Mostrando postagens com marcador שלום. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador שלום. Mostrar todas as postagens

quinta-feira, 18 de outubro de 2012

UN BARCO DE AMÉRICA LATINA HACIA GAZA

18 octubre 2012/Rebelión http://www.rebelion.org (México)



Quedan a penas tres o cuatro días para que el Estelle, el barco con bandera finlandesa que se dirige hacia Gaza, llegue a la linea de riesgo. En ese barco viajan cinco diputados nacionales de Suecia, España, Grecia y Noruega y un exdiputado canadiense, y junto a ellos, decenas de activistas de diferentes nacionalidades. El viaje no ha sido ni cómodo ni corto, han sido 4 meses navegando desde el norte de Europa hasta la costa este del Mediterráneo y parece que Israel, una vez mas, ha amenzado con abordar el barco “poniendo en riesgo la vida de los tripulantes”. Y es que parece no importarles tener abiertos diferentes casos por crimenes de lesa humanidad en Turquía, juicio que comienza el próximo 6 de noviembre por el asesinato de los cooperantes turcos de la primera Flotilla en el 2010, o en España, caso que cayo en el juzgado número 5 de la Audiencia Nacional gracias a la denuncia presentada por aquel asalto por Laura Arau, David Segarra y por mi a nuestro retorno de la misión.

Israel ha visto como todos sus desmanes han sido reprochados verbalmente por la comunidad internacional pero sin consecuencia práctica alguna, o dicho de otra manera, Israel ha visto como ha venido gozando de impunidad una y otra vez hiciese lo que hiciese. Las misiones europeas en favor de los palestinos, si, de sus derechos humanos, no han cesado y no creo que cesen pero hay una cosa clara y es que en la situación actual en la que vivimos en los paises llamados desarrollados, en donde a Israel se le ha puesto una alfombra roja y se le trata como a uno mas del club aunque tenga politicas inmorales y criminales, hace que nuestras misiones a parte de tener un eco mediatico importante y sean utiles para la sensibilización, no consigan cambiar objetivamente las políticas ni de nuestros gobiernos para con Israel ni las de Israel para con los palestinos. Por eso necesitamos un clamor mundial evidente y sumar fuerzas y energias entre todos.

¿Por qué un barco desde América Latina hacia Gaza?

Tras la devacle capitalista en los paises desarrollados y su perdida de influencia mundial, ha ido viniendo un crecimiento económico y una incidencia política en el mundo espectacular de esta parte del continiente americano. Esta situación hace que Brasil, Venezuela o Argentina vuelvan a figurar en el mapa mundial, en el económico y en el político, pero también les da la autoridad ética y un poder para abanderar este tipo de misiones llenas de razón y de dignidad.

A finales de noviembre se celebra en Brasil el Foro Social Mundial por Palestina y puede ser el mejor de los lugares para articular esta nueva misión imprescindible. Nosotros, los europeos, nos pondremos al servicio de las organizaciones sociales latinoamericanas para facilitarles las herramientas que la experiencia otorga. Siempre pueden contar conmigo y mis compañeros de misiones.

Es el momento para que América Latina también brille en el terreno de la solidaridad internacional, y Palestina y los solidarios del resto del mundo no dejamos de mirar hacia este continente que se ha mostrado como la esperanza de futuro de la humanidad. Es el momento de poner a Israel y a sus aliados en su lugar y desde luego, no es recogiendo premios Nobel de la Paz.

Publicado originalmente en www.activistak.com

 

domingo, 30 de setembro de 2012

"SPREAD OVER US THE SUKKAH OF SHALOM, THE SIMPLE HUTS OF PEACE"


30 september 2012, The Shalom Center http://www.theshalomcenter.org (USA) 
A Blog by Rabbi Arthur Waskow

Tonight Jews begin Sukkot, the Festival of Huts – vulnerable huts with a leafy, leaky roof –- open to the stars, the rain, the Holy Wind that breathes all life.

Traditionally, the people were to live in them, sleep in them for seven days and nights. Live for a week each fall in these most ancient, primordial homes made by early human beings –- just as we are to eat for a week, each springtime, the primordial food of human beings who had learned to manage fire: a flat, unrisen bread of flour and water, baked for eighteen minutes with no yeast, no salt, no flavoring.

Both festivals remind us of the most simple paths of living, remind us that our fancy homes of clever architecture and indoor toilets, our fancy dishes brought from five thousand miles away, may not be as solid, permanent, as these flimsy huts and barely fired foods. Billions of people in our world live in homes as flimsy, eat food as bare. Sukkot and Passover may remind us of them as well as of our earliest ancestors.

Are these the homes wherein we should be dwelling all our days? No, but remembering, experiencing them n our bodies for a moment, is a gift of life.

Every night, Jews pray to YHWH, the Holy Interbreathing of all life: “Spread over us the sukkah of shalom.” Not a fortress of invincibility, a palace of triumph and security, a temple of orderly and muttered prayer – but these huts where anything might happen. From outside, a storm. A robber. From inside, an “O!” of radical amazement at the awesome beauty, awesome terror, of the world around us. A breath of some new way of praising the One Who Breathes us.

The teaching: We, all humankind, live in fact in a sukkah, vulnerable. No great Twin Towers, no Pentacle of Power, is invincible. Only the shared knowledge of that truth can bring us peace.

When such an undefended, vulnerable building as the US consulate in Ben-Ghazi, Libya, was attacked, its officials murdered, what happened to its assailants? The citizens of Libya rallied to destroy their military base, scatter their organization of attackers, terrorists.

Out of love they acted. Love for the Ambassador who was bringing expressive love and practical love –- schools, health clinics –-to the Libyan people.

Not Drones and Bombs, but Love responding to love.

Is it impossible for a President who thinks his power is undergirded by Drones and Bombs to notice and publicly applaud the love that is a different kind of power? To reaffirm in the Ambassador’s memory that his path is the one America intends to walk?

Am I saying that violence as a path of resistance to oppressive violence and murderous attack is NEVER justified, that only nonviolence is ethical? No, I am not, though some people I respect do hold that view. I do think that under extreme circumstances, violence in a society’s self-defense may be necessary. But I think that far more often, the use of what is claimed to be self-defensive violence turns out to spark another round of far more violence, whereas creative, persistent nonviolence –- practical love -- can often, not always, end tyranny and terrorism.

Martin Luther King defined both our goal and the means to get there: The Beloved Community, brought about by a revolution of values. In our generation, he said, “The choice is not between violence and nonviolence but between nonviolence and nonexistence." The closer we can come to embodying that practice in our present, the closer we will come to achieving that vision of the future.

Tonight and every night and every dawning, You Who are the Interbreathing of all life, spread over all of us the sukkah of shalom.

Blessings of shalom, salaam, peace --

Arthur

Iraqi MP: Baghdad Not to Allow Israel to Use Iraq's Soil against Iran


30 september 2012, Fars News Agency http://english.farsnews.com (Iran)

TEHRAN (FNA)- Iraq will not allow Israel or the US to use its soil or airspace for an attack on Iran, a senior Iraqi legislator stressed on Sunday.
"Iraq opposes any aggression against Iran which is a neighboring country and will not allow Israel to use Iraq's airspace for waging an attack on Iran or any other country," Member of the Iraqi parliament's Security and Defense Committee Alexander Witwit told FNA.

"Iraq has on many occasions stated that its airspace is open to no country for an attack on Iran," Witwit reiterated, and warned that violating Iraq's airspace "will be a blatant violation of Iraq's national sovereignty and dignity" and will be followed by dire consequences.

The remarks by the Iraqi official came against a backdrop of Israel's intensified threats against Iran.

Israel and its close ally the United States accuse Iran of seeking a nuclear weapon, while they have never presented any corroborative document to substantiate their allegations. Both Washington and Tel Aviv possess advanced weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear warheads.

Iran vehemently denies the charges, insisting that its nuclear program is for peaceful purposes only. Tehran stresses that the country has always pursued a civilian path to provide power to the growing number of Iranian population, whose fossil fuel would eventually run dry.

Iran has warned that it would target Israel and its worldwide interests in case it comes under attack by the Tel Aviv.

The United States has also always stressed that military action is a main option for the White House to deter Iran's progress in the field of nuclear technology.

In response, Iran has warned it would hit the US, Israel and their worldwide interests and close the strategic Strait of Hormuz if it became the target of a military attack over its nuclear program.

Strait of Hormuz, the entrance to the strategic Persian Gulf waterway, is a major oil shipping route.

sexta-feira, 28 de setembro de 2012

THE GRAND DEFAULT

29 september 2012, Gush Shalom http://www.avnery-news.co.il/english (Israel)

Uri Avnery's Column

I AM sitting here writing this article 39 years to the minute from that moment when the sirens started screaming, announcing the beginning of the war.

A minute before, total quiet reigned, as it does now. No traffic, no activity in the street, except a few children riding bicycles. Yom Kippur, the holiest day for Jews, reigned supreme. And then…

Inevitably, the memory starts to work.

THIS YEAR, many new documents were released for publication. Critical books and articles are abundant.

The universal culprits are Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan.

They have been blamed before, right from the day after the war, but only for superficial military offences, known as The Default. The default was failing to mobilize the reserves, and not moving the tanks to the front in time, in spite of the many signs that Egypt and Syria were about to attack.

Now, for the first time, the real Grand Default is being explored: the political background of the war. The findings have a direct bearing on what is happening now.

IT TRANSPIRES that in February 1973, eight months before the war, Anwar Sadat sent his trusted aide, Hafez Ismail, to the almighty US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. He offered the immediate start of peace negotiations with Israel. There was one condition and one date: all of Sinai, up to the international border, had to be returned to Egypt without any Israeli settlements, and the agreement had to be achieved by September, at the latest.

Kissinger liked the proposal and transmitted it at once to the Israeli ambassador, Yitzhak Rabin, who was just about to finish his term in office. Rabin, of course, immediately informed the Prime Minister, Golda Meir. She rejected the offer out of hand. There ensued a heated conversation between the ambassador and the Prime Minister. Rabin, who was very close to Kissinger, was in favor of accepting the offer.

Golda treated the whole initiative as just another Arab trick to induce her to give up the Sinai Peninsula and remove the settlements built on Egyptian territory.

After all, the real purpose of these settlements – including the shining white new town, Yamit – was precisely to prevent the return of the entire peninsula to Egypt. Neither she nor Dayan dreamed of giving up Sinai. Dayan had already made the (in)famous statement that he preferred “Sharm al-Sheik without peace to peace without Sharm al-Sheik”. (Sharm al-Sheik, which had already been re-baptised with the Hebrew name Ophira, is located near the southern tip of the peninsula, not far from the oil wells, which Dayan was also loath to give up.)

Even before the new disclosures, the fact that Sadat had made several peace overtures was no secret. Sadat had indicated his willingness to reach an agreement in his dealings with the UN mediator Dr. Gunnar Jarring, whose endeavors had already become a joke in Israel.

Before that, the previous Egyptian President, Gamal Abd-al-Nasser, had invited Nahum Goldman, the President of the World Jewish Congress (and for a time President of the World Zionist Organization) to meet him in Cairo. Golda had prevented that meeting, and when the fact became known there was a storm of protest in Israel, including a famous letter from a group of eighth-graders saying that it would be hard for them to serve in the army.

All these Egyptian initiatives could be waved aside as political maneuvers. But an official message by Sadat to the Secretary of State could not. So, remembering the lesson of the Goldman incident, Golda decided to keep the whole thing secret.

THUS AN incredible situation was created. This fateful initiative, which could have effected an historic turning point, was brought to the knowledge of two people only: Moshe Dayan and Israel Galili.

The role of the latter needs explanation. Galili was the eminence grise of Golda, as well as of her predecessor, Levy Eshkol. I knew Galili quite well, and never understood where his renown as a brilliant strategist came from. Already before the founding of the state, he was the leading light of the illegal Haganah military organization. As a member of a kibbutz, he was officially a socialist but in reality a hardline nationalist. It was he who had the brilliant idea of putting the settlements on Egyptian soil, in order to make the return of northern Sinai impossible.

So the Sadat initiative was known only to Golda, Dayan, Galili and Rabin and Rabin’s successor in Washington, Simcha Dinitz, a nobody who was Golda’s lackey.

Incredible as it may sound, the Foreign Minister, Abba Eban, Rabin’s direct boss, was not informed. Nor were all the other ministers, the Chief of Staff and the other leaders of the armed forces, including the Chiefs of Army Intelligence, as well as the chiefs of the Shin Bet and the Mossad. It was a state secret.

There was no debate about it – neither public nor secret. September came and passed, and on October 6th Sadat’s troops struck across the canal and achieved a world-shaking surprise success (as did the Syrians on the Golan Heights.)

As a direct result of Golda’s Grand Default 2693 Israeli soldiers died, 7251 were wounded and 314 were taken prisoner (along with the tens of thousands of Egyptian and Syrian casualties).

THIS WEEK, several Israeli commentators bemoaned the total silence of the media and the politicians at the time.

Well, not quite total. Several months before the war, in a speech in the Knesset, I warned Golda Meir that if the Sinai was not returned very soon, Sadat would start a war to break the impasse.

I knew what I was talking about. I had, of course, no idea about the Ismail mission, but in May 1973 I took part in a peace conference in Bologna. The Egyptian delegation was led by Khalid Muhyi al-Din, a member of the original group of Free Officers who made the 1952 revolution. During the conference, he took me aside and told me in confidence that if the Sinai was not returned by September, Sadat would start a war. Sadat had no illusions of victory, he said, but hoped that a war would compel the US and Israel to start negotiations for the return of Sinai.

My warning was completely ignored by the media. They, like Golda, held the Egyptian army in abysmal contempt and considered Sadat a nincompoop. The idea that the Egyptians would dare to attack the invincible Israeli army seemed ridiculous.

The media adored Golda. So did the whole world, especially feminists. (A famous poster showed her face with the inscription: “But can she type?”) In reality, Golda was a very primitive person, ignorant and obstinate. My magazine, Haolam Hazeh, attacked her practically every week, and so did I in the Knesset. (She paid me the unique compliment of publicly declaring that she was ready to “mount the barricades” to get me out of the Knesset.)

Ours was a voice crying in the wilderness, but at least we fulfilled one function: In her ‘March of Folly”, Barbara Tuchman stipulated that a policy could be branded as folly only if there had been at least one voice warning against it in real time.

Perhaps even Golda would have reconsidered if she had not been surrounded by journalists and politicians singing her praises, celebrating her wisdom and courage and applauding every one of her stupid pronouncements.

THE SAME type of people, even some of the very same people, are now doing the same with Binyamin Netanyahu.

Again, we are staring the same Grand Default in the face.

Again, a group of two or three are deciding the fate of the nation. Netanyahu and Ehud Barak alone make all the decisions, “keeping their cards close to their chest”. Attack Iran or not? Politicians and generals are kept in the dark. Bibi and Ehud know best. No need for any other input.

But more revealing than the blood-curdling threats on Iran is the total silence about Palestine. Palestinian peace offers are ignored, as were those of Sadat in those days. The ten-year old Arab Peace Initiative, supported by all the Arab and all the Muslim states, does not exist.

Again, settlements are put up and expanded, in order to make the return of the occupied territories impossible. (Let’s remember all those who claimed, in those days, that the occupation of Sinai was “irreversible”. Who would dare to remove Yamit?)

Again, multitudes of flatterers, media stars and politicians compete with each other in adulation of “Bibi, King of Israel”. How smoothly he can talk in American English! How convincing his speeches in the UN and the US Senate!

Well, Golda, with her 200 words of bad Hebrew and primitive American, was much more convincing, and she enjoyed the adulation of the whole Western world. And at least she had the sense not to challenge the incumbent American president (Richard Nixon) during an election campaign.

IN THOSE days, I called our government “the ship of fools”. Our current government is worse, much worse.

Golda and Dayan led us to disaster. After the war, their war, they were kicked out – not by elections, not by any committee of inquiry, but by the grassroots mass protests that racked the country.
Bibi and Ehud are leading us to another, far worse, disaster. Some day, they will be kicked out by the same people who adore them now - if they survive.

Former Canadian MP sails against Gaza blockade

September 28, 2012, Gaza’s Ark http://www.gazaark.org (Canada)

Jim Manly (MP 1980-88) sails against Gaza Blockade

For immediate release

28 September 2012

Former Canadian MP (Member of Parliament 1980 to 88) and retired United Church Minister Jim Manly* will join a group of prominent internationals on the Freedom Flotilla’s “Estelle” sailing from Naples to Gaza in early October.

The mission of the Estelle, which started in Scandinavia and visited many European ports before reaching Italy yesterday, September 27th, is the latest initiative of the international “Freedom Flotilla Coalition” (FFC) to challenge the Blockade of Gaza.

The “Canadian Boat to Gaza” campaign is coordinating Jim’s trip and also playing a key role in the next FFC action: Gaza’s Ark, which is geared towards boat building in Gaza and encouraging Palestinian industry and exports to challenge the blockade from within.

FFC’s petition calling for an end to the Israeli Blockade of Gaza has been signed by over a hundred European Parliamentarians.

Jim Manly will be holding a press conference in Vancouver airport on the afternoon Wed., Oct 3rd as he leaves for Italy.

For more information or to get in touch with Jim Manly:

email: info@gazaark.org

Ehab Lotayef: +1.514.941.9792 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1.514.941.9792 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Irene MacInnes +1.604.737.1299 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1.604.737.1299 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

Sandra Ruch +1.416.716.4010 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1.416.716.4010 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

David Heap (in French): +1.519.859.3579 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +1.519.859.3579 end_of_the_skype_highlighting / +33 (6) 18 61 78 37 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting +33 (6) 18 61 78 37 end_of_the_skype_highlighting

__________________________

* Jim Manly, a brief biography:

Jim Manly is a retired United Church minister who served as a New Democratic Party Member of Parliament from 1980-88, representing Cowichan-Malahat-the Islands, a BC Coastal riding. As MP, he was NDP critic for Indian Affairs and later critic for Fisheries and also International Development. As a United Church minister, Jim served mostly British Columbia congregations and has been active in the Church’s social justice work in Canada and the Americas. Ordained in 1957, he retired in 1997. He lives near Nanaimo, B.C. with his wife, Eva, and together they continue to be active in a number of areas including Mid-Islanders for Justice and Peace in the Middle East. This past spring he and Eva took part in a Pilgrimage of Solidarity to the Occupied Territory of the Palestinian West Bank.

LA UTILIZACIÓN DE LOS JUDÍOS ORIENTALES COMO PEONES CONTRA LOS REFUGIADOS PALESTINOS


28 septiembre 2012, Rebelión http://www.rebelion.org (México)

Una molestia que genera el recuento de la historia


972mag

Traducido para Rebelión por J. M. y revisado por Caty R.

Los llamamientos a calificar a los judíos de los países árabes como refugiados fueron silenciados en el pasado por los gobiernos israelíes. El cambio de política tiene que ver con el reconocimiento relativamente nuevo de que Israel no será capaz de evadir su responsabilidad de la Nakba. Pero los líderes de la nueva campaña primero deben aprender la historia de su idea infundada.

En los tres últimos años, hemos sido testigos de una intensa campaña para lograr el reconocimiento político y jurídico de los judíos árabes como "refugiados". El objetivo de esta campaña es crear en la opinión pública una simetría entre los refugiados palestinos y los judíos "orientales" que llegaron a Israel en los años 50 y 60, presentando a ambas poblaciones como víctimas de la guerra de 1948. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, bajo la dirección del viceprimerministro Danny Ayalon, está recogiendo intensamente evidencias que compensarían -como si se tratara de una ecuación de álgebra- los testimonios de los palestinos con respecto a la expulsión, saqueos y asesinatos.
Hace un par de años la Knesset aprobó una ley que ordena a todos los gobiernos israelíes que negocian con los representantes árabes (vale decir palestinos) que se refieran a los judíos de origen árabe como refugiados. Hace varias semanas, el Consejo de Seguridad Nacional publicó un artículo recomendando al gobierno "crear un vínculo entre los refugiados palestinos y los judíos de origen árabe”. El exjefe de ese organismo, Uzi Arad, lo decidió tras su nombramiento como director de un equipo especial para alinearse con la política oficial israelí sobre "los refugiados judíos de los países árabes".

Arad ha recibido la bendición del Primer Ministro Netanyahu por su iniciativa. Creó un cuerpo especial dentro del Consejo de Seguridad Nacional y contó con representantes del Ministerio de Justicia, el Ministerio de Finanzas y el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores en la participación de los debates. Historiadores, economistas y representantes de organizaciones judías como WOJAC (Organización Mundial de Judíos de los Países Árabes) y JJAC (Justicia para los Judíos de los Países Árabes) también fueron invitados. El Consejo recomendó al Primer Ministro la fabricación de “refugiados judíos” y que convierta las reclamaciones de compensación en una parte inseparable de las negociaciones sobre la cuestión de los refugiados palestinos.
En el pasado se hicieron llamamiento a definir a los judíos de los países árabes como refugiados, pero entonces fueron silenciados por los gobiernos israelíes. ¿Por qué el cambio de política? En parte debido a un reconocimiento, relativamente nuevo, de que Israel ya no será capaz de ocultar su responsabilidad en la Nakba.

El truco contable de la Cancillería traiciona el temor a la demanda palestina de la indemnización y el retorno, un principio central de las demandas palestinas. Esto demuestra que Israel reconoce que el paradigma del 67 no pondrá fin al conflicto, debido a su negación de la Nakba. Como resultado de este reconocimiento, los líderes de la nueva campaña esperan usar a los judíos orientales para bloquear a los palestinos de llevar a cabo su "derecho de retorno" y compensar las reclamaciones de indemnización que podrían verse obligados a pagar por las propiedades palestinas que fueron expropiadas por el Custodio en Ausencia de Propiedades (la autoridad israelí que confisca y gestiona propiedades palestinas, sobre todo de bienes raíces). Es una idea históricamente retorcida, poco inteligente desde una perspectiva política e injusta desde el punto de vista moral, como demuestra la historia.
Una triste historia para recordar
La campaña por el reconocimiento de los judíos de los países árabes como refugiados fue lanzada nada menos que por el presidente Bill Clinton en una entrevista que concedió al canal 1 israelí en julio de 2000. Ehud Barak, entonces Primer Ministro, anunció este "logro" en una entrevista al periodista israelí Dan Margalit un mes después.

Hasta entonces, los gobiernos israelíes evitaban reconocer a los judíos de los países árabes como refugiados. Lo hicieron por: a) temor de que tal declaración sería despertar lo que Israel había tratado de borrar y olvidar, el derecho de retorno; b) la preocupación de que los judíos podrían presentar demandas de indemnización a los países árabes y como resultado provocar demandas de los palestinos a Israel; y c) tal decisión habría obligado al Estado a actualizar todos los libros de su historia, formando una nueva narrativa según la cual los judíos orientales no vinieron a Israel debido al sionismo, sino contra su voluntad. Cualquier historiador que hiciera esa afirmación habría sido etiquetado como un "postsionista".
La idea de equiparar a los judíos orientales con los refugiados palestinos fue elaborada por primera vez por Bobby Brown, asesor del Gobierno para Asuntos de la Diáspora, y miembros de su oficina, junto con representantes de organizaciones como el Congreso Judío Mundial, la Federación Mundial Sefardí, y la Conferencia de Presidentes de las Principales Organizaciones Judías Estadounidenses. Avi Beker, el secretario general del Congreso Judío, y Malcolm Hoenlein, vicepresidente ejecutivo de la Conferencia de Presidentes, el convencido profesor Ervin Cotler, miembro del Parlamento canadiense y experto en derecho internacional, invitaron a unirse a la campaña. Se creó una organización llamada "Justicia para los judíos de los países árabes”. Sin embargo no logró reunir mucho entusiasmo por la campaña, incluyendo el mundo judío. La campaña no pudo conseguir una declaración notable de los políticos israelíes hasta hace poco. Eso no es sorprendente. Esta campaña tiene una historia triste que se debe interiorizar, porque la historia puede ser muy útil.

En 1980, se estableció la Organización Mundial de Judíos de los Países Árabes, WOJAC. Yigal Alon, entonces Ministro de Relaciones Exteriores, temía que WOJAC sirviera como un invernadero para lo que llamó "la organización sectorial". Una vez más, WOJAC no se estableció con el fin de ayudar a los judíos orientales, sino más bien para crear un elemento de disuasión para bloquear las demandas del movimiento nacional palestino, principalmente la demanda de compensar a los refugiados y el derecho de retorno. El uso del término "refugiados" no era desatinado, ya que el término se había convertido en central en el discurso histórico y en el derecho internacional a raíz de la Segunda Guerra Mundial. La Resolución 242, aprobada en 1967, se refirió a una "solución justa del problema de los refugiados" en Oriente Medio. En la década de 1970, los Estados árabes pidieron que se refiera específicamente a los "refugiados árabes en el Medio Oriente", pero el gobierno de los EE.UU., a través del embajador ante la ONU Arthur Goldberg, se opuso.
En un documento de trabajo preparado en 1977 por Cyrus Vance, entonces secretario de Estado, antes de una posible reunión de la Conferencia de Ginebra, escribió acerca de la presión para encontrar una solución al "problema de los refugiados", sin mencionar a qué refugiados se refería. WOJAC, que trató de poner en circulación el término "refugiados judíos", había fracasado. Además de los árabes, muchos judíos sionistas en todo el mundo se opusieron a la iniciativa. Recomendó a los organizadores de la actual campaña examinar la estructura de la organización que iba desde el sionismo hasta el postsionismo en el curso de sus actividades y tomar una página de las leyes sobre las consecuencias no deseadas de la actuación política.

El pensador detrás de la idea de los "refugiados judíos" en WOJAC era Ya'akov Meron, el jefe del departamento de asuntos legales árabes en el Ministerio de Justicia. Meron hizo la conexión más extremista en la tesis en lo que se refiere a la historia de los judíos de todo el mundo árabe. Afirmó que los judíos fueron expulsados ​​ de los países árabes, en un acto coordinado con los líderes palestinos, y lo calificó de "limpieza étnica". Meron se apartó bruscamente de la epopeya sionista según la cual, dijo el dirigente, produjo términos románticos como "Magic Carpet" [la operación por la cual los judíos yemenitas fueron trasportados a Israel] o la "Operación Esdras y Nehemías" [el puente aéreo que trajo a los judíos iraquíes], suprimiendo el "hecho" de que la salida de los judíos fue el fruto de una "política árabe de la expulsión”. Con el fin de completar la analogía entre palestinos y judíos orientales, los integrantes de WOJAC incluso afirmaron que vivían en campos de refugiados durante la década de 1950 (en referencia a los campos de tránsito para los inmigrantes judíos), al igual que los refugiados palestinos. Esta afirmación provocó airadas quejas por parte de personajes de las instituciones fundadoras del Estado, calificándola de "traición".
Los refugiados y el libre albedrío
El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores, que se alarmó por la tenacidad de la WOJAC, propuso poner fin a la campaña, alegando que la clasificación de los judíos orientales como refugiados era un arma de doble filo. En ese momento, Israel insistió en mantener una política de ambigüedad con respecto a este tema tan complejo. En 1949, el Estado rechazó una propuesta conjunta de Gran Bretaña e Irak para un intercambio de población (judíos iraquíes por refugiados palestinos), por temor a que tendría que ser responsable de la solución de los "refugiados excedentes" en Israel. El Ministerio de Exteriores llamó a la WOJAC divisiva y separatista, pidiendo a la organización que dejara de actuar de forma independiente en oposición a los intereses del Estado. Al final, el Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores cortó los fondos a la organización. El Ministro de Justicia Yossi Beilin incluso separó a Ya'akov Meron del departamento del Ministerio de Justicia para asuntos jurídicos árabes.

