person:pinochet

  • Comment Israël arme les dictatures à travers le monde

    Arming dictators, equipping pariahs: Alarming picture of Israel’s arms sales - Israel News - Haaretz.com

    Extensive Amnesty report cites Israeli sales to eight countries who violate human rights, including South Sudan, Myanmar, Mexico and the UAE ■ Amnesty calls on Israel to adopt oversight model adopted by many Western countries ■ Senior Israeli defense official: Export license is only granted after lengthy process
    Amos Harel
    May 17, 2019 5:59 AM

    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-arming-dictators-equipping-pariahs-an-alarming-picture-of-israel-s

    A thorough report by Amnesty International is harshly critical of Israel’s policies on arms exports. According to the report written in Hebrew by the organization’s Israeli branch, Israeli companies continue to export weapons to countries that systematically violate human rights. Israeli-made weapons are also found in the hands of armies and organizations committing war crimes. The report points to eight such countries that have received arms from Israel in recent years.

    >> Subscribe for just $1 now

    Often these weapons reach their destination after a series of transactions, thereby skirting international monitoring and the rules of Israel itself. Amnesty calls on the government, the Knesset and the Defense Ministry to more tightly monitor arms exports and enforce transparency guidelines adopted by other Western countries that engage in large-scale weapons exports.

    In the report, Amnesty notes that the supervision of the arms trade is “a global, not a local issue. The desire and need for better monitoring of global arms sales derives from tragic historical events such as genocide, bloody civil wars and the violent repression of citizens by their governments …. There is a new realization that selling arms to governments and armies that employ violence only fuels violent conflicts and leads to their escalation. Hence, international agreements have been reached with the aim of preventing leaks of military equipment to dictatorial or repressive regimes.”

    >> Read more: Revealed: Israel’s cyber-spy industry helps world dictators hunt dissidents and gays

    The 2014 Arms Trade Treaty established standards for trade in conventional weapons. Israel signed the treaty but the cabinet never ratified it. According to Amnesty, Israel has never acted in the spirit of this treaty, neither by legislation nor its policies.

    “There are functioning models of correct and moral-based monitoring of weapons exports, including the management of public and transparent reporting mechanisms that do not endanger a state’s security or foreign relations,” Amnesty says. “Such models were established by large arms exporters such as members of the European Union and the United States. There is no justification for the fact that Israel continues to belong to a dishonorable club of exporters such as China and Russia.”

    In 2007, the Knesset passed a law regulating the monitoring of weapons exports. The law authorizes the Defense Ministry to oversee such exports, manage their registration and decide on the granting of export licenses. The law defines defense-related exports very broadly, including equipment for information-gathering, and forbids trade in such items without a license.
    Stay up to date: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email*

    The law does not include a clause limiting exports when there is a high probability that these items will be used in violation of international or humanitarian laws. But the law does prohibit “commerce with foreign agencies that are not in compliance with UN Security Council resolutions that prohibit or limit a transfer of such weapons or missiles to such recipients.”

    According to Amnesty, “the absence of monitoring and transparency have for decades let Israel supply equipment and defense-related knowledge to questionable states and dictatorial or unstable regimes that have been shunned by the international community.”

    The report quotes a 2007 article by Brig. Gen. (res.) Uzi Eilam. “A thick layer of fog has always shrouded the export of military equipment. Destinations considered pariah states by the international community, such as Chile in the days of Pinochet or South Africa during the apartheid years, were on Israel’s list of trade partners,” Eilam wrote.

    “The shroud of secrecy helped avoid pressure by the international community, but also prevented any transparency regarding decisions to sell arms to problematic countries, leaving the judgment and decision in the hands of a small number of people, mainly in the defense establishment.”

    The report presents concrete evidence on Israel’s exports over the last two decades, with arms going to eight countries accused by international institutions of serious human rights violations: South Sudan, Myanmar, the Philippines, Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Sri Lanka, Mexico and the United Arab Emirates. In some of these cases, Israel denied that it exported arms to these countries at specifically mentioned times. In other case it refused to give details.
    Israeli security-related exports

    In its report, Amnesty relies on the research of other human rights groups, on documentation published in the media in those eight countries, and on information gathered by attorney Eitay Mack, who in recent years has battled to expose Israel’s arms deals with shady regimes. Amnesty cross-checks descriptions of exported weapons with human rights violations and war crimes by those countries. In its report, Amnesty says that some of these countries were under sanctions and a weapons-sales embargo, but Israel continued selling them arms.

    According to the organization, “the law on monitoring in its current format is insufficient and has not managed to halt the export of weapons to Sri Lanka, which massacred many of its own citizens; to South Sudan, where the regime and army committed ethnic cleansing and aggravated crimes against humanity such as the mass rape of hundreds of women, men and girls; to Myanmar, where the army committed genocide and the chief of staff, who carried out the arms deal with Israel, is accused of these massacres and other crimes against humanity; and to the Philippines, where the regime and police executed 15,000 civilians without any charges or trials.”

    Amnesty says that this part of the report “is not based on any report by the Defense Ministry relating to military equipment exports, for the simple reason that the ministry refuses to release any information. The total lack of transparency by Israel regarding weapons exports prevents any public discussion of the topic and limits any research or public action intended to improve oversight.”

    One example is the presence of Israeli-made Galil Ace rifles in the South Sudanese army. “With no documentation of sales, one cannot know when they were sold, by which company, how many, and so on,” the report says.

    “All we can say with certainty is that the South Sudanese army currently has Israeli Galil rifles, at a time when there is an international arms embargo on South Sudan, imposed by the UN Security Council, due to ethnic cleansing, as well as crimes against humanity, using rape as a method of war, and due to war crimes the army is perpetrating against the country’s citizens.”

    According to Amnesty, the defense export control agency at the Defense Ministry approved the licenses awarded Israeli companies for selling weapons to these countries, even though it knew about the bad human rights situation there. It did this despite the risk that Israeli exports would be used to violate human rights and despite the embargo on arms sales imposed on some of these countries by the United States and the European Union, as well as other sanctions that were imposed by these countries or the United Nations.

    In response to letters written to the export control agency, its head, Rachel Chen, said: “We can’t divulge whether we’re exporting to one of these countries, but we carefully examine the state of human rights in each country before approving export licenses for selling them weapons.” According to Amnesty, this claim is false, as shown by the example of the eight countries mentioned in the report.

    Amnesty recommends steps for improving the monitoring of defense exports. It says Israel lags American legislation by 20 years, and European legislation by 10 years. “The lack of transparency has further negative implications, such as hiding information from the public,” Amnesty says.
    File photo: Personnel of the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF), assigned as South Sundan’s presidential guard, take part in a drill at their barracks in Rejaf, South Sudan, April 26, 2019.
    File photo: Personnel of the South Sudan People’s Defence Forces (SSPDF), assigned as South Sundan’s presidential guard, take part in a drill at their barracks in Rejaf, South Sudan, April 26, 2019.Alex McBride/AFP

    “The concept by which the Defense Ministry operates is that it is not in the public interest to know which countries buy weapons here, how much and under what conditions. This is an erroneous conception that stems from the wish to conceal, using the well-worn cloak of ‘issues of state security and foreign relations’ as an excuse,” it adds.

    “The veil of secrecy makes it hard to obtain data. In our humble opinion, the information we have gathered and presented in this report is the tip of the iceberg. Most of the evidence is based on official reports issued by the recipient states, such as the Facebook page of the chief of staff in Myanmar, or the site of the Philippine government’s spokesman.”

    The authors say attempts to maintain secrecy in an era of social media and global media coverage are absurd and doomed to fail.

    “Let the reasonable reader ask himself if the powers that sell weapons are concerned about harm to state security resulting from making the information accessible, or whether this is just an excuse, with the veil of secrecy protecting the interests of certain agencies in Israel.”

    Amnesty says Israel ranks eighth among the exporters of heavy weapons around the world. Between 2014 and 2018, Israel’s defense exports comprised 3.1 percent of global sales. Compared with the previous four years, this was a 60 percent increase. The three largest customers of heavy weapons sold by Israel are India, Azerbaijan and Vietnam.

    But the report says defense industries are not the largest or most lucrative contributors to Israeli exports. According to the Defense Ministry, defense exports comprise 10 percent of Israel’s industrial exports. “Defense-related companies in Israel export to 130 countries around the world,” the report says. “Of these, only a minority are countries designated by the UN and the international community as violators of human rights.”

    These are mostly poor countries and the scope of defense exports to them is small compared to the rest of Israel’s exports. According to Amnesty, banning exports to the eight countries would not sting Israel’s defense contractors or their profits, and would certainly not have a public impact. “There is no justification – economic, diplomatic, security-related or strategic – to export weapons to these countries,” the report says.

    Amnesty believes that “the situation is correctable. Israel’s government and the Defense Ministry must increase their monitoring and transparency, similar to what the vast majority of large weapons exporters around the world do except for Russia and China.”

    According to Amnesty, this should be done by amending the law regulating these exports, adding two main clauses. The first would prohibit the awarding of licenses to export to a country with a risk of serious human rights violations, based on international humanitarian law.

    The second would set up a committee to examine the human rights situation in any target state. The committee would include people from outside the defense establishment and the Foreign Ministry such as academics and human rights activists, as is customary in other countries.

    “Monitoring must not only be done, it must be seen, and the Israeli public has every right to know what is done in its name and with its resources, which belong to everyone,” the report says.

    A policy of obscurity

    A senior defense official who read the Amnesty report told Haaretz that many of its claims have been discussed in recent years in petitions to the High Court of Justice. The justices have heard petitions relating to South Sudan, Cameroon and Mexico. However, in all cases, the court accepted the state’s position that deliberations would be held with only one side present – the state, and that its rulings would remain classified.
    File photo: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to a military commander along the Gaza border, southern Israel, March 28, 2019.
    File photo: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks to a military commander along the Gaza border, southern Israel, March 28, 2019.Itay Beit On/GPO

    Monitoring of exports has substantially increased since the law was passed, the official said. The authority endowed to the Defense Ministry by this law, including imposing economic sanctions, prohibition of exports and taking legal action against companies, are more far-reaching than in other countries.

    “The process of obtaining an export license in Israel is lengthy, difficult and imposes onerous regulations on exporters," he added. “When there is evidence of human rights violations in a country buying arms from Israel, we treat this with utmost seriousness in our considerations. The fact is that enlightened states respect the laws we have and are interested in the ways we conduct our monitoring.”

    He admitted that Israel does adopt a policy of obscurity with regard to its arms deals. “We don’t share information on whether or to which country we’ve sold arms,” he said. “We’ve provided all the information to the High Court. The plaintiffs do receive fixed laconic responses, but there are diplomatic and security-related circumstances that justify this.”

    “Other countries can be more transparent but we’re in a different place,” he argued. "We don’t dismiss out of hand discussion of these issues. The questions are legitimate but the decisions and polices are made after all the relevant considerations are taken into account.”

    The intense pace of events in recent months – rounds of violence along the Gaza border, Israel’s election, renewed tension between the U.S. and Iran – have left little time to deal with other issues that make the headlines less frequently.

    Israel is currently in the throes of an unprecedented constitutional and political crisis, the outcome of which will seriously impact its standing as a law-abiding state. If Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu succeeds in his plan to halt all legal proceedings against him, legislating an immunity law and restricting the jurisdiction of the High Court, all other issues would pale in comparison.

    There is some logic to the claim that Israel cannot be holier than thou when it comes to arms sales in the global market, and yet, the Amnesty report depicts a horrific image, backed by reliable data, but also makes suggestions for improvement that seem reasonable.

    Numerous reports over the last year show that the problem is not restricted to the sale of light weapons, but might be exacerbated by the spread of cyberwarfare tools developed by Israel and what dark regimes can do with these. Even if it happens through a twisted chain of sub-contractors, the state can’t play innocent. Therefore, it’s worthwhile listening to Amnesty’s criticism and suggestions for improvement.
    Amos Harel

  • « Gilets jaunes » : l’ONU demande à la France d’enquêter sur « l’usage excessif de la force »
    https://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2019/03/06/l-onu-demande-a-la-france-une-enquete-sur-l-usage-excessif-de-la-force-penda

    La haut-commissaire des Nations unies aux droits de l’homme, Michelle Bachelet, a demandé instamment à la France, mercredi 6 mars, une « enquête approfondie » sur les #violences_policières pendant les #manifestations des « #gilets_jaunes ».

    Mme Bachelet, qui s’exprimait devant le Conseil des droits de l’homme, à Genève (Suisse), a déclaré :

    « Nous encourageons le gouvernement [français] à poursuivre le dialogue et demandons urgemment une enquête approfondie sur tous les cas rapportés d’usage excessif de la force. [...]

    enjamin Griveaux, porte-parole du gouvernement, a réagi en début d’après-midi, se disant étonné de voir la France « cité[e] dans une liste entre le Venezuela et Haïti, où il y a eu des morts ». « Est-ce bien raisonnable ? », s’est demandé le ministre de l’intérieur, Christophe Castaner, sur Twitter, rappelant qu’il y a eu « 41 morts » en Haïti et que le président vénézuélien « Nicolas Maduro refuse l’aide humanitaire à son peuple ». »

  • The Knesset candidate who says Zionism encourages anti-Semitism and calls Netanyahu ’arch-murderer’ - Israel Election 2019 - Haaretz.com
    https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/elections/.premium.MAGAZINE-knesset-candidate-netanyahu-is-an-arch-murderer-zionism-e

    Few Israelis have heard of Dr. Ofer Cassif, the Jewish representative on the far-leftist Hadash party’s Knesset slate. On April 9, that will change
    By Ravit Hecht Feb 16, 2019

    Ofer Cassif is fire and brimstone. Not even the flu he’s suffering from today can contain his bursting energy. His words are blazing, and he bounds through his modest apartment, searching frenetically for books by Karl Marx and Primo Levi in order to find quotations to back up his ideas. Only occasional sips from a cup of maté bring his impassioned delivery to a momentary halt. The South American drink is meant to help fight his illness, he explains.

    Cassif is third on the slate of Knesset candidates in Hadash (the Hebrew acronym for the Democratic Front for Peace and Equality), the successor to Israel’s Communist Party. He holds the party’s “Jewish slot,” replacing MK Dov Khenin. Cassif is likely to draw fire from opponents and be a conspicuous figure in the next Knesset, following the April 9 election.

    Indeed, the assault on him began as soon as he was selected by the party’s convention. The media pursued him; a columnist in the mass-circulation Yedioth Ahronoth newspaper, Ben-Dror Yemini, called for him to be disqualified from running for the Knesset. It would be naive to say that this was unexpected. Cassif, who was one of the first Israeli soldiers to refuse to serve in the territories, in 1987, gained fame thanks to a number of provocative statements. The best known is his branding of Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked as “neo-Nazi scum.” On another occasion, he characterized Jews who visit the Temple Mount as “cancer with metastases that have to be eradicated.”

    On his alternate Facebook page, launched after repeated blockages of his original account by a blitz of posts from right-wing activists, he asserted that Culture Minister Miri Regev is “repulsive gutter contamination,” that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is an “arch-murderer” and that the new Israel Defense Forces chief of staff, Lt. Gen. Aviv Kochavi, is a “war criminal.”

    Do you regret making those remarks?

    Cassif: “‘Regret’ is a word of emotion. Those statements were made against a background of particular events: the fence in Gaza, horrible legislation, and the wild antics of Im Tirtzu [an ultranationalist organization] on campus. That’s what I had to say at the time. I didn’t count on being in the Knesset. That wasn’t part of my plan. But it’s clear to me that as a public personality, I would not have made those comments.”

    Is Netanyahu an arch-murderer?

    “Yes. I wrote it in the specific context of a particular day in the Gaza Strip. A massacre of innocent people was perpetrated there, and no one’s going to persuade me that those people were endangering anyone. It’s a concentration camp. Not a ‘concentration camp’ in the sense of Bergen-Belsen; I am absolutely not comparing the Holocaust to what’s happening.”

    You term what Israel is doing to the Palestinians “genocide.”

    “I call it ‘creeping genocide.’ Genocide is not only a matter of taking people to gas chambers. When Yeshayahu Leibowitz used the term ‘Judeo-Nazis,’ people asked him, ‘How can you say that? Are we about to build gas chambers?’ To that, he had two things to say. First, if the whole difference between us and the Nazis boils down to the fact that we’re not building gas chambers, we’re already in trouble. And second, maybe we won’t use gas chambers, but the mentality that exists today in Israel – and he said this 40 years ago – would allow it. I’m afraid that today, after four years of such an extreme government, it possesses even greater legitimacy.

    “But you know what, put aside ‘genocide’ – ethnic cleansing is taking place there. And that ethnic cleansing is also being carried out by means of killing, although mainly by way of humiliation and of making life intolerable. The trampling of human dignity. It reminds me of Primo Levi’s ‘If This Is a Man.’”

    You say you’re not comparing, but you repeatedly come back to Holocaust references. On Facebook, you also uploaded the scene from “Schindler’s List” in which the SS commander Amon Goeth picks off Jews with his rifle from the balcony of his quarters in the camp. You compared that to what was taking place along the border fence in the Gaza Strip.

    “Today, I would find different comparisons. In the past I wrote an article titled, ‘On Holocaust and on Other Crimes.’ It’s online [in Hebrew]. I wrote there that anyone who compares Israel to the Holocaust is cheapening the Holocaust. My comparison between here and what happened in the early 1930s [in Germany] is a very different matter.”

    Clarity vs. crudity

    Given Cassif’s style, not everyone in Hadash was happy with his election, particularly when it comes to the Jewish members of the predominantly Arab party. Dov Khenin, for example, declined to be interviewed and say what he thinks of his parliamentary successor. According to a veteran party figure, “From the conversations I had, it turns out that almost none of the Jewish delegates – who make up about 100 of the party’s 940 delegates – supported his candidacy.

    “He is perceived, and rightly so,” the party veteran continues, “as someone who closes doors to Hadash activity within Israeli society. Each of the other Jewish candidates presented a record of action and of struggles they spearheaded. What does he do? Curses right-wing politicians on Facebook. Why did the party leadership throw the full force of its weight behind him? In a continuation of the [trend exemplified by] its becoming part of the Joint List, Ofer’s election reflects insularity and an ongoing retreat from the historical goal of implementing change in Israeli society.”

    At the same time, as his selection by a 60 percent majority shows, many in the party believe that it’s time to change course. “Israeli society is moving rightward, and what’s perceived as Dov’s [Khenin] more gentle style didn’t generate any great breakthrough on the Jewish street,” a senior source in Hadash notes.

    “It’s not a question of the tension between extremism and moderation, but of how to signpost an alternative that will develop over time. Clarity, which is sometimes called crudity, never interfered with cooperation between Arabs and Jews. On the contrary. Ofer says things that we all agreed with but didn’t so much say, and of course that’s going to rile the right wing. And a good thing, too.”

    Hadash chairman MK Ayman Odeh also says he’s pleased with the choice, though sources in the party claim that Odeh is apprehensive about Cassif’s style and that he actually supported a different candidate. “Dov went for the widest possible alliances in order to wield influence,” says Odeh. “Ofer will go for very sharp positions at the expense of the breadth of the alliance. But his sharp statements could have a large impact.”

    Khenin was deeply esteemed by everyone. When he ran for mayor of Tel Aviv in 2008, some 35 percent of the electorate voted for him, because he was able to touch people who weren’t only from his political milieu.

    Odeh: “No one has a higher regard for Dov than I do. But just to remind you, we are not a regular opposition, we are beyond the pale. And there are all kinds of styles. Influence can be wielded through comments that are vexatious the first time but which people get used to the second time. When an Arab speaks about the Nakba and about the massacre in Kafr Kassem [an Israeli Arab village, in 1956], it will be taken in a particular way, but when uttered by a Jew it takes on special importance.”

    He will be the cause of many attacks on the party.

    “Ahlan wa sahlan – welcome.”

    Cassif will be the first to tell you that, with all due respect for the approach pursued by Khenin and by his predecessor in the Jewish slot, Tamar Gozansky, he will be something completely different. “I totally admire what Tamar and Dov did – nothing less than that,” he says, while adding, “But my agenda will be different. The three immediate dangers to Israeli society are the occupation, racism and the diminishment of the democratic space to the point of liquidation. That’s the agenda that has to be the hub of the struggle, as long as Israel rules over millions of people who have no rights, enters [people’s houses] in the middle of the night, arrests minors on a daily basis and shoots people in the back.

    "Israel commits murder on a daily basis. When you murder one Palestinian, you’re called Elor Azaria [the IDF soldier convicted and jailed for killing an incapacitated Palestinian assailant]; when you murder and oppress thousands of Palestinians, you’re called the State of Israel.”

    So you plan to be the provocateur in the next Knesset?

    “It’s not my intention to be a provocateur, to stand there and scream and revile people. Even on Facebook I was compelled to stop that. But I definitely intend to challenge the dialogue in terms of the content, and mainly with a type of sarcasm.”

    ’Bags of blood’

    Cassif, 54, who holds a doctorate in political philosophy from the London School of Economics, teaches political science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Sapir Academic College in Sderot and at the Academic College of Tel Aviv-Yaffo. He lives in Rehovot, is married and is the father of a 19-year-old son. He’s been active in Hadash for three decades and has held a number of posts in the party.

    As a lecturer, he stands out for his boldness and fierce rhetoric, which draws students of all stripes. He even hangs out with some of his Haredi students, one of whom wrote a post on the eve of the Hadash primary urging the delegates to choose him. After his election, a student from a settlement in the territories wrote to him, “You are a determined and industrious person, and for that I hold you in high regard. Hoping we will meet on the field of action and growth for the success of Israel as a Jewish, democratic state (I felt obliged to add a small touch of irony in conclusion).”

    Cassif grew up in a home that supported Mapai, forerunner of Labor, in Rishon Letzion. He was an only child; his father was an accountant, his mother held a variety of jobs. He was a news hound from an early age, and at 12 ran for the student council in school. He veered sharply to the left in his teens, becoming a keen follower of Marx and socialism.

    Following military service in the IDF’s Nahal brigade and a period in the airborne Nahal, Cassif entered the Hebrew University. There his political career moved one step forward, and there he also forsook the Zionist left permanently. His first position was as a parliamentary aide to the secretary general of the Communist Party, Meir Wilner.

    “At first I was closer to Mapam [the United Workers Party, which was Zionist], and then I refused to serve in the territories. I was the first refusenik in the first intifada to be jailed. I didn’t get support from Mapam, I got support from the people of Hadash, and I drew close to them. I was later jailed three more times for refusing to serve in the territories.”

    His rivals in the student organizations at the Hebrew University remember him as the epitome of the extreme left.

    “Even in the Arab-Jewish student association, Cassif was considered off-the-wall,” says Motti Ohana, who was chairman of Likud’s student association and active in the Student Union at the end of the 1980s and early 1990s. “One time I got into a brawl with him. It was during the first intifada, when he brought two bags of blood, emptied them out in the university’s corridors and declared, ‘There is no difference between Jewish and Arab blood,’ likening Israeli soldiers to terrorists. The custom on campus was that we would quarrel, left-right, Arabs-Jews, and after that we would sit together, have a coffee and talk. But not Cassif.”

    According to Ohana, today a member of the Likud central committee, the right-wing activists knew that, “You could count on Ofer to fall into every trap. There was one event at the Hebrew University that was a kind of political Hyde Park. The right wanted to boot the left out of there, so we hung up the flag. It was obvious that Ofer would react, and in fact he tore the flag, and in the wake of the ruckus that developed, political activity was stopped for good.”

    Replacing the anthem

    Cassif voices clearly and cogently positions that challenge the public discourse in Israel, and does so with ardor and charisma. Four candidates vied for Hadash’s Jewish slot, and they all delivered speeches at the convention. The three candidates who lost to him – Efraim Davidi, Yaela Raanan and the head of the party’s Tel Aviv branch, Noa Levy – described their activity and their guiding principles. When they spoke, there was the regular buzz of an audience that’s waiting for lunch. But when Cassif took the stage, the effect was magnetic.

    “Peace will not be established without a correction of the crimes of the Nakba and [recognition of] the right of return,” he shouted, and the crowd cheered him. As one senior party figure put it, “Efraim talked about workers’ rights, Yaela about the Negev, Noa about activity in Tel Aviv – and Ofer was Ofer.”

    What do you mean by “right of return”?

    Cassif: “The first thing is the actual recognition of the Nakba and of the wrong done by Israel. Compare it to the Truth and Reconciliation Commissions in South Africa, if you like, or with the commissions in Chile after Pinochet. Israel must recognize the wrong it committed. Now, recognition of the wrong also includes recognition of the right of return. The question is how it’s implemented. It has to be done by agreement. I can’t say that tomorrow Tel Aviv University has to be dismantled and that Sheikh Munis [the Arab village on whose ruins the university stands] has to be rebuilt there. The possibility can be examined of giving compensation in place of return, for example.”

    But what is the just solution, in your opinion?

    “For the Palestinian refugees to return to their homeland.”

    That means there will be Jews who will have to leave their home.

    “In some places, unequivocally, yes. People will have to be told: ‘You must evacuate your places.’ The classic example is Ikrit and Biram [Christian-Arab villages in Galilee whose residents were promised – untruly – by the Israeli authorities in 1948 that they would be able to return, and whose lands were turned over to Jewish communities]. But there are places where there is certainly greater difficulty. You don’t right one wrong with another.”

    What about the public space in Israel? What should it look like?

    “The public space has to change, to belong to all the state’s residents. I dispute the conception of ‘Jewish publicness.’”

    How should that be realized?

    “For example, by changing the national symbols, changing the national anthem. [Former Hadash MK] Mohammed Barakeh once suggested ‘I Believe’ [‘Sahki, Sahki’] by [Shaul] Tchernichovsky – a poem that is not exactly an expression of Palestinian nationalism. He chose it because of the line, ‘For in mankind I’ll believe.’ What does it mean to believe in mankind? It’s not a Jew, or a Palestinian, or a Frenchman, or I don’t know what.”

    What’s the difference between you and the [Arab] Balad party? Both parties overall want two states – a state “of all its citizens” and a Palestinian state.

    “In the big picture, yes. But Balad puts identity first on the agenda. We are not nationalists. We do not espouse nationalism as a supreme value. For us, self-determination is a means. We are engaged in class politics. By the way, Balad [the National Democratic Assembly] and Ta’al [MK Ahmad Tibi’s Arab Movement for Renewal] took the idea of a state of all its citizens from us, from Hadash. We’ve been talking about it for ages.”

    If you were a Palestinian, what would you do today?

    “In Israel, what my Palestinian friends are doing, and I with them – [wage] a parliamentary and extra-parliamentary struggle.”

    And what about the Palestinians in the territories?

    “We have always been against harming innocent civilians. Always. In all our demonstrations, one of our leading slogans was: ‘In Gaza and in Sderot, children want to live.’ With all my criticism of the settlers, to enter a house and slaughter children, as in the case of the Fogel family [who were murdered in their beds in the settlement of Itamar in 2011], is intolerable. You have to be a human being and reject that.”

    And attacks on soldiers?

    “An attack on soldiers is not terrorism. Even Netanyahu, in his book about terrorism, explicitly categorizes attacks on soldiers or on the security forces as guerrilla warfare. It’s perfectly legitimate, according to every moral criterion – and, by the way, in international law. At the same time, I am not saying it’s something wonderful, joyful or desirable. The party’s Haifa office is on Ben-Gurion Street, and suddenly, after years, I noticed a memorial plaque there for a fighter in Lehi [pre-state underground militia, also known as the Stern Gang] who assassinated a British officer. Wherever there has been a struggle for liberation from oppression, there are national heroes, who in 90 percent of the cases carried out some operations that were unlawful. Nelson Mandela is today considered a hero, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, but according to the conventional definition, he was a terrorist. Most of the victims of the ANC [African National Congress] were civilians.”

    In other words, today’s Hamas commanders who are carrying out attacks on soldiers will be heroes of the future Palestinian state?

    “Of course.”

    Anti-Zionist identity

    Cassif terms himself an explicit anti-Zionist. “There are three reasons for that,” he says. “To begin with, Zionism is a colonialist movement, and as a socialist, I am against colonialism. Second, as far as I am concerned, Zionism is racist in ideology and in practice. I am not referring to the definition of race theory – even though there are also some who impute that to the Zionist movement – but to what I call Jewish supremacy. No socialist can accept that. My supreme value is equality, and I can’t abide any supremacy – Jewish or Arab. The third thing is that Zionism, like other ethno-nationalistic movements, splits the working class and all weakened groups. Instead of uniting them in a struggle for social justice, for equality, for democracy, it divides the exploited classes and the enfeebled groups, and by that means strengthens the rule of capital.”

    He continues, “Zionism also sustains anti-Semitism. I don’t say it does so deliberately – even though I have no doubt that there are some who do it deliberately, like Netanyahu, who is connected to people like the prime minister of Hungary, Viktor Orban, and the leader of the far right in Austria, Hans Christian Strache.”

    Did Mapai-style Zionism also encourage anti-Semitism?

    “The phenomenon was very striking in Mapai. Think about it for a minute, not only historically, but logically. If the goal of political and practical Zionism is really the establishment of a Jewish state containing a Jewish majority, and for Diaspora Jewry to settle there, nothing serves them better than anti-Semitism.”

    What in their actions encouraged anti-Semitism?

    “The very appeal to Jews throughout the world – the very fact of treating them as belonging to the same nation, when they were living among other nations. The whole old ‘dual loyalty’ story – Zionism actually encouraged that. Therefore, I maintain that anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism are not the same thing, but are precisely opposites. That doesn’t mean, of course, that there are no anti-Zionists who are also anti-Semites. Most of the BDS people are of course anti-Zionists, but they are in no way anti-Semites. But there are anti-Semites there, too.”

    Do you support BDS?

    “It’s too complex a subject for a yes or no answer; there are aspects I don’t support.”

    Do you think that the Jews deserve a national home in the Land of Israel?

    “I don’t know what you mean by ‘national home.’ It’s very amorphous. We in Hadash say explicitly that Israel has a right to exist as a sovereign state. Our struggle is not against the state’s existence, but over its character.”

    But that state is the product of the actions of the Zionist movement, which you say has been colonialist and criminal from day one.

    “That’s true, but the circumstances have changed. That’s the reason that the majority of the members of the Communist Party accepted the [1947] partition agreement at the time. They recognized that the circumstances had changed. I think that one of the traits that sets communist thought apart, and makes it more apt, is the understanding and the attempt to strike the proper balance between what should be, and reality. So it’s true that Zionism started as colonialism, but what do you do with the people who were already born here? What do you tell them? Because your grandparents committed a crime, you have to leave? The question is how you transform the situation that’s been created into one that’s just, democratic and equal.”

    So, a person who survived a death camp and came here is a criminal?

    “The individual person, of course not. I’m in favor of taking in refugees in distress, no matter who or what they are. I am against Zionism’s cynical use of Jews in distress, including the refugees from the Holocaust. I have a problem with the fact that the natives whose homeland this is cannot return, while people for whom it’s not their homeland, can, because they supposedly have some sort of blood tie and an ‘imaginary friend’ promised them the land.”

    I understand that you are in favor of the annulment of the Law of Return?

    “Yes. Definitely.”

    But you are in favor of the Palestinian right of return.

    “There’s no comparison. There’s no symmetry here at all. Jerry Seinfeld was by chance born to a Jewish family. What’s his connection to this place? Why should he have preference over a refugee from Sabra or Chatila, or Edward Said, who did well in the United States? They are the true refugees. This is their homeland. Not Seinfeld’s.”

    Are you critical of the Arabs, too?

    “Certainly. One criticism is of their cooperation with imperialism – take the case of today’s Saudi Arabia, Qatar and so on. Another, from the past, relates to the reactionary forces that did not accept that the Jews have a right to live here.”

    Hadash refrained from criticizing the Assad regime even as it was massacring civilians in Syria. The party even torpedoed a condemnation of Assad after the chemical attack. Do you identify with that approach?

    “Hadash was critical of the Assad regime – father and son – for years, so we can’t be accused in any way of supporting Assad or Hezbollah. We are not Ba’ath, we are not Islamists. We are communists. But as I said earlier, the struggle, unfortunately, is generally not between the ideal and what exists in practice, but many times between two evils. And then you have to ask yourself which is the lesser evil. The Syrian constellation is extremely complicated. On the one hand, there is the United States, which is intervening, and despite all the pretense of being against ISIS, supported ISIS and made it possible for ISIS to sprout.

    "I remind you that ISIS started from the occupation of Iraq. And ideologically and practically, ISIS is definitely a thousand times worse than the Assad regime, which is at base also a secular regime. Our position was and is against the countries that pose the greatest danger to regional peace, which above all are Qatar and Saudi Arabia, and the United States, which supports them. That doesn’t mean that we support Assad.”

    Wrong language

    Cassif’s economic views are almost as far from the consensus as his political ideas. He lives modestly in an apartment that’s furnished like a young couple’s first home. You won’t find an espresso maker or unnecessary products of convenience in his place. To his credit, it can be said that he extracts the maximum from Elite instant coffee.

    What is your utopian vision – to nationalize Israel’s conglomerates, such as Cellcom, the telecommunications company, or Osem, the food manufacturer and distributor?

    “The bottom line is yes. How exactly will it be done? That’s an excellent question, which I can’t answer. Perhaps by transferring ownership to the state or to the workers, with democratic tools. And there are other alternatives. But certainly, I would like it if a large part of the resources were not in private hands, as was the case before the big privatizations. It’s true that it won’t be socialism, because, again, there can be no such thing as Zionist socialism, but there won’t be privatization like we have today. What is the result of capitalism in Israel? The collapse of the health system, the absence of a social-welfare system, a high cost of living and of housing, the elderly and the disabled in a terrible situation.”

    Does any private sector have the right to exist?

    “Look, the question is what you mean by ‘private sector.’ If we’re talking about huge concerns that the owners of capital control completely through their wealth, then no.”

    What growth was there in the communist countries? How can anyone support communism, in light of the grim experience wherever it was tried?

    “It’s true, we know that in the absolute majority of societies where an attempt was made to implement socialism, there was no growth or prosperity, and we need to ask ourselves why, and how to avoid that. When I talk about communism, I’m not talking about Stalin and all the crimes that were committed in the name of the communist idea. Communism is not North Korea and it is not Pol Pot in Cambodia. Heaven forbid.”

    And what about Venezuela?

    “Venezuela is not communism. In fact, they didn’t go far enough in the direction of socialism.”

    Chavez was not enough of a socialist?

    “Chavez, but in particular Maduro. The Communist Party is critical of the regime. They support it because the main enemy is truly American imperialism and its handmaidens. Let’s look at what the U.S. did over the years. At how many times it invaded and employed bullying, fascist forces. Not only in Latin America, its backyard, but everywhere.”

    Venezuela is falling apart, people there don’t have anything to eat, there’s no medicine, everyone who can flees – and it’s the fault of the United States?

    “You can’t deny that the regime has made mistakes. It’s not ideal. But basically, it is the result of American imperialism and its lackeys. After all, the masses voted for Chavez and for Maduro not because things were good for them. But because American corporations stole the country’s resources and filled their own pockets. I wouldn’t make Chavez into an icon, but he did some excellent things.”

    Then how do you generate individual wealth within the method you’re proposing? I understand that I am now talking to you capitalistically, but the reality is that people see the accumulation of assets as an expression of progress in life.

    “Your question is indeed framed in capitalist language, which simply departs from what I believe in. Because you are actually asking me how the distribution of resources is supposed to occur within the capitalist framework. And I say no, I am not talking about resource distribution within a capitalist framework.”

    Gantz vs. Netanyahu

    Cassif was chosen as the polls showed Meretz and Labor, the representatives of the Zionist left, barely scraping through into the next Knesset and in fact facing a serious possibility of electoral extinction. The critique of both parties from the radical left is sometimes more acerbic than from the right.

    Would you like to see the Labor Party disappear?

    “No. I think that what’s happening at the moment with Labor and with Meretz is extremely dangerous. I speak about them as collectives, because they contain individuals with whom I see no possibility of engaging in a dialogue. But I think that they absolutely must be in the Knesset.”

    Is a left-winger who defines himself as a Zionist your partner in any way?

    “Yes. We need partners. We can’t be picky. Certainly we will cooperate with liberals and Zionists on such issues as combating violence against women or the battle to rescue the health system. Maybe even in putting an end to the occupation.”

    I’ll put a scenario to you: Benny Gantz does really well in the election and somehow overcomes Netanyahu. Do you support the person who led Operation Protective Edge in Gaza when he was chief of staff?

    “Heaven forbid. But we don’t reject people, we reject policy. I remind you that it was [then-defense minister] Yitzhak Rabin who led the most violent tendency in the first intifada, with his ‘Break their bones.’ But when he came to the Oslo Accords, it was Hadash and the Arab parties that gave him, from outside the coalition, an insurmountable bloc. I can’t speak for the party, but if there is ever a government whose policy is one that we agree with – eliminating the occupation, combating racism, abolishing the nation-state law – I believe we will give our support in one way or another.”

    And if Gantz doesn’t declare his intention to eliminate the occupation, he isn’t preferable to Netanyahu in any case?

    “If so, why should we recommend him [to the president to form the next government]? After the clips he posted boasting about how many people he killed and how he hurled Gaza back into the Stone Age, I’m far from certain that he’s better.”

    #Hadash

    • traduction d’un extrait [ d’actualité ]

      Le candidat à la Knesset dit que le sionisme encourage l’antisémitisme et qualifie Netanyahu de « meurtrier »
      Peu d’Israéliens ont entendu parler de M. Ofer Cassif, représentant juif de la liste de la Knesset du parti d’extrême gauche Hadash. Le 9 avril, cela changera.
      Par Ravit Hecht 16 février 2019 – Haaretz

      (…) Identité antisioniste
      Cassif se dit un antisioniste explicite. « Il y a trois raisons à cela », dit-il. « Pour commencer, le sionisme est un mouvement colonialiste et, en tant que socialiste, je suis contre le colonialisme. Deuxièmement, en ce qui me concerne, le sionisme est raciste d’idéologie et de pratique. Je ne fais pas référence à la définition de la théorie de la race - même si certains l’imputent également au mouvement sioniste - mais à ce que j’appelle la suprématie juive. Aucun socialiste ne peut accepter cela. Ma valeur suprême est l’égalité et je ne peux supporter aucune suprématie - juive ou arabe. La troisième chose est que le sionisme, comme d’autres mouvements ethno-nationalistes, divise la classe ouvrière et tous les groupes sont affaiblis. Au lieu de les unir dans une lutte pour la justice sociale, l’égalité, la démocratie, il divise les classes exploitées et affaiblit les groupes, renforçant ainsi le pouvoir du capital. "
      Il poursuit : « Le sionisme soutient également l’antisémitisme. Je ne dis pas qu’il le fait délibérément - même si je ne doute pas qu’il y en a qui le font délibérément, comme Netanyahu, qui est connecté à des gens comme le Premier ministre de la Hongrie, Viktor Orban, et le chef de l’extrême droite. en Autriche, Hans Christian Strache. ”

      Le sionisme type-Mapaï a-t-il également encouragé l’antisémitisme ?
      « Le phénomène était très frappant au Mapai. Pensez-y une minute, non seulement historiquement, mais logiquement. Si l’objectif du sionisme politique et pratique est en réalité de créer un État juif contenant une majorité juive et de permettre à la communauté juive de la diaspora de s’y installer, rien ne leur sert mieux que l’antisémitisme. "

      Qu’est-ce qui, dans leurs actions, a encouragé l’antisémitisme ?
      « L’appel même aux Juifs du monde entier - le fait même de les traiter comme appartenant à la même nation, alors qu’ils vivaient parmi d’autres nations. Toute la vieille histoire de « double loyauté » - le sionisme a en fait encouragé cela. Par conséquent, j’affirme que l’antisémitisme et l’antisionisme ne sont pas la même chose, mais sont précisément des contraires. Bien entendu, cela ne signifie pas qu’il n’y ait pas d’antisionistes qui soient aussi antisémites. La plupart des membres du BDS sont bien sûr antisionistes, mais ils ne sont en aucun cas antisémites. Mais il y a aussi des antisémites.

  • Le pacte d’Adriana | ARTE
    https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/080143-000-A/le-pacte-d-adriana


    Ce film est un document poignant sur la déstruction d’une famille par sa collaboration avec une dictature sanglante. La jeune réalisatrice Lissette Orozco fait preuve d’un courage énorme quand elle interroge ses tantes sur les crimes commis sous Pinochet et leur rôle dans le système d’oppression. Elle nous emmène sur un voyage à travers les doutes et mensonges jusqu’au moment quand la vérité devient tangible parce que les masques tombent sous les coups de témoignages et d’observations humains. Son film est extraordinaire parce que la rélisatrice nous fait sentir son empathie envers les membres de sa famille même dans les pires moments de déception.

    D’un point de vue ouest-allemand ce film est d’une nouveauté surprenante parce qu’en Allemagne à distance égale dans le temps la lutte contre le résidu des énormes crimes nationaux n’a su trouver d’expression conséquente qu’à travers la prise d’armes d’une petite minorité de la génération héritant un patrimoine empoisonné.

    Qui était vraiment Adriana Rivas ? Une secrétaire lambda, ainsi qu’elle le clame, ou une redoutable tortionnaire, comme le pense la justice chilienne ? En choisissant de tourner son premier documentaire sur sa tante, Lissette Orozco plonge dans son histoire familiale et dans les années noires de la dictature de Pinochet. Écartelée entre son lien avec l’accusée et la recherche de la vérité, la jeune réalisatrice avance à petits pas, s’interroge, enquête et documente, oscillant tour à tour entre l’amour et l’effroi. Saluée dans de nombreux festivals, sa quête intime, qui embrasse le passé d’un pays encore meurtri, offre un témoignage passionnant sur les mystères de l’âme humaine et le pacte de silence qui unit les criminels d’hier.

    De l’autre côté - Quilapayún & Isabel Parra à Berlin
    https://seenthis.net/messages/746592

    #Chili #histoire #politique #film_documentaire

  • The Islamic fundamentalist Jeremy Corbyn should be ashamed of himself – if only he’d behaved more like Margaret Thatcher | The Independent
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-islam-jewish-antisemitism-israel-labour-party-margaret-

    Un peu d’humour (anglais) ne fait jamais de mal en politique.

    It gets worse and worse for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour. There’s a rumour that photos have emerged of a courgette grown on his allotment which is a similar shape to a rocket propeller used by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    This comes on top of revelations that he has a beard, much like Palestinian terrorists, and his constituency is Islington, which starts with IS, or Islamic State. As a vegetarian he doesn’t eat pork, his friend John McDonnell’s initials are JM – that stands for Jihadist Muslim – and he travels on underground trains, that are under the ground, just like the basements in which Isis make their little films.

    The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and various others have also published a photo of him folding his thumb while holding up his fingers, in a way they describe as a salute to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. That settles it. If you don’t constantly check the shape of your thumb to make sure it’s not folded in a way similar to the way it’s folded by Muslim groups in Egypt, you might as well strap Semtex to your chest and get a bus to Syria.

    Thankfully there are some brave journalists who discovered the truth: that Corbyn laid a wreath in Tunisia at a memorial for civilians who were bombed, but also buried in that cemetery are the “Munich terrorists”. It turned out that the terrorists are not buried there at all, as they’re buried in Libya, but you can’t expect those journalists to get bogged down in insignificant details like that.

    We’ve all turned up for a funeral to be told we’re in the wrong country. “I’m afraid the service for your Uncle Derek is in Eltham Crematorium,” we’re told, “and you’ve come to Argentina.” It doesn’t make any difference to the overall story.

    Because there are Palestinian leaders who may have been terrorists in that cemetery. And when you attend a memorial service, you are clearly commemorating everyone in the cemetery, and the fact that you’ve probably never heard of most of them is no excuse.
    Corbyn takes on Margaret Thatcher over homelessness in Parliament in 1990

    If it’s possible to bring comfort to all those shocked by this outrage, it may be worth recalling that one of the first scandals about Corbyn after he became leader was that he wasn’t dressed smartly enough when he laid a wreath at the Cenotaph, which was an insult to our war dead. He’s just as scruffy in the pictures from Tunisia, so perhaps what he’s actually doing is insulting the terrorists, by laying a wreath near them while his coat is rumpled.

    I suppose it may just be possible that the wreath he laid at an event organised to mark the bombing of civilians in 1985 was actually put there to mark the bombing of civilians in 1985.

    But it’s much more likely that secretly, Jeremy Corbyn supports Palestinian terrorists who murder athletes. You may think that if you hold such an unusual point of view, it might have slipped out in conversation here and there. But the fact he’s never said or done anything to suggest he backs the brutal murder of civilians only shows how clever he is at hiding his true thoughts.

    This must be why he’s always been a keen supporter of causes beloved by Islamic jihadists, such as gay rights. For example, Jeremy Corbyn was a passionate opponent of Margaret Thatcher’s Section 28 law that banned the mention of homosexuality in schools. He supported every gay rights campaign at a time when it was considered extremist to do so. And the way he managed to be an extremist Islamic fundamentalist and an extremist gay rights fanatic at the same time only shows how dangerous he is.

    One person who appears especially upset by all this is Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it’s always distressing when someone that sensitive gets dragged into an issue.

    Sadly he’s going to be even more aghast when he reads about another event in which wreaths were laid for terrorists. Because a plaque was unveiled to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel, in which 91 people died, mostly civilians and 28 of them British. This was carried out by the Irgun, an Israeli terror gang, and one man, who by coincidence was also called Benjamin Netanyahu, declared the bombing was “a legitimate act with a military target”.
    The most ridiculous claims made about Jeremy Corbyn
    He called Hezbollah and Hamas ‘friends’
    ‘Jeremy Corbyn thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a tragedy’
    He is ‘haunted’ by the legacy of his ‘evil’ great-great-grandfather
    Jeremy Corbyn raised a motion about ‘pigeon bombs’ in Parliament

    When Benjamin Netanyahu hears about this other Benjamin Netanyahu he’ll be furious.

    The Labour MPs who pine for Tony Blair are even more enraged, and you have to sympathise. Because when Blair supported murderers, such as Gaddafi and Asad, he did it while they were still alive, which is much more acceptable.

    So you can see why Conservative politicians and newspapers are so disgusted. If you subjected the Conservative Party to a similar level of scrutiny, you’d find nothing comparable. There might be the odd link to torturers, such as their ex-leader Margaret Thatcher describing General Pinochet, who herded opponents into a football stadium and had them shot, as a close and dear friend. Or supporting apartheid because “Nelson Mandela is a terrorist”. But she was only being polite.

    We can only guess what the next revelation will be. My guess is “Corbyn supported snakes against iguanas in Attenborough’s film. Footage has emerged of the Labour leader speaking alongside a snake, and praising his efforts to catch the iguana and poison and swallow him. One iguana said he was ‘shocked and horrified’ at the story, told in this 340-page special edition, and one anti-Corbyn Labour MP said, ‘I don’t know anything about this whatsoever, which is why I call on Mr Corbyn to do the decent thing and kill himself.’”

    #Jeremy_Corbin #Fake_news #Calomnies #Violence

  • The Islamic fundamentalist Jeremy Corbyn should be ashamed of himself – if only he’d behaved more like Margaret Thatcher | The Independent
    https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/jeremy-corbyn-islam-jewish-antisemitism-israel-labour-party-margaret-

    It gets worse and worse for Jeremy Corbyn and Labour. There’s a rumour that photos have emerged of a courgette grown on his allotment which is a similar shape to a rocket propeller used by al-Qaeda in Afghanistan.

    This comes on top of revelations that he has a beard, much like Palestinian terrorists, and his constituency is Islington, which starts with IS, or Islamic State. As a vegetarian he doesn’t eat pork, his friend John McDonnell’s initials are JM – that stands for Jihadist Muslim – and he travels on underground trains, that are under the ground, just like the basements in which Isis make their little films.

    The Daily Telegraph, Daily Mail and various others have also published a photo of him folding his thumb while holding up his fingers, in a way they describe as a salute to the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. That settles it. If you don’t constantly check the shape of your thumb to make sure it’s not folded in a way similar to the way it’s folded by Muslim groups in Egypt, you might as well strap Semtex to your chest and get a bus to Syria.

    Thankfully there are some brave journalists who discovered the truth: that Corbyn laid a wreath in Tunisia at a memorial for civilians who were bombed, but also buried in that cemetery are the “Munich terrorists”. It turned out that the terrorists are not buried there at all, as they’re buried in Libya, but you can’t expect those journalists to get bogged down in insignificant details like that.

    We’ve all turned up for a funeral to be told we’re in the wrong country. “I’m afraid the service for your Uncle Derek is in Eltham Crematorium,” we’re told, “and you’ve come to Argentina.” It doesn’t make any difference to the overall story.

    Because there are Palestinian leaders who may have been terrorists in that cemetery. And when you attend a memorial service, you are clearly commemorating everyone in the cemetery, and the fact that you’ve probably never heard of most of them is no excuse.
    Corbyn takes on Margaret Thatcher over homelessness in Parliament in 1990

    If it’s possible to bring comfort to all those shocked by this outrage, it may be worth recalling that one of the first scandals about Corbyn after he became leader was that he wasn’t dressed smartly enough when he laid a wreath at the Cenotaph, which was an insult to our war dead. He’s just as scruffy in the pictures from Tunisia, so perhaps what he’s actually doing is insulting the terrorists, by laying a wreath near them while his coat is rumpled.
    British Expats: Discover How the UK Pension Refor…Abbey Wealth
    Propriétaire en Occitanie ? N’acheter pas vos …Eco-Astuce.com
    Prostate : ces 5 actifs améliorent drastiquement vos…Laboratoire Cell’innov

    by Taboola
    Sponsored Links

    I suppose it may just be possible that the wreath he laid at an event organised to mark the bombing of civilians in 1985 was actually put there to mark the bombing of civilians in 1985.

    But it’s much more likely that secretly, Jeremy Corbyn supports Palestinian terrorists who murder athletes. You may think that if you hold such an unusual point of view, it might have slipped out in conversation here and there. But the fact he’s never said or done anything to suggest he backs the brutal murder of civilians only shows how clever he is at hiding his true thoughts.

    This must be why he’s always been a keen supporter of causes beloved by Islamic jihadists, such as gay rights. For example, Jeremy Corbyn was a passionate opponent of Margaret Thatcher’s Section 28 law that banned the mention of homosexuality in schools. He supported every gay rights campaign at a time when it was considered extremist to do so. And the way he managed to be an extremist Islamic fundamentalist and an extremist gay rights fanatic at the same time only shows how dangerous he is.

    One person who appears especially upset by all this is Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and it’s always distressing when someone that sensitive gets dragged into an issue.

    Sadly he’s going to be even more aghast when he reads about another event in which wreaths were laid for terrorists. Because a plaque was unveiled to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the bombing of the King David Hotel, in which 91 people died, mostly civilians and 28 of them British. This was carried out by the Irgun, an Israeli terror gang, and one man, who by coincidence was also called Benjamin Netanyahu, declared the bombing was “a legitimate act with a military target”.
    The most ridiculous claims made about Jeremy Corbyn
    He called Hezbollah and Hamas ‘friends’
    ‘Jeremy Corbyn thinks the death of Osama bin Laden was a tragedy’
    He is ‘haunted’ by the legacy of his ‘evil’ great-great-grandfather
    Jeremy Corbyn raised a motion about ‘pigeon bombs’ in Parliament

    When Benjamin Netanyahu hears about this other Benjamin Netanyahu he’ll be furious.

    The Labour MPs who pine for Tony Blair are even more enraged, and you have to sympathise. Because when Blair supported murderers, such as Gaddafi and Asad, he did it while they were still alive, which is much more acceptable.

    So you can see why Conservative politicians and newspapers are so disgusted. If you subjected the Conservative Party to a similar level of scrutiny, you’d find nothing comparable. There might be the odd link to torturers, such as their ex-leader Margaret Thatcher describing General Pinochet, who herded opponents into a football stadium and had them shot, as a close and dear friend. Or supporting apartheid because “Nelson Mandela is a terrorist”. But she was only being polite.

    We can only guess what the next revelation will be. My guess is “Corbyn supported snakes against iguanas in Attenborough’s film. Footage has emerged of the Labour leader speaking alongside a snake, and praising his efforts to catch the iguana and poison and swallow him. One iguana said he was ‘shocked and horrified’ at the story, told in this 340-page special edition, and one anti-Corbyn Labour MP said, ‘I don’t know anything about this whatsoever, which is why I call on Mr Corbyn to do the decent thing and kill himself.’”

  • Au médiateur de Radio France, suite au traitement de la crise vénézuélienne dans la matinale (16/11) de France Culture
    Maurice LEMOINE

    https://www.legrandsoir.info/au-mediateur-de-radio-france-suite-au-traitement-de-la-crise-venezueli

    Au nom de la droite et de l’extrême droite vénézuéliennes, merci à M. Guillaume Erner pour son traitement de la crise vénézuélienne, à travers une seule intervenante, représentante (assez caricaturale, je vous l’accorde, mais universitaire, vous avez eu raison de le souligner) de l’opposition.


    Merci d’avoir caché les responsabilités bien réelles de cette opposition dans la crise – en particulier dans le report (et non l’interdiction) du Référendum révocatoire.

    Merci d’avoir occulté que se déroule actuellement un « dialogue », sous les auspices d’individus extrêmement douteux – M. Ernesto Samper, secrétaire général de l’Union des nations sud-américaines (Unasur) ; les ex-présidents panaméen et dominicain Martin Torrijos et Leonel Fernandez ; l’ex-chef du gouvernement espagnol José Luis Zapatero ; le représentant du Pape, Mgr Emil Paul –, dialogue auquel s’oppose la partie la plus « droitière » de l’opposition, représentée ce matin sur votre plateau.

    Merci d’avoir innocemment introduit une petite séquence « Jean-Luc Mélenchon » dans votre lynchage des présidents Chavez et Maduro.

    Merci encore de ne pas avoir mentionné, en évoquant les « pénuries » et la « famine », les similitudes étonnantes qu’elles présentent avec le phénomène constaté au Chili durant les mois qui ont précédé le renversement de Salvador Allende.

    Merci surtout d’avoir laissé raconter qu’on ne trouve plus un journal dans les rues de Caracas – les occasions de rire sont tellement rares que, lorsqu’il s’en présente une, il faut en profiter à fond.

    Merci, mille fois merci, de participer à l’affaiblissement du service public en lui ôtant toute crédibilité – ceux qui rêvent de le démanteler vous en seront gré.

    Maurice Lemoine
    Auteur de « Les enfants cachés du général Pinochet. Précis de coups d’Etat modernes et autres tentatives de déstabilisation » (ed. Don Quichotte, 2015).

    Réaction envoyée ce matin au médiateur de Radio France, suite au traitement de la crise vénézuélienne dans la matinale (16/11) de France Culture. Invitée : Paula Vasquez (EHESS / CNRS).

    Pour ceux à qui cela donnerait des idées : http://mediateur.radiofrance.fr/contact/mediateur

  • There was, in fact, only one project, in which terror was the central tool of the free-market transformation. “Repression for the majorities and ‘economic freedom’ for small privileged groups are in Chile two sides of the same coin,” Letelier wrote. (...)
    Letelier dismissed Friedman’s claim that urging Pinochet to introduce economic “shock treatment” (...) was merely “technical” advice, unrelated to the human-rights abuses. On the contrary, Letelier insisted that Pinochet’s political violence was what made his economic violence possible. Indeed, only by murdering and imprisoning left leaders, and by terrorizing the wider society, could Pinochet force the same nation that had democratically elected Allende a few years earlier to accept this savage clawback of social gains.

    #répression #Chili #Letelier #Friedman #Pinochet #Allende #néo-libéralisme #violence #Klein

    http://www.bilaterals.org/?40-years-ago-this-chilean-exile&lang=en

  • Paz Errázuriz: the woman who dared to defy the Pinochet regime – in pictures | Art and design | The Guardian
    http://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/gallery/2016/jan/07/paz-errazuriz-photography-woman-who-dared-to-defy-pinochet-regime-in-pi

    It was dangerous for anyone to capture life in Chile under Pinochet – let alone a woman determined to show society’s underbelly. Errázuriz’s photographs of outcasts, fighters and circus performers are haunting and fascinating. She says: ‘They are topics that society doesn’t look at, and my intention is to encourage people to dare to look’

    #photos #défi #Pinochet

  • Pando : #Silicon_Valley vs Civilization
    https://pando.com/2015/11/17/silicon-valley-vs-civilization/446c5504d796dfc506200e27a414235ccdd356dd

    Late in September, Mark Zuckerberg was pictured hugging India prime minister Narendra Modi at Facebook’s Menlo Park headquarters.

    About the same time, on the other side of the world in Modi’s India, a Hindu lynch mob broke into a local Muslim family’s home and bludgeoned to death 50-year-old Mohammad Akhlaq by smashing in his skull, and then dragged him through the streets of Bisara, a village just 30 miles north of the capital New Delhi. The mob also bashed in his 22-year-old son’s head, leaving him in a coma with severe brain damage, and sexually assaulted the dead man’s daughter.

    It was just the latest in a series of increasingly gruesome attacks by Hindu extremists, reportedly inspired and encouraged by Modi’s far-right political party, and affiliated grassroots organizations like the notorious RSS, a paramilitary group established in the 1920s explicitly modeled after Mussolini’s and Hitler’s paramilitaries, through the ranks of which Modi rose to power. For weeks, Modi kept menacingly quiet about the lynching, one of several this year, while his ministers and party officials fanned the flames.

    Modi’s culture minister dismissed the lynching as an “accident” in which no one was at fault — even though a local Hindu temple priest admitted he organized the mob at his temple through announcements over the loudspeaker falsely accusing the only Muslim family in the village of killing a cow. Modi’s culture minister then claimed that the father had died of “shock” after being wrongly told that his son had been killed. This is the father whose head was crushed by bricks in front of his family, and whose body was dragged through the streets of the village.

    Other members of Modi’s party threatened riots and worse if any of the lynch mob murderers were prosecuted. Another BJP party official called for the prosecution of the Muslim family’s survivors for allegedly killing the cow.

    After two weeks, Modi finally issued a statement so vague and tepid that it worked more like gasoline than cold water. Which was exactly the point. As many have explained already, it was Modi himself who began exploiting cow-slaughtering and beef-eating as a way to whip up hatred and rearrange the political divisions along communal religious lines rather than along class and caste lines.

    (For an excellent rundown of how Modi has spent years cultivating and whipping up communal violence with speeches about minorities slaughtering cows and political rivals waging a “pink revolution” [i.e. raw meat] read this Quartz article, “How Narendra Modi spread anti-beef hysteria in India”.)

    While Silicon Valley swoons over Modi’s talk of Digital India and SmartCities and bullet trains and the rest, back at home Modi has talked up a very different and very violent, far-right game. And it seems just about everyone in the world who isn’t a far-right Hindu chauvinist understands just how bad and how dangerous Modi is. 

    Everyone, that is, apart from Silicon Valley’s “smartest guys in the room.”

    The New York Times editorial board has been sounding the alarm over Modi’s dangerous lean towards violent sectarianism, authoritarianism and censorship for the past half year (see here, here, here, here, and here). Meanwhile, India under Modi now leads the world in Facebook censorship, and well surpassed Putin in shutting down progressive western NGOs and foundations (excluding Omidyar Network, which has played a hugely supportive role in helping Modi to power). Indian Nobel laureate Amartya Sen was forced out as chancellor of Nalanda University, set up by a consortium of Asian governments on the site of what was one of the oldest universities in the world, as Modi’s allies have cracked down on academics and intellectuals across the country who don’t adhere to the ruling party’s line. In an unprecedented protest for India, dozens of leading writers have been returning the most prestigious literary award from India’s National Academy of Letters, citing intolerance and violence against intellectuals and minorities.

    Salman Rushdie spoke about what writers are facing in India under Modi:

    “There are attacks on ordinary liberties, the ordinary right to assembly, the ordinary right to organize an event in which people can talk about books and ideas freely and without hostility.”
    Last month, Rushdie tweeted,

    “Alarming times for free expression in India.”
    And it isn’t just intellectuals and minorities who have been complaining. The head of India’s central bank, Raghuram Rajan—long a respected favorite of the global neoliberal elites, and a quiet supporter of Modi’s election victory—made a rare and unusual public criticism of Modi’s intolerance. And Moodys, the ratings agency, issued a warning to Modi that his ruling party’s violent intolerance could jeopardize business and investments.

    None of this, however, seems to have put even the slightest damper on Silicon Valley’s love affair with their favorite world leader.

    It’s not hard to imagine how Zuckerberg’s photo gleefully bro-hugging the far-right Indian leader — or Pierre Omidyar’s top India partner in Omidyar Network becoming Modi’s Minister for Finance after spending years helping to elect Modi using his Omidyar perch — will come back to haunt them.

    Zuckerberg especially should be worried. There are those rare photos in history that can capture something dark and contrary that can never be erased from a public figure’s image: Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand a few years before the Iraqi dictator gassed Kurdish villages; Milton Friedman advising Gen. Pinochet even as his concentration camps were torturing tens of thousands of Chilean students, intellectuals and labor union activists.

    Ignorance is no defense; particularly when you pride yourself in being boy-geniuses, with the best information of anyone in the world. Silicon Valley’s Modi problem is apparent to everyone in the world but Silicon Valley’s billionaires. Now, even Modi’s own citizens in India are revolting against him. In the recent election in the state of Bihar, Modi’s party suffered a shocking, crushing defeat to a socialist-led rival. In the campaign before the election, Modi and his top party officials tried inciting communal violence for electoral gain, but locals overwhelmingly rejected it. Now Modi’s own party is openly criticizing him.

    It’s not like Pando hasn’t been warning about the Modi danger since he was first elected in May 2014. Modi crossed our radar precisely because he was such a favorite of so many big-name Silicon Valley leaders — Pierre Omidyar, Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Sheryl Sandberg, Tim Cook. . . .

    And yet, what we’re seeing is that one of the most divisive, intolerant and dangerous leaders in the world has charmed the socks off of Silicon Valley’s best and brightest, against all information and opinion and evidence out there. Our tech leaders are literally the last people in the world to get it.

  • The Look Of Silence de Joshua Oppenheimer
    http://blogs.mediapart.fr/blog/martingaelm/121015/look-silence-de-joshua-oppenheimer

    si le génocide a été décidé par la junte en s’appuyant sur le crime organisé de la région, c’est bien sous la pression de la banque centrale et du FMI. On était au début de la prise de pouvoir des institutions économiques internationales par les Chicago Boys. Les mêmes qui soutiendront quelques années après le général Pinochet. Pour en arriver « au monde libre » que nous connaissons aujourd’hui, il en a fallu des génocides, des massacres de masse et de milliers de disparition, de viols et de tortures. Le néolibéralisme, dernière mutation historique du capitalisme ne s’est pas imposé de lui même aux démocraties, il fallut ailleurs expérimenter et massacrer pour que l’on comprenne bien : There is no alternative.

    #Capitalisme #Cinéma #TheLookOfSilence #FMI #BanqueMondiale #Pinochet

  • Obama Administration Ends Pentagon Program to Train Syrian Rebels
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/world/middleeast/pentagon-program-islamic-state-syria.html

    The Obama administration has ended the Pentagon’s $500 million program to train and equip Syrian rebels, administration officials said on Friday, in an acknowledgment that the beleaguered program had failed to produce any kind of ground combat forces capable of taking on the Islamic State in Syria.

    Pentagon officials were expected to officially announce the end of the program on Friday, as Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter leaves London after meetings with his British counterpart, Michael Fallon, about the continuing wars in Syria and Iraq.

    “I wasn’t happy with the early efforts” of the program, Mr. Carter said during a news conference with Mr. Fallon. “So we have devised a number of different approaches.” Mr. Carter added, “I think you’ll be hearing from President Obama very shortly” on the program.

    A senior Defense Department official, who was not authorized to speak publicly and who spoke on the condition of anonymity, said that there would no longer be any more recruiting of so-called moderate Syrian rebels to go through training programs in Jordan, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates. Instead, a much smaller training center would be set up in Turkey, where a small group of “enablers” — mostly leaders of opposition groups — would be taught operational maneuvers like how to call in airstrikes.

  • Conférence-débat : « Les enfants cachés du Général Pinochet »
    http://universitepopulairetoulouse.fr/spip.php?article465

    Les Amis du Monde Diplomatique et l’Université Populaire de Toulouse invite Maurice Lemaoine le samedi 26 septembre à 18H à la librairie La Renaissance, 1 Allée Marc Saint-Saëns, Toulouse. "Depuis la fin 1998, en Amérique latine, une vague de chefs d’État de gauche ou de centre gauche occupe le pouvoir. Hasard ? Des coups d’État, pronunciamientos et autres tentatives de déstabilisation ont affecté le Venezuela (2002, 2014 et 2015), Haïti (2004), la Bolivie (2008), le Honduras (2009), l’Équateur (2010) (...)

    #Programme_d'activités

  • Face à l’absence quasi totale de traductions d’œuvres latinoaméricaines par les éditeurs traditionnels, Elizabeth González Altamirano, l’auteure, et Paul Bétous, le traducteur, ont décidé de publier en format numérique et dans une version bilingue espagnol-francais, le texte Un chant pour mon frère. “Les jours de deuils germeront” (Un canto a mi hermano. "Germinarán los días de luto")

    Description de l’œuvre :

     A la fois prose autobiographique empreinte de nostalgie bienheureuse et poésie désenchantée par la torture, la prison et l’exil, Un chant pour mon frère. “Les jours de deuils germeront” retrace pour nous les commencements de la dictature du général Pinochet au Chili à travers les sentiments d’un frère, Carlos, et d’une sœur, Elizabeth, victimes de la répression militaire. Elle a 17 ans quand son frère est détenu après un an et demi de résistance et de clandestinité.

    Pour en savoir plus sur cette autoédition :
    http://paulbetous.canalblog.com/archives/2015/07/14/32354525.html

    #littérature_latinoaméricaine_chili #livres #édition #Chili #ebook

    • Suite à cette expérience, et en complément de celle-ci, j’aimerais mettre en place une #Plate-forme_collaborative pour traducteurs des langues latino-américaines vers le français, vous pouvez voir mes idées ici : https://www.linkedin.com/grp/home?gid=8196473&trk=my_groups-tile-grp

      Vous remarquerez qu’au vu du nombre de participants, c’est pas gagné, mais j’essaie de ne pas lâcher le morceau. Puisque l’idée est de démarchandiser la relation auteur-e-s/lect-rice-eur-s, en permettant d’avoir accès à l’ensemble des œuvres pour un don de son choix, je me demandais si une plate-forme penser sur le modèle de @seenthis ne serait pas pertinente dans un premier temps. Ainsi, on pourrait combiner la visualisation d’extraits pour le public - les non inscrits - et la possibilité d’une assemblée permanente pour les membres, ainsi que l’accès au lien permettant la lecture et/ou le téléchargement de l’ebook bilingue.

      Je remercie par avance celles et ceux qui me donneront leur opinion sur ce sujet.

  • Will Syriza’s Greece go the same way as Chile under Allende? | Paul Mason | Paul Mason
    http://blogs.channel4.com/paul-mason-blog/syrizas-greece-chile-allende/3139

    The most obvious problem for whoever Tsipras (pictured above) appoints as interior minister is the special riot police squad Delta. I’ve reported before allegations that members of this squad hurled racist abuse at arrested protesters, beat them, and took pictures of them on personal mobile phones. The squad was set up after the riots of 2008, and is not a historic part of the Greek public order apparatus.

    Many of Syriza’s members want Delta to be shut down (there is a perfectly functioning, and large “ordinary” riot police unit armed with tear gas). We’ll see.

    As to the wider problem of police accountability, when I described the Macpherson reforms to the Metropolitan police to a senior Syriza member last night, he said: “We could not do that”.

    That’s an insight into the dilemma of this untested far-left party. It has come to power to do two things, essentially: re-set the Greek debt dynamics and force the so-called “oligarchs” to do basic things like pay taxes or own licenses for the TV channels they operate.

    It does not want a clash with the executive branches of the state, and its likely interior minister telephoned both the police and army chiefs on election night to tell them: “We trust you.”

    But in private conversations, Syriza’s policymakers do fear what one of them described to me as becoming “the post-modern Allende” – Allende, being the Chilean president overthrown and killed by General Pinochet in 1973.

    On top of the issue of reforming the state, this is a traumatised society. As Mr Dalakoglou, an anthropologist at Sussex University, puts it, five years of austerity, migration on a scale not seen since the 1950s and deep dislocation in ordinary life, have traumatised people. They don’t trust any politicians. And while there is a lot of hope now – even among some right-wing voters – the challenge is how do you run a traumatised society?

    This is what lies behind the general lack of euphoria among Syriza’s leaders and activists, despite the flag-waving of the past 24 hours. They know there is a huge challenge ahead, quite separate from the issue of eurozone membership and the banks.

    I’ll be updating via Twitter on the composition of Greek government and ministry changes. And on air at 1900.

  • Quarante ans de coup néolibéral au Chili

    Traduction du texte de Rodolfo Varela
    Blog de Rodolfo Varela: Cuarenta años del golpe neoliberal en Chile
    http://rodolfovarela.blogspot.fr/2013/09/cuarenta-anos-del-golpe-neoliberal-en.html

    Cuarenta años del golpe neoliberal en Chile

    Paradoxalement, tant d’images et tant d’articles ne représentent pas nécessairement une avancée de la discussion publique sur la signification passée et présente du 11 septembre. Ça ne l’est pas parce que la disparition physique du dictateur Pinochet a permis à ses partisans et à ceux qui ont profité du modèle politique et économique qu’il a imposé par le sang et le feu de détourner la discussion sur les conséquences du coup d’État. On parle, beaucoup, des causes et des responsables, comme Pinochet, dont beaucoup sont morts.
    Ce dont on ne parle quasiment pas ce sont les conséquences du coup d’État. Pourtant, elles sont bien visibles dans la forme même sous laquelle est commémoré cet événement, brutalement mercantilisée jusqu’à transformer Santiago en parc à thème du « onze » source de profit économique sans aucune pudeur. Les chaînes de télévision en font autant, montrant maintenant et seulement maintenant des images qui auraient pu être diffusées sans censure depuis 1990 mais qu’elles n’avaient délibérément pas rendu publiques, peut-être parce que le modèle politique et économique dont elles profitaient n’était pas encore assuré.
    La transformation du quarantième anniversaire du 11 septembre en un événement de plus, au même titre que les qualifications pour le Mondial de football, le Rallye Dakar (couru au Chili) ou le Festival de la Chanson de Viña del Mar est une preuve supplémentaire de l’écrasante victoire de Pinochet et de ce qu’il représentait si grossièrement. Car on ne peut oublier que le coup d’État ne cherchait pas seulement à renverser Allende. Il voulait transformer le Chili en laboratoire du néolibéralisme économique inspiré par Milton Friedman et l’école de Chicago. Pour ce faire ils eurent besoin d’une dictature féroce qui a assassiné et fait disparaître plus de trois mille Chiliens tout en torturant, emprisonnant et exilant plusieurs dizaines de milliers d’autres personnes. Il a fallu aussi enfermer la vie politique dans une Constitution qui, malgré tous ses maquillages, reste celle promulguée par Pinochet en 1980. Celle sous l’égide de laquelle se dérouleront les élections présidentielles du 17 novembre dont les principales candidates sont la socialiste Michelle Bachelet et, à droite, Evelyn Matthei.
    Pour le cirque médiatique qu’est devenu « le onze », ces deux candidates présentent le visage de la réconciliation après les déchirures infligées par le coup d’État. Elles sont, toutes les deux, filles d’officiers supérieurs de l’Armée de l’Air. Le père de Bachelet était partisan d’Allende et est mort en prison. Celui de Matthei a appartenu à l’une des Juntes qui ont légiféré pendant les 17 ans de dictature militaire sous l’égide de Pinochet.
    À la faveur de ce « revival » du « onze » et en pleine campagne électorale ce sont ces éléments biographiques des candidates qui sont soulignés. On cherche ainsi à occulter et à reporter encore la vraie discussion de fond qui reste à faire au Chili, celle de l’empreinte néolibérale imprimée à feu et à sang depuis ce 11 septembre 1973. Ce legs de quarante ans se traduit par la perte persistante des droits des travailleurs, l’intronisation impudique d’entreprises oligopolistiques et la disparition à ce jour de l’éducation publique et de la sécurité sociale. Le Chili est toujours sur cette voie néolibérale imposée le jour du coup d’État. Les gouvernements qui ont succédé à Pinochet depuis 1990, quelle que soit leur couleur, ont continué à passer efficacement et avec peu de nuances des lois assurant la poursuite de ce modèle. C’est pourquoi le Chili aujourd’hui, malgré sa croissance économique spectaculaire, est d’après l’indice de Gini l’un des pays les plus inégalitaires et injustes de la planète. C’est pourquoi le quarantième anniversaire du 11 septembre 1973 est un produit de plus dans ce Chili actuel où tout a un prix.

  • SANTIAGO, CE 11 SEPTEMBRE...
    http://www.la-bas.org/article.php3?id_article=2824

    C’est une des dates les plus noires de l’histoire de la gauche au XXe siècle : il y a quarante ans, le 11 septembre 1973, le putsch de la junte du général Pinochet mettait un terme, dans un bain de sang, à trois années d’une expérience sans précédent. « Nous ne devons pas laisser l’Amérique latine penser qu’elle peut emprunter ce chemin sans en subir les conséquences. » Ainsi parlait Richard Nixon, en novembre 1970, lors de l’arrivée au pouvoir au Chili de l’Unité Populaire (UP) et de son candidat (...)

  • There are too many bodies buried on Britain’s moral high ground
    http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2013/08/there-are-too-many-bodies-buried-britains-moral-high-ground

    Britain did, over many centuries, impose its own version of the rule of law on hundreds of millions of individuals in the Global South, many of whom were massacred or functionally enslaved. Nor, over the decades that followed the disintegration of the British Empire - two little words that have faltered on the tongues of every Tory statesman in a fortnight of anxious warmongering - have the British been consistent in our opposition to ‘tyranny.’ We did not intervene during the Rwandan genocide. Margaret Thatcher took tea with Pinochet. The list of dictators with whom Britain has maintained cordial relations is long, and it is damning to anyone with the gall to argue that the people of Great Britain were ever cartographers of the moral high ground.

    This isn’t about Syria. This is, for better or worse, about us - on the left and on the right. The generation that grew up watching the war in Iraq and Afghanistan has done a lot of “soul-searching” in ten years. We have walked across the moral high-ground that our leaders mapped out for us. We have discovered that it is a graveyard. The bodies buried on the Anglo-American moral high ground are beyond number, and the flowers that grow there are dank and reek of corruption. But not this time. Not again. Not in our name.

  • Jorge Rafael Videla : Death of a “Dirty War” criminal | The Economist

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/americasview/2013/05/jorge-rafael-videla?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/bl/warcriminal

    Et c’est The Economist qui le dit (le journal qui a priori défendait sa poliique et celle de Pinochet, mais bon.)

    JORGE RAFAEL VIDELA, an Argentine former military dictator who ordered the torture, murder and disappearance of thousands of civilians during the country’s seven-year military rule, died on May 17th in his prison cell on the edge of Buenos Aires, where he was serving a life sentence for crimes against humanity.

    Dubbed the “Pink Panther” for his lanky frame and stealthy gait, Videla seized power in 1976 when left-wing militants, runaway inflation and corruption had begun to rattle Isabel Perón’s civilian government. He said that military rule was necessary to protect national security and human rights. In power, however, he had a selective vision of who was entitled to such rights. Not suspected leftists, certainly; nor anyone who did not ascribe to his totalitarian ideology. “He viewed his mission as sacred, and those who disagreed with it as sinful enemies,” says Federico Finchelstein, an Argentine historian at the New School university.

    #videla #argentine #dictature