As the United Nations observed World Water Day last Friday, let us get the facts straight about Palestinian Blue Gold.
It did not mention that at least 1.6 million of them are in the United States of America. Actually, this is the number of Americans without a tap or toilet in their home.
As Lula and Dilma used to say, a rich country is one without poverty. No doubt about that.
Rewind: Gaza - Children of conflit
In February, António Guterres, the United Nations secretary-general, highlighted the crisis, saying that the near two million Palestinians of the besieged strip "remain mired in increasing poverty and unemployment, with limited access to adequate health, education, water and electricity".
But the mainstream media does not always succeed in telling Palestine's contemporary story with accuracy and empathy.
On March 14th, in the Scottish city of Glasgow, experts discussed the media's role in covering one of the most pressing and divisive issues in international politics.
The panel was hosted by The Balfour Project, a campaign group created by British citizens to raise awareness over Britain's record in Palestine before and during its Mandate.
The panel was hosted by The Balfour Project, a campaign group created by British citizens to raise awareness over Britain's record in Palestine before and during its Mandate.
"You always come under particular pressure with [reporting on events in Israel and Palestine] because there is an intense and concerted Israeli media lobby - and there always was," said Sarah Helm, a former foreign correspondent for the UK's Independent newspaper. "And that includes a very intense Israeli political lobby working at every single level, which there always was too - and that was no secret and nor would they make a secret of it."
Sarah was based in Jerusalem in the 1990s. She said that her editors would often come "under pressure from the Israeli lobby in London on what correspondents out in the field were doing in a way that was not really true… [for] other foreign stories. Because newspapers have been got at and persuaded and pressurised by the pro-Israel lobby, the upshot over time is that the reader hasn't got a clue what this place [Palestine] is."
Sarah was based in Jerusalem in the 1990s. She said that her editors would often come "under pressure from the Israeli lobby in London on what correspondents out in the field were doing in a way that was not really true… [for] other foreign stories. Because newspapers have been got at and persuaded and pressurised by the pro-Israel lobby, the upshot over time is that the reader hasn't got a clue what this place [Palestine] is."
Today, similar concerns remain.
David Cronin, for example, who had freelanced for The Guardian, wrote in 2015 about his frustrations with the newspaper in Electronic Intifada, where he acts as an associate editor.
Having reported about atrocities against Palestinians committed by Israel, the paper was later "not keen to have me writing from Gaza", he said, adding that one editor advised him to steer clear of covering the conflict altogether.
Time and space constraints also mean that UK media reports neglect the contextual history of the conflict.
This includes the fact that seven out of 10 Gazans are registered as refugees, with many originating from families who were forced to flee their homes after Israel's foundation in 1948.
"It seems to me that certain absolutely fundamental facts have to be high up in any story," Sarah rightly said. At least that is what we are taught in Journalism school. The problem is that the Western media narrative has been dominated by Israel during the entire 70-year conflict. A fact that is stated even by Ilan Baruch, the former Israeli ambassador to South Africa: "Israel was brilliantly successful in offering a narrative to the western hemisphere that was embraced with little or no objective judgement," said Baruch, who resigned from the foreign service in 2011 because he felt he could no longer represent the Israeli government's policies.
Reporting fatigue also contributes to poor media coverage.
Sir Vincent Fean, a former British consul-general in Jerusalem, said that Gaza's "complex and deep-rooted" struggle has diminished the "appetite of Western media. In addition to the fatigue, there is also the fact that other crises in the Middle East are bloodier, like Syria and Yemen," said Fean, who was the UK's top-ranking consular officer in Jerusalem from 2010 to 2014. "They take some of the oxygen away from the issue."
Actually, the mainstream media focus is always on Palestinian reaction and not on Israeli action and it insinuates that Palestinians are on the offence when in fact they are on the defence.
To right the wrong, editors must have the courage of their convictions to insist historical context enables the reader, listener or viewer to understand the conflict. This is because History has been allowed - and even recent history has been allowed - to disappear into a swamp. And everyone is so terrified of putting a foot wrong and being accused of being anti-Semitic that they daren't even ask the [necessary] questions.
As several critics of Israeli government policy find themselves accused of anti-Jewish racism, Baruch, the former Israeli ambassador to South Africa, said the debate needed to move past conflating these two notions. "Even criticising Zionism as the inspirational movement that created Israel is not anti-Semitism," he said. "[The anti-Semitism charge] is just a ploy to pull down criticism of Israel."
I totally agree with that and dare to speak up for Palestinian rights. I'm not the only one. I wish the mainstream media allow us to say the Truth out loud and the hell with the hasbara.
Gaza (18'): nominated for the Goya Prize 2019
VENEZUELA
"Hoje é a Venezuela, amanhã pode ser o Brasil",
The Jekyll and Hyde character of empires according to its national security excuses and interest will determine the degree of humane rights violations and destruction with no regrets or remorse what so ever. Golda Meir, one of Israel's most proeminent user of the hasbara - apology for Zionism genocide - made an awful excuse for the massacres of the Palestinians: "We can forgive [the Palestinians] for Killing our children. We cannot forgive them for forcing us to kill their children. We will only have peace with them when they love their children more than they hate us". I am absolutely sure she projected her own hate onto the people she and her friends massacred.
Just like Israel, the United States feed themselves on conquests, oppression and live in denial. Past U.S presidents have made it very clear as did H.W Bush during an international incident, “I will never apologize for the United States of America. I don’t care what the facts are.” I have no doubt she was projecting her own hate onto the Palestinian people.
U.S Imperialism draws its adrenaline from the logic of a biblical syndrome as the chosen one to lead as a divine favor to the world. Not to say the least the rewards that come plundering and domination.
The banality of hate normalizes everyday practices with justifications that conceal the inhibited ability to a face-to-face discussion without the vantage point of might or superiority.
It is unable to see eye to eye with otherness as equals for it is easier to harm, stereotype and accuse when the other is under the scope of hate. Hate is a manipulative variable, a barrier and an essential component to suppressing truth. Hate short circuits the will to dialogue and allows degenerate thinking possess hearts and souls. It is the first step to indifference. Caution to fall under its spell is a moral and an ethical defeat against sanity, peace and justice.
The targeting of Venezuela is not just to remove its political Bolivarian identity but to build animosity amongst people of the region towards one another. It is a tactful jingoistic approach against Venezuela to fragment a unifying possibility while Bolivarians seeks a way out from the shadows of a world economic system made from the simmering ashes of colonization. The assault to its national sovereignty by U.S imperialism stokes anxieties of distrust and seeks out the fissures within its boundaries like it did in Chile 1973. Such hostility is an extension of Eisenhower’s dictum during the Korean War: “Set Asian to fight Asians.”In the case of Venezuela, it is ‘set the Venezuelans to fight Venezuelans. The imperial goal is to pry open the country to the will of a global economic ruling status quo at all cost.
The psych-ops against Venezuela from both spheres of the world; the global north and their obedient collaborators of the global south Led by U.S, is a strategy of throwing the other of balance based on insidious fake accusations driven by deceiving social media networks, journalist and short-sighted reporters. For Argentinian journalist Rudolfo Walsh (1927-1977) conformist and imperial abiding reporting are ‘cultural tranquilizers.’
Just like Chaim Weizmann and David Ben-Gurion created Histadrut in Palestine in the 1920's to take over all national infrastructure companies and natural ressources in order to steal land and subjugate and take control of the country and of the natives, the attempt by the U.S government and the Lima group as an accomplice to steal and control Venezuela’s natural resources, oil (the largest oil reserve in the world), nickel, copper, natural gas, gold, water is not the only objective in this conflict; it’s to delay and push back decades the possibility to strategize a healthy regional economic system for Venezuelans and partners that can counter capitalist imperial ambitions. The coveting of such natural wealth by U.S is disturbing as is the manufacturing of destruction by its arrogant use of its military might and world influence. The repeated historical pattern of coveting strategical resources once again proves that U.S hegemony is lethal to a safe planet. Such bold imperial plan to heist Venezuela’s main source of state revenues (oil production) could not have better been expressed other than by National Security Advisor John Bolton: “We’re in conversation with major American companies now,” he said. “I think we’re trying to get to the same result end here. … It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.”
Any extreme measures vs radical measures for Hannah Arendt does not imply change. In the case of Venezuela, the extreme measures (first phase of indirect violence) against its sovereignty are regressive actions of economic strangulation (sanctions) meant to frustrate and bend the will of its democratically elected government, president, its citizens at a time of economic difficulties. All attempts by Venezuelan government to an open dialogue have been canceled by the opposition. The attack against Venezuela is against a possible radical shift that implies an economic structural change were by power and destiny lays in the hands of its constituency without any outside interference. While the freezing of Venezuela’s accounts and access to loans essential for trade and to pay for imports is animperial geographical reliningof Venezuela’s ability to escape the financial chokehold imposed by the financial power houses of the world. Hence it is an extension of an undeclared war.
Venezuela’s reliance on its military for protection is questioned by some. The answer is, how can it not be when the powerful grow powerful and the weaker grow weak resisting zealot medieval inquisitions by Europe, Canada, U.S and a harmful reactionary opposition.
Corporate media has confined Venezuela’s military support of Maduro as having been paid off… as if loyalty and dignity in defending their country did not exist. Could it be U.S attempts at buying the generals failed? What is ignored is the anti-imperialist character of the Bolivarian forces. The Venezuelan military deserters who crossed over to Colombia on February 23, 2019, now find themselves abandoned both by Colombia and the United Nations High Commission for Refugees. The UNCHR and the Colombian Government have given the soldiers 4 days to leave the refugee camp.
The whole theatrical show of humanitarian aid and U.S war planes landing on a dusty border town in Colombia with reporters reporting from the frontline with serious faces of concern is a typicalhollywoodscript while the American public as spectators watch each scene unfold like a movie that is meant to be seen only from afar. For the act of watching requires no input and neither is the spectators expected to contribute in any way other than to watch and be entertained. Like extras in a film the participants as well as the viewers are regulated to take orders and perform according to the script. It is either you like or not. If you don’t, then turn the channel, move away and look the other away. In his 2005 epilogue to America the New Empire,(pg.390) Scottish Historian V. G Kiernan expressed the following: “a significant portion of the U.S public has come to regard maintenance of Empire as a great sacrifice, involving humanitarian devotion to the spread of democracy and the global well-being.”
As states from the global south dismantle and liquidate their resources and state own enterprises (some willingly others forced) to the highest bidders of the North, they cease to be owners and instead are converted into managers for the rich and the mighty at the expense of the people present and future. Any subsidizing is reserved for corporations, banks and entities vital to imperial domination and not to beneficial healthy planetary programs.
U.S war traumas derived from defeats are superseded by more wars. It is condemned like Sisyphus to a never-ending task of perpetual war after reaching the top of the hill only to restart again. For it is sentenced by the very same nature of empire ambitions (market expansion+ unlimited/appropriation of natural resources+ finance capital control+ cultural hegemony+ Military might.) and its institutional arrogance that comes from conquering and dominating. No peace can come from this systematic harassment towards Venezuela: “It is meant to destroys the social fabric and cuts at collective bonds – using chaos to get its way.”
It is transferred over to the uncritical and consciously naïve citizen: the political neutral bystander, the innocent, and everyone else. Be it left or right, center left or center right, liberals and democrats the absence of an ethical complicity with any victim of empire ventures is complicit with its system. For hate allied with injustice, racism and depravation of basic human needs is a blinding factor that can and has subjected the innocent, the uncritical and consciousness naïve citizen to participate in direct or indirect horrendous acts of human rights violations by allowing it to happen. Under such circumstances hate can be best described when it crystalizes into what Arendt describes as the banality of evil.
Imperial propaganda, its motives and its persuasive ways are hidden in the colonial details in Palestine as well as in the countries the US covets. There are plenty of historical facts that counter the conjured lies by unscrupulous governments, mostly of the US and Israel. If anything, taking a closer look at the facts and moving away from any biases in the cases of Palestine and of Venezuela, is an important step to take. It shall assist our co- responsibility we owe to ourselves and to others with justice, truth, fairness and dignity for all.
On January 15th, the White House reported that VP Mike Pence spoke by phone “today” with Guaidó, the president of Venezuela’s National Assembly. It claimed the call was made “to recognize his courageous leadership following his arrest and intimidation this weekend, and to express the United States’ resolute support for the National Assembly of Venezuela as the only legitimate democratic body in the country.” On the 23rd, Guaidó declared himself interim president of Venezuela.
In its brief statement about the call between Pence and Guaidó, the White House failed to report that the VP “pledged” that the Trump administration would support him “if he seized the reins of government from [elected President] Nicolas Maduro by invoking a clause in the South American country’s constitution.”
This was revealed by The Wall Street Journal and sheds light on what actually was said during the conversation. “That late-night call set in motion a plan that had been developed in secret over the preceding several weeks, accompanied by talks between U.S. officials, allies, lawmakers, and key Venezuelan opposition figures, including Mr. Guaido himself,” it reported. Citing an anonymous administration official, it noted, “Almost instantly, just as Mr. Pence had promised, President Trump issued a statement recognizing Mr. Guaido as the country’s rightful leader.” On the 23rd, Trump twitted, “President @realDonaldTrump has officially recognised the President of the Venezuelan National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the Interim President of Venezuela.”
The Journal went further, pointing out, “Other officials who met that day at the White House included… [Sec. of State] Pompeo and [National Security Advisor] Bolton, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who presented Mr. Trump with options for recognizing Mr. Guaido.” It added, “Mr. Trump decided to do it. Mr. Pence, who wasn’t at that meeting, placed his phone call to Mr. Guaido to tell him, ‘If the National Assembly invoked Article 233 the following day, the president would back him.'”
On the 30th, as reported by Roll Call, Trump placed a follow-up call to Guaidó. Press Sec. Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in a statement, the call was made to “congratulate him [Guaidó] on his historic assumption of the presidency and to reinforce President Trump’s strong support for Venezuela’s fight to regain its democracy.” During the call, Guaidó “noted the importance of the large protests across Venezuela against former dictator Maduro, set to occur today and Saturday,” she added.
Almost on cue, following Trump’s call 11 European Union countries quickly recognized Guaidó as Venezuela’s president, including Austria, Britain, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden. By mid-February, 65 countries had recognized him as president. Quickly thereafter, Canada, Israel and the bloc of right-wing Latin American governments known as the Lima Group recognized Guaidó.
As if they were a Greek chorus cheering from the sidelines, the U.S. mainstream media joined it anointing Guaidó as president. As summarized by GreyZone, “The New York Times editorial board hailed Guaidó as a ‘credible rival’ to Maduro with a ‘refreshing style and vision of taking the country forward.’ The Bloomberg News editorial board applauded him for seeking “restoration of democracy” and the Wall Street Journal declared him ‘a new democratic leader.’”
The innumerable print and media reports about the on-going Venezuela crisis share a common portrait of Guaidó, one in which he emerged, like an innocent new-born politician, from the social chaos to take leadership. More troubling, it presents him as a unifier of large spectrum of political groups in opposition to the Maduro regime. This portrait is not only mostly a fiction but serves to hide not only his history as a rightwing militant but the role the U.S. government has played for a decade-a-half in shaping Guaidó for his current effort to orchestrate a coup d’etat.
In the highly informative expose, “The Making of Juan Guaido,” Dan Cohen and Max Blumenthal, report that as a student, Guaidó strongly opposed Venezuela’s former president Hugo Chavez and supported the 2002 coup attempt against him. He backed Radio Caracas Televisión (RCTV), the privately-owned rightwing radio station, that played a key role in fermenting the 2002 coup by helping mobilize anti-government demonstrations, blaming government supporters for attacks on anti-government forces and blocking pro-government reports about the coup.
Guaidó graduated from Caracas’ Andrés Bello University in engineering in 2007 and went on for a graduate degree in the governance and political management program at George Washington University. At GW, he studied under the Venezuelan economist Luis Enrique Berrizbeitia, a leading Latin American neoliberal economist.
In 2007, the Maduro regime refused to grant RCTV’s a license renewal and Guaidó helped lead anti-government rallies protests against the decision. Guaidó and some of his closest associates were part of a rightwing youth group, “Generation 2007,” that sought to overthrow the Chavez government. The group included Leopoldo López, a Princeton-education man who came from one of Venezuela’s richest families and was a descended from his country’s first president, who long worked with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and was elected mayor of a district in Caracas. López founded the Popular Will (Voluntad Popular) party which Guaidó eventually came to lead.
Two years earlier, in October 2005, some of those who would form the Generation 2007 group – but apparently not Guaidó — went to Belgrade, Serbia, for rightwing insurrectionary training. The trip was sponsored by the Center for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (CANVAS) and largely funded by the NED. Stratfor, the military-intelligence contractor, reported that “[CANVAS] may have also received CIA funding and training during the 1999/2000 anti-Milosevic struggle.”
Stratfor outlined CANVAS’s training program in revealing terms: “Success is by no means guaranteed, and student movements are only at the beginning of what could be a years-long effort to trigger a revolution in Venezuela. The trainers have got mad skills. When you see students at five Venezuelan universities hold simultaneous demonstrations, you will know that the training is over and the real work has begun.”
In 2010, Statfor outlined what one analyst called a plan to “drive a dagger through the heart of the Bolivarian revolution.” The scheme involved upending country’s electrical system, thus leading to a 70 percent in service. “This could be the watershed event, as there is little that Chavez can do to protect the poor from the failure of that system,” a Stratfor internal memo declared. It went on to note, “This would likely have the impact of galvanizing public unrest in a way that no opposition group could ever hope to generate. At that point in time, an opposition group would be best served to take advantage of the situation and spin it against Chavez and towards their needs.” Nine years later, an idle scheme became a threating reality.
In 2010, Guaidó and a handful of other student activists attended a secret five-day training retreat at Mexico City’s Fiesta Mexicana run by Otpor, the Belgrade-based regime-change trainers backed by the U.S. government, notably Otto Reich, an advisor to the Reagan and Bush administrations. Venezuela’s Socialist Party legislator Robert Serra claimed, “Behind this [retreat] are big interests and big finances, we´re talking about an international network which sought to destabilise our country.”
One of Guaidó’s associates, Miami-based Maria Corina Machado, was identified as the key to a 2014 plot against Maduro. She claimed that the plot was OK-ed by U.S. Ambassador to Colombia, Kevin Whitaker. “I have already made up my mind and this fight will continue until this regime is overthrown and we deliver to our friends in the world,” Machado said. And insisted, “If I went to San Cristobal and exposed myself before the OAS, I fear nothing. Kevin Whitaker has already reconfirmed his support and he pointed out the new steps. We have a checkbook stronger than the regime’s to break the international security ring.”
Most troubling, the Popular Will party, including Guaidó, was actively involved in a 2014 campaign known asguarimbas, anti-Maduro street protesters. He tweeted a video featuring himself wearing a helmet and gas mask and surrounded by masked and armed associates. They blocked a highway and had violent clashes with the police. The demonstration also took place at universities where students wore T-shirts embossed “Popular Will” or “Justice First.” The 2014 guarimbas showdown ended with the killing of about 43 people and, in a 2017 incident, 126 people, including many Chavistas and police officers.
In 2015, Guaidówas elected a member of the National Assembly and, in 2018, he spearheaded the opposition coalition named the Democratic Unity Round Table (MUD). As a member of the Venezuelan parliament, Guaido headed an inspection commissioninvestigating high-profile corruption cases, such as the Odebrecht construction company bribery case, involving officials of Maduro’s government. Odebrecht, the largest construction and development company in Latin America, admitted in 2016 to bribing government officials in a dozen South American countries.
As Cohen and Blumenthal report, “Guaidó is known as the president of the opposition-dominated National Assembly, but he was never elected to the position.” They point out that Guaidó was fourth in line among opposition-group leaders for the position but the first was under house arrest, another was hiding out in the Chilean embassy, the third mysterious did not assume the position and the fourth was Guaidó. The Popular Will party represents only 14 percent of legislators.
In late 2018, Guaidó visited Washington, Colombia and Brazil to help coordinate plans for mass opposition demonstrations during Maduro’s second inauguration in January 2019. Leading the anti-Maduro campaign, Bolton screeched, “What we’re focusing on today is disconnecting the illegitimate Maduro regime from the source of its revenues. We think consistent with our recognition of Juan Guaidó as the constitutional interim president of Venezuela that those revenues should go to the legitimate government.” As reported in the Journal, another U.S. official said, “We have been engaged with the same strategy: to build international pressure, help organize the internal opposition and push for a peaceful restoration of democracy. But that internal piece was missing.” A U.S. official said, “He [Guaidó] was the piece we needed for our strategy to be coherent and complete.”
The New York Times confirmed this assessment, quoting William Brownfield, the former American ambassador to Venezuela: “For the first time, you have an opposition leader [Guaidó] who is clearly signaling to the armed forces and to law enforcement that he wants to keep them on the side of the angels and with the good guys.”
Like the tide, the USA's political puppets come and go, some last longer while other serve for but an historical instant. Among the many who’ve served U.S. interests and were, in time, swept from the historical stage are Manuel Noriega (Panama), Augusto Pinochet (Chile), Rios Montt (Guatemala) and Anastasio Somosa (Nicaragua) along with the (Shah) Mohammad Reza (Iran) and right now, Jair Bolsonaro in Brasil. Looking to Guaidó’s fate, Diego Sequera, a Venezuelan journalist, notes, “It doesn’t matter if he crashes and burns after all these misadventures, to the Americans, he is expendable.” There is another "Gauidó" on the line, well trained, ready to be propelled to the top of American slaveryship.
PALESTINA
Selling Jerusalem
Selling Jerusalem
Cultural boycott of Israel: NO to Eyurovision in Tel Aviv!
Ainda há tempo de ativar um comitê em sua cidade, escola, universidade.
Para organizar as manifestações político-culturais, entre em contato com o BDS Brasil (https://bdsmovement.net/pt) ou acesse diretamente o link internacional apartheidweek.org e organize as atividades de solidariedade com o povo palestino há 71 anos ocupado.
O tema deste ano é "Parem de armar o Colonialismo".
E não se esqueça de checar a origem dos produtos que consome para boicotar Israel, inclusive Hewlett Packard.
Israeli Apartheid Week (IAW) is an international series of events that seeks to raise awareness about Israel’s apartheid regime over the Palestinian people and build support for the growing Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. It now takes place in over 200 cities across the world, where events such as lectures, film screenings, direct action, cultural performances, postering, among many more help in grassroots organizing for effective solidarity with the Palestinian liberation struggle.
Israel is able to maintain its illegal occupation and apartheid regime over Palestinians partly due to its arms sales and the military support it receives from governments across the world. The United States alone is the single largest supplier of arms and military aid to Israel, followed by European states. These directly sustain Israel’s oppression and human rights violations.
In the Global South, Israel has been known to supply weapons to genocidal regimes in Rwanda, Sri Lanka, Myanmar and elsewhere. Presently, Israel is a major arms exporter to right-wing, authoritarian regimes from Brazil to India, the Philippines and beyond. These weapons are promoted as ‘field-tested’, which means they have been used to kill or injure Palestinians. In fact, Israel is already promoting the technology it has used to repress the Great March of Return in Gaza calling for the right of refugees to return home and an end to the siege. These arms deals finance Israel’s apartheid regime and its illegal occupation while simultaneously deepening militarization and persecution of people’s movements and oppressed communities in countries where they are bought.
The Palestinian-led BDS movement has reiterated the demand for a military embargo on Israel in the light of Israel’s violent repression of the Great March of Return. International human rights organizations such as Amnesty International have also responded to the Israeli massacre in Gaza with this demand. The UK Labour Party, in its conference in September 2018, passed a motion condemning Israel’s killing of Palestinian protesters in Gaza and called for a freeze of arms sales to Israel.
Ending arms trade, military aid and cooperation with Israel will undercut financial and military support for its regime of apartheid, settler-colonialism and illegal occupation. It will also end the flow of Israeli weapons and security technology and techniques to governments that suppress resistance of their own citizens, people’s movements and communities against policies that deprive them of fundamental rights, including the right to the natural resources of their country.
A military embargo on Israel is a measure for freedom and justice of Palestinians and oppressed peoples in many parts of the world. It can successfully be achieved with massive grassroots efforts, similar to the sustained global mobilization that eventually compelled the United Nations to impose a binding international military embargo against South Africa’s apartheid regime.
Israeli Apartheid Week 2019 will be an important platform for building the campaign for a military embargo on Israel. We invite progressive groups to organize events on their campuses and in their cities to popularize and build momentum in this direction.
If you would like to organize and be part of Israeli Apartheid Week 2019 on your campus or in your city, check out what events are already planned at apartheidweek.org, find us on Facebook and Twitter, register onlinehttp://apartheidweek.org/organise/ and get in touch with IAW coordinators in your region.
Daily Life Under Occupation
checkpoints
BRASIL
AOS FATOS:Todas as declarações de Bolsonaro, checadas
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário