Biden opens democracy summit, ‘shows no confidence’

Anti-China clowns among guests; some participants cautious of being used

By 

Yang Sheng

 and 

Hu Yuwei

https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202112/1241151.shtml

The virtual "Summit for Democracy" held by the US kicked off on Thursday, but Chinese analysts said that Washington just exposed its shortage of confidence over its own political system since it dares not invite many countries, including China, to share their views about democracy, and this just proves that the US-dominated event is not democratic at all. 

The "summit" is a useless show to cover the real problems of Western democracy, and has provided a platform for some anti-China forces to gain attention, such as representatives of Hong Kong separatists and the Taiwan secessionist authority, said experts, noting that this proves that the event serves US strategy to add new tensions with China.

US President Joe Biden said on Thursday in his opening remarks that "In the face of sustained and alarming challenges to democracy, universal human rights, and all around the world, democracy needs champions."

Analysts said this means Biden and his team realize their "democracy" is in crisis, but they have mistakenly claimed that the threat to their "democracy" is from outside since Biden's speech stressed defending "democracy" from "authoritarianism." 

Biden didn't name any country, which means he wants to be less provocative toward countries he didn't invite, said observers, stressing that the real challenge to Western democracy is not from outside, but within the Western political system, which requires deep and effective reform. But it seems the US has no courage to face the problem directly but prefers to shift the blame to its competitors by identifying them as "authoritarian states," observers said. 

Participants with mixed views

The Biden administration also didn't invite many of its allies and key partners including Turkey, Singapore, Vietnam, and Hungary. Some of those who received invitations, like Pakistan, were reluctant to participate in the event, as the Pakistani Foreign Ministry said on Wednesday that it wants to engage with the US "at an opportune time in the future."

Many participants from Asia, Africa, and Europe, as well as some international organizations also kept a low profile when participating in the event, with experts saying these participants are trying to stay away from the US stance as they don't want to be used by Washington to serve the US-launched propaganda warfare against China and Russia.  

The summit did invite some influential figures such as United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres and European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen. Analysts said the participation of these people doesn't mean they share all the opinions of the Biden administration toward China and Russia and the US definition of democracy.

"Biden held this summit because pro-establishment elites in the West believe the previous administration in the US-led by Donald Trump caused huge damage to Western democracy and multilateralism, so they want to fix it, and they are worried about the return of Trumpism and the rise of far-right forces in their countries. Many key figures and leaders worldwide would love to attend the summit and express their opinion," Lü Xiang, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, told the Global Times on Thursday.

Other participants from Third World countries like Africa might try to use the platform to urge the West to pay more attention to assist them more in fighting the COVID-19 pandemic and for economic recovery, said analysts.

So it's unnecessary and inaccurate to identify all participants of the "summit" as aggressive Western politicians with a hostile stance against China or Russia, even if the US wants to make the event a show to trumpet US democracy and to groundlessly criticize its competitors, Lü said. 

No confidence

It is a pity that the US did not give China a chance to show "a different model of democracy to the West," which has proven effective in practice and constantly improves the people's needs, Shen Dingli, a professor of Fudan University's Institute of International Studies, told the Global Times. 

"China has always been a supporter of democracy, and it will cherish the chance, if it gets invited, to share its successful democratic experience with the world and learn from each other. But unfortunately, the narrow-minded actions of the US prevented it from seeing the progress of democratic China," he noted.

This proves that the US has no confidence to have an open debate with countries like China or Russia on democracy in front of the international community, and US elites have no courage to listen to different opinions from non-Western countries about democracy, because they want to keep their monopoly in defining the term "democracy," and to use it as a tool to lecture others and even to interfere in others' internal affairs. 

The US is in no position to be "a champion of democracy" or to force other countries to adopt democratic institutions or policies according to its standards, said experts, adding that US foreign policy with the pretext of "democracy" has long been a poor record, said, experts.

Makhdoom Babar, president and editor-in-chief of Pakistani media International Daily Mail, told the Global Times on Thursday that "It's time for the Americans and especially for the White House to realize that their governance system…is not the only viable governance system in the world." 

"They should make themselves understand that the other governance systems" in countries like Saudia Arabia, Brunei, Oman, the UAE and China "are much better government systems when it comes to delivering for the welfare and the good of people," he said.

Democracy show window

Among over 100 participating countries and regions to the summit, only 77 of them are ranked as "free" or fully democratic, while 31 are "partly free" and three are "not free," according to Freedom House's Democracy Index. 

The US uses its own criteria to define some countries as "democratic" while others as "autocratic," Sourabh Gupta, a senior fellow at the Washington-based Institute for China-America Studies, told the Global Times in a recent interview.

Dissidents or opposition members from countries the US considers ideological rivals, such as US-backed Venezuelan radical interim president Juan Guaido and Belarusian opposition leader Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya, are also among the guests.

The summit held by the democratically dysfunctional US is essentially an anti-China farce, which includes a losers' alliance and self-hypnotized cultists with "democracy" slogans, said, observers.

Taiwan's separatist leader Tsai Ing-wen sent her representatives Audrey Tang Feng, a member of Taiwan's executive authority, and Hsiao Bi-khim, the island of Taiwan's representative to the US, to the summit.

Tang, who is in charge of digital issues, will participate in a panel discussion on December 10 on the topic "Against digital authoritarianism and affirming democratic values." But ironically, Tang has long been known as the leader of Taiwan's notorious "internet water army." The program is sponsored by the separatist political party which has been criticized for manipulating local online public opinion, promoting separatism, and is committed to cyberbullying against the opposition.

Another archetypal clown is the Hong Kong separatist Nathan Law, a fugitive suspected of participating in riots and later fleeing Hong Kong. He is scheduled to give remarks on December 10. 

In a Facebook post, Law expressed his appreciation for the invitation, which observers called as having his "tail wagging like one who has just received alms from a patron," and begging for more funding from his Western sponsors to pay for his life while he is at-large. 

Hong Kong security chief Chris Tang Ping-keung branded Law a coward who is spreading political lies and not fit to represent Hong Kong, condemning Law's willingness to serve as a US vassal.

Meanwhile, shortly before the summit kicked off, the US House of Representatives passed a bill on the so-called forced labor issue to reinforce the US lie of the century – the "genocide" allegation against China's Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region, on which observers said all those moves reflected the true intention – Washington’s all-out efforts to suppress China.

Did a major shift finally happen between the USA and Russia?

December 07, 2021

https://thesaker.is/did-a-major-shift-finally-happen-between-the-usa-and-russia/

The western media is writing with uniformity and discipline which goosestepping SS on a parade could envy them: Joe Biden delivered a “stern warning” to Putin: don’t invade Ukraine, or else… (see here, here or here).

Since Russia has no intention, need, or even capability (as currently poised) to “invade” the Ukraine we can be certain that Biden will make his best impersonation “sheriff squinting eyes at OK Corral” (US Presidents like to do that to look “tough” and, therefore, “presidential”) and declare that he single-handedly stopped a Russian invasion on Ukraine!  He is SO MUCH “tougher” than Trump, right?

Fine.  Whatever.

That is a small price to pay to avoid a full-scale (or even limited) war.

This will be an obvious PR stunt, which won’t even help Biden very much, but in his tough (disastrous, really) situation, anything he can present as even a semi-success is worth saying and doing.  “So – I stopped Putin!” was the best Biden could hope for.

This, however, still solves nothing on substance (yet?).

However, there are clear signs that substantive talks did take place (length of the conversation, experts present, tone following the meeting, etc.)

First, both sides agreed to “further consultations” on the “expert level”.

Furthermore, the US side has declared “we still do not believe that President Putin has made a decision” to “further invade” Ukraine.  So in spite of all the (hilariously ridiculous) “secret maps” posted by the western media (see here or here), the folks in charge in the Biden White House seem to be singing to a different tune (so far?).

Good!

Then there is this: considering that Putin has officially drawn “red lines” and that Biden has officially declared that he will recognize no red lines – what is it exactly which the mentioned “experts” agreed to “further consult” each other about?

The answer is quite obvious, I submit precisely these red lines!

It is now clear that the Biden Administration’s official position about hellfire, brimstone, sanctions from hell, and all the rest of the threats and insults which the US has made will actually be acted upon only IF Russia invades Ukraine.

IF!

In other words, what if Russia does not invade (which she won’t), then no more sanctions???

We can be sure that the War Party (which I define as follows: the entire US media, the Neocons, the MAGA-GOP gang in Congress, the “non-Biden gang” inside the Democratic Party, the US energy sector, the US MIC, the entire US “deep state”, the Israel lobby, the Ukie lobby, the UK lobby, the Polish lobby, etc.) will present that as a huge, galactic, “concession” and even “betrayal” by Biden who “caved” to Putin The Evil Communist KGB Thug.

[Sidebar: the hysterics of the War Party about Gen Milley or Biden’s decision to leave Afghanistan have proven beyond reasonable doubt that these folks have now fully adopted the line which the Dems held during the 4 years of the Trump Administration and that they will now at least try to fabricate some “Russia-gate v2” to win the next elections.  There is no honor among thieves and they *all* sure are thieves!]

Here is what the War Party will focus on: what exactly could US and Russian experts even be negotiating about?

Until today, the US officially treated Russia as a “regional power” with her “economy in tatters“, “a gas station masquerading as a country“, a non-entity to whom the Empire had absolutely no need whatsoever to pay attention to, nevermind negotiate with!

And now, negotiations???

Negotiations, by definition, imply first, that both parties approach the negotiations as equals and, second, that both parties are willing to engage in a mutually beneficial give and take.

If not, they are not called negotiations, they are called ultimatums.

And by all signs, Biden presented Putin with no ultimatums whatsoever.

“Worse” (at least from the War Party’s point of view), is the fact that Biden has so far called Putin 3 times, met him once, and requested today’s video conference.  That is for at least five times that the sole hyperpower and world hegemon and leader of all democracies have reached out to “killers” in the Kremlin and asked for talks.  Five times.

Asked (nicely and politely)

For talks (as equals)

Five times (and promised more)

That is huge and absolutely unprecedented since at least twenty years, if not since the fall of the USSR!

Obama, assuming he is currently sober, must be in tears :-)

It gets even more amazing next.

According to the British, Biden has promised to call the following western leaders to brief them about his negotiations with Putin:

• The UK
• France
• Germany
• Italy

Did you notice who was not even mentioned?

Well, Poland and Ukraine for starters!

This goes to show that whatever the official propaganda line is, at least *somebody* in the White House understands that there is a “real Europe”, the Europe that matters, and then there is the “European kindergarten” which matters nothing (I won’t even mention the 3B+PU clowns).

Later, Sullivan tried to do some damage control and declared that Biden would speak with “Ze” on Thursday.  But what could Biden tell “Ze” other than give him tons of verbal reassurances and zero guarantees?

Finally, it is noteworthy that the US side did not promise to accept Ukraine in NATO (they made the usual oblique statements about “open doors” instead) and the US has even reaffirmed the Minsk Agreements (which, de facto, and possibly even de jure, might create the basis for a disavowal of any Ukie attack on the LDNR).

Again, this is good.  The less power the EU Kindergarten has, the less they are likely to force the agenda and draw the adults in the room into a (possibly nuclear) war.

Good!

There is also bad news, of course: the 3B+PU clowns all understand that perfectly.  For them the choice is stark and, indeed, possibly even existential (via self-destruction only, of course): either war or we become irrelevant in the eyes of the collective West.

So the next two questions are:

1.   What will the 3B+PU do about this next?

2.   What will the US do when the 3B+PU does something about it (with the full support of the War Party in the USA!)?

Frankly, I cannot call this one, there are way too many unknowns to make any predictions.

The fact that substantive negotiations have finally replaced the USA’s “unilateralism” (I am being polite here) is a major development and a good one.  But that, at best, is just a first step.  US politicians are notorious for saying A when negotiating with the Russians and non-A as soon as their media excoriates them for being “weak”.

Alas, what needs undoing or, at least, transforming, is three decades of self-defeating western stupidity!

Will that happen? I don’t know.

Over the next couple of days, we will hear a lot of statements, from all sides, many of them categorical.  I suggest that we wait for a little and then revisit the issue again later in the week.

Andrei

PS: big, very big stuff happening between Russia and India and Russia and China; this is crucial to get the full picture of what is going on right now.  I propose to also revisit that later in the week.

Putin to Biden: Finlandize Ukraine, or We Will

by Patrick J. Buchanan Posted on December 07, 2021

https://original.antiwar.com/buchanan/2021/12/06/putin-to-biden-finlandize-ukraine-or-we-will/

Either the U.S. and NATO provide us with "legal guarantees" that Ukraine will never join NATO or become a base for weapons that can threaten Russia – or we will go in and guarantee it ourselves.

This is the message Russian President Vladimir Putin is sending, backed by the 100,000 troops Russia has amassed on Ukraine’s borders.

At the Kremlin last week, Putin drew his red line:

"The threat on our western borders is … rising, as we have said multiple times. … In our dialogue with the United States and its allies, we will insist on developing concrete agreements prohibiting any further eastward expansion of NATO and the placement thereof weapons systems in the immediate vicinity of Russian territory."

That comes close to an ultimatum. And NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg backhanded the President of Russia for issuing it:

"It’s only Ukraine and 30 NATO allies that decide when Ukraine is ready to join NATO. … Russia has no veto, Russia has no say, and Russia has no right to establish a sphere of influence trying to control their neighbors."

Yet, great powers have always established spheres of influence. Chinese President Xi Jinping claims virtually the entire South China Sea that is bordered by half a dozen nations. For 200 years, the United States has declared a Monroe Doctrine that puts our hemisphere off-limits to new colonizations.

Moreover, Putin wants to speak to the real decider of the question as to whether Ukraine joins NATO or receives weapons that can threaten Russia. And the decider is not Jens Stoltenberg but President Joe Biden.

In the missile crisis of 60 years ago, the US, with its "quarantine" of Cuba and strategic and tactical superiority in the Caribbean, forced Nikita Khrushchev to pull his intermediate-range ballistic missiles, which could reach Washington, off of Fidel Castro’s island.

If it did not do so, Moscow was led to understand, we would use our air and naval supremacy to destroy his missiles and send in the Marines to finish the job.

Accepting a counteroffer for the US withdrawal of Jupiter missiles from Turkey, Khrushchev complied with President John F. Kennedy’s demand. Russia’s missiles came out. And Kennedy was seen as having won a Cold War victory.

Now it is we who are being told to comply with Russia’s demands in Ukraine, or Russia will go into Ukraine and neutralize the threat itself.

The history?

When the Warsaw Pact collapsed and the USSR came apart three decades ago, Russia withdrew all of its military forces from Central and Eastern Europe. Moscow believed it had an agreed-upon understanding with the Americans.

Under the deal, the two Germanys would be reunited. Russian troops would be removed from East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, and Romania. And there would be no NATO expansion into Eastern Europe.

If America made that commitment, it was a promise broken. For, within 20 years, NATO had brought every Warsaw Pact nation into the alliance along with the former Soviet republics of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia.

Neocons and Republican hawks such as the late John McCain sought to bring Ukraine and two other ex-Soviet republics, Georgia and Moldova, into NATO.

Putin, who served in the KGB in the late Soviet era and calls the breakup of the USSR the "greatest geopolitical catastrophe" of the 20th century, is now saying: Enough is enough.

Translation: "Thus far and no further! Ukraine is not going to be a member of NATO or a military ally and partner of the United States, nor a base for weapons that can strike Russia in minutes. For us, that crosses a red line. And if NATO proceeds with arming Ukraine for conflict with Russia, we reserve the right to act first. Finlandize Ukraine, or we will!"

The problem for Biden?

In Ukraine and in Georgia, as we saw in the 2008 war, Russia has the tactical and strategic superiority we had in 1962 in Cuba. Moreover, while Ukraine is vital to Russia, it has never been vital to us.

When President Franklin D. Roosevelt recognized Joseph Stalin’s USSR in 1933, Moscow was engaged in the forced collectivization of the farms of Ukraine, which had caused a famine and the deaths of millions. We Americans did nothing to stop it.

During the Cold War, America never insisted on the independence of Ukraine. Though we celebrated when the Baltic states and Ukraine broke free of Moscow, we never regarded their independence as vital interests for which America should be willing to go to war.

A US war with Russia over Ukraine would be a disaster for all three nations. Nor could the US indefinitely guarantee the independence of a country 5,000 miles away that shares not only a lengthy border with Mother Russia but also history, language, religion, ethnicity, and culture.

Forced to choose between accepting Russia’s demand that NATO stays out of Ukraine and Russia going in, the US is not going to war.

Biden should tell Putin: The US will not be issuing any NATO war guarantees to fight for Ukraine.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of Churchill, Hitler, and “The Unnecessary War”: How Britain Lost Its Empire and the West Lost the World. To find out more about Patrick Buchanan and read features by other Creators writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

 El progresismo del Grupo Puebla

Marcos Roitman Rosenmann

https://www.jornada.com.mx/2021/12/05/opinion/017a2pol

Inaugurar un capitalismo con rostro humano, así podríamos sintetizar su ideario. Sus integrantes, a título individual han sido o son presidentes de gobiernos, jefes de Estado, dirigentes de partidos políticos, ministros, embajadores, etcétera, figuras cuyas opiniones y decisiones tienen peso en sus países y en el contexto internacional. De reciente creación, 2019, tienen en su haber, despertar la fobia de la ultraderecha latinoamericana y española. Pero ello no justifica otorgarles carta blanca, ni validar su argumentario, menos aún si entre sus miembros destacan figuras como Lula da Silva, Evo Morales, Dilma Rousseff, José Mujica o Rafael Correa. Ellos no lavan la cara ni limpian el pasado de muchos de sus integrantes. Lo cual no es contradictorio con señalar que sus propuestas suscitan la aprobación de todo bien nacido. Es imposible negar su humanismo cristiano. Se pide más democracia, un rol activo del Estado, reformas tributarias, combatir la desigualdad, salud universal o luchar contra el calentamiento global. Se podría aducir que en estos tiempos es la única opción posible. Pero en eso consiste la trampa del progresismo. De lo malo, lo menos malo. Y así nos va.

Reunidos en la Ciudad de México el reciente primero de diciembre, han elaborado una propuesta bajo el enunciado: Un modelo de desarrollo solidario, levantado sobre seis ejes, pretende: la superación de la desigualdad social, la búsqueda de valor, una nueva política económica, la transición ecológica, la integración como construcción de la región y una nueva institucionalidad democrática. Este modelo basado en un enfoque de género y diferenciado que proponemos como la hoja de ruta del progresismo latinoamericano y caribeño con miras al abandono definitivo del anacrónico modelo neoliberal. Este último con vocación extractivista ha dejado efectos difícilmente reversibles sobre el medioambiente, ha significado alarmantes niveles de concentración de la riqueza que nos convierten en la zona más desigual del planeta y ha atrofiado los circuitos de redistribución.

Nos sumamos a la declaración ¿Pero cómo se implementarán tales medidas, quiénes representan las fuerzas del cambio y dónde se ubican las resistencias? En todo el documento, no hay mención, aunque sólo sea de pasada, al espacio tiempo en el cual se desarrolla la propuesta: el capitalismo. Tampoco se alude al poder de las trasnacionales, el complejo industrial militar, financiero y digital, en concreto al imperialismo. ¿Será el lenguaje inclusivo? ¿Pero cómo luchar contra el neoliberalismo sin cuestionar las formas de explotación capitalista? Algunos dirán que no hace falta mencionarlo, se sobreentiende. La explicación no es suficiente, hay que hacerlo explícito, de lo contrario estaríamos ante el dilema ¿es conveniente mentir al pueblo? Luego vienen las frustraciones: donde dije digo, digo Diego.

El progresismo del Grupo de Puebla acaba por remozar al capitalismo. Y no puede ser de otra manera. Si miramos con atención el nombre de algunos de sus fundadores, hasta completar la media centena, aflora cierta desazón y perplejidad. Su diversidad podría ser un plus, pero cuando unos y otros están en las antípodas, la duda se abre camino. Entre otros, nos encontramos con el chileno José Miguel Insulza, ex secretario general de la OEA, el mismo que combatió y declaró la guerra a la República Bolivariana de Venezuela y su presidente Hugo Chávez, quien se opuso a la extradición de Pinochet a España, avaló las políticas estadunidenses para América Latina y como ministro del Interior del gobierno de Ricardo Lagos aplicó la ley antiterrorista de la dictadura para reprimir al pueblo mapuche. Otro chileno de pro, Carlos Ominami, coordinador del programa de gobierno de la Concertación, tuvo el mérito de blanquear el proyecto neoliberal de la dictadura como ministro de Economía y otro chileno, su ahijado, Marco Enrique Ominami, manchó su nombre al descubrirse que su partido recibió dinero del ex yerno de Pinochet para su campaña. En la lista figura el monárquico Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, quien siendo presidente de gobierno pactó en 2011 la reforma del artículo 135 de la Constitución para limitar el gasto social a la estabilidad presupuestaria. Un verdadero golpe de Estado judicial o lawfare. Además de ser artífice del acuerdo para la instalación en España del escudo antimisiles y los vuelos hacia Guantánamo. Pero también tenemos a Beatriz Paredes, ex presidenta del PRI, diputada y senadora, quien miró hacia otro lado ante la represión política en Chiapas y avaló las políticas neoliberales, las cuales hoy dice combatir. Destaca el ex presidente de Colombia, Ernesto Samper, poco hizo durante su gobierno para frenar a los paramilitares, enfrentarse a las políticas de la DEA o garantizar la vida y frenar los asesinatos de los dirigentes campesinos y sindicalistas. En Uruguay vemos a Rafael Michelini, defensor a ultranza de la reforma de las pensiones y su privatización en beneficio de los bancos. Junto a ellos, víctimas de golpes de Estado: Dilma Rousseff, Manuel Zelaya, Evo Morales o Fernando Lugo. La lista de neoliberales conversos es grande y genera desazón.

Por último, resulta significativo, la exclusión de cubanos y venezolanos en la lista fundacional del Grupo de Puebla, cuando sus proyectos coinciden con los objetivos demandados por sus creadores. Eso sí, el grupo de Puebla se vanagloria de tener el apoyo de la Internacional Socialista, quien reconoce al golpista Leopoldo López como líder de la oposición venezolana a la par que democracia para Cuba. La esquizofrenia de estar a bien con Dios y el diablo. Después de lo dicho, cabe preguntarse: ¿De qué progresismo hablamos?

 ‘Settler violence is part of Israel’s official policy,’ experts say — but ‘Washington Post’ buries that angle

"Continuous, systemic violence meted out by settlers is part of Israel’s official policy, driving massive takeover of Palestinian" lands, B'Tselem says in a groundbreaking report, but the Washington Post's recent article on settler violence suggests that the Israeli government is taking it on vigorously.

BY PHILIP WEISS  NOVEMBER 30, 2021 

https://mondoweiss.net/2021/11/settler-violence-is-part-of-israels-official-policy-experts-say-but-washington-post-buries-that-angle/

Earlier this month, the human rights group B’Tselem issued an important report titled, “State Business: Israel’s misappropriation of land in the West Bank through settler violence” that said the Israeli government “fully supports and assists” the spike in settler violence. Israel is using the settlers to widen the “Jewish-only space” on Palestinian lands, a process that has gone on for decades, B’Tselem said:

Settler violence against Palestinians serves as a major informal tool at the hands of the state to take over more and more West Bank land. The state fully supports and assists these acts of violence, and its agents sometimes participate in them directly. As such, settler violence is a form of government policy, aided and abetted by official state authorities with their active participation…

Today the good news is that the pogroms by settlers against Palestinians in the West Bank are finally getting coverage in the western press. The Guardian covered settler violence on Sunday, the Washington Post covered it yesterday: “Hate crime attacks by Israeli settlers on Palestinian civilians spike in the West Bank.”

The problem is that the Post article buries the critical issue: the charge that the Israeli government “fully supports and assists” the violence as a means of removing Palestinians. The Post characterizes settlers as freelance actors, who commit beatings, arson, and vandalism against Palestinians who live nearby– even though many “leaders” in Israel have called for a crackdown. The newspaper accepts the Israeli government’s line at face value:

Defense Minister Benny Gantz convened a meeting of security officials earlier this month and said the military would issue new orders against “standing by,” directing soldiers to do more to prevent the incidents and protect Palestinians, according to media reports. “Hate crimes are the root from which terrorism grows and we must uproot it,” Gantz said in a statement after the meeting.

Compare the Post to The Guardian, which credited B’Tselem’s allegation prominently:

The Israeli human rights agency B’Tselem claimed this month that the state has “harnessed settler violence to promote its policy of taking over Palestinian land for Jewish use”. 

Israeli human rights organizations claim [settler violence] is increasingly being used as a strategy to try to clear many of the 300,000 Palestinian residents in the rural 60% of the occupied West Bank designated as Area C in the Oslo accords.

Arguably the settlers were trying by force what Israel has long attempted by bureaucratic means.

The Guardian then quoted two other human rights experts saying that the government is in on the violence.

[T]he notion that settler violence is confined to an ultra-extremist fringe [does not] sit easily with the charge of agencies such as Yesh Din, supported by growing evidence, that it is “part of a calculated strategy for dispossessing Palestinians of their land”. Or that of Yehuda Shaul, a committed supporter of a two-state agreement with the Palestinians, that “settler violence is not a story of 50 lunatics out on the edge of the movement … but an essential step in the evolution of the settlement project”.

The Washington Post only cites B’Tselem backhandedly at the very end of the article and says that the Israeli army is trying to stop the violence.

In a statement, an Israel Defense Forces spokesman said, “Any claim that the IDF supports or permits violence by residents in the area is false.”

But numerous Israeli experts say the government approves the violence.

Haaretz’s military reporter, Amos Harel, said the police and army are “passive” because the government doesn’t want them to take action. Harel spoke on a podcast two weeks ago for the Israel Policy Forum.

You are assuming that someone in charge of them actually wants them to act. I don’t think that’s the case… My guess would be those people [the settlers] feel they can do anything. They’ve been there for so long that the military and police are helpless. No one in government is actually interested in that. Ministers from the left would now and then pay lip service to do something to solve the matter. Other than that the government and the state are weak and will not do anything aggressive enough to stop that. This is why this is rising….

And last month Americans for Peace Now published a podcast in which two Israeli human rights experts said the settler violence is serving state aims. The settlers act as the eyes and ears of the army, Hagit Ofran of Peace Now said, in a very traditional relationship in Israeli expansion.

While Yossi Alpher told Americans for Peace Now yesterday about the political support for expansion inside the new Israeli government:

The right-wing parties Yamina, New Hope, and Yisrael Beitenu, want to avoid territorial compromise and expand settlements to cement control over the 60 percent of the West Bank fully occupied by the IDF….And foregoing 50 percent of the West Bank is the most that the more moderate segments of right-religious Israel can accept.

Alpher used the word “apartheid,” which B’Tselem has also used in its reports.

The right-wingers behind this approach basically want the land without the Arabs. The Palestinians increasingly understand this as apartheid. 

The Washington Post does not state the apartheid allegation. Nor does it quote from the B’Tselem report, despite the overwhelming documentation that B’Tselem offered for its allegation. Some of that data:

Violence committed by settlers against Palestinians has been documented since the very early days of the occupation in countless government documents and dossiers, thousands of testimonies from Palestinians and soldiers, books, reports by Palestinian, Israeli, and international human rights organizations, and thousands of media stories. This broad, consistent documentation has had almost no effect on settler violence against Palestinians, which has long since become part and parcel of life under the occupation in the West Bank.

The report presents five case studies that illustrate how continuous, systemic violence meted out by settlers is part of Israel’s official policy, driving a massive takeover of Palestinian farmland and pastureland. In the testimonies collected as part of the research, Palestinians describe how this violence undermines the bedrock of Palestinian communities’ lives and diminishes their income. Residents describe how without protection, under the pressure of violence and fear and with no other choice, Palestinian communities abandon or scale back traditional vocations such as sheep and goat farming or various seasonal crops, which allowed them to make a dignified living and live comfortably for generations.

The Guardian article is forthright about this issue. It describes the recent “pogrom” in which settlers from two illegal settlements descended on the neighboring village of Mufakara and stoned and attacked villagers. Israeli forces were on the settlers’ side, firing teargas and stun grenades, and rubber bullets to try to affect the evacuation of the village.

The Guardian said that Benny Gantz had responded to “rising diplomatic concern – including in Washington” and ordered the top brass to toughen enforcement against “what he called ‘hate crimes’ in the West Bank,” but the Guardian then quoted Avner Gvaryahu of Breaking the Silence saying that words mean nothing, only action counts, and “So far, settler violence has been ravaging on and Gantz has done nothing.”

What a pity that our media cannot be so honest about these fundamental issues.

It appears that the American establishment is determined to consecrate Joe Biden’s honeymoon with Naftali Bennett, and Gantz is playing along. “There is a sense—a thorough and very dangerous misapprehension—in many quarters around the world that Israel’s new prime minister, Naftali Bennett, an avowed right-wing annexationist, somehow represents a ‘kinder, gentler Israel than his predecessor, the coarse provocateur Netanyahu,” says Ilene Cohen, who shared several of the links in this piece with her email list.

Flashazos opositores

A manera. de respuesta a esta pregunta va este mosaico semanal de actividades opositoras, comenta Juan Ignacio Zavala.

https://www.elfinanciero.com.mx/opinion/juan-ignacio-zavala/2021/12/03/flashazos-opositores/

Juan Ignacio Zavala

 

diciembre 03, 2021

Hemos hablado hasta la saciedad de la popularidad de López Obrador. Las preguntas van y vienen: ¿por qué es tan popular si su gobierno es un desastre? ¿Por qué apoyan a un personaje autoritario y antidemocrático? ¿Les gustan los tiranos a los mexicanos, mexicanas y mexicanes? ¿Si es el peor que hemos tenido por qué les simpatiza tanto? ¿No se dan cuenta que es un político primitivo con marcados rasgos narcisistas? ¿Les gusta la destrucción, el desmantelamiento institucional? ¿Si este gobierno es poco menos que una tlapalería en quiebra, qué es lo que le aprueban? ¿El despliegue impúdico de su rencor, su ánimo revanchista? ¿Son sus mañaneras? ¿Su discurso ramplón? ¿Sus acusaciones a los corruptos? ¿Su incansable sonsonete sobre los conservadores y los enemigos del pueblo? ¿Es su sencillez, su carisma, lo que le da esa credibilidad? ¿Su apetito voraz? ¿Sus risotadas de tío en comida familiar de domingo? Cada quien se hace la pregunta que le gusta y escoge la respuesta que mejor se acomoda a su parecer. Creo que eso seguirá así lo que resta del sexenio, así que mejor sería hacerse otras preguntas, como por ejemplo: ¿qué hace la oposición? A manera de respuesta a esta pregunta va este mosaico semanal de actividades opositoras.

Santiago Creel se lanzó a la Presidencia. El hombre que es todo diálogo y buenas formas, que durante su paso por Gobernación puso más de mil mesas de negociación sin llegar a nada, el político que siente que encarna la transición, aquel al que López Obrador describía en campaña como “un bombón”, ha dicho “yo” y ha dado un paso adelante. Como todo con él, el asunto salió medio desangelado, aburrido. Se apersonó a las afueras de Palacio, bastante lejos de la puerta, pues había vallas que le impedían pasar, y “exigió diálogo nacional”, a sabiendas que nadie se sentará a tomar en Palacio ni una agua de horchata con él. Lo importante es que Marko Cortés ya lo había destapado e incluso le encargó la elección en Aguascalientes –la única que el PAN puede ganar– como algo muy retador a lo que Santiago contestó, valeroso y arriesgado como es, que aceptaba la misión. Es el candidato de Claudio X y su banda, de los mausoleos del grupo San Ángel y de la burocracia panistoide. El charro güero une a todos ellos, agrupa y no divide, dicen. Claudia tiembla.

Marko Cortés anunciaba su “estrategia digital” que llegará “a cada rincón del país” (así dijo) para denunciar la destrucción lopezobradorista y publicaba una esquela por la muerte de un expresidente del PRI. Mientras tanto, ¿qué hicieron los más afamados gobernadores el PAN, Maru, de Chihuahua, y Mauricio, de Yucatán? Pues estaban en la fiesta, ¡en el Zócalo!, de López Obrador y se tomaron una foto, ¿con quién creen? ¡Con Sheinbaum y con Marcelo! El PAN avanza y va por todo.

En contraposición a don Claudio décimo –algo ha de significar esa X– surgió otro grupo opositor, otro colectivo. Se trata del Frente Cívico Nacional. Ellos no están de acuerdo ni con los partidos ni con sus mecenas. Son los mismos que estaban a la mesa haciendo una “gran coalición opositora” con Ricardo Anaya. La mayoría ha pasado por lo menos por dos partidos. Ahora plantean que los partidos políticos no decidan sus candidatos a la Presidencia sino que sean los ciudadanos, por medio de ese frente cívico, y no sólo eso, sino que todos los que participen en la contienda deberán formar parte de ese gobierno que no será de una persona. Es decir, la instalación de una feria del empleo. Durante el evento de lanzamiento del FCN, una joven se acercó al presídium y reclamó que solamente había “viejitos diciendo obviedades”, que ella tenía treinta años y que ahí nadie la representaba y que no había cabida para los jóvenes. Un éxito total.

Hasta aquí de flashazos opositores.

 LA UTOPÍA

Vivimos en un tiempo de definiciones. Nada de hipocresías o “medias tintas”. O se cree en la utopía[1], en la tierra prometida, o se es un incrédulo.

Sólo hay lugar para los fieles al camino trazado por el ungido por el pueblo; los no creyentes son un obstáculo, una anomalía, un desecho; son prescindibles.

No hay, no puede haber un “centro” político, porque ello implica negociación, compromiso, aceptación de que existe el otro con el que hay que dialogar, debatir y más peligroso aún, con quien eventualmente podría haber alguna coincidencia.

No, la única forma de llegar al paraíso es creyendo totalmente en la escritura y en su mesías. Cualquier duda, desviación, atajo, etc. es una herejía, que debe ser castigada, por lo pronto, con la expulsión del sendero luminoso por el cual transita el pueblo elegido; y más adelante, si aún existen estos impíos, con su destrucción.

La realidad es una construcción mental, emocional, que puede y debe ser moldeada por quien ve más allá que los demás; por quien sabe de antemano qué necesitan, desean, anhelan los habitantes de estas tierras.

Por ello, la realidad puede ser moldeada por el discurso, por las palabras, repetidas miles de veces de ser necesario, hasta que los seguidores estén completamente convencidos de que sólo hay un camino, de que sólo hay una voz que tienen que escuchar; y de que los pesares, sufrimientos, carencias, etc. del vivir cotidiano son nada, nada significan si crees en el paraíso, si vives en él a través de la palabra del ungido.

Quienes critican, denuncian, reclaman, se inconforman, etc. es porque se niegan a beber del maná que surge del guía que lleva a su pueblo por el camino de la felicidad.

Ya no hace falta de drogas sicodélicas o de litros de alcohol para evadirse de una realidad espantosa, llena de muertos por Covid, por la violencia criminal, de pobreza, desigualdad, impunidad, injusticia.

Sólo hace falta escuchar con atención, con devoción la palabra del ungido, y con ello levitarás hasta lo más alto del cielo, desde donde podrás ver a esos pobres incrédulos que se han quedado rumiando sus derrotas y su impiedad.

---

[1] Plan o sistema ideal de gobierno en el que se concibe una sociedad perfecta y justa, donde todo discurre sin conflictos y en armonía.

"Tomás Moro acuñó en el siglo XVI la voz ‘utopía’ en una obra del mismo título en la que imaginó una isla desconocida en la que se llevaría a cabo la organización ideal de la sociedad".

Proyecto, deseo o plan ideal, atrayente y beneficioso, generalmente para la comunidad, que es muy improbable que suceda o que en el momento de su formulación es irrealizable.

"bajo forma de aspiración íntima, ensueño o utopía, el hombre, simplemente por ser hombre, aspira a su plena felicidad"

https://www.google.com/search?q=utop%C3%ADa&oq=utop%C3%ADa&aqs=chrome..69i57.10635j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8