Pomarão.
terça-feira, 15 de agosto de 2006
domingo, 13 de agosto de 2006
Porque falham os generais em Israel?
Vale a pena ler no www.antiwar.com o artigo de 12/8/06 do israelita URI AVNER
"The Buck Stops Where?"
Não resisto a reproduzir extractos:
«Today the war entered its fifth week. Hard to believe: our mighty army has now been fighting for 29 days against a "gang" and "terrorist organization," as the military commanders like to describe them, and the battle has still not been decided.
(...)
Now everybody already admits that something basic has gone wrong in this war. The proof: the War of the Generals, which previously started only after the conclusion of a war, has now become public while the war is still going on.
The chief of staff, Dan Halutz, has found the culprit: Udi Adam, the chief of the Northern Command. He has practically dismissed him in the middle of the battle. That is the old ploy of the thief shouting, "Stop thief!" After all, it is obvious that the person mainly to blame for the failures of the war is Halutz himself, with his foolish belief that Hezbollah could be defeated by aerial bombardment alone.
But it is not only at the top of the army that mutual accusations are flying around. The army command accuses the government, which is retaliating in kind.»
(...)
But this is a sterile debate, because it ignores the main fact, which is becoming clearer from day to day: it is altogether impossible to win this war. That's why nothing is working as planned.
(...)
It is quite clear that the army command's wonderful plan did not include the defense of the rear within rocket range. There was no plan for the solution of the hundred and one problems emanating from the attack on Hezbollah: from the protection of the civilian population from thousands of missiles to the necessary economic arrangements when a third of the country's population is living under bombardment and is paralyzed. Now the public is crying out, and soon the ministers and generals will have to try to find somebody to blame for that, too.
For this war is being fought on the backs of the weak, who cannot afford to "evacuate themselves" from the rockets' area. The rich and well-to-do got out long ago ? in Israel as well as in Lebanon.
(...)
"Now the end of the killing depends on the UN. David Ben-Gurion called it contemptuously "UNO-SHMUNO" (UM-SHMUM in Hebrew). In the 1948 war, he violated its cease-fire resolutions whenever it suited him (as a soldier, I took part in some of these actions). He and all his successors over the years have violated almost all the UN decisions concerning us, arguing (not without justification) that the organization was dominated by an automatic anti-Israeli majority, consisting of the Soviet bloc and Third World countries.
Since then, the situation has changed. The Soviet bloc has collapsed and the UN has become an arm of the U.S. State Department. Kofi Annan has become a janitor, and the real boss is the U.S. delegate, John Bolton, a raving neocon and therefore a great friend of Israel. He wants the war to go on.
(...)
The new proposals of the Beirut government have lit red lights in Jerusalem. The Lebanese government proposes to deploy 15,000 Lebanese troops along the border, declare a cease-fire and get the Israeli troops out of Lebanon. That is exactly what the Israeli government demanded at the start of the war. But now it looks like a danger. It could stop the war without an Israeli victory.
Thus a paradoxical situation has arisen: the Israeli government is rejecting a proposal that reflects its original war aims, and instead demands the deployment of an international force, which it objected to strenuously at the start of the war. That's what happens when you start a war without clear and achievable aims. Everything gets mixed up.
(...)
The civilians who pose as war leaders are no better then the generals. A veteran general might even have learned something from his experience.
I am going now to say something I did not think I would ever utter: It is quite possible that we would not have slid into this foolish war if Ariel Sharon were in charge. Fact: he did not attack Hezbollah after the withdrawal in 2000. One attempt was enough for him. Which proves again that there is nothing so bad that something worse cannot be found.
The lust for war also explains the talking choir of the hundreds of ex-generals, who think and talk in unison in favor of the war. A cynic would say, what's the big deal, after all it's the army that gave them their standing in society. They are important only as long as the conflict between Israel and the Arab world continues. The conflict guarantees their status. They have no interest whatsoever in its resolution.
But the phenomenon is more profound. The army is the crucible for senior officers. It shapes their world outlook, their attitude and style. Apart from the settlers, the senior officers' corps ? in and out of uniform ? is today the only ideological party in Israel and therefore has a huge influence. It can easily gobble up a thousand little functionaries like Amir Peretz before breakfast.
This is why there is no real self-criticism. At the beginning of the fifth week, the slogans are again, Forwards! To the Litani! Further! Stronger! Deeper!»
"The Buck Stops Where?"
Não resisto a reproduzir extractos:
«Today the war entered its fifth week. Hard to believe: our mighty army has now been fighting for 29 days against a "gang" and "terrorist organization," as the military commanders like to describe them, and the battle has still not been decided.
(...)
Now everybody already admits that something basic has gone wrong in this war. The proof: the War of the Generals, which previously started only after the conclusion of a war, has now become public while the war is still going on.
The chief of staff, Dan Halutz, has found the culprit: Udi Adam, the chief of the Northern Command. He has practically dismissed him in the middle of the battle. That is the old ploy of the thief shouting, "Stop thief!" After all, it is obvious that the person mainly to blame for the failures of the war is Halutz himself, with his foolish belief that Hezbollah could be defeated by aerial bombardment alone.
But it is not only at the top of the army that mutual accusations are flying around. The army command accuses the government, which is retaliating in kind.»
(...)
But this is a sterile debate, because it ignores the main fact, which is becoming clearer from day to day: it is altogether impossible to win this war. That's why nothing is working as planned.
(...)
It is quite clear that the army command's wonderful plan did not include the defense of the rear within rocket range. There was no plan for the solution of the hundred and one problems emanating from the attack on Hezbollah: from the protection of the civilian population from thousands of missiles to the necessary economic arrangements when a third of the country's population is living under bombardment and is paralyzed. Now the public is crying out, and soon the ministers and generals will have to try to find somebody to blame for that, too.
For this war is being fought on the backs of the weak, who cannot afford to "evacuate themselves" from the rockets' area. The rich and well-to-do got out long ago ? in Israel as well as in Lebanon.
(...)
"Now the end of the killing depends on the UN. David Ben-Gurion called it contemptuously "UNO-SHMUNO" (UM-SHMUM in Hebrew). In the 1948 war, he violated its cease-fire resolutions whenever it suited him (as a soldier, I took part in some of these actions). He and all his successors over the years have violated almost all the UN decisions concerning us, arguing (not without justification) that the organization was dominated by an automatic anti-Israeli majority, consisting of the Soviet bloc and Third World countries.
Since then, the situation has changed. The Soviet bloc has collapsed and the UN has become an arm of the U.S. State Department. Kofi Annan has become a janitor, and the real boss is the U.S. delegate, John Bolton, a raving neocon and therefore a great friend of Israel. He wants the war to go on.
(...)
The new proposals of the Beirut government have lit red lights in Jerusalem. The Lebanese government proposes to deploy 15,000 Lebanese troops along the border, declare a cease-fire and get the Israeli troops out of Lebanon. That is exactly what the Israeli government demanded at the start of the war. But now it looks like a danger. It could stop the war without an Israeli victory.
Thus a paradoxical situation has arisen: the Israeli government is rejecting a proposal that reflects its original war aims, and instead demands the deployment of an international force, which it objected to strenuously at the start of the war. That's what happens when you start a war without clear and achievable aims. Everything gets mixed up.
(...)
The civilians who pose as war leaders are no better then the generals. A veteran general might even have learned something from his experience.
I am going now to say something I did not think I would ever utter: It is quite possible that we would not have slid into this foolish war if Ariel Sharon were in charge. Fact: he did not attack Hezbollah after the withdrawal in 2000. One attempt was enough for him. Which proves again that there is nothing so bad that something worse cannot be found.
The lust for war also explains the talking choir of the hundreds of ex-generals, who think and talk in unison in favor of the war. A cynic would say, what's the big deal, after all it's the army that gave them their standing in society. They are important only as long as the conflict between Israel and the Arab world continues. The conflict guarantees their status. They have no interest whatsoever in its resolution.
But the phenomenon is more profound. The army is the crucible for senior officers. It shapes their world outlook, their attitude and style. Apart from the settlers, the senior officers' corps ? in and out of uniform ? is today the only ideological party in Israel and therefore has a huge influence. It can easily gobble up a thousand little functionaries like Amir Peretz before breakfast.
This is why there is no real self-criticism. At the beginning of the fifth week, the slogans are again, Forwards! To the Litani! Further! Stronger! Deeper!»
...para levar a guerra até ao Irão
Ainda do artigo "The New Middle East" out of control", de Jim Lobe, baseado na análise do Coronel Lawrence Wilkerson, o ex-chefe de gabinete do ex Secretário de Estado Colin Powell:
(...)"That Rice may now find herself in a similar position, having to contend with a resurgent Cheney-led coalition of hawks who are not so much complacent about the course of current events in the Middle East as convinced that their strategy of regional "transformation" by military means will be vindicated, is what is perhaps particularly alarming about the present moment.
"This whole business is nuts - unless, of course, you believe what the rumor-mongers are beginning to pass around," wrote Wilkerson in reference to the Lebanon war in an email exchange with IPS. "(T)hat this entire affair was ginned up by Bush/Cheney and certain political leaders in Tel Aviv to give cover for the eventual attack by the U.S. on Iran. At first, I refused to believe what seemed to be such insanity. But I am not so certain any longer."
--------
(...)"That Rice may now find herself in a similar position, having to contend with a resurgent Cheney-led coalition of hawks who are not so much complacent about the course of current events in the Middle East as convinced that their strategy of regional "transformation" by military means will be vindicated, is what is perhaps particularly alarming about the present moment.
"This whole business is nuts - unless, of course, you believe what the rumor-mongers are beginning to pass around," wrote Wilkerson in reference to the Lebanon war in an email exchange with IPS. "(T)hat this entire affair was ginned up by Bush/Cheney and certain political leaders in Tel Aviv to give cover for the eventual attack by the U.S. on Iran. At first, I refused to believe what seemed to be such insanity. But I am not so certain any longer."
--------
...e os mais neo-cons atiram-se a Condi Rice...
Ainda do artigo "New Middle East" Out of Control",de Jim Lobe:
(...) The one, at least partial, exception has been Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose State Department, a bastion of realism, has been under almost constant attack since the outset of the Lebanon crisis by the same coalition of neo-conservatives, assertive nationalists, and Christian rightists led by Vice President Dick Cheney that led the drive to war in Iraq.
In the early stages of the latest war, Rice, who is also the only senior administration official who has been in constant communication with European and Arab leaders, was most outspoken about the importance of Israel exercising restraint and not attacking civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. She was reportedly infuriated when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert failed to follow through on a pledge to suspend aerial attacks for two days late last month. Rice, a Scowcroft protégée, has supported talks with Syria on the crisis, and, according to an account published this week in Insight magazine, a publication of the right-wing Washington Times, has also argued in favour of engaging Iran. Before the Lebanon crisis, Rice appeared to be successfully moving U.S. policy gradually, if fitfully, towards a more realist position, particularly with respect to Iran. But she has now run into a brick wall in Bush himself, according to Insight.
"For the last 18 months, Condi was given nearly carte blanche in setting foreign policy guidelines," it quoted one "senior government source" as saying. "All of a sudden, the president has a different opinion and he wants the last word."
Her problems, however, may not be confined to Bush, according to another report in Thursday's New York Times, which suggested that Cheney - and his mainly neo-conservative advisers - has become increasingly assertive in the latest crisis in support of Israel's efforts to crush Hezbollah. (In fact, some of his unofficial advisers, such as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, have called for expanding the war to Syria and even Iran.) In that respect, the current situation recalls the humiliation of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's who in early 2002 sought to persuade Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to halt Israel's military offensive in the Palestinian territories - only to be undercut back home by Cheney and, ironically, by then-national security adviser Rice herself.
"She had as much to do with cutting his legs out from under him vis-à-vis the Middle East as anyone else - either through outright agreement with Cheney, or, at the minimum, complicity with his views so as to draw even closer to Bush," according to ret. Col Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's former chief of staff at the State Department. (...)
(...) The one, at least partial, exception has been Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice whose State Department, a bastion of realism, has been under almost constant attack since the outset of the Lebanon crisis by the same coalition of neo-conservatives, assertive nationalists, and Christian rightists led by Vice President Dick Cheney that led the drive to war in Iraq.
In the early stages of the latest war, Rice, who is also the only senior administration official who has been in constant communication with European and Arab leaders, was most outspoken about the importance of Israel exercising restraint and not attacking civilian infrastructure in Lebanon. She was reportedly infuriated when Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert failed to follow through on a pledge to suspend aerial attacks for two days late last month. Rice, a Scowcroft protégée, has supported talks with Syria on the crisis, and, according to an account published this week in Insight magazine, a publication of the right-wing Washington Times, has also argued in favour of engaging Iran. Before the Lebanon crisis, Rice appeared to be successfully moving U.S. policy gradually, if fitfully, towards a more realist position, particularly with respect to Iran. But she has now run into a brick wall in Bush himself, according to Insight.
"For the last 18 months, Condi was given nearly carte blanche in setting foreign policy guidelines," it quoted one "senior government source" as saying. "All of a sudden, the president has a different opinion and he wants the last word."
Her problems, however, may not be confined to Bush, according to another report in Thursday's New York Times, which suggested that Cheney - and his mainly neo-conservative advisers - has become increasingly assertive in the latest crisis in support of Israel's efforts to crush Hezbollah. (In fact, some of his unofficial advisers, such as Weekly Standard editor William Kristol and former Defence Policy Board chairman Richard Perle, have called for expanding the war to Syria and even Iran.) In that respect, the current situation recalls the humiliation of then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's who in early 2002 sought to persuade Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon to halt Israel's military offensive in the Palestinian territories - only to be undercut back home by Cheney and, ironically, by then-national security adviser Rice herself.
"She had as much to do with cutting his legs out from under him vis-à-vis the Middle East as anyone else - either through outright agreement with Cheney, or, at the minimum, complicity with his views so as to draw even closer to Bush," according to ret. Col Lawrence Wilkerson, Powell's former chief of staff at the State Department. (...)
O "novo" Médio Oriente desatina...
Leia-se o artigo "New Middle East" Out of Control, de Jim Lobe (Editor-chefe do Bureau de Washington do Inter Press Service), in TomPaine.com, de 11.8.06
"Alarms are definitely on the rise here.
And it's not just because the British police arrested 21 people who were allegedly plotting to bomb up to 10 jetliners (...).
It's more the sense that the growing number of crises in the "new Middle East," proudly midwifed by the administration of President George W. Bush, is rapidly spinning out of control with potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire region and beyond.
(...) "Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency," noted Washington's former U.N. Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, in an uncharacteristically alarming column in Thursday's Washington Post.
"A chain reaction could spread quickly almost anywhere between Cairo and Bombay," Holbrooke warned. "...The combination of combustible elements poses the greatest threat to global stability since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, history's only nuclear superpower confrontation."
Among other things, noted Holbrooke, (...) Turkey is threatening to invade northern Iraq; the world's largest anti-Israel demonstrations are taking place in downtown Baghdad; Syria may yet be pulled into the Lebanon war; Afghanistan is under growing threat from a resurgent Taliban; and India is threatening about punitive action against Pakistan for its alleged involvement in the recent train bombings in Bombay.
Particularly alarming to Holbrooke, as to a steadily growing number of Republican realists and other members of the traditional U.S. foreign policy elite, is the apparent complacency of the Bush administration in the face of these events.
Indeed, since the outbreak of the Lebanon crisis four weeks ago, a succession of former top Republican policy-makers-including Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to former presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush; the younger Bush's former deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage; and Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass-has called publicly for a major reassessment of U.S. Middle East policy and its conduct of the "global war on terror."
Their common message is the necessity of pressing Israel for a quick ceasefire in Lebanon, engaging directly with Syria and Iran on both Lebanon and Iraq, and restarting a serious peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. It has been echoed by leading Democrats, including former President Jimmy Carter ; his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski; and former secretaries of state Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright, as well as by Holbrooke himself.
To these appeals, however-as well as to the worsening of the twin crises themselves-the administration has appeared largely deaf. "There is little public sign that the president and his top advisers recognise how close we are to a chain reaction, or that they have any larger strategy beyond tactical actions," Holbrooke noted. (...)
"Alarms are definitely on the rise here.
And it's not just because the British police arrested 21 people who were allegedly plotting to bomb up to 10 jetliners (...).
It's more the sense that the growing number of crises in the "new Middle East," proudly midwifed by the administration of President George W. Bush, is rapidly spinning out of control with potentially catastrophic consequences for the entire region and beyond.
(...) "Two full-blown crises, in Lebanon and Iraq, are merging into a single emergency," noted Washington's former U.N. Ambassador, Richard Holbrooke, in an uncharacteristically alarming column in Thursday's Washington Post.
"A chain reaction could spread quickly almost anywhere between Cairo and Bombay," Holbrooke warned. "...The combination of combustible elements poses the greatest threat to global stability since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, history's only nuclear superpower confrontation."
Among other things, noted Holbrooke, (...) Turkey is threatening to invade northern Iraq; the world's largest anti-Israel demonstrations are taking place in downtown Baghdad; Syria may yet be pulled into the Lebanon war; Afghanistan is under growing threat from a resurgent Taliban; and India is threatening about punitive action against Pakistan for its alleged involvement in the recent train bombings in Bombay.
Particularly alarming to Holbrooke, as to a steadily growing number of Republican realists and other members of the traditional U.S. foreign policy elite, is the apparent complacency of the Bush administration in the face of these events.
Indeed, since the outbreak of the Lebanon crisis four weeks ago, a succession of former top Republican policy-makers-including Brent Scowcroft, the national security adviser to former presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush; the younger Bush's former deputy secretary of state, Richard Armitage; and Council on Foreign Relations President Richard Haass-has called publicly for a major reassessment of U.S. Middle East policy and its conduct of the "global war on terror."
Their common message is the necessity of pressing Israel for a quick ceasefire in Lebanon, engaging directly with Syria and Iran on both Lebanon and Iraq, and restarting a serious peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. It has been echoed by leading Democrats, including former President Jimmy Carter ; his national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski; and former secretaries of state Warren Christopher and Madeleine Albright, as well as by Holbrooke himself.
To these appeals, however-as well as to the worsening of the twin crises themselves-the administration has appeared largely deaf. "There is little public sign that the president and his top advisers recognise how close we are to a chain reaction, or that they have any larger strategy beyond tactical actions," Holbrooke noted. (...)
E os muçulmanos britânicos criticam Blair...
Do Guardian, 12.8.96
"Muslim Leaders Say Foreign Policy Makes UK Target
Leading UK Muslims have united to tell Tony Blair that his foreign policy in Iraq and on Israel offers "ammunition to extremists" and puts British lives "at increased risk".
(...)"As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens. It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.
"To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
"The debacle of Iraq and the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.
"Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the prime minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion. Such a move would make us all safer."
The signatories insisted they condemned those who planned the alleged attacks. Mr Khan told the Guardian that Mr Blair's reluctance to criticise Israel over the Lebanon attacks meant the pool of people from which terrorists found their recruits was increasing."
"Muslim Leaders Say Foreign Policy Makes UK Target
Leading UK Muslims have united to tell Tony Blair that his foreign policy in Iraq and on Israel offers "ammunition to extremists" and puts British lives "at increased risk".
(...)"As British Muslims we urge you to do more to fight against all those who target civilians with violence, whenever and wherever that happens. It is our view that current British government policy risks putting civilians at increased risk both in the UK and abroad.
"To combat terror the government has focused extensively on domestic legislation. While some of this will have an impact, the government must not ignore the role of its foreign policy.
"The debacle of Iraq and the failure to do more to secure an immediate end to the attacks on civilians in the Middle East not only increases the risk to ordinary people in that region, it is also ammunition to extremists who threaten us all.
"Attacking civilians is never justified. This message is a global one. We urge the prime minister to redouble his efforts to tackle terror and extremism and change our foreign policy to show the world that we value the lives of civilians wherever they live and whatever their religion. Such a move would make us all safer."
The signatories insisted they condemned those who planned the alleged attacks. Mr Khan told the Guardian that Mr Blair's reluctance to criticise Israel over the Lebanon attacks meant the pool of people from which terrorists found their recruits was increasing."
Muçulmanos americanos criticam Bush...
Vale a pena ler o «take» da Reuters de 11.8.06:
«US Muslims Bristle at Bush Remarks
US Muslim groups have criticised US President George W Bush for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions.
(...)"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.
"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he said in Washington.
(...)"The problem with the phrase is it attaches the religion of Islam to tyranny and fascism, rather than isolating the threat to a specific group of individuals,"
(...) "We've got Osama bin Laden hijacking the religion in order to define it one way ... We feel the president and anyone who's using these kinds of terminologies is hijacking it too from a different side,"
(...) "The president's use of the language is going to ratchet up the hate meter"...
«US Muslims Bristle at Bush Remarks
US Muslim groups have criticised US President George W Bush for calling a foiled plot to blow up airplanes part of a "war with Islamic fascists," saying the term could inflame anti-Muslim tensions.
(...)"We believe this is an ill-advised term and we believe that it is counter productive to associate Islam or Muslims with fascism," said Nihad Awad, executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations advocacy group.
"We ought to take advantage of these incidents to make sure that we do not start a religious war against Islam and Muslims," he said in Washington.
(...)"The problem with the phrase is it attaches the religion of Islam to tyranny and fascism, rather than isolating the threat to a specific group of individuals,"
(...) "We've got Osama bin Laden hijacking the religion in order to define it one way ... We feel the president and anyone who's using these kinds of terminologies is hijacking it too from a different side,"
(...) "The president's use of the language is going to ratchet up the hate meter"...
sábado, 12 de agosto de 2006
Nós, Judeus, contra os ataques de Israel
publicado no LIBÉRATION, 9/8/06
"Nous, Juifs contre les frappes d'Israël
Vingt-quatre ans après les massacres de Sabra et Chatila et l'appel de Pierre-Vidal Naquet, nous condamnons les attaques meurtrières de Tsahal et demandons un cessez-le-feu immédiat au Liban.
Voici vingt-quatre ans, Israël lançait au Liban l'opération «Paix en Galilée», qui allait, par les bombardements terrestres et aériens, faire des centaines de victimes civiles et qui devait aussi, du fait de l'appui apporté par Israël à ses supplétifs libanais, conduire aux massacres de Sabra et Chatila.
C'est alors que, grâce à l'initiative de Pierre Vidal-Naquet notamment, fut lancé un appel de cent intellectuels juifs qui se désolidarisaient des soutiens inconditionnels à l'opération menée par Sharon et la condamnaient. Après les massacres, un rassemblement devant l'ambassade d'Israël fut organisé par le Comité des Juifs contre la guerre au Liban pour exprimer sa colère. Vingt-quatre ans plus tard, les successeurs de Sharon ont pris la relève. Ils lancent sur le Liban des attaques meurtrières comme celle de Cana, où les victimes sont surtout des femmes et des enfants comme ce fut le cas dix ans plus tôt au même endroit.
En Cisjordanie et dans la bande de Gaza, après l'enlèvement d'un soldat israélien, et prenant prétexte du tir de roquettes artisanales, l'armée israélienne, après son coup de force contre le gouvernement palestinien démocratiquement élu, tire à l'arme lourde avec, là encore, des dizaines de victimes, dont la moitié sont des civils, femmes et enfants compris, cela après avoir détruit les infrastructures assurant un minimum vital aux populations.
Précisons-le: les soussignés ne sont des inconditionnels ni du Hezbollah, ni du Hamas. Et nous avons toujours condamné les attentats-suicides contre les populations civiles israéliennes, tout comme nous déplorons, aujourd'hui, que les Israéliens soient victimes des missiles qui frappent le nord de leur pays.
Mais quoi qu'on puisse penser du Hezbollah, l'attaque qu'il a menée contre des soldats israéliens, dont certains furent tués, et d'autres, enlevés, a servi de prétexte au gouvernement israélien pour mettre en application un plan qu'il avait déjà préparé longtemps à l'avance.
Et reviennent, comme toujours, les appels à l'union sacrée et au soutien inconditionnel à Israël lancés par les institutions qui prétendent représenter la totalité des voix juives en France. Cela non plus, nous ne pouvons l'accepter. Comme en 1982, comme à de nombreuses reprises depuis, les soussignés, Juives et Juifs, reprennent les termes du dernier appel signé par Pierre Vidal-Naquet quelques jours avant sa disparition : «Assez ! Trop, c'est trop !» Il faut un cessez-le-feu immédiat et total, aussi bien au Liban qu'en Israël, en Cisjordanie et à Gaza. Il faut l'ouverture de négociations dont les premiers objectifs seront un échange de prisonniers, le retour de la sécurité et de conditions humaines pour toutes les populations concernées.
Nous demandons au gouvernement français et aux instances européennes de défendre cette position qui avec la juste solution du problème palestinien est la seule capable d'éviter une extension catastrophique du conflit.
Nous tenons, par ailleurs, à saluer nos amis israéliens qui manifestent dans des conditions très difficiles contre la politique de leur propre Etat."
Premiers signataires:
Raymond Aubrac (ancien résistant),
Rony Brauman (médecin, essayiste),
Rachel Choukroun (présidente de femmes en Noir, Marseille),
Stéphane Hessel (ambassadeur de France),
Marcel-Francis Kahn (professeur de médecine),
Pascal Lederer (animateur d'Une autre voix juive),
Perrine Olff-Rastegar (porte-parole du Collectif judéo-arabe et citoyen pour la paix, Strasbourg),
Richard Wagman (président d'honneur de l'Union juive française pour la paix, UJFP)
"Nous, Juifs contre les frappes d'Israël
Vingt-quatre ans après les massacres de Sabra et Chatila et l'appel de Pierre-Vidal Naquet, nous condamnons les attaques meurtrières de Tsahal et demandons un cessez-le-feu immédiat au Liban.
Voici vingt-quatre ans, Israël lançait au Liban l'opération «Paix en Galilée», qui allait, par les bombardements terrestres et aériens, faire des centaines de victimes civiles et qui devait aussi, du fait de l'appui apporté par Israël à ses supplétifs libanais, conduire aux massacres de Sabra et Chatila.
C'est alors que, grâce à l'initiative de Pierre Vidal-Naquet notamment, fut lancé un appel de cent intellectuels juifs qui se désolidarisaient des soutiens inconditionnels à l'opération menée par Sharon et la condamnaient. Après les massacres, un rassemblement devant l'ambassade d'Israël fut organisé par le Comité des Juifs contre la guerre au Liban pour exprimer sa colère. Vingt-quatre ans plus tard, les successeurs de Sharon ont pris la relève. Ils lancent sur le Liban des attaques meurtrières comme celle de Cana, où les victimes sont surtout des femmes et des enfants comme ce fut le cas dix ans plus tôt au même endroit.
En Cisjordanie et dans la bande de Gaza, après l'enlèvement d'un soldat israélien, et prenant prétexte du tir de roquettes artisanales, l'armée israélienne, après son coup de force contre le gouvernement palestinien démocratiquement élu, tire à l'arme lourde avec, là encore, des dizaines de victimes, dont la moitié sont des civils, femmes et enfants compris, cela après avoir détruit les infrastructures assurant un minimum vital aux populations.
Précisons-le: les soussignés ne sont des inconditionnels ni du Hezbollah, ni du Hamas. Et nous avons toujours condamné les attentats-suicides contre les populations civiles israéliennes, tout comme nous déplorons, aujourd'hui, que les Israéliens soient victimes des missiles qui frappent le nord de leur pays.
Mais quoi qu'on puisse penser du Hezbollah, l'attaque qu'il a menée contre des soldats israéliens, dont certains furent tués, et d'autres, enlevés, a servi de prétexte au gouvernement israélien pour mettre en application un plan qu'il avait déjà préparé longtemps à l'avance.
Et reviennent, comme toujours, les appels à l'union sacrée et au soutien inconditionnel à Israël lancés par les institutions qui prétendent représenter la totalité des voix juives en France. Cela non plus, nous ne pouvons l'accepter. Comme en 1982, comme à de nombreuses reprises depuis, les soussignés, Juives et Juifs, reprennent les termes du dernier appel signé par Pierre Vidal-Naquet quelques jours avant sa disparition : «Assez ! Trop, c'est trop !» Il faut un cessez-le-feu immédiat et total, aussi bien au Liban qu'en Israël, en Cisjordanie et à Gaza. Il faut l'ouverture de négociations dont les premiers objectifs seront un échange de prisonniers, le retour de la sécurité et de conditions humaines pour toutes les populations concernées.
Nous demandons au gouvernement français et aux instances européennes de défendre cette position qui avec la juste solution du problème palestinien est la seule capable d'éviter une extension catastrophique du conflit.
Nous tenons, par ailleurs, à saluer nos amis israéliens qui manifestent dans des conditions très difficiles contre la politique de leur propre Etat."
Premiers signataires:
Raymond Aubrac (ancien résistant),
Rony Brauman (médecin, essayiste),
Rachel Choukroun (présidente de femmes en Noir, Marseille),
Stéphane Hessel (ambassadeur de France),
Marcel-Francis Kahn (professeur de médecine),
Pascal Lederer (animateur d'Une autre voix juive),
Perrine Olff-Rastegar (porte-parole du Collectif judéo-arabe et citoyen pour la paix, Strasbourg),
Richard Wagman (président d'honneur de l'Union juive française pour la paix, UJFP)
Fascistas de todas as variedades
Na sua «guerra ao terror» que serve às mil maravilhas aos terroristas, entre outros aspectos por hostilizar as populações muçulmanas, o Presidente Bush chamou ontem de «islamistas-fascistas» aos criminosos da Al Qaeda e quejandos.
Será que Mussolini, Franco ou Salazar deveriam ser rotulados de «Cristãos-fascistas» ou «católicos-fascistas»?
Em "Fascists of All Varieties", o americano (anti-americano, «por supuesto») Marc Ash, in http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081106Z, elabora sobre quem realmente é fascista.
Será que Mussolini, Franco ou Salazar deveriam ser rotulados de «Cristãos-fascistas» ou «católicos-fascistas»?
Em "Fascists of All Varieties", o americano (anti-americano, «por supuesto») Marc Ash, in http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/081106Z, elabora sobre quem realmente é fascista.
Guerra a leste... e Portugal a banhos.
Li e reli o artigo de Ana Sá Lopes no DN de 11.8.06, «A escapadela».
Inspirando-me no Vital, poderia dizer até que gostava de o ter escrito. Mas não digo: prefiro aguardar que o país volte da época balnear.
Esperarei pelo tempo em que os governantes deverão explicar na AR o que é «material bélico não ofensivo» e o que são os respectivos "componentes", de como temos serviços inteligentes diligentes, capazes de verificar a não ofensividade até à mais ínfima porca, e de como, sobretudo, assim se avantajam os "superiores interesses da Nação", para não dizer que assim se protegem os portugueses contra todo o tipo de maleitas, incluindo as pregadas pelos mais malvados «islamitas fascistas» no rol do Presidente W. Bush.
Entretanto, convém ir lendo a imprensa dos fornecedores e dos clientes do dito material bélico, não ofensivo e não só. Como o artigo ontem publicado no New York Times «Israel Asks US to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast», que começa assim:
«Israel has asked the Bush administration to speed delivery of short-range antipersonnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon, two American officials said Thursday.
The request for M-26 artillery rockets, which are fired in barrages and carry hundreds of grenade-like bomblets that scatter and explode over a broad area, is likely to be approved shortly, along with other arms, a senior official said.
But some State Department officials have sought to delay the approval because of concerns over the likelihood of civilian casualties, and the diplomatic repercussions. The rockets, while they would be very effective against hidden missile launchers, officials say, are fired by the dozen and could be expected to cause civilian casualties if used against targets in populated areas.»
Inspirando-me no Vital, poderia dizer até que gostava de o ter escrito. Mas não digo: prefiro aguardar que o país volte da época balnear.
Esperarei pelo tempo em que os governantes deverão explicar na AR o que é «material bélico não ofensivo» e o que são os respectivos "componentes", de como temos serviços inteligentes diligentes, capazes de verificar a não ofensividade até à mais ínfima porca, e de como, sobretudo, assim se avantajam os "superiores interesses da Nação", para não dizer que assim se protegem os portugueses contra todo o tipo de maleitas, incluindo as pregadas pelos mais malvados «islamitas fascistas» no rol do Presidente W. Bush.
Entretanto, convém ir lendo a imprensa dos fornecedores e dos clientes do dito material bélico, não ofensivo e não só. Como o artigo ontem publicado no New York Times «Israel Asks US to Ship Rockets With Wide Blast», que começa assim:
«Israel has asked the Bush administration to speed delivery of short-range antipersonnel rockets armed with cluster munitions, which it could use to strike Hezbollah missile sites in Lebanon, two American officials said Thursday.
The request for M-26 artillery rockets, which are fired in barrages and carry hundreds of grenade-like bomblets that scatter and explode over a broad area, is likely to be approved shortly, along with other arms, a senior official said.
But some State Department officials have sought to delay the approval because of concerns over the likelihood of civilian casualties, and the diplomatic repercussions. The rockets, while they would be very effective against hidden missile launchers, officials say, are fired by the dozen and could be expected to cause civilian casualties if used against targets in populated areas.»
Sobre a guerra
Gostei especialmente de ler:
O artigo da Clara Ferreira Alves «Tempo de guerra» na Única do EXPRESSO de 5.8.06
O artigo do Alvaro de Vasconcelos "Uma força europeia para quê?" no PÚBLICO de 8.8.06
O artigo da Clara Ferreira Alves «Tempo de guerra» na Única do EXPRESSO de 5.8.06
O artigo do Alvaro de Vasconcelos "Uma força europeia para quê?" no PÚBLICO de 8.8.06
Bemba ou Kabila:venha o diabo e escolha...
O espaço de paredes esburacadas era uma sala de aula, em Dima, Kinshasa I.
O cansaço era imenso e dificultava a concentração. A luz do único candeeiro a petróleo mal dava para ver. Os boletins de voto eram desmesurados, difíceis de manusear. A fome e sede apertavam. Um rato escapuliu-se, à tangente pelos meus pés. Mas por volta da meia-noite, eles conseguiram afixar à porta os resultados apurados. O número de votos nulos ou inválidos foi extraordinariamente reduzido - 7 em 170 - mostrando que os votantes sabiam votar, como assinalar as suas escolhas. Nas presidenciais, Bemba saca 107, a grande distância de Kabila, só com 21, logo seguido de Kashala com 18.
É só uma mesa de voto. Em Kinshasa, outrora "Kin-la Belle", hoje referida pelos seus habitantes como "Kin-la Poubelle".
Mas uma mesa de voto que, confirmei depois, reflectiria a escolha da capital congolesa. E, tudo indicava, a das provincias do norte, centrais e do oeste.
Uma escolha diferente, antecipava-se, das zonas a leste e sul, incluindo o Katanga - onde a população deste país (do tamanho de toda a Europa Ocidental) é mais numerosa. Onde se previa que Kabila vencesse em proporção semelhante à de Bemba em Kinshasa. E onde as fraudes também seriam mais fáceis...
Kabila e Bemba - coitados dos congoleses! Como disse a espantosa Eve Bazaiza, candidata nº256 por Kinshasa ao parlamento: "Que venha o diabo e escolha: ambos são chefes de guerra, ambos mantêm milícias armadas. Nenhum vai tolerar não ganhar. Nenhum vai tolerar sequer não passar à primeira volta. O risco de qualquer um provocar a violência é real".
O povo votou ordeiramente, com seriedade. Não é aceitável que tudo seja deitado a perder, por quem quer que seja. Está lá a MONUC. Está lá a EUFOR. Que não lhes doa a mão, se for preciso intervir contra quem queira perturbar o processo. Para não falhar aos congoleses que, ao votarem assim, mostraram não apenas precisar, mas realmente querer, paz e governação democrática.
Kinshasa I, Dima, às 22.30, dia 30 de Julho de 2006quinta-feira, 3 de agosto de 2006
Correio dos leitores: Pirataria do Abrupto
«Sobre o seu post mencionando o ataque ao blog de Pacheco Pereira, devo referir que publiquei há dias um post sobre o assunto contendo algumas conclusões, resultantes de investigação persistente, que poderão esclarecer algumas dúvidas (...).
Alguns visitantes fizeram-me notar que aquele texto está redigido de forma um pouco hermética, dado o seu carácter exclusivamente técnico, pelo que transcrevo seguidamente uma tentativa - usada como resposta a uma dessas objecções - de dizer o mesmo em linguagem absolutamente corrente:
Alguns visitantes fizeram-me notar que aquele texto está redigido de forma um pouco hermética, dado o seu carácter exclusivamente técnico, pelo que transcrevo seguidamente uma tentativa - usada como resposta a uma dessas objecções - de dizer o mesmo em linguagem absolutamente corrente:
O que se passou foi isto: um tipo que vive de publicidade em páginas na Internet escolheu o Abrupto (provavelmente, entre outros blogs com altos níveis de visitantes) e injectou na conta Blogger deste um pequeno programa (javascript) que lhe permitiu (permite) substituir os conteúdos do blog original com os seus próprios. Pronto. Quando quer (quiser), abre a conta de JPP (com uma ferramenta chamada AJAX) e, em vez de "user name", introduz um "script" que substitui o conteúdo (o "bug" da plataforma Blogger consiste em permitir isto); depois, repõe a situação inicial (user ID e password), o "post" pirata passa a arquivo histórico, e assim por diante. Entretanto, a sua conta publicitária (AdBrite) contabiliza de cada vez mais uns milhares de "page-views" e, com sorte, uns quantos "cliks" em anúncios; é assim que o "hacker" é pago, além de se tornar conhecido no meio "hacker" por ter chateado mais um "colunável".»
João Pedro G.
Correio dos leitores: O PSD e AJJ
«O PS, quando faz campanha, ou no seu dia a dia, costuma associar o PSD e o seu lider nacional aos despautérios do Alberto João?... Se calhar, devia começar a fazê-lo. O PSD não se demarca porque nada o obriga (politicamente) a fazê-lo.»
Henrique J.
Henrique J.
Correio dos leitores: Lista de devedores ao fisco
«Também sou da sua opinião [sobre a publicação da residência dos devedores ao fisco]; com a residência, a lista era mais identificadora.
Mas, pondo de lado a justeza ou injusteza da publicitação, ao não ser a lista de âmbito nacional, não existe aqui uma ilegalidade? Ou será que há dois Estados? Mesmo que a administração fiscal da Madeira esteja na dependência do Governo Regional, os madeirenses não são devedores como os do Continente? Será que os direitos e deveres de cidadania são diferentes entre os continentais e os insulares? E se os madeirenses "são outro género de devedores", faz sentido contribuirmos para o orçamento madeirense?
Perante esta situação, será que os nomeados (e os não nomeados) podem continuar a pensar que o Estado é pessoa de bem?
E estou curioso por ver a lista que o Tribunal de Contas pretende publicitar dos credores do Estado; seria muito interessante se ocorresse o caso de algum particular ser simultaneamente devedor e credor perante o Estado.»
Agostinho P.
Mas, pondo de lado a justeza ou injusteza da publicitação, ao não ser a lista de âmbito nacional, não existe aqui uma ilegalidade? Ou será que há dois Estados? Mesmo que a administração fiscal da Madeira esteja na dependência do Governo Regional, os madeirenses não são devedores como os do Continente? Será que os direitos e deveres de cidadania são diferentes entre os continentais e os insulares? E se os madeirenses "são outro género de devedores", faz sentido contribuirmos para o orçamento madeirense?
Perante esta situação, será que os nomeados (e os não nomeados) podem continuar a pensar que o Estado é pessoa de bem?
E estou curioso por ver a lista que o Tribunal de Contas pretende publicitar dos credores do Estado; seria muito interessante se ocorresse o caso de algum particular ser simultaneamente devedor e credor perante o Estado.»
Agostinho P.
Mais do mesmo
A CGTP revelou o seu plano para o financiamento da segurança social, que consiste, como era de esperar, em criar um novo imposto sobre as empresas (com base no valor acrescentado), a acrescentar à actual taxa social.
Devo dizer que até concordo na criação de um novo factor de financiamento da segurança social com base no valor acrescentado das empresas, desde que, porém, isso sirva para diminuir a actual taxa social única que impende somente sobre o volume dos salários (e por isso sobrecarrega as empresas de mão-de-obra intensiva) e é demasiado elevada, onerando excessivamente essas empresas e sendo um dos factores que favorecem a redução do pessoal e a fuga para o regime do "recibo verde".
De resto, não compreeendo por que é que o Governo e o PS se recusam a considerar essa hipótese. Tudo o que sirva para diminuir os custos do trabalho contribui para reduzir o desemprego e para melhorar a competividade das empresas. E a responsabilidade pelo financiamento da segurança social -- que deve ser auto-sustentável -- deve incumbir sobre toda a economia e não somente sobre o volume dos salários.
Devo dizer que até concordo na criação de um novo factor de financiamento da segurança social com base no valor acrescentado das empresas, desde que, porém, isso sirva para diminuir a actual taxa social única que impende somente sobre o volume dos salários (e por isso sobrecarrega as empresas de mão-de-obra intensiva) e é demasiado elevada, onerando excessivamente essas empresas e sendo um dos factores que favorecem a redução do pessoal e a fuga para o regime do "recibo verde".
De resto, não compreeendo por que é que o Governo e o PS se recusam a considerar essa hipótese. Tudo o que sirva para diminuir os custos do trabalho contribui para reduzir o desemprego e para melhorar a competividade das empresas. E a responsabilidade pelo financiamento da segurança social -- que deve ser auto-sustentável -- deve incumbir sobre toda a economia e não somente sobre o volume dos salários.
quarta-feira, 2 de agosto de 2006
Correio dos leitores: Ainda o caso de Setúbal
«(...) Na minha opinião, não devemos quer para as autarquias o que não queremos para a Assembleia da República e para o Governo, em cujos cargos não é bem vista a "desobediência" partidária dos deputados e dos ministros, respectivamente. Lembram-se do caso do antigo deputado do PSD Carlos Macedo, que entrou em ruptura com o primeiro Governo de maioria de Cavaco Silva? Por outro lado, os eleitores não votam na figura do Primeiro-Ministro nem na do presidente da Assembleia da República...
O facto de a figura do presidente da Câmara ter que ser, obrigatoriamente, o cabeça da lista do partido mais votado, ao invés do que acontece para as Assembleias Municipais, já é uma "via presidencialista" dos Executivos municipais. Aliás, os autarcas que não se revejam nos partidos que os elegeram têm a possibilidade de concorrem em listas independentes, como aconteceu, recentemente, em Felgueiras, Gondomar, Oeiras e em Amarante.»
José Carlos Pereira (Felgueiras)
O facto de a figura do presidente da Câmara ter que ser, obrigatoriamente, o cabeça da lista do partido mais votado, ao invés do que acontece para as Assembleias Municipais, já é uma "via presidencialista" dos Executivos municipais. Aliás, os autarcas que não se revejam nos partidos que os elegeram têm a possibilidade de concorrem em listas independentes, como aconteceu, recentemente, em Felgueiras, Gondomar, Oeiras e em Amarante.»
José Carlos Pereira (Felgueiras)
terça-feira, 1 de agosto de 2006
Duas sugestões...
... para a necessária separação entre a política e o futebol: (i) acabar com a possibilidade, que consta da actual lei, de as entidades públicas (incluindo nomeadamente as autarquias) serem sócias das SAD; (ii) tornar incompatível o exercício simultâneo de cargos em clubes e organismos desportivos e de cargos políticos.
Lista
A lista dos principais devedores ao Fisco inclui somente o número fiscal e o nome das pessoas/empresas. Se a ideia é denunciar publicamente os faltosos perante a comunidade, como censura pública, não seria útil acrescentar o local de residência?
Escolha
O PSD recusa-se, mais uma vez, a demarcar-se das disparatadas declarações de A. J. Jardim no estival comício partidário madeirense do Chão da Lagoa. No entanto, tratando-se de um dirigente nacional do Partido e de um governante regional, a ausência de distanciamento do PSD nacional só pode ser lida como conivência, na pior das hipóteses, ou pusilanimidade política, na melhor.
Contudo, face à crescente gravidade e recorrência dos despautérios jardinescos, parece, porém, evidente que já chegou a hora em a direcção nacional do PSD tem de escolher entre defender a sua própria credibilidade política nacional ou coonestar a incontinência reaccionária, idiota e malcriada do líder regional da Madeira.
Contudo, face à crescente gravidade e recorrência dos despautérios jardinescos, parece, porém, evidente que já chegou a hora em a direcção nacional do PSD tem de escolher entre defender a sua própria credibilidade política nacional ou coonestar a incontinência reaccionária, idiota e malcriada do líder regional da Madeira.
Reciprocidade
«Tribunal de Contas vai elaborar lista de dívidas [do Estado]». Muito bem. Se o Estado publica o nome dos seus devedores, também temos o direito de conhecer os dos seus credores (sobretudo quando se trata das mesmas pessoas). O Estado caloteiro é tanto ou mais censurável do que os contribuintes caloteiros.
Nome errado
A Associação Nacional dos Contribuintes acha "lamentável" a publicação dos nomes dos grandes devedores ao Fisco. O que é lamentável é o protesto da ANC, que deveria mudar de nome, para Associação Nacional dos Não Contribuintes.
domingo, 30 de julho de 2006
"Destruindo as infra-estrutras do Hezzbollah"
«Israel impede passagem de comboio humanitário». Tem toda a razão, não fosse a ajuda cair nas mãos do movimento chiita...
Claro que foi sem querer
«Israel lamenta morte de civis nos bombardeamentos de Qana». Claro que foi um azar, tal como, aliás, todas as vítimas civis até agora, incluindo o posto de observadores da ONU.
Mais "infra-estruturas do Hezbollah destruídas"
«Cruz Vermelha contou 56 mortos em Qana, incluindo 34 crianças». Com efeito, as crianças mortas já não irão engrossar as fileiras do dito movimento...
sexta-feira, 28 de julho de 2006
Cachorrinho ou pato?
Talvez por finalmente perceber que o terrorimo internacional é quem capitaliza com o que se está a passar no Médio Oriente (e porque o sofrimento obsceno dos civis no Líbano, em Gaza e também em Israel, visivelmente não o comove, nem impele a agir), e sob forte pressão de muitos dos seus mais fiéis seguidores, Blair precipita-se para Washington...
Já viram como as peças das televisões internacionais CNNs e BBCs, etc.. estão cheias de referências ao «poodle», ao «Yo Blair», ao «lame duck»?
Já viram como alguns dos mais fiéis colaboradores de Blair estão a sair a terreiro criticando-o pelo reflexo canino de obedecer a Washington? Até Stephen Wall, que foi seu conselheiro diplomático, embaixador em Lisboa e junto da UE, em Bruxelas...
Se não fosse tão trágico para o mundo, até dava vontade de rir.
Já viram como as peças das televisões internacionais CNNs e BBCs, etc.. estão cheias de referências ao «poodle», ao «Yo Blair», ao «lame duck»?
Já viram como alguns dos mais fiéis colaboradores de Blair estão a sair a terreiro criticando-o pelo reflexo canino de obedecer a Washington? Até Stephen Wall, que foi seu conselheiro diplomático, embaixador em Lisboa e junto da UE, em Bruxelas...
Se não fosse tão trágico para o mundo, até dava vontade de rir.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)