Finantial Times view dos pontos importantes dos 5+1+Irã em Viena
No início do mês de novembro, representantes de 150 países se encontraram em Viena para avaliar o impacto humanitário das armas nucleares e discutir sobre um tratado para banir esta ameaça à Terra e a seus habitantes.
De certa forma, considerando o número de países que possue bomba atômica, por pouco escapamos de um Armageddon no século XX ainda traumatizado com os EUA terem com apenas duas bombas riscado do mapa as cidades de Hiroshima e Nagasaki nos dias 6 e 9 de agosto de 1945 para o Japão render-se. As bombas estavam cobertas de insultos aos japoneses. A primeira pulverizou Hiroshima e seus 75 mil habitantes. A segunda, graças à topografia de Nagasaki, matou "apenas" 150 mil (75 na hora + 75 dos ferimentos) dos 240 mil habitantes. A bomba foi lançada no epicentro da cidade, em cima da catedral cristã Urakami - não sei se foi de propósito ou um acaso que apagasse os princípios cristãos das consciências dos pilotos e de quem deu as ordens bárbaras. Ambas cidades foram totalmente reconstruídas e só os discretos monumentos lembram o genocídio.
Eu sou a favor do desarmamento nuclear total e irrestrito no Planeta inteiro. Porém, acho que é uma quimera impossível. Pelo menos nesta geração e na seguinte. Primeiro por causa da dificuldade em convencer os donos das bombas a abdicarem deste arsenal que lhes dá uma falsa-ideia de potência na impotência inerente a guerras; segundo porque duvido que Rússia, India, Paquistão, China, EUA, Israel (que não se digna nem a declarar seu arsenal aos organismos internacionais e não sofre nenhuma pressão para ser vistoriado), etcétera, cuja informação pública sobre o tema e outros mais é seletiva e selecionada, destruissem todas as bombas que possuem sem esconder nenhuma. E no final das contas, talvez só os europeus, cuja população tem voz realmente ativa, ficassem desarmados (ou nem eles), além do resto do mundo que já está à mercê
destes megalomaníacos mais ou menos responsáveis, dependendo de seus próprios interesses no momento.
O professor estadunidense Kenneth Waltz defende a teoria que “Those who like peace should love nuclear weapons. They are the only weapons ever invented that work decisively against their own use.”
Como disse acima, eu preferiria que todos os países tirassem esta espada de Dâmocles atômica das nossas cabeças, mas como tenho certeza que não viverei para ver isto feito, tenho tendência a concordar com ele.
É por isso que acho que considerando que os piores inimigos do Irã - Estados Unidos e Israel - têm bombas nucleares suficientes para pulverizar seu país de Teerã a Isfahan em um piscar de olhos, entendo perfeitamente que os Ayastolás queiram garantir sua segurança através desta arma dissuasiva que os protegesse inclusive dos repetidos atentados terroristas de Israel até contra cientistas, pais de família, respeitáveis e respeitados, em plena capital.
Eu sou minoria. A maioria dos analistas conhece pouco ou nada do Irã e dos iranianos, segue a linha de Israel e Estados Unidos e eles são prolíficos em argumentos hipócritas ou condescendentes.
Dentre estes, o de que no contexto atual em que tantos países se reúnem para discutir o desarmamento não faz sentido que quem quer que seja (leia-se Teerã) reme contra a maré - como se não fizesse anos que este assunto de desarmamento está em pauta sem nenhum resultado concreto, só discussões abstratas.
O outro argumento que levantam é o perigo que um arsenal nuclear representa em mãos erradas e quão difícil é vigiá-lo para que uma "bombinha" ou outra não seja surrupiada por indivíduos ou grupos mal-intencionados - como se os países que já a fabricam estivessem e estejam cheios de boas intenções ao fabricá-las.
De fato, as usinas nucleares são um perigo em si em qualquer país. Até os EUA que são precursores no programa nuclear e são os únicos a já terem se servido de bombas em contexto concreto, têm problemas e em varias ocasiões quase destruiram cidades estadunidenses acidentalmente. Embora os EUA só admitam publicamente 32 acidentes graves, há cerca de mil encobertos só durante 1950 e 1968 (período em que os arquivos já estão abertos) que poderiam ter produzido detonações em média e larga escala.
O problema das usinas nucleares e as bombas que elas fabricam em países com tecnologia menos sofisticada do que as grandes potências bélicas é que elas podem representar perigo até para a própria região em que são instaladas e testadas, devido às condições de manutenção e armazenamento do arsenal. Um inspetor da ONU disse há alguns anos que se Saddam Hussein tivesse fabricado bombas atômicas "they might have posed a greater threat to Baghdad than to any of his enemies. It could go off if a rifle bullet hit it".
Este é outro argumento que usam contra o Irã, embora seja mais um pré-conceito do que uma constatação já que Saddam Hussein não fabricou nenhuma e quanto ao Irã, ninguém conhece com certeza o programa nuclear iraniano e presumem, com condescendência, que seus cientistas não estejam à altura da tarefa até hoje restrita ao "Primeiro Mundo".
Insinuam que o Irã é politicamente instável e que as bombas estão à mercê de revoluções. Acho este argumento um dos mais absurdos, primeiro porque se houver revolução no Irã, será feita pela classe média pilotada por uma elite liberal e os intelectuais iranianos têm intelecto invejável. Segundo porque hoje em dia, depois dos Estados Unidos e seus aliados terem desmantelado o Iraque, a Líbia e a Síria, o Irã é o único país estável na região. É o único em que não há extremismo politico e o único em que reina uma relativa harmonia religiosa, maior do que em certos lugares da India, e política, muito maior do que no Paquistão. Neste ponto, eu me preocupo mais com as bombas paquistanesa do que me preocuparia com uma bomba iraniana. Aliás, no tocante a instabilidade, poder-se-ia dizer a mesma coisa da China, onde a desigualdade social é galopante e uma nova "revolução cultural" é uma hipótese mais do que viável a médio prazo.
