• 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”.


    • Malta: Illegal tactics mar another year of suffering in central Mediterranean

      The Maltese government has resorted to dangerous and illegal measures for dealing with the arrivals of refugees and migrants at sea, which are exposing countless people to appalling suffering and risking their lives, Amnesty International revealed today in a report “Waves of impunity: Malta’s violations of the rights of refugees and migrants in the Central Mediterranean”. As Amnesty is launching this new report, despair is growing aboard the Maersk Etienne, which has been denied a port to disembark for over a month, after rescuing 27 people on a request from Maltese authorities

      The Maltese government’s change in approach to arrivals in the central Mediterranean in 2020 has seen them take unlawful, and sometimes unprecedented, measures to avoid assisting refugees and migrants. This escalation of tactics included arranging unlawful pushbacks to Libya, diverting boats towards Italy rather than rescuing people in distress, illegally detaining hundreds of people on ill-equipped ferries off Malta’s waters, and signing a new agreement with Libya to prevent people from reaching Malta.

      “Malta is stooping to ever more despicable and illegal tactics to shirk their responsibilities to people in need. Shamefully, the EU and Italy have normalized cooperation with Libya on border control, but sending people back to danger in Libya is anything but normal,” said Elisa De Pieri, Regional Researcher at Amnesty International.

      “EU member states must stop assisting in the return of people to a country where they face unspeakable horrors.”

      Some of the actions taken by the Maltese authorities may have involved criminal acts being committed, resulting in avoidable deaths, prolonged arbitrary detention, and illegal returns to war-torn Libya. The authorities also used the COVID-19 pandemic as a pretext to declare that Malta was not a safe place to disembark – to discourage people from seeking safety and a decent life in Europe.

      The abusive practices by Malta are part and parcel of wider efforts by EU member states and institutions to outsource the control of the central Mediterranean to Libya, in order that EU-supported Libyan authorities might intercept refugees and migrants at sea before they reach Europe.

      People are then returned to Libya and arbitrarily detained in places where torture and other ill-treatment is highly likely. From the beginning of January to 27 August 2020 7,256 people were ‘pulled back’ to Libya by the EU-supported Libyan Coast Guard, which was often alerted of the presence of boats at sea by airplanes engaged in Frontex and other EU operations.

      The Easter Monday pushback

      The case of the “Easter Monday pushback” illustrates the desperate lengths to which the Maltese authorities are willing to go to prevent people arriving on their shores.

      On 15 April 2020, a group of 51 people, including seven women and three children, were unlawfully returned to Tripoli after being rescued in Malta’s search and rescue region by the commercial fishing boat Dar Al Salam 1.

      The boat, which had been contracted by the Maltese government, took those onboard back to Libya and handed them over to the Libyan authorities, exposing refugees and migrants – who had just survived a deadly shipwreck – to further risks to their life.

      Five people were dead when the vessel reached Libya, and the survivors reported that a further seven people were missing at sea. Survivors reported that those on board were not given medical assistance. In an official statement the Maltese authorities confirmed they had coordinated the operation.

      Lack of accountability in Malta

      While a magisterial inquiry into the case was conducted, it left many questions unanswered. It is still unknown how the 12 people died and how 51 were returned to Libya despite it being illegal to transfer people there. The magistrate conducting the inquiry did not hear the testimonies of the 51 people transferred to Libya, nor probe the chain of responsibility to contract the Dar El Salam 1 and instruct it to transfer people to Libya.

      The NGO Alarm Phone has evidence that other pushbacks by Maltese authorities may also have occurred in 2019 and 2020, which have not been investigated.

      EU and Italian cooperation with Libya

      Italy in particular has worked closely with Libya, having provided support to Libyan maritime authorities by providing vessels, training and assistance in the establishment of a Libyan SAR region to facilitate pullbacks by the Libyan coastguard.

      Despite intensifying conflict and the arrival of COVID-19 threatening the humanitarian situation of refugees and migrants in Libya, Italy has continued to implement policies to keep people in Libya. These include extending its Memorandum of Understanding on Migration with Libya aimed at boosting Libyan authorities’ resources to prevent departures, for another three years, extending its military operations in the region focusing on supporting Libya’s maritime authorities, and maintaining legislation and practices aimed at the criminalization of NGOs rescuing people in the central Mediterranean.

      The central Mediterranean is the latest border on which Amnesty International is highlighting abuses by EU member states authorities. In 2020, Amnesty International has also documented abuses on the borders between Croatia and Bosnia, and Greece and Turkey. The EU urgently needs an independent and effective human rights monitoring system at its external borders to ensure accountability for violations and abuses.

      “The European Commission must turn the page when they launch the New Pact on Migration and Asylum after the summer and ensure European border control and European migration policies uphold the rights of refugees and migrants,” said Elisa De Pieri.

      “The horrors faced by people returned to Libya must caution European leaders against cooperating with countries which don’t respect human rights. By continuing to empower abusers and to hide their heads in the sand when violations are committed, those EU leaders share responsibility for them.”


  • 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

  • Palestinians have only one option left: Stay and fight | Middle East Eye

    You can announce as many times as you like, as US President Donald Trump did yesterday, that Israel will take over the Jordan Valley and thus about 30 per cent of the West Bank, and establish Israeli law over the settlements. But without physically moving greater and greater numbers of Palestinians out of the expanded state of Israel, little changes. Annexation just becomes another form of occupation.

    Population transfer, mass population transfer, another Nakba or Catastrophe, therefore, lies at the heart of Trump’s and Netanyahu’s “vision” for peace.

    This is a peace of sorts. It’s the silence you hear in the Palestinian villages in 1948, in Beit Hanoun in 2014, when Israel bombed a UN school in northern Gaza crowded with hundreds of displaced civilians killing 15 and injuring 200 people, or in East Aleppo or Mosul, after each in turn have been bombed to a pulp. It’s the peace created in the total and complete defeat of the Palestinian struggle for a state built on their own land.
    The hidden plan

    So, for me, the heart of the apocalyptic vision lay not in the supremacist speeches of Trump or Netanyahu, in which both proclaimed “mission accomplished”, and the complete victory of the Zionist movement over the Palestinian people. It lay in a paragraph buried deep inside the 180-page document, the most detailed document Trump bragged that had ever been produced about this conflict. Precisely.

    It’s the paragraph which says that land swaps by Israel could include both “populated and unpopulated areas”. The document is precise about the population it is referring to - the 1948 Palestinian population of the so-called northern triangle of Israel - Kafr Qara, Baqa-al-Gharbiyye, Umm al-Fahm, Qalansawe, Tayibe, Kafr Qasim, Tira, Kafr Bara and Jaljulia.

    The document goes on: "The Vision contemplates the possibility, subject to agreement of the parties, that the borders of Israel will be redrawn such that the Triangle Communities become part of the State of Palestine. In this agreement, the civil rights of the residents of the triangle communities would be subject to the applicable laws and judicial rulings of the relevant authorities.”

    This is the hidden and most dangerous part of this plan. The triangle is home to about 350,000 Palestinians - all of whom are Israeli citizens - perched beside the north western border of the West Bank. Umm al-Fahm, its main city, has been the home of some of the most active defenders of Al Aqsa.

    Yousef Jabareen, a member of the Israeli Knesset from the Joint List, told me: “Umm al-Fahm is my hometown, Wadi Ara is my lifeblood. The Triangle is home to hundreds of thousands of Arab-Palestinian citizens living in their homeland. Trump and Netanyahu’s annexation and transfer programme remove us from our homeland and revoke our citizenship; an existential danger to all Arab minority citizens. Now is the time for Jews and Arabs who value democracy and equality, to stand and work together against this dangerous plan.”
    Official ’ethnic cleansing’

    For years now the “static transfer” of this population out of Israel has been toyed with by Israeli leaders of the centre or the right. The idea of a population and land swap was alluded to by former prime ministers Ehud Barak and Ariel Sharon. But it was only Avigdor Lieberman who took the expulsion of Palestinians up consistently as a cause.

    He advocated stripping a suggested 350,000 Palestinians in the Triangle of their Israeli citizenship and forcing the other 20 per cent of the Israeli population, who are non-Jews, to make a “loyalty oath” to Israel as a “Jewish Zionist state”, or face expulsion to a Palestinian state.

    Two years ago, Netanyahu proposed to Trump that Israel should rid itself of the Triangle. Today these plans for ethnic cleansing have been sealed in an official White House document.

    #deal_du_siècle #palestine

  • Palestine at the crossroads - رأي اليوم
    By Abdel Bari Atwan – 30 janvier 2020

    Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaks during an announcement of U.S. President Donald Trump’s Middle East peace plan at the White House in Washington on Jan. 28. MANDEL NGAN/AFP via Getty Images

    (...) The white supremacist regime, which Trump wants to replicate in Palestine at Israel’s behest, was brought down by resistance, and this new Israeli variant can only be brought down in the same way. The first and second intifadas forced Israel to recognise the existence of a Palestinian people and seek the intercession of the big powers to pacify them. The Deal of the Century will ultimately be defeated, as was the Israeli occupation of the Gaza Strip and prior to that of South Lebanon. But this will only ever be brought about by resistance in all its forms, not through the PA’s submissive approach and certainly not by protecting the occupying power’s security– an unprecedented disgrace for a national liberation movement.
    The Palestinian people are truly at a historic crossroads. Either to surrender their land and dignity and accept the $50 billion bribe Trump intends to extort from the oil-rich Arabs as the price for Palestine or to stay put and fight and resist this conspiracy, as all other colonised peoples have done and are fully entitled to do.


    • Je ne suis pas certain que ce soit le calcul trumpien. Le chiffre de 6 020 km2 est ancien dans WP (je n’ai pas cherché la date de son arrivée dans l’article). La superficie d’Israël dans WP[fr] est (bizarrement) indiquée par deux chiffres 20 770 et 22 072 km2, le second doit correspondre à des revendications israéliennes, peut-être le Golan.

      Le 30/01, sur la version française de l’article Palestine, il y a eu (au moins) deux tentatives de modifier la superficie pour la porter une fois à 26 990, l’autre à 27 000 km2, soit la somme des chiffres pour Israël et la Palestine. Ces deux modifications ont été immédiatement annulées.

  • Trump declared the third Nakba
    Gideon Levy Jan 30, 2020 12:32 AM

    In a flimsy hospital gown, injured, barefoot and confused, without food or water, with a catheter attached and wearing a diaper, Gaza resident Omar Abu Jeriban was tossed on the side of the road on June 13,, 2008 and left to die. Chaim Levinson reported the story in Haaretz at the time, David Grossman was appalled by it.

    The other day, the entire Palestinian people became Abu Jeriban. The role of the police who tossed out a wounded man in the middle of the night was taken by the American president, Donald Trump, and the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu. The role of the hospital that just stood by was taken by the world.

    In 2008 it was a human tragedy; two days ago, it was a national tragedy: The White House declared the start of the third Nakba. The Palestinians were tossed by the side of the road and abandoned to their fate. Right-wing Israel is delighted, left-wing Israel is lost as usual, and the world is silent. It’s the end of the world.

    The White House looked like Habayit Hayehudi the other day, awash in kippot and Yiddishkeit. Does one have to be an anti-Semite to wonder about this? With all the wheeler-dealer peacemakers – all these Friedmans, Adelsons, Greenblatts, Kushners and Berkowitzes, these supposedly fair and unbiased mediators, it’s impossible to even think about the start of a fair accord.

    It’s not hard to guess what goes through the mind of every Palestinian and every seeker of justice at the sight of this all-Jewish and all-right-wing class picture. But the Palestinians weren’t just missing entirely from the ceremony, they were also nowhere to be found in the plan that could seal their future and that heralds the elimination of their last chance for some belated decency, for a bit of justice, for a drop of compassion. They were left bleeding on the side of the road.

    This is their third Nakba. After losing most of their land, property and dignity in the first and their liberty in the second, now comes the third to crush whatever is left of their hope. They’ve tried everything. Diplomatic struggle and armed struggle, nonviolent protest and economic boycott. Nothing has helped. The ‘deal of the century’ only reconfirms what was known: The evil thrive, this time in a particularly extreme edition of one-sidedness, racism and arrogance. The mighty take all. All. The Palestinians get a caricature of an independent state after many years, if ever, and only as long as they agree to a series of degrading surrender conditions that even the lowest collaborator would never agree to. Israel, on the other hand, gets almost everything, and right away.

    Why do only the Palestinians have to prove themselves before they get anything? Has Israel proven itself in the half-century of occupation? Has it obeyed international law at all? Has it heeded the international community? Should there be a prize for the brutal occupier? For the settlers? For what, and why, America?

    Israel gets everything and without conditions, while the Palestinians, a fairly restrained people given the terrible abuse it endures, still have to prove themselves in order to receive the little crumbs of justice that the American president throws to them. Why does Israel’s security have to be guaranteed over and over again, throughout the generations and against all risk, without anyone so much as lifting a finger to ensure the security of the Palestinians, whose blood is so cheaply shed by Israel? A little girl in Gaza also deserves a secure night’s sleep, but who cares about her in Habayit Hayehudi, the Jewish Home, at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

    If this plan is fulfilled, God forbid, it will be the end of the Palestinian people. Not the physical end, the national end. Whoever thinks this is reason to celebrate is invited to join the celebration in Rabin Square for the release of Naama Issachar, and to vote Likud or Kahol Lavan – what’s the difference? But anyone who still has a drop of moral commitment should be aghast at this terrible peace of the victors that may end well for Israel but will never end well for Israelis. Israel never assumed responsibility for the first and second Nakbas, perhaps it will also evade its responsibility for the third. But it will never be able to escape the blame and disgrace for stamping out another people.


    • « Pire que la Nakba » : les Palestiniens rejettent le plan Trump
      Par Marie Niggli – RAMALLAH, Cisjordanie occupée
      Date de publication : Mercredi 29 janvier 2020

      Le président américain a présenté mardi soir son initiative pour Israël et la Palestine. Axé sur une vision sécuritaire inspirée par la droite israélienne, le plan bafoue le droit international et piétine toutes les revendications des Palestiniens
      « Il n’y a pas d’accords internationaux qui n’ont pas été violés par ce qu’on vient d’entendre », se désole de son côté Rania Muhareb, juriste de l’ONG Al-Haq qui défend les Palestiniens en se basant sur le droit international.

      « Quand on parle d’autodétermination, ça veut dire que les Palestiniens ont le contrôle du territoire, des ressources naturelles, or tout cela n’est absolument pas mentionné dans ce plan. On ne parle pas de droits inaliénables, on ne parle pas de droits de l’homme. La vision promue est sécuritaire : on promet la paix mais pas la justice. »

      C’est d’ailleurs ainsi que le président américain a présenté son plan : « une solution à deux États réaliste qui résout les problèmes que pose un État palestinien pour la sécurité d’Israël ».

      Mais quel État propose la solution Trump ? Si l’on en croit la carte qu’il a postée sur Twitter peu après son discours, en place et lieu d’une Palestine dans les frontières de 1967, il propose aux Palestiniens un agrégat de petits îlots bleu turquoise reliés entre eux par des ponts et tunnels, au milieu d’un océan de beige – Israël et ses colonies en Cisjordanie occupée.

      Un État discontinu, rabougri, sans prérogatives, qui, avant de voir le jour, sera négocié avec les Israéliens pendant quatre ans. Une Palestine dont la capitale ne sera pas vraiment Jérusalem, mais un bout de la ville situé de l’autre côté du mur de séparation construit par les Israéliens dans les années 2000, pendant la Seconde Intifada, et considéré illégal par la Cour internationale de justice.

      L’initiative américaine « est un excellent plan pour Israël », a affirmé Benyamin Netanyahou. Elle débarrasse au passage les Israéliens de deux dossiers épineux : le statut de Jérusalem et celui des réfugiés palestiniens.

      Conformément à ses précédentes déclarations, Donald Trump reconnaît Jérusalem comme la capitale « indivisible » d’Israël. Une vision qui avait guidé sa décision de transférer l’ambassade américaine de Tel Aviv à la ville sainte en 2018.

      Quant aux réfugiés palestiniens, près de 5,5 millions éparpillés entre la Cisjordanie, Gaza et les pays alentours, ils perdent leur droit au retour avec le plan américain.

      « Quel va être le sort des réfugiés – près de 80 % de la population à Gaza – qui habitent dans des camps depuis plus de 70 ans ? », se demande Rania Muhareb, qui rappelle que ce droit au retour des réfugiés palestiniens a été inscrit dans plus d’une centaine de résolutions des Nations unies.

  • Les États-Unis et Israël piétinent les Palestiniens et la Palestine | Sylvain Cypel

    La scène est symbolique : le président américain Donald Trump dévoilant son « plan du siècle » en présence du seul premier ministre israélien Benyamin Nétanyahou et en l’absence des principaux intéressés, les Palestiniens. Il est vrai que le plan bafoue leurs droits les plus élémentaires, pourtant internationalement reconnus. Source : Orient XXI

  • Palestine: la mascarade du «plan Trump»
    29 janvier 2020 Par René Backmann | Mediapart

    (...) Face à un monde arabe divisé et timoré, avec les Émirats, Bahrein et Oman représentés mardi à la Maison Blanche, avec l’Égypte qui ne peut rien refuser à Washington et appelle Israéliens et Palestiniens à un « examen approfondi du plan », et alors que la Jordanie rappelle comme l’ONU qu’elle s’en tient aux frontières de 1967, que peuvent aujourd’hui tenter les Palestiniens ? Un recours aux Nations unies ? Les tentatives précédentes n’ont pas été concluantes. Une nouvelle intifada ? En rupture avec une classe politique largement discréditée, la jeunesse est-elle prête à affronter les chars israéliens ? Et pour quelle cause alors que le soutien à la solution à deux États s’effondre ? Que peuvent-ils espérer ? Un sursaut de l’Europe ? Londres, au bord du Brexit, qualifie le plan de « proposition sérieuse ». À Paris, le Quai d’Orsay a « salué » les efforts du président Trump et rappelé son attachement à « la solution à deux États en conformité avec le droit international ».

    Ancien ambassadeur américain en Israël, conseiller de Bill Clinton puis de Barack Obama pour le dossier israélo-palestinien, Martin Indyk est moins diplomate. « Ce plan n’est pas du tout un plan de paix, affirme-t-il. C’est une mascarade du début à la fin. »

    « C’est un coup de force, réagit de son côté l’avocat israélien Michael Sfard, défenseur depuis un demi-siècle des Palestiniens devant les tribunaux israéliens et spécialiste des procédures contre le mur de séparation. Et la communauté internationale devrait y prendre garde. Si ce plan est appliqué, si Netanyahou réussit à faire accepter l’annexion d’une partie de la Cisjordanie, c’est un pilier du droit international qui s’effondre. Car à ce jour la Cisjordanie reste un territoire occupé militairement. Et le droit interdit l’annexion des territoires conquis par la force. Imaginez ce que la Russie ou la Chine pourraient entreprendre si Netanyahou annexe la vallée du Jourdain sans opposition de la communauté internationale. » C’est pourtant ce qu’il compte entreprendre dès dimanche. Bien qu’il ne préside qu’un gouvernement intérimaire, il a en effet annoncé, dès mardi, qu’il proposerait au conseil des ministres de voter l’annexion de 30 % de la Cisjordanie.

    #IsraelUSA #deal_du_siècle

  • صفقة القرن.. تعرف على 12 مشروعا اقتصاديا أسال لعاب القاهرة - الخليج الجديد

    Dans « l’accord du siècle », des promesses économiques (énergie et commerce avec Gaza) à l’intention de l’Egypte pour qu’elle soutienne l’accord...

  • Jeff Bezos : Amazon boss ‘hacked after WhatsApp message from Saudi crown prince’ | The Independent

    The Independent relance une vieille histoire :

    Mais ce qui est intéressant c’est que Mujtahid (Twitter saoudien d’opposition) affirme que les Nations Unies vont publier un document sur cette affaire... https://twitter.com/mujtahidd/status/1219827254815076352

    #usa #ONU #tic_arabes #arabie_saoudite (et j’y ajouterai bien #deal_du_siècle)