Médias: Le Moyen-Orient est à feu et à sang et devinez qui on accuse ? (Palestinian blood lust: It’s time to give hatred its due)

Nous ne pouvons accepter ni un monde politiquement unipolaire, ni un monde culturellement uniforme, ni l’unilatéralisme de la seule hyperpuissance. Hubert Védrine (1999)
C’est ma dernière élection. Après mon élection, j’aurai plus de flexibilité. Obama (à Medvedev, 27.03.12)
We’re not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia. This is not some superpower chessboard contest. Barack Hussein Obama
It’s the lowest ebb since World War II for U.S. influence and engagement in the region. If you look at the heart of the Middle East, where the U.S. once was, we are now gone—and in our place, we have Iran, Iran’s Shiite proxies, Islamic State and the Russians. What had been a time and place of U.S. ascendancy we have ceded to our adversaries. Ryan Crocker (former ambassador to Afghanistan)
It’s not American military muscle that’s the main thing—there is a hell of a lot of American military muscle in the Middle East. It’s people’s belief—by our friends and by our opponents—that we will use that muscle to protect our friends, no ifs, ands or buts. Nobody is willing to take any risks if the U.S. is not taking any risks and if people are afraid that we’ll turn around and walk away tomorrow. James Jeffrey (former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Turkey)
Being associated with America today carries great costs and great risks. Whoever you are in the region, you have a deep grudge against the United States. If you are in liberal circles, you see Obama placating autocratic leaders even more. And if you are an autocratic leader, you go back to the issue of Mubarak and how unreliable the U.S. is as an ally. There is not one constituency you will find in the region that is supportive of the U.S. at this point—it is quite stunning, really. (…) Whoever comes after Obama will not have many cards left to play. I don’t see a strategy even for the next president. We’ve gone too far.  Emile Hokayem (International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain)
It’s obvious that what’s happening in Afghanistan is pushing our countries closer to Russia. Who knows what America may come up with tomorrow—nobody trusts it anymore, not the elites and not the ordinary people. Tokon Mamytov (former deputy prime minister of Kyrgyzstan)
But U.S. disengagement still has long-term costs—even if one ignores the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, where more than 250,000 people have died and more than half the population has fled their homes. With the shale revolution, the U.S. may no longer be as dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but its allies and main trading partners still are. Islamic State’s haven in Iraq and Syria may let it plot major terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. And the American pullback is affecting other countries’ calculations about how to deal with China and Russia. On the eve of the Arab Spring in 2011, Russia had almost no weight in the region, and Iran was boxed in by Security Council sanctions over its nuclear program. The costly U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had hardly brought stability, but neither country faced internal collapse, and the Taliban had been chased into the remote corners of the Afghan countryside. Many people in the Middle East chafed at America’s dominance—but they agreed that it was the only game in town. Dramatic developments in recent weeks—from Russia’s Syrian gambit to startling Taliban advances in Afghanistan—highlight just how much the region has changed since then. The Syrian deployment, in particular, has given Mr. Putin the kind of Middle Eastern power projection that, in some ways, exceeds the influence that the Soviet Union enjoyed in the 1970s and 1980s. Already, he has rendered all but impossible plans to create no-fly zones or safe areas outside the writ of the Assad regime—and has moved to position Russia as a viable military alternative that can check U.S. might in the region. (…) Iraqi officials and Kurdish fighters have long complained about the pace of the U.S. bombing campaign against Islamic State and Washington’s unwillingness to provide forward spotters to guide these airstrikes or to embed U.S. advisers with combat units. These constraints have made the U.S. military, in effect, a junior partner of Iran in the campaign against Islamic State, providing air cover to Iranian-guided Shiite militias that go into battle with portraits of the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei plastered on their tanks. Iraq has already lost a huge chunk of its territory to Islamic State, and another calamity may be looming further east in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s recent seizure of the strategic city of Kunduz, which remains a battleground, suggests how close the U.S.-backed government of President Ashraf Ghani has come to strategic defeat. Its chances of survival could dwindle further if the Obama administration goes ahead with plans to pull out the remaining 9,800 U.S. troops next year. (…) Further afield, U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan has already driven Central Asian states that once tried to pursue relatively independent policies and allowed Western bases onto their soil back into Moscow’s orbit. Among America’s regional allies, puzzlement over why the U.S. is so eager to abandon the region has now given way to alarm and even panic—and, in some cases, attempts at accommodation with Russia. The bloody, messy intervention in Yemen by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies stemmed, in part, from a fear that the U.S. is no longer watching their backs against Shiite Iran. These Sunni Arab states could respond even more rashly in the future to the perceived Iranian threat, further inflaming the sectarian passions that have fueled the rise of Islamic State and other extremist groups. (…) Even Israel is hedging its bets. Last year, it broke ranks with Washington and declined to vote for a U.S.-sponsored U.N. General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian annexation of Crimea. In recent days, Israel didn’t criticize the Russian bombardment in Syria. Yaroslav Trofimov
The hard truth is that [the Palestinians] are not a priority for Arab leaders. . . . The priorities of Arab leaders revolve around survival and security”—not Israeli-Palestinian relations or U.S. policy toward Israel.  Dennis Ross
Obama can’t simply shrug this off as an unfortunate consequence of a bad policy decision by his predecessor, as he did with the rise of ISIS in Iraq. Not only did Obama support the war in Afghanistan, he campaigned in 2007-8 on the need to amplify resources for the fight there. The biggest problem with the Iraq war, Obama repeatedly argued, was that its destabilizing impact distracted from the fight for victory in Afghanistan. Obama promised to ramp up the effort in this theater, but became curiously reluctant when pressed for his war strategy, only grudgingly agreeing to provide a troop “surge” — and then only in tandem with a timetable for withdrawal. That has turned out to be as big a “joke” as Obama’s Syria strategy, if not more so. The Taliban used their control of Afghanistan to give al-Qaeda a haven from which to plot attacks against the United States, and that was before they spent 14 years fighting our military. The need to marginalize the Taliban and ensure stability without them was even greater for our national security than in Iraq, and look how that turned out after Obama took control of our policy there. After almost seven years of Obama’s “leadership,” we are on the verge of losing control of both theaters of war while Obama pretends that war doesn’t even exist in either. This is a foreign-policy disaster of nearly unprecedented proportions. Its ill effects will last long after Obama has left office, especially on those in Afghanistan who trusted us to stick to the mission and who will now be left at the meager mercy of Taliban extremists. Ed Morrissey
Dans un article d’opinion publié le 25 août 2015 dans le quotidien saoudien paraissant à Londres Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Amir Taheri, analyste, auteur et éditorialiste iranien bien connu, a comparé la politique d’Obama envers l’Iran et la politique de Kennedy, Nixon et Reagan dans leurs négociations avec les principaux adversaires des Etats-Unis à leur époque – l’URSS et la Chine. Taheri écrit que, pour conclure l’accord avec l’Iran, Obama veut se poser en héritier d’une tradition établie par ces présidents, consistant à régler les conflits par la diplomatie et les négociations. Toutefois, observe-t-il, ces dirigeants ont négocié en position de force et poursuivi la détente avec les ennemis de l’Amérique seulement après que ces derniers eurent obéi à des exidences américaines essentielles, en modifiant des éléments clés de leur politique. Ainsi, Kennedy a négocié avec l’URSS seulement après l’avoir contrainte à retirer ses installations nucléaires de Cuba ; la normalisation des relations avec la Chine sous Nixon est venue seulement après que cette dernière eut renoncé à la Révolution culturelle et abandonné son projet d’exporter le communisme, et l’engagement par Reagan de négociations avec les Soviétiques a eu lieu seulement après avoir pris des mesures militaires pour contrer la menace qu’ils posaient en Europe. En outre, affirme Taheri, les Etats-Unis ont permis le réchauffement des relations avec la Chine et l’URSS une fois que celles-ci eurent renoncé à leur antagonisme absolu envers eux en acceptant de les considérer comme un rival ou un concurrent plutôt que comme un ennemi mortel devant être détruit. A l’inverse, affirme Taheri, Obama n’a rien demandé aux Iraniens avant d’entamer des négociations, pas même la libération des otages américains. En outre, il a cherché un rapprochement avec l’Iran en dépit de l’absence de tout changement positif de la politique et de l’idéologie radicale de ce pays. L’ouverture américaine n’a fait qu’encourager les pires tendances en Iran, comme le montrent la multiplication des violations des droits de l’homme en Iran et son soutien continu aux groupes terroristes et au régime d’Assad en Syrie. La détente avec l’Amérique n’a pas même amené l’Iran à abandonner ses appels de « Mort à l’Amérique », observe Taheri. Il conclut que « Kennedy, Nixon et Reagan ont répondu positivement aux changements positifs de la part de l’adversaire”, alors qu’Obama “répond positivement à ses propres illusions”. MEMRI
Promoting the ‘deal’ he claims he has made with Iran, President Barack Obama is trying to cast himself as heir to a tradition of ‘peace through negotiations’ followed by US presidents for decades. In that context he has named Presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as shining examples, with the subtext that he hopes to join their rank in history. (…) Obama quotes JFK as saying one should not negotiate out of fear but should not be afraid of negotiating either. To start with, those who oppose the supposed ‘deal’ with Iran never opposed negotiations; they oppose the result it has produced… In one form or another, Iran and the major powers have been engaged in negotiations on the topic since 2003. What prompted Obama to press the accelerator was his desire to score a diplomatic victory before he leaves office. It did not matter if the ‘deal’ he concocted was more of a dog’s dinner than a serious document. He wanted something, anything , and to achieve that he was prepared to settle for one big diplomatic fudge. (…) Is Obama the new JFK? Hardly. Kennedy did negotiate with the USSR but only after he had blockaded Cuba and forced Nikita Khrushchev to blink and disband the nuclear sites he had set up on the Caribbean island. In contrast, Obama obtained nothing tangible and verifiable. Iran’s Atomic Energy chief Ali-Akbar Salehi put it nicely when he said that the only thing that Iran gave Obama was a promise ‘not to do things we were not doing anyway, or did not wish to do or could not even do at present.’ (…) JFK also had the courage to fly to West Berlin to face the Soviet tanks and warn Moscow against attempts at overrunning the enclave of freedom that Germany’s former capital had become. With his ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ (I am a citizen of Berlin), he sided with the people of the besieged city in a long and ultimately victorious struggle against Soviet rule. In contrast Obama does not even dare call on the mullahs to release the Americans they hold hostage. Instead, he has engaged in an epistolary courting of the Supreme Guide and instructed his administration in Washington to do and say nothing that might ruffle the mullahs’ feathers. (…) No, Obama is no JFK.  But is he heir to Nixon? Though he hates Nixon ideologically, Obama has tried to compare his Iran ‘deal’ with Nixon’s rapprochement with China. Again, the comparison is misplaced. Normalization with Beijing came after the Chinese leaders had sorted out their internal power struggle and decided to work their way out of the ideological impasse created by their moment of madness known as The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The big bad wolf of the tale, Lin Biao, was eliminated in an arranged air crash and the Gang of Four defanged before the new leadership set-up in Beijing could approach Washington with talk of normalization. (…) At the time the Chinese elite, having suffered defeat in border clashes with the USSR, saw itself surrounded by enemies, especially after China’s only ally Pakistan had been cut into two halves in an Indo-Soviet scheme that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Hated by all its neighbors, China needed the US to break out of isolation. Even then, the Americans drove a hard bargain. They set a list of 22 measures that Beijing had to take to prove its goodwill, chief among them was abandoning the project of ‘exporting revolution’. (…) Those of us who, as reporters, kept an eye on China and visited the People’s Republic in those days were astonished at the dramatic changes the Communist leaders introduced in domestic and foreign policies to please the Americans. In just two years, China ceased to act as a ’cause’ and started behaving like a nation-state. It was only then that Nixon went to Beijing to highlight a long process of normalization. In the case of Iran, Obama has obtained none of those things. In fact, his ‘deal’ has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Khomeinist regime as symbolized by dramatic rise in executions, the number of prisoners of conscience and support for terror groups not to mention helping Bashar Al-Assad in Syria. (…) No, Obama is no Nixon. But is he a new Reagan as he pretends? Hardly. Reagan was prepared to engage the Soviets at the highest level only after he had convinced them that they could not blackmail Europe with their SS20s while seeking to expand their empire through so-called revolutionary movements they sponsored across the globe. The SS20s were countered with Pershing missiles and ‘revolutionary’ armies with Washington-sponsored ‘freedom fighters.’ (…) Unlike Obama who is scared of offending the mullahs, Reagan had no qualms about calling the USSR ‘The Evil Empire’ and castigating its leaders on issues of freedom and human rights. The famous phrase ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!’ indicated that though he was ready to negotiate, Reagan was not prepared to jettison allies to clinch a deal. (…) Obama has made no mention of Jimmy Carter, the US president he most resembles. However, even Carter was not as bad as Obama if only because he was prepared to boycott the Moscow Olympics to show his displeasure at the invasion of Afghanistan. Carter also tried to do something to liberate US hostages in Tehran by organizing an invasion of the Islamic Republic with seven helicopters. The result was tragicomic; but he did the best his meagre talents allowed. (NB: No one is suggesting Obama should invade Iran if only because if he did the results would be even more tragicomic than Carter’s adventure.) (…) On a more serious note, it is important to remember that dealing with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran is quite different from dealing with the USSR and China was in the context of detente and normalization. Neither the USSR nor the People’s Republic regarded the United States as ‘enemy’ in any religious context as the Khomeinist regime does. Moscow branded the US, its ‘Imperialist’ rival, as an ‘adversary’ (protivnik) who must be fought and, if possible, defeated, but not as a ‘foe’ (vrag) who must be destroyed. In China, too, the US was attacked as ‘arch-Imperialist’ or ‘The Paper Tiger’ but not as a mortal foe. The slogan was ‘Yankee! Go Home!’ (…) In the Khomeinist regime, however, the US is routinely designated as ‘foe’ (doshman) in a religious context and the slogan is ‘Death to America!’ Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei has no qualms about calling for the ‘destruction’ of America, as final step towards a new global system under the banner of his twisted version of Islam. Tehran is the only place where international ‘End of America’ conferences are held by the government every year. The USSR and China first cured themselves of their version of the anti-American disease before seeking detente and normalization. That did not mean they fell in love with the US. What it meant was that they learned to see the US as adversary, rival, or competitor not as a mortal foe engaged in a combat-to-death contest. The Islamic Republic has not yet cured itself of that disease and Obama’s weakness may make it even more difficult for that cure to be applied. (..) Détente with the USSR and normalization with China came after they modified important aspects of their behavior for the better. Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary. In the case of the USSR positive change started with the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in which Khrushchev denounced Joseph Stalin’s crimes, purged the party of its nastiest elements, notably Lavrentiy Beria, and rehabilitated millions of Stalin’s victims. (…) In foreign policy, Khrushchev, his swashbuckling style notwithstanding, accepted the new architecture of stability in Cold War Europe based on NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Kennedy, Johnson and, later, Nixon and President Gerald Ford had to respond positively. In the late1980s, the USSR offered other positive evolutions through Glasnost and Perestroika and final withdrawal from Afghanistan under Mikhail Gorbachev. Again, Reagan and President George Bush (the father) had to respond positively. (…) In the case of China we have already noted the end of the Cultural Revolution. But China also agreed to help the US find a way to end the Vietnam War. Beijing stopped its almost daily provocations against Taiwan and agreed that the issue of the island-nation issue be kicked into the long grass. Within a decade, under Deng Xiaoping, China went even further by adopting capitalism as its economic system. (…) There is one other difference between the cases of the USSR and China in the 1960s to 1990s and that of the Khomeinist regime in Tehran today. The USSR had been an ally of the United States during the Second World War and its partner in setting up the United Nations in 1945. Although rivals and adversaries, the two nations also knew when to work together when their mutual interests warranted it. The same was true of the Chinese Communist Party which had been an ally of the US and its Chinese client the Kuomintang during the war against Japanese occupation when Edgar Snow was able to describe Mao Zedong as ‘America’s staunchest ally against the Japanese Empire.’ In the 1970s, Washington and Beijing did not find it strange to cooperate in containing the USSR, their common rival-cum-adversary as they had done when countering Japan. (…) In the case of the Islamic Republic there is no sign of any positive change and certainly no history of even tactical alliance with the US. (…) Unless he knows something that we do not, Obama is responding positively to his own illusions. » Amir Taheri
Certain that Obama is paralyzed by his fear of undermining the non-existent “deal” the mullahs have intensified their backing for Houthi rebels in Yemen. Last week a delegation was in Tehran with a long shopping list for arms. In Lebanon, the mullahs have toughened their stance on choosing the country’s next president. And in Bahrain, Tehran is working on a plan to “ensure an early victory” of the Shiite revolution in the archipelago. Confident that Obama is determined to abandon traditional allies of the United States, Tehran has also heightened propaganda war against Saudi Arabia, now openly calling for the overthrow of the monarchy there. The mullahs are also heightening contacts with Palestinian groups in the hope of unleashing a new “Intifada.” “Palestine is thirsty for a third Intifada,” Supreme Guide Khamenei’s mouthpiece Kayhan said in an editorial last Thursday. “It is the duty of every Muslim to help start it as soon as possible.” Amir Taheri
Le Président américain qui a abandonné la Syrie et le Yémen sans le moindre combat est maintenant en train de mener à contre-coeur une contre-offensive en Afghanistan. Les talibans semblent avoir correctement évalué le manque de résolution du leadership actuel aux Etats-Unis et ont à l’évidence décidé de reprendre tout l’Afghanistan. Dans sa première campagne présidentielle de 2008, alors qu’il était sénateur, Obama avait qualifié l’engagement des Etats-Unis en Irak de « mauvaise guerre, » et à la place voulait que son pays se concentre sur l’Afghanistan — sa « bonne guerre. » Mais après le retrait des troupes américaines d’Irak en 2011, des pans entiers d’Irak sont tombés sous contrôle de l’Etat Islamique (ISIS), tandis que les autres régions sont passées sous influence de l’Iran. Alors comment se porte la « bonne guerre » du Président Obama en Afghanistan? Le 29 septembre 2015, les combattants talibans se sont emparés de Kunduz, une capitale provinciale. Cette prise représente la plus importante victoire des talibans depuis 2001, date à laquelle une coalition menée par les américains avait renversé le régime des talibans, à la suite des attaques du 11 septembre à New York. Depuis ce revers, les talibans s’étaient cachés dans des régions tribales tout en lançant des attaques terroristes sporadiques dans les villes, sans jamais réussir à reprendre un centre urbain. Avec la chute de Kunduz, les talibans contrôlent la 5ème plus grande ville d’Afghanistan. (…) En outre, Obama semble avoir établi un modèle de sous estimation des adversaires de l’Amérique. Il est connu qu’il a qualifié ISIS « de bande de joyeux fêtards, » et a récemment déclaré que le Président russe Vladimir Poutine s’est engagé dans la guerre en Syrie « par faiblesse. » Mais ce qui est visible à chacun sauf à Obama est que le « faible » Poutine supplante les Etats-Unis en Ukraine, Crimée et maintenant en Syrie. C’est Obama qui semble faible. Dans son approche sur d’autres terrains, Obama s’est aliéné ses alliés et a renforcé ses ennemis. Dans une apparente tentative de persuader le Pakistan de cesser d’appuyer Al-Qaeda et ses filiales, le Président Obama s’est proposé de faire pression sur l’Inde pour qu’elle fasse des concessions au Cachemire. Selon l’ancien ambassadeur du Pakistan aux Etats-Unis, Husain Haqqani, le Président Obama a secrètement écrit  au Président du Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari in 2009, l’assurant de sa sympathie pour la position du Pakistan au Cachemire, et se proposant apparemment de dire à l’Inde que « les anciennes manières de faire ne sont plus acceptables. » Selon le récit de Haqqani, rendu public en 2013, le Pakistan, qui bénéficie d’une aide financière de plusieurs milliards de dollars des Etats-Unis chaque année, a rejeté l’offre du Président Obama. Au lieu de cela, le Pakistan a continue d’entraîner, d’armer et d’abriter des terroristes internationaux – dont Osama bin Laden. Beaucoup de ces terroristes ont planifié et mené des opérations qui ont tué près de 2000 américains en service et en ont blessé 20,000 autres. Le Président Obama s’est ainsi aliéné l’Inde sans rien obtenir du Pakistan en retour. L’Inde était toute prête à soutenir la stratégie des Etats-Unis en Afghanistan. New Delhi partageait l’inquiétude de Kaboul sur la montée de l’islam militant dans la région. L’Inde est aussi confrontée à une menace existentielle par les milices islamistes dans la province à majorité musulmane du Cachemire et au-delà. Depuis le milieu des années 1990 plus de 30 000 civils indiens appartenant à du personnel de sécurité ont été tués dans des attaques terroristes. Le Président Obama, lors d’une visite en Inde, apparemment a préféré jouer le « commis voyageur » de la religion musulmane, et à plusieurs reprises a interpellé les hindous pour leur intolérance envers la minorité musulmane, niant la réalité de ce qui se révèle être une tentative de génocide et un nettoyage ethnique des Hindous, commencé il y a 70 ans avec la création de la République Islamique du Pakistan et se poursuivant aujourd’hui. Non seulement des millions d’Hindous ont été forcés de quitter le Pakistan quand les deux pays ont été créés en 1947, mais presque tous les hindous restés au Pakistan et au Bangladesh (anciennement Pakistan de l’Est) ont été expulsés ou assassinés au cours des décennies qui suivirent. Le nettoyage ethnique a culminé lors du génocide du Bangladesh en 1971, perpétré par l’Armée pakistanaise. Il a fait trois millions de victimes hindous et bangladeshis, et a forcé plus de 10 millions de refugiés à s’enfuir en Inde. En contrepartie la population musulmane en Inde est passée de 35 millions au début des années 1950 à environ 180 millions in 2015, faisant de l’Inde le foyer de la deuxième plus importante population musulmane au monde, après l’Indonésie. L’offensive des talibans en Afghanistan est le résultat direct de la politique constante de l’administration Obama de s’aliéner ses amis et de renforcer ses ennemis. Que ce soit Israël, l’Iran, l’Egypte ou l’Afghanistan, le Président Obama a de toute évidence préféré traiter avec des acteurs islamistes ou djihadistes plutôt qu’avec des forces libérales, laïques et démocratiques. Les conséquences d’une reconquête par les talibans de l’Afghanistan seraient encore plus désastreuses que leur précédent règne de terreur. Les talibans non seulement recommenceraient à envoyer des djihadistes bien entraînés à travers le Pakistan et au-delà de ses frontières, pour faire la guerre aux « infidèles » en Inde; Il porterait aussi son objectif déclaré de djihad mondial contre l’Occident. Avec les frontières de l’Europe grandes ouvertes, l’occident est plus vulnérable que jamais. Vijeta Uniyal
