jueves, 31 de diciembre de 2009

Noticias sobre la marcha para la liberación de Gaza y un video de navidad en Belén

http://www.nodo50.org/csca/agenda09/palestina/arti807.html

Entre otras, se puede leer:

El Frente Popular para la Liberación de Palestina denuncia la construcción de un muro de acero en la frontera egipcia con Gaza
El portavoz del FPLP rechaza cualquier intento de justificar esta acción por parte del gobierno egipcio citando la obligaciones del llamado “cuarteto” y plantea que “Gaza ha sido masacrada bajo los acuerdos y obligaciones contraídas por el cuarteto, mientras la ocupación de Palestina no sido objeto de leyes internacionales o resoluciones”.

www.pflp.ps, 22 de Diciembre de 2009Traducción: CSCA, Asturies

El FPLP denunció la construcción por el gobierno egipcio de un muro de acero en el perímetro de su frontera con Gaza, de unos 20 metros de profundidad y lo calificó como inaceptable e injustificable acción contra el pueblo palestino que solo intensifica el asedio sobre Gaza.
En una entrevista con Al Alam News, el camarada Abu Ahmad Fuad, miembro de la Oficina Política del Frente Popular, dijo que la construcción de este muro genera un problema profundo y amenazante en un momento en que es necesario derribar las barreras entre los países árabes. Fuad subrayó que el pueblo egipcio tuvo siempre contacto con sus hermanos y hermanas árabes palestinos y que nunca apoyaría esta extensión del bloqueo sobre Gaza.
Señaló que “Gaza está bajo asedio, que los túneles que la comunican con Egipto proveen bienes humanitarios esenciales para la subsistencia y acopio de la economía de Gaza, e ilustra la creatividad y resistencia de nuestro pueblo contra la ocupación y el bloqueo”. El compañero Fuad enfatizó que la frontera de Rafah debe estar abierta bajo la independencia y el control soberano de egipcios y palestinos, y que los túneles desaparecerán con el fin del cerco.
Abu Ahmad Fuad señaló que a pesar de la intromisión de algunos oficiales egipcios en los asuntos oficiales palestinos, estos oficiales nunca consultaron a la población palestina acerca de la construcción del muro que implica el sitio y privación de dicha población. Particularmente ha puesto el acento en que el muro está siendo construido con apoyo y financiación militar estadounidense como parte de la estrategia imperial de EE.UU. contra los pueblos árabes y contra los palestinos.
También puso de manifiesto que este muro sólo conlleva dolor y devastación a la gente de Gaza, al conjunto de la población palestina y es un intento de construir un muro de acero entre la población árabe de Egipto y Palestina. Asimismo, señaló que la construcción de esta monstruosidad no beneficia a ninguno de los dos pueblos, ni económicamente, ni a nivel político o humanitario, y reafirmó que los beneficiarios reales de esta obra son Israel y el imperialismo de EE.UU.
El portavoz del FPLP rechaza cualquier intento de justificar esta acción por parte del gobierno egipcio citando la obligaciones del llamado “cuarteto” y plantea que “Gaza ha sido masacrada bajo los acuerdos y obligaciones contraídas por el cuarteto, mientras la ocupación de Palestina no sido objeto de leyes internacionales o resoluciones”. Asimismo, hace un llamamiento a Egipto para que cese de inmediato la construcción del muro y abra el paso de Rafah al tránsito normal de gente, comida, medicinas y todo tipo de bienes entre Gaza y Egipto.

Actualizándonos: Listado de niños y niñas muertos en Gaza entre el 27/12/08 y el 17/01/09 a causa de los bombardeos del ejército israelí

Listado de niños y niñas muertos en Gaza entre el 27 de Diciembre de 2008 y el 17 de Enero de 2009 a causa de los bombardeos del ejército de Israel

Uday Abdul Hakim Mansi, de 6 años; Dina Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha, de 7 años, y 312 nombres más

Red Solidaria contra la Ocupación de Palestina. Tomado de: http://www.nodo50.org/csca/agenda09/palestina/arti807.html

Mustafa Khader Abu Ghanima 16 años
Abdul Hamid Khaled al-Sawi 15 años
Yahya Farouq al-Hayek 13 años
‘Uday Abdul Hakim Mansi 6 años
Ahmed Mohammed al-Sinwar 3 años
Khaled Tarraf al- Astal 14 años
Ahmed Rasmi Abu Jazar 16 años
Mazen Ahmed Matar 15 años
Tamer Ali al- Akhras 5 años
Ibrahim Akram Abu Daqqa 15 años
Nabil Mahmoud Abu 16 años
Mohamme Basil Mahmoud Madi 17 años
Mu’ath al-‘Abed Abu Teir 6 años
Mohammed Zeyad al-‘Absi 14 años
Sidqi Mahmoud al-‘Absi 4 años
Mahmoud Deeb Ghabayen 13 años
Shadi Yousif Ghabin 14 años
Wisam Akram Rabi’ Eid 12 años
Deya'a ‘Aref Abu Khubeiza 15 años
‘Imad Jamal Abu Khater 15 años
Ahmed Mahmoud al-‘Absi 12 años
Isma’il Talal Hamdan 9 años
Mohammed Majed Ka’abar 17 años
Sha’aban Hanif 16 años
Tareq Yaser ‘Afana 16 años
Mahmoud Mahmoud Abu Nahla 16 años
Mohammed Radwan ‘Eleyan 17 años
GhassanAbdul Kader Rayan 16 años
‘Usama Ibn Zeid Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan 3 años
Al-mo’iz Lideen Jihad al-Nasla 3 años
Abdul Kader Nizar Rayan 12 años
Abdul Rahman Abdul Qader Rayyan 6 años
Mohammed Abu Sweireh 16 años
Asa’ad Nizar Rayan 2 años
HamadaAli Msabeh 15 años
Mohammed Iyad Abed Rabbu al-Astal 12 años
Abed Rabbu Iyad Abed Rabbu al-Astal 8 años
Abdul Sattar Walid al-Astal 10 años
Hani Moussa al-Silawi 7 años
AhmedTbeil 16 años
Sharif Suleiman al-Rmeilat 16 años
Mohammed Isma’il al-Silawi Male 12 años
Hassan Nasim ‘Amer 16 años
Jihad Samir Erhayem 9 años
Mahmoud Khaled al-Mashharawi 13 años
Abdul Karim Zeyad Aal-Nemer 14 años
Mohammed Isma’il Hassouna 16 años
Ahmmed Diab Subeih 17 años
‘Umar al- Barade’i 12 años
Yousif ‘Abed Hassan Barbakh 14 años
‘Ayed ‘Imad Khira 14 años
Yahya S Abu Halima 17 años
Eyad Nabil Saleh 16 años
Ibrahim Kamal Subhi 9 años
Adham Na’im Abdul Malik 17 años
Tha'er Shaker Qarmout 17 años
Wadi’ ‘Umar 3 años
Zeyad Selmi Abu Sneima 10 años
Mousa Yousif Barbakh 16 años
Hamza Zuheir Tantish 12 años
Mahmoud Yahya ‘Asaleya 3 años
‘Ateya Rushdi Aal-Khuli 16 años
Baha’a Kamal Abu Wadi 8 años
Isma’il Abdullah Abu Sneima 15 años
Walid Rashad al- Samouni 17 años
Nassar Ibrahim al-Samouni 5 años
Ibrahim Rawhi ‘Aqel 16 años
Isma’il Ibrahim al-Samouni 14 años
Naji Nedal al-Hamalawi 15 años
Mohammed Samir Hijji 16 años
Mo'men Talal ‘Ilaw 12 años
Mohammed Helmi al-Samouni 6 meses
Ramadan Ali Filfil 15 años
Mohammed Abu ‘Eisha 10 años
ma’il Heidar ‘Eleiwa 7 años
Ishaq al- Samouni 13 años
Mo’'men Heidar ‘Eleiwa 12 años
Al-Syed al-Siksik 16 años
Mohmmed ‘Awwad al-Tarfawi Male 4 años
‘Arafat Mohammed Dayem 12 años
Mahmoud Khamis Abu Qamar 15 años
Sayed ‘Amer Abu ‘Eisha 12 años
Ahmed Helmi ‘Ateya al- Samouni 4 años
Al-Mu’tasim Ibrahim al- Samouni 1 mes
Khalil Mohammed Khalil Helles 16 años
Mu’tasim Heider ‘Eleiwa 13 años
Mohammed Eyad Fayez al-Daia 7 meses
Ali Eyad Fayez al-Daia 10 años
‘Ahed Eyad Mohammed Qadas 14 años
Ibrahim Suleiman Mohammed Baraka 12 años
Mohammed Mo’in Shafiq Deeb 16 años
Ahmed Jaber Jabr Hweij 6 años
Yousif Fayez al-Daia 2 años
Sharaf Eyad Fayez al-Daia 5 años
Ibrahim Hassan Ma’arouf 15 años
Adam Ma’amoun Ramadan al-Kurdi 3 años
‘Isam Samir Deeb 13 años
Marwan Abdul Mo’min Qdeih 5 años
Bashar Samir Naji 14 años
Isma’il ‘ Hassan Hweila 16 años
Ahmed Shaher Khdeir 10 años
Mustafa Mo’in Shafiq Deeb 13 años
Belal Hamza Ali ‘Ubeid 17 años
Mohammed B Ahmed Shaqqoura 9 años
‘Imad Fou’ad Abu ‘Askar 14 años
Amjad Ahmed al- Bayed 16 años
Rafiq Abdul Baset al-Khudary 16 años
Mohammed ‘Hassan ‘Azzam 13 años
Abdul Hassan Abdul Jalil al-Halis 8 años
Hassan ‘Ata Hassan ‘Azzam 20 meses
Zakaria Ibrahim al-Tawil 5 años
TawfiqIsma’il al-Kahlut 12 años
Abdullah Hussein Juda 15 años
Ahmed F Hassan Lubbad 17 años
Nader Ibrahim Qaddoura 17 años
Radwan Radwan ‘Ashour 12 años
Abdul Rahman Radwan ‘Ashour 11 años
Husam Ra’ed Subuh 12 años
Habib Isma’il al- Kahlut 14 años
Anas ‘Aref Baraka 8 años
Mohammed F Ahmed al-Ma’asawabi 16 años
Abdullah Shafiq Abdullah 11 años
Ibrahim al-‘Abed Juha 14 años
Sa’ad Abu Halima Male 17 años
‘Amer Khalil Ba’alousha 10 años
Bara’a Eyad Samih Shalha 7 años
Mohammed Khader ‘Abed Rajab 17 años
Yousif ‘Abdul Rahim al-Jaru 2 años
Suheib Mohammed al- Qara’an 16 años
Isma’il Ayman Jamil Yasin 17 años
Deya’a Addin Fayez Nour Salha 14 años
Ibrahim Mustafa Sa’id Male 17 años
Samed Mahfouz Mahmoud Abed Rabbu 16 años
Mohammed Majed Ali Hussein 17 años
Abdul Rahman Ahmed Habboush 4 años
Amer Kamal Ali al- Nether 15 años
Wesam Ibrahim Mesbah Nabhan 17 años
Abdul Hakim Khader Mohammed Al- Sultan 15 años
Ibrahim Mohammed Ghali ‘Asaleya 42 años
Ali Kamal Ali al-Nether 11 años
Izz Addin Ali ‘Awad al- Burs 17 años
TasnimYaser Jaber al- Rafati 2.5 años
Bayan Khaled Ibrahim Khalif 13 años
Mohammed Jaber Mohammed ‘Eleyan 16 años
Zakareia Hamed Khamis al-Samouni 8 años
Ibrahim Taha Musa’ab Abdul Mohsen 14 años
Abu al-‘Ata Rashad Sha’aban Dallul 16 años
Fares Tala’at Asa’ad Hammouda 2 años
Kherbat al-‘Adas Jamal Hassan Mohammadin 16 años
Mohammed Younis Abu Jame' 17 años
Mohammed Asa'ad Hammouda 17 años
Haitham YasserMa'arouf 11 años
Usama Khaled Hussein 17 años
Abdul Rahman ‘Ateya Ghaben 15 años
Fad Allah Hassan al-Najjar 2 años
Nasha'at Ra’ed al-Firi 12 años
Mahmoud Fares Juha 16 años
Eyad Taher Ahmed Shehada 17 años
Abdul Rahman Tawfiq Jaballah 14 años
Mahmoud Msa’ed Qdeih 17 años
Mahmoud MohammedJaballah 14 años
Mohammed Maheral-Zenati 17 años
Mohammed Nader Abu Sha’aban 17 años
Yousif Mohammed al-Farahta 17 años
Mohammed Jamil Abdullah Qdeih 15 años
Basem TAla’at Abdul 12 años
Majdi Nahed Harb Eselim al-Bassous 15 años
Mohammed al-Sha'er Feras Abu Samra 17 años
Mustafa Tawfiq al-‘Ashi 17 años
‘Mohammed Eslim al-Bassous 10 años
Mohammed Falah al-Sawafiri 14 años
Qasem Tala’at Jamil Nabi 7 años
Mahmoud Khader Abu Kamil 14 años
Izz Addin ‘Adel Khaled 14 años
Hammam Hassan al-Khudary 16 años
Abdul Rahim Allah Abu Halima 14 años
Belal Jamal Abu ‘Awwad 17 años
Khalil Mousa Bhar 12 años
Hamza Allah Matar Abu Halima 8 años
Zeyad Allah Matar Abu Halima 10 años
Nour Izz Addin Mousa 15 años
Karim Mesbah Abu Sidu 16 años
Issa Mohammed Abu ‘Ubeida 17 años
Ala’a Fathi al- Kerem 14 años
‘Imad MaherFerwana 17 años
Ahmed Sha’aban Eslim 13 años
Tamer Reyad Faza'a 17 años
Ahmed Usama 7 años
Ali Kamal Badawi al- Barrawi 14 años
Samer al- ‘Abed Abu ‘Aser 17 años
Ahmed al-‘Abed Ali Banar 17 años
Belal Issa Abdul Hadi al- Batran 6 años
Anwar Salman Abdul Hai Abu ‘Eita 7 años
Mohammed ‘Atef Abu al- Husni 12 años
Izz Addin Issa al-Batran 3 años
Ehsan Issa Abdul Hadi al-Batran 14 años
Musa’ab Subhi Modad 17 años
Ahmed Abdul Hay Abu ‘Eita 10 años
Abdullah Abdul Rahman al-Juju 17 años
Muhannad ‘Amer Khalil al-Jdeili 8 años
Mohammed Salama Abu ‘Eteiwi 16 años
Munir Sami Amin Sheibar 15 años
Mohammed Shehda al-Ashkar 4 años
Anwar Marwan Shehada 14 años
Ahmed Fawwaz Ahmed Saleh 5 años
Belal Sehda al-Ashkar 6 años
Ibrahim Mohammed Mousa al-‘Ir 12 años
Rakan Mohammed Mousa al-‘Ir 5 años
Issa Mohammed ‘ Ermeilat12 años
Abdul Rahman Abed Rabbu al-‘Atawna 16 años
Abdullah Abdullah al-Sdoudi 7 años
Tamer Isma’il al- Louh 17 años
Abdullah Hamdan Abu al-Ruq 17 años
Mohammed Yahya Sa’id 11 años
MohammedAbdu al-‘Awadi 17 años
Abdullah Sha’aban Eslim 17 años
NIÑAS
Kamilia Ra'afat al- Bardini 13 años
Ebtehal Abdullah Tawfiq Keshko 8 años
Tahreer Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha 17 años
Samar Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha 6 años
Dina Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha 7 años
Akram Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha 14 años
Jawaher Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha 8 años
Akram Anwar Khalil Ba’alousha 14 años
Lama Talal Shehda Hamdan 4 años
Haya Talal Shehda Hamdan 12 años
‘Aisha Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan 2 años
Zeinab Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan 9 años
Oyoun Jihad Yousif al- Nasla 16 años
Rim Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan 5 años
Halima Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan 5 años
Maryam Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan 10 años
Aya Nizar Abdul Kader Rayan 12 años
Krestin Wadi’ Estandi al-Turk 15 años
Sujood Juma’a al-Dardasawi 14 años
Shatha al-‘Abed Abed Rabbu al-Habbash 10 años
Suheir Zeyad Ramadan 11 años
Ruba Mohammed Fadel Abu Ras 14 años
Farah ‘Ammar Fou’ad al-Helu 1 año
Asma'a Ibrahim Hussein ‘Afana 12 años
Isra'a Qusai Mohammed al-Habbash 13 años
Ghaida'a ‘Amer Abu ‘Eisha 8 años
Jihan Sami Sa’adi al- Helu 17 años
Lana Heidar ‘Eliwa 10 años
Aya Usama Nayef al- Sersawy 6 años
Rezqa Wa’el Faris al- Samouni 13 años
Fatheia Ayman Salim al- Dabbari 4 meses
Nadia Misbah Salem Sa’ad 14 años
Shahd Amin Hijji 3 años
Ayat Yousif al-Dufda’a 13 años
Hanadi Basem Kamel Khalifa 13 años
Huda Na'el Fares al- Samouni 7 años
‘Azza Salah Talal al- Samouni 5 meses
Hala ‘Isam Ahmed al- Mnei’i 1 mes
‘Aisha Ibrahim al-Sayed al-Najjar 4 años
Hadil Jabr Diab al-Rafati 9 años
Ala’a Khaled Khalil al- Najjar 15 años
Ayat Kamal al-Banna Mahmoud 12 años
Amal Najib Alloush 12 años
Amina Nafeth al-Helu 14 años
Nariman Abdul Karim Abu ‘Oda 16 años
Basma ‘Abed Rabbu al-Jallawi Female 5 años
Su’ad Khaled Munib ‘Abed Rabbu 7 años
Amani Fayez al-Daia 6 años
Qamar Fayez al-Daia 5 años
Arij Fayez al-Daia 3 años
Islam ‘Oda Khalil Abu ‘Amsha 12 años
Bara'a Fayez al- Daia 1.5 años
Ala’a Fayez al- Daia 7 años
We’am Mahmoud al-Kafarneh 2 años
Nada Na’im Mardi 6 años
Khawla Ramadan Ghaben 15 años
Sahar Ramadan Ghaben 17 años
Fatma Rushdi Ma'arouf 16 años
Shaima’a ‘Adel Ibrahim al-Jdba 9 años
Fatma Ra’ed Zaki Jad Allah 11 años
Rana Fayez Nour Salha 12 años
Rula Fayez Nour Salha 2 años
Wedad al- Qara'an Female 17 años
Ala’a Ahmed Jaber Female 13 años
Ghanima Fawzi Halawa 11 años
Shahd Sa’ad Matar Abu Halima 2 años
Shahd Nazmi Sultan 8 años
Nour Mo’in Shafiq Deeb 3 años
Salsabil Ramez Fayez al- Daia 5 meses
Sahar Hesham Daoud 17 años
Khetam Fayez al- Daia 9 años
Lina Mon’im Nafez Hassan 10 años
Asil Mo’in Deeb Female 10 años
Raba'a Fayez al- Daia 6 años
Ranin Ahmed Saleh 12 años
Yasmin ‘Adel Ibrahim al-Jadba 15 años
Bara’a Hassan Ermeilat 1 año
Malak Abdul Hay Abu ‘Eita 3 años
Rawan Mohammed Al-Najjar 7 años
Iman Abdul Hadi al- Batran 11 años
Hanin Mohammed al-Batran 10 años
Sabrin ‘Ata Hassan Ermeilat 14 años
Arij ‘Ata Hassan Ermeilat 2 meses
Ala’a ‘Uday Salama al- Haddad 15 años
‘Ismat Fathi Daoud al- Qerem 15 años
IslamIssa Abdul Hadi al-Batran 14 años
Fawzeya Ahmed Saleh 4 años
Asil Munir Matar al- Kafarna 1 año
Haneen Wa’el Dhaban 15 años
Yasmin Wa’el Dhaban 17 años
Dima Sa’id Ahmed al- Zahal 5 años
Sundus Sa’id Hassan Abu Sultan 4 años
Nansy Sa’id Mohammed Waked 6 meses
Angham Ra'afat Atalla al-Masri 10 años
Maiar Izzi Addin Abu al-‘Eish 15 años
Noura Shhab Addin Abu al- ‘Eish 17 años
Aya Izzi Addin Abu al- ‘Eish 14 años
Islam Abdul Dayem 16 años

miércoles, 30 de diciembre de 2009

Artículo de Sami Abdel Shafi en The Guardian sobre la necesidad de dignidad después de Gaza

Gracias a Eduardo Mosches por el envío.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/29/humane-dignity-operation-cast-lead
Gaza: one year on
This is not humane. We need dignity
A year on from Operation Cast Lead, the Gaza blockade is preventing people from leading a minimally respectable civil life

Sami Abdel-Shafi
The Guardian, Tuesday 29 December 2009
Article history
On my way to visit a friend in the Abed Rabbo district, north of the Gaza Strip, the taxi driver handed me a small pack of biscuits for change. There are nearly no copper coins left here so cab drivers barter a half Israeli shekel for biscuits brought in from the tunnels between the southern city of Rafah and Egypt's northern Sinai. Some Gazans, who once earned a respectable living, resorted to melting coins and sold the copper for food supplies.
This was not the first time I was forced into arcane methods of barter. A few weeks ago I was told that oil filters for our British-made electricity generator could only be brought in through the tunnels. One alternative was to fit a refurbished car-engine filter to the generator.
We had wood-fired coffee next to the rubble of my friend's family's former homes – all levelled during Israel's three-week war on Gaza that started one year ago. His only source of income, a taxi, was crushed by Israeli tanks during the assault. He agonises about how his children no longer respect him as their father. He is unable to provide them with the security of a house and an independent family life; they lost everything.
The family is spread around relatives' homes. But the family's old man just moved into a 60sq m house built from mud and brick, standing next to the rubble of his 400sq m three-story house for which he saved for a lifetime. It was one of the first the UN Relief and Works Agency built after having seemingly lost hope in any Israeli intention to allow construction materials into Gaza. My friend's daughter earns the highest grades in her class and is eyeing a scholarship for one of the universities in Gaza when she leaves high school. But this young woman's resilience and motivation will go nowhere as long as Gaza is blockaded.
Almost nothing has been more deceitful than casting Gaza as a humanitarian case. This is becoming exponentially more problematic a year after the war. Gaza urgently needs far more than merely those items judged by the Israeli military as adequate to satisfy Gaza's humanitarian needs. This list of allowable items is tiny compared to people's needs for a minimally respectable civil life.
Gaza is not treated humanely; the immediate concerns about the situation have clearly given way to long-term complacency, while failed politics has now become stagnant. The humanitarian classification conceals the urgent need to address this. Moreover, many in the international community have conveniently resorted to blaming Palestinians for their political divisions, as though they were unrelated to Israel's policies – most notably Gaza's closure after Israeli disengagement in 2005.
It seems evident that most officials in the US, UK and other powerful nations in Europe and the Middle East do not – or perhaps cannot – pressure Israel to reverse its policy of forcing Palestinians into eternal statelessness. How Palestinians are forced into degrading living standards in Gaza, and how they have no means to repel the ongoing demolition and confiscation of property and land in the West Bank and East Jerusalem, is abhorrent. How Palestinians are still divided despite the increased suffering of their people is no less abhorrent. However, no one should fool themselves into believing that their reconciliation would alter Israel's policy.
The international community must surely adopt a new approach – where it would not be seen as acquiescent to Israel's policies. If the current policy continues then, at least, let it not be at the expense of Palestinian self-respect. Palestinians are a dignified people, as competitive and civilised as any other people in the world. It is far too humiliating for Palestinians to endure not only being occupied but to be made beggars
For years it has been impossible not to suspect that Israel does not want peace. Of late, the US-backed state has consistently created impossible conditions for fair and equal negotiations with the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, and it continues to undermine moderate voices and drive people towards extremism in Gaza. The fact that Palestinians still genuinely want peace should not allow Israel to reject the simplest rules of civility. The US and the EU should come to Gaza; then they could draw their own conclusions on an Israeli policy they have backed and funded without ever witnessing its consequences on ordinary civilians' lives. Surely then they could not fail to see that changing their policy is a moral imperative.

sábado, 26 de diciembre de 2009

miércoles, 23 de diciembre de 2009

Gideon Levy - A cualquier precio: liberar a Gilad Shalit

Gilad Shalit must be released at any cost
By Gideon Levy

(...) But Shalit and the Palestinian prisoners are not alone. Seven million Israelis and three and a half million Palestinians have been imprisoned for 42 years in a dark cave due to the curse of occupation. Had the turbulent Israeli temper, so impressively mobilized in the campaign to free Shalit, been recruited in a similar way for the struggle to end the occupation and free both Palestinians and Israelis from its yoke, things would already be different.

Nota completa: http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1136781.html

martes, 22 de diciembre de 2009

Refugiados: video y videojuego para niños a partir de 7 años

Gracias a Irene Duffard por el envío.

http://www.contravientoymarea.org/

El videojuego producido por el Servicio Jesuita a Refugiados y Migrantes y el ACNUR está dirigido a jóvenes a partir de siete años y está dividido en tres secciones.
"Guerra y conflicto" explora el proceso de persecución y huida del país de origen; "En la frontera" se centra en las dificultades de pedir asilo en el extranjero, en una lengua ajena, y "Una nueva vida" plantea los desafíos de integrarse en otra sociedad.
En todo el videojuego hay enlaces con páginas web de interés que amplían información sobre la situación de los refugiados, mientras que también se proponen ideas para los profesores que quieran incluir esta actividad en sus clases.
Aunque no es un videojuego de acción convencional, tiene ciertos momentos de "peligro", como al intentar escapar del país de origen con sólo una mochila a la espalda y, sobre todo, plantea un serie de disyuntivas que hay que resolver para seguir adelante y sobrevivir la odisea.
Está disponible en varios idiomas, entre ellos el francés, el alemán y el español.

lunes, 21 de diciembre de 2009

Uri Avnery "Oybama" - Noticias de Gush Shalom

Ad in Ha'aretz, Dec. 18, 20 09
Our leadersAnd generalsWant to travel?Abroad
Let them lift theGaza blockadeImplement thePrisoner exchangeAnd set up A credible, independent Commission of Inquiry”About “Molten Lead
Cheques to help us continue the ads - and the campaigns - to: Gush Shalom, P.O.Box 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033

מודעה ב"הארץ" 18 בדצבםברמנהיגינו ואלופינו רוצים לטייל בעולם? יסירו את המצור מעל עזה, יבצעו את חילופי השבויים ויקימו ועדת-חקירה אמינה ובלתי-תלויהלחקירת "עופרת יצוקה"עזרו לנו במימון הפעולות והמודעות. צ'קים לפקודת גוש שלום, ת"ד 3322, תל-אביב 61033ארכיון מודעות: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/weekly_ad

weekly ads archive http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/weekly_ad

~~~

Uri Avnery

OybamaTHIS WEEK I enjoyed an hour of happinessI was on my way home, after collecting William Polk’s new book about Iran... Full English text in the end

Avnery columns' archive
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery

אורי אבנרי אויבמה השבוע הייתה לי שעה של אושר. הייתי בדרכי הביתה, כשבידי ספרו החדש של ויליאם פולק על איראן. אני מעריך מאוד את האיש החכם... טכסט מלא http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery/1261273632 ארכיון מאמרים http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery
~~~

New entries on Adam's blog
Police in the service of robbers Netanyahu buys cheaply Villain of the week In those days and in this time
http://adam-keller2.blogspot.com


חדש בבלוג של אדם המשטרה בשירות השודדים נתניהו קונה בזול המנוולת התורני תבימים ההם, בזמן הזה http://adam-keller1.blogspot.com




~~~
אורי אבנרי
אויבמה השבוע הייתה לי שעה של אושר. הייתי בדרכי הביתה, כשבידי ספרו החדש של ויליאם פולק על איראן. אני מעריך מאוד את האיש החכם...
טכסט מלא http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery/1261273632
ארכיון מאמרים http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery



Uri Avnery19.12.09

Oybama

THIS WEEK I enjoyed an hour of happiness.
I was on my way home, after collecting William Polk’s new book about Iran. I admire the wisdom of this former State Department official.
I was walking on the seaside promenade, when I was seized by a desire to go down to the seashore. I sat down on a chair on the sand, sipped a coffee and smoked an Arab water-pipe, the only smoke I allow myself from time to time. A ray of the mild winter sun painted a golden path on the water, and a lone surfer rode on the white foam of the waves.
The shore was almost deserted. A stranger waved at me from afar. Some passing youngsters from abroad asked to try my pipe. From time to time my gaze wandered to far-away Jaffa jutting out into the sea, a beautiful sight.
FOR A moment I was in a world that was all good, far from the depressing items that were prominent in the morning paper. And then I remembered that I had felt the same way many-many years ago.
It was 68 years ago, in exactly the same spot. It was also a pleasant winter day, facing a stormy sea. I was on sick leave, after a severe attack of typhoid fever. I was sitting on a deck chair, warming myself under the gentle winter sun. I felt my strength coming back to me after the debilitating disease, I forgot the far-away World War. I was 18 years old and the world was perfect.
I remember the book I was reading: Oswald Spengler’s "Decline of the West", a forbidding tome that painted an entirely new picture of world history. Instead of the then accepted landscape in which a straight line of progress led from ancient times to the Middle Ages, and from there to the modern era, Spengler painted a landscape of mountain chains, in which one civilization follows another, each one being born, growing up, getting old and dying, much like a human being.
I was sitting and reading, actually feeling my horizons widen. Every so often I laid down the volume, in order to absorb the new insights. Then, too, I looked towards Jaffa, at that time still an Arab town.
Spengler asserted that every civilization lives for about a thousand years, creating in the end a world Empire, and that thereafter a new civilization takes its place. In his view, Western civilization was about to create a German world empire (Spengler was German, of course) after which the next civilization would be Russian. He was right and he was wrong: A world empire was about to be born, but it was American, and the next civilization will probably be Chinese.
MEANWHILE AMERICA is ruling the world, and that leads us, naturally, to Barack Obama.
I listened to his Nobel Prize acceptance speech. My first impression was that it was almost impertinent: to come to a peace ceremony and there to justify war. But when I read it for the second and then a third time, I found some undeniable truths. I, too, believe that there are limits to non-violence. No non-violence would have stopped Hitler. The trouble is that this insight serves very often as a pretext for aggression. Everyone who starts a stupid war – a war that is just not going to solve the problem that caused it – or a war for an ignoble aim, pretends that there is no alternative.
Obama tries to stick the "no alternative" label onto the Afghan war – a cruel, superfluous and stupid war if ever there was one, very much like our own last three military adventures.
Obama’s observations deserve reflection. They invite, and indeed demand, debate. But it was odd to hear them on the occasion of the award of a peace prize. It would have more proper to voice them at West Point, where he spoke a week earlier.
(A German humorist mentioned that Alfred Nobel, who instituted the prize, had invented dynamite. "That’s the right order of things’" he said, "first you blow everything up and then you make peace.")
I WOULD have expected Obama to use his speech to present a real world-wide vision, instead of sad reflections on human nature and the inevitability of war. As the President of the United States, on such a festive occasion, with all of humanity listening, he should have underlined the necessity for the new world order that must come into being in the course of the 21st century.
The swine flu provides an example of how a fatal phenomenon can spread all over the globe within days. Icebergs that melt at the North Pole cause Indian Ocean islands to be submerged. The crash of the housing market in Chicago causes hundreds of thousands of children in Africa to die of hunger. The lines I am writing at this moment will reach Honolulu and Japan within minutes.
The planet has become one entity – from the political, economic, military, environmental, communication and medical points of view. A leader who is also a philosopher should outline ways to create a binding world order, an order that will consign wars as a means of solving problems to the past, abolish tyrannical regimes in every country and pave the road to a world without hunger and epidemics. Not tomorrow, for sure, not in our generation, but as an aim to strive for, directing our endeavors..
Obama must surely be thinking about this. But he represents a country that obstructs so many important aspects of a binding world order. It is natural for a world empire to object to a world order that would limit its powers and transfer them to world institutions. That’s why the US opposes the world court and impedes the world-wide effort for saving the planet and the elimination of all nuclear arms. That’s why it objects to real world governance to replace the UN, which has almost become an instrument of US policy. That’s why he praises NATO, a military arm of the US, and obstructs the arising of a really effective international force.
The Norwegian decision to award Obama the Nobel Peace Prize bordered on the ridiculous. In his Oslo speech, Obama made no effort to provide, post factum, a plausible justification for this decision. After all, it is not a prize designed for philosophers but for activists, not for words but for deeds.
WHEN HE was elected as president, we were ready for some disappointment. We knew that no politician could really be as perfect as Obama the candidate looked and sounded. But the disappointment is much greater and much more painful than anticipated.
It covers practically all possible areas. He has not yet left Iraq, but plunged with both feet deeper into the Afghan quagmire – a war that threatens to be longer and more stupid than even the Vietnam War. Anyone who looks for some sense in this war will search in vain. It cannot be won, indeed it is not clear what would constitute victory in this context. It is being fought against the wrong enemy – the Afghan people, instead of the al-Qaeda organization. Rather like burning a house down to rid it of mice.
He promised to close Guantanamo and the other torture camps –yet they are still in business.
He promised salvation to the masses of the unemployed in his country, but poured money into the pockets of the Fat Cats who are as predatory and gluttonous as ever.
His contribution to the solution of the climate crisis is mainly verbal, as is his commitment to the destruction of weapons of mass destruction.
True, the rhetoric has changed. The sanctimonious arrogance of the Bush days has been replaced by a more reconciliatory style and the appearance of a search for fair agreement. This should be duly appreciated. But not unduly.
AS AN Israeli, I am naturally interested in his attitude to our conflict. When he was elected, he aroused great, even exaggerated hopes. As the Haaretz columnist Aluf Ben put it this week: "He was considered a cross between the prophet Isaiah, Mother Theresa and Uri Avnery." I am flattered to find myself in such exalted company, but I must agree: the disappointment matched the hopes.
In all the long Oslo speech, Obama devoted 16 whole words to us: "We see it in Middle East, as the conflict between Arabs and Jews seems to harden."
Well, first of all, it is not a conflict between Arabs and Jews. It is between Palestinians and Israelis. That is an important difference: when one wants to solve a problem, one must first have a clear picture of it.
More importantly: This is the remark of a bystander. A viewer sitting in his armchair and looking at the TV screen. A theater critic reviewing a performance. Should the President of the United States look at the conflict like this?
If the conflict is indeed hardening, the US, and Obama personally, must carry much of the blame. His folding up on the settlement issue and his total surrender to the pro-Israel lobby in the US has encouraged our government to believe that it can do anything it likes.
At the beginning, Binyamin Netanyahu was worried about the new president. But the fear has dissipated, and now our government is treating Obama and his people with scorn bordering on contempt. The agreements made with the last administration are being broken quite openly. President George W. Bush recognized the "settlement blocs" in return for an undertaking to freeze all the others permanently and to dismantle the outposts set up since March 2001. Not only has not a single outpost been dismantled, but this week the government accorded the status of "preferred area" to dozens of settlements outside the "blocs", including the worst Kahanist nests. From one of these, the thugs went out this week and set fire to a mosque.
The "freeze" is a joke. In this theater of the absurd, the settlers take part in a performance of violent opposition that is both invited and paid for by the government. The police does not employ against them pepper gas, tear gas, rubber bullets and truncheons – as they do every week against Israeli demonstrators who protest against the occupation. Nor do they conduct nightly incursions in the settlements to arrest activists – as they do now in Bilin and other Palestinian villages.
In Jerusalem, of course, the settlement activity is in full swing. Palestinian families are thrown out of their homes to the jubilant cries of the settlers, and the few Israeli protesters against the injustice are sent to hospitals and prisons. The settler groups engaged in these activities receive donations from the US that are tax-deductible – thus Obama is indirectly paying for the very acts he condemns.
FOR A happy hour on the seashore, under the gentle winter sun, I succeeded in pushing the depressing situation away. Before reaching home, a walk of 10 minutes, it came back and landed on me with its full weight. This is not a time for easy chairs. There is still a struggle ahead of us, and to win it we need to mobilize all our strength.
And Obama? Oybama.

domingo, 20 de diciembre de 2009

Disney "vs." ideologización infantil

http://osaruaj.wordpress.com/2009/12/03/disney-denuncia-a-hamas/

El nombre que lo envía lo dice todo: "osaruaj" que sin duda tiene la intención de ser la "organización sionista argentina en favor del espíritu -ruaj-") pero que suena más como que -literalmente- "hace viento (osá rúaj)" o aparenta (da'awin), es decir, que distrae la atención con la pregunta que simula la preocupación que la empresa Disney -pretendidamente inmune a la ideologización- manifiesta por la niñez. Este tipo de "defensas de la niñez" son más que nada un "abrazo de oso".

sábado, 19 de diciembre de 2009

En Líbano, jóvenes hip hoperos, los mensajeros de la no violencia

“El hip hop me ha educado –añade con orgullo–. Me ha hecho leer la historia de las luchas de otros pueblos.” Cree en la paz, pero “siempre y cuando sea paz con justicia”. Y piensa que es mejor hablar que matar. Como rapea en el disco: “Por lejos que llegue la bala, mi voz llega más lejos”.

Nota completa:
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/12/19/index.php?section=espectaculos&article=a07n1esp

viernes, 18 de diciembre de 2009

El texto de la carta de los objetores de conciencia (shministim)

Senior’s Letter 2009-2010

We, the undersigned young women and men, Jews and Arabs from all parts of the country, hereby declare that we will toil against the occupation and oppression policies of the Israeli government in the occupied territories, and in the territory of the land of Israel, and therefore refuse to take part in actions related to such policies, which are carried out in our name by the Israeli Defence Force.
We are all community activists and contribute in various ways to a variety of sectors in the Israeli society. We believe that contribution, cooperation and volunteerism are a way of life, and should not be limited to just two or three years. Our conscientious objection stems directly from our volunteer experience, from the values we believe in, from our love of the society that we are a part of and in which we live, from our respect of every human being, and from the aim of making our country a better place for all of its inhabitants.
The occupation creates an unbearable actuality for the Palestinians in the occupied territories. The checkpoint policy, land annexation, the building of the apartheid wall, paving of roads for Israeli’s only, settlement projects, and assassinations – all these have been sowing destruction in the West Bank for over 4 decades. The siege on Gaza and the prevention of importing materials, including basic food products and humanitarian aid, undermines the basic minimal living conditions of Gaza’s residents. We cannot tolerate such a reality.
The claim put forth by the spokespersons of the government and the army, that the continuation of the occupation arises from security reasons, has no substance. No country that has fought for its independence has ever been defeated by military means. The suffering of the Palestinian people and their subjugation is the cause of violent resistance. Israel’s public will never be safe as long as the Palestinian nation is under occupation. There is no military solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict – only peace will ensure life and security for Jews and Arabs in this country.
The Israeli government frequently boasts that Israel is “the only democracy in the Middle East”. The occupation is a complete contradiction to this claim. Can a government that controls the lives of millions of people who did not take part in elections be called a “democracy”? Can military rule of a civilian population be considered anything other than a dictatorship?
The Israeli Army claims that it is “the most ethical army in the world”. However, time and again reality proves that occupation and ethics cannot stand together. When young armed men are sent on policing missions in the midst of occupied disenfranchised persons, when the government attempts to repress the struggle of the disenfranchised for independence by force – the stage is set for the injury of civilian population and committing of war crimes. Those who carry out such actions are not “exceptions” or “bad apples”. The occupation is the cess pool from in which such actions fester. The occupation has led the Israel Army to breach international treaties, UN decisions, and recommendations of the international court, and even Israeli law, time and again.
Settlement policy is racist in principle. In the name of a Messianic ideology, it has created a reality of apartheid in the West Bank. Disenfranchised Palestinians and privileged settlers live contrastive lives side by side. Settlers participate in the election of the government that administers their affairs, while the Palestinians live under military rule. Settlers enjoy social security benefits, and economic benefits, while Palestinians live a life of poverty and enslavement. Settlers are tried under Israeli law in Israeli courts, while Palestinians are tried at military courts with out the basic right of a fair proceeding. Any human opposed to racism finds this reality repulsive and untenable.
There are those who claim that we are objectors, although the Israeli government is the most consistent objector – in objecting to peace. The Israeli Army is not a “defence force”, but an aggressive occupation force. The Israeli government does not extend an olive branch, rather it upholds violent nationalism.
The occupation is a continuous crime against Israeli society. Employment of Palestinians under slave conditions in the Israeli job market causes a deterioration of conditions for all workers in the market and brings about a violation of their rights. Instead of investing in social budgets, the Israeli government has been investing for more than 40 years in the building of villas and by-pass roads in the settlements, in order to alter ground reality. The warped norms and the violence that young soldiers confess to in the territories have permeated the green line, and are expressed in a rise in violence and racism throughout Israeli society.
Out of sense of responsibility and concern for the two nations that live in this country, we cannot stand idle. We were born into a reality of occupation, and many of our generation see this as a “natural” state. In Israeli society it is a matter of fact that at 18, every young man and woman partakes in military service. However, we cannot ignore the truth – the occupation is an extreme situation, violent, racist, inhuman, illegal, non democratic, and immoral, that is life threatening for both nations. We that have been brought up on values of liberty, justice, righteousness and peace cannot accept it.
Our objection to becoming soldiers of the occupation stems from our loyalty to our values and to the society surrounding us, and it is part of our ongoing struggle for peace and equality, a struggle whose Jewish-Arab nature proves that peace and co-existence is possible. This is our way, and we are willing to pay the price.
The Undersigned,
Members of Senior’s Letter Group 2009 – 2010

The Shministim Letter 2009-2010
Is inspired by generations of conscientious objectors in Israel and around the world, who opposed their governments by saying: "We will not fight your wars! We object to being enemies

Para firmarla
http://www.petition.fm/petitions/shministim

Para apoyar a los objetores de conciencia (shministim)

Para ver el el video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=acPE9qdPwYI

Para firmar el apoyo:
http://www.shministim.com/

Esta carta ha sido enviada por Jewish Voice for Peace:

A year ago today, tens of thousands demanded the release of Israel's youngest prisoners of conscience, the Shministim.
These 12th graders courageously chose prison time over serving in the occupying Israeli army, and became heroes to us and the entire world.
Last Chanukah, just one day after Tamar Katz was released from solitary confinement, the young Shministim gathered to celebrate and to decide how to thank the 20,000 (and counting) Jewish Voice for Peace members who wrote letters, attended rallies, and wrote articles on their behalf.
This is the message they carefully wrote together. One year later, as Shministit Or Ben-David sits in prison in Israel, and as Jews around the world prepare to celebrate the last night of Chanukah, it seems appropriate to share it with you again. We can't imagine a more important message during this festival of lights.
Dear friends and supporters,During Chanukah the festive of lights, we, the Shministim, would like to take a moment to thank you for all you've done for us and for our struggle. While we sit down with our families and light the first candle of the holiday, symbolizing the rebellion against an occupying army, some of us are still behind bars, denied the freedom to celebrate the holiday with their loved ones, denied the right to freedom of thought and political consciousness. During this dark period of consecutive jail terms, military trials and attempts to break our beliefs, you were our light.Each and every one of you who helped with the campaign, who sent a supporting letter, who sent the link of the website to a friend. You've let our struggle be heard around the world, the letters, the postcards and posters, the demonstrations, all of those actions fulfilled our wildest dreams.We would like to thank you once again and wish you all a happy and free holiday.in solidarity,The Shministim
The struggle for freedom continues.
Palestinian human rights activists like Abdallah Abu Rahmah and Mohammad Othman now sit in Israeli prisons with you as their most important global advocates.
Thank you to each one of you for being a part of this struggle.Happy Holidays and Chag Sameach,
Cecilie Surasky
Jewish Voice for PeaceP.S.
A new class of Shministim are now courageously saying no to the occupation. They need your support.

miércoles, 16 de diciembre de 2009

aves contra vientos de justicia (o elogio de una locura llamada terrorismo de estado)

Es curioso que el nombre Tzipora signifique "pájaro" en femenino. Parece que el ex Mandato Británico la acusa de "halcón(a) estridente".
Habría que releer a Martin Buber (autor de "Una tierra para dos pueblos") sobre "política y moral" (y a Hannah Arendt también) frente una mujer que dijo hace casi un año:
“Tenemos que probarle a Hamas que hemos cambiado la ecuación”: “Israel no es un país contra el cual puedan lanzarse misiles sin esperar respuesta. Es un país que enloquece cuando le disparan a sus ciudadanos y eso es algo bueno”.
Y hoy insiste: “Desde mi punto de vista, tomaría las mismas decisiones de nuevo,una por una”...
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2009/12/16/index.php?section=mundo&article=026n2mun

lunes, 14 de diciembre de 2009

Uri Avnery: "encuentra las diferencias" + noticias de Gush Shalom

Gracias a Eduardo Mosches por el envío.

1- Uri Avnery

Spot the DifferenceA SHORT historical quiz: Which state:(1) Arose after a holocaust in which a third of its people were destroyed?... Full English text in the end

Avnery columns' archive
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery


אורי אבנרי מצא את ההבדליםלהלן חידון היסטורי: איזו המדינה –(1) קמה בעקבות שואה, שבה הושמד שליש מבני עמה?(2) הסיקה מהשואה את המסקנה שרק כוח... טכסט מלא http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery/1260658640 ארכיון מאמרים http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery ~~~
~~~

2- A performance
The curtain goes upEveryone knowsHis roleThe settlers wrangleWith the inspectorsDuring the dayAnd burnPalestinian carsDuring the nightNetanyahu sends the photosTo Washington“Look how hard it is”And behind the sceneNo freezeBuilding in the settlementsGoes onNo negotiationThe government hasNothing to offerOnly the marchTowards disasterContinuesCheques to help us continue the ads - and the campaigns - to: Gush Shalom, P.O.Box 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033weekly ads archive http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/weekly_ad

מודעה ב"הארץ"11 בדצבםברהצגה המסך עולה.כל אחדיודע את תפקידו.המתנחלים מתנגחיםעם הפקחים ביום,ובלילה שורפיםמכוניות פלסטיניות.נתניהו שולח אתהתמונות לוושינגטון:"תראו כמה קשה לי!"ומאחורי התפאורה:אין הקפאה.הבנייה בהתנחלויות נמשכת.אין משא-ומתן.לממשלה אין מה להציע.רק ההתדרדרות לאסוןנמשכת.עזרו לנו במימון הפעולות והמודעות. צ'קים לפקודת גוש שלום, ת"ד 3322, תל-אביב 61033ארכיון מודעות: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/weekly_ad ~~~

3- Nuri el-Okbi's Day in Court
Bedouin property and Israeli law
Adam Keller reports http://adam-keller2.blogspot.com
translation of first half ready, second half within 24 to 48 hours


Prom the Bil'in Popular Struggle Coordinating Committee
Your Help Needed for Release of
Bil’in popular leader
Abdallah Abu Rahmah
http://toibillboard.info/Abdallah.pdf
takes a few seconds to load

Read and see how the Jerusalem police addresses those who dare protest against the expulsions in Sheikh Jarrah - in East Jerusalem
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3818578,00.html



~~~

יומו של נורי אל עוקבי בבית המשפט
בעלות הבדואים על אדמתם והחוק הישראלי
אדם קלר מדווח http://adam-keller1.blogspot.com

jueves, 10 de diciembre de 2009

Oír al otro

El gran músico tunesino Anouar Brahem, ha dedicado su último disco al poeta palestino Mahmud Darwish, fallecido el año pasado. Lleva por título The Astounding Eyes of Rita en honor al poema "Rita y el rifle" del citado poeta. Pueden escuchar algunas de las magníficas piezas en www.elclubdejazz.com, en la sección el club en vivo del 9 de diciembre.
Tanto la poesía de Darwish como esta magnífica música deberían ser escuchadas por los alumnos de secundaria y preparatoria en Israel y colegios judíos por el mundo entero. Escuchar al otro, de esta manera, desde la verdad de la poesía, podría mover algunas fibras sensibles, allí donde los cambios son posibles.

miércoles, 9 de diciembre de 2009

Daniel Bensaïd sobre el libro La réaction philosémite européenne à l’épreuve de l’histoire juive, de Ivan Segré

Un libro sin duda interesante que cuestiona la esencialización identitaria judía en torno al Estado y que actualiza la polémica en el mundo intelectual francés actual (Finkielkraut vs. Badiou, también Milner). Vuelve la "desarabización" (bien planteada en la película Ruta 181) como uno de los pilares del sionismo político ramplón que pretende hegemonizar y homogeneizar la representación de las historias judías diversas. En otras palabras: la ecuación judaísmo=Occidente (con pretensión de univocidad por cada uno de los términos) puesta en tela de juicio.
La lucidez de Daniel Bensaïd no necesita presentación.

http://revuedeslivres.net/articles.php?idArt=480

domingo, 6 de diciembre de 2009

Sobre Ruta 181: el juicio de Finkielkraut contra Eyal Sivan

Muchas gracias a Irmgard Emmelheinz por el envío.


Issue 26 Magic Summer 2007
The Barber Trial: Sivan vs. Finkielkraut
Thomas Keenan and Eyal Weizman

Transcript of trialEnglish translation and French transcript of the trial available here
Cabinet at DocumentaCabinet re-examines this trial at Documenta

In February 2004, French-Israeli filmmaker Eyal Sivan filed a libel suit in the Paris courts against philosopher Alain Finkielkraut. The previous year, Sivan, working with Palestinian filmmaker Michel Khleifi, had released Route 181: Extracts from a Palestinian-Israeli Journey—a four-and-a-half-hour travel documentary tracing what remains, in the memories of the landscape and its inhabitants, of the violent expulsion in 1947–1948 of som­e three-quarters of a million Palestini­ans from the territory that would become the state of Israel. The film had been aired on the European cultural television channel Arte in November 2003, and a few days later, on November 30, Finkiel­kraut was interviewed on the French Jewish radio station RJC. In the radio broadcast, Finkielkraut launched an aggressive critique of the film, arguing that its entire meaning rested on a false analogy between Israel’s 1948 war of independence and the Nazi Holocaust, that the film was a “call to murder,” that Arte was g­uilty of “incitement to hatred,” and that Sivan himself was representative of a “particularly painful, particul­arly frightening reality—Jewish anti-Semitism.” ­ ­ The case came to trial on 23 May 2006, and the official transcript of the proceedings at the Palais de Justice, Paris, is translated ­here in its entirety. The case revolved around witnesses, in the courtroom and in the film. To testify on his behalf, Finkielkraut called on the filmmaker Claude Lanzmann; historian and former Israeli ambassador to France, Eli Bar-Navi; and Anny Dayan, a cinema studies professor and pro-Israel activist based in Paris. Sivan called two left Israeli intellectuals: philosopher Adi Ophir, and film­ theorist Haim Bresheeth, as well as Parisian publisher/activist François Maspero, who established his radical publishing house against the background of the Algeria war. Finkielkraut himself was the first witness, and having affirmed that he had indeed made the remarks in question, he produced a simple but forceful intertextual reading of the film in order to justify his critique. Route 181, he told the court, “rests entirely on an analogy between the fate of the Palestinians from 1947 to the present day, and the destiny of Jews under Nazism. It is a constant plagiarism of Lanzmann’s film.” Lanzmann’s film is, of course, Shoah, his 198­5 nine-and-a-half-hour documentary oral history of the Holocaust.1 Shoah introduced a new sensibility to documentary filmmaking—it rejected the use of archival footage and instead planted itself militantly in the present, in the ruins of the European camps, and in the voices and memories of the witnesses and participants, victims and, to a lesser extent, perpetrators. Shoah does not include a single archival frame.2 It came to define what Lanzmann called a cinema of “transmission,” a visual strategy that did not simply privilege but relentlessly investigated the act and status of the eyewitness. Finkielkraut’s accusation of plagiarism turned around a reading of one of Shoah’s most celebrated sequences, in which Lanzmann interviews a survivor named Abraham Bomba, whose task in the extermination camp of Treblinka was to cut the hair of Jews before they were led into the gas chambers. The interview, in which Lanzmann pushes Bomba to describe his work in the camp, is conducted as Bomba cuts the hair of one of Lanzmann’s production team in a Tel Aviv barbershop. There is a barber in Route 181, too, and Finkielkraut is clearly correct that the scenes, and indeed the films, have a powerful relation. In Sivan and Khleifi’s film, a Palestinian barber in the former Palestinian town and now mixed city of Lod, near Tel Aviv airport, is filmed recounting the scene of a massacre that led to the expulsion of most of the town’s Palestinian residents in the summer of 1948. He speaks from his own active barbershop. For Finkielkraut, though, the quotation is neither an act of homage, nor an ordinary intertextual reference, nor a challenging critique of one film by another, but a hint that the film is engaged in nothing less than the identification of the expulsion of the Palestinians (the so-called Naqba, or Catastrophe) with the Shoah, and hence a decisive delegitimation of Israel’s right to exist, and hence an incitement to the murder of Jews in Israel. Sivan and Khleifi had traveled and filmed along the route outlined in UN Resolution 181—which called in November 1947 for the partition of British Mandatory Palestine into convoluted and non-contiguous Jewish and Palestinian states—and the film explores what remains of Palestine in today’s Israel. In criticizing and rejecting the politics of partition, Route 181 resurrects political ideas originating in the 1930s and implicitly advocates a federal, multi-, or bi-national, single democratic state with equal citizenship for both Arabs and Jews within Mandatory Palestine. For Finkielkraut, promoting the liberal idea of a single state for Arabs and Jews embodies nothing less than “a genocidal intention to kill if not all then most of the Jewish Israelis.” Finkielkraut repeated this accusation throughout the trial, claiming “a murderous logic is at work in this film.”3 The nature and intensity of Finkielkraut’s accusations is typical of a certain current of discourse on Israel among liberal-right French intellectuals. Since the 1980s, Finkielkraut in particular has had a special inclination to accuse the “pro-Palestinian” French left of anti-Semitism4 and, more recently, to charge multiculturalist or tolerant discourses about race with responsibility for the riots in France’s immigrant-rich banlieues.5 Finkielkraut’s attack came in the context of a series of attempts to stop Route 181 from being shown in France. In one of these cases, Jewish-French intellectuals and Israeli representatives successfully lobbied the Pompidou Center against screening Route 181 in its 2004 Festival Cinéma du réel, purportedly because of the recreation (“plagiarism”) of the barber scene. More then six hundred people, including Jean-Luc Godard, Tzvetan Todorov, and Étienne Balibar signed a petition protesting this censorship. The film has been shown a number of times in Israel. Although Nicolas Bonnal, the presiding judge at the trial, rejected Finkielkraut’s conflation of criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, he dismissed Sivan’s petition, based on the argument that Finkielkraut’s attack was part of a legitimate political disagreement. In the wake of the trial, Arte decided to cease commissioning films from Sivan on Middle East affairs, and he lost as well his teaching position at CLEMI (French Ministry of Education’s center for information media). Sivan appealed the decision in February 2007 and the verdict was pending as this magazine went to press.6
­
Stills from Route 181: Extracts from a Palestinian-Israeli Journey, by Eyal Sivan and Michel Khleifi, 2003.

* * *We asked Sivan about Shoah, the barbers, partition, and history. For him and Michel Khleifi, he explained, it was not a matter of “comparing” the Shoah and the Naqba, as if they were discrete entities that required outside intervention to be brought together. Rather, he told us, they should be seen as historically continuous and contiguous, part of a single historical process extending across the decade between 1938 and 1948. Like Lanzmann, his emphasis in investigating the apparently bygone past by means of its living witnesses was to restore it to its rightful place in our present—the Palestinian catastrophe, for him, is still ongoing. “It is shocking for a Frenchman, but frequently evoked in Israel,” said Sivan. “For an Israeli Zionist poet like Avot Yeshurun, it was possible to say that ‘these two holocausts together, are the Holocaust of the Jewish people.’ The Naqba of the Arabs of Palestine and the Shoah of European Jews are two sides of a single Holocaust—ours…” The strength of Route 181 is in providing an oral history of the forgotten Naqba, in presenting scores of conversations with Israelis and Palestinians, and in unearthing stories repressed for decades. The film powerfully demonstrates Israelis’ willing ignorance of and ongoing complicity in the suffering of Palestinians and the denial of their national rights—and, paradoxically, their often remarkable recall of the events of 1948, their former Palestinian neighbors, and the intense proximity of their lost life together. In its filmic language and its relation to witnessing and testimony, Route 181 is a worthy successor to Shoah, charting a significant shift in the relation between memory, responsibility, and history. That, for Sivan, is what is at stake in the barbershops. “Abraham Bomba was staged! He was no longer a barber when he was interviewed, and three times during the interview he begs Lanzmann to stop. But Lanzmann believes that it is the victims who should bear the ‘duty of memory.’ I believe that this duty should be the perpetrators’.” Of course, Lanzmann interviewed perpetrators and not-entirely-innocent bystanders as well, and famously argued that the intent of Shoah was not to ask why (an “obscene” question, he wrote) but rather to lay out how the mass murder happened. Sivan—who had earlier, with Rony Braumann, re-edited the footage of the 1961 Eichmann trial into a powerful portrait of the banal professional “specialist”—radicalizes this pursuit, with an unexpected outcome. He told us that his project was “to treat the actors in a crime as bearers of the capacity both to witness and [to] reflect on it, and as the ones who have a ‘duty of memory.’ In the Israeli case, I am interested both in their memory of the land (before 1948) and their actions. What is surprising is to notice to what extent the analogy with the Nazi genocide existed already during the 1948 event—it was only three years after the end of the Second World War. It throws a completely new light on the myth ... that memory can be a vaccine against future crimes.” Sivan also drew our attention to the power of the camera, or rather, to the power of speaking before a camera. We asked whether his interviews aimed to produce a reflection or even a transformation in his witnesses, or simply to document their recollections, justifications, evasions. Did he want them to accept their responsibilities? He reminded us: “In the case of the Israelis, I am as responsible as they are. … I was very interested in trying to follow the structure of the discourse as a starting point for opposing it. So I was not interested just in statements but in a process of thinking. This is what the documentary camera can and even should try to do. ... The articulation of an argument in front of the camera allows the witness to think and reflect on the event, sometimes for the first time since it took place! Let’s not forget that while undertaking a collective crime, people think that they are thinking, while in fact they are merely repeating the discourse of power.” “I am as responsible as they are.” It is the very possibility of acknowledging the continuity between the Shoah and the Naqba that would, for Sivan, establish the condition for sharing a single democratic state between Jews and Palestinians. “The problem is that we Israelis must take responsibility for the deeds of our parents, deeds for which they refused to take responsibility. In the eyes of Lanzmann or Finkielkraut, if they acknowledge the crime of 1948, then Israel does not have the right to exist.” Sivan speaks instead as one who accepts that right, but differently—as a citizen. “The existence of the Israelis is careless for them, they need Israel as a concept, a shelter, an insurance company. They do not have the relation of citizens to this state, but a relation of ‘share holders’ or ‘members of a religion.’ ... For them, to acknowledge the crime is to de-sacralyze the State which replaced their Jewish identity.” For the citizen, he said, the experience of the partition and its remainders, the proximity of proximity and separation, can only issue in a sense of the inevitability of sharing: “We share the history of the land, we share a memory of the Naqba/Independence, we share a destiny. This is a basis for thinking equality.”

The authors would like to thank Haim Bresheeth and Adi Ophir for sharing their reflections on the trial. For the English translation and French transcript of the original trial, see here. ­

This article and accompanying transcript of the trial are published as part of Cabinet‘s contribution to Documenta 12 magazines, a collective worldwide editorial project linking over seventy print and online periodicals, as well as other media. See Documenta 12 for more information.

Para leer la nota completa (con notas a pie y fotos): http://www.cabinetmagazine.org/issues/26/sivanintro.php

viernes, 4 de diciembre de 2009

Un testigo incómodo en Gaza

Gracias a Rubén por el envío.
http://www.elpais.com/articulo/madrid/testigo/incomodo/Gaza/elpepiespmad/20091204elpmad_12/Tes

Otra mirada de 1967 - Uri Avnery en español

1967: Un testimonio personal
Uri Avnery
Rebelión
Traducido por Carlos Sanchis y revisado por Caty R.
El 25 de mayo de 1967, doce días antes de la Guerra de los Seis Días, publiqué en Haolam Hazeh, la revista de la que era editor, un artículo titulado "Nasser ha caído en una trampa". Esto parecía una locura porque, por aquel entonces, todo Israel estaba atenazado por un miedo mortal.
Pocos meses antes me invitaron a dar una conferencia en un kibbutz del norte. Tras la conferencia me convidaron a tomar café con unos pocos integrantes del mismo. Allí mi anfitrión me dijo en confianza que el jefe del Comando Norte, el general David ("Dado") Elazar, había estado allí solamente una semana antes. En la misma estancia, Dado había contado confidencialmente al mismo pequeño grupo: "Cada noche, antes de irme a dormir, rezo para que Nasser concentre sus tropas en el desierto del Sinaí. Allí los aniquilaremos".
Cuando Nasser concentró sus tropas en el Sinaí a mediados de mayo de 1967, pareció como una respuesta a esta plegaria. Así, mientras todo el mundo a mí alrededor estaba paralizado por el miedo yo no me alarmé.
El miedo era auténtico. Se hablaba mucho sobre un inminente Segundo Holocausto. Desde el principio de la crisis hasta el comienzo de la guerra, durante tres semanas enteras, el miedo que había atenazado a Israel se intensificaba de día en día. La “Voz del Trueno”, la emisora de radio de El Cairo, que emitía en un hebreo desbaratado -hasta entonces considerado más bien ridículo- fue emitiendo amenazas cuajadas de sangre. El propio Gamal Abd-al-Nasser –que en realidad estaba muerto de miedo por la posibilidad de un ataque israelí y ni soñaba con atacar- pensó que amenazando con arrojar a Israel al mar nos amedrentaría y abandonaríamos cualquier idea de guerra. Naturalmente ocurrió el efecto contrario.
La cadena de hechos que hicieron inevitable la guerra se parecía en algunos aspectos a la que condujo a la Primera Guerra Mundial,” la guerra que nadie quiso”.
Siria apoyaba la guerra de guerrillas iniciada por Yasser Arafat en su frontera. Israel respondió con terribles amenazas. El jefe del Estado Mayor, Isaac Rabin, amenazó públicamente con ocupar Damasco y derribar el régimen. Los sirios se asustaron y pidieron ayuda a Egipto.
Justo antes del comienzo de la crisis, el embajador soviético, Chubakhin, me pidió que fuera a visitarlo a su embajada de Ramat Gan. Me dijo que Israel estaba planeando atacar a Siria y que ya estaba concentrando tropas en la frontera. Veía esto como parte de un plan de Estados Unidos para poner regímenes pro estadounidenses por toda el área, empezando por el reciente golpe de Estado de los coroneles en Grecia (Abril de 1967) y las maquinaciones en Irán. El embajador quería que yo utilizara mi posición como miembro de la Knesset y redactor jefe de una popular revista para alertar a la opinión pública.
Me temo que mi respuesta fue más bien cínica: “Si teme esto, ¿por qué no instruye a su embajador en Damasco para que pida a sus amigos sirios que detengan los ataques de la guerrilla a Israel, al menos durante algún tiempo? ¿Por qué dar a nuestro gobierno un pretexto para la guerra?”
Chubakhin me respondió asombrado. "¿Cree que alguien en Damasco escucha a nuestro embajador?"
El relato sobre Israel "concentrando tropas en la frontera" era, por supuesto, ridículo. Un general soviético podría creer que antes de empezar una ofensiva, las tropas debían concentrarse en la frontera. Pero en el diminuto territorio de Israel, “concentrar” tropas era tan imposible como superfluo.
De todas maneras, enfrentado con el requerimiento de ayuda de Siria y con el relato soviético sobre la concentración de tropas israelíes, Nasser vio una oportunidad de afirmar su liderazgo en el mundo árabe. Mandó sus tropas al Sinaí. Si realmente hubiera tenido la intención de empezar la guerra, hubiera hecho esto tan secretamente como le hubiera sido posible. Pero sus tropas cruzaron El Cairo a plena luz del día, prueba de que lo que quería era mostrarlas.
Entretanto, en una fiesta, me encontré con Ezer Weitzman, que hasta hacía poco había sido comandante del ejército del aire israelí. Me dijo que estaba atónito. El servicio de inteligencia militar israelí había sido tomado por sorpresa por la aparición de las tropas egipcias en el Sinaí. Habían estado convencidos de que todo el ejército egipcio estaba concentrado en el lejano Yemen donde Nasser estaba interviniendo en una guerra civil. Verdaderamente, la capacidad de la fuerza aérea egipcia para abastecer a sus tropas allí produjo, a regañadientes, la admiración de Weitzman.
El 23 de mayo Nasser anunció (mintiendo) que había minado el mar en las proximidades de Eilat. Esto era para Israel un casus belli (motivo de guerra, N. de T.). Eilat era la puerta de entrada de Israel al mundo oriental, un paso franco que tenía una importancia emocional mucho más allá de su valor real. Recuerdo que al regresar de la Kensset aquel día les dije a mis colegas del comité ejecutivo del partido Nueva Fuerza: “La guerra ahora es inevitable”, y añadí: "Esta guerra lo va a cambiar todo".
Para exagerar sus actuaciones Nasser pidió al secretario general de la ONU, U Thant, que retirase las fuerzas de las Naciones Unidas, pero solamente de cierto sector (estas fuerzas estaban apostadas en la frontera desde la guerra del Sinaí en 1956).
U Thant, que malinterpretó por completo la situación, retiró todas sus tropas quedando así enfrentado a la posibilidad de un ataque preventivo israelí y creyendo su propia propaganda de que Israel no era sino una marioneta estadounidense, Nasser envió a su vicepresidente a EEUU para intentar que los estadounidenses detuviesen a Israel. Entretanto los israelíes vieron solamente la amenaza concurrente y creyeron que podrían ser atacados en cualquier momento.
Puedo atestiguar cuál era el estado de ánimo en las altas esferas. Unos días antes de la guerra, Menajem Begin me apartó a un lado en la Knesset y con una gran agitación me dijo: "Uri, tenemos diferentes opiniones, pero en esta crisis existencial todos tenemos la misma meta: salvar a Israel. Tú y tu revista tenéis una gran influencia en la gente joven. ¡Por favor úsala para endurecer su moral!"
En mi última intervención en la Knesset antes de la guerra, dije: "En este momento de duda, justo al borde de la guerra, un gran estadista israelí tomaría una iniciativa revolucionaria para empezar un diálogo directo, quizás secreto, quizás público e impresionante, que podría conducir a un cambio fundamental de nuestra posición en el área".
La demostración del apego a la desesperación general fue la personalidad de Levy Eshkol, el sucesor de David Ben-Gurion como Primer Ministro y ministro de Defensa, a quien se veía, de forma totalmente equivocada, como un arrogante, indeciso e incompetente líder. En un discurso crucial emitido por radio tropezó con una palabra que había sido colocada en el último minuto por uno de sus consejeros y parecía que tartamudeaba.
En el transcurso de aquellos "días de ansiedad", como se conocen desde entonces, Eshkol estuvo bajo una intensa presión. Destacados generales (entere ellos Matti Peled, que después se convertiría en mi amigo y un activista por la paz) acudieron a Eshkol y le plantearon lo que equivalía a un ultimátum, exigiendo un ataque inmediato. Con casi la totalidad de la población masculina movilizada y esperando en las fronteras, la vida normal llegó a una virtual congelación. Todo el país contenía el aliento.
Yo recibía casi diariamente informes sobre lo que hacía el gabinete. Mi fuente era Yigal Allon, antiguo comandante del Palmach (las fuerzas de choque del Haganah) y comandante del frente sur en 1948, que ahora era ministro de Trabajo. Nos hicimos amigos tras la guerra de 1948. Cuando empezó la crisis de 1967, decidí publicar temporalmente un diario llamado Daf ("página"). Sin embargo, no había imprenta preparada y capaz de imprimirlo excepto la del movimiento kibutzí de Allon.
Durante la crisis me reunía con Allon casi diariamente para tratar el asunto y en una de esas ocasiones se sinceró. Su empleo de subordinado en el gobierno era frustrante para el héroe militar de 1948. Pretendía dirigir el ministerio de Defensa y la profundización de la crisis le ofrecía la oportunidad.
Todos los días, casi perceptiblemente, crecía la exigencia de que Eshkol dejara su cargo de Primer Ministro o al menos que renunciara a la cartera de Defensa. Al principio se pusieron en circulación los nombres de varios candidatos para dicho ministerio de Defensa. Allon estaba en lo más alto de la lista. Otros candidatos creíbles eran el "viejo" David Ben-Gurion -jefe provisional del Estado Mayor en 1948-, el general Yigael Yadin, antiguo viceministro de Defensa, Simón Peres, y el ex jefe del Estado Mayor Moshé Dayán.
Allon confiaba en obtener el cargo, puesto que ya era miembro del gobierno y había sido un general muy exitoso en la guerra. De día en día se volvió más radiante. En la calle la lista se volvía cada vez más corta hasta que al final la exigencia del público se centró en Dayán. Un grupo de mujeres (inmediatamente apodadas "las alegres comadres de Windsor") se manifestó por su patrocinio frente a la sede del Partido Laborista.
A finales de Mayo, cuando volví a ver a Allon, estaba destrozado. Acababa de oír que Eshkol había nombrado a Dayán. Allon despreciaba al famoso general. Como la mayoría de los comandantes de 1948, consideraba a Dayán como un mal soldado, incapaz de organizar el trabajo en la Plana Mayor y completamente irresponsable. (Ciertamente, escuche una vez a Dayan jactándose de su "irresponsabilidad").
Dayán tuvo poca influencia en la planificación de la guerra, pero tuvo un impacto inmenso en la moral de las tropas; carismático, glamouroso y con una reputación de comandante atrevido y agresivo.
Los reservistas que habían sido movilizados sólo para esperar, esperar y seguir esperando, saludaron su nombramiento con entusiasmo. Entendieron que la larga espera casi había acabado.
Cuando nuestro ejército atacó, fue como la liberación de un potente muelle.
El primer día de la guerra, tras una sesión parlamentaria de emergencia, yo estaba sentado en el refugio antiaéreo de la Knesset al resguardado del bombardeo de la artillería jordana en Jerusalén Este, cuando un amigo me susurró al oído: "Ya hemos ganado la guerra. La aviación ha destruido los aviones egipcios en tierra".
Esta información se escondió al público. Todas las informaciones de las increíbles victorias de nuestro ejército fueron suprimidas por la censura. La ONU quería imponer un alto el fuego –que en ese momento parecía obstructivo-. Así el público estaba expuesto a las absurdas hipérboles de la Voz del Trueno, según la cual Tel Aviv estaba ardiendo.
Muchos de los territorios fueron conquistados casi por accidente. Había un plan para la destrucción de las fuerzas egipcias en el sur, pero no había planes para una guerra de gran amplitud. Dayán no sólo estaba en contra de la ocupación de la Franja de Gaza, sino incluso contra la ocupación de Jerusalén Este. Cisjordania fue ocupada en una operación improvisada después que el rey Hussein, inesperadamente, abrió fuego para demostrar su solidaridad con Egipto. Al principio Dayán también objetó la operación contra Siria, por miedo a una intervención soviética. Por todo ello, no hubo planes de futuro para la numerosa población de los territorios ocupados.
El quinto día de guerra, justo después de que nuestro ejército hubiera conquistado Cisjordania y la Franja de Gaza, escribí una carta abierta a Levy Eshkol proponiéndole que aprovechase la oportunidad histórica y ofreciera al pueblo palestino la posibilidad de establecer un estado propio. Yo había estado abogando por esta idea desde 1949, pero estaba convencido de que este momento, con toda la región en un estado de conmoción, era el tiempo apropiado de hacer la paz con los palestinos haciéndoles una oferta histórica.
Justo después de la guerra, Eshkol me invitó a una conversación privada. Me escuchó pacientemente mientras yo exponía esta idea. "Uri, ¿qué clase de negociador eres tú?, dijo con una sonrisa condescendiente. "En las negociaciones uno empieza ofreciendo lo mínimo y exigiendo lo máximo. Entonces, gradualmente, eleva la oferta hasta alcanzar un compromiso en algún punto medio. Lo que tú propones es ofrecerlo todo incluso antes de que las negociaciones hayan empezado".
"Eso es cierto cuando uno vende un caballo", le contesté, "no cuando uno quiere alcanzar una paz histórica."
En oposición a su imagen, Eshkol era en realidad un tipo duro. Estaba disfrazado por una amigable disposición, un sentido del humor yiddish y una sintaxis que hacia subirse a los taquígrafos de la Knesset por las paredes. Toda su vida había sido partidario de levantar las colonias judías y ahora todo lo que podía ver era un vasto espacio que podía ser usado para nuevos asentamientos.
En los siguientes meses y años hice docenas de intervenciones en la Knesset (además de mis artículos en Haolam Hazeh) abogando por la idea de un estado palestino en los territorios recién ocupados. En uno de mis discursos informé de que había estado con todos los destacados líderes de Cisjordania y la Franja de Gaza, incluyendo a aquellos que eran conocidos como los "partidarios de Jordania", y que todos ellos me habían dicho que preferían un estado palestino que la restauración de la gobernación jordana. Tanto Dayán como Eshkol lo negaban, pero Eshkol envió a su consejero para los territorios ocupados, Moshé Sassoon, a preguntarme sobre mi información en una conversación privada. El 13 de Agosto de 1969, Sassoon escribió un informe al Primer Ministro (con una copia para mí) en el que confirmaba que su propia información era idéntica a la mía.
Para mi sorpresa placentera, encontré que tenía un buen número de partidarios en el alto mando del ejército.
Los generales, se ha dicho, siempre luchan la última guerra. También tienen en su mente la última paz. En 1956 el presidente Eisenhower y los líderes de la Unión Soviética habían obligado a Ben-Gurion a devolverle a Egipto todos los territorios ocupados durante la guerra del Sinaí. Ahora todo el mundo esperaba que pasara lo mismo. Enfrentados a esta posibilidad, muchos generales preferían la idea de un estado palestino desmilitarizado junto a Israel que la perspectiva de devolver los territorios a Jordania, un estado mucho mayor que podría servir de área de escenificación para los ejércitos de Jordania, Siria, Iraq y Arabia Saudí. En las encuestas de opinión pública, el apoyo a la idea de un estado palestino junto a Israel alcanzó un asombroso 37%.
Esta fase pasó rápidamente. EEUU, que en las vísperas de la guerra había informado secretamente a nuestro gobierno de que no habría objeción a un ataque israelí, ahora no hacían nada para obligar a Israel a retirarse. Gradualmente, el liderazgo israelí se dio cuenta de una total ausencia de presión internacional para devolver nada. Además los tres "NO" adoptados el 7 de septiembre por la cumbre de los humillados líderes árabes reunidos en Jartum (No paz, No reconocimiento, No negociaciones) jugaron a favor de los anexionistas israelíes.
Equipos de personas del movimiento kibutzí ya estaban hormigueando por Cisjordania buscando emplazamientos favorables. Los hallaron en el llano Valle del Jordán, adecuado para los tractores y regado por el río. Inmediatamente después de la guerra, grandes cantidades de refugiados de la guerra de 1948 fueron expulsados de los campos de refugiados de Jericó cercanos al río. El acicate colonizador, que cambiaría totalmente el mapa, estaba en marcha.
Casi automáticamente se llevaron a cabo acciones de limpieza étnica. Nunca se averiguó quién dio las órdenes que claramente se transmitieron verbalmente. Sobre ellas sobrevolaba el espíritu de Moshé Dayán.
Inmediatamente después de la lucha, el escritor Amos Kenan vino a verme. Estaba en un estado de conmoción y me dijo que acababa de ser testigo de la expulsión de miles de habitantes de tres poblaciones del área de Latrun. Le pedí que se sentara y que escribiera un informe de lo que había visto. Era un documento nauseabundo. Me dirigí inmediatamente a la aldea de Imwass (quizás la Bíblica Emaús) y vi las excavadoras arrasando casa tras casa. Cuando traté de tomar fotografías los soldados me llevaron lejos.
De allí me fui rápidamente a la Knesset y repartí copias del informe a varios ministros, incluyendo a Begin y Mapam, así como a los asistentes del Primer Ministro. No sirvió para nada. El trabajo fue acabado antes de que nadie pudiera intervenir. Hoy el "Parque Canadá" cubre el lugar.
Por aquel entonces todavía todo el mundo creía que Israel sería presionado para devolver los territorios que había conquistado. Las aldeas de Latrun eran una especie de abombamiento en la Línea Verde que dominaba la carretera principal entre Tel Aviv y Jerusalén. Por esta razón, alguien decidió crear un fait accompli (hecho consumado) que eliminaría la presión para devolver esta área.
Casi al mismo tiempo me informaron de que el ejército había comenzado a destruir la ciudad de Qalquilya. Desde los aledaños de esta ciudad la artillería jordana había tratado de bombardear Tel Aviv desde unos 25 Km. de distancia. Me apresuré hacia allí y vi que un barrio estaba ya casi completamente demolido. De nuevo fui a la Knesset para inducir al Primer Ministro y a los otros ministros a que intervinieran. Y efectivamente se detuvo la demolición y las casas arrasadas se reconstruyeron. No sé exactamente qué papel jugó mi intervención en esto pero desde entonces, cada vez que paso por el lugar, tengo un sentimiento de satisfacción. (Aunque Qalquilya está ahora cortada por el muro monstruoso)
Poco después un soldado vino a mi oficina en un evidente estado de depresión nerviosa. Me dijo que cada noche los refugiados trataban de cruzar el río Jordán para volver a sus hogares y que las órdenes eran matarlos en el sitio, mujeres y niños incluidos. Le escribí una larga carta al jefe del Estado Mayor, Isaac Rabin y recibí una respuesta de su jefe de oficiales, Samuel Gat, fechada el 29 de octubre de 1967, diciendo que el ejército había investigado el asunto "sacando la conclusión que podía sacar". Hasta donde sé, las matanzas sistemáticas se detuvieron.
(Hace unos días volví a encontrarme con ese soldado. Estaba tocando la flauta en la calle).
El primer día de combate fue una guerra defensiva. Dayán declaró que no teníamos intenciones de conquista y casi todos los israelíes también pensaban lo mismo. Un día después de que acabasen los combates, se había convertido en una guerra de expansión y anexión. Completamente intoxicada por paisajes bíblicos, el diluvio de "álbumes victoriosos", las nuevas canciones patrióticas y los lemas mesiánicos, el público se envalentonó. El gobierno de Eshkol, que primeramente había decidido oficialmente negociar la devolución de los territorios, se olvidó del asunto cuando se dio cuenta de que no era necesario hacerlo.
Poco después escribí un relato sobre cómo capturar monos. Se fija una botella a la rama de un árbol con una fruta dentro. El mono pone la mano dentro de la botella, agarra la fruta con la mano y trata de sacarla, pero su puño agarrando la fruta es demasiado grande. Así se le captura. Puede, por supuesto, quedar libre en cualquier momento soltando la fruta, pero, muerto de ganas por la fruta, es incapaz de hacerlo. De la misma manera, aferrándonos a los territorios ocupados, hemos sido rehenes de nuestra propia avaricia.
Tras la guerra el profesor Yeshayahu (Isaias) Leibowitz, un judío ortodoxo, predijo que la ocupación nos corrompería y nos convertiría en un pueblo de "agentes del servicio secreto y encargados de mano de obra barata”, le llamé el “profeta Isaías tercero”, lo que le puso furioso. Dijo que un profeta se hace eco de la voz de Dios, mientras que él estaba hablando en el lenguaje de la lógica.
Retrospectivamente parece como si todo el escenario fuera el trabajo de un director de cine con talento; la ansiedad, el aumento del miedo, la milagrosa victoria. Esto ayuda a explicar lo que paso más tarde.
En la leyenda de Fausto, Mefistófeles paga por el alma del culto doctor con cada imaginable clase de placer. Algo así nos sucedió en junio de 1967. La cadena de hechos dirigidos por un ser superior, una tentación deliberadamente puesta frente a nosotros para probarnos. Lo que parecía un regalo de Dios era realmente una tentación de Satanás, un intento de comprar nuestra alma.
¿Sucedió eso? ¿Perdió Israel su alma?
Espero que no. Espero que la borrachera desaparezca ahora. Esta semana se han dicho y escrito muchas cosas que lo indican.
Cuarenta años después de los hechos la cuestión sigue abierta.
(Algunas partes de este artículo se han publicado en la revista judío-estadounidense Tikkun.)
Original en inglés: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/archive/1182406019
Carlos Sanchis y Caty R. pertenecen a los colectivos de rebelión, Tlaxcala y Cubadebate. Esta traducción se puede reproducir libremente a condición de respetar su integridad y mencionar al autor, el traductor y la fuente.

lunes, 30 de noviembre de 2009

Milenio semanal alude al reciente ciclo de cine "¿Paz o pax en Medio Oriente?"

Gracias a Mónica Flores

El cine como territorio libre
Detrás de cada película de cine “disidente” israelí hay una realidad dolorosa, injusta o esperanzadora para explicar el añejo conflicto en Medio Oriente.
Más... http://semanal.milenio.com/node/1568

viernes, 27 de noviembre de 2009

Mahmud Darwish - La niña / El grito

En la playa hay una niña, la niña tiene familia
Y la familia una casa.
La casa tiene dos ventanas y una puerta...
En el mar, un acorazado se divierte cazando a los que caminan
Por la playa: cuatro, cinco, siete
Caen sobre la arena. La niña se salva por poco,
Gracias a una mano de niebla,
Una mano no divina que la ayuda. Grita: ¡Padre!
¡Padre! Levántate, regresemos: el mar no es como nosotros.
El padre, amortajado sobre su sombra, a merced de lo invisible,
No responde.
Sangre en las palmeras, sangre en las nubes.
La lleva en volandas la voz más alta y más lejana de
La playa. Grita en la noche desierta.
No hay eco en el eco.
Convierte el grito eterno en noticia
Rápida que deja de ser noticia cuando
Los aviones regresan para bombardear una casa
Con dos ventanas y una puerta.

domingo, 22 de noviembre de 2009

Con Uri Avnery: ¿Por qué no "federación"? ... y algo sobre la compañía compañía cosmética que lleva el nombre del amor (ahavah)

Muchísimas gracias a Eduardo Mosches por este envío!

www.gush-shalom.org
Truth / Правда / אמת / حقيقة
English website http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_en.html
Статьи Ури Авнери http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/ru/avnery
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/index_he.html אתר בעברית
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/ar/avnery اوري افنيري

A la compañía Ahavah
Press release
Gush Shalom to Ahava directors: read the writing on the wall – get out of the Occupied Territories
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/press_releases/1258534724
Ad in Ha'aretz, Nov. 20 20 09
We shallWelcomeThe declarationOf theFreeState ofPalestine
weekly ads archive
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/weekly_ad

en hebreo
גוש שלום לחברת "אהבה" – קראו את הכתובת על הקיר, צאו מהשטחים הכבושיםhttp://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/press_releases/1258449948מודעה ב"הארץ" 20 בנובםבראנחנונק דם בברכה את ההכרזה על הקמת מדינת פלסטין החופשיתארכיון מודעות: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/weekly_ad

~~~

Uri Avnery

Federation? Why NotTHESE DAYS mark the 5th anniversary of the murder of Yasser Arafat, and bring back to me our last conversation
Full English text in the end

Avnery columns' archive
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery

~~~
Fanatics and the army & the ease of dismantling settlements
On Adam's blog: http://adam-keller2.blogspot.com




אורי אבנרי
פדרציה? למה לא?בימים אלה מלאו חמש שנים להירצחו של יאסר ערפאת, ואני שב ונזכר דווקא בשיחתנו האחרונה,
טכסט מלא http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery/1258646305
ארכיון מאמרים http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/he/channels/avnery

~~~
המורעלים והצבא ואיך בכל זאת לפרק את ההתנחלויות
בבלוג של אדם : http://adam-keller1.blogspot.com




Uri Avnery21.11.09

Federation? Why Not?
THESE DAYS mark the 5th anniversary of the murder of Yasser Arafat, and bring back to me our last conversation in his Ramallah compound, a few weeks before his death. It was he who brought up the idea of a threefold federation – Israel, Palestine and Jordan. "And perhaps Lebanon, too. Why not?" – the same as he did at our very first meeting, in Beirut, July 1982, in the middle of the battle. He mentioned the term Benelux – the pact between Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxemburg that predated the European Union.
Lately, the term "federation" has come into fashion again. Some people believe that it can serve as a kind of compromise between the "Two-State Solution", now a world-wide consensus, and the "One-State Solution" that is popular in some radical circles. "Federation" sounds like a miracle: there will be both "two states for two peoples" and a single entity. Two in one, one in two.
THE WORD "federation" does not frighten me. On the contrary, I was already using it in this context 52 years ago.
On June 2, 1957, my magazine, Haolam Hazeh, published the first detailed plan for an independent Palestinian state that would come into being next to Israel. The West Bank was then under Jordanian and the Gaza Strip under Egyptian occupation. I proposed helping the Palestinians to get rid of the occupiers. According to the plan, the two states, the Israeli and the Palestinian, would then establish a federation. I thought that its proper name should be "the Jordan Union".
A year later, on September 1, 1958, there appeared a document called "the Hebrew Manifesto". I am proud of my part in its composition. It was a comprehensive plan for a fundamental change of the State of Israel in all its aspects – a kind of complete overhaul. In its readiness to re-examine the fundamentals of the state and in the depth of the thinking involved, it has no parallel from the founding of Israel to this very day. Among its authors were Nathan Yellin-Mor, the ex-chief of the Stern Group, Boaz Evron, Amos Kenan and several others.
I was responsible for the chapter on Israeli-Arab peace. It proposed that a sovereign Palestinian state would be set up next to Israel, and that the two states would establish a federation, which would gradually assume more and more jurisdiction. I had to invent a Hebrew word to replace the foreign term "federation": "Ugda" (grouping) and suggested that it should be called "the Jordan Federation" - "Ugdat ha-Yarden" in Hebrew and "Ittihad al-Urdun" in Arabic. (To my sorrow, this use the term "Ugda" did not take root. Instead, the army adopted it for a division, which is a grouping of regiments or brigades.)
On the morrow of the Six-Day War, after which the entire country between the Mediterranean and the Jordan was under the control of the Israeli army, a new political movement called "Israel-Palestine Federation" called for the immediate creation of a Palestinian state next to Israel. The founders were, more or less, the same people who had composed the "Hebrew Manifesto".
When this historic opportunity was missed and with the occupation becoming gradually more and more oppressive, I abandoned the use of the term federation. I sensed that it frightened both parties. Israelis were afraid that the word covered a plot to establish a bi-national state – an idea that is rejected by the overwhelming majority of Jewish Israelis. Palestinians were afraid that it would serve as a disguise for a permanent Israeli occupation.
It should be remembered that the original partition plan adopted by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, did envision a kind of federation, without using the term. It provided for the establishment of a Jewish state and an Arab state, and a separate entity of Jerusalem, administered by the UN. All these entities were to be parts of an economic union that would cover customs, the currency, railways, post, ports, airports and more. This would have, in practice, amounted to a federation.
THE MAIN problem with the word "federation" is that it has no agreed and binding definition. In different parts of the world, it describes wildly different regimes. The same is true for "confederacy".
No two countries in the world resemble each other completely, and no two federations are the same. Every state and every federation has been shaped by its particular historical development and specific circumstances, and reflects the people that created it.
The word "federation" is derived from the Latin "foedus", treaty. Basically, a federation is a pact between different states which decide to unite on agreed terms. The USA is a federation, and so is Russia. What do the two have in common?
The United States is, theoretically, a voluntary association of states. The states have many rights, but the federation is headed by a single president with immense powers. In practice, this is one state. When in 1860 the Southern states tried to secede and set up a "confederacy" of their own, the North crushed the "rebellion" in a brutal civil war. Every morning, millions of pupils in the United States swear allegiance to the flag and to "One Nation Under God".
Russia, too, is officially a federation, but their use of the term has a very different content. Moscow appoints the governors of the provinces, and Vladimir Putin rules the country as a personal fief. When Chechnya tried to secede from the "Russian Federation", it was crushed even more brutally than the confederacy in the American civil war. (This does not hinder Putin from supporting two seceding provinces of neighboring Georgia.)
Germany defines itself as a "federal republic ("Bundesrepublik"). It is composed of "Länder" that enjoy a large measure of autonomy. Switzerland calls itself a confederation in French and Italian ("Eidgenossenschaft" or "Oath Association" in German) and its cantons enjoy their autonomy. But it is also a very unified country.
It is generally supposd that a "federation" is a tighter association, while a "confederacy" is a looser one. But in reality, these differences are very blurred. It seems that Americans and Russians, Germans and Swiss, identify themselves first of all with their united state, not with their own particular province. (Except for the Bavarians, of course.)
The new Europe is for all practical purposes a confederacy, but its founders did not name it thus. They chose the less definite "European Union". Why? Perhaps they thought that terms like "federation" and "confederacy" were outdated. Perhaps they considered such terms too binding. The term "union" does not commit its members to anything specific, and they can fill it with whatever content they all agree on and change it from time to time. If the "Lisbon agreement" is finally ratified, the union will change again.
IT MAKES no sense, therefore, to discuss the idea of an Israeli-Palestinian "federation" in general terms, without defining right from the beginning what is meant by this. The same word, used by different people, can express completely different and even contradictory intentions.
For example: I recently saw a plan for a federation here in which every person would have the right to settle anywhere in either state while holding the citizenship of one of them. I can hardly imagine that many Israelis or Palestinians would embrace that. The Israelis would be afraid that the Arabs would soon constitute the majority within Israel, and the Palestinians would worry that Israeli settlers would take possession of every hilltop between the sea and the Jordan.
In any discussion of federation, the matter of immigration looms large as an ominous bone of contention. Would millions of Palestinian refugees be allowed to return to Israeli territory? Would millions of Jewish immigrants be allowed to submerge the State of Palestine?
The same is true for the matter of residence. Could a citizen of Palestine settle in Haifa, and an Israeli citizen in Nablus, as a Pole can now settle in France, a New Yorker in Miami, an inhabitant of canton Zurich in canton Uri?
EACH ONE of us who considers the idea of federation must decide what he or she wants. To draw up a beautiful plan on paper, which has no chance at all of being realized because it ignores the aspirations of both "partners" - or to think in practical terms about real options?
In practice, a federation can come about only on the basis of a free agreement between the two parties. This means that it can be realized only if both – Israelis and Palestinians – consider it as advantageous to themselves and compatible with their national aspirations.
In my opinion, a practical way to realize the idea could look like this:
Stage 1: A sovereign Palestinian state must come into being. This must precede everything else. The occupation must end and Israel must withdraw to the Green Line (with possible mutually agreed swaps of territory.) That goes for Jerusalem, too.
Stage 2: The two states establish a pattern of fair relations between them and get used to living side by side. There will be a need for real steps towards reconciliation and the healing of the wounds of the past. (For example: the creation of a "Truth and Reconciliation Commission" on the South African model.) On the practical level, fair arrangements of matters like movement between the two states, the division of water resources etc. are put into place.
Stage 3: The two states start negotiations for the establishment of joint institutions. For example: the opening of the border between them for the free movement of people and goods, an economic union, a joint currency, a customs envelope, the use of ports and airports, coordination of foreign relations, and so on. There will be no automatic right for citizens of one state to settle in the other. Each state will decide for itself on its immigration policy.
The two parties can jointly decide whether to invite Jordan as a third partner to the proposed treaty.
Such a negotiation can succeed only if the population in each of the partner states is convinced that the partnership will bring it positive benefits. Since Israel is the stronger economically and technologically, it must be ready to make generous proposals.
Stage 4: The more trust between the parties develops, the easier it will be to deepen the partnership and to widen the powers of the joint institutions.
Perhaps, at this stage, conditions may be ripe for the founding of a wider association of the entire region, on the lines of the European Union. Such an association may include the Arab states, Israel, Turkey and Iran. The name I suggested for it in the past was "Semitic Union". (Turks and Iranians are not linguistically "Semitic" nations, but Islam is a Semitic religion and plays a major role in their culture.)
This is a vision for the future, and it can be realized. To paraphrase Barack Obama’s slogan, even if it has lost some of its luster: Yes, we can!
permlink: http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1258646087/

data & Daily updated occupation related reading
http://www.kibush.co.il
http://www.btselem.org
http://www.ochaopt.org

If instead of daily looking at websites you prefer to receive a weekly selection by email
subscribe to TOI-Billboard
by writing in the subject line
"Send me TOI" to: mhtml:%7BAFAE16F9-BE05-4577-8087-8D08CA43582C%7Dmid://00000008/!x-usc:mailto:otherisr@actcom.co.il
Most recent issue at http://toibillboard.info
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Gush Shalom email address for correspondence, also if you want to (un)subscribe
correspondence @ gush - shalom . org
(without the spaces!)
Address for contributions:
GUSH SHALOM p.o.b. 3322 Tel Aviv 61033