• At anti-Semitism panel, Linda Sarsour asks, ’I am the biggest problem of the Jewish community?’

    The prominent feminist activist and controversial anti-Zionist speaks out against anti-Semitism and the importance of ’organizing at the intersections of oppression’

    Asher Schechter Nov 29, 2017
    read more: https://www.haaretz.com/us-news/.premium-1.825582

    Minutes before Palestinian-American activist Linda Sarsour took the stage at The New School’s Alvin Johnson Auditorium as part of a panel on anti-Semitism, one of the organizers went up to deliver a number of key instructions to audience members in case protesters would try to shut down the event.
    But the fears that the event would be disrupted by right-wing protesters turned out to be for naught. Despite two weeks of a media frenzy, a petition signed by more than 21,000 people and loads of criticism from both left and right, the panel concluded with only two very minor interruptions.
    skip - fb

    >> American Jews, lay off Linda Sarsour | Opinion
    skip - A video of the panel on anti-Semitism at The New School

    “Apparently I am the biggest problem of the Jewish community? I am the existential threat, Apparently? I am confused, literally, every day,” said Sarsour, addressing the controversy that preceded the event.
    Sarsour, a prominent advocate for Muslim Americans, criminal justice reform and civil rights, is the former executive director of the Arab American Association of New York and co-chaired last January’s National Women’s March. During the past year, particularly as her profile in progressive circles increased after the march, Sarsour has raised the ire of conservatives, Zionist activists and so-called alt-right figures who accuse her of supporting terrorists and promoting anti-Semitism – largely due to her support of the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and her criticism of Israel.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    >> Extremists on left and right empowering BDS on U.S. college campuses | Opinion
    “I am deeply honored and humbled to be here on this stage with people who have been some of the staunchest allies of the communities that I come from,” Sarsour said during the panel. “We cannot dismantle anti-Black racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, transphobia, every phobia and -ism without also dismantling anti-Semitism.”
    “Intersectionality is not about black and white people organizing together or Jews and Muslims organizing together. It is all of us organizing at the intersections of oppression and seeing oppression [as] connected. Anti-Semitism is one branch on a larger tree of racism,” she added. “You can’t just address one branch, you need to address all branches together so we can get to the root of the problem.”

    In her remarks, Sarsour spoke at length about her criticism of Zionism. “Just in case it’s not clear, I am unapologetically Palestinian-American and will always be unapologetically Palestinian-American. I am also unapologetically Muslim-American. And guess what? I am also a very staunch supporter of the BDS movement. What other way am I supposed to be, as a Palestinian-American who’s a daughter of immigrants who lived under military occupation and still has relatives in Palestine that live under military occupation? I should be expected to have the views that I hold,” she said.
    Regardless of their feelings toward Israel, said Sarsour, Jews and non-Jews alike “must commit to dismantling anti-Semitism. The existential threat resides in the White House, and if what you’re reading all day long in the Jewish media is that Linda Sarsour and Minister [Louis] Farrakhan are the existential threats to the Jewish community, something really bad is going to happen and we are going to miss the mark on it.”
    skip - A tweet from Jonathan Greenblatt

    Apart from Sarsour, the panel also featured Rebecca Vilkomerson, the executive director of Jewish Voices for Peace, Leo Ferguson of Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and Lina Morales, a member of Jews of Color and Mizrahi/Sephardi Caucus of JVP. The event was moderated by journalist and author Amy Goodman, the host of the alternative news program “Democracy Now!”
    The panel, organized by JVP, Haymarket Books, Jacobin magazine, Jews for Racial and Economic Justice and The New School’s Creative Publishing and Critical Journalism program, was preceded by great controversy over Sarsour’s participation. Jonathan Greenblatt, the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, tweeted that “Having Linda Sarsour & head of JVP leading a panel on antisemitism is like Oscar Meyer leading a panel on vegetarianism.” Writing for Tablet Magazine, Phyllis Chesler, a New School alumni, wished that she could give back her diploma.
    “Antisemitism is harmful and real. But when antisemitism is redefined as criticism of Israel, critics of Israeli policy become accused and targeted more than the growing far-right,” read the event’s description.
    The other panelists were similarly critical of Israel and of the Jewish American community that rebukes activists like Sarsour yet embraces far-right figures like Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka. “I am angry at the profound hypocrisy of the institutional Jewish community, which has taught us that loving Israel does not mean that you love Jews,” said Vilkomerson. “Because I care about Jews, I am anti-Zionist,” said Morales. “Nothing can be more counterproductive or hurtful to Jews than to be intentionally confusing the issue of anti-Semitism by spreading false charges of anti-Semitism,” said Ferguson, in reference to the “smearing” of pro-Palestinian activists by Jewish-American organizations. Lobbing false accusations of anti-Semitism, he argued, “slowly erodes our ability to accurately assess threats.”
    Two hours before the debate was scheduled to begin, over 15 policemen and security guards and multiple police cars were already surrounding the venue where it was to be held. A small protest took place across the street, with some demonstrators holding signs and chanting against Sarsour and JVP.
    “This panel is spitting in the face of Jews – four anti-Semites talking about anti-Semitism,” Karen Lichtbraun, one of the demonstrators and head of the New York chapter of the Jewish Defense League told Haaretz. JVP, she charged, wanted to “drive a wedge between Jews” by inviting Sarsour. “[Sarsour] wants to bring Sharia law to America. She is brainwashing a lot of young Jews,” she claimed.
    “Nobody has a monopoly on talking about anti-Semitism,” Rabbi Alissa Wise, deputy director of Jewish Voice for Peace and one of the event’s organizers, told Haaretz. “As a rabbi and a Jew, I feel safer in the world knowing that there are more people, non-Jewish allies, Muslims, Christians, people of no faith, who are taking up the question of anti-Semitism seriously.”
    When asked about the commotion in the media that surrounded the event, Wise said: “There’s something particular about the role that Linda plays in the psyche of the American Jewish community. We’ve done these anti-Semitism events in Indianapolis, Chicago, the Bay Area, Philadelphia, and this is not the only one where a Muslim is speaking. Never before have we seen this kind of frenzy. It just seems like a witch hunt of sorts.”
    Tuesday’s event was not the first time a planned appearance by Sarsour caused controversy: Her invitation to deliver the commencement address at the City University of New York School of Public Health in June raised the ire of pro-Israel activists. The uproar included a protest rally against her speech outside CUNY’s main office building, headed by far-right provocateur Milo Yiannopoulos, who called Sarsour a “Sharia-loving, terrorist-embracing, Jew-hating, ticking time bomb of progressive horror.”
    “When I spoke at the CUNY graduate center back in June, something really disturbing happened,” said Sarsour during the panel. “I don’t care if people protest against me. What was confusing to me at that moment was, how is it that people that are Jewish are standing in a really against me with Milo Yiannopoulos, Richard Spencer, and Gavin McInnes? Why are they there with them? I hope the Jewish community stands up and says that’s wrong, that under no circumstance should Jewish people align with people like Milo or Pamela Geller or Richard Spencer or Gavin McInnes.”
    When asked about her previous statement that feminism is “incompatible with Zionism,” Sarsour said: “I am not as important as I am made out to be. I am not the one that actually gets to say who gets to be in the movement and who doesn’t. Let’s stop talking about the civil rights movement that happened 50 years ago because there is a civil rights movement happening right now. We live under fascism, and we need all hands on deck.”

    Asher Schechter
    Haaretz Columnist

    Send me email alerts

    https://seenthis.net/messages/648664 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • الخطوات الأولى لإيمانويل ماكرون في الشرق الأوسط | الأخبار

    Les premiers pas d’Emmanuel Macron au Proche-Orient
    par Alain Gresh, pour le quotidien Al-Akhbar, Liban


    الخطوات الأولى لإيمانويل ماكرون في الشرق الأوسط
    آلان غريش
    «إعادة فرنسا الى الميدان من دون انحيازات أيديولوجية في صلب عقيدة رئيس الجمهورية» بالنسبة إلى السياسة الدولية، حسب جان دومينيك مرشيه، محرر الرأي في صحيفة L›Opinion. كان الرئيس إيمانويل ماكرون قد استقبل للتوّ دونالد ترامب بمناسبة احتفالات 14 تموز، ومن ثم فلاديمير بوتين في قصر فرساي.

    من المبكر جداً تعريف المحاور الأساسية للسياسة الخارجية الفرنسية، وخصوصاً بعدما أوصل الانتصار الانتخابي المفاجئ لماكرون، في هذا المجال كما في مجالات أخرى، جيلاً جديداً من الكوادر الى مواقع القرار، باستثناء جان إيف لودريان الذي أصبح وزيراً للخارجية بعدما كان وزيراً للدفاع في عهد فرنسوا هولاند. من جهة أخرى، يعطي ماكرون الأولوية للإصلاحات الاقتصادية الداخلية التي ستسمح بإعطاء المزيد من الوزن لفرنسا وبالسعي بفعالية أكبر لإصلاح الاتحاد الأوروبي، وهي أيضاً من أولويات ماكرون الأوروبي المتحمس.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/647399 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • Has Kushner given Riyadh carte blanche? - Al-Monitor: the Pulse of the Middle East


    WASHINGTON — Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have found themselves at odds of late with US State Department diplomats and Defense Department leadership, taking provocative actions by blockading Qatar; summoning Lebanon’s Prime Minister Saad Hariri to Riyadh earlier this month, where he abruptly resigned; and blockading since Nov. 6 major Yemeni ports from desperately needed humanitarian aid shipments in retaliation for a Nov. 4 Houthi missile strike targeting Riyadh’s international airport.

    The State and Defense departments have urged Riyadh and Abu Dhabi to ease their pressure campaigns on Qatar and Lebanon and improve aid access in Yemen to avert catastrophic famine. But Saudi and Emirati officials have suggested to US diplomatic interlocutors that they feel they have at least tacit approval from the White House for their hard-line actions, in particular from President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and senior adviser, Jared Kushner, who Trump has tasked with leading his Middle East peace efforts.

    Kushner has reportedly established a close rapport with UAE Ambassador to the United States Yousef al-Otaiba, as well as good relations with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, with whom Kushner met in Riyadh in late October.

    But growing US bureaucratic dismay at perceived Saudi/Emirati overreach, as well as Kushner’s mounting legal exposure in the Russia investigations, has many veteran US diplomats, policymakers and lobbyists urging regional players to be cautious about basing their foreign policy on any perceived green light, real or not, from the Kushner faction at the White House. They warn the mixed messages could cause Gulf allies to miscalculate and take actions that harm US interests. And they worry US diplomacy has often seemed hesitant, muted and delayed in resolving recent emerging crises in the Middle East, in part because of the perceived divide between the State Department and the Department of Defense on one side and the White House on the other, making US mediation efforts less effective and arguably impeding US national security interests.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/647162 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • Israel: Apartheid under the law

    If a genuine opposition existed in Israel with a worthy leader, it would shout from every platform that the policy of theft and dispossession is destroying whatever chance remains of a two-state solution

    Zeev Sternhell Nov 23, 2017
    read more: https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/.premium-1.824732

    In the past, a story was famously told in Israel about a clash between Golda Meir and Justice Minister Haim Tzadok, who disagreed with her in a cabinet meeting. At the end of the meeting, she went over to him and told him she thought they were friends. Yes, he replied, but I’m also the justice minister of Israel.
    His words reflected the governmental culture of yore, a culture that current Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and her post-fascist party deem infantile. But the crude violence she propagates is much more dangerous than the primitive vulgarity of Likud’s Miri Regev, David Amsalem or Oren Hazan.
    This is all nothing new. What’s new is the way the attorney general is kowtowing to the will of the justice minister and her party. Shaked wanted Avichai Mendelblit from the beginning, apparently because she knew from what cloth the former cabinet secretary was cut regarding issues critical to the government – the occupation, the settlements and Palestinian rights.
    And now he’s supplying the goods. How is the heir to Haim Cohen, Aharon Barak and Yitzhak Zamir not embarrassed to revoke his professional opinion concerning the “illegal outposts” – as if the rest were legal – while brazenly sanctioning the minister’s request to steal Palestinian land, both private and public, for the “public need” of the settlers; i.e., to pave roads for Jews only? This is what the rule of law has come to in Israel.
    Based on the figures reported by Nahum Barnea in Yedioth Ahronoth last Friday, an extensive amount of territory is to be expropriated and, for the convenience of the occupiers, construction will be prohibited “only” on some of it. This isn’t the first intolerable act of an apartheid system that receives a legal seal of approval. High Court petitions against the move will surely be filed, but they may not be enough to bring this policy to an enduring halt. Settlement advocates dominate in the government and the army, so there’s no real way to stop it.
    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    So there is no recourse but to call on public opinion, the media and the universities to apply pressure. There is an urgent need for a broad campaign on American and European campuses, and in EU institutions, against this apartheid. The Israeli public is an equally important target, and in the absence of an active opposition party, the social justice organizations must reach this audience.

    If a genuine opposition existed in Israel with a worthy leader, it would be shouting from every possible platform that the policy of theft and dispossession is destroying whatever remains of the possibility of separating from the Palestinians via the establishment of a Palestinian state. Who will fight this government? Certainly not someone who thinks that groveling and ideological kowtowing to the right are the recipe for getting elected.
    It’s important to stress that there’s a big difference between appealing to groups that, for historical reasons, can’t identify with Labor, and signing on to the right’s crude nationalism. This nationalism is a violent and destructive European phenomenon that has nothing to do with the culture of North African Jewry, any kind of Jewish identity or the Jewish religion. To win the hearts of the people who live in the country’s outskirts, it’s not necessary to support the occupation and settlements, which does nothing to redress social injustice – just the opposite.
    Thus a party that wants to replace Likud in power must first convince people that it has an alternative national policy. This goal will not be achieved by making foolish statements about how peace can be reached with the Palestinians without evacuating a single settlement, or by being complicit in turning Judaism into a means of control and oppression of people who had the misfortune not to be born Jews.

    Zeev Sternhell
    Haaretz Contributor

    Send me email alerts

    https://seenthis.net/messages/647067 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • Le secret bien mal gardé d’Israël : les ventes d’armes à des régimes en guerre
    Yossi Melman | 20 novembre 2017

    De la Birmanie au Soudan du Sud, en passant plus récemment par les États arabes du Golfe, Israël a essayé de garder secrètes ses ventes d’armes à des régimes engagés dans des conflits brutaux

    Israël se targue d’être une société libre et démocratique qui fait partie du monde occidental. Eh bien, pas exactement. Du moins dans deux domaines importants.

    Le premier, et le plus important, est l’occupation de la Cisjordanie sous le joug de l’armée israélienne et la privation de droits civils et démocratiques fondamentaux infligée à ses habitants palestiniens.

    Le second domaine dans lequel le manque de transparence est évident et dans lequel le gouvernement a tenté d’étouffer des informations concerne les exportations militaires et sécuritaires. Ici aussi, le censeur est omniprésent et réprime toute information susceptible d’embarrasser le gouvernement et l’appareil sécuritaire dans ses ventes d’armes à destination de dictateurs, de régimes voyous, de violateurs des droits de l’homme et d’autres gouvernements douteux. (...)


    https://seenthis.net/messages/646879 via Loutre

  • [Ressources humaines] L’actualité actuEL RH : Interdiction du voile au travail : les juges français se conforment aux règles européennes

    A- A+

    Hier, la Cour de cassation a adopté le raisonnement de la Cour de Justice de l’Union européenne concernant le port du voile islamique. Le licenciement d’une salariée pour refus d’ôter son voile lors des rendez-vous en clientèle est discriminatoire si le règlement intérieur de l’entreprise ne prévoit pas de clause de neutralité proportionnée aux objectifs poursuivis.
    Licenciée pour faute en 2009, cette ingénieure d’étude avait refusé de retirer son voile islamique lorsqu’elle se rendait en clientèle. Huit ans après son licenciement pour faute, la Cour de cassation vient finalement de lui donner raison, en déclarant que son licenciement était sans cause réelle et sérieuse. Dans un arrêt rendu le 22 novembre 2017, la chambre sociale de la haute Cour applique scrupuleusement le raisonnement adopté le 14 mars 2017 par la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE). La CJUE avait alors répondu à la question préjudicielle posée par les juges français, en affirmant que la prise en compte du souhait de la clientèle de ne plus vouloir travailler avec une salariée voilée ne peut pas être considéré comme une « exigence essentielle et déterminante » justifiant une discrimination.

    Une clause intégrée au règlement intérieur
    La Cour de cassation souligne le fait que l’interdiction faite à la salariée de porter son foulard lorsqu’elle était en contact avec des clients ne résultait que d’un ordre oral, qui ne visait qu’un signe religieux déterminé. Ce faisant, l’entreprise a commis une discrimination, directement fondée sur les convictions religieuses de la salariée. Si une entreprise souhaite mettre en place une telle interdiction, la Cour exige qu’une clause de neutralité générale, « interdisant le port visible de tout signe politique, philosophique ou religieux sur le lieu de travail » figure dans le règlement intérieur de l’entreprise (ou dans une note de service adjointe au règlement intérieur).

    La référence des juges au nouvel article L. 1321-2-1 du code du travail est explicite. Introduit par la loi Travail de 2016, ce texte permet aux entreprises privées d’inscrire dans leur règlement intérieur des clauses qui restreignent la manifestation des convictions des salariés « si ces restrictions sont justifiées par l’exercice d’autres libertés et droits fondamentaux ou par les nécessités du bon fonctionnement de l’entreprise et si elles sont proportionnées au but recherché ». Même si cette règle ne pouvait être appliquée car les faits étaient antérieurs à l’entrée en vigueur de la loi, la Cour de cassation incite les entreprises à recourir à cette nouvelle possibilité. Et à se trouver ainsi en conformité avec le droit de l’Union européenne.

    Une exigence professionnelle essentielle et déterminante
    Cependant, toute clause de neutralité inscrite au règlement intérieur ne protège pas l’entreprise. Car une obligation en apparence neutre peut entraîner dans les faits, un désavantage particulier pour les personnes adhérant à des convictions. Dans ce cas, la restriction vestimentaire s’analyse en une discrimination indirecte. Cette dernière doit, pour être licite, répondre à une exigence professionnelle essentielle et déterminante constituée en raison de la nature de l’activité professionnelle ou des conditions de son exercice, comme l’impose la directive fixant le cadre européen en faveur de l’égalité de traitement (article 4, §1). L’objectif de la différence de traitement doit être légitime, et l’exigence proportionnée.

    Une caractéristique liée à la religion ne peut répondre à ces conditions que dans des cas très limités. Ainsi, dans le second arrêt rendu par la CJUE en mars 2017 (qui concernait une affaire belge) les juges européens ont considéré que la volonté de l’entreprise d’afficher une politique de neutralité politique, philosophique ou religieuse dans ses relations avec ses clients était un élément objectif pouvant fonder une obligation de neutralité vestimentaire. En revanche, la volonté de l’employeur de tenir compte des souhaits particuliers d’un client est une considération subjective. Dès lors qu’elle vise indifféremment toute manifestation de convictions, une politique de neutralité dans l’entreprise traite de la même façon tous les travailleurs. Attention toutefois, une telle politique est justifiée si elle s’applique uniquement à l’occasion des contacts avec la clientèle.

    La Cour de cassation s’inscrit dans une ligne logique après son arrêt Baby Loup, rendu le 25 juin 2014 en Assemblée plénière. Dans cet arrêt, elle avait admis comme légitime et proportionnée l’interdiction, pour les salariés d’une association en contact avec de jeunes enfants, de porter des signes religieux. La clause de neutralité générale était valide notamment car elle concernant une association employant seulement 18 salariés.

    Reclasser plutôt que licencier
    Autre point de la jurisprudence de la CJUE repris par la Cour de cassation : le comportement à adopter face au refus par le salarié de se conformer à la règle de l’entreprise. Ainsi, si la salariée refuse de retirer son voile lors de ses relations clientèle, l’entreprise doit d’abord rechercher si elle peut proposer à cette salariée un poste sans contact visuel avec les clients plutôt que d’opter pour un licenciement. Les juges tempèrent toutefois cette règle, en précisant que le choix doit être fait en tenant compte des contraintes inhérentes à l’entreprise, et de façon à ce que cette dernière ne subisse pas de charge supplémentaire.

    Laurie Mahé Desportes

    https://seenthis.net/messages/646756 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • Explained: How Israel is trying to break Breaking the Silence – and how it could backfire

    What happened after a former Israeli soldier confessed he assaulted an unarmed Palestinian

    Judy Maltz Nov 21, 2017
    read more: https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/.premium-1.824227

    Following a relatively swift investigation, a former Israeli combat soldier was cleared of allegations that he assaulted an unarmed Palestinian during a tour of duty in Hebron.
    It might have been cause for celebration, had the soldier not been the one to bring the allegations against himself.
    So last week, when the State Prosecutor’s Office alleged that Dean Issacharoff, spokesman of the soldiers’ anti-occupation group Breaking the Silence, had lied about his actions, Israeli right-wing leaders naturally rejoiced.
    >> To whitewash occupation, Netanyahu crew casts Breaking the Silence whistle-blower as bogeyman | Opinion
    The findings, they claimed, were further evidence of what they have been saying for years – that Breaking the Silence is an organization of liars and traitors bent on defaming the State of Israel and the Israeli army.
    skip - IDF soldier accused of accosting Palestinian man

    Keep updated: Sign up to our newsletter
    Email* Sign up

    As Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu declared in a Facebook post: “Breaking the Silence lies and slanders our soldiers around the world. Today this fact received further proof, if anyone had a doubt. The truth wins out.”
    But in the latest twist in a case that has gripped the nation in recent days, Netanyahu’s declaration of victory appears to be premature.
    According to brand new evidence, the state prosecutors who pronounced Issacharoff a liar may have been investigating the wrong incident and questioning the wrong victim.

    Breaking the Silence spokesman Dean Issacharoff, who confessed in a video to beating up a Palestinian in the West Bank while in the Israeli army.Breaking the Silence
    Newly unearthed footage, broadcast on two of Israel’s most popular evening news programs Monday, suggests that the Palestinian whom Issacharoff claims to have assaulted was not the same Palestinian questioned by state investigators.

    It also appears that the Palestinian questioned by state investigators, the one who testified that Issacharoff had not assaulted him, had been referring to a completely different incident.
    In the clip, filmed three-and-a-half years ago by a Hebron resident employed by another Israeli human rights organization, Issacharoff is seen escorting a handcuffed Palestinian who appears to have bruises on his face. How he received the bruises and the circumstances of his arrest are not clear from the footage.
    An account published Tuesday morning in Haaretz by Amira Hass raises further questions about the credibility of the state prosecutors’ findings. In his first interview since the findings were published, Hassan Joulani, the Palestinian questioned by investigators about the incident, said that contrary to what state prosecutors reported, he had indeed been assaulted during his arrest – although by Border Police and not by Issacharoff.
    The blows, he said, were received during a separate incident – not the one cited by Issacharoff in the videotaped account that prompted the investigation.
    Joulani was arrested and beaten, according to this interview with him, in February 2014, during a demonstration marking the 20th anniversary of the mass murder of Palestinians at Hebron’s Cave of the Patriarchs by settler Baruch Goldstein.
    The assault reported by Issacharoff, however, took place after a routine round of stone-throwing.
    On one level, it boils down to the simple question of whether or not a former Israeli soldier lied.
    On a whole other level, however, the case of Issacharoff raises more fundamental questions about Israel’s 50-year-old occupation and its corrosive effects on society, among them: Who is to blame when soldiers serving among a hostile population in occupied territory act badly – the soldiers or the state that sent them there? Should Israeli soldiers speak out about the atrocities they witness during their service at the risk of tarnishing the image of the state? Can an investigation launched by a right-wing politician who harbors hostility toward anti-occupation organizations – in this case, Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked – really be undertaken with neutrality?

    https://seenthis.net/messages/646541 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • Palestine : étude d’un vol historique et culturel
    Roger Sheety, Middle East Eye, le 15 juillet 2015

    Déjà quelques articles sur seenthis avec ces mots-clés :
    #Palestine #Vol #Nourriture #Houmous #Hummus #rrroumous #appropriation_culturelle

    En particulier :

    Israel’s obsession with hummus is about more than stealing Palestine’s food
    Ben White, The National, le 23 mai 2015

    Le Houmous israélien est un vol et non une appropriation
    Steven Salaita, Al Araby, 4 September 2017

    Mais ici la discussion est plus large et aborde aussi, par exemple, les #vêtements palestiniens...

    https://seenthis.net/messages/646413 via Dror@sinehebdo

  • Labor party’s support of deportation, imprisonment of asylum seekers cheapens the Israeli opposition - Haaretz Editorial - Israel News | Haaretz.com


    Under the leadership of new Labor Party Chairman Avi Gabbay, the MKs of the Zionist Union gave their support Monday to a disgraceful government bill for the deportation and imprisonment of asylum-seekers. If the draft law is passed, the Holot detention center would be shuttered and asylum-seekers given a choice: deportation to Rwanda or indefinite incarceration in Israel.
    Any attempt to ignore Israel’s legal and moral obligations to refugees for the sake of solving a supposed conflict with the needs of long-time residents of south Tel Aviv or of Arab citizens is nothing but cheap demagoguery. Israel has no difficulty meeting its obligations without hurting its own disadvantaged communities; anyone who uses economic arguments to justify the failure to lend a hand to refugees is lying. The state wasted over 1 billion shekels ($284 million) on building and operating Holot; four years later, it is in effect admitting its error and closing the facility.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/646544 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • Les dilemmes des #Réfugiés yéménites

    La poursuite de la guerre au #Yémen depuis près de trois ans recompose en profondeur les routes migratoires dans la péninsule Arabique. Le conflit a déjà généré un flux de près de 400 000 réfugiés. Ce chiffre a toutes les chances d’augmenter fortement dans les mois qui viennent, en dépit du blocus imposé par la coalition emmenée par l’Arabie saoudite et des restrictions exercées par les potentiels pays d’accueil. Le 6 novembre 2017, Mohammed Ben Salman (MBS), prince héritier saoudien annonçait le durcissement (...)


    / Yémen, Réfugiés, #Conflit_du_Yémen

    • En attendant, aucune initiative pour une manifestation contre l’arrivée du bourreau à Paris. Aucun manifeste, pas de signature, aucun boycott de la part de nos intellectuels intègres !!!

  • Les Séoudiens veulent faire construire une piscine olympique. Trois entreprises de BTP viennent proposer leurs services : une chinoise, une française et une libano-séoudienne.

    Les Chinois proposent un devis à 100 millions de dollars. « Rapide, efficace, pas cher, on peut commencer à couler le béton dès aujourd’hui. »

    Les Français ont un devis à 200 millions de dollars. « Ah oui, mais on te met Jean Nouvel sur le coup. Ça va être moderne, classieux, le french-chic, ça va être le Versailles de la piscine olympique, votre truc. »

    Les Libanais arrivent, et proposent un devis à 250 millions de dollars. Le client s’étonne : « mais vous êtes encore plus chers que les Français ! ». Le type explique : « Oui mais si on fait le business ensemble, c’est 75 millions pour toi, 75 millions pour moi, et le reste on le fait faire par les Chinois. »

    https://seenthis.net/messages/645365 via Nidal

  • Jordan fears ’turmoil’ as Saudis rush to embrace Israel | Middle East Eye

    Saudi Arabia is bypassing Jordan in its headlong rush to normalise relations with Israel, offering concessions on Palestinian refugees which could endanger the stability of the Hashemite kingdom, and compromise its status as the custodian of the holy sites in Jerusalem, a senior official close to the royal court in Amman has told Middle East Eye.

    The official, speaking on condition of anonymity, accused Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman of treating Jordan with contempt. “He deals with Jordanians and the Palestinian Authority as if they are the servants and he is the master and we have to follow what he does. He neither consults nor listens to us,” the official said.


    https://seenthis.net/messages/645331 via Kassem

  • Western Foreign Policy and the Dignity of the Arab World: Interview with Dr. H.A. Hellyer


    Following a recent controversy where a British journalist at a conference in Egypt casually implied that the peoples of the Arab world were more culturally inured towards restrictions on press freedom, we discussed the issue of democracy and Arab culture with Atlantic Council’s senior non-resident fellow, Dr. H.A. Hellyer.

    “That journalist asserted that people shouldn’t be ‘alarmed’ at the state of press freedom in the Arab world, because there are “many, many cultural differences that have to be taken into account when considering the freedom of press. There’s a lot in that statement—what went through your mind when you heard that?”

    I’d like to start by saying that when the journalist in question was challenged on that statement by people online, he did apologize unreservedly once he realized the implications of his statement. And the journalist wasn’t calling for abuses or for journalists to be locked up, or anything like that. But the narrative he was promoting, unconsciously I am happy to assume, was precisely the narrative that is used time and time again to justify overlooking the abuses of people in this region. Which is that, basically, the peoples of this region are not quite as deserving of dignity as those of us in Europe and the United States. And thus, we should have low expectations on the one hand, and give a free pass to those that abuse or harm them on the other.

    Sometimes that narrative is promoted by external actors with a certain amount of naivete or innocence— or let’s say, a lack of consciousness. But very often, that narrative is promoted by people who benefit from the current state of affairs. They benefit from the inequality, the exclusion, the corruption—for them, this isn’t a deluded article. It’s a completely self-serving one.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/645412 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • 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

    “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.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/645282 via Loutre

  • The Uncounted - The New York Times

    We found that one in five of the coalition strikes we identified resulted in civilian death, a rate more than 31 times that acknowledged by the coalition. It is at such a distance from official claims that, in terms of civilian deaths, this may be the least transparent war in recent American history. Our reporting, moreover, revealed a consistent failure by the coalition to investigate claims properly or to keep records that make it possible to investigate the claims at all.

    #victimes_civiles #civils #mensonges #etats-unis

    https://seenthis.net/messages/645280 via Kassem

  • Al-Akhbar publie un document (lettre du min. des AE saoudien à son boss, MbS) qui donne plus de détails sur un accord entre Saoudiens et Israéliens (et USA) dont on sait qu’il est négocié depuis le printemps dernier. Pour faire court, l’AS cherche le soutien de ses deux partenaires contre l’Iran (et le Hezbollah) et pour cela elle offre un accord de paix en bonne et due forme avec, en prime, son engagement à "contribuer à l’installation des réfugiés palestiniens (de 48) là où ils se trouvent (fin du droit au retour par conséquent). Pour sauver la face, la concession israélienne, l’internationalisation de Jérusalem prévue en 1937 et 47 !!!

    وثيقة سرية عن مراسلة بين الجبير ومحمد بن سلمان | الأخبار


    https://seenthis.net/messages/644541 via gonzo

  • Leaked Documents Expose Stunning Plan to Wage Financial War on Qatar — and Steal the World Cup

    A plan for the United Arab Emirates to wage financial war against its Gulf rival Qatar was found in the task folder of an email account belonging to UAE Ambassador to the United States Yousef al-Otaiba and subsequently obtained by The Intercept.

    The economic warfare involved an attack on Qatar’s currency using bond and derivatives manipulation. The plan, laid out in a slide deck provided to The Intercept through the group Global Leaks, was aimed at tanking Qatar’s economy, according to documents drawn up by a bank outlining the strategy.

    The outline, prepared by Banque Havilland, a private Luxembourg-based bank owned by the family of controversial British financier David Rowland, laid out a scheme to drive down the value of Qatar’s bonds and increase the cost of insuring them, with the ultimate goal of creating a currency crisis that would drain the country’s cash reserves.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/643774 via Nidal

  • A propos de #Pierre_Loti, vu sur FB :

    Pierre Tevanian écrit :

    Il a sa rue à Brest, Bordeaux, Rennes, Mulhouse, son avenue à Paris, face à la Tour Eiffel. Pierre Loti.

    "En ce qui me concerne, je suis mal tombé peut-être, mais je puis attester qu’à de rares exceptions près, je n’ai rencontré chez eux que lâcheté morale, lâchage, vilains procédés et fourberie. Et comme je comprends que leur duplicité et leur astuce répugne aux Turcs, qui sont en affaires la droiture même ! Leurs pires ennemis sont les premiers à le reconnaître. J’oserais presque dire que les Arméniens sont en Turquie comme des vers rongeurs dans un fruit, drainant à eux tout l’or, par n’importe quel moyen, par l’usure surtout, comme naguère les Juifs en Russie » ("La mort de notre chère France en Orient", 1920)

    "Il y a des années cependant que j’hésitais à aborder de front ce sujet sinistre, retenu par une compassion profonde malgré tout pour cette malheureuse Arménie dont le châtiment a peut-être dépassé les fautes"

    "On sait à présent que, s’ils ont été massacrés, ils ne se sont jamais fait faute d’être massacreurs."

    "Si mon humble voix avait quelque chance d’être entendue, je supplierais l’Europe, qui a déjà trop tardé, je la supplierais d’intervenir, de protéger les Arméniens et de les isoler ; puisqu’il existe entre eux et les Turcs, depuis des siècles, une haine réciproque absolument irréductible, qu’on leur désigne quelque part en Asie une terre arménienne où ils seront leurs propres maîtres, où ils pourront corriger leurs tares acquises dans la servitude, et développer dans la paix les qualités qu’ils ont encore – car ils en ont, des qualités ; j’accorde qu’ils sont laborieux, persévérants, que certain côté patriarcal de leur vie de famille commande le respect. Et, enfin, bien que ce soit peut-être secondaire, ils ont la beauté physique, qui en Occident s’efface de plus en plus par l’excès de l’instruction, le surmenage intellectuel, l’usine meurtrière, et l’alcool ; je ne puis penser sans une spéciale mélancolie à ces femmes massacrées qui, pour la plupart sans doute, avaient d’admirables yeux de velours." ("Les massacres d’Arménie", 1920)

    #arménie #turquie #génocide_arménien et un #grand_homme de plus

    https://seenthis.net/messages/643017 via Reka

  • A political earthquake is rocking Saudi Arabia’s pillars of princ


    Saudi Arabia’s political earthquake has shaken the foundations of the country’s power structure. 

    A system based on the division of power between the lineages of the sons of Abd al Aziz Ibn Saud has been replaced - at least temporarily - by one based on the lineage of King Salman and within it, of his young son Muhammad.

    Other Gulf monarchies, including in Qatar and Oman, have witnessed intra-family power struggles that resulted in the replacement of the sovereign by his son. But none has ever witnessed what amounts to a coup d’etat against not only the king, but against the entire monarchical system within which he exercised his powers.

    So Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman’s purge of his uncles and cousins is more akin to republican coups mounted in Egypt in 1952, Iraq in 1958, or Libya in 1969.
    The two key questions to be asked are (i) can the crown prince consolidate his power, and (ii) what will be the long-term consequences of the political earthquake?

    The effectiveness demonstrated thus far by King Salman and his son in grabbing all the country’s reins of power suggests real political skill. They undercut Prince Muhammad bin Nayef’s base in the Ministry of Interior, one he had inherited from his father, and then utilised that base to neutralise other princes.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/643074 via Nouvelles d’Orient

    • L’ONU et les puissances occidentales (France/GB et EU) sont complices de génocide au Yémen et radio Orient qui nous explique que c’est cette même coalition qui a sauvé en grande partie la Syrie. Insupportable mensonge !
      Et quand radio Orient cite la guerre au Yémen, elle prend bien soin de ne pas nommer l’agresseur, son pourvoyeur de fonds.

  • La « coalition arabe » INTERDIT à l’#ONU ses vols humanitaires vers le #Yémen...

    ... et l’ONU dénonce...
    ... l’ONU dénonce un blocus « catastrophique » - BBC Afrique

    Les Nations Unies estiment que la décision de l’Arabie Saoudite de fermer toutes ses frontières avec le Yémen empêche l’acheminement de l’aide humanitaire.

    On a quand même connu des tribunaux internationaux pour beaucoup moins que ça...

    https://seenthis.net/messages/642891 via Kassem

  • Is Mohammed Bin Salman rewriting Saudi Arabia’s history? | Middle East Eye


    In a recent interview with the Guardian, Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman confirmed his decision to return the country to moderate Islam. The prince insisted that the conservative, extremist trend was a recent phenomenon in the Kingdom and that it went back to just 30 years ago. He added that it was born out of the climate created by the Iranian revolution.

    Bin Salman did not hesitate to note that the kingdom’s former leaders failed to address the phenomenon and that he was determined to put an end to it. He said: "What occurred during the past thirty years was not Saudi Arabia. What happened in the region was not the Middle East. In the wake of the Iranian Revolution in 1979, there emerged some people who wanted to copy that model in other countries. Saudi Arabia was one of those countries.


     Salman’s ’moderate Islam’: A Disneyland for robots, not an open society
    “We did not even know how to tackle it, and the problem spread across the entire world. Now is the time to get rid of it once and for all.”

    Bin Salman added: “We are simply going back to what we used to follow, moderate Islam, the Islam that is open to the world and to other religions … We shall not waste thirty more years of our life in confronting extremists. We shall destroy them, now and immediately.”

    https://seenthis.net/messages/643068 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • Paradise Papers expose offshore tax secrecy of Middle East elite | Middle East Eye

    A Saudi Prince, a Queen of Jordan and sons of the Turkish prime minister have all been mentioned in one of the largest data leaks in history


    Sons of the Turkish prime minister, a Jordanian dowager Queen and a Saudi prince who owns a superyacht longer than a football pitch, are just a few Middle Eastern figures whose offshore dealings have been laid bare by one of the largest ever data leaks.

    Published by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ), the Paradise Papers exposes the secret dealings and offshore interests of the global elite and shows how companies use offshore company structures to slash tax bills and even hide questionable business practices.

    Leaked from the Bermudan branch of offshore law firm Appleby, the release comes a year after the ICIJ published a tranche of similar material called the Panama Papers. Like them, the Paradise Papers reveal some of the undercover dealings of some of the biggest names in world politics - including Queen Elizabeth of Britain, members of Donald Trump’s entourage, and members of the Middle East’s political and business elite.

    Prince Khaled bin Sultan, Saudi Arabia 

    Prince Khaled bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, Saudi Arabia’s former deputy minister of defence and dubbed “Father of Saudi Arabia’s missile” for his work in procuring weapons for the kingdom, also had offshore dealings revealed by the leak.

    According to Appleby’s files, Prince Khaled is a beneficiary of two trusts and registered at least eight companies in Bermuda between 1989 and 2014, some of which were used to own yachts and aircraft.

    Registering yachts and aircraft in this way can save tax.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/642939 via Nouvelles d’Orient

  • Selon Ibrahim al-Amine du Akhbar, la « réception » de Saad Hariri à Riyad n’a pas ressemblé à l’accueil d’un Premiere ministre libanais, mais bien plutôt à l’arrestation d’un ressortitant séoudien. Retenu, téléphone confisqué, séparé de sa famille, interrogé comme « témoin » sur des histoires de corruption…

    Al-Amine évoque également des tentatives de médiation via l’Égypte et la Jordanie à la demande de Michel Aoun et Nabih Berri, et de la France et des britanniques à la demande de Joumblatt. Intransigeance de MBS avant un éventuel retour (libération ?) de Hariri.

    وقائع اعتقال الحريري : من المطار الى فيلا في مجمع « ريتز كارلتون »

    قُطع أمس الشك حول مصير الرئيس سعد الحريري. وعلمت «الاخبار» من مصادر وثيقة الصلة برئيس الحكومة انه وُضع قيد الاقامة الجبرية، بعد ساعات من وصوله الى الرياض الجمعة الماضي. وهو لا يزال، حتى الساعة، موجوداً في مكان منفصل عن مكان إقامة عائلته، فيما يتولّى فريق امني سعودي الاشراف على أمنه، كما هي حال الامراء والوزراء السعوديين الموقوفين.

    وروت المصادر ان الحريري، بُعيد وصوله الى الرياض، طلب منه التوجه الى مجمع «ريتز كارلتون» الفندقي لعقد اجتماعات، تمهيداً لانتقاله الى قصر اليمامة للقاء الملك سلمان. ولدى وصوله الى الفندق، فوجئ باجراءات أمنية استثنائية، ليدرك، بعد دقائق، انه بات بحكم الموقوف. وتم نقله الى احدى الفيلات التابعة للمجمع، وليس الى الفندق حيث احتجز نحو 49 أميراً ووزيراً ورجل اعمال سعودياً. وكان هؤلاء، أيضاً، استُدعوا الى الرياض على وجه السرعة لعقد «لقاءات عمل» مع الملك وولي العهد، ليتم توقيفهم رهن تحقيقات تتعلق بتهم الفساد.

    وبحسب المصادر، فان الجهات الامنية السعودية صادرت الهواتف الموجودة في حوزة الحريري وفريقه الامني. وتم تخيير أعضاء الفريق الامني إن كانوا يريدون المغادرة الى بيروت، وانه في هذه الحالة لن يكون بمقدور من يغادر المجمع ان يعود اليه مجدداً. وبناء على طلب الحريري، انتقل اربعة من مرافقيه بقيادة الضابط محمد دياب الى منزله للبقاء مع زوجته وأولاده، فيما بقي مع الحريري، في الفيلا نفسها، رئيس حرسه عبد العرب وأحد مساعديه الشخصيين. وأُبلغ الجميع بقواعد الاقامة لناحية عدم التحرك داخل الفندق وعدم التواصل مع الامنيين والموظفين، وتم ربطهم بضابط أمن سعودي في مكتب قريب، حيث يمكنهم التوجه مرات عدة في اليوم لتفقد هواتفهم، على ان ينحصر استعمالها في الرد على الرسائل التي تردهم عبر تطبيقات كـ«واتساب» وخلافه، وسمح لهم باجراء اتصالات هاتفية على ألا تشمل اي نقاش حول مكان اقامتهم وظروفها، تحت طائلة الحرمان من التواصل مرة جديدة.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/642902 via Nidal