Hay que decir que no hay ningún investigador serio en Israel que haya adoptado la retórica extrema de la organización. Además, en su intento de fortalecer la tesis sionista y asistir al Estado en su guerra contra los nacionalistas palestinos, WOJAC logró exactamente lo contrario. Se presentó una postura sionista confusa de cara al conflicto, enfureció a muchos judíos Mizrahíes en todo el mundo -ya que los presentó como faltos de motivación para ir a Israel- y sometió los intereses de los judíos orientales (sobre todo por el tema de la propiedad judía en los países árabes) a lo que llama accidentalmente "intereses nacionales". No pudo entender que calificando a los judíos orientales de refugiados se abre una caja de Pandora que duele tanto a judíos como a árabes.
Por un deseo de encontrar una solución mágica al problema de los refugiados, el Estado volvió a adoptar la fórmula, y ahora la está promoviendo con gran entusiasmo en todo el mundo. Será interesante conocer la posición del Ministerio de Educación con respecto a la narrativa que las organizaciones judías presentan como parte de la campaña. ¿Va a establecer inmediatamente un comité ministerial para cambiar los libros de historia para que coincidan con el nuevo estilo postsionista? Todas las personas honestas, sionistas o no, debemos admitir que la analogía entre los palestinos y los judíos orientales es infundada. Los refugiados palestinos no pidieron abandonar Palestina. En 1948, muchas aldeas palestinas fueron destruidas y casi 750.000 palestinos fueron expulsados ​​ o huyeron de las fronteras de la Palestina histórica. Los que huyeron no lo hicieron por propia voluntad.

Por otro lado, los judíos provenientes de los países árabes llegaron aquí a través de la iniciativa del Estado de Israel, así como de las organizaciones judías. Unos llegaron por propia voluntad, algunos en contra de ella. Algunos vivían cómodamente en los países árabes y algunos vivían en el miedo y la opresión. La historia de la inmigración oriental es compleja y no puede ceñirse a una explicación simplista. Muchos perdieron una gran cantidad de bienes, y no hay duda de que se debe permitir la presentación de reclamaciones individuales de propiedad contra los países árabes, algo que Israel y la WOJAC han rechazado hasta hoy. Por ejemplo, el acuerdo de paz con Egipto no permite reclamos de propiedad individual contra el gobierno egipcio. Los bienes judíos se consideran propiedad del Estado de Israel y una palanca importante para compensar las futuras demandas de los refugiados palestinos.
Otro ejemplo. Durante la Guerra del Golfo, la propiedad de una familia judía-iraquí en Ramat Gan sufrió daños. En su solicitud de indemnización, un abogado avezado aconsejó a la familia incluir una casa que había sido confiscada por el gobierno iraquí en 1952. El Ministerio de Relaciones Exteriores de Israel prohibió la maniobra, debido a la política del Estado de mantener la propiedad como moneda de cambio para futuras negociaciones con los palestinos (ver anexo).

Por lo tanto la analogía entre los refugiados palestinos y los judíos orientales carece de fundamento, por no mencionar que es ofensiva e inmoral. Sirve para causar fricciones entre los judíos de ese origen y los palestinos, es un insulto a un gran número de judíos orientales y perjudica las posibilidades de reconciliación real. Más que eso, los puntos de analogía apuntan a una clara falta de comprensión del significado de la Nakba. La Nakba no sólo se refiere a los acontecimientos de la guerra, sino que es, en su esencia, el impedimento de que los que fueron expulsados puedan regresar a sus hogares, sus tierras y sus familias después de la creación del Estado de Israel. La Nakba es una política activa y clara del Estado de Israel no sólo el caos de la guerra.
La tentación de usar este concepto de reclamo de compensación es comprensible, pero no podemos usar espantapájaros para refutar las exigencias morales y políticas de los palestinos. Tal manipulación sólo empeora el crimen y aumenta la brecha psicológica entre los judíos y los palestinos. Incluso si algunos palestinos renuncian al derecho al retorno (como, por ejemplo, las reclamaciones del doctor Khalil Shikaki), esos trucos no son el camino para lograr este fin. Todo acuerdo de paz debe basarse en el reconocimiento de Israel de las injusticias del pasado y la búsqueda de una solución justa. Estos trucos contables convierten a Israel en un tenedor de libros moral y políticamente incorrecto.

*El profesor Yehouda Shenhav enseña sociología en la Universidad de Tel Aviv. Fue editor de Theory & Criticism durante 10 años y actualmente es el editor jefe de Organization Studies . Fue cofundador de la Coalición Rainbow Mizrahi en 1996.
Este artículo se publicó originalmente en published in Hebrew in Haoketz.


Anexo (publicado originalmente en hebreo por Almog Behar, traducido al inglés por Mati Milstein y difundido en Facebook)
Declaración del Comité Judío Bagdadí de Ramat Gan, 14 de septiembre de 2012/27 Elul, 5772:

A) Damos las sinceras gracias al gobierno israelí por confirmar nuestra condición de refugiados como respuesta rápida, después de 62 años, a un pedido de evaluación de nuestros documentos.
B) Solicitamos que los judíos occidentales también sean reconocidos como refugiados para que no envíen a nuestras casas a los oficiales cortesanos de la Unidad de Ejecución de Inmigración Oz ( cuerpo policial especial que busca inmigrantes ilegales en sus casas o en las calles para deportarles de Israel, N. de T.)

C) Pretendemos exigir una indemnización por nuestros bienes perdidos y los activos del gobierno iraquí -no de la Autoridad Palestina- y no vamos a estar de acuerdo con la opción de compensar nuestra propiedad con una indemnización por la propiedad perdida de los demás (es decir los refugiados palestinos) o que dicha compensación se transfiera a los organismos que no nos representan (es decir, el gobierno israelí).
D) Exigimos la creación de una comisión de investigación para examinar: 1) Si se llevaron a cabo las negociaciones en 1950, y de qué manera, entre el Primer Ministro israelí David Ben-Gurion y el Primer Ministro iraquí Nuri as-Said, y si Ben-Gurion informó en el momento a Said de que fue autorizado a tomar posesión de los bienes y activos de la comunidad judía iraquí y, en caso de llegar a un acuerdo, enviar las compensaciones a Israel; 2) Quién ordenó el bombardeo de la sinagoga Masouda Shem-Tov en Bagdad, y si el Mossad israelí y/o sus agentes estuvieron involucrados. Si se determina que Ben-Gurion, de hecho, llevó a cabo negociaciones sobre el destino de los bienes de la comunidad judía iraquí y de los activos en 1950, y ordenó al Mossad bombardear la sinagoga de la comunidad con el fin de acelerar nuestro vuelo de Irak, vamos a presentar una demanda en un tribunal internacional para exigir la mitad de la suma total de la indemnización por nuestra condición de refugiados por parte del gobierno iraquí y la otra mitad por parte del gobierno israelí.

E) Bendiciones para un feliz año nuevo, un año de paz y prosperidad, un año de tranquilidad y fertilidad.
El Comité de Judío Bagdadí de Ramat Gan (tal como fue publicado originalmente por Almog Behar)
From Racheli Gai in Israel. Eldad.

NETANYAHU ROSNA, NA ONU, CONTRA O IRÃ

27 setembro 2012/ EDITORIAL Vermelho http://www.vermelho.org.br (Brasil)
Deu o previsto: o discurso do primeiro-ministro de Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, na Assembleia Geral da ONU foi recheado de ameaças contra o Irã e da rejeição a qualquer iniciativa de paz no Oriente Médio.

Netanyahu tentou subir o tom e propôs o estabelecimento de uma “linha vermelha” para conter o projeto nuclear iraniano. Parodiando o Coelho, de Alice no País das Maravilhas, repetiu: "Está ficando tarde, muito tarde", para conter o Irã. Uma obsessão agressiva que se traduziu ainda em reclamações contra a campanha pelo reconhecimento do Estado da Palestina.

Netanyahu agitou o fantasma, adequado para as temerosas mentes conservadoras do Ocidente, de um Irã distribuindo armas nucleares a terroristas. Justificou com essas repetidas alegações absurdas o discurso agressivo que, mesmo dentro de seu governo, não encontra consenso absoluto mas enfrenta resistências de alguns setores, como ficou claro recentemente com o vazamento à imprensa de debates da intimidade da administração de Israel.

Mas ele insiste, ameaçador: "Diante de uma linha vermelha clara, o Irã cederá", assegura, dizendo que o "futuro do mundo está em jogo".

O governo de Teerã tem repetidas vezes garantido a finalidade pacífica de seu programa nuclear, embora Israel, Estados Unidos e União Europeia acusem o país do objetivo de construir um arsenal nuclear. Movem dura e ameaçadora campanha contra o Irã que só não se traduziu, ainda, em ações de agressão contra o país devido a alguns fatores. Entre eles a resistência de algumas grandes nações como Rússia, China e Brasil, e a própria e crescente capacidade militar (convencional) que o Irã vem demonstrando em sucessivos testes e manobras de treinamento.

Outro fator, que não pode ser desprezado, é o isolamento internacional de Israel, e de Netanyahu em particular. Isolamento sinalizado pela frieza com que foi tratado, nesta viagem a Nova York, por Barack Obama (que não abriu espaço na agenda para um encontro com ele) e, também, pela ovação com que o dirigente palestino Mahmud Abbas foi recebido ao discursar na Assembleia Geral e propor o reconhecimento da Palestina como Estado (não-membro) das Nações Unidas.

Netanyahu age como um brigão de rua disposto a distribuir ultimatos para atemorizar seus adversários. E recebeu, de certa forma, uma reprimenda pública do secretário de Defesa dos EUA, Leon Panetta, que recentemente justificou sua oposição a um ultimato contra o Irã lembrando que chefes Estado não agem dessa maneira que pode voltar-se também contra o autor da ameaça.

A retórica dos EUA, a pouco mais de um mês antes da eleição presidencial de novembro que vai definir o destino do presidente Obama, tem sido ambígua ante um adversário com poder de fogo considerável e capacidade de reação cujos efeitos podem se espalhar pelo mundo. Um exemplo é a ameaça, real, de fechamento do estreito de Ormuz em consequência de um ataque ao Irã, e que poderá cavar ainda mais o buraco econômico em que os países ricos sobretudo estão medidos.

Mesmo assim, o discurso de Barack Obama, na terça-feira (25), na mesma Assembleia Geral que acaba de ouvir Netanyahu, também foi ameaçador. Embora tenha se oposto à imposição de um ultimato contra Teerã, Obama, que fez acenos ao mundo árabe, de certa forma antecipou o conteúdo do discurso do primeiro-ministro de Israel dizendo que o tempo para o Irã colaborar "não é ilimitado".

Os discursos na Assembleia Geral são feitos por chefes de Estado perante chefes de Estado, e constituem um termômetro da situação do mundo. Neste sentido, o pronunciamento do governante de Tel Aviv não inovou mas confirma uma disposição agressiva que, em defesa de sua própria política opressiva contra os palestinos e contra os povos do Oriente Médio, não recua ante a ameaça muito maior, a ameaça de um conflito armado generalizado que pode decorrer de um ataque contra o Irã.

quinta-feira, 27 de setembro de 2012

US ELECTIONS CONCEAL PREPARATIONS FOR WAR WITH IRAN

27 September 2012, World Socialist Web Site http://www.wsws.org (Australia)

Barry Grey

Within American ruling circles, it is well known that plans for war against Iran are far advanced, but there is a conspiracy of silence by both political parties and the media to keep this reality out of the presidential election. The intent is to drag the American people into yet another bloody war in the Middle East on the basis of false pretexts and lies, despite broad popular opposition to an attack on Iran.

