• #Loveparade - Die Verhandlung

    Am 24. Juli 2010 kommt es bei der Loveparade in Duisburg zur Katastrophe: 21 Menschen sterben im Gedränge, 652 werden verletzt. Erst mehr als sieben Jahre später, im Dezember 2017, beginnt die juristische Aufarbeitung der Katastrophe. Chronologisch folgt der Dokumentarfilm dem Prozess.

    Eine gigantische Rave-Party endete in Tod und Verzweiflung. Wer ist für die Tragödie verantwortlich? 21 Jahre nach ihrer Gründung war die Loveparade in Duisburg angekommen. Was einst als Kleinstparade im Westberlin der Wendezeit begann, war längst zu einem Millionenspektakel von weltweiter Anziehungskraft geworden. An diesem 24. Juli 2010 kommt es in Duisburg zur Katastrophe: Auf den Zu- und Abgangswegen zum Festgelände stauen sich Zehntausende Menschen. 21 Menschen sterben im Gedränge, über 600 werden verletzt. Die Opfer stammen aus Deutschland, China, Australien, Spanien, Italien und den Niederlanden. Erst mehr als sieben Jahre später, im Dezember 2017, beginnt die juristische Aufarbeitung der Katastrophe. Der Loveparade-Prozess war ein Mammut-Verfahren, das am 4. Mai 2020 nach 184 Verhandlungstagen ohne Urteil zu Ende ging. Das Landgericht Duisburg stand unter enormen Erwartungsdruck und sollte auch eine Aufarbeitung der Katastrophe leisten. Chronologisch folgt die Dokumentation dem Prozess. Was das Gericht verhandelt, verhandelt der Film – mit dem Personal, das auch im Gericht eine Rolle hat. Der Film navigiert durch die schweren Wasser von „Recht“ und „Gerechtigkeit“, ohne dabei zu moralisieren.

    #Germany #Duisburg #arte #film #documentary #death #trial


  • BlueLeaks Hack Exposes Personal Data of 700,000 Cops

    After failing to prevent the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the U.S. government realized it had an information sharing problem. Local, state and federal law enforcement agencies had their own separate surveillance databases that possibly could have prevented the attacks, but they didn’t communicate any of this information with each other. So Congress directed the newly formed Department of Homeland Security to form “fusion centers” across the country, collaborations between federal (...)

    #Google #Microsoft #USDepartmentofHomelandSecurity-DHS #FBI #DEA #Reddit #Twitter #YouTube #police #BlueLeaks #données #BlackLivesMatter #CloudComputing #hacking (...)


  • Thousands of contracts highlight quiet ties between Big Tech and U.S. military

    The report offers a new window into the relationship between tech companies and the U.S. government, as well as an important detail about why such contracts are often difficult to find. Over the past two years, thousands of tech company employees have taken a stand : they do not want their labor and technical expertise to be used for projects with the military or law enforcement agencies. Knowledge of such contracts, however, hasn’t been easy for tech workers to come by. On Wednesday, (...)

    #Dell #Google #Microsoft #HP #IBM #Amazon #Facebook #algorithme #robotique #drone #militaire #Maven #surveillance #Dragonfly #DEA #DoD (...)


  • LAPD Got Tech Demos from Israeli Phone Hacking Firm NSO Group

    Emails obtained by Motherboard also reveal new details about previously unreported NSO Group products. Members of the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) met with employees of the U.S.-branch of the controversial Israeli surveillance vendor NSO Group and received a demo of the company’s powerful phone hacking technology, according to emails obtained by Motherboard. The news is more evidence of NSO’s attempted move into the U.S. market, and also provides new details on previously unreported (...)

    #surveillance #écoutes #police #journalisme #géolocalisation #spyware #Phantom #Pegasus #DEA #NSO (...)


  • Latest Tactic to Push Migrants From Europe ? A Private, Clandestine Fleet

    The government of Malta enlisted three privately owned fishing trawlers to intercept migrants in the Mediterranean, and force them back to a war zone, officials and a boat captain say.

    With the onset of the coronavirus, Malta announced that it was too overwhelmed to rescue migrants making the precarious crossing of the Mediterranean Sea, where the tiny island nation has been on the front line of the maritime migration route over the past decade.

    In secret, however, the Maltese authorities have worked hard to make sure no migrants actually reach the island.

    It dispatched a small fleet of private merchant vessels in April to intercept migrants at sea and return them by force to a war zone in Libya, according to information provided by the captain of one of the boats, a senior commander in the Libyan Coast Guard, and a former Maltese official involved in the episode.

    The three repurposed fishing trawlers are privately owned, but acted on the instructions of the Armed Forces of Malta, the captain and the others said.

    The clandestine operation, which some experts consider illegal under international law, is just the latest dubious measure taken by European countries in recent years to stem the migration from Africa and the Middle East that has sown political chaos in Europe and fueled a populist backlash.

    Since 2017, European states, led by Italy, have paid the Libyan government to return more migrants to Libya, hassled the private rescue organizations that try to bring them to Europe, and asked passing merchant vessels to intercept them before they enter European waters.

    But Malta’s latest tactic may be among the most egregious, maritime experts say, because it involved a designated flotilla of private vessels, based in a European port, that intercepted and expelled asylum seekers from international waters that fall within the responsibility of European coast guards.

    “Against a pattern of increased abuses against asylum seekers in recent years, this newest approach stands out,” said Itamar Mann, an expert in maritime and refugee law at the University of Haifa in Israel. “Its methods chillingly resemble organized crime, and indeed the operations of people smugglers, which European policymakers so adamantly denounce.”

    “The facts available raise serious concerns that we are seeing the emergence of a novel systematic pattern, such that may even put Maltese state officials in danger of criminal liability, at home or abroad,” Dr. Mann added.

    The Maltese government did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

    The activity was first documented on the evening of April 12, when three aging blue trawlers left the Grand Harbour in Valletta, the Maltese capital, within an hour of each other. The three boats — the Dar Al Salam 1, the Salve Regina and the Tremar — departed at the request of the Maltese authorities, according to the captain of the Tremar, Amer Abdelrazek.

    A former Maltese official, Neville Gafa, said he was enlisted by the government that same night to use his connections in Libya to ensure the safe passage of the first two boats to Libya.

    The boats did not submit paperwork to the immigration police, and switched off their satellite tracking devices soon after leaving port, maritime databases show.

    But their mission had already been determined, said Mr. Gafa, who said he had been asked by the Maltese prime minister’s chief of staff, Clyde Caruana, to help coordinate the operation. Mr. Caruana did not respond to requests for comment, but a government spokesman told The Times of Malta that Mr. Gafa had been asked to liaise with Libya on a separate matter that was unconnected to the episode.

    The trawlers were sent to intercept a migrant vessel attempting to reach Malta from Libya — and which had been issuing mayday calls for some 48 hours — and then return its passengers to Libya, Mr. Gafa said.

    The stricken migrant vessel was still in international waters, according to coordinates provided by the migrants by satellite phone to Alarm Phone, an independent hotline for shipwrecked refugees. But it had reached the area of jurisdiction of Malta’s armed forces, making it Malta’s responsibility under international maritime law to rescue its passengers and provide them with sanctuary.

    Two of the trawlers — the Dar Al Salam 1 and the Tremar — reached the migrant vessel early on April 14, guided by a Maltese military helicopter, Mr. Abdelrazek said. Several of the migrants had already drowned, according to testimony later gathered by Alarm Phone.

    The roughly 50 survivors were taken aboard the Dar Al Salam 1, Mr. Abdelrazek said.

    The Dar Al Salam 1 and the Salve Regina sailed to Tripoli on April 15, the former carrying the migrants and the latter carrying several tons of food and water, as a show of appreciation to the Libyan government, Mr. Abdelrazek and Mr. Gafa said. The Tremar waited in international waters, Mr. Abdelrazek said.

    The Maltese authorities told their Libyan counterparts that the Dar Al Salam 1 was in fact a Maltese vessel called the Maria Cristina, said Commodore Masoud Abdalsamad, who oversees international operations at the Libyan Coast Guard. To further obscure its identity, the boat’s crew had also painted over the ship’s name and flew a Maltese flag to confuse the Libyan Coast Guard.

    Though based physically in Malta and owned by a Maltese shipowner, the vessel is legally registered in Tobruk, a port in east Libya controlled by opponents of the authorities in Tripoli. The crew did not want to risk upsetting the Tripoli government by broadcasting its links to Tobruk, leading it to hide its name and home port, Mr. Abdelrazek said.

    After disembarking, the migrants were taken to a notorious detention center run by a pro-government militia, where migrants are routinely tortured, held for ransom or sold to other militias. The detention cells stand close to an arms depot, and the surrounding area was hit by shelling in December.

    Conditions at the detention center are “utterly appalling,” said Safa Msehli, a spokeswoman for the International Organization for Migration, an arm of the United Nations. “People are caged in overcrowded hangars with barely any access to food or sanitation facilities.”

    “Many tell us of the abuse they endure and the inhumane ways in which they are exploited,’’ Ms. Msehli added. ‘‘Reports of migrants being used to load weapons, and the detention center’s proximity to a military facility, raise serious concerns over the safety of people detained there arbitrarily.”

    After departing Tripoli, the Dar Al Salam 1 turned its satellite identification system back on, and the boat resurfaced off the coast of Libya on the evening of April 15, data provided by Marine Traffic, a maritime database, shows.

    The owner of the Salve Regina, Dominic Tanti, declined to comment through an intermediary, and the owner of the Tremar, Yasser Aziz, did not return a message seeking comment.

    The owner of the Dar Al Salam 1, Carmelo Grech, did not to respond to multiple requests for comment sent by text, voice message and a letter hand-delivered to his apartment. But he has confirmed his boat’s involvement to a Maltese newspaper, and several outlets have already highlighted its role, including the Italian newspaper, Avvenire, and the Maltese blogger Manuel Delia.

    Mr. Grech and his boat have colorful histories, raising questions in Malta about why the government involved them in a state-led operation.

    Mr. Grech has previously recounted how he used the boat, then known as the Mae Yemanja, to bring supplies to Libyan rebels during the Libyan revolution in 2011. In 2012, court records show it was impounded after Mr. Grech was accused, though later acquitted, of smuggling contraband cigarettes from Libya to Malta.

    In 2015, Mr. Grech was detained by a Libyan faction for several days for what he later described as a misunderstanding over his visas.

    Maltese ship records obtained by The Times show that Mr. Grech canceled his boat’s registration in Malta last February, before repainting it to show it had been re-registered in Tobruk, for undisclosed reasons.

    Mr. Abdelrazek also has a criminal history, having been convicted in 2014 of forging documents, court records show.

    After appearing briefly in Malta last week, the Dar Al Salam 1 and the Salve Regina returned again to sea on Sunday.

    Their satellite trackers were once again switched off shortly afterward.

    #privatisation #asile #migrations #réfugiés #frontières #contrôles_frontaliers #Malte #Méditerranée #push-backs #refoulement #refoulements #Libye


    Commentaire de @isskein via la mailing-list Migreurop :

    Depuis avril fonctionne une méthode pro-active : une #flotte_privée de 3 bateaux qui se chargent d’arrêter les bateaux de migrants et de les renvoyer vers la Libye.

    Un ancien officiel maltais, #Neville_Gafà, a été engagé par le Premier Ministre pour monter l’affaire avec ses contacts libyens

    il est entre autres responsable de la #tragédie_de_Pâques : le gouvernement a ignoré durant 48h un bateau qui se trouvait dans sles eaux internationales (mais dans la juridiction des Forces armées maltaises) , puis envoyé sa flotte privée, qui a pris à son bord 51 migrants dont 8 femmes et 3 enfants, à bord 5 cadavres ; 7 migrants s’étaient noyés auparavant. Ils ont été ramenés à Tripolii
    voir https://timesofmalta.com/articles/view/the-faces-and-names-of-a-migration-tragedy.788723

    #mourir_en_mer #morts #décès

    Dans le mail reçu via la mailing-list Migreurop, Conni parle de #hotspot_mobile :

    Yesterday we got news from the Maltese media about a new strategy of the authorities to keep rescued migrants out: a floating hotspot on a cruise ship off their coast:


    via @isskein

    • Rappel de Sara Prestianni sur l’utilisation des #hotspots_mobiles en #Italie (via mailing-list Migreurop, 01.05.2020) :

      The “hotspot boat” is the same system , used by Italy from April 17 , only for migrants have been intercepted by ships flying foreign flags, as decided in the inter-ministerial decree of 7 April.
      On board of the ship “hotspot” Rubattino - positioned in front of Palermo - there are at this moment almost 200 migrants, of the two rescues carried out by the ships Alan Kurdi and Aita Mari. All of them were negative to the Covid test, but it is not clear how long they will have to stay on the ship and where they will be transferred (at the beginning of the procedure there was talk of a relocation to Germany).
      Yesterday the Guarantor for the Rights of Italian Prisoners, in his bulletin, expressed concern about the establishment of these “floating” hotspots.

      “The implementation of quarantine measures in extraordinary and exceptional places cannot lead to a situation of ’limbo’: migrant people are under the jurisdiction of the Italian State for the purposes of the health measures imposed on them, but at the same time they do not have the possibility - and for a period of time not indifferent - to exercise the rights that our country recognizes and protects. They cannot apply for asylum, they are not de facto - and at least temporarily - protected as victims of trafficking or unaccompanied foreign minors, nor can they have timely access to procedures for family reunification under the Dublin Regulation. - procedures which, moreover, have their own intrinsic deadlines.”
      The Guarantor also indicated that the experience of the ship “Rubattino” would not seem to remain an isolated case as the Ministry of Infrastructure and Transport launched on 19 April a procedure for the chartering of vessels to be used for the assistance and health surveillance of migrants rescued at sea or arrived on the national territory as a result of autonomous boats.


      –-> sur les hotspots mobiles, voir aussi : https://seenthis.net/tag/hotspot_mobile

    • Abela admits coordinating private boats that returned migrants to Libya

      PM says Easter manoeuvre was a ’rescue’ not a pushback.

      Prime Minister Robert Abela has admitted commissioning a boat that returned migrants to war-torn Libya on Easter weekend but has insisted it was a rescue mission and not a pushback.

      A boat commissioned by Maltese authorities picked up a group of migrants in the search and rescue area earlier this month and returned them to the North African country.

      It is a crime under international law for states to return asylum seekers to a country where they are likely to face persecution.

      Speaking publicly about the controversy for the first time on Friday, Abela admitted the manoeuvre and defended the government’s actions.

      "There was no pushback,"he said.

      "There was a rescue of migrants. Had the Maltese government not coordinated, tens of lives would have died, because a [EU coastguard] Frontex plane just flew overhead and kept on going.

      “Malta’s ports are closed but it coordinated this rescue and ensured that the irregular migrants were taken to the port that was open.”

      The country, along with Italy, closed its ports, citing concerns about the spread of coronavirus.

      Former OPM official Neville Gafa claimed under oath this week that he had coordinated the pushback.

      Asked Gafa’s involvement, Abela said his only involvement was liaising with a contact he was claiming to have in Libya so that the rescue could be facilitated. He said Gafa was not paid or promised anything.

      Abela defended using a private boat, saying that a Search and Rescue convention stipulates the legal obligations of individual states that are not obliged to carry out the actual rescues but to coordinate such rescues.

      The obligations also state that countries can use their own assets or else send private assets to rescue boats in distress, he said.

      This week, Malta has commissioned a Captain Morgan tourist boat Europa II, to house migrants until a solution for their disembarkation is found.

      “We are ready to do anything to save lives. We have nothing to be ashamed of,” Abela said, adding that the cost for the Captain Morgan boat being used to temporarily house migrants outside Maltese waters will come from aid by the EU.

      “Malta’s position is clear and we know what our obligations are. We are going to remain firm on this. We are not a safe port and we cannot guarantee our resources for rescues.

      "We are duty bound to stick to this position. It is counterproductive to close port and airports to tourists but then open ports for irregular migrants. There are hundreds of thousands of people on the Libyan coast wanting to leave there and come to Lampedusa and Malta. We are obeying international rules,” he insisted.

      He said the migration problem should not be “Malta’s alone” and called for the EU to intervene.

      Earlier on Friday, Foreign Minister Evarist Bartolo told Times of Malta that “the EU was responsible for a huge push back of migrants to Malta”.

      He said its failure to set up an effective and fair solidarity mechanism to share the burden of welcoming irregular migrants means that Malta had borne a huge burden over the years.

      He quoted a letter from a United Nations official to him in which he admitted that Europe needed to adopt a more principled migration policy that will serve European needs, that does not penalise those seeking to cross, and that does not leave countries like Malta, which are trying to do the right thing, on their own.

      “If we continue to fail, more people, Libyans and non-Libyans, will be compelled to seek safety on the European side” because of the ongoing war and the economic consequences of Covid-19.

      Bartolo said that in the first three months of the year, 3,600 irregular migrants left the Libyan coast through the Central Mediterranean route. This is over 400 per cent more than in the same period in 2019. Some 1,200 came to Malta.

      He said Malta’s centres were “overflowing” and there is no room for more migrants.


    • Malte a affrété des navires privés pour renvoyer les embarcations de migrants vers la Libye

      Une enquête du New York Times révèle que les autorités maltaises ont affrété, depuis le mois d’avril, une flotte de navires privés afin d’empêcher les migrants d ’atteindre l’île et les renvoyer en Libye. Selon plusieurs experts, cette action est illégale.

      En pleine pandémie de coronavirus, Malte fait tout pour empêcher les embarcations de migrants d’atteindre l’île. A tel point que le gouvernement a discrètement dépêché en avril une flotte de navires marchands privés pour intercepter les migrants et les renvoyer en Libye, a révélé une enquête du New York Times publiée jeudi 30 avril.

      Selon le quotidien américain - qui s’appuie sur les témoignages d’un capitaine de l’un de ces bateaux, commandant en chef des garde-côtes libyens, et d’un ancien responsable maltais impliqué dans l’opération - les trois chalutiers de pêche affrétés appartiennent à des particuliers mais ont agi sur les instructions des forces armées maltaises.
      Une opération sur ordre du Premier ministre maltais

      L’opération a été documentée pour la première fois dans la soirée du 12 avril, écrit le New York Times, quand trois chalutiers ont quitté le port de la Valette, la capitale maltaise, sur ordre des autorités. Un ancien responsable maltais, Neville Gafa, a déclaré qu’il avait été enrôlé par le gouvernement le soir même pour utiliser ses relations en Libye et assurer le passage en toute sécurité des deux premiers chalutiers vers les ports libyens.

      Le Dar As Salam 1 et le Tremar, ont ainsi été envoyés pour intercepter une embarcation de migrants présente dans les eaux maltaises - qui avait émis des appels de détresse depuis deux jours - afin de les renvoyer en Libye, a précisé Neville Gafa. A bord du canot, se trouvait cinq cadavres.

      Le 15 avril, l’Organisation internationale pour les migrations (OIM) avait pourtant affirmé que les migrants avaient été interceptés par un navire marchand puis remis à des garde-côtes qui les avaient alors amenés au port de Tripoli.

      Le troisième chalutier, le Salve Regina, a quant à lui navigué vers Tripoli le 15 avril, transportant plusieurs tonnes de nourriture et d’eau, en guise de remerciement au gouvernement libyen, assure au quotidien américain le capitaine du Tremar, Amer Abdelrazek.

      Devant la justice maltaise, à la suite de la plainte lancée par plusieurs ONG contre le Premier ministre sur sa responsabilité dans la mort des cinq migrants, Neville Gafa a déclaré sous serment qu’il avait agi sur ordre du cabinet du Premier ministre.

      Une opération illégale

      « Dans une tendance à l’augmentation des abus contre les demandeurs d’asile ces dernières années, cette nouvelle approche se démarque », déclare au New York Times Itamar Mann, expert en droit maritime et des réfugiés à l’université de Haïfa, en Israël. « Ces méthodes ressemblent de façon effrayante au crime organisé, aux opérations de passeurs, que les décideurs européens dénoncent avec tant de fermeté », continue le chercheur pour qui cette opération est illégale eu égard au droit international.

      En effet, comme écrit le quotidien américain, une flotte de navires privées, basée dans un port européen, qui intercepte et expulse des demandeurs d’asile des eaux internationales relèvent de la responsabilité des garde-côtes européens.

      Cette opération « pourrait mettre les fonctionnaires de l’Etat maltais en danger de responsabilité pénale, dans le pays ou à l’étranger », signale encore Itamar Mann.


    • Malta-Libya #deal sets up centres ’against illegal migration’

      Coastguard, UN centres, EU help among items discussed

      Malta and Libya will be setting up units to coordinate operations against illegal migration, the government said on Thursday.

      These centres are expected to start operating within the coming weeks, however, the government provided no additional information.

      The announcement followed an unannounced trip by Prime Minister Robert Abela, Home Affairs Minister Byron Camilleri and Foreign Affairs Minister Evarist Bartolo to Tripoli, where they discussed migration with the Libyan government.

      The three met Fayez al-Sarraj who heads the UN-backed Government of National Accord as well as Mohammed Sheibani, deputy minister responsible for migration at the meeting in Tripoli.

      It was Abela’s first trip to war-torn Libya as prime minister.

      Sources said the meeting was held on the back of a new wave of Malta-Libya relations, and a change in approach.

      Discussions revolved around the need to push the EU to help Libya to train its coastguard, obtain funding for reception camps manned by the UN, as well as to build a realistic strategy to slow down the flow of migrants into Libya.

      “It was a positive meeting, though of course that doesn’t mean we’ve resolved the migration issue,” a source told Times of Malta.

      “Malta could be Libya’s bridge to the EU. We need to stop human trafficking as well as save lives at sea,” the source said.

      Valletta, diplomatic sources say, has been trying to build new bridges with the Libyan authorities to stem the tide of migrants leaving the North African coast.
      800,000 migrants in Libya

      In a statement issued later on Thursday, the government said that during the meeting Abela reiterated Malta’s position on the need to address and stop human trafficking. Malta, he added, was facing unprecedented and disproportionate flows and burdens.

      Meanwhile, al-Sarraj said that 800,000 migrants were currently in Libya and the country needed an effective long-term and holistic approach.

      Both leaders spoke about the need to strengthen cooperation to ensure that lives are not lost at sea and to combat human traffickers on the ground and at sea.

      According to Abela, the solution lies in concrete action on Libyan shores and its southern border. This would be done through addressing and stopping human trafficking, rather than focusing just on relocation of migrants to other countries.

      Signing a #memorandum_of_understanding, Malta and Libya agreed to set up a coordination unit in each country to assist in operations against illegal migration.

      The agreement also stipulates that Malta supports Libya when it comes to financial assistance through the upcoming Multiannual Financial Framework.


      #accord #centres

    • Mer méditerranée : Malte renforce sa coopération avec la Libye pour lutter contre « l’immigration illégale »

      Malte a signé un accord avec le gouvernement d’union nationale (GNA) libyen dans le but de renforcer « la lutte contre l’immigration illégale » en mer Méditerranée. Le texte prévoit la création de « centres de coordination » à Tripoli et La Valette qui seront opérationnels dès le mois de juillet.

      Malte tente par tous les moyens de limiter le flux de migrants qui débarquent sur ses côtes. Pour ce faire, les autorités maltaises et libyennes viennent d’acter la création de « centres de coordination » à Tripoli et à La Valette.

      Ces deux centres « offriront le soutien nécessaire à la lutte contre l’immigration illégale en Libye et dans la région méditerranéenne », selon un protocole d’accord entre Malte et le gouvernement d’union nationale (GNA) de Fayez al-Sarraj, et présenté au Parlement maltais mercredi 3 juin (https://www.independent.com.mt/file.aspx?f=206640).

      Financé par le gouvernement maltais, ces structures seront chacune dirigées par trois fonctionnaires et limiteront leur travail « au soutien et à la coordination », indique cet accord valable pour trois ans. Les centres devraient voir le jour dès le mois de juillet.
      « L’UE a la responsabilité de parvenir à un accord global avec la Libye »

      Malte, le plus petit État de l’Union européenne (UE), de par sa taille et sa population, se plaint depuis longtemps d’être obligé d’assumer à lui seul l’arrivée des migrants en provenance de la Libye, pays en guerre.

      Actuellement, plus de 400 migrants secourus en Méditerranée sont bloqués sur quatre navires touristiques affrétés par Malte juste à la limite de ses eaux territoriales, La Valette exigeant qu’ils soient ensuite pris en charge par d’autres pays européens.

      Le ministre maltais des Affaires étrangères, Evarist Bartolo, a déclaré au Parlement mercredi que « l’UE a la responsabilité de parvenir à un accord global avec la Libye afin de limiter l’immigration clandestine ».

      « Le nombre d’immigrants arrivant à Malte est disproportionné par rapport aux autres pays européens », a insisté le ministre. Selon lui, depuis 2005 l’Europe n’a accueilli que 1 700 migrants, tandis que 22 000 sont arrivés à Malte - seuls 8% des migrants en situation irrégulière sur l’île ont été relocalisés dans d’autres pays européens.

      Selon le protocole d’accord, Malte proposera à la Commission européenne une augmentation du soutien financier pour aider le GNA à sécuriser ses frontières sud et à démanteler les réseaux de trafiquants d’êtres humains.

      La Valette proposera également le financement de « moyens maritimes supplémentaires nécessaires » pour contrôler et intercepter les passeurs de migrants en Méditerranée.


    • Accordo Malta-Libia: insieme daranno la caccia ai migranti. Con i soldi Ue

      Centrali operative e pattugliamenti congiunti. Fonti Onu: è una regolazione dei respingimenti illegali. Intanto Frontex smentisce l’inchiesta di Malta sulla “#Strage_di_Pasquetta

      Dopo la scoperta degli accordi segreti con Tripoli, siglati tre anni fa, Malta ha deciso di uscire allo scoperto negoziando un memorandum siglato dal premier Robert Abela, fresco di archiviazione per le accuse di respingimento, e il presidente libico Fayez al Sarraj.

      I due Paesi daranno insieme la caccia ai migranti nel Mediterraneo, ma con nuovi fondi Ue da destinare a Tripoli.

      SCARICA QUI IL DOCUMENTO COMPLETO: https://www.avvenire.it/c/attualita/Documents/MOU%20with%20Libya.pdf

      E’ prevista la creazione di «centri di coordinamento» nel porto di Tripoli e a La Valletta che saranno operativi da luglio. In realtà le operazioni congiunte andavano avanti da anni, ma adesso sono state ufficializzate. Le strutture congiunte «forniranno il sostegno necessario alla lotta contro l’immigrazione clandestina in Libia e nella regione del Mediterraneo», si legge. Inizialmente Malta finanzierà interamente l’attivazione delle centrali operative, ognuna delle quali sarà guidata da tre funzionari dei rispettivi governi. Fin da subito, però, il premier Abela si impegna a ottenere dall’Ue fondi aggiuntivi da destinare alla cosiddetta Guardia costiera libica, che verrà ulteriormente equipaggiata.

      Nessuna menzione si fa riguardo alla necessità di ristabilire il rispetto dei diritti umani nei campi di prigionia libici. L’unico scopo, come del resto è sempre stato in questi anni anche per Italia e Ue, è quello di trattenere i profughi in cattività, a qualunque costo. «L’UE ha la responsabilità di raggiungere un accordo globale con la Libia», c’è scritto nell’accordo che, di fatto, appalta a Malta e Libia il controllo dell’intero Canale di Sicilia, ad esclusione delle ultime 12 miglia territoriali dalla costa di Lampedusa. Malta, lo stato più piccolo dell’Unione Europea (Ue) per dimensioni e popolazione, si è lamentato da tempo di essere costretto ad assumere da solo la responsabilità dell’arrivo dei migranti dalla Libia, un paese in guerra che secondo l’Onu in alcun modo può essere ritenuto un “porto sicuro”.

      Nelle settimane scorse una nuova serie di inchieste giornalistiche internazionali ha permesso di accertare che non solo Malta ha messo in mare da tempo una flottiglia di “pescherecci fantasma” incaricati di intercettare i barconi e ricondurli in Libia, ma che spesso le Forze armate dell’isola equipaggiano i gommoni, anche con motori nuovi, affinché raggiungano le coste siciliane.

      Nei giorni scorsi il Tribunale dell’isola aveva archiviato il procedimento contro il premier laburista Robert Abela e il capo delle forze armate, accusati della morte di 12 migranti nella “strage di Pasquetta”. Forte di questa “assoluzione”, Abela si è recato a Tripoli per sigillare l’intesa con il presidente al-Sarraj. Ma proprio uno dei punti chiave utilizzati dal giudice Joe Mifsud per cestinare le accuse, ieri è stato categoricamente smentito dall’agenzia Ue Frontex che ha risposto per iscritto alle domande di Avvenire. Secondo il magistrato, infatti, il coordinamento dei soccorsi in qualche misura era attribuibile non a Malta ma a Frontex che aveva individuato con un suo aereo i barconi. Da Varsavia, rispondendo con una nota ad “Avvenire”, l’agenzia ha precisato che “è il centro di salvataggio appropriato, non Frontex, a decidere se chiedere assistenza a qualsiasi nave della zona. E Frontex non aveva navi vicino a quest’area”. La responsabilità di intervenire, dunque, era di innanzitutto di Malta che invece per giorni ha ignorato gli Sos e ha poi inviato un motopesca quando oramai 7 persone erano affogate e altre 5 sono morte di stenti durante il respingimento dalle acque maltesi verso la Libia.

      Nel fine settimana di Pasqua l’aeroobile Eagle 1, tracciato e segnalato dal giornalista Sergio Scandura di Radio Radicale “stava svolgendo - spiegano da Frontex - una missione di sorveglianza ben al di fuori dell’area operativa dell’Operazione Themis di Frontex”. Nella nota un portavoce dell’agenzia Ue precisa poi che “Frontex gestisce operazioni congiunte, nonché la sorveglianza pre-frontaliera, che veniva eseguita dall’aereo in questione”. Secondo questa ricostruzione, che avrebbe meritato maggiore puntiglio investigativo anche per accertare eventuali responsabilità esterne a Malta, “in linea con il diritto internazionale, Frontex ha avvisato i centri di soccorso competenti dell’avvistamento di una nave che riteneva necessitasse di assistenza”, si legge ancora. Parole che hanno un significato preciso e costituiscono un’accusa verso chi era stato informato e doveva prestare quell’assistenza negata per giorni. Le autorità italiane hanno apposto il segreto alle comunicazioni intercorse. Silenzio che potrebbe essere presto scardinato da indagini giudiziarie. Lo stesso per Malta, che neanche nell’atto conclusivo dell’inchiesta ha voluto rendere pubbliche le comunicazioni con Roma e con Frontex che a sua volta ribadisce ad Avvenire che “è il centro di salvataggio appropriato, non Frontex, a decidere se chiedere assistenza a qualsiasi nave della zona. Tuttavia, desidero sottolineare qui che Frontex non aveva navi vicino a quest’area”.

      Il memorandum sta creando non poco dibattito nei vertici della Marina militare italiana. A Tripoli, infatti, si trova la nave Gorgona, ufficialmente incaricata di assistere la cosiddetta guardia costiera libica per conto di Roma. E certo i marinai italiani non vogliono finire a fare gli addetti alla manutenzione delle motovedette donate dall’Italia ma che tra pochi giorni si coordineranno con Malta. «Mentre l’obiettivo dichiarato nell’accordo vi è il benessere del popolo libico e di quello maltese, il benessere delle principali vittime, cioè migranti, richiedenti asilo e rifugiati, non viene mai menzionato», ha commentato sul portale cattolico Newsbook il giudice maltese Giovanni Bonelli, già membro della Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo. «Si potrebbe pensare - aggiunge - che questo memorandum si riferisca all’estrazione di minerali, non a degli esseri umani».Fonti delle Nazioni Unite contattate da “Avvenire” hanno reagito a caldo considerando l’intesa come una «regolamentazione di fatto dei respingimenti illegali».

      Negli anni scorsi più volte Avvenire ha documentato, anche con registrazioni audio, il collegamento diretto tra la Marina italiana e la Guardia costiera libica. Ma ora Malta si spinge oltre, ufficializzando una alleanza operativa che inoltre rischierà di causare conflitti con l’operazione navale europea Irini a guida italiana. Fonti delle Nazioni Unite contattate da Avvenire hanno reagito a caldo considerando l’intesa come una “regolamentazione di fatto dei respingimenti illegali”.


  • Estimates of the severity of #coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis - The Lancet Infectious Diseases

    Using data on 24 #deaths that occurred in mainland China and 165 recoveries outside of China, we estimated the mean duration from onset of symptoms to death to be 17·8 days (95% credible interval [CrI] 16·9–19·2) and to hospital discharge to be 24·7 days (22·9–28·1). In all laboratory confirmed and clinically diagnosed cases from mainland China (n=70 117), we estimated a crude case fatality ratio (adjusted for censoring) of 3·67% (95% CrI 3·56–3·80). However, after further adjusting for demography and under-ascertainment, we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53), with substantially higher ratios in older age groups (0·32% [0·27–0·38] in those aged <60 years vs 6·4% [5·7–7·2] in those aged ≥60 years), up to 13·4% (11·2–15·9) in those aged 80 years or older. Estimates of case fatality ratio from international cases stratified by age were consistent with those from China (parametric estimate 1·4% [0·4–3·5] in those aged <60 years [n=360] and 4·5% [1·8–11·1] in those aged ≥60 years [n=151]). Our estimated overall infection fatality ratio for China was 0·66% (0·39–1·33), with an increasing profile with age. Similarly, estimates of the proportion of infected individuals likely to be hospitalised increased with age up to a maximum of 18·4% (11·0–7·6) in those aged 80 years or older.

  • Israël-Palestine, un plan de guerre,
    par Alain Gresh (Le Monde diplomatique, mars 2020)

    Concocté par Washington sans l’implication des Palestiniens, le plan de M. Donald Trump pour la paix au Proche-Orient satisfait aux principales exigences d’Israël. Outre qu’il entérine l’annexion de toutes les colonies et de la vallée du Jourdain — dispositions contraires aux résolutions des Nations unies —, l’« accord du siècle » prive un éventuel État palestinien du moindre attribut de souveraineté. (...)


  • Grave concern about US plan to resolve Israel-Palestine conflict
    Thu 27 Feb 2020 | The Guardian

    As Europeans dedicated to promoting international law, peace and security worldwide, we express our deep concern about President Trump’s Middle East plan, titled Peace to Prosperity.

    The plan contradicts internationally agreed parameters for the Middle East peace process, relevant UN resolutions, including security council resolution 2334, and the most fundamental principles of international law. Instead of promoting peace, it risks fuelling the conflict – at the expense of Israeli and Palestinian civilians alike, and with grave implications for Jordan and the wider region. It has been met with widespread opposition in the region, in Europe, and in the United States.

    The plan allows for annexation of large and vital parts of the occupied Palestinian territory and legitimises and encourages illegal Israeli settlement activity. It recognises only one side’s claims to Jerusalem and offers no just solution to the issue of Palestinian refugees. It projects a future Palestinian “state” without control and sovereignty over its fragmented territory. The map featured in the plan proposes Palestinian enclaves under permanent Israeli military control, which evoke chilling associations with South Africa’s bantustans.

    Peace to Prosperity is not a roadmap to a viable two-state solution, nor to any other legitimate solution to the conflict. The plan envisages a formalisation of the current reality in the occupied Palestinian territory, in which two peoples are living side by side without equal rights. Such an outcome has characteristics similar to apartheid – a term we don’t use lightly.

    The international community, particularly the European Union, must prevent such a scenario from unfolding, in order to preserve the dignity and rights of the Palestinians, the future of Israeli democracy and the wider international rules-based order. (...)

    Douglas Alexander Former minister of state for Europe and secretary of state for international development, United Kingdom
    Ben Bradshaw Former minister of state for the Middle East, United Kingdom
    Gro Harlem Brundtland Former prime minister, Norway
    John Bruton Former prime minister, Ireland
    Micheline Calmy-Rey Former foreign minister and president, Switzerland
    Ingvar Carlsson Former prime minister, Sweden
    Włodzimierz Cimoszewicz Former foreign minister and prime minister, Poland
    Daniel Cohn-Bendit Former co-president of the Greens-European Free Alliance group in the European Parliament, Germany
    Joe Costello Former minister of state for trade and development and chair of the European affairs committee, Ireland
    Willy Claes Former foreign minister and Nato secretary general, Belgium
    Massimo d’Alema Former foreign minister and prime minister, Italy
    Teresa Patrício de Gouveia Former foreign minister, Portugal
    Dominique de Villepin Former foreign minister and prime minister, France
    Ruth Dreifuss Former foreign minister and president, Switzerland
    Alan Duncan Former minister of state for Europe and the Americas, and minister of state for international development, United Kingdom
    Espen Barth Eide Former foreign minister, Norway
    Jan Eliasson Former foreign minister and UN general assembly president, Sweden
    Uffe Ellemann-Jensen Former foreign minister and president of the European Liberals, Denmark
    Benita Ferrero-Waldner Former foreign minister and European commissioner for external relations, Austria
    Sigmar Gabriel Former foreign minister and vice-chancellor, Germany
    Peter Hain Former minister of state for the Middle East, United Kingdom
    Lena Hjelm-Wallén Former foreign minister and deputy prime minister, Sweden
    Trinidad Jiménez Former foreign minister, Spain
    Tom Kitt Former minister of state for overseas development and human rights, Ireland
    Bert Koenders Former foreign minister, the Netherlands
    Martin Liedegaard Former foreign minister, Denmark
    Mogens Lykketoft Former foreign minister and UN general assembly president, Denmark
    Sven Mikser Former foreign minister, Estonia
    Per Stig Møller Former foreign minister, Denmark
    Holger K Nielsen Former foreign minister, Denmark
    Andrzej Olechowski Former foreign minister, Poland
    Marc Otte Former EU special representative to the Middle East peace process, Belgium
    Chris Patten Former vice-president of the European commission, United Kingdom
    Hans-Gert Pöttering Former president of the European parliament, Germany
    Jacques Poos Former foreign minister, Luxembourg
    Vesna Pusić Former foreign minister and deputy prime minister, Croatia
    Mary Robinson Former president and United Nations high commissioner for human rights, Ireland
    Jacques Santer Former prime minister and president of the European commission, Luxembourg
    Karel Schwarzenberg Former foreign minister and deputy prime minister, Czech Republic
    Robert Serry Former UN special coordinator for the Middle East peace process, the Netherlands
    Javier Solana Former foreign minister, Nato secretary general and EU high representative for common foreign and security policy, Spain
    Michael Spindelegger Former foreign minister and vice-chancellor, Austria
    Jack Straw Former foreign secretary, United Kingdom
    Gareth Thomas Former minister of state for international development, United Kingdom
    Erkki Tuomioja Former foreign minister, Finland
    Ivo Vajgl Former foreign minister, Slovenia
    Jozias van Aartsen Former foreign minister, the Netherlands
    Frank Vandenbroucke Former foreign minister, Belgium
    Hubert Védrine Former foreign minister, France
    Sayeeda Warsi Former cabinet minister and Foreign Office minister for the United Nations, human rights and the ICC, United Kingdom


  • Le « Deal du siècle » : Tango entre le document et la réalité | مجد كيّال | السفير العربي
    2020-02-16 | Majd Kayyal

    Nabil Anani - Palestine

    Il est vrai que « l’Accord du siècle » n’ajoute rien à la réalité établie aujourd’hui par l’occupation sioniste en Palestine, 27 ans après la signature des Accords d’Oslo.Ce nouvel accord donne une légitimité internationale et un ancrage juridique à des faits qu’Israël avait imposés par l’agression et les abus. Il cherche à transformer les mutations accumulées sur le terrain, en un nouveau tournant temporel irréversible. Il tente, en fait, d’imposer une nouvelle plateforme à toute la question palestinienne – ce que Trump appelle la « base pour des négociations directes »- afin de remplacer celle, fragile et désormais inopérante, de la solution à deux États.

    La série de crimes de l’occupation n’était donc pas l’aboutissement d’une nouvelle réalité ayant permis un tel accord, ni une accumulation sur du vide. Bien au contraire, c’est elle qui a produit cette réalité de manière méthodique sur les bases objectives que l’Organisation de Libération de la Palestine avait convenues avec Israël et acceptées sous l’égide de l’Accord d’Oslo et de ses annexes. C’est-à-dire que les concepts géographiques (tels que la division de la Cisjordanie en zones) et les principaux mécanismes administratifs (tels que le système de coordination sécuritaire), qui ont préparé l’avènement de l’ « Accord du siècle » et constituent le fondement de son existence, sont des concepts et des mécanismes qui avaient été tous déjà adoptés en tant que principes fondamentaux pour le lancement d’ « Oslo ».

    Il ne s’agit pas là de provoquer une polémique ni de dénoncer l’hypocrisie de ceux qui prétendent s’opposer aujourd’hui à cet "Accord", alors qu’ils avaient participé effectivement à sa mise en œuvre. Il s’agit plutôt d’une remarque dont le but est de faire la lumière sur une logique d’action politique et diplomatique à laquelle se cramponne le sionisme, alors que l’Autorité palestinienne est à mille lieux de la comprendre. (...)


  • Trump administration nixes funding for Palestinian security forces from 2021 budget
    Amir Tibon Washington, D.C. - Feb 11, 2020- Haaretz.com

    WASHINGTON – The Trump administration excluded funding for the Palestinian Security Services in its budget request for the 2021 fiscal year, after 27 years of bipartisan support and Israeli backing.

    The budget request does include, however, $200 million for a “Diplomatic Progress Fund” that could be used to support the administration’s Mideast plan, unveiled two weeks ago. Some of that money, according to the State Department, could go towards an “agreement to resume security assistance in the West Bank.” But such an agreement would likely require the PA to accept the Trump plan.

    For the past 27 years, Republican and Democratic administrations have provided funding for the for the PA’s security services, which operate under Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and work in coordination with Israel to thwart terror attacks in the West Bank. Israel has advocated over the years for continuous American funding for the PA services because it views the coordination with them as a security asset.

    For the first three years of Donald Trump’s presidency, U.S. security assistance to the PA was the only form of aid to the Palestinians not eliminated by the American administration. The PA decided to boycott the Trump administration at the end of 2017, following Trump’s declaration that he has “taken Jerusalem off the table” by recognizing the city as the capital of Israel. The administration retaliated by cutting all aid to the Palestinians, including to hospitals and economic projects in East Jerusalem.

    Even when it punished the Palestinians for their reaction to the Jerusalem declaration, the administration still didn’t cut the security assistance budget, which amounted to $75 million in the current fiscal year. But the administration’s new budget request, which was published on Monday, changes that, and marks the first time that the administration is allocating no funding at all for the PA security services.

    This is likely another form of diplomatic punishment against the Palestinian Authority, this time over its rejection of the administration’s Mideast plan to redraw the borders of Israel, which was published two weeks ago. The plan was unveiled by Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu six weeks before the March 2 Israeli election, and just hours after three criminal indictments against Netanyahu were officially submitted to the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court.

    In November 2019, Axios reported that Israeli officials asked the Trump administration to continue funding the PA security services, but Trump refused, saying Netanyahu’s government should pay for those forces if their activity was so important to Israel. American support for the security services has also been complicated by the “Anti-Terrorism Clarification Act,” a law that passed Congress in 2018 and could expose the PA to massive lawsuits in the United States if it accepts any form of U.S. assistance.

    #deal_du_siècle #financement_occupation

  • Israël-Palestine : le plan Trump ou la bombe à retardement


    Jean-Paul Chagnollaud, professeur émérite des universités, président de l’IREMMO (Institut de Recherche et d’Études Méditerranée Moyen-Orient)
    Stéphanie Latte Abdallah, Historienne, politologue, chercheuse à l’Institut de recherches et d’études sur le monde arabe et musulman (IREMAM-CNRS) à Aix-en-Provence
    Michael Sfard avocat



  • Comment Netanyahou a poussé Trump à reconnaître la souveraineté du Maroc sur le Sahara occidental
    Par MEE | Mercredi 5 février 2020 | Middle East Eye édition française

    Israël aurait fait pression sur les États-Unis pour qu’ils reconnaissent la souveraineté marocaine, contestée, sur la région du Sahara occidental. En échange, Rabat s’engagerait à normaliser ses relations avec Israël, a rapporté la chaîne israélienne Channel 13.

    Le Premier ministre Benyamin Netanyahou aurait donc tenté de faire avancer cet accord tripartite plusieurs fois au cours de l’année écoulée, après avoir entamé des pourparlers avec des responsables marocains et américains, à la suite de son discours lors d’une réunion de l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies, en septembre 2018.

    Netanyahou aurait même secrètement rencontré le ministre marocain des Affaires étrangères, Nasser Bourita, pour discuter de cette proposition.

    Officiellement, le Maroc n’entretient pas de liens diplomatiques avec Israël ; des liens ont été formellement établis en 1993, après la signature de l’accord d’Oslo, puis rompus après la deuxième Intifada en 2000.

    #IsraelMaroc #deal_du_siècle

  • Proche-Orient : Réunion, jeudi, au conseil de sécurité de l’ONU, sur le plan de paix américain

    Les Etats-Unis ont demandé une réunion à huis clos du Conseil de sécurité de l’ONU jeudi pour une présentation par le gendre et conseiller de Donald Trump, Jared Kushner, du plan de paix américain pour le Proche-Orient rejeté par les Palestiniens, a appris lundi l’AFP de sources diplomatiques.

    Elle vise pour Washington à exposer ce plan américain dévoilé la semaine dernière et à entendre les positions des 14 autres Etats membres du Conseil, ont précisé les mêmes sources.
    Juste avant la venue à New York du président palestinien

    Cette réunion interviendra quelques jours avant la venue à New York du président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas, attendue le 11 février selon des diplomates, pour manifester à l’ONU son opposition au projet américain et réclamer l’application du droit international.

    A l’occasion de cette visite du président Abbas, les Palestiniens ont indiqué avoir l’intention de soumettre un projet de résolution au Conseil de sécurité, via l’entremise de la Tunisie, membre non permanent du Conseil. (...)


    • Israël-Palestine : Jared Kushner présente le plan de paix américain à l’ONU
      Avec notre correspondante à New York, Carrie Nooten | Publié le : 06/02/2020 - 06:32

      Ce n’est pas dans l’enceinte même de l’ONU que Jared Kushner rencontrera les quinze membres du Conseil de sécurité, mais en face, dans le bâtiment de la délégation des États-Unis. Une rencontre informelle, autour d’un déjeuner, mais qui a tout l’air d’une opération d’influence.

      Dans le dossier israélo-palestinien, les quatorze autres membres du conseil de sécurité sont pour la solution des deux États, le respect des résolutions déjà adoptées et du droit international.

  • En Israël, le « triangle » arabe ne veut pas devenir une enclave palestinienne - Le Point

    Colonies juives contre « triangle » arabe ? Le plan américain pour le Moyen-Orient soutient l’annexion de colonies en échange du transfert de souveraineté vers un futur Etat palestinien de villes et villages arabes israéliens qui refusent toutefois ce troc « racial ».

    Un détail du plan annoncé cette semaine par le président américain Donald Trump n’a pas échappé aux habitants d’Oum al-Fahm, village arabe israélien perché sur des montagnes verdoyantes où trônent des mosquées aux dômes argentés, dorés ou turquoise.

    Dans le cadre d’un « échange » de territoire, les Etats-Unis proposent de transférer le contrôle de 14 villes et villages où vivent plus de 260.000 Arabes israéliens —appelé le « triangle » arabe—, d’Israël à un éventuel Etat palestinien.

    « Ces communautés étaient initialement désignées pour tomber sous le contrôle jordanien lors des négociations de la ligne d’armistice de 1949, mais ont finalement été retenues par Israël pour des raisons militaires (...) Les communautés de la région du triangle feraient partie de l’Etat palestinien », peut-on lire dans le document.


    Répercussions politiques

    Selon Youssef Jabareen, le plan américain risque de « réduire » la population arabe israélienne et donc « d’affaiblir » cette minorité qui représente environ 20 % de la population de l’Etat hébreu, soit 1,8 million de personnes.

    En retirant 260.000 personnes de cette population, c’est tout le reste de la minorité qui craint de voir son poids démographique et donc politique remis en cause.

    Pour l’ONG Adala, qui défend les droits de cette minorité, « le transfert forcé (de statut) de citoyens palestiniens arabes d’Israël » s’apparente à un changement « démographique à motivation raciale ».

    La Liste unie des partis arabes avait joué un rôle important en soutenant le rival de Benjamin Netanyahu, Benny Gantz, comme Premier ministre à l’issue des dernières élections.

    Malgré cet appui, M. Gantz n’avait pas réussi à rassembler une majorité de sièges pour former le gouvernement ce qui a favorisé de nouvelles élections dans un mois.

    Or Benny Gantz défend le plan de paix américain et a même demandé au Parlement de voter en sa faveur, ce qui lui attire des critiques dans la population arabe.

    Pour l’ancien député arabe israélien Mohammed Barakeh, le choix lors des législatives sera clair dans les rangs de la minorité : « ce sera la Liste arabe contre l’ensemble de l’establishment politique israélien ».


  • Le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas annonce une rupture de « toutes les relations » avec Israël et les Etats-Unis
    Publié le samedi 01 février 2020

    Le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas a annoncé samedi la rupture de « toutes les relations », y compris sécuritaires, entre l’Autorité palestinienne d’une part, et Israël et les Etats-Unis d’autre part, lors d’une réunion extraordinaire de la Ligue arabe sur le projet de paix américain.

    « Nous vous informons qu’il n’y aura aucune sorte de relation avec vous (les Israéliens, NDLR) ainsi qu’avec les Etats-Unis, y compris en matière sécuritaire, à la lumière » du plan américain, qui est une « violation des accords d’Oslo » signés avec Israël en 1993, a dit le président de l’Autorité palestinienne au Caire.

    Mahmoud Abbas, qui a affirmé avoir transmis le message au Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu, a appelé l’Etat hébreu à « prendre ses responsabilités en tant que puissance occupante » des Territoires palestiniens. (...)


    • Plan de paix de Trump : Abbas rompt « les relations » avec Israël et les États-Unis
      Publié le : 01/02/2020

      « Injuste » envers les Palestiniens

      S’adressant aux ministres arabes, le chef de l’Autorité palestinienne a ajouté : « Je ne vous demande pas de vous opposer aux Américains, mais de soutenir le peuple palestinien ».

      Un soutien verbal qu’il a obtenu de la part de tous les ministres participants. Le communiqué final rejette même l’initiative américaine. Toutefois rares sont ceux qui l’avaient fait dans leurs déclarations. Certains même, comme les Émirats, Oman, le Koweït et le Maroc avaient trouvé positive l’initiative qui, selon eux, « pourrait servir comme point de départ pour de nouvelles négociations ».

      Dans un communiqué samedi, la Ligue arabe a donc annoncé rejeter le plan de règlement du conflit israélo-palestinien annoncé plus tôt cette semaine par Donald Trump, affirmant qu’il était « injuste » envers les Palestiniens.

  • L’Invité(e) actu par Caroline Broué
    Elias Sanbar : « Aucun rapport de force ne peut être éternel »

    Fondé sur une solution à deux Etats, le « plan de paix » pour le Proche-Orient présenté cette semaine par Donald Trump a suscité rejet et colère du côté des Palestiniens. Nous en parlons avec l’écrivain, essayiste et ambassadeur de la Palestine auprès de l’Unesco, Elias Sanbar.



  • Abbas: Palestine Free to End Security Cooperation with Israel– IMEMC News
    January 31, 2020 6:59 PM

    Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has reportedly sent a note to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, warning that Palestine now feels free to stop security cooperation with the regime as part of the Oslo accords, which are “disavowed” by a contentious US-devised Middle East plan.

    Israel’s Channel 12 TV reported, on Wednesday, that a Palestinian Authority delegation, led by Civil Affairs Minister Hussein al-Sheikh, had met with Israeli Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon and handed him a handwritten letter, in Arabic, from Abbas to Netanyahu.

    In his note, the report said, Abbas stressed that the plan US President Donald Trump unveiled on Tuesday, as a proposed solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, disregards the 1993 Oslo accords that divided the West Bank into areas under Israeli, Palestinian and joint controls. (...)


  • « Le plan de paix de Trump peut nous amener à la guerre » -
    ENTRETIEN. L’avocat israélien Michael Sfard estime que « l’accord du siècle » américain favorise au contraire l’instabilité dans les territoires palestiniens.

    Êtes-vous surpris par la position attentiste de la France, qui salue les efforts de Donald Trump et affirme vouloir étudier le plan ?

    L’Europe est silencieuse à un degré qui s’apparente selon moi à de la complicité. Je rappelle que le conflit israélo-palestinien est une affaire internationale, et pas domestique. Je rappelle que l’Europe est un acteur central des relations internationales et doit s’impliquer pour atteindre une solution juste et durable.

    N’êtes-vous pas trop optimiste quant à l’influence réelle de l’Europe dans le monde ?

    C’est à elle de décider si elle veut être influente ou non. Aussi longtemps que l’Europe aura peur de la colère des Israéliens, elle ne fera rien. Pourtant, un bon allié et ami d’Israël ne doit pas uniquement soutenir tous azimuts cet État mais également condamner ses abus.


  • Les évêques catholiques de Terre sainte dénoncent le plan américain
    Mélinée Le Priol, le 30/01/2020 à 16:36

    Les évêques catholiques de Terre sainte dénoncent le plan américain

    Au lendemain de la présentation par Donald Trump, mardi 28 janvier, de son « plan de paix » pour le Proche-Orient, l’Assemblée des Ordinaires catholiques de Terre Sainte a condamné sans appel une initiative « unilatérale », qui « ignore la dignité et les droits des Palestiniens ».

  • L’ « Accord du siècle » de Trump n’a rien à voir avec la paix
    Par Jonathan Cook
    29 janvier 2020 – Traduction : Chronique de Palestine – Dominique Muselet

    Le projet d’accord inclut délibérément une série de conditions totalement irréalisables, pour que ce qui reste de la Palestine soit reconnu.

    Une grande partie de l’ »Accord du siècle » de Donald Trump était déjà connue. Au cours des 18 derniers mois, les responsables israéliens ont divulgué de nombreux détails de cet accord.

    La soi-disant « Vision pour la paix » dévoilée mardi a simplement confirmé que le gouvernement américain a officiellement épousé le consensus qui règne depuis longtemps en Israël : à savoir qu’Israël a le droit d’occuper indéfiniment les territoire qu’il a saisis illégalement au cours des cinquante dernières années, privant de ce fait les Palestiniens de tout espoir d’avoir un jour un État.

    La Maison Blanche a rompu avec l’image d’ »honnête courtier » entre Israël et les Palestiniens, à laquelle les États-Unis étaient traditionnellement attachés. Les dirigeants palestiniens n’ont pas été invités à la cérémonie, et ne seraient pas venus s’ils l’avaient été. L’accord conçu à Tel-Aviv plus qu’à Washington avait précisément pour but d’écarter le « partenaire » palestinien.

    Israël obtient ce qui est le plus important pour lui : la permission de Washington d’annexer toutes ses colonies illégales, aujourd’hui éparpillées en Cisjordanie, ainsi que le vaste bassin agricole de la vallée du Jourdain. Israël continuera à exercer un contrôle militaire sur l’ensemble de la Cisjordanie. (...)


  • The Holocaust as a pretext for annexation

    Zeev Sternhell


    The joint operation by Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu to grant American legitimacy to the annexation of Palestinian territories was leaked just as the memorial ceremony of the World Holocaust Forum was taking place at Yad Vashem. It’s hard to conceive of a more cynical combination: In Jerusalem, anti-Semitism was used to silence the expected worldwide opposition to the annexation plan.

    And thus the anti-Semitism that brought catastrophe upon the Jewish people was turned into a cynical and shameless political tool by Israel. Jerusalem turned anti-Semitism into the ultimate weapon against any call for the removal of even a few Jews from the West Bank and against the idea of dividing the land fairly. To the nationalists, any policy that doesn’t completely mesh with the Israeli interest as they see it is tantamount to anti-Semitism.
    Trump’s Unreal Deal: No Peace, No Plan, No Palestinians, No Point. Listen to Haaretz’s podcast

    The talent of Netanyahu and his minions for using the Holocaust and anti-Semitism as a currency requires no further proof, and Europe’s cowardice and inability to stand up to the Israeli right’s blackmail is also notorious. Likud’s Israel has branded denial of the occupation and the apartheid in the territories as anti-Zionist and then equated this anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism. Europe is, justifiably, racked with guilt feelings toward the Jews; this account will never be closed, but it still doesn’t justify Europe’s forgiving attitude toward Jewish-Israeli nationalism and racism.

    Paradoxically, this forgiving stance also ends up amounting to active support for the destruction of Israel as a liberal, democratic and Jewish society. Every reasonable person understands that annexation without equal rights for Palestinians means the establishment of a new apartheid state – creating such a reality isn’t exactly one of the EU’s reasons for being. Who in Western Europe is willing to lend patronage to this act and let the Jewish nationalists exploit the unforgivable past to entirely drain Jewish nationalism of any drop of liberal values?
    Related Articles

    ’Israel inquiring with U.S. about annexation’ after Kushner contradicts Netanyahu
    Netanyahu won’t like it, but Kushner can still save Trump’s Mideast plan
    Annexation already happened. What’s new is the right’s readiness to give up the rest of the West Bank

    Beyond all the discussion on what constitutes the religious and national Jewish identity, Zionism was an answer to European anti-Semitism and one solution to the oppression of the Jews and the mortal danger they were in. Escape to the New World was the favored solution for 90 percent of those who fled Europe before the gates of the United States were closed in the early 1920s.

    The Zionist solution proved itself because all other doors were locked, and after the Holocaust it gained worldwide legitimacy. But now the nationalist right is trying to expand this legitimacy for freedom and independence to include occupation and annexation. This is the epitome of the cynical and shameful exploitation of the Holocaust and anti-Semitism for the Israeli government’s political needs.

    Now comes the question: How to make the liberal world understand that there is no connection between anti-Semitism and savage criticism of the occupation and annexation, or of other aspects of Israeli policy in the territories?
    Breaking news and analyses in your inbox

    The German president expressed remorse in a way that inspires respect. Under the leadership of Chancellor Angela Merkel, his country absorbed a million non-Christian and non-European refugees in an attempt to show that it is free of racism. But Germany and France, which has its own anti-Semitism issues, act like they’re afraid of their own shadows when touching on the sensitive nerve of criticism of Israel.

    The right’s propaganda has managed to convince many of the best West European liberals that such criticism amounts to opposition to Zionism, which amounts to denying Israel’s right to exist – and therefore amounts to anti-Semitism. This is a total lie, and Israelis should be the first to shout this truth from the rooftops.
    zeev sternhell

    Zeev Sternhell

    Haaretz Contributor