Overblog Suivre ce blog
Administration Créer mon blog
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
29 décembre 2016 4 29 /12 /décembre /2016 00:01

- The UN is consistent (cartoon) (Elder of Ziyon) - "I tweeted this cartoon on Friday, changing the caption from the original WWI-era version to one that seems highly appropriate today. I didn't caption the pile of bodies "Syria" which would be highly appropriate, as it is conceivable that Israeli housing in "settlements" literally could be seen from a high enough vantage point in Syria. But the fact is that the UN has minimized dozens of far deadlier conflicts while remaining fixated on Israel for decades, so Syria is perhaps the most egregious example of how the UN's priorities are screwed up, it is far from the only one".

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
29 décembre 2016 4 29 /12 /décembre /2016 00:00
Discours de Kerry
- Israël : la diplomatie américaine insiste sur la nécessité d’une solution à deux Etats (AFP) - "Le secrétaire d’Etat [John Kerry] a accusé Israël d’avoir engagé « un projet exhaustif » pour s’approprier des terres en Cisjordanie. Selon lui, le statu quo au Proche-Orient mène à « une occupation perpétuelle », et la politique des colons « est en train de décider de l’avenir d’Israël ». « Quiconque réfléchissant sérieusement à la paix ne peut ignorer la réalité de la menace des colonies sur la paix », a-t-il ajouté".

- Netanyahu dénonce le discours "biaisé" de Kerry (AFP) - Nétanyahou : "Pendant plus d'une heure, il a traité de manière obsessionnelle des colonies et a à peine évoqué la racine du conflit à savoir l'opposition palestinienne à un Etat juif et ce quelles que soient ses frontières".
- Netanyahu tells Kerry: Israel doesn't need to be lectured about peace by foreign leaders (Ynet)
   "[...] He insisted that "No one wants peace more than the people of Israel," but such peace can only be achieved through direct negotiations, "This is how we made peace with Egypt. This is how we made peace with Jordan. It's the only way we're going to make peace with the Palestinians."
    Quoting from a speech outgoing President Barack Obama made at the UN in which he claimed that "Peace is hard and cannot be accomplished by speeches at the UN. If it could, it would have been done by now," Netanyahu stressed that "Until last week, this was exactly what the US has done."  [...]
   "I personally know the pain, loss and suffering of war. That's why I'm so committed to peace," said Netanyahu. "I want young Palestinian children to be educated like our children." Instead of this vision, however, Netanyahu said that "The Palestinian Authority educates them to lionize terrorists."
   "The Palestinian Authority tells them they should never accept the existence of a Jewish state," he added, asking: "How can you make peace with someone who rejects your very existence?" "This conflict is not about houses," reassured Netanyahu. "This conflict is about Israel's right to exist." He ended his speech by lamenting that "It's a shame that Secretary Kerry does not see this simple truth." [...]"

- Retour sur le discours de Kerry sur la paix israélo-palestinienne (Times of Israel)
L'ensemble est principalement consacré à critiquer Israël (apparemment perçu comme le premier obstacle à la paix), mais on trouve aussi quelques passages intéressants que les médias français ne reprendront certainement pas :
   "[...] Passant à l’incitation au terrorisme de la part des Palestiniens, Kerry a affirmé qu’il n’y a « absolument aucune justification » au terrorisme et a évoqué les atroces attaques de l’année passée inscrite dans un cycle de violence. « Les meurtriers des innocents sont glorifiés sur les sites web du Fatah, » a sincèrement regretté le secrétaire d’État, ajoutant le paradoxe des responsables de l’Autorité palestinienne qui renoncent publiquement au terrorisme mais qui en même temps envoient « un message différent » en nommant des places publiques pour honorer la mémoire des terroristes glorifiés en martyrs.
    Kerry a affirmé que les États-Unis ont condamné « la résolution déséquilibrée et inflammatoire de l’UNESCO au sujet de Jérusalem » et exhorte les Palestiniens à ne pas entamer de procédure juridique à la Cour pénale internationale.
    Le Hamas « continue d’adopter un agenda extrémiste » et refuse à Israël son droit d’exister, dit-il. Il évoque la crise humanitaire à Gaza. « Et en dépit de l’urgence du besoin, le Hamas et d’autres groupes de militants continuent de se réarmer », dit-il, « menaçant des attaques sur les civils israéliens, qu’aucun gouvernement ne peut tolérer. » [...]
    Il affirme que la reconnaissance d’Israël en tant qu’État juif est importante, et il sous-entend que les Palestiniens sont enclins à le faire, si Israël reconnaît une terre palestinienne. [...]
    Kerry préconise que les Palestiniens doivent construire un État non militarisé, ajoutant qu’il est possible de sécuriser les deux États avec l’aide de la Jordanie et de l’Égypte. [...]"

Résolution 2334

- Israël/Résolution ONU : un rapport égyptien confirme l’implication américaine (i24) - "Le quotidien égyptien Al-Youm Al-Sabea a annoncé mardi que, lors d'une réunion au début de décembre entre le négociateur palestinien Saeb Erekat et le secrétaire d'État américain John Kerry, les Etats-Unis étaient prêts à coopérer avec les Palestiniens au Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU" ; "Kerry aurait déclaré qu'il pourrait présenter ses idées pour une solution si les Palestiniens s'engagent à soutenir le cadre proposé. [...] Selon le rapport égyptien, les diplomates américains ont exprimé leur méfiance à l'égard de Netanyahou, disant qu'il voulait détruire la solution à deux États et était seulement intéressé à maintenir le statu quo entre Israël et les Palestiniens".

- Netanyahu: Arabs ‘ethnically cleansed’ Jews from West Bank (JP) - "“The anti-Israel resolution that just passed in the UN Security Council is based on the argument that Israel is ‘altering the demographic composition’ of Judea and Samaria,” Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. “The United Nations has consistently ignored the fact that Jews were ethnically cleansed from these territories in 1948, which is why there were no Jews in the area until after 1967”."
   "Not Israel, but the Arabs are responsible for “altering the demographic composition” of the West Bank by ethnically cleansing the area of Jews in 1948, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said on Tuesday, continuing his aggressive rhetoric against Friday’s anti-settlement resolution at the UN.
   “The anti-Israel resolution that just passed in the UN Security Council is based on the argument that Israel is ‘altering the demographic composition’ of Judea and Samaria,” Netanyahu wrote on his Facebook page Tuesday. “The United Nations has consistently ignored the fact that Jews were ethnically cleansed from these territories in 1948, which is why there were no Jews in the area until after 1967.” [...]
    Netanyahu pointed out that in 1929, it was the Arabs who massacred the Jews in Hebron; that in 1948, Jews were expelled and murdered in Gush Etzion, Kalya (near the Dead Sea) and Atarot, north of Jerusalem. “The Arab Legion also ethnically cleansed the Jews who were living in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem, and then blew up all of the synagogues there,” he wrote. “Not a single Jew remained in any of the territories conquered by the invading Arabs in 1948. The reaction of the United Nations to this reality? Silence.”
    Pointing out that the League of Nations in 1922 ratified the Balfour Declaration that “awarded national rights to the Jewish people – and only the Jewish people – in the Land of Israel,” Netanyahu said that this was later adopted by the UN and “is a binding document under international law that defines the international legal status of the Land of Israel.” The UN has no legal justification for its resolution on Friday, he wrote, “only ignorance and malice.” [...]"

- Abbas : Les Palestiniens prêts à reprendre les négociations si Israël cesse la « colonisation » (Times of Israel) - communiqué d'Abbas : "A la minute où le gouvernement israélien conviendra de mettre un terme à toutes les activités d’implantation, dont celles entreprises à Jérusalem-Est et à ses alentours, et acceptera d’appliquer les accords signés sur la base de la réciprocité mutuelle, les dirigeants palestiniens se disent prêts à la reprise de négociations portant sur le statut permanent sur la base de la loi internationale et des résolutions de légalité internationales pertinentes, parmi lesquelles la Résolution 2334 du Conseil de Sécurité des Nations unies".


- Israël suspend tout permis de construire à Jérusalem-Est (Reuters) - "La décision, a expliqué Hanan Rubin, membre du comité chargé de l'attribution des permis, a été prise à la demande du Premier ministre israélien, Benjamin Netanyahu, qui a souhaité ménager les Etats-Unis".


- L’OLP condamne le patriarche orthodoxe grec pour son éloge d’Israël (Times of Israel) - "Hanan Ashrawi, membre du Comité exécutif de l’OLP, a émis un communiqué condamnant le Patriarche Théophile III, coupable, selon elle, d’avoir salué la liberté de culte en Israël : “Nous sommes sérieusement préoccupés par la déclaration faite par le Patriarche orthodoxe grec de Jérusalem Théophile III, qui a salué Israël qui est selon lui une ‘démocratie’ qui ‘respecte la liberté de culte’. [...] Nous appelons le Patriarche Théophile III à oeuvrer en faveur de la justice et de la paix des opprimés, plutôt que de couvrir les violations quotidiennes des oppresseurs”."


- Syrie : 22 civils tués dans des raids aériens (AFP) - "Au moins 22 civils, dont dix enfants, ont péri dans des raids aériens menés par des avions inconnus sur un village tenu par le groupe jihadiste Etat islamique (EI) dans l'est de la Syrie, a indiqué aujourd'hui l'Observatoire syrien des droits de l'Homme (OSDH)".


- The US tells the UN to go to hell when questioned about lands it conquered during wartime (Elder of Ziyon) - "In other words, when the UN wants to help the residents of Guam to achieve self-determination, the US tells the UN to go to hell. No protests, no BDS.. The US can act with impunity towards the residents of Guam and keep the island as a colony despite UN attempts to work towards more independence. It is instructive to see that even democratic nations tell the UN to drop dead when it is in their interests to do so". Un exemple pour le moins instructif.


- Conférence sur le Proche-Orient : des "négociations directes entre les parties" sont nécessaires selon le président du Crif (France TV info)
   "[...] - franceinfo : Avigdor Liberman déclare que cette conférence [Conférence sur le Proche-Orient qui est prévue à Paris le 15 janvier] est "une version moderne du procès Dreyfus", est-ce acceptable ?
    - Francis Kalifat : Non. Néanmoins, cette conférence de la paix, qui doit se tenir à Paris hors de la présence des principaux concernés, peut éveiller chez les Israéliens la crainte que cela se transforme en tribunal anti-israélien. C'est souvent le cas dans toutes les instances internationales où l'on traite de ces problèmes. Je peux donc comprendre cette inquiétude.
    - En quoi une solution pacifique, en deux États, serait un tribunal contre Israël ?
    - Je crois que tout le monde est attaché à cette solution. Ce qui est compliqué dans cette affaire, c'est qu'on ne peut pas envisager un accord de paix qui puisse se faire hors des négociations directes entre les parties. Je n'arrive pas à comprendre l'obstination de la communauté internationale, de vouloir se lancer dans un accord de paix, sans la présence ni la négociation directe entre les parties. Je crois que c'est là où le bât blesse. [...]"
Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
27 décembre 2016 2 27 /12 /décembre /2016 23:29

- ElderToons: "Help! I'm being oppressed!" (Elder of Ziyon) - "the humanitarian provisions of Geneva wouldn't include things that don't affect the lives of the people at all. You can argue "occupation" affects them, but the Jewish communities don't. By the way, I took that picture".

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
27 décembre 2016 2 27 /12 /décembre /2016 23:28
Résolution 2334
- Video: UN Security Council cheers screwing Israel (Elder of Ziyon) - "I am curious if other Security Council resolutions elicit this kind of enthusiasm". Il faut avouer que la vidéo des applaudissements enthousiastes a quelque chose d'assez risible (pour ne pas dire terrifiant).

- Abbas : le vote de la résolution 2334 « ouvre la voie » à la conférence de Paris (Times of Israel) - "Le président de l’AP espère que la conférence de janvier renforcera la résolution qui a condamné la construction israélienne à Jérusalem Est et en Cisjordanie".

- Leaked Document: U.S. Colluded With Palestinians 10 Days Before UN Settlements Vote (Haaretz) - "If authentic, the document, leaked to an Egyptian website, confirms some of the claims voiced in Israel against Obama since the UN vote against the settlements last week".

- Netanyahu defends response to UN vote: 'Israel will not turn the other cheek' (JP) - "Netanyahu said that this type of response has an “accumulative effect,” even if there will be other efforts to harm us in the course of the coming month. He was referring to concerns that the Obama administration may set forth parameters for a Middle East solution that Israel opposes and finds inimical to its interests. “There is no alternative to a determined response, because it creates the basis for different relations afterward,” Netanyahu said".
   "[...] During an event in Ma’alot-Tarshiha to launch a new socioeconomic plan for the Galilee, Netanyahu said he read criticism in the morning papers of his aggressive responses to the vote. This response included recalling Israel’s ambassadors to Senegal and New Zealand, summoning in for protests the ambassadors and representatives of all the UN Security Council states, canceling the scheduled visit this week of the Ukrainian prime minister and calling on his ministers to curtail visits to the 14 Security Council states that voted for the measure.
   “Israel is a country with national pride and we do not turn the other cheek,” he said. “This is a rational, aggressive and responsible response, the natural reaction of a healthy nation that is making clear to the nations of the world that what was done in the UN is unacceptable to it.”
    Netanyahu said that this type of response has an “accumulative effect,” even if there will be other efforts to harm us in the course of the coming month. He was referring to concerns that the Obama administration may set forth parameters for a Middle East solution that Israel opposes and finds inimical to its interests. “There is no alternative to a determined response, because it creates the basis for different relations afterward,” Netanyahu said.
    Referring to a headline Monday morning on the front page of Maariv, Netanyahu said that to describe Israel’s reaction as a “world war” was absurd. “I say enough with this Diaspora mentality,” Netanyahu said. “I say there is no diplomatic wisdom in being obsequious. Not only will our relations with the world not be harmed, in the long term they will only improve, because the nations of the world respect strong countries that stand up for themselves. They do not respect weak and obsequious countries that bow their heads.” [...]
    Lurking behind this war of words was the continued concern in Jerusalem that Obama would initiate another move against Israel before leaving office in a little less than a month.
    [Senior White House official Ben] Rhodes said he would not describe what was being planned as a new initiative. "I think what Secretary Kerry will be doing is he will give a speech in which he will lay out a comprehensive vision for how we see the conflict being resolved; where we see things in 2016 as we unfortunately conclude our term in office without there being significant progress toward peace,?" he said.
    The concern in Jerusalem is that the parameters Kerry will lay out will be adopted as the new parameters for a resolution at a Middle East conference to be convened in Paris on January 15, and perhaps even formalized into yet another resolution that could be taken to the Security Council to essentially replace UN Security Council Resolution 242, which has been the basis of all peace efforts since 1967. [...]"

Analyse juridique

- The Dangers of UN Security Council Resolution 2334 (2016), Amb. Alan Baker (served as legal adviser and deputy director-general of Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and as Israel’s ambassador to Canada) - "While the resolution does not replace Security Council Resolution 242, which is the accepted and agreed basis for the Israel-Arab peace process, it nevertheless contains elements that attempt to modify Resolution 242 and to sway the negotiating process in a particular direction"; "This position taken by the United States (as well as the other members of the Security Council) also undermines the basic obligation of the Oslo Accords, signed by the PLO and witnessed by the United States (as well as the EU, Russia, Egypt and others), that the permanent status of the territories, the issues of Jerusalem, and borders are to be negotiated". Excellent résumé (et vraisemblablement le meilleur que j'ai pu lire à ce jour) des implications juridiques (et politiques) de la résolution 2334.
   "[...] Summary of Implications
    Following is a brief summary of the legal and quasi-legal implications of the resolution:
    1) The resolution (as all previous resolutions regarding Israel) was adopted under the sixth chapter of the UN Charter (Pacific Settlement of Disputes) and as such is not mandatory. It contains a series of political determinations and recommendations to the international community. The resolution does not make law, and as such, the determinations as to the lack of legal validity of Israel’s settlements are no more than declaratory.
    2) Much of the terminology repeats UN terminology and language used in previous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions (“inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by force,” “Palestinian territory occupied since 1967 including East Jerusalem,” “secure and recognized borders,” “violation (serious or flagrant) under international law,” the references to the lack of legal validity of settlements, and their being an “obstacle” or “major obstacle” to achieving a two-state solution).
    3) References in the tenth preambular paragraph to the fact that “the status quo is not sustainable” and “entrenching a one-state reality” are new and would appear to be inspired by, or even direct quotes from statements by President Obama, Secretary of State Kerry, and Vice President Biden.
    4) Similarly, expressions not previously included in major Security Council resolutions regarding the peace process, such as “two-state solution based on the 1967 lines” (operative paragraph seven), as well as the references in the ninth paragraph to the “Arab Peace Initiative” and the “principle of land for peace” as additional bases for peace, clearly are intended to instill concepts that have never been agreed-upon elements in the negotiating process.
    5) The call upon states in the fifth operative paragraph to distinguish between dealings between Israel-proper and the territories will also be used by BDS activists and states to buttress their boycott campaigns.
    6) The reference in the third operative paragraph to the “4 June 1967 lines” as a basis for negotiations would appear to be a new element, echoing statements by Obama and Kerry, and running counter to the 1967 Security Council resolution 242, which is the basis for all of the Arab-Israeli peace process, which calls for negotiation of “secure and recognized boundaries.” The Israeli-Palestinian Oslo Accords make no specific reference to the 1967 lines. As such this reference would appear to be an attempt to prejudge or unduly influence the negotiating issue of borders.
    7) Despite the declaratory and recommendatory determinations in the resolution attempting to prejudge the status of the territories, east Jerusalem, borders, and settlements, the resolution nevertheless would appear to contradict itself in that it goes on to reaffirm the call for negotiations on “all final status issues” (operative paragraph eight) and for “a comprehensive, just and lasting peace.”
    1) While the resolution does not replace Security Council Resolution 242, which is the accepted and agreed basis for the Israel-Arab peace process, it nevertheless contains elements that attempt to modify Resolution 242 and to sway the negotiating process in a particular direction.
    2) The resolution cannot, in and of itself, serve as grounds for legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other international tribunals. But clearly, it will be used by the Palestinian leadership as a political tool to buttress existing complaints. This despite the fact that the issues of Palestinian status vis-à-vis the ICC and the court’s jurisdiction regarding the territories have yet to be reviewed juridically. The fact that the ICC Prosecutor has recognized the accession of “the State of Palestine” to the ICC Statute and has accepted their complaints are political decisions.
    3) The resolution cannot, in and of itself, serve as grounds for legal proceedings in the International Criminal Court (ICC) or other international tribunals. But clearly, it will be used by the Palestinian leadership as a political tool to buttress existing complaints. This despite the fact that the issues of Palestinian status vis-à-vis the ICC and the court’s jurisdiction regarding the territories have yet to be reviewed juridically. The fact that the ICC Prosecutor has recognized the accession of “the State of Palestine” to the ICC Statute and has accepted their complaints are political decisions.
    4) This represents a serious, and even irresponsible departure from U.S. policy which has consistently advocated negotiated settlement of the issues of permanent status, Jerusalem, and borders.
    5) This position taken by the United States (as well as the other members of the Security Council) also undermines the basic obligation of the Oslo Accords, signed by the PLO and witnessed by the United States (as well as the EU, Russia, Egypt and others), that the permanent status of the territories, the issues of Jerusalem, and borders are to be negotiated.
    6) While the United States and Israel have entertained basic disagreements on settlement policy, the United States has consistently rejected, as a matter of basic policy, any attempt by the international community to prejudge this or the other permanent status negotiating issues.
    7) The outrage voiced by Israel with both the resolution itself and the Obama administration’s enabling it to pass stems from five basic components:
      - The text of the resolution, which is unprecedented in the extent of the condemnatory language used.
      - Israel’s frustration at the irresponsible behavior by the Obama administration.
      - The evident irreversibility of the resolution and the potential for future damage.
      - The imbalance between accusations of Israeli violations of the Oslo Accords and the Palestinians’ blatant violations of international law in their incitement and payment to terrorists.
      - The issue of settlements is not the core of the conflict. It remains the Palestinians’ refusal to recognize the Jewish State and its right to any part of the land west of the Jordan River."

- The fifty year plan to turn Israeli Jews into war criminals (Elder of Ziyon) - "The new UN resolution 2334, although not international law, is simply another in a series of never-ending actions that are all intended to do one thing: to twist, manipulate and create an international legal framework against Israel and only Israel". Un retour éclairant sur l'origine du fameux article 49 de la Convention de Genève, et sur les manipulations de son interprétation pour pouvoir qualifier de "crime de guerre" le simple fait d'habiter, pour un Juif israélien, au-delà de la Ligne verte.
   "The world claims that Israel violates the Geneva Conventions, Article 49, Paragraph 6: "The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
    The original intention of this paragraph was described by the International Committee of the Red Cross in 1958 this way: "This clause was adopted after some hesitation, by the XVIIth International Red Cross Conference (13). It is intended to prevent a practice adopted during the Second World War by certain Powers, which transferred portions of their own population to occupied territory for political and racial reasons or in order, as they claimed, to colonize those territories. Such transfers worsened the economic situation of the native population and endangered their separate existence as a race."
    They are referring in part to the German Generalplan Ost [plus d'infos en français sur ce plan et les transferts forcés ici], a far reaching plan to colonize most of Europe and to expel (or murder) anyone who the Germans felt were inferior - and replace them, forcibly if necessary, with Aryans.
    Only after 1967 did anyone think that this minor paragraph in a major article about forcible transfers of populations could apply to people who wanted to - voluntarily - return to the land of their ancestors in territory that was never under the legal sovereignty of a state.
    For fifty years, the anti-Israel community of nations have been steadily nudging international law to be interpreted in a way that Israel's actions of allowing Jews to voluntarily move to ancestral lands has gone from admirable to a war crime.
    The first thing they needed to do was to define Judea and Samaria  as "occupied territory," since Geneva only refers to occupied territory. They do this using a neat trick: since no one doubts that the provisions of Geneva are humanitarian and meant to protect the existing population, they ignore the official definition of "occupied" as defined in the Hague Conventions where the occupied territory must belong to a "state." They say that the laws of occupation must apply anyway, because the people in the territory must be protected whether they are residing in a state (a "high contracting party") or not.
    Israel always accepted that it would uphold the humanitarian provisions of Geneva for any non-citizen Arabs who live under its rule, but building houses and communities - nearly always away from Arab population centers - do not violate any humanitarian rules of Geneva.
    Israel's enemies claim that Geneva applies to the territories in total, meaning that they have won the argument that the territories are occupied,  and therefore they try to apply the paragraph about "transfer" to Jews who move voluntarily. The international community has acquiesced to this false interpretation of Geneva because nothing is more important than humanitarian considerations, so they say that Geneva must apply and ignore the fact that, strictly speaking, it doesn't.
    But that is still problematic to Israels enemies because it is obvious that this was not the intent of Geneva's framers and paragraph 6 was a bit vague. So the Additional Protocols for the Geneva Conventions were drafted in 1977 and they elevated this violation of international law into a "grave breach:"
   "4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:
    (a) the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention;"

    Note how Israel's enemies now placed a nation's transfer of its own population before the much worse issue of forcible deportation. This is language that was directed at Israel and only Israel.
    But there is still the problem of defining "transfer." In Geneva Article 49, the term is used seemingly only in reference to involuntary transfer, as every other use of that term in that article is clearly referring to deportations or forcible transfer.
    When the International Criminal Court was being created, the Arab nations seized the opportunity to upgrade Israel's "crime" once again. The Rome Statute lists as war crimes things like murder, torture, kidnapping, intentionally attacking civilians - and it added one more that had never been considered a war crime in history: "The transfer, directly or indirectly, by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies."
    Arab states insisted on adding the "directly or indirectly" terminology and the drafting committee caved to pressure. The only target of this was, again, Israel, which would now be considered criminal for not stopping Jews from moving to their historic lands. This is only one of many examples of how haters of Israel have managed to move the goalposts of international law, specifically against Israel and only Israel.
    The sober jurists and arbiters of international law have allowed themselves to be manipulated, between decades of propaganda and laziness at deciding to "compromise" with those who want to destroy Israel, into believing that allowing Jews to houses are war crimes on par with directly and purposefully attacking civilians.
    The biggest irony of all is that Geneva IV Article 49 is concerned with the huge human rights violations of forcible mass transfer of populations against their will - and yet the world is steadily moving towards using that very same human rights law to forcibly transfer hundreds of thousands of Jews out of their homes, many of whom have lived there all of their lives. It is not just a misinterpretation of Geneva - it is a perversion of Geneva. And it is only being directed at Jews. (Thousands of Israeli Arabs have moved over the Green Line without any peep of protest by the international community.)
    Perhaps the biggest perversion of all is that these legal instruments, in a sense, equate Israel with Nazi Germany. Many of the Geneva Conventions were specifically written to counter the worst kinds of human rights violations done by Nazi Germany in order to ensure that they never happen again. Now the same instruments of international law are singling out the Jewish State as a paradigm of what is considered evil - laws are being passed and approved by the entire international community specifically to target the primary victims of the Nazis whose actions led to Geneva to begin with.
    In this case, they aren't trying to ensure that these supposed war crimes never happen again. After all, there are settlers being implanted in Crimea, Western Sahara, Northern Cyprus and elsewhere, all without a peep from these supposed humanitarians who created these laws. The purpose of these laws have been and remains to delegitimize Israel and only Israel.
    The new UN resolution 2334, although not international law, is simply another in a series of never-ending actions that are all intended to do one thing: to twist, manipulate and create an international legal framework against Israel and only Israel. [...]"

Analyses politiques

- The United Nations Resolution on Israel, Elliott Abrams (Senior Fellow for Middle Eastern Studies) - "Over this past weekend, administration spokesmen have tried to defend this abandonment of Israel in truly Orwellian terms, inverting the meaning of their action. This was done to help Israel, you see, and to defend it; we know better where its interests lie than does its elected government (and main opposition parties); we abandoned Israel because we are its friend"; "The Obama account of settlement expansion is invented and avoids the facts to build a case against Israel. Netanyahu is not popular among settlers exactly because he has restrained settlement growth and as noted adopted a ten-month freeze".
   "[...] The resolution rewards the PLO for refusing to negotiate and adopts its tactic of replacing serious, face-to-face negotiations with useless dramas in New York. It is a danger to Israel. And by refusing to veto, the Obama administration abandoned the usual American practice of defending Israel from what Jeane Kirkpatrick called “the jackals” at the United Nations.
    Over this past weekend, administration spokesmen have tried to defend this abandonment of Israel in truly Orwellian terms, inverting the meaning of their action. This was done to help Israel, you see, and to defend it; we know better where its interests lie than does its elected government (and main opposition parties); we abandoned Israel because we are its friend. [...]
    Yes, the resolution “expresses the consensus international view on Israeli settlement activity,” which calls them illegal, and that is the point: until the Obama administration, the United States’s position was that they were unhelpful but not illegal. Therefore the resolution is not “consistent with longstanding bipartisan U.S. policy.”
    As to the pace of settlement activity, Mr. Rhodes is simply wrong. I’ve reviewed the statistics here, in Foreign Policy. There, Uri Sadot and I concluded that "A careful look into the numbers shows that neither the population balance between Jews and Palestinians, nor the options for partition in the West Bank have materially changed….Israeli population in the settlements is growing, but at a rate that reflects mostly births in families already there, and not in-migration of new settlers." In fact settlement growth has not “accelerated significantly” since 2011, whatever Mr. Rhodes says.
    His most disingenuous remark is about the failure of negotiations. Indeed the Obama/Kerry efforts failed, because the Palestinians refused to come to the table even when Israel undertook a ten-month construction freeze. One of Mr. Obama’s officials, Martin Indyk, said this in 2014 about those negotiations: "“Netanyahu moved to the zone of possible agreement. I saw him sweating bullets to find a way to reach an agreement,” said Indyk. Abbas, for his part, did not show flexibility, Indyk added. “We tried to get Abu Mazen to the zone of possible agreement but we were surprised to learn he had shut down.”"
    So what is to be done when the Palestinians refuse to negotiate? Punish Israel. Join the jackals in Turtle Bay. Adopt the PLO view that action in the United Nations will replace face-to-face talks. That was Mr. Obama’s decision.
    Mr. Rhodes’s twisted formulation “where is the evidence that not doing this is slowing the settlement construction?” is a kind of epitaph for Obama policy. He explained: “we have a body of evidence to assess how this Israeli government has responded to us not taking this kind of action, and that suggests that they will continue to accelerate the type of settlement construction that puts a two-state solution at risk.” Settlements expand if we veto resolutions, he is saying, so we have decided not to veto resolutions.
    This is precisely wrong, a true inversion of the truth. The Obama account of settlement expansion is invented and avoids the facts to build a case against Israel. Netanyahu is not popular among settlers exactly because he has restrained settlement growth and as noted adopted a ten-month freeze. In 2009 Hillary Clinton said “What the prime minister has offered in specifics on restraints on a policy of settlements … is unprecedented.” What has been the Obama reaction to his restraint, to his freeze, to the PLO refusal to negotiate?
    The reaction has been to blame Israel and assault Netanyahu year after year, including with childish epithets. And this attitude culminated finally in the abandonment of Israel at the United Nations. Supporters of strong Israel-American relations can only be glad that the 22nd Amendment limits presidents to two terms in the White House."

- Why This Resolution Was Different (Commentary) - "No previous American government made a point, as Obama has consistently done, of attacking Israel’s position in Jerusalem".
   "[...] Nothing Netanyahu did in the last eight years or even in the last few months was a departure from existing Israeli policies toward the territories. To the contrary, settlement growth slowed under his government, a fact that his right-wing critics have not missed. Nor has he stepped back from his willingness to negotiate a two-state solution.
    No previous American government made a point, as Obama has consistently done, of attacking Israel’s position in Jerusalem. Under the terms of this resolution, the Western Wall and other Jewish holy places in Jerusalem are considered to be Palestinian. This isn’t merely offensive to Jews. It’s a not so thinly veiled endorsement of the vicious Palestinian campaign at UNESCO and other UN bodies to deny Jewish history and religion by claiming Jerusalem’s holy places are exclusively Muslim.
    As Obama knew full well, the mischief that will ensue from Resolution 2334 will not be able to be undone by his successor. He took this vindictive act in full knowledge that it was the Palestinians who have turned down numerous offers of statehood. It may also be followed up in the days before January 20 with an even more damaging resolution that could recognize Palestinian statehood in the 1967 lines without forcing them to make peace with Israel first. Though Obama and his apologists may believe this is necessary to “save Israel from itself,” what he has done could actually finish the already remote hopes for peace for another generation. [...]"

- Radical moves will only deepen our diplomatic isolation, Maj. Gen. (res.) Amos Yadlin (executive director of Tel Aviv University's Institute for National Security Studies (INSS)) - "The root of the problem is a wrong perception of reality by US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Obama administration failed to examine the validity of its basic assumption for advancing a solution to the conflict and understanding the dynamics between the sides, particularly the inability to detect that in the Israeli public opinion Jerusalem does not equal Judea and Samaria and that there is no willingness to take security risks. The decision to ignore President George W. Bush’s letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004 was puzzling, as was placing most of the blame on Israel while ignoring the Palestinians' part in the ongoing stalemate"; "Instead of lashing out at the world’s leading countries, we should work to stop the snowball effect and prevent additional moves that the Obama administration may allow until the end of the president’s term".
   "United Nations Security Council Resolution 2334 is a serious diplomatic blow to Israel, and contrary to the intention of the countries that voted in favor of it – it is another nail in the peace process’ frozen coffin.
    The deterioration to the current low point is a combination of a Palestinian strategy to favor an internationalization of the conflict over direct negotiations with Israel, along with serious mistakes made by the Obama administration and the Netanyahu governments.
    The root of the problem is a wrong perception of reality by US President Barack Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Obama administration failed to examine the validity of its basic assumption for advancing a solution to the conflict and understanding the dynamics between the sides, particularly the inability to detect that in the Israeli public opinion Jerusalem does not equal Judea and Samaria and that there is no willingness to take security risks. The decision to ignore President George W. Bush’s letter to Ariel Sharon in 2004 was puzzling, as was placing most of the blame on Israel while ignoring the Palestinians' part in the ongoing stalemate.
    Israel, on its part, is paying a price for Netanyahu’s problematic and erroneous perception of the American system in recent years, and more so of the international system. The gap between the prime minister’s address at the UN General Assembly, in which he expressed his to desire to see an end to the automatic majority against Israel, and the sweeping vote against Israel at the Security Council points to a serious perceptual distortion. Especially as this is not a move that can be ascribed to the anti-Israel nature of the UN institutions, but a sweeping vote by our best friends, including our new “ally” Russia.
   But despite the anger and frustration in Israel, it’s more important to look to the future rather than engage in an analysis of what happened and in remorse. Feelings of insult, betrayal and anger are not the basis for a sound and effective policy. We should therefore suspend the diplomatic response until Donald Trump enters the White House. Radical moves will only deepen our diplomatic isolation. In this context, Netanyahu’s attack on the countries that supported the resolution is a reckless and unnecessary move. We should ask ourselves whether the Israeli interest is to encourage a self-boycott, which will be, absurdly, more effective than any move made by the BDS so far.
    Instead of lashing out at the world’s leading countries, we should work to stop the snowball effect and prevent additional moves that the Obama administration may allow until the end of the president’s term. Looking towards January 20, we should prepare the long-term Israeli strategy vis-à-vis the new administration in Washington based on three assumptions: The Trump administration will be much friendlier towards Israel; a return to negotiations is impossible due to the Palestinian rejectionism, even before and particularly after Resolution 2334; the status quo is not good for Israel.
    We should therefore initiate a change that will maintain the horizon of the two-state solution, but will lead to it in the possible way under the current circumstances. In other words, to move towards a separation from the Palestinians in a controlled, cautious and patient manner that will protect the Israeli interest to be a Jewish, democratic, secure and righteous state, which will restore its diplomatic and moral standing in the world.
    Based on these assumptions, we should present to the Trump administration an Israeli proposal for practical action. Israel should move to a proactive strategy, centered on agreements with the United States regarding a distinction between the settlement blocs and isolated settlements, where Israel will freeze construction. On a wider scale, Israel should prove its commitment to a two-state horizon in the future through a series of self-initiated activities for changing the current trend.
    The US is our most important ally, and sometimes the only one. Israel should not be dragged into a Republican-Democratic conflict, and it is critical that it regains the support of both parties. It’s important to restabilize the trust between the countries, and particularly between the leaders – trust which has been violated by both sides in recent years."

Analyse "coup de gueule"

- Le testament prophétique de Ban Ki-moon : l’ONU en faillite, Gilles-William Goldnadel (Causeur) - "lorsque Ban Ki-moon considère que l’ONU, par son attitude pathologiquement injuste envers Israël a perdu toute crédibilité pour tenter de régler les conflits, il n’est pas interdit à ceux qui défendent Israël de le considérer aussi".
   "Avec une jubilation à peine dissimulée, une bonne partie de la presse hexagonale, un quotidien national du soir en tête, s’est réjoui de cette résolution onusienne de Noël, comme d’un cadeau de fête. Pensez donc, le rite était maintenu, l’État juif morigéné avant la fin de l’année.
    Le même jour, l’armée turque bombardait un village en Syrie et plus de 90 civils y laissaient leurs vies. Pas de quoi en faire un drame. 400 000 morts en Syrie, Obama reconnaissant son échec flagrant, les Nations unies leur inutilité totale. Peu importe, ce qui comptait c’était de mettre Israël au ban des nations, pour sa politique de « colonisation ». Oublions toutes les autres parties du monde dont le statut est largement aussi controversé : Tibet, Sahara occidental, Crimée, Kosovo, Chypre, Haut-Karabagh , Ossétie du Sud, etc. [...]
    Il reste le principal : la crédibilité d’une organisation internationale décrédibilisée, le secrétaire général sortant Ban Ki-moon reconnaissait lui-même le 18 décembre que l’ONU s’était montrée trop injuste envers l’État d’Israël. Mais quel journal hexagonal aurait eu l’esprit de le relever ? En août 2013, le même secrétaire général avait déjà expliqué qu’Israël n’était pas traité équitablement : « malheureusement, en raison du conflit israélo-palestinien, Israël est accablé par la critique, il souffre de préjugés, et parfois même de discriminations ». Entre 2006 et 2015, l’ONU a condamné Israël 61 fois, le reste du monde 56 fois…
    Le 18 décembre dernier, devant le Conseil de sécurité qui a voté cette résolution israélienne, Ban déclarait que l’organisation avait voté un volume « disproportionné » de résolutions contre Israël, ce qu’il considérait comme ayant « anéanti la capacité de l’ONU à remplir efficacement son rôle ». Ban ajoutait : « durant les 10 années passées, j’ai soutenu que nous ne pouvons pas avoir un parti pris contre Israël à l’ONU ».
   « Des décades de manœuvres politiques pour créer un nombre disproportionné de résolutions, de rapports de comité contre Israël » concluait le secrétaire général qui faisait le bilan de sa présidence à la tête de l’ONU. Toutes ces déclarations peuvent être vérifiées dans The Independent, un journal pourtant fort hostile à la politique israélienne. Vous ne le trouverez pas dans la presse française.
    On peut penser ce que l’on veut du statut des territoires controversés en Judée. Au plan du droit international, et depuis le traité de San Remo de 1922, c’est une hérésie juridique d’évoquer des « territoires occupés ». Mais qui se soucie du droit international, lorsque la politique s’en mêle ? Il n’en demeure pas moins que la majorité des habitants qui s’y trouvent sont hostiles à la présence juive. Et même des Français qui ne s’y trouvent pas et qui réclament leur expulsion quel que soit leur statut à venir alors qu’ils seraient horrifiés de voir expulser des étrangers illégaux en France…
    Il n’empêche, lorsque Ban Ki-moon considère que l’ONU, par son attitude pathologiquement injuste envers Israël a perdu toute crédibilité pour tenter de régler les conflits, il n’est pas interdit à ceux qui défendent Israël de le considérer aussi. On a déjà récusé un juge déshonnête pour moins que ça."

"Processus de paix"

- Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah celebrates Hamas, Islamic Jihad terrorists (Elder of Ziyon)
   "The 52nd anniversary of the first Fatah terror attack (January 1, 1965, against Israel's water carrier) is coming up, and the official Fatah Facebook page is churning out posters to commemorate the event.
    But Fatah, led my Mahmoud Abbas, isn't only celebrating Fatah's "martyrs". It is also celebrating any terrorist leader who was responsible for murdering Jews.
    So we have the sight of Fatah giving homage to Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin [image ici]. And Islamic Jihad founder Fathi Shaqaqi [voir ici]. And more [voir ici], even some who aren't dead. When Fatah and the other terror groups talk about unity, the only common ground they ever find it - terrorism."


- Critiqué par le Conseil de sécurité, Israël veut y entrer en 2019 (Slate) - "Comme l'explique le Jerusalem Post, «Israël est le seul pays du Moyen-Orient – et un des 67 États des Nations unies, pour la plupart des petites îles – qui n'a jamais siégé au Conseil de sécurité, un organisme qui a eu un impact historique essentiel sur Israël et sa région». Pour y remédier, l'État hébreu aura deux adversaires, l'Allemagne, grande favorite, et la Belgique, lors du vote, prévu en juin 2018. Trois pays pour deux sièges, donc, sachant que la Ligue arabe, qui compte 22 membres, s'est déjà dite déterminée à contrecarrer la candidature israélienne".

Gaza & Hamas

- After years of conflict, Egypt eases pressure on Gaza (AP) - "Egypt is to begin opening the Rafah border crossing to more commercial activity, signaling that the Egyptian regime is trying to repair relations with Hamas; move comes as Egypt fighting against ISIS in Sinai".
Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
27 décembre 2016 2 27 /12 /décembre /2016 00:09

- The "status quo" of 60 years ago: "Old Jerusalem like a dead city" (1956 NYT) "Jews not allowed" (1955) (Elder of Ziyon) - "This is the status quo that the world wants to return Jerusalem to".

Repost 0
Published by Occam
commenter cet article
27 décembre 2016 2 27 /12 /décembre /2016 00:07
Résolution 2334
- Netanyahu's remarks in response to the UN resolution (Elder of Ziyon) - Netanyahu: "Over decades, American administrations and Israeli governments had disagreed about settlements, but we agreed that the Security Council was not the place to resolve this issue. We knew that going there would make negotiations harder and drive peace further away. And, as I told John Kerry on Thursday, friends don’t take friends to the Security Council".
   "Parts of these remarks were widely reported, but it is worth reading them in full. At the start of the weekly Cabinet meeting on Sunday morning, Netanyahu said:
   "I share ministers' feelings, anger and frustration vis-à-vis the unbalanced resolution that is very hostile to the State of Israel, and which the [UN] Security Council passed in an unworthy manner. From the information that we have, we have no doubt that the Obama administration initiated it, stood behind it, coordinated on the wording and demanded that it be passed. This is, of course, in complete contradiction of the traditional American policy that was committed to not trying to dictate terms for a permanent agreement, like any issue related to them in the Security Council, and, of course, the explicit commitment of President Obama himself, in 2011, to refrain from such steps.
    We will do whatever is necessary so that Israel will not be damaged by this shameful resolution and I also tell the ministers here, we must act prudently, responsibly and calmly, in both actions and words. I ask ministers to act responsibly as per the directives that will be given today at the Security Cabinet meeting immediately following this meeting. I have also asked the Foreign Ministry to prepare an action plan regarding the UN and other international elements, which will be submitted to the Security Cabinet within one month. Until then, of course, we will consider our steps."
   "Over decades, American administrations and Israeli governments had disagreed about settlements, but we agreed that the Security Council was not the place to resolve this issue. We knew that going there would make negotiations harder and drive peace further away.
    And, as I told John Kerry on Thursday, friends don’t take friends to the Security Council. I'm encouraged by the statements of our friends in the United States, Republicans and Democrats alike. They understand how reckless and destructive this UN resolution was, they understand that the Western Wall isn't occupied territory.
    I look forward to working with those friends and with the new administration when it takes office next month. And I take this opportunity to wish Israel's Christian citizens and our Christian friends around the world a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year."

    Netanyahu added the following remarks on the second night of Chanukah on Sunday night at the Kotel:
   "I did not plan to be here this evening but in light of the UN resolution I thought that there was no better place to light the second Chanukah candle than the Western Wall. According to the UN resolution, the Maccabees did not liberate Jerusalem, they occupied Palestinian territory. According to the UN resolution, the villages that they started out from in the Modi'in area, those villages and that area were 'occupied Palestinian territory'.
    Of course the Palestinians arrived much later. We were in these places. We will return to these places and I ask those same countries that wish us a Happy Chanukah how they could vote for a UN resolution which says that this place, in which we are now celebrating Chanukah, is occupied territory.
    The Western Wall is not occupied. The Jewish Quarter is not occupied. The other places are not occupied either. Therefore, we do not accept, nor can we accept, this resolution. We are certain of our future just as we are certain of our past. And here I would like to light Chanukah candles on behalf of the Glory of Israel. Happy Chanukah"

- ONU : des renseignements "solides" indiquent qu'Obama est responsable du vote (i24) - ""Nous avons des informations plutôt solides provenant de sources internationales et arabes qui indiquent que ce vote est une initiative soutenue par les États-Unis" a déclaré Keyes sur la chaine américaine Fox News, ajoutant que Washington a même "contribué à l'élaboration de la résolution en premier lieu"."

- Autorité palestinienne : Des "centaines" de soldats israéliens bientôt devant la CPI (i24)
   "L'Autorité palestinienne est en train de recueillir des informations concernant divers soldats israéliens afin de les présenter à la Cour pénale internationale en 2017, a annoncé dimanche un important journaliste palestinien, rapporte la chaîne israélienne Aroutz 2.
    Nasser Laham, proche confident du président de l'Autorité palestinienne Mahmoud Abbas, a déclaré que les informations incluent les noms et les photos de "centaines" d'officiers de l’armée israélienne. "En 2017, nous irons à La Haye. Nous avons des centaines de pages de noms d'officiers de Tsahal", a-t-il déclaré, selon Aroutz 2.  "Chaque pilote, chaque officier et chaque soldat - nous avons sa photo, nous avons son nom et nous l'attendons à La Haye". [...]"


- "A Scandalous UN Resolution," says international law expert Amb. Alan Baker (JCPA, Vidéo 2mn33) - topo clair et synthétique des points les plus problématiques de la résolution 2334.

- Netanyahu en guerre contre le monde entier, David Horovitz (Times of Israel) - retour sur une différence notable, concernant le statut de Jérusalem, entre la résolution 2334 et la résolution 478 sous Carter en 1980.
   "[...] Une partie de l’indignation de Netanyahu est bien fondée. La communauté internationale toute entière rejette les entreprises d’implantations et elle l’a toujours fait – pas de surprise ici. Mais une grande partie de la communauté internationale a tenté au moins d’afficher un certain sentiment de solidarité lorsqu’il s’est agi de Jérusalem.
    Netanyahu est – et c’est compréhensible – affligé que ces 12 pays du Conseil de Sécurité avec lesquels Israël entretient des relations diplomatiques aient voté en faveur d’une résolution qui détermine l’ensemble des quartiers de Jérusalem capturés en Israël pendant la guerre de 1967 comme des “Territoires palestiniens occupés”, et que les Etats Unis aient permis cela.
    Durant l’été 1980, lorsque Carter, “profondément hostile”, était en exercice et qu’Israël venait tout juste d’annexer la Vieille Ville et Jérusalem-Est, les Etats Unis s’étaient abstenus et avaient donc permis le passage de la Résolution 478, qui se référait également aux « territoires palestiniens et arabes autres occupés depuis juin 1967, dont Jérusalem ».
    Mais au moins, le secrétaire d’Etat Muskie avait souligné lors de son discours devant le Conseil de Sécurité que « la question de Jérusalem doit être gérée dans un contexte de négociations en vue d’une paix au Moyen Orient qui soit globale, juste et durable… » et que cette résolution « échoue à servir l’objectif de toutes les religions qui considèrent Jérusalem comme une terre sainte. » Il avait averti le Conseil du fait que « nous devons partager une vision commune de l’avenir de cette Vieille Ville – une ville de Jérusalem non-divisée, avec un accès libre aux lieux saints pour les croyants de toutes obédiences ».
    Il n’y a eu, en comparaison, aucune référence explicite à la nécessité de déterminer l’avenir de Jérusalem par le biais de négociations, ni à la résonance de la ville pour les croyants de toutes les religions dans la présentation extensive de Samantha Power vendredi.
    En 2009, lorsque Obama était allé au Caire, il avait été critiqué à juste titre pour n’être pas parvenu à souligner, dans son discours destiné au monde musulman, l’enracinement historique de la nation juive en Israël, la terre sacrée, l’ancienne capitale. Et rien ne semble avoir été appris dans l’intervalle. [...]"

- Les Palestiniens veulent-ils vraiment leur Etat ?, David Harris (Huffington Post) - "L'attention portée sur ce revirement diplomatique a malheureusement mis de côté la question des motivations sous-jacentes des Palestiniens. Or, cette question aurait due être abordée. Car c'est la clé de voute de tout l'exercice".
   "Le 23 décembre, les États-Unis rompaient avec une politique de longue date en s'abstenant plutôt que de s'opposer à l'adoption par 14 pays d'une résolution au Conseil de sécurité des Nations Unies très critique à l'égard Israël. L'attention portée sur ce revirement diplomatique a malheureusement mis de côté la question des motivations sous-jacentes des Palestiniens. Or, cette question aurait due être abordée. Car c'est la clé de voute de tout l'exercice.
    Forts d'avoir rejeté les propositions de paix qui leur étaient faites, les unes après les autres, et ce depuis ces soixante-dix dernières années, les Palestiniens continuent d'orienter leurs actions dans un sens qui rend la possibilité d'un accord de moins en moins probable. La résolution du Conseil de l'ONU de sécurité de vendredi dernier en est l'illustration parfaite.
    Si l'objectif était d'augmenter les chances de création d'un Etat palestinien aux côtés d'Israël (et non pas à sa place !), c'est un échec abyssal en dépit de ce vote déséquilibré. Les diplomates qui se sont précipités pour applaudir ce résultat - et je mets de côté des états criminels, comme le Venezuela, qui ne montrent aucune bonne foi dans l'enceinte des Nations Unies - devraient réfléchir à deux fois à ce qu'ils ont réellement accompli.
    S'ils voulaient excorier Israël - vocation de longue date de trop nombreux d'Etats membres de l'ONU - ils peuvent s'en féliciter, même si, hélas, ils réservent habituellement un tel traitement à la seule nation démocratique au Moyen-Orient. Mais pour ceux qui sont vraiment engagés à faire avancer les perspectives de paix, ils ont fait un grand pas en arrière, tombant de nouveau dans le piège palestinien.
    Tout d'abord, bien que la construction des colonies israéliennes soit incontestablement une question très litigieuse, la problématique centrale du conflit a toujours été le refus des Palestiniens et de leurs partisans de reconnaître la légitimité d'Israël et de négocier de bonne foi un accord de paix durable.
    Cela était vrai en 1947-48, quand une solution à deux États était proposée par l'ONU, en 1967, en 2000-1 ; en 2008, pendant le gel des colonies de dix mois (2009-2010) qu'Israël a adopté alors que Netanyahou était Premier ministre en réponse à une demande américaine ; et enfin en 2013-14, lors de la plus récente tentative de discussions directes et bilatérales facilitées par les États-Unis. Les preuves abondent dans le sens d'un constant rejet.
    En témoigne un commentaire particulièrement frappant, aussi vrai maintenant qu'à l'époque. En 2003, l'ambassadeur d'Arabie saoudite aux Etats-Unis a été cité dans The New Yorker :
   "Cela m'a brisé le cœur que [le président de l'OLP] Arafat n'ait pas accepté l'offre (d'un accord de deux États présenté par Israël, 2001). Depuis 1948, chaque fois que nous avons quelque chose sur la table, nous disons non. Puis nous disons oui. Mais quand nous disons oui, ce n'est plus sur la table. Ensuite, nous devons nous en sortir avec encore moins. N'est-il pas temps de dire oui ?"
    Au lieu de se concentrer obsessionnellement et sans relâche sur les actions israéliennes, pourquoi les membres du Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU ne demandent-ils pas aux Palestiniens d'expliquer sept décennies d'évitement du règlement du conflit dans des conditions satisfaisantes pour les deux parties ?
    Deuxièmement, il est clair que les Palestiniens préférèrent mettre un terme à la diplomatie directe, évitant ainsi la table des négociations et afin d'internationaliser le conflit. Cela peut produire des victoires à court terme, étant donné la pluralité des joueurs avec en tête de file la Ligue arabe, l'Organisation de coopération islamique et le Mouvement des non-alignés, sans parler de nombreux états membres qui pratiquent l'art de l'opportunisme politique. Mais où tout cela a-t-il mené les Palestiniens ?
    Exactement nulle part – si le but réel est un Etat palestinien aux côtés d'Israël. Au contraire, cette approche n'a fait que convaincre de nombreux Israéliens que les dirigeants palestiniens n'ont aucun intérêt réel à trouver une solution, mais seulement à poursuivre la lutte. Cependant, il devrait être clairement établi qu'Israël est fort, et qu'il devient plus fort, et que toute idée qu'Israël tombe à genoux et succombe à la pression n'est qu'une illusion fantaisiste.
    Troisièmement, les membres responsables de la communauté internationale ne devraient-ils pas appuyer sur le bouton pause et regarder de plus près comment la paix pourrait être atteinte ?
    Israël a signé des traités pérennes avec l'Egypte et la Jordanie. Dans les deux cas, ils ont été atteints non par l'intermédiaire des Nations Unies, mais plutôt par le biais de pourparlers en face-à-face. Israël a fait des concessions territoriales sans précédent, cédant des terres obtenues lors de la guerre d'autodéfense de 1967, car Israël a fait pleinement confiance au Président égyptien Sadat et au Roi de Jordanie Hussein qui avaient sincèrement décidé d'abandonner la guerre contre l'Etat juif.
    Chaque sondage en Israël révèle que la majorité des Israéliens soutiennent un accord entre deux États avec les Palestiniens, mais restent en même temps profondément sceptiques envers la sincérité des Palestiniens. Et pourquoi les Israéliens n'auraient-ils pas des doutes ?
    Le président de l'Autorité palestinienne, M. Abbas, durant les onze ans de son mandat de quatre ans, a manié le double discours. Il déclare vouloir un accord, mais a recours à l'incitation à la haine, refuse de s'asseoir avec des dirigeants israéliens, tente de "corneriser" diplomatiquement Israël, tout en présidant, si c'est le terme, avec une profonde division politique (Cisjordanie-Hamas).
    Au lieu d'infantiliser et de chouchouter les Palestiniens, de succomber à tous leurs caprices erronés et de justifier leur comportement contre-productif, n'est-il pas temps de voir la situation telle qu'elle est pour les deux parties (et pas seulement pour les Palestiniens), apprendre du passé et contribuer à créer les conditions d'un progrès tangible ?
    Lorsque des dirigeants palestiniens émergeront, saisissant les héritages du Président Sadate et du Roi Hussein, ne tendront pas le revers de la main à Israël, reconnaitront que les préoccupations légitimes des Israéliens doivent également être abordées dans le processus, alors ils trouveront un partenaire volontaire que ce soit le Premier ministre Netanyahou ou un autre leader israélien élu qui lui succédera. A titre d'exemple, on peut citer Menachem Begin qui, avec son enracinement politique de faucon, n'était pas vu comme le dirigeant le plus à même de conduire l'évacuation israélienne de la zone tampon, des gisements de pétrole et des bases aériennes du Sinaï. C'est ce qu'il a pourtant fait, jusqu'au dernier grain de sable, parce que la paix avec l'Egypte le réclamait.
    En d'autres termes, les leçons de l'histoire abondent, même si, à l'ONU de nos jours, les historiens ne semblent pas être en sureffectif (si c'était le cas, ils sauraient, par exemple, qu'aucun gouvernement israélien ne reconnaîtra jamais l'absurdité de la vieille ville de Jérusalem et du mur occidental, contenant les sites les plus saints du judaïsme, comme "territoires palestiniens occupés").
    Le vote de vendredi au Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU sera étudié comme une victoire à la Pyrrhus pour les Palestiniens - et un pas en arrière dans la quête pour la paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens."


- 6 mineurs arrêtés pour avoir allumé des bougies de Hanoukka sur le mont du Temple (Times of Israel) - "La prière et les rituels juifs sont strictement interdits sur le mont du Temple, considéré comme le lieu le plus saint du judaïsme, dans le cadre d’un accord de statu quo entre Israël et la Waqf islamique, qui administre le site".


- Nétanyahou choisit d’occulter les Nations unies... en attendant l’arrivée de Trump (Le Monde éditorial) - pour le "journal français de référence", la situation est simple : c'est "l'occupation" et la "colonisation" qui sont les causes manifestes du conflit, les dirigeants israéliens sont "hystériques" et "calculateurs", et la "société israélienne", stupide ou aveugle, "préfère détourner les yeux" (du malheur que l'Etat juif génère dans le monde, je suppose). Le narratif français est bien exprimé, avec autant de clarté que de simplisme.
   "L’ultime geste de l’administration Obama sur le conflit israélo-palestinien a été celui de son ambassadrice auprès de l’ONU, Samantha Power, le 23 décembre, lors du vote de la résolution 2334 au Conseil de sécurité. Bien tardive, son abstention a permis l’adoption du texte à l’unanimité des 14 autres membres. Cette résolution n’est ni révolutionnaire ni anti-israélienne. Elle rappelle une constante depuis des décennies : la condamnation internationale de la colonisation israélienne des territoires palestiniens occupés, considérée comme illégale. Ce n’est pas l’Etat hébreu qui est visé en soi, mais l’occupation, à l’œuvre depuis un demi-siècle.
    Ce rappel aux fondamentaux a suscité une forme d’hystérie calculée parmi les dirigeants israéliens, qui accusent l’administration Obama de trahison, d’abandon et de complot. [...] La résolution 2334 tend un miroir déplaisant à la société israélienne, qui préfère en majorité détourner les yeux. Elle marque aussi une grave défaite politique pour M. Nétanyahou. [...]"

- Raz de marée de commentaires sur Le Monde.fr (pas loin de 600 éructations anti-israéliennes en deux jours !), en voici un petit florilège (attention les yeux tout de même) :
- TZOTZIS CHRISTOPHE 26/12/2016 - 12h12
   "Qui va un jour, remettre à sa place ce pays ? Franchement, on en a plus que soupé d'Israel. ET bien entendu, ça va être modéré, parce que "pas touche aux intouchables""
- itav 26/12/2016 - 12h13
   "Quand l'impérialisme sioniste s'arrêtera-t-il? Faut-il une nouvelle guerre des religions qui se prétendent révélées? Israël n'est pas plus juive que catholique ou musulmane. Elle n'est que le résultat du fanatisme religieux et seuls les casques bleus peuvent assurer la paix dans ce pays."
- klo 26/12/2016 - 12h16
   "La prise de contrôle par l'extrême droite et les fanatiques religieux n'a pas fait sourciller l'Europe qui se donnait bonne conscience par ses bonnes œuvres ou en reconstruisant les hôpitaux détruits par Israël. Le cancer a gagné. [...]"
- radicalisme 26/12/2016 - 12h58
   "Qu'attendre d'autre d'un gouvernement vivant sous la férule des extrémistes de droite et des religieux radicaux? On ne peut que le regretter, mais aujourd'hui, une majorité d'Israéliens ne veut pas de la paix et pense qu'il est justifié d'asservir les Palestiniens. [...]"
- yalla 26/12/2016 - 13h14
   ""Ce n’est pas l’Etat hébreu qui est visé en soi, mais l’occupation": Allons donc! L'occupation, la colonisation, est ancrée dans l'ADN d'Israel. Il y a une continuité historique qui crève les yeux. Ca, les israéliens les comprennent très bien et c'est bien ca qui les rend furieux. En s'attaquant à la colonisation, on remet en cause les fondements de l'état. Tout à fait inacceptable. Si la Judée ne leur appartient pas, pourquoi Haifa leur appartiendrait ?"
- Nicolas 26/12/2016 - 13h18
   "Si jamais l'administration Trump devait confirmer son orientation, il appartiendra aux Etats européens, ou aux populations de s'engager dans un embargo ou un boycott pour peser sur Israël."
- A.C 26/12/2016 - 13h21
   "Occulter cette resolution montre bien que Netanyahou ne veut pas d'une solution a deux Etats, il veut la disparition pure et simple de la Palestine. Sadam fut tue et son pays reduit a l'etat de ruine grace a un mensonge et Israel colonise, reprime, discrimine et tue sans que personne ne leve le petit doigt. Les USA et la France en sont les premiers responsables avec le programme nucleaire clandestin de 1950. Il serait temps d'arreter de proteger un pays qui defeque sur le droit international!"
- Samy 26/12/2016 - 13h42
   "Une résolution unanime de l'ONU, c'est bien, mais la communauté industrielle doit maintenant la faire respecter: si Israël confirme ne pas vouloir respecter cette résolution, il faut que la communauté internationale applique des sanctions, notamment économiques !"
- palladio 26/12/2016 - 14h11
   "[...] Le "fracas du monde" est alimenté par l'aberrante guerre-choc des religions-civilisations dont l'un des carburants est l'obstination occidentale à soutenir l'Etat identitaire ethno-religieux en guerre contre les palestiniens, tout ça au nom de l'irrationalité de la temporalité biblique. [...]"
- PATRICK SICÉ 26/12/2016 - 14h37
   "[...] La responsabilité israélienne dans les conflits qui embrasent aujourd'hui l'orient, nous occupant passablement, est majeure. [...]"
- JACQUES COUTANT il y a 2 jours
   "enfin! comment admettre qu’Israël s'assoit depuis si longtemps sur le droit international. Les extrémistes religieux pesant de plus en plus sur les décisions du gouvernement Israélien qui pèsent gravement sur la vie du peuple Palestinien. Le vivre en paix n'est pas leur objectif."
- paco il y a 2 jours
   "[...] Israel a infiltré tous les gouvernements qui comptent."
- tous humains il y a 2 jours
   "Honneur et respect à tous les pays membres du Conseil de Sécurité de l'ONU et notamment à notre nouveau gouvernement de M. Bernard Cazeneuve qui a défendu par ce vote les valeurs universelles de liberté ,d'égalité et de fraternité pour tous .La colonisation sous occupation militaire est un crime de guerre selon la CPI .. Comme Bibi annonce qu'il n'en fera rien , M.J.J. Urvoas ,notre ministre de la Justice doit annuler la circulaire anti BDS comme il l'avait demandé à C. Taubira il y a un an !"
- Kamel il y a 2 jours
   "[...] L'arrogance de la droite biblico-nationaliste sioniste conduit Israël au même destin que celui de l'Algérie française ou des Etats Latins d'Orient."
- un étudiant il y a 2 jours
   "[...] Les velléités expansionnistes de la droite israélienne sont un affront au bon droit et un obstacle pour la paix."
- Buber il y a 2 jours
   "[...] un coup de semonce pour Israël qui n'est pas une démocratie puisqu'il ne respecte pas le droit international. Sans les E-U Israël redevient un petit pays surarmé mais fragile. A trop jouer avec le feu..."
- touvabien il y a 2 jours
   "Israël n'a jamais, jamais tenu compte d'aucune résolution de l'ONU. Quand une le concerne, ça ne lui sert que de thermomètre. l'étalonnage du thermomètre se fait toujours en mesure de degré d'antisémitisme. Des sanctions ? mais vous n'y pensez pas, le boycott est une manoeuvre "inqualifiable" si ce post espère passer la médiation [...]"
- Nicolas Sajot il y a 2 jours
   "Il faut immédiatemment radier de l'ONU ces quatre ou cinq nations d'on ne sait où qui ont déposé ce projet : " la Nouvelle-Zélande, la Malaisie, le Sénégal et le Venezuela ", et l'Egypte. Ils ne méritent pas de discuter avec D. Trump et sa formidable administration, ni avec Israël et ses lobbies. [...]"
- paco Hier
   "Pourquoi pas exterminer l'humanité et laisser la place au peuple élu? [...] Israel met le bordel au moyen orient depuis plus de 50 ans. Attisant e terrorisme tout en le pratiquant. Les milices juives Irgoun, Hagganah ont donné l'exemple. isarel s'est créé dans le sang avec des attentats et cela continu.
    A force de traiter d'antisémites ceux qui critiquent la colonisation, les juifs vont finir par se mettre à dos le monde entier. La communauté internationale leur a donné 50% de la palestine en 1948 (sans consulter les arabes indigènes) alors qu'ils (juifs) étaient minoritaires, fallait s'en contenter. Vous voulez le grand isarel en occupant les territoires et le Golan C'est du vol désolé. Ce comportement attise la haine contre les juifs, mais il est vrai c'est un bon fond de commerce.
    Les juifs reproduisent la même politique que les nazis jadis, indéfendable."
- Déçu il y a 2 jours
   "Un texte de plus sans aucune sanction qui sera juste ignoré par Israël. Depuis quand les sermons font-ils bouger les extrémistes ? Il est évident que seules les sanctions peuvent forcer Israël à respecter le droit international [...]"
- Cédric, citoyen (vrai) républicain il y a 2 jours
   "En Israel, c'est l'extrême droite qui est au pouvoir... Comme en Allemagne dans les années 30... Qui vit par la force, périra par... la force (vieux proverbe toujours vérifié in fine)"
- SAURON il y a 2 jours
   "Israel tiens les USA par " le fond du pantalon " ... Alors ne nous faisons pas d'illusions ... La politique de Washington est dictée par Jerusalem ... Point Barre !"
- Obamalekoum il y a 2 jours
   "Les colonies, la honte du monde "civilisé"."
- bazoon il y a 2 jours
   "Israël est indigné et crie au scandale parce qu'on ne veut plus le laisser coloniser et opprimer les palestiniens en toute tranquillité. C'est tout de même révoltant: voilà une théocratie militaire qui s'assoit sur les résolutions de l'ONU depuis des décennies avec la bénédiction des puissances occidentales. Deux poids deux mesures. Et on s'étonne que le chaos règne dans cette partie du Monde. [...]"
- PASSANT 25/12/2016 - 18h24
   "[...] Heureusement qu'il y a eu les philosophes Spinoza, Henri Bergson, le grand historien Marc Bloch, le Capitaine Dreyfus ,des hommes d'état tels que Léon Blum ,Pierre Mendés France et tant d'autres, pour nous détourner de l'antisémitisme."
- lobby 26/12/2016 - 08h07
   "Bah.. le lobby juif finira bien par repousser les échéances."
- BENS André 26/12/2016 - 08h59
   "Il faut que le monde comprenne: israël a tous les droits, le reste du monde n'en a qu'un: Interdiction de critiquer israël. [...]"
- Mumu Rara Zeuzeu 26/12/2016 - 10h38
   "Bien sûr que c'est interdit de critiquer Israël : c'est de l'antisémitisme."
- ISSA NISSA 26/12/2016 - 09h12
   "en agissant de la sorte, le gouvernement israélien ne peut convaincre la communauté internationale de sa volonté de vivre en paix avec ses voisins. c'est regrettable. cette attitude irresponsable ne peut que développer des réactions violentes et donc le massacre d'innocents. [...]"
- palladio 26/12/2016 - 11h59
   "C'est l'ensemble du bloc PS-droite-médias qui est pro-israélien et étouffe tout débat sur l'indispensable décision de sanctionner l'Etat israélien colonisateur. [...]"
- VIVE 2022 ! 26/12/2016 - 10h50
   "Etat théocratique , le gouvernement d' Israël s'éloigne chaque jour un peu plus d'une réelle volonté de paix. [...]"
- A.C 26/12/2016 - 13h00
   "Droles "d'allies" que ce petit pays qui ecrase sans remord tout un peuple et se fiche royalement de toute resolution internationale prise a son egard. [...]
    Si Israel avait accepte les palestiniens a la table des negociations en 1948, si Israel avait accepte le partage des frontieres de 1967, si Israel n'avait pas fait assassine Arafat etc etc etc. Israel a eu des opportunite a mainte et mainte reprise mais a toujours refuse. Reprimer les palestiniens au centuple, c'est tout ce que Netanyahou sait faire. Israel continue de coloniser pour qu'il n'y ait PLUS de solution possible [...]. La seule solution est un Etat bi-national. [...]
    Cela fait plus de 50ans que les Palestiniens sont reduits a l'etat de sous-hommes, sans terres, sans droit et personne ne fait rien! Le credit accorde a Israel est honteux et dangereux. [...]"
- Jacques Jonesse 26/12/2016 - 13h50
   "Tous ceux qui se permettent de critiquer israel devraient se voir prescrire 5h obligatoires de film de showa et 10 en cas de récidive..."
- Francis 26/12/2016 - 10h13
   "En fait, ils n en ont rien à foutre de la paix. Ce qu ils veulent c est que les palestiniens partent. Fauteurs de guerre, ils s étonnent et se plaignent après de résolutions soi-disantes honteuses. Ils se disent étant être la seule démocratie du coin, et se comportent exactement comme des spoliateurs et des seigneurs de guerre. Honte à Israël !!"
- paco Hier
   "[...] Comment justifier la colonisation? Pourquoi pas justifier le viol, le meurtre et la torture? Il faut avant tout des sanctions!"
- SAURON 25/12/2016 - 22h08
   "@paco : la torture est légale et largement pratiquée en Israel [...]"
- christian Hier
   "Il est temps que l'héritage de la seconde guerre mondiale cesse... Raz le bol de cette injustice manifeste!! [...]"
- a.gao Hier
   "[...] Israël doit sa naissance à un vote de l'ONU et ne pourra indéfiniment ignorer la volonté presque unanime de la communauté des nations."
   "Le terme colonisation est un euphémisme pour désigner les vols et exactions commises dans les terres palestiniennes par des miliciens juifs parmi les plus fanatisés dans un pays qui l'est déjà considérablement et qui a confié son gouvernement à la pire extrême droite du monde [...]"
- paco Hier
   "Les nazis ont occupés la france 4 ans,de 1941 à 1944, les sionistes occupent les territoires depuis 50 ans."
- Dérapages Hier
   "Cela fait bien trop longtemps au nom d'une mémoire ancienne bien triste que nous soutenons aveuglément ce petit Etat qui se comporte d'une manière aussi raciste que l'Afrique du Sud de l'apartheid. [...]"
- Delfos Hier
   "Israel est un etat "voyou" qui n a rien à faire des resolutions de l O.N.U.Israel agit avec une totale impunité puisqu il sait que les gouvernements occidentaux,dont la France,sont là pour le soutenir.La lutte du peuple palestinien contre l occupant israelien est nécessaire et legitime."
- Thierry B. Hier
   "On peut supposer que dans les années 70-80, le gouvernement d'Afrique du Sud (dont Israël était, curieusement, un des derniers soutiens) a dû également trouver "honteux" les prises de position de l'ONU contre l'apartheid."
- PASSANT 25/12/2016 - 17h54
   "[...] Heureusement que le judaïsme ce sont aussi les philosophes Spinoza, Marx, Bergson etc. le grand historien Marc Bloch, le Capitaine Dreyfus, les époux Bach etc. Sinon on deviendrait antisémite."
- Marie 25/12/2016 - 17h23
   "Les israéliens foncent dans le mur et on s'en réjouit."
- Là-bas & ici 25/12/2016 - 19h31
   "S'il n'y avait jamais eu d'État d'Israël avant 1948, la Palestine existait bel et bien avant la création de cet État qui souffre d’un immense déficit de légitimité du fait justement qu'il s'est accaparé, par la force et la violence, la terre d'un autre peuple, le peuple palestinien."
- Tixier Eric 25/12/2016 - 20h50
   "Israël n'existe que parce que d'autres l'ont voulu. Israël a profité d'une géopolitique favorable pour prendre aujourd'hui une place incontournable. Israël peut faire très mal. Mais Israël doit se rappeler de temps en temps que sans soutient, elle est seule au milieu d'une poudrière [...]"
- Allez lisez! 25/12/2016 - 21h46
   "La honte c'est Netanyahou et son gouvernement qui depuis des années cherchent en fait par la bonne vieille technique du Salami à fait disparaître les territoires palestiniens pour ne laisser place qu'à Israël. Et mettre dehors les palestiniens qui s'y trouvent. [...]"
- Eypper Christian 25/12/2016 - 21h50
   "Pour le monde entier, Netanyahu est un être méprisable et un criminel ignoble qui a liquidé toute possibilité de paix entre les communautés et tout le potentiel d'empathie que le monde aurait pu conserver pour Israël (fanatique religieux et extrême droite exclus) Netanyahou a cependant le soutier de nombreux chef d'état occidentaux et Obama a mis trop de temps à agir. L'état français continue de criminaliser BDS et les partisans de la seule lutte non violente contre l'horreur de la colonisation"
- Hub 26/12/2016 - 00h37
   "[...] Les Israéliens colonisent et envahissent depuis 70 ans en écrasant tout début de rébellion à coup de missiles contre des Palestiniens qui n'ont que des pierres et des couteaux. Et c'est encore la faute des Arabes. [...]"
- PASSANT 26/12/2016 - 05h17
   "[...] Heureusement qu'il y a eu les philosophes Spinoza, Henri Bergson, le grand historien Marc Bloch, le Capitaine Dreyfus le ministre Jean Zay Yitzhak Rabin, Shlomo Sand et tant d'autres, pour nous délivrer de la tentation de l'antisémitisme. [...]"
- SYLVETTE 26/12/2016 - 10h29
   "L'Allemagne était aussi un " pays moderne" en 1933, .Comme Hindenburg avec Hitler Nétanyahou n'a-t-il pas fait entrer le loup dans la bergerie en donnant de plus en plus de pouvoir aux extrêmistes religieux ? Un état qui est pris en otage par des fous de Dieu représente un immense danger non seulement pour ses voisins mais aussi pour lui-même. [...]"
- Le franc etique Hier
   "Ancien "occupé" ,de 1940 à 1944, je communie avec la douleur des palestiniens. Je ne pense pas qu'un envahisseur "dit démocrate" soit très différent de nos allemands, dans sa même recherche d'espace vital."
   "Depuis plus de 40 ans, les milieux ultra-religieux et autres partisans du Gand Israël, ne cessent, par les colonisations abusives qu'ils promeuvent, de tirer des balles qui, un jour, reviendront et leur feront exploser la tête. Qui les a vu de près ne peut que savoir qu'ils sont à peine moins psychopathes et suicidaires que leur symétrique islamiste, les djihadistes. [...]"
   "De Gaulle vint alors à déclarer que beaucoup se demandaient si « les Juifs, jusqu'alors dispersés, mais qui étaient restés ce qu'ils avaient été de tout temps, c'est-à-dire un peuple d'élite, sûr de lui-même et dominateur, n'en viennent, une fois rassemblés dans le site de leur ancienne grandeur, à changer en ambition ardente et conquérante les souhaits très émouvants qu'ils formaient depuis dix-neuf siècles : l'an prochain à Jérusalem ». On y est !"
- violence d'Etat Hier
   "Sous la férule de l'extrême-droite et des religieux radicaux, Israël est devenu un État violent et sécuritaire au cœur duquel se développe un racisme forcené anti arabo-musulman. Sa logique jusqu'au boutiste et mortifère entretient le conflit dans la région depuis des décennies dont les Palestiniens sont devenus les grandes victimes. [...]"
- un citoyen français Hier
   "Et maintenant, il s'agit de ne pas faire d'exception: si Israël ne respecte pas la résolution unanime de la communauté internationale, il faut dès sanctions ! Nous savons tous que seules les sanctions de la communauté internationale ont mis fin à la politique discriminatoire de l'Afrique du Sud ! Rien d'autre !"
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