Artikkel i The Guardian 29. april 2024 av Jo-Ann Mort:
"Zionism can – and must – be about liberation of Jews and Palestinians"
"We are entwined and must be liberated together. We must work to end the war and bring safety and security to both peoples"
Hun angir 2 typer av sionisme, den første nedfelt i erklæringen ved Israels etablering i 1948. Den andre typen tar hun sterk avstand fra: "The second is woefully apparent in today’s Israeli government, a messianic all-mighty Zionism, a Jewish supremacist ideology forged against the Palestinians who also live there. It is an horrific belief system, worth opposing for sure, because it privileges one group of people – one nation – at the expense of another. It is an extreme religious vision of Jewish power steeped in an anti-modern ideology, versus a shared society and accommodation between Jewish and Arab citizens inside of Israel and between a Jewish and a Palestinian state."
Og hun har klar melding om "sionisme under Netanyahu": "A full 16 years of rule by the rightwing populist Benjamin Netanyahu have severely damaged the essence of the state, and now, daily bring horrors to the Palestinians inGazaand the West Bank. They have gravely endangered Israelis themselves – most obviously those attacked on 7 October, but day-in and day-out, through policies that are discriminatory and racist, the Netanyahu regime shows an ugly face of Israel to the world."
Hun avslutter slik:
"There is a fierce ideological battle indeed – a battle to determine which Zionism will win out. This struggle will determine not only the future of Israel but the future of the Jewish people, and the future of the Palestinian people. We are entwined and we must be liberated together. We must work together to end the war, to bring safety and security to both peoples. We must seek our joint liberation."
USA vil sanksjonere en enhet i IDF. Israelske politikere protesterer, de sier IDF kan ordne opp selv. Men Sami Peretz påpeker at det var nettopp israelske politikere som overstyrte IDF i saken med Elor Azaria i 2016. (HELE artikkelen nederst under Kilde).
Saken med Elor Azaria er skjellsettende i Isralels historie. Her flyttet de ansvarlige politikerne, med Netanyahu i spissen, grensene for hva IDF kan gjøre: Å henrette en forsvarsløs og uskadeliggjort fange med et hodeskutt.
Utviklingen i IDF viser at man har tatt signalet. Både i Gaza og på Vestbredden vises hvordan IDF opptrer nå i 2024.
U.S. Sanctioning an IDF Unit Is the Rotten Fruit of the Elor Azaria Affair
Netzah Yehuda base, in 2022.Credit: Emil Salman
The U.S. administration is considering imposing sanctions on the IDF's
Netzah Yehuda battalion, due to what it perceives as human rights
violations by its soldiers in their confrontations with Palestinians.
The administration has for some months been
taking action against violent settlers and other right-wing elements
through the imposition of sanctions, but so far, this has been directed
against civilians or civil bodies.
The
significance of sanctions against civilians is that the U.S. does not
have confidence in Israel's law enforcement agencies when it comes to
Palestinian victims. But a sanction against a military unit
demonstrates that the Americans do not trust the military either,
believing that the army is too lenient in dealing with soldiers who
committed offenses.
The U.S. intention has vexed the entire political system, from Prime
Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, to
cabinet members Benny Gantz and Gadi Eisenkot as well as opposition
leader Yair Lapid, all of whom came to the defense of the battalion,
telling the Americans that there is no justification for imposing
sanctions on a military unit.
They submissively accept U.S. demands to send humanitarian aid to Gaza,
to establish a dock in Gaza for offloading aid shipments and a demand
to postpone a campaign in Rafah, but when the U.S. starts marking
military units and imposing sanctions against them, this is perceived as
intrusive intervention in the management of tactical military echelons.
This move undermines the IDF command hierarchy and casts a heavy shadow over the IDF's judicial system,
portraying senior commanders as turning a blind eye to rogue soldiers.
In fact, it presents the Netzah Yehuda battalion as a kind of militia or
a military arm of the Otzma Yehudit party.
More than it impacts the unit itself,
it puts the IDF's top brass to shame, presenting IDF leaders as people
who have surrendered to political pressure. This pressure has increased
in recent years and has been particularly exacerbated since the
establishment of the current right-wing government, in which extremists
such as Bezalel Smotrich and Itamar Ben-Gvir play major roles.
The fact that the Americans suspect that
the IDF is buckling under pressure and is not acting with resolve
against rogue soldiers obliges political echelons to put in order their
relations with the army with regard to enforcing military discipline.
In fact, Israel's political establishment is contending with the rotten fruit of the Elor Azaria affair.
Azaria was a soldier who in 2016 shot and killed a wounded terrorist,
even though the terrorist was no longer posing a danger to anyone.
Elor Azaria in court, May 8, 2017.Credit: Moti Milrod
Azaria was contravening the rules of engagement and IDF values. Instead
of allowing the military to investigate and try Azaria, the incident was
taken out of the army's hands, becoming a public political affair. On
one side stood then-Chief of Staff Gadi Eisenkot and Defense Minister
Moshe Ya'alon, with many politicians on the opposing side, including
Avigdor Lieberman, Naftali Bennett and Itamar Ben-Gvir (before he was
elected to the Knesset).
The
former believed this was a serious incident which did not reflect IDF
values. They expressed concerns that it could ignite the Palestinian
arena. The latter tried to make political mileage of the affair among
right-wing voters. They were joined by Prime Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu, who at first condemned the shooting but then lined up with
his voter base.
Turning a military incident into a
political matter in which politicians encourage a soldier who had erred,
instead of letting the army handle the case, now returns like a
boomerang to hit politicians. They are annoyed at the American
intervention into the inner workings of the IDF, but they did just that
in the Azaria affair, exerting political pressure while trying to take
the decision on what to do away from the military.
Anyone
poking his nose into professional and value-associated military affairs
even though this is not his role, only so as to garner public support,
should not be surprised when the U.S. does the same thing. Preventing
American sanctions against an IDF unit requires primarily desisting from
applying local political pressure on the army, while bolstering its
independence in relation to command structure, justice and discipline.
Begrepet folkemord er i løpet av den siste tiden blitt del av vår dagligtale. Sør-Afrika harstevnet Israelfor den Den Internasjonale domstolen (ICJ) i Haag for folkemord. Det samme har Ukraina gjortmed Russland.
"Over 30 land har erkjent folkemordet på armenerne. [...] Men ikke Norge. Det er flaut og uforståelig."
Fortsettelse i Kilde.
.......................................
Min kommentar i Aftenposten:
"En betimelig melding til vår norske regjering.
Og med god begrunnelse, at en norsk erklæring vi ha betydning for vår verden nå i 2024."
I 1919 var spørsmålet om hva som skulle skje med områdene i Midt-Østen etter at ottomanene vars slått i 1. verdenskrig et viktig tema. Man hadde både Balfour-erklæringen og Sykes-Picot-avtalen, og MacMahon-Hussein-korrespondansen.
USA's president Woorow Wilson ville vite hva "de innfødte" mente. Han ville ha en egen kommisjon for formålet, helst en "Anglo-Fransk". Men dette ville ikke England og Frankrike, og Wilson satte ned sin egen amerikanske kommisjon "King-Crane-kommisjonen"
"Britannica" skriver om dette, se Kilde.
"King–Crane Commission, commission appointed at the request of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson during the Paris Peace Conference of 1919 to determine the attitudes of the inhabitants of Syria and Palestine toward the post-World War I settlement of their territories. The commission,
formed when attempts at creating an Anglo-French group failed, was
headed by Oberlin (Ohio) College president Henry C. King and Chicago
businessman Charles R. Crane. Touring Syria and Palestine between June
10 and July 21, 1919, and soliciting petitions from local inhabitants,
the commission found that a vast majority of Arabs favoured an
independent Syria, free of any French mandate,
and that, of about 1,875 petitions received, 72 percent were hostile to
the Zionist plan for a Jewish national home in Palestine. Such
findings, coupled with Zionist talk of dispossession of the Arabs, led
the commission to advise a serious modification of the Zionist
immigration program in Palestine."
Richars Drake, professor i historie ved universitetet i Montana, har denne oppsummeringen om rapporten og den skjebne i sin artikkel fra 10. mai 2014, se Kilde:
"The tragedy of the King-Crane Report lies not in the failure to
implement its recommendations, which doubtless contained debatable
points, but in taking no notice of the document at all. It remains the
best historical source available for understanding Arab concerns about
the Middle East in 1919. We live today with the consequences of having
ignored the Arabs at that fateful moment."
Professor Drakes artikkel må leses av den som vil forstå Israel-Palestina-konflikten.
"– Det grønne skifte er ikke så vanskelig som oljeøkonomer vil ha det til"
"KRONIKK: Slik har Klaus Vogstad regnet seg frem til at fornybar energi er billigere enn olje og gass."
(fortsettelse i Kilde).
Vogstads poeng: "To tredjedeler av fossil energi sløses vekk
Vi trenger bare én tredjedel av samme mengde fornybar for å dekke
samme energibehov som fossil energiproduksjon. Det gjelder i biler, som
vist i eksempelet over, og det gjelder for andre former for
elektrifisering for oppvarming (varmepumper) og industri.
Når oljeindustrien snakker om hvor enorme mengder primærenergi de
produserer, vit da at to tredjedeler sløses bort i tap på vei til
sluttbruk."
Adam Shinar is a professor of constitutional law at the Harry Radzyner Law School at Reichman University.
Adam Sinaran diskuterer sensur i Israel i denne artikkelen, se Kilde.
"Banning Arab and Anti-occupation Films, This Censorship Agency Shaped Israel for Decades"
"A
look at the history of Israel's Film and Theater Review Board reveals
its major role in shaping the cultural image of the young state – and
our worldview too"
Etter diskusjon om sensur av filmer mm, tar han for seg dagense situasjon med krig i Gaza. han påpeker både den offisielle militære sensur, men også media selvsensur, ref dette utdrag:
"The fighting in Gaza, however, has sparked a public discussion of the
media's role in covering the war. Focusing on the official military
censor, with whom this article began, misses the point – namely, it
ignores the self-censorship that has taken hold in the mainstream media
and its unwillingness to hold a critical discussion of the humanitarian
situation in Gaza, and of the aims of the war and its conduct. Discourse
on such subjects is playing out in the foreign media but is largely
absent from Israel's domestic arena. But then shutting our eyes to the
situation in the territories isn't new, nor is our lack of interest in
the Arab citizens of our country. "
Når man ikke er informert, ikke får beskrevet, og ikke fullt ut skjønner hva som konkret skjer i Gaza og på Vestbredden, da er det en utfordring å få en intern diskusjon i Israel.
