FLASH -2 Ianuarie 2015 | publicatii - Politica La Est

FLASH -2 Ianuarie 2015

                         Ianuarie 2015 
Scris de Mihail E.Ionescu
 Ecourile atacului terorist de la Paris din 7 ianuarie a.c. nu s-au stins , iar datorita imapctului sau multilateral este de banuit ca nu se vor stinge curand. Dar, asa cum s-a putut observa, evolutia vietii internationale a fost accelerata, iar curand alte evenimente au luat locul mediatic detinut de   masacrul din redactia saptamanalului satiric din capitala Frantei. In wek-end-ul din 23-25 ianuarie, de pilda, luptele au izbucnit neasteptat in Ucraina de Est, orasul uxcrainean Mariupol fiind lovit puternic de artilerie , fiind provocate 30 de victime civile. Recatia opiniei publice internationale a fost aproape instantanee, de la George Soros la Bernard Henry-Levy  (Bernard-Henry Levy and George Soros , Save the New  Ukraine,    January 27, 2015- in  “The New York Times”- http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/opinion/bernard-henri-levi-george-soros-save-the-new-ukraine.html?ref=opinion&_r=2#story-continues-1story-continues-1 ) si Timothy Garton Ash ( Timothy Garton Ash,  Putin must be stopped. And sometimes only guns can stop guns , in “The Guardian”, February 1, 2015-http://www.theguardian.com/profile/timothygartonash ) solicitand ca „noua Ucraina”sa nu fie abandonata. Congresul SUA a aprobat , in acest context, o noua lege privind ajutorul militar pentru Ucraina ( inclusiv letal ), care acum asteapta aprobarea preesedintelui Obama pentru a deveni realitate. Dincolo de orice, evolutiile in criza ucraineana, deja veche de un an de zile, arata fragilitatea sistemica actuala, iar probabilitatea unui razboi pustiitor pe continentul european se apropie incredibil de repede.
            Ne aflam , conform opiniei majoritatii specialistilor domeniului in cel de al treilea val initiate sistemic  . Cel dintai, in anii 60-70 ai secolului trecut : „ The first wave of modern terrorism featured well-established groups, political ideologies, and limited lethality, with Europe as the leading theater. From the 1960s to the 1980s (and in some places, well into the 1990s and beyond), Europe was plagued by spates of ideologically motivated terrorism, principally of the extreme left. Small groups such as the Baader-Meinhof gang in Germany, Action Directe in France, The Red Brigades in Italy, and November 17th in Greece targeted governments and individuals, and threatened the stability of societies across the continent. This was also the hey-day of terrorism as a tactic of national liberation movements, with the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine responsible for shootings, bombings, and hijackings. Their origins were Middle Eastern, but Europe was a principle theater for this type of terrorism, from the Munich Olympics to attacks on airports in Rome and elsewhere.” Secundul val a fost declansat o data cu atacul multiplu din SUA ( New York si Washington ) din September -11, 2011: „The hallmarks of this new form of terrorism included much higher lethality, religious motivation, networked organization, and the prominence of private sponsors. The roots of this new terrorism — potentially super terrorism using weapons of mass destruction — were in the Middle East, including the so-called Arab Afghans among the fighters operating in Afghanistan after the Soviet invasion. But, once again, the operational dimension was deeply rooted in Europe. In sfarsit, cel de al treilea val terorist este cel in care ne aflam acum: „The latest, and third, phase of terrorism — an amalgam of Islamic extremism, cultural alienation, and nihilistic violence — will have its center of gravity in Europe. Poorly integrated Muslim communities and proximity to irregular conflicts in North Africa and the Levant are key elements in this equation. The “foreign fighter” problem is not new. Mediterranean countries, in particular, worried about the security implications of fighters returning from earlier wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. But the scale of the circulation linked to ongoing conflicts in Syria, Iraq, and Libya, and the networked nature of the challenge, are of a different order.  „ ( Vezi- Ian O.  Lesser , Europe at the Center of the Terrorist Vortex, Again , 03.02.2015, -  https://sites-gmf.vuturevx.com/85/762/february-2015/transatlantic-take--europe-at-the-center-of-the-terrorist-vortex--again.asp?sid=ab88d17e-1093-4bc1-838c-d263b13a8130 )
1.      Ce semnifica atat de uzitata auto-identificare personala devenita globala dupa 7 ianuarie 2015: Je sui Charlie ? Iata un raspuns dintre numeroasele mentionate in media internationala in cursul lunii ianuarie post-atentatul terorist de la Paris: „Today a new cry can be heard among intellectuals in the US: ‘Je suis Charlie.’ It is a curious slogan, all the more so since few of the Americans reciting it had ever heard of, much less read, Charlie Hebdo before the 7 January massacre. What does it mean, exactly? Seen in the best light, it means simply that we abhor violence against people exercising their democratic right to express their views. But it may also be creating what the French would call an amalgame, or confusion, between Charlie Hebdo and the open society of the West. In this sense, the slogan ‘je suis Charlie’ is less an expression of outrage and sympathy than a declaration of allegiance, with the implication that those who aren’t Charlie Hebdo are on the other side, with the killers, with the Islamic enemy that threatens life in the modern, democratic West, both from outside and from within. „ Numai ca autorul acestui foarte interesant eseu merge in profunzime si, cautator al ‘claritatii morale’ : “. The slogan ‘je suis Charlie’ expresses a peculiar nostalgia for 11 September, for the moment before the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, before Abu Ghraib and extraordinary rendition, before all the things that did so much to tarnish America’s image and to muddy the battle lines. In saying ‘je suis Charlie’, we can feel innocent again. Thanks to the massacre in Paris, we can forget the Senate torture report, and rally in defence of the West in good conscience.  “ Mai mult, arata autorul, este nevoie sa admitem adevarul ca teroristii care au provocat masacrul din 7 ianuarie sunt cetateni francezi, a doua generatie de imigranti, care au fost educati in cadrul civilizatiei occidentale , iar aceste adevaruri nu trebuie defel ascunse in sloganuri nde identificare care sa ne adoarma spiritul critic si, mai ales, raspunderea pe care o avem pentru ceeea ce s-a intamplat:  “To say that France has an integration problem, and that it’s in urgent need of repair, isn’t to let the killers – or, pace Packer, their ideology – off the hook. It is to take the full measure of the moral and political challenge at hand, rather than to indulge in self-congratulatory exercises in ‘moral clarity’. If France continues to treat French men of North African origin as if they were a threat to ‘our’ civilisation, more of them are likely to declare themselves a threat, and follow the example of the Kouachi brothers. This would be a gift both to Marine Le Pen and the jihadists, who operate from the same premise: that there is an apocalyptic war between Europe and Islam. We are far from that war, but the events of 7 January have brought us a little closer. “ ( Vezi: Adam Shatz, Moral Clarity, ‘London Review of Books Blog’, 9 ianuarie 2015-http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2015/01/09/adam-shatz/moral-clarity/  )
2.      Iata cateva dintre comentariile facute la eseul mentionat mai sus, care saunt deopotriva graitoare pentru curente de opinie :
a.  peter.fisher says:
10 January 2015 at 9:08 am
“I also find it hard to extract an argument from this article. It seems to boil down to: yes this is awful, BUT there is a serious problem in France with the integration of second and third generation immigrants. Both parts of that statement are self-evidently true, but they don’t belong in the same sentence, any more than when we discuss a rape or a murder we should immediately bring societal ills into the spotlight. If it sounds like the author is making excuses for individual acts, then that is because he is, passing the blame onto society as a whole. As an argument, it has about as much merit as pointing out that a rape victim shouldn’t have been wearing the clothes she had on.
There is nothing morally unclear about killing journalists or shooting up a kosher supermarket, and these crimes should not form the basis for scoring political points about integration in France. In seeking to link the two, the author is parroting Marine le Pen, who also thinks this is a good basis on which to conduct the debate on immigration.
I resent that op-ed authors and politicians immediately want to bring this attack into their analysis of a broader context, whether to say that France is a racist country and had it coming, or to declare a “war” on radical islam. In the face of a crime, any crime, the correct action is to deplore it, punish it, hold fast to our values of tolerance and the rule of law, and get on with our lives. Mature politicians and analysts don’t base their discourse on individual acts of violence, and they don’t seek excuses for criminals who acted of their own free will. The author should be able to maintain a distinction between the individual case and the societal ill.”
b. Timothy Mason says:
10 January 2015 at 7:32 am
An excellent article.
As a French citizen, I was myself first reluctant to use the slogan “Je suis Charlie”. To some extent I still am. But I have to recognize that Charlie Hebdo was an important part of my life at the time when I was coming to discover French culture. And, moreover, that the men who died were still at the very centre of that culture, however peripheral the magazine had become. Cabu, & Wolinski were household names, and had an impact far beyond Charlie’s readership (Cabu used to appear regularly on children’s television when my two were growing up in the late 70s & early 80s). If you followed Wolinski’s work through the same period, you were witnessing a man, like so many others, coming to terms with feminism, and attempting to learn its lessons. And Bernard Maris, friend to Michel Houllebecq, was a recognized expert in economics, who was a member of the committee of direction of the Banque de France, was also far more than a simple journalist for a bizarre little publication of declining importance.

So most French people can recognize a part of themselves in Charlie Hebdo, and many of them will have felt directly touched, as I did. If they were not overcome by the media brouhaha, they could also see in their assassins some echoes of La Bande à Bonnot, or of Jacques Mesrine. The two brothers may have killed in the name of Islam, but they were recognizably French.
So, yes, that Americans or the British should say “Je suis Charlie” is bleakly comic. But the French – we – can say it. Yes, Charlie is a part of me – a part I had largely forgotten, a part that was not altogether agreeable, but a part, nonetheless.
c. alethia says:
10 January 2015 at 3:12 am
This is rubbish. Sad that Adam Shatz’s lesson after 13 long years is that it’s still our western fault. The people who perpetrate these crimes own them. They are personally responsible and no search for “root causes” can excuse that fact. No one welcomed immigrant Jews to New York (my ancestors) and made it “nice” for us. They worked hard and fit in. These men are treated the way they are because they have earned it: they did not fit in and they chose to their actions.
Since before 9/11 we’ve been at war. In war you make mistakes like Abu Grahib and torture. These mistakes do not abrogate Islamist responsibility for their own actions nor for the actions of Algerian thugs looking for glory as Jihadis.
Trying to pin their familial failure to adjust after years of European multiculturalism and bending over backwards is the true cowardice of western liberals like Adam Shatz. Despicable.

d. stanly says:
13 January 2015 at 12:25 pm
I share Adam Shatz’ views on the vulnerability and otherness of North Africans/Muslims in France. I do also agree that charlie Hedbo’s cartoons were politically incorrect. But what I fail to understand, even from the article above, is that why the violence against the magazine? There could have been legal cases, argumentative responses, even protests through democratic means. But what did the Kouachi brothers drive towards violence? or take India for an example. The Dalits (untouchables) in India have been subjected to centuries of social discrimination. They are the “other” in this vast country, which happens to be the world’s largest democracy. But dalits’ response towards this structural injustice has hardly been violent. They are fighting it by mobilising social capital through democratic means. So otherness or cultural or economic deprivation should not always lead to violence. This is where the ideology of the attackers matters. As Shatz rightly points out, the social causes of any form of violence should certainly be analysed. But such analyses should not discount the subjectivity of the ideology the attackers– a tendency predominantly seen among liberals and post-modernists.
3.      Asadar, ce trebuie facut pentru a pune capat acestui al treilea val de terrorism ?  Este putin a spune ca acest raspuns decisive trebuie sa cuprinda o “cutie”de instrumente variate , de la dezradacinarea prin mijloace militare a taberelor de instruire a jihadului radical si transformarea tarilor deja prinse in sfera sa de influenta ( in special in Mi9deast , dar si in Asia de Sud sau in alte parti ale globului ) sau pe care incearca sa le construiasca ( ‘califatul  islamic’); regandirea procesului de integrare  in statele cu mari comunitati musulmane din Europa sau a trendurilor de imigrare dinspre Sud catre Nord pentru a pastra echilibrele necesare deopotriva culturale si politice atat in tarile de origine ,cat si in cele de primire; educatia necontenita a celor posibili a fi atrasi in mediul radical al jihadului , dar si a celorlalti pentru construirea unui environment societal capabil sa ‘domoleasca’sau absoarba astfel de pusee ;etc. ;etc. ; etc.
4.   Iata o propunere din multe altele : The terrorists who murdered 17          people, including        8 staff members of the French weekly satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, falsely       claimed to act in the name of Islam.       On the contrary, the perpetrators represent a           fanaticism that would             stifle freedoms and science in the Arab and Islamic world, and         beyond. The means used in the eighteenth century remain among the best       options to        combat this warped world view today. Free scientific thinking        and satire — both       religious and political — are crucial in challenging and undermining dogma and             authoritarianism. “ Evident , aceasta propunere emana dintr-un mediu stiintific , pentru ca propunerea sus        mentionata este ‘dilatata’: “Scientists and satirists            everywhere must         remain vigilant to protect liberties, and to fight obscurantism in any         form. Social science and other research is needed to better understand the       origins of         violent fanaticism, conflict and intercommunal strife.           Tackling terrorism is about    much more than repressive measures. It           demands long-term political and social         initiatives, and policies to       help to address the root causes.The heritage of Voltaire and           the       Enlightenment explains why the French people have reacted much more             strongly           to the latest attacks than to the many acts of terrorism they       have endured in the past.       The terrorists attacked a symbol of the          right to free expression. Free speech does have          its limits, and many     countries rightly impose laws that, for example, outlaw the             incitement       of religious or racial hatred. But the right to criticize, and even to mock,       religion, fanaticism, superstition and indeed science is not only rightly       protected by    law in France, but is enshrined there, as in many         countries, as a fundamental human   right.“ ( Vezi: Science and satire, ‘Nature         ‘ International Journal of Science, 13 January     2015-    http://www.nature.com/news/science-and-satire-1.16703 )
5.      Iata doua comentarii la articolul de mai sus:
a. Gregory A. Petsko • 2015-01-16 10:56 PM
I agree, of course, and will defend free speech to my last breath, but I think this specific case deserves further examination. Satire is best employed as the weapon of the powerless against the powerful (or when the satirists and their targets are on a roughly equal footing). The historical cases you cite are examples of exactly that use. This case is not. Muslims are downtrodden and often discriminated against in France, and to satirize their religion is more a case of the powerful making fun of the weak. While I would never seek to prohibit that, I think it is in poor taste. It would not be hard to imagine circumstances - and countries - in which the same action would be a potent weapon against oppression. I think the journalists probably felt they were doing that. But in view of the situation of Muslims in France, I don't think it quite works.
b. Osvaldo Moreschi • 2015-01-15 02:58 PM
It is clear that any kind of terrorism is an assault to the very constitution of a society, and therefore it must be condemned. But this note intends also to say that satire can be compared with the values gain from science, and also that is useful in a "free and democratic societies". From science we know that there is just one manifestation of life on this planet; that all plants and animals, including ourselves, share the same genetic code; that all humans are biologically indistinguishable from each other; therefore it induces us to think that it is absurd that one person should have authority on the thoughts of another, on the contrary it teaches us to respect one another. From science we also know that even in systems as simple as natural numbers there are statements that one can not prove whether they are true or false; so that in a complex society with the best legal system one will also find actions which one would not be able to prove if they are good or bad. Is satire good or bad? Probably it is easier to answer: Is it useful for the intend of building an stable an peaceful society? Why the freedom of A must be understood that A is allowed to insult B? Is this good or bad? Science accustom us to use numbers and the notion of probability. With numbers it is estimated that there is a Muslim community between 5 to 6 millions living in metropolitan France in 2010. With the notion of probability one could estimate the probability that two of them could not stand the insult to their religion. Although we all share the pain of the killing I do not think is the opportunity to intend to give good values to satire. In fact it is probably an opportunity to think again in the usefulness of using insults as a way to express our thoughts.
  1. Cum se stie, pentru ca media internationala a adus des in atentie acest lucru, orasul german Dresda a devenit cntrul unei manifestatii intitulate PEGIDA, care au avut loc deopotriva inainte de atacul  de la Paris din 7 ianuarie 2015, dar si ulterior. Intr-un anume moment , aceasta miscare area ca va cuprinde marile aglomerari urbane din Germania vadinbd tendinte ( inca neincheiate ) de a se extinde in alte tari ( Austria, de pilda ). Revendicarea  principala era definibila ca  anti-imigrationista si anti-integrationista, iar solutiasituatiei actuale pare-se asimilationismul. Germania oficiala-inclusiv cancelarul Merkel- nu a intarziat sa ia atitudine. Dar ce este in realitate  PEGIDA: “ Although PEGIDA offshoots have formed across Germany, the movement has failed to gain a similar following in other cities. What makes Dresden unique is its geography and political culture. During communist times, the area around the city was known as ‚the valley of the clueless’ because West German TV signals couldn’t reach it. On the other hand, Dresden was one of the cities where peaceful protesters went out on the street in 1989, helping to bring down the communist regime in the so-called Montagsdemonstrationen – Monday demonstrations.  “ Iar , intre trasaturile PEGIDA, se pot desprinde atat inertialul societal post-comunist, cat si frustrarea fata de o tranzitie prelungita in Est catre capitalismul promis de Vest acum 25 de ani: Having undergone the transition from communism, eastern Germans are more skeptical about the country’s political order than western Germans, who take it for granted. The PEGIDA organizers are all disillusioned supporters of the country’s big center-right parties, the Christian Democrats and the Free Democrats, Oertel said. Now many of them are voting for the upstart AfD, which held talks with PEGIDA last week.’It’s silly to talk about cooperation with other parties. We see ourselves as a citizen movement. We only want to address the concerns of the people and convey them to politicians, Jahn’/ one of the participants to the demonstrations / said. ‚We’re not megalomaniacs. It’s clear we won’t sit down at one table with Merkel.’ “(http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/01/14/germanys-pegida-isnt-a-vladimir-putin-plot-the-truth-is-scarier/  )
            7. Cresterea antisemitismului in Europa nu mai trebuie demonstrata , desi             niciodata nu    se cuvine subestimnata forta de impact a repetarii        adevarului unei realitati care a           provocat atat de multe tragedii istorice.           Chiar atentatul terorist de la Paris a avut loc in        conditiile in care acest            fenomen malign de vechime multiseculara a dobandit noi           conotatii.         Unii  sociologi vorbesc de o noua haina dobandita de antisemitismul            european actual, numindu-l  „iudeofobie” adica un melanj intre     traditionala si viscerala             ura impotriva evreilr si anti-sionsim, dorinta si         vointa de pedepsire a lui „Big Jew” intruchipat de Israel. „Pierre-André             Taguieff prefers not to talk of old style           antisemitism. He believes that            what he calls a new ‘Judeophobia’, a mix   of archaic prejudices and       anti-Zionism, is thriving in the midst of          widespread indifference and          no longer arouses real indignation.  „-scrie  in         „The Guardian” la 15             ianuarie         (http://www.theguardian.com/news/2015/jan/15/-    sp-       threat-to-france-jews#img-4 ) Articolul din „The Guardian”, din care am          citat mai          sus,      descrie convingator tabloul antisemitismului/           iudeofobiei din Franbta de azi: „   ‘Today,           in a situation of deep economic crisis, the Sciences Po academic Nonna   Mayer told me,           ‘among people who don’t have a degree or a job there is an enormous      resentment against society, and a tendency to make Jews the scapegoat,            because Jews are the minority that is seen as successful. ‘Jews have    money, Jews have power’ –   these stereotypes work very well. And the      Israeli-Palestinian conflict adds an extra    layer.’ There is a growing turf           war, particularly around the Buttes Chaumont, between      Jewish and             Muslim gangs. People whose parents used to play cards together now find            themselves pitted against each other. In a shockingly under-reported   attack in 2003,            the Jewish DJ Sebastian Sellam had his throat slit and      his eyes gouged out by a        childhood friend and neighbour, a petty criminal     and drug dealer called Adel             Amastaibou, in the underground car park     of their apartment building in Paris’s 10th    arrondissement. According to   Amastaibou’s mother, after the murder he ran upstairs        to the apartment          shared and shouted, ‘I killed a Jew! Now I will go to heaven!’      When the police arrived he told them, ‘It was what Allah demanded.’             Amastaibou     claimed diminished responsibility, and he has never been    tried; he remains in a             psychiatric hospital in Paris, permitted out for          occasional weekends. „ Numerosi     cetateni francezi de origine             evreiasca _ Frana are cea mai mare comunitate de cetateni de aceasta       origine din Europa, peste 500 000 membri- si-au exprimat dorinta de a           emigra in Israel. Fenomenul nu se rezuma doar la Franta si mentionam      aici doar Marea           Britanie- dar el este de amplitudine europeana- unde “A     quarter of Jews in Britain             have considered leaving the country in the    last two years and well over half feel they     have no long term future in Europe, according to a survey published on             Wendnesday/January 14/ “ ( vezi- http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/14/uk-        britain-            jews-idUKKBN0KN0LZ20150114 )
3 februarie 2015


Nu exista niciun comentariu

Postarea comentariilor dupa trei luni a fost dezactivata.