| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
| History of the Resolution
The Jewish population - while dissatisfied with the small size of the territory allotted to their state in contradiction to the promises made by the League of Nations in 1922, as well as the plan to sever Jerusalem from the state by internationalizing it - accepted the compromise. In sharp contrast, the Arab states and the Arab residents of the Mandatory territory rejected UNSCOP’s recommendations out of hand. The UN General Assembly held a vote on the partition plan and on 29 November 1947 UNGA Resolution 181 was adopted by 33 to 13, with 10 abstentions.
The Arab rejection of the partition plan was not confined to a political act. The Arabs of the Mandate territory launched a large-scale terrorist campaign against their Jewish neighbors. This was followed by the invasion of Israel by five Arab armies who wanted to destroy Israel when it proclaimed its independence on 14 May 1948. The Jewish population defended itself against the Arabs' declared plans to "throw the Jews into the sea" but at a heavy cost of 1% of their total population and great damage to the new state. The Arab population of the Mandate territory also suffered as a result of their refusal to accept the partition plan. Many headed their leaders' calls to flee, others left after being caught up in the fighting. The large numbers who stayed in Israel became full citizens, with equal rights. Nevertheless, the Palestinian refugee problem had been created. It was to be kept alive artificially by the Arab and Palestinian leadership till the present day, while the comparable Jewish refugee problem was resolved by the nascent state of Israel. At war's end, Egypt had control of the Gaza Strip and Jordan annexed the West Bank. Neither saw fit to establish a Palestinian state in the territory they were to control for 19 years. While UNGA Resolution 181 expressed the will of the international community for the establishment of a Jewish state, Israel still had to meet all the requirements of UN membership to be accepted into the organization. After Security Council approval, Israel took its seat as the 59th member of the United Nations on 11 May 1949.
The General Assembly resolution had three primary elements that retain their relevance till today: • Resolution 181 constituted recognition by the international community that the Jewish people deserve their own state, a Jewish state, in their historical homeland. • The resolution called for the establishment of two states for two peoples - Jewish and Arab - between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River, each fulfilling the national aspirations of its respective populations. That formula remains Israel's position with regards to peace negotiations. However, the Arabs of the British mandate territory refused to accept a state because it meant compromising. Today the Palestinians continue to refuse to compromise to achieve a state. Then as now, a Palestinian state will not be established without the willingness to compromise and negotiate. • The refusal by the Arab population of the mandate territory to accept resolution 181 demonstrated that they were not interested in establishing their own state if it meant allowing the existence of a Jewish state. This opposition to acknowledging the right of a Jewish state to exist in the Middle East lies at the core of the conflict. Even today, the Palestinian leadership rejects calls to recognize Israel as the Jewish state, a refusal that will prevent any resolution to the conflict. If the Palestinians had chosen the path of compromise in 1947, the suffering on both sides could have been prevented. It is not too late to return to direct negotiations, which can bring about a better future for the two peoples.
For the first time in Israel's history, the day on which the UN General Assembly passed the resolution in favor of the establishment of the Jewish state will be reconstructed. Initiated by the World Zionist Organization, the reconstruction event will take place on November 29, 2011 in the plaza of the National Institutions Building - which was then the Knesset. It's expected that thousands will take part in the mass celebrations, dancing and rejoicing to the sound of the recording of the UN resolution exactly as it happened 64 years ago.
Historical figures, including former prime ministers David Ben Gurion and Golda Meir, who were part of the original celebrations, will be played by actors and they will greet those gathered from the historic balcony, with actors portraying the then chief rabbis of Israel at their sides. Two Citroen limousines, which carried the celebrities, as well as a British army jeep from this period were found and will be at the plaza. A news boy will distribute newspapers, printed especially for this occasion, in the spirit of those times. In addition, street musicians and dance troupes will be present in the crowd and will lead hora dancing circles and folk dancing. Other celebrities from those days will also be circulating with photographers, who will take pictures of the crowd with authentic cameras. | ||||||||||||||||
Tuesday, November 29, 2011
Israel: The Partition Plan - 64 years later
Wednesday, October 5, 2011
PM Netanyahu congratulates Nobel Chemistry Laureate Prof. Shechtman 5-Oct-2011
| ||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, a short while ago today (Wednesday), 5 October 2011, called Technion Professor Dan Shechtman, who has been awarded the 2011 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his research on quasicrystals: "I would like to congratulate you, on behalf of the citizens of Israel, for your award, which expresses the intellect of our people. Every Israeli is happy today and every Jew in the world is proud. I also congratulated your institution, the Technion, on the centenary of its founding," the Prime Minister said. Prime Minister Netanyahu invited Prof. Shechtman to meet with him before the award ceremony. | ||||||||||||||||
Friday, September 23, 2011
Palestinians Formally Request U.N. Membership - NYTimes.com
Palestinians Formally Request U.N. Membership
By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
UNITED NATIONS —President Mahmoud Abbas of the Palestinian Authority formally requested full United Nations membership on Friday as a path toward statehood, rejecting arguments by the United States and Israel that it was not a substitute for direct negotiations for peace in the Middle East.
Mr. Abbas was greeted by sustained applause from many of the delegations as he approached the lectern to deliver his speech to the General Assembly shortly after handing a letter requesting the membership to Ban Ki-moon, the United Nations Secretary General.
"I don’t believe anyone with a shred of conscience can reject our application for full admission in the United Nations," Mr. Abbas said, receiving another round of applause. Earlier, he called statehood “the realization of the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people,” and said actions by Israel represented “the last occupation” in the world.
The request for Palestinian statehood on land occupied by Israel has become the dominant issue at this year’s General Assembly, refocusing global attention on one of the world’s most intractable conflicts. Mr. Ban was to submit the request to the Security Council.
The council will likely take up the issue in earnest next week, diplomats said, when the question becomes whether the United States and its allies can stall it. Washington is also working to prevent the Palestinians from gathering the nine votes needed for it to pass in the full council and thus avoid further wrecking the image of the United States in the Middle East by casting yet another veto against something Arabs want.
The final vote is not expected to take place for more than a month.
Among the 15 members, some are expected to stay solidly in the Palestinian camp including Brazil, China, India, Lebanon, South Africa, and Russia. The United States is a solid vote against, and the five European members — Bosnia and Herzegovina, Britain, France, Germany, and Portugal — are all question marks. The positions of Colombia, Gabon and Nigeria are also not entirely clear.
The African Union supports membership, but it is not entirely clear if Gabon and Nigeria will go along. President Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria did not mention the issue in his speech to the General Assembly, unlike many leaders from the developing world who support Palestine, and the statement by President Ali Bongo Ondimba of Gabon, was somewhat enigmatic. He said he hoped to soon see a Palestinian state, but noted that both the Palestinians and the people of Israel are friends of Gabon.
In Europe, Germany tends to lean against, its relations with Israel always overshadowed by the legacy of World War II. France leans the other way, while Britain sits on the fence. Portugal and Bosnia have been close to the Palestinians and the Arab world in the past, but their support is not assured this time around.
In theory, United Nations procedures demand that the special 15-member committee — one from each state — that studies the membership issue report back in 35 days, but nothing is more flexible than a deadline at the United Nations. Security Council members can stall things for weeks and weeks by requesting more information or by saying they are waiting for instructions from their capitals.
Behind them, though, looms the policy enunciated by President Nicholas Sarkozy of France, who said that the Palestinians should get enhanced membership in the General Assembly, moving from an observer entity to a non-member observer state.
Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said it would wait to see what happens in the Security Council before moving forward. By tradition, the General Assembly does not take up an issue when the Security Council is studying it and vice versa, but it is not impossible.
The historic day of speeches engendered a sense that the issue of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict had come full circle. The Palestinians call their membership application a desperate attempt to preserve the two-state solution despite encroaching Israeli settlements, as well as an attempt to shake up the negotiations that they feel have achieved little after 20 years of American oversight.
The question is whether trying to bring the intractable problem back to its international roots will somehow provide the needed jolt to get negotiations moving again.
The general point of view of the Israeli government and its supporters is that the Palestinians and their Arab allies gave up the right to the United Nations resolutions detailing a two state solution by rejecting that original plan and waging war against Israel for six decades.
But after every war, the United Nations resolutions and indeed the peace treaties with other Arab states have all reaffirmed the resolutions that outline the two-state compromise, starting with General Assembly resolution 181 in 1947. In the annex of their membership application submitted to Mr. Ban today, the Palestinians listed every United Nations resolution that envisioned a two-state solution that has not been implemented, they said.
Peace Now, or Never - NYTimes.com
Peace Now, or Never
By EHUD OLMERT
Jerusalem
AS the United Nations General Assembly opens this year, I feel uneasy. An unnecessary diplomatic clash between Israel and the Palestinians is taking shape in New York, and it will be harmful to Israel and to the future of the Middle East.
I know that things could and should have been different.
I truly believe that a two-state solution is the only way to ensure a more stable Middle East and to grant Israel the security and well-being it desires. As tensions grow, I cannot but feel that we in the region are on the verge of missing an opportunity — one that we cannot afford to miss.
The Palestinian president, Mahmoud Abbas, plans to make a unilateral bid for recognition of a Palestinian state at the United Nations on Friday. He has the right to do so, and the vast majority of countries in the General Assembly support his move. But this is not the wisest step Mr. Abbas can take.
The Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, has declared publicly that he believes in the two-state solution, but he is expending all of his political effort to block Mr. Abbas’s bid for statehood by rallying domestic support and appealing to other countries. This is not the wisest step Mr. Netanyahu can take.
In the worst-case scenario, chaos and violence could erupt, making the possibility of an agreement even more distant, if not impossible. If that happens, peace will definitely not be the outcome.
The parameters of a peace deal are well known and they have already been put on the table. I put them there in September 2008 when I presented a far-reaching offer to Mr. Abbas.
According to my offer, the territorial dispute would be solved by establishing a Palestinian state on territory equivalent in size to the pre-1967 West Bank and Gaza Strip with mutually agreed-upon land swaps that take into account the new realities on the ground.
The city of Jerusalem would be shared. Its Jewish areas would be the capital of Israel and its Arab neighborhoods would become the Palestinian capital. Neither side would declare sovereignty over the city’s holy places; they would be administered jointly with the assistance of Jordan, Saudi Arabia and the United States.
The Palestinian refugee problem would be addressed within the framework of the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative. The new Palestinian state would become the home of all the Palestinian refugees just as the state of Israel is the homeland of the Jewish people. Israel would, however, be prepared to absorb a small number of refugees on humanitarian grounds.
Because ensuring Israel’s security is vital to the implementation of any agreement, the Palestinian state would be demilitarized and it would not form military alliances with other nations. Both states would cooperate to fight terrorism and violence.
These parameters were never formally rejected by Mr. Abbas, and they should be put on the table again today. Both Mr. Abbas and Mr. Netanyahu must then make brave and difficult decisions.
We Israelis simply do not have the luxury of spending more time postponing a solution. A further delay will only help extremists on both sides who seek to sabotage any prospect of a peaceful, negotiated two-state solution.
Moreover, the Arab Spring has changed the Middle East, and unpredictable developments in the region, such as the recent attack on Israel’s embassy in Cairo, could easily explode into widespread chaos. It is therefore in Israel’s strategic interest to cement existing peace agreements with its neighbors, Egypt and Jordan.
In addition, Israel must make every effort to defuse tensions with Turkey as soon as possible. Turkey is not an enemy of Israel. I have worked closely with the Turkish prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan. In spite of his recent statements and actions, I believe that he understands the importance of relations with Israel. Mr. Erdogan and Mr. Netanyahu must work to end this crisis immediately for the benefit of both countries and the stability of the region.
In Israel, we are sorry for the loss of life of Turkish citizens in May 2010, when Israel confronted a provocative flotilla of ships bound for Gaza. I am sure that the proper way to express these sentiments to the Turkish government and the Turkish people can be found.
The time for true leadership has come. Leadership is tested not by one’s capacity to survive politically but by the ability to make tough decisions in trying times.
When I addressed international forums as prime minister, the Israeli people expected me to present bold political initiatives that would bring peace — not arguments outlining why achieving peace now is not possible. Today, such an initiative is more necessary than ever to prove to the world that Israel is a peace-seeking country.
The window of opportunity is limited. Israel will not always find itself sitting across the table from Palestinian leaders like Mr. Abbas and the prime minister, Salam Fayyad, who object to terrorism and want peace. Indeed, future Palestinian leaders might abandon the idea of two states and seek a one-state solution, making reconciliation impossible.
Now is the time. There will be no better one. I hope that Mr. Netanyahu and Mr. Abbas will meet the challenge.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
Statements by President Obama and PM Netanyahu before meeting at UN General Assembly 21-Sep-2011
| ||||||||||||||||
President Obama: As I just said in the speech that I gave before the UN General Assembly, the bonds between the United States and Israel are unbreakable, and the United States' commitment to Israel's security is unbreakable. Indeed, I think it's fair to say that today our security cooperation is stronger than it has ever been. I’m looking forward to a good discussion with Prime Minister Netanyahu about the events not only here in the United Nations, but also of the developments that have been taking place in the region. As I just indicated, peace cannot be imposed on the parties. It's going to have to be negotiated. One-sided declarations in the United Nations will achieve neither statehood nor self-determination for the Palestinians, but Israelis and Palestinians sitting down together and working through these very difficult issues that have kept the parties apart for decades now… the ultimate goal of all of us, which is two states, side by side, living in peace and security. Recent events in the region remind us of how fragile peace can be and why the pursuit of Middle East peace is more urgent than ever. I think we need to pursue that peace, and know that the Prime Minister recognizes that America's commitment to Israel will never waiver and that our pursuit of a just and lasting peace is one that is, not only compatible, but we think puts Israel’s security at the forefront. So, it is a great pleasure to have the Prime Minister here. I want to thank him for his efforts. PM Netanyahu: I want to thank you, Mr. President, for standing with Israel and supporting peace through direct negotiations. We both agree this is the only way to achieve peace. We both agree that Palestinians and the Israelis should sit down together and negotiate an agreement of mutual recognition and security. I think this is the only way to get to a stable and durable peace. You’ve also made it clear that the Palestinians deserve a state, but it’s a state that has to make that peace with Israel, and therefore their attempt to shortcut this process, not negotiate peace - that attempt to get state membership in the United Nations will not succeed. I think the Palestinians want to achieve a state in the international community, but they’re not prepared yet to give peace to Israel in return. And my hope is that there will be other leaders in the world, as part of the UN, who will meet your call, Mr. President, and oppose this effort to shortcut peace negotiations - in fact to avoid them - because I think that avoiding these negotiations is bad for Israel, bad for the Palestinians and bad for peace. I know that these leaders are under enormous pressure and I know that they are also in this house which has, from personal experience I can tell you, automatic majorities against Israel, but I think that standing your ground, taking this position of principle, which is also, I think, the right position to achieve peace - I think this is a badge of honor and I want to thank you for wearing that badge of honor, and also to express my hope that others will follow your example, Mr. President. So I want to thank you. | ||||||||||||||||
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Le brillant discours de Nicolas Sarkozy devant l'ONU | JSS News - Israël - Diplomatie - Géopolitique
Le brillant discours de Nicolas Sarkozy devant l’ONU
Rédigé par JSS le Sep 21st, 2011 and filed under Grands Discours. Vous pouvez suivre les réponses à cet article grâce au RSS 2.0. Vous pouvez laisser une réponse ou un trackback à cet article
Discours prononcé par le Président français Nicolas Sarkozy, à l’ouverture de la 66e Assemblée générale des Nations Unies à New York, le mercredi 21 septembre 2011. Un discours plein de vérités ou il est dit, entre autres choses, que la paix ne peut venir que des protagonistes du conflit, uniquement grâce à des négociations et que réclamer des conditions pour négocier n’est pas logique…
Monsieur le Secrétaire général,
Lorsque nous nous sommes retrouvés, ici même en septembre de l’année dernière, lequel d’entre nous pouvait imaginer qu’en un an à peine, le monde, déjà bouleversé par une crise économique sans précédent, allait à ce point changer ?
