Showing posts with label zionist harassment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label zionist harassment. Show all posts

Thursday, November 19, 2009

Alternativas dos palestinos ao seu Estado


Lejeune Mirhan *

Fiquei contente quando li o artigo de Roger Cohen, no Herald Tribune, intitulado The Mideast Truce (1), cujo título republicado no Estadão foi “Acordo de paz cada vez mais distante”. Não que eu não queira a paz. Ao contrário.

Muro da Segregação e Vergonha em Israel, com Quase 900 Quilômetros de Extensão

(Muro da Segregação e Vergonha em Israel, com Quase 900 Quilômetros de Extensão)


Desejo a paz ardentemente, e os palestinos também. Ocorre que faz duas ou três semanas, em que publiquei um artigo nesta linha de pessimismo do escritor Cohen. Cabe-nos hoje, refletir as alternativas sobre os rumos do movimento de luta pela libertação da Palestina.

Uma preliminar: o Muro da Segregação


No dia 9 de novembro passado, a direita mundial festejou 20 anos da “queda” do chamado Muro de Berlim, construído em 1961, para separar as duas Alemanhas, a Oriental e a Ocidental, num mundo que não existe mais, que era o da guerra fria. Fizeram festa diante do Portão de Brandenburgo, onde Bach compôs músicas esplendorosas no passado clássico. Dançaram, cantaram. Desenterraram alguns (ex) líderes da época da queda, em 1989, como Mikhail Gorbatchov, queridinha da direita, conhecido como coveiro do socialismo. Se Thatcher parasse em pé hoje, eles a teriam levado, como um cadáver ambulante, uma morta-viva. Merkel, com cara de bebê Johnson, festeja junto com Sarkozy. Querem mostrar ao mundo que a vitória é deles e a derrota é nossa.

De fato, sofremos essa derrota. Já vínhamos sendo derrotados desde 1979, quando a dama de ferro vence as eleições na Inglaterra há trinta anos. Em 1989 foi apenas uma consequência disso. O mundo “endireitou-se” todo de lá para cá, mas hoje, pelo menos na América Latina, o que vemos é uma clara reversão desse processo regressivo, que minimizou estados nacionais, retirou soberania, entregou patrimônio público, demitiu servidores, precarizou trabalho, concentrou renda e riqueza, endividou países, subordinando-os ao Fundo Monetário Internacional.

No entanto, eles fazem essa “festa”, mas estão em depressão profunda. Não possuem saída para a maior crise que o sistema passou desde a de 1929-1932. Seus ideais desmoronaram-se de um dia para outro. Os mais liberais dos liberais, passaram a defender que o Estado saísse em defesa para salvar os capitais em bancarrota. Na verdade, a crise do ano passado foi deles e não foi nossa. A derrota foi deles. É claro, que o nosso lado, os trabalhadores mais sofridos é que acabamos por pagar a crise. Mas o modelo inventado por eles, cuja propaganda mostrava como infalível (falaram até em “fim da história”...), sofreu derrota de morte, esta ferido e pode não ter chance de sobreviver. Vive em estado terminal.

Bem, mas porque falo tudo isso? Que tem a ver a queda do Muro de Berlim com o Oriente Médio? Tudo a ver. É que no Oriente Médio, exatamente na Cisjordânia, na Palestina, desde 2002, vem sendo construído um muro, que o próprio governo israelense chamou de “Muro da Segregação”. É um Muro da Vergonha. Isola aldeias palestinas (daremos os dados adiante).

A direita neoliberal comemora a queda do “nosso” muro. Mas vejam bem. O Muro de Berlim tinha155 Km de extensão. O da Palestina tem 895 Km! Quase seis vezes maior! O Muro de Berlim tinha quatro metros de altura. O da Segregação tem 12 metros de altura! Três vezes mais alto! A largura do Muro de Berlim (área de segurança que ele isolava) era de 40 metros e o da Palestina é de 200 metros! Cinco vezes maior!

Esse Muro da Segregação ou da Vergonha, já condenada pela Corte Internacional de Haia na Holanda (Tribunal da ONU), separa ainda mais os palestinos de suas terras. Israel com isso amplia em mais 12% suas ocupação na Cisjordânia, onde esta ilegalmente desde junho de 1967. E não aceita nenhuma das dezenas de resoluções da Organização para que desocupe esses territórios palestinos. Não só não desocupa, como mantém mais de duas centenas de colônias. Hoje essas colônias (não encontro outra palavra mais apropriada), recebem 450 mil judeus. Se somarmos ocupações, condomínios em Jerusalém Oriental, os judeus em terras palestinas perfazem quase um milhão de pessoas! E esses “assentamentos” não vão parar. Estimulados, inclusive, por declarações desastrosas da secretária de Estado estadunidense, Hilary Clinton, o governo fascista de Netanyahu determinou a continuidade das construções, de novos prédios de apartamentos (mais de 900), na Jerusalém árabe.

O Muro isolou 212 aldeias palestinas em que vivem centenas de milhares de palestinos e suas família. Fala-se em 233 poços de água que foram subtraídos dos palestinos e pelo menos mais 72 nascentes. No total, fala-se em 713 quilômetros quadrados. Isso significa que Israel amplia em pelo menos 12% de todas as terras palestinas histórica (já demos este dado e voltamos a ele: se toda a Cisjordânia fosse devolvido aos seus donos palestinos, a Faixa de Gaza e Jerusalém Oriental, um possível Estado Palestino teria 22% de toda a Palestina original (um quinto) e mesmo com relação ao Plano de Partilha da ONU, aprovado em 29 de Novembro de 1947, eram 48% da Palestina. Hoje, estamos falando de algo como no máximo 10% do território original.

Nesse contexto, como posso ser otimista? Impossível.

Quais as alternativas possuem os palestinos?

Dei uma entrevista para a Rádio França Internacional (a terceira em três meses), para a competente jornalista brasileira radicada em Paris, Lúcia Fróes. Tratamos sobre quais alternativas estão colocadas hoje para o movimento de resistência dos palestinos (essa rádio é muito parecida com a BBC de Londres e transmite em vários idiomas, para a comunidade francófona).

Com base no que pude ler, ouvir, analisar, travar contatos internacionais, acredito que três podem ser os caminhos. Permito-me compartilhar essas ideias com meus leitores, estando preparado para receber críticas (construtivas). Analiso as consequências inclusive.

1. Completa dissolução da ANP – Mahmoud Abbas, que inclusive chega ao Brasil para avistar-se com Lula em Salvador nesta sexta, dia 20, anunciou dias atrás, que desiste de candidatar-se à reeleição. Ele pertence ao grupo majoritário, mais forte, dentro da OLP, que é o Partido Fatah. Seu grupo deixaria de apresentar qualquer candidatura. Com isso, e se ninguém se apresenta nas eleições marcadas para janeiro, a ANP deixaria de existir! Quase que uma auto-dissolução. Um golpe fatal tanto em Israel, quanto nos Estados Unidos de Obama, cada vez mais frustrando esperanças dos povos e dos governos árabes do OM. Não haveria mais que se falar em negociação da paz, pois do lado palestino não haveria nenhum interlocutor. Fala-se na volta da Intifada dentro da Fatah (revolta de jovens com pedras e fundas). Isso gera um profundo impasse. Os acordos de Oslo de 1993, que renderam o Nobel da Paz para Arafat, Peres (que visitou o Brasil esta semana) e Rabin (assassinado por um fanático dois anos depois) e criaram a ANP, tinham o claro objetivo que esse “Autoridade” deveria seguir as negociações de paz, que objetivassem a criação do Estado Palestino. Passaram-se 16 anos e nada de estado;

2. Criação de um Estado da Palestina de forma unilateral pelos palestinos – Essa é uma opção forte e pode ser adotada, à revelia da ONU e do governo israelense. Israel já rechaçou essa possibilidade, portanto registrando o golpe. Claro, é uma operação mais arriscada. Os palestinos podem não ter de imediato o reconhecimento de várias nações importantes e grandes ao seu Estado. Sabemos que vários estados e repúblicas mais avançadas, em especial as bolivarianas da América Latina, podem imediatamente reconhecer esse novo Estado, criando um problema, digamos, diplomático. Mas, estaria criado uma situação de fato e depois de direito. Força-se uma negociação imediata. Não podemos esquecer que, em 15 de novembro de 1988 (mesmo dia de nossa República...), Arafat proclamou na cidade de Argel, Argélia, de forma unilateral, a Independência da Palestina. Foi um gesto mais político, uma jogada de mestre, mas que teve pouca eficácia para a paz;

3. Defesa de um Estado único da Palestina, binacional e laico – Essa é a mais polêmica de todas. Tratei disso no inicio deste ano. Seria como se existisse um estado único num território que hoje se chama Israel, mas que já se chamou Palestina, voltasse a se chamar dessa forma. Ele seria binacional, bilíngue e lá morariam duas etnias, duas povos, o palestino e o judeu. Tentariam viver em paz. As escolas teriam dois idiomas, o país ou duas bandeiras ou uma nova bandeira que refletisse as duas tradições. Teria que ser democrático e laico. Nunca poderia ser confessional, nem judaico, nem islâmico ou cristão. Coisa parecida com o Canadá, que tem duas línguas e duas culturas bem distintas, onde seu povo fala francês e inglês. Muitos intelectuais veem essa proposta com bons olhos. Claro, Israel é completamente contrário. Até porque, é impossível eles defenderem um estado laico, pelo simples fato que eles são por um estado judeu, sem constituição e, portanto, não democrático. Acho esta a mais difícil das três alternativas.

Registro

Durante o 12º Congresso do PCdoB, realizado de 5 a 8 de novembro de 2009, precisamente para coincidir com as comemorações do aniversário da Revolução de Outubro (7 de Novembro no calendário ocidental) de 1917, na Rússia, que chamamos de revolução Bolchevique ou Socialista. O presidente Lula prestigiou esse evento no ato político de abertura, que ocorreu na sexta-feira, no Palácio das Convenções do Anhembi, na sala que cabe três mil pessoas (compareceu com uma comitiva de oito ministros; discursou 1h15 e foi aplaudido nesse tempo exatas 20 vezes, das quais cinco com a plateia em pé).

Não quero descrever sobre o Congresso. Ele foi grandioso e unitário sobre vários aspectos. Quero discorrer sobre as delegações internacionais. Em torno de 150 camaradas de 50 países estiveram presentes de todos os continentes, em uma demonstração de solidariedade internacional e de internacionalismo proletário.

Tive o prazer de travar contatos com as delegações árabes. Vieram representações da Palestina, do Líbano e da Síria. A Palestina surpreendeu a todos os presentes. Enviou quatro representações distintas. Todos os partidos de esquerda, marxistas-leninistas (Partido do Povo palestino, ex-Partido Comunista; Frente Democrático de Libertação da Palestina – FDLP; Frente Popular de Libertação da Palestina – FPLP e o Fatah).

Nas próximas semanas, terei a honra de tentar entrevistar, ainda que por e-mail, os camaradas dos comitês centrais da FDLP, Dr. Jehad Youssef (a quem tive a honra de recepcionar no aeroporto internacional de Guarulhos) e o Dr. Nassim Alam, da Secretaria das Relações Internacionais do CC da Fatah. Aguardem.

Nota

(1) O artigo pode ser lido neste endereço e saiu no Estadão de 18 de novembro de 2009.

* Presidente do Sindicato dos Sociólogos do Estado de São Paulo, escritor, arabista e professor. Membro da Academia de Altos Estudos Ibero-Árabe de Lisboa e da International Sociological Association.

Saturday, November 07, 2009

When the Israel Lobby goes on red alert, it becomes the Jewish Lobby

Two votes in the last few days show that when backed to the wall, the powerful Israel Lobby can become even more powerful when it marshals the resources of the worldwide Jewish Lobby. THe two lobbies went into red alert status over the UN report of well-respected South African judge Richard Goldstone, who is Jewish, a self-described Zionist, and trustee of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, that recommends an independent investigation into Israeli actions in what the report stated amounted to "war crimes, possibly crimes against humanity." Israel's invasion of Gaza, code named "Cast Lead," resulted in the deaths of over 1400 people, many of them children and women.

The reaction of the "twin lobby" to the Goldstone report was quick and fierce. On cue, the Anti-Defamation League's whiny Abe Foxman let loose with a barrage of criticism of Goldstone. From other quarters, Goldstone was accused of being "anti-Semitic" and a "self-hating Jew." The same sort of vitriolic name-calling had been meted out by the Lobby to Mary Robinson, the former Irish President, who served as UN Human Rights Commissioner.

The Israel Lobby, whose political backbone comes from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), had introduced into the House of Representatives resolution H.R. 867, which called on the Obama administration not only to reject the Goldstone report, also known as "Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict," but block any further consideration of it by the United Nations. On November 3, the House resolution passed by a lopsided 344-36 vote.

AIPAC was supported in its last-minute blitzkrieg of the House by like-minded organizations, including the American Jewish Committee, Jewish Federations of North America, Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), and the Zionist Organization of America.

AIPAC, through its power over campaign donations from wealthy Jews in the United States, can ram any legislation through Congress at a moment's notice. And H.R. 867 was time-sensitive. AIPAC and its allies had to send a message to the Obama administration that it and The Lobby expected strong American opposition to the upcoming UN General Assembly vote on accepting the Goldstone report. The UN vote took place two days later and passed 114 to 18, with 44 abstentions and 16 nations not voting.

With the power of the World Jewish Congress, the European Jewish Congress, and other pressure groups arrayed against them, many small countries dependent on World Bank and International Monetary Fund (both controlled by pro-Israelis, Robert Zoellick and Dominique Strauss-Kahn, respectively), were forced to vote against Goldstone, abstain, or simply not vote at all. Israel proclaimed that the 18 nations that voted against Goldstone represented a "moral majority." Israel, headed up by an expansionist and xenophobic government, in which avowed racist and gangster Avigdor Lieberman serves as Foreign Minister, received a seal of approval not only from the Obama administration but US ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, go daughter of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, and Rice's deputy, Alejandro Daniel Wolff, reportedly cajoled various UN delegations to either vote no on Goldstone, abstain, or miss the vote entirely.

However, some countries, like some members of the House, stood up to the immense twin Lobby to vote for Goldstone and reject the threats made by the Lobbies' arm twisters and thumb breakers.

Among those who defied AIPAC and its allies were Representatives Keith Ellison (D-MN), Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), Ron Paul (R-TX), Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), Geoff Davis (D-KY), Lynn Woolsey (D-CA), Barbara Lee (D-CA), Charles Boustany (R-LA), Jim McGovern (D-MA), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Maurice Hinchey (D-NY), John Dingell (D-MI), and George Miller (D-CA). Perhaps the greatest courage was shown by Representative Bob Filner (D-CA), who is Jewish, and voted against AIPAC. Previously, Filner admitted the power of AIPAC to punish those members of the House who defied it. Filner cited the electoral losses of Representative Cynthia McKinney (D-GA) and Earl Hilliard (D-AL), who were defeated in their respective Democratic primaries after out-of-state money from wealthy Jewish circles poured into the campaign coffers of their opponents. Representative Donna Edwards (D-MD), who also voted against the AIPAC resolution, faces a similar AIPAC-inspired challenge next year.

The "Brave 36" who stood up to AIPAC on the Goldstone report:

Baird
Baldwin
Blumenauer
Boustany
Capps
Carson (IN)
Clarke
Clay
Davis (KY)
Dingell
Doggett
Edwards (MD)
Ellison
Filner
Grijalva
Hinchey
Johnson, E. B.
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kucinich
Lee (CA)
Lynch
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
Miller, George
Moran (VA)
Olver
Pastor (AZ)
Paul
Price (NC)
Rahall
Snyder
Stark
Waters
Watt
Woolsey

Other House members were able to silently protest by merely voting "Present." They included Hank Johnson, the Democratic primary challenger who beat McKinney in Georgia with the help of out-of-state Jewish campaign funds.

Becerra
Cooper
Dahlkemper
DeFazio
Delahunt
Duncan
Eshoo
Farr
Heinrich
Hirono
Honda
Johnson (GA)
Jones
Kaptur
Loebsack
Lofgren, Zoe
Luján
Obey
Speier
Tierney
Welch
Wu

Other House members chose not to vote at all. They included Artur Davis, the candidate who defeated Hilliard, again, with out-of-state Jewish campaign funding, and John Conyers (D-MI), who represents the district with the largest percentage of Arab-Americans in the United States and, thus, has drawn a number of pro-Israeli operatives to his congressional and House Judiciary Committee staffs.

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Bachmann
Barrett (SC)
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Capuano
Conyers
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Deal (GA)
Gordon (TN)
Gutierrez
Hall (NY)
Holt
Meeks (NY)
Murphy, Patrick
Nunes
Pallone
Pascrell
Payne
Pingree (ME)
Price (GA)
Sánchez, Linda T.
Sires
Souder
Stupak
Towns
Velázquez
Wamp

AIPAC and its other Lobby allies were ensured the votes of 344 House members. They are:

Aderholt
Adler (NJ)
Akin
Alexander
Altmire
Andrews
Arcuri
Austria
Baca
Bachus
Barrow
Bartlett
Barton (TX)
Bean
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boccieri
Boehner
Bonner
Bono Mack
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (TX)
Braley (IA)
Bright
Broun (GA)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buchanan
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Cantor
Cao
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carney
Carter
Cassidy
Castle
Castor (FL)
Chaffetz
Chandler
Childers
Chu
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Coffman (CO)
Cohen
Cole
Conaway
Connolly (VA)
Costa
Costello
Courtney
Crenshaw
Crowley
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
DeGette
DeLauro
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Donnelly (IN)
Doyle
Dreier
Driehaus
Edwards (TX)
Ehlers
Ellsworth
Emerson
Engel
Etheridge
Fallin
Fattah
Flake
Fleming
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foster
Foxx
Frank (MA)
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Fudge
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Giffords
Gingrey (GA)
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Grayson
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Griffith
Guthrie
Hall (TX)
Halvorson
Hare
Harman
Harper
Hastings (FL)
Hastings (WA)
Heller
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth Sandlin
Higgins
Hill
Himes
Hinojosa
Hodes
Hoekstra
Holden
Hoyer
Hunter
Inglis
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jordan (OH)
Kagen
Kanjorski
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilroy
Kind
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kirkpatrick (AZ)
Kissell
Klein (FL)
Kline (MN)
Kosmas
Kratovil
Lamborn
Lance
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Latham
LaTourette
Latta
Lee (NY)
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Lucas
Luetkemeyer
Lummis
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Maffei
Maloney
Manzullo
Marchant
Markey (CO)
Markey (MA)
Marshall
Massa
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (CA)
McCarthy (NY)
McCaul
McClintock
McCotter
McHenry
McIntyre
McKeon
McMahon
McMorris Rodgers
McNerney
Meek (FL)
Melancon
Mica
Michaud
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, Gary
Minnick
Mitchell
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Murphy (CT)
Murphy (NY)
Murphy, Tim
Murtha
Myrick
Nadler (NY)
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Neugebauer
Nye
Oberstar
Olson
Ortiz
Paulsen
Pence
Perlmutter
Perriello
Peters
Peterson
Petri
Pitts
Platts
Poe (TX)
Polis (CO)
Pomeroy
Posey
Putnam
Quigley
Radanovich
Rangel
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Richardson
Rodriguez
Roe (TN)
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rooney
Ros-Lehtinen
Roskam
Ross
Rothman (NJ)
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Salazar
Sanchez, Loretta
Sarbanes
Scalise
Schakowsky
Schauer
Schiff
Schmidt
Schock
Schrader
Schwartz
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sessions
Sestak
Shadegg
Shea-Porter
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuler
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NE)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Space
Spratt
Stearns
Sullivan
Sutton
Tanner
Taylor
Teague
Terry
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thompson (PA)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Titus
Tonko
Tsongas
Turner
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden
Walz
Wasserman Schultz
Watson
Waxman
Weiner
Westmoreland
Wexler
Whitfield
Wilson (OH)
Wilson (SC)
Wittman
Wolf
Yarmuth
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

The 114 countries that voted to support the Goldstone report in the UN General Assembly were:

Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Argentina, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bolivia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Botswana, Brazil, Brunei Darussalam, Cambodia, Central African Republic, Chad, Chile, China, Comoros, Congo, Cuba, Cyprus, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Eritrea, Gabon, Gambia, Ghana, Grenada, Guatemala, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Libya, Malawi, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Mexico, Mongolia, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nepal, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Oman, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Portugal, Qatar, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Serbia, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Slovenia, Solomon Islands, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Switzerland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Republic of Tanzania, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, and Zimbabwe.

Those who voted to support Israeli genocide and reject Goldstone were:

Israel, United States, Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru, Netherlands, Palau, Panama, Poland, Slovakia, Macedonia, and Ukraine.

Countries that abstained were:

Andorra, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Colombia, Costa Rica, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Ethiopia, Fiji, Finland, France, Georgia, Greece, Iceland, Japan, Kenya, Latvia, Liberia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Monaco, Montenegro, New Zealand, Norway, Papua New Guinea, Republic of Korea, Republic of Moldova, Romania, Russian Federation, Samoa, San Marino, Spain, Swaziland, Sweden, Tonga, Uganda, United Kingdom, and Uruguay.

Countries not voting were:

Bhutan, Cape Verde, Côte d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Madagascar, Rwanda, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Togo, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, and Vanuatu.

Not only is the power of the loan-wielding World Bank and IMF seen in the decision of some countries to abstain or not vote, but the influence-peddling of George Soros, himself a Hungarian Jew by birth, can be seen in the "no" votes of the Czech Republic, Poland, Hungary, Slovakia, Ukraine, Macedonia and the abstention and not voting positions of Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Moldova, Romania, Kyrggyzstan, and Turkmenistan, nations were Soros's Open Society Institute maintains political sway.

Russia's abstention likely arose from fears that a UN precedent on Israel might be set for other war crimes investigations and Chechnya weighs heavily on Moscow in that respect.

Even with the full-court press by the Israel and Jewish Lobbies, aided by Rice and Wolff at the UN, the yes votes included those of major Latin American nations, including Brazil, Argentina, Mexico, Peru, Chile, and Venezuela, as well as countries that will undoubtedly feel the punch of Jewish Lobby's threats to their tourist industries, including Bahamas, Barbados, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Dominica, Antigua, Belize, Jamaica, Switzerland, Trinidad and Tobago, Slovenia, Portugal, Singapore, Malta, Cyprus, Ireland, and Grenada.

Thursday, May 21, 2009

Group linked to Israeli lobby, neocons releases another Islamophobic film

ISLAMOPHOBIA COMES TO THE BIG SCREEN

Image ‘Copyleft’ by Carlos Latuff
Group linked to Israeli lobby, neocons releases another Islamophobic film
By Ali Gharib and Eli Clifton

WASHINGTON (IPS) – A new documentary from a shadowy non-profit, the Clarion Fund, has ties to groups widely accused of Islamophobia.

The Third Jihad purports to educate US citizens about the threat of a “cultural Jihad” by the country’s own Muslim-American population. The film goes to great lengths to define itself as an expose of radical Muslim elements, not the faith at large.

But a group called the International Free Press Society (IFPS), which attended the Washington premiere of the film and documented the screening on behalf of the production company on a social media website, has some dubious affiliations.

Two months ago, IFPS heavily promoted Dutch parliamentarian Geert Wilders, a widely-known Islamophobe who has been tied to far-right European political parties.

An IPS investigation linked both Wilders and some of his US and international supporters, including members of IFPS, with the Vlaams Belang (VB), or Flemish Interest. Vlaams Belang is a nationalist Flemish party that has demanded amnesty for Nazi collaborators in Belgium.

Wilders is known for campaigning to ban the Quran, Islamic attire and Islamic schools from the Netherlands, and for proclaiming that “moderate Islam does not exist.” His views have even drawn fire from the strongly pro-Israel Anti-Defamation League, which described Wilders’s rhetoric as “inflammatory, divisive and antithetical to American democratic ideals.”

Wilders has been brought up on charges in the Netherlands and banned from Britain on the grounds that he incites hate.

That view doesn’t jibe with the slickly produced Third Jihad film.

The movie starts with a disclaimer that it is not an assault on all Muslims: “This is not a film about Islam. It is about the threat of radical Islam. Only a small percentage of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims are radicals. This film is about them.”

The narrative of the movie is strung together with commentary from a “moderate” Muslim, Zuhdi Jasser, a physician from Arizona who heads the American Islamic Forum for Democracy (AIFD).

AIFD, according to its website, is a non-profit which seeks to “intellectually stand against the religious fanatics who exploit the religion of Islam for a nihilistic, anti-American anti-Western war.”

Unlike most commentators who regularly use the term “Islamofascist,” Jasser is a practicing and devoted Muslim. But he thinks the faith has no role in politics or government. He derides political Islam as part of the subversive, quiet Jihad being waged within the boundaries of the West, a central tenet of the movie.

Radical Muslims, by having children, spreading their faith, and ensuring their ability to practice Islam as they see fit, are working a “demographic jihad” in which they see themselves emerging as a majority and making Islam the dominant religion of the US — eventually to take over the nation altogether — contend Jasser and the films creators.

But that prospect seems unlikely in the US, where Muslim Americans are generally regarded as well-assimilated and not radicalized.

The film itself also contains inconsistencies in terms of differentiating between Islam and radical Islam.

For example, the graphic that the film used to demonstrate the spread of an Islamic state across the Middle East, North Africa, and Europe used a tiled picture of a green crescent with a star between its points. The crescent and star are the symbol of Islam in general.

The documentary was produced by the Clarion Fund, a US-based non-profit that was embroiled in controversy last year when it distributed its last movie, Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West, to nearly 30 million homes in the “swing states” that normally decide US presidential elections.

Its 501(c)(3) status as non-profit means the group is legally exempt from paying taxes and is prohibited from involvement in electoral politics.

IPS investigations also tied the production and distribution of Obsession to right-wing Israeli groups and US-based neoconservatives.

In addition to an endorsement of Republican presidential candidate John McCain posted on Clarion’s website, questions were raised about Clarion’s ties to foreign groups, such as Aish Hatorah, an Israeli-based organization dedicated to educating young Jews about their heritage.

The Clarion Fund and Aish Hatorah are headed by Israeli-Canadian twin brothers Raphael and Ephraim Shore, respectively. The two groups appear to be connected as Clarion is incorporated in Delaware to the New York offices of Aish Hatorah.

Federal law prohibits campaigns and political candidates from taking money from foreign organizations.

Last September, the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission (FEC) asking that Clarion be investigated for allegedly violating their tax-exempt apolitical status and using foreign funds in an electoral push.

Last week, the FEC ruled that there was “no reason to believe Respondents [Clarion Fund] violated the Act, because the DVD failed to identify a federal candidate, lacked express advocacy, and there was no evidence the DVD was distributed in connection with a federal election.”

Still, the group strikes back at CAIR in the new film, accusing it of being part of a grand Muslim conspiracy to take over the West and the United States.

“The Third Jihad” is largely based on a document the producers say the Federal Bureau of Investigation discovered in 2003. The film’s creators purport the document is a “Grand Jihad Manifesto” authored by the Muslim Brotherhood in North America, according to the promotional materials.

“The 15-page document outlines goals and strategies for the infiltration and domination of America from within,” says the release. “Among the strategies discussed is the establishment of ‘moderate’ groups, mosques and Islamic centers across North America in an effort to strategically position Islam so that it might weaken western culture and promote the implementation of Sharia Law.”

Sharia, or Islamic law, has come into the spotlight as one of the principal goals of radical Islamists.

“Sharia is no different than Jewish law or Christian law,” said CAIR communications director Ibrahim Hooper. “When he prays, Jasser is following Sharia; when he doesn’t drink alcohol, he’s following Sharia.”

In the film, Clarion says that the Islamic Association of Palestine (IAP) was one of several Muslim organizations listed in the document as potential allies. The film claims that IAP helped form CAIR.

Despite its alleged nefarious ties, CAIR was invited to screenings of the film, insisted Clarion executive director Peter Connors. “Our invitations were declined,” he said.

In protest of a screening of The Third Jihad in Los Angeles’s Simon Wiesenthal Center on Saturday night, CAIR sent a letter to the center’s dean and founder, Rabbi Marvin Hier.

“The film disingenuously claims it is only targeting ‘radical Islam,’ yet a Twitter account of the Washington, DC, screening on Wednesday night stated: “‘The 1,400-hundred year war’ has been going on since the beginning of Islam,” CAIR wrote.

Indeed, a member of IFPS was authoring the Twitter feed, which allows someone to post short updates to the web in real time.

“Thanks to the Clarion Fund for the opportunity to twitter tonight. Be sure to visit the International Free Press Society online!” said the last post charting the press conference and screening.

“Clarion thanks the International Free Press Society … for their Twitter mastery at last night’s event,” said the next post, from the following morning, which included a shortcut link to IFPS’s website.

Both tweets, as the short messages are called, came from “No2RadicalIslam,” which is Clarion’s name on Twitter.

Some of Clarion’s supporters, including Jewish groups that have promoted its films as well as “moderate” Muslims like Jasser, appear unaware of IFPS’s association with the nationalist Flemish party Vlaams Belang, which has been deemed neo-Nazi and neo-fascist by critics.

In December 2008, senior VB leader Roeland Raes was convicted on charges of Holocaust denial.

But Jasser, who didn’t know about VB, said he wasn’t concerned about potential connections with Wilders, debating the characterization of Wilders as an Islamophobe.

“I do think the test of the West, and the test of us Muslims in the West, is whether we will defend Mr. Wilders and his right to say whatever he wants to say,” he told IPS. “At AIFP we endorse their free speech, and the aspect of free speech is important to the war of ideas. But we disagree with their view of Islam.”

“I think as a Muslim, the test of our character is how we respond to people that may not hold opinions of our faith that we agree with,” he said. “And I truly think that the cartoons … demonstrated many Muslims didn’t give groups the right to criticize our faith.”

Jasser was referring to an incendiary cartoon published in the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten that portrayed the Muslim prophet Mohammed’s head-covering as a bomb inscribed with the Islamic declaration of faith, which set off worldwide protests in 2005.

The IFPS website sells “exclusive cop[ies] of the famous Mohammed cartoon” for 250 dollars a piece.