domingo, 30 de abril de 2017

LOS OLVIDADOS Y LOS QUE NO OLVIDAMOS

Existen situaciones que no admiten demora,tampoco que las excluyamos de los titulares informativos, o silenciemos en general.
Es candente e innoble que a estas alturas EU no sea capaz de diseñar un plan de auxilio,incluida la aportación de dignidad, a la vida de aquellos que arriban a nuestras costas en demanda de ayuda y protección.
No son muchos,mueren bastantes en la travesía,pero la innoble panda de arribistas que,cual muñecos de guiñol,se mueve a los hilos de los poderes financieros,se niega,se espanta ante la sola idea de asilar y dar una oportunidad de nueva vida a estos infelices,víctimas propiciatorias en el altar del Moloch de turno que,desgraciadamente, son muchos.
No hablemos ya de justicia,que sea simplemente de sentido común,que anda escondido por ahí,pero que todavía esta vivo.
La cuenta es esta.
60 millones de Refugiados en todo el mundo.
La mayor parte de ellos por razón de guerra,exclusión social y hambre.
El primer sector es fácilmente reconocible,miren el mapa y vean donde existen guerras de invasión,religión,floreciente tráfico de armas y narcóticos.Los reconocemos ya hasta con los ojos cerrados,tantos años llevamos viendo imágenes y noticias.
¿Soluciones?
Bastante fáciles,solamente hay que tener la voluntad firme  de corregir la deriva de los mandatarios de este pequeño planeta.
¿Voluntad?
Muy escasa o nula,priman más los intereses de las cloacas que los de la dignidad y la justicia.

Dejando aparte a dos notables canallas,lease Trump y Putin,grandes especialistas en destruir de forma muy o poco elaborada,depende del momento y la ganancia.Como decía,excluidos estos,queda un nutrido grupo de carniceros que pululan por buena parte de Oriente medio,Al-Asad y Netanyahu son buenos ejemplos.
Filipinas,algunos países de América,tenemos al imbécil de Maduro,marioneta de un Ejército al que no interesa,de momento,que la democracia sobreviva en Venezuela,es más fácil robar con estos.
 Macri,otro que tal,Temer,López Nieto,otros que hacen lo mismo,robar escamotear a los ciudadanos y degradar el sistema democrático.
En fin,florido ramillete de  cloaca social bien regado por las cobardías de turno y las omisiones de los más.
De ahí pasamos a la degradante EU,vendida a sus  tradicionales traiciones, más sus intereses bastardos,más su complejo de imperio,muerto ya hace siglos,pero vigente en la mente de algunos débiles mentales.
Alrededor de esta piara se mueven sus satélites,que se extienden desde África hasta Extremo Oriente.Las Union Trade,ah,las nunca lo bastante magnificadas Union Trade,que crearon y crean guerras en función de una buena venta de armas,el trabajo esclavo,los diamantes de sangre,el oro,el coltán y tantos y tantos pingües negocios para la City y sus socios.
Y queda el área del Pacifico,viejos  imperios junto a países emergentes,nacidos de los restos de los imperios coloniales.
Aquí lo mismo cabe un pequeño país gobernado por otro débil mental que juega a la guerra y ha convertido a sus ciudadanos en robots bien entrenados,que un gran imperio que continúa siéndolo y otro cúmulo de países resucitados de las cenizas de genocidios institucionales.
Si algo te enseña la Historia es la continuidad en el tiempo de los viejos imperios,y en esto China es la Decana,e India no le va a la zaga.
Otra gran enseñanza es la aculturación sistemática como forma de dominio.La mentira como eficaz control social,si es con miedo añadido,mejor.
Y por último pero no menos importante,esa permanencia del ser humano en su entorno y método de subsistencia,lo que garantiza al tirano de turno tenerlo asilado en el lugar hasta agotar todas las salidas.
Pero si como se decía la principio,la urgencia de la supervivencia determina la huida,entonces llegamos al capítulo final,la migración,el refugio allí donde quepa alguna posibilidad de vivir,ya ni siquiera piden dignidad o trabajo,solo sobrevivir.
Y entonces se produce esa amnesia colectiva de los antiguos y presentes explotadores,aquello de que sirven como eslavos pero no como seres humanos dotados de dignidad y derecho a la felicidad,tal y como dice el mejor Preámbulo nunca antes escrito en una Constitución.

Y la rueda gira y la Injusticia se magnifica.
Es tanta y tan grande la aberración que supone la vida hoy,aquí y ahora,que faltan palabras para definir en cualquier idioma el alcance real de tanta infamia.

Y lo más espantoso,es posible vivir en este planeta,con medios suficientes para todos,con  techo,alimento y educación,pero es imposible de llevar a cabo si un pequeño porcentaje de la población acumula todo  lo que le falta al 80% restante.

La avaricia es una enfermedad,la ignorancia una carencia muy peligrosa,la injusticia una enfermedad terminal.
Justo es reconocer que solamente en épocas muy puntuales y en ciclos cortos se puede decir que hubo un atisbo de Justicia.
Pero aquí y ahora ya no hay justificación alguna,la información corre por las redes,las soluciones,las buenas soluciones,también.
Ya no es excusa la ignorancia,todo se puede mejorar,cambiar.

Y termino,si no lo hacemos por generosidad hagámoslo por un total y absoluto egoísmo,sin clientes no hay mercados,sin mercados no existen beneficios.

La ignorancia favorece todo tipo de fanatismos que hacen la convivencia muy insegura,quedamos en manos de represores aterrados y  agresores cada vez más violentos.

La ONU hace tiempo que perdió sentido,ya no servía a los intereses de los poderosos,tampoco al avance de los países en desarrollo pero,hasta la fecha, es lo mejor que hemos hecho,nosotros los estúpidos seres humanos,así pues,conociendo las carencias,a tiempo de rectificar estamos.

Los Tribunales Internacionales se han  creado para combatir y juzgar la injusticia y el crímen contra la Humanidad,a ver si les damos el uso adecuado,hasta la fecha han servido sobre todo para juzgar a los perdedores en el juego de trileros que es la política en su mayor parte.
A ver si se les da la tan necesaria activación.
La gran incógnita es conocer si habrá suficiente generosidad por parte de todos para enderezar el rumbo antes de que la nave se estrelle contra las rocas.
Todos somos migrantes de uno u otro signo,nuestra vida es corta,al menos seamos constructores de la vía, no destructores de caminos y sueños.

martes, 25 de abril de 2017

UN RECUERDO Y UN DESEO

Escribir cada vez requiere mayor esfuerzo,ahora que sabemos que los tártaros están entre nosotros desde hace tiempo y que el desierto continúa vacío,semejando un espejismo tan falso como todos.
No podemos rendirnos al desánimo,tampoco escondernos o llorar,solo nos queda seguir en el camino e impedir que los atracadores no exterminen a más inocentes.
Difícil y dura tesitura.
Podría escribir de muchos temas,pero solo uno es recurrente,la injusticia como arma de destrucción masiva,y aquí,amigos,surge de la tierra un alto muro que bloquea todas  las posibles salidas.
Es por esto que resulta casi imposible escribir.
Entonces llega el poema o la música que te consuela momentáneamente.
Hoy recurro a mi querido Mario Benedetti,a ese hermoso poema sobre la Libertad,que si mal no recuerdo musicó y cantó Nacha Guevara,en aquellos años en que una canción nos permitía entrever el fin de una abyecta dictadura y su jauría de hienas.
Las hienas y sus cachorros continúan aquí,habrá que que expulsarlas ya de una vez y para siempre de nuestros lares.
Salud y República.
Feliz Día de la Liberación para los amigos italianos.

viernes, 14 de abril de 2017

14 DE ABRIL,DÍA DE LA REPÚBLICA.2017

MÚSICA PARA UN 14 DE ABRIL DE 2014
Para tiempos duros,noticias alegres.
Encontré el Himno de Riego en el blog publicado el 14 de Abril de 2012,esta en YouTube,estupendamente acompañado por muy ilustres paisanos,desde Labordeta a Serrat.
Totalmente recomendable.
En estos tiempos obscuros de miseria e incertidumbre,sube mucho el ánimo que nos dieron otros para seguir  adelante,a pesar de todo.
Este año celebro así el 14 de Abril.
No son brindis al sol,tampoco utopías irrealizables,es el mañana cierto.
Por hoy me permito no entrar en la basura,solo sobrevolarla.
República y salud,compañero

sábado, 1 de abril de 2017

THE ULTIMATE DEAL.DR.HENRY SIEGMAN.MARCH,30



The Ultimate Deal

Henry Siegman on the two-state solution

Reactions by the international commentariat to Trump and Netanyahu’s joint press conference on 15 February focused largely on Trump’s pronouncements, specifically on what seemed to be his abandonment of America’s long-standing bipartisan support for a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict. ‘I’m looking at two-state and one-state and I like the one that both parties like,’ he said. ‘I can live with either one.’ Given his ignorance of international affairs in general and the Middle East in particular, he probably had no idea of the implications of what he was saying. He declared that Palestinians will ‘have to acknowledge Israel, they’re going to have to do that,’ entirely unaware that that is exactly what they have already done, not once, but on three separate occasions: at the request of Reagan and his secretary of state, George Shultz, in 1988; in 1993, in the context of the Oslo Accords; and again in Gaza in 1998, with Bill Clinton in attendance. Trump is probably also unaware that Netanyahu’s government has never recognised the Palestinian right to national self-determination and statehood in any part of Palestine, even though this right has been affirmed repeatedly by the UN Security Council (e.g. Resolution 242 in 1967 and Resolution 1515 in 2003) and by the International Court of Justice (in 2004).
The Palestinians never withdrew their recognition of Israel, but they have refused to endorse Israel’s decision to define its national identity in religious and ethnic terms, a demand that no country has the right to impose on other countries. Israel would never agree to such a demand by Palestinians or for that matter by any Christian country.
Far less attention has been paid to what Netanyahu said at the press conference, although it was more revealing of prospects for a two-state solution than anything Trump said. In reply to a reporter who asked whether he still supports a two-state solution, Netanyahu said he considers the terms ‘two-state’ and ‘one-state’ to be superficial ‘labels’, and that he prefers dealing with ‘substance’. ‘There are two prerequisites for peace,’ he said. ‘First, the Palestinians must recognise the Jewish state … Second, in any peace agreement, Israel must retain the overriding security control over the entire area west of the Jordan River.’
Unlike Trump, Netanyahu is very much aware that Palestinians have recognised the State of Israel. But like Trump, Netanyahu lies shamelessly. And like Trump, who turned viciously on Obama after the outgoing president extended to him entirely undeserved consideration, Netanyahu is a total ingrate. He never acknowledged that the Palestinians recognised Israel’s legitimacy not only within the borders assigned to it in 1947 by the UN Partition Plan but also including territory assigned to the Palestinians and confiscated by Israel following its War of Independence in 1948, in defiance of Resolution 242 prohibiting the acquisition of territory as a result of war.
It was not an Israel-basher but a former prime minister and president, Shimon Peres, who noted in an interview in Israel’s Yediyot Ahoronot that ‘before Oslo, the Palestinian state’s size should have been according to the 1947 map, the UN map. In Oslo, Arafat moved from the 1947 map to the 1967 one. He gave up on 22 per cent of the West Bank. I don’t know any Arab leader who would give up 2 or 3 per cent.’ Actually, Peres misspoke. Arafat did not give up 22 per cent of the West Bank but 22 per cent of Palestine, which is fully 50 per cent of the West Bank territory the UN Partition Plan recognised as the legitimate patrimony of the Palestinian people. And Peres might also have added that he knew no Israeli leader, including himself, who would give up any part of his country’s territory. But it is Palestinian leaders who are accused by Israel of refusing to make concessions for peace, a lie US administrations consistently repeat to imply a non-existent equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian resistance to a two-state agreement.
Even before his meeting with Trump, Netanyahu announced his intention of treating 60 per cent of the West Bank – territory that the Oslo agreement designated as Area C, from which Israel was supposed to have withdrawn by 1998 – as a permanent part of Israel. So Palestinians would be left just 10 per cent of pre-partition Palestine. But with Trump in the White House, and his settlement-supporting son-in-law by his side, even this shrinkage seemed to Netanyahu too generous an accommodation to the Palestinians. He therefore announced at the White House that his second condition for a peace agreement with the Palestinians is that they agree to Israel’s retention of its military control over the entire West Bank. In plain English, what Netanyahu proposed is that Palestinians be confined permanently to enclaves in 10 per cent of Palestine, under the control of the IDF. But they are free to call that arrangement a Palestinian state.
As to Trump’s thinking, he may well have intended to repeal America’s commitment to a two-state solution, although his ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, has stated categorically that there was no such intention. When Trump said that he would be as happy with a one-state agreement as with a two-state one, he may have meant that he sees the one-state solution not as one of several options, but as the default if the two-state option fails. The default doesn’t require the resolution of the many permanent status issues – over the settlements, borders, security arrangements, allocation of natural resources, Jerusalem etc – that have bedevilled talks for a two-state agreement. But it does require that Palestinians within Greater Israel’s borders receive the same rights as those Israeli citizens now enjoy. It doesn’t create a new reality but confirms the existing one, brought about by Israeli design.
If that is what Trump meant to say, he has proposed what I have long believed to be the only possible path to a recovery of the two-state solution. Let me explain. Every expert believes, and every poll conducted on the subject has confirmed, that the vast majority of Israeli Jews wouldn’t agree to a one-state agreement with the Palestinians if it were likely to lead to the loss of Israel’s Jewish identity. If Israelis were to see that their government’s rejection of a two-state solution would lead to US support for a one-state solution that granted equal citizenship to West Bank Palestinians who are being denied a state of their own, Israelis would opt for a two-state accord.
If such a take on the possible implications of Trump’s remarks seems inconsistent with his reaching out to Netanyahu, it is not inconsistent with his request, however gently expressed, that Netanyahu hold off for a while on further settlement activity. It is also not inconsistent with his subsequent demand that Netanyahu not proceed with his publicly announced plans for the construction of thousands of new homes in the Occupied Territories. Similar requests made by Obama were presented by Netanyahu as anti-Semitic agitation.
If this is not what Trump intended, it doesn’t change the hard reality that the only way of retrieving the two-state option is by denying Israel the right to maintain the status quo. If Trump is serious about closing what he has described as ‘the ultimate deal’, this is the only way he will be able do it. Nevertheless, Trump’s appointment as his ambassador to Israel of David Friedman, a long-time contributor to the expansion of Jewish settlements in the West Bank and an unhinged right-winger who has accused Israeli and American Jewish supporters of a two-state solution as being ‘worse than kapos’, hardly supports the notion that Trump is about to cross Netanyahu. Mark Landler has argued in the New York Times that Trump’s recent phone call to Netan-yahu as he was being interrogated by Israeli police in a bribery and fraud investigation was conveniently timed to serve as a reminder to Israel’s attorney general that indicting Netanyahu ‘could harm Israel’s national security at a dangerous time’. Landler plausibly suggests that Trump’s ‘timely’ call reciprocated Netanyahu’s ‘timely’ praise for Trump’s belated stand against anti-Semitism to help absolve Trump from the charge that he seemed indifferent (at best) to the escalation of anti-Semitic violence during his presidential campaign and following his inauguration. This certainly doesn’t provide support for the notion that Trump intended to tell Netanyahu at their joint press conference that if he won’t act to reach a two-state agreement with the Palestinians, the alternative is not embedding the status quo but granting Palestinians equal citizenship in the de facto single state Netanyahu has so successfully engineered.
While Trump’s envoy Jason Greenblatt’s comportment in Israel has caused many Israeli leaders to fear that their assumptions about Trump’s abandonment of the two-state solution may be groundless, Israelis still believe that even if Netanyahu is not granted carte blanche, he will continue to bamboozle Americans into believing that he remains committed to a two-state solution. Obama and his predecessors didn’t hold back from expressing their concern about the unavoidable consequences of Israel’s settlement project for the future of Israel’s democracy and Jewish identity, but such statements were always made in the context of assurances of the unbreakability of the ties that bind America to Israel. Those assurances were the result of an American diplomacy based on the pretence that US leaders believe Netanyahu’s lie that he seeks a two-state solution, a pretence successive US administrations felt obliged to share because of their fear of Aipac, Israel’s lobby in the US. As noted by the New York Times columnist Roger Cohen, the fig leaf provided by a peace process that held out the false promise of a two-state agreement, even as Israel’s settlements were clearly destroying it, is what has allowed successive Israeli governments ‘to do their worst’.
One of the ironies of Trump’s election victory as far as the Israel-Palestine conflict is concerned is that he is an American president who doesn’t have to heed Aipac’s wishes. Trump owes little to American Jews for his electoral victory. Indeed, American Jews continue to play a prominent role in the anti-Trump resistance that is making itself felt across the country. To Netanyahu’s shame, he has risen to the defence of an American president whose senior strategist is a man who promotes a white supremacist ideology that echoes the idea of an Aryan master race: the ideology that produced the Holocaust, which Netanyahu so self-servingly invokes.
If effective pressure on Israel to end the occupation and accept a two-state solution won’t come from the United States, it can only come from the Palestinians themselves, when they finally act on the hard truth that the Palestinian Authority, for all the good it may have done, has been transformed by Palestine’s occupiers and by the failures of its own leadership from an institution meant to bring statehood into an instrument of permanent subjugation. It will only be when Palestinians close down the Palestinian Authority and turn it into a vehicle of non-violent struggle for rights that the two-state option will re-emerge. If it doesn’t re-emerge, in time Greater Israel’s de facto apartheid will evolve into a binational state, because no apartheid can be hidden under the cover of a ‘temporary occupation’ that has already lasted half a century. An anti-apartheid struggle will undoubtedly be long and painful, as it was in South Africa, but no longer and no more painful than would be the case were Netanyahu’s status quo to prevail. The lesson of Israel’s ‘transfer’ of Palestinians out of Area C is that an unchallenged de facto apartheid can only end with Palestinians in the West Bank finding themselves alongside the many millions of fellow Palestinian refugees outside, not inside, Palestine’s (i.e. Greater Israel’s) borders.
Perhaps the greatest of the many ironies that mark this conflict is that not only Palestinian statehood but the survival of Israel may come to depend on whether the Palestinian people renew the struggle for their own political self-determination.
Henry Siegman is president emeritus of the US/Middle East Project. He was a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and is a former head of the American Jewish Congress and the Synagogue Council of America.