Causa Liberal
ESSENTIAL READING
No Daily Telegraph de hoje: "Iran's nuclear threat must be faced", de Daniel Hannan. Esta analise lúcida por um eurodeputado britànico descreve o que está na orígem da actual crise Lébano/Israel.
segunda-feira, 31 de julho de 2006
sexta-feira, 28 de julho de 2006
Nova mudança de ritmo
Vou suspender as minhas contribuições neste blogue colectivo (mas liberal) no âmbito de certos temas internacionais (e pensar em que moldes é que poderei voltar a fazê-lo, provavelmente numa presença autónoma quando para isso tiver tempo).
Quando ao resto dos temas, andarei por cá, ainda que com um ritmo diminuido.
Quanto ao projecto da Causa, tem provavelmente sofrido da excessiva identificação do seu blogue com um membro com posições não-alinhadas e que de qualquer forma poderão ser expressas noutros locais (como o fazem outros membros da Causa liberal) ou sob outras formas.
Talvez o espaço específico deste blogue e do seu site deva corresponder a um certo tipo de temática no âmbito da história do liberalismo, teoria económica e filosofia liberal.
E de resto, talvez o excesso de bloguismo seja o que está a prejudicar a prossecução de alguns objectivos e razão de ser desta associação. Mas uma coisa é certa, Liberalism is the way...
Quando ao resto dos temas, andarei por cá, ainda que com um ritmo diminuido.
Quanto ao projecto da Causa, tem provavelmente sofrido da excessiva identificação do seu blogue com um membro com posições não-alinhadas e que de qualquer forma poderão ser expressas noutros locais (como o fazem outros membros da Causa liberal) ou sob outras formas.
Talvez o espaço específico deste blogue e do seu site deva corresponder a um certo tipo de temática no âmbito da história do liberalismo, teoria económica e filosofia liberal.
E de resto, talvez o excesso de bloguismo seja o que está a prejudicar a prossecução de alguns objectivos e razão de ser desta associação. Mas uma coisa é certa, Liberalism is the way...
A DesOrdem Internacional
A Esquerda parece acreditar em Socialismo sem Guerra. A chamada direita-liberal em Guerra sem Socialismo. Existe quem acredite em Guerra e Socialismo (de esquerda ou de direita).
Por mim, observo que:
* O grau de violência praticado pelos Estados a nivel internacional, mesmo quando praticado com a melhor das razões e intenções, tem uma tendência muito persistente em se materializar em maiores danos objectivos do que os praticados pelos grupos-não-Estados com as piores das razões e intenções.
* Os fins raramente são alcançados, nasce é um maior número de caminhos desconhecidos, alargando-se a dimensão da turbulência social.
* As democracias políticas quando, para além do seu intervencionismo crónico sobre os indivíduos nacionais, se colocam numa posição de intervir fora da sua jurisdição (isto é, fora do território onde assumem ter o monopólio de violência), colocam sobre toda a população nacional e o seu próprio status-quo (soberania) responsabilidades pelos efeitos não intencionados das suas acções.
* A primeira guerra mundial e o resto do século 20 deviam servir de exemplo e aprendizagem, mas ver e olhar serão sempre coisas diferentes.
* Toda a noção de Estado é apenas um Status Quo. Não existe nada de "civil" na relação entre o indivíduo e o Estado, e muito menos noção de direito natural (vida, liberdade e propriedade) nas disputas territoriais pelo monopólio da violência assumido pelos Estados.
* A imigração livre dificilmente consegue conviver em Paz estável (seja em democracia ou não) porque mais tarde ou mais cedo alguém (comunidade homogénea) vai desejar tomar controlo do monopólio territorial da violência (Estado) e um ou mais grupos (comunidades homogéneas) vão disputar ou pôr em causa essa pretensão.
Por mim, observo que:
* O grau de violência praticado pelos Estados a nivel internacional, mesmo quando praticado com a melhor das razões e intenções, tem uma tendência muito persistente em se materializar em maiores danos objectivos do que os praticados pelos grupos-não-Estados com as piores das razões e intenções.
* Os fins raramente são alcançados, nasce é um maior número de caminhos desconhecidos, alargando-se a dimensão da turbulência social.
* As democracias políticas quando, para além do seu intervencionismo crónico sobre os indivíduos nacionais, se colocam numa posição de intervir fora da sua jurisdição (isto é, fora do território onde assumem ter o monopólio de violência), colocam sobre toda a população nacional e o seu próprio status-quo (soberania) responsabilidades pelos efeitos não intencionados das suas acções.
* A primeira guerra mundial e o resto do século 20 deviam servir de exemplo e aprendizagem, mas ver e olhar serão sempre coisas diferentes.
* Toda a noção de Estado é apenas um Status Quo. Não existe nada de "civil" na relação entre o indivíduo e o Estado, e muito menos noção de direito natural (vida, liberdade e propriedade) nas disputas territoriais pelo monopólio da violência assumido pelos Estados.
* A imigração livre dificilmente consegue conviver em Paz estável (seja em democracia ou não) porque mais tarde ou mais cedo alguém (comunidade homogénea) vai desejar tomar controlo do monopólio territorial da violência (Estado) e um ou mais grupos (comunidades homogéneas) vão disputar ou pôr em causa essa pretensão.
Self fullfilling profecy e o dever dos Liberais
Lendo a recomendação de Planeta Hezbollah, no A Terceira Noite, por Carlos Loureiro no Blasfémias.
Tal como o nazismo (e o comunismo na Rússia) dos anos 30 se alimentou das grandes asneiras intervencionistas politico-militares-nation-building e ambientes de violência e destruição da WWI, também o Ocidente (mais uma vez), na medida em que se "enterra nas areias movediças da história" também agora se vai cumprindo uma quase self-fufilling profecy.
E os pro-war-ocidentais a cada observação de escalada das unintended consequences que se vão acumulando (crescente fanatização, união árabe, etc) estes, como abutres (intencional ou não, tanto faz), coleccionam argumentos para apelos histérios de novas escaladadas de intervencionismo politico e militar na terra dos outros (sim, sempre a conversa da expansão islâmica, embora olhando para o mapa e vendo quem é que está onde neste momento...).
Se o ciclo não pára, e os liberais deviam ser os primeiros a contribuir para expor as unintended consequences do intervencionismo e da guerra, tudo acabará num glorioso e apoteótico final.
Tal como o nazismo (e o comunismo na Rússia) dos anos 30 se alimentou das grandes asneiras intervencionistas politico-militares-nation-building e ambientes de violência e destruição da WWI, também o Ocidente (mais uma vez), na medida em que se "enterra nas areias movediças da história" também agora se vai cumprindo uma quase self-fufilling profecy.
E os pro-war-ocidentais a cada observação de escalada das unintended consequences que se vão acumulando (crescente fanatização, união árabe, etc) estes, como abutres (intencional ou não, tanto faz), coleccionam argumentos para apelos histérios de novas escaladadas de intervencionismo politico e militar na terra dos outros (sim, sempre a conversa da expansão islâmica, embora olhando para o mapa e vendo quem é que está onde neste momento...).
Se o ciclo não pára, e os liberais deviam ser os primeiros a contribuir para expor as unintended consequences do intervencionismo e da guerra, tudo acabará num glorioso e apoteótico final.
Licença para...
Não sei porquê, mas o que muitos parecem sugerir é que seria preferível em vez de terrorismo suicida (a maior parte das vezes) e combates de tempos a tempos de guerilha urbana e rockets (agora passaram a "mísseis") assistir a um conflito a valer.
F16 contra F16, misseis teleguiados contra misseis teleguiados, bombardeamento-á-la-Dresden contra Bombardeamento-à-la-Toquio e quem sabe bombas-á-la-Hiroshima contra bombas-á-la-Nagasaki. De uniforme e então decidido pelas massas democráticas não existe inferno que lhes pegue ou céu que lhes seja negado.
Aí estaria um conflito "legítimo". Nenhuma vitima civil seria "ilegítima". Bom, talvez não se esteja assim tão longe. Tudo legitimo e tudo morto.
PS: nunca irei perceber bem como o pró-(estado-federal)-americano dos dias de hoje (do tipo, aquilo que apreciam mesmo-mesmo na América é mesmo os seus porta-aviões) interpreta a violência separatista dos revolucionários e milícias armadas americanas apoiadas pelo axis-of-evil (pelo menos Burke assim pensava) dos revolucionários ... franceses.
F16 contra F16, misseis teleguiados contra misseis teleguiados, bombardeamento-á-la-Dresden contra Bombardeamento-à-la-Toquio e quem sabe bombas-á-la-Hiroshima contra bombas-á-la-Nagasaki. De uniforme e então decidido pelas massas democráticas não existe inferno que lhes pegue ou céu que lhes seja negado.
Aí estaria um conflito "legítimo". Nenhuma vitima civil seria "ilegítima". Bom, talvez não se esteja assim tão longe. Tudo legitimo e tudo morto.
PS: nunca irei perceber bem como o pró-(estado-federal)-americano dos dias de hoje (do tipo, aquilo que apreciam mesmo-mesmo na América é mesmo os seus porta-aviões) interpreta a violência separatista dos revolucionários e milícias armadas americanas apoiadas pelo axis-of-evil (pelo menos Burke assim pensava) dos revolucionários ... franceses.
quinta-feira, 27 de julho de 2006
Re: As opções do Ocidente
O primeiro (de vários) problemas começa logo pelo título:
"Opções do Ocidente"
Nenhum problema é local, é tudo planetário e quem sabe do universo.
A teoria das alianças que devia estar desfeita desde que a tentativa da monarquia austriaca em pedir contas pelo acto terrorista à Servia, acabou no espaço de dias numa Guerra Mundial com os "aliados" do lado da Sérvia, sobrevive contudo.
No entanto, a principal acusação que serve de veículo para provocar uma guerra regional é acusar da "aliança" com a Siria e Irão. Embora não se perceba como a necessidade dos atentados suicidas pelos palestinianos demonstre esse apoio.
Não são as opções do "Ocidente".
São as do VDH e os seus compinchas que não têm feito outra coisa que envolver e enterrar o "Ocidente" nas areias movediças da História.
PS: pois, eles são bem intencionados... os candidatos óptimos a construir o caminho do inferno.
"Opções do Ocidente"
Nenhum problema é local, é tudo planetário e quem sabe do universo.
A teoria das alianças que devia estar desfeita desde que a tentativa da monarquia austriaca em pedir contas pelo acto terrorista à Servia, acabou no espaço de dias numa Guerra Mundial com os "aliados" do lado da Sérvia, sobrevive contudo.
No entanto, a principal acusação que serve de veículo para provocar uma guerra regional é acusar da "aliança" com a Siria e Irão. Embora não se perceba como a necessidade dos atentados suicidas pelos palestinianos demonstre esse apoio.
Não são as opções do "Ocidente".
São as do VDH e os seus compinchas que não têm feito outra coisa que envolver e enterrar o "Ocidente" nas areias movediças da História.
PS: pois, eles são bem intencionados... os candidatos óptimos a construir o caminho do inferno.
As opções do Ocidente
What Options Are Left?
Arab Nations Show No Sign of Concessions or Desire for Peace.
Por Victor Davis Hanson
Arab Nations Show No Sign of Concessions or Desire for Peace.
Por Victor Davis Hanson
For years, the Arab world clamored for the Israel "problem" to be solved. Then peace and security would at last supposedly reshape the Middle East . The Western nations understood the "problem" as being Israeli retention of lands it had captured in Sinai, the West Bank, Gaza , Syria and Lebanon after defeating a series of Arab forces bent on destroying the Jewish state.
But after the Israeli departure from Sinai, Gaza and Lebanon , and billions of dollars in American aid to Egypt , Jordan and the Palestinians, there is still not much progress toward peace. Past Israeli magnanimity was seen as weakness. Now Israel 's reasoned diplomacy has earned it another round of kidnapping, ransom and rocket attacks.
Finally, the world is accepting that the Middle East problem was never about so-called occupied land — but only about the existence of Israel itself. Hezbollah and Hamas, and those in their midst who tolerate them (or vote for them), didn't so much want Israel out of Lebanon and Gaza as pushed into the Mediterranean altogether. And since there will be no second Holocaust, the Israelis may well soon transform a perennial terrorist war that they can't easily win into a conventional aerial one against a terrorist-sponsoring Syria that they can.
(...)
Yet for all their threats, what the Islamists — from Hezbollah in Lebanon 's Bekaa Valley to the Iranian government in Tehran to the jihadists in Iraq 's Sunni Triangle — don't understand is that they are slowly pushing tired Westerners into a corner. If diplomacy, or aid, or support for democracy, or multiculturalism, or withdrawal from contested lands, does not satisfy radical Islamists, what would?
Perhaps nothing.
What then would be the new Western approach to terrorism? Hard and quick retaliation — but without our past concern for nation-building, or offering a democratic alternative to theocracy and autocracy, or even worrying about whether other Muslims are unfairly lumped in with Islamists who operate freely in their midst.
Any new policy of retaliation — in light both of Sept. 11 and the messy efforts to birth democracies in Afghanistan , Iraq , Lebanon and the West Bank — would be something of an exasperated return to the old cruise-missile payback. Yet in the new world of Iranian nukes and Hezbollah missiles, the West would hit back with something far greater than a cruise missile.
If they are not careful, a Syria or Iran really will earn a conventional war — not more futile diplomacy or limited responses to terrorism. And history shows that massive attacks from the air are something that the West does well.
So in the meantime, let us hope that democracy prevails in Iraq , that our massive aid is actually appreciated by the Middle East, that diplomacy ultimately works with Iran , that Syria quits supporting terrorists, and that Hamas and Hezbollah cease their rocket attacks against Israel — more for all their sakes than ours.
Por Km2
This letter, written by Tolstoy in response to a letter from a number of Swedish gentlemen who sought Tolstoy’s views on a Peace Conference that was to be held by the Tsar, is a critique of seeking a political end to war and "supporting the troops." Tolstoy here explains why neither the political process, governments or international tribunals will ever stop wars; that speeches, votes, peace conferences, tribunals, arms treaties and similar enterprises are in fact nothing but a diversion that hide from men the one and only way to stop war, and the one means that lies in their own power: refusing to serve as soldiers.
~ Jeff Snyder.
Letter on the Peace Conference, by Leo Tolstoy
"(...) It is supposed that at this Conference the representatives of governments will agree to cease increasing their forces. If so, the question involuntarily presents itself: How will the governments of those countries act which at the time of this meeting happen to be weaker than their neighbors? Such governments will hardly agree to remain in that condition – weaker than their neighbors. Or, if they have such firm belief in the validity of the stipulations made by the Conference as to agree to remain weaker, why should they not be weaker still? Why spend money on an army at all?
If, again, the business of the Conference will be to equalize the fighting forces of the various states, and to keep them stationary, then, even could such an impossible balance be arrived at, the question involuntarily arises: Why need the governments stop at such armaments as now exist? Why not decrease them? Why need Germany, France, and Russia have, say, for instance, 1,000,000 men each, and not 500,000, or why not 10,000 each, or why not 1000 each? If diminution is possible, why not reduce to a minimum? And, finally, why not, instead of armies, have champions – David and Goliath – and settle international questions according to the results of their combats?
It is said that the conflicts between governments are to be decided by arbitration. But, apart from the fact that the disputes will be settled, not by representatives of the people, but by representatives of the governments, and that there is no guarantee that the decisions will be just ones, who is to carry out the decisions of the court? The army? Whose army? That of all the Powers? But the strength of those armies is unequal.
Who, for instance, on the Continent is to carry out a decision which is disadvantageous, say, for Germany, Russia, and France allied together? Or who, at sea, will carry out a decision contrary to the interests of England, America, and France? The arbitrator's sentence against the military violence of states will be carried out by military violence – that is to say, the thing that has to be checked is to be the instrument by which it is to be checked. To catch a bird, put salt on its tail.(...)
Armies can be reduced and abolished only in opposition to the will, but never by the will, of governments.
Armies will only be diminished and abolished when people cease to trust governments, and themselves seek salvation from the miseries that oppress them, and seek that safety, not by the complicated and delicate combinations of diplomats, but in the simple fulfillment of that law, binding upon every man, inscribed in all religious teachings, and present in every heart, not to do to others what you wish them not to do to you – above all, not to slay your neighbors.
PS:
Isto foi bem antes da WW1. O instinto de Tolstoy estava certo. E se tivesse existido desobediência civil generalizada o mundo poderia ter sido poupado tudo o que de verdadeiro "evil" saiu dela, sendo que o "evil" começou própriamente com o inicio da guerra em si (em poucos dias, todo o mundo estava em guerra, o progressista/idealista/moralista Woodrow Wilson chegou a meses do fim, mas a tempo de aumentar o desastre).
A expressão de que os Estados e o seu monopólio sobre a violência territorial servem para nos proteger devia estar desacreditada simplesmente porque uma análise objectiva só pode concluir que as guerras têm lugar precisamente para disputar que "Estado" assume o monopólio da violência em que KM2 do planeta.
O paradoxo é que os Estados justificam a sua existência e as suas guerras em ordem para nos proteger. Por isso matam e destroiem em massa. Mas são esses KM2 que lhes interessa.
~ Jeff Snyder.
Letter on the Peace Conference, by Leo Tolstoy
"(...) It is supposed that at this Conference the representatives of governments will agree to cease increasing their forces. If so, the question involuntarily presents itself: How will the governments of those countries act which at the time of this meeting happen to be weaker than their neighbors? Such governments will hardly agree to remain in that condition – weaker than their neighbors. Or, if they have such firm belief in the validity of the stipulations made by the Conference as to agree to remain weaker, why should they not be weaker still? Why spend money on an army at all?
If, again, the business of the Conference will be to equalize the fighting forces of the various states, and to keep them stationary, then, even could such an impossible balance be arrived at, the question involuntarily arises: Why need the governments stop at such armaments as now exist? Why not decrease them? Why need Germany, France, and Russia have, say, for instance, 1,000,000 men each, and not 500,000, or why not 10,000 each, or why not 1000 each? If diminution is possible, why not reduce to a minimum? And, finally, why not, instead of armies, have champions – David and Goliath – and settle international questions according to the results of their combats?
It is said that the conflicts between governments are to be decided by arbitration. But, apart from the fact that the disputes will be settled, not by representatives of the people, but by representatives of the governments, and that there is no guarantee that the decisions will be just ones, who is to carry out the decisions of the court? The army? Whose army? That of all the Powers? But the strength of those armies is unequal.
Who, for instance, on the Continent is to carry out a decision which is disadvantageous, say, for Germany, Russia, and France allied together? Or who, at sea, will carry out a decision contrary to the interests of England, America, and France? The arbitrator's sentence against the military violence of states will be carried out by military violence – that is to say, the thing that has to be checked is to be the instrument by which it is to be checked. To catch a bird, put salt on its tail.(...)
Armies can be reduced and abolished only in opposition to the will, but never by the will, of governments.
Armies will only be diminished and abolished when people cease to trust governments, and themselves seek salvation from the miseries that oppress them, and seek that safety, not by the complicated and delicate combinations of diplomats, but in the simple fulfillment of that law, binding upon every man, inscribed in all religious teachings, and present in every heart, not to do to others what you wish them not to do to you – above all, not to slay your neighbors.
PS:
Isto foi bem antes da WW1. O instinto de Tolstoy estava certo. E se tivesse existido desobediência civil generalizada o mundo poderia ter sido poupado tudo o que de verdadeiro "evil" saiu dela, sendo que o "evil" começou própriamente com o inicio da guerra em si (em poucos dias, todo o mundo estava em guerra, o progressista/idealista/moralista Woodrow Wilson chegou a meses do fim, mas a tempo de aumentar o desastre).
A expressão de que os Estados e o seu monopólio sobre a violência territorial servem para nos proteger devia estar desacreditada simplesmente porque uma análise objectiva só pode concluir que as guerras têm lugar precisamente para disputar que "Estado" assume o monopólio da violência em que KM2 do planeta.
O paradoxo é que os Estados justificam a sua existência e as suas guerras em ordem para nos proteger. Por isso matam e destroiem em massa. Mas são esses KM2 que lhes interessa.
Fontes crediveis
Voltamos ao triste espectáculo, como na Guerra do Iraque, em que os apressados em diagnosticar a verdade de imediato e ver o mundo a preto e branco, citavam as fontes nada crediveis de sites e blogs obscuros pro-neocons e pro-war, em que todos os dias relatavam a descoberta de WMD, ligações, relatórios, e no fim toda a verdade era exactamente tudo mentira. Já tinha começado com Collin Powell na ONU. E apesar dos analistas dessa área terem estado errados em praticamente tudo, terem transformado o Iraque num campo aberto de terrorismo, terem entregue a hegemonia da região aos shiitas, arriscarem-se a destabilizar os regimes da zona (que de resto no inicio- já não tanto agora - prometiam destabilizar a bem da gloriosa revolução democrática internacional) que funcionam como controlo do extremismo, é a esses que vão buscar toda a sua inspiração.
A procura serena da verdade é suposto ser um valor do Liberalismo. Se querem ser como Churchuill, actor da destruição da civilização cristã (por acaso era ateu e parece que maçon) e europeia na WWI, para além de tudo um sionista anti-semita (ver citação de artigo de 1920 da sua autoria num artigo do reputado e de direita The Spectator), depois aliado de Estaline (conhecido mass murder dos anos 30), que conduziu ao fim do Império Britânico e acaba coroado com o domínio comunista, ao menos aproveitem e comecem a beber uma garrafa de whiskey por dia.
A procura serena da verdade é suposto ser um valor do Liberalismo. Se querem ser como Churchuill, actor da destruição da civilização cristã (por acaso era ateu e parece que maçon) e europeia na WWI, para além de tudo um sionista anti-semita (ver citação de artigo de 1920 da sua autoria num artigo do reputado e de direita The Spectator), depois aliado de Estaline (conhecido mass murder dos anos 30), que conduziu ao fim do Império Britânico e acaba coroado com o domínio comunista, ao menos aproveitem e comecem a beber uma garrafa de whiskey por dia.
quarta-feira, 26 de julho de 2006
Os Libaneses são loucos
Agora que estão a ser libertados da presença de terroristas lembram-se de começar a emigrar para a ... Síria?
O regresso aos duelos
Em vez de acusarem a incapacidade do Hezbollah em colocar-se num planalto deserto, armado de espingardas, à espera que cheguem os F-16 e misseis teleguiados para um combate, finalmente, sem "escudos" (e suponho que para alguns finalmente justo e de de igual para igual...) porque não recomendar a (entretanto criminalizada pelo estatismo) da boa tradição europeia (quando esta era um civilização) e mais tarde americana (quando esta era realmente livre) dos duelos individuais?
Morality is not on our side
Artigos como este marcam pontos "contra" o outro lado. E convidam o outro lado a responder da mesma moeda. Este é o tipo de exercício, provavelmente o único eficaz, a mostrar um caminho possível para a paz. E para quem está de fora, só uma posição neutral, tem credibilidade para convidar as partes de um conflito territorial a fazer tal exercício.
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m By Ze'ev Maoz. The writer is a professor of political science at Tel Aviv university.
There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards.
This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah's side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah "started it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side.
Let's start with a few facts. We invaded a sovereign state, and occupied its capital in 1982. In the process of this occupation, we dropped several tons of bombs from the air, ground and sea, while wounding and killing thousands of civilians. Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate. The majority of these civilians had nothing to do with the PLO, which provided the official pretext for the war.
In Operations Accountability and Grapes of Wrath, we caused the mass flight of about 500,000 refugees from southern Lebanon on each occasion. There are no exact data on the number of casualties in these operations, but one can recall that in Operation Grapes of Wrath, we bombed a shelter in the village of Kafr Kana which killed 103 civilians. The bombing may have been accidental, but that did not make the operation any more moral.
On July 28, 1989, we kidnapped Sheikh Obeid, and on May 12, 1994, we kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had captured Ron Arad. Israel held these two people and another 20-odd Lebanese detainees without trial, as "negotiating chips." That which is permissible to us is, of course, forbidden to Hezbollah.
Hezbollah crossed a border that is recognized by the international community. That is true. What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side.
So much for the history of morality. Now, let's consider current affairs. What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300.
Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal - namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 - is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange.
There is a propaganda aspect to this war, and it involves a competition as to who is more miserable. Each side tries to persuade the world that it is more miserable. As in every propaganda campaign, the use of information is selective, distorted and self-righteous. If we want to base our information (or shall we call it propaganda?) policy on the assumption that the international environment is going to buy the dubious merchandise that we are selling, be it out of ignorance or hypocrisy, then fine. But in terms of our own national soul searching, we owe ourselves to confront the bitter truth - maybe we will win this conflict on the military field, maybe we will make some diplomatic gains, but on the moral plane, we have no advantage, and we have no special status.
w w w . h a a r e t z . c o m By Ze'ev Maoz. The writer is a professor of political science at Tel Aviv university.
There's practically a holy consensus right now that the war in the North is a just war and that morality is on our side. The bitter truth must be said: this holy consensus is based on short-range selective memory, an introverted worldview, and double standards.
This war is not a just war. Israel is using excessive force without distinguishing between civilian population and enemy, whose sole purpose is extortion. That is not to say that morality and justice are on Hezbollah's side. Most certainly not. But the fact that Hezbollah "started it" when it kidnapped soldiers from across an international border does not even begin to tilt the scales of justice toward our side.
Let's start with a few facts. We invaded a sovereign state, and occupied its capital in 1982. In the process of this occupation, we dropped several tons of bombs from the air, ground and sea, while wounding and killing thousands of civilians. Approximately 14,000 civilians were killed between June and September of 1982, according to a conservative estimate. The majority of these civilians had nothing to do with the PLO, which provided the official pretext for the war.
In Operations Accountability and Grapes of Wrath, we caused the mass flight of about 500,000 refugees from southern Lebanon on each occasion. There are no exact data on the number of casualties in these operations, but one can recall that in Operation Grapes of Wrath, we bombed a shelter in the village of Kafr Kana which killed 103 civilians. The bombing may have been accidental, but that did not make the operation any more moral.
On July 28, 1989, we kidnapped Sheikh Obeid, and on May 12, 1994, we kidnapped Mustafa Dirani, who had captured Ron Arad. Israel held these two people and another 20-odd Lebanese detainees without trial, as "negotiating chips." That which is permissible to us is, of course, forbidden to Hezbollah.
Hezbollah crossed a border that is recognized by the international community. That is true. What we are forgetting is that ever since our withdrawal from Lebanon, the Israel Air Force has conducted photo-surveillance sorties on a daily basis in Lebanese airspace. While these flights caused no casualties, border violations are border violations. Here too, morality is not on our side.
So much for the history of morality. Now, let's consider current affairs. What exactly is the difference between launching Katyushas into civilian population centers in Israel and the Israel Air Force bombing population centers in south Beirut, Tyre, Sidon and Tripoli? The IDF has fired thousands of shells into south Lebanon villages, alleging that Hezbollah men are concealed among the civilian population. Approximately 25 Israeli civilians have been killed as a result of Katyusha missiles to date. The number of dead in Lebanon, the vast majority comprised of civilians who have nothing to do with Hezbollah, is more than 300.
Worse yet, bombing infrastructure targets such as power stations, bridges and other civil facilities turns the entire Lebanese civilian population into a victim and hostage, even if we are not physically harming civilians. The use of bombings to achieve a diplomatic goal - namely, coercing the Lebanese government into implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1559 - is an attempt at political blackmail, and no less than the kidnapping of IDF soldiers by Hezbollah is the aim of bringing about a prisoner exchange.
There is a propaganda aspect to this war, and it involves a competition as to who is more miserable. Each side tries to persuade the world that it is more miserable. As in every propaganda campaign, the use of information is selective, distorted and self-righteous. If we want to base our information (or shall we call it propaganda?) policy on the assumption that the international environment is going to buy the dubious merchandise that we are selling, be it out of ignorance or hypocrisy, then fine. But in terms of our own national soul searching, we owe ourselves to confront the bitter truth - maybe we will win this conflict on the military field, maybe we will make some diplomatic gains, but on the moral plane, we have no advantage, and we have no special status.
Democracia no Iraque
Lebanon: Winners and Losers: Poor Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. "Liberated" Iraq's chief government official came to Washington hoping to shore up the precarious position of his regime as it teeters on the brink of civil war, and all he got was this:
"Mr. Maliki's refusal to condemn Hezbollah has created an awkward situation for the White House. 'His statements are troubling,' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said today. 'They raise serious questions about whether Iraq, which is supposed to be our ally, can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East.'"
(...) A puppet trying to cut his strings is bound to fall on his face. Pinocchio, however, thinks he's a real boy, and even began acting like one last week at a news conference held in the "Green Zone":
"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."
"Mr. Maliki's refusal to condemn Hezbollah has created an awkward situation for the White House. 'His statements are troubling,' Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic minority leader, said today. 'They raise serious questions about whether Iraq, which is supposed to be our ally, can play a constructive role in resolving the current crisis and bringing stability to the Middle East.'"
(...) A puppet trying to cut his strings is bound to fall on his face. Pinocchio, however, thinks he's a real boy, and even began acting like one last week at a news conference held in the "Green Zone":
"The Israeli attacks and airstrikes are completely destroying Lebanon's infrastructure. I condemn these aggressions and call on the Arab League foreign ministers' meeting in Cairo to take quick action to stop these aggressions. We call on the world to take quick stands to stop the Israeli aggression."
terça-feira, 25 de julho de 2006
Causa Liberal
Causa Liberal
E A DIVISÃO ENTRE A DIREITA DECENTE E A DIREITA INDECENTE?
… we now have a bright line that divides the decent -- albeit usually wrong -- Left from the indecent Left.
The Left's anti-Israel positions until now were based, at least in theory, on its opposition to Israeli occupation of Arab land and its belief in the "cycle of violence" between Israel and its enemies. However, this time there is no occupied land involved and the violence is not a cycle with its implied lack of a beginning. There is a clear aggressor -- a terror organization devoted to Islamicizing the Middle East and annihilating Israel -- and no occupation.
That is why the Israeli Left is almost universally in favor of Israel's war against Hezbollah. Amos Oz, probably Israel's best-known novelist and leading spokesman of its Left, a lifetime critic of Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians, wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
"Many times in the past, the Israeli peace movement has criticized Israeli military operations. Not this time. . . . This time, Israel is not invading Lebanon. It is defending itself from daily harassment and bombardment of dozens of our towns and villages. . . . There can be no moral equation between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah is targeting Israeli civilians wherever they are, while Israel is targeting mostly Hezbollah."
Likewise, another longtime liberal critic of Israel, historian and Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, wrote last week:
"As one who rejects war, I regret Israel's heavy bombing of Lebanon last week, as I deplored Israeli attacks in population centers and on infrastructure in Gaza. . . . Yet, given the rejectionism of both Hamas and Hezbollah . . . is the path of negotiations actually open to Israel? . . . There is no moral equivalence between enemies here. . . . It seems urgent [to] reaffirm foundational support for Israel. . . . The fury of anti-Israel rage among Arabs and Muslims is accounted for only partially by the present conflict. It resuscitates . . . the long European habit of scapegoating Jews. . . . No one should think that embedded contempt for Jews -- anti-Semitism -- is not part of the current crisis."
Amos Oz and James Carroll are men of the Left who have been tested and passed the most clarifying moral litmus test of our time -- Israel's fight for existence against the primitives, fanatics and sadists in Hezbollah and Hamas and elsewhere in the Arab/Muslim world who wish to destroy it. Anyone on the Left who cannot see this is either bad, a useful idiot for Islamic terrorists, anti-Semitic or all three. There is no other explanation for morally condemning Israel's war on Hezbollah.
Dennis Prager, Town Hall, 25/07/06
E A DIVISÃO ENTRE A DIREITA DECENTE E A DIREITA INDECENTE?
… we now have a bright line that divides the decent -- albeit usually wrong -- Left from the indecent Left.
The Left's anti-Israel positions until now were based, at least in theory, on its opposition to Israeli occupation of Arab land and its belief in the "cycle of violence" between Israel and its enemies. However, this time there is no occupied land involved and the violence is not a cycle with its implied lack of a beginning. There is a clear aggressor -- a terror organization devoted to Islamicizing the Middle East and annihilating Israel -- and no occupation.
That is why the Israeli Left is almost universally in favor of Israel's war against Hezbollah. Amos Oz, probably Israel's best-known novelist and leading spokesman of its Left, a lifetime critic of Israeli policy vis a vis the Palestinians, wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
"Many times in the past, the Israeli peace movement has criticized Israeli military operations. Not this time. . . . This time, Israel is not invading Lebanon. It is defending itself from daily harassment and bombardment of dozens of our towns and villages. . . . There can be no moral equation between Hezbollah and Israel. Hezbollah is targeting Israeli civilians wherever they are, while Israel is targeting mostly Hezbollah."
Likewise, another longtime liberal critic of Israel, historian and Boston Globe columnist James Carroll, wrote last week:
"As one who rejects war, I regret Israel's heavy bombing of Lebanon last week, as I deplored Israeli attacks in population centers and on infrastructure in Gaza. . . . Yet, given the rejectionism of both Hamas and Hezbollah . . . is the path of negotiations actually open to Israel? . . . There is no moral equivalence between enemies here. . . . It seems urgent [to] reaffirm foundational support for Israel. . . . The fury of anti-Israel rage among Arabs and Muslims is accounted for only partially by the present conflict. It resuscitates . . . the long European habit of scapegoating Jews. . . . No one should think that embedded contempt for Jews -- anti-Semitism -- is not part of the current crisis."
Amos Oz and James Carroll are men of the Left who have been tested and passed the most clarifying moral litmus test of our time -- Israel's fight for existence against the primitives, fanatics and sadists in Hezbollah and Hamas and elsewhere in the Arab/Muslim world who wish to destroy it. Anyone on the Left who cannot see this is either bad, a useful idiot for Islamic terrorists, anti-Semitic or all three. There is no other explanation for morally condemning Israel's war on Hezbollah.
Dennis Prager, Town Hall, 25/07/06
Re: Pacifismo
Caros senhores terroristas. Por João Pereira Coutinho.
Começou a época das manifestações. Leio agora que, só em Londres, milhares de pacifistas saíram à rua para marchar contra a guerra no Oriente Médio. Nada a opôr. Marchar contra a guerra é simpático. Mais ainda: é cómodo. Você pode não saber nada sobre o conflito, nada sobre as razões do conflito, nada sobre as consequências do conflito. Mas é contra. Ser contra é a absolvição do pensamento: uma forma tranquila de colocar a flor na lapela do casaco e mostrar a sua vaidade moral ao mundo. Hitler invadiu a Polônia, exterminou milhões de judeus e procurou subjugar um continente inteiro? O pacifista é contra. Contra quê? Contra tudo: contra Hitler, contra Churchill, contra Roosevelt. Contra Aliados, contra nazistas. E quando os nazistas entram lá em casa e se preparam para matar o pacifista, ele dispara, em tom poético: "Não me mate! Você não vê que eu sou contra?" É provável que o nazista se assuste com a irracionalidade do pacifista e desapareça, correndo.
Capitão: "Eu não mandei você matar o inimigo?"
Soldado: "Sim, meu capitão. Mas ele era contra. Fiquei com medo."
O pior é que os pacifistas que saíram à rua não são contra tudo. Eles só são contra algumas coisas, o que torna o caso mais complexo e, do ponto de vista paranóico, muito mais interessante. Lemos as palavras de ordem e ficamos esclarecidos. "Não ataquem o Irã". "Liberdade para a Palestina". "Tirem as mãos do Líbano". Imagino que alguém deixou em casa as frases sacramentais. "Irã só quer paz". "Hizbollah é gente séria". "Israel é racista; não gosta de mísseis". Essa eu entendo. Israel retirou do Líbano em 2000. Retirou de Gaza em 2005. O Líbano e Gaza, depois da retirada, transformaram-se em parque de diversões para terroristas do Hizbollah e do Hamas (leia-se: do Irã e da Síria) que tinham por hábito sequestrar soldados israelenses e lançar rockets para o interior do estado judaico. Israel, inexplicavelmente, não gostava de apanhar com mísseis na cabeça, marca visível da sua intolerância. Os pacifistas de Londres deveriam denunciar essa intolerância: um Estado que retira dos territórios ocupados e, ainda por cima, não gosta de ser bombardeado, não merece o respeito da "comunidade internacional".
Pacifismo
A quase 100 anos de distância devia ser claro que as únicas mentes lúcidas que existiam em ambos os lados da Primeira Guerra Mundial era os poucos pacifistas que existiam antes, no início, a meio e no fim (claro que Lenine conseguiu parte do seu momentum com a bandeira do paz, precisamente porque o Czar pressionado por Woodrow Wilson não chegou a um acordo com os alemães que evitasse a rotura do regime, os anos seguintes puseram bem claro que o comunismo não tem nada de pacifista - pelo contrário, mas o capitalismo e a cooperação voluntária dentro dos Direitos Naturais encerra em si alguns traços de pacifismo, lamentávelmente desviados pelo chamado capitalismo-de-Estado).
Indo até um pouco mais longe, o melhor que podia ter acontecido à civilização cristã, poupando-a de todas as consequências que sairam directamente e indirectamente dessa guerra (o advento do comunismo, fascismo, nazismo, e para um liberal...ainda a social-democracia, uma nova guerra 2 décadas mais tarde que estabeleceu a influência comunista por mais 50 anos) tinha sido mesmo a desobediência civil generalizada (e entende-se, pacífica) contra lutar no nome dos Estados e nos interesses dos Estados.
Matar e morrer em guerras entre Estados existentes ou futuros, não é equivalente a defender a vida, liberdade e propriedade. Esta é o pressuposto primeiro de qualquer tentativa de aplicar a filosofia liberal à construção de princípios morais na ordem internacional.
A luta entre monopólios territoriais da violência (definição de Estado) resume-se à disputa de acessos a status quo, por definição sempre temporais, sempre revisitados pela história. No final, para o indivíduo acaba a definir-se quem é que assume o direito a interferir de forma violenta na vida, liberdade e propriedade de cada um.
Voltando à História, a tal desobediência civil chegou mesmo a acontecer por momentos no primeiro natal do conflito com a confraternização dos soldados de ambos os lados, a meio caminho das trincheiras (mais tarde castigados por tal). Terá sido talvez o último acto ainda verdadeiramente cristão da supostamente ainda civlização cristã. Tudo o que se passou nas décadas posteriores envergonham a humanidade.
E isso incluiu passar a um novo patamar de reivindicação de intervenção por parte de todos os Estados na vida, liberdade e propriedade de todos. Não menos. Por isso "War is the health of the State".
Não sou pacifista (como disse um dia Ayn Rand, "não tenho coragem para isso"), mas a sua filosofia de não-acção parece-me cada vez mais válida.
Tolstoi foi um dos primeiros grandes pacifistas conhecidos. O comunismo nem sequer tentou usá-lo como bandeira porque um pacifista íntegro como Tolstoi, crítico da ordem social, não a pretendia mudar com uma visão ou intervenção social colectiva. Nem sequer a sua crítica ao czarismo encerrava própriamente por trás uma proposta de revolução social alternativa.
O pacifismo, consistente com o cristianismo e com o individualismo, pretende mudar/salvar a alma de cada um. Não existe nada na filosofia liberal que permita oposição de princípio.
Indo até um pouco mais longe, o melhor que podia ter acontecido à civilização cristã, poupando-a de todas as consequências que sairam directamente e indirectamente dessa guerra (o advento do comunismo, fascismo, nazismo, e para um liberal...ainda a social-democracia, uma nova guerra 2 décadas mais tarde que estabeleceu a influência comunista por mais 50 anos) tinha sido mesmo a desobediência civil generalizada (e entende-se, pacífica) contra lutar no nome dos Estados e nos interesses dos Estados.
Matar e morrer em guerras entre Estados existentes ou futuros, não é equivalente a defender a vida, liberdade e propriedade. Esta é o pressuposto primeiro de qualquer tentativa de aplicar a filosofia liberal à construção de princípios morais na ordem internacional.
A luta entre monopólios territoriais da violência (definição de Estado) resume-se à disputa de acessos a status quo, por definição sempre temporais, sempre revisitados pela história. No final, para o indivíduo acaba a definir-se quem é que assume o direito a interferir de forma violenta na vida, liberdade e propriedade de cada um.
Voltando à História, a tal desobediência civil chegou mesmo a acontecer por momentos no primeiro natal do conflito com a confraternização dos soldados de ambos os lados, a meio caminho das trincheiras (mais tarde castigados por tal). Terá sido talvez o último acto ainda verdadeiramente cristão da supostamente ainda civlização cristã. Tudo o que se passou nas décadas posteriores envergonham a humanidade.
E isso incluiu passar a um novo patamar de reivindicação de intervenção por parte de todos os Estados na vida, liberdade e propriedade de todos. Não menos. Por isso "War is the health of the State".
Não sou pacifista (como disse um dia Ayn Rand, "não tenho coragem para isso"), mas a sua filosofia de não-acção parece-me cada vez mais válida.
Tolstoi foi um dos primeiros grandes pacifistas conhecidos. O comunismo nem sequer tentou usá-lo como bandeira porque um pacifista íntegro como Tolstoi, crítico da ordem social, não a pretendia mudar com uma visão ou intervenção social colectiva. Nem sequer a sua crítica ao czarismo encerrava própriamente por trás uma proposta de revolução social alternativa.
O pacifismo, consistente com o cristianismo e com o individualismo, pretende mudar/salvar a alma de cada um. Não existe nada na filosofia liberal que permita oposição de princípio.
Re: As responsabilidades do estado libanês
João Miranda atribui a culpa ao estado libanês. Por não dizimar a organização cuja criação foi uma consequência da invasão e ocupação do Líbano pelos Israelitas para destruir a OLP (ou seja, entraram para acabar com a OLP, sairam com o Hezbollah e com alguns massacres na consciência). No final desses anos, os isrelitas sairam por causa do Hezbollah, que por sinal, corresponde mais ao não-se-percebe-se-é-isso-que-pedem-os-pró-israelitas ataque ao exército e ataques convencionais do que a do ataque suicida. Não, não os estou a transformar em "freedom fighters" (O KLA islâmico albanês? os islâmicos que combatiam os soviéticos no afeganistão?), como costuma ser uma prática das "democracias" quando pretendem intervir politicamente e militarmente num qualquer sítio do mundo, demonizando uma das partes e transformando a outra em almas angélicas. Essa é a estratégia dos habituais humanitarians with a guilhotine. Falando de culpas, talvez ler o post anterior ajude.
Pormenores
"The original story, as most media tell it, goes something like this: Hezbollah attacked an Israeli border patrol station, killing six and taking two soldiers hostage. The incident happened on the Lebanese/Israel border in Israeli territory.
The alternate version, as explained by several news outlets, tells a bit of a different tale: These sources contend that Israel sent a commando force into southern Lebanon and was subsequently attacked by Hezbollah near the village of Aitaa al-Chaab, well inside Lebanon's southern territory. It was at this point that an Israel tank was struck by Hezbollah fighters, which resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the death of six.
As the AFP reported, "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning." (...)
The Associated Press departed from the official version as well. "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them," reported Joseph Panossian for AP on July 12. "The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity."
And the Hindustan Times on July 12 conveyed a similar account:
"The Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. 'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,' a statement by Hezbollah said. 'The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place,' it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they 'infiltrated' into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border."
Whether factual or not, these alternative accounts should at the very least raise serious questions as to Israel's motives and rationale for bombarding Lebanon.
MSNBC online first reported that Hezbollah had captured Israeli soldiers "inside" Lebanon, only to change their story hours later after the Israeli government gave an official statement to the contrary.
A report from The National Council of Arab Americans, based in Lebanon, also raised suspicion that Israel's official story did not hold water and noted that Israel had yet to recover the tank that was demolished during the initial attack in question.
"The Israelis so far have not been able to enter Aitaa al-Chaab to recover the tank that was exploded by Hezbollah and the bodies of the soldiers that were killed in the original operation (this is a main indication that the operation did take place on Lebanese soil, not that in my opinion it would ever be an illegitimate operation, but still the media has been saying that it was inside 'Israel' thus an aggression first started by Hezbollah)."
Before independent observers could organize an investigation of the incident, Israel had already mounted a grisly offensive against Lebanese infrastructure and civilians, bombing Beirut's international airport, along with numerous highways and communication portals. Israel didn't need the truth of the matter to play out before it invaded Lebanon. As with the United States' illegitimate invasion of Iraq, Israel just needed the proper media cover to wage a war with no genuine moral impetus." Kidnapped in Israel or Captured in Lebanon? Official justification for Israel's invasion on thin ice by Joshua Frank
The alternate version, as explained by several news outlets, tells a bit of a different tale: These sources contend that Israel sent a commando force into southern Lebanon and was subsequently attacked by Hezbollah near the village of Aitaa al-Chaab, well inside Lebanon's southern territory. It was at this point that an Israel tank was struck by Hezbollah fighters, which resulted in the capture of two Israeli soldiers and the death of six.
As the AFP reported, "According to the Lebanese police force, the two Israeli soldiers were captured in Lebanese territory, in the area of Aitaa al-Chaab, near to the border with Israel, where an Israeli unit had penetrated in middle of morning." (...)
The Associated Press departed from the official version as well. "The militant group Hezbollah captured two Israeli soldiers during clashes Wednesday across the border in southern Lebanon, prompting a swift reaction from Israel, which sent ground forces into its neighbor to look for them," reported Joseph Panossian for AP on July 12. "The forces were trying to keep the soldiers' captors from moving them deeper into Lebanon, Israeli government officials said on condition of anonymity."
And the Hindustan Times on July 12 conveyed a similar account:
"The Lebanese Shi'ite Hezbollah movement announced on Wednesday that its guerrillas have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon. 'Implementing our promise to free Arab prisoners in Israeli jails, our strugglers have captured two Israeli soldiers in southern Lebanon,' a statement by Hezbollah said. 'The two soldiers have already been moved to a safe place,' it added. The Lebanese police said that the two soldiers were captured as they 'infiltrated' into the town of Aitaa al-Chaab inside the Lebanese border."
Whether factual or not, these alternative accounts should at the very least raise serious questions as to Israel's motives and rationale for bombarding Lebanon.
MSNBC online first reported that Hezbollah had captured Israeli soldiers "inside" Lebanon, only to change their story hours later after the Israeli government gave an official statement to the contrary.
A report from The National Council of Arab Americans, based in Lebanon, also raised suspicion that Israel's official story did not hold water and noted that Israel had yet to recover the tank that was demolished during the initial attack in question.
"The Israelis so far have not been able to enter Aitaa al-Chaab to recover the tank that was exploded by Hezbollah and the bodies of the soldiers that were killed in the original operation (this is a main indication that the operation did take place on Lebanese soil, not that in my opinion it would ever be an illegitimate operation, but still the media has been saying that it was inside 'Israel' thus an aggression first started by Hezbollah)."
Before independent observers could organize an investigation of the incident, Israel had already mounted a grisly offensive against Lebanese infrastructure and civilians, bombing Beirut's international airport, along with numerous highways and communication portals. Israel didn't need the truth of the matter to play out before it invaded Lebanon. As with the United States' illegitimate invasion of Iraq, Israel just needed the proper media cover to wage a war with no genuine moral impetus." Kidnapped in Israel or Captured in Lebanon? Official justification for Israel's invasion on thin ice by Joshua Frank
segunda-feira, 24 de julho de 2006
Paradoxo do anti-pacifismo
Os anti-pacifistas têm sempre uma solução óptima e duradoira para todos conflitos territoriais e de soberania: que a outra parte se converta ao pacifismo.
O nascimento de um Status Quo
Quem, apesar de não ser parte interessada, se sente absolutamente seguro do Direito neste processo, deve tentar fazer o exercício de imaginar o número de situações análogas potenciais que poderão surgir no futuro, principalmente tendo em conta a realidade de quase livre imigração por omissão e multi-culturalismo.
(Wikipedia):
"The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, or Aliyah (עלייה) started in 1881 as Jews fled persecution, or followed the Socialist Zionist ideas of Moses Hess and others of "redemption of the soil." Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs.
Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), an Austrian Jew, founded the Zionist movement. In 1896, he published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), in which he called for the establishment of a national Jewish state. The following year he helped convene the first World Zionist Congress.
The establishment of Zionism led to the Second Aliyah (1904–1914) with the influx of around 40,000 Jews. In 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration that "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1920, Palestine became a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain.
Jewish immigration resumed in third (1919–1923) and fourth (1924–1929) waves after World War I. Arab riots in Palestine of 1929 killed 133 Jews, including 67 in Hebron.
The rise of Nazism in 1933 led to a fifth wave of Aliyah. The Jews in the region increased from 11% of the population in 1922 to 30% by 1940. 28% of the land was already bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews. The southern half of the country is the barren and mostly empty Negev desert. The subsequent Holocaust in Europe led to additional immigration from other parts of Europe. By the end of World War II, the number of Jews in Palestine was approximately 600,000.
In 1939, the British introduced a White Paper of 1939, which limited Jewish immigration over the course of the war to 75,000 and restricted purchase of land by Jews, perhaps in response to the Great Arab Uprising (1936-1939). The White Paper was seen as a betrayal by the Jewish community and Zionists, who perceived it as being in conflict with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Arabs were not entirely satisfied either, as they wanted Jewish immigration halted completely. However, the White Paper guided British policy until the end of the term of their Mandate. As a result, many Jews fleeing to Palestine to avoid Nazi persecution and the Holocaust were intercepted and returned to Europe. Two specific examples of this policy involved the ships Struma and Exodus. [1] These attempts by Jews to circumvent the blockade and flee Europe became known as Aliya Beth.
As tensions grew between the Jewish and Arab populations, and with little apparent support from the British Mandate authorities, the Jewish community began to rely on itself for defense.
Arab nationalists, opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate, and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa, and Haifa. As a result of the 1921 Arab attacks, the Haganah was formed to protect Jewish settlements. The Haganah was mostly defensive in nature, which among other things caused several members to split off and form the militant group Irgun (initially known as Hagana Bet) in 1931. The Irgun adhered to a much more active approach, which included attacks and initiation of armed actions against the British, the most notorious being the King David Hotel bombing, which killed 91 people. Haganah on the other hand often preferred restraint. A further split occurred when Avraham Stern left the Irgun to form Lehi, (also known as the Stern Gang) which was much more extreme in its methods. Unlike the Irgun, they refused any co-operation with the British during World War II and even attempted to work with the Nazis to secure European Jewry's immigration to Israel.
These groups had an enormous impact on events and procedures in the period preceding the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, such as Aliya Beth-the clandestine immigration from Europe, the forming of the Israel Defense Forces, and the withdrawal of the British, as well as to a great degree forming the foundation of the political parties which exist in Israel today.
Establishment of the State Ben Gurion pronounces the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 in Tel Aviv.Main article: Declaration of the Establishment of the State of IsraelIn 1947, following increasing levels of violence together with unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.
Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, David Ben-Gurion tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. Attacks on civilians chiefly by Arabs but also by Israelis soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews, this civil war being the first "phase" of the 1948 War of Independence.
The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one day before the expiry of the Palestine Mandate.
Following the State of Israel's establishment, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq joined the fighting and began the second phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. From the north, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, were all but stopped relatively close to the borders. Jordanian forces, invading from the east, captured East Jerusalem and laid siege on the city's west. However, forces of the Haganah successfully stopped most invading forces, and Irgun forces halted Egyptian encroachment from the south. At the beginning of June, the UN declared a one-month cease fire during which the Israel Defense Forces were officially formed. After numerous months of war, a cease fire was declared in 1949 and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were instituted. Israel had gained an additional 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan River. Jordan, for its part, held the large mountainous areas of Judea and Samaria, which became known as the West Bank. Egypt took control of a small strip of land along the coast, which became known as the Gaza Strip.
During and after the war, then Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion set about establishing order by dismantling the Palmach and underground organizations like the Irgun and Lehi. Those two groups were classified as terror organizations after the murder of a Swedish diplomat.
Large numbers of the Arab population fled or were driven out of the newly-created Jewish State. (Estimates of the final refugee count range from 600,000 to 900,000 with the official United Nations count at 711,000.[7]) The continuing conflict between Israel and the Arab world resulted in a lasting displacement that persists to this day.
Immigration of Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees from Arab lands doubled Israel's population within a year of independence. Over the following decade approximately 600,000 Mizrahi Jews, who fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries and Iran, migrated to Israel."
(Wikipedia):
"The first wave of modern immigration to Israel, or Aliyah (עלייה) started in 1881 as Jews fled persecution, or followed the Socialist Zionist ideas of Moses Hess and others of "redemption of the soil." Jews bought land from Ottoman and individual Arab landholders. After Jews established agricultural settlements, tensions erupted between the Jews and Arabs.
Theodor Herzl (1860–1904), an Austrian Jew, founded the Zionist movement. In 1896, he published Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State), in which he called for the establishment of a national Jewish state. The following year he helped convene the first World Zionist Congress.
The establishment of Zionism led to the Second Aliyah (1904–1914) with the influx of around 40,000 Jews. In 1917, the British Foreign Secretary Arthur J. Balfour issued the Balfour Declaration that "view[ed] with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people." In 1920, Palestine became a League of Nations mandate administered by Britain.
Jewish immigration resumed in third (1919–1923) and fourth (1924–1929) waves after World War I. Arab riots in Palestine of 1929 killed 133 Jews, including 67 in Hebron.
The rise of Nazism in 1933 led to a fifth wave of Aliyah. The Jews in the region increased from 11% of the population in 1922 to 30% by 1940. 28% of the land was already bought and owned by Zionist organizations plus additional private land owned by Jews. The southern half of the country is the barren and mostly empty Negev desert. The subsequent Holocaust in Europe led to additional immigration from other parts of Europe. By the end of World War II, the number of Jews in Palestine was approximately 600,000.
In 1939, the British introduced a White Paper of 1939, which limited Jewish immigration over the course of the war to 75,000 and restricted purchase of land by Jews, perhaps in response to the Great Arab Uprising (1936-1939). The White Paper was seen as a betrayal by the Jewish community and Zionists, who perceived it as being in conflict with the Balfour Declaration of 1917. The Arabs were not entirely satisfied either, as they wanted Jewish immigration halted completely. However, the White Paper guided British policy until the end of the term of their Mandate. As a result, many Jews fleeing to Palestine to avoid Nazi persecution and the Holocaust were intercepted and returned to Europe. Two specific examples of this policy involved the ships Struma and Exodus. [1] These attempts by Jews to circumvent the blockade and flee Europe became known as Aliya Beth.
As tensions grew between the Jewish and Arab populations, and with little apparent support from the British Mandate authorities, the Jewish community began to rely on itself for defense.
Arab nationalists, opposed to the Balfour declaration, the mandate, and the Jewish National Home, instigated riots and pogroms against Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, Jaffa, and Haifa. As a result of the 1921 Arab attacks, the Haganah was formed to protect Jewish settlements. The Haganah was mostly defensive in nature, which among other things caused several members to split off and form the militant group Irgun (initially known as Hagana Bet) in 1931. The Irgun adhered to a much more active approach, which included attacks and initiation of armed actions against the British, the most notorious being the King David Hotel bombing, which killed 91 people. Haganah on the other hand often preferred restraint. A further split occurred when Avraham Stern left the Irgun to form Lehi, (also known as the Stern Gang) which was much more extreme in its methods. Unlike the Irgun, they refused any co-operation with the British during World War II and even attempted to work with the Nazis to secure European Jewry's immigration to Israel.
These groups had an enormous impact on events and procedures in the period preceding the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, such as Aliya Beth-the clandestine immigration from Europe, the forming of the Israel Defense Forces, and the withdrawal of the British, as well as to a great degree forming the foundation of the political parties which exist in Israel today.
Establishment of the State Ben Gurion pronounces the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel on May 14, 1948 in Tel Aviv.Main article: Declaration of the Establishment of the State of IsraelIn 1947, following increasing levels of violence together with unsuccessful efforts to reconcile the Jewish and Arab populations, the British government decided to withdraw from the Palestine Mandate. The UN General Assembly approved the 1947 UN Partition Plan dividing the territory into two states, with the Jewish area consisting of roughly 55% of the land, and the Arab area roughly 45%. Jerusalem was planned to be an international region administered by the UN to avoid conflict over its status.
Immediately following the adoption of the Partition Plan by the UN General Assembly on November 29, 1947, David Ben-Gurion tentatively accepted the partition, while the Arab League rejected it. Attacks on civilians chiefly by Arabs but also by Israelis soon turned into widespread fighting between Arabs and Jews, this civil war being the first "phase" of the 1948 War of Independence.
The State of Israel was proclaimed on May 14, 1948, one day before the expiry of the Palestine Mandate.
Following the State of Israel's establishment, the armies of Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Iraq joined the fighting and began the second phase of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. From the north, Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq, were all but stopped relatively close to the borders. Jordanian forces, invading from the east, captured East Jerusalem and laid siege on the city's west. However, forces of the Haganah successfully stopped most invading forces, and Irgun forces halted Egyptian encroachment from the south. At the beginning of June, the UN declared a one-month cease fire during which the Israel Defense Forces were officially formed. After numerous months of war, a cease fire was declared in 1949 and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were instituted. Israel had gained an additional 26% of the Mandate territory west of the Jordan River. Jordan, for its part, held the large mountainous areas of Judea and Samaria, which became known as the West Bank. Egypt took control of a small strip of land along the coast, which became known as the Gaza Strip.
During and after the war, then Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion set about establishing order by dismantling the Palmach and underground organizations like the Irgun and Lehi. Those two groups were classified as terror organizations after the murder of a Swedish diplomat.
Large numbers of the Arab population fled or were driven out of the newly-created Jewish State. (Estimates of the final refugee count range from 600,000 to 900,000 with the official United Nations count at 711,000.[7]) The continuing conflict between Israel and the Arab world resulted in a lasting displacement that persists to this day.
Immigration of Holocaust survivors and Jewish refugees from Arab lands doubled Israel's population within a year of independence. Over the following decade approximately 600,000 Mizrahi Jews, who fled or were expelled from surrounding Arab countries and Iran, migrated to Israel."
domingo, 23 de julho de 2006
Causa Liberal
Causa Liberal
Os doce encantos do integralismo islámico
ON JULY 10, a group of terrorists entered a campground in Gouraya, a Mediterranean resort 75 miles from Algiers, and randomly massacred 5 people. The victims were among the 22 killed by terrorists in Algeria in the first half of July--putting that month on track to be a little less bloody than those preceding it. In April, the death toll was 60; in May, 54; in June, 65--this in a country with a population roughly the size of California's, and a government insistent that Islamist terrorism has been basically defeated.
Despite the official happy talk, kidnappings by Islamists to raise money for their cause are a routine occurrence in Algeria. And not a day goes by without terrorists' attacking military personnel, government employees, or ordinary civilians, whom they regard as allies of the government. Just in recent weeks, the GSPC (Algerian Salafist Group for Prayer and Combat), the al Qaeda affiliate that is now the main Algerian terrorist group, orchestrated an assault that killed 17 customs officers when their vehicles were riddled with bullets; another that killed 7 police officers when their truck was hit by an RPG; and the execution of 5 farmers who were shot, then finished off with daggers, their bodies burned. The GSPC also plants bombs in public places to create panic. Boumerdès, for example, about 25 miles from the capital, was hit twice by terror attacks near the main downtown bus station. Authorities are wondering whether Algiers will be next.
Os doce encantos do integralismo islámico
ON JULY 10, a group of terrorists entered a campground in Gouraya, a Mediterranean resort 75 miles from Algiers, and randomly massacred 5 people. The victims were among the 22 killed by terrorists in Algeria in the first half of July--putting that month on track to be a little less bloody than those preceding it. In April, the death toll was 60; in May, 54; in June, 65--this in a country with a population roughly the size of California's, and a government insistent that Islamist terrorism has been basically defeated.
Despite the official happy talk, kidnappings by Islamists to raise money for their cause are a routine occurrence in Algeria. And not a day goes by without terrorists' attacking military personnel, government employees, or ordinary civilians, whom they regard as allies of the government. Just in recent weeks, the GSPC (Algerian Salafist Group for Prayer and Combat), the al Qaeda affiliate that is now the main Algerian terrorist group, orchestrated an assault that killed 17 customs officers when their vehicles were riddled with bullets; another that killed 7 police officers when their truck was hit by an RPG; and the execution of 5 farmers who were shot, then finished off with daggers, their bodies burned. The GSPC also plants bombs in public places to create panic. Boumerdès, for example, about 25 miles from the capital, was hit twice by terror attacks near the main downtown bus station. Authorities are wondering whether Algiers will be next.
Uma guerra estranha
A Strange War
Israel is at last being given an opportunity to unload on jihadists.
Por Victor Davis Hanson
Israel is at last being given an opportunity to unload on jihadists.
Por Victor Davis Hanson
Sum up the declarations of Hezbollah’s leaders, Syrian diplomats, Iranian nuts, West Bank terrorists, and Arab commentators — and this latest Middle East war seems one of the strangest in a long history of strange conflicts. For example, have we ever witnessed a conflict in which one of the belligerents — Iran — that shipped thousands of rockets into Lebanon, and promises that it will soon destroy Israel, vehemently denies that its own missile technicians are on the ground in the Bekka Valley. Wouldn’t it wish to brag of such solidarity?
Or why, after boasting of the new targets that his lethal missiles will hit in Israel, does Hezbollah leader Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah (“We are ready for it — war, war on every level”) now harp that Israel is hitting too deep into Lebanon? Don’t enemies expect one another to hit deep? Isn’t that what “war on every level” is all about?
sexta-feira, 21 de julho de 2006
"Today, we are all Israelis!" brayed Ken Mehlman of the Republican National Committee to a gathering of Christians United for Israel.
One wonders if these Christians care about what is happening to our Christian brethren in Lebanon and Gaza, who have had all power cut off by Israeli air strikes, an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water, and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July. (...)
But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at The Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"
"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?(...)
But there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel, whose response to the capture of two soldiers had all the spontaneity of the Schlieffen Plan. And, again, Hezbollah attacked Israel, not us. And there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which it has signed but Israel refuses to sign.(..)
No, Kenny boy, we are not "all Israelis." Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last, and always. And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not "our war." It's your war." No, This Is Not 'Our War' by Patrick J. Buchanan
One wonders if these Christians care about what is happening to our Christian brethren in Lebanon and Gaza, who have had all power cut off by Israeli air strikes, an outlawed form of collective punishment, that has left them with no sanitation, rotting food, impure water, and days without light or electricity in the horrible heat of July. (...)
But all this carnage and destruction has only piqued the blood lust of the hairy-chested warriors at The Weekly Standard. In a signed editorial, "It's Our War," William Kristol calls for America to play her rightful role in this war by "countering this act of aggression by Iran with a military strike against Iranian nuclear facilities. Why wait?"
"Why wait?" Well, one reason is that the United States has not been attacked. A second is a small thing called the Constitution. Where does George W. Bush get the authority to launch a war on Iran? When did Congress declare war or authorize a war on Iran?(...)
But there is no evidence Iran has any tighter control over Hezbollah than we have over Israel, whose response to the capture of two soldiers had all the spontaneity of the Schlieffen Plan. And, again, Hezbollah attacked Israel, not us. And there is no solid proof Iran is in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which it has signed but Israel refuses to sign.(..)
No, Kenny boy, we are not "all Israelis." Some of us still think of ourselves as Americans, first, last, and always. And, no, Mr. Kristol, this is not "our war." It's your war." No, This Is Not 'Our War' by Patrick J. Buchanan
Um post realmente politicamente incorrecto
"...says columnist Lawrence Kudlow, "Israel is doing the Lord's work."
Percebe-se, do ponto de vista do cristianismo. De vez em quando apetece-me lembrar que se existem pontos comuns entre o judaismo e o cristianismo, a diferença é apenas um pequeno detalhe chamado Jesus Cristo. Um detalhe. Talvez por isso, muitos cristãos (protestantes e católicos) proto-sionistas falem cada vez mais em "Deus" e menos em Jesus Cristo. Talvez mais um sinal de des-cristiniazação do Ocidente, entre muitos outros.
E numa visão mais alargada, o eixo da história está a mudar para a Ásia. As religiões monoteistas (porque não falar no legado judaico-cristão-islâmico... com o centro/origem em ... Jerusalem?) estarão a dar os passos para a sua mútua destruição?
Percebe-se, do ponto de vista do cristianismo. De vez em quando apetece-me lembrar que se existem pontos comuns entre o judaismo e o cristianismo, a diferença é apenas um pequeno detalhe chamado Jesus Cristo. Um detalhe. Talvez por isso, muitos cristãos (protestantes e católicos) proto-sionistas falem cada vez mais em "Deus" e menos em Jesus Cristo. Talvez mais um sinal de des-cristiniazação do Ocidente, entre muitos outros.
E numa visão mais alargada, o eixo da história está a mudar para a Ásia. As religiões monoteistas (porque não falar no legado judaico-cristão-islâmico... com o centro/origem em ... Jerusalem?) estarão a dar os passos para a sua mútua destruição?
quinta-feira, 20 de julho de 2006
“Disproportionate” Criticism
“Disproportionate” Criticism
Israel will not back down, and Europe owes it thanks.
Por Joshua Muravchik.
Israel will not back down, and Europe owes it thanks.
Por Joshua Muravchik.
No sooner had Israel raised its hand in self-defense Finland, speaking as the rotating president of the European Union, denounced it for “the disproportionate use of force.” This position, echoed by France, Spain, the United Nations, and others, is wrong legally, morally, and strategically.
From a legal standpoint, Israel is the victim of multiple unprovoked aggressions. It withdrew entirely from Lebanon in 2000 and from Gaza in 2005. (Both of these occupations had come about as acts of self-defense: the former against rocket fire from Lebanon in 1982 and the latter against a war of annihilation declared by Egypt in 1967.) From the time of its withdrawal from Gaza, not a single day had passed without rockets being fired into Israel. Now from the north as well as the south, Israel finds hundreds of rockets being fired across its border. Even if these were aimed at military installations, it would be a clear-cut act of war. To make it worse, these rockets are aimed randomly at cities and other civilian population centers, making them not only acts of war but war crimes.
In the face of this criminal aggression, Israel has an absolute right to defend itself by making war against those who are attacking it. In the south this means against the Palestinian Authority. In the north it means fighting Lebanon. Of course, Israel has not been attacked by the army of Lebanon but rather by the militia of Hezbollah. Israel’s counterattacks are focusing on Hezbollah installations but are also aimed at Lebanon itself. This is tragic, but it may be inescapable, and it is certainly lawful: It is a well established principal of international law that a state is responsible for any armed attacks that originate from its territory. The government in Beirut must rein in Hezbollah. If it is too weak to do so, it has every right to request international assistance in this task. Indeed, it has an obligation.
"We will bury you"
É a segunda vez que ponho este artigo. Suponho que não faça diferença nenhuma. Todos os livros e filmes minimamente neutrais e objectivos sobre o cataclisma da Primeira Guerra Mundial (a tal que esteve na origem do comunismo, fascismo e nazismo) descrevem o tipo de febre que se pode observar hoje em dia em alguns circulos. A febre da guerra. Onde todas as partes desejam e caminham para o abismo demonizando o outro . Na altura todas capitais assistiram a manifestações gigantescas de apoio, mais democrática não podia ter sido. É o que se sente hoje. A febre por assistir a uma guerra alargada.
Fui Reaganista toda a juventude e olhando para trás percebe-se que Reagan não procurava o conflito pelo conflito (apesar de ter sido nesta altura que os NeoCons faziam a sua migração de ex-trotskistas Democratas para os Republicanos, daó, neocons). No Libano retirou as tropas depois de um ataque que lhe provou que se estava a meter num assunto dos outros. Ganhou as eleições passado 2 meses. Depois, mal teve possibilidade, estendeu a mão ao Império do Mal e este caiu por dentro (apesar das análise dos "tais" pintarem a URSS como no máximo da sua perigosidade). Agora, qualquer "Cartago" por menos capacidade militar que tenha e por menos que se perceba que alguma vez pudesse ser lógico usá-la (como a ainda distante alegada capacidade do Irão vir a dominar tecnologia nuclear ou anteriormente a destruição do regime de Saddam, para alegria dos shiitas pró-iranianos), é sujeita ao tratamento dos Romanos. A "petit diference" é que Roma o poderá vir a fazer em nome dos interesses - proxy - de uma pequena nação e não a pequena nação a fazer uma qualquer guerra no interesse de Roma. Uma estreia, na história do mundo e dos Impérios.
Guardian:It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war. At a Kremlin reception for western ambassadors in 1956, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced: "We will bury you." Those four words were seized on by American hawks as proof of aggressive Soviet intent. Doves who pointed out that the full quotation gave a less threatening message were drowned out. Khrushchev had actually said: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you." It was a harmless boast about socialism's eventual victory in the ideological competition with capitalism. He was not talking about war.
Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".
Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated.
The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. "
Fui Reaganista toda a juventude e olhando para trás percebe-se que Reagan não procurava o conflito pelo conflito (apesar de ter sido nesta altura que os NeoCons faziam a sua migração de ex-trotskistas Democratas para os Republicanos, daó, neocons). No Libano retirou as tropas depois de um ataque que lhe provou que se estava a meter num assunto dos outros. Ganhou as eleições passado 2 meses. Depois, mal teve possibilidade, estendeu a mão ao Império do Mal e este caiu por dentro (apesar das análise dos "tais" pintarem a URSS como no máximo da sua perigosidade). Agora, qualquer "Cartago" por menos capacidade militar que tenha e por menos que se perceba que alguma vez pudesse ser lógico usá-la (como a ainda distante alegada capacidade do Irão vir a dominar tecnologia nuclear ou anteriormente a destruição do regime de Saddam, para alegria dos shiitas pró-iranianos), é sujeita ao tratamento dos Romanos. A "petit diference" é que Roma o poderá vir a fazer em nome dos interesses - proxy - de uma pequena nação e não a pequena nação a fazer uma qualquer guerra no interesse de Roma. Uma estreia, na história do mundo e dos Impérios.
Guardian:It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war. At a Kremlin reception for western ambassadors in 1956, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced: "We will bury you." Those four words were seized on by American hawks as proof of aggressive Soviet intent. Doves who pointed out that the full quotation gave a less threatening message were drowned out. Khrushchev had actually said: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you." It was a harmless boast about socialism's eventual victory in the ideological competition with capitalism. He was not talking about war.
Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president. Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say he wants Israel "wiped off the map".
Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case. The remarks are not out of context. They are wrong, pure and simple. Ahmadinejad never said them. Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated.
The Iranian president was quoting an ancient statement by Iran's first Islamist leader, the late Ayatollah Khomeini, that "this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time" just as the Shah's regime in Iran had vanished. "
Estado contra a Família
Pelo bem das crianças, claro. É que sem o Estado a vigiar... Na pátria das liberdades - UK.
Big Brother database to record the lives of all children
The home life of every child in the country is to be recorded on a national database in the ultimate intrusion of the nanny state, it has emerged.
Computer records holding details of school performance, diet and even whether their parents provide a 'positive role model' for 12 million children will be held by the Government.
Police, social workers, teachers and doctors will have access to the database and have powers to flag up 'concerns' where children are not meeting criteria laid down by the state.
Big Brother database to record the lives of all children
The home life of every child in the country is to be recorded on a national database in the ultimate intrusion of the nanny state, it has emerged.
Computer records holding details of school performance, diet and even whether their parents provide a 'positive role model' for 12 million children will be held by the Government.
Police, social workers, teachers and doctors will have access to the database and have powers to flag up 'concerns' where children are not meeting criteria laid down by the state.
Pois
British anger at terror celebrationBy Ned Parker and Stephen Farrell
The commemoration of Israeli bombings that killing 92 people has caused offence
AS ISRAEL wages war against Hezbollah “terrorists” in Lebanon, Britain has protested about the celebration by right-wing Israelis of a Jewish “act of terrorism” against British rule 60 years ago this week.
The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine.
They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.
Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”
The commemoration of Israeli bombings that killing 92 people has caused offence
AS ISRAEL wages war against Hezbollah “terrorists” in Lebanon, Britain has protested about the celebration by right-wing Israelis of a Jewish “act of terrorism” against British rule 60 years ago this week.
The rightwingers, including Binyamin Netanyahu, the former Prime Minister, are commemorating the bombing of the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, the headquarters of British rule, that killed 92 people and helped to drive the British from Palestine.
They have erected a plaque outside the restored building, and are holding a two-day seminar with speeches and a tour of the hotel by one of the Jewish resistance fighters involved in the attack.
Simon McDonald, the British Ambassador in Tel Aviv, and John Jenkins, the Consul-General in Jerusalem, have written to the municipality, stating: “We do not think that it is right for an act of terrorism, which led to the loss of many lives, to be commemorated.”
quarta-feira, 19 de julho de 2006
Portugal e o seu aliado
Nuno Rogeiro como entrevistador, lembrou ao embaixador americano que ao tempo da sua Revolução, Portugal era ainda uma monarquia e o grande aliado dos Ingleses. É que a bem ver, ao seu tempo, tais revolucionários eram grupos armados ilegais e separatistas que expulsaram dezenas de milhares que eram leais ao bom do Império Britânico. Como é aquela coisa que diz que a História é escrita pelos...
PS: E é que depois em 1812, declararam guerra outra vez aos ingleses quando estes estavam em plena luta contra Napoleão. É preciso ter lata!
Claro que nesses tempos, pelo menos existia um verdadeiro federalismo. Os Estados de Massachusetts and Connecticut recusaram-se:
During the War of 1812, Massachusetts and Connecticut were ordered to call out their respective militias for the purpose of defending the coast. The call derived from the federal government’s authority to call the state militias into service "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."
Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong, however, maintained that the states reserved the power to determine whether any of these three conditions held. At Strong’s request, the Massachusetts Supreme Court offered its opinion. That court agreed with the governor: "As this power is not delegated to the United States by the Federal Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, it is reserved to the states, respectively; and from the nature of the power, it must be exercised by those with whom the states have respectively entrusted the chief command of the militia."
Connecticut followed suit:
It must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent state," as he is "to support the constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former.
Thus if the militia were called out for any purpose but those listed in the Constitution, it "would be not only the height of injustice to the militia…but a violation of the constitution and laws of this state, and of the United States." The president had no authority to call upon the militia of Connecticut "to assist in carrying on an offensive war" .
Claro que tudo isso desapareceu com Lincoln.
PS: E é que depois em 1812, declararam guerra outra vez aos ingleses quando estes estavam em plena luta contra Napoleão. É preciso ter lata!
Claro que nesses tempos, pelo menos existia um verdadeiro federalismo. Os Estados de Massachusetts and Connecticut recusaram-se:
During the War of 1812, Massachusetts and Connecticut were ordered to call out their respective militias for the purpose of defending the coast. The call derived from the federal government’s authority to call the state militias into service "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."
Massachusetts Governor Caleb Strong, however, maintained that the states reserved the power to determine whether any of these three conditions held. At Strong’s request, the Massachusetts Supreme Court offered its opinion. That court agreed with the governor: "As this power is not delegated to the United States by the Federal Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, it is reserved to the states, respectively; and from the nature of the power, it must be exercised by those with whom the states have respectively entrusted the chief command of the militia."
Connecticut followed suit:
It must not be forgotten, that the state of Connecticut is a FREE SOVEREIGN and INDEPENDENT state; that the United States are a confederacy of states; that we are a confederated and not a consolidated republic. The governor of this state is under a high and solemn obligation, "to maintain the lawful rights and privileges thereof, as a sovereign, free and independent state," as he is "to support the constitution of the United States," and the obligation to support the latter, imposes an additional obligation to support the former.
Thus if the militia were called out for any purpose but those listed in the Constitution, it "would be not only the height of injustice to the militia…but a violation of the constitution and laws of this state, and of the United States." The president had no authority to call upon the militia of Connecticut "to assist in carrying on an offensive war" .
Claro que tudo isso desapareceu com Lincoln.
Saddam, o anti-iraniano
"Toppled Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has issued a warning to the Syrian leadership 'not to go too far in its alliance with Iran,' blaming Tehran for the current flare-up of violence in the Middle East, the head of Saddam's defence team claimed Tuesday.
'The president told us that the Syrian leadership should not go too far in its alliance with Iran, because the Persians harbour bad intentions for all Arabs and aspire to see them vanquished,' he said.
'The Israeli aggression on Lebanon and the Palestinians is a natural result for what happened to Iraq with Iranian backing,' Saddam reportedly said, alluding to the US-led invasion of Iraq that resulted in the ouster of his regime in April 2003.
'Therefore, I do not exclude other Arab countries becoming the victim of US-backed Israeli attacks that serve Iranian objectives in the region,' he added.
Syria, which belonged to a rival wing of the Arab Baathist Party then ruling in Baghdad, supported Persian Iran against Arab Iraq in the 1980-88 war.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week warned that 'heavy casualties' would be inflicted on Israel if Syria was attacked.
'I am convinced that the Iranian and US agendas have met in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world and Arabs are now placed between the US-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil,' Duleimi quoted Saddam as saying. "
E pelo menos, no seu tempo, creio que não era assim (se descontarmos os mortos na sua luta contra o Irão e contra os separatistas internos):
14,000 Iraqis killed in 2006 (6000 in May and June)
For women:
“In some Baghdad neighborhoods, women are now prevented from going to the markets alone. In other cases, women have been warned not to drive cars or have faced harassment if they wear trousers. Women have also reported that wearing a headscarf is becoming not a matter of religious choice but one of survival in many parts of Iraq, a fact which is particularly resented by non-Muslim women.”
For people trying to beat the heat:
“On 28 May, an Iraqi tennis coach and two of his players were shot dead in Baghdad allegedly because they were wearing shorts. “
For busy healthcare workers:
“Health care providers face difficulties in carrying out their work because of the limited supply of electricity and growing number of patients due to the increase in violence,” the report says.
The full report is found here."
'The president told us that the Syrian leadership should not go too far in its alliance with Iran, because the Persians harbour bad intentions for all Arabs and aspire to see them vanquished,' he said.
'The Israeli aggression on Lebanon and the Palestinians is a natural result for what happened to Iraq with Iranian backing,' Saddam reportedly said, alluding to the US-led invasion of Iraq that resulted in the ouster of his regime in April 2003.
'Therefore, I do not exclude other Arab countries becoming the victim of US-backed Israeli attacks that serve Iranian objectives in the region,' he added.
Syria, which belonged to a rival wing of the Arab Baathist Party then ruling in Baghdad, supported Persian Iran against Arab Iraq in the 1980-88 war.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad last week warned that 'heavy casualties' would be inflicted on Israel if Syria was attacked.
'I am convinced that the Iranian and US agendas have met in Iraq and elsewhere in the Arab world and Arabs are now placed between the US-Israeli hammer and the Iranian anvil,' Duleimi quoted Saddam as saying. "
E pelo menos, no seu tempo, creio que não era assim (se descontarmos os mortos na sua luta contra o Irão e contra os separatistas internos):
14,000 Iraqis killed in 2006 (6000 in May and June)
For women:
“In some Baghdad neighborhoods, women are now prevented from going to the markets alone. In other cases, women have been warned not to drive cars or have faced harassment if they wear trousers. Women have also reported that wearing a headscarf is becoming not a matter of religious choice but one of survival in many parts of Iraq, a fact which is particularly resented by non-Muslim women.”
For people trying to beat the heat:
“On 28 May, an Iraqi tennis coach and two of his players were shot dead in Baghdad allegedly because they were wearing shorts. “
For busy healthcare workers:
“Health care providers face difficulties in carrying out their work because of the limited supply of electricity and growing number of patients due to the increase in violence,” the report says.
The full report is found here."
Ecos da história que ninguém gosta de lembrar
...porque só sabem falar em "Muniche" (porque lhes convém).
"Unfortunately, Israel is to America what Serbia was to Russia in 1914. That may be the most disturbing aspect of the "summer of 1914" analogy." The Summer of 1914 by William S. Lind
Sim, a mania das zonas de influência e as"alianças" foi o que fez com que o Czar apoiado pelos reformistas democratas (saliente-se) se tenha lançado em Guerra com o Império Austro-Húngaro por causa da Sérvia (e a sua influência no atentado terrorista), o que provocou a Alemanha, que provocou os Franceses (que raio de "aliança"moral junta uma monarquia com uma república iluminada?), que provocou os ingleses, etc...até ao último a entrar que foi precisamente os EUA (no quarto ano de guerra, a meses do fim, já com o trabalho "sujo" feito, tal como na WWII, de resto - coisa que a mitologia exagerada das relações atlânticas não costuma referir). Tendo todos os "aliados" ficado do lado do "Estado Terrorista" da Sérvia.
Lições que deviam ser tiradas:
A teoria das alianças morais tem semrpe o potencial de transformar qualquer conflito local, com vítimas a lamentar mas limitadas, num conflito global pela destruição total. São sempre os moralistas, apelando ao aparato do Estado, que conseguem ser os indutores do mal absoluto e continuar a apregoar a sua perfeita, angélica, pura, superioridade moral sobre todas as coisas. E é que a destruição não cria nada. Apenas deixa as almas sujeitas a novas paixões. Como a paixão comunista e fascista depois da queda das monarquias, tão desejada pelo intervencionismo moral de Woodrow Wilson.
O que eu acho é que os apoiantes de causa alheias devem tomar ... iniciativas individuais. Vão para lá pelos próprios meios e divirtam-se a matar e morrer pela disputa de Status Quos entre Estados pelo monopólio territorial da violência nuns quantos km2. Mas é bom que saibam que no limite não existe lei civil ou moral alguma que se aplique a disputas de Status Quo por esse monopólio. Apenas a lei do mais forte.
"Unfortunately, Israel is to America what Serbia was to Russia in 1914. That may be the most disturbing aspect of the "summer of 1914" analogy." The Summer of 1914 by William S. Lind
Sim, a mania das zonas de influência e as"alianças" foi o que fez com que o Czar apoiado pelos reformistas democratas (saliente-se) se tenha lançado em Guerra com o Império Austro-Húngaro por causa da Sérvia (e a sua influência no atentado terrorista), o que provocou a Alemanha, que provocou os Franceses (que raio de "aliança"moral junta uma monarquia com uma república iluminada?), que provocou os ingleses, etc...até ao último a entrar que foi precisamente os EUA (no quarto ano de guerra, a meses do fim, já com o trabalho "sujo" feito, tal como na WWII, de resto - coisa que a mitologia exagerada das relações atlânticas não costuma referir). Tendo todos os "aliados" ficado do lado do "Estado Terrorista" da Sérvia.
Lições que deviam ser tiradas:
A teoria das alianças morais tem semrpe o potencial de transformar qualquer conflito local, com vítimas a lamentar mas limitadas, num conflito global pela destruição total. São sempre os moralistas, apelando ao aparato do Estado, que conseguem ser os indutores do mal absoluto e continuar a apregoar a sua perfeita, angélica, pura, superioridade moral sobre todas as coisas. E é que a destruição não cria nada. Apenas deixa as almas sujeitas a novas paixões. Como a paixão comunista e fascista depois da queda das monarquias, tão desejada pelo intervencionismo moral de Woodrow Wilson.
O que eu acho é que os apoiantes de causa alheias devem tomar ... iniciativas individuais. Vão para lá pelos próprios meios e divirtam-se a matar e morrer pela disputa de Status Quos entre Estados pelo monopólio territorial da violência nuns quantos km2. Mas é bom que saibam que no limite não existe lei civil ou moral alguma que se aplique a disputas de Status Quo por esse monopólio. Apenas a lei do mais forte.
"Quem se reformar daqui a 25 anos recebe menos 23% de pensão"
Negocios.pt.
Conclusão a tirar? Dividam em cada ano, as receitas pelos pensionistas. Assim ficamos todos a saber que podemos aumentar ou diminuir a taxa da segurança social (diminuindo ou aumentado o rendimento líquido em cada mês) por contrapartida de aumentar ou diminuir de forma imediata o valor das pensões.
Esta é a realidade do sistema. Ambos votam. Ambos podem disputar os seus interesses. Os contribuintes de hoje sabem que serão os beneficiários de amanhã. Dependentes dos futuros contribuintes.
Conclusão a tirar? Dividam em cada ano, as receitas pelos pensionistas. Assim ficamos todos a saber que podemos aumentar ou diminuir a taxa da segurança social (diminuindo ou aumentado o rendimento líquido em cada mês) por contrapartida de aumentar ou diminuir de forma imediata o valor das pensões.
Esta é a realidade do sistema. Ambos votam. Ambos podem disputar os seus interesses. Os contribuintes de hoje sabem que serão os beneficiários de amanhã. Dependentes dos futuros contribuintes.
terça-feira, 18 de julho de 2006
The death of the family is the life of the state.
The Welfare State's Attack on the Family. by Vedran Vuk
"Family was an integral way of caring for individuals as a whole for centuries. Supporters of the welfare state forget the past.
Before the advent of Social Security, what happened to people who lived past 65 years? Did these people just starve to death from hunger by the tens of thousands? No. Did a huge wave of charitable organizations come to their rescue? Not always. So, how did they survive? Everyone can agree that there were no mass deaths of 65-year-old people recorded in the Great Depression before Social Security took effect.
These people survived under a basic principle in life. You take care of your kids, and one day, they will take care of you. In the past, having children was an investment in your future. You knew that one day your children would take care of your needs as you took care of theirs.
This created many incentives that produced a healthy family. (...)
Unemployment insurance has also undermined society. During the Great Depression, there were great movements of people to find jobs. If there was a job somewhere, people went. Now, with unemployment and welfare people stay in the same city watching everything around them rot and decay.(...)
The agenda of the state is to break up the family. The more you depend on the state, the more you justify its existence, and the larger it grows. The idea that people can provide things for themselves either individually or through the family frightens the state. It delegitimizes its role. The role of the family is dangerous to its survival."
"Family was an integral way of caring for individuals as a whole for centuries. Supporters of the welfare state forget the past.
Before the advent of Social Security, what happened to people who lived past 65 years? Did these people just starve to death from hunger by the tens of thousands? No. Did a huge wave of charitable organizations come to their rescue? Not always. So, how did they survive? Everyone can agree that there were no mass deaths of 65-year-old people recorded in the Great Depression before Social Security took effect.
These people survived under a basic principle in life. You take care of your kids, and one day, they will take care of you. In the past, having children was an investment in your future. You knew that one day your children would take care of your needs as you took care of theirs.
This created many incentives that produced a healthy family. (...)
Unemployment insurance has also undermined society. During the Great Depression, there were great movements of people to find jobs. If there was a job somewhere, people went. Now, with unemployment and welfare people stay in the same city watching everything around them rot and decay.(...)
The agenda of the state is to break up the family. The more you depend on the state, the more you justify its existence, and the larger it grows. The idea that people can provide things for themselves either individually or through the family frightens the state. It delegitimizes its role. The role of the family is dangerous to its survival."
sexta-feira, 14 de julho de 2006
Destaques
Salário mínimo português é o mais baixo da UE15
Acabem mas é com ele. São os mais despojados da sociedade, os que não têm voz, que mais são prejudicados pelo salário mínimo.
Elite dos fuzileiros portugueses parte hoje para o Congo
E para mais um um sitío do qual nada percebemos, nada vamos ajudar, e onde daqui a 10 anos nada foi resolvido a não ser a continuação da preseça, sem a qual o conflito se resume, provavelmente em piores termos do que se fosse deixados com os seus problemas.
Pergunta: Devia a Inglaterra e um conjunto de "aliados" ter intervido humanitáriamente na Guerra (dita) Civil americana (uma vez que foi a mais mortal e destrutiva de que existe conhecimento - 700 000 mortos)? Conforme a reposta que derem posso continuar a reflexão.
Acabem mas é com ele. São os mais despojados da sociedade, os que não têm voz, que mais são prejudicados pelo salário mínimo.
Elite dos fuzileiros portugueses parte hoje para o Congo
E para mais um um sitío do qual nada percebemos, nada vamos ajudar, e onde daqui a 10 anos nada foi resolvido a não ser a continuação da preseça, sem a qual o conflito se resume, provavelmente em piores termos do que se fosse deixados com os seus problemas.
Pergunta: Devia a Inglaterra e um conjunto de "aliados" ter intervido humanitáriamente na Guerra (dita) Civil americana (uma vez que foi a mais mortal e destrutiva de que existe conhecimento - 700 000 mortos)? Conforme a reposta que derem posso continuar a reflexão.
Eric Voegelin, Cristianismo e a obediência ao Estado
Via LRC: "And now, in concluding this investigation on the Evangelical side, a theoretical inquiry into Romans 13 for the Evangelical part, and then for the Catholic part an inquiry into the theological idea of the corpus mysticum Christi, so that the decadence I have repeatedly spoken of will come to light.
In all the documents, Evangelical and Catholic, with which those belonging to the communities were enjoined to obey Hitler, there are two texts from the Bible invoked by the clergy in order to command obedience to the authorities. Among the two, on the Catholic side, in the documents I will present to you next time, the fourth commandment is preferred. That commandment is “Honor your father and your mother.” This father and mother is now interpretatively expanded as “Honor the state, carry out its laws, obey the authorities!” Please note that. Not a word of all that is in the fourth commandment—for the good historical reason that precisely in the covenant of Sinai, within which the Decalogue was announced, the people existed under God and not under authorities. There was no occasion for speaking about having to obey any kind of authorities at all." Theoretical Inquiry into Romans 13 By Eric Voegelin
In all the documents, Evangelical and Catholic, with which those belonging to the communities were enjoined to obey Hitler, there are two texts from the Bible invoked by the clergy in order to command obedience to the authorities. Among the two, on the Catholic side, in the documents I will present to you next time, the fourth commandment is preferred. That commandment is “Honor your father and your mother.” This father and mother is now interpretatively expanded as “Honor the state, carry out its laws, obey the authorities!” Please note that. Not a word of all that is in the fourth commandment—for the good historical reason that precisely in the covenant of Sinai, within which the Decalogue was announced, the people existed under God and not under authorities. There was no occasion for speaking about having to obey any kind of authorities at all." Theoretical Inquiry into Romans 13 By Eric Voegelin
Extremismos
O extremismo fanático pró-israelita de alguns é giro de observar. Podem morrer 50 palestinanos por cada soldado israelita raptado ou morto, que nada os demove. Uns rockets sem quase impacto nenhum, desencadeia bombardeamentos que matam familias inteiras. No problem. As vitimas de terrorismo no conflito são mortes inaceitáveis, quando escrevem sobre isso até parecem angélicos pacifistas para o qual qualquer morte é inaceitável mas morrerem 8 a 10 ou mais palestinianos por cada um dessas vitimas, no problem, é defesa - é um pouco como as dezenas de milhares de vitimas no Iraque, no problem - escandaloso são 8 vitimas de terrorismo em Israel. Um ocupante pode sempre dizer que se defende. A lógica é retorcida mas que se defendem bem isso não existe dúvida alguma. Suponho que se os muçulmanos em Paris decretarem o seu Bairro um Estado Islâmico (e começarem a "defender-se") vão contar com a compreensão de quem entende que a aceitação de um novo Estado e "Judaico" é qualquer coisa que a população na zona óbviamente de forma pacifista teria de aceitar. Por mim, o Liberalismo pouco tem a dizer sobre conflitos territoriais do género, a não ser que a violência praticada por individuos ou soldados financiados por impostos é igualmente criminosa. Defender um Estado não é a defesa da vida e propriedade. É a defesa de um Estado contra outro Estado. Um dia, o Direito Criminal irá aplicar-se a todos.
quinta-feira, 13 de julho de 2006
Populistas Demagogos
1. Negocios.pt:"UE aprova corte de 70% nas tarifas de «roaming»13:52 A União Europeia aprovou hoje um projecto de regulamentação sobre as tarifas de «roaming», que deverá entrar em vigor no Verão de 2007, que poderá reduzir até 70% os custos de utilização do telemóvel no estrangeiro, anunciou Viviane Reding, comissária europeia da Sociedade de Informação e Media, ao final da manhã. "
PS: Faz-me lembrar alguém que na Argentina legislou que os salários aumentariam para o dobro no dia seguinte (na verdade, este tipo de populismo até acaba por ser positivo e inócuo no longo prazo, dado que expõe, sem ser intencionalmente, a irracionalidade económica à vista de todos).
2. Negocios.pt:"Bruxelas multa Microsoft em 280,5 milhões de euros11:34 A Comissão Europeia multou a Microsoft em 280,5 milhões de euros por se ter negado a cumprir a exigência que Bruxelas fez em 2004, para que a empresa de Bill Gates divulgasse informação sobre a ligação do Windows à Internet, sem a qual a entrada de outras empresas no mercado permaneceria vedada. "
PS: Por um lado, o conceito de copyright e patentes (cuja definição como "propriedade" é altamente questionável) é estendido até ao absurdo (daí o litígo constante), mas por outro lado, o código "escondido" técnicamente acesso (a maneira própria de defender a "propriedade" intelectual é arranjar formas naturais-não-coercivas-pelo-Estado de a proteger) é coercivamente obrigada a publicar o seu código interno. Inconsistências.
E depois, se um produto tem realmente êxito, o que significa que muita gente acha lucrativa/útil a sua aquisição ao preço pedido, esse produto passa a ser em parte, como que do domínio público, aberto à devassa, porque se transforma num...novo direito humano consagrado na Declaração Universal?
"War on Iran Has Begun"?
By DAVID TWERSKY
O autor parece gostar da ideia, como se suspeita muitos outros. Só achei piada à referência a "Years from now, the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit will be regarded like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand."
Sim, um atentado terrorista contra o Arquiduque e a reacção da Áustria contra o "Terror State" que o incentivou (a Sérvia) colocou a Rússia, França e depois o Império Britânico em guerra total contra as potências centrais (ou seja, ficaram do lado do "terror state"). Todas as partes tiveram culpa se bem que começava por a atribuir em ordem inversa das datas declarações/actos de guerra.
A velocidade dos acontecimentos e a mania idiota das alianças (e diga-se que os Britânicos não tinham qualquer tratado que os fizesse intervir por causa da França ou Bélgica) assegurou que um problema local se tenha transformado na destruição duma velha e civilizada ordem e emergência do comunismo e fascismo (e uma nova guerra).
Vamos ver quem procura a contenção dos conflitos e quem contribui para o inflamar e alargar o cancro. As disputas territoriais e de status quos, por um monopólio territorial da violência (a definição de "Estado") não servem para definir fronteira entre bem e mal. Todas as partes estão erradas. Curiosamente as guerras costumam ser todas elas bastantes democráticas, todas as partes a iniciam com um consenso alragado da população, quer nos regimes democrático como nos não-democráticos.
O autor parece gostar da ideia, como se suspeita muitos outros. Só achei piada à referência a "Years from now, the kidnapping of Corporal Gilad Shalit will be regarded like the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand."
Sim, um atentado terrorista contra o Arquiduque e a reacção da Áustria contra o "Terror State" que o incentivou (a Sérvia) colocou a Rússia, França e depois o Império Britânico em guerra total contra as potências centrais (ou seja, ficaram do lado do "terror state"). Todas as partes tiveram culpa se bem que começava por a atribuir em ordem inversa das datas declarações/actos de guerra.
A velocidade dos acontecimentos e a mania idiota das alianças (e diga-se que os Britânicos não tinham qualquer tratado que os fizesse intervir por causa da França ou Bélgica) assegurou que um problema local se tenha transformado na destruição duma velha e civilizada ordem e emergência do comunismo e fascismo (e uma nova guerra).
Vamos ver quem procura a contenção dos conflitos e quem contribui para o inflamar e alargar o cancro. As disputas territoriais e de status quos, por um monopólio territorial da violência (a definição de "Estado") não servem para definir fronteira entre bem e mal. Todas as partes estão erradas. Curiosamente as guerras costumam ser todas elas bastantes democráticas, todas as partes a iniciam com um consenso alragado da população, quer nos regimes democrático como nos não-democráticos.
Segurança Social / Reformas: Uma receita anual para repartir em cada ano
Ou seja, como tenho aqui proposto, era do interesse de todos, que o Sistema assuma a sua substância: a repartição da receita (dos contribuintes actuais) pelos beneficiários actuais, seguindo um critério de proporção conforme peso relativo da contribuição passada.
Desta forma, os contribuintes sabem que podem aumentar ou dominuir essa receita e que ficam dependentes da vontade democrática dos contribuintes futuros.
Essa percepção, conduziria a que no mínimo, as pessoas possam perceber que o actual Sistema Compulsivo de Reformas do Estado, devia passar a ter um carácter meramente de rendimento mínimo, baixando-se significativamente a "Taxa" e aumentando o rendimento líquido (25%?), dado o risco associado e ineficiência do sistema.
Será que este modelo poderá conseguir algum consenso na área liberal? Existe alternativa?
Público: "Marques Mendes considera "esgotado" o modelo da reforma da Segurança Social "Os estudos realizados apontam para que, a manter-se o actual modelo do Governo, as pensões de reforma venham a ser, daqui a 30 anos, sensivelmente metade das actuais (...) A razão é simples - é cada vez menor o número de pessoas a descontarem para a Segurança Social por força das baixas taxas de natalidade, e é cada vez maior o número de pensionistas por força do aumento da esperança de vida", afirmou Marques Mendes."
[liberdades sem " mass democracy"] "Percentage of Chinese who say the free market is 'the best system on which to base the future of the world': 74 (Harpers)
Putin II
O Neo-Czar (por falar nisso, que bom teria sido para todos, "termos" tido um Czar em todo o século 20 na Rússia, não?) responde:
BBC: "If you look at newspapers of 100 years ago, you see how, at the time, colonialist states justified their policies in Africa or in Asia. They talked of their civilising role, of the white man's mission," he said.
"If you change the word 'civilising' to 'democratisation', you find the same logic, you can read the same things in the press today."
Mr Putin also said Moscow was ready to listen to "well-intentioned criticism", according to a transcript of his interview with NBC released by the Kremlin.
Pointing to the fact that he was elected directly by the Russian people, he asked how that can be seen as undemocratic.
But he stressed that Russia would "categorically object to using all possible levers, including the idea that our society needs democratisation, for interfering in our internal affairs".
He called Mr Cheney's criticism of Russia's record "a failed hunting shot".
Mr Putin's remark apparently referred to errant shot by Mr Cheney during a hunting trip on a ranch in Texas in February."
BBC: "If you look at newspapers of 100 years ago, you see how, at the time, colonialist states justified their policies in Africa or in Asia. They talked of their civilising role, of the white man's mission," he said.
"If you change the word 'civilising' to 'democratisation', you find the same logic, you can read the same things in the press today."
Mr Putin also said Moscow was ready to listen to "well-intentioned criticism", according to a transcript of his interview with NBC released by the Kremlin.
Pointing to the fact that he was elected directly by the Russian people, he asked how that can be seen as undemocratic.
But he stressed that Russia would "categorically object to using all possible levers, including the idea that our society needs democratisation, for interfering in our internal affairs".
He called Mr Cheney's criticism of Russia's record "a failed hunting shot".
Mr Putin's remark apparently referred to errant shot by Mr Cheney during a hunting trip on a ranch in Texas in February."
quarta-feira, 12 de julho de 2006
"Investigação à compra de acções antes da OPA do BPI perto do final"
Negócios.pt:«Foi um caso grave porque houve certamente quem tenha sido beneficiado pela obtenção de informação antes do tempo», disse Carlos Tavares.
Nota: Quem nunca beneficiou por ter informação que outros não tnham ou têm, que atire a primeira pedra.
Mas e quem é que foi prejudicado?
* Existiram vendedores nesse dia que foram beneficiados porque venderam acima do que teriam vendido se não tivessem existido compradores alegadamente na posse dessa informação ("antes do tempo").
* A subida de preço antes do anúncio INFORMOU o mercado que algo se estava a passar, coisa que aparentemente, as autoridades pensam ser prejudicial.
* Podem ter existido compradores que não compraram as acções porque estas estavam a subir, mas a própria subida e o volume efectuado é INFORMAÇÂO que os próprios podiam interpretar.
Pr outro lado, se as acções não tivessem subido quem era prejudicado:
- os vendedores nesse dia teriam vendido a um preço inferior.
- o mercado não era INFORMADO de todo.
Conclusão: onde está o crime? Como pode isto configurar um crime público? Quanto muito o que poderá estar em causa são processos civis por alguém ligado às partes, alegando quebra contratual (o sigilio deve ser um questão contratual, das normas internas das empresas e das bolsas onde são negociadas).
A estatização do Direito segue o caminho que podiamos esperar. A crescente criminalização de actos que fazem parte do domínio civil. É o Caminho da Servidão.
Nota: Quem nunca beneficiou por ter informação que outros não tnham ou têm, que atire a primeira pedra.
Mas e quem é que foi prejudicado?
* Existiram vendedores nesse dia que foram beneficiados porque venderam acima do que teriam vendido se não tivessem existido compradores alegadamente na posse dessa informação ("antes do tempo").
* A subida de preço antes do anúncio INFORMOU o mercado que algo se estava a passar, coisa que aparentemente, as autoridades pensam ser prejudicial.
* Podem ter existido compradores que não compraram as acções porque estas estavam a subir, mas a própria subida e o volume efectuado é INFORMAÇÂO que os próprios podiam interpretar.
Pr outro lado, se as acções não tivessem subido quem era prejudicado:
- os vendedores nesse dia teriam vendido a um preço inferior.
- o mercado não era INFORMADO de todo.
Conclusão: onde está o crime? Como pode isto configurar um crime público? Quanto muito o que poderá estar em causa são processos civis por alguém ligado às partes, alegando quebra contratual (o sigilio deve ser um questão contratual, das normas internas das empresas e das bolsas onde são negociadas).
A estatização do Direito segue o caminho que podiamos esperar. A crescente criminalização de actos que fazem parte do domínio civil. É o Caminho da Servidão.
A Opel e a globalização "regulada"
Os políticos (e muitos, muitos, economistas), à esquerda, centro e direita, na sua imensa demagogia, irracionalidade e desconhecimento, gostam agora de falar em globalização regulada, isto a propósito do fecho de fábricas de multinacionais.
Como se qualquer regulação que dificulte o fecho de fábricas actualmente existentes não ponha em causa irremediávelmente a abertura de novas fábricas. E isto para acalmar a sua própria consciência pela atribuição de incentivos a projectos, coisa de que não prescidem pelo poder que isso lhes confere.
Além disso, todo este tipo de gestão burocrática tende a favorecer as grandes empresas já instaladas e as suas conexões à política, funcionando como mais uma barreira à entrada de novos concorrentes.
Será difícil acabarem com os "incentivos", baixarem os impostos e deixarem às potenciais novas fábricas e trabalhadores chegarem a um acordo livre entre as partes?
Claro que é dificil, o poder conjugado com o auto-convencimento que o exercício desse poder é para o bem da humanidade, é o maior tóxico contra a racionalidade e a ética. Mas a humanidade parece não conseguir livrar-se desta gente.
Como se qualquer regulação que dificulte o fecho de fábricas actualmente existentes não ponha em causa irremediávelmente a abertura de novas fábricas. E isto para acalmar a sua própria consciência pela atribuição de incentivos a projectos, coisa de que não prescidem pelo poder que isso lhes confere.
Além disso, todo este tipo de gestão burocrática tende a favorecer as grandes empresas já instaladas e as suas conexões à política, funcionando como mais uma barreira à entrada de novos concorrentes.
Será difícil acabarem com os "incentivos", baixarem os impostos e deixarem às potenciais novas fábricas e trabalhadores chegarem a um acordo livre entre as partes?
Claro que é dificil, o poder conjugado com o auto-convencimento que o exercício desse poder é para o bem da humanidade, é o maior tóxico contra a racionalidade e a ética. Mas a humanidade parece não conseguir livrar-se desta gente.
terça-feira, 11 de julho de 2006
"Confused? See next episodes"
Iraq Qaeda says Iran wants to 'destroy' Sunnis - Web
DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda-led group said Iran was trying to destroy Sunni Muslims in Iraq and blasted the Islamic republic for hosting a conference of Iraq's neighbours, according to an Internet statement on Monday.
"Safavids (Shi'ites) in Iran want to support the new Iraqi apostate government to achieve their historic dream to ... destroy Sunnis in Iraq and create the Shi'ite crescent in the region," said the statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council.
PS.:
Destruição dos Sunnis no Iraque ... claro que começou com a destruição do regime. O internacionalismo às tantas já não sabe quem está a apoiar, a destruir, nem vislumbra o impacto a uma década das suas acções, ou o que quer que seja.
A única "Moral Internacional" é sair dali para fora.
DUBAI (Reuters) - An al Qaeda-led group said Iran was trying to destroy Sunni Muslims in Iraq and blasted the Islamic republic for hosting a conference of Iraq's neighbours, according to an Internet statement on Monday.
"Safavids (Shi'ites) in Iran want to support the new Iraqi apostate government to achieve their historic dream to ... destroy Sunnis in Iraq and create the Shi'ite crescent in the region," said the statement by the Mujahideen Shura Council.
PS.:
Destruição dos Sunnis no Iraque ... claro que começou com a destruição do regime. O internacionalismo às tantas já não sabe quem está a apoiar, a destruir, nem vislumbra o impacto a uma década das suas acções, ou o que quer que seja.
A única "Moral Internacional" é sair dali para fora.
Contra o Abuso ou contra o Direito?
No Blasfémias fala-se da menção de Pedro Arroja a "Instituições cívicas que travem os abusos da administração pública". (A IDEIA DE PEDRO ARROJA E OS CHAVÕES DO COSTUME (1) )
Mas como? Pelo Direito ou por Manifs? Pelo Direito parece impossível. O Estado proclama como noutro tempo, que o "Direito sou eu".
Os juristas parecem não conseguir sair da contradição de analisarem o direito à luz da legislação do Estado e depois fingem pretender ter a capacidade de julgar externamente do Direito dessa legislação que aprova os "abusos". Mas se o Estado diz (legisla) que pode abusar, passa a ser legal/Direito abusar, o que aliás, deixa de poder ser qualificado como "abusar".
PS. A única coisa que os juristas na verdade analisam é se o processo legislativo que dá forma a uma norma é se este passou pelos passos devidos definidos anteriormente por ... legislação.
Conclusão: ou reclamamos que existem coisas fora da esfera do Direito do Estado, ou seja, que existe Direito para além do Estado (e por mais democrática que seja o processo de decisão e o processo legislativo) ou tudo o que vamos fazer é apenas "implorar" perante o "soberano" que não faça aquilo que aparentemente o "Direito" confere ser seu "Direito" fazer.
PS: Seja como for, todas as iniciativas do género são necessárias (é o pé que temos mais à mão) e devem ser apoiadas. Seguramente, será uma Causa Liberal e um bom tema a desenvolver.
Mas como? Pelo Direito ou por Manifs? Pelo Direito parece impossível. O Estado proclama como noutro tempo, que o "Direito sou eu".
Os juristas parecem não conseguir sair da contradição de analisarem o direito à luz da legislação do Estado e depois fingem pretender ter a capacidade de julgar externamente do Direito dessa legislação que aprova os "abusos". Mas se o Estado diz (legisla) que pode abusar, passa a ser legal/Direito abusar, o que aliás, deixa de poder ser qualificado como "abusar".
PS. A única coisa que os juristas na verdade analisam é se o processo legislativo que dá forma a uma norma é se este passou pelos passos devidos definidos anteriormente por ... legislação.
Conclusão: ou reclamamos que existem coisas fora da esfera do Direito do Estado, ou seja, que existe Direito para além do Estado (e por mais democrática que seja o processo de decisão e o processo legislativo) ou tudo o que vamos fazer é apenas "implorar" perante o "soberano" que não faça aquilo que aparentemente o "Direito" confere ser seu "Direito" fazer.
PS: Seja como for, todas as iniciativas do género são necessárias (é o pé que temos mais à mão) e devem ser apoiadas. Seguramente, será uma Causa Liberal e um bom tema a desenvolver.
Isenção para todos
FPF quer isenção de IRS para prémios de presença no Mundial
Não, não critiquem o pedido de isenção. Vamos é pedir a isenção para todos.
Não, não critiquem o pedido de isenção. Vamos é pedir a isenção para todos.
Suicidio, terrorismo, e as disputas territoriais
Via Insurgente (Rui Carmo):
KOVILPORATIVU, Sri Lanka (AP) -- A top Tamil Tiger leader has defended the use of suicide bombers against Sri Lankan security forces, as the rebels held street parades during an annual memorial for suicide cadres who died while fighting for a separate homeland.Every July 5, the rebels honor members of a special suicide squad, known as the Black Tigers, who are a key part of their struggle for an independent state for the country's 3.2 million ethnic Tamil minority.According to latest figures released by the rebels, 273 Black Tigers have died in suicide missions since 1987.Notícia CNN
Nas observações: "os Tamil são uma etnia de origem indiana e professam maioritariamente o hinduísmo. No Sri Lanka, a maioria (também de origem indiana) cingalesa é budista."
Portanto: aqui temos um exemplo fora do Islão (essa religião que dizem, acorda de manhã não se sabe bem porquê, com vontade de suicidar) envolvendo budistas e hinduismo e não judeus-muçulmanos ou cristão-muçulmano.
O que está em causa? Disputas de soberania (um ancap dirá sempre que o pecado original é essa mania do monopólio territorial que obriga a que só exista um vencedor num determinado território). Como outras, nomeadamente como o foi o terrorismo usado por grupos de judeus contra ingleses e árabes para impor a soberania de Israel (é sempre imposta, aqui ou em todo o lado).
O uso do suicídio? Parece não ter que ver com o "ISLÂO". E Deus queira que nunca um povo cristão se veja em condições/circunstâncias de uns quantos o acharem como único meio à mão de luta. Vamos entrar provávelmente no milénio da Ásia e provável declínio ocidental (e os seus orgulhosos defensores estarão provávelmente na origem de um qualquer acontecimento que o acelere). A História muda, e dominadores e dominados trocam de posições.
Subscrever:
Mensagens (Atom)