3 marzo 2012, La Jornada http://www.jornada.unam.mx (México)
Noam Chomsky*
l número de enero-febrero de la revista Foreign Affairs ofrece un artículo de Matthew Kroenig titulado Tiempo de atacar a Irán; por qué un ataque es la opción menos mala, junto con comentarios sobre otras formas de contener la amenaza iraní.
Los medios resonaron con advertencias sobre un posible ataque israelí contra Irán mientras Estados Unidos vacilaba, manteniendo abierta la opción de la agresión, con lo que sistemáticamente se viola la carta de Naciones Unidas, fundamento del derecho internacional.
Conforme aumentan las tensiones, los escalofriantes ecos de los preparativos para las guerras de Afganistán e Irak están en el aire. La febril retórica de la campaña de las elecciones primarias en Estados Unidos refuerza el resonar de los tambores de guerra.
Se le suelen atribuir a la comunidad internacional –nombre clave de los aliados de Estados Unidos– las preocupaciones por la inminente amenaza de Irán. Los pueblos del mundo, sin embargo, tienden a ver las cosas de otra manera.
Los países no alineados, movimiento de 120 naciones, han apoyado vigorosamente el derecho de Irán a enriquecer uranio, opinión que compartían la mayoría de los estadunidenses (encuestados por WorldPublicOpinion.org) antes de la inmensa ofensiva propagandística lanzada hace dos años.
China y Rusia se oponen a la política de Estados Unidos en Irán, como también India, que anunció que no acataría las sanciones estadunidenses y aumentaría el volumen de su comercio con Irán. Turquía ha seguido una línea similar.
Los europeos consideran a Israel como la mayor amenaza a la paz mundial. En el mundo árabe, Irán no es del agrado de nadie pero sólo una minoría muy pequeña lo considera una amenaza. Más bien, se calcula que Israel y Estados Unidos son las amenazas preminentes. La mayoría piensa que la región sería más segura si Irán tuviera armas nucleares. En Egipto, en vísperas de la primavera árabe, 90 por ciento tenía esta opinión, de acuerdo con encuestas de la Institución Brookings y Zogby International.
Los comentaristas occidentales han hablado mucho de que los dictadores árabes supuestamente apoyan la posición estadunidense sobre Irán, mientras pasan por alto el hecho de que la gran mayoría de la población está en contra, postura tan reveladora que no necesita comentarios.
En Estados Unidos, algunos observadores también han expresado desde hace tiempo sus preocupaciones por el arsenal nuclear de Israel. El general Lee Butler, ex jefe del comando estratégico de Estados Unidos, declaró que las armas nucleares de Israel eran peligrosas en extremo.
En una publicación del ejército de Estados Unidos, el teniente coronel Warner Farr advirtió que “un objetivo de las armas nucleares israelíes, que no suele decirse pero que es obvio, es ‘utilizarlas’ en Estados Unidos”, presuntamente para asegurar un apoyo continuo de Washington a las políticas israelíes.
Una preocupación primordial en estos momentos es que Israel trate de provocar alguna acción de Irán, que a su vez incitara un ataque de Estados Unidos.
Uno de los principales analistas estratégicos de Israel, Zeev Maoz, en Defensa de Tierra Santa, un análisis exhaustivo de la política de seguridad y exterior de Israel, llega a la conclusión de que el saldo de la política nuclear de Israel es decididamente negativo, dañino para la seguridad del Estado. Él más bien insta a Israel a buscar un tratado regional de proscripción de armas de destrucción masiva y crear una zona libre de ellas, como lo pedía ya en 1974 una resolución de la Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas.
En tanto, las sanciones de Occidente contra irán ya están teniendo los efectos acostumbrados, causando escasez de alimentos básicos, no para el clero gobernante sino para la población. No es de extrañar que la valerosa oposición iraní también condene las sanciones.
Las sanciones contra Irán podrían tener el mismo efecto que sus predecesoras contra Irak, que fueron condenadas por genocidas por los respetables diplomáticos de Naciones Unidas que las administraban y que finalmente renunciaron como una forma de protesta.
En Irak, las sanciones devastaron a la población y reforzaron a Saddam Hussein, con lo que probablemente le evitaron la suerte corrida por la galería de otros tiranos apoyados por Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña, dictadores que prosperaron prácticamente hasta el día en que varias revueltas internas los derrocaron.
Existe una discusión poco creíble sobre lo que constituye exactamente la amenaza iraní, aunque tenemos una respuesta autorizada, proporcionada por las fuerzas armadas y los servicios secretos de Estados Unidos. Sus presentaciones ante el Congreso han dejado en claro que Irán no representa ninguna amenaza militar.
Irán tiene una capacidad muy limitada de desplegar sus fuerzas y su doctrina estratégica es defensiva, destinada a disuadir una invasión el tiempo necesario para que la diplomacia haga sentir sus efectos. Si Irán está desarrollando armas nucleares (lo cual todavía no está determinado), eso sería parte de su estrategia de disuasión.
El concepto que tienen los analistas israelíes y estadunidenses serios es expresado claramente por Bruce Riedel, veterano con 30 años de antigüedad en la CIA, quien en enero declaró que si yo fuera un asesor de seguridad nacional iraní, querría tener armas nucleares como factor de disuasión.
Otra acusación que Occidente presenta contra Irán es que la república islámica está tratando de ampliar su influencia en los países vecinos, atacados y ocupados por Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña, y que apoya la resistencia a la agresión israelí en Líbano y a la ocupación ilegal de territorios palestinos, que cuentan con el apoyo de Estados Unidos. Al igual que su estrategia de disuasión de posibles actos de violencia por parte de países occidentales, se dice que las acciones de Irán son amenazas intolerables para el orden global.
La opinión mundial concuerda con Maoz. Es abrumador el apoyo a la idea de establecer una zona libre de armas de destrucción masiva en el Medio Oriente. Esa zona abarcaría Irán, Israel y, de preferencia, a esas otras dos potencias nucleares que se han negado a ingresar en el tratado de no proliferación nuclear, Pakistán e India, países que, al igual que Israel, desarrollaron sus respectivos programas con ayuda estadunidense.
El apoyo a esta política en la conferencia de revisión del tratado de no proliferación nuclear, en mayo de 2010, fue tan fuerte que Washington se vio obligado a aceptarla formalmente, pero con condiciones: la zona no entraría en efecto antes de lograr un arreglo de paz entre Israel y sus vecinos árabes; el programa de armas nucleares de Israel estaría exento de las inspecciones internacionales; y ningún país (entiéndase Estados Unidos) podría ser obligado a proporcionar información sobre las instalaciones y las actividades nucleares israelíes, ni información relativa a transferencias anteriores de tecnología nuclear a Israel.
En la conferencia de 2010 se convocó a una sesión para mayo de 2012, para avanzar en el establecimiento de la zona libre de armas de destrucción masiva en Medio Oriente.
Sin embargo, con toda la alharaca en torno de Irán, hay muy poca atención a esa opción, que sería la forma más constructiva de manejar las amenazas nucleares en la región: para la comunidad internacional, la amenaza de que Irán alcance la capacidad nuclear; para la mayor parte del mundo, la amenaza planteada por el único Estado de la región que tiene armas nucleares y un largo historial de agresiones y la superpotencia que lo patrocina.
No se puede encontrar ninguna mención al hecho de que Estados Unidos y Gran Bretaña tienen una responsabilidad única de dedicar sus esfuerzos a esa meta. Al tratar de darle una tenue cobertura legal a su invasión de Irak, esos países invocaron la resolución 687 de Naciones Unidas (1991), diciendo que Irak la estaba violando por construir armas de destrucción masiva.
Podemos pasar por alto esa declaración, pero no el hecho de que la resolución explícitamente compromete a los países signatarios a establecer una zona libre de armas de destrucción masiva en el Medio Oriente.
El libro más reciente de Noam Chomsky es Making the Future: Occupations, Interventions, Empire and Resistance, recopilación de sus artículos para The New York Times Syndicate.
* Chomsky es profesor emérito de Lingüística y Filosofía en el Instituto de Tecnología de Massachusetts, en Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Mostrando postagens com marcador Shalom 1492. Mostrar todas as postagens
Mostrando postagens com marcador Shalom 1492. Mostrar todas as postagens
terça-feira, 13 de março de 2012
terça-feira, 6 de março de 2012
Universidade de Coimbra é parceira de "academia anti-terrorista" israelita
5 março 2012, Esquerda.net http://www.esquerda.net (Portugal)
A campanha internacional de boicote e desinvestimento contra o apartheid israelita denunciou a cooperação da Universidade de Coimbra com uma academia de ex-militares israelitas. O abaixo assinado apela ao fim desta parceria que é financiada pela UE.
Ligações entre Universidade de Coimbra e ex-militares da ocupação israelita são o alvo da campanha BDS.
O projeto SAFIRE (Abordagem Científica à Luta contra o Extremismo Radical) é pago pelos contribuintes europeus para dar aos governos, militares e agências de segurança privada o resultado da investigação sobre processos de radicalização com potencial violento. Para o Comité de Solidariedade com a Palestina, que promove o abaixo assinado, "a cooperação com uma academia especializada em “anti-terrorismo”, como a ISCA, consiste em dar a mão ao próprio aparelho repressivo sionista".
Para além do ISCA e da Universidade de Coimbra, estão envolvidas no Projeto Safire outras oito instituições da Holanda, França e Itália. O custo total do projeto estava orçado em 3.68 milhões de euros e o financiamento europeu cobre 2.91 milhões. A sua duração é de 42 meses, tendo começado em junho de 2010 e com fim agendado para novembro de 2013.
O abaixo-assinado começa por recordar a ilegalidade da ocupação israelita e as condições a que se sujeitam os estudantes universitários: "Em Abu Dis, por exemplo, o muro passa pelo meio do campus da universidade e atravessa o campo de futebol. Os estudantes universitários muitas vezes não conseguem chegar às suas universidades, o que acontece frequentemente em Birzeit. Estudantes árabes israelitas não podem apresentar teses relacionadas com a Naqba".
A campanha BDS (Boicote, Desinvestimento e Sanções a Israel) começou em 2005 e é semelhante àquela que ajudou a derrotar o regime de apartheid na África do Sul. Os promotores da iniciativa destacam o recente apoio à campanha por parte da Universidade de Joanesburgo, na África do Sul, "que cortou todas as suas ligações com a Universidade israelita Ben Gourion".
"Se a cooperação com instituições oficiais israelitas no âmbito universitário é já de si condenável e merecedora de boicote, a cooperação com uma academia especializada em “anti-terrorismo”, como a ISCA, consiste em dar a mão ao próprio aparelho repressivo sionista", acusa o documento. Para os subscritores, "esta “academia” situa-se no coração da história mais sanguinária de Israel e procura branquear a sua imagem cooperando com uma academia portuguesa que em 1969 sofreu os rigores da repressão fascista".
Com esta campanha, os promotores esperam que se repita a vitória conseguida no ano passado, quando o Festival de cinema Queer Lisboa desistiu de aceitar o habitual apoio da embaixada de Israel.
Artigos relacionados
Festival Queer de Lisboa abdica de patrocínio de Israel
Roger Waters adere ao boicote cultural a Israel
--------------------------------
Texto da petição: PELO FIM DA COOPERAÇÃO ENTRE A UNIVERSIDADE DE COIMBRA E O APARTHEID ISRAELITA
Target: Universidade de Coimbra
Sponsored by: Comite de Solidariedade com a Palestina
Pelo fim da colaboração da Universidade de Coimbra com o Estado colonial israelita.Tendo tomado conhecimento de que a Universidade de Coimbra lançou um projecto de investigação conjunto com a organização israelita International Security and Counter-Terrorism Academy (ISCA), os abaixo-assinados consideram essa decisção um atentado contra as tradições da Universidade de Coimbra no que elas têm de profundamente anti-racistas, anti-colonialistas, democráticas e emancipatórias. E apelam, por esse motivo, ao cancelamento imediato e incondicional desse projecto.
ONDE ASSINAR: The Petition Site http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/cooperacao-universidade-coimbra-e-apartheid-israelita/
Al-Manar: Mossad, Blackwater, CIA led operations in Homs
3 march 2012/Cham Press شام برس http://www.champress.net (Syria)
“The crisis is at its end” is no longer a relieving statement made by some political analysts, as the crisis is really close to its end. Baba Amro is now under the control of the Syrian army… and so are the armed groups of which a big number escaped to the Lebanese borders dubbing their retreat “tactical”.
Around 700 Arab and Western gunmen surrendered in Baba Amro, well-informed sources told Al-Manar website, adding that “huge and critical surprises will be uncovered in the coming few days… such as the kinds of arms seized, as well as the military tactics the armed groups followed, and the sides that supervised the operations.”
The sources further assured to the news website that the security operation in Homs will be over in a maximum of five to eight days.
Weapons from Israel used for First Time in Baba Amro
For his part, Syrian expert is strategic affairs Salim Harba pointed out that Baba Amro neighborhood and the areas surrounding it were emptied from the armed groups’ organizational as well as command structures with minimum army and civilian casualties, as the area was mainly concentrated by gunmen.
Speaking to Al-Manar website, Harba said that “the captured gunmen held Arab nationalities, including Gulf, Iraqi, and Lebanese… among them were also Qatari intelligence agents and non-Arab fighters from Afghanistan, Turkey, and some European countries like France.
“The Syrian army also uncovered tunnels and equipments there,” he added, pointing out that “advanced Israeli, European, and American arms that have not yet been tested in the countries of manufacture, in addition to Israeli grenades, night binoculars, and communication systems were confiscated by the security forces.”
Harba went on saying that “communication stations where established on the Lebanese borders to oversee the military operations in Baba Amro, and to ensure contact between field commanders and a coordination office led by members of information in the Qatari capital Doha.”
He clarified that “the escape of British journalists from Homs through the Lebanese-Syrian borders was the result of this coordination.”
In parallel, the Syrian strategic expert revealed that “the communication stations were being operated by Lebanese figures; some of them were members of the Future parliamentary bloc,” and considered that “these figures worked on transforming Wadi Khaled region into a strategic depth for Baba Amro.”
Mossad, Blackwater Directed from Qatar Operations in Homs
Additionally, Salim Harba revealed to Al-Manar website that “a coordination office was established in Qatar under American-Gulf sponsorship. The office includes American, French, and Gulf –specifically from Qatar and Saudi Arabia- intelligence agents, as well as CIA, Mossad, and Blackwater agents and members of the Syrian Transitional Council.”
“Qatar has also made deals with Israeli and American companies to arm the armed groups, and Gulf countries have been financing the agreements,” he added.
The Syrian expert pointed out that “the significance of the security operation in Homs is due to the high expectations that regional and international sides had from the armed gangs in Baba Amro … they wanted Homs to be turned into a new Benghazi.”
Indicating that the operation was implemented with high professionalism and accuracy, Harba reassured that documents will be exposed at the right time.
“The authority will not reveal everything it has now… the Syrian security forces have documents and confessions that could harm everyone who conspired against Syria, and could make a security and political change, not just on the internal Syrian level, but also on the regional level,” he assured.
In the same context, Harba considered that all the conferences and meetings by what he referred to as the “enemies of Syria” were aimed at paving the way for an American initiative under a “humanitarian” title.
He concluded: “At the end, the US will submit to the Russian initiative after it realized that confrontations will only result in its defeat, and that the Syrian government is still strong enough to deal with any conspiracy.”
Israa Al-Fass
Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh
Al-Manar
“The crisis is at its end” is no longer a relieving statement made by some political analysts, as the crisis is really close to its end. Baba Amro is now under the control of the Syrian army… and so are the armed groups of which a big number escaped to the Lebanese borders dubbing their retreat “tactical”.
Around 700 Arab and Western gunmen surrendered in Baba Amro, well-informed sources told Al-Manar website, adding that “huge and critical surprises will be uncovered in the coming few days… such as the kinds of arms seized, as well as the military tactics the armed groups followed, and the sides that supervised the operations.”
The sources further assured to the news website that the security operation in Homs will be over in a maximum of five to eight days.
Weapons from Israel used for First Time in Baba Amro
For his part, Syrian expert is strategic affairs Salim Harba pointed out that Baba Amro neighborhood and the areas surrounding it were emptied from the armed groups’ organizational as well as command structures with minimum army and civilian casualties, as the area was mainly concentrated by gunmen.
Speaking to Al-Manar website, Harba said that “the captured gunmen held Arab nationalities, including Gulf, Iraqi, and Lebanese… among them were also Qatari intelligence agents and non-Arab fighters from Afghanistan, Turkey, and some European countries like France.
“The Syrian army also uncovered tunnels and equipments there,” he added, pointing out that “advanced Israeli, European, and American arms that have not yet been tested in the countries of manufacture, in addition to Israeli grenades, night binoculars, and communication systems were confiscated by the security forces.”
Harba went on saying that “communication stations where established on the Lebanese borders to oversee the military operations in Baba Amro, and to ensure contact between field commanders and a coordination office led by members of information in the Qatari capital Doha.”
He clarified that “the escape of British journalists from Homs through the Lebanese-Syrian borders was the result of this coordination.”
In parallel, the Syrian strategic expert revealed that “the communication stations were being operated by Lebanese figures; some of them were members of the Future parliamentary bloc,” and considered that “these figures worked on transforming Wadi Khaled region into a strategic depth for Baba Amro.”
Mossad, Blackwater Directed from Qatar Operations in Homs
Additionally, Salim Harba revealed to Al-Manar website that “a coordination office was established in Qatar under American-Gulf sponsorship. The office includes American, French, and Gulf –specifically from Qatar and Saudi Arabia- intelligence agents, as well as CIA, Mossad, and Blackwater agents and members of the Syrian Transitional Council.”
“Qatar has also made deals with Israeli and American companies to arm the armed groups, and Gulf countries have been financing the agreements,” he added.
The Syrian expert pointed out that “the significance of the security operation in Homs is due to the high expectations that regional and international sides had from the armed gangs in Baba Amro … they wanted Homs to be turned into a new Benghazi.”
Indicating that the operation was implemented with high professionalism and accuracy, Harba reassured that documents will be exposed at the right time.
“The authority will not reveal everything it has now… the Syrian security forces have documents and confessions that could harm everyone who conspired against Syria, and could make a security and political change, not just on the internal Syrian level, but also on the regional level,” he assured.
In the same context, Harba considered that all the conferences and meetings by what he referred to as the “enemies of Syria” were aimed at paving the way for an American initiative under a “humanitarian” title.
He concluded: “At the end, the US will submit to the Russian initiative after it realized that confrontations will only result in its defeat, and that the Syrian government is still strong enough to deal with any conspiracy.”
Israa Al-Fass
Translated by Sara Taha Moughnieh
Al-Manar
domingo, 4 de março de 2012
“ANTES, ANTI-SEMITA ERA ALGUÉM QUE ODIAVA OS JUDEUS POR SEREM JUDEUS. HOJE ANTI-SEMITA É ALGUÉM ODIADO PELOS JUDEUS”
4 março 2012/Blog do Bourdoukan http://www.blogdobourdoukan.blogspot.com (Brasil)
“Antes, anti-semita era alguém que odiava os judeus por serem judeus. Hoje anti-semita é alguém odiado pelos judeus”
Palavras do Dr.Hajo Meyer, 86 anos e que esteve preso em Auschwitz.
Depois de traçar um paralelo entre o tratamento que os judeus receberam durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial e o tratamento que os palestinos recebem dos sionistas, o Dr. Meyer acusou os israelenses de desumanizar os palestinos “como os nazistas tentaram desumanizar-me”.
O Dr. Meyer nasceu em Bielefeld, Alemanha, em 1924 e hoje vive na Holanda.
Ele é porta-voz da Rede Internacional de Judeus Anti-Sionistas e autor de 3 livros sobre o judaísmo, o holocausto e o sionismo.
Ele afirmou também que “criticar Israel não é ser anti-semita” e abaixo você assiste ao seu depoimento (em inglês) sobre o colapso moral da sociedade israelense e da comunidade judaica mundial.
“Antes, anti-semita era alguém que odiava os judeus por serem judeus. Hoje anti-semita é alguém odiado pelos judeus”
Palavras do Dr.Hajo Meyer, 86 anos e que esteve preso em Auschwitz.
Depois de traçar um paralelo entre o tratamento que os judeus receberam durante a Segunda Guerra Mundial e o tratamento que os palestinos recebem dos sionistas, o Dr. Meyer acusou os israelenses de desumanizar os palestinos “como os nazistas tentaram desumanizar-me”.
O Dr. Meyer nasceu em Bielefeld, Alemanha, em 1924 e hoje vive na Holanda.
Ele é porta-voz da Rede Internacional de Judeus Anti-Sionistas e autor de 3 livros sobre o judaísmo, o holocausto e o sionismo.
Ele afirmou também que “criticar Israel não é ser anti-semita” e abaixo você assiste ao seu depoimento (em inglês) sobre o colapso moral da sociedade israelense e da comunidade judaica mundial.
sexta-feira, 2 de março de 2012
Polls Indicate No Israeli or U.S. Consensus Favoring Military Attack on Iran
2nd March 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)
As Bibi Netanyahu heads to Washington for yet another in an endless series of consultations of dubious utility with Barack Obama, followed by yet another appeal to the worshipful multitudes at Aipac’s national conference, it’s important to note that opinion polls both in the U.S. and Israel confirm there is no consensus within either country supporting war against Iran.
In the NY Times report on Bibi’s coming visit, Zalman Shoval falsely claims:
“Public opinion polls in America are about 50-50 on whether America should take a role in an eventual military operation against Iran. This is not the main element in a decision, but it will have some influence on the candidate, who happens to be president.”
Here are some recent U.S. poll findings on the subject. A February 2012 CNN poll finds that only 17% of Americans favor a U.S. attack now, while 60% favor sanctions with no military attack now. 22% favor taking no action at all. In a February Pew survey, 64% of Americans said that sanctions will not work. 58% said they would favor military action if it was the only way to prevent Iran from getting a bomb. 30% said they opposed a strike even if meant Iran got a nuclear weapon.
A 2010 CNN survey found only 36% favored a military attack if sanctions did not work, while 39% favored no military action. 71% of those polled believe (falsely) that Iran already has nuclear weapons.
A Pew poll in January 2011 said that 50% of Americans favored taking a “firm stand” against Iran, while 40% favored avoiding a military conflict. A November CBS survey found that only 15% of Americans favored military action against Iran now, while 55% believed that Iran could be contained by diplomacy, rather than force.
Now for Israeli public opinion: Shibley Telhami’s latest University of Maryland poll of Israeli public opinion finds that only 19% favor an attack that is against the will of the U.S. 42% would favor an attack with U.S. support. 34% oppose a strike regardless of whether there is U.S. support.
22% believe that if Israel did attack it would delay the Iranian nuclear program by more than five years. Even the most hawkish Israeli generals and politicians claim it will delay the program by a year or possibly two. 11% believe it would accelerate the Iranian WMD program, which is what a number of analysts suspect will happen.
27% of Israelis believe that if Israel did attack against the U.S.’ wishes, the latter would join the war against Iran nonetheless, while 39% believe the U.S. would support Israel diplomatically but not militarily.
29% of Israelis believe, against the explicit guarantee of hawks like Ehud Barak and Moshe Yaalon, that a war would take “months.” 22% believe it would last “years,” a particularly grim finding.
44% of Israelis believe an attack by their country would strengthen the Iranian regime.
While Israelis are evenly split in their preference between Obama and Romney as future president, they favor Obama by 33% to 18% over Rick Santorum. They even favor Obama over Newt Gingrich (32% to 25%), which is surprising considering that Sheldon Adelson’s Yisrael HaYom, Israel’s most popular daily, is shilling for Gingrich virtually every day in its pages.
Posted in Mideast Peace
As Bibi Netanyahu heads to Washington for yet another in an endless series of consultations of dubious utility with Barack Obama, followed by yet another appeal to the worshipful multitudes at Aipac’s national conference, it’s important to note that opinion polls both in the U.S. and Israel confirm there is no consensus within either country supporting war against Iran.
In the NY Times report on Bibi’s coming visit, Zalman Shoval falsely claims:
“Public opinion polls in America are about 50-50 on whether America should take a role in an eventual military operation against Iran. This is not the main element in a decision, but it will have some influence on the candidate, who happens to be president.”
Here are some recent U.S. poll findings on the subject. A February 2012 CNN poll finds that only 17% of Americans favor a U.S. attack now, while 60% favor sanctions with no military attack now. 22% favor taking no action at all. In a February Pew survey, 64% of Americans said that sanctions will not work. 58% said they would favor military action if it was the only way to prevent Iran from getting a bomb. 30% said they opposed a strike even if meant Iran got a nuclear weapon.
A 2010 CNN survey found only 36% favored a military attack if sanctions did not work, while 39% favored no military action. 71% of those polled believe (falsely) that Iran already has nuclear weapons.
A Pew poll in January 2011 said that 50% of Americans favored taking a “firm stand” against Iran, while 40% favored avoiding a military conflict. A November CBS survey found that only 15% of Americans favored military action against Iran now, while 55% believed that Iran could be contained by diplomacy, rather than force.
Now for Israeli public opinion: Shibley Telhami’s latest University of Maryland poll of Israeli public opinion finds that only 19% favor an attack that is against the will of the U.S. 42% would favor an attack with U.S. support. 34% oppose a strike regardless of whether there is U.S. support.
22% believe that if Israel did attack it would delay the Iranian nuclear program by more than five years. Even the most hawkish Israeli generals and politicians claim it will delay the program by a year or possibly two. 11% believe it would accelerate the Iranian WMD program, which is what a number of analysts suspect will happen.
27% of Israelis believe that if Israel did attack against the U.S.’ wishes, the latter would join the war against Iran nonetheless, while 39% believe the U.S. would support Israel diplomatically but not militarily.
29% of Israelis believe, against the explicit guarantee of hawks like Ehud Barak and Moshe Yaalon, that a war would take “months.” 22% believe it would last “years,” a particularly grim finding.
44% of Israelis believe an attack by their country would strengthen the Iranian regime.
While Israelis are evenly split in their preference between Obama and Romney as future president, they favor Obama by 33% to 18% over Rick Santorum. They even favor Obama over Newt Gingrich (32% to 25%), which is surprising considering that Sheldon Adelson’s Yisrael HaYom, Israel’s most popular daily, is shilling for Gingrich virtually every day in its pages.
Posted in Mideast Peace
Acto de boicot a Noa en el Teatro Lope de Vega de Sevilla
3 Marzo 2012, Rebelión http://www.rebelion.org (México)
COA
Un grupo de activistas realizaron una acción de protesta a la entrada del teatro Lope de Vega, en Sevilla, en la noche del martes 28 de febrero en la puerta del edificio donde se celebraba el concierto de la cantante israelí para informar a las personas asistentes de las implicaciones de la artista con el régimen sionista del estado de israel.
Los activistas desplegaron una bandera palestina gigante que consiguió formar una pasillo de entrada hacia el teatro, dónde fueron recogiendo folletos informativos sobre la campaña de Boicot.
El acto de protesta estaba motivado por la campaña de Boicot, Sanciones y Desinversiones (BDS) contra Israel, que desde sus inicios en 2005 tiene como misión recordarnos que es una obligacion para todos y todas no aceptar la convivencia normalizada con ninguna de las instituciones y personas que representan al estado de israel.
Pese a la rectificación de algunas palabras de Noa, en 2009, sigue sin condenar la matanza de más de 1.500 palestinos que Israel llevó a término en Gaza la navidad de 2008 y no pide el levantamiento del bloqueo a la Franja. Por este motivo, y siendo coherentes con los principios del PACBI, no se puede excluir que Noa se vea afectada por alguna acción general en el marco de la campaña internacional del BDS.
Adjuntamos el manifiesto distribuido entre los asistentes al concierto:
“Sevilla, 28 de Febrero de 2012 a las 20:30
Buenas noches,
Nos gustaría exponerles algunos hechos que pueden ser de vuestro interés y que sirven para contextualizar la actuación de esta noche de “NOA” en este teatro. Noa es sin duda una gran cantante que desafortunadamente representa a un estado conocido mundialmente por la vulneración, flragante y diaria de todas las convenciones, tratados y pactos internacionales existentes en el campo de los derechos humanos[1], al margen de las más de 70 resoluciones incumplidas realizadas por el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, la Asamblea General y la Comisión de Derechos Humanos[2]. Todo esto es ignorado por Israel, Estado al que representa NOA y al cual apoya incondicionalmente.
Es tal el comportamiento de dicho Estado que las víctimas de semejante proceso de destrucción –EL DEL PUEBLO PALESTINO- clama que la sociedad civil HAGA ALGO, pues de lo contrario simplemente no resistirán más y serán literalmente exterminados.
Este HACER significa emular lo que ya sabemos que sí ha funcionado: el Boicot al régimen Sudafricano de Apartheid. Hoy, profesores, escritores, cineastas y ONG palestinas han convocado un boicot académico y cultural de Israel que pueda llevar al fin esta violencia desmedida contra un pueblo indefenso. La campaña de Boicot, Sanciones y Desinversiones (BDS) contra el Estado de Israel tiene como misión recordarnos que es una obligación para todos y todas no aceptar la convivencia normalizada con ninguna de las instituciones y personas que representan al Estado de Israel.
Denunciar la actuación de Noa nos hará sentir menos cómplices con el sufrimiento de los miles y miles de palestinas que -sean cantantes, músicos, poetas, pintores, actores o simplemente mujeres u hombres, niñas o niños- no pueden ni siquiera vivir…, y qué menos que ser sus voces para reclamar simplemente lo que según la LEY LES CORRESPONDE.
QUIEN NO HACE NADA ANTE LA VIOLENCIA, ES UN COMPLICE DEL AGRESOR
PALESTINA TIENE QUE SER LIBRE,
Y NO CALLAREMOS HASTA CONSEGUIRLO
[1] Convención contra la tortura (1985), Convenciones de la Haya (1899 y 1907), I, II, III y IV Convenciones de Ginebra (1929 y 1949), Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos (1948), Convención sobre el Estatuto de Refugiados (1951), Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos (1966), Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (1966), Convención contra la Tortura y Otros tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanas o Degradantes (1984), Convención de los Derechos del Niño (1990), el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (1998), Opinión Consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (2003) referida al caso del Muro en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados, Convención de Municionesde Racimo (2008)
[2] 68 Resoluciones incumplidas del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, y decenas de resoluciones de la Asamblea General y del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU.”
COA
Un grupo de activistas realizaron una acción de protesta a la entrada del teatro Lope de Vega, en Sevilla, en la noche del martes 28 de febrero en la puerta del edificio donde se celebraba el concierto de la cantante israelí para informar a las personas asistentes de las implicaciones de la artista con el régimen sionista del estado de israel.
Los activistas desplegaron una bandera palestina gigante que consiguió formar una pasillo de entrada hacia el teatro, dónde fueron recogiendo folletos informativos sobre la campaña de Boicot.
El acto de protesta estaba motivado por la campaña de Boicot, Sanciones y Desinversiones (BDS) contra Israel, que desde sus inicios en 2005 tiene como misión recordarnos que es una obligacion para todos y todas no aceptar la convivencia normalizada con ninguna de las instituciones y personas que representan al estado de israel.
Pese a la rectificación de algunas palabras de Noa, en 2009, sigue sin condenar la matanza de más de 1.500 palestinos que Israel llevó a término en Gaza la navidad de 2008 y no pide el levantamiento del bloqueo a la Franja. Por este motivo, y siendo coherentes con los principios del PACBI, no se puede excluir que Noa se vea afectada por alguna acción general en el marco de la campaña internacional del BDS.
Adjuntamos el manifiesto distribuido entre los asistentes al concierto:
“Sevilla, 28 de Febrero de 2012 a las 20:30
Buenas noches,
Nos gustaría exponerles algunos hechos que pueden ser de vuestro interés y que sirven para contextualizar la actuación de esta noche de “NOA” en este teatro. Noa es sin duda una gran cantante que desafortunadamente representa a un estado conocido mundialmente por la vulneración, flragante y diaria de todas las convenciones, tratados y pactos internacionales existentes en el campo de los derechos humanos[1], al margen de las más de 70 resoluciones incumplidas realizadas por el Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, la Asamblea General y la Comisión de Derechos Humanos[2]. Todo esto es ignorado por Israel, Estado al que representa NOA y al cual apoya incondicionalmente.
Es tal el comportamiento de dicho Estado que las víctimas de semejante proceso de destrucción –EL DEL PUEBLO PALESTINO- clama que la sociedad civil HAGA ALGO, pues de lo contrario simplemente no resistirán más y serán literalmente exterminados.
Este HACER significa emular lo que ya sabemos que sí ha funcionado: el Boicot al régimen Sudafricano de Apartheid. Hoy, profesores, escritores, cineastas y ONG palestinas han convocado un boicot académico y cultural de Israel que pueda llevar al fin esta violencia desmedida contra un pueblo indefenso. La campaña de Boicot, Sanciones y Desinversiones (BDS) contra el Estado de Israel tiene como misión recordarnos que es una obligación para todos y todas no aceptar la convivencia normalizada con ninguna de las instituciones y personas que representan al Estado de Israel.
Denunciar la actuación de Noa nos hará sentir menos cómplices con el sufrimiento de los miles y miles de palestinas que -sean cantantes, músicos, poetas, pintores, actores o simplemente mujeres u hombres, niñas o niños- no pueden ni siquiera vivir…, y qué menos que ser sus voces para reclamar simplemente lo que según la LEY LES CORRESPONDE.
QUIEN NO HACE NADA ANTE LA VIOLENCIA, ES UN COMPLICE DEL AGRESOR
PALESTINA TIENE QUE SER LIBRE,
Y NO CALLAREMOS HASTA CONSEGUIRLO
[1] Convención contra la tortura (1985), Convenciones de la Haya (1899 y 1907), I, II, III y IV Convenciones de Ginebra (1929 y 1949), Declaración Universal de los Derechos Humanos (1948), Convención sobre el Estatuto de Refugiados (1951), Pacto Internacional de Derechos Civiles y Políticos (1966), Pacto Internacional de Derechos Económicos, Sociales y Culturales (1966), Convención contra la Tortura y Otros tratos o Penas Crueles, Inhumanas o Degradantes (1984), Convención de los Derechos del Niño (1990), el Estatuto de Roma de la Corte Penal Internacional (1998), Opinión Consultiva de la Corte Internacional de Justicia (2003) referida al caso del Muro en los Territorios Palestinos Ocupados, Convención de Municionesde Racimo (2008)
[2] 68 Resoluciones incumplidas del Consejo de Seguridad de la ONU, y decenas de resoluciones de la Asamblea General y del Consejo de Derechos Humanos de la ONU.”
Israeli Justice Minister Exposes Shin Bet Officers’ IDs in Knesset Speech
1st March 2012, Tikun Olam-תיקון עולם http://www.richardsilverstein.com (USA)
Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman, exposes identities of senior Shin Bet officials
In Israel, the intelligence apparatus is sacrosanct. Among the many things you can’t do is publicly name a current or former officer (even after death). Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman seems to have forgotten that. Chaim Levinson reports in today’s Haaretz (see accompanying story) that last August, he presented to the Knesset a bill for the Protection of the Rights of the Individual which is part of revised legislation defining terror organizations. In his remarks, he publicly thanked various officials who helped him draft the new legislation. He included in these remarks two senior Shin Bet officers, Eli Bachar and Dani Geva, both legal advisors to the spy agency.
Leaving aside the irony of exposing the secret identity of government intelligence officers during a speech in which you are proposing legislation allegedly to protect rights of the individual, the punishment under Israeli law for doing what Neeman did is three years in prison (one year, for accidentally exposing the identity). Normally, the justice minister would be a Knesset member and so have immunity from prosecution for any act that happened within the scope of his job. But Neeman is not an MK and thus has no immunity. This guy is in a heap of trouble. My guess is that his days are numbered.
The Knesset is also in a bind. It is legally forbidden from censoring printed remarks of its members. So the names of the two officers are in the Knesset transcript and available on its website. In case they are removed, I’ve uploaded it here.
Geva and Bachar resigned their respective positions since August, but they were serving when Neeman exposed them and besides, it’s illegal to identify Shin Bet officers even after they leave the secret police.
But that’s not where his troubles end. Last week, the Israeli media reported there had been a secret investigation ongoing for two years into Neeman’s alleged failure to report personal income. So besides a possible criminal charge, he also faces a charge of tax fraud. Before I knew of his Knesset faux pas, I thought it was deliciously ironic that the government’s leading legal light should be accused of engaging in personally corrupt behavior. Now, even more so.
With his boss, Bibi Netanyahu, about to achieve his apotheosis meeting the president and addressing the annual Aipacalooza conference, Neeman’s troubles couldn’t come at a worse time for this government. They refocus the public’s attention on both the corruption and sheer incompetence of leading ministers. Neeman’s trademark feature was the broad knitted yarmulke that adorned his balding pate. Such yarmulkes are a “fashion statement” of the settler movement. Apparently, Neeman’s sense of Jewish morality was only skin deep.
The ultranationalist minister has also publicly said that he looks forward eagerly to the day when Israel’s secular law will be replaced by Jewish halacha (thanks to David Sheen for pointing me to this). For those of you scoring at home, that means he’s in favor of Israel becoming a theocracy. But I’ve got news for Neeman, one of the Ten Commandments says “Thou shalt not steal.” And not paying your taxes is a form of theft.
Now we come to an even larger question, which is: why should the identity of the legal advisor of the Shin Bet be a national secret? Why should anyone, whether the Justice Minister or a washer-woman go to jail for exposing such a person? The answer lies in the nature of Israel as a national security state in which all manner of opacity may be justified by the exigencies of terror. Such secrecy of course does fundamental harm to Israel as a democracy and serves as one of many reasons why calling it a democracy is a misnomer.
In Israel, the intelligence apparatus is sacrosanct. Among the many things you can’t do is publicly name a current or former officer (even after death). Justice Minister Yaakov Neeman seems to have forgotten that. Chaim Levinson reports in today’s Haaretz (see accompanying story) that last August, he presented to the Knesset a bill for the Protection of the Rights of the Individual which is part of revised legislation defining terror organizations. In his remarks, he publicly thanked various officials who helped him draft the new legislation. He included in these remarks two senior Shin Bet officers, Eli Bachar and Dani Geva, both legal advisors to the spy agency.
Leaving aside the irony of exposing the secret identity of government intelligence officers during a speech in which you are proposing legislation allegedly to protect rights of the individual, the punishment under Israeli law for doing what Neeman did is three years in prison (one year, for accidentally exposing the identity). Normally, the justice minister would be a Knesset member and so have immunity from prosecution for any act that happened within the scope of his job. But Neeman is not an MK and thus has no immunity. This guy is in a heap of trouble. My guess is that his days are numbered.
The Knesset is also in a bind. It is legally forbidden from censoring printed remarks of its members. So the names of the two officers are in the Knesset transcript and available on its website. In case they are removed, I’ve uploaded it here.
Geva and Bachar resigned their respective positions since August, but they were serving when Neeman exposed them and besides, it’s illegal to identify Shin Bet officers even after they leave the secret police.
But that’s not where his troubles end. Last week, the Israeli media reported there had been a secret investigation ongoing for two years into Neeman’s alleged failure to report personal income. So besides a possible criminal charge, he also faces a charge of tax fraud. Before I knew of his Knesset faux pas, I thought it was deliciously ironic that the government’s leading legal light should be accused of engaging in personally corrupt behavior. Now, even more so.
With his boss, Bibi Netanyahu, about to achieve his apotheosis meeting the president and addressing the annual Aipacalooza conference, Neeman’s troubles couldn’t come at a worse time for this government. They refocus the public’s attention on both the corruption and sheer incompetence of leading ministers. Neeman’s trademark feature was the broad knitted yarmulke that adorned his balding pate. Such yarmulkes are a “fashion statement” of the settler movement. Apparently, Neeman’s sense of Jewish morality was only skin deep.
The ultranationalist minister has also publicly said that he looks forward eagerly to the day when Israel’s secular law will be replaced by Jewish halacha (thanks to David Sheen for pointing me to this). For those of you scoring at home, that means he’s in favor of Israel becoming a theocracy. But I’ve got news for Neeman, one of the Ten Commandments says “Thou shalt not steal.” And not paying your taxes is a form of theft.
Now we come to an even larger question, which is: why should the identity of the legal advisor of the Shin Bet be a national secret? Why should anyone, whether the Justice Minister or a washer-woman go to jail for exposing such a person? The answer lies in the nature of Israel as a national security state in which all manner of opacity may be justified by the exigencies of terror. Such secrecy of course does fundamental harm to Israel as a democracy and serves as one of many reasons why calling it a democracy is a misnomer.
Assinar:
Postagens (Atom)