Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
5 août 2015 3 05 /08 /août /2015 23:14


- Libération : Quand on se croit mandaté par le Bien, on ne s’embarrasse pas des détails techniques, Noémie Benchimol (Rootsisrael) - "il est impardonnable qu’un journal avec tant de crédibilité que Libération se laisse aller à publier des erreurs factuelles et des articles fleuves sans aucune prise sur la réalité". Une critique en règle et détaillée d'un article très biaisé de Libération.



- Breaking taboo, Jerusalem Palestinians seek Israeli citizenship, Maayan Lubell (Reuters) - "Palestinians who have applied do not like to talk about it. The loyalty oath is not an easy thing for them to sign up to and becoming a naturalized Israeli - joining the enemy - is taboo".
""I declare I will be a loyal citizen of the state of Israel," reads the oath that must be sworn by all naturalized Israeli citizens. Increasingly, they are words being uttered by Palestinians.
In East Jerusalem, which Israel captured from Jordan during the 1967 Middle East war and later annexed, a move not recognized internationally, issues of Palestinian identity are layered with complexity. While Israel regards the east of the city as part of Israel, the estimated 300,000 Palestinians that live there do not. They are not Israeli citizens, instead holding Israeli-issued blue IDs that grant them permanent resident status. While they can seek citizenship if they wish, the vast majority reject it, not wanting to renounce their own history or be seen to buy into Israel's 48-year occupation.
And yet over the past decade, an increasing number of East Jerusalem Palestinians have gone through the lengthy process of becoming Israeli citizens, researchers and lawyers say. In part it reflects a loss of hope that an independent Palestinian state will ever emerge. But it also reflects a hard-headed pragmatism - an acknowledgement that having Israeli citizenship will make it easier to get or change jobs, buy or move house, travel abroad and receive access to services.
Israeli officials are reluctant to confirm figures, but data obtained by the Jerusalem Institute for Israel Studies indicates a jump over the past decade, rising from 114 applications in 2003 to between 800 and 1,000 a year now, around half of which are successful. On top of that, hundreds have made inquiries before the formal application process begins. Interior Ministry figures obtained by Reuters show there were 1,434 applications in 2012-13, of which 189 were approved, 1,061 are still being processed and 169 were rejected. The remainder are in limbo.
Palestinians who have applied do not like to talk about it. The loyalty oath is not an easy thing for them to sign up to and becoming a naturalized Israeli - joining the enemy - is taboo. "It felt bad, really bad," said a 46-year-old Palestinian teacher who took the oath a year ago. Despite her reservations, she knew it was right for stability and career prospects. "We just want to live our lives," she said. "At the end of the day, politics gets you nowhere." [...]
However, some other Palestinians fear their community's reaction to breaking the taboo, so keep their decision even from family and friends.
For many Palestinians, East Jerusalem feel likes a twilight zone. They pay Israeli municipal taxes and receive healthcare and insurance benefits, but are often neglected when it comes to basic city services - from trash collection to new playgrounds and resources in schools and clinics. The situation is particularly bad in places like Shuafat, a refugee camp a few minutes away from the Old City. Shuafat lies beyond the concrete barrier built by Israel in the mid-2000s, after a wave of Palestinian suicide bombings. [...]"
- More Jerusalem Arabs applying for Israeli citizenship (Elder of Ziyon)
"[...] The Jerusalem municipality can't do anything about Shuafat - if Israel dismantles a "refugee" camp the world would freak out. There have been UN resolutions condemning Israel for thinking about dismantling camps in Gaza when there was still an Israeli presence there. UNRWA agrees to provide services for that area. So Palestinian Arabs keep its residents as zoo animals to show off how bad things are for them - and Reuters uses it as an example of how Israel doesn't take care of its Arab residents of Jerusalem. In fact, Israeli ambulances that venture into Shuafat often get stoned.
Then comes this interesting fact [in Reuters' article]: "More Palestinians, albeit in small numbers, have also been moving into predominantly Jewish neighborhoods and even settlements on occupied land." You know, those "Jewish only" neighborhoods we hear so much about. [...]"

- When will NGOs complain about Israel's use of administrative detention against Jews? (Elder of Ziyon) - "There have been hundreds of articles decrying Israel's use of administrative detention against Arabs. [...] Will any of these organizations publicly call for these three Jews to be released or charged with a crime?"


Gaza & Hamas

- Israël assure à Abbas qu’il ne parle pas de trêve avec le Hamas, Avi Issacharoff (Times of Israel) - "Bien qu’Israël est conscient qu’un accord nuirait à l’Autorité palestinienne et renforcerait le Hamas, son refus de discuter d’une trêve a surtout à voir avec l’opposition de l’Egypte".
"Israël a envoyé un message à l’Autorité palestinienne l’assurant qu’il ne négocie en aucune manière avec le mouvement terroriste du Hamas un cessez-le-feu à long terme dans la bande de Gaza, ont confié des sources palestiniennes au Times of Israel. Le message est venu suite à des soupçons de l’AP que des représentants du gouvernement du Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu négocieraient avec le Hamas sur les termes d’une trêve de cinq ans dans le sillage de la guerre de l’été dernier dans la bande de Gaza. Le bureau du Premier ministre a refusé de commenter.
Au cours des pourparlers entre responsables israéliens et palestiniens au cours des dernières semaines en Israël, à Ramallah, et à l’étranger, les représentants de l’AP ont exprimé clairement leurs préoccupations concernant les implications qu’un tel développement pourrait avoir sur l’image de l’AP au sein du public palestinien. [...]
Bien qu’Israël est conscient qu’un accord nuirait à l’Autorité palestinienne et renforcerait le Hamas, son refus de discuter d’une trêve a surtout à voir avec l’opposition de l’Egypte. Le Caire se méfie d’un renforcement du Hamas parce que le groupe de Gaza est un proche allié des Frères musulmans, le principal adversaire du régime égyptien. [...]"

- UNRWA : un trou de 100 millions de dollars (AFP)
"Le secrétaire général de l'ONU Ban Ki-moon a lancé hier [mardi] un appel pressant aux donateurs pour combler un trou de 100 millions de dollars dans le budget de l'agence de l'ONU qui aide les réfugiés palestiniens (UNRWA). Dans un communiqué, Ban Ki-Moon «exhorte tous les donateurs à faire que les 100 millions de dollars nécessaires soient versés à l'UNRWA dans les plus brefs délais afin que les enfants de Palestine puissent commencer leur année scolaire 2015-2016 sans retard». [...]"
- Hamas says it will force UNRWA not to delay school year (Elder of Ziyon)
"Palestine Press Agency reports that Hamas said it will take legal action against UNRWA to ensure it doesn't reduce services and postpone the beginning of the school year in the Gaza Strip as it has considered. Hamas MP Abdul Rahman Al-Jamal said that the UNRWA crisis is "fabricated" and aims to end the refugee issue altogetherm and that it has no financial crisis. He said the Legislative Council will not allow the school year to be postponed. [...]"

- A Taste of “Concentration Camp” Gaza: Blue Beach Resort, Aussie Dave (Israellycool) - "Inspired by the Gaza mall photos, I have featured on this blog various facilities from Gaza, with the aim of providing readers with a glimpse into the real Gaza, which is anything but a concentration camp as some claim. My point is not that there is no hardship in Gaza, but rather that the situation is a far cry from what is being presented by the Palestinians, their supporters and the mainstream media".

- Amnesty's deception of the day (Elder of Ziyon) - "Amnesty International's daily anti-Israel tweet"; "While Amnesty is attempting to paint Israel as guilty of war crimes, it is in fact adding every day more and more evidence that Amnesty in the Middle East is little more than an anti-Israel propaganda outlet masquerading as a human rights NGO".


"Processus de paix"

- Most Palestinians want economic cooperation with Israel, poll shows (CAMERA) - “a majority (55 percent) in the West Bank, and nearly as many in Gaza (48 percent), also say they would ‘like to see Israeli companies offer more jobs inside’ those areas”; "Only 14 percent of Palestinian Arabs in the West Bank and 24 percent of Gazans polled said that “working to establish a Palestinian state” was their top priority. In contrast, “making enough money to live” and “having a good family life” polled much higher in both areas". Mais 58% des habitants de Cisjordanie et 65% des Gazaouis déclarent que, même si un accord pour deux Etats était signé, "la lutte ne serait pas terminée et la résistance devrait se poursuivre jusqu'à ce que la totalité de la Palestine historique [c'est-à-dire Israël] soit libérée"... et 56% des habitants de Cisjordanie, ainsi que 84% des Gazaouis soutiennent les moyens violents pour cet objectif.

- The man the Palestinian Authority pays to lie (Elder of Ziyon) - "Stories of Jews uprooting olive trees and burning crops on Shabbat are part of his weekly routine, and no Arab media outlet is going to check on any of his preposterous lies. And he never, ever produces photos of his discoveries. Now, the episode in Duma is giving him a chance to show off more of his skills at creating lurid lies and incitement against Jews".



- Transcript of Bibi phone call on Iran deal (Elder of Ziyon) - Une très bonne et claire synthèse des arguments israéliens (qu'on les partage ou non) contre l'accord iranien.

- The Five Fatal Flaws in the Iran Deal, Rick Richman (Commentary)
"On Tuesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee heard testimony from Amb. Robert G. Joseph, Ph.D, currently Senior Scholar at the National Institute for Public Policy, formerly Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, and the person who in 2003 led the nuclear negotiations with Libya. He testified the Iran deal is a “bad agreement” with “five fatal flaws”:
1) it does not effectively detect cheating unless Iran decides to do it openly, and Iran is more likely to cheat at military bases where it has cheated in the past and has ruled out inspections in the future;
2) it leaves a large‐scale nuclear infrastructure in place that could be used to break out, or more likely “sneak‐out,” and then permits a significantly expanded program with a “virtually zero” breakout time;
3) it has “snap‐back” provisions that are illusory;
4) the purported 12-month breakout time is ineffective, since, unless Iran breaks out openly, we will not even know when the clock begins,and months will go by while the U.S. debates internally what to do;
5) Iran is permitted to continue work on long-range ballistic missiles that have no use other than eventual deployment of nuclear weapons.
His conclusion is stark: "[The deal] assumes that permitting Iran a large‐scale enrichment capability is compatible with the goal of denying Iran the ability to produce weapons‐grade fissile material; it assumes that the twelve month breakout time is meaningful; it assumes that the agreement will be effectively verifiable; and it assumes that the United States and the international community will respond to evidence of cheating before Iran can mate a nuclear weapon to a ballistic missile. None of these assumptions holds up under scrutiny. As a result, the threat to the U.S. homeland and to our NATO allies of an Iran armed with nuclear tipped ballistic missiles will increase not decrease under the anticipated agreement."
And that is even before considering the risks of proliferation in the region, the existential threat to Israel, seriously frayed relations with Arab allies, and the vastly increased resources for Iran and its allies to establish a game-changing hegemony in a vital strategic area of the world.
Amb. Joseph is not simply an independent expert but one with considerable real-world experience, not only with Libya but with the North Korean fiasco. He testified Tuesday that in 2003 the United States insisted upon and got “anytime, anywhere” inspections in Libya — to all sites, declared and undeclared. [...]"

- Pour Obama, « la seule option sera la guerre » si le Congrès américain bloque l’accord sur le nucléaire iranien, Gilles Paris (Le Monde.fr) - "Abordant longuement la question de l’opposition à l’accord du premier ministre israélien, Benyamin Nétanyahou, M. Obama a déclaré : « Je crois qu’il a tort. »" Il est assez amusant de voir Le Monde s'attarder longuement sur la réplique d'Obama à ses contradicteurs... sans jamais avoir véritablement restitué leurs arguments.
"[...] Considérant que l’accord ne réglait pas tous les problèmes avec l’Iran mais précisément l’objectif qu’il s’était fixé, à savoir empêcher la République islamique d’obtenir l’arme nucléaire, le président s’en est pris avec virulence à ses critiques. « Leur rhétorique vous semble familière ? », a-t-il interrogé, « et pour cause, ce sont les mêmes qui argumentaient pour une guerre en Irak ». Cette guerre coûteuse, a-t-il dit, les États-Unis continuent d’en payer le prix, compte tenu de leur engagement contre les djihadistes de l’Etat islamique. « Le seul bénéficiaire de cette guerre », a-t-il ajouté, « a été la République islamique d’Iran. »
M. Obama s’est ensuite lancé dans un long plaidoyer sur la supériorité de la diplomatie sur les formules bellicistes de ses adversaires. « Les sanctions unilatérales américaines seules n’avaient rien produit », a-t-il rappelé, « cela a changé quand nous avons été capables de rassembler la communauté internationale » pour parvenir à un régime plus efficace même s’il avait un prix pour certains des alliés des États-Unis qui commerçaient avec l’Iran. M. Obama a ensuite énuméré les avantages de l’accord, rappelant que seul Israël s’y opposait publiquement.
Le président des États-Unis s’est attaqué à deux arguments de ses contradicteurs : le fait que l’Iran pourrait reprendre un programme interdit après dix ou quinze ans et qu’elle allait bénéficier d’importants revenus. Si l’accord n’est pas ratifié par le Congrès, a-t-il assuré, l’Iran reprendra immédiatement ses activités et parviendra rapidement à ses fins, précipitant l’escalade. Il a assuré par ailleurs que les sanctions par elles seules n’avaient jamais empêché Téhéran d’avancer dans la quête de la bombe, pas plus qu’elles ne l’avaient empêché de financer des groupes hostiles aux États-Unis et à leurs alliés dans la région.
M. Obama a estimé que camper sur une ligne intransigeante pour obtenir « un meilleur accord », formule qu’il s’est efforcé de tourner en ridicule, une reddition complète de l’Iran, provoquerait un réflexe d’unité du pays autour du régime tout en disloquant la coalition patiemment mise sur pied. « Ne nous attendons pas à ce que nos partenaires se plient à des diktats du Congrès américain », a-t-il prévenu, « notre objectif commun n’a jamais été un changement de régime » à Téhéran.
Dramatisant à dessein l’enjeu, le président des États-Unis a assuré que si le Congrès rejette l’accord, « la seule option sera la guerre », même si ce n’est pas immédiatement. « Certains de mes contradicteurs assument le prix de la guerre, assurent qu’une opération préventive permettra de régler le problème sans trop de conséquences », a assuré M. Obama, « mais a-t-on tiré les leçons du passé ? Les guerres au Proche-Orient peuvent-elles être simples ? »
Abordant longuement la question de l’opposition à l’accord du premier ministre israélien, Benyamin Nétanyahou, M. Obama a déclaré : « Je crois qu’il a tort. » « Je ne peux pas m’empêcher de prendre une décision au seul motif que cela froisse temporairement mon allié », a-t-il ajouté. « La paix n’est pas l’absence de conflit, c’est le moyen de faire face à des conflits par des moyens pacifiques », a ajouté le président, citant à dessein son prédécesseur républicain Ronald Reagan, capable de conclure comme John F. Kennedy des accords avec l’Union soviétique alors qu’elle constituait une « menace existentielle » pour les États-Unis [le parallèle avec Ronald Reagan, selon certains experts, n'est pas vraiment un bon argument pour défendre cet accord, au contraire...]. « Si le Congrès bloque l’accord », a-t-il conclu avant d’inviter les Américains à se faire entendre auprès de leurs élus, « nous perdrons quelque chose de bien plus précieux que l’accord lui-même : notre crédibilité »."

- Obama Plays Politics of Fear to Get His Iran Deal, Eli Lake (Bloomberg View) - "It discredits the deal's opponents before they can tarnish the deal themselves. But this tactic also counts as what Obama once called "the politics of fear"."
"If you are a progressive activist, President Obama can tell you everything you need to know about the Iran deal in one word: NEOCONS!
I overstate, but only slightly. Since the U.S. and five other world powers agreed to terms last month intended to lift sanctions and check Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons, a key pillar of the White House argument for the deal is to point out who is against it.
Consider Obama's message to progressive activists on Thursday. In a conference call where only the president spoke, Obama warned his supporters, "You will hear a lot of arguments out there about why this is a 'bad deal' from people who, frankly, would be opposed to any deal with Iran."
He went onto say that the arguments were bolstered by a $20 million ad campaign, a veiled reference to lobbying by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. He then said some of the campaign comprises "the same columnists and former elected, former administration officials that were responsible for us getting into the Iraq war and were making these exact same claims back in 2002, 2003, with respect to Iraq."
This kind of dog whistling from Obama does a disservice to his supporters. He's exploiting his base's deep fear of all things neoconservative. It's true that neocons in 2002 and 2003 supported and argued for the Iraq war. Some of them helped plan the war. But many Democrats also supported the Iraq war, including Obama's first secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. And yet in 2015 many prominent progressives still obsess about the out-of-power neocons, and darkly imply that they undermine the national interest on behalf of Israel.
For Obama's base, the neocons were not just policy intellectuals on the wrong side of an unpopular war, but were instead agents that pulled off a kind of coup d'etat and foisted a war on an unsuspecting public. Most serious people don't believe this anymore. But it's nonetheless a popular fable among the net-roots to this day. What a terrifying world! Every election brings with it the prospect that our republic will fall under the power of a bunch of disloyal bureaucrats eager to shed American blood for Israel.
Suggesting that another disastrous war in the Middle East is just a few op-ed columns away, the president can activate progressive bloggers, volunteers and activists who themselves should be disappointed by Obama's foreign policy. After all, Obama has yet to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay. Under Obama's leadership, the use of drone strikes has increased and become commonplace in countries like Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan -- countries where the U.S. is not formally at war. But if he reminds the base that he is the one fighting the neocons, it's 2008 all over again.
This Iran deal will be Obama's foreign policy legacy. It's clever of him to frame the agreement as a triumph over the mentality that got us into the Iraq War. It discredits the deal's opponents before they can tarnish the deal themselves. But this tactic also counts as what Obama once called "the politics of fear." No, Obama isn't warning activists that the other side isn't vigilant enough against terrorism. He's just saying his opponents seek war and only his policies can bring peace.
But the Iran deal is no peace treaty. It's an executive agreement that broadly ends an economic war against Iran in exchange for Iran's promise over the next 10 to 20 years to allow more transparency and place some limits on its nuclear program. Iran is not committed to ending its support for terrorists or proxies that have killed Americans. In fact, as the region prepares for Iran to rise, Obama has promised to sell more arms to U.S. allies like Saudi Arabia and Israel, who consider Iran to be at war with them.
The best that Obama can hope for in the aftermath of his deal is that over time Iran is deterred from continuing its aggression in the Middle East. But Iran isn't likely to pull back unless it sees a credible chance that war will be waged against it. Obama may even find himself having to threaten Iran for the sake of peace in the region. Just don't tell his base. They are frightened enough already."



- US Airstrikes on ISIS Kill 459 Civilians, Show Double Standard on Israel, Benyamin Korn (Algemeiner) - "Somehow I doubt that Obama’s bombers have been going as far as the Israelis did in Gaza last year, to avoid harm to civilians. Are U.S. military personnel telephoning civilians in the area of planned anti-ISIS bombing raids, urging them to evacuate? Are U.S. planes dropping warning leaflets in areas they are planning to hit?"; "Now here’s where things get really sticky. During the Gaza war, the Obama Administration repeatedly chastised Israel over Palestinian civilian casualties. The Administration complained that Israel’s response to Hamas rocket terror was “disproportionate,” and that Israel should “do more” to avoid harm".
"Four hundred and fifty-nine innocent civilians have been killed by U.S.-led air strikes on ISIS targets in Syria and Iraq over the past year, according to a new report. It will be interesting to see how the international community reacts.
The new figures were released on August 3 by Airwars, an independent monitoring group that tracks and reports on air strikes against ISIS. Airwars says that it verifies its information by using “two or more generally credible sources, often with biographical, photographic or other evidence.”
The Obama Administration, however, has acknowledged only two civilian deaths from its air strikes. That’s a pretty significant discrepancy – 459 versus two. One wonders how the news media will treat that anomaly. When Arabs accuse Israel of killing large numbers of civilians, and the Israelis say that only a small number were killed, the Israeli position is routinely met with scoffing and derision from reporters.
Whether the number is 459 or 2, reasonable people would agree that the Obama Administration is surely doing everything it can to avoid civilian casualties, so whatever the number, it must be an inevitable byproduct of war, not the result of American recklessness.
Somehow I doubt that Obama’s bombers have been going as far as the Israelis did in Gaza last year, to avoid harm to civilians. Are U.S. military personnel telephoning civilians in the area of planned anti-ISIS bombing raids, urging them to evacuate? Are U.S. planes dropping warning leaflets in areas they are planning to hit? Not likely. Because doing so would mean giving up the military’s advantage of surprise – something the Israelis did, but I doubt President Obama is demanding. [...]
Now here’s where things get really sticky. During the Gaza war, the Obama Administration repeatedly chastised Israel over Palestinian civilian casualties. The Administration complained that Israel’s response to Hamas rocket terror was “disproportionate,” and that Israel should “do more” to avoid harm. [...]"



- Where's the Coverage: Jewish Athletes Threatened in Berlin (CAMERA) - "The European Maccabi Games—a Jewish sporting event held every four years and also open to non-Jews—took place this July in Berlin, Germany. Jewish athletes were faced with threats and intimidation that went widely unreported in most major media outlets"; "Jewish athletes were warned about traveling in large groups in Neukolln [district with a large Muslim population] and told not to wear “visibly Jewish items,” such as Stars of David and kippahs. It was also recommended that Jews travel in taxis and avoid “sensitive areas of Berlin”; those with high Muslim populations often hostile to Jewish people".

Partager cet article

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article



  • : 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