أوري أفنيري و تيسير نظمي محاربان في إسرائيل والأردن وإليكم الدليل في الذكرى 42 لغسان كنفاني
عمان - سكرامنتو - حيفا- حركة إبداع: كشف الكاتب تيسير نظمي وفي الذكرى 42 لاستشهاد الكاتب غسان كنفاني عن الأسباب الكامنة لحجب وتدمير موقعه الإلكتروني الذي تأسس في أعقاب محاولات مستميتة لخطف وتهكير موقع الحركة الوطنية لمناهضة الصهيونية العالمية http://nazmi.org والذي شكل الحاضنة لهذا الموقع في أيار 2009 باسم http://nazmis.com أن المثقفون العرب الموالون للأنظمة بما فيهم عسكر محمود درويش قد شنوا حملة باطنية لتدميره ككاتب وكناشر والتقت مصالحهم ومصلحة اليمين الإسرائيلي الذي يحارب الكاتب اليساري الإسرائيلي أوري أفنيري فتم تجميد ظهور موقع نزمس دوت كم من على شاشات الإنترنت منذ عام 2011 .. وأعاد تيسير نظمي نشر صفحة واحدة من آلاف الصفحات التي احتواها الموقع الممنوع في الأردن و إسرائيل تحديدا على الرابط التالي (إضغط هنا)
SEPTEMBER 21, 2009
Confronting the G20
Confronting the G20
Sliming Goldstone and His Report
By URI AVNERY
Is there no limit to the wiles of
those dastardly anti-Semites?
Now they have decided to slander the
Jews with another blood libel. Not the old accusation of slaughtering Christian
children to use their blood for baking Passover matzoth, as in the past, but of
the mass slaughter of women and children in Gaza .
And who did they put at the head of
the commission which was charged with this task? Neither a British
Holocaust-denier nor a German neo-Nazi, nor even an Iranian fanatic, but of all
people a Jewish judge who bears the very Jewish name of Goldstone (originally
Goldstein, of course). And not just a Jew with a Jewish name, but a Zionist,
whose daughter, Nicole, is an enthusiastic Zionist who once “made Aliyah” and
speaks fluent Hebrew. And not just a Jewish Zionist, but a South African who
opposed apartheid and was appointed to the country’s
Constitutional Court
when that system was abolished.
All this in order to defame the most
moral army in the world, fresh from waging the most just war in history!
Richard Goldstone is not the only Jew
manipulated by the world-wide anti-Semitic conspiracy. Throughout the three
weeks of the Gaza War, more than 10 thousand Israelis demonstrated against it
again and again. They were photographed carrying signs saying “End the massacre
in Gaza”, “Stop the war crimes”’ “Israel commits war crimes”, “Bombing
civilians is a war crime”. They chanted in unison: “Olmert, Olmert, it is true
– They’re waiting in The Hague for you!”
Who would have believed that there
are so many anti-Semites inIsrael ?!
* * *
THE OFFICIAL Israeli reaction to the
Goldstone report would have been amusing, if the matter had not been so grave.
Except for the “usual suspects”
(Gideon Levy, Amira Hass and their ilk), the condemnation of the report was
unanimous, total and extreme, from Shimon Peres, that advocate of every
abomination, down to the last scribbler in the newspapers.
Nobody, but nobody, dealt with the
subject itself. Nobody examined the detailed conclusions. With such an
anti-Semitic smear, there is no need for that. Actually, there is no need to
read the report at all.
The public, in all its diversity,
stood up like one person, in order to rebuff the plot, as it has learned to do
in the thousand years of pogroms, Spanish inquisition and Holocaust. A siege mentality,
the ghetto mentality.
The instinctive reaction in such a
situation is denial. It’s just not true. It never happened. It’s all a pack of
lies.
By itself, that is a natural
reaction. When a human being is faced with a situation which he cannot handle,
denial is the first refuge. If things did not happen, there is no need to cope.
Basically, there is no difference between the deniers of the Armenian genocide,
the deniers of the annihilation of the Native Americans and the deniers of the
atrocities of all wars.
From this point of view, it can be
said that denial is almost “normal”. But with us it has been developed into an
art form.
* * *
WE HAVE a special method: when
something happens that we don’t want to confront, we direct the spotlight to
one specific detail, something completely marginal, and begin to insist on it,
debate it, examine it from all angles as if it were a matter of life and death.
Take the Yom Kippur war. It broke out
because for six years, beginning with the 1967 war, Israel had cruised like a
Ship of Fools, intoxicated with victory songs, victory albums and the belief in
the invincibility of the Israeli army. Golda Meir treated the Arab world with
open contempt and rebuffed the peace overtures of Anwar Sadat. The result: more
than 2000 young Israelis killed, and who knows how many Egyptians and Syrians.
And what was furiously debated? The
“Omission”. “Why were the reserves not called up in time? Why were the tanks
not moved in advance?” Menachem Begin thundered in the Knesset, and about this,
books and articles galore were written and a blue-ribbon judicial board of
inquiry deliberated.
The First Lebanon War was a political
blunder and a military failure. It lasted 18 years, gave birth to Hizbullah and
established it as a regional force. And what was discussed? Whether Ariel
Sharon had deceived Begin and was responsible for his illness and eventual
death.
The Second Lebanon War was a disgrace
from beginning to end, a superfluous war that caused massive destruction,
wholesale slaughter and the flight of hundreds of thousands of innocent
civilians from their homes, without achieving an Israeli victory. And what was
our debate about? For what was a commission of inquiry appointed? About the way
the decision to start the war was taken. Was there an appropriate process of
decision making? Was there orderly staff work?
About the Gaza War, there was no
debate at all, because everything was perfectly alright. A brilliant campaign.
Marvelous political and military leadership. True, we did not convince the Gaza
Strip population to overthrow their leaders; true, we did not succeed in
freeing the captured soldier Gilad Shalit; true, the whole world condemned us –
but we killed a lot of Arabs, destroyed their environment and taught them a
lesson they will not forget.
Now, a profound debate on the
Goldstone report is going on. Not about its content, God forbid. What’s there
to discus? But about the one point that is really important: was our government
right in deciding to boycott the commission? Perhaps it would have been better
to take part in the deliberations? Did our Foreign Office act as foolishly as
it usually does? (Our Ministry of Defense, of course, never behaves foolishly.)
Tens of thousands of words about this world-shaking question were poured out
from the newspapers, the radio and TV, with every self-respecting commentator
weighing in.
* * *
SO WHY did the Israeli government
boycott the commission? The real answer is quite simple: they knew full well
that the commission, any commission, would have to reach the conclusions it did
reach.
In fact, the commission did not say
anything new. Almost all the facts were already known: the bombing of civilian
neighborhoods, the use of flechette rounds and white phosphorus against
civilian targets, the bombing of mosques and schools, the blocking of rescue
parties from reaching the wounded, the killing of fleeing civilians carrying
white flags, the use of human shields, and more. The Israeli army did not allow
journalists near the action, but the war was amply documented by the
international media in all its details, the entire world saw it in real time on
the TV screens. The testimonies are so many and so consistent, that any
reasonable person can draw their own conclusions.
If the officers and soldiers of the
Israeli army had given testimony before the commission, it would perhaps have
been impressed by their angle, too – the fear, the confusion, the lack of
orientation – and the conclusions could have been somewhat less severe. But the
main thrust would not have changed. After all, the whole operation was based on
the assumption that it was possible to overthrow the Hamas government in Gaza
by causing intolerable suffering to the civilian population. The damage to
civilians was not “collateral”, whether avoidable or unavoidable, but a central
feature of the operation itself.
Moreover, the rules of engagement
were designed to achieve “zero losses” to our forces – avoiding losses at any
price. That was the conclusion our army – led by Gabi Ashkenazi – drew from the
Second Lebanon War. The results speak for themselves: 200 dead Palestinians for
every Israeli soldier killed by the other side – 1400:6.
Every real investigation must
inevitably lead to the same conclusions as those of the Goldstone commission.
Therefore, there was no Israeli wish for a real inquiry. The “investigations”
that did take place were a farce. The person responsible, the Military Advocate
General, kippa-wearing brigadier Avichai Mendelblit, was in charge of this
task. He was promoted this week to the rank of major general. The promotion and
its timing speak a clear language.
* * *
SO IT is clear that there is no
chance of the Israeli government belatedly opening a real investigation, as
demanded by Israeli peace activists.
In order to be credible, such an
investigation would have to have the status of a State Commission of Inquiry as
defined by Israeli law, headed by a Supreme Court justice. It would have to
conduct its investigations publicly, in full view of the Israeli and
international media. It would have to invite the victims, Gaza inhabitants, to
testify together with the soldiers who took part in the war. It would have to
investigate in detail each of the accusations that appear in the Goldstone
report. It would have to check out the orders issued and decisions made, from
the Chief of Staff down to the squad level. It would have to study the
briefings of Air Force pilots and drone operators.
This list suffices to make it clear
why such an investigation will not and cannot take place. Instead, the
world-wide Israeli propaganda machine will continue to defame the Jewish judge
and the people who appointed him.
Not all the Israeli accusations
against the UN are groundless. For example: why does the organization
investigate the war crimes inGaza (and in former Yugoslavia and Darfur,
investigations in which Goldstone took part as chief prosecutor) and not the
actions of theUS in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Russians in Chechnya ?
But the main argument of the Israeli
government is that the UN is an anti-Semitic organization, and its Human Rights
Commission is doubly anti-Semitic.
* * *
ISRAEL ’S RELATIONS with the UN are
very complex. The state was founded on the basis of a UN resolution, and it is
doubtful whether it would have come into being at precisely that time and those
circumstance had there been no such resolution. Our Declaration of Independence
is largely based on this resolution. A year later, Israel was accepted as a UN
member in spite of the fact that it had not allowed the (then) 750 thousand
Palestinian refugees to return.
But this honeymoon soured quickly.
David Ben-Gurion spoke with contempt about UM-Shmum (“Um” is the Hebrew for
“UN”, the prefix “shm” signifies contempt). From then on to this very
day,Israel has systematically violated almost every single UN resolution that
concerned it, complaining that there was an “automatic majority” of Arab and
communist countries stacked against it. This attitude was reinforced when, on
the eve of the 1967 war, the UN troops in Sinai where precipitously withdrawn
on the demand of Gamal Abd-al-Nasser. And, of course, by the UN resolution
(later annulled) equating Zionism with racism.
Now this argument is raising its head
again. The UN, it is being said, is anti-Israeli, which means (of course)
anti-Semitic. Everyone who acts in the name of the UN is an Israel-hater. To
hell with the UN. To hell with the Goldstone report.
That is, however, a woefully
short-sighted policy. The general public throughout the world is hearing about
the report and remembering the pictures they saw on their TV screens during
theGaza war. The UN enjoys much respect. In the wake of the “Molten Lead”
operation, Israel ’s standing in the world has been steadily going down, and
this report will send it down even further. This will have practical
consequences – political, military, economic and cultural. Only a fool – or an
Avigdor Lieberman – can ignore that.
If there is no credible Israeli
investigation, there will be demands for the UN Security Council to refer the
matter to the International Criminal Court in The Hague . Barack Obama would
have to decide whether to veto such a resolution – a move that would cause grave
harm to the US, and for which he would demand a high price fromIsrael .
As has been said before: UM-Shmum may
turn into UM-Boom.
Uri Avnery is an Israeli writer and
peace activist with Gush Shalom. He is a contributor to CounterPunch's book The
Politics of Anti-Semitism.
http://www.counterpunch.org/avnery09212009.htmlوعليه فإن النظام الأردني يأتمر بالتعليمات الإسرائيلية في محاربته للكاتب تيسير نظمي الذي عجزت كل الوسائل الإنسانية والطبية والشرعية والنيابية والحقوقية عن إنصافه في الأردن !!
OM
Friday, September 17, 2010
Home
|  | ||||||
| 
| ||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
| |||||||
تعليقات