En quelques mois, les « printemps arabes » ont fait se lever une immense espérance.
Depuis trop longtemps des peuples arabes soumis à l’oppression ont pu relever la tête et ont réclamé le droit d’être enfin libres. Avec leurs mains nues, ils se sont opposés à la violence et à la brutalité.
A ceux qui proclamaient que le monde arabo-musulman était par nature hostile à la démocratie et aux droits de l’Homme, les jeunes arabes ont apporté le plus beau démenti.
Mesdames et Messieurs, mes chers collègues, nous n’avons pas le droit de décevoir l’espérance des peuples arabes.
Nous n’avons pas le droit de briser leur rêve.
Car si l’espérance de ces peuples était brisée, cela donnerait raison aux fanatiques qui n’ont pas renoncé à dresser l’Islam contre l’Occident en attisant partout la haine et la violence.
C’est un appel à la justice qui a ébranlé le monde, et le monde ne peut pas répondre à cet appel à la justice par la perpétuation d’une injustice.
Ce miraculeux printemps des peuples arabes nous impose une obligation morale, une obligation politique de résoudre enfin le conflit du Moyen-Orient.
Nous ne pouvons plus attendre !
La méthode utilisée jusqu’à présent, je pèse mes mots, a échoué.
Il faut donc changer de méthode !
Il faut arrêter de croire qu’un seul pays, fut-il le plus grand, ou qu’un petit groupe de pays peuvent résoudre un problème d’une telle complexité.
Trop d’acteurs majeurs sont laissés de côté pour pouvoir aboutir.
Je voudrais dire que personne ne peut imaginer que le processus de paix ne puisse se passer de l’Europe, que personne ne peut imaginer que le processus de paix puisse se passer de tous les membres permanents du Conseil de Sécurité, que personne ne peut imaginer que l’on puisse se passer des États arabes qui ont déjà fait le choix de la paix.
Une approche collective est devenue indispensable pour créer la confiance et apporter des garanties à chacune des parties.
Alors bien sûr, la paix sera faite par les Israéliens et par les Palestiniens.
Par personne d’autre.
Et nul ne peut prétendre la leur imposer.
Mais nous devons les aider.
La méthode ne fonctionne plus.
Reconnaissons ensemble que fixer des préalables à la négociation, c’était se condamner à l’échec.
Les préalables, c’est le contraire de la négociation. Si l’on veut entrer dans la négociation, qui est le seul chemin possible pour la paix, il ne faut pas de préalables.
Changeons de méthode !
Tous les éléments d’une solution sont connus : la Conférence de Madrid de 1991, le discours du Président Obama du 19 mai dernier, la feuille de route, l’initiative arabe de la paix et les paramètres agréés par l’Union européenne. Alors cessons de débattre à l’infini des paramètres et que les négociations commencent. Adoptons un calendrier précis et ambitieux.
60 ans sans que cela avance d’un centimètre. Est-ce que cela ne nous impose pas de changer de méthode et de calendrier ?
– Un mois pour reprendre les discussions ;
– Six mois pour se mettre d’accord sur les frontières et sur la sécurité ;
– Un an pour parvenir à un accord définitif.
Et la France propose d’accueillir, dès cet automne, une Conférence des donateurs afin que les Palestiniens puissent parachever la construction de leur futur État. La France veut vous dire qu’il ne faut pas chercher d’emblée la solution parfaite, parce que de solution parfaite, il n’y en a pas !
Choisissons la voie du compromis, qui n’est pas un renoncement, qui n’est pas un reniement, mais qui permettra d’avancer, étape par étape.
Voilà donc 60 ans que les Palestiniens attendent leur État. Est-ce qu’il n’est pas venu le moment de leur donner de l’espérance ?
Voilà 60 ans qu’Israël souffre de ne pas pouvoir vivre en paix.
Voici 60 ans que la question de la coexistence pacifique des deux peuples palestinien et israélien demeure lancinante.
Nous ne pouvons plus attendre pour prendre le chemin de la paix !
Mettons-nous à la place des Palestiniens.
N’est-il pas légitime qu’ils réclament leur Etat ?
Bien sûr que si ! Et qui ne voit que la création d’un Etat palestinien démocratique, viable et pacifique serait, pour Israël, la meilleure garantie de sa sécurité ?
Mettons-nous à la place des Israéliens.
N’est-il pas légitime qu’après 60 ans de guerres et d’attentats, ils demandent des garanties pour cette paix si longtemps attendue ?
Bien sûr que si ! Et je le dis avec force : si quiconque à travers le monde menaçait l’existence d’Israël, la France serait immédiatement et totalement aux côtés d’Israël. Les menaces à l’endroit d’un Etat membre des Nations Unies sont inacceptables et ne seront pas acceptées.
Nous sommes aujourd’hui devant un choix très difficile. Chacun sait bien – et arrêtons avec les hypocrisies ou la diplomatie d’un jour – chacun sait bien qu’une reconnaissance pleine et entière du statut d’Etat membre de l’ONU ne peut être obtenue dans l’immédiat. La raison première en est le manque de confiance entre les principaux acteurs. Mais disons-nous la vérité : qui peut douter qu’un veto au Conseil de Sécurité n’engendrera pas un cycle de violence au Proche-Orient ? Qui peut en douter ?
Faut-il pour autant exclure une étape intermédiaire ? Pourquoi ne pas envisager pour la Palestine le statut d’Etat observateur aux Nations Unies ? Ce serait un pas important, nous sortirions après 60 ans de l’immobilisme, l’immobilisme qui fait le lit des extrémistes. Nous redonnerions un espoir aux Palestiniens en marquant des progrès vers le statut final.
Pour marquer leur engagement déterminé en faveur d’une paix négociée, les dirigeants palestiniens devraient, dans le cadre de cette démarche, réaffirmer le droit à l’existence et à la sécurité d’Israël. Ils devraient s’engager à ne pas utiliser ce nouveau statut pour recourir à des actions incompatibles avec la poursuite des négociations.
Mes chers collègues, nous n’avons qu’une alternative : l’immobilisme et le blocage ou une solution intermédiaire qui permettrait de donner de l’espoir aux Palestiniens, avec un statut d’Etat observateur. Parallèlement, une même retenue devrait être observée par Israël, qui devrait s’abstenir de gestes qui préjugent du statut final.
L’objectif ultime c’est bien la reconnaissance mutuelle de deux Etats nations pour deux peuples, établis sur la base des lignes de 1967 avec des échanges de territoires agréés et équivalents.
Que cette Assemblée générale, qui en a le pouvoir, décide d’avancer, décide de sortir du piège mortel de la paralysie, décide de renvoyer les rendez-vous manqués et les relances sans lendemain !
Changeons de méthode !
Changeons d’état d’esprit !
Que chacun s’efforce de comprendre les raisons de l’autre, les souffrances de l’autre, les angoisses de l’autre.
Que chacun ouvre les yeux et soit prêt à faire des concessions.
Et en terminant, je veux le dire avec une profonde et sincère amitié pour le peuple palestinien, je veux dire aux Palestiniens : pensez aux mères israéliennes qui pleurent les membres de leur famille tués dans les attentats. Elles éprouvent la même douleur que les mères palestiniennes à qui l’on annonce la mort brutale d’un des leurs.
Je veux le dire avec une profonde et sincère amitié pour le peuple israélien : Ecoutez ce que criait la jeunesse des printemps arabes. Ils criaient : « Vive la liberté ! ». Ils ne criaient pas : « à bas Israël ». Vous ne pouvez pas rester immobiles alors que ce vent de liberté et de démocratie souffle dans votre région.
Je le dis avec une profonde et sincère amitié pour ces deux peuples qui ont tant soufferts : le moment est venu de bâtir la paix pour les enfants de Palestine et pour les enfants d’Israël. Mais il serait trop accablant que l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies ne profite pas de l’opportunité du réveil des peuples arabes au service de la démocratie pour régler un problème qui fait le malheur de ces deux peuples qui, de toutes façons, sont condamnés à vivre à côté les uns des autres. Si nous prenons une solution de compromis, nous redonnerons de la confiance et nous redonnerons de l’espoir.
Je veux le dire avec gravité aux représentants de toutes les nations. Nous avons une responsabilité historique à assumer. C’est l’Assemblée général des Nations unies qui porte ce rendez-vous avec l’Histoire.
Rassurons Israël et donnons un espoir au peuple palestinien. La solution est sur la table. Préférer la solution du compromis à celle du blocage, car le blocage satisfera peut-être tout le monde ici mais elle créera des violences, des amertumes et des oppositions qui mettront en péril le réveil des peuples arabes. La France vous dit que la tragédie doit cesser pour une raison simple, c’est qu’elle n’a que trop duré.
Je vous remercie.
Sunday, September 18, 2011
Israel to become Associate Member State of CERN
Israel to become Associate Member State of CERN
CERN Director General Rolf Heuer, Israeli Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, H.E. Mr. Aharon Leshno-Yaar and CERN Council president Michel Spiro shake hands. More photos.
Geneva 16 September 2011. CERN1 Director General Rolf Heuer and Israeli Ambassador and Permanent Representative of Israel to the United Nations Office and other International Organizations in Geneva, H.E. Mr. Aharon Leshno-Yaar today signed a document admitting Israel to CERN Associate Membership, subject to ratification by the Knesset. Following ratification, Israel will become an Associate Member of CERN for a minimum period of 24 months. Following this period, CERN Council will decide on the admission of Israel to full Membership, taking into account the recommendations of a task force to be appointed for this purpose. Israel has a long-standing relationship with CERN, and has been an Observer at the CERN Council since 1991.
“It is a vital part of our mission to build bridges between nations. This agreement enriches us scientifically, and is an important step in that direction,” said CERN Director General Rolf Heuer. “I am very pleased that CERN’s relationship with Israel is moving to a higher level.”
“I am very happy with this decision,” said Eliezer Rabinovici, Professor and Director of the Institute for Advanced Study at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem and Israel’s scientific observer to Council. “I view it as recognition of the Israeli contributions, both scientific and technological to CERN over the years. The Israeli scientific community is looking forward to the continuation of this joint adventure.”
Israel has a strong tradition in both experimental and theoretical particle physics, with a major involvement in the OPAL experiment at CERN’s flagship accelerator through the 1990s, the Large Electron Positron collider. Israel’s accession to Observer status in 1991 followed an agreement to contribute funds to the CERN budget to support Israeli scientists, as well as providing equipment to CERN. The Israeli fund also contributed to LEP running, supported LHC construction and R&D for future accelerators. During its association with CERN, Israel has also supported Palestinian students at CERN, notably sending mixed Israeli-Palestinian contingents to CERN’s summer student programme.
In 2009, Israel was accepted as a special Observer State, with the right to attend restricted Council sessions for discussions of LHC matters. Israel currently has a strong involvement in the ATLAS experiment, and participates in a number of other experiments at CERN.
Contact:
CERN Press Office, press.office@cern.ch
+41 22 767 34 32
+41 22 767 21 41
Follow CERN at:
- www.cern.ch
- http://twitter.com/cern/
- http://twitter.com/ArtsAtCern
- http://www.youtube.com/user/CERNTV
- http://www.quantumdiaries.org/
Friday, August 12, 2011
The Syrian Regime: Protests at Home and Criticism from Abroad INSS Insight No. 273, August 8, 2011
| The Syrian Regime: Protests at Home and Criticism from Abroad INSS Insight No. 273, August 8, 2011
|  |
As the month of Ramadan begins, the internal crisis in Syria is intensifying. Reports of the mass murder of civilians and allegations of crimes against humanity by Bashar al-Asad’s regime are multiplying. The number of participants in Friday protest rallies seems to have crossed the one million mark and reflects a central trend: the strengthening of the protest movement and the worsening of the crisis in Syria. It may well be that during Ramadan, Islam’s month of fasting, a critical mass of protesters will form, meaning that Asad’s regime may not only face a serious threat from the blood-soaked turmoil, but that perhaps as a result of the chain reaction his days are numbered.
The protests that began in March 2011 in the town of Daraa involved no more than a few thousand people. Afterward, the protests spread to other Syrian cities and the number of participants rose steadily, from thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands to one million or more. The steady rise in the number of protesters and their growing motivation and courage in bringing down the regime are part of an ongoing process of creating a critical mass of protesters.
The protests encompass a wide range of Syrian population groups, including minorities that have only recently begun to participate actively in the protests, such as Kurds and Christians, and Syrian majority groups of Sunni Muslims. Consequently, there is growing pressure on the Alawis, the power base supporting the regime, to turns their back on the Asad family and join in the demonstrations. According to various Western estimates, it is only a matter of time before the Alawis cross over to the protesters’ side. Should that in fact occur, not only may they be able to prevent revenge attacks on the community when the day comes for having formerly collaborated with the Asad regime, but such a development may also significantly shorten the road to the collapse of the regime.
