US citizens oppose the military base in Vicenza
for the memory hole
This is from Haaretz, and is worth reading and reflecting on...
A document obtained by Haaretz shows that the Palestinian Authority vehemently rejected most of Israel's security demands in negotiations at Camp David and Taba in 2000 and 2001, but contrary to what has been assumed for years, significant agreement was reached on parts of three core issues: borders, refugees and Jerusalem.
The 26-page document, signed by Gilad Sher, bureau chief to then prime minister Ehud Barak, was entitled, "The Status of the Diplomatic Process with the Palestinians Points to Update the Incoming Prime Minister."
The document, revealed as Israel and the Palestinians resume official talks following a seven-year hiatus, shows details of the Palestinians' objections for the first time, and illustrates the precise differences in the respective negotiating positions when the talks were frozen in early 2001.
The document also reveals that as early as June 2000, an "initiated separation" plan that would eventually become the basis for Israel's withdrawal from territories were being formulated, in the event talks with the Palestinians break down.
That plan received the cabinet's final approval in October 2000. The separation plan was to encompass all aspects of life, and would take place over a number of years, even while negotiations would be kept on the back burner as an option, should conditions change.
The document was presented to Barak two weeks after the elections on February 6, 2001, in which Barak lost to Ariel Sharon, and a few days before Sharon assumed office.
Among the PA's objections were the demilitarization of the Palestinian Authority; the proposed timeline for the Israel Defense Forces to withdraw from the territories; the IDF's right to emergency deployment in the Jordan Valley; and control of the skies.
The document notes that "at the Camp David negotiations, President [Bill] Clinton agreed on the security issue in the spirit of Israel's positions, but after the summit, the Palestinians reneged on most of the understandings."
Some of the details have been revealed over the years in books and articles, but most have remained ambiguous or unknown.
According to the plan:
* Israel would keep settlement blocs comprising 80 percent of the settlers in the West Bank.
* No evacuation of settlements was planned for the initial phase of the plan. At an appropriate time, it stated, isolated settlements outside the blocs or security zones would be transfered to one of the settlement blocks or to Israel.
* A wide security zone would be maintained along the Dead Sea as far north as Meholah in the Jordan Valley.
* Security forces would be beefed up in the Old City and East Jerusalem, and its environs.
The 26-page booklet was written during a long series of discussions by a team headed by Sher, which included former deputy head of the Shin Bet security service Israel Hasson; Barak's political adviser, Pini Meidan; the IDF chief of planning and strategy, Brigadier General Mike Herzog; head of the Military Advocate General's international law department, Colonel Daniel Reisner; the secretary of the negotiating team, Gidi Grinstein; the head of the negotiation administration, Colonel Shaul Arieli; his deputy, Moti Kristal; and Foreign Ministry representative Oded Eran. Then-head of the National Security Council, Major General Uzi Dayan, also contributed comments. The booklet summed up in almost obsessively thorough and precise detail all diplomatic action that had been taken vis-a-vis the Palestinians during Barak's term in office.
Far-reaching ideas
The main principle toward which Israel was working, according to the document prepared by Sher's team, was not to offer any more territory to the Palestinians before understandings were reached on all the core issues. Israel was prepared to discuss far-reaching ideas, but continually emphasized that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed."
Another rule was that "no issues could be agreed upon separately from others," because of the interlocking connection among all the issues. These two messages were emphasized frequently during the talks in 2000.
In preparation for the current renewal of talks, the documents were presented to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert and Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni and her team a month before the Annapolis summit. The Israeli and the Palestinian teams, headed by Livni and Ahmed Qureia, met Wednesday in what was intended as the official reopening of talks, seven years after they were frozen.
During the talks at Camp David and Taba, the parties worked toward a Framework Agreement for Permanent Status (FAPS). The agreement was supposed to encompass all the core issues and offer guidelines and time tables to arrive at a solution.
In comparison, during the opening of talks between Israeli and Palestinian teams on Wednesday, the parties avoided defining the legal status of the document toward which they were working. The joint statement at Annapolis stated that the goal was a "peace agreement," a term open to interpretation.
Olmert has not yet given guidelines to the negotiating team on the present talks. However, the 2001 booklet documents 12 guidelines given by Barak to the negotiating teams.
Gaps revealed
The 2001 document reveals the gaps between the parties on all the core issues:
The parties were divided over when to make a declaration on the end of the conflict. Israel wanted the end-of-conflict declaration to be at the time of the signing of the FAPS. The Palestinians refused, and wanted all prisoners incarcerated in Israel to be released with the signing of the FAPS. Israel proposed that the prisoners be released with the Palestinian end-of-conflict declaration.
The document also reveals the nature of the Palestinian state, constituting the implementation of the right of the entire Palestinian people to self-determination. Among the differences noted was "a disagreement among the Palestinians with regard to formal recognition of the State of Israel as a Jewish state."
With regard to borders, the booklet states that the Palestinians were willing to show flexibility, and had agreed to adjustments to the June 4, 1967, borders, which were "equal in their extent and quality to meet Israel's demographic needs." The talks failed to reach an agreement over the Latrun area, the area annexed to Jerusalem after 1967, and the Dead Sea.
In addition, while Israel sought to exchange territory for 6 to 8 percent of the West Bank in order to keep the settlement blocks, the Palestinians demanded that all territorial exchanges be at a 1:1 ratio, and would not be greater than 2.3 percent of the West Bank.
In terms of safe passage between the West Bank and Gaza, Israel wanted the passage to remain under its sovereignty, but controlled by the Palestinians; the Palestinians wanted a land corridor through Israel that would be under its sovereignty.
Jerusalem
With regard to Jerusalem, it was determined that there would be two capitals, Jerusalem and Al-Quds, and that special arrangements would be made on matters of security, planning, construction and law enforcement. The Palestinians emphasized the idea of the "open city" that the two capitals would constitute one urban unit separate from its surroundings, both Israeli and Palestinian.
In the areas outside the Old City walls, Israel's guiding principle was that Arab areas would be Palestinian, but presented a map with Jewish territorial contiguity that created Palestinian "bubbles." The Palestinians, for their part, demanded Palestinian territorial contiguity with Israeli "bubbles" connected to Jewish Jerusalem via roads.
In the matter of the "sacred basin" and the Old City, Israel wanted a "special regime," and to keep the Jewish and the Armenian quarters under its aegis. The Palestinians, however, wanted sovereignty over the Muslim, Christian and most of the Armenian quarters.
In terms of the Jewish holy sites outside the walls, the Palestinians proposed special arrangements that would benefit Israel but would not constitute overeignty.
An even more complicated issue was that of the Temple Mount. Israel suggested that sovereignty would be "ambiguous," and that powers of administration and control would be shared, or alternatively, that sovereignty would be determined based on the bond of each party to the site. The Palestinians refused both alternatives and rejected any compromise on the Temple Mount.
Refugees
On refugees, Israel refused to accept sole responsibility for the creation of the refugee problem and to any right of return, theoretical or actual. Israel did agree to recognize the suffering of the 1948 refugees; to take part in an international effort to bring in a small number of refugees 20,000-40,000 at its discretion based on humanitarian considerations only; and to contribute funds to refugee rehabilitation. Israel's condition was that the "implementation of the final status agreement would bring an end to demands and a solution to the problem."
The Palestinians demanded that Israel recognize its sole responsibility for the creation and perpetuation of the refugee problem, and wanted Israel to recognize the Palestinian right of return as per UN resolution 194. However a document written during the talks stated that the Palestinians "showed understanding of the sensitivity of the issue for Israel, and willingness to find a formulation that would balance these feelings with their national needs."
The gaps on the issue of water remained at a legal level, while on the practical level agreement was extensive.
On the process of ratifying the agreement, Israel declared its intention to hold a referendum, while the Palestinians said nothing about this part of the process.
una societa' che cambia, e servono soldi
Quest'ultimo, è un problema di Vallardi e dei suoi. Ma che in Italia esista una eccessiva concentrazione si alunni stranieri in alcune scuole è una realtà ben nota al ministero dell'Istruzione, che da qualche tempo sta cercando di correre ai ripari. «Ma il problema va affrontato con razionalità», ammonisce la pedagogista Graziella Favaro, consulente dell'Osservatorio del ministero sugli studenti stranieri. «Prima di tutto è ora di iniziare a distinguere, come fanno da tempo Francia e Gran Bretagna, tra i ragazzi neoarrivati e chi è nato e cresciuto in Italia. Questi ultimi sono già il 65% nelle scuole elementari e vanno considerati come tutti gli altri». Della serie, non si può pensare a «quote» in base all'origine nazionale. Necessari, invece «degli interventi ad hoc sull'apprendimento della lingua per gli studenti neoarrivati. Dove è stato fatto i risultati sono stati ottimi: questi nuovi alunni non hanno problemi di competenze, anzi in alcune materie sono persino più preparati. Ma di impatto con una scuola molto verbale come la nostra, in cui sapere l'italiano è fondamentale». Allora? «Allora servono risorse. Nella Finanziaria in discussione c'è un provvedimento che prevede la possibilità di distaccare degli insegnanti proprio per mettere in piedi dei pacchetti di ore sull'italiano come lingua due». Quella norma, la voterebbe anche Vallardi.
SE NON ORA, QUANDO? A Vicenza, il 15 Dicembre!
Non lo nascondiamo: siamo dei sognatori; vorremmo impedire alla più grande potenza militare mondiale di mettere casa nel nostro cortile. E’ vero, siamo anche un pò testardi; ce lo hanno detto in tutte le salse: «cari vicentini, mettetevela via, gli interessi della guerra saranno più forti dei vostri presidi». Pazzi? Può darsi: del resto, chi avrebbe montato un Festival-campeggio di 10 giorni?
Eppure, siamo ancora qui. In questi giorni raddoppiamo il nostro Presidio Permanente; tutto intorno, un silenzio assordante, fatto di quotidiani e telegiornali che, 
dopo aver assediato Vicenza in concomitanza con il grande corteo del 17 febbraio, ora non hanno più nulla da dire su un movimento che ha continuato a vivere di passione e determinazione. Un movimento che si esprime tra e con la gente di Vicenza, attraverso iniziative e manifestazioni continue: abbiamo tagliato i cavidotti funzionali alla nuova base Usa, occupato la Basilica Palladiana, piantato 150 alberi all’interno del Dal Molin; abbiamo bloccato, per tre giorni e tre notti, le bonifiche belliche – iniziate un mese fa – necessarie per iniziare la costruzione dell’installazione militare, e le donne del Presidio, sono andate a Firenze per boicottare l’ABC – azienda incaricata delle bonifiche – e proseguire la campagna dei blocchi.
Con i primi blocchi dei lavori abbiamo imparato, ancor di più, ad essere una comunità; e abbiamo sentito, da tante parti d’Italia, la solidarietà e la condivisione che tante donne e tanti uomini esprimono per la lotta vicentina.
Abbiamo chiesto, anche, che i 170 Parlamentari che si sono dichiarati contrari alla realizzazione della nuova base Usa mantengano la propria promessa: portare subito in Parlamento la moratoria sui lavori in attesa dello svolgimento della Seconda Conferenza sulle servitù militari e chiedere la desecretazione degli accordi militari bilaterali.
Questo, ad oggi, non è avvenuto: abbiamo già visto il Governo promettere di ascoltare la comunità vicentina e poi tradirla: c’è qualcuno che vuol seguire il solco tracciato da Prodi? Non portare subito in Parlamento la moratoria, infatti, significa comportarsi nello stesso modo del Presidente del Consiglio che, dopo aver promesso di voler considerare la vicenda alla luce della volontà della comunità locale, dichiarò dall’estero di non opporsi alle richieste statunitensi svendendo la nostra città.
Lo scorso 17 febbraio, insieme, abbiamo dimostrato quanto grande è il movimento che vuol battersi contro la guerra e la militarizzazione del territorio, per la difesa della terra e la costruzione di nuove pratiche di democrazia; ma Vicenza, da sola, è insufficiente a sostenere questa lotta che, pure, accomuna gran parte della popolazione locale: Vicenza è solo un villaggio nella grande comunità che crede in un altro mondo possibile. Abbiamo bisogno, ancora una volta, della vostra condivisione, della vostra partecipazione, della vostra solidarietà.
Abbiamo convocato, a dicembre, una tre giorni europea di confronto, contaminazione, approfondimento; vogliamo allargare i nostri orizzonti, conoscere nuove comunità, condividere altre lotte. Ma vogliamo, anche, dimostrare che la vicenda del Dal Molin è ancora aperta: per questo il 15 dicembre un grande corteo attraverserà le strade della nostra città. Abbiamo sempre detto che “se si sogna da soli è solo un sogno, se si sogna insieme è la realtà che comincia”: vi chiediamo di condividere il nostro sogno, ancora una volta, perché una terra senza basi di guerra possa diventare realtà.
Se non ora, quando? Vicenza chiama, ancora una volta: e noi siamo sicuri che risponderete in tanti. Perché Vicenza vive già al di fuori dei suoi confini.
****************************************************************************************
Presidio Permanente contro la costruzione della nuova base Usa a Vicenza
Via Ponte Marchese
c.p. 303 36100 Vicenza
politics, the environment, and the manufacture of consent
The basic ideology of "the market" and "consumer power" holds that the choices we make as individuals hold the power to change the world. It is an ideology that that is particularly serviceable to the business interests who run the country, because it downplays the basic reality that in order for ordinary people to change a world in which power is very highly concentrated, the need to work TOGETHER.
Businessmen understand that collective action on the part of the people CAN challenge their power. My point: the business pages of almost any newspaper reflect this understanding, and the 95% of us who DON'T play a significant part in influencing national politics should read them with care.
To cite a specific case: the NY Times on Friday had a story about a report issued by a consulting firm that contained powerful suggestions to reduce US carbon emissions - without new technology, and without "cutting back" on our standard of living. Below is an excerpt:
The United States could shave as much as 28 percent off the amount of greenhouse gases it emits at fairly modest cost and with only small technology innovations,
A large share of the reductions could come from steps that would more than pay for themselves in lower energy bills for industries and individual consumers, the report said, adding that people should take those steps out of good sense regardless of how worried they might be about climate change. But that is unlikely to happen under present circumstances, said the authors, who are energy experts at McKinsey & Company, the consulting firm.
The task might also require emissions limits and other government mandates, as well as incentives like tax breaks to promote efficient buildings, cars and appliances, the study said. The McKinsey report said “lifestyle changes” by Americans could play a role in improved efficiency, even though they were not a major factor in the potential gains the report cited.
In other words, what is MOST important in reducing carbon emissions are the regulatory decisions of the federal government - which is crushed under the lobbying power of big business. If we as citizens wanted to reduce carbon emissions, our individual choices might have a small impact, but the main effort should be to join together in order fight (and, unltimately, vanquish) the corporatocracy that runs the government.
There's a reason why this didn't make it onto the front page...
The people want single-payer, universal health care
A CBS news poll, conducted in September of 2007, found that 55% of the electorate supports national, single-payer health care. The question was:
"Which do you think would be better for the country: having one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, or keeping the current system where many people get their insurance from private employers and some have no insurance?"
In February, the number of people who supported it was 47% - less, but still close to a majority. I wonder to what extent Michael Moore's movie Sicko had an impact on the numbers - which are nonetheless high, given the almost complete lack of articulate support in the media for the idea. The NY Times had an editorial on Nov 25th about health care, in which they discuss Single-Payer as follows:
[Single-Payer] would let the government offset the price-setting strength of the medical and pharmaceutical industries, eliminate much of the waste due to a multiplicity of private insurance plans, and greatly cut administrative costs.
Sounds Great, Right? so, what's the problem?
But a single-payer system is no panacea for the cost problem — witness Medicare’s own cost troubles — and the approach has limited political support.
Too bad that according to a NYTimes poll from March,
A majority of Americans say the federal government should guarantee health insurance to every American, especially children, and are willing to pay higher taxes to do it, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.
So what they mean is that politicians - in the health insurance companies' pockets - don't support it, against the wishes of the majority of the population. How's that for journalistic double-speak?
SUPPORT HR 676!
Ultimi commenti