Uri Avnery |
Post Reply | Page <1 34567 14> |
Author | |
Daniel Dworsky
Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hi,
Hope this may interest you. I am sending this earlier than usual, because of a short vacation. By the way, the question of the different numbers of the verse quoted by the pope has been cleared up. In different translations, the numbers are different, because some count the obligatory opening verse (In the Name of Allah...) and some don't. So the pope and I were both right and fallible. Shalom, uri Uri Avnery 30.9.06 Because of a Small Nail HAD HAMLET been a reserve soldier in the Israeli army, he might now declare: "Something is rotten in the State of Israel!" And indeed, something is rotten - - The President of the State refuses to suspend himself, in face of eight individual accusations of sexual harassment. He whines about a monstrous conspiracy against him and points at Netanyahu's men in the Likud. - The Prime Minister and the Minister of Defense refuse to resign, in spite of the overwhelming majority of the public's expressed lack of confidence in Ehud Olmert (70%) and Amir Peretz (82%). Instead of agreeing to the establishment of an independent judicial commission of inquiry, they have set up an examining committee that has already lost the confidence of the majority of the public - even before it has started to investigate the events of the Lebanon War. - The Chief-of-Staff, under attack from retired and serving generals, declares that he "will not take off his uniform until somebody tears it off." - The chairman of the Knesset Foreign and Military Affairs Committee is indicted for fraud and perjury. - The Minister of Justice is on trial for pushing his tongue into the mouth of a female soldier. According to the polls, the overwhelming majority of the population is happy with their personal situation (80%) but depressed about the situation of the state (59%). So what to do? Simple: just change the system. THIS IS a typical Israeli reaction. Perhaps typically human. When a crisis threatens to upset the foundations of our perceptions, we tend to turn away from the main issue and concentrate all our attention on some detail. Thus we are relieved from questioning our basic beliefs and the world-view we are accustomed to. We take some detail, as small as possible, and put all the blame on it. That�s it! Found it! That's the guilty part! As the old song goes: "All because of a small nail!" So when a major disaster occurs, we find the small nail that caused it, and we need not look further. For example: the Yom-Kippur war. Why did this bloody war break out at all? Why didn't we accept President Anwar Sadat's earlier offer of peace in exchange for the return of the Sinai? Why did our Ship of Fools blithely sail from the Six-day war to the Yom-Kippur war on a sea of arrogance? No, such questions were not asked. But what was asked? Things like: Why didn't the army intelligence department warn us that the Egyptians and Syrians were about to attack? Why weren't the reserve units called up in time? Why weren�t the "instruments" (tanks and artillery) moved to the canal? It was called "The Omission". That was the slogan of the mass protest movement that sprang up and swept away Golda Meir and Moshe Dayan. That's like emptying the ashtray when a car breaks down. Now something similar is happening. THE POLLS show that the public has no confidence in the leadership. But the public does not say: We voted for these leaders, so we are to blame. That would be an unpleasant admission. What they say is: It's not our fault. So who is to blame? The "system", of course. That's because our parliamentary democracy does not assure the Prime Minister a full term of four years. He can fall before that. It also compels him to include in his government leaders of the coalition parties, even if they are quite incompetent to direct their ministries. The Prime Minister cannot plan long-term policy, nor put capable experts in charge of the ministries. That's very bad. Therefore, we must adopt the American system. The people will elect a president, who will serve at least four full years. He will choose a cabinet composed of outstanding personalities, each one an expert in his field. Thus Zion will be redeemed. THIS IS the purest snake oil - one bottle to cure all illnesses, without pain and without delay. First of all, one cannot simply transfer a political system from one country to another. Every state has its own tradition, its own specific culture, its own social set-up. A political system must grow from within. It cannot be imposed on another people. When one tries to do that, the society adapts it to its own requirements and changes it beyond recognition. (Japan after World War II springs to mind.) Only out-of-touch professors in ivory towers could imagine that the illnesses of a society can be cured by an ideal political system copied from another country. That has already been proven in Israel: under the influence of some professors, our "system" was changed some years ago. It was decided that the Prime Minister would be elected directly, separately from the Knesset elections. But soon it became obvious that this system was worse than the one before it. So the Wise Ones took counsel and changed the whole thing back again. But there's no need for us to go through that experience ourselves. In order to appreciate the advantages of the presidential system, it's enough to look at the situation in its homeland: the United States. What has this system achieved there? Indeed, the president has at least four full years, but many would add "alas!" When it is discovered that a complete idiot has been elected and embroils his country in disastrous adventures, he cannot be removed. In our parliamentary system, as in the United Kingdom, a Prime Minister can be removed with comparative ease. Tony Blair will be gone within a year, while George Bush serves out his full term. Are the American ministers more competent than ours? Is Donald Rumsfeld less of a disaster than Amir Peretz? Moreover, in order to be elected president, a candidate needs huge sums of money. Such heavy money can come only from interest groups, lobbies and large corporations. The American system is corrupt to the core - a corruption so deep and wide, it makes the sins of Olmert & Co. look innocent. BUT LOGIC is not the key to this discussion, because the demand for system change is serving as a cover for something much more sinister: the call for a Leader. Such calls always arise in times of crisis. When there is a feeling of defeat and a climate of distrust of the old leadership, people long for a strong father. Democracy looks weak and rotten, especially faced with the legend that the politicians have "prevented the army from winning." A strong leader solves problems with an iron fist. A policy of dialogue and agreements is something for weaklings. It must be clear: the proposal to adopt the presidential system is nothing other than a disguised call for an all-powerful leader. One has only to look at those who propose it. The foremost advocate of "system change" is Avigdor Liberman, the leader of the "Israel Our Home" party, composed mainly of immigrants from the former Soviet Union. This is a party of the radical Right - to use an understatement. In other countries, they might be called by another name. "Israel Our Home" stands for unbridled nationalism and xenophobia. It is more radical than Joerg Haider in Austria and Jean-Marie Le-Pen in France. It calls for all Palestinians to leave the country, including the Arab citizens of Israel proper, who constitute 20% of the population. That does not prevent Ehud Olmert from declaring publicly that he would like to have this party in his government. (When Haider joined the Austrian government, Israel recalled its ambassador from Vienna.) Liberman, who wants to be Minister of Defense, has set five conditions for joining the government, headed by the demand for the adoption of the presidential system. It is quite clear who his candidate for president is: Avigdor Liberman. The polls say that if elections were held now, Liberman's party would get 16 seats in the 120-seat Knesset (compared to 11 seats in the present assembly). To this, one must add the nine seats occupied in the present Knesset by the "National Union", whose leader, a knitted-kippa-wearing general, publicly demands the expulsion of all Arabs from the occupied Palestinian territories, and the withdrawal of democratic rights from the Arab citizens of Israel itself. When such parties constitute a fifth of the voting public, there is certainly cause for concern. I BELIEVE in Israeli democracy. It is an incredible phenomenon, considering where most Israeli citizens or their parents came from: Czarist and Communist Russia, the Poland of Pilsudsky and his heirs, Morocco, Iraq, Iran and Syria - in addition to those born in colonial Palestine under the rule of the British High Commissioner. Like the resurrection of the Hebrew language, which has no parallel in the world, this democracy is a miracle. (This means, of course, democracy in Israel proper. In the occupied territories, a very different situation prevails.) I don't believe that there is a concrete danger of the rise of fascism at present. But we have to be on our guard, every day and every hour. Several factors may promote fascist tendencies here: the feeling of defeat in war, the legend of the "the stab in the back of the army", lack of confidence in the democratic system, a widening gap between rich and poor, incitement against the national minority described as a Fifth Column. That is more than a small nail. |
|
Daniel Dworsky
Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Uri Avnery
7.10.06   ; Lunch in Damascus ONCE, WHILE traveling in a taxi, I had an argument with the driver - a profession associated in Israel with extreme right-wing views. I tried in vain to convince him of the desirability of peace with the Arabs. In our country, which has never seen a single day of peace in the last hundred years, peace can seem like something out of science fiction. Suddenly I had an inspiration. "When we have peace," I said, "You can take your taxi in the morning and go to Damascus, have lunch there with real authentic Hummus and come back home in the evening." He jumped at the idea. "Wow," he exclaimed, "If that happens, I shall take you with me for nothing!" "And I shall treat you to lunch," I responded. He continued to dream. "If I could go to Damascus in my car, I could drive on from there all the way to Paris!" BASHAR AL-ASSAD has done it again. He has succeeded in confusing the Israeli government. As long as he voices the ritual threat to liberate the Golan Heights by force, it does not upset anybody. After all, that only confirms what many want to hear: that there is no way to have peace with Syria, that sooner or later we shall have a war with them. Why is that good? Simple: peace with Syria would mean giving back the Golan Heights (Syrian territory by any definition). No peace, no need to give them back. But when Bashar starts to talk peace, we are in trouble. That is a sinister plot. It may, God forbid, create a situation that would compel us to return the territory. Therefore, we should not even speak about it. The news must be buried in some remote corner of the papers and at the end of the news on TV, as just "another speech of Assad". The government rejects them "on the threshold", adding that it cannot even be discussed until� Until what? Until he stops supporting Hizbullah. Until Syria expels the representatives of Hamas and the other Palestinian organizations. Until regime change takes place in Syria. Until a Western-style democracy is installed there. In short, until he registers as a member of the Zionist organization. THE RELATIONS between Israel and Syria have a documented history of at least 2859 years. In the year 853 B.C. Israel is mentioned - for the first time, it seems - in an authentic document outside the Bible. Twelve monarchs of the region, led by the kings of Damascus and Israel, united against the growing threat of Assyria, The decisive battle took place at Karkar (in the north of today's Syria). According to an Assyrian document, 20 thousand soldiers and 1200 chariots of Damascus fought side by side with 10 thousand soldiers and 2000 chariots of Ahab, king of Israel. It is not quite clear which side won. But that was a temporary alliance. For most of the time, Israel and Aram- Damascus fought against each other for regional supremacy. Ahab died a hero's death in one of these wars against Aram, just two years after the battle against the Assyrians. In modern times, the Syrians (although then still under French colonial rule) strenuously opposed the Zionist enterprise right from the beginning. But they also opposed the Palestinian national movement. That is grounded in history: in the Arabic language, the name al-Sham ("the North"), as Syria is called, includes the entire territory between Egypt and Turkey. Therefore, in Arab consciousness, not only Lebanon, but Jordan, Palestine and Israel as well are really part of Syria. When Yasser Arafat created the independent Palestinian national movement at the end of the 1950s, the Syrians demanded to be acknowledged as the protectors of the Palestinian people. When he refused, the Syrians threw the entire Palestinian leadership into prison. (Only the wife of Abu Jihad, Intissar al-Wazir, remained at liberty and took over the command of the Fatah fighters - thus becoming the first woman in modern times to command an Arab fighting force.) Naturally, all the enemies of Arafat found refuge in Damascus, and that is the original reason for the presence of some leaders of Hamas and other organizations there. They were more of a threat to the PLO than to Israel. IN THE 1948 war, the Syrian army was the only Arab army that was not defeated. They continued to occupy some Israeli territory. Along this border, many incidents took place (mostly initiated by an officer by the name of Ariel Sharon). In the end, the Israeli army occupied the Golan Heights in the Six-day war, for the outbreak of which Syria bears some responsibility. Since then, all the relations between Israel and Syria have been centered on this occupied territory. Its return is a paramount Syrian aim. Israel has applied Israeli law there (which, contrary to the accepted view, means less than annexation). Hafez al-Assad re-conquered it in the 1973 war, but in the end was pushed back to the approaches of Damascus. Since then, the Syrians have been trying to harass Israel mostly by means of Hizbullah. Once upon a time, the idea of an "Eastern Front" - a coordinated attack by Jordan, Syria and Iraq - used to cause nightmares in Israel. The prophecy of Jeremiah (1, 14), "Out of the north an evil shall break forth upon all the inhabitants of the land", echoed through the war-rooms of the army High Command. Since then we have made peace with Jordan, Iraq has been blown to smithereens by the Americans, with the enthusiastic support of Israel and its American lobby. But the Syrians are still considered a menace, because they are allied with Iran and connected with Hizbullah. Is it worthwhile for us to live in this situation in order to keep the Golan Heights? Common sense says no. If we reach a peace agreement with Syria, it will automatically entail an agreement with Hizbullah, too. Without Syrian consent, Hizbullah cannot keep an efficient military force, since practically all Hizbullah's arms have to come from Syria or pass through Syria. Without Syrian support, Hizbullah will become a purely Lebanese party and cease to constitute a threat to us. Moreover, Syria is a thoroughly secular country. When the Muslim Brotherhood rebelled against Assad Sr, he drowned them in blood. Also, the great majority of Syrians are Sunni. When Syria makes peace with Israel, it will have no reason to remain allied with the fanatical Shiite Iran. So why don't we make peace with Syria? AT THIS time, there are two reasons: the one domestic, the other foreign. The domestic reason is the existence of 20 thousand settlers on the Golan Heights, who are far more popular than the West Bank settlers. They are not religious fanatics, and their settlements were set up under the auspices of the Labor Party. All Israeli governments have been afraid to touch them. That is the real reason for the failure of all the attempts to negotiate with Syria. Yitzhak Rabin thought about it and drew back. He argued that we should first of all concentrate on settling the Palestinian issue. Ehud Barak almost came to an agreement with Syria, but escaped at the last moment. The only question that remained open was almost ludicrous: should the Syrians reach the shoreline of the Sea of Tiberias (the situation prevailing before the Six-day war) or stay at a distance of a few dozen meters (according to the border fixed between the British, then ruling Palestine, and the French, then ruling Syria). In popular parlance: will Assad dangle his long feet in the water of the lake? For Assad Sr. that was a question of honor. Is it worthwhile to risk for this the lives of thousands of Israelis and Syrians, who may die in another war? Until Israel has a government ready to answer this question and to confront the settlers, there will be no agreement with Syria. The second reason for rejecting peace with Syria is connected with the United States. Syria belongs to George Bush's "axis of evil". The American president doesn't give a damn for the long-range interests of Israel, what is important to him is to achieve some sort of victory in the Middle East. The destruction of the Syrian regime ("a victory for democracy") will compensate him for the Iraq fiasco. No Israeli government - and certainly not that of Olmert - would dare to disobey the American president. Therefore, it is self-evident that all peace feelers from Assad will be rejected "on the threshold". Tsipi Livni, who last week opened a new front against Olmert and presented herself almost as a peace-lover, opposes the start of negotiations with Syria as well. THIS AFFAIR throws some light on the complex relations between Israel and the United States: who is wagging who - does the dog wag its tail or the tail its dog? Olmert says that we must ignore Assad's peace offers, because we must not help him to escape Bush's wrath. Let's dwell on this utterance for a moment. An Israeli patriot would, of course, have said exactly the opposite: If Assad is ready to make peace with us - even if only because he is afraid of the Americans - we should jump at this opportunity and exploit this situation to achieve at long last peace on our northern front. Last week Olmert made a remarkable declaration: "As long as I am Prime Minister, we shall not give up the Golan for all eternity!" What does that mean? Either Olmert believes that his term of office coincides with God's term of office, and he will rule in eternity - or in Olmert's world, eternity extends to four years, at most. Anyhow, until then, my taxi-driver and I shall have to wait for our lunch in Damascus. |
|
Daniel Dworsky
Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Hi Beautiful people, I hope this interests you. URI On liberman A BLACK FLAG! When the racist Joerg Haider joined the Austrian government, the Israeli government recalled our ambassador from Vienna. Now there is an intention to invite Avigdor Liberman, a racist much worse than Haider, to join the Israeli government itself. The inclusion of Liberman in the government is not just a change in the coalition. It raises a black flag over the State of Israel. The very idea that such a person, which such views, can be a member of the Government of Israel is shocking. It shames everyone who advocates it. Liberman is a threat to the fabric of Israeli society, a threat to a whole sector of citizens, a threat to democracy, a threat to any chance for Israel to achieve peace with its neighbors. The proposed law for the change of the regime, which has been introduced by Liberman in the Knesset, is not just a proposal for another change in the mechanism of government. It is the first step towards the establishment of a dictatorship, which will lead to national disaster. This is a road of no return. A cynical Prime Minister, out to save his skin, together with a gang of corrupt and/or st**id politicians, are helping Liberman to put his foot in the door of Israeli democracy. Anyone who raises his hand in favor of Liberman and his proposals raises his hand against the State of Israel as defined by the Declaration of Independence, a state that was supposed to be democratic, peace- oriented, with equality for all its citizens. Each of them will be remembered forever with shame. GUSH SHALOM 972-3-5221732 - P.O.Box 3322, Tel-Aviv 61033 - www.gush- shalom.org - [email protected] ------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------------------------------------------------------ -- ------------ Special large ad published in Haaretz October 17, 2006 |
|
herjihad
Senior Member Joined: 26 January 2005 Location: United States Status: Offline Points: 2473 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Salaamu Alaykum Wa Rahmatullahi Wa Barakatuh, This is to let you know that I've been reading as much as I can, and today I read your last three entries throughly. Thanks! It is obvious to those who are not blind that Bush doesn't care for America's long-term interest either! Some call him st**id, but I think he's pure evil looking for advantage and profit in his own lifetime at anyone's expense. *** This is funny. I thought you had blocked the word stupi*d, but it seems that that word isn't allowed on IC anymore. Hilarious! Edited by herjihad |
|
Al-Hamdulillah (From a Married Muslimah) La Howla Wa La Quwata Illa BiLLah - There is no Effort or Power except with Allah's Will.
|
|
Daniel Dworsky
Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
No S**T!
Just checking. I don't think Bush is a bad guy His Dad may well be. I think evil people are very very rare. Very few people get up in the morning and say to them selves,"Hmm what kind of mischief can I get up to today?" Good people are capable of doing evil by doing nothing to stop evil or compromising the wrong things for what they believe to be the greater good. I know a little something about evil. The real stuff. It has nothing to do with politics, religion or disorderly people. It has to do with an absence of tolerance. You don't have to love or forgive as much as you have to just wait, think, talk or just start over sometimes. Uri is on the rampage again Uri Avnery 19.10.06 Ehud von Olmert THE NAME of Franz von Papen is familiar to everyone who knows the history of the German republic that was born after World War I and that died when Hitler came to power. What made him deserving of a place in history? Not his talents. On the contrary, during his short term as Reichskanzler (chancellor), he was as much a failure as his predecessors. Neither was he a very interesting person - just an ordinary politician from the minor nobility ("von"), a member of the "Zentrum", a German party like our own "National- Religious Party", before it lost its mind. No, the name of von Papen is remembered only because he paved the way for the Nazis to take over Germany. It was he who advised the President of the Reich, an almost senile Field Marshal, to appoint Hitler as Reichskanzler. Von Papen told him that Hitler was just another demagogue with a big mouth, who, once in power, was sure to moderate his views. And anyhow, for safety's sake, all the important positions - War Minister, Foreign Minister etc. - would be given to non-Nazis. Hitler would be Kanzler in name only, unable to move. Well, everybody knows what happened next. After getting his foot in the door with the help of von Papen, Hitler stormed into the building, instituted a reign of terror, threw his opponents (including the assistants of von Papen himself) into concentration camps, changed the law and established the dictatorship that led Germany to disaster. Now there is a danger of Ehud Olmert becoming the Israeli von Papen. I HAVE always been careful to avoid the example of the famous shepherd who used to cry "Wolf! Wolf!" just to tease the others. Many times, this or that Israeli politician has been accused of being a fascist. But to be a fascist, it is not enough to espouse extreme nationalist views or to carry out racist policies. There is no scientific definition of fascism. But from experience one can say that it is a combination of world view and personality type, radical nationalism, racism, a cult of violence, dictatorship and more. When asked who is a fascist, I answer: When you see one, you will know. Or, as the Americans say: If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. More than once, Menachem Begin was called a fascist, but he was far from it. He was indeed an extreme nationalist, but also a confirmed democrat, with decidedly liberal views (like his guide and master, Vladimir Ze'ev Jabotinsky). Rehavam Ze'evi, who advocated "voluntary transfer" of the Arab population, came close to the definition, but he lacked the special character that makes the fascist. The only leader in the history of Israel who can accurately be defined as a fascist was Meir Kahane. He did not grow up in this country but was an import from the US. He was and remained alien in appearance and style, and failed to impress the general public. Now Israeli democracy is threatened by a much more dangerous individual. AVIGDOR LIBERMAN is a clever person. It is not easy to nail down his views. They are always formulated in a slick and elusive way. But the rule applies to him: When you see him, you will know. When he came to Israel from the Soviet Union, he already brought with him a racist outlook. He wants a purely Jewish state, with no Arabs. For this, he is prepared, so he says, even to give up Israeli territory in which a dense Arab population is living. He proposes to get these citizens out of Israel, together with the land they are living on. Not a second Naqba, God forbid: the Arabs will not be driven from their lands, as then, but will be expelled together with their land. In return, Israel will annex the territories on which the settlers, one of whom is Liberman himself, are living. What's wrong with that? The basic idea is wrong: the turning of Israel into a state "cleansed" of Arabs. In German that would be called "Araber-rein". (Actually, it's an inversion of the Nazi phrase: not Juden-rein, but Rein- f�r-Juden. That is clearly a racist slogan, which appeals to the most primitive instincts of the masses. The chances of this actually happening are, of course, nil. But the very voicing of this idea prepares the way for something even worse: the simple expulsion of the masses of Arabs from Israel proper and the occupied territories. Without euphemisms, without exchanges of territory, without any kind of spin. Once the fascist genie gets out of the bottle, no power can stop it before it leads to disaster. The annexation of the settlements will, of course, put an end to any chance of peace. But the menace of Liberman lies not only in his acknowledged or unacknowledged views. It is imprinted in his character. Witness: he is the sole leader of his party, which is almost entirely composed of new immigrants from the former Soviet Union. Like previous waves of immigration, this is a group of people who did not grow up in a democratic society, and tend to have an oversimplified view of the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. Many of them live in Israel as if on an island, read only the local Russian- language press (almost entirely far to the right), and are isolated from the liberal and democratic tendencies in the country. They have pushed out Nathan Sharansky, who looks too weak, and vote for a tough, authoritarian leader whose main election slogan, even in Hebrew- language broadcasts, was "Da, Liberman!" (Yes, Liberman!) What does that remind one of? Liberman does not hide his intention of totally changing the structure of the Israeli political system and establishing an authoritarian regime, headed by a strong leader (himself). As a first step, he has submitted a bill for the establishment of a "presidential" regime, in which the president would have almost dictatorial powers. He would not be dependent on the Parliament, which would become unimportant, and would control all the instruments of power himself. The immediate model is Vladimir Putin, the gravedigger of Russian democracy, but it seems that Liberman is far more extreme. WHY DOES Ehud Olmert court this man? Why does he insist on including him in his government and agreeing to vote for his proposals? Why is Libermania fast becoming the hottest topic in Israeli politics? Simply: Olmert, completely bankrupt, is clutching at straws. Only seven months after becoming Prime Minister by a stroke of luck - Ariel Sharon's stroke - he is left with nothing, and right with nothing, too, it seems:. The public already understands that the Lebanon War, in all its facets, was a total fiasco. His refusal to appoint a Judicial Commission of Inquiry has deepened the feeling of defeat. The central slogan of his election campaign - "Convergence" - has become a bad joke. From the famous "Social Agenda" nothing has remained. Olmert & Co. have been left without any plan, any mission, except one: to hold on to power at any price. One of the hallmarks of a person like Liberman is a talent for sensing and exploiting the weaknesses of others. He is making Olmert a seductive offer: he would join the government and bring with him his 11 votes in Parliament - without anything in return. Literally for nothing. In the past he has demanded the post of Minister of Defense, or at least Minister of Police (officially "Minister of Interior Defense"). Now he talks about a nebulous title: "Minister in Charge of Long-Range Strategy" (translation: the bombing of Iran). But he does not insist even on that. He is prepared to be a minister without portfolio, not even demanding that two or three of his colleagues also become ministers, as the size of his party would justify. An offer that cannot be refused. Liberman knows that the title is unimportant. What is important is to get his foot in the door and gain legitimacy as a minister. The rest will come in due course. For the despairing Olmert, out to hold on to power, this looks like a gift from heaven. He has opponents in the government, especially in the Labor Party. His parliamentary majority is not safe. And here comes Liberman and provides him with complete security in office. People have sold their souls to the devil for less. The official justification is: "One cannot reject any Zionist party" (a wording that automatically counts out all Israeli Arab parties). Adapting the famous words of Dr Samuel Johnson, it could be said: "Zionism is the last refuge of a scoundrel." Olmert wants to gain some more years - or months, or weeks - in power. Power for its own sake. Power for no cause or purpose, for no idea, for no action. In return, he is ready to open the door to the forces of darkness. What does he care? After him the deluge. I HAVE said more than once that I believe in Israeli democracy. The immigrants from the Soviet Union are not the only ones who grew up in a dictatorial system - almost all Israelis, or their parents, grew up under tyrannical regimes. But Israeli democracy, the miracle that has no logical explanation, is holding up even in these difficult circumstances. However, we cannot ignore the dangers that threaten our democracy now. Years of a brutal occupation have corrupted the state and the army, racism is flourishing in our daily life - not only against the inhabitants of the occupied territories, not only against the Arab citizens of Israel proper, not only against foreign workers. There exist in our society deep schisms that can be exploited by fascism in its search for power. When Rome was in danger from the approaching Carthaginian army, the cry went up: "Hannibal ante portas!" We should now raise the cry: "Liberman at the gate!" Ehud Olmert will be a passing episode in the annals of Israel. In a few years, nobody will remember him. Unless he acquires the status of the Israeli von Papen. Edited by Daniel Dworsky |
|
Daniel Dworsky
Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Stormy Demonstartion in Bil'in It was the stormiest demonstration in Bil'in for some time. Clouds of tear gas, salvoes of stun grenades were showered on the 300 demonstrators - Palestinians, Israelis and internationals - who marched again to protest against the wall in this village, as they have done every Friday for than 20 months. The army was ready. From early morning, all the roads to the village were blocked. Yet all the demonstrators succeeded in reaching the village, some on foot, some over paths known to the experienced Palestinians. At the appointed time, the procession started on its way. The creative abilities of the organizers, people of the village and "Anarchists against Fences", who invent every week a new symbol for the demonstration, did not disappoint this time either. At the head of the procession, ladders were carried, with flags affixed with nails to both sides, like flowers on moving flower-beds. Marching in front were Palestinian leaders and Israeli public figures, including Knesset Members Dov Chinin (Hadash), Gamal Zakhalkeh (Balad) and former Knesset Member Uri Avnery (Gush Shalom). It was obvious that the army had decided in advance on harsh treatment. When the protesters were just approaching the fence, they were stopped by rows of Border Police behind barbed wire. When the demonstrators broke through and put the ladders to the wall, the first salvo of stun grenades and tear gas was shot at them. Within minutes, the whole area was covered by the stinging and choking gas. For an hour, the confrontation went on, with the demonstrators shouting at the soldiers - "Soldiers go home!" "No, no to the fence!" - and the soldiers shooting grenades from time to time. The protesters retreated, choking and coughing, but returned at once. Dozens of them knocked with stones on an iron fence, a noise that could be heard for miles along the wadis. Others entered into arguments with the soldiers. Several times, stones were thrown from the crowds towards the fence. There is a strong suspicion that this was done by undercover agents, disguised as Arabs, in order to provide the army with a pretext to shoot at the demonstrators. (This has happened several times before and has been documented on camera.) After about an hour, the soldiers started to shoot concentrated salvoes of stun and gas grenades in all directions. The organizers of the demonstration requested the protesters to retreat towards the village - and then the soldiers started to shoot tear gas wildly. The grenades exploded in front of the protesters, behind them, on both sides and in the middle of the retreating crowd, so that there was no escape. Several demonstrators were wounded. One was hit by a stun grenade on his face and suffered deep cuts, another was hit by a gas canister on his leg, a third was dragged by the soldiers on the rocks. The army stated that two of its men were also wounded. No one of the demonstrators had seen that. The joke went around that the army has two soldiers, whose regular job it is to pretend to be wounded, and who go from one demonstration to the next. |
|
superme
Senior Member Joined: 03 April 2006 Location: Cocos (Keeling) Islands Status: Offline Points: 463 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Many thanks to Uri and to you as well Daniel for letting us know. I have come to know few things that are not available in the common media. |
|
Daniel Dworsky
Senior Member Joined: 17 March 2005 Location: Israel Status: Offline Points: 777 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
|
Uri Avnery
11.11.06 In One Word: MASSACRE! "THANK GOD for the American elections," our ministers and generals sighed with relief. They were not rejoicing at the kick that the American people delivered to George W. Bush's ass this week. They love Bush, after all. But more important than the humbling of Bush is the fact that the news from America pushed aside the terrible reports from Beit Hanoun. Instead of making the headlines, they were relegated to the bottom of the page. THE FIRST revolutionary act is to call things by their true names, Rosa Luxemburg said. So how to call what happened in Beit Hanoun? "Accident" said a pretty anchorwoman on one of the TV news programs. "Tragedy", said her lovely colleague on another channel. A third one, no less attractive, wavered between "event", "mistake" and "incident". It was indeed an accident, a tragedy, an event and an incident. But most of all it was a massacre. M-a-s-s-a-c-r-e. The word "accident" suggests something for which no one is to blame - like being struck by lightning. A tragedy is a sad event or situation, like that of the New Orleans inhabitants after the disaster. The event in Beit Hanoun was sad indeed, but not an act of God - it was an act decided upon and carried out by human beings. IMMEDIATELY AFTER the facts became known, the entire choir of professional apologists, explainers-away, sorrow-expressers and pretext-inventors, a choir that is in perpetual readiness for such cases, sprang into feverish action. "An unfortunate mistake� It can happen in the best families� The mechanism of a cannon can misfunction, people can make mistakes� Errare humanum est� We have launched tens of thousands of artillery shells, and there have only been three such accidents. (No. 1 in the Olmert-Peretz-Halutz era was in Qana, in the Second Lebanon War. No. 2 was on the Gaza sea shore, where a whole family was wiped out.) But we apologized, didn't we? What more can they demand from us?" There were also arguments like "They can only blame themselves." As usual, it was the fault of the victims. The most creative solution came from the Deputy Minister of Defense, Ephraim Sneh: "The practical responsibility is ours, but the moral responsibility is theirs." If they launch Qassam rockets at us, what else can we do but answer with shells? Ephraim Sneh was raised to the position of Deputy Minister just now. The appointment was a payment for agreeing to the inclusion of Avigdor Liberman in the government (in biblical Hebrew, the payment would have been called "the hire of a whore", Deut. 23,19). Now, after only a few days in office, Sneh was given the opportunity to express his thanks. (In the Sneh family, there is a tradition of justifying despicable acts. Ephraim's brilliant father, Moshe Sneh, was the leader of the Israeli Communist Party, and defended all the massacres committed by Stalin, not only the gulag system, but also the murder of the Jewish Communists in the Soviet Union and its satellites and the Jewish "doctors plot"). Any suggestion of equivalence between Qassams and artillery shells, an idea which has been adopted even by some of the Peaceniks, is completely false. And not only because there is no symmetry between occupier and occupied. Hundreds of Qassams launched during more than a year have killed one single Israeli. The shells, missiles and bombs have already killed many hundreds of Palestinians. DID THE shells hit the homes of people intentionally? There are only two possible answers to that. The extreme version says: Yes. The sequence of events points in that direction. The Israeli army, one of the most modern in the world, has no answer to the Qassam, one of the most primitive of weapons. This short- range unguided rocket (named after Izz-ad-Din al-Qassam, the first Palestinian fighter, who was killed in 1935 in a battle against the British authorities of Palestine) is little more than a pipe filled with home-made explosives. In a futile attempt to prevent the launching of Qassams, the Israeli forces invade the towns and villages of the Gaza Strip at regular intervals and institute a reign of terror. A week ago, they invaded Beit-Hanoun and killed more than 50 people, many of them women and children. The moment they left, the Palestinians started to launch as many Qassams as possible against Ashkelon, in order to prove that these incursions do not deter them. That increased the frustration of the generals even more. Ashkelon is not a remote poverty-stricken little town like Sderot, most of whose inhabitants are of Moroccan origin. In Ashkelon there lives also an elitist population of European descent. The army chiefs, having lost their honor in Lebanon, were eager - according to this version - to teach the Palestinians a lesson, once and for all. According to the Israeli saying: If force doesn't work, use more force. The other version holds that it was a real mistake, an unfortunate technical hitch. But the commander of an army knows very well that a certain incidence of "hitches" is unavoidable. So-and-so many percent are killed in training, so-and-so many percent die from "friendly fire", so- and-so many percent of shells fall some distance from the target. The ammunition used by the gunners against Beit-Hanoun - the very same 155mm ammunition that was used in Kana - is known for its inaccuracy. Several factors can cause the shells to stray from their course by hundreds of meters. He who decided to use this ammunition against a target right next to civilians knowingly exposed them to mortal danger. Therefore, there is no essential difference between the two versions. Who is to blame? First of all, the spirit that has gained ground in the army. Recently, Gideon Levy disclosed that a battalion commander praised his soldiers for killing 12 Palestinians with the words: "We have won by 12:0!" Guilty are, of course, the gunners and their commanders, including the battery chief. And the General in charge of the Southern Command, Yoav Gallant (sic), who radiates indifference spiked with sanctimonious platitudes. And the Deputy Chief-of-Staff. And the Chief-of-Staff, Dan Halutz, the Air-Force general who said after another such incident that he sleeps well at night after dropping a one-ton super-bomb on a residential area. And, of course, the Minister of Defense, Amir Peretz, who approved the use of artillery after forbidding it in the past - which means that he was aware of the foreseeable consequences. The guiltiest one is the Great Apologizer: Ehud Olmert, the Prime Minister. Olmert boasted recently that because of the clever behavior of his government "we were able to kill hundreds of terrorists, and the world has not reacted." According to Olmert, a "terrorist" is any armed Palestinian, including the tens of thousands of Palestinian policemen who carry arms by agreement with Israel. They may now be shot freely. "Terrorists" are also the women and children, who are killed in the street and in their homes. (Some say so openly: the children grow up to be terrorists, the women give birth to children who grow up to be terrorists.) Olmert can go on with this, as he says, because the world keeps silent. Today the US even vetoed a very mild Security Council resolution against the event. Does this mean that the governments throughout the world - America, Europe, the Arab world - are accessories to the crime at Beit Hanoun? That can best be answered by the citizens of those countries. THE WORLD did not pay much attention to the massacre, because it happened on US election day. The results of the election may sadden our leaders more than the blood and tears of mothers and children in the Gaza strip, but they were glad that the election diverted attention. A cynic might say: Democracy is wonderful, it enables the voter to kick out the moron they elected last time and replace them with a new moron. But let's not be too cynical. The fact is that the American people has accepted, after a delay of three years and tens of thousands of dead, what the advocates of peace around the word - including us here in Israel - were saying already on the first day: that the war will cause a disaster. That it will not solve any problem, but have the opposite effect. The change will not be quick and dramatic. The US is a huge ship. When it turns around, it makes a very big circle and needs a lot of time - unlike Israel, a small speed-boat that can turn almost on the spot. But the direction is clear. Of course, in both new houses of Congress, the pro-Israeli lobby (meaning: the supporters of the Israeli Right) has a huge influence, perhaps even more than in the last ones. But the American army will have to start leaving Iraq. The danger of another military adventure in Iran and/or Syria is much diminished. The crazy neo-conservatives, most of them Jews who support the extreme Right in Israel, are gradually losing power, together with their allies, the crazy Christian fundamentalists. As former Prime Minister Levy Eshkol once said: when America sneezes, Israel catches cold. When America starts to recover, perhaps there is hope for us, too. |
|
Post Reply | Page <1 34567 14> |
Tweet
|
Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |