Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Ancora Gaza

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1150355528023&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Prevedo che, tempo qualche ora, Human Rights Watch tornera' ad essere
un'estensione dei servizi segreti americani come ai tempi delle elezioni
in Ucraina e in Bielorussia.
-- 
http://inminoranza.blogspot.com
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 in Ucraina e in Bielorussia.
perchè?
leggendo le righe finali che quoto sotto non vedo proprio perchè trarre la
tua conclusione...HRW dice che è impressionata dai "check and balances"
dell'IDF per evitare di colpire civili palestinesi - siamo tutti felici di
questo,direi.
"Lucy Mair - head of the HRW's Jerusalem office - said Klifi's team had
conducted a thorough and professional investigation of the incident and
made "a good assessment" when ruling out the possibility that an errant IDF
shell had killed the seven Palestinians on the Gaza beach. 
'We differ when it comes to other pieces of information from other sources
that don't relate to the military strike such as the timing and the type of
injuries," Mair explained. "While they [the IDF] made a very good
presentation, we still think there are enough unanswered questions that
have not been examined by Klifi's team…and that is why we believe there
should be an independent investigation." 

 un'estensione dei servizi segreti americani
Perche'?
http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article4832.shtml
If you keep lying long enough and with enough conviction, people start
to believe you -- or at least doubt the evidence in front of their own
eyes. And so it has been with the Israeli army?s account of how seven
members of a Palestinian family were killed, and dozens of other
Palestinians injured, during shelling close by a beach in Gaza.
This week, according to reports in the Israeli media, even Marc
Garlasco, a Pentagon expert on the effects of battlefield weapons hired
by Human Rights Watch to investigate the deaths, ?conceded? that he
could not contradict the findings of the Israeli army?s own inquiry.
Presumably that is because Israel is not letting him or anyone else
near their evidence. But Garlasco?s slight change of tune -- even if
it is not exactly a ringing endorsement -- leaves the door ajar just
wide enough that the Israeli army will doubtless slip through it to
escape being held accountable yet again.
The army has been claiming for more than a week, based on its own
evidence, that the lethal explosion was not caused by a stray shell
landing on the Gaza beach but most probably by a mine placed there by
Palestinian militants to prevent an Israeli naval landing.
The army?s case could be dismissed outright were it not for the
racist assumptions that now prevail as Western ?thought? about
Arabs and Muslims.
To be plausible the army account requires two preposterous assumptions:
first, that Palestinian militants are so fanatical that they consider
it acceptable to lay a mine secretly in an area frequented by local
families; and second, that they are so primitive that their best
military minds could not work out the futility of placing a single mine
along miles of coastline that could be used for a landing (or are we to
assume that there are many more of these mines waiting to explode?).
To support its case, the army has produced two pieces of evidence that
apparently make its denials of responsibility ?airtight?.
First, it claims that a piece of shrapnel removed by doctors from an
injured Palestinian transferred to an Israeli hospital was not from one
its shells but more likely from a Palestinian explosive device.
Given that, unlike Israel, the Palestinians do not have any factories
manufacturing mines or rockets and are forced instead to make them out
of any spare metal parts they can get their hands on -- doors, pipes,
wrecked cars, fridges -- this evidence is meaningless. Palestinian
witnesses have already said the beach victims were standing close to
taxis when the shell exploded. So if the shrapnel was not from an
Israeli shell, it suggests only that the missile also damaged other
metal objects -- possibly the cars -- sending a shard into at least one
of the victims.
The army will have a lot of explaining to do if reports on Israeli TV,
not usually noted for its independent approach, confirm that a piece of
shrapnel found in another victim is from an Israeli shell. So far, of
course, the army is denying the report.
The second piece of evidence is supplied by the army, which says one of
its many drones that circle overhead spying on Gaza round the clock
shows the families calmly still on the beach, and later an ambulance
arriving, tens of minutes after the army had finished shelling the
area.
The problem with the Israeli evidence is that we have to take the
army?s word for it: that the families shown are the ones who were
about to be shelled, and that the timings given are accurate.
It also means we have to discount a lot of counter-evidence supplied by
Garlasco, journalists, doctors and Palestinian witnesses -- and even
the Israeli army. The army, for example, has admitted that one of the
shells it fired in the area is unaccounted for, a striking admission in
itself. The drones apparently were no help in locating this
?missing? explosion, even though they were spying on the area.
Garlasco has already determined that the injuries sustained by the
beach victims accord with a blast above ground -- an Israeli shell --
rather than one underground -- a Palestinian mine.
The many Palestinian witnesses have all put the time of the blast close
to when the shelling occurred, and report that the reason they were
queuing for taxis was because of panic sown by the shells they were
hearing landing nearby.
Independent journalists have shown that, according to the times logged
in the computers of the hospital that admitted the dead and injured,
the first blood tests were taken soon after the Israeli army shelling
-- and certainly too soon to accord with the army?s account of when
the Palestinian mine supposedly exploded. Doctors have also confirmed
that they were called to the nearest hospitals well before 5pm -- at
about the time, or even before, the army claims the mine went off.
The outrage expressed in some quarters at the failure simply to believe
the army?s version might sound more convincing were Israel welcoming
an international investigation to adjudicate on the matter. But of
course it is not. Just as in spring 2002, following the deaths of many
civilians in the Palestinian town of Jenin and the destruction of the
heart of the local refugee camp during a prolonged attack by the
Israeli army and air force, Israel is rejecting all demands for an
independent inquiry.
So why not just take Israel?s word for it? Its army is the most moral
in the world, after all, and a state of law like Israel would gain
nothing from lying in such a bare-faced manner.
The only problem is that Israel and its security forces have been
caught out lying repeatedly during this intifada and before it, not
just to people on the other side of the world who cannot verify the
facts but also to its own courts and public.
This week, for example, the Supreme Court ordered the army and Ministry
of Defence to pull down several kilometres of the steel and concrete
barrier they have erected on Palestinian land in the West Bank after it
was proved that the security considerations behind the choice of the
wall?s route were entirely bogus. Official documents reveal that the
wall was located there to allow for the future expansion of nearby
illegal Jewish settlements on yet more Palestinian land. The army and
government concocted the fib and then stuck to it for more than two
years. Chief Justice Aharon Barak called their systematic lying ?a
grave phenomenon?.
And at the start of the intifada, back in October 2000, the government
and police covered up the fact that live ammunition and sniper units
trained to deal with terror attacks had been used against unarmed Arab
demonstrators inside Israel. For more than six months the government
and security services denied that a single live round had been fired,
despite mounting evidence to the contrary that lawyers and journalists
like myself had unearthed.
They might have got away with their brazen lies too, had it not been
for an unusual series of events that led to the appointment of a state
inquiry headed by a Supreme Court judge, Theodor Or, who quickly
exposed the truth.
That happened not because of any urge by official bodies to come clean
or because of the inevitability of Israeli justice. It happened for one
reason alone: the prime minister of the day, Ehud Barak, feared losing
the impending general election to his rival Ariel Sharon and thought he
could buy back Arab votes by setting up an inquiry.
The inhabitants of Gaza have no such leverage inside the Israeli legal
and political systems. They have no friends inside Israel. And now it
looks like they have no friends in the international community either.
Jonathan Cook, based in Nazareth, is the author of ?Blood and
Religion: The Unmasking of the Jewish and Democratic State?,
published by Pluto Press and available in the US from University of
Michigan Press. His website is 
www.jkcook.net
.

 eyes.
Outing paletinese, i miei complimenti al fisichetto in trasferta.
Torrieri, sei un mentecatto in senso etimologico.
<:3)-