According to a principle enunciated by Chomsky, the facts are not "hidden" in the sense that in seeking, they are found in the international press. However, they are reduced by their place in the media space: the comment is either totally directed and / or wacky or, for really important issue, the commentary is completely absent. The idea is that policy makers (political and especially economic) need to be informed to make the "right" decisions (by their own standards), the info is public and widely accessible. However, to deter people from decisions that affect them But directly, this information must be diluted and treated as if it had no interest.
Regarding the attack by Israel of the international fleet, it is interesting to focus on brute fact and, importantly, look for subjects that are totally obscured. Search for facts with a report that appeared in the press, but are not discussed and are not reappeared since.
can help in identifying the aberrant appearance of certain comments, which address the subject from a certain axis delusional. Wonder why the topic is discussed under this heading, but why the treatment and conclusion are also crazy. The overall focus detects that there is indeed a serious concern of the author, and look ridiculous to suspect they are trying to move away from the bottom of the problem (effect "cloud of smoke").
Among the comments "bizarre" of the moment, there is the regular claim that the Israeli action "benefits the extremists on both sides, Hamas and the Israeli government are alliers objectives in this case, in order it away as much as possible the opportunity to achieve peace.
is exactly the purpose of the release of phonies of JCall : "Arrest of the fleet in Gaza: a crisis that benefits only the extremists on both sides." It is the frequent subject of many comments at this time.
Yet it is clear that the logic of this assertion is nonsense. It is not my subject here, I'm not going to develop what seems to be obvious. What is interesting
- why approach the subject from the perspective of "negotiations" (which in this area are lacking and would be based on assumptions Israeli illegal and unacceptable - including, notably, the continued blockade Gaza and colonization),
- why have this idea that any "process" has been interrupted or compromised by the Israeli action against the fleet?
And then, if we look on the side of "process" and "negotiations" concerning Israel and concern and the basis of its "national security" were just two events that occurred just days before the decision to transform the boat arraissonnement civilian bloodshed in international waters. Two huge events, vital to the consequences, but have known events now completely disappeared from all the comments. If I were the "pro-Palestinian movement" (see my previous post ), I am currently focusing on these topics.
The first event is huge, and we have already seen the deployment of Western bad faith to attempt to evade the consequences. May 21, Alain Gresh analysis on his blog: " Iran to" an international community "post-Western? "
" Ultimately, it all came together: Mr. Recep Erdogan made the trip to Tehran and was sealed May 17, its agreement with President Lula da Silva and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad on a ten-point text that sets a course for resolving the Iranian nuclear crisis. "Alain Gresh describes the Western maneuvers to bury an agreement which, however, is point by point requirements IAEA formalized in October 2009, an agreement which would then mark off the sanctions process and allow the opening of new negotiations:
"What does the text signed under their auspices? First, pursuant to the NPT, Iran has a right to enrichment, after which the country agrees that the exchange of 1 200 kilograms of low enriched uranium (LEU) against 120 pounds of enriched uranium (EU) to 20%, essential to the operation of its research reactor, that the 1200 kilograms of LEU would be stored in Turkey, the time for Iran to receive the 120 kilos of EU that Iran would send to the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), within one week of May 17, an official letter formalizing the agreement. By forgoing a significant portion of its uranium, Tehran seriously limits its ability to produce a bomb. "Ban Ki-moon welcomed the agreement:
" The secretary general of the UN "welcomes the initiative of Brazilian President Lula and Prime Minister of Turkey (Recep Tayyip Erdogan), "said the spokesman of Mr. Ban, Martin Nesirky.
"This underlines that transparency and openness are the keys to addressing the concerns aroused by the great Iranian nuclear program," he added.
"The agreement can be a positive step (...) if followed by more extensive cooperation of Tehran with the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the international community," said spokesman.
The official letter in the agreement has been given by Iran to the IAEA next week:
"On Monday, Iran handed the letter of notification of the tripartite agreement signed by the head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran (IAEA ), Ali Akbar Salehi, in a meeting at the residence of the Director General of the IAEA in Vienna. "We have an agreement on the initiative of Turkey and Brazil, signed by Iran, corresponding the requirements of last October. He is greeted by the secretary general of the UN, and Iran formally reported to the IAEA agreement.
But before yesterday, we joyfully announces that following the meeting between Angela Merkel and Dmitry Medvedev, santions could be taken against Iran. This AP dispatch from , like all the media comments on this story, makes no reference to the agreement signed two weeks ago.
And there is barely an hour, the World informs us of the findings of a new IAEA meeting . The agreement Brazilian-Turkish-Iranian is totally hidden, and only the subject of "sanctions is discussed. We will not know why the agreement has no "significant" and does absolutely nothing for the reader to ask.
Another international agreement must be recalled. May 28 (three days before the attack against the fleet), NPT agreement calls for a Middle East nuclear-free .
"This is a landmark agreement which arrived Friday, May 28, the 189 countries that signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) by adopting by consensus a document that proposes to discuss a total ban on weapons of destruction mass throughout the Middle East. This is the first revision of the NPT agreement in a decade. He also mentioned other aspects of non-proliferation, such as disarmament, verification of nuclear programs nationals to ensure they are peaceful, and peaceful use of atomic energy. "
[...]" This conference therefore implies the presence of Iran and Israel. A "nuclear free zone" in the Middle East would have several consequences, first make Israel sign the NPT, which dates from 1970, and to abandon its atomic arsenal, which he never admitted nor denied the existence. Israel would also be required to place its nuclear facilities under supervision of the International Atomic Energy Agency. "A questioning of the Israeli nuclear in a big international forum, That is not common. Moreover, the unilateral breaking of the "nuclear Iran" by linking this to the whole region, we feel the danger to Israel (no doubt, of course, that the Iranians would use this argument, this time with the legitimacy of a declaration of the NPT).
Finally, to truly realize the danger American friend has not vetoed, or made any statement suggesting that the machines would be quickly buried. On the contrary
"Washington is committed to work for the success of such a conference by" creating the conditions "necessary under Ellen Tauscher, Deputy Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security. Shortly after the agreement, Obama welcomed this development. "This agreement includes balanced and realistic steps that will advance non-proliferation, nuclear disarmament and peaceful uses of nuclear energy, which are important pillars of the global non-proliferation". However, Obama said he "strongly" disagreed with the fact that the conference has singled out Israel. "And three days later, the heroic action of the Israeli army in international waters had the effect, not to delay non-existent "peace process" between Israel and Palestine, but to completely disappear from the international agenda and public comments on these two events on the Iranian nuclear issue and the Israeli nuclear.
We read many comments about the disastrous effects of the attack on a hypothetical process. Totally absurd question. However, the dramatic effect of the Israeli intervention is pure and simple retraction of the political agenda and media progress on the Iranian nuclear issue and putting it in perspective with the official nuclear Israel.
Really, if I was the "movement", I devote all possible energy to put these two events at the center of public comment. For beyond intolerable martyrdom of Gaza, is the overall security of the region and the possibility of a new regional war are at stake
0 comments:
Post a Comment