IMO Blog - Israel & Midden-Oosten

Zionism-Israel Info Center Site Map Definitions Issues (FAQ) Timeline History Documents Web Links Photo Gallery Contact email

Achtergrondartikelen
IsraŽl-Palestina.Info:

* 60 Jaar IsraŽl en de Nakba (1948-2008)
* 60 Jaar na delingsplan, IsraŽl en de VN
* Geschiedenis van het IsraŽlisch-Arabische conflict
* Vredesproces & Recente Geschiedenis
* Tijdlijn geschiedenis IsraŽl en Palestina
* Geschiedenis Joden en antisemitisme
* Geschiedenis Palestijnen en Arabieren
* Hezbollah
* IsraŽl politiek
* Palestijnen politiek
* Zesdaagse Oorlog
* Bezette gebieden & nederzettingen
* Gaza Strook
* Gaza Oorlog
* Gaza blokkade
* Hamas
* Apartheidsmuur of veiligheidshek?
* Jeruzalem
* Vluchtelingen
* Demografie
* Etnische zuivering
* Zionisme
* Anti-Zionisme
* Boycot IsraŽl campagnes
* Initiatieven voor vrede en verzoening
* United Civilians for Peace
* Verenigde Naties
* Mythes en beeldvorming
* Palestijns Gevangenendocument 2006
* Column Simon Soesan
* Reisverslag IsraŽl 2007
* Het zijn net mensen - recensie & repliek
* Krantenonderzoek NRC conflict IsraŽl-Palestina
* Berichtgeving IsraŽl door NOS Journaal
* Dries van Agt over IsraŽl en de Palestijnen
* Recente artikelen IsraŽl-Palestina
* Oudere artikelen IsraŽl-Palestina
* Landkaart van IsraŽl - Palestina


Background Articles in English:

* Amnesty International Report on Gaza War
* History Arab-Israeli Conflict
* Boycott Israel campaigns
* Boycott Israel?
* Christian Zionism
* Dutch Media: Study of NRC Handelsblad
* Dutch Media: NOS Journaal Study
* Israel 1948 War of Independence
* Israel 1948 War of Independence Timeline
* History of Anti-Semitism
* Israel
* Israel Boycott?
* Jew!
* 6 Day War
* Six Day War Timeline
* Zionism - Definition and History
* Zionism: History of Zionism & Israel
* Zionism and its Impact


Eerdere IMO Blogs.
Voor volledige lijst zie:
IMO Blog Archief


October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 December 2011 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 September 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006


FREE EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION
Subscribe to
ZNN
email newsletter for this site and others

Powered by groups.yahoo.com

Peace Now - Peace When?

IMO Blog, 2007

Onlangs ontving ik het volgende interview uit 2002 van Ari Shavit met Tzali Reshef, een van de leiders van Peace Now.

Reshef zegt hierin onder andere dat het conflict met name over de bezetting en de nederzettingen gaat, en de Palestijnen niet 'heel Palestina' willen bevrijden:

"But unlike you, I don't think the Palestinians are fighting us because they want to expel us from here. I think that, in practice, the conflict is over the occupation and the settlements. That is why I still believe today that it can be resolved by means of a compromise."

Hier ligt wellicht mijn belangrijkste verschil van mening met Peace Now, waarover ik onlangs met een vriend een lange discussie had. Je bent immers voor vrede, en de nederzettingen zijn een belangrijk obstakel, behalve natuurlijk als je er vanuit gaat dat er helemaal geen Palestijnse staat moet komen, of een soort bi-nationale staat (die weldra een Arabische meerderheid zal hebben).


Peace Now is de enige grote vredesbeweging die zich Zionistisch noemt, en wordt door radikale elementen als Anja Meulenbelt dan ook flink afgekraakt. Dat alleen al maakt ze sympathiek, aldus mijn vriend. Ik was sceptischer: ze leggen wel erg de nadruk alleen op de nederzettingen, op alles wat IsraŽl fout doet, en hebben wel erg veel vertrouwen in de Palestijnen. Ze wijzen onderhandelingen met Hamas niet eens af, zeggen alleen dat zodra serieuze onderhandelingen starten ze hun geweld tegen IsraŽl moeten staken. Dit laatste speelde in 2002 nog niet zo, maar voor de rest wordt mijn scepsis goed verwoord door Ari Shavit, die zelf - zoals veel IsraŽli's - behoorlijk teleurgesteld was in de Palestijnen na Camp David, en in het vredesproces Łberhaupt. Overigens vind ik hem soms wel erg negatief doen, maar een goede interviewer moet een beetje provoceren.

Question: Are you not afraid that at certain critical junctures, demonstrations and political pressure by the peace camp weaken Israel's bargaining power?

Answer: "For those conducting negotiations, democracy is a terrible system. If I were conducting negotiations and I wanted to give the other side 100, and one of my clients would yell out from behind me 'give them 120! Or why not give them 130?' I would quit immediately. It's a waste of time. It is thus correct that Peace Now weakens Israel's bargaining power. Yet, on the other hand, there is a big contribution to the internal debate. It improves the image of Israel and plays a central role in encouraging moderation on the Palestinian side."

Dat laatste waag ik te betwijfelen. Het spreekt het eerste op een bepaalde manier ook tegen: als Peace Now IsraŽls onderhandelingspositie ondermijnt, dan zullen de Palestijnen dus juist steeds meer eisen. Het leidt alleen tot matiging als je elkaar wat gunt en er niet teveel op het spel staat. Als ik iets op een rommelmarkt wil kopen en het is niet duur, dan ga ik niet afdingen. Maar als het om mijn lijf en goed gaat, zou ik wel proberen het nog goedkoper te krijgen.

Of Peace Now IsraŽls imago heeft verbeterd valt eveneens te betwijfelen: ze hebben erg de nadruk op de bezetting en de nederzettingen gelegd, en - zoals Reshef zelf zegt - de visie uitgedragen dat het niet zozeer om erkenning en Palestijns geweld en incitement gaat, maar om de bezetting en nederzettingen. Omdat PN zich niet radikaal uitlaat en als betrouwbaar geldt, heeft wat zij zeggen een behoorlijke impact.

Question: During this entire conversation, you are really having trouble criticizing the Palestinians. Naturally, your tendency and that of the peace movement is to focus criticism on Israel.

Answer: "I am critical of Arafat for causing a general breakdown. But I am not critical of him for forging a military option. I find it self-evident that the Palestinian Authority should create that option for itself. I will not say it is legitimate, but I will say that if Israel were to find itself in the situation of the Palestinians, it would do the same thing."

Dit is een van de belangrijkste kritiekpunten op de vredesbeweging. Het is misschien begrijpelijk dat men de kritiek vooral op de eigen maatschappij richt, maar omdat een dergelijke zelf-kritische beweging aan Palestijnse kant ontbreekt, ontstaat zo wel een scheve situatie. Het is ook een belangrijke oorzaak voor het uiteenvallen van de vredesbeweging: nadat Arafat Baraks en Clintons voorstellen afwees en de Palestijnse Autoriteit de tweede intifada begon, ging het er bij het IsraŽlische publiek niet in dat IsraŽl hiervoor de schuld in de schoenen geschoven kreeg. Barak mag het allemaal niet handig hebben aangepakt, hij was tenminste bereid tot echt vergaande compromissen (dat erkent ook PN), en had alles op het bereiken van een akkoord met de Palestijnen gezet.

Toen IsraŽl zich zelf in de situatie van de Palestijnen bevond, deed het gelukkig niet hetzelfde. Men accepteerde elk compromis, ook zeer onvoordelige plannen als een staat op slechts 20% van het gebied dat IsraŽl en de bezette gebieden omvat. Men werkte samen met de Britse bezetter en leverde (na de moord op een hoge Britse diplomaat door de Irgoen) duizenden leden van de Irgoen aan ze uit. In feite stond de Joodse gemeenschap in Palestina er toen veel slechter voor dan de Palestijnen nu: terwijl bijna iedereen immers een Palestijnse staat voorstaat, alle Arabische staten de Palestijnse zaak steunen, er in de VN een heel netwerk aan pro-Palestijnse organisaties bestaat, was de Arabische wereld fel tegen een Joodse staat, en verdween de steun van de Britten hiervoor (onder hun druk) in de jaren '30. Door de voortdurende Arabische afwijzing van ieder compromis en iedere samenwerking met de Joden in Palestina, het almaar toenemende geweld, de Holocaust en het Britse beleid om schepen met Joodse vluchtelingen die in Palestina aankwamen terug te sturen naar Europa, of de vluchtelingen (veelal overlevenden van de Holocaust) op Cyprus te detineren, kreeg de delingsresolutie uit 1947 uiteindelijk net de benodigde tweederde steun (waarbij de VS bovendien enkele landen onder druk had gezet).

Het lijkt een beetje of er voor Peace Now niks is veranderd sinds het vredesproces en Camp David op een fiasco uitliepen. Als IsraŽl maar toegeeflijk is, als het zich maar terugtrekt en de nederzettingen opruimt, dan komt het goed. Als het zo simpel was, was dit - ondanks felle tegenstand van de kolonisten - waarschijnlijk allang gebeurd. De strijd tegen de kolonisten met hun machtige lobby in de IsraŽlische regering, en hun enorme talent om ontruimingen van ook maar de kleinste buitenposten tegen te houden en vage deals te sluiten met de regering die altijd in het voordeel van de kolonisten uitpakken, steun ik van harte. Maar stop alsjeblieft met het bagatelliseren van het Palestijnse geweld, de haat jegens IsraŽl en Joden en de wijdverbreide visie dat Zionisme racisme is en een Joodse staat geen bestaansrecht heeft.

Reshef zegt:
"So, I tell you that we have no choice and we have no more time. We have to act. We have to end the occupation immediately.

Dit interview is uit 2002, dus Reshef stelde voor de bezetting te beŽindigen op een moment dat er wekelijks aanslagen werden gepleegd, die door de Palestijnse Autoriteit werden gesteund en gefinancierd. Hij stelt blijkbaar voor dat de PA daarvoor beloond moet worden met volledige soevereiniteit.

Hoewel de regering van Fayyad niet actief betrokken is bij terrorisme, zou het desastreus zijn aan haar de soevereiniteit over de Westelijke Jordaanoever over te dragen. Premier Fayyad heeft zelf gezegd dat men daar op dit moment niet toe in staat is. De kans is dan ook groot dat het machtsvacuŁm dat dan ontstaat door de Hamas zal worden gevuld. Er zullen Qassams op de Knesset vallen, en Palestijnen zullen zich weer opblazen in IsraŽlische bussen en winkelcentra.

Ik zeg niet dat de bezetting dus maar eindeloos moet voortduren, maar je kunt niet met een oplossing van het conflict komen - en in dat kader van IsraŽl vergaande concessies eisen - zonder je ook met de Palestijnse kant bezig te houden.

Ratna Pelle

-----------------------

Peace Now Leader: our strategy not to reveal true goals

Excerpts from an interview with Tzali Reshef by Ari Shavit - Ha'aretz Magazine - 8 November 2002

[IMRA comment: ... this item was published in the hard copy English edition but not on the Ha'aretz website. Only the first part of the interview, that does not include this segment, is available in the Haaretz Archives and the Haaretz Archives misdates the segment it does have as 7 November.]


Question: There is a contradiction about you. In your private life, you are a real-estate "shark." Unlike some of your colleagues, you don't lecture on ethics in the department of philosophy. When what is at stake is your economic interests and those of your clients and of the companies you own, you know very well how to live in, and abide by the laws of, the jungle. But when it comes to the national interest, all you have to offer us is "vegetarian" recipes: concessions, withdrawal, good will.

Answer: "I think that precisely because of my professional and business background, one can conclude that what I am proposing to the State of Israel is neither lukewarm nor naive. I tell you that if I were representing the client called the State of Israel, I would do so with the same toughness I demonstrate when I represent my private clients. I would not conduct negotiations in the same scandalous way that Barak did. Even though I am in favor of a compromise in Jerusalem, I would not have placed the Jerusalem card on the table at Camp David without first ascertaining that I would get a quid pro quo for it.

Question: 'The principle of the bus:' Let's get back to the peace movement. In fact, you, like the settlers, are a minority who imposed yourself on the majority. After all, what characterized Peace Now for a generation and what characterized the Oslo formula is the existence of a small, sophisticated group of people with a radical agenda who generated a decisive political change by not disclosing the full scale of the agenda to the public at large.

Answer: "Our idea was to talk to the public in a language it was ready to listen to, and not try to foist on it ideas it was not ready to accept. I called that the principle of the bus: not to argue now about what the end of the journey will be, but to invite aboard everyone who is ready to travel to the next stop. If we had written in the officers' letter of 1978 [an open letter from some 350 reserve officers to prime minister Menachem Begin, urging him to press for peace with Egypt and not to cling to the territories] that in order to obtain peace, we will have to return all the territories and go back to the 1967 borders and divide Jerusalem and recognize the human aspect of the refugee problem - very few people would have gone along with us. We would have remained a pure but marginal left-wing group.

"Therefore, I was insistent that our message not be radicalized and I didn't want to have my photograph taken too often as part of the human rights struggle. What gave Peace Now its great strength was our external image as patriots and as people who do not represent the other side. We were able to create a label that spoke to a great many people. That label is our success. The result was that while the left-wing movements in which my parents were members had dozens or hundreds of people, tens and hundreds of thousands of people support our movement." Isn't there a manipulative element here? "Of course there is. I was a manipulator when I was 24 - but a manipulator in the positive sense of the word. I knew back then that if we said what we thought, it would be taken badly. To say we have to make concessions is bad. That is why we went with the officers' letter. That is why we took Yuval Neria, who was awarded the Medal of Valor in the Yom Kippur War, and placed his name at the top of the list. Do you really think that I thought Yuval understood more than I did because he got the Medal of Valor and I didn't?

"We did it in order to combat the negative image and to talk to people in a language that would make it possible for them to identify with us. You can call it manipulation and there were some who called it opportunism, but in my view, it was a farsighted strategy. I think it was smart."

Question: One thing it mandated was the creation of an undemocratic movement establishment. Maybe it's no coincidence that there are no elections and no elected institutions in Peace Now. It is a closed movement that is controlled from above by a closed group in which you are at the center.

Answer: "Nowadays I no longer run the movement directly or on a day-to-day basis. There is a secretary-general and there are other people who do that. But there is something to what you say. Peace Now does not have elected institutions and it does not exist in the form of a legal entity. You can say that there should have been an assembly that elects a committee that elects a chairman. But I say to you that if the small group that leads Peace Now and cooks up matters had been cut off from its public, it would have found itself alone. We face the test of the public at every demonstration. People have faith in the label and in those who promoted the label over the years, and there is no energy wasted over internal struggles. I think that in many cases, we did in fact behave like an Athenian democracy. It was very important for us to reach an internal consensus."

Question: Still, what you are describing is somewhat reminiscent of the mode of activity of Trotskyite cells that in the 1960s and '70s seized control of parts of the Labor Party in Britain. You seized control of the political bus of the Labor camp and drove it where you wanted.

Answer: "We did not hijack the bus. After all, you sat with us in the front row and saw all along where it was going, and you could have alighted at any time. We didn't hijack it from anyone. But the fact is that at the moment of truth, both Rabin and Barak boarded our bus, which was something inconceivable in 1978."

Question: But then the bus fell into an abyss.

Answer: "I know that that is your opinion, but it's not mine. I think that all that happened at Camp David is that the bus ran off the road a bit because of navigational errors by Barak and Arafat, which can be corrected. Don't get me wrong: I am not saying that we were right about everything. It's possible that the social stratum of 1948 in the Palestinian society is stronger than what we wanted to think. It's possible that Arafat is incapable of telling a refugee in Lebanon that he will not be returning to Lod. I will meet you even more than halfway and say that it's possible we had an almost messianic faith that if Israel adopted certain positions an agreement would ensue.

"I don't want you to leave here and say, 'That guy hasn't learned a thing. He will give them rifles again and repeat all the same mistakes.' But unlike you, I don't think the Palestinians are fighting us because they want to expel us from here. I think that, in practice, the conflict is over the occupation and the settlements. That is why I still believe today that it can be resolved by means of a compromise."

Question: On self-criticism: Your success lay in persuading the Israeli public to accept the principle of partition; your failure was that you didn't try and didn't succeed in persuading the Palestinians to accept that same principle. Maybe this stems from a tendency to dump the whole burden onto the Israeli side? Because when you organize Israeli-Palestinian peace encounters, the Palestinians get up and attack Israel, and the Israelis get up and attack Israel, and everyone is pleased and goes home saying there is a partner.

Answer: "There are encounters of the sort you describe. Anyone who denies that is lying. But I would like to inform you in all modesty that any encounter in which I participated never looked like that. And above and beyond that, I would claim that our responsibility is to educate the Israeli public, not the Palestinian one. It is perfectly obvious that we reject Palestinian terror. In that rejection, Effi Eitam and Uri Ariel are partners. But despite that, the place in which I express myself, anger people and am heard is a place in which I voice criticism of ourselves."

Question: Are you not afraid that at certain critical junctures, demonstrations and political pressure by the peace camp weaken Israel's bargaining power?

Answer: "For those conducting negotiations, democracy is a terrible system. If I were conducting negotiations and I wanted to give the other side 100, and one of my clients would yell out from behind me 'give them 120! Or why not give them 130?' I would quit immediately. It's a waste of time. It is thus correct that Peace Now weakens Israel's bargaining power. Yet, on the other hand, there is a big contribution to the internal debate. It improves the image of Israel and plays a central role in encouraging moderation on the Palestinian side."

Question: During this entire conversation, you are really having trouble criticizing the Palestinians. Naturally, your tendency and that of the peace movement is to focus criticism on Israel.

Answer: "I am critical of Arafat for causing a general breakdown. But I am not critical of him for forging a military option. I find it self-evident that the Palestinian Authority should create that option for itself. I will not say it is legitimate, but I will say that if Israel were to find itself in the situation of the Palestinians, it would do the same thing."

Question: In contrast to your cautious approach regarding Arafat, you simply cannot abide Ehud Barak.

Answer: "I think he was the worst prime minister in Israel's history."

Question: He makes your blood boil.

Answer: "Arafat also makes my blood boil. But Arafat is not one of us. Barak is; he is a person I worked with and helped get elected. But that person, who had four-and-a-half years ahead of him and the support of 56 percent of the public, did not understand what Sharon understands in the middle of the night when the stars come out: that you have to preserve the coalition and keep your partners and maintain public support. Not to quarrel over whether to transport equipment for the Electricity Company on Sabbath eve and not to get entangled with the Shas party and with Meshulam Nahari [a Shas MK who was deputy education minister in the Barak government].

"Barak made mistake after mistake and arrived at Camp David without a government and without support and put forward positions of the extreme left, but he did not get an agreement and brought about the collapse of everything. I think that that shows a very basic absence of talent. Barak's analytical mind is not so analytical.

"What Barak failed to understand is the principle of the bus. Instead, he sat on some torpedo where there is room for only one person and flew with it until the end, and blew up with it and destroyed the whole business. So I impute most of the blame to him. He has a magic faith in himself, but he has no qualifications to conduct negotiations or to manage large systems. The myth that he tore the mask off Arafat's face is also nonsense. What is the advantage in that? What would have been so terrible if the mask had remained for another few years but we wouldn't have lost more than 600 lives."

Question: Is the current process turning Israel into an apartheid state?

Answer: "If you had talked to me about apartheid 20 years ago, I would have had reservations. Apartheid? Us? But today we are approaching it. Settlers drive on the roads in the West Bank while the Palestinians are imprisoned in their villages. The north road [out] of Jerusalem already has separate lanes for Jews and for Arabs. And it's getting worse. Not because of race theory, but because of the cycle of fear of repression-terrorism-repression.

"So, I tell you that we have no choice and we have no more time. We have to act. We have to end the occupation immediately. And that is why I am so angry with Fuad [Defense Minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer] and with [Foreign Minister Shimon] Peres, who have conducted the catastrophic policy of the Labor Party for the past 18 months and brought about a situation in which the public thinks that Sharon's escalation policy is the only possible policy that exists.

"But I see sparks of change. I think that what happened this [past] week in the Labor Party is part of a comprehensive process of disillusionment. Slowly the public is beginning to understand that it is impossible any longer to accept the sentimental, vengeful and primitive approach of the right. It is impossible to go on holding the Palestinians under the boot of occupation."


Mr. Peace Now, Ari Shavit - Ha'aretz (Magazine Section) 8 November 2002


Share |

IMO Blog Hoofdpagina

IMO Blog Archief


IMO Blog
A view from the Netherlands
by Ratna Pelle

* Volg me op Twitter


Je vind ons ook op:
* Israel & Palestijnen Nieuws Blog
* Israel-Palestina.Info Twitter
* Israel-Palestina.Info Facebook Pagina
* Israel-Palestina.Info Facebook Groep

* Israel-Palestina.Info
* IPI Actueel
* IPI commentaar
* IMO Blog (2e lokatie)
* IPI media
* IPI Opinie
* IPI English



IMO Blog (IsraŽl & Midden-Oosten) bevat mijn opinies over het IsraŽlisch-Palestijnse conflict, het Joodse recht op zelfbeschikking (ook bekend als Zionisme) en het Palestijnse recht op zelfbeschikking. Ik ben een academica uit Nederland. Ik ben actief geweest in diverse linkse bewegingen voor vrede, milieu en derde wereld. Ik ben noch Joods noch Palestijns noch IsraŽlisch noch Arabisch.

© Alle teksten op deze blogs zijn eigendom van de schrijver, en dienen niet zonder toestemming gekopieerd te worden naar andere websites.



IMO Blog contains my thoughts on the Israel - Palestine conflict, the Jewish right to self determination (aka Zionism) and the Palestinian right to self determination, and especially the involvement of Europe with the conflict in the light of it's own history. I am an academic from the Netherlands who has been active in several leftist movements for peace, environment and third world. I am neither Jewish nor Palestinian nor Israeli nor Arab.

© All blogs posted here are copyright by the author, and should not be copied without permission.


BLOGS NL-ISRAEL:
* Ratna.NL - Over IsraŽl en de Palestijnen 2005-2006
* Israel & Palestijnen Nieuws Blog
* Laatste nieuws uit Israel
* Dutchblog Israel (NL/EN)
* Simon Soesan (tot 2013)
* The Crethi and the Plethi (NL/EN)
* Loor Schreef
* Israel in de Media
* Trouw Israel Monitor

AMI ISSEROFF & CO:
* MidEastWeb Log on Middle East peace (2002-2011)
* ZioNation - Progressive Zionism & Israel Web Log (2006-2010)
* Israel: Like this, as if (2007-2009)
* Middle East Analysis (2007-2011)

OTHER BLOGS ISRAEL:
* AP Israel Watch (2010)
* Blue Truth (2007-2015)
* UK Media Watch/
* Daled Amos
* Dry Bones cartoons
* Dvar Dea from Israel
* Elder of Ziyon
* FresnoZionism (2006-2014), now Abu Yehuda
* Haifa Diary
* Israel Proud (2009-2012)
* A Liberal Defence of Israel (2006-2015)
* Neville Teller's A Mid-East Journal
* Normblog (2013)
* Philosemitism (2007-2013)
* Point of no return (Middle East's forgotten Jewish refugees)
* Pro-Israel Bay Bloggers
* Ray Cook (Israel, Zionism and the Media)
* Simply Jews
* Unplugged Mike (2003-2011)
* Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations

WEBSITES ISRAEL:
* CIDI
* Cijo - Voor Israel, Voor Vrede
* Christenen voor Israel
* Engage (GB)
* Etsel over Jodendom & IsraŽl
* Israel Facts (NL)
* IsraŽl-Informatie linkpagina (NL/EN)
* IsraŽl-Palestina Info (NL/EN)
* Likoed Nederland
* MidEastWeb - Middle East News/Views
* Maurice Ostroff - Second Thoughts
* Missing Peace (NL)
* Peace With Realism
* VECIP - Vrije Encyclopedie Conflict IsraŽl-Palestina
* WAAR media werkgroep Israel
* Zionism & Israel
* Zionism On the Web

DIVERSE ONDERWERPEN:
* Brassť Sittard - Van linkse politiek tot Joodse genealogie
* Sittard Web Log - "politieke, sociale en groene berichten"
* At the back of the hill
* The Euston Manifesto
* The IgNoble Experiment
* Jeff Weintraub, Commentaries and Controversies
* Keesjemaduraatje
* Het Verraad van Links (Carel Brendel)
* Verbal Jam (NL)
* Zin en Rede
* SEO - Search Engine Optimization

NIET MEER GEUPDATE:
* Christians Standing With Israel - Blog
* IreneLancaster's Diary (on Aliyah, Judaism, Zionism and Politics)
* Jewish State
* Octogenarian
* Ratna's Review on Israel, Zionism and Peace (2005-2006)
* Sanda & Israel
* Z-Word Blog, Views on Zionism

RSS V 1.0
RSS V 2.0

FREE EMAIL SUBSCRIPTION
Subscribe to
ZNN
email newsletter for this site and others

Powered by groups.yahoo.com

IMO Blog - Israel & Midden-Oosten

© Alle teksten op deze blogs zijn eigendom van de schrijver, en dienen niet zonder toestemming gekopiŽerd te worden naar andere websites.

All entries copyright by the authors and or Zionism-Israel Information Center. Please forward materials by e-mail with URLS. Other uses by permission only.