5 janvier 2015 1 05 /01 /janvier /2015 21:06
Gaza & Hamas
- Palestinian Imam and Hamas TV Host Justifies Hitler: The Jews Spread Corruption Everywhere (Al-Aqsa TV, 28 décembre, Vidéo 2mn29) - Complètement hallucinant, mais assez représentatif.
"- During a December 28, 2014 Hamas TV show, Palestinian imam Sheik Iyad Abu Funun said: "If the Jews had been a respectable, well-bred people,... [Hitler] would not have done those things to them. ... Corruption is deeply rooted in that nation." Abu Funun, who in the past was sentenced to 29 years in an Israeli prison, was released in the 2011 Shalit prisoner swap. He was later rearrested after resuming his militant activity and expelled from Bethlehem to Gaza for ten years. Abu Funun delivers sermons in a Gaza mosque and recently began to moderate a show on the Hamas-owned Al-Aqsa TV channel, where he made the current statements."
- Hamas TV justifies Hitler killing Jews - by comparing Hitler to Mohammed (Elder of Ziyon) - "See? Hitler was just doing what Mohammed did, because it is all the Jews' fault for not being a "respectable, well-bred people!"
- Une cellule terroriste de l’Etat islamique arrêtée en Cisjordanie (Times of Israel) - "La cellule a été arrêtée en novembre 2014 par les agents du Shin Bet. Elle est accusée d’avoir lancé une attaque infructueuse contre les soldats de Tsahal et d’avoir projeté de kidnapper et de tuer des civils et des militaires en Cisjordanie".
- L’Autorité Palestinienne doit toujours 360 M€ à Israël pour l’électricité impayée (JSS) - c'est ainsi que le gel du versement des impôts à l'AP sert généralement pour Israël, en plus de la dissuasion diplomatique, à rembourser (partiellement) la dette énergétique palestinienne.
"Le Président de la compagnie d’électricité israélienne, Eli Glickman, a fait savoir au gouvernement que la dette de l’Autorité Palestinienne atteint la somme record de 1.7 milliard de Shekels (360 millions d’euros). D’après le quotidien économique Calcalist, cette dette pèse lourd sur les comptes, déjà bien déficitaires de la compagnie. Glickman a expliqué dans une lettre adressée dimanche à des responsables des forces de sécurité, ainsi qu’aux Premier Ministre et des membres du cabinet, que la situation l’obligera à rationner l’électricité fournie aux Palestiniens, ainsi qu’à limiter le raccordement de nouveaux clients.
Ce n’est pas la première fois que la compagnie éprouve des difficultés à obtenir un paiement de la part des autorités palestiniennes. La compagnie, qui se trouve elle-même dans une situation économique délicate à cause d’une dette de près de 50 milliards de Shekels, a fait savoir qu’elle ne pourra pas continuer à fournir l’Autorité en électricité, a moins de trouver des moyens pour régulariser la situation."
- Cisjordanie : un site majeur épargné par [la clôture de sécurité] (AFP) - "La Cour suprême a annoncé dimanche que le ministère de la Défense affirmait avoir renoncé à construire la barrière à Battir".
"La barrière israélienne en Cisjordanie [...] ne passera pas dans le village palestinien de Battir, célèbre pour son antique système d'irrigation romain et ses terrasses agricoles, indiquent des documents de la Cour suprême israélienne publiés dimanche. Les habitants de ce village, située au sud-ouest de Jérusalem et à cheval sur la Ligne Verte [= ligne d'armistice de 1949], avaient saisi en 2012 la justice israélienne contre des plans du ministère de la Défense prévoyant de construire le mur à travers les terrasses, vieilles de plus de 2000 ans et encore cultivées de nos jours. Le site a été classé en juin "patrimoine mondial en péril" par l'Unesco.
La Cour suprême a annoncé dimanche que le ministère de la Défense affirmait avoir renoncé à construire la barrière à Battir. "A ce stade, la position du ministre de la Défense est que la construction de la barrière à cet endroit, même s'il elle est importante sur le plan sécuritaire, n'est pas une priorité", a affirmé la Cour. L'Etat devra informer les signataires de la pétition présentée à la Cour suprême au moins 60 jours à l'avance s'il élabore de nouveaux plans de construction dans le secteur. La région de Battir est l'une des dernières, entre le sud de Jérusalem et la Cisjordanie [...], qui ne soit pas encore bloquée par la barrière.
L'édification de cette barrière, baptisée "clôture de sécurité" par Israël et "mur de l'apartheid" par les Palestiniens, a commencé en 2002 à la suite d'une vague d'attentats palestiniens. Achevée aux deux tiers, elle doit atteindre à terme environ 712 km. [...]"
- ‘Most Palestinians believe Israel wants to destroy Al-Aqsa’ (Times of Israel) - 77% pensent que l'Etat juif souhaite détruire la mosquée Al-Aqsa, et 50% pensent que les Israéliens réussiront ; 77% soutiennent les tirs de roquettes contre les civils israéliens.
"[...] In a poll conducted by PSR among 1,270 Palestinians during the first week of December 2014, 86% of Palestinians said that the Temple Mount (known in Arabic as al-Haram al-Sharif) is “in great danger,” with 77% believing that Israel intends to destroy the al-Aqsa Mosque and the Dome of the Rock and replace them with a Jewish temple, and 21% opining that it intends to divide the plaza into Jewish and Arab domains, with a synagogue planned for the Jewish area. Half the respondents believed Israel would succeed in implementing its plans. [...]
The Palestinians questioned in the survey continued to overwhelmingly support violent tactics against Israel. Seventy-seven percent said they supported rocket attacks into Israel as long as the Gaza blockade isn’t lifted. Nearly half the Palestinians polled opposed disarming Gaza’s military groups. “Overall, the findings indicate that — in Palestinian eyes — violence works and diplomacy is a failure, and a third intifada is the best way to go,” Shikaki said. [...]"
- Une photo du Fatah montre Netanyahu prêt à être pendu (Times of Israel) - voir l'image sur le site.
"Un site officiel géré par le parti politique du président de l’Autorité palestinienne Mahmoud Abbas a mis en ligne samedi une photo montrant le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu près d’une corde avec la phrase « Bientôt ». L’image a été publiée quelques jours après que des responsables palestiniens aient présenté leur candidature devant la Cour pénale internationale de La Haye. Elle a été signalée par l’organe de surveillance israélien Palestinian Media Watch. L’image a été postée sur la page Facebook officielle du Fatah et comprenait un logo de la CPI. [...]"
- Fatah: Netanyahu to be hanged at the ICC (PMW) - "Following the Palestinian Authority's application to join the International Criminal Court, Abbas' Fatah movement posted the above picture on Facebook of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with a noose dangling in front of him. Fatah suggests that Netanyahu will be hanged "soon." [Fatah Facebook, "The Main Page," Jan. 4, 2015]"
- Report: Amman angered by Palestinians' UN bid (Haaretz) - "Jordan deemed PA statehood move hasty and doomed, due to lack of int'l support and plan to restart talks with Israel; meanwhile, PA reconsidering new UN initiative".
- Party Time: Fatah's Founding Myth (CAMERA) - "Remarkably, year after year, Fatah has passed off the festivities to credible media outlets as marking the movement's founding. This deception is a rather impressive feat given that Fatah was founded in October 1959, not in January 1965".
"It's Jan. 1, so it's party time in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Palestinian refugee camps in Lebanon. It's not the new year they're celebrating with massive demonstrations replete with trampled American, British and Israeli flags and cute kids toting guns -- it's the anniversary of Fatah's first attack against Israel. This year is a milestone: 50 years since the Jan. 1, 1965 attack against Israel's water carrier.
Remarkably, year after year, Fatah has passed off the festivities to credible media outlets as marking the movement's founding. This deception is a rather impressive feat given that Fatah was founded in October 1959, not in January 1965. Thus, even journalists with the most rudimentary math skills ought to be able to detect that the number of years since Fatah's founding does not correspond to the number of years marked each year at the movement's annual shindig. [...]
This AFP caption notes the "rally marking the 50th anniversary of [Fatah's] creation" and then goes on to contradict itself, stating: "The Fatah movement was founded by the late iconic leader Yasser Arafat in the 1950s and formally launched its armed struggle against Israel on January 1, 1965." A simple check of the arithmetic would have revealed that 50 years prior to 2015 corresponds to 1965, when Fatah began its terror attacks against Israel. In other captions (see example below), though, AFP does rightly note that the celebration is "to mark the 50th anniversary of the launching of Fatah's armed struggle against Israel." [...]
Why does it matter if Fatah was founded in 1959 or 1965? What interest do Fatah,and cooperative journalists have in passing off the annual festivities as marking the movement's founding? [...] Surely a "moderate" organization does not schedule massive annual celebrations around a terrorist attack targeting civilian infrastructure? A party marking the "founding" of Fatah is much more suited to a "moderate" organization. [...]"
- Stop Giving Palestinians a Pass, Dennis B. Ross (counselor at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, was the United States chief negotiator for Arab-Israeli issues from 1993 to 2001) - "Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice; its anticolonialist bent and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate. Compromise is portrayed as betrayal, and negotiations — which are by definition about mutual concessions — will inevitably force any Palestinian leader to challenge his people by making a politically costly decision"; "If saying yes is costly and doing nothing isn’t, why should we expect the Palestinians to change course? That’s why European leaders who fervently support Palestinian statehood must focus on how to raise the cost of saying no or not acting at all when there is an offer on the table". Une très intéressante tribune d'un des acteurs majeurs (et de longue date) du processus de paix.
"The president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, insists on using international institutions to pressure Israel, even after he was rebuffed in the United Nations Security Council, where he sought a resolution mandating Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank and East Jerusalem. Mr. Abbas has now announced that he will turn to the International Criminal Court — a move that will produce Palestinian charges and Israeli countercharges but not alter the reality on the ground.
A European official I met recently expressed sympathy for the Palestinians’ pursuit of a Security Council resolution. I responded by saying that if he favors Palestinian statehood, it’s time to stop giving the Palestinians a pass. It is time to make it costly for them to focus on symbols rather than substance.
Since 2000, there have been three serious negotiations that culminated in offers to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict: Bill Clinton’s parameters in 2000, former Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert’s offer in 2008, and Secretary of State John Kerry’s efforts last year. In each case, a proposal on all the core issues was made to Palestinian leaders and the answer was either “no” or no response. They determined that the cost of saying “yes,” or even of making a counteroffer that required concessions, was too high.
Palestinian political culture is rooted in a narrative of injustice; its anticolonialist bent and its deep sense of grievance treats concessions to Israel as illegitimate. Compromise is portrayed as betrayal, and negotiations — which are by definition about mutual concessions — will inevitably force any Palestinian leader to challenge his people by making a politically costly decision.
But going to the United Nations does no such thing. It puts pressure on Israel and requires nothing of the Palestinians. Resolutions are typically about what Israel must do and what Palestinians should get. If saying yes is costly and doing nothing isn’t, why should we expect the Palestinians to change course?
That’s why European leaders who fervently support Palestinian statehood must focus on how to raise the cost of saying no or not acting at all when there is an offer on the table. Palestinians care deeply about international support for their cause. If they knew they would be held accountable for being nonresponsive or rejecting a fair offer or resolution, it could well change their calculus.
Unfortunately, most Europeans are focused far more on Israeli behavior and want, at a minimum, to see Israel’s continuing settlement policy change.
But turning to the United Nations or the International Criminal Court during an Israeli election is counterproductive. It will be seen in Israel as a one-sided approach, and it will strengthen politicians who prefer the status quo. These candidates will argue that the deck is stacked against Israel and that the country needs leaders who will stand firm against unfair pressure.
Why not wait? If a new Israeli government after the elections is prepared to take a peace initiative and build settlements only on land that is likely to be part of Israel and not part of Palestine, there will be no need for a United Nations resolution.
If not, and the Europeans decide to pursue one, it must be balanced. It cannot simply address Palestinian needs by offering borders based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps and a capital in Arab East Jerusalem without offering something equally specific to Israel — namely, security arrangements that leave Israel able to defend itself by itself, phased withdrawal tied to the Palestinian Authority’s performance on security and governance, and a resolution of the Palestinian refugee issue that allows Israel to retain its Jewish character.
In all likelihood the Palestinians would reject such a resolution. Accepting it would require compromises that they refused in 2000, 2008 and 2014. There is, of course, no guarantee that the next Israeli government would accept such a resolution. But the Israelis are not the ones pushing for United Nations involvement. The Palestinians are. And if their approach is neither about two states nor peace, there ought to be a price for that.
Peace requires accountability on both sides. It’s fair to ask the Israelis to accept the basic elements that make peace possible — 1967 lines as well as land swaps and settlement building limited to the blocks. But isn’t it time to demand the equivalent from the Palestinians on two states for two peoples, and on Israeli security? Isn’t it time to ask the Palestinians to respond to proposals and accept resolutions that address Israeli needs and not just their own?"
- Ten Points Regarding the Fundamental Breach by the Palestinians of the Oslo Accords, Alan Baker (Director of the Institute for Contemporary Affairs at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel's ambassador to Canada) - "By petitioning the UN, the International Criminal Court and international organizations to recognize them and accept them as a full member state, and by their unification with the Hamas terror organization, the Palestinians have knowingly and deliberately bypassed their contractual obligations pursuant to the Oslo Accords in an attempt to prejudge the main negotiating issues outside the negotiation".
"1- The peace negotiation process as set out in the Oslo Accords was intended to lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinian People and mutual recognition of each other’s “mutual legitimate and political rights” (Preamble, Oslo I and Oslo II).
2- In this context Israel was prepared to compromise on the historic and legal rights of the Jewish People in the area, through agreement for peaceful relations. To this end the parties agreed in the Oslo accords not to initiate or take any steps that will change the status of the territories pending the outcome of the permanent status negotiations (Oslo II, Article 31(7)).
3- Yasser Arafat, in his September 9, 1993 letter to Yitzhak Rabin declared that “all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations”.
4- This overall series of commitments and obligations constitutes a contractual framework of obligations between Israel and the Palestinians, signed as witnesses and guarantors by the King of Jordan, the Presidents of the U.S. and Egypt, the Foreign Ministers of the Russian Federation and /Norway, the EU and endorsed by the UN.
5- By petitioning the UN, the International Criminal Court and international organizations to recognize them and accept them as a full member state, and by their unification with the Hamas terror organization, the Palestinians have knowingly and deliberately bypassed their contractual obligations pursuant to the Oslo Accords in an attempt to prejudge the main negotiating issues outside the negotiation.
6- This, together with their attempts to delegitimize Israel among the international community and their attempted actions against Israel’s leaders, have served to frustrate any possibility of realization of the Oslo Accords, and as such the Palestinians are in material breach of their contractual obligations.
7- By the same token those countries supporting them are in breach of their obligations and guarantees as witnesses.
8- By all legal standards, according to the accepted and universally recognized laws of contracts and international agreements, a fundamental breach enables the injured party to declare the agreement void and is freed from any further obligations pursuant to the agreement or contract.
9- Therefore the fundamental breach of the Oslo Accords by the Palestinians is indicative of their conscious decision to undermine them and prevent any possibility of their implementation. As such they have rendered the Accords void.
10- In such a situation of fundamental breach and according to all accepted rules of contracts and agreements, Israel has the legitimate right to declare that the Oslo Accords are no longer valid and to act unilaterally in order to protect its essential legal and security interests."
- Why the Diplomatic Intifada Will Fail, Aaron David Miller (Public Policy Scholar at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, and has been an advisor to six Secretaries of State) - "Throw in a few non-Middle East bad boys like Vladimir Putin whose policies in eastern Ukraine have resulted in the deaths of 5,000 people (double the number of Palestinians the UN estimates were killed in the latest Gaza war), and you see why trash-talking against Israel is unlikely to lead to serious sanctions".
"Make no mistake. The State of Israel begins 2015 more isolated, cornered, and with fewer friends on the planet than perhaps at any time in its history. And worse still, it has no good answers to the threats posed by an unresolved West Bank/Gaza Palestinian problem or the internal challenges of a significant national Arab minority (20 percent of its population) that feels increasingly aggrieved and disenfranchised. In time, external pressures will surely grow.
But life and the distribution of power is always relative. And those who argue that the Palestinian diplomatic intifada, including a push to join the International Criminal Court and other international treaties and conventions, remains the most effective tool in pushing Israel into making peace concessions need to take a hard look at current realities. For now, on the contrary, these factors only dilute and constrain the pressure game. Here’s why.
- The Arabs Remain Israel’s Best Talking Points.
It may be politically incorrect to admit it, but the current state of the Arab world lessens the pressure on Israel and creates a fair measure of balance in leavening out Israel’s own bad behavior. Much of the region is melting down right now. And with that turbulence comes a range of behavior that makes Israel’s own policies, including settlement activity and occupation practices (as bad as they may be), pale by comparison. Egypt is imprisoning thousands of political prisoners; Syria’s Bashar al-Assad is massacring his own people by the tens of thousands; the Islamic State is beheading Americans and killing thousands of others; Iran stands in violation of UN Security Council resolutions on the nuclear issue, is supporting Assad’s murderous campaign, is a serial human rights abuser, and is executing more people every year than any country other than China; and Hamas—itself open to charges of war crimes—has willfully used high trajectory weapons against civilians this past summer in an effort to achieve political and economic goals. Throw in a few non-Middle East bad boys like Vladimir Putin whose policies in eastern Ukraine have resulted in the deaths of 5,000 people (double the number of Palestinians the UN estimates were killed in the latest Gaza war), and you see why trash-talking against Israel is unlikely to lead to serious sanctions.
- The U.S.-Israeli Relationship Protects.
I know there’s a view out there that Barack Obama is just waiting to stick it to Benjamin Netanyahu. And that now that the president isn’t running for anything anymore, he has a chance to be tough. But back on planet Earth, there are any number of factors that will prevent such toughening. First, by the looks of the administration’s reaction to the Palestinian effort to pass a UN Security Council resolution imposing a deadline to end the Israeli occupation and to join the ICC, Washington is standing by not pressuring Israel. And the more the Palestinians press to isolate Israel, the harder the Administration will work to prevent it. This month the Republicans will take over both Houses of Congress and will likely move to support Israel by sanctioning the PA and introducing more sanctions on Iran. And let’s be clear. The president’s real priority isn’t the peace process; it’s to determine whether he can reach a deal with Iran on the nuclear issue. He’ll have a hard enough time selling that one to Congress and the Israelis (along with the Saudis) without opening himself up to charges that he’s jamming the Israelis when it comes to not standing up to the Palestinians diplomatic intifada.
- The ICC gambit.
I’m not an international lawyer but the hoops Palestinians will have to jump through in order to present and win a case against Israel in the ICC either on settlement activity or war crimes seem to make success an uncertain proposition at best. It’s one thing for the Palestinians to try to use accession to buck up domestic support and rattle the Israelis; it’s quite another to actually succeed, and to use that success as leverage to get what you want. There are numerous issues relating to whether the Palestinian Authority can be recognized as a state for purposes of presenting charges to the Court; jurisdictional questions; and Palestinian vulnerabilities too that stem from Hamas’s own transgressions and alleged war crimes. And even if these can be overcome, there’s the matter of whether the ICC wants to get drawn into the politics of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Having publicly indicted roughly three dozen individuals in 12 years, and all of those in Africa for crimes that variously involve willful murder, torture and rape, it would strain the ICC’S credibility should the Court decide to open cases against Israeli military commanders or senior politicians. That the ICC can’t indict the Middle East’s No. 1 war criminal , Bashar Assad, because Syria isn’t an ICC member and Russia would block any UNSC referral of the matter doesn’t do much for the court’s credibility. And prosecutors want to take cases they can win; and it’s by no means clear that the ICC wants to get itself in the middle of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict or that it believes that’s going to enhance its political reputation and credibility by doing so.
- Israeli Elections.
In less than 80 days, Israel’s going to elections. There’s no way to predict the outcome right now. Maybe Palestinians believe that their current diplomatic intifada will somehow scare the Israeli public into voting Netanyahu out of office. And there’s no doubt that the anti-apartheid-style “Boycott-Divestment-Sanctions (BDS) movement, the ICC move, and growing European pressure have rattled many Israelis. But for now, it is more likely the ICC move will benefit the right wing. Indeed, there’s certainly a possibility that elections will result ultimately in a Benjamin Netanyahu-led government even more to the right of the current coalition. But there’s also a reasonable chance that elections could produce a new centrist political coalition. And that’s likely to improve Israel’s image in one of two ways: either it will lead to a real opening in the negotiations with the Palestinians or, perhaps more likely, it will produce a kinder, gentler government that will improve Israel’s international image (fewer settlements; sweeter talk) but one that can’t take big moves on the peace process. That would be the Palestinians’ worst nightmare.
The current power balance, in other words, doesn’t seem to favor Palestinians or the prospects for Palestinian statehood in 2015. In time the pressure on Israel can only grow. Whether or not that pressure will have an impact in changing Israel’s politics or decision-making when it comes to the Palestinian issue is impossible to say. What does seem clear, for the moment, is that diplomatic pressure by the Palestinians on the world stage isn’t going to make it any easier to pursue a peace process trapped in limbo between a two-state solution too difficult to implement, on one hand, and still too important to abandon on the other."
- Fatah Official Abbas Zaki: The U.S. Is the Enemy, the Head of the Serpent (Vidéo 1mn51)
"In a recent TV interview, Fatah Central Committee member Abbas Zaki called the U.S. the "head of the serpent" and said: "We will start an international campaign to show that the U.S. is the main enemy." The interview aired on Russia Today TV on December 31, 2014."
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
commenter cet article