Overblog Suivre ce blog
Editer l'article Administration Créer mon blog
23 mars 2015 1 23 /03 /mars /2015 17:48
- Netanyahu assuré d'une majorité claire pour former le gouvernement (AFP) - "Au moins 67 parlementaires sur un total de 120 ont soutenu le Premier ministre sortant auprès du président Reuven Rivlin pour qu'il le charge de former le nouveau gouvernement".

- Netanyahu won thanks to improved economy, Sever Plocker (Ynet) - "The left promised to replace Israel's engine, but most voters didn't want an economic turnover; they are satisfied with their economic situation and are willing to settle for small repairs".

"Processus de paix"

- Jews are behind all bad in the world, says preacher on PA TV (PMW) - voir cet ignoble prêche palestinien ici (1mn20).
   "The Jews are behind all that is wrong in the world, according to the host of a weekly Palestinian Authority TV program on  Islam. Even when fish fight in the sea, "the Jews are behind it," said the Muslim preacher and professor of Quranic Studies, Imad Hamato. To back up this Antisemitic hate speech, Hamato went on to say that the Quran teaches that  humanity will never "live in comfort... peace or fortune or tranquility" as long as "the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land." The solution for Muslims, according to the professor, is to fight  Jews: "Our real Jihad is to take revenge."
   "Humanity will never live in comfort as long as the Jews are causing devastating corruption throughout the land. Humanity will never live in peace or fortune or tranquility as long as they are corrupting the land. An old man told me: If a fish in the sea fights with another fish, I am sure the Jews are behind it. As Allah says: ''Every time they kindled the fire of war [against you], Allah extinguished it. They strive throughout the land [causing] corruption, and Allah does not like corrupters'' (Sura 5:64)." [Official PA TV, Feb. 27, 2015]
    Only a month prior to Hamato's statement, Palestinian Media Watch reported on a cleric on official PA TV who taught that Jews are "apes and pigs" whose "hearts were sealed by Allah." [...]"

- PA libel: Israel spreads drugs to Palestinian youth (PMW)
   "[...] Earlier this month, a newsreader on official PA TV News reiterated one of the libels used by the PA to slander Israel, accusing Israel of intentionally spreading drugs among Palestinians to destroy the young generation. PA TV newsreader: “PA TV has exposed that the occupation is using all means to destroy our people and perhaps the most striking one is the drowning of our youth in the swamp of [drug] addiction, after facilitating the entry of all kinds of drugs for our youth.” [Official PA TV, March 1, 2015] Click to view.
    Last year, on an official PA TV program for youth that discussed the drug problem in Palestinian society, the Commander of the Narcotics Division in the Jerusalem District Yasser Izzat denied any Palestinian responsibility, instead blaming Israel for causing the drug problem, stating that “the occupation has stolen the people... it is stealing the people by destroying them with drugs” [...]"

- PalArabs claim Israeli prison conditions cause cancer (Elder of Ziyon) - "As usual, Palestinian Arabs throw accusations at Israel, hoping that something will stick. This might not be as absurd as the charge (repeated by the UN) that 800,000 Palestinian Arabs have been in prison, but it is pretty close".

