keulen.
De inzittenden van deze Audi waagden het klaarblijkelijk om 's avonds in een ondergrondse parkeergarage in het centrum van Antwerpen een exemplaar van "Joods Actueel" open en bloot op het dashboard te laten liggen. De barst in de voorruit toont het ogenschijnlijke trieste gevolg van zulk een fout... Of hebben we weer lange tenen in jullie ogen door dit blatante antisemitisme in ons eigen land aan te kaarten? ... Zucht...
De internationale gemeenschap blijft anders ook maar volhouden dat het Israëlische optreden in en rond de Gazastrook de voedselbevoorrading van de Palestijnse gebieden in het gedrang gebracht heeft en dat de brave Palestijnen in Gaza honger lijden door toedoen van satanbuur Israël, de enige echte schurkenstaat in het Midden-Oosten. De VN zwijgen wel graag over waarom haar "scholen" als wapenopslagplaatsen gebruikt worden, waarom haar ambulances maar al te vaak als transportmiddelen voor terroristen van Hamas dienen, waarom haar beelden geregeld met Photoshop bewerkt worden om de duivel Israël er nog slechter te doen uitkomen en waarom haar hulpgoederen steevast aangewend worden om Katoesja-raketten te fabriceren om Zuid-Israël te bestoken.
De internationale gemeenschap wordt er ook niet graag aan herinnerd dat het net de Egyptische grensblokkade aan de Sinaï is die de handel tussen de Gazastrook en de buitenwereld bemoeilijkt of dat de talrijke ziekenhuizen van Ashkelon en Sderot vol liggen met gewonde joodse kinderen. Dit gezegd zijnde, laat ons hier wel duidelijk zijn. Niemand verdient het natuurlijk om honger te moeten lijden in deze tijd van ongeziene welvaart en massale voedseloverschotten. Maar net daar blijkt nu net het schoentje te wringen. De Verenigde Naties liegen immers voortdurend over de situatie in Gaza en in het hongersnoodverhaal is dat natuurlijk niet anders. Het was uiteindelijk de lokale Engelstalige moslimkrant "Palestine Today" die het nieuws voor ons brak en onlangs uitpakte met een serie foto's waarop overvolle Palestijnse markten in Gaza te zien zijn. Beelden zeggen nog altijd meer dan 1,000 woorden.
Deze vijf foto's schetsen mooi de échte situatie in de Gazastrook en aangezien het hier om een Palestijnse bron gaat, zullen toch ook de meest uitgesproken Palestijnenknuffelaars en de grootste Israëlhaters hun ongelijk moeten toegeven. Jullie kunnen trouwens nog tientallen extra foto's uit Gaza op de website van "Palestine Today" terugvinden.
Onderdelen van deze tekst verschenen ook elders op het Internet.
Meer over het antisemitisme in Vlaanderen op www.joodsactueel.be.
Onderstaande brief werd door een bezorgde Vlaming naar Wim Lankamp gestuurd en ook afgedrukt in het jongste nummer van "Joods Actueel". Eén enkele brief met feiten zegt genoeg.
Geachte heer Lankamp,
Naar aanleiding van uw actie “Koop geen Israëlische Apartheid” waarin u oproept tot een boycot van Israëlische producten dit:
Allereerst verzoek ik u zo snel mogelijk uw website offline te halen. Deze draait op een besturingssysteem dat grotendeels in Israël is ontwikkeld. Bovendien worden de chips in de processors van de servers van uw hostingprovider, Provalue, geproduceerd en ontwikkeld in Israëlische fabrieken nabij Netanya.
Hopelijk kent u niemand met multiple sclerose, want het medicijn Copaxone, dat al duizenden mensen wereldwijd heeft geholpen tegen deze verschrikkelijke ziekte, is door het Weizmann Instituut in Israel ontwikkeld en dient dus geboycot te worden. Ook het alternatief Rebif, dient nooit gebruikt te worden daar ook dit een product van hetzelfde instituut is.
Verder hoop ik dat u niemand kent met beenmergkanker, immers het medicijn, Velcade, dat deze kankervorm effectief bestrijdt en inmiddels 100den mensen in de hele wereld weer hoop en toekomst geeft, is ontwikkeld in het Technion te Haifa, Israël, en dient daarom dus geboycot te worden.
Hopelijk slaat bij u of uw dierbaren nooit Alzheimer of dementie toe. Het enige effectieve medicijn tegen Alzheimer, Exelon, is ontwikkeld door wetenschappers van de Hebreeuwse Universiteit. Daarom dient dit medicijn geboycot te worden.
U bent er waarschijnlijk voorstander van dat miljoenen Afrikanen blind blijven of worden. De blindheid wordt verspreid door malaria muggen en zwarte vliegen. Het biologische middel dat de muggen en vliegen bestrijdt die deze verschrikkelijke ziekte veroorzaakt, is ontwikkeld door een wetenschapper aan de Ben Gurion Universiteit te Israël.
Aangezien u voor de boycot van Israëlische producten bent, bent u ook voorstander voor de boycot van al deze producten die miljoenen mensen aan een menswaardiger bestaan hielpen. Hopelijk slaapt u vannacht goed, in de wetenschap dat, mocht uw droom uitkomen, al deze mensen achter het net vissen.
Slaap lekker en sjalom.
(Naam van de briefschrijver is bekend bij de redactie)
In 1939 kozen de Nazi's deze foto als cover voor hun scholierenmagazine "Hilf Mit!" als ode aan de puurheid van het Germaanse ras. We zien een gelukkig "Arisch" gezin kerstmis vieren en door een raam naar de winter buiten kijken. In 2009 plaatste "Joods Actueel" een soortgelijke foto op de cover van het decembernummer. We zien een gelukkig joods gezin chanoeka vieren en naar de winter buiten kijken. Waarschijnlijk zonder het zelf te weten, incarneert deze cover dus de ultieme triomf van het joodse volk over de gruweldaden van het Nazisme. 70 jaar later zijn de Nazi's niet meer en wordt hun nalatenschap overal uitgespuwd, maar het joodse volk viert nog steeds chanoeka zoals het al duizenden jaren lang doet, en daar heeft een Holocaust, hoe gruwelijk ook, niets aan kunnen veranderen. Gelukkig maar. Ik vond de bovenstaande cover in december 2009 trouwens per toeval in het - zéér pakkende - NS-museum in Keulen.
De inzittenden van deze Audi waagden het klaarblijkelijk om 's avonds in een ondergrondse parkeergarage in het centrum van Antwerpen een exemplaar van "Joods Actueel" open en bloot op het dashboard te laten liggen. De barst in de voorruit toont het ogenschijnlijke trieste gevolg van zulk een fout... Of hebben we weer lange tenen in jullie ogen door dit blatante antisemitisme in ons eigen land aan te kaarten? ... Zucht...
De internationale gemeenschap blijft anders ook maar volhouden dat het Israëlische optreden in en rond de Gazastrook de voedselbevoorrading van de Palestijnse gebieden in het gedrang gebracht heeft en dat de brave Palestijnen in Gaza honger lijden door toedoen van satanbuur Israël, de enige echte schurkenstaat in het Midden-Oosten. De VN zwijgen wel graag over waarom haar "scholen" als wapenopslagplaatsen gebruikt worden, waarom haar ambulances maar al te vaak als transportmiddelen voor terroristen van Hamas dienen, waarom haar beelden geregeld met Photoshop bewerkt worden om de duivel Israël er nog slechter te doen uitkomen en waarom haar hulpgoederen steevast aangewend worden om Katoesja-raketten te fabriceren om Zuid-Israël te bestoken.
De internationale gemeenschap wordt er ook niet graag aan herinnerd dat het net de Egyptische grensblokkade aan de Sinaï is die de handel tussen de Gazastrook en de buitenwereld bemoeilijkt of dat de talrijke ziekenhuizen van Ashkelon en Sderot vol liggen met gewonde joodse kinderen. Dit gezegd zijnde, laat ons hier wel duidelijk zijn. Niemand verdient het natuurlijk om honger te moeten lijden in deze tijd van ongeziene welvaart en massale voedseloverschotten. Maar net daar blijkt nu net het schoentje te wringen. De Verenigde Naties liegen immers voortdurend over de situatie in Gaza en in het hongersnoodverhaal is dat natuurlijk niet anders. Het was uiteindelijk de lokale Engelstalige moslimkrant "Palestine Today" die het nieuws voor ons brak en onlangs uitpakte met een serie foto's waarop overvolle Palestijnse markten in Gaza te zien zijn. Beelden zeggen nog altijd meer dan 1,000 woorden.
Deze vijf foto's schetsen mooi de échte situatie in de Gazastrook en aangezien het hier om een Palestijnse bron gaat, zullen toch ook de meest uitgesproken Palestijnenknuffelaars en de grootste Israëlhaters hun ongelijk moeten toegeven. Jullie kunnen trouwens nog tientallen extra foto's uit Gaza op de website van "Palestine Today" terugvinden.
Onderdelen van deze tekst verschenen ook elders op het Internet.
Meer over het antisemitisme in Vlaanderen op www.joodsactueel.be.
Iran wordt nu al enige tijd geteisterd door rellen en straatgeweld. Aanleiding voor deze open oorlog tussen het ultra-conservatieve regime van Mahmoed Ahmadinejad en de iets minder conservatieve oppositie was de uitslag van de Iraanse presidentsverkiezing eerder deze maand. Die werd met 63% van de stemmen ruimschoots gewonnen door de zittende president. Omdat de eerste uitslagen vrij snel na sluiting van de stembureau’s al bekend gemaakt werden en Ahmadinejad ook in bepaalde oppositiegezinde steden met ruime voorsprong won, stak bij velen het buikgevoel de kop op dat Ahmadinejad de stembusslag vervalst zou hebben. Maar is dat wel zo? Volgens onze pers bestaat er geen twijfel over, maar ik ben er niet zo zeker van. Ahmadinejad is een radicale gek die we beter kwijt dan rijk zijn, daar bestaat geen twijfel over, maar dat betekent nog niet dat we hem van misdaden moeten betichten die hij waarschijnlijk niet gepleegd heeft. Dit staat trouwens los van het gebruik van excessieve macht achteraf.
Wie de democratie wil gebruiken om dingen in beweging te zetten, moet ook bereid zijn om de consequenties van het democratische proces te aanvaarden. Het is niet omdat de Westerse pers ingebed leefde in het kamp van Mir-Hossein Moussavi en zij daar natuurlijk een enorme pro-Moussavistemming detecteerden dat die analyse ook opgaat voor de rest van de samenleving. Het sprak bijvoorbeeld boekdelen dat de twee andere verliezende kandidaten, Mehdi Karoubi (1%) en Mohsen Rezaee (2%), aanvankelijk de uitslag wel aanvaardden en daar pas zeer recentelijk, o.a. door de niet aflatende Westerse druk, op zijn terug gekomen. De Iraanse blogger Reza Aslan had deze week misschien nog wel de juiste analyse tijdens zijn optreden in “The Daily Show” van Jon Stewart. Aslan legde uit dat de rellen van vandaag al lang niets meer te maken hebben met de eigenlijke verkiezing maar gewoon de lang verwachte uitbarsting zijn van een kritische onderlaag in de Iraanse samenleving die modernistisch ingesteld is en eindelijk gehoord wil worden.
De rellen waren nog maar net begonnen of de VRT voerde in haar middagjournaal de Irankenner Dirk Thieleman op. Die noemde de verkiezingen eerlijk. Het werd dan ook zijn enige televisieoptreden in deze crisis. Zo laag is het journaille dat vandaag ons nieuws brengt gevallen, men muilkorft de analisten die het niet eens zijn met de consensus van de redactie. Het gaat al lang niet meer om objectiviteit of de Waarheid, maar gewoon om het alsmaar bevestigen van het eigen Grote Gelijk, wars van de realiteit der dingen. Ik mag Thieleman wel en geloof best dat hij het bij het rechte eind heeft. Volgens Dirk Thieleman zijn alle Westerse reporters gestationeerd in Noord-Teheran, het rijkste en meest Westersgezinde deel van de stad én het land. Noord-Teheran is Moussavi-land, en de journalisten maken de fout om hun lokale ervaring daar te extrapolleren naar het ganse land. Ook de betogingen zelf werden door Thieleman genuanceerd. Marsen van één miljoen mensen op een bevolking van 70 miljoen zielen zijn immers te vergelijken met gewone manifestaties bij ons. Zij zijn helemaal niet de voorbode van een volksrevolutie, maar gewoon de allerhaast opgetrommelde militanten van Moussavi.
Iran is een land met een lange voortvarende geschiedenis waarvan wij in het Westen veel geleerd en overgenomen hebben. Sinds de Islamitische Revolutie is het open Perzië van de kunst en cultuur het gesloten Iran van de Ayatollah’s geworden, maar niet omdat het van bovenhand opgelegd werd. De Iraniërs hebben daar zelf voor gekozen. Zij zijn evenmin Westersgezind en progressief. Enkel onder de vrouwen in Iran lijkt er echt iets te bewegen, zoals ook “Forbes Magazine” deze week wist te vertellen. Die worden in de islamrepubliek achteruitgesteld en zijn echt wel uit op drastische hervormingen, maar daar stopt het ook. De nadrukkelijke aanwezigheid van vrouwen in de manifestaties bewijst helemaal niet dat de opstand door het gros van de bevolking gedragen wordt, maar gewoon dat vooral de vrouwen hopen op verandering met een andere president aan het roer. Puur eigenbelang dat door de Westerse journalisten als een collectieve strijd gepercipieerd wordt.
In “The Colbert Report”, een andere Amerikaanse talkshow, mocht vorige week een Iraanse medewerker van het “Carnegie Endowment for Peace” zijn zeg komen doen. En ook de uitleg van deze Karim Sadjapour hield in mijn ogen steek. Zelf een hervormingsgezinde, doorprikte hij de illusie van onze pers dat Moussavi wel degelijk een hervormer zou zijn. Moussavi en Ahmadinejad waren (en zijn) nauw met elkaar bevriend. Beide waren voetsoldaten in de Khomeini-revolutie en beide delen dezelfde visie op Iran, enkel via andere wegen. Moussavi wil misschien enkele lijfstraffen lichtjes aanpassen en vrouwen iets meer rechten geven, aan de sharia of de religieuze grondslag van de islamrepubliek zal ook hij niet raken. Moussavi is ook anti-Amerikaans en anti-Israël, alleen is hij een beetje voorzichtiger in speeches. En Moussavi, hoewel gesteund door de jonge rijke Iraniërs, is al evenmin een hervormer als het op uitreisvisa of economie aankomt. Idem voor het kernprogramma.
En dat is ook net de reden waarom Moussavi door het regime lange tijd gedoogd werd, tot op vandaag. Ahmadinejad gebruikt bruut geweld om de rellen in de kiem te smoren, maar geen haar op zijn hoofd dat er maar aan denkt om Moussavi rechtstreeks te kortwieken. Daarvoor zijn de onderlinge verschillen, ofschoon opgeklopt in onze pers, veel te klein. De Raad van Hoeders van Khamenei zit ook geklemd tussen beide. Hij houdt Ahmadinejad de handen boven het hoofd, maar zet tegelijkertijd Moussavi uit de wind. Dit is typerend voor deze toestand waarbij twee karakters met min of meer dezelfde ideeën én nauwe onderlinge banden het land verwoesten voor een politieke strijd die toch geen echte winnaar zal hebben. Dit neemt natuurlijk niet weg dat het gedrag van het regime de laatste dagen, bijvoorbeeld het met scherp schieten op betogers, het laten creperen van gewonden of het met motors inrijden op manifestanten, totaal onaanvaardbaar is en geen enkele rechtvaardiging behoeft.
Wel weet ik zeker dat moest het Westen zich in deze zaak afzijdig gehouden hebben, en opnieuw: geen enkele van de twee is “onze” kandidaat, dan zou dit nooit ontaard zijn in de ravage die we vandaag in het nieuws kunnen zien. De Westerse pers draagt hier een verpletterende verantwoordelijkheid door ongenuanceerd de kant van één partij te kiezen. Net alsof zij niet wisten dat het gebruik van IT-snufjes zoals Twitter, YouTube en Facebook echt niet wijd en zijd verspreid is in Iran en ze dus per definitie al naar een extreemkleine minderheid van jonge welstellende pro-Westerse Iraniërs aan het luisteren waren… De honderden doden bewijzen dan ook maar één ding: Ron Paul, het libertarische Congreslid dat als enige tegen de Iranresolutie stemde, had andermaal gelijk! Hopelijk kan de pers, eens alle lijken geborgen zijn, zich eens bezinnen over de eigen rol die ze gespeeld hebben, en misschien, heel misschien, kan dat onze bemoeizucht temperen en het herstel zijn van een vorm van non-interventionisme. Iran voor de Iraniërs, is dat nu zo moeilijk? Hun interne problemen zijn eigenlijk toch ook gewoon onze zaken niet.
Dit opiniestuk verscheen ook op de metablogs In Flanders Fields, De Vrijspreker en Het Vrije Volk, alsmede elders op het internet.
Meer over het Iraanse conflict op www.forbes.com.
Wie de democratie wil gebruiken om dingen in beweging te zetten, moet ook bereid zijn om de consequenties van het democratische proces te aanvaarden. Het is niet omdat de Westerse pers ingebed leefde in het kamp van Mir-Hossein Moussavi en zij daar natuurlijk een enorme pro-Moussavistemming detecteerden dat die analyse ook opgaat voor de rest van de samenleving. Het sprak bijvoorbeeld boekdelen dat de twee andere verliezende kandidaten, Mehdi Karoubi (1%) en Mohsen Rezaee (2%), aanvankelijk de uitslag wel aanvaardden en daar pas zeer recentelijk, o.a. door de niet aflatende Westerse druk, op zijn terug gekomen. De Iraanse blogger Reza Aslan had deze week misschien nog wel de juiste analyse tijdens zijn optreden in “The Daily Show” van Jon Stewart. Aslan legde uit dat de rellen van vandaag al lang niets meer te maken hebben met de eigenlijke verkiezing maar gewoon de lang verwachte uitbarsting zijn van een kritische onderlaag in de Iraanse samenleving die modernistisch ingesteld is en eindelijk gehoord wil worden.
De rellen waren nog maar net begonnen of de VRT voerde in haar middagjournaal de Irankenner Dirk Thieleman op. Die noemde de verkiezingen eerlijk. Het werd dan ook zijn enige televisieoptreden in deze crisis. Zo laag is het journaille dat vandaag ons nieuws brengt gevallen, men muilkorft de analisten die het niet eens zijn met de consensus van de redactie. Het gaat al lang niet meer om objectiviteit of de Waarheid, maar gewoon om het alsmaar bevestigen van het eigen Grote Gelijk, wars van de realiteit der dingen. Ik mag Thieleman wel en geloof best dat hij het bij het rechte eind heeft. Volgens Dirk Thieleman zijn alle Westerse reporters gestationeerd in Noord-Teheran, het rijkste en meest Westersgezinde deel van de stad én het land. Noord-Teheran is Moussavi-land, en de journalisten maken de fout om hun lokale ervaring daar te extrapolleren naar het ganse land. Ook de betogingen zelf werden door Thieleman genuanceerd. Marsen van één miljoen mensen op een bevolking van 70 miljoen zielen zijn immers te vergelijken met gewone manifestaties bij ons. Zij zijn helemaal niet de voorbode van een volksrevolutie, maar gewoon de allerhaast opgetrommelde militanten van Moussavi.
Iran is een land met een lange voortvarende geschiedenis waarvan wij in het Westen veel geleerd en overgenomen hebben. Sinds de Islamitische Revolutie is het open Perzië van de kunst en cultuur het gesloten Iran van de Ayatollah’s geworden, maar niet omdat het van bovenhand opgelegd werd. De Iraniërs hebben daar zelf voor gekozen. Zij zijn evenmin Westersgezind en progressief. Enkel onder de vrouwen in Iran lijkt er echt iets te bewegen, zoals ook “Forbes Magazine” deze week wist te vertellen. Die worden in de islamrepubliek achteruitgesteld en zijn echt wel uit op drastische hervormingen, maar daar stopt het ook. De nadrukkelijke aanwezigheid van vrouwen in de manifestaties bewijst helemaal niet dat de opstand door het gros van de bevolking gedragen wordt, maar gewoon dat vooral de vrouwen hopen op verandering met een andere president aan het roer. Puur eigenbelang dat door de Westerse journalisten als een collectieve strijd gepercipieerd wordt.
In “The Colbert Report”, een andere Amerikaanse talkshow, mocht vorige week een Iraanse medewerker van het “Carnegie Endowment for Peace” zijn zeg komen doen. En ook de uitleg van deze Karim Sadjapour hield in mijn ogen steek. Zelf een hervormingsgezinde, doorprikte hij de illusie van onze pers dat Moussavi wel degelijk een hervormer zou zijn. Moussavi en Ahmadinejad waren (en zijn) nauw met elkaar bevriend. Beide waren voetsoldaten in de Khomeini-revolutie en beide delen dezelfde visie op Iran, enkel via andere wegen. Moussavi wil misschien enkele lijfstraffen lichtjes aanpassen en vrouwen iets meer rechten geven, aan de sharia of de religieuze grondslag van de islamrepubliek zal ook hij niet raken. Moussavi is ook anti-Amerikaans en anti-Israël, alleen is hij een beetje voorzichtiger in speeches. En Moussavi, hoewel gesteund door de jonge rijke Iraniërs, is al evenmin een hervormer als het op uitreisvisa of economie aankomt. Idem voor het kernprogramma.
En dat is ook net de reden waarom Moussavi door het regime lange tijd gedoogd werd, tot op vandaag. Ahmadinejad gebruikt bruut geweld om de rellen in de kiem te smoren, maar geen haar op zijn hoofd dat er maar aan denkt om Moussavi rechtstreeks te kortwieken. Daarvoor zijn de onderlinge verschillen, ofschoon opgeklopt in onze pers, veel te klein. De Raad van Hoeders van Khamenei zit ook geklemd tussen beide. Hij houdt Ahmadinejad de handen boven het hoofd, maar zet tegelijkertijd Moussavi uit de wind. Dit is typerend voor deze toestand waarbij twee karakters met min of meer dezelfde ideeën én nauwe onderlinge banden het land verwoesten voor een politieke strijd die toch geen echte winnaar zal hebben. Dit neemt natuurlijk niet weg dat het gedrag van het regime de laatste dagen, bijvoorbeeld het met scherp schieten op betogers, het laten creperen van gewonden of het met motors inrijden op manifestanten, totaal onaanvaardbaar is en geen enkele rechtvaardiging behoeft.
Wel weet ik zeker dat moest het Westen zich in deze zaak afzijdig gehouden hebben, en opnieuw: geen enkele van de twee is “onze” kandidaat, dan zou dit nooit ontaard zijn in de ravage die we vandaag in het nieuws kunnen zien. De Westerse pers draagt hier een verpletterende verantwoordelijkheid door ongenuanceerd de kant van één partij te kiezen. Net alsof zij niet wisten dat het gebruik van IT-snufjes zoals Twitter, YouTube en Facebook echt niet wijd en zijd verspreid is in Iran en ze dus per definitie al naar een extreemkleine minderheid van jonge welstellende pro-Westerse Iraniërs aan het luisteren waren… De honderden doden bewijzen dan ook maar één ding: Ron Paul, het libertarische Congreslid dat als enige tegen de Iranresolutie stemde, had andermaal gelijk! Hopelijk kan de pers, eens alle lijken geborgen zijn, zich eens bezinnen over de eigen rol die ze gespeeld hebben, en misschien, heel misschien, kan dat onze bemoeizucht temperen en het herstel zijn van een vorm van non-interventionisme. Iran voor de Iraniërs, is dat nu zo moeilijk? Hun interne problemen zijn eigenlijk toch ook gewoon onze zaken niet.
Dit opiniestuk verscheen ook op de metablogs In Flanders Fields, De Vrijspreker en Het Vrije Volk, alsmede elders op het internet.
Meer over het Iraanse conflict op www.forbes.com.
The Left poses more danger for the Jews than the Right
7 Reacties Gepubliceerd door Vincent De Roeck
Jewish groups in Europe and the United States have reacted with alarm to the gains made by far-right political parties in the last elections for the EU Parliament. Right-wing nationalist parties won significant victories in the United Kingdom, Austria, Holland, Denmark, Hungary, and Romania in four days of voting earlier this month. The Paris-based European Jewish Congress, an umbrella organization for Jewish communities in Europe, said: “As we assess the results of this week’s elections, one disturbing trend has already crystallized; the gains made by extreme-right groups is a Europe-wide phenomenon. The success of the far-right and nationalistic parties that won seats in the elections on the basis of racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic platforms points to a clear erosion of tolerance and a clarion call to European officials to immediately engage in intercultural dialogue. The success of such rabid groups as the Party For Freedom in the Netherlands, the Freedom Party in Austria, the Danish People’s Party, the British National Party, and Jobbik in Hungary, among others, will sadly only serve to embolden those who espouse the dangerous concepts of extreme nationalism, racism, anti-Semitism and xenophobia.”
The New York-based Anti-Defamation League said it was “deeply distressing that the blatantly anti-Semitic parties received so many votes,” and called on European leaders to “ensure that anti-Semitism, racism and bigotry never again gain a foothold in Europe. (...) It is imperative that European leaders do not remain silent, but speak out and reject the hateful and bigoted worldview of parties of the far-right and their supporters.” The Geneva-based World Jewish Congress (WJC) said: “Far-right parties and extremists have made gains across Europe amid protest votes and low turnout for the European Parliament elections. The elections were held in all 27 EU member states from Thursday June 4th to Sunday June 7th two weeks ago. Support for centre-Left parties and governments collapsed across the European Union as fringe parties, picked up protest votes.”
Although these and other Jewish groups are not alone in their concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Europe, their fear of the far-right often obscures the indisputable fact that some of the greatest threats to Jews - and Israel - in contemporary Europe stem from the left side of the political aisle. Indeed, it is no big secret that all across the European continent, left-wing intellectuals are playing a crucial role in making anti-Semitism seem respectable. Of course, they are (usually) careful to promote their hatred of Jews only indirectly. Instead, modern anti-Semitism is typically disguised as anti-Zionism and an obsession with Palestinian victimhood.
European Judeophobia often takes on new life forms such as anti-Semitic boycott campaigns and anti-Israel demonstrations, the growing intensity of which the European Left not only overlooks or obscures but often actively supports. It is transmitted by Europe’s left-leaning mass media, which not only believes that the systematic demonization of Israel promotes the postmodern and postnational ideological worldview of Europe’s governing class, but also appeases the wrath of Europe’s Muslim immigrants, lest they expose the myth of the envisaged European socialist multicultural utopia.
As the European Left intensifies its common cause with the Palestinian movement, Islam itself has emerged as a major threat to Jewish life in Europe. Although definitive statistics are scarce, most of the acts of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions in Europe in recent years seem to be perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Indeed, a 2003 report published by European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EMCRX) attributed the increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe mainly to Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups. But those findings were so embarrassing that European left-wing elites quashed the report and commissioned another one. A subsequent report published by the ECMRX, which used a more politically correct research methodology, concluded that the “noticeable rise in reported anti-Semitic incidents” was the fault of “young, white Europeans incited by traditional right-wing extremist groups.”
In any case, right-wing groups such as Geert Wilder’s Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the Danish People’s Party, far from being the purveyors of “rabid” racism and anti-Semitism that the European Jewish Congress claims, are some of the best allies that Jews - and Israel - will find in Europe today. In fact, the Danish People’s Party is a strong supporter of Israel as well as the US-led War on Terrorism, of which Israel is a major beneficiary. It has called for stronger sanctions against totalitarian regimes and dictatorships, especially those in the Islamic world. It has also supported academic grants for specific research into terrorism and Islamism. For his part, Geert Wilders calls himself a true friend of Israel. During a recent visit to Jerusalem, Wilders said: “We see Christians and Jews as part of one culture. When I am here I am with my people, my country, my values. I feel more at home here than in many other European countries. Israel’s a democracy - it’s everything we stand for.”
Wilders and a growing number of other Europeans understand the threat that Islam poses to Europe and to the Western world. They are also taking a stand against an European left-wing political class that despises its Judeo-Christian heritage so much that it has become an undiscerning apologist for Islam. Unfortunately, the Islamization of Europe, which is being promoted by an intolerant left-wing multicultural dogma that gives immigrants more rights than natives, is one of the main factors contributing to the alarming rise of truly troublesome extremist groups like the Hungarian Jobbik party.
The European political right is far more nuanced and complex than catch-all labels such as “far-right” or “extreme-right” imply. Whereas right-wing groups in Denmark and Holland, animated by common sense, are pushing back against a European multicultural movement that has run amok and has pushed Western Civilization to the edge of the abyss, other groups like those in Austria, Hungary and Romania, animated by ignorance, are promoting hatred against any and all immigrants just for the sake of it. It is a world of difference. The knee-jerk tendency to stereotype the European right-wing as anti-Semitic obscures the fact that, with few exceptions, the only genuine European supporters of Jews and Israel are on the political right-wing. Indeed, in the end Jews have much more to fear from the European Left than they do from the far-right.
Dit artikel van Soeren Kern verscheen oorspronkelijk op "The Brussels Journal" en bij de "Strategic Studies Group" in Madrid.
Meer teksten van deze auteur op www.soerenkern.com.
The New York-based Anti-Defamation League said it was “deeply distressing that the blatantly anti-Semitic parties received so many votes,” and called on European leaders to “ensure that anti-Semitism, racism and bigotry never again gain a foothold in Europe. (...) It is imperative that European leaders do not remain silent, but speak out and reject the hateful and bigoted worldview of parties of the far-right and their supporters.” The Geneva-based World Jewish Congress (WJC) said: “Far-right parties and extremists have made gains across Europe amid protest votes and low turnout for the European Parliament elections. The elections were held in all 27 EU member states from Thursday June 4th to Sunday June 7th two weeks ago. Support for centre-Left parties and governments collapsed across the European Union as fringe parties, picked up protest votes.”
Although these and other Jewish groups are not alone in their concerns about rising anti-Semitism in Europe, their fear of the far-right often obscures the indisputable fact that some of the greatest threats to Jews - and Israel - in contemporary Europe stem from the left side of the political aisle. Indeed, it is no big secret that all across the European continent, left-wing intellectuals are playing a crucial role in making anti-Semitism seem respectable. Of course, they are (usually) careful to promote their hatred of Jews only indirectly. Instead, modern anti-Semitism is typically disguised as anti-Zionism and an obsession with Palestinian victimhood.
European Judeophobia often takes on new life forms such as anti-Semitic boycott campaigns and anti-Israel demonstrations, the growing intensity of which the European Left not only overlooks or obscures but often actively supports. It is transmitted by Europe’s left-leaning mass media, which not only believes that the systematic demonization of Israel promotes the postmodern and postnational ideological worldview of Europe’s governing class, but also appeases the wrath of Europe’s Muslim immigrants, lest they expose the myth of the envisaged European socialist multicultural utopia.
As the European Left intensifies its common cause with the Palestinian movement, Islam itself has emerged as a major threat to Jewish life in Europe. Although definitive statistics are scarce, most of the acts of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions in Europe in recent years seem to be perpetrated by Muslim extremists. Indeed, a 2003 report published by European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia (EMCRX) attributed the increase in anti-Semitic violence in Europe mainly to Muslims and pro-Palestinian groups. But those findings were so embarrassing that European left-wing elites quashed the report and commissioned another one. A subsequent report published by the ECMRX, which used a more politically correct research methodology, concluded that the “noticeable rise in reported anti-Semitic incidents” was the fault of “young, white Europeans incited by traditional right-wing extremist groups.”
In any case, right-wing groups such as Geert Wilder’s Party for Freedom in the Netherlands and the Danish People’s Party, far from being the purveyors of “rabid” racism and anti-Semitism that the European Jewish Congress claims, are some of the best allies that Jews - and Israel - will find in Europe today. In fact, the Danish People’s Party is a strong supporter of Israel as well as the US-led War on Terrorism, of which Israel is a major beneficiary. It has called for stronger sanctions against totalitarian regimes and dictatorships, especially those in the Islamic world. It has also supported academic grants for specific research into terrorism and Islamism. For his part, Geert Wilders calls himself a true friend of Israel. During a recent visit to Jerusalem, Wilders said: “We see Christians and Jews as part of one culture. When I am here I am with my people, my country, my values. I feel more at home here than in many other European countries. Israel’s a democracy - it’s everything we stand for.”
Wilders and a growing number of other Europeans understand the threat that Islam poses to Europe and to the Western world. They are also taking a stand against an European left-wing political class that despises its Judeo-Christian heritage so much that it has become an undiscerning apologist for Islam. Unfortunately, the Islamization of Europe, which is being promoted by an intolerant left-wing multicultural dogma that gives immigrants more rights than natives, is one of the main factors contributing to the alarming rise of truly troublesome extremist groups like the Hungarian Jobbik party.
The European political right is far more nuanced and complex than catch-all labels such as “far-right” or “extreme-right” imply. Whereas right-wing groups in Denmark and Holland, animated by common sense, are pushing back against a European multicultural movement that has run amok and has pushed Western Civilization to the edge of the abyss, other groups like those in Austria, Hungary and Romania, animated by ignorance, are promoting hatred against any and all immigrants just for the sake of it. It is a world of difference. The knee-jerk tendency to stereotype the European right-wing as anti-Semitic obscures the fact that, with few exceptions, the only genuine European supporters of Jews and Israel are on the political right-wing. Indeed, in the end Jews have much more to fear from the European Left than they do from the far-right.
Dit artikel van Soeren Kern verscheen oorspronkelijk op "The Brussels Journal" en bij de "Strategic Studies Group" in Madrid.
Meer teksten van deze auteur op www.soerenkern.com.
If nukes are outlawed, only outlaws will have nukes...
3 Reacties Gepubliceerd door Vincent De Roeck
It didn’t take long for US President Barack Hussein Obama to upstage the Nukeaphobes of the European Union, who are so frightened that they don’t even want a nuclear family, with his dramatic pronouncement he wants a world free of nuclear weapons. That’s good news for rogue elements who are planning on getting their hands on one and then will be the only ones who do. It’s a nice fairy tale, a nonnuclear world, but that atomic genie came out of the bottle with the Manhattan Project, and it’s not going back in no matter how wonderful a dream it seems. If Harry Truman believed that, World War II would still be going on and there’d be a million dead GIs in Japan. So while Obama, and the EU, who will undoubtedly support this grand idea, want nuclear powers to disarm, he says he’s going to use jawboning to convince Iran to give up its nuclear bomb programme, which it insists is designed for electricity. But when Iran gets a nuke, the man with his finger on the trigger will be its three-bricks-shy-of-a-load President Ahmadinejad, who wants to light up Tel Aviv, and not with light bulbs.
And the non-nuclear world won’t include North Korea, which has already launched a failed ballistic missile test which was designed so its leader Kim Jong-Il, who wears platform shoes and a bouffant hairstyle to look taller than his diminutive 5-3 (157 centimetre) lack of stature, and has been described by diplomats as a paranoid, cognacguzzling hypochondriac, can have a nuclear bomb too. It’s only fair. Ahmadinejad will have one, but Obama wants the US, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, South Korea and South Africa to lay down their nuclear arms. In your dreams. After North Korea tested its missile, Obama said, “Rules must be binding, violations must be punished.”
How? The US has lifted most sanctions against North Korea and gotten almost nothing in return, although insisting North Korea is not proceeding with a nuclear bomb programme and has dismantled its ability to do so. Guess that doesn’t include ballistic missiles. Maybe Obama and the appeasement pacifists of the EU believe that only crazy characters in Tom Clancy novels want to seize or build a nuclear bomb or are hoping Jack Bauer will stop them if they do, but since Sam Colt made all men the same size, history has shown that if you build a better weapon that some people will want it and use it. It’s just a question of when, which Obama acknowledged when he said, “The threat of global nuclear war has gone down but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up.” He said the testing of nuclear weapons had risen and the technology of building a bomb had spread as a result, increasing the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. It’s not much of a deterrent if they have one and your ammunition is harsh language.
Obama has designed a series of steps to eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, which he said is the coldest legacy of the Cold War, and he wants to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and proposed an alleged lockdown on material used to make them, a rich thought since the world can’t even scan luggage at airports without worrying what’s in it. He’s convinced Russian President Dimtry Medvedev to sit down and talk about it. He just hasn’t convinced Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, or any terrorists to attend that dinner party. And until he does, the only way to keep the world safe from nuclear weapons being used is to have them.
Deze column van Andy Dabilis verscheen ook in New Europe.
Meer teksten van deze columnist op www.neweurope.eu.
And the non-nuclear world won’t include North Korea, which has already launched a failed ballistic missile test which was designed so its leader Kim Jong-Il, who wears platform shoes and a bouffant hairstyle to look taller than his diminutive 5-3 (157 centimetre) lack of stature, and has been described by diplomats as a paranoid, cognacguzzling hypochondriac, can have a nuclear bomb too. It’s only fair. Ahmadinejad will have one, but Obama wants the US, Russia, the United Kingdom, France, China, India, Israel, Pakistan, South Korea and South Africa to lay down their nuclear arms. In your dreams. After North Korea tested its missile, Obama said, “Rules must be binding, violations must be punished.”
How? The US has lifted most sanctions against North Korea and gotten almost nothing in return, although insisting North Korea is not proceeding with a nuclear bomb programme and has dismantled its ability to do so. Guess that doesn’t include ballistic missiles. Maybe Obama and the appeasement pacifists of the EU believe that only crazy characters in Tom Clancy novels want to seize or build a nuclear bomb or are hoping Jack Bauer will stop them if they do, but since Sam Colt made all men the same size, history has shown that if you build a better weapon that some people will want it and use it. It’s just a question of when, which Obama acknowledged when he said, “The threat of global nuclear war has gone down but the risk of nuclear attack has gone up.” He said the testing of nuclear weapons had risen and the technology of building a bomb had spread as a result, increasing the risk of nuclear weapons falling into the hands of terrorists. It’s not much of a deterrent if they have one and your ammunition is harsh language.
Obama has designed a series of steps to eventually eliminate existing nuclear arsenals, which he said is the coldest legacy of the Cold War, and he wants to halt the proliferation of nuclear weapons and proposed an alleged lockdown on material used to make them, a rich thought since the world can’t even scan luggage at airports without worrying what’s in it. He’s convinced Russian President Dimtry Medvedev to sit down and talk about it. He just hasn’t convinced Ahmadinejad, Kim Jong-il, or any terrorists to attend that dinner party. And until he does, the only way to keep the world safe from nuclear weapons being used is to have them.
Deze column van Andy Dabilis verscheen ook in New Europe.
Meer teksten van deze columnist op www.neweurope.eu.
Erasmusprijs-winnaar Ian Buruma zei het deze maand al in een opiniestuk in De Morgen. Het antisemitisme is aan een nieuwe opmars bezig, en ditmaal voltrekt het schouwspel zich in het Verre Oosten. Deze maand rondde het boek “The Currency War” van Song Hongbing immers de kaap van één miljoen verkochte kopieën in China. Het boek is er al enkele maanden een enorme hit en de bevindingen van de jonge Chinese universiteitsstudent worden gelezen tot in de hoogste rayonen van de Chinese politiek. “The Currency War” tracht de schuld voor de huidige financiële crisis in de schoenen van joodse bankiers te schuiven en wordt om die reden als sterk antisemitisch beschouwd. Volgens Hongbing willen joodse bankiers de wereld besturen en past het manipuleren van de markten perfect in dat plan. De argumenten die Hongbing aanhaalt om deze vooroordelen te staven, mogen op zich dan al wel lachwekkend zijn, de mogelijke gevolgen van zijn epistel zijn dat zeker niet.
Jonathan Benjamin, de voorzitter van het joods forum in het Verenigd Koninkrijk, drukte in de Financial Times dan ook zijn angst uit voor de maatschappelijke impact van deze haatpraat. “Chinezen hebben doorgaans enorm veel respect voor het commerciële intellect van joodse burgers, maar deze leugens dreigen die houding te verstoren en zetten de deur open voor jodenhaat,” klinkt het bij hem. En zijn angst is zeker niet onterecht. Ook in Europa werden de gruwelijkste pogroms immers voorafgegaan door dit soort demagogische pamfletten.
De angst zit er bij velen dan ook in dat ’s werelds snelst groeiende economie ten prooi zou vallen aan hetzelfde primitieve antisemitisme dat Europa eertijds op haar grondvesten heeft doen daveren. Robin Pogrebin van de International Herald Tribune deed “The Currency War” zelfs af als een moderne variant op dat andere vervalste pamflet voor een pogrom, “De Protocollen van de Wijzen van Zion”.
Antisemitisme in Azië is misschien niets nieuw -- de mythische Maleisische premier Mahathir Bin Mohammed sprak jaren geleden al van joden die de wereld regeerden en van Zwitserse gnomen die het banksysteem manipuleerden -- maar deze recente evolutie dreigt van een heel ander kaliber te zijn. Want net omdat Aziaten doorgaans nooit een joods persoon ontmoet hebben en hun gesloten samenlevingen nu éénmaal nood hebben aan het cultiveren van haat en angst om zichzelf als bestel te handhaven, trekken analisten aan de alarmbel. Zeker in een tijdperk waar het herstel van de wereldeconomie net van het Verre Oosten en hun vertrouwen in de Westerse markten moet komen, komt dit soort goedkope beschuldigingen zeer ongelegen.
En pas als je je ervan vergewist dat net de Japanners en Chinezen tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog steeds zijn blijven weigeren om hun joodse onderdanen aan Nazi-Duitsland uit te leveren, besef je eigenlijk hoe diep deze landen nu aan het vallen zijn. Schrijnend eigenlijk. Intriest.
Dit artikel verscheen ook in het maandblad Joods Actueel en op de metablogs In Flanders Fields en Het Vrije Volk.
Meer over deze antisemitische kwestie op www.project-syndicate.org.
Jonathan Benjamin, de voorzitter van het joods forum in het Verenigd Koninkrijk, drukte in de Financial Times dan ook zijn angst uit voor de maatschappelijke impact van deze haatpraat. “Chinezen hebben doorgaans enorm veel respect voor het commerciële intellect van joodse burgers, maar deze leugens dreigen die houding te verstoren en zetten de deur open voor jodenhaat,” klinkt het bij hem. En zijn angst is zeker niet onterecht. Ook in Europa werden de gruwelijkste pogroms immers voorafgegaan door dit soort demagogische pamfletten.
De angst zit er bij velen dan ook in dat ’s werelds snelst groeiende economie ten prooi zou vallen aan hetzelfde primitieve antisemitisme dat Europa eertijds op haar grondvesten heeft doen daveren. Robin Pogrebin van de International Herald Tribune deed “The Currency War” zelfs af als een moderne variant op dat andere vervalste pamflet voor een pogrom, “De Protocollen van de Wijzen van Zion”.
Antisemitisme in Azië is misschien niets nieuw -- de mythische Maleisische premier Mahathir Bin Mohammed sprak jaren geleden al van joden die de wereld regeerden en van Zwitserse gnomen die het banksysteem manipuleerden -- maar deze recente evolutie dreigt van een heel ander kaliber te zijn. Want net omdat Aziaten doorgaans nooit een joods persoon ontmoet hebben en hun gesloten samenlevingen nu éénmaal nood hebben aan het cultiveren van haat en angst om zichzelf als bestel te handhaven, trekken analisten aan de alarmbel. Zeker in een tijdperk waar het herstel van de wereldeconomie net van het Verre Oosten en hun vertrouwen in de Westerse markten moet komen, komt dit soort goedkope beschuldigingen zeer ongelegen.
En pas als je je ervan vergewist dat net de Japanners en Chinezen tijdens de Tweede Wereldoorlog steeds zijn blijven weigeren om hun joodse onderdanen aan Nazi-Duitsland uit te leveren, besef je eigenlijk hoe diep deze landen nu aan het vallen zijn. Schrijnend eigenlijk. Intriest.
Dit artikel verscheen ook in het maandblad Joods Actueel en op de metablogs In Flanders Fields en Het Vrije Volk.
Meer over deze antisemitische kwestie op www.project-syndicate.org.
Below the half-fallen ochre walls are piles of rubbish, human excrement, skinny dogs, darting lizards and wide-eyed gypsies, the latter staring back at us as we pick our way with difficulty along the undulating course of the fortifications. Down below us in the valley is a busy motorway, heading west out of the city towards Edirne and up through Thrace to the Greek border. We are in Europe, yet not in Europe, walking a small segment of the still impressive medieval defenses of Constantinople. It is extraordinary that so much of the walls’ length has survived, because they have been superfluous to requirements since May 1453, when the long-desired “Red Apple” of Constantinople finally fell to the besieging Turkish Army, the end of a 54 day siege by the janissaries of Mehmet II, and the final act in the 16 centuries long story of the Roman Empire.
I like to think that it was somewhere along this section of wall that Emperor Constantine Palæologus fell on the last day of the siege, fighting alongside the last few gallant Christian (and a handful of desperate Muslim) defenders, his body overlooked and swept away into obscurity with those of his shattered army—but no one knows exactly where or how exactly he died, killed by some Ottoman fighter ignorant that he was single-handedly putting a full stop to one of the world’s longest-lasting civilizations. The last clear anecdote of Constantine was from the city’s last ever night of Christianity, when he went alone to Midnight Mass at Hagia Sophia to pray for the city’s deliverance. The city’s food was almost gone, the garrison was diminished and exhausted, and the great boom defending the Golden Horn from enemy shipping had been circumvented by Mehmet’s logistically dazzling feat of having galleys hauled overland to be relaunched behind the iron chain. And there would be no help coming now. Europe’s kings counted their money and fought their neighbors as usual, while Byzantium slid into the storybooks.
We had seen Haghia Sophia a few days previously—a gloomy womb of a building whose stupendous dome and towering narthex were lightened by gleams of chalcedony, poryphyry, onyx and agate, and the sudden radiance of mosaics that must have been glimpsed in the candle light by the destiny-haunted emperor—the emperor, now, only of a few suburbs but who was yet supremely certain of his duty if not his chances of success. A day or two later, Mehmet rode up into the city over the robbed bodies of its late defenders, and proclaimed that the world’s largest church would henceforth be a mosque. We had seen, too, the marble faces of toppled gods and generals holding up the dripping brick vaults of the Roman Cisterns, where goldfish swim in lifelong ignorance of the sun, and the huge Hellenic physiognomies that look blankly homeward across the Bosphorus from the hot gardens of the Archaeological Museum.
And over and above all of these things from the past, we had seen the thronging Turkish present and future—the spice bazaar and the fish heads nailed up along the breakwater and the stink of sewage, the crocodiles of uniformed schoolchildren marching with Turkish flags beneath huge Atatürk banners, the thousands and thousands of squat, brunet people surging over the bridge from Asia to Europe, the hastening ferries aboard which we bobbed between continents while we drank raki and warming salep root, the clamoring taxicabs, the men who tried to sell us carpets and spoke of relatives in the UK, the mosque courtyards buzzing with chattering men performing ablutions and women in headdresses, the smell of feet in the Sultahnamet Mosque and of wonderful food from everywhere, the turbaned headstones in the toppling-over cemeteries, the whole city fizzing and itchy with poverty and vitality.
All of these intense and unusually olfactory holiday memories were brought piercingly back to me as if I had suddenly opened an old perfume bottle, as I read this book with awakening admiration and gratitude—admiration for the joint authors’ courage and commitment, gratitude for their timing and highly-developed sense of public service. The ongoing attempt by Europe’s present sorry crop of leaders to permit Turkey to join the European Union is almost incomprehensibly irresponsible. Even the briefest examination of what Turkish accession would entail for Europeans suffices to show how foolish clever people can be.
Turkey has a rapidly growing population of nearly 80 million, 99.8% of whom are Muslims, many of those adhering to ultra-conservative views (for instance on women’s rights) that have not been common in Europe since the early 19th century. Its citizens on average are much poorer and less well-educated than even the poorest and least-educated Europeans. Much of its economy consists of unsustainable subsistence agriculture and increasingly uncompetitive manufacturing, often using child labor. Its infrastructure, from roads to schools to healthcare, is almost completely of Second World status. It is a politically volatile country, split between an army-backed secular state and aggressive Islamist political parties, with a murderous Kurdish separatist insurgency, and bordering such desirable neighbors as Georgia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. It is a country whose troops occupy part of the territory of an existing EU member state (northern Cyprus), where police torture and press censorship are commonplace, and where it can be a criminal offence to mention the estimated 1.5 million Armenians slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. If permitted to join the European Union, huge numbers of its citizens would immediately relocate to join already large, already marginalized Turkish communities in western Europe—while billions and billions of Euros would flow the other way, to upgrade the roads of Cappadocia or provide Kurdish-language broadcasting in Diyarbakir. It is a country whose historical relationship with its European neighbors has more often than not been as an aggressor and oppressor—and which manifestly does not come within a scimitar’s distance of the ostensibly non-negotiable Copenhagen Criteria on democracy and human rights.
And yet Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership is supported by such diverse people as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, George Bush, Barack Obama, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder, the European Commission, virtually all EU governments, virtualy all Europe’s Leftwing parties, many of Europe’s nominal conservatives, many big businesses and trades unions, many media and innumerable non-governmental organizations. The most charitable possible interpretation is that all of these different individuals and interest groups are chronically misinformed—the ‘case’ for Turkish entry being based on a couple of “dodgy dossiers” from the European Commission, a vague sense that “we’ve promised” and the circumstance of some 4% of Turkish territory being made up of what used to be Greece before the Ottomans conquered it and killed, expelled or forcibly converted its Christian inhabitants. But unfortunately there is more than just ignorance at play.
There are big businesses that see Turkish membership as a means of facilitating their ongoing outsourcing and asset-stripping. There are Leftists who know that the only way they can stay politically relevant is by importing new disaffected voters, and trades unions which need new members. There are American geo-strategists who are willing to trade European culture for the use of a few airstrips. There are naïve utopians who see Turkish membership as a demonstration that Europe can cope with cultural diversity, or as a means of “extending stability”—whereas of course all it would mean is exporting stability. There are neutered Europeans who are so careless of their own cultural identity that they would be perfectly happy to see it replaced by anything else, an attitude typified by Jack Straw’s throwaway 2005 distinction in a BBC News interview between “so-called Christian heritage states and those of Islamic heritage”. (The selective application of “so-called” says it all.) There are ‘conservatives’ who want cheap au-pairs or more Turkish restaurants or—most unedifying of all motivations—realise that Turkish entry would be calamitous but nonetheless want it because they think it will bring down the whole EU. (They seem to believe they will somehow be immune from the consequences.) Perhaps the silliest reason of all was offered by the Daily Telegraph newspaper on 18 May 2004, when it said that because it had opposed Gladstone’s campaigns against the Turks and supported the invasion of Cyprus in 1974, “it is with some enthusiasm that we again take up the cause of our old friend.”
Up against this adventitious army is a ragtag, uncoordinated militia of genuine conservatives, genuine liberals, nationalists, a small number of academics, writers and even some senior EU officials, variously motivated by patriotism, realism, human rights idealism or the almost unconfessed feeling that somehow we owe it to our ancestors to resist what so many of them resisted so successfully for so long. But it is a militia chronically short of arms and ammunition, which is why this little book is so important. Incredible though it may seem, so far as I know, this is the first book-length, English-language treatment on the subject of Turkey joining the EU. And even this book had to be translated from Dutch.
Written by two rising stars of the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) party, and with a foreword by Taki, A Bridge Too Far is no crude anti-Turkish rant, but a careful demolition of all the arguments used for accession. Like Angela Merkel, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Franz Fischler, and many others, the authors advocate a congenial and mutually beneficial privileged partnership between the EU and Turkey. Claeys and Dillen provide innumerable, unanswerable reasons why this bizarre scheme should never have been considered and should now be shelved. Their knowledge of Turkish history is extensive and sympathetic, from the original 7th century irruptions of the Seljuks into Asia Minor right up until the ongoing mass trial of secularists accused of planning a coup against the insecure Islamist government.
A Bridge Too Far will be ignored or derided by Turkey’s apologists and maybe even by some on the angelic side of the barricades, who will wish to distance themselves from the politics (real or imagined) of the book’s authors. But this would be a grave error, because on this subject many on the Left and many on the Right will find common ground. Very, very few Europeans—whether liberal or conservative, whatever their country—want massive increases in EU spending, yet more immigration, serious political unrest, Sharia law or increased censorship. Turkey’s accessories know this, and this is why they have been so secretive, and so careful to avoid offering Europeans any voice, let alone a vote, on the subject. But murder will out, and despite the lack of consultation, European public opinion against Turkish entry has been growing and hardening.
And if the anti-Turkish forces are divided so too are the pro-Turkish ones, and economic recession or political troubles may further delay or even ultimately deny entry. But of course we cannot trust to luck, and this is why it is so fortuitous that this valuable book has happened along at this perilous moment, to inform and inspire the garrison guarding Europe’s southeasternmost perimeter.
Deze beschouwing is van conservatief columnist Derek Turner.
Meer over dit kritisch boek op www.takimag.com.
I like to think that it was somewhere along this section of wall that Emperor Constantine Palæologus fell on the last day of the siege, fighting alongside the last few gallant Christian (and a handful of desperate Muslim) defenders, his body overlooked and swept away into obscurity with those of his shattered army—but no one knows exactly where or how exactly he died, killed by some Ottoman fighter ignorant that he was single-handedly putting a full stop to one of the world’s longest-lasting civilizations. The last clear anecdote of Constantine was from the city’s last ever night of Christianity, when he went alone to Midnight Mass at Hagia Sophia to pray for the city’s deliverance. The city’s food was almost gone, the garrison was diminished and exhausted, and the great boom defending the Golden Horn from enemy shipping had been circumvented by Mehmet’s logistically dazzling feat of having galleys hauled overland to be relaunched behind the iron chain. And there would be no help coming now. Europe’s kings counted their money and fought their neighbors as usual, while Byzantium slid into the storybooks.
We had seen Haghia Sophia a few days previously—a gloomy womb of a building whose stupendous dome and towering narthex were lightened by gleams of chalcedony, poryphyry, onyx and agate, and the sudden radiance of mosaics that must have been glimpsed in the candle light by the destiny-haunted emperor—the emperor, now, only of a few suburbs but who was yet supremely certain of his duty if not his chances of success. A day or two later, Mehmet rode up into the city over the robbed bodies of its late defenders, and proclaimed that the world’s largest church would henceforth be a mosque. We had seen, too, the marble faces of toppled gods and generals holding up the dripping brick vaults of the Roman Cisterns, where goldfish swim in lifelong ignorance of the sun, and the huge Hellenic physiognomies that look blankly homeward across the Bosphorus from the hot gardens of the Archaeological Museum.
And over and above all of these things from the past, we had seen the thronging Turkish present and future—the spice bazaar and the fish heads nailed up along the breakwater and the stink of sewage, the crocodiles of uniformed schoolchildren marching with Turkish flags beneath huge Atatürk banners, the thousands and thousands of squat, brunet people surging over the bridge from Asia to Europe, the hastening ferries aboard which we bobbed between continents while we drank raki and warming salep root, the clamoring taxicabs, the men who tried to sell us carpets and spoke of relatives in the UK, the mosque courtyards buzzing with chattering men performing ablutions and women in headdresses, the smell of feet in the Sultahnamet Mosque and of wonderful food from everywhere, the turbaned headstones in the toppling-over cemeteries, the whole city fizzing and itchy with poverty and vitality.
All of these intense and unusually olfactory holiday memories were brought piercingly back to me as if I had suddenly opened an old perfume bottle, as I read this book with awakening admiration and gratitude—admiration for the joint authors’ courage and commitment, gratitude for their timing and highly-developed sense of public service. The ongoing attempt by Europe’s present sorry crop of leaders to permit Turkey to join the European Union is almost incomprehensibly irresponsible. Even the briefest examination of what Turkish accession would entail for Europeans suffices to show how foolish clever people can be.
Turkey has a rapidly growing population of nearly 80 million, 99.8% of whom are Muslims, many of those adhering to ultra-conservative views (for instance on women’s rights) that have not been common in Europe since the early 19th century. Its citizens on average are much poorer and less well-educated than even the poorest and least-educated Europeans. Much of its economy consists of unsustainable subsistence agriculture and increasingly uncompetitive manufacturing, often using child labor. Its infrastructure, from roads to schools to healthcare, is almost completely of Second World status. It is a politically volatile country, split between an army-backed secular state and aggressive Islamist political parties, with a murderous Kurdish separatist insurgency, and bordering such desirable neighbors as Georgia, Iran, Iraq and Syria. It is a country whose troops occupy part of the territory of an existing EU member state (northern Cyprus), where police torture and press censorship are commonplace, and where it can be a criminal offence to mention the estimated 1.5 million Armenians slaughtered by the Ottoman Empire during the First World War. If permitted to join the European Union, huge numbers of its citizens would immediately relocate to join already large, already marginalized Turkish communities in western Europe—while billions and billions of Euros would flow the other way, to upgrade the roads of Cappadocia or provide Kurdish-language broadcasting in Diyarbakir. It is a country whose historical relationship with its European neighbors has more often than not been as an aggressor and oppressor—and which manifestly does not come within a scimitar’s distance of the ostensibly non-negotiable Copenhagen Criteria on democracy and human rights.
And yet Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership is supported by such diverse people as Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, David Cameron, George Bush, Barack Obama, Jacques Chirac, Gerhard Schröder, the European Commission, virtually all EU governments, virtualy all Europe’s Leftwing parties, many of Europe’s nominal conservatives, many big businesses and trades unions, many media and innumerable non-governmental organizations. The most charitable possible interpretation is that all of these different individuals and interest groups are chronically misinformed—the ‘case’ for Turkish entry being based on a couple of “dodgy dossiers” from the European Commission, a vague sense that “we’ve promised” and the circumstance of some 4% of Turkish territory being made up of what used to be Greece before the Ottomans conquered it and killed, expelled or forcibly converted its Christian inhabitants. But unfortunately there is more than just ignorance at play.
There are big businesses that see Turkish membership as a means of facilitating their ongoing outsourcing and asset-stripping. There are Leftists who know that the only way they can stay politically relevant is by importing new disaffected voters, and trades unions which need new members. There are American geo-strategists who are willing to trade European culture for the use of a few airstrips. There are naïve utopians who see Turkish membership as a demonstration that Europe can cope with cultural diversity, or as a means of “extending stability”—whereas of course all it would mean is exporting stability. There are neutered Europeans who are so careless of their own cultural identity that they would be perfectly happy to see it replaced by anything else, an attitude typified by Jack Straw’s throwaway 2005 distinction in a BBC News interview between “so-called Christian heritage states and those of Islamic heritage”. (The selective application of “so-called” says it all.) There are ‘conservatives’ who want cheap au-pairs or more Turkish restaurants or—most unedifying of all motivations—realise that Turkish entry would be calamitous but nonetheless want it because they think it will bring down the whole EU. (They seem to believe they will somehow be immune from the consequences.) Perhaps the silliest reason of all was offered by the Daily Telegraph newspaper on 18 May 2004, when it said that because it had opposed Gladstone’s campaigns against the Turks and supported the invasion of Cyprus in 1974, “it is with some enthusiasm that we again take up the cause of our old friend.”
Up against this adventitious army is a ragtag, uncoordinated militia of genuine conservatives, genuine liberals, nationalists, a small number of academics, writers and even some senior EU officials, variously motivated by patriotism, realism, human rights idealism or the almost unconfessed feeling that somehow we owe it to our ancestors to resist what so many of them resisted so successfully for so long. But it is a militia chronically short of arms and ammunition, which is why this little book is so important. Incredible though it may seem, so far as I know, this is the first book-length, English-language treatment on the subject of Turkey joining the EU. And even this book had to be translated from Dutch.
Written by two rising stars of the Vlaams Belang (Flemish Interest) party, and with a foreword by Taki, A Bridge Too Far is no crude anti-Turkish rant, but a careful demolition of all the arguments used for accession. Like Angela Merkel, Valery Giscard d’Estaing, Franz Fischler, and many others, the authors advocate a congenial and mutually beneficial privileged partnership between the EU and Turkey. Claeys and Dillen provide innumerable, unanswerable reasons why this bizarre scheme should never have been considered and should now be shelved. Their knowledge of Turkish history is extensive and sympathetic, from the original 7th century irruptions of the Seljuks into Asia Minor right up until the ongoing mass trial of secularists accused of planning a coup against the insecure Islamist government.
A Bridge Too Far will be ignored or derided by Turkey’s apologists and maybe even by some on the angelic side of the barricades, who will wish to distance themselves from the politics (real or imagined) of the book’s authors. But this would be a grave error, because on this subject many on the Left and many on the Right will find common ground. Very, very few Europeans—whether liberal or conservative, whatever their country—want massive increases in EU spending, yet more immigration, serious political unrest, Sharia law or increased censorship. Turkey’s accessories know this, and this is why they have been so secretive, and so careful to avoid offering Europeans any voice, let alone a vote, on the subject. But murder will out, and despite the lack of consultation, European public opinion against Turkish entry has been growing and hardening.
And if the anti-Turkish forces are divided so too are the pro-Turkish ones, and economic recession or political troubles may further delay or even ultimately deny entry. But of course we cannot trust to luck, and this is why it is so fortuitous that this valuable book has happened along at this perilous moment, to inform and inspire the garrison guarding Europe’s southeasternmost perimeter.
Deze beschouwing is van conservatief columnist Derek Turner.
Meer over dit kritisch boek op www.takimag.com.
Op 6 en 7 november kleurde Parijs een beetje blauwwit. En niet omdat de Franse nationale voetbalploeg aantrad, maar wel omdat de Franse hoofdstad de grootste pro-Israëlmanifestatie in Europa ooit mocht ontvangen. Meer dan 400 parlementsleden uit 47 verschillende landen maakten in Parijs hun opwachting op de eerste editie van de “Policy Conference” van de “European Friends of Israel”. EFI is een recent opgerichte drukkingsgroep van én voor parlementsleden die de ambitie koestert om de Europese tegenhanger van AIPAC te worden. De conferentie wou de zestigste verjaardag van de stichting van het moderne Israël herdenken en aan de wereld kenbaar maken dat Israël ook van de Europese landen een nauwe bondgenoot en bevoorrecht partner is. In dat kader werd ook de door EFI opgestelde “Verklaring van Parijs” besproken en unaniem goedgekeurd door de aanwezigen. Deze verklaring pleit in niet mis te verstane bewoordingen voor nog diepgaandere Euro-Israëlische samenwerking. De ondertekenaars “erkennen de gemeenschappelijke waarden en culturele tradities die Europa en Israël van oudsher delen met het oog op een versterking van de wederzijdse belangen, en dit in overtuigde vriendschap en met wederzijds respect.”
Tientallen hoogwaardigheidsbekleders passeerden in Parijs de revue op de podia van het Méridienhotel en het “Pavillon d’Armenonville” tot grote tevredenheid van de uitgebreide Israëlische delegatie van maar liefst acht leden van de Knesset. EFI-voorzitter en Europarlementslid Gunnar Hökmark vond het hoog tijd dat Europa vrede zou brengen in het Midden-Oosten. De voorzitter van de Parlementaire Assemblee van de Raad van Europa, Luis Maria de Puig, bewierookte Israël als enige vrijheidslievende democratie in dat deel van de wereld. De Kroatische parlementsvoorzitter Luka Bebic trok parallellen tussen de genocide in de Balkan en de situatie van Israël met zijn vijandige buren, maar bleef optimistisch over de kansen op vrede in het Midden-Oosten. Rudy Salles, de vice-voorzitter van de Assemblée Nationale, besprak de meerwaarde van Israël als kernlid van de Euro-Mediterrane Unie. De vice-voorzitster van de Bundestag, Petra Pau, viel het toenemende antisemitisme in Duitsland en Oost-Europa aan en waarschuwde voor het minimaliseren van de gruwelen uit het verleden.
Dalia Itzik, de voorzitster van de Knesset, benadrukte dat Israël een wezenlijk deel van de Europese beschavingsgemeenschap uitmaakt en riep Europa op om nauwgezetter toe te kijken op de evoluties in Iran. “Europa heeft een historische plicht om vandaag in te staan voor de bescherming en verdediging van Israël,” aldus Dalia Itzik, die daarin gevolgd werd door Knessetlid Amira Dotan, die in een eerder leven zelf nog brigadier-generaal was in het Israëlisch leger en de situatie op het terrein kende. De Russische senator Vladimir Sloutsker kondigde hardere acties aan tegen anti-joodse manifestaties in zijn thuisland en vergeleek de situatie van vandaag met de pogroms onder de tsaren. De Spaanse staatssecretaris Angel Lossad dankte de joodse gemeenschap als miskend fundament van het historische hoogtepunt van de Spaanse beschaving.
Yasar Yakis, de gewezen Turkse minister van buitenlandse zaken, hield een bevlogen pleidooi voor een op maat gemaakte samenwerking tussen de Europese Unie en de Hebreeuwse Staat omdat beide deel uitmaken van dezelfde waardegemeenschap en Israël als “eiland van stabiliteit en democratie in een vijandige zee” alle steun kan gebruiken. De vice-voorzitter van de Knesset, David Tal, legde uit dat de democratie in Israël nog nooit onder druk gestaan heeft omdat die haar grondslag vindt in de joodse traditie en bijgevolg een wezenlijk deel van het Zionistische project uitmaakt. Hans-Gert Pöttering, de voorzitter van het Europees Parlement, verklaarde dat Israël “de verantwoordelijkheid van gans Europa” is en dat multilateraal overleg met alle betrokken partijen moet leiden tot een duurzame vrede in het Midden-Oosten. “Een tweestatenoplossing is in het belang van éénieder en binnen dat kader zal Europa steeds aan de kant van Israël staan,” aldus Hans-Gert Pöttering.
De Britse parlementsleden Alistair Burt en Andrew Gwynne stelden een partijonafhankelijk initiatief voor om de door Hamas gekidnapte en naar Gaza ontvoerde Israëlische soldaat Gilad Shalit vrij te krijgen. In alle Europese landen zullen nationale parlementsleden de lokale Rode Kruisbesturen interpelleren over de steun die Hamas in Gaza van hen geniet in de hoop hen zo met politieke druk te kunnen overtuigen Gilad Shalit op te sporen. Gilads vader Noam Shalit was ’s avonds zelf de gastspreker tijdens het galadiner en ook hij deed een emotionele oproep om aan de intrieste situatie van zijn zoon een einde te maken, net als de Israëlische zangeres Ahinoam Nini die het galadiner met een minioptreden opfleurde. En ook al moesten de twee aangekondigde dinersprekers, de presidenten Nicolas Sarkozy en Shimon Peres, allebei verstek geven, toch was de gala-avond met haar vijfhonderd couverts een aardige afsluiter van de eerste EFI-conferentie.
Op vrijdag stonden er nog een hele serie speeches op de agenda, o.a. van de Nederlandse en Tsjechische ministers van buitenlandse zaken Maxime Verhaegen en Karel Schwarzenberg, van de Israëlische minister Ami Ayalon en van Nobelprijswinnaar David Trimble, de gewezen premier van Noord-Ierland, maar ik was maar één dag in Parijs en heb deze dus moeten missen. Ondanks de wetenschap dat soortgelijke conferenties in de Verenigde Staten meer dan 5,000 deelnemers trekken en deze Europese variant maar een fractie ervan, toch was ik uitermate tevreden met de interessante dag en het enthousiasme van de aanwezigen. Na het zingen van het Hatikwa als sluitstuk van het diner en na van alle bekenden afscheid genomen te hebben, keerde ik ver na middernacht voldaan met de wagen naar Antwerpen terug. Ik kijk alvast uit naar volgend jaar.
Links geeft Rudy Salles en rechts geeft Gunnar Hökmark zijn speech, telkens met Dalia Itzik en Luis Maria de Puig in het panel.
Links poseren Gunnar Hökmark en Frédérique Ries met Noam Shalit. Rechts zien we Ahinoam Nini (Noa) aan het werk.
Meer over deze conferentie op www.efi-eu.org/policyconference.
Tientallen hoogwaardigheidsbekleders passeerden in Parijs de revue op de podia van het Méridienhotel en het “Pavillon d’Armenonville” tot grote tevredenheid van de uitgebreide Israëlische delegatie van maar liefst acht leden van de Knesset. EFI-voorzitter en Europarlementslid Gunnar Hökmark vond het hoog tijd dat Europa vrede zou brengen in het Midden-Oosten. De voorzitter van de Parlementaire Assemblee van de Raad van Europa, Luis Maria de Puig, bewierookte Israël als enige vrijheidslievende democratie in dat deel van de wereld. De Kroatische parlementsvoorzitter Luka Bebic trok parallellen tussen de genocide in de Balkan en de situatie van Israël met zijn vijandige buren, maar bleef optimistisch over de kansen op vrede in het Midden-Oosten. Rudy Salles, de vice-voorzitter van de Assemblée Nationale, besprak de meerwaarde van Israël als kernlid van de Euro-Mediterrane Unie. De vice-voorzitster van de Bundestag, Petra Pau, viel het toenemende antisemitisme in Duitsland en Oost-Europa aan en waarschuwde voor het minimaliseren van de gruwelen uit het verleden.
Dalia Itzik, de voorzitster van de Knesset, benadrukte dat Israël een wezenlijk deel van de Europese beschavingsgemeenschap uitmaakt en riep Europa op om nauwgezetter toe te kijken op de evoluties in Iran. “Europa heeft een historische plicht om vandaag in te staan voor de bescherming en verdediging van Israël,” aldus Dalia Itzik, die daarin gevolgd werd door Knessetlid Amira Dotan, die in een eerder leven zelf nog brigadier-generaal was in het Israëlisch leger en de situatie op het terrein kende. De Russische senator Vladimir Sloutsker kondigde hardere acties aan tegen anti-joodse manifestaties in zijn thuisland en vergeleek de situatie van vandaag met de pogroms onder de tsaren. De Spaanse staatssecretaris Angel Lossad dankte de joodse gemeenschap als miskend fundament van het historische hoogtepunt van de Spaanse beschaving.
Yasar Yakis, de gewezen Turkse minister van buitenlandse zaken, hield een bevlogen pleidooi voor een op maat gemaakte samenwerking tussen de Europese Unie en de Hebreeuwse Staat omdat beide deel uitmaken van dezelfde waardegemeenschap en Israël als “eiland van stabiliteit en democratie in een vijandige zee” alle steun kan gebruiken. De vice-voorzitter van de Knesset, David Tal, legde uit dat de democratie in Israël nog nooit onder druk gestaan heeft omdat die haar grondslag vindt in de joodse traditie en bijgevolg een wezenlijk deel van het Zionistische project uitmaakt. Hans-Gert Pöttering, de voorzitter van het Europees Parlement, verklaarde dat Israël “de verantwoordelijkheid van gans Europa” is en dat multilateraal overleg met alle betrokken partijen moet leiden tot een duurzame vrede in het Midden-Oosten. “Een tweestatenoplossing is in het belang van éénieder en binnen dat kader zal Europa steeds aan de kant van Israël staan,” aldus Hans-Gert Pöttering.
De Britse parlementsleden Alistair Burt en Andrew Gwynne stelden een partijonafhankelijk initiatief voor om de door Hamas gekidnapte en naar Gaza ontvoerde Israëlische soldaat Gilad Shalit vrij te krijgen. In alle Europese landen zullen nationale parlementsleden de lokale Rode Kruisbesturen interpelleren over de steun die Hamas in Gaza van hen geniet in de hoop hen zo met politieke druk te kunnen overtuigen Gilad Shalit op te sporen. Gilads vader Noam Shalit was ’s avonds zelf de gastspreker tijdens het galadiner en ook hij deed een emotionele oproep om aan de intrieste situatie van zijn zoon een einde te maken, net als de Israëlische zangeres Ahinoam Nini die het galadiner met een minioptreden opfleurde. En ook al moesten de twee aangekondigde dinersprekers, de presidenten Nicolas Sarkozy en Shimon Peres, allebei verstek geven, toch was de gala-avond met haar vijfhonderd couverts een aardige afsluiter van de eerste EFI-conferentie.
Op vrijdag stonden er nog een hele serie speeches op de agenda, o.a. van de Nederlandse en Tsjechische ministers van buitenlandse zaken Maxime Verhaegen en Karel Schwarzenberg, van de Israëlische minister Ami Ayalon en van Nobelprijswinnaar David Trimble, de gewezen premier van Noord-Ierland, maar ik was maar één dag in Parijs en heb deze dus moeten missen. Ondanks de wetenschap dat soortgelijke conferenties in de Verenigde Staten meer dan 5,000 deelnemers trekken en deze Europese variant maar een fractie ervan, toch was ik uitermate tevreden met de interessante dag en het enthousiasme van de aanwezigen. Na het zingen van het Hatikwa als sluitstuk van het diner en na van alle bekenden afscheid genomen te hebben, keerde ik ver na middernacht voldaan met de wagen naar Antwerpen terug. Ik kijk alvast uit naar volgend jaar.
Links geeft Rudy Salles en rechts geeft Gunnar Hökmark zijn speech, telkens met Dalia Itzik en Luis Maria de Puig in het panel.
De speech van EP-voorzitter Hans-Gert Pöttering.
Links poseren Gunnar Hökmark en Frédérique Ries met Noam Shalit. Rechts zien we Ahinoam Nini (Noa) aan het werk.
Meer over deze conferentie op www.efi-eu.org/policyconference.
“Energy independence” is a term that sounds good but falls apart on closer examination. Although the U.S. could achieve energy independence, we could do so only at an enormous cost. Energy “dependence” is much cheaper and much more desirable. Before considering the costs and benefits of energy independence, I should define my terms. What is energy independence? Various advocates and analysts have proposed various definitions, but two come up again and again. The first is that a country is energy independent if it is self-sufficient—that is, if it imports no energy from any other country. The second is that a country is energy independent if changes in world energy markets have no effect on that country’s price of energy. The first definition is more commonly used. Although I could consider the issue of energy independence abstractly, it is more illuminating to examine it in the context of the actual U.S. economy. And I will focus on the major form of energy for which many Americans want independence: oil.
Currently, the United States uses about 20 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil and petroleum products and imports about 60 percent - or 12 mbd - of that. The most straightforward way to reduce imports to zero would be to ban imports or to impose a stiff tariff on oil designed to reduce imports to zero. With 12 mbd gone from the U.S. daily supply, there would be only eight mbd to serve consumers who were accustomed to using 20. A substantial rise in price would result. As it rose, the amount demanded would fall and the amount supplied domestically would rise. The price would increase until the two were equal. How high would the price have to go? The honest answer is that no one knows - even the most seasoned, informed energy economist. The reason is that to compute the new equilibrium price, one would have to know the elasticities of supply and demand - that is, the measures of sensitivity to price changes of the amount supplied and demanded. We have reasonable measures of those elasticities for the range of prices of oil that we are used to. But the current price of oil (about $125 per barrel at this writing) is, even adjusted for inflation, above that usual range, and so we know little about elasticities at that price or above.
Yet, even if the elasticities of supply and demand were each as high as 1 (they are generally thought to be much less than that) - so that a 1-percent increase in price would lead to a 1-percent increase in quantity supplied and a 1-percent decrease in quantity demanded - it would still take a price increase of at least 40 percent to equate the amount supplied domestically to the amount demanded. That would imply a price of over $180 per barrel. And few economists believe that the elasticities of demand and supply are as high as 1. The lower they are, the higher the price must go to equate the domestic amount supplied to the amount demanded. It would probably go to over $200 per barrel. This means that to be self-sufficient in oil, Americans would have to pay in excess of $180 a barrel when, instead, they could be “dependent” on other countries’ supplies and pay the world market price of $125. That’s not a good deal for Americans. To put it in terms that everyone understands, a $180-per-barrel price of oil would increase the price of gasoline by about $1.20 a gallon (the $50 increase divided by 42 gallons to the barrel).
Comparative Advantage and Dependence
Energy “dependence” is much cheaper. In fact, the case for being “dependent” on other countries for oil is the same as the case for being dependent on other countries for bananas or coffee. At some tariff-protected price, the United States could be self-sufficient in bananas or coffee. If the price were high enough, someone would grow bananas and coffee plants in greenhouses. But why would we want that? Why would we want to pay more for coffee and bananas than we need to? Another way of saying that we would pay more is that we would give up more of our resources (capital, labor, and land) to have domestic bananas and coffee than we now give up by producing other things with these resources and using the proceeds to buy coffee and bananas more cheaply abroad. We would be poorer. The reasoning doesn’t change when the good is oil. By preventing people from importing oil, either with a ban on imports or a tariff on oil, the government would make us poorer.
Or think of it another way. Do you ever take your shirts to the local cleaner to be washed? If so, you are “dependent” on the cleaner. You could wash your shirts yourself, but you don’t. The reason you don’t is that your time is more valuably used producing other things, some of which you sell, and using some of the proceeds to pay the cleaner. Moreover, think about the word “dependence.” The image the word creates is of a poor, helpless waif. I picture Oliver Twist in the musical Oliver, who after eating a meager amount of food, says, “Please, sir, I want some more.” But U.S. consumers of oil are not poor, helpless waifs seeking the good will of oil-producing nations that are giving us oil out of kindness. Rather, they sell us the oil. We “need” the oil and they “need” the money. To the extent that dependence exists, it is mutual. International trade in oil is just that: trade.
Since both sides gain from trade, each is therefore “dependent” on the other. Producers of oil are dependent on the dollars, euros, and yen that buy the oil. This fact is commonly recognized when the topic is U.S. exports; many Americans worry that we don’t export enough because they want our exporters to earn money from people in other countries. In other words, they see that our exporters need the dollars, yen, and euros that they earn on their exports. But, somehow, they fail to see that this is true of foreign exporters too. Exporters need the income from exporting oil. “Dependence on foreign oil,” because it is so one-sidedly misleading, is a term that belongs in the dustbin of history. But isn’t it important to avoid depending on oil when so much of it is produced in the politically unstable Middle East? It would be nice if the Middle East were less unstable. But whoever is in charge of the oil wants to produce it to make money. So, it matters little, from the viewpoint of oil supply, which particular tyrant runs which particular oil-producing country.
Dependence and Government Ownership
It is true, and troublesome, that the world oil industry is largely a government-run industry with all the problems that accompany government enterprise - high cost, slow reaction times, little innovation, and so on. And it would be nice if governments in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Britain, Norway, and Canada denationalized their oil supplies. But until that happens, it’s still better to pay the lower price that producers in the world market charge rather than the higher price that would result from “independence.” Some people worry that a government in a major oil-producing country - Saudi Arabia, for example - might get upset at the U.S. government and take it out on Americans by refusing to sell us oil. But such a selective embargo is bound to fail. Imagine that Saudi Arabia cuts oil exports to the United States, but maintains total exports. Then it must sell these suddenly freed-up oil supplies somewhere else. Let’s say that it ships the additional oil to buyers in China. Then those buyers will want to buy that much less oil from their old suppliers. Presto! The American buyers’ problems are solved because they can get this oil.
In short, when the government of one country tries to selectively target people in another country, but still wishes to maintain output, it cannot succeed. The selective “oil weapon” is a dud. It’s like a game of musical chairs with the same number of chairs as players. The game would be awfully boring, which is why it is not played that way. But in the case of international trade, boring is good. Of course, the Saudis could hurt the United States by cutting exports in total. But then the Saudis would hurt all oil-importing countries, not just Americans. This is in fact what happened in 1973, when the Saudis embargoed the United States and the Netherlands over those two countries’ governments’ support of Israel. The countries were hurt by the new, much-higher price of oil. But so was every other oil-importing country. So it is true that a government of an oil-producing country can occasionally get nasty, cut the world supply of oil, and raise the world price. It’s also true that if the U.S. government insulated the country from the world oil market by ending imports, it could avoid these occasional price spikes. But the irony is that it would avoid the occasional spike by replacing it with a permanent “spike.” Imagine that haircutters unionized and had the occasional strike and that during such strikes the price of a haircut rose to $30 from its normal $20. You could avoid the high price by resolving always to cut your own hair, even when the price is $20. Would that be a good idea?
Subsidizing Alternative Fuels
Many supporters of “energy independence,” instead of arguing for a ban or prohibitive tariffs on oil imports, advocate government subsidies for alternative fuels or for conservation. They seem to think that such policies can create energy independence at a low cost. They are mistaken. The cost of using these alternatives, if successful in driving oil imports to zero, would actually be quite high. What makes these other policies politically attractive is not that they cost little, but that they hide the cost. A tariff on oil is a tax, and people can see the result of the tax in the price of oil. A subsidy to alternative fuels or to conservation, however, comes from the government’s treasury or from some other source and therefore is not visible to more than a small percent of the population. Economist David Loughran and engineer Jonathan Kulick studied the effect of state public utility commissions’ policies requiring electric utilities to subsidize their customers’ investments in conservation. The subsidies came not from tax revenue, but mainly from higher prices to other customers. Loughran and Kulick found that the cost of the conservation was between 14 and 22 cents per kilowatt-hour. This was a whopping two to three times as expensive as the energy conserved.
“Energy independence” is a bad idea. Every individual understands that it is far better to depend on others for most of what we want rather than trying to do everything for ourselves. This is true whether we’re buying oil or haircuts. The principle applies to groups of individuals living in large geographical areas called countries. Moreover, the dependence is mutual. In 1776, Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard for their own self-interest.” We can comfortably depend on foreigners for much of our oil because the world’s oil suppliers want to make money. And that's enough guarantee.
Dit stuk van David Henderson verscheen oorspronkelijk in "The Freeman" en werd nadien ook elders ter publicatie aangeboden.
Meer teksten van deze professor op www.hoover-institution.org.
Currently, the United States uses about 20 million barrels per day (mbd) of oil and petroleum products and imports about 60 percent - or 12 mbd - of that. The most straightforward way to reduce imports to zero would be to ban imports or to impose a stiff tariff on oil designed to reduce imports to zero. With 12 mbd gone from the U.S. daily supply, there would be only eight mbd to serve consumers who were accustomed to using 20. A substantial rise in price would result. As it rose, the amount demanded would fall and the amount supplied domestically would rise. The price would increase until the two were equal. How high would the price have to go? The honest answer is that no one knows - even the most seasoned, informed energy economist. The reason is that to compute the new equilibrium price, one would have to know the elasticities of supply and demand - that is, the measures of sensitivity to price changes of the amount supplied and demanded. We have reasonable measures of those elasticities for the range of prices of oil that we are used to. But the current price of oil (about $125 per barrel at this writing) is, even adjusted for inflation, above that usual range, and so we know little about elasticities at that price or above.
Yet, even if the elasticities of supply and demand were each as high as 1 (they are generally thought to be much less than that) - so that a 1-percent increase in price would lead to a 1-percent increase in quantity supplied and a 1-percent decrease in quantity demanded - it would still take a price increase of at least 40 percent to equate the amount supplied domestically to the amount demanded. That would imply a price of over $180 per barrel. And few economists believe that the elasticities of demand and supply are as high as 1. The lower they are, the higher the price must go to equate the domestic amount supplied to the amount demanded. It would probably go to over $200 per barrel. This means that to be self-sufficient in oil, Americans would have to pay in excess of $180 a barrel when, instead, they could be “dependent” on other countries’ supplies and pay the world market price of $125. That’s not a good deal for Americans. To put it in terms that everyone understands, a $180-per-barrel price of oil would increase the price of gasoline by about $1.20 a gallon (the $50 increase divided by 42 gallons to the barrel).
Comparative Advantage and Dependence
Energy “dependence” is much cheaper. In fact, the case for being “dependent” on other countries for oil is the same as the case for being dependent on other countries for bananas or coffee. At some tariff-protected price, the United States could be self-sufficient in bananas or coffee. If the price were high enough, someone would grow bananas and coffee plants in greenhouses. But why would we want that? Why would we want to pay more for coffee and bananas than we need to? Another way of saying that we would pay more is that we would give up more of our resources (capital, labor, and land) to have domestic bananas and coffee than we now give up by producing other things with these resources and using the proceeds to buy coffee and bananas more cheaply abroad. We would be poorer. The reasoning doesn’t change when the good is oil. By preventing people from importing oil, either with a ban on imports or a tariff on oil, the government would make us poorer.
Or think of it another way. Do you ever take your shirts to the local cleaner to be washed? If so, you are “dependent” on the cleaner. You could wash your shirts yourself, but you don’t. The reason you don’t is that your time is more valuably used producing other things, some of which you sell, and using some of the proceeds to pay the cleaner. Moreover, think about the word “dependence.” The image the word creates is of a poor, helpless waif. I picture Oliver Twist in the musical Oliver, who after eating a meager amount of food, says, “Please, sir, I want some more.” But U.S. consumers of oil are not poor, helpless waifs seeking the good will of oil-producing nations that are giving us oil out of kindness. Rather, they sell us the oil. We “need” the oil and they “need” the money. To the extent that dependence exists, it is mutual. International trade in oil is just that: trade.
Since both sides gain from trade, each is therefore “dependent” on the other. Producers of oil are dependent on the dollars, euros, and yen that buy the oil. This fact is commonly recognized when the topic is U.S. exports; many Americans worry that we don’t export enough because they want our exporters to earn money from people in other countries. In other words, they see that our exporters need the dollars, yen, and euros that they earn on their exports. But, somehow, they fail to see that this is true of foreign exporters too. Exporters need the income from exporting oil. “Dependence on foreign oil,” because it is so one-sidedly misleading, is a term that belongs in the dustbin of history. But isn’t it important to avoid depending on oil when so much of it is produced in the politically unstable Middle East? It would be nice if the Middle East were less unstable. But whoever is in charge of the oil wants to produce it to make money. So, it matters little, from the viewpoint of oil supply, which particular tyrant runs which particular oil-producing country.
Dependence and Government Ownership
It is true, and troublesome, that the world oil industry is largely a government-run industry with all the problems that accompany government enterprise - high cost, slow reaction times, little innovation, and so on. And it would be nice if governments in Saudi Arabia, Iran, the United Arab Emirates, Venezuela, Britain, Norway, and Canada denationalized their oil supplies. But until that happens, it’s still better to pay the lower price that producers in the world market charge rather than the higher price that would result from “independence.” Some people worry that a government in a major oil-producing country - Saudi Arabia, for example - might get upset at the U.S. government and take it out on Americans by refusing to sell us oil. But such a selective embargo is bound to fail. Imagine that Saudi Arabia cuts oil exports to the United States, but maintains total exports. Then it must sell these suddenly freed-up oil supplies somewhere else. Let’s say that it ships the additional oil to buyers in China. Then those buyers will want to buy that much less oil from their old suppliers. Presto! The American buyers’ problems are solved because they can get this oil.
In short, when the government of one country tries to selectively target people in another country, but still wishes to maintain output, it cannot succeed. The selective “oil weapon” is a dud. It’s like a game of musical chairs with the same number of chairs as players. The game would be awfully boring, which is why it is not played that way. But in the case of international trade, boring is good. Of course, the Saudis could hurt the United States by cutting exports in total. But then the Saudis would hurt all oil-importing countries, not just Americans. This is in fact what happened in 1973, when the Saudis embargoed the United States and the Netherlands over those two countries’ governments’ support of Israel. The countries were hurt by the new, much-higher price of oil. But so was every other oil-importing country. So it is true that a government of an oil-producing country can occasionally get nasty, cut the world supply of oil, and raise the world price. It’s also true that if the U.S. government insulated the country from the world oil market by ending imports, it could avoid these occasional price spikes. But the irony is that it would avoid the occasional spike by replacing it with a permanent “spike.” Imagine that haircutters unionized and had the occasional strike and that during such strikes the price of a haircut rose to $30 from its normal $20. You could avoid the high price by resolving always to cut your own hair, even when the price is $20. Would that be a good idea?
Subsidizing Alternative Fuels
Many supporters of “energy independence,” instead of arguing for a ban or prohibitive tariffs on oil imports, advocate government subsidies for alternative fuels or for conservation. They seem to think that such policies can create energy independence at a low cost. They are mistaken. The cost of using these alternatives, if successful in driving oil imports to zero, would actually be quite high. What makes these other policies politically attractive is not that they cost little, but that they hide the cost. A tariff on oil is a tax, and people can see the result of the tax in the price of oil. A subsidy to alternative fuels or to conservation, however, comes from the government’s treasury or from some other source and therefore is not visible to more than a small percent of the population. Economist David Loughran and engineer Jonathan Kulick studied the effect of state public utility commissions’ policies requiring electric utilities to subsidize their customers’ investments in conservation. The subsidies came not from tax revenue, but mainly from higher prices to other customers. Loughran and Kulick found that the cost of the conservation was between 14 and 22 cents per kilowatt-hour. This was a whopping two to three times as expensive as the energy conserved.
“Energy independence” is a bad idea. Every individual understands that it is far better to depend on others for most of what we want rather than trying to do everything for ourselves. This is true whether we’re buying oil or haircuts. The principle applies to groups of individuals living in large geographical areas called countries. Moreover, the dependence is mutual. In 1776, Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations, “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner but from their regard for their own self-interest.” We can comfortably depend on foreigners for much of our oil because the world’s oil suppliers want to make money. And that's enough guarantee.
Dit stuk van David Henderson verscheen oorspronkelijk in "The Freeman" en werd nadien ook elders ter publicatie aangeboden.
Meer teksten van deze professor op www.hoover-institution.org.
Enkele weken geleden besprak “The Economist” een plan van Tarek Bin Laden, de broer van Osama, om de Rode Zee te gaan overbruggen tussen Jemen en Djibouti ter hoogte van de Bab El Mandeb-zeeëngte. Als libertariër voelde ik mij niet zozeer aangesproken tot dit project omwille van de architectonische hoogstandjes die ermee gepaard zullen gaan maar vooral met het opzet daarachter. De brug zou immers twee nieuwe tweelingsteden met elkaar moeten gaan verbinden, die samen op termijn zeven miljoen inwoners zouden moeten kunnen herbergen. Dit project draagt de naam “Noor City” en is het allereerste in een lange rij van soortgelijke geplande bouwprojecten onder de noemer “Cities of Light”. Niet enkel zouden deze nieuwe steden ecologisch neutraal moeten zijn, ze zouden ook over een verregaande graad van zelfbestuur beschikken. En laat het nu net dat aspect zijn dat mij als libertariër ronduit fascineert. Jemen en Djibouti hebben elk immers een deel van hun grondgebied afgestaan aan de bouwpromotoren en zullen zich later nauwelijks moeien met de interne bestuursstructuren van deze steden, op een minimale belastingheffing na natuurlijk. Een “gated community” van zeven miljoen zielen staat dus in de steigers en libertariërs kunnen daar eigenlijk alleen maar blij om zijn.
Het was uiteindelijk de grote libertarische academicus Hans-Hermann Hoppe die al jaren geleden pleitte voor de vervanging van de huidige staatsstructuren door kleine privaat gerunde “gated communities” waarbij elk woonerf volledig autonoom zou zijn en volledig vrij in het beheer van zijn interne keuken. En doordat het bestuursniveau zich op een veel kleinere schaal zou situeren, kunnen inwoners die het niet eens zijn met de bestuurskoers eenvoudigweg verhuizen. Het principe “love it or leave it” weet u wel. En moest er geen enkel woonerf bestaan dat de structurele wensen van die persoon inwilligt, dan is hij nog steeds vrij om een eigen “gated community” te stichten. Iets wat met de huidige staatssystemen niet mogelijk is. Hoppe vergelijkt zijn idee met de Far West waar de lokaliteiten ook eizona 100% onafhankelijk waren in hun doen en laten. In tegenstelling tot die andere anarcho-kapitalist Patri Friedman, die met zijn “Seasteading Institute” boorplatformen aan het bouwen is in internationale wateren om daar libertarische walhalla’s te stichten, kende Hoppes ideeën tot voor kort nog geen praktische toepassingen in de wereld. Maar daar is nu dus verandering in gekomen met de bouw van de eerste volledig private steden aan de beide oevers van de “Gate of Tears” in Djibouti en Jemen.
