In examining the future, we must look to the past.
As we watch the media today, we are spoon fed more and more propaganda and fear of the unknown, that we should be afraid of the unknown and have full faith that our government is keeping us safe from the unknown. But by looking at media today, those of us who are old enough will be reminded of the era of Cold War news articles, hysteria of how the Russians would invade and how we should duck and cover under tables in our kitchens for the ensuing nuclear war. Under this mass hysteria all Western governments were convinced that we should join Western allies to fight the unknown evil that lies to the east. Later through my travels in Russia during the height of the Cold War with a peace delegation, we were shocked by the poverty of the country, and questioned how we ever were led to believe that Russia was a force to be afraid of. We talked to the Russian students who were dismayed by their absolute poverty and showed anger against NATO for leading their country into an arms race that they could not win. Many years later, when speaking to young Americans in the US, I was in disbelief about the fear the students had of Russia and their talk of invasion. This is a good example of how the unknown can cause a deep rooted paranoia when manipulated by the right powers.
All military is expensive, and we can see in Europe that the countries are reluctant to expand their military spending and find it hard to justify this to their people. In looking at this scenario, we can ask ourselves what is beneficial about this hysteria and fear caused on both sides. All armies must have an enemy to deem them necessary. An enemy must be created, and the people must be convinced that there is need for action to safeguard the freedom of their country. Right now, we can see a shifting of financial power from old Western powers to the rise of the Middle East and Asia. Do we honestly believe that the Western allies are going to give up their power? My suggestion is: not easily. The old dying empires will fight tooth and nail to protect their financial interests such as the petrol dollar and the many benefits that come through their power over poverty-stricken countries.
Firstly, I must say, that I believe that Vladimir Putin is not by any means without faults. But the amount of anti-Russian propaganda in our media today is a throwback to the Cold War era. We must ask the question: Is this leading to more arms, a bigger NATO? Possibly to challenge large powers in the Middle East and Asia, as we see the US approaching the South China seas, and NATO Naval games taking place in the Black Sea. Missile compounds are being erected in Romania, Poland and other ex-Soviet countries, while military games are set up in Scandinavia close to the Russian border to practice for a cold climate war scenario. At the same time, we see the US President arriving in Europe asking for increased military spending. At the same time the USA has increased its budget by 300 billion in one year.
The demonization of Russia is, I believe, one of the most dangerous things that is happening in our world today. The scapegoating of Russia is an inexcusable game that the West is indulging in. It is time for political leaders and each individual to move us back from the brink of catastrophe to begin to build relationships with our Russian brothers and sisters. Too long has the elite financially gained from war while millions are moved into poverty and desperation. The people of the world have been subjected to war propaganda based on lies and misinformation and we have seen the results of invasions and occupations by NATO disguised as “humanitarian intervention” and “right to protect”.
NATO has destroyed the lives of millions of people and purposely devastated their lands, causing the exodus of millions of refugees. The people around the world must not be misled yet again. I personally believe that the US, the UK and France are the most military minded countries, whose inability to use their imagination and creativity to solve conflict through dialogue and negotiation is astonishing to myself and many people. In a highly militarized, dangerous world it is important we start to humanize each other and find ways of cooperation, and build fraternity amongst the nations. The policies of demonization of political leaders as a means of preparing the way for invasions and wars must be stopped immediately and serious effort put in to the building of relationships across the world. The isolation and marginalization of countries will only lead to extremism, fundamentalism and violence.
During a visit to Moscow, friends of mine had the pleasure of attending a celebration of mass at the main Orthodox Cathedral. The couple was very inspired by the deep spirituality and faith of the people as they sang the entire three-hour mass. My French friends were moved by the culture of the Russian people and could feel that their tremendous history of suffering and persecution gave them sensitivity and passion for peace. Not only them, but every single person who were in Russia this year for the World Cup returned home with a good opinion of the country and of the people.
Surely it is time that the Europeans refuse to be put in a position where they are forced to choose between Russians and Americans. The enormous problems that the world are faced with, such as, due to climate change and wars, mass migration and movement of peoples around the world, need to be tackled as a world community. The lifting of sanctions against Russia and the setting up of programs of cooperation will help build friendships amongst the nations.
All people of all Western countries should encourage their political leaders to show vision and political leadership and use their skills to build trust and work for peace and nonviolence; instead of Following warmongers Donald Trump and Binyamin Netanhyahu who couldn't care less about peace, respect and fraternity.
Gideon Levy: Zionist tango, step left, step Right
This article is written in light of recent political events in Britain. For some time there has been an Anti-Semitism in the Labour party ‘scandal’ which has intensified in recent months after Labour’s strong showing at the last General election under Jeremy Corbyn. There have been near-daily press reports accusing Jeremy Corbyn of Anti-Semitism, and he has put under a level of pressure that we have rarely seen in British Politics.
The Labour NEC (National Executive Committee) was asked to adopt the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of Anti-Semitism in full in-order to demonstrate action on the matter. A couple of weeks ago the NEC bowed to the pressure and did precisely that. The IHRA code offers a definition of Anti-Semitism and 11 examples of what constitutes Anti-Semitism. Many legal experts including the very author of the text have raised serious reservations about the code arguing, amongst other things, that it limits freedom of speech.
I agree. For me the IHRA code is a flawed and contradictory document which will be very problematic to enforce. I feel that the whole issue is primarily a witch-hunt against Jeremy Corbyn because there is a realisation in many quarters that for the first time in many years we may have a Prime Minister in this country who has Pro-Palestinian sympathies.
This view is reinforced by a four-part documentary made by Al Jazeera (The Lobby) which uncovers a very sophisticated campaign led by the Ministry of Strategic Affairs in Israel and the Israeli embassy in the UK to vilify, demonise and silence voices critical of Israel in the Labour Party. One of the more controversial examples in the code argues it is Anti-Semitic to see Israel as a racist endeavour. It is this supposition that I feel warrants further examination.
One must not forget that modern Israel was founded on Zionist principles. There are varying definitions of Zionism, but in a nutshell, it is as the Oxford English dictionary states ‘A movement for the re-establishment of a Jewish nationhood in Palestine’. It is this very desire to create a Jewish state that led to the expulsion and ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinian’s between 1947-1949. Zionist forces ethnically cleansed and destroyed approximately 530 Palestinian villages and cities, killed circa 15,000 Palestinians and committed close to 70 massacres.
Palestinians remember this as the ‘Nakba’ (the catastrophe). Zionists forces seized many of the former homes of Palestinians: to this day many Palestinians still possess the British mandate deeds to these properties. Israel’s ethnic cleansing has continued, more or less, ever since. Under the UN-mandated partition plan Israel was given 47% of historic Palestine it now occupies approximately 90% of it. That which is not directly held is heavily controlled. The 1967 six-day war led to the expulsion of a further 300,000 Palestinians. At present, there are approximately 5 million Palestinians recognised as refugees by the UN.
Roughly 20% of Israel’s population is Palestinian or ‘Israeli Arab’ in the official lexicon. As it stands, Israel has close to 70 discriminatory or ‘apartheid’ laws. There is, for instance, the Law of return which guarantees automatic Israeli citizenship to all Jews irrespective of where they are born (an honour not afforded to Palestinians displaced by Israel). Israeli Palestinians, by contrast, are subject to a ban on family unification and are prohibited from living in Israel should they marry a fellow Palestinian from Gaza or the West Bank under the Citizenship and Entry Law.
Unlike most liberal democracies, Israel classifies its citizens as holding differing ‘nationalities’. It distinguishes between citizenship rights and national rights; the latter are reserved almost exclusively for its Jewish citizens. National rights are deemed to be superior to citizenship rights so if there is a conflict between a ‘Jews national right and a Palestinians individual citizenship rights, the national right is given priority by officials and the courts’. The Justice Minister, Ayelet Shaked, confirmed this earlier this year when she stated that Israel should provide ‘equal rights to all citizens but not equal national rights.’ She added: ‘Israel is a Jewish state. It isn’t a state of all its nations.’
There is an admissions committee Law which enables communities to reject housing applicants based on ‘cultural and social suitability’; a euphemism for denying residency to non-Jews. Ethnic separation is further reinforced through the education system. Barring a few exceptions most educational institutions are separated into Jewish schools (teaching in Hebrew) and Arab schools (teaching in Arabic). Sociological studies show that not a single positive reference to Palestinians exists in Israeli high school textbooks. This all leads to a situation where there is minimal contact between Jews and Israeli Palestinians.
Further, as the journalist David Sheen points out ‘The Israeli government has long funded various efforts to try to prevent romantic relationships between Jews and non-Jews, both inside territories it controls and around the world.’ By law, Israel does not allow people of different religions to marry one another. In recent years, Israeli government initiatives against mixed relationships both inside and out of Israel have been led by the far-right Jewish Home party and its leader Naftali Bennett.
During Bennett’s time as education minister, Israel has removed books on mixed romantic relationships from recommended reading lists for high schools. In his other role as the Minister for Diaspora Affairs, Bennet has upped the ante and funding on stamping out relationships between Jews and non-Jews overseas as well. In June 2016, he told a Knesset (Israel’s Parliament) committee that ‘the marriage of Jews to non-Jews in modern times is a disaster on par with four other tragedies of Jewish history, including the Nazi Holocaust.’ A few months later two Israeli’s beat to death a Sudanese asylum seeker because he dared to talk to a group of Jewish girls. He was so severely beaten that his face was unrecognisable to members of his own family.
Israeli newspaper’s report that some public swimming pools are also separated; there are specific visiting times for Jews and separate times for Bedouins. A recent survey by the Pew research centre found that nearly half of Israel’s Jewish population felt that Israel’s Arabs should be expelled or transferred from Israel. A survey conducted in 2012 found that 52% of Israeli Jews agreed that African migrants ‘are a cancer.’
In June of this year, Israel’s Knesset disqualified a bill suggested by an Arab party that called for all citizens to be treated equally, rejecting the argument it must recognise the rights of its Arab minority as equal to the Jewish majority. The fact that the bill was dismissed before even being debated by the Knesset was apparently unprecedented. Israel doesn’t have a formal constitution; this role is effectively carried out by a system of Basic Laws. In July this month, the Israeli Parliament passed a new Basic Law the Jewish ‘Nation-State’ Law. This Law declares that only Jews have a right to self-determination in the country. The Law was widely condemned outside of Israel, and by powerful voices within, with the famous Israeli composer Daniel Barenboim, for instance, saying it made him ‘ashamed to be Israeli’.
Such prejudice, formal separation and treatment, however, is not limited to Israel’s Palestinian/Arab population. Israeli officialdom has long celebrated Operation Moses; which involved saving thousands of Black Ethiopian Jews from persecution and bringing them back to Israel. This, however, is only part of the story. Despite Israel’s claim to be a Jewish state, many Ethiopian Jews have faced appalling discrimination and racism. They are denied equal opportunities, suffer from the highest poverty rates among Israel’s Jews and most of their children study in predominantly Ethiopian schools. Many are confined to the periphery of Israeli society. In the 1990’s Israeli blood banks stealthily refused to accept the blood of Ethiopian Jews. Further, the Israeli government admitted that it gave birth control injections to Ethiopian women without their consent.
Other non-Jewish black migrants to Israel have suffered a similar fate. Last year Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu devised a scheme to send roughly 40,000 African migrants to Rwanda and Uganda on a per head fee basis; he only dropped the plan after an outcry. To justify his scheme, he argued in a public speech that the arrival of African refugees was ‘much worse’ for Israel ‘than severe attacks by Sinai terrorists’. In March of this year one of Israel’s two chief rabbis, Yitzhak Yosef, called black people ‘monkeys’ and the Hebrew equivalent of the N-word in his weekly sermon.
Since 2011 there has been a vicious Civil War in Syria which shares a border with Israel. This has led to the deaths of approximately 500,000 people and created over 5 million refugees. Naturally neighbouring countries have had to bear the bulk of the burden for most of these. Turkey has accommodated approximately 3.5 million refugees, Jordan (a small country) 1.2 million (to the point where it has had an almost unbearable impact on its infrastructure) and Lebanon around 1 Million. Many countries around the World have also taken in some. Israel by contrast hasn’t taken in any (one doesn’t have to be a genius to figure out why).
As part of the Rome Statute of 2002, International Law defines the crime of apartheid as ‘an institutionalised regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime.’ That is precisely what operates in Israel no matter how much its officials seek to disguise it in legalese and sophistry. Bishop Desmond Tutu- who has first-hand experience of apartheid in South Africa-argues in fact that Israel’s treatment of Palestinians is worse than that of Black people during apartheid; he has called it ‘apartheid plus.’ Former American President Jimmy Carter made similar comparisons. As the British writer Jonathan Cook points out; “The discrimination faced by Palestinians in Israel is not illegal, informal, unofficial or improvised. It is systematic, institutional, structural and extensively codified, satisfying very precisely the definition of apartheid in International Law and echoing the key features of South African apartheid’.
To conclude, from the above it’s very clear what kind of polity Israel is. This also raises the question of whether Israel can legitimately be described as a democracy. In Britain, however, we are now faced with the situation whereby to refer to Israel as a racist endeavour will mean that an individual is liable to lose their membership of the largest party in the country and this when Israel’s own leading figures are often unapologetically racist. This consensus, I strongly suspect, will become the norm in British politics (as it has in America) to the point where any meaningful discussion and criticism of Israel will effectively be curtailed.
Upfront: Has Netanyahu won?
Washington’s decision to intensify swingeing aid cuts to the Palestinians – the latest targets include cancer patients and peace groups – reveals more than a simple determination to strong-arm the Palestinian leadership to the negotiating table.
Under cover of a supposed peace effort, or “deal of the century”, the Trump administration hopes to solve problems closer to home. It wants finally to shake off the burden of international humanitarian law, and the potential for war crimes trials, that have overshadowed US actions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria – and may yet prove treacherous in dealings with Iran.
The Palestinians have been thrust into the centre of this battle for good reason. They are the most troublesome legacy of a post-war, rules-based international order that the US is now committed to sweeping away. Amputate the Palestinian cause, an injustice festering for more than seven decades, and America’s hand will be freer elsewhere. Might will again be right.
An assault on the already fragile international order as it relates to the Palestinians began in earnest last month. The US stopped all aid to UNRWA, the United Nations refugee agency that helps more than five million Palestinians languishing in camps across the Middle East.
The pressure sharpened last week when $25m in aid was blocked to hospitals in East Jerusalem that provide a lifeline to Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank, whose health services have withered under a belligerent Israeli occupation.
Then at the weekend, the US revealed it would no longer hand over $10m to peace groups fostering ties between Israelis and Palestinians.
The only significant transfer the US still makes is $60m annually to the Palestinian security services, which effectively enforce the occupation on Israel’s behalf. In short, that money benefits Israel, not the Palestinians.
At the same time, the Trump administration revoked the US visa of the Palestinian ambassador to Washington, Husam Zomlot, shortly after shuttering his diplomatic mission. The Palestinians have been cast fully out into the cold.
Most observers wrongly assume that the screws are simply being tightened to force the Palestinians to engage with Trump’s peace plan, even though it is nowhere in sight. Like an unwanted tin can, it has been kicked ever further down the road over the past year. A reasonable presumption is that it will never be unveiled. While the US keeps everyone distracted with empty talk, Israel gets on with its unilateral solutions.
The world is watching, nonetheless. The Palestinian community of Khan Al Ahmar, outside Jerusalem, appears to be days away from demolition. Israel intends to ethnically cleanse its inhabitants to clear the way for more illegal Jewish settlements in a key area that would eradicate any hope of a Palestinian state.
Trump’s recent punitive actions are designed to choke into submission the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, just as Israel once secretly put Palestinians in Gaza on a starvation “diet” to make them more compliant. Israel’s long-standing collective punishment of Palestinians – constituting a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention – has now been supplemented by similar types of collective punishment by the US, against Palestinian refugees and cancer patients.
Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and adviser, admitted as much at the weekend. He told the New York Times that the cuts in aid were punishment for the Palestinian leadership “vilifying the [US] administration”.
In an apparent coded reference to international law, Kushner added that it was time to change “false realities”. However feeble international institutions have proved, the Trump administration, like Israel, prefers to be without them.
In particular, both detest the potential constraints imposed by the International Criminal Court at The Hague, which is empowered to prosecute war crimes. Although it was established only in 2002, it draws on a body of international law and notions of human rights that date back to the immediate period after the Second World War.
The crimes committed by Zionist leaders in establishing Israel on the ruins of the Palestinians’ homeland occurred in 1948, just as international law was being born. The Palestinians were among the first, and are still the most glaring, violation of that new rules-based global order.
Righting those historic wrongs is the biggest test of whether international law will ever amount to more than jailing the odd African dictator.
That the Palestinian cause continues to loom large was underscored this month by two challenges conducted in international forums.
Legislators from Israel’s large Palestinian minority have appealed to the United Nations to sanction Israel for recently passing the apartheid-like Nation-State Basic Law. It gives constitutional standing to institutionalised discrimination against the fifth of the population who are not Jewish.
And the Palestinian Authority has alerted the Hague court to the imminent destruction by Israel of Khan Al Ahmar. The ICC is already examining whether to bring a case against Israel over the settlements built on occupied land.
The US State Department has said the aid cuts and closure of the Palestinian embassy were prompted partly by “concerns” over the Hague referral. John Bolton, Trump’s national security adviser, meanwhile, has vowed to shield Israel from any war crimes trials.
Sitting on the fence have been the Europeans. Last week the European parliament passed a resolution warning that Khan Al Ahmar’s destruction and the “forcible transfer” of its inhabitants would be a “grave breach” of international law. In an unusual move, it also threatened to demand compensation from Israel for any damage to infrastructure in Khan Al Ahmar funded by Europe.
Europe’s leading states anxiously wish to uphold the semblance of an international order they believe has prevented their region’s descent into a Third World War. Israel and the US, on the other hand, are determined to use Palestine as the testbed for dismantling these protections.
The Israeli bulldozers sent to Khan Al Ahmar will also launch an assault on Europe and its resolve to defend international law and the Palestinians. When push comes to shove, will Europe’s nerve hold?
PALESTINA
Apartheid Adventures
The people of Gaza have been subjected to decades of expulsion, occupation, siege and massacre. They have now seized control of their Fate. They are risking life and limb as they protest nonviolently to reclaim their basic rights. It takes just one minute to send a video showing your support for Gaza in its moment of truth. Do it now! Send your videos to METOOGAZA.COM.
Renowned scientists urge cientific Community to consider the facts before engaging in activities with Israeli colonial-based Ariel University, and not engage any attemps to use science to normalise Israel(s occupation of the Palestinian territory. Check it out here.
BRASIL
Corruption is the main target of contemporary color revolutions. Anti-corruption slogans can work very well in the countries, where the state is deeply involved in criminal schemes. Ukraine and Armenia are the most recent examples. The 2014 soft coup in Brazil through the coup d'état against Dima Rousseff was no exception. Brazil is a country where Soros foundations feel confident, because the Americans have the nation's judicial and fiscal systems under total control.
Brazil will elect its new president in October, and Acting President Michel Temer, a liberal, will be free to go. Two weeks ago, the leader of the presidential race was former President Lula of the Workers' Party (PT). Lula is a mechanic, who managed to build a solid team during the 2000s to ensured Brazil a powerful economic breakthrough. Lula also set up a social security system that helped as many as 40 million Brazilians out of poverty. Needless to say that people will never forget that.
There is another leader in the race - the above-mentioned Jair Bolsonaro. One can not find any positive article about Bolsonaro in the Brazilian press today. He is referred to as racist, fascist, misogynist individual, etc. Jair Bolsonaro is a candidate from the Liberal Social Party (PSL), a former paratrooper, a supporter of strict discipline and a champion of military dictatorship. He sticks to anti-globalist and nationalist views in foreign policy. Strangely enough, most of his supporters are young people. Order - this is the main word that many Brazilians like in his program. The children of the Brazilians that in 1964 supported the military coup d'état...
In 2014, power in Brazil was transferred inside PT - from Lula to Dilma. She won the presidential election by very small margin against liberal candidate Aecio Neves. Brazil was a strong liberal economy, but PT did not let American transnational companies access giant oil fields on the shelf. State oil company Petrobras received monopoly for their development. In addition, Lula was conducting an independent foreign policy, particularly with respect to Iran, and was supporting the idea of the anti-American CELAC bloc in the region (Greater America without the US and Canada). Mercosur, a successful trade bloc of South American nations, had influence both globally and inside the BRICS.
However, regardless of who comes to power in the United States, Washington does not take relations with other nations seriously and do not like independent states in the continent. "This is a large country, and it has developed a habit to push relations with others into the background. Our critics believe that we must start the day by requesting permission from the United States to sneeze and then permission from Europe to cough. We will not do that," Lula once said.
Of course, the Americans had to get rid of Lula and his party. His successor, Dilma Rousseff, had to deal with the power of the propaganda machine in the face of media giants, such as Globo, Record and Folha.
A series of high-profile corruption scandals started immediately after the election. It turned out, though, that there was not enough evidence. It was only possible to accuse Dilma of attracting private investment for social programs - a move that allegedly helped her win the election. Dilma was "impeached" for violating budgetary financial discipline. Interestingly, Brazilian senators had made a number of trips to the United States for consultations on the issue.
At the same time, Lula fell under investigation on the so-called Lavajato case ("Car Wash"). He was accused of giving contracts to construction companies for Petrobras projects in return for kickbacks and transfers to party accounts. There was not enough evidence collected against Lula either, but there was a three-story apartment in the city of Guaruja. As a result of the persecution, Lula was sentenced to 9.5 year for the apartment that he did not even own. As appeals were being filed, Lula managed to run for president, but left the race last week after the Supreme Court did not let him take part in the election process because of his conviction.
The case of "Car Wash" involved the entire Brazilian establishment; six ministers of Michel Temer's cabinet were convicted under various articles.
At first, the people of Brazil were happy about the criminal persecution of their government officials. However, the story ended up with the eradication of trust to politicians and officials. The stagnation of the Brazilian economy did not go anywhere, social programs were closing one after another, and the day of the next presidential election was drawing near.
American special services found themselves in a tricky situation at this point. Lula's counterparty is a retired military, who puts in place those concerned with gender and racial inequality, promises to restore order in state structures and reduce street crime with the help of the methods practiced by Filipino President Duterte. He is not involved in corruption scandals, and the party that he is running from is just a stand. One may say that he is an independent candidate.
Look at the results of the polls two months before the voting according to IBOPE: 1. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT) - 37 percent, Jair Bolsonaro (PSL) - 18 percent, Marina Silva (Rede) - six percent, Ciro Gómez PDT) - five percent, Geraldo Alkmin (PSDB) - five percent.
On September 1, the Supreme Court did not let Lula take part in the election, and Bolsonaro fell a victim to a stabbing attack on September 7. The nature of the wound indicates that the attack was an attempt to kill him. Conveniently, the attacker is a "supporter of Lula", and many directly pointed to PT's hand in the incident. In other words, someone wanted to kill two birds with one stone: PT and its second candidate Fernando Haddad lose the race, and Bolsonaro is disabled. Such coincidences do not occur for Nothing.
Bolsonaro survived, and now the IBOPE rating went up on his side. Unfortunately, Bolsonaro can win the first round.
Every country should fight corruption. There is corruption in every country.
However, one should not struggle against corruption at the behest of the U.S., because Washington is good at destroying other countries' statehood.
By the way, the Michel Temer, the US vassal who took over Dilma Rousseff's presidency, launched a program to privatise four airports, two port terminals, granted access to foreign private companies to a number of formerly state projects - from construction to mining ones, including to Petrobras. This means that the poor will grow poorer, and the rich will grow richer. This is what Brazil had left behind, and this is what it has returned to now.
Shame on these vampires that work for the USA in Brazilian soil.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário