The Obama administration seems prepared to take some big steps on the delicate issue of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the formation of a Palestinian state.

The first peg planted in the ground is the visible break with the Bush administration, as it seems a stronger tone is set to be employed with Netanyahu’s government if he fails to engage with the US’s proposals. Joe Biden announced that Israel “has to work for a two-state solution … not build more settlements, dismantle existing outposts and allow Palestinians freedom of movement,” during an AIPAC conference.

This is a move that would be unheard of during the more Bush administration’s more craven approach. Demanding Palestinian ‘freedom of movement’ is a huge leap in terms of America’s demands of Israel, knowing full well that the region is locked down by checkpoints and border restrictions. It also seems that Netanyahu is a big fan of Obama (and his website) and is willing to work together on foreign policy. He must be aware that they are set to clash on the issue of removing settlers from the West Bank and his opposition towards halting settlement expansion.

Hamas have also responded positively to the language of the Obama administration (despite criticising Hilary Clinton as a member of the old order). Rocket fire from the Gaza Strip has been ordered to halt (according to Khaled Meshaal) and Israel has confirmed this, despite huge amounts of resentment following incursion into the Gaza Strip. This all looks like positive news for those who have an expressed interest in the reigion, but optimism is fleeting in the context of Palestinian statehood. If this fragile triad can hold long enough for political action, then it might be possible to negotiate another ceasefire in the immediate short term.

Two legendary journalists of the antiwar movement speak at Georgetown University – March ‘09.

BIOS:

• Amy Goodman
• Seymour Hersh

Part One – Amy Goodman (9:40):

Part Two – Amy Goodman (9:21):

Part Three – Amy Goodman (10:15):

Part Four – Hersh/Goodman Q&A (10:16):

Part Five – Hersh/Goodman Q&A (10:02):

Part Six - Hersh/Goodman Q&A (5:28):

Part Seven - Hersh/Goodman Q&A (4:12):

Part Eight - Hersh/Goodman Q&A (9:29):

[youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jq9L4c6JAw

Con Israel nunca habrá paz

“En el nombre de Dios el clemente y misericordioso, me gustaría hacer la primera pregunta. ¿Es posible que, tras la guerra de Gaza y nuestra heroica resistencia, Israel siga sin entender que en el proceso de paz no se puede pasar de Hamás…?” Khaled Meshaal, líder de Hamás, exilado desde hace más de 40 años, lanza la pregunta desafiante. Pese a las importantes pérdidas (1.400 palestinos muertos), reivindica la victoria por haber decidido los israelíes retirar sus tropas. Pero a corto plazo no se hace ilusiones. Con el nuevo gobierno de Benjamin Netanyahu en puertas, sólo espera más hostilidades por parte de Israel. Y, al no tener tampoco grandes expectativas en cuanto a los primeros pasos de Barack Obama, anuncia la voluntad de seguir por el camino de la fuerza, “el único lenguaje que teme Israel y que puede dar resultado.”

Esta entrevista exclusiva a L’Espresso, lograda tras complicadas negociaciones entre Beirut y la capital siria, es la primera que Meshaal concede a la prensa escrita después de la guerra. Nos hemos reunido con él en una sede archiblindada en las afueras de Damasco, a donde nos llevó un coche con los cristales tintados. Ante el portal, militantes armados con Kalashnikov. Unas medidas de seguridad impuestas por el gran número de dirigentes (45) del movimiento eliminados por Israel. El jefe, con un traje gris y sin corbata, se muestra cordial y relajado. Mantiene en todo momento la flema, en una conversación que arranca hablando del encargo de gobierno a Netanyahu, el jefe de gobierno que en el ‘97, en Ammán, mandó a gente del Mossad para que le envenenaran. “Fue Netanyahu quien encargó mi asesinato fallido, pero sobre todo es responsable, como los demás jefes de gobierno israelíes, de haber atentado contra la vida de todo el pueblo palestino. Entre las posturas del Likud, de Kadima y del Labour sólo hay diferencias de matiz, nada esencial. Desde hace 60 años no ha habido un solo gobierno israelí que no haya cometido crímenes contra nosotros. Es preferible hacer frente a un liderazgo conservador, que persigue claramente sus fines, que a la hipocresía de los laboristas, que únicamente fingen que se comprometen en el proceso de paz pero luego, durante sus gobiernos, han construido la mayoría de los asentamientos de Cisjordania.”

Pero con Netanyahu, si Hamás no se abre al diálogo, ¿no se va hacia otra guerra?

No nos preocupa una nueva guerra. Nuestro pueblo jamás será vencido y jamás se rendirá. El desafío nos da fuerzas, porque ellos tienen miedo de morir y nosotros no. La paz sólo será posible cuando haya una voluntad internacional que haga presión a favor de nuestros derechos. El objetivo sigue siendo la creación de un Estado palestino con Jerusalén Este como capital, la vuelta de los israelíes a las fronteras anteriores a la guerra del ‘67 y el derecho a repatriar a los refugiados. No podemos conformarnos con menos. ¿Es que ha habido alguna vez algún gobierno de Israel al que le haya parecido justo tomar en consideración nuestras aspiraciones? Dicen que no a todo y fingen tener interés en una solución. Entonces ¿qué nos queda para negociar?

Con el Anp y Fatah el Estado israelí se reúne. ¿Cómo puede esperar Hamás que haya comprensión si sigue lanzando cohetes sobre Israel?

Es una buena pregunta que me ofrece la oportunidad de aclarar por qué no se prorrogó la tregua de seis meses que acabó en diciembre. Israel se había comprometido a ponerle fin al sitio y a abrir los pasos fronterizos. No ha cumplido ninguno de esos compromisos. Quieren asfixiarnos, relegarnos a un ‘bantustan’. ¿Cómo se puede hablar de tregua cuando se está en un estado de sitio? Para garantizar su seguridad, Israel se obstina en el error de apostar por la derrota militar de nuestro pueblo. He estudiado física y estoy convencido de que a las relaciones políticas también se les puede aplicar la ley de Newton: a cada acción corresponde una reacción igual y contraria. Cuando acabe la agresión, también se acabará nuestra resistencia. Pero si las puertas seguirán estando cerradas, la única salida, insisto, es luchar.

Lo cual los deja aislados.

Antes o después, el mundo tendrá que abrir los ojos. La comunidad internacional sigue viendo tan sólo nuestros cohetes e ignorando sus F 16, y sus bombas de fósforo. Israel se aprovecha del respaldo automático de los estadounidenses, de la poca credibilidad que tiene la ONU, debilitada por las presiones de Washington, y de la nebulosidad total de Europa, que se muestra inerte o tímida. ¿Cómo es posible que tantos líderes europeos permanezcan impasibles cuando se están pisoteando los valores básicos – libertad, derechos humanos – de la democracia? ¿Cómo es posible que no se den cuenta de que con una fuerza popular como Hamás no se puede dejar de negociar?

Pero con Obama el panorama está cambiando.

Todos esperamos que así sea. Aunque hace falta un cambio sustancial. Obama habla con un lenguaje nuevo, pero no sé si será suficiente. Es necesaria una política nueva.

Si pudiera reunirse con Obama ¿qué le diría?

¿Reunirme con él? Pero ¡si ni siquiera me ha tachado de la lista de terroristas! Aunque también es cierto que, si no trata con Hamás, Obama tampoco podrá ir muy lejos. De todas formas, yo le invitaría a considerar la posibilidad de un cambio. No puede uno alinearse con Israel ignorando los derechos de los demás pueblos. Un cambio de enfoque no sólo sería ventajoso para Palestina, sino para todo Oriente Próximo e incluso para los EE.UU., que están implicados y, si se desvanece la perspectiva de paz, serán los primeros en perder. Lamentablemente, las primeras señales no son muy alentadoras. El senador John Kerry, de visita a Gaza, se ha quedado anonadado por la destrucción, pero ha insistido en el derecho de Israel a defenderse.

¿Cómo negarlo? Israel lleva muchísimos años pagando un altísimo tributo de sangre inocente. Primero con los atentados suicidas, ahora con los lanzamientos de cohetes, aunque en la última guerra ha habido una desproporción enorme entre vuestras pérdidas y las suyas.

No somos sanguinarios como nos pintan. No queremos víctimas inocentes, ni suyas ni nuestras. Pero la cuestión palestina se ha convertido en una patología grave. Y quien intente diagnosticar las causas con honradez, no tendrá más remedio que reconocer que la ocupación es el primer factor. Nosotros lo único que podemos hacer es reaccionar.

La comunidad internacional prestaría más oído a sus reivindicaciones si reconocieran a Israel.

¿Cree usted que, tras la barbarie de la reciente guerra, este es el momento más indicado? Israel tiene demasiados reconocimientos. Al que hay que reconocer es al pueblo palestino.

Hay quien dice que tras la guerra en Gaza una parte de la gente le está dando la espalda a Hamás.

Puedo asegurarle que nuestra aceptación ha crecido significativamente, en Gaza, en Cisjordania y en todo el mundo árabe. No nos sentimos aislados. Y tampoco nos estamos encerrando en un gueto. Los EE.UU. nos han puesto la etiqueta de criaturas de Irán o de Siria. Conocemos bien esos instrumentos para denigrarnos. Pero no consideramos que EE.UU. sea un juez imparcial. Abrimos las puertas de par en par a todo el que quiera ayudarnos. Y pedimos a quienes se oponen a nosotros que nos digan con quién tienen intención de negociar la paz, ya que no quieren legitimar a Hamás, que ha llegado al poder gracias a elecciones democráticas.

En los territorios hay quien les reprocha haber perdido el contacto con Palestina. El grupo que dirige Hamás lleva demasiados años en el exilio.

Sí, hay quien lo insinúa. Pero no es más que una especulación. Todos somos hijos de Palestina. Yo no puedo volver debido a la ocupación. Y al igual que yo, todos los dirigentes de la OLP han tenido que vivir muchos años en el exilio no por su gusto, sino porque se han visto obligados a ello.

En Gaza sigue habiendo incertidumbre. Olmert subordina la tregua a la liberación del soldado Shalit.

La petición ya había irritado a los mediadores egipcios y fue tajantemente rechazada. Olmert es un hipócrita. Sólo se acuerda ahora de su soldado. Nosotros no aceptamos chantajes. Estamos a favor de la liberación, pero sólo mediante un intercambio con prisioneros palestinos, que son 12.000, incluidos niños, viejos y enfermos.

Si se liberara a Marwan Barghouti ¿la meta de la reconciliación sería más fácil?

Esperemos que le liberen. Pero nadie puede resumir en sí mismo toda una causa.

En la galaxia palestina también hace falta algo de distensión. ¿Es posible que vuelvan a entenderse Hamás y la más moderada Al Fatah?

Las divergencias se pueden superar, a condición de que se cumplan algunas reglas. Es necesario que los hermanos de Al Fatah respeten los resultados de las urnas. Y luego consolidar las bases de la democracia dentro de la Autoridad Palestina. El principio irrenunciable es que todos defiendan en primer lugar los intereses de los palestinos. Hay que establecer que nuestras fuerzas del orden están al servicio de la seguridad de Palestina y no – según el general norteamericano Keith Dayton – de la de Israel.

Gianni Perrelli

Traducido por Liliana Piastra, extraído de Rebelión.

Mahmoud Abbas, presidente dell’Autorità Nazionale Palestinese e leader di Fatah, tuona contro Hamas dal Cairo e da Parigi. Domenica primo Febbraio dalla capitale egiziana  Abbas si pronunciava per il rifiuto del dialogo con  “chiunque rigetti l”‘Organizzazione per la Liberazione della Palestina” (OLP) e chiaramente alludendo ad Hamas aggiungeva ” queste persone hanno messo a rischio la vita del popolo, a rischio il sangue del popolo, a rischio il destino del popolo, a rischio il sogno e la speranza del popolo di stabilire uno stato palestinese indipendente”.

La dura reazione di Abbas chiude i deboli spiragli apertisi negli scorsi giorni per un possibile tavolo di trattative fra Fatah e Hamas, ma si pone soprattutto come risposta alle ipotesi di Khaled Meshaal, segretario del’ufficio politico di Hamas,  di costituire una nuova entità politica palestinese al di là dell’OLP che rappresenti “il popolo palestinese all’interno e nella diaspora”.

Vistosi messo da parte Abbas ha oggi definito da Parigi del tutto inaccettabile l’appello di Meshaal.

I punti su cui riflettere a proposito delle lacerazioni politiche interne al corpo palestinese sono innumerevoli e tuttavia salta all’occhio, proprio come lezione principe di Gaza, il fallimento della strategia politica adottata da Fatah/OLP/ANP, strategia che ha innescato quella dinamica letale in grado di legittimare agli occhi dell’occidente l’aggressione israeliana.

L'angelo custode

Mahmoud Abbas ha fallito infatti nel suo tentativo di porsi come solo interlocutore  “credibile” in un processo di pace guidato dall’occidente. Questo schema, voluto da Israele stesso, Europa e Stati Uniti, presupponeva l’inevitabile esclusione di tutte le altre forze politiche palestinesi con il  conseguente incremento del tasso di autoritarismo della leadership palestinese nonchè l’asservimento indegno alle logiche dell’occidente per potersi legittimare ai suoi occhi: chi si arroga il diritto politico di riconoscere l’altro esige sempre un elemento omologo per poter “autenticare” il diverso. Da qui l’appiattimento sulle posizioni USA/UE dell’ OLP, incapace ormai di far valere l’unità del popolo palestinese come potere di contrattazione nelle trattative politiche.

Tracciato questo quadro Israele ha solo aspettato gli eventi: la guerra civile a Gaza, il frazionamento dell’unità politica palestinese. Ciò ha permesso  da una parte una “comprensibile” (agli occhi dell’opinione pubblica mondiale) criminalizzazione del movimento islamico – osteggiato anche dai “palestinesi buoni” dell’ OLP – aprendo così la strada per la sua eliminazione militare (leggasi operazione Piombo Fuso), e dall’altra parte ha svuotato di qualsiasi significato l’ANP, impotente davanti all’eccidio di Gaza, consentendo così ai leaders mondiali, in maniera indolore, di poter mettere da parte, come una pedina ormai inservibile, anche il suo presidente.

E allora, come anche più voci isolate hanno ricordato – da noi ad esempio Massimo D’Alema e da ultimo anche Tony Blair, inviato in medio oriente del “quartetto”  (USA, ONU, Russia, UE) – non sarebbe il caso di “coinvolgere  Hamas nel processo di pace”?  Se infatti la “retorica del terrorismo” rivolta contro Hamas aveva la propria giustificazione nell’interesse politico israeliano di isolare Gaza e di rompere l’unità palestinese, si profila invece, per chi abbia la volontà di edificare un concreto processo di pace in medio oriente, la strada obbligata del pragmatismo, del dialogo con Hamas, componente ormai imprescindibile dell’unità palestinese, unità senza la quale non ci sarà mai ne’ la liberazione dal giogo dell’occupante ne’ un effettivo processo di pace.

Le sorti della pace sono legate al riconoscimento di Hamas. Questa è la lezione imprescindibile per la “diplomazia” internazionale… posto che questa abbia davvero interesse a una pacificazione della terra tre volte santa.

Per comprendere meglio gli attuali rapporti fra Hamas e Fatah pubblichiamo qui di seguito un’articolo un po’ datato (luglio 2007) di Alain Gresh apparso originariamente su “Le Monde Diplomatique” che bene evidenzia questo processo parallelo di legittimazione di Mahmoud Abbas in occidente e disgregazione dell’unità politica palestinese.

Come il mondo intero ha seppellito la Palestina

Al di là degli scontri fra Hamas e Fatah

di Alain Gresh – Le Monde Diplomatique, luglio 2007, pag. 10
(traduzione dal francese di José F. Padova)

Gli Stati Uniti e l’Unione Europea hanno ripreso gli aiuti all’Autorità palestinese dopo l’estromissione di Hamas, vincitore delle elezioni di gennaio 2006. Tuttavia il problema-chiave resta quello postosi dopo l’insabbiamento del processo di Oslo: Israele è pronto a ritirarsi da tutti i territori occupati nel 1967 e a permettere la formazione di uno Stato palestinese indipendente? La condiscendenza da una dozzina d’anni della «comunità internazionale» verso lo Stato israeliano lascia poco spazio all’ottimismo.

Bisogna salvare il presidente Mahmud Abbas! All’unanimità la «comunità internazionale» lo proclama alto e forte. E avanza audaci proposte: sbloccare l’aiuto all’Autorità palestinese; alleviare le sofferenze della popolazione civile; aprire negoziati per rafforzare i «moderati» palestinesi. Perfino Ehud Olmert scopre all’improvviso in M. Abbas un «partner» per la pace. Sordi per anni alle opprimenti notizie ufficiali [rapporti, relazioni, studi…] circa la situazione della Cisgiordania e di Gaza pubblicate da istituzioni tanto diverse fra loro come lo sono la Banca Mondiale, Amnesty International o l’Organizzazione Mondiale della Sanità, Casa Bianca e Unione Europea sarebbero finalmente uscite dal loro profondo letargo?

Questo risveglio repentino è stato suscitato dalla vittoria senza appello di Hamas a Gaza. Eppure né gli Stati Uniti né Israele avevano lesinato sui mezzi militari dati a Fatah per vincere le elezioni, autorizzando a più riprese il passaggio d’armi destinate alla Guardia presidenziale e alla Sicurezza preventiva (1). Non è servito a nulla. La defezione della maggior parte dei responsabili militari di Fatah (Mohammed Dahlan, Rachid Abou Shabak, Samir Masharawi) , che hanno preferito rintanarsi in Cisgiordania o in Egitto invece di rimanere al fianco delle loro truppe, è uno dei tanti elementi che spiegano una cocente disfatta. L’incapacità di Fatah di riformarsi, di abbandonare il proprio status di Partito-Stato di uno Stato che non esiste per quello di forza politica «normale» ne è un altro: nepotismo, corruzione, spirito di casta continuano a incancrenire l’organizzazione fondata da Yasser Arafat.

Ma l’ingiustificabile ferocia degli scontri fra Hamas e Fatah a Gaza illustra anche lo smembramento della società palestinese, accelerato da quindici mesi di boicottaggio internazionale. Esecuzioni sommarie, vendette, saccheggi hanno segnato i combattimenti, mentre l’un campo accusava l’altro di essere al soldo dello straniero. Già il 12 gennaio, nel corso di un grande meeting a Gaza con Mohammed Dahlan, la folla sbeffeggiava gli «sciiti» di Hamas (2) [vedi riquadro]. L’organizzazione islamica da parte sua denuncia i suoi nemici come agenti d’Israele e degli Stati Uniti o, semplicemente, come kuffar («infedeli»). La giornalista israeliana Amira Hass nota che «i due campi trasformano i civili in ostaggi e li condannano a morte nei combattimenti di strada, sacrificando la causa palestinese sull’altare della loro rivalità (3)». La Palestina paga la militarizzazione della lotta politica, che si accompagna con il culto della violenza e di un esasperato machismo.

Una disgregazione programmata

In un messaggio disperato, inviato via Internet il 12 giugno, lo psichiatra palestinese Eyad Serraj deplora: «Quanto odio e appelli tribali alla vendetta. Non si tratta soltanto di una lotta politico-militare per il potere (…). Noi siamo stati tutti sconfitti da Israele e questo sentimento di umiliazione si ritorce contro nemici più piccoli al nostro interno. Israele ci ha brutalizzati con l’oppressione e la tortura e ha provocato dolori e traumi che ora mostrano la loro orripilante immagine attraverso una violenza tossica e cronica».

Da parte sua, il giornalista israeliano Gideon Levy descrive così il retaggio di quarant’anni d’occupazione: «Questi giovani che abbiamo visto ammazzarsi tanto crudelmente fra loro sono i figli dell’inverno 1987, i figli della prima Intifada. La maggior parte di loro non ha mai lasciato Gaza. Per anni hanno visto i loro fieri fratelli maggiori battuti e ingiuriati, i loro genitori imprigionati nelle loro stesse case, senza lavoro e senza speranza. Essi hanno vissuto tutta la loro vita all’ombra della violenza israeliana (4)».

Questo naufragio della Palestina può essere fermato? Forse, se le dichiarazioni americane ed europee fossero, una volta tanto, seguite da fatti, se la «comunità internazionale» decidesse infine d’imporre la creazione di uno Stato palestinese. Cinque anni fa, nel giugno del 2002, lo stesso presidente Gorge W. Bush aderiva a una pace fondata su due Stati che vivessero fianco a fianco. Tuttavia, in seguito, non è successo nulla.

Ricordiamolo. Il governo israeliano non ha mai smesso, durante gli anni 2003 e 2004, di proclamare che il solo ostacolo alla pace era Arafat. Il vecchio leader era stato assediato nei pochi metri quadrati del suo quartiere generale della Moqata a Ramallah. Ariel Sharon proferiva: «Il nostro Bin Laden è Yasser Arafat». La «comunità internazionale» lasciava fare.

Scomparso Arafat l’11 novembre 2004, Mahmud Abbas lo sostituiva alla testa dell’Autorità palestinese. Il più «moderato» dei dirigenti dell’organizzazione per la liberazione della Palestina (OLP) era ben deciso a rilanciare il «processo di pace», ma i suoi gesti d’apertura non portarono a niente: la colonizzazione si accelerò e così anche la costruzione del muro di separazione: i posti di blocco trasformarono qualsiasi spostamento di qualche chilometro fra due villaggi in una odissea dall’esito incerto. Un terreno fertile per la vittoria di Hamas alle elezioni del Consiglio legislativo del gennaio 2006.

Hamas ha saputo utilizzare tre grandi atout presso la popolazione: la sua partecipazione alla resistenza contro l’occupazione, la sua rete di aiuti sociali, l’incontestabile dedizione dei suoi quadri. Per questo gli elettori hanno votato per gli islamici, perché rifiutavano l’idea di una pace con Israele? Perché auspicavano un maggior numero di attentati suicidi? No, tutti i sondaggi d’opinione lo confermano, la popolazione aspirava in maggioranza a una soluzione fondata su due Stati. Hamas, d’altra parte, lo aveva capito bene: la sua piattaforma politica elettorale era ben diversa dalla sua Carta che, come quella dell’OLP negli anni ’60, esaltava la distruzione delle Stato d’Israele. Molti suoi dirigenti affermavano che, a certe condizioni, il loro Movimento era pronto ad aderire alla creazione di uno Stato palestinese sui soli territori occupati nel 1967.

Immediatamente dopo le elezioni al Consiglio legislativo de gennaio 2006 si stabiliva una strategia orchestrata dagli Stati Uniti e da Israele, avallata dall’Unione Europea e ripresa da una frazione di Fatah, allo scopo di inverire con ogni mezzo i risultati delle urne. Mentre Hamas auspicava la costituzione di un Governo d’unione nazionale, le pressioni americane impedirono un simile accordo. Il boicottaggio economico puniva la popolazione per avere «votato male»: non toccava per nulla le capacità finanziarie e militari di Hamas, come hanno dimostrato i combattimenti a Gaza, ma impoveriva la Palestina e, soprattutto, accelerava la disgregazione delle istituzioni.

La «comunità internazionale» ha dimenticato la lezione dell’Iraq: una dozzina d’anni di sanzioni contro Saddam Hussein non aveva compromesso né la stabilità del regime né il livello di vita dei suoi dirigenti. Al contrario, l’embargo aveva penalizzato la popolazione e soprattutto aveva contribuito a svuotare lo Stato della sua sostanza: i funzionari disertavano i loro uffici per tentare di guadagnarsi di che vivere, le istituzioni di base s’inceppavano, la solidarietà tribale si sostituiva ai servizi sociali. Quando gli Stati Uniti invasero il Paese, nel marzo 2003, lo Stato crollò come un castello di carte. Certamente, lo Stato palestinese non esiste, ma le poche strutture dell’Autorità, messe su con difficoltà dal 1993 in poi, non hanno resistito oltre al boicottaggio internazionale.

Una via d’uscita si aprì nel febbraio 2007 con la firma degli accordi della Mecca, fra Hamas e Fatah, sotto l’egida del re Abdallah dell’Arabia saudita. Il 12 febbraio, durante un’intervista alla televisione saudita Al-Ikhbariya, Khaled Meshal, capo dell’Ufficio politico di Hamas, spiegava il programma del governo d’unità nazionale. «Non è quello di un gruppo particolare. (…) ogni fazione ha le sue proprie convinzioni ma, come governo d’unità nazionale, noi ci siamo messi d’accordo su basi politiche, che definiscono le nostre mete nazionali e ciò cui noi aspiriamo: uno Stato palestinese nelle frontiere del 4 giugno 1967». Questa dichiarazione, fra le molte altre, confermava un’evoluzione di Hamas (5), che avrebbe potuto essere «testata» dalla «comunità internazionale». Tanto più che questa flessibilità era accompagnata dal rilancio dell’iniziativa di pace araba che proponeva a Israele una normalizzazione delle sue relazioni con i suoi vicini in cambio della creazione di uno Stato palestinese (6).

Robert Malley, direttore del Programma per il Medio Oriente dell’ International Crisis Group ed ex consigliere del presidente Clinton, scriveva questi concetti premonitori: «Il successo della Mecca dipenderà (…) molto dall’atteggiamento internazionale. Già si levano voci che, mentre salutano ipocritamente lo sforzo saudita, reclamano dal futuro Governo che rispetti le condizioni imposte precedentemente. Dall’Amministrazione Bush non ci si attendeva di meglio. Ma l’Europa? Non ha proprio imparato nulla da questo fallimento collettivo? Se in Arabia saudita c’è stato accordo è proprio perché a Hamas non si è imposto di compiere una rivoluzione ideologica che non farà, ma lo si è  piuttosto incoraggiato a realizzare un’evoluzione pragmatica che forse farà (…). Il percorso di Hamas è tale da giustificare che lo si metta alla prova: è disposto ad accettare e a imporre un cessate il fuoco reciproco? È disposto a lasciare mano libera al presidente Abbas, debitamente incaricato in quanto dirigente dell’OLP a negoziare con Israele? È d’accordo perché sia sottoposto a referendum qualsiasi accordo Mahmud Abbas avrà concluso? E si impegna a rispettarne i risultati (7)?».

Ciecamente la «comunità internazionale» si è ancor più infilata in un impasse. Essa ha mantenuto il boicottaggio, che non poteva altro che rafforzare gli elementi più radicali di hamas. Osservò indifferente la società palestinese che si disintegrava. Questo partito preso trova la sua giustificazione in una logica che Alvaro de Soto, coordinatore per le Nazioni Unite del processo di pace in Medio Oriente, ha denunciato in un rapporto confidenziale e opprimente (8). Trattiamo Israele, egli spiega, «con una grande considerazione, quasi con tenerezza». Il Quartetto (9) si è trasformato in «un organismo che impone le sue sanzioni contro il governo eletto di un popolo sotto occupazione e che pone condizioni impossibili da adempiere per il dialogo» e ha evitato ogni pressione sul governo israeliano, particolarmente per ciò che riguarda la colonizzazione e l’avanzata del muro.

«Legittima difesa» d’Israele?

Un soldato israeliano è rapito nel giugno 2006? La «comunità internazionale» praticamente non reagisce alla distruzione come rappresaglia della centrale elettrica e di costruzioni civili di Gaza e a un’offensiva militare che farà centinaia di vittime. Due soldati israeliani sono catturati nel luglio 2006 alla frontiera col Libano? Durante trenta giorni la «comunità internazionale» lascia distruggere il Paese dei Cedri e le sue infrastrutture. Israele esercita, così pare, il suo diritto di «legittima difesa». E durante questo tempo l’estensione delle colonie rende ogni giorno più improbabile la creazione di uno Stato palestinese.

Eppure il caos che si diffonde non garantisce per niente la sicurezza degli israeliani. La guerra del Libano dell’estate del 2006 aveva già dimostrato la loro vulnerabilità di fronte a una guerriglia determinata e bene armata. La prosecuzione dei tiri di missili su Sderot e l’incapacità dell’esercito israeliano di fare cessare i tiri costituiscono una seria disfatta, come ammetteva Zeev Schiff, cronista militare di Haaretz (morto da poco), qualche giono prima del passaggio della striscia di Gaza sotto il controllo di Hamas: «Israele è stato effettivamente battuto. (…). A Sderot Israele ha vissuto qualcosa senza precedenti dalla guerra d’indipendenza e forse in assoluto: il nemico è arrivato fino a ridurre al silenzio una intera città e vi ha fatto cessare ogni forma di vita normale (19)». Ciò che accade a Nahr Al-Bared e negli altri campi per rifugiati del Libano, o addirittura a Gaza, vale a dire la formazione di cellule radicali legate ad Al-Quaeda, dovrebbe ricordare a tutti che il naufragio della Palestina porterà con sé una radicalizzazione incontrollata e altri cataclismi per Israele e per tutta la regione.

(1) Amos Harel e Avi Issacharoff, « Fatah to Israel : Let us get arms to fight Hamas », Haaretz, Tel-Aviv, 6 juin 2007.

(2) Tutti i Palestinesi di Gaza sono sunniti. Ma il sostegno fornito da Teheran a Hamas «giustifica» questo tipo di accusa.

(3) « Sacrificing the Palestinian struggle », Haaretz, Tel-Aviv, 14 juin 2007.

(4) Gideon Levy, « Flight from Gaza. Last to leave did turn out the lights », Haaretz, Tel-Aviv, 17 juin 2007.

(5) Si legga Paul Delmotte, «Le Hamas et la reconnaissance de l’Etat d’Israël », Le Monde diplomatique, gennaio 2007.

(6) Contrariamente a quanto afferma la propaganda del governo israeliano, sovente riportata senza verifiche dai media, questa iniziativa non prevede il «diritto al ritorno» per i rifugiati palestinesi. Essa richiede una soluzione «giusta» e «negoziata» del problema dei rifugiati sulla base della risoluzione 194 dell’Assemblea generale delle Nazioni Unite.

(7) « Palestine, l’Europe face à ses responsabilités », Le Monde, 13 marzo 2007.

(8)http:/image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents,2007,06; I2’DeSotoReport.pdf

(9) Struttura creata nel 2003 per coordinare l’azione in Medio oriente, che raggruppa Stati Uniti, Russia, Unione Europea e Nazioni Unite.

(10) « An Israeli defeat in Sderot », Haaretz, Tel-Aviv, 8 giugno 2007.

]]> http://littlealexinwonderland.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/chomskys-lectern-obama-on-israel-palestine/ Mon, 26 Jan 2009 06:57:31 +0000 Noam Chomsky http://littlealexinwonderland.wordpress.com/2009/01/26/chomskys-lectern-obama-on-israel-palestine/

Obama’s forceful reiteration of Israel’s right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit — though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.

Barack Obama is recognized to be a person of acute intelligence, a legal scholar, careful with his choice of words. He deserves to be taken seriously – both what he says, and what he omits. Particularly significant is his first substantive statement on foreign affairs, on January 22, at the State Department, when introducing George Mitchell to serve as his special envoy for Middle East peace.

Mitchell is to focus his attention on the Israel-Palestine problem, in the wake of the recent US-Israeli invasion of Gaza. During the murderous assault, Obama remained silent apart from a few platitudes, because, he said, there is only one president – a fact that did not silence him on many other issues. His campaign did, however, repeat his statement that “if missiles were falling where my two daughters sleep, I would do everything in order to stop that.” He was referring to Israeli children, not the hundreds of Palestinian children being butchered by US arms, about whom he could not speak, because there was only one president.

On January 22, however, the one president was Barack Obama, so he could speak freely about these matters – avoiding, however, the attack on Gaza, which had, conveniently, been called off just before the inauguration.

Obama’s talk emphasized his commitment to a peaceful settlement. He left its contours vague, apart from one specific proposal: “the Arab peace initiative,” Obama said, “contains constructive elements that could help advance these efforts. Now is the time for Arab states to act on the initiative’s promise by supporting the Palestinian government under President Abbas and Prime Minister Fayyad, taking steps towards normalizing relations with Israel, and by standing up to extremism that threatens us all.”

Obama is not directly falsifying the Arab League proposal, but the carefully framed deceit is instructive.

The Arab League peace proposal does indeed call for normalization of relations with Israel – in the context – repeat, in the context of a two-state settlement in terms of the longstanding international consensus, which the US and Israel have blocked for over 30 years, in international isolation, and still do. The core of the Arab League proposal, as Obama and his Mideast advisers know very well, is its call for a peaceful political settlement in these terms, which are well-known, and recognized to be the only basis for the peaceful settlement to which Obama professes to be committed. The omission of that crucial fact can hardly be accidental, and signals clearly that Obama envisions no departure from US rejectionism. His call for the Arab states to act on a corollary to their proposal, while the US ignores even the existence of its central content, which is the precondition for the corollary, surpasses cynicism.

The most significant acts to undermine a peaceful settlement are the daily US-backed actions in the occupied territories, all recognized to be criminal: taking over valuable land and resources and constructing what the leading architect of the plan, Ariel Sharon, called “Bantustans” for Palestinians – an unfair comparison because the Bantustans were far more viable than the fragments left to Palestinians under Sharon’s conception, now being realized. But the US and Israel even continue to oppose a political settlement in words, most recently in December 2008, when the US and Israel (and a few Pacific islands) voted against a UN resolution supporting “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” (passed 173 to 5, US-Israel opposed, with evasive pretexts).

Obama had not one word to say about the settlement and infrastructure developments in the West Bank, and the complex measures to control Palestinian existence, designed to undermine the prospects for a peaceful two-state settlement. His silence is a grim refutation of his oratorical flourishes about how “I will sustain an active commitment to seek two states living side by side in peace and security.”

Also unmentioned is Israel’s use of US arms in Gaza, in violation not only of international but also US law. Or Washington’s shipment of new arms to Israel right at the peak of the US-Israeli attack, surely not unknown to Obama’s Middle East advisers.

Obama was firm, however, that smuggling of arms to Gaza must be stopped. He endorses the agreement of Condoleeza Rice and Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni that the Egyptian-Gaza border must be closed – a remarkable exercise of imperial arrogance, as the Financial Times observed: “as they stood in Washington congratulating each other, both officials seemed oblivious to the fact that they were making a deal about an illegal trade on someone else’s border – Egypt in this case. The next day, an Egyptian official described the memorandum as ‘fictional’.” Egypt’s objections were ignored.

Returning to Obama’s reference to the “constructive” Arab League proposal, as the wording indicates, Obama persists in restricting support to the defeated party in the January 2006 election, the only free election in the Arab world, to which the US and Israel reacted, instantly and overtly, by severely punishing Palestinians for opposing the will of the masters. A minor technicality is that Abbas’s term ran out on January 9, and that Fayyad was appointed without confirmation by the Palestinian parliament (many of them kidnapped and in Israeli prisons). Ha’aretz describes Fayyad as “a strange bird in Palestinian politics. On the one hand, he is the Palestinian politician most esteemed by Israel and the West. However, on the other hand, he has no electoral power whatsoever in Gaza or the West Bank.” The report also notes Fayyad’s “close relationship with the Israeli establishment,” notably his friendship with Sharon’s extremist adviser Dov Weiglass. Though lacking popular support, he is regarded as competent and honest, not the norm in the US-backed political sectors.

Obama’s insistence that only Abbas and Fayyad exist conforms to the consistent Western contempt for democracy unless it is under control.

Obama provided the usual reasons for ignoring the elected government led by Hamas. “To be a genuine party to peace,” Obama declared, “the quartet [US, EU, Russia, UN] has made it clear that Hamas must meet clear conditions: recognize Israel’s right to exist; renounce violence; and abide by past agreements.” Unmentioned, also as usual, is the inconvenient fact that the US and Israel firmly reject all three conditions. In international isolation, they bar a two-state settlement including a Palestinian state; they of course do not renounce violence; and they reject the quartet’s central proposal, the “road map.” Israel formally accepted it, but with 14 reservations that effectively eliminate its contents (tacitly backed by the US). It is the great merit of Jimmy Carter’s Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, to have brought these facts to public attention for the first time – and in the mainstream, the only time.

It follows, by elementary reasoning, that neither the US nor Israel is a “genuine party to peace.” But that cannot be. It is not even a phrase in the English language.

It is perhaps unfair to criticize Obama for this further exercise of cynicism, because it is close to universal, unlike his scrupulous evisceration of the core component of the Arab League proposal, which is his own novel contribution.

Also near universal are the standard references to Hamas: a terrorist organization, dedicated to the destruction of Israel (or maybe all Jews). Omitted are the inconvenient facts that the US-Israel are not only dedicated to the destruction of any viable Palestinian state, but are steadily implementing those policies. Or that unlike the two rejectionist states, Hamas has called for a two-state settlement in terms of the international consensus: publicly, repeatedly, explicitly.

Obama began his remarks by saying: “Let me be clear: America is committed to Israel’s security. And we will always support Israel’s right to defend itself against legitimate threats.”

There was nothing about the right of Palestinians to defend themselves against far more extreme threats, such as those occurring daily, with US support, in the occupied territories. But that again is the norm.

Also normal is the enunciation of the principle that Israel has the right to defend itself. That is correct, but vacuous: so does everyone. But in the context the cliche is worse than vacuous: it is more cynical deceit.

The issue is not whether Israel has the right to defend itself, like everyone else, but whether it has the right to do so by force. No one, including Obama, believes that states enjoy a general right to defend themselves by force: it is first necessary to demonstrate that there are no peaceful alternatives that can be tried. In this case, there surely are.

A narrow alternative would be for Israel to abide by a cease-fire, for example, the cease-fire proposed by Hamas political leader Khaled Mishal a few days before Israel launched its attack on December 27. Mishal called for restoring the 2005 agreement. That agreement called for an end to violence and uninterrupted opening of the borders, along with an Israeli guarantee that goods and people could move freely between the two parts of occupied Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The agreement was rejected by the US and Israel a few months later, after the free election of January 2006 turned out “the wrong way.” There are many other highly relevant cases.

The broader and more significant alternative would be for the US and Israel to abandon their extreme rejectionism, and join the rest of the world – including the Arab states and Hamas – in supporting a two-state settlement in accord with the international consensus. It should be noted that in the past 30 years there has been one departure from US-Israeli rejectionism: the negotiations at Taba in January 2001, which appeared to be close to a peaceful resolution when Israel prematurely called them off. It would not, then, be outlandish for Obama to agree to join the world, even within the framework of US policy, if he were interested in doing so.

In short, Obama’s forceful reiteration of Israel’s right to defend itself is another exercise of cynical deceit – though, it must be admitted, not unique to him, but virtually universal.

The deceit is particularly striking in this case because the occasion was the appointment of Mitchell as special envoy. Mitchell’s primary achievement was his leading role in the peaceful settlement in northern Ireland. It called for an end to IRA terror and British violence. Implicit is the recognition that while Britain had the right to defend itself from terror, it had no right to do so by force, because there was a peaceful alternative: recognition of the legitimate grievances of the Irish Catholic community that were the roots of IRA terror. When Britain adopted that sensible course, the terror ended. The implications for Mitchell’s mission with regard to Israel-Palestine are so obvious that they need not be spelled out. And omission of them is, again, a striking indication of the commitment of the Obama administration to traditional US rejectionism and opposition to peace, except on its extremist terms.

Obama also praised Jordan for its “constructive role in training Palestinian security forces and nurturing its relations with Israel” – which contrasts strikingly with US-Israeli refusal to deal with the freely elected government of Palestine, while savagely punishing Palestinians for electing it with pretexts which, as noted, do not withstand a moment’s scrutiny. It is true that Jordan joined the US in arming and training Palestinian security forces, so that they could violently suppress any manifestation of support for the miserable victims of US-Israeli assault in Gaza, also arresting supporters of Hamas and the prominent journalist Khaled Amayreh, while organizing their own demonstrations in support of Abbas and Fatah, in which most participants “were civil servants and school children who were instructed by the PA to attend the rally,” according to the Jerusalem Post. Our kind of democracy.

Obama made one further substantive comment: “As part of a lasting cease-fire, Gaza’s border crossings should be open to allow the flow of aid and commerce, with an appropriate monitoring regime…” He did not, of course, mention that the US-Israel had rejected much the same agreement after the January 2006 election, and that Israel had never observed similar subsequent agreements on borders.

Also missing is any reaction to Israel’s announcement that it rejected the cease-fire agreement, so that the prospects for it to be “lasting” are not auspicious. As reported at once in the press:

• “Israeli Cabinet Minister Binyamin Ben-Eliezer, who takes part in security deliberations, told Army Radio on Thursday that Israel wouldn’t let border crossings with Gaza reopen without a deal to free [Gilad] Schalit”;
• “Israel to keep Gaza crossings closed…An official said the government planned to use the issue to bargain for the release of Gilad Shalit, the Israeli soldier held by the Islamist group since 2006“;
• “Earlier this week, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni said that progress on Corporal Shalit’s release would be a precondition to opening up the border crossings that have been mostly closed since Hamas wrested control of Gaza from the West Bank-based Palestinian Authority in 2007”; “an Israeli official said there would be tough conditions for any lifting of the blockade, which he linked with the release of Gilad Shalit”; among many others.

Shalit’s capture is a prominent issue in the West, another indication of Hamas’s criminality. Whatever one thinks about it, it is uncontroversial that capture of a soldier of an attacking army is far less of a crime than kidnapping of civilians, exactly what Israeli forces did the day before the capture of Shalit, invading Gaza city and kidnapping two brothers, then spiriting them across the border where they disappeared into Israel’s prison complex. Unlike the much lesser case of Shalit, that crime was virtually unreported and has been forgotten, along with Israel’s regular practice for decades of kidnapping civilians in Lebanon and on the high seas and dispatching them to Israeli prisons, often held for many years as hostages. But the capture of Shalit bars a cease-fire.

Obama’s State Department talk about the Middle East continued with “the deteriorating situation in Afghanistan and Pakistan… the central front in our enduring struggle against terrorism and extremism.” A few hours later, US planes attacked a remote village in Afghanistan, intending to kill a Taliban commander. “Village elders, though, told provincial officials there were no Taliban in the area, which they described as a hamlet populated mainly by shepherds. Women and children were among the 22 dead, they said, according to Hamididan Abdul Rahmzai, the head of the provincial council.”