- Two-state solution is impossible not because of Netanyahu, but because Palestinians don’t want it, Charles Krauthammer (Washington Post)
   "Of all the idiocies uttered in reaction to Benjamin Netanyahu’s stunning election victory, none is more ubiquitous than the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister.
    I have news for the lowing herds: There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected. This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the past 15 years. Every one rejected.
    The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state.
    Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. For example, the 1974 Israel-Syria disengagement agreement yielded more than four decades of near-total quiet on the border because the Assad dictatorships so decreed.
    That authoritarian order is gone. Syria is wracked by a multi-sided civil war that has killed 200,000 people and that has al-Qaida allies, Hezbollah fighters, government troops and even the occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. Who inherits? No one knows.
    In the past four years, Egypt has had two revolutions and three radically different regimes. Yemen went from pro-American to Iranian client so quickly the U.S. had to evacuate its embassy in a panic. Libya has gone from Moammar Gadhafi’s crazy authoritarianism to jihadi-dominated civil war. On Wednesday, Tunisia, the one relative success of the Arab Spring, suffered a major terror attack that the prime minister said “targets the stability of the country.”
    From Mali to Iraq, everything is in flux. Amid this mayhem, by what magic would the West Bank, riven by a bitter Fatah-Hamas rivalry, be an island of stability? What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability?
    There was a time when Arafat commanded the Palestinian movement the way Gadhafi commanded Libya. Abbas commands no one. Why do you think he is in the 11th year of a four-year term, having refused to hold elections for the past five years? Because he’s afraid he would lose to Hamas. With or without elections, the West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland — just as it rains down on southern Israel from Gaza when it suits Hamas. Any Arab-Israeli peace settlement would require Israel to make dangerous and inherently irreversible territorial concessions on the West Bank in return for promises and guarantees. Under current conditions, these would be written on sand.
    Israel is ringed by jihadi terrorists in Sinai, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Islamic State and Iranian proxies in Syria, and a friendly but highly fragile Jordan. Israelis have no idea who ends up running any of these places. Well, say the critics. Israel could be given outside guarantees. Guarantees? Like the 1994 Budapest Memorandum in which the U.S., Britain and Russia guaranteed Ukraine’s “territorial integrity?” Like the red line in Syria? Like the unanimous UN resolutions declaring illegal any Iranian enrichment of uranium — now effectively rendered null?
    Peace awaits three things: eventual Palestinian acceptance of a Jewish state; a Palestinian leader willing to sign a deal based on that premise; and a modicum of regional stability that allows Israel to risk the potentially fatal withdrawals such a deal would entail. I believe such a day will come. But there is zero chance it comes now or even soon. That’s essentially what Netanyahu said in explaining — and softening — on Thursday his no-Palestinian-state statement.
    In the interim, I understand the crushing disappointment of the Obama administration and its media poodles at the spectacular success of the foreign leader they loathe more than any other on the planet. The consequent seething and sputtering are understandable, if unseemly. Blaming Netanyahu for banishing peace, however, is mindless."

Gaza & Hamas

- Under heavy mortar fire in Gaza, IDF waited 50 minutes to respond (MAG report part 3) (Elder of Ziyon) - "The Military Advocate General report shows that the IDF did not violate any ceasefire and if anything, it put its soldiers in serious danger for 50 minutes before responding to heavy mortar fire [in Shujaiyya]"; "it proves, yet again, how far out of their depth NGOs that criticize Israel are. Without knowing what goes into military decisions, they cannot begin to come to any conclusion about the legality of any specific incident; yet they sprinkle around "war crimes" accusations like candy". Une intéressante plongée dans les coulisses de l'épisode violent (et mortel) de Shejaya lors du dernier conflit à Gaza.


- Myths vs. Facts: NGOs and the Destructive Water Campaign Against Israel (NGO Monitor) - "Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have increased their exploitation of the water issue in their political warfare campaigns against Israel. This includes false accusations of water “discrimination” and “stealing water”; pressure on international corporations to boycott the Israeli national water company, Mekorot; and blatant distortions of binding international agreements between Israelis and Palestinians".


- Lebanese Cleric Maher Hamoud: Israel Will Cease to Exist in 2022 (NBN TV (Lebanon), 9 mars, Vidéo 1mn22)
   "Following are excerpts from an interview with Lebanese cleric Sheik Maher Hamoud Imam, of the Al-Quds Mosque in Sidon, which aired on NBN TV, on March 9, 2015:
    - Maher Hamoud: We have seen the cowardly Jew in Southern Lebanon, in Gaza, and elsewhere. The cowardly Jew fears death – unlike our youth whose [religious] conviction makes them go to their death whole-heartedly. […] The end of Israel is inevitable and, Allah willing, imminent.
    - Interviewer: Allah wiling.
    - Maher Hamoud: This was [determined] in Quranic prophecies, as well as in the Torah. Without going into too many details, many of the Jews said even in the 1940s, before the state of Israel was established: "If we establish a state, it will last for 76 years." If you subtract two years more or less from these 76 years – due to the lunar calendar – you arrive at 2022. Many brothers reached this conclusion, on the basis of their analysis of the Quran and the Torah, as well as on analysis of history and astronomy."

Monde arabe

- Qui menace la paix mondiale ? La réponse varie d’un pays à l’autre, Pierre Haski (Rue89) - "L’attitude des trois pays du Maghreb est intéressante : Tunisie et Maroc nomment Israël, tandis que l’Algérie place les Etats-Unis en tête".

- Netanyahu's win is convenient for Arab leaders, Smadar Perry (Ynet) - "They trust him to do their job for them on the Iranian issue, and they trust the Americans to pressure him on the Palestinian issue. It also guarantees that Israel will be isolated in the world".


- La Turquie, proie du complot juif mondial selon Erdogan et ses partisans, Norma Mabovitz (Conspiracy Watch) - "les Juifs qui détruisent, affament, oppressent et corrompent ; les Juifs qui, s’infiltrant partout, fomentant coups d’Etats et révolutions, étendent leurs tentacules sur le monde entier. Pour trouver l'origine de cette diabolique soif de puissance, le documentaire nous fait remonter 3500 ans en arrière".
   "Le 16 mars dernier, la chaîne d'information turque A Haber, organe officieux de l’AKP (Parti de la justice et du développement), le parti du président Recep Tayyip Erdogan, a diffusé un documentaire de deux heures s’apparentant à bien des égards aux Protocoles des Sages de Sion, le fameux faux antisémite exposant un programme juif pour la domination du monde. Intitulé «Üst Akıl» (que l'on peut traduire en anglais par «the mastermind» et en français par «le cerveau», au sens de «l'orchestrateur»), le film prétend dévoiler aux téléspectateurs turcs l'existence d'un complot international contre la Turquie. C’est ce qu’a révélé récemment le chroniqueur et essayiste turc Mustafa Akyol sur le site Al-Monitor.com.
    C’est Recep Tayyip Erdogan lui-même qui a introduit l'expression de «Cerveau» (« Üst akıl ») dans un discours adressé à ses partisans en octobre 2014. C'est d'ailleurs sur ce discours que s'ouvre le documentaire : « Ne vous laissez pas induire en erreur. Ne croyez pas que ces opérations visent ma personne, notre gouvernement, notre parti. Mes amis, ces opérations visent directement la Turquie elle-même - son unité, sa paix, son économie, son indépendance. Et, je l'ai déjà dit avant, derrières toutes ces étapes, il y a un cerveau. Les gens me demandent "Qui est ce Cerveau ?". Eh bien, c'est à vous de trouver. Et actuellement, vous savez qui est derrière ».
    Le film diffusé sur A Haber vient dissiper toute équivoque : le «Cerveau», ce sont les Juifs ; les Juifs qui détruisent, affament, oppressent et corrompent ; les Juifs qui, s’infiltrant partout, fomentant coups d’Etats et révolutions, étendent leurs tentacules sur le monde entier. Pour trouver l'origine de cette diabolique soif de puissance, le documentaire nous fait remonter 3500 ans en arrière. C'est, nous apprend l'universitaire turc Ramazan Kurtoglu, la perte de l'Arche d'Alliance qui aurait tout déclenché. L'invasion américaine de l'Irak en 2003 ne serait d'ailleurs rien d'autre qu'un stratagème destiné à la recherche de vieux manuscrits, qui permettraient aux Juifs de remettre la main sur l'Arche...
    Digne d’Indiana Jones, le film ne recule devant aucune contrefaçon. Charles Darwin est ainsi compté – avec le penseur médiéval Moïse Maïmonide et le philosophe américain Léo Strauss – au nombre des trois grands Juifs de l’histoire à avoir marqué le monde. Peu importe que Darwin ait été de confession chrétienne, le respect des faits ne semblant pas être la principale préoccupation de ce documentaire. Il s'agit d'accuser le père de l'évolutionnisme d'avoir élaboré sa théorie dans le seul but de dépeindre les non-juifs comme des animaux ; une idée qui, selon le film, trouverait son origine dans le judaïsme. Maïmonide, lui, aurait prétendument affirmé que « les juifs sont les maîtres, les autres êtres humains des esclaves ».
    Le « Cerveau » aurait mis à bas l'Empire Ottoman, il aurait constamment manipulé la vie politique turque depuis l’instauration de la République. Il se trouverait derrière tous les coups d'état militaires et assassinats politiques qui ont jalonné l’histoire de la Turquie contemporaine. Aujourd’hui néanmoins, il se heurterait à la « Nouvelle Turquie » post-kémaliste d’Erdogan et chercherait par tous les moyens à perpétuer sa domination en instrumentalisant la jeunesse turque à travers les manifestations du parc Gezi et le mouvement de Fethullah Gülen, un prédicateur musulman installé aux Etats-Unis qui s’est retourné contre l’AKP après l’avoir soutenu.
    Pour légitimer ces accusations, une série d'« experts » est convoquée à l'écran. Parmi eux, on retrouve d'emblématiques figures de l'AKP, telles que Yigit Bulut, l'un des principaux conseillers d'Erdogan, ou encore Etyen Mahçupyan, conseiller de l’actuel Premier ministre Ahmet Davutoglu. Le second, s’il ne semble pas approuver la rhétorique antisémite sur les « complots juifs », qui constitue le fil rouge du film, ne s’y oppose pas non plus.
    Pour Mustafa Akyol, « il ne fait aucun doute que ce film honteux représente une nouvelle et dangereuse étape dans la propagande de l’AKP qui, ces deux dernières années, s’est dramatiquement transformée en une fabrique de haine et de paranoïa »."


- McCain, les Nations unies et Israël (Times of Israel) - "Le sénateur a prévenu que si Washington devait changer son soutien à Israël à l’ONU, « le Congrès des Etats-Unis devrait examiner son financement des Nations unies »".
   "Le sénateur américain John McCain a accusé le président Barack Obama de faire passer des critiques personnelles du Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu devant les préoccupations géopolitiques importantes au Moyen Orient. S’exprimant dans l’émission de CNN « L’Etat de la nation », McCain a déclaré que le président devrait « arrêter » son « accès de colère » après la victoire de Netanyahu à l’élection de mardi. [...]
    Réagissant à des signaux de la Maison Blanche que les Etats-Unis pouvaient cesser d’utiliser leur veto au Conseil de Sécurité des Nations unies pour annuler des résolutions unilatérales en soutien à un État palestinien, McCain, président du puissant Comité des Forces Armées du Sénat, a averti Obama contre une telle décision. Il a déclaré que si les Etats-Unis laissaient passer une résolution des Nations unies appelant à la création d’un État palestinien et si elle était approuvée au Nations unies, « le Congrès des Etats-Unis devrait examiner son financement des Nations unies ». Washington est le plus gros financeur des Nations unies, mais une législation actuelle permet de couper les fonds à n’importe quel organisme des Nations unies qui reconnaît l’État palestinien. « Cela serait une violation à cause de la colère du président sur une déclaration du Premier ministre d’Israël, explique McCain. Cela contredirait la politique américaine d’au moins des dix derniers présidents des Etats-Unis ».
    Pendant des années, les Etats-Unis ont rejeté les tentatives de dicter les conditions d’un accord entre Israël et les Palestiniens à travers les Nations unies, argumentant que l’unique voie pour un règlement efficace du conflit est par le biais d’une solution à deux états obtenue au moyen de négociations entre les parties. [...]"

- #WordsMatter: Obama's 2008 AIPAC speech sounded a lot like Bibi's 2015 Congress speech (Elder of Ziyon) - "If "words matter," then how come Obama is not being held to his words as a candidate? How come Iran's daily threats against Israel and its continued support for terror - support that the White House is now trying to erase - are no longer conditions for keeping sanctions in place or reasons to "ratchet up the pressure"?"

- Guess Who's Not Speaking at the J Street Conference?, Alan M. Dershowitz (Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law at Harvard Law School)
   "J Street -- the lobby group that claims to be "pro-Israel" and "pro-peace" -- is anything but "open" to centrist views that are critical of its policies. It has invited several prominent anti-Israel speakers to address its national conference, including Saeb Erekat, one of the Palestinian Authority's chief negotiators, who has repeatedly accused Israel of war crimes, and committing massacres in the West Bank. It has also invited speakers who are generally pro-Israel but who strongly oppose the current Israeli government.
    The one group of pro-Israel advocates who never get invited to J Street conferences are those of us who are somewhat critical of J Street, particularly with regard to its policies toward Iran and other issues involving Israel's security. I know this because I have repeatedly sought an opportunity to address the J Street conference. I have personally implored Jeremy Ben-Ami, the head of J Street, either to allow me to address the conference, or to sit down with me for a public conversation in front of the group's members. He has adamantly refused. We have publicly debated and discussed our differences in front of non-J Street audiences, but he has never allowed me to engage him in the marketplace of ideas in front of his own followers.
    This is more than ironic. It is hypocritical, especially in light of J Street's demands that other organizations, such as Hillel and AIPAC, be open to speakers who are critical of Israel. What's good for Hillel and AIPAC, is apparently not good for J Street -- at least by J Street's own standards.
    Why then is J Street so determined to deny its members the opportunity to hear divergent views from center-leftists like me? Because its leaders are afraid that if I were allowed to address its conference, I would tell its members the truth about J Street -- a truth they try hard to conceal, particularly from college students who are lured into the J Street fold under false pretenses. The key to J Street's success in increasing its membership rolls is its ability to speak out of both sides of its mouth. To those on the hard left, it offers anti-Israel and pro-BDS speakers, support for the mendacious Goldstone Report, and opposition to keeping the military option on the table as a last resort in preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons.
    To the soft left, it focuses on its opposition to Israeli settlements and its support for a two-state solution -- positions with which I and many supporters of Israel agree. But it hides its controversial, hard left positions that endanger Israel's security -- positions with which most supporters of Israel disagree. It also hides the financial support it has received from anti-Zionists such as George Soros, as well as the anti-Zionist statements made by some of its founders and activists. [...]"


- Une synagogue attaquée à Londres (Le Figaro.fr)
   ""Kill the jews!" (mort aux juifs !) : c'est à ces cris qu'une vingtaine de jeunes a fait irruption dans une synagogue de la banlieue londonienne de Stamford Hill. Certaines personnes ont été aggressées, des vitres ont été brisées, des objets vandalisés, des livres déchirés. La scène a été filmée par un membre de la communauté: on y voit deux groupes s'affronter de manière très violente. Scotland Yard a annoncé l'arrestation de six personnes suite à cette agression. "Après ce qui est arrivé à Paris, certains juifs britanniques se demandent : 'Peut-on aller en sécurité à la synagogue, dans un magasin juif ? Nos enfants peuvent-ils se rendre en sécurité dans leurs écoles juives ?", a réagi l'ex grand rabbin d'Angleterre Lord Jonathan Sacks sur Sky News. Cette agression violente s'inscrit en effet dans un contexte de montée de l'antisémitisme au Royaume-Uni. En 2014, le Community Security Trust, organisme indépendant, a recensé 1 168 actes antisémites, contre 535 en 2013."

- Why does the left downplay antisemitism? All forms of racism should be abhorred, Dean Sherr (The Guardian) - "we have a new set of attitudes towards antisemitism: that it is of lesser importance in the west than other forms of racism, like Islamophobia; that it is no longer a serious threat to diaspora Jew; and that the gravity of its existence is diminished because of the existence and behaviour of Israel"; "mitigating bigotry or racism with victim-blaming is wrong regardless of the victim’s ethnic or religious background. Yet it persists in some left-wing circles that Jews are the exception to this rule – our communal connection to Israel makes us somehow more legitimate targets, unless we denounce the Jewish state"; "why should we have a duty to detach ourselves from a vital aspect of our cultural identity to avoid victimisation?"
   "There is a famous saying in Jewish culture that neatly summarises the history of the Jewish people and the rituals associated with our tradition: “They tried to kill us, we survived, now let’s eat.”
    Easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, one of the defining characteristics of Jewish culture and identity is the awareness of historical (and modern) antisemitism. The festival of Purim, held a fortnight ago, tells the story of Haman’s attempted genocide of the Persian Jewish community. Somewhat more well-known in popular culture are the festivals of Passover and Hanukkah, which celebrate the liberation of Jews from the Egyptian and Greek empires.
    Since the 1950s, we have commemorated Yom Hashoa, the Jewish day of remembrance for the Holocaust. Unlike the more historical festivals of liberation and survival, there is no great overriding sense of joy; nor is there a celebratory meal attached to it.
    In light of this history, it is little surprise that many Jews had a significant relationship with the left for many years. An oppressed and marginalised people for so long, Jews have a natural political affinity with values like freedom of expression, equality, multiculturalism and, certainly, anti-racism. The concept of Jewish self-determination, Zionism, saw itself as a fundamentally left-wing movement in its inception.
    In the aftermath of the Holocaust, antisemitism was impossible to ignore and became a central concern of the global left, but Julian Burnside encapsulated the contemporary shift in thinking when he wrote (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/26/the-islamophobia-stirred-up-by-abbott-and-bolt-is-a-bigger-threat-to-us-than-terrorism) in the Guardian that “Islamophobia is the new antisemitism”, implying, as many often do, that the old antisemitism has been superseded.
    It hasn’t. Last Wednesday, a lecture at the University of Sydney by retired British Colonel Richard Kemp became the scene of a heated protest. Kemp was accused of supporting genocide, and, during the fracas, noted Australian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions advocate Professor Jake Lynch was filmed waving money in the faces of an elderly Jewish women and the Jewish student trying to prevent the two from coming to blows.
    Lynch explained his actions as a response to having been kicked, saying it was a warning that he would sue, and described his restraint as “almost heroic”, though his account has been disputed by witnesses, with Kemp claiming that the woman was attempting to push Lynch away, who initiated the contact.
    Irrespective of who struck first, the image of a leftwing academic brandishing money in the faces of Jewish people clearly evokes the crude antisemitic falsehood that Jews are obsessed with money and perhaps neatly encapsulates the shift of the left away from Jews.
    Whatever Lynch’s excuses or reasoning, and the elderly woman’s behaviour, it was clearly an offensive and provocative gesture, reasonably likely to offend the Jewish community. In the past, a leftwing professor would surely have anticipated this, but the reality is that antisemitism today is not as pressing an issue to progressives as it once was.
    Instead we have a new set of attitudes towards antisemitism: that it is of lesser importance in the west than other forms of racism, like Islamophobia; that it is no longer a serious threat to diaspora Jews; and that the gravity of its existence is diminished because of the existence and behaviour of Israel.
    The attacks in Paris and Copenhagen are ample proof that antisemitism still poses a threat to Jews in the west, especially in light of new recordings from Paris confirming definitively that the gunman targeted Jews. In France, Jews make up 1% of the population yet suffer half of all racist attacks. In Australia, 2014 saw a massive increase in reported antisemitism, including physical attacks in Sydney, Melbourne and Perth.
    But Jews should not be required to parade our suffering, historical or contemporary, in a competition for attention with other forms of racism. Nor should we be expected to tolerate the constant appearance of antisemitic language and imagery at prominent anti-Israel rallies, which does seem to show that the use of antisemitic symbols and language in the west is seen as less threatening, or perhaps “understandable”, when connected with Israel.
    That attitude was shown by leftwing Jewish actress Miriam Margolyes’ astonishing performance on a recent episode of the ABC’s Q&A programme. Answering a straightforward question on whether antisemitism garners as much sympathy as Islamophobia, Margolyes’ response was to bring up Israel’s “evil” actions in Gaza as a likely cause of antisemitism. Her solution was for Australians to see that “not all Jews behave in the way Israelis are doing” – suggesting all the Jew has to do is denounce Israel loudly enough, or perhaps wear a sign, that indicates that we aren’t all “evil” like Israelis are, to avoid being victimised.
    Ironically, it sounds remarkably like a demand so often made of Muslims. As Australian prime minister Tony Abbott said a week earlier, “I wish more Muslim leaders would say [they are a religion of peace] more often and mean it.” Abbott’s comments were widely denounced by the left and rightfully so, but Margolyes’ comments were not objected to, they were applauded by many in the audience and online.
    It is surely obvious that mitigating bigotry or racism with victim-blaming is wrong regardless of the victim’s ethnic or religious background. Yet it persists in some left-wing circles that Jews are the exception to this rule – our communal connection to Israel makes us somehow more legitimate targets, unless we denounce the Jewish state.
    The problem with this notion is twofold – firstly, because Jews do not wear signs declaring our position on Israel. A proud Zionist Jew can just as easily be targeted at a kosher supermarket as an anti-Zionist one. More than that though, why should we have a duty to detach ourselves from a vital aspect of our cultural identity to avoid victimisation?
    The reality is that we are human beings with complex identities, defined by a wide range of societal, communal and ethnic influences. Must we carry the burden of answering for all of Israel’s actions because we were born Jewish? And are we so unlike other ethnic cultures that care for the safety and security of our relatives abroad, that we can be painted as immoral for not abstracting ourselves from their threatened existence? [...]"

- The Guardian view on Gaza and the rise of antisemitism (Guardian editorial) - "[Jews should not] be required to declare their distance from Israel as a condition for admission into polite society".
   "[...] It should not need saying, but it does: people can be as angry as they like at the Israeli government, but to attack a synagogue, threaten children at a Jewish school, or throw a brick through the window of a Jewish grocery store is vile and contemptible racism. It cannot be excused by reference to Israeli military behaviour. The two are and should be kept utterly distinct.
    Some may counter that that is impossible, given the strong attachment of most Jews to Israel. But this is less complicated than it looks. Yes, Jews feel bound up with Israel, they believe in its right to survive and thrive. But that does not mean they should be held responsible for its policy, on which some may disagree and over which they have no control.
    Nor should they be required to declare their distance from Israel as a condition for admission into polite society. We opposed such a question being put to all Muslims after 9/11 and, though the cases are not equivalent, the same logic applies here. This is a test for those who take a strong stance in support of the Palestinians, but in truth it is a test for all of us."

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