FREE Julian Assange!
Both the US and the EU would like to see the Ayatollahs' Iran contained and constrained, preferably under new leadership - just as they wanted to see Saddam Hussein's Iraq before 2003 - but as in the past, they disagree on how to go about it. To put it simply, it is a dispute over "carrots or sticks" - or whether to bring Iran to its senses or bring it to its knees.
The Europeans want to compel the Islamic Republic to change its behaviour using trade and investments in accordance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), while the US wants to coerce it into a much more debilitating deal through tough sanctions and the threat of force.
But to paraphrase Mohamed ElBaradei, the former director of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Iran is no "donkey" to be managed with carrots and sticks. It is a defiant regional power that demands a US u-turn on sanctions, an apology, and respect.
As the crisis deepens, the disagreements between the US and Europe are also worsening in tone and substance.
The Trump administration does not see eye-to-eye with the EU on several issues.
First, it argues that the JCPOA was a terrible deal negotiated in haste to serve as President Barack Obama's foreign policy legacy, rather than to ensure nuclear-free Iran. The deal allowed the Islamic Republic to expand its regional reach and subsidised Iranian "support for terrorism" and the destabilisation of Washington's Arab allies - so the argument goes.
Second, the Trump administration believes that even though the deal is the culmination of multilateral diplomacy, multilateralism is no substitute for "doing the right thing". It has demonstrated it values international agreements and institutions only when these serve its policies and interests. The Trump administration, therefore, insists that any country that trades with Iran must pay the price for aiding and abetting an "evil" "state sponsor of terror". It has gone as far as comparing a diplomatic approach to Iran to the appeasement of Nazi Germany.
Third, Washington considers the Europeans hypocrites or ungrateful "free-riders", who criticise US power, while benefiting from US military protection. It sees European caution as weakness: America acts because it can, Europe rails because it can't. In other words, Europe prefers carrots only because it lacks the big sticks.
From the viewpoint of the Trump administration, if the Europeans are serious about having a say, they need to put their money where their mouth is, i.e. increase their military spending to at least meet their NATO commitments. If the EU expects the US to act when crises blow up in Asia, the Middle East or even in its own front and back yards, (say, in Kosovo or Libya), it is up to Washington to decide the when and the how, and it is up to Brussels to keep up or shut up.
Europe obviously has a rather different perspective on these issues.
First, the Europeans believe that the Iran nuclear deal, while not perfect, fulfilled its mandate. It ensured Iran would not become a "nuclear state" and encouraged a change in behaviour. They argue that whatever Washington believes is missing, such as provisions on Iran's missile programme and its controversial regional policies, can be negotiated separately.
Why throw away a deal that the IAEA certifies has been working, when it could be strengthened and supplemented with additional protocols or agreements? Now that the US insists on going at it alone, it will have less leverage to pressure Tehran to come back to the table without the help of its European allies.
Second, the EU sees the JCPOA as a successful multilateral effort that could set a precedent for reaching non-proliferation and other agreements in the future. By walking away from the deal and punishing those who honour it, the Trump administration is alienating its allies and setting a different kind of precedent: one that encourages other powers to act unilaterally and withdraw from important international accords, which could have damaging implications for world peace and security.
The Europeans want to see the US lead by the power of its example, not by an example of its power. They would like to see it honour its commitments, not for Iran's sake, but rather for the sake of maintaining and strengthening an international rules-based system, the Western substitute of the more neutral "international law".
Third, the Europeans, who admit to and even boast of learning from the horrors of at least two centuries of war, are troubled by a US refusal to learn from its own bitter experiences. Since World War II, the US has embarked on major wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq, none of which have ended well, let alone in victory. And still, the US continues to act like a "hyper-power", insisting on being the world's self-appointed sheriff.
Brussels hopes President Donald Trump is pursuing a new deal not a new war, but his senior administration officials may be itching to teach Iran a lesson by forcing it to make an impossible choice between total surrender and total defeat. The Trump administration's reliance on the coercive power of its military and economic dominance and its use of the same prisms and pretexts as the Bush administration in 2003 could push the crisis down a slippery slope towards confrontation - one that promises to be far more costly than the Iraq war.
And it may have already started.
US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's warning on Iran following the recent alleged attacks on two Saudi tankers has further irked Europe and left transatlantic relations severelystrained. There are already reports that Washington is blaming Iran for the attacks and isconsidering the possibility of deploying 120,000 soldiers to the Gulf. Parallels are already being drawn with the Gulf of Tonkin crisis, when in 1964 the US government manufactured a military incident to deceive Congress and the public and justify its direct involvement in the Vietnam war.
The bickering over Iran is only the latest of a series of crises and tensions that have been building up between the two sides of the Atlantic since the end of the Cold War. The EU and the US still have a lot in common, certainly more than they do with Russia or China, but they have been at odds over a growing number of issues, including the Middle East, Russian resurgence, weapons proliferation and climate change.
As Europe asserts its global role mainly through its soft power and the US backs out of its global responsibilities while doubling down on its hard power, the gulf in transatlantic relations will only grow. While an exacerbated Iran crisis would damage but not break off US-EU relations, it could detonate the Middle East, if no one intervenes to stop the escalation. Unfortunately, both China and Russia - the other two signatories of the JCPOA - have so far tried to "pass the buck" hoping the other would stand up to the US over its economic sanctions and military deployment to the Gulf.
This has left the EU trying on its own to salvage its huge investment in the deal with Iran. But assuming that Brussels could summon the will to act, it still lacks the means. It suffers from far too many internal divisions, disputes and crises to be able to stand up to the US. Even the French-German axis which held and advanced the cause of a united Europe for decades looks shakier than ever.
So far the EU has failed to stop the US from launching a diplomatic offensive, a deception campaign, a public relations assault, an economic and psychological war on Iran. And, alas, there is no indication it can stop the Trump administration from taking its anti-Iran campaign to the next level.
This may be another case of US cooking up dinner and leaving Europe to wash the dishes.
Because of the internal divisions and political-national self-interest, the EU’s real status – well behind the US, Russia and China – has just been demonstrated by its inability to protect Iran from US sanctions following President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. A year ago, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron made humiliating visits to Washington to plead vainly with Trump to stay with the agreement, but were rebuffed.
The EU’s real status – well behind the US, Russia and China – has just been demonstrated by its inability to protect Iran from US sanctions following President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. A year ago, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron made humiliating visits to Washington to plead vainly with Trump to stay with the agreement, but were rebuffed.
Since then the US has successfully ratcheted up economic pressure on Iran, reducing its oil exports from 2.8 to 1.3 million barrels a day. The UK, France and Germany had promised to create a financial vehicle to circumvent US sanctions, but their efforts have been symbolic. Commercial enterprises are, in any case, too frightened of the ire of the US treasury to take advantage of such measures.
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that Iran would stop complying with parts of the nuclear deal unless the Europeans provided the promised protection for the oil trade and banks. Everybody admits that Iran is in compliance but this is not going to do it any good.
These are the latest moves in the complex political chess game between the US and Iran which has been going on since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. It is this conflict – and not the US-China confrontation over trade, which has just dramatically escalated – which will most likely define any new balance of power in the world established during the Trump era. It is so important because – unlike the US-China dispute – the options include the realistic possibility of regime change and war.
The Europeans have proved to be marginal players when it comes to the Iran deal and it was never likely that they would spend much more diplomatic capital defending it once the US had withdrawn. In the long term, they also want regime change in Tehran, though they oppose Trump’s methods of obtaining it as reckless. Nevertheless, the contemptuous ease with which Trump capsized the agreement shows how little he cares what EU leaders say or do.
It seems that the Europeans will be spectators in the escalating US-Iran conflict. The US potential is great when it comes to throttling the Iranian economy. Iranian oil exports are disappearing, inflation is at 40 per cent and the IMF predicts a 6 per cent contraction in the economy as a whole. The US can punish banks dealing with Iran everywhere, including countries where Iran is politically strong such as Iraq and Lebanon.
Tehran does not have many effective economic countermeasures against the US assault, other than to try to out-wait the Trump era. Caution has worked well for Iran in the past. After 2003, Iranians used to joke that God must be on their side because why else would the US have overthrown Iran’s two deeply hostile neighbours – the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Many Iranian leaders appear confident that they can survive anything Trump can throw at them other than a full-scale shooting war. Past precedent suggests they’re right: in the wars in Lebanon after the Israeli invasion of 1982, Iran came out on top and helped created Hezbollah as the single most powerful political and military force in the country. Likewise, after the US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran undermined their occupation and saw a Shia-led government sympathetic to its interests hold power in Baghdad. In Syria after 2011, Iranian support was crucial in keeping its ally Bashar al-Assad in control.
Iran was on the winning side in these conflicts in part because of mistakes made by its opponents, but these will not inevitably happen again. Because the media and much of the political establishment in Washington and western capitals are so viscerally anti-Trump, they frequently underestimate the effectiveness of his reliance on American economic might while avoiding military conflict. At the end of the day, the US Treasury is a more powerful instrument of foreign policy than the Pentagon for all its aircraft carriers and drones.
Trump may not read briefing papers, but he often has a better instinct for the realities of power than the neo-conservative hawks in his administration who learned little from the Iraq war which they helped foment.
So long as Trump sticks with sanctions he is in a strong position, but if the crisis with Iran becomes militarised then the prospects for the US become less predictable. The White House wants to overpower every country and most of all Israel's enemies. However, neither Tehran nor Washington want war, but that does not mean they will not get one. Conflicts in this part of the Middle East are particularly uncontrollable because there are so many different players with contrary interests.
This divergence produces lots of wild cards: Trump is backed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but these oil states have had a dismal record of operational incapacity in Syria and Yemen.
The Iranians, for their part, have had their successes where their fellow Shia are the majority (Iraq), the largest community (Lebanon) or are in control of government (Syria). Given that they are a Shia clerical regime, it is always difficult for them to extend their influence beyond the Shia core areas.
Benjamin Netanyahu has led the charge in demonising Iran and encouraging the US to see it as the source of all evil in the Middle East. But Netanyahu’s belligerent rhetoric against Iran has hitherto been accompanied with caution in shifting to military action, except against defenceless Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
A danger is that a permanent cold or hot war between Washington and Tehran will become the vehicle for other conflicts that have little to do with it. These would include the escalating competition between Saudi Arabia and Turkey over the leadership of the Sunni world. Turkey’s independent role would be threatened by an enhancement of US power in the region. So too would Russia which has re-established its status as a global power since 2011 by its successful military support for Assad in Syria.
Trump hopes to force Tehran to negotiate a Carthaginian peace – particularly useful if this happens before the next US presidential election – under which Iran ceases to be a regional power. Regime change would be the optimum achievement for Trump, but is probably unattainable and very bad for the region, considering the danger of Islamic extremism.
If Trump sticks to economic war it will be very difficult for Iran to counter him, but in any other scenario the US position becomes more vulnerable. There is an impressive casualty list of British and US leaders – three British prime ministers and three US presidents – over the last century who have suffered severe or fatal political damage in the Middle East. Trump will be lucky if he escapes the same fate.
The EU’s real status – well behind the US, Russia and China – has just been demonstrated by its inability to protect Iran from US sanctions following President Trump’s withdrawal from the Iran nuclear deal of 2015. A year ago, Angela Merkel and Emmanuel Macron made humiliating visits to Washington to plead vainly with Trump to stay with the agreement, but were rebuffed.
Since then the US has successfully ratcheted up economic pressure on Iran, reducing its oil exports from 2.8 to 1.3 million barrels a day. The UK, France and Germany had promised to create a financial vehicle to circumvent US sanctions, but their efforts have been symbolic. Commercial enterprises are, in any case, too frightened of the ire of the US treasury to take advantage of such measures.
Iranian president Hassan Rouhani said on Wednesday that Iran would stop complying with parts of the nuclear deal unless the Europeans provided the promised protection for the oil trade and banks. Everybody admits that Iran is in compliance but this is not going to do it any good.
These are the latest moves in the complex political chess game between the US and Iran which has been going on since the overthrow of the Shah in 1979. It is this conflict – and not the US-China confrontation over trade, which has just dramatically escalated – which will most likely define any new balance of power in the world established during the Trump era. It is so important because – unlike the US-China dispute – the options include the realistic possibility of regime change and war.
The Europeans have proved to be marginal players when it comes to the Iran deal and it was never likely that they would spend much more diplomatic capital defending it once the US had withdrawn. In the long term, they also want regime change in Tehran, though they oppose Trump’s methods of obtaining it as reckless. Nevertheless, the contemptuous ease with which Trump capsized the agreement shows how little he cares what EU leaders say or do.
It seems that the Europeans will be spectators in the escalating US-Iran conflict. The US potential is great when it comes to throttling the Iranian economy. Iranian oil exports are disappearing, inflation is at 40 per cent and the IMF predicts a 6 per cent contraction in the economy as a whole. The US can punish banks dealing with Iran everywhere, including countries where Iran is politically strong such as Iraq and Lebanon.
Tehran does not have many effective economic countermeasures against the US assault, other than to try to out-wait the Trump era. Caution has worked well for Iran in the past. After 2003, Iranians used to joke that God must be on their side because why else would the US have overthrown Iran’s two deeply hostile neighbours – the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq.
Many Iranian leaders appear confident that they can survive anything Trump can throw at them other than a full-scale shooting war. Past precedent suggests they’re right: in the wars in Lebanon after the Israeli invasion of 1982, Iran came out on top and helped created Hezbollah as the single most powerful political and military force in the country. Likewise, after the US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, Iran undermined their occupation and saw a Shia-led government sympathetic to its interests hold power in Baghdad. In Syria after 2011, Iranian support was crucial in keeping its ally Bashar al-Assad in control.
Iran was on the winning side in these conflicts in part because of mistakes made by its opponents, but these will not inevitably happen again. Because the media and much of the political establishment in Washington and western capitals are so viscerally anti-Trump, they frequently underestimate the effectiveness of his reliance on American economic might while avoiding military conflict. At the end of the day, the US Treasury is a more powerful instrument of foreign policy than the Pentagon for all its aircraft carriers and drones.
Trump may not read briefing papers, but he often has a better instinct for the realities of power than the neo-conservative hawks in his administration who learned little from the Iraq war which they helped foment.
So long as Trump sticks with sanctions he is in a strong position, but if the crisis with Iran becomes militarised then the prospects for the US become less predictable. The White House wants to overpower every country and most of all Israel's enemies. However, neither Tehran nor Washington want war, but that does not mean they will not get one. Conflicts in this part of the Middle East are particularly uncontrollable because there are so many different players with contrary interests.
This divergence produces lots of wild cards: Trump is backed by Saudi Arabia and the UAE, but these oil states have had a dismal record of operational incapacity in Syria and Yemen.
The Iranians, for their part, have had their successes where their fellow Shia are the majority (Iraq), the largest community (Lebanon) or are in control of government (Syria). Given that they are a Shia clerical regime, it is always difficult for them to extend their influence beyond the Shia core areas.
Benjamin Netanyahu has led the charge in demonising Iran and encouraging the US to see it as the source of all evil in the Middle East. But Netanyahu’s belligerent rhetoric against Iran has hitherto been accompanied with caution in shifting to military action, except against defenceless Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank.
A danger is that a permanent cold or hot war between Washington and Tehran will become the vehicle for other conflicts that have little to do with it. These would include the escalating competition between Saudi Arabia and Turkey over the leadership of the Sunni world. Turkey’s independent role would be threatened by an enhancement of US power in the region. So too would Russia which has re-established its status as a global power since 2011 by its successful military support for Assad in Syria.
Trump hopes to force Tehran to negotiate a Carthaginian peace – particularly useful if this happens before the next US presidential election – under which Iran ceases to be a regional power. Regime change would be the optimum achievement for Trump, but is probably unattainable and very bad for the region, considering the danger of Islamic extremism.
If Trump sticks to economic war it will be very difficult for Iran to counter him, but in any other scenario the US position becomes more vulnerable. There is an impressive casualty list of British and US leaders – three British prime ministers and three US presidents – over the last century who have suffered severe or fatal political damage in the Middle East. Trump will be lucky if he escapes the same fate.
Inside Story: Can Europe save the Iran nuclear deal?
PALESTINA
On May 4, Israel launched a series of deadly airstrikes on the besieged Gaza Strip, prompting a response from various resistance groups. At least 25 Palestinians were killed and nearly 200 people wounded in the Israeli attacks. Four Israelis were also killed by Palestinian rockets.
Despite the hasbara (Israeli propaganda), the clashes were instigated by Israel, when the Israeli military killed four Palestinians in Gaza on May 3. Two were killed while protesting along the fence separating Gaza from Israel. They were participating in the Great March of Return, a protracted Palestinian non-violent protest demanding an end to the Israeli siege. The other two were killed in an Israeli airstrike that targeted a Hamas post in the central Gaza Strip.
Why did Netanyahu choose such timing to bomb Gaza? It would have made more sense to attack Gaza in the run-up to the general elections. For months prior to the April 9 elections, Netanyahu was repeatedly accused of being soft on Hamas.
Although desperate for votes, Netanyahu refrained from a major operation against Gaza, because of the inherent risk in such attacks, as seen in the botched Israeli incursion into Khan Younis on November 11. Netanyahu could have lost a highly contested election, had he failed.
Following a victory, the soon-to-be longest-serving Israeli Prime Minister has the necessary political capital to launch wars at whim.
Israeli politics featured heavily in the latest Gaza onslaught, as always.
Netanyahu is in the final stages of forming a new coalition, yet another government of like-minded far right, religious zealots and ultra-nationalist politicians which, he admits, is not easy.
Netanyahu wishes to include six parties in his new government: his own, the Likud, with 35 seats in the Israeli Knesset (parliament); religious extremist parties: Shas (8 seats), United Torah Judaism (8), Yisrael Beiteinu of ultra-nationalist, Avigdor Lieberman (5), the newly-formed Union of Right-wing Parties (5) and the "centrist" Kulanu with 4 seats.
Netanyahu bombed Gaza because it is the only unifying demand among all of his allies. He needed to assure them of his commitment to keep pressure on Palestinian Resistance, of maintaining the siege on Gaza and ensuring the safety of Israel’s southern towns and settlements.
The latest attack on the Palestinians living in the prison-Gaza was meant to serve the interests of all of Netanyahu’s possible coalition partners. Alas, although a truce has been declared, more Israeli violence should be expected once the coalition is formed because, in order for Netanyahu to keep his partners happy, he would need to persistently keep pounding Gaza.
Despite the hasbara (Israeli propaganda), the clashes were instigated by Israel, when the Israeli military killed four Palestinians in Gaza on May 3. Two were killed while protesting along the fence separating Gaza from Israel. They were participating in the Great March of Return, a protracted Palestinian non-violent protest demanding an end to the Israeli siege. The other two were killed in an Israeli airstrike that targeted a Hamas post in the central Gaza Strip.
Why did Netanyahu choose such timing to bomb Gaza? It would have made more sense to attack Gaza in the run-up to the general elections. For months prior to the April 9 elections, Netanyahu was repeatedly accused of being soft on Hamas.
Although desperate for votes, Netanyahu refrained from a major operation against Gaza, because of the inherent risk in such attacks, as seen in the botched Israeli incursion into Khan Younis on November 11. Netanyahu could have lost a highly contested election, had he failed.
Following a victory, the soon-to-be longest-serving Israeli Prime Minister has the necessary political capital to launch wars at whim.
Israeli politics featured heavily in the latest Gaza onslaught, as always.
Netanyahu is in the final stages of forming a new coalition, yet another government of like-minded far right, religious zealots and ultra-nationalist politicians which, he admits, is not easy.
Netanyahu wishes to include six parties in his new government: his own, the Likud, with 35 seats in the Israeli Knesset (parliament); religious extremist parties: Shas (8 seats), United Torah Judaism (8), Yisrael Beiteinu of ultra-nationalist, Avigdor Lieberman (5), the newly-formed Union of Right-wing Parties (5) and the "centrist" Kulanu with 4 seats.
Netanyahu bombed Gaza because it is the only unifying demand among all of his allies. He needed to assure them of his commitment to keep pressure on Palestinian Resistance, of maintaining the siege on Gaza and ensuring the safety of Israel’s southern towns and settlements.
The latest attack on the Palestinians living in the prison-Gaza was meant to serve the interests of all of Netanyahu’s possible coalition partners. Alas, although a truce has been declared, more Israeli violence should be expected once the coalition is formed because, in order for Netanyahu to keep his partners happy, he would need to persistently keep pounding Gaza.
NO to Eurovision in Tel Aviv
You have so far decided to ignore several requests to honour the Palestinian picket line. On May 9, Gaza cultural organisations and artists issued a strong call asking them to boycott the contest out of respect for the two babies and two pregnant women along with the 23 other Palestinians killed in Israel's latest violent assault on the strip. In addition to the repeated calls made by the Palestinians and their Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions - BDS movement, tens of thousands of people in Europe and around the world have signed petitions reiterating the plea to #BoycottEurovision2019 in Tel Aviv and asked you to stop art-washing occupation and apartheid. But it all has fallen on deaf ears!
"Dear Madonna and Eurovision 2019 contestants,
You have so far decided to ignore several requests to honour the Palestinian picket line. On May 9, Gaza cultural organisations and artists issued a strong call asking them to boycott the contest out of respect for the two babies and two pregnant women along with the 23 other Palestinians killed in Israel's latest violent assault on the strip. In addition to the repeated calls made by the Palestinians and their Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions - BDS movement, tens of thousands of people in Europe and around the world have signed petitions reiterating the plea to #BoycottEurovision2019 in Tel Aviv and asked you to stop art-washing occupation and apartheid. But it all has fallen on deaf ears!
Perhaps you don't care, or perhaps you believed Israel's propaganda that we are all terrorists and the attacks on Gaza are "security operations". Some of you have spoken about supporting peace, but if you really do, then you wouldn't be singing in Israel.
Let me tell you what supporting peace really means.
It means affirming the fact that Palestine is under occupation and that Israel has violated numerous UN resolutions calling for the withdrawal of its troops from Palestinian territories. It means recognising that Israel and its illegal settlements operate under apartheid, where Palestinians are segregated, surveilled, oppressed, and killed into submission. It means acknowledging that Israel was built on a land whose original native population was violently ethnically cleansed and dispossessed.
The very venue your hosts are having you sing at, the Expo Tel Aviv, was built on the ruins of the Palestinian village Al-Shaykh Muwannis, which like 530 others were completely razed to the ground in 1948 to make way for settlers coming from your countries in Europe. We, the six million Palestinian refugees scattered around the world, are the living proof that Palestine was a thriving and civilised land before the arrival of the European Zionists.
Those few Palestinians who were able to remain in their land and were given Israeli citizenship, face more than 50 discriminatory laws which make them non-equal citizens. In fact, last year Israel finally officially acknowledged the apartheid it had imposed for decades on the non-Jews within its borders by proclaiming itself a Jewish state. But even before this declaration, anti-apartheid fighters, like Nelson Mandela and Archbishop Desmond Tutu, had repeatedly compared Israel to South Africa and said that the parallels are clear.
If Europe took action and boycotted the racist murderous regime of apartheid South Africa, why aren't you doing so with Israel? Why do you insist on rewarding the perpetrators of the second-gravest crime against humanity, apartheid?
Why are you pretending not to see the colonisation of Palestine? Over the past few days, you have been singing just a few kilometres away from a vast network of segregated infrastructure and checkpoints that separate some 650,000 Jewish settlers who live in illegal settlements built on occupied Palestinian land from the Palestinian population. Meanwhile, the true owners of the land in the West Bank have no state to protect them, no rights to the resources of the land, including water, no real Freedom of movement, and no real economic prospects to live a dignified life.
Nearby, just 60km south of where you have been signing is also my home, Gaza, which has been under a medieval blockade for 12 years. It has been compared to a concentration camp and an open-air prison, but I would say it is much worse. We struggle to live with no access to clean water and just a few hours of electricity a day; our children are suffering from malnutrition and our sick are dying at an unimaginable rate for lack of medication and proper treatment.
Israel has waged three major wars on us in the past 10 years, killing thousands in the indiscriminate bombing by American-made fighter jets. After every conflict, international organisations usually talk about reconstruction. In our case, they do not. After every violent Israeli assault, we cannot rebuild because there is no concrete, basic building materials or electric supplies.
All this constitutes "collective punishment" and under the Geneva Conventions, it is a war crime - one of many Israel commits on a daily basis.
By next year,according to the UN, Gaza will become uninhabitable.
How does it feel to sing and dance so close to so much human misery and suffering? Just 60km away from a place that can no longer support human life, but holds some 2 million people under lockdown by your host?
Does this mean anything to you?
With brutal precision, we have been uprooted, humiliated at checkpoints, imprisoned without charge, denied our heritage and religious sites, denied our freedom to move and see family members, denied water, arable land and our livelihoods, denied our dreams of a normal life. All along, you and the rest of Europe have merely watched and done nothing, although it was European powers who brought this suffering onto us seven decades ago.
But it is not too late. You can still do Something.
You can stand up against apartheid and occupation, you can stand up for basic basic human rights and equality and refuse to sing on the ruins of a Palestinian village one more night. You can support one of the many apartheid-free Eurovision gatherings happening across Europe. You can back BDS and call on others to do so.
This is our last appeal.
Remember your peers of the previous generation who stood up bravely against South African apartheid and backed the boycott movement. Like them, you can stand on the right side of history and boycott Israel today!" Haidar Eid
Daily Life Under Occupation
BRASIL
Empresa Archimedes de Israel, cujo foco é influenciar resultados de eleições de bandidos, pagou em REAIS para espalhar fake news no Facebook para deturpar os fatos na campanha eleitoral brasileira. Para eleger quem? Aposto no Trump Tropical. Informação transmitida pela Associated Press.
Facebook said Thursday it banned an Israeli company that ran an influence campaign aimed at disrupting elections in various countries and has canceled dozens of accounts engaged in spreading disinformation. Nathaniel Gleicher, Facebook’s head of cybersecurity policy, told reporters that the tech giant had purged 65 Israeli accounts, 161 pages, dozens of groups and four Instagram accounts. Although Facebook said the individuals behind the network attempted to conceal their identities, it discovered that many were linked to the Archimedes Group, a Tel Aviv-based political consulting and lobbying firm that publicly boasts of its social media skills and ability to “change reality.”
“It’s a real communications firm making money through the dissemination of fake news,” said Graham Brookie, director of the Digital Forensic Research Lab at the Atlantic Council, a think tank collaborating with Facebook to expose and explain disinformation campaigns.
Gleicher described the pages as conducting “coordinated inauthentic behavior,” with accounts posting on behalf of certain political candidates, smearing their opponents and presenting as legitimate local news organizations peddling supposedly leaked information.
The activity appeared focused on Sub-Saharan African countries but was also scattered in parts of Southeast Asia and Latin America, what Brookie called a “staggering diversity of regions” that pointed to the group’s sophistication.
The fake pages, pushing a steady stream of political news, racked up 2.8 million followers. Thousands of people expressed interest in attending at least one of the nine events organized by those behind the pages. Facebook could not confirm whether any of the events actually occurred. Some 5,000 accounts joined one or more of the fake groups.
Facebook investigations revealed that Archimedes had spent some $800,000 on fake ads, paid for in Brazilian reals, Israeli shekels and U.S. dollars. Gleicher said the deceptive ads dated back to 2012, with the most recent activity occurring last month.
On its website, Archimedes, which presents itself as consulting firm involved in campaigns for presidential elections, does not hide its efforts to manipulate public opinion. Rather, the company advertises it.
The site, featuring a montage of stock photos from Africa, Latin America and the Caribbean, boasts of its “own unique field within the social media realm” and its efforts to “take every advantage available in order to change reality according to our client’s wishes.”
Little information is available beyond its slogan, which is “winning campaigns worldwide,” and a vague blurb about the group’s “mass social media management” software, which it said enabled the operation of an “unlimited” number of online accounts.
Archimedes’ chief executive is Elinadav Heymann, according to Swiss negotiations consultancy Negotiations.CH, where he is listed as one of the group’s consultants.
A biography posted to the company’s website describes Heymann as the former director of the Brussels-based European Friends of Israel lobbying group, a former political adviser in Israel’s parliament and an ex-intelligence agent for the Israeli air force. AP
Besides a rogue state, Israel has become the haven for dirty and bloody money and white collar outlaws.
VENEZUELA
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário