Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Un membro della Knesset Palestinese sulla guerra risponde al Lapsus Freudiano di Toni

Qualche tempo fa, il solito noto ci ha detto:
----------------------
Da Peace Now a Yisrael Beitenu, non c'è nessuna forza politica che non
senta che
Israele si sta difendendo e deve colpire duro, e fino in fondo.
Più ancora della politica, è vero per la gente della strada. Leggere
i blog
israeliani in questi giorni è impressionante.
---------------------
Un post che si qualifica come vero e proprio Lapsus freudiano, visto
che rivela involontariamente quanto non solo gli Israeliani ma i loro
sostenitori in occidente tengono in conto dell'opinione degli "uguali
cittadini Arabi di Israele",il 20% della popolazione.      Ma gli Arabi
Israeliani, oltre a un pugno di parlamentari che contano come il due di
picche, qualche giudice messo per show, e qualche collaborazionista che
si arruola nell'esercito, fanno parte del consenso nazionale?
Coincidentalmente, nello stesso giorno in cui 
angryarab.blogspot.com
 ha
postato che
----------------------
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2006/07/i-just-spoke-to-palestinian-in-1948.html
I just spoke to a Palestinian in 1948 Palestine. He told me that Arabs
in 1948 Palestine are cheering Hizbullah's bombings of Israel. He said
that one Arab person lost property, but continued to support the
bombing of towns and cities in northern Palestine.
-----------------------
confermato da
----------------------
http://fairuse.100webcustomers.com/fairenough/latimes268.html
In Nazareth, a mainly Arab city of 60,000, residents will tell you,
mostly in private, that despite the rocket fire they sympathize with
Hezbollah's decision to kidnap Israeli soldiers as a way to win the
release of Lebanese and Palestinians jailed in Israel.
-----------------------------------
La morte dei 2 Palestinesi di Nazareth in un bombardamento NON ha
cambiato l'opinione degli abitanti di quella citta'.
----------------------------------
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1107AP_Mideast_Fighting_Israels_Arabs.html
NAZARETH, Israel -- About 60 men gathered under a black tent in this
Arab Israeli city Thursday to drink bitter coffee, accept condolence
visits and mourn two young brothers killed by a Hezbollah rocket the
day before.
Many in this town did not blame Hezbollah for the deaths, holding
Israel responsible instead. Some expressed support for the Lebanese
guerrillas - underscoring the divided allegiances of Israel's Arabs.
------------------------------------------
Tanto piu' che, come rivelato in
http://www.antiwar.com/orig/cook.php?articleid=9333
ad essere preso di mira da Hizbullah e' un deposito armi costruito in
mezzo ai quartieri Arabi di Nazareth, secondo gli abitanti con lo scopo
preciso di farli diventare scudi umani per le forze Israeliane.
Veniamo al dunque:  Il membro della Knesset Palestinese Azmi Bishara,
laico (origini Cristiane) e Marxista, in passato finito sotto processo
per reati di opinione (aver affermato che Hizbullah, in Libano, e' un
movimento di Liberazione Nazionale), ha scritto un saggio sulla
presente guerra, disponibile a
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-07240635042.htm
Chi appoggia Israele, e pensa sinceramente che i suoi cittadini
Palestinesi sono esseri umani la cui opinione va presa in conto, e non
semplici figure di cartapesta da mettere in vetrina per far vedere
quando Israele sia "democratico", fara' bene a leggerlo e a rifletterci
attentamente.
http://www.palestinechronicle.com/story-07240635042.htm
Azmi Bishara: Blackmail by Bombs
By Dr. Azmi Bishara
Any comparison between Olmert's and Nasrallah's political rhetoric must
conclude that the latter is the more rational. His speeches are
consistent with the facts and rely less than Olmert's on religious
expressions and allusions. Nasrallah would never dare seal a
parliamentary speech with a lengthy prayer, as Olmert did in his latest
speech before the Knesset.
Israeli politicians have no cultural or moral edge over resistance
leaders. The latter are far less attached to Iran than the former are
to the US, and Hizbullah's constituency is less attached to Iran than
the organized Jewish community abroad is to Israel.
The people who unleashed the brutal war against Lebanon are neither
intelligent nor courageous. Quite the opposite; they are mediocrities,
cowards and opportunists, but they happen to have military superiority.
And they possess the keys to the machinery of a state, a real state,
one that is secure in its identity, that has clear national security
goals and channels of national mobilization, as opposed to a long
deferred project for statehood and a state built on the fragmentation
of national identity. On the other side is a resistance movement
operating in the context of a denominationally organized society, a
Lebanese government neutralized to everything but sectarianism, and an
Arab order parts of which are rooting for Israel to do what it is
incapable, or too embarrassed, to do itself, which is to deal with the
resistance as a militia because it foregrounds their own lack of
national and popular legitimacy.
Israel has nothing to show for ten days of barbaric vandalism and the
deliberate targeting of civilians. It cannot claim a single military
victory against the Lebanese resistance. It can, though, point proudly
to whole residential quarters that have been reduced to rubble, to the
burned out hulks and ruins of countless wharfs, factories, bridges,
roads, tunnels, electricity generators and civil defense buildings. In
terms of explosive and destructive power Israel has thrown an atom bomb
on Lebanon, it is the Israeli Hiroshima.
True, Israel suffers a paucity of intelligence on the whereabouts of
Hizbollah members, which is why it has been targeting the homes of heir
families. But this does not justify the systematic bombardment of
Lebanese society, and the attempts to destroy its economy. This is he
epitome of terrorism: the incitement of terror in a civilian populace
by unleashing massive violence and destruction against it in an attempt
to compel the people's political leaders to act against the Lebanese
resistance or to change their positions.
The current Israeli assault against Lebanon has nothing to do with
freeing two captured soldiers. That is a purely tangential concern, and
Israel will probably agree to a prisoner exchange when the time comes.
Of prime concern, on the other hand, is an agenda that has bearings on
Lebanese domestic, as well as American agenda for regional, politics.
The issue is not why the resistance chose this particular time for its
operation. Timing, here, becomes another pretext for vilifying the
resistance and justifying the aggression. The fact is that, over the
past few months, the resistance made several attempts to capture
Israeli soldiers. The difference is that its last attempt succeeded.
Also, the Israeli soldiers that died in this operation were not killed
in combat, but rather because their tank rolled over a landmine while
pursuing the kidnappers. A more important question is why Israel choose
this time to launch a full scale attack?
The timing is an Israeli-American one. And the answer resides with the
Arabs and the US, and their inability to implement UN Security council
Resolution 1559 and dismantle the Lebanese resistance with Arab tools.
So Israel stepped forward. The only difference between today and the
earlier bombardments -- the "Day of Reckoning" and "Grapes of Wrath"
between 1993 and 1996 -- is that Syrian forces are o longer present in
Lebanon. Instead there is an American-sponsored project for the
country, involving the rest of the Arab world, which as to change the
structure of government in Lebanon and transform it into an ally of the
US, a good neighbor to Israel and a participant n US- oriented
alliances in the region.
The project took off following the assassination of Al-Hariri, but in
recent months it had run aground as it became increasingly clear that
the Arabs had no practical means to keep it afloat. What kept
discussions in Beirut from collapsing completely was the fact that the
only alternative was internal violence and civil war. But while it was
obvious that the talks were useful in keeping violence at bay and,
hence, good for the tourist season, they were not helping to advance
the American project in Lebanon. It was equally obvious, therefore,
that those who wanted to push this project were expecting something to
happen -- a US strike against Iran, for example, or an Israeli strike
against Lebanon. Given the Iranian option remains currently out of
bounds Israel knew it could count on a tacit green light from major
Arab powers for its attack against Lebanon, and they did not disappoint
it. It was the scope and vehemence of Israel's actions in Lebanon that
came as the surprise.
This is neither an Iranian nor a Syrian war. The first has just been
involved in dialogue with the Americans and the second has been trying
to avoid a war with Israel for decades.
Israel's aim is to change the rules of the game between Israel and
Lebanon and, therefore, within Lebanon itself. This is the only point
of similarity between the current campaign and the war of 1982. The
major differences are that, on the negative side, international and
regional circumstances favor Israel, while on the positive side the
resistance, which is not Palestinian but Lebanese this time, is much
stronger and better organized. To these two we can add another, which
is that the Lebanese are not heading towards another 17 May; that
experience they have put firmly behind them and no one wants to rake it
up again. Even after the Syrian withdrawal, Lebanese society has a much
more positive attitude towards the Lebanese resistance than it had
towards the Palestinian resistance, in those days of 1982 a part of the
Lebanese people fought on the side of the Israelis. The initiative now
lies in the hands of the Lebanese people and the resistance. They,
alone, have the ability to thwart the conspiracy.
International delegations will soon appear in Lebanon to reap the
fruits of the aggression. They will promise the Lebanese a ceasefire if
they implement 1559, saying that there is no longer any excuse for
delaying implementation now that the Israeli army has demonstrated the
consequences of non-implementation.
Roed-Larsen's visit was not a fact-finding mission. Sending Roed-Larsen
was in itself a political statement. He is not only the Israeli Labor
Party's man on the conflict with the Palestinians, he is also the
spokesman of the Israeli position with respect to the Lebanese
resistance. He is the one who is after blood-money to compensate for
Barak's loss of honor after withdrawing from Lebanon and the one who
was called in to supervise the implementation of Resolution 1559.
Larsen has not only drawn a red line at crossing the blue line, he
regards the Lebanese resistance as a local militia. He is also a
foremost exponent of that now old term, "the New Middle East", by which
is meant, at best, the normalization of Arab relations, ie according
inter-Arab relations no more priority than bilateral relations between
individual Arab states and Israel. Larsen was the sworn enemy of Yasser
Arafat, who spoiled the Oslo recipe and refused to behave as he was
supposed to. He is filled with a mixture of hatred and bitterness
against "Arab extremists" and harbors low expectations of, and
disappointment with, "Arab moderates" who should always demonstrate
that they are up to the Israeli establishment's expectations.
That's what it's all about; the rest is decor. We'll see Larsen in the
garb of mediator, which hardly suits him since he is not an arbitrator
and nowhere near the middle. And, we'll be inundated with details about
ceasefires, truces, and preparations for implementing 1559.
The resistance isn't playing the role of victim. It didn't ask for
international sympathy with the victims but for solidarity among
freedom-seeking peoples. These are the rules of another game, a
language that Arab regimes have forgotten, if they ever really knew it,
though they owe their own existence to such a discourse. I am speaking
of the language of liberation movements that exact a payment for
colonization from the colonizer. Resistance movements attempt to exact
a price that their adversaries cannot afford and that the societies of
their adversaries do not wish to pay, and they try to encumber their
adversaries in a manner that inhibits the full use of force. This is
how resistance movements try to neutralize military superiority.
The resistance was not being unduly reckless; it did not even select
the timing. It was Israel that chose to open a broad battlefront
against the resistance. It feared that putting off an inevitable battle
with the Lebanese resistance would only give the resistance time to
grow stronger and increase its arsenal. One reason why Israel chose
this time in particular was that it already knew how key Arab regimes
would react. The situation, therefore, is the opposite of what is being
portrayed: the charge that the resistance has courted disaster betrays
the existence of an Arab camp that regards robust resistance in Lebanon
and Palestine as an adventure.
The US, meanwhile, is futilely trying to regulate Israel's cowardly
assault against civilians and its destruction of civilian
infrastructure. It wants Israel to target the resistance and the
society that supports it without jeopardizing the American project in
Lebanon. It wants Israel to bully and blackmail America's allies
without crushing them, alienating them completely or driving their
supporters into the arms of the resistance. The difference between
Israel and the US, here, may be tactical, but it is important. It is
one of degree, of pushing or not pushing people over the edge.
Whereas the US wants Israel to promote the American project in Lebanon
rather than throw out the baby with the bathwater, Israel wants the US,
Washington's allies and all the international agencies at their
disposal, to negotiate with the Lebanese government a ceasefire that
fulfils several conditions. The first is to disarm Hizbollah, the
second to deploy the official Lebanese army in the south and substitute
the international force with a proper NATO force, the third to release
the Israeli captives. But it is the first condition that is the one
that counts; meeting this will be sufficient for Israel to agree to a
ceasefire. The political order that emerges from the rubble of Israel's
destruction will see to the rest. Israel, in other words, has decided
to settle internal Lebanese dialogue by Israeli force of arms.
A Nato force accepted by the government without the consent of the
people will be considered an occupation force and will be the next
target of the resistance thus creating a new Iraq, a fragmented
Lebanon. If the Lebanese government agrees to the proposed settlement
that includes dismantling Hizbollah a process of attrition will start
also from the inside aimed at getting Lebanese society to pressure the
resistance into conceding. This is how internal strife is ignited and
it is part of the plan.
Israel decided that this would not only be a good time to go on the
offensive but that the battle would be decisive. If the Israeli
terrorist project and military adventure is not to prevail, it is not
just the resilience of the resistance that matters but also the unity
of the Lebanese against Israeli aggression and its political aims.

scopo preciso di farli diventare scudi umani per le forze Israeliane.
*ROTFL*
Come no! :)
Peccato per te che i *DUE BAMBINI* sono morti mentre giocavano per la
strada.
-Stefano

 ha scritto nel messaggio
news:1153769112....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
http://angryarab
.
un nome, una garanzia di equidistanza....
A

 Coincidentalmente, nello stesso giorno in cui 
angryarab.blogspot.com
LOL
Tb


Tb
Noto che la parte sotto l'hai ignorata.   Chissa' perche'.
---------------------------


 Noto che la parte sotto l'hai ignorata.   Chissa' perche'.
Perché i tuoi pipponi copincolla dopo trenta righe mi fanno dormire
Cutto per buona educazione. Chi vuole abbeverarsi alle tue minchiate salga il 
thread di un passo.

"In quel momento" molti Arabi Israeliani,
Il povero *COGLIONE* di un Torrieri si dimentica persino quello che cita
lui stesso :)
=======
Some expressed support for the Lebanese guerrillas
=======
Neanche "many" or "most".  Ma solo "some".
Taglio il resto della merda.
-Stefano

Redfiddler ha scritto:

Vorresti proporre te stessa come garanzia di equidistanza?

Persio wrote:

Proporrei piuttosto quelli di Masada2000, mi sembrano un contraltare più degno 
delle posizioni del negazionista neotrotzkista.
Tb

Suggede anche a Boston, a Londra, a Roma.
Questa fa a paio con "i nostri ragazzi".
Roma non e' in guerra col Libano, e non lo sono neanche Boston o
Londra.   Quindi, da noi "il nemico" non c'e.
Non alimentare lo stereotipo Antisemita sulla doppia lealta':  Se
questa e' la "tua" guerra contro il "tuo" nemico, va in Israele, prendi
la cittadinanza, e combatti.   Otherwise shut up.
GT

Tonibaruch ha scritto:

Non sono affatto negazionista e neanche neotrotzkista. Non mi è chiaro invece 
cosa sei tu.

 Non sono affatto 
E chi parlava con te?
Tb