Os países ditos civilizados celebraram na semana passada nós, mulheres, avós, mães, irmãs, companheiras, filhas, netas e bisnetas de homens que nem sempre nos têm ou demonstram o respeito merecido.
Presto homenagem às minhas avós que já partiram, à mamãe, a quatro mulheres extra-ordinárias: uma católica, Dorothy Day; uma judia, Hannah Arendt; uma hindu-cristã, Arundhati Roy; e uma jovem muçulmana, Ahed Tamimi; e a todas as mulheres palestinas que resistem à ocupação, sobrevivem e resistem à campanha israelense genocida.
Em homenagem às citadas, foco o blog de hoje em outra mulher extra-ordinária, Ilhan Omar, uma deputada estadunidense que teve coragem de denunciar o onipotente e onipresente lobby sionista e agora está comendo o pão que o diabo amaçou por apontar para a AIPAC.
What’s in a word?
Plenty, if this word is "anti-Semitism.”
Just ask American Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. She learned the hard way that the mere mention of money gifts to Members of Congress (the so-called “Benjamins”) facilitated by the American Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC) would bring down upon her angry charges of anti-Semitism. She said nothing against Jews. She simply repeated a known fact: that money fuels pro-Israel lobbying on Capitol Hill. She later apologized for offending anyone who inferred from her remarks a derogatory reference to historical stereotypes.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines “anti-Semitism” as “hostility to or prejudice against Jews.”
The tendency of Zionists and political opponents to call someone “anti-Semitic” for criticizing Israel’s policies or AIPAC is a regrettable misuse of the words.
The recent split in the Women’s March leadership over allegations of “anti-Semitism” is an example of guilt by association. Another is the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute’s rescinding of a civil rights award to Professor Angela Davis (later reinstated) due to her solidarity with Palestinian rights organizations. Do those cases justify the charge of “anti-Semitism?” Reasonable minds may differ.
The proponents of BDS (Boycott, Divest, Sanction) are not anti-Semitic. They simply believe that Americans should have the First Amendment right to criticize or protest (even by economic boycott) Israel policies that oppress Palestinians.
Peter Benart: Debunking the myth that anti-Zionism is antisemitic
Only a rare few people cannot be impressed by the life story of Ilhan Omar, who fled civil-war-torn Somalia and came to the U.S. as a refugee at age 12, knowing only two English phrases: “hello” and “shut up.” Now a Muslim Congresswoman, she’s recently faced hateful bias and threats.
Ilhan's first sin was the "Benjamin's tweet" in which she noted that members of Congress supported policies pushed by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) because of the millions it raises among Zionists to distribute to loyal pro-Israel candidates. Somehow, noting that the lobby group derived its power from money was made to look like outright anti-Semitism by Omar's accusers.
Unfortunately, all the vague media references to Ilhan Omar’s “anti-Semitic remarks” obscure how truthful and non-hateful those comments were. You can see a series of her recent tweets here.
Progressive Jews are rushing to her defense because of tweets like this one that speak for us in a way few members of Congress ever have: “Being opposed to Netanyahu and the occupation is not the same as being anti-Semitic. I am grateful to the many Jewish allies who have spoken out and said the same.”
The initial media frenzy in February over two of Ilhan’s tweets was so huge that it obscured the fact that the uproar was sparked by a total of seven words – and six of those words are the refrain of a famous Puff Daddy song.
It began when Ilhan Omar retweeted Glenn Greenwald’s comment about GOP congressional leader Kevin McCarthy’s “attacking the free speech rights” of Omar and Rep. Rashida Tlaib for criticizing Israel – to which Ilhan, a known critic of money in politics, simply added the Puff Daddy refrain: “It’s all about the Benjamins, baby.” (Benjamins refer to $100 bills.) When a tweeter asked her who She thinks is funding politicians to defend Israel, Omar responded with a one-word tweet: “AIPAC!”
