Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
25 juillet 2015 6 25 /07 /juillet /2015 22:26

Judée-Samarie


- Deputy Knesset speaker slams US over false Susiya comments (Elder of Ziyon) - une très bonne remise au point au sujet de cette nouvelle "affaire" qui excite tant les médias anti-israéliens (dont tout récemment Le Monde).
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.fr/2015/07/deputy-knesset-speaker-slams-us-over.html
- The myth of Susiya (Elder of Ziyon) - "Susiya shows how willing Western reporters and diplomats are to believe the most outrageous Palestinian Arab lies".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.fr/2015/07/the-myth-of-susiya.html

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

"Processus de paix"

- BDS : les masques tombent !, David Chemla (Secrétaire Général de JCALL Europe), Alain Rozenkier (Président de La Paix Maintenant France) et Gérard Unger (Président de JCALL France) - "on voit bien que la question du boycott des produits en provenance des territoires est instrumentalisée au profit d'un autre objectif, moins affirmé mais qui sert de soubassement à toute la mécanique que mise en place : la disparition à terme de l’Etat d’Israël". Et cette fois c'est la gauche pacifiste "pro-palestinienne" qui le relève.
http://www.crif.org/fr/tribune/bds-les-masques-tombent/56625
"Dans un entretien publié dans Le Monde daté du 4 juillet, Mr Omar Barghouti, cofondateur du mouvement BDS (« Boycott Désinvestissement Sanctions ») a apporté des clarifications essentielles sur la véritable nature de ce mouvement.
Son refus en premier lieu de voir cet entretien publié dans le quotidien israélien Ha'aretz est à cet égard hautement significatif. Ce journal est, comme on le sait, perçu comme de gauche, opposé à la politique du gouvernement israélien et d'aucuns en Israël n'hésitent pas à l'affubler du qualificatif de « traître ». Mais cela n'est pas encore assez pour que Mr. Barghouti accepte de s’y exprimer. Pourquoi ? Sans doute parce que ce qui importe pour lui ce n'est pas ce que les Israéliens pensent ou font, c'est ce qu'ils sont : Israélien justement ! C'est cette identité qu’il refuse et en ce sens, il les « néantise ». A défaut (ou avant) de les anéantir ?
Ce refus, cette négation, se retrouvent dans les trois exigences formulées en en préambule. La fin de l'occupation, que nous sommes nombreux à souhaiter, ne remet certes pas en cause l'existence de l’État d'Israël, mais il n'en va pas de même s'agissant des deux autres. La deuxième exigence ["la fin de l'apartheid"] n'est mise en avant que pour évoquer l'apartheid et jouer sur la mémoire collective liée à l'Afrique du Sud afin de pouvoir capter le capital de sympathie qu'elle véhicule. Il n'y a pas en effet en Israël de système de discrimination juridique à l'égard des citoyens d’origine palestinienne.
D’après la déclaration d’indépendance, les Arabes sont des citoyens comme les autres, et nous pensons que les Noirs Sud-Africains auraient été ravis hier d’être représentés au Parlement, dans l’administration, à la Cour Suprême comme les Arabes Israéliens le sont aujourd’hui. En revanche, la pratique n'est pas toujours, voire assez peu souvent, conforme aux principes affichés et nombreux sont en Israël ceux qui le déplorent et combattent pour qu’il soit mis fin aux discriminations à leur encontre. A ce titre, on ne peut que se réjouir des prises de positions courageuses de Mr Reuven Rivlin, président de l’État. Quant à la situation des Palestiniens dans les territoires occupés, elle relève davantage d’une logique d’occupation (routes séparées…) que d’apartheid.
Le retour de réfugiés ["troisième exigence"] relève d'une autre démarche qui rejoint celle exprimée par le refus de se voir publier dans Ha'aretz. Pas besoin d'être grand clerc pour comprendre que cela signifie la destruction d’Israël, la néantisation du pays en tant qu'État juif et démocratique remplacé par un état binational - et on sait ce que cela veut dire dans le contexte moyen-oriental. Il y a donc une cohérence complète entre le préambule sur le refus de contact avec les médias israéliens et la question du retour des réfugiés. Faut-il rappeler que la proposition du roi Abdallah d’Arabie Saoudite en 2002, reprise par la Ligue Arabe, parle d’une « solution juste au problème des réfugiés », ce qui n’est pas la même chose que le retour des réfugiés et de leurs descendants, près de 70 ans après leur départ ?
A partir de là on voit bien que la question du boycott des produits en provenance des territoires est instrumentalisée au profit d'un autre objectif, moins affirmé mais qui sert de soubassement à toute la mécanique que mise en place : la disparition à terme de l’Etat d’Israël. Cela permet ainsi de mobiliser ceux qui en toute bonne foi, et il y en a, sont opposés à la politique israélienne de « gestion » du conflit et, notamment, à la poursuite de la colonisation.
Nous sommes quant à nous, bien entendu, opposés au boycott de tout ce qui est israélien parce qu’il est injuste et contre-productif. Tous ceux qui dénoncent le « deux poids / deux mesures » dont jouirait Israël devraient s'interroger pour savoir si d'autres États ne seraient pas plus prioritaires en matière de boycott pour sauver des milliers de vies humaines, y compris palestiniennes. N'en déplaise à certains, il y a davantage de Palestiniens tués par leur frères arabes au Liban, en Syrie (à Yarmouk) que par les Israéliens. Vivre à Gaza n'est certes pas une sinécure mais les réfugiés palestiniens qui ont été contraints de fuir de Syrie pour la Jordanie, ne connaissent guère l'opulence. Il est vrai que la misère des uns ne justifie en rien celle des autres mais n'en reconnaître qu'une amène à s'interroger sur la bonne foi de ces observateurs et pas seulement sur leur bonne vue. [...]
Mr Barghouti accuse la France d'être hypocrite face à Israël. Le compliment peut qu’être retourné. BDS ne l'est-il pas face à Israël lorsqu'il se dissimule derrière la lutte contre les produits des territoires alors que, lorsqu'on gratte un peu, on constate que c'est de tout autre chose dont il s'agit : la négation du droit d'Israël à son existence, résurgence d'un passé que l'on croyait révolu ? Le discours tenu nous ramène près de trente ans en arrière, avant la reconnaissance d’Israël par l’OLP. De grâce, ne perdons plus de temps !"

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

Points de vue

- Debating Michael Walzer’s ‘Islamism and the Left’ (Fathom Journal) - "You could probably say that the fear of Islamophobia is related to the hostility to Israel. There is this eagerness – I’ve heard this often in the States, I don’t know if it happens here – to describe the Islamic minority in the US, or in Europe, as the ‘new Jews’."
http://fathomjournal.org/debating-michael-walzers-islamism-and-the-left/
"Michael Walzer is professor emeritus at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, and one of the democratic left’s foremost political philosophers. His recent essay ‘Islamism and the Left’ – published in Dissent, the US journal he co-edited for many years – sparked much debate on the left. Fathom invited a range of thinkers to respond critically to the essay in conversation with Michael in our offices in London."
"- Michael Walzer: Thank you to Fathom for organising this discussion about my essay ‘Islamism and the Left’ which appeared in Dissent earlier in 2015. I know you have all read it, so I am looking forward to hearing your critical responses.
- Robert Fine (Emeritus Professor of Sociology, Warwick University): Thanks for your article. The primary explanation that you are using for the Left’s condoning of Islamism is its fear of encouraging Islamophobia. But why should there be such a fear? Firstly, the Left is not afraid in the same way of encouraging anti-Semitism. Secondly, as you showed very well in the article, there is no opposition between being sensitive to Islamophobia and being highly critical of Islamism. So, while I thought your description of the phenomenon was very good, I wasn’t immediately convinced by your explanation that the fear of encouraging Islamophobia is the driving force behind left apologetics for Islamic fundamentalism.
- Michael Walzer: You could probably say that the fear of Islamophobia is related to the hostility to Israel. There is this eagerness – I’ve heard this often in the States, I don’t know if it happens here – to describe the Islamic minority in the US, or in Europe, as the ‘new Jews’. Somehow, that gives you license to ignore the ‘old Jews’, and to focus on these ‘new Jews’, and to claim that we must not repeat with them what we did to the ‘old Jews’. But that can lead to any criticism being interpreted as hostility to this minority and a way of targeting this minority. The argument becomes ‘if you are critical of Islam, you are joining hands with the new xenophobes of the West.’
- Dave Rich (Deputy Director of Communications, The Community Security Trust): I was also struck that this fear of Islamophobia was the central argument. In our experience this reluctance to tackle Islamist extremism for fear of being seen as targeting Muslims and Islam generally is now quite a mainstream fear. In a funny way, it reflects certain Islamophobic ways of thinking amongst the people who are scared of being accused of Islamophobia. It reflects a lack of knowledge and familiarity with Muslims, and a failure to understand the breadth and depth and diversity of Muslim life.
- Michael Walzer: That sounds right to me. The fear of Islamophobia is also present among liberal centrists in the US, not just on the Left.
- Eve Garrard (Honorary Research Fellow in the Department of Philosophy at the University of Manchester): Thank you Michael. If I’ve understood you rightly, you’re suggesting that some of today’s hostility to Israel and the Jews is driven by ‘anti-imperialism’. What I’m interested in is the asymmetries in the argument. Though I’m sure anti-imperialism is playing some role, if we identify anti-imperialism as the source of the hostility towards Israel, then we have a problem: why is the anti-imperialism so selective? That is, why is it the West’s anti-imperialism that generates so much hostility, and not, say, Russia’s imperialism, and so on? It’s that asymmetry that we need to investigate. Do you have a view about that?
- Michael Walzer: The asymmetry you talk about is very clear. For me, the clearest example has been friends of mine on the American left who announced that they won’t visit Israel because of the occupation, but are eagerly soliciting invitations to China, despite what is going on in Tibet. They don’t see any problem with that. [...]
- John Lloyd (Contributing Editor, The Financial Times): In the UK, and elsewhere in Europe, the root cause of the recent effervescence of anti-Israeli demonstrations, and their conflation with anti-Semitism, has been the Israeli intervention in Gaza. Over here, Channel 4, a major broadcaster, dropped its (not very strong) commitment to neutrality and became openly anti-Israeli – not anti-Semitic, but anti-Israeli.
- Michael Walzer: I think that the Gaza war strengthened the Boycott Divestment Sanctions (BDS) movement in the US. It is important to be closely connected to those people in Israel who thought the war was not a necessary war, that it could have been avoided with a different policy towards the Palestinian Authority (PA) and in the Occupied Territories. But, once the rockets started coming, and once the tunnels were discovered, there was a just cause for a response. [...]
I think it’s important to understand the character of asymmetric warfare and to convey it to others. The Israel Defense Forces (IDF) were hunting for the tunnels, and Hamas knew where the tunnels were, so they set up traps for the IDF. An army unit would walk into a trap and then everything would depend on the response of the junior officer. If he was calm and collected, he could often get out of the trap. If he was scared, he might call in an artillery strike before he had to, and that is when civilian casualties would happen. If you talk to IDF officers, they will tell you that everything depends on that guy, and that’s also what I heard at the Army War College in Pennsylvania. Everything depends on that person, that 23 year old officer who has to decide, ‘Can I get my men out of this tough situation or should I call in an airstrike or artillery?’
- Rashad Ali (Director of the counter-extremism consultancy Centri.): I think there has been a complete post-Foucault reconstruction of left-wing analysis. It is no longer about material factors, no longer about class, no longer about understanding economic power or the construction of society. It’s now about understanding how people posit their identity and how they construct their reality.
So, superimposed on the reality of Islamism is the idea that Islamism is merely a response to Western imperialism. So when Hamas is against Israel, they are held to be actually talking about ‘Western imperialism in the region’. Hezbollah is not seen as a proxy of the Iranian state, but as ‘a manifestation of the people against Western power’. Everything is forced to fit the construct. Post Charlie Hebdo, we saw that a young man had gone to Yemen, came back and enacted the religious edicts he had been taught, finding Jews and killing them, yet he was seen in some quarters as reacting against ‘capitalist imperialism.’ We need a realignment. We need a return to what I would call neo-classical left-wing thinking. [...]
- David Hirsh: There are some extraordinary arguments lying just under the surface of this discussion. First, when Robert asked why it should be Islamophobia that everyone is afraid of, your answer was about the Jews and anti-Semitism. We have this global problem, and one of our ways of answering questions about it is to say, ‘It’s about the Jews.’ Of course, it doesn’t stop there. We also say it’s about anti-Semitism, so anti-Semitism then becomes a central driving force in the world. That, in turn, is inches away from anti-Semitism itself, for which the Jews are central to everything that goes on in the world. In answering the question ‘why the Muslims?’ you said ‘well, it’s because of Israel and anti-Zionism’, I’m inviting you to comment on the hugeness of this extraordinary position we find ourselves in, that it is … ‘all about the Jews’.
- Michael Walzer: I don’t believe that. I was talking about those people on the Left, who I know, a lot of whom are Jews, whose fear of Islamophobia today has a lot to do with their sense of what anti-Semitism once was…
- David Hirsh: …I wasn’t trying to be really critical. I think that might be right. Maybe I’m the paranoid one here. Yes, at the very heart of Islamism is anti-Semitism. And the other thing we haven’t discussed is the relationship to fascism, at which at the centre is, amongst other things, anti-Semitism.
- Michael Walzer: Yes, but there is also anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism, anti-secularism, and anti-feminism. These are all important features of Islamist politics, but also of the other religious revivalists. I think for the ultra-Orthodox Jews in Israel, maybe less so for the settler messianists, the woman question is central to their religious radicalism. I think that is also very important in Islam, the fear of the liberated woman. Therefore, you get, on the American left, this phenomenon of leftists saying, ‘Well, the subordination of women is the way they do things there. We have to be tolerant of the way they do things.’ Any critique then becomes an example of ‘Islamophobia’. [...]
- Dave Rich: This has been a fascinating discussion. It feels to me that your article is about two parallel things: Islamism itself, and left-wing responses to Islamism. Islamism is a very serious set of ideas that needs to be addressed properly. I find a lot of the responses to Islamism on the parts of the Left we are talking about are simply not serious. I think there is a point beyond which we shouldn’t go, in taking the Left seriously when it comes to Islamism.
Ten years ago, when the Left were discussing Islamism in the context of the Western presence in Iraq, Afghanistan, and so on, it all kind of fitted together and provided a context. A lot of their arguments made sense to people then. I think the rise of ISIS today, after Western troops have left the region, the establishment of the caliphate, and the attraction of ISIS and the caliphate to lots of Western Muslims, lots of whom are not that deprived or alienated from society; all this has posed a real challenge to parts of the Left, and they are struggling to respond. The lack of seriousness of their response is becoming more and more obvious, especially because we are also seeing the circulation of alternative and more serious left wing responses.
- Michael Walzer: I’m glad to have had the chance to listen to all of you. I do think that the intellectual health of the Left is very important. I don’t want to function as a policeman, but if there is a strong left in the future, we have to win this fight against the knee jerk anti-American, anti-Israel politics, against this kind of moral relativism of ‘that’s just how they do things there.’ We have to address those issues. I agree that the rise of ISIS has made a certain kind of left attitude toward Islamism much more difficult. Yes, I think there is some rethinking going on.
It’s a vital discussion for the Left. Take Syria. I’m not sure what the right thing to do in Syria was, or is, but the debate has not been helped by a certain kind of leftism, which says that anything that the West does, or contemplates doing, has to be condemned. There was an extraordinary moment in the US, after Obama promised to bomb if Assad used poisoned gas. There were big demonstrations against any American military action, but once it was clear that we weren’t going to do anything, even if Assad did use chemical weapons, Syria vanished from the Left’s websites, despite the regime’s use of those weapons, despite its repeated atrocities. For this kind of ‘left’, if the deaths were not our fault, then they held no interest. They were no longer interested in what was going on there, and that’s a sickness."

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