martes, 15 de abril de 2014

DE AGUAS,AZUCARILLOS Y SOBRES DIVERSOS

Vaya por delante que lo que escribo lo viví en directo en distintas etapas de la andadura personal.
Cuando llegué a estudiar a Madrid,hace de esto muchos años,dos cosas llamaban la atención,la gran suciedad de la ciudad y los montones de ruinas de la Guerra.
El Alcalde era un florón,hijo de Romanones,no hacia nada,no al menos que se notase.
La ruinas impactaban mucho, viniendo de las Islas,donde la Guerra no se libró en las calles,donde todo era más soterrado,el ver aquel escenario de tragedia y pérdida impresionaba.
No mucho tiempo después,comenzó a hacerse evidente un proceso de retirada de escombros,era una contrata conseguida por un judío polaco,Koplovitz que,a cambio de quedarse con todo lo que hubiese entre los cascotes,retiraba toda aquella masa de tragedias sepultadas.
Recuerdo,siguiendo la tradición familiar,haberme parado más de una vez a admirar rejerías impresionantes pendiendo de fachadas que se mantenían en pie contrariando las leyes de la gravedad.
Ese fue el origen de la fortuna.
Años más tarde,siendo Enrique Tierno Galván Alcalde,persona a la que me unió una cordial amistad,con el entusiasmo democrático que vivíamos muchos, propuse recuperar las naves industriales de orilla del Manzanares.Siguiendo a la Institución,la idea era restaurar y habilitar tantos miles de metros,para construir un gran espacio cultural, donde los artistas sin medios económicos pudiesen trabajar gratuitamente y a cubierto.Enrique del Moral era el Concejal de Cultura,también le recuerdo con afecto.
Preparamos un borrador general y comencé a bosquejar el presupuesto mínimo,imposible de llevar a cabo si no era con mecenazgo.
Un día,en el Ayuntamiento,un buen amigo me llamó aparte para comentar la situación,en Urbanismo no habría el más mínimo apoyo,aquellos ladrillos eran de los mismos  que llevaban años repartiendo sobres mensuales entre el equipo de Urbanismo,creo que fue la primera vez que me topé de bruces con la corrupción.
Hablamos con algún técnico sobre la situación,persona con la que teníamos una relación laboral fluida.Nos explicó que esos sobres eran esenciales,no se podía renunciar a ellos,te señalaban,tampoco se podía denunciar,el Ayuntamiento quedaría en evidencia,única solución,renunciar y mirar para otro lado.En resumen,el Ayuntamiento estaba en manos de un privado.Hablamos e intentamos encontrar soluciones,imposible.
Tierno se quedó anonadado,cuando supo  parte de la historia,no quisimos entrar en detalles.
Solo restó renunciar a las hermosas naves industriales  y a la república de la cultura que intentamos instaurar.
Con el tiempo te enteras de todo,aquellos solares estaban ya repartidos entre los del ladrillo,demoler,recalificar y construir,a cambio, dejar un pequeño espacio para actividades culturales,la Arganzuela.Y así se hizo.
Años después,ya fuera de la actividad política,me contaron que el sobre seguía vivito y coleando.
Ahora hablamos del agua,un bien imprescindible y vital para los humanos.Hoy,Alcazar de San Juan le ha ganado la partida a los sobres de turno,y me alegro mucho por ello,pero en otros muchos lugares,el sobre esta ya estrechamente ligado al control del agua.
El mismo largo,floreciente negocio familiar continua impertérrito a través de regímenes políticos y partidos diversos,aunque,al estilo de Orwell,unos más que otros.
Es descaradamente llamativa la forma en que estos sucedáneos de sabandija se siguen repartiendo nuestra hacienda y nuestros medios.
Creo que todos estaremos de acuerdo en que es muy sano refrescar la memoria de la gente y ponerla en antecedentes de las canonjías ad infinitum que siguen lastrando nuestra realidad.
A galopar!!
P.D. Ninguno de los que trabajamos en la idea cobramos nunca nada por nuestro trabajo,como dije,eran los años del ardor democrático.

lunes, 14 de abril de 2014

MÚSICA PARA UN 14 DE ABRIL DE 2014

Para tiempos duros,noticias alegres.
Encontré el Himno de Riego en el blog publicado el 14 de Abril de 2012,esta en YouTube,estupendamente acompañado por muy ilustres paisanos,desde Labordeta a Serrat.
Totalmente recomendable.
En estos tiempos obscuros de miseria e incertidumbre,sube mucho el ánimo que nos dieron otros para seguir  adelante,a pesar de todo.
Este año celebro así el 14 de Abril.
No son brindis al sol,tampoco utopías irrealizables,es el mañana cierto.
Por hoy me permito no entrar en la basura,solo sobrevolarla.
República y salud,compañeros.

El HIMNO DE LA REPÚBLICA.EUREKA!!



http://www.youtube.com/
Himno de Riego interpretado por la Orquesta Internacional de Praga en Concierto Pilar 2008, 1808-2008 Bicentenario de los Sitios de Zaragoza en el Auditorio ...

domingo, 13 de abril de 2014

UN HÉROE DE NUESTRO TIEMPO.RON PUNDAK,BY GIDEON LEVY.HAARETZ

Ron Pundak.
Ron Pundak. Photo by Nir Keidar
    
     
     
 

He was an “Oslo criminal,” perhaps the “Oslo criminal.” In a country where war criminals are heroes and peace heroes are criminals, Ron Pundak was a different sort of hero.
With the exception of Uri Avnery, who at 90 has just published the first part of his fascinating Hebrew-language autobiography — “Optimistic,” he titled it — Pundak was the most optimistic person I’ve ever met. He was an incorrigible optimist where peace was concerned, and no less an optimist about his long, cursed illness. A man full of hope who is no more.
Pundak was the youngest, and nearly the last, of the believers in peace. After him, the abyss. He wanted peace for peace’s sake, without pathos or guilt. Simply peace.
He wasn’t anti-Israel; he was a Zionist and a lover of Israel. He wasn’t an Arab-lover; he was clearheaded, one of the last few who still met with Arabs and saw them as equal human beings. Nor was he a romantic.
His dreams were realistic, even if they fit a reality much saner than the crazy one we’ve created here. Pundak didn’t miss a single initiative. He came to peace from a very patriotic place. The fire that burned in his soul was ignited not by injustice to the Palestinians but by the future of the country he loved and that never repaid him for his labors.
Fire? Pundak was a cool man, as befits someone who grew up in a Nordic home, a Scandinavian-Israeli. His father Herbert (later Nahum) was perhaps the only journalist in history to be the editor of two newspapers in two countries at the same time — Denmark’s Politiken and Israel’s Davar Hashavua. (And he also worked for the Mossad at one point.)
He and his wife Susie have now lost their second son. Their eldest, Uri, the great hope of Tel Aviv’s Ironi Aleph High School graduating class of 1970, died in the Yom Kippur War.
I remember Ron on the beach of the legendary Sinai resort Aqua Sun, another province of dreams that is no more. Only once did he join his sister Michal and the special group that vacationed there regularly. Not once during his stay did he take off his safari jacket or obligatory moccasins.
Ron didn’t like the sun and sand. Maybe it was no coincidence that two of the main Oslo architects, Pundak and Yair Hirschfeld, of Danish and Austrian descent, respectively, weren’t your typical backslapping Israelis.
Something went wrong with their Oslo. To his dying day, Pundak remained convinced that the problem was the execution, not the plan or vision. In his Hebrew-language book “Secret Channel” — like another work he published in 2013 presumably knowing his days were numbered — he describes the incredible, rocky path that he, Hirschfeld, Yossi Beilin, Uri Savir and a handful of others traversed on their way to Oslo. It was from there to the White House Rose Garden for the signing ceremony, to which Pundak was not invited.
Pundak, a noble man, did not call to account in his book those responsible for the failure of the Oslo Accords. He was not one for hate, bitterness or petty accounting, not even when he was forced to leave the Peres Center for Peace because he focused more on peace than on Peres.
Once, at a modest birthday celebration that Beilin held for Shimon Peres in his home, in a corner near the stairs, Ron sat on the floor — pale, bald, weak and clearly in pain. Even then he didn’t complain. I’ll never forget that sight. On April 11, 2013, one year before his death, Ron, with chilling precision, texted me: “Your op-ed should have been the front-page lead.” The op-ed was titled “A letter from a ghost.”
Now Ron is dead, a ghost, just as another desperate attempt to blow life into the moribund peace process is set to give up the ghost. The man who wrote in his book, without even a touch of cynicism or desperation, “Fundamentally, the chance for a peace agreement remains,” would surely find fragments of hope even in these dark days. Now Ron won’t speak either. No one will speak of peace in Israel anymore.

sábado, 12 de abril de 2014

EL DR.HENRY SIEGMAN Y EL U.S./MIDDLE EAST PROYECT

Recientemente recibí los dos magistrales trabajos efectuados por el Dr.Henry Siegman,por una parte,y de un grupo de Senior advisers del Proyecto U.S./ Middle East,incluido él,por otra.
Ambos circulan ya por las redes,no se puede expresar de forma más clara y precisa la situación entre palestinos e israelíes y sus posibles soluciones.
Como estudiosa,considero al Dr.Siegman uno de los mejores politólogos que he conocido a lo largo de los años.
Su trabajo y compromiso por la Paz en Oriente Medio es total,al igual que el de todos los integrantes del U.S./Middle East Proyect.
Valentía,perseverancia,saber hacer,cualidades todas que merecen el máximo apoyo .
Vivimos tiempos en los que la banalidad se ha acentuado de forma llamativa.
Redes mafiosas diversas intentan sistemáticamente engancharnos en sus garras.
Ya nos conformamos con poco,sobrevivir y mantenernos fieles a unos principios éticos que cada vez se ven más y más minusvalorados.
Por todo ello cuando, de tiempo en tiempo, surge una figura como la del Dr.Siegman,y un proyecto como el U.S./ Middle East,sientes como si una bocanada de aire distinto,procedente de ignotas montañas,te llenase el espíritu.
Recuerdo mucho a Don Quijote,no al triste caballero con la razón perdida,no,recuerdo al caballero por cuya boca habla uno de los mayores genios que ha dado la Humanidad,autor de parlamentos únicos,insuperables, sobre la Libertad,la Ética.
Leyendo estos artículos,que continuaré releyendo varias veces,para ahondar mejor en el texto,me he sentido en ese especial trance que produce la obra perfecta,nada más, nada menos.
Estas líneas solamente pretender expresar la admiración y el respeto que merecen todos aquellos,y muchos son,que trabajan cada día por un mundo más justo,que defienden a los indefensos,con verdad,con trabajo,con riesgo.
Deslumbran.


jueves, 10 de abril de 2014

STAND FIRM,JOHN KERRY.APRIL,8



Stand Firm, John Kerry


It’s time for the secretary of state to insist on America’s position on Middle East peace.


April 08, 2014

 

We commend Secretary of State John Kerry’s extraordinary efforts to renew Israeli-Palestinian talks and negotiations for a framework for a peace accord, and the strong support his initiative has received from President Barack Obama.

We believe these efforts, and the priority Kerry has assigned to them, have been fully justified. However, we also believe that the necessary confidentiality that Secretary Kerry imposed on the resumed negotiations should not preclude a far more forceful and public expression of certain fundamental U.S. positions:

Settlements: U.S. disapproval of continued settlement enlargement in the Occupied Territories by Israel’s government as “illegitimate” and “unhelpful” does not begin to define the destructiveness of this activity. Nor does it dispel the impression that we have come to accept it despite our rhetorical objections. Halting the diplomatic process on a date certain until Israel complies with international law and previous agreements would help to stop this activity and clearly place the onus for the interruption where it belongs.

Palestinian incitement: Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s charge that various Palestinian claims to all of historic Palestine constitute incitement that stands in the way of Israel’s acceptance of Palestinian statehood reflects a double standard. The Likud and many of Israel’s other political parties and their leaders make similar declarations about the legitimacy of Israel’s claims to all of Palestine, designating the West Bank “disputed” rather than occupied territory. Moreover, Israeli governments have acted on those claims by establishing Jewish settlements in East Jerusalem and throughout the West Bank. Surely the “incitement” of Palestinian rhetoric hardly compares to the incitement of Israel’s actual confiscations of Palestinian territory. If the United States is not prepared to say so openly, there is little hope for the success of these talks, which depends far more on the strength of America’s political leverage and its determination to use it than on the good will of the parties.

The Jewishness of the State of Israel: Israel is a Jewish state because its population is overwhelmingly Jewish, Jewish religious and historical holidays are its national holidays, and Hebrew is its national language. But Israeli demands that Palestinians recognize that Israel has been and remains the national homeland of the Jewish people is intended to require the Palestinians to affirm the legitimacy of Israel’s replacement of Palestine’s Arab population with its own. It also raises Arab fears of continuing differential treatment of Israel’s Arab citizens.

Israelis are right to demand that Palestinians recognize the fact of the state of Israel and its legitimacy, which Palestinians in fact did in 1988 and again in 1993. They do not have the right to demand that Palestinians abandon their own national narrative, and the United States should not be party to such a demand. That said, Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, provided it grants full and equal rights to its non-Jewish citizens, would not negate the Palestinian national narrative.

Israeli security: The United States has allowed the impression that it supports a version of Israel’s security that entails Israeli control of all of Palestine’s borders and part of its territory, including the Jordan Valley. Many former heads of Israel’s top intelligence agencies, surely among the best informed in the country about the country’s security needs, have rejected this version of Israel’s security. Meir Dagan, a former head of the Mossad, dismissed it as “nothing more than manipulation.”

Israel’s confiscation of what international law has clearly established as others’ territory diminishes its security. Illegal West Bank land grabs only add to the Palestinian and the larger Arab sense of injustice that Israel’s half-century-long occupation has already generated, and fuels a revanchism that sooner or later will trigger renewed violence. No Palestinian leader could or would ever agree to a peace accord that entails turning over the Jordan Valley to Israeli control, either permanently or for an extended period of time, thus precluding a peace accord that would end Israel’s occupation. The marginal improvement in Israel’s security provided by these expansive Israeli demands can hardly justify the permanent subjugation and disenfranchisement of a people to which Israel refuses to grant citizenship in the Jewish state.

***

The terms for a peace accord advanced by Netanyahu’s government, whether regarding territory, borders, security, resources, refugees or the location of the Palestinian state’s capital, require compromises of Palestinian territory and sovereignty on the Palestinian side of the June 6, 1967, line. They do not reflect any Israeli compromises, much less the “painful compromises” Netanyahu promised in his May 2011 speech before a joint meeting of Congress. Every one of them is on the Palestinian side of that line. Although Palestinians have conceded fully half of the territory assigned to them in the U.N.’s Partition Plan of 1947, a move Israel’s president, Shimon Peres, has hailed as unprecedented, they are not demanding a single square foot of Israeli territory beyond the June 6, 1967, line.

Netanyahu’s unrelenting efforts to establish equivalence between Israeli and Palestinian demands, insisting that the parties split the difference and that Israel be granted much of its expansive territorial agenda beyond the 78 percent of Palestine it already possesses, are politically and morally unacceptable. The United States should not be party to such efforts, not in Crimea nor in the Palestinian territories.


We do not know what progress the parties made in the current talks prior to their latest interruption, this time over the issue of the release of Palestinian prisoners. We are nevertheless convinced that no matter how far apart the parties may still be, clarity on America’s part regarding the critical moral and political issues in dispute will have a far better chance of bringing the peace talks to a successful conclusion than continued ambiguity or silence.

The co-authors, senior advisers to the U.S./Middle East Project, are, respectively, former national security adviser, former U.S. secretary of defense; former chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee; former U.S. trade representative; former under secretary of state for political affairs, and president,U.S./Middle East Proyect

April 08, 2014 that

miércoles, 9 de abril de 2014

DR.HENRY SIEGMAN.WHY AMERICA IS IRRELEVANT TO MIDDLE EAST PEACEMAKING


http://www.haaretz.com/images/logos/logoGrey.gif
 
Why America is irrelevant to Middle East peacemaking
With the U.S. having failed to use its leverage over Israel, the only way to convince Israelis to accept a two-state outcome is a Palestinian non-violent, anti-apartheid struggle.
Secretary of State John Kerry’s extraordinary exertions to achieve a conflict-ending Middle East peace accord have been nothing short of heroic. He is as well-informed about the issues in this conflict and as familiar with the major players as any of his predecessors. So what is it that Kerry did not know that is responsible for this latest breakdown in the peace process?
 
Has the formula for a permanent status accord turned out to be so much more complex than even this well-informed statesman imagined? That is hardly likely, for the outline for an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is better known and more widely accepted than for virtually any other international conflict. That “everyone knows” the shape of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement has been a cliché for years now. Virtually every detail of a permanent status accord has been known since President Clinton presented his formula for a peace accord in December 2000. No one, including Kerry, has deviated from that plan in any significant respect.
 
America has been seen by the entire international community as “owning” the peace process, not because its statesmen are believed to be wiser than all others, but because it enjoys leverage with Israel that uniquely enables it to influence the Jewish state’s policies. No other country possesses that leverage, for it is the consequence of the many decades of unprecedented U.S. generosity towards the Jewish state in the form of virtually unlimited military and economic assistance. Of no less importance, America has had Israel’s back against any and all efforts by the international community to sanction it for its repeated violations of international law with its colonial project in the West Bank, violations that continued even as the peace talks were underway.
 
It has long been assumed that a point would surely come when Washington would use its long-accumulated leverage to inform Israel’s government that it could no longer fend off international criticism of Israel’s occupation without incurring serious damage to its own credibility and national interests. It was believed that when the U.S. reaches that point, Israel would have no choice but to withdraw from the West Bank to the pre-1967 lines, subject to minor mutual border swaps and appropriate security guarantees.
 
But that moment of truth never came, and no one believes any longer it ever will. Not only is the U.S. no longer seen as the indispensable peacemaker, it is now seen as the leading obstacle to peace, for it is repeatedly threatening to veto all efforts to allow the Security Council to deal with the issue of Palestinian statehood or to adopt a framework for a two-state accord. The U.S. has therefore become as relevant to Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking as Micronesia, the country with as impeccable a pro-Israel voting record in the UN as that of the U.S.
 
President Barack Obama’s key advisors, including Benjamin Rhodes, have now upbraided Israelis and Palestinians for their inability to make tough decisions. Secretary Kerry has fallen back on the chestnut that we cannot want peace more than the parties themselves in explanation of the latest break in the talks. These alibis are at best unseemly. For if the parties were able to make the tough decisions on their own, they would have been made long ago. From the beginning, they were in need of an outside party that they trusted, and about whom they could say to their respective constituencies, “We had to make these controversial compromises because otherwise we would have lost support that would have left us more insecure and worse off than we are now.”
 
The U.S. needed to say to Israel that its border is the 1967 line, clearly identified as such in UN Resolutions 242 and 339, and that neither the U.S. nor the international community would accept deviations from that line other than limited and mutually agreed territorial swaps. It needed to say to the Palestinians that its refugees cannot expect more from Israel than a sincere public apology and generous compensation and reparations for the crimes committed against them when Israel expelled them from their homes and villages in the areas assigned to Israel by the UN Partition Plan of 1947 and also from territories beyond those areas.
 
Kerry’s efforts failed because instead of telling the parties that the U.S. intends to establish red lines for a peace agreement, he allowed them to tell him what their red lines were for such an American framework. And by assuring Israel repeatedly that there could never be “any daylight” between the U.S. and Israel, Israel’s leaders were led to believe there would be no consequences for Israel’s rejection of America’s proposals and for Israeli actions that damage American interests.
 
Kerry should have known that the U.S. has no role in achieving an Israel-Palestinian peace if it is not prepared to use the leverage it possesses to get Israelis to abide by previous agreements and international law. Of course, there are domestic costs for any U.S. government that decides to get serious about demanding Israel to end its occupation. But there is something fatuous about our preaching to Israelis and Palestinians about the painful sacrifices they need to make to end this conflict when we refuse to do our far less painful part unless it is cost-free.
 
It is true that a majority of Israelis consistently tell their pollsters that they favor a two-state solution. But this has no practical political traction, for most of those who say this also believe that Israel has no Palestinian partners with whom they could reach a two-state accord. Their belief in a two-state outcome is eschatology, not politics. Still, a two-state solution would yet be attainable if Washington were to put Israel on notice that it will be on its own in dealing with the consequences of its occupation and settlement policies. But given our politicians’ addiction to the adulation and the other perquisites offered by AIPAC for their unquestioning support of Israel’s policies, that is about as likely as snow in July.
 
More realistically, a two-state outcome is still possible if Palestinians were to take their fate into their own hands, rather than waiting for a deus ex machina, by shutting down institutions such as the Palestinian Authority that serve their subjugators and launching a non-violent, anti-apartheid struggle for equal citizenship in the de facto Greater Israel to which they have been consigned. Such a determined struggle may even convince Israelis to accept a two-state outcome, for the loss of their state’s Jewish identity in a single state in which Jews are outnumbered by Arabs is a price most Israelis will not pay for a Greater Israel.
 
Should Israelis reject Palestinian statehood even in the face of a Palestinian anti-apartheid struggle, one that undoubtedly would have wide international backing, it would risk losing America’s friendship and support, also a price Israelis are not ready to pay. And while Washington has not abandoned Israel because of current differences over where Israel’s borders lie or the capital of a truncated Palestinian state should be located, in a struggle for equal rights, America could not support an Israeli apartheid for long. It is true of course that a de facto Israeli apartheid has been in place for some time now, without America calling it by its right name. That is because a dishonest peace process has served to mask that reality, by design. A Palestinian anti-apartheid struggle would put an end to that deception.
 
Henry Siegman is the president of the U.S./Middle East Project. He served as a Senior Fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations and as a non-resident research professor at the Sir Joseph Hotung Middle East Program, School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London. He was the national director of the American Jewish Congress and of the Synagogue Council of America.
 Middle East peacemaking," by Henry Siegman