Seems that err conde share some website info with ND...
Is this a good or a bad news?
Monday, July 31, 2006
Sunday, July 30, 2006
So, what do you know about the Arab-Nazi alliance back in WWII?
I have link to this article before, in this post back in January, coming to light once again since Chavez's today's visit to Iran's Ahmadinejad old friend.
The question of the strenght of force and the method of war that Israel have put in Lebanon as the classroom bully is a relevant topic among all the people who are following this war against Hizbollah in Lebanon. Now, I would like to post the article as a whole, since I think it is very relevant to understand the extend of hatred that some countries have against Israel. And understand that if nothing is to be done, the western world will be destroyed by Jihad and politically correctness. Period.
Denial of Holocaust nothing new in Iran Ties to Hitler led to plots against British and Jews
by Edwin Black
Sunday, January 8, 2006
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has shot to the forefront of Holocaust denial with his rabble-rousing remarks last month. But it's more like self-denial. The president of Iran need only look to his country's Hitler-era past to discover that Iran and Iranians were strongly connected to the Holocaust and the Hitler regime, as was the entire Islamic world under the leadership of the mufti of Jerusalem.
Iran's axis with the Third Reich began during the prewar years, when it welcomed Nazi Gestapo agents and other operatives to Tehran, allowing them to use the city as a base for Middle East agitation against the British and the region's Jews.
Key among these German agents was Fritz Grobba, Berlin's envoy to the Middle East, who was often called "the German Lawrence," because he promised a Pan-Islamic state stretching from Casablanca to Tehran.
Relations between Berlin and Tehran were strong from the moment Hitler came to power in 1933. At that time, Reza Shah Pahlavi's nation was known as Persia. The shah became a stalwart admirer of Hitler, Nazism and the concept of the Aryan master race. He also sought the Reich's help in reducing British petro-political domination.
So intense was the shah's identification with the Third Reich that in 1935 he renamed his ancient country "Iran," which in Farsi means Aryan and refers to the Proto-Indo-European lineage that Nazi racial theorists and Persian ethnologists cherished.
The idea for the name change was suggested by the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of Hitler's trusted banker, Hjalmar Schacht. From that point, all Iranians were constantly reminded that their country shared a common bond with the Nazi regime.
Shortly after World War II broke out in 1939, the Mufti of Jerusalem crafted a strategic alliance with Hitler to exchange Iraqi oil for active Arab and Islamic participation in the murder of Jews in the Mideast and Eastern Europe. This was predicated on support for a pan-Arab state and Arab control over Palestine.
During the war years, Iran became a haven for Gestapo agents. It was from Iran that the seeds of the abortive 1941 pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad were planted. After Churchill's forces booted the Nazis out of Iraq in June 1941, German aircrews supporting Nazi bombers escaped across Iraq's northern border back into Iran.
Likewise, the mufti of Jerusalem was spirited across the border to Tehran, where he continued to call for the destruction of the Jews and the defeat of the British.
(*) His venomous rhetoric filled the newspapers and radio broadcasts in Tehran. The mufti was a vocal opponent of allowing Jewish refugees to be transported or ransomed into Jewish Palestine. Instead, he wanted them shipped to the gas chambers of Poland.
In the summer of 1941, the mufti, with the support of key Iranian military and government leaders, advocated implementing in Iran what had failed months earlier in Iraq. The plan once again was for a total diversion of oil from the Allies to the Nazis, in exchange for the accelerated destruction of the Jews in Eastern Europe and the Nazis' support for an Arab state. Through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., Iran had already been supplying Hitler's forces in occupied Czechoslovakia and Austria.
Now, the mufti agitated to cut off the British and the Allies completely and supply Germany in its push against Russia.
In October 1941, British, USSR other allied forces invaded Iran to break up the Iran-Nazi alliance. Pro-Nazi generals and ministers were arrested, and the shah's son was installed in power. The mufti scampered into the Italian embassy, where he shaved his beard and dyed his hair. In this disguise, he was allowed to leave the country along with the rest of the Italian delegation.
Once the mufti relocated permanently to Berlin, where he established his own Reich-supported "bureau," he was given airtime on Radio Berlin. From Berlin and other fascist capitals in Europe, the mufti continued to agitate for international Jewish destruction, as well as a pan-Islamic alliance with the Nazi regime.
He called upon all Muslims to "kill the Jews wherever you see them." In Tehran's marketplace, it was common to see placards that declared, "In heaven, Allah is your master. On Earth, it is Adolf Hitler."
When the mufti raised three divisions of Islamic Waffen SS to undertake cruel operations in Bosnia, among the 30,000 killers were some volunteer contingents from Iran. Iranian Nazis, along with the other Muslim Waffen SS, operated under the direct supervision of Heinrich Himmler and were responsible for barbarous actions against Jews and others in Bosnia. Recruitment for the murderous "Handschar Divisions" was done openly in Iran.
Iran and its leaders were not only aware of the Holocaust, they played both sides. The country offered overland escape routes for refugee Jews fleeing Nazi persecution to Israel -- and later fleeing postwar Iraqi fascist persecution -- but only in exchange for extortionate passage fees.
Thousands of Jews journeyed to Israel via Iran both during the Holocaust and during the years after the fall of Hitler, when Arab leaders, especially in Iraq, tried to continue Germany's anti-Jewish program. Iran profited handsomely.
Since the shah's downfall, Iran has become a center for organized international Holocaust denial and has helped elevate the endeavor from fringe hate speech to a state-approved pseudo-intellectual debate.
In international forums and on state-controlled radio, Iranian university experts and journalists help validate the revisionist views that Jews were never gassed or murdered in great numbers during the Holocaust.
Indeed, Iran has become a refuge for the biggest names in European Holocaust denial. When in 2000, revisionist author Jürgen Graf was sentenced in Switzerland to 15 months in prison for Holocaust falsification, Graf fled to Tehran "at the invitation of a group of Iranian scholars and university professors who are sympathetic to Holocaust revisionism," according to the Institute for Historical Review, a denial clearinghouse.
What's more, in May 2000, Iran's embassy in Vienna granted asylum to Austrian Holocaust denier Wolfgang Fröhlich, who testified as a so-called expert witness during Graf's 1998 trial. This saved Fröhlich from Austria's severe anti-Holocaust denial statutes. Fröhlich argued that evidence proved no Jews were killed by Zyklon B gassing.
Earlier, about 600 journalists and 160 members of the Iranian parliament signed petitions supporting French revisionist Roger Garaudy, who was fined $40,000 by French authorities for his book claiming the Holocaust was a myth. When Garaudy landed in Iran, the country's supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Sayyad Khamenei, granted him an audience and lauded his work.
Iran has played a leading role in the Holocaust drama and now tries to deny it. That should be very hard in a nation that was named for Hitler's master race.
Edwin Black is the author of "Banking on Baghdad" about the Nazi-Arab alliance. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
(*) Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini reviews Moslem Waffen-SS troops in Bosnia, as shown on a Nazi magazine cover, 1944
The question of the strenght of force and the method of war that Israel have put in Lebanon as the classroom bully is a relevant topic among all the people who are following this war against Hizbollah in Lebanon. Now, I would like to post the article as a whole, since I think it is very relevant to understand the extend of hatred that some countries have against Israel. And understand that if nothing is to be done, the western world will be destroyed by Jihad and politically correctness. Period.
Denial of Holocaust nothing new in Iran Ties to Hitler led to plots against British and Jews
by Edwin Black
Sunday, January 8, 2006
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has shot to the forefront of Holocaust denial with his rabble-rousing remarks last month. But it's more like self-denial. The president of Iran need only look to his country's Hitler-era past to discover that Iran and Iranians were strongly connected to the Holocaust and the Hitler regime, as was the entire Islamic world under the leadership of the mufti of Jerusalem.
Iran's axis with the Third Reich began during the prewar years, when it welcomed Nazi Gestapo agents and other operatives to Tehran, allowing them to use the city as a base for Middle East agitation against the British and the region's Jews.
Key among these German agents was Fritz Grobba, Berlin's envoy to the Middle East, who was often called "the German Lawrence," because he promised a Pan-Islamic state stretching from Casablanca to Tehran.
Relations between Berlin and Tehran were strong from the moment Hitler came to power in 1933. At that time, Reza Shah Pahlavi's nation was known as Persia. The shah became a stalwart admirer of Hitler, Nazism and the concept of the Aryan master race. He also sought the Reich's help in reducing British petro-political domination.
So intense was the shah's identification with the Third Reich that in 1935 he renamed his ancient country "Iran," which in Farsi means Aryan and refers to the Proto-Indo-European lineage that Nazi racial theorists and Persian ethnologists cherished.
The idea for the name change was suggested by the Iranian ambassador to Germany, who came under the influence of Hitler's trusted banker, Hjalmar Schacht. From that point, all Iranians were constantly reminded that their country shared a common bond with the Nazi regime.
Shortly after World War II broke out in 1939, the Mufti of Jerusalem crafted a strategic alliance with Hitler to exchange Iraqi oil for active Arab and Islamic participation in the murder of Jews in the Mideast and Eastern Europe. This was predicated on support for a pan-Arab state and Arab control over Palestine.
During the war years, Iran became a haven for Gestapo agents. It was from Iran that the seeds of the abortive 1941 pro-Nazi coup in Baghdad were planted. After Churchill's forces booted the Nazis out of Iraq in June 1941, German aircrews supporting Nazi bombers escaped across Iraq's northern border back into Iran.
Likewise, the mufti of Jerusalem was spirited across the border to Tehran, where he continued to call for the destruction of the Jews and the defeat of the British.
(*) His venomous rhetoric filled the newspapers and radio broadcasts in Tehran. The mufti was a vocal opponent of allowing Jewish refugees to be transported or ransomed into Jewish Palestine. Instead, he wanted them shipped to the gas chambers of Poland.In the summer of 1941, the mufti, with the support of key Iranian military and government leaders, advocated implementing in Iran what had failed months earlier in Iraq. The plan once again was for a total diversion of oil from the Allies to the Nazis, in exchange for the accelerated destruction of the Jews in Eastern Europe and the Nazis' support for an Arab state. Through the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co., Iran had already been supplying Hitler's forces in occupied Czechoslovakia and Austria.
Now, the mufti agitated to cut off the British and the Allies completely and supply Germany in its push against Russia.
In October 1941, British, USSR other allied forces invaded Iran to break up the Iran-Nazi alliance. Pro-Nazi generals and ministers were arrested, and the shah's son was installed in power. The mufti scampered into the Italian embassy, where he shaved his beard and dyed his hair. In this disguise, he was allowed to leave the country along with the rest of the Italian delegation.
Once the mufti relocated permanently to Berlin, where he established his own Reich-supported "bureau," he was given airtime on Radio Berlin. From Berlin and other fascist capitals in Europe, the mufti continued to agitate for international Jewish destruction, as well as a pan-Islamic alliance with the Nazi regime.
He called upon all Muslims to "kill the Jews wherever you see them." In Tehran's marketplace, it was common to see placards that declared, "In heaven, Allah is your master. On Earth, it is Adolf Hitler."
When the mufti raised three divisions of Islamic Waffen SS to undertake cruel operations in Bosnia, among the 30,000 killers were some volunteer contingents from Iran. Iranian Nazis, along with the other Muslim Waffen SS, operated under the direct supervision of Heinrich Himmler and were responsible for barbarous actions against Jews and others in Bosnia. Recruitment for the murderous "Handschar Divisions" was done openly in Iran.
Iran and its leaders were not only aware of the Holocaust, they played both sides. The country offered overland escape routes for refugee Jews fleeing Nazi persecution to Israel -- and later fleeing postwar Iraqi fascist persecution -- but only in exchange for extortionate passage fees.
Thousands of Jews journeyed to Israel via Iran both during the Holocaust and during the years after the fall of Hitler, when Arab leaders, especially in Iraq, tried to continue Germany's anti-Jewish program. Iran profited handsomely.
Since the shah's downfall, Iran has become a center for organized international Holocaust denial and has helped elevate the endeavor from fringe hate speech to a state-approved pseudo-intellectual debate.
In international forums and on state-controlled radio, Iranian university experts and journalists help validate the revisionist views that Jews were never gassed or murdered in great numbers during the Holocaust.
Indeed, Iran has become a refuge for the biggest names in European Holocaust denial. When in 2000, revisionist author Jürgen Graf was sentenced in Switzerland to 15 months in prison for Holocaust falsification, Graf fled to Tehran "at the invitation of a group of Iranian scholars and university professors who are sympathetic to Holocaust revisionism," according to the Institute for Historical Review, a denial clearinghouse.
What's more, in May 2000, Iran's embassy in Vienna granted asylum to Austrian Holocaust denier Wolfgang Fröhlich, who testified as a so-called expert witness during Graf's 1998 trial. This saved Fröhlich from Austria's severe anti-Holocaust denial statutes. Fröhlich argued that evidence proved no Jews were killed by Zyklon B gassing.
Earlier, about 600 journalists and 160 members of the Iranian parliament signed petitions supporting French revisionist Roger Garaudy, who was fined $40,000 by French authorities for his book claiming the Holocaust was a myth. When Garaudy landed in Iran, the country's supreme spiritual leader, Ayatollah Sayyad Khamenei, granted him an audience and lauded his work.
Iran has played a leading role in the Holocaust drama and now tries to deny it. That should be very hard in a nation that was named for Hitler's master race.
Edwin Black is the author of "Banking on Baghdad" about the Nazi-Arab alliance. Contact us at insight@sfchronicle.com.
(*) Mufti of Jerusalem Haj Muhammed Amin al-Husseini reviews Moslem Waffen-SS troops in Bosnia, as shown on a Nazi magazine cover, 1944
Tsunami "Condemania" strikes Venezuela!
Well guys, the Condemania is hitting Venezuela like a real Tsunami and of course it is also hitting me, Venezolana, as well. His candidacy has brought us all, chavistas and escualidos hope to live again on a Venezuela with no divisions and free of the Cuban influence. I though his candidacy was a joke, since the guy is a successful comedian, but, I have to say that after reading some of his interviews, he presents himself as a very strong choice. He is educated and well spoken, succesful on his own, a self-made man, charming as anyone, everybody likes him. He fullfills Dick Morris' analysis on Venezuelan Candidate's wish list as a glove.I still have a serious concerns about him:
Who supports Er Conde's candidacy? The question that he could be a government trap is there. If the guy is an undercover chavista, I have a serious problem with it, sorry. The argument on this theory is that his charm can deviate the problem with the electoral council been taken over by chavista members, and the transparency and fairness of the electoral process. There's also a lot of problems with the voter lists, since it seems they are very corrupted, news shown that 2.1 million people were living on the same house, according to the voter registry. In the past, while the RR, the opposition, stupidly (or very wisely, who knows) agreed with a number of unfavorable conditions, specially to do electronic voting, who proved to be the Achille's heel of the process. By using electronic voting, the government could do whatever he wanted in terms of manipulating the intention of the vote since there's wasn't any audit of the paper trail, but a ridiculous "random 1%" that shown the following food for though: "The CNE had promised the country to audit 1% of the voting machines or 196 of them. Unfortunately only 26 of them were audited on the fateful night of the RR. Curiously, the Si (Yes) vote obtained 63.47% in these 26 machines, compared to the 40.9% that it obtained nationwide." (Taken by the Devil Excrement's Venezuelan Referendum Studies).
I would like to know what he thinks about all of these, so I wrote a little note on his blog, hope he answers. (His blog is down as I am writting this note).
Estimado Conde,
Estaba leyendo la entrevista de Giusti: "Si ganamos, iremos a la batalla final", pero no hablas del tema de los listados. Me gustaria que me hablaras de cual es tu pensar acerca de el problema tan grande que tenemos con el CNE, no solamente las condiciones, pero que harias tu respecto a los listados de votantes.
Sabiendo que tenemos 1.8(*) de personas viviendo en la misma casa, a mi me parece una burla ir a votar cuando yo se que hay mucha gente que vota doble, que no existe, etc, etc...
Que piensas de esto? Que podemos hacer??
Si las condiciones se dan, te apoyaria en tu campaña y votaria por ti, pero antes que todo, me gustaria saber tu opinion respecto a este problema tan grande que tenemos los votantes Venezolanos con los listados.
Un saludo grande y mucha suerte,
(*) I made a mistake, it's not 1.8 Mil, but 2.1 Mil people living in the same household, according to the voter lists. (!)
Friday, July 28, 2006
Thank You Israel
By Brigitte Gabriel
For the millions of Christian Lebanese, driven out of our homeland, "Thank you Israel," is the sentiment echoing from around the world. The Lebanese Foundation for Peace, an international group of Lebanese Christians, made the following statement in a press release to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert concerning the latest Israeli attacks against Hezbollah:
"We urge you to hit them hard and destroy their terror infrastructure. It is not [only] Israel who is fed up with this situation, but the majority of the silent Lebanese in Lebanon who are fed up with Hezbollah and are powerless to do anything out of fear of terror retaliation."
Their statement continues, "On behalf of thousands of Lebanese, we ask you to open the doors of Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport to thousands of volunteers in the Diaspora willing to bear arms and liberate their homeland from [Islamic] fundamentalism.
We ask you for support, facilitation and logistics in order to win this struggle and achieve together the same objectives: Peace and Security for Lebanon and Israel and our future generations to come."
The once dominate Lebanese Christians responsible for giving the world "the Paris of the Middle East" as Lebanon used to be known, have been killed, massacred, driven out of their homes and scattered around the world as radical Islam declared its holy war in the 70s and took hold of the country.
They voice an opinion that they and Israel have learned from personal experience, which is now belatedly being discovered by the rest of the world.
While the world protected the PLO withdrawing from Lebanon in 1983 with Israel hot on their heals, another more volatile and religiously idealistic organization was being born: Hezbollah, "the Party of God," founded by Ayatollah Khomeini and financed by Iran. It was Hezbollah who blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in October,1983 killing 241 Americans and 67 French paratroopers that same day. President Reagan ordered U.S. Multilateral Force units to withdraw and closed the books on the marine massacre and US involvement in Lebanon February 1984.
The civilized world, which erroneously vilified the Christians and Israel back then and continues to vilify Israel now, was not paying attention. While America and the rest of the world were concerned about the Israeli / PLO problem, terrorist regimes in Syria and Iran fanned Islamic radicalism in Lebanon and around the world.
Hezbollah's Shiite extremists began multiplying like proverbial rabbits out-producing moderate Sunnis and Christians. Twenty-five years later they have produced enough people to vote themselves into 24 seats in the Lebanese parliament. Since the Israeli pull out in 2000, Lebanon has become a terrorist base completely run and controlled by Syria with its puppet Lebanese President Lahood and the Hezbollah "state within a state."
The Lebanese army has less than 10,000 military troops. Hezbollah has over 4,000 trained militia forces and there are approximately 700 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. So why can't the army do the job? Because the majority of Lebanese Muslims making up the army will split and unite along religious lines with the Islamic forces just like what happened in 1976 at the start of the Lebanese civil war.
It all boils down to a war of Islamic Jihad ideology vs. Judeo Christian Westernism. Muslims who are now the majority of Lebanon's population, support Hezbollah because they are part of the Islamic Ummah-the nation. This is the taboo subject everyone is trying to avoid.
The latest attacks on Israel have been orchestrated by Iran and Syria driven by two different interests. Syria considers Lebanon a part of "greater" Syria. Young Syrian President Assad and his Ba'athist military intelligence henchmen in Damascus are using this latest eruption of violence to prove to the Lebanese that they need the Syrian presence to protect them from the Israeli aggression and to stabilize the country. Iran is conveniently using its Lebanese puppet army Hezbollah, to distract the attention of world leaders meeting at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Apocalyptic Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the ruling Mullah clerics in Tehran want to assert hegemony in the Islamic world under the banner of Shia Mahdist madness. Ahmadinejad wants to seal his place as top Jihadist for Allah by make good his promise to "wipe Israel off the map.
No matter how much the west avoids facing the reality of Islamic extremism of the Middle East, the west cannot hide from the fact that the same Hamas and Hezbollah that Israel is fighting over there, are of the same radical Islamic ideology that has fomented carnage and death through terrorism that America and the world are fighting. This is the same Hezbollah that Iran is threatening to unleash in America with suicide bomb attacks if America tries to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapon. They have cells in over 10 cities in the United States. Hamas, has the largest terrorist infrastructure on American soil. This is what happens when you turn a blind eye to evil for decades, hoping it will go away.
Sheik Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, is an Iranian agent. He is not a free actor in this play. He has been involved in terrorism for over 25 years. Iran with its Islamic vision for a Shia Middle East now has its agents, troops and money in Gaza in the Palestinian territories,Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Behind this is this vision that drives the Iranian President Ahmadinejad who believes he is Allah's "tool and facilitator" bringing the end of the world as we know it and the ushering in of the era of the Mahdi. He has a blind messianic belief in the Shiite tradition of the 12th or "hidden" Islamic savior who will emerge from a well in the holy city of Qum in Iran after global chaos, catastrophes and mass deaths and establish the era of Islamic Justice and everlasting peace.
President Ahmadinejad has refused so far to respond to proposals from the U.S., EU, Russia and China on the UN Security Council to cease Iran's relentless quest for nuclear enrichment and weapons development program until August 22nd. Why August 22nd? Because August 22nd, coincides with the Islamic date of Rajab 28, the day the great Salah El-Din conquered Jerusalem.
Ahmadinejad's extremists ideology in triggering Armageddon gives great concerns to the intelligence community.
At this point the civilized world must unite in fighting the same enemies plaguing Israel and the world with terrorism. We need to stop analyzing the enemies' differences as Sunni-Hamas or Shiite-Hezbollah, and start understanding that their common bond in their fight against us is radical Islam.
For the millions of Christian Lebanese, driven out of our homeland, "Thank you Israel," is the sentiment echoing from around the world. The Lebanese Foundation for Peace, an international group of Lebanese Christians, made the following statement in a press release to Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert concerning the latest Israeli attacks against Hezbollah:
"We urge you to hit them hard and destroy their terror infrastructure. It is not [only] Israel who is fed up with this situation, but the majority of the silent Lebanese in Lebanon who are fed up with Hezbollah and are powerless to do anything out of fear of terror retaliation."
Their statement continues, "On behalf of thousands of Lebanese, we ask you to open the doors of Tel Aviv's Ben Gurion Airport to thousands of volunteers in the Diaspora willing to bear arms and liberate their homeland from [Islamic] fundamentalism.
We ask you for support, facilitation and logistics in order to win this struggle and achieve together the same objectives: Peace and Security for Lebanon and Israel and our future generations to come."
The once dominate Lebanese Christians responsible for giving the world "the Paris of the Middle East" as Lebanon used to be known, have been killed, massacred, driven out of their homes and scattered around the world as radical Islam declared its holy war in the 70s and took hold of the country.
They voice an opinion that they and Israel have learned from personal experience, which is now belatedly being discovered by the rest of the world.
While the world protected the PLO withdrawing from Lebanon in 1983 with Israel hot on their heals, another more volatile and religiously idealistic organization was being born: Hezbollah, "the Party of God," founded by Ayatollah Khomeini and financed by Iran. It was Hezbollah who blew up the U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon in October,1983 killing 241 Americans and 67 French paratroopers that same day. President Reagan ordered U.S. Multilateral Force units to withdraw and closed the books on the marine massacre and US involvement in Lebanon February 1984.
The civilized world, which erroneously vilified the Christians and Israel back then and continues to vilify Israel now, was not paying attention. While America and the rest of the world were concerned about the Israeli / PLO problem, terrorist regimes in Syria and Iran fanned Islamic radicalism in Lebanon and around the world.
Hezbollah's Shiite extremists began multiplying like proverbial rabbits out-producing moderate Sunnis and Christians. Twenty-five years later they have produced enough people to vote themselves into 24 seats in the Lebanese parliament. Since the Israeli pull out in 2000, Lebanon has become a terrorist base completely run and controlled by Syria with its puppet Lebanese President Lahood and the Hezbollah "state within a state."
The Lebanese army has less than 10,000 military troops. Hezbollah has over 4,000 trained militia forces and there are approximately 700 Iranian Revolutionary Guards in Southern Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley. So why can't the army do the job? Because the majority of Lebanese Muslims making up the army will split and unite along religious lines with the Islamic forces just like what happened in 1976 at the start of the Lebanese civil war.
It all boils down to a war of Islamic Jihad ideology vs. Judeo Christian Westernism. Muslims who are now the majority of Lebanon's population, support Hezbollah because they are part of the Islamic Ummah-the nation. This is the taboo subject everyone is trying to avoid.
The latest attacks on Israel have been orchestrated by Iran and Syria driven by two different interests. Syria considers Lebanon a part of "greater" Syria. Young Syrian President Assad and his Ba'athist military intelligence henchmen in Damascus are using this latest eruption of violence to prove to the Lebanese that they need the Syrian presence to protect them from the Israeli aggression and to stabilize the country. Iran is conveniently using its Lebanese puppet army Hezbollah, to distract the attention of world leaders meeting at the G-8 summit in St. Petersburg, from its pursuit of nuclear weapons. Apocalyptic Iranian President Ahmadinejad and the ruling Mullah clerics in Tehran want to assert hegemony in the Islamic world under the banner of Shia Mahdist madness. Ahmadinejad wants to seal his place as top Jihadist for Allah by make good his promise to "wipe Israel off the map.
No matter how much the west avoids facing the reality of Islamic extremism of the Middle East, the west cannot hide from the fact that the same Hamas and Hezbollah that Israel is fighting over there, are of the same radical Islamic ideology that has fomented carnage and death through terrorism that America and the world are fighting. This is the same Hezbollah that Iran is threatening to unleash in America with suicide bomb attacks if America tries to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapon. They have cells in over 10 cities in the United States. Hamas, has the largest terrorist infrastructure on American soil. This is what happens when you turn a blind eye to evil for decades, hoping it will go away.
Sheik Nasrallah, the head of Hezbollah, is an Iranian agent. He is not a free actor in this play. He has been involved in terrorism for over 25 years. Iran with its Islamic vision for a Shia Middle East now has its agents, troops and money in Gaza in the Palestinian territories,Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq. Behind this is this vision that drives the Iranian President Ahmadinejad who believes he is Allah's "tool and facilitator" bringing the end of the world as we know it and the ushering in of the era of the Mahdi. He has a blind messianic belief in the Shiite tradition of the 12th or "hidden" Islamic savior who will emerge from a well in the holy city of Qum in Iran after global chaos, catastrophes and mass deaths and establish the era of Islamic Justice and everlasting peace.
President Ahmadinejad has refused so far to respond to proposals from the U.S., EU, Russia and China on the UN Security Council to cease Iran's relentless quest for nuclear enrichment and weapons development program until August 22nd. Why August 22nd? Because August 22nd, coincides with the Islamic date of Rajab 28, the day the great Salah El-Din conquered Jerusalem.
Ahmadinejad's extremists ideology in triggering Armageddon gives great concerns to the intelligence community.
At this point the civilized world must unite in fighting the same enemies plaguing Israel and the world with terrorism. We need to stop analyzing the enemies' differences as Sunni-Hamas or Shiite-Hezbollah, and start understanding that their common bond in their fight against us is radical Islam.
La otra tragedia del Libano
Does anybody remember Bashir Gemayel?
Ni una sola voz se alzó desde la izquierda cuando el Líbano se convirtió en un títere de Siria tras una cruenta guerra civil en la que miles de cristianos fueron masacrados, expulsados de sus hogares u obligados a abandonar el país. Cuando las voces críticas contra la actuación de Israel arrecian desde esa izquierda y las televisiones nos llenan las retinas de imágenes de niños sufriendo la crueldad de los bombardeos judíos, provocando la lógica indignación popular, convendría recordar que los palestinos no siempre han sido las victimas indefensas de Sabra y Shatila, tal y como se nos quiere hacer creer desde los medios izquierdistas.
La presencia de la OLP de Arafat en el Líbano, tras su traicionero intento de derrocar la monarquía hachemita que había acogido generosamente a los fedayines palestinos, introdujo en el país un factor de desestabilización que llevó a una nación en la que convivían en un complejo equilibrio, cristianos maronitas, junto a musulmanes drusos, sunnitas y chiítas a una larga guerra civil que se saldó con la implantación de un régimen dictatorial controlado por Hafed al Assad y un coste en vidas humanas superior a los 55.000 muertos.
Los palestinos y los sirios atacaron con saña a los cristianos
Entre 1974 y 2000 se suceden ataques lanzados por milicias prosirias y palestinas contra enclaves cristianos, bastante más graves que los hoy protagonizados por Israel, sin que la izquierda española realizase la más mínima condena o simplemente prestase atención alguna a la tragedia.
Localidades como Beit Mellat, Kab Elias, Damour y Jieh, fueron asoladas en una campaña de limpieza étnica en el valle de Bekaa en la que causaron más de 300 muertos. Las iglesias de Damour fueron profanadas y las bandas palestinas cortaron los dedos de niños cristianos para asegurarse de que no pudieran disparar armas.
La intervención siria en 1976 causó más de 500 victimas morales entre los civiles cristianos a consecuencia de los bombardeos que de manera análoga a los hoy realizados por Israel, Siria empleó para imponer su presencia en el Líbano.
Los enfrentamientos entre las tropas sirias y palestinas con las milicias cristianas, representadas por las Falanges Libanesas, alcanzaron su punto álgido a partir de 1978. Emir Bechir Hoche Barada Aintours Checa, y Moiin Hatoum, fueron algunas de las aldeas donde se masacró sin piedad a sus habitantes cristianos, más de 1.000 civiles murieron. Sólo en Deir Dourit, devastada por completo, murieron 263 personas. La milicia privada de Rifaat Assad, hermano del presidente sirio, sitió las zonas que permanecían libres en los suburbios de Beirut y las hizo bombardear durante cinco días y cinco noches, con cañones y morteros, con un saldo de más de sesenta civiles muertos y trescientos heridos. En 1981 los bombardeos de los barrios cristianos de Beirut del Este lanzados por la OLP causaron 2.000 victimas civiles. En septiembre de 1983 más de cien aldeas en la región de Chouf fueron limpiadas étnicamente de cristianos por tropas drusas. En 1990 el general cristiano Michel Aoun fue expulsado del poder por las tropas sirias, más de 700 cristianos fueron asesinados en las represalias subsiguientes.
Ni una sola muestra de solidaridad por parte de la izquierda española, que ya ha asignado el papel de victimas y verdugos a su sectaria conveniencia. .
Ni una sola voz se alzó desde la izquierda cuando el Líbano se convirtió en un títere de Siria tras una cruenta guerra civil en la que miles de cristianos fueron masacrados, expulsados de sus hogares u obligados a abandonar el país. Cuando las voces críticas contra la actuación de Israel arrecian desde esa izquierda y las televisiones nos llenan las retinas de imágenes de niños sufriendo la crueldad de los bombardeos judíos, provocando la lógica indignación popular, convendría recordar que los palestinos no siempre han sido las victimas indefensas de Sabra y Shatila, tal y como se nos quiere hacer creer desde los medios izquierdistas.
La presencia de la OLP de Arafat en el Líbano, tras su traicionero intento de derrocar la monarquía hachemita que había acogido generosamente a los fedayines palestinos, introdujo en el país un factor de desestabilización que llevó a una nación en la que convivían en un complejo equilibrio, cristianos maronitas, junto a musulmanes drusos, sunnitas y chiítas a una larga guerra civil que se saldó con la implantación de un régimen dictatorial controlado por Hafed al Assad y un coste en vidas humanas superior a los 55.000 muertos.
Los palestinos y los sirios atacaron con saña a los cristianos
Entre 1974 y 2000 se suceden ataques lanzados por milicias prosirias y palestinas contra enclaves cristianos, bastante más graves que los hoy protagonizados por Israel, sin que la izquierda española realizase la más mínima condena o simplemente prestase atención alguna a la tragedia.
Localidades como Beit Mellat, Kab Elias, Damour y Jieh, fueron asoladas en una campaña de limpieza étnica en el valle de Bekaa en la que causaron más de 300 muertos. Las iglesias de Damour fueron profanadas y las bandas palestinas cortaron los dedos de niños cristianos para asegurarse de que no pudieran disparar armas.
La intervención siria en 1976 causó más de 500 victimas morales entre los civiles cristianos a consecuencia de los bombardeos que de manera análoga a los hoy realizados por Israel, Siria empleó para imponer su presencia en el Líbano.
Los enfrentamientos entre las tropas sirias y palestinas con las milicias cristianas, representadas por las Falanges Libanesas, alcanzaron su punto álgido a partir de 1978. Emir Bechir Hoche Barada Aintours Checa, y Moiin Hatoum, fueron algunas de las aldeas donde se masacró sin piedad a sus habitantes cristianos, más de 1.000 civiles murieron. Sólo en Deir Dourit, devastada por completo, murieron 263 personas. La milicia privada de Rifaat Assad, hermano del presidente sirio, sitió las zonas que permanecían libres en los suburbios de Beirut y las hizo bombardear durante cinco días y cinco noches, con cañones y morteros, con un saldo de más de sesenta civiles muertos y trescientos heridos. En 1981 los bombardeos de los barrios cristianos de Beirut del Este lanzados por la OLP causaron 2.000 victimas civiles. En septiembre de 1983 más de cien aldeas en la región de Chouf fueron limpiadas étnicamente de cristianos por tropas drusas. En 1990 el general cristiano Michel Aoun fue expulsado del poder por las tropas sirias, más de 700 cristianos fueron asesinados en las represalias subsiguientes.
Ni una sola muestra de solidaridad por parte de la izquierda española, que ya ha asignado el papel de victimas y verdugos a su sectaria conveniencia. .
Saturday, July 22, 2006
Prelude to a war...
This article by the intelectual Carlos Sempun Maura has no waste, unfortunately is in spanish and it's too long for lazy feathers to translate. It was written in January of this year and it offers a very good insight of Israel's actual conflict.
Nº 27 - VARIA
¡Jerusalén! ¡Jerusalén!
Por Carlos Semprún Maura
Shalom Sharon
Escribo estas líneas en enero de 2006, con Ariel Sharon hospitalizado tras un gravísimo derrame cerebral; y si parece recuperarse muy poco a poco, nadie sabe si será capaz de ejercer de nuevo las responsabilidades que fueron suyas aún hace pocos días. Israel está, pues, en una encrucijada; no únicamente debido a la enfermedad de Sharon, desde luego. Porque hay otros síntomas de crisis, como los revelados en los partidos tradicionales, el Likud y el Laborista, y con la creación de una nueva formación, precisamente liderada, hasta ayer, por Sharon: Kadima ("Adelante"), que aparece en los sondeos como vencedora de las elecciones de marzo.
Se me dirá que Israel siempre está en crisis más o menos grave; desde que conoció su parto sangriento, en 1948, tras la decisión de la ONU de crear dos estados, uno judío, el otro árabe, y todos los países árabes de la región lanzaron sus tropas para impedirlo, oponiéndose por las armas a la creación tanto del Estado hebreo como del arabopalestino. Desde entonces hasta hoy, las guerras, las agresiones, el terrorismo contra Israel jamás han cesado, y el peligro se reanuda hoy con las tétricas amenazas de Irán, que posee armas de destrucción masiva nucleares y proclama su voluntad de "borrar Israel del mapa".
Sí, siempre ha sido así, siempre ha vivido Israel en estado de alerta y de defensa militar; pero resulta que, precisamente por esto, los israelíes están cansados: anhelan paz y tranquilidad más que nunca. Y si esto es comprensible, es peligroso.
Como se puede suponer, este estado de alerta permanente, este esfuerzo de guerra constante –a lo que podría añadirse, por lo visto, la mala gestión de Netanyahu como ministro de Finanzas– han creado una situación económica bastante difícil, pese a que Vargas Llosa, incomprensiblemente, se irrite y eche en cara a Israel "sus altos niveles de vida" (El País, 8-X-2005).
El caso es que este país conoce una nueva crisis política, que espera solucionar con elecciones anticipadas en marzo. Antes, este mismo enero, habrán tenido lugar las palestinas; pero éstas son menos representativas, porque no son los ciudadanos quienes votan, sino los fusiles, y en las zonas militarmente dominadas por Hamas ganará Hamas, y en las que no perderá.
La gravedad de la repentina enfermedad de Sharon ha complicado las cosas, aunque valga la pena señalar la absoluta normalidad de los acontecimientos, que contrasta radicalmente con todo lo que ocurre en los países árabes, dictaduras o monarquías absolutas. La enfermedad se trata en el hospital, y los comentarios son médicos, no de la Dirección General de Seguridad, o del ayatolá guía de la revolución; las instituciones siguen funcionando con normalidad: el vice primer ministro, según lo previsto, se convierte en primer ministro interino y todo sigue igual. Más aún: a mediados de enero Kadima, el partido fundado por Sharon, seguía apareciendo en los sondeos como el vencedor de las próximas elecciones, lo cual también constituye un dato sobre la perfecta salud de la democracia israelí.
Poco antes, la difícil situación económica había conducido a un cambio en la cumbre del Partido Laborista, con la derrota del veterano Simón Peres y la nueva jefatura del sindicalista Amir Peretz. Y otros acontecimientos políticos han desempeñado asimismo un papel: la retirada de Gaza fue un éxito, y fue aprobada por la mayoría de la población; sin embargo, creó tensiones en los partidos y en la sociedad, sin llegar a la "guerra civil", tan esperada por la socialburocracia europea y la derecha carca, una vez más unidas en su común antisionismo, que ya no disimula su antisemitismo.
Dicha retirada creó, pues, tensiones, sí, pero también fue utilizada por gentes como Netanyahu, que estaba perfectamente al corriente de los proyectos de Sharon –siendo, como era, miembro de su Gobierno– pero que esperó al último momento, con la evacuación de los colonos casi terminada, para protestar contra ese "abandono" y dimitir de ese mismo Gobierno, encabezando la oposición a Sharon en el Likud para hacerse con el mando del partido.
Sin menospreciar los problemas económicos ni el hastío ante la guerra eterna, la crisis política actual parecer resultar más bien de la existente en los principales partidos, el Laborista y el Likud, cuya alternancia en el poder, desde 1948, era, por así decir, la norma de la vida democrática israelí. De pronto, en el seno de ambos partidos hubo partidarios y adversarios de la retirada de Gaza, así como fuertes divergencias sobre el futuro inmediato de Israel: las relaciones con la Autoridad Palestina y los países musulmanes de la región, las negociaciones de paz, las concesiones territoriales, el futuro Estado palestino, la lucha contra el terrorismo... todos los problemas estaban sobre el tapete, de sobra conocidos y discutidos en infinitas conferencias (Madrid, Oslo, Camp David, etcétera) pero en su mayoría aún sin resolver.
A las históricas diferencias entre los dos principales partidos se han añadido recientemente las divisiones en el seno de cada uno de ellos: no han faltado voces laboristas para atacar a Simón Peres y tratarle de traidor, por participar en un Gobierno de coalición con el Likud presidido por Ariel Sharon, su "bestia negra" hasta ahora, ni en el Likud para atacar a Sharon, tratarle de traidor y acusarle de realizar una "política de izquierdas". El resultado de todo esto ha sido una evidente paralización del sistema democrático, al no estar de acuerdo ni los dos partidos ni los militantes en el seno de cada uno de ellos. Y Sharon, con su audacia habitual, ha cortado por lo sano, creando una nueva formación, Kadima, a la que se han sumado Peres y muchos más.
Todo esto puede aparecer –y se ha dicho, en Israel y fuera– como un peligroso juego entre partidos, unas combinazioni de aparatos y líderes demasiado frívolas, tratándose de un país acosado y atacado. Pero hay que tener en cuenta que Sharon no podía hacer triunfar su política –porque tiene su política– con un Likud dividido, al mismo tiempo que los laboristas echaban a Peres de la dirección y rompían el Gobierno de coalición, preparándose para un nuevo –pero tan anticuado– enfrentamiento izquierda/derecha. Sharon, para seguir adelante, tenía que tomar la iniciativa, romper el tradicional equilibrio (una vez le toca al Likud, otra a los laboristas), que se había estancado, y dar un golpe creando un nuevo partido, con lo cual ha dejado estupefactos a muchos de sus adversarios y a bastantes de sus amigos políticos.
En todos los países, pero aún más en Israel, los problemas de política internacional interfieren claramente en los de política interior, y en ese sentido también ha habido cambios. Problema a la vez interior y exterior, la cuestión palestina, con sus negociaciones de paz probables, el futuro Estado palestino, etcétera, ha cambiado bastante con la muerte de Arafat y su sucesión por Abbas. Pero no nos llamemos a engaño ni nos hagamos demasiadas ilusiones, porque si Mahmud Abbas es presentado y recibido por doquier (hasta por el Papa) como un negociador nato, un nacionalista moderado, un hombre de paz, etcétera, muchos de los que así le presentan condenan implícitamente, con sus loas a Abbas, al difunto Arafat, a quien tan incondicionalmente, sin embargo, habían apoyado cuando presidía la Autoridad Palestina.
Es cierto que Abbas ha declarado que había que terminar con el terrorismo, y convertir la “intifada militar” en “intifada civil y política”, pero el terrorismo no cesa. Es cierto que Abbas ha dicho que el futuro Estado palestino debería tener relaciones normales con Israel, pero al mismo tiempo reivindica para dicho Estado cosas que sabe imposibles, como Jerusalén como capital, cuando lo es de Israel por antonomasia; y, según sean las circunstancias y el público, o bien exige que se estudie muy seriamente la cuestión del retorno de los refugiados o bien proclama como condición sine qua non el retorno de todos ellos, a sabiendas de que es materialmente imposible. Asimismo, juega con las concesiones territoriales que debería hacer Israel de manera lo suficientemente imprecisa como para, si llega a la negociación, poder en cualquier momento aumentar sus reivindicaciones territoriales y romper la baraja.
Archisabido es que, en cualquier tipo de negociación, y contra más difícil más, cuando se quiere obtener cincuenta se exige cien, pero también es sabido que, cuando no se quiere que las negociaciones finalicen con un acuerdo satisfactorio para ambas partes, se recurre a la táctica de ir subiendo el listón y sacar de la manga nuevas exigencias. Así puede uno hacer fracasar las negociaciones aunque aparente ser su más firme partidario. El malo es el otro. Se trata de una táctica muy vista.
Arafat también hablaba de negociar la paz, y cada vez que los suyos cometían un atentado terrorista lo “condenaba”. Pero al mismo tiempo, y muy poco a poco, ese cinismo iba creando malestar entre algunos de sus amigos y aliados extranjeros. No en Hamas, por supuesto. En las últimas negociaciones israelo-palestinas, patrocinadas por el presidente Clinton, el primer ministro israelí Barak y su ministro de Exteriores, Ben Ami, hicieron todas las concesiones habidas y por haber –incluso exageradas– a los palestinos; concesiones que inquietaron a muchos israelíes, incluido Simón Peres. Sin embargo, Arafat no firmó.
Según el testimonio del propio Ben Ami, Arafat, muy nervioso y molesto, confesó en varias ocasiones: “No puedo firmar; si firmo me matan”. Nunca se ha reconocido tan claramente que las organizaciones terroristas palestinas, Hamas, Yihad y demás, así como la mayoría de los países musulmanes de la región, que las subvencionan y controlan (la UE también las subvenciona, pero no las controla), no quieren ni negociaciones ni paz: su objetivo es la destrucción de Israel, y, en su óptica fanática, hasta la creación de un Estado palestino independiente les tiene sin cuidado.
Esta actitud, a fin de cuentas suicida, de Arafat, porque tenía enfrente una fuerza militar superior y resuelta, no ha satisfecho totalmente a ciertos sectores políticos en EEUU y Europa que, aun simpatizando con la “causa palestina”, no son incondicionalmente partidarios de la destrucción de Israel. En cuanto a saber si Mahmud Abbas va a tener otra actitud, más positiva, en las inevitables futuras negociaciones, ya se verá. Por ahora, se puede constatar que, pese a sus discursos sobre el fin del terrorismo, éste continúa, y cabe preguntarse si Abbas es incapaz de frenarlo o si, como Arafat, no quiere hacerlo.
Últimamente, y gracias sobre todo a la política de la Casa Blanca, la situación de Israel en Oriente Medio ha conocido algunos cambios. Esto se debe, ante todo, a la intervención militar aliada contra Irak, intervención aún inconclusa, aún sangrienta –y los que exigen la retirada inmediata sólo quieren una derrota norteamericana–, pero que ha limitado considerablemente las capacidades agresivas de Irak (su peligrosidad es de otra índole) y ha repercutido con fuerza en las ambiciones agresivas y terroristas de Siria, que se retira del Líbano y mantiene por ahora una actitud mucho más prudente que antaño, lo cual no le impide seguir sosteniendo el terrorismo, tanto en Irak como en el Líbano. Anteriormente, y también en buena parte gracias a los USA, países como Jordania y Egipto, que tantas veces habían guerreado contra Israel, y eso desde el 1948, han firmado tratados de paz con el Estado hebreo, sin que ello signifique una colaboración plena y pacífica entre todos estos países.
Al aludir al cambio de la política de Egipto en relación con Israel no se puede olvidar el ejemplo del gran estadista Anuar el Sadat. Fue la primera y única vez que un acuerdo de paz entre Israel y un país árabe fue firmado y respetado. Por ello asesinaron a Sadat, los “camaradas islamistas”. Vale la pena recordar que del lado israelí fue el primer ministro más odiado por la progresía (casi tanto como Sharon), Menahem Beguin, presentado como el peor de los “halcones”, quien firmó y respetó dicho acuerdo. Desde entonces, Mubarak, aconsejado por Washington, lo ha respetado. En realidad, ha respetado más la letra que el espíritu, pero algo es algo, y no es lo mismo que Irán.
Resulta que cada vez que a Israel se le propone un acuerdo serio, sin trampas ni segundas, como el votado por la ONU en 1947, cuya aplicación debía comenzar en 1948 y se convirtió en guerra de agresión árabe contra el recién nacido Israel (asesinando de paso al “feto” del Estado palestino), o el propuesto por Sadat, Israel ha aceptado y cumplido. Lo que no puede aceptar, y algunos esperamos que no lo haga nunca, es firmar su propia sentencia de muerte.
Aparentemente, sólo Irán mantiene hoy el objetivo de “borrar Israel del mapa”, que fue la ambición declarada de muchos otros países árabes, Egipto como Irak, Siria como Arabia Saudi, etcétera. Pero Irán dispone de armas nucleares, o está ultimando sus preparativos. Ante este peligro, se nota la diferencia entre el discurso, como siempre, apaciguador, cobarde, de la UE, que finge discutir amistosamente con los ayatolás sobre la energía nuclear civil, cuando de armas se trata, y la firme actitud de Israel, declarando que bajo ningún concepto aceptará que Irán se dote de una fuerza nuclear.
Dos observaciones, pese a todo: me temo que ya sea tarde, que la preparación de esas bombas y cohetes nucleares ya esté concluida, o a punto de serlo, y no en un solo centro, sino en varios, para dificultar los bombardeos. Por otra parte, sería peligroso para Israel si sus aviones fueran los únicos en bombardear las instalaciones nucleares iraníes. Peligroso políticamente, aunque posible militarmente. Si existiera de verdad, si no fuera un “zombi”, tal responsabilidad debería correr a cargo de la OTAN. Estando las cosas como están, la única alianza, difícil pero posible, que yo veo sería una operación conjunta USA-Reino Unido-Israel; esperando que, si se realiza, no sea demasiado tarde. Difícil me parecería ejercer represalias contra una alianza tal. En cuanto a las actuaciones antioccidentales, ya existen; en cambio, los países musulmanes moderados, o prudentes, lo serían mucho más.
Hay que distinguir, como siempre, las palabras de los hechos, porque el extraordinario incremento del terrorismo islámico desde los atentados contra las Torres Gemelas de Nueva York, el 11 de septiembre 2001, hasta hoy (y mañana, puede desgraciadamente afirmarse), en todo Oriente Medio y en el mundo entero, demuestra que las organizaciones terroristas disponen de muchos recursos: voluntarios a granel, incluidos los “novios de la muerte” suicidas, que a veces son mujeres y hasta niños; armas y explosivos asimismo a granel, y evidentemente medios, o sea dinero, y muy concretamente petrodólares. Sabido de sobra es que las organizaciones terroristas internacionales son millonarias y billonarias, pero menos se dice que muchos estados musulmanes, incluso declarándose antiterroristas y hasta luchando contra grupos terroristas en su territorio, subvencionan directa o indirectamente a Al Qaeda y demás redes de "locos de Alá".
Sin embargo, y pese al secreto, se conocen muchas cosas: se sabe que Irán subvenciona a la Yihad Islámica en el Líbano y a grupos terroristas en Irak, principal frente elegido por el islam radical, por motivos obvios, en su “guerra santa”. En este sentido, cabe preguntarse si los norteamericanos, con su voluntad de confiar cada vez más en las fuerzas de seguridad iraquíes para restablecer el orden, no se equivocan, o al menos no se apresuran demasiado, porque por ahora no se ven los resultados, pese a que hayan podido celebrarse elecciones, se haya votado una Constitución (híbrida) y demás pasos hacia la democracia. También se sabe que Siria, en esta ocasión junto a Irán, subvenciona a la Yihad libanesa y a grupos terroristas en Irak, como las operaciones militares en la frontera sirio-iraquí demuestran, aunque Damasco lo niegue.
Por cierto, ¿alguien ha cifrado el coste en petrodólares de los atentados diarios con coches-bomba y el resto de operaciones de "guerrilla urbana"? Pues cuestan millonadas, porque los explosivos, los morteros, las ametralladoras, hasta los fusiles y las pistolas, no se distribuyen gratis, como caramelos envenenados. También hay países, como Arabia Saudí o los Emiratos, pongamos, que subvencionan abiertamente, a través del ancho mundo, y concretamente en Europa, fundaciones islámicas, mezquitas, escuelas coránicas, etcétera, institutos “culturales” para la propagación de la fe durante el día y de adiestramiento para el terrorismo por la noche. Sabido es, igualmente, que Pakistán ayudó a los talibanes en Afganistán y a los terroristas islámicos en Cachemira. ¿Han cambiando realmente de política en este aspecto?
Todo ello, con las diferencias y matices que se quieran, constituye el panorama general de la guerra contra Occidente. Pero todo ello es, a fin de cuentas, menos virulento que el odio islámico a Israel, "avanzadilla del Occidente infiel en tierras musulmanas". Yo, claro, calificaría más bien a Israel como una "vanguardia de la democracia occidental en Oriente". Por eso, cuando José María Aznar propuso en Bruselas incluir a Israel (con Japón y otros países democráticos) en una nueva OTAN más eficaz y más adaptada a la guerra actual contra el terrorismo islámico internacional... si El País se indigna, yo aplaudo. Es curioso, pero cada vez que El País se mete con Aznar, yo le aplaudo.
La tentación cobarde de Occidente
Y ahora, un inciso: hay una señora yanqui, cuyo nombre no recuerdo, pese a haberlo oído y leído decenas de veces, que acusa a Bush de haber matado a su hijo porque éste, soldado norteamericano, murió en Irak. Muy "mediatizada", como se dice ahora, se la vio acampar, ufana y sonriente, ante el rancho de George W. Bush y desfilar delante de la Casa Blanca, como si quisiera rentabilizar la muerte de su hijo para realizar vete a saber qué carrera política o mediática, o lograr un cargo en alguna ONG subvencionada por los petrodólares. No veo por qué, siguiendo su lógica y la de sus numerosos hinchas, no acusan a Roosevelt de haber matado infinitamente más jóvenes norteamericanos durante la II Guerra Mundial, que tenía, salvando las distancias, el mismo objetivo: la defensa de la democracia. Además, a los papanatas que admiran a esa pobre señora les diré que su hijo era voluntario.
Aparentemente, esta anécdota poco tiene que ver con Israel, pero sí, y mucho, con la "tentación cobarde de Occidente", y su profundo y extravagante "síndrome de Estocolmo": sistemáticamente, cuando hay atentados, nunca se acusa a los terroristas, sino a los gobiernos que luchan contra el terrorismo. Y esto sí que tiene que ver con Israel, ya que, en la inmensa mayoría de los casos, en Europa se acusa al Gobierno israelí de ser el culpable de los atentados terroristas que sufre su población civil. De la misma manera que el antisemitismo condena a los judíos por serlo ("por el mero hecho de haber nacido judíos", escribió André Frossard), los antisionistas condenan a Israel por el mero hecho de existir.
Y nunca jamás tanto como a Ariel Sharon, convertido en "monstruo nazi" no sólo por filósofos como José Bové, o nobeles como Saramago, no sólo por islamistas radicales y por moderados idénticos en su antisemitismo, o por la extrema izquierda, por o la derecha carca, que lo exhibe como alcurnia de sangre pura; también por muchos beaux esprits que se proclaman "amigos de Israel" y acusan a Sharon de ser, él, el "peor enemigo de Israel". En este sentido, Mario Vargas Llosa no está solo, más bien en numerosa y mala compañía.
Durante los últimos años del periodo Arafat, con, por un lado, el incremento del terrorismo y, por el otro, el fracaso de las negociaciones conducidas por Barak y Ben Ami, y la correspondiente llegada de Sharon al poder, Vargas Llosa ha sido uno de los muchos intelectuales famosos que se han dedicado a atacar furiosamente al Gobierno israelí y a Sharon personalmente, considerado como peligroso energúmeno (siendo académico, debe saber que significa "poseído del demonio"). En ese mismo periodo, Vargas Llosa fue también uno de tantos que, sin que se les cayera la cara de vergüenza, proclamaban muy fuerte su oposición a la intervención militar en Irak y al mismo tiempo su entusiasmo por el derrumbe de la tiranía de Sadam Husein, como si una cosa no fuera la consecuencia evidente de la otra.
Habiendo ya comentado, para Libertad Digital[1], el último, que yo sepa, reportaje de Vargas Llosa sobre el conflicto israelo-árabe, no tendré la redundancia de repetirme; solo recordaré que en sus artículos “impresionistas” fingía lamentar los sufrimientos en los dos bandos, para mejor condenar la firmeza de Israel. A mí, desde luego, nada me cuesta reconocer que alguna vez la respuesta militar de Israel al terrorismo palestino me ha parecido exorbitante, pero al mismo tiempo constato su eficacia, así como su necesidad, y en su conjunto me parece altamente positiva. La condena de Israel por parte de Mario también se manifiesta en su exaltación de quienes califica de "justos" y que, expresándose libremente (tan libremente como en USA se expresan los antibush, cosa radicalmente imposible en cualquier país árabe), proponen a sus compatriotas nada menos que un suicidio colectivo y purificador (los judíos, pueblo eternamente víctima, deben seguir siéndolo, para mejor redimir a toda la Humanidad... Refrain connu).
Al unísono con los islamistas más radicales, esos "justos" condenan de hecho la existencia de Israel, desde su creación, afirmando asimismo que el Estado hebreo es el único culpable de la guerra inconclusa. ¡Como si bastara con sonreír "al otro" para que inmediatamente Hamas, la Yihad, Al Qaeda o Irán depositaran las armas y las transformaran en flores...!
Pero cuando Vargas Llosa se pasa de la raya y cae en la infamia es cuando se lamenta por que el terrorismo islámico no ha logrado sus objetivos: ni destruir Israel ni crear el caos. Le cito: "Porque lo cierto es que, por doloroso que sea en lo individual y familiar, los atentados terroristas sólo son unos pequeños rasguños en la piel de ese elefante que es ahora Israel, algo que no amenaza su existencia, ni sus altos niveles de vida, ni, ay, su conciencia".
Dejando de lado, por ahora, la abundante basura antisemita carpetovetónica, nuestras "gemas orientales" y los nutridos batallones falanjocomunistas, citaré el ejemplo de dos intelectuales de izquierda franceses, ambos judíos, dicho sea de paso: Claude Lefort y Edgar Morin, quienes en el mismo periodo han mantenido argumentos (insultos, más bien) bastante semejantes a los de Vargas Llosa. Claude Lefort, écorché vif en todo lo que se refiere o huele a antisemitismo, quien en muchas ocasiones defendió a Israel, hace algunos años (en 2002) arremetió ferozmente, en un artículo publicado en Le Monde, contra el Gobierno israelí, y muy concretamente contra Sharon, en términos muy parecidos a los de Mario, y exaltando, también, a la minoría de izquierdas y pacifista israelí. ¿Cabe preguntarse si condena retrospectivamente la actitud de Churchill en 1940, porque era un político de derechas?
Pero lo peor es cuando, en ese mismo artículo, se escandaliza en términos patéticos ante una de las "peores masacres de la Historia", la "masacre de Yenín" (mayo de 2002); en el último momento, preso de vete a saber qué duda, anota, entre paréntesis, "si se confirma". O sea, que se atreve a denunciar sin confirmación la "horrenda masacre israelí contra los civiles palestinos"; él, que no había cesado de denunciar hasta la fecha las mentiras y extravagancias de la propaganda antiisraelí. Como si de pronto tampoco recordara las mentiras de la propaganda comunista. Por cierto, ¿se ha "confirmado" que Trotski era un agente imperialista, y sus discípulos hitlero-trotsquistas?
Recordemos los hechos (con Gabriel Albiac: 'Meditar Yenin'[2]). Pese a lo que todo el mundo progre y antisemita proclamaba, no hubo masacre de civiles: hubo un combate entre milicianos-terroristas palestinos y soldados israelíes. En dicho combate murieron 52 palestinos y 27 israelíes. No he leído la menor rectificación a las exorbitadas condenas de Israel por dicha "matanza".
El caso de Edgar Morin es más banal, y además ha tenido un toque que me atrevería a calificar de cómico: menos sensible que Lefort ante las viejas y nuevas manifestaciones del antisemitismo, aunque también las condene formalmente, y menos dolorosamente preocupado por el destino de Israel (por lo que he leído de este "enciclopedista" del Café du commerce), Morin se ha visto condenado, hace pocos meses, por antisemitismo (!) por un tribunal francés, debido a un texto publicado en Le Monde y firmado conjuntamente con Sami Naïr y una escritora cuyo nombre no recuerdo ni viene a cuento. Yo discrepo radicalmente de que los tribunales impongan cualquier tipo de censuras, aunque debo reconocer que el texto-proclama juzgado y condenado era infame, porque comparaba Israel, su ejército, su "ocupación", con la Alemania nazi, su ejército y su ocupación de Europa, los pobres palestinos de hoy convirtiéndose en los pobres judíos de ayer. No hace falta lupa para ver algo parecido en los reiteradas declaraciones del presidente iraní, Ahmadineyad, portavoz de los ayatolás.
Toda esta verborrea puede resumirse en una ecuación tan sencilla como trágica: para seguir existiendo, en un entorno tan radicalmente hostil, Israel está condenado a defenderse militarmente. Una política árabe agresiva y bélica, o una "de paz", que lograra desarmar a Israel –idéntico resultado obtenido por diferentes medios– sería el fin de éste. Lo que cambia con Ariel Sharon y su nuevo proyecto político es que si él acepta negociar será "con las botas puestas", o sea, sin desarmar ni reducir la potencia defensiva de su pequeño país.
Negociar significa obligatoriamente hacer concesiones, pero no hacer concesiones apostando sobre una supuesta voluntad de paz del adversario, porque no existe. No obstante, en el marco de una conferencia internacional, en la que los USA desempeñarían un papel decisivo, se puede pensar, o al menos valdría la pena intentarlo, en que Israel y el Estado palestino llegasen a un acuerdo parecido, más o menos, al que existe entre Israel y Egipto, por ejemplo.
No seré yo quien indique cuáles serían las concesiones que, a cambio de un acuerdo, si no de paz al menos de armisticio prolongado, Israel puede y debe aceptar: es obvio que tienen que ser los israelíes quienes lo decidan democráticamente. Escribo como si Ariel Sharon no estuviera en el hospital, con un futuro, tanto político como personal, incierto. Baso mi relativo optimismo en la esperanza de que el equipo hoy al frente del Gobierno y de Kadima: Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Saúl Mofaz, Simón Peres y los demás, logre proseguir con éxito la política de Sharon, y hasta ganar las próximas elecciones.
Sin embargo, hay cosas que me parecen intangibles, como la imposibilidad material del "retorno de todos los refugiados", o la cuestión de Jerusalén, porque histórica, política, simbólica y sentimentalmente Jerusalén es la capital de Israel, esto no tiene vuelta de hoja. Que existan en la misma ciudad "lugares santos" hebreos, cristianos y musulmanes, y que razonablemente los creyentes de las diferentes religiones puedan acceder a sus lugares de culto, nada tiene que ver con la naturaleza de capital de Israel de Jerusalén. Los palestinos, como los kurdos, no habiendo jamás tenido un Estado (el que está a la vista será el primero), no han tenido capital; en cambio, y mil años antes de Jesucristo, David fundó Jerusalén como capital del reino de Israel. Luego, bien sabido es que el destino de esa ciudad fue caótico, sometida a guerras y ocupaciones e integrada en grandes imperios, como el romano o el otomano, terminando, para ir deprisa, con el británico (1922-1947). Pero cuando Israel ha existido, como reino o estado-nación, ha tenido por capital Jerusalén (Tel Aviv fue un interludio "jurídico", como Bonn). La propaganda progre-palestina sobre Jerusalén –o Jerusalén Este–, supuesta capital de un Estado palestino en gestación, no se basa en ninguna realidad histórica; de hecho, se refiere a la ocupación militar de Jerusalén por la Legión Árabe en 1948.
Recordemos que en mayo 1948 Ben Gurion proclama el renacimiento del Estado de Israel, que acata las decisiones de la ONU en cuanto a fronteras y relaciones con el vecino Estado arabopalestino. Quienes no lo aceptan son los estados árabes, que intentan impedir la creación de los ambos estados desencadenando la primera guerra arabo-israelí. Tropas de Egipto, Siria, Líbano y Jordania (que considera Palestina como provincia suya, no sin razones) invaden a sangre y fuego las tierras de Israel, ocupan Jerusalén, destrozando su barrio judío y masacrando su población civil, etcétera.
La responsabilidad del Reino Unido en esta primera guerra es evidente, porque tenía entonces fuertes lazos coloniales con esos países árabes agresores, y además su force de frappe militar, la Legión Árabe, estaba al mando de un general británico, John Bagor Glubb, apodado Glubb Pachá. Pero el Gobierno británico se convence –o más bien le convencen– de que hay que respetar las decisiones dela ONU y ordena a su general Glubb y a los demás mandos británicos de la Legión Árabe detener su ofensiva, la única victoriosa, porque los pioneros sionistas habían detenido la invasión árabe en los demás "frentes". E Israel comienza su trágica y heroica andadura, hasta hoy. Y los palestinos reivindican un trozo de Jerusalén, conquistado por los arabo-británicos de la Legión Árabe, como capital...
N. B.: Apenas había terminado este artículo, cuando llega la noticia del triunfo de los fusiles en las elecciones palestinas. Si los terroristas de Hamas forman el próximo Gobierno de la Autoridad Palestina, como es previsible, las negociaciones de paz aquí evocadas se alejan e Israel tiene que prepararse, una vez más, para la guerra.
[1] 'Cuando el sueño de la paz produce guerras'. Suplemento de Exteriores del 17-X-2005.
[2] En VV. AA., En defensa de Israel, Libros Certeza, Zaragoza, 2004, 343 páginas.
Carlos Semprún Maura, es historiador, escritor y periodista español. Reside en París y escribe regularmente para varios periódicos en España.
Nº 27 - VARIA
¡Jerusalén! ¡Jerusalén!
Por Carlos Semprún Maura
Shalom Sharon
Escribo estas líneas en enero de 2006, con Ariel Sharon hospitalizado tras un gravísimo derrame cerebral; y si parece recuperarse muy poco a poco, nadie sabe si será capaz de ejercer de nuevo las responsabilidades que fueron suyas aún hace pocos días. Israel está, pues, en una encrucijada; no únicamente debido a la enfermedad de Sharon, desde luego. Porque hay otros síntomas de crisis, como los revelados en los partidos tradicionales, el Likud y el Laborista, y con la creación de una nueva formación, precisamente liderada, hasta ayer, por Sharon: Kadima ("Adelante"), que aparece en los sondeos como vencedora de las elecciones de marzo.
Se me dirá que Israel siempre está en crisis más o menos grave; desde que conoció su parto sangriento, en 1948, tras la decisión de la ONU de crear dos estados, uno judío, el otro árabe, y todos los países árabes de la región lanzaron sus tropas para impedirlo, oponiéndose por las armas a la creación tanto del Estado hebreo como del arabopalestino. Desde entonces hasta hoy, las guerras, las agresiones, el terrorismo contra Israel jamás han cesado, y el peligro se reanuda hoy con las tétricas amenazas de Irán, que posee armas de destrucción masiva nucleares y proclama su voluntad de "borrar Israel del mapa".
Sí, siempre ha sido así, siempre ha vivido Israel en estado de alerta y de defensa militar; pero resulta que, precisamente por esto, los israelíes están cansados: anhelan paz y tranquilidad más que nunca. Y si esto es comprensible, es peligroso.
Como se puede suponer, este estado de alerta permanente, este esfuerzo de guerra constante –a lo que podría añadirse, por lo visto, la mala gestión de Netanyahu como ministro de Finanzas– han creado una situación económica bastante difícil, pese a que Vargas Llosa, incomprensiblemente, se irrite y eche en cara a Israel "sus altos niveles de vida" (El País, 8-X-2005).
El caso es que este país conoce una nueva crisis política, que espera solucionar con elecciones anticipadas en marzo. Antes, este mismo enero, habrán tenido lugar las palestinas; pero éstas son menos representativas, porque no son los ciudadanos quienes votan, sino los fusiles, y en las zonas militarmente dominadas por Hamas ganará Hamas, y en las que no perderá.
La gravedad de la repentina enfermedad de Sharon ha complicado las cosas, aunque valga la pena señalar la absoluta normalidad de los acontecimientos, que contrasta radicalmente con todo lo que ocurre en los países árabes, dictaduras o monarquías absolutas. La enfermedad se trata en el hospital, y los comentarios son médicos, no de la Dirección General de Seguridad, o del ayatolá guía de la revolución; las instituciones siguen funcionando con normalidad: el vice primer ministro, según lo previsto, se convierte en primer ministro interino y todo sigue igual. Más aún: a mediados de enero Kadima, el partido fundado por Sharon, seguía apareciendo en los sondeos como el vencedor de las próximas elecciones, lo cual también constituye un dato sobre la perfecta salud de la democracia israelí.
Poco antes, la difícil situación económica había conducido a un cambio en la cumbre del Partido Laborista, con la derrota del veterano Simón Peres y la nueva jefatura del sindicalista Amir Peretz. Y otros acontecimientos políticos han desempeñado asimismo un papel: la retirada de Gaza fue un éxito, y fue aprobada por la mayoría de la población; sin embargo, creó tensiones en los partidos y en la sociedad, sin llegar a la "guerra civil", tan esperada por la socialburocracia europea y la derecha carca, una vez más unidas en su común antisionismo, que ya no disimula su antisemitismo.
Dicha retirada creó, pues, tensiones, sí, pero también fue utilizada por gentes como Netanyahu, que estaba perfectamente al corriente de los proyectos de Sharon –siendo, como era, miembro de su Gobierno– pero que esperó al último momento, con la evacuación de los colonos casi terminada, para protestar contra ese "abandono" y dimitir de ese mismo Gobierno, encabezando la oposición a Sharon en el Likud para hacerse con el mando del partido.
Sin menospreciar los problemas económicos ni el hastío ante la guerra eterna, la crisis política actual parecer resultar más bien de la existente en los principales partidos, el Laborista y el Likud, cuya alternancia en el poder, desde 1948, era, por así decir, la norma de la vida democrática israelí. De pronto, en el seno de ambos partidos hubo partidarios y adversarios de la retirada de Gaza, así como fuertes divergencias sobre el futuro inmediato de Israel: las relaciones con la Autoridad Palestina y los países musulmanes de la región, las negociaciones de paz, las concesiones territoriales, el futuro Estado palestino, la lucha contra el terrorismo... todos los problemas estaban sobre el tapete, de sobra conocidos y discutidos en infinitas conferencias (Madrid, Oslo, Camp David, etcétera) pero en su mayoría aún sin resolver.
A las históricas diferencias entre los dos principales partidos se han añadido recientemente las divisiones en el seno de cada uno de ellos: no han faltado voces laboristas para atacar a Simón Peres y tratarle de traidor, por participar en un Gobierno de coalición con el Likud presidido por Ariel Sharon, su "bestia negra" hasta ahora, ni en el Likud para atacar a Sharon, tratarle de traidor y acusarle de realizar una "política de izquierdas". El resultado de todo esto ha sido una evidente paralización del sistema democrático, al no estar de acuerdo ni los dos partidos ni los militantes en el seno de cada uno de ellos. Y Sharon, con su audacia habitual, ha cortado por lo sano, creando una nueva formación, Kadima, a la que se han sumado Peres y muchos más.
Todo esto puede aparecer –y se ha dicho, en Israel y fuera– como un peligroso juego entre partidos, unas combinazioni de aparatos y líderes demasiado frívolas, tratándose de un país acosado y atacado. Pero hay que tener en cuenta que Sharon no podía hacer triunfar su política –porque tiene su política– con un Likud dividido, al mismo tiempo que los laboristas echaban a Peres de la dirección y rompían el Gobierno de coalición, preparándose para un nuevo –pero tan anticuado– enfrentamiento izquierda/derecha. Sharon, para seguir adelante, tenía que tomar la iniciativa, romper el tradicional equilibrio (una vez le toca al Likud, otra a los laboristas), que se había estancado, y dar un golpe creando un nuevo partido, con lo cual ha dejado estupefactos a muchos de sus adversarios y a bastantes de sus amigos políticos.
En todos los países, pero aún más en Israel, los problemas de política internacional interfieren claramente en los de política interior, y en ese sentido también ha habido cambios. Problema a la vez interior y exterior, la cuestión palestina, con sus negociaciones de paz probables, el futuro Estado palestino, etcétera, ha cambiado bastante con la muerte de Arafat y su sucesión por Abbas. Pero no nos llamemos a engaño ni nos hagamos demasiadas ilusiones, porque si Mahmud Abbas es presentado y recibido por doquier (hasta por el Papa) como un negociador nato, un nacionalista moderado, un hombre de paz, etcétera, muchos de los que así le presentan condenan implícitamente, con sus loas a Abbas, al difunto Arafat, a quien tan incondicionalmente, sin embargo, habían apoyado cuando presidía la Autoridad Palestina.
Es cierto que Abbas ha declarado que había que terminar con el terrorismo, y convertir la “intifada militar” en “intifada civil y política”, pero el terrorismo no cesa. Es cierto que Abbas ha dicho que el futuro Estado palestino debería tener relaciones normales con Israel, pero al mismo tiempo reivindica para dicho Estado cosas que sabe imposibles, como Jerusalén como capital, cuando lo es de Israel por antonomasia; y, según sean las circunstancias y el público, o bien exige que se estudie muy seriamente la cuestión del retorno de los refugiados o bien proclama como condición sine qua non el retorno de todos ellos, a sabiendas de que es materialmente imposible. Asimismo, juega con las concesiones territoriales que debería hacer Israel de manera lo suficientemente imprecisa como para, si llega a la negociación, poder en cualquier momento aumentar sus reivindicaciones territoriales y romper la baraja.
Archisabido es que, en cualquier tipo de negociación, y contra más difícil más, cuando se quiere obtener cincuenta se exige cien, pero también es sabido que, cuando no se quiere que las negociaciones finalicen con un acuerdo satisfactorio para ambas partes, se recurre a la táctica de ir subiendo el listón y sacar de la manga nuevas exigencias. Así puede uno hacer fracasar las negociaciones aunque aparente ser su más firme partidario. El malo es el otro. Se trata de una táctica muy vista.
Arafat también hablaba de negociar la paz, y cada vez que los suyos cometían un atentado terrorista lo “condenaba”. Pero al mismo tiempo, y muy poco a poco, ese cinismo iba creando malestar entre algunos de sus amigos y aliados extranjeros. No en Hamas, por supuesto. En las últimas negociaciones israelo-palestinas, patrocinadas por el presidente Clinton, el primer ministro israelí Barak y su ministro de Exteriores, Ben Ami, hicieron todas las concesiones habidas y por haber –incluso exageradas– a los palestinos; concesiones que inquietaron a muchos israelíes, incluido Simón Peres. Sin embargo, Arafat no firmó.
Según el testimonio del propio Ben Ami, Arafat, muy nervioso y molesto, confesó en varias ocasiones: “No puedo firmar; si firmo me matan”. Nunca se ha reconocido tan claramente que las organizaciones terroristas palestinas, Hamas, Yihad y demás, así como la mayoría de los países musulmanes de la región, que las subvencionan y controlan (la UE también las subvenciona, pero no las controla), no quieren ni negociaciones ni paz: su objetivo es la destrucción de Israel, y, en su óptica fanática, hasta la creación de un Estado palestino independiente les tiene sin cuidado.
Esta actitud, a fin de cuentas suicida, de Arafat, porque tenía enfrente una fuerza militar superior y resuelta, no ha satisfecho totalmente a ciertos sectores políticos en EEUU y Europa que, aun simpatizando con la “causa palestina”, no son incondicionalmente partidarios de la destrucción de Israel. En cuanto a saber si Mahmud Abbas va a tener otra actitud, más positiva, en las inevitables futuras negociaciones, ya se verá. Por ahora, se puede constatar que, pese a sus discursos sobre el fin del terrorismo, éste continúa, y cabe preguntarse si Abbas es incapaz de frenarlo o si, como Arafat, no quiere hacerlo.
Últimamente, y gracias sobre todo a la política de la Casa Blanca, la situación de Israel en Oriente Medio ha conocido algunos cambios. Esto se debe, ante todo, a la intervención militar aliada contra Irak, intervención aún inconclusa, aún sangrienta –y los que exigen la retirada inmediata sólo quieren una derrota norteamericana–, pero que ha limitado considerablemente las capacidades agresivas de Irak (su peligrosidad es de otra índole) y ha repercutido con fuerza en las ambiciones agresivas y terroristas de Siria, que se retira del Líbano y mantiene por ahora una actitud mucho más prudente que antaño, lo cual no le impide seguir sosteniendo el terrorismo, tanto en Irak como en el Líbano. Anteriormente, y también en buena parte gracias a los USA, países como Jordania y Egipto, que tantas veces habían guerreado contra Israel, y eso desde el 1948, han firmado tratados de paz con el Estado hebreo, sin que ello signifique una colaboración plena y pacífica entre todos estos países.
Al aludir al cambio de la política de Egipto en relación con Israel no se puede olvidar el ejemplo del gran estadista Anuar el Sadat. Fue la primera y única vez que un acuerdo de paz entre Israel y un país árabe fue firmado y respetado. Por ello asesinaron a Sadat, los “camaradas islamistas”. Vale la pena recordar que del lado israelí fue el primer ministro más odiado por la progresía (casi tanto como Sharon), Menahem Beguin, presentado como el peor de los “halcones”, quien firmó y respetó dicho acuerdo. Desde entonces, Mubarak, aconsejado por Washington, lo ha respetado. En realidad, ha respetado más la letra que el espíritu, pero algo es algo, y no es lo mismo que Irán.
Resulta que cada vez que a Israel se le propone un acuerdo serio, sin trampas ni segundas, como el votado por la ONU en 1947, cuya aplicación debía comenzar en 1948 y se convirtió en guerra de agresión árabe contra el recién nacido Israel (asesinando de paso al “feto” del Estado palestino), o el propuesto por Sadat, Israel ha aceptado y cumplido. Lo que no puede aceptar, y algunos esperamos que no lo haga nunca, es firmar su propia sentencia de muerte.
Aparentemente, sólo Irán mantiene hoy el objetivo de “borrar Israel del mapa”, que fue la ambición declarada de muchos otros países árabes, Egipto como Irak, Siria como Arabia Saudi, etcétera. Pero Irán dispone de armas nucleares, o está ultimando sus preparativos. Ante este peligro, se nota la diferencia entre el discurso, como siempre, apaciguador, cobarde, de la UE, que finge discutir amistosamente con los ayatolás sobre la energía nuclear civil, cuando de armas se trata, y la firme actitud de Israel, declarando que bajo ningún concepto aceptará que Irán se dote de una fuerza nuclear.
Dos observaciones, pese a todo: me temo que ya sea tarde, que la preparación de esas bombas y cohetes nucleares ya esté concluida, o a punto de serlo, y no en un solo centro, sino en varios, para dificultar los bombardeos. Por otra parte, sería peligroso para Israel si sus aviones fueran los únicos en bombardear las instalaciones nucleares iraníes. Peligroso políticamente, aunque posible militarmente. Si existiera de verdad, si no fuera un “zombi”, tal responsabilidad debería correr a cargo de la OTAN. Estando las cosas como están, la única alianza, difícil pero posible, que yo veo sería una operación conjunta USA-Reino Unido-Israel; esperando que, si se realiza, no sea demasiado tarde. Difícil me parecería ejercer represalias contra una alianza tal. En cuanto a las actuaciones antioccidentales, ya existen; en cambio, los países musulmanes moderados, o prudentes, lo serían mucho más.
Hay que distinguir, como siempre, las palabras de los hechos, porque el extraordinario incremento del terrorismo islámico desde los atentados contra las Torres Gemelas de Nueva York, el 11 de septiembre 2001, hasta hoy (y mañana, puede desgraciadamente afirmarse), en todo Oriente Medio y en el mundo entero, demuestra que las organizaciones terroristas disponen de muchos recursos: voluntarios a granel, incluidos los “novios de la muerte” suicidas, que a veces son mujeres y hasta niños; armas y explosivos asimismo a granel, y evidentemente medios, o sea dinero, y muy concretamente petrodólares. Sabido de sobra es que las organizaciones terroristas internacionales son millonarias y billonarias, pero menos se dice que muchos estados musulmanes, incluso declarándose antiterroristas y hasta luchando contra grupos terroristas en su territorio, subvencionan directa o indirectamente a Al Qaeda y demás redes de "locos de Alá".
Sin embargo, y pese al secreto, se conocen muchas cosas: se sabe que Irán subvenciona a la Yihad Islámica en el Líbano y a grupos terroristas en Irak, principal frente elegido por el islam radical, por motivos obvios, en su “guerra santa”. En este sentido, cabe preguntarse si los norteamericanos, con su voluntad de confiar cada vez más en las fuerzas de seguridad iraquíes para restablecer el orden, no se equivocan, o al menos no se apresuran demasiado, porque por ahora no se ven los resultados, pese a que hayan podido celebrarse elecciones, se haya votado una Constitución (híbrida) y demás pasos hacia la democracia. También se sabe que Siria, en esta ocasión junto a Irán, subvenciona a la Yihad libanesa y a grupos terroristas en Irak, como las operaciones militares en la frontera sirio-iraquí demuestran, aunque Damasco lo niegue.
Por cierto, ¿alguien ha cifrado el coste en petrodólares de los atentados diarios con coches-bomba y el resto de operaciones de "guerrilla urbana"? Pues cuestan millonadas, porque los explosivos, los morteros, las ametralladoras, hasta los fusiles y las pistolas, no se distribuyen gratis, como caramelos envenenados. También hay países, como Arabia Saudí o los Emiratos, pongamos, que subvencionan abiertamente, a través del ancho mundo, y concretamente en Europa, fundaciones islámicas, mezquitas, escuelas coránicas, etcétera, institutos “culturales” para la propagación de la fe durante el día y de adiestramiento para el terrorismo por la noche. Sabido es, igualmente, que Pakistán ayudó a los talibanes en Afganistán y a los terroristas islámicos en Cachemira. ¿Han cambiando realmente de política en este aspecto?
Todo ello, con las diferencias y matices que se quieran, constituye el panorama general de la guerra contra Occidente. Pero todo ello es, a fin de cuentas, menos virulento que el odio islámico a Israel, "avanzadilla del Occidente infiel en tierras musulmanas". Yo, claro, calificaría más bien a Israel como una "vanguardia de la democracia occidental en Oriente". Por eso, cuando José María Aznar propuso en Bruselas incluir a Israel (con Japón y otros países democráticos) en una nueva OTAN más eficaz y más adaptada a la guerra actual contra el terrorismo islámico internacional... si El País se indigna, yo aplaudo. Es curioso, pero cada vez que El País se mete con Aznar, yo le aplaudo.
La tentación cobarde de Occidente
Y ahora, un inciso: hay una señora yanqui, cuyo nombre no recuerdo, pese a haberlo oído y leído decenas de veces, que acusa a Bush de haber matado a su hijo porque éste, soldado norteamericano, murió en Irak. Muy "mediatizada", como se dice ahora, se la vio acampar, ufana y sonriente, ante el rancho de George W. Bush y desfilar delante de la Casa Blanca, como si quisiera rentabilizar la muerte de su hijo para realizar vete a saber qué carrera política o mediática, o lograr un cargo en alguna ONG subvencionada por los petrodólares. No veo por qué, siguiendo su lógica y la de sus numerosos hinchas, no acusan a Roosevelt de haber matado infinitamente más jóvenes norteamericanos durante la II Guerra Mundial, que tenía, salvando las distancias, el mismo objetivo: la defensa de la democracia. Además, a los papanatas que admiran a esa pobre señora les diré que su hijo era voluntario.
Aparentemente, esta anécdota poco tiene que ver con Israel, pero sí, y mucho, con la "tentación cobarde de Occidente", y su profundo y extravagante "síndrome de Estocolmo": sistemáticamente, cuando hay atentados, nunca se acusa a los terroristas, sino a los gobiernos que luchan contra el terrorismo. Y esto sí que tiene que ver con Israel, ya que, en la inmensa mayoría de los casos, en Europa se acusa al Gobierno israelí de ser el culpable de los atentados terroristas que sufre su población civil. De la misma manera que el antisemitismo condena a los judíos por serlo ("por el mero hecho de haber nacido judíos", escribió André Frossard), los antisionistas condenan a Israel por el mero hecho de existir.
Y nunca jamás tanto como a Ariel Sharon, convertido en "monstruo nazi" no sólo por filósofos como José Bové, o nobeles como Saramago, no sólo por islamistas radicales y por moderados idénticos en su antisemitismo, o por la extrema izquierda, por o la derecha carca, que lo exhibe como alcurnia de sangre pura; también por muchos beaux esprits que se proclaman "amigos de Israel" y acusan a Sharon de ser, él, el "peor enemigo de Israel". En este sentido, Mario Vargas Llosa no está solo, más bien en numerosa y mala compañía.
Durante los últimos años del periodo Arafat, con, por un lado, el incremento del terrorismo y, por el otro, el fracaso de las negociaciones conducidas por Barak y Ben Ami, y la correspondiente llegada de Sharon al poder, Vargas Llosa ha sido uno de los muchos intelectuales famosos que se han dedicado a atacar furiosamente al Gobierno israelí y a Sharon personalmente, considerado como peligroso energúmeno (siendo académico, debe saber que significa "poseído del demonio"). En ese mismo periodo, Vargas Llosa fue también uno de tantos que, sin que se les cayera la cara de vergüenza, proclamaban muy fuerte su oposición a la intervención militar en Irak y al mismo tiempo su entusiasmo por el derrumbe de la tiranía de Sadam Husein, como si una cosa no fuera la consecuencia evidente de la otra.
Habiendo ya comentado, para Libertad Digital[1], el último, que yo sepa, reportaje de Vargas Llosa sobre el conflicto israelo-árabe, no tendré la redundancia de repetirme; solo recordaré que en sus artículos “impresionistas” fingía lamentar los sufrimientos en los dos bandos, para mejor condenar la firmeza de Israel. A mí, desde luego, nada me cuesta reconocer que alguna vez la respuesta militar de Israel al terrorismo palestino me ha parecido exorbitante, pero al mismo tiempo constato su eficacia, así como su necesidad, y en su conjunto me parece altamente positiva. La condena de Israel por parte de Mario también se manifiesta en su exaltación de quienes califica de "justos" y que, expresándose libremente (tan libremente como en USA se expresan los antibush, cosa radicalmente imposible en cualquier país árabe), proponen a sus compatriotas nada menos que un suicidio colectivo y purificador (los judíos, pueblo eternamente víctima, deben seguir siéndolo, para mejor redimir a toda la Humanidad... Refrain connu).
Al unísono con los islamistas más radicales, esos "justos" condenan de hecho la existencia de Israel, desde su creación, afirmando asimismo que el Estado hebreo es el único culpable de la guerra inconclusa. ¡Como si bastara con sonreír "al otro" para que inmediatamente Hamas, la Yihad, Al Qaeda o Irán depositaran las armas y las transformaran en flores...!
Pero cuando Vargas Llosa se pasa de la raya y cae en la infamia es cuando se lamenta por que el terrorismo islámico no ha logrado sus objetivos: ni destruir Israel ni crear el caos. Le cito: "Porque lo cierto es que, por doloroso que sea en lo individual y familiar, los atentados terroristas sólo son unos pequeños rasguños en la piel de ese elefante que es ahora Israel, algo que no amenaza su existencia, ni sus altos niveles de vida, ni, ay, su conciencia".
Dejando de lado, por ahora, la abundante basura antisemita carpetovetónica, nuestras "gemas orientales" y los nutridos batallones falanjocomunistas, citaré el ejemplo de dos intelectuales de izquierda franceses, ambos judíos, dicho sea de paso: Claude Lefort y Edgar Morin, quienes en el mismo periodo han mantenido argumentos (insultos, más bien) bastante semejantes a los de Vargas Llosa. Claude Lefort, écorché vif en todo lo que se refiere o huele a antisemitismo, quien en muchas ocasiones defendió a Israel, hace algunos años (en 2002) arremetió ferozmente, en un artículo publicado en Le Monde, contra el Gobierno israelí, y muy concretamente contra Sharon, en términos muy parecidos a los de Mario, y exaltando, también, a la minoría de izquierdas y pacifista israelí. ¿Cabe preguntarse si condena retrospectivamente la actitud de Churchill en 1940, porque era un político de derechas?
Pero lo peor es cuando, en ese mismo artículo, se escandaliza en términos patéticos ante una de las "peores masacres de la Historia", la "masacre de Yenín" (mayo de 2002); en el último momento, preso de vete a saber qué duda, anota, entre paréntesis, "si se confirma". O sea, que se atreve a denunciar sin confirmación la "horrenda masacre israelí contra los civiles palestinos"; él, que no había cesado de denunciar hasta la fecha las mentiras y extravagancias de la propaganda antiisraelí. Como si de pronto tampoco recordara las mentiras de la propaganda comunista. Por cierto, ¿se ha "confirmado" que Trotski era un agente imperialista, y sus discípulos hitlero-trotsquistas?
Recordemos los hechos (con Gabriel Albiac: 'Meditar Yenin'[2]). Pese a lo que todo el mundo progre y antisemita proclamaba, no hubo masacre de civiles: hubo un combate entre milicianos-terroristas palestinos y soldados israelíes. En dicho combate murieron 52 palestinos y 27 israelíes. No he leído la menor rectificación a las exorbitadas condenas de Israel por dicha "matanza".
El caso de Edgar Morin es más banal, y además ha tenido un toque que me atrevería a calificar de cómico: menos sensible que Lefort ante las viejas y nuevas manifestaciones del antisemitismo, aunque también las condene formalmente, y menos dolorosamente preocupado por el destino de Israel (por lo que he leído de este "enciclopedista" del Café du commerce), Morin se ha visto condenado, hace pocos meses, por antisemitismo (!) por un tribunal francés, debido a un texto publicado en Le Monde y firmado conjuntamente con Sami Naïr y una escritora cuyo nombre no recuerdo ni viene a cuento. Yo discrepo radicalmente de que los tribunales impongan cualquier tipo de censuras, aunque debo reconocer que el texto-proclama juzgado y condenado era infame, porque comparaba Israel, su ejército, su "ocupación", con la Alemania nazi, su ejército y su ocupación de Europa, los pobres palestinos de hoy convirtiéndose en los pobres judíos de ayer. No hace falta lupa para ver algo parecido en los reiteradas declaraciones del presidente iraní, Ahmadineyad, portavoz de los ayatolás.
Toda esta verborrea puede resumirse en una ecuación tan sencilla como trágica: para seguir existiendo, en un entorno tan radicalmente hostil, Israel está condenado a defenderse militarmente. Una política árabe agresiva y bélica, o una "de paz", que lograra desarmar a Israel –idéntico resultado obtenido por diferentes medios– sería el fin de éste. Lo que cambia con Ariel Sharon y su nuevo proyecto político es que si él acepta negociar será "con las botas puestas", o sea, sin desarmar ni reducir la potencia defensiva de su pequeño país.
Negociar significa obligatoriamente hacer concesiones, pero no hacer concesiones apostando sobre una supuesta voluntad de paz del adversario, porque no existe. No obstante, en el marco de una conferencia internacional, en la que los USA desempeñarían un papel decisivo, se puede pensar, o al menos valdría la pena intentarlo, en que Israel y el Estado palestino llegasen a un acuerdo parecido, más o menos, al que existe entre Israel y Egipto, por ejemplo.
No seré yo quien indique cuáles serían las concesiones que, a cambio de un acuerdo, si no de paz al menos de armisticio prolongado, Israel puede y debe aceptar: es obvio que tienen que ser los israelíes quienes lo decidan democráticamente. Escribo como si Ariel Sharon no estuviera en el hospital, con un futuro, tanto político como personal, incierto. Baso mi relativo optimismo en la esperanza de que el equipo hoy al frente del Gobierno y de Kadima: Ehud Olmert, Tzipi Livni, Saúl Mofaz, Simón Peres y los demás, logre proseguir con éxito la política de Sharon, y hasta ganar las próximas elecciones.
Sin embargo, hay cosas que me parecen intangibles, como la imposibilidad material del "retorno de todos los refugiados", o la cuestión de Jerusalén, porque histórica, política, simbólica y sentimentalmente Jerusalén es la capital de Israel, esto no tiene vuelta de hoja. Que existan en la misma ciudad "lugares santos" hebreos, cristianos y musulmanes, y que razonablemente los creyentes de las diferentes religiones puedan acceder a sus lugares de culto, nada tiene que ver con la naturaleza de capital de Israel de Jerusalén. Los palestinos, como los kurdos, no habiendo jamás tenido un Estado (el que está a la vista será el primero), no han tenido capital; en cambio, y mil años antes de Jesucristo, David fundó Jerusalén como capital del reino de Israel. Luego, bien sabido es que el destino de esa ciudad fue caótico, sometida a guerras y ocupaciones e integrada en grandes imperios, como el romano o el otomano, terminando, para ir deprisa, con el británico (1922-1947). Pero cuando Israel ha existido, como reino o estado-nación, ha tenido por capital Jerusalén (Tel Aviv fue un interludio "jurídico", como Bonn). La propaganda progre-palestina sobre Jerusalén –o Jerusalén Este–, supuesta capital de un Estado palestino en gestación, no se basa en ninguna realidad histórica; de hecho, se refiere a la ocupación militar de Jerusalén por la Legión Árabe en 1948.
Recordemos que en mayo 1948 Ben Gurion proclama el renacimiento del Estado de Israel, que acata las decisiones de la ONU en cuanto a fronteras y relaciones con el vecino Estado arabopalestino. Quienes no lo aceptan son los estados árabes, que intentan impedir la creación de los ambos estados desencadenando la primera guerra arabo-israelí. Tropas de Egipto, Siria, Líbano y Jordania (que considera Palestina como provincia suya, no sin razones) invaden a sangre y fuego las tierras de Israel, ocupan Jerusalén, destrozando su barrio judío y masacrando su población civil, etcétera.
La responsabilidad del Reino Unido en esta primera guerra es evidente, porque tenía entonces fuertes lazos coloniales con esos países árabes agresores, y además su force de frappe militar, la Legión Árabe, estaba al mando de un general británico, John Bagor Glubb, apodado Glubb Pachá. Pero el Gobierno británico se convence –o más bien le convencen– de que hay que respetar las decisiones dela ONU y ordena a su general Glubb y a los demás mandos británicos de la Legión Árabe detener su ofensiva, la única victoriosa, porque los pioneros sionistas habían detenido la invasión árabe en los demás "frentes". E Israel comienza su trágica y heroica andadura, hasta hoy. Y los palestinos reivindican un trozo de Jerusalén, conquistado por los arabo-británicos de la Legión Árabe, como capital...
N. B.: Apenas había terminado este artículo, cuando llega la noticia del triunfo de los fusiles en las elecciones palestinas. Si los terroristas de Hamas forman el próximo Gobierno de la Autoridad Palestina, como es previsible, las negociaciones de paz aquí evocadas se alejan e Israel tiene que prepararse, una vez más, para la guerra.
[1] 'Cuando el sueño de la paz produce guerras'. Suplemento de Exteriores del 17-X-2005.
[2] En VV. AA., En defensa de Israel, Libros Certeza, Zaragoza, 2004, 343 páginas.
Carlos Semprún Maura, es historiador, escritor y periodista español. Reside en París y escribe regularmente para varios periódicos en España.
Human stupidity has no limits....
From Little Green Footballs:
1) "Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is doing his best to incite Islamic countries against Israel"
2) Breaking: Galloway Praises Hizballah in London:
“What I’m about to say is illegal in this country ...
Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation. I am here to glorify the Lebanese resistance, Hezbollah, and to glorify the resistance leader, Nasrallah...”
Eh? Libanese resistance or Iran-Syria little private army in Lebanon? So according to Ken Livingston, the blogger Alek Boyd is a Terrorist and according to his pal, the 2006 version of Lord Haw-Haw, George Galloway, Hezbollah is NOT a terrorist org... PRICELESS!!
Is this human stupidity or a say-anything-in-order-to-get-votes type of thing? I guess he is targeting to the young crowd of muslims immigrants who have escape their living with no jobs in the middle east.
This is a little clip that resumes the emotion of the moment...
1) "Iranian madman Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is doing his best to incite Islamic countries against Israel"
2) Breaking: Galloway Praises Hizballah in London:
“What I’m about to say is illegal in this country ...
Hezbollah has never been a terrorist organisation. I am here to glorify the Lebanese resistance, Hezbollah, and to glorify the resistance leader, Nasrallah...”
Eh? Libanese resistance or Iran-Syria little private army in Lebanon? So according to Ken Livingston, the blogger Alek Boyd is a Terrorist and according to his pal, the 2006 version of Lord Haw-Haw, George Galloway, Hezbollah is NOT a terrorist org... PRICELESS!!
Is this human stupidity or a say-anything-in-order-to-get-votes type of thing? I guess he is targeting to the young crowd of muslims immigrants who have escape their living with no jobs in the middle east.
This is a little clip that resumes the emotion of the moment...
Friday, July 21, 2006
Something nice now...
Kuddos to Guille, whose lately musical posts have remind me who much I love the Beatles and the 1985-1995 Generation, which was mine generation btw... nothing like those years :D. Guille's blog is always super interesting. When will he allow comments?
A Day in the Life
(Lennon/McCartney)
I read the news today oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph
He blew his mind out in a car
He didn't notice that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
They'd seen his face before
Nobody was really sure
If he was from the House of Lords.
I saw a film today oh boy
The English Army had just won the war
A crowd of people turned away
but I just had to look
Having read the book.
I'd love to turn you on
Woke up, fell out of bed,
Dragged a comb across my head
Found my way downstairs and drank a cup,
And looking up I noticed I was late.
Found my coat and grabbed my hat
Made the bus in seconds flat
Found my way upstairs and had a smoke,
Somebody spoke and I went into a dream
I read the news today oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
I'd love to turn you on
It's nice to remind ourselves that human beings can do music that good, besides ripping each other appart... although many times the artist muse comes from people's ripping each other appart...
More about A Day in The Life here.
A Day in the Life
(Lennon/McCartney)
I read the news today oh boy
About a lucky man who made the grade
And though the news was rather sad
Well I just had to laugh
I saw the photograph
He blew his mind out in a car
He didn't notice that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
They'd seen his face before
Nobody was really sure
If he was from the House of Lords.
I saw a film today oh boy
The English Army had just won the war
A crowd of people turned away
but I just had to look
Having read the book.
I'd love to turn you on
Woke up, fell out of bed,
Dragged a comb across my head
Found my way downstairs and drank a cup,
And looking up I noticed I was late.
Found my coat and grabbed my hat
Made the bus in seconds flat
Found my way upstairs and had a smoke,
Somebody spoke and I went into a dream
I read the news today oh boy
Four thousand holes in Blackburn, Lancashire
And though the holes were rather small
They had to count them all
Now they know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall.
I'd love to turn you on
It's nice to remind ourselves that human beings can do music that good, besides ripping each other appart... although many times the artist muse comes from people's ripping each other appart...
More about A Day in The Life here.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
England bombed by the Nazis, 1941 - Beirut bombed by Israel, 2006
I defend Israel rights to defend itself against the terrorism of Hamas and Hezbollah, but this agression to Lebanon has no name. Lebanon is not a religious state, not a totalitarian state, it is just a state like any other in the middle east, with the most multiplural community of the arab world, trying to balance all the actors of his country, and foreign elements, like the Iran-Syria-Shiite backed Hezbollah... Lebanon is not in the same situation of Palestine, a country with undefinded borders and a extreme government taken over by Hamas. Or maybe it is? I just don't see any excuse for the scope of this agression against the whole country of Lebanon. I mean, Israel knew this was a provocation of the axis of evil Iran-Syria-Shiite by his representative Hezbollah, why take it like this on Lebanon? Am I missing something in here? Anyone?
Israel is not acting in its right mind answering to this provocation like this. This is no good news for Israel.
I would quote John Boulton, "How you get a cease fire from a terrorist org anyway?". I don't know. Why destroy Lebanon? I just don't understand why a whole country has to pay this price.
Having said all of that, I am not totally sure of the scope of destruction in Lebanon, or what is exactly going on on there, you can't trust CNN, MSNBC or even FOX about fair reporting. Still...
Israel is not acting in its right mind answering to this provocation like this. This is no good news for Israel.
I would quote John Boulton, "How you get a cease fire from a terrorist org anyway?". I don't know. Why destroy Lebanon? I just don't understand why a whole country has to pay this price.
Having said all of that, I am not totally sure of the scope of destruction in Lebanon, or what is exactly going on on there, you can't trust CNN, MSNBC or even FOX about fair reporting. Still...
Monday, July 17, 2006
The Margabel House affair
Nope, this is not a new Latin American novel by Isabel Allende. It should be the title of a new non-fiction book on why President Chavez is sitting ilegitimaly on Venezuela's presidential chair and the whole world is so very pleased seated eating popcorns while watching the movie of the ilegitit joker, arch-enemy of Bush and friends, playfully having his 15 min of fame in the court of the powerful ones.
Blogger Miguel Octavio once again had sticked his finger into Chavez's wound by posting this commentary by Gerver Torres. His legitimacy as president is very much in question and yet the idiotic Venezuelan opposition is not putting preassure in this matter Internationally. Que primarias ni que ocho cuartos when we have the necessary proof of Chavez's ilegitimacy in our hands? Am I missing something in here?
Blogger Miguel Octavio once again had sticked his finger into Chavez's wound by posting this commentary by Gerver Torres. His legitimacy as president is very much in question and yet the idiotic Venezuelan opposition is not putting preassure in this matter Internationally. Que primarias ni que ocho cuartos when we have the necessary proof of Chavez's ilegitimacy in our hands? Am I missing something in here?
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Oy! Words of wisdom, Israel!
I consider myself pro-Israel, I support their right to exist in the middle east in despite the way the state of Israel was arbitrary created by Britain. The fact is that they are there and they are not going anywhere. Israel in many ways, represent an example for the rest of the countries of the middle east. I also support the right of Israel to defend themselves againt terrorism, from groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. However, as half-lebanese, I don't think this was Israel smartest move. Even though Lebanon government might be too bland with Hezbollah, even though Israel might be right, you just don't do that. Nobody in the arab word would approve Israel actions, not even the ones who are sympathetic with Israel. Not the smartest move. This event can weaken Israel more than strengthen it. Israel, Israel, the choosen people of God, listen to this words.
Trying to make sense on the Israel-Lebanon war, I stumbled across this very sensible article, very much worth reading it:
Operation Peace for the IDF
By Gideon Levy
Every neighborhood has one, a loudmouth bully who shouldn't be provoked into anger. He's insulted? He'll pull out a knife. Spat in the face? He'll draw a gun. Hit? He'll pull out a machine gun. Not that the bully's not right - someone did harm him. But the reaction, what a reaction! It's not that he's not feared, but nobody really appreciates him. The real appreciation is for the strong who don't immediately use their strength. Regrettably, the Israel Defense Forces once again looks like the neighborhood bully. A soldier was abducted in Gaza? All of Gaza will pay. Eight soldiers are killed and two abducted to Lebanon? All of Lebanon will pay. One and only one language is spoken by Israel, the language of force.
The war that the IDF has now declared on Lebanon and before it on Gaza, will never be considered another "war of no choice." Let's save that debate from the historians. This is unequivocally a war of choice. The IDF absorbed two painful blows, which were particularly humiliating, and in their wake went into a war that is all about restoring its lost dignity, which on our side is called "restoring deterrent capabilities." Neither in Lebanon nor certainly in Gaza, can anyone formulate the real goals of the war, so nobody knows for sure what will be considered victory or an achievement. Are we at war in Lebanon? With Hezbollah? Nobody knows for sure. If the goal is to remove Hezbollah from the border, did we try hard enough over the last two years through diplomatic channels? And what's the connection between destroying half of Lebanon and that goal? Everyone agrees that "something must be done." Everyone agrees that a sovereign state cannot remain silent when it is attacked within its own borders, though in Israel's eyes Lebanese sovereignty was always subject to trampling, but why should that non-silence be expressed solely by an immediate and all-out blow?
In Gaza, a soldier is abducted from the army of a state that frequently abducts civilians from their homes and locks them up for years with or without a trial - but only we're allowed to do that. And only we're allowed to bomb civilian population centers.
The painful steps taken in Gaza, which included dropping a one-ton bomb on a residential building, or killing an entire family of seven children under cover of darkness in Lebanon, killing dozens of residents, bombing an airport, cutting off electricity and water to hundreds of thousands of people for months were a response lacking any justification, legitimacy or proportion. What goal did it serve? Was the soldier released? Did the Qassams stop? Was deterrence restored? None of that happened. Only lost honor was supposedly restored, and immediately the next evil wind showed up, this time from the north.
Two more soldiers were abducted and it was clearly proven that the deterrent power was not restored, while IDF failures repeated themselves. How does one erase those searing failures? On the backs of innocent populations. In Lebanon, the situation is more complicated. There is no Israeli occupation and no justification for provoking Israel. If Hezbollah is so worried about its Palestinian brethren, it should have first of all done something for the hundreds of thousands of refugees living in camps in Lebanon in conditions that are just as bad as those under the Israeli occupation, before it grabbed soldiers in their name.
But does the fact that Hezbollah is a cynical organization that exploits the misery of Palestinians for its own purposes justify the disproportionate reaction? The concept that we have totally forgotten is proportionality. While we're in no hurry to get to the negotiating table, we're eager to get to the battlefield and the killing without delay, without taking any time to think. That deepens suspicions that we need a war every few years, with terrifying repetition, even if afterward we end up back in exactly the same position.
The war we declared on Lebanon has already exacted from us, and of course from Lebanon, too, a heavy price. Did anyone give any thought to the question whether it should be paid?
Everyone knows how this war begins, but does anyone know how it ends? Heavy casualties in the Israeli rear? A war with Syria? A general war? Is it all worth it? Look what a new rookie government can do in such a short time.
Behind the operations in Lebanon and Gaza is the same foolish idea about pressure on the population leading to political changes that Israel wants. In the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, that concept has only led us from one disaster to the next. We "cleansed" southern Lebanon of Palestinians in 1982, and what did we get? Hezbollahstan instead of Fatahland. Hamas won't fall because Gaza is in the dark, and not even because we bombed the Palestinian Foreign Ministry building at the weekend - another nonsensical move; Hezbollah won't be smashed because the international airport in Beirut has been put out of commission.
Israel once again is not distinguishing between a justified war against Hezbollah and an unjust and unwise war against the Lebanese nation. The camouflage concealing the war's real goals was ripped off by this defense minister, who says what he means: "Nasrallah is going to get it so bad that he will never forget the name Amir Peretz," he bragged, like a typical bully. Now at least we know that Israel went to war so that the name Amir Peretz is never forgotten. It's the war for the perpetuation of the name Peretz and the blurring of Dan Halutz's failures. And to hell with the cost.
Trying to make sense on the Israel-Lebanon war, I stumbled across this very sensible article, very much worth reading it:
Operation Peace for the IDF
By Gideon Levy
Every neighborhood has one, a loudmouth bully who shouldn't be provoked into anger. He's insulted? He'll pull out a knife. Spat in the face? He'll draw a gun. Hit? He'll pull out a machine gun. Not that the bully's not right - someone did harm him. But the reaction, what a reaction! It's not that he's not feared, but nobody really appreciates him. The real appreciation is for the strong who don't immediately use their strength. Regrettably, the Israel Defense Forces once again looks like the neighborhood bully. A soldier was abducted in Gaza? All of Gaza will pay. Eight soldiers are killed and two abducted to Lebanon? All of Lebanon will pay. One and only one language is spoken by Israel, the language of force.
The war that the IDF has now declared on Lebanon and before it on Gaza, will never be considered another "war of no choice." Let's save that debate from the historians. This is unequivocally a war of choice. The IDF absorbed two painful blows, which were particularly humiliating, and in their wake went into a war that is all about restoring its lost dignity, which on our side is called "restoring deterrent capabilities." Neither in Lebanon nor certainly in Gaza, can anyone formulate the real goals of the war, so nobody knows for sure what will be considered victory or an achievement. Are we at war in Lebanon? With Hezbollah? Nobody knows for sure. If the goal is to remove Hezbollah from the border, did we try hard enough over the last two years through diplomatic channels? And what's the connection between destroying half of Lebanon and that goal? Everyone agrees that "something must be done." Everyone agrees that a sovereign state cannot remain silent when it is attacked within its own borders, though in Israel's eyes Lebanese sovereignty was always subject to trampling, but why should that non-silence be expressed solely by an immediate and all-out blow?
In Gaza, a soldier is abducted from the army of a state that frequently abducts civilians from their homes and locks them up for years with or without a trial - but only we're allowed to do that. And only we're allowed to bomb civilian population centers.
The painful steps taken in Gaza, which included dropping a one-ton bomb on a residential building, or killing an entire family of seven children under cover of darkness in Lebanon, killing dozens of residents, bombing an airport, cutting off electricity and water to hundreds of thousands of people for months were a response lacking any justification, legitimacy or proportion. What goal did it serve? Was the soldier released? Did the Qassams stop? Was deterrence restored? None of that happened. Only lost honor was supposedly restored, and immediately the next evil wind showed up, this time from the north.
Two more soldiers were abducted and it was clearly proven that the deterrent power was not restored, while IDF failures repeated themselves. How does one erase those searing failures? On the backs of innocent populations. In Lebanon, the situation is more complicated. There is no Israeli occupation and no justification for provoking Israel. If Hezbollah is so worried about its Palestinian brethren, it should have first of all done something for the hundreds of thousands of refugees living in camps in Lebanon in conditions that are just as bad as those under the Israeli occupation, before it grabbed soldiers in their name.
But does the fact that Hezbollah is a cynical organization that exploits the misery of Palestinians for its own purposes justify the disproportionate reaction? The concept that we have totally forgotten is proportionality. While we're in no hurry to get to the negotiating table, we're eager to get to the battlefield and the killing without delay, without taking any time to think. That deepens suspicions that we need a war every few years, with terrifying repetition, even if afterward we end up back in exactly the same position.
The war we declared on Lebanon has already exacted from us, and of course from Lebanon, too, a heavy price. Did anyone give any thought to the question whether it should be paid?
Everyone knows how this war begins, but does anyone know how it ends? Heavy casualties in the Israeli rear? A war with Syria? A general war? Is it all worth it? Look what a new rookie government can do in such a short time.
Behind the operations in Lebanon and Gaza is the same foolish idea about pressure on the population leading to political changes that Israel wants. In the history of the Israeli-Arab conflict, that concept has only led us from one disaster to the next. We "cleansed" southern Lebanon of Palestinians in 1982, and what did we get? Hezbollahstan instead of Fatahland. Hamas won't fall because Gaza is in the dark, and not even because we bombed the Palestinian Foreign Ministry building at the weekend - another nonsensical move; Hezbollah won't be smashed because the international airport in Beirut has been put out of commission.
Israel once again is not distinguishing between a justified war against Hezbollah and an unjust and unwise war against the Lebanese nation. The camouflage concealing the war's real goals was ripped off by this defense minister, who says what he means: "Nasrallah is going to get it so bad that he will never forget the name Amir Peretz," he bragged, like a typical bully. Now at least we know that Israel went to war so that the name Amir Peretz is never forgotten. It's the war for the perpetuation of the name Peretz and the blurring of Dan Halutz's failures. And to hell with the cost.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
I don't think the Russian ambassador would care, but...
A concerned Venezuelan named Omar Estacio, decided to tell the Russian ambassador in Venezuela about why it is very inmoral for Russia to sell guns to Venezuela since Mr. Chavez had said publicly that those Russian guns (Kalashnikov's) will be given to the reserve (Venezuelan teenagers and children among them). After that little detail of use, Estacio cited some resolutions approved by the Security Council of the UN in regards of this subject. Needless to add to this piece, I want to remind the innocent souls and Mr. Estacio who wrote this letter, that none of this top officials care about UN resolutions, children rights and all that sort of things.
"Caracas, siete de julio de 2006,
(Excelentisimo) Mikhail Orlovets
Embajador de la Federación Rusa en Venezuela
Quinta Soyuz, calle Las Lomas, Las Mercedes,
Caracas - Venezuela
E-mail: rusemb@cantv.net
Señor Orlovets:
1. El día 01 de los corrientes la prensa nacional publicó las declaraciones del señor Hugo Chávez, mediante las cuales confesó de manera expresa, que parte importante de los fusiles Kalashnikov, que su gobierno tiene negociados con Venezuela serán manejados por jóvenes y niños venezolanos.
2. A partir de tales publicaciones, usted, personalmente, así como su presidente Vladimir Putin y su canciller Sergei Lavrov, por su intermedio, no podrán alegar ignorancia o desconocimiento, del uso y destino de las mencionadas armas de guerra.
3. Le envío la presente notificación que surte plenos efectos legales de acuerdo con la normativa en la materia. En particular, con la que se relaciona con la prohibición de reclutamiento militar de niños aprobada dentro del marco de NN UU. A saber:
Convención 138 de 26 de junio de 1973; El protocolo adicional de la Convención de Ginebra (1949) adoptado en 1977; Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño (1989); Principios que prohíben el reclutamiento de niños aprobados en Ciudad de Cabo (abril de 1997); Estatuto de Roma (1998) (Artículo 8 (2) (e) (vii); Convención 182, adoptada el 16 de junio de 1999; Protocolo adicional adoptado por la Asamblea de fecha 25 de mayo de 2000; Protocolo facultativo de la Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño relativo a su participación en los conflictos armados (Mayo de 2000) y Resoluciones 1.261 de agosto de 1999; 1.314 de agosto de 2000; 1.379 de noviembre de 2001; 1.460 de 30 de enero de 2003; 1.539 de abril de 2004 y 1.612 de julio de 2005, todas aprobadas por el Consejo de Seguridad.
Procederé al registro y archivo de la presente comunicación a los efectos del ejercicio de las ulteriores acciones, en particular, en lo relacionado con la calificación de facilitadotes o cooperadores, en la perpetración de ilícitos sancionados en el Tratado de Roma, que creó el Tribunal Penal Internacional.
Sin otro particular,
Dr. Omar Estacio"
Thanks to YGTK for the news.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Hasta cuando!
Unofficial video by Rey El Vikingo, Cuban rapper living in the exile for obvious reasons...
Don't miss the part of Camilo and El Che... (and the Chavez one, of course)
hat/tip to Castrianism
Don't miss the part of Camilo and El Che... (and the Chavez one, of course)
hat/tip to Castrianism
Thursday, July 06, 2006
Chavismo deceitful practices...
Well, well, well, seems that blogger superstar Alek Boyd came back (maybe for a brief moment who knows hopefully for a long time, welcome back :D) to gave us this pearl about the liar nature of the chavismo officials. I am shocked that the moral and ethical levels of the country are so low in general terms that this is not even a scandal. As a matter of fact, nobody knows about it, and nobody cares. Only a Venezuelan blogger and others fellow countryman somewhere in the cyberspace who noticed that the claim was unsubstanciated. It seems that every country has the government they deserve. I mean, what type of journalism do they teach in Venezuela these days that this is not a first page national bomb?
The question Chavez lovers all around the world should ask is if that president Chavez really cares about their country to be HONESTLY and withouth cooking numbers a literate country. What other numbers do you think the chavismo have cooked??? You are rightttt, the same ones we all are thinking about. Do the word elections rings the bell??
I don't want to be mean, but a question just have come up to my mind, remeber the "Adquerir" incident? Do you think Chavez belong to the literate group or to the illiterate one? :D (sorry this is a bad joke - I am not a democrat I swear - just couldn't help myself).
The question Chavez lovers all around the world should ask is if that president Chavez really cares about their country to be HONESTLY and withouth cooking numbers a literate country. What other numbers do you think the chavismo have cooked??? You are rightttt, the same ones we all are thinking about. Do the word elections rings the bell??
I don't want to be mean, but a question just have come up to my mind, remeber the "Adquerir" incident? Do you think Chavez belong to the literate group or to the illiterate one? :D (sorry this is a bad joke - I am not a democrat I swear - just couldn't help myself).
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
The new riches of the Venezuelan revolution of the poors
Indeed, this is the revolution of the poors, Chavistas officials who have taken over the richest neighborhoods. Seems that they have a lot of money to spend. In the meantime, let's check it out poverty levels of the country. Could it be that there's some money unaccounted somewhere in the government of Venezuela or all of these guys won the US Mega Loto? (Since they travel to the US a lot, nothing wrong with them buying good ol's greengo lottery tickets uh?)
Click on the pictures so you can see and read bigger.
hat/tip to Noticiero Digital.
Click on the pictures so you can see and read bigger.
hat/tip to Noticiero Digital.
Mexican count (and recount?): could be long and ugly
By Joshua Holland
Feather's prologue: A title news on Justin Delacour's site reads: "Obrador might not be Al Gore"... uhmmm. So, the author of that article really thinks that W is in power by fraud. Interesting. But hey! Looks like Mexico isn't Venezuela either, since in Venezuela there was a big fraud allegation that was put like dust under the carpet by Jimmy Carter et al like whatareyoutakingaboutWillis?? Everything was fine and dandy there! and the opposition has being patronized and ridiculized blatantly by leftist like Justin. Doesn't matter how many studies (like this one for example) about this fraud have been released. So what's the difference in here my 2 and a half dear readers? That the one who comitted fraud in Venezuela was a communist leftist nutcase tyrant, and not a right wing one. So because Hugo is a communist, he has the universal right given by the leftist "intellectuals" and their very selective analytical brains to step over the population and not to be talked about. Shhhhsshhhiitoooo. PERIOD. Yes my dear folks, that's how the left operates. My way or the highway. And with the threat of the Venezuelan corrupted military against their own citizens who dared to protest, the country is deeply inmersed in shit and seems there's nothing we can do about, since this is all about Georgie boy conspiracy to kill Hugo and all who dissent the dementia of Chavez is a traitor and will be killed by the revolution. But let's read what Holland have to say about Mexico since Venezuela is a lost case:
In Mexico, each precinct does its own count, which is attached to the sealed ballot box and sent to the Federal Election Institute (IFE). All of the preliminary tallies are based on the precincts' counts. The official count will begin tomorrow, and is expected to last for up to a week.
It looks likely that there will be challenges. Manuel Camacho Solís, a top adviser to López Obrador, said Monday that "Our perception is that there have been very important irregularities."
Both candidates continue to claim victory -- the Mexican press has repeatedly said that the situation represents a "worst case scenario."
A preliminary, uncertified count showed PAN candidate Felipe Calderon with a 400,000-vote lead. Lopez Obrador's camp is charging that there was "vote-shaving" at some voting stations, especially in his home state of Tabasco. Lopez Obrador alleges that as many as three million votes are missing, citing a discrepancy between estimated projected turnout and preliminary counts. He stopped short of calling the elections fraudulent, but is already calling for a ballot-by-ballot recount. He hasn't yet asked his supporters to take it to the streets, as many expect him to do if Calderon ends up with a narrow lead.
The Washington Post reports that both parties are lawyering up, and all of the papers are talking about a legal process reminiscent of that which followed the 2000 Florida impasse. In Mexico, however, there's more breathing room -- the president doesn't take office for five months -- so there won't be pressure to cut the process short. The vote is almost certain to end up in the Federal Judicial Electoral Tribunal, a court that has the ultimate say on the winner. The whole thing could drag on for months; election authorities aren't required to certify the vote until September 6.
The process will put Mexico's electoral institutions, which have undergone dramatic reforms during the past ten years, to the test. Will they be transparent enough to deal with a nail-biter? Polls show that the IFE is one of the country's most trusted institutions, but that may not hold up if things get ugly and a lot of charges are flying around. Some PRD officials are accusing the IFE of "bias."
Whatever the final outcome, it's likely that the close vote and a sharply divided legislature will make it difficult for the eventual winner to govern. One analyst called it a "recipe for gridlock."
The head of the EU observer mission said yesterday that the results of Mexican elections were "so far reliable" and they ruled out widespread fraud in the elections, although they noted scattered irregularities.
The elections were monitored by thousands of foreign observers, and most of the monitoring organizations have yet to submit reports on their findings. When they do, we'll have a clearer picture of what transpired, from an on-the-ground perspective.
Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer
Feather's prologue: A title news on Justin Delacour's site reads: "Obrador might not be Al Gore"... uhmmm. So, the author of that article really thinks that W is in power by fraud. Interesting. But hey! Looks like Mexico isn't Venezuela either, since in Venezuela there was a big fraud allegation that was put like dust under the carpet by Jimmy Carter et al like whatareyoutakingaboutWillis?? Everything was fine and dandy there! and the opposition has being patronized and ridiculized blatantly by leftist like Justin. Doesn't matter how many studies (like this one for example) about this fraud have been released. So what's the difference in here my 2 and a half dear readers? That the one who comitted fraud in Venezuela was a communist leftist nutcase tyrant, and not a right wing one. So because Hugo is a communist, he has the universal right given by the leftist "intellectuals" and their very selective analytical brains to step over the population and not to be talked about. Shhhhsshhhiitoooo. PERIOD. Yes my dear folks, that's how the left operates. My way or the highway. And with the threat of the Venezuelan corrupted military against their own citizens who dared to protest, the country is deeply inmersed in shit and seems there's nothing we can do about, since this is all about Georgie boy conspiracy to kill Hugo and all who dissent the dementia of Chavez is a traitor and will be killed by the revolution. But let's read what Holland have to say about Mexico since Venezuela is a lost case:
In Mexico, each precinct does its own count, which is attached to the sealed ballot box and sent to the Federal Election Institute (IFE). All of the preliminary tallies are based on the precincts' counts. The official count will begin tomorrow, and is expected to last for up to a week.
It looks likely that there will be challenges. Manuel Camacho Solís, a top adviser to López Obrador, said Monday that "Our perception is that there have been very important irregularities."
Both candidates continue to claim victory -- the Mexican press has repeatedly said that the situation represents a "worst case scenario."
A preliminary, uncertified count showed PAN candidate Felipe Calderon with a 400,000-vote lead. Lopez Obrador's camp is charging that there was "vote-shaving" at some voting stations, especially in his home state of Tabasco. Lopez Obrador alleges that as many as three million votes are missing, citing a discrepancy between estimated projected turnout and preliminary counts. He stopped short of calling the elections fraudulent, but is already calling for a ballot-by-ballot recount. He hasn't yet asked his supporters to take it to the streets, as many expect him to do if Calderon ends up with a narrow lead.
The Washington Post reports that both parties are lawyering up, and all of the papers are talking about a legal process reminiscent of that which followed the 2000 Florida impasse. In Mexico, however, there's more breathing room -- the president doesn't take office for five months -- so there won't be pressure to cut the process short. The vote is almost certain to end up in the Federal Judicial Electoral Tribunal, a court that has the ultimate say on the winner. The whole thing could drag on for months; election authorities aren't required to certify the vote until September 6.
The process will put Mexico's electoral institutions, which have undergone dramatic reforms during the past ten years, to the test. Will they be transparent enough to deal with a nail-biter? Polls show that the IFE is one of the country's most trusted institutions, but that may not hold up if things get ugly and a lot of charges are flying around. Some PRD officials are accusing the IFE of "bias."
Whatever the final outcome, it's likely that the close vote and a sharply divided legislature will make it difficult for the eventual winner to govern. One analyst called it a "recipe for gridlock."
The head of the EU observer mission said yesterday that the results of Mexican elections were "so far reliable" and they ruled out widespread fraud in the elections, although they noted scattered irregularities.
The elections were monitored by thousands of foreign observers, and most of the monitoring organizations have yet to submit reports on their findings. When they do, we'll have a clearer picture of what transpired, from an on-the-ground perspective.
Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer
Greg Palast's conspiracism isn't helpful …
by Joshua Holland
I've read Palast's books and greatly admire the guy. You might say I'm a fan.
But, on the issue of yesterday's still-too-close-to-call vote in Mexico, he's apparently decided that there's rampant institutional fraud taking place -- aided by the Evil Ones in the Bush administration -- and he's not going to let a bunch of pesky facts get in the way of that narrative.
The problem with that is that he's sending progressives to bark up the wrong tree; as the Institute for Policy Studies' Chuck Collins, an observer with the Global Exchange delegation, reports on the front page, the real issues to watch -- and let's hope any irregularities aren't enough to sway the outcome -- are vote-buying by party operatives, local officials telling poor, rural voters that they'll lose access to public services if they don't vote "correctly" and various forms of voter intimidation.
The last thing anyone needs in what is shaping up to be a hyper-charged post-balloting environment is a bunch of conspiracy theories about the Mexican electoral institutions themselves.
And that's just what Palast's been peddling. Consider this ominous-sounding but substance-free report from Friday:
George Bush's operatives have plans to jigger with the upcoming elections. I'm not talking about the November '06 vote in the USA (though they have plans for that, too). I'm talking about the election this Sunday in Mexico for their Presidency.
It begins with an FBI document marked, "Counterterrorism" and "Foreign Intelligence Collection" and "Secret." Date: "9/17/2001," six days after the attack on the World Trade towers. It's nice to know the feds got right on the ball, if a little late.
What does this have to do with jiggering Mexico's election? Hold that thought.
This document is what's called a "guidance" memo for using a private contractor to provide databases on dangerous foreigners. Good idea. [...]
He points out that the lists weren't of, say, Saudi nationals ...
All the target nations had one thing in common besides a lack of terrorists: each had a left-leaning presidential candidate or a left-leaning president in office. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, bete noir of the Bush Administration, was facing a recall vote. In Mexico, the anti-Bush Mayor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was (and is) leading the race for the Presidency.
Most provocative is the contractor to whom this no-bid contract was handed: ChoicePoint Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia. ChoicePoint is the database company that created a list for Governor Jeb Bush of Florida of voters to scrub from voter rolls before the 2000 election...
In Mexico this Sunday, we can expect to see the same: challenges of Obrador voters in a race, the polls say, is too close to call. Not that Mexico's rulers need lessons from the Bush Administration on how to mess with elections.[…]
How the US' purloined "counterterrorism" lists will be used, we don't know.
That last sentence is really all you need to know about this report.
Do you notice what's missing here? An actual allegation. Palast throws the name ChoicePoint out there -- a bogeyman for the left if ever there was one -- but doesn't connect it in any way with Mexico's electoral authorities. Remember, his excellent reporting on ChoicePoint's involvement in the 2000 Florida vote revealed that Katherine Harris had ordered the company to purge tens of thousands of voters from the official voter rolls, most of whom turned out to be eligible African-American voters. Nothing like that in this case.
Mexican authorities actually arrested the ChoicePoint operatives for creating the list in question, but Palast says, bizarrely, that the arrests simply proved that "Mexico's attorney general did [it] to avoid his party from looking too much the stooge of its Washington patron." Huh?
It gets worse…
In 1988, the candidate for Obrador's Party of the Democratic Revolution (PDR), who opinion polls showed as a certain winner, somehow came up short against the incumbent party of the ruling elite. Some of the electoral tricks were far from subtle. In the state of Guerrero, the PDR was leading on official tally sheets by 359,369. Oddly, the official final count was 309,202 for the ruling party, only 182,874 for the PDR.
It's simply irresponsible to discuss the blatantly stolen 1988 election without also telling his readers that Mexico's electoral institutions have undergone radical, dramatic reforms since then (which I touched on last week).
Chuck Collins, in his reality-based analysis, also discusses the 1988 vote, but follows it with this:
But the Mexican electoral system has come a long way since 1988 and even 2000. The independent Federal Election Institute is well-resourced, politically independent, and by all accounts ran a fairly clean election.
That last point is crucial to understanding the complete nonsense Palast is peddling in his column in today's The Guardian. In it, he refers, as he did Friday, to "The PAN-controlled official electoral commission."
According to every single observer except Greg Palast, the Federal Election Institute (IFE) is completely independent. The IFE ordered Vicente Fox -- PAN's outgoing president -- to keep his nose out of the campaign. They ordered Felipe Calderon's ads off the air more than once because they were misleading or defamatory. Last week, I noted that José Salafranca, head of the EU's observer mission, told Inter Press Service that Mexico's electoral institutions are now among the most reliable and trustworthy in the world.
But Palast has to put the IFE in PAN's pocket, or else his column today -- read and no doubt believed by many -- falls apart entirely …
As in Florida in 2000, and as in Ohio in 2004, the exit polls show the voters voted for the progressive candidate. The race is "officially" too close to call. But they will call it - after they steal it.
Reuters reports that, as of 8pm eastern time, as voting concluded in Mexico, exit polls showed Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the "leftwing" party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) leading in exit polls over Felipe Calderón of the ruling conservative National Action party (PAN).
We've said again and again: exit polls tell us how voters say they voted, but the voters can't tell pollsters whether their vote will be counted. In Mexico, counting the vote is an art, not a science - and Calderón's ruling crew is very artful indeed. The PAN-controlled official electoral commission, not surprisingly, has announced that the presidential tally is too close to call.
Let's understand what he's saying. As of 8 PM eastern time, exit polls -- which The Guardian Reuters clarified were conducted by television broadcasters -- showed a result that was within their margins of error. Lopez Obrador's own exit polling showed he had a lead, and Calderon claimed that he was in the lead. But the Guardian's own headline was: "Mexico election too close to call -- exit-polls." The official "quick count" -- a sample -- wasn't released to the public because, by law, it can't be if it's within the count's 2-point margin-of-error.
In other words, official sampling shows that the race is too close, the TV station's exit polls show that it's too close to call and -- gasp! -- the IFE says the exact same thing! Only the parties' private exit polling shows a clear winner at this point.
It gives me no joy to have to debunk one of the beest progressive investigative reporters out there. But this stuff, like the Jason Leopold thing, undermines all of our credibility.
More importantly, we're looking at an already tense situation. Both sides are declaring victory in a tight vote, and in all likelihood there are going to be real allegations of various shenanigans on the part of local party operatives. The last thing anyone needs is Greg Palast throwing fuel on the fire by inventing a grand institutional conspiracy at the federal level.
In the next few days, we're going to be getting independent reports from the many NGOs that have monitored the polling. On Wednesday, we'll get the official count. In the meantime, let's take a wait-and-see approach.
Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.
Feathers: Now, wait a minute, where I have see this practice of forcing poor voters to vote "correctly" by the barrio's party representatives, otherwise they will loose their chavista misiones?? Anyone?
Where I have seen the CIA conspiracy theory before?? You guessed correctly, coming from the big, loud mouth of Hugo Chavez. Not helping Venezuela either. Maybe it's the Greg Pallast effect screwing Venezuela as well. Nevermind. It's Venezuela, who cares about Venezuela anyway? Apparently nobody since they have kept the oil supply steady to finance all those Chavez's crazy little plans to conquer the world, just like Kim Jong Ill.
Why I am not surprized with Mr. Spin Doctor Palast in here? If the left wins, then the IFE would become the excellence institute of transparency for the lefties selective analytical brain, but, until that happens they are all pupppets of Georgie boy. His purpose and modus operando is the same than democrats have been using with Bush with the last elections, if he wins and there's anything else we can do, we will disacredited the institution and put the doubt cloud in the mind of the citizen, so even though he could have win legitimately by one vote, the fraud cloud will always follow the winning candidate. Undermining the institutions is definetely the beginning of the end for any country. Ask any Venezuelan about this.
My question to Holland is that if he will be admiring Palast the same way than before he wrote this pile of horse shit about Mexico's elections. I wonder what Holland thinks about the Venezuelan case.
I've read Palast's books and greatly admire the guy. You might say I'm a fan.
But, on the issue of yesterday's still-too-close-to-call vote in Mexico, he's apparently decided that there's rampant institutional fraud taking place -- aided by the Evil Ones in the Bush administration -- and he's not going to let a bunch of pesky facts get in the way of that narrative.
The problem with that is that he's sending progressives to bark up the wrong tree; as the Institute for Policy Studies' Chuck Collins, an observer with the Global Exchange delegation, reports on the front page, the real issues to watch -- and let's hope any irregularities aren't enough to sway the outcome -- are vote-buying by party operatives, local officials telling poor, rural voters that they'll lose access to public services if they don't vote "correctly" and various forms of voter intimidation.
The last thing anyone needs in what is shaping up to be a hyper-charged post-balloting environment is a bunch of conspiracy theories about the Mexican electoral institutions themselves.
And that's just what Palast's been peddling. Consider this ominous-sounding but substance-free report from Friday:
George Bush's operatives have plans to jigger with the upcoming elections. I'm not talking about the November '06 vote in the USA (though they have plans for that, too). I'm talking about the election this Sunday in Mexico for their Presidency.
It begins with an FBI document marked, "Counterterrorism" and "Foreign Intelligence Collection" and "Secret." Date: "9/17/2001," six days after the attack on the World Trade towers. It's nice to know the feds got right on the ball, if a little late.
What does this have to do with jiggering Mexico's election? Hold that thought.
This document is what's called a "guidance" memo for using a private contractor to provide databases on dangerous foreigners. Good idea. [...]
He points out that the lists weren't of, say, Saudi nationals ...
All the target nations had one thing in common besides a lack of terrorists: each had a left-leaning presidential candidate or a left-leaning president in office. In Venezuela, President Hugo Chavez, bete noir of the Bush Administration, was facing a recall vote. In Mexico, the anti-Bush Mayor of Mexico City, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador was (and is) leading the race for the Presidency.
Most provocative is the contractor to whom this no-bid contract was handed: ChoicePoint Inc. of Alpharetta, Georgia. ChoicePoint is the database company that created a list for Governor Jeb Bush of Florida of voters to scrub from voter rolls before the 2000 election...
In Mexico this Sunday, we can expect to see the same: challenges of Obrador voters in a race, the polls say, is too close to call. Not that Mexico's rulers need lessons from the Bush Administration on how to mess with elections.[…]
How the US' purloined "counterterrorism" lists will be used, we don't know.
That last sentence is really all you need to know about this report.
Do you notice what's missing here? An actual allegation. Palast throws the name ChoicePoint out there -- a bogeyman for the left if ever there was one -- but doesn't connect it in any way with Mexico's electoral authorities. Remember, his excellent reporting on ChoicePoint's involvement in the 2000 Florida vote revealed that Katherine Harris had ordered the company to purge tens of thousands of voters from the official voter rolls, most of whom turned out to be eligible African-American voters. Nothing like that in this case.
Mexican authorities actually arrested the ChoicePoint operatives for creating the list in question, but Palast says, bizarrely, that the arrests simply proved that "Mexico's attorney general did [it] to avoid his party from looking too much the stooge of its Washington patron." Huh?
It gets worse…
In 1988, the candidate for Obrador's Party of the Democratic Revolution (PDR), who opinion polls showed as a certain winner, somehow came up short against the incumbent party of the ruling elite. Some of the electoral tricks were far from subtle. In the state of Guerrero, the PDR was leading on official tally sheets by 359,369. Oddly, the official final count was 309,202 for the ruling party, only 182,874 for the PDR.
It's simply irresponsible to discuss the blatantly stolen 1988 election without also telling his readers that Mexico's electoral institutions have undergone radical, dramatic reforms since then (which I touched on last week).
Chuck Collins, in his reality-based analysis, also discusses the 1988 vote, but follows it with this:
But the Mexican electoral system has come a long way since 1988 and even 2000. The independent Federal Election Institute is well-resourced, politically independent, and by all accounts ran a fairly clean election.
That last point is crucial to understanding the complete nonsense Palast is peddling in his column in today's The Guardian. In it, he refers, as he did Friday, to "The PAN-controlled official electoral commission."
According to every single observer except Greg Palast, the Federal Election Institute (IFE) is completely independent. The IFE ordered Vicente Fox -- PAN's outgoing president -- to keep his nose out of the campaign. They ordered Felipe Calderon's ads off the air more than once because they were misleading or defamatory. Last week, I noted that José Salafranca, head of the EU's observer mission, told Inter Press Service that Mexico's electoral institutions are now among the most reliable and trustworthy in the world.
But Palast has to put the IFE in PAN's pocket, or else his column today -- read and no doubt believed by many -- falls apart entirely …
As in Florida in 2000, and as in Ohio in 2004, the exit polls show the voters voted for the progressive candidate. The race is "officially" too close to call. But they will call it - after they steal it.
Reuters reports that, as of 8pm eastern time, as voting concluded in Mexico, exit polls showed Andrés Manuel López Obrador of the "leftwing" party of the Democratic Revolution (PRD) leading in exit polls over Felipe Calderón of the ruling conservative National Action party (PAN).
We've said again and again: exit polls tell us how voters say they voted, but the voters can't tell pollsters whether their vote will be counted. In Mexico, counting the vote is an art, not a science - and Calderón's ruling crew is very artful indeed. The PAN-controlled official electoral commission, not surprisingly, has announced that the presidential tally is too close to call.
Let's understand what he's saying. As of 8 PM eastern time, exit polls -- which The Guardian Reuters clarified were conducted by television broadcasters -- showed a result that was within their margins of error. Lopez Obrador's own exit polling showed he had a lead, and Calderon claimed that he was in the lead. But the Guardian's own headline was: "Mexico election too close to call -- exit-polls." The official "quick count" -- a sample -- wasn't released to the public because, by law, it can't be if it's within the count's 2-point margin-of-error.
In other words, official sampling shows that the race is too close, the TV station's exit polls show that it's too close to call and -- gasp! -- the IFE says the exact same thing! Only the parties' private exit polling shows a clear winner at this point.
It gives me no joy to have to debunk one of the beest progressive investigative reporters out there. But this stuff, like the Jason Leopold thing, undermines all of our credibility.
More importantly, we're looking at an already tense situation. Both sides are declaring victory in a tight vote, and in all likelihood there are going to be real allegations of various shenanigans on the part of local party operatives. The last thing anyone needs is Greg Palast throwing fuel on the fire by inventing a grand institutional conspiracy at the federal level.
In the next few days, we're going to be getting independent reports from the many NGOs that have monitored the polling. On Wednesday, we'll get the official count. In the meantime, let's take a wait-and-see approach.
Joshua Holland is a staff writer at Alternet and a regular contributor to The Gadflyer.
Feathers: Now, wait a minute, where I have see this practice of forcing poor voters to vote "correctly" by the barrio's party representatives, otherwise they will loose their chavista misiones?? Anyone?
Where I have seen the CIA conspiracy theory before?? You guessed correctly, coming from the big, loud mouth of Hugo Chavez. Not helping Venezuela either. Maybe it's the Greg Pallast effect screwing Venezuela as well. Nevermind. It's Venezuela, who cares about Venezuela anyway? Apparently nobody since they have kept the oil supply steady to finance all those Chavez's crazy little plans to conquer the world, just like Kim Jong Ill.
Why I am not surprized with Mr. Spin Doctor Palast in here? If the left wins, then the IFE would become the excellence institute of transparency for the lefties selective analytical brain, but, until that happens they are all pupppets of Georgie boy. His purpose and modus operando is the same than democrats have been using with Bush with the last elections, if he wins and there's anything else we can do, we will disacredited the institution and put the doubt cloud in the mind of the citizen, so even though he could have win legitimately by one vote, the fraud cloud will always follow the winning candidate. Undermining the institutions is definetely the beginning of the end for any country. Ask any Venezuelan about this.
My question to Holland is that if he will be admiring Palast the same way than before he wrote this pile of horse shit about Mexico's elections. I wonder what Holland thinks about the Venezuelan case.
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Happy Birthday, America
In CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America.
When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bonds which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former systems of government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute tyranny over these states. To prove this, let facts be submitted to a candid world.
He has refused his assent to laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his governors to pass laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of representation in the legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.
He has dissolved representative houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the legislative powers, incapable of annihilation, have returned to the people at large for their exercise; the state remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavored to prevent the population of these states; for that purpose obstructing the laws for naturalization of foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new appropriations of lands.
He has obstructed the administration of justice, by refusing his assent to laws for establishing judiciary powers.
He has made judges dependent on his will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of new offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, standing armies without the consent of our legislature.
He has affected to render the military independent of and superior to civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his assent to their acts of pretended legislation:
For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by mock trial, from punishment for any murders which they should commit on the inhabitants of these states:
For cutting off our trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing taxes on us without our consent:
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of trial by jury:
For transporting us beyond seas to be tried for pretended offenses:
For abolishing the free system of English laws in a neighboring province, establishing therein an arbitrary government, and enlarging its boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule in these colonies:
For taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments:
For suspending our own legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated government here, by declaring us out of his protection and waging war against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our coasts, burned our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.
He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow citizens taken captive on the high seas to bear arms against their country, to become the executioners of their friends and brethren, or to fall themselves by their hands.
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages, whose known rule of warfare, is undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.
In every stage of these oppressions we have petitioned for redress in the most humble terms: our repeated petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.
Nor have we been wanting in attention to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, enemies in war, in peace friends.
We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name, and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these united colonies are, and of right ought to be free and independent states; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as free and independent states, they have full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which independent states may of right do. And for the support of this declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery
Connecticut: Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris
New Jersey: Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)