Discours de Riyad: Jetez les dehors ! (In far more politically correct answer to Obama’s Cairo speech, coward and hypocrite Trump calls Muslims to drive out the terrorists and extremists out of their midst)

https://media3.s-nbcnews.com/j/msnbc/components/video/201705/trump_lecture.nbcnews-ux-1080-600.jpg

Je suis avec vous : affermissez donc les croyants. Je vais jeter l’effroi dans les coeurs des mécréants. Frappez donc au-dessus des cous et frappez-les sur tous les bouts des doigts. Ce, parce qu’ils ont désobéi à Allah et à Son messager. Le Coran (8: 12-13)
Le nom Ramadan a été le nom du neuvième mois dans le monde arabe bien avant l’arrivée de l’islam ; le mot lui-même est dérivé de la racine rmḍ, comme dans les mots ramiḍa ou ar-ramâḍ, dénotant une chaleur intense, un sol brûlant, le manque de rations. Dans le Coran, Dieu proclame que le jeûne a été prescrit aux musulmans, comme il le fut auparavant aux Juifs, se référant ainsi à la pratique du jeûne durant Yom Kippour. Wikipedia
L’opération Badr (عملية بدر ; Amaliyat Badr), ou le plan Badr (خطة بدر ; Khitat Badr), est une opération militaire lancée par l’Égypte le 6 octobre 1973 avec pour objectif la reconquête d’une partie du désert du Sinaï grâce à une traversée du canal de Suez et la prise des fortifications israéliennes de la ligne Bar-Lev. Elle est lancée en parallèle avec une offensive syrienne sur le plateau du Golan, et marque ainsi le début de la guerre israélo-arabe de 1973. (…) La date coïncide avec le Yom kippour, le jour du Grand Pardon pour les Juifs. C’est un des facteurs importants dans le choix de la date car les Juifs jeûnent durant la journée et s’abstiennent d’utiliser le feu ou l’électricité (ce qui veut dire que les transports sont à l’arrêt). De plus, une grande partie de l’armée israélienne est démobilisée. Octobre coïncide aussi avec le mois du Ramadan dans le calendrier musulman, ce qui signifie que les soldats musulmans engagés dans l’armée israélienne jeûnent aussi — c’est en effet pendant le Ramadan que les musulmans ont gagné leur première victoire à la bataille de Badr en l’an 634. Optant pour quelque chose de plus significatif que le mot « Minarets », les commandants égyptiens choisissent le nom d’« opération Badr » (pleine lune en arabe) pour nommer l’assaut sur le canal de Suez et le Sinaï. Wikipedia
Daesh noir, Daesh blanc. Le premier égorge, tue, lapide, coupe les mains, détruit le patrimoine de l’humanité, et déteste l’archéologie, la femme et l’étranger non musulman. Le second est mieux habillé et plus propre, mais il fait la même chose. L’Etat islamique et l’Arabie saoudite. Dans sa lutte contre le terrorisme, l’Occident mène la guerre contre l’un tout en serrant la main de l’autre. Mécanique du déni, et de son prix. On veut sauver la fameuse alliance stratégique avec l’Arabie saoudite tout en oubliant que ce royaume repose sur une autre alliance, avec un clergé religieux qui produit, rend légitime, répand, prêche et défend le wahhabisme, islamisme ultra-puritain dont se nourrit Daesh. (…)  L’Arabie saoudite est un Daesh qui a réussi. Le déni de l’Occident face à ce pays est frappant: on salue cette théocratie comme un allié et on fait mine de ne pas voir qu’elle est le principal mécène idéologique de la culture islamiste. Les nouvelles générations extrémistes du monde dit « arabe » ne sont pas nées djihadistes. Elles ont été biberonnées par la Fatwa Valley, espèce de Vatican islamiste avec une vaste industrie produisant théologiens, lois religieuses, livres et politiques éditoriales et médiatiques agressives. (…) Il faut vivre dans le monde musulman pour comprendre l’immense pouvoir de transformation des chaines TV religieuses sur la société par le biais de ses maillons faibles : les ménages, les femmes, les milieux ruraux. La culture islamiste est aujourd’hui généralisée dans beaucoup de pays — Algérie, Maroc, Tunisie, Libye, Egypte, Mali, Mauritanie. On y retrouve des milliers de journaux et des chaines de télévision islamistes (comme Echourouk et Iqra), ainsi que des clergés qui imposent leur vision unique du monde, de la tradition et des vêtements à la fois dans l’espace public, sur les textes de lois et sur les rites d’une société qu’ils considèrent comme contaminée. Il faut lire certains journaux islamistes et leurs réactions aux attaques de Paris. On y parle de l’Occident comme site de « pays impies »; les attentats sont la conséquence d’attaques contre l’Islam ; les musulmans et les arabes sont devenus les ennemis des laïcs et des juifs. On y joue sur l’affect de la question palestinienne, le viol de l’Irak et le souvenir du trauma colonial pour emballer les masses avec un discours messianique. Alors que ce discours impose son signifiant aux espaces sociaux, en haut, les pouvoirs politiques présentent leurs condoléances à la France et dénoncent un crime contre l’humanité. Une situation de schizophrénie totale, parallèle au déni de l’Occident face à l’Arabie Saoudite. Ceci laisse sceptique sur les déclarations tonitruantes des démocraties occidentales quant à la nécessité de lutter contre le terrorisme. Cette soi-disant guerre est myope car elle s’attaque à l’effet plutôt qu’à la cause. Daesh étant une culture avant d’être une milice, comment empêcher les générations futures de basculer dans le djihadisme alors qu’on n’a pas épuisé l’effet de la Fatwa Valley, de ses clergés, de sa culture et de son immense industrie éditoriale? Kamel Daoud
Je ne pense pas que c’est la « jeunesse » qui était particulièrement visée. Le terroriste a surtout choisi une « cible molle », un spectacle à Manchester moins protégé que Londres. Son but était de faire un maximum de victimes. Il a décidé de se faire exploser lors de la sortie du public au moment où la surveillance est plus relâchée. La charge contenait des shrapnels (des bouts de métal tels que des boulons et des clous) pour causer le plus de dégâts humains possibles. L’objectif final consistait à frapper l’opinion. Que le public soit constitué des « jeunes » est un hasard. Le terroriste aurait très bien pu s’en prendre à un match de football et les observateurs n’auraient pas dit que c’étaient les hooligans qui étaient ciblés. (…) Depuis des semaines, Daech et Al-Qaida « canal historique » rivalisent à qui lancera le plus d’appels au meurtre sur les réseaux sociaux. Par exemple, le 17 mai, Daech publiait une vidéo où des volontaires américain, canadien, britannique, russe et belge appelaient leurs concitoyens à passer à l’action là où ils se trouvaient. Hamza Ben Laden, un des fils préféré de l’émir d’Al-Qaida « canal historique » aujourd’hui décédé, publiait presque au même moment deux messages appelant à faire de même. Une petite différence entre les objectifs des deux mouvements : Al-Qaida « canal historique » fait une fixation sur les Etats-Unis alors que Daech vise l’ensemble de l’Occident et la Russie. Il convient de rappeler que pour ces deux mouvements salafistes-djihadistes, leurs premiers ennemis à abattre sont les dirigeants des pays musulmans considérés comme des « corrompus ». Pour la petite histoire, les deux formations se livrent une guerre d’influence qui s’étend aujourd’hui jusqu’en Extrême-Orient où ils s’arrachent les partisans du groupe Abou Sayyaf (Philippines) et du Jihad Islamiyah (Indonésie). L’Occident et la Russie ne sont que des « ennemis lointains » à atteindre quand cela est possible. La période extrêmement pénible que nous vivons va durer car les dirigeants des mouvements salafistes-djihadistes conçoivent leur combat dans la durée. Ils savent très bien qu’ils ne connaîtront pas le « califat mondial » qu’ils appellent de leurs voeux mais ils préparent les nouvelles générations à prendre leur relève pour atteindre un jour le but qu’ils se sont fixé. Alain Rodier (Centre français de recherche sur le renseignement)
Ce que les Rosenberg avaient fait pour Staline, Obama le fait aujourd’hui pour l’ayatollah Khamenei. Le méprisable accord nucléaire d’Obama avec l’Iran a déjà précipité l’agression iranienne dans la région. En réponse aux concessions faites par Obama, Hillary Clinton et John Kerry, l’Iran raidissait son attitude et devenait plus agressif. À l’heure actuelle, l’Iran est impliqué dans des guerres dans la région, entrainant déjà les États-Unis dans leur sillage. Si l’Iran se dote de l’arme nucléaire, ces guerres s’aggraveront et deviendront beaucoup plus dévastatrices. Ce n’est pas seulement Chamberlain. C’est Quisling et Philippe Pétain. Il ne s’agit nullement d’un mauvais jugement. Il s’agit d’une trahison. (…) En ouvrant à l’Iran la voie vers la bombe nucléaire, Obama a transformé les conflits lents du terrorisme classique en crise de civilisations catastrophique. Une bombe nucléaire iranienne ne se faufilera pas discrètement comme le fait la crise démographique de la migration musulmane avec son complément de terrorisme. Ce ne sera pas un problème progressif. Une course aux armes nucléaires entre sunnites et chiites impliquant des terroristes des deux côtés qui emploient des armes nucléaires rendra insoutenable toute la structure de la civilisation occidentale. L’attaque du 11/9 a vu l’usage de quelques jets pour dévaster une ville. La prochaine vague d’armes pourrait tuer des millions, pas des milliers. Les traîtres qui ont fait de l’URSS une puissance capable de détruire le monde étaient motivés par le même agenda caché des partisans à l’accord nucléaire iranien. Ils croyaient que le monopole nucléaire américain conduirait à l’arrogance et au bellicisme. Ils étaient convaincus que la puissance américaine devrait être surveillée en s’assurant que l’union soviétique puisse égaler l’oncle Sam, nucléaire pour nucléaire. Ceux qui ont ouvert les portes du nucléaire à Téhéran aujourd’hui croient qu’un Iran nucléaire aura un effet dissuasif contre l’impérialisme américain dans la région. Leur nombre inclut Barack Obama.(…) Obama a trahi l’Amérique. Il a trahi les victimes américaines du terrorisme iranien. Il a trahi les soldats américains qui ont été assassinés, mutilés et torturés par les armées terroristes iraniennes. Il a trahi des centaines de millions d’Américains dans leur patrie, et qui seront contraints d’élever leurs enfants sous l’égide de la terreur nucléaire iranienne. Sa trahison nucléaire est non seulement une trahison de l’Amérique. Pour la première fois depuis la fin de la guerre froide, elle ouvre les portes de l’assassinat en masse de millions d’américains par un ennemi vicieux. Obama a appauvri des millions d’Américains, il a le sang des soldats et des policiers sur ses mains, mais son héritage final peut être la collaboration dans un acte d’assassinat en masse qui pourrait rivaliser avec Adolf Hitler. Daniel Greenfield
Les Saoudiens, ce n’est que de l’esbroufe, ce sont des tyrans, des lâches. Ils ont l’argent, mais pas le courage. Donald Trump (11 septembre 2014)
De nombreuses personnes disent que c’était merveilleux que Mme Obama refuse de porter un foulard en Arabie, mais (les Saoudiens) ont été insultés. Nous avons déjà assez d’ennemis. Donald Trump (janvier 2015)
Il y a un choix à faire entre deux futurs – et c’est un choix que les États-Unis ne peuvent pas faire à votre place. Un avenir meilleur n’est possible que si vos nations traquent les terroristes et les extrémistes et les chassent. Les chassent de vos lieux de culte. Les chassent de vos communautés. Les chassent de votre terre sainte et les chassent de la surface de la Terre. Donald Trump
Cette année, la fête débute alors que nous pleurons les victimes innocentes d’attaques terroristes barbares au Royaume-Uni et en Egypte, des actes de dépravation qui sont directement contraires à l’esprit du ramadan. De tels actes ne font que renforcer notre volonté de défaire les terroristes et leur idéologie pervertie. Donald Trump
Les présidents américains passent, les Saoud restent : c’est ce qu’ont dû penser avec un sourire goguenard les princes de Ryad en écoutant le discours du président Trump. Ils ont pourtant eu chaud, avec Obama d’abord, qui leur préférait ostensiblement les Iraniens. Obama avait engagé un très audacieux renversement géostratégique pour substituer à la traditionnelle alliance avec les Saoud, qui date du président Roosevelt à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, un rapprochement avec l’autre grand pôle du monde musulman : celui des chiites iraniens. Les puits de pétrole saoudiens en ont tremblé de peur. Cette audace de son prédécesseur aurait pu – aurait dû – plaire à Donald Trump. Après tout, derrière l’Iran, il y a la Russie et Trump voulait justement se rapprocher de la Russie. Un Trump qui pendant sa campagne avait multiplié les tweets ravageurs contre le pays, je cite, “qui veut asservir les femmes et tuer les homosexuels“. Trump qui se mettait alors dans les chaussons idéologiques de Samuel Huntington et assumait la guerre de civilisation entre un bloc musulman et un bloc judéo-chrétien. Mais souvent Trump varie, fol qui s’y fie… L’Arabie saoudite est redevenue un merveilleux royaume et l’islam une religion de paix. Pourtant, depuis des années, on sait à quoi s’en tenir. C’est l’Arabie saoudite qui a au départ financé Al Qaida et Ben Laden. C’est l’Arabie saoudite qui a au départ financé le califat islamique et on passe sur l’actuelle guerre au Yémen, où l’aviation saoudienne fait des ravages. Daesh n’est qu’une Arabie saoudite qui a réussi. Ryad est la matrice de la salafisation du monde, en terre d’islam mais aussi en Europe comme en Afrique, à grands coups de mosquées et d’écoles coraniques. Refuser l’entrée de ressortissants venus de pays musulmans pour protéger l’Amérique contre le terrorisme pour chanter les louanges de l’Arabie saoudite, c’est comme si le président Roosevelt avait, dans les années 1930, interdit l’entrée de son pays aux nazis tout en se rendant à Berlin pour glorifier ce grand démocrate que fut le chancelier Hitler. Mais voilà, « l’Arabie saoudite a de l’argent, beaucoup d’argent, énormément d’argent. L’accueil de Trump fut fastueux. Le président américain a pu annoncer, triomphant, 380 milliards de dollars d’investissement et de contrats. Ce n’est plus un voyage présidentiel, c’est la hotte du Père Noël. Et les princes en ont profité pour glisser un chèque de 100 millions de dollars dans les souliers de la fille de Trump, Ivanka, et son fonds de femmes entrepreneuses. Plus de guerre de civilisation, plus de problème avec l’islam, c’est seulement l’éternelle lutte entre le Bien et le Mal : Trump parle désormais comme un banal Bush junior.Avec les mêmes contradictions.  Comment combattre à la fois l’Iran et l’Etat islamique, alors que ces deux-là sont d’inexpiables adversaires ? Comment régler les questions syrienne, irakienne, afghane sans traiter avec l’Iran ? Pourquoi flatter les potentats saoudiens et dénigrer une république islamique d’Iran qui organise, elle, des élections à peu près démocratiques ? Éric Zemmour
So after inventing “fake news”, America’s crazed President on Sunday gave the world’s Muslims a fake speech. Donald Trump said he was not in Saudi Arabia to “lecture” – but then told the world’s Islamic preachers what to say, condemned “Islamist terrorism” as if violence was a solely Muslim phenomenon and then announced like an Old Testament prophet that he was in “a battle between good and evil”. There were no words of compassion, none of mercy, absolutely not a word of apology for his racist, anti-Muslim speeches of last year. Even more incredibly, he blamed Iran – rather than Isis – for “fuelling sectarian violence”, pitied the Iranian people for their “despair” a day after they had freely elected a liberal reformer as their president, and demanded the further isolation of the largest Shiite country in the Middle East. The regime responsible for “so much instability” is Iran. The Shiite Hezbollah were condemned. So were the Shiite Yemenis. Trump’s Sunni Saudi hosts glowed with warmth at such wisdom. And this was billed by CNN as a “reset” speech with the Muslim world. For “reset”, read “repair”, but Trump’s Sunday diatribe in Riyadh was in fact neither a “reset” nor a “repair”. It was the lecture he claimed he would not give.  “Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith,” he announced, utterly ignoring – as he had to – the fact that Saudi Arabia, not Iran, is the fountainhead of the very Wahhabi Salafist extremism whose “terrorists” murder “innocent people”.  He tried to avoid his old racist “radical Islamic extremist” mantra and tried to replace it with “Islamist extremism” but he apparently fluffed his words and said “Islamic” as well. The subtle difference he was trying to make in English was thus for Muslims no more than a variation on a theme: terrorists are Muslims. All this, let us remember, came after Trump had sewn up yet another outrageous arms deal with the Saudis ($110bn or £84.4bn) and the proposed purchase by Qatar of what Trump obscenely referred to as “a lot of beautiful military equipment”. It seems almost fantastical that he should make such a remark only two days before meeting the Pope who in Cairo two weeks ago railed along with the Muslim Sheikh of Al Azhar against the evil of arms dealers.  “We are adopting a principled realism, rooted in common values and shared interests,” Trump told the Saudis and the leaders of another fifty Muslim nations on Sunday. But what on earth are those values? What values do the Americans share with the head-chopping, misogynist, undemocratic, dictatorial Saudis other than arms sales and oil? And when Trump said that “our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination,” were his friends supposed to be the Saudis? Or the “Islamic world” – which should surely include Iran and Syria and Yemen – and the warring militias of Libya? As for “enemies”, was he talking about Isis? Or Russia? Or Syria? Or Iran, whose newly elected president surely wants peace with America? Or was he – as part of the Muslim world will conclude with good reason – declaring his friendship with the Sunni Muslims of the world and his enmity towards the Shia Muslims? For that, ultimately, was what the Riyadh speech-fest was all about. Take this little quotation: “We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes – not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking. And, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms – not sudden intervention.” Now let’s parse this little horror. “Decisions based on real-world outcomes” means brutal pragmatism. “Gradual reforms” indicates that the US will do nothing for human rights and take no steps to prevent crimes against humanity – unless they are committed by Iran, Syria, Iraqi Shiites, the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah or Yemeni Shiite Houthis. It was all about “partnership”, we were supposed to believe. It was about a “coalition”. You bet it would be. For America is not going to bleed as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the Arabs who must bleed as they fight each other, encouraged by the biggest arms supplier of them all. Thus Trump lectured them on their need to share “their part of the burden”. The Arabs will be “united and strong” as “the forces of good”. If the battle is between “decent people of all religions” and “barbaric criminals” – “between good and evil” – as Trump inferred, it was significant, was it not, that this battle was to start in the “sacred land” of Sunni Saudi Arabia? By the time Trump reached the bit in which he threatened the bad guys – “if you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned” – he sounded like a speech-writer for Isis. Apparently – and unsurprisingly, perhaps – Trump’s actual speech was partly the work of the very man who wrote out his much ridiculed (and failed) legal attempt to ban Muslims of seven nations from the United States. All in all, quite a “reset”. Trump talked of peace but was preparing the Arabs for a Sunni-Shia war. The fawning leaders of the Muslim world, needless to say, clapped away when the mad president of America had finished speaking. But did they understand what his words really portended? Robert Fisk
Donald Trump appears to have envisioned his speech on Sunday in Riyadh as an answer to Barack Obama’s 2009 address in Cairo. And reading the two side by side is illuminating. The speeches differ in many ways, but none more striking than this: Trump’s speech was far more politically correct. (…) for all the pillorying Obama received for supposedly whitewashing the problems of the Islamic world, his Cairo speech actually addressed them quite bluntly. Speaking at Egypt’s prestigious Cairo University, Obama condemned Holocaust denial in Muslim countries, calling it “baseless, ignorant, and hateful.” He denounced people who “threaten Israel with destruction” and “repeat vile stereotypes about Jews.” He highlighted the oppression of women in Muslim lands, declaring that “a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.” He referenced the Middle East’s economic failures, arguing that “no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.” And in a clear challenge to his host, Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, he insisted that “all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.” Compare that to Trump, who said virtually nothing that caused his hosts any discomfort. Trump criticized terrorist groups like ISIS for their “persecution of Jews,” and he condemned Iran for pledging “the destruction of Israel.” But since ISIS and Iran are Riyadh’s most bitter foes, those condemnations won’t have bothered the Saudi monarchs at all. Unlike Obama, Trump avoided the broader problem of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in Islamic countries, a problem in which his Saudi hosts are deeply complicit. Nor did he even hint at the fact that Saudi Arabia still does not recognize Israel.On the question of women’s rights, it was much the same. Trump attacked jihadist terrorists for “the oppression of women.” But he described King Salman’s government as a virtual beacon of women’s rights. “Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030 is an important and encouraging statement of tolerance, respect, empowering women, and economic development,” Trump declared. You would never have known that women in the Kingdom still can’t drive.  Trump didn’t even mention the words “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom.” To the contrary, in a sentence that will bring grins to autocrats across the region, he declared that, “We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be.” Trump did condemn “extremism.” But speaking in the country he has accused of complicity in 9/11, he did not once pointedly suggest that any Middle East regime except Iran’s might bear any responsibility for that extremism. Rather than suggesting, as both Obama and George W. Bush did, that the authoritarianism and corruption of Arab governments might have helped spawn groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, Trump reversed the causality. The Middle East’s “untapped potential” he declared, “is held at bay by bloodshed and terror.” And in so doing, he endorsed the agenda that Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab dictatorships have been urging for years: Help us confront Iran and kill “terrorists” (which includes anyone who opposes our hold on power) and all will be well. In his speech in Riyadh, Trump didn’t even use the phrase that he endlessly excoriated Clinton and Obama for avoiding: “radical Islamic terrorism.” He talked about “extremism.” But never used it as an adjective to modify the noun “Islam.” None of this should be a surprise. Trump is a coward. He says wildly offensive things when the objects of his derision aren’t around, but crumples when he actually meets them. The Atlantic monthly
C’est très intéressant que notre réunion se passe juste après l’horrible soirée de mort pour de jeunes innocents. La paix ne peut pas prendre racine dans un environnement où la violence est tolérée, financée et récompensée. Donald Trump (s’adressant à Mahmoud Abbas)
Avec l’aide de Dieu, ce sommet marquera le début de la fin pour ceux qui pratiquent la terreur et répandent leur vile croyance. Les leaders religieux doivent être très clairs là-dessus: la barbarie n’apportera aucune gloire, l’adoration du mal ne vous apportera aucune dignité. Si vous choisissez le chemin de la terreur, votre vie sera vide, votre vie sera courte et votre âme sera condamnée à l’enfer. Chaque pays de cette région a un devoir absolu de s’assurer que les terroristes ne trouvent aucun abri sur leur sol. Cela veut dire affronter honnêtement la crise de l’extrémisme islamique et les groupes terroristes islamiques qu’il inspire. Et cela veut dire aussi se dresser ensemble contre le meurtre d’innocents musulmans, l’oppression des femmes, la persécution des juifs, et le massacre des chrétiens. Un meilleur futur n’est possible que si vos nations se débarrassent du terrorisme et des extrémistes. Jetez les dehors. Jetez-les hors de vos lieux de culte. Jetez-les hors de vos communautés. Jetez-les hors de vos terres saintes, et jetez-les hors de cette terre. Donald Trump
This is certainly a much more honest speech about the jihad threat than any speech Barack Obama ever delivered, and Trump delivered it well to a tough audience. How he follows up on it is all-important: will he actually scrap Obama’s fantasy-based counterterror program and allow for study of the motivating ideology of jihad terrorists, without which there can be no effective response to the global jihad threat? We shall see.
À Riyad, lors de la première étape de sa tournée des trois monothéismes qui l’emmène à Jérusalem et à Rome (mais désolé, pas à La Mecque qui est inaccessible), Donald Trump a prononcé un discours important sur une série de sujets – le Moyen-Orient, la violence djihadiste, l’Iran, un « OTAN arabe » et l’Islam. Une prestation mitigée mais globalement positive. D’une durée de 34 minutes, ce discours compte plusieurs points négatifs : incohérent, passant d’un sujet à l’autre et parsemé de retours en arrière, le propos n’est ni éloquent ni pénétrant (comme par exemple : « Les terroristes n’adorent pas Dieu, ils adorent la mort. ») Par endroits, il contient des euphémismes du style d’Obama, tels que cette déclaration indiquant que les grands défis de l’histoire sont devant nous, un objectif qui transcende toute autre considération : « pour surmonter l’extrémisme et vaincre les forces du terrorisme. » Et ne parlons pas du côté grotesque avec l’annonce de l’ouverture à Riyad, quartier général du wahhabisme, d’un « Centre mondial pour la lutte contre l’idéologie extrémiste ». J’ai frémi quand j’ai entendu Trump qualifier l’Arabie saoudite de « terre sacrée ». J’ai eu un haut-le-cœur en l’entendant faire un éloge appuyé du roi Salmane, dont on sait qu’il a, pendant les années 1990, contribué pour des dizaines de millions de dollars au financement de la violence djihadiste en Bosnie et au Pakistan. Le contexte du discours est extrêmement préoccupant : les accords américano-saoudiens d’un montant total de 380 milliards de dollars confèrent à un régime tyrannique un supplément d’influence sur les Américains. L’acquisition d’armements américains par les Saoudiens pour une valeur de 110 milliards de dollars met un vaste arsenal à la disposition d’un gouvernement dont les objectifs diffèrent radicalement de ceux des Américains. Mises à part ces réserves qui sont loin d’être insignifiantes, il s’agissait d’un bon discours annonçant un changement majeur dans la bonne direction par rapport aux années Obama, particulièrement en ce qui concerne l’Iran et l’Islam. L’élément le plus remarquable est la volonté de Trump de désigner l’idéologie de l’islamisme comme l’ennemi. Ceci est d’une importance capitale : à l’instar du médecin qui doit d’abord identifier le problème médical avant de le traiter, le stratège doit identifier l’ennemi avant de pouvoir le vaincre. En parlant d’« agents du mal », de « terroristes » et d’« extrémistes violents », on ignore le caractère islamique de l’ennemi. À cet égard, le passage clé du discours (à 22’25 ») est le suivant : « Il y a encore beaucoup à faire à savoir, affronter en toute franchise la crise de l’extrémisme islamique, des islamistes et du terrorisme islamique de toutes sortes. » (La version écrite du texte était la suivante : « l’extrémisme islamiste et les groupes terroristes islamistes » mais au moment de parler, Trump a fait des changements. Alors qu’islamiste est plus précis qu’islamique, sur le plan politique, les deux ont la même teneur.) Il s’agit d’un événement remarquable et sans précédent pour un dirigeant américain s’exprimant de la sorte dans la capitale du Royaume d’Arabie saoudite et qui plus est, lors du « Sommet arabe islamo-américain » organisé par les Saoudiens et en présence des dirigeants de quelque 50 pays à majorité musulmane. « J’ai vos numéros », a dit en substance Donald Trump. « Donc, ne jouez pas avec moi. Il a confirmé ce point à plusieurs reprises dans son discours : « Les pays à majorité musulmane doivent prendre la tête de la lutte contre la radicalisation » ; « Les nations musulmanes doivent être prêtes à prendre sur elles-mêmes si nous voulons vaincre le terrorisme et envoyer son idéologie épouvantable aux oubliettes » ; une mention du tribut humain qu’ont coûté « l’EI, Al-Qaïda, le Hezbollah, le Hamas et tant d’autres. » Et son appel à faire front « contre le meurtre de musulmans innocents, l’oppression des femmes, la persécution des juifs et le massacre des chrétiens. » Sur la nature du problème, il n’y a donc aucune ambiguïté. Toutefois, un discours ne fait pas une politique. Il est arrivé naguère à George W. Bush et Barack Obama de parler respectivement d’« islamofascisme » et d’« islamistes ». Obama a même évoqué les « djihadistes ». Cependant ces termes explicites n’ont eu aucun poids réel sur leur politique. De la même manière, les Premiers ministres britanniques Tony Blair et David Cameron ont prononcé de magnifiques discours sur l’islamisme mais ces derniers ont eu tout aussi peu d’impact sur les actions de leurs gouvernements.Pour que le discours de Trump fasse la différence, il faut que cela marque le début d’une approche cohérente destinée à reconnaître que l’idéologie islamiste est au cœur du conflit – et que la violence n’est que l’une de ses manifestations et peut-être pas la plus dangereuse. Daniel Pipes
Now it becomes clear why President Trump selected as the destinations of his current tour Riyadh, Jerusalem and Rome. He is re-setting the foreign policy debate around the factor which is both fundamental and at the same time systematically ignored. He is reframing it as a conflict over religion. Not that he is describing it in Samuel Huntington’s terms as a war between civilisations. He reportedly told his son-in-law and key strategist Jared Kushner to construct a tour around the theme of reconciliation and world peace. Nevertheless, he’s doing something which no previous president has done: making religion the central issue in promoting that goal of reconciliation and peace. And that means he sees the conflicts roiling the world as being over precisely that issue of religion; and more specifically, the clash between Islam and the rest. That’s why in his Riyadh speech he invoked the name of God on multiple occasions. That’s why he made a visit today to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the western wall of the ancient Jewish Temple in Jerusalem – where he was unaccompanied by Israeli dignitaries, presumably to emphasise he was making no political point but rather performing an act of piety and respect and thus pointing out the centrality of these sites to Christianity and Judaism. And that’s why he is to visit the Pope in the Vatican. He’s saying that in order to end the political conflict between east and west, the three faiths of Islam, Judaism and Christianity must first broker peace between themselves. And that means he’s doing something no US president has yet dared to do: naming the Islamic jihad for what it is – a war of religion. And he went into the very belly of the beast, Saudi Arabia, to say it. For he not only excoriated the Saudis’ arch-enemy Iran, but put the Kingdom on notice that it needs to reject the violent extremism it itself has spawned. “Drive. Them. Out”, he said. “DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship. DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities. DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.” Well, that could hardly have been a clearer demand of his hosts. He used language that is correct but virtually no western leader will use, calling on the Kingdom to confront “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.” (…) On Israel and the Arabs, it’s a pity he has not said what needs to be said: that the idea of a Palestine state is a red herring to mask the real goal of exterminating Israel. But at the same time, he hasn’t said there needs to be a Palestine state; so far he has stuck instead to platitudes about children living free from violence and so forth. (…) There were several other signals on this visit of a more pragmatic approach. The president’s wife and daughter wore no head coverings, and neither did women who attended the various functions; the King nevertheless even shook Melania’s hand. And Trump made the first direct flight from Riyadh to Israel’s Ben Gurion airport. These things may sound small beer but their symbolism is important. (…)  True, Trump hasn’t called out the Palestinians on their big lie that they have legal and historical rights to the land. As of yesterday, however, the so-called Israel-Palestine conflict has been reframed in the context of the need to achieve peace between religions. In other words, the conflict has been tacitly reframed as fundamentally an Islamic religious war. As such, it follows that a) it cannot be a dispute over land boundaries and b) it puts Israel on the same side as the west. (…) His Riyadh speech wasn’t perfect: several things he said grated. The King may have been speaking in turn with forked tongue. And there are great dangers in this huge US arms deal with the Kingdom: those weapons weaken Israel’s defences; and if the fragile Saudi monarchy should fall to Isis, al Qaeda or Iranian proxies, this US-manufactured armoury might be turned against America itself. For the moment, though, President Trump has joined up the dots in the Middle East to create a picture which has never been drawn before but is long overdue. Melanie Phillips
Une fois de plus j’ai été surpris de constater l’écart entre les discours du président Donald Trump en visite officielle au Moyen Orient et ce que la plupart des médias, y compris américains, ont bien voulu rapporter. L’un des points culminants de cette erreur de lecture, volontaire ou non, a été à mon sens la rubrique d’Éric Zemmour au micro d’«On n’est pas forcément d’accord» sur RTL. D’après le polémiste, Trump aurait redonné aux Saoud leurs lettres de noblesse, en chantant les louanges d’un merveilleux pays et en s’extasiant devant l’accueil fastueux que les rois du pétrole lui avaient réservé. À croire qu’en visite officielle à Riyad, le président des États Unis avait d’autre choix que de jeter le chaud et froid sur son auditoire, s’il voulait faire passer son message d’union renforcée contre l’hégémonisme iranien et le radicalisme salafiste. Il est vrai que la première partie de son intervention n’a fait qu’encenser le royaume et son leader dont «les mots ne rendent pas justice de la grandeur de ce remarquable lieu et l’incroyable hospitalité qui lui a été offerte». S’il en était resté là, Éric Zemmour aurait eu, comme souvent d’ailleurs, raison dans son analyse. Mais c’était sans écouter la suite du discours, écrit dans un langage qui tranche, ô combien, avec les atermoiements de Barack Obama, tout en courbettes devant le précédent monarque et qui, de toute sa carrière, n’a jamais été capable d’associer les termes «terrorisme» et «islamiste». (…) Plus tard, devant le même roi et 50 dirigeants de pays islamiques, le Président américain s’est livré à ce discours historique, sans compromis, et d’un réalisme étonnant. (…) À qui s’adressait-il? Aux leaders de Daesh, d’Al Qaida ou du Hamas? Non, aux dirigeants des pays du golfe qui l’écoutaient sans en croire leurs oreilles. (…) «Chaque pays de cette région a un devoir absolu de s’assurer que les terroristes ne trouvent aucun abri sur leur sol. Cela veut dire affronter honnêtement la crise de l’extrémisme islamique et les groupes terroristes islamiques qu’il inspire. Et cela veut dire aussi se dresser ensemble contre le meurtre d’innocents musulmans, l’oppression des femmes, la persécution des juifs, et le massacre des chrétiens». (…) «Un meilleur futur n’est possible que si vos nations se débarrassent du terrorisme et des extrémistes. Jetez les dehors. Jetez-les hors de vos lieux de culte. Jetez-les hors de vos communautés. Jetez-les hors de vos terres saintes, et jetez-les hors de cette terre». Pierre Rehov

Attention: une lâcheté peut cacher une autre !

Au terme d’une semaine qui a vu comme il se doit en début de ramadan
Pas moins, entre les Philippines, l’Indonésie, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Egypte et sans compter les attaques déjouées, de quatre attentats islamistes majeurs …
Et au lendemain d’un discours de Riyad d’un président américain censé prendre le revers de celui de son prédécesseur au Caire
Comment ne pas partager l’étonnement de nos médias
Devant l’incroyable correction politique d’un discours …
Où face à un Iran aux élections démocratiques et à bientôt la bombe que l’on sait …
Trump le lâche et l’hypocrite appelait ses hôtes …
A tout simplement « jeter dehors » terroristes et extrémistes  …
De leurs lieux de culte, communautés et terre sainte ?

Trump Turns Politically Correct in Saudi Arabia The president says wildly offensive things when the objects of his derision aren’t around, but crumples when he actually meets them.
Peter Beinart
The Atlantic monthly
May 21, 2017

Donald Trump appears to have envisioned his speech on Sunday in Riyadh as an answer to Barack Obama’s 2009 address in Cairo. And reading the two side by side is illuminating. The speeches differ in many ways, but none more striking than this: Trump’s speech was far more politically correct.“Political correctness,” as it is used in common parlance, means avoiding hard truths so as not to offend the people around you. And Trump made his hostility to political correctness a centerpiece of his campaign. Nowhere was this more evident than in his discussion of “radical Islam.” Again and again, Trump blamed America’s vulnerability to jihadist terrorism on President Obama and Hillary Clinton’s refusal to speak honestly about the pathologies of Muslims and Islam. At a Wisconsin town hall in March of last year, CNN’s Anderson Cooper asked, “Do you trust Muslims in America?” Trump responded, “We have a problem, and we can try and be very politically correct and pretend we don’t have a problem, but, Anderson, we have a major, major problem.” In June, in defending his proposed ban on Muslim immigration to the United States, Trump declared that, “The current politically correct response cripples our ability to talk and to think and act clearly” to keep America safe from terrorism.But for all the pillorying Obama received for supposedly whitewashing the problems of the Islamic world, his Cairo speech actually addressed them quite bluntly. Speaking at Egypt’s prestigious Cairo University, Obama condemned Holocaust denial in Muslim countries, calling it “baseless, ignorant, and hateful.” He denounced people who “threaten Israel with destruction” and “repeat vile stereotypes about Jews.” He highlighted the oppression of women in Muslim lands, declaring that “a woman who is denied an education is denied equality. And it is no coincidence that countries where women are well-educated are far more likely to be prosperous.” He referenced the Middle East’s economic failures, arguing that “no development strategy can be based only upon what comes out of the ground, nor can it be sustained while young people are out of work.” And in a clear challenge to his host, Egyptian dictator Hosni Mubarak, he insisted that “all people yearn for certain things: the ability to speak your mind and have a say in how you are governed; confidence in the rule of law and the equal administration of justice; government that is transparent and doesn’t steal from the people; the freedom to live as you choose. Those are not just American ideas, they are human rights, and that is why we will support them everywhere.”Compare that to Trump, who said virtually nothing that caused his hosts any discomfort. Trump criticized terrorist groups like ISIS for their “persecution of Jews,” and he condemned Iran for pledging “the destruction of Israel.” But since ISIS and Iran are Riyadh’s most bitter foes, those condemnations won’t have bothered the Saudi monarchs at all. Unlike Obama, Trump avoided the broader problem of anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial in Islamic countries, a problem in which his Saudi hosts are deeply complicit. Nor did he even hint at the fact that Saudi Arabia still does not recognize Israel.
On the question of women’s rights, it was much the same. Trump attacked jihadist terrorists for “the oppression of women.” But he described King Salman’s government as a virtual beacon of women’s rights. “Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030 is an important and encouraging statement of tolerance, respect, empowering women, and economic development,” Trump declared. You would never have known that women in the Kingdom still can’t drive.Trump didn’t even mention the words “democracy,” “liberty,” or “freedom.” To the contrary, in a sentence that will bring grins to autocrats across the region, he declared that, “We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be.”Trump did condemn “extremism.” But speaking in the country he has accused of complicity in 9/11, he did not once pointedly suggest that any Middle East regime except Iran’s might bear any responsibility for that extremism. Rather than suggesting, as both Obama and George W. Bush did, that the authoritarianism and corruption of Arab governments might have helped spawn groups like al-Qaeda and ISIS, Trump reversed the causality. The Middle East’s “untapped potential” he declared, “is held at bay by bloodshed and terror.” And in so doing, he endorsed the agenda that Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arab dictatorships have been urging for years: Help us confront Iran and kill “terrorists” (which includes anyone who opposes our hold on power) and all will be well. In his speech in Riyadh, Trump didn’t even use the phrase that he endlessly excoriated Clinton and Obama for avoiding: “radical Islamic terrorism.” He talked about “extremism.” But never used it as an adjective to modify the noun “Islam.”
None of this should be a surprise. Trump is a coward. He says wildly offensive things when the objects of his derision aren’t around, but crumples when he actually meets them. In his presidential announcement speech, Trump called Mexican immigrants “rapists.” But when he sat down with his Hispanic Advisory Council, he proved “humble” and “conciliatory” and called mass deportations “neither possible nor humane.” During the campaign, he endlessly trashed Mexico’s government. But when he actually arrived in Mexico City last August, he declared the trip a “great, great, honor” and when President Enrique Peña Nieto asked him about his famous pledge to make Mexico pay for a wall between the two countries, Trump refused to discuss the subject. During the campaign, Trump accused Black Lives Matter of being responsible for the murder of police, and described African American living conditions as hellish. But when he actually showed up at a black church in Detroit last September, he spent most of his time flattering his hosts. Trump’s speech, noted The Washington Post, constituted a “jarring shift in tone and message.” During the campaign, Trump repeatedly claimed that China was manipulating its currency. But after meeting with China’s president, he acknowledged that was not true.The Saudis appear thrilled that Trump was so conciliatory on his visit. They should enjoy themselves while they can. Americans have learned this about Trump: What he says to your face often bears no relationship to what he says behind your back.

Voir aussi:

Trump en Arabie Saoudite : « Les princes de Ryad ont eu chaud », lance Éric Zemmour

RTL

24 mai 2017

« Les présidents américains passent, les Saoud restent : c’est ce qu’ont dû penser avec un sourire goguenard les princes de Ryad en écoutant le discours du président Trump. Ils ont pourtant eu chaud, avec Obama d’abord, qui leur préférait ostensiblement les Iraniens. Obama avait engagé un très audacieux renversement géostratégique pour substituer à la traditionnelle alliance avec les Saoud, qui date du président Roosevelt à la fin de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, un rapprochement avec l’autre grand pôle du monde musulman : celui des chiites iraniens. Les puits de pétrole saoudiens en ont tremblé de peur.

« Cette audace de son prédécesseur aurait pu – aurait dû – plaire à Donald Trump. Après tout, derrière l’Iran, il y a la Russie et Trump voulait justement se rapprocher de la Russie. Un Trump qui pendant sa campagne avait multiplié les tweets ravageurs contre le pays, je cite, “qui veut asservir les femmes et tuer les homosexuels“. Trump qui se mettait alors dans les chaussons idéologiques de Samuel Huntington et assumait la guerre de civilisation entre un bloc musulman et un bloc judéo-chrétien. Mais souvent Trump varie, fol qui s’y fie… »

« L’Arabie saoudite est redevenue un merveilleux royaume et l’islam une religion de paix. Pourtant, depuis des années, on sait à quoi s’en tenir. C’est l’Arabie saoudite qui a au départ financé Al Qaida et Ben Laden. C’est l’Arabie saoudite qui a au départ financé le califat islamique et on passe sur l’actuelle guerre au Yémen, où l’aviation saoudienne fait des ravages. »

« Daesh n’est qu’une Arabie saoudite qui a réussi. Ryad est la matrice de la salafisation du monde, en terre d’islam mais aussi en Europe comme en Afrique, à grands coups de mosquées et d’écoles coraniques »

« Refuser l’entrée de ressortissants venus de pays musulmans pour protéger l’Amérique contre le terrorisme pour chanter les louanges de l’Arabie saoudite, c’est comme si le président Roosevelt avait, dans les années 1930, interdit l’entrée de son pays aux nazis tout en se rendant à Berlin pour glorifier ce grand démocrate que fut le chancelier Hitler. »

Mais voilà, « l’Arabie saoudite a de l’argent, beaucoup d’argent, énormément d’argent. L’accueil de Trump fut fastueux. Le président américain a pu annoncer, triomphant, 380 milliards de dollars d’investissement et de contrats. Ce n’est plus un voyage présidentiel, c’est la hotte du Père Noël. Et les princes en ont profité pour glisser un chèque de 100 millions de dollars dans les souliers de la fille de Trump, Ivanka, et son fonds de femmes entrepreneuses. »

« Plus de guerre de civilisation, plus de problème avec l’islam, c’est seulement l’éternelle lutte entre le Bien et le Mal : Trump parle désormais comme un banal Bush junior.Avec les mêmes contradictions. »

« Comment combattre à la fois l’Iran et l’Etat islamique, alors que ces deux-là sont d’inexpiables adversaires ? Comment régler les questions syrienne, irakienne, afghane sans traiter avec l’Iran ? Pourquoi flatter les potentats saoudiens et dénigrer une république islamique d’Iran qui organise, elle, des élections à peu près démocratiques ? »

« Les capitalistes nous vendront la corde avec laquelle nous les pendrons, disait Lénine. Il y a belle lurette que les Saoud ont compris qu’il suffisait de remplacer capitaliste par mécréant. »

Voir également:

Donald Trump’s speech to the Muslim world was filled with hypocrisy and condescension

Despite claiming he wouldn’t give a lecture, the President did just that, displaying a blatant anti-Iran bias intended to appease the nation with whom he’d just signed a multi-billion dollar arms deal at the expense of the truth

  • Robert Fisk
The Independent Online
21 may 2017

So after inventing “fake news”, America’s crazed President on Sunday gave the world’s Muslims a fake speech. Donald Trump said he was not in Saudi Arabia to “lecture” – but then told the world’s Islamic preachers what to say, condemned “Islamist terrorism” as if violence was a solely Muslim phenomenon and then announced like an Old Testament prophet that he was in “a battle between good and evil”. There were no words of compassion, none of mercy, absolutely not a word of apology for his racist, anti-Muslim speeches of last year.

Even more incredibly, he blamed Iran – rather than Isis – for “fuelling sectarian violence”, pitied the Iranian people for their “despair” a day after they had freely elected a liberal reformer as their president, and demanded the further isolation of the largest Shiite country in the Middle East. The regime responsible for “so much instability” is Iran. The Shiite Hezbollah were condemned. So were the Shiite Yemenis. Trump’s Sunni Saudi hosts glowed with warmth at such wisdom.

And this was billed by CNN as a “reset” speech with the Muslim world. For “reset”, read “repair”, but Trump’s Sunday diatribe in Riyadh was in fact neither a “reset” nor a “repair”. It was the lecture he claimed he would not give.

“Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith,” he announced, utterly ignoring – as he had to – the fact that Saudi Arabia, not Iran, is the fountainhead of the very Wahhabi Salafist extremism whose “terrorists” murder “innocent people”.

He tried to avoid his old racist “radical Islamic extremist” mantra and tried to replace it with “Islamist extremism” but he apparently fluffed his words and said “Islamic” as well. The subtle difference he was trying to make in English was thus for Muslims no more than a variation on a theme: terrorists are Muslims.

All this, let us remember, came after Trump had sewn up yet another outrageous arms deal with the Saudis ($110bn or £84.4bn) and the proposed purchase by Qatar of what Trump obscenely referred to as “a lot of beautiful military equipment”. It seems almost fantastical that he should make such a remark only two days before meeting the Pope who in Cairo two weeks ago railed along with the Muslim Sheikh of Al Azhar against the evil of arms dealers.

“We are adopting a principled realism, rooted in common values and shared interests,” Trump told the Saudis and the leaders of another fifty Muslim nations on Sunday. But what on earth are those values? What values do the Americans share with the head-chopping, misogynist, undemocratic, dictatorial Saudis other than arms sales and oil?

And when Trump said that “our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination,” were his friends supposed to be the Saudis? Or the “Islamic world” – which should surely include Iran and Syria and Yemen – and the warring militias of Libya? As for “enemies”, was he talking about Isis? Or Russia? Or Syria? Or Iran, whose newly elected president surely wants peace with America? Or was he – as part of the Muslim world will conclude with good reason – declaring his friendship with the Sunni Muslims of the world and his enmity towards the Shia Muslims?

For that, ultimately, was what the Riyadh speech-fest was all about. Take this little quotation: “We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes – not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking. And, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms – not sudden intervention.” Now let’s parse this little horror. “Decisions based on real-world outcomes” means brutal pragmatism. “Gradual reforms” indicates that the US will do nothing for human rights and take no steps to prevent crimes against humanity – unless they are committed by Iran, Syria, Iraqi Shiites, the Lebanese Shiite Hezbollah or Yemeni Shiite Houthis.

It was all about “partnership”, we were supposed to believe. It was about a “coalition”. You bet it would be. For America is not going to bleed as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan. It is the Arabs who must bleed as they fight each other, encouraged by the biggest arms supplier of them all. Thus Trump lectured them on their need to share “their part of the burden”. The Arabs will be “united and strong” as “the forces of good”. If the battle is between “decent people of all religions” and “barbaric criminals” – “between good and evil” – as Trump inferred, it was significant, was it not, that this battle was to start in the “sacred land” of Sunni Saudi Arabia?

By the time Trump reached the bit in which he threatened the bad guys – “if you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and your soul will be condemned” – he sounded like a speech-writer for Isis. Apparently – and unsurprisingly, perhaps – Trump’s actual speech was partly the work of the very man who wrote out his much ridiculed (and failed) legal attempt to ban Muslims of seven nations from the United States. All in all, quite a “reset”. Trump talked of peace but was preparing the Arabs for a Sunni-Shia war. The fawning leaders of the Muslim world, needless to say, clapped away when the mad president of America had finished speaking. But did they understand what his words really portended?

Voir de même:

Discours de D. Trump en Arabie saoudite : plutôt bien

Daniel Pipes
National Review Online
21 mai 2017

http://fr.danielpipes.org/17607/discours-trump-arabie-saoudite

Version originale anglaise: Trump’s Saudi Speech: Pretty Good
Adaptation française: Johan Bourlard

À Riyad, lors de la première étape de sa tournée des trois monothéismes qui l’emmène à Jérusalem et à Rome (mais désolé, pas à La Mecque qui est inaccessible), Donald Trump a prononcé un discours important sur une série de sujets – le Moyen-Orient, la violence djihadiste, l’Iran, un « OTAN arabe » et l’Islam. Une prestation mitigée mais globalement positive.

D’une durée de 34 minutes, ce discours compte plusieurs points négatifs : incohérent, passant d’un sujet à l’autre et parsemé de retours en arrière, le propos n’est ni éloquent ni pénétrant (comme par exemple : « Les terroristes n’adorent pas Dieu, ils adorent la mort. ») Par endroits, il contient des euphémismes du style d’Obama, tels que cette déclaration indiquant que les grands défis de l’histoire sont devant nous, un objectif qui transcende toute autre considération : « pour surmonter l’extrémisme et vaincre les forces du terrorisme. »

Et ne parlons pas du côté grotesque avec l’annonce de l’ouverture à Riyad, quartier général du wahhabisme, d’un « Centre mondial pour la lutte contre l’idéologie extrémiste ». J’ai frémi quand j’ai entendu Trump qualifier l’Arabie saoudite de « terre sacrée ». J’ai eu un haut-le-cœur en l’entendant faire un éloge appuyé du roi Salmane, dont on sait qu’il a, pendant les années 1990, contribué pour des dizaines de millions de dollars au financement de la violence djihadiste en Bosnie et au Pakistan.

Le contexte du discours est extrêmement préoccupant : les accords américano-saoudiens d’un montant total de 380 milliards de dollars confèrent à un régime tyrannique un supplément d’influence sur les Américains. L’acquisition d’armements américains par les Saoudiens pour une valeur de 110 milliards de dollars met un vaste arsenal à la disposition d’un gouvernement dont les objectifs diffèrent radicalement de ceux des Américains.

Mises à part ces réserves qui sont loin d’être insignifiantes, il s’agissait d’un bon discours annonçant un changement majeur dans la bonne direction par rapport aux années Obama, particulièrement en ce qui concerne l’Iran et l’Islam. L’élément le plus remarquable est la volonté de Trump de désigner l’idéologie de l’islamisme comme l’ennemi. Ceci est d’une importance capitale : à l’instar du médecin qui doit d’abord identifier le problème médical avant de le traiter, le stratège doit identifier l’ennemi avant de pouvoir le vaincre. En parlant d’« agents du mal », de « terroristes » et d’« extrémistes violents », on ignore le caractère islamique de l’ennemi.

À cet égard, le passage clé du discours (à 22’25 ») est le suivant : « Il y a encore beaucoup à faire à savoir, affronter en toute franchise la crise de l’extrémisme islamique, des islamistes et du terrorisme islamique de toutes sortes. » (La version écrite du texte était la suivante : « l’extrémisme islamiste et les groupes terroristes islamistes » mais au moment de parler, Trump a fait des changements. Alors qu’islamiste est plus précis qu’islamique, sur le plan politique, les deux ont la même teneur.)

Il s’agit d’un événement remarquable et sans précédent pour un dirigeant américain s’exprimant de la sorte dans la capitale du Royaume d’Arabie saoudite et qui plus est, lors du « Sommet arabe islamo-américain » organisé par les Saoudiens et en présence des dirigeants de quelque 50 pays à majorité musulmane. « J’ai vos numéros », a dit en substance Donald Trump. « Donc, ne jouez pas avec moi. »

Il a confirmé ce point à plusieurs reprises dans son discours : « Les pays à majorité musulmane doivent prendre la tête de la lutte contre la radicalisation » ; « Les nations musulmanes doivent être prêtes à prendre sur elles-mêmes si nous voulons vaincre le terrorisme et envoyer son idéologie épouvantable aux oubliettes » ; une mention du tribut humain qu’ont coûté « l’EI, Al-Qaïda, le Hezbollah, le Hamas et tant d’autres. » Et son appel à faire front « contre le meurtre de musulmans innocents, l’oppression des femmes, la persécution des juifs et le massacre des chrétiens. » Sur la nature du problème, il n’y a donc aucune ambiguïté

Toutefois, un discours ne fait pas une politique. Il est arrivé naguère à George W. Bush et Barack Obama de parler respectivement d’« islamofascisme » et d’« islamistes ». Obama a même évoqué les « djihadistes ». Cependant ces termes explicites n’ont eu aucun poids réel sur leur politique. De la même manière, les Premiers ministres britanniques Tony Blair et David Cameron ont prononcé de magnifiques discours sur l’islamisme mais ces derniers ont eu tout aussi peu d’impact sur les actions de leurs gouvernements.Pour que le discours de Trump fasse la différence, il faut que cela marque le début d’une approche cohérente destinée à reconnaître que l’idéologie islamiste est au cœur du conflit – et que la violence n’est que l’une de ses manifestations et peut-être pas la plus dangereuse.

Pour commencer il serait bon de rappeler le discours prononcé en août de l’année dernière par le candidat Trump qui déclarait que « l’un de mes premiers actes en tant que président sera de créer une commission sur l’islam radical… pour identifier et expliquer à la population américaine les convictions et croyances profondes de l’islam radical et mettre au jour les réseaux, présents dans nos sociétés, qui soutiennent la radicalisation. » La commission « mettra au point de nouveaux protocoles pour les officiers de police locaux, les enquêteurs fédéraux et les inspecteurs de l’immigration. »

Eh bien, allons-y, Monsieur le Président ! Le moment est venu de mettre sur pied une Commission de la Maison Blanche sur l’islam radical.

Voir encore:

Pourquoi la politique arabe de Donald Trump est plus subtile qu’il n’y paraît
Pierre Rehov
Le Figaro
25/05/2017

FIGAROVOX/ANALYSE – Pour Pierre Rehov, Donald Trump n’a pas été complaisant envers l’allié saoudien des États-Unis. Le décryptage de son discours dans son intégralité prouve au contraire qu’il a fait souffler le chaud et le froid.


Pierre Rehov est reporter de guerre, réalisateur de documentaires et romancier.


Une fois de plus j’ai été surpris de constater l’écart entre les discours du président Donald Trump en visite officielle au Moyen Orient et ce que la plupart des médias, y compris américains, ont bien voulu rapporter. L’un des points culminants de cette erreur de lecture, volontaire ou non, a été à mon sens la rubrique d’Éric Zemmour au micro d’«On n’est pas forcément d’accord» sur RTL.

D’après le polémiste, Trump aurait redonné aux Saoud leurs lettres de noblesse, en chantant les louanges d’un merveilleux pays et en s’extasiant devant l’accueil fastueux que les rois du pétrole lui avaient réservé. À croire qu’en visite officielle à Riyad, le président des États Unis avait d’autre choix que de jeter le chaud et froid sur son auditoire, s’il voulait faire passer son message d’union renforcée contre l’hégémonisme iranien et le radicalisme salafiste.

Il est vrai que la première partie de son intervention n’a fait qu’encenser le royaume et son leader dont «les mots ne rendent pas justice de la grandeur de ce remarquable lieu et l’incroyable hospitalité qui lui a été offerte».

S’il en était resté là, Éric Zemmour aurait eu, comme souvent d’ailleurs, raison dans son analyse.

Mais c’était sans écouter la suite du discours, écrit dans un langage qui tranche, ô combien, avec les atermoiements de Barack Obama, tout en courbettes devant le précédent monarque et qui, de toute sa carrière, n’a jamais été capable d’associer les termes «terrorisme» et «islamiste».

Tout d’abord, notons un point intéressant, presque jamais relevé. Le royaume d’Arabie Saoudite est interdit aux Juifs. Ce qui n’a pas empêché Donald Trump de se faire accompagner par sa fille, Ivanka, convertie au judaïsme orthodoxe depuis son union avec Jared Kuchner.

L’on pourra donc trouver jubilatoire l’image du roi Salman serrant la main, en son royaume, à une jeune femme cheveux au vent, représentant ce que l’Islam radical abhorre depuis que Mahomet – après avoir massacré la tribu des Koraichi qui refusaient la conversion forcée – jeta un anathème sur les Juifs. Un anathème sans doute à la source du conflit Israélo-Arabe d’aujourd’hui.

Une première, donc, dès l’arrivée de Trump sur le sol saoudien, à laquelle il faut ajouter un petit détail de protocole. Le roi Salman – fait unique – plutôt que de circuler dans son carrosse royal a rejoint son palais dans la voiture présidentielle.

Le ton, quelque part, était donné. Loin d’accueillir un vassal, soumis à la toute-puissance du pétrodollar, le Saoud, toute honte bue, faisait, par ce geste, la démonstration d’un renversement d’allégeance. Chacun sa place et les moutons seront bien gardés.

Plus tard, devant le même roi et 50 dirigeants de pays islamiques, le Président américain s’est livré à ce discours historique, sans compromis, et d’un réalisme étonnant.

«Avec l’aide de Dieu, ce sommet marquera le début de la fin pour ceux qui pratiquent la terreur et répandent leur vile croyance»

Cette phrase ne fut que l’amorce de ce qui allait suivre car, devant une audience subjuguée, pour ne pas dire tétanisée, le président Trump ne s’est pas gêné pour ajouter: «Les leaders religieux doivent être très clairs là-dessus: la barbarie n’apportera aucune gloire, l’adoration du mal ne vous apportera aucune dignité. Si vous choisissez le chemin de la terreur, votre vie sera vide, votre vie sera courte et votre âme sera condamnée à l’enfer.»

À qui s’adressait-il? Aux leaders de Daesh, d’Al Qaida ou du Hamas? Non, aux dirigeants des pays du golfe qui l’écoutaient sans en croire leurs oreilles.

Il est utile de noter que, contrairement aux Occidentaux, les musulmans ne craignent pas la mort, mais sont terrifiés par l’enfer, auquel ils croient sans la moindre nuance. Et comme si cette menace ne suffisait pas, Trump d’ajouter:

«Chaque pays de cette région a un devoir absolu de s’assurer que les terroristes ne trouvent aucun abri sur leur sol. Cela veut dire affronter honnêtement la crise de l’extrémisme islamique et les groupes terroristes islamiques qu’il inspire. Et cela veut dire aussi se dresser ensemble contre le meurtre d’innocents musulmans, l’oppression des femmes, la persécution des juifs, et le massacre des chrétiens».

Un grand discours, telle une belle symphonie, ne peut se concevoir sans un crescendo conduisant à une apothéose. Je relèverai donc ce passage, prononcé avec force et conviction: «Un meilleur futur n’est possible que si vos nations se débarrassent du terrorisme et des extrémistes. Jetez les dehors. Jetez-les hors de vos lieux de culte. Jetez-les hors de vos communautés. Jetez-les hors de vos terres saintes, et jetez-les hors de cette terre».

Cette emphase n’est pas innocente, car pour que les dirigeants musulmans présents soient ainsi conviés à s’attaquer au terrorisme, encore fallait-il qu’ils commencent par reconnaître leur responsabilité dans la naissance d’organisations extrémistes parmi les pires.

De la même manière, souligner que les Juifs ont longtemps été persécutés et les chrétiens massacrés dans les pays musulmans n’a pas dû passer sans quelques grincements de dents au sein de l’auditoire. L’Émir du Qatar, quant à lui, n’a pas dû non plus apprécier que le président américain cite le Hamas parmi les organisations terroristes à combattre.

Mais, de toute évidence, contrairement à Barack Hussein Obama qui voulait bouleverser la donne géopolitique régionale par un renversement d’alliances incluant un rapprochement avec l’Iran et les frères musulmans, Donald Trump avait pour but principal un retour à la norme établie par Roosevelt à la fin de la deuxième guerre mondiale, c’est-à-dire le renforcement du traité liant l’Arabie Saoudite et les pays du Golfe à l’Amérique.

Soit dit en passant, alors que le très controversé accord signé par les pays occidentaux avec l’Iran a permis à ce dernier de recevoir des milliards de dollars, en échange d’une promesse – encore à tenir – de renoncer à l’armement nucléaire, Trump est reparti d’Arabie Saoudite avec, en poche, plusieurs contrats d’une valeur globale de 410 milliards de dollars, dont l’emploi américain sera le premier bénéficiaire.

Mais Trump n’était pas à un renversement des tabous prêt. N’a-t-il pas, en effet, insisté sur le fait qu’il quitterait l’Arabie Saoudite pour se rendre en Israël (pays dont l’existence n’est toujours pas reconnue par la quasi-totalité du monde musulman) et plus précisément à Jérusalem, pour y rencontrer le premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahou? Le simple fait d’avoir prononcé par trois fois, à Riyad, le mot «Israël» serait déjà en soi une petite révolution des esprits. Mais cela n’est rien comparé à l’autorisation que l’avion présidentiel, Air Force One, reçut de déposer un plan de vol reliant Riyad directement à l’aéroport Ben Gourion. Pour la première fois, depuis la naissance d’Israël, un avion décolla d’Arabie Saoudite pour atterrir, sans détour, en terre promise.

Ce ne sont peut-être que des détails, mais d’une importance majeure quand l’on connaît la portée des symboles au Moyen Orient. Contrairement à son prédécesseur, pour qui la «volonté expansionniste» d’Israël était la cause de tous les maux de la région, et son «occupation» de territoires disputés – que les Arabes revendiquent pour y établir une vingt cinquième dictature – responsable d’un extrémisme étranger par essence à une religion qualifiée «de paix et d’amour».

La vision de Donald Trump en la matière, est claire. Le terrorisme et la radicalisation sont la source du problème et non leur conséquence et la paix entre Israéliens et Palestiniens ne peut se faire sans un accord global, incluant l’intégralité des pays de la région.

Hasard tragique de l’histoire, il a fallu qu’un énième attentat ensanglante le monde occidental, cette fois à Liverpool, la veille de la rencontre entre Trump et le président de l’Autorité Palestinienne, Mahmud Abbas. Le président américain ne put s’empêcher de souligner la coïncidence: «C’est très intéressant, dit-il, que notre réunion se passe juste après l’horrible soirée de mort pour de jeunes innocents. La paix ne peut pas prendre racine dans un environnement où la violence est tolérée, financée et récompensée.»

Une fois de plus, le message ne pouvait être plus clair. Alors que le congrès américain s’apprête à voter le «Taylor Force Act» dont le but est de couper les vivres à l’Autorité Palestinienne tant que celle-ci continuera de salarier les djihadistes et leurs familles et que ses médias inciteront quotidiennement au meurtre des Juifs, Trump ne s’est pas privé de rappeler à Abbas les risques qu’il encourrait.

De même qu’en mêlant chaud et froid dans son discours de Riyad il a souligné qu’il était temps pour les gouvernements arabes, s’ils voulaient compter sur le soutien des Américains, de cesser leur soutien au terrorisme.

Aussi bien sunnite que chiite.

Voir de plus:

Trump joins up the dots

May 22, 2017

Now it becomes clear why President Trump selected as the destinations of his current tour Riyadh, Jerusalem and Rome. He is re-setting the foreign policy debate around the factor which is both fundamental and at the same time systematically ignored. He is reframing it as a conflict over religion.

Not that he is describing it in Samuel Huntington’s terms as a war between civilisations. He reportedly told his son-in-law and key strategist Jared Kushner to construct a tour around the theme of reconciliation and world peace.

Nevertheless, he’s doing something which no previous president has done: making religion the central issue in promoting that goal of reconciliation and peace. And that means he sees the conflicts roiling the world as being over precisely that issue of religion; and more specifically, the clash between Islam and the rest.

That’s why in his Riyadh speech he invoked the name of God on multiple occasions. That’s why he made a visit today to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre and the western wall of the ancient Jewish Temple in Jerusalem – where he was unaccompanied by Israeli dignitaries, presumably to emphasise he was making no political point but rather performing an act of piety and respect and thus pointing out the centrality of these sites to Christianity and Judaism. And that’s why he is to visit the Pope in the Vatican.

He’s saying that in order to end the political conflict between east and west, the three faiths of Islam, Judaism and Christianity must first broker peace between themselves.

And that means he’s doing something no US president has yet dared to do: naming the Islamic jihad for what it is – a war of religion. And he went into the very belly of the beast, Saudi Arabia, to say it.

For he not only excoriated the Saudis’ arch-enemy Iran, but put the Kingdom on notice that it needs to reject the violent extremism it itself has spawned.

“Drive. Them. Out”, he said. “DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship. DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities. DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.”

Well, that could hardly have been a clearer demand of his hosts.

He used language that is correct but virtually no western leader will use, calling on the Kingdom to confront “the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

Even more strikingly, he couched the failure to abandon religious violence in terms of eternal damnation:

“Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory – piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.”

On Israel and the Arabs, it’s a pity he has not said what needs to be said: that the idea of a Palestine state is a red herring to mask the real goal of exterminating Israel. But at the same time, he hasn’t said there needs to be a Palestine state; so far he has stuck instead to platitudes about children living free from violence and so forth.

Moreover, he observed that Saudi Arabia was the “custodian of the two holiest sites in the Islamic Faith.” That’s Mecca and Medina. Not, of course, Jerusalem. The claim that Jerusalem is Islam’s sacred site, made repeatedly by proponents of Palestinian mythology, is a lie. Trump’s pointed omission will have been noted by those who need to note it.

What Saudi King Salman did and said on this visit was itself highly significant. Yes, he claimed in Orwellian fashion that Islam was a religion of “mercy, tolerance and co-existence”. But he also said that achieving peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis was “a just and necessary quest that requires joint sacrifices” [my emphasis], and he also spoke of the Kingdom’s keenness to invest in the “empowering of women”.

There were several other signals on this visit of a more pragmatic approach. The president’s wife and daughter wore no head coverings, and neither did women who attended the various functions; the King nevertheless even shook Melania’s hand. And Trump made the first direct flight from Riyadh to Israel’s Ben Gurion airport.

These things may sound small beer but their symbolism is important. It’s also unlikely that the King would have been unaware in advance of the more sensitive parts of Trump’s speech; the King’s response endorsing this call to arms against his own co-religionists was remarkable.

True, Trump hasn’t called out the Palestinians on their big lie that they have legal and historical rights to the land.

As of yesterday, however, the so-called Israel-Palestine conflict has been reframed in the context of the need to achieve peace between religions. In other words, the conflict has been tacitly reframed as fundamentally an Islamic religious war. As such, it follows that a) it cannot be a dispute over land boundaries and b) it puts Israel on the same side as the west.

Trump’s tour is not yet over and his position may change. Maybe he will come out with some pro-Palestinian statement. His Riyadh speech wasn’t perfect: several things he said grated. The King may have been speaking in turn with forked tongue. And there are great dangers in this huge US arms deal with the Kingdom: those weapons weaken Israel’s defences; and if the fragile Saudi monarchy should fall to Isis, al Qaeda or Iranian proxies, this US-manufactured armoury might be turned against America itself.

For the moment, though, President Trump has joined up the dots in the Middle East to create a picture which has never been drawn before but is long overdue.

UPDATE: Israelly Cool points out that, when he delivered his Riyadh speech, President Trump deviated from the printed text in the following way:

“That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist Islamic extremism and the Islamists and the Islamist groups it inspires Islamic terror of all kinds. We must stop what they’re doing to inspire because they do nothing to inspire but kill and we are having a very profound effect if you look at what’s happened recently. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.”

Some Hidden Messages In Trump’s Speech To Leaders Of Numerous Islamic States

Dave’s written up his thoughts on Trump’s big speech in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and made some excellent points. I’ve made one specific observation in a video about Trump deviating significantly from the script prepared for him. I think the script was written by the State Department at Foggy Bottom, modified by Bannon and possibly Sebastian Gorka and re-interpreted on the fly by Trump himself.

I can’t begin to tell you how much respect I have for him for going off script:

That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist Islamic extremism and the Islamists and the Islamist Islamic terror of all kinds. We must stop what they’re doing to inspire because they do nothing to inspire but kill and we are having a very profound effect if you look at what’s happened recently groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.

Here are some of the other points I thought:

He spoke about and mentioned terror extensively. He said “Islamic terror” and “Islamic extremism” only once each. But when you’re standing in front of the Islamic world’s leaders, it’s pretty clear nobody is discussing Basque separatist terror or Irish nationalist terror.

There was a theme of good vs evil and it is clear which side is which.

This paragraph which followed the one above contains a very interesting word:

Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory – piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE FULLY CONDEMNED.

“Piety” is the word the Islamic world uses to signify increased observance of Islamic laws. They don’t say “conservative” and indeed, the western media’s use of the word conservative to denote Muslims following the life of Mohammed closely is devious and deceitful and I believe intended to cast a slur on both political and religious conservatives in the US and the west.

This is Article 1(b) of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (which the UN shamefully allows Islamic nations to use instead of the UNIVERSAL Declaration of Human Rights).

(b) All human beings are God’s subjects, and the most loved by him are those who are most useful to the rest of His subjects, and no one has superiority over another except on the basis of piety and good deeds.

Notice how (via the trick of a double negative) it specifically grants “superiority” to those based on their “piety and good deeds”. The entire document is subject to interpretation through Islamic Sharia law which makes clear that “piety and good deeds” are those the Quran says are pious and good.

He did refer to Islam as one of the world’s great faiths early on in the speech: that was in contrast to one reference later to Abrahamic faiths. I have long since pointed out that Abrahamic faiths is a deceptive designation because stark contrasts between Islam on one side and Judaism and Christianity.

I also want to emphasize a point Dave picked up on but I’ll say it was deliberate. Trump deliberately pointed out that Islam has its two holiest places: Medina and Mecca fully in control of Saudi Arabia. A Muslim nation without any pretence at being a modern, multicultural state. Judaism and Christianity both share Jerusalem and I think Trump was communicating a message: two holy places are sufficient for Islam, leave Jerusalem for the Jews and Christians.

Update: In this act of seemingly incomprehensible inability to listen, Fox News and guest Quanta Ahmed discuss how Trump said Islamist after playing the clip where he clearly says Islamic twice. Bizarre.

Voir encore:

Transcript of Trump’s speech in Saudi Arabia
CNN

May 21, 2017
Riyadh, Saudi Arabia (CNN)US President Donald Trump on Sunday delivered a speech to the leaders of more than 50 Muslim countries to outline his vision for US-Muslim relations

Here is a complete transcript of his remarks.

« I want to thank King Salman for his extraordinary words, and the magnificent Kingdom of Saudi Arabia for hosting today’s summit. I am honored to be received by such gracious hosts. I have always heard about the splendor of your country and the kindness of your citizens, but words do not do justice to the grandeur of this remarkable place and the incredible hospitality you have shown us from the moment we arrived.
You also hosted me in the treasured home of King Abdulaziz, the founder of the Kingdom who united your great people. Working alongside another beloved leader — American President Franklin Roosevelt — King Abdulaziz began the enduring partnership between our two countries. King Salman: your father would be so proud to see that you are continuing his legacy — and just as he opened the first chapter in our partnership, today we begin a new chapter that will bring lasting benefits to our citizens.
Let me now also extend my deep and heartfelt gratitude to each and every one of the distinguished heads of state who made this journey here today. You greatly honor us with your presence, and I send the warmest regards from my country to yours. I know that our time together will bring many blessings to both your people and mine.
I stand before you as a representative of the American People, to deliver a message of friendship and hope. That is why I chose to make my first foreign visit a trip to the heart of the Muslim world, to the nation that serves as custodian of the two holiest sites in the Islamic Faith.
In my inaugural address to the American People, I pledged to strengthen America’s oldest friendships, and to build new partnerships in pursuit of peace. I also promised that America will not seek to impose our way of life on others, but to outstretch our hands in the spirit of cooperation and trust.
Our vision is one of peace, security, and prosperity—in this region, and in the world.
Our goal is a coalition of nations who share the aim of stamping out extremism and providing our children a hopeful future that does honor to God.
And so this historic and unprecedented gathering of leaders—unique in the history of nations—is a symbol to the world of our shared resolve and our mutual respect. To the leaders and citizens of every country assembled here today, I want you to know that the United States is eager to form closer bonds of friendship, security, culture and commerce.
For Americans, this is an exciting time. A new spirit of optimism is sweeping our country: in just a few months, we have created almost a million new jobs, added over 3 trillion dollars of new value, lifted the burdens on American industry, and made record investments in our military that will protect the safety of our people and enhance the security of our wonderful friends and allies — many of whom are here today.
Now, there is even more blessed news I am pleased to share with you. My meetings with King Salman, the Crown Prince, and the Deputy Crown Prince, have been filled with great warmth, good will, and tremendous cooperation. Yesterday, we signed historic agreements with the Kingdom that will invest almost $400 billion in our two countries and create many thousands of jobs in America and Saudi Arabia.
This landmark agreement includes the announcement of a $110 billion Saudi-funded defense purchase — and we will be sure to help our Saudi friends to get a good deal from our great American defense companies. This agreement will help the Saudi military to take a greater role in security operations.
We have also started discussions with many of the countries present today on strengthening partnerships, and forming new ones, to advance security and stability across the Middle East and beyond.
Later today, we will make history again with the opening of a new Global Center for Combating Extremist Ideology — located right here, in this central part of the Islamic World.
This groundbreaking new center represents a clear declaration that Muslim-majority countries must take the lead in combating radicalization, and I want to express our gratitude to King Salman for this strong demonstration of leadership.
I have had the pleasure of welcoming several of the leaders present today to the White House, and I look forward to working with all of you.
America is a sovereign nation and our first priority is always the safety and security of our citizens. We are not here to lecture—we are not here to tell other people how to live, what to do, who to be, or how to worship. Instead, we are here to offer partnership — based on shared interests and values — to pursue a better future for us all.
Here at this summit we will discuss many interests we share together. But above all we must be united in pursuing the one goal that transcends every other consideration. That goal is to meet history’s great test—to conquer extremism and vanquish the forces of terrorism.
Young Muslim boys and girls should be able to grow up free from fear, safe from violence, and innocent of hatred. And young Muslim men and women should have the chance to build a new era of prosperity for themselves and their peoples.
With God’s help, this summit will mark the beginning of the end for those who practice terror and spread its vile creed. At the same time, we pray this special gathering may someday be remembered as the beginning of peace in the Middle East — and maybe, even all over the world.
But this future can only be achieved through defeating terrorism and the ideology that drives it.
Few nations have been spared its violent reach.
America has suffered repeated barbaric attacks — from the atrocities of September 11th to the devastation of the Boston Bombing, to the horrible killings in San Bernardino and Orlando.
The nations of Europe have also endured unspeakable horror. So too have the nations of Africa and even South America. India, Russia, China and Australia have been victims.
But, in sheer numbers, the deadliest toll has been exacted on the innocent people of Arab, Muslim and Middle Eastern nations. They have borne the brunt of the killings and the worst of the destruction in this wave of fanatical violence.
Some estimates hold that more than 95 percent of the victims of terrorism are themselves Muslim.
We now face a humanitarian and security disaster in this region that is spreading across the planet. It is a tragedy of epic proportions. No description of the suffering and depravity can begin to capture its full measure.
The true toll of ISIS, al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas, and so many others, must be counted not only in the number of dead. It must also be counted in generations of vanished dreams.
The Middle East is rich with natural beauty, vibrant cultures, and massive amounts of historic treasures. It should increasingly become one of the great global centers of commerce and opportunity.
This region should not be a place from which refugees flee, but to which newcomers flock.
Saudi Arabia is home to the holiest sites in one of the world’s great faiths. Each year millions of Muslims come from around the world to Saudi Arabia to take part in the Hajj. In addition to ancient wonders, this country is also home to modern ones—including soaring achievements in architecture.
Egypt was a thriving center of learning and achievement thousands of years before other parts of the world. The wonders of Giza, Luxor and Alexandria are proud monuments to that ancient heritage.
All over the world, people dream of walking through the ruins of Petra in Jordan. Iraq was the cradle of civilization and is a land of natural beauty. And the United Arab Emirates has reached incredible heights with glass and steel, and turned earth and water into spectacular works of art.
The entire region is at the center of the key shipping lanes of the Suez Canal, the Red Sea, and the Straits of Hormuz. The potential of this region has never been greater. 65 percent of its population is under the age of 30. Like all young men and women, they seek great futures to build, great national projects to join, and a place for their families to call home.
But this untapped potential, this tremendous cause for optimism, is held at bay by bloodshed and terror. There can be no coexistence with this violence. There can be no tolerating it, no accepting it, no excusing it, and no ignoring it.
Every time a terrorist murders an innocent person, and falsely invokes the name of God, it should be an insult to every person of faith.
Terrorists do not worship God, they worship death.
If we do not act against this organized terror, then we know what will happen. Terrorism’s devastation of life will continue to spread. Peaceful societies will become engulfed by violence. And the futures of many generations will be sadly squandered.
If we do not stand in uniform condemnation of this killing—then not only will we be judged by our people, not only will we be judged by history, but we will be judged by God.
This is not a battle between different faiths, different sects, or different civilizations.
This is a battle between barbaric criminals who seek to obliterate human life, and decent people of all religions who seek to protect it.
This is a battle between Good and Evil.
When we see the scenes of destruction in the wake of terror, we see no signs that those murdered were Jewish or Christian, Shia or Sunni. When we look upon the streams of innocent blood soaked into the ancient ground, we cannot see the faith or sect or tribe of the victims — we see only that they were Children of God whose deaths are an insult to all that is holy.
But we can only overcome this evil if the forces of good are united and strong — and if everyone in this room does their fair share and fulfills their part of the burden.
Terrorism has spread across the world. But the path to peace begins right here, on this ancient soil, in this sacred land.
America is prepared to stand with you — in pursuit of shared interests and common security.
But the nations of the Middle East cannot wait for American power to crush this enemy for them. The nations of the Middle East will have to decide what kind of future they want for themselves, for their countries, and for their children.
It is a choice between two futures — and it is a choice America CANNOT make for you.
A better future is only possible if your nations drive out the terrorists and extremists. Drive. Them. Out.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your places of worship.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your communities.
DRIVE THEM OUT of your holy land, and
DRIVE THEM OUT OF THIS EARTH.
For our part, America is committed to adjusting our strategies to meet evolving threats and new facts. We will discard those strategies that have not worked—and will apply new approaches informed by experience and judgment. We are adopting a Principled Realism, rooted in common values and shared interests.
Our friends will never question our support, and our enemies will never doubt our determination. Our partnerships will advance security through stability, not through radical disruption. We will make decisions based on real-world outcomes — not inflexible ideology. We will be guided by the lessons of experience, not the confines of rigid thinking. And, wherever possible, we will seek gradual reforms — not sudden intervention.
We must seek partners, not perfection—and to make allies of all who share our goals.
Above all, America seeks peace — not war.
Muslim nations must be willing to take on the burden, if we are going to defeat terrorism and send its wicked ideology into oblivion.
The first task in this joint effort is for your nations to deny all territory to the foot soldiers of evil. Every country in the region has an absolute duty to ensure that terrorists find no sanctuary on their soil.
Many are already making significant contributions to regional security: Jordanian pilots are crucial partners against ISIS in Syria and Iraq. Saudi Arabia and a regional coalition have taken strong action against Houthi militants in Yemen. The Lebanese Army is hunting ISIS operatives who try to infiltrate their territory. Emirati troops are supporting our Afghan partners. In Mosul, American troops are supporting Kurds, Sunnis and Shias fighting together for their homeland. Qatar, which hosts the U.S. Central Command, is a crucial strategic partner. Our longstanding partnership with Kuwait and Bahrain continue to enhance security in the region. And courageous Afghan soldiers are making tremendous sacrifices in the fight against the Taliban, and others, in the fight for their country.
As we deny terrorist organizations control of territory and populations, we must also strip them of their access to funds. We must cut off the financial channels that let ISIS sell oil, let extremists pay their fighters, and help terrorists smuggle their reinforcements.
I am proud to announce that the nations here today will be signing an agreement to prevent the financing of terrorism, called the Terrorist Financing Targeting Center — co-chaired by the United States and Saudi Arabia, and joined by every member of the Gulf Cooperation Council. It is another historic step in a day that will be long remembered.
I also applaud the Gulf Cooperation Council for blocking funders from using their countries as a financial base for terror, and designating Hezbollah as a terrorist organization last year. Saudi Arabia also joined us this week in placing sanctions on one of the most senior leaders of Hezbollah.
Of course, there is still much work to do.
That means honestly confronting the crisis of Islamist extremism and the Islamist terror groups it inspires. And it means standing together against the murder of innocent Muslims, the oppression of women, the persecution of Jews, and the slaughter of Christians.
Religious leaders must make this absolutely clear: Barbarism will deliver you no glory — piety to evil will bring you no dignity. If you choose the path of terror, your life will be empty, your life will be brief, and YOUR SOUL WILL BE CONDEMNED.
And political leaders must speak out to affirm the same idea: heroes don’t kill innocents; they save them. Many nations here today have taken important steps to raise up that message. Saudi Arabia’s Vision for 2030 is an important and encouraging statement of tolerance, respect, empowering women, and economic development.
The United Arab Emirates has also engaged in the battle for hearts and souls—and with the U.S., launched a center to counter the online spread of hate. Bahrain too is working to undermine recruitment and radicalism.
I also applaud Jordan, Turkey and Lebanon for their role in hosting refugees. The surge of migrants and refugees leaving the Middle East depletes the human capital needed to build stable societies and economies. Instead of depriving this region of so much human potential, Middle Eastern countries can give young people hope for a brighter future in their home nations and regions.
That means promoting the aspirations and dreams of all citizens who seek a better life — including women, children, and followers of all faiths. Numerous Arab and Islamic scholars have eloquently argued that protecting equality strengthens Arab and Muslim communities.
For many centuries the Middle East has been home to Christians, Muslims and Jews living side-by-side. We must practice tolerance and respect for each other once again—and make this region a place where every man and woman, no matter their faith or ethnicity, can enjoy a life of dignity and hope.
In that spirit, after concluding my visit in Riyadh, I will travel to Jerusalem and Bethlehem, and then to the Vatican — visiting many of the holiest places in the three Abrahamic Faiths. If these three faiths can join together in cooperation, then peace in this world is possible — including peace between Israelis and Palestinians. I will be meeting with both Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas.
Starving terrorists of their territory, their funding, and the false allure of their craven ideology, will be the basis for defeating them.
But no discussion of stamping out this threat would be complete without mentioning the government that gives terrorists all three—safe harbor, financial backing, and the social standing needed for recruitment. It is a regime that is responsible for so much instability in the region. I am speaking of course of Iran.
From Lebanon to Iraq to Yemen, Iran funds, arms, and trains terrorists, militias, and other extremist groups that spread destruction and chaos across the region. For decades, Iran has fueled the fires of sectarian conflict and terror.
It is a government that speaks openly of mass murder, vowing the destruction of Israel, death to America, and ruin for many leaders and nations in this room.
Among Iran’s most tragic and destabilizing interventions have been in Syria. Bolstered by Iran, Assad has committed unspeakable crimes, and the United States has taken firm action in response to the use of banned chemical weapons by the Assad Regime — launching 59 tomahawk missiles at the Syrian air base from where that murderous attack originated.
Responsible nations must work together to end the humanitarian crisis in Syria, eradicate ISIS, and restore stability to the region. The Iranian regime’s longest-suffering victims are its own people. Iran has a rich history and culture, but the people of Iran have endured hardship and despair under their leaders’ reckless pursuit of conflict and terror.
Until the Iranian regime is willing to be a partner for peace, all nations of conscience must work together to isolate Iran, deny it funding for terrorism, and pray for the day when the Iranian people have the just and righteous government they deserve.
The decisions we make will affect countless lives.
King Salman, I thank you for the creation of this great moment in history, and for your massive investment in America, its industry and its jobs. I also thank you for investing in the future of this part of the world.
This fertile region has all the ingredients for extraordinary success — a rich history and culture, a young and vibrant people, a thriving spirit of enterprise. But you can only unlock this future if the citizens of the Middle East are freed from extremism, terror and violence.
We in this room are the leaders of our peoples. They look to us for answers, and for action. And when we look back at their faces, behind every pair of eyes is a soul that yearns for justice.
Today, billions of faces are now looking at us, waiting for us to act on the great question of our time.
Will we be indifferent in the presence of evil? Will we protect our citizens from its violent ideology? Will we let its venom spread through our societies? Will we let it destroy the most holy sites on earth? If we do not confront this deadly terror, we know what the future will bring—more suffering and despair. But if we act—if we leave this magnificent room unified and determined to do what it takes to destroy the terror that threatens the world—then there is no limit to the great future our citizens will have.
The birthplace of civilization is waiting to begin a new renaissance. Just imagine what tomorrow could bring.
Glorious wonders of science, art, medicine and commerce to inspire humankind. Great cities built on the ruins of shattered towns. New jobs and industries that will lift up millions of people. Parents who no longer worry for their children, families who no longer mourn for their loved ones, and the faithful who finally worship without fear.
These are the blessings of prosperity and peace. These are the desires that burn with a righteous flame in every human heart. And these are the just demands of our beloved peoples.
I ask you to join me, to join together, to work together, and to FIGHT together— BECAUSE UNITED, WE WILL NOT FAIL.
Thank you. God Bless You. God Bless Your Countries. And God Bless the United States of America. »

Voir également:

Discours du Président Donald Trump à l’occasion du sommet arabe islamo-américain – Riyad, 21 mai 2017

(Tel que préparé) 

Merci.

Je souhaite remercier le roi Salmane pour ses paroles exceptionnelles ainsi que le magnifique Royaume d’Arabie saoudite qui accueille le Sommet d’aujourd’hui. C’est un honneur pour moi d’être reçu par des hôtes aussi aimables. J’ai toujours entendu parler de la splendeur de votre pays et de la gentillesse de ses habitants mais les mots ne sauraient rendre justice à la grandeur de cet endroit remarquable et à l’extraordinaire accueil que vous nous avez réservé dès l’instant que nous sommes arrivés.

Vous m’avez aussi reçu dans la précieuse demeure du roi Abdulaziz, fondateur du Royaume qui a permis d’unir votre grand peuple. Œuvrant de concert avec un autre dirigeant très apprécié, le président des États-Unis Franklin Roosevelt, le roi Abdulaziz a entamé le partenariat durable qui existe toujours entre nos deux pays.

Votre majesté, votre père serait extrêmement fier de voir que vous perpétuez son héritage, et tout comme il a ouvert le premier chapitre de notre partenariat, aujourd’hui nous entamons un nouveau chapitre qui produira des retombées durables pour tous nos citoyens.

Permettez-moi également d’adresser ma gratitude la plus sincère à chacun des éminents chefs d’États qui se sont déplacés pour être présents aujourd’hui. Votre présence est un grand honneur pour nous et je souhaite transmettre les plus cordiales salutations de mon pays aux vôtres. Merci. Je sais que les moments que nous allons passer ensemble apporteront de nombreux bienfaits à vos peuples ainsi qu’au mien.

Je me présente aujourd’hui devant vous en tant que représentant du peuple américain, pour vous apporter un message d’amitié, d’espoir et d’affection. C’est pour cette raison que j’ai choisi d’effectuer mon premier voyage à l’étranger au cœur du monde musulman, dans la nation qui abrite et protège les deux sites les plus sacrés de l’Islam.

Dans le discours d’investiture que j’ai prononcé devant le peuple américain, je me suis engagé à renforcer les amitiés les plus anciennes des États-Unis et à édifier de nouveaux partenariats en faveur de la paix. J’ai également promis que les États-Unis ne chercheraient pas à imposer aux autres leur mode de vie, mais à leur tendre la main dans un esprit de coopération et de confiance. Nous avons une vision de paix, de sécurité et de prospérité, pour cette région et pour le monde entier.  Notre objectif est de rassembler en une coalition les nations qui partagent la même volonté que nous : celle d’éradiquer l’extrémisme afin de procurer à nos enfants un avenir prometteur qui honore Dieu. Ce rassemblement historique et sans précédent de dirigeants, unique dans l’histoire des nations, témoigne symboliquement au monde de notre volonté commune et de notre respect mutuel. Aux dirigeants et aux citoyens de chaque pays ici rassemblés aujourd’hui, je voudrais que vous sachiez que les États-Unis sont désireux de tisser des liens plus étroits en matière d’amitié, de sécurité, de culture et d’échanges commerciaux.

Pour le peuple des États-Unis, ce sont des temps profondément exaltants. Un nouvel esprit d’optimisme balaye notre pays. En quelques mois à peine, nous avons créé presque un million de nouveaux emplois, ajouté plus de trois mille milliards de dollars de nouvelle valeur, allégé les fardeaux qui pesaient sur le secteur industriel des États-Unis, et réalisé des investissements sans précédent dans nos forces armées qui permettront de préserver la sécurité de notre peuple et de renforcer celle de nos formidables amis et alliés, parmi lesquels nombreux sont ceux qui sont ici aujourd’hui.

Mais je suis aussi porteur de nouvelles encore meilleures dont je suis heureux de vous faire part. Mes rencontres avec le roi Salmane, le Prince héritier et le Vice-prince héritier ont été très chaleureuses et marquées d’une bonne volonté et d’une coopération formidable. Hier, nous avons conclu des accords historiques avec le Royaume qui permettra de réaliser dans nos deux pays des investissements à hauteur de presque 400 milliards de dollars et de créer plusieurs centaines de milliers d’emplois aux États-Unis et en Arabie saoudite.

Cet accord majeur comprend l’annonce de l’acquisition d’armements financés par les Saoudiens d’une valeur de 110 milliards de dollars ; et nous veillerons à aider nos amis saoudiens à négocier des contrats avantageux auprès de nos excellentes entreprises de défense américaines, les meilleures qui soient au monde. Cet accord aidera l’armée saoudienne à assumer un rôle beaucoup plus important en matière de sécurité et dans les opérations liées à la sécurité.

Nous avons également entamé des discussions avec les dirigeants de nombreux pays parmi ceux présents aujourd’hui concernant le renforcement des partenariats et la création de nouveaux, aux fins d’accroître la sécurité et la stabilité dans l’ensemble du Moyen-Orient et bien au-delà.

Tout à l’heure, nous allons à nouveau marquer l’histoire avec l’ouverture du nouveau Centre mondial de lutte contre les idéologies extrémistes, situé ici même, au cœur du monde islamique. Ce nouveau centre totalement novateur constitue une déclaration nette que les pays à majorité musulmane doivent prendre l’initiative en matière de lutte contre la radicalisation. Et je souhaite exprimer notre gratitude au roi Salmane de cette forte démonstration et de son leadership absolument incroyable et puissant. J’ai eu le plaisir de recevoir à la Maison-Blanche plusieurs des dirigeants présents aujourd’hui et je me réjouis par avance de travailler avec vous tous.

Les États-Unis d’Amérique sont un pays souverain et nous avons pour priorité absolue et constante de protéger la sécurité et la sûreté de nos citoyens. Nous ne venons pas ici en donneurs de leçons. Nous ne sommes pas là pour dire à d’autres peuples comment vivre, quoi faire, qui être ou comment pratiquer leur religion. Au contraire, nous venons ici pour vous proposer de nouer des partenariats, fondés sur des intérêts partagés et des valeurs communes, dans le but d’instaurer un avenir meilleur pour chacun d’entre nous.

À l’occasion du présent sommet, nous allons évoquer les nombreux intérêts que nous partageons. Cependant, par-dessus tout, nous devons être unis dans la poursuite du seul objectif qui transcende toute autre considération. Cet objectif consiste à relever le plus grand défi de l’Histoire : conquérir l’extrémisme et vaincre les forces que ce terrorisme amène avec lui à chaque fois.

Les jeunes garçons et filles musulmans devraient être en mesure de grandir à l’abri de la violence, sans ressentir de peur ni de haine. Et les jeunes hommes et femmes musulmans devraient avoir la possibilité de construire une nouvelle ère de prospérité pour eux-mêmes. Il faut que cela soit fait et nous devons les laisser le faire.

Avec l’aide de Dieu, ce sommet marquera le début de la fin pour ceux qui pratiquent la terreur et en propagent les vils principes. Dans le même temps, nous prions pour qu’un jour, on se souvienne de ce rassemblement exceptionnel comme ayant marqué le début de la paix au Moyen-Orient, peut-être même dans le monde entier. Mais cet avenir ne peut être possible que par la défaite du terrorisme et des idéologies qui l’alimentent.

Peu de nations ont été épargnées par la violence du terrorisme. Les États-Unis ont subi des attentats barbares répétés, des atrocités du 11 septembre à la destruction causée par les attentats à la bombe de Boston et à l’horreur des massacres à San Bernardino et à Orlando. Les nations de l’Europe ont également été frappées par une horreur indicible, tout comme les nations de l’Afrique et de l’Amérique du Sud. L’Inde, la Russie, la Chine et l’Australie ont toutes été des victimes. Toutefois, en chiffres absolus, le bilan le plus meurtrier a été enregistré par les peuples innocents des nations arabes, musulmanes et du Moyen-Orient. Ils ont subi la grande majorité de ces morts et les pires destructions de cette vague de violence fanatique. Selon certaines estimations, plus de 95 % des victimes du terrorisme sont elles-mêmes musulmanes.

Nous sommes à présent confrontés à une catastrophe humanitaire et sécuritaire dans cette région du monde, qui est en train de se propager sur toute la planète. C’est une tragédie aux proportions épiques. Nulle description de la souffrance et de la perversité ne saurait en saisir la pleine mesure. Si l’on regarde ce qui se passe, le véritable prix des actions de Daech, d’Al-Qaïda, du Hezbollah, du Hamas et de nombreux autres groupes ne doit pas seulement s’évaluer en termes de nombre de morts. Il faut l’estimer en termes d’espoirs envolés pour des générations entières.

Le Moyen-Orient regorge de beauté naturelle, de cultures pleines de vie et de trésors historiques innombrables. Cette région devrait devenir de plus en plus l’un des grands centres mondiaux en matière d’échanges commerciaux et d’opportunités. Cette région ne devrait pas être un lieu d’où fuient les réfugiés mais où arrivent de nouveaux venus en grands nombres.

L’Arabie saoudite abrite les sites les plus sacrés de l’une des plus grandes religions du monde. Chaque année, des millions de musulmans venus du monde entier se retrouvent en Arabie saoudite pour prendre part au Hadj. Hormis ses merveilles antiques, ce pays possède aussi des merveilles modernes, parmi lesquelles des réalisations architecturales vertigineuses.

L’Égypte était un centre de connaissances et de réussite florissant des milliers d’années avant d’autres régions du monde. Les merveilles de Gizeh, de Louxor et d’Alexandrie témoignent par leurs monuments de cet héritage historique. Dans le monde entier, les gens rêvent tous de parcourir les ruines de la cité jordanienne de Pétra. L’Irak, berceau de la civilisation, est une terre d’une grande beauté naturelle. Quant aux Émirats arabes unis, ils ont atteint des hauteurs extraordinaires de verre et d’acier et transformé la terre et l’eau en œuvres d’art spectaculaires. Cette région tout entière se trouve au cœur des voies maritimes majeures que sont le canal de Suez, la mer Rouge, et le détroit d’Hormuz.

Jamais le potentiel de cette région n’a été aussi considérable. Soixante-cinq pour cent de sa population est âgée de moins de 30 ans. Comme tous les autres jeunes hommes et femmes, ces peuples aspirent à construire un grand avenir, à participer à de grands projets nationaux et à vivre avec leur famille dans un endroit où ils se sentent chez eux. Cependant, ce potentiel inexploité, toutes ces raisons d’être optimiste, sont tenus en échec par les bains de sang et la terreur.

Il ne peut y avoir de coexistence avec une telle violence. Elle ne peut être tolérée, acceptée, excusée ni ignorée. Chaque fois qu’un terroriste assassine un innocent en invoquant faussement le nom de Dieu, chaque croyant devrait se sentir insultée. Les terroristes ne vénèrent pas Dieu, ils vénèrent la mort.

Si nous n’agissons pas pour contrer cette terreur organisée, nous savons ce qui se produira, et nous savons quel sera le résultat final. La destruction de la vie perpétrée par le terrorisme continuera de se propager, des sociétés pacifiques seront plongées dans la violence, et, tristement, l’avenir de nombreuses générations futures sera gâché. Si nous ne condamnons pas unanimement ces tueries, alors nous subirons non seulement le jugement de nos peuples, non seulement le jugement de l’Histoire, mais nous subirons aussi le jugement de Dieu.

Il ne s’agit pas là d’un combat entre différentes religions, différentes sectes ou différentes civilisations. C’est un combat opposant des criminels barbares qui veulent anéantir la vie humaine et les honnêtes gens, tout cela au nom de la religion. Des gens qui cherchent à préserver la vie et à protéger leur religion. C’est un combat entre le bien et le mal. Lorsque nous voyons les scènes de destruction à la suite d’actes de terreur, rien ne permet de savoir si les victimes assassinées étaient des Juifs, des chrétiens, des chiites ou des sunnites. Quand on voit les flots de sang des innocents qui imprègnent les terres ancestrales, on ne voit ni la religion, ni la secte, ni le groupe ethnique des victimes ; on voit seulement qu’il s’agissait d’enfants de Dieu dont la mort est insultante envers tout ce qui est saint. Mais nous pouvons uniquement vaincre ce mal si les forces du bien sont unies et fortes, et si chacun ici présent fait sa juste part et assume sa part du fardeau.

Le terrorisme s’est répandu dans le monde entier. Mais c’est ici même que commence le chemin vers la paix, sur ces terres ancestrales, sur cette terre sacrée. Les États-Unis sont prêts à se tenir à vos côtés, dans la poursuite d’intérêts partagés et d’une sécurité commune. Toutefois, les nations du Moyen-Orient ne peuvent pas attendre que la puissance américaine écrase cet ennemi à leur place. Les nations du Moyen-Orient devront décider de l’avenir qu’elles veulent pour elles-mêmes, pour leur pays, et franchement pour leurs familles et pour leurs enfants.

Il y a un choix à faire entre deux futurs – et c’est un choix que les États-Unis ne peuvent pas faire à votre place. Un avenir meilleur n’est possible que si vos nations traquent les terroristes et les extrémistes et les chassent. Les chassent de vos lieux de culte. Les chassent de vos communautés. Les chassent de votre terre sainte et les chassent de la surface de la Terre.

De leur côté, les États-Unis s’engagent à adapter leurs stratégies afin de répondre à l’évolution des menaces et aux nouvelles situations. Nous écarterons les stratégies qui n’ont pas marché, et nous mettrons en application de nouvelles approches éclairées par l’expérience, le talent et le jugement. Nous adoptons un pragmatisme fondé sur des principes et enraciné dans des valeurs communes, des intérêts partagés et le bon sens. Nos amis ne s’interrogeront jamais sur notre soutien et nos ennemis ne pourront jamais douter de notre détermination.

Nos partenariats feront progresser la sécurité par l’intermédiaire de la stabilité et non des perturbations extrémistes. Nous prendrons des décisions fondées sur des résultats concrets et non sur une idéologie inflexible. Ce sont les enseignements de l’expérience qui nous guideront et non des schémas de pensée étroits et rigides. Et, chaque fois que ce sera possible, nous chercherons à introduire des réformes progressives, non des interventions soudaines. Nous devons rechercher des partenaires et non la perfection, et faire de tous ceux qui partagent nos objectifs nos alliés.

Par-dessus tout, les États-Unis aspirent à la paix, non à la guerre. Les nations musulmanes doivent être disposées à assumer cette tâche si nous voulons vaincre le terrorisme et précipiter dans l’oubli ses idéologies malfaisantes. Dans cet effort conjoint, la première tâche qui incombe à vos nations consiste à refuser de concéder tout territoire aux fantassins du mal. Chaque pays de la région a le devoir absolu de veiller à ce que les terroristes ne puissent trouver aucun refuge sur ses terres.

Bon nombre de pays contribuent déjà de façon significative à la sécurité régionale : Les pilotes jordaniens sont des partenaires cruciaux contre Daech en Syrie et en Irak. L’Arabie saoudite et une coalition régionale ont pris des mesures énergiques à l’encontre de militants houtis au Yémen. L’armée libanaise traque les agents de Daech qui tentent de s’infiltrer sur son territoire. Des troupes émiraties fournissent à nos partenaires afghans un soutien énergique. À Mossoul, les troupes américaines soutiennent les Kurdes, les sunnites et les chiites qui défendent ensemble leur patrie. Le Qatar, qui accueille le Commandement central des États-Unis, est un partenaire stratégique essentiel. Notre partenariat de longue date avec le Koweït et Bahreïn continue de renforcer la sécurité dans la région. Nos courageux soldats afghans font d’énormes sacrifices dans la lutte contre les talibans, et d’autres, pour défendre leur pays.

À mesure que nous empêchons les organisations terroristes de prendre le contrôle de territoires et de populations, nous devons aussi leur retirer l’accès aux sources de financement. Nous devons couper tous les circuits financiers qui permettent à Daech de vendre du pétrole, aux extrémistes de payer leurs combattants, et aux terroristes de réussir à faire passer illégalement leurs renforts.

Je suis fier d’annoncer que les nations ici présentes aujourd’hui vont signer un accord visant à prévenir le financement du terrorisme, appelé le Centre de ciblage du financement du terrorisme, co-présidé par les États-Unis et l’Arabie saoudite, auquel s’associera chaque membre du Conseil de coopération du Golfe. C’est là une autre étape historique que nous franchissons en une journée qui restera longtemps gravée dans les mémoires.

Je souhaite aussi féliciter le Conseil de coopération du Golfe pour avoir empêché les financiers du terrorisme d’utiliser leurs pays comme base financière de la terreur et pour avoir désigné l’année dernière le Hezbollah comme étant une organisation terroriste, ce qu’il est incontestablement. L’Arabie saoudite s’est associée à nous cette semaine pour prendre des sanctions contre l’un des plus hauts responsables du Hezbollah.

Bien sûr, il reste encore beaucoup à faire. Ceci exige de faire face honnêtement à la crise engendrée par l’extrémisme islamiste, les islamistes radicaux et la terreur islamiste sous toutes ses formes. Nous devons mettre un terme à ce qu’ils font pour inspirer car ils ne font qu’inspirer à tuer. Et nous avons un impact extrêmement profond si vous regardez ce qui s’est passé récemment. Et ceci suppose de faire front commun contre les meurtres de musulmans innocents, l’oppression des femmes, la persécution des Juifs et le massacre des chrétiens.

Les dirigeants religieux doivent être parfaitement clairs : la barbarie ne vous apportera aucune gloire – la dévotion au mal ne vous confèrera aucune dignité. Si vous choisissez d’emprunter le chemin du terrorisme, votre vie sera vidée de toute substance, votre vie sera brève et votre âme sera damnée à tout jamais. Et les dirigeants politiques doivent clamer haut et fort ce même message : un héros ne tue pas les innocents, il les sauve.

De nombreuses nations représentées ici aujourd’hui ont pris d’importantes dispositions pour faire passer ce message au premier plan. La Vision de l’Arabie saoudite pour 2030 est une déclaration importante et encourageante de tolérance et de respect, favorable à l’émancipation des femmes et au développement économique. Les Émirats arabes unis se sont aussi mobilisés dans le combat pour gagner les cœurs et les âmes et, avec les États-Unis, ils ont créé un centre de lutte contre la propagation de la haine sur Internet. Bahreïn œuvre également pour ébranler les capacités de recrutement de terroristes et saper l’extrémisme.

Je souhaite aussi féliciter la Jordanie, la Turquie et le Liban pour le rôle que ces pays jouent dans l’accueil des réfugiés. L’afflux de migrants et de réfugiés qui survivent dans une telle misère qu’ils sont forcés de quitter le Moyen-Orient appauvrit le capital humain qui est nécessaire pour édifier des sociétés et des économies stables. Plutôt que de priver cette région d’un potentiel humain si considérable, les pays du Moyen-Orient peuvent donner aux jeunes l’espoir qu’un avenir prometteur les attend dans leur patrie et leur région.

Il faut pour cela encourager les aspirations et les rêves de tous les citoyens qui sont en quête d’une vie meilleure, notamment les femmes, les enfants et les adeptes de toutes les confessions. De nombreux spécialistes des civilisations arabes et islamiques ont fait valoir avec éloquence que la protection de l’égalité renforce les communautés arabes et musulmanes.

Pendant de nombreux siècles, le Moyen-Orient a été la patrie de chrétiens, de musulmans et de Juifs qui vivaient côte à côte. Nous devons pratiquer la tolérance et le respect mutuels une fois de plus, afin de faire de cette région un lieu où chaque homme, chaque femme, quelle que soit son appartenance religieuse ou ethnique, peut mener une vie digne et emplie d’espoir.

Dans cet esprit, après avoir terminé ma visite dans cet endroit extraordinaire où nous trouvons aujourd’hui, Riyad, et que j’ai appris à si bien connaître en si peu de temps, je me rendrai à Jérusalem et à Bethléem, puis au Vatican, où je visiterai bon nombre des lieux saints les plus importants des trois religions abrahamiques. Si ces trois religions peuvent se rassembler pour coopérer, alors la paix sera possible dans le monde – y compris la paix entre les Israéliens et les Palestiniens. Je vais rencontrer le Premier ministre israélien Benyamin Netanyahou et le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas.

Priver les terroristes de leurs territoires, de leurs sources de financement et des fausses séductions de leur veule idéologie sera la base de leur défaite facile. Cependant, toute discussion en vue d’anéantir cette menace serait vaine faute de mentionner le gouvernement qui procure aux terroristes les trois soutiens dont ils ont besoin : un refuge sûr, un appui financier et le statut social nécessaire au recrutement. Il s’agit d’un régime qui est responsable de tant d’instabilité dans cette région. Bien sûr, c’est de l’Iran que je parle.

Du Liban au Yémen, en passant par l’Irak, l’Iran finance, arme et entraîne des terroristes, des milices et d’autres groupes extrémistes qui répandent la destruction et sèment le chaos dans toute la région. Depuis des décennies, l’Iran alimente les flammes du conflit et de la terreur sectaires. C’est un gouvernement qui parle ouvertement de meurtres de masse, en promettant de la destruction d’Israël, la mort de l’Amérique ainsi que la ruine des nombreux dirigeants et nations représentées ici.

Vous avez vu l’une des interventions les plus tragiques et déstabilisatrices de l’Iran en Syrie. Avec le soutien de l’Iran, Assad a commis des crimes innommables et les États-Unis ont pris des mesures énergiques en réaction à l’emploi par le régime Assad d’armes chimiques interdites, en tirant 59 missiles sur la base aérienne syrienne d’où était venue cette agression meurtrière. Des nations responsables doivent œuvrer ensemble pour mettre un terme à la crise humanitaire en Syrie, éradiquer Daech et rétablir la stabilité dans la région, et ce le plus rapidement possible.

Les victimes du régime iranien qui souffrent depuis le plus longtemps sont les Iraniens eux-mêmes. L’Iran possède une histoire et une culture riches, mais les citoyens de l’Iran sont soumis à des souffrances et connaissent le désespoir sous le joug de leurs dirigeants lancés dans une poursuite effrénée du conflit et de la terreur. Jusqu’à ce que le régime iranien soit disposé à être un partenaire pour la paix, toutes les nations ayant une conscience doivent ensemble œuvrer dans le but d’isoler l’Iran, de priver ce pays des fonds qu’il consacre au financement du terrorisme –on ne peut le permettre– et de prier qu’advienne le jour où le peuple iranien aura le gouvernement juste et droit qu’il mérite tant. Les décisions que nous prenons auront un impact sur d’innombrables vies.

Votre Majesté, je vous remercie de l’organisation de ce moment historique, et je vous remercie de vos investissements massifs aux États-Unis, dans leurs industries, et leurs emplois. Je vous remercie de votre investissement dans l’avenir de cette région du monde.

Cette région fertile — et elle est vraiment fertile– possède tous les ingrédients pour une réussite extraordinaire – une histoire et une culture riches, un peuple jeune et dynamique, un excellent esprit d’entreprise. Mais cet avenir peut uniquement exister si les citoyens du Moyen-Orient parviennent à s’affranchir de l’extrémisme, de la terreur et de la violence.

Nous tous ici présents sommes les dirigeants de nos peuples. Ceux-ci se tournent vers nous pour obtenir des réponses et des actes. Et lorsque nous les regardons, nous voyons dans leurs yeux une âme qui aspire à la justice et à la paix. Aujourd’hui, ils sont des milliards à nous regarder, qui attendent que nous agissions sur la grande question de notre temps. Resterons-nous indifférents en présence du mal ? Allons-nous protéger nos populations de ses idéologies violentes ? Allons-nous laisser son venin se propager dans nos sociétés ? Allons-nous le laisser détruire les sites les plus sacrés de la Terre ?

Si nous n’affrontons pas cette terreur mortelle, nous savons ce que l’avenir nous réservera : davantage de souffrances, de morts et de désespoir. Mais si nous agissons, si nous quittons cette magnifique salle unis et déterminés à tout faire pour anéantir le terrorisme qui menace le monde, alors nos populations pourront bénéficier d’un avenir formidable qui ne connaîtra aucune limite.

Le berceau de la civilisation est prêt pour une nouvelle renaissance. Imaginez simplement de quoi demain pourrait être fait.

De magnifiques merveilles de la science, des arts, de la médecine et du commerce pour inspirer l’humanité. De grandes villes construites sur les ruines de bourgades anéanties. De nouveaux emplois et industries qui permettront à des millions de personnes de mieux vivre. Des parents qui ne s’inquièteront plus pour leurs enfants, leurs familles, et qui ne pleureront plus leurs êtres chers et les fidèles qui pourront enfin pratiquer leur religion sans crainte. Ce sont là les bienfaits de la prospérité et de la paix. Ce sont là les désirs qui brûlent d’une flamme vertueuse dans le cœur de chaque être humain. Et ce sont aussi les exigences légitimes des populations que nous chérissons.

Je vous demande de vous joindre à moi, de nous rassembler, d’œuvrer de concert et de combattre ensemble, parce que tous unis, nous ne pourrons pas échouer. Personne, absolument personne ne peut nous vaincre.

Merci. Que Dieu vous bénisse. Que Dieu bénisse vos pays. Et que Dieu bénisse les États-Unis d’Amérique. Je vous remercie.

 Ce que l’attentat de Manchester nous apprend de l’évolution de la stratégie de l’Etat islamique

L’attaque terroriste qui a frappé un concert d’Ariana Grande à Manchester a fait 22 morts et 59 blessés. Une attaque « révoltante » qui a touché « de jeunes personnes sans défense » selon les mots de la première ministre Theresa May. L’attentat a depuis été revendiqué par le groupe Etat Islamique mais beaucoup de questions restent encore sans réponse.

Atlantico

24 Mai 2017

Atlantico : Quels sont les enseignements que l’on peut tirer de l’attaque terroriste qui a touché Manchester ? Peut-on imaginer que cette attaque soit le fruit d’une cellule de l’Etat Islamique sur place ?

Alain Rodier : Il convient de rester prudent. L’enquête en cours nous apprendra beaucoup de choses dans les jours à venir.

Il n’est même pas exclu que nous soyons confrontés à de fausses pistes. Selon les déclarations des autorités britanniques, le kamikaze (Salman Ramadan Abedi né en 1994 en Grande Bretagne) serait d’origine libyenne issu d’une famille très pieuse.  Il aurait séjourné en Libye – pour le moment sans autres de précisions -.

La revendication de Daech pose plus de questions qu’elle n’apporte de réponses. Elle ne mentionne pas de « martyr » et parle de plusieurs explosions alors qu’il n’y en aurait eu qu’une. Cela entendu, l’organisation Daech n’a jamais revendiqué une action terroriste qui n’avait pas de lien (même ténu) avec elle.

Etant donnée la relative sophistication de l’attaque (confection de l’explosif – vraisemblablement du TATP -, choix de la cible et du moment auquel il convenait d’agir), il est probable que nous ayons affaire à une cellule clandestine qui comportait au moins un « professionnel » du terrorisme qui a été formé sur un théâtre de guerre extérieur. Soit c’est le kamikaze, soit c’est une tierce personne et là, c’est très inquiétant pour l’avenir. La suite de l’enquête nous apportera vraisemblablement des précisions à ce sujet.

Est-ce qu’il y avait là une volonté spécifique de cibler à a fois la jeunesse et le Royaume-Uni selon vous ?

Je ne pense pas que c’est la « jeunesse » qui était particulièrement visée. Le terroriste a surtout choisi une « cible molle », un spectacle à Manchester moins protégé que Londres. Son but était de faire un maximum de victimes. Il a décidé de se faire exploser lors de la sortie du public au moment où la surveillance est plus relâchée. La charge contenait des shrapnels (des bouts de métal tels que des boulons et des clous) pour causer le plus de dégâts humains possibles. L’objectif final consistait à frapper l’opinion. Que le public soit constitué des « jeunes » est un hasard. Le terroriste aurait très bien pu s’en prendre à un match de football et les observateurs n’auraient pas dit que c’étaient les hooligans qui étaient ciblés.

Si c’est bien l’Etat islamique qui a frappé Manchester hier soir, Al-Qaïda a renouvelé il y a peu ses intentions de frapper l’Occident. Qu’est-ce que cela peut laisser présager pour l’avenir ? 

Depuis des semaines, Daech et Al-Qaida « canal historique » rivalisent à qui lancera le plus d’appels au meurtre sur les réseaux sociaux. Par exemple, le 17 mai, Daech publiait une vidéo où des volontaires américain, canadien, britannique, russe et belge appelaient leurs concitoyens à passer à l’action là où ils se trouvaient. Hamza Ben Laden, un des fils préféré de l’émir d’Al-Qaida « canal historique » aujourd’hui décédé, publiait presque au même moment deux messages appelant à faire de même. Une petite différence entre les objectifs des deux mouvements : Al-Qaida « canal historique » fait une fixation sur les Etats-Unis alors que Daech vise l’ensemble de l’Occident et la Russie. Il convient de rappeler que pour ces deux mouvements salafistes-djihadistes, leurs premiers ennemis à abattre sont les dirigeants des pays musulmans considérés comme des « corrompus ». Pour la petite histoire, les deux formations se livrent une guerre d’influence qui s’étend aujourd’hui jusqu’en Extrême-Orient où ils s’arrachent les partisans du groupe Abou Sayyaf (Philippines) et du Jihad Islamiyah (Indonésie). L’Occident et la Russie ne sont que des « ennemis lointains » à atteindre quand cela est possible.

La période extrêmement pénible que nous vivons va durer car les dirigeants des mouvements salafistes-djihadistes conçoivent leur combat dans la durée. Ils savent très bien qu’ils ne connaîtront pas le « califat mondial » qu’ils appellent de leurs voeux mais ils préparent les nouvelles générations à prendre leur relève pour atteindre un jour le but qu’ils se sont fixé.

Voir encore:

Goodbye ISIS, Hello Losers

President Trump just gave ISIS its new name: Losers. (Short for Evil Losers).

If you think that’s no big deal, you’re wrong. It’s a big deal. This is – literally – weapons-grade persuasion from the most powerful Master Persuader of our time.

As I have taught you in this blog, President Trump’s clever nicknames for people are not random. They are deeply engineered for visual impact and future confirmation bias.

In this case, the visuals will be provided by future terror attacks. That reinforces the “evil” part, obviously. But more importantly, the Losers will be doing nothing but losing on the battlefield from now until “annihilation.” They are surrounded, and the clock is ticking. Oh, and the press isn’t allowed to watch the final battles. In other words, we won’t need to build new holding cells on Guantanamo Bay this time. No press means no prisoners, if you know what I mean. (American soldiers won’t be shooting the prisoners. We have allies for that sort of thing.)

As you know, “annihilation” of the Losers in Loserdom won’t stop the loser’s ideas from spreading. You still have to kill the ideas. And that takes persuasion, not bullets. President Trump just mapped out the persuasion solution: Evil Losers.

Quickly, name one other way you could label/insult the Losers that would be as powerful as the word Loser. You can’t do it with any other name or insult that is also repeatable in polite company.

What kinds of people join the Losers? Mostly young males. And you know what brand young males do not want on them? Right: Losers.

If you call them monsters, they like it. If you call them ISIS or ISIL they put it on a flag and wave it around. If you call them non-Muslim, it just rolls off their backs because they have Korans and stuff. Almost any other “brand” you can imagine is either inert or beneficial to Loser recruitment.

Loser is different. No one joins the Loser movement. Try at home, with your family or friends, to concoct a more effective brand poisoning than Loser. You probably can’t. Remember, your brand has to fit with future confirmation evidence. The Losers on the battlefield will continue to be losing, so the brand is engineered to get stickier over time. Your alternative idea for a brand solution has to have that quality of future confirmation too. Good luck finding a better persuasion brand.

This is not accidental. President Trump does (laugh if you will) have the best words, at least for this sort of thing. He’s proven it over and over. Just ask Jeb, Ted, and HIllary.

As a mental experiment, imagine the CEOs of the major browser companies, including Google, Apple, Microsoft, and the open source products getting together to stop the spread of Loser propaganda. They could collectively decide to program their browsers to auto-convert ISIS or Al-Quaeda or other cool terror names to Evil Losers. If all the browser products agree, that’s all your teenager in Europe will see as he tries to self-radicalize. That would, in time, end recruitment for Losers.

An hour ago you believed there was no way to stop the spread of the ideas behind terrorism. I just told you how to do it by the end of the week. While I don’t expect the browser companies to take my suggestion, I do expect some of you will realize for the first time how winnable the war of ideas is.

So long as your Commander in Chief is also a Master Persuader.

Otherwise you’re out of luck.

America, as it turns out, has lots of luck left in it.

You haven’t seen anything yet. We’re just getting started.

Voir enfin:

Cet ancien tweet assassin de Trump sur l’Arabie Saoudite lui revient en pleine figure

« Les Saoudiens, ce n’est que de l’esbroufe, ce sont des tyrans, des lâches »…

21/05/2017

Claire Tervé

AFP

ÉTATS-UNIS- Le temps passe mais les tweets restent, encore et toujours. Donald Trump est en voyage en Arabie Saoudite où il a signé pour plus de 380 milliards de dollars d’accords, samedi 20 mai. Accompagné de son épouse Melania et de sa fille Ivanka, le président des États-Unis a été reçu par le roi Salmane en personne sur un tapis rouge avant de s’entretenir longuement avec lui. Le but: resserrer les liens entre les deux pays.

Une décision de Donald Trump qui peut faire sourire lorsque l’on jette un œil sur son compte twitter et que l’on remonte quelques années en arrière. Le 11 septembre 2014, il tweetait ainsi:

« Les Saoudiens, ce n’est que de l’esbroufe, ce sont des tyrans, des lâches. Ils ont l’argent, mais pas le courage ».

Un souvenir qui n’a visiblement pas été oublié, alors que le président s’inclinait face au roi Salmane le 20 mai pour recevoir une distinction.

« Et vous vous inclinez devant l’Arabie Saoudite, lâche, vous lui léchez les bottes ».

Et ce n’est pas la première fois que Donald Trump se prends en pleine face ses anciennes critiques virulentes sur twitter alors qu’elles ne correspondent plus du tout à ses actes.

Pour exemple cette série de tweets qui dénonçaient à l’été 2016 la mise en danger des Etats-Unis par Hillary Clinton pour sa mauvaise gestion d’informations classifiées alors qu’il est aujourd’hui lui-même mis en cause pour avoir révélé des informations sensibles à la Russie.

De même pour sa critique à l’encontre de Michelle Obama en janvier 2015 lors du voyage présidentiel en Arabie Saoudite. La First Lady s’était présentée les cheveux lâchés, à l’instar de Laura Bush à son époque.

Si l’épouse de l’ex-président des Etats-Unis, avait été applaudie pour sa décision, Donald Trump avait, lui, écrit: « De nombreuses personnes disent que c’était merveilleux que Mme Obama refuse de porter un foulard en Arabie, mais (les Saoudiens) ont été insultés. Nous avons déjà assez d’ennemis ».

Une fois encore, un petit souvenir du président américain qui fait aujourd’hui sourire alors que Melania Trump et Ivanka se sont présentées, cheveux aux vent, au roi Salmane le 20 mai.

11 Responses to Discours de Riyad: Jetez les dehors ! (In far more politically correct answer to Obama’s Cairo speech, coward and hypocrite Trump calls Muslims to drive out the terrorists and extremists out of their midst)

  1. jcdurbant dit :

    CANNES S’ENGAGE COURAGEUSEMENT CONTRE LE TERRORISME… NEONAZI ! (After the time of mourning and injustice, here comes the time of revenge)

    Cette histoire est jolie : la rencontre, le rôle que j’attendais de l’Allemagne. L’héroïne est très éloignée de moi. Physiquement, bien sûr, mais pas seulement : je n’ai pas d’enfants, j’ai quitté l’Allemagne il y a longtemps… Katja restera longtemps en moi : j’ai gardé mes cheveux courts, juste après Cannes je vais me faire tatouer une ancre, qui est le symbole d’Hambourg… Je crois que ce rôle est arrivé dans ma vie au bon moment. J’avais besoin d’être loin de tout, et de retrouver mes racines allemandes. Je sais bien que ce n’est pas un film facile, avec la question des attentats néonazis, mais il ne laisse pas indifférent. Il parle de choses malheureusement très actuelles. Tout ce que je peux espérer, c’est que les gens soient touchés parce que, finalement, même s’il y a un fond politico-­social, le film explore surtout la question du deuil. Comment font ceux qui restent ? J’ai l’impression d’avoir tout donné pour ce film, il a bien failli me tuer ! C’est l’une des seules fois de ma vie où je me suis sentie aussi vidée.

    https://www.grazia.fr/cannes/diane-kruger-fatih-akinm-a-mise-au-defi-855983

    Le 26 mai, Fatih Akin, l’enfant prodige du cinéma allemand, a présenté à Cannes son nouveau long-métrage. Pour In the Fade, il s’est inspiré d’un scandale qui a renvoyé l’Allemagne de ce début du XXIe siècle à de vieux démons : ceux de la NSU, un groupuscule néonazi qui, entre 2000 et 2007, aurait tué dix personnes, dont huit d’origine turque, perpétré deux attentats à l’explosif et quinze attaques à main armée. Les enquêteurs ayant longtemps suivi la seule piste de règlements de compte communautaires, en raison de l’origine étrangère des victimes, l’existence de la NSU n’a été connue du public qu’en 2011, quand deux des membres du trio se sont suicidés après un braquage raté. Encore aujourd’hui, des interrogations subsistent sur les dysfonctionnements qui ont enrayé le travail de la police et de la justice.

    Ces dernières années, la télévision allemande a courageusement exploré le sujet, diffusant plusieurs documentaires et une mini-série remarquée, Mitten in Deutschland : NSU. Mais qui, mieux que le Germano-Turc Fatih Akin, le réalisateur encensé de Head-On et De l’autre côté, pouvait transposer cette douloureuse affaire sur grand écran ? Outre-Rhin, la presse ne mâche pas sa déception. Assassin, Der Spiegel va jusqu’à comparer In the fade à “un médiocre Tatort”, en référence aux téléfilms policiers que la télévision publique diffuse chaque dimanche soir depuis 1970. Pour les Allemands, qui ont pu suivre toute l’affaire à la une de leurs journaux (le procès de la survivante du trio, Beate Zschäpe, est toujours en cours à Munich), l’intrigue ne tient tout bonnement pas la route. L’hebdomadaire en vient à supposer, à l’instar du Tagesspiegel, que le film a d’abord été tourné pour un public international.

    In the fade démarre alors que Katja (Diane Kruger) interpelle une femme blonde qui vient de laisser son vélo devant les bureaux où travaille son mari. Katja, d’origine turque, conseille à l’inconnue d’attacher sa bicyclette : elle risque d’être volée, le quartier n’est pas sûr. L’inconnue s’esquive. Sur son vélo, elle laisse une bombe. Dans l’explosion périront le mari et le fils de Katja, qui va dès lors se lancer dans une quête de justice. Pour elle comme pour la police, nul suspens : les néonazis sont responsables. Très vite, une suspecte est arrêtée, son procès commence. “Mais pourquoi aller si vite en besogne ?”, regrette Der Spiegel :

    Pourquoi ne pas exposer le racisme éhonté et structurel qui a, de façon insupportable, si longtemps empêché la résolution des crimes de la NSU ? C’est l’une des nombreuses décisions problématiques que prend Fatih Akin dans son film. À plusieurs reprises, il vide [ainsi] ‘In the fade’ de sa dimension politique et de sa complexité.”

    Une autre décision problématique, selon Der Spiegel : le choix de Diane Kruger en tête d’affiche. Certes, la performance de l’actrice est remarquable. Mais pourquoi avoir confié à une blonde aux yeux bleus le rôle d’incarner la souffrance des familles des victimes de la NSU, d’origine grecque ou turque ? “Cela ressemble fort à cette stratégie hollywoodienne qui consiste à employer des acteurs blancs pour raconter l’histoire de personnes de couleur”, considère l’hebdomadaire de Hambourg.

    http://www.courrierinternational.com/revue-de-presse/cannes-2017-fade-de-fatih-akin-malaise-de-la-critique-allemande

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5723272/

    J'aime

  2. jcdurbant dit :

    THE SHERIFF’S BACK IN TOWN

    The takeaway from Trump’s trip is that America is the superpower. With Obama and his magical thinking gone, and a president willing to flex some muscle in his place, Europe is responding. Trump’s refusal to join the rest of the G7 on climate change Saturday was met with willingness to keep trying to bring him on board. Before the trip, foreign-policy graybeard Robert Gates, secretary of defense under President George W. Bush and Obama, said on Face the Nation that American foreign policy needs “disruption.” As Trump arrives back in his home in Washington, he can tell his critics the world agrees…

    https://spectator.org/trump-flexes-u-s-muscle-world-takes-notice/

    J'aime

  3. jcdurbant dit :

    MERCI QUI ?

    Doha abrite bel et bien une demi-douzaine de financiers du terrorisme, comme le relèvent plusieurs rapports officiels américains. Contrairement à l’Arabie saoudite et aux Émirats, le Qatar n’a jamais affiché une politique foncièrement hostile à l’égard de l’Iran, pays avec lequel Doha partage un immense champ gazier dans les eaux du Golfe persique. «Le Qatar n’a jamais eu une lecture chiite-sunnite des événements qui se passent au Moyen-Orient», souligne ainsi un diplomate. Soutenus par Donald Trump, Saoudiens et Emiriens ont fait de l’Iran leur ennemi numéro un. Dans la foulée de la visite du président américain à Riyad il y a un mois, Riyad et Abou Dhabi avaient accusé l’émir du Qatar Cheikh Tamim d’avoir tenu des propos désobligeants à l’égard de ses voisins et d’avoir minimisé la menace iranienne. ..

    http://www.lefigaro.fr/international/2017/06/05/01003-20170605ARTFIG00045-le-qatar-mis-en-quarantaine-par-ses-voisins-du-golfe.php

    http://orientxxi.info/magazine/reprise-de-la-guerre-froide-du-golfe,1883

    http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20170603-le-qatar-recourt-fbi-enquete-le-piratage-son-agence-presse?ref=tw_i

    J'aime

  4. jcdurbant dit :

    WHAT RUSSIAN COLLUSION ? (Plausible deniability cuts both ways: Guess who let Russian forces deploy to Syria in Sept 2015 for the first time since the Cold War and who is now working hard to diminish Russian power – including their mercenaries – in Syria and throughout the Middle East ?)

    Russia was able to accrue its power in the Middle East through its intervention in Syria on behalf of the Bashar Assad regime and his Iranian overlords. Russia felt free to deploy its forces to Syria in September 2015 – for the first time since the Cold War — due to Obama’s strategic shift away from America’s Middle East allies and towards Iran. U.S. moves on the ground signal strongly that America’s goal is to diminish – with the hope of eliminating – Russia’s power in Syria.

    On February 7, several hundred Russian forces — mercenaries from Wagner, a Kremlin-linked military contractor — joined Syrian elite forces from the Russian-trained ISIS Hunter unit, along with Iranian advisors. Together, this force of 500 crossed the Euphrates from west to east into Syria’s Deir al-Zour province. The zone they entered is designated a neutral area under a deal forged between the Russian military and the U.S.-led coalition. Their target area was Khusham village, which is located on the outskirts of the Conoco oil field. The U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) liberated the Khusham and the oil fields area from ISIS in late 2017. SDF retained control over the area, along with much of eastern Syria. Indeed, as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson noted earlier this month, U.S. forces and their SDF allies control some 30 percent of Syrian territory, largely located east of the Euphrates. On the night of February 7, U.S. forces attached to the SDF detected the Russian-led force and warned the Russian military that if the attacking troops failed to withdraw to the other side of the river, the U.S. would attack them. Rather than comply with the American directive, the Russian-led attackers advanced to within three miles of the U.S.-SDF position, attacking it with mortars, rockets, artillery and tanks. The US responded to the assault with a massive air assault, which included fighter jets, and helicopter and artillery fire. According to Reuters, between eighty and hundred Russian mercenaries were killed. Two hundred were wounded. One hundred Syrian forces were also killed. The Russian wounded were transported back to Russia on military aircraft. They are being treated in military hospitals.

    Sources close to the Wagner mercenaries told Reuters that the Russian-led force was taken by surprise by the Americans’ decision to attack them. Under the Obama administration, the U.S. did not respond when Russia and its partners attacked U.S.-backed forces in battle after battle. This distinction, by itself, would prove Sanders’s claim that the Trump administration is tougher on Russia than the Obama administration. But it would be a mistake to view the strike as a mere demonstration of resolve. It exposed that the Trump administration is determined to dramatically reduce Russia’s power in Syria. The U.S. has good reason to view Russia’s empowerment in Syria as a direct threat to its interests. Until the first Russian military personnel and assets landed in Syria in September 2015, the U.S. was the unquestioned superpower in the region. Since September 2015, Russia has supplanted the U.S. as the most powerful force in Syria. Moscow’s emergence as the power broker there has in turn required U.S. allies in the Middle East to seek independent arrangements with Russia to minimize the damage Russia’s entry into the region exacts on their security and national interests.

    The U.S. airstrike against Russian-led forces by Khusham undermined all aspects of Russia’s strategy for maintaining its position in Syria. Russia’s strategy in Syria has three major components. First, Russia seeks to limit its official footprint. To cultivate the perception that Russian involvement in Syria is more limited than it actually is, Moscow has employed mercenary forces, most prominently Wagner. The problem with plausible deniability is that it cuts both ways. Just as Moscow is able to disavow actions undertaken by Russian mercenaries, so, too, the U.S. can attack Russian mercenaries, causing grave harm to Russian power and interests, while denying that it was targeting Russian assets in Syria.

    That is precisely what happened on February 7. The day after the attack Mattis said, “It makes no sense [that Russian forces would attack US forces]. It does not appear to be anything coordinated by the Russians. I think the Russians would’ve told us [if they were involved].” Not wishing to acknowledge that their forces initiated an attack against a U.S. position, the Russians were unable to retaliate against the U.S. and its SDF allies in a meaningful way. The reason the Russian-led force took the risk of attacking the U.S. position at all owes to the second component of Russia’s strategy in Syria. The February 7 strike undermined this component in a fundamental way. According to media reports, the goal of the Russian-led assault was to seize the Conoco oil field on the outskirts of Khusham. As Israeli strategist Dr. Guy Bechor explained in an analysis of the U.S. airstrike, published on his Hebrew language website, the monetary cost of Russia’s war in Syria is becoming prohibitive. With oil now selling for $60 a barrel, Russia is running short on cash. To pay for its operations, the Russian regime oversaw financial deals between Assad’s regime and its private military companies. Wagner signed a deal that gives it 25 percent of the revenues from oil fields its seizes and holds. The problem with Russia’s economic strategy is that the vast majority of Syria’s major oil fields and refineries are located in the area controlled by the U.S. and its SDF allies. Seizing them requires Wagner to fight and defeat the U.S. and the SDF. By all but annihilating Wagner’s forces at Khusham, the U.S. blocked Russia’s primary means of financing its war in Syria.

    The third component of the Russian strategy in Syria is arguably the most problematic from Russia’s perspective. Fighting in recent weeks around Idlib, Deir Azour, Damascus, Homs and Aleppo and in other locations previously seized by Russian-supported Syrian, Iranian, and Hezbollah forces demonstrates that the Assad regime is not able to maintain control over territory it seizes. Rather, it is required to fight over and over for the same territory. The Syrian forces killed on February 7 were among the most elite fighters in Assad’s army. According to Bechor, the troops killed were members of the Alawite, Druse, and Christian minority sects. These communities are loyal to the regime because they have no choice. If Assad falls, the Alawites, like the Christians and Druse, rightly assume they will be wiped out by his successors. And yet the level of losses they absorbed from the U.S. strikes was unprecedented and demoralizing, and augers ill for their continued capacity to fight. As reports of the number of Russian casualties began surfacing in the global and Russian media in the days following the February 7 battle, the Kremlin issued statement after statement denying the reports of high casualties and insisting that if Russian nationals were killed, the government knew nothing about why they were in Syria or how they died. This move was a bid to maintain the Kremlin strategy of plausible deniability. On Tuesday, under increasing pressure from the families of the dead and wounded Wagner mercenaries, Russia’s Foreign Ministry finally admitted that “several dozen” Russian forces were killed in Syria and that the regime had provided them transport back to Russia. The official announcement did not state where or when the forces were killed, and continued to disassociate the dead with the Russian government. Tuesday’s statement was, in many ways, an acknowledgment that Russia’s strategy of plausible deniability had been defeated. By causing massive, undeniable damage to the mercenary forces, the U.S. pushed the Kremlin into a corner, trapped between its strategy and the Russian public’s outcry and demand for answers.

    Some commentators argue, reasonably, that the U.S. strategy in Syria is too limited. For instance, while the U.S. defends its SDF allies in the Deir a-Zour province, it has provided no assistance to its SDF/YPG allies in Afrin province, which has been under Turkish assault for the past month. Although the criticism has merit, the fact is that the U.S. has limited resources in Syria. Whereas the U.S. has only two thousand soldiers in Syria, Iran controls more than 82,000 troops in the country. The U.S. needs to conserve its resources and carefully limit its operations to targets that give it the highest return on its investment.

    Catherine Glick

    http://www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/02/22/unlike-obama-trump-walks-walk-russia/

    J'aime

  5. jcdurbant dit :

    WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD ! (Now they tell us: Will the deadly threat from their fellow nazislamists next door force the Saudis to finally come to their senses and dump their age-old antisemitism to become a normal country ?)

    “I believe that each people, anywhere, has a right to live in their peaceful nation. I believe the Palestinians and the Israelis have the right to have their own land. But we have to have a peace agreement to assure the stability for everyone and to have normal relations… Iran’s supreme leader is the Hitler of the Middle East. In the 1920s and 1930s, no one saw Hitler as a danger. Only a few people. Until it happened. We don’t want to see what happened in Europe happen in the Middle East. »

    Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman

    https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2018/04/mohammed-bin-salman-iran-israel/557036/

    J'aime

  6. jcdurbant dit :

    NEGOCIATE OR SHUT UP

    « In the last several decades the Palestinian leadership has missed one opportunity after the other and rejected all the peace proposals it was given. It is about time the Palestinians take the proposals and agree to come to the negotiations table or shut up and stop complaining. »

    Mohammed Ben Salman

    https://www.axios.com/saudi-crown-prince-tells-jewish-leaders-palestinians-should-take-what-they-are-offered-or-stop-complaining-1525025098-e7f0faf8-4f3f-442c-8478-6737ddb5a553.html

    J'aime

  7. jcdurbant dit :

    WHAT WORLD ORDER ? (Trump’s presidency is a reflection, not a catalyst, of the demise of the post-war world order he’s supposed to have wrecked).

    Empirically speaking, neo-Ottoman Turkey is a NATO ally in name only. By any standard of behavior — Ankara just withdrew its ambassador from the U.S. — Turkey is a de facto enemy of the United States. It supports radical Islamic movements, is increasingly hostile to U.S. allies such as Greece, the Kurds, and Israel, and opposes almost every foreign-policy initiative that Washington has adopted over the last decade. At some point, some child is going to scream that the emperor has no clothes: Just because Turkey says it is a NATO ally does not mean that it is, much less that it will be one in the future. Instead, Turkey is analogous to Pakistan, a country whose occasional usefulness to the U.S. does not suggest that it is either an ally or even usually friendly.

    There is nothing much left of the old canard that only by appeasing China’s mercantilism can there be a new affluent Chinese middle class that will then inevitably adopt democracy and then will partner with the West and become a model global nation. China is by design a chronic international trade cheater. Trade violations have been its road to affluence. And it seeks to use its cash as leverage to re-create something like the old imperial Japanese Greater East Asia co-prosperity sphere. U.S. trade appeasement of Beijing over the last decades no more brought stability to Asia than did nodding to Tokyo in the 1930s.

    There is also nothing sacred about the European Union. It certainly is not the blueprint for any continental-wide democratic civilization — any more than Bonaparte’s rigged “continental system” (to which the EU is on occasion strangely and favorably compared to by its proponents). The often-crude imposition of a democratic socialism, pacifism, and multiculturalism, under the auspices of anti-democratic elites, from the Atlantic to the Russian border, is spreading, not curbing, chaos. The EU utopian mindset has altered European demography, immigration policy, energy production, and defense. The result is that there are already four sorts of antithetical EUs: a renegade and departing United Kingdom, an estranged Eastern European bloc worried over open borders, an insolvent South bitter over front-line illegal immigration and fiscal austerity, and the old core of Western Europe (a euphemism now for German hegemony).

    As for Germany, it is no longer the “new” model West Germany of the post-war order, but a familiar old Germany that now pushes around its neighbors on matters of illegal immigration, financial bailouts, Brexit, Russian energy, and NATO contributions, much as it used to seek to expand Prussia and the Sudetenland. German unification now channels more the spirit of 1871 than of 1989. Call the new German attitude “Prussian postmodernism” — a sort of green and politically correct intimidation. Likewise, in terms of the treatment of German Jews, Germany seems more back in the pre-war than in the post-war world.

    As far as the U.S., Germany has redefined its post-war relationship with the America on something like the following three assumptions: 1) Germany’ right to renege on its promise to spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense in order to meet its NATO promises is not negotiable; 2) its annual $65 billion surplus with the U.S. is not negotiable; 3) its world-record-busting account surplus of $280 billion is not negotiable. Corollaries to the above assumptions are Germany’s insistence that NATO in its traditional form is immutable and that the present “free” trade system is inviolable.

    Soon, some naïf is going to reexamine German–American relations and exclaim “there is no there.”

    The post-war energy norm ended about ten years ago. The U.S. by next year will be the world’s largest producer of natural gas, oil, and coal — at a time of real progress in all types of hybrid engines. Israel does not need the Middle East’s — or anyone else’s — oil or natural gas. The Persian Gulf is now mostly a strategic concern of Iran and its archrival Gulf monarchies selling their oil to China and Europe, neither of which so far has the naval power to protect the precarious fonts of its energy interests.

    The Palestinian issue of the last 75 years is ossified. If the millions of persons displaced in Europe and the Middle East between 1946 and 1950 — at about the same time as Palestinians left present-day Israel —were not considered “refugees” for decades, then Palestinians can hardly be singular sufferers. Perpetual victimhood is not a basis for a national agenda, much less a blank check for endless, virtue-signaling Western aid. Moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem was simply an iconic recognition of what has been true for nearly a decade.

    The West Bank’s rich Arab patrons now fear Iran more than they do Israel. The next Middle East war will be between Israel and Iran, not the Palestinians and their Arab sponsors and Tel Aviv — and the Sunni Arab world will be rooting for Israel to defeat Islamic Iran.

    Even nuclear proliferation no longer quite follows the post-war boilerplate of the anxious West clamoring for non-proliferation, rogue regimes getting nukes with a wink and nod of either the Chinese or Russians, and then the world assuming “once a nuclear nation, always a nuclear nation.”

    Instead, if there is a next round of proliferation, it will likely be among democratic nations — Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia — to counter the failure of Western nations, the U.N., and international associations to stop proliferation by the unhinged. They will seek deterrence against regimes that were nuclearized and supported by Russia and China in the past. Likewise, it is not written in stone that North Korea or Iran will always have nuclear weapons, given their isolated economies’ vulnerability to sanctions and blockades, their international unpopularity, and the costs that will be imposed upon their stealthy patrons.

    Finally, we’re seeing the end of the old truism that the U.S. was either psychologically or economically so strong that it could easily take on the burdens of global leadership — taking trade hits for newly ascendant capitalist nations that ignored trade rules, subsidizing the Continental defense of an affluent Europe, rubber-stamping international institutions on the premise that they adhered to Western liberalism and tolerance, and opening its borders either to assuage guilt or to recalibrate a supposedly culpable demography.

    Historic forces have made post-war thinking obsolete and thereby left many reactionary “experts” wedded to the past and in denial about the often-dangerous reality before their eyes. Worse is the autopilot railing for the nth time that Donald Trump threatens the post-war order, undermines NATO, is clueless about the EU, or ignores the sophisticated institutions that hold the world together.

    About the only metaphor that works is that Trump threw a pebble at a global glass house. But that is not a morality tale about the power of pebbles, but rather about the easy shattering of cracked glass

    VDH

    https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/05/post-war-order-over-not-caused-by-trump-foreign-policy/

    J'aime

  8. jcdurbant dit :

    ERCI QUI ? (Saudi Arabia abolishes mandatory hijab law, effective tomorrow)

    J'aime

  9. jcdurbant dit :

    GROW UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE (In a historic first, Saudi official berates Palestinians on their long record of deception and betrayals complete with support of Hitler and Saddam, but are the Saudis preparing their own people for a soon-coming normalization with Israel ?)

    « The reason why I decided to speak tonight was that in recent days, I have heard shocking statements quoted from the Palestinian leadership. At first, I refused to believe what I heard, then a day or two later I saw it with my own eyes on TV.

    Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas: They have turned their backs on everything: the rights of the Palestinian people, the Palestinian state, the two-state solution, and the holy city of Jerusalem which was already annexed and it was already declared. They deny all this and say “we come to you with a stop to annexations, be happy Palestinians.”

    Palestinian official Saeb Erekat: A poisoned stab in the back of the Palestinian people and an attempt to try and get around international legitimacy.

    Prince Bandar bin Sultan: What I heard from Palestinian leadership in recent days was truly painful to hear. This low level of discourse is not what we expect from officials who seek to gain global support for their cause. Their transgression against the Gulf states’ leadership with this reprehensible discourse is entirely unacceptable.

    However, if we want to look at it from a different perspective, it is not surprising to see how quick these leaders are to use terms like “treason,” “betrayal,” and “back stabbing,” because these are their ways in dealing with each other. Gaza Strip leaders [Hamas], who have seceded from the PA [Palestinian Authority] to govern Gaza independently, accuse the West Bank leadership of treason, while at the same time, West Bank leadership accuses separatist Gaza Strip leaders of stabbing them in the back.

    Efforts in the past years would have been better focused on the Palestinian cause, peace initiatives, and protecting the rights of the Palestinian people to reach a point where this just, albeit robbed, cause can finally see the light, and when I say robbed, I mean both by Israel and Palestinian leaders equally.

    My first reaction was anger. However, after giving it some thought, my anger turned into sadness and hurt. I recalled events I was witness to related to the Palestinian cause from 1978 to 2015. I would like to give a short overview of the positions of the Saudi leadership and the Saudi State towards Palestine in the period from 1939 to 1978.

    These events I want to talk about today.

    And frankly my words today are directed at my brothers and sisters, Saudi Arabian citizens, because they are my priority and they are the priority for their country and our guardian King Salman, God bless him, and his Crown Prince, Prince Mohammed [bin Salman].

    But these are the customs of the Saudi leadership from the time of the founder, King Abdulaziz, and the kings who followed him up until the current King Salman.

    But I would like to give a brief overview of the positions of the Saudi leadership, of the Saudi state, toward Palestine during the period between 1939 to 1978.

    It is the right of the Palestinian people, and the right of the Arab people, for Israel to withdraw from the Arab lands it occupied in the year 1967, and for the Palestinian people to return to their homeland

    They highlight that peace is the basis, but [it should not be] at the expense of the rights of the Palestinian people.

    A single drop of Palestinian blood is more precious than the earth’s treasures and all that they contain.

    We reaffirmed our firm position towards the restoration of all legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.

    I was not a direct witness to that period or involved in it by virtue of my work. However, this brief covering the period from 1939 to 1978 is all documented and well known. The knowledge I have about that period is from documents that I had access to after I entered the diplomatic and political service to serve my country. I have also heard it from people who lived through that period, such as the late King Fahd, King Abdullah, Prince Sultan and Prince Naif, may God have mercy on them all, and other Saudi officials. I also heard it directly from the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques, King Salman, who has close ties with all Palestinian officials, because we are all concerned with the Palestinian cause, which we consider both a national and a just cause.

    However, allow me to start by saying some things that can give context to my words and why I am saying them.

    The Palestinian cause is a just cause, but its advocates are failures and the Israeli cause is unjust, but its advocates have proven to be successful. That sums up the events of the last 70 or 75 years. There is also something that successive Palestinian leadership historically share in common; they always bet on the losing side, and that comes at a price.

    Amin al-Husseini in the 1930s was betting on the Nazis in Germany, and we all know what happened to Hitler and Germany. He was recognized by Germany, Hitler, and the Nazis for standing with them against the Allies when Berlin’s radio station broadcast recordings by him in Arabic, but that was all he got, which was no good as far as the Palestinian cause was concerned.

    Moving forward in time, no one, especially us in the Gulf states, can forget the image of Abu Ammar [Yasser Arafat] as he visited Saddam Hussein in 1990 after the occupation of Kuwait. An Arab people occupied and Kuwait, alongside the other Gulf states, had always welcomed the Palestinians with open arms and was home to Palestinian leaders. Yet we saw Abu Ammar in Baghdad, embracing Saddam, and laughing and joking with him as he congratulated him for what had happened. This has had a painful impact on all the peoples of the Gulf, especially on our Kuwaiti brothers and sisters, specifically the Kuwaitis who stayed in Kuwait and resisted the occupation.

    Months later, as another example of failure in choosing sides, the battle for the liberation of Kuwait begins and Saddam Hussein strikes the capital of Saudi Arabia with missiles. That was the first time anybody launched missiles at the capital of Saudi Arabia. Even Israel did not launch missiles at the Kingdom. We were the ones, by the way, who bought these missiles for Saddam to support him in his war against the Persians.

    Another shock followed when we saw deluded youths in Nablus dancing joyfully in celebration of the missile attack on Riyadh, holding pictures of Saddam Hussein. These incidents cannot be forgotten, but we rose above them, not for the sake of the Palestinian leaders, but for the Palestinian people.

    From 2011 to date, our dear neighbor, Egypt, and the Egyptian leaders, from the time of Hosni Mubarak, may God rest his soul, to His Excellency President Sisi, have held conference after conference to reconcile the West Bank and Gaza, and the Palestinian authority and Hamas. How can this be? How can we speak in the name of all Palestine, and convince others to support our cause, when we ourselves are not united, and when the Palestinians are divided amongst themselves? However, history repeats itself and the facts are hard to ignore. This is not the first time they have disagreed, stabbed each other in the back, and accused each other of being traitors.

    King Abdullah, may he rest in peace, while Prince Sultan was Crown Prince, brought Abu Mazen and his followers, and Khaled Mashal and his Hamas followers, to Mecca in order to reconcile them and form a unified Palestinian leadership to achieve positive results. They stayed at the official residence for guests in Mecca. Picture this: The Saudi delegation, headed by the late Prince Saud bin Faisal, and its members: Prince Muqrin, the late Ghazi Al Gosaibi, Mr. Ibrahim Al-Assaf and myself. We were going back and forth, visiting Abu Mazen and his group on the one hand and the Hamas delegation on the other. But our visits were not like [US former Secretary of State Henry] Kissinger’s between Damascus and Tel Aviv or Cairo and Tel Aviv, we were going up and down between the hotel’s twelfth and fourteenth floors. It took a day and a half until we were able to reach an agreement that satisfied both parties.

    Then, they went to meet King Abdullah. After he checked what they had written and read it in front of everyone and asked them to vow before God and in front of everyone that they agree to this deal, he asked them to shake hands and congratulated them, saying, “God is our witness, and we are in his holy land. Saud, take the brothers to the Kaaba and let them pledge their word before God and before the Palestinian people.”

    Only a few days after they left Saudi Arabia, we received news they had already gone back on their word and started conspiring and plotting against each other once again.

    I believe that we in Saudi Arabia, acting on our good will, have always been there for them. Whenever they asked for advice and help, we would provide them with both without expecting anything in return, but they would take the help and ignore the advice. Then they would fail and turn back to us again, and we would support them again, regardless of their mistakes and of the fact that they knew they should have taken our advice. We even went further as a state and justified to the whole world the actions of the Palestinians, while we knew that they, indeed, were not justified, but we did not wish to stand with anyone against them, nor did we wish to see the consequences of their actions reflected on the Palestinian people. This has always been the policy of the Saudi leadership. I think this has created a sense of indifference on their side, and they have become convinced that there is no price to pay for any mistakes they commit towards the Saudi leadership or the Saudi state, or the Gulf leaderships and states.

    I think the circumstances and times have changed, and I think it is only fair to the Palestinian people to know some truths that have not been discussed or have been kept hidden.

    Who are the allies of the Palestinians now? Is it Iran, which is using the Palestinian cause as a pretext at the expense of the Palestinian people? Is it Iran and Khomeini, who want to liberate Jerusalem through Yemen, Lebanon, and Syria? The path to Jerusalem is known, that is if they truly wish to take it. Or is it Turkey, which Hamas leaders have thanked for its stance in support of Hamas and the Palestinian cause? That is simply because Erdogan announced that he was withdrawing his ambassador from the UAE in support of the Palestinian cause. Can anyone explain to me why Hamas leaders, instead of asking Erdogan to withdraw the Turkish ambassador from the UAE and pay to fly him back home, why they did not ask him to expel the Israeli ambassador from Ankara and call back the Turkish ambassador from Tel Aviv?

    These people, as I have said before, are disillusioned, and in the undisputed words of God the Almighty: “Indeed, Allah will not change the condition of a people until they change what is in themselves.” So far, they are undoubtedly a major reason behind the setbacks the Palestinian cause has faced.

    In 1939, the British Mandate decided to hold a conference in London and invited the Jews who were in Palestine, alongside the Palestinian leadership and some Arab countries, including Saudi Arabia. Our delegation was headed by Prince Faisal and included Prince Khalid, may their souls rest in peace. Both the Jews and the Palestinians rejected the offer made by the English. The Arab States, including Saudi Arabia, supported the Palestinians in their rejection.

    Shortly after, Britain entered World War II, and Palestine became a secondary issue to them. Meanwhile, armed groups, which we call armed gangs, were formed in Israel and were attacking Palestinian civilians, assassinating and murdering them, and carrying out acts of terrorism. Palestinian resistance groups were also struggling for the freedom of their country.

    In 1945, shortly before the end of World War II, the late King Abdulaziz met with the late President Roosevelt and, and the Palestinian cause took up much of the discussion. This was in February 1945. A couple of weeks later, in March 1945, King Abdulaziz sent a lengthy letter to President Roosevelt to put down in writing what he had said to him verbally, and to get an answer. President Roosevelt replied. All these documents exist, and I am presenting them to the Saudi citizens so as to inform them of how Saudi Arabia’s stance towards Palestine was formed before all the events that have happened.

    Two more events took place in 1945. The first was the founding of the League of Arab States with five or six members, including Saudi Arabia.

    Newsreader: “To lay the foundations for an alternative Islamic state to the Ottoman caliphate.”

    The second was the founding of the United Nations after the end of World War II. From 1945 to 1947, the English decided to withdraw and end the Mandate in Palestine. They began trying to find a compromise between the Jews and the Palestinians, one that the Arabs would support in order to bring some calm to the region. They could not reach a solution agreeable to all sides. So they resorted to the United Nations Security Council that had been formed only two years earlier. At that time, the Security Council was comprised of the US, the Soviet Union, France and Britain. The permanent members have the power to enforce any decision they make, and their veto is absolute. They voted on the partition Resolution 181, and from there on out, a certain way for dealing with events related to the Palestinian issue started taking shape and being repeated time and again.

    The Jewish delegation was divided into two parts. One part officially agreed to the resolution, because it would establish two states in Palestine, one Palestinian and one Jewish. It was not a resolution that would completely guarantee Palestinian rights, but it would establish two internationally recognized states to become members of the General Assembly of the United Nations. The second part of the Jewish delegation rejected Resolution 181 and was planning to continue to carry out terrorist and subversive operations against Palestinian citizens. The two groups were in agreement, and one of them accepted the resolution and as a result, a Jewish State called Israel was recognized, which became a Member of the United Nations. As for the Arab side, the Palestinians rejected the resolution, and as usual, we supported their rejection.

    Many years later, the main demand of our Palestinian brothers has been UN resolution 181, which is no longer on the table. No one is discussing it now. This was the beginning, and such events, as I mentioned, were repeated once, twice, and three times.

    Then, the 1948 war took place as a result for the suffocation of the Palestinian people, and the Arab League countries decided to help them.

    King Abdulaziz had specific advice to the brothers in the Arab League based on two points:

    The first point was that Arab countries neighboring Palestine must not allow Palestinians to immigrate. Palestinians must remain on their land because if they immigrate, they will end up in refugee camps. King Abdulaziz believed that even if there was a need for camps, they should be on Palestinian soil, not anywhere else, and history has proven his opinion correct. Now, Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan are full of refugee camps. What if these refugee camps were inside Palestine? Just imagine how different the situation would have been in the country over time.

    The second point on which King Abdulaziz, God rest his soul, based his opinion was that the Arab countries have a duty to support the Palestinians at home with money and arms, and to open the door to those of their citizens who wished to join the resistance. This was in an effort to encourage Arab immigration to Palestine similar to the Jewish immigration to Palestine.

    Both points were rejected. Since the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia is of the principle that God stands with those who are united, and those who stand divided are doomed to fail, we followed them down this tragic path and their decisions led everyone into the fire.

    Between 1948 and 1956, two powerful permanent members of the Security Council, Britain and France, and a third power being Israel, led the tripartite aggression against Egypt. The aggression failed for two reasons.

    The first reason is that the US and President Eisenhower rejected this aggression and demanded the withdrawal of the attacking forces and cessation of the attack. The Soviet Union had the same stance, so the attackers had no choice but to withdraw.

    The second reason is Egyptian national resistance at home. President Abdel Nasser, God rest his soul, chose to back the resistance in the cities of the Canal, instead of pushing the Egyptian army into an uneven war against two superpowers.

    A piece of information often left out is that a result of the Tripartite Aggression and the occupation of the Suez Canal by France and Britain was Israel occupying all of Sinai. Britain and France withdrew, and Israel insisted that it would only withdraw at a price. What did it demand? First, lifting the embargo imposed by the Arab countries, especially Egypt as the largest country, and opening the Gulf of Aqaba so ships can move to and from the Israeli port of Eilat. Second, having international emergency forces monitor the Egyptian-Israeli borders. This point is important because one of the sparks that set off the 1967 war, besides Israel’s intent to go on an all-out war, was when Egypt closed the Gulf of Aqaba and the emergency forces were withdrawn. The result was the Six-Day War, which was a great catastrophe for the Arab nation and Egypt, in particular, as well as the Palestinian people and their cause.

    Why did the Nakba of 1967 happen? Because President Abdel Nasser, God rest his soul, made a strategic decision that was based on inaccurate or false information from the military leadership that existed at the time. He had an inaccurate idea about the situation of his troops on the ground. The result of that is known. The result of 1967: Sinai was occupied by Israel, Gaza was occupied by Israel, the West Bank was occupied by Israel, the Golan was occupied by Israel and, most importantly, Jerusalem was lost. So, if this is not a historical disaster and a terrible defeat in every sense, then I do not know what is. However, Abdel Nasser, may God have mercy on his soul, from the day the Six-Day War ended until he died in 1970, did two things:

    The first is that he did everything in his power to rebuild the Egyptian military.

    The second thing was the effort he exerted to save the Palestinians from themselves, because the Palestinians were largely present in Jordan, with Abu Ammar’s leadership based there, and they decided for one reason or another that it was time to liberate not Palestine, but Jordan. They decided to take over Jordan. Among those who defended Jordan was the King, the Jordanian army, the Jordanian people, and the Saudi army. Yes, the Saudi army, which has participated in all Palestinian-Arab wars with Israel.

    In 1948, although we advised that it was better for the Palestinians to remain in their land while we provided them with arms, money, and men; it did not come to be. They decided to go to war and King Abdulaziz ordered the Saudi Army to enter the war with them on the Egyptian front. Fighting alongside their Egyptian brothers, the Saudi Army entered Palestinian land and did very well. Egyptian leaders commended their bravery at the time as well.

    Three thousand Saudi soldiers were on the Egyptian front and inside Palestine. In this war, 150 Saudis were martyred. At the time, the Saudi army had just been established and had limited capabilities, but the armies that had been created before it had limited capabilities as well. As a result of all this, Palestinians were forced to immigrate again from Jordan to Lebanon. They had only been in Lebanon a few years when they began to behave as they did in Jordan, and Lebanon became the new target. With the Palestinians in Lebanon, the Palestinian war led to the civil war, the price of which Lebanon is paying to this day. The war resulted in the Israeli invasion, and for the first time, they reached an Arab capital.

    In 1967 … despite in the early 1960s, there was a strong disagreement between the Kingdom and Egypt regarding Yemen, and when the aggression against Egypt took place in 1967, Egyptian airplanes had been striking Jizan and Najran in the Kingdom from Yemeni land only weeks earlier. When the aggression took place, the Kingdom offered to support Egypt with anything in our power. They asked us to host the Egyptian Air Force units that were in Yemen and for some of the airplanes that they sent to Sudan to be hosted in Jeddah, and we agreed.

    I remember an incident that would highlight to the Saudi citizens the ethics of their leaders, in contrast with some unethical members of the Palestinian leadership. The late Mansour Shuaibi, the Jeddah district commander, suggested to Prince Sultan, the then minister of defense, that we take pictures and record the presence of Egyptian planes in the Kingdom, so that if a second dispute with Egypt should take place, we would publish the evidence of the help we extended to them. Prince Sultan replied that he would ask King Faisal, God rest his soul. King Faisal was very angry at the request and refused to do such a thing while our Egyptian brothers were facing an Israeli aggression. He refused to gloat and he made sure General Mansour was informed that if any of the men was caught taking a picture; his hand would be cut off. This is how Saudis stand by their Arab brothers.

    The Saudi army was mobilized in Tabuk and moved to the Jordanian front, which is the closest area to us. We wanted to aid our Arab brothers within our capabilities. By the time they entered Jordan, the war was over.

    King Hussein and Abdel Nasser requested that Saudi troops remain in Jordan and they did remain from 1967 to 1973. So, you see, we took part in every battle. When the war of 1973 took place, Jordan took a sovereign decision not to enter the war. The last time it entered the war, the West Bank and Jerusalem were lost, they did not want to take any more risks. Egypt and Saudi Arabia respected King Hussein’s decision. King Faisal said that our forces could stand by on the front and simply observe what is happening. He ordered that the forces be sent to Syria. Indeed, the forces in Jordan went to Syria and fought alongside their Syrian brothers on the Golan front in the 1973 war and clashes until the cease-fire. The Saudi forces remained in the Golan from 1973 to 1978 or 1979. We do not need anyone to patronize us about aiding the Arab nations and helping to carry the weight of their misfortunes. We share with our brothers and help them achieve success for the Arab nation, and we also stand with them in their dark times, through words as well as actions. This is what Saudi citizens need to understand.

    Why do I say this, and why now particularly? Because at this time, the situation has changed completely from what it used to be. Now in the information age, the majority of the world’s citizens get their news from Facebook, the Internet, social media, and so on. No one reads newspapers anymore except a few, and television programs are sometimes dishonest, and just as a reminder, some channels give messages that are false and that direct hatred against the Gulf countries and their leaders, such as Al Manar and the other Iranian channels such as Al-Jazeera, which represents Qatar. Qatar, to be honest, is on the margins. The Qatari people are our dear and beloved brothers. The state, however, is not worth a mention or a reaction whatsoever. The best thing is to do is to ignore it. Surely, you all know that they say ticks can drive camels mad. That is true, but my brothers and sisters, ticks are ticks and camels will always be camels, and that sums it up from my point of view.

    In 1967, there were zero settlements in the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan, and Sinai.

    In 1970, three years later, there were about 30,000 in the West Bank.

    In 1973, the year of the Ramadan War and the October War, there were over 100,000.

    In 1978, when the Camp David peace treaty was signed, there were about 300,000, according to various data sources.

    Today, there are more than 600,000 settlers.

    While the Arabs were preparing for war, such as the war in which the Arab dignity and honor were restored by the Egyptian army, and Egypt went to Camp David, meanwhile, the initiative of UN Resolution 242 was presented and rejected by the Palestinians. The Camp David agreement was rejected by the Palestinians and by the Arabs. It became the mistake that played a major role in deepening the Palestinian tragedy, as the Arab nation boycotted Egypt, the mother of the world, because the Palestinians rejected the autonomy provisions in the Camp David Treaty and considered this peace treaty a betrayal to the Arab nation.

    What was Israel doing during this period? It built settlements, occupied more land, and strengthened itself and its army. They were fighting us on all fronts, paying attention to major details and leaving the minor issues behind. Who cares for the support of North Korea? Israel was working on increasing its influence, while the Arabs were busy with each other. The Palestinians and their leaders led these disputes among the Arabs.

    After the Oslo Accord, I asked Abu Ammar, God rest his soul – and as they say remember the virtues of your dead – what he thought of the autonomy provisions in the Camp David Treaty. He said, “Bandar, Camp David’s autonomy provisions were ten times better than the Oslo Accord.” I said, “Well, Mr. President, why did you not agree to it?” He said, “I wanted to, but Hafez al-Assad threatened to kill me and to drive a wedge among the Palestinians, turning them against me.” I thought to myself, so he could have been one martyr and given his life to save millions of Palestinians, but it was as God willed it. »

    Prince Bandar bin Sultan (former Saudi ambassador)

    J'aime

  10. jcdurbant dit :

    HISTORY SHOWS (This happened time and time again but you have never heard a Saudi official discussing it, but I say this now for the Saudi citizens, our young men and women, so they can be aware of what happened)

    « A lot of people may ask, “What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Nicaragua and the Contras?” The truth is that we had nothing to do with them, but we had interests. If you asked anybody back then in the streets of Riyadh, Jeddah or Al-Jouf about the Contras or Nicaragua, they would tell you that they are the names of diseases or something else. They had nothing to do with us, but there was a strategic relation that only a person who thinks strategically could see. »

    Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz

    « Abu Ammar had included 10 conditions the US had to accept in order for him to approve the UN resolutions 242 and 338 and recognize that all the countries of the region have the right to live in peace. Prince Fahd said to himself that even the Soviet Union did not set any conditions for the US; does he really believe that the US will agree to his conditions? (…) This happened time and time again but you have never heard a Saudi official discussing it. Did you ever hear any Saudis talking about what that happened in 1977, 1978 through 1990 when the Palestinians supported Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait, or as a response for them going out in the street and waving photos of Saddam Hussein in Nablus when Riyadh was hit with missiles? (…) In 1985, as I was the Saudi ambassador to the US, President Reagan asked me to ask Prince Fahd for a favor for him. The favor was that they had a problem in Nicaragua, where Congress was supporting the Contras but had to cut their aid due to partisan disputes between the Republicans and the Democrats. This took place during a sensitive stage of the war in Nicaragua and the Americans thought that Saudi Arabia could help fill this gap for two months. They asked me to pass the request on to King Fahd, who told me to convey his approval and express our readiness to help. He said, “Bandar, this is an investment with Reagan, and one day I’ll withdraw my investment.” I did as I was told and Reagan was very happy. A lot of people may ask, “What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Nicaragua and the Contras?” The truth is that we had nothing to do with them, but we had interests. If you asked anybody back then in the streets of Riyadh, Jeddah or Al-Jouf about the Contras or Nicaragua, they would tell you that they are the names of diseases or something else. They had nothing to do with us, but there was a strategic relation that only a person who thinks strategically could see. For King Fahd, Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviet Union and we supported the Jihadis there, while the Americans approved of this position. So, we had to make sure the Americans would continue to support us until the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. We had interests here, they had interests there. We wanted to secure their continued support in Afghanistan. (…) He went to South Yemen and North Korea, with whom we did not even have ties. He also visited countries in Africa and Asia before arriving in the Kingdom. After all this time, the Americans said that they were no longer interested. Many things had happened and their focus had shifted. (…) What I am trying to say is that there were always new opportunities but they were always lost. (…) The Oslo Accords took place, and Abu Ammar said the Camp David agreement was ten times better than Oslo. A lost opportunity. He asked them to go back to the self-rule agreement but they said that it was off the table and there was a new deal. What’s so painful is that it was the Palestinian people who suffered the most from this tragedy. I say this now for the Saudi citizens, our young men and women, so they can be aware of what happened. They should be proud of the positions taken by their nation and leadership. History shows and documents bear witness to what happened, and now I have shared it with you. »

    Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz

    Interview transcript part two

    Extract from part one: “My first reaction was anger. The Palestinian cause is a just cause, but its advocates are failures, and the Israeli cause is unjust, but its advocates have proven to be successful – I recalled events I was witness to.”

    “Between late 1977 and early 1978, the late Prince Fahd (at that time) visited President Carter, where they discussed the Palestinian cause, as Saudi leaders became accustomed to not meeting anybody without the Palestinian cause dominating half, if not three quarters, of the discussions. King Fahd was trying to encourage President Carter to do something and get the Palestinian cause moving. Carter expressed his readiness to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) as the representative of the Palestinian people, open a PLO office in Washington, and allow US diplomatic officials to start holding talks with Palestinian officials. In exchange, the PLO had to recognize the United Nations Resolutions 242 and 338 and declare that all the countries of the region have the right to live in peace.

    King Fahd, who was the Kingdom’s Crown Prince at that time, returned home and asked Abu Ammar [Yasser Arafat] to visit him in Taif, and he did. King Fahd told him about President Carter’s offer, saying that they were just four lines that needed to be written down and signed by Abu Ammar before being handed to the American ambassador, while a specific time will be set the day after for both parties to announce the agreement at the same time.

    Then something happened which I saw with my own eyes … I did not witness these discussions but I was later told about them directly by King Fahd, Prince Saud and President Carter. I saw Abu Ammar dancing, laughing, and saying, “Palestine is free.” Prince Fahd told him that “we were just getting started and Palestine will hopefully be free,” then asked him if he was ready to sign. Abu Ammar said that he is ready but asked for some time to fly to Kuwait and discuss with his comrades before coming back the second day for the announcement.

    Prince Fahd told him that he could simply use the phone to call and inform them but Abu Ammar preferred to go meet them directly in person. Prince Fahd then suggested asking the Emir of Kuwait to fly them on board an airplane to Saudi Arabia the same night so Abu Ammar could discuss with them and get moving the second day but, once again, Abu Ammar asked for a chance to go to Kuwait and Prince Fahd agreed. So, he went to Kuwait and no one heard from him for several days, while the American ambassador was calling Prince Saud and informing him that Washington was waiting. At the end, he informed him that all of President Carter’s advisers were against the offer, while Carter insisted on keeping his word as this opportunity should not be lost. Ten days later, Abu Ammar’s written response arrived. In it, he thanked King Fahd, and attached to it was the official written letter sent to President Carter as agreed. Prince Fahd reviewed the letter and noticed that Abu Ammar had included 10 conditions the US had to accept in order for him to approve the UN resolutions 242 and 338 and recognize that all the countries of the region have the right to live in peace. Prince Fahd said to himself that even the Soviet Union did not set any conditions for the US; does he really believe that the US will agree to his conditions?

    One of the officials present with King Fahd then told him that he had done his part and that this was the response of the Palestinian brothers, which he should on pass to the US and see what happens. Prince Fahd disagreed and said that: “If this letter is delivered to the Americans, it will be leaked to everyone, the press and congress, which will push the anti-Palestinian groups to attack them and make the situation worse, while we are trying to make a positive change. Let’s keep Abu Ammar’s letter here and write a letter from me to Carter, saying ‘The Saudi government has studied the offer and considered it from all sides but your offer did not convince us, Mr. President, and therefore we will not hand it over to the Palestinians.’ Give the letter to the American ambassador so he can deliver it to President Carter. Because we are ready to take responsibility vis-a-vis the Americans for not facilitating the process; we do not want the Palestinians to be held responsible for the failure.”

    This happened time and time again but you have never heard a Saudi official discussing it. Did you ever hear any Saudis talking about what that happened in 1977, 1978 through 1990 when the Palestinians supported Saddam’s occupation of Kuwait, or as a response for them going out in the street and waving photos of Saddam Hussein in Nablus when Riyadh was hit with missiles? No, because we have an objective, which is to serve the Palestinian people because we believe that their cause is a just one. However, it is not our fault that God gave them such leaders. As I already mentioned, we are dealing with a just cause with bad advocates, while the Israelis are dealing with an unjust cause with successful advocates, whether we like it or not. This is the reality and the results on the ground.

    In 1985, as I was the Saudi ambassador to the US, President Reagan asked me to ask Prince Fahd for a favor for him. The favor was that they had a problem in Nicaragua, where Congress was supporting the Contras but had to cut their aid due to partisan disputes between the Republicans and the Democrats. This took place during a sensitive stage of the war in Nicaragua and the Americans thought that Saudi Arabia could help fill this gap for two months. They asked me to pass the request on to King Fahd, who told me to convey his approval and express our readiness to help. He said, “Bandar, this is an investment with Reagan, and one day I’ll withdraw my investment.” I did as I was told and Reagan was very happy. A lot of people may ask, “What does Saudi Arabia have to do with Nicaragua and the Contras?” The truth is that we had nothing to do with them, but we had interests. If you asked anybody back then in the streets of Riyadh, Jeddah or Al-Jouf about the Contras or Nicaragua, they would tell you that they are the names of diseases or something else. They had nothing to do with us, but there was a strategic relation that only a person who thinks strategically could see.

    For King Fahd, Afghanistan was occupied by the Soviet Union and we supported the Jihadis there, while the Americans approved of this position. So, we had to make sure the Americans would continue to support us until the Soviet Union left Afghanistan. We had interests here, they had interests there. We wanted to secure their continued support in Afghanistan.

    In 1986, King Fahd asked me to propose to President Reagan to do something to help the Palestinian cause. I went and met with President Reagan. I informed him that the Palestinians now agreed to UN Resolution 242, which they had rejected in 1973. This took place during the period between King Fahd’s initiatives in 1981 and 1982. They did not agree to the 1981 initiative in Fez because they objected to the point that expressed “the right of all regions to live in peace”, which was later approved in Oslo. As I have told you, history repeats itself. They’ve always say that we do not support them but we know that we are protecting them. Then they come and say that they accept an offer that is no longer on the table and so on. The grey hair that I have is because of them and their lost opportunities, and thinking how we had certain circumstances and we had a strong influence that could have enabled us to do something.

    Anyway, President Reagan agreed but the Secretary of State [George] Shultz did not. I later learned that Shultz was not aware of the arrangement we had made with Reagan concerning the Contras so I told him about it. I took a letter saying that if the Palestinians recognize UN Resolution 242, just like in Carter’s offer, denounce terrorism and recognize the right of the region’s states to live in peace, Reagan was ready to recognize the PLO and hold talks with it. I left and called King Fahd and told him about the offer. “Are you sure?” He asked. I told him that I had the letter written and signed so he told me to go ahead with the plan and asked me to head to Tunisia to deliver the letter to Abu Ammar directly. I went there and met Abu Ammar, may God have mercy on his soul, where I saw what they told me had happened after Carter’s offer. Abu Ammar stood up as usual, and said, “Palestine is free!” and he started dancing and kissing and hugging me. It is well known to everyone that Abu Ammar always loved to kiss people. I asked him about the announcement date so he can go meet with [Jordan’s] King Hussein to hold a joint declaration and so on. “Not possible,” he replied. “How is it not possible? This is what you asked for and we got it for you,” I said. He replied, “I follow an Arab code of ethics.” I said, “Absolutely, now go for it and don’t waste another opportunity.” He then proceeded to tell me that he first needed to go to Saudi Arabia to thank King Fahd for what he had done before going to King Hussein. I assured him that King Fahd did not doubt his feelings and if he went to King Hussein, made the declaration first and got the desired response from the Americans, King Fahd would warmly welcome him. This he refused. I agreed to let him go to the Kingdom, and when he requested a plane I told him he could use the plane I came on to go to Jeddah. He took the plane and we did not see him for a month. He went to South Yemen and North Korea, with whom we did not even have ties. He also visited countries in Africa and Asia before arriving in the Kingdom. After all this time, the Americans said that they were no longer interested. Many things had happened and their focus had shifted.

    In Lebanon, there was an attack targeting the Palestinians in South Lebanon, while the Syrian Army in Tripoli surrounded Abu Ammar. King Fahd was upset by the Israelis attacking and killing Palestinians in South Lebanon. He ordered me to go and deliver an urgent letter to President Reagan, saying that the US must take a stand. I went and met with the Secretary of State Shultz to tell him that the King wanted this message quickly delivered to President Reagan that same night. He said he would do it but also informed me that according to Reagan’s policy, Shultz had the authority to directly go to the pressroom at the State Department and condemn Israel and its operations against the Palestinians and ask them to stop. I was overjoyed, however, he said he would do so on the condition that I accompany him and condemn the Syrians for targeting the Palestinians and ask them to stop. I thought to myself, this cause is so unfortunate, every time there’s a glimmer of hope, something new comes up, just as [Saudi Arabia’s] Prince Khalid Al-Faisal once said. I told Shultz that we were asking the US to take a stand against Israel and that we would work things out with the Syrians. What I am trying to say is that there were always new opportunities but they were always lost.

    During King Fahd’s visit to the US in 1985, two incidents took place:

    The first incident happened on the first day of the visit. King Fahd’s meetings with President Reagan were all positive and an official banquet was scheduled that night. We were happy because they had launched a new initiative and were exerting efforts that later resulted in Shultz meeting with Abu Ammar in Geneva. When the king got back to his residence that day, President Reagan’s National Security Adviser [Robert McFarlane] called me asking for a copy of the speech King Fahd was going to deliver that night. I agreed to send him the speech and asked if it is possible for them to send us a copy of the president’s speech. He apologized saying that in line with the tradition of the US government, the president’s speech cannot be circulated and will later be distributed to the press. To be honest, I wasn’t that concerned, but doubt started to creep in. When I told King Fahd about the entire exchange, he agreed to me sending them a copy of his speech. We attended the dinner, the entire Saudi delegation, and the president was sitting with King Fahd at the table. As I was seated to the right of the vice-president, George Bush senior at the time, King Fahd started waving at me. Bush saw him and told me. So, I stood up and walked over to the king. It was an official dinner attended by around 150 guests, half of whom were journalists. I was wearing the Saudi national dress, and when I stood up people noticed and were wondering why I was going to speak with the king. King Fahd then asked me to go outside, call for the national security adviser and tell him that the king wanted the president to delete the entire paragraph related to the Middle East from his speech. “If he refuses, I will say something in response to that paragraph. The president will not like it and this visit will turn into something negative,” he added. I was about to ask him what he meant but he told me to just go. I went outside and started trying to get McFarlane’s attention before stopping one of the attendants, who went in and told him to meet me outside. He came to me, asked if everything was OK, and I conveyed the king’s request. “What happened? How did the king know about this paragraph in the speech?” he asked me. “I do not know. The king did not tell me anything,” I replied. He then asked me if it was serious and I assured him it was because King Fahd does not joke in serious times, he only smiles, but beware his smile when he is upset. McFarlane went back to his table, took a menu, wrote something on the back and passed it to one of the attendants to give to President Reagan. The president read it, gave his speech to the same attendant to pass it to McFarlane who took a pen and started crossing out the relevant paragraph before passing the speech back to Reagan. As I was still standing outside, McFarlane looked at me to signal me that it was done, and I passed the message to King Fahd, who just nodded his head. The vice-president asked me what had happened but I told him that I had no idea. President Reagan delivered his speech. He thanked the king and praised the bilateral relations that date back to President Roosevelt and King Abdulaziz, in line with the usual speech between the US and Saudi. He then added that “I know that the king encourages the youth and sports and that you have football teams visiting other countries. I wish you a successful visit and that you feel comfortable in our country.” People applauded. Then the king stood up, and without taking his speech out of his pocket, said the same things, thanked the president for his hospitality and spoke of the bilateral relations since the time of King Abdulaziz and Roosevelt’s mandate, and then paused before adding “You are right Mr. President. We love to encourage the youth and sports, especially football. We have two young teams, one in Beijing, China and the other in Moscow, in the Soviet Union. The truth is that young people should be encouraged to be athletic. Thank you for the hospitality.” He sat back down, while the whole Saudi delegation including Prince Saud, was looking at me as if they were asking me about what had happened because the speech was originally full of talk of the Middle East! I said nothing. We finished and King Fahd asked Prince Saud Al-Faisal and myself to accompany him. We got in the car, he did not say a word. When we arrived at the residence, he turned towards Prince Saud and asked him if he had liked his speech. Prince Saud replied, “You are always right.” He did not ask me anything.
    When the king got to the residence, he asked for me. He wondered if I was curious to know what had happened and I said yes. He explained by saying that “The Minister of Media told me that the speech will be broadcast live in the Kingdom and I wanted to give you guidance as to what your first reaction should be because as soon as you leave here you will receive many phone calls, the first of which will be from Prince Abdullah, Prince Sultan, Prince Salman and Prince Naif. You tell them that you do not know anything and I will talk to them when I come back. All I can tell you is that this is because of you, it has been on my mind ever since you told me that they refused to give us the president’s speech in advance. When we attended the dinner, I asked the interpreter how he would interpret my speech and he told me that the Embassy had provided him with an English version. I said ‘Ok, but what about the president? How will you translate his speech into Arabic?’ He told me that he had an Arabic version of the president’s speech. I asked him if I could see it but he apologized saying that he had instructions and no one was allowed to see the speeches until after they were delivered. Then I changed my mind and spoke with Reagan in my limited English, but which got the message across. He asked them to give me a copy of the speech. He turned to the interpreter and asked him if he had an Arabic version of the speech and to show it to me.” This was not a sensitive matter for Reagan. It was normal for him.

    The paragraph on the Middle East started as such: “President Carter, President Sadat and Prime Minister Begin made history with the Camp David agreement. I hope that the Israeli Prime Minister, you, and I can make history once again.” This was the paragraph the king wanted removed. The king’s speech had parts about the Palestinian cause saying that it was a political one and that we wanted justice and peace through UN resolutions. The king said that since they had omitted their paragraph, we omitted ours. Everybody was wondering why King Fahd was talking about football and the Saudi teams in China and Russia under these sensitive circumstances. If the reasons were known, these questions would subside. As soon as I left, I was informed that the crown prince had called me along with Prince Sultan, Prince Naif and Prince Salman. I went and replied to all of them that I did not know anything. We had a speech, but then the king spoke in his own words.

    What I mean to say is that we do not have false promises and empty slogans to sell to the people. We have positions and actions. If we look at the years from 1985 to 1993, the Palestinians were negotiating the Oslo Accords without informing the Egyptians. The late Hosni Mubarak told me in person that “After they had reached an agreement and before going to the Americans to set a date for the signature ceremony and the mutual recognition between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Rabin requested to meet me and I was made aware of the agreement by Rabin before the Palestinians even told us. I told Rabin that what is important is that they had reached an agreement. Can you believe that Bandar?” I replied by telling him that we have a saying that means that the leaders are wiser, “You are a president and those are also leaders. I cannot comment on what happened.”

    The Oslo Accords took place, and Abu Ammar said the Camp David agreement was ten times better than Oslo. A lost opportunity. He asked them to go back to the self-rule agreement but they said that it was off the table and there was a new deal. What’s so painful is that it was the Palestinian people who suffered the most from this tragedy. I say this now for the Saudi citizens, our young men and women, so they can be aware of what happened. They should be proud of the positions taken by their nation and leadership. History shows and documents bear witness to what happened, and now I have shared it with you.

    J'aime

Votre 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 )

Photo Google

Vous commentez à l’aide de votre compte Google. 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 )

Connexion à %s

Ce site utilise Akismet pour réduire les indésirables. En savoir plus sur la façon dont les données de vos commentaires sont traitées.

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :