Avarende

Syrie. Armes chimiques.
Lawrence Wilkerson, ancien chef d’État-major de Colin Powell, indique qu’Israël pourrait avoir conçu l’histoire des armes chimiques syriennes. N’en restant pas là, il décrit le « régime de Tel Aviv » comme étant « inepte au plan géostratégique et géopolitique » et Nétanyahou comme n’ayant pas « la moindre idée » de ce que signifie la géostratégie.

Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: Chemical weapon use in Syria ‘could have been an Israeli false flag operation’

Interview on Current TVMay 2, 2013

►http://current.com/shows/the-young-turks/videos/col-lawrence-wilkerson-chemical-weapon-use-in-syria-could-have-been-an-isra

« Retired Col. Lawrence Wilkerson, who was Colin Powell’s chief of staff during the Bush administration, talks with Cenk Uygur about how President Obama should handle early evidence that Syria may have used chemicals weapons. “I think the president’s statement was very circumspect, very prudent,” Wilkerson says. “We don’t know what the chain of custody is. This could’ve been an Israeli false flag operation, it could’ve been an opposition in Syria, … or it could’ve been an actual use by [Syrian President] Bashar al-Assad. But we certainly don’t know with the evidence we’ve been given. And what I’m hearing from the intelligence community is that that evidence is really flakey.”

Israël/ Palestine : Perspective de relance des négociations. L’optimisme n’est pas (encore) au rendez-vous.

Sans surprise bien sûr, la nouvelle offre arabe de paix est endossée par Washington. Il s’agit de la version amendée du texte de 2002 (Beyrouth, Ligue arabe). L’ajout consistant à offrir des « échanges mineurs de territoires » vient d’être jugé par John Kerry comme un « grand pas » vers une reprise des négociations. C’est effectivement un changement même si les Palestiniens étaient acquis depuis longtemps à l’idée que les colonies d’envergure ne pouvaient plus être démantelées et qu’il faudrait négocier des échanges de territoires en quantité et en qualité égales.

L’optimisme américain n’est pas universellement partagé. Saëb Ereqat a rappelé que les Palestiniens avaient depuis longtemps posé des conditions pour reprendre les négociations et qu’ils attendaient toujours une réponse d’Israël. Le Premier ministre Netanyahou ne s’est pas exprimé sur la nouveauté arabe. Il vient de rappeler que le conflit n’était pas d’ordre territorial mais qu’il procédait du refus palestinien de reconnaître Israël en tant qu’Etat juif. On connaît sa position de principe : les parties doivent négocier directement et « sans poser de conditions en préalable ». L’expression a plusieurs significations dont l’une est de ne pas reprendre les négociations là où elles ont été arrêtées mais de travailler sur la réalité du moment (par exemple en prenant en compte la réalité d’aujourd’hui de la colonisation ou des réfugiés). Tzipi Livni, ministre de la Justice et chargée du processus de paix pour Israël, a accueilli favorablement les nouvelles propositions arabes qui pourraient lui permettre de reprendre le rôle de négociateur qui a été le sien il y a quelques années.

Onze ans ont passé depuis l’adoption du texte de Beyrouth par la Ligue des 22 Etats arabes. Le Proche Orient a connu des guerres ou des opérations militaires. Les peuples arabes se sont soulevés. Certains de leurs dirigeants ont été tués, sont en exil ou emprisonnés. La Syrie est en guerre. La Turquie s’est souvent démarquée du camp occidental. Les conditions géopolitiques qui prévalaient en 2002 ne sont plus les mêmes.

Les acteurs du processus de paix ont souvent joué de mauvais rôles lassant les peuples et les gouvernants les uns à la suite des autres. La nouvelle proposition arabe doit être perçue pour ce qu’elle est : une marque de bonne volonté.

Kerry Calls Arab League Plan to Revive Talks With Israel a ‘Big Step’
By Steven Lee Myers and Jodi Rudoren
Published : April 30, 2013

A version of this article appeared in print on May 1, 2013, on page A6 of the New York edition with the headline : Kerry Calls Arab League Plan to Revive Talks With Israel a ‘Big Step’

▻http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/01/world/middleeast/kerry-welcomes-arab-plan-for-israeli-palestinian-talks.html?_r=0

WASHINGTON — Secretary of State John Kerry on Tuesday embraced a proposal by the Arab League to revive peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians as “a very big step forward,” but initial reactions suggested that the new initiative might have difficulty penetrating the years-long impasse. “We’re taking more steps,” Mr. Kerry said Tuesday, a day after a Qatar-led delegation of Arab states presented the initiative to him and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. at a meeting near the White House. “Yesterday was another step. And we’re going to continue to march forward and try to bring people to the table despite the difficulties and the disappointments of the past.”

Qatar’s foreign minister had suggested the revival of the Arab Peace Initiative, introduced in 2002, and for the first time eased its demand that Israel return to its pre-1967 borders. Instead, the minister accepted the possibility of tweaking those borders with a comparable and mutually agreed “minor swap of the land.”
The Palestinians’ chief negotiator said the Arab League’s proposal reflected their own position, but he reiterated longstanding conditions for resuming talks, which Israel has for the past several years rejected.

Veteran analysts of the peace process saw the Arabs’ inclusion of land swaps as a significant shift, but the new initiative also exposed strains within the new government of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, who did not address the proposal publicly. (…)

Relation Egypte/ Etats Unis : mythes et réalités d’aujourd’hui.

Résumé : Mohamed Elmenshawy (Middle East Institute, Washington) estime que l’influence américaine sur l’Egypte est surestimée. Il en veut pour preuve les conditions récemment posées par les sénateurs américains pour l’octroi d’une aide militaire au Caire. Ces conditions témoignent d’une pensée obsolète, en cours à l’époque de Moubarak, mais qui n’a plus de raison d’être dans une Egypte en mutation. L’influence que peut exercer Washington est tributaire de facteurs nouveaux tels que la politique intérieure égyptienne ou la situation dans une région instable. La relation américano-égyptienne souffre de cinq mythes dont il convient de se défaire :

Mythe 1 : Les Etats Unis ont les moyens de changer la politique intérieure égyptienne.
Mythe 2 : Les Etats Unis peuvent sortir l’économie égyptienne de la crise actuelle.
Mythe 3 : L’Egypte profite plus de la relation avec Washington que l’inverse.
Mythe 4 : Une bonne relation avec Israël est la garantie pour que Washington soit satisfait des dirigeants égyptiens.
Mythe 5 : Les Etats Unis ont porté Morsi au pouvoir. Ils peuvent tout autant s’en défaire s’ils le souhaitent.

PS : Dans la même veine sur la situation économique de l’Egypte lire aussi
– L’article de Ahmed Feteha (Al-Ahram Online, 29 Apr 2013) : « Egypt likely to accept Qatar’s $3bn offer despite ungenerous terms », où il est dit que l’Egypte va probablement accepter l’offre du Qatar (3 milliards de dollars) en dépit d’un taux d’intérêt élevé (5%) ▻http://english.ahram.org.eg/News/70391.aspx :

– Le texte de Yasmine Saleh and Patrick Werr, (Reuters, 30 April 2013) : “Leftist leader says Egypt should refuse IMF loan”, qui reprend le conseil de Hamdine Sabahi, un responsable politique de gauche, de ne pas accepter le prêt du FMI pour ne pas avoir à mettre en œuvre ses conditions. ▻http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/04/29/uk-egypt-imf-idUKBRE93S12A20130429

Debunking Five Myths of Washington’s Leverage in Egypt
By : Mohamed Elmenshawy for Al-Monitor Posted on April 28 (2013)

▻http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/us-egypt-influence-morsi-hagel-leverage.html#ixzz2S29508LD

“Last week’s visit by US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel to Cairo came amid several discussions in Washington and Cairo about US leverage in Egyptian politics since Hosni Mubarak’s ouster in February 2011. Most of these discussions overestimate US influence. Indeed, last month’s proposed amendments from both Republican and Democratic senators aiming to attach conditions to military assistance to Egypt reveal an old-fashioned and overconfident understanding of Washington’s sway. The reality is that US influence in Egypt is tempered by a number of factors, including Egyptian domestic politics, funding and the United States’ own need for stability and cooperation in the region. Deconstructing a number of myths that perpetuate the idea of an all-powerful United States may help bring to light the reality of the situation.” (…)

Mohamed Elmenshawy is a scholar at the Middle East Institute in Washington. He writes a weekly article in the Egyptian daily al-Shorouk. He can be reached at mensh70@gmail.com or on Twitter @ElmenshawyM.

Pas de panique !

Une campagne de Amnesty International et de l’OSEO contre la révision de la loi sur l’asile.

▻http://panique.amnesty.ch

<a href="▻http://imgur.com/6vyt4t0"> src='https://seenthis.net/

http://i.imgur.com/6vyt4t0.jpg

Arguments contre le démantèlement du droit des réfugiés
Pas d’état d’urgence en Suisse.

En 2012, plus de 42 millions de personnes avaient fui la guerre ou des situations de persécution. En Suisse, il y avait 44’863 requérant·e·s d’asile au total. Cela correspond à 0,5 pourcent de la population résidente.
Les réfugié·e·s ont besoin de notre protection.

Toute personne victime de persécutions et forcée de quitter son pays d’origine a le droit d’obtenir une protection et l’asile. Le droit des réfugié·e·s est valable dans le monde entier et ne peut être remis en question.
Dissuasion inefficace.

Les durcissements constants de la Loi sur l’asile ne résolvent aucun problème. Au contraire, ils en créent de nouveaux. La dissuasion et la rigueur n’empêchent pas les personnes de fuir, elles font cependant vivre aux requérant·e·s d’asile des situations de misère et rendent leur intégration difficile.
Réorienter au lieu de paniquer et polémiquer.

A la place de nouveaux durcissements et de fausses solutions, nous avons besoin d’un changement de perspective dans la politique d’asile. Il est grand temps d’avoir une procédure d’asile juste, crédible et efficace.
Il est temps d’avoir une politique d’asile juste.

Cela comprend : une procédure courte avec une protection juridique pour les requérant·e·s d’asile ; un hébergement humain avec un encadrement des requérant·e·s d’asile ; des aides au retour et l’abandon presque total des renvois forcés.
Engagez-vous !

Amnesty International va continuer de s’engager pour les droits des réfugié·e·s ainsi que pour une politique d’asile juste et crédible.

Le 9 juin, votez NON au démantèlement du droit des réfugiés. Informez-vous sur la politique d’asile et le travail d’Amnesty International

#asile #migration #campagne #Suisse #révision_loi #clip

Palestine/ Israël.
Le livre du Dr Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, « Je ne haïrai point », a été adapté à la scène au théâtre national Habima (Théâtre national « La Scène » à Tel Aviv). Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish est ce médecin palestinien qui a perdu ses trois filles lors des opérations israéliennes « Plomb durci » sur Gaza en 2009.

The Gaza Doctor’s Story On Israeli Stage

▻http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/the-gaza-doctors-story-on-israeli-stage.html

By: Michal Aharoni for Al-Monitor Israel Pulse Posted on April 21 (2013)

“The theater’s job is to peel away stereotypes. We don’t know the story of Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, we only know its end. We have no idea what it’s like living 80 kilometers from Tel Aviv,” says Shay Pitowski, director of the play I Shall Not Hate currently being staged by Habima.

The play is based on the autobiography of Dr. Ezzeldeen Abu al-Aish, the Gaza doctor whose three daughters were killed by a stray shell fired by the IDF during Operation Cast Lead [2009]. Abu al-Aish, known as “the doctor from Gaza,” worked for years as a gynecologist in Israel. Seconds after the shell hit his house he called journalist Shlomi Eldar at Israel’s Channel 10 news studio. Eldar hit the speaker button on his cell phone and broadcast live the agony of the man whose three daughters lay dead on the floor in front of his eyes. His cries of anguish, in Hebrew, resonated in Israel and around the world. Twenty-four hours later a cease-fire was reached and the operation was brought to an end.

But despite the great tragedy that befell him, Dr. Abu al-Aish refused to give in to hate. The man who led his whole life between two worlds — one foot here, the other there — continued to see both sides. Despite the horrible tragedy that befell him, he continued to talk peace. At a time when so many people sanctified death, the gynecologist who helped so many women give life continued to sanctify life. (…)

Liban/ Syrie. Jabhat al-Nusra versus Hezbollah.

Le Hezbollah est impliqué dans la guerre de l’autre côté de la frontière libanaise. Il a parfois trouvé sur la route syrienne les sunnites du Front al-Nousra. Leurs escarmouches ont provoqué quelques victimes. L’article fait valoir qu’ils pourraient aussi s’affronter en terre libanaise même.

Hezbollah Prepares for Attacks by Jabhat al-Nusra in Lebanon
By: An Al-Monitor Correspondent in Beirut for Al-Monitor Lebanon Pulse Posted on April 26 (2013).

▻http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2013/04/hezbollah-lebanon-perpares-attacks-jabhat-nusra.html#ixzz2Rsk4Y0Eb

“The latest statement released by Jabhat al-Nusra threatening to launch harsh strikes against Hezbollah, in Beirut in the city’s southern suburb and across Lebanon, is being taken seriously at the national security level and by Hezbollah.

It can no longer be denied that Jabhat al-Nusra has found fertile ground in the Palestinian refugee camps in the country, among the nearly one million Syrian refugees there, as well as in Lebanese Sunni areas, especially in northern Lebanon near the Syrian border.
According to sources close to Hezbollah, there are several possible scenarios that Jabhat al-Nusra might implement in Lebanon in response to the party’s participation in battles to protect the Sayyida Zeinab shrine in Damascus and expel the Syrian opposition from the strategic city of al-Qusayr and its countryside.

One scenario involves suicide bombers in public squares in Beirut’s southern suburbs, a predominantly Shiite area and a Hezbollah popular and political stronghold. Hezbollah recently ordered strict, yet low-key protective measures around mosques, hussainias and public markets in the southern suburbs. These include Hezbollah security members conducting night patrols in most neighborhoods accompanied by dogs trained to detect explosives” (...)

Liban/ Syrie.
Ainsi parlait Ahmad al-Assir : « Je ne garderai pas plus longtemps ce secret. Que tout le monde le sache. Au moment où je vous parle, certains de nos frères de cette mosquée combattent en Syrie ».

Le Cheikh salafiste sunnite Ahmad al-Assir est devenu ces derniers mois une figure controversée et médiatique dans le paysage politico-religieux du Liban. Se posant en défenseur des sunnites il s’en prend sans précaution aucune au Hezbollah, à la Syrie d’Assad et à l’Iran. Il comble un vide ressenti par bon nombre de sunnites, notamment à Saïda (sa ville d’origine) et à Tripoli, qui pourraient trouver avantage à se trouver un leader charismatique capable de parler haut et fort aux chiites. Il fait porter à l’Iran et au Hezbollah la responsabilité d’avoir divisé la famille sunnite. Les affrontements entre « ses dévots » (terme qu’il affectionne) et les partisans du Hezbollah ont déjà provoqué des victimes. Les plus convaincus d’entre eux se seraient enrôlés dans les brigades dites de « la libre résistance » pour aller combattre en Syrie contre le régime d’Assad après une formation au Liban. Il est difficile de juger l’importance de ce phénomène, le cheikh ayant déjà par le passé lancé des initiatives qui n’avaient pour seul but que de faire connaître ses ambitions et de compter ses partisans. Mais ces appels au jihad pour aller combattre en Syrie ne peuvent qu’inquiéter la société libanaise.

Sheikh Assir Declares Arrival of His Mujahideen in Syria
By : Amal Khalil

Published Saturday, April 27, 2013
Al Akhbar English

►http://english.al-akhbar.com/content/sheikh-assir-declares-arrival-his-mujahideen-syria

“I will not keep this a secret. Let everyone know. As I speak to you now, there are brothers of yours, from this mosque, fighting in Syria.” Salafi Sheikh Ahmad al-Assir made this proclamation during his Friday sermon at the Bilal bin Rabah Mosque in Abra, less than a week after he announced the creation of the so-called Free Resistance Brigade, a volunteer-based group that would wage “jihad” against the Syrian regime. Sheikh Assir called on followers to register at the mosque and fill out applications for jihad. After that, they merely await Assir’s orders to begin training before being dispatched to Syria, particularly to the town of Qusayr close to the Lebanese border.” (...)

