These are particularly important to the United States at the moment as it seeks not only to pull off the "deal of the century" that would coerce Palestine to give in to the Zionist project of ethnic cleansing and find a solution in Syria that allows the US to stick around to control and exploit the country richest region, but also, more importantly, to corner Iran and make Téhéran to bend its knees. To make its "maximum pressure" more effective, Washington needs Moscow to either get on board, or at least to remain neutral.
Although Pompeo's visit did not result in a significant breakthrough, it allowed the two sides to explore avenues for cooperate, which they will likely move forward in the upcoming trilateral meeting between national security advisers from the US, Russia and Israel to take place in Jerusalem later this month.
Meanwhile, the Kremlin, for its part, has demonstrated it was willing to make certain gestures of goodwill towards the US.
Following his meeting with Pompeo, Vladimir Putin suggested that Iran should not rely on Russia in its confrontation with the US over the nuclear deal. "Russia is not a fire brigade, we cannot save just anything, which does not fully depend on us. We have played our role ... But it does not only depend on us," the Russian president said during a press conference in Sochi on May 15.
Two weeks later, Bloomberg reported that Russia refused to provide Iran with an S-400 missile system, although this request allegedly came from the very top of the Iranian political leadership. Indeed, given that this weapons system has become an increasingly political issue, it makes sense that the Russians would tread carefully on this matter, especially if there is a chance for a thaw in relations with the US and opposition from other important regional players, including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Israel.
Currently, Turkey is going through a diplomatic struggle with the US over its own purchase of the S-400 and is facing the risk of its acquisition of US-made F-35 fighter jets being blocked. Other countries, like Saudi Arabia, have demonstrated interests in acquiring the missile system to use it as leverage against the US.
All this being said, it is also important to understand that Bloomberg's description of the Russian response as a "rejection" might not be entirely accurate. Apart from political considerations, Moscow also has significant technical difficulties in fulfilling orders and deliveries of the S-400. In this sense, it might simply be unable to supply one to Iran at this point.
At the same time, Moscow might see some benefit from the increased pressure on Iran at least in the short term.
The sudden drop in Iran's oil exports can give Russia an excuse to insist on increasing its oil production quota within the so-called "Vienna agreement" with OPEC, which limits oil output in order to maintain high oil prices, and in this way heed demands by its energy giants, especially Rosneft, which have repeatedly criticised the deal.
In early July, when OPEC and its partners meet to determine their oil production for the second half of 2019, Moscow could argue that the volume of oil Iran cannot produce due to the sanctions should be redistributed between those who are part of the agreement in order to keep the international oil market stable and avoid further price fluctuations.
Meanwhile, Russia can also take advantage of Iran's preoccupation with the threat from the US-Saudi-Israeli axis, to make further gains in Syria. Although the two are allied in their support for Damascus, Moscow has recently moved to curb to Iranian influence in certain strategic areas and solidify its own positions in the country.
But does all this mean that Russia would back the US "maximum pressure" strategy or even regime change in Iran? Not really.
First of all, Moscow sees Tehran as an important player in the Middle East and a bulwark against US hegemony. It is in its interest to keep the region "multipolar".
Second, despite having differences in Syria, Russia also needs Iran to manage the Syrian crisis. The Kremlin is quite aware that any talk of a complete Iranian withdrawal from Syria is simply wishful thinking. Over the past eight years, the Iranians have become so deeply integrated into the body of the Syrian regime and its armed forces that their elimination would entail the dismantling of the whole political and military system - something Moscow is not prepared to do.
Third, the two countries also cooperate in the Caspian region and Central Asia on a wide variety of issues - from energy to security. In the mid-1990s, for example, it was with Iranian help that Russia managed to stop the civil war in Tajikistan. In 2008, while the West was quick to blame Russia for the war with Georgia, Iran de-facto stood by its partner and backed the Russian position. In 2018, Tehran also supported the adoption of a Moscow-sponsored framework agreement on the legal status of the Caspian Sea, although out of five littoral countries that signed this document Iranian interests were least taken into account.
Fourth, the Kremlin tried to trade its backing of Iran for better relations with the West twice before in and both times it failed to get what it wanted; it is unlikely to repeat the same mistake a third time. In June 1995, US Vice President Al Gore signed a secret agreement with then Russian Prime Minister Viktor Chernomyrdin, calling for an end to all Russian sales of conventional weapons to Iran by the end of 1999. In exchange, the Kremlin expected more active economic cooperation with the US. That never happened and on top of it, the Gore-Chernomyrdin agreement cost Russia four billion dollars worth of trade and investment with Iran.
In 2009, the administrations of Dmitry Medvedev and Barack Obama agreed on a "reset" in Russian-US relations, which required the former to scale down its partnership with Iran. Thus, in 2010, Russia decided not to provide the S-300 missile system to Tehran in spite of previous promises to the Iranian leadership; just three years later relations with the US worsened again over the protests in Ukraine. Both times Russian-Iranian relations were seriously harmed, which created much distrust and suspicion in Tehran.
Fifth, at this time, besides the fact that the word of the White House is not trustworthy it is unclear what the US can actually offer Russia. While the Mueller probe re-affirmed Trump's claim that there was "no collusion", that by far does not mean that Russia's image has been normalised on the American political scene. With a bit more than a year left to the US election, there is that much the US president can give Russia that would not cost him the re-election.
Improving relations with Moscow would mean reconsidering Washington's policies on a number of key issues including the annexation of Crimea, the war in Eastern Ukraine and the US keeping the word that former President Ronald Reagan gave to the former President of Russia of not, ever, interfering or trying to coopt any former member of the URSS. Word that has been broken long time ago.
For all these reasons, Russia is unlikely to back the US escalation against Iran. Apart from some minor amendments in its stance or an offer to mediate, it would not support US efforts to isolate its partner.
Opposite to the White House, the Kremlin is loyal to its friends until the end and rarely choose the wrong side.
Last Week, the US, once again, fabricated "evidence" that Iran was responsible for explosions in the gulf of Oman. Which reminded me of Ben Norton's investigative article about how the Trump administration derailed Japan's historic talks by accusing Tehran, without any evidence whatsoever, of attacking oïl tankers in the same Gulf of Oman? As Ben says, the US is hell-bent on isolating and suffocatin Iran. Check out the article.https://thegrayzone.com/2019/06/13/iran-gulf-of-oman-attacks-japan-talks/ …
Iran quickly set the records straight denouncing as "ridiculous" and "dangerous" allegations by the United States that Tehran was behind reported attacks on tankers near the Strait of Hormuz.
The two vessels - the Japanese-owned Kokuka Courageous and the Norwegian-owned Front Altair - were damaged on Thursday morning as they were leaving the Gulf of Oman, the second such incident in four weeks that sent Brent prices up and heightened tensions in the region.
US officials late on Thursday released a grainy video that they said showed a boat crew of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) drawing up toKokuka Courageous, hours after the suspected attacks, and removing an unexploded limpet mine from the hull.
The release of the black-and-white footage came after Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said US intelligence agencies had "concluded" that Iran was responsible for the attacks, without offering concrete evidence.
On Friday, in a TV interview on Fox News, Donald Trump dared to say: "Iran did do it. You know they did it because you saw the boat," Trump told the "Fox and Friends" show. "I guess one of the mines didn't explode and it's probably got essentially Iran written all over it."
However, Yutaka Katada, owner of the Kokuka Courageous, cast doubt on part of the US account, telling reporters on Friday that the vessel's crew saw a "flying object" before a second blast on the boat. Calling reports of a mine attack "false", he said: "The crew was saying it was hit by a flying object … To put a bomb at the side of the boat is not something we are considering."
For its part, Iran rejected the accusations as the United Nations, Russia and Qatar called for an international investigation into the reported attacks.
Mohammad Javad Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, the US had "immediately jumped to make allegations against Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial evidence". The allegation "only makes it abundantly clear" that the US and its regional allies, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, were moving to a "Plan B", Zarif said, which was to "sabotage diplomacy" as Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited Iran to defuse escalating US-Iran frictions.
Tensions have ratcheted up in recent weeks after Washington sent warships and troops to the region citing unspecified threats from Tehran.
On May 12, days after Washington announced the military deployment, four oil tankers near the Strait of Hormuz were damaged in what the UAE called "sabotage attacks". The US blamed Iran for last month's incidents, saying Iranian-made limpet mines were used in the attacks. Tehran rejected the claims.
Abbas Mousavi, spokesman for Iran's foreign ministry, called the latest US accusations "ridiculous, but also very worrying and Dangerous".
Blaming Iran for the incidents was "the simplest and the most convenient way" for US officials, he said, adding: "We are responsible for ensuring the security of the Strait and we have rescued the crew of those attacked tankers in the shortest possible time." Which is true.
The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world's most important sea lanes, as one-third of all oil traded by sea, which accounts for a fifth of all oil traded worldwide, passes through the waterway. And the US can't accept the fact of it being under the control of Iran, simply because it is in its national waters.
UN Secretary-General António Guterres told reporters in New York that the truth of the attacks needed to be established. "Obviously that can only be done if there is an independent entity that verifies those facts," he said on Friday. However, he said he did not have the authority to establish such an inquiry, adding that this was the purview of the Security Council.
Russia's foreign ministry issued a statement accusing the US of stoking tensions with its accusations agaisnt Iran. Condemning Washington's "Iranophobic" stance, it warned against blaming anyone until the completion of a "thorough and unbiased international probe". Germany also called for an inquiry, while China appealed for restraint. The United Kingdom, as it could be expected, backed the US stance that Iran was responsible for the reported attacks.
The heightened frictions in the Gulf come as the US reinstated and tightened punishing sanctions on Tehran, a year after it exited an international pact that offered Tehran sanctions relief in exchange for curbs on its nuclear programme.
Iran's President Hassan Rouhani, speaking at an international forum in Kyrgyztan on Friday, assailed the US as a "serious threat" to global stability. He made no mention of the tankers, but lashed out at Washington for pulling out of the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. "For the past two years, the US government has used its economic, financial and military power through an aggressive approach to disrupt all international structures and regulations, which has turned him into a serious threat for the stability of the region and the world."
The latest US moves were aimed at forcing Iran to negotiate a new deal that would also address its ballistic missiles programme as well as support for armed groups in the region. The general feeling in Teheran is that Thursday's incidents are not something the Iranians would do. It is not in their best interests. There is actually no evidence and this grainy footage from the US is not substantial enough - it's not clear where this footage came from and who is visible in it.
Inside Story: Can the tension in the Gulf be contained?
PALESTINA
Check it out, Jared Kushner : “I’m not here to be trusted” by Palestinian leaders
If ever there was a time for Palestinians to implement a strategy to counter the deadliest threat to their cause, it is now. US President Donald Trump's "deal of the century" is the latest in a series of failed peace proposals over the past few decades that have only served to promote Israel's expansion and consolidate its hold on what remains of historic Palestine.
If reports of its content are true, the so-called "deal of the century" is the most lethal of these attempts to further the ethnic cleansing and deprive Palestinians of their basic rights to date. Drawn up over the past two years by Jared Kushner, Trump's son-in-law, Jason Greenblatt, his adviser, and David Friedman, the US ambassador to Israel, it heavily favours Israeli interests. All three men are fervent Zionists, lack experience in Middle East peacemaking, and know little or nothing about Palestinian history or culture. It is hard to envisage three more unsuitable people for such a task.
The deal, which Kushner has described as "unique", would supposedly resolve the so called "Israeli-Palestinian conflict". In a recent interview, he claimed it would improve the lives of the Palestinian people, while condescendingly casting doubt on their ability to govern themselves.
The exact details of the deal have not been made public yet, but a stream of unauthenticated leaks in the Israeli press provide a rough idea of what might be some of its provisions. Briefly, the deal proposes the creation of a Palestinian semi-autonomous mini-state called "New Palestine", comprised of Areas A and B of the occupied West Bank, its capital to be somewhere within the expanded boundaries of municipal Jerusalem. It would be demilitarised, its borders under Israeli control, and linked to Gaza by a corridor. Israel would retain most of Area C and the whole Jordan Valley, which means, keep the best land of the occupied territory.
Gaza would be expanded into northern Sinai on land leased from Egypt. Hamas would surrender its arms and come under Palestinian Authority control. The deal would be sweetened by an aid package of $30-40 billion over five years, the bulk to be provided by the Gulf states, with smaller contributions from the United States (which provides Israeli military with about US$4 billion a year), the EU and others; the assumption is that Palestinian acquiescence can be bought with financial handouts. The Palestinian right of return would be cancelled. Palestinian refugees would receive compensation and be allowed more rights in the Arab states where they reside.
The economic side of the plan is due to be discussed at a special workshop in Bahrain scheduled for June 25-26, which Arab finance ministers, investors and businessmen are expected to attend. The Palestinian leadership has made it clear that they are boycotting the event, with President Mahmoud Abbas saying recently the deal "will go to hell". According to a recent poll conducted by the Palestinian Centre of Policy and Survey Research, 80 percent of Palestinians also rejected the deal.
But rejection is not enough. Even if the Trump deal is now postponed or never happens, its essential parameters will resurface sooner or later in the form of a new "peace proposal". This is because western "peace-makers" are hamstrung by the Zionist project conditions that do not allow for any other outcome.
England, France and the United States, the major players in the game that the Zionists have been playing with the Balfour Declaration since 1917 - of erasing Palestine from the map and banning or exterminating the Palestinians, have consistently tried to reconcile diametrically opposed demands between two parties while being irretrievably committed to one of them. Preserving Israel as a Jewish state has been a Western imperative since 1948, and pressuring Israel into complying with anything it does not want to do has been a complete taboo. Today, this stance is stronger than ever, as the West moves to equate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism, silencing all criticism of Israel.
How can Palestinian demands be accommodated in these circumstances? The answer of the West so far has been a succession of mean-minded peace proposals that pander to Israeli wishes and abrogate Palestinian rights, Trump's deal being the most extreme, or explicit, example. While this logic prevails, no Western peace proposal will ever give the Palestinians their rights. Therefore, pursuing the failed objectives of the past - the appeal for help from outside bodies paralysed by pro-Israel bias, the futile quest for an independent state against the odds and the peace negotiations weighed in favour of Israel - is a time-wasting distraction.
Instead, Palestinians must soberly examine what options they really have in this context. They cannot take on the combined power of the US and Israel, nor look for help from state allies in the Arab world, several of which have been compromised by a growing alliance with Tel Aviv.
Mounting popular support for the Palestine cause, like the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, is encouraging, but will take too long to become effective. Meanwhile, Israel's drive to annex most of the West Bank and build more illegal settlements, and its campaign of slow Palestinian ethnic cleansing in Jerusalem and the other occupied territories will continue apace.
To counter this, what Palestinians need is a strategy that keeps them on their land, stops their cause from being further eroded by "peace" concessions, and can pave potentially the way for the return of the refugees. The only strategy that could conceivably achieve this is a campaign for Palestinian equal civil and political rights in the entirety of Israel-Palestine.
There is nothing unreasonable in this demand. Israel-Palestine is currently one state under Israeli rule. The population is divided into 6.6 million Israeli Jews with citizenship and rights, 1.8 Palestinians with citizenship and restricted rights and 4.7 million Palestinians without citizenship or rights. Demanding equality of rights in this unequal situation is natural and inevitable. Had the Palestinian Authority not existed to provide an illusion of independent rule, equal rights would have been demanded long ago.
The advantages of an equal rights system are many: equal legal status, equal government representation - with which refugee repatriation could become policy - equal access to education, employment and social services, and the myriad benefits that come with a normal civic life. As Israeli journalist Gideon Levy has pointed out, only a system of equal rights for everyone can qualify Israel to be a true democracy, with a Palestinian president and a Jewish prime minister or vice versa.
Attaining equal rights in Israel-Palestine should be an unexceptionable aim. Zionists would inevitably reject it. However, the biggest problem would be its implementation.
So, how can such a concept be accepted by Jewish Israelis, reared on a diet of supremacy and entitlement and conditioned to hate and fear the native Christian and Muslim Arabs? Or by Palestinians with lives blighted by Israeli occupation and oppression, convinced they need to separate off into their own state? And what of their understandable fear of becoming second-class citizens in a state that turns out to be equal in theory but not in practice?
It would not be easy, and can only be done in stages. The Palestinian Authority must first be persuaded to convert itself from a pseudo-government of a non-existent state with unrealistic aims into a campaigning body that leads the equal rights project.
A wide-ranging campaign of civic education must be instituted and coordinated with a public-relations drive towards the outside, and especially Western, world. A legal case for equal rights should be made at the international court. A network of connection with like-minded individuals, groups, and organisations, including sympathetic governments - South Africa and Chile, for example - should be established.
This action list is not exhaustive, but serves to show what can be done. Creating a system of equal rights in a state like Israel, long based on discrimination in favour of one group over others, is a noble ambition. If it were to happen, it would create a more just society and a way of rectifying the terrible wrong done to Palestinians and guarantee security to Israeli Jews.
Perhaps then the peace that has eluded all who tried to solve this conflict will come about at last.
Apartheid Adventures
What is Apartheid?
Open letter to Milton Nascimento:
Dear Milton Nascimento,
We, the undersigned Palestinian cultural organizations, urge you to cancel your Tel Aviv show, scheduled for June 30th, echoing the call of Brazilian artists, academics, cultural organizations, trade unionists, political parties, indigenous people and popular movements.
Your legacy of political rebellion, consistently speaking up for human rights and for justice, will be undermined by performing in an apartheid state that denies millions of indigenous Palestinians our basic rights. Israel effectively declared itself an apartheid state last year with the “Jewish Nation State Law”, strengthening its decades-old regime of racial discrimination against all Palestinians, in their homeland or in exile.
Since March 2018, Israel’s ongoing massacres in the besieged Gaza Strip have killed more than 300 Palestinians, including children, journalists and medics, and injured more than 20,000. These killings and maimings were committed against unarmed people protesting for their fundamental human rights. The UN has said Israel’s actions “may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity”.
Meanwhile, Israel’s illegal settlements and ethnic cleansing policies against Palestinians in the occupied West Bank continue to grow apace.
These crimes, carried out with total impunity, are why Palestinian civil society has called since 2004 for international artists to refuse Israeli performances, until our rights are no longer denied by its far-right regime of apartheid, occupation and settler-colonialism.
We are inspired by the peaceful international solidarity against apartheid in South Africa -- especially the cultural boycott of that regime -- which played an important role in ending apartheid, as many leading South African activists have stated, in endorsing our call. Some of us were directly involved in that anti-apartheid struggle and learned a great deal from it.
More than 500 Latin American artists have publicly endorsed the nonviolent BDS movement for Palestinian rights, joining thousands of artists, including many musicians, around the world. Prominent Jewish and Jewish-Israeli artists and cultural figures have also endorsed BDS, which is anchored in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and rejects all forms of racist and racial discrimination.
Last year, Gilberto Gil cancelled his Tel Aviv show following Israel’s massacres of Palestinians in Gaza, and in 2015 Caetano Veloso announced he would never again perform in Israel.
Composer Brian Eno said last year, “Art is a powerful substance. It can be used for power. It depends whose hands it gets into. There's no reason why your art should survive that transition and not become a weapon in somebody else's hand.”
We urge you to heed our call, to do no harm to our peaceful struggle for human rights, and to refuse to let your art be used as a weapon in the hands of Israel’s far-right regime.
Querido Milton,
Nós, organizações culturais palestinas signatárias abaixo, insistimos em nosso pedido para que o senhor cancele sua apresentação em Tel Aviv, marcada para 30 de junho, ecoando o chamado de artistas, acadêmicos, organizações culturais, partidos políticos, representantes de organizações sindicais, povos indígenas e movimentos populares brasileiros.
Seu legado de rebeldia política, consistentemente a favor dos direitos humanos e justiça, poderá ser comprometido ao apresentar-se em um estado de apartheid que nega a milhões de palestinos nativos os seus direitos básicos. Israel efetivamente declarou a si mesmo um estado de apartheid no ano passado, ao aprovar a chamada “Lei do Estado-Nação Judeu”, intensificando seu regime histórico de discriminação racial contra os palestinos, sejam eles em sua própria pátria ou no exílio.
Desde março de 2018, os massacres contínuos de Israel contra a Faixa de Gaza sitiada mataram mais de 300 palestinos, incluindo crianças, jornalistas e médicos, além de mais de 20.000 feridos. Tais assassinatos e mutilações são cometidos contra civis desarmados que protestam por seus direitos humanos fundamentais. A ONU declarou que as ações de Israel “devem constituir crimes de guerra ou lesa-humanidade”.
Enquanto isso, os assentamentos ilegais israelenses e suas políticas de limpeza étnica contra os palestinos na Cisjordânia ocupada continuam a se expandir depressa.
Esses crimes, executados com total impunidade, justificam o chamado da sociedade civil palestina, desde 2004, para que artistas internacionais recusem apresentações em Israel, até que nossos direitos não sejam mais negados pelo seu regime de extrema-direita de apartheid, ocupação e expansão colonialista.
Nós nos inspiramos na campanha pacífica de solidariedade internacional contra o apartheid na África do Sul – em particular, o boicote cultural ao regime sul-africano –, a qual teve importante papel ao fim do apartheid, como destacado por muitas lideranças do país africano que hoje apoiam nossa causa. Alguns de nós estamos diretamente envolvidos na luta antiapartheid e aprendemos muito com ela.
Mais de 500 artistas latino-americanos apoiaram publicamente o movimento pacífico de BDS pelos direitos palestinos, juntando-se a milhares de artistas, inclusive muitos músicos, de todo o mundo. Proeminentes artistas judeus e judaico-israelenses e produtores culturais também declararam seu apoio ao BDS, ancorado na Declaração Universal de Direitos Humanos, em repúdio a toda forma de racismo e discriminação racial.
No ano passado, Gilberto Gil cancelou sua apresentação em Tel Aviv após os massacres de palestinos em Gaza perpetrados por Israel. Em 2015, Caetano Veloso anunciou que jamais tocaria em Israel novamente.
O compositor Brian Eno declarou ano passado: “A arte é uma substância poderosa. Pode ser utilizada para obter poder. Isso depende das mãos que a utilizam. Nada justifica que nossa arte sobreviva a este momento de transformações ao tornar-se uma arma nas mãos de outras pessoas.”
Reiteramos nosso pedido para que nos ouça, para que não prejudique nossa luta pacífica por direitos humanos e para que se recuse a deixar que sua arte seja utilizada como arma nas mãos do regime de extrema-direita de Israel."
BRASIL
The Intercept Brasil
Entrevista de Glen Greenwald com Lula, with English subtitles
Brasil's justice minister and prosecutors collaborated to convict left-wing icon Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on corruption charges to prevent him from contesting the 2018 election, one of the most trustworthy investigative news outlet has reported. The Intercept said an anonymous source provided material, including private chats, audio recordings, videos and photos, that show "serious wrongdoing, unethical behaviour, and systematic deceit".
"Secret documents reveal that Brazil's most powerful prosecutors ... plotted to prevent the Workers' Party [PT] from winning the 2018 presidential election by blocking or weakening a pre-election interview with former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva," said the news report.
Entrevista de Glen Greenwald com Lula, with English subtitles
"Entre todos os artistas que se envolveram no recente processo de desgaste da democracia brasileira, que culminou na eleição de um bufão da estirpe de um Jair Bolsonaro à Presidência da República, talvez tenha sido a imprensa venal – a grande imprensa a serviço do capital financeiro – quem tenha desempenhado o papel principal. É que a democracia não é feita dos tijolos e das paredes dos edifícios governamentais de Brasília. Ela é uma construção penosa, custosa e demorada de crenças compartilhadas. Nesse sentido, uma democracia pode levar séculos para ser construída, mas sua destruição é bem mais rápida e fácil quando não há uma tradição democrática consolidada, como é o caso do Brasil.
Na elaboração dessas crenças compartilhadas, muita gente teve de perder a vida, foi perseguida ou torturada. Muitos, inclusive, por defenderem a liberdade de expressão, que é o grande valor de uma imprensa livre. Por causa disso, impressiona e surpreende o grau de venalidade e parcialidade da grande imprensa brasileira a partir de 2013. Afinal, os 25 anos que precederam essa data haviam sido de ampliação democrática e de relativa consolidação da Constituição de 1988. Parecia que o Brasil havia aprendido com os anos sombrios da ditadura militar. Não foi o caso.
Além disso, é burrice atacar a democracia se a atividade que você exerce sobrevive graças às garantias que ela proporciona. Acreditar que se pode fazer uma intervenção tópica, cirúrgica, com base na mentira e na manipulação da informação, para se eliminar um inimigo de ocasião e depois voltar à vida que se tinha antes é de uma miopia atroz. Toda ação humana tem que ser justificada no tempo. Sem isso, ela perde sua força de convencimento e as consequências de sua deslegitimação invariavelmente atingem seus algozes como um bumerangue. O curto-prazismo é, por causa disso, a definição mais abstrata e filosófica de burrice.
Com o ataque do governo Dilma Rousseff, em 2012, à política de juros escorchantes cobrados à população e servindo de base à sangria artificial da “dívida pública” – este grande esquema de corrupção legalizada para transferir recursos da população aos rentistas –, a relação amistosa da elite com o governo acaba. Ato contínuo, a imprensa, cujos donos não só vivem de anúncios de bancos, mas também devem boa parte do patrimônio aos bancos e têm os próprios ganhos multiplicados pela rapina rentista, aciona o modo de guerra contra o governo petista.
As assim chamadas “jornadas de junho de 2013” são a senha e a oportunidade esperada para o ataque frontal. Ali, já tinha ficado claro que, se o partido popular não fosse derrotado nas urnas, isso teria de ser feito em outro campo de batalha, no qual a imprensa venal constituiria o exército mais letal. A derrota de 2014, mesmo com o “petrolão” já sendo a principal moeda de ataque, levou à radicalização da imprensa. Foi a partir dali que começou a campanha de destruição, não apenas do PT, mas da tenra cultura democrática que havia se desenvolvido no país.
A associação com a Lava Jato – a verdadeira organização criminosa do Brasil recente – e sua indústria de “delações premiadas” e vazamentos ilegais levou a imprensa, sob o comando da Rede Globo, ao ataque a todos os princípios e as crenças que possibilitam a vida dos direitos e do Direito. São essas garantias jurídicas que permitem a vida democrática. Cabe lembrar que o Direito, como esfera social autônoma, só nasce quando a justiça deixa de ser exercida como privilégio do mais forte. As garantias universais do procedimento jurídico perfazem, nesse sentido, o Direito como esfera autônoma. Sem elas, o Direito se torna uma arma política de quem detém o poder e tem mais dinheiro e influência.
Lembro-me, em uma das poucas vezes que assisti ao jornal da GloboNews nesse período, do jornalista Merval Pereira, por ocasião de um dos milhares de ataques ao ex-presidente Lula, que replicou acusando o vazamento de ilegal, declarando que “vazamento ilegal sempre existe”, que é “normal” e, portanto, não é um problema real. Obviamente, esse é apenas um exemplo dentre milhares e milhares de ataques que são repetidos todos os dias. Banalizar e tratar como “normal” vazamentos ilegais é fazer o mesmo com os ataques à presunção de inocência de alguém, o que, em países com tradição democrática mais sólida, teria levado o jornalista à prisão.
Note bem, caros leitor e leitora, que não me refiro exclusivamente ao Lula. Como essas garantias jurídicas como fundamento da democracia ou são universalizáveis ou elas não existem, esse tipo de ataque diário e repetido mina e corrói por dentro as crenças democráticas enquanto tais. Elas terminam sendo percebidas como “empecilho” à justiça e não como proteção universal aos desmandos de moralistas de ocasião. Se juntarmos a isso a “coação das ruas”, que passou a ser empreendida especialmente contra o STF como instância garantidora de direitos fundamentais, pelo conluio da imprensa com a Lava Jato, então temos a origem de todos os desmandos e de destruição das crenças fundamentais do acordo – quase sempre implícito, mas ainda assim acordo – democrático.
A descrença recente na democracia e na política começou aí. O outro dado fundamental foi a mentira alimentada publicamente de que todos os problemas do país decorrem da corrupção política. É óbvio e ululante que qualquer tipo de corrupção é recriminável e tem de ser punida, mas a origem dos problemas brasileiros, como a pobreza de seu povo e a desigualdade, não está apenas, nem mesmo principalmente, na corrupção política. Só a sonegação de impostos das classes mais ricas – que a imprensa nunca divulga – é pelo menos 500 vezes maior segundo os especialistas do Tax Justice Network, da Inglaterra. Mas foi dito e repetido milhões de vezes ao povo brasileiro que bastava afastar os supostos corruptos da política, ainda que por meios espúrios, que se “limparia” o país de uma vez por todas.
Como isso não aconteceu, muito pelo contrário, parte da população se convenceu de que era necessário não um xerife de toga, mas de assassinos armados para “limpar” o país. É claro que estamos aqui no mundo das representações conscientes, já que o que efetivamente moveu o ódio da maioria dessas pessoas foi a reação classista e racista à anterior ascensão social de pobres e negros e a diminuição da distância social com a classe média e com a baixa classe média branca empobrecida – o “lixo branco brasileiro” que compõe a maioria do exército bolsonarista. Mas o trabalho da imprensa permitiu travestir esse ódio de classe com categorias morais, possibilitando sua expressão como “protesto justo”. De outro modo, o ódio puro e racista dos bolsonaristas não teria legitimidade de se expressar.
A grande imprensa venal, nas eleições de 2018, sancionou, portanto, o bufão neofascista participando ativamente da fraude eleitoral da “eleição sem debate”, montada por fake news e com doadores invisíveis. Agora, ainda que existam resistências tópicas e envergonhadas ao “flato humano” que ajudaram a eleger, a imprensa venal tende a tratar como “normal” o neofascismo ao se abster de denunciá-lo e de esclarecer o público carente quanto ao perigo que ele representa. Qualquer tipo de reconstrução democrática no Brasil, demore o tempo que demorar, tem de se debruçar sobre a questão da regulação pública de uma imprensa venal que se apresenta como neutra apenas para melhor enganar e manipular seu público indefeso." Jessé Souza
Brasil's justice minister and prosecutors collaborated to convict left-wing icon Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva on corruption charges to prevent him from contesting the 2018 election, one of the most trustworthy investigative news outlet has reported. The Intercept said an anonymous source provided material, including private chats, audio recordings, videos and photos, that show "serious wrongdoing, unethical behaviour, and systematic deceit".
"Secret documents reveal that Brazil's most powerful prosecutors ... plotted to prevent the Workers' Party [PT] from winning the 2018 presidential election by blocking or weakening a pre-election interview with former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva," said the news report.
Among the explosive claims, The Intercept said prosecutors in a massive, years-long anti-corruption probe known as "Car Wash" had expressed "serious doubts whether there was sufficient evidence to establish Lula's guilt".
Check it out Parts 1 to 6.
AOS FATOS:Todas as declarações de Bolsonaro, checadas
VENEZUELA
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário