Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
2 avril 2015 4 02 /04 /avril /2015 14:30

France

- Denis Charbit, politologue : « Mon objectif : rétablir la complexité d’Israël » (Actualité Juive) - "Prenons l’idée reçue : « Le gouvernement israélien fait preuve d'intransigeance ». J’ai relevé trois citations, parues dans trois journaux à propos de sujets différents (le nucléaire iranien, le processus de paix), et les trois soulignaient « l'intransigeance d'Israël ». Ce conformisme est impressionnant".
http://www.actuj.com/2015-03/israel/1640-denis-charbit-politologue-mon-objectif-retablir-la-complexite-d-israel
"Dans Israël et ses paradoxes (éditions Le Cavalier Bleu,22 e), le titulaire de la chaire de sociologie, de science politiques et de communication de l’Université ouverte d’Israël explore les idées reçues sur l’Etat hébreu. Un petit bijou d’intelligence dialectique."
"- Actualité Juive : Votre livre est publié dans une collection qui se nomme « idées reçues » et qui s’est notamment intéressée à l’Iran, à l’Egypte ou aux Etats-Unis. Est-ce qu’Israël fait l’objet d’un traitement particulier en matière de préjugés ?
- Denis Charbit : Cette collection a effectivement pour point de départ l’idée qu'il est judicieux de traiter d'un sujet – que cela soit un pays, une figure historique ou une idéologie – en déconstruisant les idées reçues dont il fait l’objet. Cela permet dans le cas d'Israël de rétablir la complexité du pays, complexité que les idées reçues ignorent.
La plupart des idées choisies dans ce livre sont défavorables à l’Etat d’Israël. Ce sont elles qui tiennent aujourd’hui le haut du pavé. J’ai retenu néanmoins quatre préjugés favorables, répandus en Israël et dans les communautés juives de diaspora. Le titre du chapitre reprend l'idée reçue dans sa formulation la plus connue (« Les Arabes d'Israël sont des citoyens de seconde zone »), illustrée ensuite par une citation d’un chercheur, d'un intellectuel ou d’un journaliste. Prenons l’idée reçue : « Le gouvernement israélien fait preuve d'intransigeance ». J’ai relevé trois citations, parues dans trois journaux à propos de sujets différents (le nucléaire iranien, le processus de paix), et les trois soulignaient « l'intransigeance d'Israël ». Ce conformisme est impressionnant.
- A.J. : Comment avez-vous procédé sur le plan méthodologique ?
- D.C. : Ma démarche a consisté à prendre au sérieux les idées reçues. Ma réponse n’a pas été de dire qu’elles témoignent de l’antisémitisme ou de l’antisionisme de leurs auteurs. J'ai voulu examiner ce qu’ils disent, chercher les arguments sur lesquels ils se fondent lorsqu'ils accusent Israël, par exemple, de pratiquer l’apartheid. Ce travail accompli, je passe alors à l'examen de la thèse adverse : quelles sont les réponses avancées pour démentir l'accusation d'apartheid ? Sur le plan de l’écriture, j'ai éprouvé une grande satisfaction intellectuelle à jongler, à chaque fois, avec deux thèses. Cela oblige à restituer la complexité des représentations et des arguments, à dégager la relativité du sens dont ils sont porteurs. Je laisse au lecteur le soin de trancher, mais je ne me suis pas interdit d’exprimer mon point de vue. J’habite en Israël depuis quarante ans. Je suis très lucide sur ses gloires et ses erreurs, ses acquis et ses manques, et je refuse de verser dans l’apologétique. [...]
- A.J. : Les médias et les leaders d’opinion abordent souvent la question israélienne à travers la perspective du conflit israélien, ce qui les amène à insister sur les questions de puissance et de rapports de force. Est-ce que vous considérez qu’on a tendance à négliger la société israélienne et sa complexité ?
- D.C. : Absolument. La première partie de mon livre porte justement sur cette dimension. Il m’importait d'ouvrir par la société avant de braquer mes projecteurs sur le conflit israélo-arabe. C’est d’ailleurs la raison pour laquelle j’ai tenu à ce que la couverture de l’ouvrage ne montre pas un drapeau ou des soldats, comme cela est généralement le cas des publications sur Israël, mais un panneau indicateur avec Jérusalem et Tel-Aviv inscrits en hébreu, en arabe et en anglais. Cela rend mieux la complexité et la pluralité d’Israël."

- Jean-Marie Le Pen récidive à nouveau sur le « détail » des chambres à gaz (AFP) - « Ce que j’ai dit correspondait à ma pensée : que les chambres à gaz étaient un point de détail de la guerre, à moins d’admettre que ce soit la guerre qui soit un détail des chambres à gaz ».
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/jean-marie-le-pen-recidive-a-nouveau-sur-le-detail-des-chambres-a-gaz/

- Un voyage en Israël lourd de symboles pour 15 adolescents du Val-d'Oise (AFP)
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/voyage-isra%C3%ABl-lourd-symboles-15-adolescents-val-doise-115509303.html
"Trois mois après les attentats de Paris, trois ans après ceux de Toulouse, Latifa Ibn Ziaten, mère d'une des victimes de Mohamed Merah, s'apprête à emmener en Israël et dans les territoires palestiniens une quinzaine d'adolescents du Val-d'Oise pour un voyage lourd de symboles.
Attentifs, coiffés avec soin, en costume-cravate même pour certains garçons, les lycéens et collégiens choisis pour le voyage étaient reçus mardi à l'ambassade d'Israël, pour un premier contact avec ce pays qui suscite des opinions tranchées. "Quand j'ai annoncé que j'allais en Israël, ma mère m'a dit : "Tu vas te faire tuer", certaines de mes copines l'ont mal pris en disant "Tu es pour Israël ou pour la Palestine ?" raconte Sharyse Etshoele, élève de troisième au collège Jean-Lurçat de Sarcelles. "Avant de préparer le voyage, je connaissais d'Israël ce qu'on en voit à la télé, le côté péjoratif. Il y a la guerre, mais je veux voir un autre côté", explique cette jeune fille d'origine africaine. [...]"

- Les Verts pour le nucléaire… en Iran !, Luc Rosenzweig (Causeur)
http://www.causeur.fr/verts-nucleaire-iran-32127.html
"La direction nationale d’EELV-les Verts vient de publier un communiqué exhortant le gouvernement français à ne pas céder aux « pressions israéliennes » sur sa diplomatie visant à empêcher l’Iran de se doter de l’arme nucléaire. Sans le dire explicitement, nos écologistes hexagonaux cautionnent donc le projet des ayatollahs de se doter de centrales nucléaires, voire plus si affinités. Entre la transition énergétique planétaire et la détestation d’Israël, le cœur vert ne balance pas : c’est cette dernière qui l’emporte !
Et pourtant, EELV avait une solution aussi évidente qu’élégante à proposer pour sortir de l’impasse des négociations de Lausanne : les grandes puissances financeraient l’équipement en hélices des milliers de minarets s’élevant sur le territoire persan, pour fournir les mégawatts dont le pays semble avoir tant besoin."

**********************************************

Iran


- Iran militia chief: Destroying Israel is ‘nonnegotiable’ (Times of Israel) - "Basij commander Mohammad Reza Naqdi also threatens Saudis, saying their fate will be like that of Saddam Hussein".
http://www.timesofisrael.com/iran-militia-chief-destroying-israel-nonnegotiable/

- La levée des sanctions à l’ONU, principale pomme de discorde, Yves-Michel Riols (Le Monde) - "la France est à l’origine d’une proposition qui envisagerait la levée de certaines sanctions de l’ONU, en échange de l’adoption d’un mécanisme dit "snap back", qui réimposerait les sanctions si l’Iran ne tenait pas ses engagements. Mais la Russie rechigne à approuver un procédé qui serait automatique".
http://www.lemonde.fr/international/article/2015/04/02/la-levee-des-sanctions-a-l-onu-principale-pomme-de-discorde_4608466_3210.html
"Dans la dernière ligne droite des négociations à Lausanne, la question de la levée des sanctions internationales contre l’Iran a été au cœur de toutes les tensions. Et pas simplement entre les Iraniens et les Occidentaux, mais aussi à l’intérieur même du groupe « P5 + 1 », qui regroupe les Etats-Unis, la Russie, la Chine, la France, le Royaume-Uni et l’Allemagne. Cela a été particulièrement flagrant dans la nuit du mardi 31 mars au mercredi 1er avril, lorsque les négociations paraissaient sur le point de voler en éclat.
La Russie, discrètement soutenue par la Chine, s’est ouvertement désolidarisée des autres pays du « P5 + 1 » en défendant une levée de toutes les sanctions contre l’Iran, en cas d’accord, y compris celles de l’ONU. Or, les six résolutions du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies, adoptées entre 2006 et 2010, sont précisément celles que les Européens et les Américains veulent lever en dernier, car elles portent surtout sur les activités de prolifération nucléaire.
Mais pour Téhéran elles ont une forte valeur symbolique car tant qu’elles sont en vigueur l’Iran continue d’être traité avec suspicion par la communauté internationale. « Obtenir une levée des sanctions de l’ONU permettrait au président Rohani de présenter un accord sur le nucléaire comme une victoire en arguant que le pays a retrouvé une respectabilité, ce qui faciliterait par ailleurs des concessions sur le programme nucléaire », note Ali Vaez, expert de l’Iran à l’International Crisis Group.
D’où les débats intenses qui se sont déroulés à Lausanne pour trouver un compromis sur cette épineuse question. En l’occurrence, la France est à l’origine d’une proposition qui envisagerait la levée de certaines sanctions de l’ONU, en échange de l’adoption d’un mécanisme dit snap back, qui réimposerait les sanctions si l’Iran ne tenait pas ses engagements. Mais la Russie rechigne à approuver un procédé qui serait automatique car cela reviendrait à priver un membre permanent du Conseil de sécurité de son droit de veto.
Autre obstacle, la France, notamment, ne veut pas toucher aux sanctions de l’ONU avant d’obtenir des assurances sur l’absence de toute dimension militaire du programme nucléaire en Iran. En tout état de cause, juge un diplomate, elles ne pourront pas être levées sans le feu vert de l’Agence internationale de l’énergie atomique (AIEA), une procédure qui pourrait prendre jusqu’à plusieurs années."

- Statement by PM Netanyahu on Lausanne Talks (Vidéo 2mn)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KDT9uwrJJQ
- Iran : Israël se réserve toutes les options y compris militaire (AFP) - "A propos d'éventuelles objections américaines, M. Steinitz a rappelé qu'en juin 1981 l'aviation israélienne avait attaqué le réacteur nucléaire irakien d'Osirak sous Saddam Hussein et que "cette opération n'avait pas été lancée en accord avec les Etats-Unis". Elle avait valu à Israël de vives critiques américaines".
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/iran-isra%C3%ABl-r%C3%A9serve-options-compris-militaire-101656720.html
- Nucléaire iranien : "en Israël, nous sommes extrêmement inquiets", Anne-Julie Contenay (Europe 1) - "J’espère que Fabius tiendra le coup, j’imagine qu’il y a de très grandes pressions exercées sur lui par John Kerry, qui est là pour cela".
http://www.europe1.fr/international/nucleaire-iranien-en-israel-nous-sommes-extremement-inquiets-2416929
""L’accord n’est pas bon. S’il l’était, Israël serait pour". Avi Pazner, ancien ambassadeur d'Israël en France et ex-porte-parole du gouvernement, a dénoncé jeudi sur Europe 1 l'accord qui se dessine à Lausanne sur la question du nucléaire iranien. "En Israël, nous sommes extrêmement inquiets de voir cet accord qui permettra à l’Iran, dans dix ans, dans quinze ans, d’acquérir l’arme nucléaire", a asséné le diplomate. "L’accord, d’après ce que nous savons, permet à l’Iran de continuer son enrichissement d’uranium. Cela veut dire que les autres grandes puissances du Moyen-Orient vont elles aussi vouloir enrichir l’uranium", craint l'ancien ambassadeur, qui redoute une "possible course à l'arme nucléaire" dans la région.
Pour Avi Pazner, il y a dans les négociations "un clair avantage iranien", "à cause de la date-butoir [l'échéance initialement prévue mardi à minuit mais dépassée], de par la décision américaine de ne pas la respecter et d'avoir un accord presque à tout prix", ce qui est "extrêmement dangereux". "Je ne vois pas comment John Kerry [le chef de la diplomatie américaine] peut retourner aux Etats-Unis sans avoir d'accord, alors que pour le président Obama, c'était une des pièces maîtresses de sa politique étrangère", estime Avi Pazner, insistant : "il fallait tout simplement négocier jusqu'à ce qu'on arrive à un arrangement, là, cela veut dire qu'on est pressés et cela donne un avantage à l'adversaire".
L'ancien ambassadeur a aussi salué la position de la France, "beaucoup plus ferme que celle des Etats-Unis". "J’espère que Fabius tiendra le coup, j’imagine qu’il y a de très grandes pressions exercées sur lui par John Kerry, qui est là pour cela", a ajouté Avi Pazner, pour qui "c’est Kerry qui mène le jeu". Et le diplomate d'insister : "je vois que la France essaie de freiner une course vers un accord mauvais, mais je ne sais pas si elle réussira"."

- Deal or No, Iran Will Remain a Nuclear Threat, Dennis Ross (Politico) - "At some point, the Obama administration changed its objective from one of transforming the Iranian nuclear program to one of ensuring that Iran could not have a breakout time of less than one year. The former was guided by our determination to press Iran to change its intent about pursuing or at least preserving the option of having a nuclear weapon. The latter clearly reflects a very different judgment: that we were not able to alter the Iranian intentions, so instead we needed to focus on constraining their capabilities"; "if the administration wants to prove that the eventual agreement is acceptable, it will need to show that it has produced the bare minimum of the outcome that we once hoped for: that there will be a breakout time of at least one year; that the Iranians cannot deny inspectors access to any site, including those on military or Revolutionary Guard facilities; and that it has anticipated a full range of different Iranian violations and won’t wait for others to respond to them".
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/03/iran-nuclear-threat-116558.html
"Ambassador Dennis Ross is a long-time U.S. Mideast negotiator and author of the forthcoming Doomed to Succeed: The US-Israeli relationship from Truman to Obama."
"Even if much remains to be thrashed out, the tentative framework understanding that the P5+1 is trying to conclude with Iran would represent progress toward constraining the Iranian nuclear program. The claim of the Obama administration that any eventual agreement will block all pathways toward an Iranian nuclear weapon, however, is surely an overstatement. At best, a deal will create impediments for the life of the agreement but offer little afterward. At that point, the administration and its successors would need to make clear that should Iran seek to break out to the production of weapons-grade enriched uranium—or the preparation of nuclear weapons—it would trigger the use of force by us.
But in that case, we would be acting to deter the Iranians from translating their sizable nuclear infrastructure into a nuclear weapon, not to dismantle the program.
It is noteworthy that the agreement that the administration still hopes to finalize with the Iranians by June 30 does not reflect the objective we had hoped to achieve for much of President Barack Obama’s first term. At that point, when I was in the administration, our aim was to transform the character of the Iranian nuclear program so that the peaceful intent of its capabilities would be demonstrated unmistakably to the international community. Necessarily, that meant that Iran could not have a large nuclear infrastructure. If permitted enrichment, it would have to be highly circumscribed and limited to small numbers for the purposes of research or production of medical isotopes. If Iran wanted additional nuclear reactors to generate electricity, it would receive its fuel from international fuel banks and its spent fuel would be sent out of the country—much like is done with the Bushehr reactor today. Similarly, there would be little or no stockpile of enriched uranium in the country that the Iranians might surreptitiously seek to purify to weapons grade. And, the questions about the possible military dimensions of the Iranian nuclear program—a euphemism for Iran’s efforts to create a nuclear weapon—would have been satisfactorily answered.
At some point, the Obama administration changed its objective from one of transforming the Iranian nuclear program to one of ensuring that Iran could not have a breakout time of less than one year. The former was guided by our determination to press Iran to change its intent about pursuing or at least preserving the option of having a nuclear weapon. The latter clearly reflects a very different judgment: that we were not able to alter the Iranian intentions, so instead we needed to focus on constraining their capabilities.
By definition, when we speak about a one-year breakout time, we are accepting that Iran will have the means and infrastructure to produce nuclear weapons and we are trying to develop impediments to its doing so—even as we also create indicators that alert us to any such Iranian effort.
Clearly, during the course of negotiations, faced with Tehran's unwillingness to dismantle any of its nuclear facilities, the administration came to the conclusion that we could not diplomatically roll back the Iranian nuclear infrastructure in any significant way. But we could diplomatically succeed in containing the Iranian nuclear program, putting limits on it and preventing its growth for the next 15 years. Moreover, during that time, we could also create enough transparency to know whether the Iranians were moving toward a bomb—and whether the Iranian awareness of that would deter them from pursuing such a capability. Apparently, for the president, the secretary of state and our lead negotiators, other alternatives could not promise as good an outcome. Indeed, increased sanctions might pressure the Iranians but could not stop the acceleration of their nuclear program if diplomacy broke down. That might leave the use of force, with all its unintended consequences, as the only option, and that has little appeal for the administration, particularly if we can limit the Iranians through other means.
But if the measure of the negotiations is now about breakout time, then the administration needs to show convincingly that the verification regime will be far-reaching and capable of detecting whatever the Iranians are doing and whenever they do it. In fact, a one-year breakout time depends not just on the number and type of centrifuges, their output and the stockpile of enriched uranium—all of which can be calculated—but also on the administration's ability to discover the moment at which the Iranians begin to sneak out, creep out or break out from the limitations placed on them.
Moreover, for those who say that one year is not enough time because even discovery of a violation does not ensure a response, the administration will need to explain why this agreement will not function like other arms control agreements, where questions related to noncompliance have historically bogged down in endless discussions. How will we respond if we detect a violation, particularly a serious one? Will the mechanism for response provide for a quick determination? What if the Russians and others don’t agree or insist that an extended discussion with the Iranians is required? How can we be sure that small violations don’t change the base line and shrink the breakout time? Under what circumstances might we act unilaterally?
Assuming an agreement is finalized by June 30, the administration may well be right that this was the best one possible—and that it is better than the other alternatives. That, of course, does not make it a good agreement. Even a bad agreement might be better than the available alternatives, but if the administration wants to prove that the eventual agreement is acceptable, it will need to show that it has produced the bare minimum of the outcome that we once hoped for: that there will be a breakout time of at least one year; that the Iranians cannot deny inspectors access to any site, including those on military or Revolutionary Guard facilities; and that it has anticipated a full range of different Iranian violations and won’t wait for others to respond to them. In reality, if we are to deter Iranian violations, they must know in advance what the consequences are and that they will be high.
Skepticism about an agreement based on constraining Iranian capabilities, and not on demonstrating a shift in Iranian intentions, is understandable. Rather than questioning the motivations of the skeptics, the administration would be wise to demonstrate that it has compelling answers to their concerns about the possible vulnerabilities of the deal. It might just convince some of the skeptics that the agreement is acceptable."

- Expert: “Mistake” To Believe That Only Alternative to Nuke Deal with Iran is War (The Tower) - voir la courte vidéo de l'entretien ici.
http://www.thetower.org/1832-expert-mistake-to-believe-that-only-alternative-to-nuke-deal-with-iran-is-war/
"In an interview with Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC Monday, David Albright, the president of the Institute for Science and International Security, disputed the idea that the only alternative of the deal being negotiated with Iran was a war. The relevant segment of the interview is embedded below. When Mitchell asked if “we’re better not to have a deal at all,” Albright responded:
"Well I think a bad deal is worse than no deal. I think I’ll repeat what the U.S. government has said many times. And I’ll also repeat what other U.S. [government] officials have said to me privately and publicly. There are alternatives to not having a deal and one of them as stated by very senior treasury official recently is that they would work with Congress to increase pressure on Iran. I think one of the mistakes is to think that somehow if there’s no deal it’s war. I think that’s good in a kind of the rhetorical war that takes place within the Washington Beltway but in real life … those are not the only two choices by any means."
Albright echoed the assessment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who told Mitchell two weeks ago, “I think there are other options as well. I think you can get a better deal. And I think the one that I would have is to reduce Iran’s nuclear capabilities so you increase the breakout time. I mean, if I had a vote on that negotiating team, I would say zero centrifuges”."

- Israel will benefit from an Iran nuclear deal, Ron Ben-Yishai (Ynet) - "We can relax, even without an agreement in Lausanne, nuclear war will not break out any time soon. The parties are eager for an agreement and therefore the negotiations will continue in the summer. And Israel? It also knows that just like any political agreement, an attack would only lead to a decade-long delay in Iran's nuclear project".
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4642911,00.html
- The Americans are being naive about Iran, Alex Fishman (Ynet) - "The US administration either believes that the supervision on Iran's nuclear program will be perfect, or that the Iranians have no intention of cheating. Either way, when the Americans talk about a historic deal, Israel and the Middle East react hysterically".
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4642759,00.html
- There is still hope that Iran won't emerge victorious in Lausanne, Israel Harel (Haaretz) - "There are a few indications that positions on the Iranian nuclear deal are hardening in Washington, probably due to pressure from Israel and Congress".
http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.650085

**********************************************

Israël

- Le sacrifice d'un agneau avant la Pâque juive reconstitué à Jérusalem (i24) - "Cette scène relatant les cérémonies précédant les fêtes de Pessah (la Paque juive) 200 ans avant notre ère, s'est jouée lundi à Jérusalem, non loin du Mont du Temple (esplanade des Mosquées pour les musulmans). Cette "répétition générale", organisée chaque année par les membres du mouvement des Fidèles au Mont du Temple, a pour but pour présenter au public une reconstitution la plus exacte possible du rituel qui était d'usage à l'époque du Temple".
http://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/israel/societe/66365-150402-le-sacrifice-d-un-agneau-avant-la-paque-juive-reconstitue-a-jerusalem

**********************************************

Gaza & Hamas

- Israël : des arbres pour se protéger des tirs de roquettes (i24) - "Israël va planter des arbres le long des villes frontalières de Gaza pour cacher les habitations afin de les protéger des tirs de roquettes du Hamas. Ce projet, dont le coût est estimé à 3,3 millions de dollars, vise à protéger les localités les plus durement touchées durant le conflit de l'été dernier".
http://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/israel/66159-150331-israel-des-arbres-pour-se-proteger-des-tirs-de-roquettes

- Abbas Wants Arabs to Bomb Gaza Strip, Khaled Abu Toameh (Gatestone Institute) - "the same Palestinian Authority, which condemned Israel over Operation Protective Edge, is calling on Arab armies to launch a military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip".
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5468/arabs-bomb-gaza
"The Palestinian Authority (PA), whose leaders say they are planning to file "war crimes" charges against Israel over its last war with Hamas, is now calling on Arab countries to launch a military strike against the Gaza Strip, similar to the Saudi-led campaign against Iranian-backed Houthis in Yemen. The call to launch an Arab military strike against the Gaza Strip was made by Mahmoud Habbash, a senior advisor to PA President Mahmoud Abbas.
Commenting on the Saudi-led military operations in Yemen, Habbash, who also holds the post of Chief Islamic Judge, said in a Friday sermon at a mosque in Ramallah: "Protecting legitimacy in an Arab country is a duty of all Arab leaders. They must take the initiative to strike with an iron fist against those who come out against legitimacy, regardless of the time and place, starting from Palestine. What happened in the Gaza Strip was a [Hamas] coup. There should be no dialogue with those behind the coup and they must be hit with an iron fist."
The following day, Abbas himself hinted that he too would like to see the Arab states launch a military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip. Addressing the 26th Arab League Summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm al-Sheikh, Abbas declared: "I hope the Arab states carry out the same policy that they are in Yemen in the case of all Arab nations that suffer from internal conflicts -- such as Palestine, Syria, Libya and Iraq."
When Israel launched Operation Protective Edge in the summer of last year in response to the firing of rockets at Israeli cities, the Palestinian Authority and its leaders, including Abbas, were quick to condemn Israelis for allegedly perpetrating "war crimes" against Palestinians. But now the same Palestinian Authority, which condemned Israel over Operation Protective Edge, is calling on Arab armies to launch a military campaign against Hamas in the Gaza Strip.
For Abbas and his top advisors, it is fine if the Gaza Strip is attacked, so long as Israel is not the attacker. In fact, the PA is inviting the Arab states to do exactly what the Israel Defense Forces did in the summer of 2014: to launch airstrikes against terror bases belonging to Hamas and other radical groups inside the Gaza Strip. If anything, the appeal to Arab countries to extend their airstrikes from Yemen to the Gaza Strip smacks of hypocrisy. [...]
The PA wants the Arabs to attack the Gaza Strip not in order to stop the rocket attacks against Israel. Rather, it wants the Arab armies to help it in its efforts to remove Hamas from power so that the PA will be able to return to the Gaza Strip, from where it was expelled in 2007. [...]
The Palestinian Authority's call for an Arab military strike against Hamas has sparked a wave of protests in the Palestinian territories. Thousands of Palestinians marched in the Gaza Strip, chanting slogans denouncing Abbas and calling on him to step down. [...]"
- Abbas Slammed by Hamas and Islamic Jihad for Urging Arab Intervention in Gaza (JNS.org) - "Dawood Shehad, a spokesperson from Islamic Jihad, said Abbas’s statements are “poisonous and to destroy every effort towards national unity and internal cohesion”."
http://www.jns.org/news-briefs/2015/3/30/abbas-slammed-by-hamas-and-islamic-jihad-for-urging-arab-intervention-in-gaza

- Démission du ministre de l'économie palestinien, chargé de la reconstruction de Gaza (AFP) - "M. Mustafa avait notamment à plusieurs reprises dénoncé les promesses non tenues des donateurs internationaux, rappelant que sur plus de 5 milliards de dollars (4,6 milliards d'euros) promis au Caire en octobre, quelques centaines de millions seulement avaient été versés".
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2015/04/01/demission-du-ministre-de-l-economie-palestinien-charge-de-la-reconstruction-de-gaza_4607503_3218.html

**********************************************

Judée-Samarie

- Un soldat israélien poignardé en Cisjordanie (Times of Israel) - "L’incident s’est produit alors qu’un groupe de Palestiniens tentait d’entrer illégalement en Israël ; l’agresseur a été arrêté".
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/un-soldat-israelien-poignarde-en-cisjordanie/

- IDF destroys 4 structures in W. Bank settler outpost erected to honor 3 slain teens (JP) - "The Civil Administration of Judea and Samaria destroyed four temporary structures Tuesday morning in an outpost that was erected last summer in honor of the three teens kidnapped and murdered by Hamas. One of the structures served as a synagogue, and another to offer soldiers a warm resting spot in the area".
http://www.jpost.com/Arab-Israeli-Conflict/IDF-destroys-four-structures-in-West-Bank-outpost-erected-to-honor-3-slain-teens-395749

**********************************************

"Processus de paix"

- La Palestine devient le 123e membre de la Cour pénale internationale, Stéphanie Maupas (Le Monde) - "Une première demande palestinienne avait été rejetée en avril 2012, au motif que la Palestine n’était pas un Etat. L’obstacle est désormais surmonté, mais la procureure devra encore analyser tous les aspects légaux, et, « juridiquement, il est possible de rétablir l’incompétence de la Cour et de déclarer l’affaire irrecevable », estime un expert en droit international. D’autant que la bataille politico-judiciaire qui s’annonce pourrait aussi cibler la Cour. En mars, le ministre des affaires étrangères israélien, Avigdor Lieberman, promettait de faire du lobbying pour convaincre les Etats de ne pas contribuer au budget de la juridiction".
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2015/04/01/la-palestine-devient-le-123e-membre-de-la-cour-penale-internationale_4607170_3218.html
- La Palestine devient le 123e État membre de la Cour pénale internationale, Cyrille Louis (Le Figaro) - "l'issue de la procédure engagée par le procureur Bensoudah paraît incertaine. L'État hébreu, qui n'est pas partie au Statut de Rome, n'est en effet pas tenu de coopérer avec la CPI. S'agissant des crimes commis durant la dernière guerre à Gaza, il pourra en outre faire valoir que Tsahal a ouvert ses propres enquêtes et entend juger les responsables. Un argument qui, au moins sur ce pan du dossier, pourrait conduire la Cour à se déclarer incompétente".
http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2015/04/01/01003-20150401ARTFIG00061-la-palestine-devient-le-123e-etat-membre-de-la-cour-penale-internationale.php
- CPI : Israël prépare sa riposte à l’adhésion de la Palestine, Nissim Behar (Libération)
http://www.liberation.fr/monde/2015/04/01/cpi-israel-prepare-sa-riposte-a-l-adhesion-de-la-palestine_1233266
"[...] Des projets de plaintes pour «crimes de guerre» ou «crimes contre l’humanité» visant le Hamas sont à l’étude. Israël estime disposer d’un dossier solide, puisque la branche armée de cette organisation a bombardé des villes et villages de l’Etat hébreu et que sa branche politique participe au gouvernement de l’Autorité palestinienne. Selon le principe de subsidiarité, la CPI ne peut être saisie d’un dossier si la justice de ses Etats membres le traite déjà. Or, les juristes israéliens estiment que les magistrats palestiniens ne prendront jamais le risque de poursuivre le Hamas de Gaza, ce qui ouvre un boulevard aux avocats de l’Etat hébreu. A contrario, la justice militaire israélienne a déjà commencé à enquêter sur des allégations de crimes de guerre imputées à des officiers et des soldats de Tsahal durant les différentes opérations menées depuis 2009. De ce fait, la CPI ne pourra pas examiner ces dossiers même si l’Autorité palestinienne l’exige."
- Palestinians join international court to fight Israel, William Booth (Washington Post) - "it is possible that the ICC judges will ultimately decide that the Palestinians do not have standing at the court or that the Israelis should not be subject to an investigation, for example, because they carry out their own inquires".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/palestinians-join-international-criminal-court-to-fight-israel/2015/04/01/e6b79c78-d70c-11e4-bf0b-f648b95a6488_story.html
"[...] In a move once described by the Palestinians as “the nuclear option,” they have successfully joined the court, which many Israeli legal experts said would never happen. The tribunal’s top prosecutor has launched a preliminary examination to determine whether grave crimes were committed in the Israeli-occupied territories and if the ICC has proper jurisdiction to investigate.
U.S. diplomats had warned the Palestinians not to join the court, arguing that the move would only further undermine already fractious relations with Israel, anger a Republican-controlled Congress that provides $400 million in annual aid and dim prospects for negotiations to create a sovereign Palestinian nation.
Palestinian leaders, however, celebrated on Wednesday, saying their accession to the court will serve to protect Palestinians in the future and to expose Israel to possible prosecution for past alleged war crimes in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Palestinian officials imagined a day when Israeli generals and senior officials might find themselves summoned to appear before the tribunal or be arrested on ICC warrants as they pass through countries that are members of the court. [...]
Israel disputes this, and Israeli legal experts counter that the Palestinian accession to the court means little. “It is a useless public relations exercise,” said Alan Baker, former legal adviser and deputy director-general of the Israeli Foreign Ministry.
Israel and the State Department have argued that the Palestinians should not be granted membership to the court because “Palestine” is not a true state. The Palestinians tried to join the court in 2009 but were denied admission. But after the United Nations awarded them “non-member observer state” status in 2012, the Palestinians’ application to become party to the Rome Statute and accede to the court was accepted this year.
By joining the ICC, the Palestinians are also exposed to scrutiny. Israel has charged that the militant Islamist movement Hamas and its militia are guilty of war crimes for the indiscriminate rocket fire at civilian population centers in Israel. Amnesty International concluded the same thing in a report last week. The human rights group has argued that both Israel and Hamas committed crimes in the last Gaza war and that international tribunals and threats of war crime charges may serve to restrain both sides in future conflicts. [...]
ICC prosecutors have examined allegations of war crimes in 20 countries but opened investigations in only eight. The court has concluded three trials, winning two convictions.
Eugene Kontorovich, a professor at the Northwestern University School of Law, said that it is possible that the ICC judges will ultimately decide that the Palestinians do not have standing at the court or that the Israelis should not be subject to an investigation, for example, because they carry out their own inquires. Kontorovich said that the court has operated for only a dozen years and that there has not been enough case law to predict what may happen next."

- La facture d’électricité au cœur du litige entre Israël et l’AP (Times of Israel) - "les deux parties débattent encore autour des 400 millions de shekels" que les Palestiniens doivent à la compagnie israélienne d'électricité.
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/la-facture-delectricite-au-coeur-du-litige-entre-israel-et-lap/
"Quatre jours après l’annonce d’Israël qu’il verserait à l’Autorité palestinienne les centaines de millions de dollars de fonds fiscaux impayés, un différend sur la taille de la facture d’électricité impayée de l’AP demeure. Selon une source palestinienne, le tarif des coûts de l’électricité est beaucoup trop élevé pour l’AP, a rapporté la radio israélienne mardi. Plusieurs sources ont déclaré que les deux parties débattent encore autour des 400 millions de shekels, le total du montant à transférer. L’AP et les responsables israéliens se sont réunis lundi pour discuter des détails du transfert, mais se sont révélés incapables de parvenir à un accord.
L’AP devrait payer les salaires de 170 000 fonctionnaires la semaine prochaine, selon la radio israélienne. Vendredi, Israël a annoncé qu’il verserait des centaines de millions de dollars, retenus comme mesure punitive suite à l’initiative de l’AP de rejoindre la Cour pénale internationale (CPI). Le président de l’AP Mahmoud Abbas a déclaré samedi qu’il doutait de la volonté d’Israël de reverser les fonds.
Le bureau du Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu a déclaré que les revenus accumulés sur trois mois, gelés depuis janvier, seraient transférés après les déductions normales pour les services. [...] Israël n’a pas quantifié le montant à transférer, mais a affirmé qu’il serait déduit des dettes contractées pour des services tels que l’électricité, l’eau et les soins médicaux. La décision israélienne, saluée par les Etats-Unis, précède tout juste l’initiative des Palestiniens qui aspirent à devenir officiellement membres de la CPI ce mercredi. [...]"

- Palestinian Authority incites religious hatred: "Are you waiting for them to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque?" (PMW) - "These PA libels that incite fear and hatred of Israelis are widely believed by Palestinians".
http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=14413
"The Palestinian Authority continues to incite religious hatred, spreading the libel that Israel is in the process of destroying the Al-Aqsa Mosque. The text on the above image [voir sur le site] is supposed to instill fear and hatred in Palestinians that the Al-Aqsa Mosque is in danger, threatened by Israel: "What are you waiting for? Are you waiting for them to destroy this? (Visual of the Al-Aqsa Mosque -Ed.) In order to build this?" (Visual of the Temple -Ed.) [Al-Asima, Feb. 25, 2015]
The charge that the Mosque will be destroyed unless Palestinians take active steps to prevent it, was published alongside an article in Al-Asima, a bi-weekly distributed with the official PA daily, which repeated the libel that Israel seeks to destroy the Mosque in order to build the third Temple in its place: "It is no secret that the 'Israeli' aspiration since the occupation of East Jerusalem in the war of 1967 has been to first divide the Al-Aqsa Mosque and perhaps even to destroy it, in order to build, eventually, their alleged Temple." [Al-Asima, distributed with official PA daily Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Feb. 25, 2015]
These PA libels that incite fear and hatred of Israelis are widely believed by Palestinians. A poll conducted four months ago found that 56% of Palestinians believe that "Israel intends to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque" and 86% of Palestinians believe that "Al-Haram Al-Sharif (i.e., the Temple Mount) is in grave danger." [http://www.pcpsr.org/en/node/505, Dec. 9, 2014]
Another article in Al-Asima referred to the Western Wall as "Islamic property with a Palestinian identity" and claimed that "the Jews' ultimate goal" has always been to "take control of the Al-Aqsa Mosque under the pretext that it is their false and alleged Temple." [Al-Asima, Feb. 25, 2015] [...]"

**********************************************

Egypte

- Egypte : au moins cinq soldats tués dans le Sinaï (AFP) - "Les soldats ont été pris pour cible par des "militants", terme utilisé par les autorités pour désigner les insurgés jihadistes, qui ont attaqué à l'arme automatique et au lance-roquettes deux postes de contrôle routier, l'un à Cheikh Zuwaïd, l'autre à Rafah, le point de passage entre l'Egypte et la bande de Gaza".
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/04/02/97001-20150402FILWWW00062-egypte-au-moins-cinq-soldats-tues-dans-le-sinai.php
- Egypte : au moins 15 soldats et 2 civils tués dans les attaques du Sinaï (AFP)
http://www.lexpress.fr/actualite/monde/egypte-au-moins-15-soldats-et-2-civils-tues-dans-les-attaques-du-sinai_1667623.html

**********************************************

Syrie

- L’Etat islamique aux portes de Damas, Laure Stephan (Le Monde) - "De violents combats avec des factions palestiniennes, notamment proches du mouvement islamiste palestinien Hamas, se poursuivaient dans le camp jeudi matin" ; "Porte-parole de l’UNRWA, l’agence des Nations unies chargée des réfugiés palestiniens, Chris Gunness alerte sur le « danger de mort (…) et de déplacement » qui pèse sur les 18 000 civils palestiniens encore présents dans le camp. Yarmouk, avant le début de la révolte contre M. Assad en 2011, abritait près de 150 000 Palestiniens. Depuis 2012, le camp a versé un lourd tribut à la guerre".
http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2015/04/02/l-etat-islamique-aux-portes-de-damas_4607896_3218.html
- L’EI a été repoussé du camp palestinien à Damas (AFP) - "Un responsable de l’OLP a indiqué que les djihadistes avaient été repoussés « à la périphérie » du camp par les groupuscules palestiniens dont un proche du Hamas".
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/lei-a-ete-repousse-du-camp-palestinien-a-damas/

**********************************************

Jordanie

- Jordan's Culture Ministry screens movie about "treachery of the Jews" (Elder of Ziyon) - "The description on their website leaves no doubt that the subject of the movie is the "treachery of the Jews from the beginning of the Islamic Dawah." Newspaper Arab al-Yawm expanded on this, describing the film as being about "Jewish hostility against all that is Arab, and how they would stand against the Islamic Dawa, and the ethics of the Jews in their dealings, conspiratorial and filled with hatred, betrayal and breaking agreements." Minister of Culture Dr. Lana Mamkegh praised Azizieh as a Jordanian cultural treasure".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.fr/2015/04/jordans-culture-ministry-screens-movie.html


**********************************************

Yémen

- Yémen : près de 40 civils tués dans une laiterie, raids intensifiés (AFP) - "Près de 40 civils ont été tués mercredi dans le bombardement d'une laiterie au Yémen, alors que les organisations internationales s'inquiètent d'une crise humanitaire au septième jour de la campagne aérienne menée par l'Arabie saoudite contre les rebelles chiites".
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/y%C3%A9men-chef-diplomatie-appelle-coalition-%C3%A0-envoyer-forces-130918412.html

- Yemen and Gaza: Why the different reactions?, Elliott Abrams (senior fellow for Middle East Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations) - "taking fire from a civilian area in which shooters were hiding, the Saudis struck back. ‎When Israel does that in Gaza, where it is the common practice of Hamas to hide in and ‎shoot from civilian areas, and to store weapons in schools and hospitals (including those ‎run by the United Nations), what happens? Israel is universally condemned. U.N. ‎investigation commissions are appointed, and reports such as the egregious Goldstone ‎report are ‎issued. The U.N. Security Council holds special sessions, and the U.N. Human Rights Council ‎adds additional "hate Israel" meetings to its usual list".
http://www.israelhayom.com/site/newsletter_opinion.php?id=12157
"The Washington Post reported this on Monday:‎ "An airstrike killed dozens of people Monday at a camp for displaced people in northern ‎Yemen, in what appeared to be the single deadliest attack since a Saudi Arabia-led coalition ‎sent warplanes to target Shiite insurgents advancing across the country.‎ As many as 40 people died and about 200 were wounded in the attack on the Mazraq camp ‎in Hajjah province, said Joel Millman, a spokesman for the International Organization for ‎Migration, which runs aid programs at the facility.‎
The Yemeni Shiite rebels, known as Houthis, accused the Saudi-led coalition of hitting the ‎camp, located in an area under the control of the insurgents. Saudi officials did not confirm ‎that. But, asked about the bombing, Saudi Brig. Gen. Ahmed Asiri, a coalition spokesman, ‎asserted that the rebels were setting up positions in civilian areas and said that coalition ‎warplanes had taken fire Monday from a residential area, forcing a 'decisive response,' ‎according to the official Saudi Press Agency.‎"
So, taking fire from a civilian area in which shooters were hiding, the Saudis struck back. ‎When Israel does that in Gaza, where it is the common practice of Hamas to hide in and ‎shoot from civilian areas, and to store weapons in schools and hospitals (including those ‎run by the United Nations), what happens? Israel is universally condemned. U.N. ‎investigation commissions are appointed, and reports such as the egregious Goldstone ‎report (officially, the "The United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict") are ‎issued. The U.N. Security Council holds special sessions, and the U.N. Human Rights Council ‎adds additional "hate Israel" meetings to its usual list.‎
I cannot recall an incident where Israel struck at a refugee camp and killed 40 people all at ‎once, also injuring 200 others, but I am willing to bet on the world reaction to this Saudi ‎attack: zero. No meetings, commissions, no reports.‎
What are the lessons to be drawn? That the Arab group and the Islamic nations have more ‎votes in the U.N. than Israel, which of course has but one. That there is an indefensible ‎double standard when it comes to evaluating Israel. And, that hiding behind civilians is a ‎widespread crime. Nothing new here.‎
I suppose it's too much to ask that if Israel and Hamas enter another round of fighting in ‎Gaza, those countries who have joined together to suppress the Houthi rebels in Yemen ‎might think twice before condemning Israel, and might even condemn Hamas for hiding ‎behind civilians. But the almost certain silence in the United Nations about the attack on ‎the refugee camp in Yemen is worth recalling the next time Israel is attacked for doing far ‎less to protect itself. I don't know the details about the Saudi attack, and perhaps it was ‎carried out with care and precision. The point is, no one is going to bother to find out.‎"

- HRW deferential towards Saudi airstrikes that kill civilians (Elder of Ziyon) - "Without any relevant information as to what Israel's targets were, HRW flatly said that Israel was violating international law and said that Israel was targeting homes simply to kill Gazan civilians, apparently for kicks. Now compare that with how HRW reports on Saudi airstrikes in urban areas that are killing scores of civilians. [...] Look at that! The mind-reading skills that HRW "researchers" have in Gaza are suddenly malfunctioning in Yemen! They know that Saudi Arabia is targeting terrorists, and they are simply not sure if the bombs that killed 34 civilians were simple mistakes, or maybe there was a legitimate target there. All that certainty that HRW has in declaring Israel to be criminal is nowhere to be found when Saudis are dropping their bombs on houses and children. [...] Another thing: I haven't yet found a scorecard showing how many Yemenis have been killed compared with how many Saudis.The score is probably about 250-0 at this point, which in other contexts would be considered by ignorant pundits as proof of "disporportionate force." Scorecards are particular to cases when the winning side's name begins with ISR and ends in AEL".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.fr/2015/03/hrw-deferential-towards-saudi.html

**********************************************

USA

- Support for Palestinian state hits two-decade low in U.S. (Washington Post) - "The idea is still slightly above water, with 39 percent in support and 36 percent in opposition. But that's a far cry from past Gallup polling in which a majority of Americans supported the idea (as many as 58 percent in 2003)".
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/31/support-for-palestinian-state-hits-two-decade-low-in-u-s/

- ADL: Anti-Semitic incidents in US up 21% in 2014 (Ynet) - "While overall number of incidents represents one of lowest totals reported by Jewish group since 1979, audit identifies new trends in anti-Semitic acts, including hacking attacks on community and synagogue websites from overseas, which multiplied last year".
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4643186,00.html

**********************************************

Europe

- Pays-Bas : 71 % d’augmentation du nombre d’incidents anti-juifs (JTA) - "Environ la moitié des incidents se sont produits l’été dernier pendant la guerre d’Israël avec le Hamas à Gaza".
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/pays-bas-71-daugmentation-du-nombre-dincidents-anti-juifs/

**********************************************

ONU

- The U.N.’s War on Israel, Ron Prosor (Israel’s ambassador to the United Nations) - "Nowhere is anti-Israel bias more obvious than in the Geneva-based Human Rights Council. [...] more than 50 percent of all condemnatory resolutions are directed at the Jewish state".
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/01/opinion/united-in-ignominy.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
"The United Nations is celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. It was intended to be a temple of peace, but this once great global body has been overrun by the repressive regimes that violate human rights and undermine international security.
In 1949, when the United Nations admitted Israel as a member state, it had 58 member countries and about half had a democratic orientation. Today, the landscape of the organization has changed drastically. From 51 member states at its founding in 1945, the institution has grown to 193 members — fewer than half of which are democracies.
The very nations that deny democratic rights to their people abuse the United Nations’ democratic forums to advance their interests. The largest of these groups comprises members from the 120-member-strong bloc known as the Non-Aligned Movement. Since 2012, the bloc has been chaired by Iran, which has used its position to bolster its allies and marginalize Israel.
In March, the United Nations closed the annual meeting of its Commission on the Status of Women by publishing a report that effectively singled out just one country for condemnation: Israel. The commission apparently had nothing to say about the Sudanese girls who are subjected to female genital mutilation. It also had nothing to say about the Iranian women who have been punished for crimes of “adultery” by stoning. These oversights may have something to do with the fact that both Iran and Sudan sit on the 45-member commission.
Then there is the United Nations Human Rights Council (the body that replaced the Commission on Human Rights in 2006). Its membership includes Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Venezuela — nations where you risk life and liberty if you express dissenting opinions. Yet these governments stand in judgment on the rest of us.
In 2007, Sudan chaired a committee overseeing human rights — even as its president, Omar Hassan al-Bashir, was being investigated for crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, for which the International Criminal Court later issued arrest warrants. Saudi Arabia — a regime notorious for public executions and floggings like that, most recently, of the blogger Raif Badawi — sits on the Human Rights Council, despite regularly receiving the worst possible ratings on civil liberties and political rights from the independent watchdog Freedom House.
In 2013, Iran was elected to the committee responsible for disarmament — even as it continued its nuclear expansion, support for terrorism and the destruction of Israel. Last year, an Iranian served as a vice chair of the General Assembly’s legal committee, an inexplicable choice given that Iranian citizens are routinely denied due process and fair trials.
Knowing this history, perhaps we shouldn’t be surprised that, in the 2014-15 session alone, the General Assembly adopted about 20 resolutions critical of Israel, while the human rights situations in Iran, Syria and North Korea merited just one condemnation apiece. Day after day, member states turn a blind eye to the most deplorable crimes.
Iran? Just one hostile resolution for a nation that, on average, executes citizens at a rate of two a day for “crimes” that include homosexuality, apostasy and the vague offense of being an “enemy of God.”
North Korea? Just one negative resolution even though it has imprisoned more than 200,000 citizens, throws children into forced labor camps and subjects its population to food shortages and famine as a result of government policies.
Syria? Again, just one resolution for a government that has pursued a war against its own people that has caused the deaths of at least 220,000 men, women and children — many by torture, starvation, chemical weapons and barrel bombs dropped on markets and schools.
Christians now number among the world’s most persecuted religious groups in Muslim countries, yet this human rights crisis is almost completely ignored by the United Nations. Instead, Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East and an area in the region where the Christian population is actually growing, often seems to be the only nation the United Nations cares about.
Nowhere is anti-Israel bias more obvious than in the Geneva-based Human Rights Council. The council addresses the human rights abuses of all countries in the world under a program known as Agenda Item 4. That is, all countries but one. Israel is the only nation that is singled out for criticism by virtue of a special program, known as Agenda Item 7. A result, according to the Geneva-based monitoring group UN Watch, is that more than 50 percent of all condemnatory resolutions are directed at the Jewish state.
Following last summer’s conflict in Gaza, the Human Rights Council established a Commission of Inquiry and selected William Schabas, a Canadian law professor, to chair the investigation. In February, Mr. Schabas was forced to resign after documents came to light revealing that, in 2012, he had done consulting work for the Palestine Liberation Organization. Surprisingly, this fact slipped Mr. Schabas’s mind during his vetting process.
It was clear from the outset that Mr. Schabas was not an impartial arbiter since he had a record of public statements suggesting that Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, and the former president, Shimon Peres, should face trial at the International Criminal Court. When Israel protested, however, the United Nations ignored it.
I am often asked how I can stand the tide of hatred aimed at Israel. Our response to the United Nations’ accusations is to speak tirelessly for those who are denied a voice in most of the Middle East — women, minorities, the L.G.B.T. community — and to fight daily efforts by totalitarian regimes to undermine democratic societies. Based on the fact that Israel is a thriving society, I believe we are winning.
Later this year, chairmanship of the Non-Aligned Movement will transfer to Venezuela, Iran’s ally. For the foreseeable future, we can expect more of the same.
The problem with the United Nations is that the leaders of many of its member states do not rule with the consent of the governed. Instead, they use the body as a forum to deflect attention from their own ruthless rule. In so doing, they turn a stage for courageous statecraft into a tragic theater of the absurd."

Partager cet article

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article

commentaires

Présentation

  • : La Boucle d'Occam
  • La Boucle d'Occam
  • : Chaque jour, une Boucle reprend l'actualité de France et du Moyen-Orient autour des thèmes d'Israël et de l'antisémitisme.
  • Contact

Recherche

Pages