Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
27 décembre 2016 2 27 /12 /décembre /2016 23:28
Résolution 2334
 
- Video: UN Security Council cheers screwing Israel (Elder of Ziyon) - "I am curious if other Security Council resolutions elicit this kind of enthusiasm". Il faut avouer que la vidéo des applaudissements enthousiastes a quelque chose d'assez risible (pour ne pas dire terrifiant).
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/12/video-un-security-council-cheers.html

- Abbas : le vote de la résolution 2334 « ouvre la voie » à la conférence de Paris (Times of Israel) - "Le président de l’AP espère que la conférence de janvier renforcera la résolution qui a condamné la construction israélienne à Jérusalem Est et en Cisjordanie".
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/abbas-le-vote-de-la-resolution-2334-ouvre-la-voie-a-la-conference-de-paris/

- Leaked Document: U.S. Colluded With Palestinians 10 Days Before UN Settlements Vote (Haaretz) - "If authentic, the document, leaked to an Egyptian website, confirms some of the claims voiced in Israel against Obama since the UN vote against the settlements last week".
http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/1.761741

- Netanyahu defends response to UN vote: 'Israel will not turn the other cheek' (JP) - "Netanyahu said that this type of response has an “accumulative effect,” even if there will be other efforts to harm us in the course of the coming month. He was referring to concerns that the Obama administration may set forth parameters for a Middle East solution that Israel opposes and finds inimical to its interests. “There is no alternative to a determined response, because it creates the basis for different relations afterward,” Netanyahu said".
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/Netanyahu-defends-response-to-UN-rowIsrael-will-not-turn-the-other-cheek-476579
   "[...] During an event in Ma’alot-Tarshiha to launch a new socioeconomic plan for the Galilee, Netanyahu said he read criticism in the morning papers of his aggressive responses to the vote. This response included recalling Israel’s ambassadors to Senegal and New Zealand, summoning in for protests the ambassadors and representatives of all the UN Security Council states, canceling the scheduled visit this week of the Ukrainian prime minister and calling on his ministers to curtail visits to the 14 Security Council states that voted for the measure.
   “Israel is a country with national pride and we do not turn the other cheek,” he said. “This is a rational, aggressive and responsible response, the natural reaction of a healthy nation that is making clear to the nations of the world that what was done in the UN is unacceptable to it.”
    Netanyahu said that this type of response has an “accumulative effect,” even if there will be other efforts to harm us in the course of the coming month. He was referring to concerns that the Obama administration may set forth parameters for a Middle East solution that Israel opposes and finds inimical to its interests. “There is no alternative to a determined response, because it creates the basis for different relations afterward,” Netanyahu said.
    Referring to a headline Monday morning on the front page of Maariv, Netanyahu said that to describe Israel’s reaction as a “world war” was absurd. “I say enough with this Diaspora mentality,” Netanyahu said. “I say there is no diplomatic wisdom in being obsequious. Not only will our relations with the world not be harmed, in the long term they will only improve, because the nations of the world respect strong countries that stand up for themselves. They do not respect weak and obsequious countries that bow their heads.” [...]
    Lurking behind this war of words was the continued concern in Jerusalem that Obama would initiate another move against Israel before leaving office in a little less than a month.
    [Senior White House official Ben] Rhodes said he would not describe what was being planned as a new initiative. "I think what Secretary Kerry will be doing is he will give a speech in which he will lay out a comprehensive vision for how we see the conflict being resolved; where we see things in 2016 as we unfortunately conclude our term in office without there being significant progress toward peace,?" he said.
    The concern in Jerusalem is that the parameters Kerry will lay out will be adopted as the new parameters for a resolution at a Middle East conference to be convened in Paris on January 15, and perhaps even formalized into yet another resolution that could be taken to the Security Council to essentially replace UN Security Council Resolution 242, which has been the basis of all peace efforts since 1967. [...]"

************************************************
Analyse juridique

- The Dangers of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), Amb. Alan Baker (served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada) - "While the resolution does not replace Security Council Resolution 242, which is the accepted and agreed basis for the Israel-Arab peace process, it nevertheless contains elements that attempt to modify Resolution 242 and to sway the negotiating process in a particular direction"; "This position taken by the United States (as well as the other members of the Security Council) also undermines the basic obligation of the Oslo Accords, signed by the PLO and witnessed by the United States (as well as the EU, Russia, Egypt and others), that the permanent status of the territories, the issues of Jerusalem, and borders are to be negotiated". Excellent résumé (et vraisemblablement le meilleur que j'ai pu lire à ce jour) des implications juridiques (et politiques) de la résolution 2334.
http://jcpa.org/dangers-un-security-council-resolution-2334-2016/
   "[...] Summary of Implications
    Following is a brief summary of the legal and quasi-legal implications of the resolution:
    1) The resolution (as all previous resolutions regarding Israel) was adopted under the sixth chapter of the UN Charter (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) and as such is not mandatory. It contains a series of political determinations and recommendations to the international community. The resolution does not make law, and as such, the determinations as to the lack of legal validity of Israel’s settlements are no more than declaratory.
    2) Much of the terminology repeats UN terminology and language used in previous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions (“inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force,” “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem,” “secure and recognized borders,” “violation (serious or flagrant) under international law,” the references to the lack of legal validity of settlements, and their being an “obstacle” or “major obstacle” to achieving a two-state solution).
    3) References in the tenth preambular paragraph to the fact that “the status quo is not sustainable” and “entrenching a one-state reality” are new and would appear to be inspired by, or even direct quotes from statements by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Vice President Biden.
    4) Similarly, expressions not previously included in major Security Council resolutions regarding the peace process, such as “two-state solution based on the 1967 lines” (operative paragraph seven), as well as the references in the ninth paragraph to the “Arab Peace Initiative” and the “principle of land for peace” as additional bases for peace, clearly are intended to instill concepts that have never been agreed-upon elements in the negotiating process.
    5) The call upon states in the fifth operative paragraph to distinguish between dealings between Israel-proper and the territories will also be used by BDS activists and states to buttress their boycott campaigns.
    6) The reference in the third operative paragraph to the “4 June 1967 lines” as a basis for negotiations would appear to be a new element, echoing statements by Obama and Kerry, and running counter to the 1967 Security Council resolution 242, which is the basis for all of the Arab-Israeli peace process, which calls for negotiation of “secure and recognized boundaries.” The Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords make no specific reference to the 1967 lines. As such this reference would appear to be an attempt to prejudge or unduly influence the negotiating issue of borders.
    7) Despite the declaratory and recommendatory determinations in the resolution attempting to prejudge the status of the territories, east Jerusalem, borders, and settlements, the resolution nevertheless would appear to contradict itself in that it goes on to reaffirm the call for negotiations on “all final status issues” (operative paragraph eight) and for “a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
    Analysis
    1) While the resolution does not replace Security Council Resolution 242, which is the accepted and agreed basis for the Israel-Arab peace process, it nevertheless contains elements that attempt to modify Resolution 242 and to sway the negotiating process in a particular direction.
    2) The resolution cannot, in and of itself, serve as grounds for legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other international tribunals. But clearly, it will be used by the Palestinian leadership as a political tool to buttress existing complaints. This despite the fact that the issues of Palestinian status vis-à-vis the ICC and the court’s jurisdiction regarding the territories have yet to be reviewed juridically. The fact that the ICC Prosecutor has recognized the accession of “the State of Palestine” to the ICC Statute and has accepted their complaints are political decisions.
    3) The resolution cannot, in and of itself, serve as grounds for legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other international tribunals. But clearly, it will be used by the Palestinian leadership as a political tool to buttress existing complaints. This despite the fact that the issues of Palestinian status vis-à-vis the ICC and the court’s jurisdiction regarding the territories have yet to be reviewed juridically. The fact that the ICC Prosecutor has recognized the accession of “the State of Palestine” to the ICC Statute and has accepted their complaints are political decisions.
    4) This represents a serious, and even irresponsible departure from U.S. policy which has consistently advocated negotiated settlement of the issues of permanent status, Jerusalem, and borders.
    5) This position taken by the United States (as well as the other members of the Security Council) also undermines the basic obligation of the Oslo Accords, signed by the PLO and witnessed by the United States (as well as the EU, Russia, Egypt and others), that the permanent status of the territories, the issues of Jerusalem, and borders are to be negotiated.
    6) While the United States and Israel have entertained basic disagreements on settlement policy, the United States has consistently rejected, as a matter of basic policy, any attempt by the international community to prejudge this or the other permanent status negotiating issues.
    7) The outrage voiced by Israel with both the resolution itself and the Obama administration’s enabling it to pass stems from five basic components:
      - The text of the resolution, which is unprecedented in the extent of the condemnatory language used.
      - Israel’s frustration at the irresponsible behavior by the Obama administration.
      - The evident irreversibility of the resolution and the potential for future damage.
      - The imbalance between accusations of Israeli violations of the Oslo Accords and the Palestinians’ blatant violations of international law in their incitement and payment to terrorists.
      - The issue of settlements is not the core of the conflict. It remains the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize the Jewish State and its right to any part of the land west of the Jordan River."

- The fifty year plan to turn Israeli Jews into war criminals (Elder of Ziyon) - "The new UN resolution 2334, although not international law, is simply another in a series of never-ending actions that are all intended to do one thing: to twist, manipulate and create an international legal framework against Israel and only Israel". Un retour éclairant sur l'origine du fameux article 49 de la Convention de Genève, et sur les manipulations de son interprétation pour pouvoir qualifier de "crime de guerre" le simple fait d'habiter, pour un Juif israélien, au-delà de la Ligne verte.
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/12/the-fifty-year-plan-to-turn-israeli.html
   "The world claims that Israel violates the Geneva Conventions, Article 49, Paragraph 6: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
    The original intention of this paragraph was described by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1958 this way: "This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race."
    They are referring in part to the German Generalplan Ost [plus d'infos en français sur ce plan et les transferts forcés ici], a far reaching plan to colonize most of Europe and to expel (or murder) anyone who the Germans felt were inferior - and replace them, forcibly if necessary, with Aryans.
    Only after 1967 did anyone think that this minor paragraph in a major article about forcible transfers of populations could apply to people who wanted to - voluntarily - return to the land of their ancestors in territory that was never under the legal sovereignty of a state.
    For fifty years, the anti-Israel community of nations have been steadily nudging international law to be interpreted in a way that Israel's actions of allowing Jews to voluntarily move to ancestral lands has gone from admirable to a war crime.
    The first thing they needed to do was to define Judea and Samaria  as "occupied territory," since Geneva only refers to occupied territory. They do this using a neat trick: since no one doubts that the provisions of Geneva are humanitarian and meant to protect the existing population, they ignore the official definition of "occupied" as defined in the Hague Conventions where the occupied territory must belong to a "state." They say that the laws of occupation must apply anyway, because the people in the territory must be protected whether they are residing in a state (a "high contracting party") or not.
    Israel always accepted that it would uphold the humanitarian provisions of Geneva for any non-citizen Arabs who live under its rule, but building houses and communities - nearly always away from Arab population centers - do not violate any humanitarian rules of Geneva.
    Israel's enemies claim that Geneva applies to the territories in total, meaning that they have won the argument that the territories are occupied,  and therefore they try to apply the paragraph about "transfer" to Jews who move voluntarily. The international community has acquiesced to this false interpretation of Geneva because nothing is more important than humanitarian considerations, so they say that Geneva must apply and ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, it doesn't.
    But that is still problematic to Israels enemies because it is obvious that this was not the intent of Geneva's framers and paragraph 6 was a bit vague. So the Additional Protocols for the Geneva Conventions were drafted in 1977 and they elevated this violation of international law into a "grave breach:"
   "4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:
    (a) the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention;"

    Note how Israel's enemies now placed a nation's transfer of its own population before the much worse issue of forcible deportation. This is language that was directed at Israel and only Israel.
    But there is still the problem of defining "transfer." In Geneva Article 49, the term is used seemingly only in reference to involuntary transfer, as every other use of that term in that article is clearly referring to deportations or forcible transfer.
    When the International Criminal Court was being created, the Arab nations seized the opportunity to upgrade Israel's "crime" once again. The Rome Statute lists as war crimes things like murder, torture, kidnapping, intentionally attacking civilians - and it added one more that had never been considered a war crime in history: "The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
    Arab states insisted on adding the "directly or indirectly" terminology and the drafting committee caved to pressure. The only target of this was, again, Israel, which would now be considered criminal for not stopping Jews from moving to their historic lands. This is only one of many examples of how haters of Israel have managed to move the goalposts of international law, specifically against Israel and only Israel.
    The sober jurists and arbiters of international law have allowed themselves to be manipulated, between decades of propaganda and laziness at deciding to "compromise" with those who want to destroy Israel, into believing that allowing Jews to houses are war crimes on par with directly and purposefully attacking civilians.
    The biggest irony of all is that Geneva IV Article 49 is concerned with the huge human rights violations of forcible mass transfer of populations against their will - and yet the world is steadily moving towards using that very same human rights law to forcibly transfer hundreds of thousands of Jews out of their homes, many of whom have lived there all of their lives. It is not just a misinterpretation of Geneva - it is a perversion of Geneva. And it is only being directed at Jews. (Thousands of Israeli Arabs have moved over the Green Line without any peep of protest by the international community.)
    Perhaps the biggest perversion of all is that these legal instruments, in a sense, equate Israel with Nazi Germany. Many of the Geneva Conventions were specifically written to counter the worst kinds of human rights violations done by Nazi Germany in order to ensure that they never happen again. Now the same instruments of international law are singling out the Jewish State as a paradigm of what is considered evil - laws are being passed and approved by the entire international community specifically to target the primary victims of the Nazis whose actions led to Geneva to begin with.
    In this case, they aren't trying to ensure that these supposed war crimes never happen again. After all, there are settlers being implanted in Crimea, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus and elsewhere, all without a peep from these supposed humanitarians who created these laws. The purpose of these laws have been and remains to delegitimize Israel and only Israel.
    The new UN resolution 2334, although not international law, is simply another in a series of never-ending actions that are all intended to do one thing: to twist, manipulate and create an international legal framework against Israel and only Israel. [...]"

************************************************
Analyses politiques

- The United Nations Resolution on Israel, Elliott Abrams (Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies) - "Over this past weekend, administration spokesmen have tried to defend this abandonment of Israel in truly Orwellian terms, inverting the meaning of their action. This was done to help Israel, you see, and to defend it; we know better where its interests lie than does its elected government (and main opposition parties); we abandoned Israel because we are its friend"; "The Obama account of settlement expansion is invented and avoids the facts to build a case against Israel. Netanyahu is not popular among settlers exactly because he has restrained settlement growth and as noted adopted a ten-month freeze".
http://blogs.cfr.org/abrams/2016/12/27/the-united-nations-resolution-on-israel/
   "[...] The resolution rewards the PLO for refusing to negotiate and adopts its tactic of replacing serious, face-to-face negotiations with useless dramas in New York. It is a danger to Israel. And by refusing to veto, the Obama administration abandoned the usual American practice of defending Israel from what Jeane Kirkpatrick called “the jackals” at the United Nations.
    Over this past weekend, administration spokesmen have tried to defend this abandonment of Israel in truly Orwellian terms, inverting the meaning of their action. This was done to help Israel, you see, and to defend it; we know better where its interests lie than does its elected government (and main opposition parties); we abandoned Israel because we are its friend. [...]
    Yes, the resolution “expresses the consensus international view on Israeli settlement activity,” which calls them illegal, and that is the point: until the Obama administration, the United States’s position was that they were unhelpful but not illegal. Therefore the resolution is not “consistent with longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy.”
    As to the pace of settlement activity, Mr. Rhodes is simply wrong. I’ve reviewed the statistics here, in Foreign Policy. There, Uri Sadot and I concluded that "A careful look into the numbers shows that neither the population balance between Jews and Palestinians, nor the options for partition in the West Bank have materially changed….Israeli population in the settlements is growing, but at a rate that reflects mostly births in families already there, and not in-migration of new settlers." In fact settlement growth has not “accelerated significantly” since 2011, whatever Mr. Rhodes says.
    His most disingenuous remark is about the failure of negotiations. Indeed the Obama/Kerry efforts failed, because the Palestinians refused to come to the table even when Israel undertook a ten-month construction freeze. One of Mr. Obama’s officials, Martin Indyk, said this in 2014 about those negotiations: "“Netanyahu moved to the zone of possible agreement. I saw him sweating bullets to find a way to reach an agreement,” said Indyk. Abbas, for his part, did not show flexibility, Indyk added. “We tried to get Abu Mazen to the zone of possible agreement but we were surprised to learn he had shut down.”"
    So what is to be done when the Palestinians refuse to negotiate? Punish Israel. Join the jackals in Turtle Bay. Adopt the PLO view that action in the United Nations will replace face-to-face talks. That was Mr. Obama’s decision.
    Mr. Rhodes’s twisted formulation “where is the evidence that not doing this is slowing the settlement construction?” is a kind of epitaph for Obama policy. He explained: “we have a body of evidence to assess how this Israeli government has responded to us not taking this kind of action, and that suggests that they will continue to accelerate the type of settlement construction that puts a two-state solution at risk.” Settlements expand if we veto resolutions, he is saying, so we have decided not to veto resolutions.
    This is precisely wrong, a true inversion of the truth. The Obama account of settlement expansion is invented and avoids the facts to build a case against Israel. Netanyahu is not popular among settlers exactly because he has restrained settlement growth and as noted adopted a ten-month freeze. In 2009 Hillary Clinton said “What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements … is unprecedented.” What has been the Obama reaction to his restraint, to his freeze, to the PLO refusal to negotiate?
    The reaction has been to blame Israel and assault Netanyahu year after year, including with childish epithets. And this attitude culminated finally in the abandonment of Israel at the United Nations. Supporters of strong Israel-American relations can only be glad that the 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms in the White House."

- Why This Resolution Was Different (Commentary) - "No previous American government made a point, as Obama has consistently done, of attacking Israel’s position in Jerusalem".
https://www.commentarymagazine.com/foreign-policy/middle-east/why-this-resolution-was-different-obama/
   "[...] Nothing Netanyahu did in the last eight years or even in the last few months was a departure from existing Israeli policies toward the territories. To the contrary, settlement growth slowed under his government, a fact that his right-wing critics have not missed. Nor has he stepped back from his willingness to negotiate a two-state solution.
    No previous American government made a point, as Obama has consistently done, of attacking Israel’s position in Jerusalem. Under the terms of this resolution, the Western Wall and other Jewish holy places in Jerusalem are considered to be Palestinian. This isn’t merely offensive to Jews. It’s a not so thinly veiled endorsement of the vicious Palestinian campaign at UNESCO and other UN bodies to deny Jewish history and religion by claiming Jerusalem’s holy places are exclusively Muslim.
    As Obama knew full well, the mischief that will ensue from Resolution 2334 will not be able to be undone by his successor. He took this vindictive act in full knowledge that it was the Palestinians who have turned down numerous offers of statehood. It may also be followed up in the days before January 20 with an even more damaging resolution that could recognize Palestinian statehood in the 1967 lines without forcing them to make peace with Israel first. Though Obama and his apologists may believe this is necessary to “save Israel from itself,” what he has done could actually finish the already remote hopes for peace for another generation. [...]"

- Radical moves will only deepen our diplomatic isolation, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin (executive director of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)) - "The root of the problem is a wrong perception of reality by US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Obama administration failed to examine the validity of its basic assumption for advancing a solution to the conflict and understanding the dynamics between the sides, particularly the inability to detect that in the Israeli public opinion Jerusalem does not equal Judea and Samaria and that there is no willingness to take security risks. The decision to ignore President George W. Bush’s letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004 was puzzling, as was placing most of the blame on Israel while ignoring the Palestinians' part in the ongoing stalemate"; "Instead of lashing out at the world’s leading countries, we should work to stop the snowball effect and prevent additional moves that the Obama administration may allow until the end of the president’s term".
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4899206,00.html
   "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 is a serious diplomatic blow to Israel, and contrary to the intention of the countries that voted in favor of it – it is another nail in the peace process’ frozen coffin.
    The deterioration to the current low point is a combination of a Palestinian strategy to favor an internationalization of the conflict over direct negotiations with Israel, along with serious mistakes made by the Obama administration and the Netanyahu governments.
    The root of the problem is a wrong perception of reality by US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Obama administration failed to examine the validity of its basic assumption for advancing a solution to the conflict and understanding the dynamics between the sides, particularly the inability to detect that in the Israeli public opinion Jerusalem does not equal Judea and Samaria and that there is no willingness to take security risks. The decision to ignore President George W. Bush’s letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004 was puzzling, as was placing most of the blame on Israel while ignoring the Palestinians' part in the ongoing stalemate.
    Israel, on its part, is paying a price for Netanyahu’s problematic and erroneous perception of the American system in recent years, and more so of the international system. The gap between the prime minister’s address at the UN General Assembly, in which he expressed his to desire to see an end to the automatic majority against Israel, and the sweeping vote against Israel at the Security Council points to a serious perceptual distortion. Especially as this is not a move that can be ascribed to the anti-Israel nature of the UN institutions, but a sweeping vote by our best friends, including our new “ally” Russia.
   But despite the anger and frustration in Israel, it’s more important to look to the future rather than engage in an analysis of what happened and in remorse. Feelings of insult, betrayal and anger are not the basis for a sound and effective policy. We should therefore suspend the diplomatic response until Donald Trump enters the White House. Radical moves will only deepen our diplomatic isolation. In this context, Netanyahu’s attack on the countries that supported the resolution is a reckless and unnecessary move. We should ask ourselves whether the Israeli interest is to encourage a self-boycott, which will be, absurdly, more effective than any move made by the BDS so far.
    Instead of lashing out at the world’s leading countries, we should work to stop the snowball effect and prevent additional moves that the Obama administration may allow until the end of the president’s term. Looking towards January 20, we should prepare the long-term Israeli strategy vis-à-vis the new administration in Washington based on three assumptions: The Trump administration will be much friendlier towards Israel; a return to negotiations is impossible due to the Palestinian rejectionism, even before and particularly after Resolution 2334; the status quo is not good for Israel.
    We should therefore initiate a change that will maintain the horizon of the two-state solution, but will lead to it in the possible way under the current circumstances. In other words, to move towards a separation from the Palestinians in a controlled, cautious and patient manner that will protect the Israeli interest to be a Jewish, democratic, secure and righteous state, which will restore its diplomatic and moral standing in the world.
    Based on these assumptions, we should present to the Trump administration an Israeli proposal for practical action. Israel should move to a proactive strategy, centered on agreements with the United States regarding a distinction between the settlement blocs and isolated settlements, where Israel will freeze construction. On a wider scale, Israel should prove its commitment to a two-state horizon in the future through a series of self-initiated activities for changing the current trend.
    The US is our most important ally, and sometimes the only one. Israel should not be dragged into a Republican-Democratic conflict, and it is critical that it regains the support of both parties. It’s important to restabilize the trust between the countries, and particularly between the leaders – trust which has been violated by both sides in recent years."

************************************************
Analyse "coup de gueule"

- Le testament prophétique de Ban Ki-moon : l’ONU en faillite, Gilles-William Goldnadel (Causeur) - "lorsque Ban Ki-moon considère que l’ONU, par son attitude pathologiquement injuste envers Israël a perdu toute crédibilité pour tenter de régler les conflits, il n’est pas interdit à ceux qui défendent Israël de le considérer aussi".
http://www.causeur.fr/onu-israel-palestine-ban-ki-moon-41833.html
   "Avec une jubilation à peine dissimulée, une bonne partie de la presse hexagonale, un quotidien national du soir en tête, s’est réjoui de cette résolution onusienne de Noël, comme d’un cadeau de fête. Pensez donc, le rite était maintenu, l’État juif morigéné avant la fin de l’année.
    Le même jour, l’armée turque bombardait un village en Syrie et plus de 90 civils y laissaient leurs vies. Pas de quoi en faire un drame. 400 000 morts en Syrie, Obama reconnaissant son échec flagrant, les Nations unies leur inutilité totale. Peu importe, ce qui comptait c’était de mettre Israël au ban des nations, pour sa politique de « colonisation ». Oublions toutes les autres parties du monde dont le statut est largement aussi controversé : Tibet, Sahara occidental, Crimée, Kosovo, Chypre, Haut-Karabagh , Ossétie du Sud, etc. [...]
    Il reste le principal : la crédibilité d’une organisation internationale décrédibilisée, le secrétaire général sortant Ban Ki-moon reconnaissait lui-même le 18 décembre que l’ONU s’était montrée trop injuste envers l’État d’Israël. Mais quel journal hexagonal aurait eu l’esprit de le relever ? En août 2013, le même secrétaire général avait déjà expliqué qu’Israël n’était pas traité équitablement : « malheureusement, en raison du conflit israélo-palestinien, Israël est accablé par la critique, il souffre de préjugés, et parfois même de discriminations ». Entre 2006 et 2015, l’ONU a condamné Israël 61 fois, le reste du monde 56 fois…
    Le 18 décembre dernier, devant le Conseil de sécurité qui a voté cette résolution israélienne, Ban déclarait que l’organisation avait voté un volume « disproportionné » de résolutions contre Israël, ce qu’il considérait comme ayant « anéanti la capacité de l’ONU à remplir efficacement son rôle ». Ban ajoutait : « durant les 10 années passées, j’ai soutenu que nous ne pouvons pas avoir un parti pris contre Israël à l’ONU ».
   « Des décades de manœuvres politiques pour créer un nombre disproportionné de résolutions, de rapports de comité contre Israël » concluait le secrétaire général qui faisait le bilan de sa présidence à la tête de l’ONU. Toutes ces déclarations peuvent être vérifiées dans The Independent, un journal pourtant fort hostile à la politique israélienne. Vous ne le trouverez pas dans la presse française.
    On peut penser ce que l’on veut du statut des territoires controversés en Judée. Au plan du droit international, et depuis le traité de San Remo de 1922, c’est une hérésie juridique d’évoquer des « territoires occupés ». Mais qui se soucie du droit international, lorsque la politique s’en mêle ? Il n’en demeure pas moins que la majorité des habitants qui s’y trouvent sont hostiles à la présence juive. Et même des Français qui ne s’y trouvent pas et qui réclament leur expulsion quel que soit leur statut à venir alors qu’ils seraient horrifiés de voir expulser des étrangers illégaux en France…
    Il n’empêche, lorsque Ban Ki-moon considère que l’ONU, par son attitude pathologiquement injuste envers Israël a perdu toute crédibilité pour tenter de régler les conflits, il n’est pas interdit à ceux qui défendent Israël de le considérer aussi. On a déjà récusé un juge déshonnête pour moins que ça."

************************************************
"Processus de paix"

- Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah celebrates Hamas, Islamic Jihad terrorists (Elder of Ziyon)
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2016/12/mahmoud-abbas-fatah-celebrates-hamas.html
   "The 52nd anniversary of the first Fatah terror attack (January 1, 1965, against Israel's water carrier) is coming up, and the official Fatah Facebook page is churning out posters to commemorate the event.
    But Fatah, led my Mahmoud Abbas, isn't only celebrating Fatah's "martyrs". It is also celebrating any terrorist leader who was responsible for murdering Jews.
    So we have the sight of Fatah giving homage to Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin [image ici]. And Islamic Jihad founder Fathi Shaqaqi [voir ici]. And more [voir ici], even some who aren't dead. When Fatah and the other terror groups talk about unity, the only common ground they ever find it - terrorism."

************************************************
Israël

- Critiqué par le Conseil de sécurité, Israël veut y entrer en 2019 (Slate) - "Comme l'explique le Jerusalem Post, «Israël est le seul pays du Moyen-Orient – et un des 67 États des Nations unies, pour la plupart des petites îles – qui n'a jamais siégé au Conseil de sécurité, un organisme qui a eu un impact historique essentiel sur Israël et sa région». Pour y remédier, l'État hébreu aura deux adversaires, l'Allemagne, grande favorite, et la Belgique, lors du vote, prévu en juin 2018. Trois pays pour deux sièges, donc, sachant que la Ligue arabe, qui compte 22 membres, s'est déjà dite déterminée à contrecarrer la candidature israélienne".
http://www.slate.fr/story/132665/israel-conseil-securite

************************************************
Gaza & Hamas

- After years of conflict, Egypt eases pressure on Gaza (AP) - "Egypt is to begin opening the Rafah border crossing to more commercial activity, signaling that the Egyptian regime is trying to repair relations with Hamas; move comes as Egypt fighting against ISIS in Sinai".
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4899157,00.html

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