person:daniel levy

  • An Arab, a Jew and a Facebook post: How similar words are treated differently - The Washington Post
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/an-arab-a-jew-and-a-facebook-post-how-similar-words-are-treated-differently/2016/07/14/e346ef1c-47a4-11e6-8dac-0c6e4accc5b1_story.html

    The two posters were real people with active Facebook pages, but the threat was part of an experiment conducted by an Israeli news station last week. The goal was to monitor the reactions of individuals and Israeli authorities who are tasked with keeping tabs on social-media posts that they say might inspire terrorist attacks.

    Critics in both communities say social media has served as a conduit for unstoppable deadly violence. While the low-intensity Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been burning for decades, the platforms have given rise to individual extremists and lone-wolf attackers who are much more difficult to stop, officials say.

    After posting that he had been inspired to kill Jews, Shadi Khalileh, the Arab citizen, received calls from concerned friends and family. Israeli Arab members of parliament, who heard about his post via word of mouth, even called to ask why he would post such a message, or whether his page had been hacked. Only 12 people “liked” his post.

    The Jewish citizen, Daniel Levy, wrote that he had to seek revenge after a Palestinian killed a 13-year-old Jewish girl in her bed. His post drew some 600 “likes,” 25 shares and comments such as “I am proud of you” and “you are a king.” One comment urged him to “please take the post down before you are arrested.”

    Israeli police questioned Khalileh about his post — it took some work to convince them that it had all been an experiment. But Levy’s post went undetected by the authorities, the news station said.

    via @hasepi

  • To Beat #ISIS, Focus on Syria
    By JULIEN BARNES-DACEY and #DANIEL_LEVY SEPT. 1, 2014
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/02/opinion/to-beat-isis-focus-on-syria.html

    LONDON — The battlefield successes of ISIS in Iraq, and renewed American military action there, have turned attention back to Syria. It was there that ISIS originally ramped up its appeal while fighting against the Syrian government. Today, ISIS is headquartered in Syria and uses Syrian territory to regroup and resupply.

    In Western capitals there is now a renewed debate about how to deal with Syria’s brutal ruler, Bashar al-Assad. The policy options being discussed have largely been boiled down to a binary choice: jump into bed with Mr. Assad to defeat ISIS, or double down on the halfhearted existing policy of building a strong Sunni opposition.

    But exclusive reliance on either of these tracks will likely fail. ISIS’ advances in Syria can’t be contained without the force that is most able to challenge it: Mr. Assad’s military. And an approach that lacks sufficient support from alienated Sunnis won’t hold back the ISIS tide over the long term.

    Western policy needs to move beyond this false dichotomy.

    (...)

    Both #Iran and Saudi Arabia have been accused of stoking the ISIS phenomenon — Iran through its support for Mr. Assad, whose crackdown has had a radicalizing effect; and Saudi Arabia through the less-accountable elements of its checkbook relationship with armed opposition groups in Syria — not to mention the ways Saudi Wahabbi doctrine has been deployed to militant ends.

    #Arabie_Saoudite

  • « Le cessez-le-feu à #Gaza est un succès considérable pour le #Hamas
    http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2014/08/27/le-cessez-le-feu-a-gaza-est-un-succes-considerable-pour-le-hamas_4477492_321

    Spécialiste du #Proche-Orient au Conseil européen des affaires étrangères, un centre de recherche basé à Londres, #Daniel_Lévy analyse les termes de cet accord.

    L’accord de cessez-le-feu est-il plus ambitieux que ce qui avait été négocié jusqu’à présent ?

    Daniel Lévy : Cet accord ressemble plus ou moins à ceux conclus en novembre 2012 et janvier 2009, et qui n’avaient pas vraiment été respectés par la suite. Pour l’heure, nous ignorons si nous pouvons attendre plus de celui-ci. De nombreux points de dissensions entre les deux camps devront encore être abordés dans un mois dans le cadre de nouvelles négociations pour parvenir à un accord de cessez-le-feu permanent.

    L’issue de ces longs pourparlers aura donc débouché sur un accord politique, puisque rien ne pouvait être conclu sur le plan militaire. Mais aujourd’hui, plus que lors des précédents accords, les objectifs sont plus ambitieux : le Hamas exige la construction d’un port et d’un aéroport, ainsi que la levée totale du siège imposé à la bande de Gaza depuis 2006. Pour autant, je ne suis pas sûr que les résultats, eux, seront très différents.

    Pourquoi Benyamin Nétanyahou et le Hamas ont-ils accepté de signer un accord maintenant ?

    Je pense que les deux camps étaient tout simplement à bout et n’avaient plus rien à gagner à continuer. Et, de ce point de vue-là, je ne pense pas que l’on puisse attribuer cet accord à la médiation égyptienne. L’Egypte était plus préoccupée par ses propres objectifs, vis-à-vis du Hamas notamment, que par la mise en place d’un cessez-le-feu.

    Cet accord a pu être conclu car les deux camps avaient autant à perdre s’ils continuaient et autant à gagner s’ils arrêtaient. Bien sûr que, s’il l’avait souhaité, Nétanyahou aurait pu venir à bout militairement du Hamas et anéantir totalement la bande de Gaza, mais à quel prix ? Contrairement à certains de ses ministres, il ne le souhaitait pas.

    Nétanyahou a senti qu’il était de plus en plus affaibli – en témoigne sa chute de popularité dans les récents sondages – et que le temps des compromis était venu. Venir à bout de la bande de Gaza aurait coûté beaucoup de temps et de vies et lui aurait été fatal politiquement, tant sur le plan interne qu’international. Et avec en plus la rentrée scolaire la semaine prochaine, il ne pouvait pas se le permettre.

    Le Hamas revendique la « victoire », en est-ce réellement une pour lui ?

    Je pense que quand vous perdez plus de deux mille vies humaines, c’est difficile de parler de victoire. Mais d’un point de vue stratégique, c’est vrai qu’Israël ne peut pas s’arroger la victoire. Donc oui, c’est un succès considérable pour le Hamas : qu’il ait tenu cinquante jours durant, qu’il ait réussi à démontrer qu’Israël pouvait être vulnérable, qu’il ait mis en place une certaine forme de dissuasion malgré le déséquilibre des forces en sa défaveur...

    Habituellement, la réalité de l’asymétrie du conflit israélo-palestinien veut que les Palestiniens paient un très lourd tribut, tandis que, du côté de l’Etat hébreu, on fait en sorte que les Israéliens ne se rendent même pas compte de la situation et continuent à vivre normalement. Or cette fois, le Hamas changé la donne : pendant cinquante jours, les israéliens n’ont pas eu de répit.

    Bien sûr, le prix à payer aura été lourd sur tous les plans, mais politiquement et symboliquement, le Hamas en ressort plus fort et Nétanyahou, plus faible.

    Pensez-vous que les exigences du Hamas ont des chances d’être suivies ?

    Cela dépend des points de l’accord : je ne pense pas que la construction d’un port et d’un aéroport puisse aboutir. Par contre, ouvrir un peu plus la bande de Gaza avec la levée partielle du blocus de l’enclave en vigueur depuis 2006 me semble possible, surtout pour faire rentrer de l’aide humanitaire, des biens et des moyens de reconstruction.

    • Trêve à Gaza : « Des sursauts de violence si on reste sur un statu quo »
      http://www.rfi.fr/moyen-orient/20140827-il-y-aura-sursauts-violence-on-reste-statu-quo-gaza-palestine-israel

      Benyamin Netanyahu est aujourd’hui affaibli politiquement. A-t-il dû faire des concessions pour arriver à cette trêve ?

      [ Jean-Paul Chagnollaud : ] Je ne sais pas si on peut parler de concessions parce que c’était la seule voie possible d’arriver à une trêve. C’est vrai qu’il est en but à des critiques de Naftali Bennett et de Avidgor Lieberman, qui sont des jusqu’au-boutistes quelque peu autistes. Ce sont des personnes qui veulent aller jusqu’au bout. Et si on avait lancé une offensive comme ils l’imaginent, ça aurait été un désastre absolu pour les Palestiniens, pour le Hamas, mais aussi pour Israël parce que c’est vraiment ne pas se rendre compte de la capacité de résistance non seulement du Hamas, mais je crois de la population palestinienne qui souffre beaucoup de ce blocus depuis 2006.

      Donc, je crois que la vraie question aujourd’hui est de savoir si, une fois que l’on a dépassé ce moment très fort avec cette séquence meurtrière, on va arriver à parler politique. Netanyahu a fait preuve d’une certaine forme de courage malgré tout parce qu’il a su s’arrêter – il n’aurait peut-être pas dû y aller, car c’était une erreur à mon avis parce que finalement tout le monde est perdant dans cette affaire. Va-t-il avoir cette capacité de réenclencher des négociations dont il ne veut pas vraiment lui-même, et dont sa coalition ne veut pas ? La communauté internationale, comme par exemple Ban Ki-moon l’a évoqué il y a quelques jours, va-t-elle essayer de pousser vers cela ?

      Nous sommes dans une phase où au fond on a deux chemins possibles : on a le chemin qui ne mène nulle part qui est la trêve pour la trêve, de la paix pour la paix au sens très sécuritaire du terme. Ou l’on a l’autre chemin qui consiste à enfin prendre les questions politiques à la racine et dire « il y a une vraie question qui est l’enfermement de Gaza » et il y a la question de l’occupation. Ce sont les grandes questions : est-ce qu’on va saisir cette séquence meurtrière pour aller au-delà de ces simples problèmes de trêve qui sont importants, mais dont on voit bien leur limite.

      Pour Netanyahu, je crois qu’aujourd’hui, s’il en restait là ce serait un échec. L’idée qu’on peut résoudre un problème politique, surtout de cette ampleur, simplement de manière militaire est une absurdité stratégique. On le voit concrètement aujourd’hui. En plus, ça a évidemment renforcé le Hamas.

      Il ne faut pas oublier la chronologie malgré les événements qui s’enchaînent les uns aux autres très vite. Début juin, il y avait un gouvernement d’union nationale qui était soutenu par le Fatah et par le Hamas (mouvement d’union national palestinien), avec Abbas comme patron de tout cela. A l’époque, les Etats-Unis l’avaient reconnu, les Européens aussi, mais pas Netanyahu. On se retrouve aujourd’hui dans cette même situation. Netanyahu a effectivement négocié avec le Hamas - et pas simplement sur des questions de trêve, mais on va aller comme on l’évoquait tout à l’heure sur des questions plus profondes, du moins on peut l’espérer –, mais on revient à une négociation qui aurait pu se faire en évitant cette séquence meurtrière. Si on se contente d’une trêve, il faut s’attendre dans six mois ou dans deux ans à ce qu’une aventure militaire pareille se reproduise encore avec les souffrances que cela engendre.

  • Israeli Self-Defense Does Not Permit Killing Civilians - NYTimes.com
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/07/22/self-defense-or-atrocties-in-gaza/israeli-self-defense-does-not-permit-killing-civilians

    #Daniel_Levy apporte d’excellents arguments au débat soulevé par @reka ici : http://seenthis.net/messages/278368

    Il me semble même qu’on ne saurait mieux dire,

    To be clear, Hamas does carry responsibility for this situation – its targeting of Israeli civilians violates international law. The Hamas charter, its political platform and its military activities all deserve to be condemned. But Israel’s share of the responsibility is far greater. That is a hard conclusion to draw but a necessary one if our understanding of events, our responses and policies are to improve.

    There is no military solution but Israel refuses political solutions. Humans do not respond well to humiliation, and will always find ways to resist.

    Israeli self-defense does not include the right to (again) kill hundreds of Gazan civilians, to bomb hospitals or even to warn people to evacuate buildings when there is nowhere for them to go. The Israeli government’s attempt to a priori blame Hamas for all losses and thereby absolve itself of responsibility for casualties cannot be accepted.

    Take a step back from this latest escalation. Most Gazans are refugees, their roots lie in the war and expulsion of 1948. From 1967 they lived under direct Israeli occupation and under blockade ever since, almost for the past decade.

    Israel is not offering Gazans “quiet for quiet.” When Hamas ceases to fire, when it is “quiet,” Israel returns to normality, but Gazans remain cut off from the world, denied the most basic daily freedoms we take for granted.

    Step further back to the West Bank, where the Palestinian strategic alternative to Hamas is pursued. The Fatah movement of President Abbas recognizes Israel, pursues peaceful negotiations and security cooperation. That is met with entrenched Israeli control, ever-expanding settlements, and Israeli military incursions into Palestinian cities at will.

    So what would you do under such circumstances? Perhaps start by not denying another people’s rights in perpetuity, including the right to self-determination. Reverse the current incentive structure that reciprocates both Fatah demilitarization and Hamas cease-fires with variations on an Israeli brand of deepening occupation.

    There is no military solution, but Israel’s government refuses any political solution – neither it nor the governing Likud Party have ever voted to accept a Palestinian state. Hamas’s nonrecognition of Israel is troubling, and so should this be.

    Humans do not respond well to humiliation, repression and attempts to deny their most basic dignity. Palestinians are human. Palestinians will find ways to resist — that is human — and sometimes that resistance will be armed. When the Palestinian struggle abandons, rather than uses, international law, as Hamas does, it is right to call that out and to respond proportionately (Israel has gone well beyond proportional), even as channels should be kept open with Hamas.

    Of course, Israelis do not respond well to being under fire either, but unlike the Palestinians they have a state, an army, American support and weaponry, and, thankfully, their freedom.

    What would you do under such circumstances? Start by treating the Palestinians as humans, as you yourself would wish to be treated.

    • Et un excellent #Henry_Siegman,

      Israel Provoked This War - Henry Siegman - POLITICO Magazine
      http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/07/israel-provoked-this-war-109229_full.html

      But where, exactly, are Israel’s borders?

      It is precisely Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s refusal to identify those borders that placed Israel’s population at risk. And the reason he has refused to do that is because he did not want the world to know that he had no intention of honoring the pledge he made in 2009 to reach a two-state agreement with the Palestinians. The Road Map for Middle East peace that was signed by Israel, the PLO and the United States explicitly ruled out any unilateral alterations in the pre-1967 armistice lines that served as a border between the parties. This provision was consistently and blatantly violated by successive Israeli governments with their illegal settlement project. And Netanyahu refused to recognize that border as the starting point for territorial negotiations in the terms of reference proposed by Secretary of State John Kerry.

      But on July 12, as noted in The Times of Israel by its editor, David Horovitz, Netanyahu made clear that he has no interest in a genuine two-state solution http://seenthis.net/messages/276193. As Horovitz puts it, “the uncertainties were swept aside … And nobody will ever be able to claim in the future that [Netanyahu] didn’t tell us what he really thinks. He made it explicitly clear that he could never, ever, countenance a fully sovereign Palestinian state in the West Bank.” The IDF, Netanyahu said, would remain permanently in the West Bank. During the Kerry-sponsored negotiations, he rejected out of hand the American proposal that U.S. and international forces be stationed on the Israeli-Palestinian border, which he insisted would remain permanently under the IDF’s control. Various enclaves will comprise a new Palestinian entity, which Palestinians will be free to call a state. But sovereignty, the one element that defines self-determination and statehood, will never be allowed by Israel, he said.

      Why will he not allow it? Why did he undermine Kerry’s round of peace talks? Why is he inciting against the Palestinian unity government? Why does he continue to expand illegal settlements in the West Bank, and why did he use the tragic kidnapping and killing of three Israelis as a pretext to destroy what institutional political (as opposed to military) presence of Hamas remained in the West Bank?

      He’s doing all of these things because, as suggested by Yitzhak Laor in Haaretz, he and his government are engaged in a frenzied effort to eliminate Palestinians as a political entity. Israel’s government is “intent on inheriting it all” by turning the Palestinian people into “a fragmented, marginalized people,” Laor writes. It is what the Israeli scholar Baruch Kimmerling described as “politicide” in a book by that name he wrote in 2006.

      So exactly who is putting Israel’s population at risk?

    • Israel’s U.S.-Made Military Might Overwhelms Palestinians | Inter Press Service
      http://www.ipsnews.net/2014/07/israels-u-s-made-military-might-overwhelms-palestinians

      Jennings told IPS two facts are largely missing in the standard media portrayal of the Israel-Gaza “war:” the right of self-defence, so stoutly defended by Israelis and their allies in Washington, is never mentioned about the period in 1948 when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were forced from their homes and pushed off their land to be enclosed in the world’s largest prison camp that is Gaza.

      Secondly, the world has stood by silently while Israel, with complicity by the U.S. and Egypt, has literally choked the life out of the 1.7 million people in Gaza by a viciously effective cordon sanitaire, an almost total embargo on goods and services, greatly impacting the availability of food and medicine.

      “These are war crimes, stark and ongoing violations of international humanitarian law perpetuated over the last seven years while the world has continued to turn away,” Jennings said.

      “The indelible stain of that shameful neglect will not be erased for centuries, yet many people in the West continue to wonder at all the outrage in the Middle East,” he added.

  • A Peace Process in Which Process Has Come to Outweigh Peace
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/05/world/middleeast/mideast.html

    “The kind of ridicule being heaped upon the current effort is not good — you pay a price for that,” said #Daniel_Levy, director of the Middle East and North African program at the European Council on Foreign Affairs.

    “There is such a thing as a process that, over all, does more harm than good,” Mr. Levy said. “It behooves the promoter of the process, the Americans, to take seriously the idea that there is such a thing as a bad process that does more to damage two states than to advance it.”

    #processus #ennemi de la #paix

    Collapse of Peace Talks Gives Israel Easy Exit, but Leaves It in a Precarious Spot
    http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/26/world/middleeast/collapse-of-peace-talks-leaves-israel-in-precarious-position.html?hpw&rref=

    Absent a peace process, the threat of a binational state in which Arabs could soon outnumber Jews grows more potent.

    “I don’t think the continuation of the status quo is an Israeli interest,” said Shlomo Brom, a retired general at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv.

    “Netanyahu went to these negotiations not because he expected there would be results — he wanted release from potential pressure from the Americans and the Europeans,” Mr. Brom added. “He got this release for the last nine months. Now he will have to think about a new trick.”

    (...)

    “The negotiations as constructed had, time and again, proved that they were not up to the task of doing anything positive,” [said] Mr. [Daniel] Levy (...) “So the argument that something has been lost by not continuing these same negotiations does not pass the #laugh_test.”

  • Europe sticks a warning label on the settlements
    Daniel Levy
    Haaretz

    http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/europe-sticks-a-warning-label-on-the-settlements.premium-1.529826

    The European Union is inching towards issuing EU-wide guidelines on the labeling of produce from Israeli settlements in the West Bank; agreement could be reached as early as later this month at the regular meeting of EU foreign ministers.

    If there is delay, most likely to accommodate current American efforts at resuming peace negotiations, it is likely to be short-lived. The U.S., predictably, will discourage labeling. But even President Obama fully expects Europe to move in the direction of taking these steps: whereas America might indulge every Israeli action, in the absence of progress towards two states, the rest of the world will not. This was part of Obama’s Jerusalem pitch as to why, for Israel, peace is necessary as well as being both just and possible.