Une belle idée de B’Tselem qui consiste à distribuer des caméra vidéo à des Palestiniens vivant dans des zones sous tension en Cisjordanie, Jérusalem et Gaza pour témoigner de leur vie, colère, devant les Israéliens et le public international.
B’Tselem Video | B’Tselem’s Camera Project
http://www.btselem.org/video/cdp_background
http://www.btselem.org/sites/default/files2/imagecache/video_wide/shootingbaner_0.jpg
Le Monde diplomatique
►http://www.monde-diplomatique.fr/2010/07/KEENAN/19401
A la recherche d’un nouvel ennemi : Israël et la troisième menace
par Thomas Keenan et Eyal Weizman, juillet 2010
L’assaut de la marine israélienne contre la flottille humanitaire pour Gaza et la mort de neuf passagers ont soulevé une large réprobation internationale. Loin d’être une simple bavure, cette attaque confirme le tournant radical pris par les autorités israéliennes vis-à-vis du droit humanitaire international et des organisations de défense de la personne.
Il faudra encore éclaircir de nombreux détails dans la manière dont un commando de la marine israélienne s’est emparé au petit matin du 31 mai 2010 du Mavi-Marmara, le navire amiral de la flottille humanitaire pour Gaza. Quelles que soient les révélations de l’enquête, ce raid israélien témoigne de deux nouveaux développements, à la fois parallèles et liés : la politisation croissante de l’assistance humanitaire, et la défiance grandissante des autorités israéliennes vis-à-vis des organisations de défense des droits humains et du droit international.
This Duck Is an Apartheid Duck
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/03/22/this-duck-is-an-apartheid-duck.html
Richard Goldstone and others who argue against the Apartheid designation try to separate Israel from the West Bank. But anyone who has traveled through Israel and the West Bank knows that the green line exists on paper only. In every other sense, between the river and the sea, there is one state, there is one regime, and that is the Israeli regime. The policies of perpetual occupation, soon entering its 45th year, effectively result in the Israeli regime’s total domination of the territory, its borders, its resources, the use of force within them and the continued colonization of that territory.
Across the entirety of the territory ruled by the Israelis there are 12 million people. Half of these people are Palestinian and 1.7 million of them are relegated to second-class citizenship through a system of direct and indirect discrimination. Another 4.3 million living in the West Bank and Gaza have no right to vote for the ruling regime at all. Further, the Israeli government refuses the human rights of approximately 4.6 million Palestinian refugees—many in refugee camps just across the border—to return to their lands.
And why is that? Why doesn’t Israel grant voting rights to all the Palestinians it rules? Why does Israel systematically prevent Palestinian refugees from exercising their human right to return?
Former Israeli prime ministers agree on the answer. Ehud Olmert explained that voting rights for Palestinians would mean that “the State of Israel is finished.” Ehud Barak said, “The simple truth is, if there is one state, it would have to be either binational or undemocratic.”
#Apartheid and the occupation of #Palestine - Opinion - Al Jazeera English
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/11/201111395153781378.html
This week, the Russell Tribunal on Palestine will consider the question of whether Israel’s practices in the occupied Palestinian territory (OPT) constitute the crime of apartheid within the meaning of the 1973 International Convention on the Suppression and Punishment of the Crime of Apartheid. This Convention, which has been incorporated into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, is not confined to apartheid in South Africa. Instead it criminalises, under international law, practices that resemble apartheid.
#Israel cannot be held accountable for its actions by any international tribunal as it refuses to accept the jurisdiction of either the International Court of Justice or the International Criminal Court.
Of course, the regimes of apartheid and occupation are different. Apartheid South Africa was a state that practiced discrimination against its own people. It sought to fragment the country into white South Africa and black Bantustans. Its security laws were used to brutally suppress opposition to apartheid. Israel, on the other hand, is an occupying power that controls a foreign territory and its people under a regime recognised by international law - belligerent occupation.
However, in practice, there is little difference. Both regimes were/are characterised by discrimination, repression and territorial fragmentation (that is, land seizures).
En voilà une idée qu’elle est bonne : là, on se propose de bloquer la contribution américaine au budget des Nations unies tant que le « rapport Goldstone » n’a pas été retiré.
Congressional bill : No money to U.N. till it retracts Goldstone Report
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/congressional-bill-no-money-to-u-n-till-it-retracts-goldstone-report.htm
(a) In General- The Secretary of State shall withhold United States contributions to the regularly assessed biennial budget of the United Nations until such time as the United Nations formally retracts the final report of the `United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict’ (commonly referred to as the `Goldstone Report’) that was presented to the United Nations Humans Rights Council during its 12th Session, in Geneva, on September 29, 2009.
Les désarrois du juge Goldstone | Denis Sieffert (Politis)
http://www.politis.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=13763
On se souvient de Richard Goldstone. Ce juge sud-africain avait présidé une mission d’enquête diligentée par les Nations unies au lendemain de (...)
Le reniement honteux de Goldstone | Ilan Pappe (Electronic Intifada)
http://www.protection-palestine.org/spip.php?article10403
« Si j’avais su ce que je sais aujourd’hui, le rapport Goldstone aurait été différent ». C’est ainsi que commence le papier que Goldstone a fait paraître dans le Washington Post et qui soulève tant de commentaires. J’ai vraiment l’impression que l’éditeur a probablement modifié le texte et que la phrase originelle devait être quelque chose comme : « Si j’avais su que cela ferait de moi un Juif qui a la haine de soi (self-hating Jew dans le texte) aux yeux d’Israël ma bien aimée, et aux yeux de ma propre communauté juive d’Afrique du Sud, le rapport Goldstone n’aurait jamais existé. » Si ce n’est pas ce qu’il avait écrit initialement, c’est certainement ce qu’il faut lire entre les lignes.
Ce vil retournement de veste n’a pas eu lieu cette semaine. Il s’est produit après une année et demie de campagne incessante d’intimidation et de diffamation contre le juge, une campagne semblable à celles qui ont détruit des personnalités importantes comme le sénateur étasunien William Fulbright qui a été politiquement assassiné à cause de sa tentative courageuse de révéler les affaires illégales de l’AIPAC avec l’État d’Israël. (...)
Goldstone has paved the path for a second Gaza war | Gideon Levy (Ha’aretz)
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/goldstone-has-paved-the-path-for-a-second-gaza-war-1.354550
Anyone who honored the first Goldstone has to ask him: What exactly do you know today that you didn’t know then? Do you know today that criticizing Israel leads to a pressure-and-slander campaign that you can’t withstand, you ’self-hating Jew’?
Goldstone’s Shameful U-turn | Ilan Pappe (Relevé sur le net)
http://www.countercurrents.org/pappe050411.htm
“If I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone report would have been a different document.” Thus opens Judge Richard Goldstone’s much-discussed op-ed in The Washington Post. I have a strong feeling that the editor might have tampered with the text and that the original sentence ought to have read something like: “If I had known then that the report would turn me into a self-hating Jew in the eyes of my beloved Israel and my own Jewish community in South Africa, the Goldstone report would never have been written at all.” And if that wasn’t the original sentence, it is certainly the subtext of Goldstone’s article. (...)
Goldstone to AP: ‘I have no reason to believe any part of the report needs to be reconsidered at this time’ (Mondoweiss)
http://mondoweiss.net/2011/04/goldstone-to-ap-i-have-no-reason-to-believe-any-part-of-the-report-needs
Richard Goldstone has finally broken his silence over his Washington Post op-ed. He granted an interview to the AP to rebut the erroneous report that we picked up on yesterday saying he was considering trying to nullify the report within
Richard Goldstone vous fait savoir qu’il est heureux que son petit compliment ait été apprécié à sa juste valeur.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/06/world/middleeast/06goldstone.html
Mr. Goldstone said in a short statement released on Tuesday night that Mr. Yishai had “informed me that he and the government of Israel were appreciative of the article I wrote.” He said Mr. Yishai had invited him to Israel “to see conditions there with my own eyes. I said I would like to do so.”
“I ended the conversation by expressing my love for Israel,” Mr. Goldstone said.
Tout cet amour, ça pique les yeux.
Goldstone, la justice et la « recherche de la Palestine » | Alain Gresh (Les blogs du Diplo)
http://blog.mondediplo.net/2011-04-04-Goldstone-la-justice-et-la-recherche-de-la
Il est douteux que la pitoyable rétractation du juge modifie l’image du gouvernement israélien. Elle aidera, en revanche, les gouvernements européens à justifier leur silence devant le blocus de Gaza et la colonisation qui continue, alors même que les révoltes arabes risquent de changer la donne. Des manifestations de jeunes se sont déroulées aussi bien à Gaza qu’en Cisjordanie et les deux pouvoirs ont tenté de les réprimer ; on parle pourtant à nouveau de réconciliation entre le Fatah et le Hamas. Mais personne ne peut cacher l’impasse stratégique dans laquelle se trouve le mouvement palestinien. (...)
Israel calls on UN to bury Gaza crimes report - Al Jazeera English
http://english.aljazeera.net//news/middleeast/2011/04/201142231017418.html
Richard Goldstone, the South African judge who led the UN investigation, said in a Washington Post column published on Friday that “if I had known then what I know now, the Goldstone Report would have been a different document,” and likely less critical of Israel.
Responding to Goldstone’’s piece on Saturday, Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’’s prime minister, urged the world body to “nullify” the report, saying it “must be thrown into the dustbin of history”.
[...]
Goldstone indicated in his Friday essay that had Israel cooperated with him at the time, it could have shown civilians were not deliberately targeted “as a matter of policy”.
Israeli military investigations into cases of misconduct later shed light on civilian killings, Goldstone said.
“I regret that our fact-finding mission did not have such evidence explaining the circumstances in which we said civilians were targeted, because it probably would have influenced our findings about intentionality and war crimes,” Goldstone said.
Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesperson, dismissed Goldstone’’s remarks saying that “his retreat does not change the fact war crimes had been committed against 1.5 million people in Gaza,” and noted that the group cooperated fully with the fact finding mission.