30 mars 2016
3
30
/03
/mars
/2016
02:36
Les interventions saoudiennes, une constante stratégique
Dossier spécial - Éclairage
La politique du royaume wahhabite a toujours consisté à maintenir une forte influence dans les grandes orientations politiques de son voisin en jouant sur ses divisions.
26/03/2016
En lançant sa campagne aérienne le 26 mars 2015, l'Arabie saoudite a rappelé une nouvelle fois que la gestion du Yémen relevait du pré carré du royaume.
Zone de turbulence politique, mais également à l'importance géostratégique majeure avec son accès au détroit de Bab el-Mandeb, le Yémen a toujours occupé une place de choix dans la stratégie saoudienne de déstabilisation des régimes traditionnels. Si, au cours de son histoire, Riyad a enregistré plusieurs interventions directes au Yémen, les tensions ont toujours été récurrentes, et les sources de contentieux historiques sont nombreuses.
À l'issue d'un premier conflit de 1926-1934, les Saoud ont conquis les trois provinces d'Assir, de Nejrane et de Jizane, dans des conditions qui ont longtemps alimenté le ressentiment antisaoudien chez les Yéménites, et dont le sort ne sera réglé que par la conclusion du traité frontalier du 12 juin 2000.
Depuis cette époque, l'Arabie saoudite n'a cessé d'entretenir la méfiance à l'égard de son voisin, dont elle redoute le potentiel démographique et qu'elle soupçonne de chercher à rétablir sa souveraineté sur le territoire dans ses frontières historiques et contrarier les ambitions géopolitiques régionales de Riyad.
Contre Nasser
La nécessité de garantir la stabilité du trône en maintenant un régime inféodé à ses intérêts a donc conduit l'Arabie à instrumentaliser les rivalités internes par un jeu mouvant d'alliances en gré du contexte politique et de la définition des priorités stratégiques.
Lorsqu'en 1962 l'imam chiite zaïdite al-Badr, du Nord, est renversé par le général Abdallah el-Sallal, le royaume intervient directement pour offrir son aide militaire au premier contre le second, soutenu par le président égyptien Gamal Abdel Nasser.
Des années après avoir repoussé le danger nationaliste, l'Arabie saoudite, hostile à la réunification du Yémen encouragée par Saddam Hussein en 1990, intensifie son soutien militaire et financier aux leaders tribaux, qui contestent la mainmise de Sanaa sur le Sud, et voit dans la crise ouverte qui oppose le président Ali Abadallah Saleh (Nordiste) au vice-président Ali Salim el-Beidh (Sudiste) l'occasion rêvée d'appuyer la tentative de sécession des « Marxistes » du Sud en 1994.
Comme le rappelle Olivier Dalage dans son article « L'Arabie et ses voisins, la revanche des vassaux » : « À l'unisson du monde arabe, pour lequel l'unité est un article de foi, le royaume avait feint de se réjouir de l'unification en mai 1990 des deux Yémen.
En réalité, ce Yémen réunifié était perçu par Riyad comme la menace stratégique majeure : un pays pauvre, républicain, au moins aussi peuplé que l'Arabie saoudite, dont la population et le gouvernement étaient animés de revendications irrédentistes sur les provinces conquises par Ibn Saoud en 1934. »
Au cours de cette période, des centaines de milliers de travailleurs yéménites expatriés sont renvoyés de force chez eux, principales victimes de la politique réactive de Riyad visant à sanctionner le soutien de Ali Abdallah Saleh à Saddam Hussein dans sa décision d'envahir le Koweït.
L'ambivalence de la politique saoudienne s'est également traduite par son inaction face au développement et à la montée en puissance du mouvement houthi, créé en 1992, et perçu comme un élément de déstabilisation du parti proche des Frères musulmans, al-Islah, qui incarnait pour Riyad un danger plus sérieux que son rival. Riyad continuera à maintenir une influence forte dans les grandes orientations politiques du pays en jouant des divisions grâce à sa capacité redoutable à s'acheter les chefs de tribu et instrumentaliser leurs réseaux.
Et puis l'Iran...
Depuis 2009, l'instabilité croissante aux frontières a renforcé l'impératif sécuritaire et la nécessité d'une coopération avec le pouvoir central à Sanaa pour la gestion de l'espace frontalier.
Les deux pays partagent une frontière commune pratiquement incontrôlable, une zone montagneuse propice au trafic et à la contrebande, et qui sert de base arrière aux groupes armés terroristes d'Aqpa (el-Qaëda dans la péninsule Arabique).
Mais si la création au printemps 2009 de cette franchise d'el-Qaëda a accentué la menace sécuritaire en direction de l'Arabie saoudite, c'est essentiellement le débordement sur le sol saoudien du conflit entre Ali Abdallah Saleh et les houthis, la même année, qui fait redouter à la monarchie un renversement des équilibres politiques menaçant la stabilité du trône. Riyad intervient alors directement pour soutenir le président Saleh et pour empêcher qu'un rapport de force ne puisse s'établir en faveur des rebelles chiites du Nord.
Si cette campagne tourne court, Riyad prend néanmoins conscience de l'essoufflement du système maintenu par Ali Abdallah Saleh d'une main de fer et de la nécessité de se prémunir du danger des houthis soutenus par l'Iran.
Ce soutien iranien à la rébellion constituera un facteur déterminant dans la décision saoudienne de lancer sa campagne aérienne le 26 mars 2015.
Après l'offensive éclair de Hodeida par la rébellion zaïdite, qui visait le désenclavement de la zone qu'ils contrôlaient jusque-là et leur avancée vers le littoral, Riyad redoute une stratégie visant à contrôler l'accès au détroit de Bab el-Mandeb, quatrième point de passage maritime le plus important au monde en matière de transport de pétrole, et qui aurait offert un avantage stratégique décisif à la rébellion et son parrain iranien.
Sorti de l'endiguement après le succès de la signature de l'accord sur le nucléaire, l'Iran est de nouveau dans la course pour le leadership régional, et, dans ce contexte, la rivalité gagne en intensité.
Le principal concurrent qui menace de remettre en cause la position traditionnelle dominante de l'Arabie saoudite détient également une bonne partie des cartes yéménites, accentuant ainsi les incertitudes wahhabites.
Lire aussi dans notre dossier
« Tempête de la fermeté » : bilan mitigé, un an après son lancement,
http://www.lorientlejour.com/article/977744/les-interventions-saoudiennes-une-constante-strategique.html
Published by L'Orient le Jour.com (Liban)
-
dans
Regard régional
29 mars 2016
2
29
/03
/mars
/2016
02:39
24 Mar 2016
Israeli authorities demolish homes in Khirbet Tana for third time this year, leaving 85 people homeless, including 30 children
On Wednesday, 23 March 2016, Civil Administration and military forces came to Khirbet Tana to the east of Beit Furik and demolished 17 homes, 21 livestock pens, and five outhouses. The forces also blocked the entrances to five caves, demolished a water reservoir built with the assistance of a Palestinian association, and confiscated four cars belonging to residents on the grounds that they did not have a valid license.
This is the third demolition operation in the village since the beginning of 2016.
The previous demolitions were undertaken on 9 February 2016 and 2 March 2016. Six of the residential tents that were demolished were donated by an international humanitarian aid organization to families whose homes were demolished by the Civil Administration and the military on 2 March, while two of the outhouses demolished were donated by the European Union.
The acts of destruction left 85 people homeless, including 30 minors.
Ruins of an outhouse donated by the EU. Photo: Abdulkarim Sadi, B'Tselem, 23 March 2016.
24 Mar 2016
Israeli authorities again demolish structures in two Masafer Yatta communities (Firing Zone 918)
On 22 March 2016, Civil Administration and military forces came to the communities of Khirbet Jenbah and a-Taban in Masafer Yatta, in the area the military has declared Firing Zone 918. In Khirbet Jenbah, the forces demolished a tent that was home to a family of six people, including four minors. The tent was donated to the family by an international humanitarian aid organization. The forces also demolished two livestock pens belonging to the family and confiscated a solar panel donated by an international humanitarian aid organization. The forces then continued to the community of Khirbet a-Taban, where they demolished another livestock pen. These structures were apparently not included in the orders prohibiting the demolition of additional structures in the communities. These orders were issued in February following petitions submitted by residents of the communities after demolitions undertaken by the authorities in the communities of Khirbet Jenbah and Khirbet al-Halawah on 2 Feb. 2016, when 22 dwellings in both communities were demolished. The latest demolitions in the two communities were carried out a day before the hearing held by the High Court of Justice (HCJ) on 23 March 2016 in a principled petition submitted by the residents of Masafer Yatta, after a mediation process between the residents and the state ended without agreements. The residents are opposing the authorities’ attempts to expel them from their land after declaring it a firing zone.
Civil Administration bulldozer demolishing a residential structure in Khirbet Jenbah in Masafer Yatta, 22 March 2016. Photo: Nasser Nawaj'ah, B'Tselem.
22 Mar 2016
Demolitions taking place right now in Khirbet Jenba
The Israeli Civil Administration is demolishing structures in Khirbet Jenba, in the Masafer Yatta area of the Southern Hebron Hills. More info as we receive it. The residents view this move as a message from the authorities in the run up to tomorrow's high court hearing in their general petition against the attempt to forcibly transfer them from their land through the declaration of the area as "Firing Zone 918"
Civil Administration forces remove solar panel in Khirbet Jenbah this morning. Photo: Nasser Nawaj'ah, B'Tselem.
8 Mar 2016
Demolition spree carries on across West Bank; 435 people, incl. 234 minors, have lost their homes since Jan. 2016
In the first week of March, authorities demolished 17 dwellings, 19 livestock pens, and a school in two Jordan Valley communities, rendering 64 people - incl. 28 minors - homeless. These actions are a direct continuation of the unusually massive demolition campaign authorities launched in Palestinian shepherding communities across the West Bank. Since Jan., authorities have dismantled and demolished 203 structures, including 105 dwellings, in communities threatened with expulsion; 435 people, including 234 minors, lost their homes. This consistently applied government policy constitutes the forced transfer of protected Palestinian residents in an occupied area.
Residents of Khirbet Tana near entrance to residential cave demolished by the authorities. Photo by Abdulkarim Sadi, B’Tselem, 2 Mar. 2016
29 Feb 2016
Israel’s Civil Administration demolishes four families’ homes in Jordan Valley
This morning, 29 February 2016, Civil Administration (CA) and military personnel arrived at the community of Khallet Khader in the region of al-Farisiyah in the northern Jordan Valley. They demolished five dwelling tents, which were home to 19 people, including five minors. They also demolished three livestock pens in use by Khallet Khader families. The tents had been given to the families by the Red Cross after the CA demolished 21 structures in the community on 11 February 2016. The community of Khallet Khader is located in the region of al-Farisiyah, which the military had termed a firing zone, and near the settlements of Shadmot-Mehola and Rotem. The community’s residents are farmers and they raise goats and sheep. Some families live on site only for certain seasons of the year.
Residents at Khallet Khader this morning. Photo by ‘Araf Daraghmeh, B’Tselem, 29 Feb. 2016
25 Feb 2016
Demolition campaign continues: Civil Administration and military demolish additional structures in two communities
Additional demolitions since we reported the early 2016 demolition campaign: On Feb. 20, Israeli authorities confiscated two large caravans used for expanding the Abu a-Nuwar school, where some children study in other communities due to overcrowding. On Feb. 15, 32 structures, including 10 homes were demolished in Ein a-Rashash, leaving dozens homeless. These demolitions and confiscations are part of an unusually massive demolition campaign the Israeli authorities launched in Palestinian shepherding communities in the West Bank in Jan. 2016.
Children at the school yard where the Civil Administration earlier confiscated caravans. The settlement Ma'aleh Adumim appears in the background. Photo: Mus'ab Abbas, B'Tselem, 23.2.2016
16 Feb 2016
New wave of demolitions in West Bank: Another phase in policy of expelling Palestinians from vast portions of West Bank
As of Jan. 2016 Israeli authorities stepped up efforts to expel Palestinian communities in the South Hebron Hills, Ma’ale Adumim area and the Jordan Valley, demolishing 73 homes and 51 other structures, some donated by aid agencies. Israel recently announced plans to demolish many more structures in Kh. Susiya, expel Abu a-Nuwar’s residents, and reported its failed mediation with Masafer Yatta. All are part of a policy whereby Area C is to serve Israel rather than West Bank Palestinians. Restrictions Israel imposes in Area C force all West Bank Palestinians to live in crowded enclaves without land reserves for building, farming, infrastructure, health and education services or freedom of movement.
Toddler against background of ruins in Khirbet al-Halawah, Masafer Yatta. Photo by Hagai El-Ad, B’Tselem, 4 Feb. 2016
11 Feb 2016
In a three-day demolition campaign in the Jordan Valley, the authorities left 59 people, including 28 minors, homeless
Over three days during the past week, the authorities demolished 22 dwellings in the Jordan Valley, along with 41 other structures used for storage and livestock, leaving 59 people, including 28 minors without a roof over their heads.
Stranded UN vehicle on razed access road to Khirbet ‘Ein Karzaliyah. Photo by ‘Aref Daraghmeh, B’Tselem, 10 February 2016.
http://www.btselem.org/facing_expulsion_blog
Published by B'Tselem.org (Israel)
-
dans
Regard régional
29 mars 2016
2
29
/03
/mars
/2016
02:37
Issue No.1288, 24 March, 2016 25-03-2016 09:34AM ET
The candidates and the lobby
All US presidential candidates bar one paid this week due homage to the Israel lobby. But in what they said it is clear that the interventionist outlook in Washington is waning, writes Adam Sabra*
Clinton’s speech to AIPAC was notable for its failure to criticise Israeli intransigence on the issue of settlement building. photo: AP
The news that four out of five remaining candidates in the US presidential election would speak at the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) policy conference on 21 March came as no surprise. Along with the National Rifle Association, AIPAC is generally regarded as one of the most powerful lobbying organisations in Washington and has considerable influence, especially over Congress. Since AIPAC supports candidates of both major parties whom it considers pro-Israel, its influence is bipartisan. Indeed, its major goal is to guarantee bipartisan support for Israel so that whichever party is in power, Israel’s interests in Washington are protected.
In this context, the decision of Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders not to attend the policy conference came as a surprise to many observers. Coupled with the support that Sanders received from Arab- and Muslim-Americans in the Michigan primary, some Sanders supporters went so far as to cite Sanders’s decision as an indication that his candidacy represents a fundamental break with previous campaigns with regard to the Middle East. Sanders has been waging an insurgent campaign within the Democratic Party against the establishment candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. In many ways, his populist campaign parallels the campaign of the Republican outsider Donald Trump, in that both campaigns seek to win the support of disenfranchised constituencies and challenge party elites.
Before considering how the current candidates might alter US policy towards the Middle East, it’s worth examining how we got to the present situation. Traditionally, support for Israel was considered a Democratic cause. A substantial majority of American Jews have always voted for the Democrats. Predominantly secular and socially liberal, 70-80 per cent of Jewish voters have consistently chosen the Democratic presidential candidate in the general election. Republicans were not usually anti-Israel, but they were more influenced by business ties to the Arab world. Israel was a Cold War ally of the US, but that era came to an end in 1989. The rise of Christian conservatism in the Reagan administration signalled the advent of a new ideological interest in support for Israel among Republicans, but as late as 1991, the administration of George H W Bush regarded Israel as a potential spoiler of its attempt to build an Arab coalition to oppose Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait.
A turning point came after the attacks of 11 September 2001, when neoconservatives took over Middle East policy within the Republican Party. Their signature policy was the invasion of Iraq in 2003, which they conceived of as a way to eliminate opposition to Israel and bring to power pro-US governments in the Arab world. The Democrats were divided on the Iraq war. Neoliberals such as then-Senator Clinton supported the war, while others, such as Sanders and Barack Obama, opposed it. The disastrous consequences of that war led to an Obama victory over Clinton in 2008 and eight years of Democratic rule in the White House. In Israel, however, a series of increasingly right-wing governments with connections to the settler movement came to power, frustrating attempts by Obama to restart Palestinian-Israeli talks on a two-state solution and threatening to upend any nuclear deal with Iran. The last thing Obama wanted was to be drawn into another Middle Eastern conflict.
The current election cycle looks both familiar and very different. Hillary Clinton has changed very little. Despite expressing regret over the outcomes of the Iraq war and Libyan intervention, she remains the candidate most committed to US intervention in the Middle East. Indeed, with the exit of the neoconservatives’ favoured candidate, Marco Rubio, Clinton may be the closest thing to a neoconservative left in the race. Her speech to AIPAC was notable for its failure to criticise Israeli intransigence on the issue of settlement building and for its call for the US to reassert itself in the region. The principal difference between Clinton and the Republicans at this point is her support for Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Among the Republicans, John Kasich offered an old-fashioned Republican statement of general support for Israel without promising any radical changes. At the other end of the spectrum, Ted Cruz claimed that he would tear up the Iranian nuclear deal and dismantle Iran’s support network in the Arab world, a policy that could easily provoke a regional war. In addition to Israel, Cruz expects to obtain the support of regional allies such as Egypt and Saudi Arabia, who would presumably be immune from criticism of their human rights records.
Of the candidates who spoke at the policy conference, the most anxiously awaited was Trump. Trump’s campaign has combined non-interventionism with economic nationalism. Rejecting the Iraq war as a disastrous waste of resources, Trump promised to negotiate with countries such as China from a position of strength. With regard to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, he advocated neutrality so as to act as an honest broker. All of this suggested to AIPAC that Trump is not ideologically committed to Israel and that he would prefer to disengage from the Middle East. This impression was strengthened in the hours before Trump’s speech when he called for the US to reconsider its relationship with NATO, questioned whether the US has any compelling interests in the Ukraine, and called on wealthy aid recipients such as Israel to pay back the aid they had received from the US.
