‘Islamofobie heeft overeenkomsten met vooroorlogs antisemitisme’

Ineke van der Valk doet al jarenlang onderzoek naar racisme en etnische diversiteit. Ze was werkzaam bij de Anne Frank Stichting en de Universiteit van Amsterdam en werkte mee aan de Monitor Racisme & Extremisme, een onderzoeksproject van de Anne Frank Stichting met de Universiteit Leiden. Angela Ettema sprak met haar over haar boek Islamofobie en discriminatie, verschenen bij Amsterdam University Press. 

‘Racisme in zijn algemeenheid is al een complex verschijnsel’, zegt Ineke van der Valk. ‘Het wordt vaak in de sfeer getrokken van beschuldigingen alsof het een soort individuele eigenschap is die bepaalde mensen wel hebben en anderen niet en waar je dan moreel tegen kan zijn. Maar het is een maatschappelijk mechanisme dat ongelijkheid vormgeeft, een mechanisme van uitsluiting. Islamofobie heb ik geanalyseerd als een specifieke vorm daarvan, zoals ook antisemitisme een specifieke vorm daarvan is.’

Het trekken van parallellen tussen islamofobie nu en antisemitisme in de jaren dertig is een soort taboe geworden. ‘Je kunt wel degelijk zeggen dat er bepaalde overeenkomsten zijn met het vooroorlogse antisemitisme’, vindt Van der Valk. ‘Van beide groepen werd gezegd dat ze zich afscheidden en zich niet konden aanpassen.

Ook in de maatschappelijke context is een overeenkomst te zien. In het begin van de vorige eeuw werden aanslagen gepleegd door anarchisten. Joden werden vaak geassocieerd met communisme en anarchisme en dus ook in verband gebracht met die aanslagen. Ook nu worden door bepaalde moslims gepleegde aanslagen gebruikt om een hele groep in een kwaad daglicht te stellen.’

Samenzweringstheorieën

Het gebruik van samenzweringstheorieën is een andere overeenkomst. Zoals in De protocollen van de wijzen van Sion de joden worden beschuldigd van streven naar wereldheerschappij, gebeurt in Eurabië van Bat Ye’or iets soortgelijks ten aanzien van moslims. ‘In de jaren zeventig zou er een uitruil hebben plaatsgevonden. Europese politici, met name sociaaldemocraten, zouden ermee ingestemd hebben Europa uit te leveren aan de islam in ruil voor olie.

Critici van de islamofobe ideologie noemen dat boek van Bat Ye’or dan ook wel ‘De protocollen van de wijzen van Mekka’. Die aanval van Breivik in Noorwegen richtte zich ook tegen de sociaal-democratie. Breiviks ideologie is kenmerkend voor veel extremistische bewegingen, ook in Nederland. In de optiek van dit soort extremisme heeft de sociaal-democratie het land uitgeleverd aan de moslims.’

De positie van de vrouw is een belangrijk thema. ‘De hoofddoek is als het ware een symbool waarmee vrouwen worden afgeschilderd als niet onafhankelijk en niet mondig. Hun eigen beleving wordt daarin niet meegenomen, alsof het onmogelijk is dat vrouwen zelf kunnen kiezen voor een hoofddoek. Zeggenschap over hun eigen leven wordt hun ontzegd. Impliciet is de boodschap dat het hier allemaal op orde zou zijn. Dat is verre van het geval.’

Politici

Er wordt in het buitenland tegenwoordig met verbazing gekeken naar wat er is geworden van dat tolerante Nederland. Van der Valk benadrukt de rol die politici hebben gespeeld in het veranderen van het opinieklimaat in Nederland. ‘De politieke organisatie van discriminatie is heel belangrijk. Als je alsmaar bepaalde boodschappen voor het voetlicht brengt, dringt dat door.

‘Als je woorden als “kopvoddentaks” en “haatpaleizen” maar vaak genoeg herhaalt, en er is een zekere voedingsbodem in de maatschappij, kun je kennelijk succes hebben. Allerlei dingen die vroeger vanzelfsprekend waren, zoals dat je stond voor waarden van gelijkheid en antidiscriminatie, die worden op zijn kop gezet.

‘Daar is natuurlijk een bepaalde geschiedenis aan voorafgegaan. Ik heb eerder voor mijn proefschrift een studie gemaakt van het politieke discours in de jaren negentig. Je ziet dat men daar toen al aan begon te tornen. Bolkestein heeft bijvoorbeeld een belangrijke rol gespeeld, en later Fortuyn en Hirsi Ali en uiteindelijk Wilders. Dus het is natuurlijk een bepaald proces, maar op den duur gaan die dingen werken.’

Op de vraag hoe islamofobie en discriminatie aangepakt moeten worden, zegt Van der Valk: ‘We moeten alert zijn. Iedereen kan op zijn eigen terrein dingen doen, en we moeten op een meer collectief niveau vanuit organisaties in de gaten houden wat er rond discriminatie gebeurt. ‘Daarnaast moet je ook op een positieve manier invulling geven aan burgerschap en solidariteit organiseren.

Je moet een beleid voorstaan waar echt sprake is van gelijke kansen, en mensen inspireren om hun talenten te ontwikkelen. Mensen moeten zich inzetten om te proberen die sociale ongelijkheid tegen te gaan en bij te dragen aan een samenleving die leefbaar is voor iedereen, niet alleen in Nederland, maar wereldwijd.’

(socialisme.nu / 01.05.2012)

Time for a referendum on annexing the West Bank and Gaza

By David Lehrer

With Israeli elections on the horizon, one would expect progressive parties to recognize how dangerously close the Jewish state is to a complete democratic meltdown, and to put forward initiatives that have a realistic chance of stabilizing Israeli democracy.  An independent Jewish state and an independent Palestinian state living side by side in peace may no longer be a realistic solution.

It is time for the Israeli public to ask itself what kind of a future it wants for its children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. For this reason, I propose that political parties that champion a democratic Jewish state should demand a national referendum to decide where the country wants to be five years from now. The referendum will express whether Israel wants to be a country that is isolated from the rest of the world including much of world Jewry, that continues to deny basic civil and human rights to millions of Palestinians and that curtails the civil rights of its own citizens for the sake of national security – or whether it wants to be a country that champions democracy and shines a light upon the nations.

This broad notion of public choice in a pragmatic way presents some challenges. Currently, Israel has a legal mechanism for a national referendum on territorial concessions, but not on annexation.  The legislation would need to be expanded to enable a nationwide debate over the opposite scenario for which it was developed.

A referendum on the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza to the State of Israel and the granting of full citizenship to all residents would certainly raise a clamor from all sides of the Israeli political spectrum.  While there are those on the left and on the right who support different variations of a one-state solution, it is not clear that all would agree to granting full citizenship to Palestinians.  In my opinion, however, a national referendum on annexation in a democratic state could not propose anything less – that would be an official acknowledgment of apartheid.

A referendum on annexation of the West Bank and Gaza would enable us to break out of the entrenched political positions and reconsider what is really important to Israelis and Palestinians.  The official Palestinian position will likely be to oppose any unilateral move by the State of Israel. However, there are already many voices within Palestine arguing that the two-state solution is no longer a viable option.  An initiative to annex the territories and grant full citizenship to Palestinians residing there opens up a whole new set of questions, including those relating to the nature of the Jewish state and the roles that will be played by democracy, religion and ethnicity. The initiative also removes some discussions from the negotiating table, such as the status of Jerusalem, and enables a paradigm shift for other issues, like the right of return for Palestinians and Jews.

There is of course no guarantee that the referendum would result in a vote in favor of annexation.  Would a rejection of the referendum mean that the country is then morally bound to determine and implement a clear policy in favor of two states? How would the Palestinians respond to a rejection?What about Palestinian citizens of the State of Israel? These are questions which must also be considered.

But it seems likely that if the Israeli public began discussing the granting of full citizenship to West Bank and Gaza Palestinians, while many Palestinians would oppose such a move, others might rise to the occasion and begin to demand those rights themselves.  Finally, a referendum on the annexation of the West Bank and Gaza might create new alliances between left and right, which would enable Israel to move out of the current political quagmire and onto solid democratic ground.

David Lehrer is the Executive Director of the Arava Institute, now on sabbatical. This article represents the views of the author and do not represent the views of the Arava Institute.

(972mag.com / 01.05.2012)

JNF to forest-depopulate Bedouin village in Naqab on Wednesday

The Israeli police informed residents of the Bedouin-Palestinian village of el Araqib that from Wednesday they will be providing security for bulldozers and workers of the Jewish National Fund, which will begin planting trees on four plots of el Araqib that the JNF had previous committed to not touching.

 

Bedouin Palestinians and Israelis protest outside the JNF offices in Jerusalem on Sunday

 

Rabbi Arik Ascherman of Rabbis for Human Rights attempted to receive clarifications on this matter, but received partial and contradictory responses.

The residents of el Araqib, who have seen their village be destroyed by Israel more than 30 times in the past 18 months, together with a coalition of Israeli and Palestinian groups, are attempting to mobilize activists, public figures, Knesset members and organizations to prevent this cynical use of trees and forestation as a means of displacing the Bedouin residents from their land. Activists are requested to be in el Araqib early on Wednesday morning to meet the JNF bulldozers together with el Araqib residents.

At 7.00 a.m. on Sunday morning (29 April), bulldozers and workers of the JNF entered el Araqib to prepare the land for planting. The workers told el Araqib residents that “we are the law and we are above the law”. According to Haia Noah of the Negev Coexistence Forum for Civil Equality, “in hindsight this was a promo for the upcoming horror show”.

Later that day, some 100 Bedouin-Palestinian, Israeli and Palestinian activists demonstrated outside the JNF offices in Jerusalem, demanding that trees not be exploited as soldiers of the government in order to displace people from their homes.

(www.alternativenews.org / 01.05.2012)

Israël dwingt Palestijnen duizend olijfbomen te ontwortelen op Westbank

Israël heeft Palestijnse dorpelingen in de door Israël bezette en geannexeerde Westelijke Jordaanoever verplicht duizend olijfbomen te ontwortelen in een door Israël gecontroleerde zone die de Joodse staat als “natuurreservaat” heeft geclassificeerd. Dat meldt de krant Haaretz en heeft het Israëlisch leger (IDF) later op de dag bevestigd.

“De bomen werden geplant zonder, zoals de wet dat voorschrijft, coördinatie met de verantwoordelijke voor de zone (het IDF, nvdr)”, stelde de legerleiding in een communiqué.

De olijfbomen zijn geplant in het reservaat Nahal Kana, ten westen van Nabloes. Volgens Haaretz omvat die zone omvangrijke gebieden in private Palestijnse handen. De getroffen Palestijnse boeren hebben al laten weten de kwestie aan de rechter te zullen voorleggen.

(www.demorgen.be / 01.05.2012)

Washington and Israel Threaten Humanity

So does NATO. It’s America’s imperial tool. An alliance for war, not peace, enemies were invented post-Soviet Russia.

Communism then was the alleged threat. Today it’s terrorism. Strategically intervening under US control, world peace and humanity are threatened.

NATO wages America’s wars. Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asian ones involve Israel. Both countries threaten world peace.

Israel wants unchallenged regional power. Washington wants it globally. Together, they threaten humanity. Hell hath no fury like their alliance.

Obama is America’s latest warrior president. He exceeds the worst of his predecessors. He accomplished the impossible. He governs to the right of George Bush. Yet he retains enough support so far for reelection.

In November, perhaps the economy will undo him. Perhaps he’ll avoid it by heightening fear for more war. He’s more belligerent than all his predecessors.

Public apathy lets him get away with it. People worry more about pocket book issues. Manipulated fear diverts them to security. It works most every time.

Peter Bergin’s an establishment figure. He directs national security studies for the New America Foundation. He’s also a right-wing print and television contributor, as well as a member of the National Security Preparedness Group. It replaced the 9/11 Commission to perpetuate its whitewash.

On April 28, his New York Times op-ed headlined “Warrior in Chief,” saying:

After getting the Nobel Peace Peace prize months into his tenure, he “turned out to be one of the most militarily aggressive American leaders in decades.”

He’s worse than that, of course. He exceeds all his predecessors by far. No one’s been more belligerent. No one waged more wars simultaneously and threatens more. No one endangers humanity like he does.

Candidate Obama promised peace. President Obama doubled down George Bush and then some. Discussing Afghanistan on October 27, 2007, he said:

“I will promise you this, that if we have not gotten our troops out by the time I am president, it is the first thing I will do. I will get our troops home. We will bring an end to this (and the Iraq) war(s). You can take that to the bank.”

Months earlier he said:

“If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and (Afghan) President Musharraf won’t act, we will. I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America.”

Perhaps no remembers either statement. Perhaps too few know America’s only enemies are ones it invents. Terrorism is a catch-all term used to incite fear and justify conflict. When it wears thin, something else will replace it.

Bergin tried having it both ways. His title implies criticism. His content combines praise and muted disapproval. He avoided rule of law principles, truth and full disclosure.

His article ignores Obama’s threat to world peace, his Nobel award hypocrisy, and how he and Bush alienated more countries than any previous US leader.

Liberals helped elect him, said Bergin “in part because of his opposition to the Iraq (and Afghan) war(s).” They “probably don’t celebrate (his) military accomplishments.”

Bergin calls them “sizable,” but couldn’t name any. He tried, of course, but failed. He “decimated Al Qaeda’s leadership,” he claimed. In fact, popular resistance across North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia looks stronger than ever. The more deaths at America’s hands, the more enemies it makes.

“He overthrew the Libyan dictator.”

In fact, Africa’s most developed country was ravaged, not liberated. Libya’s a charnel house, a raging cauldron. No central authority exists. Battles rage for control. Libyans are terrorized, traumatized, and impoverished. Some accomplishment!

“He ramped up drone attacks in Pakistan, waged effective covert wars in Yemen and Somalia, and authorized a threefold increase in the number of American troops in Afghanistan.”

Is Bergin pleased or critical? It’s hard to say. He admitted that Obama “became the first president to authorize the assassination of a (US) citizen.” He falsely called Anwar al-Awlaki a threat. He also claimed Obama killed Osama.

He ignored the staged event. Bin Ladin wasn’t killed or targeted. Seriously ill, he died naturally in December 2001. On December 26, 2001, Fox News reported it, saying:

He “died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended (his) funeral.”

Other media also reported his death. In October 2007, appearing on BBC with David Frost, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto said bin Laden died years ago. In December that year, she was assassinated in Rawalpindi. Perhaps her admission played a part.

Obama didn’t kill Osama. Dead men don’t die twice.

Bergin wonders why Obama supporters ignore his “acting as judge and executioner” by ordering hundreds of drone strikes, killing thousands since 2009.

There’s been a “dramatic cognitive disconnect between (his) record and the public perception of his leadership.” Despite his belligerence, conservatives and others think he’s a “peacenik.”

Political posturing, of course, explains it. Supporter views are another matter. Clear facts are in plain sight. Many don’t accept them. Obama’s rhetoric belies his policies.

During Bush’s tenure, drone attacks struck Pakistan “every 43 days.” In Obama’s first two years alone, it was “every four days.”

Perhaps it’s now multiple times daily in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, Somalia, Libya, Iraq, other targeted countries, and more to come. Obama the peace candidate is “more Teddy Roosevelt than Jimmy Carter.”

In 1906, TR won a Nobel Peace Prize, but didn’t wage war on humanity. Carter was the 2002 recipient. Obama elevated Nobel hypocrisy to new heights. Bergin noted how fast he opts for military intervention.

Knowledgeable supporters shouldn’t be surprised. Politicians always say one thing and do another, especially on issues matter most like waging war.

In office, Bush expanded CIA funding, staff, and operations. Obama outdid him and then some for covert missions, drone wars, and other initiatives. Stopping short of calling him “trigger-happy,” Bergin said he’s “completely shaken the ‘Vietnam syndrome….”

Perhaps he forgot GHW Bush saying on March 2, 1991, after the Gulf War:

“By God, we’ve kicked the Vietnam syndrome once and for all.”

He was right. From January then to now, America’s been at war with Iraq, Yugoslavia, and elsewhere from North Africa to Central Asia. Obama’s its latest exponent. Trigger-happy fits him well.

Waging multiple wars, he can’t wait to start another. In a second term, who knows what he’ll do.

Partnered with Israel should give supporters pause. Both nations are modern day Spartas. Militarism and war is their way of life, overtly and covertly. Both are also nuclear armed and dangerous.

Under its current leadership, Israel is especially threatening. On April 28,Haaretz headlined “Israel’s former Shin Bet chief: I have no confidence in Netanyahu, Barak,” saying:

Yuval Diskin harshly criticized both leaders. They’re not worthy to lead Israel, he said, explaining:

“My major problem is that I have no faith in the current leadership, which must lead us in an event on the scale of war with Iran or a regional war.”

“I don’t believe in either the prime minister or the defense minister. I don’t believe in a leadership that makes decisions based on messianic feelings.”

Both are “messianics,” he said. One’s from “Akirov or the Assuta project.” The other’s from “Gaza Street or Caesarea.” He referred to where they live. They ought to be cordoned off and kept there.

“Believe me, I have observed them from up close…. They are not people who I, on a personal level, trust to lead Israel to an event on that scale and carry it off. These are not people who I would want to have holding the wheel in such an event.”

“They are misleading the public on the Iran issue. They tell the public that if Israel acts, Iran won’t have a nuclear bomb. This is misleading. Actually, many experts say that an Israeli attack would accelerate the Iranian nuclear race.”

In March, former Mossad head Meir Dagan said attacking Iran would be “devastating” for Israel. Doing so would ignite regional war. You know how things start, but not end. Attacking Iran will put Israel “in a very serious situation for quite a time.”

Diskin added that over the past 10 or 15 years, Israel got “more racist….toward Arabs and foreigners, and we are also….a more belligerent society.”

He also worries about extremist Jews. He fears another political assassination like Yitzhak Rabin, and wonders what could come next.

Commenting at the time, Haaretz contributor Amos Harel headlined “Shin Bet chief’s vote of no confidence is another blow to Netanyahu and Barak,” saying:

His rebuke and Diskin’s elevated “the confrontation over the Iranian question to another level….Dagan seems to be on a divine mission to stop the bombing.”

Diskin feels the same way. So do other cooler heads, but they’re outnumbered in high places.

Nonetheless, senior Israeli security officials “whisper” similar views. Shouting might work better.

Diskin’s rebuke followed IDF chief Benny Gantz calling Iran’s leadership “very rational.” He doubted Tehran would “go the extra mile” to develop nuclear weapons.

Netanyahu, Barak, and others around them go to great lengths to cite nonexistent threats, Israel’s determination to remove them, and efforts to enlist America’s support. In an election year. Perhaps 2013, not now.

Political Washington wants regime change. Whether by war isn’t known. Even America has cooler heads but not enough.

“Nothing has been determined in the Iranian story, and the spring is about to boil over into another summer of tension,” said Harel.

If Obama heads for Israel soon, it’ll show Washington’s going all out to avoid war this year. Wait ’till next year, he may say. Belligerent partners may delay another fight, but seldom decline them.

For now, Syria is top priority. Obama and Netanyahu want Assad replaced with a puppet regime subservient to Washington and Israel. Western generated violence rages for it. Intervention may follow.

Harel left that issue unaddressed or the legitimacy of waging wars against non-belligerent states. What’s more important than that.

Haaretz contributor Gideon Levy believes “Nothing has changed in Israel since 1948,” saying:

Business as usual continues. “In 1948, new immigrants were brought straight from the ships into abandoned Palestinian homes with pots of food still simmering in the kitchen, and no one asked too many questions.”

“In 2012, the Israeli government is trying to whitewash the theft of Palestinian lands, all the while scorning the law.”

Earlier crimes repeat now. Those in power “us(e) the same corrupt means” as before. War crimes then become today’s. Justifications always are fraudulent. At issue are land and power grabs.

Continuing them sends the world a message. “We will never stop this crushing, ultranationalist melody – then as now, in 1948 and in 2012.”

Levy also came down hard on Zionist ideology headlining “After 115 years, it’s time for Zionism to retire,” saying:

It should have happened long ago. Something more legitimate is needed. In its 64th year as a state, “no one even knows what” role Zionism has or “how it is defined.”

Consign it to the history books and be done with it. It’s no longer relevant. It’s done enough damage. Reinvigorating or reinventing a bad idea assures something worse as a result.

“In Israel 2012, a pursuer of justice and human rights is by definition not Zionist.” Even discussing morality and rule of law principles “is blatantly ‘not Zionist.’ “

“Anyone who blindly supports all of Israel’s misdeeds (is) Zionist. Critics are called anti-Semites, even if they are Jewish.”

“Zionism is a negative epithet and….mark of shame.” It’s time has passed. It never should have been in the first place.

Imagine the bloodshed avoided. Imagine how many lives will be spared if peace, reconciliation, and justice replace Zionist instigated conflict.

It’s about dominance, not Jewishness. Everyone for right over wrong should want it sent to history’s dustbin and rejected.

It might even slow Washington’s war machine. Stopping it takes heavier lifting. What better time to start than now.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.progressiveradionetwork.com/the-progressive-news-hour/.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  

(uprootedpalestinians.blogspot.com / 01.05.2012)

Poll: 1 in 7 thinks end of world is coming

NEW YORK (Reuters) — Nearly 15 percent of people worldwide believe the world will end during their lifetime and 10 percent think the Mayan calendar could signify it will happen in 2012, according to a new poll.

The end of the Mayan calendar, which spans about 5,125 years, on December 21, 2012 has sparked interpretations and suggestions that it marks the end of the world.

“Whether they think it will come to an end through the hands of God, or a natural disaster or a political event, whatever the reason, one in seven thinks the end of the world is coming,” said Keren Gottfried, research manager at Ipsos Global Public Affairs which conducted the poll for Reuters.

“Perhaps it is because of the media attention coming from one interpretation of the Mayan prophecy that states the world ‘ends’ in our calendar year 2012,” Gottfried said, adding that some Mayan scholars have disputed the interpretation.

Responses to the international poll of 16,262 people in more than 20 countries varied widely with only six percent of French residents believing in an impending Armageddon in their lifetime, compared to 22 percent in Turkey and the United States and slightly less in South Africa and Argentina.

But only seven percent in Belgium and eight percent in Great Britain feared an end to the world during their lives.

About one in 10 people globally also said they were experiencing fear or anxiety about the impending end of the world in 2012. The greatest numbers were in Russia and Poland, the fewest in Great Britain.

Gottfried also said that people with lower education or household income levels, as well as those under 35 years old, were more likely to believe in an apocalypse during their lifetime or in 2012, or have anxiety over the prospect.

“Perhaps those who are older have lived long enough to not be as concerned with what happens to their future,” she explained.

Ipsos questioned people in China, Turkey, Russia, Mexico, South Korea, Japan, the United States, Argentina, Hungary, Poland, Sweden, France, Spain, Belgium, Canada, Australia, Italy, South Africa, Great Britain, Indonesia, Germany.

(www.maannews.net / 01.05.2012)