The Translators’ Network for Linguistic Diversity

SOUTH OF THE BORDER  (Latin America and the Caribbean)
IMPERIUM  (Global Issues)
THE LAND OF CANAAN  (Palestine, Israel)
UMMA  (Arab World, Islam)
IN THE BELLY OF THE WHALE  (Activism in the Imperialist Metropolis)
THE MOTHER CONTINENT  (Africa, Indian Ocean)

TYPHOON ZONE  (Asia, Pacific Basin)
WITH A K AS IN KALVELLIDO (Diary of a Proletarian Cartoonist)
STORMING BRAINS  (Culture, Communication)
TLAXCALA'S REFERENCE ZONE  (Glossaries, Dictionaries, Maps)

Español Français English Deutsch Português Italiano Català
عربي Svenska فارسی Ελληνικά русски TAMAZIGHT OTHER LANGUAGES
Censorship or

The strange case of the publication by the Italian daily il manifesto of an article by the Palestinian author Ali Abunimah translated by Tlaxcala


Translated by  Diego Traversa

& We report (1) an article by Ali Abunimah (Electronic Intifada) whose Italian version (2), correctly translated by our friend Gianluca Bifolchi, was published by the Italian daily il manifesto, after operating some cuts on it.
Below (3), some hypothesis about the possible reasons for il manifesto’s censorships.
At the end (4), a note by the translator Gianluca Bifolchi

 (1) This is Ali Abunimah’s article from Electronic Intifada. The parts in bold correspond to those of the Italian version who have been cut by “il manifesto”

Overcoming the conspiracy against Palestine
Ali Abunimah, The Electronic Intifada, 18 July 2007

 "Be certain that Yasser Arafat's final days are numbered, but allow us to finish him off our way, not yours. And be sure as well that ... the promises I made in front of President Bush, I will give my life to keep." Those words were written by the Fatah warlord Mohammed Dahlan, whose US- and Israeli-backed forces were routed by Hamas in the Gaza Strip last month, in a 13 July 2003 letter to then Israeli defense minister Shaul Mofaz and published on Hamas' website on 4 July this year.

Dahlan, who despite his failure to hold Gaza, remains a senior advisor to Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas, outlines his conspiracy to overthrow Arafat, destroy Palestinian institutions and replace them with a quisling leadership subservient to Israel. Dahlan writes of his fear that Arafat would convene the Palestinian legislative council and ask it to withdraw confidence from then prime minister Mahmoud Abbas, who had been appointed earlier in 2003 at Bush's insistence in order to curb Arafat's influence. Dahlan wrote that "complete coordination and cooperation by all" was needed to prevent this, as well as "subjecting [Arafat] to pressure so that he cannot carry out this step." Dahlan reveals that "we have already begun attempts to polarize the views of many legislative council members by intimidation and temptation so that they will be on our side and not his [Arafat's]."

Dahlan closes his letter to Mofaz saying, "it remains only for me to convey my gratitude to you and the prime minister [Ariel Sharon] for your continued confidence in us, and to you all respect."

This letter is a small but vivid piece of evidence to add to the existing mountain, of the conspiracy in which the Abbas leadership is involved. In the month since Abbas' appointment of a Vichy-style "emergency government" headed by Salam Fayad, historic Fatah leaders, such as Farouq Qaddumi and Hani al-Hassan have signalled their opposition to Abbas' actions, specifically rejecting his order that Palestinian resistance fighters disarm while Israeli occupation continues unchallenged.

This underscores that the split among Palestinians today is not between Hamas and Fatah, nor between "extremist" or "moderate," or "Islamist" or "secular," but between the minority who have cast their lot in with the enemy as collaborators on the one hand, and those who uphold the right and duty to resist on the other.

Israeli leaders, at least, are crystal clear about what they expect from their Palestinian servants
. Ephraim Sneh, until recently deputy defense minister, expresses the consensus view of the Israeli establishment:

"The most urgent and important mission for Israel at this time is preventing a Hamas takeover of the West Bank. It is possible to do this by weakening Hamas through visible diplomatic progress; helping the effective and successful functioning of Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayad's government; and the creation of conditions for the total failure of the Hamas regime in the Gaza Strip" ("How to stop Hamas," Haaretz, 17 July 2007).

Sneh makes clear that "in order to emerge victorious, military campaigns and arrests are not enough -- it is imperative to bring about [Hamas'] political-public defeat via another Palestinian element." This element is Fatah. Sneh lists a number of measures designed to achieve this, including employing more Palestinians as low-wage laborers in the Israeli economy, releasing Fatah prisoners and giving back Palestinian tax money stolen by Israel -- but says absolutely nothing about stopping the construction of Jewish-only Israeli colonies, ending military occupation and abrogating racist laws and practices. With characteristic vagueness he only asserts that "it is necessary to embark on a discussion with the Palestinian president about the principles of the permanent status agreement." Fourteen years after Oslo, this is not likely to convince too many skeptics.

Since the Oslo accords were signed, Israel has done all it can to undermine the prospects of Palestinian statehood, consistently hobbling the Palestinian Authority. What lies behind Israel's determination to prop up Abbas' quisling leadership? Why not just let it all collapse and declare victory?

Israeli leaders know that shoring up support for an ethnic "Jewish state" depends on concealing the reality that Jews are no longer the majority population in Israel, the West Bank and Gaza Strip -- the territory controlled by the Israeli state. Israel needs the fig leaf of a Palestinian sovereign to take millions of Palestinians off its books, the way apartheid South Africa attempted to deploy the cover of "independent Black homelands" -- Bantustans -- to prolong white rule and give it a veneer of legitimacy. If the Palestinian Authority collapses, Fatah which has no popular base, will collapse with it.

As for Hamas, it stands at a crossroads. It can survive the collapse of the Palestinian Authority, but what will it become? It grew from a segment of Palestinian society -- poor, religiously mobilized masses, yet it draws much broader support for its resistance against Israel from Palestinians orphaned by their turncoat leaders and hungry for a principled alternative. Hamas has the choice to articulate an agenda that can live up to the aspirations of Palestinian society in all its diversity, or it can leap into the traps that are being set for it.

Hamas leaders have made exemplary statements in favor of pluralism, genuine democracy, and the rule of law, and were rightly proud of the release of BBC journalist Alan Johnston. But they must be judged by their actions, and there are discouraging signs. The Palestinian Centre for Human Rights has reported several cases of abuse, kidnapping and torture by members of Hamas' Executive Force, and the death of a prisoner held by Hamas' military wing. It is true that these incidents do not occur in a vacuum -- Israel and its Fatah allies continue to engage in far more widespread murder, torture and kidnapping directed at Hamas members, and Hamas is engaged in a struggle for survival. But Hamas earned legitimacy by promising to end the ugly practices of Israeli-backed Fatah militias. It must fulfill that promise or see its hard-earned support disappear. At the same time it must begin to articulate a vision for the future that takes into account the reality of 11 million Israeli Jews and Palestinians living in a small country. We know what Hamas is against, but no one is clear what it is for.

Hamas is edging towards accepting a two-state solution just as the reality is beginning to dawn even on stalwarts of the Oslo peace process industry that the two-state solution, needed to save Israel as an enclave of Jewish privilege, is slipping out of reach. As a two-state solution "is becoming less likely," observes Aaron David Miller, a 25-year veteran of the State Department and senior Clinton Administration official at the 2000 Camp David summit, "there is more talk among Palestinians of a one-state solution -- which of course is not a solution at all, and which would mean the end of Israel as a Jewish state." ("Is peace out of reach?," The Los Angeles Times, 15 July 2007).

Haaretz columnist Danny Rubinstein predicts that "sooner or later Hamas will fail in its war against Israel. But that [doesn't] mean that there will then be a return to the days of Oslo and the two-state vision." Rather, he fears, "there will be increasingly strong demands by Palestinian Arabs, who constitute almost half the inhabitants of this land, who will say: Under the present conditions we cannot establish a state of our own, and what remains for us is to demand civil rights in the country that is our homeland. They will adopt the slogans of the struggle of the Arabs who are Israeli citizens, who demand equality and the definition of Israel as a state of all its citizens." ("Nothing to sell the Palestinians," 16 July 2007). Thus we can see that Abbas is now Israel's last best hope in the struggle against democracy. Such a pathetic coalition cannot stand in the way of liberation.

(2) Complete version correctly translated by our friend Gianluca Bifolchi. The parts censored by “il manifesto” are reported in bold

TLAXCALA,  29/07/2007

Battere la cospirazione contro la Palestina
Author:  Ali ABUNIMAH
Translated by  Gianluca Bifolchi

 "Sia certo che i giorni di Yasser Arafat sono contati, ma permetteteci di finirlo alla nostra maniera, non alla vostra. E sia anche certo che... le promesse che ho fatto davanti al Presidente Bush, darò la mia vita per mantenerle". Queste parole sono scritte dal signore della guerra di Fatah Mohammed Dahlan, le cui forze sostenute da Israele e USA sono state messe in rotta da Hamas lo scorso mese nella Striscia di Gaza, in una lettera del 13 Luglio 2003 all'allora ministro della difesa israeliano Shaul Mofaz pubblicata sul sito di Hamas il 4 Luglio di quest'anno.

Dahlan, che nonostante il suo fallimento a tenere Gaza, rimane un importante consigliere del Presidente dell'Autorità Palestinese Mahmoud Abbas, descrive la sua cospirazione per rovesciare Arafat, distruggere le istituzioni palestinesi e rimpiazzarle con una leadership quisling servile nei confronti di Israele. Dahlan scrive della sua paura che Arafat convochi il consiglio legislativo palestinese e gli chieda di ritirare la fiducia al Primo Ministro Mahmoud Abbas, che era stato nominato agli inizi del 2003 su insistenza di Bush al fine di assottigliare l'influenza di Arafat. Dahlan scrive che "il completo coordinamento e la cooperazione di tutti" erano necessari ad impedire questo, come anche "la pressione su Arafat per indurlo a non compiere questo passo". Dahlan rivela che "abbiamo già iniziato dei tentativi di polarizzare le opinioni dei membri del consiglio tramite intimidazioni e tentazioni così che essi stiano al nostro fianco e non al suo [di Arafat]".

Dahlan chiude la sua lettera a Mofaz dicendo, "mi rimane solo da esprimere la mia gratitudine a lei e al primo ministro [Ariel Sharon] per la vostra continua fiducia in noi, e a lei tutto il rispetto".

Questa lettera è una piccola ma vivida prova da aggiungere alla già esistente montagna, della cospirazione nella quale la leadership di Abbas è compromessa. Nel mese che inizia con la nomina di un "governo di emergenza" in stile Vichy, guidato da Salam Fayad, i leader storici di Fatah, come Farouq Qaddumi e Hani al-Hassan hanno espresso la loro opposizione alle azioni di Abbas, rifiutando soprattutto il suo ordine ai combattenti della resistenza palestinese di deporre le armi mentre l'occupazione israeliana continua indisturbata.

Ciò sottolinea che la divisione tra Palestinesi oggi non è tra Hamas e Fatah, tra gli "estremisti" o i "moderati", o tra gli "islamisti" e i "laici", ma tra la minoranza che ha fatto lega con il nemico in funzione collaborazionista, e coloro che difendono il diritto dovere di resistenza.

I leader israeliani, almeno, sono molto chiari su ciò che si aspettano dai loro servitori palestinesi. Ephraim Sneh, fino a poco tempo fa vice ministro della difesa, esprime la visione dell'establishment israeliano:

"La missione più importante ed urgente per Israele a questo punto è impedire che Hamas prenda il controllo della West Bank. E' possibile ottenere ciò indebolendo Hamas attraverso visibili progressi diplomatici; aiutando l'efficace funzionamento del governo del Primo Ministro palestinese Salam Fayad, e la creazione di condizioni per il totale fallimento del regime di Hamas nella Striscia di Gaza" ("Come fermare Gaza", Haaretz, 17 Luglio 2007).

Sneh chiarisce che "per emergere vittoriosi, le campagne militari e gli arresti non sono abbastanza .. è imperativo causare la sconfitta pubblica e politica [di Hamas] attraverso un altro elemento palestinese". Questo elemento è Fatah. Sneh elenca un numero di misure per ottenere ciò, compresa l'assunzione di più Palestinesi come lavoratori a basso costo nell'economia israeliana, il rilascio dei prigionieri di Fatah e la restituzione del denaro delle tasse rubato ai Palestinesi -- ma non dice assolutamente nulla riguardo uno stop alle costruzioni di colonie per soli Ebrei, della fine dell'occupazione militare, e dell'abrogazione delle leggi e delle pratiche razziste. Con caratteristica vaghezza afferma solo che "è necessario imbarcarsi in una discussione con il presidente palestinese circa i principi di un accordo sullo status permanente". Quattordici anni dopo Oslo, questo non ha molte probabilità di convincere gli scettici.

Da quando gli accordi di Oslo sono stati firmati, Israele ha fatto tutto quanto gli era possibile per indebolire la prospettiva di uno stato palestinese, azzoppando di continuo l'Autorità Palestinese. Cosa c'è dietro la determinazione di Israele di appoggiare la leadership Quisling di Abbas? Perché non lasciarla collassare e dichiarare semplicemente vittoria?

I leader israeliani sanno che per puntellare il sostegno ad uno "stato ebraico" occorre nascondere la realtà che gli Ebrei non sono più la maggioranza di Israele, West Bank e Striscia di Gaza -- il territorio controllato dallo stato israeliano. Israele ha bisogno della foglia di fico di uno stato palestinese sovrano per cancellare milioni di Palestinesi dai suoi registri, nel modo in cui l'apartheid in Sud Africa cercò di usare il pretesto delle "patrie nere indipendenti" -- i Bantustan -- per prolungare il governo dei bianchi e dare ad esso una parvenza di legittimità. Se l'Autorità Palestinese collassa, Fatah che non ha una base popolare *, collasserà con essa.

Hamas, poi, si trova ad un incrocio. Può sopravvivere al collasso dell'Autorità Palestinese, ma cosa diventerà? E' nata da un segmento della società palestinese -- povero, mobilitato in massa su contenuti religiosi -- trae però un sostegno più ampio per la sua resistenza contro Israele da Palestinesi abbandonati dai loro leader opportunisti ed affamati di un'alternativa basata su principi. Hamas ha la scelta di articolare un programma che sia all'altezza delle aspirazioni della società palestinese in tutta la sua diversità, o può finire nelle trappole che vengono messe davanti ai suoi piedi.

I leader di Hamas hanno fatto dichiarazioni esemplari a favore del pluralismo, di una genuina democrazia, e del primato della legge, e sono stati profondamente orgogliosi del rilascio del giornalista della BBC Alan Johnston. Ma essi devono essere giudicati dalle loro azioni, e ci sono segni scoraggianti. Il Centro Palestinese per i Diritti Umani ha riportato diversi casi di abusi, sequestri, torture da parte di membri della Forza Esecutiva di Hamas, e la morte di un prigioniero tenuto dall'ala militare di Hamas. E' vero che questi incidenti non accadono per caso -- Israele e i suoi alleati di Fatah continuano ad impegnarsi in diffusi atti di omicidio, tortura e sequestro diretti contro i membri di Hamas, e Hamas è impegnato in una lotta per la sopravvivenza. Ma Hamas ha conquistato la sua legittimazione mettendo fine alle brutte pratiche delle milizie di Fatah sostenute da Israele. Deve mantenere la promessa o rassegnarsi a vedere svanire l'attuale sostegno. Allo stesso tempo deve iniziare ad articolare una visione del futuro che contempli la realtà di 11 milioni di Ebrei israeliani e palestinesi che vivono in un piccolo paese.

Sappiamo a cosa Hamas si oppone, ma non sappiamo che cosa vuole.

[Paradossalmente] Hamas si sta lentamente avvicinando ad accettare una soluzione a due stati proprio nel momento in cui la realtà sta cominciando a farsi strada persino tra i più convinti sostenitori dell'industria del processo di pace di Oslo che la soluzione a due stati, necessaria a salvare Israele come enclave di privilegi ebraici, è ormai fuori portata.

Mentre una soluzione a due stati "sta diventando meno credibile", osserva Aaron David Miller, per 25 anno nel Dipartimento di Stato USA e rappresentante di alto rango dell'amministrazione Clinton al summit di Camp David nel 2000, "si parla maggiormente nel campo palestinese di una soluzione ad un unico stato -- che naturalmente non è la soluzione di tutto, e che potrebbe significare la fine di Israele come stato ebraico". ("E' la pace fuori portata?", The Los Angeles Times, 15 Luglio 2007)

Il commentatore di Haaretz, Danny Rubinstein prevede che "prima o poi Hamas verrà meno alla sua guerra contro Israele. Ma questo non significa un ritorno ai giorni di Oslo e alla visione dei due stati". Piuttosto, egli teme, "ci sarà una crescente domanda da parte degli Arabi palestinesi, che costituiscono quasi la metà degli abitanti di questa terra, nel dire: nelle circostanze presenti non possiamo stabilire un nostro stato, e ciò che ci rimane da fare è esigere il rispetto dei nostri diritti civili in quella che è la nostra patria. Adotteranno gli slogan della lotta degli Arabi che sono cittadini di Israele, che chiedono uguaglianza e la definizione di Israele come stato di tutti i suoi cittadini". ("Niente da vendere ai Palestinesi", 16 Luglio 2007). Pertanto possiamo vedere come Abbas è attulamente l'ultima speranza di Israele nella lotta contro la democrazia. Questa patetica coalizione non può mettersi di traverso sulla via della libertà.

 * A modesto giudizio del traduttore affermare tout-court che  Fatah non abbia una base popolare è una esagerazione polemica  dell'autore. E' tuttavia plausibile che Fatah stia attraversando una profonda crisi di consenso e legittimità, di esito incerto per la sua sopravvivenza futura come partito  politico con basi genuine nella società palestinese.

Originale da:  The Electronic Intifada
Articolo originale pubblicato il 18 luglio 2007
Gianluca Bifolchi è membro di Tlaxcala, la rete di traduttori per la diversità linguística. Questo articolo è liberamente riproducibile, a condizione di rispettarne l'integrità e di menzionarne autori, traduttori, revisori e la fonte.
URL di questo articolo su Tlaxcala:

(3) Hypothesis about the reasons for “il manifesto” ‘s censorship
by Mauro Manno

Let’s cut !

Il Manifesto, which claims to be a communist and leftist daily, instead is, in my opinion, what we might undoubtedly define as a Zio-leftist paper, one which shelters a great deal of Zionists (leftist ones, that’s Zio-leftist). The paper doesn’t hesitate to duly blame the Bush administration, the Italian government or capitalism’s oppression. Yet, when Israel and Zionism are concerned, it’s another kettle of fish. “It’s hard to criticize Israel” Bertinotti once said. If it’s hard to Bertinotti, we guess how much even more difficult is for “il manifesto”.

We thought that this daily, to which, along with other friends, I paid some money when it had to be saved from bankruptcy and thus it raised a popular subscription (of which I bitterly regret: I will never repeat the mistake), limited itself to not blaming Israel too severely (let alone Zionism). We didn’t think that it would push itself so far as to apply censorship those who criticize Israel in earnest.

Has “il manifesto” maybe got some financial aid from the Jewish state which allows itself to do what it has done? It’s a provocative question but it needs to be admitted that “il manifesto” seems to want to gather new evidences against itself.  Not least after the lamented Stefano Chiarini’s death.

Many are the pro-Palestinian supporters who, in these days, are distressed for what is happening in Gaza and in the Occupied Territories. Many doubts are afflicting Palestine’s friends and the anti-imperialists as a whole when they see the pictures of Abbas arm in arm with Olmert , Rice and so on. But pictures might not be revealing enough. Stronger doubts are raised by the news reporting that Abbas dissolved the government he agreed to set up along with Hamas in Mecca, or by appointing as Premier a certain Fayyad (an economist very appreciated by the Americans), by blaming Hamas ( as if the Palestinians’ foes were them), by turning  down the Islamists’ dialogue offers, or thinking of dissolving the elected Parliament, dominated by Hamas, which is indeed opposed to him or while receiving arms and money to organize his security forces (Israel’s security, of course), putting into prison Islamic militants from the West Bank and having them tortured , urging the fighters to put down arms, joining the economic blockade against Gaza Strip and so on. All this, for what?

Just to negotiate with Israel! Apart from the eternal promises from Israel and the Americans about a happy future, what has he achieved concretely?

The release of some 200 detainees (of course all from Fatah), yet in exchange for the promise to be good boys, that’s abstaining from fighting the occupiers.  200 prisoners out of 12000!

Abbas and his men came to an agreement with Israel in order to get the release of Dahlan’s stalwarts and of the president himself; of course, not that of Tanzim’s leader, Barghouti, who might be an important broker between Fatah and Hamas, nor of his followers. Israel is delighted at that since the freed ones are going to make Abbas and his wicked decisions stronger.

As the “negotiations”  are getting on and the “peace process” is being miraculously brought to life again, the true friends of Palestine can see all the doubts being slowly and tragically dispelled: yes, Abbas is a traitor, his government and his security forces are in the hands of the Israelis and the Americans.

What does “il manifesto” do?

Obviously, it gives a helping hand to Israel and, accordingly, to Abbas, its quisling partner (Quisling, for those who can’t remember, was the Norwegian Prime Minister at the time of the Nazi occupation who used to do all what his masters ordered him to do).

Everybody can understand why “il manifesto” cuts the phrase, referred to Dahlan,  “who despite his failure to hold Gaza, remains a senior advisor to Palestinian Authority chairman Mahmoud Abbas” . Dahlan is a Palestinian traitor who, more than all those of his kind, sold and compromised himself on Israel/US’s behalf. It was him who promised that he would drive Hamas Islamic fighters out of Gaza. The Americans (with Egypt’s and Jordan’s complicity) provided him with a small army that would be trained by their own officers (headed by general Dayton) in Egypt and that, later, was to be allowed to penetrate Gaza by little groups. The plan failed as Hamas, obviously, reacted swiftly by preventing the plot.

Today Dahlan, what’s more an incapable quisling, has been ousted from the Fayyad-led government. He couldn’t be kept since the American and the Israelis were disappointed at his incapability, yet he remains one of Abbas’ advisors and keeps many influential friends amongst Fatah’s security forces which he led for years. To the Americans and Israelis he is still a card to be played but, for the moment, they want to see whether or not Abbas can find a man better than he. His treacherous role isn’t over and “il manifesto” cuts the accusations against him to do a favour to Israel. The Zio-leftist daily and its Middle-East “pundits” don’t conceal  the fact that Dahlan has been plotting against Arafat, since he joined the defaming work (conceived in Tel Aviv) against the Rais, yet they can’t allow him, who secretly plotted against his own President, to be defined as a part of a quisling leadership subservient to Israel” . When this quisling leadership (Dahlan, Abbas, Fayyad) got sufficiently strong and were ready, the Israeli secret services came on the stage to poison the legitimate Palestinian President in order to pave the way to power for the traitors. To “il manifesto” it is also important to get rid of any admission by Dahlan of  having operated in “complete coordination and cooperation”  with Israelis and Americans (“all”) and therefore it cuts another dangerous phrase: Dahlan wrote that "complete coordination and cooperation by all" was needed to prevent this, as well as "subjecting [Arafat] to pressure so that he cannot carry out this step."

Immediately below, another cut and another little phrase strengthening what was asserted previously, disappears. “This letter is a small but vivid piece of evidence to add to the existing mountain, of the conspiracy in which the Abbas leadership is involved”.

And now that we have gone that far and we are good at cutting, here is another cut of a phrase concerning  the kind of contradiction between Abbas and his gang, on one side, and Hamas on the other one. May Manifesto’s readers never learn that the contradiction is “between the minority (what’s more, a minority!) who have cast their lot in with the enemy as collaborators on the one hand, and those who uphold the right and duty to resist on the other”. Let them, the poor readers,  go on believing that the contradiction is between the secular ( the good) and the Islamic ones (who are ugly, bearded and very bad, especially with women!)

Then, in the text the word “Israelis” appears…Heavens above! God forbid, never be it, never…let’s cut!!! May it never stated that the “Israeli leaders, at least, are crystal clear about what they expect from their Palestinian servants”. Let’s cut, let’s cut, we risk being labelled as anti-Semitic!!! Cut !! And also let’s get rid of the Israeli leader Sneh’s words: "in order to emerge victorious, military campaigns and arrests are not enough” , it’s clear that the active cooperation by some Palestinians is needed. Once the phrase of Dahlan about the “complete coordination and cooperation by all” has been taken away, also the Israeli pendant must be removed, that’s Sneh’s words.

Then, it’s the turn of  the phrase over Oslo and the implied “peace process”. Let’s cut this too.  “Fourteen years after Oslo, this is not likely to convince too many sceptics”.
Can we afford to add that the readers get persuaded about the fact that Oslo has failed and the peace process is dead and buried, as Hamas says? It’s not allowed even to be  “skeptical”. Israel has never stopped building settlements and has drawn “negotiations” out, but being skeptical is a crime. People must swallow that the “peace process” is going on and that one day (when?) it will be possible to see the long-awaited  two states and that, perhaps, the Israeli Arabs (1.4 millions), with further good will by the Palestinians, might be deported from Israel into the “Palestinian state” in order to keep Israel ethnically pure (Israel as Jewish state). Moreover, it’s within the Palestinian state that the refugee problem will be settled. Over 10 million people in the four Bantustans whose total area is 2400 km/sq, with no current water and borders of its own, but, on the contrary, with a huge wall and barbed wire all around.

Do we want people to become persuaded about the political convenience of a struggle for a single democratic state for Jews and Palestinians? God forbid: two peoples, two states!

And what about Hamas statement  “in favour of pluralism” ? No, no, what an outrage! They are “religious extremists” and “terrorists”; we can’t allow the West to know that they claimed to be in favour of pluralism. Therefore, let’s cut again! By the way, let’s not remind too much that they succeeded in having Alan Johnston from the BBC released , rescuing him from a clan who took benefit from Gaza’s disorder and anarchy. Cut, cut !!

In the end, if the negative image of Hamas which  Israel and the US have made up on purpose has to last, then it’s absolutely necessary even to cut the phrase “Israel and its Fatah allies continue to engage in far more widespread murder, torture and kidnapping directed at Hamas members”. Moreover, Israel can’t be accused so brutally of murder, torture and kidnapping ! Are you joking? Israel is a democracy, the only one in Middle-East.

The truth is dangerous, above all that “Hamas is engaged in a struggle for survival” rather than, as they expect us to believe,  in a struggle to overthrow Fatah (which was defeated at the elections and has already been toppled democratically) , therefore, let’s cut once again!!!

Ah, I’m sorry…I was nearly forgetting the carefree cuts to get rid of the sources’ credits (Haaretz, Los Angeles Times)!

Now they will tell us that it has been done due to lack of space. But we don’t believe them. Without the authoritative references coming from Israeli or pro-Jewish papers, Ali Abunimah’s statements might even look like castles in the air and it’s probably what “Il manifesto” wants.

What a shame! Wasn't the censorship to which the Palestinians are already subject enough? “il manifesto” is all we needed ! It’s just true that, when you start losing the original hooking, you know  you’re moving to the right but you can’t see how far. The journey goes on…

(4) Note by the translator of Abunimah’s article

After a phone conversation between me and Michelangelo Cocco, responsible for the cuts operated in the text that was published by “il manifesto”, it has emerged as follows:

1) Michelangelo Cocco apologizes for not abiding by Tlaxcala’s warning that, while making clear that all the translations may be reprinted by everyone, demand that they be taken unabridged.

2) He also clarifies that the cuts are only due to strict paging requirements depending on the number of lines and room-saving as a whole, as typical of the format of a daily.

3) The more or less happy criteria by which the cuts were operated need to be considered as a consequence of the quick work paces of an editorial staff and that often don’t allow more cautious choices.

4) Michelangelo Cocco, in his name and on il manifesto’s behalf, wants to repeat that any censoring operation against Ali Abunimah, and Palestine’s voices as a whole, is definitely out of question.

Tlaxcala, by putting at the reader’s disposal both Mauro Manno’s article and this note summing up Michelangelo Cocco’s rectification, considers the incident as closed.

On Tlaxcala’s behalf,
 Gianluca Bifolchi

Source: http://www.tlaxcala.es/pp.asp?reference=3472&lg=it

Original article published on August 2, 2007

About the author

Mauro Manno, Diego Traversa and Gianluca Bifoclhi are  members of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, translator and reviser are cited.

URL of this article on Tlaxcala: