Newsgroup: it.arti.cinema
Titolo: [OT] Il ritiro dei coloni, per Leo e altri.

Per Leo, avevo lasciato la risposta in attesa, ho recuperato il testo che
avevo letto.
Il punto non e' che Sharon propone di smantellare le colonie, e' diversa e
piu' complessa, precede di spostarle, farne altre, ecc.
Ma come al solito, l'informazione e' di parte e limitata.
E' come per il "muro", che uno si immagina che il muro sia una difesa per
israele. In realta' il muro attraversa le citta' palestinesi dividendole in
due e lo scopo non e' difensivo, ma serve a distruggere l'economia e la
societa' palestinese.
Comunque l'articolo e' qui sotto. Per chi non conosce l'ebraico, la parola
chutzpah significa "faccia tosta".
--------------------------------------
By Stephen Zunes | June 25, 2004
 
Editor: John Gershman, Interhemispheric Resource Center
(IRC)
 
Foreign Policy In Focus 
www.fpif.org
 
On Wednesday, June 23, 2004, the U.S. House of
Representatives, in an overwhelming bipartisan vote,
endorsed right-wing Israeli prime minister Ariel
Sharon’s efforts to colonize and annex large sections
of the Palestinian West Bank, seized by Israel in the
June 1967 war.
 
This was not just another "pro-Israel" (or, more
accurately, "pro-Israeli right") resolution, but an
effective renunciation of the post-World War II
international system based upon the premise of the
illegitimacy of the expansion of a country’s territory
by military force.
 
House Concurrent Resolution 460, sponsored by right-
wing Republican leader Tom DeLay, "strongly endorses"
the letter sent by President George W. Bush to the
Israeli prime minister in April supporting his so-
called "disengagement" plan. This unilateral initiative
calls for withdrawing the illegal Israeli settlements
from the occupied Gaza Strip, but--far more
significantly--would incorporate virtually all of the
illegal settlements in the occupied West Bank into
Israel, leaving the Palestinians with a series of non-
contiguous and economically unviable cantons, each
surrounded by Israeli territory, collectively
constituting barely 10% of historic Palestine. (Even in
the case of the Gaza Strip, Sharon’s plan would allow
Israel to control the borders, the ports, and the
airspace, as well as having the right to conduct
military operations inside Palestinian areas at will.)
 
The vote was 407 in favor of the resolution and only 9
opposed.
 
The Bush letter so overwhelming supported by the House
declares that "the United States will do its utmost to
prevent any attempt by anyone to impose any other
plan.’’ Indeed, the resolution appears to be part of an
effort to short-circuit last fall’s Geneva Initiative,
a comprehensive peace plan supported by the Palestinian
leadership and leading Israeli moderates. In that
proposal, the Palestinians agreed that Israel could
annex some blocs of settlements, but only along
Israel’s internationally recognized borders and only in
exchange for an equivalent amount of territory
currently part of Israel that would be granted to the
new Palestinian state. According to public opinion
polls, the majority of Americans--including a majority
of American Jews--support this approach over the Bush-
backed Sharon so overwhelming endorsed by Congress.
 
The resolution does not even make mention of the once
highly-touted "road map" for Israeli-Palestinian peace
that the United States drew up with representatives of
Russia, the European Union, and the United Nations. The
"road map" demanded that any growth in the settlements
be frozen and that the remaining outstanding issues,
such as borders and the status of Palestinian refugees
be left for negotiations between the two parties.
 
Congressman Pete Stark of California, one of the nine
dissenters, observed how the resolution did not call on
both Israelis and Palestinians to work together to find
a peaceful solution to this conflict, correctly
observing that "all parties in the process must work
together," something the resolution notably omitted.
Minority leader Nancy Pelosi and Deputy minority leader
Steny Hoyer (who was a cosponsor of the DeLay
resolution) refused to place a resolution cosponsored
by Stark (H.R. 479), which applauds Israelis and
Palestinians who are working together to conceive
pragmatic, serious plans for achieving peace and
encourages both Israeli and Palestinian leaders to
capitalize on the opportunity offered by these peace
initiatives.
 
According to Israeli press reports, Sharon brought four
separate disengagement plans to Washington requiring
various degrees of Israeli withdrawal, but President
Bush ended up endorsing the one which allowed Israel to
annex the largest amount of Palestinian territory. Now,
much to the chagrin of progressive and moderate
Israelis, Congress has also chosen to throw its weight
behind the most right-wing of the four proposals.
 
Most observers--including leading Israeli military and
intelligence officials--recognize that by leaving the
Palestinians with little hope of achieving a viable
state through negotiations, this will only swell the
ranks of extremist Palestinian groups and produce more
terrorism. Congress has rejected this analysis,
however, insisting that Sharon’s land grab will somehow
"enhance the security of Israel and advance the cause
of peace in the Middle East."
 
The resolution calls for the Palestinian "state" that
could eventually emerge to be "based on rule of law and
respect for human rights," but does not call on Israel
to respect the rule of law and human rights, which its
occupation forces and colonists--according to reputable
human rights organization in Israel and elsewhere--are
violating on a daily basis.
 
The resolution also repeatedly cites Palestinian
terrorism as the obstacle to peace and security, not
the Israeli occupation and repression that has spawned
it. Furthermore, the resolution calls for the United
States to further strengthen Israel’s military prowess
and defends Israel’s right to launch attacks against
Palestinian groups that "threaten Israeli citizens,"
which presumably includes settlers and their militias
which have been responsible for the deaths of hundreds
of Palestinian civilians, including large numbers of
children.
 
In supporting this resolution, Congress has effectively
renounced UN Security Council resolutions 242 and 338,
which call on Israel--in return for security guarantees
from its Arab neighbors--to withdraw from territories
seized in the June 1967 war. All previous U.S.
administrations of both parties had seen these
resolutions as the basis for Arab-Israeli peace.
 
These Israeli settlements violate the Fourth Geneva
Convention, which deem it illegal for any country to
transfer any part of its civilian population onto
territories seized by military force. UN Security
Council resolutions 446, 452, 465 and 471 explicitly
call on Israel to remove its colonists from the
occupied territories. The vast majority of these
settlements that the Bush-Sharon plan seeks to formally
annex into Israel were built after these resolutions
were passed.
 
In an incredible act of chutzpah, however, the
resolution claims that Israel should not be expected to
withdraw from these settlements "in light of new
realities on the ground," namely the settlements built
in violation of these UN Security Council resolutions.
 
Congress, however, apparently agrees with President
Bush that Sharon’s Israel, unlike Saddam’s Iraq, need
not abide by UN Security Council resolutions.
 
In that clause, the resolution refers to the illegal
settlements euphemistically as "Israeli population
centers." More significantly, the resolution refers to
these settlements as being "in Israel," effectively
already recognizing their annexation.
 
The resolution also insists that supporting the right
of Palestinian refugees to return to their homes in
Israel--or even in the occupied territories to be
annexed by Israel under the Bush-Sharon plan--would not
be "just" or "fair."
 
The Bush letter endorsed by Congress effectively
destroys the once highly-touted "road map" and marks
the first time in the history of the peace process that
a U.S. president has pre-empted negotiations by
announcing support of such a unilateral initiative by
one party. Both Israel and the United States continue
to refuse to even negotiate with Palestine Authority
President Yasir Arafat, Palestinian Prime Minister
Amhed Qureia, or any other recognized Palestinian
leader, on substantive issues dealing with a peace
settlement.
 
Supporting the resolution were the fundamentalist
Christian Coalition, the American-Israel Public Affairs
Committee, and other right-wing groups. Leading the
opposition to the resolution were Churches for Middle
East Peace, the Tikkun Community, and similar
progressive organizations. That the entire House
Democratic leadership and all but a handful of
Democrats overall supported the resolution is
demonstrative of just how far to the right the
Democratic Party has gone. In short, the Democrats,
like the Republicans, now support the neo-conservative
doctrine that places the right of conquest over the
rule of law.
 
More fundamentally, Congress’ effective endorsement of
an Israeli annexation of land it conquered in the 1967
war is a direct challenge to the United Nations
Charter, which forbids any country from expanding its
territory through military conquest. The vote,
therefore, constitutes nothing less than an
overwhelming bipartisan renunciation of the post-World
War II international system, effectively recognizing
the right of conquest.
 
Stephen Zunes, Middle East editor for Foreign Policy in
Focus, is a professor of Politics and chair of the
Peace & Justice Studies Program at the University of
San Francisco. He is the principal editor of Nonviolent
Social Movements: A Geographical Perspective (Blackwell
Publishers, 1999).

AP wrote:
dopo l'attacco dei coloni,
il ritiro dei coloni
:-)
-- 
  ___________________         100% COMMERCIALE
|,-----.,-----.,---.\        
http://scirio.altervista.org
||     ||     ||    \\       Crea Cruciverba:
|`-----'|-----||-----\`----. 
http://scirio.altervista.org/cruciverber/
[ SCIRIO|    -||-   _|    (| Crea test:
[  ,--. |_____||___/.--.   | 
http://scirio.altervista.org/test/
=-(( `))-----------(( `))-== 1 barza al giorno?
    `--'             `--'     
http://scirio.altervista.org/iscriviti.php