Tag Archives: Gaza/Palestina

De riñas entre fronteras

Por si les falataba poco a los soldados de UNIFIL en el sur de Líbano con la crisis de los misiles sirios, los rumores de una guerra entre Hezbolá e Israel y los avisos con explosivos sin detonadores en un coche de un trabajador civil de la base Miguel de Cervantes…ahora les toca lidiar con las riñas entre pastores libaneses y soldados israelies y recuperar a 185 rehenes que marchan sobre cuatro patas y berrean.

Israel Kidnaps Lebanese Goats!

Israeli moves to arrest Lebanese shepherds have now taken a new turn after army units crossed the Israeli pullout line in the south and “kidnapped” 185 goats in the area of al-Shahel on the outskirts of the town of Shebaa.
A Lebanese army communiqué said Wednesday the Israeli soldiers took the goats to the occupied Palestinian territories.

However, after contacts between the army command and U.N. peacekeepers stationed in the south, Israel returned the goats to Lebanon.

Israel usually detains Lebanese shepherds in the border area of Ghajar claiming they have crossed the Blue Line separating the two countries.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under English, Opinión...simple opinión, Politics, Spanish

Dr. Norman Finkelstein at the University of Waterloo

Dr. Norman Finkelstein at the University of Waterloo

Leave a comment

Filed under English, Politics, Religion

Joe Biden’s visit to Israel…Not a good timing…

Well, apparently Joe Biden didn’t chose teh right moment to visit  Israel or lets put it in the other side, Israeñ government chose a good moment to make a statement by pursuing the worldwide condemned jewish colonies construction in palestinian soil. Or at least in what is left. BUt following Haaretz’s quotes, relationship are not in a good term. Hard to be an “hyperpuissance”.

Here some reactions :

Israel Crosses the Line.. But with US Support in asharq alawsat

15/03/2010

By Bilal Hassen

The superpower and Israel’s protector, that is, the United States has proclaimed that it cannot play a basic and prominent role in the self-delegated negotiations between the Arabs and Israel and between the Palestinians and Israel. This superpower and protector of Israel came forward and bravely proposed to the world that it wants to broker successful negotiations whose first condition would be that Israel stop building more settlements. The protected Israel refused and the protector superpower gave in.

At this point, the superpower announced that it is ready to oversee indirect negotiations between the Palestinians and Israel that are not based on any conditions or point of reference. Once again and on the same day that the attempt to start indirect negotiations would begin, the protected state announced that it is building new settlements. The protector superpower did not object or protest and the negotiations are now at risk. It is also possible to wonder whether they will ever start. This state of affairs sounds extremely boring to the reader. No one believes that Israel can reject what the United States wishes, and no one believes that the United States cannot impose on Israel’s government a simple political decision such as starting indirect and perhaps binding negotiations. No one believes that indirect negotiations, if they ever start, will have a new practical result. It has become widely known that Israel does not want to discuss the Palestinian issue in the first place. It does not want to discuss the right of return of the Palestinians and does not want to discuss a full Israeli withdrawal from lands occupied in 1967. Israel does not want to dismantle the settlements and does not want to approve the establishment of an independent Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. On the other hand, it has become widely known that Israel wants half the West Bank and the waters of the West Bank. It wants the skies of the West Bank, the territorial waters of the Gaza Strip, and it wants a military deployment along the Jordan River. This is all Israel wants and the United States knows that this is what Israel wants. Nevertheless, it comes to the region with all its prestige to tell us that it will broker indirect negotiations. It promises us that such negotiations will end within two years and it wants us to believe this big American lie.

…..

Punishing America in Dar Al Hayat

Sun, 14 March 2010

Elias Harfoush

It would not have been possible to imagine worse for the US’s credibility in the region than what befell it during Joe Biden’s visit this week; a comment made by Aaron Miller, a prominent member of the US team negotiating with the Israelis under the administration of Bill Clinton and George Bush Jr. And because Miller is aware of the balance of power in the American-Israeli relationship, he described it as “dancing with a bear”, where the problem becomes, as he says, that if you start dancing with it, it no longer becomes possible to let it dance alone!

This is what happened with the US Vice President in Israel. Indeed, dancing with “the Israeli bear” (perhaps describing it as a wolf would be more accurate) led to the insult to which was subjected the second highest-ranking man in the United States, an insult which he had to swallow before heading to the dinner table alongside that very bear, then publicly praising the strong relations between Israel and the United States, and declaring complete consideration of the US for Israel’s security, being “Israel’s best friend in the world”.

Israel envoy: U.S. ties at their lowest ebb in 35 years, in Haaretz

Last update – 20:23 15/03/2010
Israel envoy: U.S. ties at their lowest ebb in 35 years
By Barak Ravid, Haaretz Correspondent and Haaretz Service
Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has told the country’s diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their worst crisis in 35 years, despite attempts by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s office to project a sense of “business as usual.”

Oren was speaking to the Israeli consuls general in a conference call on Saturday night.

Netanyahu consulted Sunday with the forum of seven senior cabinet ministers over a list of demands that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made in a telephone conversation Friday.

Advertisement

Clinton harshly criticized the announcement last week of plans to expand the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in East Jerusalem while U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel.

Haaretz has learned that Clinton’s list includes at least four steps the United States expects Netanyahu to carry out to restore confidence in bilateral relations and permit the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.

1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden’s visit. The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.

2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo.

3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.

4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians, even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict’s core issues – borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements.

Two advisers of the prime minister, Yitzhak Molcho and Ron Dermer, held marathon talks Sunday with senior White House officials in Washington and U.S. Mideast envoy George Mitchell and his staff to try to calm the situation. Mitchell will return to Israel Tuesday and expects to hear if Netanyahu intends to take the proposed steps.

Leave a comment

Filed under English, Politics

The Utility of Assassination, By George Friedman in Stratfor

Global Intelligence, Stratfor, February 23, 2010

The Utility of Assassination
By George Friedman

The apparent Israeli assassination of a Hamas operative in the United Arab Emirates turned into a bizarre event replete with numerous fraudulent passports, alleged Israeli operatives caught on videotape and international outrage (much of it feigned), more over the use of fraudulent passports than over the operative’s death. If we are to believe the media, it took nearly 20 people and an international incident to kill him.

STRATFOR has written on the details of the killing as we have learned of them, but we see this as an occasion to address a broader question: the role of assassination in international politics.

Defining Assassination

We should begin by defining what we mean by assassination. It is the killing of a particular individual for political purposes. It differs from the killing of a spouse’s lover because it is political. It differs from the killing of a soldier on the battlefield in that the soldier is anonymous and is not killed because of who he is but because of the army he is serving in.

The question of assassination, in the current jargon “targeted killing,” raises the issue of its purpose. Apart from malice and revenge, as in Abraham Lincoln’s assassination, the purpose of assassination is to achieve a particular political end by weakening an enemy in some way. Thus, the killing of Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto by the Americans in World War II was a targeted killing, an assassination. His movements were known, and the Americans had the opportunity to kill him. Killing an incompetent commander would be counterproductive, but Yamamoto was a superb strategist, without peer in the Japanese navy. Killing him would weaken Japan’s war effort, or at least have a reasonable chance of doing so. With all the others dying around him in the midst of war, the moral choice did not seem complex then, nor does it seem complex now.

Such occasions rarely occur on the battlefield. There are few commanders who could not readily be replaced, and perhaps even replaced by someone more able. In any event, it is difficult to locate enemy commanders, meaning the opportunity to kill them rarely arises. And as commanders ask their troops to risk their lives, they have no moral claim to immunity from danger.

Read more…

Leave a comment

Filed under English, Military, Politics, Terrorism/Terrorismo, war

Sobre el asesinato de Mahmoud al-Mahbouh, Javier Espinosa in El Mundo

Hace poco días vi una película titulada ‘El ojo del Aguila’ que relata la historia de una sociedad, la norteamericana, controlada hasta el último rincón por cámaras y sistemas de vigilancia dirigidos en última instancia por un ordenador.

El lunes al ver las fotos distribuidas por la policía de Dubai no pude por menos que recordar el argumento y captar la terrible ironía que esconde el caso del líder de Hamas, Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Emulando lo que podría ser el discurso oficial israelí, los agentes del Mossad habrían contribuido a eliminar –la prensa de ese país difícilmente usa el término adecuado, “asesinar”- a un significado elemento de Hamas, uno de los grupos armados que mejor personifica para Tel Aviv la necesidad de continuar la llamada “guerra contra el terror”.

Leer mas…

Leave a comment

Filed under Military, Politics, Spanish, war

“La UE exige a Israel que comparta Jerusalén con un Estado palestino”, by Ricardo Martínez in El País

Es un tanto vergonzoso que las instituciones internacionales como la UE o a ONU usen un doble raser en todo aquello que se refiere a aplicar la ley internacional sobre Israel. o único que están logrando estas instituciones no es más que desacreditarse y desacreditar a todos aquellos que representan. Al menos el ministro de exteriores sueco ha tenido a decencia de intentar dar un paso mas allá..eso sí…frustrado.

N.S

La UE exige a Israel que comparta Jerusalén con un Estado palestino

La Unión presiona al Gobierno de Netanyahu para que reinicie el proceso de paz

RICARDO MARTÍNEZ DE RITUERTO – Bruselas – 08/12/2009

La Unión Europea ha reclamado hoy a Israel y a la Autoridad Palestina la rápida reanudación de las negociaciones de paz, que para que sea verdadera debe tener a Jerusalén como capital de dos Estados, el israelí y el palestino. La petición europea rebaja considerablemente la propuesta de la presidencia sueca, que pretendía tratar a Jerusalén Este como capital del futuro Estado palestino y boicotear la presencia israelí en esa parte de la ciudad.

Concluido el consejo de ministros de Exteriores, todo fueron parabienes entre los jefes de las distintas diplomacias de los Veintisiete, por más que la declaración no diga nada nuevo, como señaló en confianza uno de ellos. De hecho, las dos páginas de la declaración están plagadas de expresiones del tipo “reitera” o “recuerda”.

Está claro que la Unión está frustrada con la falta de avances en el sedicente proceso de paz, reducido tan a mínimos que basta con una promesa de Israel de paralizar durante unos meses la construcción de viviendas en los asentamientos para que todos crean ver que hay una nueva oportunidad.

Suecia, históricamente crítico con el Gobierno israelí, quiso dar un golpe en la mesa de Benjamín Netanyahu. Llegó a proponer a los demás Gobiernos la idea de potenciar Jerusalén Este como capital palestina con actos de trascendencia política, como celebrar allí las fiestas nacionales de los Veintisiete y el Día de Europa, negarse a recibir compañía de funcionarios israelíes o boicotear las infraestructuras turísticas de colonos en esa parte de la ciudad.

Varias capitales sacaron tarjeta roja a Carl Bildt, ministro de Exteriores sueco, entre ellas Berlín. El jefe de la diplomacia germana, Guido Westerwelle, reconoció que tal oposición era “coherente con la relación especial que tienen Alemania e Israel”.

En consecuencia, como ha señalado un comunicado del Ministerio israelí de Exteriores, “se impuso la voz de los Estados de la UE responsables y razonables” y los Veintisiete volvieron a reclamar “la reanudación del proceso de paz que lleve, en un plazo de tiempo acordado, a la solución de los dos Estados”. Rebajaron las pretensiones suecas a simplemente recordar que la Unión “nunca ha reconocido la anexión de Jerusalén Oriental” y, como gran golpe de autoridad, subrayaron que “para que haya una auténtica paz hay que buscar (…) el camino para resolver el estatuto de Jerusalén como futura capital de dos Estados”. Los Veintisiete mantienen que “no reconocerán ningún cambio en las fronteras anteriores a 1967 que no sea acordado por las partes”. En aquel año, Israel conquistó Cisjordania, Jerusalén Este, el Sinaí y los Altos del Golán.

El Consejo insta también a Israel a poner fin a los asentamientos y al “tratamiento discriminatorio” de los palestinos en Jerusalén Este.

El ministro español de Exteriores, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, ha calificado el texto como “suficientemente firme” y un buen punto de partida para una venidera “etapa decisiva para el proceso de paz”.

Reacciones

El documento de la UE ha suscitado división de opiniones en los bandos israelí y palestino, informa Juan Miguel Muñoz desde Jerusalén. “Es un importante paso en el camino para que la comunidad internacional asuma una responsabilidad directa para poner fin a la ocupación de tierras palestinas en 1967”, ha dicho el primer ministro palestino, Salam Fayad. Pero el ministro de Información, Mustafá Barghuti, ha tildado de “decepcionante” la declaración. “Lo que se necesita es presión política sobre Israel similar a la que se aplicó a la Suráfrica del apartheid”, ha dicho.

Israel, por su parte, ha criticado ciertos aspectos de la resolución y ha elogiado otros. El Ministerio de Exteriores ha indicado que el texto “no contribuye a reanudar las negociaciones”, pero se congratuló porque alude positivamente a la congelación de la construcción en las colonias judías de Cisjordania y por el compromiso de Bruselas con la seguridad de Israel.

Leave a comment

Filed under Politics, Spanish

Norman Finkelstein Interviewed on Danish TV November 13 2009 (on youtube)

 

No comment.

Leave a comment

Filed under Diplomacy, English, Interviews, Law, Politics