La Germania chiudera’ tutte le sue 84 centrali a carbone, e usera’ solo energia rinnovabile

It’s also an important signal for the world that Germany is again getting serious about climate change: a very big industrial nation that depends so much on coal is switching it off Claudia Kemfert, German Institute for Economic Research Berlin Neanche questa notizia arrivera’ sul fossilizzato Corriere della Sera o sara’ oggetto dei petrol-editoriali di…

via La Germania chiudera’ tutte le sue 84 centrali a carbone, e usera’ solo energia rinnovabile — Notizie dal Mondo

Annunci

Controllare il messaggio, controllare il mondo: Dal Vietnam al Venezuela

Scott Patrick 12 febbraio 2019 Nel 2019, un colpo di stato sostenuto dagli Stati Uniti sta avendo luogo in America Latina contro il…

via Controllare il messaggio, controllare il mondo: Dal Vietnam al Venezuela — Notizie dal Mondo

I falsi ebrei

La mitologia del moderno Israele

La mitologia del moderno Israele
(Foto di Leopoldo Salmaso)

di Tariq Ali 1

Questo articolo è la trascrizione da una conferenza tenuta presso la Rothko Chapel

 

“…

Al fine di creare un mito per giustificare l’esistenza dello stato di Israele, i leader sionisti avevano due argomenti:
– uno, che queste erano terre bibliche storicamente appartenenti al popolo ebraico;
– e in secondo luogo, queste terre erano concentrate in quella che oggi è la Palestina.

Quindi l’occupazione della Palestina e la creazione di Israele in questo particolare territorio era assolutamente essenziale.

Ora, sapete, molti di noi hanno confutato la loro tesi, e anche loro confutano lenostre, ma… non è questo il punto.

Quello che interessa qui è che uno storico ebreo molto illustre, o dovrei dire uno storico israeliano, perché lui preferisce essere definito storico israeliano, Shlomo Sand dell’Università di Tel Aviv, ha scritto un libro molto interessante che ha scatenato una tempesta. Il suo libro, che è stato scritto inizialmente in ebraico, è diventato un best-seller in Israele, ha travolto il paese come un uragano. Ci volle un po’ di tempo prima che venisse pubblicato in Occidente, ma alla fine lo fu, prima in Francia e poi in Gran Bretagna e negli Stati Uniti. Ha suscitato un grande dibattito ed è stato molto interessante il fatto che Shlomo Sand ha essenzialmente decostruito tutti i miti del sionismo, con molta calma. Ha detto: “Guardate, non dovremmo usare questi miti per giustificare l’esistenza di Israele”.

Israele è qui per restare. Penso che tutti i cittadini di Israele, siano essi ebrei o palestinesi, arabi, cristiani, musulmani, dovrebbero avere gli stessi diritti. E dovremmo bloccare la legge per cui, se sei ebreo, puoi tornare in questa terra. È pazzesco, ha detto, perché dovremmo farlo ancora? Ma per far valere questo argomento egli ha fatto davvero molto lavoro storico e antropologico, e ha sostenuto che, dopo la distruzione del tempio nel 70 d.C., contrariamente alla mitologia non ci sono state espulsioni di ebrei dalla regione. (Shlomo) ha giustamente sottolineato che i romani non avevano l’abitudine di espellere le popolazioni dalle terre che avevano conquistato, perché erano molto intelligenti e avevano bisogno di coltivatori e persone che lavoravano in quelle terre, perché le legioni romane non lo facevano.

E lui (Shlomo) ha detto che non solo non c’erano espulsioni, ma, allo stesso tempo, c’erano sltre comunità ebraiche che contavano 4 milioni di persone, cioè un numero enorme per quei tempi, in Persia, Egitto, Asia Minore e altrove, che erano e sono rimaste fuori (dalla Palestina).

Egli ha anche sostenuto che l’idea che la fede ebraica, dopo la separazione da essa del movimento riformatore conosciuto come cristianesimo, non credesse nel proselitismo è del tutto falsa: ne fecero di proselitismo, molte persone si convertirono; alcuni si convertirono spontaneamente, mentre gli ebrei askenazisti in particolare nacquero dalle conversioni di massa ai margini del Mar Caspio, tra il VII e il X secolo, fra i Kazari, che finalmente adottarono l’ebraismo e si convertirono all’ebraismo in massa (per decreto regale -NdT), e questi sono gli ebrei ashkenazisti che popolarono l’Europa, e i ghetti d’Europa, e che soffrirono sotto l’Olocausto e tutto il resto.

Queste sono le persone che discendono dai Kazari. Loro in particolare, come dice Shlomo, costituivano la maggior parte del movimento sionista, non avevano assolutamente alcun legame con le terre arabe. Poi lui si è spinto oltre e ha detto: se la Palestina non è l’unica patria ancestrale degli ebrei, che cosa è successo a tutti gli ebrei in questi paesi? E qui trova una spiegazione devastante: dice che in larga maggioranza si sono convertiti all’Islam. Si sono convertiti all’Islam, la maggior parte di loro, non tutti, come molti altri popoli di quella regione all’epoca.

E dice che i palestinesi che abbiamo espulso e oppresso sono i diretti discendenti degli ebrei che un tempo vivevano, vivevano realmente in questa terra. È un libro notevole, e ha creato un enorme dibattito, e il dibattito, dice, non è in Israele. Ed è interessante questo: la maggior parte degli storici israeliani accettano che questa ricostruzione storica è accurata, ma dicono che la loro risposta alla scienza è: “beh, sai, ogni nazione crea la propria mitologia, quindi qual è il grande problema?”. Anche questo è vero, tra l’altro, ma questa mitologia è molto potente, e molto efficace perché questa mitologia è stata diffusa e opera ancora.

Voglio dire, a nessuno importerebbe la mitologia se tutto fosse stato sistemato e se fosse stato raggiunto un accordo, ma poiché non lo è stato, diventa una forza dirompente. E lo stesso Shlomo Sand non è affatto una figura radicale. Dice: “io non sono un sionista hardcore ma credo in Israele, però penso che tutti i cittadini dovrebbero avere gli stessi diritti e non si può dire ai palestinesi: “non tornate in terre che vi sono state portate via”, e intanto continuare a dire agli ebrei, ovunque si trovino in qualsiasi parte del mondo: “potete tornare quando volete”. E ha detto che è per questo che lui ha scritto il libro: per lottare per l’uguaglianza. E i grandi attacchi al libro sono arrivati dalla diaspora. Voglio dire che il New York Times ne ha fatto una grande, grande recensione, il che ha creato un’enorme controversia. E in Francia e in Gran Bretagna non ci sono state polemiche, nel complesso si è accettato che ciò che lui sosteneva fosse vero. Intendo dire che tutti gli storici che hanno recensito il libro hanno detto che è accurato, sapete, non si può estrometterlo dalla storia, perché noi accettiamo le sue tesi. Ma la diaspora era arrabbiata anche solo per il fatto che fossero state esposte, così Sand rispose in modo molto acuto: “Beh, se siete così ansiosi di dire che ho torto e che quello che sto facendo danneggia Israele, perché non mettete i vostri soldi dove avete messo la bocca, e lasciate la diaspora e venite a stabilirvi in Israele?

Ha detto: “Se siete così appassionati per Israele, perché non venite a vivere qui? Noi viviamo qui e sappiamo come viviamo”. E ha detto ancora: “non viviamo bene, né noi né i non ebrei di quella parte del mondo, ed è per questo che ho scritto il mio libro”.

Ora, Shlomo è un tipo molto coraggioso, tra l’altro non è l’unico: molti storici israeliani hanno scritto libri di questo tipo, ma hanno avuto qualche impatto sui governanti del mondo o sui governanti di Israele?

E qui penso che la risposta sia no.

Una delle cose interessanti che Shlomo Sand cita nel suo libro è una dichiarazione di David ben Gurion, uno dei padri fondatori di Israele, nel 1918, dove ben Gurion scrive: “Sapete, la gente chiede cosa è successo agli ebrei che vivevano in questa regione. Erano fedeli alla terra e per rimanere in questa terra, dice, la maggior parte degli ebrei sono diventati musulmani”. Così lui lo sapeva, e loro lo sapevano, i capi di Israele, che questa mitologia che si stava creando sulla base delle citazioni dell’Antico Testamento era in gran parte mitologia, non basata su alcuna realtà storica.

Ecco quindi un esempio di abuso della storia, un abuso che scatena un dibattito enorme e molto creativo, ma naturalmente i soli dibattiti e i libri, anche se forti e potenti come quello scritto da questo storico israeliano, non influenzano le menti dei politici o dei governanti perché alla fine non governano sulla base dei miti. I miti servono per tenere le persone in riga, essi governano per altri motivi: per mantenersi al potere, per mantenere il controllo della società così com’è, e questo non vale solo per Israele, si applica alla maggior parte dei governanti delle diverse parti del mondo, del mondo di oggi.

…“.

 

1 Tariq Ali è uno scrittore, giornalista, storico, regista, attivista politico e intellettuale pubblico. E’ membro del comitato editoriale della New Left Review e di Sin Permiso, e contribuisce a The Guardian, CounterPunch e alla London Review of Books. Insegna Filosofia Politica ed Economica all’Exeter College, Oxford.

È autore di diversi libri, tra cui ‘Pakistan: regime militare o potere al popolo (1970); ‘Il Pakistan può sopravvivere? Morte di uno Stato’ (1983); ‘Scontro di fondamentalismi: crociate, jihad e modernità’ (2002); ‘Bush a Babilonia’ (2003); ‘Conversazioni con Edward Said’ (2005); ‘Pirati dei Caraibi: Asse della speranza’ (2006); ‘Un banchiere per tutte le stagioni’ (2007); ‘Il duello’ (2008); ‘La sindrome di Obama’ (2010); e ‘Il centro estremo: Un avvertimento’ (2015).

 

Traduzione dall’inglese di Leopoldo Salmaso


The Mythology of Modern Israel

The Mythology of Modern Israel
(Image by Flickr, modified)

by Tariq Ali1

This article is a transcription extracted from a conference at Rothko Chapel.

 

“…
In order to create a myth to justify the existence of the state (Israel), the Zionist leaders of Israel had two arguments:
– one, that these were biblical lands historically belonging to the Jewish people;
– and secondly, these lands were concentrated in what is now Palestine.

Therefore the occupation of Palestine and the creation of Israel in this particular territory was absolutely essential.

Now, you know, many of us argued against, and they would say they argue too, but… we don’t matter.
What is interesting now is that a very distinguished Jewish historian, or I should say an Israeli historian because that is: he prefers being referred to as an Israeli historian, Shlomo Sand at the University of Tel Aviv, wrote a very interesting book which created a storm. And his book, which was written initially in Hebrew, became a best-seller in Israel, just took the country by storm. It took some time before it was published in the West but it finally was, first in France and then in Britain and the United States. It created a big debate and what was very interesting was that Shlomo Sand essentially deconstructed all the myths of Zionism, quite calmly, and he said: “look, we shouldn’t use these myths to justify the existence of Israel”.
Israel is here to stay. I think all the citizens of Israel, whether they’re Jews or Palestinians, Arabs, Christians, Muslims, should have the same rights. And we should stop the right that, if you’re a Jew, you can come back to this land. It’s crazy, he said, why should we do this anymore? But in order to put this argument forward he really did a lot of historical and anthropological work, and he argued that, after the destruction of the temple in AD 70, contrary to mythology there were no expulsions of Jews from the region. He pointed out correctly that the Romans were not in the habit of expelling populations from lands that they conquered, because they were very intelligent and they needed cultivators and people working the areas, because the Roman legions didn’t do that.

And he (Shlomo) said not only were there no expulsions but, at the same time, there were Jewish communities numbering 4 million people, which is a huge amount for those times, in Persia, Egypt, Asia Minor and elsewhere, who stayed out.

And he then argued that the notion that the Jewish faith, after the separation of the reform movement known as Christianity from it, didn’t believe in proselytization is totally false: they did (proselitism), many people were converted; some converted themselves, and the Ashkenazi Jews in particular grew out of the mass conversions on the edge of the Caspian Sea, between the seventh and tenth centuries, off the khazars, who finally adopted Hebrew and converted to Judaism wholesale, and these are the Ashkenazi Jews who peopled Europe, and the ghettos of Europe, and who suffered under the Holocaust and all that.

These are those people descending from the khazars so he (Shlomo) said they in particular, who formed the bulk of the Zionist movement, had absolutely no connection with the Arab lands at all. Then he went even further so he said: if Palestine is not the unique ancestral homeland of the Jews, what happened to all the Jews in these countries? And here he comes up with a devastating explanation: he says by and large in their majority they converted to Islam, they converted to Islam, most of them not all of them, as many other people did in that region at the time.

And he says that the Palestinians whom we have been expelling and oppressing are the direct descendants of the Jews who used to live, actually live in this land. It’s a remarkable book, and it has created a huge debate, and the debate, he says, is not in Israel. And it’s interesting this: most Israeli historians accept that this is accurate, but they say their response to science is to say: well, you know, every nation creates its own mythology so what’s the big deal? But you know this is also true, by the way, but this mythology is very potent, and very powerful because this thing that is unleashed is still going on.

I mean, no one would mind the mythology if everything had been settled and some agreement had been reached, but because it hasn’t, it becomes a very disruptive force. And Shlomo Sand himself is by no means a radical figure. He says: I’m not a hardcore Zionist but I believe in Israel, except that I think all citizens should have equal rights and you can’t say to the Palestinians: “don’t come back to lands that were taken away from you”, as long as you keep saying to Jews, wherever they may be in whichever part of the world: “you can come back whenever you want”. And he said that’s why he wrote the book: to fight for equality. And the big attacks on the book have come from the Diaspora. I mean the New York Times ran a big, big review of it, which created a huge controversy. And in France and in Britain there was no controversy at all, by and large it was accepted that what he argued was true. I mean all the historians who reviewed the book said it’s accurate, you know, you can’t sort of catch him out of history, because we accept this. But the Diaspora was angry that this had even been said, to which Sand replied very very sharply: “well, if you’re so keen to say that I’m wrong and what I’m doing is harming Israel, why don’t you put your money where your mouth is, and leave the diaspora and come and settle in Israel?”.

He said: “if you’re that keen on the country, why don’t you come and live here, we live here and we know how we live”. And he said that: “how we live is not good, either for us or for the non-jews in that part of the world, and that is why I’ve written my book”.

Now, he’s a very courageous guy, by the way he’s not the only one: many Israeli historians have written books of this sort but do they have any impact on the rulers of the world or the rulers of Israel?
And here I think the answer is no.

And one of the interesting thing Shlomo Sand quotes in his book is a statement from David ben Gurion, one of the founding fathers of Israel, in 1918, where ben Gurion writes: “you know, people ask what happened to the Jews who lived in this region. They were loyal to the land and in order to stay in this land, he says, most of the Jews became Muslims”. So he knew it, and they knew it, the leaders of Israel, that this mythology that was being created on the basis of quotations from the Old Testament was largely mythology, not based on any historical reality at all.

So here you have an example of history being abused, but at the same time the abuse triggering off a huge and very creative debate, but of course debates alone and books, even as strong and powerful as the one written by this Israeli historian, do not sway the minds of politicians or rulers because ultimately they do not rule on the basis of the myths. The myths are to keep people in line, they rule for other reasons: to keep themselves in power, to keep control of the society as it is, and this doesn’t just apply to Israel, it applies to most of the rulers of different parts of the world, of the world today.
…”

Tariq Ali is a BritishPakistani writer, journalist, historian, filmmaker, political activist, and public intellectual. He is a member of the editorial committee of the New Left Review and Sin Permiso, and contributes to The Guardian, CounterPunch, and theLondon Review of Books. He reads PPE at Exeter College, Oxford.
He is the author of several books, including Pakistan: Military Rule or People’s Power (1970), Can Pakistan Survive? The Death of a State (1983), Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity (2002), Bush in Babylon (2003), Conversations with Edward Said (2005), Pirates Of The Caribbean: Axis Of Hope (2006), A Banker for All Seasons (2007), The Duel (2008), The Obama Syndrome (2010) and The Extreme Centre: A Warning (2015).


La mitología de Israel moderno

La mitología de Israel moderno
(Imagen de Flickr, modificado)

Por Tariq Ali[1]

Este artículo es una transcripción extraída de una conferencia en la Capilla Rothko.

“…

Para crear un mito que justificara la existencia del Estado (Israel), los líderes sionistas de Israel tenían dos argumentos:

– uno, que estas eran tierras bíblicas que pertenecían históricamente al pueblo judío;

– y, en segundo lugar, estas tierras estaban concentradas en lo que ahora es Palestina.

Por lo tanto, la ocupación de Palestina y la creación de Israel en este territorio en particular eran absolutamente esenciales.

Ahora, ustedes saben, muchos de nosotros discutimos en contra, y ellos dirían que ellos también lo hacen, pero… no nos importa.

Lo que es interesante ahora es que un historiador judío muy distinguido, o debería decir un historiador israelí, porque eso es: prefiere que se le llame historiador israelí, Shlomo Sand, de la Universidad de Tel Aviv, escribió un libro muy interesante que creó una tormenta. Y su libro, que fue escrito inicialmente en hebreo, se convirtió en un best-seller en Israel, simplemente tomó el país por asalto. Pasó algún tiempo antes de que se publicara en Occidente, pero finalmente lo fue, primero en Francia y luego en Gran Bretaña y los Estados Unidos. Creó un gran debate y lo que fue muy interesante fue que Shlomo Sand esencialmente deconstruyó todos los mitos del sionismo, con bastante calma, y dijo: “Mira, no deberíamos usar estos mitos para justificar la existencia de Israel”.

Israel está aquí para quedarse. Creo que todos los ciudadanos de Israel, ya sean judíos o palestinos, árabes, cristianos, musulmanes, deberían tener los mismos derechos. Y debemos detener el derecho de que, si eres judío, puedes volver a esta tierra. Es una locura, dijo, ¿por qué deberíamos seguir haciendo esto? Pero para poder presentar este argumento, él realmente hizo mucho trabajo histórico y antropológico, y argumentó que, después de la destrucción del templo en el año 70 d.C., contrariamente a la mitología, no hubo expulsiones de judíos de la región. Señaló correctamente que los romanos no tenían la costumbre de expulsar a las poblaciones de las tierras que conquistaron, porque eran muy inteligentes y necesitaban cultivadores y gente que trabajara en las zonas, porque las legiones romanas no lo hacían.

Y él (Shlomo) dijo que no sólo no hubo expulsiones, sino que, al mismo tiempo, hubo comunidades judías de 4 millones de personas, lo cual es una cantidad enorme para aquellos tiempos, en Persia, Egipto, Asia Menor y otros lugares, que se quedaron fuera.

Y luego argumentó que la idea de que la fe judía, después de la separación del movimiento de reforma conocido como cristianismo, no creía en el proselitismo es totalmente falsa: ellos lo hicieron (proselitismo), muchas personas se convirtieron; algunos se convirtieron a sí mismos, y los judíos ashkenazis en particular surgieron de las conversiones masivas al borde del Mar Caspio, entre los siglos VII y X, de los khazars, que finalmente adoptaron el hebreo y se convirtieron al judaísmo al por mayor, y estos son los judíos ashkenazis que poblaron Europa y los guetos de Europa, y que sufrieron a causa del Holocausto y de todo eso.

Estas son las personas que descienden de los kázaros, así que él (Shlomo) dijo que ellos en particular, que formaban el grueso del movimiento sionista, no tenían absolutamente ninguna conexión con las tierras árabes en absoluto. Luego fue aún más lejos y dijo: si Palestina no es la única patria ancestral de los judíos, ¿qué pasó con todos los judíos de estos países? Y aquí viene con una explicación devastadora: dice que en su mayoría se convirtieron al islam, se convirtieron al islam, la mayoría de ellos, no todos, como muchas otras personas lo hicieron en esa región en ese momento.

Y dice que los palestinos a los que hemos estado expulsando y oprimiendo son los descendientes directos de los judíos que solían vivir, en realidad, viven en esta tierra. Es un libro notable, y ha creado un gran debate, y el debate, dice, no está en Israel. Y es interesante esto: la mayoría de los historiadores israelíes aceptan que esto es correcto, pero dicen que su respuesta a la ciencia es la siguiente: bueno, ya sabes, cada nación crea su propia mitología, así que, ¿cuál es el gran problema? Pero ustedes saben que esto también es cierto, de hecho, pero esta mitología es muy potente, y muy poderosa porque esta cosa que se desata todavía está en marcha.

Quiero decir, a nadie le importaría la mitología si todo se hubiera resuelto y se hubiera llegado a algún acuerdo, pero como no se ha logrado, se convierte en una fuerza muy perturbadora. Y el propio Shlomo Sand no es en absoluto una figura radical. Dice: No soy un sionista duro, pero creo en Israel, excepto que creo que todos los ciudadanos deben tener los mismos derechos y no se puede decir a los palestinos: “No vuelvas a las tierras que te fueron arrebatadas”, mientras sigas diciéndole a los judíos, dondequiera que estén en cualquier parte del mundo: “puedes volver cuando quieras”. Y dijo que por eso escribió el libro: para luchar por la igualdad. Y los grandes ataques al libro han venido de la diáspora. Quiero decir que el New York Times hizo una gran, gran revisión de la misma, lo que creó una gran controversia. Y en Francia y en Gran Bretaña no hubo ninguna controversia en absoluto, en general se aceptó que lo que él argumentaba era cierto. Quiero decir que todos los historiadores que revisaron el libro dijeron que es exacto, ya sabes, no puedes sacarlo de la historia, porque aceptamos esto. Pero la diáspora se enfadó porque esto ya se había dicho, a lo que Sand respondió de forma muy contundente: “Bueno, si estás tan ansioso por decir que estoy equivocado y que lo que estoy haciendo es dañar a Israel, ¿por qué no pones tu dinero donde está tu boca, dejas la diáspora y vienes a instalarte en Israel?”.

Él dijo: “Si te gusta tanto el campo, ¿por qué no vienes a vivir aquí?, nosotros vivimos aquí y sabemos cómo vivimos”. Y él dijo que: “La forma en que vivimos no es buena, ni para nosotros ni para los no judíos de esa parte del mundo, y por eso he escrito mi libro”.

Ahora bien, es un tipo muy valiente, por cierto, no es el único: muchos historiadores israelíes han escrito libros de este tipo, pero ¿tienen algún impacto en los gobernantes del mundo o en los gobernantes de Israel?

Y aquí creo que la respuesta es no.

Y una de las cosas interesantes que Shlomo Sand cita en su libro es una declaración de David ben Gurion, uno de los padres fundadores de Israel, en 1918, donde Ben Gurion escribe: “Sabes, la gente pregunta qué pasó con los judíos que vivían en esta región. Eran leales a la tierra y para permanecer en ella, dice, la mayoría de los judíos se convirtieron en musulmanes”. Así que él lo sabía, y ellos lo sabían, los líderes de Israel, que esta mitología que se estaba creando sobre la base de citas del Antiguo Testamento era en gran parte mitología, no se basaba en ninguna realidad histórica en absoluto.

Así que aquí tenemos un ejemplo de cómo se abusa de la historia, pero al mismo tiempo el abuso desencadena un debate enorme y muy creativo, pero, por supuesto, los debates por sí solos y los libros, incluso los tan fuertes y poderosos como el escrito por este historiador israelí, no influencian las mentes de los políticos o gobernantes porque, en última instancia, no gobiernan sobre la base de los mitos. Los mitos son mantener a la gente en línea, ellos gobiernan por otras razones: para mantenerse en el poder, para mantener el control de la sociedad tal como es, y esto no sólo se aplica a Israel, se aplica a la mayoría de los gobernantes de diferentes partes del mundo, del mundo de hoy.

…”

[1] Tariq Ali es un escritor, periodista, historiador, cineasta, activista político e intelectual británico paquistaní. Es miembro del comité editorial de New Left Review y Sin Permiso, y contribuye con The Guardian, CounterPunch y London Review of Books. Es profesor de EPP en el Exeter College de Oxford.

Es autor de varios libros, entre ellos, Pakistán: Military Rule or People’s Power (1970), Can Pakistan Survive? The Death of a State (1983), Clash of Fundamentalisms: Crusades, Jihads and Modernity (2002), Bush in Babylon (2003), Conversations with Edward Said (2005), Pirates Of The Caribbean: Axis Of Hope (2006), A Banker for All Seasons (2007), The Duel (2008), The Obama Syndrome (2010) y The Extreme Centre: A Warning (2015).

thanks to: Redazione italiana di Pressenza

Nuclear Power Reactors in the World 2018 Edition

This is the 38th edition of Reference Data Series No. 2, which presents the most recent reactor data available to the IAEA. It contains summarized information as of the end of 2017 on power reactors operating, under construction and shut down as well as performance data on reactors operating in the IAEA Member States. The information is collected through designated national correspondents in the Member States and the data are used to maintain the IAEA’s Power Reactor Information System (PRIS).

 

 

 

Download: https://www-pub.iaea.org/books/IAEABooks/13379/Nuclear-Power-Reactors-in-the-World

Washington Is Destroying the World

The aggressive and mindless position of Washington is destroying the world, Paul Craig Roberts believes.

ATLANTA, October 7 (RIA Novosti) – The aggressive and mindless stance Washington’s warmongers have taken toward Russia and China has shattered the accomplishment of Reagan and Gorbachev.

Reagan and Gorbachev ended the cold war and removed the threat of nuclear armageddon. Now the neocons, the US budget-dependent (taxpayer dependent) US military/security complex and the US politicians dependent on campaign funds from the military/security complex have resurrected the nuclear threat.

The corrupt and duplicitous Clinton regime broke the agreement that the George H.W. Bush administration gave Moscow in 1990. In exchange for Moscow permitting a reunified Germany to be a NATO member, Washington agreed that there would be no expansion of NATO to the east. Gorbachev, US Secretary of State James Baker, US ambassador to Moscow Jack Matlock and declassified documents all testify to the fact that Moscow was assured that there would be no expansion of NATO into Eastern Europe.

In 1999 President Bill Clinton made a liar of the administration of President George H.W. Bush. The corrupt Clinton brought Poland, Hungary, and the newly formed Czech Republic into NATO.

President George W. Bush also made a liar out of his father, George H.W. Bush, and his father’s trusted Secretary of State, James Baker. “Dubya,” as the fool and drunkard is known, brought Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Slovenia, Slovakia, Bulgaria, and Romania into NATO in 2004.  The corrupt and hopeless Obama regime added Albania and Croatia in 2009.

In other words, over the past 21 years three two-term US presidents have taught Moscow that the word of the US government is worthless.

Today Russia is surrounded by US and NATO military bases, with more to come in Ukraine (part of Russia for centuries), Georgia (part of Russia for centuries and the birthplace of Joseph Stalin), Montenegro, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, and perhaps also Azerbaijan.

A large land expanse that was formerly part of the Soviet Empire is now part of Washington’s Empire. The “coming of democracy” simply meant the changing of masters.

