organization:knesset

Yoav Kish, a lawmaker of Israel’s ruling Likud National Liberal Party led by Benjamin Netanyahu, told an Arab member of Knesset (Israel’s parliament) to say “Israel akbar” (Israel is great) instead of “Allahu akbar” (God is great) during prayers.
▻https://www.yenisafak.com/en/world/israeli-mp-muslims-should-say-israel-is-great-instead-of-god-is-great-313

#Ayman_Odeh (gauche) : « Entre Trump et Netanyahou, nous essayons de limiter la casse »
▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/090318/ayman-odeh-gauche-entre-trump-et-netanyahou-nous-essayons-de-limiter-la-ca

Arabe israélien à la #Knesset, le député de gauche Ayman Odeh revient sur le succès et les difficultés de la #Liste_unifiée, troisième groupe du Parlement, ainsi que sur les politiques d’urbanisation israélienne qui évoquent l’apartheid.

#International #arabes_israéliens #Benjamin_Netanyahou #Israël #Palestine

Church of Holy Sepulchre crisis: Israel burns its bridges with the Christian world

Decision makers have continually ignored the political, religious and diplomatic sensitivities when trying to solve problems that concern Jerusalem’s Christian community

Nir Hasson Feb 26, 2018

The Church of the Holy Sepulchre in the Old City of Jerusalem is a place that runs to the beat of the Middle Ages and according to an uncompromising series of rules set in the mid-19th century. One of the unwritten traditions is a continual dispute between the three churches that run it: Catholic, Greek Orthodox and Armenian.
To really understand the Middle East - subscribe to Haaretz
Knowing all this, the incident that occurred on Sunday was a historic event. The heads of three communities, the Greek Orthodox patriarch, the Armenian patriarch and the Catholic custodian of the Holy Land, met at the entrance to the church. They cleared the place of tourists and had the heavy doors shut. Large signs, printed up ahead of time, were hung outside with images of the church’s two enemies: Jerusalem Mayor Nir Barkat and Knesset member Rachel Azaria of Kulanu. At the top was written, “Enough is Enough.”
The protest came in response to two recent major steps. One was Barkat’s decision to end the municipal tax exemption for church-owned properties in Jerusalem and to put liens on the churches’ bank accounts for the tax debts. The second was a bill sponsored by Azaria that would allow the expropriation of lands sold by churches to private buyers. It was on Sunday’s agenda for a Knesset committee that decides whether or not the governing coalition will support legislation.

Worshippers kneel and pray in front of the closed doors of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem’s Old City, February 25, 2018.\ AMIR COHEN/ REUTERS
The churches’ action on Sunday shows that they are in an impossible situation, with pressure from all sides: Israel, their Palestinian faithful, church institutions, pilgrims and their sponsor countries (Jordan, Greece, Armenia and the Vatican). Decision makers continually ignore the political, religious and diplomatic sensitivities when they try to solve problems that concern the churches.
Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
Email* Sign up

According to the churches, the agreement that had allowed the churches not to pay municipal taxes existed since Ottoman times, and British, Jordanian and Israeli governments have all honored it. They say the move to collect the taxes is part of Barkat’s fight against the national government and Finance Minister Moshe Kahlon over the city’s budget. Meanwhile, the mayor maintains that the agreement on taxes only applies to houses of worship and not commercial properties owned by the churches.

Between the taxes and the legislation put forward by Azaria, it’s the latter that has church leaders worried the most. According to the proposed law, the government would be able to expropriate land that had been church-owned and was sold to private real estate companies. The law discriminates against the churches compared to other institutions or private citizens. (A relevant question is what Israel would say if such a move was taken in another country for synagogue-owned property.) Furthermore, it would be applied retroactively.
The law would force the churches to pay for the failures of the Jewish National Fund and the Israel Lands Administration. To understand their missteps, one must look no further than the land deal in Jerusalem’s Rehavia neighborhood, which was developed in the first half of the 20th century. At the time, churches leased lands in Rehavia and other neighborhoods to the JNF for 99 years.

A protest sign hangs outside of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in Jerusalem, February 25, 2018.Mahmoud Illean/AP
In the Rehavia sale, which is rocking the lives of 1,300 families, a private company bought the lease rights to 500 dunams (125 acres) of land in the heart of Jerusalem for 200 years for only 78 million shekels ($22.3 million). If the government had acted in a smarter fashion, it could easily have bought the rights to this land for a similar amount – small change considering the size of the area and its importance. It could have made part of the money back from residents and businesses extending their leases. But those in charge didn’t act, paving the way for private developers to enter the picture.
Once the 99-year lease is over, instead of having the JNF renew it almost automatically for a symbolic fee, the land will be transferred to the private company. Residents who live in buildings affected by the sale will need negotiate with private developers over what will happen to their homes, which have already lost as much as half of their value.
If the law passes, no one will want to do business with the churches, because who wants to buy land that can be expropriated tomorrow?
Anyone dealing with this law – including those who drafted it – knows very well that it has no chance of passing at the Knesset in its present form. It violates so many constitutional principles that it is a perfect case for being annulled by the Supreme Court. The law is intended to be a threat for real estate developers and speculators, so they reach a deal with the government. But in the meantime, the question is whether this is the way Israel wants to communicate with the Christian world.

Zeev Sternhell : « En Israël pousse un racisme proche du nazisme à ses débuts »

Dans une tribune au « Monde », l’historien spécialiste du fascisme, face à la dérive du nationalisme israélien, se lance dans une comparaison entre le sort des juifs sous les nazis avant la seconde guerre mondiale et celui des Palestiniens en Israël aujourd’hui.

LE MONDE | 18.02.2018 à 06h35 |

En savoir plus sur ▻http://www.lemonde.fr/idees/article/2018/02/18/zeev-sternhell-en-israel-pousse-un-racisme-proche-du-nazisme-a-ses-debuts_52

Tribune. Je tente parfois d’imaginer comment essaiera d’expliquer notre époque l’historien qui vivra dans cinquante ou cent ans. A quel moment a-t-on commencé, se demandera-t-il sans doute, à comprendre en Israël que ce pays, devenu Etat constitué lors de la guerre d’indépendance de 1948, fondé sur les ruines du judaïsme européen et au prix du sang de 1 % de sa population, dont des milliers de combattants survivants de la Shoah, était devenu pour les non-juifs, sous sa domination, un monstre ? Quand, exactement, les Israéliens, au moins en partie, ont-ils compris que leur cruauté envers les non-juifs sous leur emprise en territoires occupés, leur détermination à briser les espoirs de liberté et d’indépendance des Palestiniens ou leur refus d’accorder l’asile aux réfugiés africains commençaient à saper la légitimité morale de leur existence nationale ?

La réponse, dira peut-être l’historien, se trouve en microcosme dans les idées et les activités de deux importants députés de la majorité, Miki Zohar (Likoud) et Bezalel Smotrich (Le Foyer juif), fidèles représentants de la politique gouvernementale, récemment propulsés sur le devant de la scène. Mais ce qui est plus important encore, c’est le fait que cette même idéologie se trouve à la base des propositions de loi dites « fondamentales », c’est-à-dire constitutionnelles, que la ministre de la justice, Ayelet Shaked, avec l’assentiment empressé du premier ministre, Benyamin Nétanyahou, se propose de faire adopter rapidement par la Knesset.

Shaked, numéro deux du parti de la droite religieuse nationaliste, en plus de son nationalisme extrême, représente à la perfection une idéologie politique selon laquelle une victoire électorale justifie la mainmise sur tous les organes de l’Etat et de la vie sociale, depuis l’administration jusqu’à la justice, en passant par la culture. Dans l’esprit de cette droite, la démocratie libérale n’est rien qu’un infantilisme. On conçoit facilement la signification d’une telle démarche pour un pays de tradition britannique qui ne possède pas de Constitution écrite, seulement des règles de comportement et une armature législative qu’une majorité simple suffit pour changer.

« IL S’AGIT D’UN ACTE CONSTITUTIONNEL NATIONALISTE DUR, QUE MME LE PEN N’OSERAIT PAS PROPOSER »
L’élément le plus important de cette nouvelle jurisprudence est une législation dite « loi sur l’Etat-nation » : il s’agit d’un acte constitutionnel nationaliste dur, que le nationalisme intégral maurrassien d’antan n’aurait pas renié, que Mme Le Pen, aujourd’hui, n’oserait pas proposer, et que le nationalisme autoritaire et xénophobe polonais et hongrois accueillera avec satisfaction. Voilà donc les juifs qui oublient que leur sort, depuis la Révolution française, est lié à celui du libéralisme et des droits de l’homme, et qui produisent à leur tour un nationalisme où se reconnaissent facilement les plus durs des chauvinistes en Europe.

L’impuissance de la gauche

En effet, cette loi a pour objectif ouvertement déclaré de soumettre les valeurs universelles des Lumières, du libéralisme et des droits de l’homme aux valeurs particularistes du nationalisme juif. Elle obligera la Cour suprême, dont Shaked, de toute façon, s’emploie à réduire les prérogatives et à casser le caractère libéral traditionnel (en remplaçant autant que possible tous les juges qui partent à la retraite par des juristes proches d’elle), à rendre des verdicts toujours conformes à la lettre et à l’esprit de la nouvelle législation. Mais la ministre va plus loin encore : elle vient juste de déclarer que les droits de l’homme devront s’incliner devant la nécessité d’assurer une majorité juive. Mais puisque aucun danger ne guette cette majorité en Israël, où 80 % de la population est juive, il s’agit de préparer l’opinion publique à la situation nouvelle, qui se produira en cas de l’annexion des territoires palestiniens occupés souhaitée par le parti de la ministre : la population non-juive restera dépourvue du droit de vote.

Grâce à l’impuissance de la gauche, cette législation servira de premier clou dans le cercueil de l’ancien Israël, celui dont il ne restera que la déclaration d’indépendance, comme une pièce de musée qui rappellera aux générations futures ce que notre pays aurait pu être si notre société ne s’était moralement décomposée en un demi-siècle d’occupation, de colonisation et d’apartheid dans les territoires conquis en 1967, et désormais occupés par quelque 300 000 colons. Aujourd’hui, la gauche n’est plus capable de faire front face à un nationalisme qui, dans sa version européenne, bien plus extrême que la nôtre, avait presque réussi à anéantir les juifs d’Europe. C’est pourquoi il convient de faire lire partout en Israël et dans le monde juif les deux entretiens faits par Ravit Hecht pour Haaretz (3 décembre 2016 et 28 octobre 2017) avec Smotrich et Zohar. On y voit comment pousse sous nos yeux, non pas un simple fascisme local, mais un racisme proche du nazisme à ses débuts.

Comme toute idéologie, le racisme allemand, lui aussi, avait évolué, et, à l’origine, il ne s’en était pris qu’aux droits de l’homme et du citoyen des juifs. Il est possible que sans la seconde guerre mondiale, le « problème juif » se serait soldé par une émigration « volontaire » des juifs des territoires sous contrôle allemand. Après tout, pratiquement tous les juifs d’Allemagne et d’Autriche ont pu sortir à temps. Il n’est pas exclu que pour certains à droite, le même sort puisse être réservé aux Palestiniens. Il faudrait seulement qu’une occasion se présente, une bonne guerre par exemple, accompagnée d’une révolution en Jordanie, qui permettrait de refouler vers l’Est une majeure partie des habitants de la Cisjordanie occupée.

Le spectre de l’apartheid

Les Smotrich et les Zohar, disons-le bien, n’entendent pas s’attaquer physiquement aux Palestiniens, à condition, bien entendu, que ces derniers acceptent sans résistance l’hégémonie juive. Ils refusent simplement de reconnaître leurs droits de l’homme, leur droit à la liberté et à l’indépendance. Dans le même ordre d’idées, d’ores et déjà, en cas d’annexion officielle des territoires occupés, eux et leurs partis politiques annoncent sans complexe qu’ils refuseront aux Palestiniens la nationalité israélienne, y compris, évidemment, le droit de vote. En ce qui concerne la majorité au pouvoir, les Palestiniens sont condamnés pour l’éternité au statut de population occupée.

POUR MIKI ZOHAR, LES PALESTINIENS “SOUFFRENT D’UNE LACUNE MAJEURE : ILS NE SONT PAS NÉS JUIFS”
La raison en est simple et clairement énoncée : les Arabes ne sont pas juifs, c’est pourquoi ils n’ont pas le droit de prétendre à la propriété d’une partie quelconque de la terre promise au peuple juif. Pour Smotrich, Shaked et Zohar, un juif de Brooklyn, qui n’a peut-être jamais mis les pieds sur cette terre, en est le propriétaire légitime, mais l’Arabe, qui y est né, comme ses ancêtres avant lui, est un étranger dont la présence est acceptée uniquement par la bonne volonté des juifs et leur humanité. Le Palestinien, nous dit Zohar, « n’a pas le droit à l’autodétermination car il n’est pas le propriétaire du sol. Je le veux comme résident et ceci du fait de mon honnêteté, il est né ici, il vit ici, je ne lui dirai pas de s’en aller. Je regrette de le dire mais [les Palestiniens] souffrent d’une lacune majeure : ils ne sont pas nés juifs ».

Ce qui signifie que même si les Palestiniens décidaient de se convertir, commençaient à se faire pousser des papillotes et à étudier la Torah et le Talmud, cela ne leur servirait à rien. Pas plus qu’aux Soudanais et Erythréens et leurs enfants, qui sont israéliens à tous égards – langue, culture, socialisation. Il en était de même chez les nazis. Ensuite vient l’apartheid, qui, selon la plupart des « penseurs » de la droite, pourrait, sous certaines conditions, s’appliquer également aux Arabes citoyens israéliens depuis la fondation de l’Etat. Pour notre malheur, beaucoup d’Israéliens, qui ont honte de tant de leurs élus et honnissent leurs idées, pour toutes sortes de raisons, continuent à voter pour la droite.

A rebours des Etats-Unis, les diplomates européens soulignent la dégradation de la situation à Jérusalem
▻http://www.lemonde.fr/proche-orient/article/2018/01/31/a-rebours-des-etats-unis-les-diplomates-europeens-soulignent-la-degradation-

Dans un rapport dont « Le Monde » a eu connaissance, les chefs de mission de l’UE insistent sur la vocation de la ville à devenir la capitale de deux Etats et préconisent des mesures plus sévères contre la colonisation et les violations des droits des Palestiniens.
[…]
Ce document riche, précis, souvent cru, explore tous les volets de la vie quotidienne : transports, constructions, études, économie, violences, etc. Il dresse un tableau terrible de la « politique israélienne déjà ancienne de marginalisation économique, politique et sociale des Palestiniens à Jérusalem ». Cette dévitalisation se traduit en chiffres. La contribution de Jérusalem-Est au PIB palestinien est tombée de 15 % en 1993, avant la signature des accords d’Oslo, à 7 % aujourd’hui. « En raison de l’isolement physique et de la politique israélienne stricte de permis, la ville a largement cessé d’être le centre économique, urbain et commercial palestinien qu’il avait été », note-t-on.

Et que fera l’UE et les gouvernements des 28 membres ? Rien, comme d’habitude ?

#paywall

Israel secretly probed whether family members of Palestinian teen Ahed Tamimi are non-related ’light-skinned’ actors

Deputy minister Michael Oren says the probe never reached a definitive conclusion, but calls the family ’actors,’ and ’what’s known as Pallywood’

Yotam Berger and Jonathan Lis Jan 24, 2018

The Tamimi family, whose imprisoned teenage daughter Ahed has become a Palestinian cause celebre, was the subject two years ago of a classified investigation that included checking whether they were “a real family,” Michael Oren, an Israeli deputy minister and former ambassador to the United States, said Tuesday.
The inquiry by a Knesset subcommittee “didn’t reach unequivocal conclusions,” and was prompted by suspicions that the family from the West Bank village of Nebi Saleh was “not genuine, and was specially put together for propaganda” purposes by the Palestinians, a statement issued by Oren’s office said. In wake of the Haaretz report, Arab lawmakers demanded Wednesday that the subcommittee’s minutes be made public.
skip - fb

Ahed Tamimi, 16, was arrested last month together with her mother and cousin and charged with assaulting soldiers over an incident in which she and her cousin repeatedly slapped soldiers while her mother filmed it. The video of the incident outraged many Israelis, leading to her arrest, but was also seen as a symbol of hope and resistance by Palestinians. As the teen remains in custody while awaiting trial, her cause has been taken up by international rights groups and pro-Palestinians activists, who have been clamoring for her release.
The statement said that Oren, now the deputy minister responsible for diplomacy in the Prime Minister’s Office, headed the “classified subcommittee” of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee that investigated the Tamimis two years ago. The subcommittee heard testimony from the Shin Bet security service, the National Security Council and nongovernmental organizations, and one issue discussed was “the genuineness of the family and whether it was really a real family.”

Jordan’s Abdullah to Pence: East Jerusalem must be capital of Palestinian state - #Jordan
Haaretz and Reuters Jan 21, 2018 5:24 PM
▻https://www.haaretz.com/middle-east-news/jordan/jordan-s-abdullah-to-pence-east-jerusalem-must-be-palestinian-capital-1.574
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=83&v=rbrbKJ6ku-M

Jordan’s King Abdullah voiced concern on Sunday over a decision by Washington to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, insisting that East Jerusalem must be the capital of a future Palestinian state.

In remarks during talks with U.S. Vice Mike Pence in Amman, the king said the only solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict was a two-state one.

“The U.S. decision on Jerusalem ...does not come as a result of a comprehensive settlement of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict,” the monarch told Pence at the start of the talks in the royal palace.

“For us, Jerusalem is key to Muslims and Christians, as it is to Jews. It is key to peace in the region and key to enabling Muslims to effectively fight some of our root causes of radicalization,” he continued.

Pence added he and Jordan’s King Abdullah ’agreed to disagree’ on Trump’s Jerusalem decision.

King Abdullah also told the vice president that he viewed the Israel-Palestinian conflict as a “potential major source of instability”. Abdullah went on to add: “We hope that the U.S. will reach out and find the right way to move forward in these challenging circumstances,” he said.

Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu praised Pence ahead of his landing in Israel, “Tonight a great friend of the State of Israel will arrive...a true friend.”

Netanyahu addressed plans by Israeli opposition members to boycott Pence’s speech to the Knesset, “I view it as a disgrace that members of Knesset intend to boycott this important visit,” said Netanyahu.

Jordan lost East Jerusalem and the West Bank to Israel during the Arab-Israeli war in 1967.

Pence was in Amman on the second leg of a three-country tour that concludes in Israel.

In comments delivered in Egypt, he said Washington would support a two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians if the two sides agreed to it.
Last month’s endorsement of Israel’s claim to Jerusalem as its capital by President Donald Trump drew universal condemnation from Arab leaders and widespread criticism elsewhere.

It also broke with decades of U.S. policy that the city’s status must be decided in negotiations with the Palestinians, who want East Jerusalem as the capital of their future state.

Pence told the king that Washington was committed to preserving the status quo of holy sites in Jerusalem.

“We take no decision on boundaries and final status, those are subject to negotiation,” he said.

Pence’s is the highest-level visit by a U.S. official to the region since Trump made his declaration on Jerusalem last month.

Jordanian officials fear Washington’s move on Jerusalem had also wrecked chances of a resumption of Arab-Israeli peace talks which the monarch had sought to revive.

King Abdullah said the U.S. move on Jerusalem would fuel radicalism and inflame Muslim and Christian tensions.

King Abdullah’s Hashemite dynasty is the custodian of the Muslim holy sites in Jerusalem, making Amman sensitive to any changes of status of the disputed city.

“For us, Jerusalem is key to Muslims and Christians, as it is to Jews. It is key to peace in the region,” he said.

Jordanian officials are further worried the move could trigger violence in the Palestinian territories and a spillover into Jordan, a country where many people are descendants of Palestinian refugees whose families left after the creation of Israel in 1948.

In Israel, growing fascism and a racism akin to early Nazism
Zeev Sternhell Jan 19, 2018 2:00 AM
▻https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-in-israel-growing-fascism-and-a-racism-akin-to-early-nazism-1.5746

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.5746719.1516319234!/image/2626406522.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_1200x630/2626406522.jpg

I frequently ask myself how a historian in 50 or 100 years will interpret our period. When, he will ask, did people in Israel start to realize that the state that was established in the War of Independence, on the ruins of European Jewry and at the cost of the blood of combatants some of whom were Holocaust survivors, had devolved into a true monstrosity for its non-Jewish inhabitants. When did some Israelis understand that their cruelty and ability to bully others, Palestinians or Africans, began eroding the moral legitimacy of their existence as a sovereign entity?

The answer, that historian might say, was embedded in the actions of Knesset members such as Miki Zohar and Bezalel Smotrich and the bills proposed by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. The nation-state law, which looks like it was formulated by the worst of Europe’s ultra-nationalists, was only the beginning. Since the left did not protest against it in its Rothschild Boulevard demonstrations, it served as a first nail in the coffin of the old Israel, the one whose Declaration of Independence will remain as a museum showpiece. This archaeological relic will teach people what Israel could have become if its society hadn’t disintegrated from the moral devastation brought on by the occupation and apartheid in the territories.

The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here, the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people. The interviews Haaretz’s Ravit Hecht held with Smotrich and Zohar (December 3, 2016 and October 28, 2017) should be widely disseminated on all media outlets in Israel and throughout the Jewish world. In both of them we see not just a growing Israeli fascism but racism akin to Nazism in its early stages.

Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the “Jewish problem” would have ended only with the “voluntary” expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians.

Indeed, Smotrich and Zohar don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians, on condition that they don’t rise against their Jewish masters. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression, or equal rights in case the territories are officially annexed to Israel. For these two representatives of the Knesset majority, the Palestinians are doomed to remain under occupation forever. It’s likely that the Likud’s Central Committee also thinks this way. The reasoning is simple: The Arabs aren’t Jews, so they cannot demand ownership over any part of the land that was promised to the Jewish people.

According to the concepts of Smotrich, Zohar and Shaked, a Jew from Brooklyn who has never set foot in this country is the legitimate owner of this land, while a Palestinian whose family has lived here for generations is a stranger, living here only by the grace of the Jews. “A Palestinian,” Zohar tells Hecht, “has no right to national self-determination since he doesn’t own the land in this country. Out of decency I want him here as a resident, since he was born here and lives here – I won’t tell him to leave. I’m sorry to say this but they have one major disadvantage – they weren’t born as Jews.”

From this one may assume that even if they all converted, grew side-curls and studied Torah, it would not help. This is the situation with regard to Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers and their children, who are Israeli for all intents and purposes. This is how it was with the Nazis. Later comes apartheid, which could apply under certain circumstances to Arabs who are citizens of Israel. Most Israelis don’t seem worried.

Une importante tribune de l’histoirien Zeev Sternehll
In Israel, growing fascism and a racism akin to early Nazism

They don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression

Zeev Sternhell 19.01.2018

I frequently ask myself how a historian in 50 or 100 years will interpret our period. When, he will ask, did people in Israel start to realize that the state that was established in the War of Independence, on the ruins of European Jewry and at the cost of the blood of combatants some of whom were Holocaust survivors, had devolved into a true monstrosity for its non-Jewish inhabitants. When did some Israelis understand that their cruelty and ability to bully others, Palestinians or Africans, began eroding the moral legitimacy of their existence as a sovereign entity?
The answer, that historian might say, was embedded in the actions of Knesset members such as Miki Zohar and Bezalel Smotrich and the bills proposed by Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked. The nation-state law, which looks like it was formulated by the worst of Europe’s ultra-nationalists, was only the beginning. Since the left did not protest against it in its Rothschild Boulevard demonstrations, it served as a first nail in the coffin of the old Israel, the one whose Declaration of Independence will remain as a museum showpiece. This archaeological relic will teach people what Israel could have become if its society hadn’t disintegrated from the moral devastation brought on by the occupation and apartheid in the territories.
The left is no longer capable of overcoming the toxic ultra-nationalism that has evolved here, the kind whose European strain almost wiped out a majority of the Jewish people. The interviews Haaretz’s Ravit Hecht held with Smotrich and Zohar (December 3, 2016 and October 28, 2017) should be widely disseminated on all media outlets in Israel and throughout the Jewish world. In both of them we see not just a growing Israeli fascism but racism akin to Nazism in its early stages.
Like every ideology, the Nazi race theory developed over the years. At first it only deprived Jews of their civil and human rights. It’s possible that without World War II the “Jewish problem” would have ended only with the “voluntary” expulsion of Jews from Reich lands. After all, most of Austria and Germany’s Jews made it out in time. It’s possible that this is the future facing Palestinians.
Indeed, Smotrich and Zohar don’t wish to physically harm Palestinians, on condition that they don’t rise against their Jewish masters. They only wish to deprive them of their basic human rights, such as self-rule in their own state and freedom from oppression, or equal rights in case the territories are officially annexed to Israel. For these two representatives of the Knesset majority, the Palestinians are doomed to remain under occupation forever. It’s likely that the Likud’s Central Committee also thinks this way. The reasoning is simple: The Arabs aren’t Jews, so they cannot demand ownership over any part of the land that was promised to the Jewish people.
According to the concepts of Smotrich, Zohar and Shaked, a Jew from Brooklyn who has never set foot in this country is the legitimate owner of this land, while a Palestinian whose family has lived here for generations is a stranger, living here only by the grace of the Jews. “A Palestinian,” Zohar tells Hecht, “has no right to national self-determination since he doesn’t own the land in this country. Out of decency I want him here as a resident, since he was born here and lives here – I won’t tell him to leave. I’m sorry to say this but they have one major disadvantage – they weren’t born as Jews.”

From this one may assume that even if they all converted, grew side-curls and studied Torah, it would not help. This is the situation with regard to Sudanese and Eritrean asylum seekers and their children, who are Israeli for all intents and purposes. This is how it was with the Nazis. Later comes apartheid, which could apply under certain circumstances to Arabs who are citizens of Israel. Most Israelis don’t seem worried.

Zeev Sternhell
Haaretz Contributor

’We look at them like donkeys’: What Israel’s first ruling party thought about Palestinian citizens -

Quand Ben Gourion et le parti travailliste israélien (la “gauche”) qualifiaient des Palestiniens d’Israël d’ “ânes” et réfléchissait sur la manière de les expulser

Israel’s first ruling party, Mapai, was torn about the status of Arabs who remained in the country after the War of Independence; almost 70 years later, the ’Arab question’ has yet to be answered
By Adam Raz Jan 13, 2018
read more: ▻https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.834355

“The Arab question in Israel” was the term used in the top ranks of Mapai, the ruling party in the young State of Israel – and forerunner of Labor – to encapsulate the complex issue that arose after the War of Independence of 1948-49. In the wake of the fighting, and the armistice agreements that concluded the war, about 156,000 Arabs remained within Israel (out of an estimated 700,000 before the war), accounting for 14 percent of the nascent state’s population. So it was with some justification that Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett stated in a meeting of Mapai Knesset members and the party’s senior leadership, on June 18, 1950, that “this is one of the fundamental questions of our policy and of the future of our country.” He added that the issue was one “that will determine the direction of the country’s morality,” for “our entire moral stature depends on this test – on whether we pass it or not.”
Almost 70 years later, the “Arab question in Israel” continues to pose a conundrum for politicians when they address the issue of the status of Palestinian citizens of Israel (or, as they are often imprecisely called, “Israeli Arabs”).
The minutes of the meetings held by Mapai, which are stored in the Labor Party Archive in Beit Berl, outside Kfar Sava, attest to the deep dispute in the party over two conflicting approaches concerning the Arabs in Israel. Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion and his associates – Moshe Dayan (Israel Defense Forces chief of staff 1953-1958) and Shimon Peres, at the time a senior official in the Defense Ministry – urged a policy of segregation and a hard hand against what he argued was a communal threat to national security; while Sharett and other Mapai leaders – Pinhas Lavon, Zalman Aran, David Hacohen and others – promoted a policy of integration.

The disagreement between Ben-Gurion and Sharett mirrored the respective approaches held by the two regarding the Arab world in general. Sharett was critical of Ben-Gurion’s policy, which he said, held that “the only language the Arabs understand is force,” and called for an approach that preferred the “matter of peace.” Yitzhak Ben-Zvi, then a Knesset member, and later Israel’s second president (1952-1963), summed up succinctly the alternatives in a meeting of the Mapai MKs several weeks later, on July 9, 1950: “The question is the attitude the state takes toward the minorities. Do we want them to remain in the country, to be integrated in the country, or to get out of the country We declared civic equality irrespective of race difference. Does this refer to a time when there will be no Arabs in the country? If so, it’s fraud.”
’Transfer’ option
The discussions within the party were quite freewheeling, even if speakers frequently expressed concern of leaks to the press, which could have lead to international pressure on Israel to improve the treatment of its Arab citizens. Indeed, the future of the relations between the peoples who inhabited the country demanded weighty political decisions. Among the issues in question: the right to vote, the Absentees’ Property Law, the status of the Arab education system, membership of Arab workers in the Mapai-affiliated Histadrut federation of labor, and more.

One proposition that arose frequently in the discussions was that of a “transfer” – the expulsion of the Arabs who continued to reside in Israel – a term that some found grating already then. In the June 1950 meeting, Sharett took issue with the allegation, voiced by Ben-Gurion and his supporters, that the Arabs in Israel were a “fifth column.” That was a simplistic assumption, Sharett said, “which needs to be examined.” As he saw it, the fate of the relations between the two peoples depended overwhelmingly on the Jews. “Will we continue to fan the flames?” Sharett asked, or try to douse them? Even though a high-school education was not yet mandatory under law (and the state was not obligated to offer one), a large number of the Jewish youth in the country attended high school, and Sharett thought that the state should establish high schools for the Arabs as well. Israel needs “to guarantee them their cultural minimum,” he added.
For political reasons, the segregationists tended to ignore the difference between the Arabs living in Israel and those who were left on the other side of the border following the war, many of whom made attempts to “infiltrate” and return to their homes. Sharett took the opposite view: “A distinction must be made between vigorous action against Arab infiltration” and “discrimination against Arabs within the country.”

David Ben-Gurion. Fritz Cohen / GPO
Ranking figures such as Sharett and Lavon, who was defense minister in 1954-55, viewed positively a further exodus of Arabs from the country, but only “by peaceful means.” Sharett vehemently objected to the position taken by Dayan, who not only wanted to bring about a situation in which there would be fewer Arabs in Israel, but sought to achieve this through active expulsion. In Sharett’s view, “We must not strive to do this by a wholesale policy of persecution and discrimination.” Sharett spoke of “distinctly unnecessary forms of cruelty, which are tantamount to an indescribable desecration of God’s name.”
Dayan, notwithstanding the fact that he was serving in the army at the time – as head of Southern Command – participated in Mapai’s political meetings and helped set public policy. He was one of the leaders of the aggressive stance against the country’s Arabs and was against a proposal that they should serve in the army (an idea that came up but was shelved). He opposed granting the Arabs “permanent-citizenship certificates,” opposed compensating those who had been dispossessed of their land, and in fact opposed every constructive action that could contribute to bridge-building between the peoples. “Let’s say that we help them live in the situation they are in today” and no more, he proposed.
Dayan’s approach remained consistent over the years, and conflicted with the view taken by Sharett and the stream in Mapai that he represented. Speaking in the same June 1950 meeting, Dayan asserted, “I want to say that in my opinion, the policy of this party should be geared to see this public, of 170,000 Arabs, as though their fate has not yet been sealed. I hope that in the years to come there will perhaps be another possibility to implement a transfer of these Arabs from the Land of Israel, and as long as a possibility of this sort is feasible, we should not do anything that conflicts with this.”
Dayan also objected to Sharett’s proposals to improve the level of education among the country’s Arabs. “It is not in our interest to do that,” he said. “This is not the only question on which the time for a final solution has not yet arrived.”
Zalman Aran, a future education minister, objected to the military government that had been imposed on Israel’s Arabs at the time of statehood and remained in effect until 1966. Under its terms, Arabs had to be equipped with permits both to work and to travel outside their hometowns, which were also under curfew at night. “As long as we keep them in ghettos,” Aran said, no constructive activity will help. Lavon, too, urged the dismantlement of the military government. In 1955, a few months after resigning as defense minister, he savaged the concept at a meeting in Beit Berl. “The State of Israel cannot solve the question of the Arabs who are in the country by Nazi means,” he stated, adding, “Nazism is Nazism, even if carried out by Jews.”
Even earlier, Lavon was a sharp critic of the line taken by Dayan and other advocates of transfer. At a meeting of another Mapai leadership forum, on May 21, 1949, he said acidly, “It’s well known that we socialists are the best in the world even when we rob Arabs.” A few months later, on January 1, 1950, in another meeting, he warned, “It is impossible to take action among the Arabs when the policy is one of transfer. It is impossible to work among them if the policy is to oppress Arabs – that prevents concrete action. What is being carried out is a dramatic and brutal suppression of the Arabs in Israel... Transfer is not on the cards. If there is not a war, they will not go. Two-hundred thousand Arabs will be citizens in terms of voting... As the state party, we must set for ourselves a constructive policy in the Arab realm.”
Back in December 1948, during the discussions on granting the right to vote for the Constituent Assembly – Israel’s first parliamentary institution, which was elected in January 1949, and a month later became the “Israel Knesset” – Ben-Gurion agreed to grant the right to vote to the Arabs who had been in the country when a census was taken, a month earlier. About 37,000 Arabs were registered in the census. The decision to enfranchise them apparently stemmed from party-political considerations. The thinking was that most of them would vote for Mapai.
This assessment was voiced in the discussions on the Citizenship Law in early 1951, when Ben-Gurion expressed the most assertive opinion. He refused to grant the right to vote to the Arabs who were living in the country lawfully (as Sharett demanded) but who had been elsewhere during the census (because they had fled or had been expelled in the wake of the war); or to those Arabs who resided in the “Triangle” (an area of Arab towns and villages on the Sharon plain), which was annexed to Israel only in April 1949, under the armistice agreement with Jordan. “Is there no country in the world that has two types of citizens in elections [meaning voting and non-voting],” Ben-Gurion asked rhetorically in a meeting of Mapai MKs on February 20, 1951.

Moshe Dayan. Fritz Cohen / GPO
In the view of Sharett, who submitted a conflicting draft resolution, it would not be possible to defend “this situation in regard to ourselves and in regard to these Arabs, and in regard to the Arabs in Israel as a whole and in terms of world public opinion. Accordingly, I suggest granting them the right to vote... Discriminate only against the Arabs who entered Israel without permission.”
Sharett maintained that Ben-Gurion had not given consideration to the root of the problem. “Terrible things” were being done against Arabs in the country, he warned. “Until a Jew is hanged for murdering an Arab for no reason, in cold blood, the Jews will not understand that Arabs are not dogs but human beings.” Sharett’s view carried the day in the vote, and the Arabs in the Triangle voted in the elections.
In the July 9, 1950, meeting, MK David Hacohen disputed the argument that discrimination against the Arabs and the institution of the military government were essential for the country’s security. Assailing the Absentees’ Property Law – a series of measures that allowed the state to expropriate land and homes abandoned by Palestinians who were displaced during the war, even if they subsequently returned to the country – he said, “I don’t know whether it was clear to us all, when we voted, how grave it is.” He noted that, “According to the law, when an Arab dies, his property does not go to his wife but to the Custodian of Absentees’ Property It is inconceivable for us to declare equality of all citizens and at the same time have a law like this on the books.”
Apparently, no one took issue with the next comparison Hacohen drew: “These laws that we are coming up with in regard to Israel’s Arab residents cannot even be likened to the laws that were promulgated against the Jews in the Middle Ages, when they were deprived of all rights. After all, this is a total contrast between our declarations and our deeds.”
A similar approach was voiced during the same meeting by Zalman Aran, who viewed Mapai’s handling of the Arabs as a “process of despair” that must be rejected instead of finding excuses for it.
“Morally, if we are a movement that does not lie, and we do not want to lie, we are here living a total lie,” he said. “All the books and articles that have been written, and the speeches made internally and for external consumption, are groundless when it comes to implementation. I am not talking about the attitude of individuals in the country toward the Arabs. I am talking about a [policy] line. I reject this line, which has emerged within society and has a thousand-and-one manifestations. I do not accept all the excuses that have been put forward.”
Taking issue with Dayan’s approach, Aran compared the situation of the Arabs in Israel with the situation of Jews in other countries. “On the basis of what we are doing here to the Arabs, there is no justification for demanding a different attitude toward Jewish minorities in other countries I would be contemptuous of Arabs who would want to form ties with us on the basis of this policy. We would be lying in the [Socialist] Internationale, we are lying to ourselves and we are lying to the nations of the world.”
Dayan – still an officer in uniform, it must be remembered – objected to the opinions voiced by Hacohen and Aran, and saw no reason to draw a distinction between the Arab public in Israel and Arabs in enemy countries. “I am far more pessimistic about the prospect of viewing these Arabs as loyal,” he countered.

Moshe Sharett. Frank Scherschel
Flawed democracy
During the same period of a decade-plus when Ben-Gurion was premier, a political battle raged in Mapai over the continued existence of the military government. Ben-Gurion persistently defended the military government, which he saw as a “deterrent force” against the Arabs in Israel. In a meeting of the Mapai Secretariat on January 1, 1962, he railed against the “dominant naivete” of those, such as Sharett and Aran, who do not understand the Arabs, and warned of the possible consequences: “There are people living under the illusion that we are like all the nations, that the Arabs are loyal to Israel and that what happened in Algeria cannot happen here.”
He added, “We view them like donkeys. They don’t care. They accept it with love...” To loosen the reins on the Arabs would be a great danger, he added: “You and your ilk” – those who support the abolition of the military government or making it less stringent – “will be responsible for the perdition of Israel.” A decade earlier, on January 15, 1951, Shmuel Dayan, Moshe Dayan’s father, a Mapai leader and longtime Knesset member, had voiced similar sentiments in a meeting of Mapai MKs. The Arabs, he said, “could be good citizens, but it’s clear that at the moment they become an obstacle, they will constitute a terrible danger.”
A decade later, Aran offered an opposite assessment of the situation. Speaking at a meeting of the Mapai Secretariat in January 1962, he maintained that it was the military government that “is exacerbating the situation.” He also rejected the Algeria analogy. On the contrary, he thought, the existence of the military government would not delay an Arab uprising but would only spur it. He reiterated his critique of the early 1950s a decade later. He was against a situation in which the Arabs are “second-class” citizens who lack rights like the Jews, and he was critical of both himself and his colleagues: “We accepted this thing, we became accustomed to it... We took it in stride... It’s hard to swallow... No Arab in the State of Israel is able, needs to, is capable of – whatever you give him economically, educationally – accepting that he is a second-class citizen in this country. I think that the world does not know the true situation. If it did, it would not let us keep going on this way.”
Already then, Finance Minister Levi Eshkol, under whose term as prime minister the military government would be abolished, foresaw the dire consequences: “It would not surprise me if something new suddenly emerges, that people will not want to rent a stable – or a room – to an Arab in some locale, which is the [logical] continuation of this situation. Will we be able to bear that?”
One person who was not impressed by such arguments was the deputy defense minister, Shimon Peres. In a Mapai Secretariat meeting on January 5, 1962, he maintained that in practice, the military government “is not a strain on the Arabs.” The military government, he added, was [effectively] created by the Arabs, “who endanger Israel and as long as that danger exists, we must meet it with understanding.” In contrast, Isser Harel, head of the Shin Bet security service (1948-1952) and the Mossad (1952-1963), stated in 1966, days after resigning as Eshkol’s adviser for intelligence and security, that “the military government is not a security necessity, and therefore there is no need for its existence. The army should not be dealing with the Arab citizens. That is a flaw in terms of our democracy” (quoted in the daily Maariv, July 10, 1966). That had been the view of the security hawks, including Yigal Allon, since the early 1950s.
Over the years, it was claimed that the military government had served as a tool in Mapai’s hands for reinforcing its rule, both by giving out jobs and by distributing benefits, and also by intervening in election campaigns through the creation of Arab factions within existing parties that were convenient for the ruling party (and suppressing opponents on the other side). This is not the venue to discuss that allegation – for which evidence exists – but it’s worth noting one of the motifs of the hard-hand policy, which preserved the segregation between Arabs and Jews, as expressed candidly by Ben-Gurion in the meeting of the Mapai Secretariat on January 5, 1962: “The moment that the difference between Jews and Arabs is eliminated, and they are at the same level If on that day there does not exist a regime in a world where there are no more wars, I do not have the shadow of a doubt that Israel will be eradicated and no trace will remain of the Jewish people.”

Adam Raz
Haaretz Contributor

En Israël, les réseaux sociaux sous extrêmement haute surveillance
▻https://www.marianne.net/monde/en-israel-les-reseaux-sociaux-sous-extremement-haute-surveillance

Au nom de la lutte contre le « cyber-terrorisme », la Knesset veut conférer aux tribunaux administratifs le droit d’obliger les réseaux sociaux à effacer tel ou tel message. Un projet de loi va être bientôt présenté dans un pays où les comptes Facebook et Twitter sont déjà sous très haute surveillance, ce qui entraîne de nombreuses arrestations. Alors que le débat sur la lutte contre les « fake news » s’installe en France, Israël, pour sa part, mène une guerre de l’ombre sur le front des réseaux sociaux (...)

#Google #Facebook #GoogleSearch #Twitter #anti-terrorisme #SocialNetwork #web (...)

##surveillance

Settlement Report : January 4, 2018 - Foundation for Middle East Peace

▻https://fmep.org/resource/settlement-report-january-4-2018

J’avais oublié l’existence de ce rapport régulier de la fmep sur les colonies. C’est très bien fait, bon résumé qui rappelle les événements dont on ne parle pas nécessairement dans la presse. A consulter.

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.831072.1514187832!/image/3130540279.jpg_gen/derivatives/size_1496xAuto/3130540279.jpg

Welcome to FMEP’s Weekly Settlement Report, covering everything you need to know about Israeli settlement activity this week.

January 4, 2018

Likud Votes for Unilateral Annexation of West Bank Settlements
Knesset Set to Discuss Application of New Laws to the Settlements
Knesset Passes Jerusalem Law Designed to Block Peace Agreement
Israel Builds New Unauthorized Outpost to Temporarily House Amona Outpost Evacuees
Israeli High Court Issues Stop-Work Order on Illegal Outpost, But Agrees to its Eventual Legalization
Israel Complicit in Establishing 14 New Outposts Since 2011
The JNF is Working with a Settler Group to Evict Palestinians in East Jerusalem
Israeli Government Approves EU Trade Agreement that Excludes Settlements

#colonisation #israël #palestine #occupation #démolition

#Israël et Trump continuent de mettre la pression sur les Palestiniens
▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/050118/israel-et-trump-continuent-de-mettre-la-pression-sur-les-palestiniens

Profitant de la reconnaissance de Jérusalem comme capitale d’Israël par les États-Unis, la droite israélienne pousse son avantage, alors que Washington menace de couper son aide financière aux Palestiniens.

#International #Autorité_palestinienne #Benjamin_Netanyahou #Colonies #Donald_Trump #Knesset #Mahmoud_Abbas #Palestine

Briefing With Acting Assistant Secretary David M. Satterfield
Special Briefing David M. Satterfield,Acting Assistant Secretary, Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs, Press Briefing Room, Washington, DC,
December 7, 2017
▻http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2017/12/276349.htm

http://www.state.gov/images/2014/dos-seal-256x256.png

(...) QUESTION: My name is Said Arikat. I just want to follow up on East Jerusalem because it is really – it’s not clear at all. Not in my mind. So what happens to the Palestinian population of East Jerusalem? Do they now become automatically Israeli citizens, would have full rights, and so on? What happens to 300,000 Palestinians?

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Said, the President’s proclamation yesterday, his decision, have no impact on those issues. He is recognizing a practical reality. Jerusalem is the capital of Israel. And all of the other aspects – boundaries of sovereignty – we’re not taking a position. It’s for the sides to resolve.

QUESTION: So if you’ll just bear with me for a second. So why not say West Jerusalem? I mean, the Russians have done that. It did not cause any problem and so on. Or why don’t you say that this part, East Jerusalem, as been negotiated as you yourself have been involved for so many years, this portion is designated to become the capital of the Palestinian state?

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Said, the President’s decision speaks for itself. There are many words that are in his statement, in his remarks; there are words that aren’t. We recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel. He didn’t go beyond that, and I’m not going to go beyond that.

QUESTION: Can you – can you share with us —

MS NAUERT: We need to move on (inaudible).

QUESTION: — just one last thing?

MS NAUERT: Said, (inaudible).

QUESTION: Could you share with us, sir —

MS NAUERT: Said, (inaudible).

QUESTION: — one national security interest of the United States that this recognition has served? Can you identify one national security interest of the United States that this recognition has identified?

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: The President is committed to advancing a peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. In his view upon reflection, this step, he believes, assists in that process. Full stop.

MS NAUERT: Nick, go right ahead.

QUESTION: Can you explain that further, because —

QUESTION: Can I just ask, Mr. —

QUESTION: — that’s exactly what we’re trying to – or what I’m trying to figure out is —

MS NAUERT: Nick, go right ahead. Hold on, Dave.

QUESTION: Can you – just to Matt’s point, can you explain why a decision-making process needs to be made about maps and things like that, and consular services? I mean, you said yourself, the President declared Jerusalem the capital of Israel. Why does there need to be a further decision-making process on those other issues?

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: It’s a very simple answer, and it’s wholly technical. What phrasing do you place upon government-issued maps? There are different word choices that can be used. To be clear, there will be a decision made. When the decision is made, you’ll have it and you’ll have the maps.

QUESTION: And can you just explain why now? Why did he make this decision now?

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: Because December 4th was the trigger date for the next waiver required under the Jerusalem Act of ’95. That was the proximate timing issue. Full stop.

QUESTION: So there was no strategic – this – it was solely based on —

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: The President had to make a decision. He did. But he’s —

QUESTION: Why didn’t he do it on the 4th?

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: That’s the legal requirement of the act. Every six months —

QUESTION: No, but he —

QUESTION: But he didn’t.

QUESTION: But he didn’t.

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: — a waiver has to be issued.

QUESTION: He didn’t do it on the 4th. He did it on the 6th.

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: We believe – and I believe the White House has spoken to this – technically, we were in compliance. We’ll leave it to the Hill on whether 48 hours constituted a problem or not. But the 4th was the trigger date.

QUESTION: Wow. I wish my editors had your sense of deadline. (Laughter.)

QUESTION: Michelle with CNN. Thanks. Can you just say how – how this furthers the peace process?

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: The President believes taking this issue – that is the fact of U.S. recognition, acknowledgement of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel – an issue that’s been pending out there since ’95, since the act was initially passed – was appropriate to make and that it helps in the process to no longer have that issue, which is the U.S. acknowledgement of the simple fact that Jerusalem is the location of the supreme court, the Knesset, the president and the prime minister’s residences, that that is a useful clearing of an issue that has been part of, grown as part of, this process for many decades.

QUESTION: So it’s setting us up for what? To – if you’re saying that that gets that out of the way and it’s been a reality, how does that set the stage?

AMBASSADOR SATTERFIELD: The President and his peace team have been engaged, as you all know, for many months now in discussions with the two parties, with regional states, with other key actors, to try to advance a peace. This is not an easy process; it’s a difficult one. But he believes this step assists in that process. I am not going to elaborate on that further.
(...)
QUESTION: Et une autre question. Considérez-vous les parties de Jérusalem-Est occupées par Israël en 1967 comme des territoires occupés?

AMBASSADEUR SATTERFIELD: La décision du Président est de reconnaître Jérusalem comme la capitale de l’Etat d’Israël. Le Président a déclaré que cette décision ne touche pas aux questions de frontières, de souveraineté ou de frontières géographiques. Arrêt complet.

QUESTION: Donc, il est encore territoire occupé, à votre avis?

AMBASSADEUR SATTERFIELD: J’ai déclaré ce que la décision du président fait et ne fait pas.(...)

What’s in A Name? Exploring the Role of Law and Bureaucracy in The Everyday Construction of Holot, an ’Open Detention Facility’ for ’Infiltrators’ in Israel | Oxford Law Faculty
▻https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/research-subject-groups/centre-criminology/centreborder-criminologies/blog/2017/11/whats-name

https://www.law.ox.ac.uk/sites/files/oxlaw/maayan_books_outside_holot.jpg

Approximately 38,000 asylum seekers from Sudan and Eritrea currently reside in Israel. All entered Israel since 2005 through non-authorized border points, and most claim to have fled persecution in Sudan or human rights abuses in Eritrea. In 2013, Israel established Holot ‘open detention facility’ in the middle of the Negev desert, approved by the Knesset (Israel’s Parliament). To date, approximately 10,000 people have been detained in Holot. Detainees must report to Holot for a year-long detention, under the 5th amendment to the Prevention of Infiltration Law. Detainees must be present for head counts in the mornings, evenings and sleep in the facility, while during the day, they are allowed outside the center’s confines. Israel’s Prison Authority runs the facility. Breach of disciplinary guidelines is punishable by sanctions, including removal to a closed facility, Saharonim, located across the road.

During interviews, three legal terms were frequently used by state employees or legal professionals to describe Holot as a non-punitive arrangement. I expand briefly on each term to trace how a punitive effect takes place, despite the claimed neutrality and administrative nature of these legal terms.

Administrative detention, which includes the arrest and detention of persons without an indictment, trial or access to judicial review, has existed since the state’s founding in 1948. The early days of Israeli statehood were characterised by the mass movement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians who had been displaced during the 1947-8 war. Those who crossed the border without the new State’s authorisation were titled ‘infiltrators.’ Increased organized smuggling by militant groups called Fedayeen in the early years of the state, led to the legislation of the Prevention of Infiltration Law in 1954. Since 2012 this law was expanded, contested in court, and amended to regulate asylum seekers who entered the country through non-authorised border points, and enable their detention.

State employees and legislators insist that administrative detention is not punitive, and therefore does not need to comply with individual criminal law procedures and protections. However, similarities between administrative detention and penal incarceration came under scrutiny in Israel’s Supreme Court and in legislative committees. As explained in the final verdict on detention in Holot by Justice Vogelman: “Long periods of detention cross the border between a ‘disciplinary’ sanction which is largely carried out for the sake of deterrence and a ‘penal’ sanction which is punitive in its essence” (author’s translation). This observation was picked up by scholars, activists and lawyers questioning the legislative aim of detention, its covert and overt goals.

The blurred or intersecting border between criminal law and immigration law has been vastly explored under the term crimmigration. Juliet Stumpf has written about the ways in which ‘the process is the punishment in crimmigration law’, drawing on Malcolm Feeley’s 1979 work. Stumpf identifies two criteria to ascertain when processes of crimmigration law may become punitive: when those subjected to the process experience it as punitive, and when the process is enacted as a sanction by the state.

Des dizaines de milliers de manifestants à Tel-Aviv contre la « corruption du gouvernement » RTBF - Belga - 3 Décembre 2017 - 8h12
▻https://www.rtbf.be/info/monde/detail_des-dizaines-de-milliers-de-manifestants-a-tel-aviv-contre-la-corruption

Plusieurs dizaines de milliers de manifestants se sont rassemblées samedi soir dans le centre de Tel-Aviv pour protester contre ce qu’ils dénoncent comme la corruption du gouvernement. Les manifestants, qui avaient intitulé leur rassemblement « la marche de la honte », ont envahi le large boulevard Rothschild, dans un des quartiers huppés de Tel-Aviv, pour dénoncer la corruption du gouvernement et les lenteurs présumées des enquêtes en cours contre le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu.

https://ds1.static.rtbf.be/article/image/1248x702/2/6/2/90513027_88125928_640554_4942936.jpg

Le rassemblement était organisé par les responsables des manifestations de protestation hebdomadaires devant la résidence du procureur général d’Israël, Avishai Mandelblit, contre la lenteur présumée de ces enquêtes. Le Premier ministre israélien est visé par deux enquêtes, l’une sur des cadeaux qu’il aurait indûment reçus de riches personnalités, et l’autre sur un accord secret qu’il aurait tenté de conclure avec un quotidien populaire pour une couverture favorable.

Le nom de son avocat personnel et d’un ancien chef de bureau apparaissent par ailleurs dans une affaire de corruption présumée liée à l’achat de trois sous-marins allemands. « Honte », « Bibi rentre chez toi », ont scandé les manifestants, qui ont également pris pour cible le procureur général Avishai Mandelblit. Le leader de l’opposition travailliste, Isaac Herzog, a montré son soutien aux manifestants via sa page Facebook : « la frustration (...) vient du sentiment d’injustice, de la révulsion face à la corruption, et à l’objection morale à une loi faite sur mesure pour une personne », a-t-il écrit.

Le Parlement israélien va examiner lundi en deuxième et troisième lectures un projet de loi qui est vu par les détracteurs de Benjamin Netanyahu comme un moyen de le tirer d’affaire dans les enquêtes dont il fait l’objet.

#Israel #manifestation #corruption #Tel-Aviv #humour ( pour le choix du boulevard #Rothschild ) #benjamin-netanyahu marche de la #honte #avishai-mandelblit #sous-marins #allemagne

Legislation protecting Netanyahu brings Israeli parliament to a new low - Israel News - Haaretz.com
▻https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.825338

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.825340.1511814839!/image/1625603313.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_1200x630/1625603313.jpg

If the stink wafting from the Knesset on Monday had been from a biological hazard rather than a public one, hundreds of thousands of the capital’s residents would have had to close their windows and shutters. In one of the most shameful moments ever in the legislature, the governing coalition undertook to assist senior suspect Benjamin Netanyahu by banning the approaching publication of the police recommendations in the extravagant-gifts case and the quid pro quo newspaper coverage case.

#Israel #démocratie (vibrante-unique-villa) #farce

Face aux menaces du gouvernement israélien, le réseau Barghouthi décide de reporter | Le Club de Mediapart
7 nov. 2017 Par Patrice Leclerc Blog : L’opinion d’un maire d’une ville populaire
▻https://blogs.mediapart.fr/patriceleclerc/blog/171117/face-aux-menaces-du-gouvernement-israelien-le-reseau-barghouthi-deci

https://static.mediapart.fr/files/2017/11/17/marwan2.jpg

Suite à cette rencontre, nous avons décidé de reporter à une date ultérieure notre délégation. En effet, la montée des pressions par le gouvernement israélien sur nos partenaires israéliens et palestiniens, sa stratégie de la tension, ne permet pas d’assurer la sécurité de la délégation. Nous n’aurions pas pu assurer notre programme de rencontres avec des parlementaires israéliens à la Knesset et l’autorité palestinienne à la Muqata, ainsi qu’avec des ONG.

L’attitude du gouvernement israélien marque un durcissement liberticide important, un mépris de la République française et de ses élu-e-s. Pour la première fois, le gouvernement israélien a publié une liste d’élu-e-s et parlementaires français-e-s interdit-e-s d’entrée de territoire.

Le réseau Barghouthi condamne cette décision de l’extrême droite israélienne au pouvoir. Cette attitude a cependant permis de médiatiser la cause que nous défendons pour la libération de tous les prisonniers politiques palestiniens, notamment Marwan Barghouthi et notre compatriote Salah Hamouri.(...)

Israeli prime minister after Six-Day War: ’We’ll deprive Gaza of water, and the Arabs will leave’
Declassified minutes of inner cabinet sessions in the months after the Six-Day War show government ministers who were at a loss to deal with its implications
Ofer Aderet Nov 16, 2017 8:24 AM
▻https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.823075

https://www.haaretz.com/polopoly_fs/1.801039.1499877865!/image/1779340329.jpg_gen/derivatives/headline_1200x630/1779340329.jpg

“Empty” the Gaza Strip, “thin out” the Galilee, rewrite textbooks and censor political cartoons in Haaretz: These are among the proposals discussed by cabinet ministers after the Six-Day War that will be available to the public in a major release of declassified government documents by the Israel State Archives on Thursday.

The material being posted on the state archives’ website includes hundreds of pages of minutes from meetings of the inner cabinet between August and December 1967. From reading them, it is clear that in the several months that followed the June 1967 war, members of the security cabinet were perplexed, confused and sometimes helpless in the face of the new challenges to the state. Israel conquered East Jerusalem, the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, the Golan Heights and the Sinai Peninsula in under a week. It was not even remotely prepared for this scenario, and had to hit the ground running.

In December 1967, six months after the war, Prime Minister Levi Eshkol speculated over how to deal with the hundreds of thousands of Arabs newly under the state’s control. “At some point we will have to decide. There are 600,000 Arabs in these territories now. What will be the status of these 600,000 Arabs?” he asked.

Eshkol evidently felt no urgency in regard to the matter. “I suggest that we don’t come to a vote or a decision today; there’s time to deal with this joy, or better put, there’s time to deal with this trouble,” he said. “But for the record I’m prepared to say this: There’s no reason for the government to determine its position on the future of the West Bank right now. We’ve been through three wars in 20 years; we can go another 20 years without a decision.”

He got backing from Transportation Minister Moshe Carmel, who said, “If we sit 20 years, the world will get used to our being in those territories, in any case no less than they got used to [Jordan’s King] Hussein being there. We have more rights; we are more identified with these territories than he is.”

But an examination of other documents shows that Eshkol was well aware that Israel couldn’t ignore the problems posed by the occupation for long, particularly its rule over hundreds of thousands of Arabs. In one discussion he compared the Israel to “a giraffe’s neck,” because it was so narrow. “The strip of this country is like a miserable, threatening neck for us, literally stretched out for slaughter,” he said. “I cannot imagine it — how we will organize life in this country when we have 1.4 million Arabs and we are 2.4 million, with 400,000 Arabs already in the country?”

One of the “solutions” to the new situation, according to Eshkol, was to encourage Arabs to emigrate. In this context Eshkol told the ministers that he was “working on the establishment of a unit or office that will engage in encouraging Arab emigration.” He added, “We should deal with this issue quietly, calmly and covertly, and we should work on finding a way from them to emigrate to other countries and not just over the Jordan [River].”

Eshkol expressed the hope that, “precisely because of the suffocation and imprisonment there, maybe the Arabs will move from the Gaza Strip,” adding that there were ways to remove those who remained. “Perhaps if we don’t give them enough water they won’t have a choice, because the orchards will yellow and wither,” he said in this context. Another “solution,” he said, could be another war. “Perhaps we can expect another war and then this problem will be solved. But that’s a type of ‘luxury,’ an unexpected solution.”

“We are interested in emptying out Gaza first,” Eshkol summed up. To which Labor Minister Yigal Allon suggested “thinning the Galilee of Arabs,” while Religious Affairs Minister Zerah Warhaftig said, “We must increase [the number of] Jews and take all possible measures to reduce the number of Arabs.”

One idea raised by Defense Minister Moshe Dayan was to give the Arabs of the West Bank and Gaza permits to work abroad, in the hope that some would prefer to stay there. “By allowing these Arabs to seek and find work in foreign countries, there’s a greater chance that they’ll want to migrate to those countries later,” Dayan said.

As for Gaza, Dayan was pretty optimistic. According to his calculations, of the 400,000 people who then lived in Gaza, only 100,000 would remain. The rest, whom he termed refugees, “must be removed from there under any arrangement that’s made.” Among his ideas was to resettle the Gazans in eastern Jordan.

Nor was Dayan particularly worried about Israeli military rule in the West Bank. “No soldier will have any interest in interfering in the lives of the inhabitants. I have no interest in the army sitting precisely in Nablus. It can sit on a hill outside Nablus.”

Justice Minister Yaakov Shimshon Shapira took the opposite position, calling for Israel to withdraw from the territories and warning that Israel couldn’t exist as a Jewish state if it retained them. “We won’t be able to maintain the army, when there will such a large percentage of residents who [won’t serve] in the army. There won’t be a[n army] command without Arabs and certainly there won’t be a government or a Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee without Arabs when they’re 40 percent,” he said.

Finance Minister Pinhas Sapir said that remaining in the territories would be “a disaster for the State of Israel,” which would become an Arab state. He warned that there was nothing to stop the West Bank from suddenly declaring independence, and that it was only a matter of time.

Education Minister Zalman Aranne felt similarly. “I do not for one minute accept the idea that the world outside will look at the fact that we’re taking everything for ourselves and will say, ‘Bon Appetit,’” he said. “After all in another year or half a year the world will wake up; there’s a world out there and it will ask questions.”

Aranne objected to the argument, put forth by Dayan and others, that Israel must retain the territories for security reasons. “Suddenly, after all these victories, there’s no survival without these territories? Without all those things we never dreamed of before the six days of this war, like Jerusalem?” he asked.

Arab rights didn’t seem to be much of a concern for Aranne; he was more worried about the future of the Jewish state.

“The way I know the Jewish people in Israel and the Diaspora, after all the heroism, miracles and wonders, a Jewish state in which there are 40 percent Arabs, is not a Jewish state. It is a fifth column that will destroy the Jewish state. It will be the kiss of death after a generation or a generation and a half,” he warned. “I see the two million Jews before me differently when there will be 1.3 million Arabs — 1.3 million Arabs, with their high birth rate and their permanent pent-up hatred. ... We can overcome 60,000 Arabs, but not 600,000 and not a million,” Aranne concluded.

Within the inconclusive discussions of the future of the territories are the seeds of talk of establishing settlements, outposts and army bases. The minutes show that even half a year after the war, the government had not formulated an orderly policy on this issue, but discussed various ideas even as it chose to delay making these tough decisions as well.

Thus it was, for example, in the case of Hebron, when there were requests to renew the Jewish presence in the city. Eshkol showed the ministers a letter he received in November 1967 from associates of the dean of Hebron Yeshiva — which relocated to Jerusalem after the 1929 Hebron Massacre — asking the government to “make appropriate arrangements to let dozens of the yeshiva’s students, teachers and supervisors return and set up a branch in Hebron.”

Allon was all for it. “There is a benefit in finding the first nucleus of people willing to settle there. The desire of these yeshiva students is a great thing. There aren’t always candidates willing to go to such a difficult place.” No decision on the matter was made at that time, however.

There were also cabinet members who spoke of preparing for the next war. The minutes included pessimistic reports about the number of warplanes left to Israel after the war. It was argued that the Arab states had already acquired new planes and had more than Israel.

Ezer Weizman, deputy chief of staff at the time, detailed the difficulty of trying to extract promises of military aid from Washington. “Is there no hope of getting planes from any other country?” asked Interior Minister Haim-Moshe Shapira. Weizman replied, “We checked in Sweden. Sweden isn’t prepared to talk about this. England has nothing to buy. I don’t think Australia will give us anything.”

Belgium was mentioned as a possibility: It was claimed that Brussels had offered to help Jerusalem circumvent the French embargo by procuring French planes and even German tanks for Israel.

Dayan warned, “The impression, as of now, is that not only are the Arabs not rushing to make peace, they are slowly starting to think again about war.” It was six years before the Yom Kippur War.

Netanyahou revient à la charge pour inscrire « Etat juif » dans la loi
▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/131117/netanyahou-revient-la-charge-pour-inscrire-etat-juif-dans-la-loi

Benjamin Netanyahou lors de l’ouverture de la session hivernale de la Knesset, le 23 octobre 2017. © Reuters Destiné à inscrire dans la loi fondamentale la reconnaissance d’Israël en tant qu’État juif, ce texte voulu par le Premier ministre et discuté au Parlement est considéré par ses détracteurs comme une atteinte à la démocratie et aux droits des minorités.

#International #Benjamin_Netanyahou #Israël

#Netanyahou envisage d’annexer cinq blocs de colonies à #Jérusalem
▻https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/281017/netanyahou-envisage-d-annexer-cinq-blocs-de-colonies-jerusalem

Dans la colonie de Beitar Illit, en février 2017 © Reuters Le gouvernement israélien décidera dimanche si un projet de loi sur l’annexion à Jérusalem d’une trentaine de colonies où vivent près de 125 000 Israéliens peut être soumise à la Knesset. Si la loi est adoptée, la solution à deux États, déjà agonisante, sera morte.

#International #Colonisation #Israël #Palestine

Israel secretly using U.S. law firm to fight BDS activists in Europe, North America -

Israeli government hired lawyers to counter BDS; nature of work is kept a secret, and defined as ’extremely sensitive’

Chaim Levinson and Barak Ravid Oct 25, 2017
read more: ▻https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.818938

The government has been secretly using a U.S. law firm to help it fight the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement in Europe, North America and elsewhere, according to documents obtained by Haaretz.
The government has hired the Chicago-based firm Sidley Austin to prepare legal opinions and handle court proceedings. The Justice Ministry and the Strategic Affairs Ministry have declined to reveal the nature of these activities, for which the state has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars over the past two years. The ministries call the activities “diplomatically extremely sensitive.”
About two years ago, the security cabinet made the Strategic Affairs Ministry responsible for coordinating the fight against “delegitimization” and earmarked major resources for these efforts. The Strategic Affairs Ministry transfers some of the money to the Foreign Ministry in various places worldwide and some money has been given to Jewish organizations overseas for public relations work on campuses and elsewhere.
But the Strategic Affairs Ministry is also operating on these matters in ways that have not been made public. In the past, the ministry’s director general, Sima Vaknin, told the Knesset that it is involved in “gathering intelligence and attacking.”
Over the past year, attorney Eitay Mack has asked government ministries in the name of human rights activists to receive information on all the contracts signed with bodies overseas involving anti-BDS activities. The Foreign Ministry said it had no such contractual obligations, but the Justice Ministry provided censored documents.
Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
Email* Sign up

The documents show that the special-tasks department in the State Prosecutor’s Office, which is responsible for dealing with matters of national security – in cooperation with the Strategic Affairs Ministry – called for bids in early 2016 from international law firms.
This was for “preparing documents and legal opinions, handling legal proceedings (suits or representation) to the extent needed battling the BDS phenomenon in particular concerning calls and initiatives to impose boycotts and sanctions against Israeli companies and businesses, as well as against foreign companies that have business operations in Israel.”
The detailed description of the services was censored from the document. The Justice Ministry said the details were redacted because their publication could lead to “damage to the country’s foreign relations and damage to the ability of these bodies to provide the requested service.”
In February 2016, the Justice Ministry contracted with a law firm, but in May the ministry asked to switch firms after the original outfit was found to have a possible conflict of interest.
A contract with a different law firm for 290,000 euros was then approved, with the option of increasing the amount by another 200,000 euros for additional work. Another expansion of the original contract was later approved, this time for another 437,000 euros, making a total contract value of 925,000 euros, or 4 million shekels ($1.1 million).
The tenders committee decided not to publicize the contracts in the government’s Manof information system because of the sensitivity of the matter to Israel’s foreign relations.
The secrecy surrounding the contracts raises the suspicion that the work involves not only writing legal opinions but also preparing lawsuits against BDS supporters, as Israel does not want to be revealed as supporting such actions, to avoid the perception that it is interfering in the internal affairs of other countries.
The money is disbursed as budgetary allocations for international contracts. The Justice Ministry’s report on such contracts shows that the government contracted with Sidley Austin in March 2016 for consulting services, without issuing a tender for competitive bidding. In the first half of 2017, the firm received $219,000 in payments. No other law firms were paid under the same budgetary section.
Sidley Austin did not reply to questions on whether it was working for the Israeli government.
Sidley Austin is one of the largest American law firms and employs 1,900 lawyers. It is the firm where a young lawyer, Michelle Robinson, met a summer intern named Barack Obama. The firm has four offices in Europe: in Brussels, London, Munich and Geneva.

Chaim Levinson
Haaretz Correspondent

Des députés israéliens quittent un sommet parlementaire après une diatribe contre Israël
The Times of Israël | Stuart Winer et Raphael Ahren 19 octobre 2017
▻http://fr.timesofisrael.com/des-deputes-israeliens-quittent-un-sommet-parlementaire-apres-une-
▻https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=rW9yY0d-QeI

Une délégation de députés israéliens a quitté mercredi un rassemblement international de parlementaires après avoir été confronté à des remarques acerbes, des chahuts et des résolutions critiquant Jérusalem lors de sa réunion annuelle.

La députée du Likud, Sharen Haskel, le député Yesh Atid, Haim Jelin, les députés de l’Union sioniste Yossi Yonah et Nachman Shai et la secrétaire de la Knesset, Yardena Meller-Horowitz, se sont plaints de mauvais traitements lorsqu’ils ont essayé d’intervenir pendant l’assemblée de l’Union interparlementaire à Saint-Pétersbourg.

Bien que les élus aient affirmé être partis pour protester car l’instance avait voté une série de résolutions qui comprenaient des appels lancés à Israël afin de libérer deux Palestiniens condamnés pour avoir participé à des attentats terroristes meurtriers, leur départ a eu lieu peu de temps après qu’ils ont été pris à partie par un député.

Une vidéo diffusée sur les réseaux sociaux révèle que le président de l’Assemblée nationale koweïtienne, Marzouq Al-Ghanim, a crié aux députés israéliens qu’ils étaient des « tueurs d’enfants » et de « sortir de la salle » après que l’un d’entre eux se soit adressé aux députés présents au sommet. Sur la vidéo, on peut voir la délégation en train de quitter la pièce.

≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈≈

Pour Israël, la menace de l’Iran augure d’une nouvelle ère avec les Arabes
L’Etat hébreu est potentiellement un allié de taille pour les pays arabes notamment en raison de ses relations étroites avec les Etats-Unis
AFP 20 octobre 2017,
▻http://fr.timesofisrael.com/pour-israel-la-menace-de-liran-augure-dune-nouvelle-ere-avec-les-a

La communauté d’intérêts, que le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu invoque pour laisser entrevoir une aube diplomatique nouvelle, a été illustrée récemment quand Israël et l’Arabie saoudite se sont retrouvés ensemble parmi les rares à féliciter le président américain Donald Trump après son discours sur l’Iran.

Israël considère ce pays comme un de ses principaux ennemis, tandis que Ryad voit en Téhéran son rival régional.

« Il se trouve que, sur ce point, Israël et les principaux pays arabes voient les choses du même oeil », a dit M. Netanyahu cette semaine, et « quand Israël et les principaux pays arabes voient les choses du même oeil, soyez attentifs, c’est que quelque chose d’important est en train de se produire ».

Il y quelques semaines, M. Netanyahu avait assuré que les relations avec le monde arabe n’avaient « jamais été aussi bonnes ».

Qualifié de « criminel de guerre », l’Israélien Amir Peretz boycotté au Maroc
9 octobre 2017 - 11h50 - Maroc
▻https://www.bladi.net/amir-peretz-criminel-guerre,49703.html

https://www.bladi.net/IMG/arton49703.jpg

La présence de l’ancien ministre de la Défense israélien Amir Peretz au Maroc suscite indignation et colère. Pour certains, c’est un « criminel de guerre » qui ne devrait pas pouvoir rentrer au royaume.

Ce dernier se trouvait au Maroc ce weekend pour participer à une conférence organisée par la chambre des Conseillers en partenariat avec l’Association Parlementaire Méditerranéenne (APM) et l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce, mais celle-ci a été boycottée par de nombreux membres du parti de la Justice et du développement (PJD) et certains membres des syndicats de l’UMT et de la CDT pour protester contre sa venue et celle d’une délégation de la Knesset.

Pour eux, il s’agit d’une « normalisation » déguisée des relations avec Israel alors que d’autres évoquent une « dangereuse infiltration » de cet ancien ministre d’origine marocaine. Né en 1952 à Bejaâd, il avait émigré vers Israel avant de devenir ministre de la Défense en 2006.

La même année, trois avocats marocains avaient déposé une plainte contre lui , pour "crimes de guerre" au Liban, assurant que leur plainte est ""recevable"" étant donné que le responsable israélien est d’origine marocaine.

La présence de personnalités israéliennes au Maroc fait toujours polémique. Le mois dernier, BDS (Boycott, désinvestissement et sanctions) s’était insurgé contre la présence de l’artiste Noam Vazana au Fesival Tanjazz de Tanger.

Israel cancels ban on racist answers in civics exam

Matriculation exam will ask students to give their opinion on a controversial public issue and defend it — a question that will be mandatory this year, for the first time
Or Kashti Oct 11, 2017 11:00 AM

▻https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.816742

The Education Ministry has canceled a prohibition against giving racist answers on the civics matriculation exam.

The original rule, published shortly before the school year began, stated that “racist or inflammatory statements” would result in the response receiving no credit. But a few days ago, the head of the ministry’s pedagogical secretariat, Moshe Weinstock, rescinded this rule, on the grounds, according to the ministry, that “we need to inculcate the change gradually.”

Weinstock was appointed by Education Minister Naftali Bennett. Members of the ministry’s civics advisory committee who are affiliated with Bennett’s Habayit Hayehudi party supported his reversal.

Riki Tesler of the Coalition for Democracy in Education accused the ministry of “failing to set limits and educate for values; in practice, it’s educating for the opposite: It’s allowing racism and undermining the principle of equality.” This, she charged, is “another stage in a broader process which shows the ministry isn’t interested in educating for democracy.”

Six months ago, the coalition, which represents dozens of civic organizations, sought to meet with the ministry’s new director general, Shmuel Abuav, to discuss bolsteringeducation for coexistence and democracy. But despite repeated requests, Tesler said, Abuav never responded. A source familiar with the issue said Abuav’s response was coordinated with Bennett.

The racism rule was announced in a circular sent to all civics teachers in late August by the ministry’s civics supervisor, Yael Guron. The circular discussed a question on the civics exam that asks students to give their opinion on a controversial public issue and defend it — a question that will be mandatory this year, for the first time. Sample topics included fluoridating water, allowing different population groups to live in separate neighborhoods, the size of the government’s child allowances and reserving slots for women on Knesset tickets. (...)

#racisme_d'état