Ebrei e goym

E' sintomatico constatare come sia ancora attuale la problematica relazione tra gentili ed ebrei, soprattutto alla luce di questi ultimi (per approfondire la questione consiglio la lettura del libro "Storia ebraica e giudaismo. Il peso di tre millenni" di Israel Shahak, Centri Librario Sodalitium, 2000).

Prendo spunto da un articolo sul sito di haaretz in cui il rabbino Yitzhak Shapiro ha sostenuto che "it is permissable to kill the Righteous among Nations even if they are not responsible for the threatening situation, if we kill a Gentile who has sinned or has violated one of the seven commandments - because we care about the commandments - there is nothing wrong with the murder". Ancora più allarmante sono le parole conclusive dove "several prominent rabbis, including Rabbi Yithak Ginzburg and Rabbi Yaakov Yosef [membro della Shas della Knesset], have recommended the book to their students and followers." Penso non ci sia cosa più spregevole che far crescere persone con queste idee grette e distorte. E' proprio su questo campo che la Comunità internazionale deve svolgere un monitoraggio severo e critico contro ogni intolleranza religiosa ed etnica che può essere foriera di futuri conflitti. Altrimenti scoppieranno violenze e sembreranno come nate dal nulla, negando alla storia la sua funzione principale: quella non far ripetere gli errori.

Questa diversità fra ebrei e goym è stata causata dall'esclusivismo e dall'elezione divina del popolo ebraico, sanato in parte grazie dall'universalismo di San Paolo ("Non c’è Giudeo né Greco; non c’è schiavo né libero; non c’è maschio e femmina, poiché tutti voi siete uno in Cristo Gesù", Galati 3-28).

Persino nei Vangeli di Marco (7,24-30) e Matteo (15,21-28) possiamo vedere Gesù in un comportamento inizialmente sprezzante nei confronti di una donna cananea (e quindi pagana) che aveva implorato un suo segno affinché guarisse la figlia: in questo contesto sembrerebbe sottolineare una diversità (contingente) di ruoli fra i "figli" (i giudei della Casa d'Israele) e i "cagnolini" (pagani in procinto di aderire alla nuova dottrina), dove ai primi, popolo di Israele, è ancora rivendicato il primato d'onore ed esclusivo e per questo i primi destinatari del "Pane del Vangelo", mentre agli altri non rimangono semmai che delle "briciole" ("Lascia prima che si sfamino i figli; non è bene prendere il pane dei figli e gettarlo ai cagnolini" in Marco; "Non sono stato inviato che alle pecore perdute della casa di Israele ... Non è bene prendere il pane dei figli per gettarlo ai cagnolini" in Matteo).

La responsabilità futura che il Premio Nobel x la Pace caricherà su Obama

Un po' di sorpresa l'ho avuta nell'apprendere che il Premi Nobel per la Pace 2009 verrà assegnato al Presidente americano Barak Obama ("for his extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples").

Ma certamente ha un'altra ragione: quella di predeterminare le future decisioni politiche del Presidente americano proprio perché verranno misurate su questo precedente. La rivoluzione portata avanti da Obama riguarda l'atteggiamento cooperativo verso il mondo musulmano, la sottolineatura sugli aspetti che uniscono i paesi e i popoli piuttosto su quelli che dividono, la volontà di bandire totalmente in un indefinito prossimo le armi nucleari, la chiusura di Guantánamo e il rigetto della pratica della tortura. Punti fondamentali ma, purtroppo, che non giustificano del tutto il premio perché non è suffragato dalla concretezza delle azioni e sui risultati acquisiti.

Un riconoscimento forse concesso troppo presto, in anticipo per i più ottimisti, come se fosse una credito da parte della Comunità internazionale piena di fiducia in questo Presidente ma che potrebbe risultare in una carico troppo pesante. I prossimi anni Obama per smarcarsi completamente da Bush dovrà risolvere le guerre ereditate in Iraq e in Afganistan ma soprattutto perseguire con tenacia una soluzione politica in Medio Oriente con la fine della vergognosa occupazione militare (42 anni) da parte di Israele.

Il «peccato di gioventù» del signor Polanski

Disgusto apprendere (citato dal New York Times) che l'intellettuale francese Bernard-Henri Lévi abbia qualificato il comportamento del famoso regista Roman Polanski nell'aver fatto sesso con una ragazza di 13 anni nel lontano 1977 «a youthful error». Al tempo della sua "bravata", Polanski aveva la bellezza di 44 anni quindi non "nell'attenuante" età adolescenziale.

Non si può scusare nessuno per questo genere di crimine.

A buona ragione, la vita del regista polacco è costellata di successi, altrettanto si può dire della sua genialità, dei suoi film (molto bello è "Oliver Twist") o del fatto che abbia avuto un passato difficile e sofferto come testimonia la sua fuga dalla violenza nazista (la madre non ci riuscì e morì ad Auschwitz). Tutto ciò, però, non può esimere nessuno dal commettere questi seri reati.

Nello schierarsi pubblicamente dalla parte del perdono con questa frase, Beranrd-Henry Lévi è molto meno intellettuale e molto più carente nella sua onestà (intellettuale).

«A culture of impunity in the region has existed for too long»

Esattamente il 21 settembre in un interessante articolo sul quotidiano israeliano Haaretz, Jonathan Freedland si chiede coraggiosamente se «Isn't it possible to acknowledge someone's pain without promising to turn back the clock and undo the events that led to it? Surely we know from our personal lives that sometimes it is simply the acknowledgment itself - the admission of responsibility - that has a healing effect.» Ci si riferisce ai tragici avvenimenti nel 1948/49 dove Israele è stato fondato accanto alla guerra che ha prodotto più di 700.000 rifugiati arabi palestinesi. Sono convinto che un sincero riconoscimento della responsabilità, più o meno direttamente, da parte di Israele delle sofferenze patite dalla popolazione araba in quegli anni sarà un pre-requisito fondamentale di una futura pace tra i due popoli. Il 1948, non lo dimentichiamo, rimane alla radice del conflitto arabo-israeliano.

Prendo spunto da questo tema per collegarmi alla dichiarazione di Richard Goldstone davanti al Consiglio dei diritti umani, durante il dibattito sul rapporto di Gaza da lui stesso diretto:

«It has been my experience in many regions of the world, including my own country, South Africa, that peace and reconciliation depend, to a great extent, upon public acknowledgement of what victims suffer. That applies no less in the Middle East. It is a pre-requisite to the beginning of the healing and meaningful peace process. ...The truth and accountability are also essential to prevent ascribing collective guilt to a people. ... People of the region should not be demonized. Rather their common humanity should be emphasized.» E' un principio centrale che deve essere ben tenuto a mente.

Il rapporto Gaza è stato oggetto di critiche al vetriolo da parte del governo israleliano e dei suoi sostenitori ma Goldstone ha ribadito la sostanza delle sue indagini e conclusioni. Eccone altri stralci:

«Since the release of the advance version of the report two weeks ago, we have witnessed many attestations of support, but also a barrage of criticism towards our findings as well as public attacks against the Members of the Mission. We will not address these attacks as we believe that the answers to those who have criticised us are in the findings of the report. I have, however, to strongly reject one major accusation levelled against the Mission; the one that portrays our efforts as being politically motivated. Let me repeat before this Council what I have already stated on many occasions: We accepted this Mission because we believe deeply in the rule of law, humanitarian law, human rights, and the principle that in armed conflict civilians should to the greatest extent possible be protected from harm. We accepted with the conviction that pursuing justice is essential and that no state or armed group should be above the law. Failing to pursue justice for serious violations during any conflict will have a deeply corrosive effect on international justice. ...

The Mission investigated in some detail the effects on the civilian population in Southern Israel of the sustained rocket and mortar attacks from Palestinian armed groups in Gaza. We detail the suffering of victims and the highly prejudicial effects of these acts on the towns and cities that fall within the range of the rockets and mortars. The Mission decided that in order to understand the effect of the Israeli military operations on the infrastructure and economy of Gaza, and especially its food supplies, it was necessary to have regard to the effects of the blockade that Israel has imposed on the Gaza Strip for some years and has been tightened since Hamas became the controlling authority of Gaza. The Mission found that the attack on the only remaining flour producing factory, the destruction of a large part of the Gaza egg production, the bulldozing of huge tracts of agricultural land, and the bombing of some two hundred industrial facilities, could not on any basis be justified on military grounds. Those attacks had nothing whatever to do with the firing of rockets and mortars at Israel. The Mission looked closely and sets out in the Report statements made by Israeli political and military leaders in which they stated in clear terms that they would hit at the “Hamas infrastructure”. If “infrastructure” were to be understood in that way and become a justifiable military objective, it would completely subvert the whole purpose of IHL built up over the last 100 years and more. It would make civilians and civilian buildings justifiable targets. These attacks amounted to reprisals and collective punishment and constitute war crimes. The Government of Israel has a duty to protect its citizens. That in no way justifies a policy of collective punishment of a people under effective occupation, destroying their means to live a dignified life and the trauma caused by the kind of military intervention the Israeli Government called Operation Cast Lead. This contributes to a situation where young people grow up in a culture of hatred and violence, with little hope for change in the future. ...

The Mission is highly critical of the pusillanimous efforts by Israel to investigate alleged violations of international law and the complete failure by the Gaza authorities to do so in respect of the armed groups. That notwithstanding the Mission came to the conclusion that both Israel and the Gaza Authorities have the ability to conduct open and transparent investigations and launch appropriate prosecutions if they decide to do so. ...

In both cases, if within the six month period there are no good faith investigations conforming to international standards, the Security Council should refer the situation or situations to the ICC Prosecutor. ...

A culture of impunity in the region has existed for too long.

The lack of accountability for war crimes and possible crimes against humanity has reached a crisis point; the ongoing lack of justice is undermining any hope for a successful peace process and reinforcing an environment that fosters violence. Time and again, experience has taught us that overlooking justice only leads to increased conflict and violence».

Proprio nelle ultime pagine il Rapporto affrontava il problema e la necessità di giudicare i responsabili da ambo le parti:

"The Mission is firmly convinced that justice and respect for the rule of law are the indispensable basis for peace. The prolonged situation of impunity has created a justice crisis in the OPT that warrants action. ...

The Mission notes that the responsibility to investigate violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, prosecute if appropriate and try perpetrators belongs in the first place to domestic authorities and institutions. This is a legal obligation incumbent on States and state-like entities. However, where domestic authorities are unable or unwilling to comply withthis obligation, international justice mechanisms must be activated to prevent impunity.

The Mission believes that, in the circumstances, there is little potential for accountability for serious violations of international humanitarian and human rights law through domestic institutions in Israel and even less in Gaza. The Mission is of the view that longstanding impunity has been a key factor in the perpetuation of violence in the region and in the reoccurrence of violations, as well as in the erosion of confidence among Palestinians and many Israelis concerning prospects for justice and a peaceful solution to the conflict. The Mission considers that several of the violations referred to in this report amount to grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

It notes that there is a duty imposed by the Geneva Conventions on all High Contracting Parties to search for and bring before their courts those responsible for the alleged violations. The Mission considers that the serious violations of International Humanitarian Law recounted in this report fall within the subject-matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The Mission notes that the United Nations Security Council has long recognized the impact of the situation in the Middle East, including the Palestinian question, on international peace and security and that it regularly considers and reviews this situation. The Mission is persuaded that, in the light of the long standing nature of the conflict, the frequent and consistent allegations of violations of international humanitarian law against all parties, the apparent increase in intensity of such violations in the recent military operations, and the regrettable possibility of a return to further violence, meaningful and practical steps to end impunity for such violations would offer an effective way to deter such violations recurring in the future. The Mission is of the view that the prosecution of persons responsible for serious violations of international humanitarian law would contribute to ending such violations, to the protection of civilians and to the restoration and maintenance of peace."

A Gaza l'inferno e la persecuzione

Siamo arrivati a un ennesimo rapporto su un'altra guerra, svoltasi a Gaza e nel sud d'Israele dal 27 dicembre 2008 al 18 gennaio 2009. Ma questa volta il risultato a cui sono giunti i quattro componenti brucia assai per Israele, sia per il fatto che il rapporto (A/HRC/12/48) accusa senza mezzi termini lo stato ebraico con una sfilza di violazioni del diritto internazionale dove per la maggiore parte equivalgono a crimini di guerra, e perché a capo della commissione d'inchiesta c'e un illustre giurista sudafricano ebreo Richard Goldstone, un posto scomodo poiché impedisce ai sostenitori di Israele di tacciare di punto in bianco il rapporto come antisemita. Infatti, interpellata dalla radio dell'esercito israeliano, la figlia lo ha definito come «He is a Zionist, my dad loves Israel and it wasn't easy for him to see and hear what happened. I think he heard and saw things he didn't expect to see and hear».

Dicevo "ennesimo rapporto" ricordando come tutte le varie inchieste non sono state seguite, per vari motivi e ostacoli politici, da una rispondenza sul piano concreto della giustizia per le vittime: nelle conclusioni

"The Mission was struck by the repeated comment of Palestinian victims, human rights defenders, civil society interlocutors and officials that they hoped that this would be the last investigative mission of its kind, because action for justice would follow from it. It was struck, as well, by the comment that every time a report is published and no action follows, this “emboldens Israel and her conviction of being untouchable”. To deny modes of accountability reinforces impunity and impacts negatively on the credibility of the United Nations, and of the international community. The Mission believes these comments ought to be at the forefront in the consideration by Members States and United Nations bodies of its findings and recommendations and action consequent upon them."

Basta osservare i numeri delle sole vittime da ambo la parti per constatare che la "guerra" è stata a senso unico: in appena tre settimane di conflitto ci sono stati più di 1400 morti tra i palestinesi di cui per la maggior parte "persone protette", incluse più di 300 persone sotto i diciotto anni; 3 civili e 10 militari israeliani di cui quattro da fuoco amico. Questo verdetto sul campo con tanti civili uccisi non lasciava scampo dall'essere confermata da questa Missione investigativa del Consiglio dei diritti umani che aveva il compito di "to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law that might have been committed at any time in the context of the military operations that were conducted in Gaza during the period from 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, whether before, during or after."

Tuttavia, è evidente che gruppi armati palestinesi con il lancio di missili nel sud d'Israele abbiano commesso crimini di guerra che "may amount to crimes against humanity", con l'intento di diffondere terrore fra la popolazione. Il rapporto non ha trovato, invece, prove convincenti sulle azioni armate che questi hanno intrapreso nelle vicinanze di centri abitati o di obiettivi civili:

"The conduct of hostilities in built-up areas does not, of itself, constitute a violation of international law. However, launching attacks - whether of rockets and mortars at the population of southern Israel or at the Israeli armed forces inside Gaza - close to civilian or protected buildings constitutes a failure to take all feasible precautions. In cases where this occurred, the Palestinian armed groups would have unnecessarily exposed the civilian population of Gaza to the inherent dangers of the military operations taking place around them. The Mission found no evidence to suggest that Palestinian armed groups either directed civilians to areas where attacks were being launched or that they forced civilians to remain within the vicinity of the attacks. The Mission also found no evidence that members of Palestinian armed groups engaged in combat in civilian dress. Although in the one incident of an Israeli attack on a mosque it investigated the Mission found that there was no indication that that mosque was used for military purposes or to shield military activities, the Mission cannot exclude that this might have occurred in other cases."

Analizzando più da vicino la condotta e i mezzi impiegati dall'esercito israeliano a Gaza possiamo scorgere il perché questo rapporto abbia alzato un polverone in Israele e nella diaspora: confuta palesemente lo scopo politico del governo che a suo tempo aveva cercato di giustificare la massiccia impresa militare. Nelle dure parole del rapporto:

"The Gaza military operations were, according to the Israeli Government, thoroughly and extensively planned. While the Israeli Government has sought to portray its operations as essentially a response to rocket attacks in the exercise of its right to self defence, the Mission considers the plan to have been directed, at least in part, at a different target: the people of Gaza as a whole. In this respect, the operations were in furtherance of an overall policy aimed at punishing the Gaza population for its resilience and for its apparent support for Hamas, and possibly with the intent of forcing a change in such support. The Mission considers this position to be firmly based in fact, bearing in mind what it saw and heard on the ground, what it read in the accounts of soldiers who served in the campaign, and what it heard and read from current and former military officers and political leaders whom the Mission considers to be representative of the thinking that informed the policy and strategy of the military operations." Quindi "the destruction of food supply installations, water sanitation systems, concrete factories and residential houses was the result of a deliberate and systematic policy by the Israeli armed forces. It was not carried out because those objects presented a military threat or opportunity but to make the daily process of living, and dignified living, more difficult for the civilian population... what occurred in just over three weeks at the end of 2008 and the beginning of 2009 was a deliberately disproportionate attack designed to punish, humiliate and terrorize a civilian population".

Sono accuse gravi e pesanti che non devono minimizzare il fatto che "the concept of “normalcy” in the Gaza Strip has long been redefined due to the protracted situation of abuse and lack of protection deriving from the decades-long occupation."

La commissione sottolinea inoltre che "the Israeli armed forces, like any army attempting to act within the parameters of international law, must avoid taking undue risks with their soldiers’ lives, but neither can they transfer that risk onto the lives of civilian men, women and children. The fundamental principles of distinction and proportionality apply on the battlefield, whether that battlefield is a built up urban area or an open field. The repeated failure to distinguish between combatants and civilians appears to the Mission to have been the result of deliberate guidance issued to soldiers, as described by some of them, and not the result of occasional lapses."

Si parla anche dell'impatto della disumanizzazione che causa ogni guerra: "as in many conflicts, one of the features of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict is the dehumanization of the other, and of victims in particular. Palestinian psychiatrist Dr Iyad Sarraj explained the cycle of aggression and victimization through which “the Palestinian in the eyes of the Israeli soldier is not an equal human being. Sometimes […] even becomes a demon [… ]” This “culture of demonization and dehumanization” adds to a state of paranoia. “Paranoia has two sides, the side of victimization, I am a victim of this world, the whole world is against me and on the other side, I am superior to this world and I can oppress it. This leads to what is called the arrogance of power.” As Palestinians, “we look in general to the Israelis as demons and that we can hate them, that what we do is a reaction, and we say that the Israelis can only understand the language of power. The same thing that we say about the Israelis they say about us, that we only understand the language of violence or force. There we see the arrogance of power and [the Israeli] uses it without thinking of humanity at all. In my view we are seeing not only a state of war but also a state that is cultural and psychological"... Israeli college teacher Ofer Shinar offered a similar analysis: “Israeli society’s problem is that because of the conflict, Israeli society feels itself to be a victim and to a large extent that’s justified and it’s very difficult for Israeli society to move and to feel that it can also see the other side and to understand that the other side is also a victim. This I think is the greatest tragedy of the conflict and it’s terribly difficult to overcome it".

Ancora accuse contro l'esercito israeliano ("the most moral army in the world"):

"The Mission found numerous instances of deliberate attacks on civilians and civilian objects (individuals, whole families, houses, mosques) in violation of the fundamental international humanitarian law principle of distinction, resulting in deaths and serious injuries. In these cases the Mission found that the protected status of civilians was not respected and the attacks were intentional, in clear violation of customary law reflected in article 51(2) and 75 of the First AP, article 27 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and articles 6 and 7 of ICCPR. In some cases the Mission additionally concluded that the attack was also launched with the intention of spreading terror among the civilian population. Moreover, in several of the incidents investigated the Israeli armed forces not only did not use their best efforts to permit humanitarian organisations access to the wounded and medical relief, as required by customary international law reflected in Article 10(2) of Additional Protocol 1, but they arbitrarily withheld such access."

In conclusione del rapporto, "the conditions resulting from deliberate actions of the Israeli forces and the declared policies of the Government with regard to the Gaza Strip before, during and after the military operation cumulatively indicate the intention to inflict collective punishment on the people of the Gaza Strip. The mission, therefore, finds a violation of the provisions of Articles 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention."

Fino alla possibilità di catalogare le azioni militari israeliane come possibile crimine di persecuzione, rientrante nel più ampio crimine contro l'umanità: "The Mission further considers that the series of acts that deprive Palestinians in the Gaza Strip of their means of subsistence, employment, housing and water, that deny their freedom of movement and their right to leave and enter their own country, that limit their rights to access a court of law and an effective remedy, could lead a competent court to find that the crime of persecution, a crime against humanity, has been committed."

I risultati della commissione d'inchiesta sono veramente severi per entrambe e parti ma vorrei mettere in risalto due punti di fondamentale importanza: la costante negazione del diritto di autodeterminazione del popolo palestinese ("Insofar as movement and access restrictions, the settlements and their infrastructure, demographic policies vis-à-vis Jerusalem and Area C of the West bank, as well as the separation of Gaza from the West Bank, prevent a viable, contiguous and sovereign Palestinian state from arising, they are in violation of the ius cogens right to self-determination.") e l'estrema diseguaglianza delle condizioni di partenza fra le parti in conflitto, benché giuridicamente uguali nei diritti e nei doveri di fronte alla jus in bello ("In carrying out its mandate, the Mission had regard, as its only guides, for general international law, international human rights and humanitarian law, and the obligations they place on States, the obligations they place on non-state actors and, above all, the rights and entitlements they bestow on individuals. This in no way implies equating the position of Israel as the Occupying Power with that of the occupied Palestinian population or entities representing it. The differences with regard to the power and capacity to inflict harm or to protect, including by securing justice when violations occur, are obvious and a comparison is neither possible nor necessary. What requires equal attention and effort, however, is the protection of all victims in accordance with international law.")

E all'improvviso... gli insediamenti!

Bisogna dare il giusto merito alla nuova Amministrazione americana se oggi unanimamente sentiamo il grido accorato per un "semplice" congelamento della colonizzazione israeliana nei territori occupati. Di punto in bianco, gli insediamenti israeliani sono apparsi alla ribalta nei grandi giornali occidentali e nelle priorità internazionali dei loro governi. Mi chiedo, questi ultimi cosa hanno fatto di attivo negli ultimi 40 anni per risolvere lo stallo mediorientale?! Più recentemente, dagli Accordi di Oslo del 1993 che piano condiviso è stato approntato? Niente di niente. Anzi, la situazione sul campo si è gravemente deteriorata con un aumento dei coloni a più di mezzo milione (compresa Gerusalemme Est), la confisca di terre e la costruzione (illegale) del muro di sicurezza.

Ed è giocoforza che il tutto ha provocato maggiore violenza perchè non esiste quel minimo di giustiza che lascia acceso il lumicino della speranza. In quasi tutti gli anni passati l'onere nel dimostrare la volontà nel compromesso pacifico veniva scaricato sui palestinesi (occupati): la volontà di sradicare il terrorismo, la richiesta di riconscere il diritto all'esistenza di Israele come stato o, come ultimamente reclamato, come stato ebraico (Jewish State), ... .

Quindi, oltre a subire e convivere quotidianamente con un'occupazione militare da oltre 40 anni fatta di incursioni, arresti, demolizioni, confische, i palestinesi hanno dovuto affrontare queste pre-condizioni lasciando le questioni fondamentali sine die mentre dall'altra parte ci si sforzava per il controllo delle terra.

Con l'insediamento di Barak Obama c'e' stato un cambiamento sostanziale perchè il modello diplomatico che ho appena descritto è mutato e il presidente americano ha preteso in modo chiaro da Israele lo stop alla costruzione di tutti gli insediamenti, eccetto forse nella parte est di Gerusalemme dove per gli israeliani non rientra fra i territori "controversi". Una richiesta, lungi dall'essere ancora eseguita e forse neanche in futuro lo sarà (è di oggi che il ministro della difesa Barak ha autorizzato la costruzione di 455 unità abitative), che all'atto pratico sarà quasi del tutto inutile perchè a mio parere sarà impossibile una "pausa" della colonizzazione, per non parlare della rimozione. A meno che Obama volesse usare altri strumenti (ma può?) per costringere al suo volere il recalcitrante governo israeliano ma se così fosse incrinerebbe i "legami infrangibili", come recentemente li ha definiti.

Dovrebbe essere evidente l'altra vittima di questa dannosa politica: la società israeliana stessa, incapace di esercitare autorità e legalità nei territori occupati dove i coloni sono i veri padroni e, allo stesso tempo, esacerbata dalle troppe diversità e tensioni.

Senza concreti cambiamenti, predire una guerra civile all'interno di Israele non è utopia, purtroppo.

Il perpetuarsi del conflitto mediorientale

Un altro passo di articolo dello storico israeliano Zeev Sternhell che, con chiarezza, esamina le cause del perpetuarsi del conflitto con i palestinesi e sviscera i problemi interni alla società israeliana che ostacolano una soluzione politica:

«A real left thinks that other people also have rights that are worth defending. It is therefore incapable of viewing the destruction in Gaza with indifference, and it is nauseated by the official explanations. In a broader context, had Labor believed that all humans are equal it would not have begun the settlement enterprise the day after the Six-Day War. Had the left genuinely wanted a two-state solution it would have adopted it years ago, and the entire region would look different today. But the vast majority of the left, from the greatest writers to the elders of the Second Aliyah, the veterans of the Palmach, the "Mapai Young Guard" of Peres and Moshe Dayan, the members of the country's kibbutzim and moshavim, either explicitly supported the occupation of "Greater Israel" or didn't lift a finger to prevent the expansion. The chain was not broken: With Barak as defense minister in the Labor-Kadima government, the settlements continued to grow under the leadership of the Labor Party chairman».

«If you want peace, prepare for war»

Queste esatte parole pronuciate da Avigdor Lieberman al suo esordio come nuovo Ministro degli Esteri del governo Netanyahu sono cariche di significato. Negativo, soprattutto per i palestinesi perchè sono obbligati storicamente e politicamente a condividere le sorti pratiche accanto a Israele.

Non servono difficili interpretazioni per capire come questa frase preluda a un futuro nefasto perchè fondamentalmente è carica di credibilità data da più di quarant'anni di occupazione militare e civile e dalle guerre degli ultimi anni. Se il motto romano (Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum; Si vis pacem, para bellum) ha avuto conferma e reso Fredda la guerra fra USA e URSS con il contestuale abnorme sviluppo nucleare, certo è fuorviante il suo accostamento al contesto mediorientale.

Quando Israele smetterà di contare sulla pura logica della forza?

Il legame indissolubile fra la sicurezza israeliana e l'autodeterminazione palestinese

Ecco uno stralcio del rapporto compilato dall'illustre professore Richard Falk sulla situazione nei territori palestinesi preparato per il Consiglio dei Diritti Umani dell'ONU (A/HRC/10/20), in cui si sostanzia essenzialmente nell'analisi delle cause e conseguenze del recente conflitto a Gaza:

«... the purposes of international law governing force is concerned with the protection of peoples and the preservation of peace, a sentiment echoed in Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter extended beyond relations among States by the phrase “or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations”. In the enumeration of purposes of the United Nations, Article 1 paragraph 1 affirms the obligation to resolve disputes by peaceful means “in conformity with the principles of justice and international law”. These provisions, if read in the light of the Preamble to the Charter, clearly condition an assessment of any use of force in international relations that extends beyond the limits of territorial sovereignty. The decision of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case extended this reasoning with regard to the inhibitions on defensive claims to use force to general international law beyond the framework of the Charter. With regard to Gaza there is a further concern with respect to the nature of the legal obligations of Israel towards the Gazan population. Israel officially contends that after the implementation of its disengagement plan in 2005 it is no longer an occupying power, and therefore is not responsible for observance of the obligations set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention. That contention has been widely rejected by expert opinion, by the de facto realities of effective control.

... Not every violation of human rights or infraction of the Geneva conventions constitutes a war crime or a crime of State. Moreover, criminal intent, by way of mental attitude or through circumstantial evidence, must be established. In essence, “grave breaches” of the Geneva Conventions as defined in article 147 of the Fourth Geneva Convention normally provide a legal foundation for allegations of war crimes. It is to be noted that the role of international criminal law is to identify and implement the fundamental obligations of international humanitarian law in wartime, but also to take account of severe violations of human rights arising from oppressive patterns of peacetime governance.

... The most important legal issue raised by an investigation of the recent military operations concerns the basic Israeli claim to use modern weaponry on a large scale against an occupied population living under the confined conditions that existed in Gaza. This involves trying to establish whether, under the conditions that existed in Gaza, it is possible with sufficient consistency to distinguish between military targets and the surrounding civilian population. If it is not possible to do so, then launching the attacks is inherently unlawful, and would seem to constitute a war crime of the greatest magnitude under international law. On the basis of the preliminary evidence available, there is reason to reach this conclusion.

... There is no way to reconcile the general purposes and specific prescriptions of international humanitarian law with the scale and nature of the Israeli military attacks commenced on 27 December 2008. The Israeli attacks with F-16 fighter bombers, Apache helicopters, long-range artillery from the ground and sea were directed at an essentially defenceless society of 1.5 million persons. As recent reports submitted to the Council by the Special Rapporteur emphasized, the residents of Gaza were particularly vulnerable to physical and mental damage from such attacks as the society as a whole had been brought to the brink of collapse by 18 months of blockade that restricted the flow of food, fuel, and medical supplies to sub-subsistence levels and was responsible, according to health specialists, for a serious overall decline in the health of the population and of the health system. Any assessment under international law of the attacks of 27 December should take into account the weakened condition of the Gazan civilian population resulting from the sustained unlawfulness of the pre-existing Israeli blockade that violated articles 33 (prohibition on collective punishment) and 55 (duty to provide food and health care to the occupied population) of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Considering the obligation of the occupying Power to care for the well-being of the civilian occupied population, mounting a comprehensive attack on a society already weakened by unlawful occupation practices would appear to aggravate the breach of responsibility described in the above owing to the difficulties of maintaining the principle of distinction. The deputy head of the embassy of Israel at the European Union, Ambassador Zvi Tal, during discussions with a committee of the European Parliament, sought to defend the attacks on Gaza by describing them as addressing “a very peculiar situation.” In responding to allegations about the bombing of United Nations schools in Gaza, he was quoted as saying: “Sometimes in the heat of fire and the exchange of fire, we do make mistakes. We're not infallible.” This is deeply misleading in its characterization of the war zone. It is not a matter of mistakes and fallibility, but rather a massive assault on a densely populated urbanized setting where the defining reality could not but subject the entire civilian population to an inhumane form of warfare that kills, maims and inflicts mental harm that is likely to have long-term effects, especially on children that make up more than 50 per cent of the Gazan population.

... It is a requirement of international customary law, as well as of the Charter of the United Nations, Article 2 paragraph 4 interpreted in the light of Article 1 paragraph 1 that recourse to force to resolve an international dispute should be a last resort after the exhaustion of diplomatic remedies and peaceful alternatives, even in circumstances where a valid claim of self-defence exists, absent a condition of urgency, assuming for the moment that an occupying power can ever claim a right of self-defense.

... In the course of events preceding the attacks of 27 December, the breakdown of the truce followed a series of incidents on 4 November in which Israel killed a Palestinian in Gaza, mortars were fired from Gaza in retaliation, and then an Israeli air strike was launched that killed an additional six Palestinians in Gaza; in other words, the breakdown of the ceasefire seems to have been mainly a result of Israeli violations, although this offers no legal, moral or political excuse for firing of rockets aimed at civilian targets, which itself amounts to a clear violation of international humanitarian law.

... The continuing refusal of Israel to acknowledge Hamas as a political actor, based on the label of “terrorist organization” has obstructed all attempts to implement human rights and address security concerns by way of diplomacy rather than through reliance on force. This refusal is important for reasons already mentioned ..., namely, that the population density in Gaza means that reliance on large-scale military operations to ensure Israeli security cannot be reconciled with the legal obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention to protect to the extent possible the safety and well-being of the occupied Gazan population.

... the contention that the use of force by Israel was “disproportionate” should not divert our attention from the prior question of the unlawfulness of recourse to force. If for the sake of argument, however, the claim of self-defence and defensive force is accepted, it would appear that the air, ground, and sea attacks by Israel were grossly and intentionally disproportionate when measured against either the threat posed or harm done, as well as with respect to the disconnect between the high level of violence relied upon and the specific security goals being pursued. This legal sentiment is authoritatively expressed in Article 51(5)(b) of the Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, in which prohibited disproportionate attacks are defined as “an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” Israel did little to disguise its deliberate policy of disproportionate use of force, thereby acknowledging a refusal to comply with this fundamental requirement of international customary law.

... In an unprecedented belligerent policy, Israel refused to allow the entire civilian population of Gaza, with the exception of 200 foreign wives, to leave the war zone during the 22 days of attack that commenced on 27 December. As the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees stated on 6 January 2009, Gaza is “the only conflict in the world in which people are not even allowed to flee.” ... International humanitarian law has not specifically and explicitly at this time anticipated such an abuse of civilians, but the policy as implemented would suggest the importance of an impartial investigation to determine whether such practices of “refugee denial” constitute a crime against humanity as understood in international criminal law. The initial definition of crimes against humanity, developed in relation to the war crimes trials after the Second World War, is “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts done against any civilian population”. More authoritative is the definition contained in Article 7(1)(k) of the Rome Statute, according to which crimes against humanity includes “inhumane acts (…) intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.” Refugee denial under these circumstances of confined occupation is an instance of “inhumane acts”, during which the entire civilian population of Gaza was subjected to the extreme physical and psychological hazards of modern warfare within a very small overall territory. It should be kept in mind that this restriction on free movement, to escape from the war zone, was imposed on a population already severely weakened by the effects of the blockade. ... the law of war and international human rights law, for the sake of the protection of civilian innocence in wartime situations, needs to affirm the right of every non-combatant civilian to become a refugee, or at least to have the right to seek such a status, especially if the conditions for an internal “refugee” option are not present.

... The underlying claim of Israel that it was acting in self-defence be evaluated in relation to the contention that such an attack violated Article 2 paragraph 4 of the Charter of the United Nations and amounted to an act of aggression under the circumstances, and whether the reliance on disproportionate use of force or the inherently indiscriminate nature of the military campaign should be treated as a criminal violation of international customary and treaty law. There exists here a complex and unresolved issue as to whether an occupying power can claim “self-defence” in relation to an occupied society, and whether its use of force, even if excessive, and of a border-crossing variety, can be regarded as “aggression”. ... the criminality of aggressive war established at Nuremberg remains firmly established in international customary law and its bearing on contested uses of force remains authoritative. This is an important issue that casts a shadow over the entire controversy about the Israeli attacks, and should be clarified to the extent possible in the inquiry report.

... The crimes described in the London Agreement establishing the Nuremberg Tribunal in 1945 were subsequently confirmed as part of customary international law by the International Law Commission in 1950 under the rubric of “Principles of International Law Recognized in the Charter of the Nuremberg Tribunal and in the Judgment of the Tribunal”.9 These principles are treated by most international law experts as constituting “peremptory norms” as defined in article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1988): “A peremptory norm of general international law is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character.” Thus, if the Nuremberg categories of criminality qualify as peremptory norms embedded in international customary law, these crimes remain valid and relevant for the purpose of assessing the Israeli attacks under the labels of “crimes against peace”, “war crimes”, and “crimes against humanity”. Reliance on the relevance of these crimes, especially crimes against peace, is singularly important to allow assessment of the underlying allegation that the Israeli attacks commencing on 27 December 2008 were intrinsically criminal because of their incapacity to maintain the distinction between military and civilian targets, a contention that Israeli political and military leaders challenge. If a solid basis in fact and evidence could be provided to back up this contention, it would provide the grounds for contending that the highest political and military leaders could potentially be held criminally responsible. Alleged crimes associated with battlefield operations and command policy, such as the targeting of schools, mosques, ambulances, residential homes and health facilities, should be investigated to the extent possible, including evidence pertaining to the existence of deliberate intent or gross negligence.

... At the conclusion of the present report, it seems appropriate to reaffirm the connection between Israeli security concerns and the Palestinian right of self-determination. As long as Palestinian basic rights continue to be denied, the Palestinian right of resistance to occupation within the confines of international law and in accord with the Palestinian right of self-determination is bound to collide with the pursuit of security by Israel under conditions of prolonged occupation. In this respect, a durable end to violence on both sides requires an intensification of diplomacy with a sense of urgency, and far greater resolve by all parties to respect international law, particularly as it bears on the occupation as set forth in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Furthermore, it is important to acknowledge that the time has long passed for the implementation of Security Council resolution 242 (1967) requiring Israel to withdraw from Palestinian territories, for Israel to close unlawful settlements, desist from efforts to alter the demographics of East Jerusalem, respect the advisory opinion on the Wall of the International Court of Justice of 2004, and bring the occupation to a genuine end, either through negotiations or by unilateral action.

Il teatrino della politica è un castello che cade rovinosamente di fronte ai fatti

Un plauso va a Michele Santoro per le parole dette nella puntata di "Annozero" del 15 gennaio dopo ben 2 ore di trasmissione condite di opinioni, interpretazioni, arringhe, smentite ..., che alla lunga riuscivano a confondere il comune telespettatore. Fortunatamente, Santoro ha voluto riportare e vincolare tutte le discussioni a un fatto: le cifre della guerra di Gaza.

Ecco la trascrizione:

«Noi dobbiamo... abituarci a ragionare delle cose quando accadono per come accadono. Allora, se in questo momento ci trovassimo di fronte a una guerra nella quale contiamo mille morti da una parte e cinquecento morti dall'altra parte, la situazione, la nostra valutazione cambierebbe. Noi ci troviamo di fronte a una guerra che conta 1078 morti da una parte e 1 morto dall'altra parte. Noi non possiamo restituire a chi ci sta ascoltando l'idea che stiamo vivendo un momento nel quale le sofferenze sono distribuite equamente. Dobbiamo però giustamente ricordare, come qui abbiamo fatto, e come Manuela ha fatto, che sono caduti missili che hanno ammazzato bambini dentro Israele. Questo noi non lo dimenticheremo mai. Ma dobbiamo avere pure il coraggio di parlare delle cose che succedono quando succedono! Perché se ogni volta che si fa una trasmissione giornalistica dobbiamo fare il riepilogo di ventisettemila anni di dominazione... è chiaro che non se ne esce più. Noi siamo qui per capire che sta facendo Israele, se i mezzi che sta adottando sono utili per raggiungere i suoi fini e se ha dei fini per i quali è valido sopportare una tale cumulo di violenza e di terrore. Scusate ma questo c'è: i bambini muoiono, muoiono; non è che li faccio morire io nelle nostre trasmissioni».

I fatti contano, non le intenzioni

Diversi esponenti del governo israeliano durante il conflitto di Gaza hanno giustificato l'uccisione di un numero spropositato di palestinesi con la non intenzionalità da parte dell'esercito israeliano di causare vittime civili. In altre parole, queste vengono catalogate come "danni collaterali" in gergo militare, quindi legittime. A ciò, hanno aggiunto giustamente che il lancio di razzi Qassam sul territorio israeliano si configura come crimine di guerra poiché vi è una premeditata intenzione terroristica di Hamas di infliggere morte e terrore indiscriminatamente sulla popolazione israeliana. 

A mio parere, in questa guerra (è poi una guerra...?) anche Israele è responsabile di innumerevoli crimini di guerra, considerando che le conseguenze delle operazioni militari israeliane, ad oggi, hanno prodotto più di 1300 morti, 700 civili di cui più di 400 bambini, 5000 feriti (Fonti mediche a Gaza); mentre Israele ha subito 13 morti di cui 3 civili e 10 soldati, 4 dal fuoco amico . 

Si è cercato in molte opinioni e dibattiti al riguardo di annacquare, sminuire e offuscare la realtà di questi numeri che spaventano, cercando di mettere sullo stesso piano responsabilità e ragioni delle due parti in causa, occupante e occupato. Non è questa la realtà che ha generato questa insensata guerra.  

E' questa umanità?

In un intervento pubblico assai raro di denuncia da parte della Croce Rossa Intermazionale verso la condotta militare dell'esercito israeliano e incrinando uno dei suoi principi fondamentali, la neutralità, sconvolge la descrizione della situazione sul campo a Gaza:

"The ICRC had requested safe passage for ambulances to access this neighbourhood since 3 January but it only received permission to do so from the Israel Defense Forces during the afternoon of 7 January. 

The ICRC/PRCS team found four small children next to their dead mothers in one of the houses. 

They were too weak to stand up on their own. One man was also found alive, too weak to stand up. In all there were at least 12 corpses lying on mattresses. In another house, the ICRC/PRCS rescue team found 15 other survivors of this attack including several wounded. 

In yet another house, they found an additional three corpses. Israeli soldiers posted at a military position some 80 meters away from this house ordered the rescue team to leave the area which they refused to do. There were several other positions of the Israel Defense Forces nearby as well as two tanks.  "This is a shocking incident," said Pierre Wettach, the ICRC's head of delegation for Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories. "The Israeli military must have been aware of the situation but did not assist the wounded. Neither did they make it possible for us or the Palestine Red Crescent to assist the wounded."  Large earth walls erected by the Israeli army had made it impossible to bring ambulances into the neighbourhood. Therefore, the children and the wounded had to be taken to the ambulances on a donkey cart. In total, the ICRC/PRCS rescue team evacuated 18 wounded and 12 others who were extremely exhausted. Two corpses were also evacuated. The ICRC/PRCS will recover the remaining corpses on Thursday.  The ICRC was informed that there are more wounded sheltering in other destroyed houses in this neighbourhood. It demands that the Israeli military grant it and PRCS ambulances safe passage and access immediately to search for any other wounded. Until now, the ICRC has still not received confirmation from the Israeli authorities that this will be allowed. The ICRC believes that in this instance the Israeli military failed to meet its obligation under international humanitarian law to care for and evacuate the wounded. It considers the delay in allowing rescue services access unacceptable."

Ripeto, è questa umanità?