Thursday, 3 September 2009

Um Estado palestino Dentro de dois anos?

fonte:Palestine Chronicle


A Palestinian State Within Two Years?



Palestinian PM Fayyad presented his plan to establish a state within two years.

By Yacov Ben Efrat

On Tuesday, August 25, 2009, Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad presented his plan to establish a Palestinian state within two years. He stressed the internal changes that must be made in order to build its legal, economic and social infrastructure.

It is not clear what led Fayyad to present his plan at a time when contacts between the Netanyahu government and the Palestinian Authority (PA) are at their lowest in half a year. It appears that he wants to build his political status on this attempt to flesh out the vision of US President Barack Obama.

Fayyad has no public or party base. In the Palestinian arena he depends mainly on PA President Abu Mazen. He is the Great Palestinian Hope of the Americans, who condition all aid to the PA on Fayyad's being the one to administer the funds. This condition arouses the ire of Fatah members who want to dip their own hands into the public purse. That is apparently the reason why some old-timers came out against Fayyad's plan, accusing him of going over their heads in declaring a Palestinian state, when they are the ones who have devoted their lives to the cause. Hamas too opposes Fayyad, accusing him of compromising Palestinian principles, above all the refugees' right of return.

Deep Internal Division

The Palestinian factions are wrangling over the skin of a bear they haven't caught. Internally, they are more fractured than ever. At the height of the August heat we were witness to the Fatah convention in Bethlehem, where, after two decades, the Old Guard was swept out in favor of the New.

A quick check of the names of those elected to Fatah's Central Committee, which has 20 members, shows the predominance of people identified with the Oslo Accords. At their head is Abu Mazen, who was elected by consensus: no one challenges him. The representatives from the Palestinian diaspora are mostly out. Their places have been taken by younger people from the West Bank and Gaza. Thus Fatah has sealed the transformation that began at Oslo, when the exiles in Jordan, Syria and Lebanon lost influence.

There are many, to be sure, who view the election of Marwan Barghouti, imprisoned in Israel, as a sign of deep change. The other elected figures, however, include Muhammad Dahlan, Jibril Rajoub, Tufik Tirawi and Hussein Sheikh--all heads of the various security forces. These former grassroots leaders have risen Phoenix-like from the ashes of well-deserved oblivion. They are from the regime that Yasser Arafat founded, which was rife with corruption. They cooperate fully with America--currently in the person of General Keith Dayton - and with Israel's Shin Beth. They were among those who created the situation that enabled Hamas to win the 2006 elections. In effect, the Fatah Convention gave a seal of approval to the policies of the PA since its beginnings, without calling anyone to account. The sole exception is Farouk al-Kadumi, the PLO's "Secretary of State," who boycotted the convention in Bethlehem. Kadumi gave an interview to Al-Jazeera, accusing Abu Mazen and Dahlan of planning Arafat's assassination with Ariel Sharon, the then Israeli Prime Minister, after the outbreak of the second Intifada.

It is no wonder, too, that the talks between Fatah and Hamas in Cairo are in deep freeze. The Fatah Convention amounted to a Declaration of War on Hamas: those elected are the very people who want to overthrow Hamas in Gaza. They tacitly support Israel's continuing siege on the Strip.

Hamas, for its part, prevented Fatah members living in Gaza from attending the Bethlehem convention (while Israel allowed entrance to Fatah members from the refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon). Hamas continues a policy aimed at perpetuating its rule and alleviating the siege. To this end it maintains a strict cease fire de facto with Israel and seeks the release of a thousand prisoners in exchange for captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit.

Internally, on the other hand, Hamas wields an iron fist. It has ordered girls to wear the jilbab (long garment) as a condition for entering school, clearly a sign that it intends to enforce Islamic law. The laws of separation between the sexes impose rule by fear, enabling the regime to intervene in the private lives of its citizens. Thus two very different entities are crystallizing in the Occupied Territories: a secular one with its capital in Ramallah and a fundamentalist one with its capital in Gaza.

Fayyad's plan to prepare the ground for a Palestinian state within two years appears, in the light of all this, as no more than an additional item in a long wish-list, beginning with the celebration in Algeria in 1988, when Arafat accepted a two-state solution and the Palestinian national anthem was unveiled (lyrics by Mahmoud Darwish, music by Mikis Theodorakis), then continuing to Oslo with its successors: the Mitchell plan, the Road Map and Annapolis. Nothing remains of these castles in the sand.

Concerning prospects for a solution of Israel's conflict with the Palestinians, Israeli Foreign Secretary Avigdor Lieberman claims that the next 16 years will be pretty much like the last: nothing doing. Given the gloomy conditions within the Palestinian arena, this prophecy is probably not too far from the mark. Within 16 years the number of settlers, now almost half a million including East Jerusalem, will grow by 250,000. The dream of a Palestinian state will be lost forever. The West Bank will become Israeli territory de facto. In order to avoid an Arab majority, Israel will implement apartheid. It will then lose whatever legitimacy it still has in the eyes of the international community. In short, Israel's attempt to exploit Palestinian weakness will bring disaster not only on the Palestinians but on the Israelis too.

- Yacov Ben Efrat contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. (Originally published in Challenge Magazine - www.challenge-mag.com)

E.U., Israel contra o Irã: O jogo de xadrez nuclear

fonte:Palestine Chronicle



US, Israel Versus Iran: The Nuclear Chess Game




The US knows very well that it could not stop Iranian nuclear program.

By Dr. Elias Akleh

Since 2003 Iran has been coerced into playing a nuclear chess game against US and Israel. Western media outlets have been playing the part of cheer leaders for the American Israeli side, preparing the observing masses for the expected American Israeli 'checkmate' move against Iran. Not a single day passes without the description and analyses of a tactical move, with each analysis ending with the question of when, rather than if, the Israelis would bomb Iranian nuclear facilities.

Israeli Moves

In their annual meeting, on February 18th 2009, Israeli military leaders officially declared Iran as their number one strategic enemy in the region, and that the alleged Iranian nuclear arms program constitutes an “existential threat” to the state of Israel. They declared the elimination of the Iranian nuclear threat a top priority for the Israeli military and political leaderships.

Yet the Israelis seem to differ regarding the method of dealing with the Iranian threat. One group, represented by Barak, Netanyahu, Olmert, and Lieberman, called for a military strike on the Iranian nuclear facilities. Such a strike, they claim, would at least set the Iranian nuclear program back by ten years. They site Israel’s bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear facility in June 1981, and the bombing of alleged Syrian Al-Kibar nuclear facility in September 2007 as safe and effective solution to any nuclear threat. They claim that since Western countries, especially US, and the neighboring Arab states are opposed to Iran’s nuclear program, Israel’s attack would receive tacit approval, and similar to Iraqi and Syrian bombings Israel would not face any military or political consequences.

The second group, represented by the Israeli intelligence agencies, warns that Israel, alone is not capable of dealing with the Iranian nuclear threat, and is in dire need of American help. They remind the Israelis of the events of previous wars such as 1973 war against Egypt and 1982 and 2006 wars against Lebanon, both countries are not as strong as Iran. They recommend that Israel should be only a partner in a joint military strike against Iran.

The Third group, represented by Israeli President Shimon Perez, seemingly wants a political solution. Perez stated to George Mitchell, the American special envoy to the Middle East, last April 2009 that Israel has no plans to strike Iran. He urged for an international alliance against Iran to be formed in order to politically deal with the Iranian nuclear program.

Despite Perez’s seemingly political approach, Israeli military leaders are prepping the army for a coming strike against Iran. They have purchased and acquired the most sophisticated American fighter planes, 100 advanced LJDAM (Laser Joint Direct Attack Munition) smart bombs, and small tactical (nuclear) bombs. The Israeli army has been testing the Arrow interceptor missile defensive shield in the Mediterranean Sea as well as in the American missile range in the Pacific Ocean west of California. The Israeli air forces sent their F16C fighter jets to participate with the Americans in war exercises, named Red Flag, at American Nillis Air Force base in Nevada, and their C130 Hercules aircraft to compete in the Rodeo 2009 competition at McChord Air Force base in Washington.

The Israeli navy has sent one of its six Dolphin class nuclear missiles carrier submarines accompanied by two Saar class missile boats through Suez Canal ostensibly heading towards the Persian Gulf.

Israeli leaders are crying wolf everywhere they go. Distorting Ahmadinejad’s speeches they declared him the new Hitler, who wants to wipe Israel off the map. They accused Iran of sponsoring terror by arming Hezbollah and Hamas. They keep claiming that Iran is only few months away from building its first nuclear bomb and such a weapon in the hands of the mad Mullahs is an existential threat to Israel. Such a threat, they keep claiming, endangers the whole region including the oil producing Gulf States, and could expand to endanger the rest of the world.

American Moves

The American administration, on the other hand, seems to favor a diplomatic solution for now. Yet like the previous Bush administration the Obama administration has also declared that all options, including a nuclear military strike, are still on the table if Iran does not respond positively to the diplomatic solution. Obama is also pressuring Israel to freeze its illegal settlements in Palestinian occupied territory, at least for the time being, in order to gain the support of Arab countries (Egypt, Jordan, and Gulf States). Putting Israel, the American watchdog in the region, on a leach has always worked to garner the Arab support for attacking a neighboring country.

Although a US National Intelligence Estimate of 2007 concluded that Iran had abandoned its nuclear arms research program in 2003, Obama issued a deadline of mid September for Iran to respond to the American offer. He had also warned Israel not to surprise his administration with a strike against Iran that might sabotage his diplomatic approach, and could drive the whole region into wider conflict.

At the same time Obama’s administration had sent Iran many hostile messages such as American determination not to allow Iran to build its bomb, expressing America’s strong support and commitment to the security of Israel, supplying Israel with the most advanced weapons and fighter planes, conducting joint military training with the Israelis in preparation for possible strike, having many congressmen and military experts stating openly that an Israeli strike is the only and best solution, sending American aircraft carriers to the Persian Gulf to flex its muscles in war games, and openly broadcasting America’s own military preparation to strike Iran such as accelerating the development of the largest bomb ever dubbed “MOP”; Massive Ordnance Penetrator. With its 20 feet long, 30,000 pounds weight, and 5,300 pounds of explosives this bomb is designed to penetrate through 200 feet of hardened surfaces before detonation in order to destroy underground structures such as the Iranian Natanz nuclear facility.

Iranian Moves

Iran, on the opposite side, is adamant on exercising its own legal right of developing its own peaceful nuclear program similar to any other nuclear member countries in the NPT. Since 2003 Iran had been harassed by the Bush Administration over its nuclear program. Being a member of the NPT the IAEA was sent several times to inspect Iran’s nuclear facilities, but found no evidence of a nuclear weapons program. Refusing to accept the outcome the Bush administration pushed the UN to impose economical sanction on Iran until it suspends its nuclear program.

In order to address any concern about its nuclear program Iran offered to place additional restrictions on its enrichment program including ratifying the Additional Protocol to allow more stringent inspections by the IAEA, open its nuclear program to foreign private and public participation, and allow the participation of foreign representatives within its Natanz facility among others. But the Bush administration rejected the Iranian offer, pushed the UN to impose the sanctions, and in a threatening move sent American military fleet into the Persian Gulf.

Putting Iran under real existential threat, being surrounded on the four sides by American troops, and continually being threatened by the Israelis and the Americans of being hit by nuclear bombs, Iranians had no choice but to exhibit their deterring muscles through their own war games on land, sea, and air. They also purchased the most sophisticated Russian missiles, and recently had joined the Russian navy in their military maneuvers in the Caspian Sea dubbed “Regional Collaboration for a Secure and Clean Caspian”.

Besides Russia the Iranians formed an alliance with Syria and Turkey, and gained the support of the Non-Aligned countries, and lately signaled its readiness to improve cooperation with North Korea.

As for the threat of the Israeli strike the Iranians warned that such a strike would only come as a joint effort with the US, and that Iran’s “firm and precise” response would reach all American assets in the Gulf region and the Israeli nuclear sites.

The real intentions behind the moves:

Israelis know very well that they cannot strike Iran. They fully recognize that decisions concerning the Iranian issue are exclusively American due to Iran’s strength and geopolitical importance in the region. Iran is a large and a strong military country. Economic sanctions did nothing but helped Iranian rely on their own resources. The threats of possible attacks forced the Iranians to strengthen their military forces. Netanyahu’s “Iran first”, “Israel’s existential threat”, and “striking Iran” messages are directed towards the international political community first and towards the Israeli population second.

With the convening of the UN General Assembly this September, Netanyahu is trying to divert and engage the Assembly’s attention into the alleged Iranian nuclear threat. He hopes that such diversion would not give the Assembly enough time to discuss Israel’s war crimes and human rights violations in Palestine and especially in Gaza Strip as reported by Human Rights Watch groups. Netanyahu’s “Iran first” message is also meant to freeze re-opening any peace negotiations with the Palestinians and to escape American and European pressure to suspend colonial settlements in the West Bank.

Internally Netanyahu, like all previous Israeli Prime Ministers, is manipulating the media to bombard the Israeli population with a propaganda campaign filled with the images of the monstrosity of the enemy (Israel’s existential threat) to incite the feelings of fear and hatred of others and of elitecism (God’s chosen people) to unite and to rally the Israelis behind his leadership.

Israelis have come from different countries with different nationalities, social norms, backgrounds, and political ideologies. To unite them together Israeli leaders resort to tactics of fear, hatred, elitecism and war to create some type of national bond among them.

The US wants to control all the energy resources in the Middle East and South East Asian regions. The US has firm footings in the Gulf States, and after the collapse of the Soviet Union it started expanding in South East Asia starting with Afghanistan, jumping to Iraq then back into Pakistan. Now Iran is left in between as a gab in the US continuum presence.

The US wants also to control and manipulate the nuclear technology. After securing Indian and Pakistani nuclear bombs and facilities, the US is now directing its attention towards North Korean and Iranian nuclear facilities. It seems hypocritical of the still nuclear arms producing US to deny the Iranians peaceful nuclear technology. This is especially so since the US had agreed to provide India with nuclear fuel for its reactors, and had entered into agreements with Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan to help them build their own peaceful nuclear facilities.

The US knows very well that it could not stop Iranian nuclear program especially with the present Iranian government. To delay Iranian nuclear program the US is threatening to use the UN to impose economic sanctions not only on Iran alone, but also on countries who would continue dealing with Iran on any level especially those selling refined oil products to Iran. The effectiveness of such sanctions is still to be seen since a lot of countries have trade and business dealings with Iran.

The Endgame

Since the US is heavily involved in at least three open military confrontations, and since many of the American military assets are sitting ducks in the Persian Gulf region for possible Iranian retaliatory strike, and since Iran is a large country that is not weak militarily or been weakened yet by economical sanctions, and since Iran might withdraw from the NPT and might pursue an accelerated nuclear military program if faced with more pressure and more existential threats, the US has no viable solution but to accept Iran as a nuclear country compliant to the NPT and subject to IAEA monitoring.

The nuclear threat or attack of the US, a nuclear country, against Iran, a non-nuclear country, would be a fatal attack on the NPT itself. Other NPT-member countries might withdraw from the treaty and start developing their own nuclear arsenals as a deterrent weapon against nuclear threats from nuclear countries. The NPT would be annulled and nuclear proliferation would become world spread.

An attack, even surgical, on Iran would not happen for it has a catastrophic consequences on the whole world. A draw seems to be the most reasonable endgame.

