Prise 2?

Une nouvelle guerre semble se préparer au Moyen-Orient...

Alors que la Syrie renforce les dispositifs militaires sur son versant du Golan, les réservistes de l'armée auraient reçu l'interdiction de quitter le pays.

De son côté, Israël se dit prêt en vue de la possibilité du déclenchement d'une guerre totale avec la Syrie pouvant survenir à tout moment.

Tsahal pourrait finalement avoir la chance de terminer le travail inachevé entamé l'été dernier.

Islam politique = Terrorisme

"A new study by the US Institute for Peace (USIP) of polling data from fourteen different Muslim countries finds that support for a role for Islam in politics strongly correlates with more likely support for terrorism. This statistical analysis is certain to draw protests from the usual propagandists of radical Islam in the US, even though the USIP can hardly be considered a neo-conservative institution."

[SUITE]

Hamastan [2]

Éditorial pour le moins prémonitoire de David Frum, publié dans le Il Foglio du 16 août 2005, aux lendemains de la décision israélienne d'évacuer unilatéralement la bande de Gaza:

The Secret of Gaza
David Frum
August 16, 2005
Il Foglio

Why is Ariel Sharon evacuating Gaza?

It is not because he believes that a decent Palestinian state will emerge after the Israelis withdraw. Nobody believes that. The almost universal consensus among experts on the region is that post- occupation Gaza will become a Mediterranean Somalia: an unstable failed state in which gangs compete for power and extremist Islam finds a sanctuary.

Nor was Sharon responding to international pressure. His plan for unilateral evacuation surprised and displeased the United States and the European countries. They wanted Sharon to negotiate with Abbas. They wanted the deal to involve all the Palestinian territories, not just Gaza. And they wanted the whole thing to happen very, very slowly.

Israel’s strategic situation did not force Sharon’s hand: Israel was more than capable of holding Gaza for years to come. Domestic public opinion is not the explanation: Sharon won Israel’s 2003 elections by opposing a Gaza withdrawal.

So why, why, why?

Let me try a theory.

Israel is the victim of an organized international hypocrisy.

After the experience of the 1990s, few people retain any illusions about the likely character of any Palestinian state. The Palestinian leadership is corrupt through and through. The only effective opposition to that leadership is violent and extremist. Palestinian public opinion utterly rejects coexistence with Israel. A Palestinian state, whatever its borders, will wage terror war against Israel – and give sanctuary to Islamic extremists from around the world. It will murder Israelis and threaten the security of Europeans and Americans.

European and American political leaders recognize this depressing fact. But they also recognize that Palestine issue has excited passions throughout the Muslim world – and among Muslim minorities in the West. These leaders believe that if they want to quell Muslim extremism, they must be seen to work toward the creation of a Palestinian state.

In Charles Dickens’ novel David Copperfield there is a character who answers every request with a sigh: Ah, if it were up to him, he would of course say “yes” with pleasure – but his partner, Mr. Jorrocks, is so very difficult ….. In just such a way, European and American political leaders favor a “peace process” that moves the Palestinians ever closer to statehood, without ever quite reaching it; a process that positions the Israelis as the Mr. Jorrocks of the world.

Ariel Sharon has decided to put an end to this play.

The world wants a Palestinian state? Very well – let them have it. And the result, as we are seeing, is something close to panic in the foreign ministries of the West. Not just the West: the Middle East too. The Egyptians do not want a Hamas state on their borders. They had expected Ariel Sharon to place a cordon between Egypt and Gaza. He has said he will not do so – that he is leaving the job up to the Egyptians. And indeed last month Israeli Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz announced that 750 Egyptian soldiers would soon arrive to replace the Israeli Defense Forces.

Is this Egyptian role on the border a precursor to a larger Egyptian role within Gaza? Egypt after all remains far more vulnerable to Islamic extremist ideology than Israel. The Egyptian authorities have crushed the extremist movement within their borders. Do they wish to see a jihadist state emerge on their borders? It seems unlikely.

Could it be that Sharon is calling the bluff of Western governments and the Arab states? By creating the very Palestinian state that those governments and those states pretend to want but actually dread – Sharon is forcing them to end their pretense and acknowledge the truth:

The Palestinian leadership is incapable of creating a state that can live at peace with anyone, not Israel, not the other Arab states, not Europe, not the world. Somebody else must govern the restless and violent Arab-majority territories west of the Jordan River. Israel has suffered four decades of condemnation for doing the job. Sharon is now resigning the task to anybody else who would like to step in and take over the job. Nobody wants to. But Egypt and Jordan may soon realize that they have no choice. If there is a secret behind Sharon’s plan – that is it.

=> À lire également: "Gaza explained" par David Warren

La "communauté internationale" à l'oeuvre...

Des nouvelles de l'ONU:

Le Conseil de sécurité de l'ONU n'a pas réussi lundi à trouver un consensus sur une déclaration proposée par la France visant à condamner l'affirmation par le président iranien Mahmoud Ahmadinejad que le «compte à rebours» pour l'annihilation d'Israël avait commencé.

L'ambassadeur des États-Unis, Zalmay Khalilzad a indiqué que certains membres du Conseil avaient encore des réserves sur le texte mais a exprimé l'espoir qu'un accord puisse être atteint «dans les prochains jours».

Selon des diplomates, le Qatar et l'Indonésie ont exprimé des réserves sur la teneur du texte français.

Le texte préparé par la France déclare que «les membres du Conseil condamnent vigoureusement les propos attribués à Mahmoud Ahmadinejad concernant la destruction d'Israël».

Il ajoute que les membres «réaffirment les droits et obligations de l'État d'Israël comme membre de plein droit et de longue date des Nations unies» et qu'«aux termes de la Charte de l'ONU, tous les membres se sont engagés à s'abstenir de la menace ou de l'utilisation de la force contre l'intégrité territoriale ou l'indépendance politique d'un autre».

M. Ahmadinejad avait déclaré le 3 juin: «Le compte à rebours a commencé pour l'annihilation du régime sioniste aux mains des peuples libanais et palestinien». «Dans un avenir proche, nous assisterons à l'annihilation du régime sioniste, si Dieu le veut», avait-il ajouté.

Religion de paix et d'amour...

Que le Conseil de sécurité soit incapable de s'entendre sur un texte non-contraignant s'appuyant sur la Charte même de l'organisation et condamnant les propos du président d'un État terroriste en pleine course à la bombe atomique appelant à l'annihilation d'un autre pays membre en dit long sur ce qui devrait arriver à ce misérable talking shop tiersmondiste qu'a toujours été l'ONU.

La seule bonne nouvelle: si Chirac était toujours président, la France se serait trouvée du côté des obstructionnistes plutôt que de celui des instigateurs de la résolution...

America Alone - Mark Steyn [Interview]

=> Pour en savoir plus sur "America Alone", cliquez ici.

EXTRAIT NO. 1 America Alone: The End of the World

EXTRAIT NO. 2 Fallujah, then and now

EXTRAIT NO. 3 Loving thine enemy

EXTRAIT NO. 4 Franchising terror, mosque by mosque

EXTRAIT NO. 5 Sleeping Giant

Pelosi en Syrie

Une image vaut mille mots...

Les dhimmicrates

Le Parti démocrate américain mène dorénavant sa propre politique étrangère. Hier, la présidente de la Chambre des Représentants Nancy Pelosi est arrivée en Syrie, où, entre deux ballades vêtue d'un foulard islamique, elle a pu s'entretenir avec Bachar Al-Assad, chef du gouvernement fantoche de Damas et grand pouvoyeur du Hezbollah libanais...

Showdown Iran

L'auteur, reporter et polémiste canadien Mark Steyn sur la faiblesse morale proprement écoeurante de l'Occident face à l'Iran. Magistral.

Faire plier l'Iran

Concernant les 15 marins enlevés et détenus illégalement par l'Iran, l'ancien président républicain de la Chambre des Représentants (É.-U.) Newt Gingrich avait d'excellents conseils à offrir aux Britanniques sur les ondes du Hugh Hewitt Show hier:

*HH (Hugh Hewitt), NG (Newt Gingrich)

HH: Now let’s get to the first major issue of the day, which is Iran. Mr. Speaker, if the United Kingdom feels obliged to use force, if diplomacy fails to get their people back, will you applaud?

NG: I think there are two very simple steps that should be taken. The first is to use a covert operation, or a special forces operation to knock out the only gasoline producing refinery in Iran. There’s only one. And the second is to simply intercede by Naval force, and block any tankers from bringing gasoline to Iran…

HH: Would you do, would you urge them…

NG: And say to the Iranians, you know, you can keep the sailors as long as you want, but in about 30 days, everybody in your country will be walking.

HH: So how long would you give them, to give them that ultimatum, the Iranians?

NG: I would literally do that. I would say to them, I would right now say to them privately, within the next week, your refinery will no longer work. And within the following week, there will be no tankers arriving. Now if you would like to avoid being humiliated publicly, we recommend you calmly and quietly give them back now. But frankly, if you’d prefer to show the planet that you’re tiny and we’re not, we’re prepared to simply cut off your economy, and allow you to go back to walking and using oxen to pull carts, because you will have no gasoline left.

HH: I agree with that 100%. Would your recommendation to the United States President be the same if Iran seized our forces?

NG: Absolutely. I mean, the reason I say that, it is the least violent, least direct thing you can do. It uses our greatest strength…you know, the mismatch in Naval power is absolute. And so you don’t have to send troops into Iran. Everybody on the left is waiting for conservatives to say things that allow them to run amok and parade in San Francisco, and claim that we’re warmongers. I want to avoid war by intelligently using our power to eliminate the option of sustaining an economy, so that the Iranian dictatorship will be shown to be the hollow dictatorship it is, so the people of Iran decide they’d like to have a decent government with real electricity and real gasoline, so they overthrow it. And I want to do that without risking a single American life, or being engaged in a single direct confrontation. And Naval power lets you do that.