29 Novembro 2011, Vermelho http://www.vermelho.org.br (Brasil)
No dia Internacional de Solidariedade à Palestina, emocione-se com o documentário brasileiro "Campo da Paz" sobre as dificuldades do futebol no país sob ocupação. O filme entrevista jogadores, técnicos e dirigentes do futebol Palestino e mostra a formação de uma seleção de garotos de 13 a 17 para representar, simbolicamente, a Palestina na Copa do Mundo de Futebol no Brasil em 2014. A narração é de Lázaro Ramos.
Com imagens belíssimas do país e flashes de uma nítida paixão pelo futebol, o trailer comove pela sua sensibilidade e delicadeza.
"Os fuzis estão voltados para nós e nós respondemos com mensagens de amor e paz para o mundo. Jogamos com a bola que rola sem conhecer barreiras que a façam parar. Ela está sempre rodando e nós estaremos sempre a acompanhando. Que essa bola transmita amizade e paz para os campos de todas as nações", poetisa Rukaya Taktori, dirigente da seleção feminina de futebol.
Ao final do vídeo, um senhor simpático chama Maradona de "tolo". Não se sabe ao certo porque um ídolo do futebol mundial, eterno defensor do socialismo e da Palestina, recebe a crítica, mesmo que de maneira bem humorada. Certo é que tolice ou loucura não marcam gols no campo da paz.
A TV Vermelho agradece a dica deste vídeo a Rubens Diniz, do Cebrapaz. Colabore você também enviando suas dicas de vídeo para tvvermelho@vermelho.org.br.
Ficha técnica:
Campo da Paz
Roteiro e Direção: Gilmar Rodrigues
Produção: Bettine Silveira
Coordenação de Produção: Hasan Zarif
Direção de Fotografia: Ding Musa
Montagem: Thiago Andries
Narração: Lázaro Ramos
Trilha: BNegão e Rodrigues
Edição de Som: Filipe Pires e Rocha Estúdio.
Veja mais:
Estado da Palestina Já: a história de 200 anos em 2 minutos
Leia mais:
Brasil celebra Dia Internacional de Solidariedade à Palestina
Entidades fazem ato por Estado da Palestina Já
quarta-feira, 30 de novembro de 2011
A DAY IN NOVEMBER
THIS TUESDAY will be the 64th anniversary of a fateful day for our lives
26 November 2011, Gush Shalom גוש שלום http://zope.gush-shalom.org (Israel)
Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי
A day in November. A day to remember.
On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted, by 33 votes against 13 (with 10 abstentions), the Palestine Partition Plan.
This event has become a subject of endless debates, misinterpretations and outright falsifications. It may be worthwhile to peel away the myths and see it as it was.
BY THE end of 1947, there were in the country – then officially named Palestine - about 1.2 million Arabs and 635 thousand Jews. The gap between the two population groups had turned into an abyss. Though geographically intertwined, they lived on two different planets. With very few exceptions, they considered each other as mortal enemies.
This was the reality that the UN commission, charged with proposing a solution, found on the ground when it visited the country.
One of the great moments of my life is connected with this UNSCOP (“United Nations Special Committee on Palestine”). On the Carmel mountain chain, near kibbutz Daliah, I was attending the annual folk dance festival. Folk dances played a major role in the new Hebrew culture we were consciously striving to create. Most of these dances were somewhat contrived, even artificial, like many of our efforts, but they reflected the will to create something new, fresh, rooted in the country, entirely different from the Jewish culture of our parents. Some of us spoke about a new “Hebrew nation”.
In a huge natural amphitheater, under a canopy of twinkling summer stars, tens of thousands of young people, boys and girls, had gathered to cheer on the many amateur groups performing on the stage. It was a joyous affair, imbued with camaraderie, radiating feelings of strength and self-confidence.
No one of us could have guessed that within a few months we would meet again in the fields of a deadly war.
In the middle of the performance, an excited voice announced on the loudspeaker that several members of UNSCOP had come to visit. As one, the huge crowd stood up and started to sing the national anthem, Hatikvah (“the Hope”). I never liked this song very much, but at that moment it sounded like a fervent prayer, filling the space, rebounding from the hills of the Carmel. I suppose that almost all of the 6000 Jewish youngsters who gave their lives in the war were assembled for the last time on that evening, singing with profound emotion.
IT WAS in this atmosphere that the members of UNSCOP, representing many different nations, had to find a solution.
As everybody knows, the commission adopted a plan to partition Palestine between an independent “Arab” and an independent “Jewish” state. But that is not the whole story.
Looking at the map of the 1947 partition resolution, one must wonder at the borders. They resemble a puzzle, with Arab pieces and Jewish pieces put together in an impossible patchwork, with Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a separate unit. The borders look crazy. Both states would have been totally indefensible.
The explanation is that the committee did not really envision two totally independent and separate states. The plan explicitly included an economic union. That would have necessitated a very close relationship between the two political entities, something akin to a federation, with open borders and free movement of people and goods. Without it, the borders would have been impossible.
That was a very optimistic scenario. Immediately after the committee’s plan was adopted by the General Assembly, after much cajoling by the Zionist leadership, war broke out with sporadic Arab attacks on Jewish traffic on the vital roads.
When the first shot was fired, the partition plan was dead. The foundation, on which the whole edifice rested, broke apart. No open borders, no economic union, no chance for a union of any kind. Only abyssal, deadly, enmity.
THE PARTITION plan would never have been adopted in the first place if it had not been preceded by a historical event that seemed at the time beyond belief.
The Soviet delegate to the UN, Andrei Gromyko, suddenly made what can only be described as a fiery Zionist speech. He contended that after the terrible suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust, they deserved a state of their own.
To appreciate the utter amazement with which this speech was received, one must remember that until that very moment, Communists and Zionists had been irreconcilable foes. It was not only a clash of ideologies, but also a family affair. In Tzarist Russia, Jews were persecuted by an anti-Semitic government, and young Jews, both male and female, were in the vanguard of all the revolutionary movements.
An idealistic young Jew had the choice between joining the Bolsheviks, the social-democratic Jewish Bund or the Zionists. The competition was fierce and engendered intense mutual hatred. Later, in the Soviet Union, Zionists were mercilessly persecuted. In Palestine, local Communists, Jewish and Arab, were accused of collaborating with the Arab militants who attacked Jewish neighborhoods.
What had brought about this sudden change in Soviet policy? Stalin did not turn from an anti-Semite into a philo-Semite. Far from it. But he was a pragmatist. It was the era of medium-range missiles, which threatened Soviet territory from all sides. Palestine was in practice a British colony and could easily have become a Western missile base, threatening Odessa and beyond. Better a Jewish and an Arab state, than that.
In the following war, almost all my weapons came from the Soviet bloc, mainly from Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union recognized Israel de jure long before the United States.
The end of this unnatural honeymoon came in the early fifties, when David Ben-Gurion decided to turn Israel into an inseparable part of the Western bloc. At the same time, Stalin recognized the importance of the new pan-Arab nationalism of Gamal Abd-al-Nasser and decided to ride on that wave. His paranoid anti-Semitism came again to the fore. All over Eastern Europe Communist veterans were executed as Zionist-imperialist-Trotskyite spies, and his Jewish doctors were accused of attempting to poison him. (Luckily for them, Stalin died just in time and they were saved.)
TODAY, THE partition resolution is remembered in Israel mainly because of two words: “Jewish state”.
No one in Israel wants to be reminded of the borders of 1947, which gave the Jewish minority in Palestine “only” 55% of the country. (Though half of this consisted of the Negev desert, most of which is almost empty even now.) Nor do Jewish Israelis like to be reminded that almost half the population of the territory allotted to them was Arab.
At the time, the UN resolution was accepted by the Jewish population with overflowing enthusiasm. The photos of the people dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv belong to this day, and not – as is often falsely claimed, to the day the State of Israel was officially founded. (At that time we were in middle of a bloody war and nobody was in the mood for dancing.)
We know now that Ben-Gurion did not dream of accepting the partition plan borders, and even less the Arab population within them. The famous army “Plan Dalet” early in the war was a strategic necessity, but it was also a solution to the two problems: it added to Israel another 22% of the country and it drove the Arab population out. Only a small remnant of the Arab population remained – and by now it has grown to 1.5 million.
But all that is history. What concerned the future are the words “Jewish state”. Israeli rightists, who abhor the partition resolution in any other context, insist that it provides the legal basis to Israel’s right to be recognized as a “Jewish state” – meaning in practice, that the state belongs to all the Jews around the world, but not to its Arab citizens, whose families have been living here for at least 13 centuries, if not far longer (depends who does the counting).
But the UN used the word “Jewish” only for lack of any other definition. During the British Mandate, the two peoples in the country were called in English “Jews” and “Arabs”. But we ourselves spoke about a “Hebrew” State (medina Ivrit). In newspaper clippings of the time, only this term can be seen. People of my age-group remember dozens of demonstrations in which we invariably chanted “Free Immigration – Hebrew State”. The sound of it still rings in our ears.
The UN did not deal with the ideological makeup of the future states. It certainly assumed that they would be democratic, belonging to all their inhabitants. Otherwise they would hardly have drawn borders that left a substantial Arab population in the “Jewish” state.
Israel’s declaration of independence bases itself on the UN resolution. The relevant sentence reads: “…AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, (WE) HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.”
The ultra-rightists who now dominate the Knesset want to use these words as a pretext for replacing democracy with a doctrine of Jewish nationalist-religious supremacy. A former Shin-Bet chief and present Kadima party MK has submitted a bill that would abolish the equality of the two terms “Jewish” and “democratic” in the official legal doctrine, and state clearly that the “Jewishness” of the state has precedence over its “democratic” character. This would deprive the Arab citizens of any remnant of equality. (At the last moment, in face of the public reaction, the Kadima party compelled him to withdraw the bill.)
THE 1947 partition plan was an exceptionally intelligent document. Its details are obsolete now, but its basic idea is as relevant today as it was 64 years ago: two nations are living in this country, they cannot live together in one state without a continuous civil war, they can live together in two states, the two states must establish close ties between each other.
Ben-Gurion was determined to prevent the founding of the Arab Palestinian state, and with the help of King Abdallah of Transjordan he succeeded in this. All his successors, with the possible exception of Yitzhak Rabin, have followed this line, now more than ever. We have paid – and are still paying – a heavy price for this folly.
On the 64th anniversary of this historic event, we must go back to its basic principle: Israel and Palestine, Two States for Two Peoples.
26 November 2011, Gush Shalom גוש שלום http://zope.gush-shalom.org (Israel)
Uri Avnery אורי אבנרי
A day in November. A day to remember.
On November 29, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted, by 33 votes against 13 (with 10 abstentions), the Palestine Partition Plan.
This event has become a subject of endless debates, misinterpretations and outright falsifications. It may be worthwhile to peel away the myths and see it as it was.
BY THE end of 1947, there were in the country – then officially named Palestine - about 1.2 million Arabs and 635 thousand Jews. The gap between the two population groups had turned into an abyss. Though geographically intertwined, they lived on two different planets. With very few exceptions, they considered each other as mortal enemies.
This was the reality that the UN commission, charged with proposing a solution, found on the ground when it visited the country.
One of the great moments of my life is connected with this UNSCOP (“United Nations Special Committee on Palestine”). On the Carmel mountain chain, near kibbutz Daliah, I was attending the annual folk dance festival. Folk dances played a major role in the new Hebrew culture we were consciously striving to create. Most of these dances were somewhat contrived, even artificial, like many of our efforts, but they reflected the will to create something new, fresh, rooted in the country, entirely different from the Jewish culture of our parents. Some of us spoke about a new “Hebrew nation”.
In a huge natural amphitheater, under a canopy of twinkling summer stars, tens of thousands of young people, boys and girls, had gathered to cheer on the many amateur groups performing on the stage. It was a joyous affair, imbued with camaraderie, radiating feelings of strength and self-confidence.
No one of us could have guessed that within a few months we would meet again in the fields of a deadly war.
In the middle of the performance, an excited voice announced on the loudspeaker that several members of UNSCOP had come to visit. As one, the huge crowd stood up and started to sing the national anthem, Hatikvah (“the Hope”). I never liked this song very much, but at that moment it sounded like a fervent prayer, filling the space, rebounding from the hills of the Carmel. I suppose that almost all of the 6000 Jewish youngsters who gave their lives in the war were assembled for the last time on that evening, singing with profound emotion.
IT WAS in this atmosphere that the members of UNSCOP, representing many different nations, had to find a solution.
As everybody knows, the commission adopted a plan to partition Palestine between an independent “Arab” and an independent “Jewish” state. But that is not the whole story.
Looking at the map of the 1947 partition resolution, one must wonder at the borders. They resemble a puzzle, with Arab pieces and Jewish pieces put together in an impossible patchwork, with Jerusalem and Bethlehem as a separate unit. The borders look crazy. Both states would have been totally indefensible.
The explanation is that the committee did not really envision two totally independent and separate states. The plan explicitly included an economic union. That would have necessitated a very close relationship between the two political entities, something akin to a federation, with open borders and free movement of people and goods. Without it, the borders would have been impossible.
That was a very optimistic scenario. Immediately after the committee’s plan was adopted by the General Assembly, after much cajoling by the Zionist leadership, war broke out with sporadic Arab attacks on Jewish traffic on the vital roads.
When the first shot was fired, the partition plan was dead. The foundation, on which the whole edifice rested, broke apart. No open borders, no economic union, no chance for a union of any kind. Only abyssal, deadly, enmity.
THE PARTITION plan would never have been adopted in the first place if it had not been preceded by a historical event that seemed at the time beyond belief.
The Soviet delegate to the UN, Andrei Gromyko, suddenly made what can only be described as a fiery Zionist speech. He contended that after the terrible suffering of the Jews in the Holocaust, they deserved a state of their own.
To appreciate the utter amazement with which this speech was received, one must remember that until that very moment, Communists and Zionists had been irreconcilable foes. It was not only a clash of ideologies, but also a family affair. In Tzarist Russia, Jews were persecuted by an anti-Semitic government, and young Jews, both male and female, were in the vanguard of all the revolutionary movements.
An idealistic young Jew had the choice between joining the Bolsheviks, the social-democratic Jewish Bund or the Zionists. The competition was fierce and engendered intense mutual hatred. Later, in the Soviet Union, Zionists were mercilessly persecuted. In Palestine, local Communists, Jewish and Arab, were accused of collaborating with the Arab militants who attacked Jewish neighborhoods.
What had brought about this sudden change in Soviet policy? Stalin did not turn from an anti-Semite into a philo-Semite. Far from it. But he was a pragmatist. It was the era of medium-range missiles, which threatened Soviet territory from all sides. Palestine was in practice a British colony and could easily have become a Western missile base, threatening Odessa and beyond. Better a Jewish and an Arab state, than that.
In the following war, almost all my weapons came from the Soviet bloc, mainly from Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union recognized Israel de jure long before the United States.
The end of this unnatural honeymoon came in the early fifties, when David Ben-Gurion decided to turn Israel into an inseparable part of the Western bloc. At the same time, Stalin recognized the importance of the new pan-Arab nationalism of Gamal Abd-al-Nasser and decided to ride on that wave. His paranoid anti-Semitism came again to the fore. All over Eastern Europe Communist veterans were executed as Zionist-imperialist-Trotskyite spies, and his Jewish doctors were accused of attempting to poison him. (Luckily for them, Stalin died just in time and they were saved.)
TODAY, THE partition resolution is remembered in Israel mainly because of two words: “Jewish state”.
No one in Israel wants to be reminded of the borders of 1947, which gave the Jewish minority in Palestine “only” 55% of the country. (Though half of this consisted of the Negev desert, most of which is almost empty even now.) Nor do Jewish Israelis like to be reminded that almost half the population of the territory allotted to them was Arab.
At the time, the UN resolution was accepted by the Jewish population with overflowing enthusiasm. The photos of the people dancing in the streets of Tel Aviv belong to this day, and not – as is often falsely claimed, to the day the State of Israel was officially founded. (At that time we were in middle of a bloody war and nobody was in the mood for dancing.)
We know now that Ben-Gurion did not dream of accepting the partition plan borders, and even less the Arab population within them. The famous army “Plan Dalet” early in the war was a strategic necessity, but it was also a solution to the two problems: it added to Israel another 22% of the country and it drove the Arab population out. Only a small remnant of the Arab population remained – and by now it has grown to 1.5 million.
But all that is history. What concerned the future are the words “Jewish state”. Israeli rightists, who abhor the partition resolution in any other context, insist that it provides the legal basis to Israel’s right to be recognized as a “Jewish state” – meaning in practice, that the state belongs to all the Jews around the world, but not to its Arab citizens, whose families have been living here for at least 13 centuries, if not far longer (depends who does the counting).
But the UN used the word “Jewish” only for lack of any other definition. During the British Mandate, the two peoples in the country were called in English “Jews” and “Arabs”. But we ourselves spoke about a “Hebrew” State (medina Ivrit). In newspaper clippings of the time, only this term can be seen. People of my age-group remember dozens of demonstrations in which we invariably chanted “Free Immigration – Hebrew State”. The sound of it still rings in our ears.
The UN did not deal with the ideological makeup of the future states. It certainly assumed that they would be democratic, belonging to all their inhabitants. Otherwise they would hardly have drawn borders that left a substantial Arab population in the “Jewish” state.
Israel’s declaration of independence bases itself on the UN resolution. The relevant sentence reads: “…AND ON THE STRENGTH OF THE RESOLUTION OF THE UNITED NATIONS GENERAL ASSEMBLY, (WE) HEREBY DECLARE THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A JEWISH STATE IN ERETZ-ISRAEL, TO BE KNOWN AS THE STATE OF ISRAEL.”
The ultra-rightists who now dominate the Knesset want to use these words as a pretext for replacing democracy with a doctrine of Jewish nationalist-religious supremacy. A former Shin-Bet chief and present Kadima party MK has submitted a bill that would abolish the equality of the two terms “Jewish” and “democratic” in the official legal doctrine, and state clearly that the “Jewishness” of the state has precedence over its “democratic” character. This would deprive the Arab citizens of any remnant of equality. (At the last moment, in face of the public reaction, the Kadima party compelled him to withdraw the bill.)
THE 1947 partition plan was an exceptionally intelligent document. Its details are obsolete now, but its basic idea is as relevant today as it was 64 years ago: two nations are living in this country, they cannot live together in one state without a continuous civil war, they can live together in two states, the two states must establish close ties between each other.
Ben-Gurion was determined to prevent the founding of the Arab Palestinian state, and with the help of King Abdallah of Transjordan he succeeded in this. All his successors, with the possible exception of Yitzhak Rabin, have followed this line, now more than ever. We have paid – and are still paying – a heavy price for this folly.
On the 64th anniversary of this historic event, we must go back to its basic principle: Israel and Palestine, Two States for Two Peoples.
LOS EUROPEOS CONVOCAN A LOS SUPERMERCADOS Y A LOS GOBIERNOS A DEJAR FUERA DEL MERCADO LOS PRODUCTOS DEL RÉGIMEN DE APARTHEID ISRAELÍ
29 Noviembre 2011, Rebelión http://www.rebelion.org (México)
Declaraciones para el día de acción
Comité Nacional Palestino para el BDS
bdsmovement.net
Traducido para Rebelión por J. M. y revisado por Caty R.
• Los activistas europeos declaran que las importaciones de frutas y hortalizas de Israel facilitan las violaciones de los derechos palestinos y el derecho internacional.
• Más de 60 acciones se desarrollan en 10 países.
Palestina ocupada, 27 de noviembre.- En Europa los defensores de los derechos humanos, sindicalistas, ONG y grupos religiosos llevan a cabo una ola de manifestaciones, actuaciones multitudinarias breves y actos de presión para llamar a que se deje de comerciar con Israel y sus empresas agrícolas de exportación, como Mehadrin y Agrexco, porque son cómplices de las violaciones del derecho internacional y de los derechos de los palestinos.
El programa de las acciones, organizadas bajo el lema Dejar fuera del Menú el Apartheid israelí, coinciden con el Día de Solidaridad con el Pueblo Palestino, el 29 de noviembre, con el objetivo de crear conciencia sobre el papel que las empresas agrícolas de Israel juegan en el robo de tierras y recursos palestinos en territorio palestino ocupado ilegalmente y en la explotación de los trabajadores palestinos.
Las manifestaciones se llevaron a cabo fuera de las sedes principales de las empresas británica y francesa importadoras de la principal exportadora de frutas y vegetales de Israel, Mehadrin. Los productos que se exportan provienen de las colonias ilegales israelíes en territorio palestino ocupado y de la empresa estatal Mekerot, que priva a las comunidades palestinas de agua. Los activistas de Roma organizaron una manifestación nacional por el acceso irrestricto de los palestinos al agua.
Jamal Juma, coordinador de Stop The Wall, la campaña palestina contra el muro del apartheid, que está actualmente trabajando para apoyar a Al Hadidiye, una comunidad de beduinos en el territorio palestino ocupado y que recientemente recibió de las autoridades israelíes una orden de demolición, dijo: "A los residentes de Al Hadidye se les niega el acceso al agua y apenas pueden criar su ganado como consecuencia de ello. En los ilegales asentamientos cercanos de Ro'i y Beqa'ot, la producción agrícola se cultiva con abundancia de agua robada para que Mehadrin y otras empresas exporten sus productos a Europa, y son esas empresas las que se benefician de las demoliciones en Al Hadidye”.
"Las empresas como Mehadrin se benefician y están a menudo directamente involucradas en la continua colonización de tierras palestinas y el robo de nuestros recursos. Comerciar con estas empresas es la forma más importante de apoyo para el régimen de apartheid de Israel sobre el pueblo palestino y hay que acabar con eso", añadió Juma.
Los activistas en Bélgica, Gran Bretaña, Alemania, Suiza, Noruega y Suecia organizaron piquetes en supermercados, pidiendo a los consumidores que boicoteen los productos israelíes que las empresas agrícolas de ese país exportan y a los supermercados que dejen de venderlos. Muchos se centraron en supermercados que funcionan de forma cooperativa y que, tradicionalmente, se considera que tienen estándares éticos más altos que los supermercados comunes.
"Las campañas populares del BDS y la presión pública que resulta de ellas ya han obligado a los supermercados en varios países europeos a poner en práctica las políticas que convocan a evitar la venta de productos de las colonias ilegales de Israel", dijo Awwad Hind, coordinador con los palestinos del Comité Nacional BDS.
"Pero son las empresas agrícolas de exportación de Israel las que tienen la responsabilidad de la complicidad con Israel de las violaciones del derecho internacional, y no los productos de producción individual. Estas empresas, se ha comprobado, engañan a los consumidores sobre el origen de los productos que venden. Es por eso que los activistas están llamando a un cese total al comercio con estas empresas", agregó.
En Bélgica, los activistas llevaron a cabo acciones de presión sobre las oficinas de la Secretaría de Economía, para protestar por la venta en los supermercados belga de productos cultivados en asentamientos ilegales de Israel en territorio palestino ocupado.
"Los gobiernos europeos tienen la obligación de hacer que Israel se responsabilice de sus violaciones del derecho internacional, pero Europa sigue siendo el mayor mercado de los productos agrícolas israelíes, incluidos los productos de los asentamientos ilegales israelíes. La prohibición de comerciar con exportadores de productos agrícolas de Israel estaría en consonancia con las políticas establecidas sobre la ilegalidad de los asentamientos ilegales de Israel", dijo Awwad.