Afghan president Karzai’s first message to Obama after he was elected in November was a plea to end the bombing of Afghan civilians, reiterated a few hours before Obama was sworn in. This was considered as significant as Karzai’s call for a timetable for departure of US and other foreign forces. The rich and powerful have their “responsibilities.” Among them, the New York Times reported, is to “provide security” in southern Afghanistan, where “the insurgency is homegrown and self-sustaining.” All familiar. From Pravda in the 1980s, for example.

EDITOR’S NOTE: Little Alex in Wonderland thanks Prof. Chomsky for the written consent to post his articles and is honored to receive his contributions.

A massive tunnel system running from Gaza to the Egyptian border has long served Palestinians as a supply line for everything from livestock and construction materials to stocks of medicine and smuggled electronics equipment. But now, as war rages in the area, the tunnels have become the main route for providing the Hamas terror group with the weapons it needs to fight against Israel.

Dismantling the tunnels in Gaza is a key to winning the war for Israel, which has sworn to eradicate them. But military experts and historians say destroying them will be virtually impossible.

The tunnel system is strikingly similar to the Viet Cong’s infamous Cu Chi tunnels during the Vietnam War. The Viet Cong moved weapons and supplies through their tunnels, and, like Hamas, they hid their top leaders in them as well.

The Viet Cong — a technological underdog to the United States — was able to bridge the firepower gap against a world superpower through sheer cunning and ingenuity. The Cu Chi tunnels were a vast network of underground sleeping quarters, weapon storage facilities, war rooms and fighting positions. Guerrillas dug out makeshift medical facilities beneath the earth, and doctors tended to wounded soldiers in them, often using electricity generated by a bicycle.

Click here for full article

al Jazeera special on Israel’s occupation of Gaza after official withdrawal in 2005 and Hamas retaliation leading up to the Gaza Massacre in 2008 and current war and panel analysis of the war through its third week.

al Jazeera – “Gaza: The Road to War” – 11 Jan 09:

The people of the Gaza Strip – one of the world’s most densely populated strips of land – have experienced it all: military occupation, civil war, an economic blockade and international isolation. Yet back in 2005, Gazans celebrated a new era of peace and even prosperity. So, how did it all go so wrong? Gaza: The road to war investigates.

Part One (9:09):

Part Two (13:50):

al Jazeera – Inside Story: “Another Week of Death” – 11 Jan 09:

As the war on Gaza enters its third week, Ehud Olmert, Israel’s prime minister, claims Israel is close to fulfilling its goals.

So how will this war unfold? And what exactly will victory be for either side?

Part One (11:58):

Part Two (11:00):

For more, see our YouTube playlist, “Israel Attacks Gaza“

Khaled Hroub, author of several books on Hamas, including Hamas: A Beginner’s Guide, talks to Al Jazeera about the organisation’s social and political strengths and explains why he believes Hamas is looking forward to an Israeli ground incursion into the Gaza Strip.

Al Jazeera: Two senior Hamas leaders were recently killed in Israeli air strikes. How will this impact the organisation’s leadership?

Khaled Hroub: Hamas’ leaders are very used to hiding and escaping Israeli attacks. I can’t see this affecting Hamas much. Israel succeeded in assassinating very senior Hamas leaders including Sheikh [Ahmed] Yasin himself, the founder and spiritual leader of Hamas, then followed by Abdel Aziz Al-Rantissi who was the main figure in the Gaza Strip.

And yet Hamas continued to rise and succeeded in winning the elections. So I can’t see Hamas being weakened by killing one or two or three or even more leaders in the Gaza Strip.

Click here for full article

The New York Times:

The Israeli military said in a statement that the objective of the ground campaign was “to destroy the terrorist infrastructure of Hamas,” the militant Islamic group that controls the area, “while taking control of some of the rocket launching sites” that Hamas uses to fire at southern Israel.…

Officials have stated repeatedly that the aim is not to fully reoccupy Gaza. But it was clear that the military was leaving the door open for a long-term operation; a spokesman said Saturday that the ground push “will continue on the basis of ongoing situational assessments.” And it remained an open question whether Israel would try to eliminate the Hamas government.

The NYT relays the Newspeak that basically tells that we have to believe that Israel’s main objective is to take out Hamas, not to commit genocide and further occupy Gaza. If we’re to believe the NYT, we’re to believe that Israel’s sophistication is faltering.

BBC:

Israeli ground troops have started to enter the Gaza Strip, Israeli military officials have confirmed, a week after the offensive against Hamas began.

An Israeli military spokeswoman said the intention was to “take control” of areas from which Palestinian militants have been firing rockets into Israel.

A BBC reporter in Gaza says it appears to be a limited operation with 10 to 15 vehicles crossing the northern border.

Earlier, Israel intensified air and artillery attacks on the territory.

In one raid, at least 13 people were killed when a missile struck a crowded mosque in Beit Lahiya, Palestinian medics said.

Witnesses said more than 200 people had been inside the Ibrahim al-Maqadna mosque for evening prayers when it was struck.

Palestinian medics and Hamas officials said they believed dozens were injured. At least one child was among the dead, they added.

Militants in Gaza meanwhile fired more rockets into southern Israel on Saturday, one of which hit the port of Ashdod, injuring two people.

On Friday, Israel allowed hundreds of foreigners to leave Gaza before taunting Gazans with ‘polite’ leaflets in preparation for this well-coordinated attack of Gazans that occured as people were attending weekly Saturday evening prayer services. Gazan health officials report 480 deaths since Israels attacks began over a week ago.

ei posts the report from Al Mezan Center for Human Rights:

As this press release was being translated into English, initial news reported that Israeli aircrafts bombarded al-Makadma Mosque in Beit Lahia while dozens of people were praying in it. Initial news reported that 25 people were killed in this attack, which would further raise the above-mentioned number of casualties of the Israeli operation. [At the time of The Electronic Intifada's publication of this release, news agencies reported at least 11 were killed.

Al Mezan Center for Human Rights expresses its strongest possible condemnation of the Israeli military operation against Gaza, which has already caused unprecedented loss of civilian life and suffering for the 1.5 million people living in it. Al Mezan therefore reiterates its calls upon the international community to take effective action to bring to an end these operations without delay. Al Mezan calls upon:

• The United Nations Secretary-General to condemn the Israeli disproportionate use of force and the targeting of civilians and civilian objects in defiance of peremptory rules of international law;
• The United Nations agencies to provide urgent humanitarian aid and safe shelters for Gazans who have been displaced and those living in threatened areas
• The International Committee of the Red Cross to double its efforts to ensure humanitarian access for civilians and ensure tending to the urgent needs for medicines and water;
• The international community to condemn the grave breaches of international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights by Israel in the Gaza Strip, and take concrete steps to bring them to an end;
• The Human Rights Council to request the UN general Assembly to call for the convening in Switzerland of a conference of the High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War, of 1949, to consider the breaches by Israel of its nonderogable obligations under the Convention in the course of its ongoing military actions in Gaza, and to consider the necessary measures to ensure respect of the rules set out in the Convention and its relevant protocols.
• Civil societies around the world to exert pressure on their governments so that they act in conformity with the relevant human rights and humanitarian obligations as prescribed in relevant international law.

Using violent or coercive means to meet political ends is the literal defintion of 'international terrorism'. The TerrorState of Israel's Defense Minister/Labor Party leader Ehud Barak and Foreign Minister/Kadima Party candidate Tzipi Livni have received rises in polling numbers to challenge the front-runner, hawkish Likud Party candidate Bibi Netanyahu, since the well-orchestrated attaks on Gaza and public opinion began with tacit consent from their suppliers in the US -- as we've chronicled the Newspeak in this blog as it's happened:

US weapons are being used for the massacre in Gaza to which the White House and Pres.-elect Obama tryranically (yet, simultaneously cowardly) consent.

AFP: "Mexico Zapatista Leader Slams Obama over Gaza Silence":

Mexico's Zapatista rebel leader "Subcomandante" Marcos slammed US president-elect Barack Obama for failing to speak out on Israel's bombing of Gaza, in a speech on Friday marking the 15th anniversary of his rebellion....

Obama "supports the use of force" against Palestinian people, Marcos said in a speech to some 2,500 leftist politicians and activists from 25 countries.

The Real News Network - "Israel's Politics Spill into Gaza" - 3 Jan 09 (8:24):

Thousands in London and Paris protest today and Chicagoans (left) did yesterday.

The Arab League (AL) and Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC) call for an emergency meeting of the UN Security [sic]  Council (UNSC) expressing “disappointment at the failure of the UN Security Council to take the necessary measures to end the Israeli aggression,” that the UNSC “strongly condemned the brutal and sustained aggression which Israel perpetrates against the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip, killing hundreds of civilians, leaving thousands injured, and wreaking massive havoc on houses, civic facilities and infrastructure,” proposing a mission of observers “to stem the escalation of the conflict and to ensure the stabilisation of the situation,” and draft a resolution for a cease-fire.

An emergency meeting of the UNSC will convene at 7 PM EST. The US has veto power of any resolution, though the UN Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon is “deeply concerned over the serious further escalation,… conveyed his extreme concern and disappointment” to Israeli PM Ehud Olmert, “is convinced and alarmed that this escalation will inevitably increase the already heavy suffering of the affected civilian populations” and “called for an immediate end to the ground operation.”

AFP: “Iran Security Chief Meets Syria’s Assad over Gaza”:

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Saturday met Iran’s Supreme National Security Council chief Saeed Jalili to discuss the situation in the Gaza Strip, the official SANA news agency reported.

It said Jalili, who arrived in Damascus on Friday night, and Assad held talks on “the dangerous situation the Palestinian people of Gaza are going through because of the Israeli aggression.”

They discussed the “consequences on security and stability in the region of the Israel’s aggression continuing” and “ways Islamic countries can force Israel to immediately stop the massacres against the Palestinian people, end the Gaza blockade and open the crossing points,” SANA reported.

Jalili told Assad of “Iran’s commitment to cooperation and coordination with Syria on Gaza,” it added.

Israel extends its already tyrannical interference of the press:

“The enemy is trying to break our frequencies… do not listen to this,” said a broadcast on Al-Aqsa radio.

Earlier the radio’s programme was interrupted with a man’s voice speaking in Hebrew-accented Arabic: “Hamas leaders are hiding in the tunnels and are leaving you on the frontline of Israel’s Defence Forces.”

“Hamas leaders are lying to you and they are hiding in hospitals,” he said. “Launching rockets puts civilians in danger.”

Meanwhile a broadcast on Al-Aqsa television was interrupted with an image of a ringing phone that no one was answering.

“Hamas leaders are hiding and they are leaving you on the front line,” says a voice in accented Arabic.

The Israeli army did not have immediate comment.

On Friday, Hamas’s political supremo Khaled Meshaal was calling on Palestinians to rise up against Israel when his picture suddenly disappeared from the Al-Aqsa TV broadcast.

“Hamas has misled you and abandoned you,” a man’s voice said in Arabic. “If you call any leader of Hamas, nobody will answer.”

An Al-Aqsa official said the Israeli army was behind the spoiler interruption, which was repeated several times during the broadcast of what appeared to be a pre-recorded speech.

From our YouTube Playlist, “Israel Attack Gaza,” Saeb Erakat, Chief Palestinian Negotiator on CNN International (2:29):

The Times:

Israel was poised last night for a big ground offensive in the Gaza Strip after allowing hundreds of foreigners to leave the devastated territory.

The Times understands that by this morning Israeli troops and tanks could be operating inside the area as part of large-scale operation to prevent Hamas from firing rockets into southern Israel.…

A week of airstrikes has killed at least 430 Palestinians and left scores of buildings as rubble, despite diplomatic efforts to secure a ceasefire. Hamas rocket attacks have killed four Israelis since the fighting began.…

Among the mounting Palestinian death toll yesterday were three young brothers, aged 7 to 10, who were killed in one of the 30 or so strikes carried out by Israeli warplanes. All along the border, Israeli tanks and troops have turned fields into muddy, makeshift camps from which to launch their offensive. The Government has already mobilised more than 6,000 reserve troops and has given the green light to call up almost 3,000 more. Artillery barrages were also fired into the strip, while aircraft bombed the open ground that the hundreds of troops will need to cross, and where Hamas has placed mines and dug tunnels to outflank the invaders.

al Jazeera reports Hamas is ready and UNRWA commissioner is “appalled” by Gazan “suffering”:

Hamas’ political leader has warned Israel that its army will be defeated if it invades the Gaza Strip.

“If you commit the stupidity of launching a ground offensive then a black destiny awaits you,” Khaled Meshaal said in a recorded speech aired on Friday.

“You will soon find out that Gaza is the wrath of the God,” he said….

“This battle was imposed on us and we are confident we will achieve victory because we have made our preparations.

“Our position is clear. We will not give in. Our resolve cannot be broken,” he said.

“Our demand is also clear. The war must end, the siege lifted, and crossing points open without restriction.”…

Talking to Al Jazeera, Osama Hamdan, a senior Hamas official in Beirut, said that the party to be blamed for the present situation is Israel, not Hamas.

“It’s clear now that Israelis are blocking all the political solutions. The main question is supposed to be what will be the right end for this? And the clear answer is ending the occupation.”

Karen Abu Zayed, the commissioner for the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) in Gaza, said that in eight years of working in Gaza the need for aid had “never been so acute”.

“I am appalled and saddened when I see the suffering around me,” she said, adding UNRWA has made an emergency appeal for $34m to help the Gaza population.

Hasan Khalaf, Gaza’s assistant deputy health minister, described the ongoing assault on Gaza as “an Israeli massacre”.

US weapons are being used for the massacre in Gaza to which the White House and Pres.-elect Obama tryranically (yet, simultaneously cowardly) consent.

Hamas, Meshaal minaccia di rapire cittadini israeliani

Se non saranno rilasciati i detenuti palestinesi dalle carceri

DAMASCO, 9 mag. (Apcom) – Il leader in esilio di Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, ha minacciato di rapire cittadini israeliani se lo stato ebraico non libererà i detenuti palestinesi, nel corso di un discorso pronunciato nel campo di Yarmouk vicino Damasco.

“Se i nostri nemici non liberano i nostri prigionieri nelle carceri israeliane, (il soldato israeliano) Gilad Shalit non sarà l’ultimo” israeliano a essere rapito, ha affermato Meshaal in un discorso in occasione del 60esimo anniversario del “Nakba”, che ha visto l’espulsione di centinaia di migliaia di arabi durante la guerra del 1948 successiva alla creazione di Israele.

Secondo Meshaal, ci sono “11.600 prigionieri palestinesi nelle prigioni israeliane”. Gilad Shalit è stato preso in ostaggio nel giugno 2006 al confine della striscia di Gaza da tre gruppi armati palestinesi, fra cui Hamas. Meshaal, leader dell’ufficio politico di Hamas, ha inoltre chiesto ai Paesi arabi di operare “per revocare il blocco” imposto a Gaza.

“Se Israele respinge la tregua (proposta) dai palestinesi, chiedo all’Egitto e ai Paesi arabi di intervenire per revocare unilateralmente il blocco e aprire il punto di passaggio di Rafah” tra Gaza ed Egitto, ha proseguito Meshaal.

Il terminal di Rafah è chiuso quasi in modo permanente dal 2006. Israele impone un blocco a Gaza da gennaio in risposta ai lanci di razzi. Meshaal ha d’altra parte invitato “a una riconciliazione” con Fatah, il movimento del presidente palestinese Abu Mazen, estromesso nel giugno 2007 da Hamas da Gaza.

“Tutti i dirigenti della resistenza sono pronti a una riconciliazione (…) a condizione che si lotti contro la corruzione e che si resti impegnati per i diritti” palestinesi, ha affermato.

(Alice News, 10 maggio 2008 )

A “useful idiot” is a person in who is in such a state of naïve, foolish, and willful denial that he allows himself to become a tool of those who would overthrow his country.  A brief examination of Jimmy Carter demonstrates that he is precisely this.

He is a tool of Hamas, a known terrorist entity; he is a documented tool of anti-Semitism; and he is a tool of anti-American and frankly anti-Democratic forces who have repeatedly vowed our destruction.

The Bush administration – like all U.S. presidential administrations before it – had the policy of refusing to directly engage with terrorist states and rogue totalitarian dictatorships.  Doing so, they argued, gives these states credibility and legitimacy in the eyes of the world while doing little to change their despicable ways.

In other words, by dialoguing with terrorists, we implicitly recognize them, and thereby recognize the acts that they commit.  We abandon the belief that some acts are so heinous, and so deplorable, that anyone who commits them should be shunned and reviled instead of being rewarded with recognition and legitimacy.  Instead, we tacitly acknowledge that using violence and suffering to advance one’s cause is a valid path to inernational recognition.  Otherwise, we would not have allowed their violent approach to succeed.

Former president Jimmy carter turns this wisdom – attained by virtually every democracy on earth through decades of experiences with terror – on its head.  No one wanted him to go to act as an intermediary with Hamas, which is on both the American and European lists of terrorists.  His hubris is simply astonishing.

The historic democratic diplomatic position has been this: if a group wants legitimacy, it has to set aside terrorism.  If such a group wants to sit at any negotiations, they must stop their murderous attacks on innocent civilians.  Period.  The recent successes of peace agreements with the Irish Republican Army were based on this firm principle.  When they finally set aside their terrorist tactics, they were accorded legitmization.

But Carter seems to think that it would be better if a terror group not have to disavow violence in order to become a viable peace partner.  He seems to think that a terrorist organization should have legitimacy even as it blows up innocent civilians in cafes and markets.  In other words, he seems to believe that it would be a better world if terrorists could eat their cake, and have it too.

What this is all about is a former president of the United States legitimizing the known terrorist group Hamas.  It’s what Israel’s leaders say they fear and in fact is what Hamas’ leaders say is precisely the purpose for the meeting.

Katrina Kratovack reported that “Heading the Hamas delegation in Cairo were Gaza leaders Mahmoud Zahar and Said Siyam. “This meeting is a message to those who don’t recognize Hamas’ legitimacy as a movement,” Zahar said as he left for Egypt, according to Hamas’ Web site.

In Cairo, Hamas spokesman Taher Nuhu told The Associated Press that the purported Thursday meeting would be “a recognition of the ‘legitimacy’ of Hamas’ victory in the Palestinians’ parliamentary election in 2006.

“We do not claim we are the only legitimate group there, but we are an integral part whose legitimacy was manifested in the elections,” Nuhu said.”

And the message that is being legitimized bears notice.  Yunis al-Astal, a Hamas Parliament Member, said that the destruction of Israel is just a precursor to Islam’s domination of the world.  He said on al Aqsa television on 12 April 2008, “Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered… this capital of theirs will be an advanced post for the Islamic conquests, which will spread through Europe in its entirety, and then will turn to the two Americas, and even Eastern Europe.”  

 Margaret Thatcher said that “Democratic nations must try to find ways to starve the terrorists and the hijacker of the oxygen of publicity on which they depend.”  But Jimmy Carter defies this wisdom as well, preferring to give Hamas all kinds of media access and attention through his visit.

Even as Carter was kow-towing with Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal and other terrorists, Israel was the victim of yet another terror attack.  A Hamas car bombing wounded 13 Israeli soldiers at border crossing on 19 April 2008 during the Passover holiday.

Jimmy Cater has, in both his public statements as well as his written works, has long since forfeited any credibility he could have had with Israel.  They know he is no friend of theirs, and not to be trusted.  That is why they shunned him during his visit.

Carter, of course, is claiming that his visit may have had the result of gaining Hamas’ recognition of Israel.  This is clearly flatly untrue, and merely demonstrates that the man has one thing in common with Hamas: he deserves no credibility or legitimacy whatsoever.  A glance at the facts in news reports reveals that Carter accomplished nothing more than getting his name in the papers, and of course giving a terrorist group undeserved credibility in the Arab world.  Hamas continues to hold on to its longtime terrorist positions, it will not recognize Israel’s right to exist, there is no ceasefire agreement, and Hamas didn’t even bother to quit trying to kill Jews while Carter was in town.

“We believe that the problem is not that I met Hamas in Syria,” Carter said in his address to the Israel Council on Foreign Relations. “The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with these people, who must be involved.”  Just so long as we all understand that it is the United States and Israel who are responsible for all the problems in the world.  Jimmy Carter’s terrorist pals sure aren’t to blame, in his warped worldview. 

Turning to leaders that actually have some genuine current relevance…

Senator Barack Obama criticized Carter’s visit.  After pointing to his ”unshakable commitment” to help protect Israel from its enemies, Obama said: “That’s why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas,” Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction. We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements.”

But Barack Obama is promising to essentially do the same thing with Iran and other rogue regimes that Carter is doing with Hamas, and he doesn’t even attempt to deal with whatever nuances he believes exist between his position and Carters (perhaps this could be an “inane question” in a future debte?).  I would argue that it is every bit as dumb to legitimize an Iranian terrorist state which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist as it is to legitimize a Hamas’ (Palestinian territory) terrorist state which refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist.

Obama seems to have the same delusion that Carter does: that if the president of the United States doesn’t directly talk with a terrorist state, no one will.  Again, in reality the United States does in fact engage with Iran through any number of diplomatic channels and backchannels.  Allowing Iran to have a global forum and a posture of legitimcy while they develop nuclear weapons and kill American soldiers in Iraq by proxy is a very bad idea that demonstates Obama’s inability to comprehend the nature of this terrorist state. 

(Sigh).  Perhaps I should start thinking about my future post titled, ”Barack Obama: Terrorism’s ‘Useful Idiot.’ 

:: SVENSKA TIDNINGAR meddelar idag att Hamas kan acceptera ett fredsavtal som förhandlats fram av Abbas om “palestinierna godkänner det i en omröstning”. Detta telegram kommer från TT-Reuters och är tryckt i bl.a. DN. Men läser man andra utländska källor ser man en helt annat bild.

Sami Abu Zuhri, en talesman för terrororganisationen Hamas, sa att “[Carters kommentarer] betyder inte att Hamas kommer acceptera resultatet av omröstningen” (Yahoo News)

TT beskriver Carters möte med terrorledaren Meshaal som lyckad och nämner ingenting om det faktum att Hamas sagt nej till hans förslag/medling. Det enda som Carter lyckades med var att Hamas eventuellt kommer låta Gilad Shalit, den israeliska soldat som kidnappades för ca 2 år sedan, skriva ett brev till hans föräldrar. Troligen är det inget som kommer hända.

Hamas har visat i ord och handling att Israel ska utplånas. Detta lärs ut dagligen i moskéer, skolor och media i Hamas-kontrollerade områden men även i den övriga arabvärlden. Att Hamas, som mördat hundratals, kommer att acceptera Israel som en judisk stat är en lögn.

Enligt Haaretz sa Hamas ledare Mishal vid presskonferensen i Damaskus att Hamas accepterar 10 års vapenvilla mot att en palestinsk stat med Jerusalem som huvudstad med 1967 årsgränser bildas samt att alla palestinska flyktingar får komma till Israel.

Det är intressant att se om TT som var snabb att rapportera att Hamas erkänner Israel är lika snabb att publicera detta meddelande.

/Red.

Uppdaterad 080421 20:48 ::

A new piece is up now at allvoices.com. You can read it by clicking here.

Alas, Barack Obama is apparently not reading South Jerusalem. If he were, perhaps his campaign would have responded to Jimmy Carter’s reported plans to meet Hamas leaders in Damascus with something a bit more sophisticated than this statement, carried by JTA (thanks to Ben Smith for the head’s up):

“Senator Obama does not agree with President Carter’s decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotiations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist and abide by past agreements,” the Obama campaign said. “As president, Obama will negotiate directly with the head of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas.”

Yes, I understand the electoral logic. Carter, it seems, is nearly as unpopular among pro-Israel voters as Hamas is. Carter has hinted he supports Obama, and then he goes and does this. Obama wants to open up some distance between himself and Carter.

But from a policy perspective, this is a mistake. As I wrote here yesterday, the current administration’s policy toward Hamas has boomeranged. The US supported Hamas participation in Palestinian elections, expecting a festival of democracy and Hamas’s defeat. When Hamas won, the administration’s tactics helped produce the Hamas takeover of Gaza. Bush’s “pro-Israel” stance toward Hamas has hurt Israel repeatedly. Meanwhile, Khaled Meshaal, the Damascus-based head of Hamas’s Political Bureau, has just reiterated his willingness to accept a two-state solution.

The U.S. needs a new policy toward Hamas. It has good reasons for avoiding official meetings with Hamas leaders – which is all the more reason it needs an unofficial back channel, through which it can check how far the Islamic movement will bend in return for a chance to escape the current dangerous stalemate and get back into a Palestinian unity government. Carter’s visit provides a chance for that.

If Obama becomes president and he pursues a more sensible foreign policy, he’ll look for such a back channel. And when word leaks out -

Damascus (AP) July 4, 2009: Sources here report that US businessman Kwaz E. Modo has met with Hamas officials, apparently as part of Obama Administration feelers to open a dialogue with the group -

he’ll be accused of betraying what he said during the campaign. Mort Klein and Abe Foxman will have the time of their lives. It would have been smarter to be more careful. For instance, Obama could have said that public contacts with Hamas are a mistake. If you plan to win, you should plan to govern.

Islamic Resistance Movement Palestine – HAMAS

Interview by al Jazeera English

“Khaled Meshaal – Talking to al Jazeera” (2007)

>>Download here!

View online:
Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79wO3ElYeJg
Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbXaacBcvrE

This is a very interesting Interview by alJazeera English from March 2007.