The feeding frenzy over these two flippant but truthful tweets forced Ilhan Omar to apologize (something Trump has not been forced to do over hundreds of dishonest, racist and/or threatening ones).
Then there was the talk at a Washington bookstore in which Omar said: "I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country."
By this, she meant that lobby groups like AIPAC and their Congressional sponsors conceive their agenda totally with Israel in mind and shape US policy to defend Israeli interests.
It did not take long for the political establishment to charge back, despite the fact that Israeli interests have diverged from those of the democratic West more than ever and this fissure can only continue to widen as Israel sinks ever deeper into mass murder, occupation and oppression. It is becoming increasingly clear to many Americans that it is not in the long-term interest of the US to support Israel's aggressive actions which continue to antagonise millions of Palestinians - Muslins and Christians alike - and people against the ethnic cleansing of Palestine across the world.
For those who need a primer in anti-Semitism, let's talk about what it is and isn't.
It is the hatred of Jews for being Jews.
It must not be confused with Israel. There is nothing wrong with criticising Israel or advocating for an Israel that is a democracy offering equal rights to all citizens, Jewish and non-Jewish, and Freedom for Palestine.
Ilhan Omar does not hate Jews or Israel. She has never said or written any such thing. Attacking one of the most powerful domestic US lobbies is not anti-Semitic. Supporting BDS is not anti-Semitic either. This non-violent movement advocating justice for Palestinians harbours no animus towards Jews. Its three demands for the right of return, full democratic rights for Palestinians in Israel, and an end to occupation have nothing to do with Jews per se.
The implied criticism of the Israeli status quo inherent in BDS activism does not constitute anti-Semitism.
Stuck in its old ways and almost taking dictation from the Israel lobby, the Democratic congressional leadership decided to make an example of Omar by preparing a resolution denouncing anti-Semitism and by implication, her. This is the Democratic Party eating its young.
Democratic Party leader Nancy Pelosi, at the goading of staunch Israel supporters like Engel and Representative Nita Lowey, has tabled this pointless document. Members are pressured to swear allegiance to it on the pain of getting a public spanking like Omar. The message is clear: shut up on the subject or the Party caucus will exact a toll.
But what the political establishment controlled by AIPAC has failed to recognise is that times are changing and the election victories of 2018 are a testament to that. The pushback came almost immediately.
Progressive members of the House Democratic protested the overhasty rush to judgment against Omar. They have questioned the need for such a resolution, given that similar ones have already been passed in the past.
Many Jews have also stood by Omar. There is a "Jews with Ilhan website" hosting a petition signed by over 1,200 Jews. Groups like Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Nowhave also raised their voices in support.
All this has caused the House Democratic leadership to rethink the resolution and delay the vote. There are now efforts to broaden it to condemn all forms of bigotry, including Islamophobic rhetoric.
Ilhan Omar has recently faced death threats and a string of Islamophobic attacks, including one mounted by the West Virginia GOP, in which her image was imposed on a picture of the 9/11 attacks. The Democratic Party and the House leadership have shamefully failed to condemn the vicious harassment the congresswoman has faced.
To her credit, Omar has bent but not broken. She has stood tall in the face of the Democrat establishment onslaught. She has given as good as she's gotten. That is a fighter.
However, speaker Nancy Pelosi is reportedly still considering a symbolic “show vote” in Congress on an anti-Semitism and “hate” resolution – which would offer all the authenticity and honesty of a Soviet show trial. If Pelosi proceeds, it will prove Rep. Ilhan Omar’s point about the inordinate influence wielded over Congress by the “Israel-right or-wrong”/AIPAC lobby and its power to stifle criticism of Israel.
The anti-Omar resolution, whether mentioning Omar or not, was originated by two Democrats who are among Congress’s most longstanding pro-Israel diehards: Eliot Engel and Nita Lowey. Both endorsed Bush’s Iraq invasion. Both opposed Obama’s Iran nuke deal. Both supported Trump’s move of the U.S. embassy to Jérusalem.
For 40 years, Israel has been ruled mostly by a series of right-wing governments – more and more openly racist and abusive of Palestinian rights. It’s not the land of tree-planting, kibbutzim and “a country treating its Arab minority nicely” that the hasbara sold all over the world.
It's appalling that human-rights-abusing Israel is virtually off-limits to debate.
Ilhan Omar has made a simple and undeniable point – that AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the funding it influences exert extraordinary power over Congress. Disputing that point is flat-earther terrain. The Capitol Hill farce of an “anti-hate” resolution would provide still more evidence on behalf of her argument.
If you spend a day on Capitol Hill and talk (off-the-record) with a member of Congress about this topic, you’ll hear plenty about AIPAC’s awesome clout and its ability to unleash “Benjamins” to bully Congress. Books and articles have documented this truism.
According to the New York Times, AIPAC allies now want to oust Ilhan Omar from Congress and hope to “punish Ms. Omar . . . with a primary challenge in 2020.”
Shame on them! Shame on the Democratic Party for its allegiance to AIPAC.
Gideon Levy supports Ilhan Omar: It's time to tell the truth
Cross Talk: Ilhan Omar
We are at a new stage of the fight to realize Palestinian rights and free both Palestinians and Jews from the consequences of Zionist racism. There was a time when very few in the West understood the racist nature of the Israeli state. For a long time the Zionists controlled the public relations message and most people took as fact the fictional account of Israel’s founding—such as the one given in Leon Uris’s book Exodus.
After the 1967 war that the United Kingdom and France won for Israel, Tel Aviv's decision to keep even more conquered Palestinian territory, things began to change. Of course, Israel had always been a racist place designed for one group alone. But now the contradictions created by the post-war occupation made, and continue to make, that fact harder to hide, and the mythical picture of Israel as a grand democratic experiment has eroded. Increasingly the real, illiberal Israel has become apparent to Western audiences, and particularly to an increasing number of Jews. As a result, Israel has been losing the public relations battle at the popular level of Western society.
However, the winning of this battle is not to be equated with the winning of the fight mentioned above. The Zionists are still able to maintain Western financial and military support of Israel at obscene levels despite Israel’s revealed apartheid nature. To combat the popular criticism that Israel is now subject to, the Zionists have shifted tactics. They have abandoned popular debate and now use their influence with the West’s ruling elites to simply criminalize any rhetoric that points out the real discriminatory nature of the Zionist state. The gambit here is to have such criticism legally equated with anti-Semitism.
This is exactly what has recently taken place in France. In Paris, the Israeli Lobby is stronger than ever.
On 20 February 2019, Emmanuel Macron, the President of the French Republic, addressed the Conseil Representatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF)—the Representative Council of French Jewish Institutions. Macron’s topic was the country’s “resurgence of anti-Semitism.” And, indeed, there has been a rise in anti-Semitic incidents in France over the last couple of decades. Significantly, Macron did not attempt to analyze why this was happening. For instance, while asserting that anti-Semites “are not worthy of the Republic,” he did not take note of the historical fact that anti-Semitism has been a major force in France for hundreds of years and through multiple French forms of government. Historically it has ebbed and flowed.
The latest outbreak of hostility involving Jews in France is the product of modern historical factors that more than one Paris government has failed to confront. This failure has increased resentment against some French Jews—particularly those who are Zionists. Yet it is important to note that much of this sort of emotion is not a function of anti-Semitism.
For instance, the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has noted that “anti-Semitism” is now “often surfacing among radicalized Muslims” in France. While we can take issue with the notion of “radicalized” Muslims and the description of their sentiments as “anti-Semitism,” we will address the assertion of hostility and ask why should this be so. It may be because France has treated its citizens of Arab origin very poorly while simultaneously and publicly supporting Israel, which, of course, treats its own Arab population even worse.
France has a long imperial and colonial history in the Arab world and fought a bitter, relatively recent war to hold onto Algeria. When, in 1962, it finally abandoned that effort, there were 150,000 Algerian Arabs who had fought with the French. They were disarmed and then abandoned to their fate—prevented from emigrating to France by the government of that day. However, “through the kindness of individual French commanders … several thousand were illegally smuggled to France where on arrival they were confined to primitive rural camps.” When they were finally let out of the camps, they continued to be segregated and discriminated against. This prevailing prejudice was maintained in the treatment of other African and Middle Eastern immigrants who subsequently made their way to France. One ongoing sign of this can be found in the culture war against Muslims living in the country. Muslim dress, and even halal food, have been deemed dangerous to traditional French culture. The anger of the French Arab population stems from this continuous discrimination, but why would some of it be directed against a portion of France’s Jewish citizens?
It may well be because more and more French Arabs, angry over their discriminatory treatment by French society, increasingly identify with Palestinians, who are also discriminated against by Israeli society. And, they are encouraged in this identification by the fact that, except for a brief period under the leadership of Charles De Gaulle, France has been a strong supporter of Israel.
This is a tradition that President Macron accentuated in his address to the CRIF. He told his audience that he will make anti-Zionism the equivalent of anti-Semitism under French law. Macron justifies this move by claiming that “anti-Zionism is one of the modern forms of anti-Semitism.”
What Macron is saying is that in France you cannot speak out against the ideological basis for Israeli racism. If you do so, you yourself will be judged a racist and a criminal. Just how unreasonable this is is elegantly explained in an “open letter” to Macron by the Israeli historian Shlomo Sand, posted on 8 February 2019 in the publication Jacobin.
In his letter Sand points out that Zionist Israel is not a republic on the Western model, and certainly not a democracy. It is a “Jewish communalist state.” That is why Sand cannot be a Zionist, because “I am a citizen who desires that the state he lives in should be an Israeli republic, and not a Jewish-communalist state. … I do not want to live in a state that, according to its own self-definition, makes me a privileged class of citizen.”
Sand goes on to explain that “the Israeli Interior Ministry counts 75 percent of the country’s citizens as Jewish, 21 percent as Arab Muslims and Christians, and 4 percent as ‘others’ (sic). Yet according to the spirit of its laws, Israel does not belong to Israelis as a whole, whereas it does belong even to all those Jews worldwide who have no intention of coming to live there.”
Under these circumstances, one cannot be someone who takes republican and democratic principles seriously and still be a Zionist. So Sand has made his choice: he wants to replace Zionist Israel with “an Israeli republic.” Then he asks,
“Mr. President, do you think that that makes me an antisemite?”
Apparently President Macron is oblivious to the logic of Shlomo Sand. Perhaps this is because, at this moment, illogic serves his political purposes much better. And so, in Macron’s France apples become oranges. That is, anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism become the same. Why is this illogical? It is so because anti-Semitism is directed against Jewish people no matter where they are found and based on nothing other than their religion/ethnicity. On the other hand, anti-Zionism is opposition to a specific political doctrine based on its racist nature and practice in the state of Israel. It is not just many French Arabs who understand this. Many French Jews themselves are anti-Zionist. At the same time, French anti-Semites, who probably dream of an exclusive French “communalist state,” want to see all French Jews pack up and move to Israel. This puts these anti-Semites on the same team as avid Zionists.
And what about the French Jews who are anti-Zionist? Macron is putting these Jewish citizens in a position where they can be legally accused of anti-Semitism. As French journalist Dominique Vidal described the situation to FRANCE 24: “if we consider opposition to Theodore Herzl’s theory as anti-Semitic, then we’re saying that the millions of Jews who do not wish to live in Palestine and the occupied territories are anti-Semites. … It’s historical illiteracy, or worse, stupidity.”
Macron is not stupid, but neither is he a principled democratic republican like Shlomo Sand. He knows that if, as his party spokesman now puts it, “denying the existence of Israel [that is, Israel as a Jewish state] … has to be made a criminal offense,” you are making it illegal to stand with the Palestinians and against the racist nature inherent in a religious and ethnically exclusive state. Macron is using the law to silence popular opposition to Israel. Also, in this way the hostility of French Arabs to Zionist French Jews becomes criminal.
This is exactly the current Israeli strategy in response to having lost the public debate over the true nature of the Zionist project in Palestine—criminalize the arguments of your critics.
No French national leader would support such an anti-democratic strategy unless he or she is a political opportunist who is currying the favor of a politically powerful lobby.
In the case of Emmanuel Macron, this is also a maneuver to label his opponents (perhaps France’s Muslims as well as all those protesting “yellow vests”) as anti-Semites. No French leader would ally with the Zionists in this effort unless they have no problem with corrupting the logic of the law by demanding that apples legally become oranges. And, no French leader would act in this way unless they have little or no interest in dealing with France’s real racial problems by seeking real answers.
It is this last fact that, in the long run, is most dangerous for French culture and politics. As we have seen, anti-Semitism is nothing new in France. It is embedded in a certain French self-image that is, in the end, reluctant to allow entry to anyone not deemed truly French, be they Muslims or Jews or foreigners in general. Unless French leaders are willing to challenge this cultural prejudice, they will find anti-Semitism, and other forms of xenophobic passions, poisoning their national life for the indefinite future.
Monsieur Macron, anti-Zionism has nothing to do with anti-semitism.
Anti-Zionism has everything to do with anti-Nazism, anti-Ethnic cleansing, anti-Apartheid, anti-Genocide.
Today, in Israel, the great majority of the population is Zionist, in favor of the "cleansing" of the palestinian occupied territories.
The "centrist" opposition to Netanyahu cannot deny what I say. Ya'alon said loud and clear: "Our borders are not between states, but between civilizations".
Maybe, if he accepts to be called barbarian.
Israel, a democracy?! Not really, rather a military state.
An Israeli journalist who called Israeli army soldiers “animals” for beating a Palestinian father and son in custody is to face trial.
Oshrat Kotler, a journalist with Israel’s Channel 13, is to face trial on charges of incitement, incrimination of suspects, failure to grant a right of reply and more after she called several soldiers accused of beating two Palestinians in custody “human animals”, the Jerusalem Post reported.
Speaking on the channel’s news programme in February, Kotler said: When you send your children to the [Israeli] army, they are kids. You send them to the [occupied Palestinian] territories, and they come back as human animals. This is the result of the occupation.
Oshrat's comments prompted complaints to Israel’s Press Council, a supposedly independent body established to safeguard press freedoms and outline journalism ethics. Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu also responded to Kotler’s comments, saying her words “deserve every condemnation” and that he is “proud of the [Israeli army] soldiers and loves them very much.”
She now faces trial and will appear at a court hearing, though it is unclear when she will be summoned.
Journalists are easy targets in any authoritarian state, like Brasil and Israel.
The Israeli soldiers to whom Kotler referred were last week convicted of aggravated assault and aggravated battery for beating a 50-year-old Palestinian and his 15-year-old son who were detained in custody. The soldiers were suspected of beating the father and son as revenge for a December attack on members of their battalion, since both sets of soldiers belong to the same unit – the ultra-Orthodox Netzah Yehuda Battalion of the Kfir Brigade, which is stationed in northern West Bank city of Jenin.
Details of the brutal beating emerged during February’s court proceedings, with the 15-year-old boy telling the court: “I was lying on my back, with hands cuffed behind my back and a blindfold over my eyes. I was kicked by four soldiers – who used their hands, feet and the barrels of their M16 rifles – in the face, chest, abdomen, legs, and testicles […] I couldn’t open my left eye and my mouth was filled with blood.”
