«Cui prodest? (lett. “a chi giova?”), a volte resa anche come cui bono? (“chi ne beneficia?”), è una locuzione latina utilizzata nel discorso come elemento retorico per domandarsi chi sia l’effettivo beneficiario di una determinata azione o evento
L’espressione cui bono? fu coniata da Lucio Cassio Longino Ravilla, durante il processo a Marco Emilio Lepido Porcina, con la quale egli si chiedeva quale fosse il vero beneficiario di un’azione imputata ad una certa persona.
La locuzione fu ripresa più tardi da Cicerone, nella orazione Pro Milone, e nella Pro Roscio Amerino.
Le stesse parole vengono pronunciate da Medea nell’omonima tragedia di Seneca. Ai versi 500-501 ella afferma: “cui prodest scelus, is fecit“, cioè “colui al quale il crimine porta vantaggi, egli l’ha compiuto”» [Fonte]
Quando a distanza di lungo tempo, talora anche oltre il secolo, si aprono gli archivi segreti emergono verità sconcertanti su come e perché molti personaggi abbiano agito. E tutto diventa immediatamente chiaro.
Un caso eclamptico è quello di Mr Kim Philby, un agente segreto britannico, che acquisì la cittadinanza sovietica nel 1963. Da sempre comunista, fu al servizio dell’NKVD e del KGB dall’interno del Military Intelligence e del corpo diplomatico del Regno Unito: fu, per due anni, a capo della sezione controspionaggio R5 del Secret Intelligence Service (SIS). Fu poi trasferito come capo della stazione MI6 in Turchia e, in seguito, fu ufficiale di collegamento per l’intelligence SIS presso l’Ambasciata britannica a Washington.
Ma il Papiro Giuridico ci narra anche della regina Tiye che sgozzò il Faraone Ramesse III. Pagò poi con la vita il suo amore straniero.
Erano personaggi della massima rilevanza politica e sociale, al soldo di stranieri per convinzioni ideologiche oppure per mera corruzione, brama di ricchezza. Si presentavano come fedeli servitori dello stato proprio mentre lo tradivano.
* * * * * * *
Al Arabiya si pone, come tantissimi altri, il problema del comportamento dei media americani controllati dai liberal democratici: stanno facendo di tutto tranne che gli interessi degli Stati Uniti. Secondo la regola del cui prodest, sembrerebbero essere al servizio del Kremlin, come Mr Philby.
«Any observer of US left-wing media outlets will be aware that it can be so opinionated that it could go the extent of threatening national security»
«What this media has been doing in the past two years against Trump serves the interest of Russia»
«Whether knowingly or unknowingly, it has promoted Russian influence which has been able to penetrate more than 16 US security agencies, including the CIA and FBI»
«Putin must be thrilled by watching the crisis between Trump and the media»
«The American media, which has long worried Russia and the Soviet Union, is now targeting the US president, instead of attacking the US’ enemies»
«The Left media is contributing to disrupting President Trump’s work and to supporting and strengthening US’ fierce opponent, Vladimir Putin»
* * * * * * *
«Al Arabiya is a Saudi-owned pan-Arab television news channel broadcast in Modern Standard Arabic. The channel is based in Dubai and is regarded as a competitor to Al Jazeera. ….
the channel is based in Dubai Media City, United Arab Emirates, and is owned by Saudi broadcaster Middle East Broadcasting Center (MBC). ….
Some believe that Al Arabiya was created to be a direct competitor of the Qatar-based Al Jazeera.»
Constatiamo un fatto, senza cercare di darne una interpretazione.
Con regolarità che sembrerebbe essere una regola fissa, gli articoli in materia di rapporti internazionali precedono quasi invariabilmente in Al Arabiya gli accadimenti preconizzati.
«The Israeli intelligence agency, Mossad, will apologize for using British passports in the murder of a Hamas commander this year in Dubai, the Daily Telegraph reported Sunday quoting Israeli sources.
The newly appointed Mossad chief Tamir Pardo will promise the UK’s foreign secretary, William Hague, and the home secretary, Theresa May, never to allow Israel’s spies to use British passports during operations abroad, the paper reported.»
Any observer of US left-wing media outlets will be aware that it can be so opinionated that it could go the extent of threatening national security. What this media has been doing in the past two years against Trump serves the interest of Russia. Whether knowingly or unknowingly, it has promoted Russian influence which has been able to penetrate more than 16 US security agencies, including the CIA and FBI, and also intervened in the course of the 2016 US elections.
This does not mean that Trump has been free of mistakes whether in dealing with Russian intervention or over the media issue. His stubbornness and ego have partly contributed to the problem. However, the crisis has clearly exposed how extreme the leftist media is, which has often accused the right-wing media of extremism!
Putin must be thrilled by watching the crisis between Trump and the media. The American media, which has long worried Russia and the Soviet Union, is now targeting the US president, instead of attacking the US’ enemies
Putin must be thrilled by watching the crisis between Trump and the media. The American media, which has long worried Russia and the Soviet Union, is now targeting the US president, instead of attacking the US’ enemies. Trump’s problem with the Russians is complicated, as Russia’s involvement in the last US elections has been proven by US security services, but they have not been able to prove that Trump had anything to do with it. Meanwhile the Leftist media is trying to implicate him by any means in order to start impeachment proceedings against him. As Trump was a billionaire since early childhood, he is used to having the upper hand. He does not take the attack of the media against him lightly. Therefore, he has decided to taunt the media, which has exacerbated the problem and almost about to disrupt the work of the US administration.
Why so soft on Russia
Thomas Friedman, a columnist in the New York Times which is considered Trump’s fiercest critic, has raised aspersions at Trump’s non-confrontationist approach towards Russia, particularly on the issue of its interference in the US’ most important matter of democracy. Friedman cited some media reports that Russia possesses a scandalous tape of Trump during one of his stays at a Moscow hotel when he was organizing the Miss World contests, which implies that Trump is probably facing Russian blackmail. This accusation cannot be confirmed nor denied as it might be fabricated by Trump’s adversaries. Probably, Trump believes that good relations with Russia may facilitate resolving current issues between the two countries and resolve several international issues and crises.
The Left media is contributing to disrupting President Trump’s work and to supporting and strengthening US’ fierce opponent, Vladimir Putin. So for how long would this absurdity go on?
__________ Dr Ahmad al-Farraj is a Saudi writer with al-Jazirah daily. He holds a Masters degree in literature from the University of Indiana and a PhD in Linguistics from the University of Michigan. He was the Dean of the Arabic Language Institute in King Saud University and a member of the university’s council. He tweets under @amhfarraj
With more than 40 million of France’s 47 million registered voters accounted for, official Interior Ministry figures on Sunday confirmed independent centrist Emmanuel Macron had been elected president with 64.16 percent of valid votes cast so far.
At 39 years old, Macron is being considered the youngest president of France and the only one with no experience in running a political campaign or holding elected office.
He served under President François Hollande as Minister of Economy, Industry, and Digital Affairs.
1) Worked for four years with an investment bank
Macron was an investment banker at Rothschild from 2008 to 2012. Before that banking job, he worked in France’s economy ministry. After Rothschild, he returned to civil service, including serving in his predecessor’s cabinet before resigning to start his independent political party and movement “En Marche”.
2) He is the youngest president of France
Born in December 1977 in Amiens, a city in northern France, Macron is 39-years-old and is now youngest-ever president since the French Republic was established in 1848.
He is the eldest child of Jean-Michel Macron and Francoise Macron-Nogues and the only one in his family not to have pursued a medical career.
3) Has never held elected office
Macron’s first roles came under his predecessor, Francois Hollande, as a member of his personal staff and later as a minister of economy, industry, and digital affairs under the government of Manuel Valls.
He identifies as centrist although his he was a member of the Socialist Party for three years before becoming an independent politician in 2009.
4) He called France’s colonial past in Algeria a ‘crime against humanity’
Unlike his political rivals from the left and right, Macron was one of the first political figures to call out France’s colonial past.
He labelled it a “crime against humanity” and said “it’s really barbaric and is part of that past that we must face up to also by apologizing to those who were hurt”.
Algerians lived under French rule for 132 years until it won a bloody war of independence in 1962. The conflict killed an estimated 1.5 million Algerians.
5) Macron rules out unilateral recognition of Palestine
Just days before election day, Macron said he would not unilaterally recognize the state of Palestine if he becomes elected. He told French media that he backs a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and that “unilaterally recognizing Palestine would cause instability and would harm France’s relations with Israel”.
“I defended the principle of a two-state solution, and France’s commitment to that,” he said in 2015 when he was minister of economy.
Macron is also likely to be consistent with France’s stance against the Palestinian-led Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement. “We are against any practice such as that of the BDS,” he was quoted as saying when he was a minister in 2015.
«Chris Doyle is the director of CAABU (the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding)»
«The year 2016 has witnessed the most dramatic electoral exercises of the 21st century – Brexit – the referendum that saw Britain voting to leave the European Union; and now Donald Trump voted into the White House»
«Bigotry, hatred and racism were the jet fuel in both campaigns, but in particular Trump’s»
«Worryingly both campaigns exposed just how bitterly divided these two nations are. They are not alone. Next up is the rerun of the Austrian Presidential election next month where Norbert Hofer of the extreme right wing Freedom Party may well win. Who would dare rule out a Marine Le Pen victory in France’s Presidential elections next year? Europe will face a historic challenge to its democratic culture»
Né arabi né filoislamici possono stare troppo tranquilli.
The year 2016 has witnessed the most dramatic electoral exercises of the 21st century – Brexit – the referendum that saw Britain voting to leave the European Union; and now Donald Trump voted into the White House.
The full implications of the Brexit vote in June are still far from clear and it will be months if not years before one can assess the extent of the Trump surge to victory. In both cases, the implications just grow and grow the more they are examined. Many try to link the two earthquakes. It is tempting.
Both were shocks way up on the political Richter scale embarrassing pollsters. Both “insurgent” campaigns were notable for the devastating poverty of a genuine political project. They were mass rejections of the existing political order, where expertise and facts were rubbished and ignored. The optimist slither of hope is that the young largely did not vote for either. This was no youth revolution.
Worryingly both campaigns exposed just how bitterly divided these two nations are. They are not alone. Next up is the rerun of the Austrian Presidential election next month where Norbert Hofer of the extreme right wing Freedom Party may well win. Who would dare rule out a Marine Le Pen victory in France’s Presidential elections next year? Europe will face a historic challenge to its democratic culture.
Both are leaps into the unknown fronted by derisory slogans such as “take back control” and “make American great again.” Trump himself moved from now knowing what Brexit even was to promising to deliver “Brexit plus, plus, plus”. In both cases disillusioned voters opted for a negative, a rejection of the existing order, in favor of a totally unclear path.
The elites had failed. The frontline salesman for Brexit, Boris Johnson, could hardly work out what it meant. The British government still cannot. And Trump policy statements have usually been spouted out in 140 characters or less. The reality is, barring a couple of key positions, nobody is sure quite what President Trump will do, just us nobody knows what Brexit Britain will look like.
Bigotry, hatred and racism were the jet fuel in both campaigns, but in particular Trump’s. Racism was an electoral asset. In Britain, although the remain campaign had no winning answer to the fear of refugees and immigrants and increasing anti-Muslim sentiment, it never even started to plumb the depths of Trump’s rallies.
Trump deliberately and openly ran the most bigoted, racist, sexist fascist campaign ever seen in a supposedly democratic nation. Yet he knows as his acceptance speech highlighted that while he can sadly win an election on hate and division, he can only govern with a degree of consensus and unity.
The reality is, barring a couple of key positions, nobody is sure quite what President Trump will do, just us nobody knows what Brexit Britain will look like
Across the world every far right extremist and crackpot is celebrating from David Duke, to Geert Wilders, Nigel Farage and Viktor Orban. It will be open season on liberal values and human rights. Historic struggles that many liberals assumed they had as good as won on racism and sexism have regressed decades. Walls that had been taken down are going back up, the worst walls being those in the minds of too many far right foot soldiers.
It also exposes huge chasms in society in the United States, Britain and a host of other countries experiencing far-right surges. These splits are not easily healed. To get elected Trump needed to expose these splits; to govern he may need to heal some.
Yet like so many analogies it can only go so far. Britain deciding to leave the EU is a long term decision that totally revises its relationship not just with Europe but the world. It could also unravel the United Kingdom. The relief for those who did not vote for Trump is that in four years they have the chance to kick him out.
Yet the division and hatred are deep rooted. Brexiteers did reject the European Union but all claim to want to open up to the rest of the world and create new relationships. Protectionist Trump, proclaims to be anti-free trade (despite being a long-term beneficiary) who will shred the various trade deals the US has entered into.
Brexit was a dour campaign that hardly inspired along with Clinton’s lacklustre and visionless effort. Trump however was playing to the mob like a Roman Emperor entertaining the mob in the colosseum. From the get-go his campaign was energetic, entertaining and never out of the headlines. Being grossly offensive became a campaign plus. He is unlikely to govern in the same fashion.
Above all, it is hard how to see how either project will not end in failure, complete or partial. Brexit could damage Europe, not just the EU, for decades, and will not resolve the issues that so many in Britain hope it will. Trump has revealed so little in terms of policies it is hard to believe that his little chubby fingers will pull rabbits out of a hat that so many blue-collar voters expect him to.
Yet progressives must learn some painful lessons. Too many people have been left behind, see globalisation as a threat and are scared of losing their core identity. Both in the US, in Britain and across much of the rest of Europe huge swathes of the population cherish change. These voters will not just automatically return into the arms of centrist parties when the far right fails. Fresh vision and leadership is required that can deliver real and lasting change. ___________________ Chris Doyle is the director of CAABU (the London-based Council for Arab-British Understanding). He has worked with the Council since 1993 after graduating with a first class honors degree in Arabic and Islamic Studies at Exeter University. As the lead spokesperson for Caabu and as an acknowledged expert on the region, Chris is a frequent commentator on TV and Radio, having given over 148 interviews on the Arab world in in 2012 alone. He gives numerous talks around the country on issues such as the Arab Spring, Libya, Syria, Palestine, Iraq, Islamophobia and the Arabs in Britain. He has had numerous articles and letters published in the British and international media. He has travelled to nearly every country in the Middle East. He has organized and accompanied numerous British Parliamentary delegations to Arab countries. Most recently he took Parliamentary delegations to the West Bank in April, November, December 2013 and January 2014 including with former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw.
«Nayla Tueni is one of the few elected female politicians in Lebanon and of the two youngest. She became a member of parliament in 2009 and following the assassination of her father, Gebran, she is currently a member of the board and Deputy General Manager of Lebanon’s leading daily, Annahar. Prior to her political career, Nayla had trained, written in and managed various sections of Annahar, where she currently has a regular column.»
Su cinque editorialisti, in questo numero tre sono femmine e due sono maschi. Il rapporto tra scrittori maschi e femmina varia di volta in volta a seconda degli argomenti proposti. Sembrerebbe che nessuno abbia rubriche fisse.
Gli articoli scritti da queste signore sono usualmente molto equilibrati e, spesso, grondano buon senso, cosa che corrobora potentemente gli argomenti addotti. Non si nota in nulla che siano stati scritti da una femmina piuttosto che da un maschio: questo sembrerebbe essere un problema inesistente, come dovrebbe essere in un normale ambiente di lavoro.
A giudicare dal livello degli scritti, siano essi condivisibili o meno, queste signore non sono arrivate a scrivere su Al Arabiya in “quote rosa“: hanno passato molto più tempo a studiare sui libri che dedicandosi a quella occupazione peculiare delle loro colleghe occidentali.
In secondo luogo, si osservino bene le fotografie. Sono tutte ben curate, con trucco appena visibile, qualche monile ben accostato, e non indossano nessuna forma di velo. Eppure sono islamiche e praticano regolarmente le usuali costumanze religiose.
* * * * * * *
Questo argomento è stato già affrontato diverse volte.
Nessuno potrebbe contestare ad Al Arabiya di non essere islamici, né di esprimere idee di ambienti ostili o prevenuti nei confronti di tale religione.
Questa testata ci presenta la situazione femminile per quello che è in Arabia, al di là della facile retorica e della stucchevole disinformazione.
L’appartenenza all’uno od all’altro sesso è ininfluente in ambito lavorativo. Le femmine possono tranquillamente farsi la loro istruzione ed accedono a posti di lavoro seguendo una ragionevole graduatoria di merito. Per parlare e scrive l’inglese in modo così fluente, hanno compiuto stage all’estero di lunga durata.
Non indossano né ostentano segni o simboli di appartenenza.
Insomma, si comportano da persone normali. Cosa che non guasta mai.
Fare paragoni è sempre poco delicato, ma alcune considerazioni sembrerebbero sorgere spontanee.
I media occidentali, specialmente le televisioni, sono stati colonizzate da giornaliste il livello professionale delle quali potrebbe a stento garantir loro un posto di scopino ai Fori Imperiali. Faziose, disinformate e disinformanti, litigiose quasi del tutto deprivate di un briciolo di sano buon senso.
Si direbbe che siano state messe in tali posizioni al fine deliberato di ridicolizzare la figura femminile.
E chi mai osasse far presente che un minimo di preparazione non sarebbe stato sgradito, è linciato come anti – femminista.
Da ultimo ma non per ultimo, il problema della piccaggetta sulla testa è un problema artificioso che in Occidente è gonfiato oltre misura per scopi politici. È diventato segnale di appartenenza politica piuttosto che religiosa.
Insomma, ci sarebbe da rivedere criticamente molte nostre posizioni.