Un Etat unique pour Israéliens et Palestiniens ?

L’article de Gideon Levy (voir ci-après) défend l’idée de l’Etat unique où cohabiteraient Israéliens et Palestiniens en prenant pour modèle le processus historique qui a mis fin à l’apartheid en Afrique du Sud. Il préconise l’adoption du principe « un citoyen, un vote » qui donnerait théoriquement aux citoyens israéliens, palestiniens, juifs, musulmans ou d’une autre confession, les mêmes droits.

L’hypothèse de l’Etat unique, ou binational, sur le territoire de la Palestine mandataire est connue. Elle est régulièrement avancée par des Palestiniens et des Israéliens, les uns par conviction, les autres parce qu’ils jugent que le point de non-retour est atteint et qu’il est vain de continuer à négocier ou à prétendre de négocier. Ceux-là estiment que les deux peuples peuvent vivre ensemble sur un même territoire comme ils l’ont déjà fait. Ceux-ci sont convaincus que l’enchevêtrement de revendications anciennes et nouvelles comme l’irrésistible avancée de la colonisation rendent impossible tout compromis durable et qu’il vaut mieux renoncer à l’utopie de l’Etat indépendant.

Pour le moment « la solution des deux Etats », qui verrait la création d’un Etat palestinien aux côtés d’Israël, reste la stratégie de l’Autorité palestinienne dans le cadre des Nations Unies, du processus de paix et de ses avatars. Cette option a aussi la préférence d’une partie des Israéliens qui pensent que la création d’un Etat pour les Palestiniens, indépendant mais démilitarisé, est de nature à réduire les risques de violence dans le contexte des soulèvements arabes inachevés, de l’évolution du fondamentalisme islamique et des menaces venues d’Iran ou de Syrie. Quant au Hamas, il n’exige pas un Etat mais la fin de l’occupation israélienne. « L’option jordanienne » est une autre hypothèse qui verrait le retour de la Jordanie en Palestine, mais elle est largement démonétisée aujourd’hui. On peut aussi mentionner le Parti de la Libération islamique qui a récusé le concept d’Etat-nation pour réclamer la restauration du « califat universel ».

Dans son message aux Palestiniens, Gideon Levy juge que le rapport des forces entre l’Etat israélien et l’idéologie de libération nationale portée par les Palestiniens est tellement déséquilibré que la meilleure solution est d’adopter la solution sud-africaine pour faire émerger un Etat unique et binational. Sa conviction est que les Palestiniens devraient être en mesure de prendre conscience de leur faiblesse politique et diplomatique et de renoncer à leur indépendance en tant qu’Etat. Sa thèse sous-entend que les Palestiniens ont abandonné la lutte nationale. Elle suppose que la « résistance », armée ou pas, ne sera plus utilisée par ceux qui jugeront que la diplomatie et la légalité internationale ont échoué à porter leurs aspirations nationales. Elle donne pour acquis, en creux, que l’unité du peuple palestinien restera préservée dans le cadre d’un Etat unique, ce que contesteront beaucoup de Palestiniens qui ne manqueront pas de souligner qu’Etat unique ou pas, Israël restera la patrie du peuple juif et qu’il n’est pas certain que tous ses habitants y auront les mêmes droits. En définitive, l’Etat unique est l’une de ces bonnes idées qui sont soit tardives soit prématurées.

Like Israel, Palestinians must also learn the lessons of South Africa
If the Palestinians focus on demanding ’one person, one vote’, Israel won’t have a leg to stand on. What can it say - that the Palestinians aren’t human ?

By Gideon Levy 25.04.13 (Haaretz)

►http://www.haaretz.com/opinion/like-israel-palestinians-must-also-learn-the-lessons-of-south-africa.premiu

PRETORIA - Not only Israelis but Palestinians, too, must learn the lessons of South Africa. The struggle of the black population focused on one issue : universal vote. Nelson Mandela’s demand for "one person, one vote" was more than a slogan, it was a strategic goal. It became reality on April 27th, 19 years ago, when the first multiracial elections were held. Ever since, democracy has been safeguarded, elections are held regularly and the new constitution is upheld and guides this state, despite its hardships and complexities.

South Africans have proved that the impossible is possible ; that the dream of the majority and the nightmare of the minority can be translated into a new language. That hatred, threats and fears can be replaced by a reality of hope. Mandela, yesterday’s ’terrorist,’ and his ’terror organization," the African National Congress, managed to quell the fears of the white population.

It was probably the most important step in their struggle, which was managed with full awareness of the limitations of their power. They understood that violence would lead them nowhere, that the regime was stronger, and that reckless terror would lead to the loss of essential international support. The ANC limited its use of force. This is an important lesson the Palestinians should consider.

Of no less importance was the dissidents’ unity. The Palestinians, so far, have failed on that score. But the most important factor in South Africa’s success was the agreed-upon goal - one person, one vote. It is about time the Palestinians adopt this goal. It is time for them to understand that the two-state dream is becoming impossible. That the occupation is stronger than them, that the settlements are already too large and that the Palestinian state, even if established, will be no more than a group of Bantustans separated by the "settlement blocs" that grew to monstrous proportions and have won consensus approval from Israelis and the international community.

It is time, dear Palestinians, to change strategy. Not to fight the occupation or the settlements ; they’re here to stay. It is time to follow the South African example and demand one basic right : one person, one vote. (…)

Israël/ Palestine
Le Conseil National de Sécurité américain récuse les allégations avancées par Haaretz (édition du 24 avril 2013) selon lesquelles Washington serait disposé à inviter à un sommet Netanyahou, Abbas et le roi Abdallah de Jordanie pour relancer les négociations israélo-palestiniennes. L’auteur de l’article maintient que ses informations sont puisées à la bonne source.

U.S. denies plan to convene 4-way Mideast summit in June
Despite denials, well-placed U.S. sources insist that a four-way summit heralding the launch of renewed talks between Israel and the Palestinians had been discussed with Mideast leaders, foreign ministers.

By Chemi Shalev | Apr.25, 2013 | Haaretz

▻http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-denies-plan-to-convene-4-way-mideast-summit-in-june-1.517668

The Obama administration Thursday denied a Haaretz report about plans to convene a four way Middle East peace summit in which President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah will participate.

Bernadette Meehan, National Security Council Spokesperson: said “We have the seen the media reports of a planned Middle East Peace summit in Washington. These reports are not true. We remain committed to working with the Israelis and the Palestinians to achieve a lasting peace through direct negotiations.”

Acting Deputy Spokesperson Patrick Ventrell also denied the report, saying that the U.S. Administration is expecting to hold talks with an Arab League delegation that will visit Washington on April 29.

Despite the denials, however, well-placed American sources insisted Thursday that a four-way summit that would herald the launch of renewed talks between Israel and the Palestinians had been discussed with Mideast leaders and foreign ministers. One diplomatic source told Haaretz that the sides had been encouraged to “come up with ideas” that would enable the summit to convene. (…)

Jadis les relances du processus de paix étaient médiatisées longtemps à l’avance de manière à ce que l’on puisse dire que, cette fois-ci, « c’était la bonne ! ». Tout concourait à susciter les espoirs, voire les enthousiasmes, et même à prévenir les frustrations en cas d’échec. Rude tâche d’ailleurs tant l’incrédulité prévalait. Dans ce cas, la rumeur d’un « plan B » pouvait entretenir la flamme. Aujourd’hui rien de tel. C’est presque par surprise qu’on a appris l’initiative américaine. Depuis, c’est peu de dire que les navettes diplomatiques de John Kerry sont discrètement annoncées. C’est d’ailleurs une bonne chose, la retenue en diplomatie étant l’une des rares vertus qui souffre les excès, sans en souffrir.

L’auteur de l’article fait lui aussi montre de prudence en précisant in fine que l’objectif de Washington est de conforter l’Autorité palestinienne et son président. On voit l’ambition. Ce sera vrai si l’initiative américaine rencontre la réussite. Ce sera contreproductif à la fois pour l’Autorité palestinienne et pour Mahmoud Abbas en cas d’échec. Il n’y a pas que les échecs des précédents processus de paix qui ont peu à peu décrédibilisé le président aux yeux des Palestiniens, mais ils y ont leur part.

L’article indique que les références habituelles seront bien prises en compte : l’Initiative de paix arabe de 2002 ; le renoncement par les Palestiniens à leur exigence de voir geler la colonisation ; des négociations directes entre Israéliens et Palestiniens ; le principe de deux Etats pour deux peuples et, enfin, la perspective d’une dotation économique et financière pour les Palestiniens. Ces "termes de référence" sont traditionnels depuis quelques années. Ils n’ont jamais rien produit sinon de donner du temps au temps.

L’article mentionne bien les parties au conflit (Israël, Palestine), l’un de ses « mandataires » (Amman, qui a signé un accord de paix avec Israël. Le Caire aurait dû entrer dans cette catégorie mais le pays est engagé dans une crise constitutionnelle qui ne renforce pas sa crédibilité), ceux qui les soutiennent (le Caire et d’autres capitales arabes non mentionnées dans l’article), ceux qui se sont récemment rendus indispensables dans les équilibres régionaux (Ankara, nouvel invité) et, bien entendu, Washington qui reste le seul maître d’œuvre d’un ouvrage inachevé (la paix ? l’Etat palestinien ? la stabilité ? etc.)

Mais à ce mariage pour tous, il manque un partenaire, du moins dans l’article du Haaretz : l’Union européenne. Gageons qu’elle aura son mot à dire.

U.S. seeks to convene 4-way Mideast summit in June
Kerry working with Palestinians, Israel and Jordan to formulate basis for summit that would launch new peace talks and herald economic assistance to the Palestinian Authority ; Turkey and Egypt may also be invited to participate in summit.
By Chemi Shalev | Apr.25, 2013 | 7:31 AM |
▻http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/u-s-seeks-to-convene-4-way-mideast-summit-in-june.premium-1.517473
U.S. seeks to convene 4-way Mideast summit in June : The American Administration plans to convene a four way Middle East peace summit in which U.S. President Barack Obama, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Jordan’s King Abdullah will participate.

Well-placed U.S. sources said the summit is slated to convene in Washington during the month of June- with thought already being devoted to avoid a scheduling clash with the 2013 Israeli Presidential Conference and the 90th birthday celebrations of President Shimon Peres.

The sources said that Turkey, Egypt and other Arab countries may also be invited to participate in the summit, though it’s not clear yet at what level. Secretary of State John Kerry discussed the planned summit in his meetings in Istanbul this week with the Turkish and Egyptian foreign ministers as well as with Abbas.

The summit is also expected to be discussed at Friday’s White House meeting between Obama and King Abdullah, as well as in a mid-May Washington visit by Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan. U.S. sources said that Israel is also aware of the plan.

The Administration, according to the sources, has yet to decide whether it will convene the summit in any case, or only if Kerry achieves a breakthrough that will allow a resumption of peace talks. Kerry has met with Abbas five times in recent weeks in an effort to circumvent the Palestinian leader’s insistence on a settlement freeze as a precondition to resuming negotiations.

The Administration is said to be contemplating a letter of invitation or “terms of reference” for the summit that will include the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative, which was reaffirmed by the Arab League meeting in Doha at the beginning of April, as well as the principle of “two states for two people” and a substantial economic package for the Palestinian Authority.

According to the sources, in his meeting Kerry has asked his interlocutors to propose ways that would make the convening of such a summit feasible. The “best case scenario” for the U.S. is that it will be able to announce a venue and format for resuming direct talks.

“We have two or three weeks left to see if this thing is doable,” one source said. “The Americans believe it is – but they may be naïve.” Kerry, the source added, is “working night and day” to get the peace process moving.

The Administration views the resumption of the peace process, among other things, as a way of strengthening the Palestinian Authority and the personal stature of President Abbas.

« Made in Israël » ou dans les colonies de peuplement ?

Considérant que les colonies que construit Israël dans les Territoires palestiniens qu’il occupe sont illégales, 13 Etats membres de l’Union européenne viennent d’indiquer qu’ils étaient favorables à l’étiquetage des biens qui y sont produits. L’objectif est de priver ces biens des tarifs préférentiels accordés aux biens produits en Israël. Selon les termes d’un accord commercial passé en 2009 avec l’Union européenne, les produits agricoles d’Israël bénéficient de réductions tarifaires. La déclaration des 13 - qui n’est pour le moment qu’une déclaration d’intention - vise à soustraire les produits des colonies de ces réductions tarifaires. Israël a exporté vers l’Europe pour 12,6 milliards de biens en 2011. Selon la Banque mondiale les colonies contribuent à hauteur de 300 millions à ces exportations.

13 EU ministers favor labeling settlement-made goods
United Kingdom, France, Spain among countries signed on petition

April 21, 2013, 4:18 pm

▻http://www.timesofisrael.com/13-eu-ministers-favor-labeling-settlement-made-goods

JTA — Foreign ministers from 13 European Union member states have expressed their support for labeling products made in what they regard as illegal Israeli settlements.

According to a report Friday in El Pais, the Spanish daily, the request was made to Catherine Ashton, the European Union’s foreign policy chief, in a letter co-signed by ministers from Spain, Portugal, France, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Belgium, Austria, Slovenia, Luxembourg and Malta.

“This is an important step to ensure correct and coherent application of EU consumer protection and labeling legislation, which is in fulfillment of our previous commitments and is fully consistent with long-standing EU policy in relation to Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories,” they wrote on April 12 to Ashton, the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy for the European Union.

The ministers also wrote: “We stand ready to assist you in taking forward this important work,” in reference to guidelines published in 2012 after a meeting by the EU’s 27 foreign ministers that said that “the European Union and its members are obligated to fully and effectively implement existing EU legislation and agreements with Israel regarding products from the settlements.”

The European Union considers Israeli settlements in the West Bank and the Golan Heights illegal, and some of its members have said that labeling products from such settlements as “made in Israel” is misleading. “The correct labeling of products is necessary to assure that our consumers are not misled by false information,” the ministers wrote.

Israel annexed eastern Jerusalem and the Golan Heights, both areas captured in the 1967 Six-Day War, and does not consider those areas settlements. The final status of the West Bank, also captured during the ’67 war, has yet to be determined.

Syrie.
Appel pour la Syrie qui sonne comme une défaite de la communauté internationale (The New York Times)

Op-Ed Contributors

A U.N. Appeal to Save Syria
By VALERIE AMOS, ERTHARIN COUSIN, ANTÓNIO GUTERRES, ANTHONY LAKE and MARGARET CHAN

Published: April 15, 2013

▻http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/16/opinion/global/a-un-appeal-to-save-syria.html

Enough. Enough.
After more than two years of conflict and more than 70,000 deaths, including thousands of children. ... After more than five million people have been forced to leave their homes, including over a million refugees living in severely stressed neighboring countries ... After so many families torn apart and communities razed, schools and hospitals wrecked and water systems ruined ... After all this, there still seems to be an insufficient sense of urgency among the governments and parties that could put a stop to the cruelty and carnage in Syria.

We, leaders of U.N. agencies charged with dealing with the human costs of this tragedy, appeal to political leaders involved to meet their responsibility to the people of Syria and to the future of the region.

We ask that they use their collective influence to insist on a political solution to this horrendous crisis before hundreds of thousands more people lose their homes and lives and futures — in a region already at the tipping point.

Our agencies and humanitarian partners have been doing all we can. With the support of many governments and people, we have helped shelter more than a million refugees. We have helped provide access to food and other basic necessities for millions displaced by the conflict, to water and sanitation to over 5.5 million affected people in Syria and in neighboring countries, and to basic health services for millions of Syrians, including vaccinations to over 1.5 million children against measles and polio.

But it has not nearly been enough. The needs are growing while our capacity to do more is diminishing, due to security and other practical limitations within Syria as well as funding constraints. We are precariously close, perhaps within weeks, to suspending some humanitarian support.

Our appeal today is not for more resources, needed as they are. We are appealing for something more important than funds. To all involved in this brutal conflict and to all governments that can influence them:

In the name of all those who have so suffered, and the many more whose futures hang in the balance: Enough! Summon and use your influence, now, to save the Syrian people and save the region from disaster.

Valerie Amos is U.N. under secretary general for Humanitarian Affairs. Ertharin Cousin is executive director of the U.N. World Food Program. António Guterres is U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees. ANTHONY LAKE is executive director of the U.N. Children’s Fund. Margaret Chan is director general of the World Health Organization.

Syrie. Révolution et avenir des minorités.

Arab Reform Initiative (ARI)
Syria papers - The Syrian Revolution and Future of Minorities
April 2013, by Akram Al-Bunni (Ecrivain syrien
)
▻http://www.arab-reform.net/syria-papers-syrian-revolution-and-future-minorities

Akram Al-Bunni examine les options offertes aux minorités syriennes dans le contexte actuel de la révolte contre le régime d’Assad. Constatant qu’elles ne peuvent se décider à rejoindre résolument les rangs des opposants dont la dimension islamiste grandissante les inquiète, Akram Al-Bunni estime que leur avenir devrait s’insérer dans l’une des trois options suivantes :
– Une Syrie divisée en cantons en fonction de critères confessionnels ou ethniques.
– L’instauration de la répartition confessionnelle et le partage du pouvoir sur le modèle libanais (Accords de Taëf).
– La mise en place d’un état laïc dans lequel l’armée et la religion n’auraient pas accès au pouvoir politique.

“Somewhere between civil citizenship and dangerous thoughts on sectarian and ethnic apportionment, divisions and isolation, minorities in Syria are trying to configure their political future. Syria’s minorities are beset by fears of the growing influence of lslamist currents in the Revolution and an eventual Islamist takeover of the country. These fears are motivated by the threat some Islamists trends pose to the civil nature of Syrian society and its diversity and the risk of alienation of the different other groups and repression of religious and political freedoms. This paper analyzes the potential repercussions of the Syrian Revolution’s shift towards political Islam and all the challenges that might entail in terms of pushing other societal groups towards sectarian and ethnic entrenchment to the detriment of Syrian national identity”. (…)

Syrie. Suite de l’affaire des armes chimiques.
Reuters.
Netanyahu cannot confirm report of Syrian chemical arms use: Kerry: Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu could not confirm comments by the Israeli military’s top intelligence analyst that Syrian government forces had used chemical weapons, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said on Tuesday. “I talked to Prime Minister Netanyahu this morning. I think it is fair for me to say that he was not in a position to confirm that in the conversation that I had,” Kerry told a news conference at NATO headquarters in Brussels. “I don’t know yet what the facts are.” (Reuters)

Autorité palestinienne.
Du bon usage des banalités par un ancien de la CIA, Paul Pillar, à l’occasion de la démission du premier ministre palestinien, Salam Fayyad (les parenthèses ne sont pas de Pillar):

– Salam Fayyad avait tout pour séduire les Américains (dit et tant répété que cela n’a pu que le desservir);
– Il aura été (à son corps défendant) le « bon » Palestinien à opposer au « mauvais » Palestinien qu’était le Hamas ;
– L’Autorité palestinienne aura constitué un trompe-l’œil dissimulant la véritable ambition de la politique israélienne et un pion aux mains des différents premiers ministres israéliens qui n’ont eu de cesse de retarder indéfiniment l’apparition d’un Etat palestinien (réalité toujours valable depuis les accords d’Oslo en 1993 jusqu’à aujourd’hui);
– L’Autorité palestinienne aura incarné l’idée selon laquelle les Palestiniens devaient créer leur Etat, mais sans jamais avoir la possibilité d’accomplir cette mission du fait de la politique israélienne (toute avancée sur la voie de l’Etat étant ralentie, dénoncée, empêchée ou sanctionnée par Israël) ;

Paul Pillar ne dit pas que la politique menée par Salam Fayyad a permis des progrès économiques - limités dans le contexte de la contrainte extérieure, israélienne ou internationale, mais réels – mais a contribué également à réduire les revendications palestiniennes nationales en engageant un processus de rattrapage économique et social auquel les Palestiniens ne pouvaient qu’adhérer. Ce processus avait été engagé dès avant la disparition d’Arafat (avec l’actif soutien financier de la communauté internationale, surtout européenne), conforté par Abou Mazen arrivé au pouvoir sur un programme électoral de non-violence, et mis en œuvre par Salam Fayyad en qualité de ministre des Finances puis de premier ministre.

Enfin, on peut ne pas être d’accord avec Paul Pillar sur l’avenir de fayyad. Il n’est pas acquis qu’il quitte définitivement la politique. On pourrait le revoir à la tête du gouvernement, ou de l’Autorité palestinienne ou de toute autre forme de direction politique des Palestiniens.

A Good Man Leaves the Plantation
Paul Pillar
April 13, 2013

▻http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/good-man-leaves-the-plantation-8348

Salam Fayyad has been just about everything that U.S. administrations could have hoped for in a Palestinian prime minister. The American-educated economist is competent, honest and moderate. In his six years as prime minister of the Palestinian Authority he made admirable progress in instilling order in the bureaucracy that he led. It is no surprise that the Obama administration and Secretary of State Kerry tried hard, ultimately unsuccessfully, to keep him in the job. For similar reasons the Israelis were happy to have him around.

The Palestinian Authority or PA is a strange entity that nonetheless—at the time it was created by the Oslo accords that Yitzhak Rabin and Yasser Arafat signed 20 years ago—made sense. It was to be a transitional mechanism that would facilitate a change of the Palestinian leadership and political structure from a resistance movement (it was as head of the Palestine Liberation Organization that Arafat signed the accords) to a government. But Rabin, whom an Israeli extremist assassinated in response to his making peace with the PLO, is long gone. For many years now the strange entity has functioned as a stooge of a different sort of Israeli leadership, a leadership whose objective is to delay indefinitely the creation of a Palestinian state and to cling permanently to land conquered through a military invasion 46 years ago. It is misleading to consider the Palestinian Authority still to be a transitional mechanism as it was originally conceived, given that many years have gone by since, according to the timetable in the Oslo accords, a Palestinian state should already have been established. The PA, regardless of what may have been the skills and good intentions of some of those who have led it, is a Potemkin village—a prop that supports a deceptive Israeli story about peace, land, political power and especially the Israeli government’s intentions.

No matter how much one might understandably consider the Oslo accords to be dead, having the PA still around serves several purposes for Benjamin Netanyahu’s government. Most fundamentally, it preserves the fiction that the Israeli government actually supports a two-state solution. It also appears to relieve Israel from accountability for failing to live up to its responsibilities under international law as the occupying power in territory conquered in war. Of course, Israel really is the true power over all of the West Bank, but by being able to point to another entity that supposedly has administrative responsibilities it can say that problems and deficiencies are someone else’s fault.

The PA, especially with leaders as respectable as Fayyad, has functioned for Israel as the “good” Palestinians in contrast to the “bad” Palestinians of Hamas, enabling the Israelis to continue to pretend to want to make peace with Palestinians even though it has refused to deal with fairly elected Palestinian leaders when those leaders happen to be from Hamas. Meanwhile, the purpose of indefinite postponement of a Palestinian state is served by pointing to a Palestinian movement that does not appear to have its act together while Israel simultaneously does everything possible to prevent reconciliation between Hamas and Fatah, the dominant party in the PA, and thus to keep the movement divided.
The Palestinian Authority embodies the concept, articulated by American advocates for the Israeli government such as Elliott Abrams, that Palestinians must “build” a state rather than merely being “granted” one. But the “building” phase continues indefinitely, with an actual state always remaining out of reach. If the PA seems to be getting too close to statehood, the Israelis can, and do, easily kick it back. After the PA’s move to upgrade its status at the United Nations, Israel punished it by withholding tax revenue that belongs to the Palestinians. This exacerbated a financial crisis that has been one of the biggest challenges for Fayyad’s administration. The Israelis also, of course, can use their first-choice policy tool—military force—as they did in 2002 when they demolished many of the PA’s offices as well as other administrative infrastructure such as police stations. This action made it all the more difficult for the Palestinians to function in a way that demonstrates they are “building” a state. Even without Israeli use of something as blatant as the 2002 action, the many everyday restrictions Israel places on transportation and other aspects of Palestinian life make it impossible for the PA to work in a way that would ever force Israel to acknowledge that a state had been “built.”

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas has sometimes spoken of abolishing the Palestinian Authority if Netanyahu’s government doesn’t take real steps toward a peace settlement. Abolition would end a charade, but it would also come with a cost to the Palestinians, mostly in the form of handing the Israelis an argument, to be used in perpetuity, that it was the Palestinians who destroyed the Oslo accords and gave up on peace. The charade is also a trap.
One can only imagine Fayyad’s deepest thoughts at the moment. His resignation reportedly involved disagreements with Abbas, as well as significant opposition to Fayyad within Fatah. But he surely must be feeling some personal relief. He is too smart and too honest not to perceive the stooge-like quality of the enterprise he has been involved in. No one should complain if he were to retire from public life and move into a comfortable academic position somewhere.

Syrie. Haytham Manna, Responsable du Comité National de Coordination des Forces de Changement Démocratique en Syrie, a toujours contesté la politique internationale de soutien au Conseil National Syrien (S.N.C. dans son acronyme anglais), formation de l’opposition syrienne reconnue par la communauté internationale, « les Amis de la Syrie ». Les derniers développements le confirment dans son idée que le Conseil National Syrien a perdu toute capacité à défendre ses idées et son indépendance et qu’il est vain, comme le souhaitent « les Amis de la Syrie » de chercher à le restructurer.
Son argument est que la violence ne pourra qu’accentuer la division des Syriens dont profitera le régime d’Assad: les oppositions politiques ne parviennent pas à réduire leurs dissensions ; l’écart entre la capacité militaire des djihadistes et celle de l’opposition se creuse au détriment de l’Armée Libre Syrienne ; le Front al-Nousra, fort de ses réussites sur le terrain, pourrait bien refuser de participer à l’unification des opposants à Assad ; le président lui-même a beau jeu de créer des divisions en cooptant des islamistes pour former des unités paramilitaires, etc.

The Guardian, Thursday 18 April 2013
▻http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/18/syrians-reconciled-negotiation-violence

Syrians can be reconciled – through negotiation, not violence
By Haytham Manna

Regional interventions have failed, and the opposition SNC is in turmoil. But the solution still lies in a political settlement.
The situation in Syria is the gravest it has been since peaceful protests began in March 2011. Civil resistance has been reduced to relief operations and humanitarian assistance, and the efforts of Syria’s democratic forces are now scattered and fragmented. Foreign support for the Syrian National Coalition and superimpose it as the legitimate representative of the people has weakened democratic civilian organisations’ relationships with a number of western countries. Meanwhile, the military capacity of jihadi groups has increased.

The SNC is fragile, and more likely to implode than become institutionalised. This is highlighted by three issues: the political initiative of its then president, Ahmed Moaz al-Khatib, in proposing talks with the regime; the decision in Istanbul to form a Syrian government in exile; and the fact that Syria’s seat in the Arab League was handed over to the SNC at the recent meeting in Doha.
These three events revealed an alliance between hardline Islamists and Qatar, and demonstrated that the SNC has no ideology, no common vision and no real independence. However, the governments who make up the Friends of Syria are now trying to reform the SNC by giving seats to sectarian groups (Christian, Alawite, and so on) and some secular democratic groups, in order to reduce the Islamists’ influence.

In this critical situation, it is clear the dictatorship is not serious in calling for a negotiated political solution. Bashar al-Assad is confident that the opposition’s political forces no longer represent real power, neither in the arena of military confrontation nor in the eyes of most Syrians. All regional and international attempts to unify the military factions have failed to create a command with a defined political programme. Qatari and Turkish actions – in forming an interim government and giving Syria’s Arab League seat to the SNC – have produced a major rift between the Saudi and Qatari positions, and this is reflected in the military field. The Saudis, ironically, support the more secular forces, while the Qataris support the Islamists.

Al-Qaida has not missed the opportunity to declare its relationship with the Jabhat al-Nusra rebel group and its affiliates. Britain and France can no longer put their heads in the sand. On the ground the Syrian regime is adopting the same tactic used by the Algerians in the 90s: dealing with Islamist groups by creating paramilitary units. This will prolong the conflict by allowing the regime to denigrate the armed opposition and present itself as the protector of security and Syria’s territorial integrity. Not counting remote areas which are being disputed between Jabhat al-Nusra and other fighting groups, Syrian citizens increasingly associate the rise in displacement, murder and destruction with the presence of the armed opposition.
Three questions arise: will Jabhat al-Nusra succeed in preventing any unity emerging between the opposition fighters? Will supporters of the military security solution inside the regime have a monopoly on key decisions in Damascus? And can the democratic civilian opposition continue to act as the prime defenders of a political solution based on last year’s Geneva declaration?

It is tragic that the Friends of Syria is still trying to restructure the SNC when that tactic has evidently failed. It is unlikely that any group in the Free Syrian Army could confront hardline Islamist armed groups unless the opposition were backed by democratic political parties. Foreign involvement will be an obstacle to progress unless there is a broad front that can give the mission of the UN peace envoy, Lakhdar Brahimi, practical meaning and produce a reconciliation between the two strongest powers, Russia and the US.
Will the regional contradictions that we are witnessing today strengthen this option or will they cause increased violence and destruction? We must adhere to a negotiated political solution in this difficult phase so as to give every Syrian a chance to see the end of destruction.

Syrie.
Dans le premier de ces trois articles, Daniel Pipes avance l’idée que « les gouvernements occidentaux devraient soutenir la dictature pernicieuse de Bachar al-Assad ». Il argumente qu’entre « deux forces du mal » il faut aider le « faible qui bat en retraite » (Assad en l’occurrence) au détriment du camp supposé le plus fort (la rébellion syrienne) de manière à ce que leur conflit devienne « interminable » et qu’aucune des deux parties ne l’emporte. Cette stratégie neutralise du même coup le régime d’Assad et réduit le « danger islamiste croissant ». Autre avantage : « la poursuite des combats fait moins de dégâts aux intérêts occidentaux que leur prise de pouvoir ». CQFD.

Dans le deuxième article Pipes feint de croire que le Président Obama l’a finalement entendu et qu’il a commencé à conduire à l’égard de Damas une politique plus raisonnable.

Nota Bene : Pour ceux qui ont oublié, D. Pipes a été l’un des néo-conservateurs les plus entendus et écoutés après les événements du 11 Septembre. C’est un partisan de la manière forte en diplomatie. Ses propos sur l’Islam sont catégoriques et sans appel. Dans ses déclarations et ses écrits, il fait très souvent montre de condescendance à l’égard des musulmans. Le citer c’est rappeler l’action des présidents Bush père et fils, de Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, et de tous ceux que Pipes a fréquentés et qui partagent sa conviction que le modèle américain est supérieur à tout autre et que Washington a le droit et le devoir de tenter de remodeler le monde à l’image des Etats Unis.

Le troisième article (qui n’est accessible dans sa totalité que pour ceux qui sont abonnés au Wall Street Journal) aborde la même problématique : armer ou ne pas armer les opposants syriens. ▻http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324345804578427190797966234.html)

Article 1
Soutenir Assad, par Daniel Pipes
The Washington Times
11 avril 2013

▻http://fr.danielpipes.org/12735/soutenir-assad

Version originale anglaise : Support Assad
Adaptation française : Anne-Marie Delcambre de Champvert

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

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

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

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

#Assad # Kissinger #Irak #Iran #Syrie #Saddam_Hussein #islamisme #Hamas # djihadistes #Hezbollah #Obama #bons_rebelles #mauvais_rebelles #Turquie #Arabie_saoudite #Qatar #Russie #Chine

Article II
"U.S. Fears Syria Rebel Victory, for Now"
by Daniel Pipes
April 17, 2013

Cross-posted from National Review Online, The Corner

▻http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2013/04/us-fears-syria-rebel-victory-for-now

The commentariat universally rejected my Apr. 11 column arguing that Western governments should “Support Assad” on the grounds that he is losing and we don’t want the Islamist rebels to win in Syria but prefer a stalemate. An Arabic website in France threatened me.
Fine. But the Wall Street Journal today reports in "US Fears Syria Rebel Victory, for Now" by Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes that the Obama administration is in fact following my counsel. To start with, the U.S. government fears "an outright rebel military victory" :
Senior Obama administration officials have caught some lawmakers and allies by surprise in recent weeks with an amended approach to Syria : They don’t want an outright rebel military victory right now because they believe, in the words of one senior official, that the "good guys" may not come out on top. (…) Administration officials fear that with Islamists tied to al Qaeda increasingly dominating the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, too swift a rebel victory would undercut hopes for finding a diplomatic solution, according to current and former officials. It would also shatter national institutions along with what remains of civil order, these people say, increasing the danger that Syrian chemical weapons will be used or transferred to terrorists. Officials say it will require delicate maneuvering to restrain the influence of radicals while buying time to strengthen moderate rebels who Western governments hope will assume national leadership if Mr. Assad can be persuaded to leave. … By strengthening moderates, the U.S. wants to put pressure on Assad supporters to cut a deal that would preserve governing institutions. …

Article III

U.S. Fears Syria Rebel Victory, for Now.
Administration Belief that Islamists Would Prevail Has driven Efforts to Boost Moderate Fighters.

By Adam Entous and Julian E Barnes, Wall Street Journal, 16 April 2013

▻http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324345804578427190797966234.html

WASHINGTON—Senior Obama administration officials have caught some lawmakers and allies by surprise in recent weeks with an amended approach to Syria : They don’t want an outright rebel military victory right now because they believe, in the words of one senior official, that the "good guys" may not come out on top.
Administration officials fear that with Islamists tied to al Qaeda increasingly dominating the opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad , too swift a rebel victory would undercut hopes for finding a diplomatic solution, according to current and former officials. (…)

Syrie, Assad. Amnistie en Syrie pour tous les crimes commis avant le 16 avril. La peine de mort est remplacée par une condamnation à vie aux travaux forcés. Ceux qui ont rejoint l’opposition – « les organisations terroristes » - ne feront que le quart de leur condamnation. (Avis aux amateurs mais se souvenir que deux acquittements peuvent valoir une condamnation, du moins selon Alfred Capus)

AFP 16 April 2013
Syria’s Assad issues new general amnesty, SANA says
▻https://now.mmedia.me/lb/en/nowsyriainthepress/syrias-assad-issues-new-general-amnesty-sana-says

Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has issued a general amnesty for crimes committed in the war-torn country prior to Tuesday, state news agency SANA reported. “President Assad has issued decree number 23, granting a general amnesty for crimes committed before April 16, 2013,” said the agency. Under the decree, “the death penalty will be replaced with a life sentence of hard labor,” it added. Assad has issued several amnesty decrees since an uprising against his regime erupted in March 2011. The latest will not apply to people found guilty of smuggling weapons or drug-related crimes, but those convicted of joining the rebellion would get lighter sentences, said the text of the decree published on SANA. “Syrians who joined a terrorist organisation will only have to serve a quarter of their sentences,” said the decree. “The decision does not apply to those who avoided conscription,” the text added.

Rien ne sert de discourir, il vaut mieux mentir à point ?

Syrie. Perspective différente des événements de Syrie offerte par l’agence de presse iranienne Fars News Agency. Dans un premier article qui reprend des informations de l’agence syrienne SANA, elle fait valoir les réussites militaires du régime. On notera qu’elle se contente de signaler qu’un « grand nombre de personnes » ont été tuées depuis mars 2011 sans mention d’un quelconque chiffre. Dans le second article, elle se fait également l’écho des déclarations des autorités de Damas (en l’occurrence le vice-ministre des affaires étrangères Faisal al-Miqdad ) pour critiquer la France et la Grande Bretagne qui soutiennent al-Qaïda puisque ces deux pays « soutiennent des groupes armées » en Syrie.

(I) Syrian Forces Kill More Militants, Seize Arms

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Syrian Army said it has killed more foreign-sponsored militants and seized their weapons during an operation across the country .
2013-04-16

▻http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107161312

Syrian government forces launched attacks against militants in the governorates of Homs, Idlib, Daraa, Latakia, Hama, Deir ez-Zor, Aleppo, and Damascus, on Monday and killed dozens of them, the official SANA news agency reported.

In addition, the Syrian armed forces captured many machine guns, sniper rifles, rocket launchers, hand-made rockets, mortar shells and anti-tank missiles.

(…) The troops dismantled five Turkish-made anti-armor mines and captured thirteen explosive devices planted on the road between Khan Shekhun and Ma’art al-Nouman in Idlib governorate.
(…) The Syria crisis began in March 2011, and many people, including large numbers of soldiers and security personnel, have been killed in the violence. The Syrian government says that the chaos is being orchestrated from outside the country, and there are reports that a very large number of the militants are foreign nationals. In an interview recently broadcast on Turkish television, Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said that if the militants fighting against the Syrian government take power in his country they could destabilize the entire Middle East for decades. “If the unrest in Syria leads to the partitioning of the country, or if the terrorist forces take control... the situation will inevitably spill over into neighboring countries and create a domino effect throughout the Middle East and beyond,” he added.

(II) Syria Slams France, UK for Supporting Al-Qaeda

TEHRAN (FNA)- The Syrian government criticized Britain and France for supporting al-Qaeda terrorists in their fight against the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

▻http://english.farsnews.com/newstext.php?nn=9107161318

“Britain and France were complacent about supporting al-Qaeda directly or indirectly,” Syria’s Deputy Foreign Minister Faisal al-Miqdad said in an interview on Monday, press tv reported. Miqdad described the UK and France as “new colonialists” for giving political and military support to the armed groups in Syria. The Syrian official also criticized Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar for acting to ensure western interests. Miqdad said he hoped Jordan would not boost its involvement in the unrest in Syria. “The same forces that are killing innocent people in Syria are in Jordan too… We have stupid Arabs who are facilitating what the others are planning for the region. But the conspiracy begins in the west,” he added. In an interview recently broadcast on Turkish television, Assad accused Turkey of harboring terrorists and transferring them into Syria. Damascus says Ankara has been playing a key role in fueling the unrest in Syria by financing, training, and arming the militants since violence erupted in the Arab country in March 2011. Assad also warned that if his country “is partitioned, or if terrorist forces take control of the country, there will be direct contagion of the surrounding countries.” Many people, including large numbers of army and security personnel, have been killed in the violence in Syria.

Palestine. Intéressant sujet quasiment jamais évoqué publiquement: les dettes contractées par l’Autorité palestinienne (PA) dont l’existence a été révélée à l’occasion du départ du ministre des Finances Nabil Qassis. L’auteur de l’article, Abdel Bari Atwan (Rédacteur en chef de Alquds Alarabi) s’insurge contre une situation qui non seulement hypothèque l’avenir des Palestiniens mais leur fait supporter aussi le coût de l’occupation israélienne (En général, on s’accorde à dire que c’est la communauté internationale qui, par ses aides, finance l’occupation israélienne des territoires palestiniens).

PA debt as repressive as Israel
Abdel Bari Atwan (Alquds Alarabi)
13 April 2013
▻http://www.bariatwan.com/english/?p=1572

“We are very shocked to learn that the Palestinian Authority (PA) in Ramallah has run up debts approaching $5bn and that $1bn is external debt. These debts are a heavy burden on the Palestinian people, and will extend to the coming generations. Most Palestinians thought that the PA’s funding came from the donor countries, not debts that would constrain the hands of the Palestinian people and break their will.

The Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and his Prime Minister Salam Fayyad have been airing apparently logical comparisons between the prosperous conditions of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the deteriorating conditions of the residents of the Gaza Strip. However, these Palestinian officials have not mentioned that such prosperity came as a result of borrowing the billions of dollars from foreign banks and institutions, not as a result of the fiscal genius of the government and its prime minister, who was a World Bank economist from 1987 – 1995 and was dispatched to the West Bank by the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

I am not biased towards Hamas in the Gaza Strip, as I reject the way it deals with its citizens with an iron fist, the spread of corruption, and the level of interference in their personal lives. However, I am biased towards the Palestinian people and their future. They will be under pressure of this debt for decades ahead.

(…) I thank God for the resignation of Dr Nabil Qasis, which freed him to open up this issue of debts, to expose the cover-up of the increasing financial quagmire. The Palestinian prime minister should resign from his position, as he has plunged his country, subject to Israeli occupation, into debt. Salam Fayyad and his President Mahmoud Abbas should bear the responsibility of this disaster. They should resign from their positions as they have exempted the Israeli occupation from bearing its responsibility for over 20 years since signing the Oslo Agreement. (…) The PA, that now supports the Israeli occupation by borrowing money that it knows it cannot pay back, must be dissolved.”

#Abbas #Fayyad #West_Bank #Gaza #Qasis #Oslo_Agreement #debt

Syrie. Perception américaine des affrontements entre « extrémistes » et « modérés » en Syrie rapportée par le Washington Post. Accent mis sur le Front al-Nusra (déjà inscrit sur la liste des organisations terroristes par les Etats Unis) et sur al-Qaïda. Constat (pour le déplorer ?) que les « modérés » ne reçoivent pas autant d’armes que les « extrémistes ». Regret chez certains que le Président Obama continue de croire à une transition politique négociée avec le régime d’Assad.

A muddled plan for the clear danger in Syria By Editorial Board,
Apr 13, 2013 08:50 PM EDT

▻http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a-muddled-plan-for-the-clear-danger-in-syria/2013/04/13/bf0e4c2e-a38a-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_story.html

“The Washington Post Published: April 13

SENIOR OBAMA administration officials offered a stark and even frightening picture of developments in Syria in testimony to Congress on Thursday. March, they said, was the deadliest month yet for that country’s civil war, with more than 6,000 people killed; almost one-quarter of Syria’s 22 million people have been driven from their homes. “What started out as a peaceful demand for dignity and freedom,” said Acting Assistant Secretary of State A. Elizabeth Jones, “has become one of the most devastating conflicts of the 21st century.”

Worse, the intelligence community’s assessment is that the war will not end even if the regime of Bashar al-Assad falls. “The most likely scenario,” said Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., is that for “at least a year, a year and a half, there would be continued inter-sectoral competition and fighting.” It will matter greatly who wins, since, as Robert S. Ford, the U.S. ambassador to Syria, put it, “there is a real competition under way now between extremists and moderates.”

(…) Mr. Ford said that the administration was still banking on “a negotiated political transition,” in which Mr. Assad voluntarily steps down. But as Mr. Clapper said, the intelligence community foresees the “most likely scenario” as a messy fight among factions, not a brokered handover. (…) Mr. Ford said that “we need to weigh in on behalf of those who promote freedom and tolerance.” Yet Ms. Jones reiterated that the administration was opposed to providing “lethal support” to any Syrian forces — notwithstanding the weapons and fighters that Mr. Ford said were being supplied by Iran or the growing military capability of al-Qaeda described by Mr. Clapper. Translation: It’s vital that Syria’s moderate forces win, but we won’t counter the military support the extremists are getting.
Senators from both parties expressed exasperation with this non-policy, but not as much exasperation as President Obama’s stubborn passivity deserves. (…)"

Rapide survol de titres de la presse anglophone (arabe et non arabe) des deux derniers jours sur les conséquences de la démission du premier palestinien, Salam Fayyad :

– Son départ va remettre en cause les récentes promesses d’aide exprimées par John Kerry sur le développement économique de la Cisjordanie comme d’ailleurs l’ensemble des contributions internationales destinées aux Palestiniens (presse arabe et américaine).
– La confiance que les Etats Unis et l’Union européenne avait placée en Salam Fayyad « l’Américain » risque d’être suspendue (presse arabe et américaine).
– Sa démission est une affaire interne palestinienne et il ne serait pas juste qu’elle influence l’attitude de la communauté internationale (presse palestinienne).
– Un gel de l’aide internationale ne pourrait qu’aggraver la situation économique et financière des Palestiniens et les inciter à la violence (presse israélienne).
– Tout ralentissement de l’économie palestinienne réduira d’autant les conditions de création d’un Etat pour les Palestiniens (presse arabe).
– Sa démission risque d’affecter les efforts d’Israël et des Etats Unis pour renouveler le processus de paix (presse israélienne et américaine).
– Le départ de Salam Fayyad ne favorisera pas la réconciliation des Palestiniens (Presse du Hamas).
– Son départ devrait favoriser la réconciliation des Palestiniens et conduire à la formation d’un gouvernement de réconciliation nationale (presse arabe, notamment du Golfe, et américaine).

Analyse, parue dans la presse du Hamas, détaillant les raisons pour lesquelles Salam Fayyad a démissionné tout en rappelant qu’au-delà de motifs strictement palestiniens, Salam Fayyad était placé devant un dilemme insurmontable : développer l’économie d’un pays qui reste soumis à une occupation militaire étrangère.

The Voice of Palestine/ The Palestinian Information Centre (Hamas)

Fayyad’s resignation: Not Quite a good riddance
A news analysis by Khalid Amayreh in Ramallah
[ 4/04/2013 - 03:25 PM

▻http://palestine-info.co.uk/en/default.aspx?xyz=U6Qq7k%2bcOd87MDI46m9rUxJEpMO%2bi1s7W9p1hRmbdTlEm

Fayyad represents the unreal part of the problem. Now, with his removal, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas will have to be the cannon fodder himself, or find another Fayyad-like figure that would have to satisfy the Palestinian Main Street and be acceptable to Israel and her guardian-ally, the United States. This is certain to be a near impossible task.

(…) Fayyad may be brilliant as an economic or financial manager, but he has displayed a great deal of naïveté in presuming that he could build a prosperous economy under a crippling foreign military occupation. His job is as impossible as throwing a man, thoroughly handcuffed and foot-shackled, in a pool of water and asking not only to remain afloat but also not to get wet.

#Salam_Fayyad #Abbas #Nabil_Qessis #George_Bush #John_Kerry #Azzam_al_Ahmad #Rami_al_Hamdalla #Muhammed_Mustafa

Analysts warn: Fayyad resignation may slow Palestinian steps towards statehood

Middle East Online
By Hossam Ezzedine - RAMALLAH (Palestinian Territories

▻http://www.middle-east-online.com/english/?id=58118

Prime Minister Salam Fayyad’s resignation is likely to raise questions over donor support for the Palestinian Authority and may slow its steps towards statehood, experts warn. (…) However, in the past month, international donors have pledged fresh efforts to find the necessary funds and Washington quietly unblocked almost $500 million (382 million euros) in aid which had been held up by Congress. And Israel agreed to unblock revenues collected on behalf of the PA that were frozen last year in response to the Palestinians winning upgraded UN status. As a result, the PA on March 28 adopted a budget of some $3.9 billion, of which $1.4 billion would have to come from foreign financing.

Last month, the World Bank said the worsening fiscal situation could cause “lasting damage” to the competitiveness of the Palestinian economy, and a separate IMF report warned the crisis could “ultimately lead some to question the legitimacy of the PA and undermine its ability to govern effectively.” (…) But Imad Ghayatha, a political scientist at Bir Zeit University on the West Bank dismissed any suggestion that Fayyad’s departure would affect international aid. “This will not affect relations with donors,” he said. “Maintaining the PA is not only a Palestinian interest but also an Israeli and a regional one. The peace process relies on maintaining the PA and international powers know better than to tie up their interests with one individual,” he said (…)

Pour le New York Times la démission du premier ministre Salam Fayyad ouvre la voie à un gouvernement de réconciliation nationale qui pourrait bien rebuter la communauté internationale. Même composé de « technocrates », il n’aurait pas plus de valeur aux yeux d’Israël qu’une direction politique dans laquelle siègerait le Hamas.

The New York Times
A Resignation Means More Uncertainty for the Palestinians
By ISABEL KERSHNER

Published: April 14, 2013

▻http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/world/middleeast/fayyads-resignation-means-uncertainty-for-palestinians.html?pagewanted=all

“JERUSALEM — Salam Fayyad, the internationally respected Palestinian politician and economist, is widely credited for ending the chaos in the West Bank and putting things in order in his six years as prime minister. But his resignation over the weekend, the result of internal power struggles, has left the Palestinian Authority suspended in political ambiguity and confusion.

Analysts said Sunday that by accepting Mr. Fayyad’s resignation, the president of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas, has put himself in a political bind just as the Obama administration has been trying to restart long-stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.

That, many Palestinians say, is because the vacuum created by Mr. Fayyad’s resignation presents an opportunity for renewed reconciliation efforts between Mr. Abbas’s Fatah party and its bitter rival, Hamas, the Islamic militant group that controls Gaza. While healing the rift would be a popular course of action among Palestinians, it could complicate peace efforts and cause some Western donor nations to consider withholding much-needed funds, fearing that they could be used by Hamas. Hamas is classified as a terrorist organization by Israel, the United States and the European Union” (…)