Tag: Palestine


Balfour’s Greatest of Gifts: Caroline B. Glick, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2017— This week Israel’s judo team was harassed and discriminated against by UAE officials when they tried to board a flight from Tel Aviv to Istanbul, en route to Abu Dhabi to participate in the Judo Grand Slam competition.

The 100-Year-Old Promise: Clifford D. May, Washington Times, Oct. 31, 2017— In theory, who doesn’t believe in self-determination, the idea, developed in the 19th century, that all nations have a right to sovereignty?

British Élites Regret Israel's Very Existence: Giulio Meotti, Arutz Sheva, Oct. 24, 2017— The refusal of Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the English Labor Party, to attend the dinner in London for the centenary of the Balfour Declaration is the confirmation of what many have always suspected…

When Britain Renewed the Promise to the Jews ‘His Majesty’s Government View with Favour the Establishment in Palestine of a National Home: Ruth R. Wisse, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 2, 2017 — In the living room of our daughter’s home hangs a 4-by-6-foot Jewish flag designed by her paternal great-grandfather…


On Topic Links


The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration: Martin Kramer, Mosaic, June 5, 2017

Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi’s Cynical Use of Antisemitism: Mara Schiffren, Algemeiner, Oct. 27, 2017

From Balfour to Nikki Haley: A Century of Christian Zionist Support for Israel: Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman, Breaking Israel News, Nov. 1, 2017

The Historical Significance of the Balfour Declaration: Amb. Dore Gold, JCPA, October 31, 2017




BALFOUR’S GREATEST OF GIFTS                                                                                     

Caroline B. Glick

Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2017


This week Israel’s judo team was harassed and discriminated against by UAE officials when they tried to board a flight from Tel Aviv to Istanbul, en route to Abu Dhabi to participate in the Judo Grand Slam competition. Apropos of nothing, UAE told the Israelis they would only be permitted to enter the UAE from Amman. And once they finally arrived at the competition, they were prohibited from competing under their national flag. Lowlights of the UAE’s shameful bigotry included forcing Tal Flicker to receive his gold medal under the International Judo Association’s flag with the association’s theme song, rather than Israel’s national anthem playing in the background and the sight of a Moroccan female judoka literally running away from her Israeli opponent rather than shake hands with her.


The discrimination that Israel’s judokas suffered is newsworthy because it’s appalling, not because it is rare. It isn’t rare. Israeli athletes and performers, professors, students and tourists in countries throughout the world are regularly discriminated against for being Israeli Jews. Concerts are picketed or canceled. Israelis are denied educational opportunities and teaching positions. Israeli brands are boycotted and Israeli shops are picketed from Montreal to Brooklyn to Johannesburg. The simple act of purchasing Israeli cucumbers has become a political statement in countries around the world.


And of course, there is the world of diplomacy, where the nations of the world seem to have flushed the news of Israel’s establishment 70 years ago down the memory hole. The near-consensus view of UN institutions and to a growing degree, of EU institutions, not to mention the Arab League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, is that the Jewish exile should never have ended. The Jews should have remained scattered and at the mercy of the nations of the world, forever.


In the face of the growing discrimination Israelis suffer and rejection Israel endures, how are we to look at the centennial of the Balfour Declaration…? One hundred years ago, on November 2, 1917, Arthur Balfour, foreign secretary of Great Britain, detonated a bomb whose aftershocks are still being felt in Britain and worldwide. That day, Balfour issued a letter to Lord Walter Rothschild, the leader of the British Jewish community. The letter, which quickly became known as the Balfour Declaration, effectively announced the British Empire supported an end of the Jewish people’s 1,800-year exile and its return to history, as a free nation in its homeland – the Land of Israel.


In Balfour’s immortal words, “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object.” The Palestinian Arab leadership at the time rejected his statement. Shortly thereafter the Arabs initiated a terrorist onslaught against the Jewish community in the Land of Israel that has continued, more or less without interruption, ever since.


Indeed, for the Palestinians, nothing has changed. They have not moved an inch in a hundred years. PLO chief and Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas now demands that Britain officially renounce the Balfour Declaration and apologize for having issued it as if Lord Balfour was still foreign secretary and David Lloyd George was still prime minster. Their growing chorus of supporters at the UN, throughout the Islamic world, and in Europe is similarly stuck in 1917.


Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu doesn’t believe that the enduring Arab and international rejection of Israel’s right to exist mitigates the significance of the Balfour Declaration. Next week he will travel to London to participate in the centennial commemorations of the Balfour Declaration at the side of British Prime Minister Theresa May. May said on Wednesday that she is “proud” to commemorate the declaration. In her words, “We are proud of the role that we played in the creation of the State of Israel and we certainly mark the centenary with pride.” This was certainly nice of her. But May also felt it necessary to tip her hat to the Balfour haters. So she added, “We must also be conscious of the sensitivities that some people do have about the Balfour Declaration and we recognize that there is more work to be done. We remain committed to the two-state solution in relation to Israel and the Palestinians.”


This bring us back to the Palestinians, and the UAE, and the protesters who will be screaming out against Balfour and David Lloyd George from one end of Britain to the other next week demanding their declaration be withdrawn and history rolled back. These people are not fringe elements. They have lots of people in positions of power in Britain who agree with them. Britain’s main opposition party is being led by an ardent Israel-basher. Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn announced Monday that he will not be participating the Balfour centennial ceremonies. And that makes sense. It would be awkward for a man who was elected and reelected after calling Hezbollah and Hamas terrorists his “friends,” to be celebrating Britain’s role in establishing the state his friends are working to destroy.


Corbyn’s boycott, and his very rise to power, are clear signs that Balfour’s legacy is a mixed bag. Except that it isn’t a mixed bag. At a very deep level, Israel owes its existence to the Balfour Declaration. This is true not because the Balfour Declaration changed the way the world viewed the Jews. It manifestly did not – not in its own time, and not today. In fact it is richly ironic that the Palestinians and their supporters blame the British for the establishment of Israel. Shortly after the Balfour Declaration was issued, British authorities, particularly on the ground in the Middle East, did everything they possibly could to cancel it.


In 1920, British military officers asked the local Arab strongman Haj Amin al-Husseini to incite a pogrom in Jerusalem over Passover. Husseini’s thugs murdered four Jews and wounded many more. The purpose of the pogrom was to convince the British Parliament to cancel the Balfour Declaration. The plan didn’t work. Lloyd George and Balfour and their colleagues weren’t interested in abandoning their three year old declaration. Two years later the League of Nations established the British Mandate for Palestine on the basis of the Balfour Declaration. But the seeds of doubt were duly sown. Almost immediately after the League of Nations issued the Mandate, the British carved off three-quarters of the territory earmarked for the Jewish national home to create Trans-Jordan. It was largely downhill from there…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]                




Clifford D. May

Washington Times, Oct. 31, 2017


In theory, who doesn’t believe in self-determination, the idea, developed in the 19th century, that all nations have a right to sovereignty? By the early 20th century, President Woodrow Wilson was insisting that “National aspirations must be respected; people may now be dominated and governed only by their own consent.” In theory, self-determination is today a fundamental principle of international law. In practice, not so much. The Middle East’s 35 million Kurds have long wanted their own nation-state. They’re not about to get one anytime soon. The government of Spain is determined to quash the movement for Catalonian independence. China prohibits even discussions of Tibet’s right to break free.


What brings these issues to mind now? On Nov. 2 it will be exactly 100 years since the Balfour Declaration, the British Empire’s statement in support of the establishment of “a national home for the Jewish people” in Palestine, then a backwater of the soon-to-be-defeated Ottoman Empire. Britain’s promise enjoyed what historian Martin Kramer calls “buy-in” from the Allied Powers, including the U.S. and France, who fought the Central Powers, including Germany and the Ottomans, in what we retrospectively call World War I.


“In Palestine shall be laid the foundation of a Jewish Commonwealth,” President Wilson announced. French diplomat Jules Cambon wrote that it would be “a deed of justice and of reparation to assist, by the protection of the Allied Powers, in the renaissance of the Jewish nationality in that Land from which the people of Israel were exiled so many centuries ago.” The Zionist cause was soon endorsed by the broader international community as well. It was incorporated into the mandate for Palestine given to Britain by the League of Nations in the 1920s. Mr. Kramer notes: “Those who now cast the Balfour Declaration as an egregious case of imperial self-dealing simply don’t know its history (or prefer not to know it).”


Also too often forgotten or ignored is the fact that it was thanks to Britain and the other Allied Powers that Arab nation-states rose from the Ottoman ashes. Among them: Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar and Yemen. A related anniversary: On Nov. 29, it will be 70 years since the United Nations recommended partitioning western Palestine (the east became the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan) into two independent states, one Arab and one Jewish. Note: In that era, both Arabs and Jews were equally “Palestinian.”


Jewish leaders accepted partition. Arab leaders rejected it. In May 1948, upon termination of the British mandate, those Jewish leaders declared independence and won recognition from the U.S., the Soviet Union and other U.N. members. Five Arab nations launched what became known as the First Arab-Israeli War. The Arab League’s secretary-general, Azzam Pasha, promised it would be “a war of extermination and a momentous massacre which will be spoken of like the Mongolian massacres and the Crusades.”


But the Jews, who had nowhere else to go and the memory of the Holocaust fresh in their minds, managed to hold their ground. In February 1949 an armistice was declared. After that, Arab and Muslim nations might have granted their own Jewish communities basic rights and freedoms. They could then have made the case that the Jewish state was superfluous. Instead and vindictively, those Arab and Muslim governments more harshly persecuted their Jewish subjects, confiscating their properties and, before long, driving them out.


More than 800,000 Jews ended up fleeing Arab and Muslim countries. A majority were resettled in Israel where, over time, they strengthened the nation. Today, roughly half of all Israelis are descendants of Jews from the broader Middle East — Morocco to Iraq (Baghdad was close to a third Jewish as recently as 1945) to Afghanistan. Slightly fewer Palestinians, an estimated 700,000, fled Israel, many going to Arab countries that chose not to assimilate or even integrate them.


A third anniversary: In 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan waged another war intended to drive the Jews into the sea. The Israelis not only survived, they seized Gaza from Egypt, and the West Bank (earlier known as Judea and Samaria) from Jordan. Over the years since, the possibility of transforming these territories into an independent Palestinian state — the “two-state solution” — has been the basis for one peace plan after another. None has succeeded. I’d argue that the primary reason is that Palestinian leaders are still fighting wars of the past. They refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Israel under international law, the necessity for Israel given the durability of Jew-hatred, and the reality of Israel established and defended by “blood and iron.”


Throughout 2017, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and other Palestinian leaders have been denouncing the Balfour Declaration as a “crime,” demanding that the British renounce it and apologize for it. But British Prime Theresa May said last week that Britons are “proud of the role that we played in the creation of the State of Israel and we certainly mark the centenary with pride.” A separate British government statement asserted that the “important thing now is to look forward and establish security and justice for both Israelis and Palestinians through a lasting peace.”


Who doesn’t want self-determination for the Palestinians? Who doesn’t want to see Palestinians living in freedom and prosperity? That could have begun 70 years ago. It could begin tomorrow. In theory, it would require only willingness on the part of Palestinians to accept and peacefully coexist alongside the “national home for the Jewish people” envisaged by the Balfour Declaration. In practice, such a change of heart might be another hundred years away.                    




Giulio Meotti

Arutz Sheva, Oct. 24, 2017


The refusal of Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the English Labor Party, to attend the dinner in London for the centenary of the Balfour Declaration is the confirmation of what many have always suspected (for the occasion, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will be in the British capital to thank the UK for that gift made in 1917 to the Jewish people). The antipathy towards Israel by Corbyn and other important Western segments of the Left goes far beyond hostility towards Israeli “settlements”, as the leaders of the Left repeat. Corbyn and his comrades would like Israel to never have been born.


The leader of “Momentum” is often referred as a hooligan on the Israeli issue. But Corbyn's refusal to publicly support Israel's right to exist is in fact embraced by a substantial part of the British élite. They are government officials, MPs, filmmakers, journalists, intellectuals, academics, heads of non-governmental organizations, church leaders. England has first place in Europe for the academic boycott of Israel. English universities are often no-go-zones for Israeli students. English actors, such as Emma Thompson, are often in the front row signing petitions against “Zionism”. English newpapers, such as the Times and the Independent, host the most violent cartoons against Israeli leaders. And the English queen has never visited Israel.


It would make us comfortable if Corbyn's rejection of the centennial of Balfour, a rejection praised by Hamas, was the decision of the crazy guevarist mind out of step with time.  But that is not the case. Indeed, intellectual corbynism is within the British mainstream, it is the expression of the “chattering classes”, those who make the public opinion in the UK. That is why Mr. Corbyn is so dangerous. Because he is not a lunatic, but an aggregator and agitator of deep anti-Israeli feelings.





Ruth R. Wisse

Wall Street Journal, Nov. 2, 2017


In the living room of our daughter’s home hangs a 4-by-6-foot Jewish flag designed by her paternal great-grandfather, hastily sewn from blue and white material in his Montreal dry-goods store. In November 1917, on receiving news that the British government had just given its support for the establishment of a national home for the Jewish people in Palestine, Nathan Black strung the flag across his storefront and closed for the day. “Haynt iz a yontev,” he told his workers: “Today is a holiday.”


One hundred years ago on Nov. 2, Arthur Balfour, the British foreign secretary, sent a letter to Lord Walter Rothschild : “His Majesty’s government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.”


Known as the Balfour Declaration, it represented a diplomatic high point in the history of the Zionist movement founded by Theodor Herzl in 1897. Herzl realized that Zionism would have trouble achieving its political objective of establishing “a home for the Jewish people in Palestine secured under public law” without support from one or more of the empires laying claim to the Jewish homeland. His attempt to win that support, cut short by his death in 1904, was taken over by others, such as Chaim Weizmann and Nahum Sokolow. The latter’s role in securing the Balfour Declaration was recently brought to light by historian Martin Kramer. Other countries, including France and the U.S., were involved in the discussions over the disposition of Palestine, but the credit for this document was Britain’s. At least on that score credit is deserved.


The Balfour Declaration was a landmark in the political life of Britain no less than in the self-determination of the Jews. Brutally expelled from England in 1290 and formally readmitted in 1656, Jews remained the barometer of toleration in the country’s political and private life. English literature served up sinister characters like Shylock and Fagin that testify to powerful anti-Jewish prejudice. Then, in 1876, the British novelist George Eliot created the title character Daniel Deronda, an Englishman and Jew who determines to make the Jews a landed nation again, “giving them a national center, such as the English have, though they too are scattered over the face of the globe.” The threat to the Jews in Eliot’s novel comes not from violent aggressors but from Englishmen who cannot understand why Jews should remain a nation. Anticipating Zionism and the Balfour Declaration, Eliot interprets the ability of the English to accept Jewish national rights as the touchstone of their political maturity.


Yet Britain went back on its word. Attempting to appease Arab rulers, it rewarded Arab violence in Palestine in the 1930s by preventing Jews from entering land promised to them by the Bible and the British. While the British betrayal did not directly abet Hitler’s war against the Jews of Europe, it signaled a readiness to abandon the Jews to their fate. It certainly spurred the Arab war against Israel, which began where Germany’s war against the Jews left off. Churchill reminded Parliament in 1939 that the pledge of a Jewish homeland in Palestine had been made not only to the Jews but to the world and that its repudiation was a confession of British weakness.


The Jews would have returned to Zion with or without the consent of Europe. This is the people that, despite the murder of millions of potential Jewish citizens, and within Herzl’s predicted timeline of 50 years, recovered and defended its national sovereignty in the Land of Israel that had been under foreign domination for almost two millennia. But most of the Arab world rejected the very principle of coexistence and consequently spiraled into ever-escalating intramural conflicts. For Arab nations, too, acceptance of an autonomous Jewish presence, if and when it occurs, will be the gauge of their political maturity.


Meantime, in Britain’s Daily Mail, a “proud Jewish woman and patriotic Briton” wrote last month that “many of this country’s 270,000-strong Jewish community no longer feel we have a home here.” The immediate cause of her anguish is the emboldened anti-Semitism of the Labour Party, which traditionally included many Jews. This coalition of grievance endangers the democratic future of the country. Our family’s flag celebrated a landmark in the restoration of Zion but also another great nation’s readiness to coexist with the Jews on an equal footing. That in itself will not bring peace to the world—but world peace cannot come without it.




On Topic Links


The Forgotten Truth about the Balfour Declaration: Martin Kramer, Mosaic, June 5, 2017— On November 2, 1917, a century ago, Arthur James Balfour, the British foreign secretary, conveyed the following pledge in a public letter to a prominent British Zionist, Lord Walter Rothschild…

Columbia Professor Rashid Khalidi’s Cynical Use of Antisemitism: Mara Schiffren, Algemeiner, Oct. 27, 2017—We’re nearing an age of peak cynicism, when a former PLO spokesman and decades-long anti-Israel activist claims to be more concerned about antisemitism than does Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

From Balfour to Nikki Haley: A Century of Christian Zionist Support for Israel: Maayan Jaffe-Hoffman, Breaking Israel News, Nov. 1, 2017—There were many driving factors behind Foreign Secretary Lord Arthur James Balfour’s decision on November 2, 1917, to write a letter to Britain’s most illustrious Jewish citizen, Baron Lionel Walter Rothschild, expressing the British government’s support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine.

The Historical Significance of the Balfour Declaration: Amb. Dore Gold, JCPA, October 31, 2017—The stated purpose of the Balfour Declaration from November 2, 1917 and the circumstances under which it was published are generally known.









Dear French Foreign Minister Ayrault: David Harris, Huffington Post, Jan. 9, 2017— I take the liberty of writing this open letter in the wake of the latest Palestinian terror attack…

Real Liberals Must Shun Palestinian Colonialism: Melanie Phillips, Jerusalem Post, Jan. 5, 2017— With Israel still looking down the barrel of a diplomatic gun as the Obama presidency approaches its final days, it’s high time to change the narrative.

Defund the United Nations: Rich Lowry, National Review, Dec. 30, 2016— We’ve come a long way from Daniel Patrick Moynihan excoriating the U.N.’s 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution in one of the finer exhibits of righteous indignation in the history of American speechifying.

So Now All of a Sudden I’m a Jewish ‘Settler’ According to Obama?: Oren Safdie, National Post, Jan. 9, 2017— I never considered myself a Jewish Settler.


On Topic Links


Stab In The Heart (Video): Rabbi Asher Jacobson, Youtube, Jan. 11, 2017

Netanyahu Dismisses 'Rigged' Paris Peace Conference: Mike Smith, AFP, Jan. 12, 2017

Debunking 11 More False Assumptions Regarding Israel: Amb. Alan Baker, JCPA, Jan. 10, 2017





David Harris

Huffington Post, Jan. 9, 2017


I take the liberty of writing this open letter in the wake of the latest Palestinian terror attack, which killed four young Israelis and wounded many others in an assault eerily similar to the one in Nice in July, and days ahead of the “Middle East peace conference” in Paris you will be hosting. I do so with respect, coming from a Francophone home and with deep roots in France and French culture.


I do so representing an organization, AJC, that has engaged with France at the highest levels for decades, and that, even when we have disagreed vigorously, has rejected those in the Jewish community who have called for boycotts and spread “fake news” about the situation in your country. And I do so, if I may say, no less eager than you to find a lasting solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, ideally based on a two-state agreement. For me, the issue is not another geopolitical quagmire in need of resolution. As a Jew, there is also a metaphysical link to an ancestral land in an age-old search for peace, not to mention the contemporary home of many of my closest relatives and friends.


Mr. Minister, please understand the reasons why we have voiced the hope that the Paris gathering would be canceled. As the one-and-only La Rochefoucauld said, “It is easier to be wise for others than for ourselves.” With everything happening in Europe today, is this the one issue that deserves such an investment of effort and energy?


The European Union, soon to mark 60 years since the ground-breaking Treaty of Rome, is at risk, especially after the Brexit vote in June. Terrorists are exposing the weakness of the Schengen agreement. Disaffected parallel societies have emerged in the cities and suburbs of France, Belgium, and elsewhere. Populist parties opposed to the EU and the Eurozone, and promoting xenophobia and anti-Semitism, are threatening the established order. Ukraine, on the EU’s eastern border, remains a partially occupied land, as does Cyprus, an EU member state. Turkey, so key to the European migration challenge, is hurtling towards authoritarianism. Greece and Spain, among other EU countries, have alarmingly high youth unemployment rates.


But instead of focusing on any or all of these issues, the Quai d’Orsay is organizing yet another international effort to address a conflict that everyone knows, a priori, can only be resolved by the parties themselves, no matter how many nations travel to Paris for the conference you are hosting. I’d add that, if France nonetheless has decided on the need for an international conference of some sort at this time, how about one on Syria, the greatest human tragedy of this century and a country that France has claimed, since the 1916 Sykes-Picot agreement carved up the Middle East, to know better than others?


Or how about on Libya, where a French decision in 2011 to help topple Muammar Gaddafi achieved its immediate goal, but left the country in tatters, a breeding ground for jihadism, and a grave danger to European interests? Or how about on the Kurds, a people in the Middle East with all the elements of nationhood – and among our most reliable allies – but denied any chance for sovereignty because of superseding geopolitical interests among the great powers? Or how about a summit on Russian meddling in the European Union, including financial support for extremist, anti-EU political parties, creation of faux environmental groups to oppose any energy projects without Russian involvement, and malicious manipulation of the media?


No, the conference to begin on January 15th in Paris is about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even though one of the two main parties, Israel, has opposed the idea; even though the United States, key to any progress on this front, will have a change of administrations (and policies) exactly five days later; and even though France, it must be said, cannot be viewed as an honest broker.


Why? Well, despite strong bilateral ties between Paris and Jerusalem in some spheres, when it comes to the international arena, France is too often on the other side. This occurred in the recent vote at the UN Security Council on Resolution 2334, just as it did at the World Health Organization General Assembly in May, when France voted in favor of a measure that bizarrely singled out Israel by name as the only country in the world accused of undermining “mental, physical and environmental health,” and when France could do no more than abstain at UNESCO in April on a resolution that denied any Jewish (and Christian) link to the holy sites in Jerusalem. If the aim is to advance a two-state accord, then it’s high time to face facts.


Fact #1: From the Peel Commission report of 1937 until today, the Palestinians and their supporters have, in the end, rejected every compromise put on the table to find a viable solution. Fact #2: Every effort that circumvents the face-to-face negotiating table only emboldens the Palestinians to believe they can get all they want without the need for direct talks with Israel, and the inevitable compromises that would result from any agreement.


Fact #3: Palestinian incitement is not just a minor issue, to be thrown into UN resolutions and diplomatic speeches as an afterthought or footnote, but the heart of the problem. As long as Palestinians glorify suicide bombings and “martyrdom,” and deny the Jewish people’s legitimacy in Israel, there will be no solution. Fact #4: The role of nations of good will should be to send a clear message to the Palestinians that their every whim, no matter how counter-productive to the cause of peace, will no longer be indulged. Israel has certainly gotten its share of clear messages from the international community, but, alas, not the other side.


Talleyrand, the legendary French foreign minister who once occupied your post, said: “The art of statesmanship is to foresee the inevitable and to expedite its occurrence.” The inevitable should not be more dead-end international gatherings, but rather face-to-face Israeli-Palestinian talks. When everyone wakes up to that stark reality, perhaps a two-state accord can be expedited.





Melanie Phillips

Jerusalem Post, Jan. 5, 2017


With Israel still looking down the barrel of a diplomatic gun as the Obama presidency approaches its final days, it’s high time to change the narrative. Western progressives define themselves through various fixed positions. They are against racism. They are against colonialism. They are against ethnic cleansing. They are against police states. And they are against antisemitism. So there is a political agenda that is surely tailor-made for Western liberals and left-wingers to shun and condemn as an utter negation of all they hold dear.


The goal of the Palestinians is the colonial conquest of another people’s country. That country is the State of Israel, the homeland of the Jewish people whose unique connection goes back to antiquity. In the 7th century the Arab world conquered Judea, as the ancient kingdom of the Jewish people had been known. The Jews had previously been driven out of this land by the Romans, who renamed it Palestine in order to conceal its Jewish antecedents.


The Jews are the only people for whom this was ever their national kingdom. Now the Arabs want again to conquer and colonize the same land, which since 1948 has been restored to the Jewish people. They make this abundantly clear. Mahmoud Abbas has explicitly rejected Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state. The Palestinian Authority indoctrinates its children to conquer Israeli cities.


You’ve only got to look at the insignia and maps, not just of Hamas but also Abbas’s “moderate” Fatah, to see that the land they demand for a state of Palestine includes the whole of Israel. Palestinian identity was invented purely to negate the Jews’ unique rights to the Land of Israel. The very idea of a Palestine state was adopted solely as a strategic platform to bring about Israel’s destruction. Leading Palestinians have said so, in so many words. All progressives should therefore condemn this colonialist, exterminatory Palestinian agenda.


The Palestine Mandate of 1922 prescribed the “close settlement” by Jews throughout the whole of Palestine, which then consisted of what is now Israel, the territories known as the West Bank, and Gaza. That Jewish right to settle all the land has never been abrogated. That means it remains unaltered in international law.


The term “occupied territories” is legally illiterate, since the “West Bank” never belonged to any sovereign state and only sovereign land can be occupied as defined by international law.


The Palestinian Arabs have no collective rights in Judea and Samaria. Only the Jews were given the legal right to settle there. This has never been taken away from them. The Jews are therefore not only entitled to live in these disputed territories, but they are the only people who have any legal, moral or historical right to be there. Yet the Palestinians want to rip up this unique Jewish right to the land. All progressives should therefore condemn this denial of international law.


The Palestinians claim there can’t be a state of Palestine while Israelis are living in the disputed territories. Well, why not? Arabs make up some 20% of Israel’s population. Why couldn’t there be a Jewish minority in a future state of Palestine? No reason apart from sheer racism and antisemitism. In other words, the cause of a state of Palestine and “settlers out” inescapably involves racist ethnic cleansing.


The Palestinian Authority pumps out deranged, Nazistyle antisemitism. It locks up journalists and other dissidents who dare oppose its policies. Obviously, all progressives should condemn such an agenda. Yet for liberals and left-wingers in the West, Palestine is the cause of causes – while they falsely and outrageously ascribe the offenses of colonialist conquest, ethnic cleansing and racism to the Jews of Israel instead. This is because Western progressives inhabit a grotesque universe of mirrors, created by viewing the world through an ideological prism which casts the West as inescapably oppressive and the developing world as its blameless victims.


Crucially, they also see themselves as innately virtuous while everyone who does not view the world through this distorting prism is damned as irredeemably hateful, bigoted and evil. This, however, is the progressives’ Achilles’ heel. For if they themselves are shown to be supporting actual racism and colonialism, their supposed place on the moral high ground crumbles into dust and they are left with nowhere else to go. Publicly calling them out in this way for betraying their supposed ideals would bring further benefits. For others would be listening whose minds are not hermetically sealed through ideology or malice.


Those people have no knowledge of the Middle East or Jewish history. They have no idea that the Jews are the only indigenous people of the Land of Israel who are still around; no idea that the Arabs are the historic occupiers; no idea that Israel’s “occupation” is nothing of the kind and that the “settlements” are lawful. They have no idea because no one has ever told them. The delegitimization of Israel rests on the hijacking of the language so that victims are turned into oppressors and vice versa. We must now reclaim the language for truth and justice. Palestinian colonialism means the Palestine cause is one that liberals must condemn and shun. Conversely, “progressives” who support Palestinian colonial conquest and the ethnic cleansing of the Jews from their historic homeland are nothing of the kind. It’s time to start letting them know.



DEFUND THE UNITED NATIONS                                                                                                        

Rich Lowry                                                                                                            

National Review, Dec. 30, 2016


We’ve come a long way from Daniel Patrick Moynihan excoriating the U.N.’s 1975 “Zionism is racism” resolution in one of the finer exhibits of righteous indignation in the history of American speechifying. The Obama administration acceded to — and, reportedly, assisted behind the scenes — a less notorious but still noxious Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements. By the administration’s lights, the action is clever — it will be extremely difficult to reverse and will increase Israel’s international isolation.


But the bipartisan outrage over a resolution that, once again, demonstrates the U.N.’s hostility to our closest ally in the Middle East affords an opportunity to force an overdue crisis in the U.S.–U.N. relationship. We are the chief funder of a swollen, unaccountable U.N. apparatus that has been a gross disappointment for more than 70 years now. Proving that no country is perfect, we came up with the idea for the United Nations in the first place. Franklin Roosevelt thought that the Four Policemen of Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and China (with France eventually added as well) would keep the peace in the post–World War II world. Spot the flaw in this plan.


This vision immediately foundered on the reality of power politics. The first major event in the U.N.’s life after the Security Council began meeting in New York City was a threatened Soviet walkout. The Soviets used their Security Council veto about 50 times in the U.N.’s first years of existence. It turned out that states with different interests and values weren’t going to act as a band of righteous international enforcers. In fact, as demonstrated in Rwanda and the Balkans, when confronted by hideously predatory forces bent on mayhem and murder, U.N. peacekeepers would simply stand aside.


In the decades after the U.N.’s founding, the influence of Third World dictatorships grew, and so did the institution’s anti-Western and anti-Israel orientation, culminating in the Zionism resolution that U.S. ambassador to the U.N. Moynihan so memorably inveighed against. That vote was finally reversed in 1991, but prejudice against Israel has become one of the U.N.’s core competencies — as well as impenetrable bureaucracy. As early as 1947, a U.S. Senate committee flagged “serious problems of overlap, duplication of effort, weak coordination, proliferating mandates and programs, and overly generous compensation of staff within the infant, but rapidly growing, UN system.” And those were the early, lean years. We pay more than anyone else to keep the U.N. in business, about 22 percent of the U.N.’s regular budget. As Brett Schaefer of the Heritage Foundation notes, “the U.S. is assessed more than 176 other U.N. member states combined.”


Because nothing involving the U.N. is clean or straightforward, it’s hard to even know how much the U.S. pays in total into the U.N. system. But it’s probably around $8 billion a year. We should withhold some significant portion of it, and demand an end to the U.N.’s institutional hostility to Israel and the implementation of reforms to increase the organization’s accountability. There are individual U.N. agencies that do good work, and we can continue to support those.


Realistically, though, the U.N. will always be a disappointment. The fact is that the closest thing to what FDR envisioned in the U.N. is NATO, a like-minded group of nations that has been a force for peace, order, and freedom. This is why President-elect Donald Trump should embrace NATO and turn his critical eye to the U.N., where there is the genuine opportunity to, if nothing else, save the U.S. some money and rattle the cages of people taking advantage of our beneficence. Charles de Gaulle dismissively called the U.N. “the thing.” The thing will always stumble on, but maybe Donald Trump can teach it a lesson or two about how we truly value our ally and its nemesis, Israel.







Oren Safdie

National Post, Jan. 9, 2017


I never considered myself a Jewish Settler. Growing up, spending my summers in our family home in the Jewish Quarter of the Old City in Jerusalem, it was always considered different than living in the settlements of the West Bank or Gaza. Perhaps this had to do with the name — Jewish Quarter — or that it was understood by everyone that the Western Wall and surrounding neighbourhood would always remain part of Israel in any final peace settlement. Then again, this is the same argument many of the Jewish settlements along the Green Line have made when building within their given city limits. But to the eyes of the Palestinians —  and since the passing of UN Resolution 2334, also to Barack Obama and his UN ambassador, Samantha Power — there’s absolutely no difference.


From the time we moved into the house, many Israeli, Jewish and non-Jewish artists, journalists, politicians and other dignitaries have passed through the doors. I remember poet Yehuda Amichai coming over for lunch and giving me advice about becoming a writer. I once ran into Peter Jennings in the street and showed him to our rooftop where he filmed a final scene of his ABC special on the Middle East, showing just how close the Western Wall was to the Dome of the Rock and the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.


One thing almost every visitor shared in common was their staunch opposition to the “settler” movement, as did my parents. West Bank and Gaza “settlers” were seen as radical messianic religious zealots, responsible for wrecking the peace process, much in the way John Kerry recently characterized present Israeli government policy.


And yet with the passing of Resolution 2334, it now stands that anyone who stepped foot in the Jewish Quarter or had gone to pray at the Wailing Wall were playing an equal part in condoning the occupation. Even the many Israeli performing artists who recently signed a petition refusing to perform in Ariel in the West Bank will now have to contend with the prospect of adding the Old City to the list. Of course, what makes this so complicated is that the American players who are rumoured to have played an active role bringing the resolution forth, exhibited inconsistent behaviour themselves in the lead-up to the resolution vote.


Nobody thought twice when President Barack Obama visited Israel, and to the delight of Israelis and Jews, deposited a note in the cracks of the “occupied” Wailing Wall. And Ambassador Samantha Power must not have thought of the Jewish Quarter as too occupied since she was known to stay in the Jewish Quarter when she came to Jerusalem prior to becoming an ambassador. In reality, this convenient double standard has not only served Obama and Power, but almost all Israelis, as well as many visiting Jews and non-Jews with strong feelings against the settler movement.


The question is, now what? Will Israelis who supported Obama refuse to attend their sons’ and daughters’ army graduation ceremonies at the Kotel? Will the progressive Jewish movement “Women of the Wall” cease their campaign to find a spot along the last remnants of Herod’s Second Temple — which, incidentally, UNESCO recently rejected any historical connection to Jewish history? Where will presidents and foreign ministers like John Kerry go to pay their respects to Israeli and Jewish people when they come to visit Israel? Will they now feel obliged to go to Tel Aviv and slip a note into the cracks of the cement wall off Dizengoff Square? Or will everyone simply reject the United Nations resolution and go about their business, even as new International legal sanctions are bound to grow?


Resolution 2334 may have blurred the line on one double standard, but it also has highlighted a triple standard. Even though there are over two dozen countries that have border disputes with neighbouring countries, Israel is the one that the Security Council and Barack Obama have chosen to single out for condemnation. I say triple standard because if Israel is to be singled out for anything, it should be for its repeated efforts to return land for peace, even taking the unprecedented step of abandoning land without getting anything in return … except Hamas rockets.


Perhaps President Obama and Ambassador Power should sponsor a new UN resolution before they leave office. Not one that imposes a basic outline to a final peace agreement, but one that celebrates Israel’s herculean efforts in striving for peace. It might help enforce their own double standards on the Jewish Quarter and Wailing Wall before they abstained on Resolution 2334.


CIJR Wishes All Our Friends & Supporters: Shabbat Shalom!




On Topic Links


Stab In The Heart (Video): Rabbi Asher Jacobson, Youtube, Jan. 11, 2017—“Is it possible that Israel is right and the whole world is wrong?”

Netanyahu Dismisses 'Rigged' Paris Peace Conference: Mike Smith, AFP, Jan. 12, 2017—Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Thursday dismissed as "rigged" this weekend's Middle East peace conference in Paris, with his government refusing to play any role in the meeting.

Debunking 11 More False Assumptions Regarding Israel: Amb. Alan Baker, JCPA, Jan. 10, 2017—Further to the recent publication of “Ten False Assumptions Regarding Israel,” which addressed many of the widely-held and universally-disseminated false and mistaken assumptions regarding Israel, a number of additional false assumptions – some even more willful and malicious – are addressed.







How (and Why) Palestinian Leaders Scare the World: Khaled Abu Toameh, Gatestone Institute, Jan. 15, 2016— What do you do when your home has become hell?

Demise of the Palestinian Authority is Only a Matter of Time: Avi Issacharoff, Times of Israel, Dec. 17, 2016 — Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas tried this week to explain the motives behind the unprecedented phenomenon — referred to by many as the “third intifada” — that we have been witnessing over the past two and a half months.

Where Does All That Aid for Palestinians Go?: Tzipi Hotovely, Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 2016— One often-cited key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is economic development.

A Lonely Palestinian Moderate: Machla Abramovitz, Mishpacha, Dec. 28, 2016 — Dr. Mohammed S. Dajani Daoudi started his adult life as a Fatah activist in Beirut.


On Topic Links


Palestinians Ponder Succession After 11 Years of Abbas: Mohammed Daraghmeh & Karin Laub, National Post, Jan. 6, 2016

Two More Middle East Martyrs: Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, Jan. 18, 2015

New Report on Palestinian Anti-Semitism Reveals Intense Jew-Hatred and Incitement: United With Israel, Jan. 14, 2015

Luxury Alongside Poverty in the Palestinian Authority: Isi Leibler, Candidly Speaking, Jan. 20, 2016




Khaled Abu Toameh

Gatestone Institute, Jan. 15, 2016


What do you do when your home has become hell? If you are Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas, you divert attention from the mess as fast as possible. For a start, Abbas is trying to scare the international community into believing that without increased pressure on Israel, the Palestinian Authority (PA) will be forced to resort to unilateral measures, such as attempting to create new "facts on the ground" in the West Bank.


Next, Abbas is threatening to renew the Palestinian call for convening an international conference for peace in the Middle East and to step up rhetorical attacks against Israel. Finally, Abbas has perfected the art of financial extortion. Every Monday and Thursday, as it were, the PA president has threatened to resign and/or dissolve the PA. This tactic has a twofold aim: cold hard European and American cash and a gaze directed away from the PA's turmoil. Abbas wants the world's eyes on Israel — and Israel alone. That way, the fierce behind-the-scenes battle for succession that has been raging among the top brass of the Palestinian leadership in the West Bank will stay far from the limelight.


This week, Abbas's spokesman, Nabil Abu Rudaineh, announced that the Palestinian Authority was coordinating with Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Jordan in order to create "facts on the ground" to establish a Palestinian state. This announcement was designed to tighten the international screws on Israel. The threat to "create facts on the ground" was a direct message to the US and the EU that they had better push Israel farther — and faster — or the Palestinians would be left with no recourse but to build in Area C of the West Bank, currently under exclusive Israeli control. Yet Palestinian building in Area C is not just a threat. In fact, and thanks to the financial and logistical aid of the EU, Palestinians have already begun building that project in some parts of the West Bank.


What the PA wants is the following response from the international community: "Oh my God, we must do something to salvage the peace process. We need to put even more pressure on these Israelis before matters get out of hand." The PA seeks a solution imposed upon Israel by the international community. This has been quite clear for some time, but the PA spokesman's recent announcement leaves no room for doubt. Abbas has no incentive whatsoever to return to the negotiating table with Israel. Why negotiate when Western powers are prepared to do everything to see Israel brought to its knees?


As part of this strategy, Abbas last week renewed his call for an international conference to discuss "ways of solving the Palestinian cause." According to the PA president, the international community that has reached understandings that Syria, Libya and Iran should be able to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. This is nothing but an Abbas scare-tactics redux. Radical Islam and terrorism, so we are to believe, will be conquered by solving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The president of the PA desires to implant in the minds of the West a direct link between the Islamic State terror group (ISIS) and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.


But Abbas might have done well to check in with his sources. ISIS and the other terror groups currently destroying the Arab world do not give a damn about Israeli settlements or checkpoints. Nor is a two-state solution on their docket. These groups have a different agenda — to conquer the world and establish an Islamic empire. En route to achieving their aim, the Muslim terrorists will kill "apostates" and "infidels" including Abbas and other Arab leaders.


"President Abbas's call for an international conference reflects the state of confusion and wallowing he is in," remarked former Palestinian cabinet minister Hassan Asfour. "The appeal is designed to search for an unclear and jellied formula and it has no legitimacy." Asfour noted that there was no need for such a conference, in light of the fact that the UN already recognized a Palestinian state in 2012. So what exactly is Abbas trying to achieve? For the most part, Palestinian political analysts are convinced that the eighty-year-old president, who is about to enter the eleventh year of his four-year term in office, is simply seeking to hold onto the reins of power. The best way to do so, they argue, is by keeping up the buzz about international conferences and potential Palestinian unilateral moves on the ground.


In order to run the Palestinian show until his last day, Abbas needs to divert attention from the battle of succession that has hit the spotlight in the past few days. Top Fatah officials have been pushing him to appoint a deputy president, in the hope of forestalling a power vacuum upon his departure from the scene for one reason or another. These officials have long censured Abbas for running the PA as if it were his private fiefdom. Among the critics are Jibril Rajoub, Tawkif Tirawi, Mohamed Dahlan, Salam Fayyad and Yasser Abed Rabbo — all of whom regard themselves as potential successors to his seat.


Meanwhile, Abbas's preferred candidate for deputy president appears to be none other than Saeb Erekat, the PLO's chief negotiator who was recently upgraded to the post of PLO Secretary-General. This choice, however, is not going down well with Fatah officials, many of whom have expressed their opposition to the attempt to pave the way for Erekat to become the next Palestinian president. A direct link does exist, then, but it is not, as Abbas contends, one between ISIS and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The true direct link is between the urgency Abbas feels at home to prop up a crumbling empire and his intimidation of the international community. In other words, when Abbas feels the heat, Israel is thrown into the fire.                                                                                   



DEMISE OF THE PALESTINIAN AUTHORITY IS ONLY A MATTER OF TIME                                                        

Avi Issacharoff                                                                                                                             

Times of Israel, Dec. 17, 2015


Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas tried this week to explain the motives behind the unprecedented phenomenon — referred to by many as the “third intifada” — that we have been witnessing over the past two and a half months. To date, more than 130 terrorists have taken part in attacks or attempted attacks against Israeli targets. If you add the number of terrorists who have carried out attacks to those who were arrested preemptively by the Palestinian Authority and the Israeli security services, you get to a quick estimate of around 200-250 Palestinians who were ready to die in order to kill Jews — in the short period of 75 days.


So, a rough average of around three terrorists a day — a figure that is both unimaginable and deeply dangerous. Abbas has claimed that despair about the Israeli occupation and the dashed prospects of a two-state solution brought these youngsters to do what they did; Israel blames incitement. Prime Minister Netanyahu this week rushed to attack Abbas and quoted surveys carried out in the West Bank that show the Palestinian public’s opposition to a two-state solution. He did not note that the Palestinian Authority itself prevents attacks of all kinds against Israelis almost every day.


The problem is that neither Abbas’s explanation (“the occupation”) nor Netanyahu’s (“the incitement”) fully sheds light on this sick phenomenon. It may also be that through our Western eyes, we can never really understand how hundreds of youngsters are willing to die without a second thought in order to stab Israelis.


Taha Katnani, the father of Ashrakat, a 16-year-old terrorist who last month tried to stab Jewish passersby at the Hawara checkpoint near Nablus (she was run over by Gershon Mesika, who was passing by chance, and then shot dead by security forces), is a known figure in the Islamic Jihad terror group. In recent years, he’s been the imam of one of the mosques in the Askar refugee camp on the outskirts of Nablus. In an interview with a Palestinian TV station identified with Islamic Jihad, he said that his daughter had told him before she died that in the event she was killed (“martyred”), “if the occupiers try to barter with my body, don’t agree to it.” He went on to describe a subsequent meeting he had with Israeli security officials at Hawara. “They tried to understand if there had been a crisis, if she had been in a crisis, or I had, or [aunt] Yassin… In other words, they tried to understand the motive.”


“But the occupiers don’t understand,” the father added, tearfully. “They’re deluded. Ashrakat lived in her home, with a high standard of living, doing what she wanted. Whoever knows us — everyone knows the warm relations between myself and my children. Everyone is moved when they see my approach and my relationship with them,” he added. In short, Ashrakat presumably grew up in a home and an environment profoundly hostile to Israel, but did not have family or psychological problems.


Many commentators had warned of a blow-up but none of them predicted the way this “third intifada” would develop. Certainly not the Israeli political echelon, which continues to exist in its bubble, waiting for the storm to pass… and it is refusing to pass. The withholding of terrorists’ bodies, and the threat to destroy their families’ homes, are supposed to prevent the next terror attack. But these techniques don’t stand up to the reality test.


The flood of attacks isn’t letting up for a moment. It’s emphatically not always related to family crises, or to what emerges as a psychological problem. It is at least partly an expression of despair and frustration, as Abbas said, but it also relates to the Palestinian Authority and all the Palestinian factions and even to the older generation in general, which has disappointed the younger generation. A large majority of the attackers have not belonged to any kind of organization, were not known to the security services, and had not received an order to carry out their attack.


Most of these young people come from the Palestinian cities, some are more religious and some less, most are single. They are not simply fed incitement from the social networks and certainly not only from the Palestinian Authority’s official media networks. They also get their hatred almost intravenously, in the internet cafes, the mosques, the billiard clubs, from the family — in almost every place. And for such a phenomenon, it’s difficult to find one single convincing explanation — or a solution that will stop the epidemic. On the Israeli side, there is no credible plan for calming the tensions. During a meeting between senior Israeli and Palestinian security personnel, the Palestinians demanded a “political road map” that they argued would bring about calm on the streets. The Israelis demanded that the PA first stop the violence.


Dramatic political moves may be essential to achieve long-term calm. But what are the Palestinians demanding within the framework of a “road map” ahead? A freeze in settlement building and an agreement in principle to negotiate on the basis of creating a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders. These are unrealistic in light of the current coalition makeup in Israel and the policy of the person at its head. It’s an impasse: The Palestinian Authority isn’t capable of calming the street without dramatic political steps that Israel has no intention of taking.


What does this say for the PA and Abbas? That in all likelihood, they’re living on borrowed time. Or, as a senior figure from the Authority said in his office in Ramallah, “The game is over.” Does this mean the dismantling or crumbling of the PA in the near future? It seems so. Security cooperation is wearing thinner with each passing day — after each Palestinian terror attack, and each Israeli security operation in the field (such as the operation Tuesday night in the village of Qalandiya, during which Israeli forces looking for terrorists killed two Palestinians who, in separate incidents, tried to ram their cars into Israeli soldiers). It’s like a countdown whose end is hard to predict but which will clearly stop at some point. Thus the demise of the PA is a question of when, not if…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]




WHERE DOES ALL THAT AID FOR PALESTINIANS GO?                               

                         Tzipi Hotovely

Wall Street Journal, Jan. 24, 2016 


One often-cited key to peace between Israel and the Palestinians is economic development. To that end, there seems to be broad agreement about the importance of extending development aid to help the Palestinians build the physical and social infrastructure that will enable the emergence of a sustainable, prosperous society. But few have seriously questioned how much money is sent and how it is used.


Such assistance will only promote peace if it is spent to foster tolerance and coexistence. If it is used to strengthen intransigence it does more harm than good—and the more aid that comes in, the worse the outcome. This is exactly what has been transpiring over the past few decades. Large amounts of foreign aid to the Palestinians are spent to support terrorists and deepen hostility.


For years the most senior figures in the Palestinian Authority have supported, condoned and glorified terror. “Every drop of blood that has been spilled in Jerusalem,” President Mahmoud Abbas said last September on Palestinian television, “is holy blood as long as it was for Allah.” Countless Palestinian officials and state-run television have repeatedly hailed the murder of Jews. This support for terrorism doesn’t end with hate speech. The Palestinian regime in Ramallah pays monthly stipends of between $400 and $3,500 to terrorists and their families, the latter of which is more than five times the average monthly salary of a Palestinian worker.


According to data from its budgetary reports, compiled in June 2014 by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the PA’s annual budget for supporting Palestinian terrorists was then roughly $75 million. That amounted to some 16% of the foreign donations the PA received annually. Overall in 2012 foreign aid made up about a quarter of the PA’s $3.1 billion budget. More recent figures are inaccessible since the Palestinian Authority is no longer transparent about the stipend transfers.


Embarrassed by public revelations of the misuse of the foreign aid, in August 2014 the Palestinian Authority passed the task of paying stipends to terrorists and their families to a fund managed by the Palestine Liberation Organization, also led by Mr. Abbas. Lest there be any doubt as to the purely cosmetic nature of the change, Palestinian Prime Minister Rami Hamdallah made assurances as recently as September 2015 that the PA will provide the “necessary assistance” to ensure these terror stipends. This procedural ruse apparently calmed the consciences of donor governments that continue to transfer aid. It is difficult to think of another case in which such a forgiving attitude would be taken regarding foreign aid to an entity that sponsors terror.


This situation is particularly disturbing given the disproportionate share of development assistance the Palestinians receive, which comes at the expense of needy populations elsewhere. According to a report last year by Global Humanitarian Assistance, in 2013 the Palestinians received $793 million in international aid, second only to Syria. This amounts to $176 for each Palestinian, by far the highest per capita assistance in the world. Syria, where more than 250,000 people have been killed and 6.5 million refugees displaced since 2011, received only $106 per capita.


A closer look at the remaining eight countries in the top 10—Sudan, South Sudan, Jordan, Lebanon, Somalia, Ethiopia, Afghanistan and the Democratic Republic of Congo—is even more alarming. CIA Factbook data show that these countries have a combined population of 284 million and an average per capita GDP of $2,376. Yet they received an average of $15.30 per capita in development assistance in 2013. The Palestinians, by comparison, with a population of 4.5 million, have a per capita GDP of $4,900.


In other words, though the Palestinians are more than twice as wealthy on average than these eight countries, they receive more than 11 times as much foreign aid per person. The Democratic Republic of Congo is a case in point: Its 79 million people have a per capita GDP of $700, yet they receive only $5.70 in aid per person. Between 1993 (when the Oslo Process began) and 2013, the Palestinians received $21.7 billion in development assistance, according to the World Bank. The Palestinian leadership has had ample opportunity to use these funds for economic and social development. Tragically, as seen in Hamas-run Gaza, it prefers to use the funds on its terrorist infrastructure and weaponry, such as cross-border attack tunnels and the thousands of missiles that have rained down in recent years on Israel…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]




Machla Abramovitz

Mishpacha, Dec. 28, 2015


Dr. Mohammed S. Dajani Daoudi started his adult life as a Fatah activist in Beirut. But after experiencing the generosity of his supposed Israeli “oppressors,” he began to question his assumptions. Now he’s trying to do what might seem impossible: reform Palestinian society from the inside…


Dr. Dajani, a secular Muslim and founder of American graduate studies at Al-Quds University in east Jerusalem who now lives in Washington DC, made headlines last year when he took Palestinian graduate students on a study tour of Auschwitz. The idea was to expose Palestinian students to the attempted Nazi genocide of the Jewish People, something standard Palestinian education promotes as exaggerated at best, mythological fantasy at worst. But Dr. Dajani couldn’t have anticipated the outrage that followed. He lost his job at Al-Quds, and Palestinian critics torched his car and threatened his life. Despite these personal setbacks, he remains steadfast in his determination to establish a model for peace and reconciliation between Palestinians and Jews.


“We, as a generation, have inherited this conflict, so it is important that we leave for our children a peace inheritance. We seek reconciliation in the midst of conflict,” he told Mishpacha. “The idea is that moderation leads to reconciliation; reconciliation paves the way for negotiations with good spirit and good will, which leads to conflict resolution, which will lead to democracy and prosperity.”  Professor Dajani Daoudi spoke candidly to Mishpacha about what Palestinian society teaches its children about Jews, and how his own personal experiences with Jewish doctors changed his outlook on the “enemy.”


Yet despite his moderate views, it was a difficult conversation at times. On one hand, Dajani sacrificed his career as a professor due to the backlash against his university trip to Auschwitz. In an era when the head of the Palestinian Authority wrote his doctoral thesis on Holocaust denial and Palestinian schoolbooks are replete with racial incitement against Jews and Israel, Dajani’s trip was courageous step in the name of academic freedom and in search of the truth. On the other hand, his language is sprinkled with the terminology referring to Israel’s capture of parts of its ancestral homeland as the “occupation” and to Israel’s Independence Day as the “Nakba” the Arabic word for catastrophe. It’s part of the Arab-Palestinian narrative that doesn’t fade or soften with time, despite all of the positives Dajani says he has experienced in his relations with the Jewish state and the Jewish people.


While thousands of people take tours of Auschwitz on a regular basis today, Dr. Dajani’s group was unusual because both he and his students grew up in a society that denies the Holocaust. “In school we studied the Protocols of the Elders of Zion and were taught that Israelis were our enemies and that the Holocaust was simply Zionist propaganda to justify Jews coming to Palestine to take over our land,” he explains. “I believe this is a myopic and immoral view: myopic in that it is wrong to see the Holocaust exclusively through the lens of Palestinian suffering, and immoral in that it denies history and betrays the memory of the victims, a betrayal that is inherently unjust.”


Professor Dajani hasn’t relinquished his dream of Palestinian statehood, but he has recalibrated his attitude toward the accepted Palestinian narrative. Perhaps it’s in his blood. He comes from a long line of political movers, some of whom refused to toe the party line. The 69-year-old Dajani hails from a centuries-old Arab family, and the honorific “Daoudi” was added to the family name way back in 1563, when Sultan Suleiman appointed the Dajani family as custodians of King David’s Tomb (although many Jews believe King David is buried elsewhere). Two Dajanis served as mayors of Jerusalem in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, and Hassam Sidiqqui Dajani, a relative, was assassinated on the orders of Haj Amin al-Husseini, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, for calling for reconciliation and a binational state for Jews and Palestinians.

Dajani found himself suffering from the same intolerance.


“I anticipated some criticism for taking 27 students to Auschwitz, since this had never been done before. What I hadn’t anticipated was the furor that ensued not only within academia, but throughout Palestinian society,” he says. “Our trip was discussed and dissected on the streets and reported and analyzed in newspapers and on television. Social media was ablaze with indignation and cruel invectives directed against me and my students. I was called a ‘normalizer,’ someone who wants to normalize relations between Palestinians and Israelis, which in Palestinian parlance is equivalent to being a traitor. My life was threatened and my car was torched.”…

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]




On Topic


Palestinians Ponder Succession After 11 Years of Abbas: Mohammed Daraghmeh & Karin Laub, National Post, Jan. 6, 2016—Unpopular after 11 years in power, Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas is starting to face some open machinations from would-be successors, as his dream of negotiating Palestinian statehood lies in tatters. One likely contender is believed to be behind recent claims — swiftly denied by Abbas' camp — that the 80-year-old's health is failing, while another has complained of a "real leadership crisis" in rare open criticism of Abbas from within his Fatah movement.

Two More Middle East Martyrs: Jonathan S. Tobin, Commentary, Jan. 18, 2015—The last thing the Middle East needs is another two martyrs. But that’s what it got on Sunday night as a result of a horrifying crime that took place in a West Bank settlement. The incident isn’t likely to generate the kind of headlines that terror attacks in the West have gotten.

New Report on Palestinian Anti-Semitism Reveals Intense Jew-Hatred and Incitement: United With Israel, Jan. 14, 2015 —Since the Palestinian Authority (PA) was established, and continuing throughout 2015, it has systematically used anti-Semitism to indoctrinate young and old to hate Israelis and Jews. The PA has actively promoted religious hatred by demonizing Judaism and Jews and spreading libels that present Jews as endangering Palestinians, Arabs and all humanity.

Luxury Alongside Poverty in the Palestinian Authority: JCPA, Nov. 5, 2015—In communities throughout the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank, a surprising degree of luxury exists alongside the poverty. This study includes “A Photo Album of Palestinian Luxury in the West Bank,” offering a more complete picture of living standards there. The truth is that alongside the slums of the old refugee camps, which the Palestinian government has done little to rehabilitate, a parallel Palestinian society is emerging.













We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 





'Palestine' and ISIS: Different Branches, Same Tree: Prof. Louis René Beres, Arutz Sheva, Feb. 4, 2015Credo quia absurdum. "I believe because it is absurd."

Hamas and the Nexus of Global Jihad: Caroline Glick, Jerusalem Post, Feb. 5, 2015 — On Wednesday, Hamas leader in Gaza Mahmoud Zahar called on Hamas terrorists in Lebanon and Syria to attack Israel “to help us liberate Palestine.”

Here's What a Hamas Training Camp for Teens Looks Like: William Booth, Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2015 — Judging by the orderly rows of hundreds of young wanna­bes lined up in crisp military fashion at their graduation ceremony here Thursday, the armed wing of the Islamist movement Hamas will have plenty of eager recruits this year. 

A Clear Answer to an Old Debate: Arafat Colluded with Hamas Against Israel at the Height of the Oslo Years: Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi, JCPA, Jan. 15, 2015— On December 15, 2014, the Palestinian News Agency published an interview with Mahmoud Al Zahar, a member of the Hamas Political Bureau and one of the organization’s most prominent leaders.


On Topic Links


Gag Order Lifted on Naval Interception of Rocket Materials for Hamas (Video): Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, Jewish Press, Feb. 11, 2015

Gaza Terrorist Groups Rebuilding Militaries, Training Recruits for War: IPT News, Feb. 4, 2015

Ten Points Regarding the Fundamental Breach by the Palestinians of the Oslo Accords: Amb. Alan Baker, JCPA, Jan. 5, 2015

The PA and Hamas are a Greater Threat to Israel than IS: Giulio Meotti, Arutz Sheva, Feb. 4, 2015



'PALESTINE' AND ISIS: DIFFERENT BRANCHES, SAME TREE                                                            

Prof. Louis René Beres                                      

Arutz Sheva, Feb. 4, 2015


Credo quia absurdum. "I believe because it is absurd." Plainly, a Palestinian state – any Palestinian state – would directly benefit anti-American terrorists. Why, then, does the President of the United States effectively support a prospectively Jihadist "Palestine," and simultaneously make war against Islamic State (ISIS)? In Washington, the issues of Palestinian statehood and ISIS aggressions are normally regarded as unrelated. Nonetheless, it is worth considering that these security issues are actually linked, and that any creation of Palestine would have substantially corrosive implications for America's still-unsteady struggle against ISIS. Ultimately, the most conspicuous victim of Palestine would be Israel, an indispensable U.S. ally in the Middle East.


"I believe because it is absurd." Even while dealing with multiple and increasingly virulent Jihadist enemies, most notably ISIS, U.S. President Barack Obama accepts the presumed benefits of a Palestinian state. Oddly, and perhaps without any intended bias against Israel's reciprocal security needs, Mr. Obama remains convinced that there is some discernible symmetry between Israeli and Palestinian claims for statehood. Ignoring the entire history of a non-state Palestine, from the 400-year rule of the Ottoman Turks, to the Balfour Declaration (1917), to the San Remo Conference (1920), to the Treaty of Sèvres (1922), to the British Mandate (1922), and beyond, to the U.N. Charter, the president's contradictory convictions have been sorely under-researched, and grimly ironic.


Always, in such matters, truth is exculpatory. At some point, if they can somehow manage to stop abducting and murdering each other – and all the while staving off the even more lascivious killers of al-Qaeda and ISIS – the Palestinian Authority and Hamas will advance a joint plan for Palestinian sovereignty in the West Bank (Judea/Samaria), Gaza, and East Jerusalem. This generally anticipated announcement, while contrary to all codified expectations of Oslo Agreement obligations to Israel, would still elicit the enthusiastic corroboration of President Obama's "Road Map." Although it would likely be overlooked  by the White House, any such "cartographic" support would cynically mock authoritative international law. In essence, it would undercut global legal order far beyond even its prima facie Oslo Agreement violations.


"I believe because it is absurd." Any such "Road Map" support would be at odds with the governing treaty on statehood under international law, a "constitutive" pact known formally as The Convention on the Rights and Duties of States (1934). Significantly, because this vital fact of law is neither widely known nor meaningfully understood, authentic conferral of statehood is always independent of UN actions, or of recognition by any existing states. Of course, the main problem here, for both the United States and Israel, does not concern pertinent international law, or even the “Montevideo Convention," as it is better known. Rather, it concerns the de facto implementation of Palestinian statehood. Unassailably, a Palestinian state – any Palestinian state – could enlarge the worldwide risks of terrorism, and, eventually, the unspoken but corollary perils of a regional nuclear war.


If you like ISIS, you'll love Palestine. Why? The reasons are not hard to fathom. Following Israel's latest  self-defense war, an obligatory conflict in Gaza waged as Operation Protective Edge, it should  be apparent that any state of  Palestine could cheerfully inflict incessant aggressions upon Israel, including even an orchestrated barrage of incursions aimed at further territorial extensions. One should recall, in this connection, that the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) was formed in 1964, three years before there were any "occupied territories." What, precisely, was PLO (now PA) seeking to "liberate?" The answer, of course, is all of Israel. Predictably, in expanding beyond its more-or-less properly designated state boundaries, such territorial extensions would be justified in order to ensure Palestine's legal "equality" with Israel. After all, under international law, "sovereign equality" is always treated as a fundamental or "peremptory" norm. Here, however, Palestinian applications of this rule would represent little more than a jurisprudential manipulation or contrivance of "lawfare."


Truth is exculpatory. Palestinian plans for an Israeli "final solution" are unhidden. Even now, irredentist Palestinian intentions are easy to decipher. Already, official PA maps identify Israel as a part of Palestine. On these maps, there is never any acknowledgment of "sovereign equality." In this murderous cartography, there is only a "one state solution."  "I believe because it is absurd." Any Palestinian state would have a promptly injurious impact on vital American strategic interests, and, simultaneously, on Israel's physical survival. After Palestine, Israel, facing an even more expressly formidable "correlation of enemy forces," would require ever-greater excursions into existential self-reliance. In turn, any such enhanced journeys would call for: (1) a  more coherent and more openly disclosed nuclear strategy, one focusing comprehensively upon deterrence, preemption, and war fighting capabilities; and (2) a corresponding and interpenetrating conventional war strategy. Technically, and in more narrowly operational military parlance, these expanded strategic obligations would entail (3) a more nuanced understanding of critical "force multipliers;" (4) a more emphatic doctrinal commitment to "escalation dominance;"  and (5) a broader appreciation of certain important "synergies," e.g., the negative interaction effects of our ongoing U.S./coalition war against ISIS, with the ongoing results of Palestinian state violence against Israel….           

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]          




HAMAS AND THE NEXUS OF GLOBAL JIHAD                                                                                           

Caroline Glick                                                                                                    

Jerusalem Post, Feb. 5, 2015


On Wednesday, Hamas leader in Gaza Mahmoud Zahar called on Hamas terrorists in Lebanon and Syria to attack Israel “to help us liberate Palestine.” At the same time, Zahar denied that Hamas has been involved in the terrorist insurgency in Egypt. As he put it, “Our guns are always trained on the enemy,” that is, Israel.


The Egyptian regime was not impressed by Zahar’s protestations. Last Saturday, an Egyptian court upheld an October 2014 decision by the Egyptian government to outlaw Hamas’s terrorist shock forces Izzadin Kassam, and designate it a terrorist organization. Both the government’s initial designation and the court’s decision were in some sense, watershed events. They represent the first time an Arab regime ever defined any Palestinian terrorist organization as a terrorist group. But in truth, Egypt had no choice. Despite its insistent protestations that the Jews are its only enemies, Hamas, the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, has been a major player, indeed, arguably the key player in the jihadist insurgency in the Sinai Peninsula that threatens to destroy the political, economic and military viability of the Egyptian state. The declared purpose of the insurgency is to overthrow the regime of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi and integrate Egypt into Islamic State’s “caliphate.”


Last week saw yet another devastating terror assault against Egyptian security forces and civilians in Sinai and in cities around Egypt. Thirty- two people, mainly soldiers, were killed in a coordinated, multifaceted attack that included Hamas’s three signature modes of operation – mortars, rockets and suicide bombings. Last week’s assault, like almost all previous ones, was credited to Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, a jihadist group that has pledged allegiance to Islamic State and declared Sinai a province of its “caliphate.” According to a report by Yoram Schweitzer from the Institute for National Security Studies, Hamas members were among the original founders of Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis. The Egyptian government views Hamas-controlled Gaza as the rear headquarters of the group. In founding the group, Hamas cooperated with local Salafist Beduin and with al-Qaida terrorists who escaped Egyptian prisons during the January 2011 uprising against then-president Hosni Mubarak.


From the outset, Egyptian security forces alleged that Hamas terrorists conducted the prison breaches. Among the other Islamists released during the jail breaks was Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi. Morsi reportedly used Hamas terrorists as his regime’s Praetorian guard. They were charged with protecting the Muslim Brotherhood regime from protesters who opposed his moves to rapidly transform Egypt into an Islamist state and the spearhead of the Brotherhood’s sought-for global caliphate. From an ideological perspective, there is no distinction between the Brotherhood and Hamas. From an organizational perspective, the Palestinian Muslim Brotherhood branch has no difficulty integrating its forces seamlessly into the wider Muslim Brotherhood operational structure to serve what it views as their common ends.


And this brings us back to the insurgency in Sinai. In addition to claiming that Hamas enables Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis, Cairo accuses Hamas of having directly carried out several mass casualty terror attacks against its security forces. The most recent one, carried out in late October 2014, killed 31 soldiers. It precipitated Cairo’s decision to expand its security zone between Gaza and Sinai from 1 to 2 kilometers and begin emptying the Egyptian side of the border-straddling city of Rafah. It was also the catalyst for the government’s decision to label Izzadin Kassam a terrorist group. The timing of last week’s attack indicates the close coordination between Hamas-Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis and the Muslim Brotherhood. As The Washington Free Beacon reported, two days before the attacks the Muslim Brotherhood issued a call for “a long, uncompromising jihad” in Egypt.


Hamas’s intimate relationship with what has now become the Islamic State affiliate in Sinai may well have facilitated the seeding of Islamic State cells in Gaza and Judea and Samaria, where Hamas terrorists are increasingly declaring their allegiance to Islamic State. Following last month’s massacre of the French journalists at Charlie Hebdo in Paris, several hundred protesters in Gaza waved Islamic State flags while burning the French flag in support of the massacre. In recent weeks, Israeli security forces have arrested several cells of Israeli Arabs and Palestinians from Judea and Samaria that sought to establish Islamic State cells.


Beyond its role in both leading and enabling the insurgency in Sinai in concert with the Muslim Brotherhood, Hamas serves as a bridge between Iran and Sunni jihadists. In the aftermath of Operation Protective Edge last summer, Hamas began rebuilding its ties to Iran. Until the outbreak of the Syrian civil war in 2011, when Hamas felt obliged to support the Muslim Brotherhood that was fighting the Iranian-backed regime of President Bashar Assad, Iran had served as Hamas’s primary state sponsor since 2005. Iran never entirely cut off its support for Hamas. But after last summer’s war, it reinstated its formal alliance with Hamas. On Saturday, in an interview with Hezbollah’s Al-Manar television, Hamas’s Zahar called on Iran to increase its aid to the terror group. He also called on Hezbollah to increase its cooperation with Hamas and send terrorist reinforcements to Gaza, Judea and Samaria.


Two days later, Iranian Brig.-Gen. Amir-Ali Hajizadeh, the commander of the Revolutionary Guards aerospace division, answered Zahar’s call. In an interview with Iran’s Fars news agency on Monday, Hajizadeh said that Iran is “exporting the technology of manufacturing missiles and other equipment,” to “Syria, Iran and Palestine as well as Lebanon’s Hezbollah to stand up to and ground the Zionist regime, ISIL and other Takfiri [i.e. fake Islamic] groups. Hamas’s bridging role between the Muslim Brotherhood and Islamic State on the one hand, and between Iran and Hezbollah on the other, shows two things. First, that the Palestinian jihadist group, which the European Union is now trying to decide whether or not to label a terrorist organization, after the previous designation was struck down by an EU court, is about much more than destroying Israel. It poses a threat to people far beyond Israel. And its role in the terror nexus is not that of a bit player, but of a linchpin and a unifying force. It also shows the unity of the threat of Sunni and Shi’ite Islamic totalitarianism. Egypt recognizes this unity….                                                                       

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]              





HERE'S WHAT A HAMAS TRAINING CAMP FOR TEENS LOOKS LIKE                                                              

William Booth

Washington Post, Jan. 29, 2015


Judging by the orderly rows of hundreds of young wanna­bes lined up in crisp military fashion at their graduation ceremony here Thursday, the armed wing of the Islamist movement Hamas will have plenty of eager recruits this year.  More than 17,000 fresh-faced teenagers and young men, ages 15 to 21, mustered at a dozen camps over the past week in the Gaza Strip to climb ropes, practice close-order drills and fire Kalashnikov rifles, all of them pledging to defend the coastal enclave and ready to fight the next war against their Zionist enemies. They also learned how to perform first aid and throw a grenade. They watched — but did not touch — as instructors showed them the basics of improvised explosive devices.


For the first time, the Hamas military wing, the Izzedine al-Qassam Brigades, hosted the Gaza teens and young men for a week of training in the martial arts at previously off-limits Qassam bases. In the past, the ­military-style camps have been run by Hamas’s political wing, and during the summer sessions, the camps included lots of sports, religion and playtime on the beach. These winter camps were different, more serious, more martial. The attendees were older and the trainers were Qassam commanders dressed in khaki camouflage who barked orders like drill sergeants, answered by shouts of “Allahu akbar” by the attendees. Qassam commanders allowed a…reporter to enter two camps, but they did not let the reporter stay more than 30 minutes or take photographs ­until Thursday’s more-scripted graduation. 


Military commanders for Hamas, which has been branded a terrorist organization by the United States and Israel, said the camps were designed to boost the Palestinian resistance and to give Gaza’s frustrated and unemployed youths a way to blow off steam — and shoot some guns. A Qassam officer who goes by the nom de guerre Abu Mujahed said the camps were not organized to recruit new cadres to the militia, although he conceded that candidates were chosen from the ranks. “We have more than enough recruits. Too many,” he said. “The camps are designed to answer the demands of the youth — to do something.”


Critics of Hamas said the camps were designed to bolster the group’s popularity and distract residents from the grim conditions of Gaza: the unpaid salaries, the lack of reconstruction, the closures of the strip to trade and travel. According to initial estimates by Israeli and Palestinian groups, about 1,000 Gaza combatants may have died in the 50-day summer war between Hamas and Israel, which has the best-equipped army in the Middle East. Analysts estimate that ­al-Qassam, the largest and best-equipped of the half-dozen militias in Gaza, has 20,000 or 25,000 fighters in its ranks. The heavy losses­ of the summer do not appear to have dimmed the zeal of Gaza’s young men, who said they were ready to fight the Jewish state again. Hamas and Israel have fought three wars in the past six years, and the Hamas movement remains in control in the Gaza Strip.


Ahmad Ismail, 16, dressed in a black Qassam T-shirt, said after his graduation: “I have received training on using weapons, especially rifles, and climbing on ropes, marching, shooting, ­rocket-propelled grenades and mortars. We also had practical training and got to shoot the Kalashnikovs.” He said: “I wish I could join Qassam Brigades now. I want to fight Israel. I want to kick them out of our land. I am ready now.” Israeli military intelligence officers say the Hamas military wing will have no trouble recruiting more troops. “There is no shortage of manpower in Gaza,” said one Israeli officer selected to speak to the foreign news media. He spoke on the condition of anonymity because of Israeli military protocol. The Israeli officer said Hamas was “assembling new rockets as fast as they can.” He said it didn’t matter if longer-range rockets and their propellants might not be available because the military-led government in Egypt has closed down most of the smuggling tunnels into Gaza. “Hamas is making plenty of rockets,” he said. Hundreds a week, thousands a month. He said the militias in the strip would be fully armed and staffed in a few months. “The decision to go to war is a political one for Hamas,” he said. “On the military side, they’re ready to go today.”…                                                                                                                                                                          

[To Read the Full Article Click the Following Link—Ed.]                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               




HAMAS AGAINST ISRAEL AT THE HEIGHT OF THE OSLO YEARS                                                     

Lt. Col. (ret.) Jonathan D. Halevi                                                                                          

JCPA, Jan. 15, 2015


On December 15, 2014, the Palestinian News Agency published an interview with Mahmoud Al Zahar, a member of the Hamas Political Bureau and one of the organization’s most prominent leaders. Al Zahar referred in the interview to the events preceding the outbreak of the Second Intifada on September 28, 2000. The excerpt below is taken from this interview. “Abu Amar [Palestinian Authority Chairman Yasser Arafat] reached the decision that the negotiations at the Camp David summit [in July 2000] were going nowhere. He sent a security representative to Sheikh Salah Shehade [head of the Hamas military wing at the time] with the message: ‘I have no objection to Hamas taking action’ and we knew [what this meant] when we met to go over details.” “Some of us said: ‘Those people [the PA] want to know who is [behind] Unit No. 103 or the groups [terror factions] that would carry out [terror attacks] under the name of Omar al-Mukhtar, so that they can report on us, because they [the PA] coordinate with Israel on security matters.’”


“Others said: ‘No, let’s take this opportunity to carry out acts [terror attacks] jointly with them [the PA] or take arms from them. Their method is well known and if they had wanted to use us they would have reported on us [to Israel] and they would be partners [with Israel in anti-terror activities]. “We received arms from them [the PA] and carried out the acts [terror attacks]. [In response to the interviewer’s question, not clearly audible, about the source of the weapons]: ‘[We got the weapons] from Fatah here [in the Gaza Strip], from the [then Palestinian] Authority here [in the Gaza Strip]…. We took those weapons from them and carried out the acts [terror attacks]. They told Abu Amar [Yasser Arafat]: Wait a minute, it was not us who brought you to this situation. There was a siege [by the IDF on the Mukataa Compound in Ramallah, which served as the main headquarters for the Palestinian government, including Arafat’s office], and the [West] Bank was re-occupied [in Operation Defensive Shield in April 2002], and wiping him out [blaming Israel for the alleged “assassination” of Arafat].” [In response to the interviewer’s question about Arafat’s motives in allowing Hamas to carry out terror attacks after the Camp David summit]: “Only Allah, blessed be He, can know those intentions. Was it done to improve the terms of the negotiations or were they meant to show a shift [in Arafat’s policy]? These are things that Allah, blessed be He, will account for [with Arafat].”


Mahmoud Al Zahar has made similar claims in previous interviews about Arafat’s go-ahead to Hamas for terror attacks after the Camp David summit. Below is an excerpt from a report in Al-Quds newspaper on April 9, 2005: “Al Zahar said that the Palestinian Authority reached what Hamas had warned against, namely the Israeli Occupation’s denial of agreements signed with the PLO, clarifying that: ‘After the failure of the Camp David negotiations, the PLO began to tell Hamas that this was the opportunity to begin actions [that is, terror attacks against Israel]. Hamas was mistrustful of this approach, but nevertheless carried out attacks under the name of the Omar al-Mukhtar Force.” Asharq Al-Awsat newspaper reported on September 29, 2010 that, at a ceremony marking the anniversary of the Al Aqsa Intifada, Mahmoud Al Zahar said: “The late Palestinian President Yasser Arafat told Hamas to undertake a number of military acts in the heart of Israel, after he felt that negotiations with the occupying regime at the time had failed.”


In an interview on the official Hamas website (Palestine-info.info) on October 8, 2010, Mahmoud Al Zahar was asked about his statement that Hamas had been permitted to launch terror attacks prior to the outbreak of the Al Aqsa Intifada. Below is an excerpt from that interview: [Question] “You have previously said that President Abu Amar [Yasser Arafat] instructed Hamas to carry out terror attacks while he was under siege in Ramallah. Can we expect that Abu Mazen [the current Chairman of the Palestinian Authority] will reach a similar stage in his relationship with the [Hamas] movement?”


[Al Zahar] “Abu Amar did not tell Fatah to hold talks with Hamas in order to carry out attacks because of support for the opposition, but because of his desire to use terror attacks for tactical purposes. I remember attending the People’s Conference with [senior Fatah representatives] Hani al-Hassan, Abu Ali Shahin and Abdullah Elhourani in the el-Sheikh Awad Hall at el-Al Zahar University [in Gaza]. At that time those present raised the necessity for Hamas to launch terror attacks against the Israeli occupation, and it was no secret. Abu Amar wanted it to be a tactical measure designed to exert pressure on Israel through Hamas. Abu Mazen does not have that courage or that attitude and is not capable of gambling with his life to that end. By this I meant to suggest to the public that at certain points in time use was made of the opposition for tactical goals, and it does not arise from an attitude that sought to improve the negotiation terms. For that reason, I have no interest in changing the endeavors whereby reconciliation and opposition were attempted in order to improve the terms of the negotiations. But it is vital that they [reconciliation and opposition] should be based on a strategic overview.”





On Topic


Gag Order Lifted on Naval Interception of Rocket Materials for Hamas (Video): Tzvi Ben-Gedalyahu, Jewish Press, Feb. 11, 2015 —The Navy and the Israel Security Agency (Shin Bet) intercepted a boat last January that was on its way to Gaza with materials for manufacturing rockets and mortar shells, according to military spokesmen after a gag order on the counter-terrorist operation was lifted on Wednesday.

Gaza Terrorist Groups Rebuilding Militaries, Training Recruits for War: IPT News, Feb. 4, 2015 —Hamas and other Gaza-based terrorist organizations are intensifying efforts to rebuild military capabilities damaged during last summer's war with Israel, the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center reports.

Ten Points Regarding the Fundamental Breach by the Palestinians of the Oslo Accords: Amb. Alan Baker, JCPA, Jan. 5, 2015—The peace negotiation process as set out in the Oslo Accords was intended to lead to peace between Israel and the Palestinian People and mutual recognition of each other’s “mutual legitimate and political rights” (Preamble, Oslo I and Oslo II).

The PA and Hamas are a Greater Threat to Israel than IS: Giulio Meotti, Arutz Sheva, Feb. 4, 2015—Israel's president, Reuven Rivlin, just went to the United Nations to denounce the threat of a new Nazism, the Islamic State or Caliphate. Czech president, Milos Zeman, said the same at a conference in Prague against anti-Semitism. It is now very trendy, even among Israel's friends, to compare these Jihadists to Hitler.



















Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.



Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org


We welcome your comments to this and any other CIJR publication. Please address your response to:  Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish Research, PO Box 175, Station  H, Montreal QC H3G 2K7 




In the Shadow of a Young Corporal’s Death, Canada’s Greatness Shines Through: Rex Murphy, National Post, Oct. 25, 2014 — Out of this dark week there has come very much that is good.

Under Siege, Egypt Looks For Allies: Zvi Mazel, Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2014— Over the weekend, 30 Egyptian soldiers were killed and 31 wounded in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the past year in northern Sinai.

Parliamentary Recognition of Palestine – Legally, Historically and Politically Questionable : Amb. Alan Baker, JCPA, Oct. 27, 2014

‘Ehr Daw’ — They’re Here: Rabbi Shalom Lewis, Frontpage, Oct. 7, 2014 — I thought that maybe I’d start with a rendition of Paul McCartney’s plaintive masterpiece “Yesterday”…

On Topic Links


Terrorism Defies Definition: Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2014

Egypt Cancels Israel-Hamas Talks, Shutters Rafah, Plans Anti-Smuggling Wall After Mass Car Bombing: Dave Bender, Algemeiner, Oct. 26, 2014

The Role of Hamas and Fatah in the Jerusalem Disturbances: Pinhas Inbari, JCPA, Oct. 26, 2014

MPs 'Encouraged Hamas Terrorism' by Voting for Palestinian State Says Israel: David Blair, Telegraph, Oct. 24, 2014




CANADA’S GREATNESS SHINES THROUGH                                             

Rex Murphy                                                                                                                  

National Post, Oct. 25, 2014


Out of this dark week there has come very much that is good. And I am not just pointing to the very welcome spirit of concord the three political parties have, up to now, manifested in the Commons and outside. Nor the address of our three main political leaders, though again, their talks both in tone and content offered much to be regarded. Rather I am thinking of the unofficial moments, captured on video or in photographs, showing people acting so well, in moments of great distress or at some levels of real peril to themselves. Even after three days,  the very early scene of passersby, earnestly trying to care for Corporal Nathan Cirillo — this was but mere instants after his being shot — shimmers in the mind.


Everyone has seen that image, the huddle of people bent over him, and, as we have learned from news stories, even to his last breath assuring him that “he was loved.” It was very much the parable of the Good Samaritan in real and present time, only in Ottawa Wednesday morning, it wasn’t one Samaritan. There were at least four. Such loving attention, at a time when the scene was still in chaos and it was unknown how many shooters there might be, said so much more than the thousands of words we have heard. Even in the shadow of the young corporal’s death, it is not too much to say that this was a very gratifying moment — a tragic moment, but one worth honouring. All Canadians immediately recognized the actions of the corporal’s final companions as an example of how people should act at such a time, how we would wish to have acted. And how, heaven forbid, we may wish to be treated if it was us laying on that sacred ground, breathing our last breaths. We are, in part, very much the people we choose to admire, and our national character can, in some measure, be limned by the actions we choose to esteem. Our age, hag-ridden by the tinsel fame of hollow celebrity, calls for the counterbalance of real worth and real achievement being given deeper regard, of holding up those who neither have fame nor are seeking it, acting in casual nobility and with real care.


Canadians light on special people from everyday life who act with selflessness, or associate themselves with issues of genuine need, and place them in a kind of unofficial pantheon. They are our moral heroes. The most vivid example is perhaps that of Terry Fox, who Canadians still hold fresh and high in their regard even 30 years after his magnificent odyssey in rain, snow and glorious sunlight across the country. The country took to him, not only because of his mighty endurance at the very crest of his illness — which was a blazon all its own —  but just as much so because of the utter selflessness with which he spent his last days.


I see very much of the same thing in how swiftly and intensely the modest and unassuming person of Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers has found immediate home in the hearts and minds of everyone across the country. Of his pure bravery, most of us stand in awe. Bravery, or courage, as was said of old, is the cardinal virtue, as without it none of the other virtues can or will be exercised. Canadians took to Kevin Vickers, however, for reasons beyond even his courage. It was so much his manner. Here is a man to whom duty — a word I feel sometimes has slipped out of the vocabulary of our glib days — was as his life. His self-possession in the heat of an absolutely sudden crisis, his instantaneous response in a time of danger, and his visible awkwardness the next day when he was showered by the thunder of applause and tribute, left us gaping with admiration and affection.


We are always wondering if the days of sacrifice and full generosity are behind us. Every generation sees the one previous as somehow more stern and stoic, less caught by the trivia of position or wealth or power, than our own. We yearn for purpose and examples of those who live by codes of honour and duty. But, as we have seen, great men and women, in the sense of great I am underlining here, are still with us. And they carry the same mien, speak in the same un-self-regarding accents, as the men and women of yesterday. I think of Captain Sullenberger, who landed an Airbus loaded with passengers on the flowing waters of the Hudson River. Of how even after that unbelievable, harrowing descent and landing, he was reported as going through the cabin of the plane making sure everyone had gotten safely off, before he left the jet. He was another of those quiet, unassuming gentlemen who so quietly perform with a self-possession that takes our breath away, and who is almost surprised — and certainly uncomfortable — when half the world takes him in their hearts as special. Our man Vickers is such a fellow, a gentleman, a man of duty. He makes us proud as Canadians that he is one of ours. And that is a good thing for this country, for we are all, in part, who we choose to admire.


Then, of course, there are the two soldiers, Cpl. Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who was murdered in Quebec on Monday. Among our military their deaths have of course had special impact. And Canadians hold their military in a very special place. They are the institution we have chosen to admire. Cpl. Cirillo’s death, because of the whole drama of the day, and most particularly because of the symbolism of his place at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier, has been the larger story. His youth, vitality and friendliness — which we see so vibrantly in the many online, newspaper and broadcast pictures of him — summoned the deepest response from all the country. One picture alone of his forlorn dogs, vainly awaiting his return, had more pathos than a thousand pages of Dickens. Cpl. Cirillo is now another enrolee in this country’s unofficial pantheon, the gallery of those very special individuals, we have chosen to stand as representatives of what, in an ideal world, we would all choose to be. To the most enduring question of ours — what does it mean to be Canadian? — the passersby who tended the soldier, the Sergeant-at-Arms, the young solider at the tomb, and WO Vincent, the career military man going about his business in the uniform he earned the right to wear, gives us the answer we need. It was a dark week, but one too that had more than its share of special light. We will remember our fallen, and the light that they shone.





UNDER SIEGE, EGYPT LOOKS FOR ALLIES                                                      

Zvi Mazel                                                                                                            

Jerusalem Post, Oct. 27, 2014


Over the weekend, 30 Egyptian soldiers were killed and 31 wounded in one of the worst terrorist attacks in the past year in northern Sinai. President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi reacted with a stark declaration, saying terrorism was an existential threat and that Egypt will fight it till it is eradicated. Ansar Bayt al-Maqdis is at the forefront of Jihadi groups grimly determined to throw the country into chaos. The army is making an all-out effort to eliminate all Islamist terrorist movements, and claims to have killed some 600 insurgents and to have destroyed many of their strongholds, seizing huge amounts of arms and explosives – last week it estimated the number of underground tunnels blown up or closed at 1,875.


Those were heavy blows to the terrorists, but they are securely entrenched among the population in the north of the peninsula, and they can depend on their extensive networks of Beduin in the area. Furthermore, they are being reinforced by a steady stream of men and material coming through all Egypt’s borders. It can be said that to a certain extent, Egypt is under siege, with the Gaza Strip functioning as the logistic hub. Gaza has the capacity to develop and produce weapons, to package explosives and to train terrorists before infiltrating them to the peninsula through the tunnels, of which there are always enough left for that purpose.


However, an ever-growing number of fighters and ammunition are coming in through the borders with Libya and Sudan. The border between Egypt and Libya runs across 1,200 km. of deserts and mountains, making monitoring near impossible, the more so since strife-torn Libya is no longer functioning as a sovereign state. Its capital city has been partially taken over by Islamic and tribal militias, its parliament and its government have fled to Tobruk, not far from the Egyptian border. Many jihadi terrorists, among them some who came from Syria and Iraq, can be found all along that border. Dozens of Egyptians soldiers have been killed in recent months in a number of clashes with insurgents infiltrating from Libya. And if that was not enough, more arms and more rebels are coming in from Sudan, through its 400-km.- long border with Libya.


There could also be Iranian weapons still reaching the Sinai Peninsula. Iran is intent on destabilizing Egypt, even if it entails aiding extremist Sunni movements as it did with al-Qaida in the past. During the Mubarak era, extensive smuggling networks were left to grow in Egypt as a whole and in the Sinai Peninsula, in the mistaken belief that it was a problem for Israel alone. It was a costly mistake, for which Egypt is paying dearly. Sisi was confident he could depend on America’s assistance to fight the threat of terror. However, instead of cooperating with Cairo, the White House, still smarting over the ouster of former president Muhammad Morsi and of the Muslim Brothers, declared an embargo on arms for Egypt. The recent visit of the Egyptian president to Washington and his meeting with his American counterpart did not bring a thaw. Obama allegedly quizzed Sisi over human rights in Egypt. The Egyptian president retaliated by saying he would join the coalition against Islamic State but would not send troops, since they were badly needed to defend his country against terror. Relations between the two countries are still fraught, though America is now grudgingly dispatching ten Apache helicopters that were meant to have been delivered a year ago.


Deprived of the support of his country’s former staunchest ally, Sisi had to look elsewhere. He is in the process of setting up his own coalition with North African countries facing the threat coming from Libya, such as Sudan and Algeria. He is in close contact with the legal government of Libya, whose prime minister, Abdullah al-Thani came to Cairo in mid-October and signed a cooperation agreement between the two armies. Egypt will help train Libyan security forces and police, there will be joint border control, and cooperation will extend to exchange of intelligence. This was followed by steps on the ground. “Unidentified” planes bombed Tripoli airfield, held by Islamic and tribal militias. Various groups accused Egypt, and the White House was prompt to condemn the raids. Cairo denied that its forces intervened beyond its borders. It appears likely that the attack was not carried out by the Egyptian army, but probably by Libyan pilots taking off from Egyptian air fields flying Egyptians planes and planes from the Emirates. The Libyan army has now launched an all-out offensive against the Islamists with the help of former renegade general Khalifa Haftar and has retaken Benghazi – it is moving to reconquer Tripoli and restore order…

[To Read the Full Article  Click the Following Link—Ed.]              






LEGALLY, HISTORICALLY AND POLITICALLY QUESTIONABLE                                                                           

Amb. Alan Baker,                                                                                     

JCPA, Oct. 27, 2014


On October 13, 2014, the British Parliament, in its House of Commons, adopted a resolution by a majority of 274 votes, with 12 opposing votes, that states: “That this House believes that the government should recognize the state of Palestine alongside the state of Israel as a contribution to securing a negotiated two-state solution.” Proponents of this curious resolution claimed that “recognizing Palestine as a state would be a symbolically important step towards peace.” The Labour Party shadow foreign secretary Ian Lucas even opined that the resolution would “strengthen the moderate voices among the Palestinians who want to pursue the path of politics, not the path of violence.” He went on to claim that “this is not an alternative to negotiations.  It is a bridge for beginning them.”


However, former Foreign Secretary Malcolm Rifkind disagreed and suggested such a move should not be adopted because it would be purely symbolic: “For me the most important question is what practical benefit would passing this resolution make?” he asked. “It might make us feel good. But recognizing a state should only happen when the territory in question has the basic requirements of a state.  And through no fault of the Palestinians that is not true at the moment and it seems to me that the resolution before us is premature as we do not have a Palestinian government.” A similar vote by the Upper House of the Irish Parliament, known as the “Seanad Eireann,” adopted on October 23, 2014, stated: “Seanad Eireann calls on the government to formally recognize the state of Palestine and do everything it can at the international level to help secure a viable two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.” A similar position was put forward by the new prime minister of Sweden, Stefan Lofven, who stated in an inaugural address to the Swedish parliament on October 3, 2014: “The conflict between Israel and Palestine can only be solved with a two-state solution, negotiated in accordance with international law.  A two-state solution requires mutual recognition and a will to peaceful co-existence. Sweden will therefore recognize the state of Palestine.”


Analyzing these statements and votes logically, they would appear to be based on questionable legal, historic and political premises, as well as being in and of themselves self-contradictory and constituting, by their terms, a non-sequitor. As such, they would appear to be both ill-advised and based on a mistaken reading of the situation. The reference to the ultimate aim of a “negotiated two-state solution” correctly acknowledges the present legal situation in which the issue of final status of the territory is a distinct negotiating issue between Israel and the Palestinians, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to which the UK, Ireland and Sweden, as part of the EU, are signatory as witness. However, in acknowledging this, it is clear that the issue of the permanent status of the territory remains an open negotiating issue, yet to be agreed-on, and one may assume that upon resumption of the negotiating process, it will be duly addressed by the parties as one of the central agenda items.


Accordingly, the British House of Commons, the Irish Upper House and the Swedish prime minister would appear to contradict themselves by recognizing that negotiations are still pending, but nevertheless at the same time prejudging the outcome of the very negotiation they purport to support, by calling for recognition of the state of Palestine. Clearly no such a Palestinian state or sovereign entity exists and thus cannot logically be recognized or acknowledged by the UK Parliament. Similarly, no international treaty, convention or binding international resolution or determination has ever been adopted or entered into, that determines that the territories in dispute are indeed Palestinian. In this context, the Palestinian leadership itself is committed, pursuant to the Oslo Accords, to negotiate the issue of the permanent status of the territory.  Article V of the Declaration of Principles on Interim Self-Government Arrangements signed by Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin on September 13, 1993 states as follows: “2. Permanent status negotiations will commence as soon as possible, but not later than the beginning of the third year of the interim period, between the Government of Israel and the Palestinian people representatives. 3. It is understood that these negotiations shall cover remaining issues, including: Jerusalem, refugees, settlements, security arrangements, borders, relations and cooperation with other neighbors, and other issues of common interest.” Accordingly, the outcome of such negotiations and the ultimate status of the territory, whether as a Palestinian state or any other sovereign entity agreed-upon by the two sides, cannot be arbitrarily imposed by external parties, including the UK, Irish or Swedish parliaments, or the UN. It may only emanate from a bona-fide negotiating process as well as in accordance with accepted norms and requirements of international law regarding the characteristics of statehood. Such norms and requirements are set out in international law in article 1 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of States that clearly determines the attributes of statehood: “The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.” The Palestinians clearly do not meet the requirements set out in this convention.


Since the issue of the permanent status of the disputed territory is an agreed-upon negotiating issue, as indeed acknowledged by the international community including the UK, Ireland and Sweden,  any resolution by the House of Commons, the Irish Upper House of Parliament or the Swedish prime minister calling for recognition of a Palestinian state in effect purports to pre-empt the outcome of that negotiation through a one-sided determination that totally ignores legitimate legal and historic claims to the territory by Israel, including those based on historic and legal commitments to which the United Kingdom itself is bound. They would thus appear to be intervening in a bona fide negotiating process by supporting one side only. This is far from constituting any “bridge” to negotiations, so described by shadow foreign minister Mr. Ian Lucas, or “morally right,” as stated by Mr. Nicholas Soames. To the contrary, rather than encouraging a return to negotiations, as claimed by the proponents of these resolutions, such one-sided and biased issuances emanating from European parliaments will only serve to impede any bona fide and genuine negotiation by encouraging the Palestinians to adopt arbitrary and uncompromising positions on the issues on the negotiating agenda, knowing that they have the support of those European countries.


While clearly it is the sovereign prerogative of the British, Irish or Swedish Parliaments to adopt whatever resolution they choose, one might assume that they would not want to be misled or manipulated, whether by narrow political interests, external political or economic pressures or any other cause, into adopting a resolution that is legally and politically ill-advised and mistaken. It would be legally and politically prudent were the UK House of Commons and the Irish Upper House, as well as the Prime Minister of Sweden, to reconsider such ill-advised resolutions or statements, which certainly do no credit to them nor to those MPs who advanced and supported them…

[To Read the Full Article, With Footnotes, Click the Following Link—Ed.]                       





EHR DAW’ — THEY’RE HERE                                                                      

Rabbi Shalom Lewis                                                                                            

Frontpage, Oct. 7, 2014


I thought that maybe I’d start with a rendition of Paul McCartney’s plaintive masterpiece “Yesterday”… “Yesterday, all my troubles seemed so far away. Now it looks as though they’re here to stay, oh I believe in yesterday” – but then I thought, too romantic…And then I remembered Joseph Conrad’s sadly, cynical observation – – “The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary. Men alone are quite capable of every wickedness,” and sadly it felt right.


And so, here were are in a place of unimagined chaos and cowardice, paralysis and brutality. The beast roams the earth; we are stymied, stunned and continue to fiddle. My friends, “Ehr Kumpt Part 2, the Sequel.” This is not a time for delicacy. For tiptoeing. It is not a time to parse words nor worry about offending someone with unfiltered vocabulary. Time is no longer a luxury we possess. Distance no longer provides protection. We are being threatened like no time before, by an enemy obsessed with an apocalyptic endgame that will bring only disaster. An enemy that worships savagery. An enemy that celebrates depravity. An enemy that glorifies the death of the young. There has been a seismic shift in our world. We feel it. We see it. We know it. We dare not deny it. Pick up any newspaper on any day, the first page, the second page, the third page, the fourth page and beyond – – most of the articles are about radical Muslims, not just ISIS, immersed in a vicious culture of blood and slaughter. Skip to the sports page or the crossword puzzle if you wish, but that doesn’t make the uncomfortable news go away. In fact, it brings joy to the jihadists who hope for our indifference. If we deny evil then we need not fight it. It doesn’t exist – just a few lunatics, thousands of miles away, pounding sand, blowing each other up and occasionally beheading an unlucky journalist. Not so bad. For years, we have been mercifully spared the ugliness and intimacy of war…But today, war has been redefined and relocated. Geneva is finished. We are all combatants in the cross hairs. We are all on the front lines, like it or not. The battlefield has no boundaries and the war, no rules. The enemy targets deliberately, fiendishly, any place of innocence. All are vulnerable and so we must recalculate our strategy, re-examine our tolerance, re-energize our resolve and unequivocally identify the evil doers. Let us not be silenced by fear, by feckless goodwill, by reckless hope, by meaningless rhetoric.


There are one billion Muslims in the world and authorities agree that 5% are committed Islamists who embrace terror and wish to see, by any means possible, the Muslim flag fly over every capital, on every continent. I was relieved when I heard only 5%. Thank God it’s only 5%. Now I could sleep soundly. But wait, let me figure this out, 5% of a billion is… 50 million Koran-waving, Allah Akbar-howling Muslim murderers out there planning to slit our throats, blow us up or forcibly convert us…But what disturbs me is, where are the other 950 million Muslims who are not terrorists? Who are not bomb-blasting, acid-throwing zealots? Where are the other 950 million Muslims who tuck their children in at night with a lullaby, who are okay with Christians and Jews, crave a peaceful world and wish nothing more than a tasty bowl of hummus and a friendly game of Shesh Besh with a neighbor? I want to believe they are out there, for their sake and for ours. I want to believe they weep in pain over the desecration of their faith. I want to believe that we have partners who dream the dreams we do and wish upon the same star. I want to believe – – but where are they? A silent partnership is no partnership. Sin is not just in the act of commission – it is also in the act of omission. Most Germans were not Nazis – but it did not matter. Most Russians were not Stalinists – but it did not matter. Most Muslims are not terrorists – but it does not matter. Stand up righteously or get out of the way. Perhaps in every mosque, in every midrassah, in every Muslim neighborhood, Edmund Burke’s powerful warning should be chiseled on a wall in Arabic, in Farsi, in Pashto, in Urdu, for all to read and heed. “All that is necessary for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing.”…                                           

[To Read the Full Article  Click the Following Link—Ed.]                        




On Topic


Terrorism Defies Definition: Daniel Pipes and Teri Blumenfeld, Washington Times, Oct. 23, 2014 —Defining terrorism has practical implications because formally certifying an act of violence as terrorist has important consequences in U.S. law.

Egypt Cancels Israel-Hamas Talks, Shutters Rafah, Plans Anti-Smuggling Wall After Mass Car Bombing: Dave Bender, Algemeiner, Oct. 26, 2014 —After a terror attack on Friday killed at least 30 Egyptian soldiers in the northern Sinai, Cairo has declared a state of emergency in the area, closed down the Rafah crossing from Gaza, canceled indirect cease-fire talks between Israel and Hamas, and now says it will build a wall to block smuggling with the coastal enclave, Israel’s NRG News reported.

The Role of Hamas and Fatah in the Jerusalem Disturbances: Pinhas Inbari, JCPA, Oct. 26, 2014 —The deterioration of the security situation in Jerusalem cannot be understood only on the Israeli-Palestinian level…

MPs 'Encouraged Hamas Terrorism' by Voting for Palestinian State Says Israel: David Blair, Telegraph, Oct. 24, 2014 —Parliament was guilty of “encouraging terrorist attacks” and “giving up” on peace when MPs cast a “miserable” vote in favour of Palestinian statehood, according to an Israeli cabinet minister.
























Visit CIJR’s Bi-Weekly Webzine: Israzine.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing is available by e-mail.
Please urge colleagues, friends, and family to visit our website for more information on our ISRANET series.
To join our distribution list, or to unsubscribe, visit us at http://www.isranet.org/.

The ISRANET Daily Briefing is a service of CIJR. We hope that you find it useful and that you will support it and our pro-Israel educational work by forwarding a minimum $90.00 tax-deductible contribution [please send a cheque or VISA/MasterCard information to CIJR (see cover page for address)]. All donations include a membership-subscription to our respected quarterly ISRAFAX print magazine, which will be mailed to your home.

CIJR’s ISRANET Daily Briefing attempts to convey a wide variety of opinions on Israel, the Middle East and the Jewish world for its readers’ educational and research purposes. Reprinted articles and documents express the opinions of their authors, and do not necessarily reflect the viewpoint of the Canadian Institute for Jewish Research.



Rob Coles, Publications Chairman, Canadian Institute for Jewish ResearchL'institut Canadien de recherches sur le Judaïsme, www.isranet.org

Tel: (514) 486-5544 – Fax:(514) 486-8284 ; ber@isranet.org

Daniel Pipes: Netanyahu’s Steady Hand

Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu gave an important speech worthy of discussion when he addressed the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv on June 29. The following excerpts are from the official translation on the prime minister's office website:


An historic change is taking place in our region, with major repercussions for Israel's security and the security of the entire world. The Sykes-Picot agreement which, almost a century ago, defined the borders in our region, has come to an end. … we are now looking at many years of conflict and instability.


I agree that Sykes-Picot, a secret agreement between the British, French, and Russian governments in 1916, is likely defunct. But it is one thing for me as historian and analyst to make this point and quite another for a sitting prime minister to do so. It's probably not wise for the head of a government, who has enough on his hands, to engage in such public speculations. They can harm him more than help him.


    in the long-term, in decades, half a century, certainly a century, radical Islam will decline … because it does not allow for individual freedom and entrepreneurship, which has been the basis of economic development, certainly in the past several centuries. It will decline because it will be defeated by the information technology revolution which will make it very difficult for these regimes and movements to maintain long-term control over the minds of young people.


Again, I agree with this prediction and again I doubt that a political leader should make such predictions. Economic development and the information revolution are both very important, to be sure; but (1) some Islamists succeed at these (think of Fethullah Gülen) and (2) the failures of Islamism run far deeper and more terribly than these two points. What about its brutality, its family cruelty, its infeasible penal code, and its imperialist aggressions?


However, similar things could also have been said during the 1930s regarding the fate of Nazism in its battle against the Free World. Nazism was indeed defeated. However, 60 million people, including one third of our people, perished before the forces of freedom and progress defeated it. Therefore, as likely as I believe the ultimate decline of Islamic fanaticism to be, we must prepare now for the four great challenges it poses.

Well said. Those four challenges are:


    To protect Israel's borders, and specifically to "build a security fence in the east, build it gradually from Eilat to join the fence we have already built over the past two years on the Golan Heights." Fences elsewhere – along Israel's borders with Egypt, Gaza, Lebanon, Syria, and the West Bank – have proven their value, so it logically follows to invest in one along with Jordan too.


    To stabilize the area west of the Jordan River security line: "In this area of the West Bank no force can guarantee Israel's security other than the IDF and our security services." This means that "in any future settlement with the Palestinians, Israel will have to maintain long-term security control of the territory along the Jordan River." While sticking to the two-state solution, Netanyahu is very much altering it here, denying a future Palestinian state control over its own borders. No doubt, Israelis are right not to trust the Palestinian leadership.


    To build an axis of regional cooperation. The current fighting opens an opportunity for "enhanced regional cooperation" such as strengthening Jordan and supporting Kurdish aspirations for independence. Smart for Netanyahu publicly to endorse these two actors in the hopes that they in turn will publicly turn to Israel.


    To prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear threshold state. As in recent years, this remains Israel's paramount security concern.











Le Sinaï plonge l’Egypte dans un bourbier

Zvi Mazel

Le CAPE de Jérusalem, le 24 mai 2013


Le 22 mai dernier, sept Egyptiens – six policiers et un soldat – kidnappés dans le Sinaï ont été libérés sains et saufs. De longues tractations ont été menées entre un représentant de la sécurité militaire, un cheikh salafiste et un dignitaire de la tribu bédouine Swarka. Selon la version officielle, aucune concession n’a été faite ; cependant les ravisseurs courent toujours. Ils ont compris combien leur position était intenable : l’Egypte a refusé de céder à leur chantage. Pour une fois, la classe politique toute entière et l’opinion publique ont condamné l’opération. L’armée a massé hélicoptères, blindés et forces spéciales en vue d’un assaut ; furieux de l’attaque contre leurs collègues, les policiers ont bloqué le poste frontière de Rafah, et des milliers de Palestiniens se sont trouvés pris au piège. Inquiet, le Hamas a proclamé qu’il n’était pour rien dans l’affaire.


On attend toujours un communiqué de revendication. On sait que les ravisseurs ont réclamé la remise en liberté de dizaines de terroristes djihadistes impliqués dans les attentats de Taba et Charm al-Cheikh en 2004 et du nord Sinaï en 2011. Certains sont sous le coup d’une condamnation à mort. Selon des « sources provenant de milieux salafistes » publiées dans les médias, ces terroristes se réclament de l’organisation « Al Tawrid wa al Jihad », la plus puissante du Sinaï. Se réclamant d’al-Qaeda, elle regroupe des djihadistes égyptiens, des salafistes de Gaza et des Bédouins traditionnellement hostiles au pouvoir central. Tous appartiennent à la faction la plus dure de l’Islam, les « Takfiri », apparus en Egypte dans les années soixante-dix sous l’impulsion de Frères musulmans.


L’un des chefs du djihadisme en Egypte, le cheikh Nabil Naim, a déclaré au quotidien AlShark alAwsat que la Confrérie des Frères musulmans, au pouvoir en Egypte, entretient des liens étroits avec les djihadistes au Sinaï et se garde bien de les heurter. Deux raisons à cela : tout d’abord, ils partagent la même idéologie et aspirent au rétablissement du califat ; ensuite le régime se réserve la possibilité de faire appel à eux dans sa lutte contre l’opposition. C’est pourquoi le président Morsi a freiné les tentatives de l’armée pour libérer les otages par la force. Les généraux pensent, eux, que les organisations terroristes au Sinaï sont un danger pour l’Egypte. Ils n’oublient pas le massacre de seize soldats en août dernier par des djihadistes toujours en liberté. Une vaste opération a pourtant été lancée à l’époque : l’armée a engagé des blindés – en violation de l’annexe militaire au traité de Camp David – avant de les retirer sous la pression d’Israël. Cependant, Israël a accepté l’augmentation du nombre de soldats dans la zone démilitarisée.


Quelques 2 000 terroristes appartenant à des formations djihadistes regroupant des Egyptiens et des Palestiniens associés à des Bédouins opèrent toujours dans le Sinaï. Difficile de les repérer dans un territoire aussi vaste. Ils n’hésitent pas à lancer des raids contre des postes de police, des barrages routiers ou des patrouilles militaires ; opérations qui font peu de victimes mais portent atteinte au moral des troupes et au prestige de l’armée. C’est en vain que l’état-major attend le feu vert du régime pour y mettre fin. On le voit bien dans l’affaire de la dernière prise d’otages : Morsi n’a jamais condamné les kidnappeurs, se contentant de demander la libération des otages. Face à l’indignation publique qui a grandi contre son inaction, il a finalement donné son accord à une opération militaire. Sans attendre, les ravisseurs ont alors libéré les sept hommes.


A l’origine de la situation actuelle, il y a bien sûr l’état catastrophique de la péninsule du Sinaï, négligée depuis des années par le pouvoir central. La frustration née du manque d’infrastructure et de développement fait des Bédouins une proie facile pour les islamistes cherchant à infiltrer la région. Le Hamas, à la tête des réseaux de contrebande d’armes mis en place en coopération avec l’Iran, encourage cette infiltration.


La Confrérie se trouve bien embarrassée, partagée entre la nécessité de pacifier la péninsule et la crainte d’ouvrir un nouveau front alors que grandit l’opposition intérieure. Et puis comment ramener le calme sans s’opposer au Hamas, qui appartient aux Frères musulmans, les a aidés à renverser Moubarak et reste leur allié contre Israël ?


La situation n’est pas moins inquiétante pour Israël. Confronté à des tirs de missiles et à des attaques dans le sud, sans parler du flot d’armes et de munitions qui inonde la péninsule et Gaza, il prend sur lui de ne pas riposter. Heureusement, la coopération discrète entre les services de renseignement des deux pays se poursuit – pour le moment.


Des voix s’élèvent en Egypte pour demander la révision du traité de paix avec Israël. Apparemment les Frères musulmans ne saisissent pas que la solution ne passe pas par davantage de soldats à la frontière avec Israël, mais par une politique de développement économique et sécuritaire dans le Sinaï.


Dura : Israël s’exprime ; mieux vaut tard que jamais

Stéphane Juffa

menapres.org, 24 mai 2013


Le ministère israélien des Relations Internationales et de la Réflexion stratégique a publié, le 19 mai dernier, un rapport établissant la position du gouvernement hébreu sur la Controverse de Nétzarim. Durant sa rédaction, il avait invité Fr2 à participer au comité chargé de l’établir, proposition qui fut rejetée par la chaîne du service public français.


Avant sa publication, le brigadier-général de réserve et directeur adjoint du ministère, Yossi Kupperwasser, avec lequel j’ai eu un tête-à-tête mardi, avait soumis le rapport dont il est l’initiateur à l’ambassade de France à Tel-Aviv pour recueillir ses éventuels commentaires.


Difficile, dans ces conditions, de prétendre aujourd’hui que le ministère ait agi en vase clos, fermant la porte à d’éventuelles critiques, voire à des mises au point. Ce qui n’empêche pas le clan des enderlinards de se plaindre de ce qu’aucun représentant indépendant n’ait participé à l’élaboration du document.


C’est l’hôpital qui se moque de la charité, car il qualifie précisément le mode opératoire de la chaîne et de son correspondant permanent à Jérusalem depuis treize ans. Du premier contact que nous avions pris avec Olivier Mazerolle, début des années deux mille – à l’époque directeur de l’info sur Fr2 -, auquel nous proposions, avec des gages de discrétion, de corroborer les éléments que nous possédions mutuellement sur l’affaire afin d’aider à la recherche de la vérité, Mazerolle avait répondu qu’il "n’en avait strictement rien à foutre".


Et en 2004, lorsque celle qui lui avait succédé, Arlette Chabot, avait posté des gardes armés à l’entrée de l’immeuble de France-Télévisions, dans le seul but d’empêcher les journalistes de la Ména de participer à la conférence de presse qu’elle organisait. Plus récemment encore, quand le Dr. Richard Prasquier, en qualité de président du CRIF, avait passé un accord avec Patrick de Carolis, alors PDG de France Télévisions, en vue de faire examiner Jamal Dura et ses cicatrices par un médecin légiste à Paris, l’accord n’a pas été respecté.


Depuis, la société de télévision publique a tout fait pour que cet examen n’ait pas lieu. Carolis avait d’abord fallacieusement prétendu qu’Israël empêchait le "père" de la mise en scène de quitter Gaza, pour finir par déclarer par écrit – et au mépris de toutes les évidences – qu’il n’avait jamais passé d’accord avec Prasquier. Entre-temps, Jamal Dura, sur lequel Fr2 possède une influence certaine, a quitté plusieurs fois Gaza pour se rendre à l’étranger, mais chaque fois, en évitant consciencieusement de passer par la ville des lumières.


Aujourd’hui, Jamal suggère à l’AFP qu’une commission d’enquête internationale "comprenant des Arabes" ouvre la "tombe de Mohamed", procède à une analyse d’ADN et à l’examen du corps. Mais quelle autorisation attend-il donc ? Si j’étais à sa place, publiquement accusé depuis treize ans d’avoir participé à la mise en scène de la mort de mon fils et d’avoir feint être blessé par des balles, j’aurais effectué cette exhumation depuis longtemps. J’aurais aussi, très probablement, montré mes cicatrices à un médecin français dès la première occasion qui s’offrit à moi.


Le rapport du gouvernement israélien, dans le souci de ne pas envenimer les relations avec la France, épargne l’organe télévisuel du service public dans ses conclusions, de même que l’Etat français.


Il répond ainsi aux contraintes de la diplomatie auxquelles nous ne sommes pas tenus en tant que journalistes totalement indépendants. Car nous différencions deux affaires distinctes au sein de la Controverse de Nétzarim : d’une part, le tournage et la diffusion d’une fausse nouvelle ayant participé à provoquer des guerres et des assassinats et à éloigner les perspectives d’un règlement pacifique du conflit moyen-oriental. De l’autre, les efforts incessants de Fr2 afin d’entraver la marche de la justice, y compris par les pressions qu’elle a exercées sur des témoins et leur instrumentalisation dans le cadre de procès liés à l’affaire, doublés de faux intellectuels.


Comment considérer autrement l’envoi par Chabot d’un caméraman salarié de la chaîne, pour filmer, avec du matériel appartenant à la chaîne, les cicatrices apparaissant sur le corps de Jamal Dura ? Des cicatrices, séquelles de blessures qu’il avait subies en 1992, les faisant passer, à grands renforts de communication, pour les conséquences de balles que le "père" aurait reçues des mains des militaires israéliens en septembre 2000.


Comment nommer autrement le refus, quatre ans durant, de présenter les rushes que Fr2 prétendait détenir, censés montrer l’agonie de l’enfant, alors que ces images n’existent pas.


Les personnes concernées par les suites de cette affaire ne se limitent donc pas au menteur Charles Enderlin et au metteur en scène Talal Abou Rahma, loin s’en faut, avec ou sans rapport gouvernemental israélien. Lequel rapport n’a pas été établi sur la base de nouvelles enquêtes mais par la vérification de documents existants, procédant des enquêtes Shahaf-Ména, les seules à avoir été réalisées sur la Controverse.


En octobre 2000, il n’avait en effet fallu que quelques jours au physicien Nahum Shahaf pour présenter les preuves suffisantes de ce que le reportage français relevait d’une mise en scène. Début décembre, le gouvernement israélien possédait tous les éléments nécessaires pour affirmer qu’on était en présence d’une imposture.


A la mi-2003, l’investigation principale de la Ména était terminée et le même gouvernement se trouvait en situation d’émettre le même rapport que celui qu’il vient de rendre public, à l’exception des dossiers concernant le faux rapport médical jordanien et la question de l’origine des cicatrices, que nous avons révélés quelques années plus tard.


Yossi Kupperwasser ne nie pas les faits, il ajoute simplement – et on ne saurait lui donner tort – que les choses recèlent un poids différent lorsqu’elles sont présentées par un Etat ou par une agence de presse.


Quant au retard dans la présentation des faits, le haut-fonctionnaire l’attribue aux décisions de ceux qui ont précédé l’équipe actuelle au niveau de la prise de décisions. "Après avoir constaté que le reportage continuait à faire d’innocentes victimes, comme à Otzar Hatorah à Toulouse, il nous paraissait urgent de faire connaître le point de vue d’Israël de manière claire et précise", a poursuivi Kupperwasser.


Les premiers effets du rapport ont été immédiats : la plupart des media tricolores, dans leurs articles et autres dépêches, ont cessé de parler de "l’enfant mort en septembre 2000 au carrefour de Nétzarim" pour passer au conditionnel.


Dommage que l’Etat hébreu ne nous ait pas aidés entre 2001 et 2006, alors que la Ména était le seul media à soutenir que l’assassinat de Mohamed procédait d’une mise en scène. Pour être tout à fait précis, les cabinets successifs ne nous ont pas mis les bâtons dans les roues, mais ils n’ont pas levé le petit doigt afin de nous faciliter la tâche.


Dany Seaman, l’ex-directeur du bureau gouvernemental de la presse, faisait figure d’exception, qui s’en allait punaiser nos articles sur l’Affaire sur le tableau des communications de l’immeuble des Jerusalem studios pour s’assurer personnellement qu’Enderlin, de même que les autres journalistes des TV étrangères qui y sont concentrés, ne puissent éviter leur lecture au sortir de l’ascenseur.


En France, les dirigeants du CRIF, très majoritairement acquis à la thèse d’Enderlin, envoyaient des faxes aux associations qui accueillaient nos conférences sur la Controverse, les enjoignant de les annuler, au risque de se voir poursuivre devant les tribunaux. Il aura fallu attendre la présidence de Richard Prasquier pour que le Comité Représentatif des Juifs de France prenne enfin ses responsabilités.


J’ai lu que le même CRIF demande désormais à Fr2 d’ouvrir une enquête sur l’Affaire Dura ; à notre sens, il s’agit d’une erreur, car, ce faisant, l’on met en doute sans la moindre raison l’enquête existante – or on ne recommence une enquête que lorsqu’il y a des raisons de penser que la précédente a été bâclée ! -. Etrangement, je n’ai jamais vu les soutiens d’Enderlin mettre en cause la factualité de nos conclusions. Mais aussi, comment, sur quelles bases, pourraient-ils le faire ?


Nous amassons les évidences : nous en sommes, si je compte bien, à dix-huit preuves et plus de cent-cinquante éléments concordants, contre zéro chez nos adversaires. Iceux s’emploient à intenter des procès ad hominem, à stigmatiser politiquement les partisans de la vérité, à leur intenter des vices de forme et à faire l’apologie du courage et de la probité de Charles.


De cet étrange reporter qui a coupé la fin des images filmées par Abou Rahma, celles sur lesquelles on voit l’enfant "mort" relever la tête et regarder en direction du metteur en scène. Qui les a remplacées par l’affirmation selon laquelle il détenait les images de l’"agonie" de Mohamed, mais qu’elles étaient par trop insupportables pour être montrées aux téléspectateurs (et à qui que ce soit d’autre, d’ailleurs). Et qui, lorsque sommé par la justice de les montrer, a été contraint de reconnaître qu’elles n’existaient pas. Le bougre ! Le mythomane ! Le journaliste-voyou !


Le rapport émis par le gouvernement israélien ne signifie pas la fin de la dispute, loin s’en faut. Au contraire, les esprits s’échauffent à nouveau. A la fin du document Kupperwasser, il manque les mesures à prendre.


En 2003, Tommy Lapid, alors ministre de la Justice, bien que convaincu par les documents de l’enquête que nous lui avions soumis, après mûre réflexion, décida de ne pas poursuivre judiciairement Enderlin, Abou Rahma et France 2. Il m’avait expliqué qu’il n’était pas sain, pour un Etat, d’assigner un journaliste étranger devant ses tribunaux. Même s’il a commis un dol aux conséquences irréparables ; Lapid père soutenait que cela présenterait une image négative du pays et une immixtion dans la liberté de la presse. Lapid avait derrière lui une longue carrière de journaliste, ce qui avait sans doute motivé sa décision.


Je lui demandai : "dans le principe, je partage votre point de vue, mais ne doit-il pas y avoir de limites à la liberté octroyée à un confrère, un Etat doit-il lui accorder l’impunité dans tous les cas ?". Après s’être longuement gratté le menton, le ministre répondit : "Dans ce cas, il n’y a probablement pas de limites".     


Il ne semble pas qu’Israël ait, pour le moment, changé d’avis sur ce point. Mais une assignation reste la seule mesure concrète à prendre. Retirer sa carte de journaliste à Charles me semble un acte pathétique, réclamer cette sanction l’est plus encore. Pour le genre d’activités qu’il mène, il n’a guère besoin de cette carte.


Reste qu’au lendemain de la publication du rapport gouvernemental, je suis mieux dans ma peau que dans la sienne, ou dans celle de nombreuses autres personnalités qui se sont compromises dans la Controverse. Comme le beau-fils du Président Pérès, le Professeur Raphi Walden, qui est intervenu pour soutenir le faux rapport médical jordanien. Un rapport qui détaille les soins apportés à Jamal Dura les 1er, 2, 3 et 4 octobre 2000 à Amman, alors que le "patient" se trouvait à Gaza. Et pas même à l’hôpital Shifa mais à son domicile, dans le camp de réfugiés d’El-Bourej. Après avoir été atteint par treize balles à haute vélocité !


Comme Avi Issacharoff, journaliste à Haaretz, qui, après avoir publié les attendus de Walden sur le rapport jordanien, se refusa de diffuser le contenu de notre analyse.


Les élites du camp de concentration de Gaza

aiment les voitures de luxe

Philosémitisme, 27 mai 2013


La version médiatico-politique officielle en Europe est que le Hamas est populaire parce que vertueux et le Fatah impopulaire parce que corrompu. Ce serait donc pour cette raison que les Palestiniens plébiscitent le Hamas.  La situation mérite d'être nuancée: les élites du Hamas et du Fatah sont aussi corrompues les unes que les autres. Elles s'enrichissent grâce à la contrebande qui passe par les tunnels et aux trafics. Avec les aides faramineuses que leur accorde généreusement, entre autres, le contribuable européen, ces élites peuvent effectivement vivre dans le luxe.


Clarín s'est intéressé à cette question et rapporte que 60% du parc automobile dans la bande de Gaza serait composé de voitures neuves. Les élites du Hamas et les contrebandiers peuvent s'offrir des véhicules haut de gamme des marques Mercedes Benz, BMW et Toyota dont certains modèles coûtent plus de 55.000 dollars et qui viennent d'Egypte. La classe moyenne se contente de voitures coréennes importées d'Israël.  Curieusement on nous parle de blocus de la bande de Gaza.


Sur un autre registre tout aussi tragique, le journaliste Khaled Abu Toameh dénonce le silence de l'Union européenne face à la torture pratiquée par le Hamas et l'Autorité palestinienne. Why Doesn't the EU Condemn Palestinian Torture?. Nous connaissons la réponse – il faut faire croire que les Israéliens sont les seuls à pratiquer la torture, les seuls à être définitivement coupables et les Palestiniens à être définitivement les victimes les plus innocentes. Voir: Le Parlement européen rend hommage à Marwan Barghouti 'homme hors du commun' et aux terroristes palestiniens et Scénario: l'Europe exige la libération du terroriste du marathon de Boston!












En ce Jour de notre Indépendance le combat

pour la paix se poursuit avec force!

Freddy Eytan

Le CAPE de Jérusalem, 15 avril 2013


Cette année nous célébrons le 65e anniversaire de notre indépendance mais notre combat pour aboutir à la paix avec nos voisins arabes est loin d’être achevé.


Comme chaque année nous célébrons le Yom Haatsmaout, au lendemain du Yom Hazikaron, et une semaine après les cérémonies du souvenir de la Shoah. Ces grands événements de l’histoire de notre peuple seront toujours liés et soudés dans notre mémoire collective. Ils marquent à la fois nos douleurs, nos souffrances, notre délivrance et notre espérance. Nous pensons au passé et à nos chers disparus de la guerre et ceux tombés aux combats, mais aussi à notre avenir, à nos enfants et aux générations futures.


Le peuple israélien demeure unique, riche de sa jeunesse, de sa diversité et de son histoire trimillénaire. Nous avons accompli un long et pénible chemin pour pouvoir accéder à notre indépendance. Nous pouvons être fiers d’avoir réussi, d’avoir le privilège d’appartenir à cette génération qui a vu et observé Israël en marche. Toutefois, nous ne devons toujours compter que sur nous-mêmes car les menaces sont toujours omniprésentes et des dirigeants de la planète, des groupes terroristes et des islamistes extrémistes et sanguinaires souhaitent notre disparition de la carte. En dépit de notre présence sur cette terre, ils nous ignorent et pensent que l’Etat juif est éphémère, une sorte de parenthèse de l’Histoire contemporaine. Eh bien, tous nos ennemis, tous nos détracteurs doivent savoir que nous sommes ici, dans le pays de nos ancêtres pour toujours, jusqu’à la fin des temps. Ils ne pourront jamais réécrire ou falsifier notre Histoire. 


Notre Etat a été construit par nos propres mains, par le sang, la sueur, la rage de vaincre et en versant des larmes. Nous avons fait fleurir le désert et séché les marécages. Des pionniers et des survivants de la Shoah, des hommes et des femmes venus de tous les pays et les continents ont forgé une société, une culture et une langue. Un exemple formidable et admirable que nul au monde ne pourra ignorer ou contester.


En 1948, certaines chancelleries furent sceptiques et affirmaient que notre Etat sera tué dans l’œuf par les armées arabes. En juin 1967, le général de Gaulle nous mettait en garde contre les menaces de Nasser, mais en dépit de l’embargo imposé, ce général aussi fut étonné et stupéfait par la victoire écrasante et spectaculaire de Tsahal durant la guerre des Six Jours.


Nous avons survécu et gagné toutes les batailles, dont la plus meurtrière, celle de Kippour, grâce toujours à notre foi inébranlable dans notre juste et noble cause. Notre volonté est de fer et inépuisable et elle a rendu notre Etat fort et invulnérable. En 1948, nous n’étions que 600 000 âmes ; aujourd’hui notre population dépasse les 8 millions. Enfin, nous avons aussi un grand privilège, unique au monde, car les communautés juives nous sont toujours solidaires et nous apportent un soutien incontestable et un réconfort fraternel.


Soutenir Assad

Daniel Pipes

The Washington Times, 11 avril 2013

Adaptation française: Anne-Marie Delcambre de Champvert


Les analystes conviennent que «l'érosion des moyens du régime syrien est en train de s'accélérer», que petit à petit il continue à battre en retraite, rendant chaque fois de plus en plus probable une percée des rebelles et une victoire islamiste. En réponse à cela, je vais changer ma recommandation politique partant de la neutralité pour parler en faveur de quelque chose qui, comme philanthrope et ennemi depuis plusieurs décennies de la dynastie Assad, me fait faire une pause avant d'écrire:


Voici ma logique pour cette suggestion faite à regret. Les forces du mal présentent moins de danger pour nous quand elles se font la guerre les unes aux autres. Ceci (1) les maintient concentrées localement et (2) empêche l'une ou l'autre de sortir victorieuse (et ce qui constitue un danger encore plus grand-). Les puissances occidentales devraient guider les ennemis vers un affrontement interminable en aidant le côté qui perd quel qu'il soit, de manière à prolonger leur conflit.


Cette politique a des précédents. Pendant la majeure partie de la Seconde Guerre mondiale, l'Allemagne nazie ouvrit l'offensive contre la Russie soviétique et le fait de garder les troupes allemandes immobilisées sur le front de l'Est était essentiel à la victoire des Alliés. Franklin D. Roosevelt a donc aidé Joseph Staline à approvisionner ses forces et à coordonner l'effort de guerre avec lui. Rétrospectivement, cette politique moralement répugnante, mais stratégiquement nécessaire, a réussi. Et Staline était un monstre bien pire qu’al-Assad.


La guerre Iran-Irak de 1980-1988 a créé une situation similaire. Après la mi-1982, lorsque les forces de l'ayatollah Khomeiny passèrent à l'offensive contre les forces de Saddam Hussein, les gouvernements occidentaux ont commencé à soutenir l'Irak. Oui, le régime irakien avait commencé les hostilités et a été plus brutal, mais le régime iranien était passé à l'offensive et était idéologiquement plus dangereux. Ce qui arriva de mieux fut que les hostilités tinrent les deux côtés occupés et empêchèrent l'un ou l'autre de sortir victorieux sur l'autre. Selon les mots apocryphes de Henry Kissinger: «C'est dommage que les deux ne puissent pas perdre."


Dans cet esprit, j'ai défendu alors l'aide américaine à la partie perdante, quelle qu'elle puisse être, comme dans cette analyse de mai 1987: "En 1980, quand l'Irak menaçait l'Iran, nos intérêts coïncidaient au moins en partie avec l'Iran. L'Irak a été mis sur la défensive depuis l'été 1982, et Washington se situe maintenant fermement de son côté…. Quant à l'avenir, si l'Iraq une fois de plus prend l'offensive, un changement peu probable mais pas impossible, les États-Unis devraient changer de nouveau et envisager de prêter l'appui à l'Iran."


L'application de cette même logique à la Syrie d'aujourd'hui trouve des parallèles remarquables. Assad joue le rôle de Saddam Hussein – le dictateur brutal baathiste qui a commencé la violence. Les forces rebelles ressemblent à l'Iran – la victime initiale se renforce au fil du temps et constitue un danger islamiste croissant. La poursuite des combats met en danger le voisinage. Les deux parties s'engagent dans des crimes de guerre et présentent un danger pour les intérêts occidentaux.


Oui, la survie d'Assad avantage Téhéran, le régime le plus dangereux de la région. Mais une victoire des rebelles relance énormément le gouvernement turc de plus en plus voyou tout en permettant aux djihadistes de triompher et de remplacer le gouvernement d'Assad par des islamistes triomphants et illuminés. La poursuite des combats fait moins de dégâts aux intérêts occidentaux que leur prise de pouvoir. Il y a des perspectives pires que les islamistes sunnites et chiites se mélangeant, que les djihadistes du Hamas tuant les djihadistes du hezbollah, et vice-versa. C'est mieux qu'aucune des parties ne gagne.


L'administration Obama tente une politique trop ambitieuse et subtile consistant à aider en même temps les bons rebelles avec les armes meurtrières clandestines et 114 millions en aide tout en se préparant pour d' éventuelles frappes de drones contre les mauvais rebelles. Bonne idée, mais manipuler les forces rebelles via la télécommande a peu de chance de succès. Inévitablement, l'aide va se retrouver avec les islamistes et les frappes aériennes tueront les alliés. Mieux vaut accepter ses propres limites et aspirer au faisable: appuyer le côté qui bat en retraite.


Dans le même temps, les Occidentaux doivent être fidèles aux valeurs morales qu'ils prêchent et aider à mettre fin à la guerre contre les civils, les millions d'innocents qui subissent gratuitement les horreurs de la guerre civile. Les gouvernements occidentaux devraient trouver des mécanismes pour contraindre les parties hostiles à respecter les règles de la guerre, en particulier celles qui permettent d'isoler les combattants des non-combattants. Ceci pourrait entraîner une pression sur les fournisseurs des rebelles (Turquie, Arabie Saoudite, Qatar) et les partisans du gouvernement syrien (Russie, Chine) conditionnant l'aide au respect des règles de la guerre; cela pourrait même impliquer l'usage occidental de la force contre les contrevenants de chaque côté. Ce serait assumer la responsabilité de protéger.


Le jour heureux quand Assad et Téhéran combattront les rebelles et Ankara jusqu'à l'épuisement mutuel, le soutien occidental pourra alors aller aux éléments non-baathistes et non-islamistes en Syrie, leur permettant d'offrir une alternative modérée aux choix malheureux d'aujourd'hui et conduire à un avenir meilleur.


L’Iran, Israël et l’exemple nord-coréen

Dore Gold

Le CAPE de Jérusalem, 11 avril


Une fois encore, sans surprise, les dernières négociations tenues au Kazakhstan entre l’Iran et les Etats-Unis, la Russie, la Chine, la France, la Grande-Bretagne et l’Allemagne se sont achevées sans aucun résultat.


Le chef de la délégation iranienne, Saïd Jailli, a accusé implicitement l’Etat d’Israël d’être responsable des difficultés en cours. Selon ses propos, Israël agit dans les coulisses pour faire pression sur les pays occidentaux et saboter tout compromis.


Ce genre d’accusation et le prétexte qu’elle induit ne sont pas nouveaux. Les prédécesseurs de Jailli ont toujours accusé Israël d’être responsable de l’impasse diplomatique entre l’Occident et l’Iran. Dans un article publié en janvier 2012 dans le New York Times, nous pouvons lire que le seul moyen d’assouplir les positions de Téhéran dans le domaine nucléaire serait la création d’une zone exempte d’armes nucléaires ; en clair : braquer les projecteurs sur  Israël… Fort heureusement, l’administration américaine a bien compris le message et a refusé de tenir une conférence internationale sur ce sujet. Le président Obama avait bien compris que devant les turbulences au Moyen-Orient et le tournant négatif pris par le “printemps arabe” le but de cette conférence n’était plus propice ni productif.


Il faut dire que l’idée même selon laquelle la détermination de l’Iran à acquérir des armes nucléaires serait liée à Israël est complètement fausse et erronée.La République islamique a renouvelé son programme nucléaire dans les années 1980 suite à l’expérience amère de la guerre Iran-Irak (1980-1988), pendant laquelle l’armée iranienne a été attaquée à plusieurs reprises, notamment par des armes chimiques utilisées par Saddam Hussein.


Après cette guerre qui a duré 8 longues années et a fait plus d’un million de victimes, Téhéran a cherché par tous les moyens à acquérir des armes nucléaires. Sa volonté était de devenir la première puissance du Moyen-Orient après la chute du régime irakien.


Cette aspiration de l’Iran à l’hégémonie régionale reste d’actualité et le rôle des Gardiens de la Révolution est crucial pour atteindre cet objectif. Le Bahreïn, par exemple, est décrit par des responsables iraniens comme l’une de leurs provinces… tandis que des milliers de soldats des Gardiens de la Révolution sont déployés sur le sol syrien afin d’empêcher la chute de Bachar el-Assad.


En réalité, l’ambition de l’Iran pour acquérir des armes nucléaires n’a plus pour objectif qu’elles deviennent un moyen de dissuasion, mais un moyen de répondre à ses aspirations régionales au Moyen-Orient. Les efforts de Jailli et de certains observateurs et chercheurs occidentaux pour détourner l’attention sur l’Etat juif ne changeront en rien la motivation iranienne de franchir la ligne rouge et de devenir, tôt ou tard, une puissance nucléaire.


Soulignons que le comportement de la Corée du Nord et la retenue des réactions occidentales influencent considérablement le dialogue présent entre l’Iran et les pays concernés. Rappelons que la Corée du Nord a expulsé les inspecteurs de l’AIEA, elle a produit du plutonium enrichi de qualité militaire, et elle a effectué trois essais atomiques. Le monde occidental n’a réagi qu’avec de nouvelles sanctions. Aujourd’hui, la Corée du Nord menace les Etats-Unis par l’arme atomique et donc chaque diplomate qui tente de dialoguer avec son homologue iranien devrait prendre en compte que le pays des ayatollahs pourrait facilement se retirer de tout éventuel accord. L’Iran trouvera toujours des prétextes et des excuses et se présentera toujours comme un “bouc émissaire” face à Israël.


John Baird brise un tabou à Jérusalem-Est

Radio-Canada, 11 avril 2013


Le ministre des Affaires étrangères du Canada, John Baird, minimise l'importance de sa rencontre avec la ministre de la Justice israélienne, Tzipi Livni, à Jérusalem-Est, la partie de la ville occupée et annexée par Israël depuis 1967.


À Londres jeudi matin, John Baird a réagi aux révélations du quotidien israélien Haaretz voulant que, lors de sa tournée au Moyen-Orient la semaine dernière, le ministre canadien s'était rendu au bureau de la ministre Livni, dérogeant ainsi à la politique de la plupart de ses homologues occidentaux, qui s'abstiennent de visiter les bureaux du gouvernement israélien à Jérusalem-Est pour ne pas sembler donner leur aval à l'annexion israélienne.


Sa priorité, a-t-il dit, était de rencontrer des responsables israéliens et de l'Autorité palestinienne pour parler du processus de paix. Sa visite à Jérusalem-Est n'est, selon lui, qu'une « discussion sémantique ».


« Le lieu où j'ai pris un café avec Tzipi Livni n'est pas pertinent et n'indique aucun changement dans la position canadienne. » — John Baird, ministre des Affaires étrangères du Canada

Le porte-parole du ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères, Yigal Palmor, a reconnu que des rencontres dans la partie occupée de la ville étaient peu communes, mais qu'« Il ne devrait y avoir rien d'anormal à rencontrer la ministre israélienne de la Justice à Jérusalem-Est. Ce qui est étrange, c'est que cela soit l'exception », a-t-il ajouté.


Le quotidien Haaretz révèle également que, lors de sa visite dans la région, M. Baird s'est aussi rendu dans une base militaire israélienne établie sur le Golan syrien, une autre zone occupée et annexée par Israël en 1981, une annexion non reconnue par la communauté internationale.


Un haut responsable du ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères a affirmé au quotidien israélien que M. Baird avait effectué ces deux visites contre les recommandations de l'ambassade du Canada en Israël.


Interrogé par Radio-Canada, le porte-parole de John Baird, Rick Roth, a déclaré que le ministre « voulait connaître le point de vue » de Mme Livni sur le processus de paix au Proche-Orient, étant donné qu'elle est la ministre responsable des négociations avec les Palestiniens. Il a affirmé que le ministre, à titre d'invité, avait rencontré ses hôtes « au moment qui leur convenait le mieux ».


À l'issue de sa visite, mardi, M. Baird a réaffirmé l'alliance « étroite et spéciale » entre le Canada et Israël.Le Canada est l'un des soutiens les plus solides d'Israël, en particulier face au programme nucléaire iranien, et a été l'un des rares pays à s'opposer à l'accession de la Palestine au statut d'État observateur à l'ONU. Au sein du Cabinet, M. Baird est l'un des plus fervents partisans d'Israël.






Pourime, Suze et Jérusalem

Julien Bauer

Sept années à Jérusalem, Éditions du Marais, Montréal, 2012, p. 95


Pour visionner le texte, veuillez accéder le lien ci-dessous:




Israël, puissance gazière : le miracle et l'ironie

Sébastien Castellion

menapress.org, 18 février 2013



Dans environ deux mois (la date précise n'a pas encore été rendue publique) se produira un événement qui marquera le début d'une ère nouvelle pour l'économie israélienne : le site de production de gaz naturel Tamar, situé à 80 kilomètres au large de Haïfa, commencera ses premières livraisons commerciales à la Hevrat haHachmal, la compagnie israélienne d'électricité.


Tamar a été construit durant les quatre dernières années, pour un coût d'environ 3 milliards de dollars, après la découverte des réserves de gaz par le consortium israélo-américain (Noble Energy, Isramco, Delek Drilling, Avner Exploration), le 17 janvier 2009. Il contient cinq puits, qu'un pipe-line sous-marin de 150 kilomètres relie à une station de traitement située au large d'Ashkelon.


Au moment de sa découverte, Tamar était le plus gros champ gazier ou pétrolier jamais identifié dans la région du Levant. Dix-huit mois plus tard, cependant, des réserves encore plus abondantes étaient trouvées par le même groupe d'investisseurs dans les eaux territoriales israéliennes, non loin des eaux cypriotes. Les ressources de ce deuxième projet, baptisé Léviathan, sont estimées à 470 milliards de mètres cubes de gaz naturel. Les premières livraisons sont attendues pour 2015.


Au total, les ressources identifiées dans les eaux israéliennes sont largement suffisantes pour assurer l'indépendance énergétique du pays pour les 20 à 25 prochaines années. Ce n'est probablement qu'un début : les découvertes qui restent à faire pourraient, si l'on en croit les expériences précédentes, multiplier ce résultat par trois ou quatre. Ces chiffres laissent encore de la place pour qu'Israël puisse se positionner comme exportateur.


Le développement du gaz israélien arrive à point nommé après la rupture, suite au "Printemps arabe", des approvisionnements qui représentaient traditionnellement l'essentiel des besoins d'Israël et de la Jordanie : les livraisons de gaz égyptien par le pipe-line du Sinaï. Victime d'attentats répétés après la chute du régime de Moubarak, ce pipe-line n'assure plus la sécurité énergétique d'Israël, qui, depuis deux ans, a dû jongler avec ses réserves stratégiques et avec des livraisons ad hoc pour satisfaire les besoins en énergie de son économie et de son armée.


Naturellement, cette bonne nouvelle pour Israël ne concerne pas seulement l'économie. Les questions énergétiques ont toujours une influence géopolitique, même dans les régions du monde les plus paisibles – et à plus forte raison au Moyen-Orient. Au total, la découverte d'importantes réserves de gaz ne peut que renforcer la position d'Israël dans la région. Cependant, la question des exportations futures et des relations énergétiques avec les voisins d'Israël reste à résoudre. De plus, le pays devra éviter la "malédiction de la richesse" ; nous reviendrons sur ce risque en détail par la suite.


Du point de vue géopolitique, les nouvelles ressources gazières d'Israël ont fait plus que renforcer son indépendance énergétique. Elles pourraient fonder les bases d'une alliance durable du pays avec Chypre – et, au-delà, avec la Grèce et les autres pays de l'Union Européenne, comme la Bulgarie, qui se méfient de l'influence turque.


Léviathan est en effet le gisement jumeau – par la géographie et par l'existence d'investisseurs communs – d'un forage situé dans les eaux cypriotes mais à proximité immédiate des eaux israéliennes, Aphrodite.


Or, la Turquie cherche à empêcher le développement d'Aphrodite (elle revendique le gisement pour la fictive "République turque de Chypre du Nord", inventée pour donner une forme légale à l'occupation d'une partie de l'île par l'Armée turque) – ou du moins à obtenir pour elle-même, par l'intermédiaire des "Nord-Cypriotes", une partie du gâteau.


En 2011, la Turquie a envoyé un navire et des avions militaires dans la région d'Aphrodite pour affirmer ses prétentions. Son objectif principal était d'intimider les investisseurs éventuels et d'empêcher, faute d'argent, le développement du gisement – à moins que Chypre accepte de payer tribut aux Turcs en leur reversant une partie des produits futurs.


Il y eut, à l'époque, des informations selon lesquels le navire turc dépêché en eaux cypriotes avait été approché d'un peu trop près pour son propre confort par des avions israéliens ; cependant, cette information n'a jamais été confirmée par Israël ni par Chypre et on ne peut pas la considérer comme établie. En revanche, aucune nouvelle approche turque n'a eu lieu depuis lors.


Si Israël montre assez clairement, dans ce jeu politico-militaire de "gesticulations", dans lequel on envoie des forces suffisamment en vue pour faire passer son message, mais en principe sans tirer, qu'elle est prête à défendre le développement cypriote en cas de besoin, la Turquie n'aura pas d'autre solution que de reculer.


Dans l'intervalle, des discussions sont en cours entre Chypre – soutenue par la Grèce – et Israël pour construire un gazoduc qui permettrait de vendre en Europe, non seulement le gaz d'Aphrodite, mais aussi une partie de celui de Léviathan.


Les discussions sur ce gazoduc (qui pourrait être complété par une installation de liquéfaction de gaz à Chypre) se poursuivent lentement, comme toute discussion portant sur des investissements aussi lourds : Chypre n'a pas les ressources financières nécessaires et doit introduire des investisseurs étrangers, qui sont naturellement prudents vu la situation sécuritaire complexe dans la région.


En Israël même, l'idée de dépendre, pour les revenus futurs, d'installations situées à l'étranger ne fait pas l'unanimité. Cependant, là aussi, les développements gaziers à venir dépendront de l'apport d'investisseurs extérieurs. Ceux-ci ne mettront pas autant d'argent sur la table si la production israélienne est réservée au marché domestique, qu'ils ne le feront si des exportations sont prévues.


La compagnie d'Etat israélienne, qui gère les gazoducs, a annoncé, la semaine dernière, qu'elle chercherait à lever 1 milliard de dollars sur les marchés d'ici 2015 : or, l'argent ne viendra que si les investisseurs ont une idée claire de l'origine des revenus futurs.


Chypre et la Grèce représentent la solution la plus crédible pour assurer ces revenus. L'autre voie d'export en principe ouverte à Israël – vers les pays arabes non gaziers qui l'environnent – est politiquement fermée pour ce qui concerne le Liban et la Syrie. La Jordanie pourrait, en revanche, devenir un client, mais elle n'est pas un marché suffisamment important pour attirer les investisseurs.


Dans la reconfiguration régionale des intérêts qui est en train de se jouer en prévision des premières productions de gaz israélien, le grand perdant – à part la Turquie qui a choisi une tactique de confrontation vouée à l'échec – est le Liban.


Immédiatement après la découverte de Tamar, en 2009, le Hezbollah, maître du pays, avait prétendu que les ressources se trouvaient dans les eaux libanaises et menacé Israël d'attaquer le projet si elle en poursuivait le développement. Comme cette menace ne s'appuyait sur aucune capacité d'action (le Hezb n'a pas de moyens de frappe en mer), la seule réaction des observateurs fut de signaler qu'il était amusant de voir, pour une fois, le Hezb promettre "de jeter les Juifs hors de la mer".


Le Liban, depuis lors, a reculé sans fanfare par rapport aux prétentions du Hezbollah et reconnu, dans un rapport aux Nations Unies de 2010, que Tamar ne se situe pas dans les eaux libanaises. Le Liban a ajouté que d'autres réserves pourraient se situer dans ses eaux – ce qui est parfaitement exact, mais les investisseurs ne vont sans doute pas se bousculer pour développer ces ressources, aussi longtemps qu'ils risquent les exactions du Hezbollah. La situation est la même (en remplaçant "Hezbollah" par "Hamas") pour les gisements dont l'existence a été confirmée au large de Gaza.


A plus long terme, Israël devra prendre garde à éviter la "malédiction de la richesse", qui a conduit trop de pays devenus soudainement riches en ressources naturelles à porter plus d'attention à l'emploi de leur nouvelle fortune qu'aux facteurs de croissance plus durables : le développement des compétences, la qualité des travailleurs et la sécurité des investissements.



La fin d’un ordre colonial

Christophe Ayad

Le Monde, 15 février 2013


Les révolutions arabes déclenchées en 2011 sont des processus historiques dont nous sommes loin de mesurer la portée et les conséquences. L’une d’entre elles pourrait bien être la mise à bas de l’ordre dessiné il y a bientôt un siècle, le 16 mai 1916, par les accords Sykes-Picot. Signés dans le plus grand secret à Londres, par les plénipotentiaires britannique (Mark Sykes) et français (François Georges-Picot), ces textes assortis de cartes établissaient un partage du Proche-Orient post-ottoman, attribuant des sphères d’influence à la France et au Royaume-Uni mais aussi dessinant les frontières des futurs Etats de la région.


Cet ordre colonial a perduré au Proche-Orient après les indépendances qui ont suivi la seconde guerre mondiale. Il a en effet été repris à leur compte par les élites militaires nationalistes qui se sont emparées du pouvoir un peu partout dans la région. Tout en revendiquant un idéal panarabe, Saddam Hussein en Irak et Hafez Al-Assad en Syrie ont été les gardiens jaloux des frontières dessinées par les colonisateurs, pourtant vilipendés pour avoir dépecé la grande nation arabe. Les dictatures bassistes, qui occupaient les deux pays clés du Machrek, n’ont cessé de cultiver leur « nationalisme national », renforçant les identités de pays aux frontières arbitraires.


Les accords Sykes-Picot ont en effet tranché dans la délicate marqueterie ethnique et confessionnelle du Proche-Orient, créant un Liban séparé de la Syrie pour complaire aux Français, éparpillant les Kurdes sur quatre Etats, dont deux arabes, l’Irak et la Syrie, en plus de la Turquie et de l’Iran. De même Mossoul, sunnite et chrétienne, s’est retrouvée séparée de sa « soeur » syrienne Alep. Des grandes confédérations tribales, comme les Chammakh, vivent à cheval sur quatre Etats : l’Arabie saoudite, la Jordanie, l’Irak et la Syrie. D’autres arrangements ont rejeté une partie des Alaouites syriens en Turquie avec le rattachement à Ankara du sandjak d’Alexandrette.


Mais cette matrice, reprise à leur compte par les pouvoirs qui ont dirigé après les indépendances, est en train de voler en éclats. L’ébranlement du Proche-Orient de Sykes-Picot a commencé en 2003 avec l’invasion de l’Irak par les Etats-Unis. Cet événement majeur a jeté à bas et rebâti l’un des Etats les plus forts, jacobins et centralisateurs de la région : l’Irak de Saddam Hussein était un mélange de descendant de la civilisation hydraulique de l’ancienne Mésopotamie et de férule sunnito-baasiste. Les idéologues néoconservateurs, qui avaient ourdi à Washington l’invasion et la reconstruction, ont voulu en faire un Etat faible, fédéral et fondé sur une logique ethnico-confessionnelle. Ce projet, établi sur un mélange de militantisme néolibéral et d’a priori coloniaux, avait pour but d’en finir avec le vieux nationalisme arabe, désigné comme la source de tous les maux régionaux, à commencer par l’hostilité radicale à Israël.


Mais dans un pays fragile et meurtri comme l’Irak, la mise en concurrence des ethnies et des confessions a ouvert la boîte de Pandore des rivalités entre Kurdes et Arabes, entre chiites et sunnites. L’Irak, en proie à des forces centrifuges d’une extraordinaire puissance, est devenu – et reste à ce jour – le terrain de jeu des ambitions et ingérences régionales. Chacun (Turquie, Iran, Arabie saoudite) y pousse ses pions, à travers ses clients ou ses agents d’influence.


L’avènement des révolutions arabes, en affaiblissant les Etats et leurs appareils de coercition, a fait ressurgir des solidarités, des voies d’échange (de personnes et de marchandises) et des identités anciennes. Il suffit de voir comment le conflit syrien étend profondément ses ramifications dans les sociétés libanaise, turque et irakienne. Ainsi, les réseaux tribaux des Chammakh, auxquels appartient le roi Abdallah d’Arabie saoudite, ont été mis à contribution par Riyad pour armer les rebelles de l’est syrien, dans la région de Deir ez-Zor.


A la faveur du conflit syrien, les Kurdes de Syrie ont gagné une autonomie, qui vient s’ajouter à la quasi-indépendance des Kurdes d’Irak, et qui ne manquera pas d’avoir des répercussions régionales, même si pour l’instant les divisions interkurdes empêchent l’émergence d’un front commun. Les Alaouites du sud de la Turquie et de Tripoli au Liban se sentent menacés par la probable chute d’un régime étranger. Tandis que sunnites libanais et irakiens y voient une revanche sur leur propre impuissance politique.

Même hors du coeur du Levant, en Libye notamment, la disparition de l’Etat Kadhafi a réveillé les régionalismes toubou et touareg dans le Grand Sud, tandis que la tentation autonomiste de Benghazi – plus proche d’Alexandrie que de Tripoli – n’a jamais été aussi forte. Si le mouvement devait se poursuivre, il affecterait à coup sûr les pays du Golfe, où d’importantes minorités chiites vivent dans la discrimination à Bahreïn, en Arabie saoudite et au Koweït.

Ce grand chambardement entraînera-t-il une révision des frontières héritées de la colonisation ? C’est peu probable, tant le tabou est grand au niveau international, surtout dans la région du monde qui compte les plus importantes réserves d’hydrocarbures. Mais rien ne sera plus comme auparavant non plus. Des grandes compagnies multinationales l’ont compris, comme ExxonMobil, Total ou Chevron, qui traitent désormais directement avec l’entité kurde d’Irak, sans même prendre la peine d’en aviser Bagdad. Les chancelleries occidentales semblent, elles, plus lentes à envisager l’écroulement du monde qu’elles avaient bâti pendant la première guerre mondiale.



L’Europe et le « Parti d’Allah »

Freddy Eytan

Le CAPE Jérusalem, 13 février 2013


Le Hezbollah a été créé en 1982 juste après la Première guerre du Liban. Plus de cinq mille Iraniens membres des « Gardiens de la révolution » se sont installés dans la région de Baalbek au Liban pour « remporter la victoire d’Allah ». L’idéologie est claire : la révolution islamique devrait s’installer dans tout le Moyen-Orient balayant ainsi les monarchies arabes et chassant les Sionistes de toute la Palestine et notamment de Jérusalem !


Pour aboutir à son objectif, le Hezbollah emploie des méthodes de terreur et de terrorisme contre des cibles occidentales, israéliennes et juives. Depuis 1983, le Hezbollah a enregistré des dizaines d’attentats spectaculaires, des prises d’otages et des missions suicides à travers toute la planète.


Rappelons pour mémoire : le 8 avril 1983, l’explosion d’une voiture piégée devant l’ambassade des Etats-Unis à Beyrouth, 61 morts et 120 blessés. Le 23 octobre 1983, explosions de deux voitures piégées dans les casernes des soldats français et américains à Beyrouth. 239 Marines et 74 parachutistes français sont tués et des dizaines d’autres blessés ! Le 17 mars 1992, l’explosion de l’ambassade d’Israël à Buenos-Aires fait 29 victimes et plus de deux cents blessés. Et deux ans plus tard, toujours dans la capitale argentine, une nouvelle explosion contre le centre communautaire juif tuant 85 civils et blessant plus d’une centaine. Et enfin, sans évoquer l’attentat contre l’ancien Premier ministre libanais Rafic Hariri par le Hezbollah, rappelons l’attentat meurtrier à Burgas, en Bulgarie, contre des touristes israéliens (6 morts et une trentaine de blessés).


Ces deux dernières années le Hezbollah a planifié de nouveaux attentats et grâce à la vigilance des services de renseignements ils ont tous été déjoués.


Cette liste d’attentats n’est que partielle et pourtant certains pays européens dont la France hésitent toujours à désigner le Hezbollah « organisation terroriste ». Cette valse hésitation dépasse largement l’entendement ! Toutes les questions juridiques ou politiques soulevées par les Européens ne sont que prétextes ! Voilà plus de trois décennies que le Hezbollah est une organisation terroriste « par excellence » et l’Europe fait la sourde oreille. Actuellement, seuls l’Amérique, l’Australie et Israël affirment sans ambages cette vérité toute simple. Cependant, les Pays-Bas ont agi seul dans ce sens et la Grande- Bretagne considère que seule « la branche militaire » du Hezbollah est terroriste. En février 2005, suite à l’attentat contre Rafic Hariri, le Parlement européen a voté une résolution indiquant qu’« une preuve claire existe sur les activités terroristes du Hezbollah ». Et pourtant, concernant l’attentat de Burgas, la France rejette une requête israélienne et refuse de voter au Parlement une résolution désignant le Hezbollah organisation terroriste.


Nous constatons donc que l’Union européenne demeure divisée sur une question si grave au moment même où la France combat au Mali contre des organisations terroristes. Pourquoi ne pas appeler un chat un chat et également le Hezbollah chiite libanais, financé et entraîné par l’Iran : « organisation terroriste » ? Pourquoi toujours distinguer la soit- disant branche politique de la branche militaire, ne s’agit-il pas de la même organisation, du même commandement militaire ? Comment ignorer le chaos en Syrie et les milliers de milices iraniennes soutenant le régime de Bechar Assad et installées à nos frontières ? Par sa position passive l’Europe a-t-elle réussi à réduire les attentats commis par des chiites en soutanes ? L’Union européenne a-t-elle évité de nouvelles prises d’otages ? A-t-elle réussi à arrêter les révolutions islamiques suite au « Printemps arabe » ? A-t-elle sauvegardé l’indépendance et la souveraineté du Liban ? La FINUL au Sud Liban a-t-elle joué un rôle efficace contre la contrebande d’armes et les missiles déposés sous leur nez dans les villages chiites ?


L’Europe devrait donc sortir de sa torpeur, changer de cap, et prendre une décision audacieuse  et non mercantile. Le Hezbollah devrait être mis au ban des nations. Les banques européennes devraient geler tous les avoirs et tout financement iranien au Hezbollah, sinon c’est bien l’Europe qui deviendra la plaque tournante du terrorisme international, cette terreur religieuse aveugle et meurtrière orchestrée par « le Parti d’Allah »






Les Palestiniens sont t-ils les plus grands mendiants de la terre ?
Ftouh Souhail
europe-israel.org, 7 janvier 2013
Le monde a ses chouchous, ses préférés et ses souffrances symboliques. Parmi les petites joies du peuple palestinien : le fait de recevoir des cadeaux de Noël toute l’année et de la part du monde entier.
Comme chaque année, en 2012, ce sont encore les Palestiniens qui ont particulier bénéficié d’une attention soutenue faisant d’eux les champions de la mendicité. La Communauté internationale continue de financer, nourrir et veiller en permanence sur les Palestiniens avec une constance remarquable. Dans le même temps, des millions d’individus dans la Corne de l’Afrique meurent dans l’indifférence générale.
Pour ne prendre que quelques exemples ; en termes d’APD (aide publique au développement) par habitant, un Palestinien a reçu en 2012 par exemple , 621 dollars d’aide ( source l’Office de secours et de travaux des Nations Unies pour les réfugiés de Palestine ou l’UNRWA) alors qu’ un Afghan 186 dollars, un Congolais 12 dollars, un Pakistanais moins de 7 dollars.
De prime à bord, une question se pose : les Palestiniens n’en ont-il pas marre de faire appel à la charité publique ?
La Ligue Arabe a indiqué le lundi, 31 décembre 2012, que l’Algérie a offert une aide financière de 26 millions de dollars à l’Autorité Palestinienne pour aider le peuple palestinien à surmonter la crise financière, dans laquelle il s’enfonce. Une aide qui sera effective dès le mois d’avril 2013, a précisé le secrétaire général adjoint de la Ligue arabe, Ahmed Benhelli.
Déjà une aide de 2,5 millions de dollars vient d’être versée aux Palestiniens le mois dernier par le Croissant rouge algérien (CRA). Cette somme d’argent a été collectée dans les fonds de la Zakat « aumône » et les ventes des timbres au nom du Croissant-Rouge algérien (CRA).
Le mois dernier, le gouvernement du Japon a fait aussi don de 2 millions de dollars à l’Office de secours et de travaux des Nations Unies pour les « réfugiés de Palestine » dans le Proche-Orient (UNRWA), pour financer des projets et des travaux d’urgence dans la bande de Gaza. Rien qu’en 2012, le Japon a fourni plus de 22,5 millions de dollars pour l’UNRWA, ce qui en fait le plus grand donateur de l’UNRWA.
Le Luxembourg avait annoncé, le 8 février 2012, qu’il faisait un don de 15 millions d’euros à l’Office de secours et de travaux des Nations Unies pour les « réfugiés de Palestine » au Proche-Orient (UNRWA). L’accord a été signé par la ministre luxembourgeoise du Développement Marie-Josée Jacobs et le commissaire général de l’UNRWA, Filippo Grandi.
Catherine Ashton, la chef de la diplomatie européenne, en tournée en janvier 2012 dans la région avait signé dans la Bande de Gaza un accord financier avec Filippo Grandi, le directeur de l’office onusien chargé des « réfugiés », pour accorder une aide de 72 millions de dollars aux Palestiniens. L’Union Européenne a offert un total de 80 millions d’euros en 2012 à l’UNWRA.
L’Australie, pour sa part a décidé de verser, en 2012, une aide de 90 millions de dollars à l’UNRWA pour financer l’embauche d’enseignants et médecins supplémentaires pour les  »réfugiés palestiniens » en Jordanie, au Liban, en Syrie, à Gaza et en Judée-Samarie. L’accord a été signé à Canberra le 27 mai 2012 par le ministre australien des Affaires étrangères Bob Carr et Filippo Grandi, le commissaire général de l’UNRWA. L’Australie a déclaré qu’elle va étaler le versement sur 5 ans.
L’Autorité palestinienne avait aussi bénéficié en 2012 d’une aide financière de 9,75 millions de dollars du Fonds des Nations unies pour la population (UNFPA) pour les deux prochaines années, destinée à soutenir des projets de développement dans les territoires sous contrôle de l’Autorité palestinienne.
En France surtout, en plein crise de croissance, des voix comment aussi à s’indigner sur la dilapidation de l’argent du contribuable au profit des Palestiniens (1). Le mois dernier l’Agence française de développement (AFD) a octroyé 2 millions d’euros supplémentaire au développement de la zone industrielle de Bethléem qui va coûter à la France une dizaine de millions d’euros. Le 14 octobre 2012 à Ramallah une convention d’aide budgétaire a été signée pour la contribution directe de la France à la hauteur de 10 millions d’euros au budget de l’Autorité palestinienne.
En mars 2012 Paris avait décidé de participer à hauteur de cinq millions d’euros pour la construction de l’usine de dessalement de Gaza. L’ancien Premier ministre François Fillon avait annoncé cette nouvelle à son homologue palestinien M.Salam Fayyad, lors de leur entretien en marge du Forum mondial de l’eau à Marseille.
L’UE a versé le 10 avril 2012 , un montant de 22,5 millions d’euros à l’Autorité palestinienne en contribution à ses dépenses en salaires et pensions dans la fonction publique (84 000 personnes) aussi bien en Cisjordanie qu’à Gaza. Cette contribution est accordée au titre du mécanisme d’aide PEGASE (Mécanisme Palestino-européen de gestion de l’aide socio-économique). L’UE aura ainsi versé 1,3 milliard d’euros depuis 2008, démarrage du programme.
L’Union européenne avait débloqué aussi, le 19 mars 2012, une aide de 35 millions d’euros pour « améliorer les conditions de vie des Palestiniens ».. La chef de la diplomatie de l’UE, Catherine Ashton et le Premier ministre de l’Autorité palestinienne Salam Fayyad avait signé un accord à Bruxelles permettant de financer, à hauteur de 22 millions d’euros, une station d’épuration des eaux et de moderniser, à hauteur de 13 millions d’euros, le point de passage frontalier de Kerem Shalom entre Israël et Gaza pour les marchandises.
L’Union européenne et la Suède avaient transféré en février 2012, 24,7 millions d’euros à l’Autorité palestinienne afin de payer les traitements et les pensions des 84.300 fonctionnaires palestiniens de Judée-Samarie et de Gaza .
Le 12 février 2012 la Ligue Arabe a appelé ses membres, lors d’une réunion au Caire, à soutenir l’Autorité palestinienne financièrement à hauteur de 100 millions de dollars par mois. Ces fonds sont nécessaires « en raison des pressions financières auxquelles font face la direction et la population palestiniennes », car « Israël ne transfère pas les fonds revenant à l’Autorité palestinienne », selon l’organisation panarabe.
Le Congrès américain a débloqué le 24 mars 2012 la somme de 192 millions de dollars pour les Palestiniens venant directement de L’Agence américaine du développement (US Agency for International Development ).
La Banque mondiale a annoncé pour sa part, le 5 mars 2012, trois dons d’un total de 50 millions de dollars à l’Autorité palestinienne pour des projets dans le développement de l’administration centrale et des municipalités ainsi que dans l’électricité. C’est la première fois depuis mai 2010 que l’institution, dont le siège est situé à Washington, débloque des fonds pour les Palestiniens.
Le don le plus important, de 40 millions de dollars, devrait « soutenir les progrès de réformes essentielles de l’Autorité palestinienne qui aboutiront à offrir de meilleurs services aux citoyens », avait indiqué la Banque mondiale dans un communiqué. Il vient de l’Association internationale de développement (IDA), filiale de la Banque qui travaille avec les pays les plus pauvres.
La Banque mondiale a déclaré aussi, le 7 avril 2012, avoir attribué 55 millions de dollars pour le développement palestinien. Mariam Sherman, directrice en charge du dossier de la Judée-Samarie et de Gaza, a déclaré que l’argent serait utilisé pour aider les entreprises, aider les diplômés et soutenir les institutions du gouvernement palestinien. La Banque mondiale a versé encore, le 9 mai 2012, un autre montant de 3 millions de dollars à l’Autorité palestinienne pour l’aider à développer son commerce, notamment celui des petits et moyens entrepreneurs et des femmes.
En juillet 2012, l’Arabie Saoudite a débloqué une aide de 100 millions de dollars à l’Autorité palestinienne pour l’aider à surmonter ses difficultés budgétaires. Le Qatar, quant à lui, a offert gracieusement 400 millions d’euros au gouvernement islamiste de Gaza en octobre 2012.
Sans parler du manque total de transparence quant à la destination de ces fonds, les Palestiniens se sont imposés comme les modèles de victimes sans que jamais personne ne vienne remettre en cause leur statut même de « victime », ou ce qu’ils reçoivent de la part des différents bailleurs de fonds internationaux. On dirait que les Palestiniens sont devenus l’opium des peuples. Tant qu’ils existeront avec leur statut actuel le monde continuera à payer.
Les Palestiniens souvent haineux, au lieu de travailler et renoncer à la violence acceptent l’aumône internationale, sans avoir le moindre orgueil, la main toujours tendue vers la Communauté internationale.
On va peut être assister en 2013 à une augmentation de ce que j’appelle un soutien inconditionnel à «ce peuple assisté » ce qui équivaut en fait a un support international sans limites à de pseudo victimes éternelles au grand désespoir de tous les peuples qui souffrent vraiment et dont les caméras ne montrent rien.
La Syrie après Assad
Jonathan D. Halevi.
Le CAPE de Jérusalem, 2 janvier 2013
Le jour de vérité approche car le régime de Bechar el Assad  a déjà perdu le contrôle sur une grande partie du pays. Le vice Président syrien, Farouk el-Shara, confirme dans une interview au journal libanais al-Akhbar que l’armée syrienne ne sera pas capable de gagner la confrontation actuelle.
Le régime d’Assad cherche à transférer des forces fidèles au pouvoir avec leurs armes et notamment chimiques vers  l’enclave alaouite située à l’ouest du pays. Ils serviraient de carte politique pour dissuader des actes de vengeance et  assurer le statut de la communauté alaouite dans un cadre futur.
Les Etats-Unis et les autres pays occidentaux ont certes reconnu la coalition nationale syrienne comme seul et unique représentant du peuple syrien, mais les rebelles l’accepteront  uniquement comme acteur temporaire pouvant mobiliser le soutien international et compléter l’effort de renverser le régime.
En réalité, les forces dominantes en Syrie sont des cadres militaires   opposés au régime depuis mars 2011. La majorité écrasante a adopté une perspective islamiste djiadiste et salafiste.
Le soutien total des forces combattantes et notamment la branche Jahbat al-Nousra, affiliée à Al Qaïda, indique cette orientation islamiste antioccidentale.
La période de transition sera marquée par une instabilité gouvernementale et par un manque de contrôle central sur une partie des forces combattantes.
Dans ce contexte, la chute du régime d’Assad deviendrait une menace militaro-terroriste contre Israël.
Le régime syrien a perdu définitivement sa légitimité à gouverner, et pourra survivre pour une période supplémentaire en utilisant sa puissance de feu destinée à infliger un grand nombre de victimes parmi les rebelles et au sein de la population civile.
L’armée syrienne a utilisé tous les moyens militaires et tout son arsenal à l’exception des armes chimiques. Les fortes mises en garde des Etats-Unis et d’autres pays occidentaux ont eu sans doute un effet dissuasif.
La majorité des forces rebelles est hostile à Israël et réitère son  appel à étendre le djihad jusqu’à  la “libération de Jérusalem”.
La chute d’Assad, allié proche de Téhéran, sera un coup dur pour les intérêts de l’Iran au Moyen-Orient et pourrait provoquer une onde de choc qui affaiblirait l’influence de l’Iran dans toute la région.
Cela concerne particulièrement le Liban, où les forces sunnites islamistes sont déjà organisées pour le jour d’après, et pour modifier l’équilibre politique et militaire et affaiblir la dominance du Hezbollah. L’effondrement de l’arrière pays syrien déclenchera probablement des affrontements violents qui pourraient dégénérer en une nouvelle guerre civile.
En Irak, devenue sous domination iranienne croissante après le retrait des forces américaines du pays, les sunnites se tourneront probablement vers leurs alliés syriens en vue de renouveler leur campagne contre le gouvernement shiite à Bagdad.
A l’heure actuelle les forces rebelles accusent l’Iran, la Russie, et la Chine de sauvegarder le régime d’Assad. La Russie a un intérêt majeur dans le maintien de son influence en Syrie, et jouera probablement un rôle important  pour frayer un chemin vers les rebelles aussi. En dépit des tensions idéologiques, les Frères musulmans attribuent une importance stratégique suprême aux relations avec l’Iran malgré les massacres perpétrés quotidiennement. L’objectif est de contrer l’influence occidentale au Moyen-Orient et de former un front commun contre l’Etat juif. 
Les pires antisémites de 2012
Guy Millière
menapress.org, 6 janvier 2013
J'évoquais, la semaine dernière, la désignation de la personne de l'année par divers magazines. Le choix de Barack Obama par le Time me semblait pertinent, mais pas pour les mêmes raisons que celles avancées par l’hebdomadaire américain.
Si le désastre économique et géopolitique qu'il a provoqué et qu'il poursuit n’est pas interrompu, le Président Obama mériterait même le titre de personne du siècle. Pour y avoir droit, il lui faudrait réaliser quelques gestes encore : assurer l'arrivée des Frères Musulmans au pouvoir dans deux ou trois pays supplémentaires dans le monde sunnite, parvenir à un degré d'endettement qui signifiera la ruine irrémédiable des Etats-Unis, et il y arrivera presque. Permettre à l'Iran d'obtenir l'arme atomique, et Obama y sera tout à fait.
J’écrivais aussi que le choix de l'habitant des implantations par le magazine israélien en ligne +972 me semblait approprié, en précisant que ce qui déplaisait si fortement à ce media, à l’inverse, me réjouissait.
Je pense que les accords d'Oslo ont été une erreur catastrophique qui a coûté la vie à mille trois-cents Israéliens, sans compter les blessés et les mutilés. A mes yeux, une décision qui coûte la vie d’une seule personne est déjà lourde à porter, alors mille trois-cents !
Le mot catastrophe me semble encore faible. Le retrait de Gaza a transformé la bande côtière en une sorte d'émirat totalitaire aux mains de terroristes aux idées génocidaires. Quant à Mahmoud Abbas, je lui fais à peu près autant confiance pour gérer un Etat, aussi minuscule soit-il, qu’à un pyromane multirécidiviste dans une forêt en situation de sécheresse. Je considère que confier un Etat au chef du Fatah reviendrait à fournir à ce pyromane un bidon d'essence et un briquet en prime.
Lorsque j’entends parler d'Etat palestinien démilitarisé, je préfère lever les yeux au ciel que répondre. J'attends le moment où l’on m’entretiendra de « terroristes non violents », en me disant qu'au point où nous en sommes, cela viendra. Si Mahmoud Abbas se convertissait au bouddhisme tibétain, je pourrais à la rigueur réviser mon jugement, mais l'atmosphère au Proche-Orient n'y est pas propice.
Je suis d’avis qu'il y a déjà un Etat palestinien : la Jordanie ; un deuxième : le Hamastan ; et un troisième, qui existe sur le papier : l'Autorité Palestinienne, transformée à l'ONU en Etat associé, qui devrait, à mon goût, rester sur le papier.
La période, cela dit, est aussi aux palmarès. De même qu'il existe un classement des dix meilleures chansons, des dix meilleurs romans ou de je ne sais quoi d'autre, il y a le classement, établi par le centre Simon Wiesenthal1, des pires propos antisémites de l'année 2012.
Vu le nombre d'antisémites sur la planète, la sélection n'a pas été une tâche facile. J'aurais, pour ce qui me concerne, attribué une place de choix au dirigeant de l’Autorité Palestinienne, que je viens d’évoquer. Si sa thèse de doctorat négationniste incarne un atout à vie pour lui, son discours à l'ONU, le 29 novembre dernier, a pris la forme, en soi, d’un chef d'œuvre.
Depuis l'élaboration des Protocoles des sages de Sion par l'Okhrana, la police secrète du Tzar, on a rarement fait référence aux Juifs comme Abou Mazen dans cette allocution. Et je comprends tous les antisémites de l'Union Européenne et de l'administration Obama, qui, en l'entendant s’exprimer, ont immédiatement répété qu'on était en présence d’un véritable homme de paix.
Le président de l’AP ne figure toutefois pas dans le classement du centre Simon Wiesenthal. Khaled Mashal et Ismaïl Haniyeh, qui ont pourtant fait leur possible pour figurer au hit-parade, non plus.
Mais y sont répertoriés deux des principaux dirigeants de la fratrie des Frères Musulmans, le parti du président égyptien Mohamed Morsi : Mohamed Badie et Ftouh Abd al Nabi Mansour, deux hommes dont les paroles citées auraient séduit Adolf Hitler s'il était encore de ce monde.
On trouve aussi, dans le palmarès de l’année écoulée, quelques phrases de Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, un personnage qu'il n'est plus besoin de décrire.
Les Etats-Unis y sont aussi représentés, grâce à un voisin et ami de Barack Obama à Chicago, Louis Farrakhan, qui dirige la Nation de l'islam [la principale organisation politique musulmane aux Etats-Unis]. Farrakhan est un admirateur, dans le même élan d'enthousiasme, des œuvres de Mahomet et de celles du Troisième Reich, et il n'hésite jamais, lorsqu'il en a l'occasion, de cracher sur les Juifs.
L'Europe n'est pas laissée de côté non plus et occupe une place importante dans le tiercé vainqueur : le Hongrois Marton Gyongiosy, du parti Jobbik (Mouvement pour une Meilleure Hongrie), qui a récemment déclaré que les Juifs représentaient une « menace pour la sécurité nationale du pays », méritait d'être distingué.
De même un Norvégien converti à l'islam, Trond Ali Linstadt, qui a prononcé de bien belles paroles, que ceux qui détestent les Juifs aimeraient entendre plus souvent. Ce qui montre au passage que la Norvège ne produit pas que des Anders Behring Breivik dans le répertoire de l’infect !
Certains mots de Nikolaos Michaloliakos, le dirigeant d’Aube Dorée, le parti grec autoproclamé néo-nazi, ne pouvaient être oubliés.
L'Ukraine également a apporté sa propre moisson, et les fortes paroles des politiques Igor Miroshnichenko et Oleg Tyagnibok, qui rêvent que le pays soit « purgé » de toute présence juive, sont répertoriées (considérant la haine des Juifs qui semble régner en Ukraine, déjà si visible au temps de la Shoah par balles, on est surpris que les Israélites y vivent encore).
Les fans de football européen, qui ont effectivement tant contribué à l'antisémitisme, ne pouvaient être oubliés : les supporters de l'équipe italienne du Lazio et ceux de l'équipe anglaise de West Ham semblent nourrir une affection verbale pour les pogroms et les croix gammées. Quand ils savent qu'un joueur d'une équipe adverse est juif, personne ne peut plus les tenir.
Une liste de propos antisémites européens sans des phrases allemandes étant lacunaire, le centre Simon Wiesenthal a donc recensé le journaliste du Spiegel, Jakob Augstein. Je ne l'ai jamais lu ou entendu, mais ce qu'en dit un chroniqueur de Die Welt (Le Monde), Henryk Broder, donne envie de se  pencher sur son cas : « C'est un antisémite pur qui n'a pas pu faire carrière dans la Gestapo parce qu'il est né après la guerre ». Il a, en revanche, fait carrière au Spiegel et à la télévision allemande. Réconfortant ? Je n'en suis pas sûr.