The protesters and opposition groups have heightened the pressure on the Alawis, at times with outright threats, to participate in the anti-Asad demonstrations. Although there is a tendency to view the Alawis as a uniform group, reality is much more complex. Among the Alawis there are many who automatically support the regime, but there are many others who acknowledge the tyranny and corruption of the regime and have even suffered at its hands and therefore oppose it. Presumably the latter group will at some point support the protesters, but it is less likely, especially in the near future, that they will take an active part in the demonstrations. The fear among the Alawis is twofold: not only do they fear the response of Asad’s regime should they join the protests, but they also fear the majority of Syria’s Sunni Muslim civilians when considering the day after the fall of Asad’s regime. The pressure by the protesters and the opposition on the Alawis and supporters of the regime is particularly evident in the Syrian army and security services and the ruling Baath party. These institutions are the power base of support for the regime, and some of the Alawis in them are particularly dominant. Since the outbreak of the demonstrations, the number of deserters from the Syrian army has grown slowly but steadily. At the same time, the opposition’s demand to abolish the law giving exclusivity to the Baath party has become one of its threshold demands.
Additional pressure affecting the fate of the regime, joining Syria’s heightening internal protests, is the involvement of international entities and nations. Syrian opposition elements are systematically working in different arenas in the world to enlist support for their struggle against the regime; efforts are directed to the US and the EU as well as Russia and China. It appears that the Syrian opposition’s primary success in recruiting support for their struggle in the Middle East is in Turkey, which hosts Syrian opposition groups and allows them to act from Turkish soil via the media against Asad’s regime.
Despite the close cooperation between Turkey and Syria in recent years, the outbreak of the protest and the Asad regime’s violent means of suppressing it have led to an estrangement between the countries. Turkey is still not calling for Asad to step down, but has denounced the events in Hama as an atrocity and has not ruled out the possibility of military intervention in Syria. Turkey, as well as other nations in the international community, is not thrilled by the military intervention option, but is worried about the protest trickling over to the Kurdish population on Turkish soil as well as a large wave of refugees, which Turkey would find difficult to handle.
The situation in Syria has also positioned Turkey against Iran. Unlike Turkey, Iran is actively supporting the Asad regime and is helping it suppress the turmoil. Despite the unnatural link between Asad’s secular regime and the ayatollahs in Iran, the strategic relations between Syria and Iran have for many years provided mutual gain to the two nations. The fall of Asad would represent a blow to the Iranian regime. While Turkey too invested much into its relations with Bashar al-Asad and is therefore likewise not happy with developments in Syria, its cooperation with opposition elements is preparing it for the day after. It is doubtful if the situation in Syria would drag Turkey and Iran in to a direct confrontation, but the lack of stability in Syria is already presenting Turkey and Iran with some dilemmas and will continue to create points of friction between them should the unrest intensify.
In conclusion, protests in Syria and their violent suppression are growing, as is international criticism of the regime. The UN Security Council statement denouncing Syria for widespread violations of human rights and use of force against civilians is evidence of the fact that the internal protests will also be accompanied by growing pressure on the regime from the outside. Such external pressure encourages the opposition to continue to act, damages the Asad regime on the cognitive level, and could also have operational ramifications. In the Middle East, the two key nations with which Syria had close relations in recent years are operating in opposition to one another: Turkey is pressuring Asad to implement extensive reforms and is working together with the opposition, while Iran continues actively to support Asad’s regime and its suppressive moves. The chances that Turkey’s policy will succeed seem brighter than those of Iran’s, which in turn could generate greater influence for Turkey in Syria on the day after, with all the strategic implications of such a state of affairs.
Dr. Liad Porat, University of Haifa; Dr. Gallia Lindenstrauss, Institute for National Security Studies
Tuesday, July 26, 2011
Looking Ahead to September: Israel, the EU, and the “Moral Majority” INSS Insight No. 263, June 6, 2011 Stein, Shimon
 | ||
In his appearance before the Knesset’s Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, the prime minister stated that “no one has the power to stop the decision in September at the UN General Assembly to recognize a Palestinian state. . . We expect to receive support from only a few countries.” In light of the balance of power in the UN, this assessment is not surprising. Since (as it appears today) the chances are slim that the Palestinians will reverse their intention to submit a resolution in September on recognition, the United States and Israel will concentrate their efforts on enlarging the “moral majority,” that is, democratic states that will not support the resolution. The bulk of the effort will presumably focus on members of the European Union and other Western countries. Israel expects these states to use their moral discretion, i.e., abstain or vote against recognition of a Palestinian state. Before assessing prospects for the success of this effort, it is worthwhile to examine Israeli and EU positions on some issues related to the political process and resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The ramifications of the “Arab spring” for the political process: The government of Israel sees the uncertainty regarding developments in the region and the ensuing risks as reason to postpone decisions of a strategic nature. By contrast, the European Union sees the current situation as an opportunity (more urgent than before) to promote the peace process. In a speech to the Security Council in February, for example, the British representative claimed that it would be a disgrace if in light of what was happening in the area Palestinian hopes were not realized. September as a target date for completing negotiations on a permanent agreement: Not only does Israel (correctly) not accept this coming September as a realistic target date – set by the Quartet and President Obama – for completing negotiations on a permanent settlement; it believes that the current circumstances are not ripe for a comprehensive agreement. The European Union, on the other hand, steadfastly repeats the need to conclude negotiations on the two-state solution by September (even now, when it is clear that the chances of meeting the target date are poor) in order to accept Palestine as a full member of the United Nations. An additional reason for the vote in September is connected to the successful (?) completion of the Fayyad plan for state building. The permanent Israeli-Palestinian border: In his speech to Congress, Prime Minister Netanyahu made clear his position rejecting the 1967 lines – for reasons of security and demography – as the basis for a future border. The European Union, however, sees the 1967 lines, including East Jerusalem, as the basis for a future border, with the possibility, if the two parties agree, for equal land swaps. Future security arrangements: The Prime Minister stated that Israel's particular (i.e., small) size demands unique security arrangements. Hence, he argued, the need for a long term Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley and the full demilitarization of the Palestinian state with on-the-ground security arrangements. The European Union makes do with general statement that security arrangements must respect Palestinian sovereignty and underscore that the occupation has ended, and at the same time ensure Israel's security, inter alia, by preventing the renewal of terrorism and addressing the threats that arise. (When details of the EU position are publicized, they will likely differ sharply from Israel's position.) The Palestinian refugees: In his speech to Congress, the Prime Minister reiterated unequivocally that the problem of the Palestinian refugees must be solved outside the borders of Israel. The European Union argues that it is necessary to find a just, fair, and conclusive solution to the problem. Recognition of Israel's Jewish character: Israel’s condition that it be recognized as a Jewish state does not have the unequivocal support of the European Union, and it is doubtful that it will receive it in the future (Germany, for example, supports recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, but it does not demand this recognition from the Palestinians as a condition for resuming the negotiations. It is possible that France, too, now advocates “two states for two peoples”). Jerusalem: The Prime Minister has argued that Jerusalem must not be divided again and must remain the united capital of Israel. He also said that with creativity and good will, it will be possible to reach a solution to this difficult issue that is acceptable to the Palestinian point of view. The European Union, on other hand, sees the annexation of East Jerusalem and Israel's continued building there as violations of international law, and it believes that Jerusalem’s status as a future capital of the two states must be resolved through negotiations. Internal Palestinian reconciliation: The prime minister called upon/demanded of Abu Mazen that he annul the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement, and he emphasized that Israel will not conduct negotiations with a Palestinian government supported by a Palestinian version of al-Qaeda. The European Union highlights the essential need to repair the internal Palestinian rift as a condition for advancing an agreement. Furthermore, it accepts Abu Mazen’s position that he is the Palestinian representative for political negotiations, while at the same time, it calls on the Palestinian government to accept the Quartet’s conditions (without mentioning the Quartet by name, and without stating that adoption of these conditions is a precondition for discussions). A comparison of their positions thus reveals fundamental gaps between Israel and the European Union, and it is doubtful that they can be overcome in the current circumstances. The EU's hopes that Prime Minister Netanyahu would demonstrate flexibility and openness in front of Congress – which would make possible the renewal of negotiations – were dashed. By contrast, the EU welcomed President Obama's address on the Middle East, which included important elements on the renewal of negotiations. The EU is quite cognizant that the United States plays the leading role in the conflict resolution efforts, and it is eager to coordinate policy with the US. However, the positions of the EU and the US administration are not identical, and the European Union is interested in demonstrating its independence from the United States. In the wake of President Obama's recent policy speech, the EU has made it clear that it will continue to advance its positions on the issues mentioned above. The substantive differences of opinion between Israel and the European Union; the dissatisfaction among more than a few European leaders with the policies and conduct of the Israeli government; impatience in light of the ongoing stalemate; and the (unbalanced) ascribing of responsibility for the stalemate to Israel seemingly suggest that the EU, as a bloc, would support recognition of a Palestinian state (while it continues to endorse September as a target date for the state's establishment). However, it currently appears that this is not likely to happen. German Chancellor Merkel (and a number of other countries, including, apparently, Italy) has decided to oppose the draft resolution, based on opposition to unilateral steps by any one party as a means of solving the conflict. (The Chancellor’s conduct is also an example of the fact that when the desire to demonstrate European Union solidarity conflicts with the national interest, the decision will favor the national interest.) At the same time, the Chancellor’s decision should decidedly not be understood as an expression of support for the policy of the Israeli government. She has expressed her criticism of Israel on a number of occasions in recent months, thereby deviating from her prior media restraint regarding public criticism of Israeli policy. The split in the EU vote ensures that when the moment for the UN vote arrives, Israel will have other opposing votes (or abstentions) on "moral" grounds. However, the government of Israel will err if it sees this as a vote of confidence in its policy. Furthermore, it should be assumed that in light of the gaps between their positions, the dialogue between Israel and the European Union on the day after the vote will be more difficult, because of the possible ramifications resulting from the vote. | ||
| INSS - The Institute for National Security Studies 40 Haim Levanon St. • Tel Aviv 61398 • Israel • 03-640-0400 • http://www.inss.org.il • info@inss.org.il |
Monday, July 4, 2011
Lebanon: The Arab Spring's Wildcard? INSS Insight No. 266, July 4, 2011 Berti, Benedetta
| Lebanon: The Arab Spring's Wildcard? INSS Insight No. 266, July 4, 2011 | |