EXCLUSIVE: Ousted Honduran President Manuel Zelaya Speaks from Nicaraguan Border on Who’s Behind the Coup, His Attempts to Return Home, the Role of the United States and More
In a Democracy Now! national broadcast exclusive, ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya joins us from the Nicaragua-Honduras border for a wide-ranging interview on his attempts to return home, who’s behind the coup, the role of the United States, and much more. “I think the United States is going to lose a great deal of influence in Latin America if it does not turn the coup d’état around,” Zeleya says. “It will not be able to put forth its idea about democracy. It won’t be credible before anyone.” On his message to the Honduran people, Zelaya says they should “maintain their resistance against those who want to take their rights away…so that no one will be able to disrespect them, which is what the coup regime is doing today.” [includes rush transcript]
AMY GOODMAN: Governments around the world should continue sanctions against the coup regime in Honduras. Those are the comments of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, who’s trying to mediate negotiations between ousted Honduran president and the coup leaders. He was speaking at a Latin American summit in Costa Rica a day after the US State Department’s decision Tuesday to revoke the visas of four Honduran coup officials, though the US has not cut off more than $180 million in economic aid.
The Honduran coup officials have indicated a willingness to negotiate. They have, quote, “not yet recognized that President Zelaya should be reinstated,” Arias told reporters in Costa Rica on Wednesday night.
Meanwhile, protests in support of Zelaya continue in the Honduran capital and near the border with Nicaragua.
Well, today, in a Democracy Now! broadcast exclusive, we bring you an interview with the ousted Honduran president, Manuel Zelaya, who is on the border with Honduras and Nicaragua on the Nicaragua side. I spoke to President Zelaya on Wednesday afternoon, a month after he was seized by armed soldiers and flown out of his country.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you have any breaking news for us at this hour?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The presidents of Central America are meeting now in Costa Rico, and they’re also putting together a condemnation of the coup. And I think they’re going to take more measures against the coup leaders throughout Latin America.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you have any plans to join them in Costa Rica?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I have sent my representative, who is the Vice President, Aristides Mejia. He will be there representing me and also recognizing the effort being made by President Obama by revoking the visas of the coup leaders. It’s a good sign that declares the coup leaders as enemies of humanity.
AMY GOODMAN: It’s widely recognized that the coup would not stand without US support. What more do you think the United States has to do now?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I realize that President Barack Obama and the State Department were not involved in the coup, but some very conservative sectors in the United States, sectors of the extreme right wing, have a double standard. They talk about democracy on the inside, and outside they talk about dictatorship.
AMY GOODMAN: Hillary Clinton, the Secretary of State, said your going over the border from Nicaragua into Honduras was “reckless.” Your response?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Well, she doesn’t have all the necessary information that I have on the repression in the country that’s being suffered by the people. I have to get close to the people to give them support.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you plan to go into Honduras again over the border?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I would do it right now, if I could. But the military are threatening to assassinate me, to kidnap me. I have never been tried or condemned. This is a de facto regime that’s null and void.
AMY GOODMAN: What about your family? They are attempting to reach you in Nicaragua. What is the situation?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] My family will only go through the military checkpoints, without breaking the state of siege, when they give them security for their safety going in and out.
AMY GOODMAN: They have not got assurances at this point, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Not at all. Last night, in a community that’s sixty kilometers from the border, El Paraiso, twelve kilometers from there, last night, they went to machine-gun the hotel and shout at them with megaphones. The police, supported by the military, are trying to terrorize my family.
AMY GOODMAN: While President Obama called your ouster a coup originally, the State Department is refusing to call it a coup now. Your response, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Everyone in the world—governments, international organizations, all the lawyers and judges in the world—have called the fact of capturing a president at 5:00 a.m. without trying him, shooting arms—that’s a coup d’état. No one doubts that that’s a coup d’état.
AMY GOODMAN: Would it matter if the US government proclaimed this loudly now? Do you want to hear the President, the Secretary of State, call it a coup?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Well, if they look at the analysis, they should call for an international tribunal to condemn them and make this coup guilty of assassination of a political leader, because a coup d’état takes power away from people to name their president. The president can only be named by the people, not by the United States and not by the armed forces.
AMY GOODMAN: Have you accepted the Arias accords, the Costa Rica accords? What do you want to see, in order to return to your country?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] We accepted the original proposal of President Arias that had seven points. We accepted the OAS and the UN proposals. The coup leaders have not accepted it.
AMY GOODMAN: In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Micheletti says they will abide by the Arias accords. Is this true? Though they say they do want to see you prosecuted.
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I am willing to submit to a trial at any time, but not to the justice of Micheletti or the military justice of the coup leaders. That’s not justice. That’s an illegal regime and a de facto one.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you want to see the coup leaders tried?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Of course. That should be a norm in any country in order to prevent coup d’états. If the reactionary right begins to use arms, there are going to be uprisings. The guerrilla will reappear. There will be insurrections as a method. And no one will be able to govern in these countries. There is hot blood running.
AMY GOODMAN: Lanny Davis, President Clinton’s lawyer, is the lawyer for the Honduras chapter of the Business Council of Latin America. He says he represents Camilo Atala and Jorge Canahuati. Who are they, as he speaks against your government?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The coup has three actors: those who finance it are them—they finance it; the intellectual authors are political structures; and those who carry it out, which are the military. Those are the three actors in the coup.
AMY GOODMAN: And who are—who is keeping—who is providing the finances? Are you saying that it is these people, Atala and Canahuati?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] There are others on the list. There are ten economic groups.
AMY GOODMAN: Vasquez Velasquez was trained at the School of the Americas at Fort Benning, Georgia. Now there are Honduran soldiers training there. Do you think that the training should stop?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I think training should take place based on democratic values, not based on values of coup d’états. There are many honorable and patriotic military. These military have betrayed the armed forces and betrayed the people.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think the US should cut off economic aid—what, more than $180 million—to Honduras until you are restored?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I think the United States is going to lose a great deal of influence in Latin America if it does not turn the coup d’état around. It will not be able to put forth its idea about democracy. It won’t be credible before anyone.
AMY GOODMAN: What do you think is the most single—the single most important action the United States can do now?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The United States is trying to resolve the coup in a peaceful and diplomatic way, and I agree with those manners, but I feel that it must be stronger, because when a coup d’état takes place, this is an act of international terrorism, which affects security in the hemisphere, because it revives the desire for machine guns as opposed to democratic dialogue, and it produces violence. And it should be stopped with greater force.
AMY GOODMAN: Ousted Honduran president Manuela Zelaya, in our national broadcast exclusive. We’ll come back to this discussion after break, where the ousted Honduran president will talk about his attempts to return home and who’s behind the coup and more. Then we’ll go to Colorado Springs. “The Hell of War Comes Home.” We’ll look at the 2nd Battalion, 12th Infantry Regiment. They’re known as the “Lethal Killers.” That’s in Iraq, Afghanistan, and on the streets of Colorado Springs. Stay with us.
[break]
AMY GOODMAN: We return to our exclusive interview with the ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya.
AMY GOODMAN: Mr. President, some see the coup in Honduras as a new strategy against progressive independent governments in Latin America. Can you put the conflict, the coup, in a larger context in Latin America right now?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I’d be pleased to. The coup in Honduras was made by a group of ambitious businessmen that want to maintain their privileges associated to multinational companies with political puppets and corrupt military. Trying to give it an ideological tint—left, right, Chavism, US right—is an intent to change the face of the coup and to distract attention to other ideological problems, when the problem are the economic privileges of the sectors that want to maintain it.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you plan to visit Washington again?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] As long as I’m invited, I’ll go to Washington, to the OAS, or the United Nations, or the Department of State, Congress, the Senate. This month, I went to Washington five times to respond to these invitations.
AMY GOODMAN: Has the Obama administration invited you now to come back from Nicaragua to Washington?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] No, they invited me once, and I went to speak with Secretary Clinton, but they have not invited me since.
AMY GOODMAN: What did Hillary Clinton tell you? And what did you tell her?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Mrs. Clinton suggested Arias’s mediation to me, and I accepted it. I went to those negotiations. And I think that the United States now has a great responsibility, because the negotiations did not produce the desired results, and they have a greater need to resolve this coup than other countries.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you think that the coup government is trying to just run out the clock until the election?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] No, I think they want to legitimize the elections through my return, but the two candidates participating approved the coup, supported the coup. And that’s like legitimizing the coup through other people. The elections should be held, but in a broad and democratic way, not with the coup regime, because it would be like extortion for the candidates.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a split in the coup government?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Yes, of course. There is division in the armed forces, in the society. They have installed a repressive regime that’s only sustained by arms. When the armed forces remove their support from the coup regime, five minutes later they will have to leave power.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the significance of the Nobel Peace Prize winners and their role in the process against the coup—Perez Esquivel, Rigoberta Menchu, as well as Oscar Arias?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] President Arias did what he could. He dealt with the coup leaders with kid gloves, but he did what he could, responding to his limitations. And I am grateful to him for what he was able to do.
AMY GOODMAN: Rigoberta Menchu, about three days into the coup, went to report on the human rights situation in Honduras.
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Yes, she has been condemning the coup and has done so very firmly. I think this is a good action, and it speaks well of her.
AMY GOODMAN: Can you talk about the role of the Church in the coup, please?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The Church is divided. The cardinal, the only cardinal before the Vatican in Honduras, conspired with the coup leaders. He betrayed the people, the poor. He took off his robes to put on a military uniform. And with his words, he really contributed to the assassinations that have taken place in Honduras.
AMY GOODMAN: What about the beating of the priests, Andres Tamayo and Padre Fausto Milla, leading a protest against the coup?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] All the social organizations have been in opposition, very firmly, for thirty-two days against the coup. They have—which speaks very well of the ability to resist and to not accept a coup d’état.
AMY GOODMAN: What reports, Mr. President, do you have of the human rights situation right now in Honduras—the murders, the beatings, the bombings?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] There are thousands of prisoners. There are illegal entries without search warrants into homes. Civilian rights have been denied. There’s a state of siege. There is not freedom of movement or of press. Youth are being assassinated. This is—there is terror like we have never seen in Honduras in this new twenty-first century coup.
AMY GOODMAN: And the role of Billy Joya, who was one of the heads of Battalion 3-16, notorious for its human rights abuse in the early 1980s? His role today as the security aide to Micheletti?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] He has a number of charges against him open for human rights. They accuse him of committing several crimes. And now he is an adviser to the coup regime.
AMY GOODMAN: Battalion 3-16, do you see it being revived?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] With a different name, it’s already operating. The crimes being committed is torture to create fear among the population, and that’s being directed by Mr. Joya.
AMY GOODMAN: You have not seen your family now for more than a month. Can you talk personally about the effect of this, of your separation?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] A great deal of pain for the people and for my family, which are resisting alongside the people, suffering all the attacks of the mass media, who have sold themselves to the coup. Their spirits are being formed. Their consciousness is being formed, and it’s a consciousness that’s very strong, that will come out after this coup so that no one will be able to hurt the people and humiliate them again.
AMY GOODMAN: Some people have commented on your conversion, on changing from allying with the oligarchy to where you are today, with the popular movements. Can you talk about that change?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I practiced liberalism as an ideological method that respects private property, private investment, and respects public freedoms. I turned—I went to a social liberalism, a pro-socialist liberalism, so that the economy benefits the people and not just the economic elites. And this irritated the economic elites. They thought it was dangerous for me to organize the social sectors, and they planned the coup d’état.
AMY GOODMAN: John Negroponte, who was the ambassador to Nicaragua—to Honduras in the early ’80s, also worked with Battalion 3-16. Do you see his hand today, or others, like Otto Reich of the United States?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] Otto Reich has already made statements about it. Also Ramon Carmona, who’s a Venezuelan exile in the United States. They have already unmasked themselves. I can’t talk about other people, but I know that there are many hawks from the old guard in the United States and the CIA supporting violence and arms as a method to solve problems. I’m someone who professes peaceful means and nonviolence, and I don’t support force to resolve things, but rather dialogue.
AMY GOODMAN: What is your message to the American people and to the Honduran people?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] The people of the United States, their security is linked to the security, the safety of the world. If violence and force explodes in the US’s backyard, it will affect them. They should support peace and nonviolence and not be supporting coup d’états.
AMY GOODMAN: And the people of Honduras?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] That they maintain their resistance against those who want to take their rights away and firm up their social conquest. This will help the people acquire the maturity, so that no one will be able to disrespect them, which is what the coup regime is doing today.
AMY GOODMAN: If you were to return, if you are president again in Honduras, will you call for a constitutional assembly to change the constitution?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I would call for a national dialogue. I am a Christian. I know how to forgive. I think that all human beings have the right to rectify and repent and to be forgiven. Those who commit sins should be taken to justice, to the courts, so that they are judged. I am not a judge. I am president. And my work is always to dialogue to find solutions to the problems.
AMY GOODMAN: Do you plan to run for president again?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I never had that intention. Honduras doesn’t permit reelection. There’s no way legally, within the constitutional order, to make reforms. That could only happen at some point in the future, and that will not depend on me, and it cannot happen at this time, legally.
AMY GOODMAN: Would you accept a moving up of the elections, as was discussed in Costa Rica?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] I don’t have any problem with that. I’ve accepted the Arias plan. It’s the coup leaders that have not accepted it.
AMY GOODMAN: Is there anything else you would like to add, Mr. President?
PRESIDENT MANUEL ZELAYA: [translated] To thank you and congratulate you, because during the thirty days I’ve been in exile, it’s the best interview I’ve had. Many thanks.
AMY GOODMAN: Ousted Honduran president Manuel Zelaya, in this national broadcast exclusive. You can go to our website at democracynow.org for the video or audio podcast and the transcript of the entire interview in both English and in Spanish. A very special thanks to Andrés Conteris of Democracy Now! en Español. As well, we want to thank our translator, Victoria Furrio.
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Thursday, July 23, 2009
From a friend and fellow Metta Mentee
Pace e Bene Blog
The Greatness of a Smile
July 16th, 2009 - by Leah Watkiss
Last Friday, my fellow Metta Mentees and I participated in a day of service at St. Anthony’s Foundation in San Francisco. Founded in the Franciscan tradition in 1950, the foundation was built to repsond to the needs of the hungry and the homeless. Located in San Francisco’s notorious Tenderloin District, known for its significant poverty, homelessness, and crime, the foundation has served over 34 million free meals to the San Francisco community. Its services have grown over the years so it now includes a free medical clinic, a clothing and housewares program, rehabilitation programs and services, and a social work center in addition to serving approximately 2,600 meals a day. After learning about the foundation, our group was divided into several smaller groups. Each group was sent to assist in a different service. I was in the group assigned to the dining room. I spent equal amounts of time serving and cleaning tables.
Now, I have a vast amount of experience in the customer service sector. I have worked as a customer service representative in a bookstore, a garden centre, a kitchenware store, and a non-profit organization. In each of these positions I wore a nametag or identified myself when answering phone calls. In all of my time as a customer service representative, I might have one person per week of work bother to call me by my name. Most people just called me "Miss" or "Ma’am." I was not a human person with feelings and dignity, I was an appendage of the company that I worked for. This was especially true of interactions on the phone, where I was not physically present to the person I was helping. In fact, if someone did ask me my name, I would get nervous. Occasionally, I would help a customer/donor who made a note of my name to make a personal connection. But more usually, a customer/donor making note of my name created a paranoia in me that they were going to report me to my superiors for inadequate or unsatisfactory service. Because of this past experience, I was not prepared for what happened at the St. Anthony’s Foundation dining room.
As I went around serving meals and cleaning tables, almost every person in the room addressed me by name. Those who didn’t were usually addressing me from behind and could not see my nametag. Not only did people call me by name, they even bothered to ask me how to pronounce it! In my life, I have often been called "Lee-ah" instead of "Lay-ah." Some have even called me "Lee." As a child this caused me no end of frustration. However, as I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to respond to what I’m called, especially when it’s by someone I will likely never see again. But not only did people in the dining room call me by my name, many of them stopped to ask me what the pronunciation was and would continue to use my name as I made my rounds and returned to their table. I cannot express adequately in words the effect that their using my name had on me. But I felt a real connection with these people in a way I had rarely experienced in my other service experiences. I felt like a person, and individual with dignity. As a customer service representative, I have been judged, verbally abused, harassed, yelled at, and sworn at. I have been dehumanized and humiliated by people who ignored the fact that I am a human being with feelings and emotions. I won’t pretend that everybody at the dining hall was this friendly, and I am sure that they have had people come in who engaged in those violent actions, but whereas in my previous experience anonymity was the norm, here is was the exception. These people who live largely anonymous lives on the street - passed by without a second glance in a large, bustling city - reached out and connected with me at a basic, human level. This is an experience I will remember whenever I walk past someone needy on the street.
Last night, I was walking to the train station in the late evening. I stopped by a bank and got out some cash beside a bus stop with two obviously underprivileged men. The old me, the person I was before I came to the Metta Center and Pace e Bene and learned about nonviolence, would have felt very intimidated. In fact, the old me would likely have chosen to visit the bank on another day rather than show these men I had cash and walk past these men with my head firmly facing the ground or the other side of the street. But the new me calmly walked by, turned my head, smiled, and wished the men a good evening. They, in turn, asked me how I was. I replied that I was well and asked how they were. They responded in kind and told me I had a beautiful smile. I thanked them and continued on to the train station, beaming.
Many people do not know how to lead a nonviolent life. They think of large, social movements like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. "They were different," people say. "They were born different: to lead, to do great things." But we are all born to lead and do great things. Great things does not have to mean freeing India from British rule or overcoming Jim Crow laws. It can be something as simple as smiling at a stranger and, by your smile, saying "You are important. You are a human being. I am glad that you are alive."
Peace and all good.
The Greatness of a Smile
July 16th, 2009 - by Leah Watkiss
Last Friday, my fellow Metta Mentees and I participated in a day of service at St. Anthony’s Foundation in San Francisco. Founded in the Franciscan tradition in 1950, the foundation was built to repsond to the needs of the hungry and the homeless. Located in San Francisco’s notorious Tenderloin District, known for its significant poverty, homelessness, and crime, the foundation has served over 34 million free meals to the San Francisco community. Its services have grown over the years so it now includes a free medical clinic, a clothing and housewares program, rehabilitation programs and services, and a social work center in addition to serving approximately 2,600 meals a day. After learning about the foundation, our group was divided into several smaller groups. Each group was sent to assist in a different service. I was in the group assigned to the dining room. I spent equal amounts of time serving and cleaning tables.
Now, I have a vast amount of experience in the customer service sector. I have worked as a customer service representative in a bookstore, a garden centre, a kitchenware store, and a non-profit organization. In each of these positions I wore a nametag or identified myself when answering phone calls. In all of my time as a customer service representative, I might have one person per week of work bother to call me by my name. Most people just called me "Miss" or "Ma’am." I was not a human person with feelings and dignity, I was an appendage of the company that I worked for. This was especially true of interactions on the phone, where I was not physically present to the person I was helping. In fact, if someone did ask me my name, I would get nervous. Occasionally, I would help a customer/donor who made a note of my name to make a personal connection. But more usually, a customer/donor making note of my name created a paranoia in me that they were going to report me to my superiors for inadequate or unsatisfactory service. Because of this past experience, I was not prepared for what happened at the St. Anthony’s Foundation dining room.
As I went around serving meals and cleaning tables, almost every person in the room addressed me by name. Those who didn’t were usually addressing me from behind and could not see my nametag. Not only did people call me by name, they even bothered to ask me how to pronounce it! In my life, I have often been called "Lee-ah" instead of "Lay-ah." Some have even called me "Lee." As a child this caused me no end of frustration. However, as I’ve gotten older I’ve learned to respond to what I’m called, especially when it’s by someone I will likely never see again. But not only did people in the dining room call me by my name, many of them stopped to ask me what the pronunciation was and would continue to use my name as I made my rounds and returned to their table. I cannot express adequately in words the effect that their using my name had on me. But I felt a real connection with these people in a way I had rarely experienced in my other service experiences. I felt like a person, and individual with dignity. As a customer service representative, I have been judged, verbally abused, harassed, yelled at, and sworn at. I have been dehumanized and humiliated by people who ignored the fact that I am a human being with feelings and emotions. I won’t pretend that everybody at the dining hall was this friendly, and I am sure that they have had people come in who engaged in those violent actions, but whereas in my previous experience anonymity was the norm, here is was the exception. These people who live largely anonymous lives on the street - passed by without a second glance in a large, bustling city - reached out and connected with me at a basic, human level. This is an experience I will remember whenever I walk past someone needy on the street.
Last night, I was walking to the train station in the late evening. I stopped by a bank and got out some cash beside a bus stop with two obviously underprivileged men. The old me, the person I was before I came to the Metta Center and Pace e Bene and learned about nonviolence, would have felt very intimidated. In fact, the old me would likely have chosen to visit the bank on another day rather than show these men I had cash and walk past these men with my head firmly facing the ground or the other side of the street. But the new me calmly walked by, turned my head, smiled, and wished the men a good evening. They, in turn, asked me how I was. I replied that I was well and asked how they were. They responded in kind and told me I had a beautiful smile. I thanked them and continued on to the train station, beaming.
Many people do not know how to lead a nonviolent life. They think of large, social movements like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. "They were different," people say. "They were born different: to lead, to do great things." But we are all born to lead and do great things. Great things does not have to mean freeing India from British rule or overcoming Jim Crow laws. It can be something as simple as smiling at a stranger and, by your smile, saying "You are important. You are a human being. I am glad that you are alive."
Peace and all good.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Messages of Peace...on the Moon
Apollo 11 moon landing: messages of peace from world leaders left on moon
When the Apollo 11 mission reached the Moon on July 20 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin deposited a tiny silicon disk on the lunar surface containing messages of peace from 73 world leaders. Here is a selection of the best.
By Heidi Blake
Published: 11:00AM BST 19 Jul 2009
20 July, 1969: Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin E.
The silicon disk was left underneath the US flag which Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted on the Moon's surface Photo: NASA
1) "On behalf of the British people I salute the skill and courage which have brought man to the moon. May this endeavour increase the knowledge and wellbeing of mankind." The Queen
2) "In rejoicing together with the government and the people of the United States of America for the event of the century, I pray God that this brilliant achievement of science remain always at the service of peace and of mankind." Artur da Costa e Silva, president of Brazil
Related Articles
*
Apollo 11 astronauts call for mission to Mars
*
Apollo 11 moon landing: how it happened
*
Astronauts struggle to fix flooded toilet in space
*
Moon landings: British scientists salute space heroes
*
Why Neil Armstrong remains an elusive hero
*
Buzz Lightyear 'first man on moon' some believe
3) "This is a message from black militants. It is a message of human solidarity, a message of peace. In this first visit to the Moon, rather than a victory of technology we salute a victory of human will: research and progress, but also brotherhood." Léopold Sédar Senghor, president of Senegal
4) "On this unique occasion when man traverses outer space to set foot on Earth’s nearest neighbour, Moon, I send my greetings and good wishes to the brave astronauts who have launched on this great venture. I fervently hope that this event will usher in an era of peaceful endeavour for all mankind." Indira Gandhi, prime minister of India
5) "Although we are not suggesting any message from the Polish Head of State, please be assured that the achievements of the U.S. astronauts are followed by us with great interest, appreciation and best wishes for the success in their endeavour." Jerzy Michalowski, Polish ambassador
6) The Government and the people of Trinidad and Tobago acclaim this historic triumph of science and the human will. It is our earnest hope for mankind that while we gain the moon, we shall not lose the world. Eric Williams, prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago
7) "Man has reached out and touched the tranquil moon. May that high accomplishment allow man to rediscover the Earth and find peace there." Pierre Elliott Trudeau, prime minister of Canada
8) "On this occasion when Mr. Neil Armstrong and Colonel Edwin Aldrin set foot for the first time on the surface of the Moon from the Earth, we pray the Almighty God to guide mankind towards ever increasing success in the establishment of peace and the progress of culture, knowledge and human civilisation." Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Aryamehr, Shahanshah of Iran
9) "May He whose glory the heavens declare grant that mankind may grow in the knowledge of His purposes as we probe into the secrets of His universe." Hugh Lawson Shearer, prime minister of Jamaica
10) "The age-old dream of man to cut his bonds to planet Earth and reach for the stars has given him not only wings, but also the intellect and the intrepid spirit which has enabled him to overcome formidable barriers and accomplish extraordinary feats in the exploration of the unknown, culminating in this epochal landing on the Moon." Ferdinand Marcos, president of the Philippines
When the Apollo 11 mission reached the Moon on July 20 1969, astronauts Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin deposited a tiny silicon disk on the lunar surface containing messages of peace from 73 world leaders. Here is a selection of the best.
By Heidi Blake
Published: 11:00AM BST 19 Jul 2009
20 July, 1969: Apollo 11 astronauts Neil Armstrong and Edwin E.
The silicon disk was left underneath the US flag which Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin planted on the Moon's surface Photo: NASA
1) "On behalf of the British people I salute the skill and courage which have brought man to the moon. May this endeavour increase the knowledge and wellbeing of mankind." The Queen
2) "In rejoicing together with the government and the people of the United States of America for the event of the century, I pray God that this brilliant achievement of science remain always at the service of peace and of mankind." Artur da Costa e Silva, president of Brazil
Related Articles
*
Apollo 11 astronauts call for mission to Mars
*
Apollo 11 moon landing: how it happened
*
Astronauts struggle to fix flooded toilet in space
*
Moon landings: British scientists salute space heroes
*
Why Neil Armstrong remains an elusive hero
*
Buzz Lightyear 'first man on moon' some believe
3) "This is a message from black militants. It is a message of human solidarity, a message of peace. In this first visit to the Moon, rather than a victory of technology we salute a victory of human will: research and progress, but also brotherhood." Léopold Sédar Senghor, president of Senegal
4) "On this unique occasion when man traverses outer space to set foot on Earth’s nearest neighbour, Moon, I send my greetings and good wishes to the brave astronauts who have launched on this great venture. I fervently hope that this event will usher in an era of peaceful endeavour for all mankind." Indira Gandhi, prime minister of India
5) "Although we are not suggesting any message from the Polish Head of State, please be assured that the achievements of the U.S. astronauts are followed by us with great interest, appreciation and best wishes for the success in their endeavour." Jerzy Michalowski, Polish ambassador
6) The Government and the people of Trinidad and Tobago acclaim this historic triumph of science and the human will. It is our earnest hope for mankind that while we gain the moon, we shall not lose the world. Eric Williams, prime minister of Trinidad and Tobago
7) "Man has reached out and touched the tranquil moon. May that high accomplishment allow man to rediscover the Earth and find peace there." Pierre Elliott Trudeau, prime minister of Canada
8) "On this occasion when Mr. Neil Armstrong and Colonel Edwin Aldrin set foot for the first time on the surface of the Moon from the Earth, we pray the Almighty God to guide mankind towards ever increasing success in the establishment of peace and the progress of culture, knowledge and human civilisation." Mohammad Reza Pahlavi Aryamehr, Shahanshah of Iran
9) "May He whose glory the heavens declare grant that mankind may grow in the knowledge of His purposes as we probe into the secrets of His universe." Hugh Lawson Shearer, prime minister of Jamaica
10) "The age-old dream of man to cut his bonds to planet Earth and reach for the stars has given him not only wings, but also the intellect and the intrepid spirit which has enabled him to overcome formidable barriers and accomplish extraordinary feats in the exploration of the unknown, culminating in this epochal landing on the Moon." Ferdinand Marcos, president of the Philippines
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
UNTOLD TRUTHS ABOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
UNTOLD TRUTHS ABOUT THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION
by Howard Zinn
THE PROGRESSIVE
July 06, 2009
There are things that happen in the world that are bad, and you want to do something about them. You have a just cause. But our culture is so war prone that we immediately jump from, "This is a good cause" to "This deserves a war."
You need to be very, very comfortable in making that jump.
The American Revolution—independence from England—was a just cause. Why should the colonists here be occupied by and oppressed by England? But therefore, did we have to go to the Revolutionary War?
How many people died in the Revolutionary War?
Nobody ever knows exactly how many people die in wars, but it's likely that 25,000 to 50,000 people died in this one. So let's take the lower figure—25,000 people died out of a population of three million. That would be equivalent today to two and a half million people dying to get England off our backs.
You might consider that worth it, or you might not.
Canada is independent of England, isn't it? I think so. Not a bad society. Canadians have good health care. They have a lot of things we don't have. They didn't fight a bloody revolutionary war. Why do we assume that we had to fight a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of England.
In the year before those famous shots were fired, farmers in Western Massachusetts had driven the British government out without firing a single shot. They had assembled by the thousands and thousands around courthouses and colonial offices and they had just taken over and they said goodbye to the British officials. It was a nonviolent revolution that took place. But then came Lexington and Concord, and the revolution became violent, and it was run not by the farmers but by the Founding Fathers. The farmers were rather poor; the Founding Fathers were rather rich.
Who actually gained from that victory over England? It's very important to ask about any policy, and especially about war: Who gained what? And it's very important to notice differences among the various parts of the population. That's one thing we’re not accustomed to in this country because we don't think in class terms. We think, "Oh, we all have the same interests.” For instance, we think that we all had the same interests in independence from England. We did not have all the same interests.
Do you think the Indians cared about independence from England? No, in fact, the Indians were unhappy that we won independence from England, because England had set a line—in the Proclamation of 1763—that said you couldn't go westward into Indian territory. They didn't do it because they loved the Indians. They didn't want trouble. When Britain was defeated in the Revolutionary War, that line was eliminated, and now the way was open for the colonists to move westward across the continent, which they did for the next 100 years, committing massacres and making sure that they destroyed Indian civilization.
So when you look at the American Revolution, there's a fact that you have to take into consideration. Indians—no, they didn't benefit.
Did blacks benefit from the American Revolution?
Slavery was there before. Slavery was there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it.
What about class divisions?
Did ordinary white farmers have the same interest in the revolution as a John Hancock or Morris or Madison or Jefferson or the slaveholders or the bondholders? Not really.
It was not all the common people getting together to fight against England. They had a very hard time assembling an army. They took poor guys and promised them land. They browbeat people and, oh yes, they inspired people with the Declaration of Independence. It's always good, if you want people to go to war, to give them a good document and have good words: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, when they wrote the Constitution, they were more concerned with property than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You should take notice of these little things.
There were class divisions. When you assess and evaluate a war, when you assess and evaluate any policy, you have to ask: Who gets what?
We were a class society from the beginning. America started off as a society of rich and poor, people with enormous grants of land and people with no land. And there were riots, there were bread riots in Boston, and riots and rebellions all over the colonies, of poor against rich, of tenants breaking into jails to release people who were in prison for nonpayment of debt. There was class conflict. We try to pretend in this country that we're all one happy family. We're not.
And so when you look at the American Revolution, you have to look at it in terms of class.
Do you know that there were mutinies in the American Revolutionary Army by the privates against the officers? The officers were getting fine clothes and good food and high pay and the privates had no shoes and bad clothes and they weren't getting paid. They mutinied. Thousands of them. So many in the Pennsylvania line that George Washington got worried, so he made compromises with them. But later when there was a smaller mutiny in the New Jersey line, not with thousands but with hundreds, Washington said execute the leaders, and they were executed by fellow mutineers on the order of their officers.
The American Revolution was not a simple affair of all of us against all of them. And not everyone thought they would benefit from the Revolution.
We've got to rethink this question of war and come to the conclusion that war cannot be accepted, no matter what the reasons given, or the excuse: liberty, democracy; this, that. War is by definition the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of people for ends that are uncertain. Think about means and ends, and apply it to war. The means are horrible, certainly. The ends, uncertain. That alone should make you hesitate.
Once a historical event has taken place, it becomes very hard to imagine that you could have achieved a result some other way. When something is happening in history it takes on a certain air of inevitability: This is the only way it could have happened. No.
We are smart in so many ways. Surely, we should be able to understand that in between war and passivity, there are a thousand possibilities
© 2009 The Progressive
by Howard Zinn
THE PROGRESSIVE
July 06, 2009
There are things that happen in the world that are bad, and you want to do something about them. You have a just cause. But our culture is so war prone that we immediately jump from, "This is a good cause" to "This deserves a war."
You need to be very, very comfortable in making that jump.
The American Revolution—independence from England—was a just cause. Why should the colonists here be occupied by and oppressed by England? But therefore, did we have to go to the Revolutionary War?
How many people died in the Revolutionary War?
Nobody ever knows exactly how many people die in wars, but it's likely that 25,000 to 50,000 people died in this one. So let's take the lower figure—25,000 people died out of a population of three million. That would be equivalent today to two and a half million people dying to get England off our backs.
You might consider that worth it, or you might not.
Canada is independent of England, isn't it? I think so. Not a bad society. Canadians have good health care. They have a lot of things we don't have. They didn't fight a bloody revolutionary war. Why do we assume that we had to fight a bloody revolutionary war to get rid of England.
In the year before those famous shots were fired, farmers in Western Massachusetts had driven the British government out without firing a single shot. They had assembled by the thousands and thousands around courthouses and colonial offices and they had just taken over and they said goodbye to the British officials. It was a nonviolent revolution that took place. But then came Lexington and Concord, and the revolution became violent, and it was run not by the farmers but by the Founding Fathers. The farmers were rather poor; the Founding Fathers were rather rich.
Who actually gained from that victory over England? It's very important to ask about any policy, and especially about war: Who gained what? And it's very important to notice differences among the various parts of the population. That's one thing we’re not accustomed to in this country because we don't think in class terms. We think, "Oh, we all have the same interests.” For instance, we think that we all had the same interests in independence from England. We did not have all the same interests.
