Feed aggregator

Anyone not knowing the history of the Israeli/Arab conflict might conclude that the Arabs won all of the wars in which they fought, and could therefore dictate the terms of the peace.
Dr. Alex Grobman, Alice in Wonderland



Back in 2006, Amir Taheri, the Iranian-born conservative author, explained why Israel must claim victory over Palestine:
...For a war to be won it is not enough for one side to claim victory, although that is essential. It is also necessary for one side to admit defeat. The problem in the case of the Arab-Israeli wars, however, was that the side that had won every time was not allowed to claim victory while the side that had lost was prevented from admitting defeat.

This was a novel situation in history, throughout which the victor and the vanquished had always acknowledged their respective positions and moved beyond it in accordance with a peace imposed by the victor.

In the Israeli-Arab case this had not been done because each time the UN had intervened to put the victor and the vanquished on an equal basis and lock them into a problematic situation in the name of a mythical quest for an impossible peace.

...In every case the winner wins the land and gives the loser peace. In every case the peace that is imposed is unjust to the loser and just to the winner.Now, this is no longer a claim that is being made in the abstract.


Last December, Daniel Pipes described A New Strategy for Israeli Victory, based on the continued failure of the peace process in its many manifestations and iterations. On the one hand, deterrence could not be maintained indefinitely because of its unpopularity internationally and the way it wore Israelis down. On the other hand, diplomacy became the new way to go -- and seems to be prepared to keep going, indefinitely, with no success.

The solution, according to Pipes, is victory -- The Israel Victory Project:
the key concept of my approach, which is victory, or imposing one’s will on the enemy, compelling him through loss to give up his war ambitions. Wars end, the historical record shows, not through goodwill but through defeat. He who does not win loses. Wars usually end when failure causes one side to despair, when that side has abandoned its war aims and accepted defeat, and when that defeat has exhausted the will to fight. Conversely, so long as both combatants still hope to achieve their war objectives, fighting either goes on or it potentially will resume.Despite the fact that he Arabs lost every war with Israel, in 1948, 1956, 1967, 1973, and 1982, they never saw their defeat as the end. Instead, they looked ahead for another opportunity to make war against Israel.

This is how Pipes described his solution to this problem back in July:




While he makes a point in the video of refraining from suggesting how to convince the Palestinian Arabs that they have lost the war, in his 2016 article, Pipes does make some suggestions how to discourage rejectionism and promote a change of heart:

• When Palestinian “martyrs” cause material damage, pay for repairs out of the roughly $300 million in tax obligations the government of Israel transfers to the Palestinian Authority (PA) each year.
• Respond to activities designed to isolate and weaken Israel internationally by limiting access to the West Bank.
• When a Palestinian attacker is killed, bury the body quietly and anonymously in a potter’s field.
• When the PA leadership incites violence, prevent officials from returning to the PA from abroad.
• Respond to the murder of Israelis by expanding Jewish towns on the West Bank.
• When official PA guns are turned against Israelis, seize these and prohibit new ones, and if this happens repeatedly, dismantle the PA’s security infrastructure.
• Should violence continue, reduce and then shut off the water and electricity that Israel supplies.
• In the case of gunfire, mortar shelling, and rockets, occupy and control the areas from which these originate.

These are described as "examples for Washington to propose," a key point since imposing these measures will require the support and assistance of the US to allow this proposed change of Israeli policy. In other words, this Israel Victory Project would not have been feasible and would never have gotten off the ground during the Obama Administration. Now, during the Trump Administration, there may be a chance.

With that in mind, the Congressional Israel Victory Caucus was announced in April:
Reps. Ron DeSantis and Bill Johnson. From the Press ReleaseReps. Ron DeSantis (R-FL) and Bill Johnson (R-OH) will launch the Congressional Israel Victory Caucus (CIVC) on April 27 at 9 a.m. The caucus' goal: to introduce a new U.S. approach to Israel-Palestinian relations.

Cong. Johnson notes that "Israel is America's closest ally in the Middle East, and the community of nations must accept that Israel has a right to exist – period. This is not negotiable now, nor ever. The Congressional Israel Victory Caucus aims to focus on this precept, and to better inform our colleagues in Congress about daily life in Israel and the present-day conflict. I look forward to co-chairing this very important caucus with Cong. DeSantis."At the time, no Democrats had joined the group.

In order to be successful, Pipes sees the project as being heavily dependent on US support being provided in a sustained way along with select Arab states and others in order to convince the Palestinian Arabs that rejectionism will not work:
That means supporting Israel’s taking the tough steps outlined above, from burying murderers’ bodies anonymously to shuttering the Palestinian Authority. It means diplomatic support for Israel, such as undoing the “Palestine refugee” farce and rejecting the claim of Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital. It also entails ending benefits to the Palestinians unless they work toward the full and permanent acceptance of Israel: no diplomacy, no recognition as a state, no financial aid, and certainly no weapons, much less militia training.Pipes does not sugar-coat the strategy he is proposing:
this change won’t be easy or quick: Palestinians will have to pass through the bitter crucible of defeat, with all its deprivation, destruction, and despair as they repudiate the filthy legacy of Amin al-Husseini and acknowledge their century-long error. But there is no shortcut.Similarly, the criticism is no less direct.

J Street has attacked the Congressional Israel Victory Caucus, referring to it as the “defeat Palestinians caucus,” claiming that the project is “devoted to pushing the truly terrifying myth that Israel can end the conflict by using brute force and repression to make Palestinians accept their eternal statelessness.” They urged congressmen to “stay as far away from such savage and dangerous ideas as possible. The creation of a caucus devoted to promoting them should be condemned, not celebrated.”

Among supporters there is some disagreement too.

Martin Sherman, the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies, has supported Pipes' proposal, but there is a key item Sherman and Pipes disagree on. According to Sherman:
Pipes concisely sums up the principal point of disagreement between us: “Sherman and I directly disagree on only one point — Israel accepting the possibility of a Palestinian state.” He goes on to speculate that “the allure of a state after the conflict ends offers benefits to both sides. Israelis will be free of ruling unwanted subjects. Palestinians have a reason to behave.”Sherman is vehemently opposed to the idea, noting that historically there is little to support the idea that the demand for Palestinian statehood is a genuine grievance.

Six months after the formal announcement of the Israel Victory Project, the strategy is still taking shape and support is still being drummed up.

Considering the need for US support to make this work and the political uncertainty facing both the Trump Administration and the Republican majority in Congress, the Israel Victory Project may not have much time to establish itself.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

L’Hélicoptère léger interarmées (HIL) ne devrait pas figurer dans la prochaine loi de programmation militaire.

© Marine nationale

Cette année, à près de 3 000 kilomètres de son port-base de Toulon, l’équipage de la frégate anti-sous-marine Jean de Vienne a passé Noël à la mer. En effet, le bâtiment patrouille en Méditerranée orientale dans le cadre de l’opération Chammal delutte contre Daech. A cette occasion, les marins ont eu la joie de recevoir des colis de l’association « solidarité Défense ».

Ils contenaient en particulier des messages de fraternité et de soutien de la part de 250 élèves d’écoles élémentaires, un signe de reconnaissance à ces marins qui passent Noël loin de leur famille, pour garantir la sécurité des Français. Ces témoignages ont touché l’ensemble de l’équipage qui ne manquera pas de leur répondre prochainement. Les marins du Jean-vienne pourront ainsi faire partager à ces jeunes écoliers leur quotidien à bord et surtout le sens de leur mission. L’engagement du Jean de Vienne dans cette opération répond au besoin de l’état-major des armées de disposer en permanence d’un navire dans le canal de Syrie permettant à la France d’entretenir une appréciation autonome de la situation.

Vos réactions:  Select ratingGive it 1/5Give it 2/5Give it 3/5Give it 4/5Give it 5/5 Moyenne: 3 (1 vote)

© Marine nationale

Cette année, à près de 3 000 kilomètres de son port-base de Toulon, l’équipage de la frégate anti-sous-marine Jean de Vienne a passé Noël à la mer. En effet, le bâtiment patrouille en Méditerranée orientale dans le cadre de l’opération Chammal delutte contre Daech. A cette occasion, les marins ont eu la joie de recevoir des colis de l’association « solidarité Défense ».

Ils contenaient en particulier des messages de fraternité et de soutien de la part de 250 élèves d’écoles élémentaires, un signe de reconnaissance à ces marins qui passent Noël loin de leur famille, pour garantir la sécurité des Français. Ces témoignages ont touché l’ensemble de l’équipage qui ne manquera pas de leur répondre prochainement. Les marins du Jean-vienne pourront ainsi faire partager à ces jeunes écoliers leur quotidien à bord et surtout le sens de leur mission. L’engagement du Jean de Vienne dans cette opération répond au besoin de l’état-major des armées de disposer en permanence d’un navire dans le canal de Syrie permettant à la France d’entretenir une appréciation autonome de la situation.

Vos réactions:  Select ratingGive it 1/5Give it 2/5Give it 3/5Give it 4/5Give it 5/5 Moyenne: 3 (1 vote)

A ninivei fennsíkon is készülnek a karácsonyra. Miután  visszafoglalták ezt a területet (Moszultól északra és keletre) az Iszlám Államtól, azóta még egyszer végigment rajta egy háború, igaz csak egy két napig. 2017 októberében, amikor az iraki kurdok és az iraki kormány között kitört a viszály az előbbiek népszavazása miatt, az iraki hadsereg és kormányerők visszavettek olyan területeket, amelyek papíron hozzájuk tartoztak, a valóságban azonban 2014 vagy még korábbról az kurdok ellenőriztek.

Ennek következtében mostanság a keresztények lakta területeken síita milíciák ellenőrzik (nem az iraki hadsereg vagy a rendőrség). Ha a magyar kormánynak fontosak az iraki keresztények, akkor ideje lenne elkezdeni most már alaposabban is tanulmányozni ezeket a milíciákat.

Mivel a keresztény települések egy része nem színtiszta település volt, hanem éltek ott jezidiek vagy shabakok, ezért a poszt Iszlám Állam időszakában ezek a népcsoportok is részben visszatértek. Nekik annyi az előnyök, ami a hátrányuk. Nincs hova elmenekülniük külföldre, így mindenképpen vissza térnek.

A ninivei fennsíkon a már említett különböző síita milíciák között a leghíresebb a Babilon Brigád (erről sok szó van a cikkben), amelyet az tesz különlegesség, hogy a vezetője keresztény, míg a fegyveresek síiták (arabok és shabakok). Mellettük vannak keresztény milíciák is a városokban, amelyek egyfajta helyi rendfenntartó szerepet játszanak, játszottak. Ezekből is van vagy három négy (egyszer majd megírom őket, végül s találkozgattam egyik másikkal), de nyilván nem vehetik fel a versenyt a síita milíciákkal.

A shabakok részben szunniták, részben siíták, így különösebben az utóbbiak betagozódása a siíta milíciákban gyakorlatilag természetes folyamat volt. És itt jön a kényelmetlen rész. Mert a ninivei fennsíkon a megmaradt és visszatért keresztények az új helyzetben sem érzik magukat biztonságban. nem csak a dzsihadisták visszatérésétől tartanak (ami egyébként folyamatban van), hanem attól, hogy most a síitáknak, shabakoknak lesznek útban.

Minden alkalommal, amikor Erbilben találkoztam iraki keresztényekkel, valamiféle nemzetközi védelemben reménykedtek. Hogy az USA, vagy az EU vagy a NATO jön megvédi őket. Ez nem fog bekövetkezni.

Az USA-nak azonban megvannak az érdekei és az erőforrásai arra, hogy jelen legyen ezeken a területeken. Természetesen nem azért, hogy csak a keresztényeket védje meg, hanem hogy stabilizálja a jelenlétével a térséget, segítsen az iraki kormányerőknek (akár a síita milíciákkal szemben). De mondjuk ez az iraki keresztények mindegy, nekik csak az a fontos, hogy legyen ott valaki. De egyébként ez lehet a magyar kormány tovább lépése is, küldeni oda az amerikaiak mellé a magyar katonákat. Úgy is különleges műveleti feladat lenne, arra van kapacitás és akarat is itthon (a katonák részéről).

Der „Nothilfe Treuhandfonds der EU zur Unterstützung der Stabilität und zur Bekämpfung der Ur¬sachen irregulärer Migration und Vertreibung in Afrika“ (EUTF) stellt einen wesentlichen Bestandteil der EU-Migrationspolitik dar. Er ist mit großen Hoffnungen aber auch ernsthaften Sorgen bzgl. seiner Ziele und Aktivitäten verbunden.
Erklärtes Ziel des EUTF ist es, „die Ursachen von Destabilisierung, Zwangsvertreibung und irregulärer Migration zu bekämpfen“, was weithin als unrealistisch angesehen wird. Einige zentrale Akteure haben andere Ziele für den EUTF. Sie wollen Afrika Anreize zur Zusammenarbeit bei der Migrationssteuerung bieten und die Flexibilität des EUTF nutzen, um innovative Programme zu erarbeiten. In solchen innovativen Programmen könnte der größte Mehrwert des EUTF liegen.
Viele afrikanische Partner nehmen den EUTF als Teil einer von den Europäern oktroyierten Migrationspolitik wahr, die den europäischen Interessen stärker dient als den afrikanischen. Auch wenn mit den verschiedenen Ländern und Pro-jekten unterschiedliche Erfahrungen gemacht wurden, ist die Teilhabe der Afrikaner bei der Implementierung der EUTF-Projekte geringer als bei traditionellen Instrumenten der Entwicklungszusammenarbeit (EZ). Der EUTF riskiert, die afrikanischen Partner vor den Kopf zu stoßen und deren Ziele, Wissen und Fähigkeiten zu ignorieren.
Die Auswahl der EUTF-Projekte und Partner wird als intransparent kritisiert. Die Durchführungsorganisationen der EU-Mitgliedsstaaten spielen bei dessen Umsetzung die größte Rolle. Einige davon sehen den EUTF als Finanzierungsquelle für ihre regulären Entwicklungsprogramme. Dies wirft die Frage auf, welchen Mehrwert der EUTF gegenüber bestehenden Programmen bietet.
Der umstrittenste Aspekt des EUTF ist sein Potenzial, Entwick¬lungsgelder zugunsten der EU-Migrationspolitik umzu-leiten, auch wenn dies teilweise EU-Menschenrechts- und Entwicklungsverpflichtungen zuwiderläuft. Dies scheint Teil einer umfassenderen Entwicklung hin zu einer stär¬keren sicherheitspolitischen Nutzung der EU-Entwicklungspolitik zu sein. Zudem lässt der EUTF Grundsätze der Wirksamkeitsagenda außer Acht und weist Ländern Gelder aufgrund ihres Migrationsprofils zu.
Es könnten zahlreiche Maßnahmen getroffen werden, um den EUTF zu optimieren und die Chancen, die er bietet, besser zu nutzen. Dazu zählen eine transparentere und kon¬sultativere Projektentwicklung, die stärkere Zusammenarbeit mit und Ausrichtung auf die lokale Bevölkerung und deren Bedürfnisse, ein stärkerer Fokus auf die Auswahl der passenden Stellen für die Projektumsetzung und Lehren, die aus bestehenden Ansätzen und Daten gezogen werden können. Falls der EUTF richtungsweisend ist für die künftige EU-Entwicklungszusammenarbeit, dann lässt dies für die Priorisierung der Entwicklungsgrundsätze sowie die langfristigen Interessen und Beziehungen zwischen der EU und Afrika nichts Gutes ahnen.
Verschiedene Prozesse stehen an, die die Zukunft der EU-Afrika-Beziehungen beeinflussen werden. Anhand dieser muss untersucht werden, wie Europa und Afrika in der Migrationspolitik konstruktiver zusammenarbeiten können.

Last month, following the ISIS terrorist attack on a mosque in the Sinai, the Rafah border crossing between Gaza and Egypt was closed. This was the crossing that Hamas controlled -- until it turned  control over to Abbas and the Palestinian Authority as part of the "reconciliation" between them. A PA official announced that Egypt closed the crossing because it suspected that some of the terrorists fled the Sinai and used Hamas tunnels to enter Gaza "with the knowledge of senior Hamas officials.”

Evelyn Gordon asserts that the incident and Egypt's reaction prove that Hamas is more than an anti-Israel terrorist group -- it is a Global Jihadist group:
Incidentally, this track record conclusively disproves the widespread fallacy that Hamas is primarily concerned with the Palestinian cause rather than the cause of global jihad. An organization concerned with Palestinian well-being would strive to preserve good relations with Egypt in order to ensure that Gaza’s main gateway to the outside world remained open. Only an organization that prioritized global jihad way above Palestinian wellbeing would offer extensive aid to Islamic State, even at the price of having Rafah almost permanently closed.
Hamas logo

Hamas is certainly not shy about using the word "jihad." The Hamas Covenant uses the word "jihad" 38 times.

More than that, Martin Kramer, in an article he contributed to in "Iran, Hizbullah, Hamas and the Global Jihad" notes that the covenant makes the Hamas connection to the Muslim Brotherhood very clear. According to Article 2:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one of the wings of Moslem Brotherhood in Palestine. Moslem Brotherhood Movement is a universal organization which constitutes the largest Islamic movement in modern timesThen in Article 7:
The Islamic Resistance Movement is one link in the chain of jihad in confronting the Zionist invasion. It is connected and linked to the [courageous] uprising of the martyr 'Izz Al-Din Al-Qassam and his brethren the jihad fighters of the Muslim Brotherhood in the year 1936. It is further related and connected to another link, [namely] the jihad of the Palestinians, the efforts and jihad of the Muslim Brotherhood in the 1948 war, and the jihad operations of the Muslim Brotherhood in 1968 and afterwards. [emphasis added]Later, the Hamas Covenant directly addresses facilitating the contribution of Jihad fighters:
"We demand that the Arab countries around Israel open their borders to jihad fighters from among the Arab and Islamic peoples, so they may fulfill their role and join their efforts to the efforts of their brothers - the Muslim brethren in Palestine. As for the rest of the Arab and Muslim countries, we demand that they facilitate the passage of the jihad fighters into them and out of them - that is the very least [they can do].Kramer points out that the Hamas parent organiztion, the Muslim Brotherhood, has also been the source of several key members and leading commanders of al Qaeda, such as Abdullah Azzam and Khaled Sheikh Muhammad, the mastermind of 9/11.

Jonathan Halevi, who also contributed an article to "Global Jihad," writes that in March 2006, Hamas Interior Minister Said Sayyam, who is responsible for the security forces, announced that he would not arrest jihadists who carry out terror attacks -- this at a time that al Qaeda was developing a presence in both the West Bank and Gaza.

Halevy writes that connections between Hamas and Al Qaeda go back to the early 1990's, when in April 1991 the Sudanese leader Hasan Turabi hosted a “Popular Arab and Islamic Conference” bringing together Islamists from the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Both Hamas and Osama bin Laden attended and Hamas training camps existed alongside those of al Qaeda. bin Laden went so far as to refer to Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmad Yassin as one of the five ulema upon whom bin Laden based his August 1996 Declaration of Jihad Against the U.S

Osama bin Laden; credit: Hamid Mir; Source: Wikipedia

Other incidents illustrating a connection between Hamas and Al Qaeda:

• In August 2000, Israel uncovered a terror network linked to al-Qaeda that was headed by Nabil Okal, a Hamas operative from Gaza who underwent military training in bin Laden camps in Pakistan and Afghanistan in 1997-1998.
  
  
• In July 2005, al-Qaeda fired Kassam rockets from Gaza at the Israeli town of Neve Dekalim in Gush Katif, and disseminated a video documenting their activities.
  
  
• October 7, 2005, the Palestinian news agency Ma’an published a declaration circulated in Khan Yunis in which al-Qaeda announced the establishment of a branch in Gaza.
  
  
• On March 26, 2006, senior Hamas figure Muhammad Sayyam met in Pakistan with Sayyid Salah al-Din, leader of the Kashmiri terror orga-nization Hezb ul-Mujahidin, which functioned as an al-Qaeda affiliate

Making the connection between the 2 groups explicit, on October 22, 2003, Richard A. Clarke, the former National Counterterrorism Coordinator on the US National Security Council, said that Hamas and al-Qaeda had a common financial infrastructure: “the funding mechanisms for PIJ [Palestinian Islamic Jihad] and Hamas appear also to have been funding al-Qaeda.”

In 2004, Haaretz reported (Hamas Reveals Its Global Islamic Aspirations) that Hamas took credit for a 2003 suicide bombing at Mike's Place in Tel Aviv, where 3 people were killed and dozens were wounded. The attacks were carried out by a Pakistani-born British Muslim accompanied by another Pakistan-born Briton, from Derby. Hamas claimed:
"We have decided that the response to the crime of the assassination of Dr. Ibrahim Almakadeh should take place at the global level of the Islamic world, because of the views represented by the doctor, a supreme Islamic thinker and commander," There were similarities in the attack with terrorist bombings carried out by the global jihadists of Al Qaeda:

• It was the first time Hamas presented one of terrorist attacks as part of a global Islamic struggle
• It was also the first time Hamas had used non-Palestinian suicide bombers.
• At the time of the bombing, no terrorist group took responsibility, so after the identity of the bomber and accomplice was discovered, it was originally assumed that al-Qaida was behind the bombing.

In 2011, a terrorist attack near Eilat killed eight people and wounded 30. It was carried out by 3 groups: 2 associated with Hamas and another with ties to global jihadists.

This game that Hamas has been playing, associating with global jihadist groups, is why in 2014 Egypt designated the Hamas group Izzadin Kassam to be a terrorist group -- the first time any Arab regime had ever declared a Palestinian terrorist organization to be a terrorist group.

According to Carolyn Glick, Egypt had no choice but to define the Hamas group as terrorists:
Despite its insistent protestations that the Jews are its only enemies, Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been a major player, indeed, arguably the key player in the jihadist insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula that threatens to destroy the political, economic and military viability of the Egyptian state. The declared purpose of the insurgency is to overthrow the regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and integrate Egypt into Islamic State’s “caliphate.”Near the beginning of 2015, thirty-two people, mainly soldiers, were killed in the Sinai by a group identified as Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, a jihadist group pledging its allegiance to ISIS and declaring Sinai to be a province of its “caliphate.” Glick notes that a report by Yoram Schweitzer of the Institute for National Security Studies identifies Hamas members as among the original founders of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, in cooperation with local Salafist Beduins and with al-Qaida terrorists.

According to Glick, Hamas terrorists increasingly declare their allegiance to Islamic State. For example, following the massacre of the French journalists at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, several hundred protesters in Gaza waved Islamic State flags in support of the massacre.

Glick sees Hamas not as merely a terrorist threat to Israel but as a lynchpin in the threat of global jihad. This creates the irony that while Israel allies itself with Egypt in facing this threat, the West attempts to coerce Israel into helping Hamas rebuild its infrastructure. Ideally, post-Obama there will a beginning of a realization of the Hamas connection to global jihadist threats.

-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Sicherheitssektorreform (SSR) bildet ein Kernstück des Engagements der Europäischen Union (EU) zur Vermeidung gewalttätiger Konflikte und zur Stabilisierung der Lage nach Konflikten. Der bestehende Rechtsrahmen schließt allerdings die Verwendung von EU-Haushaltsmitteln zur Finanzierung der Unterstützung der Streitkräfte von Partnerländern aus. Im Rahmen der Initiative zum Kapazitätsaufbau zur Förderung von Sicherheit und Entwicklung (CBSD) will die EU diese Finanzierungslücke schließen und die Finanzierung von Ausbildung, Ausrüstung und Infrastruktur für militärische Akteure ermöglichen. Dabei liegt der CBSD-Initiative die Annahme zugrunde, dass Sicherheit eine Bedingung für Entwicklung bildet und dass nachhaltige Entwicklung nur erreicht werden kann, wenn staatliche – einschließlich militärische – Institutionen über angemessene Kapazitäten verfügen. Zur Umsetzung von CBSD hat die Europäische Kommission im Juli 2016 die Anpassung der Verordnung zur Schaffung des Instruments für Stabilität und Frieden (IcSP) vorgeschlagen. Das IcSP ist das Hauptinstrument der EU zur Finanzierung von Konfliktprävention und friedensfördernden Maßnahmen. Der Vorschlag der Kommission zur Änderung der IcSP-Verordnung sieht die Einführung neuer Unterstützungsmaßnahmen im Rahmen von CBSD vor. Sowohl innerhalb der EU Institutionen als auch in der breiteren entwicklungspolitischen „Community“ wurde der Vorschlag der Kommission kontrovers diskutiert. Der vorliegende Artikel argumentiert, dass die Umsetzung von CBSD zu einer Versicherheitlichung der EU-Entwicklungs­politik beitragen kann. Die Bereitstellung von Training und Ausrüstung für militärische Akteure in Ländern wie Somalia und Mali ist notwendig, um die Glaubwürdigkeit und Effektivität der EU als sicherheitspolitischer Akteur sicherzustellen. Allerdings schafft die Verwendung des IcSP zur Finanzierung von CBSD-Aktivitäten einen Präzedenzfall für die Nutzung von entwicklungspolitischen Instrumenten im EU Haushalt zur Finanzierung der Unterstützung militärischer Akteure. Ohne Begründungszusammenhang zwischen den vorgeschlagenen Aktivitäten und den Zielen von EU-Entwicklungspolitik birgt CBSD das Risiko, dass Entwicklungspolitik sicherheitspolitischen Zielen untergeordnet wird. Ein Schlüsselproblem der Debatte um CBSD besteht in der mangelnden Klarheit bezüglich des Umfangs der vorgesehenen Unterstützungsmaßnahmen. Überdies besteht erhebliche Unsicherheit im Hinblick auf die Rechtsgrundlage der IcSP-Änderungsverordnung. Und schließlich befürchten zivilgesellschaftliche Organisationen, dass CBSD einen Trend zur Verschiebung der EU Prioritäten weg von zivilen und hin zu militärischen Instrumenten zur Krisenbewältigung markiert. Die wesentliche Herausforderung besteht darin, auf diese Bedenken und Vorbehalte einzugehen und eine geeignete, dauerhafte Regelung zur Finanzierung der CBSD-Aktivitäten im nächsten mehrjährigen EU Finanzrahmen (MFR) von 2021 bis 2027 zu finden. Kurzfristig sind eine höhere Transparenz der geplanten CBSD-Aktivitäten sowie eine substantielle Debatte über deren Verbindungen zu den Zielen von EU-Entwicklungspolitik notwendig. Mittelfristig sollte die EU ein spezifisches Instrument schaffen, dass die CBSD-Aktivitäten von der Finanzierung für zivile Konfliktprävention und friedensfördernde Maßnahmen trennt.

This Wednesday (21st of December), the European Commission launched the article 7 procedure against Poland. The article 7 of the Lisbon Treaty provides a mechanism to safeguard fundamental EU values when they are considered under threat. This procedure is qualified as a “nuclear option”. It is the first time this procedure is triggered by European institutions.

In fact, the European Commission (EC) – announced by its Vice-President Frans Timmermans – launched the first step of the procedure due to “clear risk of serious breach of the rule of law”. By this expression, the EC conducted disciplinary action against the Polish reform of its judicial system, who is “now under the political control of the ruling majority” according to the EC press release.

In this context, several European voices was heard. Phillippe Lamberts (president of the Green/AFA’s group) said “we are glad that the European Commission finally followed our repeated calls”. Gianni Pittella – president of the S&D group – declared “we fully support the decision of the European Commission”. The president of the EPP group – Sergei Stanishev –  avowed that “the Polish government should stop portraying itself as a victim, the true victim here is Polish democracy”. Moreover, Iverna McGowan – director of Amnesty International European’s Institutions Office – admitted “the Polish government is finally seeing the consequences of their reckless drive to destroy freedoms in the country”.

The response of the Polish government claims that the EC procedure was “essentially political, not legal” and declares the will of the Polish administration “to continue to reform our justice system”. In both statement, European institutions and Polish government announced their wish to dialog and find solutions in matter of divergent visions of state of law.

The article 7 was triggered by one third of the Member States; and the first step is to give the opportunity for Poland to be in agreement with the EU fundamental rights. Before the official suspension of Poland’s voting rights, there are two more steps unavoidable and involving the three mains European institutions (Council, Commission and Parliament).

After Brexit, Poland is now threatening to weaken the unity of the European Union.

 

Jean-Hugue Baraër

For further information:

European Commission. Rule of Law: European Commission acts to defend judicial independence in Poland. Press release. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-17-5367_en.htm

Euractiv. Brussels triggers unprecedented action against Poland. https://www.euractiv.com/section/justice-home-affairs/news/brussels-triggers-unprecedented-action-against-poland/

Politico EU. Brussels puts Warsaw on path to sanctions over rule of law. https://www.politico.eu/article/frans-timmermans-brussels-puts-warsaw-on-path-to-sanctions-over-rule-of-law/

Politico EU. Poland won’t back down. https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-rule-of-law-wont-back-down-from-brussels-eu/

On December 9th, taking to her Facebook account, Linda Sarsour justified Palestinian terrorism:
In context of what's happening in Palestine in response to the announcement about Jerusalem and in general living under the longest and most brutal military occupation - we have to get a few things straight.

Nobody gets to tell an occupied people how to respond to their own oppression and the continued stripping of their humanity, agency and land whether they are Palestinians or not. Nobody. Oppressed people determine how, when and where to resist. They set the parameters. You don't have to agree. Unless you have lived in their condition under the boot of a racist, supremacist, violent regime that sees them as less than human - you have no say in this conversation... [emphasis added]Let's put aside how Linda Sarsour, who lives in the US, has a say in this "conversation" -- but not anyone critical of Palestinian Arabs who attack and kill Israeli civilians.


First of all, the Muslim attacks and persecution of indigenous Jews in that land is nothing new.

It has continued for over a millennium -- how could it be otherwise for non-Muslims under Sharia law which originated the requirement for Jews to wear a yellow star to distinguish them from Muslims and shame them, disallows non-Muslims to testify against Muslims outside of commercial cases and obligates non-Muslims to pay a special, onerous, jizya tax.

Arab attacks and mistreatment of Jews has nothing to do with Arabs being oppressed, but rather the continuation of their being the oppressors. For example, Muslims have a history of stoning Jews that predates the re-establishment of the state of Israel, going back to when the Arabs played host to Jews.

• In 1955, S. D. Goitein, in his book Jews and Arabs: Their Contacts Through the Ages, wrote:
  In former times--and in remote places even today--it was common for Muslim schoolboys to stone Jews. When the Turks conquered Yemen in 1872, an envoy was sent from the Chief Rabbi of Istanbul to inquire what grievance the Yemenite Jews had against their neighbors. It is indicative that the first thing of which they complained was this molestation by the schoolboys. But when the Turkish Governor asked an assembly of notables to stop this nuisance, there arose an old doctor of Muslim law and explained that this stone-throwing at Jews was an age-old custom (in Arabic 'Ada) and therefore it was unlawful to forbid it. [p. 76, emphasis added]
• In Eight years in Asia and Africa from 1846-1855, Israel Joseph Benjamin includes among the multiple indignities regularly suffered by Jews at the hands of the Muslims of Persia:
  Under the pretext of their being unclean, they are treated with the greatest severity, and should they enter a street, inhabited by Mussulmans, they are pelted by the boys and mob with stones and dirt.[p 212]
• Andrew Bostom gives examples in The Legacy of Islamic Antisemitism: From Sacred Texts to Solemn History.He quotes from Robert Satloff's book, Among the Righteous -- Lost Stories from the Holocaust's Long Reach into Arab Lands, where Satloff tells the story of Yehuda Chachmon, who lived under Italian rule in Benghazi, Libya, during WWII and wrote about Arab street gangs:
  “Arabs would throw oranges, tomatoes, stones at us,” he said. “Every Jew would hide in his house after five in the evening. The houses were closed [i.e., locked up] with bars and you could not leave until the morning.’” [p 153]

Meanwhile, in then-Palestine, Jews suffered from attacks by Palestinian Arab in control in the centuries leading up to Jewish immigration, illustrating again that Arab attacks on Jews have nothing to do with being oppressed. The examples come from Joan Peters' From Time Immemorial, collected from various authors.
1660: The Jewish community in Safed is massacred. [p. 178]

1742: A rabbi is allowed to settle in Tiberias and his arrival "brought back the Jewish community of Tiberias, which had been virtually purged of Jews for seventy years" [p. 179]

1775: Blood libel is spread against Jews in Hebron, resulting in mob violence. [p. 179]

1799: Safed's Jewish Quarter "was completely sacked by the Turks" [p. 179]

1801: Djezzar sends troops to destroy crops in Nazareth while in Ramleh "during the three days of pillage, the local Latin Christians were either murdered, or lost all their property and fled" [p. 180]

1830's "One book reported the game 'Burn the Jew,' a Christian-Arab children's pastime at Lent in Jaffa. [p. 1888]

1834: Egyptian ruler Ibrahim Pasha levies conscription and when those in Eastern Palestine cross the Jordan to join in a revolt, "forty thousand fellahin rushed on Jerusalem...the mob entered, and looted the city for five or six days. The Jews were the worst sufferers, their homes were sacked and their women violated." [p. 183]

1834: In Safed, the Jewish community is "brutally attacked by Muslim and Druzes" [p. 183]

1834: In Safed, Muhammed Damoor 'prophesies' that on the 15th of June "the true Believers would rise up in just wrath against the Jews, and despoil them of their gold, and their silver, and their jewels"--this becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. [p. 185-6]

1837: Safed is hit by an earthquake which results in another attack by the Muslims on the Jews. [p. 183]

1840: Blood libel in Damascus has repercussions in Palestine. [p. 183]

1847: Charge of ritual murder is brought against the Jewish community in Jerusalem. [p. 190]

1847: Jewish visitor to Palestine writes about the Jewish community "They do not have any protection and are at the mercy of policemen and the pashas who treat them as they wish...they pay various taxes every now and then...their property is not at their disposal and they dare not complain about an injury for fear of the Arabs' revenge. Their lives are precarious and subject to daily danger of death" [p. 190-1]

1848 Hebron plundered. [p. 191]

1848-1878: Reports from the British Consulate in Jerusalem document scores of anti-Jewish violence. Example--"July, 1851: It is my duty to report to Your Excellency that the Jews in Hebron have been greatly alarmed by threats of the Moslems there at the commencement of Ramadan..."

1858: Muslim in Hebron is confronted with his theft and vandalism of Jews and responds that "his right derived from time immemorial in his family, to enter Jewish houses, and take toll or contributions at any time without giving account" [p. 173]In contrast, in Israel today, under what Sarsour glibly refers to as a "racist, supremacist, violent regime that sees them as less than human," Israeli Arabs participate in all aspects of Israeli life: social, judicial and political. Among the high-profile political, military, and judiciary roles Israeli Arabs have:

• Jamal Hakrush, Israeli police deputy commissioner.
• Mariam Kabha, Attorney. Unanimously approved by Israel's cabinet to be national commissioner for equal employment opportunities
• George Deek, Israel's Deputy Ambassador to Norway
• Colonel Ghassan Alian, Commander of IDF Golani Brigade
  
  
• Naim Aradi, Israel's Ambassador to Norway
• Yusef Mishleb - IDF Major General
• George Kara, led 3-judge panel that convicted Israeli ex-President.
  
  
• Jamal Zahalka, received BA, MA and Ph.D. Member of Israeli Parliament and leader of Balad political party -- while describing himself a victim of "Israeli racist apartheid"
  
  
• Omar Barghouti, Doctoral student at Tel Aviv -- while a leading Arab advocate for the academic boycott of Israel.
• Majalli Wahabi, Former Deputy Speaker of the Israel Parliament -- and acting President of Israel during February, 2007
  
  
• Reda Mansour, historian, poet and former Israeli ambassador to Ecuador
• Salim Joubran, Israeli Supreme Court Justice
  
  

Obviously, there is a lot of work still to be done, but clearly, there is movement in the right direction.

Meanwhile, Palestinian Arabs in the "West Bank" now have the closest thing they have ever had to their own sovereign state, something they have never had -- least of all under the rule of the Ottoman empire.

The crux of the problem with Sarsour's convenient claim to Palestinian right to murder Jews is that second paragraph:
Nobody gets to tell an occupied people how to respond to their own oppression and the continued stripping of their humanity, agency and land whether they are Palestinians or not. Nobody. Oppressed people determine how, when and where to resist. They set the parameters. This actually sounds familiar -- it is reminiscent of the claim Maureen Dowd's made about Cindy Sheehan, whose son was killed in the Iraq War. Dowd wrote that "moral authority of parents who bury children killed in Iraq is absolute" This arbitrary assignment of superior judgment, or in this case, giving Palestinians a pass on murder, just does not cut it.

Her words may resonate rhetorically, but they fall apart when examing the facts.

In his book, The Case for Israel, Alan Dershowitz examines this issue in the chapter, "Is There Moral Equivalence between Palestinian Terrorists and Israeli Responses?"

It is perhaps a sign of how far Sarsour is willing to go, that instead of talking about moral equivalence, Sarsour is claiming moral superiority.

Dershowitz recalls some examples of Palestinian terrorist attacks that perhaps Sarsour has forgotten:

• The Maalot massacre where 25 hostages, including 22 children, were killed and 68 more were injured.
• A Swiss airliner headed to Israel in which all forty-seven civilian passengers were killed
• The Lod Airport Massacre, in which twenty-seven civilians, mostly Christian pilgrims, were killed
• The Passover Massacre, where twenty-nine Jews were killed during a Passover seder
• The Dolphinarium Massacre, where twenty-one mostly Russian Jews were killed in a discotheque for teenagers
• The Hebrew University bombing, where nine people were killed in the Hebrew University cafeteria

Does Sarsour really thing that Palestinian terrorists get to make the parameters for the murder of defenseless men, women and children?

A better question might be what is Sarsour's source for claiming terrorists have a moral right to choose their victims? Is it based on the Koran or does she have some other source?

In The Crisis of Islam, Bernard Lewis quotes from the standard collections of the traditions of the prophet on the rules of warfare and the conduct of Jihad:
Be advised to treat prisoners well.
Looting is no more lawful than carrion.
Allah has forbidden the killing of women and children
Muslims are bound by their agreements, provided that these are lawful. [p. 33]Lewis later spells it out:
Fighters in a jihad are enjoined not to kill women, children, and the aged unless they attack first, not to torture or mutilate prisoners, to give fair warning of the resumption of hostilities after a struce and to honor agreements. [p. 39]Is Sarsour actually claiming that Islam sanctions the murder of innocent children? If so, let her give a source. If her source is from outside of Islam, why is she elevating that authority above that of Islam?

Contrary to Sarsour, Palestinian terrorists do not have an absolute moral authority that frees them from judgment and allows them to murder unarmed Jews at will.

Palestinian terrorists need to be held accountable for their actions.
Linda Sarsour should be held accountable for her absurd claims.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

The shedding of blood, the violation of the sacred houses of God and the terrorizing of worshippers are acts of corruption on the earth.
Ahmed El-Tayyeb, current Grand Imam of al-Azhar and former president of al-Azhar University
In the last week of November, over 300 Sufi Arabs were murdered in a terrorist attack on their mosque:
The death toll in a bomb and gun attack on a Sufi mosque in northern Sinai has risen to 305, with 27 children among the dead, Egypt's state prosecutor said Saturday.

Another 128 people were wounded, according to a statement from the public prosecutor read out on Egyptian state-run news channel Nile TV.

Between 25 and 30 armed men carried out the assault on the al Rawdah Sufi mosque in Bir al-Abed, the statement said.Along with the horror at the senseless massacre is the sense that of all places, a mosque -- as a holy place of worship -- should be immune from bloodshed. Even if the Islamists behind the attack considered Sufis to be heretics, the blind gunfire would result in the destruction of copies of the Koran in addition to the carnage.

There was a similar Western sense of revulsion and confusion in response to other news reports of Muslim attacks on mosques over the years.


In the course of one year, from August 2010 to August 2011:

• In August 2011, the New York Times reported: 28 Are Killed in a Bombing at a Mosque in Baghdad.
  
  
• In October 2010 in Afghanistan, The Taliban murdered the head of Kunduz province, along with 14 other people, in a mosque bombing in Tahkar after the governor had been spoken out against the Taliban and other terror groups.
  
  
• In September 2010,  a mosque was burned during the arson attack on the Crazy Water Park in Gaza according to a report by The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights.
  
  
• August 2010, a mosque was destroyed in Lebanon in a fight between Hezbollah and a rival group.
  
  
• In addition, a Turkish general admitted he deliberately destroyed a mosque in 1974 to intimidate an enemy:
  In remarks published in the Haber Türk daily yesterday as part of an interview with Gen. Sabri Yirmibeşoğlu, who led the Special War Department in 1971 and also worked to mobilize civilian resistance during Turkey's military intervention on Cyprus in 1974, said: “In Special War, certain acts of sabotage are staged and blamed on the enemy to increase public resistance. We did this on Cyprus; we even burnt down a mosque.” In response to the surprised correspondent's incredulous look the general said, “I am giving an example,” in an attempt to clear things up. [emphasis added]

While the Turkish destruction of a mosque was in the context of a "military intervention" if not a war, those other examples, including the Sufi mosque massacre, were a consequence of Muslim infighting.

Why was there no sense of sacrilege to inhibit the attackers in each case?

Back in 2010, in response to the Goldstone Report on Operation Cast Lead, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center dedicated a chapter of it's own report, Hamas and the Terrorist Threat from the Gaza Strip, to the Hamas exploitation of mosques. An article in The Jerusalem Post summarized the report findings: Hamas used almost 100 mosques for military purposes:
The Malam report asserts that the extensive use of mosques to store weapons and as launch pads for rocket attacks on Israel was part of a Hamas strategy based on the knowledge that the IDF would not target civilian infrastructure including mosques, which were therefore ideal for weapons storehouses and rocket attacks.

The Malam analysis is based on Hamas sketches of neighborhoods that show that mosques were used as sniper positions, Israel Air Force videos showing massive secondary explosions after mosques were hit as well as reports from IDF troops.

One mosque in the Zeitoun neighborhood of Gaza City was raided by IDF troops who discovered a warehouse full of rockets and mortar shells. During the operation, a rocket-propelled grenade was fired at Israel troops from the mosque.

On January 13, IDF troops raided a mosque in Jabalya in northern Gaza that was full of weaponry including an anti-aircraft cannon. In a mosque in the Atatra neighborhood in northern Gaza City, troops uncovered a secret warehouse built under the podium, from where the imam leads prayers, which was full of weaponry and improvised explosive devices.According to the report, the use of mosques for military purposes is as old as Islam itself:
The massive military use Hamas and the other terrorist organizations made of mosques has historical-religious roots. By the 7th century the prophet Muhammad had turned the mosque he built in Medina into a center for preaching, a place where political matters were dealt with, consultations held and appointments made, and where the Muslim army was prepared before it was dispatched to war and to attack the enemies of Islam. Muslim sages are of the opinion that the mosque is not only a house of prayer but that other uses, including military and political, are acceptable. Contemporary examples of the military and political uses made of mosques by radical Islamic terrorist organizations can be found in the Gaza Strip and many other places in the Arab-Muslim world. [p145. Emphasis in the original]One example of such a Muslim religious leader is the Salafist Sheikh Saeed Abdul Azim:
The mosque is the place of worship and retreat, the place of education and guidance, the place of consultation and advice of Muslims, the safe driving center, the headquarters of the military command, the holding of the armies of the Mujahedeen in the cause of Allah and the place of reception of the coming delegations of the Messenger of Allah. The mosque, and say to them - peace be upon him -: (without you sons of Arvada) Agreed upon.[translated with Google Translate; emphasis added]Then there is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, who until 2015 permitted suicide bombings:
Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi asserted at the time that mosques may be used for political, social, cultural and religious purposes, including on issues related to jihad. He noted that in the days of the Prophet Muhammad, the mosque was the center of activities for the entire Muslim society. The mosque was not only a place to worship Allah, but also a place of study, a gathering place for consultation, a place for people to get to know one another and the like. According to him, in the days of the Prophet Muhammad, delegations would travel from the Arabian Peninsula to meet with the Prophet at the mosque. In those days, Friday sermons were delivered at mosques, and instructions from the Prophet were given to his followers on various topics, including religious, social and political matters. In AlQaradawi’s opinion, since the inception of Islam, the mosque has played an important role in encouraging Muslims to embark on jihad and in the management of the "resistance against the enemies of the [Muslim] community, from among invaders who seek to govern it [i.e., the Muslim community]." Al-Qaradawi noted that mosques play an important role in any jihad. Moreover, in his opinion, it is permissible to preach in a mosque against a government that does not comply with Sharia. [p. 2, emphasis in original]
Al-Qaradawi. Source: Wikipedia. Credit: Nmkuttiady
Using mosques as a base of operations to fire rockets of course disregards the danger it causes to civilians. We have seen in the past that civilian casualties are not a concern for a terrorist group like Hamas. However, the further danger of this approach towards mosques is that they do not appear to have the kind of sanctity that protects worshippers from attacks by other Muslims.

This is a Pandora's Box that was faced by Jews, when in protest against the writings of the Rambam, they burned his books. When non-Jews saw how Jews treated their own writings, they picked up on the idea and burned Jewish holy books too.

This domino effect explains how the Taliban had no problem defacing a Koran in order to sell Heroin.

We learned our lesson.

The Muslim attitude towards mosques, however, is hardwired into Islam -- and considering the tinderbox that is the Middle East, that Sufi mosque is unlikely to be the last to be targeted by Islamist terrorists.



-----
If you found this post interesting or informative, please it below. Thanks!

Az ember az állandó rohanásban örül ha a FBre felteszi amit írt, de most végre ide is. Ebben az elemzésben kb megírtam mindent, amit meg akartam írni. A lényegi üzenet, hogy a népszavazás nem döntött el semmit, és a hivatalos narratíva mellett (ideje letapogatni, hogy lehet e függetlennek lenni), legalább ennyire, ha nem fontosabb volt, hogy a Barzani elnök valahogy megpróbálja prolongálni a vezető szerepét. Ezt utóbbit pedig azért érdemes bemutatni, megvizsgálni, mert nyugaton csak annyi látszott a népszavazásból és az utólagos eseményekből, hogy jaj a kurdok megpróbálták mert megérdemlik, de utána meg jaj az iraki kormány, meg Irán és Töröko. hogy beakasztott nekik.
Most jut eszembe, hogy konkrétan el is felejtettem megcáfolni (jó, kontextualizálni) azt a kurd állítást, miszerint ők védték meg a nyugatot az Iszlám Államtól mert falként védték a határokat és súlyos áldozatokat vállaltak. Valóban vállaltak áldozatokat, de ez 1 magukról is szólt, 2. az IÁ csak egyszer tett egy szerény - Moszulhoz hasonló - bepróbálkozást, aztán már csak lövöldözés és robbantgatás folyt.
A másik fő tanulság a tanulmányból, hogy az elemzésben részletezett válságok mellett - a vezetői válság kiteljesedésére is számítani lehet, és az a legrosszabb. Mind három nagy párt élén rivalizálásra és belharcra lehet számítani úgy hogy a belpolválság nem oldódott meg és jönnek majd a kurd és iraki választások is jövőre.
Elkapkodott függetlenség? Iraki Kurdisztán és a függetlenségi népszavazás.

Akinek hosszú a 10 oldal, annak megírtam hasonlóan (de önálló mű), az Élet és Irodalomban is, rövid video reklám után olvasható. A cím: Elsietett függetlenség. Direkt ugyanarra vettem kettőt, jobb találati arány a Google-ben :)

Le chef d’état-major des armées évoquait les aspects industriels du futur avion de combat.

A Széchenyi 2020 program „Vállalatok K+F+I tevékenységének támogatása” című felhívása keretében 211,02 millió forint vissza nem térítendő európai uniós támogatást nyert el a GALLDORF Takarmánygyártó és Kereskedelmi Zrt. által vezetett konzorcium. A 340,95 millió forint összköltségű projekt során GMO mentes minőségi takarmány szójabab termesztési technológiájának és feldolgozási lehetőségeinek kidolgozása történik a sertéstakarmányozásban.

A projektben hazánk GMO mentes szója alapanyag ellátása érdekében új takarmány típusokat fejlesztenek, amelyek előállításához szükséges, hogy a jelenleg alkalmazott szója termesztési technológiát is átalakítsák, gyakorlatilag új technológiai sort létrehozva az alapanyag előállítástól a takarmány feletetéséig.

A létrehozandó új technológiai sor eredményeként az ország gazdálkodói nagyobb hozammal termelhetik és értékesíthetik GMO mentes takarmány szója terményüket. Az állattenyésztők pedig kiváló, nagyobb tápanyagtartalommal rendelkező és egészségesebb takarmányhoz jutnak. A fejlesztők célja, hogy egyértelműen bebizonyítsák, hogy létezik olyan szójafajta szortiment, amely helyes agrotechnológia mellett képes a Közép-Magyarországi régió szójatermelésre alkalmas termőterületeinek lefedésére is, és amely technológia ezt követően hazánk többi területére, illetve egész Európára is kiterjeszthetővé válik. Ezen felül a hízlalási modell-kísérletekkel és részletes laborvizsgálatokkal kívánják bizonyítani ezen fajták beltartalmi erősségeit, amelyeket sikeresen fel lehet használni a felfutóban lévő sertéstenyésztés takarmány bázisának kialakításánál.

A felhasznált fehérjehordozók hazai beltartalmának és hozamának növelése érdekében egy új agrotechnológiai eljárás kidolgozása szükséges. Az így nyert GMO mentes szójabab biztosítja a vizsgálatok alapját. A projekt célja, hogy a fent említett technológiával megfelelő mennyiségű és minőségű GMO mentes takarmány alapanyagot állítsanak elő. Az innovatív technológiának köszönhetően egy jobb és szorosabb termelési folyamat jön létre a gazdálkodók, takarmány-előállító és sertéstelepet működtető vállalkozások között.

A projekt konzorciumvezetője a GALLDORF Takarmánygyártó és Kereskedelmi Zrt, a konzorcium tagja a PILLAR Európa Kutatási és Oktatási Nonprofit Kft.

A VEKOP-2.1.1-15 számú pályázati kiíráson 211 023 937 forint uniós támogatást elnyert, 340 951 485 forint összköltségvetésű fejlesztés 2017. október 1-én indult és várhatóan 2019. szeptember 30-án zárul.

A Széchenyi 2020 program „Vállalatok K+F+I tevékenységének támogatása” című felhívása keretében 211,02 millió forint vissza nem térítendő európai uniós támogatást nyert el a GALLDORF Takarmánygyártó és Kereskedelmi Zrt. által vezetett konzorcium. A 340,95 millió forint összköltségű projekt során GMO mentes minőségi takarmány szójabab termesztési technológiájának és feldolgozási lehetőségeinek kidolgozása történik a sertéstakarmányozásban.

A projektben hazánk GMO mentes szója alapanyag ellátása érdekében új takarmány típusokat fejlesztenek, amelyek előállításához szükséges, hogy a jelenleg alkalmazott szója termesztési technológiát is átalakítsák, gyakorlatilag új technológiai sort létrehozva az alapanyag előállítástól a takarmány feletetéséig.

A létrehozandó új technológiai sor eredményeként az ország gazdálkodói nagyobb hozammal termelhetik és értékesíthetik GMO mentes takarmány szója terményüket. Az állattenyésztők pedig kiváló, nagyobb tápanyagtartalommal rendelkező és egészségesebb takarmányhoz jutnak. A fejlesztők célja, hogy egyértelműen bebizonyítsák, hogy létezik olyan szójafajta szortiment, amely helyes agrotechnológia mellett képes a Közép-Magyarországi régió szójatermelésre alkalmas termőterületeinek lefedésére is, és amely technológia ezt követően hazánk többi területére, illetve egész Európára is kiterjeszthetővé válik. Ezen felül a hízlalási modell-kísérletekkel és részletes laborvizsgálatokkal kívánják bizonyítani ezen fajták beltartalmi erősségeit, amelyeket sikeresen fel lehet használni a felfutóban lévő sertéstenyésztés takarmány bázisának kialakításánál.

A felhasznált fehérjehordozók hazai beltartalmának és hozamának növelése érdekében egy új agrotechnológiai eljárás kidolgozása szükséges. Az így nyert GMO mentes szójabab biztosítja a vizsgálatok alapját. A projekt célja, hogy a fent említett technológiával megfelelő mennyiségű és minőségű GMO mentes takarmány alapanyagot állítsanak elő. Az innovatív technológiának köszönhetően egy jobb és szorosabb termelési folyamat jön létre a gazdálkodók, takarmány-előállító és sertéstelepet működtető vállalkozások között.

A projekt konzorciumvezetője a GALLDORF Takarmánygyártó és Kereskedelmi Zrt, a konzorcium tagja a PILLAR Európa Kutatási és Oktatási Nonprofit Kft.

A VEKOP-2.1.1-15 számú pályázati kiíráson 211 023 937 forint uniós támogatást elnyert, 340 951 485 forint összköltségvetésű fejlesztés 2017. október 1-én indult és várhatóan 2019. szeptember 30-án zárul.

What exactly is the European Parliament voting on?

Source : © European Union, 2017 - EP