• German pilots refuse to carry out deportations | News | DW | 04.12.2017

    http://www.dw.com/en/german-pilots-refuse-to-carry-out-deportations/a-41638832

    La bonne nouvelle de la journée. Il faut absolument soutenir ces initiatives.

    http://www.dw.com/image/41629744_304.jpg

    German pilots refuse to carry out deportations

    Pilots across Germany are stopping planned deportations of rejected asylum seekers. At the same time, refugees are appealing their deportation orders in record numbers - and winning.

    #réfugiés #asile #déportations #allemagne #résistance #résister

    https://seenthis.net/messages/649834 via Reka


  • Quand la France déçue s’éloigne de l’Arabie Saoudite (1/3)
    https://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-finance/industrie/aeronautique-defense/quand-la-france-decue-s-eloigne-de-l-arabie-saoudite-1-3-755483.html
    https://static.latribune.fr/full_width/572424/mbs.jpg

    Paris et Ryad ne sont plus tout à fait alignés sur une vision géostratégique commune de la région du Golfe. Car à être trop proche des positions saoudiennes, la France n’a pas été respectée par l’Arabie Saoudite.

    Entre Paris et Ryad, c’est désormais très clair après une période d’incompréhension. Si dans un premier temps sous le quinquennat de François Hollande, la France était trop proche des attentes de l’Arabie Saoudite, qui n’a jamais renvoyé l’ascenseur, aujourd’hui, les deux pays ne sont plus tout à fait alignés sur une vision géostratégique commune de la région. Notamment sur des dossiers géopolitiques aussi explosifs tels que l’Iran, le Liban et le Qatar... Deux crises majeures ont d’ailleurs été évitées in extremis par les États-Unis notamment, car Ryad était, semble-t-il, tout prêt à en découdre avec le Qatar, puis à aller bombarder le Liban, selon plusieurs experts de la politique moyen-orientale interrogés par La Tribune, qui étaient très inquiets de la situation au Moyen-Orient.
    […]
    Le prince-héritier saoudien a expliqué à Emmanuel Macron que les entreprises françaises, à l’image des groupes américains, pourraient bénéficier de contrats de la part du royaume à condition de ne pas commercer avec... l’Iran. Ce qui a visiblement fait tiquer Emmanuel Macron, qui lui aurait répondu qu’on ne parlait pas comme cela de la France. Ce qui dénote une prise de conscience de la France et une réorientation de la diplomatie française vis-à-vis de Ryad. Car pendant cinq ans, Paris a accordé un véritable blanc-seing à la politique internationale saoudienne. Trop et en pure perte malgré les promesses de contrats mirifiques promis à la France. Mais l’Arabie Saoudite n’a finalement jamais renvoyé l’ascenseur à Paris ou très peu. Il semble donc que la France se détache quelque peu de cette politique d’alignement sans faille entre Ryad et Paris.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/649819 via Simplicissimus


  • #Liban : La crise des #déchets menace la #santé | Human Rights Watch
    https://www.hrw.org/fr/news/2017/12/01/liban-la-crise-des-dechets-menace-la-sante
    https://www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/styles/open_graph/public/multimedia_images_2017/201711mena_lebanon_wasteburning.jpg?itok=QSMCjvPM

    C’est en 2015 que la mauvaise gestion des déchets solides par le Liban a été mise en lumière, alors que les poubelles s’empilaient dans les rues de sa capitale, mais Human Rights Watch a constaté qu’une crise silencieuse régnait dans le pays depuis des décennies. Le Liban n’a pas de plan de gestion de déchets solides pour l’ensemble du pays. Dans les années 1990, le gouvernement central avait instauré le ramassage et le traitement des déchets de Beyrouth et du Mont-Liban, mais avait laissé les autres municipalités se débrouiller, sans leur apporter une supervision adéquate, un soutien financier ou une expertise technique. Par conséquent, les décharges et les incinérations en plein air se sont multipliées dans le pays. D’après des chercheurs de l’Université américaine de Beyrouth, 77 % des déchets produits au Liban sont soit jetés dans des décharges à ciel ouvert, soit enfouis, alors que seuls 10 à 12 %, estiment-ils, ne peuvent être ni compostés ni recyclés.

    #dirigeants_arabes #indigents_arabes

    https://seenthis.net/messages/649137 via Kassem


  • Le détail qui risque de t’échapper, parce que c’est une petite phrase planquée au fin fond du billet : Flynn pleads guilty on Russia, reportedly ready to testify against Trump
    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-russia/flynn-charged-with-lying-to-fbi-plea-hearing-set-u-s-special-counsel-idUSKB

    Flynn also lied about asking the envoy to help delay a vote in the U. N. Security Council that was seen as damaging to Israel.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/649098 via Nidal


  • Les eurodéputés pour un #embargo des ventes d’armes à l’Arabie saoudite
    https://www.mediapart.fr/journal/international/011217/les-eurodeputes-pour-un-embargo-des-ventes-d-armes-l-arabie-saoudite

    Le #Parlement_européen a adopté jeudi, à une large majorité, une nouvelle résolution – non contraignante –, qui critique violemment la diplomatie économique de la France vis-à-vis de #Riyad.

    #International #Economie #Arabie_Saoudite #armes #Emmanuel_Macron #Royaume-Uni #UE #Yémen


  • L’Arabie saoudite n’a atteint aucun de ses objectifs au Liban | Middle East Eye
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/opinions/l-arabie-saoudite-n-atteint-aucun-de-ses-objectifs-au-liban-312615633

    La démission de Saad Hariri aurait dû normalement provoquer la chute de son gouvernement et plonger le pays dans une vaste déstabilisation, croit savoir Amin Hoteit, professeur de droit à l’Université libanaise. Ce général à la retraite, ancien commandant en chef de l’École d’état-major de l’armée libanaise, nous déclare que « la démission devait être accompagnée d’un vaste plan de déstabilisation sécuritaire exécuté par des partis libanais, qui projetaient de manifester et de fermer des routes ».

    L’armée et les services de sécurité ont étouffé dans l’œuf toutes ces tentatives en prenant des mesures préventives comprenant le déploiement de plusieurs milliers de militaires
    Cependant, l’armée et les services de sécurité ont étouffé dans l’œuf toutes ces tentatives en prenant des mesures préventives comprenant le déploiement de plusieurs milliers de militaires et des centaines d’agents en civils dans les régions les plus sensibles, notamment dans le nord du Liban.

    Selon Amin Hoteit, des groupes palestiniens du camp d’Aïn al-Hilweh, à 40 kilomètres au sud de Beyrouth, avaient pour mission de fermer la route côtière menant à la partie méridionale du pays, le fief du Hezbollah.

    Conscient de ces dangers, le président Aoun a dépêché d’urgence, au tout début de la crise, le directeur de la Sûreté générale, Abbas Ibrahim, à Amman en Jordanie pour évoquer avec le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas la situation dans les camps du Liban. Ce dernier a chargé son ambassadeur à Beyrouth, Achraf Dabbour, de prendre les mesures nécessaires pour colmater toute brèche sécuritaire à ce niveau.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/648985 via assalam12


  • Rabin’s forgotten plan for two-state solution

    https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2017/11/israel-palestinians-yitzhak-rabin-oslo-accords-peace.html

    More so. His closest former associates told Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity that between the years 1993 and 1995, Rabin had developed a vision for a permanent status agreement to be achieved before the year 2000.

    The first essential element of the plan was sharing of the land between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River, with the Palestinian state being demilitarized and the Jordan River serving as Israel’s security boundary. Security arrangements would be agreed upon, with Israeli military presence along the Jordan River.

    The plan also consisted of relocating dispersed settlements into “settlement blocs,” mainly in the Jerusalem area. A united Jerusalem would remain under Israel’s control, except for the East Jerusalem Palestinian neighborhoods. The plan referred also to the Palestinian refugees, granting no right of return to Israel. Instead, the plan offered right of return to the new Palestinian state and international reparations.

    Rabin’s plan favored international and Israeli investment in the Palestinian economy.

    There was also a Jordanian angle to Rabin’s plan, as he held the Jordanian kingdom in very high esteem. The plan proposed a Jordanian-Palestinian confederation that would be decided between the two parties.

    The last part of the plan consisted of normalizing relations between Arab countries and Israel. At the time, Rabin even favored a peace treaty with Syria and was ready to give up the Golan Heights for the proper security arrangements.

    Above all, Rabin believed in a strong strategic relationship with the United States, which would have made such an agreement with the Palestinians possible. He definitely had the courage to make the necessary decisions for such a deal. His peace and security legacy is today espoused by the most senior veterans of Israel’s security establishment.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/649166 via Nouvelles d’Orient


  • Macron to give Saudi Arabia list of extremist groups to cut finan

    https://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/news/2017/11/30/macron-to-give-saudi-arabia-list-of-extremist-groups

    French President Emmanuel Macron said on Wednesday he would draw up a list of extremist groups to give to Saudi Arabia after its crown prince pledged to cut their funding.

    Saudi Arabia finances groups overseen by the Mecca-based Muslim World League, which for decades was charged with spreading the strict Wahhabi school of Islam around the world.

    Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman claims he is seeking to modernise the kingdom and promote a more open and tolerant interpretation of Islam.

    “He never did it publicly, but when I went to Riyadh (this month), he made a commitment, such that we could give him a list and he would cut the financing,” Macron said during an interview with France 24 television.

    “I believe him, but I will follow up. Trust is built on results,” Macron added.

    https://seenthis.net/messages/648662 via Nouvelles d’Orient



  • 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

    http://www.al-akhbar.com/node/286971

    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

    https://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/en/originals/2017/11/jared-kushner-saudi-arabia-carte-blanche-destablize-region.amp.html

    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
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/opinions/le-secret-bien-mal-gard-d-isra-l-les-ventes-d-armes-des-r-gimes-en-gu

    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. (...)

    #CommerceDesArmes

    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
    http://www.actuel-rh.fr/content/interdiction-du-voile-au-travail-les-juges-francais-se-conforment-aux-regl

    23/11/2017
    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
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/fr/opinions/palestine-tude-d-un-vol-historique-et-culturel-1585202488

    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
    https://seenthis.net/messages/493046

    Le Houmous israélien est un vol et non une appropriation
    Steven Salaita, Al Araby, 4 September 2017
    https://seenthis.net/messages/632441

    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

    https://www.haaretz.com/opinion/editorial/1.824258

    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
    http://orientxxi.info/magazine/les-dilemmes-des-refugies-yemenites,2129

    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 (...)

    #Magazine

    / 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
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/exclusive-jordan-braces-turmoil-saudis-rush-embrace-israel-1491957420
    http://www.middleeasteye.net/sites/default/files/main-images/crSalman_Abdullah_Jordon.jpg

    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.

    #nuit_torride

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


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

    http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/menasource/western-foreign-policy-and-the-dignity-of-the-arab-world-interview-

    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
    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.

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