Washington always picks the puppet who serves as Secretary General of NATO.  The latest is a former Norwegian politician and prime minister, Jens Stoltenberg.  On Washington’s orders, the puppet quickly antagonized Moscow with the statement that NATO has a powerful army that has a global policing role and can be deployed wherever Washington wishes. This claim is a total contradiction of NATO’s purpose and charter.

Igor Korochenko, a member of the Russian Defense Ministry Public Council replied to Washington’s puppet Stoltenberg: “Such statements run counter to the system of international security, as the NATO alliance poses a threat to Russia. Therefore, it will cause responsive measures.”

The responsive measures are what you would expect: enough nuclear capability to wipe out the United States and Europe many times over.

The arrogant fools in Washington, wallowing in their hubris as “the indispensable nation,” have provoked Moscow to the point that Russia now has more deployed nuclear weapons than the US. As a result of Washington breaking its word and putting ABM missile bases on Russia’s border, Russia has developed supersonic ICBMs that can rapidly change their trajectory and cannot be shot down by any missile defense system.  Of course, the US corporations making billions of dollars selling Washington a useless ABM system will deny this.

Moreover, those countries, such as Poland, whose governments are sufficiently stupid to accept US ABM bases, would be obliterated before the bases could function. The utter stupidity of Eastern Europe’s bought-and-paid-for governments to put trust in Washington is likely to be the main cause of WW III.

The happy participant in the new Armageddon is the American military/security complex. These [word expelled] – ”private corporations” whose revenues are entirely public funds – are guaranteed more money regardless of the potential cost in human life. Their US Senate spokesperson, Jim Inhofe, a member of the Senate Armed Services Subcommittee on Strategic Forces, has resurrected the argument from 60 years ago that America is falling behind in the arms race. Restarting the arms race is essential to the profits of the US military/security complex and to the campaign contributions of senators.

It is not only Russia’s strategic nuclear forces that the fools in Washington have revived and activated, but China’s as well.  Last year China released a pictorial description of how China’s nuclear forces could destroy the US.  This was China’s response to Washington’s insane plan of building new air and naval bases from the Philippines to Vietnam in order to control the flow of resources in the South China Sea.  What kind of idiotic government does America have that thinks China is going to put up with this kind of interference in China’s sphere of influence?

China has now added to its nuclear arsenal a new variant of one of its mobile ICBMs. Washington does not know much about this new missile, because the CIA is too busy arranging protests in Hong Kong.

Both Russia and China were content to be part of the world economy and to improve the economic situation of their citizens by developing their economies.  But along comes the neocon Unipower, a collection of arrogant psychopaths who declare that Washington will not permit any other country, not even Russia and China, to rise to a capability of exercising a foreign policy independent of Washington’s purposes.

Nuclear war is back into the picture. First Washington threatens those it perceives as rivals.  When the perceived rivals don’t submit, Washington demonizes them.

In the histories written by Washington’s court historians, the greatest demons of modern times are the WW II governments of Japan and Germany along with the post-WW II Soviet government of Joseph Stalin. These American court historians ignore the facts.

Japan was forced into war by Washington, which cut off Japan’s access to resources. Japan was then nuked twice while the Japanese government was trying to surrender.

All of US president Woodrow Wilson’s promises made to Germany in order to end WW I, such as no territorial loses and no reparations, were broken. Germany was torn apart and German territory was handed over to Poland, France, and Czechoslovakia. Despite US president Woodrow Wilson’s promise to the contrary, impossible reparations were imposed on Germany by the Treaty of Versailles. The prescient John Maynard Keynes declared that the reparations would result in a second world war. If memory serves, portions of Germany were also given to Belgium, Lithuania, and Denmark.

This humiliation of an industrious and powerful people, whose armies occupied foreign territories when WW I ended, demonstrated the mendacity of the so-called “Western powers.” The French, British, and Americans paved the way for Adolph Hitler. By 1935 Hitler was sufficiently ensconced to denounce the Versailles Treaty. If Hitler had not succumbed to hubris and sent the German armies marching off into Russia where they were destroyed, he, or his successors, would still be ruling Europe today.

The true history is so different from what Washington pretends and Americans are taught. The majority of Americans are blind enablers of Washington’s war on the world. If ebola and global warming don’t destroy humanity, the ignorance of the American people and Washington’s war for world hegemony surely will.

Paul Craig Roberts served as an Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan Administration. He was associate editor and columnist for The Wall Street Journal and columnist for Business Week and the Scripps Howard News Service. In 1992 he received the Warren Brookes Award for Excellence in Journalism. In 1993 the Forbes Media Guide ranked him as one of the top seven journalists in the United States. He is also chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.

thanks to: Paul Craig Roberts

Ria Novosti

At Security Council: A call for more action to end the violation of children’s rights, in conflict

The latest Secretary-General’s report on children and armed conflict points to some worrying trends in warfare, the targeting and use of schools in conflict – and the need for safe havens, even in conflict.

NEW YORK, United States of America, 20 June 2012 – His face and body are badly burned. He can barely speak. His home in Hama, Syrian Arab Republic, went up in flames when it was hit by a rocket – and the family couldn’t get 4-year-old Adnan out in time.

Safe, if destitute, in a makeshift camp in Lebanon, Adnan lives with constant reminder of the brutal war – his own body, his continuing fear.

“In general, the children are quiet,” says Adnan’s father. “When they hear the sound of a plane or a car, they are scared. Adnan is constantly afraid, especially at night. As soon as the sun goes down, he starts crying.”

“If not for these children, for whom will the Council Act?”

Every year, the Secretary-General of the United Nations issues a report that speaks for children like Adnan. Presenting the 12th annual report on children and armed conflict to the Security Council, Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict Leila Zerrougui made a plea for urgent action. “It’s been two years since the conflict in Syria, and yet we are no closer to saving the lives of children,” she said. “Since my last briefing to the Council on children in Syria, scores have been killed, injured, tortured and forced to witness or to commit atrocities. If not for these children, then for whom will this council act?”

UNICEF Image
© UNICEF/DRCA2010-00037/Walther
Boys formerly associated with armed groups in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo learn how to paint in a centre for transit and orientation.

The latest report on children and armed conflict reviews developments over the past year in 21 conflict-hit countries – countries in which children have been killed, maimed, tortured, sexually assaulted,  used as suicide bombers, human shields, cooks and porters. Fifty-five armed forces and groups have been named and shamed for committing grave violations against children, including in Mali, where children were recruited by all armed groups active in the North.

“The evolving nature and tactics of armed conflict have created unprecedented threats for children. The absence of clear frontlines and identifiable opponents and the increasing use of terror tactics have made children more vulnerable,” said Ms. Zerrougui.

Alarming trends

The United Nations report highlights new areas of concern, such as the impact of drones on children, children’s detention for alleged association with armed groups and the use of improvised explosive devices in populated areas. “Armed conflicts frequently occur in urban settings when explosive weapons such as artillery, mortars, rockets, improvised explosive devices and aircraft bombs are used in these areas – they kill or injure large numbers of children. These attacks not only have a long-term emotional and psychological impact on children, they also destroy vital infrastructure like roads and power supply,” UNICEF Deputy Executive Director Yoka Brandt told the Security Council.

Last year, targeted attacks against schools and education personnel were reported from Afghanistan, Mali and the Syrian Arab Republic, among others.  In several countries, schools were used as military barracks, weapons storage facilities, command centres, detention sites and firing positions.

UNICEF Image
© UNICEF Lebanon/2013/Ramoneda
Held here by his father, Adnan, 4, was badly burned in a rocket attack in the Syrian Arab Republic. The family live in abject poverty in a makeshift encampment for Syrian refugees, in Akkar region, Lebanon.

“UNICEF is deeply concerned by this,” said Ms. Brandt. “It poses great risk to children and educators, it robs children of the opportunity to learn and it violates the right to education…We must preserve schools as places of learning and safe havens for children.

“We are encouraged by the leadership of countries like the Philippines that have restricted the use of schools by its armed forces and continues to strengthen its laws and guidelines,” she said.

Commitments don’t save lives – actions do

Despite the growing challenges, the Secretary-General’s report states that there was marked progress in releasing thousands of children from armed groups in countries including the Democratic Republic of  the Congo, Myanmar and the Sudan. More and more governments were brought into the fold with negotiations and action plans to prevent children from being recruited into armed forces.

UNICEF Chief of the Child Protection Division Susan Bissell explains that the protection of children as a sector is relatively new, and the international community made the effects of armed conflict on children a priority only in 2005. “We have two cases of warlords that are discussed in the report that went to the International Criminal Court, and justice was served. So, we have come a long way…and we are setting international precedent here,” she says. “Even in the face of tremendous destruction and changing nature of conflict, we are able to do something to protect children.”

Back at the Security Council, amid talk of action plans, international child rights, task forces and persistent perpetrators, Ms. Brandt made a call to Member States. “Action plans are critical to commit parties in conflict, to halt the violation of children’s rights,” she said. “My call today is that these plans be fully implemented…because commitments don’t save children’s lives – concrete actions do.”

Updated: 21 June 2013
thanks to: UNICEF