del silenci a males noticies d'Obama

Obama's Anti-Arab Racism

« H E » Israel & Palestinian Resistance :: Middle East: Zionism & Imperialism :: Obama Imperial Presidency :: email

posted Tuesday, 6 January 2009

Enjoying a luxurious Hawaiian holiday with his family in a $9 million beach-front vacation home, President Elect Barack Obama had "no comment" on the carnage in Gaza.

Still, his media handler and spokesman David Axlerod essentially endorsed the murders of the Balousha and al Absi children on NBC's weekly show "Face the Nation."

"Well, certainly, the president-elect recognizes the special relationship between United States and Israel," Axelrod told NBC. "It's an important bond, an important relationship. He's going to honor it ...

"And obviously, this situation has become even more complicated in the last couple of days and weeks. As Hamas began its shelling, Israel responded."

"The president-elect was in Sderot last July," Axelrod continued, "in southern Israel, a town that's taken the brunt of the Hamas attacks...

"And he said then that, when bombs are raining down on your citizens, there is an urge to respond and act and try and put an end to that. So, you know, that's what he said then, and I think that's what he believes."

In other words, Israel's criminal bombing of Gaza - preparation for a ground invasion - was legitimate retaliation, not naked aggression, as far as Obama was concerned. That was the Obama team's take on Israel's latest outrage - the same exact line as the Bush administration.

This line ignored the grossly disproportionate nature of Israel's response, which killed hundreds of Palestinians, including many civilians, in two days while just 17 Israelis have been killed by Palestinians rocks over the last seven years. (The "Israel-Palestine conflict" is a very asymmetrical affair.)

It also deleted the fact that Israel, not Hamas (the militant Muslim organization that holds elected authority in the Gaza ghetto), broke a six-month truce by firing missiles into Gaza on the evening of the U.S. presidential election.

BLAMING THE VICTIM

The Obama team's response to the latest Israeli outrage is depressing but it is not surprising. Obama's pronounced reluctance to rock the imperial boat [1] and question the conventional U.S. foreign policy wisdom been sharply evident in his statements and actions relating to the Israel-Palestine issue.

Early in his political career, to be sure, state senator Obama took positions embraced by Israeli peace activists and their supporters.

During his failed campaign against South Side Chicago Congressman Bobby Rush (D-IL) in 2000, for example, Obama criticized the Clinton administration's unconditional support of the occupation and other Israeli policies.

He called for an "even-handed approach" to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and referred to "the cycle of violence between Israelis and Palestinians" while most Democrats joined Republicans in discussing the conflict purely in terms of Palestinian provocation and Israeli response.

Obama claimed to support a Palestinian-Israel peace settlement in accord with the Geneva Initiative and with related proposals by Israeli and Palestinian moderates.

But this approach could not survive presidential aspirations in a political culture where substantive criticism of Israel's behavior carries grave electoral risks.

As a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate, Obama's statements on Israel-Palestine were practically identical to those of the Bush administration, which has backed the right-wing Ehud Olmert (Likud) government (January 4, 2006 to present) on nearly every important policy matter.

Obama argued that "we should never seek to dictate what is best for the Israelis and their security interests" and claimed that no Israeli prime minister - no matter how unpopular and murderous (e.g. Olmert) - should be "dragged" against his will into negotiations with the Palestinians.

The contradictions Obama embraced and overlooked in his quest to appease Israel and its hard-line American supporters were quite pronounced. As foreign policy analyst Stephen Zunes noted last January:

"Despite Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert's refusal to freeze the construction of additional illegal settlements, end the seizure of Palestinian population centers, release Palestinian political prisoners, or enact other confidence-building measures - much less agree to the establishment of a viable Palestinian state - Obama claimed in his AIPAC [American Israeli Public Affairs Council] policy forum speech [in March of 2007] that Olmert is 'more than willing to negotiate an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that will result in two states living side by side in peace and security'.

"And though, as recently as last March, Obama acknowledged the reality that 'nobody is suffering more than the Palestinian people,' as a result of the stalled peace process he has since placed the blame for the impasse not on the Israeli occupation but on the Palestinians themselves."

Obama has consistently rejected the insistence of peace activists that U.S. make military aid to Israel contingent on the Israeli government following international and human rights law.

One chilling example of what some might call anti-Arab racism on Obama's part came when Israel tightened the screws of its siege of Gaza last January.