Si vous pouvez tuer un incroyant américain ou européen – en particulier les méchants et sales Français – ou un Australien ou un Canadien, ou tout […] citoyen des pays qui sont entrés dans une coalition contre l’État islamique, alors comptez sur Allah et tuez-le de n’importe quelle manière. (…) Tuez le mécréant qu’il soit civil ou militaire. (…) Frappez sa tête avec une pierre, égorgez-le avec un couteau, écrasez-le avec votre voiture, jetez-le d’un lieu en hauteur, étranglez-le ou empoisonnez-le. Abou Mohammed al-Adnani (porte-parole de l’EI)
Nous vous bénissons, nous bénissons les Mourabitoun (hommes) et les Mourabitat (femmes). Nous saluons toutes gouttes de sang versées à Jérusalem. C’est du sang pur, du sang propre, du sang qui mène à Dieu. Avec l’aide de Dieu, chaque djihadiste (shaheed) sera au paradis, et chaque blessé sera récompensé. Nous ne leur permettrons aucune avancée. Dans toutes ses divisions, Al-Aqsa est à nous et l’église du Saint Sépulcre est notre, tout est à nous. Ils n’ont pas le droit de les profaner avec leurs pieds sales, et on ne leur permettra pas non plus. Mahmoud Abbas
La présence des « colons Juifs » est « illégale » et par conséquent, toute mesure prise contre eux est légitime et légale. (…) Il est important que le soulèvement populaire s’intensifie. Jamal Muhaisen (Conseil Central du Fatah, 7 oct. , 2015]
 Il n’est pas nécessaire de revenir aux polémiques pour savoir qui a commis cette opération… Il n’est pas utile de l’annoncer ouvertement ni de se vanter de l’avoir fait. On doit remplir son devoir national volontairement et du mieux qu’on le peut. Mahmoud Ismail (officiel de l’OLP, Official PA TV, Oct. 6, 2015]
 Nos vies et notre sang seront sacrifiés pour la mosquée Al-Aqsa. Chaque violation du côté israélien contre Al-Aqsa est une violation de l’occupation, qu’elle soit accomplie dans des uniformes militaires ou religieux ou sous une couverture politique. Nous devons lutter contre toutes ces violations jusqu’à ce que l’occupation soit levée. Raed Salah
Raed Salah, chef du Mouvement islamique radical en Israël, appelle à utiliser la violence pour couper les Juifs de leur site le plus sacré, et affirme qu’Israël a déclaré la guerre en disant qu’il ne peut y avoir de Jérusalem sans le Mont du Temple. Le Sheikh Raed Salah, , a appelé à la violence terroriste sur le Mont du Temple – le site le plus saint du judaïsme – de manière à empêcher l’accès des Juifs au site sacré. Se référant à des visites juives pacifiques sur le site – qui sont souvent l’objet de harcèlement, tel que récemment pendant les prières de Ticha Be Av, une commémoration de la destruction du Premier et du Second Temple sur le site, Salah a parlé d’attaques israéliennes contre la Mosquée Al-Aqsa. (…) Le problème, avoue la journaliste Halevy, c’est que le Mont a été laissé entre les mains du Waqf jordanien depuis qu’il a été libéré pendant la guerre des Six Jours en 1967, et par conséquent, il est devenu le site d’émeutes musulmanes destinées à bloquer l’entrée des Juifs. De même, le Waqf a interdit aux Juifs de prier sur le site, malgré la loi israélienne stipulant la liberté de culte. (…) Lors d’un discours durant une manifestation musulmane en 2007, il a accusé les Juifs d’utiliser le sang des enfants pour cuire les matsot, invoquant les infâmes diffamations médiévales de meurtres de sang utilisés pour déclencher des pogroms meurtriers en Europe et au Moyen-Orient. Salah a également passé une brève période en prison pour avoir transféré de l’argent au Hamas, et s’est ému comme un enfant, des dessins des croix gammées dans une interview en 2009, sur une station de télévision de langue arabe basée à Londres. Coolamnews
Des centaines de milliers de fidèles musulmans doivent aller à Al-Aqsa et s’opposer au complot israélien de verser le sang des habitants arabes de Jérusalem-Est. Aujourd’hui, c’est seulement le travail de quelques individus, mais nous avons besoin d’un soutien national. Si les attaques individuelles continuent sans soutien national, ces actions seront éteintes dans les prochains jours, et donc des centaines de milliers de personnes doivent se mobiliser pour commencer une véritable Intifada. Hanin Zoabi (députée arabe au Parlement israélien)
Mon frère de Cisjordanie : Poignarde ! Mon frère de Cisjordanie : Poignarde les mythes du Talmud dans leurs esprits ! Mon frère de Cisjordanie : Poignarde les mythes sur le Temple dans leurs cœurs ! (…) Ô peuple de la mosquée d’Al-Abrar et peuple de Rafah, depuis votre mosquée, vous avez l’honneur de délivrer ces messages aux hommes de Cisjordanie : formez des escouades d’attaques au couteau. Nous ne voulons pas d’un seul assaillant. Ô jeunes hommes de Cisjordanie : Attaquez-les par trois et quatre. Les uns doivent tenir la victime, pendant que les autres l’attaquent avec des haches et des couteaux de boucher. (…) Ne craignez pas ce que l’on dira de vous. Ô hommes de Cisjordanie, la prochaine fois, attaquez par groupe de trois, quatre ou cinq. Attaquez-les en groupe. Découpez-les en morceaux. Mohammed Salah (« Abou Rajab », imam de Rafah, Gaza)
There’s been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and there’s an increase in the violence because there’s this frustration that’s growing. John Kerry
The same issue is being fought today and has been fought since 1948, and historians are carried back to the 19th century … when the original people, the Palestinians — and please remember, Jesus was a Palestinian — the Palestinian people had the Europeans come and take their country. (…) The youth in Ferguson and the youth in Palestine have united together to remind us that the dots need to be connected. And what Dr. King said, injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere, has implications for us as we stand beside our Palestinian brothers and sisters, who have been done one of the most egregious injustices in the 20th and 21st centuries. (…) As we sit here, there is an apartheid wall being built twice the size of the Berlin Wall in height, keeping Palestinians off of illegally occupied territories, where the Europeans have claimed that land as their own. (…) Palestinians are saying ‘Palestinian lives matter.’ We stand with you, we support you, we say God bless you. Jeremiah Wright
C’est contre la colonisation continue des territoires conquis en 1967 que se révoltent une fois de plus en ce moment les Palestiniens. Ils comprennent que la colonisation vise à perpétuer l’infériorité palestinienne et rendre irréversible la situation qui dénie à leur peuple ses droits fondamentaux. Ici se trouve la raison des violences actuelles et on n’y mettra fin que le jour où les Israéliens accepteront de regarder les Palestiniens comme leurs égaux et où les deux peuples accepteront de se faire face sur la « ligne verte » de 1949, issue des accords d’armistice israélo-arabes de Rhodes. (…) Tant que la société juive ne reconnaît pas l’égalité des droits de l’autre peuple résidant sur la terre d’Israël, elle continuera de sombrer dans une réalité ouvertement coloniale et ségrégationniste, comme celle qui existe déjà dans les territoires occupés. Le conflit qui sévit aujourd’hui à Jérusalem comme les tragédies, les attentats et les meurtres qui frappent l’existence quotidienne des Juifs et des Arabes sont un bon exemple de ce que l’avenir nous réserve dans un Etat binational. Naturellement, cette approche exige symétrie et réciprocité du côté palestinien : la « ligne verte » est la frontière définitive, donc aucune colonie juive ne s’établira plus en Cisjordanie, mais aucun Palestinien ne devra retourner à l’intérieur des frontières de l’Etat d’Israël. Le sionisme classique s’est fixé pour tâche d’offrir un foyer au peuple juif. Le temps qui a séparé la guerre d’indépendance de la guerre des Six-Jours a montré que tous les objectifs du sionisme pouvaient être réalisés à l’intérieur du tracé de la « ligne verte ». La seule question sensée que l’on puisse poser aujourd’hui est donc de savoir si la société israélienne a encore la capacité de se réinventer, de sortir de l’emprise de la religion et de l’histoire et d’accepter de scinder le pays en deux Etats libres et indépendants. Zeev Sternhell (Historien)
Dans la bande de Gaza, étroite enclave côtière déjà ravagée par trois guerres et qui étouffe depuis neuf ans sous le blocus israélien, le désespoir est à son comble: la moitié des jeunes cherchent à s’exiler, les suicides sont en hausse, le chômage –l’un des plus forts taux au monde à 45%– n’a jamais été si haut et les perspectives d’avenir si lointaines. L’Obs
Le couteau est érigé en symbole du désespoir de « la génération Oslo ». Francetvinfo
L’usage d’une arme blanche est devenu typique d’une génération moins politisée et religieuse que ses aînés, et marquée par le désespoir.  C’est ce qui effraie les autorités israéliennes, car elles sont incapables de repérer ces individus, puisqu’ils ne sont pas fichés dans leurs services. C’est la génération née après les accord d’Oslo de 1993, accords de paix qui ont échoué. Ces jeunes n’ont jamais rien connu d’autre que les affrontements, la guerre et les humiliations.  Désillusionnés, ils se sont autoradicalisés et sont prêts à tout pour que la Palestine devienne un pays indépendant. Frédéric Encel
Un rapport d’un observateur de l’ONU indique que l’UNRWA gère 12 comptes Facebook antisémites et que les noms des responsables ont été livrés au Secrétaire général de l’ONU, Ban Ki Moon, qui est invité à punir les coupables. L’organisation non gouvernementale UN Watch rapporte que les fonctionnaires de l’UNRWA gèrent pas moins de 12 comptes Facebook différents qui incitent ouvertement à la violence et à la haine contre les Juifs. Le groupe a présenté un rapport jeudi au Secrétaire général des Nations Unies, Ban Ki-moon, pour lui demander encore une fois de punir les coupables, conformément à ses promesses. UN Watch a également signalé que la réponse du porte-parole de l’UNRWA Chris Gunness a été vulgaire et il s’est déchaîné contre l’ONG. Gunness a également tweeté que les allégations d‘antisémitisme contre l’UNRWA sont une légende sans fondement, et que UN Watch manque de crédibilité et « se rend ridicule. » Un porte-parole a répondu que les preuves existaient et avaient été présentées à Ban Ki Moon. Centre Simon Wisenthal
M. Nétanyahou, le «nationaliste», a bien mauvaise presse. Mahmoud Abbas quant à lui fait figure médiatique de gentil «modéré». Sans remonter une nouvelle fois aux origines du conflit, chacun s’accorde à reconnaître que dans sa dernière séquence celui-ci a pour cause la querelle à propos de l’esplanade des mosquées-mont du temple. Il ne se sera pas trouvé un seul journaliste hexagonal pour dire que l’intention prêtée aux responsables israéliens d’empêcher les musulmans d’exercer paisiblement leur culte à l’intérieur de leurs mosquées relevait du fantasme incantatoire islamiste. Il ne s’en est pas trouvé non plus un seul- au rebours de la presse étrangère-pour révéler la teneur du discours du «modéré» président palestinien à la télévision officielle daté du 16 septembre à propos des émeutes qui commençaient à Jérusalem, organisées par les extrémistes qui agressaient ces juifs venus pour prier pendant leur fêtes religieuses: «Nous bénissons les Mourabitoun, nous saluons chaque goutte de leur sang versé à cause de Jérusalem. Ce sang est pur, ce sang est propre, versé au nom d’Allah, chaque martyr aura sa place au paradis. La mosquée Al Aqsa, l’église du Saint-Sépulcre, tout est à nous, entièrement à nous ; ils n’ont pas le droit (les juifs) de les souiller de leurs pieds sales.» Depuis, et compte tenu de l’aggravation de la situation, Mahmoud Abbas a tenté de mettre de l’eau sur le feu. Mais comme le disait déjà le clairvoyant Bourguiba: «les chefs arabes sont toujours étonnés d’être pris au pied de la lettre et de ne plus savoir éteindre les incendies qu’ils ont allumés.» Je ne veux pas prétendre ici que la partie israélienne soit exempte de reproches, a fortiori son premier ministre, plus pragmatique qu’on ne le dit, mais affaibli au sein d’une coalition gouvernementale trop à droite, pour cause de système électoral littéralement criminel. Je persiste néanmoins à penser que dans un cadre intellectuel libéré de tout surmoi xénophile, la première question qui vaudrait d’être posée sans crainte de blasphémer serait de savoir pour quelle miraculeuse raison le monde palestinien échapperait à une radicalité islamiste qui met le feu à toute la région. La question ne sera pas posée. Gilles-William Goldnadel
UNRWA is deeply alarmed by the escalating violence and widespread loss of civilian life in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel. Only robust political action can prevent the further escalation of a situation that is affecting Palestinian and Israeli civilians. In Gaza a total of 11 Palestinians, among them refugees, have reportedly been killed and at least 186 injured. Nine people, including three children were reportedly killed during demonstrations in Gaza and two people – a pregnant woman and a child – were killed when a house collapsed due to the impact of a nearby Israeli strike. Four people were reportedly injured in the latter incident. In the West Bank, between 1 October and 9 October, UNRWA has recorded 45 incursions by Israeli forces into refugee camps resulting in several refugees being shot dead, including one child.  According to preliminary figures, 180 people have reportedly been injured in West Bank refugee camps, including some 20 children. About 50 of  them were reportedly injured by live-fire. (…)  Further to the recent statement of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the high number of casualties, in particular those resulting from the use of live ammunition by Israeli forces raise serious concerns about the excessive use of force that may be contrary to international law enforcement standards. Under international law there are strict limits to the use of lethal force whether in the context of law enforcement operations or during conflict. These limitations are especially pertinent where a military occupying power operates in civilian areas. According to the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials: “Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape; and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.” Where alleged violations of international law occur, there must be a prompt, impartial, effective and thorough investigation of the events and full accountability in accordance with international standards. (…) The root causes of the conflict, among them the Israeli occupation, must be addressed. Across the occupied Palestinian territory there is a pervasive sense of hopelessness and despair resulting from the denial of rights and dignity. In the West Bank communities living under occupation feel profoundly marginalized. While in Gaza the latest demonstrations are evidence of a generation that has lost hope in the future; not least because of the lack of economic prospects — youth unemployment is one of the highest in the world – but also because of the lack of reconstruction more than a year after the conflict. An entire generation of Palestinians is at risk. All political actors must act decisively to restore their hope in a dignified, secure and stable future. Christopher Gunness (porte-parole de l’Unrwa et ancien journaliste de la BBC, October 12, 2015)
Which Nation Funding UNRWA Would React Differently if its Citizens Were Stabbed, Shot, Bombed and Rammed by Terrorists? The Simon Wiesenthal Center slammed the United Nation Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for criticizing Israel’s efforts to quell barbaric terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in Jerusalem and across the Jewish State. UNRWA expressed its concern over the use of live ammunition by Israeli forces – a policy the agency described as, “Excessive use of force,” which, it said, “May be contrary to international law enforcement standards. What an outrage! Instead of unequivocally denouncing the ongoing carnage of murderous stabbings, shootings, bombings and car rammings unleashed by Palestinians against their Jewish neighbors, UNRWA denounces Israel for trying to quell the terrorism and protect its citizens. UNRWA is the international agency that interacts with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians on a daily basis, providing over the decades, billions of dollars of aid. Instead of using its unique position to admonish the Palestinians to stop the terror and violence, targeting babies and a 12 year-old boy, 5 months before his Bar Mitzvah, it instead denounces the Jewish state for trying to stop the terror. As UNRWA receives its funding from the international community it is appropriate to ask, which nation funding UNRWA would react differently than Israel if its citizens were subject to a campaign of stabbings, shootings and bombings: The answer is that every nation in the world would respond powerfully to such a wave of terror, but only Israel is subject to criticism for the sin of defending her civilians. UNRWA’s outrageous criticism of Israel will only serve to inspire more violence against innocent Jews. Wiesenthal Center
What do you do when the people who are trying to kill you live in the neighborhood down the street? Or when they live in the same village as that lovely man your son’s been working with? Or when they work for the phone company? When they try to kill anybody — uniformed soldiers and police, ultra-Orthodox Jews, all the passengers on a city bus? When they target men, and women, and children. When they are men, and women, and children? When their leaders — politicians, spiritual leaders, teachers — lie to them about us, lie about our history, lie about our ambitions? When some of their leaders tell them they will go to paradise if they die in the act of killing us? When they (sometimes) lie to themselves about the killings they carry out — claiming that it is we who are rising up to kill them, that their bombers and stabbers are being attacked in cold blood by us — and thereby widen the circle of embittered potential killers? When they (sometimes) lie to themselves about who it is they are killing, falsely claiming in widely circulated social media exchanges, for instance, that Na’ama Henkin, gunned down with her husband in the West Bank two weeks ago, was deliberately targeted because it was she who had insulted the prophet, calling Muhammad a pig, on a visit to the Temple Mount this summer? When all they need in order to kill is a knife or a screwdriver and a mind that’s been filled with poison? And when that poison pours into them from most every media channel they consume, and from the horrendous Facebook postings of their peers and their role models? (…) After decades relentlessly demonizing and delegitimizing the revived Jewish state, the Palestinian leadership has produced a generation many of whom are so filled with hatred, and so convinced of the imperative to kill, that no other consideration — including the likelihood that they will die in the act — prevents them from seeking to murder Jews. The false claim pumped by Hamas, and the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, and Fatah, and many more besides, that the Jews intend to pray on the Temple Mount — a place of unique sanctity for Jews, but one whose Jewish connection has been erased from the Palestinian narrative — has all too evidently pushed a new wave of young Palestinians, urged to “protect al-Aqsa,” into murderous action against any and all Jewish targets, using any and all weapons. The suicide bombings of the Second Intifada were carried out by West Bank Palestinians; the onslaught was drastically reduced when Israel built the security barrier. Today’s terrorism is largely being carried out by Palestinian Arabs from East Jerusalem, some of whom have blue Israeli identity cards. The relative neglect of East Jerusalem since 1967, by an Israel that expanded the city’s municipal boundaries but signally failed to ensure anything remotely close to equality between Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, only made the lies and the incitement spread more easily. In an Israel where Jews and Arabs live utterly intertwined lives, this new level of potential danger in every seemingly banal encounter is rendering daily life nightmarish. In the short term: Arrest the preachers who spout hatred. Ask Facebook to close down the pages that disseminate it, and find the people behind those pages. Monitor hateful sentiment on social media more effectively; several of this month’s terrorists made no secret of their murderous intentions. (…) But in some neighborhoods, addressing such inequalities is impossible. Physically impossible. As in, Jewish city officials would be taking their lives into their hands to set foot in Shuafat refugee camp. By contrast, handing control of such areas to the PA, whose leader Mahmoud Abbas insists that all Jerusalem territory captured by Israel in 1967 be part of a Palestinian state, becomes ever less palatable and viable, as he becomes ever more extreme in his pronouncements and as the Palestinian-Arab population becomes ever more of a threat. (..) Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s peace terms in 2000, and opted instead to foment the Second Intifada. And Mahmoud Abbas, eight years later, failed to seize Ehud Olmert’s offer to withdraw from the entire West Bank (with one-for-one land swaps), divide Jerusalem, and relinquish sovereignty in the Old City. (…) in fact, it is “resistance” that keeps the Palestinians from statehood. Most Israelis want to separate from the Palestinians — want to stop running their lives, want to keep a Jewish-democratic Israel. “Resistance” in each new iteration tells Israelis that they dare not do so. Had Gaza been calm and unthreatening after Israel’s 2005 withdrawal, the late Ariel Sharon would likely have withdrawn unilaterally from most of the West Bank. The Hamas takeover in Gaza, the incessant rocket fire and the frequent rounds of conflict told Israel that it could not risk another such withdrawal — that it could not risk another Hamas takeover in the West Bank. The international community peers shortsightedly at a strong Israel — very strong indeed compared to the Palestinians — and concludes that the onus is upon us to take the calculated risk and grant them full independence. But step back a little — to a perspective that includes Hamas, the rise of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, the threat posed directly by an emboldened Iran and via its terrorist proxies, the anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel rampant across this region — and it should be obvious that a miscalculation by “strong” Israel would quickly render it untenably weak and vulnerable. We might get better international media coverage, but we also might face destruction; Israelis aren’t about to vote for that. (…) What do you do when some of your neighbors are trying to kill you? Protect yourself. Stop them. Do what you sensibly can to help create a different, better climate — to moderate your enemies. Meanwhile, hang tough. Refuse to be terrorized. David Horowitz
Regarding the causes of this Palestinian blood fetish, Western news organizations have resorted to familiar tropes. Palestinians have despaired at the results of the peace process—never mind that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas just declared the Oslo Accords null and void. Israeli politicians want to allow Jews to pray atop the Temple Mount—never mind that Benjamin Netanyahu denies it and has barred Israeli politicians from visiting the site. There’s always the hoary “cycle of violence” formula that holds nobody and everybody accountable at one and the same time. Left out of most of these stories is some sense of what Palestinian leaders have to say. As in these nuggets from a speech Mr. Abbas gave last month: “Al Aqsa Mosque is ours. They [Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet.” And: “We bless every drop of blood spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah.” Then there is the goading of the Muslim clergy. “Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews,” one Gaza imam said Friday in a recorded address, translated by the invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri. “Today, we realize why the Jews build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles but to prevent the slitting of their throats.” Then, brandishing a six-inch knife, he added: “My brother in the West Bank: Stab!” Imagine if a white minister in, say, South Carolina preached this way about African-Americans, knife and all: Would the news media be supine in reporting it? Would we get “both sides” journalism of the kind that is pro forma when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians, with lengthy pieces explaining—and implicitly justifying—the minister’s sundry grievances, his sense that his country has been stolen from him? And would this be supplemented by the usual fake math of moral opprobrium, which is the stock-in-trade of reporters covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? In the Middle East version, a higher Palestinian death toll suggests greater Israeli culpability. (Perhaps Israeli paramedics should stop treating stabbing victims to help even the score.) (…) The significant question is why so many Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust—by a communal psychosis in which plunging knives into the necks of Jewish women, children, soldiers and civilians is seen as a religious and patriotic duty, a moral fulfillment. Despair at the state of the peace process, or the economy? Please. It’s time to stop furnishing Palestinians with the excuses they barely bother making for themselves. Above all, it’s time to give hatred its due. We understand its explanatory power when it comes to American slavery, or the Holocaust. We understand it especially when it is the hatred of the powerful against the weak. Yet we fail to see it when the hatred disturbs comforting fictions about all people being basically good, or wanting the same things for their children, or being capable of empathy. Today in Israel, Palestinians are in the midst of a campaign to knife Jews to death, one at a time. This is psychotic. It is evil. To call it anything less is to serve as an apologist, and an accomplice. Bret Stephens

