Overblog Suivre ce blog
Administration Créer mon blog
15 janvier 2017 7 15 /01 /janvier /2017 09:53

- Foreign Ministry cartoon released before the Paris conference

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
15 janvier 2017 7 15 /01 /janvier /2017 09:52
Conférence de Paris

- Conflit israélo-palestinien: Paris accueille une réunion symbolique (AFP) - "c'est aussi une façon de faire date, à cinq jours de l'arrivée à la Maison Blanche du futur président américain Donald Trump, dont l'imprévisibilité angoisse nombre d'acteurs du dossier".

- Israeli officials blast Paris conference once more (Ynet)
   "While Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has designated the Paris peace conference as the "last chance" for peace, officials in Jerusalem strongly condemned the conference, which began Sunday morning.
   "This is a redundant, futile conference and this is not how to make peace. International conferences and UN resolutions only distance us from peace because they encourage the Palestinians to continue to refuse direct negotiations with Israel. The only way for peace is bilateral negotiations between the two sides, as was done with Egypt and with Jordan. If the countries that are meeting in Paris really want to promote peace, they need to push Mahmoud Abbas to accept the invitations of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for direct negotiations."
    Referring to settlements and the international community, officials said, "Settlements are not an obstacle to negotiations, but rather an excuse for the Palestinian Authority to avoid negotiations. The international community has committed to the subject being discussed through direct negotiations on all core issues, and not separately. The PA continues to educate its citizens to hate and murder Israelis and the destruction of the State of Israel. The conflict has never been about a state for the Palestinian people, it has been about a state for the Jewish people which the Palestinians have refused to recognize in any borders"."

- Israël craint une nouvelle initiative à l’ONU en sa défaveur après la conférence de Paris (AFP) - "« Nous assistons à une tentative de promouvoir une initiative de dernière minute avant la prise de fonctions de la nouvelle administration américaine », a affirmé dans un communiqué l’ambassadeur israélien Danny Danon. « Les partisans des Palestiniens cherchent d’autres mesures anti-israéliennes au Conseil de sécurité », a-t-il ajouté. Le Conseil de sécurité doit se réunir mardi pour discuter du conflit israélo-palestinien".

- Interview de Francis Kalifat (président du CRIF) sur la conférence de Paris (Audio 22mn) - il explique pourquoi le CRIF s'oppose aux modalités de cette conférence qui "internationalise le conflit" au lieu d'inciter à la négociation bilatérale, qui vise à "imposer une solution" déconnectée de la réalité, et qui ressemble à un nouveau "tribunal anti-israélien".

- Fisking the lies behind the Paris "Peace" Conference (Elder of Ziyon) - une réfutation en règle de la tribune de Jean-Marc Ayrault (dont la version français est disponible ici) censée justifier la Conférence de Paris.
   "French Foreign Minister Jean-Marc Ayrault writes in Haaretz his justifications for why a peace conference must be held now.
   "The Middle East peace process cannot wait, for two main reasons.
    First and foremost, the situation is urgent. Many crises throughout the region, from Syria to Libya, from Yemen to Iraq, have generated new threats to its stability. Some say that because of these crises, priorities need to be established, and in the name of these supposed priorities, resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be put off until later.
    This is not what I believe: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict cannot be considered separately from its regional environment. Thinking that the Middle East could restore its stability without settling its oldest conflict is unrealistic. This conflict, if not dealt with, will continue to fuel frustration and will ultimately only worsen the vicious cycle of radicalization and violence. It will continue to give budding terrorists excuses for enlisting. The heinous attack in Jerusalem last Sunday is an additional warning sign."

    Ayrault engages in sleight-of-hand here. No one is saying that one can ignore the Israel-Arab conflict forever, only that its solution would have little real impact on regional stability. What he is really saying is "we are impotent but we can always pressure Israel to feel like we are doing something, and we can justify it with straw man arguments."
    The proof that this is not Israel's fault is clear. The Palestinians rejected the only realistic peace process in the region, the Oslo process, and actively chose war instead in 2000. Yet the world community did nothing to pressure the PLO for that decision.
   "I have a very strong conviction, and it is one I share with most of our partners and with most Israelis and Palestinians. This conviction is that only a two-state solution will, in time, bring stability to the region and enable Israel to live in security."
    Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and the Sinai have absolutely nothing to do with Israel, and Ayrault knows this. There will never be stability in the Middle East as long as supremacist versions of Islam and dictators who care little about their people exist. To lay the blame at Israel (which is what Ayrault is doing despite claiming to be evenhanded) is the political equivalent to the Chelm story of the man looking for his lost keys in the well-lit town square instead of the muddy forest where he lost them.
   "This does not mean imposing peace. France has never claimed to outline a solution for anyone. We are extremely aware that the conflict will not be settled until parties have decided to set out down the courageous and demanding path of reconciliation."
    Haaretz proved this to be a lie with the publication of the draft resolution to be published at the end of the conference, a document that explicitly says that Israel has no rights over any territory beyond the 1949 armistice line.
   "Palestinians are seeing their future state shrinking, as settlement expansion continues at an unprecedented speed."
    I've shown how this is false before from the perspective of actual area taken up by Jewish communities. Anti-Israel activists keep putting out maps that falsely give the impression of huge growth by either making the actual communities look much larger than they really are (by using large dots) or by sizing the dots by population size to make it look like the Jewish communities' size, still around 2% of the West Bank, takes up so much more. See, for example, this Peace Now map.
     But let's talk about population growth, since everyone uses those numbers for their evidence of "unprecedented" growth. Here's Peace Now's chart of population growth of the Jewish communities.
    Any demographer would tell you that populations grow exponentially. A 4% growth rate for 100,000 people would be 4000 people, for 300,000 it would be 12,000, so the chart would show a curve, not a line, if the growth rate was steady. This chart is a straight line growth, meaning that roughly the same increase in real numbers year over year - which means that the rate of growth is actually going down. This chart shows an average increase of about 10,000 people a year both when there were 100,000 people and when there were 300,000 people.
    Moreover, Haaretz showed last year that practically all the real growth was in Haredi communities right on the Green Line that would be part of Israel in any peace plan, and that is the case with most of the growth. Anti-Israel activists play with the numbers to give a sense of urgency to politicians like Ayrault who are more than happy to use this false data to spout lies. [...]"

- Israël-Palestine : la bonne initiative de Paris (éditorial du Monde) - pour le journal de référence français, les premiers responsables de l'absence de véritable sont les Iraéliens (qui "rongent physiquement" la Palestine, et qui exercent une "humiliation et répression permanente") et les Palestiniens sont fondamentalement des victimes "découragées". Conséquence : la Conférence de Paris (et donc la pression unilatérale sur Israël) se justifie pleinement car "il faut arrêter cette marche vers une tragédie". Effectivement, dans une vision si manichéénne, simpliste et même carrément fausse, cela se comprend aisément.
   "La France a raison de continuer à se battre pour favoriser une solution du conflit israélo-palestinien. Il faut saluer les initiatives prises par le président François Hollande en ce sens et la persévérance de son ministre des affaires étrangères, Jean-Marc Ayrault, dans leur mise en œuvre. [...]
    D’un côté, la politique ininterrompue d’implantations israéliennes dans la partie orientale de Jérusalem et en Cisjordanie, sous l’égide du gouvernement le plus à droite qu’Israël ait jamais connu, rogne, physiquement, chaque jour davantage la possibilité d’un Etat palestinien viable, sur un territoire continu. De l’autre, une population palestinienne découragée, qui se sent de moins en moins représentée par la fraction du mouvement national palestinien que dirige Mahmoud Abbas – tout juste réélu à la tête du Fatah –, se réfugie de plus en plus dans l’idée d’un seul Etat [...]
    On dit encore qu’il y a d’autres priorités pour stabiliser la région et que, dans un Moyen-Orient en plein chaos, l’heure n’est pas pour Israël de prendre le moindre risque. Mais cela fait bientôt cinquante ans qu’Israël, à la suite de la guerre de juin 1967, occupe ces territoires palestiniens. L’occupation devient la norme et, avec elle, son cortège de violences, de part et d’autre, d’humiliations et de répression permanente.
    [...] la coalition que dirige M. Nétanyahou compte sur Donald Trump pour donner son quitus à la politique des implantations. Elle est encouragée par la nomination par le président élu d’un ambassadeur, David Friedman, qui est un militant actif de la colonisation. Cette seule perspective justifie la conférence de Paris : il faut arrêter cette marche vers une tragédie."

- Commentaires sur Le Monde.fr en réaction à ce bel édito :
- M Ibn Marianne 14/01/2017 - 11h43
   "[...] Pour arrêter "cette marche vers une tragédie», il faut sanctionne Israël comme cela a été fait pour l'Afrique du Sud de l'apartheid autrement on accepte non sans lâcheté d’être complices de la tragédie annoncée"
- SAURON 14/01/2017 - 12h04
   "[...] Israel se fou de cette conférence et ne pense qu'à une chose. Etendre l'Etat d'Israel sur toute la Palestine et pousser les Palestiniens dehors ... Les USA avec Trump vont les aider sans état d'âme."
- Benjamin Valberg 14/01/2017 - 12h07
   "En somme, chacun sait que la solution à deux états est impossible, du fait de la position israélienne, mais il faut continuer à la promouvoir par cette conférence, comme une psalmodie dénuée de sens. Chacun sait que la seule solution possible au conflit est l'imposition de sanctions contre Israel, tant par les états que par la société civile (BDS), et cette conférence n'est qu'un rideau de fumée, avant le tout prochain bombardement de Gaza ou la prochaine colonie, dont on s'offusquera gentiment."
- tous humains 14/01/2017 - 18h20
   "[...] il faut agir pour sauver au moins l'honneur à quelques jours de l'entrée en scène de Trump . Avec l'UJFP ,BDS, l'AFPS et la Coordination des Appels pour une Paix Juste au Proche Orient CAPJPO ,il faut arrêter pacifiquement cet apartheid colonial indigne"
- Nicolas 14/01/2017 - 13h56
   "[...] Sans faire véritablement pression sur Israël pour empêcher la colonisation, il n'y aura pas de résolution viable et durable du conflit. https://regardssurlemondecontemporain.wordpress.com/2016/09/27/israel-palestine-embargo-ou-boycott/"
- M Ibn Marianne 14/01/2017 - 13h57
   "Affligeant. Les occidentaux ont tout permis à Israël. Ils ont élevé un enfant gâté qui continue de déstabiliser la région. C'est la France qui a aidé Israël à se doter de la bombe atomique. Ce sont les aides prodiguées à Israël qui ont permis à celui-ci de se prendre pour Dieu le Père. Que la France reste sans réaction à la remarque immonde de Lieberman montre à quel point Israël peut s’assurer l’impunité. C’est plus que de l’ingratitude de la part d’Israël, c’est du mépris pour la France !"
- Rimousk 14/01/2017 - 13h59
   "Fallait se réveiller un peu plus tôt ! Et d'abord geler l'accord d'association Europe Israel qui a bénéficié à l'état colonial et ne pas intégrer Israel dans le plan horizon 2020 dont bénéficie le complexe militarisme industriel. Déjà Hollande, grand ami de netanyahou lors de son dernier voyage en Israel , et nos dirigeants sont incapables d'interdire l'importation des produits des colonies et même d'imposer leur étiquetage clair alors on peut rêver"
- Laverdure 14/01/2017 - 17h20
   "Hélas, Israël creuse sa propre tombe en persistant dans la politique du pire et de la force du fait accompli. Les vrais amis d'Israël ne peuvent que l'encourager à revenir à la raison c'est-à-dire à la paix, comme l'avait envisagée le plus visionnaire de ses dirigeants, le regretté Yitzhak Rabin. Depuis son assassinat, Israël est entré en crise psychotique avec un déni de réalité dans le fond suicidaire à force de semer de la haine tout autour de lui..."
- Intrinsèque 14/01/2017 - 17h20
   "On sait qu'une initiative envers le conflit Israël / Palestine est bonne, quand elle donne des boutons a Nétanyahou."
- ELIAS MELKI 14/01/2017 - 17h30
   "[...] Ingratitude et mépris. C'est l'attitude d'Israël face à tous ceux qui, dans le camp occidental, font tout pour lui. [...]"
- Simon 14/01/2017 - 18h33
   "Les faucons israéliens ne veulent pas la paix. [...] peut-être sont-ils mieux dans cet état d'alerte et de victoires perpétuelles ? Mais gagneront-ils la guerre ? La faiblesse est morale. Comment peut-on traiter et tuer sans vergogne les Palestiniens ? Le mal est profond"
- tous humains 14/01/2017 - 18h59
   "[...] Il n'y a pas d'ennemis d' Israel sur ce forum mais seulement des humains qui veulent ,comme vous je suppose , que le gouvernement d'extrême droite arrête de prendre les Palestiniens pour des sous-hommes que l'on peut encore coloniser sous occupation militaire ,spolier ,discriminer ,chasser,humilier et ghettoïser ! [...]"
- Basil 14/01/2017 - 19h37
   "Vu qu'Israël se fout complètement du "machin " de Manhattan ce n'est pas une conférence à Paris qui lui fera changer de comportement ce peuple a eu la Shoah et maintenant fait la conférence de Wansee pour les Palestiniens. [...]"
- BERJAC 15/01/2017 - 00h19
   "Il est remarquable que le gouvernement socialiste français mette en œuvre un dispositif diplomatique pour faire avancer une solution pacifique dans ce conflit, mais réprime en France le militantisme politique qui va dans la même direction (BDS). [...]"
Une réaction à contre-courant :
- PIERRE -MARIE MURAZ 14/01/2017 - 13h20
   "Ce jour, j'organise une réunion concernant le contrat de mariage, d'un couple qui refuse le mariage ! ... un article "équilibré" en omettant que du côté Palestinien une fraction non négligeable des dirigeants Palestiniens, pas que le Hamas, refuse l'existence d'Israël, encouragent les assassinats d'Israéliens y compris les civils, est une pantomime à la hauteur de cette conférence hors sol à cinq jours d'une nouvelle présidence US et sans la participation des gouvernants d'Israël ..."
- Drang nach Osten 14/01/2017 - 19h56
   "PMM il y' a longtemps qu'on a pigé que vous êtes du Mossad"


- L’épineux dossier du déménagement de l’ambassade américaine à Jérusalem, Piotr Smolar (Le Monde)
   "De la sérénité à l’inquiétude : le glissement est spectaculaire dans les propos des dirigeants palestiniens. Cela fait des mois que Donald Trump et son entourage évoquent leur intention de déménager l’ambassade des Etats-Unis de Tel-Aviv à Jérusalem. Ce geste, qui marquerait une rupture historique et pourrait avoir des conséquences sécuritaires imprévisibles, a longtemps paru trop énorme, trop radical, aux yeux de Mahmoud Abbas, le président de l’Autorité palestinienne, et de ses proches. Mais plus l’entrée en fonctions de M. Trump s’approche, et plus leur changement de ton est clair.
    Au moment de sa désignation comme ambassadeur en Israël, à la mi-décembre 2016, David Friedman avait manifesté son enthousiasme à l’idée d’œuvrer à la paix « depuis la capitale » Jérusalem. Quelques jours plus tard, lors d’une rencontre avec les correspondants étrangers, le secrétaire général de l’Organisation de libération de la Palestine (OLP), Saeb Erekat, vétéran des négociations avec les Israéliens, s’était montré réservé sur ce dossier. Il avait lâché : « Ils ne le feront pas. » [...]
    De son côté, Mahmoud Abbas a écrit à Donald Trump pour l’alerter au sujet de l’impact « désastreux » d’un déménagement. Il espère aussi le soutien du pape François, qui le recevra au Vatican samedi 14 janvier. Les dirigeants palestiniens brandissent des menaces anciennes, comme le retrait de la reconnaissance d’Israël. Ils appelaient également à protester dans toute la région au cours de la grande prière, vendredi, deux jours avant la conférence de Paris. Mais leur marge de manœuvre est réduite, alors que se profile, pour la première fois, une administration américaine penchant ouvertement du côté israélien [...]"

- Ambassade américaine à Jérusalem : Abbas menace de revenir sur la reconnaissance d'Israël (AFP) - "Si le transfert de l'ambassade s'effectue, "plusieurs options s'offriraient alors à nous, et nous en discuterions avec les pays arabes", a prévenu M. Abbas. "Revenir sur notre reconnaissance de l'État d'Israël est l'une d'elles. Mais nous espérons ne pas avoir à en arriver là et qu'au contraire, nous pourrons travailler avec la prochaine Administration américaine", a-t-il ajouté. Israël et l'OLP (Organisation de libération de la Palestine) se sont reconnus mutuellement en 1993 dans le cadre des accords d'Oslo".
- Abbas demande à Poutine d’empêcher le transfert de l’ambassade américaine à Jérusalem (AFP) - "« J’ai transmis un message empreint de gravité du président Mahmoud Abbas au président Vladimir Poutine », a déclaré à Moscou Saëb Erekat, numéro deux de l’Organisation de libération de la Palestine. « Cette lettre demande au président Poutine de faire ce qui est en son pouvoir au sujet des informations dont nous disposons, selon lesquelles le président élu Donald Trump va déménager l’ambassade (américaine) à Jérusalem, ce qui pour nous revient à franchir une dangereuse ligne rouge », a dit M. Erekat à la presse après avoir rencontré le chef de la diplomatie russe Sergueï Lavrov".

- Grand mufti : L’ambassade américaine à Jérusalem serait une « agression » contre les musulmans (Times of Israel) - "« La promesse de déplacer l’ambassade n’est pas seulement une agression contre les Palestiniens, mais aussi contre tous les Arabes et tous les musulmans, et ils ne se laisseront pas faire en silence », a mis en garde le grand mufti Muhammad Ahmad Hussein dans son prêche de la prière hebdomadaire sur le mont du Temple".

- Fatah warns moving US embassy will ‘open gates of hell’ (Times of Israel) - "Spokesman for Abbas’s party says Palestinian people ‘won’t allow’ Trump to relocate embassy to Jerusalem".
- Fatah threatens to "open the gates of Hell." Sound familiar? (Elder of Ziyon) - "Should America be scared by this "moderate" spokesman threatening it with opening up the gates of Hell? It is hardly the first time. Here is a very incomplete list of the number of times that we have heard that expression when Palestinian Arabs - including "moderate" Saeb Erekat - want to scare people into bending to their will".

"Processus de paix"

- Shocker: Palestinians don't think "terror" section of UNSC 2334 applies to them (Elder of Ziyon)
   "One of the main justifications given by the US for why it abstained on UNSC resolution 2334 rather than vote against it was because the language was supposedly not as biased against Israel. Here is the entire paragraph of the resolution that was used in this justification:
   "Calls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians,
    including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for
    accountability in this regard, and calls for compliance with obligations under
    international law for the strengthening of ongoing efforts to combat terrorism,
    including through existing security coordination, and to clearly condemn all acts of

    Note that it doesn't mention which side must perform these "steps." Guess what? The Palestinian side interprets this to apply to Israel and only Israel.
    Their UN representative sent a letter to various UN officials praising the resolution unequivocally, with no reservations about the obligations that the US insists the resolution imposes on them. On the contrary, they imply that only Israel is subject to that one paragraph supposedly aimed at them: "For all of these war crimes, acts of State terrorism and systematic human rights violations being committed against the Palestinian people, Israel, the occupying Power, must be held accountable and the perpetrators brought to justice."
    For this reason they don't even claim that they are fighting and stopping terror - they feel no need to defend themselves from the language of this resolution since they don't define "resistance" with guns, knives and trucks to be "terror" to begin with. And the drafters of the resolution deliberately chose language to allow Palestinians to feel that there is nothing in the document that gave them any responsibility for helping bring peace. [...]"

- PA TV: Jews stole Kim Kardashian’s diamonds (PMW) - voir cette (amusante ?) petite vidéo ici.
   "PA TV took advantage of yesterday’s news update on the Kim Kardashian jewelry heist as an opportunity to spread Antisemitism.
    An article in the Israeli daily Yediot Aharonot on the arrest of 17 suspects in the well-publicized theft noted that the brains behind the robbery in Paris were two Algerian immigrants. It further mentioned that her driver and his brother, who are also suspects, are reportedly Jews. This reference was embraced by PA TV’s “Israeli affairs expert” as an opportunity to generalize that all Jews are "thieves.”
    PA TV chose not to mention that there were 15 non-Jewish suspects arrested. Nor did it mention or speculate about the religion of the two Algerian immigrants who were the masterminds behind the crime. [...]"

- Obama’s Mid-East Legacy Is Tragic Failure, Alan Dershowitz (Felix Frankfurter Professor of Law, Emeritus at Harvard Law School)
   "[...] With regard to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians, the Obama policies have made the prospects for a compromise peace more difficult to achieve. When Israel felt that America had its back – under both President Clinton and Bush 43 – they offered generous proposals to end settlements and occupation in nearly all of the West Bank. Tragically the Palestinian leadership – first under Arafat and then under Abbas – did not accept either the Barak-Clinton offers in 2000-2001, nor the Olmert offer in 2008. Now they are ignoring Netanyahu’s open offer to negotiate with no pre-conditions.
    In his brilliant book chronicling the American-Israeli relationship – “Doomed To Succeed” – Dennis Ross proves conclusively that whenever the Israeli government has confidence in America’s backing, it has been more willing to make generous compromise offers, than when it has reason to doubt American support. President Obama did not understand this crucial reality. Instead of having Israel’s back, he repeatedly stabbed Israel in the back, beginning with his one–sided Cairo speech near the beginning of his tenure, continuing through his failure to enforce the red-line on chemical weapon use by Syria, then allowing a sunset provision to be included in the Iran deal, and culminating in his refusal to veto the one-sided Security Council resolution, which placed the lion’s share of blame on the Israelis for the current stalemate.
    These ill-advised actions – especially the Security Council resolution – have disincentivized the Palestinian leadership from accepting the Netanyahu offer to sit down and negotiate a compromise peace. They have been falsely led to believe that they can achieve statehood through the United Nations, or by other means that do not require compromise. [...]"

Gaza & Hamas

- Israël étendra son aide à Gaza en raison de la relative accalmie (Times of Israel) - "Parmi les mesures prises, Ynet cite le ministre de la Défense, Avigdor Liberman, qui autorise l’accès au carburant et aux matériaux de construction qui entreraient par le poste frontière d’Erez, au nord de la bande de Gaza. Liberman aurait déclaré aux responsables régionaux israéliens près de la frontière de Gaza qu’il permettrait une « aide humanitaire substantielle et supplémentaire », dans le but de maintenir le calme".



- L'Égypte dit avoir tué 10 combattants de l'EI (AFP) - "Des combattants ont ouvert le feu sur les forces égyptiennes alors qu'elles approchaient d'une de leur cache, une maison abandonnée dans la ville d'Al-Arish, chef-lieu de la province du Nord-Sinaï".


- Un raid aérien a tué jusqu'à 30 civils à Mossoul (Reuters) - "Ces habitants ont dit avoir vu au moins trois missiles frapper le quartier d'Al Djadida dans la partie ouest de la ville. L'objectif du raid aérien semble avoir été, selon eux, la résidence d'un responsable de l'Etat islamique, Harbi Abdel Kader. Celui-ci ne se trouvait pas chez lui au moment du raid, mais plusieurs membres de sa famille sont morts, a dit un habitant".
Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
13 janvier 2017 5 13 /01 /janvier /2017 09:21

Ramirez Toons

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
13 janvier 2017 5 13 /01 /janvier /2017 09:21
Attentat de Jérusalem

- PA: Terrorist who killed four in truck ramming attack died for Allah (PMW) - "The official PA daily referred to it as “a car ramming operation” and wrote that the killer “died as a Shahid” (i.e., a Martyr who died for Allah). By calling the terrorist murderer a Shahid, the PA is telling its people that murdering the Israeli youths was sanctioned by Islam and seen as positive Islamic behavior"; "According to PA law, the family of a Shahid receives a base payment of 1400 shekels per month. A wife of the Shahid receives an additional 400 shekels, for each child she receives 200 shekels, and for being a resident of Jerusalem an additional 300 shekels. In total the wife of this murderer will receive 2900 shekels ($760) per month for the rest of her life".
- PA set to pay $760 monthly stipend to wife of ‘martyr’ who killed 4 Israelis last week (TIP) - "Within the next several months, she will also receive a one-time payment of 6,000 shekels ($1,580)".

- Jerusalem attack exposes Israel's false peace partner (Jerusalem Post editorial) - "The failure by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to condemn the attack by Monday night – more than 36 hours since it took place – is part of a culture of hate, violence and intransigence. A “peace partner” does not remain silent when innocent 20-year-olds are deliberately run down by a truck on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Jerusalem. A real peace partner speaks up, shouts and condemns".
   "What possesses a father of four with most of his life still ahead of him to get behind the wheel of a truck and embark on a vehicular murder spree that will almost certainly end in his own demise?
    Fadi al-Qanbar, 28, the man who plowed his truck into a group of IDF cadets on Sunday, was not considered a security risk by the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency), though he had served time in prison. He had no known connections with a terrorist organization. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said al-Qanbar identified with ISIS. But why? Why would a resident of Jerusalem’s Jebl Mukaber neighborhood launch a suicide mission to murder Israelis knowing that his wife would be widowed and his two sons and two daughters would be orphaned in the process?
    A saying attributed to Golda Meir comes to mind: “Peace will come when the Arabs will love their children more than they hate us.” We agree. If al-Qanbar had cared for himself, his children and his family - not to mention the soldiers he rammed into - he never would have carried out his attack on Sunday.
    While we still don’t know what pushed al-Qanbar to carry out his attack, the incitement that comes out daily from the Palestinian Authority plays an important role. The failure by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas to condemn the attack by Monday night – more than 36 hours since it took place – is part of a culture of hate, violence and intransigence. A “peace partner” does not remain silent when innocent 20-year-olds are deliberately run down by a truck on a sunny Sunday afternoon in Jerusalem. A real peace partner speaks up, shouts and condemns.
    But maybe that is the difference between Israel and the PA. Following the rare few instances of Jewish terrorism – like the Duma arson attack in 2015 that killed three members of the Dawabshe family – every single Israeli politician from across the spectrum condemned it in the harshest of terms. Our “peace partners” apparently don’t know how. [...]"

"Processus de paix"

- What's the difference between Fatah and Hamas terrorists again? (Elder of Ziyon) - "This month the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades openly participated in the 52nd anniversary of Fatah's first terror attack. Their masked terrorists paraded in public, through city streets, with their weapons including what appeared to be rockets. (These videos [voir ici et ici] were made in Gaza.)"

- Official Palestinian news agency pays tribute to the child of a "martyr" terrorist (Elder of Ziyon) - "The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades are Fatah's terror group. Mahmoud Abbas doesn't only tolerate them - this story shows that the PA actively encourages them while pretending to be against violence".

- How Israel defeated the "knife intifada" (Elder of Ziyon) - "Investigations showed that almost all of these women—including a 72-year-old grandmother from Hebron—were seeking to escape family hardships, such as pregnancies out of wedlock, arranged marriages, violence within the family, and so forth. Quite often it seemed that these women were seeking death or arrest in order to break away from their environment. In more than one instance, a young woman would wave a kitchen knife or scissors far from the Israeli soldiers, not posing any real threat, knowing that she would be immediately taken into custody"; "This was an intifada of victims of Palestinian society trying to gain honor with their attacks".

Conférence de Paris

- Conférence de Paris : "une illusion très néfaste" selon Israël (AFP) - "Malheureusement le seul pays sur lequel on fait pression, c'est Israël".
   "[...] La ministre adjointe des Affaires étrangères Tzipi Hotovely a affirmé devant la presse que la seule voie vers la paix était celle de négociations directes entre Israéliens et Palestiniens, que la conférence prévue dimanche éloignait les perspectives de paix et que "le seul pays sur lequel on fait pression est Israël". [...]
   "Israël a démontré par le passé qu'il savait conclure des accords de paix en employant une seule formule : les négociations directes. S'en dispenser crée l'illusion très néfaste auprès de la partie palestinienne qu'elle pourrait obtenir tout ce qu'elle veut sans parler à Israël", a dit Mme Hotovely.
    Mme Hotovely a cité l'attentat dans lequel un Palestinien a tué quatre soldats israéliens et en a blessé 17 autres dimanche à Jérusalem. Combattre le terrorisme "devrait être l'objectif numéro un de la communauté internationale, mais le sujet ne sera même pas discuté à Paris. Malheureusement le seul pays sur lequel on fait pression, c'est Israël", a-t-elle dit. [...]"

- Nétanyahou : La conférence de Paris pour la paix est une "imposture" (AFP) - "Cette conférence est une imposture palestinienne sous les auspices de la France et destinée à prendre encore plus de positions anti-israéliennes. Cela fait reculer la paix, et nous ne serons pas liés [par ses résultats]".

- Hollande : « seules des négociations bilatérales peuvent aboutir » (AFP) - « En même temps, je suis lucide sur ce que peut porter cette conférence. La paix, elle sera faite par les Israéliens et les Palestiniens, et personne d’autre. Seules des négociations bilatérales peuvent aboutir ».

- The Dangers of the January 15 “Peace Talks” in Paris, Dore Gold (JCPA, Vidéo 5mn12) - l'ex-ambassadeur israélien explique pourquoi l'Etat juif n'y participera pas.

- A simple way to show that the "even-handed" Paris draft document is really not (Elder of Ziyon) - " The fact is that the "international community" will never tell the Palestinian side to do anything concrete, or even symbolic, that indicates that they truly accept Israel. And if by some chance some diplomat would gingerly broach the subject of the PLO and Fatah logos or the many other maps that erase Israel in official PA media, the backlash would be instant and severe".

- My aunt passed away on Sunday. Her burial violated international law according to the Paris conference (Elder of Ziyon) - "A Holocaust survivor, she lived well into her nineties,  surrounded by her children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren who lived nearby and visited daily. She was a wonderful person, always laughing and happy, and visiting her was always a highlight of my family's trips to Israel. She was buried near her late husband and her mother, my grandmother, in the Mount of Olives cemetery. According to the draft final statement of the Paris "peace" conference, her burial is a violation of international law"; "Of course, the world would argue, the "peace agreement" would "ensure" full access by everyone to holy places. Just like the armistice agreement that Jordan  signed in 1949 -  which was ignored. Just like Jews can "freely" visit holy places under Palestinian Authority control today - in armored buses, at midnight, protected by an army while under a barrage of rocks. If you want to visit Joseph's Tomb, you have to commit to staying there for six hours overnight, because you can't leave on your own without being stoned to death. Even today, under Israeli control,  sacred burial sites are being desecrated by the Arabs who live nearby, and visitors must take precautions to stay safe. Under Arab rule, the cemetery would again become effectively off-limits to Jews and the world will react with their own "status quo" of silence".

Gaza & Hamas

- La grogne monte chez les habitants de Gaza, privés d'électricité (Reuters) - "Certains habitants dénoncent l'incurie du Hamas, au pouvoir dans l'enclave et qui n'a même plus les moyens d'acheter du fuel supplémentaire pour augmenter un peu la production de sa centrale électrique ; le mouvement islamiste accuse l'Autorité palestinienne de chercher à saper son autorité".
- Un comédien gazaoui arrêté pour avoir critiqué la pénurie d’électricité (AFP) - "Meshoukhi a publié une vidéo sur les pannes d’électricité et le chômage à Gaza ; l’une de ses répliques est « Le Hamas ça suffit »".
- Gaza : le Hamas disperse une manifestation contre la pénurie d'électricité (AFP) - "les forces du Hamas ont tiré en l'air et dispersé avec des matraques les manifestants".
   "Les forces de sécurité du mouvement islamiste Hamas ont dispersé par la force jeudi dans la bande de Gaza une manifestation contre la pénurie d'électricité, selon des témoins et un photographe de l'AFP.
    Des milliers de Palestiniens se sont rassemblés dans le camp de réfugiés de Jabalia, dans le nord de la bande de Gaza, arborant des banderoles et lançant des slogans comme "nous voulons de l'électricité". Alors qu'ils se dirigeaient vers le siège de la compagnie publique d'électricité dans le nord du territoire, les forces du Hamas ont tiré en l'air et dispersé avec des matraques les manifestants, selon un photographe de l'AFP. Plusieurs manifestants ont jeté des pierres sur le bâtiment. [...]
    Un photographe de l'AFP a dit avoir été frappé au visage avec une arme par un policier quand il a tenté de l'empêcher de lui prendre son appareil. Le photographe a été arrêté et la carte mémoire de son appareil confisquée. Il a été conduit sous escorte à l'hôpital où il a eu trois points de suture avant d'être relâché et de récupérer sa carte mémoire.
    Un journaliste de l'agence de presse américaine Associated Press a lui été arrêté par des membres en civil des forces du Hamas qui l'ont forcé sous la menace d'une arme à leur donner ses téléphones portables, a rapporté l'Association de la presse étrangère (FPA) dans les Territoires palestiniens et en Israël. [...]
    Les problèmes d'alimentation en électricité ont été aggravés récemment par une querelle entre le Hamas et le Fatah, parti rival qui domine la Cisjordanie, au sujet de taxes à payer sur le combustible importé dans le territoire. Les Gazaouis, tributaires pour les deux tiers de l'assistance internationale, dépendent pour leur alimentation en courant d'une centrale ainsi que des importations en provenance d'Israël et d'Égypte."

- Israel increases aid to Gaza Strip (Ynet) - "In a series of moves approved by the Minister of Defense, Israel will begin allowing more fuel, building equipment, vehicles and workers to be transferred to and from the Gaza Strip in light of recent quiet on the border area".

- L’ennemi de mon ennemi : le dégel entre l’Egypte et le Hamas (Times of Israel) - "Comme les dirigeants de Gaza combattent les salafistes, dont l’EI, la réconciliation partielle permet au Caire d’ouvrir son poste-frontière et de faire entrer des marchandises dans la bande de Gaza".


- Today is the beginning of the 13th year of of Mahmoud Abbas' four year term (Elder of Ziyon) - "In 2006, after one year in office, Abbas announced that he would not seek to remain the leader of the Palestinians after his term expires in 2009"; "In 2009, Abbas announced that he would extend his term in office for an additional year, in a very controversial move within Palestinian legal circles"; "By 2010, Abbas didn't even bother to pretend that he was allowed to extend his term legally - he just did. And he has remained the president for eight years past his term and eight years after he promised to step down".

- Ami Horowitz debunks John Kerry’s West Bank claims (Reportage 5mn37) - "Ami Horowitz travels to the Palestinian territory in the West Bank to see if John Kerry's claims that Israelis are prohibiting Palestinian's freedom of movement is actually true".


- Egypte : huit policiers tués par un camion piégé (AFP) - "Un kamikaze a foncé avec son camion rempli d'explosifs sur un barrage de sécurité dans la ville d'Al-Arish dans le nord du Sinaï et des hommes ont ensuite ouvert le feu sur les policiers" ; "De très nombreuses attaques visant l'armée et la police ont été commises dans le passé à Al-Arish et ses environs et ont été régulièrement revendiqués par Province du Sinaï, la branche égyptienne de l'Etat islamique".

- La coopération entre Israël et l’Egypte se renforce au Sinaï (Times of Israel) - "Le traité de paix de 1979 limite le nombre de soldats égyptiens dans le Sinaï, mais permet aux deux pays de changer ce nombre".


- Yémen : cinq morts dans un raid aérien sur une école primaire (AFP) - "Parmi les tués figurent deux enfants, le directeur et deux employés de l'école qui se trouve dans le district de Nihm, au nord-est de la capitale Sanaa, selon les sources médicale et militaire. Une source militaire gouvernementale a confirmé le raid aérien, accusant les rebelles pro-iraniens d'avoir placé des véhicules blindés près de l'école qui a été touchée par deux missiles à la suite d'une "erreur"."

- Guerre au Yémen : 1.400 enfants tués, 2.000 écoles hors d'usage (AFP) - "Selon l'Organisation mondiale de la santé (OMS), le conflit au Yémen a fait plus de 7.350 morts et 39.000 blessés en 20 mois, des chiffres qui incluent les civils et les combattants".


- L'Onu évoque des violations iraniennes d'un embargo sur les armes (Reuters) - "La direction des Nations unies a fait part au Conseil de sécurité de son inquiétude quant à de possibles violations commises par l'Iran en fournissant des armes au Hezbollah libanais".
   "[...] Le rapport semestriel a été soumis au Conseil de sécurité le 30 décembre par le secrétaire général sortant Ban Ki-moon, deux jours avant l'entrée en fonction de son successeur Antonio Guterres le 1er janvier.
   "Dans un discours diffusé sur la chaîne Al Manar TV le 24 juin 2016, Hassan Nasrallah, le secrétaire général du Hezbollah, a déclaré que le budget du Hezbollah, ses salaires, ses dépenses, ses armes et ses missiles venaient tous de la République islamique d'Iran", écrit Ban Ki-moon dans le rapport.
   "Je suis très préoccupé par cette déclaration, qui suggère que le transfert d'armes et de matériel associé de la République islamique d'Iran au Hezbollah puisse avoir été mené au mépris" d'une résolution du Conseil, ajoute-t-il. [...]
    Ce rapport est susceptible de relancer le débat sur l'accord sur le programme nucléaire iranien conclu en juillet 2015, qui a été vivement critiqué par le président-élu américain Donald Trump, qui entrera à la Maison blanche le 20 janvier.
    En novembre, devant les Nations unies, Israël avait accusé une organisation paramilitaire iranienne de livrer des armes à la milice chiite libanaise du Hezbollah au moyen de vols aériens commerciaux."

- Iran planned terror attacks against Israel advocates in Germany (JP) - "Iran’s intelligence agency allegedly planned terrorist attacks against organizations and representatives engaged in pro-Israel work in Germany, according to media reports citing the country’s federal prosecutor released on Friday"; "West German Broadcasting (WDR) reported Iran’s intelligence agency’s goal was to assassinate the former president of the German-Israel Friendship Society, Reinhold Robbe"; "Tehran’s targeting of a German politician is the first reported case of an Iranian intelligence operation working to assassinate a government representative in the Federal Republic"; "According to WDR, the motive for the attack – based on one security theory – is Iran’s desire to retaliate against Israeli advocates in Europe in the event that Israel launched air strikes to knock out Tehran’s nuclear facilities".
- Iran Planned Terror Attacks Against German Pro-Israel Advocates (CAMERA) - "Iran assassinated Iranian dissidents in Germany and Austria in the early 1990s and late 1980s, as CAMERA has noted (http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/09/iranian_agent_hides_in_washing.html) (see, for example “Iranian Agent Hides in Washington Post as U.S. Prof,” Sept. 8, 2015). Many of those attacks were both planned out of Iran's Berlin embassy. Henry Kissinger, the former U.S. Secretary of State, once argued that the Islamic Republic has to decide, “Whether it is a nation or a cause.” If Kissinger’s dictum is true, Iran’s decision seems clear".

- 74% des républicains soutiennent Israël contre 33% des démocrates (i24) - et 31% des démocrates soutiennent les Palestiniens (35% ni l'un ni l'autre).
   "La différence entre la proportion de Républicains et de démocrates qui apportent leur soutien à Israël plutôt qu'aux Palestiniens est la plus importante enregistrée depuis des sondages datant de 1978, selon un nouveau sondage.
    Alors que soixante-quatorze pour cent des républicains sympathisent davantage avec Israël qu'avec les Palestiniens, le nombre n'est que de trente-trois pour cent pour les démocrates, selon une enquête menée entre le 4 et 9 janvier par le Pew Research Center et publié jeudi.
    Onze pour cent des républicains sympathisent avec les Palestiniens plutôt qu'avec Israël, et quinze pour cent ne sympathisent ni avec l'un ni avec l'autre des deux côtés ou n'ont pas exprimé d'opinion. Chez les démocrates, ces chiffres correspondent respectivement à trente-et-un et trente-cinq pour cent. Parmi les "Démocrates libéraux" [genre Bernie Sanders ?], trente-huit pour cent des interrogés sympathisent davantage avec les Palestiniens alors que vingt-six pour cent sympathisent plutôt avec Israël.
    La proportion de républicains sympathisant davantage avec Israël a augmenté depuis 1978 alors qu'elle a diminué chez les démocrates. A cette date, quarante-neuf pour cent des républicains et quarante-quatre pour cent des démocrates apportaient davantage leur soutien à l'État juif, selon les données du Conseil des relations extérieures de Chicago obtenues par Pew. [...]"

- Afghanistan : les forces américaines reconnaissent avoir tué 33 civils afghans "en état de légitime défense" (AFP) - "Les États-Unis ont confirmé jeudi que leurs forces en Afghanistan avaient causé la mort de 33 civils afghans lors de frappes aériennes "en état de légitime défense" face aux talibans, en novembre 2016 près de Kunduz (nord)" ; "Des civils - hommes, femmes et enfants - étaient "vraisemblablement à l'intérieur des immeubles depuis lesquels les talibans tiraient", selon un rapport américain" ; "Selon la police locale, plusieurs enfants dont un nourrisson de trois mois figuraient parmi les morts".



- Une pétition contre le don d’Estrosi au KKL réunit près de 17 000 signatures (Times of Israel) - "La lettre accompagnant cette pétition, dans un style proche de la rhétorique du mouvement BDS, compare cette initiative à celle de l’ancien maire de Nice, Jacques Medecin qui avait inauguré en mai 1974 le jumelage entre Nice et Le Cap, pratiquant l’apartheid".
   "« Des citoyens azuréens » réclament au président de la région Provence Alpes Côte d’Azur le non versement du don de 50 000 euros promis au Keren Kayemeth Leisrael (KKL) lors de sa récente visite en Israël. Cette visite, prévue de longue date selon le cabinet de Christian Estrosi, était l’occasion pour lui de réaffirmer avec force son soutien à Israël après la résolution 2334 de l’ONU condamnant la « colonisation » israélienne.
    Arrivé en Israël durant la dernière semaine de décembre, Christian Estrosi s’est rendu sur les zones forestières touchées par les incendies ayant ravagé le nord du pays. Accueilli sur place par le KKL le président de la région PACA a promis à cette occasion un don de 50 000 euros pour reboiser ces forêts : « Avec le soutien de ma majorité régionale, une subvention de 50 000 euros sera versée au courant du premier trimestre au KKL par la région Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur pour contribuer au reboisement de la forêt détruite, » avait-il déclaré.
    A ce jour, 16 478 personnes ont signé cette pétition qualifiant de « coloniale » l’activité du KKL. La lettre accompagnant cette pétition, dans un style proche de la rhétorique du mouvement BDS, compare cette initiative à celle de l’ancien maire de Nice, Jacques Medecin qui avait inauguré en mai 1974 le jumelage entre Nice et Le Cap, pratiquant l’apartheid."

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
8 janvier 2017 7 08 /01 /janvier /2017 21:57

- Fatah honors terrorist Dalal Mughrabi at "52nd anniversary" celebrations (Elder of Ziyon) - "According to the leaked minutes of meetings between John Kerry and Susan Rice and Palestinian leaders, the Americans "praised 'Abbas's courage, positions, leadership, and adherence to the culture of peace and to peace as a strategic option." These photos show what kind of a "culture of peace" Mahmoud Abbas has built in the territories he controls. The celebrations included boys in military uniforms [image 1]. Lots of masked Fatah members, imitating if not being actual terrorists [image 2]. Armed terrorists as well [image 3]. And large posters of Fatahs' heroes: Arafat, Abbas, and terrorist Dalal Mughrabi [image 4]".

Images du 8 janvier
Images du 8 janvier
Images du 8 janvier
Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
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".
- 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"."

- 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. »"

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".
   "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)

- 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".
   "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.

"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".

- 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".

- 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".
   "[...] 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.
   "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!"

Gaza & Hamas

- Le Hamas cherche toujours à rompre le calme fragile en Israël (i24)
  "[...] 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".

- 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".
   "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".

- To get hospitalized in Gaza, you need either connections or money (Elder of Ziyon)
   "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."

Monde arabe

- 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".

- 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".


- Le voyage de Christian Estrosi en Israël fait polémique (Ouest France)
   "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".

- Auchan : des produits estampillés «Colonies israéliennes» (Le Figaro.fr) - "L'initiative viendrait d'un employé pro-Palestine du magasin".


- Une région espagnole aurait décidé de boycotter Israël (JTA) - "La communauté valencienne, semi-autonome, se serait “déclarée un espace libre de l’apartheid israélien”."
Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
30 décembre 2016 5 30 /12 /décembre /2016 22:55

Vladik Sandler (TICP)

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
30 décembre 2016 5 30 /12 /décembre /2016 22:54
Résolution 2334

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

Réactions internationales

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

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

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

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


"Processus de paix"

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


- Les fausses informations ne sont pas nouvelles : elles ont conduit des juifs au bûcher au XVe siècle, Emeline Amétis (Slate)«Aujourd’hui, ces fausses histoires de juifs "buveurs de sang" — qui remontent au XIIe siècle — sont reconnues comme faisant partie des fondements de l’antisémitisme par les historiens».
   "Vous pensez le problème des fausses informations récent ? Qu'il est en partie dû aux réseaux sociaux ? Détrompez-vous, il existe depuis l’invention de l’imprimerie par Johannes Gutenberg en 1439, rapporte Politico Magazine.
    Dejà en 1475, les fausses informations avaient des conséquences tragiques. Cette année-là en Italie, un enfant de 2 ans et demi est porté disparu dans la province de Trente. Le jour du dimanche de Pâques, le prêtre franscicain Bernardin de Feltre fait de cette disparition le sujet de son prêche : pour lui, c’est sûr, c’est la communauté juive qui a commandé le meurtre du petit Simonino pour célébrer la Pâque juive en buvant son sang. La rumeur se diffuse. Le prêtre en rajoute en clamant à qui veut l’entendre que le corps du petit garçon a été retrouvé dans la cave d’une famille juive. Le prince-évêque de la province, Johannes IV Hinderbach, prend alors la décision de faire arrêter et torturer tous les juifs de Trente. Quinze d’entre eux ont été jugés coupables et brûlés au bûcher. «Cette histoire a inspiré des communautés environnantes à commettre des atrocités similaires», raconte Politico.
    Si la papauté a reconnu que les accusations de Bernardin de Feltre étaient fausses, le prince-évêque, se sentant menacé, a continué à propager de fausses informations au sujet des juifs «buveurs de sang d’enfants chrétiens». Pour s’attirer la faveur du peuple, Johannes IV Hinderbach a canonisé le petit Simonino, devenu Saint-Simon, en lui attribuant des centaines de miracles.
    La ferveur populaire pour ces thèses antisémites rendait l’intervention de la papauté impossible. «Aujourd’hui, ces fausses histoires de juifs "buveurs de sang" — qui remontent au XIIe siècle — sont reconnues comme faisant partie des fondements de l’antisémitisme par les historiens», souligne Politico.
    La propagande nazie s’est d’ailleurs servi de ces rumeurs du XVe siècle. «Ce qui est sans doute le plus terrifiant, c’est de constater la longévité et la puissance des fausses informations», regrette le site d’information. «Un site antisémite clame toujours que ces histoires de juifs "buveurs de sang" sont vraies. Certaines fausses informations ne meurent jamais.»"
Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
29 décembre 2016 4 29 /12 /décembre /2016 23:21

- Here's how much Abbas' Fatah wants peace (Elder of Ziyon) - "Munir Aljagub, Fatah's media director who is quoted often as a Fatah spokesman, poses with one of his favorite cartoons. It shows Hamas and Fatah shaking hands to become a weapon to shoot Israel together with. So it indeed shows how much Fatah wants peace - with Hamas. And for only one purpose".

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
29 décembre 2016 4 29 /12 /décembre /2016 23:20
Discours de Kerry
- Paix israélo-palestinienne – Les 6 “Paramètres Kerry” revus à la loupe, Raphael Ahren (Times of Israel) - "Washington reconnaît depuis longtemps Israël en tant qu’Etat Juif, et bien qu’ait été demandée aux Palestiniens la même reconnaissance – ce qui est l’une des deux conditions essentielles posées par Netanyahu à la réalisation d’un accord de paix – cette exigence ne figurait pas dans les paramètres de Clinton. L’appropriation par Kerry de cette requête de reconnaissance de Netanyahu est une véritable réussite pour le Premier ministre, même s’il n’en a pas crédité le Secrétaire d’Etat. [...] A part les Etats Unis, le Canada et l’Allemagne, peu de pays ont montré une quelconque sympathie à la demande de Netanyahu" ; "[au sujet de Jérusalem], il a présenté moins de spécificités que Clinton, qui avait proposé que les “quartiers arabes soient arabes et que les quartiers juifs soient israéliens” et qui avait promis que les Israéliens garderaient le contrôle du mur Occidental tandis que les Palestiniens conserveraient celui du reste du mont du Temple. Le statut de Jérusalem a toujours été le point le plus délicat de toutes les négociations consacrées au statut final et le discours de Kerry n’a rien fait pour proposer une solution" ; "En appelant la création d’un état palestinien qui soit « non-militarisé », Kerry vient soutenir une autre demande essentielle de Netanyahu après la reconnaissance de l’état juif".

- Remarks on Middle East Peace, John Kerry (Secretary of State) - car ils existent tout de même (malgré leur brièveté en regard de l'ensemble), voici les passages positifs pour le camp israélien que j'avais relevés hier, en version originale et intégrale. Ce n'est pas le genre de propos qu'on pourrait entendre de la part d'un homme politique français.

    1) sur l'incitation palestinienne à la haine et le terrorisme du Hamas :

   "This sense of hopelessness among Israelis is exacerbated by the continuing violence, terrorist attacks against civilians and incitement, which are destroying belief in the possibility of peace.
    Let me say it again: There is absolutely no justification for terrorism, and there never will be.
    And the most recent wave of Palestinian violence has included hundreds of terrorist attacks in the past year, including stabbings, shootings, vehicular attacks and bombings, many by individuals who have been radicalized by social media. Yet the murderers of innocents are still glorified on Fatah websites, including showing attackers next to Palestinian leaders following attacks. And despite statements by President Abbas and his party’s leaders making clear their opposition to violence, too often they send a different message by failing to condemn specific terrorist attacks and naming public squares, streets and schools after terrorists.
    President Obama and I have made it clear to the Palestinian leadership countless times, publicly and privately, that all incitement to violence must stop. We have consistently condemned violence and terrorism, and even condemned the Palestinian leadership for not condemning it.
    Far too often, the Palestinians have pursued efforts to delegitimize Israel in international fora. We have strongly opposed these initiatives, including the recent wholly unbalanced and inflammatory UNESCO resolution regarding Jerusalem. And we have made clear our strong opposition to Palestinian efforts against Israel at the ICC, which only sets back the prospects for peace.
    And we all understand that the Palestinian Authority has a lot more to do to strengthen its institutions and improve governance.
    Most troubling of all, Hamas continues to pursue an extremist agenda: they refuse to accept Israel’s very right to exist. They have a one-state vision of their own: all of the land is Palestine. Hamas and other radical factions are responsible for the most explicit forms of incitement to violence, and many of the images that they use are truly appalling. And they are willing to kill innocents in Israel and put the people of Gaza at risk in order to advance that agenda."
    2) sur l'environnement anti-israélien et la possibilité d'une paix immédiate :
   "we all understand that Israel faces very serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. Israelis are rightfully concerned about making sure that there is not a new terrorist haven right next door to them, often referencing what’s happened with Gaza, and we understand that and we believe there are ways to meet those needs of security. And Israelis are fully justified in decrying attempts to delegitimize their state and question the right of a Jewish state to exist. But this vote was not about that. It was about actions that Israelis and Palestinians are taking that are increasingly rendering a two-state solution impossible. It was not about making peace with the Palestinians now – it was about making sure that peace with the Palestinians will be possible in the future.
    Now, we all understand that Israel faces extraordinary, serious threats in a very tough neighborhood. And Israelis are very correct in making sure that there’s not a terrorist haven right on their border.
    But this vote – I can’t emphasize enough – is not about the possibility of arriving at an agreement that’s going to resolve that overnight or in one year or two years. This is about a longer process. This is about how we make peace with the Palestinians in the future but preserve the capacity to do so."
    3) sur la reconnaissance palestinienne d'un Etat du peuple juif :
   "Principle two: Fulfill the vision of the UN General Assembly Resolution 181 of two states for two peoples, one Jewish and one Arab, with mutual recognition and full equal rights for all their respective citizens.
    This has been the fundamental – the foundational principle of the two-state solution from the beginning: creating a state for the Jewish people and a state for the Palestinian people, where each can achieve their national aspirations. And Resolution 181 is incorporated into the foundational documents of both the Israelis and Palestinians. Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state has been the U.S. position for years, and based on my conversations in these last months, I am absolutely convinced that many others are now prepared to accept it as well – provided the need for a Palestinian state is also addressed.
    We also know that there are some 1.7 million Arab citizens who call Israel their home and must now and always be able to live as equal citizens, which makes this a difficult issue for Palestinians and others in the Arab world. That’s why it is so important that in recognizing each other’s homeland – Israel for the Jewish people and Palestine for the Palestinian people – both sides reaffirm their commitment to upholding full equal rights for all of their respective citizens."
    4) sur les besoins sécuritaires israéliens :
   "Principle five: Satisfy Israel’s security needs and bring a full end, ultimately, to the occupation, while ensuring that Israel can defend itself effectively and that Palestine can provide security for its people in a sovereign and non-militarized state.
    Security is the fundamental issue for Israel together with a couple of others I’ve mentioned, but security is critical. Everyone understands that no Israeli Government can ever accept an agreement that does not satisfy its security needs or that risk creating an enduring security threat like Gaza transferred to the West Bank. And Israel must be able to defend itself effectively, including against terrorism and other regional threats."

- Le seul mot qu’il n’a pas prononcé est celui d’Apartheid, David Horovitz (Times of Israel) - "Nous avons quitté le Sud-Liban, le Hezbollah s’en est emparé. Nous avons quitté Gaza. La Bande est dorénavant dirigée par le Hamas. Lorsque le Secrétaire d’Etat exprime sa “confiance totale” que les exigences sécuritaires israéliennes puissent être garanties via des défenses frontalières à couches multiples et autres, il ne fait que perdre Israël".
   "[...] le secrétaire d’Etat et son président ont déjà perdu la sympathie d’une grande partie de l’opinion publique israélienne il y a longtemps, même parmi un grand nombre d’Israéliens somme toute critiques des activités d’implantation.
    Parce que les deux hommes ont sous-estimé la profondeur de l’opposition palestinienne au simple fait de l’existence d’un état juif. Le président et son Secrétaire ont sous-estimé également les blessures conséquentes – physiques et psychologiques – que l’opinion publique israélienne a accumulé tout au long de décennies de guerre, de terrorisme et de diabolisation, les Palestiniens et ceux qui ont épousé leur cause n’ayant cessé de rechercher la destruction d’Israël.
    Kerry a articulé des mots, mercredi, évoquant ce monde arabe qui avait rejeté le renouveau de l’état juif à la fin des années 1940 et qui était parti en guerre contre lui. Il a rappelé fortement qu’Israël avait dû combattre pour sa survie une fois encore en 1967. Il a mentionné le terrorisme, les incitations.
    Mais l’administration Obama n’a jamais véritablement intériorisé l’impact de ces décennies interminables de lutte contre les tentatives de destruction. Et Kerry n’a bien évidemment jamais eu la volonté d’intérioriser que, dans le Moyen-Orient vicieux de ces dernières années, évoquer la possibilité d’abandonner le contrôle sur l’histoire de la Cisjordanie adjacente – avec sa récente histoire d’usines à kamikazes pour attentats à la bombe, avec le Hamas qui cherche à en prendre la maîtrise, avec un Iran hostile enhardi à l’est par le propre accord sur le nucléaire de la même administration Obama – cette évocation n’est simplement pour les Israéliens que du bavardage.
    Nous avons quitté le Sud-Liban, le Hezbollah s’en est emparé. Nous avons quitté Gaza. La Bande est dorénavant dirigée par le Hamas. Lorsque le Secrétaire d’Etat exprime sa “confiance totale” que les exigences sécuritaires israéliennes puissent être garanties via des défenses frontalières à couches multiples et autres, il ne fait que perdre Israël. [...]
    Il aurait eu plus de chance de réussite – ou tout du moins, la possibilité de créer un climat où les perspectives de paix auraient été plus brillantes – s’il avait concentré plus son attention sur le climat toxique parmi les Palestiniens.
    Ces derniers sont éduqués sans relâche à l’idée de l’illégitimité d’Israël, à travers des récits narratifs répétés sans cesse sur les médias sociaux, par leurs dirigeants politiques et spirituels, parfois même au sein de leurs écoles. Il n’a jamais stratégiquement tenté de gérer ce processus d’endoctrinement. Il est plus facile de blâmer de manière démesurée les habitants des implantations que les Palestiniens. [...]"

- The US continues to award Palestinians for intransigence - 2 major changes in US policy today (Elder of Ziyon) - "In 2011, President Obama for the first time said that any peace plan must adhere to the 1967 lines with equal land swaps - a completely new US position, giving Palestinians far more than the Clinton parameters envisioned, and also a reward for Palestinian refusal to counter earlier Israeli offers for peace. And today, John Kerry gave two major new concessions to the Palestinians as a reward for their refusal to even talk to Israel for years".
   "John Kerry's speech on Wednesday gave Palestinians two more gifts from the US today - rewards for their adamant refusal to compromise.
    Kerry said that Israel must do more concrete moves for peace - stopping building, giving more power to the PA - in order to build confidence towards a two state solution. There were no such concrete demands on the Palestinian side, only wishy washy requests to stop incitement and terror - with no consequences if they refuse.
    As has been pointed out before, Mahmoud Abbas has bragged on multiple occasions that he has not changed the Palestinian position one bit since 1988.
    Since then, the Israeli side has given the Palestinians autonomy, land, and allowed them to arm themselves. It has released scores of murderers and terrorists from prison.
    The Palestinians have responded with suicide bombings, stabbings, shootings, rocket fire, more incitement and more overt support of terrorists. Israel has made all the concessions. (Unless you count the Palestinian Authority stopping terror attacks to be a "concession," which mean you consider Palestinians to be murderers by nature and want to reward them for acting like normal humans.)
    And the US has rewarded the intransigent side.
    In 2001, the US officially said that the Palestinians should have a state - a wonderful reward for the outbreak of the second intifada.
    In 2011, President Obama for the first time said that any peace plan must adhere to the 1967 lines with equal land swaps - a completely new US position, giving Palestinians far more than the Clinton parameters envisioned, and also a reward for Palestinian refusal to counter earlier Israeli offers for peace.
    And today, John Kerry gave two major new concessions to the Palestinians as a reward for their refusal to even talk to Israel for years.
    One was to say that Jerusalem must be the capital of two states. His specific words were "Jerusalem as the internationally recognized capital of the two states."
    This was never officially stated by the US before.
    The other major change was that the US changed its characterizations of Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria from being "illegitimate" to now reverting to language from the Carter era that they are "inconsistent with international law." The very first veto at the UN Security Council by the Obama administration in 2011 was for a resolution that called the settlements illegal, now Kerry says that this is official US policy.
    That is two major changes in Obama's policy towards Israel today, and (at least) three during his administration, all of them in favor of Palestinians who have not even deigned to negotiate with Israel after months of pleading by the US. [...]"

- Did Secretary Kerry Get His Facts Straight?, Alex Safian (PhD, CAMERA) - "In support of the administration, Mr. Kerry made a number of claims, including that other presidents had allowed similar resolutions to pass".
   "In the wake of the Obama administration's decision to allow a UN Resolution harshly critical of Israel to pass in the Security Council, Secretary of State John F. Kerry today gave an extended speech at the State Department justifying and defending the resolution.
    In support of the administration, Mr. Kerry made a number of claims, including that other presidents had allowed similar resolutions to pass:
   "But remember it's important to note that every United States administration, Republican and Democratic, has opposed settlements as contrary to the prospects for peace, and action at the UN Security Council is far from unprecedented. In fact, previous administrations of both political parties have allowed resolutions that were critical of Israel to pass, including on settlements. On dozens of occasions under George W. Bush alone, the council passed six resolutions that Israel opposed, including one that endorsed a plan calling for a complete freeze on settlements, including natural growth."
    Unfortunately, Mr. Kerry is being less than accurate here – except for President Carter no such resolutions have been allowed to pass. In the bolded section above Mr. Kerry is referring to UNSC Res. 1515, which endorsed the so-called Road Map. But the freeze called for in the first phase of the Road Map was temporary, and depended on the Palestinians living up to their commitments under the plan, which they manifestly failed to do.
    In the next paragraph of his speech Mr. Kerry was just as inaccurate:
   "Let me read you the lead paragraph from a New York Times story dated December 23rd. I quote: "With the United States abstaining, the Security Council adopted a resolution today strongly deploring Israel's handling of the disturbances in the occupied territories," which the resolution defined as including Jerusalem. All of the 14 other Security Council members voted in favor. My friends, that story was not written last week. It was written December 23rd, 1987, 26 years to the day that we voted last week, when Ronald Reagan was president."
    Mr. Kerry is here referring to Res. 605, which said nothing at all about settlements or their alleged illegality and that is what the present controversy is all about. In other words, Res. 605 offers no support whatsoever for Mr. Kerry's claims.
    And since Mr. Kerry brings up President Reagan, let's recall that Mr. Reagan's position was that settlements were "not illegal."
    What does it say about the case Mr. Kerry is trying to make that he and his many researchers at the State Department couldn't come up with better "facts"– like, for example, ones that are actually true?"

Résolution 2334

- Joining the Jackals: The Case Against U.N. Resolution 2334 (An open letter from UN Watch executive director Hillel Neuer to U.S. Ambassador Samantha Power) - s'il y avait une seule tribune à lire sur le sujet, ce serait sans doute celle-ci. Elle reste inégalée par sa clarté dans la synthèse, et par l'exhaustivité des arguments en présence.
   "Dear Ambassador Power,
    I write in response to your abstention on Friday which allowed a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel, and in response to the substantial explanation of vote that you delivered. With even further U.N. measures still possible before President Obama leaves office on January 20th, I urge you and the Administration—where you play an influential role as a member of the President’s Cabinet, and as one of President Obama’s most trusted advisors—to reconsider your approach.
    Your speech on Friday had much to applaud. As you have vigorously done for three years, your remarks exposed in compelling detail the U.N. double standard applied to the Jewish state, which, you rightly said, “not only hurts Israel, it undermines the legitimacy of the United Nations itself.”
    As you noted last year on the 40th anniversary of the infamous Zionism is Racism resolution, at the U.N. “rarely a day goes by without some effort to delegitimize Israel.” On that occasion, you called for everyone to “relentlessly fight back” against this “ignorance and hatred.”
    Your vote on Friday, however, makes a dramatic break with all of this. While it is perfectly legitimate to disagree with Israel about settlements, allowing Resolution 2334 to pass was morally wrong and strategically damaging. As set forth below, we believe the U.S. decision to acquiesce in the adoption of this lopsided resolution reverses decades of past practice, sets back the cause of peace, and harms the interests of Israelis, Palestinians, and Americans.
    Immediate and compelling evidence demonstrates that the Administration has failed to achieve its objective, which you articulated as promoting the two-state solution.
    Secretary Kerry’s speech yesterday failed to acknowledge the telling fact that Israel’s mainstream society, including leading supporters of the two-state solution, have sharply rejected the U.N. resolution, and criticized the U.S. role in its advancement and adoption.
    - Isaac Herzog, leader of the opposition and chairman of the Labor Party—whom you recently recognized for being “so principled on behalf of peace”—called for Resolution 2334 to be annulled, saying it caused “severe damage.”
    - Similarly, his colleague, former foreign minister Tzipi Livni, who led efforts to achieve a two-state solution at the Annapolis Conference, and who welcomed the 2008 Security Council resolution endorsing that summit, said by contrast that Friday’s U.S.-backed resolution “harms the interests of Israel,” “harms Jerusalem,” and threatens to haul Israeli officers to the International Criminal Court.
    - Yair Lapid, chair of the Yesh Atid opposition party, who has endorsed the Saudi-Arab Peace Initiative as a basis for peace talks, and who opposes the proposed Knesset bill to legalize outposts which you cited on Friday, called the U.N. resolution “dangerous”, “unfair”, and “an act of hypocrisy.”
    - Ehud Barak, who as prime minister went to Camp David in 2000 and extended an unprecedented and far-reaching peace offer to the Palestinians, called this resolution a “humiliating blow to Israel.”
    - Amos Yadlin, head of Tel Aviv University’s Institute for National Security Studies, the country’s most influential think tank, and another prominent supporter of the two-state solution, said that the resolution was “extremely problematic for Israel and the peace process alike,” and he accused President Obama of committing “a severe anti-Israeli move” which “harmed the United States’ staunchest ally in the Middle East.”
    To be sure, all of these left-leaning figures faulted or admonished Prime Minister Netanyahu for failing to head off the blow. Yet neither President Obama, Secretary Kerry or anyone else in your Administration has yet addressed the astonishing fact that their closest Israeli political allies and interlocutors in promoting the peace process have uniformly denounced an action which you claim will advance their position.
    By contrast, are you not troubled that among the first to endorse the resolution were the terrorist groups Hamas and Islamic Jihad? “Hamas commends the countries that voiced their opposition to the Israeli occupation’s aggressive settlement policy aimed against the Palestinian people,” said Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum. Hamas praised “the important about-face in the international position in favor of the Palestinian people.” Iran-backed Islamic Jihad welcomed the U.S.-backed resolution, saying, “It’s plain to see the world opinion is against Israel and its policies,” and “now Israel can be isolated and boycotted, as well as prosecuted in the international arena for all its crimes.”
    To understand why, by contrast, so many supporters of Israeli-Palestinian peace oppose what you did on Friday, I urge you and the Administration to consider the following 12 points:
    1. Resolution 2334 Encourages Palestinian Rejectionism, Undermines Negotiations
    The resolution dangerously disincentivizes Palestinians to come to the negotiating table. Instead, Resolution 2334 will for the foreseeable future encourage them to await being handed the same or more by international fiat. This will feed into the Palestinian strategy of preferring to deal with international institutions over bilateral talks with Israel. Contrary to its stated objective, therefore, the resolution will only push negotiations further away.
    In this regard, we recall that in 2011, your predecessor Susan Rice vetoed a similar resolution on the grounds that it risked “hardening the positions of both sides,” and “could encourage the parties to stay out of negotiations.” She said it was “unwise for this Council to attempt to resolve the core issues that divide Israelis and Palestinians.”
    Though your speech claims that circumstances have now changed, many will see the only meaningful difference as the fact that the current transition period allows a president to make unpopular decisions at no political cost.
    2. Resolution Fuels Palestinian Targeting of Israelis with BDS & International Prosecutions
    Secretary of State John Kerry pledged this month to oppose any “biased, unfair resolution calculated to delegitimize Israel.” And though he likewise said on Friday after the vote that he is proud of “defending Israel against any efforts to undermine its security or legitimacy in international fora,” and “steadfastly opposing boycotts, divestment campaigns and sanctions targeting the State of Israel,” the fact is that these are precisely the efforts empowered by Resolution 2334.
    Friday’s text not only provides the first Security Council endorsement of the scandalous 2004 ICJ advisory opinion, which denied Israel’s right to defend itself from Gaza rockets, but it implicitly encourages the International Criminal Court (ICC) to move forward in its preliminary examination of whether Israeli officials have engaged in the “war crime” of settlement building, and provides the same impetus to prosecutions in national courts that claim universal jurisdiction. If Tzipi Livni was already being served with UK arrest warrants before, Resolution 2334 will only aggravate anti-Israel lawfare. The U.S. should never have lent its hand to a campaign designed to delegitimize Israeli civil and military leaders as criminals.
    Moreover, the resolution’s appeal to all states to take action, in paragraph 5, is a clear call to escalate campaigns seeking to boycott Israeli products, companies and citizens. Certainly the UN Human Rights Council will feel empowered to continue preparing its blacklist of Israeli companies that do business over the green line, due in March. Meanwhile, the resolution’s mandated reports by the Secretary-General every three months will ensure constant activity.
    3. Contrary to U.S. Claims, Resolution Fails to Condemn Palestinian Incitement
    You said after the vote that the U.S. “would not have let this resolution pass had it not also addressed counterproductive actions by the Palestinians such as terrorism and incitement to violence.” Yet that is exactly what happened: the resolution that was adopted mentions terrorism and incitement only in the abstract; nowhere are these crimes attributed to Palestinians. Whereas Israel is named and shamed throughout the text, the Palestinians get a free pass. The U.S. reversed decades of past practice by allowing the adoption of such an unbalanced text.
    The failure of this resolution to truly confront Palestinian incitement is not inconsistent with your failure to speak out against the routine incitement to antisemitism and terrorism by Palestinian school principals and teachers at UNRWA, to which your Administration gave $380 million last year. We sent you petition after petition, supported by thousands worldwide, yet your only statements on UNRWA have been to defend or promote the organization, not to hold it accountable. I hope you will change your approach when we soon reveal the latest trove of UNRWA’s online incitement.
    4. Blames Israel as “Major Obstacle” to Peace, Yet Palestinians Evade Responsibility
    Despite the fact that the Palestinians refuse to negotiate without preconditions, refused to negotiate even during Israel’s 2009-2010 settlement freeze, rejected the Kerry framework principles, and are inciting to terrorism at the highest levels, they are spared in the resolution from any blame. Instead, the resolution accuses Israel alone of creating, with the settlements, “a major obstacle” to just, lasting and comprehensive peace.
    5. Failure to Distinguish Settlements Loses Israeli Mainstream
    By ignoring the 2000 Clinton Parameters, the Obama Administration unwisely managed to alienate itself from the vast majority of the Israeli population and political parties, who regard the Jewish Quarter, the Western Wall, and Jewish neighborhoods in eastern Jerusalem such as Ramot and Gilo as an integral part of Israel—all of which are defined in the resolution as “occupied Palestinian territory”—and likewise, the Israeli Jewish communities in the large settlement blocs such as Gush Etzion have for years been considered part of the Israeli consensus. The U.S. failure to distinguish between these and isolated, remote settlements is what doomed the U.N. resolution to complete rejection by Israeli society as a whole.
    6. Offensive to Call Jerusalem’s Jewish Holy Sites “Occupied Palestinian Territory”
    The resolution is offensive to Jews worldwide by absurdly defining the Jewish Quarter of Jerusalem, and the holiest Jewish sites of the Temple Mount and Western Wall, as “occupied Palestinian territory.” In describing your commitment to Israel as both personal and profound, you have on several occasions noted before Jewish and Israeli audiences that your son is a descendant, from his father’s side, of Rabbi Elijah, the 18th-century Lithuanian Jewish sage known as the Vilna Gaon, considered the greatest Talmudic scholar of his time.
    Given that the Gaon’s vision of return to the Land of Israel was a decisive factor in the rebuilding of the Jewish Quarter, by inspiring hundreds of his disciples to immigrate to Jerusalem in the early 19th century, and given that we are about to mark the 100th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration, which recognized the ancient, indigenous Jewish rights to the Holy Land—formalized internationally in the League of Nations Mandate on Palestine, which stated that the British Administration “shall encourage… close settlement by Jews, on the land”—I hope you will reconsider the logic of now criminalizing Jewish residents of the Jewish Quarter.
    7.  Seeks to Relitigate & Rewrite Cornerstone Resolution 242
    By injecting new language enshrining “the 4 June 1967 lines,” the resolution seeks to relitigate and rewrite U.N. Security Council Resolution 242 of November 1967, the cornerstone of Arab-Israeli peace negotiations over the past half-century—endorsed by the Palestinians at Oslo—which calls for the right of every state to live in peace within “secure and recognized boundaries” and for Israel to withdraw “from territories occupied.”
    Your predecessor Arthur Goldberg, former Supreme Court Justice and U.S. ambassador to the U.N. when 242 was enacted, made clear that the text’s “notable omissions in language” on withdrawal are the words “the,” “all,” and the “June 5, 1967, lines.” The choice of language was clear, he explained: “there is lacking a declaration requiring Israel to withdraw from the (or all the) territories occupied by it on and after June 5, 1967.”
    Instead, the resolution “stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.” And it “can be inferred from the incorporation of the words secure and recognized boundaries that the territorial adjustments to be made by the parties in their peace settlements could encompass less than a complete withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories.” Goldberg likewise told King Hussein in the lead-up to 242 that there was a “need for some territorial adjustment.”
    8. Explanation of Vote Misstates Longstanding U.S. Policy
    Your speech on Friday opened with a 1982 quote from President Ronald Reagan opposing settlements, and you argued that “our vote today is fully in line with the bipartisan history” of how American presidents have approached the issue. In fact, your speech was selective, excluding material statements by U.S. leaders rejecting the notion of return to the 1949 armistice lines, what Israeli statesman Abba Eban once called “Auschwitz borders.”
    - For example, you failed to quote the rest of President Reagan’s statement, in which he said: “I have personally followed and supported Israel’s heroic struggle for survival, ever since the founding of the State of Israel 34 years ago. In the pre-1967 borders Israel was barely 10 miles wide at its narrowest point. The bulk of Israel’s population lived within artillery range of hostile Arab armies. I am not about to ask Israel to live that way again.”
    - Nor did you quote President Lyndon Johnson who said: “We are not the ones to say where other nations should draw lines between them that will assure each the greatest security. It is clear, however, that a return to the situation of June 4, 1967, will not bring peace. There must be secure, and there must be recognized, borders.”
    - Likewise, you omitted Secretary of State Schultz’s 1988 statement: “The territorial issue needs to be addressed realistically. Israel will never negotiate from or return to the lines of partition or to the 1967 borders.”
    - The Clinton parameters of December 2000, which contemplates Israeli annexation of large settlement blocs, are also ignored by the resolution.
    9. U.S. Position Reneges on Commitments in 2004 Bush-Sharon Letters
    By allowing the resolution’s new language enshrining “the 4 June 1967 lines,” which are the 1949 armistice lines, the U.S. position reneges on the 2004 exchange of letters negotiated between Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and President George W. Bush. The Bush letter stated: “In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli populations centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949, and all previous efforts to negotiate a two-state solution have reached the same conclusion.”
    Prime Minister Sharon relied on the Bush commitments as part of negotiated package deal, being the consideration Israel received and relied upon in exchange for its total withdrawal from Gaza. When the U.S. ignores written commitments to allies, its international credibility is dangerously diminished. Moreover, the Bush letter severely undermines your claim that the U.S. vote on Friday was “fully in line” with prior history.
    10. Resolution Lacks Legitimacy in U.S. Opinion
    The resolution has been firmly rejected by the broad mainstream of American society, including by congressional leaders of President Obama’s own party:
    - Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) called the U.S. vote “frustrating, disappointing and confounding” and said it will move the Middle East farther from peace.
    - Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) was “deeply disappointed” that the administration “set aside longstanding U.S. policy to allow such a one-sided resolution to pass.”
    - The U.S. abstention on “such a flagrantly one-sided resolution,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Vt.), “is unconscionable.”
    - Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) said he was “dismayed that the Administration departed from decades of U.S. policy by not vetoing the U.N. resolution.”
    - Even President Obama’s former Special Envoy for Middle East Peace opposed the decision. “President Obama would have been wise to veto this resolution,” said George Mitchell, a former Senate majority leader, “because of the timing and the circumstance that it leads to with respect to trying to get the parties together.”
    - The Washington Post called the U.S. decision a “dangerous parting shot at Israel,” likely to do more harm than good.
    11. Reverses Decades of U.S. Practice
    There has not been a resolution like this in a generation, not since the Carter years in 1979 and 1980, and even those resolutions did not take place during a time of extreme anti-Israeli BDS campaigns and in the context of global anti-Israeli lawfare prosecutions sought in the ICC and elsewhere. This reverses decades of practice by both Democratic and Republican presidents. Moreover, unlike with the few other U.S-backed resolutions in history that criticized Israel from time to time, the nature of the coordination and the careful timing of this maneuver against a close ally make it seem particularly deliberate and hostile.
    12. Joining with Venezuela & Malaysia to Condemn Israel
    Whom you align with at the U.N. matters. I cannot think of another time in modern history when the U.S. endorsed a U.N. Security Council resolution co-sponsored by countries such as Venezuela, whose Maduro regime has thrown its opposition leaders in jail while causing mass starvation, and Malaysia, a hotbed of antisemitism.
    Speaking of Venezuela, whose political prisoners we have championed, I have to note that while Secretary Kerry said repeatedly yesterday that the U.S. “cannot, in good conscience, do nothing, and say nothing” in regard to Israeli settlements, your Administration has said nothing every year when we have appealed to you to oppose the election of tyrannies such as Venezuela to the U.N. Human Rights Council. You said nothing to stop the Maduro regime being elected last year; you said nothing to stop Saudi Arabia, China, and Cuba from getting elected this year; and you said nothing to stop Russia getting elected in 2013. Your Administration’s policy of speaking out when good conscience requires it ought to be less selective. [...]"

"Processus de paix"

- Israel has a history of offering peace to Palestinians and then being rejected (The Israel Project) - un rappel historique efficace des dernières tentatives d'obtenir accord de paix.
   "In a speech at the State Department on Wednesday, Secretary of State John Kerry cast the majority of the blame on the lack of Israeli-Palestinian peace on the Israelis, ignoring Israel’s history of repeatedly making risky overtures for peace with the Palestinians, only to receive terrorism in response.
    Israelis voted in Labor’s Ehud Barak to the premiership in 1999 specifically because he promised to make peace with the Palestinians; in 2000, he met with then-PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat at Camp David and offered the Palestinians 92% of the West Bank, all of the Gaza Strip, and eastern Jerusalem as its capital. Israel even proposed that a maximum of 100,000 refugees would be allowed to return to Israel on the basis of humanitarian considerations or family reunification, and an international fund would be created to compensate the Palestinians. Arafat rejected the offer.
    Sweetening the deal, the Clinton administration suggested that the Palestinians control 97% of the West Bank and the entirety of the Gaza Strip, with a land-link between the two, as well as a capital in East Jerusalem. Barak endorsed the Clinton Parameters; again, Arafat rejected them. After having rejected Israeli peace offers at Camp David with no counter-offers of his own, Arafat chose to launch the murderous Second Intifada, killing more than 1,500 Israelis between 2000 and 2005.
    In 2005, Israel withdrew from the Gaza Strip, only for that territory to be taken over by Hamas in a Palestinian civil war in 2007. Ever since, Hamas has used the Strip as a base from which to launch attacks on Israelis, using rockets and underground tunnels, and Gazans live under the grip of Hamas’ authoritarian rule.
    In 2008, then-Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert offered Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas 93.7% of the West Bank; the remaining 6.3% would be made up with land swaps. He also offered to take in 5,000 refugees over five years; an international committee to oversee Jerusalem’s holy sites; and an international fund consisting of billions of dollars, administered by Norwegians, to compensate Palestinian refugees. In a May 2009 interview with The Washington Post, Abbas admitted that he had turned down the offer and said, “The gaps were wide.”
    The government of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu agreed to an unprecedented 10-month freeze in settlement construction in November 2009 only for the Palestinians to say it was insufficient and then call for an extension when it expired. Netanyahu said he would do so if the Palestinian Authority recognized Israel as the Jewish state; the PA refused.
    When the Obama administration proposed a framework for a peace agreement in 2013, the Netanyahu government accepted it, while the Palestinians turned it down. Even still, Israel was willing to talk with the Palestinian Authority, until Fatah and Hamas announced a unity government in April 2014. Hamas refuses to reject violence and terror against Israel and Israel refuses to negotiate with it. The Palestinians adopted a policy of trying to skirt direct negotiations and internationalizing the conflict via the United Nations and other international fora."
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