As Palestinians struggled to survive a vicious embargo of food, fuel, and medicine, Obama sent the following letter to the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations"

"Dear Ambassador Khalilzad,"

"I understand that today the UN Security Council met regarding the situation in Gaza, and that a resolution or statement could be forthcoming from the Council in short order."

"I urge you to ensure that the Security Council issue no statement and pass no resolution on this matter that does not fully condemn the rocket assault Hamas has been conducting on civilians in southern Israel..."

"All of us are concerned about the impact of closed border crossings on Palestinian families. However, we have to understand why Israel is forced to do this... Israel has the right to respond while seeking to minimize any impact on civilians."

"The Security Council should clearly and unequivocally condemn the rocket attacks... If it cannot bring itself to make these common sense points, I urge you to ensure that it does not speak at all."

"Sincerely,"

"Barack Obama

"United States Senator"

This terrible letter pandered to the right wing of Israeli and "pro-Israel" U.S. opinion by ignoring the absurdly disproportionate nature of Israel's "response" and the suffocating apartheid and poverty conditions that predictably generate violent resistance on the part of some Palestinians. More...

el silenci d'obama (serrado asta finales de enero)

Obama's strategic silence on Gaza

By Richard Lister BBC News, Washington

"There is one President at a time."

That is the mantra from the Obama transition team whenever it is confronted with an issue on which it would rather not comment.

It annoys senior Democrats like Representative Barney Frank, who said "that seriously overstates the number of Presidents we have".

And Mr Obama's silence on the situation in Gaza has also threatened to lose him support in the Arab world.

But the US constitution makes it pretty clear who is in charge at the moment and until 20 January, that person is George W Bush.

Power vacuum

Mr Obama does not have the legal authority to back his words with actions; he does not have an administration in place and he risks complicating what has otherwise been a smooth transition process if he decides to take on the presidential mantle before he is sworn in.

Yet it is not quite as simple as that, of course.

There is a power vacuum in Washington at the moment - as there always is in the waning weeks of any administration.

But so profound is this one that the Obama team decided to raise the president-elect's profile in the weeks after his election.

He reassured financial markets that he was working behind the scenes on a far-reaching economic stimulus package.

When Mr Obama arrived in Washington, his first appointment was with the House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, because as he said "the business of the people cannot wait".

He has made statements on the economy, the carmakers bailout, and the attacks in Mumbai - so why nothing on Gaza?

Well, with the exception of Mumbai, he has spoken only about domestic issues - seen as fair game for an incoming President.

The attacks in India were far more clear cut than the turmoil in Gaza.

They were an unusual event which presented no lingering policy issues and required no continuing diplomacy.

And that is key.

An unnamed Obama aide has reiterated that it is President Bush who is responsible for American diplomacy.

With that in mind, the Obama team is "not engaging in any action that could send confusing signals to the world about who speaks on behalf of the United States," the aide said.

Changing landscape

Gaza is a political minefield for Mr Obama.

If he makes a statement that suggests he would pursue a different Middle East policy from that of the Bush team, it would pull the rug from under the current administration's diplomatic efforts in the region.

It would also cost him Republican goodwill at home if he were to undermine President Bush in that way.

If he issues a statement which puts him in lock step with the Bush team's approach, then he loses flexibility when the issue arrives in his in-tray in two weeks time.

Whatever he says now will be regarded as policy, but the political landscape in the Middle East could be quite different when he is sworn in.

It may be that events on the ground create overwhelming pressure on Mr Obama to make some kind of statement.

If so, he will have to weigh up the diplomatic and political damage done by staying silent, against the damage done by saying something which will inevitably be condemned by one of the players in the region - and could come back to haunt him.

In fact, nothing he has said on the Middle East in the past has been significantly out of step with President Bush's policies.

Visiting the Israeli town of Sderot in July, he suggested that he too would respond if rockets were being fired at his house.

He has also spoken about the problem of negotiating with Hamas when it is "not representative of a nation state, does not recognise [Israel's] right to exist, has consistently used terror as a weapon and is deeply influenced by other countries".

However, he has been careful to avoid definitive statements which lock him into a particular course of action though.

All recent presidents have made some kind of policy shift in their efforts to find peace in the Middle East - President Bush was the first to call openly for a two-state solution, for example.

But there is very little political advantage for Barack Obama in revealing his hand before he sits at the table for real.

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/americas/7812498.stm

Published: 2009/01/05 19:44:24 GMT

© BBC MMIX

pinter

Harold Pinter: "The Nightmare of American Hysteria, Ignorance, Arrogance, Stupidity & Belligerence"

« H E » email

posted Sunday, 28 December 2008

Harold Pinter, who has died at the age of 78, was the most influential, provocative and poetic dramatist of his generation.

He enjoyed parallel careers as actor, screenwriter and director and was also, especially in recent years, a vigorous political polemicist campaigning against abuses of human rights. Obituary

In his video-taped Nobel acceptance speech, Harold Pinter excoriated a 'brutal, scornful and ruthless' United States. This is the full text of his address

The following was first published in 2003

Bush believes the three thousand 9/11 deaths are

the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter

They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract,

of no consequence. Never mind the 650,000 dead Iraqis

I mean, who's counting? Certainly not Americans

People do not forget oppression, they do not forget

the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget

They strike back. The atrocity in New York was predictable

and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against

constant and systematic manifestations of state

terrorism on the part of America all over the world

"Earlier this year I had a major operation for cancer. The operation and its after-effects were something of a nightmare.

I felt I was a man unable to swim bobbing about under water in a deep dark endless ocean. But I did not drown and I am very glad to be alive. However, I found that to emerge from a personal nightmare was to enter an infinitely more pervasive public nightmare - the nightmare of American hysteria, ignorance, arrogance, stupidity and belligerence.

The most powerful nation the world has ever known effectively waging war against the rest of the world. "If you are not with us you are against us" President Bush has said.

He has also said "We will not allow the world's worst weapons to remain in the hands of the world's worst leaders". Quite right. Look in the mirror chum. That's you. The US is at this moment developing advanced systems of "weapons of mass destruction" and it prepared to use them where it sees fit. It has more of them than the rest of the world put together.

It has walked away from international agreements on biological and chemical weapons, refusing to allow inspection of its own factories. The hypocrisy behind its public declarations and its own actions is almost a joke. The United States believes that the three thousand deaths in New York are the only deaths that count, the only deaths that matter. They are American deaths. Other deaths are unreal, abstract, of no consequence. The three thousand deaths in Afghanistan are never referred to. The hundreds of thousands of Iraqi children dead through US and British sanctions which have deprived them of essential medicines are never referred to. The effect of depleted uranium, used by America in the Gulf War, is never referred to. Radiation levels in Iraq are appallingly high.

Babies are born with no brain, no eyes, no genitals. Where they do have ears, mouths or rectums, all that issues from these orifices is blood. The two hundred thousand deaths in East Timor in 1975 brought about by the Indonesian government but inspired and supported by the United States are never referred to. The half a million deaths in Guatemala, Chile, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, Argentina and Haiti, in actions supported and subsidised by the United States are never referred to. The millions of deaths in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia are no longer referred to. The desperate plight of the Palestinian people, the central factor in world unrest, is hardly referred to. But what a misjudgement of the present and what a misreading of history this is. People do not forget. They do not forget the death of their fellows, they do not forget torture and mutilation, they do not forget injustice, they do not forget oppression, they do not forget the terrorism of mighty powers. They not only don't forget. They strike back. The atrocity in New York was predictable and inevitable. It was an act of retaliation against constant and systematic manifestations of state terrorism on the part of the United States over many years, in all parts of the world. In Britain the public is now being warned to be "vigilant" in preparation for potential terrorist acts. The language is in itself preposterous. How will - or can - public vigilance be embodied? Wearing a scarf over your mouth to keep out poison gas?

However, terrorist attacks are quite likely, the inevitable result of our Prime Minister's contemptible and shameful subservience to the United States. Apparently, a terrorist poison gas attack on the London Underground system was recently prevented.

But such an act may indeed take place. Thousands of school children travel on the London Underground every day.

If there is a poison gas attack from which they die, the responsibility will rest entirely on the shoulders of our Prime Minister.

Needless to say, the Prime Minister does not travel on the underground himself. The war against Iraq was in fact a plan for premeditated murder of thousands of civilians in order, apparently, to rescue them from their dictator. The United States and Britain are pursuing a course which can lead only to an escalation of violence throughout the world and finally to catastrophe. It is obvious, however, that the United States was bursting at the seams to attack Iraq.

I believe that it will do this - not just to take control of Iraqi oil - but because the US administration is now a bloodthirsty wild animal.

Bombs are its only vocabulary. Many Americans, we know, are horrified by the posture of their government but seem to be helpless. Unless Europe finds the solidarity, intelligence, courage and will to challenge and resist US power Europe itself will deserve Alexander Herzen's definition:

"We are not the doctors. We are the disease". Harold Pinter @ Rense [first published in 2003

falsaris

Recordeu Enric Marco? El president de l'Amical Mathausen, que durant gairabé 30 anys va erigir-se en el supervivent dels camps d'extermini més mediàtic a tot el país, i que al 2005 es và demostrar que tot plegat s'ho havia anat inventant. Donç ara un electricista americà de descendencia polaca, i que estava a punt de publicar un llibre "autobiogràfic", ha hagut de fer-se fondre després d'haver-se descobert que tot era inventat.

enllaç al dossier marco:

http://www.exilioydeportacion.com/newmarco.htm

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Herman A. Rosenblat (born - probably in September - 1929) is a Polish-American author, a Holocaust survivor, who wrote the supposed memoir Angel at the Fence^[1] which was planned to be published in 2009. The publication was cancelled after it turned out to be a fabrication.

[edit] Life and career

Rosenblat has stated he was imprisoned at Schlieben, part of the Buchenwald concentration camp. During that time, he has claimed his future wife Roma passed him food through a fence.

After being liberated from the concentration camps, Rosenblat says he lived in London for four years, where he learned the electrical trade at the Organization for Rehabilitation through Training school. He says he then moved to the United States in 1950 and was drafted to the United States Army in 1951. After serving two years, he says he moved to New York and opened his own electrical contracting shop in Brooklyn. He says he and his wife reunited in the United States on a blind date. They now reside in Miami, Florida.^[2]

Before the deception was uncovered Rosenblat has appeared twice on the Oprah Winfrey Show, where the story was described as "the single greatest love story, in 22 years of doing this show, we've ever told on the air." A childrens' version of the book, entitled Angel Girl, was released in September 2008. A $25 million film version of the book, titled Flower of the Fence, is set for production.^[3]

The deception was uncovered by Kenneth Waltzer, the director of Jewish studies at Michigan State University. Waltzer had been working on a book on Buchenwald, and he interviewed hundreds of survivors. He asked other survivors who knew Rosenblat about the story of the tossed apple. They said the story "couldn’t possibly be true" based on the configuration of the camp and the location of the fences.^[4]

In December 2008 Rosenblat recanted the story.^[5][6]

[edit] References

1. ^ Rosenblat, Herman (2009). Angel at the Fence. Berkley Hardcover, ISBN 9780425225813
2. ^ Cohen, Jennifer (December 14, 2008). Couple's story of love started in time of war. Miami Herald
3. ^ Sherman, Gabriel (December 26, 2008). "Wartime Lies", The New Republic. Retrieved on December 28, 2008. "Several years ago, when Finkel learned that producer Harris Salomon was making a movie based on Rosenblat's life, he wanted to set the record straight."
4. ^ Rich, Motoko; Joseph Berger (December 28, 2008). "False Memoir of Holocaust Is Canceled.", New York Times. Retrieved on 29 December 2008. "When Dr. Waltzer asked other survivors who were with Mr. Rosenblat about the tossed apple story, they said the story couldn’t possibly be true."
5. ^ Italie, Hillel (December 28, 2008). Anger, sadness over fabricated Holocaust story. Associated Press
6. ^ Barrios, Jennifer (December 28, 2008). Holocaust survivor Herman Rosenblat recants story. Newsday

Que podriem esperar de les tres setmanes que queden de Bush?

January 4, 10:56 AM, 2009 · No Comment · Previous · Next

The Smaller-than-life President?

By Scott Horton

In the last four years of the Bush Administration, Karl Rove and his minions labored hard to sell Bush to Americans as a modern Lincoln, leading the country to greatness in difficult times. The comparison was ludicrously off-mark, and today as historians rank Abraham Lincoln first among presidents, they consistently rate George W. Bush dead last—a more compelling failure even than James Buchanan, the man who brought us the Civil War and whose inept bungling helped make Lincoln look so good. Last week Rove moved to a more modest effort. In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Rove presents us George Bush the egghead. He writes that since New Year’s 2005, Bush has read nearly one hundred books, including an impressive array of classics, works of history, and fiction. How credible is this claim? Bush is married to the former Laura Welch, a librarian who has worked tirelessly to promote reading. So he’s lived in an environment where reading matters and is encouraged. But judging Bush’s public speaking skills, one has cause to question his reading comprehension; Bush the egghead is just about as credible as Bush the new Lincoln.

Frank Rich takes a look at the impressive Rovian apparatus that sold Americans George W. Bush, presenting him as a larger-than-life Texan with swagger.

The one indisputable talent of his White House was its ability to create and sell propaganda both to the public and the press. Now that bag of tricks is empty as well. Bush’s first and last photo-ops in Iraq could serve as bookends to his entire tenure. On Thanksgiving weekend 2003, even as the Iraqi insurgency was spiraling, his secret trip to the war zone was a P.R. slam-dunk. The photo of the beaming commander in chief bearing a supersized decorative turkey for the troops was designed to make every front page and newscast in the country, and it did. Five years later, in what was intended as a farewell victory lap to show off Iraq’s improved post-surge security, Bush was reduced to ducking shoes.

But it’s too early to sing Bush’s swan song. The press would have us believe he’s faded from the scene, but like a three-year-old intent on destroying his toy rather than share it with his younger brother, Bush is leaving Washington in a spree of self-indulgent excess, rage and destruction. The Justice Department is busy doling out special treats to corporate supporters of Bush in the form of “settlements” of enforcement actions (though the joke is on the public, since for the most part there were no enforcement actions to begin with). Having conned Congress, Bush’s Treasury Department is being emptied, and the nation’s future is being mortgaged in order to dole out hundreds of billions to friends with no accountability or oversight. As the time comes for the National Archives to take possession of Bush’s paper record, they find that millions of documents have mysteriously vanished, much of this the work of a cyber-conspiracy with the Republican Party organized by an IT consultant who just died in a private plane crash after expressing fear that his plane would be sabotaged. And finally, we have Bush’s Christmas gift to the people of Gaza: bunker-busting bombs being given a test drive as a prelude to their ultimate use—in Iran, perhaps?

Remember: there are still three weeks. If Bush really wants to go out with a bang, he’ll look for something beyond the petty little proxy war in Gaza. This is a president who thinks big. Texas big. Our press is focused on the inaugural, three weeks away. It should be worried about whether we will yet make it that far. Bush is struggling to put the seal on his legacy. And what could top being the last president?

Ghost Dog (el samurai)

La entrada anterior vé en gran part motivada perquè aquest tarda he vist una pelicula de finals dels 90, amb tots els alicients per disfrutar d'alló que mai esperaries que t'impressionés.
Un pistoler professional negre que li deu la vida a un gangster de segon nivell, i que s'hà d'enfrontar al "gang" del seu salvador. La pelicula te Zen, Hip-Hop, Gat Fèlix, multilinguisme...
Sembla mentida que en el seu día passes desapaercebuda, quan "No country for old men", no li arriba a la sola de la sabata.

la màfia de boston

Impressionant entrevista amb un pistoler de la banda de James Bulger (després de Bin Laden el personatge més buscat per el FBI). Assumeix haver-se carregat 20 persones, ha passat 14 anys a la pressó i l'han alliberat per "ajudar" a la justicia (entre altres coses ha servit per condemnar a perpetuitat a un alt responsable de la poli de Boston.
http://www.lesinrocks.com/cine/cinema-article/actu/scorsese-rejoint-la-mafia-de-boston/

en competencia directa amb Imelda Marcos (de La Repubblica)

PERSONE

La "presidenta" Kirchner è in caduta nei sondaggi per le scelte in politica economica
ma i media si accaniscono sulla sua passione per il lusso: cinque abiti al giorno

Cristina 100 metri quadri di tailleur
la mania che indigna l'Argentina

di OMERO CIAI

Cristina Kirchner

NON le perdonano lo shopping, né l'ostentazione. Da quando è precipitata sotto il 30% nei sondaggi, lei che vinse le elezioni presidenziali con il doppio dei voti del marito Nestor, i giornali argentini l'assediano dilettando l'opinione pubblica sui tailleur, i gioielli e gli immancabili tacchi a spillo. Ogni volta che lascia Buenos Aires per un viaggio all'estero - scrivono - le serve un Airbus intero per portarsi dietro tutti i cambi d'abito e riportare a casa tutto quello che compra nei negozi di gran lusso delle capitali europee o americane.

I bene informati hanno fatto anche i calcoli. Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, da un anno presidente d'Argentina e, prima, per quattro anni first lady, spende fra i 250mila e i 400mila euro all'anno solo per vestirsi. Nella residenza presidenziale di Olivos, alla periferia della capitale, il suo guardaroba occupa già 100mq (come un appartamento di quattro stanze) e, al ritmo attuale, avrà bisogno di almeno 400mq di giacche, gonne, pantaloni e scarpe prima della fine del mandato, fra tre anni. Nell'ultimo viaggio ufficiale, tra Stati Uniti e Nord Africa, è riuscita a cambiare abito cinque volte al giorno presentandosi a tutti gli appuntamenti un po' in ritardo ma impeccabile.

Dalle accuse Cristina si difende attaccando: "Sono tutti misogini", dice e poi, senza modestia, aggiunge che la maggior parte delle cose che indossa sono di produzione nazionale argentina. Creazioni di stilisti locali che lei pubblicizza nel mondo. Ma l'assedio continua. Già famosa per essere la donna che non mette mai due volte lo stesso vestito, ora le rimproverano anche i gioielli. "Ogni sera che esce si porta addosso almeno 50mila dollari tra orecchini, anelli, collane e altri accessori" scelti sempre con molta cura da Bulgari, Hermes e Vuitton, scriveva qualche settimana fa Noticias. Non solo: "le piacciono il cuoio, la seta, tessuti brillanti e costosi".

Siccome è peronista le hanno trovato anche una fonte d'ispirazione nel Pantheon nazionale. Ovviamente Evita, la seconda moglie di Peron e First lady argentina negli anni '50. Più che First lady una Pasionaria in verità, tanto conosciuta per il suo guardaroba d'alta classe come per sue battaglie populiste per l'Argentina povera e affamata. Esattamente come Cristina. Si narra che Evita ricevesse da Parigi per via aerea tutte le settimane il catalogo di Christian Dior per scegliere e ricevere comodamente giacche e cappellini d'autore.

Il britannico Guardian ha inserito l'inquilina della Casa Rosada in una speciale classifica fashion (Kings of bling) sui leader mondiali e l'ostentazione della ricchezza. Cristina è arrivata quarta. Dietro a Sarkozy, Gorbaciov e al presidente russo Medvedev. Ma non è finita perché qualche esperto in protocollo l'accusa anche di essere un tantino cafona. S'è presentata con gli occhiali da sole ad un summit; le piacciono le borse grandi, anzi enormi; ed ha costretto, al G-20 di metà novembre, tutti i capi di Stato presenti a ripetere la foto di rito dov'era arrivata tardi per il trucco. Battaglia politica vera poca, anzi niente.

Chi la difende, dentro e fuori il movimento peronista argentino, sostiene che questo tentativo di banalizzare il personaggio nasconde gli interessi dei grandi gruppi economici e il fastidio di una parte della classe media per il modello di sviluppo più solidale che Cristina comunque rappresenta. Il lungo braccio di ferro con le aziende agricole sull'aumento delle tasse per la soia esportata (che la Kirchner voleva reinvestire in opere sociali), e la nazionalizzazione del sistema pensionistico regalato ai privati da Menem negli anni Novanta, hanno sbucciato interessi e privilegi di ceti sociali e gruppi economici anche stranieri (spagnoli) che ora si vendicano.

L'indice di popolarità della presidenta è sceso - dicono i sondaggi - intorno al 25%, più o meno quello che è lo "zoccolo duro", ultra-popolare, del peronismo. Infatti qualche altro punto debole oltre al lusso esagerato Cristina ce l'ha. Le campagne stampa contro di lei puntano sul dualismo nel potere (sostengono che in realtà comanda ancora il marito) e segnalano episodi di corruzione ancora tutti da chiarire. La crisi economica fa il resto e si può facilmente prevedere che il 2009 per lei non sarà un anno in discesa.

(3 gennaio 2009)

de "el mundo"

Portada > Internacional

Jóvenes palestinos lanzan piedras a soldados israelíes en Hebrón en protesta por los bombardeos. (Foto: EFE)

ANÁLISIS

Desmontando los tópicos de Gaza

• Algunas ideas erróneas que se repiten: Hamas tomó el poder por la fuerza
• El bloqueo económico fue impuesto tras el 'golpe de Estado' de Hamas
• La culpa de la ofensiva es de Hamas por seguir lanzando cohetes
• Israel se defiende de la ofensiva palestina
• Se trata de un ataque contra la infraestructura terrorista de Hamas

Actualizado martes 30/12/2008 18:04 (CET)

MÓNICA G. PRIETO (*)

BEIRUT.- Ver la cobertura de los acontecimientos en Gaza en los canales de televisión árabes y en los occidentales es como asomarse a dos mundos diferentes. Influidos por la corriente de opinión promovida por la Administración de Washington, próxima a Israel, los medios europeos y estadounidenses han asumido medias verdades como hechos, ignorando la situación global en la Franja y muchos de los recientes acontecimientos políticos imprescindibles para comprender qué está ocurriendo.

Para entender el masivo movimiento de solidaridad que se está viviendo en los países musulmanes hacia Gaza es necesario contextualizar los hechos y desmontar algunos de los tópicos. Estos son algunos ejemplos.

Un soldado israelí arresta a un joven palestino por, presuntamente, arrojar piedras en Hebrón. (Foto: EFE)

• Hamas tomó el poder por la fuerza en 2007.

En realidad, el Movimiento de Resistencia Islámica accedió al poder en enero de 2006 tras obtener el respaldo del 65% de los palestinos en las elecciones celebradas entonces, en una victoria masiva que sorprendió dentro y fuera de los territorios ocupados.

La supervisión internacional reveló que no se habían producido irregularidades, pero el Cuarteto (EEUU, la UE, Rusia y la ONU) congeló sus ayudas para los palestinos con el pretendido objetivo de obligar a Hamas a renunciar a la violencia y debilitar al grupo.

Por su parte, Israel comenzó una dura estrategia de aislamiento que comenzó con la retención de los fondos que cobra en nombre de las autoridades palestinas en concepto de aduanas, unos 40 millones de euros vitales para la supervivencia de los territorios.

Además, soldados israelíes arrestaron a la mayor parte de los diputados islamistas en Cisjordania y Jerusalén Este inhabilitando el Parlamento palestino, que quedó sin 'quórum' para trabajar.





Fotografía cedida por las fuerzas de defensa israelíes este 29 de diciembre de 2008, que muestra a la artillería del país movilizándose en el borde de la Franja de Gaza. (EFE)

La histórica confrontación entre la facción Al Fatah, derrotada en las urnas, y Hamas se agravó más que nunca, pero una sutil intervención internacional logró que pasara de las palabras a las armas.

Según una investigación de la revista 'Vanity Fair' apoyada en documentos confidenciales autentificados por fuentes norteamericanas, "hubo una iniciativa encubierta aprobada por Bush e implantada por la secretaria de Estado Condoleezza Rice y el viceconsejero de Seguridad Nacional, Elliott Abrams, para provocar una guerra civil palestina.

El plan fue apoyar las fuerzas dirigidas por [Mohamed] Dahlan [líder de Al Fatah] y dotarlas con nuevo armamento suministrado a petición norteamericana para dar a Fatah la fuerza necesaria para eliminar del poder al Gobierno democráticamente electo de Hamas. Es decir, Washington promovió un conflicto civil interpalestino para acabar con los islamistas.

Así, el líder de la Autoridad Nacional Palestina (ANP), Abu Mazen, (Mahmud Abbas) se negó a entregar el control de las fuerzas de Seguridad a Hamas, que organizó sus propias fuerzas. Los choques aislados entre ambas facciones se sucedieron durante casi un año y medio, hasta que en junio de 2007 derivaron en una corta guerra intestina.

A los islamistas les bastaron pocos días para expulsar a Al Fatah. Abu Mazen disolvió el Gobierno electo de Hamas para nombrar otro Ejecutivo, tachado de ilegal por algunos expertos palestinos que también criticaron duramente la actuación de Hamas, y dividiendo 'de facto' los dos territorios palestinos.

• El bloqueo fue impuesto tras el 'golpe de Estado' de Hamas.

El bloqueo comenzó días después de que los islamistas llegaran al Gobierno, pese a las denuncias de las organizaciones humanitarias que advirtieron de que, sin la ayuda internacional, los territorios estaban abocados a una grave crisis asistencial, sanitaria y alimentaria.

Pocos meses después de la victoria electoral las ONG advirtieron de la escasez de medicinas en los hospitales y avisaron del riesgo de enfermedades infecciosas. Lo peor estaría por llegar. Primero fue la respuesta israelí a la captura del soldado Guilad Shalit, que castigó duramente la Franja.





Musulmanes chiítas pisan unas imágenes de Bush y Rice en una manifestación en la India. (Foto: AP)

Un año después, tras los combates interpalestinos, Tel Aviv declaró Gaza entidad enemiga, permitiendo la entrada de apenas 19 productos básicos de los 3.500 que entraban antes.

Desde entonces, la primera crisis humana creada expresamente por Occidente ha empobrecido a la población hasta límites insospechados. Si en 2007, un millón de personas en Gaza (donde habitan 1,5 millones de palestinos) sobrevivía gracias a las ayudas de la ONU, hoy se calcula que 1,2 millones comen gracias a Naciones Unidas, que ha dejado de recibir alimentos básicos por el cierre israelí. Hoy en día, los habitantes de Gaza tienen serias dificultades para encontrar pan.

• La culpa de la ofensiva es de Hamas por seguir lanzando cohetes.

El pasado día 19 de diciembre, Hamas dio por finalizada una tregua unilateral de seis meses en la que los islamistas no lanzaron su artillería casera salvo en respuesta a bombardeos israelíes, sin causar muertos. A cambio, exigían que Tel Aviv aliviara el cerco permitiendo la entrada de productos básicos y de combustible, algo que nunca ocurrió.

En esos meses la situación se fue deteriorando en la Franja, hasta el punto de que los israelíes prohibieron el paso de ayuda de Naciones Unidas e incluso vetaron el suministro del combustible necesario para que las agencias de la ONU pudieran asistir a la población.

"¿En qué otro lugar padece la ONU un embargo? ¿Dónde se somete la ayuda alimentaria a tan severas restricciones?", se interrogaba el director de la agencia de Naciones Unidas para los refugiados palestinos, John Ging.

Por su parte, la Alta Comisionada de la ONU para los Derechos Humanos, Navi Pillay, denunció que "el bloqueo es una violación de las leyes internacionales y humanitarias".

El relator especial de la ONU para los territorios palestinos, el profesor judío estadounidense Richard Falk, exigió a principios de diciembre un "esfuerzo urgente [...] para aplicar las normas que protegen a la población civil palestina de las políticas de castigo que suponen un crimen contra la humanidad". Falk, que calificó el bloqueo contra Gaza de "continuada, flagrante y masiva de la ley humanitaria internacional", fue expulsado por Israel cuando intentó regresar a los territorios para terminar el informe que debe presentar ante la ONU en marzo.





Una mujer israelí observa los desperfectos causados en su casa de Sderot por un proyectil palestino. (Foto: EFE)

• Israel se defiende de la ofensiva palestina.

Es cierto que las facciones armadas palestinas lanzan sus cohetes contra el sur de Israel, al igual que es cierto que Tel Aviv acomete ofensivas aéreas contra la Franja en lo que califica de "asesinatos selectivos", que por lo general suelen ocasionar víctimas civiles. La cuestión está en qué tipo de daño hacen unos y otros.

Según datos del Ministerio de Defensa israelí, la ONG The Israeli Project calcula que 23 israelíes han muerto entre principios de 2001 y el verano de 2008 a causa de los proyectiles palestinos. Según el Centro Palestino para los Derechos Humanos, en ese periodo 3.800 palestinos han muerto por ataques israelíes, de los cuales casi 850 son niños.

Por otro lado, el Gobierno israelí invierte fuertes sumas en la seguridad de su población asentada en las proximidades de Gaza, mientras que los palestinos carecen no sólo de búnqueres, sino de medicinas, agua o suministro eléctrico.

• Se trata de un ataque contra la infraestructura terrorista de Hamas.

Mezquitas, el canal de televisión de Hamas (Al Aqsa TV), la Universidad Islámica de Gaza. Varios edificios civiles han sido atacados en la actual ofensiva de Tel Aviv, además de centros políticos y militares.

El problema es que cualquier ataque contra un objetivo, incluso militar, en Gaza arrastra a numerosos civiles dado que la Franja es uno de los lugares con mayor densidad de población del mundo.

La mayoría de las víctimas han sido oficiales de la policía palestina afiliada a Hamas, entre ellos su máximo responsable, nombrado por Al Fatah, lo cual lleva a Israel a afirmar que las bajas son militares.

Sin embargo, según la IV Convención de Ginebra relativa a la protección de civiles en tiempos de guerra, los funcionarios (incluidos los oficiales de policía) son considerados civiles en los conflictos y no combatientes, por lo que los grupos de Derechos Humanos denuncian una masacre.

---

(*) Mónica G. Prieto fue corresponsal para Israel y los territorios palestinos entre 2005 y 2007, y vivió en Gaza la victoria electoral de Hamas, las consecuencias del bloqueo y la situación tras la guerra civil palestina.

2009

Un pont llevadís, cap a un mon de colors, amb un cel de plom...
(del fotoblog d'Ivar Ivrig)