30 août 2011, Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) http://www.france-palestine.org (France)
Nicolas Falez - RFI
Le mois prochain, les Palestiniens se tourneront vers l’ONU pour demander la reconnaissance internationale de leur Etat. Une démarche rejetée par Israël qui affirme que seule la négociation peut permettre l’avènement d’un Etat palestinien indépendant. L’Etat hébreu redoute des tensions, voire des violences sur le terrain, à l’occasion de ces grandes manœuvres palestiniennes à l’ONU. L’armée israélienne a donc commencé à préparer et entraîner les colons de Cisjordanie.
Le scénario que redoutent les Israéliens est celui d’une forte mobilisation populaire palestinienne dans les prochaines semaines, notamment à la date du 21 septembre, lorsque s’ouvrira l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU. Une mobilisation qui pourrait prendre la forme de manifestations prenant la direction des check-points de l’armée israélienne en Cisjordanie, voire même des implantations où vivent 300 000 colons israéliens.
L’armée de l’Etat hébreu a récemment mené une série d’exercices ayant pour but de préparer ses soldats mais aussi les colons eux-mêmes. La presse israélienne a obtenu des détails : autour de chaque colonie, deux lignes ont été définies. Si des manifestants palestiniens franchissent la première, ils feront face à des tirs de gaz lacrymogènes ou de grenades assourdissantes. S’ils franchissent la seconde, alors l’armée ouvrira le feu.
Outre l’entrainement d’équipes de sécurité au sein de chaque colonie, les autorités israéliennes multiplient actuellement les conseils aux dirigeants des implantations. Parmi les recommandations : constituer des stocks d’essence et de nourriture, au cas où les tensions sur le terrain génèreraient des difficultés d’approvisionnement.
terça-feira, 30 de agosto de 2011
Israeli intellectuals back Palestinian state; Women to march in Qalandia
29 August 2011, Communist Party of Israel המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית http://maki.org.il
A newly established cooperation between Israeli playwright Joshua Sobol and Arab-Palestinian poet in Israel Taha Muhammad Ali has led to a petition calling on intellectuals on both sides to support the foundation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
According to Sobol, the petition – distributed by email in recent days – has been signed by more than100 artists and academics, Jews and Arabs. It says that "the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 border, which will live in peace with Israel, is a crucial interest both for Israel and the Palestinians.
(June 4, 2011 demonstration in Tel-Aviv for a Palestinian state. Photo: Al Ittihad)
"All Arab countries and most of the world's countries support this solution for the conflict. According to the Arab Summit Conference in Beirut in 2002, all Arab countries and 60 Muslim countries would recognize the State of Israel and establish diplomatic relations with it if Israel were to recognize the '67 borders as the borders of just, comprehensive and sustainable peace with the future Palestinian state.
"These borders will gain the recognition of the UN and the countries of the world, as well as international guarantees." Sobol and Muhammad Ali warn in the petition that the ongoing political stalemate will create fertile land for extreme forces, who they say seek to drag the region's people into bloodshed and disastrous wars, which "create destruction, perpetuate backwardness and prevent any option of normalization of life and furthering social justice."
Talking about social justice, the two say that the recent popular protests movements in Arab countries and Israel express the aspirations for normalization of life that will exist in the region in times of peace, which will guarantee the fulfillment of the existential interests of the citizens of Israel and the Palestinian state and allow economic prosperity and social justice for all of the region's nations.
"For all these reasons, we the undersigned welcome the establishment of a Palestinian state within the '67 borders, including east Jerusalem, and call on its leadership and on the Israeli leadership to resume – immediately upon the foundation of the Palestinian state – the negotiations for ending the conflict based on UN resolutions and the international legitimization of a sustainable peace settlement between the two countries."
A women's march to be held in Qalandia checkpoint
Thousands of peace and left-wing women, from Israel and Palestine are expected to march through Qalandia checkpoint in east Jerusalem, Saturday, September 17 at 11 am. Among them Hadash, Communist Party of Israel and Tandi (Women's Democratic Movement in Israel) members, in support of an independent Palestinian state ahead of a declaration of statehood at the UN.
The demonstration will call for recognition of the Palestinian right to an independent state, with Jerusalem as its capital. The demonstration will be held in the two sides of the Qalandia checkpoint, with the participation of the General Union of Palestinian Women activists. March organizers were expecting thousands of Israeli and Palestinian women to participate.
On June 4, some 25,000 people marched through the streets of Tel Aviv in a demonstration calling for the creation of a Palestinian state. Setting out from the city’s central Rabin Square, protesters affiliated with the Hadash, Meretz, Peace Now, the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement and the Geneva Initiative slowly made their way along an unusually long route to the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, where a rally was held. Speakers included MKs from the Hadash, Meretz, Labor and Kadima parties.
Accompanied by a small but loud amateur marching band composed of youths from the Communist Party, activists carrying Israeli, Palestinian and red flags marched past Dizengoff center, making their presence known with amplified chants of: “Israel and Palestine, two states for two peoples”; “Yes we ‘ken’” (the Hebrew word for “yes”); and “Bibi and Barak, peace isn’t a game,” referring to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu by his nickname.
(in Hebrew and Arabic): http://2states.org.il/independent
A newly established cooperation between Israeli playwright Joshua Sobol and Arab-Palestinian poet in Israel Taha Muhammad Ali has led to a petition calling on intellectuals on both sides to support the foundation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders.
According to Sobol, the petition – distributed by email in recent days – has been signed by more than100 artists and academics, Jews and Arabs. It says that "the establishment of a Palestinian state within the 1967 border, which will live in peace with Israel, is a crucial interest both for Israel and the Palestinians.
(June 4, 2011 demonstration in Tel-Aviv for a Palestinian state. Photo: Al Ittihad)
"All Arab countries and most of the world's countries support this solution for the conflict. According to the Arab Summit Conference in Beirut in 2002, all Arab countries and 60 Muslim countries would recognize the State of Israel and establish diplomatic relations with it if Israel were to recognize the '67 borders as the borders of just, comprehensive and sustainable peace with the future Palestinian state.
"These borders will gain the recognition of the UN and the countries of the world, as well as international guarantees." Sobol and Muhammad Ali warn in the petition that the ongoing political stalemate will create fertile land for extreme forces, who they say seek to drag the region's people into bloodshed and disastrous wars, which "create destruction, perpetuate backwardness and prevent any option of normalization of life and furthering social justice."
Talking about social justice, the two say that the recent popular protests movements in Arab countries and Israel express the aspirations for normalization of life that will exist in the region in times of peace, which will guarantee the fulfillment of the existential interests of the citizens of Israel and the Palestinian state and allow economic prosperity and social justice for all of the region's nations.
"For all these reasons, we the undersigned welcome the establishment of a Palestinian state within the '67 borders, including east Jerusalem, and call on its leadership and on the Israeli leadership to resume – immediately upon the foundation of the Palestinian state – the negotiations for ending the conflict based on UN resolutions and the international legitimization of a sustainable peace settlement between the two countries."
A women's march to be held in Qalandia checkpoint
Thousands of peace and left-wing women, from Israel and Palestine are expected to march through Qalandia checkpoint in east Jerusalem, Saturday, September 17 at 11 am. Among them Hadash, Communist Party of Israel and Tandi (Women's Democratic Movement in Israel) members, in support of an independent Palestinian state ahead of a declaration of statehood at the UN.
The demonstration will call for recognition of the Palestinian right to an independent state, with Jerusalem as its capital. The demonstration will be held in the two sides of the Qalandia checkpoint, with the participation of the General Union of Palestinian Women activists. March organizers were expecting thousands of Israeli and Palestinian women to participate.
On June 4, some 25,000 people marched through the streets of Tel Aviv in a demonstration calling for the creation of a Palestinian state. Setting out from the city’s central Rabin Square, protesters affiliated with the Hadash, Meretz, Peace Now, the Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity Movement and the Geneva Initiative slowly made their way along an unusually long route to the Tel Aviv Museum of Art, where a rally was held. Speakers included MKs from the Hadash, Meretz, Labor and Kadima parties.
Accompanied by a small but loud amateur marching band composed of youths from the Communist Party, activists carrying Israeli, Palestinian and red flags marched past Dizengoff center, making their presence known with amplified chants of: “Israel and Palestine, two states for two peoples”; “Yes we ‘ken’” (the Hebrew word for “yes”); and “Bibi and Barak, peace isn’t a game,” referring to Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu by his nickname.
(in Hebrew and Arabic): http://2states.org.il/independent
Wikileaks: US Embassy officials got upclose view of marginalization and removal of Bedouins in Negev in ’05 (and said nothing publicly)
29 August 2011, Mondoweiss http://mondoweiss.net (USA)
Philip Weiss
The latest from Wikileaks (thanks to Ali Gharib). Once again, we see American Embassy officials in Israel learning intimately about an outrage back in 2005-- the Judaization of the Negev, the Israeli program to move Bedouins into a few approved townships-- and did we hear a word publicly about the outrage, no. Why do we have a State Department?
Here is the State Department Human Rights report from 2005. Its description of Bedouin conditions lacks the understanding reflected in this cable: That Bedouins are being relocated, that Jewish settlement in the Negev is being encouraged, that there are no high schools in the unrecognized Bedouin villages. The Israeli side of the story is presented carefully in the report.
The uprooting of the Bedouins has been a regular theme on this website in the last couple years. Many intrepid journalists have gone into the Negev to report on this. And from this cable we learn that the State Department was aware of these plans SIX years ago, was meeting with the Association of Forty, Bedouin leaders, and said nothing.
The cable is marked "Sensitive." Excerpts:
Summary: Emboffs met February 17 [2005] with Bedouin community representatives in two Negev desert Bedouin villages not legally recognized by the GOI [Government of Israel] to discuss issues affecting their lives and possible PD [Policy Division] small grants assistance to educational programs. The Bedouin in these two unrecognized communities live in poor, makeshift conditions, without the benefits of municipal services or basic infrastructure. Highlighting the Bedouin's tenuous residential status in the state, and GOI distrust of this segment of the population, the Jerusalem Post reported February 18 that the GOI intends to relocate hundreds of Bedouin families in illegal Negev communities near the perimeter fence of an airbase. The report draws the conclusion from unnamed Israeli military sources that the GOI fears that the Bedouin, who are citizens of Israel, may acquire anti-aircraft missiles for use against Israeli aircraft. This cable offers a snapshot of life in these illegal villages and a Bedouin perspective on the political context. End summary.
------------------------- Many Bedouin Marginalized ....
According to the Association of Forty's data, [Attia] El-Asam said, the Negev has about 45 so-called "unrecognized" Bedouin villages, with some 70,000 Bedouin residents, or half of the total Negev Bedouin population. These unrecognized villages have never been included in GOI land planning, do not qualify for provision of any public services, and therefore do not officially exist on Israeli maps. Many Bedouin are life-long residents of these communities, but are considered squatters by the GOI. Without legal status, these communities receive no government resources, including municipal services and infrastructure development.
...El-Asam highlighted that, while the Bedouin now compose about 30 percent of the Negev population, the GOI has recognized as legal only seven communities or "townships" wherein the Bedouin population can legally reside. According to The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights In Israel - Adalah, the GOI initiated a program to resettle the Bedouin in these seven townships during the 1960s-70s.
....El-Asam claimed that the GOI nonetheless provides electrical and other municipal services to 60 Jewish National Fund-sponsored single-family farms in the Negev for Israeli Jews, none of which are connected to larger communities...
No high schools exist in any of the unrecognized villages, according to El-Asam, and only 16 of the villages contain even makeshift elementary schools. El-Asam claimed that 70 percent of the children in the unrecognized villages live below the poverty line.
Philip Weiss
The latest from Wikileaks (thanks to Ali Gharib). Once again, we see American Embassy officials in Israel learning intimately about an outrage back in 2005-- the Judaization of the Negev, the Israeli program to move Bedouins into a few approved townships-- and did we hear a word publicly about the outrage, no. Why do we have a State Department?
Here is the State Department Human Rights report from 2005. Its description of Bedouin conditions lacks the understanding reflected in this cable: That Bedouins are being relocated, that Jewish settlement in the Negev is being encouraged, that there are no high schools in the unrecognized Bedouin villages. The Israeli side of the story is presented carefully in the report.
The uprooting of the Bedouins has been a regular theme on this website in the last couple years. Many intrepid journalists have gone into the Negev to report on this. And from this cable we learn that the State Department was aware of these plans SIX years ago, was meeting with the Association of Forty, Bedouin leaders, and said nothing.
The cable is marked "Sensitive." Excerpts:
Summary: Emboffs met February 17 [2005] with Bedouin community representatives in two Negev desert Bedouin villages not legally recognized by the GOI [Government of Israel] to discuss issues affecting their lives and possible PD [Policy Division] small grants assistance to educational programs. The Bedouin in these two unrecognized communities live in poor, makeshift conditions, without the benefits of municipal services or basic infrastructure. Highlighting the Bedouin's tenuous residential status in the state, and GOI distrust of this segment of the population, the Jerusalem Post reported February 18 that the GOI intends to relocate hundreds of Bedouin families in illegal Negev communities near the perimeter fence of an airbase. The report draws the conclusion from unnamed Israeli military sources that the GOI fears that the Bedouin, who are citizens of Israel, may acquire anti-aircraft missiles for use against Israeli aircraft. This cable offers a snapshot of life in these illegal villages and a Bedouin perspective on the political context. End summary.
------------------------- Many Bedouin Marginalized ....
According to the Association of Forty's data, [Attia] El-Asam said, the Negev has about 45 so-called "unrecognized" Bedouin villages, with some 70,000 Bedouin residents, or half of the total Negev Bedouin population. These unrecognized villages have never been included in GOI land planning, do not qualify for provision of any public services, and therefore do not officially exist on Israeli maps. Many Bedouin are life-long residents of these communities, but are considered squatters by the GOI. Without legal status, these communities receive no government resources, including municipal services and infrastructure development.
...El-Asam highlighted that, while the Bedouin now compose about 30 percent of the Negev population, the GOI has recognized as legal only seven communities or "townships" wherein the Bedouin population can legally reside. According to The Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights In Israel - Adalah, the GOI initiated a program to resettle the Bedouin in these seven townships during the 1960s-70s.
....El-Asam claimed that the GOI nonetheless provides electrical and other municipal services to 60 Jewish National Fund-sponsored single-family farms in the Negev for Israeli Jews, none of which are connected to larger communities...
No high schools exist in any of the unrecognized villages, according to El-Asam, and only 16 of the villages contain even makeshift elementary schools. El-Asam claimed that 70 percent of the children in the unrecognized villages live below the poverty line.
Em ato expressivo, embaixador palestino convoca o 20 de Setembro
29 Agosto de 2011, Vermelho http://www.vermelho.org.br (Brasil)
Um ato representativo da força que tem o movimento pró-Estado palestino no Brasil tomou conta do Sindicato dos Engenheiros de São Paulo nesta segunda-feira (29). A mobilização se deu em torno da presença do embaixador da Palestina no Brasil, Ibrahim Alzeben, e do lançamento da página eletrônica www.palestinaja.org. Além do embaixador, 18 pessoas, entre representantes de entidades e movimentos, parlamentares e intelectuais manifestaram-se durante o ato.
Luana Bonone
Além de lançar a página eletrônica da Campanha Palestina Já!, o embaixador Ibrahim Alzeben convocou os apoiadores a mobilizarem o ato mundial pró-Estado da Palestina marcado para o dia 20 de setembro.
Após ouvir as manifestações de apoio de diversas entidades e personalidades, Ibrahim agradeceu a solidariedade, a qual se expressa como compromisso, disse, ressaltando que a demonstração vai além das falas no ato. “Aqui se expressa o povo brasileiro, sua verdadeira natureza solidária, sua natureza amiga”, emocionou-se o embaixador, referindo-se à mesa do ato, que foi convocada a assumir a mobilização do Brasil para as manifestações de 20 de setembro, que estão sendo convocadas em todo o mundo, pró-Estado da Palestina.
Pilhagem do petróleo
Tal aspecto característico do povo brasileiro já havia sido destacado pelo secretário de relações internacionais do PC do B, Ricardo Alemão Abreu, que também denunciou a lógica de pilhagem do petróleo utilizada pelas potências ocidentais na relação com os países do Oriente Médio.
Ibrahim destacou o caráter anti-imperialista da luta pró-Estado da Palestina e fez questão de repetir diversas vezes também seu caráter humanitário. “Não somos contra os judeus, queremos ter Israel como vizinho, para voltar a contribuir com o patrimônio da humanidade. A reconciliação começa aí”, defendeu Ibrahim Alzeben. Para ele, é preciso construir a “unidade a favor da humanidade”.
Em que pese o espírito de solidariedade, as manifestações a favor da criação do Estado da Palestina que antecederam a fala do embaixador foram acompanhadas de brados indignados contra a ocupação israelense – apoiada pelas potências imperialistas ocidentais – do território daquele povo.
Estado sionista terrorista
A presidente do Centro Brasileiro de Luta pela Paz (Cebrapaz) e também presidente do Conselho Mundial da Paz (CMP), Socorro Gomes, definiu Israel como um “Estado sionista que pratica genocídio cotidianamente”.
O embaixador relatou que as cidades palestinas já foram invadidas 57 vezes na história e contou a respeito de uma oliveira – símbolo forte para sua cultura – de 6 mil anos de idade. Em seguida, concluiu: “Fomos invadidos 57 vezes e nunca invadimos. E não desaparecemos, porque temos raízes profundas como esta oliveira. Não desapareceremos!”.
Citando diversas vezes heróis em favor da integração dos povos, como o latino-americano Simon Bolívar, Ibrahim disse que sua defesa, baseada na resolução da ONU de 1947, que criou o Estado de Israel e o Estado da Palestina, é para que seu filho jogue bola com seu vizinho Davi, filho do embaixador de Israel, e não para que ele seja um mártir. “’E uma reivindicação justa”, reforçou o embaixador.
“Massacres, intifadas, homens-bomba... queremos que isso tudo acabe, que isso passe à história. Aqueles que recorrem à violência é porque perderam toda a esperança”, defendeu Ibrahim.
Pouco antes de sua intervenção, Ibrahim Alzeben recebeu um manifesto de poetas e escritores brasileiros em favor do Estado da Palestina, intitulado “Somos todos palestinos”, que foi lido pelo professor doutor da USP Cláudio Daniel.
20 de setembro
O embaixador da palestina disse que no Acre, no Rio Grande do Sul e no Paraná já se iniciaram mobilizações pró-Estado da Palestina. Ele provocou os presentes para que construam tal movimento em todos os estados brasileiros e conclamou os presentes a se mobilizarem no dia 20 de setembro, quando apoiadores do Estado Palestino de todo o mundo estão sendo convocados a se mobilizar em apoio à solicitação que será apresentada pela Organização pela Libertação da Palestina (OLP) à Organização das Nações Unidas pelo reconhecimento do Estado da Palestina.
Conforme constatado pela secretária de relações internacionais do Partido dos Trabalhadores, Iole Ilíada, quase a totalidade dos países da América do Sul já reconhece o Estado da Palestina, inclusive o próprio Brasil, que oficializou tal gesto durante o governo Lula. No início do ato, foi lida carta do ex-presidente Lula a respeito deste reconhecimento.
O Cebrapaz está organizando uma expedição de solidariedade à Palestina em conjunto com a Federação Mundial da Juventude Democrática (FMJD). A comitiva deve desembarcar na Palestina em 17 de setembro.
Representatividade
Central dos Trabalhadores e Trabalhadoras do Brasil (CTB), Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT), Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), União Nacional dos Estudantes (UNE), Federação Democrática Internacional das Mulheres (Fedim), Marcha Mundial de Mulheres (MMM), Partido Pátria Livre (PPL), Congresso Nacional de Afrobrasileiros (CNAB), Confederação Nacional das Associações de Moradores (Conam), além dos já citados Cebrapaz, PCdoB e PT, compuseram a mesa, junto a parlamentares, como o vereador Jamil Murad (PCdoB) e os deputados estaduais Simão Pedro e Adriano Diogo (ambos do PT).
As saudações se concentraram em valorizar a luta do povo palestino pela sua autodeterminação e denunciar a postura guerreira de Israel apoiada por potências como os Estados Unidos. As grandes corporações de mídia também foram citadas como aliadas do terrorismo de Estado praticado por Israel em diversas intervenções.
Condolências
O ato foi iniciado com os hinos nacionais do Brasil e da Palestina, um vídeo sobre a história do povo palestino e um minuto de silêncio pelo falecimento da mãe do vereador Jamil Murad. O cerimonial destacou que Dona Hadige Murad fez questão de ser enterrada com trajes de acordo com a cultura palestina. O embaixador Ibrahim Alzeben iniciou sua intervenção prestando suas condolências a Jamil.
Ao fim, foi reforçada a convocação para as mobilizações mundiais de 20 de setembro, em defesa do reconhecimento do Estado da Palestina pela ONU. Cada integrante da mesa foi presenteado com uma “Rata”, lenço símbolo da luta do povo palestino.
De São Paulo, Luana Bonone
Um ato representativo da força que tem o movimento pró-Estado palestino no Brasil tomou conta do Sindicato dos Engenheiros de São Paulo nesta segunda-feira (29). A mobilização se deu em torno da presença do embaixador da Palestina no Brasil, Ibrahim Alzeben, e do lançamento da página eletrônica www.palestinaja.org. Além do embaixador, 18 pessoas, entre representantes de entidades e movimentos, parlamentares e intelectuais manifestaram-se durante o ato.
Luana Bonone
Além de lançar a página eletrônica da Campanha Palestina Já!, o embaixador Ibrahim Alzeben convocou os apoiadores a mobilizarem o ato mundial pró-Estado da Palestina marcado para o dia 20 de setembro.
Após ouvir as manifestações de apoio de diversas entidades e personalidades, Ibrahim agradeceu a solidariedade, a qual se expressa como compromisso, disse, ressaltando que a demonstração vai além das falas no ato. “Aqui se expressa o povo brasileiro, sua verdadeira natureza solidária, sua natureza amiga”, emocionou-se o embaixador, referindo-se à mesa do ato, que foi convocada a assumir a mobilização do Brasil para as manifestações de 20 de setembro, que estão sendo convocadas em todo o mundo, pró-Estado da Palestina.
Pilhagem do petróleo
Tal aspecto característico do povo brasileiro já havia sido destacado pelo secretário de relações internacionais do PC do B, Ricardo Alemão Abreu, que também denunciou a lógica de pilhagem do petróleo utilizada pelas potências ocidentais na relação com os países do Oriente Médio.
Ibrahim destacou o caráter anti-imperialista da luta pró-Estado da Palestina e fez questão de repetir diversas vezes também seu caráter humanitário. “Não somos contra os judeus, queremos ter Israel como vizinho, para voltar a contribuir com o patrimônio da humanidade. A reconciliação começa aí”, defendeu Ibrahim Alzeben. Para ele, é preciso construir a “unidade a favor da humanidade”.
Em que pese o espírito de solidariedade, as manifestações a favor da criação do Estado da Palestina que antecederam a fala do embaixador foram acompanhadas de brados indignados contra a ocupação israelense – apoiada pelas potências imperialistas ocidentais – do território daquele povo.
Estado sionista terrorista
A presidente do Centro Brasileiro de Luta pela Paz (Cebrapaz) e também presidente do Conselho Mundial da Paz (CMP), Socorro Gomes, definiu Israel como um “Estado sionista que pratica genocídio cotidianamente”.
O embaixador relatou que as cidades palestinas já foram invadidas 57 vezes na história e contou a respeito de uma oliveira – símbolo forte para sua cultura – de 6 mil anos de idade. Em seguida, concluiu: “Fomos invadidos 57 vezes e nunca invadimos. E não desaparecemos, porque temos raízes profundas como esta oliveira. Não desapareceremos!”.
Citando diversas vezes heróis em favor da integração dos povos, como o latino-americano Simon Bolívar, Ibrahim disse que sua defesa, baseada na resolução da ONU de 1947, que criou o Estado de Israel e o Estado da Palestina, é para que seu filho jogue bola com seu vizinho Davi, filho do embaixador de Israel, e não para que ele seja um mártir. “’E uma reivindicação justa”, reforçou o embaixador.
“Massacres, intifadas, homens-bomba... queremos que isso tudo acabe, que isso passe à história. Aqueles que recorrem à violência é porque perderam toda a esperança”, defendeu Ibrahim.
Pouco antes de sua intervenção, Ibrahim Alzeben recebeu um manifesto de poetas e escritores brasileiros em favor do Estado da Palestina, intitulado “Somos todos palestinos”, que foi lido pelo professor doutor da USP Cláudio Daniel.
20 de setembro
O embaixador da palestina disse que no Acre, no Rio Grande do Sul e no Paraná já se iniciaram mobilizações pró-Estado da Palestina. Ele provocou os presentes para que construam tal movimento em todos os estados brasileiros e conclamou os presentes a se mobilizarem no dia 20 de setembro, quando apoiadores do Estado Palestino de todo o mundo estão sendo convocados a se mobilizar em apoio à solicitação que será apresentada pela Organização pela Libertação da Palestina (OLP) à Organização das Nações Unidas pelo reconhecimento do Estado da Palestina.
Conforme constatado pela secretária de relações internacionais do Partido dos Trabalhadores, Iole Ilíada, quase a totalidade dos países da América do Sul já reconhece o Estado da Palestina, inclusive o próprio Brasil, que oficializou tal gesto durante o governo Lula. No início do ato, foi lida carta do ex-presidente Lula a respeito deste reconhecimento.
O Cebrapaz está organizando uma expedição de solidariedade à Palestina em conjunto com a Federação Mundial da Juventude Democrática (FMJD). A comitiva deve desembarcar na Palestina em 17 de setembro.
Representatividade
Central dos Trabalhadores e Trabalhadoras do Brasil (CTB), Central Única dos Trabalhadores (CUT), Movimento dos Trabalhadores Rurais Sem Terra (MST), União Nacional dos Estudantes (UNE), Federação Democrática Internacional das Mulheres (Fedim), Marcha Mundial de Mulheres (MMM), Partido Pátria Livre (PPL), Congresso Nacional de Afrobrasileiros (CNAB), Confederação Nacional das Associações de Moradores (Conam), além dos já citados Cebrapaz, PCdoB e PT, compuseram a mesa, junto a parlamentares, como o vereador Jamil Murad (PCdoB) e os deputados estaduais Simão Pedro e Adriano Diogo (ambos do PT).
As saudações se concentraram em valorizar a luta do povo palestino pela sua autodeterminação e denunciar a postura guerreira de Israel apoiada por potências como os Estados Unidos. As grandes corporações de mídia também foram citadas como aliadas do terrorismo de Estado praticado por Israel em diversas intervenções.
Condolências
O ato foi iniciado com os hinos nacionais do Brasil e da Palestina, um vídeo sobre a história do povo palestino e um minuto de silêncio pelo falecimento da mãe do vereador Jamil Murad. O cerimonial destacou que Dona Hadige Murad fez questão de ser enterrada com trajes de acordo com a cultura palestina. O embaixador Ibrahim Alzeben iniciou sua intervenção prestando suas condolências a Jamil.
Ao fim, foi reforçada a convocação para as mobilizações mundiais de 20 de setembro, em defesa do reconhecimento do Estado da Palestina pela ONU. Cada integrante da mesa foi presenteado com uma “Rata”, lenço símbolo da luta do povo palestino.
De São Paulo, Luana Bonone
New Israel Fund Alone in Funding Israel Protests
The Jewish Daily Forward http://www.forward.com (USA)
26 August 2011, issue of September 02, 2011
Leaders Reluctant to Take Help, Despite Shared Social Justice Goals
(Getty Images/Struggle Continues: As the protests in Israel continue, the New Israel Fund has been virtually alone in raising money to help. But leaders of the social movement want to maintain their independence.)
By Nathan Guttman
Washington — Since mid-July, hundreds of thousands of Israelis have demonstrated for “social justice” in what have been called the nation’s largest protests on domestic issues in recent memory, and organizers promise more. Yet the leaders of most major American Jewish organizations have been noticeably silent about these protests — with one exception.
And that organization, the New Israel Fund, which so far has raised $35,000 on behalf of the demonstrators, has been shunned by some of the very protesters it is trying to support.
This dynamic illustrates the way that the protest movement that began on July 14 has scrambled the conventional relationship between Israelis and the American Jewish establishment. Eager to show that the tent cities and marches throughout the country are a grassroots effort, some Israeli organizers are reluctant to accept American funding, especially from a politically charged organization like the NIF. At the same time, it seems, some U.S. leaders are reluctant to endorse a movement that, while it says it is avowedly non-partisan, could serve to weaken the Netanyahu government.
“The Rothschild Boulevard tent camp and leaders of the protests are cautious about working with us,” acknowledged Yuval Yavneh, director of the NIF grants department. “People on the right were successful in portraying us as a left-wing group, and the organizers are afraid of any political identification that might deter supporters.”
Nonetheless, NIF mobilized as soon as the tent cities popped up in Tel Aviv and later across the country. On August 8, after 150,000 Israelis took to the streets in the first of what would become a series of mass demonstrations, a fundraising appeal was sent out by Rachel Liel, NIF’s executive director in Israel. “Stand with these Israelis. Stand for social justice and for democracy,” the e-mail urged, linking supporters to an online donation website. Since then, of some $35,000 that has been raised, NIF officials have disbursed more than $21,000 in small grants to activist groups on the ground. The grants, up to $1,000 each, were provided only to certain elements within the Israeli movement and are based on two criteria: assisting protesters from the so-called periphery, outside Tel Aviv, and helping activists from smaller groups connect to the broader national protest movement. As part of this effort, grants were provided to groups of Ethiopian immigrants, Israeli Arabs, the handicapped, foreign workers and Russian-speaking Israelis. The NIF also provided money for tents and electric generators for protesters in areas other than the main tent city on Rothschild Boulevard.
“We want our money to go where it is needed the most,” said Yavneh, adding that the Tel Aviv protesters have other funding sources, including the national student movement. NIF did not provide funds for the two mass demonstrations that took place in central Tel Aviv but did support smaller demonstrations in Haifa, Jerusalem and in front of the Knesset.
In addition, professionals from Shatil, NIF’s social activism arm, have volunteered in 40 of the 65 tent cites across Israel, helping protesters organize, connect and resolve disputes.
Because the protest movement is so decentralized, it is difficult to assess what NIF’s share represents. Still, it is emerging as one of the largest funders, alongside the national student organization and a couple of labor-oriented youth movements. Costs of the protest have been kept to a minimum, and the only big-ticket expense — the mass Tel Aviv demonstrations — was paid for from donation jars that were passed around the crowds.
NIF’s offer to help was met with a mixed response on the ground in Israel. On the one hand, the group received a stream of requests for grants from the tent encampments and social change organizations representing minority groups. But leaders of the mainstream protest movement, especially those in Tel Aviv, the movement’s epicenter, chose to steer clear of the group.
“Everyone is saying that we are supported by the New Israel Fund, but we don’t work with them directly or indirectly,” Orly Weisselberg, one of the protest organizers, said in a phone interview. “We are not willing to have any groups that are getting involved in order to promote their own agenda or to direct the movement toward their own interests. We welcome any kind of support, but our condition is that they have no conditions.”
NIF’s support for the protest movement, although limited in scope, triggered a barrage of criticism from Israel’s right wing. In blog posts and newspaper articles, opponents argued that the protest movement was no more than a front for the NIF. “We’re rather bemused by the extreme right in Israel ‘crediting’ it to the New Israel Fund,” said NIF spokeswoman Naomi Paiss, who stressed that the protest “is an authentic grassroots movement.“
Whatever NIF’s role, it stands in stark contrast to the relative silence of other Jewish groups, which are normally quick to issue a press release anytime there is news from Israel. The Anti-Defamation League, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, J Street — all have said nothing. The American Jewish Committee did not issue a statement, but did offer an analysis that took no position on the protests. Only the Reform movement and the left-leaning Ameinu issued statements of support.
The Jewish Federations of North America issued a carefully worded press release pledging support for “those who raise their voice in the public forum for the good of Israeli society, whether protest tent-dweller or member of Knesset.” At the same time, JFNA urged protesters and the government to continue their dialogue until reaching an agreement.
Other groups expressed their support from afar. Rabbi Steve Gutow, president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an organization known for its strong stance on social issues, said the demonstrations raised real concerns regarding economic disparity in Israel. “Social justice in Israel is something we care about deeply,” Gutow said, while adding that his group still wishes to give time for the commission set up by Prime Minister Netanyahu to issue its recommendations. “The fact that the government is seen as responding gave us a sense of pause,” Gutow said.
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com
Related
• Massive Housing Protests Shake Israel Government
• Prosperous but Unequal: OECD Report Spotlights Alarming Trend
• ‘Social Suitability’ Nears OK As Israeli Housing Criterion
Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/141891/#ixzz1WWhPdCEM
26 August 2011, issue of September 02, 2011
Leaders Reluctant to Take Help, Despite Shared Social Justice Goals
(Getty Images/Struggle Continues: As the protests in Israel continue, the New Israel Fund has been virtually alone in raising money to help. But leaders of the social movement want to maintain their independence.)
By Nathan Guttman
Washington — Since mid-July, hundreds of thousands of Israelis have demonstrated for “social justice” in what have been called the nation’s largest protests on domestic issues in recent memory, and organizers promise more. Yet the leaders of most major American Jewish organizations have been noticeably silent about these protests — with one exception.
And that organization, the New Israel Fund, which so far has raised $35,000 on behalf of the demonstrators, has been shunned by some of the very protesters it is trying to support.
This dynamic illustrates the way that the protest movement that began on July 14 has scrambled the conventional relationship between Israelis and the American Jewish establishment. Eager to show that the tent cities and marches throughout the country are a grassroots effort, some Israeli organizers are reluctant to accept American funding, especially from a politically charged organization like the NIF. At the same time, it seems, some U.S. leaders are reluctant to endorse a movement that, while it says it is avowedly non-partisan, could serve to weaken the Netanyahu government.
“The Rothschild Boulevard tent camp and leaders of the protests are cautious about working with us,” acknowledged Yuval Yavneh, director of the NIF grants department. “People on the right were successful in portraying us as a left-wing group, and the organizers are afraid of any political identification that might deter supporters.”
Nonetheless, NIF mobilized as soon as the tent cities popped up in Tel Aviv and later across the country. On August 8, after 150,000 Israelis took to the streets in the first of what would become a series of mass demonstrations, a fundraising appeal was sent out by Rachel Liel, NIF’s executive director in Israel. “Stand with these Israelis. Stand for social justice and for democracy,” the e-mail urged, linking supporters to an online donation website. Since then, of some $35,000 that has been raised, NIF officials have disbursed more than $21,000 in small grants to activist groups on the ground. The grants, up to $1,000 each, were provided only to certain elements within the Israeli movement and are based on two criteria: assisting protesters from the so-called periphery, outside Tel Aviv, and helping activists from smaller groups connect to the broader national protest movement. As part of this effort, grants were provided to groups of Ethiopian immigrants, Israeli Arabs, the handicapped, foreign workers and Russian-speaking Israelis. The NIF also provided money for tents and electric generators for protesters in areas other than the main tent city on Rothschild Boulevard.
“We want our money to go where it is needed the most,” said Yavneh, adding that the Tel Aviv protesters have other funding sources, including the national student movement. NIF did not provide funds for the two mass demonstrations that took place in central Tel Aviv but did support smaller demonstrations in Haifa, Jerusalem and in front of the Knesset.
In addition, professionals from Shatil, NIF’s social activism arm, have volunteered in 40 of the 65 tent cites across Israel, helping protesters organize, connect and resolve disputes.
Because the protest movement is so decentralized, it is difficult to assess what NIF’s share represents. Still, it is emerging as one of the largest funders, alongside the national student organization and a couple of labor-oriented youth movements. Costs of the protest have been kept to a minimum, and the only big-ticket expense — the mass Tel Aviv demonstrations — was paid for from donation jars that were passed around the crowds.
NIF’s offer to help was met with a mixed response on the ground in Israel. On the one hand, the group received a stream of requests for grants from the tent encampments and social change organizations representing minority groups. But leaders of the mainstream protest movement, especially those in Tel Aviv, the movement’s epicenter, chose to steer clear of the group.
“Everyone is saying that we are supported by the New Israel Fund, but we don’t work with them directly or indirectly,” Orly Weisselberg, one of the protest organizers, said in a phone interview. “We are not willing to have any groups that are getting involved in order to promote their own agenda or to direct the movement toward their own interests. We welcome any kind of support, but our condition is that they have no conditions.”
NIF’s support for the protest movement, although limited in scope, triggered a barrage of criticism from Israel’s right wing. In blog posts and newspaper articles, opponents argued that the protest movement was no more than a front for the NIF. “We’re rather bemused by the extreme right in Israel ‘crediting’ it to the New Israel Fund,” said NIF spokeswoman Naomi Paiss, who stressed that the protest “is an authentic grassroots movement.“
Whatever NIF’s role, it stands in stark contrast to the relative silence of other Jewish groups, which are normally quick to issue a press release anytime there is news from Israel. The Anti-Defamation League, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, J Street — all have said nothing. The American Jewish Committee did not issue a statement, but did offer an analysis that took no position on the protests. Only the Reform movement and the left-leaning Ameinu issued statements of support.
The Jewish Federations of North America issued a carefully worded press release pledging support for “those who raise their voice in the public forum for the good of Israeli society, whether protest tent-dweller or member of Knesset.” At the same time, JFNA urged protesters and the government to continue their dialogue until reaching an agreement.
Other groups expressed their support from afar. Rabbi Steve Gutow, president and CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, an organization known for its strong stance on social issues, said the demonstrations raised real concerns regarding economic disparity in Israel. “Social justice in Israel is something we care about deeply,” Gutow said, while adding that his group still wishes to give time for the commission set up by Prime Minister Netanyahu to issue its recommendations. “The fact that the government is seen as responding gave us a sense of pause,” Gutow said.
Contact Nathan Guttman at guttman@forward.com
Related
• Massive Housing Protests Shake Israel Government
• Prosperous but Unequal: OECD Report Spotlights Alarming Trend
• ‘Social Suitability’ Nears OK As Israeli Housing Criterion
Read more: http://www.forward.com/articles/141891/#ixzz1WWhPdCEM
La razón por la que nos odian los egipcios
29 agosto 2011, Rebelión http://www.rebelion.org (México)
Gideon Levy
Haaretz. Traducido para Rebelión por J. M.
La bandera israelí que fue tomada por un joven egipcio de la ventana de la embajada de Israel en El Cairo estaba deteriorada y gastada, desplegada en una antigua torre de oficinas anodinas e invisibles desde la calle a simple vista. Una gran cantidad de agua turbia ha fluido a través del Nilo desde la primera vez que se izó una bandera israelí. Quienes piensan que el odio a Israel que ahora bulle es un decreto divino, es el destino o la ira de la naturaleza, debería retrotraerse a los primeros días que siguieron a la firma del tratado de paz entre Israel y Egipto. En la década de los 80, decenas de miles de israelíes visitaron Egipto y fueron recibidos con manifiesta alegría. Era un placer ser un israelí en El Cairo en aquellos días, a veces incluso un gran honor.
Las masas que se manifestaban ahora contra Israel ahora son las mismas masas que una vez dieron la bienvenida a los israelíes. Incluso si el viernes la marcha de "un millón de personas manifestándose" contra Israel hubiera sido solamente de mil, el odio ha despertado. Pero no es necesario que así sea.
El hecho de que no siempre ha sido de esta manera debe de ser motivo de reflexión en Israel. Pero como siempre, la pregunta de por qué no se discute aquí. ¿Por qué hay terrorismo? Porque. ¿Por qué existe allí el odio? Porque. Es mucho más fácil pensar que Egipto nos odia y ya está, y deshacernos de nuestra propia responsabilidad. La paz con Egipto, que se considera un activo sólo cuando está en riesgo, es la paz con la que Israel jugó y violó desde el principio. Israel se comprometió a reconocer los derechos legítimos del pueblo palestino y la concesión de una autonomía dentro de los cinco años de la firma. Israel condujo ridículas negociaciones encabezadas por su ministro del Interior (Yosef Burg) con la intención de que se diluyan y nunca se enfrentó a sus obligaciones. La invasión del Líbano el día después de que se completara el tratado en 1982 fue peligrosa e impertinente. Contra todos los pronósticos, Egipto resistió este cebo.
Las personas que se preguntan por qué nos odian los egipcios deben recapacitar sobre estas dos acciones fundamentales que Israel llevo a cabo. La memoria pública puede ser de corto alcance, pero el odio no. Desde entonces se han atizado las llamas. La gente que quiere entender por qué nos odian los egipcios deben recordar las escenas de la operación plomo fundido y las del blindaje de plomo, el bombardeo de Beirut y los cañoneos sobre Rafah. Si los israelíes estuvieran expuestos a escenas en las que algún país actúa de la misma manera con los judíos, también se despertaría en nosotros ese mismo odio hacia ese país. Las masas árabes vieron imágenes terribles y creció su odio.
Ese odio cobró un significado definitivo con la llegada de la primavera árabe. Las reglas del juego en el nuevo Oriente Medio cambiaron. Los acuerdos de paz y alto el fuego que los antiguos tiranos de Egipto, Siria y Jordania celebraron con mucho crujir de dientes ya no se podían conservar en los regímenes democráticos o democráticos parcialmente. A partir de ahora la gente habla, ya no ampararan la conducta violenta o colonialistas hacia los árabes y sus líderes tienen que tomar esto en consideración. La ocupación, y la exagerada demostración de fuerza de Israel como respuesta a los ataques terroristas, se están poniendo a prueba frente a los pueblos, y no sólo frente a sus gobernantes.
Hay un lado positivo en todo esto y es que puede frenar a Israel, como ya se ha visto recientemente con respecto a Gaza. Si no fuera por el nuevo Egipto, quizá ya estaríamos en medio de la Operación Plomo Fundido 2. Pero en el largo plazo esto no será suficiente para detener a nuestras fuerzas y apagar nuestro fuego.
Cada vez es más agotador reiterar esto, pero ahora es más cierto que nunca: Israel ya no tiene la opción de vivir sólo por la espada. Los peligros inherentes a la nueva realidad que está emergiendo ante nuestros ojos no son del tipo de proezas militares que se puedan sostener por años. Ya no nos podemos resguardar para siempre detrás de una fortaleza, no importa cuán protegida y armada esté. Los nuevos líderes árabes no podrán hacer caso omiso de los deseos de sus pueblos, y sus pueblos no aceptan a Israel como un ocupante violento en la región. No sólo una Operación Plomo Fundido se ha vuelto casi imposible, la continuación de la ocupación pone en peligro a Israel y cuanto más dure, mayor será la resistencia a la existencia misma de Israel.
No es difícil imaginar cuan diferentes podrían ser las cosas. Es suficiente recordar los primeros días de paz con Egipto, o los primeros días de Oslo, hasta que los árabes reconocieron el fraude. No es difícil imaginar los acuerdos de paz que pueden llegar al final de la ocupación y en respuesta a la iniciativa de paz árabe. La única manera es crear un nuevo Israel a los ojos del nuevo mundo árabe. Sólo si esto ocurre podemos regresar al mercado de El Cairo, Khan el-Khalili, y que nos acepten allí. No nos perdamos en palabras sobre otra alternativa, no existe para Israel.
Fuente: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-reason-why-the-egyptians-hate-us-1.381074
Gideon Levy
Haaretz. Traducido para Rebelión por J. M.
La bandera israelí que fue tomada por un joven egipcio de la ventana de la embajada de Israel en El Cairo estaba deteriorada y gastada, desplegada en una antigua torre de oficinas anodinas e invisibles desde la calle a simple vista. Una gran cantidad de agua turbia ha fluido a través del Nilo desde la primera vez que se izó una bandera israelí. Quienes piensan que el odio a Israel que ahora bulle es un decreto divino, es el destino o la ira de la naturaleza, debería retrotraerse a los primeros días que siguieron a la firma del tratado de paz entre Israel y Egipto. En la década de los 80, decenas de miles de israelíes visitaron Egipto y fueron recibidos con manifiesta alegría. Era un placer ser un israelí en El Cairo en aquellos días, a veces incluso un gran honor.
Las masas que se manifestaban ahora contra Israel ahora son las mismas masas que una vez dieron la bienvenida a los israelíes. Incluso si el viernes la marcha de "un millón de personas manifestándose" contra Israel hubiera sido solamente de mil, el odio ha despertado. Pero no es necesario que así sea.
El hecho de que no siempre ha sido de esta manera debe de ser motivo de reflexión en Israel. Pero como siempre, la pregunta de por qué no se discute aquí. ¿Por qué hay terrorismo? Porque. ¿Por qué existe allí el odio? Porque. Es mucho más fácil pensar que Egipto nos odia y ya está, y deshacernos de nuestra propia responsabilidad. La paz con Egipto, que se considera un activo sólo cuando está en riesgo, es la paz con la que Israel jugó y violó desde el principio. Israel se comprometió a reconocer los derechos legítimos del pueblo palestino y la concesión de una autonomía dentro de los cinco años de la firma. Israel condujo ridículas negociaciones encabezadas por su ministro del Interior (Yosef Burg) con la intención de que se diluyan y nunca se enfrentó a sus obligaciones. La invasión del Líbano el día después de que se completara el tratado en 1982 fue peligrosa e impertinente. Contra todos los pronósticos, Egipto resistió este cebo.
Las personas que se preguntan por qué nos odian los egipcios deben recapacitar sobre estas dos acciones fundamentales que Israel llevo a cabo. La memoria pública puede ser de corto alcance, pero el odio no. Desde entonces se han atizado las llamas. La gente que quiere entender por qué nos odian los egipcios deben recordar las escenas de la operación plomo fundido y las del blindaje de plomo, el bombardeo de Beirut y los cañoneos sobre Rafah. Si los israelíes estuvieran expuestos a escenas en las que algún país actúa de la misma manera con los judíos, también se despertaría en nosotros ese mismo odio hacia ese país. Las masas árabes vieron imágenes terribles y creció su odio.
Ese odio cobró un significado definitivo con la llegada de la primavera árabe. Las reglas del juego en el nuevo Oriente Medio cambiaron. Los acuerdos de paz y alto el fuego que los antiguos tiranos de Egipto, Siria y Jordania celebraron con mucho crujir de dientes ya no se podían conservar en los regímenes democráticos o democráticos parcialmente. A partir de ahora la gente habla, ya no ampararan la conducta violenta o colonialistas hacia los árabes y sus líderes tienen que tomar esto en consideración. La ocupación, y la exagerada demostración de fuerza de Israel como respuesta a los ataques terroristas, se están poniendo a prueba frente a los pueblos, y no sólo frente a sus gobernantes.
Hay un lado positivo en todo esto y es que puede frenar a Israel, como ya se ha visto recientemente con respecto a Gaza. Si no fuera por el nuevo Egipto, quizá ya estaríamos en medio de la Operación Plomo Fundido 2. Pero en el largo plazo esto no será suficiente para detener a nuestras fuerzas y apagar nuestro fuego.
Cada vez es más agotador reiterar esto, pero ahora es más cierto que nunca: Israel ya no tiene la opción de vivir sólo por la espada. Los peligros inherentes a la nueva realidad que está emergiendo ante nuestros ojos no son del tipo de proezas militares que se puedan sostener por años. Ya no nos podemos resguardar para siempre detrás de una fortaleza, no importa cuán protegida y armada esté. Los nuevos líderes árabes no podrán hacer caso omiso de los deseos de sus pueblos, y sus pueblos no aceptan a Israel como un ocupante violento en la región. No sólo una Operación Plomo Fundido se ha vuelto casi imposible, la continuación de la ocupación pone en peligro a Israel y cuanto más dure, mayor será la resistencia a la existencia misma de Israel.
No es difícil imaginar cuan diferentes podrían ser las cosas. Es suficiente recordar los primeros días de paz con Egipto, o los primeros días de Oslo, hasta que los árabes reconocieron el fraude. No es difícil imaginar los acuerdos de paz que pueden llegar al final de la ocupación y en respuesta a la iniciativa de paz árabe. La única manera es crear un nuevo Israel a los ojos del nuevo mundo árabe. Sólo si esto ocurre podemos regresar al mercado de El Cairo, Khan el-Khalili, y que nos acepten allí. No nos perdamos en palabras sobre otra alternativa, no existe para Israel.
Fuente: http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/the-reason-why-the-egyptians-hate-us-1.381074
quinta-feira, 25 de agosto de 2011
NO EVIDENCE FOR POPULAR RESISTANCE COMMITTEES INVOLVEMENT IN ATTACKS
25 August 2011, + 972 http://972mag.com (Israel)
Yossi Gurvitz*
A week passed since the Eilat attack, and the IDF has yet to prove the blame of the group Israel chose to attack in response.
Earlier this week I posted about the cracks in the Barak-Netanyahu narrative regarding the terror attacks near Eilat. A quick reminder: While the attacks were still going on, Barak blamed them on the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza, and hours later the IAF attacked and killed the leadership of the PRC. However, there is not a shred of evidence the PRC had anything to do with the attacks, and Barak’s action plunged Israel and Hamas into a new round of hostilities.
Since Monday, there have been a few more reports in the Israeli media, casting more doubt on the official story. Yediot reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that nameless people in the security apparatus doubt the PRC were responsible for the attacks, and raise an interesting question: If they were responsible, why was the PRC’s entire leadership in the same place?
According to Yediot’s anonymous intelligence sources (bear in mind that such sources should always be viewed with skepticism; by their very nature they cannot be corroborated, and they tend to be unreliable even when speaking openly), the attribution of the attacks to the PRC stems from one somewhat incoherent comment on some Jihadi message board.
Ha’aretz reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that at least three on the attackers were Egyptian Jihadis. American intelligence sources – the same caveat above applies here – told Globes (Hebrew) that they, too, doubt the PRC are responsible, though they may have had a small role in the attacks.
Two days ago, the IAF attacked the Gaza Strip again – naturally, it does not consider itself bound by the ceasefire; only the Palestinians are, and only them can be blamed for breaking it – and killed some Islamic Jihad apparatchick. Yesterday, the IDF claimed (Hebrew) that he was in charge of funding the Eilat attacks. Hold on a minute, I’m confused: I thought you said the attacks were carried out by the PRC, and now it’s the Islamic Jihad left holding the bag? As of yesterday, reported Amira Hass in Ha’aretz (Hebrew), there are no mourning tents in Gaza. As of today, one week after the attack, the IDF refrains from exposing the identity of the attackers it killed.
One should note that none of the bewildering array of information comes officially from the IDF Spokesman, but rather from all sorts of “senior sources”. That’s the way the IDF raises a smokescreen, and then, when it is penetrated, rightly say he said nothing official. Lt. Col. Avital Leibowitz was adamant, during a phone call on Sunday, that all of the people involved in the attacks were Gazans; unofficially, the IDF seems to back away from this position.
Despite the ceasefire, the IDF renewed attacks on the Gaza Strip, and the Israeli media – aside from Netanyahu’s mouthpiece, Israel Ha’yom – quietly points that out. This low level of military activity suits barak fine: It prevents a serious escalation, which may deal a blow to the Egyptian peace treaty – the Egyptians have warned the cabinet, it is reported, from a full-scale offensive (Hebrew) – and yet allows the government a distraction from the demands of the #J14 movement.
And if a few Gazans die, who cares?
-------------------
I am Yossi Gurvitz*, a 40-year old journalist, blogger and photographer.
I write for several Israeli publications, including the influential financial daily Calcalist and the Nana portal. In the past, I’ve been deputy editor of Nana News, and with Itamar Shaaltiel edited its 2006 Knesset elections section.
I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, graduated from a Yeshiva (Nehalim), but saw the light and turned atheist at about the age of 17. After the mandatory three years in the military, much more strictly enforced in 1988 than now, I studied history and classics, earning a BA degree, and studying three additional years towards an MA, but abandoned the project in favor of earning my living as a journalist. [It seemed a good idea at the time.]
Yossi Gurvitz*
A week passed since the Eilat attack, and the IDF has yet to prove the blame of the group Israel chose to attack in response.
Earlier this week I posted about the cracks in the Barak-Netanyahu narrative regarding the terror attacks near Eilat. A quick reminder: While the attacks were still going on, Barak blamed them on the Popular Resistance Committees in Gaza, and hours later the IAF attacked and killed the leadership of the PRC. However, there is not a shred of evidence the PRC had anything to do with the attacks, and Barak’s action plunged Israel and Hamas into a new round of hostilities.
Since Monday, there have been a few more reports in the Israeli media, casting more doubt on the official story. Yediot reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that nameless people in the security apparatus doubt the PRC were responsible for the attacks, and raise an interesting question: If they were responsible, why was the PRC’s entire leadership in the same place?
According to Yediot’s anonymous intelligence sources (bear in mind that such sources should always be viewed with skepticism; by their very nature they cannot be corroborated, and they tend to be unreliable even when speaking openly), the attribution of the attacks to the PRC stems from one somewhat incoherent comment on some Jihadi message board.
Ha’aretz reported on Tuesday (Hebrew) that at least three on the attackers were Egyptian Jihadis. American intelligence sources – the same caveat above applies here – told Globes (Hebrew) that they, too, doubt the PRC are responsible, though they may have had a small role in the attacks.
Two days ago, the IAF attacked the Gaza Strip again – naturally, it does not consider itself bound by the ceasefire; only the Palestinians are, and only them can be blamed for breaking it – and killed some Islamic Jihad apparatchick. Yesterday, the IDF claimed (Hebrew) that he was in charge of funding the Eilat attacks. Hold on a minute, I’m confused: I thought you said the attacks were carried out by the PRC, and now it’s the Islamic Jihad left holding the bag? As of yesterday, reported Amira Hass in Ha’aretz (Hebrew), there are no mourning tents in Gaza. As of today, one week after the attack, the IDF refrains from exposing the identity of the attackers it killed.
One should note that none of the bewildering array of information comes officially from the IDF Spokesman, but rather from all sorts of “senior sources”. That’s the way the IDF raises a smokescreen, and then, when it is penetrated, rightly say he said nothing official. Lt. Col. Avital Leibowitz was adamant, during a phone call on Sunday, that all of the people involved in the attacks were Gazans; unofficially, the IDF seems to back away from this position.
Despite the ceasefire, the IDF renewed attacks on the Gaza Strip, and the Israeli media – aside from Netanyahu’s mouthpiece, Israel Ha’yom – quietly points that out. This low level of military activity suits barak fine: It prevents a serious escalation, which may deal a blow to the Egyptian peace treaty – the Egyptians have warned the cabinet, it is reported, from a full-scale offensive (Hebrew) – and yet allows the government a distraction from the demands of the #J14 movement.
And if a few Gazans die, who cares?
-------------------
I am Yossi Gurvitz*, a 40-year old journalist, blogger and photographer.
I write for several Israeli publications, including the influential financial daily Calcalist and the Nana portal. In the past, I’ve been deputy editor of Nana News, and with Itamar Shaaltiel edited its 2006 Knesset elections section.
I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, graduated from a Yeshiva (Nehalim), but saw the light and turned atheist at about the age of 17. After the mandatory three years in the military, much more strictly enforced in 1988 than now, I studied history and classics, earning a BA degree, and studying three additional years towards an MA, but abandoned the project in favor of earning my living as a journalist. [It seemed a good idea at the time.]
ISRAEL’S NICE LITTLE WAR
25 August 2011, CounterPunch http://www.counterpunch.org (USA)
Gaza, Egypt in the Range of Fire
by Ramzy Baroud*
Israeli writer Uri Avnery recently wrote an article entitled ‘How Godly Are Thy Tents?’, which began with the words, “First of all, a warning.” The reference was made to the tent cities that have sprung up across the country by middle class Israelis demanding change and reforms. The organizational style of these demands was not entirely different from Arab uprisings. To everyone’s surprise, the limited Israeli mobilization, which extended from concerns about sky-rocketing real estate prices to calls for ‘social justice’, was seen as Israel’s Tahrir Square moment. The movement was yet to articulate a political agenda, although such enunciation would have been a natural progression.
So what was Avnery’s warning about?
The “social protest movement is gathering momentum,” wrote Avnery. “At that point, there will be a temptation – perhaps an irresistible temptation – to ‘warm up the borders’. To start a nice little war. Call on the youth of Israel, the same young people now manning…the tents, to go and defend the fatherland.”
It was an unnerving warning, not only because it came from Avnery, a veteran well-versed in his understanding of the Israel ruling class, but also because it actualized in its entirety a few days later.
The ‘war’ had indeed commenced, starting on August 18. The ‘provocation’ had supposedly demonstrated without doubt that Israel’s security was greatly compromised and that the small state with ‘indefensible borders’ was paying a high price for Gaza’s armed intransigence and Egypt’s post-revolutionary chaos. Israeli sources reported that a large number of militants had crossed Sinai into Israel’s Red Sea resort of Eilat on Thursday (August 18), opening fire on two buses carrying Israeli soldiers. The passage was implacably coordinated, thus the ability of these bold attackers to kill and wound soldiers and other Israelis. According to the Israeli version of events, some of the attackers were killed, but others managed to flee back to Egypt. This forced the Israeli military to pursue them in an extraordinary chase, which mistakenly killed three Egyptian military personal.
Israeli sources, seemingly clueless to the armed men’s infiltration of a high security area, immediately provided precise information about the attackers. Instant consensus was also reached about the attackers’ link to Gaza. Per the massive strikes on many Gaza targets, it seemed as though the entire Strip was being blamed and punished.
The outcome was most predictable, albeit tragic. Israeli warplanes flew back over the Gaza sky, drones roamed uncontested, and the Palestinian death toll augmented. The whole miserable scene of killed civilians, mutilated children and burnt buildings was once more upon us. The chorus of support for Israel and condemnation of Palestinians from Washington was reminiscent of a history that never stops repeating itself.
But before delving into counter-arguments, one is tempted to question the conveniently situated Israeli wars of ‘self defense.’ How different is this latest ‘nice little war’ from the horrifying Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982? When Ariel Sharon requested an American green light to attack Lebanon, Alexander Haig, US Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, insisted Israel must possess a ‘credible provocation’ before leading such a mission. Moreover, the case made to justify the war on Gaza in 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead also had its own ‘credible provocation’. In fact, all of Israel’s wars are sold to the public within this neat package which actually holds little credibility.
This time the provocation had to be convincing enough to justify multiple Israeli strikes on all of Gaza’s factions, as well as politically vulnerable Egypt.
Why is Israel bent on discrediting Egypt, exploiting the most sensitive period of its modern history, and destabilizing the border area so as to show Egypt’s failure to ensure Israel’s border security, as stipulated in the Camp David treaty?
Reportedly, all of Gaza’s prominent factions denied any responsibility for the Eilat attacks, including the Popular Resistance Committees (not affiliated with Hamas), which was accused by Israeli of being behind the attacks.
Responding to Israel’s killing of Egyptian officers, and under pressure by thousands of porters, Egypt pulled its ambassador out of Israel on August 20. In Israel, the discussion is now shifting to security and the need to complete construction of its 200km barrier at the border with Egypt, ostensibly aimed at blocking African immigrants from sneaking into Israel. Strangely, Egypt, which stands accused of allowing hundreds of militants into Israel from Sinai, had kept an eye on the border despite the effects of the revolution on security throughout the country. On July 7, for example, and on August 11, Egyptian security reportedly killed an Eritrean man and a Sudan migrant respectively for trying to cross the border. Many others have been apprehended during past months as well.
The army’s ability to strike down lone migrants, while supposed laxity allowed for the infiltration of hundreds in one instance raises more questions than it provides answers.
Some hidden hands seem to be orchestrating chaos in the city of Arish and the rest of the Sinai area. This includes the peculiar daytime attack by hundreds of armed met at police stations in Arish on July 29, which killed several Egyptian officers.
While deliberate chaos was being engendered in Sinai, fear was returning to Gaza as it was promised another Israeli military assault.
On August 9, residents of the impoverished Gaza Strip feared attack by Israel. The fears were not only based on repeated threats by Israeli officials, but also on a mysterious telecommunication blackout that day which cut off all Internet, mobile phones and international landlines for hours, according to Ma’an news agency. “Meanwhile, residents of Gaza near the border with Israel said army bulldozers were seen operating shortly before communications went offline,” Ma’an reported.
Why did Israel cut Gaza’s communication off? Was the ‘credible provocation’ being concocted then? Why did Israel fail to provide a reasonable explanation for the blackout? More, why the attempt at embarrassing, provoking and perhaps dragging Egypt into a border confrontation at a time when Egypt is attempting a transition towards democracy?
It ought to be said that “new Egypt’ was also credited for facilitating Palestinian unity, a first step towards taking Hamas out of its international isolation.
Is it not then possible that Israel’s ‘nice little war’ was a response to such a dangerous shift in Egyptian policy towards Hamas – and Palestine in general?
*Ramzy Baroud is editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. He is the author of The Second Palestinian Intifada: a Chronicle of a People’s Struggle and “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London).
Gaza, Egypt in the Range of Fire
by Ramzy Baroud*
Israeli writer Uri Avnery recently wrote an article entitled ‘How Godly Are Thy Tents?’, which began with the words, “First of all, a warning.” The reference was made to the tent cities that have sprung up across the country by middle class Israelis demanding change and reforms. The organizational style of these demands was not entirely different from Arab uprisings. To everyone’s surprise, the limited Israeli mobilization, which extended from concerns about sky-rocketing real estate prices to calls for ‘social justice’, was seen as Israel’s Tahrir Square moment. The movement was yet to articulate a political agenda, although such enunciation would have been a natural progression.
So what was Avnery’s warning about?
The “social protest movement is gathering momentum,” wrote Avnery. “At that point, there will be a temptation – perhaps an irresistible temptation – to ‘warm up the borders’. To start a nice little war. Call on the youth of Israel, the same young people now manning…the tents, to go and defend the fatherland.”
It was an unnerving warning, not only because it came from Avnery, a veteran well-versed in his understanding of the Israel ruling class, but also because it actualized in its entirety a few days later.
The ‘war’ had indeed commenced, starting on August 18. The ‘provocation’ had supposedly demonstrated without doubt that Israel’s security was greatly compromised and that the small state with ‘indefensible borders’ was paying a high price for Gaza’s armed intransigence and Egypt’s post-revolutionary chaos. Israeli sources reported that a large number of militants had crossed Sinai into Israel’s Red Sea resort of Eilat on Thursday (August 18), opening fire on two buses carrying Israeli soldiers. The passage was implacably coordinated, thus the ability of these bold attackers to kill and wound soldiers and other Israelis. According to the Israeli version of events, some of the attackers were killed, but others managed to flee back to Egypt. This forced the Israeli military to pursue them in an extraordinary chase, which mistakenly killed three Egyptian military personal.
Israeli sources, seemingly clueless to the armed men’s infiltration of a high security area, immediately provided precise information about the attackers. Instant consensus was also reached about the attackers’ link to Gaza. Per the massive strikes on many Gaza targets, it seemed as though the entire Strip was being blamed and punished.
The outcome was most predictable, albeit tragic. Israeli warplanes flew back over the Gaza sky, drones roamed uncontested, and the Palestinian death toll augmented. The whole miserable scene of killed civilians, mutilated children and burnt buildings was once more upon us. The chorus of support for Israel and condemnation of Palestinians from Washington was reminiscent of a history that never stops repeating itself.
But before delving into counter-arguments, one is tempted to question the conveniently situated Israeli wars of ‘self defense.’ How different is this latest ‘nice little war’ from the horrifying Israeli invasion of Lebanon in 1982? When Ariel Sharon requested an American green light to attack Lebanon, Alexander Haig, US Secretary of State under President Ronald Reagan, insisted Israel must possess a ‘credible provocation’ before leading such a mission. Moreover, the case made to justify the war on Gaza in 2008-09 Operation Cast Lead also had its own ‘credible provocation’. In fact, all of Israel’s wars are sold to the public within this neat package which actually holds little credibility.
This time the provocation had to be convincing enough to justify multiple Israeli strikes on all of Gaza’s factions, as well as politically vulnerable Egypt.
Why is Israel bent on discrediting Egypt, exploiting the most sensitive period of its modern history, and destabilizing the border area so as to show Egypt’s failure to ensure Israel’s border security, as stipulated in the Camp David treaty?
Reportedly, all of Gaza’s prominent factions denied any responsibility for the Eilat attacks, including the Popular Resistance Committees (not affiliated with Hamas), which was accused by Israeli of being behind the attacks.
Responding to Israel’s killing of Egyptian officers, and under pressure by thousands of porters, Egypt pulled its ambassador out of Israel on August 20. In Israel, the discussion is now shifting to security and the need to complete construction of its 200km barrier at the border with Egypt, ostensibly aimed at blocking African immigrants from sneaking into Israel. Strangely, Egypt, which stands accused of allowing hundreds of militants into Israel from Sinai, had kept an eye on the border despite the effects of the revolution on security throughout the country. On July 7, for example, and on August 11, Egyptian security reportedly killed an Eritrean man and a Sudan migrant respectively for trying to cross the border. Many others have been apprehended during past months as well.
The army’s ability to strike down lone migrants, while supposed laxity allowed for the infiltration of hundreds in one instance raises more questions than it provides answers.
Some hidden hands seem to be orchestrating chaos in the city of Arish and the rest of the Sinai area. This includes the peculiar daytime attack by hundreds of armed met at police stations in Arish on July 29, which killed several Egyptian officers.
While deliberate chaos was being engendered in Sinai, fear was returning to Gaza as it was promised another Israeli military assault.
On August 9, residents of the impoverished Gaza Strip feared attack by Israel. The fears were not only based on repeated threats by Israeli officials, but also on a mysterious telecommunication blackout that day which cut off all Internet, mobile phones and international landlines for hours, according to Ma’an news agency. “Meanwhile, residents of Gaza near the border with Israel said army bulldozers were seen operating shortly before communications went offline,” Ma’an reported.
Why did Israel cut Gaza’s communication off? Was the ‘credible provocation’ being concocted then? Why did Israel fail to provide a reasonable explanation for the blackout? More, why the attempt at embarrassing, provoking and perhaps dragging Egypt into a border confrontation at a time when Egypt is attempting a transition towards democracy?
It ought to be said that “new Egypt’ was also credited for facilitating Palestinian unity, a first step towards taking Hamas out of its international isolation.
Is it not then possible that Israel’s ‘nice little war’ was a response to such a dangerous shift in Egyptian policy towards Hamas – and Palestine in general?
*Ramzy Baroud is editor of PalestineChronicle.com. His work has been published in many newspapers and journals worldwide. He is the author of The Second Palestinian Intifada: a Chronicle of a People’s Struggle and “My Father Was a Freedom Fighter: Gaza’s Untold Story” (Pluto Press, London).
DOUBTS EMERGE OVER IDENTITY OF TERRORISTS WHO CARRIED OUT ATTACK IN ISRAEL'S SOUTH
25 August 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
Gazans doubt responsibility of Popular Resistance Committees and their military wing; Egypt newspaper identifies three of attack planners as Egyptians.
By Amira Hass
It has been one week since the terror attacks near Eilat, and there is no sign of the traditional mourners' tents for the relatives of militants killed by the Israel Defense Forces, or indeed any reports of Gazan families who are grieving as a result of IDF actions near the Egyptian border last Thursday. Nor were there reports of families demanding the return of their loved ones' bodies for burial. A longtime social activist told Haaretz that even in the event that families were instructed to conceal their grief, news like that is difficult to hide in the Strip.
The absence of mourners' tents reinforces the general sense in the Strip that the perpetrators of the attack were not from Gaza, contrary to Israeli defense establishment claims. Gazans also doubt that members of the Popular Resistance Committees and their military wing (the Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades ) were behind the attack. Support for this view can be seen in a report on Monday by the Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm, according to which Egyptian security forces had identified three of the planners as Egyptians. A PRC spokesman responded to the report by announcing that the organization "praised" the attack but had not planned it.
Within hours after the attack, at about 5 P.M. Thursday, two IDF missiles killed PRC chief Kamal al-Nirab and three members of its military wing, who were in one of the men's homes in the Rafah refugee camp. The 2-year-old son of the homeowner also died in the missile strike.
Tens of thousands of people attended the funeral Friday morning of the five victims. A relative of Nirab's told Haaretz that there is a sense that people in Rafah want revenge.
Nirab was popular in the area less because of his military prowess than due to a role he embraced in the past few years, that of mediator and conflict-solver - within families and between Fatah and Hamas.
Judging from conversations with a few people, the rest of the Strip is tending against escalation. "In the north people see Iron Dome in action," a man from the area of Beit Lahiya said, referring to the antimissile system protecting Israeli communities adjacent to Gaza. "The military ineffectiveness of our rockets was never so apparent to people as it is now," he added.
Palestinian media outlets reported that three children were killed in Israeli retaliatory air strikes. But one of them, a 13-year-old boy, actually died after being hit by a rocket or missile fired by Palestinian militants north of the Shati refugee camp on Friday. Such incidents, when rockets launched from the Strip fall in Gazan territory, causing injuries and damage, are not widely reported but are not rare.
The body of a 65-year-old man was found in farmland east of the Bureij refugee camp yesterday, according to local residents a victim of an Israeli air strike. No other details about the circumstances were available. Excluding him, since Thursday the IDF killed 14 Palestinians, four of them civilians (including a physician and his 2-year-old nephew ) and the remainder members of militant organizations. An additional 32 Gazans were injured in the attacks, including eight women and nine children, some of them critically. Researchers from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights counted 20 attacks (from the air, sea and ground ) between Thursday and Saturday evening.
Gazans doubt responsibility of Popular Resistance Committees and their military wing; Egypt newspaper identifies three of attack planners as Egyptians.
By Amira Hass
It has been one week since the terror attacks near Eilat, and there is no sign of the traditional mourners' tents for the relatives of militants killed by the Israel Defense Forces, or indeed any reports of Gazan families who are grieving as a result of IDF actions near the Egyptian border last Thursday. Nor were there reports of families demanding the return of their loved ones' bodies for burial. A longtime social activist told Haaretz that even in the event that families were instructed to conceal their grief, news like that is difficult to hide in the Strip.
The absence of mourners' tents reinforces the general sense in the Strip that the perpetrators of the attack were not from Gaza, contrary to Israeli defense establishment claims. Gazans also doubt that members of the Popular Resistance Committees and their military wing (the Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades ) were behind the attack. Support for this view can be seen in a report on Monday by the Egyptian daily Al-Masry Al-Youm, according to which Egyptian security forces had identified three of the planners as Egyptians. A PRC spokesman responded to the report by announcing that the organization "praised" the attack but had not planned it.
Within hours after the attack, at about 5 P.M. Thursday, two IDF missiles killed PRC chief Kamal al-Nirab and three members of its military wing, who were in one of the men's homes in the Rafah refugee camp. The 2-year-old son of the homeowner also died in the missile strike.
Tens of thousands of people attended the funeral Friday morning of the five victims. A relative of Nirab's told Haaretz that there is a sense that people in Rafah want revenge.
Nirab was popular in the area less because of his military prowess than due to a role he embraced in the past few years, that of mediator and conflict-solver - within families and between Fatah and Hamas.
Judging from conversations with a few people, the rest of the Strip is tending against escalation. "In the north people see Iron Dome in action," a man from the area of Beit Lahiya said, referring to the antimissile system protecting Israeli communities adjacent to Gaza. "The military ineffectiveness of our rockets was never so apparent to people as it is now," he added.
Palestinian media outlets reported that three children were killed in Israeli retaliatory air strikes. But one of them, a 13-year-old boy, actually died after being hit by a rocket or missile fired by Palestinian militants north of the Shati refugee camp on Friday. Such incidents, when rockets launched from the Strip fall in Gazan territory, causing injuries and damage, are not widely reported but are not rare.
The body of a 65-year-old man was found in farmland east of the Bureij refugee camp yesterday, according to local residents a victim of an Israeli air strike. No other details about the circumstances were available. Excluding him, since Thursday the IDF killed 14 Palestinians, four of them civilians (including a physician and his 2-year-old nephew ) and the remainder members of militant organizations. An additional 32 Gazans were injured in the attacks, including eight women and nine children, some of them critically. Researchers from the Palestinian Center for Human Rights counted 20 attacks (from the air, sea and ground ) between Thursday and Saturday evening.
THE POWER OF THE SPECTACLE
25 August 2011, Al Ahram Online http://english.ahram.org.eg (Egypt)
Mona Anis
The action of the man who risked his life last week to remove the Israeli flag must be understood against the backdrop of 30 years of indignation
The civil resistance protests that sparked the January revolution and continue to define it have had spectacular moments. Those, it would seem, belong more to the realm of the imaginative or the visionary than to that of the real. One such moment took place last week, in the early hours of Sunday morning, when a young man, Ahmed El-Shahat, scaled the Cairo residential tower housing the Israeli embassy and climbed all the way up to the flagpole on the roof, pulling down the Israeli flag and replacing it with an Egyptian one.
The sheer sensationalism of the act instantly recalled what the cultural theorist Mikhael Bakhtin once said about modern theatrical forms: that they retain some aspects of the medieval communal performance in the public square. Its significance, the emotional energy it unleashed among the spectators – whether they saw it live or on TV and computer screens later – can only be fully understood in the historical context of popular resentment of the flawed Israeli-Egyptian peace treatysigned in 1979.
On 26 February 1980, the day diplomatic relations between the two countries commenced, and as the first Israeli ambassador to Cairo presented his credentials to the then Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, a young man from the Delta province of Qalioubiya, Saad Idris Halawa, staged an armed protest at the local council in his village of Aghour. Demanding the expulsion of the ambassador, he was shot dead and subsequently proclaimed insane.
Ever since then, the sight of the Israeli flag at any official function open to the public in Egypt has always triggered popular anger and a demand for it to be removed. In 1980, when Israel was allowed to participate in the Cairo Book Fair for the first time, the flag hoisted over the Israeli pavilion was pulled down by an angry Lebanese publisher – to the cheering of all present. A few years later in 1985, when Israel sought participation again, angry demonstrators besieged the pavilion, removed the flag and scuffled with police.
But if such spontaneous acts of rejection managed to prevent Israel from participating in most public events in Egypt, the Israeli embassy (occupying the top two floors of a residential tower on the banks of the Nile in Giza) has been an altogether different matter. The place is too heavily guarded to allow for any intervention, and numerous attempts to picket it, many by students of Cairo University whose campus is within walking distance, had always been suppressed with the utmost brutality. I recall one such failed attempt in the summer of 1982, following the Israeli invasion of Beirut and the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps –events which led former president Hosni Mubarak to recall the Egyptian ambassador from Tel Aviv, but not to allow a demonstration outside the embassy in Cairo.
For the next 30 years, and until May this year, every time Israel waged a war of aggression against the Palestinians or the Lebanese, demonstrators would try to approach the Israeli embassy – and fail. On 14 May this year, while Israel was celebrating its national day, activists emboldened by the revolutionary fervour that had overtaken the country since 25 January, decided to march from Tahrir Square to Giza. They were allowed to reach the location of the embassy, but as soon as they began chanting slogans and demanding the removal of the flag, the army patrolling the area and guarding the embassy dispersed and chased them down side streets using live ammunition. One demonstrator, Atef Yehia, is still lying unconscious in hospital, the result of a bullet in the head. Others were beaten up and humiliated by the military for daring to ask that the flag be removed. Some were even hauled in front of military tribunals.
The action of Ahmed El-Shahat, who risked his life last week to remove the flag, must be understood against this backdrop. On Saturday, El-Shahat had joined the thousands of demonstrators outside the Israeli embassy protesting the killing of five Egyptian security personnel by the Israelis. A construction worker adept at climbing scaffolding, he had seen the demonstrators trying in vain to target the flag with fireworks in order to burn it. He harboured the idea of obtaining the hated object but told nobody.
“I jumped onto the tank outside the building, and began to climb. I was more worried about being arrested by the army before I reached my goal than of falling off and dying,” he told a press conference on Sunday. To his pleasant surprise, he told reporters, while in the middle of his endeavour, he encountered a police officer looking out of the eighth floor who greeted him with the victory sign.
The rest is history that many people, the present writer included, have watched many times over on YouTube: the thousands of protestors holding their breath as El-Shahat scaled the building, the mad cheers as he reached for the flag, and the hero's reception he got as he came down, people insisting that he should have the honour of burning the Israeli flag himself after he had brought down.
One young man, Alaa Abd El-Fatah, an activist who has been on the frontline of most of the dangerous street battles that took place during the revolution, wrote about the occasion on which activists were dispersed with live ammunition outside the embassy, on 14 May: “In front of the Zionist embassy, young people, mostly under 20 years of age, bared their chests for bullets,” Abd El-Fatah wrote. “Did they believe they were going to liberate the land by such an act? No, they were merely taking part in a spectacle, demanding to see the symbolic gesture of pulling down the flag. Like Bouazizi [the Tunisian street vendor whose action sparked off the country's revolution],they knew what we did not know– that the revolution is a battle of ideas. They were there to demonstrate an idea: all power to the people, not to any external or even internal force.”
Discussing the role of the poor and disenfranchised in the Egyptian revolution, in the same insightful and moving article published in Shorouk newspaper last June, Abd El-Fatah wrote, “These people, whom we don’t call intellectuals, may not know the meaning of such words as discourse, narrative or spectacle, but they are nevertheless affected by such tropes. They know that Tahrir Square was a spectacle, and that the Revolution was won in the poor alleyways and the workplaces. They know that the spectacular is an essential part of the battle of ideas, and that the dream would fall once the Square fell. For the Square is the myth auguring the reality we have all wanted for so long.”
Ahmed El-Shahat, who had come from his distant village especially to demonstrate in front of the embassy, is, in his decision to stage this spectacular act for all the world to see, one more proof of the power of the spectacle.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/19678.aspx
Mona Anis
The action of the man who risked his life last week to remove the Israeli flag must be understood against the backdrop of 30 years of indignation
The civil resistance protests that sparked the January revolution and continue to define it have had spectacular moments. Those, it would seem, belong more to the realm of the imaginative or the visionary than to that of the real. One such moment took place last week, in the early hours of Sunday morning, when a young man, Ahmed El-Shahat, scaled the Cairo residential tower housing the Israeli embassy and climbed all the way up to the flagpole on the roof, pulling down the Israeli flag and replacing it with an Egyptian one.
The sheer sensationalism of the act instantly recalled what the cultural theorist Mikhael Bakhtin once said about modern theatrical forms: that they retain some aspects of the medieval communal performance in the public square. Its significance, the emotional energy it unleashed among the spectators – whether they saw it live or on TV and computer screens later – can only be fully understood in the historical context of popular resentment of the flawed Israeli-Egyptian peace treatysigned in 1979.
On 26 February 1980, the day diplomatic relations between the two countries commenced, and as the first Israeli ambassador to Cairo presented his credentials to the then Egyptian president, Anwar Sadat, a young man from the Delta province of Qalioubiya, Saad Idris Halawa, staged an armed protest at the local council in his village of Aghour. Demanding the expulsion of the ambassador, he was shot dead and subsequently proclaimed insane.
Ever since then, the sight of the Israeli flag at any official function open to the public in Egypt has always triggered popular anger and a demand for it to be removed. In 1980, when Israel was allowed to participate in the Cairo Book Fair for the first time, the flag hoisted over the Israeli pavilion was pulled down by an angry Lebanese publisher – to the cheering of all present. A few years later in 1985, when Israel sought participation again, angry demonstrators besieged the pavilion, removed the flag and scuffled with police.
But if such spontaneous acts of rejection managed to prevent Israel from participating in most public events in Egypt, the Israeli embassy (occupying the top two floors of a residential tower on the banks of the Nile in Giza) has been an altogether different matter. The place is too heavily guarded to allow for any intervention, and numerous attempts to picket it, many by students of Cairo University whose campus is within walking distance, had always been suppressed with the utmost brutality. I recall one such failed attempt in the summer of 1982, following the Israeli invasion of Beirut and the massacres in the Sabra and Shatila Palestinian refugee camps –events which led former president Hosni Mubarak to recall the Egyptian ambassador from Tel Aviv, but not to allow a demonstration outside the embassy in Cairo.
For the next 30 years, and until May this year, every time Israel waged a war of aggression against the Palestinians or the Lebanese, demonstrators would try to approach the Israeli embassy – and fail. On 14 May this year, while Israel was celebrating its national day, activists emboldened by the revolutionary fervour that had overtaken the country since 25 January, decided to march from Tahrir Square to Giza. They were allowed to reach the location of the embassy, but as soon as they began chanting slogans and demanding the removal of the flag, the army patrolling the area and guarding the embassy dispersed and chased them down side streets using live ammunition. One demonstrator, Atef Yehia, is still lying unconscious in hospital, the result of a bullet in the head. Others were beaten up and humiliated by the military for daring to ask that the flag be removed. Some were even hauled in front of military tribunals.
The action of Ahmed El-Shahat, who risked his life last week to remove the flag, must be understood against this backdrop. On Saturday, El-Shahat had joined the thousands of demonstrators outside the Israeli embassy protesting the killing of five Egyptian security personnel by the Israelis. A construction worker adept at climbing scaffolding, he had seen the demonstrators trying in vain to target the flag with fireworks in order to burn it. He harboured the idea of obtaining the hated object but told nobody.
“I jumped onto the tank outside the building, and began to climb. I was more worried about being arrested by the army before I reached my goal than of falling off and dying,” he told a press conference on Sunday. To his pleasant surprise, he told reporters, while in the middle of his endeavour, he encountered a police officer looking out of the eighth floor who greeted him with the victory sign.
The rest is history that many people, the present writer included, have watched many times over on YouTube: the thousands of protestors holding their breath as El-Shahat scaled the building, the mad cheers as he reached for the flag, and the hero's reception he got as he came down, people insisting that he should have the honour of burning the Israeli flag himself after he had brought down.
One young man, Alaa Abd El-Fatah, an activist who has been on the frontline of most of the dangerous street battles that took place during the revolution, wrote about the occasion on which activists were dispersed with live ammunition outside the embassy, on 14 May: “In front of the Zionist embassy, young people, mostly under 20 years of age, bared their chests for bullets,” Abd El-Fatah wrote. “Did they believe they were going to liberate the land by such an act? No, they were merely taking part in a spectacle, demanding to see the symbolic gesture of pulling down the flag. Like Bouazizi [the Tunisian street vendor whose action sparked off the country's revolution],they knew what we did not know– that the revolution is a battle of ideas. They were there to demonstrate an idea: all power to the people, not to any external or even internal force.”
Discussing the role of the poor and disenfranchised in the Egyptian revolution, in the same insightful and moving article published in Shorouk newspaper last June, Abd El-Fatah wrote, “These people, whom we don’t call intellectuals, may not know the meaning of such words as discourse, narrative or spectacle, but they are nevertheless affected by such tropes. They know that Tahrir Square was a spectacle, and that the Revolution was won in the poor alleyways and the workplaces. They know that the spectacular is an essential part of the battle of ideas, and that the dream would fall once the Square fell. For the Square is the myth auguring the reality we have all wanted for so long.”
Ahmed El-Shahat, who had come from his distant village especially to demonstrate in front of the embassy, is, in his decision to stage this spectacular act for all the world to see, one more proof of the power of the spectacle.
http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/19678.aspx
ISRAËL DOIT SORTIR DE LA LEGENDE POUR PASSER AU REEL
24 août 2011, Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) http://www.france-palestine.org (France)
Germain Latour, avocat
On parlera d’Israël en dehors du conflit israélo-arabe quand cet Etat acceptera de sortir de la légende pour tenir son rang dans l’histoire des Nations.
Pour répondre à M. Marek Halter (Le Monde 19/08/11) qu’il soit permis de rappeler (d’appeler à la lecture) et prendre appui sur l’ouvrage de Sylvain Cypel: les Emmurés, la société israélienne dans l’impasse, Paris, La Découverte, 2005. On parlera d’Israël en dehors du conflit israélo-arabe quand cet Etat acceptera de sortir de la légende pour tenir son rang dans l’histoire des Nations. Et l’on sait de tout temps que les légendes nourrissent les impostures ; et donc pour parler, enfin, "autrement" d’Israël il faut que ce dernier accepte de mettre un terme à trois impostures majeures qui empoisonnent sa propre existence: une imposture historique, une imposture nationale et une imposture politique.
Au regard de l’Histoire, il convient de rappeler que la résolution 181 de l’ONU, dès le 29 novembre 1947, recommandait un plan de partage de la Palestine en deux Etats indépendants, l’un "arabe" et l’autre "juif". Dès l‘origine, dans l’esprit de ceux qui ont voulu et contribué à la création de l’Etat d’Israël, ce dernier devait s’inscrire au côté d’un "Etat arabe" à naître qui ne s’écrivait pas encore" palestinien ". En aucun cas, la résolution de l‘ONU n’était une décision octroyant un droit à l’existence d’un Etat juif envers et contre tous. Au mépris insolent de la lettre et de l’esprit de la résolution 181, Israël s’est octroyé dès le départ et d’autorité les terres des "absents" soit environ 60% de son propre territoire, avant de procéder dès juillet 1948 ( !) à l’expulsion de 82% des Palestiniens vivant sur les territoires dévolus à ces derniers par l’ONU mais convoités avant d’être "annexés" par Israël. A l’expulsion s’ajouteront les destructions physiques de 400 sur 500 villages palestiniens. Il fallait une terre "nettoyée" de son passé pour accréditer la légende d’une terre "neuve" originelle. Les accords d’Oslo n’étaient donc qu’une mise en conformité du droit et des faits, dont les gouvernements israéliens successifs depuis l’assassinat de Itzhak Rabin n’ont eu de cesse de parjurer la signature et de remettre en question ce qui était acquis ou accessible...on est toujours trahi (et ici,en outre, tué) par les siens. Voilà pour l’imposture historique.
L’imposture nationale est tout entière contenue dans le fait que l’histoire nationale d’Israël occulte ces faits, et a donc créé et alimenté la "légende" de l’agression "arabe" pour justifier une politique continuelle de conquête de territoires au nom d’une légitime défense pervertie. Cette tromperie délibérée du peuple israélien a conduit ce même peuple à accepter de consentir des sacrifices humains, politiques et financiers hors de proportions avec ce que le droit à l’existence exigeait. Israël n’était pas menacé mais bien menaçant, provoquant l’hostilité régionale dont il se proclamait néanmoins haut et fort la victime. Au fond personne ne contestait les frontières d’origine de l’Etat d’Israël sinon Israël lui-même, et Sylvain Cypel rappelle judicieusement les propos tenus par Ben Gourion dès 1948 sur cette question : "(..) Nous nous emparerons de la Galilée occidentale et des deux côtés de la route vers Jérusalem (alloués par le plan onusien de 1947 à la future Palestine) et tout ça deviendra partie de notre Etat, si l’on en a la force. Alors pourquoi s’engager (sur des frontières)?". Les cartes reproduites se passent de commentaires et disent presque tout du torpillage délibéré du processus de paix par Israël.
Enfin, les responsables israéliens ont pris la responsabilité d’inscrire dans les mentalités une culture d’apartheid. Or cette culture ne discrimine plus désormais seulement les Arabes, mais désormais les juifs entre eux, au sein même de la société civile. Les vagues successives de "nouveaux" arrivants sont de moins en moins intégrés, parfois leur venue a été parfaitement instrumentalisée notamment aux fins de colonisation des territoires occupés, qui demeuraient insuffisamment habités pour légitimer une occupation militaire. Le mouvement "d’indignés" qui réveille la société civile israélienne aujourd’hui est la manifestation citoyenne d’une saturation face à des inégalités croissantes, à des fossés sociaux qu’Israël creuse en son sein, derniers avatars de cette culture d’apartheid qui n’est au fond qu’une perversion du sionisme fondateur...soit une imposture politique que ne veut plus subir (taire?) le peuple israélien.
Les faits étant, par nature, têtus, les hommes obstinés par nécessité et l’avenir compté, il faut que cesse cette intolérable soumission à un "particularisme" d’Israël violation des fondements des Nations Unies, ceux de l’égalité et de la fraternité nécessaire des peuples. L’Autorité palestinienne a fixé un rendez-vous de paix au monde le 20 septembre prochain devant l’ONU, et il serait temps qu’Israël (pour lui-même) saisisse, à cette occasion, le destin qui ne lui est pas contesté : celui de vivre sur une terre faite d’histoire et non plus de légendes, faite par des hommes et non des bourreaux et des victimes, faite pour durer et non seulement résister. A cette seule condition, M. Marek Halter un "Israël juste" sera non plus un rêve – il faut en finir avec la légende - mais un fait en devenir.
publié par le Monde
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article...
Germain Latour, avocat
On parlera d’Israël en dehors du conflit israélo-arabe quand cet Etat acceptera de sortir de la légende pour tenir son rang dans l’histoire des Nations.
Pour répondre à M. Marek Halter (Le Monde 19/08/11) qu’il soit permis de rappeler (d’appeler à la lecture) et prendre appui sur l’ouvrage de Sylvain Cypel: les Emmurés, la société israélienne dans l’impasse, Paris, La Découverte, 2005. On parlera d’Israël en dehors du conflit israélo-arabe quand cet Etat acceptera de sortir de la légende pour tenir son rang dans l’histoire des Nations. Et l’on sait de tout temps que les légendes nourrissent les impostures ; et donc pour parler, enfin, "autrement" d’Israël il faut que ce dernier accepte de mettre un terme à trois impostures majeures qui empoisonnent sa propre existence: une imposture historique, une imposture nationale et une imposture politique.
Au regard de l’Histoire, il convient de rappeler que la résolution 181 de l’ONU, dès le 29 novembre 1947, recommandait un plan de partage de la Palestine en deux Etats indépendants, l’un "arabe" et l’autre "juif". Dès l‘origine, dans l’esprit de ceux qui ont voulu et contribué à la création de l’Etat d’Israël, ce dernier devait s’inscrire au côté d’un "Etat arabe" à naître qui ne s’écrivait pas encore" palestinien ". En aucun cas, la résolution de l‘ONU n’était une décision octroyant un droit à l’existence d’un Etat juif envers et contre tous. Au mépris insolent de la lettre et de l’esprit de la résolution 181, Israël s’est octroyé dès le départ et d’autorité les terres des "absents" soit environ 60% de son propre territoire, avant de procéder dès juillet 1948 ( !) à l’expulsion de 82% des Palestiniens vivant sur les territoires dévolus à ces derniers par l’ONU mais convoités avant d’être "annexés" par Israël. A l’expulsion s’ajouteront les destructions physiques de 400 sur 500 villages palestiniens. Il fallait une terre "nettoyée" de son passé pour accréditer la légende d’une terre "neuve" originelle. Les accords d’Oslo n’étaient donc qu’une mise en conformité du droit et des faits, dont les gouvernements israéliens successifs depuis l’assassinat de Itzhak Rabin n’ont eu de cesse de parjurer la signature et de remettre en question ce qui était acquis ou accessible...on est toujours trahi (et ici,en outre, tué) par les siens. Voilà pour l’imposture historique.
L’imposture nationale est tout entière contenue dans le fait que l’histoire nationale d’Israël occulte ces faits, et a donc créé et alimenté la "légende" de l’agression "arabe" pour justifier une politique continuelle de conquête de territoires au nom d’une légitime défense pervertie. Cette tromperie délibérée du peuple israélien a conduit ce même peuple à accepter de consentir des sacrifices humains, politiques et financiers hors de proportions avec ce que le droit à l’existence exigeait. Israël n’était pas menacé mais bien menaçant, provoquant l’hostilité régionale dont il se proclamait néanmoins haut et fort la victime. Au fond personne ne contestait les frontières d’origine de l’Etat d’Israël sinon Israël lui-même, et Sylvain Cypel rappelle judicieusement les propos tenus par Ben Gourion dès 1948 sur cette question : "(..) Nous nous emparerons de la Galilée occidentale et des deux côtés de la route vers Jérusalem (alloués par le plan onusien de 1947 à la future Palestine) et tout ça deviendra partie de notre Etat, si l’on en a la force. Alors pourquoi s’engager (sur des frontières)?". Les cartes reproduites se passent de commentaires et disent presque tout du torpillage délibéré du processus de paix par Israël.
Enfin, les responsables israéliens ont pris la responsabilité d’inscrire dans les mentalités une culture d’apartheid. Or cette culture ne discrimine plus désormais seulement les Arabes, mais désormais les juifs entre eux, au sein même de la société civile. Les vagues successives de "nouveaux" arrivants sont de moins en moins intégrés, parfois leur venue a été parfaitement instrumentalisée notamment aux fins de colonisation des territoires occupés, qui demeuraient insuffisamment habités pour légitimer une occupation militaire. Le mouvement "d’indignés" qui réveille la société civile israélienne aujourd’hui est la manifestation citoyenne d’une saturation face à des inégalités croissantes, à des fossés sociaux qu’Israël creuse en son sein, derniers avatars de cette culture d’apartheid qui n’est au fond qu’une perversion du sionisme fondateur...soit une imposture politique que ne veut plus subir (taire?) le peuple israélien.
Les faits étant, par nature, têtus, les hommes obstinés par nécessité et l’avenir compté, il faut que cesse cette intolérable soumission à un "particularisme" d’Israël violation des fondements des Nations Unies, ceux de l’égalité et de la fraternité nécessaire des peuples. L’Autorité palestinienne a fixé un rendez-vous de paix au monde le 20 septembre prochain devant l’ONU, et il serait temps qu’Israël (pour lui-même) saisisse, à cette occasion, le destin qui ne lui est pas contesté : celui de vivre sur une terre faite d’histoire et non plus de légendes, faite par des hommes et non des bourreaux et des victimes, faite pour durer et non seulement résister. A cette seule condition, M. Marek Halter un "Israël juste" sera non plus un rêve – il faut en finir avec la légende - mais un fait en devenir.
publié par le Monde
http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article...
China manifesta apoio a Estado palestino
25 Agosto 2011, Agência Estado (Brasil)
O governo da China anunciou nesta quinta-feira seu apoio à intenção palestina de buscar o reconhecimento pleno da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) durante a próxima Assembleia Geral da entidade, marcada para o mês que vem.
Por meio de nota, o Ministério das Relações Exteriores da China informou que Wu Sike, enviado especial de Pequim ao Oriente Médio, disse a líderes palestinos durante uma reunião em Ramallah que o governo e o povo chineses sempre apoiaram a causa palestina.
Em relação ao pleito palestino pelo reconhecimento de sua independência, prossegue a nota, Wu manifestou "compreensão, respeito e apoio".
No início do mês, o representante palestino na ONU, Riyad Mansur, afirmou que quase 130 países já haviam manifestado apoio à independência palestina, superando o mínimo necessário de dois terços para seu reconhecimento pela Assembleia Geral da ONU.
O apoio de Pequim, porém, dá mais uma força ao pleito o palestino, uma vez que a China é um dos cinco membros permanentes do Conselho de Segurança (CS) da ONU.
Os palestinos decidiram buscar o reconhecimento de sua independência na ONU por conta da letargia em que se encontra o processo de paz com Israel. O diálogo bilateral referente a um futuro Estado palestino independente, soberano e economicamente viável está paralisado desde 2008.
As informações são da Associated Press.
O governo da China anunciou nesta quinta-feira seu apoio à intenção palestina de buscar o reconhecimento pleno da Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU) durante a próxima Assembleia Geral da entidade, marcada para o mês que vem.
Por meio de nota, o Ministério das Relações Exteriores da China informou que Wu Sike, enviado especial de Pequim ao Oriente Médio, disse a líderes palestinos durante uma reunião em Ramallah que o governo e o povo chineses sempre apoiaram a causa palestina.
Em relação ao pleito palestino pelo reconhecimento de sua independência, prossegue a nota, Wu manifestou "compreensão, respeito e apoio".
No início do mês, o representante palestino na ONU, Riyad Mansur, afirmou que quase 130 países já haviam manifestado apoio à independência palestina, superando o mínimo necessário de dois terços para seu reconhecimento pela Assembleia Geral da ONU.
O apoio de Pequim, porém, dá mais uma força ao pleito o palestino, uma vez que a China é um dos cinco membros permanentes do Conselho de Segurança (CS) da ONU.
Os palestinos decidiram buscar o reconhecimento de sua independência na ONU por conta da letargia em que se encontra o processo de paz com Israel. O diálogo bilateral referente a um futuro Estado palestino independente, soberano e economicamente viável está paralisado desde 2008.
As informações são da Associated Press.
ALGUNES OBSERVACIONS SOBRE LES PROTESTES D`ISRAEL
24 agost 2011, En Lluita http://www.enlluita.org (Catalunya/España)
Per Lenin's Tomb. Recentment hi ha hagut protestes massives i vagues a Israel. Hi ha fins i tot un intent de reproduir l’efecte de Tahrir amb campaments de protesta establerts a Jerusalem. Alguns al si de l’esquerra són, naturalment, molt pessimistes pel que fa a aquests esdeveniments. Al cap i a la fi, l’esquerra israeliana ha mostrat molt rarament signes de voler superar de veres la injustícia colonial/racial que rau en el cor del projecte sionista. Les protestes actuals no mostren cap indici de desenvolupament d’una postura antiocupació, ni molt menys antiapartheid —al contrari. Per raons diverses, la qüestió colonial ni tan sols es menciona a pesar que està íntimament relacionada amb els problemes que han motivat les protestes. Amb tota probabilitat l’Estat d’Israel tractarà de resoldre l’antagonisme social desplaçant-lo a l’àmbit colonial —més assentaments, més robatori de matèries primes, probablement una altra guerra d’expansió. I atès el xovinisme i el racisme de la gran majoria dels israelians, sens dubte és lícit pensar que aquests podrien estar d’acord amb aquesta línia d’actuació. Això no obstant, l’única manera d’analitzar correctament la situació és a través d’una comprensió dels antagonismes de classe d’Israel i la seva relació amb el projecte colonial. Des del meu punt de vista, el millor anàlisi ens el proporcionen Moshe Machover i Akiva Orr. El nucli del seu argument és que, a diferència de moltes de les societats imperialistes, la dinàmica colonial predomina per sobre dels antagonismes interns de classe.
Certament, tots els nivells de la societat israeliana, des dels sindicats als sistemes educatius, les forces armades i els partits polítics dominants, estan implicats en el sistema de l’apartheid. Això fou cert des del començament mateix en les formes germinals que adoptà l’Estat d’Israel en el període del Mandat Britànic. Israel és una societat de colons i aquest fet té enormes implicacions per al desenvolupament de la consciència de classe. Mentre Israel es desenvolupi sobre la base de la construcció d’assentaments colonials, mentre la gent identifiqui els seus interessos amb l’expansió del colonialisme, les possibilitats que la classe obrera desenvolupi una capacitat revolucionària independent seran ben poques. No només es tracta d’una societat d’assentaments colonials, sinó que també hi juga un paper important el recolzament amb recursos materials que rep per part de l’imperialisme dels EUA. En aquest àmbit, Israel ha gaudit de grans avantatges en relació als seus rivals regionals, fet pel qual ha disposat habitualment d’una major capacitat per contenir els antagonismes socials. De fet, trobem un cert tipus d’assistencialisme colonial en els fonaments del sionisme. Inclús Jabotinsky, el sant de la dreta israeliana, va sostenir que cada colon havia de tenir una casa, alimentació, educació, roba i medicaments —requisits essencials en el seu temps, puix que gran part de la societat estava formada per immigrants molt recents. En l’era neoliberal, aquesta perspectiva s’ha vist erosionada i debilitada, amb algunes conseqüències importants de què tractaré més endavant. Això no obstant, Israel és únic entre els països d’Orient Mitjà i l’Àfrica del Nord (MENA en el seu acrònim en anglès), en el sentit que és una economia no-exportadora de petroli amb una renda per càpita elevada. Amb una de les majors densitats de població de la regió, és capaç de satisfer les necessitats de tots els ciutadans, encara que decideixi no fer-ho. En una regió coneguda per la inseguretat alimentària i la creixent escassesa d’aigua, Israel manté una economia d’alta tecnologia amb un gran sector financer i, per no pas pocs dels seus ciutadans, un pròsper estil de vida. També s’hi troben un bon nombre dels principals multimilionaris del món. Gran part d’aquesta riquesa deriva directament de l’expropiació dels palestins, ja sigui d’aigua o de béns immobles. En aquestes circumstàncies, amb el colonialisme com una característica generalitzada de la societat israeliana, central en la seva legitimació i sense impugnació per part de cap gran partit polític ni mitjà de comunicació, és il•lusori esperar que la classe obrera israeliana esdevingui una força capaç d’encapçalar la superació del racialitzat sistema capitalista en el qual es troba immersa.
Es deriven importants conseqüències estratègiques d’un anàlisi de Machover y Orr. Si l’antagonisme de classe és dominant, llavors l’esquerra hauria de centrar el seu activisme prioritàriament en l’organització de la classe obrera israeliana com a clau per superar el projecte colonial. L’autoorganització d’aquesta classe obrera seria fonamental per aconseguir la caiguda d’aquest sistema colonial. Per contra, si la dinàmica colonial predomina, llavors Machover y Orr tenen raó en concloure que “dementre el sionisme sigui políticament i ideològica dominant dins d’aquesta societat i constitueixi el marc acceptat de la política, no hi ha cap possibilitat per a la classe obrera israeliana de convertir-se en un moviment revolucionari de classe.” En aquest cas, l’única solució és un aixecament revolucionari regional.
L’extraordinari començament d’una tal revolta regional s’ha fet palès des del gener d’enguany. No hi ha dubte que de llavors ençà la posició regional d’Israel s’ha debilitat. A nivell internacional, aquesta rebel•lió ha conduit al proisraelià Obama a demanar el retorn a les fronteres anteriors a 1967 en un intent de salvar la dominació estatunidenca de l’Orient Mitjà. Tot i així, aquest gest no s’ha d’exagerar. Ara per ara és molt germinal i, llevat que la revolució s’aprofundeixi i s’estengui encara més, és poc probable que els EUA prenguin mesures serioses per frenar el seu gos guardià local. Nogensmenys, el debilitament de la posició regional d’Israel és real. I això sens dubte augmenta el risc d’una escalada de l’agressió regional que eventualment es pogués acabar duent a terme. També és important el fet que la revolta àrab hagi establert el precedent de les protestes d’Israel i s’hagi produït per algunes de les mateixes circumstàncies en termes de recessió global. Però, per suposat, mentre que la revolució àrab ha tingut fins ara una poderosa dinàmica antiimperialista (no de manera uniforme, però sí en línies generals), qualsevol possible dinàmica antiimperialista o fins i tot de “pau” en les protestes d’Israel es troba encara, en el millor dels casos, latent. Amb tot, hi ha aspectes de l’economia colonial d’Israel que estan vinculats a l’agudització de les divisions socials. En termes generals, són els palestins els que suporten els costos de l’ocupació. Tanmateix existeixen alguns antagonismes potencials que són d’interès.
En primer lloc, l’Estat d’Israel inverteix molt en el desenvolupament dels assentaments, la qual cosa requereix un grau inusual d’inversió en l’aparell repressiu. Necessàriament ha de desviar recursos del desenvolupament “intern”, inclús si la rendibilitat a llarg termini de la colonització s’espera que superi els costos. L’oposició entre la inversió en matèria militar i la inversió en matèria de benestar és un dels temes que ha sorgit en els últims debats a Israel. En segon lloc, la concentració del poder de classe que té lloc a Israel està vinculada amb el poder colonial. Per exemple, el problema específic en el centre de les protestes dels últims dies és l’habitatge. El sistema d’habitatge públic fou desenvolupat sobre una base colonial —literalment construint sobre terres i propietats palestines. El sistema actual permet als promotors i contractistes, els quals s’han enriquit enormement gràcies a la totalitat del projecte colonial (vegis el cas de l’empresa immobiliària israeliana “Colony”), paralitzar deliberadament els projectes urbanístics aprovats a fi d’inflar els preus. La decisió de Netanyahu de concedir l’estatus de “desenvolupament preferencial” als assentaments de colons a Cisjordània també ha ajudat a desviar la construcció d’habitatges als territoris fronterers.
La solució de Netanyahu és un “mercat lliure” —la reforma del sector de l’habitatge vers una major privatització. Els manifestants s’han negat a acceptar les seves propostes i, en conseqüència, és probable que aquestes continuïn. Aquest fet apunta a la forma com, sota el neoliberalisme, els antagonismes de classe d’Israel s’han aguditzat fins a cert punt. L’Estat del Benestar s’ha deteriorat i la taxa d’explotació de la classe treballadora ha augmentat de manera espectacular. Un estudi recent realitzat a Israel mostrava com “l’israelià mitjà treballa 12 anys abans que la seva remuneració acumulada sigui equivalent al salari mensual d’un CEO d’una gran empresa.” La desocupació és alta a Israel, sector que juntament amb el de la “improductivitat” és el de més ràpid creixement entre els treballadors. Abans de les últimes protestes, la resposta predominant dels treballadors israelians a aquesta situació havia sigut un viratge a la dreta, al prosionisme. L’extrema dreta va augmentar el seu poder, impulsada significativament pel suport dels immigrants russos, mentre que la immensa majoria dels treballadors israelians es podia comptar entre aquells que donaven suport als bestials actes d’agressió de l’Estat, com per exemple l’Operació Plom Fos. L’Estat s’havia fet més obscenament autoritari i racista, sovint sense gaires senyals de protesta. En qualsevol cas, però, les coses no continuaran d’aquesta manera. Com hem vist, la dreta disposa de mitjans per racialitzar la transició cap a una forma més salvatge d’apartheid capitalista —consideris aquesta diatriba extraordinàriament racista publicada al Los Angeles Times, sense cap tipus d’ironia o crítica, per un destacat economista israelià. L’argument és que els àrabs i els ultraortodoxos jueus són mandrosos i actuen com un llast per a l’economia. Segons ell, l’Estat del Benestar els estaria permetent ser mandrosos —i qualsevol pot imaginar quin tipus de polítiques poden implementar-se sobre la base d’uns arguments com aquests.
Però aquestes protestes constitueixen una forma de lluita de classes que té el potencial de debilitar l’extrema dreta i, si es desenvolupen fins a un cert nivell, portar la política a una crisi que debiliti el control sobre els palestins. L’Estat d’Israel tractarà, sense cap mena de dubte, de resoldre aquest conflicte transferint l’antagonisme a l’esfera colonial i fins i tot podria decidir-se a iniciar una nova guerra d’agressió. Però aquesta mena de solucions poden topar-se amb límits força seriosos, especialment si la revolta àrab s’aprofundeix i s’estén (des d’aquest punt de vista, el que està succeint ara a Hama i Tahrir és molt important). Certament, un atac israelià contra Iran podria ser suïcida i estúpid. Per tant, les opcions són limitades.
A més, un altre dels efectes del neoliberalisme fou el desenvolupament d’una “comunitat autònoma de negocis”, una elit més o menys cohesionada que devia ben poc a les institucions tradicionals de la societat israeliana, que progressivament va dirigir els seus negocis a l’exterior i que empenyé l’Estat a avançar cap a les negociacions directes amb la OLP amb l’objectiu d’arribar a un acord per a la protecció de la supremacia israeliana (El model de la “governabilitat” Palestina que va sorgir d’Oslo es constituïa així com una reestructuració neoliberal del colonialisme israelià). Històricament, l’Estat havia assumit el paper de la creació d’una burgesia jueva, ja que aquesta no existia com a tal a la Palestina d’abans de la creació d’Israel. Durant dècades, l’Estat havia mantingut un acord corporatiu amb la racista federació sindical Histradut, incorporant-la en els seus plans de desenvolupament i aconseguint el Partit Laborista un important domini electoral. Destacats sectors de capital foren desenvolupats segons el model “laborista sionista”. La nova crisi d’aquest model es resolgué parcialment amb el projecte de colonització de 1967, el qual donava accés a recursos, mà d’obra barata i un mercat domèstic més ampli al capital israelià. Aquesta estratègia va dissipar els conflictes interns de classe fent dels palestins ocupats l’escalafó més baix de la societat israeliana. Malgrat tot, Israel tampoc es va escapar de la crisi global del fordisme, així que emprengué una sèrie de respostes similars a les dutes a terme a la resta del món —privatització d’indústries estatals, desregulació dels mercats, apertura dels mercats d’importació i focalització en els d’exportació, foment de les finances. El canvi d’un Estat de desenvolupament impulsat a un de regit per la privatització i l’acumulació financaritzada fou acompanyat per un canvi en la dominació del Likud i consolidat amb el Pla d’Estabilització Econòmica de 1985 (sobre aquest tema, vegeu Adán Hanieh).
Aquest procés ha permès el sorgiment d’un sector privat orientat als negocis capitalistes i, consegüentment, ha obert algunes fissures potencials entre els diferents sectors de la classe dominant israeliana. L’exèrcit segueix essent la institució suprema i dominant en la societat i segueix oferint moltes oportunitats rendibles per al capital israelià. Amb tot i això, els seus interessos estan cada cop més en contradicció amb els de la més àmplia classe capitalista del país. La segona intifada palestina, per exemple —provocada per les incursions de l’exèrcit israelià i el fracàs dels palestins a l’hora d’aconseguir un mínim indici de justícia del procés d’Oslo—, va generar al capital israelià la pèrdua d’importants beneficis potencials. La reputació de la supremacia militar de l’exèrcit d’Israel ha significat durant molt de temps la promesa que podria extirpar qualsevol problema. Realment, però, els límits del poder militar es mostraren molt clarament al Líban l’any 2006.
Perquè a Israel la dinàmica colonial encara predomina, i perquè la gran majoria dels treballadors israelians no han començat a trencar amb el sionisme, i de fet molts raonablement podrien pretendre obtenir-ne algun benefici, l’evolució dels antagonismes socials i les fissures al si de l’elit depenen principalment del context regional. Si la Primavera Àrab continua i es radicalitza, és possible que presenciem un debilitament de la posició d’Israel, de la seva utilitat per a Washington i de la seva capacitat per sostenir les polítiques militars —unes polítiques que importants sectors de la classe dominant ja consideren una càrrega—, fet que al seu torn obriria perspectives de grans lluites socials a Israel. De no ser així, llavors sospito que la classe dominant israeliana pot resoldre les seves dificultats a costa dels palestins i donar un pas més en el camí cap a algun tipus de feixisme.
Lenin's Tomb es el pseudònim i el nom del blog on publica un company del Socialist Workers Party organització germana d'En lluita a Gran Bretanya.
Traduït per Ivan Montejo
Per Lenin's Tomb. Recentment hi ha hagut protestes massives i vagues a Israel. Hi ha fins i tot un intent de reproduir l’efecte de Tahrir amb campaments de protesta establerts a Jerusalem. Alguns al si de l’esquerra són, naturalment, molt pessimistes pel que fa a aquests esdeveniments. Al cap i a la fi, l’esquerra israeliana ha mostrat molt rarament signes de voler superar de veres la injustícia colonial/racial que rau en el cor del projecte sionista. Les protestes actuals no mostren cap indici de desenvolupament d’una postura antiocupació, ni molt menys antiapartheid —al contrari. Per raons diverses, la qüestió colonial ni tan sols es menciona a pesar que està íntimament relacionada amb els problemes que han motivat les protestes. Amb tota probabilitat l’Estat d’Israel tractarà de resoldre l’antagonisme social desplaçant-lo a l’àmbit colonial —més assentaments, més robatori de matèries primes, probablement una altra guerra d’expansió. I atès el xovinisme i el racisme de la gran majoria dels israelians, sens dubte és lícit pensar que aquests podrien estar d’acord amb aquesta línia d’actuació. Això no obstant, l’única manera d’analitzar correctament la situació és a través d’una comprensió dels antagonismes de classe d’Israel i la seva relació amb el projecte colonial. Des del meu punt de vista, el millor anàlisi ens el proporcionen Moshe Machover i Akiva Orr. El nucli del seu argument és que, a diferència de moltes de les societats imperialistes, la dinàmica colonial predomina per sobre dels antagonismes interns de classe.
Certament, tots els nivells de la societat israeliana, des dels sindicats als sistemes educatius, les forces armades i els partits polítics dominants, estan implicats en el sistema de l’apartheid. Això fou cert des del començament mateix en les formes germinals que adoptà l’Estat d’Israel en el període del Mandat Britànic. Israel és una societat de colons i aquest fet té enormes implicacions per al desenvolupament de la consciència de classe. Mentre Israel es desenvolupi sobre la base de la construcció d’assentaments colonials, mentre la gent identifiqui els seus interessos amb l’expansió del colonialisme, les possibilitats que la classe obrera desenvolupi una capacitat revolucionària independent seran ben poques. No només es tracta d’una societat d’assentaments colonials, sinó que també hi juga un paper important el recolzament amb recursos materials que rep per part de l’imperialisme dels EUA. En aquest àmbit, Israel ha gaudit de grans avantatges en relació als seus rivals regionals, fet pel qual ha disposat habitualment d’una major capacitat per contenir els antagonismes socials. De fet, trobem un cert tipus d’assistencialisme colonial en els fonaments del sionisme. Inclús Jabotinsky, el sant de la dreta israeliana, va sostenir que cada colon havia de tenir una casa, alimentació, educació, roba i medicaments —requisits essencials en el seu temps, puix que gran part de la societat estava formada per immigrants molt recents. En l’era neoliberal, aquesta perspectiva s’ha vist erosionada i debilitada, amb algunes conseqüències importants de què tractaré més endavant. Això no obstant, Israel és únic entre els països d’Orient Mitjà i l’Àfrica del Nord (MENA en el seu acrònim en anglès), en el sentit que és una economia no-exportadora de petroli amb una renda per càpita elevada. Amb una de les majors densitats de població de la regió, és capaç de satisfer les necessitats de tots els ciutadans, encara que decideixi no fer-ho. En una regió coneguda per la inseguretat alimentària i la creixent escassesa d’aigua, Israel manté una economia d’alta tecnologia amb un gran sector financer i, per no pas pocs dels seus ciutadans, un pròsper estil de vida. També s’hi troben un bon nombre dels principals multimilionaris del món. Gran part d’aquesta riquesa deriva directament de l’expropiació dels palestins, ja sigui d’aigua o de béns immobles. En aquestes circumstàncies, amb el colonialisme com una característica generalitzada de la societat israeliana, central en la seva legitimació i sense impugnació per part de cap gran partit polític ni mitjà de comunicació, és il•lusori esperar que la classe obrera israeliana esdevingui una força capaç d’encapçalar la superació del racialitzat sistema capitalista en el qual es troba immersa.
Es deriven importants conseqüències estratègiques d’un anàlisi de Machover y Orr. Si l’antagonisme de classe és dominant, llavors l’esquerra hauria de centrar el seu activisme prioritàriament en l’organització de la classe obrera israeliana com a clau per superar el projecte colonial. L’autoorganització d’aquesta classe obrera seria fonamental per aconseguir la caiguda d’aquest sistema colonial. Per contra, si la dinàmica colonial predomina, llavors Machover y Orr tenen raó en concloure que “dementre el sionisme sigui políticament i ideològica dominant dins d’aquesta societat i constitueixi el marc acceptat de la política, no hi ha cap possibilitat per a la classe obrera israeliana de convertir-se en un moviment revolucionari de classe.” En aquest cas, l’única solució és un aixecament revolucionari regional.
L’extraordinari començament d’una tal revolta regional s’ha fet palès des del gener d’enguany. No hi ha dubte que de llavors ençà la posició regional d’Israel s’ha debilitat. A nivell internacional, aquesta rebel•lió ha conduit al proisraelià Obama a demanar el retorn a les fronteres anteriors a 1967 en un intent de salvar la dominació estatunidenca de l’Orient Mitjà. Tot i així, aquest gest no s’ha d’exagerar. Ara per ara és molt germinal i, llevat que la revolució s’aprofundeixi i s’estengui encara més, és poc probable que els EUA prenguin mesures serioses per frenar el seu gos guardià local. Nogensmenys, el debilitament de la posició regional d’Israel és real. I això sens dubte augmenta el risc d’una escalada de l’agressió regional que eventualment es pogués acabar duent a terme. També és important el fet que la revolta àrab hagi establert el precedent de les protestes d’Israel i s’hagi produït per algunes de les mateixes circumstàncies en termes de recessió global. Però, per suposat, mentre que la revolució àrab ha tingut fins ara una poderosa dinàmica antiimperialista (no de manera uniforme, però sí en línies generals), qualsevol possible dinàmica antiimperialista o fins i tot de “pau” en les protestes d’Israel es troba encara, en el millor dels casos, latent. Amb tot, hi ha aspectes de l’economia colonial d’Israel que estan vinculats a l’agudització de les divisions socials. En termes generals, són els palestins els que suporten els costos de l’ocupació. Tanmateix existeixen alguns antagonismes potencials que són d’interès.
En primer lloc, l’Estat d’Israel inverteix molt en el desenvolupament dels assentaments, la qual cosa requereix un grau inusual d’inversió en l’aparell repressiu. Necessàriament ha de desviar recursos del desenvolupament “intern”, inclús si la rendibilitat a llarg termini de la colonització s’espera que superi els costos. L’oposició entre la inversió en matèria militar i la inversió en matèria de benestar és un dels temes que ha sorgit en els últims debats a Israel. En segon lloc, la concentració del poder de classe que té lloc a Israel està vinculada amb el poder colonial. Per exemple, el problema específic en el centre de les protestes dels últims dies és l’habitatge. El sistema d’habitatge públic fou desenvolupat sobre una base colonial —literalment construint sobre terres i propietats palestines. El sistema actual permet als promotors i contractistes, els quals s’han enriquit enormement gràcies a la totalitat del projecte colonial (vegis el cas de l’empresa immobiliària israeliana “Colony”), paralitzar deliberadament els projectes urbanístics aprovats a fi d’inflar els preus. La decisió de Netanyahu de concedir l’estatus de “desenvolupament preferencial” als assentaments de colons a Cisjordània també ha ajudat a desviar la construcció d’habitatges als territoris fronterers.
La solució de Netanyahu és un “mercat lliure” —la reforma del sector de l’habitatge vers una major privatització. Els manifestants s’han negat a acceptar les seves propostes i, en conseqüència, és probable que aquestes continuïn. Aquest fet apunta a la forma com, sota el neoliberalisme, els antagonismes de classe d’Israel s’han aguditzat fins a cert punt. L’Estat del Benestar s’ha deteriorat i la taxa d’explotació de la classe treballadora ha augmentat de manera espectacular. Un estudi recent realitzat a Israel mostrava com “l’israelià mitjà treballa 12 anys abans que la seva remuneració acumulada sigui equivalent al salari mensual d’un CEO d’una gran empresa.” La desocupació és alta a Israel, sector que juntament amb el de la “improductivitat” és el de més ràpid creixement entre els treballadors. Abans de les últimes protestes, la resposta predominant dels treballadors israelians a aquesta situació havia sigut un viratge a la dreta, al prosionisme. L’extrema dreta va augmentar el seu poder, impulsada significativament pel suport dels immigrants russos, mentre que la immensa majoria dels treballadors israelians es podia comptar entre aquells que donaven suport als bestials actes d’agressió de l’Estat, com per exemple l’Operació Plom Fos. L’Estat s’havia fet més obscenament autoritari i racista, sovint sense gaires senyals de protesta. En qualsevol cas, però, les coses no continuaran d’aquesta manera. Com hem vist, la dreta disposa de mitjans per racialitzar la transició cap a una forma més salvatge d’apartheid capitalista —consideris aquesta diatriba extraordinàriament racista publicada al Los Angeles Times, sense cap tipus d’ironia o crítica, per un destacat economista israelià. L’argument és que els àrabs i els ultraortodoxos jueus són mandrosos i actuen com un llast per a l’economia. Segons ell, l’Estat del Benestar els estaria permetent ser mandrosos —i qualsevol pot imaginar quin tipus de polítiques poden implementar-se sobre la base d’uns arguments com aquests.
Però aquestes protestes constitueixen una forma de lluita de classes que té el potencial de debilitar l’extrema dreta i, si es desenvolupen fins a un cert nivell, portar la política a una crisi que debiliti el control sobre els palestins. L’Estat d’Israel tractarà, sense cap mena de dubte, de resoldre aquest conflicte transferint l’antagonisme a l’esfera colonial i fins i tot podria decidir-se a iniciar una nova guerra d’agressió. Però aquesta mena de solucions poden topar-se amb límits força seriosos, especialment si la revolta àrab s’aprofundeix i s’estén (des d’aquest punt de vista, el que està succeint ara a Hama i Tahrir és molt important). Certament, un atac israelià contra Iran podria ser suïcida i estúpid. Per tant, les opcions són limitades.
A més, un altre dels efectes del neoliberalisme fou el desenvolupament d’una “comunitat autònoma de negocis”, una elit més o menys cohesionada que devia ben poc a les institucions tradicionals de la societat israeliana, que progressivament va dirigir els seus negocis a l’exterior i que empenyé l’Estat a avançar cap a les negociacions directes amb la OLP amb l’objectiu d’arribar a un acord per a la protecció de la supremacia israeliana (El model de la “governabilitat” Palestina que va sorgir d’Oslo es constituïa així com una reestructuració neoliberal del colonialisme israelià). Històricament, l’Estat havia assumit el paper de la creació d’una burgesia jueva, ja que aquesta no existia com a tal a la Palestina d’abans de la creació d’Israel. Durant dècades, l’Estat havia mantingut un acord corporatiu amb la racista federació sindical Histradut, incorporant-la en els seus plans de desenvolupament i aconseguint el Partit Laborista un important domini electoral. Destacats sectors de capital foren desenvolupats segons el model “laborista sionista”. La nova crisi d’aquest model es resolgué parcialment amb el projecte de colonització de 1967, el qual donava accés a recursos, mà d’obra barata i un mercat domèstic més ampli al capital israelià. Aquesta estratègia va dissipar els conflictes interns de classe fent dels palestins ocupats l’escalafó més baix de la societat israeliana. Malgrat tot, Israel tampoc es va escapar de la crisi global del fordisme, així que emprengué una sèrie de respostes similars a les dutes a terme a la resta del món —privatització d’indústries estatals, desregulació dels mercats, apertura dels mercats d’importació i focalització en els d’exportació, foment de les finances. El canvi d’un Estat de desenvolupament impulsat a un de regit per la privatització i l’acumulació financaritzada fou acompanyat per un canvi en la dominació del Likud i consolidat amb el Pla d’Estabilització Econòmica de 1985 (sobre aquest tema, vegeu Adán Hanieh).
Aquest procés ha permès el sorgiment d’un sector privat orientat als negocis capitalistes i, consegüentment, ha obert algunes fissures potencials entre els diferents sectors de la classe dominant israeliana. L’exèrcit segueix essent la institució suprema i dominant en la societat i segueix oferint moltes oportunitats rendibles per al capital israelià. Amb tot i això, els seus interessos estan cada cop més en contradicció amb els de la més àmplia classe capitalista del país. La segona intifada palestina, per exemple —provocada per les incursions de l’exèrcit israelià i el fracàs dels palestins a l’hora d’aconseguir un mínim indici de justícia del procés d’Oslo—, va generar al capital israelià la pèrdua d’importants beneficis potencials. La reputació de la supremacia militar de l’exèrcit d’Israel ha significat durant molt de temps la promesa que podria extirpar qualsevol problema. Realment, però, els límits del poder militar es mostraren molt clarament al Líban l’any 2006.
Perquè a Israel la dinàmica colonial encara predomina, i perquè la gran majoria dels treballadors israelians no han començat a trencar amb el sionisme, i de fet molts raonablement podrien pretendre obtenir-ne algun benefici, l’evolució dels antagonismes socials i les fissures al si de l’elit depenen principalment del context regional. Si la Primavera Àrab continua i es radicalitza, és possible que presenciem un debilitament de la posició d’Israel, de la seva utilitat per a Washington i de la seva capacitat per sostenir les polítiques militars —unes polítiques que importants sectors de la classe dominant ja consideren una càrrega—, fet que al seu torn obriria perspectives de grans lluites socials a Israel. De no ser així, llavors sospito que la classe dominant israeliana pot resoldre les seves dificultats a costa dels palestins i donar un pas més en el camí cap a algun tipus de feixisme.
Lenin's Tomb es el pseudònim i el nom del blog on publica un company del Socialist Workers Party organització germana d'En lluita a Gran Bretanya.
Traduït per Ivan Montejo
quarta-feira, 24 de agosto de 2011
BIBI AND BARAK’S TERROR FRAUD: EGYPTIAN NEWS REPORTS ATTACKERS WERE EGYPTIAN, NOT GAZAN
22 August 2011,Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)
Al Masry Al Youm, an independent liberal Egyptian newspaper, reports that Egypt has identified at least three of the Eilat attackers and that they are Egyptian, and not Gazan as Israel has claimed:
Egyptian authorities have identified three of the people responsible for carrying out a terrorist attack in Israel, just north of Eilat, on Thursday, in which seven Israelis were killed, according to an Egyptian security source.
The same source added that one of the men identified is a leader of terrorist cells in Sinai, while another is a fugitive who owns an ammunition factory.
What is intriguing about this story is that it would explain many things which appeared to be discrepancies when the theory was that Gazans were involved. First, the Israeli bus driver said the attackers wore Egyptian army uniforms. Now, it might be possible for Gazans to get such uniforms, but it would be much easier for Egyptians to do so. Second, the Israelis themselves have disagreed about the authors of the crime, with Netanyahu claiming the Popular Resistance Commitee was behind it and the IDF spokesperson specifically rejecting her boss’ claim. All of which leads one to believe that the Israelis don’t have a clue who was behind it. Third, well over half the attackers escaped, which is highly unusual for a terror attack on Israel. It would be much easier for Egyptian terrorists to melt back into Sinai than for Gazans to do so. Fourth, it would be a lot easier for Egyptians to mount an attack on Eilat than for Gazans to do so considering how far the latter would have to travel to get to the Israeli city. Fifth, Israel bombed a house containing the entire top leadership of the PRC, killing three commanders. If the PRC was responsible for the attack it simply beggars belief for their top leaders to be sitting in the same house together when they should be going into deep hiding. Sixth, there have been five bombings of the Egyptian pipeline bringing gas to Israel. Clearly, there are Egyptians who, in the light of the new Egyptian leadership, are not happy with continuing good relations between Egypt and Israel and willing to engage in terror to disrupt it.
All this would mean, if true, that Israel was not only caught with its pants down by the attack itself, but it hasn’t been able to pull them up in the aftermath either. I can’t recall previously seeing such disarray within the Israeli military-political echelons as a result of a terror attack. But it would seem to indicate some serious dysfunction.
H/t to readers Mary Hughes Thompson and Chayma for the story and link.
UPDATE: I’m just as competitive as the next political blogger, and to my chagrin I wrote this post last night (18 hours ago) and then queried a few Egyptians I knew about how realiable a source Al Masry was. Then I waited for a reply, but one never came. Then I somehow forgot I hadn’t actually published the post. A comment in another thread by a reader made me realize I hadn’t published this and so did so a few hours ago. But this delay allowed me to read Yossi Gurvitz’s 972 Magazine post which goes over some of the ground here, but adds a few interesting points I either didn’t know or hadn’t considered, which further buttress the argument that Bibi and Barak are perpetrating a fraud of massive proportions.
First, Gurvitz argues that Israel always releases the names and home villages of captured or killed terrorists within hours of the attack. For Israel, it is a way of pinning blame where Israel feels it belongs. But in the case of this incident, not only hasn’t Israel released this information, but IDF spokesperson Avital Leibowitz, when asked for it by Gurvitz, flatly refused to provide it. Sorry fellas, but something ain’t right here. Israel is a creature of habit. It follows a time honored routine in matters like this. The fact that it’s deviating from SOP is a major “tell.”
Also, Gurvitz notes that B’Tselem has tried to identify, through Gaza sources, who the attackers might’ve been, and has failed. In addition, any Gaza family which discovers a relative was killed in a terror attack would do the Jewish equivalent of sit shiva. This would be a public ritual and known to everyone in Gaza. Yet somehow mysteriously there are no such mourning tents for the dead attackers.
If those of us who smell a rat here are right, then it would appear that Barak and Bibi knew the attackers were Egyptian. That meant that they had two choices: either commence a major row with Egypt over the attack which might lead to a regional or international escalation which Israel couldn’t afford considering it’s already feuding with Turkey. Or Israel could blame its usual whipping boy, Gaza and Hamas. This way it could attack the usual suspects, draw blood, and go home after declaring victory. Israelis wouldn’t be any the wiser, and Israel wouldn’t have to upset the unsteady apple cart of relations with the new Egyptian regime.
Something ain’t right about this picture. It is the duty of the Israeli media to start asking questions, and pronto. We may have yet another scandal brewing here.
UPDATE I: Prof. Joel Beinin, a respected Egypt studies scholar confirms that Al Masry is an indepencent liberal newspaper with no particular axe to grind regarding this story. He says that Al Masry’s story makes sense and might explain why Israel killed Egyptian security forces by accident. In other words, I’ve reported earlier that the Israeli bus driver whose bus was attacked near Eilat said the attackers wore Egyptian army uniforms. Most of these terrorists escaped back into Egypt. Israel would’ve alerted the Egyptians to this and the latter would have pursued them. But then you’d have legitimate Egyptian soldiers pursuing attackers wearing Egyptian military uniforms. It stands to reason that Israeli forces also pursuing the attackers inside Egypt might’ve easily mistaken the good guys for the bad guys.
Interestingly, the killing of the Egyptian soldiers by Israel indicates that Israel violated Egyptian sovereignty in hot pursuit of the terrorists. It’s common for Israel to do this with weak states like Lebanon, but not more formidable neighbors like Egypt. This potentially could be a incendiary issue if it got out widely inside Egypt.
UPDATE II: Prof. Ellis Goldberg, an Egypt specialist at the University of Washington, also just confirmed the reliability of Al Masry in the context of this story. He sent me a link to a new story in today’s Al Masry. It describes the Israeli incursion which killed the five Egyptian security officers (not three, as the NY Times has reported):
Reliable sources said that an Israeli unit entered (Sinai) at border point 79, in pursuit of the Eilat attackers, and then fought with the Egyptian unit stationed there. The sources said that an Israeli helicopter intervened in the clash, and fired two missiles, and then hovered vertically over the Egyptian unit and opened fire with two machine guns, killing instantly Captain Ahmed Galal–with nine shots and a number of [missile] fragments–two soldiers, and two others [who] died later.
…A vehicle belonging to the border security forces, was on its way to the scene, and was exposed to a barrage of fire launched by the Israeli force and the armed groups.
What is extraordinary about all this is that Israeli forces not only invaded Egypt to pursue these attackers, but that they engaged with legitimate Egyptian security forces (rather than the militants), and severely sabotaged the Egyptian operation to capture the killers. This meant that in the gun battle, the Egyptian forces were not just fighting the Eilat militants, but the IDF as well. Man, this is a screw-up of massive proportions.
It is one thing to kill terrorists who’ve attacked your citizens, this may be justified. But in this case the IDF has killed 14 Gazans who likely had nothing to do with the Eilat assault, not even the ones Israel has identified as Gaza militants. Just as many parts of Operation Cast Lead qualify to be investigated as war crimes, I’d say the Gaza reprisals are right up there on the scale of impunity. Can the leader of any nation get away with attacking another that didn’t even attack it at all? If this isn’t a war crime, what is?
The Al Masry describes the three Eilat attackers its forces killed and there can be no doubt that they are Egyptian and not Gazan:
The 3 attackers are … the actual commander of the terrorist and takfiri (militant islamists) in central Sinai, one of the inmates who escaped from Egyptian prison during the recent security chaos, and a member of the (Salafist) group “Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad” who owns an ammunition factory that (Egyptian) security forces discovered last week.
Idan Landau also writes an extraordinarily comprehensive blog post, Conspiracy in the South, about this in which he reaches similar conclusions to Yossi and I. Idan puts this incident in the historic context of a number of other Israeli operations, among them the 1982 Lebanon invasion, which used equally bogus information to justify themselves. He also equates the Israeli government’s fake account to the Bush administration’s bogus claims of WMD which led us to invade Iraq in 2003.
Idan also reinforces a post I wrote during the height of the J14 protest uproar. I reported a story by Shalom Yerushalmi in which he warned the Israeli leadership not to engage in a military adventure that would distract the Israeli public from the very real social issues raised by the tent protests. If we are all correct, and Bibi and Barak took advantage of the terror attack to escalate it into a major regional crisis, then Yerushalmi’s point will have been proven. Bibi did precisely what the reporter had warned him not to do. Masterful (unfortunately only in Hebrew).
Al Masry Al Youm, an independent liberal Egyptian newspaper, reports that Egypt has identified at least three of the Eilat attackers and that they are Egyptian, and not Gazan as Israel has claimed:
Egyptian authorities have identified three of the people responsible for carrying out a terrorist attack in Israel, just north of Eilat, on Thursday, in which seven Israelis were killed, according to an Egyptian security source.
The same source added that one of the men identified is a leader of terrorist cells in Sinai, while another is a fugitive who owns an ammunition factory.
What is intriguing about this story is that it would explain many things which appeared to be discrepancies when the theory was that Gazans were involved. First, the Israeli bus driver said the attackers wore Egyptian army uniforms. Now, it might be possible for Gazans to get such uniforms, but it would be much easier for Egyptians to do so. Second, the Israelis themselves have disagreed about the authors of the crime, with Netanyahu claiming the Popular Resistance Commitee was behind it and the IDF spokesperson specifically rejecting her boss’ claim. All of which leads one to believe that the Israelis don’t have a clue who was behind it. Third, well over half the attackers escaped, which is highly unusual for a terror attack on Israel. It would be much easier for Egyptian terrorists to melt back into Sinai than for Gazans to do so. Fourth, it would be a lot easier for Egyptians to mount an attack on Eilat than for Gazans to do so considering how far the latter would have to travel to get to the Israeli city. Fifth, Israel bombed a house containing the entire top leadership of the PRC, killing three commanders. If the PRC was responsible for the attack it simply beggars belief for their top leaders to be sitting in the same house together when they should be going into deep hiding. Sixth, there have been five bombings of the Egyptian pipeline bringing gas to Israel. Clearly, there are Egyptians who, in the light of the new Egyptian leadership, are not happy with continuing good relations between Egypt and Israel and willing to engage in terror to disrupt it.
All this would mean, if true, that Israel was not only caught with its pants down by the attack itself, but it hasn’t been able to pull them up in the aftermath either. I can’t recall previously seeing such disarray within the Israeli military-political echelons as a result of a terror attack. But it would seem to indicate some serious dysfunction.
H/t to readers Mary Hughes Thompson and Chayma for the story and link.
UPDATE: I’m just as competitive as the next political blogger, and to my chagrin I wrote this post last night (18 hours ago) and then queried a few Egyptians I knew about how realiable a source Al Masry was. Then I waited for a reply, but one never came. Then I somehow forgot I hadn’t actually published the post. A comment in another thread by a reader made me realize I hadn’t published this and so did so a few hours ago. But this delay allowed me to read Yossi Gurvitz’s 972 Magazine post which goes over some of the ground here, but adds a few interesting points I either didn’t know or hadn’t considered, which further buttress the argument that Bibi and Barak are perpetrating a fraud of massive proportions.
First, Gurvitz argues that Israel always releases the names and home villages of captured or killed terrorists within hours of the attack. For Israel, it is a way of pinning blame where Israel feels it belongs. But in the case of this incident, not only hasn’t Israel released this information, but IDF spokesperson Avital Leibowitz, when asked for it by Gurvitz, flatly refused to provide it. Sorry fellas, but something ain’t right here. Israel is a creature of habit. It follows a time honored routine in matters like this. The fact that it’s deviating from SOP is a major “tell.”
Also, Gurvitz notes that B’Tselem has tried to identify, through Gaza sources, who the attackers might’ve been, and has failed. In addition, any Gaza family which discovers a relative was killed in a terror attack would do the Jewish equivalent of sit shiva. This would be a public ritual and known to everyone in Gaza. Yet somehow mysteriously there are no such mourning tents for the dead attackers.
If those of us who smell a rat here are right, then it would appear that Barak and Bibi knew the attackers were Egyptian. That meant that they had two choices: either commence a major row with Egypt over the attack which might lead to a regional or international escalation which Israel couldn’t afford considering it’s already feuding with Turkey. Or Israel could blame its usual whipping boy, Gaza and Hamas. This way it could attack the usual suspects, draw blood, and go home after declaring victory. Israelis wouldn’t be any the wiser, and Israel wouldn’t have to upset the unsteady apple cart of relations with the new Egyptian regime.
Something ain’t right about this picture. It is the duty of the Israeli media to start asking questions, and pronto. We may have yet another scandal brewing here.
UPDATE I: Prof. Joel Beinin, a respected Egypt studies scholar confirms that Al Masry is an indepencent liberal newspaper with no particular axe to grind regarding this story. He says that Al Masry’s story makes sense and might explain why Israel killed Egyptian security forces by accident. In other words, I’ve reported earlier that the Israeli bus driver whose bus was attacked near Eilat said the attackers wore Egyptian army uniforms. Most of these terrorists escaped back into Egypt. Israel would’ve alerted the Egyptians to this and the latter would have pursued them. But then you’d have legitimate Egyptian soldiers pursuing attackers wearing Egyptian military uniforms. It stands to reason that Israeli forces also pursuing the attackers inside Egypt might’ve easily mistaken the good guys for the bad guys.
Interestingly, the killing of the Egyptian soldiers by Israel indicates that Israel violated Egyptian sovereignty in hot pursuit of the terrorists. It’s common for Israel to do this with weak states like Lebanon, but not more formidable neighbors like Egypt. This potentially could be a incendiary issue if it got out widely inside Egypt.
UPDATE II: Prof. Ellis Goldberg, an Egypt specialist at the University of Washington, also just confirmed the reliability of Al Masry in the context of this story. He sent me a link to a new story in today’s Al Masry. It describes the Israeli incursion which killed the five Egyptian security officers (not three, as the NY Times has reported):
Reliable sources said that an Israeli unit entered (Sinai) at border point 79, in pursuit of the Eilat attackers, and then fought with the Egyptian unit stationed there. The sources said that an Israeli helicopter intervened in the clash, and fired two missiles, and then hovered vertically over the Egyptian unit and opened fire with two machine guns, killing instantly Captain Ahmed Galal–with nine shots and a number of [missile] fragments–two soldiers, and two others [who] died later.
…A vehicle belonging to the border security forces, was on its way to the scene, and was exposed to a barrage of fire launched by the Israeli force and the armed groups.
What is extraordinary about all this is that Israeli forces not only invaded Egypt to pursue these attackers, but that they engaged with legitimate Egyptian security forces (rather than the militants), and severely sabotaged the Egyptian operation to capture the killers. This meant that in the gun battle, the Egyptian forces were not just fighting the Eilat militants, but the IDF as well. Man, this is a screw-up of massive proportions.
It is one thing to kill terrorists who’ve attacked your citizens, this may be justified. But in this case the IDF has killed 14 Gazans who likely had nothing to do with the Eilat assault, not even the ones Israel has identified as Gaza militants. Just as many parts of Operation Cast Lead qualify to be investigated as war crimes, I’d say the Gaza reprisals are right up there on the scale of impunity. Can the leader of any nation get away with attacking another that didn’t even attack it at all? If this isn’t a war crime, what is?
The Al Masry describes the three Eilat attackers its forces killed and there can be no doubt that they are Egyptian and not Gazan:
The 3 attackers are … the actual commander of the terrorist and takfiri (militant islamists) in central Sinai, one of the inmates who escaped from Egyptian prison during the recent security chaos, and a member of the (Salafist) group “Al-Tawhid Wal-Jihad” who owns an ammunition factory that (Egyptian) security forces discovered last week.
Idan Landau also writes an extraordinarily comprehensive blog post, Conspiracy in the South, about this in which he reaches similar conclusions to Yossi and I. Idan puts this incident in the historic context of a number of other Israeli operations, among them the 1982 Lebanon invasion, which used equally bogus information to justify themselves. He also equates the Israeli government’s fake account to the Bush administration’s bogus claims of WMD which led us to invade Iraq in 2003.
Idan also reinforces a post I wrote during the height of the J14 protest uproar. I reported a story by Shalom Yerushalmi in which he warned the Israeli leadership not to engage in a military adventure that would distract the Israeli public from the very real social issues raised by the tent protests. If we are all correct, and Bibi and Barak took advantage of the terror attack to escalate it into a major regional crisis, then Yerushalmi’s point will have been proven. Bibi did precisely what the reporter had warned him not to do. Masterful (unfortunately only in Hebrew).
EVIDENCE UNDERMINES GOV’T’S CLAIM THAT TERRORISTS WERE GAZANS
22 August 2011, + 972 http://972mag.com (Israel)
Yossi Gurvitz*
The Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister claim the terrorist attack last week came from Gaza. They have yet to provide any proof – and the evidence looks dubious
(PM Netanyahu blaming PRC for Eilat attack at press conference/Photo: Activestills)
An unknown group carried out a combined attack from Sinai into Israel, hitting a number of targets. Six Israeli civilians were murdered and two soldiers were killed; so were seven of the terrorists and a number of Egyptian security personnel. While the attacks were carried out, Minister of Defense Ehud Barak quickly told the public the people responsible were the Popular Resistance Committee of the Gaza Strip; within hours the IAF attacked a house in the Strip and killed several of its leaders. Later that day, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the people responsible for the attacks were killed. This attack by the IAF is what spurred the recent round of escalation – and it’s worth noting the IAF has been raising the flames in the regions for about a month, with the Israeli media quietly ignoring it.
However, Israel has never supplied any proof that the attack has indeed originated in the Gaza Strip. The PRC have denied involvement in the attack. An Israeli propaganda apparatus, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, also claimed (Hebrew) the PRC was behind the attacks, but had to tautologically write “no terror organizations has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack and the Popular Resistance Committee has denied any involvement. However, the Israeli prime minister and other Israeli officials have pointed to the Popular Resistance Committee as the organization who carried out the attack. So, according to the ITIC, the fact that Netanyahu said something is proof enough, even if the other side completely denies it.
During the weekend, the news website Real News interviewed a senior IDF Spokesman officer, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovitz, who’s in charge of the IDF Spokesman with the international media. Leibowitz denied that the IDF connects the PRC to the attacks, said she was not responsible for that the prime minister said, but claimed that the attackers did come from Gaza, citing as proof the fact they were using Kalashnikov assault rifies (Sic! 2:28 and onwards in the video). I dunno how to put it to Col. Leibovitz, but Kalashnikovs are the most common light assault rifle in the world – a gift that keeps on giving from the defunct Soviet Union – and are rather easy to get all over the Middle East.
In a phone conversation with Leibovitz yesterday, she said “senior officials have already expressed themselves on the issue”, and declined to provide more information on the attackers, aside from insisting on them being Gazans. I asked her if she could provide me with the identity of the attackers killed by the IDF, which was until recently standard procedure, carried out within hours of an attack. She said this is unfortunately impossible, and repeatedly insisted they were Gazans. B’Tselem researchers in the Strip, contacted via B’Tselem today, were unaware of the identity of the attackers. Again, usually they are quickly identified and a mourners’ hut is rapidly constructed. They were killed on Thursday; if they resided in the Strip, their families would have heard of their deaths by now.
Yesterday evening the Egyptian newspaper Al Masry Al Youm reported that Egyptian security forces have identified three of the dead attackers. Egypt has a strong interest to claim the attackers were Gazans, since this would lessen its responsibility for the attacks; nevertheless, they say at least two of the attackers were known terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula. As far as I could find out, the rest of the bodies are in the hands of the IDF – which, again, does not reveal their identity.
And probably with good reason. After all, it seems Barak and Netanyahu pulled off a major disinformation campaign here, which the IDF (in the form of Colonel Leibovitz) has to cooperate with, somewhat unwillingly. They took us to a false war against the Gaza Strip. You can’t really blame Leibovitz: She’s a uniformed officer. She can’t contradict “senior officials [who] have already expressed themselves on the issue”.
Assuming no other reliable evidence shows up, which at the moment is doubtful, we must ask ourselves: Why did Barak and Netanyahu pull off what seems to be a major deception of the Israeli public, which puts to shame any such deception since the Abu Nidal group tried to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to Britain in 1982, Shlomo Argov. Sharon, Begin and Eitan needed a pretext to begin their war of deception in Lebanon – the bright idea of, under the guise of fighting the PLO, enthrone the friendly Maronites. When Eitan was informed that the assassins were Abu Nidal’s men, he replied with “Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal – we need to screw the PLO.” That’s how it began.
None of the people responsible for that deception, which ended a 11-months old ceasefire and sparked 18 years of war in Lebanon, ever paid a price for it. Ehud Barak, then a young aluf¬ – major general – learned the lesson well. His part in planning the war was suggesting to Sharon that the IDF will attack the Syrians as well, admitting that such a move required the hoodwinking of the public. Sharon, while impressed, rejected the suggestion.
Now it looks – again, barring new evidence – that Barak and Natanyahu are selling us another lie, one which directs fire towards the Gaza Strip. Why? This is the question they must answer. They are, after all, still working for us, not the other way around – and this is precisely the sort of a spin which calls for a board of inquiry and for the separation of Ehud Barak’s body from his seat.
-------------------------
I am Yossi Gurvitz*, a 40-year old journalist, blogger and photographer.
I write for several Israeli publications, including the influential financial daily Calcalist and the Nana portal. In the past, I’ve been deputy editor of Nana News, and with Itamar Shaaltiel edited its 2006 Knesset elections section.
I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, graduated from a Yeshiva (Nehalim), but saw the light and turned atheist at about the age of 17. After the mandatory three years in the military, much more strictly enforced in 1988 than now, I studied history and classics, earning a BA degree, and studying three additional years towards an MA, but abandoned the project in favor of earning my living as a journalist. [It seemed a good idea at the time.]
Yossi Gurvitz*
The Minister of Defense and the Prime Minister claim the terrorist attack last week came from Gaza. They have yet to provide any proof – and the evidence looks dubious
(PM Netanyahu blaming PRC for Eilat attack at press conference/Photo: Activestills)
An unknown group carried out a combined attack from Sinai into Israel, hitting a number of targets. Six Israeli civilians were murdered and two soldiers were killed; so were seven of the terrorists and a number of Egyptian security personnel. While the attacks were carried out, Minister of Defense Ehud Barak quickly told the public the people responsible were the Popular Resistance Committee of the Gaza Strip; within hours the IAF attacked a house in the Strip and killed several of its leaders. Later that day, Prime Minister Netanyahu said that the people responsible for the attacks were killed. This attack by the IAF is what spurred the recent round of escalation – and it’s worth noting the IAF has been raising the flames in the regions for about a month, with the Israeli media quietly ignoring it.
However, Israel has never supplied any proof that the attack has indeed originated in the Gaza Strip. The PRC have denied involvement in the attack. An Israeli propaganda apparatus, the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center, also claimed (Hebrew) the PRC was behind the attacks, but had to tautologically write “no terror organizations has publicly claimed responsibility for the attack and the Popular Resistance Committee has denied any involvement. However, the Israeli prime minister and other Israeli officials have pointed to the Popular Resistance Committee as the organization who carried out the attack. So, according to the ITIC, the fact that Netanyahu said something is proof enough, even if the other side completely denies it.
During the weekend, the news website Real News interviewed a senior IDF Spokesman officer, Lt. Col. Avital Leibovitz, who’s in charge of the IDF Spokesman with the international media. Leibowitz denied that the IDF connects the PRC to the attacks, said she was not responsible for that the prime minister said, but claimed that the attackers did come from Gaza, citing as proof the fact they were using Kalashnikov assault rifies (Sic! 2:28 and onwards in the video). I dunno how to put it to Col. Leibovitz, but Kalashnikovs are the most common light assault rifle in the world – a gift that keeps on giving from the defunct Soviet Union – and are rather easy to get all over the Middle East.
In a phone conversation with Leibovitz yesterday, she said “senior officials have already expressed themselves on the issue”, and declined to provide more information on the attackers, aside from insisting on them being Gazans. I asked her if she could provide me with the identity of the attackers killed by the IDF, which was until recently standard procedure, carried out within hours of an attack. She said this is unfortunately impossible, and repeatedly insisted they were Gazans. B’Tselem researchers in the Strip, contacted via B’Tselem today, were unaware of the identity of the attackers. Again, usually they are quickly identified and a mourners’ hut is rapidly constructed. They were killed on Thursday; if they resided in the Strip, their families would have heard of their deaths by now.
Yesterday evening the Egyptian newspaper Al Masry Al Youm reported that Egyptian security forces have identified three of the dead attackers. Egypt has a strong interest to claim the attackers were Gazans, since this would lessen its responsibility for the attacks; nevertheless, they say at least two of the attackers were known terrorists in the Sinai Peninsula. As far as I could find out, the rest of the bodies are in the hands of the IDF – which, again, does not reveal their identity.
And probably with good reason. After all, it seems Barak and Netanyahu pulled off a major disinformation campaign here, which the IDF (in the form of Colonel Leibovitz) has to cooperate with, somewhat unwillingly. They took us to a false war against the Gaza Strip. You can’t really blame Leibovitz: She’s a uniformed officer. She can’t contradict “senior officials [who] have already expressed themselves on the issue”.
Assuming no other reliable evidence shows up, which at the moment is doubtful, we must ask ourselves: Why did Barak and Netanyahu pull off what seems to be a major deception of the Israeli public, which puts to shame any such deception since the Abu Nidal group tried to assassinate Israel’s ambassador to Britain in 1982, Shlomo Argov. Sharon, Begin and Eitan needed a pretext to begin their war of deception in Lebanon – the bright idea of, under the guise of fighting the PLO, enthrone the friendly Maronites. When Eitan was informed that the assassins were Abu Nidal’s men, he replied with “Abu Nidal, Abu Shmidal – we need to screw the PLO.” That’s how it began.
None of the people responsible for that deception, which ended a 11-months old ceasefire and sparked 18 years of war in Lebanon, ever paid a price for it. Ehud Barak, then a young aluf¬ – major general – learned the lesson well. His part in planning the war was suggesting to Sharon that the IDF will attack the Syrians as well, admitting that such a move required the hoodwinking of the public. Sharon, while impressed, rejected the suggestion.
Now it looks – again, barring new evidence – that Barak and Natanyahu are selling us another lie, one which directs fire towards the Gaza Strip. Why? This is the question they must answer. They are, after all, still working for us, not the other way around – and this is precisely the sort of a spin which calls for a board of inquiry and for the separation of Ehud Barak’s body from his seat.
-------------------------
I am Yossi Gurvitz*, a 40-year old journalist, blogger and photographer.
I write for several Israeli publications, including the influential financial daily Calcalist and the Nana portal. In the past, I’ve been deputy editor of Nana News, and with Itamar Shaaltiel edited its 2006 Knesset elections section.
I was raised as an Orthodox Jew, graduated from a Yeshiva (Nehalim), but saw the light and turned atheist at about the age of 17. After the mandatory three years in the military, much more strictly enforced in 1988 than now, I studied history and classics, earning a BA degree, and studying three additional years towards an MA, but abandoned the project in favor of earning my living as a journalist. [It seemed a good idea at the time.]
EGYPT MUST GET TOUGH WITH ISRAEL
23 Aug 2011, Al Ahram Online http://english.ahram.org.eg (Egypt)
Khalid Amayreh
Egypt must respond resolutely to Israel's unjust killing of five of its border police, in order to show that post-revolutionary Egypt is different than under Mubarak
The cold-blooded killing of five Egyptian soldiers at the hands of Israeli security forces on Thursday, 18 August, is another blatant violation of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. It is also a brazen violation of Egyptian sovereignty, national dignity and territorial integrity.
The unprovoked killings occurred inside Egyptian territory, which shows that they were carried out deliberately and maliciously. The fact that Israeli troops were clashing with suspected Palestinian resistance fighters doesn't justify targeting and killing Egyptians. Hence, the only conclusion one would draw from this murderous episode is that Israel is simply testing Egypt's patience and national will to defend its citizens, civilians as well as soldiers, against characteristic Israeli insolence and belligerency.
This is not the first time Israeli forces choose to target Egyptian security forces stationed along the Palestine-Egypt borders. During Israel's criminal onslaught against the Gaza Strip less than three years ago, several Egyptian soldiers and civilians were killed without Israeli officials showing the slightest concern about Egyptian feelings and possible reactions, which suggested that the Zionist regime was not taking Egypt seriously.
That happened when ex-president Hosni Mubarak was at the helm of power in Cairo. Now, with Egypt having freed itself from the shackles of Mubarak's tyranny and subservience to Israel, it is time for the country of 80 million people to show Israel another face. Israelhas long been accustomed to killing Egyptians and other Arabs with impunity. This has got to stop.
No one is suggesting that Egypt embarks on a rash decision to terminate the hapless peace treaty with Israel. However, this doesn't mean that Israel ought to be granted immunity to accountability when it comes to shedding the blood of Egyptian citizens. In the final analysis, none of the treaty's clauses stipulates that Israel has license to murder Egyptians whenever it sees fit.
This is why Egyptian national dignity mandates a tough and uncompromising response from the ruling military council. Prime Minister Essam Sharaft has been quoted as saying the blood of the martyrs wouldn't be shed in vain. The Egyptian government must act on this statement lest Israel mistake inaction for powerlessness if not cowardice.
Egypthas reportedly withdrawn its ambassador to Israel temporarily. This is the very least Egypt should do to show Israel that Egyptian blood is a red line. But more should be done in order to communicate to Israel an unmistakable message that Egypt under the revolution is not the same as Egypt under Mubarak. Hence, the military council as well as the government in Cairo must display resoluteness, toughness and iron-clad commitment to Egyptian national interests.
Egyptis not advised to take uncalculated steps to counter the growing frequency of Israeli assaults. However, in order to assert its national will and dignity, Egypt can and should turn the compass of its strategic outlook regarding Israel.Israelis a manifestly murderous state that rejects peace, flies in the face of all reasonable efforts to justly resolve the enduring Palestinian issue, and insists on playing a flagrantly domineering role that undermines the security, even survival, of the people of the region.
This state of affairs can't be tolerated longer. Hence, Egypt and other capable states in the region must be equipped with the wherewithal to check Israeli bellicosity and hegemony.
One may be prompted to argue that we should allow the voices of wisdom and reason to prevail. Good enough. But with a state that is racist and criminal to the bone, it is futile and dangerous to play the soft card.Israelis not only murdering Palestinian civilians on a near daily basis, it is also decapitating any realistic chance for the establishment of a viable and territorially contiguous state.
Israel, which continues unabated to build settlements for fanatical Jews all over the occupied territories, is completing theprocessof obliterating the Arab-Islamic identity of East Jerusalem, an act that would guarantee the continuity of the conflict indefinitely.The unprovoked spilling of Egyptian blood by Israeli forces last week must meet a response or elsethe same will be repeated.
Israeli leaders insist on the paramount importance of preserving "peace with Egypt". However, actions speak louder than words,and the cold-blooded killing of Egyptian security personnel inside their own country underscores and illustrates Israeli mendacity as well as criminality.
In the final analysis, one doesn't preserve peace with a neighboring country by killing those guarding its borders.
Finally, Israel may choose to offer the families of the martyrs monetary compensation for the purpose of closing the issue. But blood money in this case would be like adding insult to injury.Instead, Egypt must insist on a meaningful apology from the Zionist entity, alongside meaningful financial compensation for the victims' families.
Khalid Amayreh
Egypt must respond resolutely to Israel's unjust killing of five of its border police, in order to show that post-revolutionary Egypt is different than under Mubarak
The cold-blooded killing of five Egyptian soldiers at the hands of Israeli security forces on Thursday, 18 August, is another blatant violation of the Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty. It is also a brazen violation of Egyptian sovereignty, national dignity and territorial integrity.
The unprovoked killings occurred inside Egyptian territory, which shows that they were carried out deliberately and maliciously. The fact that Israeli troops were clashing with suspected Palestinian resistance fighters doesn't justify targeting and killing Egyptians. Hence, the only conclusion one would draw from this murderous episode is that Israel is simply testing Egypt's patience and national will to defend its citizens, civilians as well as soldiers, against characteristic Israeli insolence and belligerency.
This is not the first time Israeli forces choose to target Egyptian security forces stationed along the Palestine-Egypt borders. During Israel's criminal onslaught against the Gaza Strip less than three years ago, several Egyptian soldiers and civilians were killed without Israeli officials showing the slightest concern about Egyptian feelings and possible reactions, which suggested that the Zionist regime was not taking Egypt seriously.
That happened when ex-president Hosni Mubarak was at the helm of power in Cairo. Now, with Egypt having freed itself from the shackles of Mubarak's tyranny and subservience to Israel, it is time for the country of 80 million people to show Israel another face. Israelhas long been accustomed to killing Egyptians and other Arabs with impunity. This has got to stop.
No one is suggesting that Egypt embarks on a rash decision to terminate the hapless peace treaty with Israel. However, this doesn't mean that Israel ought to be granted immunity to accountability when it comes to shedding the blood of Egyptian citizens. In the final analysis, none of the treaty's clauses stipulates that Israel has license to murder Egyptians whenever it sees fit.
This is why Egyptian national dignity mandates a tough and uncompromising response from the ruling military council. Prime Minister Essam Sharaft has been quoted as saying the blood of the martyrs wouldn't be shed in vain. The Egyptian government must act on this statement lest Israel mistake inaction for powerlessness if not cowardice.
Egypthas reportedly withdrawn its ambassador to Israel temporarily. This is the very least Egypt should do to show Israel that Egyptian blood is a red line. But more should be done in order to communicate to Israel an unmistakable message that Egypt under the revolution is not the same as Egypt under Mubarak. Hence, the military council as well as the government in Cairo must display resoluteness, toughness and iron-clad commitment to Egyptian national interests.
Egyptis not advised to take uncalculated steps to counter the growing frequency of Israeli assaults. However, in order to assert its national will and dignity, Egypt can and should turn the compass of its strategic outlook regarding Israel.Israelis a manifestly murderous state that rejects peace, flies in the face of all reasonable efforts to justly resolve the enduring Palestinian issue, and insists on playing a flagrantly domineering role that undermines the security, even survival, of the people of the region.
This state of affairs can't be tolerated longer. Hence, Egypt and other capable states in the region must be equipped with the wherewithal to check Israeli bellicosity and hegemony.
One may be prompted to argue that we should allow the voices of wisdom and reason to prevail. Good enough. But with a state that is racist and criminal to the bone, it is futile and dangerous to play the soft card.Israelis not only murdering Palestinian civilians on a near daily basis, it is also decapitating any realistic chance for the establishment of a viable and territorially contiguous state.
Israel, which continues unabated to build settlements for fanatical Jews all over the occupied territories, is completing theprocessof obliterating the Arab-Islamic identity of East Jerusalem, an act that would guarantee the continuity of the conflict indefinitely.The unprovoked spilling of Egyptian blood by Israeli forces last week must meet a response or elsethe same will be repeated.
Israeli leaders insist on the paramount importance of preserving "peace with Egypt". However, actions speak louder than words,and the cold-blooded killing of Egyptian security personnel inside their own country underscores and illustrates Israeli mendacity as well as criminality.
In the final analysis, one doesn't preserve peace with a neighboring country by killing those guarding its borders.
Finally, Israel may choose to offer the families of the martyrs monetary compensation for the purpose of closing the issue. But blood money in this case would be like adding insult to injury.Instead, Egypt must insist on a meaningful apology from the Zionist entity, alongside meaningful financial compensation for the victims' families.
IL FAUT SOUTENIR L'ETAT PALESTINIEN!
22 août 2011, Le Monde (France)
Jean-Claude Lefort, président de l'association France-Palestine solidarité (AFPS)
C'est désormais certain : en septembre, les Palestiniens demanderont à être accueillis comme le 194e nouvel Etat au sein de l'ONU - un Etat aux frontières claires et indiscutables, celles de 1967, avec pour capitale Jérusalem-Est.
Cette perspective constitue une issue effective pour sortir des fausses négociations d'hier et de leur blocage total d'aujourd'hui. Ces discussions jamais abouties butent en particulier sur ce problème : celui des frontières du futur Etat palestinien.
En accueillant la Palestine sur la base des frontières édictées par le droit international, cela clarifiera de manière nette ces paramètres essentiels d'un accord de paix et cela répondra enfin concrètement et effectivement à cette question posée depuis 1947 : les Palestiniens ont droit à un Etat. C'est une exigence fondamentale. Il y aura ainsi à l'ONU deux Etats à égalité : la Palestine et Israël.
Conforme à la justice, à la sécurité de chacun et au droit international, cette perspective d'un Etat palestinien sur ces bases a toujours été récusée par les dirigeants israéliens, sauf à un trop bref moment. Et aujourd'hui, c'est encore pire. Le refus israélien est net, indiscutable, hautain.
C'est de ce côté-là, et uniquement de ce côté-là, que viennent les obstacles et que se trouvent les causes de l'aggravation de la situation, y compris sociale. Mais du même coup, du fait de la colonisation israélienne débridée, plus le temps passe et moins cette perspective devient crédible. Et derrière cette absence de solution basée sur le droit et la justice, il y a plus qu'un grand trou noir, non seulement pour les Palestiniens, mais aussi pour Israël. Nétanyahou conduit son pays à l'abîme.
Et ceux qui se refusent à indiquer clairement qu'ils voteront pour l'admission de l'Etat palestinien à l'ONU sont non seulement des pousse-au-crime vis-à-vis des Palestiniens, mais ils le sont aussi vis-à-vis des Israéliens. Ce sont véritablement des irresponsables eu égard aux devoirs impérieux que leur confère la charte des Nations unies, et cela vaut spécialement pour les membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité.
On entend certains d'entre eux, occidentaux, expliquer que cette reconnaissance compliquerait plus qu'autre chose un accord de paix qu'ils disent privilégier. Mais de qui se moquent-ils ? Depuis le temps, depuis leur feuille de route et autres discussions en tout genre, où est-il donc, cet accord de paix promis, programmé noir sur blanc? Nulle part et, tout comme l'horizon, plus on avance dans le temps et plus il s'éloigne.
Les choses sont clairement acquises : les dirigeants israéliens n'entendent pas respecter le droit international. Dès lors aucun accord n'est possible.
Ce conflit dure depuis plus de quarante ans, pour ne retenir que la période récente. Et si l'ONU parle, elle n'agit pas. Or c'est précisément son rôle que d'agir quand un conflit ne trouve pas de débouchés dans un dialogue de paix entre les parties en présence.
C'est précisément pour cela que l'ONU a été créée : pour en finir une fois pour toutes avec les guerres, qu'elles soient locales ou plus larges. Et, partout où des situations de guerre ont existé, les Nations unies sont intervenues. Sauf à un endroit : au Proche-Orient.
Le moment a sonné de mettre chaque dirigeant de la planète, en particulier les membres permanents du Conseil de sécurité, devant leurs responsabilités. Et si l'idée existe qu'un de ceux-ci poserait son veto à cette admission, alors il faut qu'un rapport de forces non discutable, immense en vérité, le contraigne à l'acte qu'il refuserait. D'une façon ou d'une autre.
C'est pourquoi l'heure n'est pas à se perdre en conjectures sur les scenarii qui peuvent se produire en septembre prochain où la question de l'admission de la Palestine à l'ONU sera posée. L'heure est à la mobilisation pour qu'un plus grand nombre de pays possible annonce et déclare vouloir reconnaître et admettre l'Etat palestinien en septembre à l'ONU.
De ce point de vue, la position que prendra l'Union européenne est décisive. Elle est même stratégique. Que va-t-elle faire ? Nous n'en savons encore rien.
Il convient donc que notre pays, la France, déclare hautement et sans perdre plus de temps qu'il votera en faveur de cette admission de la Palestine à l'ONU et qu'il soit, avec tous les alliés possibles, à la pointe des efforts à produire pour entraîner l'ensemble européen sur cette voie.
Notre feuille de route est donc claire : agir pour que la France dise sans plus tarder qu'elle votera à l'ONU pour que la Palestine en devienne membre en septembre prochain ; agir pour que notre pays prenne la tête, avec ses alliés potentiels, pour que l'Union européenne adopte la même position.
Il n'y a pas de troisième voie possible pour que la paix puisse se frayer enfin un chemin au Proche-Orient. Il est temps. Plus que temps. C'est comme une dernière chance. Pour les Palestiniens. Et pour les Israéliens.
Les vrais amis des uns et des autres devraient y songer. Et surtout agir en ce sens pour qu'une chance soit enfin donnée à la paix.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)