De eerlijkheid gebiedt mij wel om te zeggen dat de motieven van de Bin Ladens niet zo libertarisch zijn als ik zou willen. Zij willen in beide steden immers de moslimwetten invoeren en deze veel strikter afdwingen dan nu het geval is in de Arabische wereld. Maar de invulling van de bestuursvrijheid is in mijn ogen ondergeschikt aan de gecreëerde mechanismen. Niemand zal immers gedwongen worden om in beide steden te gaan wonen en zich dus te onderwerpen aan de sharia-wetgeving. De inwoners zullen er vrijwillig voor gekozen hebben en dat is hun volste recht. Het wonen op boorplatformen of het energie steken in massale verhuiscampagnes naar bepaalde Amerikaanse staten mag misschien ook wel aanlokkelijk zijn, toch gaat er mijns inziens niets boven de bouw van eigen steden. Het enige wat libertariërs als mezelf die “liberty in our lifetime” nastreven dan ook nog rest nu, is 200 miljard USD zien te verzamelen om onze eigen libertarische tweelingsteden te kunnen bouwen. Alleen lijkt dat nog niet voor morgen te zijn.
Dit opiniestuk verscheen ook bij het Leuvense Liberaal Vlaams Studentenverbond, In Flanders Fields en De Vrijspreker.
Meer over dit bouwproject op www.economist.com.
Het was uiteindelijk de grote libertarische academicus Hans-Hermann Hoppe die al jaren geleden pleitte voor de vervanging van de huidige staatsstructuren door kleine privaat gerunde “gated communities” waarbij elk woonerf volledig autonoom zou zijn en volledig vrij in het beheer van zijn interne keuken. En doordat het bestuursniveau zich op een veel kleinere schaal zou situeren, kunnen inwoners die het niet eens zijn met de bestuurskoers eenvoudigweg verhuizen. Het principe “love it or leave it” weet u wel. En moest er geen enkel woonerf bestaan dat de structurele wensen van die persoon inwilligt, dan is hij nog steeds vrij om een eigen “gated community” te stichten. Iets wat met de huidige staatssystemen niet mogelijk is. Hoppe vergelijkt zijn idee met de Far West waar de lokaliteiten ook eizona 100% onafhankelijk waren in hun doen en laten. In tegenstelling tot die andere anarcho-kapitalist Patri Friedman, die met zijn “Seasteading Institute” boorplatformen aan het bouwen is in internationale wateren om daar libertarische walhalla’s te stichten, kende Hoppes ideeën tot voor kort nog geen praktische toepassingen in de wereld. Maar daar is nu dus verandering in gekomen met de bouw van de eerste volledig private steden aan de beide oevers van de “Gate of Tears” in Djibouti en Jemen.
De eerlijkheid gebiedt mij wel om te zeggen dat de motieven van de Bin Ladens niet zo libertarisch zijn als ik zou willen. Zij willen in beide steden immers de moslimwetten invoeren en deze veel strikter afdwingen dan nu het geval is in de Arabische wereld. Maar de invulling van de bestuursvrijheid is in mijn ogen ondergeschikt aan de gecreëerde mechanismen. Niemand zal immers gedwongen worden om in beide steden te gaan wonen en zich dus te onderwerpen aan de sharia-wetgeving. De inwoners zullen er vrijwillig voor gekozen hebben en dat is hun volste recht. Het wonen op boorplatformen of het energie steken in massale verhuiscampagnes naar bepaalde Amerikaanse staten mag misschien ook wel aanlokkelijk zijn, toch gaat er mijns inziens niets boven de bouw van eigen steden. Het enige wat libertariërs als mezelf die “liberty in our lifetime” nastreven dan ook nog rest nu, is 200 miljard USD zien te verzamelen om onze eigen libertarische tweelingsteden te kunnen bouwen. Alleen lijkt dat nog niet voor morgen te zijn.
Dit opiniestuk verscheen ook bij het Leuvense Liberaal Vlaams Studentenverbond, In Flanders Fields en De Vrijspreker.
Meer over dit bouwproject op www.economist.com.
Een nieuwe week, een nieuwe Knack, een nieuwe lezersbrief van mij... Met verbazing en fronsende wenkbrauwen las ik het gasteditoriaal van Karl Van den Broeck in Knack vorige week. Het gebruik van de omschrijving ‘minister van oorlog’, zowel op de voorpagina als doorheen de aanverwante artikelen en columns, doet de werkelijkheid oneer aan. Pieter De Crem is inderdaad agressiever dan zijn voorgangers op defensie wat de inzet van soldaten betreft, maar om hem daarvoor dit etiket op te plakken, lijkt mij een brug te ver. Men hoeft geen Amerikaanse neocon-fanaat te zijn om in te zien dat de strijd tegen Al-Qaeda en de Taliban in Afghanistan ons allen aangaat, best beschouwd kan worden als een defensief iets, en volledig inpasbaar is in de doelstellingen van de Belgische defensie. ‘Crembo’ aan het roer of niet.
De operaties in Aghanistan zijn internationaal gelegitimeerd. Misschien niet door de veredelde praatbarak die we doorgaans als ‘Verenigde Naties’ omschrijven, maar wel door andere multilaterale instellingen zoals de NAVO, die zeker na het welslagen van de campagnes in de Balkan internationale legitimiteit verworven heeft. Verder vloeit de inzet van Belgische militairen niet uitsluitend voort uit de manifestatiedrang van Pieter De Crem maar uit de consensus van de voltallige federale regering, om van de smeekbedes van de soldaten op de grond nog maar te zwijgen. Scholen bouwen in de woestijn en bagage controleren op luchthavens mag misschien de droom zijn van Dirk Vandermaelen of Mieke Vogels, maar dit soort opdrachten behoort doorgaans niet tot het wensenpakket van gedrilde paracommando’s.
Deze reactie werd als lezersbrief bij Knack ingezonden. Verder verscheen dit ook op de metablogs In Flanders Fields en 8-Mei.
Meer over dit Knack-editoriaal op www.knackblogt.be.
De operaties in Aghanistan zijn internationaal gelegitimeerd. Misschien niet door de veredelde praatbarak die we doorgaans als ‘Verenigde Naties’ omschrijven, maar wel door andere multilaterale instellingen zoals de NAVO, die zeker na het welslagen van de campagnes in de Balkan internationale legitimiteit verworven heeft. Verder vloeit de inzet van Belgische militairen niet uitsluitend voort uit de manifestatiedrang van Pieter De Crem maar uit de consensus van de voltallige federale regering, om van de smeekbedes van de soldaten op de grond nog maar te zwijgen. Scholen bouwen in de woestijn en bagage controleren op luchthavens mag misschien de droom zijn van Dirk Vandermaelen of Mieke Vogels, maar dit soort opdrachten behoort doorgaans niet tot het wensenpakket van gedrilde paracommando’s.
Deze reactie werd als lezersbrief bij Knack ingezonden. Verder verscheen dit ook op de metablogs In Flanders Fields en 8-Mei.
Meer over dit Knack-editoriaal op www.knackblogt.be.
Pakistan’s government should forget about punishing the president and get on with governing. The story of Pervez Musharraf’s rise and fall has been a long and rather sad one. A skilful and decent professional soldier, he took power in 1999 amid chaos caused by corrupt and incompetent politicians, came to like the stuff and clung on to it far too long. A good friend to the West in the fight against al-Qaeda, he became a liability as he stalled on the promised return to democracy and his countrymen turned against him. Now the story seems to be nearing its end. For the government elected in February, which is seeking to impeach Mr Musharraf, this is both a danger and an opportunity. The danger is that, once Mr Musharraf has gone and it has no common hatred to unite its disparate parts, it descends into feuding and paralysis. The opportunity is to transcend its preoccupation with president and to start tackling the two huge problems Pakistan faces: the spread of Islamist militancy and a fast-sinking economy.
First, though, Mr Musharraf should go. He is already much diminished in power since he sloughed off the “second skin” of his army chief’s uniform last year and became a president in mufti. His term finished last year. He claims to be a democrat, and it is clear his people want him out. To bestow a new term on himself he flouted the spirit and possibly the letter of the constitution by getting the outgoing parliament to re-elect him. When the new parliament was elected in February, his supporters were trounced - not just because of sympathy for their opponents after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, but also because he is so unpopular. His chances of hanging on are, anyway, small. He could try to fight impeachment in parliament, by cajoling venal politicians there. He could challenge it in the courts. Worst, he could resort to his presidential powers to declare a state of emergency. That would be, in effect, another coup by a man who took power in one and sustained himself by declaring a state of emergency last November.
It is, however, unlikely to happen. Mr Musharraf is no longer army chief, and his successor, though his nominee, has so far shown creditably little inclination to leave the barracks. It is in the interests of both the country and the armed forces that the soldiers should stay there. Previous civilian administrations have been corrupt and inept, but so has the army rule that has routinely supplanted them. For Pakistan to break this vicious circle, it needs an army that renounces coups, come what may. The politicians also need to avoid repeating past mistakes. The coalition government is led by Bhutto’s widower, Asif Zardari, and Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister Mr Musharraf overthrew in 1999. Understandably, they have focused on getting rid of, and punishing, the president. But they should allow him to leave with as much dignity as he can salvage. Resignation would be humiliation enough. Allegations that he has embezzled huge amounts of American aid need to be investigated. But Messrs Zardari and Sharif need to abjure the backward-looking score-settling and forward-looking nest-lining that have characterised previous Bhutto and Sharif regimes, put aside their mutual loathing and work together to fight extremism and repair the economy.
The threat posed by the “Pakistani Taliban”, both in the tribal areas that blur into Afghanistan, and in Pakistan itself, is mounting. Fighting this week alone has claimed some 300 lives. The struggle against the extremists has been unpopular in Pakistan. It is seen as America’s, Afghanistan’s and Mr Musharraf’s war. Politicians have therefore tended to play down its importance. But Pakistanis are not, by and large, religious extremists. Defeating Pakistan’s version of the Taliban is in the interests not just of the West but also of the country’s moderate majority. The other priority must be the deteriorating economy. Mr Musharraf made much of his governments’ alleged economic competence. But despite the billions of dollars of American aid that have poured into the country, the Asian Development Bank reported last year that its poorest people were worse off than they were a decade earlier, before Mr Musharraf took over. Uniquely in Asia, Pakistan had seen a slight rise in the number of people living on less than the equivalent of a dollar a day. In the past year the sharp increase in food and fuel prices has made their lot even harder. Annual inflation is now running at 25%. Economic hardship is feeding extremism. Pakistan’s current and future politicians have more important things to do actually than settle old scores.
Dit artikel verscheen ook in The Economist.
Meer over Pervez Musharraf op www.news.bbc.co.uk.
First, though, Mr Musharraf should go. He is already much diminished in power since he sloughed off the “second skin” of his army chief’s uniform last year and became a president in mufti. His term finished last year. He claims to be a democrat, and it is clear his people want him out. To bestow a new term on himself he flouted the spirit and possibly the letter of the constitution by getting the outgoing parliament to re-elect him. When the new parliament was elected in February, his supporters were trounced - not just because of sympathy for their opponents after the assassination of Benazir Bhutto, a former prime minister, but also because he is so unpopular. His chances of hanging on are, anyway, small. He could try to fight impeachment in parliament, by cajoling venal politicians there. He could challenge it in the courts. Worst, he could resort to his presidential powers to declare a state of emergency. That would be, in effect, another coup by a man who took power in one and sustained himself by declaring a state of emergency last November.
It is, however, unlikely to happen. Mr Musharraf is no longer army chief, and his successor, though his nominee, has so far shown creditably little inclination to leave the barracks. It is in the interests of both the country and the armed forces that the soldiers should stay there. Previous civilian administrations have been corrupt and inept, but so has the army rule that has routinely supplanted them. For Pakistan to break this vicious circle, it needs an army that renounces coups, come what may. The politicians also need to avoid repeating past mistakes. The coalition government is led by Bhutto’s widower, Asif Zardari, and Nawaz Sharif, the prime minister Mr Musharraf overthrew in 1999. Understandably, they have focused on getting rid of, and punishing, the president. But they should allow him to leave with as much dignity as he can salvage. Resignation would be humiliation enough. Allegations that he has embezzled huge amounts of American aid need to be investigated. But Messrs Zardari and Sharif need to abjure the backward-looking score-settling and forward-looking nest-lining that have characterised previous Bhutto and Sharif regimes, put aside their mutual loathing and work together to fight extremism and repair the economy.
The threat posed by the “Pakistani Taliban”, both in the tribal areas that blur into Afghanistan, and in Pakistan itself, is mounting. Fighting this week alone has claimed some 300 lives. The struggle against the extremists has been unpopular in Pakistan. It is seen as America’s, Afghanistan’s and Mr Musharraf’s war. Politicians have therefore tended to play down its importance. But Pakistanis are not, by and large, religious extremists. Defeating Pakistan’s version of the Taliban is in the interests not just of the West but also of the country’s moderate majority. The other priority must be the deteriorating economy. Mr Musharraf made much of his governments’ alleged economic competence. But despite the billions of dollars of American aid that have poured into the country, the Asian Development Bank reported last year that its poorest people were worse off than they were a decade earlier, before Mr Musharraf took over. Uniquely in Asia, Pakistan had seen a slight rise in the number of people living on less than the equivalent of a dollar a day. In the past year the sharp increase in food and fuel prices has made their lot even harder. Annual inflation is now running at 25%. Economic hardship is feeding extremism. Pakistan’s current and future politicians have more important things to do actually than settle old scores.
Dit artikel verscheen ook in The Economist.
Meer over Pervez Musharraf op www.news.bbc.co.uk.
The Mediterranean, north and south, is forming a single economic unit under the auspices of France and Egypt: Europe should make this “Club Med” a powerful one. Under imperial Rome, the roads in cold, wet Britannia were no straighter than those in sweltering north Africa. The same sestertius could buy a lampful of oil. Across the southern Mediterranean and northern Europe alike, Latin was the lingua franca - 1,500 years before anyone had coined the term. Under the Treaty of Rome, however, the European Union has behaved as if the Med were a frontier, rather than an organising principle. As often as not, it has turned its back on the crescent that stretches from Morocco to Turkey, as a cradle of instability and terrorism. Sometimes the southern Med’s main export has seemed to be boatloads of illegal immigrants.
Last month at a summit in Paris France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, wants to heal the rift. Some 40 heads of state and government from the EU and the southern and eastern Mediterranean will meet to create a new club, called the Union for the Mediterranean. Despite Mr Sarkozy’s bombast, Club Med will have a modest start: the French propose a secretariat, which they will jointly head with Egypt, and money to help finance ventures on solar energy, anti-terrorism and the inevitable cultural exchanges. Beyond the platitudes and projects lies the germ of a brilliant idea. Something is stirring around the Med as globalisation takes root. Growth and investment have leapt. There is a new openness to trade and foreign money. The members of Club Med no longer need to glower across the table at each other. Instead, there is the prospect of the youth and vigour of the southern Mediterranean combining with a rich, ageing north. Despite the recent surge, the southern Med still takes less than 10% of all the FDI from the EU. This offers a tantalising prospect - though one reason why it matters is that it is fraught with dangers.
The EU has looked south before, in an initiative called the Barcelona Process, which dates back 13 years and failed to live up to its promises. Hopes are higher today, however, because the politicians gathering in Paris are following a path that is increasingly well trodden by business. FDI in the countries along the Mediterranean shore, from Morocco to Turkey, has grown six times since the turn of the century, to $59 billion in 2006 - ahead of Latin America’s Mercosur ($25 billion) and not far short of China ($69 billion). At the same time, the growth in the region’s GDP is running at 4.4% a year - slow by China’s standards, admittedly, but it has been accelerating as Europe has slowed.
Although Turkey, Israel and Egypt still dominate, most of the region has shared in this prosperity. Oil and gas are partly to thank, but investment is spread among financial services, telecoms, retailing and construction. Look at the car factory Renault and Nissan are planning in Morocco. Or the new container port outside Tangiers that will soon be bigger than Long Beach, on America’s west coast. Much of the money comes from Europe, as did the €8.8 billion ($12.9 billion) France’s Lafarge invested in Egyptian cement. But Americans are making aerospace parts; Arabs are spending petrodollars on property and construction; Brazilians are investing in fertilisers and textiles; Indians in IT and pharmaceuticals.
There is strength in such diversity, and there needs to be. The resurgent Med has a lot still to overcome. With exceptions, notably Israel, the region is plagued by poor infrastructure, an ill-educated workforce and unemployment. Unlike eastern Europe, which built trading links under communism, the Med countries barely trade with each other, so they lose the benefits of specialisation. And then there is the politics. The Europeans are right to look askance at the crisis of succession in Egypt, beleaguered Israel, unborn Palestine, divided Lebanon, fundamentalist Islam in Morocco, bombs in Algeria, Muammar Qaddafi’s bizarre Libyan autocracy, the risk that the Turkish courts declare the ruling party unconstitutional. That unfinished list is already depressingly long.
The EU is not free of troubles either. Those who favour Turkey’s membership of the EU fear that Club Med is designed to fob it off with second-class citizenship. At first Mr Sarkozy schemed to include only the EU countries with a Mediterranean coast - a ploy to create a French-dominated counterbalance to the apparently German-dominated east. After a vicious row with Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, Mr Sarkozy agreed to include the entire EU. That was right, if only because Germany pays much of the EU’s bills. That summit matters, because it is a step towards healing such wounds - and because it sets the tone. Will the Mediterranean union seize the moment, or will it be strangled by southern politics and European squabbles?
The first test is whether Mr Sarkozy is willing to see Club Med as more than a scheme to burnish French glory. If he wants the new union to thrive, he will have to accept that it is for everyone’s benefit, and let business do its work. This means a free-trade area that opens the EU to goods and services from the south - including the farm produce that France is making a fuss over in the world trade talks. The second is for the EU to use its patronage to boost spending on infrastructure, promote trade in the region and clean up politics. One lesson from eastern Europe is that, with incentives, countries will start to sort themselves out. For the Mediterranean, those incentives should include access to funds and markets. The logic of enlargement is that it could even include the faint possibility of membership of the EU itself. But none of that will count for much unless the southern Med chooses prosperity.
The world sometimes writes off Europe as the old continent, well past the vigour of youth and doomed to gentle decline; at the same time it condemns many of the teeming economies of the southern Med as chaotic backwaters. Old and young can make a powerful combination. The creation of the Union for the Mediterranean is hardly the rebirth of imperial Rome, but it may just be the start of something exciting.
Dit opiniestuk verscheen ook in The Economist.
Meer over deze Euro-Mediterraanse samenwerking op www.euromed.eu.
Last month at a summit in Paris France’s president, Nicolas Sarkozy, wants to heal the rift. Some 40 heads of state and government from the EU and the southern and eastern Mediterranean will meet to create a new club, called the Union for the Mediterranean. Despite Mr Sarkozy’s bombast, Club Med will have a modest start: the French propose a secretariat, which they will jointly head with Egypt, and money to help finance ventures on solar energy, anti-terrorism and the inevitable cultural exchanges. Beyond the platitudes and projects lies the germ of a brilliant idea. Something is stirring around the Med as globalisation takes root. Growth and investment have leapt. There is a new openness to trade and foreign money. The members of Club Med no longer need to glower across the table at each other. Instead, there is the prospect of the youth and vigour of the southern Mediterranean combining with a rich, ageing north. Despite the recent surge, the southern Med still takes less than 10% of all the FDI from the EU. This offers a tantalising prospect - though one reason why it matters is that it is fraught with dangers.
The EU has looked south before, in an initiative called the Barcelona Process, which dates back 13 years and failed to live up to its promises. Hopes are higher today, however, because the politicians gathering in Paris are following a path that is increasingly well trodden by business. FDI in the countries along the Mediterranean shore, from Morocco to Turkey, has grown six times since the turn of the century, to $59 billion in 2006 - ahead of Latin America’s Mercosur ($25 billion) and not far short of China ($69 billion). At the same time, the growth in the region’s GDP is running at 4.4% a year - slow by China’s standards, admittedly, but it has been accelerating as Europe has slowed.
Although Turkey, Israel and Egypt still dominate, most of the region has shared in this prosperity. Oil and gas are partly to thank, but investment is spread among financial services, telecoms, retailing and construction. Look at the car factory Renault and Nissan are planning in Morocco. Or the new container port outside Tangiers that will soon be bigger than Long Beach, on America’s west coast. Much of the money comes from Europe, as did the €8.8 billion ($12.9 billion) France’s Lafarge invested in Egyptian cement. But Americans are making aerospace parts; Arabs are spending petrodollars on property and construction; Brazilians are investing in fertilisers and textiles; Indians in IT and pharmaceuticals.
There is strength in such diversity, and there needs to be. The resurgent Med has a lot still to overcome. With exceptions, notably Israel, the region is plagued by poor infrastructure, an ill-educated workforce and unemployment. Unlike eastern Europe, which built trading links under communism, the Med countries barely trade with each other, so they lose the benefits of specialisation. And then there is the politics. The Europeans are right to look askance at the crisis of succession in Egypt, beleaguered Israel, unborn Palestine, divided Lebanon, fundamentalist Islam in Morocco, bombs in Algeria, Muammar Qaddafi’s bizarre Libyan autocracy, the risk that the Turkish courts declare the ruling party unconstitutional. That unfinished list is already depressingly long.
The EU is not free of troubles either. Those who favour Turkey’s membership of the EU fear that Club Med is designed to fob it off with second-class citizenship. At first Mr Sarkozy schemed to include only the EU countries with a Mediterranean coast - a ploy to create a French-dominated counterbalance to the apparently German-dominated east. After a vicious row with Angela Merkel, Germany’s chancellor, Mr Sarkozy agreed to include the entire EU. That was right, if only because Germany pays much of the EU’s bills. That summit matters, because it is a step towards healing such wounds - and because it sets the tone. Will the Mediterranean union seize the moment, or will it be strangled by southern politics and European squabbles?
The first test is whether Mr Sarkozy is willing to see Club Med as more than a scheme to burnish French glory. If he wants the new union to thrive, he will have to accept that it is for everyone’s benefit, and let business do its work. This means a free-trade area that opens the EU to goods and services from the south - including the farm produce that France is making a fuss over in the world trade talks. The second is for the EU to use its patronage to boost spending on infrastructure, promote trade in the region and clean up politics. One lesson from eastern Europe is that, with incentives, countries will start to sort themselves out. For the Mediterranean, those incentives should include access to funds and markets. The logic of enlargement is that it could even include the faint possibility of membership of the EU itself. But none of that will count for much unless the southern Med chooses prosperity.
The world sometimes writes off Europe as the old continent, well past the vigour of youth and doomed to gentle decline; at the same time it condemns many of the teeming economies of the southern Med as chaotic backwaters. Old and young can make a powerful combination. The creation of the Union for the Mediterranean is hardly the rebirth of imperial Rome, but it may just be the start of something exciting.
Dit opiniestuk verscheen ook in The Economist.
Meer over deze Euro-Mediterraanse samenwerking op www.euromed.eu.
Via de weblog van David Duke, niet meteen mijn grootste idool maar toch, vond ik vandaag twee interessante links terug: één naar een artikel van gewezen sociologieprofessor James Petras van Binghamton University, één van de vier onderdelen van de “State University of New York” (SUNY), en één naar een vijfdelige documentairereeks op YouTube over de belangrijkste pro-Israëlische drukkingsgroep in de Verenigde Staten, de “American Israel Political Affairs Committee” of AIPAC. David Duke, tegenwoordig doctor David Duke omdat hij recentelijk een doctoraat behaald zou hebben aan een Oekraïense universiteit, maakte furore als oprichter van de “European American Unity and Rights Organisation” (EURO) en de “National Association for the Advancement of White People” (NAAWP), als webmaster van Stormfront.org, als gewezen Republikeins lid van het deelstaatsparlement in Louisiana, als gewezen congres-, gouverneurs- en meervoudig presidentskandidaat voor zowel de Democraten als de GOP, en - vooral - als de voorman van de Ku Klux Klan in de jaren 1970 en 1980.
Niet meteen een cv dus om met op te scheppen me dunkt, maar David Duke laat zich dit alles niet aan het hart komen. En waarom zou hij ook? Het gaat David Duke de laatste tijd voor de wind. Uitgespuwd en constant gemarginaliseerd in de VS, toert hij tegenwoordig rond in Europa en het Midden-Oosten om overal het mooie weer te maken met speeches en actes-de-présence op ultra-rechtse conferenties. In 2007 gaf hij ook in Vlaanderen twee redevoeringen met alle bijhorende commotie. Verder was hij de enige Amerikaanse deelnemer aan het laatste Holocaustontkennerscongres in Teheran en teert hij momenteel op de honoraria van zijn autobiografie “My Awakening” dat ondanks alles een heuse bestseller geworden is in bepaalde Europese en Arabische streken.
Ook al staat alles waarin ik geloof haaks op de standpunten van David Duke, uitgezonderd zijn slogan “For our heritage and freedom!” die ik ook al jaren als motto op mijn eigen weblog heb staan, toch ben ik een occasionele bezoeker van zijn weblog. “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer”, weet je wel… In hetzelfde kader bezoek ik ook af en toe andere websites van antisemieten, Holocaustontkenners of blanke supremacisten, zoals die van “Jew Watch”, het “Vanguard News Network”, “Vrij Historisch Onderzoek” of “Historical Review”. Nu mag dit misschien vreemd in jullie oren klinken of overkomen als bevreemdend en verkeerd, toch wil ik dit alles even nuanceren.
Ik ben een overtuigde libertariër, een échte pro-Amerikaan en een moderne Zionist, ik schrijf geregeld voor “Joods Actueel”, ik heb goede contacten met professoren aan de universiteit van Haifa, ik heb joodse vrienden en ik ken jongeren die voor de Israëlische ambassade in Brussel werken. Even de puntjes op de “i” zetten dus: ik bezoek dit soort websites uitsluitend maar om te weten welke opinies mijn ideologische tegenstanders allemaal aan het uitwerken zijn en met welke leugens zij opnieuw gaan komen aandraven in het maatschappelijke debat. Mijn vermeldingen van en links naar deze ultra-rechtse websites houden dan ook geen enkele vorm van “endorsement” of aanvaarding in.
Hieronder vinden jullie een door “American Free Press” in het Engels herwerkte Nederlandse documentaire van “Tegenlicht” over AIPAC. Dit interessante vijfluik brengt de draagwijdte en de invloed van AIPAC mooi in beeld, en ook al ben ik het als Zionist natuurlijk totaal niet eens met de onderliggende doelstellingen en achtergronden van de makers hiervan (als David Duke iets aanraadt, is dat meestal niet écht de vertaling van mijn kijk op de wereld), is deze 50 minuten durende YouTube-film toch wel degelijk één van de meest volledige analyses van de macht van de joodse lobby in de Verenigde Staten, en alleen al daarvoor is ze zeker en vast het bekijken waard. Veel kijkplezier gewenst!
Professor James Petras is een typische David Duke-volgeling: hooghartig, eigenwijs, zelfingenomen, zwakzinnig én bovenal leugenachtig. De waarheid wordt overschat en de percipiëringsdrang primeert te allen tijde. Een verhaal is maar zo belangrijk als de commotie die er rond kan ontstaan. Tegen deze achtergrond moeten we ook zijn laatste essay lezen: “Israel’s War with Iran and the Zionist Power Configuration in America”. Ik neem dit hieronder integraal over. Petras is één van die personen met ronkende titels en prat gaat op zijn groot aantal geschreven boeken en zijn talrijke literaire onderscheidingen, ook al gaan deze laatste meestal uit van sinistere groupuscules en overstijgen de eerste nauwelijks het niveau van politieke pulp. Twee boeken van hem zijn echter wel het vermelden én het lezen waard, maar opnieuw: houdt alstublieft rekening met zijn antisemitische achtergrond! Het gaat om “The Power of Israel in the United States” uit 2006 en om “Empire or Republic: Global Power or Domestic Decay in the United States” uit 1994.
Meer teksten van deze KKK-leider op www.davidduke.com.
Niet meteen een cv dus om met op te scheppen me dunkt, maar David Duke laat zich dit alles niet aan het hart komen. En waarom zou hij ook? Het gaat David Duke de laatste tijd voor de wind. Uitgespuwd en constant gemarginaliseerd in de VS, toert hij tegenwoordig rond in Europa en het Midden-Oosten om overal het mooie weer te maken met speeches en actes-de-présence op ultra-rechtse conferenties. In 2007 gaf hij ook in Vlaanderen twee redevoeringen met alle bijhorende commotie. Verder was hij de enige Amerikaanse deelnemer aan het laatste Holocaustontkennerscongres in Teheran en teert hij momenteel op de honoraria van zijn autobiografie “My Awakening” dat ondanks alles een heuse bestseller geworden is in bepaalde Europese en Arabische streken.
Ook al staat alles waarin ik geloof haaks op de standpunten van David Duke, uitgezonderd zijn slogan “For our heritage and freedom!” die ik ook al jaren als motto op mijn eigen weblog heb staan, toch ben ik een occasionele bezoeker van zijn weblog. “Keep your friends close, but your enemies closer”, weet je wel… In hetzelfde kader bezoek ik ook af en toe andere websites van antisemieten, Holocaustontkenners of blanke supremacisten, zoals die van “Jew Watch”, het “Vanguard News Network”, “Vrij Historisch Onderzoek” of “Historical Review”. Nu mag dit misschien vreemd in jullie oren klinken of overkomen als bevreemdend en verkeerd, toch wil ik dit alles even nuanceren.
Ik ben een overtuigde libertariër, een échte pro-Amerikaan en een moderne Zionist, ik schrijf geregeld voor “Joods Actueel”, ik heb goede contacten met professoren aan de universiteit van Haifa, ik heb joodse vrienden en ik ken jongeren die voor de Israëlische ambassade in Brussel werken. Even de puntjes op de “i” zetten dus: ik bezoek dit soort websites uitsluitend maar om te weten welke opinies mijn ideologische tegenstanders allemaal aan het uitwerken zijn en met welke leugens zij opnieuw gaan komen aandraven in het maatschappelijke debat. Mijn vermeldingen van en links naar deze ultra-rechtse websites houden dan ook geen enkele vorm van “endorsement” of aanvaarding in.
Hieronder vinden jullie een door “American Free Press” in het Engels herwerkte Nederlandse documentaire van “Tegenlicht” over AIPAC. Dit interessante vijfluik brengt de draagwijdte en de invloed van AIPAC mooi in beeld, en ook al ben ik het als Zionist natuurlijk totaal niet eens met de onderliggende doelstellingen en achtergronden van de makers hiervan (als David Duke iets aanraadt, is dat meestal niet écht de vertaling van mijn kijk op de wereld), is deze 50 minuten durende YouTube-film toch wel degelijk één van de meest volledige analyses van de macht van de joodse lobby in de Verenigde Staten, en alleen al daarvoor is ze zeker en vast het bekijken waard. Veel kijkplezier gewenst!
Professor James Petras is een typische David Duke-volgeling: hooghartig, eigenwijs, zelfingenomen, zwakzinnig én bovenal leugenachtig. De waarheid wordt overschat en de percipiëringsdrang primeert te allen tijde. Een verhaal is maar zo belangrijk als de commotie die er rond kan ontstaan. Tegen deze achtergrond moeten we ook zijn laatste essay lezen: “Israel’s War with Iran and the Zionist Power Configuration in America”. Ik neem dit hieronder integraal over. Petras is één van die personen met ronkende titels en prat gaat op zijn groot aantal geschreven boeken en zijn talrijke literaire onderscheidingen, ook al gaan deze laatste meestal uit van sinistere groupuscules en overstijgen de eerste nauwelijks het niveau van politieke pulp. Twee boeken van hem zijn echter wel het vermelden én het lezen waard, maar opnieuw: houdt alstublieft rekening met zijn antisemitische achtergrond! Het gaat om “The Power of Israel in the United States” uit 2006 en om “Empire or Republic: Global Power or Domestic Decay in the United States” uit 1994.
Zionists and their allies in Congress authored, implemented and enforced sanctions against Iran, which hinder the ambitions of the world’s biggest oil and gas companies. Israeli war exercises and public declarations threatening a massive air assault on Iran has pushed petroleum prices to world records. This spring 2008, the most powerful pro-Israel Jewish Lobby in the US, AIPAC held their annual conference and secured the support and commitment of both major US Presidential candidates and the majority of US members of Congress for an Israeli initiative to impose extreme economic sanctions on Iran with threats of a US/Israeli military attack. In early summer 2008, the AIPAC operatives, who wrote this US Congressional resolution, successfully rounded up Congressional leaders’ support of an air and naval blockade of all critical imports into Iran - a blatant act of war.Deze indrukken verscheen ook elders op het internet.
Israel adopts a ‘peace policy’ designed to isolate Iran in preparation for an attack - and then immediately violates its terms. The entire spectrum of major Jewish organizations unquestioningly and unconditionally give their active support, as they have in the past, to AIPAC’s domination of the US Presidential candidates as well as to the twists and turns in Israel’s war preparations via military exercises and phony peace gestures. In the entire history of US relations with oil and gas-producing countries, there is not a single previous case in which it sacrificed profitable investments by its major oil companies at the behest of a foreign power (Israel) and its “lobby” - the Zionist Power Configuration. Israel’s Two Track Policy Toward Iran. Israel’s policy to obliterate Iran, in much the same war that the US has devastated Iraq, has followed a carefully planned multi-prong strategy. Israel has relied on direct military attacks, all out wars, economic blockades and the use of overseas Zionist front organizations to destroy Iran’s allies and strangle its economy. The Israeli strategy is directed at undermining, weakening and enticing Iranian allies to politically and militarily isolate Tehran, in order to facilitate a full-scale massive air assault without having to deal with military fallout from Iranian allies on its borders.
In pursuit of this ‘isolate and destroy’ strategy, Israel launched a full-scale invasion and massive air and missile bombing of Lebanon knocking out critical civilian infrastructure in the hopes of obliterating Hezbollah, a staunch Iranian ally. Israeli preparation for its Lebanese war began a full year before its sneak attack, using a common minor border incident to invade Hezbollah strongholds in Southern Lebanon. Israel’s offensive against Hezbollah made no sense from the point of view of its border security. No Israeli military official ever envisioned Hezbollah being any kind of military threat to its national security. At most Israel saw Hezbollah as a serious counterweight to its anemic puppet allies in Beirut.
From the perspective of Israel’s regional hegemonic perspective, an attack and destruction of Hezbollah would isolate Iran and allow Israel to develop a strategic Middle East client in Beirut, facilitating an air attack. Hezbollah’s defeat of the Israeli invasion seriously weakened Tel Aviv’s military based strategy to ‘isolate Iran’ and strengthened Hezbollah’s power in Lebanon, raising its prestige immensely among the Arab and Muslim populations. The second prong in Israel’s strategy was to destroy the democratically elected Hamas government in Palestine by financing and arming a coup attempt by its Arab clients in the Palestinian Authority,Abbas and Dahlens. Hamas successfully routed the putschists and proceeded to consolidate its rule in Gaza. Israel turned toward a destructive blockade to starve the 1.5 million Palestinian civilians in Gaza into revolt against Hamas. Israel’s allies in the US and EU poured hundreds of millions of dollars and euros to prop up the corrupt Israeli client regime in the West Bank. Once again Israel failed to militarily or economically destroy Hamas, but that didn’t prevent the Jewish state from turning to its third target - Syria.
In 2007 Israel launched an air invasion of Syria, bombing what it described as a ‘military target’, a low-grade non-military nuclear facility in order to intimidate Syria and weaken the Assad regime’s ties to Iran. While Israel demonstrated its military capacity to violate Syrian sovereignty with impunity, its action did not have any major impact on Iran-Syrian ties. In response to the repeated failures of the Israeli military strategy of undermining Iran’s allies, Tel Aviv turned toward a different ‘divide and conquer’ approach. Israel, through its Turkish ally, began ‘peace negotiations’ with Syria, offering to discuss the return of the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights. The trade off for Israel takes the form of peace talks over the Golan in exchange for lessening Damascus’ military dependence on Iran. Since the Israeli public and most of the Knesset are overwhelmingly opposed to returning the Golan, the peace talks are not intended to end Israeli occupation, but to give the Assad regime a certain credibility among the Western imperial powers and lessen its isolation. The Israeli regime had no trouble selling its new line on Syria to its highly subservient and disciplined supporters among the Presidents of the fifty-two leading American-Jewish organizations. They are well practiced in following the zig-zag of Israeli policy, switching policy of demonizing Syria one day and acknowledging its pragmatism the next. French President Sarkozy followed up the Israeli initiative by inviting Syrian President Assad to Paris with all the pomp and honors of a chief of state.
Two years after its failed military invasion of Lebanon, Tel Aviv sought and pursued negotiations with Hezbollah to exchange prisoners (and/or their remains) as part of a tactical mini-‘détente’. Once again, the US Zionist Power Configuration, after years of denouncing Hezbollah as a mere tool of Iran, accommodated the new Israeli line of recognizing Hezbollah as an independent political interlocutor. At about the same time (June 2, 2008), Israel finally and perhaps temporarily recognized it could not militarily or economically destroy Hamas, or prevent its military retaliation against Israeli attacks or undermine its mass base of support and signed a military truce to end armed incursions and open entry points in exchange for the end of retaliatory rocket attacks on Israeli towns.
While the new Israeli turn toward peace negotiations, cease fire agreements and prisoner negotiations seems to augur a less belligerent and more realistic assessment of the Middle East balance of power, in fact the new policy is linked with a more extremist, aggressive and war-threatening military policy toward Iran. In late May and early June 2008, while Israel was proposing a more conciliatory approach toward Iran’s allies, it engaged in a massive military exercise, involving over a hundred warplanes and thousands of commandos in an unmistaken dress rehearsal for an offensive war against Iran. Top officials from the Israeli military command, cabinet and Knesset publicly pronounced their intention to bomb Iran if it proceeded in its entirely legal and non-military uranium enrichment program. Israeli officials secured the tacit and overt approval of US and European Union for its military posture. More important Israel practically dictated the terms of debate in the United Nations Security Council by insisting that it would launch a war unless the harshest economic sanctions (and even a military-economic blockade) were not implemented and enforced by the United Nations.
Israeli policy was operating on several parallel and reinforcing tracks: The ‘peace track’ to engage and neutralize Iran’s Middle East allies, to isolate Iran and polish up its image in the Western mass media; the ‘military track’ to prepare for war, which remains its defining strategy in order to destroy an isolated (from its allies) and economically weakened (by US/EU/UN sanctions) Iran. In pursuit of its relentless drive for Middle East supremacy and the implementation of its two-track strategy, the Israeli state depends on the power of the major American Jewish organizations to promote the policies of the Jewish state in the US. The Centrality of the ZPC in Israel’s Pursuit of the Destruction of Iran
The Zionist Power Configuration (ZPC), through its dominant role in making US-Middle East policy, plays a central part in the implementation of all aspects of Israeli foreign policy goals in the region. Israel’s principle goal over the past five years is the destruction of Iran, to end its opposition to Israel’s domination of the region. In pursuit of the Israeli agenda, the ZPC led by AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs Committee) has exploited its control and influence over the US Congress and Executive branches. AIPAC has leveraged the presence of highly placed Israel-Firsters in key positions in Treasury, the Pentagon, Commerce, the National Security Council, the Justice Department and Homeland Security to design and pursue economic and military policies in line with Israel’s war policies toward Iran. AIPAC, through its media and economic leverage undermined domestic opposition. Israel’s power over US bellicose policy toward Iran is so complete that even critics of Washington’s military posture toward Iran refrain from mentioning the powerful role of the ZPC in designing and implementing that policy.
Zionist power was on open display at its annual conference in Washington. At the 2008 AIPAC Conference, over 7,000 delegates representing 100,000 members, met to discuss how to force Washington to implement Israel’s Middle East priorities, overwhelmingly focused on the Jewish State’s stated objective of militarily destroying Iran. Over 300 US Congress members attended (over 60% of all members of both houses) along with the three major presidential candidates, major cabinet members, including the Secretary of State, Vice President Cheney from the White House and a host of Hollywood celebrities, media moguls and prominent financial and real estate billionaires from Wall Street and its environs.
Presidential candidates competed with each other in swearing their total and unconditional servility to Israel, swearing their utmost to back any and all past, present and future Israeli military attacks. Hillary Clinton promised to implement the equivalent of twelve holocausts against Iran’s 70 million citizens in her rant to ‘obliterate Iran’ if it endangered Israel. Obama backed the ultra-orthodox Jewish demand to give Israel sole control over Jerusalem, and joined John McCain and Clinton in promising to bomb Iran if it continued its uranium enrichment program (which they equated with a nuclear weapon – despite the objections of the IAEA and the US intelligence community). All endorsed Israel’s starvation of Gaza’s 1.5 million inhabitants and rejected any concessions or negotiations with Hamas, Syria and Hezbollah – even as Israel was already engaged in negotiations for tactical reasons. AIPAC’s entire agenda has been endorsed by the US Congress, the Executive and both parties, including a military blockade of Iran, harsher world sanctions against all global oil and gas corporations, banks and industries dealing with Iran, the immediate transfer of the most advanced missile and attack technology to Israel to facilitate an attack on Iran, and a substantial increase in yearly US military grants to Israel totaling an additional $30 billion dollars over the next decade. The top Israeli officials present, Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and Prime Minister Olmert took the opportunity to reiterate and re-affirm their will to use military power to force Iran to submit or face destruction, to standing ovations and wild cheering from the ecstatic AIPAC delegates, deriving delirious pleasure from these blood thirsty calls for US military and economic sacrifice!
Nary a single word of dissent was heard from the entire Congressional entourage in attendance; the Presidential candidates assured the zealous Israel-firsters that for the next 4 years Israeli interests would be the centerpiece of US Middle East policies. The AIPAC conference was no simple ‘show of force’ nor an exercise in ‘group think’ meant to keep the faith of the zealots. It was the kick-off to a full-scale ZPC campaign to implement a series of measures designed to accelerate a US and Israeli military assault against Iran. The Congressmen and women in attendance at the AIPAC were there for a purpose: to be instructed on what Middle East policies Israel and the ZPC would demand of them. Their presence at the AIPAC conference was not just a courtesy call intended to ‘network’ with wealthy Jewish campaign fund contributors. They were there because of long-standing and intense relations with the ZPC, which made it obligatory to show up and pay obeisance to demanding paymasters who shortly thereafter visited their offices and presented them with proposals and resolutions for immediate action. The Aftermath of the AIPAC Conference
Under AIPAC tutelage, if not actual authorship, a Congressional resolution was introduced, which called for a naval blockade of the Islamic Republic of Iran, a deliberate act of war. H. Con. Res. 362 calls on the President of the United States to stop all incoming international shipments of refined petroleum products from reaching Iran by any means. By the middle of June 2008, three weeks after it was introduced, the resolution had attracted 146 co-sponsors. In the Senate in two weeks time a similar measure secured 19 co-sponsors. The Congressional resolutions use almost the exact wording of an AIPAC memo issued just prior to the Congressional action. AIPAC got its cue from Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert who, in early May 2008, told House Speaker Nancy Pelosi that sanctions were not enough and called a US naval blockade ‘a good possibility’ (Global Research June 18, 2008). The loyal AIPAC servants made their Israeli masters’ wish a reality – in a matter of days. (Who says critical issues get ‘bogged down’ in Washington?)
In late June 2008, under AIPAC leadership and direction, the US Congress added $170,000,000 dollar increase in military assistance to Israel as part of a 10 year, $30 billion dollar war commitment to the Jewish state. AIPAC was instrumental in drawing up the bill and openly declared that the addition was designed to maintain Israel’s military dominance and superiority in the Middle East but specifically designed for its war preparation against Iran and the Palestinians. AIPAC pointedly emphasized that, “The US commitment to maintaining Israel’s qualitative military edge is the cornerstone of American (sic-ZPC) policy in the region…This year’s package holds heightened significance…as the US and Israel face new challenged from Iran’s drive to acquire (sic) nuclear weapons…” (AFP June 27, 2008).
At a time when the US government faces a major financial crisis and refuses to refinance millions of Americans facing loss of their homes through foreclosures, AIPAC secured a 25% increase in military handouts to Israel. Olmert praised his US Zionist agents for improving Israel’s take. The 52 Presidents of the Major American Jewish Organizations and their million members and affiliates successfully pursued AIPAC’s proposal to increase economic sanctions on Iran via its captive US Congressional bloc, its appointed agents in the Treasury Department and in the UN Security Council via its influence in the White House. Each and every sanction introduced by the US representative in the United Nations is a thinly veiled copy of memos and resolutions written and powerfully pushed in the Executive branch by AIPAC. They are backed by several hundred professional lobbyists and scores of pro-Israel PACs (political action committees) and ten propaganda mills (the so-called ‘think tanks’) with tight links to AIPAC. Through their influence in the US, the ZPC has successfully secured the acquiescence of other members of the UN Security Council.
Throughout 2008, a presidential election year, the ZPC has successfully engaged in sustained interrogation and pressure on the major candidates, securing pledges of unconditional support for every aspect of Israel’s murderous policies in Gaza and the West Bank, including its policies of starvation and assault. All major candidates have echoed the ZPC-Israeli line of labeling the elected Hamas movement, Hezbollah, Iran and Syria as ‘terrorist’ organizations and states and pledged to attack or back an Israeli offensive war against Iran.
In so far as the Middle East is the center of US foreign policy, the ZPC has ensured that the next President of the United States will continue the bellicose pro-Israel policies pursued by George W. Bush. The ZPC’s influence over the next US President guarantees that the issues of war and peace will be dictated by a minority of a minority ethno-religious group, comprising less than 3% of the population and loyal to a foreign state. Whichever party wins the Presidential election or controls Congress, the ZPC will set the Middle East agenda, the head of which is the destruction of the Islamic Republic of Iran.
During the entire run-op to the November 2008 elections, not a single political leader has raised the issue of the catastrophic consequences of a war with Iran for the world economy, the astronomical rise in oil prices, which will result in the conversion of the US recession into a depression, the killing of hundreds (if not millions) of Iranian citizens and the loss of American lives. In other words, the greatest of all ZPC successes is their ability to focus the entire political elite and mass media on the advantages of launching a preemptive war for Israel and to distract public and political attention away from any reports relating the world-shattering destructive consequences. Zionist Power: Big Oil and Liberal Obfuscation
One of the most salient issues in the run-up of oil and gas prices has been the power and policies of the ZPC. Iran possesses some of the most potentially productive and rich oil and gas fields, which are not yet exploited. Iran possesses 15-17% of the world’s supply of gas. It is number two in the world. Israel, and therefore the ZPC, has been the leading voice in blocking all investment and financing in Iran by the world’s leading public and private gas and oil multinationals. Thanks to AIPAC authored Congressional legislation, any and all oil and gas companies investing more than $20 million dollars in Iran are barred from the US market and subject to criminal investigation and fines (if not imprisonment of executives). AIPAC authored Congressional legislation, which labeled the Iranian National Guard, the so-called ‘Revolutionary Guard’, as an international ‘terrorist organization’, subject to military attack by thePentagon.
By extension, any multinational corporation, which signs economic agreements over Iranian oil assets, is considered to be financing terrorism. Huge quantities of Iranian gas and oil are not coming onto the world market and lowering the price of gasoline, solely due to US Congressional policies authored and enforced by the ZPC. According to the Financial Times (June 25, 2008) every major US, European and Asian oil company is eager to invest in Iran but are blocked by Zionist authored legislation: “American companies are prohibited from any involvement in Iran’s energy sector. Those non-US international groups that have invested in Iran are for now going slow. They are trying to avoid pressing ahead with investments that would anger Washington, while also trying to avoid pulling out; which could annoy Tehran.” (FT July 25, 2008. p.9).
The US Treasury Department houses the most influential enforcement agency for policing the behavior of Big Oil, Big Banking and Big Construction companies, which would normally invest in Iran, given the world historic prices. According to investigator Grant Smith (Classified Deceptions: 2007): “In 2004, AIPAC and its affiliated think tank, the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), lobbied for a new separate US Treasury unit to be created – the ‘Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence’ (OTFI). It is headed by AIPAC vetted leadership and many OTFI briefings are delivered directly to WINEP. OFTI’s secretive financial operations that target Iran and its trading partners are tightly coordinated with Israel’s leadership.” (Smith. page 59). Stuart Levey, sub-secretary of the Treasury and a zealous Zionist, who runs OTFI, and his staff have successfully pressured many of the biggest multi-billion dollar public pension funds in states like New York, Florida, Texas and California to disinvest in any company investing, trading or engaged in any economic activity with any Iranian public or private enterprise. Secondly, it has arbitrarily labeled any humanitarian organization dealing with Iran as a possible ‘terrorist conduit’. Levey has made frequent visits to Europe and Asia, threatening US reprisals to any country or corporation trading or investing in Iran. Levey and the OTFI have formulated Treasury policy memos which have decisively shaped US sanctions policy and proposals to the United Nations. It is clear that Cheney, Bush and the Democratic Congress make decisions largely drawn up, promoted and enforced by AIPAC and its key operative in Treasury, who in turn openly coordinate policy with their mentors in the Israeli foreign and financial ministries and the office of the Israeli Prime Minister.
Clearly the power of the ZPC is as much from its capacity to leverage malleable non-Zionist Congress people, public agencies, private financial institutions as it is to apply direct control over public policy. In other words for every dues paying member or leader of AIPAC, and of the 52 leading Jewish organizations in America, there are a multiplicity of state and civil society leaders and organizations who are influenced to initiate and implement pro-Israeli policies. The surprise expressed by some critical overseas Israeli observers, like Uri Avnery, over how a tiny minority of American Jews can dominate US Middle East policy, overlooks their leverage, access, and power to shape the agenda of vast sectors of US public and civil society policy makers.
While the oversight of foreign observers is understandable, what is absolutely inexcusable is the behavior of liberal critics of US war policy toward Iran. Bill Moyers, ignoring the abundant evidence published in all the major financial media on the economic sanctions against the oil companies spearheaded by the ZPC, argues that the Middle East wars are “about oil”. (Moyers and Winship June 28/29, 2008 Counterpunch). Citing as evidence for Big Oil’s role in Middle East wars, they quoted a number of former top Zionist officials in the US government (Greenspan, Wolfowitz and others). They argued that the signing of oil contracts in Iraq eight years after the start of the war is evidence that US policy was a product of Big Oil. Instead of examining Wolfowitz and over three dozen pro-Israel top policymakers in the Bush Administration who designed and executed the policy to invade Iraq - and the current all out push by the ZPC toward war with Iran – Moyers and Winship cite obscure meetings between Cheney and the oil companies. Instead of discussing the public overt campaigning for war with Iraq and Iran by the 52 leading Jewish organizations in the United States and the public policies of leading policymakers in the government, Moyers resorts to individual conspiracies between Cheney and the ‘oil industry’. Moyers admits he knows nothing about the content of the meetings and why the secret meeting did not lead to any direct lobbying for war by Big Oil (in contrast to AIPAC and its affiliates). Moyers article in Counterpunch totally avoids making a single reference to the massive, sustained and successful Zionist war campaign in the Executive and Legislative offices as well as in the Op-Ed pages of all the major daily and weekly newspapers and magazines.
A similar kind of liberal cover-,up is found in the July 17, 2008 issue of the New York Review of Books, entitled “Iran: The Threat” by Thomas Powers who puts the entire burden for war policy toward Iran solely on Bush and Cheney, overlooking the intense and successful economic sanctions and war resolutions authored by AIPAC and implemented by the Democratic Congress. Powers omits the entire war propaganda campaign which appears in the mass media written by academics from Zionist ‘think tanks’, the entire groveling for Israel exercises by the US presidential candidates and three-quarters of the US Congress and Senate at the AIPAC conference, (which took place just prior to the Powers article). Powers says nothing about the entire political class’ blind support for Israel’s promise to go to war with Iran. Powers, a supporter of killer sanctions as an alternative to an air and missile attack, doesn’t even mention the fact that the ZPC is the leading advocate of sanctions. His research didn’t include the crucial fact that the implementation and enforcement of sanctions are in the Treasury Department (OTFI), which coordinates with Israeli agencies and is run by Stuart Levey, an Israel-Firster.
Noam Chomsky has long been one of the great obfuscators of AIPAC and the existence of Zionist power over US Middle East policy. One of his most blatant examples of cover-up occurred during the AIPAC conference in early June 2008. In answer to a question on what it would take to change US unconditional support for Israel, Chomsky ignored the servility of US Presidential candidates to Israel and the AIPAC at the AIPAC conference; Congressional approval of AIPAC authored sanctions resolutions and their implementation by Treasury Department Under-Secretary Levey; the role of the ZPC in shaping media demonizing of Iran, Palestine, Hezbollah and Syria. Instead Chomsky engages in vacuous circumlocution. With reference to US support for Israel, he claims, “We have to consider the sources of support. The corporate sector in the US, which dominates policy formation, appears to be quite satisfied with the current situation. One indication is the increasing flow of investment to Israel by Intel, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft and other leading elements of the high tech economy. Military and intelligence relations remain very strong. Since 1967, US intellectuals have had a virtual love affair with Israel, for reasons that relate more to the US than to Israel, in my opinion. That strongly affects portrayal of events and history in media and journals.”
Chomsky deliberately omits the elementary step of actually looking at the process of ‘policy formation’ and noting the role of the AIPAC lobby in shaping US Middle Eastern policy, a point noted by every major expert, Congressional staffer and observer on and off the scene. He mentions ‘the corporate sector’, a vague entity without mentioning how the Zionist lobby has successfully blocked the major oil companies from investing billions in Iran and who undermined US investment agreements with pre-war Iraq. None of the high tech investors he cites has ever lobbied to shape US policy in the Middle East, least of all pressured the US to support Israeli occupation and eviction of Palestinians, the invasion of Lebanon, its military attack of Syria. To suggest that Micro-Soft’s Bill Gates has been lobbying for Israel, as Chomsky does, is the height of silliness. But the Presidents of the 52 Major Jewish Organizations in America have. No conference organized by high-tech companies have ever drawn 65% of the members of Congress and the Senate and all major Presidential candidates to pledge their allegiance to their corporate interests in Israel. But the AIPAC conference in June drew a huge majority of Congress members and McCain, Obama and Clinton who pledged their unconditional support for Israel’s policies and interests.
Chomsky’s claim that the US has a love affair with Israel omits the systematic repression by pro-Israel and mostly Jewish professors of any critics of Israel, including the firing, smearing and censorship of critical fellow academics. What makes Chomsky’s simple-minded and blatant cover up of Zion-power in shaping US policy so grotesque is that it occurs at a time when it is at its highest point of power – when AIPAC has presidential candidates publicly swearing unconditional support to Israel at its major conference in Washington even as two top officials of AIPAC have been indicted for espionage for Israel. Chomsky, Moyers and Powers (and a host of liberal critics of US threats to bomb Iran) ignore the power of US Zionists backing of Israel’s overt war exercises and naked threats to bomb Iran. By covering up the role of the ZPC, who are the principle Congressional and Presidential backers of sanctions, embargo and war, the liberal critics undermine our efforts to prevent a catastrophic war.
Intellectuals silently complicit with the main purveyors of war for Israel are abdicating their responsibility to speak truth to power – in this case Zionist power. At some point intellectual abdication becomes co-responsibility for a Middle East catastrophe. In the face of the complicity of our political leaders and their Zionist mentors in pursuit of Israel’s apocalyptic war strategy toward Iran, the American public becomes of utmost relevance (contrary to Chomsky). To argue otherwise is to become complicit with the great crimes committed in our names, by leaders and ideologues with foreign allegiances. To continue to masquerade as ‘war critics’ while ignoring the central role of the Zionist Power Configuration makes pundits like Chomsky, Moyers and Powers and their acolytes irrelevant to the anti-war struggle. They are part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Meer teksten van deze KKK-leider op www.davidduke.com.
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)