Comentário do dia 24/03/09 - Censurado por "Dona Reinalda"

Reinaldo Azevedo viajou para Florianópolis, onde lançará seu livro "O país dos petralhas".

Segundo ele, a moderação dos comentários fica, enquanto isso, a cargo de sua esposa, que ele chama de "Dona Reinalda", rsrs.

Reinaldo Azevedo repete acriticamente a versão dos fatos dos porta-vozes israelenses, veiculada especialmente na imprensa norte-americana. Em relação à recente operação israelense na Faixa de Gaza, a versão israelense é mais ou menos a seguinte: o Hamas violou diversas vezes o cessar-fogo, recusou-se a renová-lo e reiterou seu objetivo de destruir Israel. Israel, sempre em busca da conciliação com os palestinos, mas sem outra alternativa, empreendeu uma campanha de auto-defesa plenamente justificada, onde os mais altos padrões morais e o respeito às leis são a regra e o alto número de vítimas palestinas civis (caso os números não sejam inflados pela "propaganda do Hamas") são decorrência do uso de escudos-humanos pelo Hamas.

Encontrei um texto interessante, que sugeri através de um comentário ao blog do Reinaldo, e que foi censurado por "Dona Reinalda":


24/03/09

"Olá, Reinaldo!

Minha sugestão de hoje é um artigo escrito por Henry Siegman no London Review of Books: http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n02/sieg01_.html

Destaco as seguintes passagens:

"Western governments and most of the Western media have accepted a number of Israeli claims justifying the military assault on Gaza: that Hamas consistently violated the six-month truce that Israel observed and then refused to extend it; that Israel therefore had no choice but to destroy Hamas’s capacity to launch missiles into Israeli towns; that Hamas is a terrorist organisation, part of a global jihadi network; and that Israel has acted not only in its own defence but on behalf of an international struggle by Western democracies against this network."

"Israel, not Hamas, violated the truce: Hamas undertook to stop firing rockets into Israel; in return, Israel was to ease its throttlehold on Gaza. In fact, during the truce, it tightened it further. This was confirmed not only by every neutral international observer and NGO on the scene but by Brigadier General (Res.) Shmuel Zakai, a former commander of the IDF’s Gaza Division. In an interview in Ha’aretz on 22 December..."

"The truce, which began in June last year and was due for renewal in December, required both parties to refrain from violent action against the other (...). This understanding was seriously violated on 4 November, when the IDF entered Gaza and killed six members of Hamas. Hamas responded by launching Qassam rockets and Grad missiles. Even so, it offered to extend the truce, but only on condition that Israel ended its blockade. Israel refused. It could have met its obligation to protect its citizens by agreeing to ease the blockade, but it didn’t even try. It cannot be said that Israel launched its assault to protect its citizens from rockets. It did so to protect its right to continue the strangulation of Gaza’s population."

"The greater lie is that Sharon’s withdrawal from Gaza was intended as a prelude to further withdrawals and a peace agreement. This is how Sharon’s senior adviser Dov Weisglass, who was also his chief negotiator with the Americans, described the withdrawal from Gaza, in an interview with Ha’aretz in August 2004:

What I effectively agreed to with the Americans was that part of the settlements [i.e. the major settlement blocks on the West Bank] would not be dealt with at all, and the rest will not be dealt with until the Palestinians turn into Finns . . . The significance [of the agreement with the US] is the freezing of the political process. And when you freeze that process, you prevent the establishment of a Palestinian state and you prevent a discussion about the refugees, the borders and Jerusalem. Effectively, this whole package that is called the Palestinian state, with all that it entails, has been removed from our agenda indefinitely. And all this with [President Bush’s] authority and permission . . . and the ratification of both houses of Congress."

"In other words, when Jews target and kill innocent civilians to advance their national struggle, they are patriots. When their adversaries do so, they are terrorists." (Pra mim, ambos são terroristas)

" While Hamas’s ideology formally calls for that state to be established on the ruins of the state of Israel, this doesn’t determine Hamas’s actual policies today any more than the same declaration in the PLO charter determined Fatah’s actions. These are not the conclusions of an apologist for Hamas but the opinions of the former head of Mossad and Sharon’s national security adviser, Ephraim Halevy."

"Why then are Israel’s leaders so determined to destroy Hamas? Because they believe that its leadership, unlike that of Fatah, cannot be intimidated into accepting a peace accord that establishes a Palestinian ‘state’ made up of territorially disconnected entities over which Israel would be able to retain permanent control."

Enfim, é um texto que rebate seus argumentos, que são tipicamente os argumentos veiculados na mídia norte-americana, os quais você parece papagaiar sem qualquer confirmação por si próprio, não sei se por má-fé, por conveniência ideológica, por incompetência (já que você é um jornalista) ou por sacrificar sua credibilidade em troca do espaço na Veja.

Até a próxima!"