Nothing reveals the anti-democratic and fraudulent character of the elections more clearly than the refusal to explain to the American people the military carnage that is being prepared in their name and allow them to express their democratic will.

Over the past week, a number of commentaries in the American and European press have warned of an attack by either Israel or the US, or both, against Iran in the near future, and a bipartisan group of former foreign policy officials, retired generals and former legislators has issued a report outlining the potentially catastrophic consequences of an unprovoked attack on the Persian Gulf country.

Some of the recent articles have the character of a pre-emptive political strike by ruling class figures wary of a war against Iran, while others suggest that such a war is necessary and inevitable. The confluence of such commentaries is itself an indication that detailed planning for war is underway.

At the United Nations on Tuesday, President Obama reiterated that the US will “do what we must” to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon. Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney is pressing for greater US security guarantees to Israel, whose prime minister, Benyamin Netanyahu, has criticized Obama for not moving quickly enough to launch military action.

But beyond such general threats, the reality of advanced plans for war is being concealed.

The National Journal on Monday posted an article entitled “The Path to War with Iran.” The article, prompted by a conference held last Friday by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy on the subject of US-Israeli coordination against Iran, began by noting the significance of Obama’s speech last March before the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. “Obama announced a new policy that put the United States and Iran on a collision course from which neither has veered,” the author wrote.

“Iran’s leaders should understand that I do not have a policy of containment,” Obama declared at the time. “I have a policy to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon… I will not hesitate to use force when it is necessary to defend the United States and its interests.”

Commenting on the implications of Obama rejecting a policy of “containing” a nuclear Iran, the author wrote: “Either Tehran would have to abandon its suspected nuclear weapons program, or the president was all but pledging a preventive war to destroy it.”

He then noted that Washington has deployed the largest US naval armada to the Persian Gulf in years and that the US Senate last Friday passed a bipartisan resolution, cosponsored by more than three-fourths of the chamber, ruling out a strategy of containment in regard to Iran.

The article quoted David Makovsky, an Israel “expert” and senior fellow at the Washington Institute, saying that the next administration, whether headed by Obama or Romney, will be under “intense pressure” to launch a military attack on the oil-rich country. Patrick Clawson, an Iran “expert” and director of research at the Washington Institute, said that, “[R]ight now we are headed towards war.”

The German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung published an article on Monday headlined “Dangerous War Rhetoric” that began: “When everyone is talking of war, a spark is sufficient to ignite one.”

The article compared the current situation in the Middle East to the eve of World War I, warning, “From a European perspective, things seem much like Europe in 1914.” It went to say that war could be set off by “an unplanned incident between US and Iranian ships in the Persian Gulf, a miscalculation of the Israeli or of the Iranian military, or a significant terrorist attack.”

Albert Hunt, Washington editor at Bloomberg News, published an article in Newsday, also last Monday, headlined “Americans Deserve a Pre-Emptive Debate on Attacking Iran.” He began: “The last two presidents have misled voters on the cost of armed conflicts. Amid another election, the drumbeats of war are sounding again. This time the subject is Iran. To paraphrase Ronald Reagan: Here we go again.”

Some of the disastrous consequences such a war could have were spelled out in a report released last week by the Iran Project, a bipartisan panel of former leading US diplomats, military officers and congressmen.

They wrote, “Even in order to fulfill the stated objective of ensuring that Iran never acquires a nuclear bomb, the US would need to conduct a substantially expanded air and sea war over a prolonged period of time, likely several years. If the US decided to seek a more ambitious objective, such as regime change in Iran or undermining Iran’s influence in the region, then an even greater commitment of force would be required to occupy all or part of the country. Given Iran’s large size and population, and the strength of Iranian nationalism, we estimated that the occupation of Iran would require a commitment of resources and personnel greater than what the US has expended over the past 10 years in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined.”

The report pointed to risks of “all-out regional war” in the Middle East, of unidentified allies of Iran (such as Russia or China) acting to help Iran repel US attacks, and of a global economic collapse.

There is also the possibility that the US or Israel might employ nuclear weapons. During the 2008 Democratic primary campaign, Hillary Clinton threatened to “obliterate” Iran.

The American ruling class has a long history of organizing wars of aggression behind the backs of the American people. President Lyndon Johnson ran for election in 1964 pledging to avoid a major war in Vietnam, even as he was planning to escalate the US intervention. He notoriously told the military brass, “Just let me get elected, and then you can have your war.”

In the 2000 presidential election, plans for an attack on Iraq were concealed by both Bush and Gore. In the 2002 mid-term election, the Democrats made a calculated decision, despite broad popular opposition to Bush’s war plans, not to discuss the advanced preparations for an invasion.

In 2008, Obama postured as an anti-war candidate, and proceeded once in office to continue the war in Iraq, expand the carnage in Afghanistan and extend US military aggression and subversion to Pakistan, Libya and Syria.

Whatever pledges of military action Obama and Romney may have given Netanyahu, they are for criminal acts of aggression carried out with contempt for US and Israeli public opinion. A recent poll by the Chicago Council for Global Affairs found 70 percent opposition in America to a US strike on Iran. Another poll found only 32 percent support in Israel for an Israeli strike.

This is a damning indictment of American capitalism and of the American political system. Even after hundreds of thousands of lives were lost and trillions of dollars squandered in unpopular wars for US control of the oil-rich Middle East, US imperialism is pressing ahead with plans for a new, even deadlier war.

The American people must be warned: A vast crime is being prepared behind your backs and in your name! Unless the war criminals in the White House, the Pentagon and the CIA are disarmed and held to account, ever-more bloody regional wars will coalesce into another global conflagration.

The working class is the social force that can prevent this, but only if it breaks free of the Democratic Party and the two-party system and takes the path of mass political struggle for the overthrow of the capitalism, the root cause of war, and the establishment of socialism.