Avertir le modérateur

lundi, 07 janvier 2008

Toute solution sera douloureuse

TOUTE SOLUTION SERA DOULOUREUSE Interview d'Ehoud Olmert le 3 janvier 2007 dans le Jerusalem Post par Herb Keinon et David Horowitz. Il y a plusieurs erreurs basiques dans le raisonnement d'Ehoud Olmert: - la société dite palestinienne est tribale et faite de clans ennemis qui ne parviendront pas de si tôt à s'entendre et à créer un état (dit viable sur le plan du fonctionnement). D'ailleurs, étant donné cette impossibilité, de plus en plus de Palestiniens y renoncent, souhaitant vivre dans l'état "Israël" - Olmert a tort de ne pas parler de l'importance du problème (aujourd'hui non résolu financièrement parlant) des réfugiés juifs des pays arabes. Ceci étant, il fait fausse route s'il pense que le problème des réfugiés palestiniens sera résolu dans un état Palestinien. Les contiendrait-il tous? Non! Et les états arabes ne veulent pas les intégrer chez eux parce qu'ils sont une source d'instabilité. - il est illusoire de penser que la Syrie ne continuera pas d'avoir un rôle déstabilisateur dans la région si on lui rendait le Golan. C'est le Liban qui l'intéresse. - dans un accord de ce genre qui engage le pays sur un demi siècle ou un siècle, on construit pour le long terme. Or rien ne préjuge de la démographie à long terme. Par conséquent toute décision prise selon la démographie du moment et "extrapolée" ne peut être qu'erronée. Ceci étant, il semble que Mahmoud Abbas soit malade et souhaite se retirer dans sa villa du Qatar; les possibilités d'un accord en 2008 sont ainsi minces. Et s'il est élu Mac Cain souhaite un accord en phases progressives s'étalant sur le long terme… S'il est élu, Giuliani ne souhaite pas la création d'un état palestinien. Peut-être pense-t-il à une solution jordanienne. Obama ne sera pas élu cette fois-ci et Hillary Clinton fera comme Mac Cain. Dans tous les cas, on n'est pas encore sorti de l'auberge. Mais en attendant, il faudrait trouver un moyen d'inciter les intellos- gauchos-utopistes d'Israël à mesurer leurs propos quand le destin de leur patrie est en jeu et à ne pas demander au président Bush de "violer" l'état d'Israël pour l'amener à faire les concessions nécessaires pour satisfaire l'ego des uns et l'infantilisme des autres (1). Albert Soued, www.nuitdorient.com – consulter les archives du site  www.nuidorient.com/n5.htm


(1) David Landau, rédacteur en chef de Haaretz, s'adressant à Condoleeza Rice, lui a dit qu'Israël était un état raté et que si Bush violait le gouvernement Israélien, lui, il aurait "un rêve humide" … EVERY SOLUTION WILL BE PAINFUL By HERB KEINON AND DAVID HOROVITZ JP - Jan 3, 2008 Prime Minister Ehud Olmert sat comfortably behind his desk at his official residence in Jerusalem looking refreshed and seeming buoyant. He had recently met in the same room with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and was in a good mood - less sarcastic than he can be, less fidgety than is sometimes his wont. Of Abbas he spoke pleasantly: Olmert said the PA leader genuinely wanted peace and that in his heart of hearts he recognized Israel as a Jewish state. In fact, the prime minister had warm things to say about all those whom he mentioned by name during the course of the hour-plus interview: Russian President Vladimir Putin, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, Jordanian King Abdullah II and US President George W. Bush. Especially Bush. Two large photos of Olmert and Bush grace the prime minister's study: one with Olmert's hand on the president's shoulder, and the other of the two of them strolling, apparently engrossed in deep conversation. Olmert is proud of those pictures; he mentioned them twice; they reflect the relationship he has cultivated with Bush. "President Bush is a giant friend of ours," Olmert said. "One of his most senior aides said that... he doesn't know of another relationship with similar intimacy, a bond of souls, as that between Israel and the United States ." Even though Olmert has made clear he would be willing to make deep concessions to the Palestinians - and noted in this interview that even Israel's best friends see a future in which Israel ultimately won't be much larger than the 1967 lines - few people actually believe that Olmert and Abbas will reach an agreement by the end of this year. But, while some speculate that Olmert wants to drag out negotiations until after the US elections in November to see who will be the next US president, Olmert argued the exact opposite. He said that if an agreement is to be signed with the Palestinians, it is preferable to negotiate it with Bush in the White House, and with a supporting cast of friends in key capitals around the world - like Nicolas Sarkozy in Paris, Angela Merkel in Berlin and Gordon Brown in London. Throw the Quartet's envoy Tony Blair into the mix, and what you have, in Olmert's view, is almost "the hand of God." That's an interesting description, all the more so since, following the Second Lebanon War in 2006, the conventional wisdom was that it would take nothing less than divine providence to keep Olmert in office at the end of 2007. The past year was one during which he faced the damning interim report of the Winograd Committee, unparalleled low poll numbers, a number of scandals and a fragile coalition that rests on the support of two parties, Shas and Israel Beiteinu, whose ideologies run counter to what Olmert says must be done ultimately with the Palestinians: separate by making deep concessions based largely along the 1967 lines. But survive Olmert did. And in the world according to the prime minister, his government - judging by the ease with which it passed the 2008 budget - is effective and stable; most Palestinians understand that there will be no "right of return"; a majority of Israelis will support an agreement he thinks is fitting; the Russians are not Israel's enemies; the Syrians should prove themselves as potential peace partners and may do so; and as far as the Iranians are concerned, "Israel is a strong state and it has the capacity and the will to prevent a circumstance in which it will stand in existential danger." In this interview, on the occasion of the new calendar year, Olmert looked forward with neither boundless euphoria nor deep gloom to the challenges facing the country. But he looked forward as prime minister, preparing to host a first Bush presidential visit, and with relative confidence about retaining his post for a while. Few people a year ago would have bet on that. You've said several times that it is vital to Israel that we reach a two-state solution. Can you elaborate? You've even been quoted saying the country is finished if that can't be achieved.
I never said exactly that, and I've also stressed publicly that I never used those words. Sometimes it happens in newspapers, not yours of course, that a half sentence is taken from the beginning, and a half sentence from the end, and everything is lost in the middle.
I said that if the solution of two states for two peoples is not realized - and Israel will have to deal with a reality of one state for two peoples - that this could bring about the end of the existence of Israel as a Jewish state. That is a danger one cannot deny; it exists, and is even realistic... There is a picture over there (Olmert points to a black-and-white photograph at the side of his office) of my parents at a young age, taken in 1930. They were born in Russia, in the Ukraine, but went to China in 1917 when the Jews fled from the Russian Revolution. In the world of 1930, the end of the '20s, when there was no CNN, no digital world, no satellites and no communications that crossed continents, mountains and oceans in a flash, the Zionist idea [nonetheless] seeped to the end of the world, to northern China, and reached the Jewish community in Harbin and conquered the hearts of my parents. They immigrated to Israel in 1933, and they immigrated - this I know from them - to live in a Jewish democratic state. It was inconceivable to them that in their son's generation there would be a threat to the very Jewishness of the State of Israel ... [to] the nature, character and purpose of the State of Israel as a Jewish state. We must provide an answer to that question. We cannot ignore it. Can Israel continue to hold on to the territories from the Jordan to the sea, [with] a non-Jewish population that even now is approaching the number of Jews in Israel, and taking into consideration that, with the reproduction rate, the [Arab population] can surpass [the Jewish population] in 20 or 30 years? What will be if we don't want to separate? Will we live eternally in a confused reality where 50 percent of the population or more are residents but not equal citizens who have the right to vote like us? The moment that happens, the threat [to Israel 's Jewish democratic character] is likely to be realized. My job as prime minister, more than anything else, is to ensure that doesn't happen. But do the Palestinians - who also understand the demographic process - truly want a viable two-state solution? The impression is that this idea is losing ground with them.
The vast majority of the Palestinians want to live in their own state... But the question of whether or not they want this is not the measure by which I need to judge things. The question is whether we understand, and we do understand, that we need to draw the necessary conclusions, and also pay the price. And the price is very high, and there are risks.
I don't live in a bubble... I know what I am dealing with, who the Palestinians are. There are many people who in my opinion want to live in peace with us. But there are terrorist groups, fundamentalists, fanatics, those without any tolerance, who live according to a value system completely different than the value system of the Western world, which we are a part of. And that is a threat. There are no simple solutions... Every solution will be painful, but we have to deal with it. We cannot close our eyes... In the end we will find a way to a solution. First, we have to seriously try the path of negotiations. And that is what we are doing now. And how is it going? Has anything moved since Annapolis ?
We are talking about a conflict of 100 years, or if you want 60 years, and you are asking about what has happened in three or four weeks since Annapolis , about why the world has not turned upside down. This is a process that takes time...
Look, Abu Mazen [Abbas] and Abu Ala [Ahmed Qurei] sat in this room [last Thursday]. I imagine that if you would have asked me 30 years ago what I thought about Abu Mazen - and 30 years ago I was a Knesset member - I almost certainly would have said that he was a terrorist. He was a member of Fatah, which had on its banner the end of the existence of the State of Israel, and was not even ready to think about the recognition of Israel or peace with Israel . You sit with Abu Mazen today and he unequivocally speaks about recognizing Israel, and about peace with Israel . He has signed agreements with us. He said he wants to fulfill those agreements and believes in them. There has been a change, and it is not only with him. You hear [the same from] Salaam Fayad, his prime minister. I'm not saying that there are no differences [between us]. There are. They want more territory; I want to give less territory. They want parts of Jerusalem that I will never separate from. But they want peace with me, and that is to say there has been a certain change... Has there been a change in the Palestinian stance on the refugee issue?
I think it is possible to solve the refugee problem, in a way that will not threaten the Jewish identity of Israel . I do not accept the principle of a "right of return." I don't accept it and I never have...
The idea of a right of return was born at the end of the 1940s, at the beginning of the '50s, when there was a refugee problem. It is not important now what the size was, or the cause, but there was a problem. I don't think we intentionally created it. The creation of Israel created a reality of which one result was refugees. When they thought of a solution, since they did not think of establishing a Palestinian state, the only solution that seemed [possible] was a return to the places from which they had left. The whole idea of the establishment of a Palestinian state is to enable those same people to live in a Palestinian state, and not in the State of Israel. So to speak today about a solution to the refugee problem in the terms that were right in the '50s or '49 is to be cut off from reality. We believe in our hearts that they are the ones who prevented a solution so many years earlier. They think that we are to blame for it. One thing is certain: The reality of today is different from what it was then. So that solution [of a refugee return] is not relevant to today's reality. It will not come to pass. The entire world agrees to the establishment of a Palestinian state that will be vital, contiguous, free and democratic, that will live alongside Israel and that will be established so the Palestinians live in it. It can't be that a Palestinian state will be established so that the Palestinians will come to live in Israel ... As long as Hamas is so strong, can Abu Mazen be flexible on the refugee issue or anything else?
Abu Mazen is not in control of Gaza, so a strong Hamas in Gaza does not add or detract from his ability to reach understandings... That is their test. In the final analysis the Palestinians will need to choose between the myth of the "right of return‚" and their possibility to establish a Palestinian state, where the Palestinians will live. This is their choice. Our choice is between our very natural desire to live in the whole Land of Israel , which in all our hearts we believe is ours, and the need to compromise on parts of Eretz Yisrael to ensure the existence of the State of Israel as a Jewish state.
We need to decide, and they also need to decide. And I am not sure that everyone on our side is ready for the decision. There are many parties in the Knesset who are talking in a way that is detached from this reality. Then allow me to ask a political question. Maybe this is premature, but if Israel Beiteinu and Shas leave the coalition [over the Annapolis process], do you have the numbers in the Knesset to continue?
I have to do what is good for Israel and its future. I can't put the political considerations of the government before every other consideration - that is not right. With that, I am a political person, and I understand that without a parliamentary majority, and governmental stability, it is impossible to carry out the right things that I want to do. It is necessary to find the right balance.
I have been able to find this balance up to now, perhaps beyond the expectations of some people who thought for a long time that this government would not make it. The fact is that we completed the approval of the budget. Remind me of one time when a government of Israel approved a budget before the end of December. This was done smoothly and seriously, finding the right mechanisms and not going beyond any of the vital economic parameters... The government is stable, and we will find the way to preserve the stability without giving up our commitment to a diplomatic process... Would you continue on the basis of a Knesset majority of around 60 [if Shas and Israel Beiteinu were to leave], with Meretz?
The current makeup of the government is excellent, and there is no reason to change it. I don't want to change it.
If you reach an agreement with the Palestinians in 2008, will you bring that to a referendum, or hold elections?
It is too early to talk about that now. It is clear that in the final analysis an agreement needs to reflect the will of the people. The Knesset today reflects the will of the people. There is a decisive majority in this Knesset for a diplomatic process. So we'll see what will be - what kind of agreement we will get to, how, if we will [reach one]. I believe that the decisive majority of Israelis, and a majority in the Knesset, will be able to support an agreement that I will be able to sign.
Did you discuss substance in your latest meeting with Abu Mazen, or again did they bring up Har Homa and you talk about security?
We also discussed issues of substance, primarily in the private meeting between me and Abu Mazen. We are making progress. They put on the table the questions that are bothering them, including the issue of construction in the settlements and the settlements - and that is understandable to me - and I presented them with our concerns and our positions.
The fact is that we continue to talk. That doesn't mean that we already agree on everything. We need to talk a lot, a real lot. Look, the teachers' strike took two months of negotiations and was hard to finish; our conflict with the Palestinians will not end in one meeting or 50 meetings between me and Abu Mazen. The question is whether we feel a commitment to continue in this process. I am coming to discussions with the Palestinians from an emotional position that is different from that of some other Israeli politicians dealing with this. I know to the depths of my soul the heavy price in blood that we paid for generations because of Arab and Palestinian hatred toward us. I saw that pain, perhaps more than others, because I was the mayor here for many years, in the most difficult days in the modern history of Jerusalem . Day after day I would see my residents, my citizens, little kids, families torn apart on the streets. I will never forget the scene I saw at the Cafe Moment, today called Restobar, just 50 meters from the prime minister's residence. There was a horrible blast. I went there as mayor. Naturally they let me get closer than other people. I saw through a window how people sat on their chairs as if they were waiting for a waiter to bring them a glass. Everybody sitting in position. But they were all dead. It was horrible. I remember the victims of the Sbarro attack... of the bus from Gilo to Patt... But I am also aware that there was a great deal of suffering on the other side... For decades the Arab states showed an exaggerated degree of detachment, neglect and lack of caring for the Palestinians. But it is also impossible to ignore the fact that thousands, tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands, lived in [refugee] camps for decades, in horrible conditions. Many of them live there today. And I know that if we cannot find the mechanism that will allow them to live with the feeling of dignity, without the feeling of perpetual insult, as they live with today, we will not be able to create the dynamic that makes peace. Plainly you've made the choice that you mentioned [between "our very natural desire to live in the whole Land of Israel " and the need to compromise to ensure Israel 's existence "as a Jewish state"]. Do you think Abu Mazen has made that choice as well [between "the myth of the 'right of return‚' and their possibility to establish a Palestinian state"]?
I think that Abu Mazen has made that choice in his heart. I can't speak for him. I think he made the decision. My impression is that he wants peace with Israel, and accepts Israel as Israel defines itself. If you ask him to say that he sees Israel as a Jewish state, he will not say that. But if you ask me whether in his soul he accepts Israel, as Israel defines itself, I think he does. That is not insignificant. It is perhaps not enough, but it is not insignificant.
You represent the nation. He represents only half his nation. Doesn't that create a problem?
I was not personally elected by 62 percent of my people. He was. OK, all Gazan residents today are under the dictatorial and violent government of Hamas. I can't say today how many residents in Gaza would vote for him, and you don't know how many residents in Judea and Samaria would vote for him. [But] the polls show that he would receive a big majority, and Fatah would get a big majority if there were elections today in Gaza ...
Regarding Syria , there seems to be a disconnect. We apparently hit a target in Syria [on September 6] that was so threatening as to require action. At the same time, you are talking very positively about Syria and about your willingness to open discussions with Syria, and separate Syria from Iran . Where does the optimism spring from, if up until just a little while ago they were such a serious threat?
First of all, I don't know [about September 6], and if I do know, I don't want to talk about what was. If I wanted to talk, I wouldn't have waited until today.
I need to ask myself one question: Let's say that there is a danger with the Syrians, and that it could get worse because of their links with the Iranians, Hizbullah and Hamas. Is it in my interest that this not happen, or is it in my interest that this axis of evil continues to flourish, develop and widen?... It would be good for Israel if we could get a peace arrangement with Syria . It is clear that there would be a price for this peace, but also benefits. The Syrians will have to decide if they are prepared for this. I can only say that it is necessary to check whether it is possible to conduct a serious, deep and true discussion [with Damascus ]... They say they want to make peace. I hope they mean what they say... A year, year and a half ago, people came to me with criticisms during interviews, asking why I don't want peace with Syria . I said that was not correct, that I do want peace. Then they asked why we were caving in to American pressure, and that the Americans don't want [Israel to talk to Syria ]. That's also not true. As you can see from the pictures (on the office wall of Olmert with US President George W. Bush), I have very good relations with Bush. We have talks at a level of intimacy that perhaps doesn't exist between the leader of the most important country in the world and other leaders... And the president never told me not to conduct negotiations with Syria . Never. It is up to us... There will not be peace with Syria if Syria is connected to Hamas, Hizbullah and Iran and continues to encourage the actions it is encouraging. That is perfectly clear. It is either/or. Do they need to cut those ties before talks begin?
I am not setting public conditions about what I want from the Syrians. That's not appropriate... I never demanded or accepted preconditions.
Does Egypt want to mediate between Israel and Syria ?
I don't think so... I imagine that the Egyptians, like all Arab states, would be pleased were there peace between Israel and Syria ... [Egyptian President Hosni] Mubarak is a very impressive man. He is very stable. He defended the [peace] agreement with Israel during difficult periods in Egypt . Why should he not want peace between Israel and Syria ? It is natural. Certainly the same is true of [Jordan's] King Abdullah II, who is an exceptional man.
Turning to the issue of Iran. Are the Iranians further ahead [in their nuclear program] than the Iraqis were 26 years ago? And if Russia is selling them ever more sophisticated air defenses, does that limit us and create a situation where it is harder to postpone a response?
The Iranian threat is... a combination of several factors. First of all, the nature of the Iranian regime - non-democratic, extremist, built on hatred and detached from all the basic values of Western culture. It sustains the anti-Israeli Islamic extremist movements. It nurtures them, strengthens them, encourages them. Iran is also, to my sorrow, advanced and developed in the technological areas, so it has the capabilities to develop weapons that can constitute a real danger. And it is also a very rich country, so it has the means to do all this. It has the world's second largest oil reserves and giant reserves of gas, producing immense income. That's where the threat stems from. The Iranians also state clearly and crudely that Israel needs to be wiped off the map. Once they said that we should be sent to Germany . Now they say we should be sent to Alaska . That's a very problematic approach.
I would suggest that we put aside the Russian aspect for the moment. I don't think Russia is our enemy. President Putin is a very impressive man... He stresses repeatedly [to me] that he won't allow Israel 's security to be harmed... He naturally wants to look after the global interests of his country. But he told me he will never be one-sided on issues where Israel is affected. Quite the reverse... Last year when we spoke at length with you here, you expressed confidence that one way or another President Bush would handle the Iranian threat. When we spoke with you in Washington a few weeks ago, at the time of the Annapolis summit [and you had just met with Bush], you gave us a very vague response about having had very interesting discussions with the president on the subject. Since then, the American National Intelligence Estimate has come out, apparently preventing President Bush [in his final year] from taking military action against Iran ...
The NIE summarizes the stance of the American intelligence agencies. The bottom line, it says, is that there is no smoking gun by which we can prove that Iran is currently developing weapons systems for mass destruction. It does talk of the fact that Iran is engaged in uranium enrichment. And President Bush says that his interpretation is that there is no potential use for the uranium they are enriching other than for an atomic bomb. The bottom line is that President Bush hasn't changed his opinion regarding the danger posed by Iran . And I haven't changed my impression regarding President Bush's commitment to prevent Iran from attaining nuclear weapons. Now, what we are doing and not doing, and what he and I talk about when we stroll on the White House lawns, well, that would greatly interest you, but I can't tell you.
But the NIE limits his room for action, no? And where does that leave us?
Israel always acted and prepared for the possibility that it would need to defend its existence on its own. That's always been the case and that is the case today, wherever a threat to our existence can arise. Those who need to know do know that we have the tools to defend ourselves.
Let me remind you that President Bush said a few days ago, after he knew what the thinking was in the American intelligence community, that an attack on Israel is like an attack on America . That's quite some statement. I don't recall him saying that about other countries. So America is a faithful ally. And Israel is a strong state and it has the capacity and the will to prevent a circumstance in which it will stand in existential danger. Beyond that I don't think anything else needs to be said. On the Winograd report, you've been quoted as saying that you don't intend to resign no matter what its content. How can you respond to a report you haven't seen yet?
I haven't responded to the report and I'm not going to respond to the report now. I said I would respond to the report when I read it. It's premature...
Going back to the Palestinians, are you in favor of changing the criteria [for prisoner releases]?
I'm in favor of checking the criteria... For example, when you say a prisoner "with blood on his hands," can there be a circumstance where somebody who didn't harm or injure a Jew or kill a Jew but, say, was part of an apparatus whose members did do something [like that], can one say that he has blood on his hands? Maybe there are definitions that need reexamining. The subject was raised and I charged a committee with checking it, with the participation of several senior ministers and in consultation with the security services. We'll see what they recommend. It may be that there is room for more precise definitions of what constitutes "blood on hands."
Has anything happened in the last month to give you room for more optimism as regards [kidnapped soldier Cpl.] Gilad Schalit?
I believe with all my heart that Gilad Schalit is alive. We're making very considerable efforts. I don't want to go into the details or make predictions. My experience has told me that where these matters are concerned, the less that is said the better.
Can you express the same confidence about [kidnapped reservists] Eldad Regev and Ehud Goldwasser?
I can't say that I know what their situation is. I can say that I am making every effort to establish what their situation is. Again, I don't want to go into details... Lives are at stake. I sit here and every day I make determinations where lives are at stake and I can't always talk about them. But I always carry that responsibility. I've never fled responsibility and I've never avoided taking decisions, but I can't talk about it. Sometimes it would make life much easier for me if I could tell you what we've decided, what we've done, how we've served the people of Israel and how we've been able to rein in people who threaten us. But my sense of responsibility obligates me to restrain myself. Sometimes this causes a certain amount of misunderstanding vis-a-vis the public, or anger, or lack of support.
Could you clarify your position on building settlements and tell us whether the Americans accept this in the context of the road map?
We will honor our obligations as set out in the road map. It's very simple. Take the road map. What's written there will be honored.
What's written is that Israel must stop building in the settlements, including for natural growth.
That's true. That's the obligation. And if everything began and ended with that, then that's what we have to do according to our commitment. But as you know well, America, which sponsored the road map, President Bush, on April 14, 2004, sent a letter that said one can't ignore the demographic reality unfolding in the territories and that this will certainly need to be given expression in the agreements between us and the Palestinians. And this, I would say, renders flexible to a degree the significance of what is written in the road map. I have announced that the State of Israel will not build new settlements and will not confiscate land for this purpose, and I intend to keep the obligation.
So what can we build within the settlements? What about Ma'aleh Adumim?
Ma'aleh Adumim is an indivisible part of Jerusalem and the State of Israel. I don't think when people are talking about settlements they are talking about Ma'aleh Adumim.

07:55 Publié dans Israel | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0)

Israel /La deuxieme guerre d'indépendance.


Israël/ La deuxième guerre d'indépendance

Soixante ans après sa création, Israël est un pays riche, futuriste, technologique et gai, mais menacé. Sa jeunesse le sait. A 60 %, elle soutient la droite nationaliste.

21eb77e419ea7d1668c4df27ae38c2d1.jpgPAR MICHEL GURFINKIEL

Si les jeunes Israéliens de 2008 se retrouvaient dans la situation de leurs grands parents ou de leurs arrière grands parents en 1948, à la veille de l'indépendance, quel mouvement de résistance soutiendraient-ils ? La Haganah, l'organisation militaire semi-officielle émanant de l'Agence juive, dominée par les partis de gauche, professant une doctrine de modération stratégique ? L'Irgoun, issue du sionisme de droite, appelant à une révolte immédiate contre les Britanniques et à la conquête de l'ensemble d'Eretz-Israël ? Ou le groupe Stern, ultra-nationaliste, prêt à recourir aux méthodes les plus dures pour assurer la création d'un Etat juif ? Ce sondage a été organisé à la fin de 2007. Les résultats sont éloquents. 40 % des garçons et des filles interrogés ont choisi la Haganah, 30 % l'Irgoun et 30 % le groupe Stern. En d'autres termes, la ligne dure mène par 60 % pour 40 %.

D'autres sondages, portant sur des questions voisines, donnent les mêmes résultats. Les jeunes Israéliens votent beaucoup plus à droite que leurs aînés, et manifestent aussi un patriotisme beaucoup plus net. C'est vrai des laïques comme des religieux, des jeunes nés dans le pays comme des immigrants, des Ashkénazes comme des Sépharades, des garçons comme des filles. La commission Winograd, qui a analysé les défaillances de Tsahal pendant la seconde guerre du Liban, en 2006, a confirmé que les jeunes combattants, qu'ils fassent partie des unités professionnelles, du contingent ou des réserves, ont eu une conduite au-dessus de tout reproche et un « haut degré de motivation ».

Pourquoi cette radicalisation ? On est tenté de répondre : parce que les jeunes Israéliens ont un cerveau. Le pays dans lequel ils vont grandir est moderne, riche, futuriste, technologique et gai, mais menacé. En 2000, quand il a été élu premier ministre au suffrage universel, Ariel Sharon avait observé qu' « Israël était confronté à sa seconde guerre d'indépendance ». Huit ans plus tard, c'est toujours vrai. Sharon a eu l'immense mérite de briser partiellement la menace en Cisjordanie. Il a pris en ce qui concerne Gaza des décisions risquées qui, entre les mains de ses successeurs, se sont révélées catastrophiques. Début 2008, les nuages noirs s'amoncellent :

-    Le Hezbollah au Liban et le Hamas à Gaza ont démontré qu'ils pouvaient frapper la population civile israélienne à leur guise, et survivre. Résultat : les régions qui se trouvent à proximité immédiate de leurs bases se dépeuplent. Cela encourage ces deux organisations djihadistes à frapper plus fort, plus loin. Après Sdéroth, c'est Ashkelon qui est touché. Après la Galilée, c'est le cœur démographique d'Israël, la région de Tel-Aviv, Gush-Dan en hébreu, qui pourrait se trouver à court terme sous le tir de missiles Kassam ou Katyushka tirés de Cisjordanie.
-    L'Egypte, pays arabe soi disant modéré, ayant signé un traité de paix avec Israël dès 1978, trahit ses engagements, les uns après les autres, avec un cynisme obscène. L'affaire de ces deux mille pseudo pélerins de Gaza en Arabie Saoudite, dont l'Egypte devait garantir la sécurisation et qu'elle a finalement laisser rentrer chez eux sans le moindre contrôle, est exemplaire. Que ce pays ait agi de cette façon pendant la visite privée et officielle du président français sur son territoire ne diminue en rien, on l'aura compris, la gravité de son comportement.
-    Les Arabes israéliens – 1,3 millions d'âmes, 17 % de la population israélienne – sont en train de passer corps et biens du côté des extrémistes islamistes et arabes. Le meeting qui s'est déroulé hier à Nazareth, ville israélienne, est révélateur. Une foule qui ne brandit que les drapeaux palestiniens, qui traite les ministres de son pays de criminels de guerre, qui proclame sa solidarité avec le Hamas de Gaza. Aucun pays souverain ne tolèrerait cela. Certainement pas les vingt-deux pays membres de la Ligue arabe ou les cinquante-deux Etats membres de la Conférence islamique.

Le Proche-Orient ne connaît que la force. C'est dommage. Mais c'est comme cela. Si Israël se retire d'un territoire, il n'apparaît pas aux yeux de ses voisins arabes comme mature et généreux, mais comme faible. S'il n'est pas en mesure d'exercer des représailles à l'égard de l'Egypte, celle-ci continuera à le trahir. Si l'Etat juif ne convainc pas ses citoyens arabes de sa volonté politique, ces derniers basculeront définitivement du côté du djihadisme.

Les jeunes Israéliens, eux, savent cela. Ils se battront. Eux seuls méritent notre respect et notre soutien.

© Michel Gurfinkiel, 2008
RETROUVEZ MICHEL GURFINKIEL SUR www.michelgurfinkiel.com

00:20 Publié dans Israel | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0)

dimanche, 30 décembre 2007

Cadeau de fin d'année pour le monde libre.

Cadeau de fin d'année pour le monde libre: N.Sarkozy rompt avec Bashar El Assad. L'Editorial d'Infolive.tv


Infolive.tvOlivier Rafowicz



C'est au cours d'une conférence de presse commune avec le président Egyptien Hosni Moubarak, à l'occasion de son voyage officiel en Egypte, que le président Français Nicolas Sarkozy a annoncé l'intention de la France de couper tout contact avec le regime Syrien. Infolive.tv, par la voix de son directeur Olivier Rafowicz, revient sur les déclarations du président Nicolas Sarkozy et leurs implications pour l'année 2008. 30/12/2007



21:20 Publié dans Israel | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0)

samedi, 29 décembre 2007

Deux jeunes Israelien tués dans un attentat près d'Hébron .

Deux jeunes Israéliens tués dans un attentat près de Hébron. Raid Israélien dans la nuit.




Selon la 10ème chaîne de télévision israélienne, l'armée aurait mené dans la nuit de vendredi à samedi un raid dans l'hôpital al-Ahli de Hébron, à la recherche des terroristes blessés lors de l'attaque terroriste de Vendredi à Télèm. Deux israéliens, agés d'une vingtaine d'années et habitants de Kiryat Arba, ont ete tués hier après-midi lors d'un attentat à l'arme automatique près de Télèm, dans les collines qui entourent la ville de Hebron. Quatre terroristes palestiniens avaient ouvert le feu depuis un véhicule sur un groupe de jeunes randonneurs, composé des deux victimes et d'une jeune femme. Lors de l'attentat, les deux jeunes victimes ont eu le temps de riposter avec leurs armes personnelles et de tuer 2 des 4 terroristes, avant de succomber de leurs blessures. Tous deux étaient membres des unités d'élite de l'armée israélienne. Ahikam Amihai (z"l), 20 ans, était caporal dans les commando de l'armée de l'air, et David Rubin (z"l), 21 ans, était sergent dans les commandos de marine ("Shayetet 13") Les secours du Maguen Daviv Adom avaient été prévenus par la jeune israélienne qui les accompagnait. A leur arrivée, les équipes d'urgences n'avaient pu que constater les décès des deux jeunes randonneurs, et ont soigné la jeune fille en état de choc. Les forces de sécurité continuent toujours de quadriller le secteur à la recherche des deux autres terroristes encore en fuite. La branche Al Quds du Jihad Islamique, ainsi que les Brigades des Martyrs d'Al Aqsa, mouvement terroriste affilié au Fatah, ont tous deux revendiqué leur responsabilité dans l'attentat. Quelques jours avant le sommet d'Annapolis, des terroristes palestiniens avaient assassiné un jeune père de deux enfants, Ido Zoldan (z"l), agé de 29 ans, près de Kadoumim en Samarie.29/12/2007 Efraïm Meslet


20:18 Publié dans Israel | Lien permanent | Commentaires (0)

vendredi, 28 décembre 2007


2007, une année triste

      624cf513b2d7b63972e4d3326a9d357f.jpgTriste fin d’année 2007 qui s’achève dans le sang au Pakistan où Benazir Bhutto a été assassinée jeudi 27 décembre. De retour dans son pays après huit ans d’exil, l’ancienne Premier ministre pakistanaise incarnait l’opposition à Pervez Musharaf. Après avoir échappé à un attentat à Karachi le 28 octobre dernier qui avait fait 139 morts, elle est la nouvelle victime des crimes lâches qui servent les intérêts du régime dictatorial. La poudrière islamique qu’est le Pakistan n’a pas fini d’inquiéter.

  Triste année 2007, deux régions continuent d’ébranler le monde : l’Asie et le Moyen Orient. A quelques mois des Jeux Olympiques qui se dérouleront en Chine, la crise Birmane en augure bien d’autres, sur des terres où la démocratie n’est pas encore née. L’instabilité et l’extrémisme ont frappé un Moyen Orient qui cherche à échapper au fatalisme de la haine : un camp de la modération est en train de naître, mais l’accouchement des modérés semble sans fin ; tandis que des mains se serrent à Sharm El Shek, des missiles Qassam n’en finissent plus de s’abattre sur Sdérot et le Néguev occidental. Au Darfour, à Alger, en Mauritanie, en Irak, c’est le terrorisme islamiste qui gronde.

  Le formidable virage atlantiste de la nouvelle politique étrangère de la France incarnée par Nicolas Sarkozy ne va pas sans poser de véritables interrogations : comment ne pas s’inquiéter par exemple de la fourniture au monde arabe, de la Lybie à l’Algérie, du nucléaire civil ?
La crise iranienne n’a toujours pas servi de leçon à l’Occident qui refuse souvent de croire que la menace du Président iranien Ahmadinejad se limite à Israël. Comme pour prendre ses distances avec l’Orient compliqué, face à une opinion publique américaine lasse d’entendre dire que l’Irak n’est pas un bourbier, l’administration américaine s’en est allée utiliser un rapport de la CIA pour relativiser le danger iranien. Et assurer qu’elle n’interviendrait pas.

  A l’heure où le gouvernement israélien semble s’engager dans la voie imposée par les nations qui ont participé à la conférence d’Annapolis, et qui au nom de la légalité internationale font habilement pression sur Israël pour un retour aux frontières de 1967, aucune garantie n’est donnée à l’Etat juif, aucun signe n’encouragerait finalement la majorité que sont les indécis à soutenir avec enthousiasme un quelconque plan de paix.

  En outre, la question de l’acceptabilité d’Israël par le monde arabe est la clé de voûte de la vraie et seule paix que toute la région devrait non plus rêver, mais réalisée : une paix fondée sur le franchissement symbolique des frontières culturelles. En Egypte, la coopération culturelle avec Israël est proscrite. Triste rappel, à l’heure où l’on célèbre trente ans de paix entre les deux pays.

  La paix ne réussira pas à s’ancrer sans l’échange des cultures qui favorise la connaissance et l’acceptation de l’autre. Nous aurons une paix véritable le jour où les œuvres des musées israéliens seront exposées au musée de Damas, lorsque les galeries phéniciennes du musée de Beyrouth seront exposées à Jérusalem, le jour où les survivants de la Shoah donneront des conférences dans les écoles de Téhéran ou de Bagdad.

  La paix théorique reste l’apanage des diplomates. La paix véritable se décide dans les rues de Jérusalem, du Caire, de Ramallah ou de Karachi.

  Riche en déceptions, l’année 2007 en effet aurait pu satisfaire nombre de fidèles optimistes.  Seules les infirmières bulgares ont été sauvées d’une injustice qui frappe aussi les otages des FARC, ceux du Hezbollah et du Hamas par exemple.
L’hyper médiatisation de la terrible détention d’Ingrid Betancourt, la passionaria franco-colombienne, devrait inspirer à tous les partisans de la liberté et aux militants de la justice le désir de manifester leur refus que l’année 2008 ressemble pour les trois otages israéliens à l’année 2007.  

  Ce soir, nous pensons à Guilad Shalit, Ehoud Goldwasser et Eldad Reguev, les grands oubliés de l’année 2007. Triste sort qu’ils subissent, depuis 552 jours.

Guy Senbel


07:10 Publié dans Israel | Lien permanent | Commentaires (1)

Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr, l'actualité en temps réel Toute l'info avec 20minutes.fr : l'actualité en temps réel | tout le sport : analyses, résultats et matchs en direct
high-tech | arts & stars : toute l'actu people | l'actu en images | La une des lecteurs : votre blog fait l'actu