person:azmi bishara

  • Apartheid under the cover of a Jewish state -

    | Haaretz.com
    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-apartheid-under-the-cover-of-a-jewish-state-1.7402080

    The smell of shampoo wafted through the bathroom. Steam covered the mirror and blurred the image of the person standing in front of it. The guy who had just gotten out of the shower hadn’t even dried himself off before reaching for his phone. Before getting into the shower he had angrily debated right-winger Bezalel Smotrich about whether Israel should draft ultra-Orthodox Jews into the army.

    “Bezalel, damn it, look at the facts,” he had tweeted before getting into the shower. It’s no coincidence they wrote in the newspaper that Yair Lapid, the No. 2 in Benny Gantz’s Kahol Lavan, is the only person in the party with a killer instinct.

    >> Read more: The next big bang of Israeli politics | Analysis ■ Democracy for every Israeli and Palestinian. It’s not hard | Opinion

    The shower didn’t take his mind off the argument. “And another thing, Smotrich. Israel has to be a state of all its citizens.”

    Boom. Smotrich quickly replied: “Thank you, Yair, for finally putting it out there.” And Abba Eban’s protégé, new Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz, hastened to join in: “A seriously outrageous anti-Semitic remark … the slogan of the enemy.” Help.

    Now the candidate for prime minister had to dry himself off and do some damage control. “Somebody really misunderstood what he was reading,” Lapid tweeted. “I’ve been totally against a state of all its citizens all my life. Israel is a Jewish and democratic state, and that’s how it will remain. What I wrote referred to LGBT rights.”

    What he followed up with was characteristic Lapid: “The following are two facts about a state of all its citizens: 1. I’m against it. 2. I’m not going to tweet from the shower anymore before drying off.” So now the reader understands the message correctly: Israel has to be, yet doesn’t have to be, a state of all its citizens.

    Drying off or not, this is something that actually took place on Twitter the other day, and it might have been funny. But it’s not. Once the steam lifted the picture was clear: racism in all its ugliness. Lapid meant Jewish members of the LGBT community, to whom the state also belongs. But it’s not a state of all its citizens. That’s what happens when you live a lie: You get confused in the shower.

    If Israel is a democracy, it’s a state of all its citizens. There is no democracy that isn’t a state of all its citizens. From America to Germany, all are states of all their citizens. If they weren’t, to whom would they belong? Only to their privileged citizens. There’s no such thing as a democracy that belongs only to the privileged of one nationality.

    The state belongs to everyone. A regime that segregates and discriminates is called apartheid. There is no other name. The fact that Azmi Bishara, who fled Israel amid suspicions he supplied information to Hezbollah, was the first to draw attention to this obvious truth doesn’t detract from it one iota. A state of all its citizens isn’t “the slogan of the enemy,” as the new foreign minister put it. It’s the heart and soul of democracy.

    But the center-left feels exactly the same as the right and doesn’t recognize this simple truth. From their standpoint Israel is a democracy for its Jews and a guesthouse for its Arabs. Let’s thank Lapid’s towel for returning things to their proper place. One moment he was in favor of a state of all its citizens and the next he was against. He has been against it all his life, like almost all Israeli democrats.

    How can a democrat be against a state of all its citizens? Only in Israel. In no other democracy is there room for such a question. The state belongs to everyone. Equally.

    The right’s annexation plan will soon raise questions about the citizenship of millions of Palestinians. But in present-day Israel, right, left and center are talking apartheid – under the cover of the slogan a Jewish state. That’s the real slogan of the enemy, the enemy of democracy. This combination doesn’t work. It’s an oxymoron. Either Israel is a state of all its citizens and it’s a democracy, or it’s a Jewish state and it’s apartheid.

    It’s good that the steam from Lapid’s shower lifted quickly and he could return to the truth he shares with Smotrich. Zionism’s eternal truth. It’s an undemocratic truth. Smotrich at least admits to it, Lapid tries to hide behind a towel.

  • Réactions à l’assimilation #antisémitisme / #antisionisme

    L’antisémitisme ne passera pas !
    BDS France, le 18 février 2019
    https://www.bdsfrance.org/lantisemitisme-ne-passera-pas

    Du bon usage de l’antisémitisme en politique
    Michel Tubiana, Médiapart, le 18 février 2019
    https://blogs.mediapart.fr/michel-tubiana/blog/180219/du-bon-usage-de-l-antisemitisme-en-politique

    L’antisémitisme n’est pas le racisme le plus virulent mais le plus manipulé
    Michèle Sibony, Etat d’Exception, le 18 février 2019
    https://seenthis.net/messages/761116

    Antisionisme, antisémitisme et idéologie coloniale
    Alain Gresh, Orient XXI, le 19 février 2019
    https://seenthis.net/messages/761437

    Macron says France will define anti-Zionism as anti-Semitism
    Middle East Eye, le 20 février 2019
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/macron-says-france-will-define-anti-zionism-anti-semitism

    Intégrer l’antisionisme à l’antisémitisme, l’annonce polémique d’Emmanuel Macron
    Middle East Eye, le 21 février 2019
    https://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/news/integrer-lantisionisme-lantisemitisme-lannonce-polemique-demmanuel-ma

    Aux ordres d’Israël, Macron a choisi de diviser la France
    AFPS, le 21 février 2019
    http://www.france-palestine.org/Aux-ordres-d-Israel-Macron-a-choisi-de-diviser-la-France

    Redéfinir l’antisémitisme pour taire les défenseurs des droits des Palestiniens
    Plateforme des ONG françaises pour la Palestine, le 21 février 2019
    https://plateforme-palestine.org/Redefinir-l-antisemitisme-pour-taire-les-defenseurs-des-droits

    Priviously on seenthis sur ce sujet :

    https://seenthis.net/messages/337856
    https://seenthis.net/messages/580647
    https://seenthis.net/messages/603396
    https://seenthis.net/messages/604402
    https://seenthis.net/messages/606801
    https://seenthis.net/messages/690067
    https://seenthis.net/messages/700966
    https://seenthis.net/messages/716567
    https://seenthis.net/messages/718335
    https://seenthis.net/messages/760906
    https://seenthis.net/messages/761775

    #Palestine #censure #Liberté_d'expression #BDS #criminalisation_des_militants

  • What defines Terrorism? The Identity of the Victim or that of the Victimizer?
    Azmi Bishara

    https://www.dohainstitute.org/en/ResearchAndStudies/Pages/What_Defines-Terrorism-the-Identity-of-the-Victim-or-that-of-the-Vict

    No great analytical effort is required to illustrate the widespread use of the terms “terrorism” and “counterterrorism” in today’s world. These terms dominate every major news broadcast and international summit. Various states around the world have prioritized combatting terrorism to the point where they use “counterterrorism” as a determining factor of their international relations, at least ostensibly. Today, “terrorism” is bandied about as a catch-all to prop up demagoguery and advance political platforms in electoral democracies while it is used to justify government suppression by non-democratic regimes.

    The outcome of this unexamined, passive acceptance of these terms as they appear in literature is their instrumentalist use to smear political opponents. Like a talisman, “terrorism” is an accusation that can be employed to silence political opposition. In one fell swoop, the accused is designated as a target for the “war on terror”, a conflict with no defined enemy, aims or objectives typical in war. Countries and political movements across the globe have given up on trying to explain these difficulties. Instead, they capitulate and try to demonstrate to the leader of the “war on terror”— generally, the United States—that they are meeting its standards. For its part, the United States has been able to transform the mantra of “counterterrorism”, with all the implicit premises and the myths surrounding it into its own doctrine.

    Perhaps the most problematic aspects of the “War on Terror” are connected to its ambiguity: unbounded by space and time, and with an ill-defined enemy, the “War on Terror” is an oxymoron. Even the supposed ringleaders of this effort do not take it seriously, and never actually hold the “War on Terror” accountable to the norms which define the rules of engagement in a conventional war. Some of the norms that have been jettisoned include the avoidance of indiscriminate shelling of cities and the appropriate treatment of prisoners of war. Instead, the captives taken in the war on terror are vilified more than any other criminal. Yet, the problematic aspects of this war go further. In fact, the war on terror is inherently counterproductive and self-sustaining: for every terrorist it eliminates, a new crop of terrorists is sown.

  • L’interdiction du Mouvement islamique est un avertissement pour nous tous | par Ilan Pappe |
    25 novembre 2015
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/opinions/l-interdiction-du-mouvement-islamique-est-un-avertissement-pour-nous-

    (...) Réduire au silence les citoyens palestiniens d’Israël a toujours semblé être un processus compliqué aux yeux des sionistes libéraux lorsqu’ils étaient au pouvoir. Ils étaient conscients de la nécessité de paraître démocratiques et du fait que maintenir à tout prix la nature raciste de l’État nécessitait un subterfuge douloureux, qui a finalement échoué lamentablement.

    Aux environs de l’année 2000, les autorités israéliennes ont abandonné ce subterfuge prudent et l’ont remplacé par un effort pour finaliser les derniers détails de cette vision nouvelle et claire. Cela a commencé par des lois légitimant la création d’espaces ruraux et urbains purement juifs. Cela s’est poursuivi avec l’interdiction du souvenir historique de la Nakba ou de toute identification avec le mouvement de résistance dans les territoires occupés.

    Les mesures les plus dures ont tout d’abord été prises contre des individus. L’éviction du leader et intellectuel Azmi Bishara, l’arrestation d’activistes et les tirs contre des citoyens lors des manifestations de 2000 ont été les faits précurseurs.

    Nous sommes maintenant dans la phase suivante, celle de l’interdiction de partis politiques. Le premier a été le Mouvement islamique ; suivront le Tajammu’, le Parti national et plusieurs ONG qui disposent d’une présence de premier plan dans la société. Le timing est dicté par la progression de la nouvelle « guerre contre le terrorisme ». L’avis de Netanyahou est que la guerre contre l’État islamique légitime tout acte qu’Israël souhaite entreprendre. C’est une sorte de brèche permettant d’accélérer un projet qui était destiné à prendre un peu plus de temps.

    La tragédie réside dans le fait que l’unique raison pour laquelle les autres parties du plan ne se développent pas encore sous nos yeux est que Netanyahou est le seul rempart contre la volonté de son gouvernement d’aller beaucoup plus loin. (...)

  • Former MK Azmi Bishara wants to return to Israel, but fears unfair trial - Israel - Israel News | Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/israel/.premium-1.655655

    Bishara, who fled to Qatar and is suspected of treason and espionage, gave a rare interview to local media.

    Azmi Bishara, the former Knesset member who fled to Qatar amid allegations that he had passed information to Hezbollah in Lebanon, says he will not be returning to Israel in the near future because he will not get a fair trial here and he still feels persecuted by the defense establishment.

    Speaking yesterday on Radio Ashams, which broadcasts from Nazareth, Bishara said that if it depended on him personally he would return to his homeland, friends and family but he does not see this happening in the foreseeable future. The program was aired to mark the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the political party Balad, which Bishara founded, and which is today part of the Joint Arab List.

    Lately, Bishara has rarely spoken to the media in Israel, including the Arab media, instead conveying his messages in articles or interviews to Al-Jazeera. Until the Arab Spring, Bishara was considered a senior commentator in the Arab world. Residing in Qatar, he toed the Qatari line in support of the Syrian rebels, which brought him into conflict with pro-Syrian-regime elements.

    Bishara explained that his opposition to the regime stems from his support for the democratic camp and the Syrian people, who initially came out, as was the case in Tunisia and Egypt, with a call for democracy and freedom. “I never supported radical and Salafi groups who view anyone different from them as infidels. But I explained even at the beginning of the events in Syria that the conduct of the regime and opening fire on people calling non-violently for change and freedom would lead to the arming and strengthening of those radical groups,” he said. According to the former MK, the situation in Syria today requires a political solution that would include the basis of the regime, to maintain the state institutions, “otherwise Syria will break apart like Somalia,” he said.

    Bishara said it is clear that Israel’s new coalition is not heading for peace and that the continued closure of Gaza will lead to another conflict, with the Palestinian Authority keeping a lid on protest in the West Bank.

    Bishara, who founded and runs a research institute in Doha, Qatar, is considered close to that country’s rulers, which also allows him to send funding to social affairs and sports associations, including the Nazareth soccer team Ahi Nazrat, which recently received a grant of half a million dollars from the Qataris.

  • al-Araby al-Jadeed English - Iran’s nuclear deal 1: Arabs mustn’t become collateral damage
    By: Azmi Bishara Date of publication: 18 April, 2015 -

    http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/politics/2015/4/18/the-iranian-nuclear-deal-arabs-mustnt-become-collateral-damage

    Analysis: The deal will mean Iran is a year away from developing nuclear weapons for as long as it lasts and offer relief from punishing sanctions.
    This article is the first of a three-part series based on a lecture presented at the opening of a roundtable conference entitled “The Iranian Nuclear Agreement and Regional and International Implications” organised by the Arab Centre for Research and Policy Studies.

    The deal and its historical context

    We may consider the framework agreement concluded between Iran and the major powers (the five plus one - P5+1) to be the culmination of a process of historical regional and international transformation.

    Internationally, the US has come to see clearly the limits of its empire, in terms of its ability to deploy forces and fight simultaneous wars in different parts of the world, and in terms of the effectiveness of military force in implementing what was designated, under the neo-conservatives, as the global defence of freedom - or what was designated in Iraq as “nation-building” in what was mockery of history soon followed by the irony of history.

    Regionally, a lot of blood has been spilled along the Nile, the Tigris, and the Euphrates.
    Since the time of Baker-Hamilton’s Iraq Study group (ISG) and the appointment of Robert Gates as the US Defence Secretary during George W. Bush’s second term in the White House, and throughout Barack Obama’s second term, we have witnessed an internal reassessment carried out by the US political and security establishment.

    This is in parallel with calls by liberal currents warning against the consequences of military interventions and their implications for the American people, currents that Barack Obama himself represents at this stage. The US administration is currently taking steps to end the siege on Myanmar (Burma) and Cuba, in addition the negotiations that could lead to lifting the sanctions on Iran. Clearly, there is a particular US approach in this regard then.

    This transformation coincided with the rise of Russia from the ruins of the Soviet Union, as a strong nation-state promoting itself as the protector of the global nation-state-based order. Russia abandoned all ideologies and values in its foreign policy, regardless of the nature of these values, and could now only promote pure interest-based pragmatism disguised as the non-ideology championing the nation-state and sovereignty.

    This manifested itself as an alliance of dictatorships against foreign intervention and against internal elements of instability, be these the result of democratic or terrorist movements. Both were seen as being the same thing for the Russian “neo-Westphalianists” and their principle of “subjects follow the sovereignty of their dictators” along the lines of the adage of “subjects follow the religion of their kings”.

  • Arab list may seek place on sensitive Knesset security committee -
    ‘It is impossible to expose classified material to MKs who praise Azmi Bishara,’ says Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee chairman.
    By Jonathan Lis | Feb. 11, 2015 | Haaretz
    http://www.haaretz.com/news/national/.premium-1.641941

    Quite a number of Knesset members have been worrying in recent days over the possibility that the Joint List of the combined Arab parties (Balad, United Arab List and Ta’al) and the Arab-Jewish party Hadash will become the fourth largest party in the next Knesset after the election – and demand appropriate representation on the prestigious Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. Until now, the Arab parties have never had representatives on the committee, and instead they were “compensated” with representation on other major Knesset committees.

    In addition to the ideological opposition of Arab MKs to sitting on the committee, the heads of the committee always claimed for years that there was a security risk in allowing members of Arab parties to attend confidential hearings and other meetings. “These are parties that cooperate regularly with the enemy, in coordination with them. They oppose cooperation with the Israel Defense Forces and view those who enlist in the IDF as traitors,” said current committee chairman MK Yariv Levin (Likud) Tuesday.

    “In security terms, it’s unacceptable to expose classified intelligence material to Knesset members on whose party website appears the picture and praise for [former Balad MK] Azmi Bishara, who acted on behalf of Hezbollah,” said Levin.

    It is impossible to ban the membership of Arab MKs on the committee, but “in a situation in which a Knesset member from the Arab parties sat on the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, I would hold only meetings of this forum without a security classification and open all the meetings to the press,” said Levin.

    Former MK Talab al-Sana (United Arab List – Ta’al) served for a few weeks as a regular member of the committee before the permanent composition of the committee was set after the elections. But then-committee chairman and now Strategic and Intelligence Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz canceled a series of scheduled committee meetings on defense matters after he found he could not prevent al-Sana from participating. Al-Sana at first demanded to visit the alleged nuclear reactor outside Dimona and to receive intelligence updates, but after a meeting with Steinitz – as well as criticism he received from fellow members of Arab parties in the Knesset – he decided to limit his committee activities only to meetings on foreign affairs and diplomatic issues. After a short time he resigned from the committee.

    The Joint List has not yet held a discussion on the matter and a number of its most influential leaders feel the chances they will ask for a seat on the committee are slim. The chairman of Balad, MK Jamal Zahalka, said Tuesday that he will object to placing a representative of the Joint List on the Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee. “We do not want to be partners in making decisions for the defense establishment in Israel,” he said.

  • Al Araby, le nouveau quotidien lancé par Azmi Bishara et financé par ses gentils amis qataris à lui, utilise le récent article d’Orient XXI dénonçant le « Qatar bashing » pour démontrer que nos gentils amis qataris à nous sont victimes d’un épouvantable complot israélo-émirati.

    موقع فرنسي يكشف تفاصيل جديدة للحملة
    http://www.alaraby.co.uk/file/get/9aaafb98-ba00-4156-844b-faa355cfd3fe.pdf

    كــــشــــف مــــوقــــع «أوريـــــــــــــون 21» الـــفـــرنـــســـي المستقل، عـن حملة عالمية لتشويه سمعة قــطــر تــقــف وراءهـــــــا الإمــــــــارات وإســـرائـــيـــل. وفي تحقيق بعنوان «خفايا تقريع قطر... حـمـلـة مـــد ّبـــرة مـــن ِقــبـــل الإمـــــــارات الـعـربـيـة وإسرائيل»، كشف الكاتب الجزائري المقيم في فرنسا، أكرم بلقايد، وهو أحد المشرفين على الموقع المستقل إلى جانب شخصيات أكاديمية وإعامية مرموقة في فرنسا، أنه هو «شخصيا تم الاتصال به لهذا الغرض مـن ِقبل عـدة وسـطـاء». وأشــار الكاتب الى أن الــحــمــلــة لــيــســت جــــديــــدة، وبــــــدأت عـلـى الأقــل الـعـام المـاضـي فـي الـولايـات المتحدة، ويــمــكــن لمـسـهـا بـــوضـــوح هـــنـــاك، كــمــا أنـهـا ظاهرة يمكن رصدها بوضوح في فرنسا ونــــــــــوا ٍح أخـــــــرى مــــن الــــعــــالــــم، وخـــصـــوصـــا فـــي أوروبـــــــا. ولـــفـــت إلــــى أن «مــــن يــمــّولــون (الإمــــــــارات وإســـرائـــيـــل) هــــذه الـحـمـلـة ضد قطر، يستغ ّلون ص ّناع أو قادة الرأي، سواء عن وعي أو غير وعي لتنفيذ أجندتهم في شيطنة الدوحة».

    (Signalé par Pierre Abi Saab.)

    Sur l’article d’Orient XXI :
    http://seenthis.net/messages/301911

    • Malheureusement, on a déjà eu plusieurs fois cette discussion : je soutiens qu’il n’est pas possible de simplement revendiquer l’objectivité du traitement, alors que le choix du sujet est dès le début un choix politique (ou idéologique). Le thème du « Qatar bashing », comme je l’ai déjà signalé il y a six mois, a émergé à un moment précis, de façon très claire et dans des cercles cohérents (dont certains membres sont publiés dans Orient XXI).

      Mon intuition est que ce thème est né au moment où la politique soutenue par ces cercles en Syrie a commencé à être très (trop) visiblement catastrophique. La dénonciation du « Qatar bashing » apparaît à ce moment comme dernière ligne de défense des gens qui ont soutenu la militarisation et nié, euphémisé puis justifié l’extrémisme des « rebelles ».

      Choisir d’écrire aujourd’hui en reprenant exactement le terme de « Qatar bashing », c’est donc s’inscrire évidemment là-dedans. Le choix du mot trahit le choix idéologique initial, sinon il suffirait d’utiliser n’importe quelle autre formule. Pourquoi celle-ci, qui est à la fois caricaturale et grotesque ? Même s’il n’y avait eu la très visible campagne de 2013 sur ce thème, le terme est déjà ridicule : on va aussi faire des articles sur le « Israël-bashing » ?

      Donc : si je vois arriver un article sur le « Israël-bashing », je n’irais pas perdre mon temps plus avant. Si par ailleurs ça sort dans un média dont je sais qu’une partie des auteurs a un but politique dans l’utilisation de ce terme, je ne vois pas pourquoi j’irais une fois de plus critiquer le fond. Et si cet article sur le « Israël-bashing », avec ses qualités journalistiques et non idéologiques, était utilisé par un média financé par Israël pour prouver qu’Israël est la victime d’une campagne de dénigrement, je doute que plus grand monde en attende réellement une analyse sur le fond.

  • تميم يتمرد على « جزيرة الأب » بقناة « بشارة ستايل »
    http://www.elaph.com/Web/News/2014/5/901551.html

    تميم يتمرد على “جزيرة الأب” بقناة “بشارة ستايل”

    http://162.13.30.35/Web/elaphweb/Resources/images/Politics/2014/5/week1/tyryrtyrtyiu.jpg

    Là encore, rumeurs persistantes à propos de la création d’une chaîne télé d’info dont la direction serait confiée à Azmi Bishara (évoqué dans le billet CPA d’hier). Dans cet article, du très saoudien Elaph qui lache l’info histoire d’embêter Doha, la création est présentée, histoire d’envenimer la situation, comme une attaque du fils contre le père (l’ex-émir), et l’éventuelle nouvelle station comme une rivale sérieuse d’Al-Jazeera.

    A suivre...

    #clichés_arabes (parce que les deux types sur la photo, l’émir et Bishara, tiennent une bonne partie du sort de la région entre leurs mains).

  • Revolution against Revolution, the Street against the People, and Counter-Revolution
    Azmi Bishara

    http://english.dohainstitute.org/release/bee7a8eb-9abd-4578-a610-6206198e823f

    Egypt’s January 25 protests did not start as a revolution but as an angry popular movement against the practices of the Egyptian security agencies. These are the same masses that are claimed to have joined a new revolution: the June 30 Revolution. The protests of January 25, 2011 broke out in response to the momentum created by the Tunisian revolution, but they were also the result of an accumulation of political experience that was contextual to Egypt. The “Egyptian Mohammed Bouazizi” was Khalid Saeed, a young activist who died under torture and whose murder was followed by a statement from the Police and the Interior Ministry-very similar to statements that we are seeing these days-claiming that Khalid Saeed died after having swallowed a cigarette containing drugs. Subsequently, National Police Day was chosen as the date for Egypt’s “Day of Rage”.

    The January 25 demonstrations were a protest against the practices of the Egyptian police and the security services, practices that at the very least resulted in beatings, torture, and arbitrary arrests, and at times ended in murder. Typically, these would be justified and covered-up through a web of lies, for murder and lies are concomitant to the culture of the security agencies that serve despotic regimes. What we are witnessing today are the very same security agencies at work, defiantly unchanged in their behavior, policies, practices, and ploys. This has been proven by these agencies’ behaviors on several occasions throughout the transitional period, crowned by the horrific massacre that accompanied the breaking-up of the Rabia al-Adawiya sit-in on August 14, and the practices that followed the massacre.[1]