When Trump took the stage at the policy conference, however, he behaved like a man transformed. He spoke relatively quietly and without most of his usual bombast. He used a teleprompter, rather than speaking extemporaneously as he typically does. His speech promised unswerving support for Israel and promised to amend the Iran nuclear deal to prevent Iran from developing ballistic missiles. The crowd, which was initially quiet, grew more supportive. The loudest cheers came when he celebrated the fact that Obama is in his last year in office. Given the fact that Obama’s relations with Binyamin Netanyahu have been terrible, this is hardly surprising, but for an organisation that claims to be bipartisan, the scene was embarrassing.
Was Trump’s performance convincing? Trump’s attack on Obama exploited the shared hostility of the nationalist right in Israel and the US to the policies of the internationalist Obama. Beyond this, however, it is unclear what the two have in common. Trump voters are opposed to foreign entanglements and unlikely to support Israel for ideological reasons. Trump’s transformation was sudden and unexplained. All of this suggests that his performance was undertaken to please figures in the Republican establishment, and that he could easily change his mind again once in power. Neoconservatives such as Robert Kagan have gone so far as to call on Republicans to vote for Clinton, should Trump become the Republican nominee.
Finally, Bernie Sanders was notable for his absence. Campaigning in Utah, he offered to appear by video-link or send prepared comments. AIPAC refused. His absence is understandable for a number of reasons. AIPAC zealously defends the rightwing government of Netanyahu, which puts them at odd with Sanders’s commitment to a two-state solution, including the removal of settlements from the West Bank, and lifting the siege on Gaza.
Sanders also supports Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran. Perhaps more important, however, is that AIPAC’s philosophy that emphasises influencing important people through directing campaign donations is directly opposed to the model of his campaign. Sanders has built his campaign around an appeal to working class voters who are angry at the way in which wealthy individuals and corporations have been able to purchase influence in Washington.
He has limited the size of individual campaign contributions he is willing to accept, and appealed to the youth vote. Pandering to AIPAC, as Clinton did, would have led to accusations of hypocrisy and undermined his claim to be leading a populist campaign. That said, however, the policies Sanders has put forward for the Middle East don’t sound very different from those pursued by the Obama administration. He, like all the other candidates, is critical of the grassroots campaign for boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) being waged against Israel. He accuses the movement of harbouring anti-Semites.
Recently, Barack Obama accused European and Middle Eastern leaders of being free riders who have benefited from US involvement in the Middle East, but contributed little. This impatience with the region and its chaotic political situation is present to an even greater degree in the campaign rhetoric of Trump and Sanders. If Obama’s candidacy was a protest against neoconservative interventionism and its consequences, the current mood among major constituencies in both parties favours domestic retrenchment over international intervention.
No matter who is elected, it is becoming increasingly difficult for the American political elite to convince voters that the US has a vital interest in intervening in the Middle East. There are too many problems at home and the prospects for the US to advance its interests in the region are too remote.
Adam Sabra is professor of history, at the University of California, Santa Barbara
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/News/15904/19/The-candidates-and-the-lobby.aspx
Published by Al Ahram Weekly online.org.eg (Egypt)
-
dans
Regard régional
29 mars 2016
2
29
/03
/mars
/2016
02:34
Crise du Yémen un an après l’intervention de la coalition arabe
L’échec de Riyad
le 27.03.16 | 10h00
Dans la nuit du 25 au 26 mars 2015, l’Arabie Saoudite, à la tête d’une coalition de dix pays, lançait une opération militaire aérienne au Yémen contre les rebelles houthis,
minorité zaydite d’obédience chiite. Objectif : chasser les Houthis de la capitale, Sanaa, qu’ils occupent militairement depuis septembre 2014 et de rétablir le pouvoir du président Abd Rabbo Mansour Hadi, réfugié à Riyad. Sur le plan régional, l’offensive vise à contrer l’influence de l’Iran.
Un an après cette campagne militaire, non seulement cet objectif n’est pas atteint, mais de surcroît il a suscité l’hostilité des populations yéménites.
Hier, les habitants de Sanaa se sont rassemblés pour protester contre la coalition militaire arabe à l’appel du Congrès populaire général (CPG), parti de l’ancien président Ali Abdallah Saleh. «D’ici, nous tendons une main pour la paix, la paix des courageux, pour des pourparlers directs avec le régime saoudien sans passer par le Conseil de sécurité de l’Organisation des Nations unies (ONU)», a déclaré l’ex-président Saleh.
Il a aussi appelé le Conseil de sécurité à «émettre une résolution imposant un embargo sur les armes au régime saoudien». Sachant que le 7 novembre 2014, à l’initiative des Etats-Unis, le Conseil de sécurité avait pris des sanctions contre l’ex-président Saleh et deux chefs houthis pour avoir provoqué l’instabilité du pays.
Vendredi dernier, le leader des rebelles, Abdel Malik Al Houthi, dans un discours, a qualifié la coalition menée par l’Arabie Saoudite d’«agression». «Un an après, nous constatons le résultat de cette agression (...). Le but était d’aider et de servir le peuple yéménite. Cette aide a pris la forme de meurtres criminels et de génocide.»
Des pourparlers entre le gouvernement et les rebelles parrainés par l’ONU ont été lancés à la mi-juin 2015, suivis d’une deuxième session en décembre avec plusieurs trêves non respectées. Le médiateur de l’ONU au Yémen, Ismaïl Ould Cheikh Ahmed, a annoncé mercredi un cessez-le-feu dans tout le pays pour le 10 avril et la reprise de négociations de paix le 18 avril au Koweït. «Les parties en conflit ont accepté une cessation des hostilités dans tout le pays à partir du 10 avril à minuit, avant la nouvelle session de négociations de paix qui aura lieu le 18 avril au Koweït», a-t-il déclaré à New York.
Il a précisé que «toutes les parties» yéménites participeraient à ces discussions qui devraient se dérouler «en face-à-face». L’objectif «est de parvenir à un accord pour mettre fin au conflit et permettre la reprise d’un dialogue politique inclusif, en conformité avec les résolutions de l’ONU dont la résolution 2216», a-t-il indiqué.
Enlisement
Depuis 2004, les Houthis mènent la guerre au pouvoir central de Sanaa. Jusqu’à 2010, six guerres ont eu lieu entre les deux belligérants. Le président de l’époque, Abdallah Saleh, les justifie par le fait que les Houthis veulent rétablir l’imamat aux dépens de la République. Le Qatar propose ses bons offices pour trouver une issue au conflit. Cependant, la médiation de 2007, suivie d’un traité en février 2008, n’a pas empêché à la reprise des combats en avril de la même année.
De son côté, Riyad est intervenu militairement en novembre 2009 à Saada, bastion des Houthis, une ville située à ses frontières. En août 2010, un autre traité a été signé à Doha entre le gouvernement et les insurgés.
Après le départ de Abdallah Saleh du pouvoir, ils poursuivent leur guerre contre les nouvelles autorités de Sanaa. En la circonstance, les partisans de l’ancien président deviennent les alliés des Houthis. Fin décembre dernier, devant des membres de son parti, le CPG, Saleh a refusé de participer au dialogue interyéménite pour arrêter la guerre civile. «Nous ne participerons pas au dialogue si la guerre ne s’arrête pas», a déclaré l’ex-Président.
Et de poursuivre : «Si la guerre s’arrête, nous aurons des discussions avec l’Arabie Saoudite et non avec les délégués des fuyards», allusion au président Rabo exilé à Riyad. A ses yeux, «la bataille n’a pas encore commencé» et «commencera» si le gouvernement et la coalition sous commandement saoudien qui le soutient «ne choisissent pas le chemin de la paix». En mai, Abdallah Saleh a déclaré avoir «refusé des millions de dollars» de l’Arabie Saoudite s’il se retournait contre les Houthis.
es révoltes populaires de 2011 ont contrarié l’ambition de Abdellah Saleh qui s’apprêtait à modifier la Constitution pour se représenter à la présidentielle de 2013 et y rester à vie. Après avoir survécu à un attentat, il se fait soigner en Arabie Saoudite, où il signe, ensuite, un accord de transition qui le contraint à céder le pouvoir pour se retrouver aujourd’hui allié de ses ennemis d’hier, les Houthis.
L’Arabie Saoudite s’est montrée discrète en la circonstance. Sa priorité consiste à affaiblir l’influence sur la scène politique des Frères musulmans représentés par son allié d’hier, le parti Al Islah.
Le royaume wahhabite constate à ses dépens l’ascendant de la confrérie dans les rouages du pouvoir, appuyé par le Qatar. Rivale de Riyad, Doha constitue un soutien important à cette congrégation et a condamné la destitution du président égyptien Mohamed Morsi par les militaires, en juillet 2013.
De son côté, la dynastie Al Saoud a cautionné la prise du pouvoir par le général Al Sissi. Durant l’ère Gamel Abdel Nasser, Riyad a soutenu la confrérie, adversaire du raïs. Le royaume wahhabite change d’allié au Yémen selon les circonstances. En 1994, durant la guerre de sécessionentre le Nord et le Sud, l’Arabie Saoudite avait soutenu paradoxalement les Sudistes qu’elle dénonçait jusque-là comme «communistes». Les Saoudiens ont soutenu les royalistes, dont les zaydites, dans leur guerre contre les «républicains» de 1962 à 1970. Ces derniers sont appuyés par l’Egypte de Nasser en dispute avec Riyad sur le leadership du Monde arabe.
Aujourd’hui, le conflit du Yémen a ressuscité l’ex-président Saleh, sachant que le tribalisme joue un grand rôle dans l’échiquier politique yémenite. Et Abdallah Saleh est réputé habile dans le jeu des alliances. Prenant le pouvoir en 1978 après l’assassinat d’Ahmed Al Ghachemi, il élimine ses opposants et alimente l’esprit tribalo-religieux hérité de l’ère royaliste. Les tribus du Nord se regroupent dans deux grandes confédérations, les Hashed et les Bakil, et jouent un grand rôle sur le plan politique. Le président Abdallah Saleh les a longtemps utilisées pour se maintenir au pouvoir.
A côté des réalités tribales, il y a l’élément religieux entretenu par le parti Al Islah de la confrérie des Frères musulmans dirigé par Abdallah Al Ahmar. Puissant chef de la confédération tribale des Hashed, il dispose d’une grande autorité sur la moitié du Nord et de l’appui de Riyad. Il s’oppose à l’union avec le Yémen du Sud et entretient des rapports conflictuels avec le pouvoir central, sous la présidence d’Al Hamdi (1974-1977).
Ne pouvant neutraliser le pouvoir de ce chef de tribu, un Etat dans l’Etat capable de mobiliser des milliers d’hommes en armes, le président Saleh préfère l’associer au pouvoir. Il l’intègre à la direction du pays au sein d’un Conseil consultatif créé en mai 1979, le nomme en août 1982 à la commission permanente du CPG et facilite son accession à la présidence de l’Assemblée nationale. Mais dans ce jeu d’alliances, le président Saleh favorise la tribu Sanhan de la confédération Hashid, principalement son clan, les Afaash. Sans les révoltes de 2011, Saleh serait resté au pouvoir à vie.
http://www.elwatan.com/international/l-echec-de-riyad-27-03-2016-317479_112.php
Published by El Watan.com (Algérie)
-
dans
Regard régional
28 mars 2016
1
28
/03
/mars
/2016
02:39
Video: Soldier executes Palestinian lying injured on ground after the latter stabbed a soldier in Hébron
This morning, according to media reports, Palestinians Ramzi al-Qasrawi and ‘Abd al-Fatah a-Sharif were shot after stabbing a soldier in Tel Rumeida, Hebron. The soldier sustained medium-level injuries. While al-Qasrawi died on the spot, a-Sharif was injured and fell to the ground. In video footage captured by Hebron resident ‘Emad abu-Shamsiyah, who sent it to B’Tselem, he is seen lying on the road injured, with none of the soldiers or medics present giving him first aid or paying him any attention at all. At a certain point, a soldier is seen aiming his weapon at a-Sharif and shooting him in the head from close range, killing him. Although this occurs in the plain view of other soldiers and officers, they do not seem to take any notice.
Video: ‘Emad abu-Shamsiyah
The wave of violence that began in October 2015 is shocking and Israeli security forces must use all the force necessary, depending on the circumstances, to protect the public. The law is clear: shooting to kill is only permitted when the person is endangering the lives of others. Once the danger is over, he or she must not be harmed.
Extrajudicial street killings are the direct consequence of inflammatory remarks made by Israeli ministers and officials, augmented by the general public atmosphere of dehumanization. Some top officials have commented, here and there, on the importance of abiding by the law and refraining from use of excessive force. This includes a recent public statement made by the chief of staff and comments included in a formal letter by the minister of defense to B’Tselem in response to a query. However, the law enforcement authorities are by and large turning a blind eye to repeated grave suspicions of extrajudicial killing by the security forces, and these backed in the field by commanders. The message to the Israeli public is undeniable: attempting to injure a civilian or a soldier is a death sentence.
http://www.btselem.org/firearms/20160324_soldier_executes_palestinians_attaker_in_hebron
Published by B'Tselem.org (Israel)
-
dans
Regard régional
28 mars 2016
1
28
/03
/mars
/2016
02:37
Uri Avnery's Column
"What happened to the Jews ?"
26/03/16
Yes. Unmistakable. I saw it in my early childhood. On newsreels.
Benito Mussolini. Rome. Piazza Venezia. The Duce on a balcony, The huge mob down below in the piazza. Delirious. Applauding. Shouting until they were hoarse. A mass orgy of mindlessness.
This week I saw and heard it again. This time on TV.
THERE WERE differences, of course.
Presidential candidate Donald Trump was speaking in Washington DC, the modern successor to ancient Rome.
The Duce was bald, and therefore always wore a fanciful hat especially designed for him. The Trump wore his trademark orange hair, very carefully arranged by himself (according to his butler).
Mussolini spoke Italian, one of the world's most beautiful languages, even coming from the mouth of a dictator. Trump spoke American English, a language that even its most ardent admirers would not call melodious.
But the largest difference was the character of the audience. The Duce spoke to a Roman mob, a late successor to the ancient Roman plebs who, not far from there, had cried for blood in the arena.
Trump spoke – unbelievably! – to an assembly of mostly elderly, wealthy and well educated Jews.
Jews, for God's sake! People who secretly believe that they are the most intelligent on earth! Delirious Jews, shouting, clapping, jumping up and down after every sentence, as if possessed.
WHAT HAS happened to these Jews?
It's a sad story. During World War II, when the Holocaust was in full swing, American Jews kept quiet. They did not use their already considerable political might to induce the President to do something significant to save the Jews. They were cowed. They were afraid of being accused of war mongering.
Once somebody brought me a Nazi leaflet dropped by the German Luftwaffe over American lines in Italy. It showed a fat, ugly Jew embracing a blond American girl. It said something like: "While you are shedding your blood here, the rich Jew at home is seducing your girlfriend!"
The Jews were afraid to do anything that could be seen as a confirmation of the Nazi propaganda slogan that this was a war instigated by the Jews and their stooge, "President Rosenfeld", to destroy the Aryan race. So they kept quiet.
These Jews had come to America one or two generations earlier. The victims of the Holocaust were their close relatives. The remorse for their inactivity during the Holocaust is haunting them – especially the elderly among them - to this very day.
Their blind allegiance to the "Jewish State" is a result of this remorse. Many American Jews – especially the elderly – feel more attached to Israel than to the US. The British slogan "My country, right or wrong" is applied by them to Israel.
This was the audience of Trump at the AIPAC mass meeting.
AIPAC IS the embodiment of Jewish might and Jewish complexes.
In a way, it is the late actualization of that famous Russian forgery, "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", about the Jews ruling the world. By many accounts, it is the second most powerful lobby in the US (after the lobby of the gun crazies).
How did a small political organization, some 60 years ago, reach these dizzy heights? The Jews are far from being the most numerous ethnic community in the US. But, as a result of the inbuilt fear of anti-Semitism, they stick together. And, far more importantly, they donate money. Lots and lots of money. In both respects, they outdo much larger communities, like the Arab one.
The American political process, once the envy of democrats around the world, is by now basically corrupt. Political advertising is both necessary and expensive. Anyone running for office needs heaps of money. Looking for money is now the main job of an American politician.
In today's America, almost every politician can be bought. Literally. So can entire party organizations. The sums are not even very impressive. AIPAC has pushed this corruption to a climax.
To demonstrate their power, AIPAC has produced some glaring examples. They are not satisfied with denying money to politicians that have criticized Israel in any way. They have actively put an end to the political careers of critics by taking competing nobodies, stuffing them with money and getting them elected in their place.
If there were such a thing as political terrorism, AIPAC would take the crown.
WHAT IS this immense power used for?
The Israeli journalist Gideon Levy wrote an article this week that shocked many, claiming that AIPAC is in fact an anti-Israeli organization. If I had written that article, it would have been even more extreme.
If, God forbid, the State of Israel does not survive the next 100 years, historians will put a lot of the blame on American Jewry, headed by AIPAC.
Since 1967, Israel has faced a simple but fateful choice: Give up the occupied Palestinian territories and make peace with Palestine and the entire Arab and Muslim world – or cling to the territories, build settlements and go on with an endless war.
This is not a political opinion. It is a historical fact.
Any true friend of Israel will do everything possible to push Israel in the first direction. Every dollar, every ounce of political influence, should be used for this purpose. In the end, the two states - Israel and Palestine - will live side by side, perhaps in some kind of confederation.
An anti-Semite pushes Israel in the other direction. Within the next 100 years Israel would turn into a bigoted, nationalist, even fascist, isolated apartheid state with a growing Arab majority, and the entire country would eventually become an Arab state with a shrinking Jewish minority.
Everything else is a pipedream.
SO WHAT is AIPAC doing?
In his monumental work "Faust", Goethe describes the devil, Mephisto, as a force that always wills the bad and always achieves the good. AIPAC is the exact opposite.
It supports the existence of a “Jewish State” but pushes it forcefully along the road to another of the huge disasters in Jewish history.
They have an excuse, of course: it's the Israelis themselves who have chosen this course. AIPAC only supports whoever the Israelis elect in democratic elections. Israel is the Only Democracy in the Middle East.
Nonsense. AIPAC and its sister groups are deeply involved in Israeli elections. They support Binyamin Netanyahu, the far-far-right Prime Minister, and the entire ultra-right spectrum of Israeli parties.
Perhaps I should put the blame on American Jewry in general. It's not just AIPAC, but millions of other Jews. They all support Israel, wrong or worse.
But that may be out of date. I am told that a new generation of Jews in America is turning their backs on Israel altogether, even supporting Israel-haters. That would be a pity. They could play a role in resurrecting the Israeli peace camp instead, doing their bit for an enlightened Israel, upholding the old Jewish values of peace and justice.
I don't see that happening. What I see is young and progressive American Jews quietly disappearing from the stage, leaving it to the new American Mussolini and his delirious, shouting up-and-down-jumping Jews.
http://zope.gush-shalom.org/home/en/channels/avnery/1458929539/
Published by Gush Shalom.org (Israel)
-
dans
Regard régional
27 mars 2016
7
27
/03
/mars
/2016
03:39
IOF attack nonviolent protests in the occupied West Bank, Friday afternoon
Nonviolence
Share
Related Articles
IOF attack weekly nonviolent protests in the occupied West Bank
Children injured and dozens suffer teargas inhalation as IOF attack weekly protests across West Bank
PNN/Bethlehem
Israeli occupation forces (IOF) attacked on Friday the weekly nonviolent protest against the Israeli Apartheid Wall and the illegal Israeli settlements in Bil’in village, west of Ramallah, and in Ni’lin village, causing many to suffer the effects of tear gas inhalation and many others were also injured, according to local sources.
In Bil’in, the IOF assaulted locals residents, Israeli and international peace activists as they marched from the center of the village, chanting for ending the illegal occupation of Palestine, and the establishment of the independent Palestinian state.
According to locals, the protesters raised Palestinian and Algerian flags, chanted against terrorism in various parts of the world, and expressed solidarity with the Belgian people, and all nations suffering from terrorism.
Abdullah Abu Rahma, coordinator of the Popular Committee against the Wall and illegal settlements in Bil’in, speaking to the local press said that “the Israeli terrorism against the Palestinians is not different than terrorism targeting various nations around the world.”
“Israel conducts daily acts of terrorism against us; they kill us, destroy homes, lands and property. They forcibly remove us from our homes, lands and illegally confiscate them,” Abu Rahma stated, “The terrorism we face in not different than all terrorist attacks and bombings, around the world.”
In Ni’lin, the IOF used excessive force against the nonviolent protesters, who were also holding the weekly procession against the Apartheid Wall and illegal settlements.
According to locals, the IOF fired dozens of gas bombs, causing scores of residents to suffer the effects of teargas inhalation, especially targeting many homes and cars in the village.
In addition, in Bethlehem and in Kafr Qaddoum town, east of Qalqilia, the Palestinian youth clashed the IOF this Friday afternoon.
Several young men have been injured by Israeli soldiers after they used excessive force against them, such as a huge amount of tear gas and sprayed the protesters and many homes, with waste-water mixed with chemicals.
http://english.pnn.ps/2016/03/25/iof-attack-nonviolent-protests-in-the-occupied-west-bank-friday-afternoon/
Published by PNN.ps (Palestine)
-
dans
Regard régional
27 mars 2016
7
27
/03
/mars
/2016
03:37
BDS salutes UNHRC resolution that will establish database of settlement companies
International
Related Articles
PNN/Ramallah
The BDS Committee on Thursday evening welcomed the news from the UN Human Rights Council after four resolutions were passed regarding Palestine, with emphasis to a resolution that will produce a database of all business enterprises that operate in illegal Israeli settlements.
Riya Hassan, Europe Campaigns Officer for the Palestinian BDS National Committee, the broadest coalition of Palestinian organisations that leads and supports the BDS movement, welcomed the news by saying:
“By voting to establish this database, this resolution supports the view of the the BDS movement that companies must be held to account for their participation in Israeli violations of Palestinian human rights and international law.”
“Just as at the height of the boycott of South Africa, the BDS movement is successfully persuading international companies to end their support for Israel’s crimes and we are starting to notice a domino effect,” Hassan added.
French multinationals Veolia and Orange and CRH, Ireland’s biggest company, have all exited the Israeli market in recent months, mainly as a result of BDS campaigning.
In a official statement, the BDS Committee stated:
“This is a welcome step but the UN Human Rights Council must go further to hold Israel to account for its violations of international law including by supporting a full ban on trade with illegal Israeli settlements and a two-way military embargo.
What use are the EU’s regular condemnations of the ongoing expansion Israel’s illegal settlements if they will not support measures aimed at stopping international businesses from supporting their expansion?
We urge the UN to lead by example and terminate its contracts with G4S, a private security company that provides services and equipment to Israeli occupation prisons at which Palestinian political prisoners, including children, are held without trial and tortured.”
In recent months, UNICEF in Jordan and a major restaurant chain in Colombia became the latest high-profile bodies to end their contracts with G4S following BDS campaigns.
In January, the United Methodist Church put five Israeli banks from Israel on a“blacklist” due to their complicity in human rights violations, including the financing of illegal Israeli settlements.
A leading France-based Israeli businessman recently told the Israeli media that the growing strength of the BDS movement means that most major European companies now avoid investing in Israel.
According to the UN’s trade and development agency UNCTAD, foreign direct investment in Israel dropped by 46% in 2014 as compared to 2013, partially due to the impressive growth of the BDS impact, as stated by one of the report’s authors.
In January 2016, Human Rights Watch issued a report, Occupation, Inc. urging international businesses to comply with their human rights responsibility and stop operating and servicing illegal Israeli settler colonies.
http://english.pnn.ps/2016/03/25/bds-salutes-unhrc-resolution-that-will-establish-database-of-settlement-companies/
Published by PNN.ps (Palestine)
-
dans
Regard régional
25 mars 2016
5
25
/03
/mars
/2016
02:39
Photo blog: Visit to Masafer Yatta, as the efforts to expel its residents escalate
Tomorrow, 23 March 2016, Israel’s High Court of Justice will hold a hearing on a petition filed by the residents of Masafer Yatta against the Israeli Authorities' intention to expel them from their homes due to the establishment of "Firing Zone 918." The hearing will be the first held in the case since the two-year mediation process between the parties failed. Immediately after the mediation attempts ended, Israel destroyed 22 homes in the communities of Khirbet Jenbah and Khirbet al-Halawah.
Ahead of the hearing, we visited the communities to learn about their current reality and legal situation. We visited Khirbet Jenbah, Khirbet al-Fakhit, and Khirbet al-Mufaqarah, and looked out over Khirbet Bir al-‘Eid and illegal outposts Mitzpe Yair and Lucifer Farm.
Photos by Osnat Skoblinski, B'Tselem's New Media Coordinator.
Concrete blocks placed by the military on the western access road to the Masafer Yatta area. The houses of Khirbet Jenbah are seen at the bottom of the valley.
Cave home in Khirbet Jenbah. Area residents traditionally lived in caves, using them as a shared family space, for living, cooking, and sheltering livestock. Today, the authorities prohibit the communities from building permanent homes and developing in accordance with community needs and they continue to live in cramped conditions in the ancient caves.
Entrance to ancient cave in Khirbet Jenbah.
Pupils of the Khirbet al-Fakhit await the school bus that takes them home. Pupils from another community in the area need the military to protect them from settler attacks on the way to school.
Demolished home in Khirbet Jenbah. The Civil Administration does not issue building permits to Palestinians in the area, on the grounds that they live within a firing zone. In February, the Administration demolished more than 20 homes in the area.
Local shepherd. Residents of the area live primarily off traditional agriculture and raising livestock. Women make Kishek, dried Labaneh that is considered a delicacy and sold throughout the West Bank.
Livestock pens in Khirbet Jenbah.
Traditional agriculture is at the mercy of the elements and requires broad expanses for sowing. In recent years, repeated military training in the area has harmed crops.
Ruins of Khirbet Mufaqarah mosque, demolished on the grounds that it was not issued a building permit. Although the state excluded the community in the firing zone, this status does not guarantee it stability.
Mother and daughter Zeinab and Rasmiya Abu ‘Arram by their livestock pen in Khirbet Jenbah.
Homes of Khirbet Mufaqarah.
Dirt road linking Khirbet al-Fakhit with a-Sfai a-Tahta. The Israeli authorities do not fulfill their duty to install suitable infrastructure for Palestinian communities in the area and prevent residents from doing so themselves. The Civil Administration prevents the paving of roads in the area, leaving many villages accessible only by off-road vehicle.
http://www.btselem.org/photoblog/201603_masafer_yatta
Published by B'Tselem.org (Israel)
-
dans
Regard régional
25 mars 2016
5
25
/03
/mars
/2016
02:37
Saudi-led coalition kills ‘twice as many’ Yemen civilians as all other forces: UN
GENEVA – Agence France-Presse
The United Nations on March 18 decried the “carnage” caused by recent air strikes by a Saudi-led coalition in Yemen, saying the alliance was responsible for the vast majority of civilian deaths in the conflict, while Washington welcomed talk of an end to the Saudi-led coalition’s major combat in the country.
“Looking at the figures, it would seem that the coalition is responsible for twice as many civilian casualties as all other forces put together, virtually all as a result of air strikes,” U.N. human rights chief Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein said in a statement, expressing outrage at one of the deadliest air strikes on a market this week.
Since the Saudi-led coalition began its air campaign in Yemen a year ago, the U.N. rights office said it had tallied just under 9,000 civilian casualties in the conflict, including 3,218 killed.
It condemned “the repeated failure of the coalition forces to take effective actions to prevent the recurrence of such incidents, and to publish transparent, independent investigations into those that have already occurred.”
Zeid decried that coalition air strikes “have hit markets, hospitals, clinics, schools, factories, wedding parties, and hundreds of private residences in villages, towns and cities.”
“Despite plenty of international demarches, these awful incidents continue to occur with unacceptable regularity,” he said, warning that “we are possibly looking at the commission of international crimes by members of the coalition.”
Zeid voiced particular alarm at two air strikes on a market this week in northern Yemen’s rebel-held Hajja province.
The United Nations on March 17 put the death toll from those strikes at 119, and Zeid’s office said Friday 106 of those killed in the crowded market were civilians, including 24 children.
“The carnage caused by two air strikes on the Al Khamees market ... was one of the deadliest incidents since the start of the conflict a year ago,” Zeid said.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon demanded an investigation into the incident, one of the deadliest yet in the war.
Meanwhile, his staff on the ground “could find no evidence of any armed confrontation or significant military objects in the area at the time of the attack,” besides a small checkpoint 250 meters away, the statement said.
As tribal mediation brings calm to the Saudi-Yemen border after a nearly year-long campaign led by Riyadh against Yemeni rebels, Washington has welcomed talk of an end to the coalition’s major combat.
“We have expressed our concerns about the loss of innocent life in Yemen. The violence there that is plaguing that country has caught too many innocent civilians in the crossfire,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest said on March 17.
He said “we would welcome and do welcome” a statement from the coalition spokesman, Brigadier General Ahmed al-Assiri, who told AFP in an exclusive interview that the coalition is “in the end of the major combat phase.”
This would be followed by security stabilization and then reconstruction, Assiri said.
The coalition intervened on March 26 last year to support President Abedrabbo Mansour Hadi after rebels seized large parts of Yemen including the capital Sanaa.
Supported by coalition air strikes and some ground troops, anti-rebel forces have retaken territory, including much of the south.
But they have failed to dislodge the Shiite Houthi rebels from Sanaa or to completely remove them from the country’s third city Taez where intense battles continue.
Mustafa Alani, of the independent Gulf Research Centre, said that although fighting is not necessarily going to finish by March 26 “the operation is basically reaching its end.”
He said the coalition is keen “not to go beyond that psychological date.”
Rights groups have raised concerns about civilian casualties caused by the coalition as well as by the Houthis, who are allied with elite troops loyal to former president Ali Abdullah Saleh.
March/18/2016
http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/saudi-led-coalition-kills-twice-as-many-yemen-civilians-as-all-other-forces-un.aspx?pageID=238&nID=96632&NewsCatID=359
Published by Hürriyet Daily News.com (Turkey) / Agence France Presse
-
dans
Regard régional