Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
30 décembre 2016 5 30 /12 /décembre /2016 22:54
Résolution 2334

- Netanyahu's tactical rage against the UN Security Council conspirators, Herb Keinon (JP) - excellent article sur les raisons fondamentales de la forte réaction diplomatique de Nétanyahou, et sur ses potentiels effets.
   "‘The minute the Israeli government agrees to cease all settlement activities, including in and around Occupied East Jerusalem, and agrees to implement the signed agreements on the basis of mutual reciprocity, the Palestinian leadership stands ready to resume permanent-status negotiations on the basis of international law and relevant international legality resolutions, including UNSC [Security Council Resolution] 2334, under a specified time frame.”
    And there you have it.
    In that immediate response by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas Wednesday night to Secretary of State John Kerry’s speech on the Israeli-Palestinian issue, you have the reason for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s bull-in-a-china-shop rage at the US decision to allow – indeed promote – passage of that Security Council resolution.
    In his response Abbas did not cite UN Security Council Resolution 242 – the one that has served as the cornerstone of all diplomatic efforts since 1967 and talks about land for peace and secure borders for Israel – but rather Security Council Resolution 2334.
    And that resolution is a much different beast than 242, which basically called for an Israeli withdrawal from territories – not all the territories, but territories – in return for peace. It made no mention of Jerusalem.
    Security Council Resolution 2334, however, essentially delegitimizes any Israeli presence beyond the 1967 Green Line, including in Jerusalem. Its point of departure is that any Israeli presence beyond the 1967 lines lacks legal validity and must be noted and actively opposed by the international community.
    No wonder Abbas wants to enter into negotiations on the basis of this resolution: it deprives Israel of any leverage in negotiations.
    Or, as Ambassador Ron Dermer said this week in an MSNBC interview: “The only card that Israel has in negotiations is a territorial card. But in this resolution, they pretend as if that territory is occupied Palestinian territory. All the territories where Israel is supposed to trade for an eventual peace, according to this resolution, is occupied Palestinian territory – including the Western Wall. It’s ridiculous.”
    Abbas says he will enter into negotiations on the basis of this resolution. Who wouldn’t? The resolution’s overriding assumption is that Israel is in the wrong.
    Why should the Palestinians make any territorial compromises of their own, if the international community says that the whole pie under discussion is legitimately theirs – including the Western Wall? In this equation, the Palestinians appear to be the “compromising” party if, for instance, they allow Israel to hold on to Ramot beyond the Green Line in Jerusalem.
    Israel, on the other hand, will not be seen as compromising if it leaves any of Judea and Samaria, because – according to the logic of this resolution – it is no compromise to give up what is not rightfully yours in the first place.
    And therein lies the reason for Netanyahu’s rage. This Security Council resolution will now be the new international reference point – its starting point – for dealing with the conflict, and from Jerusalem’s standpoint it is a reference point that puts it at a distinct disadvantage when negotiations restart. [...]
    But fury is not strategy, or at least it shouldn’t be. Rather, it is a tactic. And it is a tactic that Netanyahu has deployed in the past, not with negligible results.
    The last time Netanyahu responded with the same type of anger was last November, after the EU issued guidelines on the labeling of settlement products. Following that measure, Netanyahu slammed the EU, suspended diplomatic contacts with it on the Mideast peace process and ordered a “reassessment” of the EU’s role in that process.
    And the result: since that time, only one country, France, has adopted those guidelines and mandated the labeling of settlement goods in accordance with them (Britain and the Netherlands already had a settlement-labeling ordinance in place before the guidelines were adopted).
    Another time Netanyahu acted with a similar type of rage was in May 2011, when – in a landmark speech – Obama stated for the first time that America’s policy was two states “based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps.”
    Netanyahu, who heard that speech just as we was on his way to the airport to fly for a meeting with Obama, issued a very sharp response, and his meeting with the president will be remembered as “the lecture.” It was at that meeting that he schooled Obama on some basic Mideast “realities” in front of the cameras.
    Netanyahu reaped benefit from that rage as well, certainly not in his relationship with Obama but definitely on the domestic political scene, where his poll numbers went up after that meeting. The Israeli public likes to see its leaders stand up for their interests, even if it means standing toe-to-toe with the president of the United States. [...]
    But there are also costs. One of those costs is the now complete alienation of Obama. [...] “So what?” some may argue. In another three weeks, Obama is history. Except he isn’t. Yes, he will no longer be president of the United States, but he will still be an influential figure on the US political scene. He will surely be a major opposition figure to Trump.
    His voice will still have weight in certain circles, certainly inside the Democratic Party. To those who don’t think he can do any harm to Israel’s interests out of office, look at Jimmy Carter, whose 2006 book, Palestine: Peace not Apartheid, helped legitimize the use of the term “apartheid” in reference to Israel. [...]
    Netanyahu, in his reactions, is also gambling that the countries he is penalizing really care that much if their bilateral ties with Israel are harmed. While in regard to countries like Russia, China, France and Britain, that seems hard to believe, Israel does provide valuable assistance – water, agriculture, security and technology – to many smaller countries in the world, especially in Africa and Latin America.
    Recalling the ambassador to Senegal seems less a step directed against Senegal than a warning to Ethiopia, which is the African state that will replace it on the UN Security Council starting January 1. And canceling the visit by the Ukrainian prime minister sends a message to Kazakhstan, which will replace Malaysia on the council on the same day. Or as one senior official said in describing Netanyahu’s reactions, when a mortar is fired at the Golan Heights from Syria, Israel responds with far greater force.
    This is a gamble, because it could lead to an escalation. But it could also serve as a deterrent. Netanyahu’s rage was meant to serve as a deterrent to other countries that do, indeed, stand to lose if their ties with Israel get worse. This week he drew a line in the sand, saying to these countries that it is no longer acceptable to believe they can separate their bilateral relations from their behavior on Israel in multilateral forums.
    Netanyahu sits in the meetings with the leaders of African and Latin American nations, as well as some European states, and knows precisely what they want from Israel. His conclusion – as evident by his rage – is that threatening to deprive them of what Israel can offer them is significant. Again, it won’t make a dent in China. But it could have an impact on a country like Sierra Leone, for instance, whose president is due to visit next month, and who one day may be sitting in the Security Council.
    By seeming to “go crazy” over this resolution, Netanyahu is also trying to fend off other moves, trying to convince policy-makers abroad that if this is how he is reacting on this resolution, it is not worth pushing for further moves. And this is happening at a time when Netanyahu is genuinely concerned that there are other moves afoot.
    In his reaction Wednesday night to Kerry’s speech, Netanyahu made clear that he does not believe the US administration when it says that it is not planning any further steps, and that it will not dictate the terms of a solution in the Security Council or recognize a Palestinian state, absent an agreement. “I wish I could be comforted by the promise that the US says ‘we will not bring any more resolutions to the UN,” Netanyahu said. “That’s what they said about the previous resolution.”
    Netanyahu said that “they could take John Kerry’s speech with the six points. It could be raised in the French international conference a few days from now and then brought to the UN. So France will bring it, or Sweden – not a noted friend of Israel – could bring it. And the United States could say, well, we can’t vote against our own policy, we’ve just annunciated it.”
    Netanyahu’s fierce reaction indicates that the only way he believes he can block future measures in the next three weeks is by taking off the gloves. He feels there is no other way to stop it.
    And by taking off the gloves, he is also making an impression on President-elect Donald Trump. Only the strong are respected in the region, Netanyahu repeatedly says in speech after speech, the weak are not. Netanyahu believes that this is true not only of the region but also of Trump, a man who likes to radiate strength and power. [...]
    Rather than lowering Netanyahu in Trump’s mind, this rhetoric – Netanyahu’s rage and his fury at the Obama administration – could actually elevate him in the president-elect’s estimation and win him points."

Réactions internationales

- Paix israélo-palestinienne : « La colonisation est loin d’être le seul problème », affirme Londres (AFP) - « Nous ne pensons donc pas que la meilleure façon de négocier la paix est de se concentrer sur un seul problème, dans ce cas-ci la construction de colonies, alors que le conflit entre Israël et la Palestine est infiniment plus complexe. Nous ne pensons pas qu’il soit opportun d’attaquer un gouvernement allié et démocratiquement élu. Notre gouvernement estime que les négociations peuvent réussir uniquement si elles sont menées par les deux parties, avec le soutien de la communauté internationale ».
   "La paix entre Israël et la Palestine ne peut être négociée en se focalisant uniquement sur la construction israélienne dans les territoires palestiniens, a estimé jeudi le gouvernement britannique réagissant au discours de la veille du secrétaire d’Etat américain John Kerry.
    La Grande-Bretagne soutient une solution à deux Etats et considère comme illégale la construction par Israël dans les territoires palestiniens, a affirmé le porte-parole de la Première ministre britannique Theresa May. « Mais il est clair que la colonisation est loin d’être le seul problème dans ce conflit », a-t-il ajouté. « En particulier, le peuple d’Israël mérite de vivre sans craindre la menace terroriste, à laquelle il est confronté depuis trop longtemps », a déclaré le porte-parole dans un communiqué. [...]
    Sans faire directement référence aux déclarations de M. Kerry, cette prise de position britannique apparaît comme une critique du discours du secrétaire d’Etat américain.
   « Nous ne pensons donc pas que la meilleure façon de négocier la paix est de se concentrer sur un seul problème, dans ce cas-ci la construction de colonies, alors que le conflit entre Israël et la Palestine est infiniment plus complexe », a ajouté le porte-parole de Mme May.
   « Nous ne pensons pas qu’il soit opportun d’attaquer un gouvernement allié et démocratiquement élu. Notre gouvernement estime que les négociations peuvent réussir uniquement si elles sont menées par les deux parties, avec le soutien de la communauté internationale », a-t-il ajouté. [...]"
- Theresa May's rebuke of Kerry may mark the beginning of an era (Elder of Ziyon) - "other members of the Security Council were blindsided by the US decision. For so long, they had assumed a US veto on anti-Israel resolutions, so they had an easy decision to make: vote "yes" and keep their friends in the Arab world happy, while knowing deep down that the obsession that the UN has with Israel is absurd and counterproductive to its mission"; "If you take May's statement at face value, then the UK might have voted "no" had they known the US intended to abstain".
   "This story fascinates me:
   "Theresa May has attacked the current US administration over its condemnation of the Israeli government, in comments which appeared to align her with Donald Trump. The Prime Minister’s spokesman criticised John Kerry, the outgoing US Secretary of State, after he described the Israeli government as the “most Right-wing in history”.
    Mrs May does “not believe that it is appropriate” for Mr Kerry to attack the make-up of the democratically elected Israeli government, the spokesman said. “We do not… believe that the way to negotiate peace is by focusing on only one issue, in this case the construction of settlements, when clearly the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians is so deeply complex,” Mrs May’s spokesman said.
   “And we do not believe that it is appropriate to attack the composition of the democratically elected government of an ally. The Government believes that negotiations will only succeed when they are conducted between the two parties, supported by the international community.” The spokesman added: “The British Government continues to believe that the only way to a lasting peace in the Middle East is through a two-state solution. We continue to believe that the construction of settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories is illegal”."

    Why would May say that it is inappropriate to focus on settlements when that is exactly what was in the resolution that her government voted for at the UNSC only a week ago? I think that there might be something else going on.
    Most reports about the behind-the-scenes drama of the UNSC vote show that the delegates were very surprised at the US abstaining from vetoing the resolution. That hadn't happened in many years. The loss of the automatic US veto seems to have caused two new reactions:
    One is that Israel responded harshly towards those who voted "yes," even though they had done it many times before without any complaint when the resolutions were vetoed. (That was a tactical error on Israel's part.)
    The other is that other members of the Security Council were blindsided by the US decision. For so long, they had assumed a US veto on anti-Israel resolutions, so they had an easy decision to make: vote "yes" and keep their friends in the Arab world happy, while knowing deep down that the obsession that the UN has with Israel is absurd and counterproductive to its mission and one day they could become the victims of a witch hunt, too.
    But when the US abstains, suddenly the other members of the Security Council - and specifically its permanent members - have a new responsibility. They need to consider doing the right thing themselves instead of relying on the US to take the lead. Suddenly, their importance has increased as well as their responsibility.
    If you take May's statement at face value, then the UK might have voted "no" had they known the US intended to abstain. The entire calculus of the Security Council just changed from relying on a US veto to learning that there are actual consequences to one-sided resolutions that pass.
    The US just created another leadership vacuum.  By childishly trying to teach Israel a lesson, President Obama has abdicated the US role as the de facto leader in helping the moribund peace process. John Kerry just made sure that US influence on Israel has lessened. [...]"

- In strong attack on Israel, German foreign minister says settlements jeopardize peace (JP)
   "[...] Prof. Gerald Steinberg, who teaches political studies at Bar-Ilan University in Ramat Gan, told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday, “In many ways, the Obama-Kerry perception of the conflict has been shaped by European conventional wisdom. So it is not surprising to see European leaders embracing Kerry’s speech. In Germany, Foreign Minister Steinmeier has been particularly critical of Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu (taking Germany farther away from its post-Holocaust role).”
    Steinberg, who is president of the Jerusalem-based NGO Monitor, added, “Steinmeier, like powerful German NGOs such as Brot fur die Welt, [‘Bread for the World’] echoes the Palestinian victimization narrative. In addition, Steinmeier’s personal attacks on Netanyahu reflect German eagerness to do business with Iran, which was facilitated by Kerry.” [...]"

- Le Premier ministre australien condamne la résolution ‘biaisée’ de l’ONU (Times of Israel) - "Le leader australien a pour sa part réaffirmé l’appui de son pays à un accord de paix entre les Palestiniens et les Israéliens, qui, a-t-il spécifié, ne pourra être conclu qu’à travers des négociations directes entre les parties".


"Processus de paix"

- Sondage : 31% des Israéliens soutiennent l'annexion de blocs d'implantations en échange d'un Etat palestinien (i24) - parmi les 60% qui sont pour une solution à deux Etats.
   "Un sondage révèle que 31% des Israéliens soutiennent l'annexion des grands blocs d'implantations en Cisjordanie, avec l'établissement d'un Etat palestinien dans les zones restantes, a rapporté vendredi le Time of Israel.
    L'enquête, réalisée par Israël Radio, a révélé que 30% des Israéliens sont en faveur d'une deuxième option - l'établissement d'un Etat palestinien sur les frontières de 1967, à condition qu'Israël garde le contrôle sur le mur occidental dans la Vieille ville de Jérusalem.
    39% d'entre eux ont choisi une troisième option, et ont affirmé qu'ils étaient favorables à une solution d'un seul État avec Israël annexant toute la Cisjordanie, y compris les villes palestiniennes. Cependant, l'enquête ne permet pas de faire une distinction entre ceux qui étendraient les droits démocratiques complets aux Palestiniens ou pas. La solution d'un Etat est généralement soutenue par des groupes issus de l'extrême gauche et de l'extrême droite, mais qui diffèrent selon diverses caractéristiques.
    Les sondés ont été invités à choisir entre ces trois options. Aucune taille d'échantillon ou marge d'erreur n'a été communiquée par la radio. [...]"


- Les fausses informations ne sont pas nouvelles : elles ont conduit des juifs au bûcher au XVe siècle, Emeline Amétis (Slate)«Aujourd’hui, ces fausses histoires de juifs "buveurs de sang" — qui remontent au XIIe siècle — sont reconnues comme faisant partie des fondements de l’antisémitisme par les historiens».
   "Vous pensez le problème des fausses informations récent ? Qu'il est en partie dû aux réseaux sociaux ? Détrompez-vous, il existe depuis l’invention de l’imprimerie par Johannes Gutenberg en 1439, rapporte Politico Magazine.
    Dejà en 1475, les fausses informations avaient des conséquences tragiques. Cette année-là en Italie, un enfant de 2 ans et demi est porté disparu dans la province de Trente. Le jour du dimanche de Pâques, le prêtre franscicain Bernardin de Feltre fait de cette disparition le sujet de son prêche : pour lui, c’est sûr, c’est la communauté juive qui a commandé le meurtre du petit Simonino pour célébrer la Pâque juive en buvant son sang. La rumeur se diffuse. Le prêtre en rajoute en clamant à qui veut l’entendre que le corps du petit garçon a été retrouvé dans la cave d’une famille juive. Le prince-évêque de la province, Johannes IV Hinderbach, prend alors la décision de faire arrêter et torturer tous les juifs de Trente. Quinze d’entre eux ont été jugés coupables et brûlés au bûcher. «Cette histoire a inspiré des communautés environnantes à commettre des atrocités similaires», raconte Politico.
    Si la papauté a reconnu que les accusations de Bernardin de Feltre étaient fausses, le prince-évêque, se sentant menacé, a continué à propager de fausses informations au sujet des juifs «buveurs de sang d’enfants chrétiens». Pour s’attirer la faveur du peuple, Johannes IV Hinderbach a canonisé le petit Simonino, devenu Saint-Simon, en lui attribuant des centaines de miracles.
    La ferveur populaire pour ces thèses antisémites rendait l’intervention de la papauté impossible. «Aujourd’hui, ces fausses histoires de juifs "buveurs de sang" — qui remontent au XIIe siècle — sont reconnues comme faisant partie des fondements de l’antisémitisme par les historiens», souligne Politico.
    La propagande nazie s’est d’ailleurs servi de ces rumeurs du XVe siècle. «Ce qui est sans doute le plus terrifiant, c’est de constater la longévité et la puissance des fausses informations», regrette le site d’information. «Un site antisémite clame toujours que ces histoires de juifs "buveurs de sang" sont vraies. Certaines fausses informations ne meurent jamais.»"

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