Portanto, qualquer país, mesmo com as melhores intenções, está sujeito a acidentes e mal-uso do nuclear se este cair em mãos erradas. Até os EUA com um presidente republicano como Mitt Romney, um país europeu com um fascista desvairado e Israel com um sionista com paranóia exacerbada.
Falando em Israel, eu até entendo que eles tenham tantas bombas atômicas, pois acho legítimo quererem esta força dissuasiva. Só não entendo é não respeitarem as leis internacionais e não declararem seu arsenal, não o abrirem à inspeção, e não assinarem o protocolo do clube dos "atomizados".
Entendo que Israel tenha, e entendo o porquê do Irã também querer ter. Embora no Irã seja mais uma questão de energia do que de bomba, por enquanto. Aí chegamos a Viena.
Os Estados Unidos e o Irã entraram na reunião que ficou conhecida como 5+1 (Conselho de Segurança da ONU - China/Franca/EUA/GB/Rússia + Alemanha) buscando reconciliação. Um dos problemas foi que a reconciliação que os EUA buscava era a de um alinhamento incondicional de Teerã às exigências de Washington. Outro problema que dura desde a queda do Xá, ou seja, a ignorância ocidental do cerne da revolução islãmica e o porquê de, apesar dos pesares, ela durar tanto. Dura porque restaurou a grandeza e a dignidade persa de derrubar um monarca despótico.
Críticos do Irã dizem que os iranianos são orgulhosos demais por causa dos 5.000 mil anos de cultura e história e é por isso que desafiam a comunidade internacional com o programa nuclear. Aí também são hipócritas, pois orgulho por orgulho, o dos EUA, que só têm quinhentos e poucos anos e uma história cultural relativamente pobre, é mil vezes mais maior e por causa deste orgulho cometem muitas atrocidades, fora de casa.
É verdade que quando Rússia, Inglaterra e Estados Unidos - os três farangis (forasteiros) decidiram, em uma conferência tripartite realizada em Teerã em 1943, substituir o primeiro rei Pahlavi por seu filho de 21 anos ambicioso e despreparado, o orgulho dos iranianos sofreu um golpe que repercute até hoje em suas relações com os EUA e a Inglaterra. A Rússia já fez seu mea culpa ajudando o país revolucionário de outras maneiras. Mas o golpe dado pela CIA em 1953 com o apoio do MI6 britânico contra o presidente eleito democraticamente Mohammad Mossadegh deixou os iranianos arrasados e aumentou seu rancor pelos estrangeiros que os punham de joelhos os condenando a uma subserviência desconhecida na rica história persa.
O povo iraniano tem pago um preço alto por ter levantado a cabeça. Tem vivido mal os bloqueios e sanções aleatórias a que há décadas os EUA os submete. E isto é claro quando se conversa com qualquer iraniano. Para eles, os Estados Unidos usam com eles a “harf-e zoor” (linguagem da força) que eles repugnam por não quererem mais curvar-se diante de nenhuma potência estrangeira.
Aliás os iranianos se veem com os olhos do Lula, que o país tem um grande potencial para se fazer negócios, e não entendem a emergência da Turquia em vez deles. Eles acham Teerã mais atraente financeiramente do que Dubai e Isfahan mais bonita para os turistas do que Istambul. (O que é um fato, mas Istambul é mais alegre por seu um oásis liberal no mar do conservadorismo turco - Isafahan poderia ser igual).
O objetivo da reunião de cúpula de Viena era persuadir o Irã a aceitar restrições em seu programa nuclear que inviabilizassem a fabricação de bomba atômica. Antes de chegar, Rouhani já dissera que não fossem longe demais. Não foi ouvido. Seus oponentes foram longe demais e não lhe deixaram a saída honrada que seu orgulho persa exigia, pois é o que seus compatriotas esperam dele tanto quanto o ayatolá Khamenei. Pois a decisão só pode ser política.
E política no Irã é pechincha. Os iranianos adoram pechinchar. Pechincha, em persa, chaneh zani, é um passatempo nacional. E a pechincha no entender persa engloba aumentar o preço a fim de baixar a barganha. Portanto, retirar-se de uma negociação com uma pechincha em andamento os satisfaz psicologicamente.
Durante o período do Acordo interino assinado em Genebra no ano passado e extendido no dia 20 de julho deste ano, ambos lados fizeram tudo para diminuir as distâncias que os separam. Contudo, os países ocidentais não conseguiram capitalizar no chaneh zani - expressão comum até na mídia iraniana quando trata das negociações internacionais sobre seu programa nuclear.
A condição sine qua non imposta pelo Irã era clara. Seu ministro das relações exteriores Mohammad Javad Zarif dera o tom na chegada e expusera as condições sine qua non para a negociação vingar, ou não. Suas palavras, abaixo, foram vãs.
Os sete países envolvidos na reunião de Viena entenderam que quanto mais a discussão se estender mais complicada a situação fica. Portanto, a extensão das discussões foi admitida em desespero de causa, pois era isso ou nada. Como diz John Kerry, é melhor não haver acordo do que chegar a um mau acordo.
Quem ganhou a parada em Viena foram os linha-dura estadunidenses republicanos que se opõem a qualquer negociação com o Irã, que temem, por causa da ignorância que os caracteriza; foram as monarquias ocrruptas do golfo e Israel que são ligados por uma desconfiança doentia de tudo o que vem de Teerã; foram os islamitas sunitas extremitas na Síria, Iraque e alhures que exploram as divergências intra-religiosas sunitas/xiitas para prosseguir sua fantasia hegemônica.
Após meses de negociações de bastidores, bastou horas de reunião para as incompreensões e divergências fecharem as portas.
Os extremistas acusam Hassan Rouhani de má-fé e intransigência e Barack Obama de ingenuidade por acreditar possível um acordo efetivo com o Irã.
O analista Jeffrey Goldberg diz que a turma do contra “believes that a deal, should it be reached, will enshrine Iran’s right to a nuclear programme in international law – an idea it finds an anathema, It thinks that Iran, once sanctions are lifted, will rebuild its economy and then ignore its nuclear obligations. It believes that the Iranian government is probably already cheating and obfuscating in its effort to go nuclear, and will redouble these efforts once a deal is signed. This group thinks that sanctions, combined with the credible threat of force, are the only means to keep Iran from going nuclear.”
Esta turma pensa tudo isso sem nenhum fundamento, pois a história mostra que quem falta à palavra ou rói a corda é sempre o país ocidental e não o Irã. É aquela estória do espelho, de projetar no outro a sua reação em vez de ver a do outro com clareza.
De qualquer jeito, o adiamento de decisão é melhor do que um confronto declarado.
Nesse ínterim, pode ser que a recém-eleita maioria republicana em Washington aprove mais sanções contra o Irã, em vez de esperar que a diplomacia aja, e tente atingir Teerã através do Hizbollah e do Hamas, como quer o lobby israelense que controla o Congresso estadunidense - abaixo verão o que o ayatolá Khomenei pensa disso ou quer que pensem.
O contra-ataque iraniano poderia chegar de várias formas.
Dentro do país, os conservadores poderiam ganhar a partida contra Rouhani e conseguir que demita o ocidentalizado ministro das relações exteriores Mohammad Javad Zarif e sua equipe de negociadores. O que levaria a uma revisão de concessões prévias, ao endurecimento do discurso de "nuclear rights" e a cooperação com o IAEA, que inspecta as centrais nucleares.
Fora, Teerã poderia jogar a carta Oriental que altos funcionários iranianos vêm alardeando nos bastidores off the record: "We have always had good relations with Russia and China. Naturally, if the nuclear talks fail, we will increase our cooperation with our friends and will provide them more opportunities in Iran’s high-potential market. We share common views [with Russia and China] on many issues, including Syria and Iraq.” Neste caso, o consenso do Conselho de Segurança da ONU em relação ao Irã desmoronaria e dificultaria mais ainda um final feliz (para os EUA) nesta história que se arrasta. O lado positivo da colaboração russa é que as centrais nucleares são mais seguras devido à alta tecnologia russa e às lições aprendidas com o desastre em Tchernobyl.
(Acho que a "comunidade internacional" deveria acolher efusivamente esta mãozinha russa e concordar com a soberania iraniana. A não ser que estejam dispostos a vistoriar também Israel - ficaria tudo simples porque acabariam os dois pesos e duas medidas que impedem a vitória da diplomacia.)
Por outro lado, Israel, que vive desviando a atenção do mundo para o Irã para agir na Palestina sem a mídia olhar, voltaria à ladainha de ação militar contra o Irã com o apoio do Congresso USA dominado pela AIPAC (lobby israelense em Washington) e os ditadores árabes, principalmente o da Arábia Saudita que não quer ver o Irã nem pintado. Obama e os generais da IDF já deixaram claro para Netanyahu que apelar para as armas é inviável. Washington sabe que os iranianos não são impotentes como os palestinos desarmados e logo fechariam o Estreito de Hormuz os deixando a ver navios, gerando uma grave crise mundial por causa do corte do suprimento de petróleo ao ocidente (40% do petróleo transita por este estreito que fica em águas iranianas).
Além desta questão de orgulhos absurdos, quanto mais demorar o processo de negociações estéreis, mais o Ocidente demorará a benefiar do vasto mercado de consumo iraniano - 76 milhões de pessoas sedentas de produtos estrangeiros, comércio, investimento e turismo.
(Acho que o Brasil deveria ouvir a voz do povo iraniano e fazer negócios com eles. Com o avanço do Isis, a estabilidade do Irã é fundamental para a segurança mundial e estabilidade só é possível com uma economia saudável e com comida na mesa todos os dias. E quanto ao regime e às infrações aos Direitos Humanos, o Irã não é pior do que o dos ditadores árabes da Arábia Saudita, Emirados, etcétera, com quem o mundo negocia sem pestanejar. Comparado com a Arábia Saudidta e Israel, o Irã é um paraíso liberal. A comunidade judia no Irã - Teerã, Hamdan, Isfahan - só nesta última são 70 mil que convivem pacificamente com cristãos e muçulmanos).
Os iranianos demonstraram o mesmo ceticismo pós-reunião que demonstravam antes. Os empresários reagiram às conclusões indefinidas da reunião de Viena com precaução e a declaração de Rouhani na televisão foi positiva. Disse que apesar do fracasso das negociações, as condições para uma melhora da situação são "completamente diferentes de três a seis meses atrás. A lógica se aproximou e muitas lacunas foram preenchidas". Os jornais liberais elogiaram a atuação de Rouhani e enfatizaram que a vida da população melhoraria depois de um acordo nuclear bem-sucedido. Os jornais conservadores foram críticos: "O Kad khoda [chefe do vilarejo, que pode ser traduzido como o nosso 'cacique'] não foi fiável; as sanções continuaram". Enfim, a lenga lenga pessimista peculiar.
Porém, Rouhani não saiu por baixo. Sobretudo porque os Estados Unidos e seus aliados precisam desesperadamente do Irão para combater o avanço do Islamic State.
Debate sobre a questão nuclear iraniana (I)
TIMELINE: Iran nuclear issue.
The standoff over Iranian's nuclear aspirations dates to 2002, when it was revealed that the country building undeclared nuclear sites including a centrifuge plant for enriching uranium and a complex for making heavy water, which is used in the production of plutonium. In 2003 Tehran agreed a deal with European states to suspend enrichment and accept frequent inspections in return for a recognition of its right to have a nuclear programme and access to modern technology. But that deal broke down two years later.
Since then, the crisis has deepened, with Iran expanding the programme, installing more centrifuges and working on the heavy water reactor, while the UN, US and EU have escalated sanctions. The prospect of armed conflict was brought closer in September 2009 when it was discovered that Iran had been building a second uranium enrichment plant, Fordow, inside a mountain near the city of Qom. Israel has repeatedly threatened it would take military action rather than allow Iran to acquire “breakout” capacity – the ability to assemble a nuclear bomb quickly, within a few weeks or months.
An interim deal was reached last November to freeze enrichment and sanctions, which expired on 24 November and was postponed until 2015 in Vienna.
The issues: Enrichment and breakout
The central focus of a deal revolves around the concept of breakout capacity, which depends on numbers of centrifuges. The more centrifuges Iran has, the quicker it could make the highly enriched uranium (HEU) necessary for a warhead, if it took the decision to make weapons. Western are mostly Israeli concerns, which are centred on the possibility that Iran could install enough centrifuges to be able to reconfigure them and make a bomb’s worth of HEU before the international watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), noticed and before the west and Israel had time to react.
The US starting position in the talks was that Iran should only have capacity equivalent to about 4,000 of its centrifuges in their current design, so it would take between six months and a year to “break out”. At the moment Iran has 19,000 centrifuges installed, though just over half are functioning. Iran’s position is that it needs many more for its future nuclear energy programme, and will not contemplate reducing its existing capacity. There was no compromise on this central issue for a deal to be possible.
Sanctions: In return, Iran required a lifting of sanctions. A stumbling block has been the fact that the Obama administration cannot promise to lift sanctions imposed by Congress. All Obama could offer at the start of a deal was a temporary waiver. Currently the western offer consists of presidential waivers and the unfreezing of blocked Iranian assets in the west. Rouhani’s team says he needs more than that in order to satisfy the Iranian people that an agreement is worthwhile, and he is right, for promises have been broken all the time. The Iranians want an early lifting of UN security council sanctions, of an EU oil embargo and of ablock on Iran using the international electronic payments system Swift.
Since then, the crisis has deepened, with Iran expanding the programme, installing more centrifuges and working on the heavy water reactor, while the UN, US and EU have escalated sanctions. The prospect of armed conflict was brought closer in September 2009 when it was discovered that Iran had been building a second uranium enrichment plant, Fordow, inside a mountain near the city of Qom. Israel has repeatedly threatened it would take military action rather than allow Iran to acquire “breakout” capacity – the ability to assemble a nuclear bomb quickly, within a few weeks or months.
An interim deal was reached last November to freeze enrichment and sanctions, which expired on 24 November and was postponed until 2015 in Vienna.
The issues: Enrichment and breakout
The central focus of a deal revolves around the concept of breakout capacity, which depends on numbers of centrifuges. The more centrifuges Iran has, the quicker it could make the highly enriched uranium (HEU) necessary for a warhead, if it took the decision to make weapons. Western are mostly Israeli concerns, which are centred on the possibility that Iran could install enough centrifuges to be able to reconfigure them and make a bomb’s worth of HEU before the international watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), noticed and before the west and Israel had time to react.
The US starting position in the talks was that Iran should only have capacity equivalent to about 4,000 of its centrifuges in their current design, so it would take between six months and a year to “break out”. At the moment Iran has 19,000 centrifuges installed, though just over half are functioning. Iran’s position is that it needs many more for its future nuclear energy programme, and will not contemplate reducing its existing capacity. There was no compromise on this central issue for a deal to be possible.
Sanctions: In return, Iran required a lifting of sanctions. A stumbling block has been the fact that the Obama administration cannot promise to lift sanctions imposed by Congress. All Obama could offer at the start of a deal was a temporary waiver. Currently the western offer consists of presidential waivers and the unfreezing of blocked Iranian assets in the west. Rouhani’s team says he needs more than that in order to satisfy the Iranian people that an agreement is worthwhile, and he is right, for promises have been broken all the time. The Iranians want an early lifting of UN security council sanctions, of an EU oil embargo and of ablock on Iran using the international electronic payments system Swift.
Debate sobre a questão iraniana (II)
Transparency: Critics of the breakout approach says it focuses on the wrong thing. It would be foolhardy for Iran to want to break out, they say, as there would be a high probability that it would be spotted before making a single weapon. They see as a more serious threat is arguably that Iran might create a parallel covert programme in a disguised or underground facility. Some experts argue that it is therefore much more important for any agreement to radically enhance the IAEA’s monitoring powers so that any clandestine programme would be spotted quickly. The level of the IAEA presence in Iran is one of the issues on the table in the negotiations, as is the requirement for Iran to cooperate fully with the agency in its inquiry into the country’s alleged development work on nuclear weapons in the past.
Other nuclear elements: A deal would also involve an Iranian undertaking to redesign its heavy water reactor being built at Arak in central Iran, so that it produces much less plutonium than originally intended. Iran would also undertake not to build a reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium. The underground enrichment facility at Fordow would be converted to a small-scale research and development centre under constant IAEA inspection.
Opponents of a deal: Almost all the governments in the six-nation negotiating group in Vienna (US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) have a strong incentive to strike a deal, but France has been the least enthusiastic, frequently taking the toughest line, possibly because of strong ties with the Gulf Arabs. There are also strong forces of opposition in both the US and Iran. Many in the US Ceongress view a deal that leaves Iran with any enrichment capacity as a form of appeasement, and Republicans would be loth to endorse a central Obama foreign policy initiative. In Iran there is widespread distrust of western intentions, and hardliners have vowed to oppose any deal that seriously constrains Iran’s enrichment capacity. As in the US, many conservatives oppose it because it would strengthen the hand of moderates.
In the broader region there is significant hostility to an agreement from Israel and the Gulf Arab states. The Israeli government, which has an undeclared nuclear arsenal of its own, has portrayed any Iranian nuclear programme as a potential existential threat. The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, believe an agreement that endorses the existence of even a limited Iranian enrichment capacity woulddisturb the delicate Sunni-Shia balance in the region, and have warned that it might lead them to reconsider their own positions on nuclear development.
Impact inside Iran: Rouhani’s fate was in the balance at the Vienna talks. He owes his victory in last year's presidential election to his promise to end the nuclear standoff. He has made the talks a priority, naming his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, as the country’s chief nuclear negotiator.
In the event of an agreement anytime in the future, Rouhani will gain greater influence over Iranian politics, currently dominated by conservative forces. Although the nuclear negotiations are not directly linked to Iran’s worrying human rights record, many believe that an agreement might increase Rouhani’s influence over social and judicial practices, moderating the character of the regime. But if the talks fail and Rouhani doesn't get from China and Russia what his people need to improve their life quality, he will lose authority and influence, which is likely to swing towards his critics among the conservative clerics and the powerful Revolutionary Guards.
Ultimately, a decision to approve any deal rests in the hands of one man, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader. For the time being, he has put his weight behind Rouhani by supporting nuclear diplomacy and waiting to see where the talks with the Russians and Chinese will take them, but it is not clear what his personal red lines are. Although one might say that if Rouhani gets Putin and Xi Jinping on bord, he would prefer to break the negotiations and go ahead with the nuclear programme as it is.
Other nuclear elements: A deal would also involve an Iranian undertaking to redesign its heavy water reactor being built at Arak in central Iran, so that it produces much less plutonium than originally intended. Iran would also undertake not to build a reprocessing facility for extracting plutonium. The underground enrichment facility at Fordow would be converted to a small-scale research and development centre under constant IAEA inspection.
Opponents of a deal: Almost all the governments in the six-nation negotiating group in Vienna (US, UK, France, Germany, Russia and China) have a strong incentive to strike a deal, but France has been the least enthusiastic, frequently taking the toughest line, possibly because of strong ties with the Gulf Arabs. There are also strong forces of opposition in both the US and Iran. Many in the US Ceongress view a deal that leaves Iran with any enrichment capacity as a form of appeasement, and Republicans would be loth to endorse a central Obama foreign policy initiative. In Iran there is widespread distrust of western intentions, and hardliners have vowed to oppose any deal that seriously constrains Iran’s enrichment capacity. As in the US, many conservatives oppose it because it would strengthen the hand of moderates.
In the broader region there is significant hostility to an agreement from Israel and the Gulf Arab states. The Israeli government, which has an undeclared nuclear arsenal of its own, has portrayed any Iranian nuclear programme as a potential existential threat. The Gulf states, led by Saudi Arabia, believe an agreement that endorses the existence of even a limited Iranian enrichment capacity woulddisturb the delicate Sunni-Shia balance in the region, and have warned that it might lead them to reconsider their own positions on nuclear development.
Impact inside Iran: Rouhani’s fate was in the balance at the Vienna talks. He owes his victory in last year's presidential election to his promise to end the nuclear standoff. He has made the talks a priority, naming his foreign minister, Mohammad Javad Zarif, as the country’s chief nuclear negotiator.
In the event of an agreement anytime in the future, Rouhani will gain greater influence over Iranian politics, currently dominated by conservative forces. Although the nuclear negotiations are not directly linked to Iran’s worrying human rights record, many believe that an agreement might increase Rouhani’s influence over social and judicial practices, moderating the character of the regime. But if the talks fail and Rouhani doesn't get from China and Russia what his people need to improve their life quality, he will lose authority and influence, which is likely to swing towards his critics among the conservative clerics and the powerful Revolutionary Guards.
Ultimately, a decision to approve any deal rests in the hands of one man, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the supreme leader. For the time being, he has put his weight behind Rouhani by supporting nuclear diplomacy and waiting to see where the talks with the Russians and Chinese will take them, but it is not clear what his personal red lines are. Although one might say that if Rouhani gets Putin and Xi Jinping on bord, he would prefer to break the negotiations and go ahead with the nuclear programme as it is.
Artigos anteriores sobre o Iran ; Blogs de 19-02-12 e 29-09-13
Isfahan
Isfahan
The UN General Assembly approved an Arab-backed resolution calling on Israel to renounce possession of nuclear weapons and put its nuclear facilities under international oversight.
The resolution, adopted in a 161-5 vote on Tuesday, noted that Israel is the only Middle Eastern country that is not party to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
It called on Israel to "accede to that treaty without further delay, not to develop, produce, test or otherwise acquire nuclear weapons, to renounce possession of nuclear weapons".
The resolution also called on Israel to put its nuclear facilities under the safeguard of the UN's International Atomic Energy Agency.
The United States and Canada were among four countries that joined Israel in opposing the measure, while 18 countries abstained, the Associated Press reported.
Israel is widely considered to possess nuclear arms but declines to confirm it.
Non-binding resolution
General Assembly resolutions are not legally binding but carry moral weight because it is the only body where all 193 UN member states are represented.
The resolution was introduced by Egypt, and includes an Arab-backed effort that failed to gain approval in September at the Vienna-based IAEA.
The UN resolution, titled "The risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East," pushed for the establishment of a nuclear weapons-free zone in the Middle East and lamented that US-backed efforts to convene talks were abandoned in 2012.
At the time, Israel criticised Arab countries for undermining dialogue by repeatedly singling out the country in international arenas.
Israel has long argued that a full Palestinian-Israeli peace plan must precede any creation of a Mideast zone free of weapons of mass destruction.
The country also argues that Iran's alleged work on nuclear arms is the real regional threat. Iran denies pursuing such weapons.
US representative Robert Wood, in voting against the resolution at the committee-level last month, said the measure "fails to meet the fundamental tests of fairness and balance. It confines itself to expressions of concern about the activities of a single country."
Source, Al Jazeera. 02/12/2014
ISRAEL vs PALESTINA
O extremismo em Israel está nadando de braçada
e avança a passaos largos com a lei do "Jewish State"
e avança a passaos largos com a lei do "Jewish State"
Inside Story: Jewish State vs Democracy
"Ruvi Rivlin, who was recently elected to the high but largely ceremonial post, is far from being a leftist. On the contrary, this scion of a family that has been living in Jerusalem for seven generations, believes in a Jewish state in all the country from the Mediterranean Sea to the Jordan river.
But Rivlin is a true liberal. When he read The Poem he was shocked to the depths of his soul. Then he remembered that the writer of this masterpiece had been invited to the President's residence to read from his works. He was promptly disinvited.
For this the President was attacked from many quarters. How dare he? What about artistic freedom?
The "poet" in question is one Amir Benayoun, a popular "oriental" folk singer. "Oriental" music, in this context, means the melodies preferred by oriental Jews, based on the Arab music of their former homelands with primitive lyrics about love and such.
The professional fortunes of Benayoun were declining, but The Poem restored them, and how! It became the center of a stormy national debate, all the media discussed it at length, even Haaretz printed it verbatim. Politicians, commentators and everyone else who respects himself or herself praised or condemned it.
The imaginary narrator of The Poem is an Arab named Ahmed, who dreams about killing Jews, especially Jewish babies. My own translation:
'Salaam Aleikum I am called Ahmed / And I live in Jerusalem / I study at the university a thing or two / Who enjoys all the worlds like me? / Today I am moderate and smiling / Tomorrow I shall ascend to heaven / I shall send to hell a Jew or two / It's true that I am just ungrateful scum / That's true, but I am not to blame, I grew up without love / The moment will come when you turn your back to me / And then I shall stick into you the sharpened axe.
I am Ahmed living in the central region / I work near a kindergarten and am responsible for gas containers / Who like me enjoys two worlds? / Today I am here and tomorrow they will not be here / Many of them, very many of them will not / It's true that I am nothing but ungrateful scum / That's true, but I am not to blame, I grew up without love / It's true that the moment will come when you turn your back to me / And then I shall stick into you the sharpened axe / It's true that I am nothing but ungrateful scum / That's true, but I am not to blame, I grew up without love. It's true that the moment will come when you turn your back to me / And then I shall shoot you straight in the back.'
Substitue David for Ahmed and Berlin or Paris for Jerusalem and you have a perfect anti-Semitic poem. It is totally certain that the Bundespräsident would not invite the author for tea in his residence. But the president of Israel was attacked from all sides for canceling the invitation. The rightists attacked him for rebuffing a true patriot, many leftist do-gooders disapproved in the name of freedom of creation and universal tolerance.
When I was a nine-year old in Germany, I heard the catchy song "When Jewish blood spurts from the knife / Everything will be twice as good". If the author was still alive, would German liberals demand that he should be accorded artistic freedom?
Benayoun (39) bears an Arab name. He was born in a Beersheba slum, his parents are immigrants from Morocco. They could be called Arab Jews, as my parents were called German Jews.
Benayoun was not a fanatic to start with. But when his brother adopted a more extreme form of the Jewish religion, he followed suit. This procedure, called "Return to the Faith”, is almost always accompanied by a rabid racism...
Just three days ago the Minister of Home Security, a minion of Avigdor Lieberman, initiated a law which would define the Arab Temple Guard as an "unlawful organization" – the equivalent of a terrorist group. This guard is employed by the Waqf (Muslim charitable association) which is in charge of the Temple Mount by international agreement (with Jordan).
The Guard cannot defend the Holy Shrines against the Israeli police, but it can warn Muslims of the approach of Jews who come to pray, which is forbidden. Removing the Guard would tighten even more the grip of Jewish fanatics and cynical politicians on the Mount.
This measure, at this precise moment, is a direct provocation. It confirms the darkest Muslim fears that Israel is about to change the status quo and turn the Mount into a Jewish prayer site.
Why would a police minister do so just now, when Jerusalem is in flames and the entire Muslim world is rallying to the defense of the Holy Shrines? Is he out of his mind?
Not at all. It is just that he must compete with other politicians in grabbing headlines. And, as Benayoun is now showing, hatred of "the Arabs" is the hottest article on the market.
Then there is the proposed law that would allow the Knesset majority to annul the Knesset membership of any deputy who "favors the armed struggle against Israel". Who decides? The Knesset majority, of course. It would act as prosecutor, judge and executioner at the same time.
This bill is clearly aimed at Haneen Zuabi, a provocative female Arab member, who has already been banned from the Knesset for half a year (except for voting).
Another measure is the annulment of residence in Jerusalem for terrorists and their families. (Arabs in annexed East Jerusalem were not accorded citizenship, but only "permanent residency". This can be revoked any time.)
This week the residence status of a local Arab was indeed revoked. He was accused of having driven another Arab to Tel Aviv, where the passenger carried out a suicide attack at a pub. This happened 13 years ago. The driver protested that he had no idea of his passenger's intentions, but was sent to prison nevertheless. Now the ministry remembered to expel him from the city.
Such bills, laws and executive actions fill the news every day.
Since its inauguration, the current Knesset has included a group of about twenty members who in other countries might be called neo-fascists. Most of them are leading Likud members, the others belong to rival coalition factions. They compete fiercely with each other. They are like 20 cats in one bag.
It seems that these members spend their days looking for ideas for even more atrocious anti-Arab measures. These make deadlines and grab public attention. The more atrocious, the bigger the headline and the longer the TV interviews. These translate into popularity within their parties and guarantee reelection.
If you have no other qualities, this alone will assure you of a successful political career.
For several weeks now the center of activity has been a bill called "Basic Law: Israel the Nation-State of the Jewish People".
Israel has no constitution. From the beginning, the religious-secular controversy has prevented it.
However, the declaration of independence adopted in May 1948, which has no legal status, defined Israel as a "Jewish State" and promised complete equality to non-Jewish citizens. Later, several Basic Laws defined Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic State", giving equal status to the two components, which often seem contradictory.
The diverse versions of the new bills define Israel as a "Jewish State" only, demoting the "democratic" aspect to second-class status. They abolish the word "equality" altogether. Arabic, which is now the second official language, will lose that status. Discrimination, now practiced clandestinely, will become legal and overt.
These versions were officially adopted last Sunday by the government. However, Binyamin Netanyahu promised to produce a more moderate version before the measure comes to the final vote in the Knesset.
Netanyahu rightly fears that the current versions might set off a world-wide reaction. The "only democracy in the Middle East" would become far less democratic. Tunisia might assume this title.
As far as is known at the moment, Netanyahu's version – which will probably be adopted in the end - will restore the "Jewish and democratic" appellation, but omit the term "equality". The rights of individual non-Jewish citizens will be upheld, but not any collective rights of non-Jewish communities, concerning language, religion and education.
President Rivlin has denounced the bills squarely, much to his credit. Leading jurists have called them "superfluous", doubting that they would effect any real change. Liberal commentators have come out against them. "Moderate" coalition members have threatened to vote against them, or at least to abstain. Perhaps in the end very little will come out of the whole squabble.
But the fact that one can build a career on attacking democracy, on hatred of Israel's 1.7 million Arab citizens – more than 20% of the population – is chilling.
By the way, nobody has asked the seven million Jews outside Israel about their stand on the matter.
What do they think about Israel being the "nation-state of the Jewish People"? Do they believe that there is a "Jewish people”? Do they want to owe allegiance to Israel? Do they fear being accused of dual loyalty? Do they want at least to be consulted?
But what the hell, who asks them anyway?"
Uri Avnery, 29/11/2014
But Rivlin is a true liberal. When he read The Poem he was shocked to the depths of his soul. Then he remembered that the writer of this masterpiece had been invited to the President's residence to read from his works. He was promptly disinvited.
For this the President was attacked from many quarters. How dare he? What about artistic freedom?
The "poet" in question is one Amir Benayoun, a popular "oriental" folk singer. "Oriental" music, in this context, means the melodies preferred by oriental Jews, based on the Arab music of their former homelands with primitive lyrics about love and such.
The professional fortunes of Benayoun were declining, but The Poem restored them, and how! It became the center of a stormy national debate, all the media discussed it at length, even Haaretz printed it verbatim. Politicians, commentators and everyone else who respects himself or herself praised or condemned it.
The imaginary narrator of The Poem is an Arab named Ahmed, who dreams about killing Jews, especially Jewish babies. My own translation:
'Salaam Aleikum I am called Ahmed / And I live in Jerusalem / I study at the university a thing or two / Who enjoys all the worlds like me? / Today I am moderate and smiling / Tomorrow I shall ascend to heaven / I shall send to hell a Jew or two / It's true that I am just ungrateful scum / That's true, but I am not to blame, I grew up without love / The moment will come when you turn your back to me / And then I shall stick into you the sharpened axe.
I am Ahmed living in the central region / I work near a kindergarten and am responsible for gas containers / Who like me enjoys two worlds? / Today I am here and tomorrow they will not be here / Many of them, very many of them will not / It's true that I am nothing but ungrateful scum / That's true, but I am not to blame, I grew up without love / It's true that the moment will come when you turn your back to me / And then I shall stick into you the sharpened axe / It's true that I am nothing but ungrateful scum / That's true, but I am not to blame, I grew up without love. It's true that the moment will come when you turn your back to me / And then I shall shoot you straight in the back.'
Substitue David for Ahmed and Berlin or Paris for Jerusalem and you have a perfect anti-Semitic poem. It is totally certain that the Bundespräsident would not invite the author for tea in his residence. But the president of Israel was attacked from all sides for canceling the invitation. The rightists attacked him for rebuffing a true patriot, many leftist do-gooders disapproved in the name of freedom of creation and universal tolerance.
When I was a nine-year old in Germany, I heard the catchy song "When Jewish blood spurts from the knife / Everything will be twice as good". If the author was still alive, would German liberals demand that he should be accorded artistic freedom?
Benayoun (39) bears an Arab name. He was born in a Beersheba slum, his parents are immigrants from Morocco. They could be called Arab Jews, as my parents were called German Jews.
Benayoun was not a fanatic to start with. But when his brother adopted a more extreme form of the Jewish religion, he followed suit. This procedure, called "Return to the Faith”, is almost always accompanied by a rabid racism...
Just three days ago the Minister of Home Security, a minion of Avigdor Lieberman, initiated a law which would define the Arab Temple Guard as an "unlawful organization" – the equivalent of a terrorist group. This guard is employed by the Waqf (Muslim charitable association) which is in charge of the Temple Mount by international agreement (with Jordan).
The Guard cannot defend the Holy Shrines against the Israeli police, but it can warn Muslims of the approach of Jews who come to pray, which is forbidden. Removing the Guard would tighten even more the grip of Jewish fanatics and cynical politicians on the Mount.
This measure, at this precise moment, is a direct provocation. It confirms the darkest Muslim fears that Israel is about to change the status quo and turn the Mount into a Jewish prayer site.
Why would a police minister do so just now, when Jerusalem is in flames and the entire Muslim world is rallying to the defense of the Holy Shrines? Is he out of his mind?
Not at all. It is just that he must compete with other politicians in grabbing headlines. And, as Benayoun is now showing, hatred of "the Arabs" is the hottest article on the market.
Then there is the proposed law that would allow the Knesset majority to annul the Knesset membership of any deputy who "favors the armed struggle against Israel". Who decides? The Knesset majority, of course. It would act as prosecutor, judge and executioner at the same time.
This bill is clearly aimed at Haneen Zuabi, a provocative female Arab member, who has already been banned from the Knesset for half a year (except for voting).
Another measure is the annulment of residence in Jerusalem for terrorists and their families. (Arabs in annexed East Jerusalem were not accorded citizenship, but only "permanent residency". This can be revoked any time.)
This week the residence status of a local Arab was indeed revoked. He was accused of having driven another Arab to Tel Aviv, where the passenger carried out a suicide attack at a pub. This happened 13 years ago. The driver protested that he had no idea of his passenger's intentions, but was sent to prison nevertheless. Now the ministry remembered to expel him from the city.
Such bills, laws and executive actions fill the news every day.
Since its inauguration, the current Knesset has included a group of about twenty members who in other countries might be called neo-fascists. Most of them are leading Likud members, the others belong to rival coalition factions. They compete fiercely with each other. They are like 20 cats in one bag.
It seems that these members spend their days looking for ideas for even more atrocious anti-Arab measures. These make deadlines and grab public attention. The more atrocious, the bigger the headline and the longer the TV interviews. These translate into popularity within their parties and guarantee reelection.
If you have no other qualities, this alone will assure you of a successful political career.
For several weeks now the center of activity has been a bill called "Basic Law: Israel the Nation-State of the Jewish People".
Israel has no constitution. From the beginning, the religious-secular controversy has prevented it.
However, the declaration of independence adopted in May 1948, which has no legal status, defined Israel as a "Jewish State" and promised complete equality to non-Jewish citizens. Later, several Basic Laws defined Israel as a "Jewish and Democratic State", giving equal status to the two components, which often seem contradictory.
The diverse versions of the new bills define Israel as a "Jewish State" only, demoting the "democratic" aspect to second-class status. They abolish the word "equality" altogether. Arabic, which is now the second official language, will lose that status. Discrimination, now practiced clandestinely, will become legal and overt.
These versions were officially adopted last Sunday by the government. However, Binyamin Netanyahu promised to produce a more moderate version before the measure comes to the final vote in the Knesset.
Netanyahu rightly fears that the current versions might set off a world-wide reaction. The "only democracy in the Middle East" would become far less democratic. Tunisia might assume this title.
As far as is known at the moment, Netanyahu's version – which will probably be adopted in the end - will restore the "Jewish and democratic" appellation, but omit the term "equality". The rights of individual non-Jewish citizens will be upheld, but not any collective rights of non-Jewish communities, concerning language, religion and education.
President Rivlin has denounced the bills squarely, much to his credit. Leading jurists have called them "superfluous", doubting that they would effect any real change. Liberal commentators have come out against them. "Moderate" coalition members have threatened to vote against them, or at least to abstain. Perhaps in the end very little will come out of the whole squabble.
But the fact that one can build a career on attacking democracy, on hatred of Israel's 1.7 million Arab citizens – more than 20% of the population – is chilling.
By the way, nobody has asked the seven million Jews outside Israel about their stand on the matter.
What do they think about Israel being the "nation-state of the Jewish People"? Do they believe that there is a "Jewish people”? Do they want to owe allegiance to Israel? Do they fear being accused of dual loyalty? Do they want at least to be consulted?
But what the hell, who asks them anyway?"
Uri Avnery, 29/11/2014
"Stop being shocked by anti-Arab singer Amir Benayoun: A racist society composes racist songs. ‘Ahmed loves Israel’ is completely legitimate in the context of Israeli society.
It’s hard for me to be shocked by what Amir Benayoun says in his anti-Arab song “Ahmed loves Israel.” In the Wikipedia entry for iconic Israeli singer Arik Einstein, who died last year at this time, the Israeli rock historian Yoav Kutner is quoted as describing Einstein as “the true Land of Israel.” But the truth is that Benayoun is the true Land of Israel.
It’s hard to be shocked by what Benayoun says in “Ahmed loves Israel,” because I heard kids in white, bourgeois Ramat Hasharon saying this about the Arab women bending over to pick strawberries in the fields as we passed them on the way to elementary school. Here’s a joke: A good Arab is a dead Arab. I remember kids enjoying this bit of wisdom in the playground during recess. And did you know that Arabs can’t pronounce the letter p? They say b.
I heard it endlessly in the youth movement, when during night activities our counsellor would lead us on an operation to trap and kill imaginary evil Arabs who were hiding in an abandoned building. Cowardly, stinking Arabs never take showers and stick a knife in your back – did anyone ever hear another opinion in high school? That was the atmosphere in Israel; it always has been. A refusal to be racist toward Arabs was very unpopular.
I heard it in army basic training on the way to the camp in Samaria, with the trainees aiming their rifles out the windows of the bus at Arabs herding their sheep at the side of the road, and making sounds as if firing. I heard it all the time during the army intelligence course for “quality” people like me. For fun, when soldiers had time off base, they would leave the coins they tipped the Arab waiters buried deep in their plate of half-eaten hummus.
I heard it at the circumcision ceremony of a colleague’s son, when the jokes flew as people made fun of an Arabic accent in Hebrew. I heard it from blabbermouth taxi drivers. I heard it in the market, I heard it in living rooms where people who seemed enlightened and held academic degrees suddenly called Arabs “cousins” in a suspicious and degrading way – genteel and disguised racism among hypocritical cultured people who talk in codes and allusions.
I saw it in the eyes of good people along the way, apolitical and indifferent types, who shudder at the idea of their daughter marrying an Arab or an Arab doctor treating them in the emergency room. You buy village-style hummus from Arabs, and a sound track by the legendary Egyptian singer Umm Kulthum is great for a Batsheva dance company piece. Just don’t let them touch me.
Benayoun is not one of the herd. Leftists who read Haaretz and are automatically shocked by him – they are the herd. According to the norms of Israeli society, Benayoun is a completely normative Jewish Israeli. Normative – what a laugh. His only crime is breaking the semblance of respectability. He is a little ahead of his time. In the end, after all, the gap will disappear between what may be said on every street corner and what may be published. Meanwhile, Benayoun’s career will not be harmed. When you want to know which way the wind is blowing, you should listen to MK Uri Orbach and journalist Hanoch Daum. They were quick to defend Benayoun. Bresident Reuven Rivlin is a president of Arabs.
A racist society composes racist songs. “Ahmed loves Israel” is completely legitimate in the context of Israeli society. Generations of combat soldiers invented jokes exactly like these songs and sang them, entire companies, loud and clear, with the mag submachine gun operator drumming on the ammunition case before embarking on a regular action in a refugee camp. That is popular Israeli culture, that is local folklore. It’s a little late to be shocked by Amir Benayoun."
Rogel Alpher | Nov. 29, 2014 | Haaretz
E eis o que pensa um judeu estadunidense que venceu sua ignorância
e hoje, enxerga
e hoje, enxerga
E as catástrofes na Faixa de Gaza continuam. Israel mata, destrói, com a mão pesada do homem mau e em seguida a natureza age, com muita água, muita, aumentando a carência da população já esgotada.
Contudo, os palestinos resistem e se multiplicam
Israel’s fear of boycott rooted in tactic’s historic victories against colonialism: Tithi Bhattacharya. The Electronic Intifada. 2 December 2014
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário