Sunday, 4 October 2009

resenha do livro: Gannit Ankori "Arte Palestiniano"

fonte: EI


Review: Gannit Ankori's "Palestinian Art"
Maymanah Farhat, The Electronic Intifada, 2 October 2009

Pale
With a number of English-language publications on Arab art surfacing in recent years, there has been an apparent attempt to counter the Western-centric scholarship of art historical discourse. Written from a variety of perspectives, from first-hand knowledge -- such as those penned by Arab artists who have often acted as curators and scholars in the field -- to European and American cultural practitioners who have a newfound interest in the region, these texts often present conflicting histories. Nowhere is this most apparent than in the recent documentation of modern and contemporary Palestinian art.

This history, with its unpredictable, fragmented and transnational art scene is perhaps one of the most complex narratives gaining visibility today. These unusual circumstances are of course due to the sudden suspension of Palestinian art with the founding of Israel in 1948, the subsequent stunting of its natural course, and the extreme sociopolitical realities under which artists work. Coupled with these elements is the glaring misrepresentation of Palestine within the global political arena, namely in the West where the Zionist lobby has proven to be extremely successful in shaping opinions of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.

Yet art created by Palestinians living in the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip, under the Jewish state or in the diaspora has gained significant momentum in the international scene. With Israel's anti-Palestinian policies becoming increasingly audacious (and thus all the more violent and oppressive), it is with a profound urgency that the chronicling of this history be furthered and kept up-to-date.

In 2006 Israeli art historian Gannit Ankori published Palestinian Art (Reaktion Books LTD, London), a 200-plus page text that attempts to "emphasize the broad range and richness that characterize Palestinian art, as well as its specific manifestations and individual narratives." Responding to questions of obvious subjectivity in the preface, the author insists that she has "gathered and presented" the material of the book as "objectively as possible" and has done so since the 1980s out of a belief in the "importance and relevance of the subject." It is with this frame of mind that she has apparently "immersed" herself in the "cultural, religious, social and political contexts within which Palestinian artists forged their artistic expression." The author also cites her own understanding of being "other" as that which has contributed to a connection with Palestinian art.

Although born in Jerusalem, Ankori emigrated to the US as a child, an experience that resulted in a sense of "displacement, cultural hybridity and fragmentation," characteristics that she seeks to reveal in Palestinian art. Despite this stated identification, her overall perspective remains from the vantage point of a scholar who has worked within Israel's academic world, having written and lectured on the subject for Israeli audiences. The author is an Associate Professor of Art History at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel's oldest academic institution, which was founded on Zionist ideals in 1925. And although her work has been affected by field research (and collaborations) in the Palestinian art scene, a number of elements in her approach to scholarship suggest the overwhelming influence of her Israeli environment. As such, Palestinian Art is in many ways written with an Israeli reader in mind -- a fact that can be exposed through the deconstruction of her basic premise, the manner in which she applies her theories, and the overall political context (or lack thereof) in which she places Palestinian art.

Divided into four parts, "Foundations," "Earth and Sky," "Body and Home" and "Being Arab in Israel," Palestinian Art largely focuses on artists working after 1948. With the exception of "Foundations," which provides a quick overview of the formation of Palestinian art before and immediately after the Nakba, or dispossession, Ankori narrows her investigation to a small number of artists, weaving together extensive analysis of their work within a larger framework of what she calls "Dis-Orientalism." Citing Edward Said's seminal literary work Orientalism (1979) as a basis for her theory, the author argues that:

"The implications proposed by this neologism are intentionally multivalent. They include the suggestions that the creation and study of Palestinian art entail the dismantling of an exclusively Western perspective or 'scopic regime' and the alternative, self empowerment of oriental artists. The term Dis-Orientalism also alludes to a literal (i.e. geographical) 'loss of the orient' ... Hence it is grounded in history and is linked to the traumatic events of 1948, which resulted in the loss of Palestine and the consequent dispersal and exile of numerous Palestinians ... Finally, contemporary Palestinian art frequently reflects the hybrid identities of the artists and their 'fluid' positions in an interstitial space between their oriental matrix and the dominant culture of the West."

In essence, what Ankori outlines as being essential components or themes of Palestinian art are: 1. the loss of homeland 2. the combating of Western-centric outlooks on art and culture, and 3. the straddling of two worlds, East and West. From the outset, these theories are extremely limited in their scope, as Palestinian artists address a wide range of concepts and work in diverse settings -- be it under the Israeli occupation, within the Jewish state or in the diaspora, leading to varying artistic orientations and having a profound impact on the progression of Palestinian visual culture as a whole.

In "Foundations," the author describes the early stages of Palestinian art in the period of icon painting that occurred in Jerusalem in the late 19th century and continued well into the first half of the 20th century, a history that Ankori cites as artist/scholar Kamal Boullata's "unique and most significant recent contribution" to the field. From this school of painting came a number of influential artists such as figurative painters Zulfa al-Sa'di and Daoud Zalatimo, both of whom studied closely with influential icon painters.

She then explores the concept of "loss" with artists who worked shortly after the Nakba in exile, such as painters Ismail Shammout and Ibrahim Ghannam, who both lived in Beirut and often worked from memories of the homeland.

This focus on "loss" continues with a look at the oeuvre of multimedia artist Sliman Mansour in the second section, "Earth and Sky." Since the 1960s, Mansour's paintings, installations and mixed media works have dealt with notions of nostalgia and the rupturing of Palestine's cultural patrimony with the establishment of the State of Israel. The subject of exile is further articulated with examples of paintings by Kamal Boullata, which Ankori suggests are "linked directly to a very specific home and hometown. The geometry of [which] suggests a longing for the thresholds that will allow a symbolic return to his place of origin."

The notion that Palestinian art combats Western-centric outlooks speaks of artists whose work is engaged with Europe and the US in one way or another. This is often true of those living in these locales or participating in international exhibitions and festivals such as the Venice Biennale. Yet, she ignores the significant contributions of Palestinian artists working under the severe sociopolitical conditions of the Israeli occupation (and its offensives), namely those working in Gaza, where the least of their concerns is how the West views them. For these artists, the urgency of mere survival and continued resistance is most pertinent to their work. Although the author establishes early on that her analysis is "not an encyclopaedic approach," the title of the book suggests a sweeping investigation of the subject. She continues by arguing, "I have nevertheless, made a concerted effort to choose artists from diverse religious, cultural and geographical settings, whose works reflect different artistic styles or sensibilities."

The examples of art work that Ankori provides in the third and fourth sections of Palestinian Art serve to demonstrate her theories on "the self-empowerment of oriental artists" in the face of "an exclusively Western perspective." Her text contains a strong emphasis on artists working or trained in the West, such as conceptual artists Mona Hatoum and Khalil Rabah, with analysis of their work appearing in "Body and Home." Those living in Israel, having been trained at Israeli institutions, and thus confronted with similar notions of "otherness," are also used to ground the author's thesis and include painter Asad Azi and conceptual artists Raeda Saadeh and Jumana Emil Abboud, who are discussed in "Being Arab in Israel."

Returning to her overall theoretical premise, Ankori proposes that much of this work points to a larger framework of "post-colonial cultural trends," as "the hybridity of Palestinian art and its mode of deconstructing the East-West dichotomy" may be linked to such. Yet her examination of their work and the cultural contexts in which she places them serve to reinforce this exact "East-West" dichotomy. In her discussion of Khalil Rabah's work "Untitled" (1995), which contains a large cube glass that is filled with olive oil, branches and wicks, Ankori suggests direct references to "High Modernism" or the "hard edged, minimalist sculptures" of American Tony Smith while arguing that the Palestinian artist "confronted the occidental cube with the oriental olive oil."

Ironically, the author frequently reverts to using the term "oriental" when describing Palestinians. This appears in discussions of everything from their "oriental matrix" to "oriental motifs." She does so by citing Edward Said's Orientalism as grounds for using this adjective. Ironically the use of this term, with its loaded historical implications and glaring political pitfalls, "connotes the high-handed executive attitude of nineteenth-century and early twentieth-century European colonialism," as Said affirms on page two of Orientalism.

Although Ankori's use of the term is generally viewed as outdated and one would be hard pressed to find Palestinians identifying as "oriental," in Israel it remains widely in use.

Moreover, Ankori's discussion of Palestinian art as fitting within a larger framework of "post-colonial trends" is incorrectly applied. To speak of a "hybridity" of Palestinian art linked to "post colonial trends" suggests a connection to the modern and contemporary art of formally colonized non-Western peoples. That is, work created by artists in Africa and the Pacific Islands who were forced to adopt Western modes of representation under colonialism but resisted this cultural hegemony by injecting aspects of their own artistic heritage into works that spoke of the meeting of two cultures. Not only does Israel operate with the extreme features of a colonial power, it systematically attempts to squash Palestinian culture altogether or appropriate it as its own in a quest for identifying as an indigenous people. Unlike colonial powers such as the British and French in Africa and the Pacific who sought to implement Western cultural sensibilities as dominating aspects of visual culture, the continued Israeli policy towards Palestinian art has been to curtail creative expression through the ransacking of cultural centers, artists' homes and institutions (details which Ankori leaves out). If anything, under this colonial state, Palestinian art has utilized cultural expression to resist the cruelty and injustice of Israeli policies while clearly enunciating its intention to survive.

It is of no surprise then that Ankori attempts to dismiss an important aspect of Palestinian art history, what artist Samia Halaby identifies as the "Liberation Art" period that came into prominence in the second half of the 20th century in both Palestine and its diaspora in the Arab world. One of the most influential artists of this time was Abdul Rahman al-Muzayen, a former resistance fighter who worked with the Palestine Liberation Organization and often designed its political posters. Combining images of the land, farmers, Palestine's ancient history and recognizable cultural symbols (the use of Palestinian embroidery, the key implying the right of return, the female subject as the embodiment of the homeland and images of fighters) al-Muzayen and others created a distinct aesthetic that sought to speak to the Palestinian masses and inspire a sense of resistance and sumoud, or steadfastness. Yet, according to Ankori:

"This brand of political art, often directly based on militant poems and displaying a plethora of muscular warriors, continues to this day, especially in paintings by self-taught artists in the refugee camps of Gaza, the West Bank and throughout the Arab world. The emphasis on 'armed struggle,' with its various cultural manifestations, has been criticized by Palestinian intellectuals, who are concerned with the detrimental effects it may have on Palestinian society and culture. What began as the desire to overcome a sense of weakness and victimization seems to have turned into a fetishization of power."

Despite Liberation Art's significance during the 1960s and 70s and its demonstration of the early intersections of Palestinian politics and culture, the author insists on dismissing this movement. She does so by attempting to pit artists against each other and taking a quotation from Edward Said out of context. Ankori writes:

In 1986, for example, Edward Said wrote:

I have long believed, for instance, that our insistence on 'armed struggle' -- originally a phrase symbolizing the Palestinian will to fight unremittingly and on our own for our political rights -- very quickly turned into a worship of fetishized military postures, guns, and slogans borrowed from theories of the people's war in Algeria and Vietnam.


What Ankori does not quote, however, are the next lines of this passage, which read:

"This ritualized and gross emphasis on arms caused us to neglect the incredibly complex and far more important political and cultural aspects of our struggle, and it played right into the hands of Israel, which with its superior propaganda apparatus turned everything we did against its occupation of our lands, its devastation of our villages, and its oppression of our population, into 'terrorism.'

Still, these pessimistic and critical things by no means tell the whole story of what is in fact a remarkable rise out of destitution."

Ankori not only changes the fundamental meaning of Said's quote by not citing the complete passage but further skews his insights by stating, "Said also notes that these images were instrumental in transforming Palestinians into stereotypical 'terrorists' in the eyes of the West."

She continues with this line of thinking by categorizing the art of this time which utilized images of farmers, refugees or armed fighters as constituting the "representation of Palestinians in three stereotypical roles (as 'primitive' farmers, as suffering refuges or as armed fighters) [which] may have inadvertently contributed to the construction of prevailing (often negative) views of Palestinians in the West."

In essence what she achieves by selectively quoting and incorrectly paraphrasing Said is the sidestepping of any mention of Israel's crimes, while simultaneously branding the artists of this movement as self-victimizing and at fault for stereotypical representations in the West. It is not in fact the mere displaying of arms or the act of armed resistance that defines perceptions of "terrorism" in the West but a complex web of power, alliances and political postures. As Said notes, it is Israel's "superior propaganda apparatus [that] turned everything we did against its occupation of our lands, its devastation of our villages, and its oppression of our population, into 'terrorism.'"

Furthermore, many Palestinian artists have seen such works as "necessary" components of their culture and political struggle. In an exhibition catalog published by the New Vision group (an art collective founded in 1987 that consisted of artists Sliman Mansour, Vera Tamari, Tayseer Barakat and Nabil al-Ani) the need for such art was eloquently stated:

"It is not uncommon to find political symbolism in the artistic expression of people struggling for freedom. Aesthetic values are often sublimated in favor of revolutionary subject-matter. For the Palestinian artist, political themes were for many years part of his visual vocabulary. Those were a necessary means to express the aspirations and dreams of his people but he never ceased to explore new aesthetic venues and ways of expression. This continuous search reflected a deep sense of liberation and inner freedom. The Palestinian artist sought beauty and truth while daily struggling to survive and attain freedom" (from the catalog New Visions, exact date unspecified).

This tendency to exclude information or to inject "the West" when in actuality the instance pertains specifically to Israel runs throughout Ankori's text, most significantly when the Jewish state is implicated for its oppressive policies and its history of large-scale violence towards Palestinians. Take for example her discussion of the New Vision group, which sought to resist the Israeli occupation by boycotting its art goods. Ankori explicitly cites the group's use of local products, mainly organic materials such as clay, mud, straw and leather, as a "deliberate decision to seek a substitute for boycotted Western (hence foreign) art materials," when in fact their decision was based on a collective recognition of the first Palestinian intifada and a direct reaction to Israeli policies and its economic control of the occupied territories.

To document that artists have been reacting to Israeli policies is to underscore the ways in which they have been affected not only by the founding of Israel in 1948 but also its long, brutal history of occupation -- a narrative that remains pertinent to understanding the evolution of numerous trends in Palestinian art. Ankori willingly emphasizes the trauma of the Nakba and the fragmented state and "disorientation" marked by exile when discussing artists' work, yet she goes to great lengths to avoid an in-depth discussion of the state of the occupation, its effects on the cultural scene and the continued aggression used to maintain it. When discussing Sliman Mansour's work, which has been highly informed by his experiences of living and working under the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, Ankori argues, "The physical, economic, social, political and psychological hardships that are experienced by Palestinians living under Israeli occupation cannot be properly addressed in this context, given their enormity and far-reaching proportions."

And so it is established early on in the text that any necessary discussion or mention of such will not appear.

As the occupation wages on and Palestinians continue to be subjected to catastrophic events such as the recent large-scale assaults on Gaza and the frequent Israeli incursions into the West Bank, can Palestinian culture be discussed with selective references to history and nearly no mention of the present? The answer is unequivocally, no. If the reader is to be informed of the Palestinian experience (through art) over the last six decades via Ankori's study, only a partial view will be obtained, one fashioned exclusively by notions of memory, trauma and the alienation of exile. Yet what remains is the stark reality of life under occupation, one enunciated in various ways in works by Zuhdi al-Adawi, Tamam al-Akhal, Mohammad Abu Sall, Taysir Batniji, Aissa Deebi, Mervat Essa, Tarek al-Ghoussein, Samia Halaby, Rula Halawani, Emily Jacir, Rashid Mashharawi, Bashir Makhoul, Fayez Sersawi, Laila al-Shawa, Nida Sinnokrot, Mary Tuma, Sharif Waked, Adnan al-Yahya, Hani Zourab and the countless others who are left out of the art historical and theoretical trajectories of Ankori's Palestinian Art.

Maymanah Farhat specializes in modern and contemporary Arab art. Her collected writings can be viewed online at http://maymanahfarhat.wordpress.com.


Saturday, 3 October 2009

gênio cômico do Netenyahu

fonte: PC

The Comic Genius of Netanyahu

What exactly are these 'risks for peace' Israel has so bravely taken?

By Stuart Littlewood - London

Knowing that Iran won't surrender its right to civil nuclear power, the schemers in Tel Aviv and Washington were bound to mount a hysterical campaign to scare the rest of the world into believing this would bring terror to our own streets.

And at the United Nations we saw the process swing into action as Netanyahu tried to whip up support for another Middle East war for Israel's benefit.

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium… To those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?"

Who with a speck of decency would have given Netanyahu a hearing after the atrocities of the Gaza blitzkrieg and the Goldstone Report condemning Israel's war crimes?

"This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism... anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated."

Netanyahu could be describing the Israeli regime.

"…The greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction."

He should know. Israel is bristling with both.

"The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons."

That would be nice for the warmongers in Tel Aviv, who already have them.

"Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?"

I do hope so. But are we all agreed who they are?

"Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted. "

Substitute American for Iranian and it begins to make sense.

"In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza… We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent."

Defenceless Gazans know all about nightmares. Israel, camped on their doorstep and still occupying Gaza’s airspace and coastal waters, lobs high explosives into the tiny enclave’s 1.5 million starving civilians, and there’s no escape.

"There is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country's civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties."

The Nazis launched sophisticated rockets with huge destructive power at London and Southern England from territory they had invaded and occupied. They weren’t firing makeshift missiles built in a garden shed to defend their homeland.

“Israel... tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas. We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy's civilian population from harm's way.”

How considerate. But where were Gaza’s terrified civilians supposed to run to? Into the sea? Bombing their homes was the ultimate terror act. There’s no excuse.

“…If Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.”

What exactly are these “risks for peace” Israel has so bravely taken? In 61 years what peace dividends has Israel’s risk-taking delivered?

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black

Netanyahu has a rare genius for irony, except that he himself doesn't see it. That’s what makes him such a comedian. The irony of what he says is totally lost on him. Nearly every offensive remark he makes about Iran and Palestine can be flung back in his face because Israel is no better and in most respects far worse. Netanyahu’s speech to the UN was the most hilarious example in history of the pot calling the kettle black.

His scriptwriters evidently feed off the Zionists’ propaganda training manual, which teaches the art of lying and distortion and how to sugar-coat it all for easy swallowing by gullible audiences. Notice how everything Israel dislikes, and everything that thwarts their lust for domination, is now labeled “Iranian-backed”… and how everyone else, too, is in mortal danger from Iran and must therefore huddle together in Israel’s axis of aggression. Also note how situations are defined in language that suit only Israel’s case.

Less amusing is Netanyahu’s arrogant rejection of the UN Human Rights Council’s Goldstone report condemning Israel’s conduct. “By these twisted standards… [they] would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice... Will you accept this farce? If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here's why.

“When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

“The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us – my people, my country - of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

“Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?”

The false choice in that last sentence is a propaganda favourite. Why would anyone with any sense wish to stand alongside either?

And how dare Netanyahu equate Roosevelt and Churchill’s epic struggle against the rampaging Nazis with Israel’s brutal crushing of Palestinian resistance against the illegal occupation of the Holy Land?

What has the UN come to when a regime that is armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons and not even a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty can call on the world’s nations to gang up against another country for starting its own nuclear programme? Israel itself refuses to submit to inspection and poses an alarming nuclear threat. It hasn’t signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention either, nor the Chemical Weapons Convention.

And is it not an insult to everyone’s intelligence to hear the UN being lambasted by the leader of a regime that is in open defiance of international law and countless UN resolutions?

The UN Human Rights Council is due to debate the Goldstone report today, when a vote will be taken on how its recommendations should be acted on. There are fears that the British government plans to reject the report’s key recommendations. If that’s the case and others follow suit, Israel will be let off the hook and allowed to continue its crime spree.

It will hand Israel’s comic genius a personal triumph. The Zionist network will no doubt show their gratitude in the usual way

- Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. He contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Visit: www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

Conselho dos Direitos Humanos adia votação do relatório Goldstone para Março 2010. O bloqueio dos EUA não deve adiar a justiça

fonte: Forum Palestina


1. Apenas o primeiro paragráfo deste comunicado:

"A decisão no Conselho de Direitos Humanos das Nações Unidas para adiar a votação do relatório Goldstone sobre Gaza, até Março de 2010, obriga os Estados Unidos e outros governos, que bloquearam a acção no conselho a pressionarem Israel e o Hamas a dar início a uma investigação credível, declarou a Human Rights Watch hoje. A missão encontrou provas de violações das leis de guerra durante o conflito em Gaza, que deverão desencadear investigações credíveis do comportamento de ambos os lados.

..."

2. Um comentário da responsável da secção para o Médio Oriente da HRW, Sarah Leah Whitson, sobre o adiamento.

"Os Estados Unidos conquistaram para Israel um adiamento (da decisão sobre) o relatório Goldstone, então agora deve garantir que Israel realmente investigue as denúncias de abuso. Se isso não acontecer até Março, então os E.U. A. devem endossar o apelo do relatório de Goldstone para os mecanismos internacionais de responsabilização."

3. E o ónus do adiamento recai... sobre os sponsors da resolução sobre a Situação dos Direitos Humanos nos Territórios Ocupados da Palestina, incluindo Jerusalém Oriental (A/HRC/12/L.12).


Zamir Akram (Paquistão), falando sobre o projecto de resolução L. 12, sobre a Situação dos Direitos Humanos nos Territórios Ocupados da Palestina, incluindo Jerusalém Oriental (A/HRC/12/L.12), disse que, levando em consideração a elevada importância atribuída a esta resolução por parte da comunidade internacional como um todo, e para dar mais tempo para uma análise abrangente e ampla do relatório da Missão Internacional de Averiguação, os co-patrocinadores ou seja, a Organização da Conferência Islâmica, o Grupo Africano, o Grupo Árabe e o Movimento Não-Alinhado, solicitaram que a apreciação do projecto de resolução fosse adiada até à décima terceira sessão do Conselho dos Direitos Humanos. (Março 2010)

Mas de facto quem conduziu a orquestra foi... o representante dos EUA.

o negócio de vídeo

fonte: PC & AlAkhbar
الأسيرة لينان أبو غلمي لدى خروجها من معسكر عوفر في الضفة الغربية (دارين وايتسايد ــ رويترز)
a prisonieira Linan Abu Ghelmi (Reuters)
Video Deal
Israel has set free first 20 Palestinian women prisoners in exchange for a one-minute video showing the fate of a captured IDF soldier, Gilad Shalit. Bra'ah al-Malki, 15, was released late on Wednesday (Oct 2) after a judge ordered her freed. She was released to her family in Jenin as part of a rare agreement between Israel and the Palestinian Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) to trade the 20 female prisoners for a confirmation of the young soldier's condition. According to a newly recorded videotape, kidnapped Israeli soldier is alive. The videotape has already been turned over to German mediators, and will be given to Israel on Friday when the prisoners are due to be set free. An Israeli government official said Wednesday the German mediators have already viewed the tape and confirmed that Shalit is alive, though no other details were released regarding his condition or the contents of the video. Shalit has been in Palestinian captivity since he was abducted by Gaza Strip fighters in a cross-border raid on June 25, 2006. In exchange for the soldier, Hamas has demanded the release of 1,400 Palestinian prisoners, including about 450 long-serving inmates. (Reference for text: Press TV. Photo: Aljazeera.net/file)


Fonte:Publico

Israel: Dezanove palestinianas libertadas em troca de video que mostra soldado Shalit vivo

Obama deve coincidir princípios e retórica

fonte: EI

Obama must match rhetoric with principle
George Bisharat, The Electronic Intifada, 1 October 2009

So far, the Middle East has seen words not actions from Obama. (Hatem Omar/MaanImages)

US President Barack Obama has placed restoration of the stature of the United States among his primary foreign policy goals. He has already achieved substantial progress in Europe, where polls indicate that he is widely admired. The president's June Cairo University speech also won praise in the Arab and Muslim worlds. Yet many across the globe still await the substantive policy changes implied by his inspiring words.

President Obama can solidify broader global respect by supporting the recommendations of the just-released Goldstone report in the United Nations Human Rights Council. Richard Goldstone, an eminent South African jurist, led a mission to investigate allegations of war crimes in Gaza last winter.
Indeed, the Goldstone mission concluded that Israel and Hamas committed war crimes and possibly crimes against humanity. The report recommends that both parties be given six months to mount independent, internal investigations -- and if they fail, that the UN Security Council refer the matter to the International Criminal Court for investigation and possible prosecutions.

Much of the 575-page report documents Israeli violations of the laws of war and human rights surrounding the intense fighting of last winter. That is fair, as the scale of harm Israel caused to lives and property in Gaza vastly exceeded that inflicted by Hamas. Israel killed approximately 100 Palestinians for every Israeli who died, and destroyed vast swaths of private housing, industrial buildings, agricultural facilities and public infrastructure.

The Israeli government boycotted the Goldstone mission; Palestinian authorities, in contrast, cooperated with it. Doubtless, the group's conclusions would have been more definitive had Israel shared information with its authors. Israel now seeks to discredit the report, attacking everything from Justice Goldstone himself to the UN Human Rights Council, and claiming that the report's findings would hamstring other nations -- including ours -- facing "asymmetric warfare."

This is nonsense. Justice Goldstone is a man of impeccable credentials and great personal integrity, and his colleagues are similarly distinguished.
The report is judicious and even-handed, and cannot be casually dismissed.

Nor is there anything novel about "asymmetric warfare," at least not of the kind waged by Israel, requiring departures from standard international law.
Colonial powers that displace indigenous peoples, as Israel does regularly in Jerusalem and the rest of the West Bank, have always faced armed, and sometimes crude, popular resistance. Israel's war against the Palestinians shares more with the French in Algeria than it does with our fight against al-Qaeda. Israel might prefer that international law revert to pre-World War II levels, but that would undermine protections for us all.

The Obama Administration should echo the Goldstone report and urge Israel to mount serious investigations of its military's documented misdeeds. In fact, US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice already did so in her January inaugural address to the UN. We should also not quail at the Goldstone mission's recommendation that the Security Council refer the matter to the International Criminal Court, if Israel fails to credibly investigate, as it has to date. Enforcement of international law cannot only be for the losers of international conflicts; indeed, the legitimacy of international law depends on its universal application. The world will take notice when President Obama's warming rhetoric is matched by equally principled deeds -- and will likewise take notice when it is not.

George Bisharat is a professor at Hastings College of the Law and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East. This op-ed was originally published by The San Fransisco Chronicle and is republished with the author's permission.

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.