Sla over naar de inhoud

Drogredenaar Arend Jan Boekestijn (005)

Spinoza wees er al op dat recht uiteindelijk berust op macht. Internationale spelregels worden in hoge mate bepaald door de machtigste landen, die immers bij het opgeven van het recht van de sterkste veel te verliezen hebben. Net zoals nationaal recht een product is van nationale machtsverhoudingen, is internationaal recht een resultante van internationale machtsrelaties.”

Boekestijn gebruikt de stellingen hierboven ter ondersteuning van zijn houding dat Israël niet verplicht zou zijn om Internationaal Recht te respecteren. Dat hebben we in zijn nieuwste column “Recht is macht” gelezen. De stelling is niet nadrukkelijk aanwezig in zijn column, maar zij volgt daar noodzakelijk uit. Van Agt zegt dat Israël Internationaal Recht moet respecteren en Boekestijn valt zijn argument aan, dus volgt daaruit dat Boekestijn het oneens is dat Israël Internationaal Recht moet respecteren.

Gisteren hebben we gezien dat dit een ambiguïteitsdrogreden is, want we weten niet of deze stelling, dat recht macht is, een beschrijvende stelling is, of een waardeoordeel, of een definitie. Vandaag wil ik aantonen dat, als we het als een beschrijvende stelling beschouwen, ze een drogreden is, een non sequitur.

Een analogie

Stel je voor dat Pietje Jantje gaat vermoorden. Op het moment dat de politie hem arresteert roept Pietje: “Laat me los klootzakken. Nationaal recht is een product van nationale machtsverhoudingen, dus jullie moeten me los laten.” De politieagenten zijn autisten, ze begrijpen de onweerlegbare logica van Pietje niet en slepen hem voor de rechter. Voor de rechter roept Pietje alweer: “Nationaal recht is een product van nationale machtsverhoudingen. Ik eis dat ik vrijgelaten word. Ik ben volstrekt vrij om Jantje te vermoorden en bemoei je er niet mee. Ik doe wat ik wil.” Als hij zo doorgaat, heeft hij een grote kans dat hij in TBS belandt. Waarom? Omdat het een absurditeit is.

Stel je voor dat de premisse “nationaal recht een product van nationale machtsverhoudingen” is, voor 100% waar zou zijn. Zelfs als het waar is, volgt daaruit niet dat Pietje de wetten aan zijn laars mag lappen. Dat wil ook niet zeggen dat Pietje volstrekt vrij is om alles te doen wat zijn willekeur dicteert. Het is een non sequitur.

Internationaal recht

Internationaal Recht verandert niks aan het argument; het blijft een non sequitur. De premisse is: “Internationale spelregels worden in hoge mate bepaald door de machtigste landen.” En de conclusie is dat Israël niet gebonden is om deze regels te respecteren. Er zit geen enkele logica in deze stelling.

Laten we heel specifiek kijken om welke regels het gaat.

Stel je voor dat jij een Palestijns kind bent, vrolijk zittend in je schoolbank en een Israëlische sluipschutter schiet jou door het hoofd. Op dat moment ga je naar de soldaat en zegt: “Hallooo, kijk even in het Internationaal Verdrag inzake Burgerrechten en Politieke Rechten (IVBPR). Wat staat bij artikel 6? Ik citeer: ‘Ieder heeft het recht op leven… Niemand mag naar willekeur van zijn leven worden beroofd.’ Ik heb dus het recht op leven; volgens Internationaal Recht.”

Nou is de soldaat zeer onder de indruk van Boekestijn’s column. Hij reageert: “Internationale spelregels worden in hoge mate bepaald door de machtigste landen, die immers bij het opgeven van het recht van de sterkste veel te verliezen hebben. Dus ik ben niet verplicht om je recht op leven te respecteren. Ik mag je doden wanneer ik er zin in heb.” Waarom zou dat een goed argument zijn? Dat is het niet. Het is een drogreden omdat het geen antwoord kan geven op de vraag “nou en?”.

Laten we nu nog specifieker kijken naar de regels die Israël schendt volgens de adviesopinie van het Internationaal Gerechtshof over de legaliteit van de barrière. Het Hof heeft geconcludeerd dat de Palestijnen het recht op externe zelfbeschikking hebben. Twee van de rechters vonden het noodzakelijk om details te geven over de inhoud van dit recht:

Rechter Koroma schreef:

“The Court has also held that the right of self-determination as an established and recognized right under international law applies to the territory and to the Palestinian people. Accordingly, the exercise of such right entitles the Palestinian people to a State of their own as originally envisaged in resolution 181 (II) and subsequently confirmed. The Court has found that the construction of the wall in the Palestinian territory will prevent the realization of such a right and is therefore a violation of it.”[1]

En dame Rosalyn Higgins schreef:

“This is not difficult – from Security Council resolution 242 (1967) through to Security Council resolution 1515 (2003), the key underlying requirements have remained the same – that Israel is entitled to exist, to be recognized, and to security, and that the Palestinian people are entitled to their territory, to exercise self-determination, and to have their own State.”[2]

Dus volgens deze twee rechters hebben de Palestijnen het recht op externe zelfbeschikking en dat houdt ook in het recht op een eigen staat op hun eigen territorium. Welnu, zelfs als het voor 100% waar zou zijn dat “Internationale spelregels in hoge mate door de machtigste landen bepaald worden”, volgt daaruit niet dat de Palestijnen geen recht op zelfbeschikking hebben, noch dat ze geen recht hebben op een eigen staat. Noch wil dat zeggen dat Israël geen plicht heeft om dat recht te respecteren.

Het Hof heeft ook de volgende conclusies getrokken:

  • De Westelijke Jordaanoever is bezet, inclusief Oost-Jeruzalem.
  • De nederzettingen op de Westelijke Jordaanoever zijn een schending van Internationaal Recht.
  • De conventie van Geneve is bindend voor Israël en de barrière schendt deze conventie, IVBPR, Het Internationaal Verdrag inzake economische, sociale en culturele rechten (IVESCR), Het Verdrag inzake de Rechten van het Kind (IVRK).

Geen van deze conclusies zijn minder waar, zelfs als de premisse van Boekestijn, dat recht macht zou zijn, voor 100% waar zou zijn. Neem een aantal specifieke conclusies:

“The wall, along the route chosen, and its associated regime gravely infringe a number of rights of Palestinians residing in the territory occupied by Israel, and the infringements resulting from that route cannot be justified by military exigencies or by the requirements of national security or public order…”[3]

“…[T]he Court is of the opinion that the construction of the wall and its associated regime impede the liberty of movement of the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territory (with the exception of Israeli citizens and those assimilated thereto) as guaranteed under Article 12, paragraph 1, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. They also impede the exercise by the persons concerned of the right to work, to health, to education and to an adequate standard of living as proclaimed in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Lastly, the construction of the wall and its associated regime, by contributing to the demographic changes referred to [above], contravene Article 49, paragraph 6, or the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Security Council resolutions [cited above].”[4]

Nou kan iemand mij uitleggen waarom het feit dat recht macht zou zijn, zelfs als het waar zou zijn, tot de conclusie zou leiden dat Israël vrij zou zijn om de rechten van de Palestijnen te schenden? Zoals het recht op vrije beweging, het recht op werk, op “zo goed mogelijke lichamelijke en geestelijke gezondheid”(art 12(1), IVESCR), het recht op onderwijs en “behoorlijke levensstandaard” (art 11(1), IVESCR)?

In conclusie:

Als de stelling “recht is macht” een beschrijvende (descriptieve) stelling is, dan is deze premisse irrelevant, ongeacht of het waar of onwaar zou zijn. Uit deze premisse volgt niet dat Israël vrij is om Internationaal Recht te negeren, noch dat ze vrij is om de rechten van de Palestijnen te schenden. Als Boekestijn dat concludeert, dan is dat een drogreden, een non sequitur.

Wordt vervolgd.


[1] ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Separate Opinion Of Judge Koroma, para. 5
[2] ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory,  Separate opinion of Judge Higgins, para. 18
[3] ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, para. 137
[4] ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, para. 134

Published inBeste BlogsInternationaal RechtPolitiekSofist Factory

33 Comments

  1. Reine jRagolo Reine jRagolo

    ==Ik mag je doden wanneer ik er zin heb==

    Het is een voorbeeld maar waarom moet dit nu weer een Israëlische soldaat zijn.
    Het Israëlisch recht zou dit afkeuren.
    Het is gevaarlijk om met de verkeerde voorbeelden de verkeerde toonzetting te zetten.

  2. Mihai Mihai

    @Reine

    Snipers with children in their sights

    Palestinian civilians have been killed by the army with impunity
    Chris McGreal
    The Guardian, Tuesday 28 June 2005 00.01 BST

    It was the shooting of Asma Mughayar that swept away any lingering doubts I had about how it is the Israeli army kills so many Palestinian children and civilians.

    Asma, 16, and her younger brother, Ahmad, were collecting laundry from the roof of their home in the south of the Gaza Strip in May last year when they were felled by an Israeli army sniper. Neither child was armed or threatening the soldier, who fired unseen through a hole punched in the wall of a neighbouring block of flats.

    The army said the two were blown up by a Palestinian bomb planted to kill soldiers. The corpses offered a different account. In Rafah’s morgue, Asma lay with a single bullet hole through her temple; her 13-year-old brother had a lone shot to his forehead. There were no other injuries, certainly none consistent with a blast.

    Confronted with this, the army changed its account and claimed the pair were killed by a Palestinian, though there was persuasive evidence pointing to the Israeli sniper’s nest. What the military did not do was ask its soldiers why they gave a false account of the deaths or speak to the children’s parents or any other witnesses.

    When reporters pressed the issue, the army promised a full investigation, but a few weeks later it was quietly dropped. This has become the norm in a military that appears to value protecting itself from accountability more than living up to its claim to be the “most moral army in the world”.

    As Tom Hurndall’s parents noted yesterday after the conviction of an Israeli sergeant for the manslaughter of their son, the soldier was put on trial only because the British family had the resources to bring pressure to bear. But there has been no justice for the parents of hundreds of Palestinian children killed by Israeli soldiers.

    According to the Israeli human rights group B’Tselem, the army has killed 1,722 Palestinian civilians – more than one-third of them minors – as well as 1,519 combatants, since the intifada began nearly five years ago; the comparable Israeli figures are 658 civilians killed – 17% minors – along with 309 military. The army has investigated just 90 Palestinian deaths, usually under outside pressure. Seven soldiers have been convicted: three for manslaughter, none for murder.

    Last month, a military court sentenced a soldier to 20 months in prison for shooting dead a Palestinian man as he adjusted his TV aerial, the longest sentence yet for killing a civilian, and less than Israeli conscientious objectors have got for refusing to serve in the army.

    B’Tselem argues that a lack of accountability and rules of engagement that “encourage a trigger-happy attitude among soldiers” have created a “culture of impunity” – a view backed by the New York-based Human Rights Watch, which last week described many army investigations of civilian killings as a “sham … that encourages soldiers to think they can literally get away with murder”.

    In southern Gaza, the killings take place in a climate that amounts to a form of terror against the population. Random fire into Rafah and Khan Yunis has claimed hundreds of lives, including five children shot as they sat at their school desks. Many others have died when the snipers must have known who was in their sights – children playing football, sitting outside home, walking back from school. Almost always “investigations” amount to asking the soldier who pulled the trigger what happened – often they claim there was a gun battle when there was none – and presenting it as fact.

    The military police launched an investigation into the death of Iman al-Hams last October only after soldiers went public about the circumstances in which their commander emptied his gun into the 12-year-old. He was recorded telling his men that the girl should be killed even if she were three.

    Colonel Pinhas Zuaretz was commander in southern Gaza two years ago when I asked him about the scale of the killing. The colonel, who rewrote the rules of engagement to permit soldiers to shoot children as young as 14, acknowledged that official versions of several killings were wrong, but justified the tactics as the price of the struggle for survival against a second Holocaust.

    Perhaps that view was shared by the soldier who shot dead three 15-year-old boys, Hassan Abu Zeid, Ashraf Mousa and Khaled Ghanem, as they approached the fortified border between Gaza and Egypt in April. The military said the teenagers were weapons smugglers and therefore “terrorists”, and that the soldier shot them in the legs and only killed them when they failed to stop.

    The account was a fabrication. The teenagers were in a “forbidden zone” but kicking a ball. Their corpses showed no evidence of wounds to disable them, only single high-calibre shots to the head or back. The army quietly admitted as much – but there would be no investigation.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/jun/28/comment.israelandthepalestinians

  3. Mihai Mihai

    @Reine
    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/may/20/israel/print
    Palestinian doctors despair at rising toll of children shot dead by army snipers
    As the carnage in Rafah escalates, bullet wounds belie the official Israeli line on killings of young teenagers
    • Chris McGreal in Rafah
    • The Guardian, Thursday 20 May 2004 02.44 BST
    The tiny hole buried under Asma Mughayar’s thick black hair, just above her right ear, is an illusion, according to the Israeli army. So is her family’s insistance that Asma, 16, and her younger brother Ahmed, were both shot through the head by an Israeli soldier as they fed their pigeons and collected the laundry from the roof of their home in Rafah refugee camp.

    But their corpses tell a different story, as do the bodies of other children brought to Rafah’s hospital and makeshift mortuaries even before yesterday’s carnage, in which Israeli tanks and helicopters fired on a peaceful protest by Palestinians in the camp, killing 10 demonstrators, according to Palestinian paramedics.

    Israel disputes the Mughayar family’s account: that soldiers shot the children on Tuesday. Hours after their death, Israeli officials blamed the Palestinians, telling reporters that Asma and Ahmed had been killed in a “work accident” – a euphemism for bomb-makers blowing themselves up – or by Palestinian fighters who had left a landmine in the street.

    “A preliminary investigation indicates they were killed by a bomb intended to be used against soldiers. It was set outside a building by Palestinians to hit an Israeli vehicle. This is probably what happened,” a military spokesman said yesterday.

    Dr Ali Moussa, head of Rafah hospital, is as furious at the claim as he is at Israel’s assertion that almost all the 20 or more people killed during the army’s seizure of the Tel al-Sultan district of the Rafah refugee camp were armed men.

    “They are liars, liars, liars, because these children have bullet wounds to the head. There is no doubt about it,” he says.

    Dr Ahmed Abu Nkaria, who pronounced the Mughayar children dead, insists on proving the manner of their killing. He pulls Asma’s body from the mortuary’s refrigeration unit and fumbles through the teenager’s hair to reveal the hole where the bullet entered above one ear and ripped a much larger wound as it emerged above the other.

    “The Israeli propaganda is that they were killed in a work accident. These are the kinds of lies they tell all the time,” he says. “They say all the dead are fighters. They say they do not deliberately kill children, but about a quarter of the dead from the first day of shooting are children. The evidence is here in the morgue. Does this girl look as if she was blown up by a bomb?”

    Asma’s body lies in the hospital mortuary unburied, like all the other dead from Tel al-Sultan, because their relatives are trapped in their homes by a curfew. Her 13-year-old brother’s corpse is a short drive away in the cold-storage room of an Israeli-owned flower-growing company.
    Small boy

    Ahmed lies with 14 other bodies. Some are wrapped in the flags of Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, but Ahmed is swaddled only in the white sheet wrapped around him in the ambulance. He was a small boy who could not easily be mistaken for a man.

    Dr Nkaria rolls the child over to show a tiny round hole in his forehead, just above his fringe. There is a much larger hole at the back of the head where the bullet came out. Neither Asma nor Ahmed show signs of any other injuries, particularly of the kind that might be expected from a blast, such as shrapnel spread across the body, burns, or mutilation.
    “This is what the Israelis claim is a ‘work accident’,” Dr Nkaria says.

    He points to the corpse of another youth in the cold-store.”This is Ibrahim Alqun. He is 14 years old. He was shot in the back of the head. The bullet came out of his right eye,” he says. The child’s face is badly mutilated by the wound.

    The bodies of the children continued to pile up in the mortuary yesterday.
    Saber Abu Libda, 13, was shot dead by Israeli soldiers after he left his home in Tel al-Sultan in the morning to find water for his family.

    Dr Nkaria’s finger probes a tiny hole in the small child’s back which masks the devastation done to his heart as the bullet shot through it.

    “No one can say this child was a fighter. Look at the size of him and look where they shoot him – in the back, not coming to attack someone,” the doctor says.

    Saber stepped out of the door with his 16-year-old brother Yousef. He too was shot, but has survived so far, with critical chest injuries.

    A third brother, Ayub, ran out to save his younger siblings and was also cut down by the snipers.

    “My brothers only went out for water,” Ayub says.
    “We heard the gunshots and I went to their rescue. They were both lying there bleeding and I was shot in the arm.
    “We tried to pull Yousef to the house, but we couldn’t and he lay there bleeding for half an hour until the ambulance came.”
    Other children are luckier. Twelve-year-old Ahmed Hussein looked out of his window in Tel al-Sultan on Tuesday afternoon. A sniper’s bullet hit him in the shoulder. The bullet passed through a fleshy part and hit his aunt in the hand.
    “I thought the Israelis had withdrawn. I went to the window to see. I wanted to get out of the house and they shot me,” he says in his hospital bed.

  4. Mihai Mihai

    @Reine

    Officer suspended over Gaza shooting

    * Conal Urquhart in Tel Aviv
    * The Guardian, Thursday 14 October 2004 02.13 BST

    The Israeli army yesterday suspended an officer who is accused of firing up to 20 bullets into a 13-year-old Palestinian as she lay on the ground after having been shot from an army outpost.

    Another schoolgirl died yesterday after being shot while sitting at her school desk.

    The deaths were in the southern Gaza Strip, some miles away from an ongoing army operation which have seen more than 100 Palestinians killed, including many civilians.

    The Israeli army suspended the platoon commander when several soldiers threatened to refuse to serve under him if he was not removed. The soldiers told Israeli media that the officer ignored warnings that a person approaching an army outpost last week was a schoolgirl.

    After she was shot, he approached Imam al Hamas, 13, as she lay on the ground and fired two bullets at her body before emptying the contents of his rifle magazine into her, the soldiers said.

    Colonel Eyal Eisenberg, an army commander in Gaza, told Israel Army Radio that he had suspended the platoon commander pending an investigation. Col Eisenberg said this would be conducted quickly and that there would be no whitewash.

    The second schoolgirl, Ghadeer Mokheimer, 10, died of injuries sustained on Tuesday at her UN-run school in Khan Yunis.

    It was the second time in recent weeks that a schoolgirl had been killed at her desk by Israeli gunfire, said Peter Hansen, head of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency, UNRWA.

    “That two young children have been shot and killed, sitting at their desks in UNRWA schools in the last month is horrific … schools should be havens of peace,” he said.

    The Israeli army said the incident followed the firing of homemade mortars at a Jewish settlement.

    Elsewhere in Gaza, the army continued its operation to stop the firing of Qassam rockets into Israel. Militants fired two which fell near the town of Sderot without causing any damage.

    Tanks moved deeper into the town of Beit Lahiya and three militants were killed and seven Palestinians were wounded in the fighting, including four children between the ages of 5 and 16.

    Early this morning, a Hamas militant was killed in an Israeli missile strike in the Jabaliya refugee camp. Israel also said it had arrested a West Bank leader, Imad al-Kawasme, that it suspects of masterminding suicide bombings in Beerscheba in August that killed 16.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/oct/14/israel?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487

  5. Reine jRagolo Reine jRagolo

    Snipers zijn een verhaal apart.

    Israeliers worden onder vuur genomen door Hamas-snipers.
    Allemaal slecht te overzien en nauwelijks te berechten.
    Het wordt tijd dat het vrede wordt.

  6. @Reine jRagolo 24/08/2011 op 20:05
    Zal niet lukken zolang kinderen nog geleerd wordt met stenen op militairen te gooien

  7. Reine jRagolo Reine jRagolo

    Ha die Rikus,

    Schijnt het zonnetje daar ook in Krabbedijke?

  8. verteller verteller

    Vorige keer had ik hier een voorbeeld gepost uit het dagelijkse leven.
    Met het voorbeeld wil ik laten zien hoe kul en onaandenkend de pledooi’s van Mihai zijn.
    Helaas werd het voorbeeld verwijderd.

    Hier is nogmaals het voorbeeld, heel sterk verkort:
    Ik werd op de A2 door de politie aangehouden omdat ik 8 km te hard heb gereden.
    Naast me en voor reden minstens 5 andere auto’s die net zo hard en zelf een stuk harder reden.
    Ik werd helaas als enige aangehouden.

    Ze gaven mij een boete die gelijk staat aan een overtreding van 30 km te hard.
    Terwijl ze de boete schrijven, denderde een mercedes voorbij met minstens 200 km/u op de teller. De politie zag het maar deed helemaal niets (ze waren met 4 motors).
    Ik vroeg waarom gaan geen 2 van zijn collega’s, die niets te doen hebben niet er achter aan.
    Zijn antwoord was: u probeert hier ons hier af te leiden.

    Het moraal hier is: als je een regel bedacht dan moet je die ook op iedereen toepassen.
    Als in de VS de doodstraf alleen maar toegepast wordt op de zwarten terwijl blanke massamoordernars worden vrijgesproken of veel lagere straf krijgen voor vergelijkbare misdaden, dan weet je dat er iets goed mis is met het land en de rechters.

    Wetten & regels zijn niet bedoeld om bepaalde groep mensen te veroordelen.
    Zo zou het niet moeten werken. Helaas is het wel zo als het gaat om Israel.

    In 15 regels krijg ik iets uitgelegd wat Mihai in 30 blogs die elk 300 regels bevatten.

  9. Mihai Mihai

    @verteller

    Jouw reactie is vol drogredenen.

  10. @Reine jRagolo 25/08/2011 op 08:27
    Weet in niet, ik Kraggenburg was het gisteren bar slecht weer
    Maar gelukkig hebben we hier geen stenen gooiers

  11. verteller verteller

    ” ……Jouw reactie is vol drogredenen……..”

    Het is wel heel kort antwoord, ben ik niet gewend van jou.

    Wat is hier mis met mijn bewering:
    “…..dan weet je dat er iets goed mis is met het land en de rechters…..”

  12. Mihai Mihai

    @verteller

    Jij veronderstelt alles wat je nog moet bewijzen. Petitio principii heet dat.

  13. verteller verteller

    @Mihai

    “….Jij veronderstelt alles wat je nog moet bewijzen. Petitio principii heet dat…..”

    Te gek dat ik dit nog moet bewijzen. Je mag het zelf bewijzen. Wij leven niet meer in het middeleeuwen waar zelf onderzoek bijna onmogelijk door de schaarste aan betrouwbare informatie.

    Laat ik het zo zeggen: ik geloof niet in Napoleon & Willem van Oranje. Jij wel? Bewijs me maar dat ze echt hebben bestaan. Pics or it didnt happen.

  14. Mihai Mihai

    @verteller

    Jij veronderstelt dat Israel niks fout doet. Dus bewijs het.

  15. verteller verteller

    @Mihai

    ” ………….Jij veronderstelt dat Israel niks fout doet. Dus bewijs het………….”

    ????????verbazing heel groot??????????

    Lees mijn vergelijking met de politie bij de A2 maar nog eens.
    Deze keer heel goed lezen, graag.

  16. Mihai Mihai

    @verteller

    De invasie van een land, verdrijven van haar inheemse bevolking, vermoorden van talloze mensen, martelen, mensen doen verdwijnen, zonder rechtszaak opsluiten, langzamerhand vol met nederzettingen bouwen van het laatste overgebleven stuk land van de andere is niet vergelijkbaar met 8 kilometer te hard rijden. Als iemand mij dat aan doet, dan wil ik dat ik hem volgens internationaal recht kan behandelen, ongeacht wat andere landen ergens anders zouden doen. Zo simpel is dat.

  17. verteller verteller

    @Mihai

    Het valt toch weer tegen van je. Ik heb een betere reactie verwacht.
    Met een beetje fantasie zie je snel dat de persoon die door de politie aan de kant is gehaald Israel voorstelt, die gewoon te hard reed. Kan gebeuren toch? Wie heeft nog nooit te hard gereden?

    Wat is de kern boodschap van mijn vergelijking, denk je?
    Ik ga deze keer niet verklappen.

  18. Mihai Mihai

    8 kilometer te hard rijden is niks. Daarom kan je Israel niet vergelijken met 8 kilometer te hard rijden. Stel je voor dat Pietje jouw vierjarige dochter verkracht en vermoordt. Op de rechtszaak roept pietje dat hij vrij gelaten wil worden omdat de politie Jantje niet heeft gearresteerd, die 5 vierjarige meisjes zou hebben verkracht en vermoord. Vind je dat een goed argument?

  19. verteller verteller

    Het afstand tussen de aarde en de zon is enormous.
    Maar het is maar een mini afstandje in het grote helaal.

    De zon is enorm, maar het is maar een knikkertje vergeleken met andere reuze sterren. Er zijn heel veel reuze sterren. Het is weleens leuk om die sterren te bekijken, voor de verandering.

    Tenzij je verslaafd bent aan onze zon. Als je snap wat ik bedoel.

  20. Mihai Mihai

    Dus jij zou de moordenaar van je dochter vrijlaten.

  21. verteller verteller

    Zelfs mijn eigen moordenaar kan ook worden vrijgelaten.
    Dagelijkse realiteit, niet meer en niet minder.
    Denk aan de mercedes die 200 km/uur voorbij denderde.
    Ik vind het niet prettig als ik telkens word aangehouden.

  22. Mihai Mihai

    @verteller

    Dat is je eigen keuze. Ik ben vrij om de moordenaar te berechten.

  23. verteller verteller

    “…ik ben vrij om de moordenaar te berechten….”

    Precies, heel correct, net zoals dezelfde politie man die….3x raden…mij aanhoudt.
    Of de rechters in de VS die….3x raden….de zwarten ter dood veroordelen.
    Ik ben altijd de lul en de zwarten in de VS ook.

    Er niets mis mee hoor met de politieman of de rechters /sarcasme off/

  24. Mihai Mihai

    Dus de zwarte misdadigers mogen van jou ook vrij?

  25. verteller verteller

    ” ……Dus de zwarte misdadigers mogen van jou ook vrij?…..”

    Laat ik zo stellen:
    Als de rechters niet worden vervangen dan eis ik als hun advocaat een vrijspraak, zeg maar wegens procedurele fout ala OJ Simpson of ala Moskowitz’s succes wraking.
    Wat ik je nu vertel is geen theorie maar de praktijk. Zo’n vrijspraak komen vaak voor.

    Dus nogmaals:
    Er niets mis mee hoor met de politieman of de rechters /sarcasme off/

  26. Mihai Mihai

    Petitio principii. Jij veronderstelt dat ze onschuldig zijn.

  27. verteller verteller

    En wat zegt het over de gewraakte rechters als mijn verzoek wordt ingewilligd?

  28. Mihai Mihai

    Je hebt genoeg drogredenen geproduceerd. Je bent nu geband.

  29. rope88 rope88

    Reine, ik wil het wel voor je vertalen hoor: het zijn stukken engelse tekst waarin gesproken wordt over sluipschutters van het Israëlische leger die er schijnbaar lol in hebben Palestijnse kinderen te vermoorden.
    Dat is wat anders dan Hamas waar jij het ineens over hebt.

    Ja het wordt tijd dat het vrede wordt, maar niet de vrede die Israël zo graag wil dicteren en met een langzame genocide tactiek probeert binnen te halen.
    De vrede die Israël al decennia lang saboteert: dat zou wel een aardige zijn.

  30. F.Frenkel F.Frenkel

    De vingers van de cartoonist zijn gebroken.
    Als je pezen doorklieft,
    is het resultaat desastreus.

  31. Reine jRagolo Reine jRagolo

    Mihai 20.20
    Strijders die een land aanvallen (In welke vorm dan ook) kunnen niet zomaar als crimineel door een rechtbank worden veroordeeld. In het eigen land worden deze strijders ook allesbehalve als criminelen gezien. Op de Westbank, bijvoorbeeld, worden straten etc. naar hen vernoemd. Gedode strijders worden vereerd met ongekende toewijding.
    Vanuit de optiek van Israël kunnen Arabische vrijheidsstrijders ook beter als krijgsgevangenen zonder proces worden gegijzeld. Om ze als crimineel te veroordelen ligt mij te complex.
    Alleen vrede is weer een juiste legitimatie om door een rechtbank te worden veroordeeld.

    Rope 0.02, dat weet je niet zomaar of een sluipschutter er plezier in heeft om zijn slachtoffers te doden. Daar heb je een bekentenis voor nodig.

  32. Reggie Roning Reggie Roning

    @Reine,

    Is een bekentenis voldoende voor je dan?

  33. Mihai Mihai

    @Reine

    Naar hoeveel terroristen zijn dingen in Israel benoemd? Ben Goerion vliegveld etc.

    “The departure of the British from Palestine under violent pressure from the Jewish settlers in the Mandate would generally constitute a third example for the successful use of terrorism.”, Lutz, J. M., & Lutz, B. J. (2008). Global terrorism. Routledge. p.286

    Een paar voorbeelden:

    “Count Bernadotte was a Swedish diplomat working for the United Nations. Jewish extremists in Israel assassinated him in 1948 for taking positions perceived to be favorable to the Palestinian refugees.”, Lutz, J. M., & Lutz, B. J. (2008). Global terrorism. Routledge. p. 293 Zie ook NY-Times “2 Recount ’48 Killing in Israel”

    “Yitzhak Shamir led Lehi, the ‘Stern’ gang, as a member of which Ya’akov Eliav arranged for seventy letter bombs to be sent to all members of the British Cabinet, heads of the Tory opposition and several military commanders. Irgun and the Stern gang committed numerous other atrocities. Shamir himself assassinated Jews suspected of collaborating with Britain. Menachem Begin, also a member of these avowedly terrorist organizations, went on to become Prime Minister.”, Hor, M., V. Ramraj, et al. (2005). Global anti-terrorism law and policy. Cambridge University Press, p.20

    “The Irgun’s campaign … established a revolutionary model which thereafter was emulated and embraced by both anti-colonial and post-colonial era terrorist groups around the world.”, Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press. p.48

    “Thus the Irgun recommenced operations in February 1944 with the simultaneous bombings of the immigration department’s offices in Palestine’s three major cities — Jerusalem, Tel Aviv and Haifa. Subsequent attacks were mounted against the government land registry offices, from which the White Paper’s provisions restricting Jewish land purchase were administered; the department of taxation and finance, responsible for collecting the revenue used to fund the government’s repressive policies; and of course the security forces — the police and army — which were charged with the White Paper’s enforcement.”, Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press. p.50-51

    “IZL and the LHI [Lohamei Herut Ysrael or Fighters for the Freedom of Israel], introduced in the arena (in 1937-38 and 1947-48) what is now the standard equipment for modern terrorism, the camouflaged bomb in the market place and the bus station, the car- and truck-bomb, and the drive-by shooting with automatic weapons.”, Morris, B. (1999). Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-1999. Knopf. p. 657

    “In November I940 the Haganah tried to subvert the policy by blowing up the Patria, a tramp steamer docked in Haifa and crowded with more than 1,700 illegal immigrants from Rumania who were about to be shipped to Mauritius. Miscalculating the explosive charge, the sappers killed 252 of the refugees. The following month the LHI bombed the immigration office in Haifa to protest Britain’s policy.”, B. Morris, Righteous victims: a history of the Zionist-Arab conflict, 1881-2001, Vintage Books, 2001. p.161

    “In late 1943, Menahem Begin (1913-1992), formerly head of the right-wing Betar Zionist youth movement in Poland (and later Israel’s prime minister from 1977 to 1983), took charge of the Irgun. Under Begin’s leadership, the group extorted money from Jewish businesses, executed Jewish informers, and intensified attacks on British targets, culminating in the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem on July 22, 1946, killing 91 and injuring 45.”, M.A. Raider. “Irresponsible, Undisciplined Opposition”: Ben Halpern on the Bergson Group and Jewish Terrorism in Pre-State Palestine.” 92 American Jewish History (Johns Hopkins University Press) 313 (47) no. 3 (01 09) (2004).

    Recente voorbeelden:

    De eerste passagiervliegtuigkapping is gedaan door Israël: “12 December 1954 Israel forced a Syrian civilian airliner to land in Israel in the first recorded skyjacking after Israel said it had entered Israel’s airspace illegally, the Israeli claim was admitted to be false by Israeli Prime Minister Moshe Sharret to the Israeli Knesset on 17 January 1955. Israeli war-planes forced a Syrian Airways Dakota passenger craft carrying four passengers and five crewmen to land at Lydda airport inside Israel. The passengers were interrogated for two days before international protests, including strong complaints from Washington, finally convinced Israel to release the plane and its passengers. The plane had been forced down so that the passengers could be used as hostages for the Israeli soldiers caught on espionage duties in Syrian territory.”

    Zie ook Wikipedia:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zionist_political_violence
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiramis_Hotel_bombing
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_terrorism:

    “November 6, 1944 Lehi assassinated British minister Lord Moyne in Cairo.
    October 31, 1946 The bombing by the Irgun of the British Embassy in Rome. Nearly half the building was destroyed and 3 people were injured.
    January 5-6, 1948 The Semiramis Hotel bombing, carried out by the Haganah (or, according to some sources, Irgun) resulted in the deaths of 24 to 26 people”

    “Keshet…An ultra orthodox violent group that was responsible for a number of violent attacks against what they saw as “anti-Haredi” targets. Most activities occurred between August 1988 and February 1989. For example, members of this illegal organization destroyed a kiosk which sold secular newspapers in Bnei Brak.”, Berkowitz, M. (2004). Nationalism, Zionism and ethnic mobilization of the Jews in 1900 and beyond. Brill. p. 119

    Jewish Defense League (JDL)

    “Described in congressional testimony by the FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) as a “violent” and “extremist” group, the JDL has vowed “no sanctuary for those who threaten or attack Jewish individuals or institutions.” The FBI, in its Terrorism 2000/2001 report, identified the JDL as a right-wing terrorist group, based on its involvement in several bombing and arson incidents during the previous decade. During the 1980s, the JDL repeatedly attacked Soviet institutions, gradually widening their attacks to include institutions of other states viewed as “anti-Semitic” by the group’s leadership. Two members of the JDL were arrested in 2001 for their involvement in a plot to bomb the office of a Lebanese-American congressman from Orange County, California, and a mosque in Culver City, California. Irving Rubin, a former leader of this group, committed suicide in prison while awaiting trial on the charges, and Earl Krugel pled guilty to the charges regarding this plot in January 2003. Krugel, 60, faced 10 to 20 years in prison under terms of a plea agreement; if convicted at trial, he could have faced life without possibility of parole… According to FBI reports, this organization was the second most active terrorist terrorist group in the United States for roughly two decades, second only to the Puerto Rican separatist group Armed Forces of National Liberation.”, Combs, C. C., Slann, M. W. (2007). Encyclopedia of terrorism. Facts On File. p.156

    “After the murder of Alex Odeh, an official of the American-Arab Anti-discrimination Committee, apparently by JDL members, there were complaints that the case was not being investigated vigorously.”, Hewitt, C. (2003). Understanding terrorism in America : from the Klan to al Qaeda. Routledge. p.88

    “The treatment of members of the Jewish Defense League was also remarkable, given that they were responsible for at least three murders, and numerous bombings. Yet they were rarely prosecuted and received light sentences even when convicted. For example, one JDL member who bombed an Arab activist’s home in 1972 was given three years’ probation.”, Hewitt, C. (2003). Understanding terrorism in America : from the Klan to al Qaeda. Routledge. p.97

    Een van de JDL leden was Baruch Goldstein:

    “On 28 February 1994, a Jewish physician in the military reserve, Baruch Goldstein, broke into Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs, a shrine sacred for both Jews and Muslims, and sprayed the people praying there with live bullets. In less than three minutes, the doctor unloaded four magazines containing 111 bullets. Twenty-nine Muslims were killed instantly, and over 100 were wounded.”, Sprinzak, E. (2000). “Extremism and Violence in Israeli Democracy.” 12 Terrorism And Political Violence 209-236. p.210

    “Extremists in the settler movement launched terrorist attacks against Arabs in the Occupied Territories, and some even hoped to stop the Israeli withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula in return for peace with Egypt. Gush Emunim, a settler group, has long practiced vigilante violence against Palestinians, justifying these activities as part of a new conquest of the land of Canaan. There have been other groups that have planned and launched attacks against Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza, seeking to force them to migrate from the region.

    Rabbi Meir Kahane, an Orthodox American rabbi from Brooklyn, found political support in Israel for extreme views. He justified violence against both Israeli Arabs and Palestinians since the Arabs were eventually likely to attack Jewish citizens of Israel. He argued for driving all Arabs out of Israel and the Occupied Territories. His views also had a clear racist tinge since he feared that Arabs would sleep with Jews and defile the Jewish nation as a consequence. He formed a political party and won two seats in the Israeli parliament.”, Lutz, J. M., & Lutz, B. J. (2008). Global terrorism. Routledge. p.71-72

    “Gush Emunim (Bloc of the Faithful)… armed once again with rabbinic sanction — the terrorists set in motion plans for an even more ambitious attack. They now plotted the simultaneous bombings of five Arab buses at a day and time when they were guaranteed to be packed with passengers but the roads were likely to be empty of Jews. The plan was to attach explosive devices to the gas tanks of the buses, setting them to detonate on a Friday evening, after the Jewish Sabbath had begun. However, just as the group was to about to act, they were all arrested. Only then did information come to light that for the preceding four years the group had also been plotting to blow up Jerusalem’s Dome of the Rock — the third holiest shrine of Islam — which occupies the same grounds as the most sacred site in the Jewish religion, the Second Temple which was destroyed in AD 70.

    The so-called ‘Temple Mount’ operation represented a dramatic escalation in the terrorists’ campaign, propelling it on a violent trajectory from simple vengeance wrought against mere mortals to genuine millenarian dimensions. The twenty-eight precision bombs that the terrorist cell had constructed were to them not mere instruments of death and destruction but the means by which miracles are attained. Their goal was not just to destroy a Muslim holy place for reasons of blind hatred or petulant revenge, but to facilitate the resurrection of a Jewish Third Temple and thereby enable the Messiah’s return. They were convinced that through their actions they could themselves hasten redemption. Even more alarming, though, was the terrorists’ ancillary motive. By obliterating so venerated an Islamic shrine, they also sought to spark a cataclysmic war between Israel and the Muslim world. The terrorists’ vision was that a beleaguered Jewish state, attacked on all sides by enraged, unrelenting, savage forces, would have no option but to unleash its nuclear arsenal. The result would be the complete annihilation of Israel’s Arab enemies, and the establishment on earth of a new ‘Kingdom of Israel’ — a theocracy governed by a divinely anointed Jewish king and held in judgement by a true ‘Supreme Court’.”, Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press. p.102

    “‘I have no regrets,’ said Yigal Amir, the young Jewish extremist who assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin, to the police. ‘I acted alone and on orders from God.'”, Hoffman, B. (1998). Inside terrorism. Columbia University Press. p.87

Geef een reactie