#lobby_pro_israël

L’Occident complice de l’apartheid israélien, l’exemple du parti travailliste britannique
La Coordination nationale de l’UJFP, le 21 décembre 2022
▻https://ujfp.org/loccident-complice-de-lapartheid-israelien-lexemple-du-parti-travailliste-brit

(...) Toutes ces initiatives répondent à une demande qui est partie d’Israël : délégitimer les mouvements ou les personnalités défendant les droits des Palestiniens, faire interdire le BDS, utiliser systématiquement l’accusation infamante d’antisémitisme.

Le parti travailliste britannique s’est montré un excellent élève de cette stratégie. En 2015, un vote direct des membres du parti désavoue l’appareil du parti et désigne à une large majorité Jeremy Corbyn comme candidat du parti au poste de Premier ministre. Corbyn, membre d’Amnesty International, a toujours combattu la politique intérieure et la politique étrangère de Tony Blair. Il a manifesté son attention pour la cause palestinienne.

Tout va être entrepris pour l’abattre. Déjà en 2016, Ken Livingstone, ancien maire de Londres, est exclu du parti travailliste pour ses positions pro-palestiniennes.

De mystérieux tweets antisémites, dont les auteurs semblent n’avoir aucune existence réelle, vont apparaître sur le site du parti travailliste. Corbyn, éberlué, se défendra mal. La veille des élections législatives de 2019, le rabbin Ephtaïm Mirvis appellera ouvertement à voter contre lui.

Même si les causes de la défaite de Corbyn sont multiples, il est clair qu’il a été victime d’une campagne bien orchestrée.

La droite du parti travailliste a poursuivi son offensive en obtenant son exclusion temporaire du parti.

Après Corbyn, Ken Loach. Le grand cinéaste a toujours combattu les injustices et il a soutenu Corbyn. Il est exclu en mai 2021 du parti.

La dernière victime des purges peut difficilement être salie sous l’accusation infamante d’antisémitisme. Il s’agit de Naomi Wimborne-Idrissi. Elle est membre du groupe « Jewish Voices for Labour » (Voix Juives au parti travailliste). Toute l’accusation repose sur le fait qu’elle soutient le BDS et milite avec plusieurs groupes palestiniens. Elle a été exclue de l’instance dirigeante du parti. (...)

#Lobby_pro_israélien

The #Iran Nuclear Talks: Show Us Your Brackets
Paul R. #Pillar
▻http://nationalinterest.org/blog/paul-pillar/the-iran-nuclear-talks-show-us-your-brackets-11457

According to the meager indications that have leaked out, the negotiators already have arrived at common language for the great majority of provisions in an agreement. Differences remain on just a few sticking points such as capacity for uranium enrichment and the length of time Iran would be subject to the one-of-a-kind restrictions that the agreement would entail. The parties should consider making public the draft agreement as it now stands, with the continuing disagreements indicated through bracketed language.

(...)

Letting us all see the terms of a draft deal might help us get away from a silly mantra that has been so drummed into the discourse by opponents of any agreement with Iran that even those who support the negotiations sometimes voice it. The #mantra is “no deal is better than a bad deal.” The mantra is a fatuous tautology. Whether a particular deal is good or bad depends on comparing it with no deal. Seeing the terms of an actual draft agreement would enable all of us to make that comparison. And what could then be demanded of the hardliners on both sides is: explain exactly why no agreement at all supposedly would be better than the terms you see before you—even with the bracketed language that the other side wants.

Hardliners on our side would have to explain why the absence of agreement—meaning no restrictions on uranium enrichment, no enhanced inspection and monitoring, and nothing else in the way of special requirements being placed on Iran—would be better than allowing Z (rather than X) number of centrifuges.

#lobby_pro_Israel

Tom Friedman says candidate with AIPAC backing can raise in 3 phone calls what his opponent needs 50,000 calls to raise | Mondoweiss
▻http://mondoweiss.net/2013/06/friedman-candidate-opponent.html

Friedman:

Then we had the Citizens United Case in the Supreme Court that basically said unlimited campaign donations. Now what that meant is it gave enormous power, I’ve written all this in my column, to the Israel lobby, why— because Mehdi if you and I were running from the same district, and I have AIPAC’s stamp of the approval and you don’t, I will maybe have to make three phone calls and I can raise my whole— I’m exaggerating but I don’t have to make many phone calls to get all the money I need to run against you. You will have to make 50,000 phone calls. So that pulled the whole spectrum to the right...

Weiss :

I have written often that George H.W. Bush was thought to have lost the election in 1992 because he opposed settlements while Clinton didn’t, and raised so much pro-Israel money. Why isn’t this discussed openly, if Tom Friedman also believes it? I don’t think he’s really written about this in his column. That’s why Bush the younger brought in the neocons. That’s why we got the Iraq war. All verboten.

And we have “a huge role in the Israeli cabinet” ? Did you know that? Chris Matthews needs to talk about this.

Why isn’t any of this discussed openly? Why were Walt and Mearsheimer run out of town on a rail for saying some of this? And what is the media’s role in the collapse of the two-state solution? By enforcing these bogus orthodoxies.