”Ik zie Van der Plas niet als troef in de strijd tegen het fascisme. Ik denk dat ze de volgende Joost Eerdmans is, een fascistoïde populist met een “fatsoenlijk” gezicht. Een acceptabel alternatief voor Thierry Baudet.
Fascistoïde, jazeker, daar hoef je het verkiezingsprogramma van haar partij er maar voor op na te slaan. Van der Plas wil meldpunten voor docenten die politiek in de klas bedrijven en schoolboeken waarin boeren louter als redders des vaderlands worden beschreven. Docenten moeten zelfs verplicht op stage bij een agrarisch bedrijf. Moties in de Tweede Kamer waarin voor fokverboden wordt gepleit, worden op voorhand verboden. Subsidies voor clubs die politiek bedrijven worden afgeschaft. De hele Nederlandse bevolking moet worden geïndoctrineerd tot onvoorwaardelijke liefde voor de boeren.”
”Het fascistische omvolkingsverhaal kom je er ook al tegen, in een agrarische variant: de regering wil boeren weg hebben, niet om de natuur te redden maar om ruimte te verwerven waarop ze woningen voor migranten/vluchtelingen kunnen bouwen. Voor wie bijvoorbeeld twijfelt aan de fascistische inslag van Caroline van der Plas en haar BBB, even dit citaat van haar: ‘Het gaat dus inderdaad niet om de natuur. Het gaat om goedkoop landbouwgrond opkopen voor huizen voor die miljoenen mensen die nog in NL gepropt moeten worden’”
TEGEN AGRO-KNOKPLOEGEN, TEGEN POLITIEREPRESSIE-ZELF DE LAMLEGGERS LAMLEGGEN
”Een meerderheid van oppositiepartijen PVV, FvD, SGP, BBB, Groep Van Haga, Omtzigt en JA21 (die de motie indiende) en regeringspartijen VVD en CDA denkt dat dit “veelbelovende kansen” biedt om de asielcrisis op te lossen. Niet alleen de opvang maar ook de procedure vindt dan buiten de EU plaats.”
NOS
KAMERMEERDERHEID WIL ASIELZOEKERS OPVANGEN BUITEN DE EU, BIJVOORBEELD IN RWANDA
Het kabinet moet van de Tweede Kamer contact opnemen met Denemarken over het opzetten van asielzoekerscentra buiten de Europese Unie. Denemarken wil met bijvoorbeeld Rwanda een deal sluiten over het tegen betaling opvangen van asielzoekers. Het zoekt hiervoor naar partnerlanden.
Een meerderheid van oppositiepartijen PVV, FvD, SGP, BBB, Groep Van Haga, Omtzigt en JA21 (die de motie indiende) en regeringspartijen VVD en CDA denkt dat dit “veelbelovende kansen” biedt om de asielcrisis op te lossen. Niet alleen de opvang maar ook de procedure vindt dan buiten de EU plaats.
Het Deense parlement nam de wet in 2021 aan om het aantal asielverzoeken door de afschrikwekkende werking te verlagen. “Als je asiel aanvraagt in Denemarken, weet je dat je naar een land buiten Europa wordt gestuurd”, zegt een woordvoerder van de sociaaldemocratische regeringspartij. “Dus we hopen dat mensen stoppen met het aanvragen van asiel in Denemarken.”
Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens
Het Verenigd Koninkrijk heeft hetzelfde plan en maakte al vergaande afspraken met Rwanda. In juni vorig jaar zou de eerste vlucht met asielzoekers die illegaal waren binnengekomen vertrekken. Tot woede van de Britse regering sprak het Europees Hof voor de Rechten van de Mens uit dat dat niet mocht. Een nieuwe vlucht is nog niet gepland.
VVD-staatssecretaris Van der Burg voor Asielzaken heeft eerder in een debat gezegd dat Nederland met de eventuele Deense samenwerking binnen de internationale afspraken en verdragen zal blijven.
De Rwandese regering opende voor de asielzoekers uit het Verenigd Koninkrijk het Hope Hostel:
”Een meerderheid van oppositiepartijen PVV, FvD, SGP, BBB, Groep Van Haga, Omtzigt en JA21 (die de motie indiende) en regeringspartijen VVD en CDA denkt dat dit “veelbelovende kansen” biedt om de asielcrisis op te lossen. Niet alleen de opvang maar ook de procedure vindt dan buiten de EU plaats.”
NOS
KAMERMEERDERHEID WIL ASIELZOEKERS OPVANGEN BUITEN DE EU, BIJVOORBEELD IN RWANDA
MONITOR RACISME & EXTREMISMEACHTSTE REPORTAGE2008ONDER REDACTIE VAN JAAP VAN DONSELAAR EN PETER R.RODRIGUES ”HET EXTREEM-RECHTSE EN DISCRIMINATOIRE GEHALTE VAN DE PVV”BLADZIJDEN 167-199
PROTOTYPICAL FASCISM IN CONTEMPORARY DUTCH POLITICS
THESIS
HENK BOVEKERK
Prototypical Fascism in Contemporary Dutch Politics Henk Bovekerk (s475630) Tilburg University the Netherlands BA Liberal Arts & Sciences (Humanities major) Under the supervision of dr. A.C.J. de Ruiter Read by prof. dr. J.M.E. Blommaert Fall Semester 2011
”DEN HAAG De PVV van Geert Wilders kan worden bestempeld als ‘nieuw rechts radicaal’. De partij richt zich op ‘het eigene’, heeft een afkeer van ‘het vreemde’ en politieke tegenstanders en hangt naar het autoritaire. Dat concludeert het rapport Polarisatie en radicalisering in Nederland, dat in opdracht van het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken is uitgevoerd en woensdagavond naar de Tweede Kamer is gestuurd.”
VOLKSKRANT
PVV RECHTS RADICAAL
28 JANUARI 2010
Ter Horst: verantwoordelijkheid inhoud bij onderzoekers…
DEN HAAG De PVV van Geert Wilders kan worden bestempeld als ‘nieuw rechts radicaal’. De partij richt zich op ‘het eigene’, heeft een afkeer van ‘het vreemde’ en politieke tegenstanders en hangt naar het autoritaire. Dat concludeert het rapport Polarisatie en radicalisering in Nederland, dat in opdracht van het ministerie van Binnenlandse Zaken is uitgevoerd en woensdagavond naar de Tweede Kamer is gestuurd.
In een begeleidende brief schrijft minister Ter Horst dat de ‘verantwoordelijkheid voor de inhoud van het rapport geheel bij de onderzoekers’ ligt. Verder rept zij met geen woord over de inhoud.
Eind vorig jaar ontstond ophef over het rapport toen de Volkskrant meldde dat Binnenlandse Zaken conclusies over de PVV wilde afzwakken. De kwalificatie extreem-rechts lag politiek gevoelig.
Het rapport bevat veel onzin, reageert Wilders. Dat de onderzoekers stellen dat zijn uitingen ‘een in strafrechtelijk opzicht discriminatoir karakter lijken te hebben’, betitelt de PVV-leider als het ergste, omdat hij momenteel wordt vervolgd wegens onder andere haatzaaien. Wilders noemt het ‘slecht en vilein’ dat Ter Horst niet expliciet afstand neemt van de kwalificaties over de PVV. ‘Samen met het momentum is dat regelrechte beïnvloeding van de procesgang.’
Allen die zich in Nederland bevinden, worden in gelijke gevallen gelijk behandeld. Discriminatie wegens godsdienst, levensovertuiging, politieke gezindheid, ras, geslacht of op welke grond dan ook, is niet toegestaan.
Ieder heeft het recht zijn godsdienst of levensovertuiging, individueel of in gemeenschap met anderen, vrij te belijden, behoudens ieders verantwoordelijkheid volgens de wet.
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor Noten 1 en 2/Over JA21
AANNATIONAAL COMITE4 EN 5 MEI Onderwerp:BIJDRAGE FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIE POLITICUSTHIERRY BAUDET AAN UW PUBLICATIE ”HET VRIJHEIDSBOEK”Geacht Comite,Geachte mevrouw G Verbeet, voorzitter van het Comite,Geachte heer Dallinga en mevrouw Captain, auteurs van het”Vrijheidsboek”,Er zijn momenten waarop je steil achteroverslaat van wat je aan normalisering op het gebied van racisme, xenofobie en andere vormen van uitsluitingziet in ”talkshows” op TV, leest in de media en via andere bronnen.Maar wat u als ”4 en 5 mei Comite” hebt gepresteerd met uw publicatievan het zogenaamde ”Vrijheidsboek”, slaat echt alles en beschouw ikdan ook als een absoluut moreel dieptepunt voor vrijheidslievendemensen en een ”hoogtepunt” voor diegenen, die haat, racisme en xenofobieaanwakkeren.Hoe haalt u het in uw hoofd, waarde Bestuursleden/auteurs van dit ”Vrijheidsboek”, om niet alleen Thierry Baudet ”inspirerend” te noemen[in uw kopje ”Achtergrond” op uw website refereert u immers aan uw interviewmet 14 ”inspirerende” Nederlanders, waaronder Thierry Baudet] [1], maarhem een plaats in uw ”Vrijheidsboek” te bieden en een stukje van hem[ik weet niet, of dat zo in uw Vrijheidsboek staat, maar in ieder geval welop uw website!] op uw website te plaatsen [2], alsof hij een reguliere politicus is?Bent u wel het echte 4 en 5 mei Comite of hebben [hier kwaadaardige] aliensuw plaats ingenomen?GEDACHTEGOED BAUDET Ik neem aan, dat u toch op de hoogte moet zijn van het gedachtegoedvan Baudet, waardoor het nog onbegrijpelijker is, dat hij in uw Vrijheidsboekeen plaatsje krijgtMaar ik wil uw geheugen nog wel even opfrissen:Enkele uitspraken van Baudet:”’Ik wil graag, dat Europa dominant blank en cultureel blijft zoals het is”EN ”Ik wil niet dat Europa Afrikaniseert” [3]Baudet over de ”homeopathische verdunning vande Nederlandse bevolking.Ik citeer hem :””Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaaken die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.” [4]Deze uitspraken zijn, moet ik dat nog zeggen? onversneden klassiek racisme, het ”blank”willen houden van Europa, de afkeer van andere [hier Afrikaanse]culturen, de weerzin tegen ”vermenging” van volkeren, opgemerktin de ”homeopathische verdunning van de Nederlandse bevolking. [5]Ook is Baudet kennelijk niet vies van het Nederlandse slavernij enkoloniale verleden:Ik citeer:””Inderdaad, we zijn in Europa eigenlijk nooit teruggeschrokken voor idealen die voorbij onze horizon lagen. Integendeel: we kozen ze juist als leidraad: eerst het verre Jerusalem, daarna het oude Athene – weer later waren het de uitgestrekte zeeën en niet-ontdekte landen daarginds, waarheen we zeilden en waarvan we terugkwamen met nieuwe specerijen, nieuwe uitvindingen, nieuwe technieken.Hoe verder weg, hoe uitdagender. Xenofobie is ons wezensvreemd – geen enkele andere cultuur op aarde is ooit zo open en pluriform geweest als de onze altijd geweest is, en mede daardoor hebben wij ons, onder deze sterrenhemel, op het schiereiland van Azië, in de delta van continentale riviermondingen, altijd kunnen vernieuwen en ontwikkelen – heeft ons boreaal Europa steeds de bouwstenen gevonden voor kruisbestuiving, nieuwe vonken: wedergeboortes.” [6]Nogal eng in deze tijd, vindt u niet, Geacht Comite?ZONDEBOKKENTHEORIEMaar het engste van het Thierry Baudet gedachtegoed -en iets, datevenals die obsessie met ”blank” houden en de angst voor dezogenaamde ”homeopathische verdunning van de Nederlandsebevolking of whatsoever nonsense”, uitstekend past in defascistische ideologie van rassenwaan en ”Uber Alles” is zijnaanwijzen van ”zondebokken” en dat is bij ”Vriend” Baudet metname, en daar windt hij geen doekjes om, de ”toestroom”van vluchtelingen.U citeert hem nota bene in het Thierry stukje op uw website!”Hij is fel tegen de Europese Unie en de “ongebreidelde” toestroom van migranten” [7]En dat in combinatie met zijn obsessie met de ”Westerse” verworvenheden [8],die overigens voor een groot deel gebaseerd zijn op oudere Beschavingen! Er zijn historici in uw midden.Die weten ook, dat iedere Beschaving weer zijn wortels heeft inoudere beschavingen.De ”Westerse” weer gebaseerd op de Griekse, die weer zijn wortelsheeft in de Egyptisch Phoenicische, die ook weer op ouderezijn gebaseerd.Waarbij dan ook nog de ”Westerse” Beschaving veel van zijn wortelste danken heeft aan de Moors-islamitische, die in de MiddeleeuwenSpanje beheerste en een ongelooflijke cultureel-intellectueleboost heeft gegeven. [9]Maar dat daargelaten:Want deze brief is niet bedoeld om de nonsens van Baudet te weerleggen,maar u de oren te wassen over uw associatie met deze fascistischepoliticus!VLUCHTELINGENBaudet laat geen gelegenheid voorbijgaan om zijn bezwaren tegende ”ongebreidelde”; toestroom van vluchtelingen te ventilerenZijn uitspraken, die ik niet allemaal zal noemen, zijn talrijk.[10]U kent ze ook, citeert hem ook op uw website.Waarin, waarde Comitebestuursleden, verschilt dat van de weerzinvan West-Europese landen om destijds Joodse vluchtelingen,die moesten vluchten voor de nazi-terreur, op te vangen? [11]En dan toch een fascistisch denker als Baudet opnemenin uw Vrijheidsboek?Ik vind het walgelijk, in een woord.Ook zijn opmerkingen over de Westerse Beschaving als”mooiste en grootste beschaving, die de wereld ooitheeft gekend” [12], passen in dat fascistische ”Uber Alles” Beelden zijn, in combinatie met zijn zondebok ideeen en zijn”Europa blank” obsessie, levensgevaarlijk.Maar hij is de enige niet.Ook de huidige Forum voor Democratie fractievoorzitter in de Amsterdamse Gemeenteraad,mevrouw Annabel Nanninga, vond niet alleen ”Ebola” een uitstekendeoplossing voor het vluchtelingenprobleem uit Afrika [13], ookmaakte zij een demonische verwijzing naar de ”mooie ovens” vanHitler! [14]En met dergelijk Geboefte houdt u zich op?Het is een schande!EPILOOGIk was al geen fan van uw vorm van 4 mei herdenking, waarbijook de Nederlanders werden herdacht, die actief waren in oorlogssituaties en”vredesmissies” na de Tweede Wereldoorlog [15], omdat u hierbij in feitede koloniale politionele acties met de vele oorlogsmisdaden [16] en de Nederlandse deelnameaan de bezetting van Afghanistan en Irak goedpraatte, die qua oorlogsstatus niet verschildenvan de Duitse bezetting van Nederland. [17]Maar dat u nu het lef gehad hebt, Forum voor Democratie leiderThierry Baudet, met zijn hetzes tegen niet-westerse vluchtelingen, zijn obsessie met de superioriteit van de Westerse Beschaving enzijn racistische verlangen naar een ”blank’ Europa op te voerenin een ”Vrijheidsboek”, dat zou moeten waarschuwen tegen de gevarenvan het fascisme, slaat echt alles.U als Comite zou juist een krachtig waarschuwingssignaal moetendoen uitgaan tegen het nu opduikende fascisme, waarvan Baudet een van de vertegenwoordigers is.U hebt de strijd tegen fascisme en rassenwaan een van de slechtste dienstenooit bewezen, door fascisme zo te normaliseren.Dikke minachting voor u!GA U SCHAMEN!!!!Vriendelijke groetenAstrid EssedAmsterdam NOTEN[1]”Wat is vrijheid? Die vraag stelde het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei aan veertien inspirerende Nederlanders, onder wie hiphopartiest Glenn de Randamie (Typhoon), Auschwitz-overlevende Lotty Huffener-Veffer, publicist Thierry Baudet, schrijfster Marion Bloem, historicus Chris van der Heijden, oud-minister Jan Pronk en politica Samira Bouchibti.” 4 EN 5 MEI COMITEVRIJHEIDSBOEKACHTERGROND
https://www.4en5mei.nl/vrijheidsboek/achtergrondTEKSTWat is vrijheid? Die vraag stelde het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei aan veertien inspirerende Nederlanders, onder wie hiphopartiest Glenn de Randamie (Typhoon), Auschwitz-overlevende Lotty Huffener-Veffer, publicist Thierry Baudet, schrijfster Marion Bloem, historicus Chris van der Heijden, oud-minister Jan Pronk en politica Samira Bouchibti.De geïnterviewden hebben een sterk ontwikkelde visie op vrijheid, gevormd vanuit heel verschillende achtergronden en ervaringen. Hun ideeën bieden stof tot nadenken en voer voor gesprek. Met een voorwoord van Gerdi Verbeet, voorzitter van het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei.Het vrijheidsboek is als publieksuitgave onderdeel van het onderzoeksprogramma Vrijheid en onvrijheid door de generaties heen. Klik hier voor de resultaten van het wetenschappelijk onderzoek dat is uitgevoerd door de Universiteit Utrecht.Over de auteursEsther Captain is historicus en hoofd onderzoek bij het Nationaal Comité 4 en 5 mei. Van haar hand verschenen de boeken Familie, generaties en oorlog (2015) en Oorlogserfgoed overzee (2010). Maarten Dallinga is socioloog en freelance journalist. Hij schrijft voor tijdschriften en werkte eerder onder meer voor BNN, EO en NOS. Fotografie: Suzanne Liem.[2]VRIJHEIDSBOEK INTERVIEWSTHIERRY BAUDEThttps://www.4en5mei.nl/vrijheidsboek/interviews/thierry-baudetTEKSTConservatief democraat Thierry Baudet is niet meer weg te denken uit het publieke debat in Nederland. Hij is fel tegen de Europese Unie en de “ongebreidelde” toestroom van migranten. De auteur vreest “dat vele westerse verworvenheden zullen verdwijnen als we op deze toer voortgaan.”Baudet was mede-initiator van GeenPeil, de campagne voor een raadgevend referendum over het associatieverdrag tussen Oekraïne en de Europese Unie. Er werden ruim 472.000 handtekeningen opgehaald; veel meer dan de minimaal vereiste 300.000. Het referendum werd gehouden en het nee-kamp won.“Ik maak mij grote zorgen”, zegt Baudet. “Het gaat niet goed. De wereld zal de komende twintig of dertig jaar heel erg onveilig en dreigend blijven. Of je nu kinderen moet willen, met al die onzekerheid… Ik ben bang dat dit thuis, ons Nederland, geleidelijk uit onze vingers glipt. Aanslagen, doorgedraaide politieke managers in Den Haag en Brussel die ieder contact met de realiteit zijn verloren… De strijd daartegen, en dus vóór onze beschaving, dat is waar mijn leven voor een groot deel om draait.”“Er wordt van alles van ons afgepakt”ZIE TEKST FILMPJE ”Nou ik zelf denk, dat een van de redenen, dat ik zo gedreven ben inhet bestrijden van de EU te maken heeft met mijn overtuiging, dat wat webevochten hebben in de Tweede Wereldoorlog, was onze onafhankelijkheid,zelfbeschikkingsrecht en onze democratie enzo, en dat wordt nu gewoonweer van ons afgepakt, zo’n gevoel heb ik dat ik denk, he wacht eenseven, verdorie nog aan toe, wat gebeurt er nou, zijn het weer die Duitsers defacto, die ons besturen.”GEWONE TEKST [VERDER]Onder vuurDe aanslagen van 11 september 2001 en de moord op LPF-voorman Pim Fortuyn in 2002: die periode was voor Baudet een omslagpunt. “Ik wilde schrijver worden; ik was pianist, schreef poëzie, wilde mooie dingen maken, kunst. En toen realiseerde ik me dat al het mooie om ons heen onder vuur ligt”, zei Baudet in februari 2013 in HP/De Tijd (dat hem “conservatief wonderkind” noemde). Hij had het gevoel iets te moeten doen.Daarover zegt hij nu: “Ik werd me ervan bewust dat ik voor een groot deel in een glazen Madurodam-wereldje was opgegroeid. In Haarlem, in een mooie buurt, eliteschooltje, waar je gewoon heel weinig meekrijgt van wat er allemaal aan de hand is. Dat de immigratieproblemen heel reëel zijn, dat we eigenlijk helemaal niet meer vanuit Den Haag bestuurd worden, dat er sprake is van culturele ontheemding.”LosbandigLachend: “Mijn ouders weten dat ik ze een beetje slappe, linkse hippies vind. En ik weet dat zij mij wat overspannen nationalistisch vinden. Overdrachtelijk dan natuurlijk, hè.” Werd bij Baudet thuis, in Haarlem, over vrijheid gesproken? Hij moet direct denken aan een voorval toen hij een jaar of acht was. “Mijn vader was helemaal overstuur. Hij was langs Bevrijdingspop gefietst en kwam woedend thuis. Hij zei: ‘Al die losbandige jonge mensen… Ze moeten eens een dagje Oost-Europa spelen. Dan begrijpen ze pas wat vrijheid is!’”“Ik denk dat hij bedoelde: als dit is wat je met je vrijheid doet, namelijk blowen, drinken en troep maken, wat is het dan waard om voor te vechten? Als niets er meer toe doet, dan is er ook niets om voor te strijden. Bij 5 mei heb ik vaak het gevoel dat het alleen maar een beetje hangen is. Die situatie met mijn vader is denk ik wel typerend voor hoe in ons gezin met vrijheid werd en wordt omgegaan: het moet niet omslaan in losbandigheid en lamlendigheid.” FILMPJE TEKST ”Ik denk dat het iets is dat in mijn familie, dat wij wel ehhh, dat mijn ouders het wel heelbelangrijk vinden en vonden, dat vrijheid niet omslaat in een soort vanlamlendige losbandigheid, maar dat het iets is, dat je koestert, waar je iets mee moet doen.”EINDE INTERVIEW THIERRY BAUDET OP WEBSITE 4 EN 5 MEI COMITE[3]YOUTUBE.COMTHIERRY BAUDET: ”IK WIL GRAAG DAT EUROPA DOMINANT,BLANK EN CULTUREEL BLIJFT, ZOALS HET IS”[THIERRY BAUDET BIJ HET DEBAT ”DE VLUCHTWEEK”,RADIOZENDER FM, DONDERDAG 17 SEPTEMBER 2015]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DpBzt9PyU5wTRANSCRIPTIE[GESPREKSPARTNER]”Wat maakt het uit, als die mensen niet teruggaan?Dat is helemaal niet relevant.[PRESENTRATRICE]”Maar…..”[GESPREKSPARTNER]”Ik erger mij een beetje aan de houding….”[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik vind het wel relevant!”[PRESENTRATRICE]”Maar Thierry, waarom is….[THIERRY BAUDET]”Omdat ik niet wil, dat Europa Afrikaniseert….”[GESPREKSPARTNER];;”Deze opmerking van Thierry vind ik best wel kwalijk,als je bedenkt, dat 20 procent van migranten, die naar Europakomen, Afrikanen zijn.Dus zo’n complete demonisering van Afrikanen is niet nodig.Tegelijkertijd…..[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik demoniseer niet, ik zeg wat ik wil, wat ik wenselijk vind enwat ik niet wenselijk vind.En wat ik niet wenselijk vind, is dat wij veel meer gaan lijkenop delen van de wereld waar heel veel mensen weg willen….”[PRESENTRATRICE]”Je wil zeg maar een bepaald Europees goed.wil je eigenlijkzo houden zoals het is..Op zich mag dat….”’[THIERRY BAUDET]”Ik wil graag, dat Europa dominant, blank en cultureel blijft zoals het is.”EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE[4]YOUTUBE.COMDE ZELFHAAT VAN THIERRY BAUDEThttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt-s0B7mZn0TRANSCRIPTIE”Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaaken die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.”EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE[5]YOUTUBE.COMDE ZELFHAAT VAN THIERRY BAUDEThttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mt-s0B7mZn0TRANSCRIPTIE”Het fundamentele gebrek aan zelfvertrouwen, dat wijhebben in onze cultuur, die zelfhaat……de Nederlandsebevolking homeopathisch te verdunnen met alle volkerenvan de wereld, doordat we….er nooit meer een Nederlander zal bestaan,zodat wie wij zijn niet meer gestalte…….heeft allemaal EEN oorzaaken die oorzaak is onze cultuur van zelfhaat.”EINDE YOUTUBE FILMPJE[6]”Inderdaad, we zijn in Europa eigenlijk nooit teruggeschrokken voor idealen die voorbij onze horizon lagen. Integendeel: we kozen ze juist als leidraad: eerst het verre Jerusalem, daarna het oude Athene – weer later waren het de uitgestrekte zeeën en niet-ontdekte landen daarginds, waarheen we zeilden en waarvan we terugkwamen met nieuwe specerijen, nieuwe uitvindingen, nieuwe technieken.Hoe verder weg, hoe uitdagender. Xenofobie is ons wezensvreemd – geen enkele andere cultuur op aarde is ooit zo open en pluriform geweest als de onze altijd geweest is, en mede daardoor hebben wij ons, onder deze sterrenhemel, op het schiereiland van Azië, in de delta van continentale riviermondingen, altijd kunnen vernieuwen en ontwikkelen – heeft ons boreaal Europa steeds de bouwstenen gevonden voor kruisbestuiving, nieuwe vonken: wedergeboortes.”THIERRY BAUDET: FVD IS HET VLAGGESCHIP VAN DE RENASSANCEVLOOT15 JANUARI 2017https://forumvoordemocratie.nl /actueel/toespraak-thierry-bau det-fvd-alv-2017TEKSTJe hoeft de metafysische stellingnames van het Christendom niet te onderschrijven om de wederopstandingsgedachte als toonaangevend motief van onze beschaving te kunnen waarderen. Het idee dat iets dat ‘dood’ was, iets dat achter ons ligt, iets dat voorgoed voorbij was, opnieuw tot bloei kan komen, heeft heel veel voor ons betekend. Zo inspireerde het ons bijvoorbeeld aan het eind van de Middeleeuwen om de klassieke oudheid weer in onze cultuur te incorporeren – in de periode die we aanduiden als de renaissance.Waar Mao Zedong het verleden van China heeft willen uitwissen; waar de Communistische revolutie alles wat er daarvoor bestond vernietigde; waar de Islamitische staat vandaag de dag musea met de grond gelijkmaakt – daar kozen wij in het Westen ervoor om alles te onderzoeken en het goede te behouden; om juist voorbij ons eigen begripsveld te kijken naar wat ons kon verrijken.Inderdaad, we zijn in Europa eigenlijk nooit teruggeschrokken voor idealen die voorbij onze horizon lagen. Integendeel: we kozen ze juist als leidraad: eerst het verre Jerusalem, daarna het oude Athene – weer later waren het de uitgestrekte zeeën en niet-ontdekte landen daarginds, waarheen we zeilden en waarvan we terugkwamen met nieuwe specerijen, nieuwe uitvindingen, nieuwe technieken.Hoe verder weg, hoe uitdagender. Xenofobie is ons wezensvreemd – geen enkele andere cultuur op aarde is ooit zo open en pluriform geweest als de onze altijd geweest is, en mede daardoor hebben wij ons, onder deze sterrenhemel, op het schiereiland van Azië, in de delta van continentale riviermondingen, altijd kunnen vernieuwen en ontwikkelen – heeft ons boreaal Europa steeds de bouwstenen gevonden voor kruisbestuiving, nieuwe vonken: wedergeboortes.Maar onze openheid staat onder druk. Onze vrije, tolerante, vrijzinnige, nieuwsgierige, humoristische, vrolijke en democratische samenleving verkeert in levensgevaar – is zelfs dodelijk gewond.We moeten haar echter niet achterlaten; we moeten niet denken dat wat voorbij is, voor altijd voorbij is: we moeten haar juist in de beste traditie van het Westen, opnieuw tot leven wekken. We moeten een Europese renaissance teweeg brengen.Deze grote taak wil Forum voor Democratie samen met anderen op zich nemen. Ik ben vereerd en blij dat we vandaag met zovelen bij elkaar zijn om daar samen een begin mee te maken.Misschien stonden we nooit voor een grotere, meer existentiële uitdaging dan nu. Misschien waren de tijden nooit moeilijker dan nu. We zijn in het verleden natuurlijk weleens aangevallen, zelfs veroverd. Het water heeft ons in dit mooie land ook letterlijk weleens aan de lippen gestaan. We hebben glorierijke momenten gekend, maar we hebben ook diepe crises met elkaar meegemaakt in de vele eeuwen van onze gedeelde geschiedenis. En we hebben ons er steeds doorheen geslagen.Nu worden we aangevallen door een vijand die we nog niet eerder tegenover ons hebben gehad. Een atypische vijand. Een vijand die ons eigen uniform draagt.We worden aangevallen door degenen die ons zouden moeten beschermen.Zij die zouden moeten waken over onze integriteit, onze cultuur en onze tradities: zij die een verantwoordelijkheid dragen voor het voortbestaan van de gemeenschap; juist zij, juist deze mensen hebben zich – van binnenuit – tegen ons gekeerd.Het Westen lijdt aan een auto-immuunziekte. Een deel van ons organisme – een belangrijk deel: ons afweersysteem, datgene wat ons zou moeten beschermen – heeft zich tegen ons gekeerd. Op elk vlak worden we verzwakt, ondermijnd, overgeleverd.Kwaadwillende, agressieve elementen worden ons maatschappelijk lichaam in ongehoorde aantallen binnengeloodst, en de werkelijke toedracht en gevolgen worden verdoezeld. Politierapporten over geweld in AZC’s worden niet in de openbaarheid gebracht. Het openbaar ministerie knijpt een oogje toe wanneer het shariarechtbanken tegenkomt.Op universiteiten wordt het vrije woord ingeperkt, het open debat mag niet meer plaatsvinden. Kritiek op Islam, maar ook onderzoek naar de kosten van de massa-immigratie en überhaupt het debat over de botsing van culturen wordt gefrustreerd.Al decennia domineert in de internationale betrekkingen een al even zelfdestructieve politiek, waarin Westers gezinde leiders, of in elk geval mensen waarmee we afspraken konden maken – van de Sjah in Perzië tot Assad in Syrië – worden ondermijnd of zelfs ten val gebracht, ten gunste van wat de NPO ‘gematigde rebellen’ noemt: islamisten die vrouwen en homo’s onderdrukken en alle Westerse waarden verachten. Ook sturen onze elites aan op oorlog met Rusland, zonder enige reden, zonder enig belang – terwijl we zoete broodjes bakken met Turkije.De controle over ons bestaan wordt ons ondertussen op sluipende wijze steeds verder ontnomen door doortrapte soevereiniteitsoverdrachten naar onpersoonlijke politieke megaprojecten waarin burgers elke democratische controle zijn verloren. Zo werden het afgelopen jaar zelfs de pensioenen in een achternamiddag onder EU-toezicht gesteld. Tegelijkertijd werd elke maand 80 miljard euro geld bijgedrukt door Draghi. Multinationals profiteren van continentale regelgeving maar het MKB zucht onder verstikkende bureaucratie.De reden dat al deze zaken kunnen voortduren is dat wij als bevolking vrijwel niets te zeggen hebben. We leven in een schijndemocratie, waarin verschillende politieke spelers tezamen een kartel vormen, en een publieke omroep hebben gecoöpteerd die dagelijks hun schijndebatten uitzendt. Minder dan 10.000 mensen draaien rond in een baantjescarrousel, waarin ze van topfunctie bij de zorgverzekeraars, naar burgemeesterspost, naar bestuursfunctie in de onderwijsraden en bouwend Nederland gaan. De enige kwaliteit van deze kartelleden is hun loyaliteit aan de partijtop, en hun enige activiteit is vergaderen. Vandaar dat overal regels voor zijn en de kosten van de bureaucratie de spuigaten uitlopen. Nog fundamenteler: de dynamiek is uit de samenleving verdwenen. Het partijkartel ligt als een dikke deken over de samenleving en houdt de gelederen gesloten. Als bevolking kunnen we geen kant op. Waar moet je op stemmen als je verandering wil?Jarenlang was er geen serieuze optie. Even leek er een lichtpuntje te verschijnen in de donkere nacht van onze ten grave gedragen democratie toen we een campagne voerden voor een referendum. Maar dames en heren, gister zat ik in de rechtszaal voor de meervoudige kamer van de rechtbank Den Haag. Op 6 april gingen 4.2 miljoen Nederlanders naar de stembus. Ruim 61 procent stemde TEGEN.En ik zat in de rechtszaal om een uitspraak van de rechter te krijgen over het getreuzel en gepruttel van onze minister-president. Zo ver is het gekomen in ons land: we moeten een rechtszaak voeren om te zorgen dat onze regering zich aan de wet houdt. Alles om de burger buiten spel te houden.De nasleep van dat tweede genegeerde referendum, na het eerste genegeerde referendum van 1 juni 2005, heeft ons vanuit Forum voor Democratie doen besluiten dat het noodzakelijk is om een politieke partij te vormen en Den Haag van binnenuit open te breken.Als wij met miljoenen naar de stembus gaan om onze stem te laten horen, en zelfs dan wordt er helemaal niets mee gedaan: dan moeten we onze stem zelf gaan terugpakken.Dames en heren, het is nooit urgenter geweest dan nu; het is nooit noodzakelijker geweest dan nu, dat mensen van goede wil de handen ineen slaan om de banden met onze tradities te herstellen, om onze kracht te hervinden en nieuwe kruisbestuivingen tot stand te laten komen: om al het goede dat we in de wereld kunnen vinden te verbinden met onze oude wortels en zo het land weer te laten bloeien.Wij gaan bouwen. We gaan een partij bouwen met een opleidingsinstituut, lokale afdelingen, een sociaal netwerk. We gaan een nieuwe elite opleiden; we gaan de huidige leiders vervangen en verslaan. Jullie hebben vandaag ons team gezien – fantastische mensen met verschillende discplines, maar allemaal een grote drive om de noodzakelijke veranderingen te realiseren.Wij hebben de mensen om de Europese Unie te verslaan; wij hebben concrete oplossingen om de massa-immigratie te stoppen; wij hebben de mensen die de controle over onze grenzen kunnen herstellen en de euromunt te ontvlechten: zodat we weer baas worden over ons eigen land.We zullen niet rusten totdat onze democratie is hersteld en het partijkartel is gebroken. We gaan bindende referenda en volksinitiatieven introduceren, open solicitaties voor publieke functies, gekozen burgemeesters en sanering van de partijdige en vooringenomen NPO.We gaan opnieuw voorbij onze horizon reiken: we gaan een renaissance teweeg brengen, waarin ons zelfvertrouwen is hersteld, waarin we weer veilig kunnen leven in een vertrouwde omgeving: waarin de democratische rechtsstaat is hersteld en de economische en culturele dynamiek kan terugkeren.Dat doen we graag samen met alle andere partijen en bewegingen die ons willen versterken. Forum voor Democratie is het vlaggeschip van de renaissancevloot, en andere schepen kunnen zich bij ons voegen. We willen met iedereen samenwerken. We gaan niet onderling ruziemaken. Maar we gaan ook geen lijstverbindingen aan: we vertrouwen op eigen kracht – eigenlijk zoals Nederland ook weer op eigen kracht zou moeten vertrouwen.Dames en Heren, we gaan deze partij van de grond krijgen, we gaan op deze rots onze zuil bouwen, we gaan ons land terugveroveren en onze democratie herstellen – WE PAKKEN ONZE STEM TERUG op 15 maart!THIERRY BAUDET: FVD IS HET VLAGGESCHIP VAN DE RENASSANCEVLOOT15 JANUARI 2017https://forumvoordemocratie.nl /actueel/toespraak-thierry-bau det-fvd-alv-2017[7]”Conservatief democraat Thierry Baudet is niet meer weg te denken uit het publieke debat in Nederland. Hij is fel tegen de Europese Unie en de “ongebreidelde” toestroom van migranten”COMITE 4 EN 5 MEIVRIJHEIDSBOEK/INTERVIEWS/THIERRY BAUDEThttps://www.4en5mei.nl/vrijheidsboek/interviews/thierry-baudet [8]”De auteur vreest “dat vele westerse verworvenheden zullen verdwijnen als we op deze toer voortgaan.”COMITE 4 EN 5 MEIVRIJHEIDSBOEK/INTERVIEWS/THIERRY BAUDEThttps://www.4en5mei.nl/vrijheidsboek/interviews/thierry-baudet [9]THE MOORISH RULE IN SPAIN/HOW THE MOORS BROUGHTCIVILIZATION TO EUROPEASTRID ESSED12 MEI 2017https://www.astridessed.nl/the-moorish-rule-in-medieval-spainhow-the-moors-brought-civilization-to-europe/YOUTUBE.COMWHEN THE MOORS RULED IN EUROPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yA6dm7CCSDA [10]FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIESTANDPUNTEN IMMIGRATIE: REMIGRATIEhttps://forumvoordemocratie.nl/standpunten/immigratie-remigratie”De Nederlandse samenleving heeft de afgelopen decennia een enorme instroom van immigranten te verwerken gekregen. De samenleving kan dit niet meer behappen, maar het partijkartel blijft maar doorgaan met het binnenhalen van ongehoorde aantallen kansarme immigranten. (met steun van de NPO en gesubsidieerde instanties zoals Vluchtelingenwerk).Het geld dat we hieraan besteden zou veel effectiever en zinvoller kunnen worden besteed door opvang in de regio. Mocht asiel in ons land toch (om wat voor reden dan ook) noodzakelijk zijn, dan moet dat niet meer leiden tot een permanente verblijfsvergunning – maar slechts tot tijdelijke opvang voor zolang het nodig is. Het doel is terugkeer naar het land van herkomst zodra de situatie dat weer toelaat.Ons immigratiebeleid moet gericht zijn op wie wij hier nodig hebben en wie wij (ook op basis van culturele achtergrond) kunnen opnemen.In Nederland zijn naar schatting circa 150.000 illegalen, waaronder uitgeprocedeerde asielzoekers die weigeren het land te verlaten. In gemeenten als Amsterdam, Rotterdam en Utrecht wordt illegaal verblijf zelfs aangemoedigd middels de bed-bad-brood regelingen. Illegalen dienen zo spoedig mogelijk te worden opgespoord, vervolgd en uitgezet. Gemeenten die weigeren mee te werken aan Rijksbeleid worden gekort op hun algemene uitkering uit het Gemeentefonds.Waar integratie niet lukt, is remigratie de beste oplossing. Toch werd in 2015 door slechts 504 immigranten gebruik gemaakt van de reeds bestaande remigratieregeling. Deze regeling moet dus worden uitgebreid en aantrekkelijker worden gemaakt. Tevens moet remigratie als alternatieve straf kunnen worden opgelegd.” Wij willen:Asielbeleid naar Australisch model: Nederland beslist zélf wie hier wordt opgevangen. Immigranten met extreme politieke ideeën die niet in lijn zijn met onze westerse beschaving dienen terstond te worden uitgezet naar het land van herkomst.Overheidsgeld kan veel beter en effectiever worden besteed aan opvang in de regio.Asielaanvraag leidt niet meer (semi-)automatisch tot permanente verblijfsvergunning maar (hooguit) tot tijdelijke opvang. Doel moet zijn terugkeer naar het land van herkomst;Invoering GreenCard-systeem naar Amerikaans model voor tijdelijke arbeidsmigranten.Actief uitzetbeleid illegalen; strafbaar stellen illegaliteit.Dubbele paspoorthouders verliezen Nederlands paspoort bij (ernstige) misdrijven.Bevorderen remigratie waar integratie (assimilatie) mislukt.Hoger beroep tegen beslissingen in asielzaken beperken tot 1 instantie; feitenrelaas en- omstandigheden kunnen niet meer gewijzigd worden.EINDE STANDPUNT MIGRATIE VOLGENDE: WET BESCHERMING NEDERLANDSE WAARDEN Door de komst van grote groepen (islamitische) immigranten zijn een aantal verworvenheden en kernwaarden van onze samenleving onder druk komen te staan. ”FORUM VOOR DEMOCRATIEWET BESCHERMING NEDERLANDSE WAARDENhttps://forumvoordemocratie.nl/standpunten/wet-bnwTEKSTDoor de komst van grote groepen (islamitische) immigranten zijn een aantal verworvenheden en kernwaarden van onze samenleving onder druk komen te staan. Het partijkartel heeft dit probleem de afgelopen dertig jaar genegeerd – waardoor het nu compleet uit de hand is gelopen en hele bevolkingsgroepen tegenover elkaar zijn komen te staan.Er is een nieuw startpunt nodig waarin we duidelijk definiëren wat we van mensen en (religieuze) instellingen in Nederland verwachten en duidelijk aangeven waar onze grenzen liggen.Voorop staat dat iedereen mag geloven wat men maar wil. Boeken moeten uiteraard niet worden verboden. Maar iedereen heeft ook het recht om de overtuigingen en godsdiensten van mensen in al hun aspecten te bekritiseren, te ridiculiseren of te bespotten. Belijders van godsdiensten dienen de pluriformiteit van alle levensbeschouwingen te respecteren, dus ook van concurrerende godsdiensten, van humanisme en atheïsme, van critici, wetenschappers en cartoonisten. De vrijheid van meningsuiting dient altijd te prevaleren boven de vrijheid van godsdienst.Invoering van de Wet Bescherming Nederlandse Waarden (Wet BNW). Alle instanties (scholen, religieuze instellingen, etc.) dienen vijf fundamentele waarden te onderschrijven:Wanneer religieuze leefregels conflicteren met de Nederlandse wet, gaat de Nederlandse wet altijd voor.Iedereen heeft het recht te geloven wat hij of zij wil; dus ook het recht om van zijn of haar geloof af te vallen.Iedereen heeft het recht godsdienstige ideeën te bekritiseren, te ridiculiseren, te analyseren en in twijfel te trekken.Alle mensen zijn fundamenteel gelijkwaardig, ongeacht geslacht, ras of seksuele gerichtheid.De partnerkeuze is vrij; uithuwelijking en kindhuwelijken zijn onaanvaardbaar.Bij schending van deze waarden volgt een waarschuwing en een boete; na een tweede waarschuwing volgt sluiting, beëindiging van de activiteiten en strafrechtelijke vervolging van de verantwoordelijke functionarissen.Religieuze scholen moeten hun leerlingen in aanraking brengen met andere levensovertuigingen en hun leerlingen de ruimte bieden een ander geloof of géén geloof te omarmen. Het curriculum geeft ruimte aan kennis in de breedste zin en de holocaust wordt op alle scholen onderwezen.Er komt een verbod op buitenlandse financiering van religieuze scholen en instellingen.Er komt een verbod op het dragen van niqaabs, bivakmutsen en andere gezichtsbedekkende kleding in het openbaar.
LEEUWARDER COURANTLEES DE HELE TOESPRAAK VAN THIERRY BAUDET TERUGhttps://www.lc.nl/extra/Lees-hier-de-volledige-toespraak-van-Thierry-Baudet-terug-24292228.htmlTEKSTDit is de tekst zoals Thierry Baudet die woensdagavond uitsprak in Hotel Theater Figi in Zeist.De Uil van Minerva spreidt zijn vleugels bij het vallen van de avond. En dat geldt niet alleen voor deze avond, beste vrienden, beste campagnegenoten, beste partijgenoten, beste kompanen. Nu pas in deze laatste uren van de dag namelijk komen de polls binnen, komen de nieuwtjes binnen, weten we hoe we er voorstaan, hebben we kennis over wat er vandaag gebeurd is.Maar die Uil van Minerva die slaat niet alleen op deze avond pas zijn vleugels op. Het is breder, vaak duurt het tot het moment dat het bijna voorbij is, voordat we ons realiseren wat we hebben, en wat we hadden moeten koesteren.Als het bijna te laat is. En zo staan we hier. Vanavond, te elfder ure, letterlijk. Te midden van de brokstukken van wat ooit de mooiste, grootste beschaving was die de wereld ooit heeft gekend. Een beschaving die alle uithoeken van de wereld bestreek, die vol zelfvertrouwen was. En die de mooiste architectuur, de mooiste muziek en de mooiste schilderkunst heeft voortgebracht die ooit onder de sterrenhemel heeft bestaan. Ons land maakt onder deel uit van die beschavingsfamilie. Maar net als die andere landen van die boreale wereld, worden we kapotgemaakt door mensen die ons juist zouden moeten beschermen. We worden ondermijnd door onze universiteiten, onze journalisten, door de mensen die onze kunstsubsidies ontvangen, en die onze gebouwen ontwerpen. En bovenal worden we ondermijnd door onze bestuurders. Een kliekje, een kliekje omhooggevallen netwerkers, beroepsvergaderaars, mensen die nog nooit een boek hebben gelezen in hun leven, en geen idee hebben wat op de langere termijn de belangrijke issues zijn. Zij beheersen helaas de besluitvormingsorganen van ons land en maken in een merkwaardige mengeling van onkunde en cynisch eigenbelang keer op keer de verkeerde keuzes. Niet lang meer!Economische onbenul Mark Rutte verhoogt de belastingen op het dieptepunt van de crisis, waardoor de koopkracht ernstig afneemt, de pensioenen niet kunnen worden geïndexeerd en nu, vandaag, in totaal 2,5 miljoen mensen langs de kant staan in onze samenleving. Onder de armoedegrens, werkloos of quasi-werkloos. Vervolgens lieten achtereenvolgende kabinetten Rutte de grenzen wagenwijd open staan en braken die kabinetten immigratierecord na immigratierecord. Met alle immigratie- en integratieproblemen die we al hebben, werden opnieuw honderdduizenden mensen uit totaal andere culturen dan de onze binnengelaten en stemde de coalitie ook nog eens tegen onze motie om de Syriërs die terugkunnen ook te helpen terug te keren. Vervolgens tekenden zij het Marrakech immigratiepact met alle gevolgen die dat de komende jaren ook weer zal hebben.Een absolute crisis bij de politie dreigt, waardoor onze veiligheid op straat, die al nauwelijks meer kan worden gewaarborgd nog verder onder druk zal komen te staan en we natuurlijk ook afgelopen maandag in Utrecht zagen dat verkrachters, roofovervallers, levensgevaarlijke mensen gewoon vrij rondlopen. Het is een schande.En er is een kaalslag gaande in ons onderwijs. Er is een bureaucratische woeker in de gezondheidszorg. En beide moeten worden aangepakt. Maar dat zijn niet alle fouten van Rutte. Hij liet bijvoorbeeld ook alle plannen van die verschrikkelijke Europese Unie om de baas over ons te spelen gewoon doorgang vinden. Hij offerde de pulsvissers op. Liet de boeren met hun fosfaatrechten stikken en accepteerde dat ook onze pensioenen nu geleidelijk onder EU-toezicht worden gebracht.Wat is hier aan de hand? Waarom gebeurde dit allemaal? Men gelooft niet meer in Nederland, dat is zeker. Niet meer in de Westerse beschaving ook. Niet meer in onze taal, die inmiddels is afgeschaft op onze universiteiten. Men gelooft niet meer in onze kunsten, in ons verleden. Men gelooft niet meer in onze feestdagen. Onze helden, onze traditionele stedenbouw. Maar in al dat ongeloof, dat immense vacuüm, dat culturele en spirituele vacuum is tegelijkertijd haast ongemerkt een grandioze ketterij binnengedrongen, een nieuwe immanente religie. Een politieke theologie. De leden van het kartel. Ze geloven in niets, maar vereren tegelijk één afgod, genaamd transitie. Honderden miljarden, wij denken zelfs duizend miljard, als je alle kosten bij elkaar optelt, willen zij offeren op het altaar van deze afgod, in de vorm van windmolens, warmtepompen, zonnepanelen en andere volkomen onrendabele projecten die ons niets brengen, die de planeet niets verder helpen, maar die ons wel heel veel geld kosten en dus heel erg straffen. Het is een masochistische ketterij, dit geseculariseerde zondvloedgeloof dat zich in onze tijd heeft meester gemaakt van de harten en geesten van onze bestuurders. Een manie vergelijkbaar met de doodscultus die ooit Paaseiland teisterde.En deze duurzaamheidsafgoderij stort niet alleen onze economie in de totale ondergang. Hij is ook bedoeld om onze geest, ons zelfbewustzijn, nog verder te krenken. Inderdaad: schuldgevoel is hetgeen waarmee deze klimaathekserij zich mee voedt. Wij moeten boeten, zo papegaaien de machtszoekende bestuurders van dit land de ecologische hogepriesters na. Het is pure oikofobie, pure zelfhaat. Het is een schuldcomplex, dat blijkbaar een uitweg nodig heeft. En als u er iets van wil zeggen. Als de bevolking zich keert tegen de algehele capitulatie van dit land, als de mensen protesteren. Weet u wat ze dan doen? Dan schaffen ze het referendum af. Dat is de toestand van ons land vandaag.Die arrogantie, dames en heren, vrienden, die stupiditeit, die is vandaag afgestraft.Want op deze dag, nu we in deze crisis verkeren, deze schemer, deze zonsondergang. Op deze dag is de Uil van Minerva dan toch opgestegen. Vandaag is Forum van Democratie ofwel de grootste, ofwel de gedeeld grootste, ofwel de een-na-grootste partij van Nederland geworden. De kiezers in Nederland hebben net als de Uil van Minerva hun vleugels uitgespreid, hebben hun ware macht getoond, de uil der wijzen is gaan vliegen en heeft de hele aardkring in beweging gebracht. Want deze vleugels zijn niet alleen vleugels om mee te vliegen. Het zijn ook wieken om lucht mee te slaan. Om een veranderingswind in gang te zetten. Om ons land weer van ons te maken en een einde te maken aan het tijdperk van culturele, economische en politieke capitulatie.Vrienden, vrienden. Wij hebben niet stilgestaan de afgelopen tijd. We hebben meer dan 2000 cv’s doorgespit, we hebben meer dan 1300 mensen gesproken, we hebben meer dan 600 diepteinterviews afgenomen, we hebben honderden mensen getraind. We hebben fantastische lijsten samengesteld en met die mensen een hoopvolle, optimistische en serieuze campagne gevoerd. Heel Nederland hebben we bezocht in zalen, op straten, in winkelcentra, bij bedrijven zijn we geweest. Scholen, ziekenhuizen, overal. We hebben het land in beweging gekregen.En het resultaat, dames en heren, het resultaat, vanavond, het resultaat. De zon was mij nooit opgevallen zegt Menno Wigman als hij niet steeds was ondergegaan. De schoonheid van Nederland was mij niet zo duidelijk op het netvlies gekomen als ons mooie land niet zo was verkwanseld door de bestuurders van het kartel. Sterker, als dit alles niet was gebeurd, deze ongecontroleerde immigratie die ons straatbeeld zo vertekent, al die linkse indoctrinatie in het onderwijs, al die lelijke architectuur. En die machtsuitbreiding van de EU, al die klimaatketterij. Als al die gekte niet was gebeurd dan was ik nooit de politiek ingegaan. Maar… maar wij zijn naar het front geroepen. Omdat het moet. Omdat ons land ons nodig heeft. En wij, beste vrienden, wij zijn het product van 300.000 jaar evolutie. Wij hebben meerdere ijstijden overleefd, wij hebben mammoeten gevloerd. Wij zijn dragers, wij zijn erfgenamen van de grootste beschaving die ooit heeft bestaan. Wij dragen een unieke kracht. En, enkele tientallen jaren van indoctrinatie door de media en het onderwijs kunnen dat nooit begraven. Iets wat in ons zit, wat nooit kan worden afgepakt. En vandaag, en dat voel je ook in de zaal, vandaag hebben we gekozen om weer te strijden. Weer te dromen, weer te hopen, weer te vechten. En als ik nu terugkijk op de afgelopen drie jaar, dan is dat het sterkste gevoel dat ik heb. Wat wij samen hebben bereikt. Die zin om weer te bouwen. Die zin om er samen voor te gaan. Dat geloof in de toekomst, en daar wil ik jullie voor bedanken.Toen wij begonnen, toen wij begonnen aan deze reis om samen met alle mensen die hier nu zijn en nog veel meer mensen handtekeningen te verzamelen voor het referendum over het associatieverdrag met Oekraïne, toen zei iedereen. Iedereen zei: lukt je nooit. Daarna moesten we de 30 procent opkomstdrempel halen. 6 april 2016. Iedereen zei: lukt je nooit. Wij zijn het hele land doorgegaan. Overal geweest, overal gedebatteerd. Iedereen dacht dat het ons niet ging lukken, maar het lukte ons wel. We haalden het, het werd een overweldigend nee. Rutte lachte, iedereen lachte, want er was een inlegvelletje tevoorschijn getoverd weet u nog, waarmee de stem van de bevolking terzijde werd geschoven. Wij namen het niet. Wij accepteerden het niet en wij startten onze eigen partij. En iedereen had het over versplintering en had het over Peppi en Kokki en dit en dat en iedereen zei: lukt je nooit. Maar het lukte ons wel en we kwamen met twee zetels in de Tweede Kamer op 15 maart 2017. En ook toen, ook toen hadden ze hun woorden klaar. Ook toen lachte Mark Rutte en zei: met twee zetels in de Tweede Kamer effectief oppositie voeren lukt je nooit. En hier staan we vanavond. In alle provincies zijn we vertegenwoordigd. In de Eerste Kamer zijn we vertegenwoordigd. Jullie hebben Annabel gehoord.. In Amsterdam zijn we er. Vanavond is hier ook Derk Jan Eppink, die de lijst aanvoert in het Europees Parlement. Ook daar staan we er. En vandaag is dus het moment om een boodschap te sturen aan Mark Rutte en de gevestigde machten. Forum voor Democratie nog langer negeren dat lukt je nooit!Wij weten als FvD’ers dat je de metafysische grondslagen van het christendom niet hoeft te aanvaarden, om toch de wederopstandingsgedachte als leidend motief van de westerse beschaving te kunnen aanvaarden. Iets dat dood leek, iets dat voorbij leek, iets dat achter ons zou liggen, iets dat definitief achter ons zou liggen, dat kan, zo weten wij, weer tot bloei komen. Het idee dat iets dat dood was, iets dat voorgoed voorbij was, weer tot bloei kan komen, precies dat is onze leidraad, ons leidende motief, ons levensmotto. Want wij zijn de partij van de Wedergeboorte. Van de Renaissance. Dat is wat wij willen bewerkstelligen, en het is nooit urgenter geweest dan nu om dat te bewerkstelligen. Nooit noodzakelijker geweest dan nu, dat mensen van goede wil de handen ineen slaan. Om de banden met onze tradities te herstellen. Om onze kracht te hervinden en nieuwe kruisbestuivingen tot stand te brengen. Om al het goede dat we in de wereld kunnen vinden te verbinden met onze oude wortels en zo ons land weer te laten bloeien.Wij zijn aan het bouwen. We zijn bezig een partij te bouwen, met een opleidingsinstituut, met lokale afdelingen, met provinciale fracties, met een Eerste Kamerfractie, met een Tweede Kamerfractie, met een Europese Parlementsfractie. We gaan een nieuwe generatie opleiden en we gaan de huidige leiders vervangen en verslaan. Wij hebben de mensen om de EU te verslaan. We hebben concrete oplossingen om de massa-integratie te stoppen. We hebben de mensen die de controle over onze grenzen kunnen herstellen. En om de euromunt te ontvlechten. Zodat wij eindelijk weer de baas worden in ons eigen land. We zullen niet rusten totdat onze democratie is hersteld en het partijkartel is gebroken. We gaan bindende referenda introduceren. Volksinitiatieven. Open sollicitaties voor publieke functies. Gekozen burgemeesters. En wij saneren de NPO. Zo is het. Opnieuw gaan we voorbij onze horizonten reiken. We gaan een renaissance teweegbrengen. Waarin ons zelfvertrouwen is hersteld. Waarin we weer veilig kunnen leven in een vertrouwde omgeving, waarin de democratische rechtsstaat is hersteld. En de economische en culturele dynamiek kan terugkeren. En zoals u weet, doen we dat graag met alle andere partijen en bewegingen die ons willen versterken, want wij zijn het vlaggenschip van de renaissancevloot. En andere schepen kunnen zich bij ons voegen. We willen met iedereen samenwerken. Dat gaan we gestalte geven in de provincies, dat gaan we gestalte geven op nationaal niveau en dat gaan we gestalte geven op Europees niveau.Want vrienden, wij gaan met deze partij de trots van ons land herstellen. Op deze rots gaan wij onze zuil bouwen. We gaan onze democratie herstellen en vandaag is de eerste grote veldslag gewonnen.[11]GROENE AMSTERDAMMERALLE GRENZEN GINGEN DICHT”JOODSE VLUCHTELINGEN WAREN ZEER ONGEWENST”29 APRIL 2009https://www.groene.nl/artikel/alle-grenzen-gingen-dicht Net voor de Tweede Wereldoorlog waren joodse vluchtelingen een vogel voor de kat. Toen wás het nog mogelijk om Duitsland te ontvluchten, de nazi’s deden er zelfs alles aan om joden het land uit te jagen. Maar overal werden ze teruggestuurd naar Duitsland, waar hen een catastrofe te wachten stond. Kurt Rosenthal uit Düsseldorf heeft een Arische moeder, zijn vader is evangelisch maar van joodse herkomst. De nazi’s aanvaarden niet dat een halfjood met een Arische vrouw een relatie heeft. De man probeert zijn herkomst te ontkennen. Tevergeefs, in 1938 wordt hij wegens ‘Rassenschande’ in voorlopige hechtenis genomen. Zijn zoon Kurt is dan 26 en besluit te vluchten naar de Verenigde Staten, waar zijn zus woont. Op 12 maart steekt hij de grens met Nederland over. Te voet gaat hij naar Doetinchem, via Arnhem reist hij met de trein naar Den Haag. Hij komt terecht bij een joods vluchtelingencomité in Amsterdam. Omdat hij geldige reispapieren nodig heeft, gaat hij naar de vreemdelingenpolitie. Daar wordt hij in hechtenis genomen en terug naar Duitsland gestuurd. De nazi’s brengen hem naar Dachau.MET EEN ACHTERWAARTSE kijk op de geschiedenis is het verbijsterend. Een half miljoen joden konden net voor de oorlog nog vluchten uit nazi-Duitsland, maar vonden geen land dat hen wilde opvangen. Het nazi-regime ontnam joden al hun waardigheid, beroofde hen en vervolgde hen op alle mogelijke manieren. Toen in 1938 de vluchtelingenstroom voor een dijkbreuk zorgde, sloten alle Europese landen op het vasteland hun grenzen. Hoe komt het dat democratische landen als Nederland, België en Zwitserland zich zo hard opstelden, ook al was ruimschoots bekend hoe zwaar joden het te verduren hadden?Recent vergelijkend wetenschappelijk onderzoek gaat na wat er voor het uitbreken van de oorlog precies aan de hand was. Tot nu toe was er alleen nationaal onderzoek, voor het eerst werd de internationale puzzel gelegd. De Belgische historicus Frank Caestecker (48), verbonden aan de Universiteit van Gent, organiseerde twee internationale colloquia over deze bittere periode. ‘De internationale samenhang is belangrijk’, zegt hij. ‘Want wat het ene land doet met vluchtelingen, ze toelaten of ze weigeren, heeft een directe weerslag op de andere landen. De onderlinge beïnvloeding werd nog niet onderzocht.’ Het project leidde tot het boek Refugees from Nazi-Germany and the Liberal European States, 1933-1939, dat in september tegelijkertijd zal verschijnen in Groot-Brittannië en de Verenigde Staten.VANAF DE machtsgreep van Hitler in 1933 vluchtten andersdenkenden en joden weg uit Duitsland. Al werden communisten met argwaan bekeken – die zag men liever naar de Sovjet-Unie vertrekken – begin jaren dertig konden de vluchtelingen nog wel in verschillende Europese landen terecht. Velen trokken verder naar de VS en Argentinië. Vluchtelingen moesten toen zelf in hun levensonderhoud kunnen voorzien, de overheid had nog geen opvangnetwerk. Het waren dan ook vooral de meest gegoeden die de mogelijkheid hadden om te vluchten. Ook Nederland liet vluchtelingen toe. De voorwaarde was dat ze over geldige papieren beschikten of in acuut levensgevaar verkeerden, iets wat eng werd geïnterpreteerd. De dreiging van een concentratiekamp gold bijvoorbeeld niet als levensbedreigend.Het tempo van de uitstroom van joden lag voor de nazi’s te laag. Ze gingen vanaf 1938 steeds driester tekeer bij het vervolgen van joden. De annexatie van Oostenrijk op 12 maart 1938 was een eerste cesuur. De Anschluss ging gepaard met een ongeziene golf van grof geweld tegen de joden in Oostenrijk. Dat geweld en het enthousiasme waarmee de joodse emigratie administratief werd gesteund hadden maar één doel: de etnische zuivering van Oostenrijk. Verschillende landen kantten zich tegen de stroom vluchtelingen, de controles werden scherper. Grenswachters kampten evenwel met een probleem: hoe zie je of iemand al dan niet een jood is? Want Arische Duitsers, zoals toeristen en zakenlui, mochten wél de grens over. Joden deden zich dan ook voor als toerist of zakenman, in de hoop de grens over te komen. Om joden te kunnen onderscheiden en terugsturen, drongen de Zwitserse en de Zweedse regering er bij de nazi’s op aan om in de paspoorten van joden een letter J te stempelen. De nazi’s voelden daar aanvankelijk weinig voor, omdat ze vreesden dat ze met de joden zouden blijven zitten. In september 1938 stemden ze toch toe om het reizen van Arische Duitsers niet te bemoeilijken.Het Weense experiment van etnische zuivering onder leiding van Adolf Eichmann werd in Berlijn met veel aandacht gevolgd. Het succes van deze operatie leidde ertoe dat de anti-joodse politiek ook in Duitsland radicaliseerde. De pogrom tijdens Kristallnacht, de nacht van 9 op 10 november 1938, was een stuitende exponent van deze verharde nazi-agressie. Die avond werden tientallen joden vermoord en ongeveer dertigduizend joodse mannen in kampen opgesloten. Daarvan overleden er enkele honderden aan de verwondingen die ze bij de aanslag hadden opgelopen. Hoewel de Duitsers het voorstelden als agressie die door joden was uitgelokt, was de ware toedracht in het buitenland wel degelijk bekend. Kristallnacht zorgde voor een tweede cesuur: er kwam een massale vluchtelingenstroom op gang. Vermoed wordt dat vanaf dat moment tot aan het uitbreken van de oorlog zo’n half miljoen joden de vlucht namen. De nazi’s bleven joden dwingen te vertrekken, maar pas nadat ze hen van alle bezittingen hadden beroofd. Wie de grens over wilde, mocht niet meer dan tien mark meenemen. In landen als Nederland, België, Frankrijk en Zwitserland probeerden de joden een veilig onderkomen te zoeken of een route te vinden om overzee weg te trekken. Omdat ze met zo velen waren, en haveloos, werden overal de grenzen meer en meer gesloten. Ook Nederland verscherpte de maatregelen. Alleen vluchtelingen uit de grenszone die in prangend levensgevaar waren of Duitse joden die verwanten in Nederland hadden, mochten nog het land in. Er restte joodse vluchtelingen geen andere mogelijkheid dan illegaal te proberen een grens over te steken. ‘Je ziet verschuivingen’, zegt Frank Caestecker: ‘Als het niet lukte in Frankrijk kwamen ze weer in Duitsland terecht. De Duitse politie pakte de joodse vluchtelingen op of zette ze elders over de grens, bijvoorbeeld in Nederland of België, waar ze dan op grenscontroles van Belgen of Nederland botsten.’ Er ontstonden netwerken van mensensmokkelaars die joden illegaal hielpen te vluchten. Het risico bleef groot, want wie de grens over kwam en bij een controle werd opgepakt, kon terug naar Duitsland worden gebracht. Om diplomatieke redenen zette men de vluchtelingen niet over de grens van een lukraak gekozen buurland, want dan zou dat land allicht hetzelfde doen. Illegale joden werden vooral ook als afschrikking voor kandidaat-vluchtelingen naar Duitsland gerepatrieerd.HET GEWELD van Kristallnacht wekte evenwel ook heel even solidariteit. Nederland besloot op 19 november 1938, tien dagen na Kristallnacht, dat joden die illegaal het land hadden bereikt, konden blijven, al was het oogmerk ze snel te laten emigreren naar een ander land. Er werden vijftienhonderd ongenode vluchtelingen getolereerd. Aanvankelijk moesten ze zich elke dag bij de politie melden, later werden ze onder administratief toezicht geplaatst in vluchtelingenkampen in Veenhuizen en Hoek van Holland. De opvangkosten werden op joodse liefdadigheidsorganisaties verhaald. Er kwam een breed ondersteunde oproep tot donaties en via burgemeesters werd 473.000 gulden ingezameld.Nederland ondernam ook diplomatieke initiatieven om met andere buurlanden een transitzone in te stellen voor joden die overzee wilden vluchten. Het plan wekte weinig of geen enthousiasme in het buitenland en werd snel in de la gestopt. Het beleid verstrakte daarentegen: Zwitserland en de Scandinavische landen sloten de grenzen, Nederland volgde op 17 december dit voorbeeld. Vanaf dat moment werden joden zonder legale papieren toch teruggestuurd. Op Kerstmis 1938 bracht een bus een eerste groep van zeventig joodse vluchtelingen naar Duitsland. Aan alle grenzen waren er strenge controles om de joodse vluchtelingen tegen te houden. Nederland zette duizend extra grenswachters in, er gingen stemmen op om het aantal tot twintigduizend op te rekken, maar dat gebeurde niet. Wel kwamen er ‘vliegende teams’, die op de meest precaire plaatsen werden ingezet.Helemaal hermetisch waren de grenzen echter nooit gesloten. Joden stonden onder een te grote druk om Duitsland te verlaten, ze werden opgejaagd. Een aantal mensen bleef het voor hen opnemen en stak de nek uit. Marij Leenders, onderzoeker aan de Radboud Universiteit te Nijmegen, verwijst naar burgemeester Verbeek die toen aan het hoofd stond van de grensgemeente Dinxperlo. Ondanks de regelgeving van Justitie bezorgde hij eigenhandig verblijfsvergunningen aan joden. Er werd een klacht tegen hem ingediend, maar de rechtbank sprak hem vrij. Uit respect voor het ambt vroeg de burgemeester eervol ontslag. Ontslag kreeg hij, maar niet eervol. In 1990 werd hij postuum gerehabiliteerd.De jood Karl Grünberg zit tot 30 maart 1938 in Dachau opgesloten. Hij kan vluchten en bereikt illegaal Nederland. In de trein naar Utrecht wordt hij gearresteerd omdat hij een paspoort van een Nederlander gebruikt. Manu militari wordt hij aan Duitsland uitgeleverd, daar komt hij in Buchenwald terecht. Opnieuw slaagt hij erin te ontsnappen, deze keer vlucht hij illegaal naar België. Daar kan hij blijven.‘IN BELGIË leefde de joodse kwestie veel sterker in de publieke opinie dan elders’, vertelt Frank Caestecker. ‘Dat kwam omdat de uitwijzing van joodse vluchtelingen net voor Kristallnacht op de politieke agenda had gestaan, de meningen waren verdeeld. De bevoegde minister stelde toen dat joodse vluchtelingen geen bescherming nodig hadden, iets wat na Kristallnacht voor een wrange nasmaak zorgde en een virulente discussie op gang bracht.’ Omdat geen enkele Belgische politicus publieke blaam wilde oplopen, werd besloten om illegale joodse vluchtelingen niet langer terug te sturen. Toch zijn er flink wat kanttekeningen te plaatsen bij deze gastvrijheid. De consulaten in Duitsland kregen het advies om zeer stringent om te springen met het verlenen van visa. Aan de Belgische grens werden joden nog steeds met man en macht tegengehouden en teruggestuurd. En net als in Nederland deden de Belgen er alles aan om de joodse vluchtelingen zo snel mogelijk te laten doorreizen.‘Toch ging het bij de joden als een lopend vuurtje rond dat illegalen in België konden blijven’, zegt Caestecker. ‘Hun aantal nam snel toe, de Belgische regering greep in. Ze vroeg de nazi’s te verhinderen dat joden naar België zouden vluchten. De Duitsers stemden ermee in om joden die geen Belgisch visum hadden en die in de Duits-Belgische grenszone werden aangetroffen, te verhinderen naar België te reizen. De nazi’s wierpen dus ook een barricade op aan hun kant van de grens. Joden moesten vanaf dat moment dus niet alleen de Belgische grenswachters verschalken, maar ook de Duitse.’‘Dat joden nergens welkom waren, heeft verschillende oorzaken’, stelt Caestecker: ‘Het ging om een totaal verpauperde groep vluchtelingen, ze kwamen met duizenden tegelijk. Bovendien vreesde men voor een aanzuigende werking, want ook in landen als Polen en Hongarije was er een enorme druk op joden. Vergeet niet dat er in 1939 ook een half miljoen vluchtelingen uit Spanje kwamen, waar Franco na de burgeroorlog een dictatuur installeerde.’ Heulden de landen die weigerden joodse vluchtelingen op te vangen indirect en misschien ongewild met nazi-Duitsland? Caestecker: ‘Die uitspraak gaat te ver. Het zijn de nazi’s die joden vervolgden, niet de andere landen. Wel waren verschillende regeringen bereid om met de Duitsers verregaand te onderhandelen over het inkrimpen van de vluchtelingenstroom, eerder dan dat ze pogingen deden om de vervolging aan te klagen. Denk aan het invoeren van de J-pas: alle landen waren daar opgetogen over. En het speelde de nazi’s in de kaart dat de joden nergens welkom waren, het werd tegen hen als argument uitgespeeld en zette de nazi-politiek kracht bij.’Hij wijst ook op de historische context. Tot voor de Eerste Wereldoorlog kon je in de meeste landen vrij rondreizen en je vestigen. De enige voorwaarde was dat je in je eigen levensonderhoud kon voorzien. ‘In landen als Nederland en België werd na de Eerste Wereldoorlog het algemeen kiesrecht ingevoerd, dat gaf een omvangrijke bevolkingsgroep een stem. De communistische omwenteling in de Sovjet-Unie zorgde voor pleinvrees in het Westen. De overheden wilden daarom hun inwoners een zekere mate van economische bescherming bieden. Er kwamen steeds meer restricties voor buitenlanders, die konden zich niet zomaar meer vestigen en een zaak beginnen. In de jaren dertig was er bovendien de economische crisis, wat nog meer tot protectionisme aanzette. Uitgerekend in die periode begon de vervolging van joden, die een massale stroom straatarme vluchtelingen opleverde. Niemand zag ze graag komen, bovendien werd hun situatie als argument gebruikt om het protectionisme nog aan te scherpen.’Paul Steiner is een Oostenrijkse jurist en journalist die na de Anschluss in 1938 naar Nederland vlucht, met het vliegtuig. Hij doet zich voor als handelsvertegenwoordiger van een uitgever maar wordt door de grenswachten niet geloofd. Hij heeft een Duits paspoort met een J en wordt gedwongen teruggestuurd naar Wenen. Hij slaagt er later alsnog in om naar Brussel te vluchten en dan naar de Verenigde Staten.DE VERVOLGING van de joden heeft in 1951 tot de Conventie van Genève geleid. Die beschermt mensen die worden vervolgd op basis van hun geloof, hun politieke overtuiging, hun seksuele geaardheid, hun huidskleur of het behoren tot een sociale groep. Deze bescherming geldt voor individuen en voldeed lange tijd. Er kunnen echter altijd nieuwe motieven ontstaan om te vluchten. Op zulke situaties moet men steeds alert kunnen inspelen, vindt Frank Caestecker: ‘Bij het uitbreken van de oorlogen op de Balkan in de jaren negentig was er een groep oorlogsvluchtelingen die vooral aan de Duitse grens aanklopten. Zij vielen niet onder de Conventie, want ze waren collectief slachtoffer van geweld. Toch werden ze in West-Europa beschermd, maar de beschermingskwaliteit varieerde van land tot land. Duitsland, dat op de weke flank van Europa lag, vroeg om een EU-regeling voor oorlogsvluchtelingen, en die kwam er ook.’ Toch zijn er tegenwoordig nog lacunes: ‘Er is te weinig controle op wat buiten de EU gebeurt. Vanuit bijvoorbeeld Noord-Afrikaanse landen proberen vluchtelingen Europa te bereiken. We weten weinig over hoe vluchtelingen daar worden behandeld. Het lijkt me dat we in mechanismen moeten voorzien om ook die vluchtelingen van een veilige opvang te verzekeren.’ [12] ”Als het bijna te laat is. En zo staan we hier. Vanavond, te elfder ure, letterlijk. Te midden van de brokstukken van wat ooit de mooiste, grootste beschaving was die de wereld ooit heeft gekend. LEEUWARDER COURANTLEES DE HELE TOESPRAAK VAN THIERRY BAUDET TERUGhttps://www.lc.nl/extra/Lees-hier-de-volledige-toespraak-van-Thierry-Baudet-terug-24292228.html[13]GEEN STIJLHET IS WEER LENTE! DE GROTE OVERSTEEK BEGINTANNABEL NANNINGA9 APRIL 2014http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2014/04/het_is_weer_lente_de_grote_ove.htmlTEKSTHET IS WEER LENTE! DE GROTE OVERSTEEK BEGINTErgens tussen rokjesdag en pasen begint de Grote Trek. [DavidAttenborough stem] Gedreven door instinct verlaten ze hunoverwinter broedplaatsen en maken de onzekere oversteek naarhet Hoge Noorden.De reis is gevaarlijk en kent vele ontberingen, velen zullen de gedroomdebestemming nooit bereiken. Het doel van de Gewone Dobberneger[Nigris flotilas vulgaris] is Fort Europa.Een oceaan verderop is de Amerikaanse varieteit, de Mexicaanse Werkzoeker[Laboris bijnagratis tortillas] aan de ijzingwekkende bestorming van de grenzenbegonnen, naar de paaigronden in Noord Amerika.Ieder jaar weer eist deze migratiestroom vele slachtoffers, maar de soortmoet overleven. [/David Attenborough stem]. Nee,.maar even allegekheid op een vlotje.In twee dagen tijd VIERDUIZEND bootvluchtelingenonderschept door de Italianen. [1]De Amerikaanse Border Patrol dreigt onder de voet getsunamied te wordendoor Latijns Amerikaanse illegalen. [2]Kunnen we wel tof doen over gelukszoekers en grenzen van ondoordringbariummet bisonkit en mitraiileursnesten om de 10 meter. Maar dit gaat dusenorm fout.De helft van de wereld heet niks, de andere helft heeft alles, en ze komen hetgewoon halen, zo onderhand. Kunnen we die paupers ergens ook niet geheelkwalijk nemen en als de mense er zulke risico’s voor over hebben zoudenwe kunnen stellen dat ze wel reuze gemotiveerd zijn. [3]Fort Europa en de Verenigde Burchten van Amerika gaan vroegof laat bezwijken onder de druk, en voordat dat gebeurt betalenheel wat sloebers met hun leven voor een plekkie aan de goede kantvan de grens.Wat gaan we eraan doen, mensen? Rijkdom verdelen, rigoureuzegeboortebeperking, hopen, dat de ebola een beetje doorpakt, zeg het maar.Een bootvluchteling maakt nog geen mondiale crisis, maar vierduizendin twee dagen: het seizoen is begonnen.ANNABEL NANNINGA9 APRIL 2014NOTEN, BEHORENDE BIJ HET STUKJE VAN ANNABEL NANNINGA[1]VOLKSKRANTITALIE REDT 4.000 BOOTVLUCHTELINGEN INTWEE DAGEN9 APRIL 2014http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/italie-redt-4000-bootvluchtelingen-in-twee-dagen~a3632070/[2]BREITBART.COMREPORT: NEW MASSIVE WAVE OF ILLEGAL IMMIGRATIONCOMING8 APRIL 2014http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/04/08/report-new-massive-wave-of-illegal-immigration-coming/[3]GEEN STIJLMIDDELLANDSE ZEE VOL WATERTRAPPENDE GELUKSZOEKERS3 OCTOBER 2013http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2013/10/lampedusa.htmlEINDE NOTEN, BEHORENDE BIJ HET STUKJE VAN ANNABELNANNINGA[14]https://twitter.com/bertvuijsje/status/962265205387546625Bert Vuijsje @bertvuijsjeVolgen@bertvuijsje volgenMeerBert Vuijsje heeft geretweet Bert VuijsjeNogmaals: A. Nanninga, lijsttrekster bij de komende Amsterdamse raadsverkiezingen, twitterde letterlijk: “Rot ff op, @FransTraas moraalridders, die was Hitler vergeten in die mooie ovens van m” En geen serieus medium dat er serieus melding van maakt.Bert Vuijsje heeft toegevoegd,Bert Vuijsje@bertvuijsjeIs deze uitlating van A. Nanninga trouwens geen serieus onderwerp voor een serieus dagblad? https://twitter.com/bertvuijsje/status/959822028311326721 …02:01 – 10 feb. 2018
Reacties uitgeschakeld voor [2019]/Mail Astrid Essed aan Nationaal Comite 4 en 5 mei over de opname van Thierry Baudet als mede-auteur in ”Vrijheidsboek”
It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy — but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.
Bestselling author, ‘The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot’
Apr 24, 2007, 01:07 PM EDT|Updated May 25, 2011
Last autumn, there was a military coup in Thailand. The leaders of the coup took a number of steps, rather systematically, as if they had a shopping list. In a sense, they did. Within a matter of days, democracy had been closed down: the coup leaders declared martial law, sent armed soldiers into residential areas, took over radio and TV stations, issued restrictions on the press, tightened some limits on travel, and took certain activists into custody.
They were not figuring these things out as they went along. If you look at history, you can see that there is essentially a blueprint for turning an open society into a dictatorship. That blueprint has been used again and again in more and less bloody, more and less terrifying ways. But it is always effective. It is very difficult and arduous to create and sustain a democracy – but history shows that closing one down is much simpler. You simply have to be willing to take the 10 steps.
As difficult as this is to contemplate, it is clear, if you are willing to look, that each of these 10 steps has already been initiated today in the United States by the Bush administration.
Because Americans like me were born in freedom, we have a hard time even considering that it is possible for us to become as unfree – domestically – as many other nations. Because we no longer learn much about our rights or our system of government – the task of being aware of the constitution has been outsourced from citizens’ ownership to being the domain of professionals such as lawyers and professors – we scarcely recognise the checks and balances that the founders put in place, even as they are being systematically dismantled. Because we don’t learn much about European history, the setting up of a department of “homeland” security – remember who else was keen on the word “homeland” – didn’t raise the alarm bells it might have.
It is my argument that, beneath our very noses, George Bush and his administration are using time-tested tactics to close down an open society. It is time for us to be willing to think the unthinkable – as the author and political journalist Joe Conason, has put it, that it can happen here. And that we are further along than we realise.
Conason eloquently warned of the danger of American authoritarianism. I am arguing that we need also to look at the lessons of European and other kinds of fascism to understand the potential seriousness of the events we see unfolding in the US.
1 Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy
After we were hit on September 11 2001, we were in a state of national shock. Less than six weeks later, on October 26 2001, the USA Patriot Act was passed by a Congress that had little chance to debate it; many said that they scarcely had time to read it. We were told we were now on a “war footing”; we were in a “global war” against a “global caliphate” intending to “wipe out civilisation”. There have been other times of crisis in which the US accepted limits on civil liberties, such as during the civil war, when Lincoln declared martial law, and the second world war, when thousands of Japanese-American citizens were interned. But this situation, as Bruce Fein of the American Freedom Agenda has noted, is unprecedented: all our other wars had an endpoint, so the pendulum was able to swing back toward freedom; this war is defined as open-ended in time and without national boundaries in space – the globe itself is the battlefield. “This time,” Fein says, “there will be no defined end.”
Creating a terrifying threat – hydra-like, secretive, evil – is an old trick. It can, like Hitler’s invocation of a communist threat to the nation’s security, be based on actual events (one Wisconsin academic has faced calls for his dismissal because he noted, among other things, that the alleged communist arson, the Reichstag fire of February 1933, was swiftly followed in Nazi Germany by passage of the Enabling Act, which replaced constitutional law with an open-ended state of emergency). Or the terrifying threat can be based, like the National Socialist evocation of the “global conspiracy of world Jewry”, on myth.
It is not that global Islamist terrorism is not a severe danger; of course it is. I am arguing rather that the language used to convey the nature of the threat is different in a country such as Spain – which has also suffered violent terrorist attacks – than it is in America. Spanish citizens know that they face a grave security threat; what we as American citizens believe is that we are potentially threatened with the end of civilisation as we know it. Of course, this makes us more willing to accept restrictions on our freedoms.
2 Create a gulag
Once you have got everyone scared, the next step is to create a prison system outside the rule of law (as Bush put it, he wanted the American detention centre at Guantánamo Bay to be situated in legal “outer space”) – where torture takes place.
At first, the people who are sent there are seen by citizens as outsiders: troublemakers, spies, “enemies of the people” or “criminals”. Initially, citizens tend to support the secret prison system; it makes them feel safer and they do not identify with the prisoners. But soon enough, civil society leaders – opposition members, labour activists, clergy and journalists – are arrested and sent there as well.
This process took place in fascist shifts or anti-democracy crackdowns ranging from Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s to the Latin American coups of the 1970s and beyond. It is standard practice for closing down an open society or crushing a pro-democracy uprising.
With its jails in Iraq and Afghanistan, and, of course, Guantánamo in Cuba, where detainees are abused, and kept indefinitely without trial and without access to the due process of the law, America certainly has its gulag now. Bush and his allies in Congress recently announced they would issue no information about the secret CIA “black site” prisons throughout the world, which are used to incarcerate people who have been seized off the street.
Gulags in history tend to metastasise, becoming ever larger and more secretive, ever more deadly and formalised. We know from first-hand accounts, photographs, videos and government documents that people, innocent and guilty, have been tortured in the US-run prisons we are aware of and those we can’t investigate adequately.
But Americans still assume this system and detainee abuses involve only scary brown people with whom they don’t generally identify. It was brave of the conservative pundit William Safire to quote the anti-Nazi pastor Martin Niemöller, who had been seized as a political prisoner: “First they came for the Jews.” Most Americans don’t understand yet that the destruction of the rule of law at Guantánamo set a dangerous precedent for them, too.
By the way, the establishment of military tribunals that deny prisoners due process tends to come early on in a fascist shift. Mussolini and Stalin set up such tribunals. On April 24 1934, the Nazis, too, set up the People’s Court, which also bypassed the judicial system: prisoners were held indefinitely, often in isolation, and tortured, without being charged with offences, and were subjected to show trials. Eventually, the Special Courts became a parallel system that put pressure on the regular courts to abandon the rule of law in favour of Nazi ideology when making decisions.
3 Develop a thug caste
When leaders who seek what I call a “fascist shift” want to close down an open society, they send paramilitary groups of scary young men out to terrorise citizens. The Blackshirts roamed the Italian countryside beating up communists; the Brownshirts staged violent rallies throughout Germany. This paramilitary force is especially important in a democracy: you need citizens to fear thug violence and so you need thugs who are free from prosecution.
The years following 9/11 have proved a bonanza for America’s security contractors, with the Bush administration outsourcing areas of work that traditionally fell to the US military. In the process, contracts worth hundreds of millions of dollars have been issued for security work by mercenaries at home and abroad. In Iraq, some of these contract operatives have been accused of involvement in torturing prisoners, harassing journalists and firing on Iraqi civilians. Under Order 17, issued to regulate contractors in Iraq by the one-time US administrator in Baghdad, Paul Bremer, these contractors are immune from prosecution
Yes, but that is in Iraq, you could argue; however, after Hurricane Katrina, the Department of Homeland Security hired and deployed hundreds of armed private security guards in New Orleans. The investigative journalist Jeremy Scahill interviewed one unnamed guard who reported having fired on unarmed civilians in the city. It was a natural disaster that underlay that episode – but the administration’s endless war on terror means ongoing scope for what are in effect privately contracted armies to take on crisis and emergency management at home in US cities.
Thugs in America? Groups of angry young Republican men, dressed in identical shirts and trousers, menaced poll workers counting the votes in Florida in 2000. If you are reading history, you can imagine that there can be a need for “public order” on the next election day. Say there are protests, or a threat, on the day of an election; history would not rule out the presence of a private security firm at a polling station “to restore public order”.
4 Set up an internal surveillance system
In Mussolini’s Italy, in Nazi Germany, in communist East Germany, in communist China – in every closed society – secret police spy on ordinary people and encourage neighbours to spy on neighbours. The Stasi needed to keep only a minority of East Germans under surveillance to convince a majority that they themselves were being watched.
In 2005 and 2006, when James Risen and Eric Lichtblau wrote in the New York Times about a secret state programme to wiretap citizens’ phones, read their emails and follow international financial transactions, it became clear to ordinary Americans that they, too, could be under state scrutiny.
In closed societies, this surveillance is cast as being about “national security”; the true function is to keep citizens docile and inhibit their activism and dissent.
5 Harass citizens’ groups
The fifth thing you do is related to step four – you infiltrate and harass citizens’ groups. It can be trivial: a church in Pasadena, whose minister preached that Jesus was in favour of peace, found itself being investigated by the Internal Revenue Service, while churches that got Republicans out to vote, which is equally illegal under US tax law, have been left alone.
Other harassment is more serious: the American Civil Liberties Union reports that thousands of ordinary American anti-war, environmental and other groups have been infiltrated by agents: a secret Pentagon database includes more than four dozen peaceful anti-war meetings, rallies or marches by American citizens in its category of 1,500 “suspicious incidents”. The equally secret Counterintelligence Field Activity (Cifa) agency of the Department of Defense has been gathering information about domestic organisations engaged in peaceful political activities: Cifa is supposed to track “potential terrorist threats” as it watches ordinary US citizen activists. A little-noticed new law has redefined activism such as animal rights protests as “terrorism”. So the definition of “terrorist” slowly expands to include the opposition.
6 Engage in arbitrary detention and release
This scares people. It is a kind of cat-and-mouse game. Nicholas D Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn, the investigative reporters who wrote China Wakes: the Struggle for the Soul of a Rising Power, describe pro-democracy activists in China, such as Wei Jingsheng, being arrested and released many times. In a closing or closed society there is a “list” of dissidents and opposition leaders: you are targeted in this way once you are on the list, and it is hard to get off the list.
In 2004, America’s Transportation Security Administration confirmed that it had a list of passengers who were targeted for security searches or worse if they tried to fly. People who have found themselves on the list? Two middle-aged women peace activists in San Francisco; liberal Senator Edward Kennedy; a member of Venezuela’s government – after Venezuela’s president had criticised Bush; and thousands of ordinary US citizens.
Professor Walter F Murphy is emeritus of Princeton University; he is one of the foremost constitutional scholars in the nation and author of the classic Constitutional Democracy. Murphy is also a decorated former marine, and he is not even especially politically liberal. But on March 1 this year, he was denied a boarding pass at Newark, “because I was on the Terrorist Watch list”.
“Have you been in any peace marches? We ban a lot of people from flying because of that,” asked the airline employee.
“I explained,” said Murphy, “that I had not so marched but had, in September 2006, given a lecture at Princeton, televised and put on the web, highly critical of George Bush for his many violations of the constitution.”
“That’ll do it,” the man said.
Anti-war marcher? Potential terrorist. Support the constitution? Potential terrorist. History shows that the categories of “enemy of the people” tend to expand ever deeper into civil life.
James Yee, a US citizen, was the Muslim chaplain at Guantánamo who was accused of mishandling classified documents. He was harassed by the US military before the charges against him were dropped. Yee has been detained and released several times. He is still of interest.
Brandon Mayfield, a US citizen and lawyer in Oregon, was mistakenly identified as a possible terrorist. His house was secretly broken into and his computer seized. Though he is innocent of the accusation against him, he is still on the list.
It is a standard practice of fascist societies that once you are on the list, you can’t get off.
7 Target key individuals
Threaten civil servants, artists and academics with job loss if they don’t toe the line. Mussolini went after the rectors of state universities who did not conform to the fascist line; so did Joseph Goebbels, who purged academics who were not pro-Nazi; so did Chile’s Augusto Pinochet; so does the Chinese communist Politburo in punishing pro-democracy students and professors.
Academe is a tinderbox of activism, so those seeking a fascist shift punish academics and students with professional loss if they do not “coordinate”, in Goebbels’ term, ideologically. Since civil servants are the sector of society most vulnerable to being fired by a given regime, they are also a group that fascists typically “coordinate” early on: the Reich Law for the Re-establishment of a Professional Civil Service was passed on April 7 1933.
Bush supporters in state legislatures in several states put pressure on regents at state universities to penalise or fire academics who have been critical of the administration. As for civil servants, the Bush administration has derailed the career of one military lawyer who spoke up for fair trials for detainees, while an administration official publicly intimidated the law firms that represent detainees pro bono by threatening to call for their major corporate clients to boycott them.
Elsewhere, a CIA contract worker who said in a closed blog that “waterboarding is torture” was stripped of the security clearance she needed in order to do her job.
Most recently, the administration purged eight US attorneys for what looks like insufficient political loyalty. When Goebbels purged the civil service in April 1933, attorneys were “coordinated” too, a step that eased the way of the increasingly brutal laws to follow.
8 Control the press
Italy in the 1920s, Germany in the 30s, East Germany in the 50s, Czechoslovakia in the 60s, the Latin American dictatorships in the 70s, China in the 80s and 90s – all dictatorships and would-be dictators target newspapers and journalists. They threaten and harass them in more open societies that they are seeking to close, and they arrest them and worse in societies that have been closed already.
The Committee to Protect Journalists says arrests of US journalists are at an all-time high: Josh Wolf (no relation), a blogger in San Francisco, has been put in jail for a year for refusing to turn over video of an anti-war demonstration; Homeland Security brought a criminal complaint against reporter Greg Palast, claiming he threatened “critical infrastructure” when he and a TV producer were filming victims of Hurricane Katrina in Louisiana. Palast had written a bestseller critical of the Bush administration.
Other reporters and writers have been punished in other ways. Joseph C Wilson accused Bush, in a New York Times op-ed, of leading the country to war on the basis of a false charge that Saddam Hussein had acquired yellowcake uranium in Niger. His wife, Valerie Plame, was outed as a CIA spy – a form of retaliation that ended her career.
Prosecution and job loss are nothing, though, compared with how the US is treating journalists seeking to cover the conflict in Iraq in an unbiased way. The Committee to Protect Journalists has documented multiple accounts of the US military in Iraq firing upon or threatening to fire upon unembedded (meaning independent) reporters and camera operators from organisations ranging from al-Jazeera to the BBC. While westerners may question the accounts by al-Jazeera, they should pay attention to the accounts of reporters such as the BBC’s Kate Adie. In some cases reporters have been wounded or killed, including ITN’s Terry Lloyd in 2003. Both CBS and the Associated Press in Iraq had staff members seized by the US military and taken to violent prisons; the news organisations were unable to see the evidence against their staffers.
Over time in closing societies, real news is supplanted by fake news and false documents. Pinochet showed Chilean citizens falsified documents to back up his claim that terrorists had been about to attack the nation. The yellowcake charge, too, was based on forged papers.
You won’t have a shutdown of news in modern America – it is not possible. But you can have, as Frank Rich and Sidney Blumenthal have pointed out, a steady stream of lies polluting the news well. What you already have is a White House directing a stream of false information that is so relentless that it is increasingly hard to sort out truth from untruth. In a fascist system, it’s not the lies that count but the muddying. When citizens can’t tell real news from fake, they give up their demands for accountability bit by bit.
9 Dissent equals treason
Cast dissent as “treason” and criticism as “espionage’. Every closing society does this, just as it elaborates laws that increasingly criminalise certain kinds of speech and expand the definition of “spy” and “traitor”. When Bill Keller, the publisher of the New York Times, ran the Lichtblau/Risen stories, Bush called the Times’ leaking of classified information “disgraceful”, while Republicans in Congress called for Keller to be charged with treason, and rightwing commentators and news outlets kept up the “treason” drumbeat. Some commentators, as Conason noted, reminded readers smugly that one penalty for violating the Espionage Act is execution.
Conason is right to note how serious a threat that attack represented. It is also important to recall that the 1938 Moscow show trial accused the editor of Izvestia, Nikolai Bukharin, of treason; Bukharin was, in fact, executed. And it is important to remind Americans that when the 1917 Espionage Act was last widely invoked, during the infamous 1919 Palmer Raids, leftist activists were arrested without warrants in sweeping roundups, kept in jail for up to five months, and “beaten, starved, suffocated, tortured and threatened with death”, according to the historian Myra MacPherson. After that, dissent was muted in America for a decade.
In Stalin’s Soviet Union, dissidents were “enemies of the people”. National Socialists called those who supported Weimar democracy “November traitors”.
And here is where the circle closes: most Americans do not realise that since September of last year – when Congress wrongly, foolishly, passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 – the president has the power to call any US citizen an “enemy combatant”. He has the power to define what “enemy combatant” means. The president can also delegate to anyone he chooses in the executive branch the right to define “enemy combatant” any way he or she wants and then seize Americans accordingly.
Even if you or I are American citizens, even if we turn out to be completely innocent of what he has accused us of doing, he has the power to have us seized as we are changing planes at Newark tomorrow, or have us taken with a knock on the door; ship you or me to a navy brig; and keep you or me in isolation, possibly for months, while awaiting trial. (Prolonged isolation, as psychiatrists know, triggers psychosis in otherwise mentally healthy prisoners. That is why Stalin’s gulag had an isolation cell, like Guantánamo’s, in every satellite prison. Camp 6, the newest, most brutal facility at Guantánamo, is all isolation cells.)
We US citizens will get a trial eventually – for now. But legal rights activists at the Center for Constitutional Rights say that the Bush administration is trying increasingly aggressively to find ways to get around giving even US citizens fair trials. “Enemy combatant” is a status offence – it is not even something you have to have done. “We have absolutely moved over into a preventive detention model – you look like you could do something bad, you might do something bad, so we’re going to hold you,” says a spokeswoman of the CCR.
Most Americans surely do not get this yet. No wonder: it is hard to believe, even though it is true. In every closing society, at a certain point there are some high-profile arrests – usually of opposition leaders, clergy and journalists. Then everything goes quiet. After those arrests, there are still newspapers, courts, TV and radio, and the facades of a civil society. There just isn’t real dissent. There just isn’t freedom. If you look at history, just before those arrests is where we are now.
10 Suspend the rule of law
The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 gave the president new powers over the national guard. This means that in a national emergency – which the president now has enhanced powers to declare – he can send Michigan’s militia to enforce a state of emergency that he has declared in Oregon, over the objections of the state’s governor and its citizens.
Even as Americans were focused on Britney Spears’s meltdown and the question of who fathered Anna Nicole’s baby, the New York Times editorialised about this shift: “A disturbing recent phenomenon in Washington is that laws that strike to the heart of American democracy have been passed in the dead of night … Beyond actual insurrection, the president may now use military troops as a domestic police force in response to a natural disaster, a disease outbreak, terrorist attack or any ‘other condition’.”
Critics see this as a clear violation of the Posse Comitatus Act – which was meant to restrain the federal government from using the military for domestic law enforcement. The Democratic senator Patrick Leahy says the bill encourages a president to declare federal martial law. It also violates the very reason the founders set up our system of government as they did: having seen citizens bullied by a monarch’s soldiers, the founders were terrified of exactly this kind of concentration of militias’ power over American people in the hands of an oppressive executive or faction.
Of course, the United States is not vulnerable to the violent, total closing-down of the system that followed Mussolini’s march on Rome or Hitler’s roundup of political prisoners. Our democratic habits are too resilient, and our military and judiciary too independent, for any kind of scenario like that.
Rather, as other critics are noting, our experiment in democracy could be closed down by a process of erosion.
It is a mistake to think that early in a fascist shift you see the profile of barbed wire against the sky. In the early days, things look normal on the surface; peasants were celebrating harvest festivals in Calabria in 1922; people were shopping and going to the movies in Berlin in 1931. Early on, as WH Auden put it, the horror is always elsewhere – while someone is being tortured, children are skating, ships are sailing: “dogs go on with their doggy life … How everything turns away/ Quite leisurely from the disaster.”
As Americans turn away quite leisurely, keeping tuned to internet shopping and American Idol, the foundations of democracy are being fatally corroded. Something has changed profoundly that weakens us unprecedentedly: our democratic traditions, independent judiciary and free press do their work today in a context in which we are “at war” in a “long war” – a war without end, on a battlefield described as the globe, in a context that gives the president – without US citizens realising it yet – the power over US citizens of freedom or long solitary incarceration, on his say-so alone.
That means a hollowness has been expanding under the foundation of all these still- free-looking institutions – and this foundation can give way under certain kinds of pressure. To prevent such an outcome, we have to think about the “what ifs”.
What if, in a year and a half, there is another attack – say, God forbid, a dirty bomb? The executive can declare a state of emergency. History shows that any leader, of any party, will be tempted to maintain emergency powers after the crisis has passed. With the gutting of traditional checks and balances, we are no less endangered by a President Hillary than by a President Giuliani – because any executive will be tempted to enforce his or her will through edict rather than the arduous, uncertain process of democratic negotiation and compromise.
What if the publisher of a major US newspaper were charged with treason or espionage, as a rightwing effort seemed to threaten Keller with last year? What if he or she got 10 years in jail? What would the newspapers look like the next day? Judging from history, they would not cease publishing; but they would suddenly be very polite.
Right now, only a handful of patriots are trying to hold back the tide of tyranny for the rest of us – staff at the Center for Constitutional Rights, who faced death threats for representing the detainees yet persisted all the way to the Supreme Court; activists at the American Civil Liberties Union; and prominent conservatives trying to roll back the corrosive new laws, under the banner of a new group called the American Freedom Agenda. This small, disparate collection of people needs everybody’s help, including that of Europeans and others internationally who are willing to put pressure on the administration because they can see what a US unrestrained by real democracy at home can mean for the rest of the world.
We need to look at history and face the “what ifs”. For if we keep going down this road, the “end of America” could come for each of us in a different way, at a different moment; each of us might have a different moment when we feel forced to look back and think: that is how it was before – and this is the way it is now.
“The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands … is the definition of tyranny,” wrote James Madison. We still have the choice to stop going down this road; we can stand our ground and fight for our nation, and take up the banner the founders asked us to carry.
MISDADEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTINGVERWOESTING VAN GAZA
MISDADEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTINGVERWOESTING VAN GAZA
BEZETTINGSTERREUR foto Oda Hulsen Hebron 2 mei 2017/Verwijst naar foto van een Palestijnse jongen, die tegen de muur wordt gezet doorIsraelische soldaten, die hem toeriepen ”Where is your knife!”/Later vrijgelaten
NB Het is dus NIET de foto van een Palestijnse jongen, die bij de kraag wordt gegrepen
Foto van Oda Hulsen valt soms weg
BITTEREBIJPRODUCTEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING:
NEDERZETTINGEN, BITTEREBIJPRODUCTEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING
Ongerijmd, bovenstaande passage uit de prachtige klassieker Alice in Wonderland? [1]
Nog ongerijmder, maar vooral ook schaamteloos, is uw
gecontinueerde verkoop van producten uit Israel!
Reeds vaker [de laatste keer heel recentelijk, 23 februari jongstleden [2]
heb ik u aangesproken op het misdadige karakter van de verkoop van producten uit de bezettings en apartheidsstaat Israel [3]
Zie noot 4!
Ook heb ik beloofd, u te blijven bestoken, zolang u Israelische
producten verkoopt!
Ik citeer uit een eerdere mail aan uw adres:
”En ik blijf u bestoken, zolang het nodig is.
En het is nodig, zolang u in uw filial[en] Israelische producten
verkoopt!
STOP ER DUS MEE!” [5]
WAT IS ER NU WEER AAN DE HAND?
Het is weer raak hoor, deze aanbiedingsweek
Gisteren, dinsdag 7 maart, de VOMAR bezoekende, zag ik in het Folderboekje
een aantrekkelijke aanbieding van avocado’s:
Een heel net avocado’s voor 1,99! [6]
Ik dacht dus:
PAK ZE, DIE AVOCADO’S!
Maar ja hoor:
Al lezende zag ik, dat ook deze avocado’s uit Israel
kwamen!
Ik besloot direct, u via deze mail opnieuw te grazen te nemen, maar heb al direct een Spoor in de winkel achtergelaten.
”HIER KLEEFT BLOED AAN!” heb ik op een van de etiketten van
uw Israelproduct geschreven en hoezeer ik gelijk heb, zal-ten overvloede-
uit de volgende felle Tirade aan uw adres blijken!
BEZETTINGSSTAAT EN APARTHEIDSSTAAT:
We gaan maar weer eens los!’
U zult weten, hoort dat althans te weten, dat de Staat Israel reeds 55 jaar de Palestijnse gebieden de Westelijke Jordaanoever, Gaza [7] en Oost-Jeruzalem bezet houdt.
En alsof dat al niet erg genoeg is, heeft die bezetting [zoals alle vreemde bezettingen, overal ter wereld] veroorzaakt onderdrukking, vernederingen,[oorlogs] misdaden.
Ik kan en wil die hier niet allemaal opsommen [trouwens, die lijst is onuitputtelijk], maar ernstige voorbeelden zijn Israelische luchtaanvallen op Gaza uit 2021 [niet zo lang geleden dus], waarbij
in de periode tussen 10 en 21 mei 260 mensen zijn omgekomen,
onder wie tenminste 129 burgers [waaronder 66 kinderen] [8]
Mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch wees in het
byzonder op een specifieke Israelische luchtaanval op vier dichtbevolkte
gebouwentorens, waarin zich huizen, zaken en persagentschappen
bevonden.
Weliswaar leidde het niet tot dodelijke slachtoffers, maar drie Torens
werden met de grond gelijkgemaakt, velen werden dakloos en
verloren hun baan [9], in een gebied, wat door de wurgende
Blokkade van Gaza al economisch kapot gemaakt is [10]
NEDERZETTINGEN, IN STRIJD MET HET INTERNATIONAAL RECHT!
Dan heb ik het nog niet eens gehad over de in bezet Palestijns gebied
gestichte nederzettingen, waarvan de uitbreiding maar doorgaat en doorgaat [11].
Welnu, die nederzettingen zijn, zoals ik u al in een eerdere brief heb
meegedeeld [12], [dus kom me niet aan met het smoesje, dat
u daarvan niet op de hoogte was], illegaal volgens het Internationaal Recht
[13] EN regelrechte landdiefstal, omdat zij dus worden gebouwd op gestolen Palestijns land!
Zie ook noot 14, rapportage van de Israelische mensenrechtenorganisatie
B’tselem.
Daarnaast is er vaak sprake van gewelddadig optreden van de
kolonisten [nederzettingenbewoners] tegen de bezette Palestijnse
bevolking en toont Btselem aan, dat dit geweld vaak wordt
ondersteund en gesupported door de Israelische Staat/leger. [15]
FASCISTISCHE REGERING!
En alsof dat allemaal nog niet genoeg is, is er in het huidige Israel
een fascistische regering aan de macht!
En over de Life and Times van deze fascistische Israelische regering
kunt u alles lezen onder noot 16, behelzende een kritisch
commentaar, dat ik eerder naar de NOS toestuurde.
EPILOOG
Ik heb u in het verleden reeds eerder aangeschreven over uw verkoop
van Israelische producten!
Zie noot 17
En ik blijf u bestoken, zolang het nodig is.
En het is nodig, zolang u in uw filial[en] Israelische producten
verkoopt!
STOP ER DUS MEE!
NU!
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
NOTEN
Voor uw gemak heb ik de noten in links ondergebracht
MISDADEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTINGVERWOESTING VAN GAZA
MISDADEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTINGVERWOESTING VAN GAZA
BEZETTINGSTERREUR foto Oda Hulsen Hebron 2 mei 2017/Verwijst naar foto van een Palestijnse jongen, die tegen de muur wordt gezet doorIsraelische soldaten, die hem toeriepen ”Where is your knife!”/Later vrijgelaten
NB Het is dus NIET de foto van een Palestijnse jongen, die bij de kraag wordt gegrepen
Foto van Oda Hulsen valt soms weg
BITTEREBIJPRODUCTEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING:
NEDERZETTINGEN, BITTEREBIJPRODUCTEN VAN DE ISRAELISCHE BEZETTING
Ongerijmd, bovenstaande passage uit de prachtige klassieker Alice in Wonderland? [1]
Nog ongerijmder, maar vooral ook schaamteloos, is uw
gecontinueerde verkoop van producten uit Israel!
Reeds vaker [de laatste keer heel recentelijk, 23 februari jongstleden [2]
heb ik u aangesproken op het misdadige karakter van de verkoop van producten uit de bezettings en apartheidsstaat Israel [3]
Zie noot 4!
Ook heb ik beloofd, u te blijven bestoken, zolang u Israelische
producten verkoopt!
Ik citeer uit een eerdere mail aan uw adres:
”En ik blijf u bestoken, zolang het nodig is.
En het is nodig, zolang u in uw filial[en] Israelische producten
verkoopt!
STOP ER DUS MEE!” [5]
WAT IS ER NU WEER AAN DE HAND?
Het is weer raak hoor, deze aanbiedingsweek
Gisteren, dinsdag 7 maart, de VOMAR bezoekende, zag ik in het Folderboekje
een aantrekkelijke aanbieding van avocado’s:
Een heel net avocado’s voor 1,99! [6]
Ik dacht dus:
PAK ZE, DIE AVOCADO’S!
Maar ja hoor:
Al lezende zag ik, dat ook deze avocado’s uit Israel
kwamen!
Ik besloot direct, u via deze mail opnieuw te grazen te nemen, maar heb al direct een Spoor in de winkel achtergelaten.
”HIER KLEEFT BLOED AAN!” heb ik op een van de etiketten van
uw Israelproduct geschreven en hoezeer ik gelijk heb, zal-ten overvloede-
uit de volgende felle Tirade aan uw adres blijken!
BEZETTINGSSTAAT EN APARTHEIDSSTAAT:
We gaan maar weer eens los!’
U zult weten, hoort dat althans te weten, dat de Staat Israel reeds 55 jaar de Palestijnse gebieden de Westelijke Jordaanoever, Gaza [7] en Oost-Jeruzalem bezet houdt.
En alsof dat al niet erg genoeg is, heeft die bezetting [zoals alle vreemde bezettingen, overal ter wereld] veroorzaakt onderdrukking, vernederingen,[oorlogs] misdaden.
Ik kan en wil die hier niet allemaal opsommen [trouwens, die lijst is onuitputtelijk], maar ernstige voorbeelden zijn Israelische luchtaanvallen op Gaza uit 2021 [niet zo lang geleden dus], waarbij
in de periode tussen 10 en 21 mei 260 mensen zijn omgekomen,
onder wie tenminste 129 burgers [waaronder 66 kinderen] [8]
Mensenrechtenorganisatie Human Rights Watch wees in het
byzonder op een specifieke Israelische luchtaanval op vier dichtbevolkte
gebouwentorens, waarin zich huizen, zaken en persagentschappen
bevonden.
Weliswaar leidde het niet tot dodelijke slachtoffers, maar drie Torens
werden met de grond gelijkgemaakt, velen werden dakloos en
verloren hun baan [9], in een gebied, wat door de wurgende
Blokkade van Gaza al economisch kapot gemaakt is [10]
NEDERZETTINGEN, IN STRIJD MET HET INTERNATIONAAL RECHT!
Dan heb ik het nog niet eens gehad over de in bezet Palestijns gebied
gestichte nederzettingen, waarvan de uitbreiding maar doorgaat en doorgaat [11].
Welnu, die nederzettingen zijn, zoals ik u al in een eerdere brief heb
meegedeeld [12], [dus kom me niet aan met het smoesje, dat
u daarvan niet op de hoogte was], illegaal volgens het Internationaal Recht
[13] EN regelrechte landdiefstal, omdat zij dus worden gebouwd op gestolen Palestijns land!
Zie ook noot 14, rapportage van de Israelische mensenrechtenorganisatie
B’tselem.
Daarnaast is er vaak sprake van gewelddadig optreden van de
kolonisten [nederzettingenbewoners] tegen de bezette Palestijnse
bevolking en toont Btselem aan, dat dit geweld vaak wordt
ondersteund en gesupported door de Israelische Staat/leger. [15]
FASCISTISCHE REGERING!
En alsof dat allemaal nog niet genoeg is, is er in het huidige Israel
een fascistische regering aan de macht!
En over de Life and Times van deze fascistische Israelische regering
kunt u alles lezen onder noot 16, behelzende een kritisch
commentaar, dat ik eerder naar de NOS toestuurde.
EPILOOG
Ik heb u in het verleden reeds eerder aangeschreven over uw verkoop
van Israelische producten!
Zie noot 17
En ik blijf u bestoken, zolang het nodig is.
En het is nodig, zolang u in uw filial[en] Israelische producten
verkoopt!
STOP ER DUS MEE!
NU!
Vriendelijke groeten
Astrid Essed
Amsterdam
NOTEN
Voor uw gemak heb ik de noten in links ondergebracht
Israeli authorities must be held accountable for committing the crime of apartheid against Palestinians, Amnesty International said today in a damning new report. The investigation details how Israel enforces a system of oppression and domination against the Palestinian people wherever it has control over their rights. This includes Palestinians living in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories (OPT), as well as displaced refugees in other countries.
The comprehensive report, Israel’s Apartheid against Palestinians: Cruel System of Domination and Crime against Humanity, sets out how massive seizures of Palestinian land and property, unlawful killings, forcible transfer, drastic movement restrictions, and the denial of nationality and citizenship to Palestinians are all components of a system which amounts to apartheid under international law. This system is maintained by violations which Amnesty International found to constitute apartheid as a crime against humanity, as defined in the Rome Statute and Apartheid Convention.
Amnesty International is calling on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to consider the crime of apartheid in its current investigation in the OPT and calls on all states to exercise universal jurisdiction to bring perpetrators of apartheid crimes to justice.
“There is no possible justification for a system built around the institutionalized and prolonged racist oppression of millions of people. Apartheid has no place in our world, and states which choose to make allowances for Israel will find themselves on the wrong side of history. Governments who continue to supply Israel with arms and shield it from accountability at the UN are supporting a system of apartheid, undermining the international legal order, and exacerbating the suffering of the Palestinian people. The international community must face up to the reality of Israel’s apartheid, and pursue the many avenues to justice which remain shamefully unexplored.”
Amnesty International’s findings build on a growing body of work by Palestinian, Israeli and international NGOs, who have increasingly applied the apartheid framework to the situation in Israel and/or the OPT.
Identifying apartheid
A system of apartheid is an institutionalized regime of oppression and domination by one racial group over another. It is a serious human rights violation which is prohibited in public international law. Amnesty International’s extensive research and legal analysis, carried out in consultation with external experts, demonstrates that Israel enforces such a system against Palestinians through laws, policies and practices which ensure their prolonged and cruel discriminatory treatment.
In international criminal law, specific unlawful acts which are committed within a system of oppression and domination, with the intention of maintaining it, constitute the crime against humanity of apartheid. These acts are set out in the Apartheid Convention and the Rome Statute, and include unlawful killing, torture, forcible transfer, and the denial of basic rights and freedoms.
Amnesty International documented acts proscribed in the Apartheid Convention and Rome Statute in all the areas Israel controls, although they occur more frequently and violently in the OPT than in Israel. Israeli authorities enact multiple measures to deliberately deny Palestinians their basic rights and freedoms, including draconian movement restrictions in the OPT, chronic discriminatory underinvestment in Palestinian communities in Israel, and the denial of refugees’ right to return. The report also documents forcible transfer, administrative detention, torture, and unlawful killings, in both Israel and the OPT.
Amnesty International found that these acts form part of a systematic and widespread attack directed against the Palestinian population, and are committed with the intent to maintain the system of oppression and domination. They therefore constitute the crime against humanity of apartheid.
The unlawful killing of Palestinian protesters is perhaps the clearest illustration of how Israeli authorities use proscribed acts to maintain the status quo. In 2018, Palestinians in Gaza began to hold weekly protests along the border with Israel, calling for the right of return for refugees and an end to the blockade. Before protests even began, senior Israeli officials warned that Palestinians approaching the wall would be shot. By the end of 2019, Israeli forces had killed 214 civilians, including 46 children.
In light of the systematic unlawful killings of Palestinians documented in its report, Amnesty International is also calling for the UN Security Council to impose a comprehensive arms embargo on Israel. This should cover all weapons and munitions as well as law enforcement equipment, given the thousands of Palestinian civilians who have been unlawfully killed by Israeli forces. The Security Council should also impose targeted sanctions, such as asset freezes, against Israeli officials most implicated in the crime of apartheid.
Palestinians treated as a demographic threat
Since its establishment in 1948, Israel has pursued a policy of establishing and then maintaining a Jewish demographic majority, and maximizing control over land and resources to benefit Jewish Israelis. In 1967, Israel extended this policy to the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Today, all territories controlled by Israel continue to be administered with the purpose of benefiting Jewish Israelis to the detriment of Palestinians, while Palestinian refugees continue to be excluded.
Amnesty International recognizes that Jews, like Palestinians, claim a right to self-determination, and does not challenge Israel’s desire to be a home for Jews. Similarly, it does not consider that Israel labelling itself a “Jewish state” in itself indicates an intention to oppress and dominate.
However, Amnesty International’s report shows that successive Israeli governments have considered Palestinians a demographic threat, and imposed measures to control and decrease their presence and access to land in Israel and the OPT. These demographic aims are well illustrated by official plans to “Judaize” areas of Israel and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, which continue to put thousands of Palestinians at risk of forcible transfer.
Oppression without borders
The 1947-49 and 1967 wars, Israel’s ongoing military rule of the OPT, and the creation of separate legal and administrative regimes within the territory, have separated Palestinian communities and segregated them from Jewish Israelis. Palestinians have been fragmented geographically and politically, and experience different levels of discrimination depending on their status and where they live.
Palestinian citizens in Israel currently enjoy greater rights and freedoms than their counterparts in the OPT, while the experience of Palestinians in Gaza is very different to that of those living in the West Bank. Nonetheless, Amnesty International’s research shows that all Palestinians are subject to the same overarching system. Israel’s treatment of Palestinians across all areas is pursuant to the same objective: to privilege Jewish Israelis in distribution of land and resources, and to minimize the Palestinian presence and access to land.
Amnesty International demonstrates that Israeli authorities treat Palestinians as an inferior racial group who are defined by their non-Jewish, Arab status. This racial discrimination is cemented in laws which affect Palestinians across Israel and the OPT.
For example, Palestinian citizens of Israel are denied a nationality, establishing a legal differentiation from Jewish Israelis. In the West Bank and Gaza, where Israel has controlled the population registry since 1967, Palestinians have no citizenship and most are considered stateless, requiring ID cards from the Israeli military to live and work in the territories.
Palestinian refugees and their descendants, who were displaced in the 1947-49 and 1967 conflicts, continue to be denied the right to return to their former places of residence. Israel’s exclusion of refugees is a flagrant violation of international law which has left millions in a perpetual limbo of forced displacement.
Palestinians in annexed East Jerusalem are granted permanent residence instead of citizenship – though this status is permanent in name only. Since 1967, more than 14,000 Palestinians have had their residency revoked at the discretion of the Ministry of the Interior, resulting in their forcible transfer outside the city.
Lesser citizens
Palestinian citizens of Israel, who comprise about 19% of the population, face many forms of institutionalized discrimination. In 2018, discrimination against Palestinians was crystallized in a constitutional law which, for the first time, enshrined Israel exclusively as the “nation state of the Jewish people”. The law also promotes the building of Jewish settlements and downgrades Arabic’s status as an official language.
The report documents how Palestinians are effectively blocked from leasing on 80% of Israel’s state land, as a result of racist land seizures and a web of discriminatory laws on land allocation, planning and zoning.
The situation in the Negev/Naqab region of southern Israel is a prime example of how Israel’s planning and building policies intentionally exclude Palestinians. Since 1948 Israeli authorities have adopted various policies to “Judaize” the Negev/Naqab, including designating large areas as nature reserves or military firing zones, and setting targets for increasing the Jewish population. This has had devastating consequences for the tens of thousands of Palestinian Bedouins who live in the region.
Thirty-five Bedouin villages, home to about 68,000 people, are currently “unrecognized” by Israel, which means they are cut off from the national electricity and water supply and targeted for repeated demolitions. As the villages have no official status, their residents also face restrictions on political participation and are excluded from the healthcare and education systems. These conditions have coerced many into leaving their homes and villages, in what amounts to forcible transfer.
Decades of deliberately unequal treatment of Palestinian citizens of Israel have left them consistently economically disadvantaged in comparison to Jewish Israelis. This is exacerbated by blatantly discriminatory allocation of state resources: a recent example is the government’s Covid-19 recovery package, of which just 1.7% was given to Palestinian local authorities.
Dispossession
The dispossession and displacement of Palestinians from their homes is a crucial pillar of Israel’s apartheid system. Since its establishment the Israeli state has enforced massive and cruel land seizures against Palestinians, and continues to implement myriad laws and policies to force Palestinians into small enclaves. Since 1948, Israel has demolished hundreds of thousands of Palestinian homes and other properties across all areas under its jurisdiction and effective control.
As in the Negev/Naqab, Palestinians in East Jerusalem and Area C of the OPT live under full Israeli control. The authorities deny building permits to Palestinians in these areas, forcing them to build illegal structures which are demolished again and again.
In the OPT, the continued expansion of illegal Israeli settlements exacerbates the situation. The construction of these settlements in the OPT has been a government policy since 1967. Settlements today cover 10% of the land in the West Bank, and some 38% of Palestinian land in East Jerusalem was expropriated between 1967 and 2017.
Palestinian neighbourhoods in East Jerusalem are frequently targeted by settler organizations which, with the full backing of the Israeli government, work to displace Palestinian families and hand their homes to settlers. One such neighbourhood, Sheikh Jarrah, has been the site of frequent protests since May 2021 as families battle to keep their homes under the threat of a settler lawsuit.
Draconian movement restrictions
Since the mid-1990s Israeli authorities have imposed increasingly stringent movement restrictions on Palestinians in the OPT. A web of military checkpoints, roadblocks, fences and other structures controls the movement of Palestinians within the OPT, and restricts their travel into Israel or abroad.
A 700km fence, which Israel is still extending, has isolated Palestinian communities inside “military zones”, and they must obtain multiple special permits any time they enter or leave their homes. In Gaza, more than 2 million Palestinians live under an Israeli blockade which has created a humanitarian crisis. It is near-impossible for Gazans to travel abroad or into the rest of the OPT, and they are effectively segregated from the rest of the world.
“The permit system in the OPT is emblematic of Israel’s brazen discrimination against Palestinians. While Palestinians are locked in a blockade, stuck for hours at checkpoints, or waiting for yet another permit to come through, Israeli citizens and settlers can move around as they please.”
Amnesty International examined each of the security justifications which Israel cites as the basis for its treatment of Palestinians. The report shows that, while some of Israel’s policies may have been designed to fulfil legitimate security objectives, they have been implemented in a grossly disproportionate and discriminatory way which fails to comply with international law. Other policies have absolutely no reasonable basis in security, and are clearly shaped by the intent to oppress and dominate.
The way forward
Amnesty International provides numerous specific recommendations for how the Israeli authorities can dismantle the apartheid system and the discrimination, segregation and oppression which sustain it.
The organization is calling for an end to the brutal practice of home demolitions and forced evictions as a first step. Israel must grant equal rights to all Palestinians in Israel and the OPT, in line with principles of international human rights and humanitarian law. It must recognize the right of Palestinian refugees and their descendants to return to homes where they or their families once lived, and provide victims of human rights violations and crimes against humanity with full reparations.
The scale and seriousness of the violations documented in Amnesty International’s report call for a drastic change in the international community’s approach to the human rights crisis in Israel and the OPT.
All states may exercise universal jurisdiction over persons reasonably suspected of committing the crime of apartheid under international law, and states that are party to the Apartheid Convention have an obligation to do so.
“Israel must dismantle the apartheid system and start treating Palestinians as human beings with equal rights and dignity. Until it does, peace and security will remain a distant prospect for Israelis and Palestinians alike.”
In April, Human Rights Watch released a 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed,” finding that Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. We reached this determination based on our documentation of an overarching government policy to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians coupled with grave abuses committed against Palestinians living in the occupied territory, including East Jerusalem
In the months since, a growing chorus of voices, from former Israeli ambassadors to South Africa and current Knesset members to the ex-UN Secretary General and the French foreign minister, have referenced apartheid in relation to Israel’s discriminatory treatment of Palestinians, in particular in the occupied territory. Yet many in Germany, including those critical of Israeli human rights abuses, remain hesitant to apply the label to Israeli conduct.
Given history, one can certainly understand Germany’s concern for the welfare of the Jewish people, but that should not carry over to an endorsement of abusive and discriminatory Israeli government conduct, especially in the occupied territory. As recognition grows that these crimes are being committed, the failure to recognize that reality requires burying your head deeper and deeper into the sand.
The problem begins with the Israeli government having exercised primary control for more than a half-century over the land between the Mediterranean Sea and Jordan River, encompassing Israel and the occupied territory, where two main groups of people of roughly equal size live. Throughout this area, Israeli authorities methodologically privilege one of the groups, Jewish Israelis, who are governed under the same body of laws with the same rights and privileges wherever they live. At the same time, authorities allocate different baskets of inferior rights to the other, Palestinians, systematically discriminating against them wherever they live and most severely in the occupied territory.
Our sense that our research was not capturing this underlying reality led us to write this report. Reporting on “separate, not equal” schools for Palestinians inside Israel, Palestinians being forced out of their homes in occupied East Jerusalem, the serious rights abuses stemming from the Israeli settlement enterprise in the West Bank, and the crushing closure of the Gaza Strip, we felt that our work captured important dynamics, including entrenched discrimination, in particular areas, but did not capture the full scope of Israel’s discriminatory rule over Palestinians.
We set out in the report to evaluate Israel’s treatment of Palestinians across Israel and the occupied territory. As we do in the nearly 100 countries across the world we work in, we began by documenting the facts—drawing on years of our own research, case studies that compared Palestinian areas with predominantly or exclusively Jewish ones, and a review of government planning documents, statements by officials, and a range of other materials.
Across Israel and the occupied territory, Human Rights Watch found that Israeli authorities have pursued an intent to privilege Jewish Israelis at the expense of Palestinians. They have done so by undertaking policies aimed at mitigating what they openly describe as the “demographic threat” Palestinians pose and maximizing the land available for Jewish communities, while concentrating most Palestinian in dense enclaves. The policy takes different forms and is pursued in a particularly severe form in the occupied territory. It includes efforts to, as leading Israelis officials have put it, “Judaize” the Negev and Galilee regions of Israel and to maintain “a solid Jewish majority,” as described in government planning documents, in the Jerusalem municipality, which includes the eastern part of Jerusalem, which Israel unilaterally annexed and occupies. It also encompasses efforts to “settle [Jews in] the land between the [Palestinian] minority population centers and their surroundings” in the West Bank, as set out in plans that have guided the government’s settlement, and to pursue “separation” between the West Bank and Gaza. The policy across the board serves the same fundamental goal: maximum land, minimum Palestinians.
Furthermore, we found that Israeli authorities have carried out the grave abuses needed for the crimes of apartheid and persecution against Palestinians living in the occupied territory. It has done so through, among other policies, sweeping restrictions on movement in the form of the 14-year generalized closure of Gaza and the discriminatory permit system in the West Bank; the confiscation of more than a third of the land in the West Bank; and denial of residency rights to hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and their relatives. Israel has imposed draconian military rule over millions of Palestinians, suspending their basic civil rights, while Jewish Israelis living in the same territory are governed under the permissive Israeli civil law; and imposed harsh conditions in parts of the West Bank that led to forcing thousands of Palestinians out of their homes.
We then evaluated these facts against the relevant areas of international law—in this case, the established law on discrimination—which includes a universal prohibition against apartheid. While the term was coined in relation to specific practices in South Africa, international treaties define apartheid as a universal legal term referring to a particularly severe form of discriminatory oppression.
International criminal law, including the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid and the 1998 Rome Statute to the International Criminal Court, define apartheid as a crime against humanity consisting of three primary elements: (1) an intent by one racial group to dominate another; (2) systematic oppression by the dominant group over the marginalized group; and (3) particularly grave abuses known as inhumane acts.
Racial group is understood today also to encompass treatment on the basis of descent and national or ethnic origin. International criminal law also identifies a related crime against humanity of persecution. Under the Rome Statute and customary international law, persecution consists of severe deprivation of fundamental rights of a racial, ethnic, or other group with discriminatory intent.
The ratification by the State of Palestine of these two treaties in recent years has strengthened the legal application of these two crimes in its territory. A ruling by a chamber of the International Criminal Court (ICC) earlier this year confirmed that it has jurisdiction over war crimes and crimes against humanity – including apartheid and persecution – committed in the Occupied Palestinian Territory since 2014.
Applying the facts to the laws, Human Rights Watch concluded that Israeli authorities are committing the crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution. We found that the elements of the crimes come together in the occupied territory as part of a single Israeli government policy. That policy is to maintain the domination by Jewish Israelis over Palestinians across Israel and the occupied territory. It is coupled in the occupied territory with systematic oppression and inhumane acts against Palestinians living there.
Sometimes the most important thing someone who cares deeply about you can do is to share hard truths and push you to confront them. The late Israeli Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and leaders of Israel’s closest ally, the US, including former President Jimmy Carter and former Secretary of State John Kerry, warned of the prospect of apartheid if things did not change.
Today, apartheid is not a hypothetical or future scenario. A 54-year-occupation is not temporary. The threshold has been crossed. Apartheid, and parallel persecution, is the reality for millions of Palestinians. Recognizing and correctly diagnosing a problem is the first step to solving it and ending apartheid is vital to the future of both Palestinians and Israelis and the cause of peace. It is by extension Germany’s special relationship with Israel and history that should prompt them to recognize the reality of apartheid and persecution and bring to bear the sorts of tools needed to end these crimes against humanity.
”The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.
Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.”
Israeli Government Still Holds Responsibility for Welfare of Civilians
The Israeli government’s plan to remove troops and Jewish settlements from the Gaza Strip would not end Israel’s occupation of the territory. As an occupying power, Israel will retain responsibility for the welfare of Gaza’s civilian population.
Under the “disengagement” plan endorsed Tuesday by the Knesset, Israeli forces will keep control over Gaza’s borders, coastline and airspace, and will reserve the right to launch incursions at will. Israel will continue to wield overwhelming power over the territory’s economy and its access to trade.
“The removal of settlers and most military forces will not end Israel’s control over Gaza,” said Sarah Leah Whitson, Executive Director of Human Rights Watch’s Middle East and North Africa Division. “Israel plans to reconfigure its occupation of the territory, but it will remain an occupying power with responsibility for the welfare of the civilian population.”
Under the plan, Israel is scheduled to remove settlers and military bases protecting the settlers from the Gaza Strip and four isolated West Bank Jewish settlements by the end of 2005. The Israeli military will remain deployed on Gaza’s southern border, and will reposition its forces to other areas just outside the territory.
In addition to controlling the borders, coastline and airspace, Israel will continue to control Gaza’s telecommunications, water, electricity and sewage networks, as well as the flow of people and goods into and out of the territory. Gaza will also continue to use Israeli currency.
A World Bank study on the economic effects of the plan determined that “disengagement” would ease restrictions on mobility inside Gaza. But the study also warned that the removal of troops and settlers would have little positive effect unless accompanied by an opening of Gaza’s borders. If the borders are sealed to labor and trade, the plan “would create worse hardship than is seen today.”
The plan also explicitly envisions continued home demolitions by the Israeli military to expand the “buffer zone” along the Gaza-Egypt border. According to a report released last week by Human Rights Watch, the Israeli military has illegally razed nearly 1,600 homes since 2000 to create this buffer zone, displacing some 16,000 Palestinians. Israeli officials have called for the buffer zone to be doubled, which would result in the destruction of one-third of the Rafah refugee camp.
In addition, the plan states that disengagement “will serve to dispel the claims regarding Israel’s responsibility for the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.” A report by legal experts from the Israeli Justice Ministry, Foreign Ministry and the military made public on Sunday, however, reportedly acknowledges that disengagement “does not necessarily exempt Israel from responsibility in the evacuated territories.”
If Israel removes its troops from Gaza, the Palestinian National Authority will maintain responsibility for security within the territory—to the extent that Israel allows Palestinian police the authority and capacity. Palestinian security forces will still have a duty to protect civilians within Gaza and to prevent indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians.
“Under international law, the test for determining whether an occupation exists is effective control by a hostile army, not the positioning of troops,” Whitson said. “Whether the Israeli army is inside Gaza or redeployed around its periphery and restricting entrance and exit, it remains in control.”
Under international law, the duties of an occupying power are detailed in the Fourth Geneva Convention and The Hague Regulations. According to The Hague Regulations, a “territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised.”
The “disengagement plan,” as adopted by the Israeli Cabinet on June 6, 2004, and endorsed by the Knesset on October 26, is available at:
Israel’s Obligations to Gaza under International Law
Israeli authorities claim “broad powers and discretion to decide who may enter its territory” and that “a foreigner has no legal right to enter the State’s sovereign territory, including for the purposes of transit into the [West Bank] or aboard.” While international human rights law gives wide latitude to governments with regard to entry of foreigners, Israel has heightened obligations toward Gaza residents. Because of the continuing controls Israel exercises over the lives and welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, Israel remains an occupying power under international humanitarian law, despite withdrawing its military forces and settlements from the territory in 2005”
(Gaza) – Israel’s sweeping restrictions on leaving Gaza deprive its more than two million residents of opportunities to better their lives, Human Rights Watch said today on the fifteenth anniversary of the 2007 closure. The closure has devastated the economy in Gaza, contributed to fragmentation of the Palestinian people, and forms part of Israeli authorities’ crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution against millions of Palestinians.
Israel’s closure policy blocks most Gaza residents from going to the West Bank, preventing professionals, artists, athletes, students, and others from pursuing opportunities within Palestine and from traveling abroad via Israel, restricting their rights to work and an education. Restrictive Egyptian policies at its Rafah crossing with Gaza, including unnecessary delays and mistreatment of travelers, have exacerbated the closure’s harm to human rights.
“Israel, with Egypt’s help, has turned Gaza into an open-air prison,” said Omar Shakir, Israel and Palestine director at Human Rights Watch. “As many people around the world are once again traveling two years after the start of the Covid-19 pandemic, Gaza’s more than two million Palestinians remain under what amounts to a 15-year-old lockdown.”
Israel should end its generalized ban on travel for Gaza residents and permit free movement of people to and from Gaza, subject to, at most, individual screening and physical searches for security purposes.
Between February 2021 and March 2022, Human Rights Watch interviewed 20 Palestinians who sought to travel out of Gaza via either the Israeli-run Erez crossing or the Egyptian-administered Rafah crossing. Human Rights Watch wrote to Israeli and Egyptian authorities to solicit their perspectives on its findings, and separately to seek information about an Egyptian travel company that operates at the Rafah crossing but had received no responses at this writing.
Since 2007, Israeli authorities have, with narrow exceptions, banned Palestinians from leaving through Erez, the passenger crossing from Gaza into Israel, through which they can reach the West Bank and travel abroad via Jordan. Israel also prevents Palestinian authorities from operating an airport or seaport in Gaza. Israeli authorities also sharply restrict the entry and exit of goods.
They often justify the closure, which came after Hamas seized political control over Gaza from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority in June 2007, on security grounds. Israeli authorities have said they want to minimize travel between Gaza and the West Bank to prevent the export of “a human terrorist network” from Gaza to the West Bank, which has a porous border with Israel and where hundreds of thousands of Israeli settlers live.
This policy has reduced travel to a fraction of what it was two decades ago, Human Rights Watch said. Israeli authorities have instituted a formal “policy of separation” between Gaza and the West Bank, despite international consensus that these two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory form a “single territorial unit.” Israel accepted that principle in the 1995 Oslo Accords, signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Israeli authorities restrict all travel between Gaza and the West Bank, even when the travel takes place via the circuitous route through Egypt and Jordan rather than through Israeli territory.
Due to these policies, Palestinian professionals, students, artists, and athletes living in Gaza have missed vital opportunities for advancement not available in Gaza. Human Rights Watch interviewed seven people who said that Israeli authorities did not respond to their requests for travel through Erez, and three others who said Israel rejected their permits, apparently for not fitting within Israeli’s narrow criteria.
Walaa Sada, 31, a filmmaker, said that she applied for permits to take part in film training in the West Bank in 2014 and 2018, after spending years convincing her family to allow her to travel alone, but Israeli authorities never responded to her applications. The hands-on nature of the training, requiring filming live scenes and working in studios, made remote participation impracticable and Sada ended up missing the sessions.
The “world narrowed” when she received these rejections, Sada said, making her feel “stuck in a small box.… For us in Gaza, the hands of the clock stopped. People all over the world can easily and quickly book flight and travel, while we … die waiting for our turn.”
The Egyptian authorities have exacerbated the closure’s impact by restricting movement out of Gaza and at times fully sealing its Rafah border crossing, Gaza’s only outlet aside from Erez to the outside world. Since May 2018, Egyptian authorities have been keeping Rafah open more regularly, making it, amid the sweeping Israeli restrictions, the primary outlet to the outside world for Gaza residents.
Palestinians, however, still face onerous obstacles traveling through Egypt, including having to wait weeks for permission to travel, unless they are willing to pay hundreds of dollars to travel companies with significant ties to Egyptian authorities to expedite their travel, denials of entry, and abuse by Egyptian authorities.
Sada said also received an opportunity to participate in a workshop on screenwriting in Tunisia in 2019, but that she could not afford the US$2000 it would cost her to pay for the service that would ensure that she could travel on time. Her turn to travel came up six weeks later, after the workshop had already been held.
As an occupying power that maintains significant control over many aspects of life in Gaza, Israel has obligations under international humanitarian law to ensure the welfare of the population there. Palestinians also have the right under international human rights law to freedom of movement, in particular within the occupied territory, a right that Israel can restrict under international law only in response to specific security threats.
Israel’s policy, though, presumptively denies free movement to people in Gaza, with narrow exceptions, irrespective of any individualized assessment of the security risk a person may pose. These restrictions on the right to freedom of movement do not meet the requirement of being strictly necessary and proportionate to achieve a lawful objective. Israel has had years and many opportunities to develop more narrowly tailored responses to security threats that minimize restrictions on rights.
Egypt’s legal obligations toward Gaza residents are more limited, as it is not an occupying power. However, as a state party to the Fourth Geneva Convention, it should ensure respect for the convention “in all circumstances,” including protections for civilians living under military occupation who are unable to travel due to unlawful restrictions imposed by the occupying power. The Egyptian authorities should also consider the impact of their border closure on the rights of Palestinians living in Gaza who are unable to travel in and out of Gaza through another route, including the right to leave a country.
Egyptian authorities should lift unreasonable obstacles that restrict Palestinians’ rights and allow transit via its territory, subject to security considerations, and ensure that their decisions are transparent and not arbitrary and take into consideration the human rights of those affected.
“The Gaza closure blocks talented, professional people, with much to give their society, from pursuing opportunities that people elsewhere take for granted,” Shakir said. “Barring Palestinians in Gaza from moving freely within their homeland stunts lives and underscores the cruel reality of apartheid and persecution for millions of Palestinians.”
Israel’s Obligations to Gaza under International Law
Israeli authorities claim “broad powers and discretion to decide who may enter its territory” and that “a foreigner has no legal right to enter the State’s sovereign territory, including for the purposes of transit into the [West Bank] or aboard.” While international human rights law gives wide latitude to governments with regard to entry of foreigners, Israel has heightened obligations toward Gaza residents. Because of the continuing controls Israel exercises over the lives and welfare of Gaza’s inhabitants, Israel remains an occupying power under international humanitarian law, despite withdrawing its military forces and settlements from the territory in 2005. Both the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross, the guardians of international humanitarian law, have reached this determination. As the occupying power, Israel remains bound to provide residents of Gaza the rights and protections afforded to them by the law of occupation. Israeli authorities continue to control Gaza’s territorial waters and airspace, and the movement of people and goods, except at Gaza’s border with Egypt. Israel also controls the Palestinian population registry and the infrastructure upon which Gaza relies.
Israel has an obligation to respect the human rights of Palestinians living in Gaza, including their right to freedom of movement throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory and abroad, which affects both the right to leave a country and the right to enter their own country. Israel is also obligated to respect Palestinians’ rights for which freedom of movement is a precondition, for example the rights to education, work, and health. The UNHuman Rights Committee has said that while states can restrict freedom of movement for security reasons or to protect public health, public order, and the rights of others, any such restrictions must be proportional and “the restrictions must not impair the essence of the right; the relation between the right and restriction, between norm and exception, must not be reversed.”
While the law of occupation permits occupying powers to impose security restrictions on civilians, it also requires them to restore public life for the occupied population. That obligation increases in a prolonged occupation, in which the occupier has more time and opportunity to develop more narrowly tailored responses to security threats that minimize restrictions on rights. In addition, the needs of the occupied population increase over time. Suspending virtually all freedom of movement for a short period interrupts temporarily normal public life, but long-term, indefinite suspension in Gaza has had a much more debilitating impact, fragmentating populations, fraying familial and social ties, compoundingdiscrimination against women, and blocking people from pursuing opportunities to improve their lives.
The impact is particularly damaging given the denial of freedom of movement to people who are confined to a sliver of the occupied territory, unable to interact in person with the majority of the occupied population that lives in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, and its rich assortment of educational, cultural, religious, and commercial institutions.
After 55 years of occupation and 15 years of closure in Gaza with no end in sight, Israel should fully respect the human rights of Palestinians, using as a benchmark the rights it grants Israeli citizens. Israel should abandon an approach that bars movement absent exceptional individual humanitarian circumstances it defines, in favor of an approach that permits free movement absent exceptional individual security circumstances.
Israel’s Closure
Most Palestinians who grew up in Gaza under this closure have never left the 40-by-11 kilometer (25-by-7 mile) Gaza Strip. For the last 25 years, Israel has increasingly restricted the movement of Gaza residents. Since June 2007, when Hamas seized control over Gaza from the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority (PA), Gaza has been mostly closed.
Israeli authorities justify this closure on security grounds, in light of “Hamas’ rise to power in the Gaza Strip,” as they lay out in a December 2019 court filing. Authorities highlight in particular the risk that Hamas and armed Palestinian groups will recruit or coerce Gaza residents who have permits to travel via Erez “for the commission of terrorist acts and the transfer of operatives, knowledge, intelligence, funds or equipment for terrorist activists.” Their policy, though, amounts to a blanket denial with rare exceptions, rather than a generalized respect for the right of Palestinians to freedom of movement, to be denied only on the basis of individualized security reasons.
The Israeli army has since 2007 limited travel through the Erez crossing except in what it deems “exceptional humanitarian circumstances,” mainly encompassing those needing vital medical treatment outside Gaza and their companions, although the authorities also make exceptions for hundreds of businesspeople and laborers and some others. Israel has restricted movement even for those seeking to travel under these narrowexceptions, affecting their rights to health and life, among others, as Human Rights Watch and other groups have documented. Most Gaza residents do not fit within these exemptions to travel through Erez, even if it is to reach the West Bank.
Between January 2015 and December 2019, before the onset of Covid-19 restrictions, an average of about 373 Palestinians left Gaza via Erez each day, less than 1.5 percent of the daily average of 26,000 in September 2000, before the closure, according to the Israeli rights group Gisha. Israeli authorities tightened the closure further during the Covid-19 pandemic – between March 2020 and December 2021, an average of about 143 Palestinians left Gaza via Erez each day, according to Gisha.
Israeli authorities announced in March 2022 that they would authorize 20,000 permits for Palestinians in Gaza to work in Israel in construction and agriculture, though Gisha reports that the actual number of valid permits in this category stood at 9,424, as of May 22.
Israeli authorities have also for more than two decades sharply restricted the use by Palestinians of Gaza’s airspace and territorial waters. They blocked the reopening of the airport that Israeli forces made inoperable in January 2002, and prevented the Palestinian authorities from building a seaport, leaving Palestinians dependent on leaving Gaza by land to travel abroad. The few Palestinians permitted to cross at Erez are generally barred from traveling abroad via Israel’s international airport and must instead travel abroad via Jordan. Palestinians wishing to leave Gaza via Erez, either to the West Bank or abroad, submit requests through the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee in Gaza, which forwards applications to Israeli authorities who decide on whether to grant a permit.
Separation Between Gaza and the West Bank
As part of the closure, Israeli authorities have sought to “differentiate” between their policy approaches to Gaza and the West Bank, such as imposing more sweeping restrictions on the movement of people and goods from Gaza to the West Bank, and promote separation between these two parts of the Occupied Palestinian Territory. The army’s “Procedure for Settlement in the Gaza Strip by Residents of Judea and Samaria,” published in 2018, states that “in 2006, a decision was made to introduce a policy of separation between the Judea and Samaria Area [the West Bank] and the Gaza Strip in light of Hamas’ rise to power in the Gaza Strip. The policy currently in effect is explicitly aimed at reducing travel between the areas.”
In each of the 11 cases Human Rights Watch reviewed of people seeking to reach the West Bank, including East Jerusalem, for professional and educational opportunities not available in Gaza, Israeli authorities did not respond to requests for permits or denied them, either for security reasons or because they did not conform to the closure policy. Human Rights Watch also reviewed permit applications on the website of the Palestinian Civil Affairs Committee, or screenshots of it, including the status of the permit applications, when they were sent on to the Israeli authorities and the response received, if any.
Raed Issa, a 42-year-old artist, said that the Israeli authorities did not respond to his application for a permit in early December 2015, to attend an exhibit of his art at a Ramallah art gallery between December 27 and January 16, 2016.
The “Beyond the Dream” exhibit sought to highlight the situation in Gaza after the 2014 war. Issa said that the Palestinian Civil Affairs committee continued to identify the status of his application as “sent and waiting for response” and he ended up having to attend the opening of the exhibit virtually. Issa felt that not being physically present hampered his ability to engage with audiences, and to network and promote his work, which he believes limited his reach and hurt sales of his artwork. He described feeling pained “that I am doing my own art exhibit in my homeland and not able to attend it, not able to move freely.”
Ashraf Sahweel, 47, chairman of the Board of Directors of the Gaza Center for Art and Culture, said that Gaza-based artists routinely do not hear back after applying for Israeli permits, forcing them to miss opportunities to attend exhibitions and other cultural events. A painter himself, he applied for seven permits between 2013 and 2022, but Israeli authorities either did not respond or denied each application, he said. Sahweel said that he has “given up hope on the possibility to travel via Erez.”
Palestinian athletes in Gaza face similar restrictions when seeking to compete with their counterparts in the West Bank, even though the Israeli army guidelines specifically identify “entry of sportspeople” as among the permissible exemptions to the closure. The guidelines, updated in February 2022, set out that “all Gaza Strip residents who are members of the national and local sports teams may enter Israel in transit to the Judea and Samaria area [West Bank] or abroad for official activities of the teams.”
Hilal al-Ghawash, 25, told Human Rights Watch that his football team, Khadamat Rafah, had a match in July 2019 with a rival West Bank team, the Balata Youth Center, in the finals of Palestine Club, with the winner entitled to represent Palestine in the Asian Cup. The Palestinian Football Federation applied for permits for the entire 22-person team and 13-person staff, but Israeli authorities, without explanation, granted permits to only 4 people, only one of whom was a player. The game was postponed as a result.
After Gisha appealed the decision in the Jerusalem District Court, Israeli authorities granted 11 people permits, including six players, saying the other 24 were denied on security grounds that were not specified. Al-Ghawash was among the players who did not receive a permit. The Jerusalem district court upheld the denials. With Khadamat Rafah prevented from reaching the West Bank, the Palestine Football Federation canceled the Palestine Cup finals match.
Al-Ghawash said that West Bank matches hold particular importance for Gaza football players, since they offer the opportunity to showcase their talents for West Bank clubs, which are widely considered superior to those in Gaza and pay better. Despite the cancellation, al-Ghawash said, the Balata Youth Center later that year offered him a contract to play for them. The Palestinian Football Federation again applied for a permit on al-Ghawash’s behalf, but he said he did not receive a response and was unable to join the team.
In 2021, al-Ghawash signed a contract with a different West Bank team, the Hilal al-Quds club. The Palestinian Football Federation again applied, but this time, the Israeli army denied the permit on unspecified security grounds. Al-Ghawash said he does not belong to any armed group or political movement and has no idea on what basis Israeli authorities denied him a permit.
Missing these opportunities has forced al-Ghawash to forgo not only higher pay, but also the chance to play for more competitive West Bank teams, which could have brought him closer to his goal of joining the Palestinian national team. “There’s a future in the West Bank, but, here in Gaza, there’s only a death sentence,” he said. “The closure devastates players’ future. Gaza is full of talented people, but it’s so difficult to leave.”
Palestinian students and professionals are frequently unable to obtain permits to study or train in the West Bank. In 2016, Augusta Victoria Hospital in East Jerusalem agreed to have 10 physics students from Al-Azhar University in Gaza come to the hospital for a six-month training program. Israeli authorities denied five students permits without providing a rationale, two of the students said.
The five other students initially received permits valid for only 14 days, and then encountered difficulties receiving subsequent permits. None were able to complete the full program, the two students said. One, Mahmoud Dabour, 28, said that when he applied for a second permit, he received no response. Two months later, he applied again and managed to get a permit valid for one week. He received one other permit, valid for 10 days, but then, when he returned and applied for the fifth time, Israeli authorities rejected his permit request without providing a reason. As a result, he could not finish the training program, and, without the certification participants receive upon completion, he said, he cannot apply for jobs or attend conferences or workshops abroad in the field.
Dabour said that the training cannot be offered in Gaza, since the necessary radiation material required expires too quickly for it to be functional after passing through the time-consuming Israeli inspections of materials entering the Gaza Strip. There are no functioning devices of the kind that students need for the training in Gaza, Dabour said.
One of the students whose permit was denied said, “I feel I studied for five years for nothing, that my life has stopped.” The student asked that his name be withheld for his security.
Two employees of Zimam, a Ramallah-based organization focused on youth empowerment and conflict resolution, said that the Israeli authorities repeatedly denied them permits to attend organizational training and strategy meetings. Atta al-Masri, the 31-year-old Gaza regional director, said he has applied four times for permits, but never received one. Israeli authorities did not respond the first three times and, the last time in 2021, denied him a permit on the grounds that it was “not in conformity” with the permissible exemptions to the closure. He has worked for Zimam since 2009, but only met his colleagues in person for the first time in Egypt in March 2022.
Ahed Abdullah, 29, Zimam’s youth programs coordinator in Gaza, said she applied twice for permits in 2021, but Israeli authorities denied both applications on grounds of “nonconformity:”
This is supposed to be my right. My simplest right. Why did they reject me? My colleagues who are outside Palestine managed to make it, while I am inside Palestine, I wasn’t able to go to the other part of Palestine … it’s only 2-3 hours from Gaza to Ramallah, why should I get the training online? Why am I deprived of being with my colleagues and doing activities with them instead of doing them in dull breakout rooms on Zoom?
Human Rights Watch has previously documented that the closure has prevented specialists in the use of assistive devices for people with disabilities from opportunities for hands-on training on the latest methods of evaluation, device maintenance, and rehabilitation. Human Rights Watch also documented restrictions on the movement of human rights workers. Gisha, the Israeli human rights group, has reported that Israel has blocked health workers in Gaza from attending training in the West Bank on how to operate new equipment and hampered the work of civil society organizations operating in Gaza.
Israeli authorities have also made it effectively impossible for Palestinians from Gaza to relocate to the West Bank. Because of Israeli restrictions, thousands of Gaza residents who arrived on temporary permits and now live in the West Bank are unable to gain legal residency. Although Israel claims that these restrictions are related to maintaining security, evidence Human Rights Watch collected suggests the main motivation is to control Palestinian demography across the West Bank, whose land Israel seeks to retain, in contrast to the Gaza Strip.
Egypt
With most Gaza residents unable to travel via Erez, the Egyptian-administered Rafah crossing has become Gaza’s primary outlet to the outside world, particularly in recent years. Egyptian authorities kept Rafah mostly closed for nearly five years following the July 2013 military coup in Egypt that toppled President Mohamed Morsy, whom the military accused of receiving support from Hamas. Egypt, though, eased restrictions in May 2018, amid the Great March of Return, the recurring Palestinian protests at the time near the fences separating Gaza and Israel.
Despite keeping Rafah open more regularly since May 2018, movement via Rafah is a fraction of what it was before the 2013 coup in Egypt. Whereas an average of 40,000 crossed monthly in both directions before the coup, the monthly average was 12,172 in 2019 and 15,077 in 2021, according to Gisha.
Human Rights Watch spoke with 16 Gaza residents who sought to travel via Rafah. Almost all said they opted for this route because of the near impossibility of receiving an Israeli permit to travel via Erez.
Gaza residents hoping to leave via Rafah are required to register in advance via a process the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has deemed “confusing” and “obscure.” Gaza residents can either register via the formal registration process administered by Gaza’s Interior Ministry or informally via what is known as tanseeq,or travel coordination with Egyptian authorities, paying travel companies or mediators for a place on a separate list coordinated by Egyptian authorities. Having two distinct lists of permitted travelers coordinated by different authorities has fueled “allegations of the payment of bribes in Gaza and in Egypt to ensure travel and a faster response,” according to OCHA.
The formal process often takes two to three months, except for those traveling for medical reasons, whose requests are processed faster, said Gaza residents who sought to leave Gaza via Rafah. Egyptian authorities have at times rejected those seeking to cross Rafah into Egypt on the grounds that they did not meet specific criteria for travel. The criteria lack transparency, but Gisha reported that they include having a referral for a medical appointment in Egypt or valid documents to enter a third country.
To avoid the wait and risk of denial, many choose instead the tanseeqroute. Several interviewees said that they paid large sums of money to Palestinian brokers or Gaza-based travel companies that work directly with Egyptian authorities to expedite people’s movement via Rafah. On social media, some of these companies advertise that they can assure travel within days to those who provide payment and a copy of their passport. The cost of tanseeq has fluctuated from several hundred US dollars to several thousand dollars over the last decade, based in part on how frequently Rafah is open.
In recent years, travel companies have offered an additional “VIP” tanseeq, which expedites travel without delays in transit between Rafah and Cairo, offers flexibility on travel date, and ensures better treatment by authorities. The cost was $700, as of January 2022.
The Cairo-based company offering the VIP tanseeq services, Hala Consulting and Tourism Services, has strong links with Egypt’s security establishment and is staffed largely by former Egyptian military officers, a human rights activist and a journalist who have investigated these issues told Human Rights Watch. This allows the company to reduce processing times and delays at checkpoints during the journey between Rafah and Cairo. The activist and journalist both asked that their names be withheld for security reasons.
The company is linked to prominent Egyptian businessman Ibrahim El-Argani, who has close ties with Egypt’s president, Abdel-Fattah al-Sisi. Ergany heads the Union of Sinai Tribes, which works hand-in-hand with the Egyptian military and intelligence agencies against militants operating in North Sinai. Ergany, one of Egypt’s few businessmen able to export products to Gaza from Egypt, owns the Sinai Sons company, which has an exclusive contract to handle all contracts related to Gaza reconstruction efforts. Human Rights Watch wrote to El-Argani to solicit his perspectives on these issues, but had received no response at this writing.
A 34-year-old computer engineer and entrepreneur said that he sought to travel in 2019 to Saudi Arabia to meet an investor to discuss a potential project to sell car parts online. He chose not to apply to travel via Erez, as he had applied for permits eight times between 2016 and 2018 and had either been rejected or not heard back.
He initially registered via the formal Ministry of Interior process and received approval to travel after three months. However, on the day assigned for his exit via Rafah, an Egyptian officer there said he found his reason for travel not sufficiently “convincing” and denied him passage. A few months later, he tried to travel again for the same purpose, this time opting for tanseeq and paying $400, and, this time, he successfully reached Saudi Arabia within a week of seeking to travel.
He said that he would like to go on vacation with his wife, but worries that Egyptian authorities will not consider vacation a sufficiently compelling reason for travel and that his only option will be to pay hundreds or thousands of dollars to do tanseeq.
A 73-year-old man sought to travel via Rafah in February 2021, with his 46-year-old daughter, to get knee replacement surgery in al-Sheikh Zayed hospital in Cairo. He said Gaza lacks the capacity to provide such an operation. The man and his daughter are relatives of a Human Rights Watch staff member. They applied via the Interior Ministry process and received approval in a little over a week.
After they waited for several hours in the Egyptian hall in Rafah on the day of travel, though, Egyptian authorities included the daughter’s name among the 70 names of people who were not allowed to cross that day, the daughter said. The father showed the border officials a doctor’s note indicating that he needed someone to travel with him given his medical situation, but the officer told him, “You either travel alone or go back with her to Gaza.” She said she returned to Gaza, alongside 70 other people, and her father later traveled on his own.
Five people who did manage to travel via Rafah said that they experienced poor conditions and poor treatment, including intrusive searches, by the Egyptian authorities, with several saying that they felt Egyptian authorities treated them like “criminals.” Several people said that Egyptian officers confiscated items from them during the journey, including an expensive camera and a mobile phone, without apparent reason.
Upon leaving Rafah, Palestinians are transported by bus to Cairo’s airport. The trip takes about seven hours, but several people said that the journey took up to three days between long periods of waiting on the bus, at checkpoints and amid other delays, often in extreme weather. Many of those who traveled via Rafah said that, during this journey, Egyptian authorities prevented passengers from using their phones.
The parents of a 7-year-old boy with autism and a rare brain disease said they sought to travel for medical treatment for him in August 2021, but Egyptian authorities only allowed the boy and his mother to enter. The mother said their journey back to Gaza took four days, mostly as a result of Rafah being closed. During this time, she said, they spent hours waiting at checkpoints, in extreme heat, with her son crying nonstop. She said she felt “humiliated” and treated like “an animal,” observing that she “would rather die than travel again through Rafah.”
A 33-year-old filmmaker, who traveled via Rafah to Morocco in late 2019 to attend a film screening, said the return from Cairo to Rafah took three days, much of it spent at checkpoints amid the cold winter in the Sinai desert.
A 34-year-old man said that he planned to travel in August 2019 via Rafah to the United Arab Emirates for a job interview as an Arabic teacher. He said, on his travel date, Egyptian authorities turned him back, saying they had met their quota of travelers. He crossed the next day, but said that, as it was a Thursday and with Rafah closed on Friday, Egyptian authorities made travelers spend two nights sleeping at Rafah, without providing food or access to a clean bathroom.
The journey to Cairo airport then took two days, during which he described going through checkpoints where officers made passengers “put their hands behind their backs while they searched their suitcases.” As a result of these delays totaling four days since his assigned travel date, he missed his job interview and found out that someone else was hired. He is currently unemployed in Gaza.
Given the uncertainty of crossing at Rafah, Gaza residents said that they often wait to book their flight out of Cairo until they arrive. Booking so late often means, beyond other obstacles, having to wait until they can find a reasonably priced and suitable flight, planning extra days for travel and spending extra money on changeable or last-minute tickets. Similar dynamics prevail with regard to travel abroad via Erez to Amman.
Human Rights Watch interviewed four men under the age of 40 with visas to third countries, whom Egyptian authorities allowed entry only for the purpose of transit. The authorities transported these men to Cairo airport and made them wait in what is referred to as the “deportation room” until their flight time. The men likened the room to a “prison cell,” with limited facilities and unsanitary conditions. All described a system in which bribes are required to be able to leave the room to book a plane ticket, get food, drinks, or a cigarette, and avoid abuse. One of the men described an officer taking him outside the room, asking him, “Won’t you give anything to Egypt?” and said that others in the room told him that he then proceeded to do the same with them
The Israeli military’s airstrikes that destroyed four high-rise buildings in Gaza City during the May 2021 fighting apparently violated the laws of war and may amount to war crimes, Human Rights Watch said today. The attacks also damaged neighboring structures, made several dozen families homeless, and shuttered scores of businesses that provided livelihoods to many people.
Between May 11 and 15, Israeli forces attacked the Hanadi, al-Jawhara, al-Shorouk, and al-Jalaa towers in the densely populated al-Rimal neighborhood. In each case, the Israeli military warned tenants of impending attacks, allowing for their evacuation. Three buildings were immediately leveled while the fourth, al-Jawhara, sustained extensive damage and is slated to be demolished. Israeli authorities contend that Palestinian armed groups were using the towers for military purposes, but have provided no evidence to support those allegations.
“The apparently unlawful Israeli strikes on four high-rise towers in Gaza City caused serious, lasting harm for countless Palestinians who lived, worked, shopped, or benefitted from businesses based there,” said Richard Weir, crisis and conflict researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The Israeli military should publicly produce the evidence that it says it relied on to carry out these attacks.”
The Israeli military stated that during the hostilities with Palestinian armed groups in Gaza from May 10 to 21, its forces attacked about 1,500 targets with air- and ground-launched munitions. The United Nations reported that Israeli attacks killed 260 people in Gaza, at least 129 of them civilians, including 66 children. Local authorities in Gaza said that 2,400 housing units were made uninhabitable, while over 50,000 units were damaged, and over 2,000 industrial, trade, and service facilities were destroyed or partially damaged.
Palestinian armed groups launched over 4,360 rockets indiscriminately toward Israel, resulting in the deaths of 12 civilians in Israel, including 2 children, and a soldier, according to Israeli authorities. Human Rights Watch separately reported on Israeli airstrikes that killed scores of Palestinian civilians and Palestinian armed group rocket attacks in violation of the laws of war.
Between May and August, Human Rights Watch interviewed by phone 18 Palestinians who were witnesses and victims of the attacks on the towers, including residents, business owners, and employees, as well as those in affected neighboring structures. Human Rights Watch also reviewed video footage and photographs taken after the attacks, and statements by Israeli and Palestinian officials and Palestinian armed groups.
The towers contained scores of businesses, offices of news agencies, and many homes. Jawad Mahdi, 68, an owner of al-Jalaa tower who lived there with dozens of family members, said, “All these years of hard work, it was a place of living, safety, children and grandchildren, all our history and life, destroyed in front of your eyes … It’s like someone ripping your heart out and throwing it.”
The long-term effects of the attacks extend beyond the immediate destruction of the buildings, Human Rights Watch said. Many jobs were lost with the closure of their companies and many families were displaced.
Mohammed Qadada, 31, the head of a digital marketing company located in Hanadi tower, said that the 30 employees affected include people who “have families of their own, who were just entering into marriage, who support their older parents, who have sick members of the family who need financial support.” He said they “won’t find work again because the equipment that they had allowed them to do rendering, designing, producing, [has] all been destroyed. So how can they do the work?”
Israel has asserted that the high-rise buildings housed offices of Palestinian armed groups, including the headquarters of certain units, military intelligence, and in one tower, offices for “the most valuable Hamas technological equipment” for use against Israel. Any information to support these claims has not been made public.
Human Rights Watch found no evidence that members of Palestinian groups involved in military operations had a current or long-term presence in any of the towers at the time they were attacked. Even if there were such a presence, the attacks appeared to cause foreseeably disproportionate harm to civilian property.
Under international humanitarian law, or the laws of war, warring parties may target only military objectives. In doing so, they must take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians, and unless circumstances do not permit, provide effective advance warnings of attacks. Deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects are prohibited, including reprisals against civilians. The laws of war also prohibit indiscriminate attacks, which include attacks that do not target a specific military objective or do not distinguish between civilians and military targets. Attacks in which the expected harm to civilians and civilian property is disproportionate to the anticipated military gain are also prohibited.
Personnel or equipment being used in military operations are subject to attack, but whether that justifies destroying an entire large building where they might be present depends on the attack not inflicting disproportionate harm on civilians or civilian property. The proportionality of the attack is even more questionable because Israeli forces have previously demonstrated the capacity to strike specific floors or parts of structures. However, these attacks completely flattened three of the buildings, evidently by attacking their structural integrity. Regarding al-Jalaa tower, the Israeli military said that because armed groups had occupied multiple floors, the entire tower needed to be destroyed.
The deployment of Palestinian armed groups in the towers, if true, would go against requirements to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians under their control and to avoid placing military objectives in densely populated areas. Israel has repeatedly accused Palestinian armed groups of deploying among civilians and – without providing evidence, using them as “human shields” – the war crime of intentionally co-locating military forces with civilians to deter targeting those forces.
Individuals who order or commit serious violations of the laws of war with criminal intent – that is, deliberately or recklessly – are responsible for war crimes. A country responsible for laws-of-war violations is obligated to make full reparation for the loss or injury caused, including compensation for individuals harmed.
The 14-year Israeli closure of Gaza, along with Egyptian border restrictions, has devastated the economy in Gaza. Restrictions on the entry of goods broadly deemed to be “dual-use,” for example, have sharply reduced the population’s access to construction material and certain medical equipment. Unless lifted or substantially eased, the sweeping restrictions on the movement of people and goods will hamper reconstruction efforts.
On May 27, the UN Human Rights Council established a Commission of Inquiry to address violations and abuses in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and Israel, including by advancing accountability for those responsible and justice for victims. The commission should examine unlawful attacks committed by Israeli forces and Palestinian armed groups during the May fighting. It should also analyze the larger context, including the Israeli government’s discriminatory treatment of Palestinians.
“Throughout the May hostilities, unlawful Israeli strikes not only killed many civilians, but also destroyed high-rise towers, wiping out scores of businesses and homes, upending the lives of thousands of Palestinians,” Weir said. “Donor funding alone will not rebuild Gaza. The crushing closure of the Gaza Strip needs to end, along with the impunity that fuels ongoing serious abuses.”
May Hostilities
The May 2021 fighting followed efforts by Jewish settler groups to evict and confiscate the property of longtime Palestinian residents in East Jerusalem. Palestinians held demonstrations around East Jerusalem, and Israeli security forces fired teargas, stun grenades, and rubber-coated steel bullets, injuring hundreds of Palestinians.
On May 10, Palestinian armed groups in Gaza started to launch rockets toward Israeli population centers. The Israeli military attacked the densely populated Gaza Strip with missiles, rockets, and artillery. Many of the attacks by the Israeli military and Palestinian armed groups used explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas. A ceasefire went into effect on May 21.
The May hostilities, like those in 2008, 2012, 2014, 2018, and 2019, among others, took place amid Israel’s sweeping closure of the Gaza Strip, which began in 2007. They also took place in a context of discriminatory efforts to remove Palestinians from their homes in occupied East Jerusalem, policies and practices among the Israeli government’s crimes against humanity of apartheid and persecution, as Human Rights Watch has documented.
Human Rights Watch on May 30 requested permits for senior researchers to enter Gaza to conduct research on the fighting, but Israeli authorities on July 26 rejected the request. Israeli authorities have since 2008 refused access to Human Rights Watch international staff to enter Gaza, except for a single visit in 2016.
On July 13, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) Spokesperson responded to a June 4 Human Rights Watch letter asking detailed questions about the attacks, saying that the Israeli military “strikes military targets exclusively, following an assessment that the potential collateral damage resulting from the attack is not excessive in relation to the expected military advantage.” The military added that it was making inquiries and investigating “various incidents” in order “to assess whether the obligatory rules had been breached and to draw conclusions.”
Attacks on High-Rise Buildings
The strikes on the four towers that Human Rights Watch investigated were just a small fraction of the Israeli military’s attacks in Gaza during the May fighting.
In each instance, the Israeli military warned residents of the impending attack by calling a building manager, security guard, or tenant, waited for individuals to evacuate, then launched smaller munitions that were either non-explosive or had small explosive yields – which the Israeli military calls “a knock on the roof” – and then carried out airstrikes. Three of the four buildings were immediately leveled. Although no deaths or injuries of fighters or civilians were reported, the attacks destroyed civilian property worth millions of US dollars.
Human Rights Watch research into the attacks on the four towers found no evidence that members of Palestinian groups involved in military operations were in the buildings or had a long-term presence. One businessman said that Hamas had offices in Hanadi tower, but he could not identify who the tenants were or what they did, or that they had any links to Hamas’s armed wing. Under the laws of war, civilian officials not involved in military operations are not subject to attack. Media offices are civilian objects unless they are taking a direct part in the hostilities by communicating military information.
The destruction of businesses and residences in the towers may have long-term implications for the enjoyment of basic rights of those affected, including access to an adequate standard of living, such as water, food, and housing, and loss of livelihoods. The displacement of families can impair their physical security, access to health care, and family life. The destruction of a dozen offices of media outlets undermines the collection and dissemination of information in Gaza.
The size of the blast following the munitions impact and subsequent detonation, as captured in videos either distributed by the Israeli military or circulated online and reviewed by Human Rights Watch, appear consistent with the use of munitions with large high-explosive warheads. These explosive weapons produced wide-area effects, resulting in the complete destruction or serious damage to each of the towers and damage to surrounding areas, including to homes, businesses, and infrastructure.
The Hanadi Tower
At about 6 p.m. on May 11, the Israeli military called the security guard at Hanadi tower to notify him that the 13-story tower would be attacked and that occupants should evacuate, said Maher Awad Kamal Safadi, 36, a local resident and business owner. Israeli forces then struck the building and area around it with multiple small munitions, according to Safadi and a video posted online prior to the attack. Then, at around 7:30 p.m., at least one munition hit the side of the building at its base. Seconds later, at least one more munition struck the opposite side at its base and the building quickly collapsed, causing damage to surrounding businesses and homes.
The attack caused no casualties, but its owner, Ahmed Abu Jaber, said that the building and contents destroyed were worth millions of dollars. Damage to a nearby hotel caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in loss.
Following the attack, the Israeli military released multiplestatements, images, and a video of the strike. The statements acknowledged the attack and said that Hamas used the building for “military research and development” and that it housed “Hamas military intelligence offices.” One statement posted on the Israeli military’s website said the building housed “multiple military units used by Hamas” and included a “headquarters” for research and development, military intelligence, and “more,” but did not further clarify.
The mediareported that the building housed offices of the political leadership of Hamas. A journalist familiar with the tower, who did not wish to be identified, said: “There are political meeting offices for Hamas parliament members and spokespersons in the tower.” While one business owner in the tower said there were Hamas offices in the tower, he was unaware of their purpose.
Hamas, the de facto authority in Gaza, is a group that includes both a political party and an armed wing. Mere membership or affiliation with Hamas is not a sufficient basis for determining someone to be a lawful military target. The laws of war allow the targeting of military commanders in the course of armed conflict, provided that such attacks otherwise comply with the laws that protect civilians. Political leaders not taking part in military operations, as well as civilians, would not be legitimate targets of attack.
Three of the tower’s business owners described the effects of the attack. Nihad Abdellatif Taha, 45, a computer engineer, said damages to his programming and digital marketing company, Portals, headquartered in the tower, were about US$30,000:
I had 36 employees and we were renting two apartments – 360 square meters with furniture, offices, meeting rooms, surveillance cameras – all of this is gone, in addition to very important documents, all the company’s papers are gone, including stamps and the employees’ contracts – all gone.
Mohammed Qadada, 31, founder and chief executive officer of Planet for Digital Solutions, said that when it moved into the tower in 2017, he invested about $40,000 in renovations, furniture, and new equipment, including workstations, laptops, and printers. All of it was destroyed: “It was May 22 when I went to the tower for the first time [since its destruction]. Everything was gone, I saw rubble, I saw remnants of an office, I saw people’s stuff strewn around, I saw people’s memories, I saw everything fallen.”
As of late May, the company’s 30 employees had all been unemployed since the attack.
Maher Awad Kamal Safadi, 36, who owned Friends Gym on the ground floor of Hanadi tower, said that months earlier he had invested over $10,000 in new exercise equipment. “I had a sauna, jacuzzi, Moroccan bath, a fitness room and a weight room, bathrooms, and a full restaurant with fridges and a gas stove” – all of which were destroyed. He said the attack cost the gym’s six employees their jobs and that he would need $150,000 to replace the equipment.
The buildings immediately adjacent to Hanadi tower, particularly to the north, suffered serious damage. Satellite imagery recorded on May 14 shows damage to the southern and western facades of the Handouqa apartment building and the Gaza International Hotel, both a few meters north of Hanadi tower. Imagespublished on May 12 show serious damage to the facades of the two buildings.
Imad Handouqa, 54, the owner of the Handouqa apartment, which had 10 floors and 25 residential apartments, said it was no longer habitable. He said that part of Hanadi tower fell on the building, damaging its foundations and causing some apartment ceilings to come down on the rooms. He said the total value of the structure was about $1.3 million.
The owner of the Gaza International Hotel, Abu Ahmed Jaber, in a video posted on the hotel’s Facebook page, said the damage to the hotel amounts to nearly half a million dollars.
The attack also damaged critical electrical delivery lines for Gaza City and the area immediately around the tower, Gaza’s electricity company said.
al-Jawhara Tower
On the evening of May 11, the Israeli military called residents living next to the tower to inform the tenants of the 11-story Jawhara tower that the primarily commercial building would be targeted and to evacuate. At approximately 10 p.m., Israeli aircraft launched small munitions, striking the roof and the ground near the tower. At around 2 a.m. on May 12, larger air-dropped munitions struck the building, severely damaging it.
Mohammad Atta Hassan Jaarour, 71, a founder and co-owner who lived on the building’s seventh floor, said the damage, including to the foundational pillars, left the building structurally unsound. “The whole building is destroyed,” he said. “It’s still standing, but it’s a skeleton, all the ground floors and the two underground floors all exploded.”
Residents and tenants said the strike caused extensive damage to their apartments, businesses, equipment, and the surrounding neighborhood. One said that the strikes were so intense that “most of the surrounding buildings – the fronts of the buildings and the glass – were destroyed.”
Following the attack, the Israeli military issued a statement saying that the building housed a “headquarters belonging to the Hamas terror organization’s intelligence unit, Hamas Judea and Samaria [West Bank] Headquarters, Public Relations department and the Gaza Brigade.” The Israeli military also released a video of the attack showing at least two munitions striking the building within seconds of one another.
Six days later, the Israeli military released a statement and images, saying it attacked another building that it also said was the Hamas headquarters for the West Bank.
Ahmed Zaeem, a co-owner of al-Jawhara who lived in the building with his parents, wife, and four children and had been there for 17 years, said the tower contained 64 units on eight floors, two underground floors, and a floor dedicated to a shopping mall. “The 64 units include residences, law offices, media outlets, engineering firms, development agencies, [and information technology] companies,” Zaeem said. “There’s also a dentist. There were no less than 20 stores on the bottom three commercial floors.” Six of the 64 units were residential.
Zaeem said the overall economic loss was $5-7 million to rebuild the building, which did not include the losses in the commercial units and the residential apartments. He said he personally lost about $1.5 million in property he owned in the tower. Jaarour estimated that he lost $1.2 million. “If we had the money, I think we could rebuild it in four to five years,” Jaarour said, citing the Israeli closure and restrictions on the entry of building materials.
Both co-owners described the loss of businesses in which they had invested. Jaarour cited Magic Pizza, which he said had new appliances and furniture and employed about a dozen people: “We were so happy and had been waiting a long time to get it running. In one moment, all of these things turned into an illusion.”
Zaeem and his family ran several offices and stores in the tower, including the Elaine Center women’s clothing shop. He said his wife had invested $20,000 in equipment for a new photography studio, Studio Wateen Photographer, which had been set to open soon.
The building also contained SMT Solutions, an information technology company that provides internet to areas throughout Gaza. A post on the company’s Facebook page on May 13 said that the fiber optic networks, data center, and the company’s headquarters were destroyed in the attack and would take six months to repair.
The tower also housed the Young Journalists Radio Club, Gaza’s only radio broadcast for children. Ghassan Radwan, 51, owner of the radio club, said it had eight people working at the radio station and more than 20 children who ran the programming and did the broadcasting. Everything in their office was destroyed and to rebuild the network would cost about $70,000, but that would require overcoming the restrictions on the entry of communications equipment due to the Israeli closure and Egyptian restrictions.
The official Palestinian news agency, Wafa, listed the offices of 11 media outlets in the building: London-based Qatari broadcaster Al-Araby TV; news website and newspaper Felestin;Iraqi broadcaster Al-Etejah TV; Al-Kofiya TV; Jordanian broadcaster Al-Mamlaka; Sabq24 News Agency; news website Al-Bawaba 24; the production company Watania News Agency; the local photo agency APA Images; Al-Nujaba TV; and the Syrian state-owned broadcaster Syria TV. However, Human Rights Watch was not able to independently verify whether Al-Nujaba TV, Syria TV, and APA Images were located in the tower.
The tower also contained the offices of the media rights group Forum of Palestinian Journalists, and the Palestinian Forum for Democratic Dialogue and Development.
When Zaeem visited his home in the tower after the attack, he found it destroyed: “The furniture was ripped, the curtains, things turned over – everything was broken. The bathroom doors were all broken, the tiles came off the floors, the roof on the apartments are weak and would leak if there’s any water.” In early June, Zaeem said he and his family were living with a friend while looking for somewhere new to live.
al-Shorouk Tower
On the afternoon of May 12, the Israeli military phoned the 14-story Shorouk tower’s security guard, who then informed the tenants that the building would be attacked and that they needed to evacuate. Approximately 30 minutes after the phone warning, Israeli aircraft launched lower-yield explosive munitions against the structure. A few minutes later, Israeli aircraft struck the tower with multiple, large air-dropped munitions, critically damaging the structure, causing two parts of the building to collapse but leaving the center – and tallest part of the building – standing. About 10 minutes later, Israeli aircraft attacked the remaining part of structure, using two large, air-dropped munitions, causing the final element to collapse onto nearby shops and homes.
No one was killed or injured as a result, but the owners of the tower and businesses in the building, as well as adjacent buildings, described destruction and damage to scores of businesses and at least a half-dozen homes.
Following the attack, the Israeli military released a graphic of the building and a statement that said “[t]he building housed Hamas military intelligence offices, as well as infrastructure used by the terror organizations to communicate tactical-military information.”
Ahmed Masoud al-Mughanni, 60, chairman of the building’s board of directors, said that the building had 50 offices and a coffee shop – “doctors, lawyers, journalists’ offices” – and empty residential apartments. He estimated that the cost of rebuilding the tower would be between $2 and $3.5 million and take several years.
The attack destroyed the offices of several media outlets in the building: Al-Aqsa TV and Al-Aqsa Radio; the Palestine Media Production Company; Al-Quds Today; and a Palestinian Authority-affiliated newspaper, Al-Hayat al-Jadida.
The Palestine Media Production Company rented five apartments on floors 5, 9, and 13. Ismail Abdelghani Ismail Jabr, 27, whose father owns the company, said the company had been operating in the building since 1994 and employed 17 people at the time of the attack. Jabr and Mohammad al-Buhaisi, 30, a producer, said the company produces television and video reports, films, and stories for numerous foreign news outlets. Just prior to the attack, they managed to remove equipment from one of their two studios, but the remainder of their equipment was destroyed, along with eight years of archived material.
Witnesses to the attack said that when the tower came down, it damaged numerous shops and homes in the area, including the al-Sousi shopping complex, a nearby restaurant, and the Hassania building.
Ahmed Ayman Mohammad Omar al-Sousi, 27, who lived in the building next to al-Shorouk tower with his extended family of 42 in six separate apartments, said they owned and operated 10 ground-floor stores that sold accessories, clothing, and embroidery. He said that when the central part of al-Shorouk tower collapsed, it fell on their businesses and residences: “The amount of damage in the area from the tower falling is horrific. Flames lit up in the area – our building was on fire. The 10 stores and five storage rooms were all burned.”
Because it was Eid season, the stores and storage rooms were full of merchandise, all of which was destroyed, he said.
Al-Sousi said the fires caused by the explosions burned for three days and did the most damage. He estimated that the destruction of the store he owned with his father caused losses of about $120,000. All seven people employed at the shop, including several family members, lost their jobs. As of early June, he said the employees from the nine other stores were also out of work.
Along with the businesses, four of the six apartments where the al-Sousi family lived were also destroyed or seriously damaged either by the collapsing tower or the resulting fire. “The tower is now on our house – how are we going to lift it,” al-Sousi said. Al-Sousi’s extended family members all had to find new homes.
al-Jalaa Tower
On the afternoon of May 15, a man who identified himself as “Danny” from the Israeli military spoke in Arabic on the phone to the nephew of Jawad Mahdi, 68, the owner of the 14-story Jalaa tower. His voice was captured on a cell phone threatening a reprisal attack: “Because they [Palestinian armed groups] shot at Israel and they shot at Tel Aviv, we are now going to hit and strike the entire tower.” The phone was handed over to Madhi. “Danny” told Mahdi to inform the tenants that the building would be targeted and to evacuate all the floors.
Human Rights Watch sent questions to the Israeli military inquiring as to the authenticity of the recording and whether the statements made reflected Israeli military policy, but, as of the date of publication, have not received a response.
At about 3 p.m., Israeli aircraft fired small munitions at the building. Within minutes, Israeli aircraft attacked the tower using at least two air-dropped munitions near the base of the building on two sides and it immediately collapsed.
No one was killed or injured because everyone had evacuated, but residents and tenants say that in addition to the destruction of the building, they lost everything in their homes and businesses, including equipment and records. The building housed bureaus of Al Jazeera English and the Associated Press.
Following the attack, the Israeli military posted an image and video, and issued several statements that sought to justify it. Israeli military officials and politicians, including then-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, also issued statements or addressed the media on the subject. These statements changed over time, describing the threats posed by the alleged militant presence as increasingly serious.
On the day of the attack, the Israeli military stated that the building “contained military assets belonging to the intelligence offices of the Hamas terror organization.” Later that day, it said it “housed the Hamas Research and Development unit, which is responsible, among other things, for terror activity carried out against the State of Israel.” The same statement added that this unit included “subject matter experts (SMEs) which constitute a unique asset to the Hamas terrorist organization. These SMEs operate the most valuable Hamas technological equipment against Israel.” The then-military spokesperson, Lt. Col. Jonathan Conricus, toldReuters later that day that the offices occupied by Palestinian armed groups were located on multiple floors.
On May 16, the Israeli military’s official Twitter account stated in a post that the tower was an “important base of operations for Hamas’ military intel” and that, along with gathering intelligence, it “manufactured weapons and positioned equipment to hamper IDF operations.” In a second post, minutes later, it said that Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad removed equipment following the military’s warning to tenants and residents, though it did not specify which equipment.
On May 17, then-Prime Minister Netanyahu said on the US-television network CBS that the building had “an intelligence office for the Palestinian terrorist organization housed in that building that plots and organizes attacks against Israeli citizens.” An unnamed senior Israeli military official later told the New York Times in an article published on May 21 that the building contained electronic jamming equipment. Israel has provided no evidence to support any of these allegations.
Tenants, residents, and the owner of the building have rejected Israeli claims that armed groups had a presence in the building.
The Associated Press’s president and CEO, Gary Pruitt, said: “We have had no indication Hamas was in the building or active in the building. This is something we actively check to the best of our ability. We would never knowingly put our journalists at risk.”
Mahdi, who is also a resident, said that the building was worth about $5 million and that he estimated another $2 million in furniture and appliances were destroyed.
A list that Mahdi produced for receiving compensation from authorities in Gaza for damage to the tower shows over 50 individual businesses and offices on five floors and the two rooftops. Residences filled the other five floors, many of them inhabited by Mahdi’s relatives. He said that 30 families were living in the building at the time of the attack, a total of about 130 people. Mahdi said he and his extended family owned 10 units.
Fares al-Ghoul, 30, who works for al-Mayadeen Media Group, which had offices in al-Jalaa tower, said that he was in his office on the third floor with five colleagues when the superintendent told them to evacuate:
I didn’t know what to do. Imagine the situation, the superintendent comes to you crying, saying “Quick! Quick! Get out! They’re going to bomb the building.” So, the five others and I took the equipment we could and left behind equipment worth $200,000, because we just didn’t have enough time.
The equipment destroyed included a satellite transmitter, which he said costs around $120,000, and is extremely difficult to replace because of the Israeli closure of Gaza. Wael Dahdouh, 51, an Al Jazeera correspondent and the Gaza office head, said that he estimated their losses at about $1 million.
Ramy Haddad, 46, the head of the Central Blood Lab, part of the Palestine Future Foundation for Childhood, offers tests and regular follow-ups for patients of thalassemia, a rare blood disorder. The lab had several pieces of special equipment to run these tests, all of which were destroyed. Haddad estimated the losses at $70,000 and said it would be difficult to replace some of the specialized medical equipment due to Israel’s entry restrictions.
Several engineering and consulting firms also occupied offices in the building. Khaled Omar Abu Sultan, 58, director of Ro’yatak, an engineering consulting and management business housed in the tower since 2020, said the firm designed hospitals, schools, roads, and other infrastructure. At the time of the attack, he and his employees were at home and did not have time to retrieve anything from the office. He estimates the losses in office equipment at about $15,000: “The main loss is a large archive of projects – our plans, files, references and documents. We had printers and equipment for photographing maps.” Sultan said they had to stop work on all current projects until they can buy new equipment.
Khaled Majed Abu Rahma, 30, works with his father at Al-Burj for Engineering Consultations and Design, which has been in al-Jalaa tower for 15 years. He said the firm makes engineering plans and employs 10 engineers, including those with specialties in civil, architecture, mechanical, and electrical engineering. The firm helped to plan homes, villas, and multi-story buildings in Gaza. “We lost everything – the whole office, the furniture, the files,” he said. “We didn’t take anything.”
Rahma estimated that the apartment, which they owned, cost $72,000 and the equipment and furniture lost was a little over $19,000. All 10 engineers lost their jobs as a result of the attack.
The attack also damaged civilian structures around the building. Mahdi said: “The surrounding buildings and homes suffered a great deal of damage, some were destroyed … The Al-Mushtaha building near us suffered the most damage.” He said that the front of the adjacent building owned by the Anan family also suffered damage.
Al-Ghoul said that the buildings next to the tower, including the Watan tower and Anan building, and across the street were also damaged.
Dahdouh said that the whole block was evacuated, but when residents of other buildings tried to return, they found their homes damaged and could not go back right away.
The destruction of al-Jalaa tower left the 30 families who lived in it homeless and seeking shelter elsewhere. Mahdi said that “Our family got separated – each one of us went to a separate house. We found two homes to rent – we’re waiting for another five homes so we can all be together.”
Long-term, “Reverberating” Effects, and Gaza’s Closure
In addition to the damage and destruction to the towers and their offices and residences, the attacks can be expected to have various “reverberating” effects – harm to civilians and civilian objects caused by the attack that are not direct or immediate. These include displacement and a reduced standard of living and impaired access to shelter, health care, and basic services such as electricity, all of which affect the enjoyment of basic human rights.
In Gaza, these effects are exacerbated by the generalized closure that Israel has imposed on Gaza since 2007 – policies that Egypt, which borders Gaza to the south, does little to alleviate by maintaining its restrictions. The Israeli closure, along with Egyptian border restrictions, has devastated Gaza’s economy. Eighty percent of Gaza’s people rely on humanitarian aid and more than half live below the poverty line. In 2020, the unemployment rate was above 40 percent.
Israeli authorities justify the Gaza closure on security grounds. But the ban on the movement of more than two million people, with narrow exceptions, based on generalized threats, and the sweeping restrictions on the entry and exit of goods, violates Israel’s obligations under international human rights and humanitarian law to ensure that the needs of the population are met.
Israeli authorities, for example, severely restrict the entry of so-called “dual-use” items that could be used for military purposes, such as the construction of tunnels or fortifications. However, the “dual-use” list includes both overly broad categories and items that are vital to meet the needs of Gaza’s population, including “communications equipment,” “steel elements and construction products,” “drilling equipment,” and certain medical equipment .
These restrictionshave sharply reduced the population’s access to construction material and other goods vital to the rebuilding of Gaza and its infrastructure. The Israeli military argues that armed groups in Gaza use cement to build tunnels and estimate that constructing a kilometer of tunnel requires a few hundred tons of cement. But people in Gaza need over a million tons of cement annually to build and maintain homes, schools, health clinics, the water system, and other vital infrastructure.
The recent destruction and damage to tens of thousands of residential and commercial buildings and infrastructure caused by Israeli strikes increases the need for building materials to repair and rebuild these structures. The Israeli authorities should not restrict an overwhelmingly civilian good, badly needed for rebuilding, because armed groups may use a small fraction of it to build tunnels or for other military purposes.
The general inaccessibility of building materials means that any reconstruction efforts will require substantial time to complete. In interviews with investors and owners at three of the four towers, all said that because of Israel’s closure it would take years just to rebuild the structures. Several owners of businesses that rely on specialized equipment the entry of which is severely restricted, such as broadcasting equipment, expressed concern that rebuilding would be complicated and slow.
On August 13, the Israeli army announced that, in light of the stable security situation at the moment, it would expand the list of goods allowed to enter Gaza, including to allow in “goods and equipment for humanitarian projects.” Palestinian authorities said on August 17 that, according to information they received from Israeli authorities, “construction materials for the private sector and related to humanitarian projects only” would be among the items permitted to enter Gaza. Israeli authorities reportedly allowed some items in on August 19, but it remains unclear to what extent this marks a change in policy and how long these measures will remain in place.
The Israeli government should allow the entry into Gaza of concrete and other materials needed for the reconstruction of civilian infrastructure, subject to, at most, narrowly tailored restrictions based on particularized security assessments.
Unless the closure is lifted or substantially eased, the long-term and reverberating effects of the destruction of the towers and other civilian infrastructure will be exacerbated.
Lack of Accountability
Israeli and Palestinian authorities have a long track record of failing to credibly investigate alleged war crimes by their forces in Gaza. On May 12, the Office of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC) indicated that it was monitoring the situation in Gaza. The prosecutor’s office should include in its Palestine investigation apparently unlawful Israeli attacks in Gaza, as well as Palestinian rocket attacks that struck population centers in Israel.
Judicial authorities in other countries should also investigate and prosecute under national laws those credibly implicated in serious crimes in the Occupied Palestinian Territory and in Israel under the principle of universal jurisdiction.
Warring parties should refrain from using explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas because of the foreseeable indiscriminate harm to civilians. Countries should support a strong political declaration that addresses the harm that explosive weapons cause to civilians and commit to avoid using those with wide-area effects in populated areas.
EINDE BERICHT HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH
OCHA
GAZA STRIP: ESCALATION OF HOSTILITIES 10-21 MAY 2021
Vuur en rook boven Gaza-Stad na een Israëlische luchtaanval AFP
.jpg)