En Gran Bretaña, los activistas también protestaron en las oficinas de las filiales británicas de las empresas agrícolas israelíes, incluidas las que exportan flores, Bickel Flowers y Edom. Junto con su colega Orian, Flowrs Bickel ha adquirido recientemente la decadente compañía de exportación israelí Agrexco, de la cual se ordenó la liquidación después de registrar pérdidas récord y no pagar a sus acreedores. Los activistas dicen que su campaña a escala europea contra la compañía, que incluyó el boicot popular, los piquetes de los supermercados, los bloqueos de las instalaciones de la empresa y grupos de presión, fue un factor importante detrás del colapso de la compañía.
Las acciones se llevaron a cabo como parte de la rápida aparición del Movimiento Palestino para el Boicot, Desinversión y Sanciones (BDS) contra Israel hasta que cumpla con el derecho internacional.
info@bdsmovement.net
Notas
1.- Se puede encontrar un mapa interactivo de todas las acciones en:
http://www.bdsmovement.net/activecamps/take-apartheid-off-the-menu
Para más información ampliada:
http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/take-apartheid-off-the-menu-8313#.Ts92dXOVtMc
2.- Mehadrin se convirtió en la empresa agrícola de exportación más importante, a partir de la caída de Agrexco. La fuente de los productos son las colonias ilegales, incluyendo Beqa’ot en Cisjordania. Durante las entrevistas con investigadores, los trabajadores palestinos en esas colonias declararon que ganan la miseria de 11 euros diarios. Los envases de las uvas y los dátiles de los asentamientos llevan las etiquetas de “producto de Israel”.
El rol de Mehadrin en la provisión de agua a los agricultores y su relación con la compañía de aguas del Estado de Israel, Mekorot, supone una complicidad directa de la empresa con las políticas discriminatorias en la escasa provisión de agua que determina el Estado. Más sobre Mehadrin en:
http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/mehadrin-profile-8450#.Ts-BJXOVtMc Para información más detallada de otras empresas de exportación de productos agrícolas ver: http://bit.ly/vIrqLp
3.- Agrexco, la empresa exportadora más antigua de productos agrícolas provenientes de los asentamientos ilegales de Israel, fue alguna vez la responsable del mercado de exportación del 60/70% de los productos de las colonias ilegales. Para más información del impacto de las campañas sobre Agrexco ver: http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/palestinian-civil-society-welcomes-agrexco-liquidation-calls-for-celebration-of-this-bds-victory-8096#.Ts-CS3OVtMc, http://www.jnews.org.uk/commentary/why-did-agrexco-go-bankrupt
4.- La dominación de Israel sobre el abastecimiento de agua en Israel y en los territorios palestinos ocupados, deja a muchas comunidades palestinas con un mínimo de abastecimiento de agua. De acuerdo con las estadísticas de OECD, los agricultores israelíes utilizan la asombrosa cantidad de 1.127 millones de metros cúbicos de agua por año. Solamente cerca de unos 60 millones de metros cúbicos de agua se destinan a la totalidad de la Autoridad Palestina. OECD (2010), OECD Review of agricultural policies: Israel, 2010.Ver también Amnesty International: Sedientos de Justicia: Acceso de los palestinos al agua, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/028/2009/en
5.- Al Hadidiye es una comunidad palestina de unos 112 habitantes permanentes y unos 130 adicionales que durante los dos meses más fríos retornan a las aldeas cerca de Tobas porque las fuerzas israelíes destruyeron sus hogares y no encontraron necesario construirles refugios alternativos para que puedan protegerse del frio invernal. El jueves 10 de noviembre, las autoridades israelíes hicieron llegar a la comunidad otras nueve órdenes de demolición de 17 estructuras que afectarán a 72 personas, incluyendo mujeres y niños. Las organizaciones palestinas hicieron un llamamiento a quienes apoyan los derechos de los palestinos para que contacten a sus embajadas en Israel interesándolos sobre estas demoliciones. http://stopthewall.org/2011/11/13/al-hadidiye-be-demolished-once-again-halt-new-wave-ethnic-cleansing
Fuente: http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/europeans-call-apartheid-8493#.TtKtvLL7iRU
Declaraciones para el día de acción
Comité Nacional Palestino para el BDS
bdsmovement.net
Traducido para Rebelión por J. M. y revisado por Caty R.
• Los activistas europeos declaran que las importaciones de frutas y hortalizas de Israel facilitan las violaciones de los derechos palestinos y el derecho internacional.
• Más de 60 acciones se desarrollan en 10 países.
Palestina ocupada, 27 de noviembre.- En Europa los defensores de los derechos humanos, sindicalistas, ONG y grupos religiosos llevan a cabo una ola de manifestaciones, actuaciones multitudinarias breves y actos de presión para llamar a que se deje de comerciar con Israel y sus empresas agrícolas de exportación, como Mehadrin y Agrexco, porque son cómplices de las violaciones del derecho internacional y de los derechos de los palestinos.
El programa de las acciones, organizadas bajo el lema Dejar fuera del Menú el Apartheid israelí, coinciden con el Día de Solidaridad con el Pueblo Palestino, el 29 de noviembre, con el objetivo de crear conciencia sobre el papel que las empresas agrícolas de Israel juegan en el robo de tierras y recursos palestinos en territorio palestino ocupado ilegalmente y en la explotación de los trabajadores palestinos.
Las manifestaciones se llevaron a cabo fuera de las sedes principales de las empresas británica y francesa importadoras de la principal exportadora de frutas y vegetales de Israel, Mehadrin. Los productos que se exportan provienen de las colonias ilegales israelíes en territorio palestino ocupado y de la empresa estatal Mekerot, que priva a las comunidades palestinas de agua. Los activistas de Roma organizaron una manifestación nacional por el acceso irrestricto de los palestinos al agua.
Jamal Juma, coordinador de Stop The Wall, la campaña palestina contra el muro del apartheid, que está actualmente trabajando para apoyar a Al Hadidiye, una comunidad de beduinos en el territorio palestino ocupado y que recientemente recibió de las autoridades israelíes una orden de demolición, dijo: "A los residentes de Al Hadidye se les niega el acceso al agua y apenas pueden criar su ganado como consecuencia de ello. En los ilegales asentamientos cercanos de Ro'i y Beqa'ot, la producción agrícola se cultiva con abundancia de agua robada para que Mehadrin y otras empresas exporten sus productos a Europa, y son esas empresas las que se benefician de las demoliciones en Al Hadidye”.
"Las empresas como Mehadrin se benefician y están a menudo directamente involucradas en la continua colonización de tierras palestinas y el robo de nuestros recursos. Comerciar con estas empresas es la forma más importante de apoyo para el régimen de apartheid de Israel sobre el pueblo palestino y hay que acabar con eso", añadió Juma.
Los activistas en Bélgica, Gran Bretaña, Alemania, Suiza, Noruega y Suecia organizaron piquetes en supermercados, pidiendo a los consumidores que boicoteen los productos israelíes que las empresas agrícolas de ese país exportan y a los supermercados que dejen de venderlos. Muchos se centraron en supermercados que funcionan de forma cooperativa y que, tradicionalmente, se considera que tienen estándares éticos más altos que los supermercados comunes.
"Las campañas populares del BDS y la presión pública que resulta de ellas ya han obligado a los supermercados en varios países europeos a poner en práctica las políticas que convocan a evitar la venta de productos de las colonias ilegales de Israel", dijo Awwad Hind, coordinador con los palestinos del Comité Nacional BDS.
"Pero son las empresas agrícolas de exportación de Israel las que tienen la responsabilidad de la complicidad con Israel de las violaciones del derecho internacional, y no los productos de producción individual. Estas empresas, se ha comprobado, engañan a los consumidores sobre el origen de los productos que venden. Es por eso que los activistas están llamando a un cese total al comercio con estas empresas", agregó.
En Bélgica, los activistas llevaron a cabo acciones de presión sobre las oficinas de la Secretaría de Economía, para protestar por la venta en los supermercados belga de productos cultivados en asentamientos ilegales de Israel en territorio palestino ocupado.
"Los gobiernos europeos tienen la obligación de hacer que Israel se responsabilice de sus violaciones del derecho internacional, pero Europa sigue siendo el mayor mercado de los productos agrícolas israelíes, incluidos los productos de los asentamientos ilegales israelíes. La prohibición de comerciar con exportadores de productos agrícolas de Israel estaría en consonancia con las políticas establecidas sobre la ilegalidad de los asentamientos ilegales de Israel", dijo Awwad.
En Gran Bretaña, los activistas también protestaron en las oficinas de las filiales británicas de las empresas agrícolas israelíes, incluidas las que exportan flores, Bickel Flowers y Edom. Junto con su colega Orian, Flowrs Bickel ha adquirido recientemente la decadente compañía de exportación israelí Agrexco, de la cual se ordenó la liquidación después de registrar pérdidas récord y no pagar a sus acreedores. Los activistas dicen que su campaña a escala europea contra la compañía, que incluyó el boicot popular, los piquetes de los supermercados, los bloqueos de las instalaciones de la empresa y grupos de presión, fue un factor importante detrás del colapso de la compañía.
Las acciones se llevaron a cabo como parte de la rápida aparición del Movimiento Palestino para el Boicot, Desinversión y Sanciones (BDS) contra Israel hasta que cumpla con el derecho internacional.
info@bdsmovement.net
Notas
1.- Se puede encontrar un mapa interactivo de todas las acciones en:
http://www.bdsmovement.net/activecamps/take-apartheid-off-the-menu
Para más información ampliada:
http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/take-apartheid-off-the-menu-8313#.Ts92dXOVtMc
2.- Mehadrin se convirtió en la empresa agrícola de exportación más importante, a partir de la caída de Agrexco. La fuente de los productos son las colonias ilegales, incluyendo Beqa’ot en Cisjordania. Durante las entrevistas con investigadores, los trabajadores palestinos en esas colonias declararon que ganan la miseria de 11 euros diarios. Los envases de las uvas y los dátiles de los asentamientos llevan las etiquetas de “producto de Israel”.
El rol de Mehadrin en la provisión de agua a los agricultores y su relación con la compañía de aguas del Estado de Israel, Mekorot, supone una complicidad directa de la empresa con las políticas discriminatorias en la escasa provisión de agua que determina el Estado. Más sobre Mehadrin en:
http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/mehadrin-profile-8450#.Ts-BJXOVtMc Para información más detallada de otras empresas de exportación de productos agrícolas ver: http://bit.ly/vIrqLp
3.- Agrexco, la empresa exportadora más antigua de productos agrícolas provenientes de los asentamientos ilegales de Israel, fue alguna vez la responsable del mercado de exportación del 60/70% de los productos de las colonias ilegales. Para más información del impacto de las campañas sobre Agrexco ver: http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/palestinian-civil-society-welcomes-agrexco-liquidation-calls-for-celebration-of-this-bds-victory-8096#.Ts-CS3OVtMc, http://www.jnews.org.uk/commentary/why-did-agrexco-go-bankrupt
4.- La dominación de Israel sobre el abastecimiento de agua en Israel y en los territorios palestinos ocupados, deja a muchas comunidades palestinas con un mínimo de abastecimiento de agua. De acuerdo con las estadísticas de OECD, los agricultores israelíes utilizan la asombrosa cantidad de 1.127 millones de metros cúbicos de agua por año. Solamente cerca de unos 60 millones de metros cúbicos de agua se destinan a la totalidad de la Autoridad Palestina. OECD (2010), OECD Review of agricultural policies: Israel, 2010.Ver también Amnesty International: Sedientos de Justicia: Acceso de los palestinos al agua, http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/info/MDE15/028/2009/en
5.- Al Hadidiye es una comunidad palestina de unos 112 habitantes permanentes y unos 130 adicionales que durante los dos meses más fríos retornan a las aldeas cerca de Tobas porque las fuerzas israelíes destruyeron sus hogares y no encontraron necesario construirles refugios alternativos para que puedan protegerse del frio invernal. El jueves 10 de noviembre, las autoridades israelíes hicieron llegar a la comunidad otras nueve órdenes de demolición de 17 estructuras que afectarán a 72 personas, incluyendo mujeres y niños. Las organizaciones palestinas hicieron un llamamiento a quienes apoyan los derechos de los palestinos para que contacten a sus embajadas en Israel interesándolos sobre estas demoliciones. http://stopthewall.org/2011/11/13/al-hadidiye-be-demolished-once-again-halt-new-wave-ethnic-cleansing
Fuente: http://www.bdsmovement.net/2011/europeans-call-apartheid-8493#.TtKtvLL7iRU
Death threats sent to peace activists
29 November 2011, Communist Party of Israel המפלגה הקומוניסטית הישראלית http://maki.org.il
A 21 year-old man, was arrested again on Sunday night in connection with death threats he sent via e-mail to members of "Peace Now", last Sunday.
The man in question, whose identity cannot be published due to a gag order, was arrested two weeks ago in connection with a bomb threat and an act of vandalism perpetrated against the Peace Now offices in Jerusalem. There have been a rash of fascists attacks – which vandalize Arab mosques, IDF bases or leftwing sites in retaliation for the dismantling of settlements – in recent months.
(At the night of November 7, 2011, fascists and racists slogans and personal threats were sprayed inside the house of Hagit Ofran, the head of Peace Now's "settlements watch" office. A nearby car, which does not belong to Ofran, was also vandalized, most likely because it sported a "Peace Now" sticker/Photo: Activestills)
The man admitted to the offenses during questioning, saying that he “hates Arabs and leftists.” On Sunday, between 3 and 4 p.m., he sent e-mails to numerous Peace Now activists including director Yariv Oppenheimer and Hagit Ofran, the director of the organization’s Settlement Watch program.
To Oppenheimer he wrote, “Today you die.” To Ofran he sent the message “The end is near, I will kill you and all who are close to you.” The e-mails included the man’s name and e-mail address.
Speaking with The Jerusalem Post on Monday, Ofran said that the incident “is part of a wider phenomenon within the current political atmosphere and public discourse.”
“The Knesset and the government, through legislation and public statements, are trying to silence criticism, the left, and the media,” she said. “The message being broadcast is that those opposing the government are not legitimate and this is inspiring these graffiti attacks and death threats.”
In September the racist suspect phoned Oppenheimer and threatened him, telling him he would “put a bullet in your head.” He also left a beeper message to the same effect.
In October he produced 20 posters with the words “Price tag – to kill, to murder and to slaughter all the Arabs,” and “Death to Arabs,” and hung 20 of them around Mevasseret Zion.
He was brought in for questioning by the police on October 31, released, and ordered to remain in his house until November 4. On November 3, he breached the police order and sprayed graffiti on the Peace Now offices in Jerusalem’s German Colony, painting “Death to Arabs” and other slogans in the occupied east Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina.
Subsequently, on November 6, the suspect again sprayed graffiti on the Peace Now offices and called in a bomb threat that was ultimately proven to be false.
The suspect was indicted on November 17 by the Jerusalem District Attorney’s office on four separate charges, including two counts of issuing threats, one of harassment, two counts of publishing material to incite racial hatred, two counts of damage to private property and one of breaching police orders
"The threat of another political murder exists in Israel", Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch told last week the Knesset. The most infamous political murder in Israeli history took place on November 4, 1995 when then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Jewish extremist after a peace rally in Tel Aviv.
A 21 year-old man, was arrested again on Sunday night in connection with death threats he sent via e-mail to members of "Peace Now", last Sunday.
The man in question, whose identity cannot be published due to a gag order, was arrested two weeks ago in connection with a bomb threat and an act of vandalism perpetrated against the Peace Now offices in Jerusalem. There have been a rash of fascists attacks – which vandalize Arab mosques, IDF bases or leftwing sites in retaliation for the dismantling of settlements – in recent months.
(At the night of November 7, 2011, fascists and racists slogans and personal threats were sprayed inside the house of Hagit Ofran, the head of Peace Now's "settlements watch" office. A nearby car, which does not belong to Ofran, was also vandalized, most likely because it sported a "Peace Now" sticker/Photo: Activestills)
The man admitted to the offenses during questioning, saying that he “hates Arabs and leftists.” On Sunday, between 3 and 4 p.m., he sent e-mails to numerous Peace Now activists including director Yariv Oppenheimer and Hagit Ofran, the director of the organization’s Settlement Watch program.
To Oppenheimer he wrote, “Today you die.” To Ofran he sent the message “The end is near, I will kill you and all who are close to you.” The e-mails included the man’s name and e-mail address.
Speaking with The Jerusalem Post on Monday, Ofran said that the incident “is part of a wider phenomenon within the current political atmosphere and public discourse.”
“The Knesset and the government, through legislation and public statements, are trying to silence criticism, the left, and the media,” she said. “The message being broadcast is that those opposing the government are not legitimate and this is inspiring these graffiti attacks and death threats.”
In September the racist suspect phoned Oppenheimer and threatened him, telling him he would “put a bullet in your head.” He also left a beeper message to the same effect.
In October he produced 20 posters with the words “Price tag – to kill, to murder and to slaughter all the Arabs,” and “Death to Arabs,” and hung 20 of them around Mevasseret Zion.
He was brought in for questioning by the police on October 31, released, and ordered to remain in his house until November 4. On November 3, he breached the police order and sprayed graffiti on the Peace Now offices in Jerusalem’s German Colony, painting “Death to Arabs” and other slogans in the occupied east Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina.
Subsequently, on November 6, the suspect again sprayed graffiti on the Peace Now offices and called in a bomb threat that was ultimately proven to be false.
The suspect was indicted on November 17 by the Jerusalem District Attorney’s office on four separate charges, including two counts of issuing threats, one of harassment, two counts of publishing material to incite racial hatred, two counts of damage to private property and one of breaching police orders
"The threat of another political murder exists in Israel", Public Security Minister Yitzhak Aharonovitch told last week the Knesset. The most infamous political murder in Israeli history took place on November 4, 1995 when then-Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated by a right-wing Jewish extremist after a peace rally in Tel Aviv.
THE ZIONIST ULTRA-ORTHODOX ARE CASHING IN THEIR I.O.U.
30 November 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
Those spending their Saturdays having fun rather than defending shepherds and farmers should not be surprised if the day after, Jewish fundamentalism even invades their bedrooms.
By Amira Hass
The Haredim and Hardalim, as the non-Zionist and Zionist ultra-Orthodox are respectively known, are now cashing in their promissory note from Israeli society. Their bitterness at an ungrateful secular-nationalist public is certainly justified. For what is doing without women's singing in comparison to the direct line to God they offer us? And what are advertisements featuring men only compared to the blank check God gave all of us to be the masters of the entire Promised Land?
Haredi and Hardali Judaism sold three assets on credit to the Israel that desecrates the Sabbath and loves the charming, Arab-free views from the Galilee kibbutzim and the West Bank outposts. These are the assets that enable Israel to be indifferent to both the history that was and the history now in the making, and to live as an armed, gilded ghetto, a beloved outpost of the "developed" and "civilized" Christian West in the Muslim East.
We could have clung to the historical, secular explanations for our ingathering in this land (briefly, the "final solution" of that same civilized Christian West, which also expelled us from the countries of the Diaspora ). This would have committed us to the humanitarian and earthly values and perceptions that have emerged from every struggle against ethnic persecution and oppression. But the historical explanation would also have obliged us to admit our similarity to other colonialist movements, and to understand that what was possible in the 18th and 19th centuries in America and Australia is not possible here and now.
To escape the contradictions created by history and its lessons, we chose to buy the meta-historical explanation of our armed, fortified presence here: no more and no less than God's promise to Abraham, from whom all of us are directly descended. This promise is what permits us, in our view, to do whatever we please to the people that dwells here, the natives of this land: to expel, to concentrate, to divide, to blockade, to impoverish, to dry out, to bomb, to uproot, to dispossess.
This same divine promise grants all Jews everywhere - even those who have never set foot in Israel - more rights in this land than any Palestinian who was born here. This land is ruled by a state that refuses to be a state of its actual citizens and thinks only of potential citizens from the Diaspora.
Ethnic head-counting is second nature to this state. Thus the Haredim and Hardalim know that the second asset they are selling is beyond price: their high birthrate. In the Haredi view, this high birthrate is worth more than any military service or tax payment could ever be.
The Hardalim, in contrast, combine this with a third asset for sale: lust for battle, and for ascending the military ranks, and a willingness to "die for our country" - all of which have been on the wane, relatively speaking, among other sectors of the population. In a state that has done everything in its power over the last several decades to miss any opportunity for peace, this military enthusiasm is a vital asset - especially as good neighborly relations in this region now seem more unachievable than ever before.
Hardalim and Haredim see that most of the Israeli Jewish public has eagerly bought these inexhaustible assets, so now they are continuing down the same consistent path. The Haredim and Hardalim simply long for wholeness: the divine promise and the laws of kashrut. They are offering soldiers in the demographic warfare in exchange for the non-mixing of women and men in the army.
The problem then is not the sellers but the buyers. The secular Jews who allow or even encourage the expulsion of Arab residents of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, Al-Arakib and Safed, should not complain if tomorrow, theaters and concert halls are required to set up separate sections for the female portion of the audience. And those who spend their holy Saturdays having fun rather than going out to defend shepherds and farmers from skullcap-wearing Salafists should not be surprised if the day after, Jewish fundamentalism even invades their bedrooms.
Read this article in Hebrew: לגרש פלסטינים, ולהדיר נשים
Those spending their Saturdays having fun rather than defending shepherds and farmers should not be surprised if the day after, Jewish fundamentalism even invades their bedrooms.
By Amira Hass
The Haredim and Hardalim, as the non-Zionist and Zionist ultra-Orthodox are respectively known, are now cashing in their promissory note from Israeli society. Their bitterness at an ungrateful secular-nationalist public is certainly justified. For what is doing without women's singing in comparison to the direct line to God they offer us? And what are advertisements featuring men only compared to the blank check God gave all of us to be the masters of the entire Promised Land?
Haredi and Hardali Judaism sold three assets on credit to the Israel that desecrates the Sabbath and loves the charming, Arab-free views from the Galilee kibbutzim and the West Bank outposts. These are the assets that enable Israel to be indifferent to both the history that was and the history now in the making, and to live as an armed, gilded ghetto, a beloved outpost of the "developed" and "civilized" Christian West in the Muslim East.
We could have clung to the historical, secular explanations for our ingathering in this land (briefly, the "final solution" of that same civilized Christian West, which also expelled us from the countries of the Diaspora ). This would have committed us to the humanitarian and earthly values and perceptions that have emerged from every struggle against ethnic persecution and oppression. But the historical explanation would also have obliged us to admit our similarity to other colonialist movements, and to understand that what was possible in the 18th and 19th centuries in America and Australia is not possible here and now.
To escape the contradictions created by history and its lessons, we chose to buy the meta-historical explanation of our armed, fortified presence here: no more and no less than God's promise to Abraham, from whom all of us are directly descended. This promise is what permits us, in our view, to do whatever we please to the people that dwells here, the natives of this land: to expel, to concentrate, to divide, to blockade, to impoverish, to dry out, to bomb, to uproot, to dispossess.
This same divine promise grants all Jews everywhere - even those who have never set foot in Israel - more rights in this land than any Palestinian who was born here. This land is ruled by a state that refuses to be a state of its actual citizens and thinks only of potential citizens from the Diaspora.
Ethnic head-counting is second nature to this state. Thus the Haredim and Hardalim know that the second asset they are selling is beyond price: their high birthrate. In the Haredi view, this high birthrate is worth more than any military service or tax payment could ever be.
The Hardalim, in contrast, combine this with a third asset for sale: lust for battle, and for ascending the military ranks, and a willingness to "die for our country" - all of which have been on the wane, relatively speaking, among other sectors of the population. In a state that has done everything in its power over the last several decades to miss any opportunity for peace, this military enthusiasm is a vital asset - especially as good neighborly relations in this region now seem more unachievable than ever before.
Hardalim and Haredim see that most of the Israeli Jewish public has eagerly bought these inexhaustible assets, so now they are continuing down the same consistent path. The Haredim and Hardalim simply long for wholeness: the divine promise and the laws of kashrut. They are offering soldiers in the demographic warfare in exchange for the non-mixing of women and men in the army.
The problem then is not the sellers but the buyers. The secular Jews who allow or even encourage the expulsion of Arab residents of Sheikh Jarrah and Silwan, Al-Arakib and Safed, should not complain if tomorrow, theaters and concert halls are required to set up separate sections for the female portion of the audience. And those who spend their holy Saturdays having fun rather than going out to defend shepherds and farmers from skullcap-wearing Salafists should not be surprised if the day after, Jewish fundamentalism even invades their bedrooms.
Read this article in Hebrew: לגרש פלסטינים, ולהדיר נשים
RAPPORT DU COMITE D’ADMISSION A L’ONU : LA PALESTINE OCCUPE-T-ELLE ISRAËL ?
28 novembre 2011, Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) http://www.france-palestine.org (France)
Jean-Claude Lefort, Président de l’AFPS
Il est particulièrement intéressant de lire le « Rapport du Comité d’admission des nouveaux membres sur l’admission de la Palestine à l’Organisation des Nations Unies » rendu public le 11 novembre dernier.
Si ce texte de trois pages et demie mentionne les différentes positions qui se sont exprimées en son sein, il ne cite aucun Etat en particulier. Mais à sa lecture, on reconnaît facilement qui a dit quoi et qui pense quoi. Ne retenons ici que deux points.
Au point 7, il est question de savoir si la reconnaissance de la Palestine à l’ONU est contradictoire avec les négociations – thèse soutenues par plusieurs pays, dont la France. Un argument très important, nodal, est mis en évidence en contrepoint. Il a été en effet déclaré que : « La reconnaissance de la Palestine ne pouvait et ne devait pas être subordonnée à l’issue des négociations entre Palestiniens et Israéliens ; dans le cas contraire, cette reconnaissance dépendrait de l’approbation d’Israël, ce qui reviendrait à accorder à la Puissance occupante un droit de veto sur le droit du peuple palestinien à l’autodétermination, un droit que l’Assemblée générale avait déclaré inaliénable en 1974. »
C’est là en effet le cœur du problème. Pourquoi faudrait-il donc vouloir attendre – toujours attendre – que des négociations aboutissent pour que le droit soit respecté par tous les membres du Conseil de sécurité ? Cela laisse du temps à Israël pour pratiquer la politique du fait accompli qu’on admet dans certaines capitales.
Il est toujours choquant, par exemple, de lire que tel pays se déclare pour deux Etats sur la base des frontières de 1967 avec Jérusalem-Est comme capitale de la Palestine et de voir ajouter aussitôt ce membre de phrase : « sous réserve d’échanges de territoires mutuellement agréés. » Mais de quoi se mêle-t-on ? Cette question c’est d’abord et avant tout l’affaire des Palestiniens, sauf à accepter que le droit soit bafoué et les Palestiniens soient dépossédés de leur souveraineté sur l’ensemble du territoire qui leur est dévolu. Tout cela aboutit au refus de voter pour l’admission de la Palestine à l’ONU car le droit est nié en son fondement et les Palestiniens sont méprisés. A croire que c’est la Palestine qui occupe Israël et qu’elle devrait en être punit.
A l’inverse, si l’Etat palestinien est admis à l’ONU sur la base du droit, on sait, nous en avons parfaitement conscience, que cela ne changera strictement rien sur le terrain. Par contre on placerait ainsi enfin la communauté internationale au centre de ces négociations, mettant ainsi un terme à l’hypocrisie et à l’impasse totales des discussions bipartites, sous tutelle américaine de surcroît. Et on placerait aussi d’emblée ces négociations sur ses vraies bases : le droit hors lequel il ne peut y avoir de paix et de justice.
Israël ne veut pas de cette perspective qui met à mal son rêve fou et dangereux qui l’habite encore, le « Grand Israël ». Il ne veut pas la paix à ces conditions mais uniquement aux siennes, ce qui est impossible. On ne peut manquer de constater – et chacun devrait en tirer des conclusions – qu’une hostilité incroyablement marquée et sanctionnée se manifeste pour empêcher cette admission de la Palestine à l’ONU. Tout Etat responsable comme tout militant de la paix attaché aux droits des Palestiniens devraient prendre en compte ces faits politiques qui sont loin d’être seconds.
La position française à l’ONU fait obstacle à la paix car elle est contraire au droit. Elle fait du même coup obstacle à l’idée de négociations sur des bases nécessairement nouvelles.
La seconde chose que l’on peut noter, au point 18 de ce rapport, concerne la volonté pacifique de l’Etat qui fait une demande d’admission à l’ONU. Le Comité d’admission souligne que la volonté palestinienne est claire de ce point de vue et que cela est indiscutable. D’autres affirment, pour s’opposer, que « le Hamas n’a pas accepté ces obligations. » Là encore, et ce n’est pas prendre parti pour les actions du Hamas, c’est à tomber à la renverse devant tant d’insolence et de mépris des réalités. Encore une fois : est-ce la Palestine - ou bien le Hamas - qui occupe Israël ? Est-ce bien parce qu’il y a occupation et colonisation israéliennes qu’il y a réaction ? La réponse à cette question est limpide pour quiconque est honnête.
Autrement dit, en prenant en compte que ces deux points, on voit que ceux qui refusent l’admission de la Palestine à l’ONU ne sont, ni plus ni moins, que les tenants d’une thèse qui n’est pas seulement absurde, mais aussi suicidaire. C’est un non sens que de vouloir espérer faire supporter sur le dos des Palestiniens des responsabilités qui incombent uniquement à l’occupant. Tout peuple a sa dignité.
Grave, encore une fois, est la position française qui se refuse à cet acte de droit et de paix et qui se réfugie dans une proposition qui révèle un singulier manque de courage politique : la Palestine comme Etat non-membre et sans droit de saisine de la Cour pénale internationale.
Mais ce n’est pas fini. Il y a un gouffre entre la volontés des autorités françaises et celle de l’opinion publique qui plébiscite littéralement l’admission de la Palestine à l’ONU dans les frontières de 1967. Il s’agit de faire pression sur notre gouvernement afin que la France joue un rôle dans cette région du monde. Car nous avons aussi une haute idée de la France.
Jean-Claude Lefort, Président de l’AFPS
Il est particulièrement intéressant de lire le « Rapport du Comité d’admission des nouveaux membres sur l’admission de la Palestine à l’Organisation des Nations Unies » rendu public le 11 novembre dernier.
Si ce texte de trois pages et demie mentionne les différentes positions qui se sont exprimées en son sein, il ne cite aucun Etat en particulier. Mais à sa lecture, on reconnaît facilement qui a dit quoi et qui pense quoi. Ne retenons ici que deux points.
Au point 7, il est question de savoir si la reconnaissance de la Palestine à l’ONU est contradictoire avec les négociations – thèse soutenues par plusieurs pays, dont la France. Un argument très important, nodal, est mis en évidence en contrepoint. Il a été en effet déclaré que : « La reconnaissance de la Palestine ne pouvait et ne devait pas être subordonnée à l’issue des négociations entre Palestiniens et Israéliens ; dans le cas contraire, cette reconnaissance dépendrait de l’approbation d’Israël, ce qui reviendrait à accorder à la Puissance occupante un droit de veto sur le droit du peuple palestinien à l’autodétermination, un droit que l’Assemblée générale avait déclaré inaliénable en 1974. »
C’est là en effet le cœur du problème. Pourquoi faudrait-il donc vouloir attendre – toujours attendre – que des négociations aboutissent pour que le droit soit respecté par tous les membres du Conseil de sécurité ? Cela laisse du temps à Israël pour pratiquer la politique du fait accompli qu’on admet dans certaines capitales.
Il est toujours choquant, par exemple, de lire que tel pays se déclare pour deux Etats sur la base des frontières de 1967 avec Jérusalem-Est comme capitale de la Palestine et de voir ajouter aussitôt ce membre de phrase : « sous réserve d’échanges de territoires mutuellement agréés. » Mais de quoi se mêle-t-on ? Cette question c’est d’abord et avant tout l’affaire des Palestiniens, sauf à accepter que le droit soit bafoué et les Palestiniens soient dépossédés de leur souveraineté sur l’ensemble du territoire qui leur est dévolu. Tout cela aboutit au refus de voter pour l’admission de la Palestine à l’ONU car le droit est nié en son fondement et les Palestiniens sont méprisés. A croire que c’est la Palestine qui occupe Israël et qu’elle devrait en être punit.
A l’inverse, si l’Etat palestinien est admis à l’ONU sur la base du droit, on sait, nous en avons parfaitement conscience, que cela ne changera strictement rien sur le terrain. Par contre on placerait ainsi enfin la communauté internationale au centre de ces négociations, mettant ainsi un terme à l’hypocrisie et à l’impasse totales des discussions bipartites, sous tutelle américaine de surcroît. Et on placerait aussi d’emblée ces négociations sur ses vraies bases : le droit hors lequel il ne peut y avoir de paix et de justice.
Israël ne veut pas de cette perspective qui met à mal son rêve fou et dangereux qui l’habite encore, le « Grand Israël ». Il ne veut pas la paix à ces conditions mais uniquement aux siennes, ce qui est impossible. On ne peut manquer de constater – et chacun devrait en tirer des conclusions – qu’une hostilité incroyablement marquée et sanctionnée se manifeste pour empêcher cette admission de la Palestine à l’ONU. Tout Etat responsable comme tout militant de la paix attaché aux droits des Palestiniens devraient prendre en compte ces faits politiques qui sont loin d’être seconds.
La position française à l’ONU fait obstacle à la paix car elle est contraire au droit. Elle fait du même coup obstacle à l’idée de négociations sur des bases nécessairement nouvelles.
La seconde chose que l’on peut noter, au point 18 de ce rapport, concerne la volonté pacifique de l’Etat qui fait une demande d’admission à l’ONU. Le Comité d’admission souligne que la volonté palestinienne est claire de ce point de vue et que cela est indiscutable. D’autres affirment, pour s’opposer, que « le Hamas n’a pas accepté ces obligations. » Là encore, et ce n’est pas prendre parti pour les actions du Hamas, c’est à tomber à la renverse devant tant d’insolence et de mépris des réalités. Encore une fois : est-ce la Palestine - ou bien le Hamas - qui occupe Israël ? Est-ce bien parce qu’il y a occupation et colonisation israéliennes qu’il y a réaction ? La réponse à cette question est limpide pour quiconque est honnête.
Autrement dit, en prenant en compte que ces deux points, on voit que ceux qui refusent l’admission de la Palestine à l’ONU ne sont, ni plus ni moins, que les tenants d’une thèse qui n’est pas seulement absurde, mais aussi suicidaire. C’est un non sens que de vouloir espérer faire supporter sur le dos des Palestiniens des responsabilités qui incombent uniquement à l’occupant. Tout peuple a sa dignité.
Grave, encore une fois, est la position française qui se refuse à cet acte de droit et de paix et qui se réfugie dans une proposition qui révèle un singulier manque de courage politique : la Palestine comme Etat non-membre et sans droit de saisine de la Cour pénale internationale.
Mais ce n’est pas fini. Il y a un gouffre entre la volontés des autorités françaises et celle de l’opinion publique qui plébiscite littéralement l’admission de la Palestine à l’ONU dans les frontières de 1967. Il s’agit de faire pression sur notre gouvernement afin que la France joue un rôle dans cette région du monde. Car nous avons aussi une haute idée de la France.
BNP Parisbas se retire d’Israël
28 novembre 2011, Association France Palestine Solidarité (AFPS) http://www.france-palestine.org (France)
Le gouverneur de la Banque d’Israël, Stanley Fischer, et le directeur des Banques, David Zaken ainsi que leurs cadres, pensent que le conseil d’administration de la banque a plié sous la pression des militants, contrairement à ce qu’il prétend.
Les autorités israéliennes sont furieuses contre BNP Paribas qui met fin à ses opérations en Israël; ils la suspectent plier sous les pressions arabe et anti-israélienne en France, siège social de la banque.
C’est le premier cas depuis des années qu’une banque étrangère quitte Israël. BNP Paribas faisait des opérations en Israël depuis 2003.
*L’essentiel de son business dans le pays comprenait le financement de projets importants et impliquait des entreprises françaises.
La banque a récemment décidé de fermer ses bureaux locaux et renvoyé ses 60 employés. Sa direction déclare que c‘est en raison des sérieux dommages que la crise grecque lui a fait subir. Mais c’est la seule branche étrangère qui ferme alors que BNP Paribas a des succursales dans le monde entier, y compris dans des pays proches d’Israël.
Fischer et Zaken ont eu plusieurs entretiens orageux avec BNP Paribas, qui n’ont donné aucun résultat."
Le gouverneur de la Banque d’Israël, Stanley Fischer, et le directeur des Banques, David Zaken ainsi que leurs cadres, pensent que le conseil d’administration de la banque a plié sous la pression des militants, contrairement à ce qu’il prétend.
Les autorités israéliennes sont furieuses contre BNP Paribas qui met fin à ses opérations en Israël; ils la suspectent plier sous les pressions arabe et anti-israélienne en France, siège social de la banque.
C’est le premier cas depuis des années qu’une banque étrangère quitte Israël. BNP Paribas faisait des opérations en Israël depuis 2003.
*L’essentiel de son business dans le pays comprenait le financement de projets importants et impliquait des entreprises françaises.
La banque a récemment décidé de fermer ses bureaux locaux et renvoyé ses 60 employés. Sa direction déclare que c‘est en raison des sérieux dommages que la crise grecque lui a fait subir. Mais c’est la seule branche étrangère qui ferme alors que BNP Paribas a des succursales dans le monde entier, y compris dans des pays proches d’Israël.
Fischer et Zaken ont eu plusieurs entretiens orageux avec BNP Paribas, qui n’ont donné aucun résultat."
terça-feira, 29 de novembro de 2011
Brasil celebra Dia Internacional de Solidariedade à Palestina
28 novembro 2011/Vermelho http://www.vermelho.org.br/
Nesta terça-feira (29) é celebrado o Dia Internacional de Solidariedade ao Povo Palestino. Serão realizados eventos em vários estados e municípios brasileiros para marcar a data. As comemorações em São Paulo acontecem nesta segunda-feira (28) em ato na Assembleia Legislativa do estado. No Rio de Janeiro e em Florianópolis, a homenagem ao povo palestino será realizada na terça-feira (29). A capital federal realizará um ato com o mesmo fim no dia 1º de dezembro.
O dia foi criado pela ONU em 1977. Os estados de São Paulo, Mato Grosso, Ceará, Rio Grande do Sul, Pernambuco e Bahia, além das cidades de Florianópolis (SC), Porto Alegre (RS), Campinas (SP), São Borja (RS), Santa Maria (RS), Quarai (RS), Acegua (RS), Pelotas (RS) e Marília (SP), instituíram, por meio de lei, o Dia de Solidariedade.
Histórico
Em 1977, a Assembleia Geral do ONU pediu que fossem celebrados todos os anos, no dia 29 de novembro (resolução 32/40 B), o Dia Internacional de Solidariedade ao Povo Palestino. Com efeito, foi nesse dia que, no ano de 1947, a Assembleia Geral aprovou a resolução sobre a divisão da Palestina [resolução 181 (II)].
No dia 3 de dezembro de 2001, a Assembleia tomou nota das medidas adotadas pelos estados membros para celebrar o dia e pediu-lhes que continuassem a dar a essa manifestação a maior publicidade possível (resolução 56/34). Reafirmando que as Nações Unidas têm uma responsabilidade permanente no que se refere à questão da Palestina, até que se resolva satisfatoriamente, no respeito pela legitimidade internacional, a Assembleia autorizou, no dia 3 de dezembro de 2001, o Comitê para o Exercício dos Direitos Inalienáveis do Povo Palestino a continuar a promover o exercício de tais direitos, a adaptar o seu programa de trabalho em função dos acontecimentos e a insistir na necessidade de mobilizar a ajuda e o apoio ao povo palestino (resolução 56/33).
Foi solicitado ao Comitê que continuasse a cooperar com as organizações da sociedade civil palestina e outras, a fim de mobilizar o apoio da comunidade internacional a favor da realização, por parte do povo palestino, dos seus direitos inalienáveis e de uma solução pacífica para a questão da Palestina, e que envolvesse mais organizações da sociedade civil no seu trabalho.
Em 1947 a ONU era integrada por 57 países e o ambiente político era completamente dominado pelos EUA, que fizeram pressão sobre as pequenas nações. Com 25 votos a favor, 13 contra e 17 abstenções e, sem o consentimento dos legítimos donos da terra – o povo palestino, foi decidida a divisão da Palestina. A resolução de nº 181 determinou a divisão da Palestina em dois Estados: o Palestino e o Israelense. Na partilha do território, 56% da área caberiam aos israelenses que, na fundação de seu Estado, ocuparam 78% do espaço e se valeram da força para promover a expulsão dos palestinos de seus lares e terras – que se refugiaram em acampamentos na Cisjordânia, Gaza, Líbano, Jordânia e Síria. Em 1967, Israel ocupou o restante do território que a divisão da ONU destinara à construção do Estado Palestino.
A efetivação do Estado Palestino independente, com capital em Jerusalém, e o retorno dos refugiados (Resolução 194 da ONU) são questões cruciais à construção de uma paz verdadeira no Oriente Médio, que precisa ser justa e respeitada para ser duradoura.
Agenda
São Paulo – SP
Ato Público e Sessão Solene
Dia: 28 de novembro de 2011 (segunda-feira)
Hora: 20 horas
Local: Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de São Paulo
Av. Pedro Álvares Cabral, 201, São Paulo – SP
Rio de Janeiro
Ato Público na Cinelândia: Fora Sionismo da Palestina e Tire as garras da Síria
Dia: 29 de novembro
Horário: 17 horas
Organização: Comitê de Solidariedade à Luta do Povo Palestino do RJ e Comunidade Síria
Florianópolis – SC
Sessão Solene
Dia: 29 de novembro de 2011 (terça-feira)
Hora: 19 horas
Local: Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de Santa Catarina
Palácio Barriga Verde - Rua Doutor Jorge Luz Fontes, 310, Centro - Florianópolis – SC
Santa Maria - RS:
Sessão Solene
Dia: 29 de novembro de 2011 – terça-feira
Hora: 19 horas
Local: Câmara de Vereadores
Rua Vale Machado, 1415 Santa Maria - RS
Brasília:
Sessão Solene em comemoração ao “Dia do Povo Palestino”
Dia: 1º de dezembro de 2011 (quinta-feira)
Hora: 19 horas
Local: Câmara Legislativa do Distrito Federal
SIG QD 02 LOTE 5
PRAÇA MUNICIPAL – DF
Da Redação
Nesta terça-feira (29) é celebrado o Dia Internacional de Solidariedade ao Povo Palestino. Serão realizados eventos em vários estados e municípios brasileiros para marcar a data. As comemorações em São Paulo acontecem nesta segunda-feira (28) em ato na Assembleia Legislativa do estado. No Rio de Janeiro e em Florianópolis, a homenagem ao povo palestino será realizada na terça-feira (29). A capital federal realizará um ato com o mesmo fim no dia 1º de dezembro.
O dia foi criado pela ONU em 1977. Os estados de São Paulo, Mato Grosso, Ceará, Rio Grande do Sul, Pernambuco e Bahia, além das cidades de Florianópolis (SC), Porto Alegre (RS), Campinas (SP), São Borja (RS), Santa Maria (RS), Quarai (RS), Acegua (RS), Pelotas (RS) e Marília (SP), instituíram, por meio de lei, o Dia de Solidariedade.
Histórico
Em 1977, a Assembleia Geral do ONU pediu que fossem celebrados todos os anos, no dia 29 de novembro (resolução 32/40 B), o Dia Internacional de Solidariedade ao Povo Palestino. Com efeito, foi nesse dia que, no ano de 1947, a Assembleia Geral aprovou a resolução sobre a divisão da Palestina [resolução 181 (II)].
No dia 3 de dezembro de 2001, a Assembleia tomou nota das medidas adotadas pelos estados membros para celebrar o dia e pediu-lhes que continuassem a dar a essa manifestação a maior publicidade possível (resolução 56/34). Reafirmando que as Nações Unidas têm uma responsabilidade permanente no que se refere à questão da Palestina, até que se resolva satisfatoriamente, no respeito pela legitimidade internacional, a Assembleia autorizou, no dia 3 de dezembro de 2001, o Comitê para o Exercício dos Direitos Inalienáveis do Povo Palestino a continuar a promover o exercício de tais direitos, a adaptar o seu programa de trabalho em função dos acontecimentos e a insistir na necessidade de mobilizar a ajuda e o apoio ao povo palestino (resolução 56/33).
Foi solicitado ao Comitê que continuasse a cooperar com as organizações da sociedade civil palestina e outras, a fim de mobilizar o apoio da comunidade internacional a favor da realização, por parte do povo palestino, dos seus direitos inalienáveis e de uma solução pacífica para a questão da Palestina, e que envolvesse mais organizações da sociedade civil no seu trabalho.
Em 1947 a ONU era integrada por 57 países e o ambiente político era completamente dominado pelos EUA, que fizeram pressão sobre as pequenas nações. Com 25 votos a favor, 13 contra e 17 abstenções e, sem o consentimento dos legítimos donos da terra – o povo palestino, foi decidida a divisão da Palestina. A resolução de nº 181 determinou a divisão da Palestina em dois Estados: o Palestino e o Israelense. Na partilha do território, 56% da área caberiam aos israelenses que, na fundação de seu Estado, ocuparam 78% do espaço e se valeram da força para promover a expulsão dos palestinos de seus lares e terras – que se refugiaram em acampamentos na Cisjordânia, Gaza, Líbano, Jordânia e Síria. Em 1967, Israel ocupou o restante do território que a divisão da ONU destinara à construção do Estado Palestino.
A efetivação do Estado Palestino independente, com capital em Jerusalém, e o retorno dos refugiados (Resolução 194 da ONU) são questões cruciais à construção de uma paz verdadeira no Oriente Médio, que precisa ser justa e respeitada para ser duradoura.
Agenda
São Paulo – SP
Ato Público e Sessão Solene
Dia: 28 de novembro de 2011 (segunda-feira)
Hora: 20 horas
Local: Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de São Paulo
Av. Pedro Álvares Cabral, 201, São Paulo – SP
Rio de Janeiro
Ato Público na Cinelândia: Fora Sionismo da Palestina e Tire as garras da Síria
Dia: 29 de novembro
Horário: 17 horas
Organização: Comitê de Solidariedade à Luta do Povo Palestino do RJ e Comunidade Síria
Florianópolis – SC
Sessão Solene
Dia: 29 de novembro de 2011 (terça-feira)
Hora: 19 horas
Local: Assembleia Legislativa do Estado de Santa Catarina
Palácio Barriga Verde - Rua Doutor Jorge Luz Fontes, 310, Centro - Florianópolis – SC
Santa Maria - RS:
Sessão Solene
Dia: 29 de novembro de 2011 – terça-feira
Hora: 19 horas
Local: Câmara de Vereadores
Rua Vale Machado, 1415 Santa Maria - RS
Brasília:
Sessão Solene em comemoração ao “Dia do Povo Palestino”
Dia: 1º de dezembro de 2011 (quinta-feira)
Hora: 19 horas
Local: Câmara Legislativa do Distrito Federal
SIG QD 02 LOTE 5
PRAÇA MUNICIPAL – DF
Da Redação
segunda-feira, 28 de novembro de 2011
ISRAEL MUST ADJUST ITS POLICY TO EGYPT'S CHANGING REALITY
The first round of elections to Egypt's parliament, which begins today, is the first democratic outcome of the revolution. As such, it presents a historic challenge to the Egyptian people.
28 November 2011, EDITORIAL Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
The first round of elections to Egypt's parliament, which begins today, is the first democratic outcome of the revolution. As such, it presents a historic challenge to the Egyptian people, who had been educated for decades to see elections as an asset of their rulers rather than a whip in the people's hands or a means to build the desired regime.
Egypt's citizens need no lessons in democracy or liberal values. Before the Free Officers Revolution, which saddled Egypt with a number of dictators, that country knew what broad public discourse and liberal values were, and its thinkers knew how to fight based on values, not only politics. The 2011 revolution hinges on this historical awareness, which now draws its strength from the recognition of the people's power and the need to bend the regime, any regime, to their will. Egypt's citizens deserve congratulations for this success and all assistance as they pave their way to a democratic state to be molded according to their will.
Of course, this great transformation is also a source of great concern. Will the parliamentary elections go smoothly until the presidential elections in June? Won't the defeat of many movements in the elections generate violent struggles? How will the new regime put together an economic program that will meet Egypt's urgent needs and prevent it from collapsing even before it embarks on its new path? And what will the new regime's foreign policy be?
These are legitimate concerns, but it's too early and unnecessary to break out the horror scenarios. In Israel and elsewhere, anxiety has developed over the Muslim Brotherhood, but we must remember that Egyptian secular leftist movements also see Israel as a menace, an occupier and a representative of colonialism. The attitude to Israel does not necessarily depend on a religious perception, but rather the understanding that Israel has caused injustice to the people it has occupied.
Thus, for now, it would be deceptive to say the Muslim Brotherhood or Islam in general were responsible for the change in attitude toward Israel. Israel must recognize that the region's political and social reality is changing. It would do well to consider how to adjust its policy to the change instead of lamenting the change itself.
קראו כתבה זו בעברית: בחירות במצרים, אתגר לישראל
28 November 2011, EDITORIAL Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
The first round of elections to Egypt's parliament, which begins today, is the first democratic outcome of the revolution. As such, it presents a historic challenge to the Egyptian people, who had been educated for decades to see elections as an asset of their rulers rather than a whip in the people's hands or a means to build the desired regime.
Egypt's citizens need no lessons in democracy or liberal values. Before the Free Officers Revolution, which saddled Egypt with a number of dictators, that country knew what broad public discourse and liberal values were, and its thinkers knew how to fight based on values, not only politics. The 2011 revolution hinges on this historical awareness, which now draws its strength from the recognition of the people's power and the need to bend the regime, any regime, to their will. Egypt's citizens deserve congratulations for this success and all assistance as they pave their way to a democratic state to be molded according to their will.
Of course, this great transformation is also a source of great concern. Will the parliamentary elections go smoothly until the presidential elections in June? Won't the defeat of many movements in the elections generate violent struggles? How will the new regime put together an economic program that will meet Egypt's urgent needs and prevent it from collapsing even before it embarks on its new path? And what will the new regime's foreign policy be?
These are legitimate concerns, but it's too early and unnecessary to break out the horror scenarios. In Israel and elsewhere, anxiety has developed over the Muslim Brotherhood, but we must remember that Egyptian secular leftist movements also see Israel as a menace, an occupier and a representative of colonialism. The attitude to Israel does not necessarily depend on a religious perception, but rather the understanding that Israel has caused injustice to the people it has occupied.
Thus, for now, it would be deceptive to say the Muslim Brotherhood or Islam in general were responsible for the change in attitude toward Israel. Israel must recognize that the region's political and social reality is changing. It would do well to consider how to adjust its policy to the change instead of lamenting the change itself.
קראו כתבה זו בעברית: בחירות במצרים, אתגר לישראל
NGO says teenage prostitution worsening in Israel
28 November 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
Elem - Youth in Distress identifies about 620 young people as young as 12 who have been involved in prostitution this year, compared with 126 last year, though part of rise can be attributed to organization's stepped up efforts to find victims.
By Dana Weiler-Polak
More and more teenagers are working as prostitutes around the country, according to the nonprofit organization Elem - Youth in Distress.
Elem has recorded a five-fold increase this year in the number of young people working as prostitutes, though it says that some of the rise can be attributed to the group's stepped-up efforts to find victims of prostitution. Elem will present the data today at the Knesset's Subcommittee on the Trafficking in Women.
(Photo: Sex workers in Tel Aviv. Photo by: Nir Kafri)
This year Elem has identified about 620 young people as young as 12 who have been involved in prostitution, compared with 126 last year. The organization believes the scope of the problem is much wider, involving thousands of young people whom the social welfare agencies don't even know about.
Elem says Israel lacks a central government agency responsible for identifying and treating these young people, about 75 percent of whom are girls. Another 20 percent are boys and the remaining 5 percent are transgender.
"Most young people who fall into prostitution have experienced great distress, physical, sexual or emotional abuse, a major rejection or serious neglect," said Reli Katzav of Elem. "Unfortunately, we encounter many cases in which prostitution begins at 12," she said, adding that the state only provides treatment to girls working as prostitutes but not boys or transgender youth.
"Our clients, who come from all strata of society, are breaking the law, but they are not punished and most of the [legal] files opened by the police and the prosecution are closed on the grounds of a lack of public interest or a lack of evidence."
According to a report by the Knesset's Research and Information Center last year, law enforcement efforts to address the problem have been lax in the 10 years covered by the study. The police opened only two cases against customers of juvenile prostitutes during that period, and both cases were closed, one for a lack of evidence and one on the grounds that there was no public interest in prosecuting the case.
In addition, three of the eight cases opened for pimping involving minors between 2000 and 2009 were closed. Criminal charges were not pursued in 19 of the 35 cases that the police opened during that period for commercial exploitation of a minor. Usually the reason was a lack of evidence or a determination that the suspect was not guilty.
"The data presented to the committee and the cases dealt with by Elem are just the tip of the iceberg of the shocking phenomenon of youth prostitution in Israel," said MK Orit Zuaretz (Kadima), who heads the Knesset subcommittee.
"The main failing is that a year after the previous [subcommittee] session on the subject ... the responsible ministries have not presented a plan and are still developing ways to deal with this 'new' phenomenon of juvenile prostitution." She said the phenomenon was largely driven by poverty and the need for these young people to support themselves.
Elem - Youth in Distress identifies about 620 young people as young as 12 who have been involved in prostitution this year, compared with 126 last year, though part of rise can be attributed to organization's stepped up efforts to find victims.
By Dana Weiler-Polak
More and more teenagers are working as prostitutes around the country, according to the nonprofit organization Elem - Youth in Distress.
Elem has recorded a five-fold increase this year in the number of young people working as prostitutes, though it says that some of the rise can be attributed to the group's stepped-up efforts to find victims of prostitution. Elem will present the data today at the Knesset's Subcommittee on the Trafficking in Women.
(Photo: Sex workers in Tel Aviv. Photo by: Nir Kafri)
This year Elem has identified about 620 young people as young as 12 who have been involved in prostitution, compared with 126 last year. The organization believes the scope of the problem is much wider, involving thousands of young people whom the social welfare agencies don't even know about.
Elem says Israel lacks a central government agency responsible for identifying and treating these young people, about 75 percent of whom are girls. Another 20 percent are boys and the remaining 5 percent are transgender.
"Most young people who fall into prostitution have experienced great distress, physical, sexual or emotional abuse, a major rejection or serious neglect," said Reli Katzav of Elem. "Unfortunately, we encounter many cases in which prostitution begins at 12," she said, adding that the state only provides treatment to girls working as prostitutes but not boys or transgender youth.
"Our clients, who come from all strata of society, are breaking the law, but they are not punished and most of the [legal] files opened by the police and the prosecution are closed on the grounds of a lack of public interest or a lack of evidence."
According to a report by the Knesset's Research and Information Center last year, law enforcement efforts to address the problem have been lax in the 10 years covered by the study. The police opened only two cases against customers of juvenile prostitutes during that period, and both cases were closed, one for a lack of evidence and one on the grounds that there was no public interest in prosecuting the case.
In addition, three of the eight cases opened for pimping involving minors between 2000 and 2009 were closed. Criminal charges were not pursued in 19 of the 35 cases that the police opened during that period for commercial exploitation of a minor. Usually the reason was a lack of evidence or a determination that the suspect was not guilty.
"The data presented to the committee and the cases dealt with by Elem are just the tip of the iceberg of the shocking phenomenon of youth prostitution in Israel," said MK Orit Zuaretz (Kadima), who heads the Knesset subcommittee.
"The main failing is that a year after the previous [subcommittee] session on the subject ... the responsible ministries have not presented a plan and are still developing ways to deal with this 'new' phenomenon of juvenile prostitution." She said the phenomenon was largely driven by poverty and the need for these young people to support themselves.
Gaza Export Season: Negligible Numbers, Distant Markets
28 November 2011/Gisha http://www.gisha.org גישה (Israel)
• After six months of no export at all, another season of agricultural export to Europe opened yesterday.
• Israel to allow just 1% of the export promised in 2005 US-brokered agreement.
• Since June 2007, not a single truckload has been allowed for sale to Israel or the West Bank – where most of Gaza's goods have traditionally been sold.
• Gaza's factories crippled by restrictions; unemployment high.
Monday, Nov. 28, 2011: At the start of Gaza's winter export season which began yesterday, Gisha raises a question for the Israeli Defense Ministry: Why are residents of Gaza banned from transferring goods to their natural markets in Israel and the West Bank?
A select number of farmers in Gaza are beginning to export flowers, peppers, tomatoes and strawberries to Europe. Two truckloads of strawberries were permitted to leave Gaza today as part of an exception to the ban on export that Israel has imposed since June 2007. Each year since then, Israel has allowed a few truckloads of winter agricultural produce to leave Gaza as part of a project sponsored by the Netherlands. Last year (November 2010-May 2011), Israel allowed farmers to export 290 truckloads in total – despite a promise, in the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, to allow 400 truckloads of export each day. Even if this year's plan for agricultural export is fully implemented – which is highly unlikely – it would allow fewer than 5 trucks per day for the entire season – just 1% of the promised amount. This exception to the ban is helpful for select growers, but it fails to address the manufacturing shut-down and massive unemployment caused by the export ban. About 83% of Gaza's factories are idle or operating at 50% or less capacity. Unemployment is officially listed at 28%, compared with 15.5% in 2000.
The cause of the problem is Israel's complete ban, since June 2007, on transferring goods from Gaza to Israel or the West Bank. Prior to 2007, 85% of Gaza's outgoing goods were sold in Israel and the West Bank. The profitability of export to Europe is limited, in part due to high shipping costs and low demand.
Profitable deals that Israel is blocking include marketing citrus fruit to West Bank grocers and textiles to Israeli companies. Gisha notes that since all exports from Gaza to Europe via Israel undergo comprehensive security checks and meet all required standards, it is hard to imagine any security rationale behind the ban. In fact, Israeli security officials attribute the ban to a political decision to separate Gaza from the West Bank.
Prior to 2007, Gaza farmer Monthar Alboudi used to export 1,500 tons of strawberries annually. Last year, he was allowed to sell just 7 tons to Europe, and has been prevented from selling anything to his customers in Israel and the West Bank. "Export to Europe is not very profitable, although I think it's important to preserve the European market", says Alboudi. "I hope they will allow us to sell our produce in the West Bank and Israel, our primary markets".
According to Gisha Director Sari Bashi: "It is not clear how preventing producers in Gaza from selling eggplants, school desks, and oranges to the West Bank enhances Israeli security, but the ban is clearly harming Palestinians trying to engage in productive, dignified work".
For up-to-date information on the Gaza closure, see Gisha's Gaza Cheat Sheet.
For graphs detailing outgoing goods from Gaza, click here.
Recent articles:
• Scale of Control – Does Israel Control Gaza?
• Gisha's response to Shalit-Prisoner Deal
• Gisha's response to Palmer Report
• After six months of no export at all, another season of agricultural export to Europe opened yesterday.
• Israel to allow just 1% of the export promised in 2005 US-brokered agreement.
• Since June 2007, not a single truckload has been allowed for sale to Israel or the West Bank – where most of Gaza's goods have traditionally been sold.
• Gaza's factories crippled by restrictions; unemployment high.
Monday, Nov. 28, 2011: At the start of Gaza's winter export season which began yesterday, Gisha raises a question for the Israeli Defense Ministry: Why are residents of Gaza banned from transferring goods to their natural markets in Israel and the West Bank?
A select number of farmers in Gaza are beginning to export flowers, peppers, tomatoes and strawberries to Europe. Two truckloads of strawberries were permitted to leave Gaza today as part of an exception to the ban on export that Israel has imposed since June 2007. Each year since then, Israel has allowed a few truckloads of winter agricultural produce to leave Gaza as part of a project sponsored by the Netherlands. Last year (November 2010-May 2011), Israel allowed farmers to export 290 truckloads in total – despite a promise, in the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access, to allow 400 truckloads of export each day. Even if this year's plan for agricultural export is fully implemented – which is highly unlikely – it would allow fewer than 5 trucks per day for the entire season – just 1% of the promised amount. This exception to the ban is helpful for select growers, but it fails to address the manufacturing shut-down and massive unemployment caused by the export ban. About 83% of Gaza's factories are idle or operating at 50% or less capacity. Unemployment is officially listed at 28%, compared with 15.5% in 2000.
The cause of the problem is Israel's complete ban, since June 2007, on transferring goods from Gaza to Israel or the West Bank. Prior to 2007, 85% of Gaza's outgoing goods were sold in Israel and the West Bank. The profitability of export to Europe is limited, in part due to high shipping costs and low demand.
Profitable deals that Israel is blocking include marketing citrus fruit to West Bank grocers and textiles to Israeli companies. Gisha notes that since all exports from Gaza to Europe via Israel undergo comprehensive security checks and meet all required standards, it is hard to imagine any security rationale behind the ban. In fact, Israeli security officials attribute the ban to a political decision to separate Gaza from the West Bank.
Prior to 2007, Gaza farmer Monthar Alboudi used to export 1,500 tons of strawberries annually. Last year, he was allowed to sell just 7 tons to Europe, and has been prevented from selling anything to his customers in Israel and the West Bank. "Export to Europe is not very profitable, although I think it's important to preserve the European market", says Alboudi. "I hope they will allow us to sell our produce in the West Bank and Israel, our primary markets".
According to Gisha Director Sari Bashi: "It is not clear how preventing producers in Gaza from selling eggplants, school desks, and oranges to the West Bank enhances Israeli security, but the ban is clearly harming Palestinians trying to engage in productive, dignified work".
For up-to-date information on the Gaza closure, see Gisha's Gaza Cheat Sheet.
For graphs detailing outgoing goods from Gaza, click here.
Recent articles:
• Scale of Control – Does Israel Control Gaza?
• Gisha's response to Shalit-Prisoner Deal
• Gisha's response to Palmer Report
BILL WILL KEEP PALESTINIANS ‘IN CELLARS OF MILITARY DICTATORSHIP’
21November 2011/STATEMENT B’Tselem בצלם بتسيلم http://www.btselem.org (Israel)
The anti-democratic initiatives only strengthen our resolve
Last week the government proposed two bills to limit foreign government funding to organizations like B’Tselem. The Prime Minister has frozen these proposals for the time-being, however they are part of a broader attack on democratic institutions in Israel, like the High Court and the press, and on critics of current government policy.
We are working together with partner organizations to ensure that these bills do not become law. At the same time, we refuse to allow these initiatives to distract us from our work. In fact, I see this precisely as their goal: to silence criticism, whether by actually passing legislation that obstructs our work, or at a minimum by forcing us to divert precious resources in order to defend ourselves from these initiatives.
In response, we have redoubled our efforts to promote human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This month, our priority is to prevent the forced relocation of some 2,300 people living in communities around the Ma’ale Adumim settlement. We are also expanding our outreach to the Israeli public, through the launch of our Hebrew Facebook page, and regular publication of opinion pieces in the Israeli press, such as this piece last week on Hebron.
Government watchdogs like B’Tselem are an important part of any democratic society. I am proud of B’Tselem’s work to make Israel a more just and equitable society. The media and public attention generated by the Knesset initiatives provide us a valuable opportunity to reinforce this message.
Some members of the government are trying to make it suspect to support B’Tselem. They argue that support from abroad to groups like B’Tselem is akin to interfering in domestic political affairs. In fact, virtually every institution in Israel is dependent on donations from abroad, including donations from foreign governments.
European Union support to human rights organizations, for example, constitutes just one percent of the EU’s total grants to Israel. I see it as a badge of honor that individuals, institutions and governments around the world support our work to ensure that all Israelis and Palestinians can live in dignity and in full realization of their rights.
I call on all those who share our commitment to human rights and want to ensure the health and vibrancy of the Israeli democracy to speak up now and help us stop these efforts to stifle Israeli civil society. I have full confidence that, working together, champions of democracy both inside Israel and around the world will overcome these dangerous initiatives.
------------------
NGO BILL AIMS TO CREATE A DEMOCRACY FOR JEWS ONLY
We must not dismiss the NGO Bill – it truly intends to create a democracy for Jews only; if it were passed, no Arab – whether resident of the territories or Israeli citizen – would have access to the law.
By Yitzhak Laor
21 November 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
The NGO culture is part of globalization: Money flows from financial centers to all kinds of corners, in a mixture of philanthropy and business, idealism and cynicism. The left is being destroyed by this culture, which dictates a rupture between the community in whose name it acts and its coterie of professional activists, whose funding comes from abroad.
The separation between the professional activists and the grass-roots kind and the need to show donors a “return” on their money have given rise to all kinds of fake activity – demonstrations whose participants are activists in or employees of “neighboring” nongovernmental organizations, or, alternatively, free-of-charge “mass” Internet petitions, which no one reads except the signatories (in place of the old-fashioned method – signing people on a petition to the newspaper that involved real communication and raising money from the signatories; in short, genuine political activity ).
The culture of “Europe will pay” has also intensified a kind of nihilism on the left. For instance, from time to time, the Zochrot organization used to put out a journal, Sedek, which was extremely extravagant in its use of color plates. Aside from its political material, it consisted mainly of colorful (and apolitical ) plastic art, thanks to “generous funding,” in the journal’s words, from a Danish organization for… eradicating hunger.
This is also the background to the rise of the executive director, who is chosen via a “human rights” tender. Today, it’s refusing to serve in the army; tomorrow, it’s torture; but it’s all part of the same status quo. That is equally true of the “campaign managers,” aka “media experts” – which means they have a lot of numbers in their cell phone’s memory.
But the epitome is the use of journalists in place of grass-roots activity in the streets. Success is measured by being “mentioned on television” – a reflection of the world of advertising.
Peace Now provides an excellent example of this transformation from a mass political movement into an NGO focused on monitoring: Instead of grass-roots activity, it monitors settlement expansion (though this is important ). This is one of the reasons for the right’s success. The government does as it pleases, while opposition from the left is becoming commercialized, because the left has too many NGOs (to obtain more and more donations ). It has a lot of generals and very few soldiers.
Why nevertheless is the government attending to these NGOs? Because the most important of them represent the Palestinian people in the cellars of the military dictatorship.
B’Tselem is the most noteworthy of these NGOs. It tries to represent the occupied population, which has been without representation during almost 45 years of occupation, against the jackboots. Other NGOs try to find breaches in the law, and, in addition to mobilizing public opinion, take them to the High Court of Justice (which has proven to be a broken reed as far as the territories are concerned ). This is the only representation the Palestinians have in Israeli politics, in which, ostensibly, all are represented, since it is democratic.
This is also the context in which one must view the so-called NGO Bill: It isn’t necessarily an attempt to suppress the left, but rather an attempt to eliminate representation for residents of the territories. And that is why bills to change the composition of the High Court have flowed in the wake of this legislation: Because the destroyers of the constitutional court aren’t concerned over its ethnic make-up, but over the manner in which, on rare occasions, it defends the Palestinians, thanks to B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Yesh Din or the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. It’s a kind of broken telephone amid the lawlessness that the Palestinians inhabit, in the absence of the rule of law.
Nor does the work of destruction stop there. In the current fight over various bills relating to the High Court, both sides have tended to forget the most important fact of all: Israel has no constitution that would impede the tyranny of the majority.
It has no constitution because the state continues to deny its Arab citizens equality before the law. They, unlike residents of the territories, can expect help from the High Court from time to time. Yet, ever since the 1995 Katzir ruling, which for the first time told this state without a constitution that communities for Jews only are unconstitutional – or in other words, that apartheid is illegal – the war on this ruling has gathered speed, first in academia, then in the cabinet and Knesset.
Therefore, we must not dismiss the NGO Bill, even if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly come to his senses and opposed it. This bill truly intends to create a democracy for Jews only. If it were passed, no Arab – whether resident of the territories or Israeli citizen – would have access to the law.
And, therefore, we also shouldn’t make light of the drowning of Begin-style liberalism in the Likud. The goalposts of the right-wing torrent will continue to move. Its horizon also includes annexing the territories; it even has a vision of denying Arab citizens the right to vote in Israel. And at the entrance to this hell – if not beneath it – Meir Kahane and Avigdor Lieberman are waiting.
B'Tselem has championed human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for over two decades, promoting a future where all Israelis and Palestinians will live in freedom and dignity.
The anti-democratic initiatives only strengthen our resolve
Last week the government proposed two bills to limit foreign government funding to organizations like B’Tselem. The Prime Minister has frozen these proposals for the time-being, however they are part of a broader attack on democratic institutions in Israel, like the High Court and the press, and on critics of current government policy.
We are working together with partner organizations to ensure that these bills do not become law. At the same time, we refuse to allow these initiatives to distract us from our work. In fact, I see this precisely as their goal: to silence criticism, whether by actually passing legislation that obstructs our work, or at a minimum by forcing us to divert precious resources in order to defend ourselves from these initiatives.
In response, we have redoubled our efforts to promote human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. This month, our priority is to prevent the forced relocation of some 2,300 people living in communities around the Ma’ale Adumim settlement. We are also expanding our outreach to the Israeli public, through the launch of our Hebrew Facebook page, and regular publication of opinion pieces in the Israeli press, such as this piece last week on Hebron.
Government watchdogs like B’Tselem are an important part of any democratic society. I am proud of B’Tselem’s work to make Israel a more just and equitable society. The media and public attention generated by the Knesset initiatives provide us a valuable opportunity to reinforce this message.
Some members of the government are trying to make it suspect to support B’Tselem. They argue that support from abroad to groups like B’Tselem is akin to interfering in domestic political affairs. In fact, virtually every institution in Israel is dependent on donations from abroad, including donations from foreign governments.
European Union support to human rights organizations, for example, constitutes just one percent of the EU’s total grants to Israel. I see it as a badge of honor that individuals, institutions and governments around the world support our work to ensure that all Israelis and Palestinians can live in dignity and in full realization of their rights.
I call on all those who share our commitment to human rights and want to ensure the health and vibrancy of the Israeli democracy to speak up now and help us stop these efforts to stifle Israeli civil society. I have full confidence that, working together, champions of democracy both inside Israel and around the world will overcome these dangerous initiatives.
------------------
NGO BILL AIMS TO CREATE A DEMOCRACY FOR JEWS ONLY
We must not dismiss the NGO Bill – it truly intends to create a democracy for Jews only; if it were passed, no Arab – whether resident of the territories or Israeli citizen – would have access to the law.
By Yitzhak Laor
21 November 2011, Haaretz הארץ (Israel)
The NGO culture is part of globalization: Money flows from financial centers to all kinds of corners, in a mixture of philanthropy and business, idealism and cynicism. The left is being destroyed by this culture, which dictates a rupture between the community in whose name it acts and its coterie of professional activists, whose funding comes from abroad.
The separation between the professional activists and the grass-roots kind and the need to show donors a “return” on their money have given rise to all kinds of fake activity – demonstrations whose participants are activists in or employees of “neighboring” nongovernmental organizations, or, alternatively, free-of-charge “mass” Internet petitions, which no one reads except the signatories (in place of the old-fashioned method – signing people on a petition to the newspaper that involved real communication and raising money from the signatories; in short, genuine political activity ).
The culture of “Europe will pay” has also intensified a kind of nihilism on the left. For instance, from time to time, the Zochrot organization used to put out a journal, Sedek, which was extremely extravagant in its use of color plates. Aside from its political material, it consisted mainly of colorful (and apolitical ) plastic art, thanks to “generous funding,” in the journal’s words, from a Danish organization for… eradicating hunger.
This is also the background to the rise of the executive director, who is chosen via a “human rights” tender. Today, it’s refusing to serve in the army; tomorrow, it’s torture; but it’s all part of the same status quo. That is equally true of the “campaign managers,” aka “media experts” – which means they have a lot of numbers in their cell phone’s memory.
But the epitome is the use of journalists in place of grass-roots activity in the streets. Success is measured by being “mentioned on television” – a reflection of the world of advertising.
Peace Now provides an excellent example of this transformation from a mass political movement into an NGO focused on monitoring: Instead of grass-roots activity, it monitors settlement expansion (though this is important ). This is one of the reasons for the right’s success. The government does as it pleases, while opposition from the left is becoming commercialized, because the left has too many NGOs (to obtain more and more donations ). It has a lot of generals and very few soldiers.
Why nevertheless is the government attending to these NGOs? Because the most important of them represent the Palestinian people in the cellars of the military dictatorship.
B’Tselem is the most noteworthy of these NGOs. It tries to represent the occupied population, which has been without representation during almost 45 years of occupation, against the jackboots. Other NGOs try to find breaches in the law, and, in addition to mobilizing public opinion, take them to the High Court of Justice (which has proven to be a broken reed as far as the territories are concerned ). This is the only representation the Palestinians have in Israeli politics, in which, ostensibly, all are represented, since it is democratic.
This is also the context in which one must view the so-called NGO Bill: It isn’t necessarily an attempt to suppress the left, but rather an attempt to eliminate representation for residents of the territories. And that is why bills to change the composition of the High Court have flowed in the wake of this legislation: Because the destroyers of the constitutional court aren’t concerned over its ethnic make-up, but over the manner in which, on rare occasions, it defends the Palestinians, thanks to B’Tselem, the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, Yesh Din or the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel. It’s a kind of broken telephone amid the lawlessness that the Palestinians inhabit, in the absence of the rule of law.
Nor does the work of destruction stop there. In the current fight over various bills relating to the High Court, both sides have tended to forget the most important fact of all: Israel has no constitution that would impede the tyranny of the majority.
It has no constitution because the state continues to deny its Arab citizens equality before the law. They, unlike residents of the territories, can expect help from the High Court from time to time. Yet, ever since the 1995 Katzir ruling, which for the first time told this state without a constitution that communities for Jews only are unconstitutional – or in other words, that apartheid is illegal – the war on this ruling has gathered speed, first in academia, then in the cabinet and Knesset.
Therefore, we must not dismiss the NGO Bill, even if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has reportedly come to his senses and opposed it. This bill truly intends to create a democracy for Jews only. If it were passed, no Arab – whether resident of the territories or Israeli citizen – would have access to the law.
And, therefore, we also shouldn’t make light of the drowning of Begin-style liberalism in the Likud. The goalposts of the right-wing torrent will continue to move. Its horizon also includes annexing the territories; it even has a vision of denying Arab citizens the right to vote in Israel. And at the entrance to this hell – if not beneath it – Meir Kahane and Avigdor Lieberman are waiting.
B'Tselem has championed human rights in the West Bank and Gaza Strip for over two decades, promoting a future where all Israelis and Palestinians will live in freedom and dignity.
quinta-feira, 24 de novembro de 2011
IN ISRAEL, CIVIL LAW SHOULD RULE OVER JEWISH LAW
Those who oppose racism can be satisfied with the first part of the decision, while advocates of anti-Arab racism can enjoy the legal canopy the attorney general spread over Jewish law.
24 November 2011, Haaretz EDITORAIL הארץ (Israel)
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein decided to make things easy for himself. On the one hand, he ordered police to investigate Safed chief rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu on suspicion of making statements that constitute racial incitement. On the other hand, he refrained from ordering that Eliyahu be investigated for halakhic rulings he issued that were also allegedly of a racist nature.
In theory, there was something here for everyone. Those who oppose racism can be satisfied with the first part of the decision, while advocates of anti-Arab racism can enjoy the legal canopy the attorney general spread over Jewish law.
The practical result should not surprise anyone: From now, every racist and person who hurls invective can formulate his opinions as a halakhic ruling, sprinkling it liberally with the relevant biblical verses, and thus protect himself from a police investigation.
This is not a new invention; one can find such formulations on hundreds of websites run by radical Islamic organizations, who know well how to adapt religious law to their ambitions and hatred.
Meanwhile, when left-wing groups are accused of racism, let alone of "forgetting what it is to be Jews," they aren't subject to investigation, but rather to brutal laws hastily legislated against them.
Beyond Weinstein's legal judgment regarding the difficulty of proving incitement to racism based on Jewish law, the attorney general has given a wide opening to all kinds of crimes that are committed in the name of Jewish law. If halakha exempts one from punishment when it supports racism, why prosecute soldiers who refuse orders at the instruction of their rabbis operating in the name of Jewish law?
Prosecuting for incitement is indeed controversial. It's simple enough to claim "incitement" in an effort to silence opponents and stifle public discourse.
But when incitement against Arabs is part of the culture of public discourse and is accepted as a measure of one's loyalty to the state, it is liable to become - and in many instances has become - a type of legitimate mode of operation. The burning of mosques, acts of terror by Jews against Arabs and the prohibition against renting apartments to Arabs are only some of the products of this culture of incitement - as is the attorney general's capitulation out of seeming awe of Jewish law.
It is incumbent for the attorney general to give state law its proper due, and subjugate halakha to it.
24 November 2011, Haaretz EDITORAIL הארץ (Israel)
Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein decided to make things easy for himself. On the one hand, he ordered police to investigate Safed chief rabbi Shmuel Eliyahu on suspicion of making statements that constitute racial incitement. On the other hand, he refrained from ordering that Eliyahu be investigated for halakhic rulings he issued that were also allegedly of a racist nature.
In theory, there was something here for everyone. Those who oppose racism can be satisfied with the first part of the decision, while advocates of anti-Arab racism can enjoy the legal canopy the attorney general spread over Jewish law.
The practical result should not surprise anyone: From now, every racist and person who hurls invective can formulate his opinions as a halakhic ruling, sprinkling it liberally with the relevant biblical verses, and thus protect himself from a police investigation.
This is not a new invention; one can find such formulations on hundreds of websites run by radical Islamic organizations, who know well how to adapt religious law to their ambitions and hatred.
Meanwhile, when left-wing groups are accused of racism, let alone of "forgetting what it is to be Jews," they aren't subject to investigation, but rather to brutal laws hastily legislated against them.
Beyond Weinstein's legal judgment regarding the difficulty of proving incitement to racism based on Jewish law, the attorney general has given a wide opening to all kinds of crimes that are committed in the name of Jewish law. If halakha exempts one from punishment when it supports racism, why prosecute soldiers who refuse orders at the instruction of their rabbis operating in the name of Jewish law?
Prosecuting for incitement is indeed controversial. It's simple enough to claim "incitement" in an effort to silence opponents and stifle public discourse.
But when incitement against Arabs is part of the culture of public discourse and is accepted as a measure of one's loyalty to the state, it is liable to become - and in many instances has become - a type of legitimate mode of operation. The burning of mosques, acts of terror by Jews against Arabs and the prohibition against renting apartments to Arabs are only some of the products of this culture of incitement - as is the attorney general's capitulation out of seeming awe of Jewish law.
It is incumbent for the attorney general to give state law its proper due, and subjugate halakha to it.
LLAMAMIENTO PARA LA PARTICIPACIÓN EN EL PRIMER ENCUENTRO EUROPEO PREPARATORIO DE LA MARCHA GLOBAL A JERUSALÉN
24 noviembre 2011, http:// Iraqsolidaridad iraqsolidaridad.wordpress.com
Viena, Austria, 10 y 11 de diciembre de 2011
La ciudad de Jerusalén siempre ha sido un enclave de emancipación y esperanza frente a la opresión. Ha simbolizado la unidad y la igualdad de la creación de Dios y el mensaje de amor, piedad y compasión. Millones de personas que quieren a Jerusalén están preocupadas por la seguridad y la santidad de la mezquita de al-Aqsa, la mezquita de la Cúpula de la Roca, la iglesia del Santo Sepulcro y otros edificios sagrados que se hallan en el punto de mira del plan sionista de cambiar y desmantelar la estructura de la sociedad de Jerusalén, eliminar su identidad árabe y modificar el carácter de la ciudad
No obstante, el objetivo del gobierno de Israel es obligar a los residentes palestinos a salir de Jerusalén mediante actos de terrorismo de Estado, presiones económicas, restricciones legales y expulsiones sin pudor. Netanyahu, que abiertamente afirma que Jerusalén es innegociable, llama falsamente a la ciudad santa de Jerusalén ‘la eterna capital de Israel’. Este hecho está en absoluta contradicción con todas las resoluciones de relevancia de Naciones Unidas sobre Jerusalén y es contrario a la legalidad internacional.
Por esta razón nosotros, un grupo de personas diversas provenientes de importantes sectores de la sociedad civil de diferentes partes del mundo, hemos decidido hacer un llamamiento para una marcha global a Jerusalén (MGJ) con la finalidad de concienciar al mundo sobre la amenaza mortal que se cierne sobre Jerusalén. La idea es converger el 30 de marzo de 2010, en las fronteras de Palestina con Jordania, Egipto, Siria y Líbano con las delegaciones de los distintos países de todos los continentes para llegar a Jerusalén en marcha pacífica.
Con la finalidad de preparar la movilización europea de esta Marcha global a Jerusalén, queremos invitarte a ti y a otras personas de tu organización a acudir a Viena (Austria) durante los días 10 y 11 de diciembre de 2011 para discutir en detalle la estrategia común y formar un comité directivo europeo para la puesta en marcha de este plan.
Para la liberación de Jerusalén y del resto de Palestina es necesario restaurar Palestina como una tierra de pacífica coexistencia entre las personas de todas las religiones y culturas.
Feroze Mithiborwala (India), Comité internacional de la MGJ: feroze.moses777@gmail.com
www.globalmarchtojerusalem.org
Firmantes:
Attia y Verena Rajab, Comité Palestina, Stuttgart, Alemania.
Nidal Hamad, periodista, activista y descastada personalidad de la comunidad palestina en Noruega.
Paul Larudee, North American Asociation for the GMJ; Estados Unidos.
Para más información, detalles técnicos sobre el encuentro y el alojamiento, así como para la inscripción, por favor contactad con las siguientes personas de la Campaña austriaca “Gaza debe vivir”
Leo Gabriel (miembro del Consejo internacional de Foro Social Mundial): lgabriel@gmx.net
Willi Langthaler (Campo Anti imperialista): wilhelm.langthaler@gmx.at
Mohamed Aburous (miembro de Sumud Voluntary Association Art of Resistance): rousso1@yahoo.com
Adjunto se remite la llamada internacional de la Marcha Global a Jerusalén de marzo (MGJ)
---------------
MARCHA GLOBAL A JERUSALÉN (MGJ) 30 DE MARZO DE 2012
24 noviembre 2011, http:// Iraqsolidaridad iraqsolidaridad.wordpress.com
El 30 de marzo de 2012, desde todos los continentes convergeremos y nos reuniremos a lo largo de las fronteras con Jordania, Egipto, Siria y Líbano, y con la participación de las delegaciones que desde cada país del mundo lleguen marcharemos pacíficamente hacia Palestina.
Desde que la ocupación sionista de 78% de Palestina en 1948 y la subsecuente ocupación de Jerusalén y el resto de Palestina en 1967, hemos sido testigos de los crecientes intentos de judaizar Jerusalén y colonizar Palestina. Estos crímenes contra la humanidad se realizan bajo la protección política y el pleno apoyo de los sucesivos gobiernos estadounidenses y reforzados por su veto en el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas.
El objetivo del sionismo es obligar a los residentes palestinos a abandonar Jerusalén y el resto de Palestina mediante actos de terrorismo de Estado, presiones económicas, restricciones legales y descaradas expulsiones. Netanyahu, otro de los dirigentes sionistas, que abiertamente afirma que Jerusalén es innegociable, llama falsamente a la ciudad santa de Jerusalén ‘la eterna capital de Israel’. Tales declaraciones y acciones similares llevadas a cabo por el ente sionista están en absoluta contradicción con todas las resoluciones de relevancia de Naciones Unidas sobre Jerusalén y es contrario a la legalidad internacional.
La posición dominante dentro del liderazgo israelí político, militar y religioso es que Israel tiene derecho a ocupar toda la Palestina histórica. La “solución final” como la idearon los sionistas es completar la limpieza étnica de todos los palestinos en la Palestina histórica y, mientras tanto, aplicar un sistema de apartheid.
Sin embargo, Jerusalén es nuestra herencia común cultural lo que implica que es adorada por los seguidores de todas las religiones monoteístas. Esta importante ciudad histórica y reliquia de la antigüedad se venera en todo el mundo por que adorna la herencia de toda la humanidad.
La ciudad de Jerusalén ha sido siempre un enclave de emancipación y esperanza frente a la opresión. Ha simbolizado la unidad y la igualdad de la creación de Dios y el mensaje de amor, piedad y compasión. Millones de personas que quieren a Jerusalén están preocupadas por la seguridad y la santidad de la mezquita de al-Aqsa, la mezquita de la Cúpula de la Roca, la iglesia del Santo Sepulcro y otros edificios sagrados que se hallan en el punto de mira del plan sionista de cambiar y desmantelar la estructura de la sociedad de Jerusalén, eliminar su identidad árabe y modificar el carácter de la ciudad.
Jerusalén y del resto de Palestina necesitan liberarse, redimirse y volver a ser la tierra de la libertad y la coexistencia entre las personas del mundo de distintas las religiones y culturas.
Como parte de este movimiento y a invitación de los palestinos hemos decidido organizar una marcha global a Jerusalén (MGJ) con el propósito de concienciar al mundo sobre la amenaza mortal que se cierne sobre Jerusalén y toda Palestina a mano de los sionistas y ayudarnos a estar más cerca del día de la libertad.
El 30 de marzo de 2010, desde todos los continentes convergeremos y nos reuniremos a lo largo de las fronteras con Jordania, Egipto, Siria y Líbano, y con la participación de las delegaciones que desde cada país del mundo lleguen marcharemos pacíficamente hacia Palestina.
Por todo ello, pedimos a todos los pueblos de conciencia que se unan a nosotros.
Comité Internacional de la Marcha Global a Jerusalén
Viena, Austria, 10 y 11 de diciembre de 2011
La ciudad de Jerusalén siempre ha sido un enclave de emancipación y esperanza frente a la opresión. Ha simbolizado la unidad y la igualdad de la creación de Dios y el mensaje de amor, piedad y compasión. Millones de personas que quieren a Jerusalén están preocupadas por la seguridad y la santidad de la mezquita de al-Aqsa, la mezquita de la Cúpula de la Roca, la iglesia del Santo Sepulcro y otros edificios sagrados que se hallan en el punto de mira del plan sionista de cambiar y desmantelar la estructura de la sociedad de Jerusalén, eliminar su identidad árabe y modificar el carácter de la ciudad
No obstante, el objetivo del gobierno de Israel es obligar a los residentes palestinos a salir de Jerusalén mediante actos de terrorismo de Estado, presiones económicas, restricciones legales y expulsiones sin pudor. Netanyahu, que abiertamente afirma que Jerusalén es innegociable, llama falsamente a la ciudad santa de Jerusalén ‘la eterna capital de Israel’. Este hecho está en absoluta contradicción con todas las resoluciones de relevancia de Naciones Unidas sobre Jerusalén y es contrario a la legalidad internacional.
Por esta razón nosotros, un grupo de personas diversas provenientes de importantes sectores de la sociedad civil de diferentes partes del mundo, hemos decidido hacer un llamamiento para una marcha global a Jerusalén (MGJ) con la finalidad de concienciar al mundo sobre la amenaza mortal que se cierne sobre Jerusalén. La idea es converger el 30 de marzo de 2010, en las fronteras de Palestina con Jordania, Egipto, Siria y Líbano con las delegaciones de los distintos países de todos los continentes para llegar a Jerusalén en marcha pacífica.
Con la finalidad de preparar la movilización europea de esta Marcha global a Jerusalén, queremos invitarte a ti y a otras personas de tu organización a acudir a Viena (Austria) durante los días 10 y 11 de diciembre de 2011 para discutir en detalle la estrategia común y formar un comité directivo europeo para la puesta en marcha de este plan.
Para la liberación de Jerusalén y del resto de Palestina es necesario restaurar Palestina como una tierra de pacífica coexistencia entre las personas de todas las religiones y culturas.
Feroze Mithiborwala (India), Comité internacional de la MGJ: feroze.moses777@gmail.com
www.globalmarchtojerusalem.org
Firmantes:
Attia y Verena Rajab, Comité Palestina, Stuttgart, Alemania.
Nidal Hamad, periodista, activista y descastada personalidad de la comunidad palestina en Noruega.
Paul Larudee, North American Asociation for the GMJ; Estados Unidos.
Para más información, detalles técnicos sobre el encuentro y el alojamiento, así como para la inscripción, por favor contactad con las siguientes personas de la Campaña austriaca “Gaza debe vivir”
Leo Gabriel (miembro del Consejo internacional de Foro Social Mundial): lgabriel@gmx.net
Willi Langthaler (Campo Anti imperialista): wilhelm.langthaler@gmx.at
Mohamed Aburous (miembro de Sumud Voluntary Association Art of Resistance): rousso1@yahoo.com
Adjunto se remite la llamada internacional de la Marcha Global a Jerusalén de marzo (MGJ)
---------------
MARCHA GLOBAL A JERUSALÉN (MGJ) 30 DE MARZO DE 2012
24 noviembre 2011, http:// Iraqsolidaridad iraqsolidaridad.wordpress.com
El 30 de marzo de 2012, desde todos los continentes convergeremos y nos reuniremos a lo largo de las fronteras con Jordania, Egipto, Siria y Líbano, y con la participación de las delegaciones que desde cada país del mundo lleguen marcharemos pacíficamente hacia Palestina.
Desde que la ocupación sionista de 78% de Palestina en 1948 y la subsecuente ocupación de Jerusalén y el resto de Palestina en 1967, hemos sido testigos de los crecientes intentos de judaizar Jerusalén y colonizar Palestina. Estos crímenes contra la humanidad se realizan bajo la protección política y el pleno apoyo de los sucesivos gobiernos estadounidenses y reforzados por su veto en el Consejo de Seguridad de Naciones Unidas.
El objetivo del sionismo es obligar a los residentes palestinos a abandonar Jerusalén y el resto de Palestina mediante actos de terrorismo de Estado, presiones económicas, restricciones legales y descaradas expulsiones. Netanyahu, otro de los dirigentes sionistas, que abiertamente afirma que Jerusalén es innegociable, llama falsamente a la ciudad santa de Jerusalén ‘la eterna capital de Israel’. Tales declaraciones y acciones similares llevadas a cabo por el ente sionista están en absoluta contradicción con todas las resoluciones de relevancia de Naciones Unidas sobre Jerusalén y es contrario a la legalidad internacional.
La posición dominante dentro del liderazgo israelí político, militar y religioso es que Israel tiene derecho a ocupar toda la Palestina histórica. La “solución final” como la idearon los sionistas es completar la limpieza étnica de todos los palestinos en la Palestina histórica y, mientras tanto, aplicar un sistema de apartheid.
Sin embargo, Jerusalén es nuestra herencia común cultural lo que implica que es adorada por los seguidores de todas las religiones monoteístas. Esta importante ciudad histórica y reliquia de la antigüedad se venera en todo el mundo por que adorna la herencia de toda la humanidad.
La ciudad de Jerusalén ha sido siempre un enclave de emancipación y esperanza frente a la opresión. Ha simbolizado la unidad y la igualdad de la creación de Dios y el mensaje de amor, piedad y compasión. Millones de personas que quieren a Jerusalén están preocupadas por la seguridad y la santidad de la mezquita de al-Aqsa, la mezquita de la Cúpula de la Roca, la iglesia del Santo Sepulcro y otros edificios sagrados que se hallan en el punto de mira del plan sionista de cambiar y desmantelar la estructura de la sociedad de Jerusalén, eliminar su identidad árabe y modificar el carácter de la ciudad.
Jerusalén y del resto de Palestina necesitan liberarse, redimirse y volver a ser la tierra de la libertad y la coexistencia entre las personas del mundo de distintas las religiones y culturas.
Como parte de este movimiento y a invitación de los palestinos hemos decidido organizar una marcha global a Jerusalén (MGJ) con el propósito de concienciar al mundo sobre la amenaza mortal que se cierne sobre Jerusalén y toda Palestina a mano de los sionistas y ayudarnos a estar más cerca del día de la libertad.
El 30 de marzo de 2010, desde todos los continentes convergeremos y nos reuniremos a lo largo de las fronteras con Jordania, Egipto, Siria y Líbano, y con la participación de las delegaciones que desde cada país del mundo lleguen marcharemos pacíficamente hacia Palestina.
Por todo ello, pedimos a todos los pueblos de conciencia que se unan a nosotros.
Comité Internacional de la Marcha Global a Jerusalén
UN body affirms Palestine's right to self-determination
24 November 2011, Alternative Information Center (AIC) המרכז לאינפורמציה אלטרנטיבית http://www.alternativenews.org (Israel)
Mikaela Levin for the Alternative Information Center (AIC)
Palestine has scored another victory, just a month after being accepted as a full member in UNESCO-- on Wednesday, November 23rd, the UN General Assembly's Social, Humanitarian Cultural Affairs Committee voted 166 to five in favor of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. The resolution, presented by the Egyptian delegation, meant a reaffirmation of the majority of the world’s support for the creation of an independent Palestinian State.
(UN General Assembly/Photo: flickr/real.tingely)
Once again, the only countries that denied the Palestinians their right, as defined in the 1945 UN Charter, were the United States, Israel, Canada, Marshall Islands and Micronesia. Another four countries abstained: Venezuela, Haiti, Togo and Cameroon.
“The Assembly urges all states, as well as the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system, to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination”, the resolution stated.
The Committee’s text also stressed the need to resume the peace process, based on a two-state solution which preserves “the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, according to the Palestinian Maan News Agency.
Though the resolution reaffirms the majority of the UN’s support for the Palestinian national cause, it will not have any concrete effect on the PLO’s bid for full membership. Under the auspices of the UN General Assembly, the Social, Humanitarian Cultural Affairs Committee discusses human rights, social and cultural issues, permitting deep and comprehensive debate on these subjects.
Currently, the PLO participates in the UN as a permanent observer and not a member. After the paralysis in the Security Council--where the Palestinians couldn’t assure the necessary nine votes to secure member status, nor could they or eventually bypass the US veto--President Mahmoud Abbas still has two cards to play. One is to go to the General Assembly and ask to be accepted as a non-state member. In pragmatic terms, this wouldn’t mean an important upgrade.
The second choice is to continue the path of UN agencies full memberships. Like in UNESCO, the Palestinian leadership could try to be accepted as a full member by each of the autonomous agencies, like the UNICEF, the nuclear AIEA, the World Health Organization and the International Criminal Court, amongst others. If Palestine is acknowledged as a member of all the UN agencies, it could put pressure on the UN to accept Palestine as a member state. And it would certainly highlight the fact that the United States’ unconditional support of Israel remains one of the biggest obstacles to Palestinian statehood.
But going the way of UN agencies is a long, arduous path, as it’s not enough to simply be accepted to the agency--the Palestinian leadership has to use each membership effectively. UNESCO offers an good example. Palestine was accepted as a full member, but due to internal bureaucracy, the Palestinians will not be able to apply to receive World Heritage status for any of their historical sites before 2013. On top of that, according to UNESCO rules, each member can present only one application per year.
Despite these challenges, the Palestinian Authority keeps collecting resolutions, support, and diplomatic affirmation of their national struggle.
Mikaela Levin for the Alternative Information Center (AIC)
Palestine has scored another victory, just a month after being accepted as a full member in UNESCO-- on Wednesday, November 23rd, the UN General Assembly's Social, Humanitarian Cultural Affairs Committee voted 166 to five in favor of the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. The resolution, presented by the Egyptian delegation, meant a reaffirmation of the majority of the world’s support for the creation of an independent Palestinian State.
(UN General Assembly/Photo: flickr/real.tingely)
Once again, the only countries that denied the Palestinians their right, as defined in the 1945 UN Charter, were the United States, Israel, Canada, Marshall Islands and Micronesia. Another four countries abstained: Venezuela, Haiti, Togo and Cameroon.
“The Assembly urges all states, as well as the specialized agencies and organizations of the United Nations system, to continue to support and assist the Palestinian people in the early realization of their right to self-determination”, the resolution stated.
The Committee’s text also stressed the need to resume the peace process, based on a two-state solution which preserves “the territorial unity, contiguity and integrity of all of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem”, according to the Palestinian Maan News Agency.
Though the resolution reaffirms the majority of the UN’s support for the Palestinian national cause, it will not have any concrete effect on the PLO’s bid for full membership. Under the auspices of the UN General Assembly, the Social, Humanitarian Cultural Affairs Committee discusses human rights, social and cultural issues, permitting deep and comprehensive debate on these subjects.
Currently, the PLO participates in the UN as a permanent observer and not a member. After the paralysis in the Security Council--where the Palestinians couldn’t assure the necessary nine votes to secure member status, nor could they or eventually bypass the US veto--President Mahmoud Abbas still has two cards to play. One is to go to the General Assembly and ask to be accepted as a non-state member. In pragmatic terms, this wouldn’t mean an important upgrade.
The second choice is to continue the path of UN agencies full memberships. Like in UNESCO, the Palestinian leadership could try to be accepted as a full member by each of the autonomous agencies, like the UNICEF, the nuclear AIEA, the World Health Organization and the International Criminal Court, amongst others. If Palestine is acknowledged as a member of all the UN agencies, it could put pressure on the UN to accept Palestine as a member state. And it would certainly highlight the fact that the United States’ unconditional support of Israel remains one of the biggest obstacles to Palestinian statehood.
But going the way of UN agencies is a long, arduous path, as it’s not enough to simply be accepted to the agency--the Palestinian leadership has to use each membership effectively. UNESCO offers an good example. Palestine was accepted as a full member, but due to internal bureaucracy, the Palestinians will not be able to apply to receive World Heritage status for any of their historical sites before 2013. On top of that, according to UNESCO rules, each member can present only one application per year.
Despite these challenges, the Palestinian Authority keeps collecting resolutions, support, and diplomatic affirmation of their national struggle.
MORDEJAI VANUNU MERECE SER LIBRE
20 Noviembre 2011/Sin Permiso http://www.sinpermiso.info
Duncan Campbell*
Traducción para www.sinpermiso.info: Lucas Antón
Mordejai Vanunu, el ciudadano israelí que dio la alerta y pasó 18 años en prisión por revelar detalles del programa de armas nucleares de Israel, tiene derecho a saber si se le ha despojado – tal como espera – de su ciudadanía. Como parte de su petición de que se le permita abandonar Israel, ha solicitado que se le revoque su ciudadanía, tal como, por ley, debería suceder con todo aquel condenado por traición, como es su caso. Intentaría entonces que se le dejara por fin marcharse del país.
Los intentos de Vanunu de irse de Israel se han arrastrado ya más de siete años. Fue puesto en libertad en 2004, después de cumplir 18 años de condena, y se le comunicó que debía esperar seis meses más antes de poder salir del país y no debía entretanto hablar con ningún extranjero. Desde entonces, se ha ido prolongando un juego cruel del gato y el ratón, con Vanunu detenido y retenido periódicamente por violaciones técnicas de sus condiciones. Ya desesperado, lanza esta petición de renuncia a su ciudadanía para que así se le permita abandonar el país. El tribunal supremo de Israel ha dado de plazo hasta el domingo [13 de noviembre] al gobierno para que responda a su solicitud.
En las últimas semanas, hemos visto que han sido liberados de las cárceles israelíes cientos de palestinos y un número menor de egipcios y se les ha permitido volver a sus hogares, a cambio del soldado israelí Gilad Shalit. Muchos de ellos fueron condenados por delitos violentos y a su puesta en libertad se opusieron algunos de los parientes israelíes de sus víctimas.
Por contra, Vanunu es pacifista. Su decisión de revelar pormenores del programa nuclear se debió a su oposición a la guerra nuclear. Tiene la convicción de que la lucha de los palestinos debería centrarse en la resistencia no violenta y la desobediencia civil. Lo último por lo que abogaría o planearía sería la violencia en contra de Israel, por muy airado que se sienta por el modo en que le han tratado las autoridades. De modo que ¿por qué no le dejan salir?
Sólo los políticos israelíes más cínicos y sus portavoces más abúlicos pretenden todavía que puede tener información que pudiera dañar la seguridad de Israel. Vanunu era un técnico subalterno de la instalación nuclear de Dimona y se fue de la lengua en lo que tenía que contar cuando relató su historia al Sunday Times en 1986. La negativa a dejarle salir es cuestión de castigo, no de seguridad. Qué ironía que los Estados Unidos se dediquen al ruido de sables en relación con el programa de armas nucleares de Irán y busquen la completa revelación de sus planes en el mismo momento en que un divulgador de secretos nucleares intenta asegurar su libertad personal.
Cuando salió Vanunu, en medio de escenas caóticas, de la cárcel de Shikma en Ashkelon, en 2004, sus adversarios le hicieron el gesto de rebanarle la garganta mientras le gritaban "¡Muera! ¡Muera!". Acusaron de traidores al pequeño grupo de defensores que le apoyaba. Lo que muchos de sus enemigos querían claramente era hacer realidad sus amenazas. Fue en aquel entonces cuando Vanunu declaró: "No siento odio por Israel, lo que quiero es marcharme de Israel".
Desde su puesta en libertad, la vida de Vanunu ha seguido en el limbo. Ha recibido ofertas para vivir en el extranjero, pero no le han dejado aceptarlas. Dieciocho años, once de ellos incomunicado, es castigo sobrado hasta para el más vengativo de sus enemigos. Pero Vanunu es verso suelto, persona testaruda e inflexible. Ningún gobierno, ninguna autoridad negocia su liberación, aunque entre sus defensores se cuenten voces como las de Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Premio Nobel de la Paz, y Daniel Ellsberg, cuya valerosa revelación de secretos fue uno de los factores que llevó a su fin a la guerra del Vietnam.
Gran Bretaña tiene una doble responsabilidad con Vanunu: fue en Gran Bretaña donde le atrajo una agente del Mossad hasta Italia, país en el que fue drogado, secuestrado y transportado a Israel para su juicio y encarcelamiento. Y fue a un periódico británico, el Sunday Times, al que se confió.
La conmovedora imagen de Shalit siendo recibido a su vuelta a casa y de los presos palestinos reunidos de nuevo con sus familias en Gaza y Cisjordania debería tener su reflejo en la imagen de de Vanunu, un hombre que ha pagado un alto precio por sus principios, descendiendo de un avión y caminando por la pista de un país en el que no se le vilipendie ni amenace.
*Duncan Campbell, veterano periodista del diario británico The Guardian desde 1987, ha desempeñado las funciones de redactor de sucesos y corresponsal en Los Ángeles, habiendo trabajado también en otros medios, como City Limits, Time Out y LBC. Es autor de cinco libros de no ficción, entre los que se cuentan The Underworld y That Was Business. This Is Personal , y de dos novelas, If It Bleeds (2009) y The Paradise Trail (2008).
Duncan Campbell*
Traducción para www.sinpermiso.info: Lucas Antón
Mordejai Vanunu, el ciudadano israelí que dio la alerta y pasó 18 años en prisión por revelar detalles del programa de armas nucleares de Israel, tiene derecho a saber si se le ha despojado – tal como espera – de su ciudadanía. Como parte de su petición de que se le permita abandonar Israel, ha solicitado que se le revoque su ciudadanía, tal como, por ley, debería suceder con todo aquel condenado por traición, como es su caso. Intentaría entonces que se le dejara por fin marcharse del país.
Los intentos de Vanunu de irse de Israel se han arrastrado ya más de siete años. Fue puesto en libertad en 2004, después de cumplir 18 años de condena, y se le comunicó que debía esperar seis meses más antes de poder salir del país y no debía entretanto hablar con ningún extranjero. Desde entonces, se ha ido prolongando un juego cruel del gato y el ratón, con Vanunu detenido y retenido periódicamente por violaciones técnicas de sus condiciones. Ya desesperado, lanza esta petición de renuncia a su ciudadanía para que así se le permita abandonar el país. El tribunal supremo de Israel ha dado de plazo hasta el domingo [13 de noviembre] al gobierno para que responda a su solicitud.
En las últimas semanas, hemos visto que han sido liberados de las cárceles israelíes cientos de palestinos y un número menor de egipcios y se les ha permitido volver a sus hogares, a cambio del soldado israelí Gilad Shalit. Muchos de ellos fueron condenados por delitos violentos y a su puesta en libertad se opusieron algunos de los parientes israelíes de sus víctimas.
Por contra, Vanunu es pacifista. Su decisión de revelar pormenores del programa nuclear se debió a su oposición a la guerra nuclear. Tiene la convicción de que la lucha de los palestinos debería centrarse en la resistencia no violenta y la desobediencia civil. Lo último por lo que abogaría o planearía sería la violencia en contra de Israel, por muy airado que se sienta por el modo en que le han tratado las autoridades. De modo que ¿por qué no le dejan salir?
Sólo los políticos israelíes más cínicos y sus portavoces más abúlicos pretenden todavía que puede tener información que pudiera dañar la seguridad de Israel. Vanunu era un técnico subalterno de la instalación nuclear de Dimona y se fue de la lengua en lo que tenía que contar cuando relató su historia al Sunday Times en 1986. La negativa a dejarle salir es cuestión de castigo, no de seguridad. Qué ironía que los Estados Unidos se dediquen al ruido de sables en relación con el programa de armas nucleares de Irán y busquen la completa revelación de sus planes en el mismo momento en que un divulgador de secretos nucleares intenta asegurar su libertad personal.
Cuando salió Vanunu, en medio de escenas caóticas, de la cárcel de Shikma en Ashkelon, en 2004, sus adversarios le hicieron el gesto de rebanarle la garganta mientras le gritaban "¡Muera! ¡Muera!". Acusaron de traidores al pequeño grupo de defensores que le apoyaba. Lo que muchos de sus enemigos querían claramente era hacer realidad sus amenazas. Fue en aquel entonces cuando Vanunu declaró: "No siento odio por Israel, lo que quiero es marcharme de Israel".
Desde su puesta en libertad, la vida de Vanunu ha seguido en el limbo. Ha recibido ofertas para vivir en el extranjero, pero no le han dejado aceptarlas. Dieciocho años, once de ellos incomunicado, es castigo sobrado hasta para el más vengativo de sus enemigos. Pero Vanunu es verso suelto, persona testaruda e inflexible. Ningún gobierno, ninguna autoridad negocia su liberación, aunque entre sus defensores se cuenten voces como las de Mairead Corrigan Maguire, Premio Nobel de la Paz, y Daniel Ellsberg, cuya valerosa revelación de secretos fue uno de los factores que llevó a su fin a la guerra del Vietnam.
Gran Bretaña tiene una doble responsabilidad con Vanunu: fue en Gran Bretaña donde le atrajo una agente del Mossad hasta Italia, país en el que fue drogado, secuestrado y transportado a Israel para su juicio y encarcelamiento. Y fue a un periódico británico, el Sunday Times, al que se confió.
La conmovedora imagen de Shalit siendo recibido a su vuelta a casa y de los presos palestinos reunidos de nuevo con sus familias en Gaza y Cisjordania debería tener su reflejo en la imagen de de Vanunu, un hombre que ha pagado un alto precio por sus principios, descendiendo de un avión y caminando por la pista de un país en el que no se le vilipendie ni amenace.
*Duncan Campbell, veterano periodista del diario británico The Guardian desde 1987, ha desempeñado las funciones de redactor de sucesos y corresponsal en Los Ángeles, habiendo trabajado también en otros medios, como City Limits, Time Out y LBC. Es autor de cinco libros de no ficción, entre los que se cuentan The Underworld y That Was Business. This Is Personal , y de dos novelas, If It Bleeds (2009) y The Paradise Trail (2008).
Tell JNF to Cease its Practice of Ethnic Cleansing
23 November 2011, Rav Shalom http://rabbibrant.com (USA)
Rabbi Brant Rosen
(The Sumarin Family/Photo by: Michal Fattal)
From the newly formed Campaign for Bedouin – Jewish Justice in Israel (a joint project of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America and the Jewish Alliance for Change):
While many of us will be gathering with our loved ones to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Sumarin family will be anxiously sitting on suitcases and wondering whether they will have a home in another week.
The Sumarins, a Palestinian family of twelve, including five children, a pregnant mother, and a grandfather on dialysis, have lived in their home for more than forty years in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan.
On Monday, November 28th, they will be evicted from their home – unless we raise our voices now.
We’re deeply troubled that a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Jewish National Fund in Israel, called Himnuta, is behind this move.
To expel this family is a violation of both Jewish and human rights law. And it risks inflaming Arab-Jewish tensions in Jerusalem, further undermining the hope for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Send a message now to JNF CEO Russell Robinson and urge him to stop JNF’s Himnuta from expelling the Sumarin family from their home.
The Silwan neighborhood has long been a flash point in the struggle over land in and around the Old City of Jerusalem and the site of clashes between Jews and Palestinians.
Twenty years ago, an ultra-nationalist Israeli government bent on expanding Jewish control in East Jerusalem took legal possession of the Sumarin home, along with other Arab properties in Silwan. The government transferred the Sumarins’ home to JNF’s Himnuta, along with seven other houses in Silwan.
Himnuta then turned its other East Jerusalem properties over to ELAD, a group whose explicit political agenda is to expropriate Palestinian homes and land in Silwan and transfer them to the control of Jewish settlers. There is every reason to expect that the Sumarins’ home will also end up in ELAD’s hands.
How has the Israeli government used the law to expropriate Palestinian property and land in East Jerusalem for Jewish settlers?Go here for the story.
Remind JNF CEO Russell Robinson that “legal” does not mean “just.” The many anti-democratic and anti-Arab laws recently passed by the Knesset add yet more tragic testimony of the ways law can be used for injustice.
This will not be the last expulsion of a Palestinian family from Silwan by JNF’s Himnuta or ELAD. Other families are facing the same threat.
Tell JNF CEO Russell Robinson: It’s time to end JNF’s role in expulsions or demolitions of Palestinian and Bedouin homes, whether in the Negev or East Jerusalem.
For more information, see this recent article in Ha’aretz and this post from Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity.
Rabbi Brant Rosen
(The Sumarin Family/Photo by: Michal Fattal)
From the newly formed Campaign for Bedouin – Jewish Justice in Israel (a joint project of Rabbis for Human Rights-North America and the Jewish Alliance for Change):
While many of us will be gathering with our loved ones to celebrate Thanksgiving, the Sumarin family will be anxiously sitting on suitcases and wondering whether they will have a home in another week.
The Sumarins, a Palestinian family of twelve, including five children, a pregnant mother, and a grandfather on dialysis, have lived in their home for more than forty years in the East Jerusalem neighborhood of Silwan.
On Monday, November 28th, they will be evicted from their home – unless we raise our voices now.
We’re deeply troubled that a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Jewish National Fund in Israel, called Himnuta, is behind this move.
To expel this family is a violation of both Jewish and human rights law. And it risks inflaming Arab-Jewish tensions in Jerusalem, further undermining the hope for Israeli-Palestinian peace.
Send a message now to JNF CEO Russell Robinson and urge him to stop JNF’s Himnuta from expelling the Sumarin family from their home.
The Silwan neighborhood has long been a flash point in the struggle over land in and around the Old City of Jerusalem and the site of clashes between Jews and Palestinians.
Twenty years ago, an ultra-nationalist Israeli government bent on expanding Jewish control in East Jerusalem took legal possession of the Sumarin home, along with other Arab properties in Silwan. The government transferred the Sumarins’ home to JNF’s Himnuta, along with seven other houses in Silwan.
Himnuta then turned its other East Jerusalem properties over to ELAD, a group whose explicit political agenda is to expropriate Palestinian homes and land in Silwan and transfer them to the control of Jewish settlers. There is every reason to expect that the Sumarins’ home will also end up in ELAD’s hands.
How has the Israeli government used the law to expropriate Palestinian property and land in East Jerusalem for Jewish settlers?Go here for the story.
Remind JNF CEO Russell Robinson that “legal” does not mean “just.” The many anti-democratic and anti-Arab laws recently passed by the Knesset add yet more tragic testimony of the ways law can be used for injustice.
This will not be the last expulsion of a Palestinian family from Silwan by JNF’s Himnuta or ELAD. Other families are facing the same threat.
Tell JNF CEO Russell Robinson: It’s time to end JNF’s role in expulsions or demolitions of Palestinian and Bedouin homes, whether in the Negev or East Jerusalem.
For more information, see this recent article in Ha’aretz and this post from Sheikh Jarrah Solidarity.
THANKSGIVING! -- Shefa, Arlo, 2 Joyful Songs, a Joyful Story, & a Yarmulke
23 November 2011, The Shalom Center http://www.theshalomcenter.org (USA)
Rabbi Arthur Waskow
For a joyful, funny, and thankful Thanksgiving "blessing-after-the-meal" (Birkat HaMazon) by Rabbi Shefa Gold, here is one verse and chorus. You can download the whole thing, including the melody, by clicking here:
http://www.rabbishefagold.com/ThanksgivingSong.html
You are the Source of Pleasure
All things precious, everything we treasure,
Friendship, love and pecan pie,
All things delicious till the day I die.
Chorus:
Thank you God for this abundant food,
And for putting us in a grateful mood.
Hodu Ladonai ki tov, ki l’olam, ki l’olam chasdo!
Every year around noon on Thanksgiving, WXPN Radio in Philadelphia plays Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant," about a Thanksgiving dinner in Stockbridge Mass. in 1967; about obtuse cops; and about nonviolent resistance to a brutal war.
And every year, this seemingly non-Jewish set of rituals stirs in me the memory of a moment long ago when my first puzzled, uncertain explorations of the "Jewish thing" took on new power for me. And when I came to understand the power of a yarmulke.
In 1970, I was asked by the Chicago Eight to testify in their defense. They were leaders of the movement to oppose the Vietnam War, and they had been charged by the Nixon Administration and Attorney-General John Mitchell, who turned out to be a criminal himself, with conspiracy to organize riot and destruction during the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1968 .
I had been an alternate delegate from the District of Columbia to the Convention -- elected originally as part of an anti-war, anti-racist slate to support Robert Kennedy. After he was murdered, we decided to nominate and support the chairperson of our delegation -- Rev. Channing Phillips (alav hashalom), a Black minister in the Martin Luther King mold. Our delegation made him the first Black person ever nominated for President at a major-party convention. The following spring, on the first anniversary of Dr. King's murder, on the third night of Pesach in 1969, his church hosted the first-ever Freedom Seder.
AND -- I had also spoken the first two nights of the Convention to the anti-war demonstrators at Grant Park, at their invitation, while the crowd was being menaced by Chicago police and the National Guard. The police finally did explode in violence on the third night of the Convention.
Although the main official investigation of Chicago described it as a "police riot," the Nixon Administration decided to indict the anti-war leaders. So during the Conspiracy Trial in 1970, Tom Hayden, Abby Hoffman, et al. figured I would be reasonably respectable (as a former delegate) and therefore relatively convincing to the jury and the national public, in testifying that the anti-war folks were not trying to organize violence but instead were the victims of police violence.
As the trial went forward, it became clear that the judge -- Julius Hoffman, a Jew -- was utterly subservient to the prosecution and wildly hostile to the defense. (Some of us thought he had become possessed by the dybbuk of Torquemada, head of the Inquisition. - How else could a Jew behave that way? We tried to exorcise his dybbuk. It didn't work.)
Judge Hoffman browbeat witnesses, ultimately literally gagging and binding Bobby Seale, the only Black defendant, for challenging his rulings -- etc. Dozens of his rulings against the Eight were later cited by the Court of Appeals as major legal errors, requiring reversal of all the convictions the prosecution had achieved in his court.
So when I arrived at the Federal court-house in Chicago, I was very nervous. About the judge, much more than the prosecution or my own testimony.
The witness who was scheduled to testify right before me was Arlo Guthrie. He had sung "Alice's Restaurant" to/ with the crowd at Grant Park, and the defense wanted to show the jury that there was no incitement to violence in it.
So William Kunstler, z'l, the lawyer for the defense, asked Guthrie to sing "Alice's Restaurant" so that the jury could get a direct sense of the event.
But Judge Hoffman stopped him: "You can't sing in my courtroom!!"
"But," said Kunstler, "it's evidence of the intent of the organizers and the crowd!"
For minutes they snarled at each other. Finally, Judge Hoffman: "He can SAY what he told them, but NO SINGING."
And then -- Guthrie couldn't do it. The song, which lasts 25 minutes, he knew by utter heart, having sung it probably more than a thousand times -- but to say it without singing, he couldn't. His memory was keyed to the melody. And maybe Judge Hoffman's rage helped dis-assemble him.
So he came back to the witness room, crushed.
And I'm up next. I start trembling, trying to figure out how I can avoid falling apart.
I decide that if I wear a yarmulke, that will strengthen me to connect with a power Higher/ Other than the United States and Judge Hoffman. (Up to that moment, I had never worn a yarmulke in a non-officially "religious" situation. I had written the Freedom Seder in 1969, but was in 1970 still wrestling with the question of what this weird and powerful "Jewish thing" meant in my life.)
So I tell Kunstler I want to wear a yarmulke, and he says -- "No problem." Somewhere I find a simple black unobtrusive skull-cap, and when I go to be sworn in, I put it on.
For the oath (which I did as an affirmation, as indicated by much of Jewish tradition), no problem.
Then Kunstler asks me the first question for the defense, and the Judge interrupts. "Take off your hat, sir," he says.
Kunstler erupts. -- "This man is an Orthodox Jew, and you want -- etc etc etc." I am moaning to myself, "Please, Bill, one thing I know I'm not is an Orthodox Jew." But how can I undermine the defense attorney? So I keep my mouth shut.
Judge Hoffman also erupts: "That hat shows disrespect for the United States and this Honorable Court!" he shouts.
"Yeah," I think to myself, "that's sort-of true. Disrespect for him, absolutely. For the United States, not disrespect exactly, but much more respect for Something Else. That's the point!"
They keep yelling, and I start watching the prosecutor -- and I realize that he is watching the jury. There is one Jewish juror. What is this juror thinking?
Finally, the prosecutor addresses the judge: "Your Honor, the United States certainly understands and agrees with your concern, but we also feel that in the interests of justice, it might be best simply for the trial to go forward."
And the judge took orders!! He shut up, and the rest of my testimony was quiet and orderly.
It took me another year or so to start wearing some sort of hat all the time --a Tevye cap or a beret or a rainbow kippah or an amazing tall Tibetan hat with earflaps and wool trimming.
And whatever its shape, the hat continues to mean to me that there is a Higher, Deeper Truth in the world than any judge, any Attorney-General, or any Pharaoh.
It's my -- our -- "Alice's Restaurant." Or maybe "Alice's Restaurant" is Arlo's yarmulke.
(……………………….)
Rabbi Arthur Waskow
For a joyful, funny, and thankful Thanksgiving "blessing-after-the-meal" (Birkat HaMazon) by Rabbi Shefa Gold, here is one verse and chorus. You can download the whole thing, including the melody, by clicking here:
http://www.rabbishefagold.com/ThanksgivingSong.html
You are the Source of Pleasure
All things precious, everything we treasure,
Friendship, love and pecan pie,
All things delicious till the day I die.
Chorus:
Thank you God for this abundant food,
And for putting us in a grateful mood.
Hodu Ladonai ki tov, ki l’olam, ki l’olam chasdo!
Every year around noon on Thanksgiving, WXPN Radio in Philadelphia plays Arlo Guthrie's "Alice's Restaurant," about a Thanksgiving dinner in Stockbridge Mass. in 1967; about obtuse cops; and about nonviolent resistance to a brutal war.
And every year, this seemingly non-Jewish set of rituals stirs in me the memory of a moment long ago when my first puzzled, uncertain explorations of the "Jewish thing" took on new power for me. And when I came to understand the power of a yarmulke.
In 1970, I was asked by the Chicago Eight to testify in their defense. They were leaders of the movement to oppose the Vietnam War, and they had been charged by the Nixon Administration and Attorney-General John Mitchell, who turned out to be a criminal himself, with conspiracy to organize riot and destruction during the Chicago Democratic National Convention in 1968 .
I had been an alternate delegate from the District of Columbia to the Convention -- elected originally as part of an anti-war, anti-racist slate to support Robert Kennedy. After he was murdered, we decided to nominate and support the chairperson of our delegation -- Rev. Channing Phillips (alav hashalom), a Black minister in the Martin Luther King mold. Our delegation made him the first Black person ever nominated for President at a major-party convention. The following spring, on the first anniversary of Dr. King's murder, on the third night of Pesach in 1969, his church hosted the first-ever Freedom Seder.
AND -- I had also spoken the first two nights of the Convention to the anti-war demonstrators at Grant Park, at their invitation, while the crowd was being menaced by Chicago police and the National Guard. The police finally did explode in violence on the third night of the Convention.
Although the main official investigation of Chicago described it as a "police riot," the Nixon Administration decided to indict the anti-war leaders. So during the Conspiracy Trial in 1970, Tom Hayden, Abby Hoffman, et al. figured I would be reasonably respectable (as a former delegate) and therefore relatively convincing to the jury and the national public, in testifying that the anti-war folks were not trying to organize violence but instead were the victims of police violence.
As the trial went forward, it became clear that the judge -- Julius Hoffman, a Jew -- was utterly subservient to the prosecution and wildly hostile to the defense. (Some of us thought he had become possessed by the dybbuk of Torquemada, head of the Inquisition. - How else could a Jew behave that way? We tried to exorcise his dybbuk. It didn't work.)
Judge Hoffman browbeat witnesses, ultimately literally gagging and binding Bobby Seale, the only Black defendant, for challenging his rulings -- etc. Dozens of his rulings against the Eight were later cited by the Court of Appeals as major legal errors, requiring reversal of all the convictions the prosecution had achieved in his court.
So when I arrived at the Federal court-house in Chicago, I was very nervous. About the judge, much more than the prosecution or my own testimony.
The witness who was scheduled to testify right before me was Arlo Guthrie. He had sung "Alice's Restaurant" to/ with the crowd at Grant Park, and the defense wanted to show the jury that there was no incitement to violence in it.
So William Kunstler, z'l, the lawyer for the defense, asked Guthrie to sing "Alice's Restaurant" so that the jury could get a direct sense of the event.
But Judge Hoffman stopped him: "You can't sing in my courtroom!!"
"But," said Kunstler, "it's evidence of the intent of the organizers and the crowd!"
For minutes they snarled at each other. Finally, Judge Hoffman: "He can SAY what he told them, but NO SINGING."
And then -- Guthrie couldn't do it. The song, which lasts 25 minutes, he knew by utter heart, having sung it probably more than a thousand times -- but to say it without singing, he couldn't. His memory was keyed to the melody. And maybe Judge Hoffman's rage helped dis-assemble him.
So he came back to the witness room, crushed.
And I'm up next. I start trembling, trying to figure out how I can avoid falling apart.
I decide that if I wear a yarmulke, that will strengthen me to connect with a power Higher/ Other than the United States and Judge Hoffman. (Up to that moment, I had never worn a yarmulke in a non-officially "religious" situation. I had written the Freedom Seder in 1969, but was in 1970 still wrestling with the question of what this weird and powerful "Jewish thing" meant in my life.)
So I tell Kunstler I want to wear a yarmulke, and he says -- "No problem." Somewhere I find a simple black unobtrusive skull-cap, and when I go to be sworn in, I put it on.
For the oath (which I did as an affirmation, as indicated by much of Jewish tradition), no problem.
Then Kunstler asks me the first question for the defense, and the Judge interrupts. "Take off your hat, sir," he says.
Kunstler erupts. -- "This man is an Orthodox Jew, and you want -- etc etc etc." I am moaning to myself, "Please, Bill, one thing I know I'm not is an Orthodox Jew." But how can I undermine the defense attorney? So I keep my mouth shut.
Judge Hoffman also erupts: "That hat shows disrespect for the United States and this Honorable Court!" he shouts.
"Yeah," I think to myself, "that's sort-of true. Disrespect for him, absolutely. For the United States, not disrespect exactly, but much more respect for Something Else. That's the point!"
They keep yelling, and I start watching the prosecutor -- and I realize that he is watching the jury. There is one Jewish juror. What is this juror thinking?
Finally, the prosecutor addresses the judge: "Your Honor, the United States certainly understands and agrees with your concern, but we also feel that in the interests of justice, it might be best simply for the trial to go forward."
And the judge took orders!! He shut up, and the rest of my testimony was quiet and orderly.
It took me another year or so to start wearing some sort of hat all the time --a Tevye cap or a beret or a rainbow kippah or an amazing tall Tibetan hat with earflaps and wool trimming.
And whatever its shape, the hat continues to mean to me that there is a Higher, Deeper Truth in the world than any judge, any Attorney-General, or any Pharaoh.
It's my -- our -- "Alice's Restaurant." Or maybe "Alice's Restaurant" is Arlo's yarmulke.
(……………………….)
terça-feira, 22 de novembro de 2011
U.S. Arms Persian Gulf Allies For Conflict With Iran
18 november 2011,Global Research http://www.globalresearch.ca (Canada)
By Rick Rozoff
Rumors and reports of, speculation over and scenarios for attacks against Iran’s civilian nuclear power facilities and military sites by the United States, Israel or both have flared up periodically over the past several years, especially since early 2005.
However, recent statements by among others the president and defense minister of Israel and a leading candidate for the American presidency in next year’s election – Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Mitt Romney respectively – before and after the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear program manifest a more stark and menacing tone that has been heard in a long time. Standing U.S. head of state Barack Obama recently stated, “We are not taking any options off the table.”
The above threats and others of the same tenor have been noted in the capitals of countries around the world.
Last week the Global Times, a publication of the Communist Party of China, featured an unsigned editorial entitled “Winds of war start blowing toward Iran,” which contained these excerpts:
The financial crisis is showing cracks in the Western lifestyle, making people anxious and irritable. History teaches us that war can quickly raise its ugly head at such times. There are always those who think wars can be a catalyst to move past a crisis.”
“While the US and other Western countries are struggling economically, their military power reigns supreme. This contrast is inevitably tempting in their strategic thinking but would have a profoundly negative impact on world peace.”
“Military rhetoric is usually heard from Western mouths. Where will the next war happen? War first exists in the minds of those obsessed with military might. If war is treated as a tool to solve problems, new excuses for it can easily be found.”
“The last few days have seen tensions over Iran take a sharp turn for the worse. Some feel that the US and Israel should combine to strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. This is reminiscent of those who encouraged NATO to hit Syria a few weeks ago.” [1]
On November 14 former Cuban president Fidel Castro warned that “a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably unleash a bloody war,” adding that because of the country’s size and comparative military strength “an attack on Iran is not like the previous Israeli military adventures in Iraq and Syria.” In fact, with a population as high as 75-77 million, Iran is larger in that regard than the last four nations attacked by the U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies combined: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Four days earlier Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma Committee for International Affairs, in casting grave doubts on the accuracy and purpose of the recent IAEA report on Iran, said:
“A military operation against Iran could have grave consequences. And Russia should make every effort to control emotions, bring negotiations back into the field of political and expert discussion, and not allow any such action against Iran.” [2]
The following day it was announced that Iran was pursuing full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose members are Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (Iran’s fellow observers in the group are India, Pakistan and Mongolia), with the Supreme National Security Council’s Secretary Assistant Ali Bageri stating, “We have already submitted a relevant application.” [3]
Slightly over two years ago the U.S, and Israel held the world’s largest-ever live-fire anti-ballistic missile drills in the second country, Juniper Cobra 10. [4]
Over a thousand U.S. and an equal amount of Israeli troops participated in the war games which included three of the four tiers of rapidly the evolving American global interceptor missile network: The Patriot Advanced Capability-3, Standard Missile-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems.
Early next year Juniper Cobra 12 will be held in Israel with the involvement of over 5,000 U.S. and Israeli troops, the largest joint military exercise ever conducted by the two nations.
Last summer the Jerusalem Post ran a feature with the title “Israel, US to hold massive missile defense drill next year,” which stated:
“Called Juniper Cobra, the exercise will be held in early 2012 and will include the Arrow 2 and Iron Dome as well as America’s THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and the ship-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The exercise will likely include the actual launching of interceptors from these systems.”
The Israeli daily added:
“The purpose of the exercise is to create the necessary infrastructure that would enable interoperability between Israeli and American missile defense systems in case the US government decided to deploy these systems here in the event of a conflict with Iran, like it did ahead of the Gulf War in Iraq in 1991.” [5]
Another major Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, ran a story last week under the title “Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies’ history,” which cited Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, stating that the upcoming missile drills will represent the “largest” and “most significant” joint military maneuvers ever held by the U.S. and Israel.
The account added:
“‘Our security relationship with Israel is broader, deeper and more intense than ever before,’ said Shapiro, adding that Israel’s military edge was a ‘top priority’ for himself, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. President Barack Obama.” [6]
The intensification of already unprecedented missile interception coordination between two of the world’s main military powers indicates preparation for withstanding potential Iranian retaliation following Israeli, American or joint strikes against Iran.
The deployment of a U.S. Forward-Based X-Band Radar in Israel’s Negev Desert three years ago and this past summer’s first deployment of an Aegis class guided missile warship, USS Monterrey, to the Eastern Mediterranean as part of the U.S.-NATO Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system endorsed at NATO’s summit in Portugal a year ago, which will further entail the stationing of missiles and radar in Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey and other, as yet undisclosed, countries, are further signs of systematic plans for guaranteeing that the U.S. NATO allies and partners (like Israel) are invulnerable to counterattacks. [7]
The withdrawal of American and allied troops from Iraq and the beginning of a drawdown of their counterparts in Afghanistan can also be seen in this context, as removing targets for possible retaliation should a large-scale attack be staged against Iran.
In the last three weeks features have appeared in two of America’s major newspapers, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, which reveal another source for prospective attacks against Iran: The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). All are close military allies of and recipients of weapons from the U.S. and are linked with NATO through the eponymous Istanbul Cooperation Initiative launched at the 2004 NATO summit in Turkey. [8] A recent headline in Britain’s Guardian alluded to a “mini-NATO” in the Persian Gulf and Voice of Russia featured an article with the title of “US envisions NATO of the Gulf.”
A New York Times report of October 29 mentioned that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently confirmed the Pentagon currently has 40,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region (excluding Iraq), including 23,000 in Kuwait. The daily stated that new U.S. plans could include the deployment of more combat troops to the latter state and a heightened presence of American warships in the area.
The account further detailed that the Obama administration “is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new ‘security architecture’ for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.” [9]
On November 11 the Wall Street Journal revealed that the White House will provide the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with “thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster’ bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.” The weapons will “vastly expand the existing capabilities of the country’s air force to target fixed structures, which could include bunkers and tunnels — the kind of installations where Iran is believed to be developing weapons.” [10] Another source mentioned 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles in addition to the other munitions. A news story four days later disclosed that the U.S. Air Force has received “super-heavy bunker buster bombs” from Boeing to be carried by B-2 bombers. The new bunker-busters weigh “13.6 tons and [have] a built-in satellite navigation system, with “experts not[ing] that this type of bomb which is capable of breaking 18-meter-thick concrete walls is a perfect weapon for attacking nuclear facilities in Iran.” [11]
The Wall Street Journal report, echoing that of the New York Times earlier, added:
The Obama administration is trying to build up the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, U.A.E. and Kuwait, as a unified counterweight to Iran.
“In recent months, the U.S. has begun holding a regular strategic dialogue with the GCC bloc. And the Pentagon has been trying to improve intelligence-sharing and military compatibility among the six countries.”
The newspaper reminded its readers of a $67 billion arms deal initiated by the White House with Saudi Arabia in 2010 to supply the second nation with 84 F-15 fighter jets and 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombs, 72 Black Hawk and 70 Apache Longbow attack helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-2 and other missiles, and warships. The largest bilateral weapons sale in history. Two years ago a Financial Times feature estimated that Washington plans to sell $123 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
The Wall Street Journal also reported that the U.S. Defense Department plans to supply Stinger missiles and medium-range air-to-air missiles to Oman.
Citing Pentagon officials, the paper added:
“The U.A.E. has a large fleet of advanced U.S.-made F-16 fighters that could carry the bunker-busters. The U.A.E. currently has several hundred JDAMs [joint direct attack munitions/bunker-busters] in its arsenal, and the 4,900 in the new proposal would represent a massive buildup [of] direct attack munitions.”
“Proponents of the deal point to the U.A.E.’s support for U.S. efforts to isolate Iran, and its critical backing to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization air campaign in Libya. Officials said providing JDAMs and other U.S. weapons systems to the U.A.E. will make it easier for the country to participate in similar missions in the future.” [12]
The role of the UAE and its GCC partners this year in NATO’s war against Libya and in interventions in Bahrain and Yemen and against Syria will be addressed later. [13]
A Russian expert, Professor Sergei Druzhilovsky at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, characterized the intensification of American arms sales to its Gulf clients in the following words:
“Clearly, the aim is to provoke Iran to respond by some inadequate moves, which would enable the Americans to justify subsequent violence and military force. Because no further arming of U.S. allies in the Arab Middle East will make them any stronger. It’s not the strength of its allies, which simply doesn’t exist, but its own military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain and its own fleet in the Persian Gulf that Washington relies upon. So, this is a pure provocation.” [14]
The Wall Street journal article also discussed the integration of the six GCC states into U.S. plans for an international interceptor missile system:
“The U.S. has also sought to build up missile-defense systems across the region, with the goal of building an integrated network to defend against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles from Iran.” [15]
Last year Washington announced the sale of land-based interceptor missiles to Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, mainly of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 model.
With land- and ship-based interceptor missiles in the Persian Gulf, Washington will link the NATO system in Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean with that being developed in the Asia-Pacific region with partners Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and, with what of late has been an initiative of U.S. permanent representative to NATO Ivo Daalder, India joining the NATO missile interception system [16] to increasingly surround Iran, Russia and China.
On November 13 Aviation International News reported that Washington is planning to provide Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries to the United Arab Emirates, adding to nine Patriot Advanced Capability-3 units on order. The Pentagon has deployed two THAAD active batteries to date, both in the U.S., so the stationing of the interceptors (96-144 missiles) in the UAE would be the first time they have been deployed overseas.
The news site supplied these details:
“[T]he UAE was the first export customer to be cleared to receive the system. THAAD has completed 12 successful flight tests, nine of which involved target engagements. The latest test, FTT-12, was undertaken on October 5 at the Pacific Missile Test Range at Barking Sands, Hawaii. Two interceptors were launched successfully against two targets in a near-simultaneous engagement.”
“[T]here is significant interest in upgraded Patriot and THAAD systems [in the region]. Kuwait and Qatar have both reported interest in the latter.
“As well as anticipating finalization of the THAAD contract, Lockheed Martin is awaiting the outcome of another UAE decision concerning an air defense battle management system.” [17]
According to Press TV earlier this month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that the NATO missile system, particularly the deployment of an X-Band radar unit in Turkey, “jeopardizes the interests of the country and the entire region.”
This year has seen the emergence of Persian Gulf monarchies grouped in the Gulf Cooperation Council as a military adjunct to NATO, as a combat-ready and -proven force ready to collaborate with their Western arms suppliers and allies to intervene and wage war in the Middle East and North Africa.
The United Arab Emirates provided six U.S. F-16 and six French Mirage warplanes for NATO’s Operation Unified Protector and its 26,000 air missions and nearly 10,000 combat flights over Libya. Qatar supplied six Mirage fighter jets and two C-17 military transport planes. News reports at the time remarked that the above represented the first time Gulf Cooperation Council states had joined a NATO combat mission. (Although the UAE has a contingent of troops serving under NATO in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.)
In June Robert Gates, while still U.S. defense secretary, praised the role of the UAE, Jordan ad Morocco in the war against Libya – Jordan and Morocco have since applied for membership in the GCC – stating, “In Libya, the involvement of Jordan, Morocco, the UAE and others in the Middle East have been hugely important.”
The then-Pentagon chief added this significant comment:
“I am not sure we would have moved forward to the UN, even undertaking this enterprise, had it not been for the vote in the Arab League that then paved the way for the UN Security Council resolutions.” [18]
Gates paralleled repeated statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the war citing the Arab League initiative against Libya on February 22 when the organization, then dominated by the GCC as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were in turmoil and Syria soon to join them, condemned and suspended the membership of the North African country, a move recently repeated in relation to Syria.
The GCC’s participation in NATO’s naval blockade and air war against Libya was accompanied by its first armed intervention in a member state, the deployment of 1,500 Saudi and Emirati troops to Bahrain in the middle of March in an operation called Peninsula Shield. [19]
After Libya, Bahrain and Afghanistan, GCC members, severally and collectively, have been prepared for a military conflict closer to home, in the Persian Gulf.
In May Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski announced after meeting with his UAE counterpart that the Gulf state will “become the first Arab country to open an embassy at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,” according to Agence France-Presse.
The following day the Kuwait News Agency quoted a statement from the French Foreign Ministry supporting the initiative:
“The United Arab Emirates has just asked for the accreditation of an ambassador to NATO.
“We fully support this request.
“This is a new step in our relations, which have witnessed an intensity and quality in cooperation between the UAE and the Alliance, notably in the framework of Operation Unified Protector in Libya.”
The Iranian response was, according to Press TV, that “This move by the UAE sets the stage to officially authorize the presence of an uninvited guest in the region.”
The preceding month five NATO warships visited the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait “under the 2004 Istanbul Cooperation Initiative” as an Agence France-Presse dispatch phrased it.
In commenting on the earlier-cited New York Times article on the Persian Gulf, a Voice of Russia commentary stated:
“[W]ith Qatar and the United Arab Emirates participating in the latest NATO-led campaign against Libya, this new ‘security architecture’ will mostly likely expand to carry out a similar function throughout the Middle East.
“[A]s the United States moves towards integrating the six states of the Gulf Co-operation Council into a security alliance that would increase both US and Saudi domination in the region, Iran could very well find itself the next victim of a US-led ‘humanitarian intervention.’” [20]
In addition to the escalation of U.S. military presence in the region, in 2009 French President Nicolas Sarkozy opened a military complex – with a navy base, air base, and training camp – in the United Arab Emirates, his country’s first permanent base in the Persian Gulf. In doing so Paris joined the U.S., Britain, Canada, the Netherlands. Australia and New Zealand in maintaining a military presence in the country. (Canada has since abandoned Camp Mirage in the UAE.)
The UAE has recently reopened negotiations with France for a military surveillance satellite, which “could also be linked to the protracted negotiations to buy 60 Dassault Aviation Rafale multi-role fighter jets, a deal that could be worth up to $10 billion.”
According to a United Press International story of late last month, “On April 24, the emirates launched its fifth communications satellite into orbit, the first to provide secure and independent telecommunications for its armed forces amid a drive by Arab states in the gulf to boost their military capabilities against Iran.
“The Emirates’ Y1A satellite was launched from the European Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana, atop an Ariane 5 rocket.”
Another report by the same agency a month before said that “Dassault Aviation hopes to capitalize on France’s participation with the United Arab Emirates in the air campaign against Moammar Gadhafi’s crumbling regime in Libya to promote the sale of 60 Rafale multi-role jets to the Persian Gulf state.” The story mentioned that “The emirates’ military says it wants missiles capable of reaching targets deep inside Iran,” and offered this description of current UAE air capabilities:
“The United Arab Emirates has built up what is widely viewed as the most formidable air force in the Persian Gulf. It has 184 combat aircraft, including 155 ground-attack fighters, mainly 55 Lockheed F-16E Block 60 Desert Eagles, 25 F-16F Block 60 Eagles and 18 French Dassault Mirage 2000-9DADs and 44 Mirage 2000-9RADs.”
The arming of the GCC by the U.S., France and other NATO powers at an exponential rate is, in addition to providing an economic boon to crisis-ridden Western countries, transparently and exclusively directed against Iran.
The advantages accruing to the U.S. and Israel in having a regional grouping of its neighbors attack Iran in lieu of doing so themselves are sufficiently evident not to warrant being belabored.
Washington is using the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies to act as surrogates for its own interests against Iran as it is with Georgia against Russia [21] and the Philippines vis-a-vis China. (NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the North Atlantic Council just returned from Georgia, the second such visit a NATO chief and the bloc’s 28 ambassadors have paid, the first occurring the month after Georgia invaded South Ossetia in August 2008, provoking a five-day war with Russia. Late last month 2,000 U.S. and 1,000 Filipino marines participated in combat drills near the Spratly Islands, which are contested by the Philippines and China.
Even if the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and their GCC partners don’t launch unprovoked strikes against Iranian nuclear and military sites, a provocation staged, say, by the UAE around the oil-rich island of Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf (frequently referred to by U.S. officials as the Arabian Gulf in a direct affront and challenge to Iran), administered by Iran but claimed by the UAE, will be casus belli enough for the GCC and through it the Arab League it controls. From there, as with Libya earlier this year, the U.S. and its NATO allies will take up cudgels on behalf of the “threatened” Arab Gulf states and enter the lists against Iran.
The Obama Doctrine [22], like the Nixon Doctrine of forty years earlier, emphasizes the role of proxies (identified as allies and victims) in doing what the U.S. chooses not to do, not to do alone or to be seen doing alone. It justifies military aggression in the name of decisions reached by organizations it doesn’t belong to, like the Arab League and the African Union in regards to Libya, and settles geopolitical scores with independent-minded rivals under the guise of intervening on behalf of aggrieved and injured third parties. A lesson that Russia has already learned, China is now learning and Iran may be taught next.
Notes
1) Winds of war start blowing toward Iran, Global Times, November 9, 2011
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/683060/Winds-of-war-start-blowing-toward-Iran.aspx
2) ‘Russia can prevent military operation against Iran’, RT, November 10, 2011
http://rt.com/politics/nuclear-military-iran-russia-011
3) Tehran applies for full membership in SCO, Trend News Agency, November 11, 2011
4) Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran, Stop NATO, November 5, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/israel-forging-nato-missile-shield-rehearsing-war-with-iran/
5) Israel, US to hold massive missile defense drill next year, Jerusalem Post, July 26, 2011
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=230974
6) Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies’ history, Ha’aretz, November 11, 2011
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-to-embark-on-largest-jo\int-exercise-in-allies-history-1.393878
7) Israel: Global NATO’s 29th Member, Stop NATO January 17, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/israel-global-natos-29th-member
8) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul, Stop NATO, February 6, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nato-in-persian-gulf-from-third-world-war-to-istanbul
9) U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq, New York Times, October 29, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?pagewanted=all
10) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html
11) US Air Forces get super-heavy bunker buster bombs, Itar-Tass, November 15, 2011
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/15/60453467.html
12) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html
13) Gulf State Gendarmes: West Backs Holy Alliance For Control Of Arab World And Persian Gulf, Stop NATO, May 25, 2011
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/gulf-state-gendarmes-west-backs-holy-alliance-for-control-of-arab-world-and-persian-gulf
14) Profitable provocation, Voice of Russia, November 11, 2011
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/11/60236281.html
15) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html
16) NATO and India to build joint missile defense system? Voice of Russia, September 2, 2011
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55583082.html
NATO in India overtures, Voice of Russia, September 2, 2011
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55583082.html
India may agree to deploy NATO missile system, Pakistan Observer, September 6, 2011
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=112723
17) THAAD on Target for UAE, Aviation International News, November 13, 2011
http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-13/thaad-target-uae
18) World Tribune, June 12, 2011
19) Bahrain: U.S. Backs Saudi Military Intervention, Conflict With Iran, Stop NATO, March 16, 2011
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/bahrain-u-s-backs-saudi-military-intervention-conflict-with-iran
20) US envisions NATO of the Gulf, Voice of Russia, October 31, 2011
http://rt.com/news/us-military-iraq-iran-171
21) Washington To Rearm Georgia For New Conflicts, Stop NATO, January 14, 2011
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/u-s-to-rearm-georgia-for-new-conflicts
22) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind, Stop NATO, December 10, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-doctrine-eternal-war-for-imperfect-mankind
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
By Rick Rozoff
Rumors and reports of, speculation over and scenarios for attacks against Iran’s civilian nuclear power facilities and military sites by the United States, Israel or both have flared up periodically over the past several years, especially since early 2005.
However, recent statements by among others the president and defense minister of Israel and a leading candidate for the American presidency in next year’s election – Shimon Peres, Ehud Barak and Mitt Romney respectively – before and after the latest International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) report on Iran’s nuclear program manifest a more stark and menacing tone that has been heard in a long time. Standing U.S. head of state Barack Obama recently stated, “We are not taking any options off the table.”
The above threats and others of the same tenor have been noted in the capitals of countries around the world.
Last week the Global Times, a publication of the Communist Party of China, featured an unsigned editorial entitled “Winds of war start blowing toward Iran,” which contained these excerpts:
The financial crisis is showing cracks in the Western lifestyle, making people anxious and irritable. History teaches us that war can quickly raise its ugly head at such times. There are always those who think wars can be a catalyst to move past a crisis.”
“While the US and other Western countries are struggling economically, their military power reigns supreme. This contrast is inevitably tempting in their strategic thinking but would have a profoundly negative impact on world peace.”
“Military rhetoric is usually heard from Western mouths. Where will the next war happen? War first exists in the minds of those obsessed with military might. If war is treated as a tool to solve problems, new excuses for it can easily be found.”
“The last few days have seen tensions over Iran take a sharp turn for the worse. Some feel that the US and Israel should combine to strike at Iranian nuclear facilities. This is reminiscent of those who encouraged NATO to hit Syria a few weeks ago.” [1]
On November 14 former Cuban president Fidel Castro warned that “a U.S.-Israeli attack on Iran would inevitably unleash a bloody war,” adding that because of the country’s size and comparative military strength “an attack on Iran is not like the previous Israeli military adventures in Iraq and Syria.” In fact, with a population as high as 75-77 million, Iran is larger in that regard than the last four nations attacked by the U.S. and its North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies combined: Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya.
Four days earlier Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Russian Duma Committee for International Affairs, in casting grave doubts on the accuracy and purpose of the recent IAEA report on Iran, said:
“A military operation against Iran could have grave consequences. And Russia should make every effort to control emotions, bring negotiations back into the field of political and expert discussion, and not allow any such action against Iran.” [2]
The following day it was announced that Iran was pursuing full membership in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, whose members are Russia, China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan (Iran’s fellow observers in the group are India, Pakistan and Mongolia), with the Supreme National Security Council’s Secretary Assistant Ali Bageri stating, “We have already submitted a relevant application.” [3]
Slightly over two years ago the U.S, and Israel held the world’s largest-ever live-fire anti-ballistic missile drills in the second country, Juniper Cobra 10. [4]
Over a thousand U.S. and an equal amount of Israeli troops participated in the war games which included three of the four tiers of rapidly the evolving American global interceptor missile network: The Patriot Advanced Capability-3, Standard Missile-3 and Terminal High Altitude Area Defense systems.
Early next year Juniper Cobra 12 will be held in Israel with the involvement of over 5,000 U.S. and Israeli troops, the largest joint military exercise ever conducted by the two nations.
Last summer the Jerusalem Post ran a feature with the title “Israel, US to hold massive missile defense drill next year,” which stated:
“Called Juniper Cobra, the exercise will be held in early 2012 and will include the Arrow 2 and Iron Dome as well as America’s THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) and the ship-based Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense System. The exercise will likely include the actual launching of interceptors from these systems.”
The Israeli daily added:
“The purpose of the exercise is to create the necessary infrastructure that would enable interoperability between Israeli and American missile defense systems in case the US government decided to deploy these systems here in the event of a conflict with Iran, like it did ahead of the Gulf War in Iraq in 1991.” [5]
Another major Israeli newspaper, Ha’aretz, ran a story last week under the title “Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies’ history,” which cited Andrew Shapiro, Assistant Secretary of State for Political-Military Affairs, stating that the upcoming missile drills will represent the “largest” and “most significant” joint military maneuvers ever held by the U.S. and Israel.
The account added:
“‘Our security relationship with Israel is broader, deeper and more intense than ever before,’ said Shapiro, adding that Israel’s military edge was a ‘top priority’ for himself, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and U.S. President Barack Obama.” [6]
The intensification of already unprecedented missile interception coordination between two of the world’s main military powers indicates preparation for withstanding potential Iranian retaliation following Israeli, American or joint strikes against Iran.
The deployment of a U.S. Forward-Based X-Band Radar in Israel’s Negev Desert three years ago and this past summer’s first deployment of an Aegis class guided missile warship, USS Monterrey, to the Eastern Mediterranean as part of the U.S.-NATO Phased Adaptive Approach interceptor missile system endorsed at NATO’s summit in Portugal a year ago, which will further entail the stationing of missiles and radar in Romania, Poland, Bulgaria, Turkey and other, as yet undisclosed, countries, are further signs of systematic plans for guaranteeing that the U.S. NATO allies and partners (like Israel) are invulnerable to counterattacks. [7]
The withdrawal of American and allied troops from Iraq and the beginning of a drawdown of their counterparts in Afghanistan can also be seen in this context, as removing targets for possible retaliation should a large-scale attack be staged against Iran.
In the last three weeks features have appeared in two of America’s major newspapers, the New York Times and the Wall Street Journal, which reveal another source for prospective attacks against Iran: The six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). All are close military allies of and recipients of weapons from the U.S. and are linked with NATO through the eponymous Istanbul Cooperation Initiative launched at the 2004 NATO summit in Turkey. [8] A recent headline in Britain’s Guardian alluded to a “mini-NATO” in the Persian Gulf and Voice of Russia featured an article with the title of “US envisions NATO of the Gulf.”
A New York Times report of October 29 mentioned that Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta recently confirmed the Pentagon currently has 40,000 troops in the Persian Gulf region (excluding Iraq), including 23,000 in Kuwait. The daily stated that new U.S. plans could include the deployment of more combat troops to the latter state and a heightened presence of American warships in the area.
The account further detailed that the Obama administration “is also seeking to expand military ties with the six nations in the Gulf Cooperation Council — Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman. While the United States has close bilateral military relationships with each, the administration and the military are trying to foster a new ‘security architecture’ for the Persian Gulf that would integrate air and naval patrols and missile defense.” [9]
On November 11 the Wall Street Journal revealed that the White House will provide the United Arab Emirates (UAE) with “thousands of advanced ‘bunker-buster’ bombs and other munitions, part of a stepped-up U.S. effort to build a regional coalition to counter Iran.” The weapons will “vastly expand the existing capabilities of the country’s air force to target fixed structures, which could include bunkers and tunnels — the kind of installations where Iran is believed to be developing weapons.” [10] Another source mentioned 500 Hellfire air-to-surface missiles in addition to the other munitions. A news story four days later disclosed that the U.S. Air Force has received “super-heavy bunker buster bombs” from Boeing to be carried by B-2 bombers. The new bunker-busters weigh “13.6 tons and [have] a built-in satellite navigation system, with “experts not[ing] that this type of bomb which is capable of breaking 18-meter-thick concrete walls is a perfect weapon for attacking nuclear facilities in Iran.” [11]
The Wall Street Journal report, echoing that of the New York Times earlier, added:
The Obama administration is trying to build up the six members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, which comprises Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, U.A.E. and Kuwait, as a unified counterweight to Iran.
“In recent months, the U.S. has begun holding a regular strategic dialogue with the GCC bloc. And the Pentagon has been trying to improve intelligence-sharing and military compatibility among the six countries.”
The newspaper reminded its readers of a $67 billion arms deal initiated by the White House with Saudi Arabia in 2010 to supply the second nation with 84 F-15 fighter jets and 2,000-pound bunker-busting bombs, 72 Black Hawk and 70 Apache Longbow attack helicopters, Patriot Advanced Capability-2 and other missiles, and warships. The largest bilateral weapons sale in history. Two years ago a Financial Times feature estimated that Washington plans to sell $123 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
The Wall Street Journal also reported that the U.S. Defense Department plans to supply Stinger missiles and medium-range air-to-air missiles to Oman.
Citing Pentagon officials, the paper added:
“The U.A.E. has a large fleet of advanced U.S.-made F-16 fighters that could carry the bunker-busters. The U.A.E. currently has several hundred JDAMs [joint direct attack munitions/bunker-busters] in its arsenal, and the 4,900 in the new proposal would represent a massive buildup [of] direct attack munitions.”
“Proponents of the deal point to the U.A.E.’s support for U.S. efforts to isolate Iran, and its critical backing to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization air campaign in Libya. Officials said providing JDAMs and other U.S. weapons systems to the U.A.E. will make it easier for the country to participate in similar missions in the future.” [12]
The role of the UAE and its GCC partners this year in NATO’s war against Libya and in interventions in Bahrain and Yemen and against Syria will be addressed later. [13]
A Russian expert, Professor Sergei Druzhilovsky at the Moscow State Institute of International Relations, characterized the intensification of American arms sales to its Gulf clients in the following words:
“Clearly, the aim is to provoke Iran to respond by some inadequate moves, which would enable the Americans to justify subsequent violence and military force. Because no further arming of U.S. allies in the Arab Middle East will make them any stronger. It’s not the strength of its allies, which simply doesn’t exist, but its own military bases in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Bahrain and its own fleet in the Persian Gulf that Washington relies upon. So, this is a pure provocation.” [14]
The Wall Street journal article also discussed the integration of the six GCC states into U.S. plans for an international interceptor missile system:
“The U.S. has also sought to build up missile-defense systems across the region, with the goal of building an integrated network to defend against short- and intermediate-range ballistic missiles from Iran.” [15]
Last year Washington announced the sale of land-based interceptor missiles to Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, mainly of the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 model.
With land- and ship-based interceptor missiles in the Persian Gulf, Washington will link the NATO system in Eastern Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean with that being developed in the Asia-Pacific region with partners Australia, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan and, with what of late has been an initiative of U.S. permanent representative to NATO Ivo Daalder, India joining the NATO missile interception system [16] to increasingly surround Iran, Russia and China.
On November 13 Aviation International News reported that Washington is planning to provide Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) batteries to the United Arab Emirates, adding to nine Patriot Advanced Capability-3 units on order. The Pentagon has deployed two THAAD active batteries to date, both in the U.S., so the stationing of the interceptors (96-144 missiles) in the UAE would be the first time they have been deployed overseas.
The news site supplied these details:
“[T]he UAE was the first export customer to be cleared to receive the system. THAAD has completed 12 successful flight tests, nine of which involved target engagements. The latest test, FTT-12, was undertaken on October 5 at the Pacific Missile Test Range at Barking Sands, Hawaii. Two interceptors were launched successfully against two targets in a near-simultaneous engagement.”
“[T]here is significant interest in upgraded Patriot and THAAD systems [in the region]. Kuwait and Qatar have both reported interest in the latter.
“As well as anticipating finalization of the THAAD contract, Lockheed Martin is awaiting the outcome of another UAE decision concerning an air defense battle management system.” [17]
According to Press TV earlier this month, Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad warned that the NATO missile system, particularly the deployment of an X-Band radar unit in Turkey, “jeopardizes the interests of the country and the entire region.”
This year has seen the emergence of Persian Gulf monarchies grouped in the Gulf Cooperation Council as a military adjunct to NATO, as a combat-ready and -proven force ready to collaborate with their Western arms suppliers and allies to intervene and wage war in the Middle East and North Africa.
The United Arab Emirates provided six U.S. F-16 and six French Mirage warplanes for NATO’s Operation Unified Protector and its 26,000 air missions and nearly 10,000 combat flights over Libya. Qatar supplied six Mirage fighter jets and two C-17 military transport planes. News reports at the time remarked that the above represented the first time Gulf Cooperation Council states had joined a NATO combat mission. (Although the UAE has a contingent of troops serving under NATO in the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.)
In June Robert Gates, while still U.S. defense secretary, praised the role of the UAE, Jordan ad Morocco in the war against Libya – Jordan and Morocco have since applied for membership in the GCC – stating, “In Libya, the involvement of Jordan, Morocco, the UAE and others in the Middle East have been hugely important.”
The then-Pentagon chief added this significant comment:
“I am not sure we would have moved forward to the UN, even undertaking this enterprise, had it not been for the vote in the Arab League that then paved the way for the UN Security Council resolutions.” [18]
Gates paralleled repeated statements by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during the war citing the Arab League initiative against Libya on February 22 when the organization, then dominated by the GCC as Tunisia, Egypt and Libya were in turmoil and Syria soon to join them, condemned and suspended the membership of the North African country, a move recently repeated in relation to Syria.
The GCC’s participation in NATO’s naval blockade and air war against Libya was accompanied by its first armed intervention in a member state, the deployment of 1,500 Saudi and Emirati troops to Bahrain in the middle of March in an operation called Peninsula Shield. [19]
After Libya, Bahrain and Afghanistan, GCC members, severally and collectively, have been prepared for a military conflict closer to home, in the Persian Gulf.
In May Poland’s Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski announced after meeting with his UAE counterpart that the Gulf state will “become the first Arab country to open an embassy at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation,” according to Agence France-Presse.
The following day the Kuwait News Agency quoted a statement from the French Foreign Ministry supporting the initiative:
“The United Arab Emirates has just asked for the accreditation of an ambassador to NATO.
“We fully support this request.
“This is a new step in our relations, which have witnessed an intensity and quality in cooperation between the UAE and the Alliance, notably in the framework of Operation Unified Protector in Libya.”
The Iranian response was, according to Press TV, that “This move by the UAE sets the stage to officially authorize the presence of an uninvited guest in the region.”
The preceding month five NATO warships visited the UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait “under the 2004 Istanbul Cooperation Initiative” as an Agence France-Presse dispatch phrased it.
In commenting on the earlier-cited New York Times article on the Persian Gulf, a Voice of Russia commentary stated:
“[W]ith Qatar and the United Arab Emirates participating in the latest NATO-led campaign against Libya, this new ‘security architecture’ will mostly likely expand to carry out a similar function throughout the Middle East.
“[A]s the United States moves towards integrating the six states of the Gulf Co-operation Council into a security alliance that would increase both US and Saudi domination in the region, Iran could very well find itself the next victim of a US-led ‘humanitarian intervention.’” [20]
In addition to the escalation of U.S. military presence in the region, in 2009 French President Nicolas Sarkozy opened a military complex – with a navy base, air base, and training camp – in the United Arab Emirates, his country’s first permanent base in the Persian Gulf. In doing so Paris joined the U.S., Britain, Canada, the Netherlands. Australia and New Zealand in maintaining a military presence in the country. (Canada has since abandoned Camp Mirage in the UAE.)
The UAE has recently reopened negotiations with France for a military surveillance satellite, which “could also be linked to the protracted negotiations to buy 60 Dassault Aviation Rafale multi-role fighter jets, a deal that could be worth up to $10 billion.”
According to a United Press International story of late last month, “On April 24, the emirates launched its fifth communications satellite into orbit, the first to provide secure and independent telecommunications for its armed forces amid a drive by Arab states in the gulf to boost their military capabilities against Iran.
“The Emirates’ Y1A satellite was launched from the European Space Center in Kourou, French Guiana, atop an Ariane 5 rocket.”
Another report by the same agency a month before said that “Dassault Aviation hopes to capitalize on France’s participation with the United Arab Emirates in the air campaign against Moammar Gadhafi’s crumbling regime in Libya to promote the sale of 60 Rafale multi-role jets to the Persian Gulf state.” The story mentioned that “The emirates’ military says it wants missiles capable of reaching targets deep inside Iran,” and offered this description of current UAE air capabilities:
“The United Arab Emirates has built up what is widely viewed as the most formidable air force in the Persian Gulf. It has 184 combat aircraft, including 155 ground-attack fighters, mainly 55 Lockheed F-16E Block 60 Desert Eagles, 25 F-16F Block 60 Eagles and 18 French Dassault Mirage 2000-9DADs and 44 Mirage 2000-9RADs.”
The arming of the GCC by the U.S., France and other NATO powers at an exponential rate is, in addition to providing an economic boon to crisis-ridden Western countries, transparently and exclusively directed against Iran.
The advantages accruing to the U.S. and Israel in having a regional grouping of its neighbors attack Iran in lieu of doing so themselves are sufficiently evident not to warrant being belabored.
Washington is using the Persian Gulf Arab monarchies to act as surrogates for its own interests against Iran as it is with Georgia against Russia [21] and the Philippines vis-a-vis China. (NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen and the North Atlantic Council just returned from Georgia, the second such visit a NATO chief and the bloc’s 28 ambassadors have paid, the first occurring the month after Georgia invaded South Ossetia in August 2008, provoking a five-day war with Russia. Late last month 2,000 U.S. and 1,000 Filipino marines participated in combat drills near the Spratly Islands, which are contested by the Philippines and China.
Even if the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia and their GCC partners don’t launch unprovoked strikes against Iranian nuclear and military sites, a provocation staged, say, by the UAE around the oil-rich island of Abu Musa in the Persian Gulf (frequently referred to by U.S. officials as the Arabian Gulf in a direct affront and challenge to Iran), administered by Iran but claimed by the UAE, will be casus belli enough for the GCC and through it the Arab League it controls. From there, as with Libya earlier this year, the U.S. and its NATO allies will take up cudgels on behalf of the “threatened” Arab Gulf states and enter the lists against Iran.
The Obama Doctrine [22], like the Nixon Doctrine of forty years earlier, emphasizes the role of proxies (identified as allies and victims) in doing what the U.S. chooses not to do, not to do alone or to be seen doing alone. It justifies military aggression in the name of decisions reached by organizations it doesn’t belong to, like the Arab League and the African Union in regards to Libya, and settles geopolitical scores with independent-minded rivals under the guise of intervening on behalf of aggrieved and injured third parties. A lesson that Russia has already learned, China is now learning and Iran may be taught next.
Notes
1) Winds of war start blowing toward Iran, Global Times, November 9, 2011
http://www.globaltimes.cn/NEWS/tabid/99/ID/683060/Winds-of-war-start-blowing-toward-Iran.aspx
2) ‘Russia can prevent military operation against Iran’, RT, November 10, 2011
http://rt.com/politics/nuclear-military-iran-russia-011
3) Tehran applies for full membership in SCO, Trend News Agency, November 11, 2011
4) Israel: Forging NATO Missile Shield, Rehearsing War With Iran, Stop NATO, November 5, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/11/05/israel-forging-nato-missile-shield-rehearsing-war-with-iran/
5) Israel, US to hold massive missile defense drill next year, Jerusalem Post, July 26, 2011
http://www.jpost.com/Defense/Article.aspx?id=230974
6) Israel, U.S. to embark on largest joint exercise in allies’ history, Ha’aretz, November 11, 2011
http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/israel-u-s-to-embark-on-largest-jo\int-exercise-in-allies-history-1.393878
7) Israel: Global NATO’s 29th Member, Stop NATO January 17, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/01/17/israel-global-natos-29th-member
8) NATO In Persian Gulf: From Third World War To Istanbul, Stop NATO, February 6, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/08/26/nato-in-persian-gulf-from-third-world-war-to-istanbul
9) U.S. Planning Troop Buildup in Gulf After Exit From Iraq, New York Times, October 29, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/30/world/middleeast/united-states-plans-post-iraq-troop-increase-in-persian-gulf.html?pagewanted=all
10) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html
11) US Air Forces get super-heavy bunker buster bombs, Itar-Tass, November 15, 2011
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/15/60453467.html
12) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html
13) Gulf State Gendarmes: West Backs Holy Alliance For Control Of Arab World And Persian Gulf, Stop NATO, May 25, 2011
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/gulf-state-gendarmes-west-backs-holy-alliance-for-control-of-arab-world-and-persian-gulf
14) Profitable provocation, Voice of Russia, November 11, 2011
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/11/11/60236281.html
15) U.S. Plans Bomb Sales in Gulf to Counter Iran, Wall Street Journal, November 11, 2011
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204358004577030392418491690.html
16) NATO and India to build joint missile defense system? Voice of Russia, September 2, 2011
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55583082.html
NATO in India overtures, Voice of Russia, September 2, 2011
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/09/02/55583082.html
India may agree to deploy NATO missile system, Pakistan Observer, September 6, 2011
http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=112723
17) THAAD on Target for UAE, Aviation International News, November 13, 2011
http://www.ainonline.com/?q=aviation-news/dubai-air-show/2011-11-13/thaad-target-uae
18) World Tribune, June 12, 2011
19) Bahrain: U.S. Backs Saudi Military Intervention, Conflict With Iran, Stop NATO, March 16, 2011
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/03/16/bahrain-u-s-backs-saudi-military-intervention-conflict-with-iran
20) US envisions NATO of the Gulf, Voice of Russia, October 31, 2011
http://rt.com/news/us-military-iraq-iran-171
21) Washington To Rearm Georgia For New Conflicts, Stop NATO, January 14, 2011
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2011/01/14/u-s-to-rearm-georgia-for-new-conflicts
22) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind, Stop NATO, December 10, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-doctrine-eternal-war-for-imperfect-mankind
Stop NATO e-mail list home page with archives and search engine:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
Stop NATO website and articles:
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)