Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
12 mars 2009 4 12 /03 /mars /2009 11:45


Par Dan Assayah
Rubrique: Actualité
Publié le 12 mars 2009 à 10:22

On savait déjà que Izhak Shamir, qui a été Premier Ministre d’Israël dans les années 80, a passé de longues années en France en tant qu’espion officiel du Mossad.

Tzipi Livni, qui a raté la dernière marche pour devenir premier Ministre, a été elle aussi hyper-active en France comme agent du Mossad.

Un troisième personnage semble émerger autour de Bibi Netanyahou et qui risque d’avoir une belle carrière politique : il s’agit de UZI ARAD qui a été selon le site Intelligence Online publié à Paris, ex-chef d’Antenne du Mossad. Uzi Arad va prendre presque à coup sur la tête du CONSEIL NATIONAL DE SECURITE ISRAELIEN.


Partager cet article
11 mars 2009 3 11 /03 /mars /2009 19:38
Time to Call It Quits

The Justice Department should drop its misguided prosecution of two former AIPAC officials.



Wednesday, March 11, 2009; Page A14


ATTORNEY GENERAL Eric H. Holder Jr. should put an end to a criminal case that should never have been brought.

The matter involves Steven J. Rosen and Keith Weissman, two former officials for the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or AIPAC. The two were indicted in 2005 during the Bush administration and charged with conspiracy to disclose national security secrets to unauthorized individuals under the archaic Espionage Act. Those said to have received such information include Israeli officials, other AIPAC personnel and a reporter for The Post.

The government has the right to demand strict confidentiality from government officials and others who swear to protect its secrets. The Justice Department errs egregiously and risks profound damage to the First Amendment, however, when it insists that private citizens -- academics, journalists, think tank analysts, lobbyists and the like -- also are legally bound to keep the nation's secrets. The prosecution in effect criminalizes the exchange of information.

If principle alone is not enough to convince Mr. Holder of the need to drop this case, he should also consider the difficulty his prosecutors face in making the charges stick. Recent rulings have strengthened the hand of the defendants by allowing them to rely on classified documents and to call former Bush officials, including former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice, as witnesses. The trial court has also determined that in order to prevail, the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendants passed along information they knew to be closely held by the government, that they did so knowing it could damage national security and that they acted in bad faith. These are exceedingly high hurdles to clear.

A trial has been scheduled for June in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Mr. Holder should pull the plug on this prosecution long before then.

Partager cet article
11 mars 2009 3 11 /03 /mars /2009 19:14

L'Affaire Freeman est avant tout une problème de conflit d'intérêts incompatible entre les liens commerciaux et politiques de "Chas" Freeman avec la Chine et l'Arabie Saoudite et les nouvelles fonctions auxquelles il se destinait. Il aurait politiquement survécu s'il n'avait s'agi que d'Israël.

 Ses accointances chinoises l'auraient aussi conduit à ignorer les tensions avec le Soudan à propos du Darfour, ou toute autre violation des droits de l'homme commise du côté chinois ou saoudien. Il faut savoir que Freeman perçoit chaque année 10 000 $ de la Chine en tant que membre international du bureau des conseillers auprès du Gouvernement chinois. Un représentant républicain, Franck Wolf, défenseur des droits de l'homme de longue date, a personnellement écrit une lettre de protestation à Barack Obama, dénonçant les liens financiers de Freeman avec le CNOOC chinois, qui prospecte au Darfour pendant les massacres.

Il a encore protesté contre une des fameuses "petites phrases" de Freeman, décrivant les incidents au Tibet, comme relevant "d'émeutes raciales" (NDLR : "anti-chinoises").

The Freeman fight: Was it all about Israel?

While the initial point of contention over Charles "Chas" Freeman's appointment may have been over Israel, one source said, "people became aware of a multitude of problems." (Pacific Council)

1 out of 1

Other Media

While the initial point of contention over Charles "Chas" Freeman's appointment may have been over Israel, one source said, "people became aware of a multitude of problems." (Pacific Council)

WASHINGTON (JTA) -- Supporters of the Obama administration's aborted appointment for a top intelligence post said the former ambassador was unfairly tarred by pro-Israel pundits and advocates.

But lawmakers who led the successful campaign against the selection of Charles “Chas” Freeman said their concerns always had less to do with his criticisms of Israel than his financial ties to Saudi Arabia and a Chinese oil company with business dealings in Iran.

"This was not about Israel, it was about a revolving door through which Freeman rotated and was paid handsomely," said U.S. Rep. Steve Israel (D-N.Y.), after Freeman withdrew his name from consideration Tuesday. The New York congressman was referring to the idea of the former ambassador to Saudi Arabia going from serving the U.S. government to being paid by foreign governments and then returning to government service.

"There was a steady revelation of financial conflicts of interest involving foreign powers that were troubling," said Rep. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), who along with Israel led the opposition in Congress. "If it had simply been a dispute about Middle East policy, he would have survived."

Freeman lashed out at his critics Tuesday evening, releasing a statement blaming "the Israel Lobby" and "unscrupulous people with a passionate attachment to the views of a political faction in a foreign country" for his exit.

"The tactics of the Israel Lobby plumb the depths of dishonor and indecency and include character assassination, selective misquotation, the willful distortion of the record, the fabrication of falsehoods, and an utter disregard for the truth," he said. "The aim of this Lobby is control of the policy process through the exercise of a veto over the appointment of people who dispute the wisdom of its views, the substitution of political correctness for analysis, and the exclusion of any and all options for decision by Americans and our government other than those that it favors."

Freeman's appointment as chairman of the National Intelligence Council, where he would have overseen the production of National Intelligence Estimates, had drawn criticism as soon as it became public.

The first criticism came in a blog post by former top AIPAC staffer Steve Rosen, who is under indictment for passing classified information to Israel. Soon after, a number of prominent commentators joined in the criticism, including Jeffrey Goldberg of The Atlantic, Michael Goldfarb of The Weekly Standard, and Jon Chait and Martin Peretz of The New Republic.

Many of those writers noted Freeman’s view that the Israelis are primarily responsible for the failure to secure a peace deal with the Palestinians and a 2006 speech in which he seemed to blame U.S. support of Israel for the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks. But several of the critics also raised other objections to Freeman.

In suggesting that his “realist” foreign policy views were just as ideological as the “neonconservative” views of the previous administration, the critics stressed Freeman’s leadership of the Saudi-funded Middle East Policy Council, and highlighted his statements that Chinese authorities should have intervened earlier to “nip” the Tiananmen Square protests “in the bud” and never allowed such demonstrations in the capital.

In response, Freeman's defenders dismissed the concerns about China and Saudi Arabia as a smokescreen, insisting that the critics were motivated solely by their commitment to Israel. Among the defenders were two vocal critics of AIPAC -- Stephen Walt, co-author of the book “The Israel Lobby,” and the Israel Policy Forum’s M.J. Rosenberg.

Andrew Sullivan, a traditionally pro-Israel pundit not known for bashing AIPAC, also came down on Freeman’s side, calling “the hysterical bullying” of the appointee “repulsive.”

“Freeman’s appointment is the first skirmish in what could be an intense war for the soul of Obama’s foreign policy,” Sullivan wrote in the London Times. “The goal is not just to force one realist thinker to withdraw, but to ensure that policy towards Israel changes very, very little from the Bush years.”

But lawmakers who took up the fight against Freeman rejected this line of argument, insisting that his financial ties to Saudi Arabia and China were the big problem.

Israel, one of the legislators who requested an investigation of Freeman's financial ties, said he was concerned about Freeman's 12-year chairmanship of the Middle East Policy Council, which has received one-twelfth of its funding from Saudi Arabia. He also cited the $10,000-per-year that Freeman received for serving as a member of the international advisory board of the Chinese government-owned international China National Offshore Oil Company, or CNOOC, which has business dealings in Iran.

“It's a glaring conflict of interest,” Israel said Tuesday morning, before Freeman withdrew.

Israel, a member of the Select Intelligence Oversight Panel of the House Appropriations Committee, said the intelligence assessments that led the United States into the Iraq war were based on “political agendas and strong opinions,” which made him vow to never trust future assessments unless they come from “unimpeachable” sources.

“He is a walking opinion, not an independent intelligence analyst,” Israel said.

Freeman is "entitled to be a strident critic of Israel and be a strident defender of China. He is not entitled to hold those opinions and make judgment on intelligence matters," he said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Frank Wolf (R-Va.), a longtime booster of human rights, wrote his own letter to President Obama last week outlining his objections to the appointment, specifically focusing on Freeman's ties to CNOOC and China's purchase of oil from Sudan throughout the Darfur genocide, as well as his use of the term “race riot” to describe a protest in Tibet.

“This cannot go through,” Wolf said in an interview Monday. “Do you realize the message this will send?”

At that time -- not long after a conversation with Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair, who had tapped Freeman for the post -- he urged the Jewish community to get publicly involved.

“I need some help,” he said.”Everyone who cares about Israel, Tibet, China, Darfur, Burma.”

Asked whether any such Jewish groups had been quietly urging him or others to get involved, Wolf said no.

The Zionist Organization of America and the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs were the only Jewish organizations to come out publicly against the pick, though Freeman’s defenders said the pro-Israel lobby had quietly raised concerns with members of the media.

Israel also said he has heard from very few constituents and no lobbyists on the issue -- he said it was simply an issue on which he felt strongly.

In exchanges with lawmakers, Blair had defended the choice.

At a U.S. Senate hearing Tuesday morning, hours before Freeman's withdrawal, Blair said Freeman is "a person of strong views, of an inventive mind in the analytical point of view."

Freeman also was backed by a group of 17 former U.S. ambassadors, including two who served in Israel, Sam Lewis and Thomas Pickering. The envoys signed a letter of support that was sent to The Wall Street Journal describing Freeman as a “man of integrity and high intelligence who would never let his personal views shade or distort intelligence assessments.”

The most spirited defense of Freeman came from his son, Charles Freeman Jr., a former assistant U.S. Trade Representative for China Affairs.

In a recent blog post on http://www.thewashingtonnote.com, the younger Freeman declared that he would like to “punch some of these guys in the face” and said his father’s “appointment is being challenged these days by a small cabal of folks that believe first and foremost in the importance of allegiance to Israel as a core U.S. priority.” He referred to his father’s critics as “low-lives,” “Israel first-ers” and “schmucks” while accusing them of smearing his father. And he accused Rosen of “chutzpah,” given his legal troubles.

Rosenberg, another of Freeman’s outspoken defenders -- and the only one connected to a pro-Israel organization -- told JTA that he read Freeman's speeches and writings and didn't have a problem with his views.

Instead, Rosenberg said, the real problem was what he described as the campaign to ensure that someone who has criticized Israeli policies is considered inappropriate to serve in the U.S. government.

“There's a perception that American Jews gang up to block the appointment of people they don't consider acceptable on Israel, and it's dangerous,” said Rosenberg, who is said to have butted heads with Rosen when both worked at AIPAC. “It reflects on the community as a whole, when it is in fact 10 people.”

In a blog post at TalkingPointsMemo.com, Rosenberg described the group of Freeman critics as “so oblivious to Jewish history that it believes it can recklessly put their interests in Israel above everything else and not expect to build strong resentment in Washington (it was strong enough, even before this).”

One Capitol Hill insider, though, seemed prescient on Monday when he said that the initial concerns about Freeman's criticism of Israel were not enough to stop his official appointment to chair the NIC about a week after it was first reported.

This person argued that Freeman's comments on China and Tibet, and his involvement with CNOOC, the oil company, were what would end up derailing the appointment.

“He was never vetted, where these kinds of things would come out,” said the source, referring to the announcement last week that the examination of Freeman's finances that is customary for all top appointments has not yet occurred. “While the initial point of contention may have been Israel, people became aware of a multitude of problems.”

More articles by this au
Partager cet article
11 mars 2009 3 11 /03 /mars /2009 00:45

As many of you may know, Charles Freeman has "has requested that his selection to be Chairman of the National Intelligence Council not proceed."

What you may not know is that Steven J. Rosen of the Middle East Forum was the person who first brought attention to the problematic nature of Freeman's appointment, in a February 19 blog titled "Alarming appointment at the CIA." Within hours, the word was out; and three weeks later Freeman has conceded defeat. Only someone with Steve's stature and credibility could have made this happen.

Even those who backed the Freeman appointment acknowledge Steve's leadership in this effort. For example:

I congratulate Steve and am proud of this early achievement by the Forum's newly created Washington Project.

Yours sincerely,

Daniel Pipes




mardi 10 mars 2009

Charles Freeman se retire
 Charles Freeman, un diplomate américain anti-israélien et pro-islamiste qui était sur la sellette au Congrès, a retiré sa candidature à un poste élevé au sein du renseignement, dernier en date d'une série de désistements laissant vacants des postes de l'administration Obama.
Il s'agit du cinquième candidat choisi par le nouveau Président qui renonce à son poste, en deux mois de gestion.

M. Freeman "a demandé à ne pas être nommé au poste de président du Conseil national du renseignement" (CNR), indique mardi le bureau du directeur du renseignement Dennis Blair dans un communiqué, ajoutant que ce dernier "a accepté la décision de l'ambassadeur Freeman à regret".

M. Freeman faisait l'objet d'un processus d'accréditation houleux au Congrès. L'annonce de sa nomination par M. Blair à un poste où il aurait dû coordonner les vues des 16 agences de renseignement américain sur des sujets ultrasensibles avait en effet soulevé l'inquiétude d'un groupe de parlementaires aussi bien démocrates que républicains soutenant fermement Israël.

EN BONUS: Cinq détenus de la base américaine de Guantanamo accusés de complot dans les attentats terroristes de 2001 ont soumis à la justice un document dans lequel ils se déclarent coupables et se disent fiers d'oeuvrer "à détruire" les Etats-Unis.


Partager cet article
10 mars 2009 2 10 /03 /mars /2009 21:58
March 10, 2009
(aimablement transmis par Claurila : )
Obama: Pro-Israel talk, anti-Israel walk

By Adam Hasner

Barely a month into the presidency of Barack Obama, a profound realization is spreading among the pro-Israel community: we do not have an ally in the White House. The growing threat that Israel and the Jewish People now face demands an immediate acceptance of the "facts on the ground" regarding President Obama's perspective and agenda, and decisive action to prevent the frightening reality that he may play a leading role in creating.

So how exactly did this get by most Jewish voters during last year's election? While some, including this author, warned of his dubious associations and likely course of action regarding Israel, Obama brilliantly pandered to Jewish crowds around the country with his scripted and amorphous proclamations of support for Israel, while utilizing an array of prominent Jewish surrogates in order to avoid any real accountability.

Under the new Obama administration, our federal government is now beginning to comfortably operate within the realm of the anti-Israel perspective espoused by the likes of Mearsheimer and Walt, who argue that the political clout of American Jews is used to manipulate U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of broader American interests.  On one hand, President Obama receives advice on Israel, Iran and the entire Middle East from advisors such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, and Chas Freeman, all of whom possess strong anti-Israel biases that are well documented.  Freeman, whose nomination to a top intelligence post faces growing criticism, was quoted as saying "the primary reason America confronts a terrorism problem today... is the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation."  As if that were not bad enough, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently now joining the fray with her recent remarks intended to unduly pressure Israel.

On the other hand, there is also a faction of prominent Jewish politicians who don't seem willing to speak out against the President's judgment or the actions we are now witnessing. While allowing President Obama to tout their Jewish identities for political gain, these politicians are also helping the Administration to confer mainstream status and legitimacy upon treacherous new Jewish agencies like J-Street, whose vision for Israel more readily identifies with that of her enemies. Combined, the forces at work within the Executive branch are helping to create conditions that will allow President Obama to force dangerous concessions upon Israel.  

The policies put forth by President Obama during his first 30 days in office paint a disturbing picture as well. In light of his first Presidential news interview having been granted to the Al-Arabia television network, his first head-of-state phone call placed to Mahmoud Abbas, and his allocation of $20 million dollars of taxpayer money to resettling Palestinians with ties to Hamas in the United States, what we have witnessed is a clear pattern of taking the pressure off terrorist groups, the Islamist regimes that support them and other tyrants who hate Israel and America in favor of offering them legitimacy and leniency.  The growing danger of the Iranians and their nuclear weapons program, along with the network of villains they are organizing and arming, are without a doubt today's greatest threat to America, Israel and the Western World.   As President Obama offers the Iranians more time, despite plenty of credible evidence that their nuclear weapons program is speeding ahead, he is also granting a reprieve to their vicious surrogates. For example, numerous overtures and contacts are taking place between the Administration and the Al-Assad regime, less than a year and a half after Israel was forced to destroy Syria's secret nuclear reactor facility built by the North Koreans.

Another Iranian proxy, the Hamas terror organization, is also benefiting from President Obama's appeasement and accommodation. Special Middle-East Envoy George Mitchell recently signaled U.S. approval for Hamas to join in governing the Palestinian Authority. That is in addition to the $900 million in U.S. taxpayer money that will shortly be gifted to Hamas-controlled Gaza for "aid," which will only help to ensure that the terrorists need not spend their own money on anything other than arms and death. Once Hamas is finally legitimized, which now appears to be likely, one can only imagine how their international acceptance will adversely impact the prospect of peace.

Anti-Israelism and other forms of latent anti-Semitism have also received a boost from President Obama's initial decision to send a delegation to the negotiation sessions of the upcoming Durban II conference. The U.S. representatives' silence in the face of repeated attempts to demonize Israel and vilify Zionism did plenty to gratify the gathering of wolves, before the President ultimately realized that America's presence was making things worse rather than better. The damage has been done however, and while the U.S. has indicated after the fact that it likely will not participate in the plenary session, many nations that would have otherwise followed the U.S. in boycotting Durban II will now be lending their credence.  Israel's supporters must understand that this set of circumstances significantly helps our enemies' effort to delegitimize Israel's right to exist by harkening back to the "Zionism is racism" days of U.N. Resolution 3379.

In looking squarely ahead to the grave challenges we face on the horizon, it is important to keep in mind that we are still early in the new President's term, and that there are a variety of ways to demand action on the promises we were assured of during his campaign.  To begin, we must call upon pro-Israel Congressional leaders and Jewish activists - those who supported President Obama and those who didn't - to hold him to his word and protect the America-Israel relationship. We cannot afford to be passive in performing this task. Where there is inaction or resistance, we must withhold all support from politicians who won't stand up to the Administration's harmful policies. The solemn oath of "Never Again" must not be forgotten in our time.

Florida State Representative Adam Hasner (R-Boca Raton) is the Majority Leader of the Florida House of Representatives. He served as the Jewish Outreach Chairman in Florida for McCain/Palin during the 2008 election. He can be reached at adamhasner@hasner.org.
48 Comments on "Obama: Pro-Israel talk, anti-Israel walk"
Partager cet article
10 mars 2009 2 10 /03 /mars /2009 11:23
Mardi 10 mars 2009

Les troupes d'Obama prises en flagrant délit d'espionnage.

Commentaire : Georges Bush avait trouvé une forme de modus-vivendi avec la Chine, qui est influente au Pakistan et sur le dossier nucléaire iranien, mais bien évidemment, dans les rappors trilatéraux avec la Russie en Asie Centrale. Cet incident survient après des années de guerre semi-froide avec Bill Clinton. Ici, l'Administration démocrate reprend ses mauvaises habitudes vélléitaires en réinstaurant la méfiance. Il y a fort à parier que tout ceci ne sera pas sans incidence sur la plupart des dossiers chauds de la planète. Le Nigaud Obama, une fois encore pris la main dans le sac de noeuds asiatique...

C'est chez l'ami JSS : http://jss.over-blog.com/article-28853462.html
Il voulait la paix, il prépare la guerre... Obama vient de réactiver cette bonne vieille guere secrète qui tance les relations diplomatiques mondiale. En espionnant les navires militaires chinois, Obama empêche une résolution du conflit soudanais (puisque les chinois soutiennent le Soudan) et Iranienne (puisque les chinois  soutiennent les russes et les iraniens).... Enfin... L'effet Obama n'aura pas fait long feu !
Pékin affirme que le bâtiment de la marine américaine poursuivi ce week-end par des navires chinois menait des activités illégales de surveillance au large de l'île de Hainan.
L'incident s'est produit ce week-end en mer de Chine méridionale. Selon la version du Pentagone, le bâtiment américain, l'USNS Impeccable, dépourvu d'armement, croisait 'en toute légalité dans les eaux internationales'. Il a été poursuivi par cinq navires de la marine chinoise dont l'un s'est approché à moins de huit mètres, a précisé le département américain de la défense. Les Etats-Unis ont officiellement protesté auprès des autorités chinoises après une manoeuvre qualifiée de 'harcèlement'. Le Pentagone appelle la Chine à respecter le droit maritime international.
'La Chine ne peut accepter ces accusations sans fondement', a réagi l'ambassade chinoise. Au ministère chinois des affaires étrangères, aucun responsable n'a pu être joint. 'Le bâtiment concerné de la marine américaine se trouvait dans la zone économique spéciale de la Chine et menait des activités illégales de surveillance', affirme encore l'ambassade, dont le communiqué est repris par la chaîne Phoenix Television sur son site Internet. 'La Chine enjoint les Etats-Unis de mettre un terme à toutes ces activités illégales de surveillance', poursuit le communiqué.
D'après des analystes indépendants, l'île de Hainan, au large de l'extrémité sud de la Chine, abrite une base navale où sont stationnés des sous-marins d'attaque lanceurs d'engin. Cet incident fait lointainement écho au bras de fer qui avait opposé les deux pays en 2001 après l'atterrissage d'urgence d'un avion espion américain sur cette même île. Ses vingt-quatre membres d'équipage n'avaient été libérés par la Chine qu'après des excuses officielles de Washington.
par JSS publié dans : USA
Partager cet article
10 mars 2009 2 10 /03 /mars /2009 10:47
"Première crise israélo-américaine" depuis Obama


mardi 10 mars 2009

L’association pour les Droits du citoyen s’est adressée au maire de Jérusalem, Nir Barkat, pour qu’il fasse cesser immédiatement les destructions des maisons construites illégalement à Jérusalem est, qui « même si elles sont réglementaires, ne font que renforcer la détresse » des habitants. Les avocats de cette association affirment également qu’une commission militaire avait déjà certifié, par le passé, que ces démolitions n’étaient absolument pas effectives, et même susceptibles d’encourager de nouveaux attentats.

Le Wall Street Journal, a rappelé dans son édition d’hier, que ce sujet avait évoqué lors de la visite de la secrétaire d’Etat américaine dans la région, Hillary Clinton, qui avait déclaré à Ramallah, lors d’une conférence de presse conjointe avec Mahmoud Abbas, que ces destructions « ne servent à rien », et appelé Israël à ne pas les poursuivre.

Alors que Nir Barkat avait catégoriquement nié que ces démolitions ne soient liées en quoique ce soit à la nationalité des habitants, et qualifié ces paroles de « vent chaud », « sans aucune base valable », le bureau du Premier ministre a publié le communiqué suivant : « Malheureusement des informations imprécises ont fait état d’une critique par le maire de Jérusalem de la secrétaire d’Etat. Or, ainsi qu’il nous l’a affirmé lui-même, il n’avait aucune intention de lui porter une quelconque atteinte, et exprime ses regrets si ses paroles ont été mal comprises ».

Le grand quotidien américain a pour sa part qualifié ce différend de « Première crise israélo-américaine » depuis l’élection du nouveau président américain, Barack Obama.

Partager cet article
6 mars 2009 5 06 /03 /mars /2009 18:17
The New Republic
Staying Alive by
Why Hillary Clinton and George Mitchell will not succeed in Israel.
Post Date Wednesday, March 04, 2009

One a mission to Ramallah and Jerusalem in 2002, Secretary of State Colin Powell began with an attempt to bring about a cease-fire and ended in a public squabble with Yasser Arafat. I remember watching an America comedian on late-night television at the time pronounce Powell's trip "somewhat a success--he came back alive."


It's a joke I have quoted many times since then, and though circumstances in the region are quite different since Powell's stint at Foggy Bottom, the chances for a secretary of State to return home with more substantial achievement than just staying alive haven't really changed. Both Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Mideast "special envoy" George Mitchell, who have both been in Israel in the last two weeks, have come with an old textbook--one that many will say is outdated. Mitchell got his regional education in the beginning of this decade, when violence was spiraling, but the more secular. more moderate Fatah faction was still in control of Palestinian affairs. Clinton got her education even further back, when the Oslo peace process was still believed to be viable. Thus, they come with their preconceived beliefs, and with the remnants of the Annapolis process initiated by the George Bush/Condoleezza Rice administration. If they have new tricks to offer, Israelis and Palestinians are being kept in the dark.


What we have heard from Clinton, so far, is tired repetition: More money to the Palestinians in the hope that this time it will be actually given and used wisely. More talk about the "two-state solution"--a mantra the soon-to-be Israeli prime minister does not believe in. More subtle pressure to "ease" conditions for Palestinians, without regard to the fact that closing the Gaza border is one of very few tools with which Israel can try to pressure Palestinian radicals into ceasing their fire. More talk about "Quartet demands" to Hamas--demands that it did not meet in the past and has shown no desire to meet in the future. Hardly the "vigorous" and "creative" diplomacy the Obama administration has vowed to use.


Not that it is Clinton's fault; more "vigorous" diplomacy cannot change the current situation. Her trip might finally convince her how futile the situation is, and how worthless it will be for her to waste her precious time on a lost cause. She will see first-hand how Prime Minister Ehud Olmert of Israel and the Palestinian President Mahmud Abbas have explored the contours of possible peace deal more extensively than all preceding leaders, but they still couldn't reach an agreed solution--one that both sides would be willing to risk their political future by putting on the table.


She also might notice that the only thing that has made some, if not huge, difference in recent years is the far-from-the-limelight work of General Keith Dayton. He isn't going to bring the sides closer to a final status agreement; but in helping Palestinians build a more efficient national security force, his efforts will enable the Palestinian Authority to more effectively govern some of the territory presumably under its jurisdiction.


Clinton is presumably hearing a lot about the shenanigans of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, the achievements of Israel's military in Operation Cast Lead, and the need for Egypt to prevent the smuggling of more weapons into Gaza. But she will also see that all this effort at "preventing" and "deterring," as Israel's goals in Gaza are often described, hasn't worked--at least, not yet. Thus, pouring money into Gaza--as Clinton and the leaders sharing the stage with her in the Sharm El-Sheikh conference have vowed to do--might make a bad situation even worse in two possible ways: It can be a huge waste of money in the not-unlikely case that Israel will again have to use force in the Gaza strip fairly soon. Or it can serve to deter Israel--rather than Hamas--from the necessary use of such force, fearing the outrage of those countries now investing money in rebuilding the targets that Israel needs to destroy yet again.


Both Clinton and Mitchell know that not much can be done at this time: No brilliant ideas can put an end to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict within months, not even a few years; being "vigorously engaged," as Clinton promised yesterday in Jerusalem, will not tame Hamas or make Abbas a strong leader of the Palestinian people; and no threats can force an Israeli leader to make real compromises when rockets keep falling on voters' heads. Both Clinton and Mitchell have the advantage of being not just foreign-policy wonks, but also former (and in Clinton's case, maybe future) politicians. Thus, hopefully they have a better understanding of the political realities of the Middle East then their predecessor, Professor Rice.


If they do, then like every good politician, they know what needs to be done: Promise money (that might not come), visit frequently (thus avoiding criticism because of "lack of engagement"), speak loudly (when you have a very small stick)--and wait for new ideas or opportunities to emerge. If I understand Clinton's remarks regarding Iran correctly--she told reporters that "it is "very doubtful" that U.S. overtures will convince Iran to stop its nuclear program--putting up a show is becoming a habit for the Obama team in this region. The main event: engage Iran. The sideshow: push the peace process forward. Unfortunately, chances for success in both cases seem quite similar.


Shmuel Rosner, a Tel-Aviv based columnist, blogs daily at Rosner's Domain.



Partager cet article
6 mars 2009 5 06 /03 /mars /2009 18:07
Partager cet article
6 mars 2009 5 06 /03 /mars /2009 00:08
Take Action: Stop Swiss Bid to Elect Anti-American Extremist to U.N. March 5, 2009      

Hillary Clinton in Geneva tomorrow: Will she stop Swiss nomination of U.N.'s leading anti-American and anti-Israel official?

News:  U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton meets in Geneva tomorrow with Swiss Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey, whose government has just nominated Jean Ziegler--a former Swiss politician notorious for his anti-American books, giving a prize to a French Holocaust denier, and apologetics for Libya’s Qaddafi regime--to a U.N. human rights post. Ziegler is a longtime Socialist party confidante of Ms. Calmy-Rey.

Calmy-Rey's government nominated Ziegler for re-election to the advisory committee of the UN Human Rights Council, as the only candidate of the council’s Western group. When Western states elect a notorious apologist of dictators and one of the world’s most virulent promoters of hatred against their own embattled civilization, they signal defeatism in the wrong place—and at the worst time. Ziegler's latest French-language best-seller is entitled Hatred of the West.
The U.N. vote is scheduled for March 25th.

We support America’s new decision to participate in the UN Human Rights Council, but only if its presence will be used to fight and defeat such perversions of human rights. As the darling of the council's ruling Arab and Third World blocs, Ziegler's re-election is virtually assured. Only pressure from Secretary Clinton, supported by other voices of reason, can stop Swiss Foreign Minister Calmy-Rey from pursing this outrageous nomination. Click Here to Take Action   

Analysis:  Astonishing to believe — but at the U.N., too often, not too astonishing for it not to happen. Jean Ziegler has a long history of supporting unsavory rulers and regimes, including some of the world's worst human rights violators. As U.N. hunger expert from 200 to 2007, he ignored regions with the most severe food crises, and instead devoted his time to anti-Western and anti-Israel polemics.

Who is Jean Ziegler?

As documented in this UN Watch essay, Jean Ziegler is:

  • Apologist for some of the worst human rights criminals of our time.  Click for video.

  • After Fidel Castro imprisoned 70 journalists, Ziegler proclaimed "total support for the Cuban revolution."  During an official visit to the Communist island in October, Ziegler hailed the virtues of Castro regime even while he refused to meet Cuban dissidents.



  • In 2002 he praised the Zimbabwean dictator, saying, “Mugabe has history and morality with him.” He paid visits to Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Kim Il-Sung in North Korea.


  • In 2006, during an interview in Lebanon, Mr. Ziegler said, “I refuse to describe Hezbollah as a terrorist organization. It is a national resistance movement. I can understand Hezbollah when they kidnap soldiers...”


  • According to an article last year in The Guardian, “in 1989—four months after Libya bombed Pan Am flight 103, killing 270 people from 21 countries—Ziegler launched the annual Muammar Qaddafi Human Rights Prize in Tripoli, boasting it was the ‘Anti-Nobel prize of the third world.’ Winners have included Fidel Castro, Louis Farrakhan, and a leader of a Ba'ath party women's organisation in Saddam's Iraq. In 2002, the recipients included the convicted French Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy, and Ziegler himself.”


  • Ziegler defended Garaudy’s writings on the Holocaust in a 1996 letter that was published by the "Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust," a group dedicated to the promotion of Holocaust denial. “I am outraged at the legal case they are making against you,” wrote Ziegler. “All your work as a writer and philosopher attests to the rigor of your analysis and the unwavering honesty of your intentions. It makes you one of the leading thinkers of our time.... It is for all these reasons that I express here my solidarity and my admiring friendship.”


  • According to the Neue Zurcher Zeitung, Ziegler is a co-founder of “Nord Sud 21,” the Libyan front organization in Geneva that manages the Qaddafi prize, and that heads a coalition of extremist NGOs seeking to make Durban II reproduce the anti-Western and anti-Israel propaganda of the 2001 conference.

  • Ziegler's one–year appointment to the council last was bitterly opposed by Per Ahlmark, former deputy prime minister of Sweden, as well as by the Canadian MP Irwin Cotler, a former minister of justice and attorney-general, who served as counsel to Nelson Mandela and Andrei Sakharov, and the Darfur survivor and president of the Darfur Peace and Development Center, Gibreil Hamid.

  • A large group of human rights NGOs and European parliamentarians also protested, including Alexander Graf Lambsdoff, German member of the European Parliament, and the Norwegian Progress Party.



To support the vital work of UN Watch, please contribute here .

tel: (41-22) 734-1472 • fax: (41-22) 734-1613
Copyright 2008 by United Nations Watch. All Rights Reserved.
Partager cet article


  • : Le blog de Gad
  • : Lessakele : déjouer les pièges de l'actualité Lessakele, verbe hébraïque qui signifie "déjouer" est un blog de commentaire libre d'une actualité disparate, visant à taquiner l'indépendance et l'esprit critique du lecteur et à lui prêter quelques clés de décrytage personnalisées.
  • Contact


English German Spanish Portuguese Italian Dutch
Russian Polish Hebrew Czech Greek Hindi


Magie de la langue hébraïque

A tous nos chers lecteurs.


Ne vous est-il jamais venu à l'esprit d'en savoir un peu plus sur le titre de ce blog ?

Puisque nous nous sommes aujourd'hui habillés de bleu, il conviendrait de rentrer plus a fond dans l'explication du mot lessakel.

En fait Lessakel n'est que la façon française de dire le mot léhasskil.

L'hébreu est une langue qui fonctionne en déclinant des racines.

Racines, bilitères, trilitères et quadrilitères.

La majorité d'entre elle sont trilitères.

Aussi Si Gad a souhaité appeler son site Lessakel, c'est parce qu'il souhaitait rendre hommage à l'intelligence.

Celle qui nous est demandée chaque jour.

La racine de l'intelligence est sé'hel שכל qui signifie l'intelligence pure.

De cette racine découlent plusieurs mots

Sé'hel > intelligence, esprit, raison, bon sens, prudence, mais aussi croiser

Léhasskil > Etre intelligent, cultivé, déjouer les pièges

Sé'hli > intelligent, mental, spirituel

Léhistakel > agir prudemment, être retenu et raisonnable, chercher à comprendre

Si'hloute > appréhension et compréhension

Haskala >  Instruction, culture, éducation

Lessa'hlen > rationaliser, intellectualiser

Heschkel > moralité

Si'htanout > rationalisme

Si'hloul > Amélioration, perfectionnement


Gageons que ce site puisse nous apporter quelques lumières.

Aschkel pour Lessakel.



Les news de blogs amis