8 janvier 2017
7
08
/01
/janvier
/2017
21:57
Attentat à Jérusalem
- Attaque au camion bélier à Jérusalem, 4 morts (Reuters) - "Les quatre personnes tuées, trois femmes et un homme, étaient toutes des élèves officiers, âgées d'une vingtaine d'années. La police a identifié le chauffeur du poids lourd comme un Palestinien originaire de Jérusalem-Est" ; "L'attaque, l'une des plus meurtrières depuis des mois à Jérusalem, visait un groupe d'élèves officiers de l'armée qui descendaient d'un car sur la promenade Armon Hanatziv, une allée aménagée qui offre une vue panoramique sur la Vieille Ville".
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/attaque-au-camion-b%C3%A9lier-%C3%A0-j%C3%A9rusalem-au-moins-115658457.html
- Jérusalem : 4 soldats israéliens tués dans une attaque au camion (AFP) - "Les quatre victimes sont le sous-lieutenant Yaël Yekoutiel (20 ans) et les soldats Shir Hadjaj (22 ans), Shira Tzour (20 ans) et Erez Auerbach (20 ans)" ; "Dix-sept soldats ont été blessés, selon l'armée. Le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu a affirmé que l'assaillant, "selon toutes les indications, soutient l'EI"" ; "Fawzi Barhum, un porte-parole du Hamas islamiste palestinien, ennemi d'Israël, a salué l'attaque contre les soldats comme un acte "héroïque"."
https://fr.news.yahoo.com/j%C3%A9rusalem-camion-percute-groupe-soldats-121042039.html
- La sœur du terroriste de Jérusalem remercie Dieu pour l’attaque perpétrée par son frère (Times of Israel) - "Quand un journaliste de Quds News Network lui a demandé ce qu’elle pensait de l’attaque, elle a répondu que « Dieu l’a choisi pour le martyre. Merci à Dieu. Nous sommes patients et nous remercions Dieu de cela […], c’est le plus beau martyre. »"
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/la-soeur-du-terroriste-de-jerusalem-remercie-dieu-pour-lattaque-perpetree-par-son-frere/
**************************************************
Résolution 2334
- Le Congrès américain dénonce la résolution 2334 de l’ONU sur Israël (Times of Israel & AFP) - "par 342 voix contre 80. Le vote républicain a été quasiment unanime et une majorité du camp démocrate a également voté pour".
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/le-congres-americain-denonce-la-resolution-2334-de-lonu-sur-israel/
"La Chambre des Représentants des Etats-Unis a condamné jeudi à une large majorité la résolution 2334 [...] La résolution parlementaire, à forte valeur symbolique mais qui n’a pas force de loi, a été adoptée par 342 voix contre 80. Le vote républicain a été quasiment unanime et une majorité du camp démocrate a également voté pour.
La résolution parlementaire 11 du Congrès stipule que la résolution 2334 de l’ONU est un effort « unilatéral » qui constitue un obstacle à la paix, en plaçant le blâme de façon disproportionnée sur Israël quant à la poursuite du conflit et en n’encourageant pas les Palestiniens à s’engager dans des négociations directes et bilatérales. [...]
« Le gouvernement américain doit s’opposer et mettre son veto à toute autre résolution du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies qui chercherait à imposer des solutions aux questions de statut final, ou qui serait unilatérale et anti-Israël », insiste le texte parlementaire.
La résolution onusienne, adoptée le 23 décembre, avait pu être adoptée suite à l’abstention des Etats-Unis, sur ordre de Barack Obama. « Ce gouvernement a abandonné notre allié Israël, quand il avait le plus besoin de nous », a lancé à la tribune Paul Ryan, président de la Chambre. Ryan s’est dit « stupéfait » par la décision d’Obama de laisser passer la résolution.
Le représentant démocrate Ted Deutch de Floride a rejeté de son côté la résolution 2334 en précisant qu’elle « caractérise les Juifs priant au mur Occidental comme violant le droit international tout en ignorant l’incitation à la violence et les paiements [de salaires par l'Autorité palestinienne] aux familles des terroristes ».
Présentée par le représentant de la Californie Ed Royce (R) et le représentant de New York Elliot Engel (D), les deux premiers membres de la commission des Affaires étrangères de la Chambre des Représentants, la résolution du Congrès a été coparrainée par 105 autres membres de la Chambre, dont 31 démocrates.
Utilisant le même langage qui est inclus dans une résolution complémentaire présentée au Sénat mercredi, la résolution de la Chambre des représentants a appelé à ce que la résolution du Conseil de sécurité soit « abrogée ou fondamentalement modifiée ».
Le texte de la Chambre affirme que sa condamnation du vote de l’ONU démontre le soutien de longue date des États-Unis à une solution à deux États, soit un « Etat juif et démocratique d’Israël et un État palestinien démilitarisé et démocratique vivant en paix et en sécurité ». [...]"
- Erekat slams US House for condemning UN anti-settlements resolution (Times of Israel)
http://www.timesofisrael.com/erekat-slams-us-house-for-condemning-anti-settlements-un-resolution/
- Blocking peace, Ben-Dror Yemini (Ynet) - "that's exactly what Kerry's problem is: he's following the action pattern of the world's "forces of progress." These "forces of progress" absolve the Palestinians of any responsibility. The Palestinian incitement was hardly mentioned. Their intransigence doesn't exist"; "The Palestinians' move at the UN was not meant to promote any kind of peace agreement. It was meant to block one".
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4901093,00.html
"The Palestinians have been presented with three proposals to establish a Palestinian state on 95 percent—more or less—of the land Israel currently controls. They said 'no' three times.
To understand the Palestinian logic, one must listen to the comments made, for example, by Abbas Zaki, one of the PLO's senior officials, about five years ago: "When we say that the settlement should be based upon (the 1967) borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go ... If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end ... Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Obama ... All those scumbags ... If one says that one wants to wipe Israel out... C'mon, it's too difficult. It's not (acceptable) policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself."
Zaki didn't keep this strategy to himself. He presented it in an interview with Al-Jazeera. It may not be the position of the entire leadership at the Palestinian Authority, but he's obviously representing a lot more than we think.
John Kerry's speech this week included no mention of the Palestinian intransigence. Not even a word. To those who aren't familiar with the history of the negotiations from the Oslo Accord to this very day, it must seem like a commendable speech. Kerry knows how to get the message across. He's in favor of peace and in favor of a Jewish state. He's against the settlements, which were mentioned in his speech more than anything else. His speech explained that therein lies the rub, and no other issue is as grave.
This was also his explanation for the UN Security Council Resolution 2334. Except that there is a difference. In his speech, Kerry spoke about land swaps. The Security Council's version was entirely different. It was a resolution calling to return to the 1967 lines. The Obama administration has given it its stamp of approval. It was a shot of encouragement to the peace refusniks on the Palestinian side.
The cheers coming from the Palestinian camp following the vote at the UN Security Council were the result of the success of the strategy Abbas Zaki was talking about. The demand to return to the 1967 lines—without any compromises, without Israel keeping its settlement blocs—has turned into a tool used against the very existence of Israel.
One must admit, though, that here and there, different voices were heard. There are moderate Palestinians. There was willingness, like the Geneva Initiative, to reach a compromise based on two states for two peoples, while including the settlement blocs in Israeli territory.
But it appears the "Eradicate Israel" camp has the upper hand. And that's exactly what Kerry's problem is: he's following the action pattern of the world's "forces of progress." These "forces of progress" absolve the Palestinians of any responsibility. The Palestinian incitement was hardly mentioned. Their intransigence doesn't exist. Kerry's speech was a biased, lacking in any integrity and one-sided indictment against Israel and only Israel.
The Palestinians' move at the UN was not meant to promote any kind of peace agreement. It was meant to block one. Just like the Palestinians' appeals to parliaments and governments around the world to gain recognition for a Palestinian state. A slew of useful idiots, led by Israeli diplomat Alon Liel, became the main instrument of their strategy. Liel and his ilk joined the struggle to convince parliaments around the world to accept the Palestinian demand. After all, these useful idiots don't require anything of the Palestinians: Not letting go of the "right of return" fantasy nor stopping the incitement against Israel.
The document that was leaked to an Egyptian newspaper this week is reminiscent of a fateful meeting that took place in the White House on March 17, 2014. During that meeting, President Obama presented Mahmoud Abbas with Kerry's second peace framework, which is similar to the one Kerry himself presented in his speech this week. The Palestinian team rejected the framework and negotiator Saeb Erekat was rewarded with a juicy curse word from National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
The Americans should have realized back then who they were dealing with. But that didn't happen. Unlike Bill Clinton, who pointed to Yasser Arafat as the one who thwarted his generous proposal, Obama and Kerry chose the opposite direction. Abbas told them no, but they never said a word about it. Silence. Complete silence. Deceit. Even an editorial in the Washington Post—which is not exactly a conservative newspaper—accused Obama this week, using harsh words, of serial failure. [...]"
- What does the December 23, 2016 UN Security Council Resolution contribute to the peace process? (JCPA, Vidéo 4mn) - une petite vidéo avec Dore Gold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hwe_yFe-Iw
- Le Congrès américain dénonce la résolution 2334 de l’ONU sur Israël (Times of Israel & AFP) - "par 342 voix contre 80. Le vote républicain a été quasiment unanime et une majorité du camp démocrate a également voté pour".
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/le-congres-americain-denonce-la-resolution-2334-de-lonu-sur-israel/
"La Chambre des Représentants des Etats-Unis a condamné jeudi à une large majorité la résolution 2334 [...] La résolution parlementaire, à forte valeur symbolique mais qui n’a pas force de loi, a été adoptée par 342 voix contre 80. Le vote républicain a été quasiment unanime et une majorité du camp démocrate a également voté pour.
La résolution parlementaire 11 du Congrès stipule que la résolution 2334 de l’ONU est un effort « unilatéral » qui constitue un obstacle à la paix, en plaçant le blâme de façon disproportionnée sur Israël quant à la poursuite du conflit et en n’encourageant pas les Palestiniens à s’engager dans des négociations directes et bilatérales. [...]
« Le gouvernement américain doit s’opposer et mettre son veto à toute autre résolution du Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies qui chercherait à imposer des solutions aux questions de statut final, ou qui serait unilatérale et anti-Israël », insiste le texte parlementaire.
La résolution onusienne, adoptée le 23 décembre, avait pu être adoptée suite à l’abstention des Etats-Unis, sur ordre de Barack Obama. « Ce gouvernement a abandonné notre allié Israël, quand il avait le plus besoin de nous », a lancé à la tribune Paul Ryan, président de la Chambre. Ryan s’est dit « stupéfait » par la décision d’Obama de laisser passer la résolution.
Le représentant démocrate Ted Deutch de Floride a rejeté de son côté la résolution 2334 en précisant qu’elle « caractérise les Juifs priant au mur Occidental comme violant le droit international tout en ignorant l’incitation à la violence et les paiements [de salaires par l'Autorité palestinienne] aux familles des terroristes ».
Présentée par le représentant de la Californie Ed Royce (R) et le représentant de New York Elliot Engel (D), les deux premiers membres de la commission des Affaires étrangères de la Chambre des Représentants, la résolution du Congrès a été coparrainée par 105 autres membres de la Chambre, dont 31 démocrates.
Utilisant le même langage qui est inclus dans une résolution complémentaire présentée au Sénat mercredi, la résolution de la Chambre des représentants a appelé à ce que la résolution du Conseil de sécurité soit « abrogée ou fondamentalement modifiée ».
Le texte de la Chambre affirme que sa condamnation du vote de l’ONU démontre le soutien de longue date des États-Unis à une solution à deux États, soit un « Etat juif et démocratique d’Israël et un État palestinien démilitarisé et démocratique vivant en paix et en sécurité ». [...]"
- Erekat slams US House for condemning UN anti-settlements resolution (Times of Israel)
http://www.timesofisrael.com/erekat-slams-us-house-for-condemning-anti-settlements-un-resolution/
- Blocking peace, Ben-Dror Yemini (Ynet) - "that's exactly what Kerry's problem is: he's following the action pattern of the world's "forces of progress." These "forces of progress" absolve the Palestinians of any responsibility. The Palestinian incitement was hardly mentioned. Their intransigence doesn't exist"; "The Palestinians' move at the UN was not meant to promote any kind of peace agreement. It was meant to block one".
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4901093,00.html
"The Palestinians have been presented with three proposals to establish a Palestinian state on 95 percent—more or less—of the land Israel currently controls. They said 'no' three times.
To understand the Palestinian logic, one must listen to the comments made, for example, by Abbas Zaki, one of the PLO's senior officials, about five years ago: "When we say that the settlement should be based upon (the 1967) borders, President (Abbas) understands, we understand, and everybody knows that the greater goal cannot be accomplished in one go ... If Israel withdraws from Jerusalem, evacuates the 650,000 settlers, and dismantles the wall – what will become of Israel? It will come to an end ... Netanyahu, Lieberman, and Obama ... All those scumbags ... If one says that one wants to wipe Israel out... C'mon, it's too difficult. It's not (acceptable) policy to say so. Don't say these things to the world. Keep it to yourself."
Zaki didn't keep this strategy to himself. He presented it in an interview with Al-Jazeera. It may not be the position of the entire leadership at the Palestinian Authority, but he's obviously representing a lot more than we think.
John Kerry's speech this week included no mention of the Palestinian intransigence. Not even a word. To those who aren't familiar with the history of the negotiations from the Oslo Accord to this very day, it must seem like a commendable speech. Kerry knows how to get the message across. He's in favor of peace and in favor of a Jewish state. He's against the settlements, which were mentioned in his speech more than anything else. His speech explained that therein lies the rub, and no other issue is as grave.
This was also his explanation for the UN Security Council Resolution 2334. Except that there is a difference. In his speech, Kerry spoke about land swaps. The Security Council's version was entirely different. It was a resolution calling to return to the 1967 lines. The Obama administration has given it its stamp of approval. It was a shot of encouragement to the peace refusniks on the Palestinian side.
The cheers coming from the Palestinian camp following the vote at the UN Security Council were the result of the success of the strategy Abbas Zaki was talking about. The demand to return to the 1967 lines—without any compromises, without Israel keeping its settlement blocs—has turned into a tool used against the very existence of Israel.
One must admit, though, that here and there, different voices were heard. There are moderate Palestinians. There was willingness, like the Geneva Initiative, to reach a compromise based on two states for two peoples, while including the settlement blocs in Israeli territory.
But it appears the "Eradicate Israel" camp has the upper hand. And that's exactly what Kerry's problem is: he's following the action pattern of the world's "forces of progress." These "forces of progress" absolve the Palestinians of any responsibility. The Palestinian incitement was hardly mentioned. Their intransigence doesn't exist. Kerry's speech was a biased, lacking in any integrity and one-sided indictment against Israel and only Israel.
The Palestinians' move at the UN was not meant to promote any kind of peace agreement. It was meant to block one. Just like the Palestinians' appeals to parliaments and governments around the world to gain recognition for a Palestinian state. A slew of useful idiots, led by Israeli diplomat Alon Liel, became the main instrument of their strategy. Liel and his ilk joined the struggle to convince parliaments around the world to accept the Palestinian demand. After all, these useful idiots don't require anything of the Palestinians: Not letting go of the "right of return" fantasy nor stopping the incitement against Israel.
The document that was leaked to an Egyptian newspaper this week is reminiscent of a fateful meeting that took place in the White House on March 17, 2014. During that meeting, President Obama presented Mahmoud Abbas with Kerry's second peace framework, which is similar to the one Kerry himself presented in his speech this week. The Palestinian team rejected the framework and negotiator Saeb Erekat was rewarded with a juicy curse word from National Security Advisor Susan Rice.
The Americans should have realized back then who they were dealing with. But that didn't happen. Unlike Bill Clinton, who pointed to Yasser Arafat as the one who thwarted his generous proposal, Obama and Kerry chose the opposite direction. Abbas told them no, but they never said a word about it. Silence. Complete silence. Deceit. Even an editorial in the Washington Post—which is not exactly a conservative newspaper—accused Obama this week, using harsh words, of serial failure. [...]"
- What does the December 23, 2016 UN Security Council Resolution contribute to the peace process? (JCPA, Vidéo 4mn) - une petite vidéo avec Dore Gold.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hwe_yFe-Iw
**************************************************
"Processus de paix"
- Visualizing the main "obstacle to peace" (Elder of Ziyon) - "If you superimpose the new map over the 1993 map, you see that not much has physically changed in the last 20 years"; "If the settlements weren't an "obstacle to peace" in 1993, when the peace process started.... And if they weren't an "obstacle to peace" when Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000, 2001 and 2008... What has changed?"; "The myth of "expanding settlements" is the single biggest lie in conflict, and it is one that is repeated ad nauseam by top US, European and UN officials as settled fact. That's why they always use population figures instead of amount of hectares of space taken up by Jewish communities - because those actual numbers don't fit the narrative of Israel destroying the chances for peace". Des cartes très instructives sur la prétendue "extension continue des colonies".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/01/visualizing-main-obstacle-to-peace.html
- Fatah and Hamas agree: We love Yahya Ayyash, the man behind many suicide bombs (Elder of Ziyon) - "Who says Fatah and Hamas are always fighting each other? Sometimes they find common ground. And that common ground is in supporting terror against Israel"; "Even though Ayyash was part of Hamas (he also provided the explosives for Islamic Jihad), Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah group is honoring him today as well, and linking him with Yasir Arafat".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/01/fatah-and-hamas-agree-we-love-yahya.html
- Media Ignores Poll Highlighting Abbas' Lack of Legitimacy (CAMERA) - "It should be a bombshell but so far the story has been ignored. The day after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lamented the faltering efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a public opinion poll reveals that approximately two-thirds of the Palestinian public wants Mahmoud Abbas, current president of the Palestinian Authority, to resign. The same poll reports that a majority (53 percent) of Palestinians support an armed intifada against Israel and that two-thirds of the respondents believe that a two-state solution is no longer viable".
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=9999&x_article=3537
"[...] The poll, which was compiled from interviews with 1,270 adults in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank between Dec. 8 and 10, 2016 and which has a margin of error of three percent, revealed the following:
Sixty-two percent of respondents want to abandon the peace process (AKA, the Oslo Accords).
Sixty-four percent of respondents want Mahmoud Abbas to resign.
To make matters worse, 76 percent of the respondents believe the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, but only 36 percent of the respondents say that people in the West Bank can safely criticize the PA. “This percentage rises to 41 percent among West Bankers and drops to 27 percent among Gazans,” the report states.
Regarding the peace process, only 33 percent of the respondents believe that negotiation is the way to go, while 37 percent believe that armed resistance is the best choice.
Elsewhere, the poll reports that 53 percent of the respondents support a return to an armed intifada. Seventy-three percent oppose Mahmoud Abbas speaking to the Israeli Knesset and 52 percent of the Palestinians interviewed believe that Israel intends to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and replace it with a Jewish temple. Apparently, the anti-Israel incitement broadcast by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority has a real impact.
Interestingly enough, 53 percent of the respondents want President-elect Donald Trump to involve himself in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
All of these results, plus others recounted in the poll, raise serious questions about the ability of Palestinian elites to credibly negotiate with Israel and to sell any agreement to the people they govern. One obvious question would-be peacemakers have to address is “If the PA is regarded with such mistrust and fear by the people it is charged with governing, why do so many people expect Israel to negotiate with it?”
This question is given more force by a little acknowledged finding issued by the PCPSR in March, 2016. In a survey conducted in February of that year, 58 percent of the Palestinians reported that they do not think that the Palestinian Authority acknowledges Israel's right to exist. This assessment is not offered by Israelis, but by Palestinians. (See page 13 of the report and look at question GS-15 for proof.) [...]"
- Thomas Friedman, Anachronism, Steven Stotsky (CAMERA) - "Friedman offers the patronizing admonishment that “friends don’t let friends drive drunk” as if to suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli voters whose support has enabled him to be Israel’s second longest serving Prime Minister are inebriated and incapable of steering their own course. But it is Friedman who demonstrates an intellectual laziness by failing to keep current with the facts and the flow of events in the Middle East conflict". Un très bon résumé des débats actuels sur le processus de paix.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=9999&x_article=3527
"New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman lent his support to the controversial actions taken by the departing administration of President Barack Obama concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Dec. 29, 2016, "Bibi Makes Trump His Chump"). Friedman praises the last minute maneuvers by the President and Secretary of State John F. Kerry and castigates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for lacking the political courage to defy his rightwing base. The facts and historical account offered by Friedman are worth examining.
1) Friedman chides Netanyahu for his unwillingness to “confront the Jewish settlers, who relentlessly push Israel deeper and deeper into the West Bank.”
So what are the facts about the territory and population of Jewish settlements in the West Bank?
The Jewish population of Judea and Samaria has increased from 275,000 at the end of 2008 to 377,000 at the end of 2015 according to figures published by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. Over an eight-year period that reflects the natural growth rate of the population. The total territory that has been built upon by Jewish settlers amounts to between two and three percent of the total West Bank land area (depending upon the source) and has changed little during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s eight year tenure.
While it is true that the built-up territory does not comprise the total land area that Israel controls or would control in any agreement, nevertheless, there is no evidence that Jewish settlers are “relentlessly” expanding the territory under their control, as Friedman contends.
2) Friedman accuses Netanyahu of always siding with the settlers.
He does not mention the ten-month settlement freeze imposed by Netanyahu in 2010 at the request of President Obama in order to coax Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the negotiating table. It didn’t work; Abbas stalled until the 10th month when time had run out.
3) Friedman criticizes Netanyahu for refusing to “show any imagination or desire to build workable alternatives… such as radical political and economic autonomy for the Palestinians in the majority of the West Bank, free of settlements, while Israel still controls the borders and the settlements close to it.”
Friedman’s vagueness leaves it unclear what he thinks Israel can do differently that it hasn’t done already. The Palestinian Authority governs the daily lives of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, while Israel controls the borders and polices the settlements. Friedman continues his critique contending that “Bibi never lays down a credible peace plan that truly puts the ball in the Palestinians’ court.” Friedman fails to consider the peace plans offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former President Bill Clinton in 2000 and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Both plans would have ceded to the Palestinians nearly the entire West Bank along with agreed upon land swaps. The plans were met with rejection. In the case of the former plan in 2000, the response was a wave of devastating suicide bombings that forced Israel to take more intrusive measures in the West Bank and build a separation barrier. In light of that history, it is fair to ask whether it is Bibi or Friedman who evidences a lack of imagination by suggesting Israel repeat what it already has done without success.
4) Friedman lashes out by accusing Netanyahu of calling Obama an “enemy” when Obama “exposes” the Prime Minister’s lack of initiative on pursuing peace.
An Internet search has turned up no evidence that Prime Minister Netanyahu ever called President Obama an enemy. He has criticized the outgoing President for his recent actions. A responsible columnist should not engage in irresponsible exaggerations or inflammatory rhetoric.
5) Friedman, however, does not hesitate to accuse American Jews who sympathize with Netanyahu and the majority of Israelis of exerting a nefarious control over American foreign policy. It takes more than a touch of hubris to insist that he knows better than the Israeli electorate what is good for the Jewish state. The Israelis have to live with the decisions made about their security and future. Friedman doesn’t.
6) Friedman is especially incensed over President-Elect Donald Trump’s choice for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, whom the Times columnist derides as a “rightwing extremist, and I mean extreme.” He then misrepresents what David Friedman said, stating “David Friedman has compared Jews who favor a two-state solution to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis.”
That is not what David Friedman said. In David Friedman’s own words (Israel National News, June 5, 2016): "Finally, are J Street supporters really as bad as kapos? The answer, actually, is no. They are far worse than kapos – Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps. The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty and who knows what any of us would have done under those circumstances to save a loved one? But J Street? They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas – it’s hard to imagine anyone worse."
David Friedman compared J Street supporters to kapos, not all Jews who favor a two-state solution, a much broader category. The Times’ Friedman then claims “I’ve never heard such a vile slur from one Jew to another.” Really? What about some far-left, anti-Zionist Jews who have on occasion equated rightwing Israelis to Nazis? Were the comments by Israeli professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, British MP Gerald Kaufman, UN Rapporteurs Richard Falk and Jean Ziegler and other denizens of the far-left not as vile or more so?
7) Friedman repeats the major theme of Secretary Kerry's speech on Dec. 28, 2016 that Israel cannot preserve its Jewish character and remain democratic if it continues to exert control over the West Bank. He underscores his concern by contending that combined Israeli Arab and West Bank Palestinian Arab population would "constitute a significant minority with a higher birthrate than that of Israeli Jews." In a Times column on October 19, 1987, Friedman warned that in 12 years, "Israel and the occupied territories will be, in demographic terms, a binational state." He went on to quote a leading Israeli demographer, Arnon Soffer, saying that Israel was becoming "a bi-national, not a Jewish state - no question about it." The prediction proved wrong. But the demographic swamping of Israel's Jewish population by out of control Arab reproduction has remained a lynchpin of Friedman's argument for the compelling need for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.
The columnist's demographic claims are obsolete. He could not have predicted the wave of Soviet Jewish immigration. But he also seems unaware of the substantial shift in fertility between the two populations that has occurred over the last 20 years. According to the most recent data by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, Israeli Jewish fertility is now at 3.13 children per women, equal to that of Israeli Arabs. Palestinian fertility in the West Bank still exceeds that figure according to Palestinian accounting, but has declined precipitously over the years. If current trends continue, Jewish fertility, bolstered by immigration, will shift the demographic balance further in favor of Jews in Israel.
Demographics aside, the incorporation of a large hostile Arab population into Israel’s electorate would be destabilizing and for that reason most Israelis would not support such an arrangement. Nevertheless, Friedman should update his facts and not base his argument on outdated claims that Arab fertility will overwhelm Israel’s Jewish majority.
Friedman offers the patronizing admonishment that “friends don’t let friends drive drunk” as if to suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli voters whose support has enabled him to be Israel’s second longest serving Prime Minister are inebriated and incapable of steering their own course. But it is Friedman who demonstrates an intellectual laziness by failing to keep current with the facts and the flow of events in the Middle East conflict. After three decades of promoting the same formula in countless Times columns, his views seemingly unshaken by all that has changed in the Middle East, one has to wonder who is doing the imbibing!"
- Visualizing the main "obstacle to peace" (Elder of Ziyon) - "If you superimpose the new map over the 1993 map, you see that not much has physically changed in the last 20 years"; "If the settlements weren't an "obstacle to peace" in 1993, when the peace process started.... And if they weren't an "obstacle to peace" when Israel offered the Palestinians a state in 2000, 2001 and 2008... What has changed?"; "The myth of "expanding settlements" is the single biggest lie in conflict, and it is one that is repeated ad nauseam by top US, European and UN officials as settled fact. That's why they always use population figures instead of amount of hectares of space taken up by Jewish communities - because those actual numbers don't fit the narrative of Israel destroying the chances for peace". Des cartes très instructives sur la prétendue "extension continue des colonies".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/01/visualizing-main-obstacle-to-peace.html
- Fatah and Hamas agree: We love Yahya Ayyash, the man behind many suicide bombs (Elder of Ziyon) - "Who says Fatah and Hamas are always fighting each other? Sometimes they find common ground. And that common ground is in supporting terror against Israel"; "Even though Ayyash was part of Hamas (he also provided the explosives for Islamic Jihad), Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah group is honoring him today as well, and linking him with Yasir Arafat".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/01/fatah-and-hamas-agree-we-love-yahya.html
- Media Ignores Poll Highlighting Abbas' Lack of Legitimacy (CAMERA) - "It should be a bombshell but so far the story has been ignored. The day after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry lamented the faltering efforts to achieve a negotiated settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict, a public opinion poll reveals that approximately two-thirds of the Palestinian public wants Mahmoud Abbas, current president of the Palestinian Authority, to resign. The same poll reports that a majority (53 percent) of Palestinians support an armed intifada against Israel and that two-thirds of the respondents believe that a two-state solution is no longer viable".
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=9999&x_article=3537
"[...] The poll, which was compiled from interviews with 1,270 adults in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank between Dec. 8 and 10, 2016 and which has a margin of error of three percent, revealed the following:
Sixty-two percent of respondents want to abandon the peace process (AKA, the Oslo Accords).
Sixty-four percent of respondents want Mahmoud Abbas to resign.
To make matters worse, 76 percent of the respondents believe the Palestinian Authority is corrupt, but only 36 percent of the respondents say that people in the West Bank can safely criticize the PA. “This percentage rises to 41 percent among West Bankers and drops to 27 percent among Gazans,” the report states.
Regarding the peace process, only 33 percent of the respondents believe that negotiation is the way to go, while 37 percent believe that armed resistance is the best choice.
Elsewhere, the poll reports that 53 percent of the respondents support a return to an armed intifada. Seventy-three percent oppose Mahmoud Abbas speaking to the Israeli Knesset and 52 percent of the Palestinians interviewed believe that Israel intends to destroy the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and replace it with a Jewish temple. Apparently, the anti-Israel incitement broadcast by Hamas and the Palestinian Authority has a real impact.
Interestingly enough, 53 percent of the respondents want President-elect Donald Trump to involve himself in negotiations between Israelis and Palestinians.
All of these results, plus others recounted in the poll, raise serious questions about the ability of Palestinian elites to credibly negotiate with Israel and to sell any agreement to the people they govern. One obvious question would-be peacemakers have to address is “If the PA is regarded with such mistrust and fear by the people it is charged with governing, why do so many people expect Israel to negotiate with it?”
This question is given more force by a little acknowledged finding issued by the PCPSR in March, 2016. In a survey conducted in February of that year, 58 percent of the Palestinians reported that they do not think that the Palestinian Authority acknowledges Israel's right to exist. This assessment is not offered by Israelis, but by Palestinians. (See page 13 of the report and look at question GS-15 for proof.) [...]"
- Thomas Friedman, Anachronism, Steven Stotsky (CAMERA) - "Friedman offers the patronizing admonishment that “friends don’t let friends drive drunk” as if to suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli voters whose support has enabled him to be Israel’s second longest serving Prime Minister are inebriated and incapable of steering their own course. But it is Friedman who demonstrates an intellectual laziness by failing to keep current with the facts and the flow of events in the Middle East conflict". Un très bon résumé des débats actuels sur le processus de paix.
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=9999&x_article=3527
"New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman lent his support to the controversial actions taken by the departing administration of President Barack Obama concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (Dec. 29, 2016, "Bibi Makes Trump His Chump"). Friedman praises the last minute maneuvers by the President and Secretary of State John F. Kerry and castigates Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for lacking the political courage to defy his rightwing base. The facts and historical account offered by Friedman are worth examining.
1) Friedman chides Netanyahu for his unwillingness to “confront the Jewish settlers, who relentlessly push Israel deeper and deeper into the West Bank.”
So what are the facts about the territory and population of Jewish settlements in the West Bank?
The Jewish population of Judea and Samaria has increased from 275,000 at the end of 2008 to 377,000 at the end of 2015 according to figures published by Israel’s Central Bureau of Statistics. Over an eight-year period that reflects the natural growth rate of the population. The total territory that has been built upon by Jewish settlers amounts to between two and three percent of the total West Bank land area (depending upon the source) and has changed little during Prime Minister Netanyahu’s eight year tenure.
While it is true that the built-up territory does not comprise the total land area that Israel controls or would control in any agreement, nevertheless, there is no evidence that Jewish settlers are “relentlessly” expanding the territory under their control, as Friedman contends.
2) Friedman accuses Netanyahu of always siding with the settlers.
He does not mention the ten-month settlement freeze imposed by Netanyahu in 2010 at the request of President Obama in order to coax Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to the negotiating table. It didn’t work; Abbas stalled until the 10th month when time had run out.
3) Friedman criticizes Netanyahu for refusing to “show any imagination or desire to build workable alternatives… such as radical political and economic autonomy for the Palestinians in the majority of the West Bank, free of settlements, while Israel still controls the borders and the settlements close to it.”
Friedman’s vagueness leaves it unclear what he thinks Israel can do differently that it hasn’t done already. The Palestinian Authority governs the daily lives of the Palestinian population in the West Bank, while Israel controls the borders and polices the settlements. Friedman continues his critique contending that “Bibi never lays down a credible peace plan that truly puts the ball in the Palestinians’ court.” Friedman fails to consider the peace plans offered by Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak and former President Bill Clinton in 2000 and former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert in 2008. Both plans would have ceded to the Palestinians nearly the entire West Bank along with agreed upon land swaps. The plans were met with rejection. In the case of the former plan in 2000, the response was a wave of devastating suicide bombings that forced Israel to take more intrusive measures in the West Bank and build a separation barrier. In light of that history, it is fair to ask whether it is Bibi or Friedman who evidences a lack of imagination by suggesting Israel repeat what it already has done without success.
4) Friedman lashes out by accusing Netanyahu of calling Obama an “enemy” when Obama “exposes” the Prime Minister’s lack of initiative on pursuing peace.
An Internet search has turned up no evidence that Prime Minister Netanyahu ever called President Obama an enemy. He has criticized the outgoing President for his recent actions. A responsible columnist should not engage in irresponsible exaggerations or inflammatory rhetoric.
5) Friedman, however, does not hesitate to accuse American Jews who sympathize with Netanyahu and the majority of Israelis of exerting a nefarious control over American foreign policy. It takes more than a touch of hubris to insist that he knows better than the Israeli electorate what is good for the Jewish state. The Israelis have to live with the decisions made about their security and future. Friedman doesn’t.
6) Friedman is especially incensed over President-Elect Donald Trump’s choice for ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, whom the Times columnist derides as a “rightwing extremist, and I mean extreme.” He then misrepresents what David Friedman said, stating “David Friedman has compared Jews who favor a two-state solution to Jews who collaborated with the Nazis.”
That is not what David Friedman said. In David Friedman’s own words (Israel National News, June 5, 2016): "Finally, are J Street supporters really as bad as kapos? The answer, actually, is no. They are far worse than kapos – Jews who turned in their fellow Jews in the Nazi death camps. The kapos faced extraordinary cruelty and who knows what any of us would have done under those circumstances to save a loved one? But J Street? They are just smug advocates of Israel’s destruction delivered from the comfort of their secure American sofas – it’s hard to imagine anyone worse."
David Friedman compared J Street supporters to kapos, not all Jews who favor a two-state solution, a much broader category. The Times’ Friedman then claims “I’ve never heard such a vile slur from one Jew to another.” Really? What about some far-left, anti-Zionist Jews who have on occasion equated rightwing Israelis to Nazis? Were the comments by Israeli professor Yeshayahu Leibowitz, British MP Gerald Kaufman, UN Rapporteurs Richard Falk and Jean Ziegler and other denizens of the far-left not as vile or more so?
7) Friedman repeats the major theme of Secretary Kerry's speech on Dec. 28, 2016 that Israel cannot preserve its Jewish character and remain democratic if it continues to exert control over the West Bank. He underscores his concern by contending that combined Israeli Arab and West Bank Palestinian Arab population would "constitute a significant minority with a higher birthrate than that of Israeli Jews." In a Times column on October 19, 1987, Friedman warned that in 12 years, "Israel and the occupied territories will be, in demographic terms, a binational state." He went on to quote a leading Israeli demographer, Arnon Soffer, saying that Israel was becoming "a bi-national, not a Jewish state - no question about it." The prediction proved wrong. But the demographic swamping of Israel's Jewish population by out of control Arab reproduction has remained a lynchpin of Friedman's argument for the compelling need for Israel to reach an agreement with the Palestinians.
The columnist's demographic claims are obsolete. He could not have predicted the wave of Soviet Jewish immigration. But he also seems unaware of the substantial shift in fertility between the two populations that has occurred over the last 20 years. According to the most recent data by Israel's Central Bureau of Statistics, Israeli Jewish fertility is now at 3.13 children per women, equal to that of Israeli Arabs. Palestinian fertility in the West Bank still exceeds that figure according to Palestinian accounting, but has declined precipitously over the years. If current trends continue, Jewish fertility, bolstered by immigration, will shift the demographic balance further in favor of Jews in Israel.
Demographics aside, the incorporation of a large hostile Arab population into Israel’s electorate would be destabilizing and for that reason most Israelis would not support such an arrangement. Nevertheless, Friedman should update his facts and not base his argument on outdated claims that Arab fertility will overwhelm Israel’s Jewish majority.
Friedman offers the patronizing admonishment that “friends don’t let friends drive drunk” as if to suggest that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Israeli voters whose support has enabled him to be Israel’s second longest serving Prime Minister are inebriated and incapable of steering their own course. But it is Friedman who demonstrates an intellectual laziness by failing to keep current with the facts and the flow of events in the Middle East conflict. After three decades of promoting the same formula in countless Times columns, his views seemingly unshaken by all that has changed in the Middle East, one has to wonder who is doing the imbibing!"
**************************************************
- Le Hamas cherche toujours à rompre le calme fragile en Israël (i24)
http://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/israel/134426-170106-le-hamas-cherche-toujours-a-rompre-la-fragile-tranquillite-en-israel-analyse
"[...] Les sources de sécurité déclarent que la majorité des "grandes infrastructures" terroristes qu’ils ont découvertes en Cisjordanie sont mises en place par le Hamas. Ils définissent l'infrastructure comme le recrutement organisé de membres, le transfert de fonds pour l’entraînement et l'achat d'armes, l'assemblage d'explosifs et le choix des cibles.
Dans la quasi-totalité de ces cas - les cellules terroristes en Cisjordanie - sont orchestrées par le Hamas à Gaza ou par la branche du Hamas à l'étranger dirigée par Salah Arouri qui était basé en Turquie jusqu'à récemment et se trouve à présent au Qatar.
Ces mêmes sources affirment que le Hamas poursuit un double objectif. Le premier étant d'assassiner des civils israéliens et du personnel de sécurité - un aspect central de l'idéologie djihadiste du Hamas.
Le second consiste quant à lui à provoquer une opération antiterroriste de Tsahal à grande échelle en Cisjordanie dont le Hamas espère qu’elle conduira à la chute de son rival, l'Autorité palestinienne dirigée par le Fatah. [...]
Certaines de ces cellules sont démantelées par les services de sécurité de l'Autorité palestinienne, qui considèrent le Hamas comme leur ennemi. Cependant, la majorité sont démantelées par le Shin Bet et Tsahal.
"Le calme actuel est un mensonge", a déclaré cette semaine une source des services de sécurité interrogée sur les efforts du Hamas à cibler les villes israéliennes. "Il suffirait d’une attaque, comme celle qui se préparait à Naplouse, qui réussisse, et les choses seraient très différentes", a-t-il dit.
Le 26 décembre, une enquête du Shin Bet a révélé qu’une importante cellule du Hamas s’apprêtait à commettre des attentats suicides à Haïfa et à Jérusalem. Les forces de sécurité ont arrêté les membres de la cellule, empêchant des scènes de carnage dans les rues israéliennes. [...]"
- L'Egypte a détruit douze tunnels le long de la frontière entre Gaza et le Sinaï (i24) - "Le mois dernier, quatre Palestiniens ont été retrouvés morts dans un tunnel reliant le sud de la bande de Gaza au Sinaï égyptien, ont indiqué les secours palestiniens, accusant l'armée égyptienne de l'avoir inondé. L'Egypte n'a jamais confirmé ces accusations palestiniennes et refuse de commenter les actions de son armée le long de la frontière entre Gaza et le Sinaï en proie à une insurrection djihadiste qui s'en prend quasi-quotidiennement aux forces égyptiennes. Elle a toutefois détruit des centaines de tunnels, assurant qu'ils servaient au transit d'armes et de terroristes".
http://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/moyen-orient/134165-170102-l-egypte-a-detruit-douze-tunnels-le-long-de-la-frontiere-entre-gaza-et-le-sinai
- PA and Hamas dispute leads to electricity shortage in Gaza (Times of Israel) - "Hamas, a terrorist organization which calls for Israel’s destruction, has refused to make any payments to Israel. The PA initially continued to pay the full cost of the fuel, but the disagreement was never resolved. As a result, the Gaza Strip has seen drastic swings in the electricity supply".
http://www.timesofisrael.com/pa-and-hamas-dispute-leads-to-electricity-shortage-in-gaza/
"A long-simmering dispute between Hamas and the Palestinian Authority over who has to foot the bill for the fuel that powers the Gaza Strip’s power plant has severely curtailed electricity production. But for Palestinians left to deal with the bitter winter cold with just three hours of electricity a day, the excuses are of little consolation. [...]
The latest crisis surrounding electricity supply in Gaza did not start overnight. It is the outcome of a long-running disagreement between the Palestinian Authority and Hamas over the payment of excise taxes for the fuel that is used in the power station in Gaza.
The Palestinian Authority purchases the gas at full cost — including the excise tax — from Israel before it is transferred to Gaza. However, the PA announced in 2015 that it is no longer prepared to bear the full burden of of the excise tax and told Hamas it needs to foot its share of the costs of buying diesel fuel for the power station in Gaza. The station constitutes the main source of energy in the Gaza Strip (apart from a small amount that comes from Israel and Egypt).
While the Palestinian Authority is nominally responsible for the Gaza Strip, particularly in official dealings with Israel, in reality, Hamas has been in charge since ousting PA forces, in a bloody uprising in 2007. Several rounds of reconciliation talks between the two have failed to reach an agreement, leading to these kinds of grey areas of responsibility.
Hamas, a terrorist organization which calls for Israel’s destruction, has refused to make any payments to Israel. The PA initially continued to pay the full cost of the fuel, but the disagreement was never resolved.
As a result, the Gaza Strip has seen drastic swings in the electricity supply. Each time the PA refuses to shell out the funds for the excise tax, the electric company in Gaza buys less fuel and in turn produces less electricity. This time, it appears that the crisis has become particularly severe, in light of the decrease in electricity supply from Egypt, due to technical problems with the power lines.
This latest crisis has caused a great deal of discontent in the Gaza Strip, and, on Saturday, there were numerous protests in the coastal enclave, such as the one in the Nuseirat refugee camp, where Gaza’s main power plant is located. [...]"
- Dozens of Hamas members "martyred" in 2016. Israel only killed 2 of them (Elder of Ziyon) - "It shows Hamas was far more efficient at killing its own people than Israel was last year. This included 21 people killed in tunnel collapses, 2 in training accidents, 2 killed in work accidents, one killed while trying to dismantle a bomb, one died of previous wounds, one killed by Israel in Hebron after he murdered Rabbi Miki Mark, and one who was presumably assassinated by the Mossad in Tunisia".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/01/dozens-of-hamas-members-martyred-in.html
- To get hospitalized in Gaza, you need either connections or money (Elder of Ziyon)
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/01/to-get-hospitalized-in-gaza-you-need.html
"There is no shortage of NGOs and media articles that claim, falsely, that Israel limits medicine and critical medical equipment to Gaza. But there are very few reports of the corruption that actually occurs within Gaza for patients.
According to a new investigative article, there are two ways to get a routine operation at a government hospital in Gaza: either you must be politically or socially connected, or you must pay a bribe to the doctor. Otherwise you may wait a year or more for basic surgery. The bribes are euphemistically called "gratuities." Doctors are prioritizing procedures for their friends and relatives over others, and patients are even witnessing their own scheduled operations being bumped by well-connected patients."
**************************************************
- Arabs continue to glorify child killer Samir Kuntar with new documentary (Elder of Ziyon) - "As usual, the outrage isn't merely that Arabs are lionizing the most disgusting and depraved people are heroes. The outrage is that there is no pushback, no complaints, no disgust in Arab media that they consider such a person a hero to begin with. When you cannot find a single person among 350 million citizens of Arab countries to publicly object to such pro-terror propaganda, you have a much bigger problem than just a documentary making a monster into a hero".
http://elderofziyon.blogspot.com/2017/01/arabs-continue-to-glorify-child-killer.html
- Yémen : 25 morts dans des bombardements (AFP) - "Onze civils, dont cinq membres d'une même famille, et quatorze insurgés Houthis ont été tués en deux jours dans des bombardements au Yémen" ; "Hier, cinq membres d'une même famille ont péri dans un village de la province de Marib lorsque leur maison a été touchée par un raid aérien de la coalition arabe" ; "Des ONG accusent régulièrement l'aviation de la coalition arabe sous commandement saoudien de commettre des "bavures" contre des civils".
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/02/97001-20170102FILWWW00233-yemen-25-morts-dans-des-bombardements.php
**************************************************
- Le voyage de Christian Estrosi en Israël fait polémique (Ouest France)
http://www.ouest-france.fr/monde/israel/le-voyage-de-christian-estrosi-en-israel-fait-polemique-4711404
"Le président (LR) de la métropole niçoise Christian Estrosi essuyait ce vendredi des critiques pour un voyage en Israël, durant lequel il a apporté son soutien au Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu après la résolution de l’ONU [...]
« Rien ne peut justifier le déplacement (de Christian Estrosi) en Israël aux frais de la métropole (Nice Côte d'Azur) pour soutenir Netanyahu », a dénoncé sur Twitter le chef de file de l’opposition municipale à Nice, le socialiste Patrick Allemand. « À quel titre un président de Métropole et des élus métropolitains vont-ils soutenir la politique étrangère d’un État condamné par l'ONU ? », a déclaré de son côté le premier secrétaire du PS dans les Alpes-Maritimes, Xavier Garcia. [...]
La métropole Nice Côte d'Azur a réagi en déclarant que « le déplacement, préparé depuis plus d’un mois, était inscrit au programme depuis le début d’année. Il a duré cinq jours et était composé de trois parties ». « Une partie pour nouer et renforcer les relations que Nice entretient avec les villes israéliennes », a détaillé la métropole. Dans la deuxième partie, « il s’agissait de soutenir la plantation d’arbres dans une région sinistrée par un incendie et de planter 86 arbres en mémoire des victimes de l’attentat de Nice ». La troisième partie était composée « de rendez-vous institutionnels de haut niveau, notamment avec le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu, qui fut un des premiers à témoigner son soutien à Nice après l’attentat du 14 juillet »."
- France : Hamon prônera la reconnaissance de la Palestine en cas d'élection (i24) - "En cas de victoire à la présidentielle, le candidat à la primaire de la gauche Benoît Hamon "posera un acte symbolique fort" en "reconnaissant l'Etat de Palestine", a-t-il déclaré lundi lors de l'émission "Quotidien" diffusée sur la chaîne française TMC".
http://www.i24news.tv/fr/actu/international/europe/134172-170102-france-hamont-pronera-la-reconnaissance-de-la-palestine-en-cas-d-election
- Auchan : des produits estampillés «Colonies israéliennes» (Le Figaro.fr) - "L'initiative viendrait d'un employé pro-Palestine du magasin".
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2017/01/06/97001-20170106FILWWW00179-auchan-des-produits-colonies-israeliennes.php
**************************************************
- Une région espagnole aurait décidé de boycotter Israël (JTA) - "La communauté valencienne, semi-autonome, se serait “déclarée un espace libre de l’apartheid israélien”."
http://fr.timesofisrael.com/une-region-espagnole-aurait-decide-de-boycotter-israel/
Partager cet article
/fdata%2F3338603%2Favatar-blog-1123413448-tmpphpCJStnI.jpeg){kind=avatar}