Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Abu Mazen:  Un terribile pericolo per gli Israeliani

http://www.antiwar.com/hacohen/?articleid=4463
The Threat of Peace
After Arafat
As Oscar Wilde once said, there are only two tragedies in life: one is
not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. Israel is now
facing the latter tragedy. For years on end, we knew what we wanted: we
wanted Arafat dead. Not that we just sat and waited for it: we used
ceaseless incitement to prepare world opinion for his proactive
elimination; we even endorsed a government decision to get rid of him,
and we held the old man prisoner in his destroyed headquarters under
conditions that would sooner rather than later kill the healthiest
senior (the Palestinians missed a good point by propagating the legend
that Arafat was poisoned, as if his incarceration by Israel was not
enough to kill him). Anyway, Arafat is now dead, we got what we wanted,
and we are not happy.
On the contrary. Together with Arafat, Israel buried its best excuse
for perpetuating the occupation. How long can you blame the dead for
terrorism? How long can you refuse to negotiate with the dead, to meet
with him face to face? Not very long. More than two months after
Arafat's death, even anemic Europe understands: "the 'Arafat excuse' no
longer exists" (Jean Asselborn, president of the European Union Council
of Ministers, Ha'aretz, Jan. 18, 2005). And what is worse: the
Palestinians have now got a new leader who was elected democratically
(goodbye to "ruthless dictator"), and, on top of all that, a leader who
consistently and openly - in English and in Arabic - renounces the
armed struggle against the occupation. On the other hand, Abu Mazen
still demands complete Israeli withdrawal from all Palestinian lands,
and an independent Palestinian state. This, of course, is in total
harmony with international law, with UN Security Council resolutions,
even with President's Bush Road Map: in short, it is totally
unacceptable for Israel.
Puppet or Scarecrow
Israel can live with only two kinds of Palestinian leaders. It can live
with a puppet who accepts Israel's sovereignty over the Palestinian
territories (we may give him some "autonomy" in return), who is ready
to give up 60 percent of the West Bank for Israeli settlements and
apartheid walls (we may temporarily remove a checkpoint or two in
return), who is willing to forget the Palestinian refugees (we may not
insist on his conversion to Judaism in return). Israel has made several
attempts to find or tame such a Palestinian poodle, but so far failed.
Alternatively, Israel can live with a fanatic, terrorist Palestinian
scarecrow, with a murderous, uncompromising hardliner. The settlers
often say it aloud: we prefer the Islamic Jihad, who want to throw us
all to the sea. It is very easy to deal with such a leader, both
nationally and internationally.
What we cannot live with is a moderate, sane Palestinian leader who
wants peace in return for his people's lands, rights, and freedom. A
leader who speaks good English and does not dress like bin Laden, who
does not want to throw us to the sea but insists that Jerusalem is also
a Palestinian city. Such a leader exposes Israel's rejectionism, and
there lies the great danger of Abu Mazen. We cannot convince the world
that we are the eternal peace-loving victims when a majority (54
percent) of Palestinians living in the occupied territories, as polls
show, support a two-state solution on the basis of the 1967 lines, with
border corrections and no massive return of refugees (Ha'aretz, Jan.
18, 2005). Because if this is the case, it becomes obvious that the
only obstacle to peace is Israel's rejectionism, its refusal to make
peace along these internationally accepted lines.
Demonizing Abu Mazen
So what can Israel do against this threat? Against the danger that it
would be blamed for what it should be blamed, namely, for desiring
peace much less than it desires the occupied Palestinian lands and
water?
There are means, luckily. Obviously, Abu Mazen should be pushed into
either of the two desired options for a Palestinian leader: if he
cannot be turned into Israel's subcontractor, he should be portrayed as
a terrorist. Attempts are already underway. The Israeli media was
"appalled" when during his election campaign Abu Mazen referred to
Israel as "the Zionist enemy." Appalling indeed: after all, only
Israelis are allowed to call Palestinians "the enemy" - Palestinians
are expected to call us their beloved big brother - and labeling Israel
as Zionist is even a greater insult.
The context of Abu Mazen's angry words was not taken into
consideration. Abu Mazen used these words upon hearing the news from
Beth Lahia (Gaza Strip), where an Israeli tank had just fired at what
the Israeli army shamelessly described as "Hamas activists," killing
Mahmoud Raban (12 years old), his brother Bissam (17), their cousins
Rajah (10), Jabir (16), Mohammed (22), and Hani (17), as well as their
friend Jibril Kassih (16), and leaving Mohammed Raban (17) on a
respirator with barely one leg and one arm, Issa Relia (13) with both
his legs amputated above the knee, and the two cousins Imad al-Kaseeh
(16) and Ibrahim al-Kaseeh (14) each with two legs amputated (Gideon
Levy, Ha'aretz, Jan. 14, 2005). That's not appalling: it's "an
exception" perhaps, though the army never bothered to express sorrow,
not to mention apology or regret. But calling Israel "the Zionist
enemy" in the aftermath of the bloodbath - now that's appalling.
Let's Engage Gaza
Portraying Abu Mazen as a terrorist is going to take some time, though;
but Israel is impatient, it wants to act now. The dangers of peace are
best coped with by the army: Israel has done this several times before,
using the army to ignite the scene just when a cease-fire was at hand,
most notably when it re-occupied the West Bank in "Operation Defensive
Shield" (2002), the biggest military operation in the territories since
1967, just one day after the Arab League had adopted the Saudi Peace
Initiative, acknowledging Israel's right to live in peace once it ended
the occupation.
We are now in a similar situation. A big military operation can divert
attention from "the new era," from the pressure to cease-fire; it can
unify the masses behind our brave soldiers, and, above all, help Sharon
postpone indefinitely his vague promises to dismantle Gaza settlements
- a "plan" that, as Tanya Reinhart convincingly argues, he has little
intention to carry out. So expect a large-scale operation in Gaza,
soon. The immediate excuse - missile attacks on Israel - does not
really matter: Abu Mazen, so the argument goes, does not stop the
missiles, so we are forced to send the army to stop them; at the same
time, the army itself admits it has no means to stop the missiles. So
we are sending the army to do what it cannot do, because Abu Mazen does
not do it either. After all, occupation is not about logic - it's about
breaking bones.
A Liberal Demands War Crimes
There is no better seismograph for Israel's intentions than "liberal"
senior columnist Yoel Marcus from the highbrow daily Ha'aretz:
"Our patience boiled over long ago. (...) There is a breaking point and
a time when the government must take off its gloves and present the
other side with a flat ultimatum: For every indiscriminate round of
fire on a civilian target, we will retaliate in kind on the closest and
most populated Palestinian city. We will give it to them good. An eye
for an eye." ("An Eye for an Eye," Ha'aretz, Jan. 18, 2005)
When Marcus resorts to the style of propagandists of the darkest
dictatorships in the 20th century, when he openly urges the government
to take revenge on innocent Palestinian civilians, preparing the hearts
of his readers for war crimes on a large scale, you can be sure the
army won't lag behind.

----------------------
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/531436.html
IDF reviving psychological warfare unit
...
The unit's activities have been controversial for years. In October
1999, Aluf Benn revealed in Haaretz that members of the unit used the
Israeli media to emphasize reports initiated by the unit that it
managed to place in the Arab press. He reported that the news reports
focused on Iranian and Hezbollah involvement in terror activity.
Psychological warfare officers were in touch with Israeli journalists
covering the Arab world, gave them translated articles from Arab papers
(which were planted by the IDF) and pressed the Israeli reporters to
publish the same news here.
That was meant to strengthen the perception of the Iranian threat in
Israeli public opinion.
The MI chief at the time, Amos Malka, was not enthusiastic about MI's
responsibility for the unit and he used the embarrassing reports to
reduce its activity. Most of the officers who served in the unit were
transferred elsewhere. A lieutenant colonel was left in charge but the
unit's activities were frozen.
----------------------------------------------
Riassumendo:  Il Mossad fabbricava articoli falsi nella stampa Araba,
per
spaventare l'opinione pubblica Israeliana.   Poi, questo dipartimento
e' stato ufficialmente chiuso.
Guarda caso, poco dopo e' nato... MEMRI, un'organizzazione
(gia' discussa qua', vedi
http://www.guardian.co.uk/elsewhere/journalist/story/0,7792,773258,00.html
)
che... "traduce" articolo della stampa araba per spaventare l'opinione
pubblica occidentale.    Capeggiata da un gruppo di ufficiali ex-Mossad
(
http://www.sourcewatch.org/wiki.phtml?title=MEMRI:_Middle_East_Media_Research_Institute
)
GT

 spaventare l'opinione pubblica Israeliana.
PsyOps.
Ogni esercito ha il suo dipartimento dedicato a 'sta roba. 

For years on end, we knew what we wanted: we wanted Arafat dead.
Puttanata.
Se l'avessero voluto morto sarebbe stato cadavere gia' da un bel pezzo.
-Stefano

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:41F67794...@people.it...

E sai anche prospettare uno scenario geopolitico con Arafat assassinato e 
gli USA in gravissimo imbarazzo? 


Sei cosi' idiota che manco ti accorgi che stai dando ragione
all'articolo.
GT


Non lo avevo letto questo articolo prima di sostenere la mia semplice tesi. 
Eppure sembrava che stessi bestemmiando, quando invece si tratta 
semplicemente di 'common sense'... Non bisogna avere profonde conoscenze in 
politica internazionale per capire che sharon fara di tutto per intralciare 
i piani di pace di Abu Mazen, anche carte false e dirty tricks...
Infatti:

Quando vi toglierete quei paraocchi? Posso capire quelli dello zoo, visto 
che quelli negano anche l'evidenza, ma gli altri? Booo... De gustibus...
K
-- 
"Attacco ai campi profughi" è come "bombardamento città". In sé non
ha niente di illegale.
Tonibaruch (Bagarozzo) su IPII


Eggia'.   In questo caso, pero', l'obiettivo dell'esercito era di
continuare la guerra.
GT

 wrote in message
news:1106674565.8...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com

C'è una cosa che quasi mi inquieta: "In questo caso". E negli altri
casi?
E' forse pleonastico dire che se un esercito esiste è proprio perchè
faccia la guerra?
O in stile PsyOps - Orwelliano vogliamo dire che gli eserciti esistono
perché facciano la pace?
-- 
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

che manco ti accorgi che stai dando ragione all'articolo.
Come no! :)
*LOL*
L'hanno sempre voluto morto ... ma nessuno l'hai mai ucciso, proprio
perche' lo volevano morto :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 perché facciano la pace?
No, ovviamente hai ragione.  Se questo caso e' vero, non sarebbe certo
il primo della storia.
Volevo semplicemente far notare che esiste un precedente, proprio nel
conflitto medio-orientale, di articoli giornalistici fabbricati ad arte
e messi in uno dei principali e autorevoli quotidiani, con lo scopo
preciso di spaventare l'opinione pubblica e continuare una guerra
(quella contro Hezbollah) che sarebbe potuta finire 15 anni e centinaia
di morti prima.
La domanda sorge spontanea:  E gli articoli sui musulmani fanatici,
incitamento omicida, etc, da dove vengono? 
GT

 perché facciano la pace?
Be' a volte mi chiedo se le psyops non pagano qualcuno nel gruppo per 
distorcere le notizie e diffondere balle... Ma certo dovrebbero 
considerare IPI un sito pericoloso e/o di opinion makers. Il che, 
sinceramente, non mi sembra ancora il caso...
Am.

 sinceramente, non mi sembra ancora il caso...
Non esiste soltanto la comunicazione di massa.
Hint: E. Katz, P. F. Lazarsfeld, 1955, L'influenza personale nelle 
comunicazioni di massa, Eri, Torino 1968.

 Se l'avessero voluto morto sarebbe stato cadavere gia' da un bel pezzo.
E sai anche prospettare uno scenario geopolitico con Arafat assassinato e
gli USA in gravissimo imbarazzo?
Ah: cerca di fare meno il pagliaccio coi f/up non segnalati. 

"This so-called ill treatment and torture in detention centers, stories
of which were spread everywhere among the people, and later by the
prisoners who were freed ... were not, as some assumed, inflicted
methodically, but were excesses committed by individual prison guards,
their deputies, and men who laid violent hands on the detainees."
George W Bush?  Condi Rice?
Rudolf Hoess, comandante delle SS, Auschwitz, processo di Norimberga

Joe Lieberman, ex-candidato a presidente dei democratici', e uno dei
piu'
importanti congressisti del "partito di opposizione", sulla nomina di
Condi Rice a segretario di stato:
----------------------------------
http://lieberman.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=230882
I embrace the best tradition of American foreign policy that always
has said that partisanship should end at the nation's shores. And
note that it doesn't say policy differences should end. It doesn't
say ideological differences should end. It says partisanship should end
at the nation's shores, particularly so when our nation is engaged in
a war - a global war on terrorism, a war in Iraq in which Americans
have already lost their lives in the cause of freedom and in protection
of our security...
One of the great strengths that Condoleezza Rice will bring to the
office of Secretary of State is that the world knows that she has the
President's trust and confidence and I respect the right of any of my
colleagues to reach a different decision today and to oppose this
nomination. But I hope and believe that the Senate today, across
partisan lines, will resoundingly endorse this nomination and send the
message to friend and foe alike that while we have our disagreements,
ultimately what unites us around this very qualified nominee in this
hour of war is much greater than what divides us.
------------------------------------
Francamente, qua' il "bipartitismo" inizia a somigliare al
monopartitismo stile Brezhnev.
Dopo le bugie, la mostruosa incompetenza in Irak e rispetto agli
attentati del 9/11, e le figure di merda collezionate da Condoleeza nel
confirmation hearing
(
http://www.juancole.com/2005/01/rice-doublespeak-at-senate-transcript.html
)
queste lodi sperticate DA PARTE DELL'"OPPOSIZIONE" fanno cascare le
braccia.
Fra questo tipo di "unita' nazionale" e le beghe di partito nostrane,
francamente, preferisco di gran lunga le ultime.   E non mi stupisco
che i politici piu' vuoti e corrotti preferiscano un sistema
"all'americana".

 of our security...
disgustoso..