Wasseraub in Palästina-Israel

PALÄSTINA

Bild anzeigen

by European Commission DG ECHO, Name: For Palestine Water is also Life

Der Nahe Osten gilt als eine der wasserärmsten Regionen der Welt. Tatsächlich ist aber das natürliche Wasserangebot höchst heterogen verteilt. So fallen z.B. in Gaza nur rund 300mm Regen pro Jahr, während auf den vorwiegend besiedelten Höhen der West Bank (Nablus, Ramallah, Jerusalem, Bethlehem) mehr Regen fällt als in Berlin, Paris oder London.

Seit Beginn seiner Militärbesatzung hat Israel sämtliche Wasserressourcen unter seine exklusive Kontrolle gestellt – durch Miltärerlasse, sogenannte Military Orders (MO 92, Aug/67; MO 158 Nov/67). Palästineser brauchen danach für jegliche Arbeiten im Wasserbereich Erlaubnisscheine (permits), die ihnen jedoch regelmäßig verweigert werden:

So ist die Zahl der seit 1967 bis zu den Oslo-Abkommen 1993/1995 gebohrten neuen palästinensischen Brunnen im größten, produktivsten und frischesten Grundwasserbecken, dem sogenannten Westlichen Aquifer exakt null und seit Oslo-II wiederum null.

So brauchen Palästinenser selbst für Reparaturen und Ausbesserungen bestehender Brunnen israelische Militärpermits. 140 alten landwirtschaftlichen Bewässerungsbrunnen aus jordanischer Zeit werden von Israel solche permits verweigert. Die Gesamtmenge des palästinensischen Wasserzugangs sinkt beständig.

So zerstört Israel sogar inzwischen routinemäßig alte Regensammelzisternen, da diese nach geltendem Militärrecht als illegal betrachtet werden.

Die Siedler selbst kontrollieren keinen Tropfen - das ist alles der israelische Staat selbst (Mekorot als staatliche Wasserfirma und die militärische Civil Administration als staatlicher Arm der Armee). Jedes settlement, jeder "illegale" Outpost wird von Mekorot versorgt.

Von den Grundwassermengen, die der West Bank entspringen und die nach Israel hinein fließen, entnehmen die Palästinenser daher gerade einmal 11%. Fast 90% sind exklusiv für Israel.

Aus diesen rein politischen Gründen spitzt sich die Wasserkrise in der wasserreichen West Bank von Jahr zu Jahr zu. Fast 20% der Gemeinden sind – nach 45 Jahren Besatzung - an kein Wassernetz angeschlossen, während ihre Nachbarn in illegalen Siedlungen und Outposts innerhalb von ein paar Wochen angeschlossen sind. Selbst angeschlossene Gemeinden können palästinensische Wasserwerke lediglich mit 73 Litern pro Kopf und Tag versorgen. Fast eine Million Palästinenser haben nicht einmal 60 Liter Wasser täglich garantiert.

Der Wasserraub und die systematische Diskriminierung in Zugang und Versorgung sind integraler Bestandteil und verstärken die Ungerechtigkeit der Besatzung, die nicht nur zu tiefen ökonomischen und gesundheitlichen Schäden führt. Die andauernde Verweigerung selbst minimaler Versorgungsmengen macht ein Leben in Würde unmöglich. Allerdings hat, entgegen landläufiger Meinung, dies kaum zu Gewaltausbrüchen geführt; statt dessen wachsen und greifen still Perspektivlosigkeit und Ohnmachtsempfinden um sich. Der Weltfriedensdienst unterstützt seit 45 Jahren Menschen in den besetzten Gebieten, die gewaltfrei Widerstand leisten.

< zurück zu DURST!
http://www.wasserraub.de/durst/palaestina/

G-7 has its own designs on South China Sea

Wayne MADSEN | 13.06.2015 | 00:00

The G-7 leaders issued a communique at the close of their summit at Adolf Hitler’s favorite Bavarian retreat of Garmisch-Partenkirchen that vilified China for its claims to islands in the energy-rich South China Sea. The G-7 leaders stated, «We strongly oppose the use of intimidation, coercion or force, as well as any unilateral actions that seek to change the status quo, such as large-scale land reclamation.» What the G-7 leaders failed to mention is that four members of the elite group, the United States, Britain, France, and Japan, have used proxies like the Philippines, Malaysia, Vietnam, Indonesia, Taiwan and the former Republic of Vietnam (South Vietnam) to fortify island possessions in the South China Sea. The G-7 statement was yet another display of the gross hypocrisy of the group as previously evidenced by their sanctions against Russia, Syria, Iran, and other countries. In 1973 and 1974, one of the final military efforts of the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese regime in Saigon was to hold a number of the Paracel Islands as a last-ditch effort by the United States to maintain control over the oil-rich South China Sea and deny the maritime to China. In 1974, China began exploratory drilling in the Paracel Islands and the United States and its South Vietnamese allies attempted to draw «line in the sea» between islands already occupied by China, including Woody Island, and those occupied by South Vietnam. On January 16, 1974, a South Vietnamese frigate was dispatched to Drummond Island where it encountered two armed Chinese fishing trawlers and a Chinese army detachment occupying the island. Chinese naval vessels were also observed off Duncan Island where they were supporting a small Chinese landing force. The South Vietnamese demanded that China withdraw their forces from the South Vietnamese-claimed islands. The Chinese ordered the South Vietnamese to leave the area. The next day, January 17, thirty South Vietnamese commandos, directed by a U.S. Central Intelligence Agency officer assigned to the U.S. embassy in Saigon, landed on Robert Island a removed a Chinese flag. On January 19, South Vietnamese troops landed on Duncan Island and a firefight broke out with Chinese troops. Outnumbered by the Chinese People’s Liberation Army, the South Vietnamese withdrew. After a short air and naval battle, the South Vietnamese Marine garrison on Drummond, Duncan, and Robert islands surrendered to the Chinese. A total of four South Vietnamese frigates were damaged and one was sunk by the Chinese.  The Battle of the Paracels cemented Chinese control of the three surrendered islands, as well as Triton Island, which was also claimed by South Vietnam. The South Vietnamese government protested the action to the United Nations and the North Vietnamese and Vietcong governments remained stonily silent over the Chinese victory. The South Vietnamese lost 53 military personnel and, in addition, the Chinese took 48 prisoners, including a former U.S. Army Green Beret captain, Gerald Kosh, reported to be a «regional security advisor» at the U.S. embassy in Saigon but who was believed to be a CIA agent. In addition to Kosh, there were reports that U.S. Navy SEALs were also on the islands to help the South Vietnamese confront the Chinese. The South Vietnamese / CIA foray into the Paracels in 1974 was no different than the naval and air brinkmanship now being displayed by U.S. naval and air operations in the South China Sea intended to bring about a confrontation with China. Just as the United States used its South Vietnamese proxy in 1974 to initiate a war with China over the Paracels, today it seeks to accomplish the same using the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia, Brunei and Taiwan. Even though the United States has attempted to stir up anti-Chinese military operations among the claimant nations to the South China Sea islands, former Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamed has stated that China is a threat to no one and that it is the United States that is trying to provoke a military confrontation in the maritime region. Malaysian Defense Minister Hishamuddin Hussein has also rejected American bellicosity and said China’s naval patrols of the island region are justified. Even Taiwanese media has accused the United States of being behind Vietnamese-Chinese incidents involving ships and oil platforms. The G-7 leaders conveniently failed to comment on the latent claims of the United Kingdom and France to islands of the South China Sea. Although the two G-7 members have not asserted their claims they have not withdrawn them either. The G-7, displaying its typical hubris, warns China against consolidating its historical claims on the Paracels and Spratlys but fails to admit its own vested interests in the region. The U.S. and Australian media, particularly media owned by the war-minded neo-conservative Rupert Murdoch, have been full of stories claiming that China is militarizing islands in the Paracels and Spratlys, including alarmist pieces about offensive missiles being deployed to the South China Sea. However, CIA intelligence reports prepared as early as 1974 describe Chinese military installations on the South China Sea islands, so the Western media is reporting «old news» in an attempt to heighten tensions on behalf of the U.S. military-intelligence complex. Woody Island, also known as Yongxing and located in the Amphitrite group of the Paracels, was the military and civilian headquarters of the Chinese administration of the Paracels in 1974, according to the CIA’s own SECRET report titled «East Asian Contested Islands» and dated February 1974. Today is it the home of Sansha City, with a civilian and military population of 600. As far as other islands in the South China Sea, the CIA determined in 1974 that many had Chinese military and naval installations. They included Rocky, connected to Woody by a Chinese-built road; Lincoln; Pattle; Robert; and Duncan. As far as China’s presence in the Spratlys on the southern region of the South China Sea, there are military buildings and wharves on South Johnson Reef; a military supply base, gun emplacements, and a radar and radio station on Gavin Reef; a two-story military building and lighthouse on Hughes Reef, and a United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Marine Observation Station, airstrip, and radar station on Fiery Cross Reef. None of these installations suggest any offensive Chinese military threat against Australia or the U.S. Seventh Fleet as alleged by the Murdoch media. Nor are the installations a threatening «Great Wall of Sand» as hysterically described by the U.S. Pacific Fleet Commander, Admiral Harry Harris. President Obama in his military «pivot to Asia» seems to believe that an increased ground, naval, and air presence by the United States in East and Southeast Asia should go unnoticed by regional powers like China. China’s modest naval and infrastructure consolidation on the Paracels and Spratlys are a direct response to aggressive American moves in the region, a strategy that began in 1974 with the U.S.-backed South Vietnamese foray into the Paracels. Recently, a U.S. Navy P-8A Poseidon patrol aircraft flew over Fiery Cross Reef as part of a Pentagon policy of taking «concrete steps» in the region. If the amateur armchair generals and admirals in Washington and Honolulu are fretting over China’s increasing profile in the South China Sea, they have only themselves and their «concrete steps» to blame.

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/06/13/g-7-has-its-own-designs-on-south-china-sea.html

Ayelet Shaked, die neue Israelische Justizministerin

Diese attraktive Frau ist  in der Tat die neue israelische Justizministerin, die noch vor einem Jahr

 auf Facebook offen dazu aufrief, die palästinensischen  Menschen zu vernichten inklusive Frauen und Kinder. Frau steht fassungslos davor.

Siehe mehr dazu :http://mondoweiss.net/2015/05/netanyahu-palestinians-government

Bei Wikipedia ist zu lesen:

Ravid Hecht bezeichnete Schaked in der israelischen Tageszeitung Haaretz als „Vertreterin einer Ideologie, die sich nicht für ihren Rassismus schämt“.^[11] Schaked meinte darauf in der Jerusalem Post, dass Haaretz „gerade mal von 30.000 Israelis gelesen“ werde und dass man sich verlässlichere Quellen suchen solle.^[12]

Im Juni 2014 veröffentlichte sie auf ihrer Facebook-Seite kurzzeitig eine umstrittene Stellungnahme:

Das ist ein Artikel des verstorbenen Eliad Elitzur, der vor zwölf Jahren geschrieben wurde, aber unveröffentlicht blieb. Er ist heute noch genauso relevant wie damals:

„Das palästinensische Volk hat uns den Krieg erklärt, und wir müssen mit Krieg antworten. Nicht mit einer, nicht mit einer langsamen, nicht mit einer Operation niedriger Intensität, nicht mit einer kontrollierten Eskalation, nicht mit der Zerstörung der Infrastruktur der Terroristen, nicht mit gezielten Tötungen. Genug der indirekten Andeutungen. Dies ist ein Krieg. Es ist kein Krieg gegen den Terror, und kein Krieg gegen Extremisten, und nicht einmal ein Krieg gegen die Palästinensische Autonomiebehörde. Auch das wäre ein Ausweichen vor der Realität. Dies ist ein Krieg zwischen zwei Völkern. Wer ist der Feind? Das palästinensische Volk. Warum? Fragt sie selbst, sie haben doch angefangen. […]

In einem Krieg ist der Feind normalerweise ein ganzes Volk, somit auch seine Alten und seine Frauen, seine Städte und seine Dörfer, sein Eigentum und seine Infrastruktur. Und der Moral des Krieges ist es bewusst, dass es nicht möglich ist, zivile Opfer zu vermeiden. Sie verurteilt die britische Luftwaffe nicht dafür, dass sie die deutsche Stadt Dresden bombardiert und völlig zerstört hat […]. Sie fordert nicht, dass Russland vor Gericht gestellt wird, obwohl es Städte und Wohnviertel in Tschetschenien bombardiert und zerstört […]. Und in unserem Krieg ist das siebenmal richtiger, denn die feindlichen Soldaten verbergen sich in der Bevölkerung, und nur mit deren Unterstützung können sie überhaupt kämpfen. Hinter jedem Terroristen stehen Dutzende Männer und Frauen, ohne die sie ihre Terrorakte nicht verüben könnten. Die Akteure in diesem Krieg sind jene, die in Moscheen hetzen, die mörderische Lehrpläne für die Schulen schreiben, die den Terroristen Unterschlupf und Fahrzeuge gewähren, und all jene, die sie ehren und moralisch unterstützen. Sie alle sind feindliche Kämpfer, und sie werden dafür bluten. Dazu zählen nun auch die Mütter der Märtyrer, die sie mit Blumen und Küssen in die Hölle schicken. Sie sollten ihren Söhnen nachfolgen – nichts wäre gerechter. Sie müssen verschwinden, und ebenso die Häuser, in denen sie diese Schlangen großzogen. Andernfalls werden dort noch mehr kleine Schlangen großgezogen.“^[13]

Austrian Committee for Peace in Ukraine

On the occasion of the Munich Security Conference (an institution closely connected to NATO) scheduled to take place on June 16-17, 2015, in Vienna on the topic of Ukraine an alternative discussion has been arranged by the Austrian Committee for Peace in Ukraine and others. It will take place in the prestigious Diplomatic Academy.

It is one of the first instances where a Ukrainian democratic opposition figure and a Donbass leftist come together in a Western capital.

The EU and the US continue to deny the internal root cause for the conflict which is the severe oppression of  popular dissent towards the ultra-nationalist government. Hardline Ukrainian nationalism does not represent the majority of the population. In the Eastern and Southern parts of the country is only a tiny minority. Therefore they need to resort to the terror of rightist militias to maintain power (Odessa massacre).

The West repetes the accusation of Russian aggression and failure of implementing the Minsk accord. They omit that it is Kiev which fails to grant significant autonomy to Donbass as stipulated in Minsk - the political key to resolve the conflict.

For Kiev to implement Minsk would mean to push back extremist Ukrainian nationalism on which their power rests. Restoration of democracy would result in losing power also in the Odessa and Charkov regions. So as the Western ally can only rule by war and dictatorial means.

www.antiimperialista.org/montian_smyekalin
************************************
Anti-imperialist Camp
www.antiimperialista.org
camp@antiimperialista.org

American dreaming, from G1 to Bilderberg EDITOR'S CHOICE | 12.06.2015 | 08:00   What’s the connection between the G7 summit in Germany, President Putin’s visit to Italy, the Bilderberg club meeting in Austria, and the TTIP – the US-EU free trade deal – negotiations in Washington? We start at the G7 in the Bavarian Alps – rather G1 with an added bunch of “junior partners” - as US President Barack Obama gloated about his neo-con induced feat; regiment the EU to soon extend sanctions on Russia even as the austerity-ravaged EU is arguably hurting even more than Russia. Predictably, German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Francois Hollande caved in – even after being forced by realpolitik to talk to Russia and jointly carve the Minsk-2 agreement. The hypocrisy-meter in the Bavarian Alps had already exploded with a bang right at the pre-dinner speech by EU Council President Donald Tusk, former Prime Minister of Poland and certified Russophobe/warmonger: “All of us would have preferred to have Russia round the G7 table. But our group is not only a group (that shares) political or economic interests, but first of all this is a community of values. And that is why Russia is not among us.” So this was all about civilized “values” against “Russian aggression.” The “civilized” G1 + junior partners could not possibly argue whether they would collectively risk a nuclear war on European soil over a Kiev-installed ‘Banderastan’, sorry, “Russian aggression.” Instead, the real fun was happening behind the scenes. Washington factions were blaming Germany for making the West lose Russia to China, while adult minds in the EU – away from the Bavarian Alps – blamed Washington. Even juicier is a contrarian view circulating among powerful Masters of the Universe in the US corporate world, not politics. They fear that in the next two to three years France will eventually re-ally with Russia (plenty of historical precedents). And they – once again – identify Germany as the key problem, as in Berlin forcing Washington to get involved in a Prussian ‘Mitteleuropa’ Americans fought two wars to prevent. As for the Russians – from President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov downwards - a consensus has emerged; it’s pointless to discuss anything substantial considering the pitiful intellectual pedigree – or downright neo-con stupidity - of the self-described “Don’t Do Stupid Stuff” Obama administration policy makers and advisers. As for the “junior partners” – mostly EU minions – they are irrelevant, mere Washington vassals. It would be wishful thinking to expect the civilized “values” gang to propose alternatives for the overwhelming majority of citizens of G7 nations getting anything other than Mac-jobs, or barely surviving as hostages of finance-junkie turbo-capitalism which only benefits the one percent.Rather easier to designate the proverbial scapegoat – Russia – and proceed with NATO-infused fear/warmongering rhetoric. Iron Lady Merkel also found time to pontificate on climate change – instilling all and sundry to invest in a “low-carbon global economy.” Few noticed that the alleged deadline for full “decarbonization” was set for the end of the 21st century, when this planet will be in deep, deep trouble. G7 summit at the Elmau castle in Kruen near Garmisch-Partenkirchen, Germany (Reuters / Christian Hartmann) Achtung! Bilderberg! Obama’s neocon-induced newspeak continues to rule that Russia dreams of recreating the Soviet empire. Now compare it to what President Putin is telling Europe. Last week, Putin found time to give an interview to the Milan-based Corriere della Sera at 2 am; the interview was published as the Bavarian Alps show went on, and ahead of Putin’s June 10 visit to Italy. Russia’s geopolitical interests and US- Russia relations are depicted in excruciating detail. So Putin was a persona non grata at the G1 plus junior partners? Well, in Italy he visited the Milan Expo; met Prime Minister Renzi and Pope Francis; reminded everyone about the “privileged economic and political ties” between Italy and Russia; and stressed the 400 Italian companies active in Russia and the million Russian tourists who visit Italy every year. Crucially, he also evoked that consensus; Russia had represented an alternative view as a member of the G8, but now “other powers” felt they no longer needed it. The bottom line: it’s impossible to have an adult conversation with Obama and friends. And right on cue, from Berlin –where he was displaying his sterling foreign policy credentials, Jeb Bush, brother of destroyer of Iraq Dubya Bush, fully scripted by his neocon advisers, declared Putin a bully and rallied Europe to fight, what else, “Russian aggression.” The rhetorical haze over what was really discussed in the Bavarian Alps only began to dissipate at the first chords of the real sound of music; the Bilderberg Group meeting starting this Thursday at the Interalpen-Hotel Tyrol in Austria, only three days after the G1 plus junior partners. Possible conspiracies aside, Bilderberg may be defined as an ultra-select bunch of elite lobbyists – politicians, US corporate honchos, EU officials, captains of industry, heads of intelligence agencies, European royals - organized annually in a sort of informal think tank/policy-forming format, to advance globalization and all crucial matters related to the overall Atlanticist agenda. Call it the prime Atlanticist Masters of the Universe talkfest. To make things clear – not that they are big fans of transparency - the composition of the steering committee is here. And this is what they will be discussing in Austria. Naturally they will be talking about “Russian aggression” (as in who cares about failed Ukraine; what we need is to prevent Russia from doing business with Europe). Naturally they will be talking about Syria (as in the partition of the country, with the Caliphate already a fact of post-Sykes-Picot life). Naturally they will be talking about Iran (as in let’s do business, buy their energy and bribe them into joining our club). But the real deal is really the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) – the alleged “free trade” deal between the US and the EU. Virtually all major business/finance lobbyists for the TTIP will be under the same Austrian roof. And not by accident Bilderberg starts one day before “fast track” presidential authority is to be debated at the US Congress. WikiLeaks and a ton of BRICS Enter WikiLeaks, with what in a fairer world would be a crucial spanner in the works. The fast track authority would extend US presidential powers for no less than six years; that includes the next White House tenant, which might well be ‘The Hillarator’ or Jeb “Putin is a bully” Bush. This presidential authority to negotiate dodgy deals includes not only the TTIP but also the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trade in Services Agreement (TiSA). WikiLeaks, just in time, published the Healthcare Annex to the secret draft “Transparency” chapter of the TPP, along with each country’s negotiating position. No wonder this draft is secret. And there’s nothing “transparent” about it; it’s an undisguised hold-up of national healthcare authorities by Big Pharma. The bottom line is that these three mega-deals – TTP, TTIP and TiSA – are the ultimate template of what could be politely described as global corporate governance, a Bilderberg wet dream. The losers: nation-states, and the very concept of Western democracy. The winners: mega-corporations. Julian Assange, in a statement, succinctly nailed it “It is a mistake to think of the TPP as a single treaty. In reality there are three conjoined mega-agreements, the TiSA, the TPP and the TTIP, all of which strategically assemble into a grand unified treaty, partitioning the world into the West versus the rest. This 'Great Treaty' is described by the Pentagon as the economic core to the US military's 'Asia Pivot.' The architects are aiming no lower than the arc of history. The Great Treaty is taking shape in complete secrecy, because along with its undebated geostrategic ambitions it locks into place an aggressive new form of transnational corporatism for which there is little public support." So this is the real Atlanticist agenda – the final touches being applied in the arc spanning the G1 + added junior partners to Bilderberg (expect a lot of crucial phone calls from Austria to Washington this Friday). NATO on trade. Pivoting to Asia excluding Russia and China. The West vs. the rest. Now for the counterpunch. As the show in the Bavarian Alps unrolled, the first BRICS Parliamentarian Forum was taking place in Moscow – ahead of the BRICS summit in Ufa next month. Neocons – with Obama in tow - knock themselves out dreaming that Russia has become “isolated” from the rest of the world because of their sanctions. Since then Moscow has signed major economic/strategic contracts with at least twenty nations. Next month, Russia will host the BRICS summit – 45 percent of the world’s population, a GDP equivalent to the EU, and soon bigger than the current G7 – as well as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) summit, when India and Pakistan, currently observers, will be accepted as full members. G1 plus junior partners? Bilderberg? Get a job; you’re not the only show in town, any town. Pepe Escobar is the roving correspondent for Asia Times/Hong Kong, an analyst for RT and TomDispatch, and a frequent contributor to websites and radio shows ranging from the US to East Asia. RT   Tags: Bilderberg Club BRICS G7 TTIP Russia US

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/06/12/american-dreaming-from-g1-to-bilderberg.html