República e Laicidade repúdia eliminação do feriado do 5 de Outubro

Comunicado à Comunicação Social

Lisboa, 27 de Janeiro de 2012

1. A Associação República e Laicidade manifesta o seu total repúdio pela decisão, anunciada pelo Ministro da Economia, de eliminar o feriado de 5 de Outubro. Recordamos que se trata de uma das duas datas reconhecidas, pelo seu significado político, na Constituição em vigor (artigo 11º), sendo a outra o 25 de Abril, ambas datas simbólicas do carácter republicano e democrático do regime, respectivamente.

2. A Associação República e Laicidade anuncia que se dirigirá aos Presidentes das Assembleias  Municipais  com a sugestão de que o 5 de Outubro seja fixado como feriado municipal, como é da competência desses órgãos municipais.

3. A Associação República e Laicidade manifesta também o seu total repúdio pela subserviência manifestada pelo Ministro da Economia à Igreja Católica. Tratou-se de uma infracção à laicidade do Estado a que o governo da República se encontra constitucionalmente obrigado.

4. Sendo a constitucionalidade da Concordata e o seu estatuto de «tratado internacional» discutíveis, note-se que esse documento só obriga a «possibilitar aos católicos, nos termos da lei portuguesa, o cumprimento dos deveres religiosos», o que pode ser resolvido aplicando aos católicos o artigo 14º da Lei da Liberdade Religiosa («Dispensa do trabalho, de aulas e de provas por motivo religioso»), sem necessidade de feriados nacionais em datas com significado para a Igreja Católica.

5. Finalmente, notamos que se o Presidente da República ratificar as decisões anunciadas, e não tendo o governo procurado um consenso mais alargado, a instituição ou supressão futuras de quaisquer feriados  necessitarão apenas de maioria parlamentar simples e aprovação presidencial.

Ricardo Alves

(Presidente da Direcção da Associação República e Laicidade)

REPÚBLICA e LAICIDADE – Associação Cívica
Rua Cidade de Bolama, nº15, 7ºdto.1800-077 Lisboa
e-mail: republaicidade@yahoo.com
www.laicidade.org

"Hurra pelo Egipto" de Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery
January 28, 2012

                Hurrah for Egypt!

THE IMPOSSIBLE has happened. The Egyptian parliament, democratically elected by a free people, has convened for its first session.

For me this is a wonderful, a joyful occasion.

For many Israelis, this is a worrisome, a threatening sight.


I CANNOT but rejoice when a downtrodden people arises and wins its freedom and human dignity. And not by the intervention of outside forces, but by its own steadfastness and courage. And not by shooting and bloodshed, but by the sheer power of nonviolence.

Whenever and wherever it happens, it must gladden the heart of any decent person around the globe.

Compared to most other revolutions, this Egyptian uprising was bloodless. The number of victims ran in the dozens, not thousands. The current struggle in Syria claims that number of victims every day or two, and so did the successful uprising in neighboring Libya, which was greatly assisted by foreign military intervention.

A revolution reflects the character of its people. I always had a special liking for the Egyptian people, because they are - by and large - devoid of aggressiveness and violence. They are a singularly patient and humorous lot. You can see this in thousands of years of recorded history and you can see it in daily life in the street.

That is why this revolution was so surprising. Of all the peoples on this planet, the Egyptians are among the most unlikely to revolt. Yet revolt they did.

THE PARLIAMENT convened after 60 years of military rule, which also started with a bloodless revolution. Even the despised king, Farouk, who was overthrown on that day in July 1952, was not harmed. He was bundled into his luxurious yacht and sent off to Monte Carlo, there to spend the rest of his life gambling.

The real leader of the revolution was Gamal Abd-al-Nasser. I had met him several times during the 1948 war – though we were never properly introduced. These were all night battles, and only after the war could I reconstruct the events. He was wounded in a battle for which my company was awarded the honorary name “Samson’s Foxes”, while I was wounded five months later by soldiers under his command.

I never met him face to face, of course, but a good friend of mine did. During the battle of the “Faluja pocket”, a cease-fire was agreed in order to bring out the dead and wounded lying between the lines. The Egyptians sent Major Abd-al-Nasser, our side sent a Yemen-born officer whom we called “Gingi” (Ginger), because he was almost totally black. The two enemy officers liked each other very much, and when the Egyptian revolution broke out, Gingi told me – long before anyone else – that Abd-al-Nasser was the man to watch.

(I cannot restrain myself from voicing a pet peeve here. In Western films and books, Arabs often bear the first name Abdul. Such a name just does not exist. “Abdul” is really Abd-al-, which means “servant of”’ and is invariably followed by one of Allah’s 99 attributes. Abd-al-Nasser, for example, means “Servant of (Allah) the Victorious”. So please!)

“Nasser”, as most people called him for short, was not a born dictator. He later recounted that after the victory of the revolution, he had no idea what to do next. He started by appointing a civilian government, but was appalled by the incompetence and corruption of the politicians. So the army took things into its own hands, and soon enough it became a military dictatorship, which lasted and steadily degenerated until last year.

One does not have to take Nasser’s account literally, but the lesson is clear: now as then, “temporary” military rule tends to turn into a lasting dictatorship. Egyptians know this from bitter experience, and that’s why they are becoming very very impatient now.

I remember an arresting conversation between two leading Arab intellectuals some 45 years ago. We were in a taxi in London, on our way to a conference. One was the admirable Mohammed Sid Ahmad, an aristocratic Egyptian Marxist, the other was Alawi, a courageous leftist Moroccan opposition leader. The Egyptian said that in the contemporary Arab world, no national goal can be achieved without a strong autocratic leadership. Alawi retorted that nothing worthwhile can be achieved before internal democracy is established. I think this case has now been settled.


AS WINSTON CHURCHILL famously said, “democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried.” The bad thing about democracy is that free elections don't always turn out the way you want them to.”

The recent Egyptian election was won by “Islamists”. The tumultuous first session produced by this whiff of freedom was dominated by deputies with religious beards. Elected members of the Muslim Brotherhood and the more extreme Salafists (adherents of the Salafiyeh, a Sunni tendency which claims to follow the teaching of the first three Muslim generations) form the majority. The Israelis and the world’s Islamophobes, for whom all Muslims are the same, are aghast.

Frankly, I don’t like religious parties of any stripe – Jewish, Muslim, Christian or what have you. Full democracy demands full separation between State and religion, in practice as well as in theory.

I would not vote for politicians who use religious fundamentalism as a ladder for their careers – whether they are American presidential candidates, Israeli settlers or Arab demagogues. Even If they were sincere, I  would still vote against them. But if such people are elected freely, I accept them. I certainly would not let the success of the Islamists spoil my joy at the historic victory of the Arab Spring.

The way it looks now, Islamists of various shades are going to be influential in all the new parliaments that will be the products of Arab democracy, from Morocco to Iraq, from Syria to Oman. Israel will not be a “villa in the jungle”, but a Jewish island in a Muslim sea.

Island and sea are not natural enemies. On the contrary, they complement each other. The islanders catch fish in the sea, the island shelters the young fish.

THERE IS no reason for Jews and Muslims not to live peacefully together and cooperate. They have done so many times in history, and these were good times for both.

In any religion, there are many contradictions. In the Hebrew Bible there are the inspiring chapters of the prophets and the abominable calls for genocide in the Book of Joshua, for example. In the New Testament, there are the beautiful Sermon on the Mount and the disgusting (and obviously false and later inserted) description of the Jews calling for the crucifixion of Jesus, which has caused anti-Semitism and untold suffering. In the Koran are several objectionable passages about the Jews, but they are overshadowed by the admirable command to protect the “peoples of the book”, Jews and Christians.

It is up to the believers of any religion to pick from their holy texts the passages they want to act upon. Once I saw a Nazi book composed entirely of quotations from the Talmud – hundreds of them. I was certain that they were all false and was shocked to the core when a friendly rabbi assured me that they were all authentic, only taken out of context.

JEWS AND Muslims can and did live peacefully together, and so did Israelis and Egyptians. 

Just one chapter: in November, 1944, two members of the pre-state underground Lehi organization (aka Stern Gang) assassinated Lord Moyne, the British Minister of State for the Middle East, in Cairo. They were caught, and their trial in an Egyptian court turned into an anti-British demonstration. Young Egyptian patriots filled the chamber and made no effort to hide their admiration for the accused. One of the two (with whom I was acquainted) reciprocated with a rousing speech, in which he dismissed Zionism and defined himself as a freedom fighter out to liberate the entire region from British imperialism.

When Israel was founded soon after, some of us suggested that the new state use this and other acts in order to present ourselves as the first Semitic state that had liberated itself from foreign rule. In this spirit, we publicly welcomed Abd-al-Nasser’s 1952 revolution. But in 1956, Israel attacked Egypt in collusion with France and Great Britain, and was branded as an outpost of Western colonialism.


AFTER ANWAR SADAT’S historic visit to Jerusalem, I was one of the first four Israelis to arrive in Cairo, For weeks we were the heroes of the city, lionized by one and all. Enthusiasm for peace with Israel gave rise to a carnival mood. Only later, when the Egyptians realized that Israel had no intention whatsoever of allowing the Palestinians to achieve their freedom, did this mood evaporate.

Now is the time to try to restore this mood. It can be done, if we resolutely turn our face toward the Arab Spring and its winter offshoots.

That raises again one of the most basic questions for Israel: Do we want to be a part of this region, or an outpost of the West? Are the Arabs our natural allies or our natural enemies? Does the new Arab democracy arouse our sympathy and admiration, or does it frighten us?

This leads to the most profound question of all: Is Israel just another branch of world Jewry, or is it a new nation born in this region and constituting an integral part of it?

For me, the answer is clear. And therefore I salute the Egyptian people and their new parliament: Congratulations!

27 de Janeiro - Dia Internacional em Memória das Vítimas do Holocausto

 Crianças polacas em Auschwitz olham para além do arame farpado (Julho 1944)

Fotografia da Comissão Principal para a investigação dos crimes de guerra Nazis.

Cortesia dos Arquivos de fotografia do USHMM (United States Holocaust Memorial Museum)

Hoje celebra-se o Dia Internacional em Memória das Vítimas do Holocausto.

O dia 27 de Janeiro foi escolhido pela Assembleia-Geral da ONU, em 2005, para recordar as vítimas do Holocausto, porque foi a 27 de Janeiro de 1945 que o Exército Vermelho libertou o “maior e pior” campo de extermínio dos nazis, Auschwitz, na Polónia.

É preciso recordar que durante a negra noite nazi-fascista foram exterminados, das mais diversas formas, milhões de homens, mulheres e crianças.

Entre os 6 milhões de judeus e mais uns milhões de outros é como se a rasoira nazi tivesse varrido do mapa todos os habitantes de Portugal.

Apenas, em razão da sua raça ou etnia, porque eram semitas, e aqui também podemos acrescentar os ciganos e em certa medida os eslavos

Apenas, em razão da sua fé, porque eram judeus, ou da vivência da sua fé, e aqui podemos acrescentar alguns, poucos, sacerdotes católicos e protestantes;

Apenas, em razão da sua ideologia e/ou activismo político – comunistas, sociais-democratas, sindicalistas e intelectuais;

Apenas, em razão das suas diferenças. De sexo – homossexuais; ou de incapacidades físicas e/ou mentais - deficientes mentais/e ou físicos e pacientes psiquiátricos.

Apesar da adesão dos países da Europa à recordação do Holocausto é preciso ter noção que o racismo, o anti-semitismo e a xenofobia, continuam a estar presentes na Europa e até tem vindo a crescer, por acréscimo de outras categorias - islamofobia e arabofobia - nitidamente.

Esta é mais uma razão para que não deixemos que se apague da memória o Holocausto.

PS: Mas é triste verificar que muitos Judeus, só recordem as suas vítimas do Holocausto, e que continuem a permitir que sucessivos Governos de Israel assumam perante os Palestinos, alguns dos métodos utilizados pelo nazismo contra os seus ancestrais.

A denegação da justiça com a desculpa da "Procura"

Justiça Estudo do novo mapa judiciário já foi enviado à troika ministra - Visao.pt

E eu, ingénuo, a pensar que o que está na Constituição, nada tinha a ver com a "procura".

Fui ver e afinal tinha razão e a Sra. Ministra da (in)Justiça, licenciada em Direito, Paula Teixeira da Cruz... CHUMBOU (e ainda falam do Sócrates).

Artigo 20.º

(Acesso ao direito e tutela jurisdicional efectiva)

1. A todos é assegurado o acesso ao direito e aos tribunais para defesa dos seus direitos e interesses legalmente protegidos, não podendo a justiça ser denegada por insuficiência de meios económicos.

Já agora não quererá a ministra enviar à "troika" o rol do papel higiénico que se consome nos tribunais...

Esta gente não se mede...

ICAHD Peace Center 'Beit Arabiya' Demolished for the Fifth Time

ICAHD Peace Center 'Beit Arabiya' Demolished for the Fifth Time	02:17 , 24-01-12
Israeli authorities demolished Beit Arabiya ("Arabiya's House") last night (Monday, January 23rd) for the fifth time, along with structures in the East Anata Bedouin compound.  Beit Arabiya, Located in the West Bank town of Anata (Area C) just to the northeast of Jerusalem, is a living symbol of resistance to Occupation and the desire for justice and peace. As its name suggests, Beit Arabiya is a home belonging to Arabiya Shawamreh, her husband Salim and their seven children, a Palestinian family whose home has been demolished four times by the Israeli authorities and rebuilt each time by ICAHD's Palestinian, Israeli and international peace activists, before being demolished again last night. At around 11p.m. Monday, a bulldozer accompanied by a contingent of heavily armed Israeli soldiers appeared on the Anata hills, to promptly demolish Beit Arabiya, along with residential and agricultural structures in the nearby Arab al-Jahalin Bedouin compound. 3 family homes were demolished along with numerous animal pans, and 20 people including young children were displaced, left exposed to the harsh desert environment. While standing in solidarity with Palestinians, ICAHD staff and activists were repeatedly threatened by Israeli soldieries. ICAHD Co-Director Itay Epshtain was beaten and sustained minor injuries. Beit Arabiya was issued a demolition order by Israeli authorities back in 1994, following their failure to grant a building permit. It has since been demolished four times, to be rebuilt by ICAHD activists. Following a reissue of the demolition order last Thursday, came last night's fifth demolition. ICAHD Director, Dr. Jeff Halper, standing astride the ruins, vowed to support Salim and Arabiya in rebuilding their home. "We shall rebuild, we must rebuild forthwith, as an act of political defiance of the occupation and protracted oppression of Palestinians" said Halper. Beit Arabiya has become a symbol of resistance to the Judaization of the Occupied West Bank and Israeli demolition policy. "ICAHD is as determined as always to rebuild the home, and endure in its struggle to bring about justice and peace" added Halper. Salim and Arabiya, along with their neighbors and friends stood last night and watched as this tragedy unfold once again. Arabiya and Salim have dedicated their home as a center for peace in the memories of Rachel Corrie and Nuha Sweidan, two women (an American and a Palestinian) who died resisting home demolitions in Gaza. In the past decade ICAHD has hosted numerous visitors at Beit Arabiya, and based its annul rebuilding camp at the house, rebuilding 185 demolished Palestinian homes. Only earlier this month, ICAHD extended an invitation to the United Nations Special Rapporteur on Adequate Housing to visit Beit Arabiya during her country visit to the Occupied Palestinian Territory scheduled for later in the month. "It is our hope, that while we cannot extend the same hospitality to the Special Raportueor, Prof. Raquel Rolnik will visit the ruins of Beit Arabiya, and report on the utter cruelty, and illegality of Israeli policies and practices, and that members of the international community will follow in her footsteps". " said ICAHD Co-Director Itay Epshtain. For more information and coordination of visits to Beit Arabiya, kindly contact Itay Epshtain at itay@icahd.org or +972-54-2623306 Additional Information House demolitions and forced evictions are among Israel's most heinous practices in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT). In 2011, a record year of displacement, a total of 622 Palestinian structures were demolished by Israeli authorities, of which 36% (or 222) were family homes; the remainder were livelihood-related (including water storage and agricultural structures), resulting in 1,094 people displaced, almost double the number for 2010. The Jordan Valley sustained the largest number of demolitions (32% of total structures demolished, 40% of residential structures demolished, 37% of people displaced), with 199 structures demolished and 401 people displaced. Israel now controls 40% of the West Bank through 149 settlements and 102 outposts, housing more than 500,000 Jewish Israelis, as well as through closed military zones and declared nature reserves. In addition, house demolitions, forced evictions, and land expropriation, exacerbated by settler violence and the economic effects of movement restrictions, have left Palestinian communities struggling to make a living. Palestinians live in constant fear of displacement and dispersion, while Israel secures its domination and control.  The demolition of Palestinian homes is politically motivated and strategically informed. The goal is to confine the 4 million residents of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, and Gaza to small enclaves, thus effectively foreclosing any viable Palestinian state and ensuring Israeli control, and to allow for the expropriation of land, the ethnic displacement of Palestinians, and the Judaization of the Occupied West Bank.    The recent ICAHD report 'The Judaization of Palestine: 2011 Displacement Trends' provides a political analysis of the root causes and consequences of Israel's house demolition policy, focusing on the demolition of Palestinian homes and other structures in the Occupied West Bank. Click here to read the report…
This newsletter was generated on Altro

Apresentação do World Report 2012 da Human Rights Watch

2012 World Report, Q. and A. - Cairo

Question and answer session at the press conference of the launch of Human Rights Watch 2012 World Report. Cairo, Egypt, Sunday January 22 2012. (http://www.hrw.org/world-report-2012)

World Report 2012: 

Strengthen Support for 'Arab Spring'

Governments Should Support Rights, Not Abusive Allies

(Cairo, January 22, 2012) -- Many democracies have allowed their ties with repressive allies to temper their support for human rights in the Arab Spring protests, Human Rights Watch said today in its World Report 2012. For reasons of principle and long-term interest, governments should stand firm with the people of the Middle East and North Africa when they demand their basic rights and work to ensure the transition to genuine democracies.

The 676-page report, Human Rights Watch's annual review of human rights practices around the globe, summarizes major rights issues in more than 90 countries, reflecting the extensive investigative work carried out in 2011 by Human Rights Watch staf... More

© 2011 YouTube, LLC
901 Cherry Ave, San Bruno, CA 94066

A crónica polémica de Pedro Rosa Mendes

Crónica de Pedro Rosa Mendes sobre Angola e o programa "Reencontro" da RTP1, emitido na na Antena 1.

 

Assine até amanhã! Garanta os seus Direitos Económicos, Sociais e Culturais

Car@s amig@s

Já falta pouco! No dia 19 de janeiro a Amnistia Internacional Portugal terá uma audiência com um representante do Ministério dos Negócios Estrangeiros para entregar a petição que pede ao governo português que ratifique o Protocolo Facultativo ao Pacto Internacional sobre os Direitos Económicos, Sociais e Culturais (PFPIDESC) [International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights].

Pedimos que assinem até amanhã (18 de janeiro) à noite e que divulguem pelas vossas redes sociais e contactos esta petição.

Este Protocolo permitirá que os indivíduos e grupos procurem justiça através da ONU, caso os seus direitos (como o direito a alojamento adequado, alimentação, água, saúde, trabalho, educação e segurança social) sejam violados pelo governo e não consigam obter justiça localmente.

Todos juntos vamos tornar a justiça social uma realidade em Portugal!

Abraços e muito obrigada

Forward to A Friend

Amnistia Internacional Portugal Av. Infante Santo, 42, 2º 1350-179 Lisboa Portugal

---

Comentário: Não estou a ver este governo fazê-lo dada as suas políticas Anti-Direitos Económicos, Sociais e Culturais, mas há sempre que esgotar todos os caminhos.

"We believe" por David Cook para "Change the world, Invest in a girl"

Uma canção escrita por David Cook para a campanha da UN Foundation

"Change the world, Invest in a girl"

 

UNF: Change the world, invest in a girl

Sign up to receive this monthly newsletter via email. Dear Friends, Today's generation of youth — the largest in history — has the power to change the world, but many of the more than 600 million adolescent girls living in developing countries won't even get the chance to go to school. This is one of the many reasons the UN Foundation started the Girl Up campaign. David Cook, Season 7 winner of the hit show American Idol, took a trip to Ethiopia with us and saw firsthand the struggle that many girls around the world experience — lack of access to education and health services, and vulnerability to violence. He's been dedicated to improving the lives of adolescent girls ever since. Inspired by the girls he met in Ethiopia, David Cook wrote his hit song "We Believe," a powerful message that there can be a brighter tomorrow, for us and for girls around the world. Thank you, David, for your work to inspire hundreds of people to join the movement for adolescent girls. You, too, can join the movement to give more girls brighter futures. Your support of our Girl Up campaign will pay for backpacks, uniforms, school supplies, and books for girls living in the UN Refugee Agency's Jijiga camp in Ethiopia, so they can go to school and follow their dreams. As a thank you from David, you'll get a free download of "We Believe." Through Girl Up, American girls learn to become global leaders and channel their energy and compassion to raise awareness and funds for United Nations programs to help some of the world's hardest-to-reach adolescent girls. With your help, global problems facing girls around the world can be solved. Join us and the UN in making a difference for these girls. Go to GirlUp.org to take action today. Thank you, Kathy Calvin CEO, UN Foundation Sign Up | Donate | Take Action | View in Browser | Contact Us 1800 Massachusetts Avenue NW, Suite 400, Washington, DC 20036 © United Nations Foundation

"Billie Jean" pelo Anderson & Roe Piano Duo

Scotland: Teachers afraid to broach human rights in class

News | Published in TESS on 13 January, 2012 | By: Julia Horton
Last Updated: 13 January, 2012
Section: News
Fear of causing upset means they steer clear of controversial topic, research finds

Scottish teachers are too scared of upsetting parents to teach human rights, worrying new research has found.

Student teachers said they feared that “all hell would break loose” if they taught pupils about emotive human rights issues.

Meanwhile, students who did want to cover human rights during their teaching practice were actively discouraged by qualified teachers who were concerned that it was “controversial”.

Researchers at the University of Strathclyde said the findings raised concerns about how human rights education - a fundamental right in itself - was being delivered in Scotland under Curriculum for Excellence.

Lead researcher Claire Cassidy told delegates at the annual Scottish Educational Research Association conference: “Children generally learn about human rights through teachers - but teachers are afraid of human rights education.

“They are worried about parents’ reaction. Students talked at length about how there would be ‘all hell breaking loose’ if they even broached human rights.

“They are also worried about it being a sensitive topic and about how to pitch it, but that seemed to come down more to a lack of understanding of human rights and fears of teaching a subject they do not know.”

The students had “all sorts of bogeymen in their heads”, but this really was not borne out by reality, Dr Cassidy added.

“They thought of parents’ cultural, religious and moral positions as barriers to education, but they did not at any point consider that they could challenge parents’ views,” she said.

Of perhaps even greater concern was the attitude of experienced teachers who revealed similar fears.

Dr Cassidy said: “One student wanted to do a human rights topic, but the teacher said, ‘No, we think that’s too dodgy.’ So the student did a lesson on space instead.

“A fourth-year B.Ed student who brought a Holocaust survivor into class was told afterwards by the teacher that the lesson was ‘controversial’.”

The study was based on an online survey and interviews involving 133 students at an unidentified Scottish university doing B.Ed, PGDE and BA Early Childhood Practice (BAECP) qualifications.

Researchers also found that human rights education was not covered explicitly in teacher training, despite a current UN draft declaration on human rights education and training.

Dr Cassidy said: “Our students don’t actually know that there is a huge programme on human rights education, and I’m sure our colleges don’t know either. We need to help students to see the links between human rights education and CfE.”

However, one researcher at the SERA conference last year stressed the difficulties of teaching human rights in schools where pupils were directly affected by the issues in question.

The professor, who did not want to be named, referred to a large school in Glasgow where it was believed that female Pakistani pupils “disappeared” to take part in forced marriages, but the issue was never discussed because the girls’ parents gave the Scottish schools system “a complete body-swerve”.

A spokesman for Moray House school of education at the University of Edinburgh said several teacher-training courses referred to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was “implicitly touched upon” in relation to classroom equality issues.

But he added: “There are no specific modules, courses or electives on human rights within teacher training at Moray House.”

The findings are being used to help develop a continuing professional development opportunity at the University of Strathclyde in a bid to improve teaching of human rights.

Source: http://www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6164893

TES Editorial © 2011 TSL Education Ltd. All pages of the Website are subject to our terms and conditions and privacy policy. You must not reproduce, duplicate, copy, sell, resell or exploit any material on the Website for any commercial purposes.

Is Israel Suicidal? Uma crónica de MJ Rosenberg

Is Israel Suicidal? A man wrote me the other day to complain about something I had written regarding my belief that Israel has every right to exist in peace and security. He responded that Israel should not exist, asserting that Israel is simply a Western colony implanted in the Middle East that is as "authentic as white Rhodesia" was. He argued that every Israeli is from somewhere else and that what we call an "Israeli culture" is really just European culture with influences from Sephardic Israelis, "who are really Arabs," as well as from the indigenous Palestinians. As anti-Israel polemicists often do, he invoked the crusader colony that occupied Palestine for 200 years and then vanished. One way or another, he said, Israel too will disappear, rejected by the region the way a human body rejects an incompatible implant. To me, the whole argument (and the impulse behind it) is laughable and could only be made by someone who has very little knowledge about Israel. Like it or not, Israel is no more a European colony than the United States. While once the various people that compose Israel were simply settlers, being Israeli today is as distinct a nationality as any in the world. Although Jews visiting Israel from the United States or Europe often say, "I feel so at home here," that is only an illusion. Without speaking the Hebrew language and knowing the unique local culture, no one can be at home there. Visitors to Israel often say that it is impossible to tell Israelis from Palestinians. And, with the exception of the ultra-traditional among both peoples, that is true. But no one ever says that about the American, French or Russian Jews until they have been there 20 years or more. An Israeli is an Israeli. It is amazing, but a distinct new nationality was created over the past century. Seven million people speak Hebrew as their day-to-day language; before 1887 not a single person did. The creation of this nation and nationality is a remarkable achievement. Despite all Israel's faults, it is hard to imagine a Jew from previous eras who would not be struck with pride and wonder by the accomplishment. It does seem like a miracle, although it really is the result of hard work by remarkable men and women and a series of historical accidents, some horrendous beyond belief. But now, Israel's current leadership is jeopardizing the whole enterprise. In short, they are behaving in as suicidal a manner as Binyamin Netanyahu claims the Iranian regime behaves. How else to characterize a series of attacks in Iran, coupled with the "crippling sanctions" inflicted on the people of Iran by the United States, under intense and single-minded pressure of AIPAC, the Netanyahu government's lobby? How else to characterize the absolute refusal by the United States, under pressure from the lobby, to engage Iran diplomatically with the goal not merely of preventing an Iranian bomb but of fully normalizing relations (as Iran proposed in 2003)? Any doubt that Netanyahu and the lobby want war can be eliminated not just by this week's assassination of an Iranian scientist in the streets of Tehran, the fifth such killing, but also by an AIPAC-drafted resolution that tells the president that the only way he can deal with a nuclear Iran is through war, not diplomacy. Introduced by Sens. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT) and Lindsey Graham (R-SC), the resolution states that should Iran develop nuclear weapons, the U.S. response must be a military attack, even nuclear war. Read how Sen. Graham explains it: Some have suggested that — should economic and diplomatic pressure fail to force Iran to abandon its pursuit of acquiring nuclear weapons — the next best option is for the United States to accept and then contain a nuclear-armed Iran. That would be a catastrophic mistake. The resolution we intend to introduce will put the Senate on record as opposing containment in the strongest and clearest terms, detailing why the consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran cannot be 'contained' like the threat of the Soviet Union. When it comes to addressing the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran, all options must be on the table — except for one, and that is containment. ... Containment is failure, and failure cannot be an option. Imagine. The option the lobby-initiated Senate resolution rejects is the very policy that prevented the world from being destroyed during the Cold War. It is also the option the United States applies in the case of every other nation with nuclear weapons, including North Korea. Of course, if the Lieberman-Graham recommendation had the force of law, it would be unconstitutional. Congress cannot prevent the president from engaging in diplomacy. It certainly cannot force the commander in chief to engage in a war that would likely be nuclear. Imagine if Congress could have forced President Kennedy to go to war with the Soviet Union during the Cuban Missile Crisis rather than resolve the crisis through diplomacy. If it had, it is quite possible that none of us would be here. Nonetheless, this is what the so-called "pro-Israel" lobby is promoting: ruling out diplomacy in favor of war. It is insane. Surely the Israeli government (if not the lobby) understands that a military attack on Iran would lead to strikes on Israel engineered by Iran, its allies, and its regional proxies. Hezbollah alone has thousands of missiles on Israel's northern border that can reach every inch of Israel. Egypt's peace treaty with Israel, which is hanging by a thread anyway, would be unlikely to withstand popular support for some kind of military response. Hamas, on Israel's southern border, would attack. As for Syria, Bashir Assad might attack Israel just to divert attention from the revolution that seems on the verge of sweeping away his regime. Additionally, the nearly dead peace process would be buried. Israel might survive the war and its aftermath, but it would never achieve peace or security with a Muslim world that would never forgive a "preemptive" attack on a fellow Muslim state. In short, those who are advocating an attack on Iran by either Israel or the United States are cavalierly trifling with the survival of Israel, a nation that was built by dreamers and pioneers who wanted nothing more than a secure spot on earth where Jews would control their own destiny. That vision was achieved, but now it is being jeopardized by those who have a different dream: not the security of a Jewish state but its right to regional hegemony. As Gen. Ephraim Sneh, one of Israel's leading Iran hawks, admits, the rush to war is not about Israel's survival but about its ability to do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to do it. In Sneh's words, "We cannot afford a nuclear bomb in the hands of our enemies, period. They don't have to use it; the fact that they have it is enough." Enough to risk the annihilation of Israel? Fortunately, America's leaders don't think that way. We have lived under a nuclear threat since Stalin's Soviet Union developed atomic weapons in the late 1940s. In 1965, we had to accept the idea that our worst and most irrational enemy, the nation we then called Red China, had the bomb. And now there are North Korea, the craziest nation on earth, and Pakistan, which openly and defiantly colludes with the world's most anti-American terrorists. We live with that. We choose containment over national suicide. I have no doubt that virtually all Israelis (and Iranians, too) share our penchant for survival. Something is wrong with the Netanyahu government and its cutouts here. They have forgotten the number one injunction of the Torah: "Therefore, choose life." In other words, choose diplomacy, not war. Foreign Policy Matters is updated daily. Check us out HERE. Copyright (C) 2009 Media Matters Action Network All rights reserved.

"Encerrem Guatanamo" Assinem a Petição da Amnestia Internacional

Faltam 09 Dias, 05 Horas, 29 Minutos, 53 Segundos
para terminar a assinatura da Petição.

Guantánamo: 10 anos depois continuam as violações dos Direitos Humanos  Dez anos depois dos primeiros prisioneiros entrarem em Guantánamo, mais de 150 pessoas continuam detidas no centro de detenção. A maioria está presa por tempo indefinido e sem julgamento ou acusação formal. Mais de 110.000 pessoas já assinaram a petição no mundo inteiro. E você já assinou? Foi a 11 de Janeiro de 2002 que os primeiros prisioneiros foram levados para a baía de Guantánamo, como consequência dos atentados de 11 de Setembro. Desde então, o centro de detenção de Guantánamo tem sido notícia de primeira página em todo o mundo devido às chocantes violações de direitos humanos ali praticadas, tais como detenções arbitrárias, detenções secretas,’’rendições’’, tortura, maus tratos e julgamentos injustos. Dez anos depois, mais de 150 pessoas continuam detidas em Guantánamo. A maioria está presa por tempo indefinido e sem julgamento ou acusação formal. Os que foram levados a tribunal enfrentaram julgamentos injustos feitos por comissões militares e alguns podem vir a enfrentar a pena de morte. O governo afirma que mesmo aqueles que forem considerados inocentes podem continuar presos por tempo indeterminado. Até agora não foram prestados esclarecimentos nem reparações pelas violações dos Direitos Humanos a que estes e outros detidos foram sujeitos. As preocupações com os Direitos Humanos em Guantánamo continuam a ser uma história inacabada. Quanto tempo ainda tem de passar para que o governo dos Estados Unidos feche o último capítulo da história de Guantánamo e honre as suas obrigações quanto aos Direitos Humanos?   Assine a petição até dia 23 de Janeiro. Esta será entregue ao presidente Obama antes do seu discurso sobre o Estado da União a 24 de Janeiro de 2012.

Carta que será enviada após assinar a petição   We call on the United States President Barack Obama to address the detentions at Guantánamo Bay as a human rights issue that requires urgent attention. Guantánamo detainees should either be charged and prosecuted in fair trials or released to countries that will respect their human rights, including into the USA if that is the only available option; The US military commissions, which do not meet international fair trial standards, should be abandoned, as should any pursuit of the death penalty; Former or current US officials responsible for human rights violations must be held to account, including in respect of crimes under international law such as torture and enforced disappearance by bringing them to justice. Victims of human rights violations must be provided genuine access to effective remedy; The USA must recognize the applicability of, and fully respect international human rights law, when conducting counterterrorism operations, including detentions in Guantánamo, detention facilities at Bagram in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Yours sincerely,

Festival de música neonazi cria mal estar na Austrália

A organização de um festival de música neonazi em Brisbane, na Austrália, previsto para o mês de abril, está a causar uma forte polémica no país. As autoridades afirmam que não o podem proibir.

Consulte o artigo completo em: Festival de música neonazi cria mal estar na Austrália - Globo - DN

Comentário:

Uma chamada de atenção para os que se iludem sobre a inocuidade do acto que é cantar, como se tal acto existe apenas per si e em absoluto, esquecendo todas as circunstâncias que o definem.

Aliás veja este artigo O meu vizinho nazi | Presseurop (português)

O impacto (contra) humanitário das políticas de colonização de Israel | Janeiro 2012

 Os colonatos são ilegais nos termos do direito internacional. O confisco de terras para construção de colonatos e futura expansão resultou na redução do espaço disponível para os palestinos manterem os seus meios de vida e desenvolverem uma habitação adequada e infraestruturas e serviços básicos. O fracasso no respeito ao direito internacional, juntamente com a carência, por falta de lei adequada, da aplicação da lei, vis-à-vis à violência dos colonos e à ocupação de terras levou a um estado de impunidade, que incentiva mais violência e vulnerabiliza a segurança física e as condições de vida dos palestinos.

	Published: 2012-01-10
	The Humanitarian Impact of Israeli Settlement Policies Fact Sheet | January 2012  Settlements are illegal under international law. The seizure of land for settlement building and future expansion has resulted in the shrinking of space available for Palestinians to sustain their livelihoods and develop adequate housing, basic infrastructure and services. The failure to respect international law, along with the lack of lack of adequate law enforcement vis-à-vis settler violence and takeover of land has led to a state of impunity, which encourages further violence and undermines the physical security and livelihoods of Palestinians. English

United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)www.ochaopt.org

---

Ana Moura: Não cante em Israel, não cante para o Apartheid!

Corre uma petição para pedir a Ana Moura que não cante em Israel.

A petição teve origem nos EUA,  e ao tomar conhecimento da situação só poderia juntar a minha voz a este pedido tão justo.

Para mim, reconhecendo a sensibilidade da Ana Moura, custa-me a entender que ela vá cantar a Israel um país que ocupa pelas armas o território de um outro povo, o palestino, e que o reprime e oprime quotidianamente. Todos os dias se morre, se é ferido, se é preso, se é torturado pela simples razão de se ser Palestino. Não interessa sequer a idade ou o género.

Por isso muitos israelitas e judeus, por todo o mundo, já se declararam contra a ocupação e pela Paz! Assine a petição aqui!

Human Rights Watch on the Tenth Anniversary of Guantanamo

 
Human Rights Watch Press release

January 6, 2012


On January 11, 2002, the United States brought the first 20 prisoners to the Guantanamo Bay detention facility, marking the beginning of a program of indefinite detention without charge or trial of terrorism suspects that has lasted 10 years.

Since then, a total of 779 prisoners have been held at the facility.

Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for 2012, passed by Congress and signed by President Barack Obama on December 31, 2011, codify the practice of indefinite detention without trial into US law. This page is a compilation of selected Human Rights Watch reporting on Guantanamo and related matters over the past decade, as well as facts and figures comparing military commissions to federal courts.

Despite promises by Obama soon after his inauguration to close the facility, 171 prisoners remain.

Of the 779 detained in total, roughly 600 have been released and eight have died over the course of the past decade. Of the eight deaths, six are suspected suicides.

During the administration of President George W. Bush, many detainees at Guantanamo were subjected to painful stress positions; extended solitary confinement; threatening military dogs; threats of torture and death; and prolonged exposure to extremes of heat, cold, and noise that amounted to torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.

When Obama took office in January 2009, about 242 prisoners remained.

Only a handful of the roughly 600 detainees released over the past 10 years were ever charged with a criminal offense.

Of the 171 prisoners that remain, the Obama administration has said it plans to prosecute 32, yet only one prisoner, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, currently faces any formal charges.

Another five, those accused of planning the September 11, 2001 attacks, have charges pending against them, but formal charges have yet to be brought and they have not been arraigned.

Of the remaining 139 prisoners, the administration has said it plans to detain 46 indefinitely without ever bringing charges against them. Another 89 detainees have been approved for transfer to home or third countries.

A variety of factors have prevented the release of those slated for transfer including inaction on the part of the Obama and Bush administrations, a moratorium placed on transfers to Yemen following the attempted bombing by a Yemeni of a US airliner on December 25, 2009, and restrictions placed by Congress on transfers from Guantanamo in December 2010. Fifty-six of the 89 detainees slated for transfer are from Yemen.

Ongoing US violations of detainee rights are not limited to Guantanamo.

Nearly 3,000 people now held by US forces in Afghanistan have not been afforded the basic rights that even captured enemy fighters are due in a civil war, such as being informed by a judge of the basis for their detention or allowed access to counsel. And individuals apprehended outside of Afghanistan currently detained there should never have been brought to the country at all.

Human Rights Watch opposes the prolonged indefinite detention without trial of terrorism suspects at Guantanamo Bay and elsewhere. The practice violates US obligations under international law.

Human Rights Watch has strongly urged the US government to either promptly prosecute the remaining Guantanamo detainees according to international fair trial standards, or safely repatriate them to home or third countries.

We have also called for investigations of US officials implicated in torture of terrorism suspects and for adequate compensation for detainees who were mistreated.

Human Rights Watch will continue to press for compliance with these obligations. Failure to do so does enormous damage to the rule of law both in the US and abroad.

Coltrane,John e "Giant Steps"

  

"The stolen war" de Uri Avnery

Uri Avnery

January 7, 2012

                                               The Stolen War

IS THERE no limit to the villainy of Hamas? Seems there isn’t.

This week, they did something quite unforgivable.

They stole a war.

FOR SOME weeks now, our almost new Chief of Staff, Benny Gantz, has been announcing at every possible opportunity that a new war against the Gaza Strip is inevitable. Several commanders of the troops around the Strip have been repeating this dire forecast, as have their camp-followers, a.k.a. military commentators.

One of these comforted us. True, Hamas can now hit Tel Aviv with their rockets, but that will not be so terrible, because it will be a short war. Just three or four days. As one of the generals said, it will be much more “hard and painful” (for the Arabs) than Cast Lead I, so it will not last for three weeks, as that did. We shall all stay in our shelters – those of us who have shelters, anyway – for just a few days.  

Why is the war inevitable? Because of the terrorism, stupid. Hamas is a terrorist organization, isn’t it?

But along comes the supreme Hamas leader, Khaled Mash’al, and declares that Hamas has given up all violent action. From now on it will concentrate on non-violent mass demonstrations, in the spirit of the Arab Spring.

When Hamas forswears terrorism, there is no pretext for an attack on Gaza. 

But is a pretext needed? Our army will not let itself be thwarted by the likes of Mash’al. When the army wants a war, it will have a war. This was proved in 1982, when Ariel Sharon attacked Lebanon, despite the fact that the Lebanese border had been absolutely quiet for 11 months. (After the war, the myth was born that it was preceded by daily shooting. Today, almost every Israeli can “remember” the shooting – an astonishing example of the power of suggestion.

WHY DOES the Chief of Staff want to attack?

A cynic might say that every new Chief of Staff needs a war to call his own. But we are not cynics, are we?

Every few days, a solitary rocket is launched from the Gaza Strip into Israel. It rarely hits anything but an empty field. For months, now, no one has been hurt.

The usual sequence is like this: our air force carries out a “targeted liquidation” of Palestinian militants in the strip. The army claims invariably that these specific “terrorists” had intended to attack Israelis. How did the army know of their intentions? Well, our army is a master thought reader.

After the persons have been killed, their organization considers it its duty to avenge their blood by launching a rocket or a mortar shell, or even two or three. This “cannot be tolerated” by the army, and so it goes on.

After every such episode, the talk about a war starts again. As American politicians put it in their speeches at AIPAC conferences: “No country can tolerate its citizens being exposed to rockets!”

But of course, the reasons for Cast Lead II are more serious. Hamas is being accepted by the international community. Their Prime Minister, Isma’il Haniyeh, is now traveling around the Arab and Muslim world, after being shut in Gaza – a kind of Strip-arrest – for four years. Now he can cross into Egypt because the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas’ parent organization, has become a major player there.

Even worse, Hamas is about to join the PLO and take part in the Palestinian government. High time to do something about it. Attack Gaza, for example. Compel Hamas to become extremist again.

NOT CONTENT with stealing our war, Mash’al is carrying out a series of more sinister actions.

By joining the PLO, he is committing Hamas to the Oslo agreements and all the other official deals between Israel and the PLO. He has announced that Hamas accepts a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. He has let it be known that Hamas would not contest the Palestinian presidency this year, so that the Fatah candidate – whoever that may be – would be elected practically unopposed and be able to negotiate with Israel.

All this would put the present Israeli government in a difficult position.

Mash’al has some experience in causing trouble for Israel. In 1977, the (first) Netanyahu government decided to get rid of him in Amman. A team of Mossad agents was sent to assassinate him in the street by spraying his ear with an untraceable poison. But instead of doing the decent thing and  dying quietly from a mysterious cause, like Yasser Arafat, he let his bodyguard chase the attackers and catch them.

King Hussein, Israel’s longstanding friend and ally, was hopping mad. He presented Netanyahu with a choice: either the agents would be tried in Jordan and possibly hanged, or the Mossad would immediately send the secret antidote to save Mash’al. Netanyahu capitulated, and here we have Mash’al, very much alive and kicking.

Another curious outcome of this misadventure: the king demanded that the Hamas founder and leader, the paralyzed Sheik Ahmad Yassin, be released from Israeli prison. Netanyahu obliged, Yassin was released and assassinated by Israel seven years later. When his successor, Abd al-Aziz Rantissi, was assassinated soon after, the path was cleared for Mash’al to become the Hamas chief.

And instead of showing his gratitude, he now confronts us with a dire challenge: non-violent action, indirect peace overtures, the two-state solution.

A QUESTION: why does our Chief of Staff long for a little war in Gaza, when he could have all the war he desires in Iran? Not just a little operation, but a big war, a very very big war.   

Well, he knows that he cannot have it.

Some time ago I did something no experienced commentator ever does. I promised that there would be no Israeli military attack on Iran. (Nor, for that matter, an American one.)

An experienced journalist or politician never makes such a prediction without leaving a loophole for himself. He puts in an inconspicuous “unless”. If his forecast goes awry, he points to that loophole.

I do have some experience – some 60 or so years of it – but I did not leave any loophole. I said No War, and now General Gantz says the same in so many words. No Tehran, just poor little Gaza.

 Why? Because of that one word: Hormuz.

Not the ancient Persian god Hormuzd, but the narrow strait that is the entrance and exit of the Persian Gulf, through which 20% of the world’s oil (and 35% of the sea-borne oil) flows. My contention was that no sane (or even mildly insane) leader would risk the closing of the strait, because the economic consequences would be catastrophic, even apocalyptic.

IT SEEMS that the leaders of Iran were not sure that all the world’s leaders read this column, so, just in case, they spelled it out themselves. This week they conducted conspicuous military maneuvers around the Strait of Hormuz, accompanied by the unequivocal threat to close it. 

The US responded with vainglorious counter-threats. The invincible US Navy was ready to open the strait by force, if needed.

How, pray? The mightiest multi-billion aircraft carrier can be easily sunk by a battery of cheap land-to-sea missiles, as well as by small missile-boats.

Let’s assume Iran starts to act out its threats. The whole might of the US air force and navy is brought to bear. Iranian ships will be sunk, missile and army installations bombed. Still the Iranian missiles will come in, making passage through the strait impossible.    

What next? There will be no alternative to “boots on the ground”. The US army will have to land on the shore and occupy all the territory from which missiles can be effectively launched. That would be a major operation. Fierce Iranian resistance must be expected, judging from the experience of the eight-year Iraqi-Iranian war. The oil wells in neighboring Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf states will also be hit. 

Such a war would go far beyond the dimensions of the American invasions of Iraq or Afghanistan, perhaps even of Vietnam.

Is the bankrupt US up to it? Economically, politically and in terms of morale?

The closing of the strait is the ultimate weapon. I don’t believe that the Iranians will use it against the imposition of sanctions, severe as they may be, as they have threatened. Only a military attack would warrant such a response.  

If Israel attacks alone – “the most stupid idea I ever heard of,” as our former Mossad chief put it – that will make no difference. Iran will consider it an American action, and close the strait. That’s why the Obama administration put its foot down, and hand-delivered to Netanyahu and Ehud Barak an unequivocal order to abstain from any military action.

That’s where we are now. No war in Iran. Just the prospect of a war in Gaza.

And along comes this evil Mash’al and tries to spoil the chances of that, too.