Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Boicottaggio economico di Israele in Norvegia

http://stopthewall.org/worldwideactivism/1061.shtml
The regional council of the S?r-Tr?ndelag in Norway has passed a
motion calling for a comprehensive boycott on Israeli goods to be
followed up with an awareness raising campaign across the region.
S?r-Tr?ndelag has a population of 270,000 out of Norway?s 4.6
million. Trondheim, Norway`s third largest city, forms part of the
region and will participate in the boycott initiative.
S?r-Tr?ndelag was the first [Norwegian] county to boycott South
Africa. Upholding this good tradition, the County council, as the first
in the country, has decided to boycott Israeli goods, by not buying
Israeli goods and through awareness raising efforts.
---------------------------------
Lo storico Norman Finkelstein, Americano di origini Ebraiche (i suoi
genitori sono sopravvissuti all'Olocausto) ha recentemente scritto
un'editoriale per il quotidiano Norvegese Aftenposten a favore del
boicottaggio.
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/article.php?pg=11&ar=130
Why an Economic Boycott of Israel is Justified
by Norman G. Finkelstein
Aftenposten | 01.14.2006
The recent proposal that Norway boycott Israeli goods has provoked
passionate debate. In my view, a rational examination of this issue
would pose two questions: 1) Do Israeli human rights violations warrant
an economic boycott? and 2) Can such a boycott make a meaningful
contribution toward ending these violations? I would argue that both
these questions should be answered in the affirmative.
Although the subject of many reports by human rights organizations,
Israel's real human rights record in the Occupied Palestinian Territory
is generally not well known abroad. This is primarily due to the
formidable public relations industry of Israel's defenders as well as
the effectiveness of their tactics of intimidation, such as labeling
critics of Israeli policy anti-Semitic.
Yet, it is an incontestable fact that Israel has committed a broad
range of human rights violations, many rising to the level of war
crimes and crimes against humanity. These include:
Illegal Killings. Whereas Palestinian suicide attacks targeting Israeli
civilians have garnered much media attention, Israel's quantitatively
worse record of killing non-combatants is less well known. According to
the most recent figures of the Israeli Information Center for Human
Rights in the Occupied Territories (B'Tselem), 3,386 Palestinians have
been killed since September 2000, of whom 1,008 were identified as
combatants, as opposed to 992 Israelis killed, of whom 309 were
combatants. This means that three times more Palestinians than Israelis
have been killed and up to three times more Palestinian civilians than
Israeli civilians. Israel's defenders maintain that there's a
difference between targeting civilians and inadvertently killing them.
B'Tselem disputes this: "[W]hen so many civilians have been killed and
wounded, the lack of intent makes no difference. Israel remains
responsible." Furthermore, Amnesty International reports that "many"
Palestinians have not been accidentally killed but "deliberately
targeted," while the award-winning New York Times journalist Chris
Hedges reports that Israeli soldiers "entice children like mice into a
trap and murder them for sport."
Torture. "From 1967," Amnesty reports, "the Israeli security services
have routinely tortured Palestinian political suspects in the Occupied
Territories." B'Tselem found that eighty-five percent of Palestinians
interrogated by Israeli security services were subjected to "methods
constituting torture," while already a decade ago Human Rights Watch
estimated that "the number of Palestinians tortured or severely
ill-treated" was "in the tens of thousands - a number that becomes
especially significant when it is remembered that the universe of adult
and adolescent male Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza is under
three-quarters of one million." In 1987 Israel became "the only country
in the world to have effectively legalized torture" (Amnesty). Although
the Israeli Supreme Court seemed to ban torture in a 1999 decision, the
Public Committee Against Torture in Israel reported in 2003 that
Israeli security forces continued to apply torture in a "methodical and
routine" fashion. A 2001 B'Tselem study documented that Israeli
security forces often applied "severe torture" to "Palestinian minors."
House demolitions. "Israel has implemented a policy of mass demolition
of Palestinian houses in the Occupied Territories," B'Tselem reports,
and since September 2000 "has destroyed some 4,170 Palestinian homes."
Until just recently Israel routinely resorted to house demolitions as a
form of collective punishment. According to Middle East Watch, apart
from Israel, the only other country in the world that used such a
draconian punishment was Iraq under Saddam Hussein. In addition, Israel
has demolished thousands of "illegal" homes that Palestinians built
because of Israel's refusal to provide building permits. The motive
behind destroying these homes, according to Amnesty, has been to
maximize the area available for Jewish settlers: "Palestinians are
targeted for no other reason than they are Palestinians." Finally,
Israel has destroyed hundred of homes on security pretexts, yet a Human
Rights Watch report on Gaza found that "the pattern of
destruction?strongly suggests that Israeli forces demolished homes
wholesale, regardless of whether they posed a specific threat." Amnesty
likewise found that "Israel's extensive destruction of homes and
properties throughout the West Bank and Gaza?is not justified by
military necessity," and that "Some of these acts of destruction amount
to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention and are war crimes."
Apart from the sheer magnitude of its human rights violations, the
uniqueness of Israeli policies merits notice. "Israel has created in
the Occupied Territories a regime of separation based on
discrimination, applying two separate systems of law in the same area
and basing the rights of individuals on their nationality," B'Tselem
has concluded. "This regime is the only one of its kind in the world,
and is reminiscent of distasteful regimes from the past, such as the
apartheid regime in South Africa." If singling out South Africa for an
international economic boycott was defensible, it would seem equally
defensible to single out Israel's occupation, which uniquely resembles
the apartheid regime.
Although an economic boycott can be justified on moral grounds, the
question remains whether diplomacy might be more effectively employed
instead. The documentary record in this regard, however, is not
encouraging. The basic terms for resolving the Israel-Palestine
conflict are embodied in U.N. resolution 242 and subsequent U.N.
resolutions, which call for a full Israeli withdrawal from the West
Bank and Gaza and the establishment of a Palestinian state in these
areas in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to live in peace
and security with its neighbors. Each year the overwhelming majority of
member States of the United Nations vote in favor of this two-state
settlement, and each year Israel and the United States (and a few South
Pacific islands) oppose it. Similarly, in March 2002 all twenty-two
member States of the Arab League proposed this two-state settlement as
well as "normal relations with Israel." Israel ignored the proposal.
Not only has Israel stubbornly rejected this two-state settlement, but
the policies it is currently pursuing will abort any possibility of a
viable Palestinian state. While world attention has been riveted by
Israel's redeployment from Gaza, Sara Roy of Harvard University
observes that the "Gaza Disengagement Plan is, at heart, an instrument
for Israel's continued annexation of West Bank land and the physical
integration of that land into Israel." In particular Israel has been
constructing a wall deep inside the West Bank that will annex the most
productive land and water resources as well as East Jerusalem, the
center of Palestinian life. It will also effectively sever the West
Bank in two. Although Israel initially claimed that it was building the
wall to fight terrorism, the consensus among human rights organizations
is that it is really a land grab to annex illegal Jewish settlements
into Israel. Recently Israel's Justice Minister frankly acknowledged
that the wall will serve as "the future border of the state of Israel."
The current policies of the Israeli government will lead either to
endless bloodshed or the dismemberment of Palestine. "It remains
virtually impossible to conceive of a Palestinian state without its
capital in Jerusalem," the respected Crisis Group recently concluded,
and accordingly Israeli policies in the West Bank "are at war with any
viable two-state solution and will not bolster Israel's security; in
fact, they will undermine it, weakening Palestinian pragmatists?and
sowing the seeds of growing radicalization."
Recalling the U.N. Charter principle that it is inadmissible to acquire
territory by war, the International Court of Justice declared in a
landmark 2004 opinion that Israel's settlements in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory and the wall being built to annex them to Israel
were illegal under international law. It called on Israel to cease
construction of the wall, dismantle those parts already completed and
compensate Palestinians for damages. Crucially, it also stressed the
legal responsibilities of the international community:
all States are under an obligation not to recognize the illegal
situation resulting from the construction of the wall in the Occupied
Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem. They are
also under an obligation not to render aid or assistance in maintaining
the situation created by such construction. It is also for all States,
while respecting the United Nations Charter and international law, to
see to it that any impediment, resulting from the construction of the
wall, to the exercise by the Palestinian people of its right to
self-determination is brought to an end.
A subsequent U.N. General Assembly resolution supporting the World
Court opinion passed overwhelmingly. However, the Israeli government
ignored the Court's opinion, continuing construction at a rapid pace,
while Israel's Supreme Court ruled that the wall was legal.
Due to the obstructionist tactics of the United States, the United
Nations has not been able to effectively confront Israel's illegal
practices. Indeed, although it is true that the U.N. keeps Israel to a
double standard, it's exactly the reverse of the one Israel's defenders
allege: Israel is held not to a higher but lower standard than other
member States. A study by Marc Weller of Cambridge University comparing
Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territory with comparable
situations in Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo, East Timor, occupied
Kuwait and Iraq, and Rwanda found that Israel has enjoyed "virtual
immunity" from enforcement measures such as an arms embargo and
economic sanctions typically adopted by the U.N. against member States
condemned for identical violations of international law. Due in part to
an aggressive campaign accusing Europe of a "new anti-Semitism," the
European Union has also failed in its legal obligation to enforce
international law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. Although the
claim of a "new anti-Semitism" has no basis in fact (all the evidence
points to a lessening of anti-Semitism in Europe), the EU has reacted
by appeasing Israel. It has even suppressed publication of one of its
own reports, because the authors -- like the Crisis Group and many
others -- concluded that due to Israeli policies the "prospects for a
two-state solution with east Jerusalem as the capital of Palestine are
receding."
The moral burden to avert the impending catastrophe must now be borne
by individual states that are prepared to respect their obligations
under international law and by individual men and women of conscience.
In a courageous initiative American-based Human Rights Watch recently
called on the U.S. government to reduce significantly its financial aid
to Israel until Israel terminates its illegal policies in the West
Bank. An economic boycott would seem to be an equally judicious
undertaking. A nonviolent tactic the purpose of which is to achieve a
just and lasting settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict cannot
legitimately be called anti-Semitic. Indeed, the real enemies of Jews
are those who cheapen the memory of Jewish suffering by equating
principled opposition to Israel's illegal and immoral policies with
anti-Semitism.

luno...@hotmail.com
 wrote:
[cut]
http://www.icem.org/?id=3&doc=856
Importanti organizzazioni sindacali americane (i cui rappresentanti sono 
per la maggior parte figli di cittadini americani che hanno combattuto 
la seconda guerra mondiale) chiedono il boicottaggio della Norvegia, 
finché i diritti dei lavoratori americani di organizzarsi e negoziare 
collettivamente non saranno rispettate.
------------------------------------
http://www.icem.org/?id=3&doc=856
------------------------------------
At issue is the plan by Norwegian oil union NOPEF to black the shipping 
provider Trico Supply ASA unless Trico's parent company in the US gives 
an assurance that it will respect American workers' right to organise 
and to bargain collectively.
Now, the President of Norway's trade union federation LO has received a 
threatening letter from Robert Alario, President of the Offshore Marine 
Service Association. The OMSA is an association of US companies that 
contract out services to the offshore oil and gas industry.
Alario tells LO President Gerd Liv Valla that, if Trico fails to obtain 
contracts in Norway as a result of a NOPEF boycott, then "we will have 
to inform the US offshore industry that Norway does not take into 
consideration US Acts, custom and culture. We will be forced to call on 
our members to be careful with doing business in Norway."
"This is a threat," commented NOPEF President Leif Sande, "and we cannot 
accept that a US employers' association threatens the industry of 
another country because the employers in the US do not manage to come to 
terms with their own trade union movement."
OMSA's ultimatum to a whole country should perhaps be taken with several 
pinches of sea salt, but it does shed a very crude light on employer 
attitudes in America's offshore marine services.
Sande called attention to OMSA's website.
Not a site for sore eyes. It is, the Norwegian union leader says, 
"horrible reading".
As indeed it is. And no page more so than a recent, now hidden, little 
piece headed Slow, but Sure?
Penned by Alario himself, it gets straight to the point: "For over two 
years, OMSA and its members have worked hard and steadily to design and 
develop a solid and successful strategy to prevent unions from 
penetrating our industry. So far, so good!"
So far so bad for OMSA-affiliated Trico, which has been desperately 
trying to convince Norwegians that it recognises US workers' right to 
join a union.
But Alario is just getting into his stride. Onward and upward he 
marches, merrily shooting his member company in both feet. On the US 
unions' organising drives, he believes that "we have been and continue 
to be largely successful against such an aggressive well-financed 
machine." This, he enthuses, "can and should give us confidence that we 
are beating them, that we can beat them again, and that we will, 
finally, beat them in the end." Employers are, however, sternly warned 
against complacency: "This fight is not over. There is much more to be 
done."
For Alario's sense of mission reaches far beyond a few boats and 
choppers: "The fight is for everyone - offshore drilling contractors, 
offshore diving and construction contractors, seismic, well servicing, 
contractors - everyone - not just helicopter or vessel operators. 
Surprisingly, other sectors of our industry and our suppliers have been 
relatively slow to fully appreciate and act on the threat posed by these 
unions to all of us, although we have seen signs, recently, that we and 
others have been making at least a slight dent in the general apathy 
that has frustrated us mightily for two years."
There is much more in similar vein. If nothing else, the piece gives 
some deep insights into Alario's state of mind. He describes union 
organising drives as "infiltration of companies under attack" and warns 
other employers that American unions are "working below industry radar".
All of which explains why US mariners face a tough task in organising 
offshore services - and why NOPEF is so keen to help them.
NOPEF is affiliated both to the International Transport Workers' 
Federation (ITF) and the International Federation of Chemical, Energy, 
Mine and General Workers' Unions (ICEM), which is lending global support 
to the campaign. There have already been some successes in persuading 
Norwegian-based oil companies to review their relations with Trico, and 
the case has also been raised in the Norwegian parliament.
-- 
TBLOG: guadagnare cinque anni senza bomba
http://tonibaruch.blogspot.com/2006/01/guadagnare-cinque-anni-senza-bomba.html

 collettivamente non saranno rispettate.
--------------------------------------------
TESTADICAZZOOOOOO!!! VATTI A NASCONDEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
E questo pretende di scrivere blog sulla situazione internazionale
ROTFL!

 ROTFL!
Qualche volta ho l'impressione che tu prenda quel trolletto seriamente....
:-/
K

E questo pretende di scrivere blog sulla situazione internazionale
Pretende???
*ROTFL*
Vatti a nascondere che e' meglio dopo questa tua ennesima figura di
merda :)
-Stefano

 TESTADICAZZOOOOOO!!! VATTI A NASCONDEREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!
Quoto. LOL.
Ah, e l'articolo era del 2001.
Ci risentiamo, citrullo.
-
Un divertito Tb, che ributta a mare il suo pesciolotto
-- 
TBLOG: Il salto dell'Iran
http://tonibaruch.blogspot.com/2006/01/il-salto-delliran.html

 ROTFL!
LOL!
-- 
 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it