Despite the severity of the crimes and the Netzah Yehuda battalion’s history of anti-Palestinian violence, the soldiers reached a plea bargain and were sentenced to serve only 190 days in prison. Prison time that they are unlikely to serve in full or even in half.
IDF soldiers are trained to be savage beasts against the Palestinians. Therefore, no wonder they act like animals. Oshrat is absolutely right.
VENEZUELA
"Hoje é a Venezuela, amanhã pode ser o Brasil"
In April 1846, U.S. Army Colonel Seth Thornton led 80 dragoons toward the Rio Grande. Just above the river, they encountered 1,600 Mexican cavalrymen heading north from Matamoros. The Mexican cavalry quickly overpowered the much smaller U.S. force. Eleven Americans were killed, and forty-nine others were captured. When President James K. Polk received news of the skirmish, he declared, “Mexico has passed the boundary of the United States, has invaded our territory and shed American blood upon American soil.” On May 13, the U.S. Congress declared war on Mexico.
The entire chain of events was a set up. In 1845, the U.S. annexed the Republic of Texas, which had declared its independence from Mexico nearly a decade earlier. However, Mexico asserted that Texas remained part of its sovereign territory. Moreover, Mexico asserted that the Nueces River – not the Rio Grande – was the boundary between the province of Texas and its neighbors. Even if the U.S. had a right to annex Texas, the international boundary would be located far to the north of where Thornton’s dragoons were defeated. Polk had ordered the invasion of Mexican territory and then presented it to the U.S. public as a Mexican invasion of the U.S.
Even more than simply sending troops into the disputed territory between the Nueces and Rio Grande, Polk laid the groundwork for a U.S. invasion of Mexico for more than a year. In 1845, he sent Louisiana politician John Slidell to Mexico City to settle the dispute over Texas and to purchase the territories of California and New Mexico. The mission was designed to fail. A known U.S. spy accompanied Slidell, and Mexican officials refused to meet with him.
When Slidell reported his failure to the Polk administration, U.S. Secretary of State James Buchanan informed him that he should remain in Mexico longer “to satisfy the American people that all had been done which ought to have been done to avoid the necessity of resorting to hostilities.” In short, Slidell should perpetuate a charade that would give the Polk administration the necessary cover to launch a war. Indeed, that’s what happened. Congress passed the declaration of war, and at least initially, the U.S. public embraced Polk’s narrative. At the end of the war, the U.S. forced Mexico to cede over half a million square miles of territory, including New Mexico and California.
Polk orchestrated his war with Mexico using well-established strategies. In his writing on U.S. imperial wars against American Indian nations, scholar Philip J. Deloria described the logic of “defensive conquest” at the heart of U.S. imperialism. According to the U.S., it uses violence only in response to the violence of others. Its aggression is actually self-defense. These arguments are disingenuous, but they have been deployed to justify wars against Indigenous nations, Mexico, Spain, Vietnam, Iraq, and countless others.
In recent months, the U.S. has used similar strategies against Venezuela. The Trump administration is determined to depose Venezuela’s elected president Nicolás Maduro and replace him with opposition leader Juan Guaidó. At the end of January, Trump appointed Elliott Abrams as Special Representative to Venezuela. Abrams is a veteran diplomat best known for his support of right-wing dictatorships in Central and South America during the 1980s, his role in the Iran-Contra scandal, and his subsequent conviction for lying to Congress. Soon after, the U.S. placed sanctions on Venezuela’s oil exports, which provide 90% of the nation’s revenue, while also insisting that Maduro allow it to deliver humanitarian aid to the country. The U.S. is simultaneously exacerbating a crisis and asserting that it can solve it.
A couple of weeks ago, Abrams traveled to Colombia and soon a U.S.-backed “aid convoy” attempted to cross the Venezuela-Colombia border. Given Abrams’ past of helping smuggle weapons to right-wing militias, Venezuela – along with the United Nations, the Red Cross, and other relief organizations – is rightfully suspicious of the “humanitarian aid” Abrams offers. While accepting aid from Russia, China, and other nations, Venezuela blocked the U.S. convoy. Conflicting reports alternately suggest that pro-Maduro or pro-Guaidó forces set it on fire. Immediately, pro-coup Americans called the violence a violation of Colombian sovereignty, another pretense for overthrowing Maduro. Speaking in Colombia, Vice President Mike Pence referenced the violence and warned that “any who would threaten [Colombia’s] sovereignty or security would do well not to test our commitment to our ally.” Senator Marco Rubio, a vocal cheerleader of a U.S.-backed coup in Venezuela, promised, “The United States WILL help Colombia confront any aggression against them.” Military intervention has been the goal of the Trump administration all along, and recent events are intended to provide justification for it.
In Venezuela, we are watching a replay of the events leading up to the U.S. invasion of Mexico in 1846. Pro-coup politicians like Trump, Pence, and Abrams are using against Venezuela the tactics that Polk, Buchanan, and Slidell employed to frame the war against Mexico as a “defensive conquest.” Rubio and other supporters of U.S. imperialism have explicitly argued that alleged pro-Maduro violence must be met with U.S. military intervention.
Even the most left-leaning politicians in Washington have echoed this rhetoric. Despite his track record of opposition to U.S. imperialism and support for left-wing governments around the world, Senator Bernie Sanders insisted that Maduro must “allow humanitarian aid into the country.” Senator Elizabeth Warren made a similar statementdeclaring that “Maduro is a dictator and does not have our support” and that the U.S. must “provide humanitarian aid.” Even as they stated that they opposed military intervention, Sanders, Warren, and other left-leaning politicians lent credibility to the pro-coup narrative that Maduro has isolated Venezuela from all sources of aid and must be forced to allow supplies into the country. Self-determination is the only solution to the crisis in Venezuela, and demanding that the U.S. be involved, as Sanders and Warren have done, only furthers the goals of the Trump administration.
In the 1840s, the U.S. public only slowly recognized that Polk had initiated the war against Mexico. In 1848, after antiwar politicians gained control of the House of Representatives, they narrowly passed a resolution censuring the president for “unnecessarily and unconstitutionally” beginning the conflict. But, by that point, it was too late to stop the conflict or to prevent the cession of the northern provinces of Mexico.
Today, however, offers a new opportunity to prevent a U.S. coup in Venezuela. One can watch events unfold in real time, and with the perspective provided by the history of U.S. imperialism, Americans in general and their representatives in particular can recognize the “defensive conquest” rhetoric adopted by the Trump administration.
Today, however, offers a new opportunity to prevent a U.S. coup in Venezuela. One can watch events unfold in real time, and with the perspective provided by the history of U.S. imperialism, Americans in general and their representatives in particular can recognize the “defensive conquest” rhetoric adopted by the Trump administration.
PALESTINA
United Nations Commission Report accuses Israel of War crimes
Occupation is nothing to sing about.
Em 2019, a Semana Anual do Apartheid israelense acontecerá do dia 18 de março a 8 de abril no mundo inteiro.Ative 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.
The 15th Annual Israeli Apartheid Week of actions will take place all around the world between March 18th and April 8th 2019 under the theme “Stop Arming Colonialism”.
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.
For more information and support, please contact iawinfo@apartheidweek.org.
Compilation, published by the UN, of Palestinian demonstrators Inside the occupied Gaza Strip being hunted by Israeli snipers.
Compilation, published by the UN, of Palestinian demonstrators Inside the occupied Gaza Strip being hunted by Israeli snipers.
BRASIL
The Intercept Brasil
Hannah Arendt:
"O súdito ideal do governo totalitário não é o nazista convicto
e sim aquele para quem já não existe diferença entre fato e boato
e entre verdadeiro e falso".
Em 68 dias como presidente, Bolsonaro deu 82 declarações falsas ou distorcidas.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário