7 oct 2019
Gilad Erdan and Ayman Odeh
Public Security and Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan draws ire of Joint List leader who calls the remarks 'racist' and accuses the minister of victim blaming; comments come in wake of protests against lack of police response to rise of violence in Israel's Arab communities
The minister in charge of Israeli police on Monday said the growing violence in the Arab sector stems from a culture of a “very, very violent society.”
"Arab society, and I say that with sadness, is a very violent society,” said Public Security and Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan in an interview with Radio Jerusalem. “It has to do with the fact that a mother can give a son permission to murder his sister because she is dating a man who isn’t liked by the family.”
Erdan’s comments come in the wake of protests against the lack of police and government response to the recent rise in violence in Israel's Arab communities.
"It has to do with the fact that in their culture many verbal disputes end with someone pulling out a knife or weapons," the public security minister added.
Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh slammed Erdan’s comments, calling the remarks “racist.”
"Instead of taking responsibility for securing the safety of all citizens of this country, Erdan chooses to hide behind racist allegations and shift the responsibility onto the victims,” said Odeh.
“The number of murders in the Arab sector before the October 2000 events (a series of protests in Arab cities and towns that sparked the Second Intifada) was the same as the national average,” he said.
"Crime in Arab society is not a product of Arab culture but rather government racism. A minister who sees us as enemies and refuses to protect us from the criminal organizations that obtain the vast majority of their weapons from the military.”
When reached for comment, Erdan refused to apologize and said his sentiments are reiterated by Arab MKs who are “familiar with this phenomenon.”
Israel's Arab citizens on Sunday threatened to intensify the protests, which they say will include blocking roads around the country until the government acts against the wave of violence that has claimed the lives of 68 members of the community since the start of 2019.
Public Security and Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan draws ire of Joint List leader who calls the remarks 'racist' and accuses the minister of victim blaming; comments come in wake of protests against lack of police response to rise of violence in Israel's Arab communities
The minister in charge of Israeli police on Monday said the growing violence in the Arab sector stems from a culture of a “very, very violent society.”
"Arab society, and I say that with sadness, is a very violent society,” said Public Security and Strategic Affairs Minister Gilad Erdan in an interview with Radio Jerusalem. “It has to do with the fact that a mother can give a son permission to murder his sister because she is dating a man who isn’t liked by the family.”
Erdan’s comments come in the wake of protests against the lack of police and government response to the recent rise in violence in Israel's Arab communities.
"It has to do with the fact that in their culture many verbal disputes end with someone pulling out a knife or weapons," the public security minister added.
Joint List Chairman Ayman Odeh slammed Erdan’s comments, calling the remarks “racist.”
"Instead of taking responsibility for securing the safety of all citizens of this country, Erdan chooses to hide behind racist allegations and shift the responsibility onto the victims,” said Odeh.
“The number of murders in the Arab sector before the October 2000 events (a series of protests in Arab cities and towns that sparked the Second Intifada) was the same as the national average,” he said.
"Crime in Arab society is not a product of Arab culture but rather government racism. A minister who sees us as enemies and refuses to protect us from the criminal organizations that obtain the vast majority of their weapons from the military.”
When reached for comment, Erdan refused to apologize and said his sentiments are reiterated by Arab MKs who are “familiar with this phenomenon.”
Israel's Arab citizens on Sunday threatened to intensify the protests, which they say will include blocking roads around the country until the government acts against the wave of violence that has claimed the lives of 68 members of the community since the start of 2019.
4 oct 2019
Chairman of the General Authority of Civil Affairs, Hussein Sheikh, said today that an agreement was reached with the Israeli Minister of Finance, Moshe Kahlon, under which Israel will return part of millions of dollars in Palestinian tax revenues, which Israel has been withholding for nearly eight months.
He said despite the agreement, disputes continue to persist over Israel’s withholding of the amount paid monthly by the Palestinian government to the detainees in Israeli jails and the families of those killed by Israeli forces.
Sheikh added that a set of outstanding issues were discussed during the meeting with the Israeli Finance Minister, and that both sides agreed on activating joint committees to look into all issues as of next Sunday.
Earlier this year, Israel began withholding some of the $200m in monthly tax transfers that the Palestinian government pays to families of people killed or imprisoned by Israel.
The funds withheld are approximately five percent of the total collected on behalf of the PA, but the Palestinians in protest refused to accept any tax revenues from Israel.
Israel To Release 1.8 Billion Of Held Palestinian Money
Following a Thursday meeting between the Israeli Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon and his Palestinian counterpart Hussein Sheikh, the former stated that Israel will be transferring 1.8 Billion Shekels from the Palestinian tax money Israel has been withholding and refusing to transfer.
Israeli TV Channel 13 said the money is part of 3 Billion Shekels Israel is refusing to transfer to the Palestinian Authority to pressure it into stopping the salaries and pensions paid to families of Palestinians who were killed by the army, the wounded and the political prisoners.
Although Israel still insists on stopping these payments, Kahlon agreed on the transfer of the 1.8 Billion Shekels, after the Palestinian side refused the Israeli interference in internal affairs, and the necessity of these payments to support the bereaved families, the wounded and the detainees, in addition to providing assistance to needy families.
Sheikh stated that another meeting will be held this coming Sunday to discuss all related issues and that an agreement was reached to reactivate the joint committees between the two parties.
Israel repeatedly holds and refuses to transfer billions of dollars from money it collects on border terminals in the occupied West Bank, including the taxes and fees it imposes on Palestinian imports and exports.
Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank cannot travel into and out of the territories without crossing through the Israeli controlled border terminal, known as Allenby or al-Karama. Israel collects money from the Palestinian travelers, in addition to collecting tax and customs on imports and exports.
He said despite the agreement, disputes continue to persist over Israel’s withholding of the amount paid monthly by the Palestinian government to the detainees in Israeli jails and the families of those killed by Israeli forces.
Sheikh added that a set of outstanding issues were discussed during the meeting with the Israeli Finance Minister, and that both sides agreed on activating joint committees to look into all issues as of next Sunday.
Earlier this year, Israel began withholding some of the $200m in monthly tax transfers that the Palestinian government pays to families of people killed or imprisoned by Israel.
The funds withheld are approximately five percent of the total collected on behalf of the PA, but the Palestinians in protest refused to accept any tax revenues from Israel.
Israel To Release 1.8 Billion Of Held Palestinian Money
Following a Thursday meeting between the Israeli Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon and his Palestinian counterpart Hussein Sheikh, the former stated that Israel will be transferring 1.8 Billion Shekels from the Palestinian tax money Israel has been withholding and refusing to transfer.
Israeli TV Channel 13 said the money is part of 3 Billion Shekels Israel is refusing to transfer to the Palestinian Authority to pressure it into stopping the salaries and pensions paid to families of Palestinians who were killed by the army, the wounded and the political prisoners.
Although Israel still insists on stopping these payments, Kahlon agreed on the transfer of the 1.8 Billion Shekels, after the Palestinian side refused the Israeli interference in internal affairs, and the necessity of these payments to support the bereaved families, the wounded and the detainees, in addition to providing assistance to needy families.
Sheikh stated that another meeting will be held this coming Sunday to discuss all related issues and that an agreement was reached to reactivate the joint committees between the two parties.
Israel repeatedly holds and refuses to transfer billions of dollars from money it collects on border terminals in the occupied West Bank, including the taxes and fees it imposes on Palestinian imports and exports.
Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank cannot travel into and out of the territories without crossing through the Israeli controlled border terminal, known as Allenby or al-Karama. Israel collects money from the Palestinian travelers, in addition to collecting tax and customs on imports and exports.
3 oct 2019
It would be a grave mistake to assume that the continuing political deadlock in Israel – with neither incumbent prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu nor his main rival Benny Gantz seemingly able to cobble together a coalition government – is evidence of a deep ideological divide.
In political terms, there is nothing divided about Israel. In this month’s general election, 90 per cent of Israeli Jews voted for parties that identify as being either on the militaristic, anti-Arab right or on the religious, anti-Arab far-right.
The two parties claiming to represent the centre-left – the rebranded versions of Labour and Meretz – won only 11 seats in the 120-member parliament.
Stranger still, the three parties that say they want to form a “broad unity government” won about 60 per cent of the vote.
Netanyahu’s Likud, Gantz’s Blue and White party led by former generals, and ex-defence minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu secured between them 73 seats – well over the 61 seats needed for a majority.
All three support the entrenchment of the occupation and annexation of parts of the West Bank; all three think the settlements are justified and necessary; all demand that the siege of Gaza continue; all view the Palestinian leadership as untrustworthy; and all want neighbouring Arab states cowering in fear.
Moshe Yaalon, Gantz’s fellow general in the Blue and White party, was formerly a pivotal figure in Likud alongside Netanyahu. And Lieberman, before he created his own party, was the director of Netanyahu’s office. These are not political enemies; they are ideological bedfellows.
There is one significant but hardly insumountable difference. Gantz thinks it is important to maintain bipartisan US support for Israel’s belligerent occupation while Netanyahu has preferred to throw Israel’s hand in with Donald Trump and the Christian religious right.
Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s president, has pressed the three parties to work together. He has suggested that Netanyahu and Gantz rotate the role of prime minister between them, a mechanism used in Israel’s past.
But after Gantz refused last week, the president assigned Netanyahu the task of trying to form a government, although most observers think the effort will prove futile. After indecisive elections in April and September, Israel therefore looks to be heading for a third round of elections.
But if the deadlock is not ideological, what is causing it?
In truth, the paralysis has been caused by two fears – one in Likud, the other in Blue and White.
Gantz is happy to sit in a unity government with the Likud party. His objection is to allying with Netanyahu, whose lawyers this week began hearings with the attorney general on multiple counts of fraud and breach of trust. Netanyahu wants to be in power to force through a law guaranteeing himself immunity from prosecution.
Blue and White was created to oust Netayahu on the basis that he is corrupt and actively destroying what is left of Israel’s democratic institutions, including by trying to vilify state prosecutors investigating him.
For Blue and White to now prop Netanyahu up in a unity government would be a betrayal of its voters.
The solution for Likud, then, should be obvious: remove Netanyahu and share power with Blue and White.
But the problem is that Likud’s members are in absolute thrall to their leader. The thought of losing him terrifies them. Likud now looks more like a one-man cult than a political party.
Gantz, meanwhile, is gripped by fear of a different kind.
Without Likud, the only solution for Gantz is to turn elsewhere for support. But that would make him reliant on the 13 seats of the Joint List, a coalition of parties representing Israel’s large minority of Palestinian citizens.
And there’s the rub. Blue and White is a deeply Arab-phobic party, just like Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu. Its only civilian leader, Yair Lapid, notoriously refused to work with Palestinian parties after the 2013 election – before Netanyahu had made racist incitement his campaign trademark.
Lapid said: “I’ll never sit with the Zoabis” – a reference to the most prominent of the Palestinian legislators at the time, Haneen Zoabi.
Similarly, Gantz has repeatedly stressed his opposition to sitting with the Joint List.
Nonetheless, the Joint List’s leader Ayman Odeh made an unprecedented gesture last week, throwing the weight of most of his faction behind Gantz.
That was no easy concession, given Gantz’s positions and his role as army chief in 2014 overseeing the destruction of Gaza. The move angered many Palestinians in the occupied territories.
But Odeh saw the Palestinian minority’s turn-out in September leap by 10 percentage points compared to April’s election, so desperate were his voters to see the back of Netanyahu.
Surveys also indicate a growing frustration among Palestinian citizens at their lack of political influence. Although peace talks are off Israel’s agenda, some in the minority hope it might be possible to win a little relief for their communities after decades of harsh, institutional discrimination.
In a New York Times op-ed last week, Odeh justified his support for Gantz. It was intended to send “a clear message that the only future for this country is a shared future, and there is no shared future without the full and equal participation of Arab Palestinian citizens”.
Gantz seems unimpressed. According to an investigation by the Israeli media, Netahyahu only got first crack at forming a government because Gantz blanched at the prospect.
He was worried Netanyahu would again smear him – and damage him in the eyes of voters – if he was seen to be negotiating with the Joint List.
Netanyahu has already painted the alternatives in stark terms: either a unity government with him at its heart, or a Blue and White government backed by those who “praise terrorists”.
The Likud leader might yet pull a rabbit out of his battered hat. Gantz or Lieberman could cave, faced with taunts that otherwise “the Arabs” will get a foot in the door. Or Netanyahu could trigger a national emergency, even a war, to bully his rivals into backing him.
But should it come to a third election, Netanyahu will have a pressing reason to ensure he succeeds this time. And that will doubtless require stepping up incitement another dangerous gear against the Palestinian minority.
The reality is that there is strong unity in Israel – over shared, deeply ugly attitudes towards Palestinians, whether citizens or those under occupation. Paradoxically, the only obstacle to realising that unity is Netanyahu’s efforts to cling to power.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is http://www.jonathan-cook.net/
In political terms, there is nothing divided about Israel. In this month’s general election, 90 per cent of Israeli Jews voted for parties that identify as being either on the militaristic, anti-Arab right or on the religious, anti-Arab far-right.
The two parties claiming to represent the centre-left – the rebranded versions of Labour and Meretz – won only 11 seats in the 120-member parliament.
Stranger still, the three parties that say they want to form a “broad unity government” won about 60 per cent of the vote.
Netanyahu’s Likud, Gantz’s Blue and White party led by former generals, and ex-defence minister Avigdor Lieberman’s Yisrael Beiteinu secured between them 73 seats – well over the 61 seats needed for a majority.
All three support the entrenchment of the occupation and annexation of parts of the West Bank; all three think the settlements are justified and necessary; all demand that the siege of Gaza continue; all view the Palestinian leadership as untrustworthy; and all want neighbouring Arab states cowering in fear.
Moshe Yaalon, Gantz’s fellow general in the Blue and White party, was formerly a pivotal figure in Likud alongside Netanyahu. And Lieberman, before he created his own party, was the director of Netanyahu’s office. These are not political enemies; they are ideological bedfellows.
There is one significant but hardly insumountable difference. Gantz thinks it is important to maintain bipartisan US support for Israel’s belligerent occupation while Netanyahu has preferred to throw Israel’s hand in with Donald Trump and the Christian religious right.
Reuven Rivlin, Israel’s president, has pressed the three parties to work together. He has suggested that Netanyahu and Gantz rotate the role of prime minister between them, a mechanism used in Israel’s past.
But after Gantz refused last week, the president assigned Netanyahu the task of trying to form a government, although most observers think the effort will prove futile. After indecisive elections in April and September, Israel therefore looks to be heading for a third round of elections.
But if the deadlock is not ideological, what is causing it?
In truth, the paralysis has been caused by two fears – one in Likud, the other in Blue and White.
Gantz is happy to sit in a unity government with the Likud party. His objection is to allying with Netanyahu, whose lawyers this week began hearings with the attorney general on multiple counts of fraud and breach of trust. Netanyahu wants to be in power to force through a law guaranteeing himself immunity from prosecution.
Blue and White was created to oust Netayahu on the basis that he is corrupt and actively destroying what is left of Israel’s democratic institutions, including by trying to vilify state prosecutors investigating him.
For Blue and White to now prop Netanyahu up in a unity government would be a betrayal of its voters.
The solution for Likud, then, should be obvious: remove Netanyahu and share power with Blue and White.
But the problem is that Likud’s members are in absolute thrall to their leader. The thought of losing him terrifies them. Likud now looks more like a one-man cult than a political party.
Gantz, meanwhile, is gripped by fear of a different kind.
Without Likud, the only solution for Gantz is to turn elsewhere for support. But that would make him reliant on the 13 seats of the Joint List, a coalition of parties representing Israel’s large minority of Palestinian citizens.
And there’s the rub. Blue and White is a deeply Arab-phobic party, just like Likud and Yisrael Beiteinu. Its only civilian leader, Yair Lapid, notoriously refused to work with Palestinian parties after the 2013 election – before Netanyahu had made racist incitement his campaign trademark.
Lapid said: “I’ll never sit with the Zoabis” – a reference to the most prominent of the Palestinian legislators at the time, Haneen Zoabi.
Similarly, Gantz has repeatedly stressed his opposition to sitting with the Joint List.
Nonetheless, the Joint List’s leader Ayman Odeh made an unprecedented gesture last week, throwing the weight of most of his faction behind Gantz.
That was no easy concession, given Gantz’s positions and his role as army chief in 2014 overseeing the destruction of Gaza. The move angered many Palestinians in the occupied territories.
But Odeh saw the Palestinian minority’s turn-out in September leap by 10 percentage points compared to April’s election, so desperate were his voters to see the back of Netanyahu.
Surveys also indicate a growing frustration among Palestinian citizens at their lack of political influence. Although peace talks are off Israel’s agenda, some in the minority hope it might be possible to win a little relief for their communities after decades of harsh, institutional discrimination.
In a New York Times op-ed last week, Odeh justified his support for Gantz. It was intended to send “a clear message that the only future for this country is a shared future, and there is no shared future without the full and equal participation of Arab Palestinian citizens”.
Gantz seems unimpressed. According to an investigation by the Israeli media, Netahyahu only got first crack at forming a government because Gantz blanched at the prospect.
He was worried Netanyahu would again smear him – and damage him in the eyes of voters – if he was seen to be negotiating with the Joint List.
Netanyahu has already painted the alternatives in stark terms: either a unity government with him at its heart, or a Blue and White government backed by those who “praise terrorists”.
The Likud leader might yet pull a rabbit out of his battered hat. Gantz or Lieberman could cave, faced with taunts that otherwise “the Arabs” will get a foot in the door. Or Netanyahu could trigger a national emergency, even a war, to bully his rivals into backing him.
But should it come to a third election, Netanyahu will have a pressing reason to ensure he succeeds this time. And that will doubtless require stepping up incitement another dangerous gear against the Palestinian minority.
The reality is that there is strong unity in Israel – over shared, deeply ugly attitudes towards Palestinians, whether citizens or those under occupation. Paradoxically, the only obstacle to realising that unity is Netanyahu’s efforts to cling to power.
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His latest books are “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is http://www.jonathan-cook.net/
30 sept 2019
|
|
The creation of Israel by seizing Palestinian land and expelling its 90 per cent Arab population is the root cause of terrorism, the Prime Minister of Malaysia Dr Mahathir Mohamad said in his UN speech.
“Since then, wars have been fought in many countries, many related to the creation of Israel. And now we have terrorism when there was none before, or at least none on the present scale,” he said in his statement at the General Debate of the 74th UN General Assembly. “Military action against acts of terrorism will not succeed. We need to identify the cause and remove it. But the great powers refuse to deal with the root cause,” he added. |
The prime minister added that Malaysia accepted the state of Israel “as a fait accompli”.
“But Malaysia cannot accept the blatant seizure of Palestine land by Israel for their settlements as well as the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel. The Palestinians cannot even enter the settlements built on their land.”
He added: “Because of the creation of Israel, there is now enmity towards the Muslims and Islam. Muslims are accused of terrorism even if they did nothing… Muslim countries have been destabilized through the campaign for democracy and regime change. Muslims everywhere have been oppressed, expelled from their countries and refused asylum.”
Dr. Mahathir also said that the application of the rule of law has been selective.
“Friends may break any law and get away scot-free. Thus, Israel can break all the international laws and norms of the world and it will continue to be supported and defended. The unfriendly countries can do nothing right. There is no justice in the world,” he added.
Mahathir Mohamad also highlighted the situation of the Rohingyas in Myanmar.
“Many colonies of the West, upon independence, expelled non-natives in their countries. But nowhere have they been as brutal as Myanmar.
Even natives massacred, brutally killed and raped in full view of the world backgrounded by the burning houses and villages of the victims.
They were forced to migrate and now they dare not return to Myanmar even when offered. They cannot trust the Myanmar military unless some form of non-Myanmar protection is given.”
“But Malaysia cannot accept the blatant seizure of Palestine land by Israel for their settlements as well as the occupation of Jerusalem by Israel. The Palestinians cannot even enter the settlements built on their land.”
He added: “Because of the creation of Israel, there is now enmity towards the Muslims and Islam. Muslims are accused of terrorism even if they did nothing… Muslim countries have been destabilized through the campaign for democracy and regime change. Muslims everywhere have been oppressed, expelled from their countries and refused asylum.”
Dr. Mahathir also said that the application of the rule of law has been selective.
“Friends may break any law and get away scot-free. Thus, Israel can break all the international laws and norms of the world and it will continue to be supported and defended. The unfriendly countries can do nothing right. There is no justice in the world,” he added.
Mahathir Mohamad also highlighted the situation of the Rohingyas in Myanmar.
“Many colonies of the West, upon independence, expelled non-natives in their countries. But nowhere have they been as brutal as Myanmar.
Even natives massacred, brutally killed and raped in full view of the world backgrounded by the burning houses and villages of the victims.
They were forced to migrate and now they dare not return to Myanmar even when offered. They cannot trust the Myanmar military unless some form of non-Myanmar protection is given.”
|
|
|
Page: 32 - 31 - 30 - 29 - 28 - 27 - 26 - 25 - 24 - 23 - 22 - 21 - 20 - 19 - 18 - 17 - 16 - 15 - 14 - 13 - 12 - 11