Do you think the Indians cared about independence from England? No, in fact, the Indians were unhappy that we won independence from England, because England had set a line—in the Proclamation of 1763—that said you couldn't go westward into Indian territory. They didn't do it because they loved the Indians. They didn't want trouble. When Britain was defeated in the Revolutionary War, that line was eliminated, and now the way was open for the colonists to move westward across the continent, which they did for the next 100 years, committing massacres and making sure that they destroyed Indian civilization.
So when you look at the American Revolution, there's a fact that you have to take into consideration. Indians—no, they didn't benefit.
Did blacks benefit from the American Revolution?
Slavery was there before. Slavery was there after. Not only that, we wrote slavery into the Constitution. We legitimized it.
What about class divisions?
Did ordinary white farmers have the same interest in the revolution as a John Hancock or Morris or Madison or Jefferson or the slaveholders or the bondholders? Not really.
It was not all the common people getting together to fight against England. They had a very hard time assembling an army. They took poor guys and promised them land. They browbeat people and, oh yes, they inspired people with the Declaration of Independence. It's always good, if you want people to go to war, to give them a good document and have good words: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Of course, when they wrote the Constitution, they were more concerned with property than life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You should take notice of these little things.
There were class divisions. When you assess and evaluate a war, when you assess and evaluate any policy, you have to ask: Who gets what?
We were a class society from the beginning. America started off as a society of rich and poor, people with enormous grants of land and people with no land. And there were riots, there were bread riots in Boston, and riots and rebellions all over the colonies, of poor against rich, of tenants breaking into jails to release people who were in prison for nonpayment of debt. There was class conflict. We try to pretend in this country that we're all one happy family. We're not.
And so when you look at the American Revolution, you have to look at it in terms of class.
Do you know that there were mutinies in the American Revolutionary Army by the privates against the officers? The officers were getting fine clothes and good food and high pay and the privates had no shoes and bad clothes and they weren't getting paid. They mutinied. Thousands of them. So many in the Pennsylvania line that George Washington got worried, so he made compromises with them. But later when there was a smaller mutiny in the New Jersey line, not with thousands but with hundreds, Washington said execute the leaders, and they were executed by fellow mutineers on the order of their officers.
The American Revolution was not a simple affair of all of us against all of them. And not everyone thought they would benefit from the Revolution.
We've got to rethink this question of war and come to the conclusion that war cannot be accepted, no matter what the reasons given, or the excuse: liberty, democracy; this, that. War is by definition the indiscriminate killing of huge numbers of people for ends that are uncertain. Think about means and ends, and apply it to war. The means are horrible, certainly. The ends, uncertain. That alone should make you hesitate.
Once a historical event has taken place, it becomes very hard to imagine that you could have achieved a result some other way. When something is happening in history it takes on a certain air of inevitability: This is the only way it could have happened. No.
We are smart in so many ways. Surely, we should be able to understand that in between war and passivity, there are a thousand possibilities
© 2009 The Progressive
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Letter from Venceremos Brigade to Obama
President Barack Obama July 13, 2009
The White House
Washington DC
Dear President Obama,
On August 3rd, 2009, over 140 of us will be returning from Cuba-without a government license-in defiance of the travel restrictions and economic embargo that our government has imposed on that nation for close to 50 years.
We are traveling to Cuba in order to denounce a failed and inhumane policy towards Cuba, and to express our solidarity with the Cuban people and their struggles. We are aware that we face repercussions for our act of civil disobedience, but are strengthened by Martin Luther King Jr.’s conviction that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.
For the past half-century, the United States has pursued a policy implemented with the explicit purpose of making the Cuban people suffer to such an extent that they-out of misery and poverty-overthrow their government. The Cuban people can no longer be collateral damage for an outdated foreign policy. We reject such hostilities, and call for your administration to realize its own pledges for a more diplomatic and humane U.S. that respects the sovereignty of other nations. We strongly urge you to take meaningful steps towards ending the economic embargo and lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba for all U.S. citizens and residents.
Many of us identify with the philosophical principle that you were elected on-a platform of change-and that is our incentive towards contacting you. At this historical moment, your administration has the opportunity to start that new beginning you mentioned the U.S. was seeking. We agree and call for more engagement.
We are students, teachers, medical personnel, autoworkers, social workers, artists, professors, lawyers and community organizers, among other occupations. We are an intergenerational group of different races, ethnicities, sexes, and sexual orientations, and are traveling from throughout the U.S. We will be doing volunteer work (in the past 40 years, this has varied from sugar cane harvests to painting neighborhood hospitals to renovating schools) and meeting with Cubans throughout the island (from rappers to hurricane relief workers to those fighting for LGBT equality to the Federation of Cuban Women); opening up engagement and dialogue among both people while exercising our constitutional right to travel.
This is what unites us: our affirmation of our constitutional right to travel, solidarity with the Cuban people, and an absolute condemnation of a foreign policy that has used the Cuban people’s suffering as a political pawn, blocking off engagement between both countries.
The time for rectifying U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is past due.
Your administration has recently taken steps towards dialogue with Cuba. There is bipartisan support in both houses of Congress for further opening. The majority of the U.S. population-including Cuban Americans-is in favor of these measures. In addition, congressional momentum towards easing the embargo has been in line with the expansion of internet-based technologies within Cuba, as well as economic benefits for the U.S., particularly for the agricultural industry and small, minority- and women-owned businesses. Furthermore, the very constitutionality of the travel restrictions, a means of enforcing the embargo, will soon be challenged in our federal courts.
In Cuba, the highest-ranking leadership has repeatedly expressed its willingness to discuss any topic-even offering to release all individuals the U.S. considers political prisoners. In just the past few years, there have been new, developing social and cultural spaces where political critiques are being expressed-independently-by Cubans themselves. These have been accompanied by several deregulatory measures by the new President there.
Internationally, U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is overwhelmingly denounced. From the U.N General Assembly condemning the embargo for 17 consecutive years to the Organization of American States (OAS) recently deciding to rectify the act of excluding Cuba, the international community has clearly called for a multilateral approach that includes-not isolates-Cuba.
Thus, the question is not why we should lift the embargo-with the travel restrictions as part of their enforcement-but why is it still in place? Such a justification is inconsistent with our constitutional rights, your electoral pledge for foreign relations based on respect and equality and the most decent, humanitarian sentiments of the U.S. people. Such sentiments require an opening of exchange, an end to the embargo and all other acts against Cuba, including the incarceration of the 5 Cuban patriots-sent here to cooperate with the U.S. government against terrorism-whom you can, and should free through a presidential pardon.
Therefore, we ask that you-with your authority as President-transcend the old, stalled politics of yesterday. We urge you to support lifting the travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens and residents, and take serious steps towards ending the economic embargo on Cuba. Only then can a new beginning begin, where the U.S. and Cuba lay the foundation for a relationship based on friendship and mutual respect.
Until then, we will travel to Cuba as the 40th contingent of the Venceremos Brigade, demanding a U.S. foreign policy that respects our rights and our sentiments towards the Cuban people.
Sincerely,
Diego Iniguez-Lopez
(Tel 201-294-0941)
Bonnie Massey
(Tel 917-607-2264)
On behalf of the Venceremos Brigade, 40th contingent
Venceremos Brigade
PO Box 5202
Englewood, NJ 07631-5202
email: vbrigade@yahoo.com
voicemail: 212-560-4360
website: www.venceremosbrigade.org
"...one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The White House
Washington DC
Dear President Obama,
On August 3rd, 2009, over 140 of us will be returning from Cuba-without a government license-in defiance of the travel restrictions and economic embargo that our government has imposed on that nation for close to 50 years.
We are traveling to Cuba in order to denounce a failed and inhumane policy towards Cuba, and to express our solidarity with the Cuban people and their struggles. We are aware that we face repercussions for our act of civil disobedience, but are strengthened by Martin Luther King Jr.’s conviction that “one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws”.
For the past half-century, the United States has pursued a policy implemented with the explicit purpose of making the Cuban people suffer to such an extent that they-out of misery and poverty-overthrow their government. The Cuban people can no longer be collateral damage for an outdated foreign policy. We reject such hostilities, and call for your administration to realize its own pledges for a more diplomatic and humane U.S. that respects the sovereignty of other nations. We strongly urge you to take meaningful steps towards ending the economic embargo and lifting all travel restrictions to Cuba for all U.S. citizens and residents.
Many of us identify with the philosophical principle that you were elected on-a platform of change-and that is our incentive towards contacting you. At this historical moment, your administration has the opportunity to start that new beginning you mentioned the U.S. was seeking. We agree and call for more engagement.
We are students, teachers, medical personnel, autoworkers, social workers, artists, professors, lawyers and community organizers, among other occupations. We are an intergenerational group of different races, ethnicities, sexes, and sexual orientations, and are traveling from throughout the U.S. We will be doing volunteer work (in the past 40 years, this has varied from sugar cane harvests to painting neighborhood hospitals to renovating schools) and meeting with Cubans throughout the island (from rappers to hurricane relief workers to those fighting for LGBT equality to the Federation of Cuban Women); opening up engagement and dialogue among both people while exercising our constitutional right to travel.
This is what unites us: our affirmation of our constitutional right to travel, solidarity with the Cuban people, and an absolute condemnation of a foreign policy that has used the Cuban people’s suffering as a political pawn, blocking off engagement between both countries.
The time for rectifying U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is past due.
Your administration has recently taken steps towards dialogue with Cuba. There is bipartisan support in both houses of Congress for further opening. The majority of the U.S. population-including Cuban Americans-is in favor of these measures. In addition, congressional momentum towards easing the embargo has been in line with the expansion of internet-based technologies within Cuba, as well as economic benefits for the U.S., particularly for the agricultural industry and small, minority- and women-owned businesses. Furthermore, the very constitutionality of the travel restrictions, a means of enforcing the embargo, will soon be challenged in our federal courts.
In Cuba, the highest-ranking leadership has repeatedly expressed its willingness to discuss any topic-even offering to release all individuals the U.S. considers political prisoners. In just the past few years, there have been new, developing social and cultural spaces where political critiques are being expressed-independently-by Cubans themselves. These have been accompanied by several deregulatory measures by the new President there.
Internationally, U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba is overwhelmingly denounced. From the U.N General Assembly condemning the embargo for 17 consecutive years to the Organization of American States (OAS) recently deciding to rectify the act of excluding Cuba, the international community has clearly called for a multilateral approach that includes-not isolates-Cuba.
Thus, the question is not why we should lift the embargo-with the travel restrictions as part of their enforcement-but why is it still in place? Such a justification is inconsistent with our constitutional rights, your electoral pledge for foreign relations based on respect and equality and the most decent, humanitarian sentiments of the U.S. people. Such sentiments require an opening of exchange, an end to the embargo and all other acts against Cuba, including the incarceration of the 5 Cuban patriots-sent here to cooperate with the U.S. government against terrorism-whom you can, and should free through a presidential pardon.
Therefore, we ask that you-with your authority as President-transcend the old, stalled politics of yesterday. We urge you to support lifting the travel restrictions for all U.S. citizens and residents, and take serious steps towards ending the economic embargo on Cuba. Only then can a new beginning begin, where the U.S. and Cuba lay the foundation for a relationship based on friendship and mutual respect.
Until then, we will travel to Cuba as the 40th contingent of the Venceremos Brigade, demanding a U.S. foreign policy that respects our rights and our sentiments towards the Cuban people.
Sincerely,
Diego Iniguez-Lopez
(Tel 201-294-0941)
Bonnie Massey
(Tel 917-607-2264)
On behalf of the Venceremos Brigade, 40th contingent
Venceremos Brigade
PO Box 5202
Englewood, NJ 07631-5202
email: vbrigade@yahoo.com
voicemail: 212-560-4360
website: www.venceremosbrigade.org
"...one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws"
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
'Breaking the Silence' in Gaza
Israel soldiers speak out on Gaza
BBC (click here for the original)B
Israeli soldiers deployed on the Israel-Gaza border 28 Decmeber 2008
Soldier testimonies appear to contradict official Israeli statements
Israeli soldiers have described the use of "permissive" rules of engagement that cost civilian lives during the recent military campaign in Gaza.
The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said civilians were sometimes used as human shields.
Breaking the Silence, a campaign group made up of Israeli soldiers, gathered the anonymous accounts.
Israel denies breaking the laws of war and dismissed the report as hearsay.
Breaking the Silence described most of the testimonies of soldiers who took part in Operation Cast Lead as "sober, regretful and shocked".
GAZA REPORT
Breaking the Silence report on Operation Cast Lead[469KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
Many of the testimonies are in line with claims made by human-rights organisations that Israeli military action in Gaza was indiscriminate and disproportionate.
According to testimonies from the 14 conscripts and 12 reserve soldiers:
• Rules of engagement were either unclear or encouraged soldiers to do their utmost to protect their own lives whether or not Palestinian civilians were harmed.
• Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers
• Large swathes of homes and buildings were demolished. Accounts say that this was often done because the houses might be booby-trapped, or cover tunnels. Testimony mentioned a policy referred to as "the day after", whereby areas near the border where razed to make future military operations easier
• Many troops had a generally aggressive, ill-disciplined attitude
• There was widespread vandalism of property of Palestinians
• Soldiers firing at water tanks because they were bored, at a time of severe water shortages for Gazans
• White phosphorus was used in civilian areas gratuitously and recklessly
• Many of the soldiers said there had been very little direct engagement with Palestinian militants
The report says Israeli troops and the people who justify their actions are "slid[ing] together down the moral slippery slope".
DIFFERENT DEATH TOLLS
Palestinians killed during Israeli military offensive in Gaza, 27 Dec to 18 Jan - Palestinian claims followed by Israelis claims:
Total dead: 1,434 / 1,166
Fighters: 235 / 710-870
Non-combatants: 906 / 295-460
Women: 121 / 49
Children under 16: 288 / 89
Sources: Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Israeli Defence Intelligence Research Dept
Amnesty details Gaza 'war crimes'
Israelis followed law in Gaza
Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?
"This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate anew the results of our actions," Breaking the Silence says.
Israeli officials insist troops went to great lengths to protect civilians, that Hamas endangered non-combatants by firing from civilian areas and that homes and buildings were destroyed only when there was a specific military need to do so.
Israel said the purpose of the 22-day operation that ended on 18 January 2009 had been to end rocket fire from Gaza aimed at its southern towns.
Palestinian rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians died during the operation. Thirteen Israelis died in the conflict, including 10 soldiers serving in Gaza.
According to the UN, the campaign damaged or destroyed more than 50,000 homes, 800 industrial properties, 200 schools, 39 mosques and two churches.
Investigations
Reacting to the report, Israeli military spokeswoman Lt Col Avital Leibovich said:
"The IDF regrets the fact that another human rights organisation has come out with a report based on anonymous and general testimony - without investigating their credibility."
Destroyed Palestinian home in Rafah, southern Gaza
Thousands of Gazan's were made homeless by Israel's operation
She dismissed the document as "hearsay and word of mouth".
"The IDF expects every soldier to turn to the appropriate authorities with any allegation," Lt Col Leibovich added. "This is even more important where the harm is to non-combatants. The IDF has uncompromising ethical values which continue to guide us in every mission."
There have been several investigations into the conduct of Israel's operation in Gaza, and both Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that runs the territory, have faced accusations of war crimes.
An internal investigations by the Israeli military said troops fought lawfully, although errors did take place, such as the deaths of 21 people in a house that had been wrongly targeted.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has requested more than $11m (£7m) in compensation from Israel for damage to UN property in Gaza. A limited UN inquiry blamed Israel in six out of nine attacks on UN facilities, resulting in casualties among civilians sheltering there.
Meanwhile, a fact-finding team commissioned by the Arab League concluded there was enough evidence to prosecute the Israeli military for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that "the Israeli political leadership was also responsible for such crimes".
It also said Palestinian militants were guilty of war crimes in their use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians.
BBC (click here for the original)B
Israeli soldiers deployed on the Israel-Gaza border 28 Decmeber 2008
Soldier testimonies appear to contradict official Israeli statements
Israeli soldiers have described the use of "permissive" rules of engagement that cost civilian lives during the recent military campaign in Gaza.
The troops said they had been urged to fire on any building or person that seemed suspicious and said civilians were sometimes used as human shields.
Breaking the Silence, a campaign group made up of Israeli soldiers, gathered the anonymous accounts.
Israel denies breaking the laws of war and dismissed the report as hearsay.
Breaking the Silence described most of the testimonies of soldiers who took part in Operation Cast Lead as "sober, regretful and shocked".
GAZA REPORT
Breaking the Silence report on Operation Cast Lead[469KB]
Most computers will open this document automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader
Download the reader here
Many of the testimonies are in line with claims made by human-rights organisations that Israeli military action in Gaza was indiscriminate and disproportionate.
According to testimonies from the 14 conscripts and 12 reserve soldiers:
• Rules of engagement were either unclear or encouraged soldiers to do their utmost to protect their own lives whether or not Palestinian civilians were harmed.
• Civilians were used as human shields, entering buildings ahead of soldiers
• Large swathes of homes and buildings were demolished. Accounts say that this was often done because the houses might be booby-trapped, or cover tunnels. Testimony mentioned a policy referred to as "the day after", whereby areas near the border where razed to make future military operations easier
• Many troops had a generally aggressive, ill-disciplined attitude
• There was widespread vandalism of property of Palestinians
• Soldiers firing at water tanks because they were bored, at a time of severe water shortages for Gazans
• White phosphorus was used in civilian areas gratuitously and recklessly
• Many of the soldiers said there had been very little direct engagement with Palestinian militants
The report says Israeli troops and the people who justify their actions are "slid[ing] together down the moral slippery slope".
DIFFERENT DEATH TOLLS
Palestinians killed during Israeli military offensive in Gaza, 27 Dec to 18 Jan - Palestinian claims followed by Israelis claims:
Total dead: 1,434 / 1,166
Fighters: 235 / 710-870
Non-combatants: 906 / 295-460
Women: 121 / 49
Children under 16: 288 / 89
Sources: Palestinian Centre for Human Rights and Israeli Defence Intelligence Research Dept
Amnesty details Gaza 'war crimes'
Israelis followed law in Gaza
Gaza conflict: Who is a civilian?
"This is an urgent call to Israeli society and its leaders to sober up and investigate anew the results of our actions," Breaking the Silence says.
Israeli officials insist troops went to great lengths to protect civilians, that Hamas endangered non-combatants by firing from civilian areas and that homes and buildings were destroyed only when there was a specific military need to do so.
Israel said the purpose of the 22-day operation that ended on 18 January 2009 had been to end rocket fire from Gaza aimed at its southern towns.
Palestinian rights groups say about 1,400 Palestinians died during the operation. Thirteen Israelis died in the conflict, including 10 soldiers serving in Gaza.
According to the UN, the campaign damaged or destroyed more than 50,000 homes, 800 industrial properties, 200 schools, 39 mosques and two churches.
Investigations
Reacting to the report, Israeli military spokeswoman Lt Col Avital Leibovich said:
"The IDF regrets the fact that another human rights organisation has come out with a report based on anonymous and general testimony - without investigating their credibility."
Destroyed Palestinian home in Rafah, southern Gaza
Thousands of Gazan's were made homeless by Israel's operation
She dismissed the document as "hearsay and word of mouth".
"The IDF expects every soldier to turn to the appropriate authorities with any allegation," Lt Col Leibovich added. "This is even more important where the harm is to non-combatants. The IDF has uncompromising ethical values which continue to guide us in every mission."
There have been several investigations into the conduct of Israel's operation in Gaza, and both Israel and Hamas, the Palestinian militant group that runs the territory, have faced accusations of war crimes.
An internal investigations by the Israeli military said troops fought lawfully, although errors did take place, such as the deaths of 21 people in a house that had been wrongly targeted.
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has requested more than $11m (£7m) in compensation from Israel for damage to UN property in Gaza. A limited UN inquiry blamed Israel in six out of nine attacks on UN facilities, resulting in casualties among civilians sheltering there.
Meanwhile, a fact-finding team commissioned by the Arab League concluded there was enough evidence to prosecute the Israeli military for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and that "the Israeli political leadership was also responsible for such crimes".
It also said Palestinian militants were guilty of war crimes in their use of indiscriminate rocket attacks on civilians.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)