« Couteau arme du désespoir« , « jeunes « désespérés » qui assassinent ou tentent d’assassiner des familles entière enfants et bébés compris, « jeune sans histoire » qui écrase des gens à un arrêt de bus avec une voiture puis s’acharne sur eux pour les achever au couteau, président qui « salue toutes gouttes de sang versées à Jérusalem » et rappelle les récompenses célestes destinées aux « martyrs » qui empêcheront les juifs de  profaner Al Aqsa avec leurs pieds sales », imam qui  appelle en plein prêche du vendredi à « poignarder « les juifs, médias occidentaux qui n’ont que les mots « désespoir » et « contestation » à la bouche, porte-parole d’une agence de l’ONU qui dénonce le seul « usage excessif de la force » des forces de sécurité israéliennes, secrétaire d’Etat américain qui met tout sur le dos des constructions israéliennes …

Vous avez dit « usage excessif de la force » ?

A l’heure où notre vieux rêve de monde unipolaire nous est enfin exaucé …

Et où chacun peut mesurer – pas moins de cinq guerres en cours entre la Syrie et l’Afghanistan ! – les effets chaque jour un peu plus catastrophiques …

D’un désengagement américain que le monde n’a pas connu depuis peut-être la fin de la 2e guerre mondiale  …

Pendant que de l’Iran à l’Etat islamique et à la Turquie et de la Russie à la Chine et à la Corée du nord, les dictatures ou Etats voyous multiplient les menaces dans les 15 mois qui leur restent …

Et qu’au Proche-Orient, dirigeants comme religieux, appellent ouvertement le premier venu à égorger tout juif qu’il ou elle peut trouver sur son chemin …

Devinez quel petit Etat, seule véritable démocratie de toute la région, est actuellement la cible de toutes les accusations ?

Palestine: The Psychotic Stage
The truth about why Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust.
Bret Stephens
The Wall Street Journal
Oct. 12, 2015

If you’ve been following the news from Israel, you might have the impression that “violence” is killing a lot of people. As in this headline: “Palestinian Killed As Violence Continues.” Or this first paragraph: “Violence and bloodshed radiating outward from flash points in Jerusalem and the West Bank appear to be shifting gears and expanding, with Gaza increasingly drawn in.”

Read further, and you might also get a sense of who, according to Western media, is perpetrating “violence.” As in: “Two Palestinian Teenagers Shot by Israeli Police,” according to one headline. Or: “Israeli Retaliatory Strike in Gaza Kills Woman and Child, Palestinians Say,” according to another.

Such was the media’s way of describing two weeks of Palestinian assaults that began when Hamas killed a Jewish couple as they were driving with their four children in the northern West Bank. Two days later, a Palestinian teenager stabbed two Israelis to death in Jerusalem’s Old City, and also slashed a woman and a 2-year-old boy. Hours later, another knife-wielding Palestinian was shot and killed by Israeli police after he slashed a 15-year-old Israeli boy in the chest and back.

Other Palestinian attacks include the stabbing of two elderly Israeli men and an assault with a vegetable peeler on a 14-year-old. On Sunday, an Arab-Israeli man ran over a 19-year-old female soldier at a bus stop, then got out of his car, stabbed her, and attacked two men and a 14-year-old girl. Several attacks have been carried out by women, including a failed suicide bombing.

Regarding the causes of this Palestinian blood fetish, Western news organizations have resorted to familiar tropes. Palestinians have despaired at the results of the peace process—never mind that Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas just declared the Oslo Accords null and void. Israeli politicians want to allow Jews to pray atop the Temple Mount—never mind that Benjamin Netanyahu denies it and has barred Israeli politicians from visiting the site. There’s always the hoary “cycle of violence” formula that holds nobody and everybody accountable at one and the same time.

Left out of most of these stories is some sense of what Palestinian leaders have to say. As in these nuggets from a speech Mr. Abbas gave last month: “Al Aqsa Mosque is ours. They [Jews] have no right to defile it with their filthy feet.” And: “We bless every drop of blood spilled for Jerusalem, which is clean and pure blood, blood spilled for Allah.”

Then there is the goading of the Muslim clergy. “Brothers, this is why we recall today what Allah did to the Jews,” one Gaza imam said Friday in a recorded address, translated by the invaluable Middle East Media Research Institute, or Memri. “Today, we realize why the Jews build walls. They do not do this to stop missiles but to prevent the slitting of their throats.”

Then, brandishing a six-inch knife, he added: “My brother in the West Bank: Stab!”

Imagine if a white minister in, say, South Carolina preached this way about African-Americans, knife and all: Would the news media be supine in reporting it? Would we get “both sides” journalism of the kind that is pro forma when it comes to Israelis and Palestinians, with lengthy pieces explaining—and implicitly justifying—the minister’s sundry grievances, his sense that his country has been stolen from him?

And would this be supplemented by the usual fake math of moral opprobrium, which is the stock-in-trade of reporters covering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? In the Middle East version, a higher Palestinian death toll suggests greater Israeli culpability. (Perhaps Israeli paramedics should stop treating stabbing victims to help even the score.) In a U.S. version, should the higher incidence of black-on-white crime be cited to “balance” stories about white supremacists?

Didn’t think so.

Treatises have been written about the media’s mind-set when it comes to telling the story of Israel. We’ll leave that aside for now. The significant question is why so many Palestinians have been seized by their present blood lust—by a communal psychosis in which plunging knives into the necks of Jewish women, children, soldiers and civilians is seen as a religious and patriotic duty, a moral fulfillment. Despair at the state of the peace process, or the economy? Please. It’s time to stop furnishing Palestinians with the excuses they barely bother making for themselves.

Above all, it’s time to give hatred its due. We understand its explanatory power when it comes to American slavery, or the Holocaust. We understand it especially when it is the hatred of the powerful against the weak. Yet we fail to see it when the hatred disturbs comforting fictions about all people being basically good, or wanting the same things for their children, or being capable of empathy.

Today in Israel, Palestinians are in the midst of a campaign to knife Jews to death, one at a time. This is psychotic. It is evil. To call it anything less is to serve as an apologist, and an accomplice.

Voir aussi:

OLP : Tuer les Juifs est un devoir national légal
Israel
11 octobre 2015

« La présence des « colons Juifs » [à Jérusalem, Tel Aviv, Afula?] est « illégale » et par conséquent, toute mesure prise contre eux est légitime et légale », selon Jamal Muhaisen, membre du Conseil Central du Fatah [ [Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 7 oct. , 2015]. Cette propension au meurtre des Juifs, souvent exprimée par des responsables du plus haut rang de l’Autorité Palestinienne et du Fatah, explique le vaste soutien accordé par les responsables palestiniens aux récents meurtres de civils israéliens.

Un autre officiel palestinien, Mahmoud Ismail, membre du Comité Excécutif [c’est le moment de le dire!] de l’OLP, a ouvertement déclaré que le meurtre de sang-froid de Naama et Eitam Henkin dans leur voiture et devant leurs quatre enfants était, non seulement « légal », mais qu’il « remplissait pleinement un devoir national » palestinien [TV officielle de l’AP, 6 Oct. 2015].

Alors qu’Israël continue de subir une terreur quotidienne à travers tout le pays, dont quatre tentatives de meurtre au couteau hier et trois de plus, au moins, à cette heure, aujourd’hui, contre des citoyens Juifs, l’Autorité Palestinienne et le Fatah continuent d’exprimer leur total soutien à ce qu’ils sont prompts à qualifier de « soulèvement populaire ». Tout en disant au monde qu’ils ne veulent pas une nouvelle Intifada et qu’ils sont contre le terrorisme, les officiels de l’AP exhortent leur peuple à poursuivre les attentats contre tous les Juifs Israéliens, ce qu’ils appellent un « soulèvement populaire ».

Jamal Muhaisen: “Il est important que le soulèvement populaire s’intensifie.”
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, 7 octobre 2015]

Les citations suivantes sont extraites des déclarations de Jamal Muhaisen, membre du Comité Central du Fatah et de Mahmoud Ismaïl, membre du comité exécutif de l’OLP, légitimant le meurtre des civils israéliens.

Jamal Muhaisen, membre du Conseil Central du Fatah :

Jamal Muhaisen, membre du Comité centela du Fatah a déclaré que le peuple palestinien prouve que sa vie et son sang ont peu de valeur, devant leur soutien à la Mosquée Al Aqsa et le devoir d’accomplir la libération et l’indépendance… Muhaisen a insisté sur le fait qu’il est important que le soulèvement populaire (soit les attentats individuels terroristes contre des Juifs) s’accroisse, de façon à punir les crimes de l’occupation des des « Colons ». Il a clairement dit que la présence des « colons » est illégale et que, par conséquent toute mesure prise contre eux est à la fois légale et légitime ».
[Al-Hayat Al-Jadida, Oct. 7, 2015]
Mahmoud Ismail, membre du conseil exécutif de l’OLP :

Animateur de la TV officielle de l’AP :  « Est ce qu’ils [ les tueurs du couple Henkin] sont des Brigades des Martyrs d’Al Aqsa ou du Hamas?

Mahmoud Ismail (officiel de l’OLP) : « Il n’est pas nécessaire de revenir aux polémiques pour savoir qui a commis cette opération… Il n’est pas utile de l’annoncer ouvertement ni de se vanter de l’avoir fait. On doit remplir son devoir national volontairement et du mieux qu’on le peut ».
[Official PA TV, Oct. 6, 2015]

Les meurtriers des Henkin – Israelis Naama et Eitam Henkin (qui est aussi citoyen américain) ont été assassinés de sang-froid dans une attaque à l’arme feu depuis un autre véhicule le 1er octobre 2015, sur la route entre Itamar et Elon Moreh près de Naplouse. Leurs quatre enfants âgés de 9, 7, 4 ans, et le dernier, de 4 mois, présents dans la voiture, ont été témoins de ces meurtres, mais n’ont pas été physiquement blessés, parce que les assassins se sont tirés dessus par erreur.

Bien que les brigades de l’OLP, les Martyrs d’Al Aqsa se sont empressés de revendiquer ces meurtres, cinq terroristes du Hamas ont été arrêtés par le Shin Bet …

palwatch.org

Adaptation : Marc Brzustowski.

Un prédicateur de Rafah brandit un couteau dans un sermon et appelle les Palestiniens à poignarder des juifs

Voir les extraits vidéo sur MEMRI TV

Dans un sermon du vendredi 9 octobre 2015 prononcé à la mosquée Al-Abrar à Rafah, dans la bande de Gaza, le cheikh Mohammed Sallah « Abou Rajab » brandit un couteau, lançant un appel à ses frères de Cisjordanie : « Poignardez-les ». Il ajoute : « Ô jeunes hommes de Cisjordanie : Attaquez-les par trois ou quatre », et « découpez-les en morceaux ». Extraits :

Mohammed Salah « Abou Rajab » : Mes frères, nous devons sans arrêt rappeler au monde, et à tous ceux qui l’ont oublié… Le monde doit entendre, via ces caméras et via Internet : C’est Gaza ! C’est le lieu des tranchées et des canons ! C’est la Cisjordanie ! C’est le lieu des bombes et des poignards ! C’est Jérusalem… Jérusalem est le nom de code… C’est Jérusalem… On peut dire beaucoup de choses sur Jérusalem. C’est là que se trouvent les soldats du prophète Mahomet. Telle est la grâce d’Allah. Les soldats du prophète Mahomet sont ici. Mes frères, voilà pourquoi nous rappelons aujourd’hui ce qu’Allah a fait aux juifs. Nous rappelons ce qu’Il leur a fait à Khaybar.

[…]

Aujourd’hui, nous comprenons pourquoi les [juifs] construisent des murs. Ils ne le font pas pour arrêter les missiles, mais pour empêcher qu’on leur tranche la gorge.

[…]

« Abou Rajab », poignard à la main, fait le geste d’attaquer.

Mon frère de Cisjordanie : Poignarde ! Mon frère de Cisjordanie : Poignarde les mythes du Talmud dans leurs esprits ! Mon frère de Cisjordanie : Poignarde les mythes sur le Temple dans leurs cœurs !

[…]

Aujourd’hui, nous avons déclaré un couvre-feu [en Israël]. Écoutez ce que les juifs se disent entre eux : Restez à la maison, ou bien sortez rencontrer votre mort. Ils n’ont pas d’autre choix. Ô hommes de Cisjordanie, la première phase de l’opération nécessite de poignarder pour parvenir à un couvre-feu.

[…]

Maintenant, nous imposons un couvre-feu avec des poignards, et dans la phase suivante, qui est, avec l’aide d’Allah, sur le point de se réaliser… Nous ne vous renverrons pas en Russie, en Bulgarie, en Ukraine ou en Pologne. Nous ne vous renverrons pas là-bas. Vous êtes venus ici… Le tribunal militaire islamique a décrété… Ce tribunal, présidé par le compagnon du Prophète Sad Ibn Mu’adh, a décrété… Saad Ibn Mu’adh est réapparu, en Cisjordanie. Saad Ibn Mu’adh est aujourd’hui dans les rues de Jérusalem, d’Afula, de Tel-Aviv et du Néguev. Le tribunal militaire islamique a statué le jugement divin : Vous n’aurez rien d’autre sur notre terre que le massacre et le poignard. Pourquoi ? Le monde dira que nous sommes des terroristes, que nous incitons à la haine. Oui ! « Ô Prophète, le Seul qui compte pour toi et pour quiconque te suit parmi les croyants est Allah. Ô Prophète d’Allah, exhorte les croyants à combattre. » Pourquoi ? Ô Amérique, ô agresseurs croisés, ô sionistes arabes, ô sionistes parmi les juifs criminels : sommes-nous des agresseurs ? Vous êtes venus de votre propre volonté pour être massacrés sur notre terre.

[…]

« Lorsque viendra la promesse de l’Au-delà, Nous vous ferons venir en foule. » Allah a fait venir les juifs, Ses ennemis et les ennemis de l’humanité, qui détruisent nos maisons en Syrie, en Irak, en Egypte et partout.

[…]

Ô peuple de la mosquée d’Al-Abrar et peuple de Rafah, depuis votre mosquée, vous avez l’honneur de délivrer ces messages aux hommes de Cisjordanie : formez des escouades d’attaques au couteau. Nous ne voulons pas d’un seul assaillant. Ô jeunes hommes de Cisjordanie : Attaquez-les par trois et quatre. Les uns doivent tenir la victime, pendant que les autres l’attaquent avec des haches et des couteaux de boucher.

[…]

Ne craignez pas ce que l’on dira de vous. Ô hommes de Cisjordanie, la prochaine fois, attaquez par groupe de trois, quatre ou cinq. Attaquez-les en groupe. Découpez-les en morceaux.

[…]

Wiesenthal Center to UNRWA: When will you Repudiate Palestinian Terrorists’ Crimes Against Humanity?

Which Nation Funding UNRWA Would React Differently if its Citizens Were Stabbed, Shot, Bombed and Rammed by Terrorists?
October 13, 2015

The Simon Wiesenthal Center slammed the United Nation Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for criticizing Israel’s efforts to quell barbaric terrorist attacks by Palestinians against Israelis in Jerusalem and across the Jewish State. UNRWA expressed its concern over the use of live ammunition by Israeli forces – a policy the agency described as, “Excessive use of force,” which, it said, “May be contrary to international law enforcement standards.”

“What an outrage! Instead of unequivocally denouncing the ongoing carnage of murderous stabbings, shootings, bombings and car rammings unleashed by Palestinians against their Jewish neighbors, UNRWA denounces Israel for trying to quell the terrorism and protect its citizens,” charged Rabbis Marvin Hier and Abraham Cooper, Founder and Dean and Associate Dean of the leading Jewish human rights group.

“UNRWA is the international agency that interacts with hundreds of thousands of Palestinians on a daily basis, providing over the decades, billions of dollars of aid. Instead of using its unique position to admonish the Palestinians to stop the terror and violence, targeting babies and a 12 year-old boy, 5 months before his Bar Mitzvah, it instead denounces the Jewish state for trying to stop the terror.”

One of hundreds of images on social media showing how to attack Israelis. This posting and numerous others like it, was removed following protest from the SWC, who has been urging social networking platforms, Twitter, YouTube and Facebook to stop enabling the terror campaign against Israelis through social media.

“As UNRWA receives its funding from the international community it is appropriate to ask, which nation funding UNRWA would react differently than Israel if its citizens were subject to a campaign of stabbings, shootings and bombings: The answer is that every nation in the world would respond powerfully to such a wave of terror, but only Israel is subject to criticism for the sin of defending her civilians. UNRWA’s outrageous criticism of Israel will only serve to inspire more violence against innocent Jews,” Wiesenthal Center officials concluded.

UNRWA calls for political action and accountability to stem the current spiral of violence and fear
12 October 2015

Statement by UNRWA Spokesperson Chris Gunness

UNRWA is deeply alarmed by the escalating violence and widespread loss of civilian life in the occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem, and in Israel. Only robust political action can prevent the further escalation of a situation that is affecting Palestinian and Israeli civilians.

In Gaza a total of 11 Palestinians, among them refugees, have reportedly been killed and at least 186 injured. Nine people, including three children were reportedly killed during demonstrations in Gaza and two people – a pregnant woman and a child – were killed when a house collapsed due to the impact of a nearby Israeli strike. Four people were reportedly injured in the latter incident. In the West Bank, between 1 October and 9 October, UNRWA has recorded 45 incursions by Israeli forces into refugee camps resulting in several refugees being shot dead, including one child.  According to preliminary figures, 180 people have reportedly been injured in West Bank refugee camps, including some 20 children. About 50 of  them were reportedly injured by live-fire.

We condemn killings and injuries of Palestine refugees such as the tragic case on 5 October, of Abd El Rahman, a 13-year-old ninth grade student at an UNRWA school who was shot dead by Israeli Forces in Bethlehem’s Aida refugee camp. The initial UNRWA investigation indicates that the child was with a group of friends, next to the UNRWA office after the school day was over and was not  posing any threat.

Further to the recent statement of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the high number of casualties, in particular those resulting from the use of live ammunition by Israeli forces raise serious concerns about the excessive use of force that may be contrary to international law enforcement standards. Under international law there are strict limits to the use of lethal force whether in the context of law enforcement operations or during conflict. These limitations are especially pertinent where a military occupying power operates in civilian areas.

According to the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials: “Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defense or defense of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape; and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life.”

Where alleged violations of international law occur, there must be a prompt, impartial, effective and thorough investigation of the events and full accountability in accordance with international standards.

UNRWA reiterates the call of the United Nations Secretary-General on all sides to respect and protect the rights of children, in particular their inherent right to life.  We call for maximum restraint to ensure the protection of civilians, in accordance with international law.

The root causes of the conflict, among them the Israeli occupation, must be addressed. Across the occupied Palestinian territory there is a pervasive sense of hopelessness and despair resulting from the denial of rights and dignity. In the West Bank communities living under occupation feel profoundly marginalized. While in Gaza the latest demonstrations are evidence of a generation that has lost hope in the future; not least because of the lack of economic prospects — youth unemployment is one of the highest in the world – but also because of the lack of reconstruction more than a year after the conflict. An entire generation of Palestinians is at risk. All political actors must act decisively to restore their hope in a dignified, secure and stable future.

Conflit israélo-palestinien

Le couteau, arme du désespoir palestinien
Daphné Rousseau

Agence France-Presse à Jérusalem

Le Devoir

13 octobre 2015

Le couteau sorti d’un sac ou d’une chemise est devenu l’arme et le symbole de la confrontation des Palestiniens contre les Israéliens, avec un impact psychologique fort même si ces attaques n’ont fait que deux morts jusque-là.

 « Le terrorisme au couteau ne nous vaincra pas », a lancé le premier ministre Benjamin Nétanyahou à l’ouverture d’une nouvelle session du Parlement placée sous le signe des violences qui secouent Israël et les Territoires palestiniens occupés depuis 12 jours.

 Les images des couteaux, qu’ils soient de simples couteaux de cuisine ou de véritables surins de combat à lame crantée — en passant par un tournevis et même un épluche-légumes —, font depuis dix jours le tour des réseaux sociaux et des médias israéliens et palestiniens.

 Policiers et témoins présents lors des attaques ont pris l’habitude de dégainer leur téléphone portable en quelques secondes pour filmer la scène de l’agression et parfois l’arme utilisée, encore ensanglantée.

 « Il s’agit d’un objet du quotidien que tout le monde a chez soi ou qui est disponible partout, qui ne demande aucun entraînement et qui est facilement dissimulable », résume le Professeur Shaul Kimhi, psychologue et spécialiste des situations de stress et de résilience liée au « terrorisme ». « Une attaque au couteau n’a pas pour fonction première de tuer, mais d’abord de faire peur et le but est atteint. Les Israéliens sentent le danger même s’il n’est pas proportionnel à la menace », ajoute-il.

 Depuis le 3 octobre, 19 attaques ou tentatives d’attaques à l’arme blanche ont été perpétrées, dans la quasi-totalité par des Palestiniens hommes ou femmes. Loin des bains de sang causés par les attentats à la bombe de la deuxième Intifada, elles ont tué deux Israéliens. Dix agresseurs présumés ont été abattus. L’un des agresseurs blessés lundi à Jérusalem-Est avait seulement 13 ans.

 Des attaques à un rythme soutenu

 Les Israéliens sont habitués à développer des solutions techniques pour faire face aux menaces, comme le bouclier anti-missiles Dôme de fer contre les roquettes. Ils sont pris de court par ce mode opératoire qui n’est pas nouveau, mais s’emploie à un rythme inédit. « Nous avons à faire à des individus qui utilisent la plus basique des armes de terrorisme qui existe, et on ne peut pas faire la chasse aux couteaux. Il n’existe donc aucune réponse sécuritaire à cette crise », dit à l’AFP Miri Eisin, ancienne colonelle du renseignement militaire israélien.

 À la télévision israélienne, des spécialistes de l’autodéfense sont invités en plateau pour montrer des parades spécifiques.

 « Le plus important, c’est de créer une « zone stérile », d’éloigner le couteau le plus loin possible de votre corps, par exemple avec cette clé de bras », explique en direct un intervenant en tordant le poignet de celui qui simule son agresseur.

 Les services de secours du Magen David Adom ont, eux, diffusé un tutoriel (une vidéo pédagogique) pour apprendre au public les gestes qui sauvent. Ils rappellent qu’il ne faut pas toucher à la lame enfoncée dans la victime pour ne pas aggraver l’hémorragie.

 Sur les réseaux sociaux palestiniens, certains parlent d’une « Intifada des couteaux » et le chef du Hamas à Gaza, Ismaïl Haniyeh, a salué « les héros au couteau » dans un prêche.

 L’arme du désespoir

 L’usage du couteau est à l’image d’un mouvement spontané de jeunes qui ont répudié leurs dirigeants. Le désespoir apparent de ceux qui manipulent l’arme blanche et doivent bien imaginer qu’ils vont au-devant de la mort reflète celui d’une grande part de cette génération.

 Mohammad Halabi, 19 ans, se disait prêt à mourir sur sa page Facebook au nom d’une « troisième intifada » avant de tuer deux Israéliens à coups de couteau dans la Vieille ville de Jérusalem et d’être ensuite abattu.

 « Hé les occupants ! Avec un couteau, pas de sirène d’alarme pour vous prévenir », écrit un internaute palestinien.

 En réponse, c’est aussi sur les réseaux sociaux que les Israéliens exorcisent la peur en maniant l’humour noir. Comme sur la photo de cet homme affublé d’une armure artisanale, le visage crispé sur le pas de sa porte avec pour légende : « Chérie, je sors juste les poubelles et je reviens ».

 En revanche, les Israéliens ont été choqués de voir passer à Tel-Aviv la semaine dernière un couteau de 3 mètres de long enfoncé dans une réplique géante de tomate rougeoyante, le tout juché sur la plateforme d’un camion.

 Il s’agissait d’une campagne publicitaire du coutelier Arcos. Aux premières plaintes du public, il a remisé son camion et présenté ses excuses en assurant qu’il s’agissait d’un timing malencontreux et qu’il n’avait en aucun cas « songé à faire une exploitation cynique de cette situation si triste ».

What do you do when the people trying to kill you live around the block?

Ultimately, the only way to thwart people bent on murder, with their minds poisoned by racism and religious extremism, is to curb the flow of toxicity
David Horovitz
The Times Of Israel

October 14, 2015

What do you do when the people who are trying to kill you live in the neighborhood down the street?

Or when they live in the same village as that lovely man your son’s been working with?

Or when they work for the phone company?

When they try to kill anybody — uniformed soldiers and police, ultra-Orthodox Jews, all the passengers on a city bus?

When they target men, and women, and children.

When they are men, and women, and children?

When their leaders — politicians, spiritual leaders, teachers — lie to them about us, lie about our history, lie about our ambitions?

When some of their leaders tell them they will go to paradise if they die in the act of killing us?

When they (sometimes) lie to themselves about the killings they carry out — claiming that it is we who are rising up to kill them, that their bombers and stabbers are being attacked in cold blood by us — and thereby widen the circle of embittered potential killers?

When they (sometimes) lie to themselves about who it is they are killing, falsely claiming in widely circulated social media exchanges, for instance, that Na’ama Henkin, gunned down with her husband in the West Bank two weeks ago, was deliberately targeted because it was she who had insulted the prophet, calling Muhammad a pig, on a visit to the Temple Mount this summer?

When all they need in order to kill is a knife or a screwdriver and a mind that’s been filled with poison?

And when that poison pours into them from most every media channel they consume, and from the horrendous Facebook postings of their peers and their role models?

What do you do?

First, acknowledge the scale of the problem.

After decades relentlessly demonizing and delegitimizing the revived Jewish state, the Palestinian leadership has produced a generation many of whom are so filled with hatred, and so convinced of the imperative to kill, that no other consideration — including the likelihood that they will die in the act — prevents them from seeking to murder Jews.

The false claim pumped by Hamas, and the Northern Branch of the Islamic Movement in Israel, and Fatah, and many more besides, that the Jews intend to pray on the Temple Mount — a place of unique sanctity for Jews, but one whose Jewish connection has been erased from the Palestinian narrative — has all too evidently pushed a new wave of young Palestinians, urged to “protect al-Aqsa,” into murderous action against any and all Jewish targets, using any and all weapons.

The suicide bombings of the Second Intifada were carried out by West Bank Palestinians; the onslaught was drastically reduced when Israel built the security barrier. Today’s terrorism is largely being carried out by Palestinian Arabs from East Jerusalem, some of whom have blue Israeli identity cards. The relative neglect of East Jerusalem since 1967, by an Israel that expanded the city’s municipal boundaries but signally failed to ensure anything remotely close to equality between Jewish and Arab neighborhoods, only made the lies and the incitement spread more easily. In an Israel where Jews and Arabs live utterly intertwined lives, this new level of potential danger in every seemingly banal encounter is rendering daily life nightmarish.

Second, tackle the problem in all the spheres where it is exacerbated.

In the short term: Arrest the preachers who spout hatred. Ask Facebook to close down the pages that disseminate it, and find the people behind those pages. Monitor hateful sentiment on social media more effectively; several of this month’s terrorists made no secret of their murderous intentions.

Make plain, via every mainstream and social media avenue, in Arabic, that Israel has no plans to change the status quo at the Temple Mount. Involve King Abdullah of Jordan. Involve anybody else who can credibly address that incendiary lie about Al-Aqsa.

Boost security, of course, as Israel is doing, but know that there can be no hermetic prevention of these kinds of attacks.

Efforts at more strategic change, inevitably, run into the 48-year dilemma of what Israel wants and needs to do about East Jerusalem in particular, and the Palestinians in general. It is unforgivable that Arab neighborhoods of the city lie decades behind the Jewish neighborhoods in everything from city services to education to job opportunity. But in some neighborhoods, addressing such inequalities is impossible. Physically impossible. As in, Jewish city officials would be taking their lives into their hands to set foot in Shuafat refugee camp.

By contrast, handing control of such areas to the PA, whose leader Mahmoud Abbas insists that all Jerusalem territory captured by Israel in 1967 be part of a Palestinian state, becomes ever less palatable and viable, as he becomes ever more extreme in his pronouncements and as the Palestinian-Arab population becomes ever more of a threat.

Only “resistance” will liberate Palestine, Hamas has always argued. In fact, it is “resistance” that keeps the Palestinians from statehood

Ultimately, the only way to thwart people bent on murder, with their minds poisoned by racism and religious extremism, is to curb the flow of toxicity. Different lessons at school; different priorities and values from spiritual leaders; different messages from political leaders; different approaches on mainstream and social media.

But all that, of course, is far easier said than done. A different tone, a different approach, from the Israeli government, might have helped until recently. Then again, we’ve tried different tones and different approaches. As former prime minister Ehud Barak once said, it’s doubtful, when the Jews in their exile through the millennia prayed for a return to Jerusalem, that they were thinking of Shuafat refugee camp. But Yasser Arafat rejected Ehud Barak’s peace terms in 2000, and opted instead to foment the Second Intifada. And Mahmoud Abbas, eight years later, failed to seize Ehud Olmert’s offer to withdraw from the entire West Bank (with one-for-one land swaps), divide Jerusalem, and relinquish sovereignty in the Old City.

And so we still run the lives of millions of Palestinians, hundreds of thousands of whom are on the “safe” side of the barrier we built to protect ourselves from what has now evidently morphed into yet another phase of vicious, futile bloodshed.

Only “resistance” will liberate Palestine, Hamas has always argued, proudly citing the prisoner releases it extorted when kidnapping Gilad Shalit, and the control of Gaza it achieved when expediting Israel’s withdrawal via terror attacks and rocket fire. But in fact, it is “resistance” that keeps the Palestinians from statehood. Most Israelis want to separate from the Palestinians — want to stop running their lives, want to keep a Jewish-democratic Israel. “Resistance” in each new iteration tells Israelis that they dare not do so. Had Gaza been calm and unthreatening after Israel’s 2005 withdrawal, the late Ariel Sharon would likely have withdrawn unilaterally from most of the West Bank. The Hamas takeover in Gaza, the incessant rocket fire and the frequent rounds of conflict told Israel that it could not risk another such withdrawal — that it could not risk another Hamas takeover in the West Bank.

The international community peers shortsightedly at a strong Israel — very strong indeed compared to the Palestinians — and concludes that the onus is upon us to take the calculated risk and grant them full independence. But step back a little — to a perspective that includes Hamas, the rise of Islamic extremism in the Middle East, the threat posed directly by an emboldened Iran and via its terrorist proxies, the anti-Semitism and hostility to Israel rampant across this region — and it should be obvious that a miscalculation by “strong” Israel would quickly render it untenably weak and vulnerable. We might get better international media coverage, but we also might face destruction; Israelis aren’t about to vote for that.

There are two peoples with claims to this bloodied land. Neither is going anywhere. Only conciliation, however reluctantly achieved, is going to enable either and both of these two peoples to live normal lives. And that’s what anybody truly interested in addressing the Israeli-Palestinian conflict should be working for.

What do you do when some of your neighbors are trying to kill you? Protect yourself. Stop them. Do what you sensibly can to help create a different, better climate — to moderate your enemies. Meanwhile, hang tough. Refuse to be terrorized. Get on with living. That, not killing, is what people were born to do.

Obama will be the only person sticking to Iran deal
Amir Taheri
New York Post

October 11, 2015
Sometime this week, President Obama is scheduled to sign an executive order to meet the Oct. 15 “adoption day” he has set for the nuclear deal he says he has made with Iran. According to the president’s timetable the next step would be “the start day of implementation,” fixed for Dec. 15.

But as things now stand, Obama may end up being the only person in the world to sign his much-wanted deal, in effect making a treaty with himself.

The Iranians have signed nothing and have no plans for doing so. The so-called Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) has not even been discussed at the Islamic Republic’s Council of Ministers. Nor has the Tehran government bothered to even provide an official Persian translation of the 159-page text.

The Islamic Majlis, the ersatz parliament, is examining an unofficial text and is due to express its views at an unspecified date in a document “running into more than 1,000 pages,” according to Mohsen Zakani, who heads the “examining committee.”

“The changes we seek would require substantial rewriting of the text,” he adds enigmatically.

Nor have Britain, China, Germany, France and Russia, who were involved in the so-called P5+1 talks that produced the JCPOA, deemed it necessary to provide the Obama “deal” with any legal basis of their own. Obama’s partners have simply decided that the deal he is promoting is really about lifting sanctions against Iran and nothing else.

So they have started doing just that without bothering about JCPOA’s other provisions. Britain has lifted the ban on 22 Iranian banks and companies blacklisted because of alleged involvement in deals linked to the nuclear issue.

German trade with Iran has risen by 33 percent, making it the Islamic Republic’s third-largest partner after China.

China has signed preliminary accords to help Iran build five more nuclear reactors. Russia has started delivering S300 anti-aircraft missile systems and is engaged in talks to sell Sukhoi planes to the Islamic Republic.

France has sent its foreign minister and a 100-man delegation to negotiate big business deals, including projects to double Iran’s crude oil exports.

Other nations have also interpreted JCPOA as a green light for dropping sanctions. Indian trade with Iran has risen by 17 percent, and New Delhi is negotiating massive investment in a rail-and-sea hub in the Iranian port of Chah-Bahar on the Gulf of Oman. With help from Austrian, Turkish and United Arab Emirates banks, the many banking restrictions imposed on Iran because of its nuclear program have been pushed aside.

“The structures of sanctions built over decades is crumbling,” boasts Iranian President Hassan Rouhani.

Meanwhile, the nuclear project is and shall remain “fully intact,” says the head of Iran’s Atomic Energy Agency, Ali Akbar Salehi.

“We have started working on a process of nuclear fusion that will be cutting-edge technology for the next 50 years,” he adds.

Even before Obama’s “implementation day,” the mullahs are receiving an average of $400 million a month, no big sum, but enough to ease the regime’s cash-flow problems and increase pay for its repressive forces by around 21 percent.

Last month, Iran and the P5+1 created a joint commission to establish the modalities of implementation of an accord, a process they wish to complete by December 2017 when the first two-year review of JCPOA is scheduled to take place and when Obama will no longer be in the White House. (If things go awry Obama could always blame his successor or even George W Bush.)

Both Obama and his Secretary of State John Kerry have often claimed that, its obvious shortcomings notwithstanding, their nuke deal with the “moderate faction” in Tehran might encourage positive changes in Iran’s behavior.

That hasn’t happened.

The mullahs see the “deal” as a means with which Obama would oppose any suggestion of trying to curb Iran.

“Obama won’t do anything that might jeopardize the deal,” says Ziba Kalam, a Rouhani adviser. “This is his biggest, if not the only, foreign policy success.”

If there have been changes in Tehran’s behavior they have been for the worst. Iran has teamed up with Russia to keep Bashar al-Assad in power in Syria, mocking Obama’s “Assad must go” rhetoric. More importantly, Iran has built its direct military presence in Syria to 7,000 men. (One of Iran’s most senior generals was killed in Aleppo on Wednesday.)

Tehran has also pressured Iraqi Premier Haidar al-Abadi’s weak government to distance itself from Washington and join a dubious coalition with Iran, Russia and Syria.

Certain that Obama is paralyzed by his fear of undermining the non-existent “deal” the mullahs have intensified their backing for Houthi rebels in Yemen. Last week a delegation was in Tehran with a long shopping list for arms.

In Lebanon, the mullahs have toughened their stance on choosing the country’s next president. And in Bahrain, Tehran is working on a plan to “ensure an early victory” of the Shiite revolution in the archipelago.

Confident that Obama is determined to abandon traditional allies of the United States, Tehran has also heightened propaganda war against Saudi Arabia, now openly calling for the overthrow of the monarchy there.

The mullahs are also heightening contacts with Palestinian groups in the hope of unleashing a new “Intifada.”

“Palestine is thirsty for a third Intifada,” Supreme Guide Khamenei’s mouthpiece Kayhan said in an editorial last Thursday. “It is the duty of every Muslim to help start it as soon as possible.”

Obama’s hopes of engaging Iran on other issues were dashed last week when Khamenei declared “any dialogue with the American Great Satan” to be” forbidden.”

“We have no need of America” his adviser Ali-Akbar Velayati added later. “Iran is the region’s big power in its own right.”

Obama had hoped that by sucking up to the mullahs he would at least persuade them to moderate their “hate-America campaign.” Not a bit of that.

“Death to America” slogans, adoring official buildings in Tehran have been painted afresh along with US flags, painted at the entrance of offices so that they could be trampled underfoot. None of the US citizens still held hostages in Iran has been released, and one, Washington Post stringer Jason Rezai, is branded as “head of a spy ring “in Tehran. Paralyzed by his fear of undermining the non-existent deal, Obama doesn’t even call for their release.

Government-sponsored anti-American nationwide events are announced for November, anniversary of the seizure of the US Embassy in Tehran. The annual “End of America” week-long conference is planned for February and is to focus on “African-American victims of US police” and the possibility of “self-determination for blacks.”

According to official sources “families of Black American victims” and a number of “black American revolutionaries” have been invited.

Inside Iran, Obama’s “moderate partners” have doubled the number of executions and political prisoners. Last week they crushed marches by teachers calling for release of their leaders. Hundreds of trade unionists have been arrested and a new “anti-insurrection” brigade paraded in Tehran to terrorize possible protestors.

The Obama deal may end up as the biggest diplomatic scam in recent history.

Voir également:

America’s Fading Footprint in the Middle East
As Russia bombs and Iran plots, the U.S. role is shrinking—and the region’s major players are looking for new ways to advance their own interests
Yaroslav Trofimov
The Wall Street Journal
Oct. 9, 2015

Despised by some, admired by others, the U.S. has been the Middle East’s principal power for decades, providing its allies with guidance and protection.

Now, however, with Russia and Iran thrusting themselves boldly into the region’s affairs, that special role seems to be melting away. As seasoned politicians and diplomats survey the mayhem, they struggle to recall a moment when America counted for so little in the Middle East—and when it was held in such contempt, by friend and foe alike.

“It’s the lowest ebb since World War II for U.S. influence and engagement in the region,” said Ryan Crocker, a career diplomat who served as the Obama administration’s ambassador to Afghanistan and before that as U.S. ambassador to Iraq, Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan.

From shepherding Israel toward peace with its Arab neighbors to rolling back Iraq’s 1990 invasion of Kuwait and halting the contagion of Iran’s Islamic Revolution, the U.S. has long been at the core of the Middle East’s security system. Its military might secured critical trade routes and the bulk of the world’s oil supply. Today, the void created by U.S. withdrawal is being filled by the very powers that American policy has long sought to contain.

“If you look at the heart of the Middle East, where the U.S. once was, we are now gone—and in our place, we have Iran, Iran’s Shiite proxies, Islamic State and the Russians,” added Mr. Crocker, now dean of the Bush School of Government and Public Service at Texas A&M University. “What had been a time and place of U.S. ascendancy we have ceded to our adversaries.”

Of course, the U.S. retains a formidable presence across the greater Middle East, with some 45,000 troops in the region and deep ties with friendly intelligence services and partners in power from Pakistan to Morocco. Even after U.S. pullbacks in Iraq and Afghanistan, America’s military might in the region dwarfs Russia’s recent deployment to Syria of a few dozen warplanes and a few thousand troops. And as the Obama administration has argued, it isn’t these disengagements but the regional overstretch under President George W. Bush that undermined America’s international standing.

Still, ever since the Arab Spring upended the Middle East’s established order in 2011, America’s ability to influence the region has been sapped by a growing conviction that a risk-averse Washington, focused on a foreign-policy pivot to Asia, just doesn’t want to exercise its traditional Middle Eastern leadership role anymore.

“It’s not American military muscle that’s the main thing—there is a hell of a lot of American military muscle in the Middle East. It’s people’s belief—by our friends and by our opponents—that we will use that muscle to protect our friends, no ifs, ands or buts,” said James Jeffrey, a former U.S. ambassador to Iraq and Turkey. “Nobody is willing to take any risks if the U.S. is not taking any risks and if people are afraid that we’ll turn around and walk away tomorrow.”

This perception seems to be gaining traction in the region, where traditional allies—notably Israel and the Gulf monarchies—feel abandoned after the Obama administration’s nuclear deal with Iran. Many regional leaders and commentators compare Russian President Vladimir Putin’s unflinching support for Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s ruthless regime with Washington’s willingness to let go of its own allies, notably Egypt’s longtime autocrat Hosni Mubarak. The phrase “red line” now often elicits knowing smirks, a result of the president’s U-turn away from striking Syria after the Assad regime’s horrifying sarin-gas attack in 2013.

By focusing Moscow’s latest bombing raids on moderate Syrian rebels trained by the Central Intelligence Agency, with nary an American effort to protect them, Mr. Putin has showcased the hazards of picking the U.S. side in this part of the world.

“Being associated with America today carries great costs and great risks,” said Emile Hokayem, a senior fellow at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in Bahrain. “Whoever you are in the region, you have a deep grudge against the United States. If you are in liberal circles, you see Obama placating autocratic leaders even more. And if you are an autocratic leader, you go back to the issue of Mubarak and how unreliable the U.S. is as an ally. There is not one constituency you will find in the region that is supportive of the U.S. at this point—it is quite stunning, really.”

The Obama administration’s pivot away from the Middle East is rooted, of course, in deep fatigue with the massive military and financial commitments made by the U.S. since 9/11, above all after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: Since 2001, at least $1.6 trillion has been spent, according to the Congressional Research Service, and 6,900 U.S. troops have been killed in the region.

“We couldn’t have gone in more flat-out than we did in Iraq, and not only didn’t it work, it made things even worse. That’s something to keep in mind when talking about Syria,” said Jeremy Shapiro, a fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington and a former State Department official.

By scaling down its Middle East commitments, he added, the Obama administration has rightly recognized the limitations of U.S. power in a perennially turbulent region: “The difference is not whether you have peace, it’s whether Americans are involved in the lack of peace.”

Such reluctance to get involved also reflects the overall mood of the American public, argued Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, a Washington think tank close to the administration.

“It’s not really about ‘exhaustion’ from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. I see it a bit more as pragmatism—many Americans look back on the past 15 years of U.S. engagement in the Middle East, and they see a meager return on investment when it comes to stability. So there’s a natural skepticism,” he said.

For now, the American public isn’t paying much of a price for the erosion of the country’s standing in the Middle East. The U.S. hasn’t suffered a major terrorist attack on its homeland since 2001. Oil prices remain low. The millions of refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq are flooding into neighboring countries and, increasingly, Europe, not into distant America. And while the region is aflame, with five wars now raging between Libya and Afghanistan, U.S. soldiers no longer die daily on its remote battlefields.

But U.S. disengagement still has long-term costs—even if one ignores the humanitarian catastrophe in Syria, where more than 250,000 people have died and more than half the population has fled their homes. With the shale revolution, the U.S. may no longer be as dependent on Middle Eastern oil, but its allies and main trading partners still are. Islamic State’s haven in Iraq and Syria may let it plot major terrorist attacks in Europe and the U.S. And the American pullback is affecting other countries’ calculations about how to deal with China and Russia.

The White House disputes the notion that the U.S. is losing ground in the Middle East. Earlier this month, President Barack Obama said that Russia’s attacks on anti-Assad forces were made “not out of strength but out of weakness” and warned that Moscow would get “stuck in a quagmire.”

“We’re not going to make Syria into a proxy war between the United States and Russia,” Mr. Obama added. “This is not some superpower chessboard contest.”

But for the past several decades, the Middle East has indeed been a geopolitical chessboard on which the U.S. carefully strengthened its positions—nurturing ties with such disparate friends as Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Israel, Pakistan and Turkey to thwart the ambitions of Moscow and Tehran, Washington’s main regional rivals.

On the eve of the Arab Spring in 2011, Russia had almost no weight in the region, and Iran was boxed in by Security Council sanctions over its nuclear program. The costly U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan had hardly brought stability, but neither country faced internal collapse, and the Taliban had been chased into the remote corners of the Afghan countryside. Many people in the Middle East chafed at America’s dominance—but they agreed that it was the only game in town.

Dramatic developments in recent weeks—from Russia’s Syrian gambit to startling Taliban advances in Afghanistan—highlight just how much the region has changed since then.

The Syrian deployment, in particular, has given Mr. Putin the kind of Middle Eastern power projection that, in some ways, exceeds the influence that the Soviet Union enjoyed in the 1970s and 1980s. Already, he has rendered all but impossible plans to create no-fly zones or safe areas outside the writ of the Assad regime—and has moved to position Russia as a viable military alternative that can check U.S. might in the region.

“What Putin wants is to establish a sort of co-dominion with the U.S. to oversee the Middle East—and, so far, he has almost succeeded,” said Camille Grand, director of the Fondation pour la recherché stratégique, a French think tank.

Russia’s entry has been welcomed by many in the region—particularly in Iraq, a mostly Shiite country where the U.S. has invested so much blood and treasure—because of mounting frustration with the U.S. failure to roll back Islamic State.

More than a year after President Obama promised to “degrade and ultimate destroy” Islamic State, the Sunni militant group remains firmly in control of Mosul, Iraq’s second-largest city. In May, it seized Ramadi, another crucial Iraqi city. Islamic State—also known as ISIS—is spreading across the region, rattling countries from Afghanistan to Libya to Yemen.

“What’s been the result of this American coalition? Just the expansion of ISIS,” scoffed retired Lebanese Maj. Gen. Hisham Jaber, who now runs a Beirut think tank.

Iraqi officials and Kurdish fighters have long complained about the pace of the U.S. bombing campaign against Islamic State and Washington’s unwillingness to provide forward spotters to guide these airstrikes or to embed U.S. advisers with combat units. These constraints have made the U.S. military, in effect, a junior partner of Iran in the campaign against Islamic State, providing air cover to Iranian-guided Shiite militias that go into battle with portraits of the Ayatollahs Khomeini and Khamenei plastered on their tanks.

Iraq has already lost a huge chunk of its territory to Islamic State, and another calamity may be looming further east in Afghanistan. The Taliban’s recent seizure of the strategic city of Kunduz, which remains a battleground, suggests how close the U.S.-backed government of President Ashraf Ghani has come to strategic defeat. Its chances of survival could dwindle further if the Obama administration goes ahead with plans to pull out the remaining 9,800 U.S. troops next year.

“If the Americans decide to withdraw all forces from Afghanistan, what has happened in Kunduz will happen to many other places,” warned Afghan lawmaker Shinkai Karokhail.

Further afield, U.S. disengagement from Afghanistan has already driven Central Asian states that once tried to pursue relatively independent policies and allowed Western bases onto their soil back into Moscow’s orbit.

“It’s obvious that what’s happening in Afghanistan is pushing our countries closer to Russia. Who knows what America may come up with tomorrow—nobody trusts it anymore, not the elites and not the ordinary people,” said Tokon Mamytov, a former deputy prime minister of Kyrgyzstan who now teaches at the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University in Bishkek.

Among America’s regional allies, puzzlement over why the U.S. is so eager to abandon the region has now given way to alarm and even panic—and, in some cases, attempts at accommodation with Russia.

The bloody, messy intervention in Yemen by Saudi Arabia and its Gulf allies stemmed, in part, from a fear that the U.S. is no longer watching their backs against Shiite Iran. These Sunni Arab states could respond even more rashly in the future to the perceived Iranian threat, further inflaming the sectarian passions that have fueled the rise of Islamic State and other extremist groups.

The Gulf states “are acting more independently than we have seen in the last 40 years,” said Abdulhaleq Abdulla, a political scientist in the United Arab Emirates.

Even Israel is hedging its bets. Last year, it broke ranks with Washington and declined to vote for a U.S.-sponsored U.N. General Assembly resolution condemning the Russian annexation of Crimea. In recent days, Israel didn’t criticize the Russian bombardment in Syria.

So how deep—and how permanent—is this deterioration of the U.S. ability to shape events in the Middle East?

“The decline is not irreversible at all,” said retired U.S. Navy Adm. James Stavridis, who served in 2009-13 as NATO’s supreme allied commander and is now dean of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. He argues that a boost in aid, exercises and engagement with the Gulf states and Israel, as well as a larger commitment to fighting Islamic State and helping the moderate Syrian opposition, could undo the recent damage.

But others have concluded that the Middle East’s Pax Americana is truly over. “Whoever comes after Obama will not have many cards left to play,” said Mr. Hokayem. “I don’t see a strategy even for the next president. We’ve gone too far.”

Voir également:

Best of Frenemies
Though the Washington hand credits Obama with deep sympathy for the Jewish state, the incidents he recounts contradict that assertion.
Elliott Abrams
The Wall Street Journal
Oct. 11, 2015

Dennis Ross and “Middle East Peace Process” are nearly synonymous, and Mr. Ross wrote an 800-page book on the subject, “The Missing Peace,” after serving as a Mideast envoy to President Bill Clinton. So why another volume now? In “Doomed to Succeed,” the Washington hand brings his account up to date by covering the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations and looking at U.S.-Israel relations from Truman on.

The chapters that cover administrations in which Mr. Ross served—especially at a high level, as he did under Messrs. Bush, Clinton and Obama—are predictably the most lively. There is always the danger that familiarity breeds forgiveness, and the author is indeed less critical of mistakes under Messrs. Clinton or Bush than others might be. But that grant of clemency is withdrawn toward Mr. Obama, as Mr. Ross’s familiarity breeds page after page of criticism.

Mr. Ross’s portrait reinforces the recent account by Israel’s former ambassador, Michael Oren, in his book “Ally.” Six years of Mr. Obama get more pages here than eight years of Messrs. Clinton or Bush, and the author writes that “the president’s distancing from Israel was deliberate.” Though he credits Mr. Obama with deep sympathy for the Jewish state, the incidents he recounts contradict him.

For example, in 2009 the administration pressed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to undertake a 10-month moratorium on settlement construction in the hope of getting negotiations started, at considerable political cost to the Israeli leader. The moratorium brought the Israelis nothing from the Palestinians, so they refused to extend it. As Mr. Ross writes, “though [Palestinian leader] Abu Mazen had shown little flexibility and squandered the moratorium, President Obama . . . put the onus on Israel.”

Doomed to Succeed
By Dennis Ross
Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 474 pages, $30

Mr. Obama kept calling on Israel to take risks for peace. “But,” Mr. Ross adds, “he said nothing about what Abu Mazen had to do; the responsibility for acting was exclusively Netanyahu’s.” Even when Mr. Netanyahu accepted difficult American terms for a new negotiation in 2014 and then Abu Mazen rejected them, the administration “gave him a pass,” instead blaming the continuing construction of Israeli settlements. Mr. Obama believed that as the stronger party Israel could and should do more for peace. “But what if the Palestinians were not prepared to move? . . . He never seemed to ask that question,” Mr. Ross writes.

In Mr. Ross’s view, Mr. Obama fell for the oldest preconceptions about the Middle East, views that the State Department had been putting forward since 1948. There were principally three: “the need to distance from Israel to gain Arab responsiveness, concern about the high costs of cooperating with the Israelis, and the belief that resolving the Palestinian problem is the key to improving the U.S. position in the region.”

In chapter after chapter, Mr. Ross documents how these arguments affected policy over decades and failed to predict Arab behavior—yet were very rarely challenged. The reason they failed is simple, he says: “the hard truth is that [the Palestinians] are not a priority for Arab leaders. . . . The priorities of Arab leaders revolve around survival and security”—not Israeli-Palestinian relations or U.S. policy toward Israel.

What’s striking in this account, and in the history of U.S. Mideast policy, is why these three canards keep reappearing and gaining such wide support. When we move away from Israel, Mr. Ross observes, “our influence does not increase; our ties to the conservative Arab monarchies do not materially improve.”

When Truman recognized Israel immediately in 1948 over the deep opposition of George Marshall and the State Department, relations with all the Arabs remained intact. Eisenhower’s opposition to Israel, England and France over the Suez crisis of 1956, when those three nations invaded Sinai to seize the east bank of the Suez Canal and Ike forced them out, led to no gains with the Arab states—because “what damaged the United States was the perception that it would not stand by its friends.” When LBJ became the first president to provide tanks and Phantom jets to Israel, Averell Harriman at State predicted “an explosion.” It never came. The pattern is repeated every time because, as Mr. Ross rightly argues, the Arab states care about their own interests: “they were not going to make what mattered to them dependent on what we did with Israel.”

Mr. Ross’s treatment of each administration is necessarily brief but useful for that very reason: It’s hard to think of a college course on this subject that would not assign this book as a text. The scope of Mr. Ross’s book also allows him to highlight pointed historical ironies. He notes, for example, that Mr. Clinton intervened directly in Israeli politics to try to defeat Mr. Netanyahu in his 1996 and 1999 elections. Yet the current administration grew outraged about Mr. Netanyahu’s speech to Congress in March 2015.

Mr. Ross draws a harsh portrait of Mr. Obama’s National Security Advisor Susan Rice, who opposes Israel at every turn and refuses to engage in serious conversations with Israeli officials that would improve relations. When the administration considered its first U.N. Security Council veto, of a resolution condemning some construction in Israeli settlements, Ms. Rice was “adamant” in opposing the veto, arguing it would do “grave damage” to our relations with the Arabs. The veto was cast; she was proved wrong. She never admitted her mistake. Neither did George Marshall; neither did the State Department after Suez or after Johnson provided large quantities of arms to Israel for the first time.

Mr. Ross concludes that “those in the early years of the Truman and Eisenhower administrations who saw in the emergence of Israel only doom and gloom for the United States were wrong.” True enough. So readers may have one gripe: Why is this reassuring work entitled “Doomed to Succeed” rather than “A Blessing in Disguise?”

Mr. Abrams, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, handled Middle East affairs at the National Security Council from 2001 to 2009.

Voir encore:

October 5, 2015 Special Dispatch No.6174
Prominent Iranian Analyst Amir Taheri: Unlike Kennedy, Nixon And Reagan, Who Drove A Hard Bargain In Negotiations With Enemies, Obama Is Capitulating And Chasing Illusions In Deal With Iran

In an opinion piece published August 25, 2015 in the London-based Saudi daily Al-Sharq Al-Awsat, Amir Taheri, a prominent Iranian analyst, author and columnist, compared Obama’s policy towards Iran to the policies of Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan in their dealings with the U.S.’s main rivals in their day – the USSR and China. Taheri wrote that, in making the deal with Iran, Obama wishes to portray himself as an heir to the tradition established by these presidents of defusing conflict through diplomacy and negotiations. He noted, however, that these leaders negotiated from a position of strength, and pursued a detente with America’s enemies only after the latter had fulfilled important American demands and changed key elements of their policies. For example, Kennedy negotiated with the USSR only after forcing it to remove the nuclear sites from Cuba; Nixon’s normalization with China came only after the latter had turned its back on the Cultural Revolution and abandoned its project of exporting communism, and Reagan engaged with the Soviets only after taking military measures to counter the threat they posed to Europe. Moreover, says Taheri, the U.S. warmed its relations with China and the USSR only after they abandoned their absolute enmity towards it and began regarding it as a rival and competitor rather than a mortal enemy that must be destroyed.

Conversely, says Taheri, Obama demanded nothing of the Iranians before commencing negotiations, not even the release of U.S. hostages. Moreover, he pursued rapprochement with Iran despite the absence of any positive change in this country’s hardline policies and ideologies. On the contrary, America’s overtures only encouraged Iran’s worst tendencies, as reflected in a sharp rise in human rights violations within Iran and in its continued support for terror groups and for Assad’s regime in Syria. The detente with America did not even cause Iran to abandon its calls of death to America, Taheri notes. He concludes « Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary, » whereas « Obama is responding positively to his own illusions. »

The following are excerpts from his article:

JFK Forced Russia To Remove Its Missiles From Cuba; Obama Obtained Nothing Tangible And Verifiable

« Promoting the ‘deal’ he claims he has made with Iran, President Barack Obama is trying to cast himself as heir to a tradition of ‘peace through negotiations’ followed by US presidents for decades. In that context he has named Presidents John F. Kennedy, Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan as shining examples, with the subtext that he hopes to join their rank in history.

« Obama quotes JFK as saying one should not negotiate out of fear but should not be afraid of negotiating either. To start with, those who oppose the supposed ‘deal’ with Iran never opposed negotiations; they oppose the result it has produced… In one form or another, Iran and the major powers have been engaged in negotiations on the topic since 2003. What prompted Obama to press the accelerator was his desire to score a diplomatic victory before he leaves office. It did not matter if the ‘deal’ he concocted was more of a dog’s dinner than a serious document. He wanted something, anything , and to achieve that he was prepared to settle for one big diplomatic fudge.

« Is Obama the new JFK? Hardly. Kennedy did negotiate with the USSR but only after he had blockaded Cuba and forced Nikita Khrushchev to blink and disband the nuclear sites he had set up on the Caribbean island. In contrast, Obama obtained nothing tangible and verifiable. Iran’s Atomic Energy chief Ali-Akbar Salehi put it nicely when he said that the only thing that Iran gave Obama was a promise ‘not to do things we were not doing anyway, or did not wish to do or could not even do at present.’

« JFK also had the courage to fly to West Berlin to face the Soviet tanks and warn Moscow against attempts at overrunning the enclave of freedom that Germany’s former capital had become. With his ‘Ich bin ein Berliner’ (I am a citizen of Berlin), he sided with the people of the besieged city in a long and ultimately victorious struggle against Soviet rule. In contrast Obama does not even dare call on the mullahs to release the Americans they hold hostage. Instead, he has engaged in an epistolary courting of the Supreme Guide and instructed his administration in Washington to do and say nothing that might ruffle the mullahs’ feathers.

Nixon Extracted Far-Reaching Concessions From China; Obama Has Only Encouraged The Worst Tendencies Of The Khomeinist Regime

« No, Obama is no JFK.  But is he heir to Nixon? Though he hates Nixon ideologically, Obama has tried to compare his Iran ‘deal’ with Nixon’s rapprochement with China. Again, the comparison is misplaced. Normalization with Beijing came after the Chinese leaders had sorted out their internal power struggle and decided to work their way out of the ideological impasse created by their moment of madness known as The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. The big bad wolf of the tale, Lin Biao, was eliminated in an arranged air crash and the Gang of Four defanged before the new leadership set-up in Beijing could approach Washington with talk of normalization.

« At the time the Chinese elite, having suffered defeat in border clashes with the USSR, saw itself surrounded by enemies, especially after China’s only ally Pakistan had been cut into two halves in an Indo-Soviet scheme that led to the creation of Bangladesh. Hated by all its neighbors, China needed the US to break out of isolation. Even then, the Americans drove a hard bargain. They set a list of 22 measures that Beijing had to take to prove its goodwill, chief among them was abandoning the project of ‘exporting revolution’.

« Those of us who, as reporters, kept an eye on China and visited the People’s Republic in those days were astonished at the dramatic changes the Communist leaders introduced in domestic and foreign policies to please the Americans. In just two years, China ceased to act as a ’cause’ and started behaving like a nation-state. It was only then that Nixon went to Beijing to highlight a long process of normalization. In the case of Iran, Obama has obtained none of those things. In fact, his ‘deal’ has encouraged the worst tendencies of the Khomeinist regime as symbolized by dramatic rise in executions, the number of prisoners of conscience and support for terror groups not to mention helping Bashar Al-Assad in Syria.

Reagan Had No Qualms About Calling The USSR ‘The Evil Empire’;  Obama Is Scared Of Offending The Mullahs

« No, Obama is no Nixon. But is he a new Reagan as he pretends? Hardly. Reagan was prepared to engage the Soviets at the highest level only after he had convinced them that they could not blackmail Europe with their SS20s while seeking to expand their empire through so-called revolutionary movements they sponsored across the globe. The SS20s were countered with Pershing missiles and ‘revolutionary’ armies with Washington-sponsored ‘freedom fighters.’

« Unlike Obama who is scared of offending the mullahs, Reagan had no qualms about calling the USSR ‘The Evil Empire’ and castigating its leaders on issues of freedom and human rights. The famous phrase ‘Mr. Gorbachev, tear down that wall!’ indicated that though he was ready to negotiate, Reagan was not prepared to jettison allies to clinch a deal.

« Obama has made no mention of Jimmy Carter, the US president he most resembles. However, even Carter was not as bad as Obama if only because he was prepared to boycott the Moscow Olympics to show his displeasure at the invasion of Afghanistan. Carter also tried to do something to liberate US hostages in Tehran by organizing an invasion of the Islamic Republic with seven helicopters. The result was tragicomic; but he did the best his meagre talents allowed. (NB: No one is suggesting Obama should invade Iran if only because if he did the results would be even more tragicomic than Carter’s adventure.)

« On a more serious note, it is important to remember that dealing with the Khomeinist regime in Tehran is quite different from dealing with the USSR and China was in the context of detente and normalization. Neither the USSR nor the People’s Republic regarded the United States as ‘enemy’ in any religious context as the Khomeinist regime does. Moscow branded the US, its ‘Imperialist’ rival, as an ‘adversary’ (protivnik) who must be fought and, if possible, defeated, but not as a ‘foe’ (vrag) who must be destroyed. In China, too, the US was attacked as ‘arch-Imperialist’ or ‘The Paper Tiger’ but not as a mortal foe. The slogan was ‘Yankee! Go Home!' »

China And USSR Moderated Their Virulent Hate For U.S,; In Iran The Slogan Is Still ‘Death To America’

« In the Khomeinist regime, however, the US is routinely designated as ‘foe’ (doshman) in a religious context and the slogan is ‘Death to America!’ Supreme Guide Ali Khamenei has no qualms about calling for the ‘destruction’ of America, as final step towards a new global system under the banner of his twisted version of Islam. Tehran is the only place where international ‘End of America’ conferences are held by the government every year. The USSR and China first cured themselves of their version of the anti-American disease before seeking detente and normalization. That did not mean they fell in love with the US. What it meant was that they learned to see the US as adversary, rival, or competitor not as a mortal foe engaged in a combat-to-death contest. The Islamic Republic has not yet cured itself of that disease and Obama’s weakness may make it even more difficult for that cure to be applied.

« Détente with the USSR and normalization with China came after they modified important aspects of their behavior for the better. Kennedy, Nixon and Reagan responded positively to positive changes on the part of the adversary. In the case of the USSR positive change started with the 20th congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in which Khrushchev denounced Joseph Stalin’s crimes, purged the party of its nastiest elements, notably Lavrentiy Beria, and rehabilitated millions of Stalin’s victims.

« In foreign policy, Khrushchev, his swashbuckling style notwithstanding, accepted the new architecture of stability in Cold War Europe based on NATO and the Warsaw Pact. Kennedy, Johnson and, later, Nixon and President Gerald Ford had to respond positively. In the late1980s, the USSR offered other positive evolutions through Glasnost and Perestroika and final withdrawal from Afghanistan under Mikhail Gorbachev. Again, Reagan and President George Bush (the father) had to respond positively.

« In the case of China we have already noted the end of the Cultural Revolution. But China also agreed to help the US find a way to end the Vietnam War. Beijing stopped its almost daily provocations against Taiwan and agreed that the issue of the island-nation issue be kicked into the long grass. Within a decade, under Deng Xiaoping, China went even further by adopting capitalism as its economic system.

« There is one other difference between the cases of the USSR and China in the 1960s to 1990s and that of the Khomeinist regime in Tehran today. The USSR had been an ally of the United States during the Second World War and its partner in setting up the United Nations in 1945. Although rivals and adversaries, the two nations also knew when to work together when their mutual interests warranted it. The same was true of the Chinese Communist Party which had been an ally of the US and its Chinese client the Kuomintang during the war against Japanese occupation when Edgar Snow was able to describe Mao Zedong as ‘America’s staunchest ally against the Japanese Empire.’ In the 1970s, Washington and Beijing did not find it strange to cooperate in containing the USSR, their common rival-cum-adversary as they had done when countering Japan.

« In the case of the Islamic Republic there is no sign of any positive change and certainly no history of even tactical alliance with the US.

« Unless he knows something that we do not, Obama is responding positively to his own illusions. »

Voir enfin:

Comment Obama a perdu l’Afghanistan
Vijeta Uniyal

Gatestone institute

oct 11, 2015

Les talibans semblent avoir correctement évalué le manque de résolution du leader américain actuel et ont à l’évidence décidé de reprendre tout l’Afghanistan.
Ce qui est visible pour tous excepté pour Obama est que le « faible » Poutine continue de supplanter les américains en Ukraine, en Crimée et maintenant en Syrie. Le Commandant en chef américain n’a pas été en mesure de faire la démonstration des solides qualités requises pour être le leader du monde libre.
Le Président Obama a semble-t-il fait pression sur l’Inde pour qu’elle fasse des concessions au Cachemire. Selon l’ancien ambassadeur du Pakistan aux Etats-Unis, Obama a secrètement écrit au président du Pakistan en 2009, qu’il sympathisait avec la position du Pakistan sur le Cachemire, et apparemment se serait proposé de dire à l’Inde « que les vieilles façons de faire ne sont plus du tout acceptables. »
Les conséquences d’une reconquête de l’Afghanistan par les talibans seraient encore plus désastreuses que leur précédent règne de terreur. Les talibans non seulement recommenceraient à envoyer des djihadistes entraînés au-delà des frontières du Pakistan pour faire la guerre aux « infidèles » en Inde, mais ils mettraient aussi en œuvre leur objectif déclaré de djihad universel contre l’Occident.
Avec les frontières ouvertes de l’Europe, l’Occident est plus que jamais vulnérable.
Le Président américain qui a abandonné la Syrie et le Yémen sans le moindre combat est maintenant en train de mener à contre-coeur une contre-offensive en Afghanistan. Les talibans semblent avoir correctement évalué le manque de résolution du leadership actuel aux Etats-Unis et ont à l’évidence décidé de reprendre tout l’Afghanistan.

Dans sa première campagne présidentielle de 2008, alors qu’il était sénateur, Obama avait qualifié l’engagement des Etats-Unis en Irak de « mauvaise guerre, » et à la place voulait que son pays se concentre sur l’Afghanistan — sa « bonne guerre. »

Mais après le retrait des troupes américaines d’Irak en 2011, des pans entiers d’Irak sont tombés sous contrôle de l’Etat Islamique (ISIS), tandis que les autres régions sont passées sous influence de l’Iran.

Alors comment se porte la « bonne guerre » du Président Obama en Afghanistan?
Le 29 septembre 2015, les combattants talibans se sont emparés de Kunduz, une capitale provinciale. Cette prise représente la plus importante victoire des talibans depuis 2001, date à laquelle une coalition menée par les américains avait renversé le régime des talibans, à la suite des attaques du 11 septembre à New York.

Depuis ce revers, les talibans s’étaient cachés dans des régions tribales tout en lançant des attaques terroristes sporadiques dans les villes, sans jamais réussir à reprendre un centre urbain. Avec la chute de Kunduz, les talibans contrôlent la 5ème plus grande ville d’Afghanistan.

Le 29 septembre les forces talibanes ont lancé une attaque coordonnée sur Kunduz dans trois directions. L’armée afghane n’a pas réussi à opposer une résistance suffisante et s’est défaite précipitamment pour courir se réfugier à l’aéroport de la ville. Apparemment, les soldats afghans espéraient en renfort le soutien des forces aériennes de la coalition conduite par les Etats-Unis. Le porte-parole du ministre de l’intérieur d’Afghanistan, Sediq Sediqqi, a confirmé que la ville de Kunduz était tombée « aux mains des ennemis. »

Malgré des frappes aériennes américaines sévères, les talibans sont de toute évidence bien ancrés ce qui indique que les milices terroristes ont l’intention de se maintenir sur leur territoire nouvellement conquis et n’ont aucune intention de se retirer. Clairement ce groupe taliban ne ressemble pas à celui qui opérait naguère, qui frappait puis disparaissait. Il semble s’être revigoré de la force islamiste, être axé sur la conquête et prêt à défier les Etats-Unis et les forces de la coalition.

Bien que l’armée Afghane, sous l’autorité du gouvernement de Kaboul et de son Président Ashraf Ghani ait échoué dans sa contre-offensive contre la progression des forces talibanes, la responsabilité de cet énorme désastre militaire et géopolitique est à mettre au compte d’Obama.

Le Président Obama n’a jamais manqué de rappeler au monde que les dirigeants « de la plus grande puissance militaire que le monde ait jamais connu, » , c’est-à-dire, la force militaire américaine et le courage de ses braves hommes et femmes ne peuvent être mis en question. Mais le Commandant -en – Chef a échoué à faire preuve de la force de caractère requise pour être le dirigeant du monde libre.

En outre, Obama semble avoir établi un modèle de sous estimation des adversaires de l’Amérique. Il est connu qu’il a qualifié ISIS « de bande de joyeux fêtards, » et a récemment déclaré que le Président russe Vladimir Poutine s’est engagé dans la guerre en Syrie « par faiblesse. »

Mais ce qui est visible à chacun sauf à Obama est que le « faible » Poutine supplante les Etats-Unis en Ukraine, Crimée et maintenant en Syrie. C’est Obama qui semble faible.
Dans son approche sur d’autres terrains, Obama s’est aliéné ses alliés et a renforcé ses ennemis.
Dans une apparente tentative de persuader le Pakistan de cesser d’appuyer Al-Qaeda et ses filiales, le Président Obama s’est proposé de faire pression sur l’Inde pour qu’elle fasse des concessions au Cachemire. Selon l’ancien ambassadeur du Pakistan aux Etats-Unis, Husain Haqqani, le Président Obama a secrètement écrit  au Président du Pakistan, Asif Ali Zardari in 2009, l’assurant de sa sympathie pour la position du Pakistan au Cachemire, et se proposant apparemment de dire à l’Inde que « les anciennes manières de faire ne sont plus acceptables. »

Selon le récit de Haqqani, rendu public en 2013, le Pakistan, qui bénéficie d’une aide financière de plusieurs milliards de dollars des Etats-Unis chaque année, a rejeté l’offre du Président Obama. Au lieu de cela, le Pakistan a continue d’entraîner, d’armer et d’abriter des terroristes internationaux – dont Osama bin Laden. Beaucoup de ces terroristes ont planifié et mené des opérations qui ont tué près de 2000 américains en service et en ont blessé 20,000 autres.

Le Président Obama s’est ainsi aliéné l’Inde sans rien obtenir du Pakistan en retour.
L’Inde était toute prête à soutenir la stratégie des Etats-Unis en Afghanistan. New Delhi partageait l’inquiétude de Kaboul sur la montée de l’islam militant dans la région. L’Inde est aussi confrontée à une menace existentielle par les milices islamistes dans la province à majorité musulmane du Cachemire et au-delà. Depuis le milieu des années 1990 plus de 30 000 civils indiens appartenant à du personnel de sécurité ont été tués dans des attaques terroristes.

Le Président Obama, lors d’une visite en Inde, apparemment a préféré jouer le « commis voyageur » de la religion musulmane, et à plusieurs reprises a interpellé les hindous pour leur intolérance envers la minorité musulmane, niant la réalité de ce qui se révèle être une tentative de génocide et un nettoyage ethnique des Hindous, commencé il y a 70 ans avec la création de la République Islamique du Pakistan et se poursuivant aujourd’hui. Non seulement des millions d’Hindous ont été forcés de quitter le Pakistan quand les deux pays ont été créés en 1947, mais presque tous les hindous restés au Pakistan et au Bangladesh (anciennement Pakistan de l’Est) ont été expulsés ou assassinés au cours des décennies qui suivirent. Le nettoyage ethnique a culminé lors du génocide du Bangladesh en 1971, perpétré par l’Armée pakistanaise. Il a fait trois millions de victimes hindous et bangladeshis, et a forcé plus de 10 millions de refugiés à s’enfuir en Inde. En contrepartie la population musulmane en Inde est passée de 35 millions au début des années 1950 à environ 180 millions in 2015, faisant de l’Inde le foyer de la deuxième plus importante population musulmane au monde, après l’Indonésie.

L’offensive des talibans en Afghanistan est le résultat direct de la politique constante de l’administration Obama de s’aliéner ses amis et de renforcer ses ennemis. Que ce soit Israël, l’Iran, l’Egypte ou l’Afghanistan, le Président Obama a de toute évidence préféré traiter avec des acteurs islamistes ou djihadistes plutôt qu’avec des forces libérales, laïques et démocratiques.

Les conséquences d’une reconquête par les talibans de l’Afghanistan seraient encore plus désastreuses que leur précédent règne de terreur. Les talibans non seulement recommenceraient à envoyer des djihadistes bien entraînés à travers le Pakistan et au-delà de ses frontières, pour faire la guerre aux « infidèles » en Inde; Il porterait aussi son objectif déclaré de djihad mondial contre l’Occident. Avec les frontières de l’Europe grandes ouvertes, l’occident est plus vulnérable que jamais.

Traduction Europe Israël

Vijeta Uniyal – SOURCE

Vijeta Uniyal est analyste politique indien basé en Europe.

Israël : la solution à deux Etats est la seule raisonnable
Zeev Sternhell (Historien)

Le Monde

13.10.2015

C’est contre la colonisation continue des territoires conquis en 1967 que se révoltent une fois de plus en ce moment les Palestiniens. Ils comprennent que la colonisation vise à perpétuer l’infériorité palestinienne et rendre irréversible la situation qui dénie à leur peuple ses droits fondamentaux. Ici se trouve la raison des violences actuelles et on n’y mettra fin que le jour où les Israéliens accepteront de regarder les Palestiniens comme leurs égaux et où les deux peuples accepteront de se faire face sur la « ligne verte » de 1949, issue des accords d’armistice israélo-arabes de Rhodes.

Tandis que nous approchions du canal de Suez vers la fin de la campagne du Sinaï en juin 1967, je demandai à un officier supérieur réserviste de l’armée israélienne – qui devint plus tard l’un des principaux leaders de la gauche sioniste radicale – ce qui se passait en Cisjordanie. « On achève la guerre d’indépendance », me répondit-­il. Tel était alors le discours dominant en Israël, et il l’est encore aujourd’hui, au même titre que celui des droits historiques du peuple juif sur la terre de la Bible, qui sert fondamentalement à légitimer l’occupation et le projet de colonisation.

Deux concepts distincts de nation
L’ambition du sionisme était, par définition, de conquérir et coloniser la Palestine. C’était la nécessité du moment. Le sionisme était une nécessité, la conséquence inévitable de la crise du libéralisme et de la montée du nationalisme radical en Europe. Les dernières décennies du XIXe siècle ont été marquées par l’aboutissement d’un processus global d’assaut contre l’héritage des Lumières, la définition politique et légale de ce qui faisait une nation, et contre le statut et les droits autonomes de l’individu en tant qu’être humain.

Le destin des juifs dépendant depuis la Révolution française du destin des valeurs libérales, les fondateurs du sionisme ont compris que si une crise mettant en cause la démocratie et les droits de l’homme devait se produire en France – la société libérale la plus avancée du Vieux Continent –, cela n’augurait rien de bon pour l’avenir des juifs d’Europe centrale et orientale.

Depuis le milieu du XVIIIe siècle, existaient deux concepts distincts de nation. Le premier, qui correspond au point de vue des Lumières tel qu’il a été présenté dans le Dictionnaire raisonné de Diderot, définit la nation comme un agrégat d’individus soumis au même gouvernement et vivant à l’intérieur des frontières d’un même pays. Le second présente la nation comme un corps organique, un produit de l’histoire, où le rapport aux individus formant le peuple est pareil à celui d’un arbre avec ses branches et ses feuilles : la feuille existe grâce à l’arbre, c’est pourquoi l’arbre a préséance sur la feuille.

Mythe contre raison
Depuis sa création, le mouvement national juif affiche les mêmes caractéristiques que celles de ses pays d’origine en Europe centrale et orientale : une identité nationale tribale, façonnée par l’histoire, la culture, la religion et la langue – une identité en vertu de laquelle l’individu ne se définit pas lui-même mais se trouve défini par l’histoire. La notion de « citoyenneté », à laquelle est raccroché en Occident le concept de nation, n’avait aucun sens en Galicie, en Ukraine ou dans la Russie blanche. Et cela valait également pour les juifs : les sionistes pouvaient bien cesser d’observer les préceptes religieux et rompre avec leur religion au sens de foi métaphysique, mais il leur était impossible de rompre l’attache historique et l’identité historique qui se fondaient sur la religion.

Même si chacun sait d’expérience que la conquête et la colonisation de la Palestine ont été déterminées par la situation catastrophique qui commençait à s’installer en Europe de l’Est à la fin du XIXe siècle, le besoin existentiel réclamait une « couverture » idéologique afin que la conquête de la terre soit investie d’une légitimité historique. L’idéologie du retour sur « la terre de nos pères » n’a pas été élaborée par des religieux pratiquants mais par des nationalistes laïcs pour qui – comme cela avait été le cas pour le « nationalisme intégral » français – la religion, dépourvue de son contenu métaphysique, offrait un ciment social et ne servait essentiellement qu’à réaliser une fusion nationale. L’histoire précéda une décision rationnelle, et c’est l’histoire qui a façonné l’identité collective.

La plupart des dirigeants politiques savent qu’il est bien plus efficace de convaincre les gens par la force d’un mythe que par la force de la raison. La vérité, c’est qu’au XXe siècle, les juifs avaient plus besoin d’un Etat qu’aucun autre peuple au monde. Par conséquent, les dirigeants politiques du mouvement sioniste et du Yichouv (la communauté juive présente en Palestine avant 1948) se sont focalisés sur ce but suprême que représentait la création d’un Etat juif. La Shoah a transformé l’entreprise sioniste en un projet mondial, une dette due au peuple juif. Tel était le contexte sur fond duquel a eu lieu la guerre d’indépendance de 1948.

Le sionisme, victime de son succès
Au lendemain de la guerre, il devint clair que le Yichouv avait été victime de son succès. La direction prise par l’Etat nouvellement établi s’inscrivait dans le prolongement direct de la période précédente : aucun tournant, aucun nouveau commencement pour inaugurer une ère nouvelle. Ce fut la grande faiblesse d’Israël et c’est encore aujourd’hui l’une des sources de notre malaise.

Aussi la communauté de tous les « citoyens », qui incluait nécessairement les Arabes restés sur le territoire, était-elle perçue comme infiniment inférieure à la communauté nationale et religieuse du peuple juif. La déclaration d’indépendance n’était pénétrée d’aucune puissance légale ou morale. C’était un document de relations publiques, destiné à l’opinion publique occidentale.

Jusqu’en 1966, le système démocratique israélien n’empêchait pas les pères fondateurs de placer les Arabes sous autorité militaire ni de les priver de leurs droits de l’homme et de citoyen. Aucun besoin de sécurité ne le justifiait, seulement une nécessité psychologique : il fallait enseigner aux Arabes qui étaient les maîtres et maintenir l’état d’urgence qui prévalait avant la création de l’Etat d’Israël.

La plupart des Israéliens n’ont pas compris, et certains ont refusé de comprendre, qu’il fallait mettre fin à cette situation transitoire, que ce qui était légitime et juste avant 1949, parce que la conquête territoriale était nécessaire, avait cessé de l’être après la guerre. L’idée selon laquelle moins il y avait d’Arabes demeurant dans l’Etat juif mieux cela valait était compréhensible étant donné la guerre pour la survie qui se jouait alors.

Israël n’a pas de frontières permanentes ni de constitution, parce que les pères fondateurs l’ont voulu ainsi : toutes les options devaient demeurer ouvertes, y compris celles qui s’ouvrirent en juin 1967
Cependant, après la victoire et l’ouverture du pays à une immigration massive, une nouvelle ère devait commencer. Son symbole le plus saillant aurait du être une constitution, ainsi que le promettait la déclaration d’indépendance : une constitution démocratique, fondée sur les droits de l’homme et plaçant en son cœur la vie politique et sociale du corps des citoyens, et non pas d’une communauté religieuse ou ethnique particulière.

Une telle constitution aurait montré que les juifs devenant citoyens de leur propre Etat aux côtés des non-juifs, un chapitre entièrement nouveau de leur histoire s’écrivait. En même temps, une constitution aurait délimité les frontières territoriales telles qu’elles furent fixées à l’issue de la guerre. Israël n’a pas de frontières permanentes ni de constitution, parce que les pères fondateurs l’ont voulu ainsi : toutes les options devaient demeurer ouvertes, y compris celles qui s’ouvrirent en juin 1967.

Durant la guerre des Six-Jours de 1967, des territoires qui étaient encore hors de portée vingt ans auparavant tombèrent dans les mains israéliennes comme un fruit mûr. Puisque rien n’était définitif, les élites dirigeantes du mouvement travailliste n’avaient aucune raison de ne pas persévérer dans la voie qui fut jusque-là si victorieuse. Quelle importance pouvait avoir la « ligne verte » aux yeux de ce leadership ? N’était-ce pas simplement un instantané de la situation qui suivit la fin des hostilités en 1949 ?

Sortir de l’impasse
Près d’un demi-siècle s’est écoulé depuis lors et le mouvement national juif est entré dans une impasse. Encore aujourd’hui, l’opposition de centre gauche est incapable de proposer une alternative idéologique au projet de colonisation, alternative fondée sur le principe que ce qui était légitime avant la guerre d’indépendance de 1948-­1949, parce que cela était nécessaire, a cessé de l’être par la suite et donc que les colonies ne sont pas simplement illégales mais illégitimes et immorales et qu’elles ne rencontrent aucun critère de principe, parce qu’elles ne sont pas nécessaires et certainement pas utiles pour l’avenir du peuple juif.

Quels sont les hommes politiques de l’opposition qui seraient prêts à œuvrer concrètement pour désamorcer cette funeste bombe à retardement ? Qui parmi eux accepterait d’assumer l’idée que les droits historiques du peuple juif sur la terre d’Israël n’ont pas priorité sur les droits des Palestiniens à être maîtres de leur destin et donc qu’il faudrait scinder équitablement le pays.

Le temps est venu de reconnaître que l’opération de conquête territoriale qui s’est achevée en 1949 et la partition du pays réalisée à la fin de la guerre d’indépendance doivent constituer l’ultime séparation. Ce n’est que sur cette base que nous pourrons construire l’avenir. Quiconque refuse de comprendre que le sionisme fut une opération destinée à libérer un peuple et non pas des pierres sacrées, un acte politique rationnel et non pas une irruption messianique, condamne Israël à s’enfoncer dangereusement soit dans une situation coloniale soit dans un Etat binational, autrement dit dans une guerre civile permanente.

La « ligne verte » est la frontière définitive
Tant que la société juive ne reconnaît pas l’égalité des droits de l’autre peuple résidant sur la terre d’Israël, elle continuera de sombrer dans une réalité ouvertement coloniale et ségrégationniste, comme celle qui existe déjà dans les territoires occupés. Le conflit qui sévit aujourd’hui à Jérusalem comme les tragédies, les attentats et les meurtres qui frappent l’existence quotidienne des Juifs et des Arabes sont un bon exemple de ce que l’avenir nous réserve dans un Etat binational.

Naturellement, cette approche exige symétrie et réciprocité du côté palestinien : la « ligne verte » est la frontière définitive, donc aucune colonie juive ne s’établira plus en Cisjordanie, mais aucun Palestinien ne devra retourner à l’intérieur des frontières de l’Etat d’Israël.

Le sionisme classique s’est fixé pour tâche d’offrir un foyer au peuple juif. Le temps qui a séparé la guerre d’indépendance de la guerre des Six-Jours a montré que tous les objectifs du sionisme pouvaient être réalisés à l’intérieur du tracé de la « ligne verte ». La seule question sensée que l’on puisse poser aujourd’hui est donc de savoir si la société israélienne a encore la capacité de se réinventer, de sortir de l’emprise de la religion et de l’histoire et d’accepter de scinder le pays en deux Etats libres et indépendants. (Traduit de l’anglais par Pauline Colonna d’Istria © « Haaretz »)

Zeev Sternhell est membre de l’Académie israélienne des sciences et lettres, professeur à l’université hébraïque de Jérusalem. Spécialiste de l’histoire du fascisme son dernier ouvrage est Histoire et Lumières : changer le monde par la raison – entretiens avec Nicolas Weill (Albin Michel, 2014). Il est également l’auteur de Aux origines d’Israël : entre nationalisme et socialisme, Fayard, 1996.

Voir enfin:

http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.678483

With No Solution in Sight: Between Two National Movements

There is more than one reason for the failure of the Oslo Accords, but at the basis lies a fundamental difference in how each side views the conflict.

Shlomo Avineri

Haaretz

Oct 02, 2015

Twenty years after the Oslo Accords, the time has come to ask why they did not bring about the historic compromise envisaged by their initiators and supporters. This is a question to be asked especially by those who supported them and viewed them, justifiably, as the opening toward an epochal reconciliation between the Jewish and Palestinian peoples.

There is more than one reason for the failure to achieve an end to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians: mutual distrust between the two populations, internal pressures from the rejectionists on both sides, Yasser Arafat’s repeated deceptions, the murder of Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the electoral victories of Likud in Israeli elections, Palestinian terrorism, continuing Israeli settlement activities in the territories, the bloody rift between Fatah and Hamas, American presidents who did too little (George W. Bush) or too much and in a wrong way (Barack Obama), the political weakness of Mahmoud Abbas, governments headed by Netanyahu that did everything possible to undermine effective negotiations. All this is true, and everyone picks and chooses what fits their views and interests – but beyond all these lies a fundamental difference in the terms in which each side views the conflict, a difference many tend or choose to overlook.

Most Israelis view the conflict as a struggle between two national movements: the Jewish national movement – Zionism – and the Palestinian national movement as part of the wider Arab national movement. The internal logic of such a view leads in principle to what is called the two-state solution. Even if the Israeli right wing preferred for years to avoid such a view, eventually it has been adopted by Netanyahu, albeit reluctantly, and is now the official policy of his government.
The point is that those Israelis who see the conflict in the framework of a struggle between two national movements assume that this is also the position of the other side; hence when negotiations fail, the recipe advocated is to tinker with some of the details, hoping that further concessions, on one or the other side, will bring about an agreement.

Unfortunately, this is an illusion.
The basic Palestinian position, which usually isn’t always explicitly stated, is totally different and can be easily detected in numerous Palestinian statements. According to the Palestinians’ view, this is not a conflict between two national movements but a conflict between one national movement (the Palestinian) and a colonial and imperialistic entity (Israel). According to this view, Israel will end like all colonial phenomena – it will perish and disappear. Moreover, according to the Palestinian view, the Jews are not a nation but a religious community, and as such not entitled to national self-determination which is, after all, a universal imperative.

According to this view, the Palestinians see all of Israel – and not just the West Bank and Gaza – as analogous to Algeria: an Arab country out of which the foreign colonialists were ultimately expelled. Because of this, Israel – even in its pre-1967 borders – never appears in Palestinian school textbooks; because of this the Palestinians insist never to give up their claim to the right of return of 1948 refugees and their descendants to Israel.

Not a people
This is also the reason for the Palestinians’ obstinate refusal – from Abbas to Saeb Erekat – to accept Israel as the Jewish nation-state in any way whatsoever. At the end of the day, the Palestinian position views Israel as an illegitimate entity, sooner or later doomed to disappear. The Crusader analogy only adds force to this claim.
One expression of the gap between the Israeli and the Palestinian perception is evident in the diplomatic language of both sides when they refer to the two-state solution. The Israeli version talks about “two states for two peoples,” sometime adding “a Palestinian nation-state living next to the Jewish nation-state.” The Palestinian version refers only to a “two-state solution,” never to “two states for two peoples.” It is obvious: If the Jews are not a people, they are not entitled to a state.

This is also the reason why there is no regret among the Palestinians for their rejection of the 1947 United Nations Partition Plan. As far as I know – and I would be happy if proven wrong – there has until now not been any serious Palestinian debate around their rejection of partition: There have been innumerable discussions and publications about their military defeat in 1948 in their attempt to prevent the establishment of Israel, but no Palestinian leader or thinker has openly admitted that the decision to reject the UN Partition Plan and to go to war against it had been politically or morally wrong.

To this very day, no Palestinian intellectual or politician has dared to admit that had the Palestinians accepted partition then, on May 15, 1948 a Palestinian Arab state would have been established in a part of Mandatory Palestine, and there would have been no refugees and no Nakba (“catastrophe”). It is much easier to deny moral responsibility for the terrible catastrophe the Palestinian leadership has brought upon its own people.

This is not just a matter of historical narrative: It has political implications for the here and now. If Israel is not a legitimate state based on the right to national self-determination but an imperialist entity, there is no ground for an end-of-conflict agreement based on compromise.

Most Israelis who maintain that the conflict is a territorial conflict between two national movements tend to believe that a territorial arrangement, linked in one way or another to the pre-1967 Green Line, is the way to reach an eventual resolution of the conflict. Yet the Palestinian behavior under Arafat at Camp David 2000, as well as during the negotiations between Abbas and former Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, suggests that something much deeper is at stake.

When Abbas insists repeatedly that his movement cannot give up the claim to the Right of Return because this is “an individual right” reserved to every Palestinian refugee and his descendants, the implication is that even if there will be an agreement on the territorial issues, and even if all West Bank settlers will be evacuated, the conflict will continue to exist and fester. This is also the reason why Abbas refuses to follow Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and address the Knesset as a symbol of reconciliation – this would imply accepting Israel’s sovereignty and legitimacy.

I am well aware that the moderate public in Israel – which acknowledges the Palestinian right to self-determination, opposes Jewish settlement in the territories and supports the two-state solution – finds it difficult to internalize the fact that the Palestinians basically do not accept Israel’s right to exist. But there is no way to deny this uncomfortable truth. Yet this should not lead to despair or the acceptance of the status quo because “there is nothing we can do.”

Multidimensional conflict
One can learn from similar current national conflicts, but unfortunately most Israelis are so immersed in internal debates that they are not aware of some of the similarities. The national conflicts in Cyprus, Kosovo, Bosnia and even faraway Kashmir have certain similarities to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. In all of them a territorial dimension is evident: the Turkish occupation of northern Cyprus, the territorial aspect of the multinational conflicts in Bosnia, the Serbian perception of Kosovo as part of their historical homeland, the Indian occupation of parts of Kashmir.

But all these conflicts are multidimensional, not just territorial – they are conflicts between national movements on which usually one side does not accept the very legitimacy of the other group. All these conflicts relate to contrasting narratives and historical memories as well as to claims to sovereignty; they imply occupation, ethnic cleansing, settlers, resistance to occupation, terrorism, reprisals and guerilla warfare. They are not religious conflicts as such, but every one of them has a religious dimension, linked to holy sites and religious memories which usually exacerbate the conflict and make pragmatic compromises even more difficult.
The multidimensionality of all these conflicts is the reason why no resolution has yet been found to any of them, even after decades of sincere, though sometimes naïve, international efforts: the Annan Plan for Cyprus, the Dayton Accords in Bosnia, etc. All these plans usually focused on the territorial aspect, mainly because of its obvious visibility, but overlooked the much deeper roots of the conflicts which are far more difficult to solve. Yet this did not prevent some practical ways of finding partial agreements of different sorts, aimed at attenuating the conflict and preventing violence and open warfare.

The Israeli right wing is interested in maintaining the status quo, and Netanyahu’s aim is clear: to increase the number of Jewish settlers, prevent handing over control over the territories to the Palestinians and prevent – or delay as much as possible – the establishment of a Palestinian state.

Those who think that the sole aim of Netanyahu is to survive in power are wrong (after all, this is the aim of every political leader). He views his staying in power as a national mission to maintain Israeli control over as much territory of the Land of Israel as possible. His focusing on the Iranian threat is, among other things, a ploy to divert attention from the Palestinian issue, even when it is clear that he is not ever going to attack Iran.

Thinking out of the box
The opposition under Isaac Herzog of the Zionist Union does not propose an alternative to this policy. Herzog is right in repeating his insistence that Israel should return to the negotiating table. But this does not suffice, as this is not a political plan. Does Herzog believe that if the Netanyahu government returns to negotiations, the result would be an agreement based on the two-state solution? Moreover, even if he himself would become – as I hope he would – prime minister, can he offer to the Palestinians more than Ehud Barak offered at Camp David and Olmert offered to Abbas – offers that have in both cases been rejected by the other side?
Similarly, the understandably enticing idea of embracing the Arab League Peace Initiative is a chimera: At a time when the Arab world is rent by internal strife and violent civil wars, and at least four Arab countries are in various stages of radical disintegration, the Arab League is not a real player, though Israel should address the challenge posed by the initiative, despite the fact that it is basically a dead end.

Herzog should go beyond the mantra of “returning to negotiations” and initiate an alternative calling for creativity and political courage. He should declare that, yes, one should return to negotiations, but being aware of the difficulties of reaching a formal agreement, a government headed by him would initiate the following policies:
* A total and unconditional cessation of all construction in the settlements.
* Dismantle the illegal outposts, as promised by previous Israeli governments.
* Encourage a generous program of financial support for settlers who would agree to voluntary resettle in Israel proper (“pinui-pitzui”).
* Prevent Jewish takeover of Arab houses in East Jerusalem, which provokes riots and violence.
* Declare activities linked to organizations like “price tag” illegal, in accordance with existing laws and regulations.
* Encourage and facilitate foreign investments in the West Bank.
* Abolish the remnants of the blockade of the Gaza Strip and try to establish, with the European Union and Egypt, a sustainable mechanism of entry and exit of people and goods to and from the Strip.

These steps are not “concessions” to the Palestinians. Since there are not going to be meaningful negotiations with the Palestinians in the foreseeable future, they are aimed at not accepting the Palestinian veto on an agreement as a cause for a continuing Israeli control over millions of Palestinians. Such steps will also clearly indicate that Israel is not interested in extending or perpetuating its rule over areas populated by Palestinians.
I am aware that these are not easy steps and will not be welcome by many Israelis – nor are they a “solution” of the conflict, but they constitute an alternative to the existing status quo that is undermining the fabric of Israeli society as a Jewish and democratic country.

Confederation not a solution
A last word about an idea recently floated, among others by President Reuven Rivlin – confederation. I greatly appreciate Rivlin’s humane and Zionist campaign to ensure the equal rights of Israel’s Arab citizens – in that he is a true follower of the liberal aspects of Jabotinsky’s legacy. But Rivlin is also an adherent of continuing rule over all the Land of Israel and opposes the establishment of a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza. When asked how he squares the obvious contradiction between these two positions, he occasionally mentions the idea of a confederation.

On a verbal level this appears a plausible, even pleasant, way out. But it’s a mirage. First of all, there exists no confederacy anywhere in the world (for historical reasons, Switzerland refers to itself as a confederacy, but it is a federation). Confederative ideas have been raised during the disintegration of the Soviet Union and Yugoslavia, but they all failed. The main reason was that setting up a confederation implies establishing mutually accepted frontiers among the various members of the confederation, and this, after all, is one of the main sticking points in national conflicts.

Does anyone imagine that the Palestinians will agree to a Palestinian entity within the confederation that would not include the Jewish settlements? On the other hand, will Israel agree that the settlements will be under the jurisdiction of the Palestinian entity of the confederation? It is equally obvious that a confederal scheme will not be able to address the issue of Jerusalem. Furthermore, in a confederation – as distinct from a federation – each confederal entity is considered an internationally recognized state, including possible UN membership. Will Israel agree to this? Such a confederation, if it ever comes about, will occasionally have a Palestinian president (probably on a rotating basis): Is this something most Israelis would find acceptable?

A further and unpleasant element would be the different political structures of the two entities of such a confederation. How can one imagine setting up the common institutions of an Israel-Palestine confederation when one entity (Israel) is a pluralist democracy, while the other would be something else, in all probability run as a Mukhabarat-type regime like most Arab countries? I cannot imagine many Israelis being willing to be linked as citizens in any way to such a despotic structure. In short, with all due respect for President Rivlin, such an idea cannot come about due to its overall intrinsic and built-in contradictions.

There is no choice but to admit there is no chance for any mutually accepted agreement in the foreseeable future. Such a pessimistic prognosis calls for the opposition, and its leader, to acknowledge that they have to think outside the box and offer alternatives not in order to “solve” the conflict, but to mitigate its severity and perhaps move both sides eventually to an agreed solution.

But there should be no illusion: So long as the Palestinians maintain that they are fighting – militarily or diplomatically – against a Zionist colonial and imperialistic entity, an historical compromise is unfortunately not on the agenda. Hence a call for creative and bold alternatives is necessary in order to get beyond the status quo and insure Israel’s future as a Jewish and democratic state.

Voir enfin:

Le Sheikh Raed Salah appelle à la conquête du Mont du Temple
Coolamnews

27 juillet 2015

Raed Salah, chef du Mouvement islamique radicale en Israël, appelle à utiliser la violence pour couper les Juifs de leur site le plus sacré, et affirme qu’Israël a déclaré la guerre en disant qu’il ne peut y avoir de Jérusalem sans le Mont du Temple.

Le Sheikh Raed Salah, , a appelé à la violence terroriste sur le Mont du Temple – le site le plus saint du judaïsme – de manière à empêcher l’accès des Juifs au site sacré. Se référant à des visites juives pacifiques sur le site – qui sont souvent l’objet de harcèlement, tel que récemment pendant les prières de Ticha Be Av, une commémoration de la destruction du Premier et du Second Temple sur le site, Salah a parlé d’attaques israéliennes contre la Mosquée Al-Aqsa.

Salah a juré que son mouvement, qui a été très actif pour attiser les émeutes sur le Mont du Temple, s’en tient à son objectif : « Nos vies et notre sang seront sacrifiés pour la mosquée Al-Aqsa. Chaque violation du côté israélien contre Al-Aqsa est une violation de l’occupation, qu’elle soit accomplie dans des uniformes militaires ou religieux ou sous une couverture politique, » a déclaré le cheikh radical, indiquant que les Juifs religieux sont aussi des cibles.

« Nous devons lutter contre toutes ces violations jusqu’à ce que l’occupation soit levée. » C’est en partie à cause de telles déclarations que Salah a été interdit de visite à Jérusalem, du 25 juin jusqu’en décembre, craignant qu’il favorise l’incitation à la violence.

Le problème, avoue la journaliste Halevy, c’est que le Mont a été laissé entre les mains du Waqf jordanien depuis qu’il a été libéré pendant la guerre des Six Jours en 1967, et par conséquent, il est devenu le site d’émeutes musulmanes destinées à bloquer l’entrée des Juifs. De même, le Waqf a interdit aux Juifs de prier sur le site, malgré la loi israélienne stipulant la liberté de culte.

Salah a déclaré que l’occupation vise à faire respecter sa souveraineté sur le Mont du Temple, en commentant, « c’est une illusion, un vide, car Israël n’a pas le pouvoir et la légitimité, et son existence certainement disparaîtra, et la volonté d’Allah se produira bientôt. »

« Les Arabes ont longtemps essayé de nier le caractère juif du site à travers diverses campagnes, entre autres en détruisant des objets juifs anciens et en construisant illégalement sous la mosquée. « Israël a déclaré la guerre, l’occupation a déclaré la guerre contre Al-Qods depuis le début de l’entreprise sioniste au 18ème siècle, et maintenant il conduit une agression terroriste fondée sur la déclaration du mal : il n’y a pas de valeur en Israël sans Jérusalem, et Jérusalem n’a aucune valeur sans le Mont du Temple, » a déclaré Salah.

Lors d’un discours durant une manifestation musulmane en 2007, il a accusé les Juifs d’utiliser le sang des enfants pour cuire les matsot, invoquant les infâmes diffamations médiévales de meurtres de sang utilisés pour déclencher des pogroms meurtriers en Europe et au Moyen-Orient. Salah a également passé une brève période en prison pour avoir transféré de l’argent au Hamas, et s’est ému comme un enfant, des dessins des croix gammées dans une interview en 2009, sur une station de télévision de langue arabe basée à Londres.

10 commentaires pour Médias: Le Moyen-Orient est à feu et à sang et devinez qui on accuse ? (Palestinian blood lust: It’s time to give hatred its due)

  1. jcdurbant dit :

    La création d’un État palestinien est une condition sine qua non. Israël menace la paix mondiale en retardant cette échéance

    François Fillon (2014)

    http://www.lemondejuif.info/2014/11/vote-palestine-fillon-israel-menace-paix-mondiale/

    Israël est en train de découvrir, ce que moi j’ai dit depuis longtemps, c’est-à-dire qu’ils ne vont pas rester à l’abri du chaos qui est en train de s’emparer du Proche-Orient. Cette idée qu’Israël pouvait rester une sorte d’ilot pacifique et prospère au milieu de cette guerre est une idée folle, qui surtout aujourd’hui se révèle être une idée fausse. Il faut faire pression sur Israël pour qu’il accepte de rentrer dans un processus de négociation et en particulier qu’il libère les territoires sans lesquels il n’y aura jamais de paix en Palestine. Un certain nombre de colonies sont créées en contradiction totale avec les engagements qui avaient été pris dans le cadre des accords précédents.

    François Fillon

    http://www.lemondejuif.info/2015/10/francois-fillon-il-faut-faire-pression-sur-israel/

    J'aime

  2. jcdurbant dit :

    LYING FABRICE AT WATERLOO: NBC EGYPTIAN FIXER CAUGHT RED-HANDED LYING (And corrected on-air for suggesting dead Palestinian terrorist wasn’t armed when the video clearly showed he held up a knife)

    NBC News reporter Ayman Mohyeldin was corrected on-air yesterday after a live report that implied a Palestinian terrorist who charged at officers brandishing a knife didn’t have a weapon on him.

    Mohyeldin reported live on MSNBC Wednesday morning that he and the NBC News team had a good vantage point and they did not see anyone getting stabbed “at the time of this incident.” He said the man who approached the police was shot after ignoring multiple warnings.

    He himself did not confirm that the attacker had a knife on him, telling Jose Diaz-Balart that when he was lying on the ground “both of his hands were open and both of his hands did not have a knife.”

    Diaz-Balart jumped in to bring up a still image NBC News obtained in which “we can clearly see the man… with what appears to be, at least in his right hand, a knife.”

    Mohyeldin said that was the “point he was trying to make”: that his hands were empty when his body was on the ground. He said, “That does not mean he didn’t have a weapon. It just means that that particular incident, where he became visible to us… with my bare eyes, they were, at that point, emptied from the weapon that he may have had.”

    http://www.mediaite.com/…/msnbcs-ayman-mohyeldin-corrected…/

    http://www.camera.org/index.asp…

    J'aime

  3. jcdurbant dit :

    Le djihad à la petite semaine
    Shmuel Trigano
    Desinfos
    16/10/2015

    On assiste ces derniers jours à l’aggravation de la guerre de religion que les Palestiniens mènent, je crois qu’on ne peut plus dire « contre l’État d’Israël » mais contre le judaïsme, contre la religion juive. Cela a commencé avec les violences sur le Mont du Temple que les musulmans (et les journalistes) veulent appeler l’ »Esplanade des mosquées », voire, aujourd’hui, semble-t-il la « mosquée d’El Aksa » ou « El Aksa » car, selon la dernière version, c’est tout le Mont du Temple qui est une mosquée et qui donc est interdit d’accès aux non musulmans qui pourraient la profaner par « leurs pieds sales »: c’est exactement l’expression empruntée par Mahmoud Abbas (celui qu’Anne Hidalgo – en présence d’anciens ambassadeurs d’Israël sans honneur – a décoré pour son pacifisme). L’instrumentalisation de la religion musulmane contre le sionisme (et tout simplement les Juifs) est un classique depuis le grand Mufti de Palestine, et dignitaire nazi, Amine El Husseini.

    Cette véritable sédition violente et provocatrice a éclaté au moment des fêtes juives de fin d’année et dure depuis, car la période de fêtes se termine en Israël lundi soir, afin de les perturber et d’empêcher les Juifs de pratiquer leur religion, couvrir de sang leurs fidèles à l’instar de ce qui s’est passé il y a quelques mois dans une synagogue de Jérusalem.

    Tout laisse penser que cette sédition est menée par la Ligue du Nord, la ligue islamiste israélienne (oui, israélienne et pas interdite!) et, objectivement, par la Liste arabe unifiée de la Knesset. On a pu voir ainsi un député de cette liste haranguer la police sur le Mont du Temple en hurlant que ce lieu n’était pas à eux (les Juifs), qu’ils n’avaient rien à y faire[1]. On a pu voir la députée (oui c’est possible en Israël qu’un parti récuse la légitimité de l’existence de l’Etat et de la nation dont ils reçoivent les émoluments!) Zoabi prétendre que toute la montagne est une mosquée et qu’elle est interdite aux Juifs[2]… Il ne fait pas de doute aussi qu’il y a là une action concertée avec Mahmoud Abbas à l’heure de son « triomphe » à l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU. Il n’a d’ailleurs pas dit un mot de condamnation des crimes sauvages commis contre des Juifs ces dernières heures. Le meurtre a été d’alleurs perpétré par son parti le Fatah, par l’intermédiaire des « Brigades d’El Aksa »[3].

    Mais il y a un autre problème qui apparait de plus en plus clairement et qui est la négligence et la passivité du gouvernement israélien depuis de nombreux mois face à la persécution au quotidien des Juifs, devenue un fait courant à Jérusalem et dans les territoires: une négligence qui a pu laisser croire aux apprentis terroristes que tout était possible dans leur vindicte et leur ressentiment, sans encourir de représailles. Certes, on comprend que le gouvernement est ligoté et phagocyté par les exigences d’une Union Européenne, suicidaire pour elle-même, et un Obama, confit dans sa moralité frelatée et défaillante, mais aussi par les atteintes à la souveraineté de l’Etat que représente l’incursion des juges de la Cour suprême dans les affaires militaires et de sécurité, ce dont usent et abusent une pléïade de ONG missionnées par les États européens pour entraver systématiquement la capacité d’agir de l’Etat d’Israël. Mais le gouvernement de droite a été justement élu pour pulvériser ce système de dérision de la vertu et du droit. Or il ne le fait pas. Il rejoint ainsi l’agonie des États européens incapables de réagir aux menaces vitales qui pèsent sur eux. La seule différence, c’est que ces États ont le temps de mourir en paix (?), j’entends à petit feu, dans l’anesthésie de leur capacité d’action et de réaction. Mais Israël n’a pas le temps! Sa profondeur stratégique est trop faible.

    C’est sa souveraineté qui est en jeu au dehors, bien entendu, sous la menace indigne de l’Union Européenne et d’Obama, et au dedans, sous les entraves à la décision politique que fait peser un système juridco-médiatique qui est le contraire de la démocratie, contrairement à ce que ses tenants clament soir et matin. Au dedans, à Jérusalem et en Judée-Samarie, on se croirait revenus aux temps de la fin des communautés juives d’Afrique du Nord et du Moyen Orient, quand les Juifs étaient tourmentés, intimidés, abaissés dans leurs actes quotidiens et, bien sûr, avant tout leur vie religieuse, cible absolue d’intimidations et de persécutions. Cet état de faits n’est pas possible ni admissible dans un Etat juif souverain.

    La véritable nature du conflit

    Le paradigme d’analyse que la gauche juive a imposé dans l’interprétation du conflit, a troublé jusque dans ses fondements la capacité de comprendre la véritable nature du conflit. Il n’y a pas là un conflit de nationalismes et encore moins un conflit entre des peuples, certainement pas un conflit territorial, mais une guerre de religion, décrétée par l’islam depuis 100 ans. Vous pouvez donner (et non pas « rendre » car le territoire était colonisé par la Jordanie) la Judée-Samarie, la guerre continuera de plus belle, même plus violemment, car la vindicte contre le judaïsme ne sera pas éteinte. Bien au contraire, ce repli lui donnera le signal pour ce que les Palestiniens croiront être « l’assaut final ».

    Ce sont en effet les Palestiniens qui ont décerné aux terroristes de la pire espèce le titre « honorifique » de « Shahid », c’est à dire de « martyrs de la foi », summum de l’acte religieux et de la profession de foi, bien avant Al Kaida et la milice de l’Etat islamique. Ce sont eux qui ont inauguré le ciblage de civils pour mettre à genoux un pouvoir contre lequel ils sont impuissants. Aujourd’hui, nous assistons à une terrible régression sur le plan de l’histoire religieuse de l’humanité avec les meurtres au quotidien à l’arme blanche, à la voiture, par lapidation, etc. Ces meurtres sont des actes religieux, des sacrifices de sang offerts par le « martyr » (inversion morale totale: le martyr est celui qui tue!), que sa mort programmée offre en deuxième sacrifice.

    Sa mort, effectivement inéluctable, vient cacher son crime de sang et faire croire qu’il est une victime passive de l’ennemi religieux. Dans sa logique, moralement et intellectuellement corrompue, il ne peut imaginer que sa victime, choisie au hasard, pourrait avoir le droit de vivre. Son existence même est en fait une insulte, croit-il, à la « vérité ». Elle n’a tout simplement pas le droit d’exister car elle n’est pas censée être humaine (c’est à dire musulmane, d’où les qualificatifs des Juifs comme « singes » et « cochons », c’est à dire leur animalisation précédant leur égorgement en toute moralité), si ce n’est en se soumettant à la suprématie de l’islam, traduite en termes avant tout politiques. C’est ce qui le fait commettre l’assassinat en toute quiétude morale. Le meurtrier tire sa conviction de sa croyance religieuse mais aussi de ce qu’il a derrière lui le poids écrasant de la oumma mondiale. C’est ce qui lui donne la force de se confronter aux pouvoirs qu’il combat (et qui peuvent être aussi ceux de l’ »autre » musulman, le shiite ou le sunnite) et le sentiment de l’immortalité. Quand la nouvelle du meurtre des des deux parents devant leur quatre enfants a été connue, on a pu voir en Judée et Samarie des Palestiniens se réunirent pour célébrer ce sacrifice religieux, s’offrir bonbons et gâteaux…
    Le meurtre est une fête.

    Ici aussi la défaillance du gouvernement israélien est grande, car il a accepté depuis des lustres que l’Autorité Palestinienne non seulement appelle au « martyr » sur toutes les ondes, le célèbre dans ses places et ses rues, mais aussi paie une rente aux familles des « martyrs » (14 000 shekels mensuels, soient environ 3000 euros). Or, d’où vient cet argent? Avant tout du parrain de l’OLP, l’Union Européenne et des redevances de taxes qu’Israël verse à une entité qui promeut le terrorisme. Ce paradoxe assourdissant est encore plus strident en ce qui concerne Gaza, qui ne vit que de son alimentation par Israël! En somme, Israël, entretient ses agresseurs, les nourrit, selon la logique classique de la djizya, l’amende que les non musulmans doivent payer, en s’humiliant (dit le Coran), pour ne pas être tués/sacrifiés. La deuxième erreur du gouvernement israélien fut la libération (en échange de Gilad Shalit) des assassins qui étaient dans ses geôles et qui, dans de nombreux cas, ont commis après leur libération d’autres assassinats, leur assurant ainsi une impunité permanente comme si les crimes commis ne comptaient pas. Les survivants des victimes ne peuvent que se sentir abandonnées par l’État dont ils sont les citoyens, ce qui accroie le sentiment d’impunité des meurtriers.

    Face à cette carapace religieuse des assassins, les « droits de l’homme » s’avèrent d’une terrible faiblesse et la démocratie, une entrave à l’autodéfense et à la légitime défense. On constate à cette occasion la faiblesse d’un univers étatique qui a supprimé la peine de mort face à un univers qui pratique urbi et orbi la décapitation sanglante sans aucune hésitation morale[4]… Face à de tels ennemis on se demande, en effet, si la démocratie pourra survivre (pas seulement en Israël, surtout dans l’Europe du déclin). La « démocratie » déliquescente des post-modernistes[5], aucun doute qu’elle disparaîtra dans la tourmente. Il reste encore un espoir: que la démocratie de l’Etat-nation – à supposer qu’il y ait encore en Israël – ce que je crois – de vaillants citoyens – écrase l’infâme.

    [1] « Ce n’est pas à vous ».

    [2] Hanin Zaobi nie le caractère juif du Mont du Temple.

    [3] Au fait où est la condamnation de la France qui a reconnu l’État fantoche d’Abbas? Ou est celle du grand anti-raciste Obama? La morale à tempéraments de ces puissances est dévoilée depuis longtemps… Quant au Pape, n’en parlons pas… Il a été subjugué par Mahmoud Abbas « prince de la paix »! Quelle farce stridente!

    [4] Rien ne peut plus terrifier le mental d’une société qui a escamoté la mort, naturelle tout d’abord, mais aussi donnée et reçue dans la guerre ou la peine de mort, que ces décapitations sanglantes. Son armement moral face à l’ennemi se retrouve profondément affaibli. Je ne porte pas ici un jugement mais un constat. Car, malgré l’Union européenne qui a cru que les guerres étaient finies, les ennemis n’ont pas disparu! Une guerre se profile peut-être aujourd’hui à l’horizon dont elle même est une actrice (en Ukraine et au Moyen Orient)… Mais, confite dans l’illusion qu’elle incarne la morale et la paix, elle semble incapable d’y faire face, (c’est ce qui explique pourquoi elle n’est capable que de bombardements aériens, et pas d’une confrontation sur le terrain, ce que peut par contre la mutation poutinienne de l’Union soviétique). Israël lui est en guerre de survie contre ses « amis » qui ont projeté d’affaiblir sa souveraineté et qui voudraient bien l’entraîner dans leur propre extinction en douceur. Il est en guerre aussi contre ses ennemis, sur le terrain, qui ont projeté sa destruction violente.

    [5] Ils parlent d’ailleurs significativement de « post-démocratie » ou de « démocratie participative » pour habiller la destruction de la démocratie de l’État-nation, sous couvert de « muticulturalisme ».

    Prochain livre à paraître (22 octobre 2015) Le nouvel État Juif (Berg International, 15 euros)

    J'aime

  4. jcdurbant dit :

    « On ne parle de violences que quand des Israéliens sont touchés ».

    Julien Salingue (politologue)

    J'aime

  5. jcdurbant dit :

    ISRAELIS SAY (The media code word to make sure Israelis are presented as victimizers and Palestinians as victims)‏

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/israel-palestinians-1.3276351

    J'aime

  6. jcdurbant dit :

    WHY PALESTINIANS NEED TO SUFFER

    When Zionists first came to Palestine the population was under a million. Today it pushes 10 million.

    Arab political culture before Zionism was among the most autocratic and exploitative of the many “traditional” political cultures: With Turkish administrators, wealthy Arab landlords living in Egypt, and Bedouin tribes raiding whenever they could, the plight of the Palestinian peasant had involved plenty of suffering. That kind of suffering continues endemically throughout the Arab world today, regardless of whether the populace lives in an oil-rich state or not.

    Arab political culture has consistently chosen wars they lose to resolution in this conflict.

    In 1958, Ralph Galloway, former UNWRA director wrote:

    “The Arab states do not want to solve the refugee problem. They want to keep it as an open sore, as an affront to the United Nations, and as a weapon against Israel. Arab leaders do not give a damn whether Arab refugees live or die.”

    One might even make a more damning assertion: they do care; they want and need them to suffer.

    When the UN resolution of 1947 created two states, with the Palestinian one significantly greater than the Israeli, which consisted of three scarcely contiguous units, the largest of which was desert wilderness, the Arab League, without consultation with the Palestinian people (just coordination with the Nazi ally al-Husseini, rejected the partition and prepared for a war of annihilation.

    The ensuing disaster (al-Naqba) produced a much larger and contiguous Israel with a substantial minority of Arab residents, and a widely dispersed population of Arab war refugees. At this point, rather than negotiate the best possible situation for the refugees, the Arab League unanimously chose to continue the war and confine the Palestinian refugees to camps, as a weapon against Israel. The Palestinians became the sacrificial pawn of Arab politics, forced to live in squalor, indoctrinated with Nazi-inspired propaganda in their schools, and held up to the world as an example of Israeli crimes against humanity. And of course, the worse they suffer, the worse the crime.

    For the first (and critical) half of the Palestinian experience of refugee confinement, it was Arab rulers and Arab guns who kept them in misery, and that once Israel took over they tried to move these unfortunate victims out into decent housing, and it was the Arabs who pushed UN Resolutions insisting that they be returned to the squalor of the camps.

    After the second Naqba of 1967, with the Israelis offering to return most of the conquered territories in exchange for peace, the Arab League met at Khartoum and issued the “Three No’s” – “No negotiations, no recognition, no peace!”

    And when the Palestinians threatened the stability of the Hashemite kingdom in Jordan – the only Arab country to offer them citizenship – King Hussein’s troops massacred as many as 10,000 Palestinian men, women and children in one month, remembered in Palestinian lore as Black September. PLO troops fled to Israel rather than fall into Jordanian hands. Many Palestinians and other Arabs acknowledge their victimization by their “fellow” Arabs.

    Current Palestinian Authority Prime-Minister Mahumud Abbas said in 1976 that,

    …the Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate, and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.” (Falastin a-Thaura, March 1976).

    The uprising of 1936-9, supposedly fighting the British and the Zionists, ended up killing far more Arabs (vendettas, looting) than either English or Jews. The Peel Commission (1939) asked Arab rioters why, despite the increased levels of prosperity brought to Palestine by their arrival, they attacked the Jews, one Arab responded:

    You say we are better off: you say my house has been enriched by the strangers who have entered it. But it is my house, and I did not invite the strangers in, or ask them to enrich it, and I do not care how poor it is if I am only master of it.”

    In general, terrorists almost never limit their aggression to the “enemy”, and since their own populations do not have the protection that enemies can mobilize, they tend to suffer the daily impositions of their “militants” far more. And until it becomes completely unbearable, most people in such terror-dominated societies stay silent.

    The widespread practice of executing “collaborators” without trial, even women, has throttled any “moderate” Palestinian leadership from emerging. Rape and sexual assault of women is a common form of intimidating other Palestinians into cooperation and as a way of rewarding one’s “soldiers” for their efforts. Palestinians themselves often acknowledge how much of their suffering derives from the corruption of their own leaders, but rarely do they take it the further step to wonder whether this is not merely corruption or violence, but also an endemic problem of their political culture.

    The emergence of a powerful culture of Jihad in Palestinian circles (Islamic Jihad and Hamas) have intensified the dynamic of self-inflicted suffering. Promoting a culture of death that encourages youth to die trying to kill Israelis has contributed immeasurably to the casualties among Palestinian youth, whether intentionally or unintentionally. The notion that suffering in this world wins rewards in the world to come gives a particularly powerful motivation to self-destruction. Indeed, Islamic Jihad gives a new meaning to positive-sum outcomes within the framework of negative-sum behavior: if a Muslim dies in battle with the infidel, he goes to heaven; if he succeeds in winning the Jihad, his reward is in this world as well.

    another source of Palestinian suffering: the “support” the Palestinian leadership gets from outsiders, particularly 1) the Europeans, 2) the UN, 3) the “progressive left,” and 4) the media. For the last three decades, since the mid-1970s, these parties have become increasingly anti-Israel and, supposedly, pro-Palestinian.

    Yassir Arafat’s feckless leadership has done immense damage to the Palestinians, from his financial corruption, to his addiction to honor and violence, to his systematic mendacity and incapacity to make the shift from “guerrilla” to statesmen. And yet European leaders have lionized him, even at the height of his terrorist activities in the 1970s.

    The UN has spent up to 40% of its time condemning Israel, illustrating the dangers of anti-Zionism as a Weapon of Mass Distraction. By giving the irredentist Palestinian cause international support, they have strengthened precisely the forces most dedicated to victimizing Palestinians. And of course, Palestinians, not understanding who was benefited from such one-sided condemnations, cheered on the process.

    Chirac’s whole foreign policy, and specifically his role in the failure to staunch the violence in early October 2000 that led to the disastrous “Second Intifada,” was itself only a continuation of so much of French foreign policy in the Middle East. They, like so many “pro-Palestinian” diplomats, have betrayed everyone but the warmongers.

    Rather than urging the Palestinians to develop the kind of qualities necessary for a progressive state that takes care of its citizens and encourages freedom of thought and expression (e.g., public self-criticism, protection of dissidents), the Left has systematically “explained” Palestinian violence as the result of Israeli (and American) policies. As a result, the Left reinforces the most regressive and fascist elements in Palestinian culture, even as they claim to work for peace and civil society.

    The contribution of the Media to Palestinian suffering may be the most subtle, but also the most pervasive. The nature of media coverage – if it bleeds it leads – has always favored violence, and in particular fed the need of terrorists for attention. Its superficial and dramatic news has encouraged the systematic victimization of Arabs for the purposes of international sympathy. By ignoring or playing down the Palestinian calls for genocide against Israel and hatred of the West, while at the same time portraying Israel as the cause of war and of whatever damage Palestinians do to themselves, the media have contributed to a profound misunderstanding of the sources of – and therefore the solutions to – the conflict.

    But the principle “if it bleeds it leads” actually takes second seat in the MSM coverage of the Arab-Israeli conflict to who commits the violence. When Israeli kills a Palestinian child, it receives a good deal of coverage; when the Palestinians kill Palestinian children, newsreports are laconic at best. (Google Palestinians kill Palestinian child and you get only entries on Israelis killing Palestinian children.)

    Given the extraordinary sensitivity of Arab honor-shame culture to public disapproval, one might even argue that the sympathy and understanding that the media grant to the most depraved of Palestinian terrorists, represents an enormous opportunity cost. When 500 Palestinian intellectuals denounced suicide terrorism, they did so because it did not serve the Palestinian cause — indeed it lost them international sympathy. Were the international community to have condemned it with even greater insistence, these voices would have had even greater strength. When the media mis-reported the outbreak of Oslo War in late 2000, arousing world-wide support for the Palestinians in their struggle for “freedom”, they encouraged Arafat to believe that “the whole world is behind him” so that he had no need to work to lessen the violence. By promoting and diffusing stories of alleged atrocities committed by Israel without a solid background check, the media reinforce the hate-mongering propaganda of the Palestinian leadership. “Balancing” negative coverage of the Arabs with unfounded accusations of the Israelis, for example, balancing stories of “honor killings” with accusations of rape of Palestinian women by Israelis and seizing on Palestinian accusation of “massacres.”

    what if the Palestinians had their own state? Would their conditions improve? To judge by their conditions under Jordanian rule (1948-67), or their conditions in Lebanon when the PLO had power (1970-82), or Gaza after withdrawal (2005-), or by the fate of other Arab peoples ruled over by their own elites… no.

    for that to happen, we progressives would need to put our shoulders behind a very different wheel.

    Can we do it? What’s preventing us?

    Prof. Landes

    J'aime

  7. jcdurbant dit :

    Quel deux poids deux mesures ?

    “We’re the only democracy in the Middle East and so you ask why do the Royals go to the Arab dictatorships around us but they don’t come here?”

    Israeli official

    In the 67 years since Israel was founded in territory once controlled by Britain, no member of the Royal family has ever visited in an official capacity. While Prince Charles and others have occasionally set foot in Israel, Buckingham Palace and the British Government have been at pains to stress they were personal visits and not official ones.

    The rejected invitations are a source of deep frustration for Israel, especially as the Royal family has made high-profile visits to authoritarian regional neighbours like Saudi Arabia and Qatar, as Charles did in February.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/12034949/Why-does-the-British-Royal-Family-visit-Saudi-Arabia-but-not-Israel.html

    J'aime

  8. jcdurbant dit :

    Quand les pauvres Palestiniens sont abattus ou tués, les méchants colons israéliens trouvent la mort …‏

    Des agents de police israéliens ont abattu samedi un Palestinien qui tentait d’attaquer à l’arme blanche un policier près de la vieille ville de Jérusalem, a déclaré une porte-parole de la police. Il s’agit du 126e Palestinien tué depuis le début des attaques de ce genre, en octobre. Vingt Israéliens et un ressortissant américain ont également trouvé la mort au cours de la même période …

    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/261215/un-palestinien-abattu-en-tentant-de-poignarder-un-policier-israelien

    J'aime

  9. jcdurbant dit :

    Après Israël, l’intifada des couteaux s’attaque aux colons français:

    Il faut mener des attaques comme l’a demandé le cheikh Abou Mohammed Al-Adnani (…) attaquer des policiers, des journalistes, des personnalités publiques, des gardiens de prison et des rappeurs … Nous allons faire de l’Euro un cimetière.

    Larossi Abballa

    J'aime

Laisser un commentaire

Entrez vos coordonnées ci-dessous ou cliquez sur une icône pour vous connecter:

Logo WordPress.com

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte WordPress.com. Déconnexion / Changer )

Image Twitter

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Twitter. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Facebook

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Facebook. Déconnexion / Changer )

Photo Google+

Vous commentez à l'aide de votre compte Google+. Déconnexion / Changer )

Connexion à %s

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :