Mossad contradiz fabulações de Binyamin Netanyahu sobre o Irã
Binyamin Netanyahu unmasked by a south-african whitleblower
Cidadão responsável desmascara Netanyahu na Al-Jazeera e no Guardian
Gideon Levy: To see how racist Israel has become, look to the left.
The new levels of Arab-hatred being displayed are shocking, and so are the Israeli public’s acceptance of them.
Durante a ditadura militar no Brasil, nós também "aprendíamos" que nosso país era democrático. Nossos ditadores fizeram questão de manter o Congresso, as Assembleias Legislativas, as Câmaras Municipais, enfim, uma fachada que refletisse uma boa imagem fora do país. Mas nós sabíamos que governadores e senadores eram "biônicos" e os deputados e vereadores permitidos eram só os que compactuassem com os crimes do regime; se não, tinham seus mandatos caçados ou eram, no mínimo, perseguidos. A sociedade civil era amordaçada, as universidades eram vigiadas e a única opinião que era permitida era a favorável ao governo dos generais. Quem emitisse opinião contrária ia parar em masmorras onde era barbaramente torturado por "conselheiros" da CIA e seus aprendizes tupininquins desalmados.
Israel está caminhando para o autoritarismo a passos largos. Com a mesma neurose tacanha de segurança, lá, não contra "comunistas que comem criancinhas" como a mentira que os generais vendiam e sim contra donos de sua falsa terra prometida. Tudo lhes parece válido em nome do Grande Israel que esfrega, literalmente, a Palestina e os palestinos do mapa.
Enquanto não se faz nada para limitar a monstruosa cobiça sionista, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak e seus cupinchas continuam transformando um Estado Democrático em Estado Arbitrário de voz única, a sua, além da do capitalista amoral que financia esta empreitada homicida e suicida - Sheldon Adelson, o gringo judeu que forma a opinião dos israelenses com seu jornal gratuito Israel Today e banca as invasões civis na Cisjordânia. (Uri Avnery fala nele/dele abaixo com mais autoridade do que eu jamais teria.)
Neste momento de eleição em Israel, que será no dia 17 de março, resolvi falar rapidamente sobre a involução da democracia nesse país em vez de falar nos/dos candidatos - todos meio farinha do mesmo saco. Pois os principais pretendentes ao trono sangrento - o fascista Avigdor Lieberman, do Yisrael Beiteinu; Tzipi Livni do Zionist Camp, aliança entre o Labor Party e Hatnuah; Yair Lapid, do Yesh Atid; ou Binyamin Netanyahu, do Likud, do general Ariel Sharon - encontrará as instituições governamentais tão corrompidas pela hasbara, propaganda ultra-sionista-extremista, que é pouco provável que as liberdades internas - individuais ou coletivas - sejam restabelecidas e que a limpeza étnica da Palestina seja interrompida. Avigdor Lieberman é uma besta desumana. Se ainda tivesse ilusões quanto à capacidade de indignação dos líderes ocidentais, diria que sua eleição os forçaria a autorizar intervenção imediata da ONU com soldados e tudo o mais. Entretanto, perdi minhas ilusões quando o buldozzer extremista Ariel Sharon foi eleito e em vez de seu curriculum criminoso levar a Europa ao xeque-mate, ele cometeu um crime atrás do outro, segundo a Convenção de Genebra, e só Deus que parou sua barbárie o pondo em estado de coma até mandá-lo para o Inferno, literalmente. Temo que com Lieberman fizessem o mesmo e que só com intervenção divina conseguíssemos livrar-nos dele. Com Netanyahu Deus está agindo pelas mãos de jornalistas e informantes responsáveis que acham que seu lugar é no banco dos réus, na Háguia.
Considerando o estado avançado da repressão e da política expansionista homicida de Israel, esperar uma mudança interna é utopia brava. Basta ver o nome que os dois partidos da pretensa centro-esquerda escolheram para apresentar-se: União Sionista. Manobra eleitoreira ou ideológica? Qualquer que seja, significa que até os eleitores centristas e os antigos socialistas precisam ser atraídos por objetivos ilícitos. Sem contar que sua candidata, Tzipi Livni, diz-se a favor da solução dos Dois Estados sem precisar em que fronteira nem o preço que os palestinos terão de pagar para obter o que ela estiver disposta a "conceder". Nem ela e talvez nem seu colega Isaac Herzog tenham coragem de dar a guinada radical que seu país necessita para viver em paz - isto é, desmantelar as colônias judias ilegais na Cisjordânia ou permitir que os refugiados palestinos vítimas da "limpeza" de 1948 e seuintes retornem a suas casas confiscadas ou destruídas durantes a Naqba. Sem falar na condição sine qua non óbvia, que é aceitar as fronteiras de 1967.
A esta altura, o único jeito de resolver este conflito é com intervenção internacional direta, forte e decidida a frear o contraventor mor e impor Justiça. Enquanto isto não acontecer, seja quem for eleito, fará, no máximo, uma mudança de discurso e de método, mas os palestinos serão prejudicados do mesmo jeito. E é certo que o Israel Project (Blog 08/08/14 ) continuará firme, forte e surtindo efeito.
Enquanto a União Europeia engatinha, tem de lidar com o concreto em vez do hipotético e encarar a involução socio-político-cívica que vem consumindo Israel nas últimas décadas.
A arbitrariedade começou do lado de lá da Linha Verde, com a repressão e opressão dos palestinos; ou "animais", "apelido" que muitos israelenses usam para designar os nativos dos quais querem ver-se livres.
Israel virou fora-da-lei em 1967 com a ocupação militar do território palestino; agravou seu banditismo com as colônias/invasões civis judias na Cisjordânia e na Faixa de Gaza, e vem agravando seu caso judicial dia a dia com as aberrações que comete nos territórios palestinos ocupados. Sua prática de tortura nos prisioneiros que continua sequestrando na Cisjordânia daria inveja aos "professores" gringos da Operação Condor que treinou nossos verdugos que transformaram nossa América Latina em laboratório de suas invenções desumanas.
Do seu lado da Linha Verde, a arbitrariedade começou com os cidadãos arabo-israelenses. Ou seja, os palestinos sobreviventes da Naqba que permaneceram em seu antigo território, proliferaram e constituem 20% de sua população atual. Estes são cidadãos cristãos e muçulmanos de segunda classe e sua vida é limitada por inúmeras restrições quotidianas (http://www.acri.org.il/en/category/arab-citizens-of-israel/arab-minority-rights/). Sem contar a discriminação em todos os níveis socio-econômicos; e de uns anos para cá, a perseguição ostensiva de seus representantes no Knesset, o Congresso israelense.
Das 120 cadeiras do Knesset, apenas 11 são ocupadas por não-judeus. Uma é de um "traidor", o druzo Hamad Amar que foi tão cooptado pelos conquistadores dos Golã que aderiu ao Yisrael Beiteinu, do imigrante que virou minsitro das Relações Exteriores plenipotente Avigdor Lieberman. Portanto, Amar excluído, há um pouco menos de 10% para representar 20% da população não-judia.
Quatro deles fazem parte de partidos mixtos que defendem os Dois Estados - dois estão no Hadash, partido comunista (o terceiro eleito é um judeu, Dov Chenin), e 1 no Meretz, partido socialista. Os outros sete estão em partidos exclusivamente árabes. Quatro no United Arab List e três no Balad. Dos onze há dois cristãos, dois muçulmanos sunitas, um beduíno, e sete não declaram religião.
Dos onze, quem sobressai com coragem dentro e fora do plenário é uma mulher, Haneen Zoabi.
E é por isso que em outubro de 2014 foi suspensa do Knesset por seis meses. Primeiro por ousar dizer que os rapazes palestinos raptores dos três jovens invasores judeus na Cisjordânia em junho não eram terroristas e sim "people who see no other way to change their reality" a não ser cometendo atos extremos. Depois por condenar com veemência a carnificina da Operação Protective Edge em Gaza e a repressão violenta na Cisjordânia.
O Knesset tem sido porta-voz do governo em todos os sentidos e o Poder Judiciário tem respondido "presente" a quase todas as demandas arbitrárias do governo de Netanyahu e da maioria de extrema-direita do Poder Legislativo onde tem maioria. Na semana passada, o Supremo Tribunal tinha de julgar a demanda de proibição de candidatura de dois deputados de ideologia totalmente opostas e vetou a exclusão de ambos a fim de proteger um deles.
O protegido foi Baruch Marzel, extremista estadunidense que imigrou para Israel mas por erro de geografia instalou-se na Cisjordânia, em Hebron, onde apronta horrores com os hebronitas. Achando que conta vantagem, vive dizendo que era o "right-hand man" de Meir Kahane, outro imigrante estadunidense (que até nos EUA era vigiado pela polícia) fundador do Kach, uma das organizações terroristas dos colonos judeus mais cruéis na Cisjordânia. Marzel exterminaria todos os palestinos pessoalmente (se tivesse coragem e comandasse a IDF) para que invasores como ele se instalassem na Faixa de Gaza e na Cisjordânia. Que pisassem em tapete de cadáveres sangrando, não tem importância. O que lhe importa é que o terreno esteja livre de seus donos para que ocupem suas terras e casas. Ele é um criminoso. Um psicopata. Se não estivesse aterrorizando os hebronitas talvez fosse serial killer em sua terra natal. E se tivesse mira, seria sniper, como Chris Kyle, assassino em massa.
O outro parlamentar que foi julgado foi a advogada Haneen Zoabi, do partido Balad citado acima.
Os dois estão longe de ser farinha do mesmo saco, mas talvez até para humilhar mais Haneen, ela foi posta no mesmo banco dos réus que esse ser abjeto que é Marzel.
Embora o Tribunal tenha acabo recusando ambos banimentos, a espada de Dâmocles continua sobre a cabeça dos deputados árabes e são constantemente humilhados nos corredores e em plenário. Até analistas moderados acham que o sistema está poluído e que estão indo longe demais.
Os opositores ao regime semi-autoritário e aos atos de Binyamin Netanyahu têm sua liberdade cerceada não apenas no Knesset. Os cidadãos comuns também são visados. Vide a lei anti-boicote, que proíbe os cidadãos israelenses de exercer seu direito cívico de boicotar as empresas e os produtos originários das colônias judias ilegais na Cisjordânia. Sem contar as perseguições que os ativistas de direitos humanos sofrem no quotidiano. Assim como os reservistas que ousam break the silence e botar a boca no trombone.
As vozes judias divergentes no Knesset são mínimas, mas quando se fazem ouvir, são recebidas com vaias e os parlamentares são insultados.
Os parlamentares árabes são suspensos ou simplesmente expulsos do país, como foi o caso de Azmi Bishara. Durante o debate no Knesset sobre sua suspensão e sobre o perigo de cassação de seu madnato, Haneen disse: "Yes, I crossed the lines of consensus - a warlike, aggressive, racist, populist, chauvinist, arrogant consensus. I must cross those lines. I am no Zionist, and that is within my legal right."
"Not exactly," diz o jornalista israelense Ayeal Gross, "since there is a substantive problem with the grounds on which Arab representatives are being disqualified. In contrast to the banning of an anti-democratic party, disqualifying a party that opposes defining the state as Jewish is not legitimate, since we are not talking about a “democracy defending itself” but about blocking the option of having a political debate about the state’s character. Disqualification on grounds of supporting the armed struggle of a terror group or an enemy state against Israel sounds convincing on paper, but in practice it acts to restrict the ability of Arab MKs to express support for the Palestinian struggle against the occupation, while it does not allow the banning of someone who supports terror against Arabs.
That the Supreme Court overturns these disqualifications is important, but it doesn’t protect the Arab representatives from being repeatedly humiliated in the Central Elections Committee and before the court. Moreover, the constant threat of disqualification hovering over their heads creates a chilling effect that restricts their freedom of political action.
Although the elections committee this time also disqualified Marzel, from the time of the banning of the Kach party and its satellites in the late 1980s and early 1990s it has disqualified only Arab MKs. But if the grounds for disqualification are the clauses about denying the democratic nature of the state and incitement to racism, why doesn’t it ban Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, Benjamin Netanyahu and other candidates who support continuing the occupation regime, which fundamentally undermines democracy and empties it of content?
The prevailing attitude is that those who want to maintain an apartheid regime in the territories, those who call to boycott Arab businesses, and those who are responsible for wars in which hundreds of children and civilians are killed are considered legitimate. The “Zoabis” and the Kahanists are marked as being on the fringe of legitimacy in a way which hides the fact that those considered the mainstream are responsible for the real problems of democracy, as well as the institutionalization of racism.
Thus, by marking people like Zoabi and sometimes like Marzel as the “lunatic fringe,” their disqualification becomes a means of legitimizing the anti-democratic and racist perceptions at the heart of Israeli politics, and marking them as normal and acceptable."
Haneen Zoabi negou a acusação de "apoio a terrorismo" dizendo que a Corte escolheu interpretar suas palavras erroneamente em vez de interpretá-las em seu sentido real de abrir os olhos para a situação insuportável da ocupação civil e militar da Cisjordânia.
No entanto, embora Binyamin Netanyahu mereça todos os adjetivos pejorativos que recebe, ele não é o único responsável pelos crimes que Israel vem cometendo há décadas. Nenhum dos candidatos tem as mãos limpas e nenhum deles demonstra vontade de inverter o processo de limpeza étnica da Palestina. Nenhum deles pretende mudar o sistema que patrocina o bloqueio da Faixa de Gaza e a ocupação da Cisjordânia. Netanyahu, Lieberman, Livni, todos já provaram a maudade intrínsica que cultivam contra os palestinos. Livni, que posa de democrata, estava na linha de frente no massacre que Israel protagonizou em Gaza na Operação Cast Lead em 2008/09. Ela não é uma tábua de salvação e sim uma enganação a mais.
Jonathan Cook explica na Electronic Intifada que "given that Zoabi is accused of “inciting” against Israel, there is a clear double standard at play. Israeli politicians, including those in the highest ranking offices of the government, regularly espouse intense anti-Palestinian incitement in the Knesset and media.
As Palestinian bodies piled up during Israel’s 51-day assault on Gaza last summer, calls for more bloodshed were common. Moshe Feiglin, deputy speaker of the Knesset, called for the Israeli Military to “concentrate” and “exterminate” Palestinians in Gaza.
Just two weeks earlier, Feiglin had called on Israel to settle Gaza with Jewish Israelis and expel its indigenous Palestinian population.
“Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever,” he said. “Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel.”
By the time a lasting ceasefire was reached in late August, more than 2,200 Palestinianswere dead, mostly civilians.
Shortly before the slaughter in Gaza began, lawmaker Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home Party) issued a call for genocide of Palestinians on her Facebook when she approvingly posted an article in its entirety by the late Israeli speechwriter and Netanyahu advisor Uri Elitzur.
In that article, Elitzur wrote that the entire Palestinian people are Israel’s enemy, “including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” The article also called for Israel to slaughter Palestinian mothers, who raise “little snakes.”
Shaked celebrated the article as equally “as relevant today as it was at the time” it was written twelve years ago.
Unsurprisingly, Israel’s Central Election Committee takes no issues with Feiglin’s or Shaked’s calls for the increased bloodshed of Palestinians. On the other hand, according to the text of Lieberman’s bill, the northern wing of the Islamic Movement “subverts the State of Israel’s sovereignty while making cynical use of the institutions and fundamental values of the Jewish and democratic state.” It also blames the movement for “an eruption of violence and unrest among the Arab minority in Israel, while maintaining close relations with the terrorist organization Hamas.”
The attacks on Zoabi and the Islamic Movement come in the wake of legislation in March to raise the electoral threshold — from 2 percent to 3.25 percent — for a party to win representation in the Knesset.
The new threshold is widely seen as having been set to exclude the three Palestinian parties currently in the Knesset from representation. The minority’s vote is split almost evenly between three political streams.
Zoabi’s Balad party emphasizes the need for the Palestinian minority to build its own national institutions, especially in education and culture, to withstand the efforts of Israel’s Zionist institutions to strip Palestinian citizens of their rights and erase their identity. Its chief demand has been for “a state for all its citizens” — equal rights for Jewish and Palestinian citizens...
Ballad has been under threat at previous general elections. The Central Elections Committee, a body representing the major political parties, has repeatedly voted to ban it from running. Each time the decision has been overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court.
In 2007 the party’s former chairman, Azmi Bishara, was accused of treason while traveling abroad and has been living in exile ever since.
But the representation of all the parties is now in danger from the raised threshold. Over the past thirty years, turnout among Palestinian citizens has dramatically fallen to little more than half of potential voters, as the minority has seen its political demands for equality greeted with a wave of laws entrenching discrimination.
Among the anti-democratic measures passed in recent years are laws that penalize organizations commemorating the Nakba, the Palestinians’ dispossession of their homeland in 1948; that provide a statutory basis to admissions committees, whose function is to prevent Palestinian citizens living on most of Israel’s territory; and that make it impossible for most Palestinian citizens to bring a Palestinian spouse to live with them in Israel.
The increasingly uncompromising stance towards all the Palestinian minority’s political factions marks a shift in policy, even for the right.
Although no Israeli government coalition has ever included a Palestinian party, and the Nasserist al-Ard movement was banned in the 1960s, Jewish politicians have generally viewed it as safer to keep the Palestinian parties inside the Knesset.
Analyst Uzi Baram observed in Haaretz that even Menachem Begin, a former hardline prime minister from Netanyahu’s Likud party, believed it would be unwise to raise the threshold to keep out Arab parties. If they were excluded, Baram wrote, it was feared “they would resort to non-parliamentary actions.”...
Aeyal Gross, a constitutional law professor at Tel Aviv University, warned that the Knesset’s treatment of Zoabi was “paving the way towards fascism and tyranny.”
Gross noted the extreme severity of the committee’s punishment of Zoabi, contrasting it with that of another MK, Aryeh Eldad. In 2008 he called for Ehud Olmert, the prime minister at the time, to be sentenced to death for suggesting that parts of the occupied territories become a Palestinian state.
Eldad was suspended for just one day, even though it was a clear example of incitement to violence in a country where a former prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, was murdered by a right-wing extremist, citing similar justification for his actions.
The Supreme Court, which has shifted rightwards in recent years, may not be sympathetic to Zoabi’s appeal against her suspension.
In September the court jailed Said Nafaa, a former MK from her Balad party, for one year after he was convicted of visiting Syria in 2007 with a delegation of Druze clerics and meeting a Palestinian faction leader in Syria.
The crime of making contact with a foreign agent is the only one in Israeli law in which the defendant must prove their innocence.
The court may also be wary of making unpopular rulings at a time when it is under concerted attack from the Israeli right for being too liberal.
Ayelet Shaked, of the Settler Jewish Home party, which is in the government coalition, has introduced a bill that would allow a simple majority of the Knesset to vote to override Supreme Court rulings.
Human rights lawyers warned that the bill would further erode already limited protections for minority rights.
Debbie Gild-Hayo, a lawyer with the Association for Civil rights in Israel, warned that protections for minorities from the tyranny of the majority would be in severe jeopardy as a result. “These proposals wish to break down the checks and balances that are fundamental to democracy,” she said.
Zoabi remained defiant. She noted that, while she was being hounded, the legal authorities had ignored genocidal remarks made by Jewish politicians against Palestinians during the summer attack on Gaza. “They’re putting me on trial over a trivial, meaningless matter, while ministers and MKs who incited to racism and incited to violence and even to murder aren’t being investigated, even after complaints were filed against them.”
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is jonathan-cook.net.
Nesse ínterim, a decisão de Binyamin Netanyahu de ir ao Congresso estadunidense no dia 03 de março, duas semanas antes das eleições israelenses, sem consultar a Casa Branca como é a praxe diplomática, tem dado pano pra manga. Barack Obama está no auge de neu nojo pelo primeiro ministro mais mau-caráter da história universal - Tony Blair fica atrás três passos - e vários deputados democratas ousaram desafiar a AIPAC dizendo que não estarão presentes. como não estará o vice-presidente Joe Biden.
Netanyahu vai a Washington destilar seu veneno contra o Irã. Como sempre.
Os aliados incondicionais do governo israelense, como Dennis Ross (ex-enviado especial de Obama no Oriente Médio que defendeu Israel como se fosse seu embaixador e não um mediador estrangeiro) acabou dando um conselho a Netanyahu no Haaretz para tentar tirá-lo do embaraço: "You don't do business that way. And when you make a mistake, admiti it." Chamou atenção para o florescimento do apoio a Israel no Congresso (graças às "contribuições" - no Brasil é chamado de propina - dos lobbies sionistas às campanhas), "the last thing you want to do is have Israel become a partisan issue - especially at a time of demographic change in America." Ross se refere ao fator demográfico que está mudando a cara dos EUA. "In another 20 years, communities such as the African-americans, the Asian-Americans and the Hispanics will constitute the majority in the U.S. Those communities do not have an historica connection with Israel. And so Israel as a democracy becomes even more important for those kind of communities."
Aí ele explicou onde Netanyahu tem de manter a fachada democrática para não indispor os estadunidenses preocupados com democracia e justiça. Salientou que o projeto de lei nation-state, "set off alarm bells". Considera a democracia o cordão umbilical entre Israel e os EUA "in a way that's more important now than ever before. The legitimization movement internationally is such that Israel needs to take the initiative in order to demonstrate that it's prepared to do something. If it doesn' happen, then it's not because of Israel."
Trocando em miúdos, o recado de Denis Ross ao afilhado bandido não é para de fazer bandidagem e sim fazer de maneira sutil para que passe batido: Prometa o que a comunidade internacional quiser ouvir, faça o que quiser para forçar os palestinos a reagirem mal, aí cumpem-nos pelo fracasso de sua "tentativa" e mandem chumbo que ceder-lhes-emos em profusão. Enfim, Ross deu a Netanyahu os mesmos conselhos que costuma dar para que se safe de seus crimes contra a humanidade.
Ross admitiu que não há como viabilizar o "Grande Israel" que os sionistas querem, mas que eles podem roubar dos palestinos o máximo de terra. Como? Deu três conselhos:
"Make your settlement policy consitent with your two-state policy. Make a declaration: We will not build on what we think is the Plaestinian state. Embrace the idea of 67 and mutually agreed swaps and accept tat the Ara peace initiative is an umbrella that can be used".
O sionista gringo deu a mesma receita de como enganar a opinião pública internacional e prejudicar os palestinos dando a impressão de estar sendo magnânime em vez de ocupante ávido de sangue.
Para entender melhor a subserviência do Congresso estadunidense aos lobbies sionistas, eis o extrato do artigo de Chris McGreal, do Guardian: "A set piece of the annual gathering of one of the most powerful political lobbies in Washington is the “roll call” of support in Congress for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (Aipac).
No dia 12 de fevereiro o Israeli Supreme Court, Supremo Tribunal de Israel, voltou a negar a culpabilidade da IDF na morte da jovem ativista estadunidense Rachel Corrie.
Os juízes da ISC insentou seu Ministro da Defesa de responsabilidade por ações descritas como "wartime activiy" e não respondeu se tais ações violam as leis internacionais que regem os conflitos armados.
Rachel tinha 23 anos quando foi assassinada a sangue frio por um soldado da IDF que passou seu cartepillar armado sobre seu corpo como se fosse uma lavoura ou uma casa palestina que ele estava acostumado a esmagar. Morreu no dia 16 de março de 2003 e desde então seus pais não param de apelar por justiça nos tribunais de Tel Aviv.
Ela e outros jovens estrangeiros estavam usando coletes laranjados e gritavam em megafones para que os bulldozers parassem sua corrida em direção às casas de família que iam derrubar. Ela subiu em um monte de terra e o bulldozer continuou a avançar até esmagá-la. Impossível não vê-la onde estava. Tanto por estar em um monte elevado quanto pelo colete fluorescente dos jovens ativistas que os soldados israelenses conhecem de cor e decorado.
A ONG de Direitos Humanos Human Rights Watch declarou que "This ruling has disturbing implications beyond the Corrie family’s case, as it sends a message that Israeli forces have immunity even for deaths caused by alleged negligence.” Sarah Leah Whitson, encarregada do Oriente Médio e África do Norte disse também que “The ruling is a stark reminder that in some areas Israeli jurisprudence has veered completely off the track of international law.”
Enquanto não se faz nada para limitar a monstruosa cobiça sionista, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak e seus cupinchas continuam transformando um Estado Democrático em Estado Arbitrário de voz única, a sua, além da do capitalista amoral que financia esta empreitada homicida e suicida - Sheldon Adelson, o gringo judeu que forma a opinião dos israelenses com seu jornal gratuito Israel Today e banca as invasões civis na Cisjordânia. (Uri Avnery fala nele/dele abaixo com mais autoridade do que eu jamais teria.)
Neste momento de eleição em Israel, que será no dia 17 de março, resolvi falar rapidamente sobre a involução da democracia nesse país em vez de falar nos/dos candidatos - todos meio farinha do mesmo saco. Pois os principais pretendentes ao trono sangrento - o fascista Avigdor Lieberman, do Yisrael Beiteinu; Tzipi Livni do Zionist Camp, aliança entre o Labor Party e Hatnuah; Yair Lapid, do Yesh Atid; ou Binyamin Netanyahu, do Likud, do general Ariel Sharon - encontrará as instituições governamentais tão corrompidas pela hasbara, propaganda ultra-sionista-extremista, que é pouco provável que as liberdades internas - individuais ou coletivas - sejam restabelecidas e que a limpeza étnica da Palestina seja interrompida. Avigdor Lieberman é uma besta desumana. Se ainda tivesse ilusões quanto à capacidade de indignação dos líderes ocidentais, diria que sua eleição os forçaria a autorizar intervenção imediata da ONU com soldados e tudo o mais. Entretanto, perdi minhas ilusões quando o buldozzer extremista Ariel Sharon foi eleito e em vez de seu curriculum criminoso levar a Europa ao xeque-mate, ele cometeu um crime atrás do outro, segundo a Convenção de Genebra, e só Deus que parou sua barbárie o pondo em estado de coma até mandá-lo para o Inferno, literalmente. Temo que com Lieberman fizessem o mesmo e que só com intervenção divina conseguíssemos livrar-nos dele. Com Netanyahu Deus está agindo pelas mãos de jornalistas e informantes responsáveis que acham que seu lugar é no banco dos réus, na Háguia.
Being an anti-war activist in Israel is dangerous...
A esta altura, o único jeito de resolver este conflito é com intervenção internacional direta, forte e decidida a frear o contraventor mor e impor Justiça. Enquanto isto não acontecer, seja quem for eleito, fará, no máximo, uma mudança de discurso e de método, mas os palestinos serão prejudicados do mesmo jeito. E é certo que o Israel Project (Blog 08/08/14 ) continuará firme, forte e surtindo efeito.
Enquanto a União Europeia engatinha, tem de lidar com o concreto em vez do hipotético e encarar a involução socio-político-cívica que vem consumindo Israel nas últimas décadas.
A arbitrariedade começou do lado de lá da Linha Verde, com a repressão e opressão dos palestinos; ou "animais", "apelido" que muitos israelenses usam para designar os nativos dos quais querem ver-se livres.
Israel virou fora-da-lei em 1967 com a ocupação militar do território palestino; agravou seu banditismo com as colônias/invasões civis judias na Cisjordânia e na Faixa de Gaza, e vem agravando seu caso judicial dia a dia com as aberrações que comete nos territórios palestinos ocupados. Sua prática de tortura nos prisioneiros que continua sequestrando na Cisjordânia daria inveja aos "professores" gringos da Operação Condor que treinou nossos verdugos que transformaram nossa América Latina em laboratório de suas invenções desumanas.
Do seu lado da Linha Verde, a arbitrariedade começou com os cidadãos arabo-israelenses. Ou seja, os palestinos sobreviventes da Naqba que permaneceram em seu antigo território, proliferaram e constituem 20% de sua população atual. Estes são cidadãos cristãos e muçulmanos de segunda classe e sua vida é limitada por inúmeras restrições quotidianas (http://www.acri.org.il/en/category/arab-citizens-of-israel/arab-minority-rights/). Sem contar a discriminação em todos os níveis socio-econômicos; e de uns anos para cá, a perseguição ostensiva de seus representantes no Knesset, o Congresso israelense.
Das 120 cadeiras do Knesset, apenas 11 são ocupadas por não-judeus. Uma é de um "traidor", o druzo Hamad Amar que foi tão cooptado pelos conquistadores dos Golã que aderiu ao Yisrael Beiteinu, do imigrante que virou minsitro das Relações Exteriores plenipotente Avigdor Lieberman. Portanto, Amar excluído, há um pouco menos de 10% para representar 20% da população não-judia.
Quatro deles fazem parte de partidos mixtos que defendem os Dois Estados - dois estão no Hadash, partido comunista (o terceiro eleito é um judeu, Dov Chenin), e 1 no Meretz, partido socialista. Os outros sete estão em partidos exclusivamente árabes. Quatro no United Arab List e três no Balad. Dos onze há dois cristãos, dois muçulmanos sunitas, um beduíno, e sete não declaram religião.
Dos onze, quem sobressai com coragem dentro e fora do plenário é uma mulher, Haneen Zoabi.
E é por isso que em outubro de 2014 foi suspensa do Knesset por seis meses. Primeiro por ousar dizer que os rapazes palestinos raptores dos três jovens invasores judeus na Cisjordânia em junho não eram terroristas e sim "people who see no other way to change their reality" a não ser cometendo atos extremos. Depois por condenar com veemência a carnificina da Operação Protective Edge em Gaza e a repressão violenta na Cisjordânia.O Knesset tem sido porta-voz do governo em todos os sentidos e o Poder Judiciário tem respondido "presente" a quase todas as demandas arbitrárias do governo de Netanyahu e da maioria de extrema-direita do Poder Legislativo onde tem maioria. Na semana passada, o Supremo Tribunal tinha de julgar a demanda de proibição de candidatura de dois deputados de ideologia totalmente opostas e vetou a exclusão de ambos a fim de proteger um deles.
O protegido foi Baruch Marzel, extremista estadunidense que imigrou para Israel mas por erro de geografia instalou-se na Cisjordânia, em Hebron, onde apronta horrores com os hebronitas. Achando que conta vantagem, vive dizendo que era o "right-hand man" de Meir Kahane, outro imigrante estadunidense (que até nos EUA era vigiado pela polícia) fundador do Kach, uma das organizações terroristas dos colonos judeus mais cruéis na Cisjordânia. Marzel exterminaria todos os palestinos pessoalmente (se tivesse coragem e comandasse a IDF) para que invasores como ele se instalassem na Faixa de Gaza e na Cisjordânia. Que pisassem em tapete de cadáveres sangrando, não tem importância. O que lhe importa é que o terreno esteja livre de seus donos para que ocupem suas terras e casas. Ele é um criminoso. Um psicopata. Se não estivesse aterrorizando os hebronitas talvez fosse serial killer em sua terra natal. E se tivesse mira, seria sniper, como Chris Kyle, assassino em massa.
O outro parlamentar que foi julgado foi a advogada Haneen Zoabi, do partido Balad citado acima.
Os dois estão longe de ser farinha do mesmo saco, mas talvez até para humilhar mais Haneen, ela foi posta no mesmo banco dos réus que esse ser abjeto que é Marzel.
Embora o Tribunal tenha acabo recusando ambos banimentos, a espada de Dâmocles continua sobre a cabeça dos deputados árabes e são constantemente humilhados nos corredores e em plenário. Até analistas moderados acham que o sistema está poluído e que estão indo longe demais.
Os opositores ao regime semi-autoritário e aos atos de Binyamin Netanyahu têm sua liberdade cerceada não apenas no Knesset. Os cidadãos comuns também são visados. Vide a lei anti-boicote, que proíbe os cidadãos israelenses de exercer seu direito cívico de boicotar as empresas e os produtos originários das colônias judias ilegais na Cisjordânia. Sem contar as perseguições que os ativistas de direitos humanos sofrem no quotidiano. Assim como os reservistas que ousam break the silence e botar a boca no trombone.
As vozes judias divergentes no Knesset são mínimas, mas quando se fazem ouvir, são recebidas com vaias e os parlamentares são insultados.
Os parlamentares árabes são suspensos ou simplesmente expulsos do país, como foi o caso de Azmi Bishara. Durante o debate no Knesset sobre sua suspensão e sobre o perigo de cassação de seu madnato, Haneen disse: "Yes, I crossed the lines of consensus - a warlike, aggressive, racist, populist, chauvinist, arrogant consensus. I must cross those lines. I am no Zionist, and that is within my legal right."
"Not exactly," diz o jornalista israelense Ayeal Gross, "since there is a substantive problem with the grounds on which Arab representatives are being disqualified. In contrast to the banning of an anti-democratic party, disqualifying a party that opposes defining the state as Jewish is not legitimate, since we are not talking about a “democracy defending itself” but about blocking the option of having a political debate about the state’s character. Disqualification on grounds of supporting the armed struggle of a terror group or an enemy state against Israel sounds convincing on paper, but in practice it acts to restrict the ability of Arab MKs to express support for the Palestinian struggle against the occupation, while it does not allow the banning of someone who supports terror against Arabs.
That the Supreme Court overturns these disqualifications is important, but it doesn’t protect the Arab representatives from being repeatedly humiliated in the Central Elections Committee and before the court. Moreover, the constant threat of disqualification hovering over their heads creates a chilling effect that restricts their freedom of political action.
Although the elections committee this time also disqualified Marzel, from the time of the banning of the Kach party and its satellites in the late 1980s and early 1990s it has disqualified only Arab MKs. But if the grounds for disqualification are the clauses about denying the democratic nature of the state and incitement to racism, why doesn’t it ban Naftali Bennett, Avigdor Lieberman, Benjamin Netanyahu and other candidates who support continuing the occupation regime, which fundamentally undermines democracy and empties it of content?
The prevailing attitude is that those who want to maintain an apartheid regime in the territories, those who call to boycott Arab businesses, and those who are responsible for wars in which hundreds of children and civilians are killed are considered legitimate. The “Zoabis” and the Kahanists are marked as being on the fringe of legitimacy in a way which hides the fact that those considered the mainstream are responsible for the real problems of democracy, as well as the institutionalization of racism.
Thus, by marking people like Zoabi and sometimes like Marzel as the “lunatic fringe,” their disqualification becomes a means of legitimizing the anti-democratic and racist perceptions at the heart of Israeli politics, and marking them as normal and acceptable."
Haneen Zoabi negou a acusação de "apoio a terrorismo" dizendo que a Corte escolheu interpretar suas palavras erroneamente em vez de interpretá-las em seu sentido real de abrir os olhos para a situação insuportável da ocupação civil e militar da Cisjordânia.
No entanto, embora Binyamin Netanyahu mereça todos os adjetivos pejorativos que recebe, ele não é o único responsável pelos crimes que Israel vem cometendo há décadas. Nenhum dos candidatos tem as mãos limpas e nenhum deles demonstra vontade de inverter o processo de limpeza étnica da Palestina. Nenhum deles pretende mudar o sistema que patrocina o bloqueio da Faixa de Gaza e a ocupação da Cisjordânia. Netanyahu, Lieberman, Livni, todos já provaram a maudade intrínsica que cultivam contra os palestinos. Livni, que posa de democrata, estava na linha de frente no massacre que Israel protagonizou em Gaza na Operação Cast Lead em 2008/09. Ela não é uma tábua de salvação e sim uma enganação a mais.
Finalmente, união dos partidos palestino-israelenses?
As Palestinian bodies piled up during Israel’s 51-day assault on Gaza last summer, calls for more bloodshed were common. Moshe Feiglin, deputy speaker of the Knesset, called for the Israeli Military to “concentrate” and “exterminate” Palestinians in Gaza.
Just two weeks earlier, Feiglin had called on Israel to settle Gaza with Jewish Israelis and expel its indigenous Palestinian population.
“Gaza is part of our Land and we will remain there forever,” he said. “Subsequent to the elimination of terror from Gaza, it will become part of sovereign Israel and will be populated by Jews. This will also serve to ease the housing crisis in Israel.”
By the time a lasting ceasefire was reached in late August, more than 2,200 Palestinianswere dead, mostly civilians.
Shortly before the slaughter in Gaza began, lawmaker Ayelet Shaked (Jewish Home Party) issued a call for genocide of Palestinians on her Facebook when she approvingly posted an article in its entirety by the late Israeli speechwriter and Netanyahu advisor Uri Elitzur.
In that article, Elitzur wrote that the entire Palestinian people are Israel’s enemy, “including its elderly and its women, its cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” The article also called for Israel to slaughter Palestinian mothers, who raise “little snakes.”
Shaked celebrated the article as equally “as relevant today as it was at the time” it was written twelve years ago.
Unsurprisingly, Israel’s Central Election Committee takes no issues with Feiglin’s or Shaked’s calls for the increased bloodshed of Palestinians. On the other hand, according to the text of Lieberman’s bill, the northern wing of the Islamic Movement “subverts the State of Israel’s sovereignty while making cynical use of the institutions and fundamental values of the Jewish and democratic state.” It also blames the movement for “an eruption of violence and unrest among the Arab minority in Israel, while maintaining close relations with the terrorist organization Hamas.”
The attacks on Zoabi and the Islamic Movement come in the wake of legislation in March to raise the electoral threshold — from 2 percent to 3.25 percent — for a party to win representation in the Knesset.
The new threshold is widely seen as having been set to exclude the three Palestinian parties currently in the Knesset from representation. The minority’s vote is split almost evenly between three political streams.
Zoabi’s Balad party emphasizes the need for the Palestinian minority to build its own national institutions, especially in education and culture, to withstand the efforts of Israel’s Zionist institutions to strip Palestinian citizens of their rights and erase their identity. Its chief demand has been for “a state for all its citizens” — equal rights for Jewish and Palestinian citizens...
Ballad has been under threat at previous general elections. The Central Elections Committee, a body representing the major political parties, has repeatedly voted to ban it from running. Each time the decision has been overturned on appeal to the Supreme Court.
In 2007 the party’s former chairman, Azmi Bishara, was accused of treason while traveling abroad and has been living in exile ever since.
But the representation of all the parties is now in danger from the raised threshold. Over the past thirty years, turnout among Palestinian citizens has dramatically fallen to little more than half of potential voters, as the minority has seen its political demands for equality greeted with a wave of laws entrenching discrimination.
Among the anti-democratic measures passed in recent years are laws that penalize organizations commemorating the Nakba, the Palestinians’ dispossession of their homeland in 1948; that provide a statutory basis to admissions committees, whose function is to prevent Palestinian citizens living on most of Israel’s territory; and that make it impossible for most Palestinian citizens to bring a Palestinian spouse to live with them in Israel.
The increasingly uncompromising stance towards all the Palestinian minority’s political factions marks a shift in policy, even for the right.
Although no Israeli government coalition has ever included a Palestinian party, and the Nasserist al-Ard movement was banned in the 1960s, Jewish politicians have generally viewed it as safer to keep the Palestinian parties inside the Knesset.
Analyst Uzi Baram observed in Haaretz that even Menachem Begin, a former hardline prime minister from Netanyahu’s Likud party, believed it would be unwise to raise the threshold to keep out Arab parties. If they were excluded, Baram wrote, it was feared “they would resort to non-parliamentary actions.”...
Aeyal Gross, a constitutional law professor at Tel Aviv University, warned that the Knesset’s treatment of Zoabi was “paving the way towards fascism and tyranny.”
Gross noted the extreme severity of the committee’s punishment of Zoabi, contrasting it with that of another MK, Aryeh Eldad. In 2008 he called for Ehud Olmert, the prime minister at the time, to be sentenced to death for suggesting that parts of the occupied territories become a Palestinian state.
Eldad was suspended for just one day, even though it was a clear example of incitement to violence in a country where a former prime minister, Yitzhak Rabin, was murdered by a right-wing extremist, citing similar justification for his actions.
The Supreme Court, which has shifted rightwards in recent years, may not be sympathetic to Zoabi’s appeal against her suspension.
In September the court jailed Said Nafaa, a former MK from her Balad party, for one year after he was convicted of visiting Syria in 2007 with a delegation of Druze clerics and meeting a Palestinian faction leader in Syria.
The crime of making contact with a foreign agent is the only one in Israeli law in which the defendant must prove their innocence.
The court may also be wary of making unpopular rulings at a time when it is under concerted attack from the Israeli right for being too liberal.
Ayelet Shaked, of the Settler Jewish Home party, which is in the government coalition, has introduced a bill that would allow a simple majority of the Knesset to vote to override Supreme Court rulings.
Human rights lawyers warned that the bill would further erode already limited protections for minority rights.
Debbie Gild-Hayo, a lawyer with the Association for Civil rights in Israel, warned that protections for minorities from the tyranny of the majority would be in severe jeopardy as a result. “These proposals wish to break down the checks and balances that are fundamental to democracy,” she said.
Zoabi remained defiant. She noted that, while she was being hounded, the legal authorities had ignored genocidal remarks made by Jewish politicians against Palestinians during the summer attack on Gaza. “They’re putting me on trial over a trivial, meaningless matter, while ministers and MKs who incited to racism and incited to violence and even to murder aren’t being investigated, even after complaints were filed against them.”
Jonathan Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special prize for Journalism. His latest books are Israel and the Clash of Civilizations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) and Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). His website is jonathan-cook.net.
Netanyahu vai a Washington destilar seu veneno contra o Irã. Como sempre.
Os aliados incondicionais do governo israelense, como Dennis Ross (ex-enviado especial de Obama no Oriente Médio que defendeu Israel como se fosse seu embaixador e não um mediador estrangeiro) acabou dando um conselho a Netanyahu no Haaretz para tentar tirá-lo do embaraço: "You don't do business that way. And when you make a mistake, admiti it." Chamou atenção para o florescimento do apoio a Israel no Congresso (graças às "contribuições" - no Brasil é chamado de propina - dos lobbies sionistas às campanhas), "the last thing you want to do is have Israel become a partisan issue - especially at a time of demographic change in America." Ross se refere ao fator demográfico que está mudando a cara dos EUA. "In another 20 years, communities such as the African-americans, the Asian-Americans and the Hispanics will constitute the majority in the U.S. Those communities do not have an historica connection with Israel. And so Israel as a democracy becomes even more important for those kind of communities."
Aí ele explicou onde Netanyahu tem de manter a fachada democrática para não indispor os estadunidenses preocupados com democracia e justiça. Salientou que o projeto de lei nation-state, "set off alarm bells". Considera a democracia o cordão umbilical entre Israel e os EUA "in a way that's more important now than ever before. The legitimization movement internationally is such that Israel needs to take the initiative in order to demonstrate that it's prepared to do something. If it doesn' happen, then it's not because of Israel."
Ross admitiu que não há como viabilizar o "Grande Israel" que os sionistas querem, mas que eles podem roubar dos palestinos o máximo de terra. Como? Deu três conselhos:
"Make your settlement policy consitent with your two-state policy. Make a declaration: We will not build on what we think is the Plaestinian state. Embrace the idea of 67 and mutually agreed swaps and accept tat the Ara peace initiative is an umbrella that can be used".
O sionista gringo deu a mesma receita de como enganar a opinião pública internacional e prejudicar os palestinos dando a impressão de estar sendo magnânime em vez de ocupante ávido de sangue.
Five things Binyamin Netanyahu won't tell the Congress
Members of Congress are invited to stand one by one to be acknowledged for their support for Israel, or for Aipac’s hawkish brand of it. It typically takes half an hour as the names of around two-thirds of representatives and senators are called. It is intended to demonstrate that on one issue at least, the Jewish state, there are no partisan differences. It is also a reminder of the lock Aipac has long had on Congress with a menacing suggestion of the political risks of going against the lobby group.
But as Aipac’s convention opens, the carefully forged image of Democrats and Republicans at one on Israel has been battered by the furious reaction to Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s planned address to Congress on Tuesday, when he is expected to accuse Barack Obama of endangering the very existence of the Jewish state in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme.
Nearly 30 members have said they will not attend Netanyahu’s speech in protest at the extraordinary spectacle of Republicans inviting a foreign leader to Washington to denounce the president. They have described Netanyahu’s decision to speak as “sabotage” and “extremely dangerous”.
The dispute has also divided some of America’s most prominent Jewish organisations, with accusations flying of betrayal... The ZOA – along with other groups, such as the Republican Jewish Coalition, which are supported by a hawkish billionaire supporter of Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson – called the boycott “anti-American, anti-patriotic”. “We will, of course, be publicly condemning any Democrats who don’t show up for the speech—unless they have a doctor’s note,” he told Politico."
But as Aipac’s convention opens, the carefully forged image of Democrats and Republicans at one on Israel has been battered by the furious reaction to Israeli prime minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s planned address to Congress on Tuesday, when he is expected to accuse Barack Obama of endangering the very existence of the Jewish state in negotiations with Iran over its nuclear programme.
Nearly 30 members have said they will not attend Netanyahu’s speech in protest at the extraordinary spectacle of Republicans inviting a foreign leader to Washington to denounce the president. They have described Netanyahu’s decision to speak as “sabotage” and “extremely dangerous”.
The dispute has also divided some of America’s most prominent Jewish organisations, with accusations flying of betrayal... The ZOA – along with other groups, such as the Republican Jewish Coalition, which are supported by a hawkish billionaire supporter of Netanyahu, Sheldon Adelson – called the boycott “anti-American, anti-patriotic”. “We will, of course, be publicly condemning any Democrats who don’t show up for the speech—unless they have a doctor’s note,” he told Politico."
Os juízes da ISC insentou seu Ministro da Defesa de responsabilidade por ações descritas como "wartime activiy" e não respondeu se tais ações violam as leis internacionais que regem os conflitos armados.
Rachel tinha 23 anos quando foi assassinada a sangue frio por um soldado da IDF que passou seu cartepillar armado sobre seu corpo como se fosse uma lavoura ou uma casa palestina que ele estava acostumado a esmagar. Morreu no dia 16 de março de 2003 e desde então seus pais não param de apelar por justiça nos tribunais de Tel Aviv.
Ela e outros jovens estrangeiros estavam usando coletes laranjados e gritavam em megafones para que os bulldozers parassem sua corrida em direção às casas de família que iam derrubar. Ela subiu em um monte de terra e o bulldozer continuou a avançar até esmagá-la. Impossível não vê-la onde estava. Tanto por estar em um monte elevado quanto pelo colete fluorescente dos jovens ativistas que os soldados israelenses conhecem de cor e decorado.
A ONG de Direitos Humanos Human Rights Watch declarou que "This ruling has disturbing implications beyond the Corrie family’s case, as it sends a message that Israeli forces have immunity even for deaths caused by alleged negligence.” Sarah Leah Whitson, encarregada do Oriente Médio e África do Norte disse também que “The ruling is a stark reminder that in some areas Israeli jurisprudence has veered completely off the track of international law.”
A sentença é em resposta ao último processo tentado pela família Corrie. A presidente do ITC Miriam Naor e os outros dois juízes, Esther Hayot e Zvi Zilbertal se recusaram explicitamente a basear seu julgamento nas leis internacionais que regem conflitos inter-nacionais. Ou seja, de aplicar as Leis de Guerra em vez de leis nacionais pragmáticas.
A Corte chegou ao extremo de afirmar que “the rule is well known that an ‘explicit statutory provision of the Knesset overrides the provisions of international law’.” Porque as leis israelenses são "claras" que neste caso o Estado tem imunidade de responsabilidade e por isso “there is no place to require the state to provide compensation under international law.”
O julgamento foi baseado em uma lei interna que isenta Israel de qualquer responsabilidade de atos da IDF durante "atividades em tempos de guerra". Esta lei de Civil Wrongs (Responsabilidade do Estado) emendada em 2002, define tais atividades como “any action combating terror or insurrection,” or “intended to prevent terror and hostile acts and insurrection, committed in circumstances of danger to life or limb.”
A Corte israelense declarou que a IDF reconheceu ter matado Rachel Corrie, mas argumentou ter sido durante uma operação de limpeza ("clearing operation") para desmantelar túneis e que tinha sido atacada por resistentes armados. Afirmaram que como Rachel foi morta “at the scene of ongoing fighting between the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] and terrorist organizations,” Israel está isento de responsabilidade “even if we accept the argument that the forces were not in danger from Rachel and her organization.”
É surreal que o mais alto tribunal judiciário de um país que se diz democrático minta de maneira tão desavergonhada. Só em Israel.
Além disso, mesmo que estivesse sob fogo, a IDF teria de respeitar as leis que garantem a proteção de civis. Human Rights Watch afirma que "The ruling grants immunity in civil law to Israeli forces for harming civilians based merely on the determination that the forces were engaged in “wartime activity,” without assessing whether that activity violated the laws of armed conflict, which require parties to the conflict at all times to take all feasible precautions to spare civilian life. Under the laws of armed conflict a state is required to make full reparation for the loss or injury caused by its violations of such laws. Moreover, the law that the Supreme Court ruling upheld fails to distinguish between conduct of hostilities and law enforcement actions during armed conflict and occupation. In the context of military occupation, actions by Israeli forces are judged according to both the laws of armed conflict and international human rights law standards."
A IDF abriu inquérito (“operational debriefing”) para investigar a morte de Rachel Corrie e acabou se desculpando de má-conduta. HRW documentou que os "investigadores" israelenses não convocaram nenhum palestino presente para prestar depoimento e os testemunhas estrangeiros foram coagidos. Segundo o HRW "Israeli investigators failed to call any Palestinian witnesses, threatened to indict other foreign volunteers who witnessed Corrie’s death while questioning them about the incident, and failed even to ask witnesses to draw a map of the area at the time of the incident. The initial military inquiry into her death even concluded that “no signs substantiate [the] assertion that Ms. Corrie was run over by a bulldozer.”
Human Rights Watch documentou que do ano 2000 a 2004, a IDF destruiu só em Rafah 16.000 mil residências palestinas para "limpar" a buffer zone na fronteira com o Egito. "The military claimed its actions were intended to prevent the use of tunnels by Palestinian armed groups for military purposes, but the pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law. In most cases without military necessity", concluiu o HRW.
Para completar, o general Sissi, ditador egípcio, procedeu a demolições maciças de residências de seu lado fronteiriço de Rafah e está bloqueando acesso da mídia à área.
HRW afirma que desde a morte de Rachel, "Israel has broadened the immunity to tort liability for wrongs committed by its armed forces. A July 2012 amendment to the Civil Wrongs law redefined the definition of “wartime actions” for which the state was immune from damages to include any actions by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip – “whether or not,” according to the law’s explanatory notes, “they were carried out in circumstances of danger to life or limb.” Israel commonly refuses to grant witnesses and victims from Gaza permission to enter Israel to participate in court hearings, claiming they may present security threats, and courts have required each Palestinian plaintiff in damages cases to pay prohibitively expensive “court guarantees” of up to 20,000 shekels (US $5,140) before accepting the case". E conclui que “Israel’s impunity laws slam the door on civilian victims in Gaza, and look like further evidence that Israel is not genuinely willing to hold its own forces accountable for serious violations.”
Rachel Corrie é apenas uma das centenas de vítimas da IDF cujo assassinato fica impune. Inclusive de jornalistas. (Blog 25/08/13).
A Corte chegou ao extremo de afirmar que “the rule is well known that an ‘explicit statutory provision of the Knesset overrides the provisions of international law’.” Porque as leis israelenses são "claras" que neste caso o Estado tem imunidade de responsabilidade e por isso “there is no place to require the state to provide compensation under international law.”
O julgamento foi baseado em uma lei interna que isenta Israel de qualquer responsabilidade de atos da IDF durante "atividades em tempos de guerra". Esta lei de Civil Wrongs (Responsabilidade do Estado) emendada em 2002, define tais atividades como “any action combating terror or insurrection,” or “intended to prevent terror and hostile acts and insurrection, committed in circumstances of danger to life or limb.”
É surreal que o mais alto tribunal judiciário de um país que se diz democrático minta de maneira tão desavergonhada. Só em Israel.
Além disso, mesmo que estivesse sob fogo, a IDF teria de respeitar as leis que garantem a proteção de civis. Human Rights Watch afirma que "The ruling grants immunity in civil law to Israeli forces for harming civilians based merely on the determination that the forces were engaged in “wartime activity,” without assessing whether that activity violated the laws of armed conflict, which require parties to the conflict at all times to take all feasible precautions to spare civilian life. Under the laws of armed conflict a state is required to make full reparation for the loss or injury caused by its violations of such laws. Moreover, the law that the Supreme Court ruling upheld fails to distinguish between conduct of hostilities and law enforcement actions during armed conflict and occupation. In the context of military occupation, actions by Israeli forces are judged according to both the laws of armed conflict and international human rights law standards."
A IDF abriu inquérito (“operational debriefing”) para investigar a morte de Rachel Corrie e acabou se desculpando de má-conduta. HRW documentou que os "investigadores" israelenses não convocaram nenhum palestino presente para prestar depoimento e os testemunhas estrangeiros foram coagidos. Segundo o HRW "Israeli investigators failed to call any Palestinian witnesses, threatened to indict other foreign volunteers who witnessed Corrie’s death while questioning them about the incident, and failed even to ask witnesses to draw a map of the area at the time of the incident. The initial military inquiry into her death even concluded that “no signs substantiate [the] assertion that Ms. Corrie was run over by a bulldozer.”
Human Rights Watch documentou que do ano 2000 a 2004, a IDF destruiu só em Rafah 16.000 mil residências palestinas para "limpar" a buffer zone na fronteira com o Egito. "The military claimed its actions were intended to prevent the use of tunnels by Palestinian armed groups for military purposes, but the pattern of destruction strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat, in violation of international law. In most cases without military necessity", concluiu o HRW. Para completar, o general Sissi, ditador egípcio, procedeu a demolições maciças de residências de seu lado fronteiriço de Rafah e está bloqueando acesso da mídia à área.
HRW afirma que desde a morte de Rachel, "Israel has broadened the immunity to tort liability for wrongs committed by its armed forces. A July 2012 amendment to the Civil Wrongs law redefined the definition of “wartime actions” for which the state was immune from damages to include any actions by Israeli forces in the Gaza Strip – “whether or not,” according to the law’s explanatory notes, “they were carried out in circumstances of danger to life or limb.” Israel commonly refuses to grant witnesses and victims from Gaza permission to enter Israel to participate in court hearings, claiming they may present security threats, and courts have required each Palestinian plaintiff in damages cases to pay prohibitively expensive “court guarantees” of up to 20,000 shekels (US $5,140) before accepting the case". E conclui que “Israel’s impunity laws slam the door on civilian victims in Gaza, and look like further evidence that Israel is not genuinely willing to hold its own forces accountable for serious violations.”
Rachel Corrie é apenas uma das centenas de vítimas da IDF cujo assassinato fica impune. Inclusive de jornalistas. (Blog 25/08/13).
Statement from Corrie family in response to the Israeli Supreme Court's Dismissal of Appeal in Wrongful Death of Rachel Corrie.
Declaração da família Corrie em resposta à decisão da Corte Suprema de Israel.
Posted in News and Updates, Trial Press Releases on February 12, 2015 by trial.
"Today we received word from our attorneys that the Supreme Court of Israel dismissed our appeal in the wrongful death case of our daughter and sister Rachel Corrie. Our family is disappointed but not surprised. We had hoped for a different outcome, though we have come to see through this experience how deeply all of Israel’s institutions are implicated in the impunity enjoyed by the Israeli military.
It will take some time before we have ability to read the decision in English and to process all the court has said. Nevertheless, it is clear that this decision, affirming the August 2012 lower court finding, amounts to judicial sanction of immunity for Israeli military forces when they commit injustices and human rights violations.
The Supreme Court decision ignores international law arguments regarding the protection of civilians and human rights defenders in armed conflict and grossly violates the internationally recognized right to effective remedy.
The court has determined that our separate case against Dr. Yehuda Hiss and Abu Kabir Institute, regarding inappropriate ways in which Rachel’s autopsy was conducted, may go forward in the lower court. We continue to be appalled that it requires a lawsuit to have a truthful accounting of what occurred, and complete repatriation of Rachel’s remains. Decisions as to next steps will be made by the family in consultation with our attorneys.
Despite the verdict, our family remains convinced we were correct in bringing this case forward. The day after Rachel was killed, Prime Minister Sharon promised President Bush a thorough, credible and transparent investigation. Clearly, that standard was not met. The U.S. government continues to call for such an investigation by Israel. A civil lawsuit cannot substitute for an impartial investigation, but it is the only process through which a family can discover more information and move forward when governments fail to act.
Rachel’s case provides yet another example of how the Israeli justice system is failing to provide accountability. We urge the international community, and not least the U.S. government, to stand with victims of human rights violations and against impunity, and to uphold fundamental tenets of international justice.
We are immensely grateful to our attorney Hussein Abu Hussein and to his entire legal team for the decade of work they have contributed to Rachel’s case, and continue to provide. We are grateful to all of our friends in Palestine, Israel, and elsewhere, who in so many different ways have supported our efforts.
We have taken this path for Rachel, the daughter and sister we love, lost, and miss. Her spirit lives. She has inspired all of our actions and will continue to do so."
"Today we received word from our attorneys that the Supreme Court of Israel dismissed our appeal in the wrongful death case of our daughter and sister Rachel Corrie. Our family is disappointed but not surprised. We had hoped for a different outcome, though we have come to see through this experience how deeply all of Israel’s institutions are implicated in the impunity enjoyed by the Israeli military.
It will take some time before we have ability to read the decision in English and to process all the court has said. Nevertheless, it is clear that this decision, affirming the August 2012 lower court finding, amounts to judicial sanction of immunity for Israeli military forces when they commit injustices and human rights violations.
The Supreme Court decision ignores international law arguments regarding the protection of civilians and human rights defenders in armed conflict and grossly violates the internationally recognized right to effective remedy.
The court has determined that our separate case against Dr. Yehuda Hiss and Abu Kabir Institute, regarding inappropriate ways in which Rachel’s autopsy was conducted, may go forward in the lower court. We continue to be appalled that it requires a lawsuit to have a truthful accounting of what occurred, and complete repatriation of Rachel’s remains. Decisions as to next steps will be made by the family in consultation with our attorneys.
Despite the verdict, our family remains convinced we were correct in bringing this case forward. The day after Rachel was killed, Prime Minister Sharon promised President Bush a thorough, credible and transparent investigation. Clearly, that standard was not met. The U.S. government continues to call for such an investigation by Israel. A civil lawsuit cannot substitute for an impartial investigation, but it is the only process through which a family can discover more information and move forward when governments fail to act.
Rachel’s case provides yet another example of how the Israeli justice system is failing to provide accountability. We urge the international community, and not least the U.S. government, to stand with victims of human rights violations and against impunity, and to uphold fundamental tenets of international justice.
We are immensely grateful to our attorney Hussein Abu Hussein and to his entire legal team for the decade of work they have contributed to Rachel’s case, and continue to provide. We are grateful to all of our friends in Palestine, Israel, and elsewhere, who in so many different ways have supported our efforts.
We have taken this path for Rachel, the daughter and sister we love, lost, and miss. Her spirit lives. She has inspired all of our actions and will continue to do so."
"In an ironic way, the judgement by a US court against the PLO and the Palestinian Authority maybe the best thing that has happened to Palestinians in years. By opening up the US courts to so-called victims of terrorism, the US Administration has, consciously or unconsciously, walked into a trap that could ultimately prove in favour of Palestinians.
According to the New York Times, the Palestinian Authority and the Palestine Liberation Organisation were found liable on Monday by a jury in Manhattan for their role in knowingly supporting six attacks in Israel between 2002 and 2004 in which Americans were killed and injured.
Once the US courts agree to adjudicate cases of violence against Americans in the Middle East, they will have no choice but to take similar cases by Jewish terrorist groups against American Palestinians and ultimately state terrorism acts by the State of Israel.
There are plenty of cases of Palestinian Americans injured and killed by Israel, and Israeli citizens. Americans own properties in the occupied West Bank that have been damaged or expropriated by Israel and Israelis.
Pursuit of justice
In reaching the various legal instruments connected with the Oslo Accords, Palestinians agreed to an Israeli demand that no Palestinian will be allowed to sue Israel or Israelis for injuries that occurred during the Palestinian Intifada (uprising). No such agreement exists with the US and there is no reason why in pursuit of justice, Palestinian Americans can't seek justice as well.
Furthermore, Palestinians at large have a much more legitimate case in seeking retribution for crimes of war that have been occurring regularly since 1967. The US Congress might be unhappy with the UN recognised state of Palestine joining the ICC, but it can't have justice work only in one direction. If Americans want to apply the value of justice and equality, then they have to accept that if American courts are going to be involved in forcing the PLO to pay for actions carried out by individuals then by the same token it must allow Palestinians to do the same thing with Israelis.
If the PLO/PA fail in their bid to overturn the unusual and highly irregular hundreds of millions of dollars in judgement against the Palestinians, then the Palestinian government must make demands of Washington that are similar to those made by Israel. The US must commit through legal instruments not to allow the legal pursuit against Palestinians.
Having Americans from New York take a case against the PLO in New York is highly prejudicial. It is impossible for Palestinians to get a fair trial in a highly politicised pro-Israeli court system. Taking a small part of the conflict and putting it on trial while ignoring decades of occupation, death and destruction is simply preposterous.
If anything, it's the Palestinians who are the real victims in this conflict and they should be the ones suing Israel and Israelis for their systematic violations of Palestinian life, land and well being.
The larger issue
The fact that a New York court has acted as if it were the International Criminal Court carrying out judgements and demanding compensation for those injured in a Middle East conflict, raise an even larger issue. Will the US courts take other cases reflecting the various world conflicts that are brewing throughout the globe?
In 2003, an Israeli bulldozer driver premeditatedly ran over a 23-year-old American peace activist, Rachel Corrie. The Israeli driver has not been held accountable for his act. Will an American court agree to sue Israel and the Israeli army for which the bulldozer driver worked?
If terrorism is the killing of civilians for a political cause, does the killing of peace activists constitute as terrorism or state terrorism? In October 2014, a Palestinian-American teen born in New Orleans, Orwa Abd al-Wahhab Hammad, was killed by Israeli soldiers in the occupied territories; will his family be allowed to sue and can they choose the most sympathetic district to file the legal case against them in this case?
US officials are bound to say that the legal system in America is totally independent. This might be true on most local cases, but once American judges operating in a district that is biased a certain way, start acting unilaterally against one party (and the injured one to boot) this will not accomplish the coveted "justice".
Daoud Kuttab is an award-winning Palestinian journalist and a former Ferris professor of Journalism at Princeton University.
"Netanyahu is a maniac" (VOSTFR)
Prime Minister Binyamin netanyahu, of cours.
WRONG.
The real ruler of Israel is one Sheldon Adelson, 81, American Jew, Casino king, who was rated as the world's tenth richest person, worth 37.2 billion dollars at the latest count. But who is counting?
Besides his casinos in Las Vegas, Pennsylvania, Macao and Singapore, he owns the US Republican party and, lately, both Houses of the US Congress.
He also owns Binyamin Netanyahu.
Adelson's connection with Israel is personal. On a blind date, he fell in love with an Israeli woman.
Miriam Farbstein was born in Haifa, attended a prestigious high school, did her army service in the Israeli institute which deals with bacteriological warfare and is a multifaceted scientist. After one of her sons (from her first marriage) died of an overdose, she is devoted to the fight against drugs, especially cannabis.
Both Adelsons are fanatical supporters of Israel. Not just any Israel, but a rightist, supremacist, arrogant, violent, expansionist, annexationist, non-compromising, colonialist Israel.
In "Bibi" Netanyahu they found their man. Through Netanyahu they hope to rule Israel as their private fief.
To assure this, they did an extraordinary thing: they founded an Israeli newspaper, solely devoted to the furthering of the interests of Binyamin Netanyahu. Not of the Likud, not of a specific policy, but of Netanyahu personally.
Years ago I invented a Hebrew word for papers which are distributed for nothing. "Hinamon" translates, roughly, into "ragratis" or "gratissue" and was intended to denigrate. But I did not dream of a monster like "Israel Hayom" ("Israel Today") – a paper with unlimited funds, distributed every day for nothing in the streets and malls all over the country by hundreds, perhaps thousands of paid young persons.
Israelis love getting something for nothing. Israel Hayom is now the daily paper with the widest distribution in Israel. It drains readers and advertising revenue from its only competitor – Yedioth Ahronoth ("Latest News"), which held this title until then.
Yedioth reacted furiously. It became a ferocious enemy of Netanyahu. Yossi Werter, a commentator of the center-left Haaretz (which has a far lower circulation) even believes that the present election boils down to a contest between the two papers.
That is vastly exaggerated. Judged by political and social content, there is little to differentiate the two. Both are super-patriotic, war-mongering and rightist. That is the journalistic recipe for attracting the masses anywhere in the world.
Yedioth is owned by the Moses family, a business-minded clan. The present, third-generation publisher is Arnon ("Noni") Moses, the publicity-shy boss of a large economic empire based on the paper. The paper serves his business interests, but he has no special political interests.
Adelson is unique.
In Israel, betting is forbidden by law. We have no casinos, and secret gambling dens are raided by the police. In our early youth we were taught that casino moguls are bad people, almost like arms merchants. They take the money off poor addicted people, throwing them into despair, even suicide. See Dostoyevsky.
Israelis read Israel Hayom (it's something for nothing, after all), but they don't necessarily like the man and his methods. So some members of the Knesset were encouraged to enter a bill forbidding gratis newspapers altogether.
Netanyahu and the Likud party did everything to obstruct this bill. But in the preliminary vote (necessary for private members' bills) they were beaten in an amazing way. Even members of Netanyahu's governing coalition voted for it. The cameras caught Netanyahu literally running in the Knesset plenum hall to gain his seat before the voting started.
The vote was 43 to 23. Almost half the Likud members absented themselves. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman and his party voted for the bill. So did ministers Ya'ir Lapid and Tzipi Livni.
From the preliminary vote to the final adoption, such a bill has to pass several stages. There was plenty of time to bury it in one of the committees. But Netanyahu was furious. A few days after the vote, he dismissed Lapid and Livni from the cabinet, causing the government coalition to break up and the Knesset to disperse.
Why did Netanyahu do such a foolish thing less then half way through his (third) term of office? There can be only one logical explanation: he was ordered to do so by Adelson, in order to prevent the adoption of the law.
If so, Adelson is now our chief lawmaker. Perhaps he is also our chief government-maker.
Money plays an ever-increasing role in politics. Election propaganda is made on television, which is very expensive. Both in Israel and the US, legal and illegal funds pour into the campaign, directly and indirectly. Corruption is abetted or tolerated by the courts. The very rich (known euphemistically in America as the "wealthy") exercise undue influence.
In the last US presidential elections, Adelson poured rivers of dollars into the contest. He supported Newt Gingrich, and then Mitt Romney, with huge sums of money. In vain. Perhaps Americans don't like to be ruled by captains of casinos.
For the next US presidential elections, Adelson has started early. He has summoned to his Las Vegas casino HQ all leading Republican candidates, to grill them on their allegiance to him - and to Netanyahu. Nobody dared to refuse the summons. Would a Roman senator refuse the summons of Caesar?
In Israel, such rituals are superfluous. The Adelsons – both Miri and Sheldon – know who their man is.
The Israel Hayom newspaper is, of course, a big propaganda machine, totally devoted to the re-election of Netanyahu. All quite legal. In a democracy, who can tell a newspaper whom to support? We are still a democracy, for God's sake!
It seems to be strange for a country to allow a foreigner, who never lived in the country, to have such enormous power over its future, indeed, over its very existence.
That's where Zionism comes in. According to the Zionist creed, Israel is the state of the Jews, all the Jews. Every Jew in the world belongs to Israel, even if temporarily residing somewhere else. A few days ago, Netanyahu publicly claimed to represent not just the State of Israel but also the entire "Jewish People". No need to ask them.
Accordingly, Adelson is not really a foreigner. He is one of us. True, he cannot vote in Israel, though his wife probably can. But many people, including himself, believe that he, being a Jew, has a perfect right to interfere in our affairs and dominate our lives.
For example, the appointment of our ambassador in the US. Ron Dermer is an American, born in Miami, who was active in Republican politics. To appoint an American functionary of the Republican Party as ambassador of Israel to a Democratic administration may seem strange. Not so strange if Netanyahu acted under the orders of Sheldon Adelson.
It was Adelson who prepared the witches' brew that is now endangering Israel's lifeline to Washington. His stooge, Dermer, induced the Republicans in Congress – all of them dependent on Adelson's largesse or hoping to be so – to invite Netanyahu to give an anti-Obama speech before both Houses.
While this intrigue was in preparation, Dermer met with John Kerry but did not tell him of Netanyahu's coming. Neither did Netanyahu inform President Obama, who, in a fury, announced that he would not meet with the Prime Minister.
From the point of view of Israel's vital interests, it is sheer madness to provoke the President of the United States of America, who controls American's flow of arms to Israel and the American veto power in the UN. But from the point of view of Adelson, who wants to elect a Republican president in 2016, it makes sense. He has already threatened to invest unlimited sums of money to prevent the reelection of any Senator or Representative who is absent from Netanyahu's speech.
We are nearing open warfare between the Government of Israel and the President of the United States.
Is someone playing roulette with our future?
Uri Avnery, 14/02/2015
Noam Chomsky nas Nações Unidas (20/02/2015)
Gideon Levi denuncia: Israel is galloping to the next "war" in Gaza. Israel is heading to the next violent eruption with the Palestinians as though it is some sort of natural disaster that can’t be avoided. Haaretz, Feb. 26, 2015."The next war will break out in the summer. Israel will give it another childish name and it will take place in Gaza. There’s already a plan to evacuate the communities along the Gaza Strip border.
Israel knows this war will break out, it also knows why – and it’s galloping toward it blindfolded, as though it were a cyclic ritual, a periodical ceremony or a natural disaster that cannot be avoided. Here and there one even perceives enthusiasm.
It doesn’t matter who the prime minister is and who the defense minister is – there’s no difference between the candidates as far as Gaza is concerned. Isaac Herzog and Amos Yadlin are saying nothing of course, and Tzipi Livni is boasting that thanks to her no port was opened in Gaza. The rest of the Israelis aren’t interested in Gaza’s fate either and soon it will be forced to remind them again of its disaster in the only way left to it, the rockets.
Gaza’s disaster is dreadful. No mention of it is made in the Israeli discourse and certainly not in the most dumbed down, hollow election campaign there’s ever been here. It’s hard to believe, but Israelis have invented a parallel reality, cut off from the real one, a callous, unfeeling, denying reality, while all this adversity, most of it of their own making, is taking place a short distance from their homes. Babies are freezing to death under the debris of their homes, youths risk their lives and cross the border fence just to get a food portion in an Israeli lock up. Has anyone heard of this? Does anyone care? Does anyone understand that this is leading to the next war?
Salma lived only 40 days, like the eternity of a butterfly. She was a baby from Beit Hanoun on the northeast of the Gaza Strip, who died last month of hypothermia, after her tiny body froze in the wind and rain that penetrated into the plywood-and-plastic hut she has been living in with her family, since their house was bombed.
“She was frozen like ice cream,” her mother said of the last night of her infant’s life. UNWRA Spokesman Chris Gunness wrote about Salma last in week in the British newspaper the Guardian. Mirwat, her mother, told him that when she was born she weighed 3.1 kilograms. Her three–year– old sister, Ma’ez, is hospitalized due to frostbite.
Ibrahim Awarda, 15, who lost his father in an Israeli bombardment in 2002, was more fortunate. He decided to cross the fence between Gaza and Israel. “I knew I’d be arrested,” he told the New York Times reporter in Gaza last week. “I told myself, maybe I’ll find a better life. They gave me good food and then threw me back.”
Ibrahim was held for about a month in two prisons in Israel before being tossed back to the destruction, squalor, hunger and death. Three hundred Gazans drowned in the sea last September, in a desperate attempt to leave the prison Strip. Eighty-four Gazans were arrested by the Israel Defense Forces in the last six months after trying to enter Israel, most of them just to flee from the hell they live in. Nine more were arrested this month.
Atiya al-Navhin, 15, also tried to enter Israel in November, just to escape his fate. He was shot by IDF soldiers, treated in two Israeli hospitals and returned to Gaza in January. Now he’s lying paralyzed and unable to speak in his home.
Some 150,000 homeless people live in Gaza and about 10,000 refugees in UNRWA shelters. The organization’s budget was spent after the world totally ignored its commitment to contribute $5.4 billion to rebuild Gaza. The commitment to negotiate lifting the blockade on Gaza – the only way to avoid the next war and the one after it – has also been broken. Nobody talks about it. It’s not interesting. There was a war, Israelis and Palestinians were killed in it for nothing, let’s move on to the next war. Isarel will again pretend to be surprised and offended - the cruel Arabs are attacking it with rockets again, for no reason."
It doesn’t matter who the prime minister is and who the defense minister is – there’s no difference between the candidates as far as Gaza is concerned. Isaac Herzog and Amos Yadlin are saying nothing of course, and Tzipi Livni is boasting that thanks to her no port was opened in Gaza. The rest of the Israelis aren’t interested in Gaza’s fate either and soon it will be forced to remind them again of its disaster in the only way left to it, the rockets.
Gaza’s disaster is dreadful. No mention of it is made in the Israeli discourse and certainly not in the most dumbed down, hollow election campaign there’s ever been here. It’s hard to believe, but Israelis have invented a parallel reality, cut off from the real one, a callous, unfeeling, denying reality, while all this adversity, most of it of their own making, is taking place a short distance from their homes. Babies are freezing to death under the debris of their homes, youths risk their lives and cross the border fence just to get a food portion in an Israeli lock up. Has anyone heard of this? Does anyone care? Does anyone understand that this is leading to the next war?
Salma lived only 40 days, like the eternity of a butterfly. She was a baby from Beit Hanoun on the northeast of the Gaza Strip, who died last month of hypothermia, after her tiny body froze in the wind and rain that penetrated into the plywood-and-plastic hut she has been living in with her family, since their house was bombed.
“She was frozen like ice cream,” her mother said of the last night of her infant’s life. UNWRA Spokesman Chris Gunness wrote about Salma last in week in the British newspaper the Guardian. Mirwat, her mother, told him that when she was born she weighed 3.1 kilograms. Her three–year– old sister, Ma’ez, is hospitalized due to frostbite.
Ibrahim Awarda, 15, who lost his father in an Israeli bombardment in 2002, was more fortunate. He decided to cross the fence between Gaza and Israel. “I knew I’d be arrested,” he told the New York Times reporter in Gaza last week. “I told myself, maybe I’ll find a better life. They gave me good food and then threw me back.”
Ibrahim was held for about a month in two prisons in Israel before being tossed back to the destruction, squalor, hunger and death. Three hundred Gazans drowned in the sea last September, in a desperate attempt to leave the prison Strip. Eighty-four Gazans were arrested by the Israel Defense Forces in the last six months after trying to enter Israel, most of them just to flee from the hell they live in. Nine more were arrested this month.
Atiya al-Navhin, 15, also tried to enter Israel in November, just to escape his fate. He was shot by IDF soldiers, treated in two Israeli hospitals and returned to Gaza in January. Now he’s lying paralyzed and unable to speak in his home.
No Daily Show, Jon Stewart ironiza a "visita" de Netanyahu
VI
http://youtu.be/B9jgBGnBKps
VII
http://youtu.be/bjFxhu6PWts
VIII
http://youtu.be/lOfeMZ7VVh8
Apartheid Adventures
XIII
Israeli Apartheid Week 2015
PS. Grécia levanta a cabeça para salvar-se de afogamento
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário