Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
11 février 2017 6 11 /02 /février /2017 21:31

- Une branche de l'EI dans le Sinaï revendique les tirs de roquettes sur Eilat (i24)
   "Le groupe terroriste "province du Sinaï" (Wilayat Sinaï, anciennement Ansar Baït al-Maqdis) a revendiqué mercredi soir le tir de sept roquettes, plus tôt dans la soirée, à partir du Sinaï en Egypte vers la station balnéaire israélienne d'Eilat, sur la mer Rouge. Les roquettes tirées sur Eilat ont pour la plupart été interceptées par le système de défense antimissile Dôme de fer, et n'ont pas fait de blessé, a indiqué l'armée israélienne. [...]"

- Israel’s Settlement Regulations Bill and International Law, Eugene Kontorovich (professor at Northwestern University’s Prtizker School of Law) - "The frequently used characterization of “private Palestinian lands” is misleading".
   "Israel’s proposed “Regulations Bill” has attracted broad international criticism, including from the U.S. State Department and the European Union, as well as from opposition Israeli politicians and some government lawyers. The bill seeks to solve a situation in which, over several decades, over one thousand Israeli homes in West Bank settlements have been built in open areas to which Palestinians subsequently asserted property claims, typically based on broad give-aways of state land by the King of Jordan during the Hashemite occupation (1949-67). The homes are in communities built with some level of government involvement. Thus the bill provides the government would compensate the landowners 125% of the value of the land, in order to allow the communities that have been built there to remain.
    The plots are generally open, uncultivated fields. The frequently used characterization of “private Palestinian lands” is misleading. In the overwhelming majority of cases, no individual Palestinians have come forward to claim the lands. Indeed, in most cases, no property claimants asserted their interests for decades after houses were built, a situation that in common law would certainly warrant the application of adverse possession doctrines, under which long-term possession of property unprotested by owners can change legal title, exactly to prevent these kinds of conflict between long-term users and owners who slept on their rights . Under Jordanian law, rules of prescription, which would turn the land over to its existing inhabitants, would apply. In cases like the community of Amona, which inspired but are not covered by the law, the Court made its determination without any fact-finding, and the lands claimed by the Palestinian petitioners only slightly overlap with those on which the Israeli homes stand.
    Thus the law regulates situations where property claims, often difficult to verify, are being belatedly brought against areas that have seen significant improvement and home-building. Moreover, in the background are two legal doctrines that make the property impasse particularly costly. On one hand, the Israeli Supreme Court exercises broad remedial powers. Instead of merely awarding title to Palestinian claimants, it affirmatively requires the government to destroy all structures whose plots may overlap even in part with the claimed lands. On the other hand, bargaining in the shadow of obscure Jordanian land allotments is made close to impossible by a Palestinian Authority law criminalizing the sale of land to Jews. While Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has recently issued an executive order reducing the traditional death penalty to life at hard labor, there are reports that the old punishment may still be enforced de facto.
    The central international law argument against the bill is that it exceeds the powers of an occupying power over private property. Assuming, for the sake of argument, that the law of belligerent occupation applies to Israel’s settlements in the West Bank, the central question becomes whether that body of law prohibits eminent domain and similar land use regulation by the occupying power. This argument has focused on Art. 46 of the Hague Convention, which states that “private property cannot be confiscated.” Critics of the Israeli bill have broadly declared that Art. 46 of The Hague Conventions absolutely prohibits any action involving private real property absent military necessity. This is not the established law, but rather one view of a longstanding debate.
    Put simply, the ban on “confiscation” of real property does not mean a ban on expropriation, that is, a taking subject to just compensation. “Confiscation” in The Hague Regulations is a narrow term that refers only to certain uncompensated taking, which of course are the kind occupying powers may be particularly wont to make.  To put it differently, “confiscation” does not cover all kinds of property taking or regulation, as is made clear in numerous military manuals that refer to an entire taxonomy of regulation, from confiscation to expropriation to requisition. The U.S. Defense Department’s Law of War Manual provides for compensation for takings of private real property, and refers to this as “appropriation” not “confiscation.” [...]
    Not surprisingly, those who argue international law forbids such action fail to cite any state practice outside of Israel for this proposition. To be sure, the payment of compensation by belligerent occupiers is probably quite rare, as typically long-term occupiers seem to simply take what they want without bothering about compensation. The entire question of eminent domain – which involves a transfer of title – will only arise in prolonged occupations. In the typical short-term occupation envisioned by the Hague and Geneva treaties, the occupier has no need or interest to change the title to land, which is always about long-term policies.
    Yet in several prominent cases, long-term occupiers have used compensated takings, and the international community appears to have acquiesced, and certainly did not declare it illegal.  Examples include the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, where a compensation scheme aimed at permitting Turkish settlers to remain in Greek properties was approved in 2005 by the European Court of Human Rights. Similarly, the Russian occupation of Crimea takes private property with compensation (often in the form of other land), even for highly controversial projects like the Kerch Bridge, which will serve to deeply entrench the occupation and facilitate the transfer of settlers. Yet while many aspects of Russia’s occupation of Crimea have been denounced as illegal by the international community, the use of eminent domain has not. In particular, the ICC Prosecutor’s report on possible Russian crimes in Crimea makes no mention of it. The fact that many aspects of Russia’s Crimean occupation have been explicitly criticized on international law grounds, but this one ignored, suggests that it is not seen as illegal. [...]"

Gaza & Hamas

- Israël : un tir de roquette entraîne des raids de riposte (Reuters) - "les avions israéliens ont visé un camp d'entraînement, un complexe des forces de sécurité et un poste d'observation du Mouvement de résistance islamique".

- WATCH: Hamas’ Latest Gory Video Full Of Antisemitic Imagery (Israelly Cool) - "The video is hard to get through because of the singing in broken Hebrew to a backing track that sounds like a cross between Riverdance and Pacman, let alone the disgusting scenes".


- Palestinian Authority bans a crime thriller novel that makes it look bad (Elder of Ziyon) - "The Palestinian Attorney General's office has issued a ban on a crime thriller called "A Crime in Ramallah" on the grounds that it violates public morals. Deputy general counsel Ahmed Barak said that a decision was made to pull  all copies of the novel from all libraries and bookstores".

"Processus de paix"

- UNRWA's Anti-Semitic Teachers Exposed in 130-Page UN Watch Report (UN Watch, Vidéo 3mn12)

- Israël salue la position de Washington sur les colonies (Reuters) - "la formulation marque une nette inflexion de la position de Washington par rapport aux présidences de Barack Obama et de George W. Bush [NB : c'est faux pour W. Bush, c'était sa position aussi après sa lettre à Sharon], dans la mesure où l'administration américaine juge désormais que les colonies et leur développement dans les limites actuelles ne sont pas des obstacles à la paix".
   "[...] Dans son premier communiqué sur le sujet, l'administration Trump indique que sa position n'est pas encore arrêtée, mais elle admet que la poursuite de la colonisation risque de nuire au processus de paix israélo-palestinien. "Si nous ne pensons pas que l'existence des colonies soit un obstacle à la paix, la construction de nouvelles colonies ou l'expansion des colonies existantes au-delà de leurs limites actuelles pourraient ne pas contribuer à la réalisation de cet objectif", écrit la présidence des Etats-Unis.
    A première vue, elle semble ainsi adresser une mise en garde au gouvernement de Benjamin Netanyahu, qui a annoncé la mise en chantier de 6.000 nouveaux logements dans les colonies de Cisjordanie depuis l'investiture de Donald Trump, le 20 janvier. A y regarder de plus près, la formulation marque pourtant une nette inflexion de la position de Washington par rapport aux présidences de Barack Obama et de George W. Bush, dans la mesure où l'administration américaine juge désormais que les colonies et leur développement dans les limites actuelles ne sont pas des obstacles à la paix.
   "Netanyahu va être content", résume un diplomate israélien joint par texto. Pour lui, le Premier ministre isrélien a "pratiquement carte blanche pour bâtir autant qu'il le souhaite dans les colonies existantes à condition de ne pas étendre leur surface".
    Tzipi Hotovely, vice-ministre des Affaires étrangères et issue comme Benjamin Netanyahu du Likoud, interprète le communiqué de la même façon. "L'opinion de la Maison blanche est aussi que les colonies ne sont pas un obstacle à la paix et, de fait, elles ne l'ont jamais été", s'est-elle félicitée. "Par conséquent, la conclusion est que les nouvelles constructions ne sont pas un problème." [...]"
- Cutting through the spin: What did the White House say about settlements? (Elder of Ziyon) - "while the White House has not given Israel carte blanche to build settlements anywhere, this is the first official White House statement on the issue - and  unlike the media spin, it is a massive sea change from what the Obama administration has stated".
   "[...] the White House Press Secretary [issued] an official statement that is being heavily spun as a slap at Israel: "The American desire for peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians has remained unchanged for 50 years. While we don’t believe the existence of settlements is an impediment to peace, the construction of new settlements or the expansion of existing settlements beyond their current borders may not be helpful in achieving that goal. As the President has expressed many times, he hopes to achieve peace throughout the Middle East region. The Trump administration has not taken an official position on settlement activity and looks forward to continuing discussions, including with Prime Minister Netanyahu when he visits with President Trump later this month."
    The Washington Post headline is typical: "Trump warns Israel that new settlements ‘may not help’ achieve Middle East peace". The New York Times claimed that Trump embraced Obama's foreign policy principles and that this was an "abrupt turnaround" in Trump's policy towards Israel.
    But while the White House has not given Israel carte blanche to build settlements anywhere, this is the first official White House statement on the issue - and  unlike the media spin, it is a massive sea change from what the Obama administration has stated.
    - It explicitly says that settlements are not an impediment to peace. This goes against US policy for decades. (Reagan said they weren't illegal but he never went this far.)
    - It says that new settlement construction may not be helpful - not that it is an obstacle to peace.
    - It implies that there is absolutely no problem with Israel building within existing settlement borders. Which accounts for essentially all the building in Judea and Samaria in nearly two decades.
    - It implies that Israel can build all it wants in Jerusalem, since all that building is within the municipal borders.
    The news media, as usual, is reporting this versus a perception of a Trump White House that was more pro-settlements than Netanyahu is. But Trump has made clear from the start that he would love to find a way to make peace between Israel and the Arab world as well - he never implied a hands-off policy. The reason the news media is spinning this as a slap at Israel is because they falsely spun the Trump position beforehand. But when you remove the spin, this is the most far reaching statement condoning settlement activity in US history. [...]"

- "Palestine Refugees" aren't refugees, and UNRWA knows this (Elder of Ziyon) - "I asked an international legal scholar about UNRWA's definition of refugees, and he responded simply "There is only one treaty that defines refugees – the 1951 convention""; "UNRWA is not trying to define the term "refugee," because it cannot do that: the Refugee Convention is the only place the term can be defined. All UNRWA can do is decide who they want to provide services to, and the main (but not only) category of those people is what they name "Palestine Refugees." It doesn't mean that they are real refugees any more than the UN calling Gaza "Occupied Palestinian Territory" means that Gaza is legally occupied - something the UN essentially admitted". It is simply a word game".


- Syrie : 37 morts, dont des civils, dans des raids (AFP) - "Vingt-quatre civils, dont 11 femmes et 10 enfants, figurent parmi les 37 personnes tuées".


- L'Iran s'en prendra à Israël si les USA "commettent une erreur" (i24) - "L'ancien représentant du guide suprême, l'ayatollah Ali Khamenei au sein des Gardiens de la révolution, et député ultraconservateur, a averti que la marine américaine qui a "occupé une partie du Bahreïn", est "à la portée des systèmes de missiles de l'Iran", et qu’elle sera "entièrement rasée si l'ennemi commet une erreur". "Et seulement 7 minutes suffisent à un missile iranien pour atteindre Tel Aviv", a ajouté Zonour."
- Why does Iran threaten Israel if the US "makes a mistake"? (Elder of Ziyon)
   "[...] No one seems to ask why Iran would attack Israel if they are responding to perceived US actions. Saudi Arabia is also an ally of the US, and they aren't threatening to hit their much closer neighbor in the event of the US doing something they don't like.
    The reason that they choose to threaten Israel is because the West is worried that Israel would fight back and it would escalate into a major conflict rather than a regional one. Iran knows that the West, especially Europe, is frightened of war, so the threat against Israel is meant to be heard not so much by the White House or Israel, but by Europe to beg the US to keep on Iran's good side. [...]"

- Iran : manifestations de masse contre Trump (AFP) - "Les traditionnels slogans anti-américains et anti-israéliens ont été entendus tandis que des drapeaux américains étaient brûlés". On peut aussi voir la photo d'un Nétanyahou pendu...
- Iranians burn American, Israeli flags at rallies marking anniversary of Iranian Revolution (TIP) - "“The demonstrators further voiced support for the Palestinian cause” and condemned what they called “the aggressive policies of the racist regime of the Zionists.”"

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