Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: (MO) Welcome to 'Palestine'


How troublesome the Muslims of the Middle East are.
First, we demand that the Palestinians embrace democracy
and then they elect the wrong party - Hamas - and then
Hamas wins a mini-civil war and presides over the Gaza
Strip. And we Westerners still want to negotiate with
the discredited President, Mahmoud Abbas. Today
"Palestine" - and let's keep those quotation marks in
place - has two prime ministers. Welcome to the Middle
East.
Who can we negotiate with? To whom do we talk? Well of
course, we should have talked to Hamas months ago. But
we didn't like the democratically elected government of
the Palestinian people. They were supposed to have voted
for Fatah and its corrupt leadership. But they voted for
Hamas, which declines to recognise Israel or abide by
the totally discredited Oslo agreement.
No one asked - on our side - which particular Israel
Hamas was supposed to recognise. The Israel of 1948? The
Israel of the post-1967 borders? The Israel which builds
- and goes on building - vast settlements for Jews and
Jews only on Arab land, gobbling up even more of the 22
per cent of "Palestine" still left to negotiate over ?
And so today, we are supposed to talk to our faithful
policeman, Mr Abbas, the "moderate" (as the BBC, CNN and
Fox News refer to him) Palestinian leader, a man who
wrote a 600-page book about Oslo without once mentioning
the word "occupation", who always referred to Israeli
"redeployment" rather than "withdrawal", a "leader" we
can trust because he wears a tie and goes to the White
House and says all the right things. The Palestinians
didn't vote for Hamas because they wanted an Islamic
republic - which is how Hamas's bloody victory will be
represented - but because they were tired of the
corruption of Mr Abbas's Fatah and the rotten nature of
the "Palestinian Authority".
I recall years ago being summoned to the home of a PA
official whose walls had just been punctured by an
Israeli tank shell. All true. But what struck me were
the gold-plated taps in his bathroom. Those taps - or
variations of them - were what cost Fatah its election.
Palestinians wanted an end to corruption - the cancer of
the Arab world - and so they voted for Hamas and thus
we, the all-wise, all-good West, decided to sanction
them and starve them and bully them for exercising their
free vote. Maybe we should offer "Palestine" EU
membership if it would be gracious enough to vote for
the right people?
All over the Middle East, it is the same. We support
Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, even though he keeps
warlords and drug barons in his government (and, by the
way, we really are sorry about all those innocent Afghan
civilians we are killing in our "war on terror" in the
wastelands of Helmand province).
We love Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, whose torturers have not
yet finished with the Muslim Brotherhood politicians
recently arrested outside Cairo, whose presidency
received the warm support of Mrs - yes Mrs - George W
Bush - and whose succession will almost certainly pass
to his son, Gamal.
We adore Muammar Gaddafi, the crazed dictator of Libya
whose werewolves have murdered his opponents abroad,
whose plot to murder King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia
preceded Tony Blair's recent visit to Tripoli - Colonel
Gaddafi, it should be remembered, was called a
"statesman" by Jack Straw for abandoning his non-
existent nuclear ambitions - and whose "democracy" is
perfectly acceptable to us because he is on our side in
the "war on terror".
Yes, and we love King Abdullah's unconstitutional
monarchy in Jordan, and all the princes and emirs of the
Gulf, especially those who are paid such vast bribes by
our arms companies that even Scotland Yard has to close
down its investigations on the orders of our prime
minister - and yes, I can indeed see why he doesn't like
The Independent's coverage of what he quaintly calls
"the Middle East". If only the Arabs - and the Iranians
- would support our kings and shahs and princes whose
sons and daughters are educated at Oxford and Harvard,
how much easier the "Middle East" would be to control.
For that is what it is about - control - and that is why
we hold out, and withdraw, favours from their leaders.
Now Gaza belongs to Hamas, what will our own elected
leaders do? Will our pontificators in the EU, the UN,
Washington and Moscow now have to talk to these
wretched, ungrateful people (fear not, for they will not
be able to shake hands) or will they have to acknowledge
the West Bank version of Palestine (Abbas, the safe pair
of hands) while ignoring the elected, militarily
successful Hamas in Gaza?
It's easy, of course, to call down a curse on both their
houses. But that's what we say about the whole Middle
East. If only Bashar al-Assad wasn't President of Syria
(heaven knows what the alternative would be) or if the
cracked President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad wasn't in control
of Iran (even if he doesn't actually know one end of a
nuclear missile from the other).
If only Lebanon was a home-grown democracy like our own
little back-lawn countries - Belgium, for example, or
Luxembourg. But no, those pesky Middle Easterners vote
for the wrong people, support the wrong people, love the
wrong people, don't behave like us civilised Westerners.
So what will we do? Support the reoccupation of Gaza
perhaps? Certainly we will not criticise Israel. And we
shall go on giving our affection to the kings and
princes and unlovely presidents of the Middle East until
the whole place blows up in our faces and then we shall
say - as we are already saying of the Iraqis - that they
don't deserve our sacrifice and our love.
How do we deal with a coup d'état by an elected
government?
-- 
www.iaciners.org

 the discredited President, Mahmoud Abbas.
semplicemente noi vogliamo negoziare con chi, in Palestina, riconosce il
diritto di Israele a esistere
questo Frisk ha perso l'ennesima occasione di stare zitto
N.
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 il diritto di Israele a esistere 
Questo a prescindere dal fatto che sia rappresentativo?
Non è una provocazione, è una domanda seria.
E non partire in quarta mettendomi in bocca posizioni che non ho.

 Non è una provocazione, è una domanda seria.
Anche la mia risposta è seria: in realtà Nico dovrebbe essere contento
dello sviluppo della situazione a Gaza, dato che ora lì si può scatenare
l'inferno senza grossi rospi etici da ingoiare.
Faccio anche presente che le "Brigate dei Martiri di Al Aqsa" - cioè le
milizie di Al Fatah che a sentire Repubblica in questi giorni stanno
facendo la parte dei difensori del "diritto di Israele ad esistere", e con
le quali a sentire Nico "vorremmo trattare" - sono le stesse che si sono
rese responsabili di numerosi attentati suicidi contro civili israeliani
appena due anni fa.
Un esempio:
http://www.rainews24.rai.it/notizia.asp?newsid=17417
E, no, non è un tragico caso di omonimia, sono proprio gli stessi.
Perciò già che ci sei magari fatti anche rispiegare con chi Nico vorrebbe
esattamente trattare, e anche come mai s'è dimenticato che Al Fatah è una
formazione di terroristi.
Io mi limito a leggervi.
-- 
Aramesh

 come no, benissimo
Leggi, che magari diventi meno cretino:
-----------------------
Crocodile Tears
The Gaza Cage
By URI AVNERY
June 16 / 17, 2007
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery06162007.html
WHAT HAPPENS when one and a half million human beings
are imprisoned in a tiny, arid territory, cut off from
their compatriots and from any contact with the outside
world, starved by an economic blockade and unable to
feed their families?
Some months ago, I described this situation as a
sociological experiment set up by Israel, the United
States and the European Union. The population of the
Gaza Strip as guinea pigs.
This week, the experiment showed results. They proved
that human beings react exactly like other animals:
when too many of them are crowded into a small area in
miserable conditions, they become aggressive, and even
murderous. The organizers of the experiment in
Jerusalem, Washington, Berlin, Oslo, Ottawa and other
capitals could rub their hands in satisfaction. The
subjects of the experiment reacted as foreseen. Many of
them even died in the interests of science.
But the experiment is not yet over. The scientists want
to know what happens if the blockade is tightened still
further.
* * *
WHAT HAS caused the present explosion in the Gaza
Strip?
The timing of Hamas' decision to take over the Strip by
force was not accidental. Hamas had many good reasons
to avoid it. The organization is unable to feed the
population. It has no interest in provoking the
Egyptian regime, which is busy fighting the Muslim
Brotherhood, the mother--organization of Hamas. Also,
the organization has no interest in providing Israel
with a pretext for tightening the blockade.
But the Hamas leaders decided that they had no
alternative but to destroy the armed organizations that
are tied to Fatah and take their orders from President
Mahmoud Abbas. The US has ordered Israel to supply
these organizations with large quantities of weapons,
in order to enable them to fight Hamas. The Israeli
army chiefs did not like the idea, fearing that the
arms might end up in the hands of Hamas (as is actually
happening now). But our government obeyed American
orders, as usual.
The American aim is clear. President Bush has chosen a
local leader for every Muslim country, who will rule it
under American protection and follow American orders.
In Iraq, in Lebanon, in Afghanistan, and also in
Palestine.
Hamas believes that the man marked for this job in Gaza
is Mohammed Dahlan. For years it has looked as if he
was being groomed for this position. The American and
Israeli media have been singing his praises, describing
him as a strong, determined leader, "moderate" (i.e.
obedient to American orders) and "pragmatic" (i.e.
obedient to Israeli orders). And the more the Americans
and Israelis lauded Dahlan, the more they undermined
his standing among the Palestinians. Especially as
Dahlan was away in Cairo, as if waiting for his men to
receive the promised arms.
In the eyes of Hamas, the attack on the Fatah
strongholds in the Gaza Strip is a preventive war. The
organizations of Abbas and Dahlan melted like snow in
the Palestinian sun. Hamas has easily taken over the
whole Gaza Strip.
How could the American and Israeli generals
miscalculate so badly? They are able to think only in
strictly military terms: so--and--so many soldiers,
so--and--so many machine guns. But in interior
struggles in particular, quantitative calculations are
secondary. The morale of the fighters and public
sentiment are far more important. The members of the
Fatah organizations do not know what they are fighting
for. The Gaza population supports Hamas, because they
believe that it is fighting the Israeli occupier. Their
opponents look like collaborators of the occupation.
The American statements about their intention of arming
them with Israeli weapons have finally condemned them.
That is not a matter of Islamic fundamentalism. In this
respect all nations are the same: they hate
collaborators of a foreign occupier, whether they are
Norwegian (Quisling), French (Petain) or Palestinian.
* * *
IN WASHINGTON and Jerusalem, politicians are bemoaning
the "weakness of Mahmoud Abbas".
They see now that the only person who could prevent
anarchy in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank was Yasser
Arafat. He had a natural authority. The masses adored
him. Even his adversaries, like Hamas, respected him.
He created several security apparatuses that competed
with each other, in order to prevent any single
apparatus from carrying out a coup--d'etat. Arafat was
able to negotiate, sign a peace agreement and get his
people to accept it.
But Arafat was pilloried by Israel as a monster,
imprisoned in the Mukata'ah and, in the end, murdered.
The Palestinian public elected Mahmoud Abbas as his
successor, hoping that he would get from the Americans
and the Israelis what they had refused to give to
Arafat.
If the leaders in Washington and Jerusalem had indeed
been interested in peace, they would have hastened to
sign a peace agreement with Abbas, who had declared
that he was ready to accept the same far--reaching
compromise as Arafat. The Americans and the Israelis
heaped on him all conceivable praise and rebuffed him
on every concrete issue.
They did not allow Abbas even the slightest and most
miserable achievement. Ariel Sharon plucked his
feathers and then sneered at him as "a featherless
chicken". After the Palestinian public had patiently
waited in vain for Bush to move, it voted for Hamas, in
the desperate hope of achieving by violence what Abbas
has been unable to achieve by diplomacy.
The Israeli leaders, both military and political, were
overjoyed. They were interested in undermining Abbas,
because he enjoyed Bush's confidence and because his
stated position made it harder to justify their refusal
to enter substantive negotiations. They did everything
to demolish Fatah. To ensure this, they arrested Marwan
Barghouti, the only person capable of keeping Fatah
together.
The victory of Hamas suited their aims completely. With
Hamas one does not have to talk, to offer withdrawal
from the occupied territories and the dismantling of
settlements. Hamas is that contemporary monster, a
"terrorist" organization, and with terrorists there is
nothing to discuss.SO WHY were people in Jerusalem not
satisfied this week? And why did they decide "not to
interfere"?
True, the media and the politicians, who have helped
for years to incite the Palestinian organizations
against each other, showed their satisfaction and
boasted "we told you so". Look how the Arabs kill each
other. Ehud Barak was right, when he said years ago
that our country is "a villa in the jungle".
But behind the scenes, voices of embarrassment, even
anxiety, could be heard.
The turning of the Gaza Strip into Hamastan has created
a situation for which our leaders were not ready. What
to do now? To cut off Gaza altogether and let the
people there starve to death? To establish contacts
with Hamas? To occupy Gaza again, now that it has
become one big tank trap? To ask the UN to station
international troops there -- and if so, how many
countries would be crazy enough to risk their soldiers
in this hell?
Our government has worked for years to destroy Fatah,
in order to avoid the need to negotiate an agreement
that would inevitably lead to the withdrawal from the
occupied territories and the settlements there. Now,
when it seems that this aim has been achieved, they
have no idea what to do about the Hamas victory.
They comfort themselves with the thought that it cannot
happen in the West Bank. There, Fatah reigns. There
Hamas has no foothold. There our army has already
arrested most of Hamas' political leaders. There Abbas
is still in power.
Thus speak the generals, with the generals' logic. But
in the West Bank, too, Hamas did win a majority in the
last elections. There, too, it is only a matter of time
before the population loses its patience. They see the
expansion of the settlements, the Wall, the incursions
of our army, the targeted assassinations, the nightly
arrests. They will explode.
Successive Israeli governments have destroyed Fatah
systematically, cut off the feet of Abbas and prepared
the way for Hamas. They can't pretend to be surprised.
* * *
WHAT TO DO? To go on boycotting Abbas or to provide him
with arms, to enable him to fight for us against Hamas?
To go on depriving him of any political achievement or
to throw him some crumbs at long last? And anyway,
isn't it too late?
(And on the Syrian front: to go on paying lip service
to peace while sabotaging all the efforts of Bashar
Assad to start negotiations? To negotiate secretly,
despite American objections? Or continue doing nothing
at all?)
At present, there is no policy, and no government which
could determine a policy.
So who will save us? Ehud Barak?
Barak's victory in this week's Labor Party leadership
run--off has turned him almost automatically into the
next Minister of Defense. His strong personality and
his experience as Chief of Staff and Prime Minister
assure him of a dominant position in the restructured
government. Olmert will deal with the area in which he
is an unmatched master -- party machinations. But Barak
will have a decisive influence on policy.
In the government of the two Ehuds, Ehud Barak will
decide on matters of war and peace.
Until now, practically all his actions have had
negative results. He came very close to an agreement
with Assad the father and escaped at the last moment.
He withdrew the Israeli army from South Lebanon, but
without speaking with Hizbullah, which took over. He
compelled Arafat to come to Camp David, insulted him
there and declared that we have no partner for peace.
This dealt a death blow to the chances of peace, a blow
which still paralyzes the Israeli public. He has
boasted that his real intention was to "unmask" Arafat.
He was more of a failed Napoleon than an Israeli de
Gaulle.
Will the Ethiopian change his skin, the leopard his
spots? Hard to believe.
* * *
IN THE dramas of William Shakespeare, there is
frequently a comic interlude at tense moments. And not
only there.
Shimon Peres, the person who in 55 years of political
activity had never won an election, did the impossible
this week: he got elected President of Israel.
Many years ago, I entitled an article about him "Mr.
Sisyphus", because again and again he had almost
reached the threshold of success, and success had
evaded him. Now he might feel like thumbing his nose at
the gods after reaching the summit, but -- alas --
without the boulder. The office of the president is
devoid of content and jurisdiction. A hollow politician
in a hollow position.
Now everybody expects a flurry of activity at the
president's palace. There will certainly be peace
conferences, meetings of personalities, high--sounding
declarations and illustrious plans. In short -- much
ado about nothing.
The practical result is that Olmert's position has been
strengthened. He has succeeded in installing Peres in
the President's office and Barak in the Ministry of
Defense. In the short term, Olmert's position is
assured.
And in the meantime, the experiment in Gaza continues,
Hamas is taking over and the trio -- Ehud 1, Ehud 2 and
Shimon Peres are shedding crocodile tears.
----------
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and peace activist with
Gush Shalom. He is o a contributor to CounterPunch's
book The Politics of Anti-Semitism.
-- 
www.iaciners.org

 l'inferno senza grossi rospi etici da ingoiare.
Con quali esiti?

 Questo a prescindere dal fatto che sia rappresentativo?
non puoi negoziare la pace in una regione con un governo che non riconosce
l'esistenza di uno stato


 l'inferno senza grossi rospi etici da ingoiare.
:(
e' triste che tu pensi questo di me
a volte ti lasci trasportare dal gusto della polemica e parti per la
tangente


 l'esistenza di uno stato
E dove sta scritto, sul manuale del giovane negoziatore?
Si negozia con la controparte.

 ha
scritto:

e grazie al cazzo
ma supponiamo che io e te dobbiamo fare la pace
io pero' dico che Battocchi non esiste
si deve buttare a mare perche' non deve esistere
che cavolo ti negozi?




Sono, evidentemente, scuse.
Ne' agli israeliani, ne' ai suoi fanatici e fascistissimi amici interessa
la pace.

 che cavolo ti negozi?
Suvvia, Nico, sai bene che le cose sono ben più complesse di così.
Quello che contesto, al di là della questione contingente di Israele e
Palestina (che personalmente non mi interessa più del MEND in Nigeria o
delle Tigri Tamil in Sri Lanka, per citare due altri conflitti a caso),
è che una semplificazione di questo tipo ha caratteristiche patentemente
ideologiche.

 parti per la tangente
Hai ragione e chiedo scusa. Il rispetto te lo sei meritato, ed è colpevole e 
scortese da parte mia negartelo e sganciare "cluster bomb" a casaccio. 
Togliamo "nico" dalla mia frase e ragioniamo in generale:
La presa di Gaza e la divisione - politica oltre che geografica - dei Terr. 
Occup. tra Gaza e Cisgiordania, rende le cose molto più semplici e chiare. 
Ma il problema che sottolineavo è proprio questo accavallarsi di entità 
"buone" e entità "terroriste", sostituibili alla bisogna.
Ricordo come fosse ieri che, in Sudafrica, l'Inkatha Freedom Party e gli 
Zulu di Mangosuthu Buthelezi erano considerati "moderati", e l'ANC di 
Mandela "estremista". In fondo, quest'ultimo, non era forse vicino al 
marxismo? Che poi il fatto che questi simpatici moderati uccidessero i 
membri dell'estremista ANC mettendogli un coppertone intorno al collo e 
dando fuoco al coppertone, era, per così dire, un effetto collaterale che 
"non aveva voluto" nessuno di quelli che definivano l'IFP "moderato".
Il punto "teorico" è proprio questo (e me ne sto sul più generico 
possibile): per mantenere una posizione di privilegio è necessario usare 
qualche disperato contro altri disperati. Col tempo però i primi possono, 
diciamo così, sviluppare un'agenda politica propria. In quel caso talvolta 
sarà necessario cambiare alleanze, magari facendo finta - come nel miglior 
"Socing" - di essersi dimenticati che ieri le alleanze erano diverse.
Perciò se negli anni '80 si vedeva di buon occhio un hezbollah che quasi 
sterminava il terrorista OLP di Arafat in Libano, e magari sotto sotto lo si 
aiutava pure, ecco che oggi si vedono di buon occhio gli eredi dell'OLP 
contro il fanatismo islamista.
Allo stesso modo in cui nel 1975 magari ci sembrava logico ed efficiente 
usare l'Islam in chiave antimarxista, oggi appoggeremo di buon grado 
qualunque regime del terrore venisse scatenato da Abu Mazen (che come noi 
porta la cravatta) contro Hamas (che hanno spaventose barbe e orribili 
copricapi).
Così, come dicevo, non ingoieremmo nessun "rospo etico" ad appoggiare un 
virtuale colpo di stato di Abu Mazen contro il partito che ha vinto le 
elezioni. Si tratta di terroristi oggi, come si trattava di terroristi 
allora, e coi terroristi non si tratta. Anzi, più onestamente, quelli coi 
quali decidiamo di trattare smettiamo immediatamente di chiamarli 
terroristi.
Spero di essermi fatto perdonare.
-- 
Aramesh 

 Spero di essermi fatto perdonare.
solo perche' ho visto Persepolis ieri l'altro.
Non e' nemmeno cosi' semplice, il problema di fondo e' l'assenza di memoria
storica e il danno grave e' la capacita' di manipolare le coscienze che il
blocco mediatico riesce a fare.
Credi che il pisanelli sia cosi' cretino di suo o che non sia il risultato
di un bombardamento a senso unico?
Lo stesso che oggi mostra al fatah mentre brucia la bandiera israeliana e
qualche settimana dopo mentre stringe una mano sorridendo?

 dando fuoco al coppertone,
Tira aria balneare.
-- 
When they kick out your front door
How you gonna come?
With your hands on your head
Or on the trigger of your gun?

 Tira aria balneare.
Lo sapete tutti chi era la bambina delle foto col cagnolino che le tira il
costumino?
-- 
www.iaciners.org

 costumino?
Ora sì.

 Tira aria balneare.
Qui sempre. Caldo bestia oggi fra l'altro.
-- 
Aramesh
Wish I was in Tijuana
Eating barbecued iguana

 Spero di essermi fatto perdonare.
il gruppetto degli inquisitori di sion che girano usenet a caccia di
antisemiti aveva già bussato alla tua porta, confessa! :)
-- 
Holden,
il niubbo

 tua porta, confessa! :)
Sì ma ero appena uscito dalla doccia, così ho potuto far notare la mia 
circoncisione e sono fuggiti.
-- 
Aramesh 



A te per esempio non ho sentito esprimere condanna verso il modo di guidare
la vespa di Priebke.




Spesso si perde buone occasioni per stare zitti.

 Spesso si perde buone occasioni per stare zitti.
ecco il "guardiano della rivoluzione"....
Vai a vedere "persepolis", al posto delle barbe i basettoni...

 
Due buone occasioni.



il vostro problema e' che siete contro a un totalitarismo solo perche' ne
volete imporre un altro.
-- 
www.iaciners.org

 la vespa di Priebke.
io speravo si schiantasse contro un muro, pensa te
-- 
Holden,
il niubbo


invece di sparaer battute esilaranti, potresti fare un esperimento
vivere un mese in Israele (presunto regime totalitario) e uno in un paese
totalitario islamico, e poi mi dici la differenza


 volete imporre un altro.
Altre minchiate. Siamo al tre per due.
Avanti cosi'.

James P. Sullivan wrote:

anche perche' lui stava dietro
guidava l'avvocato
http://www.repubblica.it/2006/05/gallerie/cronaca/priebke-motorino/ansa106283061806100908_big.jpg
N.

il cuggino di nico wrote:

Volendo dire meriterebbero una condanna anche solo per i caschi non
omologati che usano, e quello dell'avvocato e' pure slacciato. 
P.