Concluding Remarks

Accepting Iran as a nuclear country would not stop the US and Israel from supporting terrorist attacks within Iran as they have been doing for the last six years. The two countries have been supporting terrorist organizations such as Mujahedeen Khalg, Jundallah, and Kurdish groups within Iran. These terrorists are responsible for attacks against Iranian military targets, interrupting power and communication lines to the nuclear facilities, and assassinations of some Iranian nuclear scientists such as Ardeshire Hassanpour. The US will also continue funneling American tax money to the Iranian opposition, as was done during the Iranian election (as confessed by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in an interview with CNN’s reporter Fareed Zakaria) to topple down, to weaken, and to hinder the operation of the Iranian government.

Meanwhile the US is planning to take full advantage of the Iranian threat in the region in order to strengthen its grip on the oil producing Gulf States, and to siphon their oil money into the budgets of the American military companies under the guise of security. Hillary Clinton touched briefly on that plan during a televised interview in Thailand stating that nuclear Iran could be contained by an American so-called “defensive nuclear umbrella” over the region. The notion of this nuclear umbrella, if there is such a thing, was the brainchild of Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, and Dennis Ross, then senior editor of Middle East Quarterly in 2004. Of course such an umbrella would be developed, built, and paid for by oil money from the Gulf States.

Clinton in her remark had acknowledged the inevitability of Iran, faced with existential nuclear threats from both US and Israel, gaining a nuclear arsenal, and the inevitable American acceptance of this fact.

- Dr. Elias Akleh is an Arab writer of Palestinian descent, born in the town of Beit-Jala. Currently he lives in the US. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

um sonho como um pesadelo

fonte:Palestine Chronicle




Dream as Nightmare

Israel is a powerful state living in the grip of a deep moral crisis.

By Jeremy Salt - Ankara

In the Guardian recently , Carlo Strenger launched yet another defence of Israel as the democracy in the Middle East. His defence of himself is that he opposes 'many of Israel's policies' and fights the occupation 'day by day' but this is only the occupation of land seized and plundered in 1967 and not the land seized and plundered in 1948. Much of this land was never allocated to the state of Israel in the first place and the sovereignty conferred on Israel gave the Zionists no right to take it from its owners. Had they remained, a different kind of democracy would have developed in Palestine, one in which the indigenous people would have retained control of their land through the ballot box. That was why they had to go.

Nothing less democratic can be imagined than the denial of the right even to live in the land of one’s birth. The Palestinian ‘refugees’ did not ‘emigrate’. They were not fleeing an oppressive political system. They were the majority and they were hounded out of their country because only without them could the ‘democracy’ known as Israel come into existence.

Mr Strenger implies that Palestinian Muslim or Christian citizens of Israel enjoy the same rights as Jewish citizens. Of course they don’t. Free speech and the right to vote are not the sum total of democracy. Institutional and structural racist discrimination against ‘the Arabs’ extends from the top to the bottom of Israeli society. It applies to land use and is reflected in health, welfare and education statistics and municipal grants and services provided to local communities. It is consecrated in the laws of the land and the rulings of the courts.

On the West Bank the settlers continue to create ‘facts on the ground’ confident in the knowledge that God and the state is behind them. They are certainly right on the second count. On the first no God worthy of worship could possibly countenance what the state of Israel has done to the Palestinians over the past six decades. From time to time the government tries to distance itself from settler ‘extremism’. In fact the settlers have been the instruments of government policy for more than four decades. The racism of the settlers is the racism of the state. The two are intertwined and inseparable. Occupation and settlement are inherently racist. It is no wonder that this country is filled with blind hatred of ‘the Arabs’.

In occupied Jerusalem the ‘democracy’ which Mr Strenger defends is waging a brazenly racist war on the Palestinians. Under international law the entire city is occupied. Apart from the question of sovereignty, 70 per cent of the buildings in the western half of the city were owned by Palestinian Muslims and Christians up till 1948. .In the eastern half they owned all but about two per cent of all property. The fine stone houses eagerly sought by Israeli politicians and wealthy American Zionists belong to Palestinians. These usurpers are living in stolen property. Time does not efface the rights of ownership. Albert Hourani has described Jerusalem as one of the best examples of a medieval Islamic city. Jerusalem does not belong to Israel and Israel needs reminding of that at every opportunity. The city was built over centuries by Palestinian Muslims and Christians. Its wall, streets, markets, mosques and madrasas were paid for with their taxes and their philanthropy. Yet since 1948 the city which is their collective heritage has been living through the blackest period in its history since the Crusades. The tolerance that marked Arab, Mamluk and Ottoman rule over the city for almost a millennium has been all but destroyed in the past four decades by an unholy combination of secular and religious fanatics. They want the Palestinians out of the way whatever it takes. What is good for the Jews is all that counts. They are unable to see that what is bad for ‘the Arabs’ cannot possibly be good for the Jews.

On the West Bank the centre of Hebron has been gutted and ethnically cleansed with the backing of the state. The Ibrahimi mosque has been taken over by soldiers and settlers. Racist fanatics protected by the Israeli military roam the streets. Elderly Palestinians are too frightened to venture outside their front doors. The young are stoned and cursed on their way to school. The state does nothing to stop them and in fact is outraged when the obvious parallels are drawn between these thugs and the National Socialists who humiliated Jews on the streets of Berlin in the 1930s. In East Jerusalem the fate of Hebron is now being imposed on Silwan by settlers funded and protected by the state. One should not leave out the Golan Heights, emptied of 90,000 Syrians in 1967 to make way for settlers, vineyards and day excursions for Jewish tourists. This is the brutal, ugly, racist reality of what Carlo Strenger derides as ‘the self-righteous left’s simplistic world’.

Every day brings a new offence. Israel’s lobbyists in the US are now arguing that Barack Obama’s insistence that settlement growth should be frozen amounts to ethnic cleansing of Jews. Unfortunately there are no signs that Obama has the backbone to stand his ground and take the fight straight back to Netanyahu and his arrogant confreres. What is emerging from ‘discussions’ between the two governments is a ‘compromise’ that will allow Israel to maintain ‘natural growth’ while ‘freezing’ settlement expansion for a limited period of time. As each settlement is set within a large area of expropriated land, the growth of existing settlements will continue as before. The number of settlers will continue to rise. In the case of Jerusalem Netanyahu has refused to accept even these restrictions. The ‘international community’ wrings its hands helplessly as though there is nothing it can do. Travelling to Britain and Germany, Netanyahu is given a red carpet welcome.

Israel is a powerful state living in the grip of a deep moral crisis which is the inevitable outcome of Zionist ideology. It could lead nowhere else. Herzl’s plan to drive the indigenous population of Palestine from their homes to make way for European settlers was deeply and intrinsically immoral if no more than typical of the European mindset at the end of the 19th century. His ‘dream’ was partly realized in 1948. The decision of the Israeli Minister of Education to remove the nakba from school textbooks is an attempt to bury the past. If it can be denied then it did not happen. Having embarked on a life of crime the state has simply followed generation after generation. The obliteration of Palestine meant the destruction of close to 500 villages and the calculated oppression of the Palestinians who remained within the borders of the new state in the name of ‘security’. It meant the theft of their land. It meant breaking anyone – organizations, individuals and states - who threatened to wrest the proceeds of this massive historical smash and grab from Israel’s hands. It led to war after war, the seizure of more land and the destruction of the basic human rights of more people as soon as the opportunity came up. It led to the construction of a wall and fences penning in the Palestinians as if they were wild animals (a metaphor indeed used by Benny Morris). It led to massacres and the steady growth of a deeply racist society which is at the same time aggressive, paranoid and undoubtedly deeply fearful at some subconscious level that one day it will have to pay for its crimes. This is the blind moral alley into which Israel has backed itself by putting an atavistic ideology ahead of humanity and universal values.

Israel has had its chances of peace and has rejected all of them. It has done nothing to come to terms with its enemies and everything to antagonize them. ‘Negotiations’ with Palestinian puppets and the heads of corrupt Arab regimes do not fall into the category of coming to terms with the enemy. With its conventional military forces, nuclear weapons and the apparently open-ended support of the US Israel may feel adequately insured against any challenge by the state surrounding it. Yet the danger signals have been flashing for years. Israel’s capacity to impose its will on the surrounding states by military means probably reached its peak in 1967. In 1973 Israel would have been defeated by the combination of the Egyptian and Syrian armies had Anwar Sadat actually wanted to defeat it.

In Lebanon - traditionally the weakest Arab state of all – Israel has suffered a series of strategic defeats at the hands of Hizbullah. It forced out of the occupied south after two decades of occupation and when it sought to teach Hizbullah a lesson in 2006 it was itself taught a lesson. Its ground forces could not even capture villages a few kilometers north of the armistice line. It was the air force that saved them from further humiliation. Now even Israel’s air superiority is being threatened. Since the end of the 2006 war Hizbullah has been augmenting its defences with ground to air missiles. Only a small number of Israeli aircraft (presently overflying Lebanon whenever they want) would have to be shot down for Hizbullah to clock up another psychological victory if Israel attacks Lebanon again.

Now Iran has moved into position as the next Middle East state to face attack by Israel. The prospect of the world’s first military attack on active nuclear installations do not disturb the dream-like somnolence of the ‘international community’. Israel is confident that it can attack Iran and get away with it but Iran has had five years of threats to work out how it is going to strike back. Israel has succeeded in setting up a trade between Iran and Palestine. The US has agreed to ratchet up the pressure on Iran and in return Israel will settle for ‘natural growth’ of its West Bank colonies. But if Iran does not respond to threats and sanctions Israel reserves its so-called right under its understanding with the US to go to war against Iran. There is no telling where such a war would lead and how it would end.

The ‘zionist dream’ is a nightmare. The Palestinians wake up to it every morning and it is still there. It is a succubus clinging to their backs and destroying their past, their present and their future but this is the role Israel has chosen for itself in the Middle East. This is where it wanted to be and apparently this is how the ‘only democracy in the Middle East’ wants to be.

- Jeremy Salt is associate professor in Middle Eastern History and Politics at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. Previously, he taught at Bosporus University in Istanbul and the University of Melbourne in the Departments of Middle Eastern Studies and Political Science. Professor Salt has written many articles on Middle East issues, particularly Palestine, and was a journalist for The Age newspaper when he lived in Melbourne. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com.

Wednesday, 2 September 2009

grupo de direitos humanos: soldados deixaram um adolescente ferido por uma hora

fonte:Maan News


Rights group: Soldiers left wounded teen bleeding for an hour


Bethlehem – Ma’an – The Palestinian Center for Human Rights (PCHR) issued a strong condemnation of the Israeli army’s killing of a Palestinian child on Monday night.

PCHR’s said that its investigation, which included eyewitness testimony, revealed that the children who came under fire were unarmed and did not attack nearby Israeli soldiers. The investigation also found that Israeli soldiers left the child, 15-year-old Muhammad Nayif, bleeding for an hour before he was treated.

The rights group’s report is at odds with the version of events reported by the Israeli military, which claimed that three Palestinian “gunmen” hurled “firebombs” at Israeli forces, who opened fire on their alleged attackers.

A military spokesperson also told Ma’an that soldiers administered medical treatment to the wounded Palestinian on the scene before evacuating him.

According to PCHR’s investigation, Israeli soldiers stationed at a watchtower outside the settlement of Beit El “opened fire at five Palestinian children who were near al-Jalazon UNRWA School, located near the southeastern entrance of al-Jalazoun refugee camp.”

Muhammad Nayif, was wounded by three bullets to the chest, PCHR said. “An ambulance from Sheikh Zayed Hospital in Ramallah attempted to reach the area. However, the ambulance was stopped by at least 30 soldiers who prevented the medical crew from attending to the wounded child.” This confirmed what Ma'an was told by Palestinian medical officials on Monday night, who also said ambulance crews were barred from the area.

Meanwhile, “dozens of Palestinian civilians gathered on the spot and attempted to help the wounded child, but Israeli soldiers fired tear gas canisters at the crowd." Confirming Ma'an's earlier report, PCHR said an ambulance driver, Usama Hassan Ibrahim An-Najjar, 37, was hit by a tear gas canister in the left leg. Another medical worker, Ali Ahmed Mohammed Nakhla, 29, sustained similar injuries.

Muhammad “was left bleeding for approximately an hour,” PCHR said, before the Israeli army transferred the child into the Beit El settlement and then by helicopter to Hadassah Hospital in West Jerusalem. In the early morning he was declared dead.

The Israeli army has “continued to hold the child's body,” the rights group said. Israeli forces arrested the four children who were with Nayif and kept them detained in Beit El settlement until 3:00am on Tuesday.

One of the released children informed PCHR that the children were “walking normally in the street where the attack took place and that they suddenly found themselves under Israeli gunfire. The boy said that when Israeli soldiers saw the wounded child falling onto the ground, they rushed to the scene and arrested his companions. The soldiers left the boy bleeding without offering him any medical aid.”

Amina Alqerem, palestiniana de 15 anos, pede ao TPI investigação de "crimes de guerra" de Israel

fonte:Palestine Chronicle




Amina at ICC

A 15-year-old Palestinian girl has demanded the International Criminal Court to probe into the Israeli three-week war on the blockaded Gaza Strip. Amira Alqerem whose family was killed in an Israeli assault on the Tal Al Hawa neighborhood in the Gaza Strip told journalists in The Hague" I am here to lodge a complaint against the occupying army". "I hope this complaint will succeed because it is the truth," the soft-spoken teenager said, seated next to her lawyer on his way to the ICC to file the complaint with the office of the prosecutor. According to AFP, in her court filing, Alqerem says her 67-year-old father Fathi, 16-year-old-sister Ismat, and 14-year-old brother Ala, were killed by Israeli army fire in the early hours of January 14. Tel Aviv launched its large-scale military operations against Gaza's 1.5 million besieged Palestinian residents on December 27. The ensuing three weeks of air and artillery bombardments and a ground incursion left nearly 1,350 Palestinians dead, and about 5,450 injured. At least 1,100 of those killed were civilians. The international community has accused Israel of committing war crimes, including the use of deadly white phosphorus shells in densely populated civilian areas and the use of civilians as human shields. (Reference for text: Press TV. Photo: Reuters/file)



fonte:Publico


Uma jovem palestiniana de 15 anos pediu ao Tribunal Penal Internacional (TPI) a investigação da ofensiva israelita contra Gaza "Chumbo Endurecido", de Dezembro e Janeiro, durante a qual ficou ferida e foram mortos membros da sua família.

A operação militar causou 1400 mortos e cerca de 5000 feridos, segundo um relatório da Amnistia Internacional publicado em Julho.Amira Alqerem pretende "apresentar queixa contra o exército de ocupação”, declarou a jovem numa conferência de imprensa em Haia, na Holanda, onde fica o TPI, acompanhada do advogado e elementos da sua comissão de apoio.

Alqerem deslocou-se ao gabinete do Procurador do TPI para deixar um documento a solicitar a abertura de uma investigação por crimes de guerra e contra a humanidade, no seguimento da ofensiva militar levada a cabo por Israel na Faixa de Gaza, entre 27 de Dezembro de 1008 e 18 de Janeiro de 2009.

Foram mortos por tiros de tanques o pai, o irmão de 14 anos e a irmã de 16, a 14 de Janeiro, no bairro de Tal Al-Hawa, enquanto a jovem ficou gravemente ferida na perna.


gaza_black_ribbon
 
Palestine Blogs - The Gazette Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 Unported License.