Tegengif voor Israëlische oorlogspropaganda in de Volkskrant.

10 gedachten over “Tegengif voor Israëlische oorlogspropaganda in de Volkskrant.”

1. tegengif: mooi boek van judith visser, uitgeverij rainbowpoket!

   Beantwoorden

2. Robert van Waning schreef,"Hoe noodzakelijk het is dat de journalistiek tegenspraak krijgt, wordt in deze dagen immers weer pijnlijk duidelijk."
   Robert is niet de enige linkse anti Israel fanaat, die de Volkskrant redactie beschuldigt van een pro Israel beleid.
   Dit soort reacties zijn echter kenmerkend voor de linkse beweging, die ervan overtuigd zijn, de absolute waarheid in pacht te hebben.
   Helaas heeft de geschiedenis bewezen, dat het linkse denken dichter bij het fascisme staat, dan bij de democratie.

   Beantwoorden

3. Als de kop luid tegengif voor Israëlische oorlogspropaganda in de Volkskrant waarom haalt u dan al die berichten over Afghanistan en Irak erbij?
   Kennelijk zit u een heleboel dwars.
   Ik ben zelf blij dat de Volkskrant niet al te pro Palestijns Hamas schrijft, heb zelf het idee dat men toch meer op uw zijde staat dan de pro Israëlische. Gezien de grote hoeveelheid columnisten en beschouwingen op de opinie pagina zou je denken dat dat ene artikel van de twee Israëlisch juist ter compensatie van de pro Palestijnse kant een beetje evenwicht brengt.
   Verder wordt er nauwelijks ingegaan op de kwalijke kanten van het Islamitisch Jihadisme en de brainwashing praktijken van moslims om hun kinderen voor te bereiden op een martelaarsdood. Kijkt u vooral de Hamas en Palestijnse tv , dan ziet u de mentale werkelijkheid van de moslim fundamentalisten en extremisten.

   Beantwoorden

4. @ Robert, helaas heb ik niks aan al die eng./am. link’s, kan ze bijna niet lezen.
   Vind je ook niet dat die reacties boven nogal ‘gemutst’ door het leven gaan. Zo kom ik er wel erg veel tegen sinds ik op deze opinie en weblog site’s kan komen. Wordt het niet eens tijd dat dat gaat veranderen? Anonimiteit is een democraties recht, maar je kan het ook overdrijven. Deze anonieme ‘meningsuitingen’ vind ik oneigenlijke misbruik van het Recht.
   Aan de rechterkant >>>>> heb ik nogwel genoeg leesvoer.
   Gr.

   Beantwoorden

5. The "realist" fantasy
   December 26, 2008, 5:49 PM
   Comments (10) | Email | Del.icio.us | Digg This | Print | TrackBack (0)
   Both Iran and its Hamas proxy in Gaza have been busy this Christmas week showing Christendom just what they think of it. But no one seems to have noticed.
   On Tuesday, Hamas legislators marked the Christmas season by passing a Shari’a criminal code for the Palestinian Authority. Among other things, it legalizes crucifixion.
   Hamas’s endorsement of nailing enemies of Islam to crosses came at the same time it renewed its jihad. Here, too, Hamas wanted to make sure that Christians didn’t feel neglected as its fighters launched missiles at Jewish day care centers and schools. So on Wednesday, Hamas lobbed a mortar shell at the Erez crossing point into Israel just as a group of Gazan Christians were standing on line waiting to travel to Bethlehem for Christmas.
   While Hamas joyously renewed its jihad against Jews and Christians, its overlords in Iran also basked in jihadist triumphalism. The source of Teheran’s sense of ascendancy this week was Britain’s Channel 4 network’s decision to request that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad give a special Christmas Day address to the British people. Ahmadinejad’s speech was supposed to be a response to Queen Elizabeth II’s traditional Christmas Day address to her subjects. That is, Channel 4 presented his message as a reasonable counterpoint to the Christmas greetings of the head of the Church of England.
   Channel 4 justified its move by proclaiming that it was providing a public service. As a spokesman told The Jerusalem Post, "We’re offering [Ahmadinejad] the chance to speak for himself, which people in the West don’t often get the chance to see."
   While that sounds reasonable, the fact is that Westerners see Ahmadinejad speaking for himself all the time. They saw him at the UN two years in a row as he called for the countries of the world to submit to Islam; claimed that Iran’s nuclear weapons program is divinely inspired; and castigated Jews as subhuman menaces to humanity.
   They saw him gather leading anti-Semites from all over the world at his Holocaust denial conference.
   They heard him speak in his own words when he called for Israel to be "wiped off the map."
   And of course, over the years Ahmadinejad has often communicated directly to the British people. For instance, in 2007 he received unlimited airtime on UK television as he paraded kidnapped British sailors and marines in front of television cameras; forced them to make videotaped "confessions" of their "crime" of entering Iranian territorial waters; and compelled them to grovel at his knee and thank him for "forgiving" them.
   The British people listened to Ahmadinejad as he condemned Britain as a warmongering nation after its leaders had surrendered Basra to Iranian proxies. They heard him – speaking in his own voice – when he announced that in a gesture of Islamic mercy, he was freeing their humiliated sailors and marines in honor of Muhammad’s birthday and Easter, and then called on all Britons to convert to Islam.
   Yet as far as Channel 4 is concerned, Ahmadinejad is still an unknown quantity for most Britons. So they asked him to address the nation on Christmas. And not surprisingly, in his address, he attacked their way of life and co-opted their Jewish savior, Jesus, saying, "If Christ was on earth today, undoubtedly he would stand with the people in opposition to bullying, ill-tempered and expansionist powers."
   He then reiterated his call for non-Muslims to convert to Islam saying, "The solution to today’s problems can be found in a return to the call of the divine prophets."
   THE FACT of the matter is that Channel 4 is right. There is a great deal of ignorance in the West about what the likes of Ahmadinejad and his colleagues in Iran, Syria, Hizbullah and Hamas stand for. But this isn’t their fault. They tell us every day that they seek the destruction of the Jews and the domination of the West in the name of Islam. And every day they take actions that they believe advance their goals.
   The reason that the West remains ignorant of the views and goals of the likes of Hamas and Iran is not that the latter have hidden their views and goals. It is because the leading political leaders and foreign policy practitioners in the West refuse to listen to them and deny the significance of their actions.
   As far as the West’s leaders are concerned, Iran and its allies are unimportant. They are not actors, but objects. As far as the West’s leading foreign policy "experts" and decision-makers are concerned, the only true actors on the global stage are Western powers. They alone have the power to shape reality and the world. Oddly enough, this dominant political philosophy, which is based on denying the existence of non-Western actors on the world stage, is referred to as political "realism."
   The "realist" view was given clear expression this week by one of the "realist" clique’s most prominent members. In an op-ed published Tuesday in Canada’s Globe and Mail titled, "We must talk Iran out of the bomb," Richard Haass, the president of the Council on Foreign Relations, argued that given the dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the dangers of a US or Israeli strike against Iran’s nuclear installations, the incoming Obama administration must hold direct negotiations with the mullahs to convince them to end their nuclear weapons program.
   In making this argument, Haass ignores the fact that this has been the Bush administration’s policy for the past five years. He also ignores the fact that President George W. Bush adopted this policy at the urging of Haass’s "realist" colleagues and at the urging of Haass himself.
   Moreover, Haass bizarrely contends that in negotiating with the mullahs, the Obama administration should offer Iran the same package of economic and political payoffs that the Bush administration and the EU have been offering, and Teheran has been rejecting, since 2003.
   Even more disturbingly, Haass ignores the fact that Teheran made its greatest leaps forward in its uranium enrichment capabilities while it was engaged in these talks with the West.
   So in making his recommendation to the Obama administration – which has already announced its intention to negotiate with the mullahs – Haass has chosen to ignore Iran’s statements, its actions, and known facts about the West’s inability to steer it from its course of war by showering it with pay-offs.
   Haass and his colleagues in the US, Europe and on the Israeli Left are similarly unwilling to pay attention to Hamas. In an article in the current issue of Foreign Affairs, Haass and his colleague Martin Indyk from the Brookings Institute call on the Obama administration to either ignore Hamas, or, if it abides by a cease-fire with Israel, they suggest that the Obama administration should support a joint Hamas-Fatah government and "authorize low-level contact between US officials and Hamas." The fact that Hamas itself is wholly dedicated to Israel’s destruction and Islamic global domination is irrelevant.
   Similarly, Haass and Indyk assume that Damascus can be appeased into abandoning its support for Hizbullah and Hamas, and its strategic alliance with Iran. Syrian President Bashar Assad’s views of how his interests are best served are unimportant. Both Assad’s statements of eternal friendship with Iran and his active involvement in Iran’s war effort against the US and its allies in Israel, Iraq and Lebanon are meaningless. The "realists" know what he really wants.
   MUSLIMS AREN’T the only ones whose views and actions are dismissed as irrelevant by these foreign policy wise men. The "realists" ignore just about every non-Western actor. Take Iran’s principal Asian ally, North Korea, for example.
   This week North Korea’s official news agency threatened to destroy South Korea in a "sea of fire," and "reduce everything treacherous and anti-reunification to debris and build an independent, reunified country on it," if any country dares to attack its nuclear installations.
   North Korea made its threat two weeks after Kim Jung Il’s regime disengaged from its fraudulent disarmament talks with the Bush administration. Those talks – the brainchild of foreign policy "realists" Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Assistant Secretary Christopher Hill – were based on the "realist" belief that the US can appease North Korea into giving up its nuclear arsenal. (That would be the same nuclear arsenal that the North Koreans built while engaged in fraudulent disarmament talks with the Clinton administration.)
   After Pyongyang agreed in February 2007 to eventually come clean on its plutonium installations (but not its uranium enrichment programs), and to account for its nuclear arsenal (but not for its proliferation activities), Rice convinced President Bush to remove North Korea from the State Department’s list of state sponsors of terror and to end its subjection to the US’s Trading with the Enemy Act this past October. And then, after securing those massive US concessions, on December 11 Pyongyang renounced its commitments, walked away from the table and now threatens to destroy South Korea if anyone takes any action against it.
   North Korea’s behavior is of no interest to the "realists," however. As far as they are concerned, the US has no option other than to continue the failed appeasement policy that has enabled North Korea to develop and proliferate nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles. As the Council on Foreign Relations’ Gary Samore said, "I think we’re sort of condemned to that process, because we don’t really have any alternative."
   Samore and his colleagues believe there are no other options because all other options involve placing responsibility for contending with North Korea on non-Western powers like China, South Korea and Japan. More radically, they involve holding North Korea accountable for its actions and making it pay a price for its poor behavior.
   As the "realists" claim that the US has no option other than their failed appeasement policies, back in the real world, this week military officials from the US’s Pacific Command warned that North Korea may supply Iran with intercontinental ballistic missiles. These warnings are credible given that North Korea has been the primary supplier of ballistic missiles and missile technology to Iran and Syria and has played a major role in both countries’ nuclear weapons programs.
   Defending Channel 4’s invitation to Ahmadinejad, Dorothy Byrne, the network’s head of news and current affairs, said, "As the leader of one of the most powerful states in the Middle East, President Ahmadinejad’s views are enormously influential. As we approach a critical time in international relations, we are offering our viewers an insight into an alternative world view."
   When you think about it, broadcasting Ahmadinejad really would have been a public service if Byrne or any of the delusional "realists" calling the shots were remotely interested in listening to what he has to say. But they aren’t. So far from a public service for Britain, it was a service for those who, unbeknownst to most Britons, are dedicated to destroying their country.
   Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.
   Posted on December

   Beantwoorden

6. @Betty Stavast,
   Die realisten maken hun claim van realisme wel waar. Niemand kan immers verlangen en verwachten dat alleen de VS en Israel wapens mogen produceren en leveren aan landen die hun expansionistische en imperialistische streven steunen. Ik ben bepaald geen fan van Noord-Korea noch van Iran, maar als ik in hun positie was, zou ik wellicht (ongeveer) dezelfde dingen doen als zij. Hun retoriek laat ik echter geheel voor hun verantwoording. Racisme is mij vreemd, zoals je weet, omdat ik IEDER onderscheid op etnische en genetische gronden afwijs.
   Je moet je tegenstanders zo veel en zo lang mogelijk bestrijden met verstandige diplomatie en constante dialoog waarin de nadruk ligt op reele feiten en daarop gebaseerde rationele overwegingen en argumenten. Niet met dreigementen, bombardementen, invasies, preventieve oorlogen, bezettingen, annexates en kolonisatie. Men moet daarbij wel blijven beschikken over voldoende macht om kwaadwilligen af te schrikken van heilloze avoturen.
   Het is sowieso altijd verstandig om tegenstanders en critici aan het woord te laten. Als zij inderdaad ongelijk hebben, lopen zij vast in hun eigen argumenten. Ik ben het dus eens met Dorothy Byrne die besloot om de Iraanse president uit te nodigen voor een gesprek op ‘haar’ Channel 4.

   Beantwoorden

7. @Betty Stavast,
   Hierbij nog een dosis tegengif:"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion but rather by its superiority in applying organized violence. Westerners often forget this fact, non-Westerners never do."
   (Samuel P. Huntington.)Gazans Fight Cold and Hunger as Supplies Run Dry
   By Azmi Keshawi in Bureij, Gaza Strip
   Their windows smashed in the dead of winter by bomb blasts, Jihad Hamed, his wife and seven children huddle together every night in one bedroom of their freezing house, trying to keep warm and as far away as possible from the next explosion, wherever it might come from.
   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21590.htmStop US Money Going To Israel
   US Military Aid Underpins Gaza Offensive
   1 Minute Video
   Israel receives billions of dollars in military aid from the US each year, much of it spent on American weaponry which US law says must only be used in self-defence. But experts say there is little chance of cuts in aid to Israel despite its military operation in Gaza. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21591.htmThe Truth About Those Hamas Rockets
   By Dennis Rahkonen
   Five years ago, the Bush administration lied about weapons of mass destruction to dupe us into supporting an illegal, immoral invasion of Iraq. A few days ago, Israel trotted out only an infinitesimally more credible excuse — the Hamas rockets case — as justification for its own murderous shock and awe in Gaza. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21596.htmMcKinney to Obama: "Say Something" About Gaza Humanitarian Crisis.
   By BAR
   "I would like to ask my former colleagues in the United States Congress to stop sending weapons of mass destruction around the world.
   http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21593.htm
   @Sjuul,
   Sorry voor al het Engels.Reactie is geredigeerd

   Beantwoorden

8. @Sjuul van Dissel,
   Die anonimiteit is voornamelijk ene gruwel omdat er zo veel misbruik van wordt gemaakt. Ik begrijp best dat mensen in hun prive- of prfessionele leven geen last willen hebben van wat zij hier als hun meningen uiten, maar velen zetten hier alleen maar een bivakmuts op om lekker vrijblijvend te kunnen schimpen en schelden op mensen met wie zij het niet eens zijn. Laf is dat. Gelukkig maken sommigen zich na enige tijd toch bekend. Zo schreef Betty Stavast vroeger onder een schuilnaam, maar nu niet meer. Dat waardeer ik zeer.
   Het grote voordeel van het gebruik van de eigen naam is dat mensen beter op hun woorden letten. Het werkt beschavend. Daarom is Ombudsman Thom Meens er ook een voorstander van. Helaas krijgt hij lang niet altijd zijn zin.

   Beantwoorden

9. Ben ik nou geblokkeerd?

   Beantwoorden

10. @Jose,
    Door wie? Waar? Waarom?

    Beantwoorden

Geef een reactie Reactie annuleren

Vul je reactie hier in ...

Vul je gegevens in of klik op een icoon om in te loggen.

E-mail (vereist) (Adres wordt niet getoond)

Naam (vereist)

Website

Je reageert onder je WordPress.com account. ( Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Je reageert onder je Facebook account. ( Log uit /  Bijwerken )

Annuleren

Verbinden met %s

Houd me via e-mail op de hoogte van nieuwe reacties.

Houd me via e-mail op de hoogte van nieuwe berichten.

Δ