Thursday, 10 March 2011
Dalai Lama calls for greater freedom in China
The Dalai Lama has called on China's leaders to show greater transparency, in a speech marking the anniversary of the 1959 Tibetan uprising.
The exiled Tibetan spiritual leader said China needed to show freedom of expression and freedom of the press to earn the world's respect and trust.The Dalai Lama also said he would begin the process of devolving authority to an elected leader.
He was speaking at Dharamsala, the Indian town that has become his base.
"China, with the world's largest population, is an emerging world power and I admire the economic development it has made," he said.
"It also has huge potential to contribute to human progress and world peace. But to do that, China must earn the international community's respect and trust. In order to earn such respect China's leaders must develop greater transparency, their actions corresponding to their words. To ensure this, freedom of expression and freedom of the press are essential."
The Dalai Lama said he would begin the process of devolving authority at a session of the Tibetan parliament-in-exile that begins on 14 March.
"As early as the 1960s, I have repeatedly stressed that Tibetans need a leader, elected freely by the Tibetan people, to whom I can devolve power. Now, we have clearly reached the time to put this into effect," he said.
The Dalai Lama, who heads Tibet's exiled government, has lived in Dharamsala since fleeing across the Himalayas following the failed 1959 uprising against Chinese rule.He has said he does not want independence for Tibet, only meaningful autonomy.
The Dalai Lama is routinely vilified by the Chinese authorities.
In the run up to the anniversary, police in the Indian capital Delhi detained more than 30 Tibetan exiles protesting outside the Chinese embassy on Wednesday.
The protesters wore yellow T-shirts and waved red and blue Tibetan flags, chanting "Free Tibet" and "We want freedom".
Chinese officials have recently announced travel restrictions to Tibet ahead of the third anniversary of riots there.
In March 2008, Tibet witnessed a wave of violent anti-China protests - the worst unrest there for 20 years.
Beijing blamed the unrest on followers of the Dalai Lama, who it said were seeking to separate Tibet from China.
China responded to the unrest with a massive military crackdown.
Many Tibetans have complained about the growing domination of China's majority Han population in Tibet and accuse the government of trying to dilute their culture.
@'BBC'
John Pilger: How The So-Called Guardians Of Free Speech Are Silencing The Messenger
As the United States and Britain look for an excuse to invade another oil-rich Arab country, the hypocrisy is familiar. Colonel Gaddafi is “delusional” and “blood-drenched” while the authors of an invasion that killed a million Iraqis, who have kidnapped and tortured in our name, are entirely sane, never blood-drenched and once again the arbiters of “stability”.
But something has changed. Reality is no longer what the powerful say it is. Of all the spectacular revolts across the world, the most exciting is the insurrection of knowledge sparked by WikiLeaks. This is not a new idea. In 1792, the revolutionary Tom Paine warned his readers in England that their government believed that “people must be hoodwinked and held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other”. Paine’s The Rights of Man was considered such a threat to elite control that a secret grand jury was ordered to charge him with “a dangerous and treasonable conspiracy”. Wisely, he sought refuge in France.
The ordeal and courage of Tom Paine is cited by the Sydney Peace Foundation in its award of Australia’s human rights Gold Medal to Julian Assange. Like Paine, Assange is a maverick who serves no system and is threatened by a secret grand jury, a malicious device long abandoned in England but not in the United States. If extradited to the US, he is likely to disappear into the Kafkaesque world that produced the Guantanamo Bay nightmare and now accuses Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks’ alleged whistleblower, of a capital crime.
Should Assange’s current British appeal fail against his extradition to Sweden, he will probably, once charged, be denied bail and held incommunicado until his trial in secret. The case against him has already been dismissed by a senior prosecutor in Stockholm and given new life only when a right-wing politician, Claes Borgstrom, intervened and made public statements about Assange’s “guilt”. Borgstrom, a lawyer, now represents the two women involved. His law partner is Thomas Bodstrom, who as Sweden’s minister for justice in 2001, was implicated in the handover of two innocent Egyptian refugees to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport. Sweden later awarded them damages for their torture.
These facts were documented in an Australian parliamentary briefing in Canberra on 2 March. Outlining an epic miscarriage of justice threatening Assange, the enquiry heard expert evidence that, under international standards of justice, the behavior of certain officials in Sweden would be considered “highly improper and reprehensible [and] preclude a fair trial”. A former senior Australian diplomat, Tony Kevin, described the close ties between the Swedish prime minister Frederic Reinheldt, and the Republican right in the US. “Reinfeldt and [George W] Bush are friends,” he said. Reinhaldt has attacked Assange publicly and hired Karl Rove, the former Bush crony, to advise him. The implications for Assange’s extradition to the US from Sweden are dire.
The Australian enquiry was ignored in the UK, where black farce is currently preferred. On 3 March, the Guardian announced that Stephen Spielberg’s Dream Works was to make “an investigative thriller in the mould of All the President’s Men” out of its book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. I asked David Leigh, who wrote the book with Luke Harding, how much Spielberg had paid the Guardian for the screen rights and what he expected to make personally. “No idea,” was the puzzling reply of the Guardian’s “investigations editor”. The Guardian paid WikiLeaks nothing for its treasure trove of leaks. Assange and WikiLeaks -- not Leigh or Harding -- are responsible for what the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, calls “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”.
The Guardian has made clear it has no further use for Assange. He is a loose cannon who did not fit Guardianworld, who proved a tough, unclubbable negotiator. And brave. In the Guardian’s self-regarding book, Assange’s extraordinary bravery is excised. He becomes a figure of petty bemusement, an “unusual Australian” with a “frizzy-haired” mother, gratuitously abused as “callous” and a “damaged personality” that was “on the autistic spectrum”. How will Speilberg deal with this childish character assassination? e
On the BBC’s Panorama, Leigh indulged hearsay about Assange not caring about the lives of those named in the leaks. As for the claim that Assange had complained of a “Jewish conspiracy”, which follows a torrent of internet nonsense that he is an evil agent of Mossad, Assange rejected this as “completely false, in spirit and word”.
It is difficult to describe, let alone imagine, the sense of isolation and state of siege of Julian Assange, who in one form or another is paying for tearing aside the façade of rapacious power. The canker here is not the far right but the paper-thin liberalism of those who guard the limits of free speech. The New York Times has distinguished itself by spinning and censoring the WikiLeaks material. “We are taking all [the] cables to the administration,” said Bill Keller, the editor, “They’ve convinced us that redacting certain information would be wise.” In an article by Keller, Assange is personally abused. At the Columbia School of Journalism on 3 February, Keller said, in effect, that the public could not be trusted with the release of further cables. This might cause a “cacophony”. The gatekeeper has spoken.
The heroic Bradley Manning is kept naked under lights and cameras 24 hours a day. Greg Barns, director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, says the fears that Julian Assange will “end up being tortured in a high security American prison” are justified. Who will share responsibility for such a crime?
Via
But something has changed. Reality is no longer what the powerful say it is. Of all the spectacular revolts across the world, the most exciting is the insurrection of knowledge sparked by WikiLeaks. This is not a new idea. In 1792, the revolutionary Tom Paine warned his readers in England that their government believed that “people must be hoodwinked and held in superstitious ignorance by some bugbear or other”. Paine’s The Rights of Man was considered such a threat to elite control that a secret grand jury was ordered to charge him with “a dangerous and treasonable conspiracy”. Wisely, he sought refuge in France.
The ordeal and courage of Tom Paine is cited by the Sydney Peace Foundation in its award of Australia’s human rights Gold Medal to Julian Assange. Like Paine, Assange is a maverick who serves no system and is threatened by a secret grand jury, a malicious device long abandoned in England but not in the United States. If extradited to the US, he is likely to disappear into the Kafkaesque world that produced the Guantanamo Bay nightmare and now accuses Bradley Manning, WikiLeaks’ alleged whistleblower, of a capital crime.
Should Assange’s current British appeal fail against his extradition to Sweden, he will probably, once charged, be denied bail and held incommunicado until his trial in secret. The case against him has already been dismissed by a senior prosecutor in Stockholm and given new life only when a right-wing politician, Claes Borgstrom, intervened and made public statements about Assange’s “guilt”. Borgstrom, a lawyer, now represents the two women involved. His law partner is Thomas Bodstrom, who as Sweden’s minister for justice in 2001, was implicated in the handover of two innocent Egyptian refugees to a CIA kidnap squad at Stockholm airport. Sweden later awarded them damages for their torture.
These facts were documented in an Australian parliamentary briefing in Canberra on 2 March. Outlining an epic miscarriage of justice threatening Assange, the enquiry heard expert evidence that, under international standards of justice, the behavior of certain officials in Sweden would be considered “highly improper and reprehensible [and] preclude a fair trial”. A former senior Australian diplomat, Tony Kevin, described the close ties between the Swedish prime minister Frederic Reinheldt, and the Republican right in the US. “Reinfeldt and [George W] Bush are friends,” he said. Reinhaldt has attacked Assange publicly and hired Karl Rove, the former Bush crony, to advise him. The implications for Assange’s extradition to the US from Sweden are dire.
The Australian enquiry was ignored in the UK, where black farce is currently preferred. On 3 March, the Guardian announced that Stephen Spielberg’s Dream Works was to make “an investigative thriller in the mould of All the President’s Men” out of its book WikiLeaks: Inside Julian Assange’s War on Secrecy. I asked David Leigh, who wrote the book with Luke Harding, how much Spielberg had paid the Guardian for the screen rights and what he expected to make personally. “No idea,” was the puzzling reply of the Guardian’s “investigations editor”. The Guardian paid WikiLeaks nothing for its treasure trove of leaks. Assange and WikiLeaks -- not Leigh or Harding -- are responsible for what the Guardian’s editor, Alan Rusbridger, calls “one of the greatest journalistic scoops of the last 30 years”.
The Guardian has made clear it has no further use for Assange. He is a loose cannon who did not fit Guardianworld, who proved a tough, unclubbable negotiator. And brave. In the Guardian’s self-regarding book, Assange’s extraordinary bravery is excised. He becomes a figure of petty bemusement, an “unusual Australian” with a “frizzy-haired” mother, gratuitously abused as “callous” and a “damaged personality” that was “on the autistic spectrum”. How will Speilberg deal with this childish character assassination? e
On the BBC’s Panorama, Leigh indulged hearsay about Assange not caring about the lives of those named in the leaks. As for the claim that Assange had complained of a “Jewish conspiracy”, which follows a torrent of internet nonsense that he is an evil agent of Mossad, Assange rejected this as “completely false, in spirit and word”.
It is difficult to describe, let alone imagine, the sense of isolation and state of siege of Julian Assange, who in one form or another is paying for tearing aside the façade of rapacious power. The canker here is not the far right but the paper-thin liberalism of those who guard the limits of free speech. The New York Times has distinguished itself by spinning and censoring the WikiLeaks material. “We are taking all [the] cables to the administration,” said Bill Keller, the editor, “They’ve convinced us that redacting certain information would be wise.” In an article by Keller, Assange is personally abused. At the Columbia School of Journalism on 3 February, Keller said, in effect, that the public could not be trusted with the release of further cables. This might cause a “cacophony”. The gatekeeper has spoken.
The heroic Bradley Manning is kept naked under lights and cameras 24 hours a day. Greg Barns, director of the Australian Lawyers Alliance, says the fears that Julian Assange will “end up being tortured in a high security American prison” are justified. Who will share responsibility for such a crime?
Via
Was David scared stiff of Goliath?
Michelangelo's David is meant to be a representation in marble of the perfect male form. So why did his creator not make him - how would one say - a little better endowed?
As every visitor to Florence will know, the modest dimensions of David's "pisello" are a running joke with Italians, and the stuff of irreverent postcards.
But, in a paper to be published at the end of this month, two Florentine doctors offer a scientific explanation: the poor chap was shrivelled by the threat of mortal danger. Michelangelo's intention was to depict David as he confronted Goliath.
What the new study shows is that every anatomical detail - right down to the shaping of the muscles in his forehead - is consistent with the combined effects of fear, tension and aggression.
One of the authors of the paper, Pietro Antonio Bernabei, of the Careggi hospital, Florence, said one such effect would be "a contraction of the reproductive organs".
Last year, he and Professor Massimo Gulisano, of Florence University, conducted a computer-assisted study of the 4.34 metre-high statue, in the Galleria dell'Accademia. They emerged, in Professor Gulisano's words, "stupefied" by Michelangelo's physiological accuracy.
The only mistake is at a point in the centre of David's back that is hollow and ought to be rounded. Michelangelo was aware of the error. But, as he wrote at the time: "Mi manco matera" - "I lacked (enough) material".
Dr Bernabei said allowance had to be made for the conventions of high Renaissance art, which depicted activity in a "much more composed and elegant fashion than today". But, anatomically, everything about Michelangelo's David was consistent with a young man "at the moment immediately preceding the slinging of a stone". His right leg is tensed, while the left one juts forward "like that of a fencer, or even a boxer". Tension is written all over his face. His eyes are wide open. His nostrils are flared. And the muscles between his eyebrows stand out, exactly as they would if they were tightened by concentration and aggression.
David is holding something in his right hand, and it has conventionally been assumed that it is a stone. But Dr Gulisano said it is the handle of the sling.
The full findings are to be given in a paper written for the Dutch Institute for Art History, in Florence.
Michelangelo's masterpiece, completed in 1504, was put back on display last May after cleaning, which allowed its anatomical details to be studied much more easily than before.
Now just one great puzzle remains: why, since David was Jewish, did Michelangelo sculpt him uncircumcised?
John Hooper @'The Age' (2005)
Via
Can you legally arm Libya's rebels?
As Libya's rebels face off against better armed government troops, several prominent voices have argued that arming the rebels should be part of a more aggressive attempt to unseat the Gaddafi regime. Leave the wisdom of that policy to one side, how about the legality? The Security Council imposed an arms embargo on the country and I don't see much room in the text for sending anyone in Libya arms. Here's the relevant paragraph in the resolution:
The resolution does make several exceptions but none of them exempt weapons sent to rebels from the ban. The Council has established a committee to monitor the embargo, and it is empowered to make further exceptions. If the Council members want to create a loophole they can do so easily enough, but I don't see one yet.
David Bosco @'FP'
Decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, from or through their territories or by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and technical assistance, training, financial or other assistance, related to military activities or the provision, maintenance or use of any arms and related materiel, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel whether or not originating in their territories...It's tempting to interpret the "Libyan Arab Jamahiriya" as referring to the regime only rather than to the entire Libyan territory. Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham argued that recently in response to the administration's insistence that arming the rebels would be illegal. As a matter of textual interpretation, the McCain/Graham position is a very tough one to defend. In several places, the resolution does refer to the "Libyan authorities"; if the Council had wanted to limit the arms embargo to the authorities, presumably it would have just said so.
The resolution does make several exceptions but none of them exempt weapons sent to rebels from the ban. The Council has established a committee to monitor the embargo, and it is empowered to make further exceptions. If the Council members want to create a loophole they can do so easily enough, but I don't see one yet.
David Bosco @'FP'
Map of The Internet
Non-Geek Version – The Map of the Internet is a visual representation of all the networks around the world that are interconnected to form the Internet as we know it today. These include small and large Internet service providers (ISPs), Internet exchange points, university networks, and organization networks such as Facebook and Google. The size of the nodes and the thickness of the lines speak to the size of those particular providers and the network connections in relation to one another.
Geek Version – You’re looking at all the autonomous systems that make up the Internet. Each autonomous system is a network operated by a single organization, and has routing connections to some number of neighboring autonomous systems. The image depicts a graph of 19,869 autonomous system nodes, joined by 44,344 connections. The sizing and layout of the autonomous systems are based on their eigenvector centrality, which is a measure of how central to the network each autonomous system is: an autonomous system is central if it is connected to other autonomous systems that are central. This is the same graph-theoretical concept that forms the basis of Google’s PageRank algorithm.
Via
Interactive version
HERE
Disappears @ La Route du Rock 2/18/11
Carving out a space somewhere in the middle of garage-punk snarl, shoegaze haze, and Krautrock grooves, Chicago’s Disappears features Brian Case (also of the Ponys and 90 Day Men), Boas members Graeme Gibson and Jonathan van Herik, and Damon Carruesco. The band started when Case’s other groups were on hiatus and he was recording demos with Gibson; Gibson brought van Herik into the project, and in turn, van Herik brought Carruesco into the fold. Soon after forming, the band self-released a series of 7" singles with artwork based on Can’s album Delay 1968, and made their material available for free on the Internet. Disappears began recording their debut studio album and signed to Touch & Go, appearing at the label’s showcase at 2009’s South by Southwest Festival, and also playing dates with Tortoise, Deerhunter, and Times New Viking. The band released 100 CD-Rs of Live Over the Rainbo, a live album from the Deerhunter/Times New Viking tour, that was eventually distributed by Plus Tapes and Rococco Records later in 2009. Disappears continued to play more high-profile Chicago shows, including a gig at the Pitchfork Music Festival and a 2009 New Year’s Eve show with the Jesus Lizard. Late in the year, the band moved to Kranky Records, who released their official debut album Lux in 2010. The band also recorded a single with Sonic Youth’s Steve Shelley and the noise duo White/Light. Disappears took a sleeker, more psychedelic approach on 2011's Guider (Heather Phares)
Artists: Graeme Gibson, Jonathan van Herik, Brian Case, Damon Carruesco, Steve Shelley (Sonic Youth)
http://www.myspace.com/disappearsmusic
directlink
Lucinda Williams - Blessed (2011 - Albumstream)
From its cover in, Lucinda Williams' Blessed stands out. It title is readily visible in color photographs of anonymous citizens holding handmade signs, yet her name appears nowhere but the spine. The songs on Blessed are equally jarring: they offer sophisticated changes in her lyric oeuvre, extending their reach beyond first-person narratives of unrequited love and loss. She adorns these new tomes with roots rock and blues melodies dynamically illustrated by Don Was' sure-handed production (with assistance from Eric Liljestrand and husband Tom Overby. Her voice is front and center, but Was pushes an edgy, tight backing band -- fueled by Greg Leisz's and Val McAllum's guitars and Rami Jaffee's B-3 -- to frame it in greasy, easy grooves. Some guests who appeared on 2008's Little Honey -- notably Matthew Sweet and Elvis Costello -- return here. Set opener "Buttercup" is a rollicking kiss-off to a former boyfriend in which Williams simply lays out the truth as she sees it amid a strident rock & roll cadence. The guitars swell and fade while the B-3 swirls around her voice and the low-end drums hammer her vocal accents home. On the overdriven "Seeing Black," written for the late Vic Chesnutt, Williams, buoyed by an uncharacteristically scorching guitar break from Costello, offers no judgment; she simply questions his spirit as she struggles to accept the loss. Acceptance is a key theme on Blessed; it's voiced in the languid country rock of "I Don't Know How You're Living," with its pledge of unconditional love and support, and in the rumbling, explosive "Awakening." (An extension of "Atonement" from World Without Tears). But there's a militancy that's insisted upon here: it testifies to the willingness and resilience of the human heart. "Soldier's Song," written from a serviceman's point of view in a war zone, juxtaposes home and the new place he finds himself standing. In the late-night blues of "Born to Be Loved" and in the garagey title track, Williams employs repetitive, poetic lyrics that could be chanted as well as sung; in her honeyed Louisiana drawl, however, they become as sensual as a sunset in late summer. The two love songs near the record's end alternately express raw need and abundance. The unabashed humility in pleading on "Convince Me" is signified by a Southern R&B groove. "Kiss Like Your Kiss" closes the set two cuts later -- in waltz time -- by expressing gratitude for the abundant romantic love her protagonist experiences. It's painted by washes of lilting guitars, strings, and vibes. Blessed is Williams' most focused recording since World Without Tears; it stands with it and her 1988 self-titled Rough Trade as one of her finest recordings to date. Its shift in lyric focus is amplified by the care and detail in the album's production and crackling energy. By deliberately shifting to a harder-edged roots rock sonic palette, Blessed moves Williams music down the road from the dead-end Americana ghetto without compromising her qualities as a songwriter or performer.
(Thom Jurek - allmusic; 4/5)
Albumstream
Why is vinyl special to you?
Interviews of people at a record fair in Eugene, Oregon. They discuss why vinyl records are important to them.
via
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Faust to play Melbourne
Melbourne International Jazz Festival
The Forum
Fri 10 June at 8.30pm
Arguably the most significant of all Krautrock groups, legendary German band Faust's influence continues to reverberate across the generations. 2011 is the fortieth anniversary of the band's formation and they continue to perform around the world, resisting easy categorisation and demonstrating the same curiosity and cacophony that so entranced audiences upon their debut.
As a founding member noted in 1973, "The idea was not to copy anything going on in the Anglo-Saxon rock scene – and it worked." They weren't just empty words – the band's '71 debut, Faust, was issued on clear vinyl in a transparent sleeve. It set the tone for their career of uncompromising innovation. They are unselfconsciously avant-garde, wrestling tone and rhythm to create astounding noise.
An enduring influence on countless artists from the British punk and new wave scene onward, don't miss this night of divine sensory overload. Faust make their Australian debut as guests of the Melbourne International Jazz Festival.
Facebook a top cause of relationship trouble, say US lawyers gu.com/p/2njv6/tw ho hum, makes a change from spreading syphilis I suppose
For football fans in Grozny, it's just like watching Brazil. No, really
Kadyrov (centre), taking on Brazilians Ronaldao and Andre Cruz, enjoys a flourishing reputation in Chechnya. Photograph: Sergei Karpukhin/Reuters
There were burly toughs in Russia tracksuits, elders in lambskin hats and thousands of young men in black jeans and coats shouting "Chechnya! Chechnya!"Grozny's Dynamo stadium was packed to bursting as Ramzan Kadyrov the 34-year-old strongman who is head of Chechnya, led his team on to the pitch for a bizarre match against an all-star team from Brazil.
Kadyrov's side, apparently a motley collection of overweight and greying Chechen bureaucrats spiced up by the presence of Terek Grozny's coach, Ruud Gullit, and a couple of Russian supersubs, took the field against altogether more formidable opponents: a collection of Brazilian World Cup winners from 1994 and 2002, including Romário, Bebeto, Cafu, Dunga and Denílson.
The match was a stunt organised by the attention-hungry Kadyrov, who enjoys a flourishing personality cult in this southern Russian republic, and an attempt to portray Chechnya as stable and safe from insurgent violence that plagues Russia's northern Caucasus region.
The former separatist rebel, who switched sides and became the Kremlin's stooge in the region, has transformed war-torn Grozny into a smart, modern capital, but he is accused of crushing all political dissent and targeting civilians in his fight to quell an Islamist insurgency. Last year, he praised people who fired paintballs at women not wearing Islamic headscarves and called human rights campaigners "enemies of the people".
He now wants Grozny added to Russia's list of 13 host cities for the 2018 World Cup.
Fears of a militant suicide bombing at the stadium were high, and an entire neighbourhood around the ground was cordoned off by military trucks. Spectators had to go through two metal detectors and three bag checks to get into the stadium.
In the stands, support for Kadyrov was predictably high. Ali Geldibayev, 26, who runs his own business selling window blinds, said: "It's only down to Ramzan that this we're seeing this amazing match.
"He is our everything. Take Ramzan away from the Chechens and there is nothing left. I would give my life for him right now, Allah be praised." His friend Khalid Khantemirov, 24, an oil worker, added: "With Ramzan we have unity and pride. He is our leader, our hero."
Brazil, in their traditional yellow and blue, started in style, stroking the ball around and scored within three minutes. However, Grozny, in blood red, struck back, and the game was level at 2-2 after the first-half of 25 minutes.
All attention was on Kadyrov, a well-built figure in tracksuit bottoms, who effected the role of a goal-hanging centre-forward. Both teammates and opponents seemed keen to give him the ball, but his early efforts bore little fruit. He had one penalty saved and put another spot-kick past the post, before scoring his first goal with a tap-in.
The second half started cautiously. Among the spectators was Khamzat Dzhabrailov, 54, a former Soviet middleweight boxing champion who used to spar with Kadyrov when the latter was a teenage pugilist, said: "The Brazilians are afraid to play strongly because Ramzan will break their necks if they win."
The second half progressed with a flurry of goals, one struck by Grozny's undisputed penalty-taker – Kadyrov – from 12 yards. Zetti, who played in goal for Brazil in the early 1990s, artfully dived under the shot. At the final whistle, though, it was 6-4 to the Brazilians who, despite valiant efforts, could not hide their superiority.
Tom Parfitt @'The Guardian'
Israeli TV Accuses New Egyptian PM and FM of Anti-Semitism
New Egyptian PM Essam Sharaf (PNN Archive)
On Wednesday Israeli media attacked Essam Sharaf, the new Egyptian Prime Minister, calling him “an enemy of Israel” and accused him and Nabil Arabi, the new Egyptian Foreign Minister, of anti-Semitism.
Israeli television channels 10 and 7 and the Israeli newspapers Ma’ariv, Yediot Ahronot, and “The Marker”—a subsidiary of the larger, left-leaning Ha’aretz newspaper—all carried stories about the new Egyptian government to be headed by Sharaf. The new PM’s position regarding the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—that there should be no cooperation between Egypt and Israel until it is resolved—led Israeli commentators to describe him and Arabi as anti-Semites.
Commentators on Israeli TV said Sharaf and his government represented “a danger to Israel and reconciliation [with Egypt]” and were “no friend to Israel.” Sharaf was also described as a “revolutionary” man who gained his legitimacy from the Egyptian people.
Sharaf’s intentions toward Israel were certified, according to channels 10 and 7, by his choice of Foreign Minister Nabil Arabi—known for his “deep hatred of Israel and its policies” when he was a judge at the International Court of Justice in The Hague. Arabi opposed Israel’s construction of the wall on Palestinian territory and described it as an “apartheid wall” and “a crime that needs to be punished.”
Israeli television recognized a “great degree of fear” in Tel Aviv regarding Sharaf and his new government, saying that Israelis would look anxiously on the next few weeks to see how Egypt would handle its economic agreements with Israel—including the practice of selling Israel cheap natural gas.
@'PNN'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
