organization:united nations

  • World Court Says U.K. Should Cede Rule of Indian Ocean Islands - Bloomberg
    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-02-25/world-court-says-u-k-should-cede-rule-of-indian-ocean-islands


    Diego Garcia, a British Indian Ocean Territory and the largest of the islands in the Chagos Archipelago.
    Photographer: USGS/NASA Landsat data/Orbital Horizon Gallo Images via Getty Images

    The International Court of Justice said the U.K. should hand back to Mauritius control of an Indian Ocean archipelago where a key U.S. naval base is located.

    The U.K.’s continued administration of the Chagos archipelago “is an unlawful act of a continuing character,” court President Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf said in The Hague. “Accordingly the U.K. is under an obligation to bring an end to its administration of the Chagos archipelago as rapidly as possible,” Yusuf said.

    The United Nations in 2017 sought an advisory opinion from the ICJ, its principal judicial organ, on the legal status of the archipelago.

    Chagos is part of the British Indian Ocean Territory, which has been administered by the U.K. since 1965, when it paid the then self-governing colony of Mauritius 3 million pounds ($3.9 million) for control of the islands. Between 1967 and 1973, hundreds of inhabitants were removed to make way for the Diego Garcia U.S. military base, which has been used to launch bomber jets for wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Mauritian Prime Minister Pravind Jugnauth in August obtained the backing of the African Union and about 30 other countries in his bid to have control of the archipelago returned to Mauritius. The request to the ICJ excludes Diego Garcia, he said.

    • Je ne comprends pas cette dernière remarque du premier ministre mauricien :

      The request to the ICJ excludes Diego Garcia, he said.

      Le jugement de la CIJ est assez clair :
      https://www.icj-cij.org/files/case-related/169/169-20190225-01-00-FR.pdf
      Il ne mentionne nulle part #Diego_Garcia. J’imagine que P. Jugnauth veut dire qu’il ne remet pas en cause le statut de la base états-unienne, mise à disposition pour une durée de 50 ans par des accords de 1966 (tiens, c’est bientôt la fin, j’imagine que les perspectives de renégociation des accords n’est pas pour rien dans l’affaire…)

      183. Par ces motifs,
      LA COUR,
      1) A l’unanimité,
      Dit qu’elle est compétente pour répondre à la demande d’avis consultatif ;

      2) Par douze voix contre deux,
      Décide de donner suite à la demande d’avis consultatif ;

      3) Par treize voix contre une,
      Est d’avis que, au regard du droit international, le processus de décolonisation de Maurice n’a pas été validement mené à bien lorsque ce pays a accédé à l’indépendance en 1968 à la suite de la séparation de l’archipel des Chagos ;

      4) Par treize voix contre une,
      Est d’avis que le Royaume-Uni est tenu, dans les plus brefs délais, de mettre fin à son administration de l’archipel des Chagos ;

      5) Par treize voix contre une,
      Est d’avis que tous les Etats Membres sont tenus de coopérer avec l’Organisation des Nations Unies aux fins du parachèvement de la décolonisation de Maurice.

      La juge états-unienne Joan E. Donoghue a voté non à toutes les questions, sauf sur le point 1 sur la compétence, Peter Tomka, slovaque s’est opposé à l’émission de l’avis consultatif (point 2).

    • Mind your business, réponse diplomatique du Royaume-Uni à la Cour internationale de justice et à l’Assemblée générale de l’ONU, statuant sur la décolonisation.

      Dispute over Chagos Islands is a bilateral matter : UK junior foreign minister | Reuters
      https://www.reuters.com/article/us-britain-mauritius-worldcourt-chagos-idUSKCN1QF1CX

      Britain will consider the view of the World Court on control of the Chagos Islands but the dispute is with Mauritius and should be resolved bilaterally, British foreign office minister Alan Duncan said on Tuesday.

      On Monday the International Court of Justice (ICJ) told Britain to give up control over the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean, and said it had wrongfully forced the population to leave in the 1970s to make way for a U.S. air base.

      The U.N. General Assembly asked the court to advise on whether the process of decolonization had been concluded lawfully.

      We will of course consider the detail of the opinion carefully but this is a bilateral dispute and for the General Assembly to seek an advisory opinion by the ICJ was therefore a misuse of powers which sets a dangerous precedent for other bilateral disputes,” Duncan told parliament.

      The defense facilities on the British Indian ocean territory help to keep people here in Britain and the world safe and we will continue to seek a bilateral solution to what is a bilateral dispute with Mauritius.

  • IOM : Over 40.000 migrants voluntarily returned home from Libya since 2015

    After an operation for voluntary returns last week, the UN agency for migration International Organization for Migration (IOM) said that the total number of migrants that had voluntarily returned from Libya to their country of origin since 2015 had risen to 40,000.

    Over 160 Nigerian migrants stuck in southern Libya returned to Nigeria voluntarily on February 21 on a charter flight offered by the International Organization for Migration (IOM) as part of its program for Voluntary Humanitarian Returns (VHR).

    The February operation brought the total number of voluntary repatriations from Libya to 40,000 since 2015, IOM has explained.

    https://www.libyanexpress.com/iom-over-40-000-migrants-voluntarily-returned-home-from-libya-since-2
    #retours_volontaires (sic) #retour_volontaire #retour_au_pays #Libye #asile #migrations #réfugiés #OIM #IOM #organisation_contre_la_migration #statistiques #chiffres #machine_à_rapatriement #rapatriement #nouvelair

    j’ajoute à cette métaliste :
    https://seenthis.net/messages/731749

  • In cooperation with @IOM_Libya 8 stranded Eritrean #migrants returned safely home today via #Mitiga Int. Airport
    #Libya 17.02.19


    https://twitter.com/rgowans/status/1097176169978515456

    L’#OIM n’arrêtera jamais de me surprendre... Mais alors là... L’OIM mérite vraiment qu’on lui change son nom... Organisation Internationale CONTRE la migration !

    8 ressortissants érythréens retournés EN SECURITE au pays... soit donc en Erythrée !

    Et petit détail important...
    Dans ce tweet on parle de #migrants_érythréens... si il s’agit de migrants et non pas de réfugiés... leur retour VOLONTAIRE n’est pas considéré comme un #refoulement (#push-back)
    #mots #terminologie #vocabulaire

    #retour_au_pays #IOM #Erythrée #réfugiés_érythréens #Organisation_Internationale_contre_la_migration #asile #migrations #réfugiés #Libye #retour_volontaire #à_vomir

    @_kg_ : il y a aussi utilisation de ce terme dans le tweet, #stranded_migrants...

  • Old Palestinian photos & films hidden in IDF archive show different history than Israeli claims

    Palestinian photos and films seized by Israeli troops have been gathering dust in the army and Defense Ministry archives until Dr. Rona Sela, a curator and art historian, exposed them. The material presents an alternative to the Zionist history that denied the Palestinians’ existence here, she says.

    The initial reaction is one of incredulity: Why is this material stored in the Israel Defense Forces and Defense Ministry Archive? The first item is labeled, in Hebrew, “The History of Palestine from 1919,” the second, “Paintings by Children Who Go to School and Live in a Refugee Camp and Aspire to Return to Palestine.” The third is, “Depiction of the IDF’s Treatment and Harsh Handling of Palestinians in the Territories.”

    Of all places, these three reels of 16-mm film are housed in the central archive that documents Israel’s military-security activities. It’s situated in Tel Hashomer, near the army’s National Induction Center, outside Tel Aviv.

    IDF archive contains 2.7 million photos, 38,000 films

    The three items are barely a drop in an ocean of some 38,000 films, 2.7 million photographs, 96,000 audio recordings and 46,000 maps and aerial photos that have been gathered into the IDF Archive since 1948, by order of Israel’s first prime minister and defense minister, David Ben-Gurion. However, a closer perusal shows that this particular “drop in the ocean” is subversive, exceptional and highly significant.

    The footage in question is part of a collection – whose exact size and full details remain unknown – of “war booty films” seized by the IDF from Palestinian archives in raids over the years, though primarily in the 1982 Lebanon War.

    Recently, however, following a persistent, protracted legal battle, the films confiscated in Lebanon, which had been gathering dust for decades – instead of being screened in cinematheques or other venues in Israel – have been rescued from oblivion, along with numerous still photos. The individual responsible for this development is Dr. Rona Sela, a curator and researcher of visual history at Tel Aviv University.

    For nearly 20 years, Sela has been exploring Zionist and Palestinian visual memory. She has a number of important revelations and discoveries to her credit, which she has published in the form of books, catalogs and articles. Among the Hebrew-language titles are “Photography in Palestine/Eretz-Israel in the ‘30s and ‘40s” (2000) and “Made Public: Palestinian Photographs in Military Archives in Israel” (2009). In March, she published an article in the English-language periodical Social Semiotics on, “The Genealogy of Colonial Plunder and Erasure – Israel’s Control over Palestinian Archives.”

    Now Sela has made her first film, “Looted and Hidden: Palestinian Archives in Israel,” an English-language documentary that surveys the fate of Palestinian photographs and films that were “captured” and deposited in Israeli archives. It includes heretofore unseen segments from films seized by the IDF from Palestinian archives in Beirut. These documentary records, Sela says, “were erased from consciousness and history” for decades.

    Sela begins journey in 1998

    Getting access to the films was not easy, Sela explains. Her archival journey began in 1998, when she was researching Zionist propaganda films and photos that sought to portray the “new Jew” – muscular, proudly tilling the soil – in contradistinction, according to the Zionist perception, to the supposedly degenerate and loutish Palestinian Arab.

    “After spending a few years in the Central Zionist Archive in Jerusalem and in other Zionist archives, researching the history of Zionist photography and the construction of a visual propaganda apparatus supporting the Zionist idea, I started to look for Palestinian visual representation as well, in order to learn about the Palestinian narrative and trace its origins and influence,” she says.

    That task was far more complicated than anyone could have imagined. In some of the Zionist films and photos, Sela was able to discern, often incidentally, episodes from Palestinian history that had “infiltrated” them, as she puts it. For example, in Carmel Newsreels (weekly news footage screened at local cinemas) from 1951, showing the settlement of Jews in Jaffa, demolished and abandoned Arab homes are clearly visible.

    Subsequently, Sela spotted traces and remnants of a genuine Palestinian visual archive occasionally cropping up in Israeli archives. Those traces were not immediately apparent, more like an elusive treasure concealed here and there beneath layers of restrictions, erasures and revisions.

    Khalil Rassass, father of Palestinian photojournalism

    Thus, one day she noticed in the archive of the pre-state Haganah militia, stills bearing the stamp “Photo Rissas.” Digging deeper, she discovered the story of Chalil Rissas (Khalil Rassass, 1926-1974), one of the fathers of Palestinian photojournalism. He’s unknown to the general public, whether Palestinian or Israel, but according to Sela, he was a “daring, groundbreaking photographer” who, motivated by a sense of national consciousness, documented the pre-1948 Palestinian struggle.

    Subsequently she found hundreds of his photographs, accompanied by captions written by soldiers or Israeli archive staff who had tried to foist a Zionist narrative on them and disconnect them from their original context. The source of the photographs was a Jewish youth who received them from his father, an IDF officer who brought them back with him from the War of Independence as booty.

    The discovery was unprecedented. In contrast to the Zionist propaganda images that exalted the heroism of the Jewish troops and barely referred to the Palestinians, Rissas’ photographs were mainly of Palestinian fighters. Embodying a proud Palestinian stance, they focused on the national and military struggle and its outcome, including the Palestinians’ military training and deployment for battle.

    “I realized that I’d come across something significant, that I’d found a huge cache of works by one of the fathers of Palestinian photography, who had been the first to give visual expression to the Palestinian struggle,” Sela recalls. “But when I tried to learn more about Chalil Rissas, I understood that he was a forgotten photographer, that no one knew the first thing about him, either in Israel or elsewhere.”

    Sela thereupon decided to study the subject herself. In 1999, she tracked down Rissas’ brother, Wahib, who was working as a photographer of tourists on the Temple Mount / Haram a-Sharif in Jerusalem’s Old City. He told her the story of Chalil’s life. It turned out that he had accompanied Palestinian troops and leaders, visually documenting the battles fought by residents of the Jerusalem area during the 1948 War of Independence. “He was a young man who chose the camera as an instrument for changing people’s consciousness,” Sela says.

    Ali Za’arur, forgotten Palestinian photographer

    Around 2007, she discovered the archive of another forgotten Palestinian photographer, Ali Za’arur (1900-1972), from Azzariyeh, a village east of Jerusalem. About 400 of his photos were preserved in four albums. They also depicted scenes from the 1948 war, in which Za’arur accompanied the forces of Jordan’s Arab Legion and documented the battle for the Old City of Jerusalem. He photographed the dead, the ruins, the captives, the refugees and the events of the cease-fire.

    In the Six-Day War of 1967, Za’arur fled from his home for a short time. When he returned, he discovered that the photo albums had disappeared. A relative, it emerged, had given them to Jerusalem Mayor Teddy Kollek as a gift. Afterward, the Jerusalem Foundation donated them to the IDF Archive. In 2008, in an unprecedented act, the archive returned the albums to Za’arur’s family. The reason, Sela surmises, is that the albums were captured by the army in battle. In any event, this was, as far as is known, a unique case.

    Sela took heart from the discoveries she’d made, realizing that “with systematic work, it would be possible to uncover more Palestinian archives that ended up in Israeli hands.”

    That work was three-pronged: doing archival research to locate Palestinian photographs and films that had been incorporated into Israeli archives; holding meetings with the Palestinian photographers themselves, or members of their families; and tracking down Israeli soldiers who had taken part in “seizing these visual spoils” and in bringing them to Israel.

    In the course of her research Sela met some fascinating individuals, among them Khadijeh Habashneh, a Jordan-based Palestinian filmmaker who headed the archive and cinematheque of the Palestinian Cinema Institute. That institution, which existed from the end of the 1960s until the early ‘80s, initially in Jordan and afterward in Lebanon, was founded by three pioneering Palestinian filmmakers – Sulafa Jadallah, Hani Jawhariyyeh and Mustafa Abu Ali (Habashneh’s husband) – who sought to document their people’s way of life and national struggle. Following the events of Black September in 1970, when the Jordanian army and the Palestine Liberation Organization fought a bloody internecine war, the filmmakers moved to Lebanon and reestablished the PCI in Beirut.

    Meeting with Habashneh in Amman in 2013, Sela heard the story of the Palestinian archives that disappeared, a story she included in her new documentary. “Where to begin, when so much material was destroyed, when a life project falls apart?” Habashneh said to Sela. “I can still see these young people, pioneers, bold, imbued with ideals, revolutionaries, who created pictures and films and documented the Palestinian revolution that the world doesn’t want to see. They refused to be faceless and to be without an identity.”

    The archive established by Habashneh contained forgotten works that documented the Palestinians’ suffering in refugee camps, the resistance to Israel and battles against the IDF, as well as everyday life. The archive contained the films and the raw materials of the PCI filmmakers, but also collected other early Palestinian films, from both before and after 1948.

    Spirit of liberation

    This activity reflects “a spirit of liberation and revolt and the days of the revolution,” Habashneh says in Sela’s film, referring to the early years of the Palestinian national movement. That spirit was captured in underground photographs and with a minimal budget, on film that was developed in people’s kitchens, screened in tents in refugee camps and distributed abroad. Women, children, fighters, intellectuals and cultural figures, and events of historic importance were documented, Habashneh related. “As far as is known, this was the first official Palestinian visual archive,” Sela notes.

    In her conversation with Sela, Habashneh nostalgically recalled other, better times, when the Palestinian films were screened in a Beirut cinematheque, alongside other works with a “revolutionary spirit,” from Cuba, Chile, Vietnam and elsewhere. “We were in contact with filmmakers from other countries, who saw the camera as an instrument in the hands of the revolution and the people’s struggle,” she recalled.

    “Interesting cultural cooperation developed there, centering around revolutionary cinema,” Sela points out, adding, “Beirut was alive with an unprecedented, groundbreaking cultural flowering that was absolutely astonishing in terms of its visual significance.”

    IDF confiscates film archive

    But in 1982, after the IDF entered Beirut, that archive disappeared and was never seen again. The same fate befell two films made by Habashneh herself, one about children, the other about women. In Sela’s documentary, Habashneh wonders aloud about the circumstances in which the amazing collection disappeared. “Is our fate to live a life without a past? Without a visual history?” she asks. Since then, she has managed to reconstruct a small part of the archive. Some of the films turned up in the United States, where they had been sent to be developed. Copies of a few others remained in movie theaters in various countries where they were screened. Now in her seventies, Habashneh continues to pursue her mission, even though, as she told Sela during an early conversation, “the fate of the archive remains a puzzle.”

    What Habashneh wasn’t able to accomplish beginning in 1982 as part of a worldwide quest, Sela managed to do over the course of a few years of research in Israel. She began by locating a former IDF soldier who told her about the day on which several trucks arrived at the building in Beirut that housed a number of Palestinian archives and began to empty it out. That testimony, supported by a photograph, was crucial for Sela, as it corroborated the rumors and stories about the Palestinian archives having been taken to Israel.

    The same soldier added that he had been gripped by fear when he saw, among the photos that were confiscated from the archive, some that documented Israeli soldiers in the territories. He himself appeared in one of them. “They marked us,” he said to Sela.

    Soldiers loot Nashashibi photos & possessions, take photo from corpse

    Another former soldier told Sela about an unusual photo album that was taken (or looted, depending on one’s point of view) from the home of the prominent Nashashibi family in Jerusalem, in 1948. The soldier added that his father, who had served as an IDF officer in the War of Independence, entered a photography studio and made off with its archive, while other soldiers were busy looting pianos and other expensive objects from the Nashashibis. Another ex-soldier testified to having taken a photo from the corpse of an Arab. Over time, all these images found their way to archives in Israel, in particular the IDF Archive.

    Sela discovers IDF archive

    In 2000, Sela, buoyed by her early finds, requested permission from that archive to examine the visual materials that had been seized by the army in the 1980s. The initial response was denial: The material was not in Israel’s hands, she was told.

    “But I knew what I was looking for, because I had soldiers’ testimonies,” she says now, adding that when she persisted in her request, she encountered “difficulties, various restrictions and the torpedoing of the possibility of perusing the material.”

    The breakthrough came when she enlisted the aid of attorneys Michael Sfard and Shlomi Zacharia, in 2008. To begin with, they received word, confirmed by the Defense Ministry’s legal adviser, that various spoils taken in Beirut were now part of the IDF Archive. However, Sela was subsequently informed that “the PLO’s photography archive,” as the Defense Ministry referred in general to photographic materials taken from the Palestinians, is “archival material on matters of foreign affairs and security, and as such is ‘restricted material’ as defined in Par. 7(a) of the Archives Regulations.”

    Then, one day in 2010, Sela received a fax informing her that Palestinian films had been found in the IDF Archive, without elaboration, and inviting her to view them. “There were a few dozen segments from films, and I was astonished by what I saw,” she says. “At first I was shown only a very limited amount of footage, but it was indicative of the whole. On the basis of my experience, I understood that there was more.”

    A few more years of what Sela terms “endless nagging, conversations and correspondence” passed, which resulted in her being permitted to view dozens of segments of additional films, including some that apparently came from Habashneh’s archive. Sela also discovered another Palestinian archive that had been seized by the IDF. Established under the aegis of the PLO’s Cultural Arts Section, its director in the 1970s was the Lod-born painter and historian Ismail Shammout (1930-2006).

    One of the works in that collection is Shammout’s own film “The Urgent Call,” whose theme song was written and performed by the Palestinian singer Zainab Shathat in English, accompanying herself on the guitar. “The film was thought to be lost until I found it in the IDF Archive,” says Sela, who describes “The Urgent Call” as “a cry about the condition of Palestine, its sons and its daughters.”

    Viewing it takes one back in time to the late 1960s and early ‘70s, when the cinema of the Palestinian struggle briefly connected with other international revolutionary film movements.

    Legendary French filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard

    For example, in 1969 and 1970 Jean-Luc Godard, the legendary filmmaker of the French New Wave in cinema, visited Jordan and Lebanon several times with the Dziga Vertov Group of French filmmakers (named after the Soviet pioneer documentarian of the 1920s and ‘30s), who included filmmaker Jean-Pierre Gorin, who worked with Godard in his “radical” period. They came to shoot footage in refugee camps and in fedayeen bases for Godard’s film “Until Victory.” Habashneh told Sela that she and others had met Godard, assisted him and were of course influenced by his work. [Ed. note: Godard’s work on Palestine caused him to be accused of antisemitism by the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen and others. “In Hollywood there is no greater sin,” the Guardian reported.]

    Along with “The Urgent Call” – excerpts from which are included in her “Looted and Hidden” documentary – Sela also found another Shammout work in the IDF Archive. Titled “Memories and Fire,” it chronicles 20th-century Palestinian history, “from the days depicting the idyllic life in Palestine, via the documentation of refugeehood, to the documentation of the organizing and the resistance. To use the terms of the Palestinian cinema scholar and filmmaker George Khleifi, the aggressive fighter took the place of the ill-fated refugee,” she adds.

    Sela also found footage by the Iraqi director Kais al-Zubaidi, who worked for a time in the PLO’s Cultural Arts Section. His films from that period include “Away from Home” (1969) and “The Visit” (1970); in 2006 he published an anthology, “Palestine in the Cinema,” a history of the subject, which mentions some 800 films that deal with Palestine or the Palestinian people. [Ed. note: unfortunately it appears this book has never been translated into English.]

    IDF seals the archive for decades

    Some of the Palestinian movies in the IDF Archive bear their original titles. However, in many other cases this archival material was re-cataloged to suit the Israeli perspective, so that Palestinian “fighters” became “gangs” or “terrorists,” for example. In one case, a film of Palestinians undergoing arms training is listed as “Terrorist camp in Kuwait: Distribution of uniforms, girls crawling with weapons, terrorists marching with weapons in the hills, instruction in laying mines and in arms.”

    Sela: “These films and stills, though not made by Jewish/Israeli filmmakers or military units – which is the central criterion for depositing materials in the Israeli army archive – were transferred to the IDF Archive and subordinated to the rules of the State of Israel. The archive immediately sealed them for many decades and cataloged them according to its terminology – which is Zionist, Jewish and Israeli – and not according to the original Palestinian terminology. I saw places where the word ‘terrorists’ was written on photographs taken by Palestinians. But after all, they do not call themselves as such. It’s part of terminological camouflaging, which subordinated their creative work to the colonial process in which the occupier controls the material that’s captured.”

    Hidden Palestinian history

    Sela’s discoveries, which are of international importance, are not only a research, documentation and academic achievement: They also constitute a breakthrough in regard to the chronicling of Palestinian history. “Palestinian visual historiography lacks many chapters,” she observes. “Many photographs and archives were destroyed, were lost, taken as spoils or plundered in the various wars and in the course of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.”

    From her point of view, the systematic collecting of Palestinian visual materials in the IDF Archive “makes it possible to write an alternative history that counteracts the content created by the army and the military archive, which is impelled by ideological and political considerations.” In the material she found in the army archive, she sees “images that depict the history of the Palestinian people and its long-term ties to this soil and this place, which present an alternative to the Zionist history that denied the Palestinians’ existence here, as well as their culture and history and the protracted tragedy they endured and their national struggle of many years.”

    The result is an intriguing paradox, such as one often finds by digging deep into an archive. The extensive information that Sela found in the IDF Archive makes it possible to reconstruct elements of the pre-1948 existence of the Palestinians and to help fill in the holes of the Palestinian narrative up until the 1980s. In other words, even if Israel’s intention was to hide these items and to control the Palestinians’ historical treasures, its actions actually abet the process of preservation, and will go on doing so in the future.

    Earlier groundbreaking discovery – confiscated Palestinians books & libraries

    Sela’s research on visual archival materials was preceded by another groundbreaking study – dealing with the written word – conducted by Dr. Gish Amit, an expert on the cultural aspects of Zionism at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev. Amit chronicled the fate of Palestinian books and libraries that, like the photographs and films Sela found, ended up in Israeli archives – including in the National Library in Jerusalem.

    In his 2014 book, “Ex-Libris: Chronicles of Theft, Preservation, and Appropriating at the Jewish National Library” (Hebrew), Amit trenchantly analyzes the foredoomed failure of any attempt to conceal and control the history of others. According to him, “an archive remembers its forgettings and erasures,” “documents injustice, and thus makes it possible to trace its paths” and “paves a way for forgotten histories which may, one day, convict the owners” of the documents.

    However, Amit also sees the complexity of this story and presents another side of it. Describing the operation in which the Palestinian books were collected by Israeli soldiers and National Library personnel during the War of Independence, he raises the possibility that this was actually an act involving rescue, preservation and accessibility: “On the one hand, the books were collected and not burned or left in the abandoned houses in the Arab neighborhoods that had been emptied of their inhabitants. Had they not been collected their fate would have been sealed — not a trace of them would remain,” he writes, adding, that the National Library “protected the books from the war, the looting and the destruction, and from illegal trade in manuscripts.”

    According to the National Library, it is holding about 6,500 Palestinian books and manuscripts, which were taken from private homes whose owners left in 1948. The entire collection is cataloged and accessible to the general public, but is held under the responsibility of the Custodian of Absentees’ Property in the Finance Ministry. Accordingly, there is no intention, in the near future, of trying to locate the owners and returning the items.

    Israeli control over history

    Sela views the existence of these spoils of war in Israel as a direct expression of the occupation, which she defines, beyond Israel’s physical presence in the territories, as “the control of history, the writing of culture and the shaping of identity.” In her view, “Israel’s rule over the Palestinians is not only geographic but extends also to culture and consciousness. Israel wants to erase this history from the public consciousness, but it is not being successful, because the force of the resistance is stronger. Furthermore, its attempts to erase Palestinian history adversely affect Israel itself in the end.”

    At this point, Sela resorts to a charged comparison, to illustrate how visual materials contribute to the creation of personal and collective identity. “As the daughter of Holocaust survivors,” she says, “I grew up in a home without photographic historical memory. Nothing. My history starts only with the meeting of my parents, in 1953. It’s only from then that we have photos. Before that – nothing.

    “I know what it feels like when you have no idea what your grandmother or grandfather looked like, or your father’s childhood,” she continues. “This is all the more true of the history of a whole people. The construction of identity by means of visual materials is very meaningful. Many researchers have addressed this topic. The fact is that Zionist bodies made and are continuing to make extensive and rational use of [such materials too] over a period that spans decades.”

    Sela admits that there is still much to be done, but as far as she’s concerned, once a crack appeared in the wall, there was no turning back. “There is a great deal of material, including hundreds of films, that I haven’t yet got to,” she notes. “This is an amazing treasure, which contains information about the cultural, educational, rural and urban life of the Palestinian people throughout the 20th century – an erased narrative that needs to be restored to the history books,” she adds.

    Asked what she thinks should be done with the material, she asserts, “Of course it has to be returned. Just as Israel is constantly fighting to retrieve what the Nazis looted from Jews in the Holocaust. The historical story is different, but by the same criterion, practice what you preach. These are cultural and historical materials of the Palestinian people.”

    The fact that these items are being held by Israel “creates a large hole in Palestinian research and knowledge,” Sela avers. “It’s a hole for which Israel is responsible. This material does not belong to us. It has to be returned to its owners. Afterward, if we view it intelligently, we too can come to know and understand highly meaningful chapters in Palestinian history and in our own history. I think that the first and basic stage in the process of conciliation is to know the history of the Other and also your own history of controlling the Other.”

    Defense Ministry response

    A spokesperson for the Defense Ministry, which was asked to comment on the holdings in the IDF Archive, the archive contains 642 “war booty films,” most of which deal with refugees and were produced by the UNRWA (the United Nations refugee relief agency) in the 1960s and 1970s. The ministry also noted that 158 films that were seized by the IDF in the 1982 Lebanon War are listed in orderly fashion in the reading-room catalog and are available for perusal by the general public, including Arab citizens and Palestinians.

    As for the Palestinian photographs that were confiscated, the Defense Ministry stated that there is no orderly record of them. There are 127 files of photographs and negatives in the archive, each of which contains dozens of photographs, probably taken between the 1960s and the 1980s, on a variety of subjects, including visits of foreign delegations to PLO personnel, tours of PLO delegations abroad, Palestinian art and heritage, art objects, traditional attire and Palestinian folklore, factories and workshops, demonstrations, mass parades and rallies held by the PLO, portraits of Arab personalities and PLO symbols.

    The statement adds that a few months ago, crates were located that were stamped by their original owners, “PLO/Department of Information and National Guidance and Department of Information and Culture,” during the evacuation of the archive’s storerooms in the Tzrifin base.

    https://israelpalestinenews.org/old-palestinian-photos-films-hidden-idf-archive-show-different-
    #historicisation #Israël #Palestine #photographie #films #archive #histoire #Khalil_Rassass #Ali_Za’arur
    ping @reka @sinehebdo @albertocampiphoto

  • The President Has Mostly Wiped out US Refugee Resettlement. Other Countries Aren’t Picking up the Slack.

    The lead White House official for immigration policy, Stephen Miller, is quoted as seeking to end all refugee resettlement in the United States. This has caused an uproar. But few appear to realize that the U.S. President, at Miller’s direction, is already most of the way there—and that this policy in the US has big implications for the rest of the world, especially if other countries fail to step up and fill the growing gap.

    A look at the UN Refugee Agency’s data shows:

    The current Administration has already eliminated three quarters of refugee arrivals

    Due to the President’s policy, so far there are about 87,000 refugees “missing” from the US.

    Other countries are not resettling more refugees to substantially offset the US decline

    The US Administration has eliminated almost half of the world’s total resettlement spots for refugees

    Here is how I arrive at those rough estimates. First, I need a way of approximately estimating how many refugees would have been resettled in the US if not for the current administration. After all, if refugee arrivals fell, that could be because fewer people needed resettlement.

    To do that, I use refugee resettlement to the rest of the world, after 2016, to build an estimate of how many refugees would have arrived in the US after 2016 if it had continued to receive refugees as it had before. In the years 2008–2016, refugee arrivals in the US moved in tandem with arrivals in other countries: A year-to-year change of 1 in the number of resettled refugees arriving in a non-US country was associated with a year-to-year change of 1.82 refugees arriving in the U.S. in that year. And the number of refugees being resettled by non-US countries did fall somewhat after 2016. If the US numbers had fallen in tandem, according to the pre-2016 pattern, US refugee resettlement would have fallen even without a change in US policy.

    This graph shows the actual number of resettled refugees to the US, in solid red, and to all other countries in solid green, in UN data. Between 2016 and 2018, refugee resettlement to the US fell by 61,648, and resettlement to other countries fell by 8,948. The dotted red line shows how much US resettlement would have fallen if its decline after 2016 had been proportionate to the non-US decline, following the pre-2016 pattern. US resettlement would only have fallen by 16,264.

    This allows some back-of-the-envelope calculations of the magnitude of the US Administration’s change in policy. First, this means that in 2018, US refugee resettlement was down 73% from what it might have been if the US Administration had not sharply changed policy. That is a great deal of progress toward Miller’s reported goal of eliminating the program. In 2017 the difference between the solid red and dotted red lines was 41,515 refugees, and in 2018 the difference was an additional 45,384. Bottom line: By the end of 2018, there were a total of 86,899 refugees “missing” from the United States: people who would have received protection in America if the US Administration had not closed its doors.

    Second, it means that other countries are not stepping in to resettle refugees who have been barred from the United States by the current Administration. It is possible that they are doing so in some measure: In the above graph, it is possible that the green line would have fallen even further if the US had not sharply changed policy. But what is clear is that the large majority of those barred from resettlement to the US are not being resettled elsewhere. They simply aren’t being resettled at all.

    Third, this back-of-the-envelope estimate implies that the US change in policy is singlehandedly responsible for eliminating about half of the world’s refugee resettlement spots. Combining the total actual resettlement by non-US countries with the hypothetical resettlement by the US, total resettlement by the whole world is down 45% from what it would have been if not for the US Administration’s sharp change in policy. The US has singlehandedly eliminated about half of the annual refugee resettlement slots on earth.

    Something to watch for in 2019: How will the rest of the world respond? Will it accept the de-facto elimination of most refugee resettlement, or pressure the US to alter its course, or increase its own resettlement in response?

    https://www.cgdev.org/blog/president-has-mostly-wiped-out-us-refugee-resettlement-other-countries-arent-
    #resettlement #réinstallation #asile migrations #réfugiés #USA #Etats-Unis #chiffres #statistiques #Trump

    • Et pour rappel, ce texte paru dans @vacarme en juin 2016

      Migrants et réfugiés : quand dire, c’est faire la politique migratoire

      À partir de la polémique soulevée par Barry Malone sur la chaîne Al Jazeera visant à substituer au terme générique de migrants celui de réfugiés, « plus approprié pour nommer des personnes qui fuient la guerre et arrivent en masse en Europe », Cécile Canut propose une traversée des transformations et reformulations des mots utilisés pour qualifier la migration qui mettent à jour le durcissement des positions et les soubassements des choix politiques à l’œuvre, lesquels barrent toujours plus l’accès à la complexité des subjectivités individuelles, des trajectoires et de leurs causes pour construire des catégories d’êtres humains homogènes déterminées par « le même ». Nommer c’est toujours faire exister rappelle-t-elle, d’où l’importance de cette attention à la bataille des mots et aux questionnements profonds qu’ils ouvrent.

      Le 20 août 2015, la chaîne Al Jazeera, par le biais d’un de ses collaborateurs, Barry Malone, lançait une petite bombe médiatico-communicationnelle en publiant sur son blog un article intitulé « Why Al Jazeera will not say Mediterranean “migrants” ? », article mis en mots et en images le lendemain, à travers un débat télévisuel proposé par la même chaîne : « Migrants or refugees ? Thousands fleeing conflict in desperation have been undermined by language used by the media to describe their plight » [1]. Ce texte, tweeté et retweeté, a circulé sur les réseaux sociaux avant de faire une entrée fracassante dans les espaces médiatiques européens les jours qui ont suivi, suscitant de multiples débats jusqu’au début du mois de septembre.

      La polémique visait à substituer au terme générique de « migrants » celui de « réfugiés », plus « approprié » pour nommer des personnes qui fuient la guerre et arrivent en masse en Europe. L’accusation portée contre les gouvernements européens, le parti pris affiché pour les réfugiés et la dimension prescriptive impliquée par la décision du directeur des informations d’Al Jazeera de ne plus utiliser le terme « migrants », ont non seulement engagé une querelle nommée « sémantique » mais ont surtout eu un effet performatif immédiat : tous les médias ou presque ont modifié leurs pratiques langagières en privilégiant le terme « réfugiés ». Contrairement à d’autres, cette polémique ne s’est donc pas limitée à une querelle byzantine au sein du microcosme médiatique.
      Un soudain souci de « sémantique »

      Cet événement de parole est tout d’abord le révélateur d’un questionnement profond sur le processus de catégorisation des êtres humains dans nos sociétés, questionnement qui s’inscrit dans une longue histoire du sens, et dont bien des auteurs ont rendu compte, depuis les penseurs grecs jusqu’aux plus récents philosophes. Le langage n’est pas le filtre transparent d’un réel immédiat, les mots et les énoncés cristallisent bien au contraire un ensemble de connotations, de positionnements subjectifs et d’orientations sociales et politiques dont les locuteurs sont toujours responsables, même lorsque qu’à leur insu ils reprennent les significations et les catégorisations imposées par d’autres, ce que l’on attribue en analyse du discours à l’interdiscours ou encore au dialogisme [2]. Si le coup de force d’Al Jazeera a été de rappeler cette évidence au grand public, sa décision de ne plus employer le terme « migrants » renvoie pourtant à une approche supposée objective du langage : l’argument central de la démonstration de Barry Malone repose en effet sur l’idée que le terme « réfugiés » est mieux en rapport avec le réel ; il est plus juste en ce qu’il rend compte de ce que vivent des millions de personnes fuyant la guerre : des personnes demandant refuge et devant être traitées comme des victimes. En imposant un des sens du terme « réfugiés », ou plus exactement en revenant à une signification oblitérée en Europe, la chaîne vient contrer un autre sens, celui-ci plus récent et plus restrictif, issu de la Convention de Genève (1951), elle-même ratifiée par cent-quarante-cinq états membres des Nations unies, et visant à définir le « réfugié » non seulement en considération de son état de victime de régimes politiques, mais en vertu d’un statut obtenu suite à une « demande d’asile ».

      Si la définition est valable dans les deux cas, la condition pour acquérir le statut de réfugié est d’apporter la preuve de ces persécutions ou menaces par le biais d’une demande administrative très souvent longue et laborieuse. Ainsi que le rappelle Karen Akoka [3], le passage d’une approche collective visant la situation politique des États jusqu’aux années 1970, à une mise en cause individuelle de ceux que l’on va alors nommer les « demandeurs d’asile », montre à quel point le lien permanent aux conditions politiques de gestion de la migration, c’est-à-dire à sa mise en œuvre pratique, par l’Ofpra notamment, conduit sans cesse à de nouvelles catégories et de nouvelles définitions de ces mêmes catégories.

      Al Jazeera s’engage ainsi de manière frontale dans la lutte des significations, et par conséquent dans la lutte politique des questions migratoires européennes ; par le biais de cette injonction, elle rappelle à l’Europe ses obligations : celles d’accueillir toute personne persécutée sans conditions mises à cette humanité. La fin de l’article de Barry Malone indique que ce choix est bien évidemment lui-même orienté, puisqu’il a pour but de défendre et de parler au nom de ces personnes démunies, notamment dénuées du pouvoir de dire qui elles sont et ce qu’elles font, c’est-à-dire privées d’un vrai pouvoir de parole : At this network, we try hard through our journalism to be the voice of those people in our world who, for whatever reason, find themselves without one. Migrant is a word that strips suffering people of voice. Substituting refugee for it is — in the smallest way — an attempt to give some back [4]. Redonner une voix aux sans-voix, telle est l’ambition affichée.

      En cette fin d’été 2015, un léger vent de panique s’est répandu sur les médias français. Quel mot utiliser ? Comment se positionner face à cette décision partout adoptée au prétexte de sa bienveillance vis-à-vis des victimes de la guerre ? Les journalistes français entraînés malgré eux dans le débat se sont tournés immédiatement vers les chercheurs susceptibles, en tant qu’experts supposés, de détenir la clé du problème. Sans délai, les principaux quotidiens de l’Hexagone ont donc pris part aux débats par le biais d’articles donnant largement la parole auxdits spécialistes. Toutefois, les problèmes « sémantiques » étaient loin de se régler, ils se compliquaient même, cette polémique mettant finalement en cause les pratiques des chercheurs. Ainsi, un jeune journaliste du Nouvel Observateur, après une série de questions sur les mots de la migration, en est venu à la question qu’il brûlait de me poser : quel est le mot qu’il faut utiliser ? Autrement dit : quel est le meilleur mot ? Alors que toute utilisation d’un terme dépend de son contexte, des interlocuteurs en présence, de ses conditions de production sociale, politique voire subjective, la réponse à une telle question est bien entendu impossible. Pour autant, le journaliste ne renonçait pas à cet impératif en intitulant son article : « Doit-on les appeler “migrants” ou “réfugiés” ? ». L’injonction à une supposée fidélité à la vérité objective persistait même si, au cours du texte, la fluctuation des significations et l’instrumentalisation politique des catégories étaient évoquées.

      Au-delà de cet épisode médiatique, dont on aura pu observer les soubresauts ici ou là au cours de l’année 2015 et encore en ce début 2016, il importe ici de revenir sur la circulation des significations données par les uns et les autres, à différents niveaux d’instances de parole, afin de comprendre comment se reconstruit à un moment donné l’hétérogénéité du sens et de ses interprétations. La question n’est pas seulement de savoir pourquoi le terme « réfugié » s’est imposé dans les discours médiatiques, en parallèle ou au détriment du terme « migrants », mais de comprendre ce que font les locuteurs (quels qu’ils soient : politiques, journalistes, chercheurs ou simples citoyens) quand ils commentent leurs mots et leurs discours pour, notamment, justifier leurs pratiques. Dans le cadre de la politique migratoire européenne en particulier, que font les locuteurs quand ils choisissent de discourir sur les catégories de migrants, réfugiés, exilés, sans-papiers, clandestins, etc. ? Pourquoi cet empressement à choisir un seul terme englobant qui viendrait dire un réel bien complexe ou au contraire en exclure d’autres trop embarrassants ?

      Au bout de cette traversée des transformations et reformulations, de la migration, il convient d’observer que l’ensemble de ces débats a finalement entériné une opposition politique déjà à l’œuvre depuis bien longtemps [5], mais qui s’exporte dans les média au début de l’année 2015 entre « migrants économiques » et « réfugiés politiques », les premiers rejetés automatiquement de l’espace Schengen, les autres finalement accueillis en Europe (au moins durant l’année 2015).

      Rappelons tout d’abord que le mot « réfugiés » a désigné au départ les protestants chassés de France après la révocation de l’édit de Nantes. Toutefois, le terme de plus en plus controversé au XIXe siècle a pris de l’ampleur au début du XXe siècle alors que les conflits austro-prussiens jetaient des milliers de civils sur les routes, particulièrement les populations juives de l’Est. Poussés par le marasme économique, les pogroms et les discriminations subis ensuite en Russie, 2,5 millions de Juifs s’exilèrent à l’Ouest, jusqu’aux heures sombres d’une Europe voyant Juifs et Tsiganes fuir le nazisme dès les années 1930 non seulement vers l’Europe mais vers le continent américain. La politisation de la question des réfugiés s’est élaborée après la guerre au niveau international, par le biais des Nations unies, avec notamment la Convention de Genève en 1951 qui fixe alors institutionnellement le sens du terme « réfugié ».

      Si pendant les années d’après-guerre, la France a accueilli des Espagnols, des Italiens, des Polonais, des Portugais, si elle est même allée chercher des travailleurs dans ses anciennes colonies pour des raisons économiques, la catégorisation visant à dissocier ces derniers des travailleurs français a commencé autour des années 1970. La cristallisation de ce changement politique a pris forme avec l’utilisation d’un terme nouveau : « immigrés ». Faisant référence dans un premier temps au champ du travail (« travailleurs immigrés [6] »), ce terme s’est imposé dans les débats publics, politiques, juridiques et médiatiques afin de dissocier l’ensemble homogénéisé des « immigrés » et celui des « étrangers » puis des « Français de souche », expression importée de l’extrême droite [7] dès la fin des années 1970. La politique migratoire, à partir des années 1980, a opéré une différenciation entre les critères de définition : alors que la notion d’« étranger » est juridique, celle d’« immigré » renvoie à une entité socio-culturelle qui aboutit progressivement à une ethnicisation des étrangers venus du Maghreb et d’Afrique en général. Bien souvent de nationalité française, « l’immigré » fait l’objet de discours et de mesures spécifiques de par son origine questionnant de fait son appartenance réelle à la France. Dès 1986, la modification législative de l’entrée de séjour par le ministère de l’Intérieur a engagé cette nouvelle catégorie dans le champ policier. Suspectés, les « immigrés » ont dès lors constitué une catégorie générique appréhendée comme douteuse pour la nation, ce que les termes « clandestins » ou « illégaux » sont venus renforcer.

      Il n’est plus possible d’envisager les individus dans leur devenir, selon leurs trajectoires et leurs subjectivités, et encore moins selon une approche sociale telle qu’elle existait jusqu’alors dans les milieux professionnels.

      Parallèlement à ce glissement des critères, les travailleurs concernés ont vu leur demande de régularisation entravée. Dans les années 1972-1973, ils ont commencé à se mobiliser en se nommant eux-mêmes « travailleurs sans-papiers ». Cette expression est apparue lors des premières protestations aux circulaires Marcelin-Fontanet (1972) qui mettaient fin aux régularisations automatiques. Véritable « label militant », cette dénomination s’est opposée à la catégorie « travailleurs immigrés », faisant référence à l’ensemble des étrangers, impliquant même les déboutés du droit d’asile. Du côté des médias, des marqueurs identitaires (couleurs de la peau, origine géographique, religion, culture…) ont de plus en plus déterminé les catégorisations légitimées par les discours politiques du Front national, repris à droite puis à gauche (« clandestins », « immigrés illégaux », « Arabes », « Maghrébins », « Africains », « musulmans ») et ont constitué un facteur de sélection des candidats à l’immigration : les visas d’entrée ont dès lors été distribués de manière variable selon les pays concernés de sorte qu’en France, comme dans l’ensemble de l’Europe, on en vienne à une prise en charge de cette question par les ministères de l’Intérieur et de la Justice au détriment des ministères des Affaires sociales ou de l’Emploi, et que soit attesté un changement de régime discursif et de pratiques politiques. Au-delà de l’essentialisation des étrangers, assignés à leur différence — ce que les expressions « deuxième génération », « troisième génération », etc. font perdurer —, le processus d’homogénéisation par le biais de ces catégories est croissant : il n’est plus possible d’envisager les individus dans leur devenir, selon leurs trajectoires et leurs subjectivités, et encore moins selon une approche sociale telle qu’elle existait jusqu’alors dans les milieux professionnels. Au contraire, il s’agit de lui substituer des catégories de pensée visant à construire des groupes homogènes uniquement déterminés par le même, une origine ethnique et un héritage culturel, pour toute identité. Ce nouvel ordre du discours assure en fait un régime d’existence uniquement fondé sur l’appartenance, valable pour tous (« Français de souche », « Français d’ailleurs », « immigrés », « clandestins », etc.), associé à une série d’euphémisations : « gens venus d’ailleurs », « gens d’origine étrangère », « gens d’autres cultures »… On bascule ainsi d’une appréhension des citoyens, définis en fonction de leur appartenance à un régime de droits, à une stigmatisation fondée sur des critères d’appartenance telle que définie par le pays dit « d’accueil ». Qu’ils soient Français ou non importe peu : ils ne le seront jamais vraiment.

      L’année 1996 a vu naître le rapport parlementaire sur « l’immigration clandestine » qui s’est concrétisé en octobre par le projet de loi « Jean-Louis Debré » imposant notamment les certificats d’hébergement. Puis le durcissement des lois a abouti, malgré les protestations, à la loi Chevènement définitivement adoptée en mars 1998. Les années 2000, quant à elles, ont infléchi les oppositions en fonction des nécessités économiques du pays selon une logique ultralibérale : en parallèle à la construction des centres de rétention et à la multiplication des reconduites à la frontière, le gouvernement Sarkozy a engagé de manière explicite une action de tri des populations pour favoriser ce qu’il a cru bon de nommer une « immigration choisie » supposément réparatrice des torts de l’« immigration subie ». Il ne s’est plus agi d’accueillir des personnes désireuses de venir en France mais d’endiguer les « flux migratoires à la source », par le biais d’un ensemble de mesures dissuasives de surveillance aux frontières de l’Europe. Le tout-puissant dispositif géré par Frontex — agence européenne pour la gestion de la coopération opérationnelle aux frontières extérieures des États membres de l’Union européenne — s’est doté d’un nombre considérable de nouvelles expressions (« contrôle de l’immigration illégale », « force de réaction rapide [RABITs] », « directive de retour », « centre de rétention », etc.) et de nouveaux outils de contrôle et de coercition (Eurosur, Eurodac, Système d’Information Schengen [SIS], Visa Information System [VIS], Système d’entrée-sortie, European Initiative on Integrates Return Management [EURINT], etc.).

      C’est dans ce contexte socio-discursif rapidement tracé que l’arrivée de Syriens, d’Irakiens et d’Afghans, mais aussi d’Érythréens et de Soudanais en grand nombre constitue pour les gouvernants une « crise migratoire ». Ajoutés à tous ceux qui, bloqués aux frontières, attendent souvent depuis longtemps l’entrée dans la « forteresse Europe », ces derniers font l’objet de violences et de réactions de rejet avant d’être finalement acceptés. Pour Al Jazeera comme pour le HCR (Haut Comité aux Réfugiés), il importe alors de faire une distinction entre ces futurs demandeurs d’asile, fuyant la guerre et les persécutions, et les « immigrés économiques ».
      La politique des catégories performatives

      La nécessité de questionner les mots pour comprendre les réalités migratoires ne date pas de l’été 2015. La supposée alternative entre « migrants » et « réfugiés » s’est pourtant progressivement constituée comme sujet de débat avec l’arrivée des personnes fuyant la guerre par la « route des Balkans ». Ainsi, France Info s’interrogeait dès le 29 mai 2015 : « Migrants ou réfugiés : où est la frontière ? ». Carine Fouteau, spécialisée dans les questions migratoires à Mediapart, faisait paraître le 12 août 2015 un article intitulé « Réfugiés, intrusion, hotspots : le nouveau lexique des migrations ». En rappelant qu’aucun mot n’est neutre mais toujours investi « de significations singulières liées au contexte actuel », la journaliste mettait en garde quant au poids des médias et des politiques dans le façonnage et les représentations des opinions publiques. Elle faisait état de ce qui devient un enjeu politique majeur, le changement de connotation pris par le terme « migrants », longtemps utilisé par les chercheurs comme un terme « générique », englobant (« tout individu se déplaçant d’un lieu à un autre »), devenu un moyen pour « disqualifier les personnes ne relevant a priori pas de l’asile ». En accentuant cette opposition, les responsables politiques mettent ainsi en compétition les demandeurs d’asile et les « migrants économiques », ces derniers « perçus comme indésirables » étant « destinés à être renvoyés dans leur pays d’origine ». Une constellation de termes négatifs (« intrusion », « effraction », « flux », « vagues », « flots de migration », « traite », « passeurs », « trafiquants », « mafieux ») décrivent les migrants qui deviennent alors l’objet d’une gestion managériale (« points de fixation », « hot spots », « clef de répartition », « quotas », « centres de tri », « centres d’attente »…) performant une logique de sélection. Il s’agit de mettre en œuvre le partage engagé aux frontières tel qu’annoncé dès le 17 juin par le ministre de l’Intérieur, Bernard Cazeneuve, au conseil des ministres.

      La polémique lancée par Al Jazeera, si elle prend acte de la charge « péjorative » attribuée au terme « migrants » devenu synonyme de « nuisance », ne dénonce pas cette logique de tri déjà en place aux frontières. Le texte semble même s’en accommoder : Barry Malone cite les nationalités (Afghans, Syriens, Irakiens, Libyens, Érythréens, Somaliens) pour lesquelles il faut utiliser « réfugiés » afin de ne pas les confondre avec des « migrants économiques ». S’il ne dit rien des autres nationalités, les « migrants économiques », il entérine une distinction que personne ne va plus questionner, excepté quelques chercheurs.

      L’emballement compassionnel qui s’est emparé de tous les médias et réseaux sociaux au cours de l’été 2015 et plus particulièrement début septembre lors de la diffusion de la photo du petit Alan Kurdi, explique en partie l’adoption du terme « réfugiés » contre celui de « migrants ». Il s’est agi dans un premier temps de s’opposer aux discours « de haine » prononcés en Europe, notamment par le ministre anglais des Affaires étrangères Philip Hammond ou David Cameron lui-même [8], et des pratiques de violence à l’égard des personnes dans les Balkans. C’est contre les « discours infamants » et une politique européenne inhumaine que s’insurgent alors les journalistes d’Al Jazeera ainsi qu’ils le décrivent dans la présentation de l’émission du 21 août 2015.

      Au-delà de l’empathie suscitée par cette accusation, le découpage implicite entre les « bons » et les « mauvais » arrivants et la possibilité de chasser les uns (plus noirs, peu qualifiés…) au profit des autres (plus blancs, plus compétitifs…) se sont révélés efficaces pour entériner la politique du tri déjà effective : il suffisait donc de mettre les mots sur les choses, de nommer plus clairement ce qui existait pour le rendre acceptable, et pourquoi pas souhaitable.

      Des journaux comme Le Monde [9], Le Figaro ou Libération, des radios comme France Culture ou Europe 1 se sont focalisés sur les usages linguistiques, certains rappelant la difficulté de diluer le sens juridique de « réfugiés », d’autres insistant sur le sens péjoratif du participe présent « migrant » réduisant les personnes « à une errance ». Sollicités, les spécialistes des questions migratoires ont été parfois bien ennuyés puisqu’ils utilisent, comme les militants, le terme « migrants » depuis longtemps dans leurs travaux [10]. L’injonction à n’utiliser qu’un seul terme a toutefois été remise en cause par Claire Rodier rappelant que le terme « migrants » s’était imposé pour éviter de hiérarchiser les « exilés », afin de ne pas enfermer « les gens dans des cases ». Plus encore, Danièle Lochak a mis en garde : « Nous avons toujours refusé de les distinguer. »

      Les nuances apportées par les chercheurs n’y ont rien fait, la préconisation d’Al Jazeera a été relayée par Libération (« Ne plus dire migrants mais réfugiés [11] ») comme par Le Figaro. Ce dernier est même allé plus loin en criminalisant les « migrants » par le biais d’une réorientation du débat : « Réfugiés ou clandestins », éditorial d’Yves Thréard. L’objectif était bien clair : « La générosité envers les réfugiés politiques n’est concevable que si la plus grande fermeté est opposée aux clandestins économiques », énoncé repris par France 24. Chez chacun, la multiplicité des usages des « termes imparfaits » est symptomatique d’une recherche d’objectivité visant à contourner les partis pris idéologiques déterminant les choix. La plupart de ces glossaires s’appuient en fait sur la Charte de Rome, document élaboré par la Fédération internationale des journalistes avec le HCR, dans lequel les définitions sont orientées vers une valorisation des « réfugiés ». Les « migrants » y sont systématiquement appréhendés par la négative : « des personnes qui se déplacent pour des motifs qui ne sont pas inclus dans la définition légale de ce qu’est un réfugié », ou qui « choisissent de s’en aller non pas en raison d’une menace directe de persécution ou de mort, mais surtout afin d’améliorer leur vie en trouvant du travail… » « Point de vue du HCR : “réfugié” ou “migrant” ? Quel est le mot juste ? », l’organisme hiérarchise définitivement l’opposition entre les arrivants, et use de son statut d’organisation internationale pour infléchir les catégories de pensée. Le poids de ce discours dans l’espace politique et médiatique est sans précédent, ce que les chercheurs Jurgen Carling [12] et Judith Vonberg [13] dénoncent avec virulence, tout comme Olivier Adam s’insurge contre le « tri sélectif » qui entraîne une « diabolisation mécanique » des migrants. L’opposition ainsi tracée entre deux catégories qui regroupent grosso modo les Syriens, Irakiens et Afghans d’un côté et les Africains de l’autre, n’est donc pas sans liens avec l’élaboration des politiques migratoires et son imposition dans l’espace social. Ce débat sémantique occulte au fond un partage entre les êtres humains qui ne comptent pour rien, les « sans-part » (Rancière) : ceux qui peuvent encore prétendre à la vie parce qu’ils sont bons à recycler dans les économies du capitalisme tardif, et ceux dont la mort n’importe décidément plus, et que l’on n’hésite pas à abandonner au sort funeste qui est le leur aux portes de l’Europe, selon une logique du tri [14] devenue impitoyable.
      Façonner les esprits, diriger les conduites

      Tout au long de cette bataille pour les mots, jamais la parole n’est donnée aux exilés/migrants/demandeurs d’asiles eux-mêmes, qui peuvent dans certains cas préférer d’autres termes, comme « exilés », « voyageurs » ou « aventuriers [15] ». Au contraire, le monopole de la nomination est toujours assuré par ceux qui détiennent le monopole de la domination institutionnelle et médiatique et parlent au nom des autres.

      La réalité vécue est toujours très complexe, et il n’existe aucune possibilité de différencier les personnes en fonction d’un critère unique : « C’est toujours un ensemble de choses qui poussent les gens à partir sur la route. »

      Les rhétoriques affichées comme objectives, et élaborées sur des oppositions binaires, dissimulent habilement des partis pris politiques dont les effets sur les intéressés sont d’une rare efficacité. La définition sur le modèle du dictionnaire supposé neutre est une des formes de dissimulation privilégiée. Toutefois, plus que d’espérer, comme le souhaite Jørgen Carling, que le terme « migrants » puisse encore faire office de terme générique englobant, ce qui supposerait de sortir le langage des relations de pouvoir, il convient plutôt de suivre attentivement les méandres des significations et resignifications des énoncés en fonction des instances énonciatrices afin de comprendre les enjeux politiques qui innervent nos sociétés. Aucun mot ne viendra dire le réel, construit justement par les discours : nommer c’est toujours faire exister, dire c’est toujours faire. En ce sens, la moralisation qui s’instaure actuellement dans l’appréhension des personnes arrivant en Europe est symptomatique d’un changement de conception mais reste tributaire des exigences utilitaristes de l’économie libérale. Comme le rappelle Virginie Guiraudon, « rien ne dit qu’un jour prochain les indésirables soient les réfugiés, et les migrants économiques les étrangers “utiles”. C’est donc bien le débat qui est mal posé, puisque pour le patronat allemand par exemple, « les réfugiés actuels sont une chance pour l’économie allemande [et] pour qui le mot-valise “réfugié économique” signifie force de travail motivée et à forte valeur ajoutée » [16].

      La réalité vécue est toujours très complexe, et il n’existe aucune possibilité de différencier les personnes en fonction d’un critère unique : « C’est toujours un ensemble de choses qui poussent les gens à partir sur la route [17]. » À rebours de cette exigence, les médias et les politiques n’envisagent nullement de restituer cette complexité : les catégories visent au contraire à orienter la lecture de ce qui est en train d’arriver, à donner à interpréter selon des grilles, des angles de vue, des perspectives. La bataille n’est pas sémantique au sens où des définitions existeraient en dehors des enjeux politiques et sociaux : c’est une bataille discursive où le discours s’élabore selon un certain « ordre » (Foucault). Faire la généalogie de ces discours est le seul moyen de comprendre comment le sens fait advenir le réel, alors qu’il le construit socialement et politiquement. Il ne s’agit donc ni de langue, ni de linguistique et encore moins de définition de dictionnaire : il s’agit de lieux et de moments de parole qui entrent en lutte les uns avec les autres. C’est ainsi que, concernant cette séquence médiatique, le HCR a clairement imposé son point de vue au détriment par exemple de la définition générique des Nations unies.

      Si les personnes qui arrivent en France ne sont ni des réfugiés, ni des migrants, puisque chaque situation est spécifique, les catégories réifiées et binaires ne nous sont d’aucun secours. Choisir les mots pertinents en fonction des situations, des devenirs, des histoires de vie, des trajectoires, des subjectivités relève toutefois de la gageure. L’historicisation de ces phénomènes devient alors primordiale afin de reconstituer les interdiscours. Si, en 1905, l’Angleterre adoptait les Aliens Acts instituant déjà la différence entre « réfugiés politiques » et « migrants économiques », les derniers glossaires institutionnels des mots de la migration sont actuellement en train d’escamoter le terme « intégration ». Ainsi, alors que la mise en catégorie des étrangers est une vieille histoire européenne, il semble aujourd’hui que l’impératif de réciprocité et le souci d’hospitalité, malgré tout présents dans le projet d’intégration, soient même portés à s’effacer de nos pratiques sociales : sombre présage qui ferait d’un étranger un individu ayant vocation à s’identifier, à s’oublier… ou bien à disparaître.

      https://vacarme.org/article2901.html

  • #Shamima_Begum: Isis Briton faces move to revoke citizenship

    The Guardian understands the home secretary thinks section 40(2) of the British Nationality Act 1981 gives him the power to strip Begum of her UK citizenship.

    He wrote to her family informing them he had made such an order, believing the fact her parents are of Bangladeshi heritage means she can apply for citizenship of that country – though Begum says she has never visited it.

    This is crucial because, while the law bars him from making a person stateless, it allows him to remove citizenship if he can show Begum has behaved “in a manner which is seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the UK” and he has “reasonable grounds for believing that the person is able, under the law of a country or territory outside the UK, to become a national of such a country or territory”.


    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/feb/19/isis-briton-shamima-begum-to-have-uk-citizenship-revoked?CMP=Share_Andr
    #citoyenneté #UK #Angleterre #apatridie #révocation #terrorisme #ISIS #EI #Etat_islamique #nationalité #déchéance_de_nationalité

    • What do we know about citizenship stripping?

      The Bureau began investigating the Government’s powers to deprive individuals of their British citizenship two years ago.

      The project has involved countless hours spent in court, deep and detailed use of the freedom of information act and the input of respected academics, lawyers and politicians.

      The Counter-Terrorism Bill was presented to Parliament two weeks ago. New powers to remove passports from terror suspects and temporarily exclude suspected jihadists from the UK have focused attention on the Government’s citizenship stripping powers, which have been part of the government’s counter-terrorism tools for nearly a decade.

      A deprivation order can be made where the home secretary believes that it is ‘not conducive’ to the public good for the individual to remain in the country, or where citizenship is believed to have been obtained fraudulently. The Bureau focuses on cases based on ‘not conducive’ grounds, which are related to national security and suspected terrorist activity.

      Until earlier this year, the Government was only able to remove the citizenship of British nationals where doing so wouldn’t leave them stateless. However, in July an amendment to the British Nationality Act (BNA) came into force and powers to deprive a person of their citizenship were expanded. Foreign-born, naturalised individuals can now be stripped of their UK citizenship on national security grounds even if it renders them stateless, a practice described by a former director of public prosecutions as being “beloved of the world’s worst regimes during the 20th century”.

      So what do we know about how these powers are used?
      The numbers

      53 people have been stripped of their British citizenship since 2002 – this includes both people who were considered to have gained their citizenship fraudulently, as well as those who have lost it for national security reasons.
      48 of these were under the Coalition government.
      Since 2006, 27 people have lost their citizenship on national security grounds; 24 of these were under the current Coalition government.
      In 2013, home secretary Theresa May stripped 20 individuals of their British citizenship – more than in all the preceding years of the Coalition put together.
      The Bureau has identified 18 of the 53 cases, 17 of which were deprived of their citizenship on national security grounds.
      15 of the individuals identified by the Bureau who lost their citizenship on national security grounds were abroad at the time of the deprivation order.
      At least five of those who have lost their nationality were born in the UK.
      The previous Labour government used deprivation orders just five times in four years.
      Hilal Al-Jedda was the first individual whose deprivation of citizenship case made it to the Supreme Court. The home secretary lost her appeal as the Supreme Court justices unanimously ruled her deprivation order against Al-Jedda had made him illegally stateless. Instead of returning his passport, just three weeks later the home secretary issued a second deprivation order against him.
      This was one of two deprivation of citizenship cases to have made it to the Supreme Court, Britain’s uppermost court, to date.
      In November 2014 deprivation of citizenship case number two reached the Supreme Court, with the appellant, Minh Pham, also arguing that the deprivation order against him made him unlawfully stateless.
      Two of those stripped of their British citizenship by Theresa May in 2010, London-born Mohamed Sakr and his childhood friend Bilal al Berjawi, were later killed by US drone strikes in Somalia.
      One of the individuals identified by the Bureau, Mahdi Hashi, was the subject of rendition to the US, where he was held in secret for over a month and now faces terror charges.
      Only one individual, Iraqi-born Hilal al-Jedda, is currently known to have been stripped of his British citizenship twice.
      Number of Bureau Q&As on deprivation of citizenship: one.

      https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2014-12-10/what-do-we-know-about-citizenship-stripping
      #statistiques #chiffres

    • ‘My British citizenship was everything to me. Now I am nobody’ – A former British citizen speaks out

      When a British man took a holiday to visit relatives in Pakistan in January 2012 he had every reason to look forward to returning home. He worked full time at the mobile phone shop beneath his flat in southeast London, he had a busy social life and preparations for his family’s visit to the UK were in full flow.

      Two years later, the man, who cannot be named for legal reasons, is stranded in Pakistan, and claims he is under threat from the Taliban and unable to find work to support his wife and three children.

      He is one of 27 British nationals since 2006 who have had their citizenship removed under secretive government orders on the grounds that their presence in the UK is ‘not conducive to the public good’. He is the first to speak publicly about his ordeal.

      ‘My British citizenship was everything to me. I could travel around the world freely,’ he told the Bureau. ‘That was my identity but now I am nobody.’

      Under current legislation, the Home Secretary, Theresa May, has the power to strip dual nationals of their British citizenship if she deems their presence in the UK ‘not conducive to the public good’, or if their nationality was gained on fraudulent grounds. May recently won a Commons vote paving the way to allow her to strip the citizenship of foreign-born or naturalised UK nationals even if it rendered them stateless. Amendments to the Immigration Bill – including the controversial Article 60 concerning statelessness – are being tabled this week in the House of Lords.

      A Bureau investigation in December 2013 revealed 20 British nationals were stripped of their citizenship last year – more than in all previous years under the Coalition combined. Twelve of these were later revealed to have been cases where an individual had gained citizenship by fraud; the remaining eight are on ‘conducive’ grounds.

      Since 2006 when the current laws entered force, 27 orders have been made on ‘conducive’ grounds, issued in practice against individuals suspected of involvement in extremist activities. The Home Secretary often makes her decision when the individual concerned is outside the UK, and, in at least one case, deliberately waited for a British national to go on holiday before revoking his citizenship.

      The only legal recourse to these decisions, which are taken without judicial approval, is for the individual affected to submit a formal appeal to the Special Immigration and Asylum Committee (Siac), where evidence can be heard in secret, within 28 days of the order being given. These appeals can take years to conclude, leaving individuals – the vast majority of whom have never been charged with an offence – stranded abroad.

      The process has been compared to ‘medieval exile’ by leading human rights lawyer Gareth Peirce.

      The man, who is referred to in court documents as E2, was born in Afghanistan and still holds Afghan citizenship. He claimed asylum in Britain in 1999 after fleeing the Taliban regime in Kabul, and was granted indefinite leave to remain. In 2009 he became a British citizen.

      While his immediate family remained in Pakistan, E2 came to London, where he worked and integrated in the local community. Although this interview was conducted in his native Pashto, E2 can speak some English.

      ‘I worked and I learned English,’ he says. ‘Even now I see myself as a British. If anyone asks me, I tell them that I am British.’

      But, as of March 28 2012, E2 is no longer a British citizen. After E2 boarded a flight to Kabul in January 2012 to visit relatives in Afghanistan and his wife and children in Pakistan, a letter containing May’s signature was sent to his southeast London address from the UK Border Agency, stating he had been deprived of his British nationality. In evidence that remains secret even from him, E2 was accused of involvement in ‘Islamist extremism’ and deemed a national security threat. He denies the allegation and says he has never participated in extremist activity.

      In the letter the Home Secretary wrote: ‘My decision has been taken in part reliance on information which, in my opinion should not be made public in the interest of national security and because disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.’

      E2 says he had no way of knowing his citizenship had been removed and that the first he heard of the decision was when he was met by a British embassy official at Dubai airport on May 25 2012, when he was on his way back to the UK and well after his appeal window shut.

      E2’s lawyer appealed anyway, and submitted to Siac that: ‘Save for written correspondence to the Appellant’s last known address in the UK expressly stating that he has 28 days to appeal, i.e. acknowledging that he was not in the UK, no steps were taken to contact the Appellant by email, telephone or in person until an official from the British Embassy met him at Dubai airport and took his passport from him.’

      The submission noted that ‘it is clear from this [decision] that the [Home Secretary] knew that the Appellant [E2] is out of the country as the deadline referred to is 28 days.’

      The Home Office disputed that E2 was unaware of the order against him, and a judge ruled that he was satisfied ‘on the balance of probabilities’ that E2 did know about the removal of his citizenship. ‘[W]e do not believe his statement,’ the judge added.

      His British passport was confiscated and, after spending 18 hours in an airport cell, E2 was made to board a flight back to Kabul. He has remained in Afghanistan and Pakistan ever since. It is from Pakistan that he agreed to speak to the Bureau last month.

      Daniel Carey, who is representing E2 in a fresh appeal to Siac, says: ‘The practice of waiting until a citizen leaves the UK before depriving them of citizenship, and then opposing them when they appeal out of time, is an intentional attack on citizens’ due process rights.

      ‘By bending an unfair system to its will the government is getting worryingly close to a system of citizenship by executive fiat.’

      While rules governing hearings at Siac mean some evidence against E2 cannot be disclosed on grounds of national security, the Bureau has been able to corroborate key aspects of E2’s version of events, including his best guess as to why his citizenship was stripped. His story revolves around an incident that occurred thousands of miles away from his London home and several years before he saw it for the last time.

      In November 2008, Afghan national Zia ul-Haq Ahadi was kidnapped as he left the home of his infirmed mother in Peshawar, Pakistan. The event might have gone unnoticed were he not the brother of Afghanistan’s then finance minister and former presidential hopeful Anwar ul-Haq Ahadi. Anwar intervened, and after 13 months of tortuous negotiations with the kidnappers, a ransom was paid and Zia was released. E2 claims to have been the man who drove a key negotiator to Zia’s kidnappers.

      While the Bureau has not yet been able to confirm whether E2 had played the role he claimed in the release, a source with detailed knowledge of the kidnapping told the Bureau he was ‘willing to give [E2] some benefit of the doubt because there are elements of truth [in his version of events].’

      The source confirmed a man matching E2’s description was involved in the negotiations.

      ‘We didn’t know officially who the group was, but they were the kidnappers. I didn’t know whether they were with the Pakistani or Afghan Taliban,’ E2 says. ‘After releasing the abducted person I came back to London.’

      E2 guesses – since not even his lawyers have seen specific evidence against him – that it was this activity that brought him to the attention of British intelligence services. After this point, he was repeatedly stopped as he travelled to and from London and Afghanistan and Pakistan to visit relatives four times between the end of 2009 and the beginning of 2012.

      ‘MI5 questioned me for three or four hours each time I came to London at Heathrow airport,’ he says. ‘They said people like me [Pashtun Afghans] go to Waziristan and from there you start fighting with British and US soldiers.

      ‘The very last time [I was questioned] was years after the [kidnapping]. I was asked to a Metropolitan Police station in London. They showed me pictures of Gulbuddin Hekmatyar [former Afghan prime minister and militant with links to the Pakistani Taliban (TTP)] along with other leaders and Taliban commanders. They said: ‘You know these guys.’

      He claims he was shown a photo of his wife – a highly intrusive action in conservative Pashtun culture – as well as one of someone he was told was Sirajuddin Haqqani, commander of the Haqqani Network, one of the most lethal TTP-allied groups.

      ‘They said I met him, that I was talking to him and I have connections with him. I said that’s wrong. I told [my interrogator] that you can call [Anwar al-Ahady] and he will explain that he sent me to Waziristan and that I found and released his brother,’ E2 says.

      ‘I don’t know Sirajuddin Haqqani and I didn’t meet him.’

      The Haqqani Network, which operates in Pakistan’s Federally Administered Tribal Areas and across the border in Afghanistan, was designated as a terrorist organisation by the United States in September 2012. It has claimed responsibility for a score of attacks against Afghan, Pakistani and NATO security forces in Afghanistan and Pakistan. The UN accuses Sirajuddin Haqqani of being ‘actively involved in the planning and execution of attacks targeting International Security Assistance Forces (ISAF), Afghan officials and civilians.’

      E2 says he has no idea whether Haqqani was involved in Zia’s kidnapping, but he believes the security services may have started investigating him when he met the imam of a mosque he visited in North Waziristan.

      ‘The imam had lunch with us and he was with me while I was waiting for my father-in-law. I didn’t take his number but I gave him mine. That imam often called me on my shop’s BT telephone line [in London]. These calls put me in trouble,’ he says.

      If E2’s version of events is accurate, it would mean he gained his British citizenship while he was negotiating Zia’s release. He lost it less than three years later.

      The Home Office offered a boilerplate response to the Bureau’s questions: ‘The Home Secretary will remove British citizenship from individuals where she feels it is conducive to the public good to do so.’

      When challenged specifically on allegations made by E2, the spokesman said the Home Office does not comment on individual cases.

      E2 says he now lives in fear for his safety in Pakistan. Since word has spread that he lost his UK nationality, locals assume he is guilty, which he says puts him at risk of attack from the Pakistani security forces. In addition, he says his family has received threats from the Taliban for his interaction with MI5.

      ‘People back in Afghanistan know that my British passport was revoked because I was accused of working with the Taliban. I can’t visit my relatives and I am an easy target to others,’ he said. ‘Without the British passport here, whether [by] the government or Taliban, we can be executed easily.’

      E2 is not alone in fearing for his life after being exiled from Britain. Two British nationals stripped of their citizenship in 2010 were killed a year later by a US drone strike in Somalia. A third Briton, Mahdi Hashi, disappeared from east Africa after having his citizenship revoked in June 2012 only to appear in a US court after being rendered from Djibouti.

      E2 says if the government was so certain of his involvement in extremism they should allow him to stand trial in a criminal court.

      ‘When somebody’s citizenship is revoked if he is criminal he should be put in jail, otherwise he should be free and should have his passport returned,’ he says.

      ‘My message [to Theresa May] is that my citizenship was revoked illegally. It’s wrong that only by sending a letter that your citizenship is revoked. What kind of democracy is it that?’

      https://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/stories/2014-03-17/my-british-citizenship-was-everything-to-me-now-i-am-nobody-a

  • À Jérusalem-Est, les Palestiniens dénoncent un assaut israélien contre l’éducation
    By Zena Tahhan in CAMP DE RÉFUGIÉS DE SHUAFAT, Jérusalem-Est occupé - Date de publication : Mercredi 13 février 2019 - 15:48
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/news/jerusalem-est-les-palestiniens-denoncent-un-assaut-israelien-contre-l

    L’atmosphère est toujours tendue dans le camp de réfugiés négligé de Shuafat, à Jérusalem-Est occupée.

    Ici, les enfants jouent sur des routes jonchées d’ordures et d’eaux usées, tandis que de jeunes adolescents sont contraints d’abandonner leurs études pour travailler dans des garages ou des restaurants, afin que leur famille puisse joindre les deux bouts.

    Au moins 24 000 personnes – en majorité des réfugiés dont les familles ont été déplacées en 1948 – vivent dans cette zone anarchique, enfermés dans une cage entre deux check-points et le mur de béton de 8 mètres de haut qui encercle le camp.

    L’annonce qu’Israël prévoit de fermer les deux écoles de réfugiés des Nations unies dans le camp n’a fait que jeter de l’huile sur le feu.

    Ces écoles, même si elles présentent des lacunes en matière d’organisation et manquent de capacité d’accueil, sont gratuites et offrent une petite lueur d’espoir significative dans un contexte difficile.

    « J’ai tous mes amis à l’école. J’aime mes professeurs. Nous passons plus de temps à l’école qu’à la maison », a déclaré Zuhoor al-Tawil (14 ans), élève à l’école pour filles de Shuafat, gérée par l’agence de l’ONU pour les réfugiés palestiniens, l’UNRWA. (...)

    #Jerusalem

  • Le crabe EST une espèce sédentaire, et donc une ressource naturelle. Il est donc protégé par l’exclusivité de la #ZEE.

    Intéressant débat juridique, avec conséquences sur la maîtrise par la Norvège de ses ressources d’hydrocarbures.

    À noter, l’absence de position sur le traité du #Svalbard

    Abide by the claw : Norway’s Arctic snow crab ruling boosts claim to oil | Reuters
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-norway-eu-snowcrab-idUSKCN1Q3115


    A fisherman holds a snow crab in Kjoellefjord, Norway, November 1, 2017.
    NTB Scanpix/Terje Bendiksby via REUTERS

    A court delivered a painful nip to European Union fishermen on Thursday by tightening Norway’s grip on snow crab catches in the Arctic, a ruling that may also let Oslo claw more control of oil and gas from other nations.

    Fishermen from the European Union must ask permission from Oslo to catch snow crab — whose meat is a delicacy for gourmets from Canada to Japan — in Arctic waters north of Norway, the Norwegian Supreme Court said in a unanimous ruling.

    The court dismissed an appeal by a Latvian fishing firm and its Russian captain against fines imposed by a lower court for catching snow crab around the remote Svalbard Islands in 2017 with only an EU license.

    Latvia’s Foreign Ministry said it would review the decision at a government meeting.

    Norway is tightening its grip,” in the Arctic, said Oeystein Jensen, a researcher in international law at the independent Fridtjof Nansen Institute in Oslo.

    The court clarifies that if you are going to fish, or search for oil and gas, you need permission from the Norwegian authorities,” he told Reuters.

    At issue was whether the snow crab was a sedentary species living on the seabed or moves around like fish, and who gets to control the stocks.

    The court agreed with non-EU member Norway that snow crabs are sedentary, like corals or oysters, and that as such under the U.N. Law of the Sea they are a resource belonging to the continental shelf of Norway extending hundreds of miles (kms) offshore.

    Had Norway lost the case, the EU could have staked a claim over the snow crab and it could have been harder for Oslo to regulate access to potential oil and gas resources beneath the Arctic seabed.

    For the Norwegian coastguard this is a big relief - they can arrest any ships fishing illegally in the Svalbard area,” chief public prosecutor Lars Fause told Reuters.

    The Latvian firm, SIA North Star, argued that the crabs are not sedentary because they scurry around and so should be regulated under regional fisheries accords signed by parties including the European Union, Norway and Russia.

    It argued that it had a valid EU permit.

    We’re very disappointed,” defense lawyer Hallvard Oestgaard told Reuters. He said that his client would consider whether to try to appeal to international tribunals.

    And SIA North Star argued that Norway is obliged under an international 1920 treaty to allow other nations access to the waters around Svalbard.

    That treaty grants sovereignty to Norway but gives other signatories rights to engage in commercial activities on and around Svalbard. Russia, for instance, runs a coal mine on Svalbard.

    But Oslo says rights to exploit resources around Svalbard extend only to a narrow band of just 12 nautical miles offshore. The court ruled that the Latvian catches were illegal under Norwegian law, irrespective of the Svalbard Treaty.

  • UN to review 7 resolutions against Israel in March
    Feb. 15, 2019 11:06 A.M. (Updated : Feb. 15, 2019 12:29 P.M.)
    http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?ID=782560

    BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — The United Nations Human Rights Council is planning to issue seven resolutions against Israel during March, according to Israeli news outlets.

    Israeli Channel 2 reported that a report of the Commission of Inquiry into the “Gaza Fence” and the black list of businesses operating inside illegal Israeli settlements and beyond the Green Line will be among the resolutions to be made.

    The UN Special Coordinator’s report in the Palestinian lands will also be reviewed, in addition to the Goldstone Report of 2009 and Israeli violations in occupied Golan.

    Israeli violations of the International Law will also be reviewed by the UN Human Rights Council.

    #PalestineONU

  • France : des experts de l’ONU dénoncent des restrictions graves aux droits des manifestants « gilets jaunes » | ONU Info
    https://news.un.org/fr/story/2019/02/1036341

    Selon eux, « les restrictions imposées aux droits ont également entraîné un nombre élevé d’interpellations et de gardes à vue, des fouilles et confiscations de matériel de manifestants, ainsi que des blessures graves causées par un usage disproportionné d’armes dites ‘non-létales’ telles que les grenades et les lanceurs de balles de défense ou flashballs ».

    « Garantir l’ordre public et la sécurité dans le cadre de mesures de gestion de foule ou d’encadrement des manifestations implique la nécessité de respecter et de protéger les manifestants qui se rendent pacifiquement à une manifestation pour s’exprimer », ont souligné les experts.

    « Nous sommes conscients du fait que certaines manifestations sont devenues violentes et ont entrainé des débordements, mais nous craignons que la réponse disproportionnée à ces excès puisse dissuader la population de continuer à exercer ses libertés fondamentales. Il est très inquiétant de constater qu’après des semaines de manifestations, les restrictions et tactiques de gestion des rassemblements et du recours à la force ne se sont pas améliorées », ont-ils ajouté.

    De plus, les experts ont exprimé leurs vives préoccupations quant à une proposition de loi visant prétendument à prévenir les violences lors de manifestations et à sanctionner leurs auteurs, dont certaines dispositions ne seraient, selon eux, pas conformes avec le Pacte international relatif aux droits civils et politiques auquel la France est partie.

    « La proposition d’interdiction administrative de manifester, l’établissement de mesures de contrôle supplémentaire et l’imposition de lourdes sanctions constituent de sévères restrictions à la liberté de manifester. Ces dispositions pourraient être appliquées de manière arbitraire et conduire à des dérives extrêmement graves », ont souligné les experts.

  • Is it Possible to Create an Un-hackable Crypto Website/Bank for your #bitcoin (or other cryptos)?
    https://hackernoon.com/is-it-possible-to-create-an-un-hackable-crypto-website-bank-for-your-bit

    Those who bought any significant amount of Bitcoin (or any other crypto) are faced with an interesting dilemma. Where to put it and how to keep it safe?Is it possible to have an unhackable crypto bank? Is it even needed?A related question is: Is it even possible to keep your crypto safe?Hacking has been a major problem in crypto currency circles since Bitcoin was introduced in 2008. Even before the recent wave of interest in cryptocurrency (which happened in 2017), there were well known hacks and problems. In 2014, for example, Mt. Gox, the largest bitcoin exchange at the time was hacked for 740,000 bitcoin, which was valued at over $460 million at the time (and which at 2017 and even 2018 prices would be over $1 billion).It’s not just exchanges that got hacked — in 2017, Nicehash, one of (...)

    #ethereum #security #blockchain #hackernoon-top-story

  • Rise in sexual abuse cases in aid groups as more victims ...
    http://news.trust.org/item/20190210235057-41rbw

    Leading aid agencies received at least 539 reports of sex abuse and harassment last year, an exclusive survey showed on Monday, a 13 percent increase on 2017 which charities said shows abuse victims are more willing to speak up.

    The reports have led to the sacking of 91 staff, with many other cases under investigation, according to the Thomson Reuters Foundation’s second annual survey of 22 leading global charities, including the United Nations (U.N.), Oxfam and CARE.

    “If we sustain momentum on this issue and keep working to ensure people feel safe coming forward to report abuse, the numbers of reported incidents will inevitably go up in the short term,” said Mike Wright, of Bond, a network for UK aid groups.

    “But as we reinforce the message that abusive behaviour will not be tolerated and continue to improve our safeguarding practices, in the long term they will fall,” he said.

    The aid industry has come under scrutiny after revelations last year that Oxfam staff used prostitutes in Haiti during an earthquake relief mission in 2010 snowballed into widespread reports of harassment and abuse in the sector.

    #industrie_de_l'aide #abus_sexuels #harcèlement_sexuel

  • Netherlands recognize Gaza, West Bank as official Palestinian birthplaces
    Feb. 10, 2019 3:30 P.M. (Updated: Feb. 10, 2019 3:51 P.M.)
    http://www.maannews.com/Content.aspx?ID=782505

    BETHLEHEM (Ma’an) — Palestinians living in the Netherlands will be allowed to register the Gaza Strip and the West Bank as their official place of birth, Dutch State Secretary Raymond Knops told the House of Representatives in The Hague.

    The Netherlands, which does not recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, currently offers Palestinians two options when specifying their birthplace at the Dutch civil registry, the two options are Israel or “unknown.”

    Knops wrote a letter to the House of Representatives, saying that he intends to add the Gaza Strip and the West Bank, including East Jerusalem to a list of official states used by the Dutch civil registry.

    The new category will be available to Palestinians born after May 15th 1948, the day the British Mandate was officially terminated and Israel became a recognized state.

    In the letter, Knops stated that the new category is in accordance with “the Dutch viewpoint that Israel has no sovereignty over these areas,” as well as the Netherlands’ refusal to recognize Palestine as a state.

    Knops added that the new category was named based on the Oslo Accords and United Nations Security Council resolutions.
    While the UN General Assembly and at least 136 countries have recognized Palestine as a sovereign state, most of the European Union has refrained from recognition until such status is established peace agreement between the Israelis and the Palestinians. (...)

  • Pour en finir avec une mobilisation des #gilets_jaunes en baisse !
    https://nantes.indymedia.org/articles/44500

    Naturellement, la mobilisation d’hier des Gilets Jaunes « serait » à la baisse. Pourtant, Policiers en colère compte 240 000 manifestants à 15 heures 30, soit un chiffre définitif supérieur. La manip ne nous a pas échappés. Il y a un mois, le syndicat de Police donnait son chiffre à 18 puis 17 heures, comptant 4 manifestants sur le même espace géographique. Certainement sur consigne du gouvernement, il publie désormais son chiffre à 15 heures 30, ce qui lui permet de l’amputer d’UN QUART l’ampleur de la mobilisation. 240 000, cela veut donc dire 300 000 bien tassé. D’autant qu’il y avait 10 000 gilets jaunes à Bordeaux. Et que, curieusement, les chiffres de l’Intérieur, bien que grossièrement minorés, sont bons : 6000 à Toulouse (compter le double), 5000 à Bordeaux, 4000 à Paris...La résistance des (...)

    #Médias #Répression #Resistances #contrôle #social #Médias,Répression,Resistances,contrôle,social,gilets_jaunes

  • Finland’s basic income trial boosts happiness but not employment | Reuters
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-finland-basic-income/finlands-basic-income-trial-boosts-happiness-but-not-employment-idUSKCN1PX0
    https://s4.reutersmedia.net/resources/r/?m=02&d=20190208&t=2&i=1354502227&w=1200&r=LYNXNPEF170XW

    HELSINKI (Reuters) - Finland’s basic income scheme did not spur its unemployed recipients to work more to supplement their earnings as hoped but it did help their wellbeing, researchers said on Friday as the government announced initial findings.

    The two-year trial, which ended a month ago, saw 2,000 Finns, chosen randomly from among the unemployed, become the first Europeans to be paid a regular monthly income by the state that was not reduced if they found work.

    Finland — the world’s happiest country last year, according to the United Nations — is exploring alternatives to its social security model.

    The trial was being watched closely by other governments who see a basic income as a way of encouraging the unemployed to take up often low-paid or temporary work without fear of losing their benefits. That could help reduce dependence on the state and cut welfare costs, especially as greater automation sees humans replaced in the workforce.

    Finland’s minister of health and social affairs Pirkko Mattila said the impact on employment of the monthly pay cheque of 560 euros ($635) “seems to have been minor on the grounds of the first trial year”.

    But participants in the trial were happier and healthier than the control group.

    “The basic income recipients of the test group reported better wellbeing in every way (than) the comparison group,” chief researcher Olli Kangas said.

    Chief economist for the trial Ohto Kanniainen said the low impact on employment was not a surprise, given that many jobless people have few skills or struggle with difficult life situations or health concerns.
    Owner Sini Marttinen poses for a picture at her coffee shop she founded while benefitting from Finland’s basic income scheme in Helsinki, Finland January 30, 2019. REUTERS/Philip O’Connor

    “Economists have known for a long time that with unemployed people financial incentives don’t work quite the way some people would expect them to,” he added.
    PSYCHOLOGICAL BOOST

    Sini Marttinen, 36, had been unemployed for nearly a year before “winning the lottery”, as she described the trial.

    Her basic income gave her enough confidence to open a restaurant with two friends. “I think the effect was a lot psychological,” the former IT consultant told Reuters.

    “You kind of got this idea you have two years, you have the security of 560 euros per month ... It gave me the security to start my own business.”

    Her income only rose by 50 euros a month compared to the jobless benefit she had been receiving, “but in an instant you lose the bureaucracy, the reporting”, Marttinen said.

    Mira Jaskari, 36, who briefly found a job during the trial but lost it due to poor health, said losing the basic income had left her feeling more insecure about money.

    The center-right government’s original plan was to expand the basic income scheme after two years as it tries to combat unemployment which has been persistently high for years but reached a 10-year low of 6.6 percent in December.

    That followed the imposition of benefits sanctions on unemployed people who refused work.

    The basic income has been controversial, however, with leaders of the main Finnish political parties keen to streamline the benefits system but wary of offering “money for nothing”, especially ahead of parliamentary elections due in April.
    Slideshow (2 Images)
    TAX BIND

    Prime Minister Juha Sipila’s Centre Party has proposed limiting the basic income to poor people, with sanctions if they reject a job offer, while Conservative finance minister Petteri Orpo says he favors a scheme like Britain’s Universal Credit.

    The higher taxes that the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) says would be needed to pay for basic income schemes might also be off-putting for voters.

    In a review of the Finnish scheme last year, the OECD warned that implementing it nationally and cost-neutrally for the state would imply significant income redistribution, especially towards couples from single people, and increase poverty.

    The researchers have acknowledged that the Finnish pilot was less than realistic because it did not include any tax claw-back once participants found work and reached a certain income level.

    Swiss voters rejected a similar scheme in 2016. Italy is due to introduce a “citizens’ wage” in April in a major overhaul of the welfare state, which will offer income support to the unemployed and poor.

    Trial participants were generally positive, however, with Tuomas Muraja, a 45-year-old journalist and author, saying the basic income had allowed him to concentrate on writing instead of form-filling or attending jobseekers’ courses.

    He said the end of the two-year trial, during which he published two books, had made it difficult again for him to accept commissions, because “I ... can earn only 300 euros per month without losing any benefits”.

    “If people are paid money freely that makes them creative, productive and welfare brings welfare,” Muraja told Reuters about his experience of the pilot.

    “If you feel free, you feel safer and then you can do whatever you want. That is my assessment.”

    ($1 = 0.8817 euros)

  • Saudi Arabia ’curtailed and undermined’ probe into Khashoggi killing, UN expert says - SFGate
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/saudi-arabiacurtailed-and-undermined-investigation-into-khashoggis-killing-un-expert-says/2019/02/07/94ddbc80-2b03-11e9-906e-9d55b6451eb4_story.html

    Callamard said she initiated her investigation on her own because the United Nations had been unwilling to pursue an international criminal investigation . Her four-person team has no authority to bring criminal charges and will present the findings of its investigation to the U.N. Human Rights Council in June.

    #ONU #honte #arabie_saoudite #impunité

  • The World Might Actually Run Out of People — John Ibbitson & Darrell Bricker (WIRED)
    https://www.wired.com/story/the-world-might-actually-run-out-of-people

    the UN forecasting model inputs three things: fertility rates, migration rates, and death rates. It doesn’t take into account the expansion of education for females or the speed of urbanization

    (…) adding one new variable to the forecast: the level of improvement in female education. (…) if you change how someone thinks about reproduction, you change everything.

    (…) We polled 26 countries asking women how many kids they want, and no matter where you go the answer tends to be around two. The external forces that used to dictate people having bigger families are disappearing everywhere. And that’s happening fastest in developing countries. In the Philippines, for example, fertility rates dropped from 3.7 percent to 2.7 percent from 2003 to 2018.

    intriguant… #démographie #futurologie #reproduction #femmes #éducation

  • EM-DAT | The international disasters database
    https://www.emdat.be/index.php

    Welcome to the EM-DAT website

    In 1988, the Centre for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED) launched the Emergency Events Database (EM-DAT). EM-DAT was created with the initial support of the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Belgian Government.

    The main objective of the database is to serve the purposes of humanitarian action at national and international levels. The initiative aims to rationalise decision making for disaster preparedness, as well as provide an objective base for vulnerability assessment and priority setting.

    EM-DAT contains essential core data on the occurrence and effects of over 22,000 mass disasters in the world from 1900 to the present day. The database is compiled from various sources, including UN agencies, non-governmental organisations, insurance companies, research institutes and press agencies.

    #données #statistiques #désastres #catastrophes

  • Denmark’s government changes policy on UN quota refugees with new bill

    That means the application of the government’s view that the status of refugees should always be considered as temporary, and that their status should be revoked as soon as conditions in origin countries are deemed to enable this.

    https://www.thelocal.dk/20190130/denmarks-government-changes-policy-on-un-quota-refugees-with-new-bill

    #Danemark #réfugiés #asile #migrations #quota #statut_de_réfugié #temporaire #précarisation #pays_sûr #révocation #renvois #it_has_begun
    via @isskein

  • Too Many Cities Are Growing Out Rather than Up. 3 Reasons That’s a Problem | World Resources Institute
    https://www.wri.org/blog/2019/01/too-many-cities-are-growing-out-rather-3-reasons-s-problem

    n our new World Resources Report paper, Upward and Outward Growth: Managing Urban Expansion for More Equitable Cities in the Global South, we analyzed growth patterns for 499 cities using remote sensing. While cities growing vertically through taller buildings are located predominantly in wealthier cities in North America, Europe and East Asia, cities in sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia are growing mainly outward. These cities have the fewest financial resources to manage their growth but are expected to hold more than 2 billion additional people by 2050. As we know from the latest UN data, just three countries—India, China and Nigeria—are expected to account for 35 percent of global urban population growth between 2018 and 2050. As these cities grow in population, continuing their unwieldy expansion outward could push them into crises.

    https://www.wri.org/wri-citiesforall/publication/upward-and-outward-growth-managing-urban-expansion-more-equitable

    #urban_matter #cartographie #visualisation

  • Une fourmi de 18 mètres : la politique migratoire de l’UE - Variances
    http://variances.eu/?p=3848

    Les immigrés ne représentent qu’un peu plus de 10 % de la population européenne. S’y ajoutent moins d’un million de demandeurs d’asile. Le bruit politique et médiatique en relation avec ces personnes est sans commune mesure avec leur importance numérique. Il importe de comprendre que la relative impuissance de l’UE en matière migratoire résulte de deux faits majeurs. Le premier est l’absence de politique communautaire en la matière. En effet les Etats considèrent comme essentielle toute prérogative liée à la citoyenneté. Il en résulte, second fait, une grande diversité des politiques migratoires dans les Etats membres. Cependant des mécanismes de coordination et d’incitation à la convergence de ces politiques ont été mis en place, ainsi qu’à l’épreuve, lors de crises récentes.

    UN RÉSIDENT DE L’UE SUR NEUF N’EST PAS NÉ DANS SON PAYS DE RÉSIDENCE
    L’UE comptait au 1er janvier 2017 (dernières données publiés par Eurostat) 512 millions d’habitants dont 57 millions sont des immigrés au sens « international » du terme (il s’agit de résidents nés dans un autre pays que celui de résidence), soit 11 %. Parmi ces immigrés, 37 millions sont nés dans un pays hors Union européenne à 28 (UE 28), soit 7 %. Ces moyennes ne rendent pas compte de l’extrême diversité des situations par pays. Le Luxembourg compte 45 % d’immigrés, la Pologne 1,7 % (et la France 12 %). La Suède compte 12 % d’immigrés non communautaires, la Slovaquie 0,6 % (et la France 8 %). Environ deux tiers des immigrés sont non communautaires, cette part étant sensiblement plus importante en France et aux Pays-Bas, moins importante en Belgique et en Autriche.

    Description intéressante (cf. les nombres ci-dessus), conclusion à l’eau tiède

    La « politique migratoire de l’UE » n’existe pas,…
    … mais on la rencontre fréquemment.

    (assemblage de deux inter-titres consécutifs)

  • Israel just admitted arming anti-Assad Syrian rebels. Big mistake - Middle East News
    Haaretz.com - Daniel J. Levy Jan 30, 2019 5:03 PM
    https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/.premium-israel-just-admitted-arming-anti-assad-syrian-rebels-big-mistake-1

    In his final days as the Israel Defense Forces’ Chief of Staff, Lieutenant General Gadi Eisenkot confirmed, on the record, that Israel had directly supported anti-Assad Syrian rebel factions in the Golan Heights by arming them.

    This revelation marks a direct break from Israel’s previous media policy on such matters. Until now, Israel has insisted it has only provided humanitarian aid to civilians (through field hospitals on the Golan Heights and in permanent healthcare facilities in northern Israel), and has consistently denied or refused to comment on any other assistance.

    In short, none other than Israel’s most (until recently) senior serving soldier has admitted that up until his statement, his country’s officially stated position on the Syrian civil war was built on the lie of non-intervention.

    As uncomfortable as this may initially seem, though, it is unsurprising. Israel has a long history of conducting unconventional warfare. That form of combat is defined by the U.S. government’s National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2016 as “activities conducted to enable a resistance movement or insurgency to coerce, disrupt or overthrow an occupying power or government by operating through or with an underground, auxiliary or guerrilla force in a denied area” in the pursuit of various security-related strategic objectives.

    While the United States and Iran are both practitioners of unconventional warfare par excellence, they primarily tend to do so with obvious and longer-term strategic allies, i.e. the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance fighters in Afghanistan, and various Shia militias in post-2003 Iraq.

    In contrast, Israel has always shown a remarkable willingness to form short-term tactical partnerships with forces and entities explicitly hostile to its very existence, as long as that alliance is able to offer some kind of security-related benefits.

    The best example of this is Israel’s decision to arm Tehran during the Iran-Iraq War, despite the Islamic Republic of Iran’s strong anti-Zionist rhetoric and foreign policy. During the 1980s, Iraq remained Jerusalem’s primary conventional (and arguably existential) military threat. Aiding Tehran to continue fighting an attritional war against Baghdad reduced the risk the latter posed against Israel.

    Similarly, throughout the civil war in Yemen in the 1960s, Israel covertly supported the royalist Houthi forces fighting Egyptian-backed republicans. Given Egypt’s very heavy military footprint in Yemen at the time (as many as a third of all Egyptian troops were deployed to the country during this period), Israelis reasoned that this military attrition would undermine their fighting capacity closer to home, which was arguably proven by Egypt’s lacklustre performance in the Six Day War.

    Although technically not unconventional warfare, Israel long and openly backed the South Lebanon Army, giving it years of experience in arming, training, and mentoring a partner indigenous force.

    More recently, though, Israel’s policy of supporting certain anti-Assad rebel groups remains consistent with past precedents of with whom and why it engages in unconventional warfare. Israel’s most pressing strategic concern and potential threat in Syria is an Iranian encroachment onto its northern border, either directly, or through an experienced and dangerous proxy such as Hezbollah, key to the Assad regime’s survival.

    For a number of reasons, Israel committing troops to overt large-scale operations in Syria to prevent this is simply unfeasible. To this end, identifying and subsequently supporting a local partner capable of helping Israel achieve this strategic goal is far more sensible, and realistic.

    Open source details of Israel’s project to support anti-Assad rebel groups are sparse, and have been since the outbreak of the Syrian civil war.

    Reports of this first arose towards the end of 2014, and one described how United Nations officials had witnessed Syrian rebels transferring injured patients to Israel, as well as “IDF soldiers on the Israeli side handing over two boxes to armed Syrian opposition members on the Syrian side.” The same report also stated that UN observers said they saw “two IDF soldiers on the eastern side of the border fence opening the gate and letting two people enter Israel.”

    Since then, a steady stream of similar reports continued to detail Israeli contacts with the Syrian rebels, with the best being written and researched by Elizabeth Tsurkov. In February, 2014 she wrote an outstanding feature for War On The Rocks, where she identified Liwaa’ Fursan al-Jolan and Firqat Ahrar Nawa as two groups benefiting from Israeli support, named Iyad Moro as “Israel’s contact person in Beit Jann,” and stated that weaponry, munitions, and cash were Israel’s main form of military aid.

    She also describes how Israel has supported its allied groups in fighting local affiliates of Islamic State with drone strikes and high-precision missile attacks, strongly suggesting, in my view, the presence of embedded Israeli liaison officers of some kind.

    A 2017 report published by the United Nations describes how IDF personnel were observed passing supplies over the Syrian border to unidentified armed individuals approaching them with convoys of mules, and although Israel claims that these engagements were humanitarian in nature, this fails to explain the presence of weaponry amongst the unidentified individuals receiving supplies from them.

    Writing for Foreign Policy in September 2018, Tsurkov again detailed how Israel was supporting the Syrian rebel factions, stating that material support came in the form of “assault rifles, machine guns, mortar launchers and transport vehicles,” which were delivered “through three gates connecting the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights to Syria - the same crossings Israel used to deliver humanitarian aid to residents of southern Syria suffering from years of civil war.” She also dates this support to have begun way back in 2013.

    The one part of Israel’s involvement in the Syrian Civil War which has been enthusiastically publicised, though, has been its ongoing humanitarian operations in the Golan. Dubbed “Operation Good Neighbor,” this was established in June 2016, and its stated aim is to “provide humanitarian aid to as many people as possible while maintaining Israel’s policy of non-involvement in the conflict.”

    Quite clearly, this is - at least in parts - a lie, as even since before its official commencement, Israel was seemingly engaging with and supporting various anti-Assad factions.

    Although Operation Good Neighbor patently did undertake significant humanitarian efforts in southern Syria for desperate Syrian civilians (including providing free medical treatment, infrastructure support, and civilian aid such as food and fuel), it has long been my personal belief that it was primarily a smokescreen for Israel’s covert unconventional warfare efforts in the country.

    Although it may be argued that deniability was initially necessary to protect Israel’s Syrian beneficiaries who could not be seen to be working with Jerusalem for any number of reasons (such as the likely detrimental impact this would have on their local reputation if not lives), this does not justify Israel’s outright lying on the subject. Instead, it could have mimicked the altogether more sensible approach of the British government towards United Kingdom Special Forces, which is simply to restate their position of not commenting, confirming, or denying any potentially relevant information or assertions.

    Israel is generous in its provision of humanitarian aid to the less fortunate, but I find it impossible to believe that its efforts in Syria were primarily guided by altruism when a strategic objective as important as preventing Iran and its proxies gaining a toehold on its northern border was at stake.

    Its timing is interesting and telling as well. Operation Good Neighbor was formally put in place just months after the Assad regime began its Russian-backed counter-offensive against the rebel factions, and ceased when the rebels were pushed out of southern Syria in September 2018.

    But it’s not as if that September there were no longer civilians who could benefit from Israeli humanitarian aid, but an absence of partners to whom Israel could feasibly directly dispatch arms and other supplies. Although Israel did participate in the rescue of a number of White Helmets, this was done in a relatively passive manner (allowing their convoy to drive to Jordan through Israeli territory), and also artfully avoided escalating any kind of conflict with the Assad’s forces and associated foreign allies.

    Popular opinion - both in Israel and amongst Diaspora Jews - was loud and clear about the ethical necessity of protecting Syrian civilians (especially from historically-resonant gas attacks). But it’s unlikely this pressure swung Israel to intervene in Syria. Israel already had a strong interest in keeping Iran and its proxies out southern Syria, and that would have remained the case, irrespective of gas attacks against civilians.

    Although Israel has gone to great lengths to conceal its efforts at unconventional warfare within the Syrian civil war, it need not have. Its activities are consistent with its previous efforts at promoting strategic objectives through sometimes unlikely, if not counter-intuitive, regional partners.

    Perhaps the reason why Eisenkot admitted that this support was taking place was because he knew that it could not be concealed forever, not least since the fall of the smokescreen provided by Operation Good Neighbor. But the manner in which Israel operated may have longer-term consequences.

    Israel is unlikely to change how it operates in the future, but may very well find future potential tactical partners less than willing to cooperate with it. In both southern Lebanon and now Syria, Israel’s former partners have found themselves exposed to dangers borne out of collaboration, and seemingly abandoned.

    With that kind of history and record, it is likely that unless they find themselves in desperate straits, future potential partners will think twice before accepting support from, and working with, Israel.

    For years, Israel has religiously adhered to the official party line that the country’s policy was non-intervention, and this has now been exposed as a lie. Such a loss of public credibility may significantly inhibit its abilities to conduct influence operations in the future.

    Daniel J. Levy is a graduate of the Universities of Leeds and Oxford, where his academic research focused on Iranian proxies in Syria, Lebanon, Iraq and Palestine. He lives in the UK and is the Founding Director of The Ortakoy Security Group. Twitter: @danielhalevy

    #IsraelSyrie