What better offer does Israel have than the Arab Peace Initiative?

First published by the Arab Weekly on 20/8/2017

The last serious, sus­tained effort to bro­ker a deal between the Israelis and the Palestinians was made during the Obama administra­tion by then-US Secretary of State John Kerry. He tried over nine months to advance peace talks but his efforts met with failure and the breakout of the 50-day war on Gaza in 2014.

In his final speech before leav­ing office, Kerry laid most of the blame for the talks’ failures on the Israelis. He claimed that while Is­raeli Prime Minister Binyamin Ne­tanyahu publicly supports a two-state solution, his coalition “is the most right-wing in Israeli history, with an agenda driven by its most extreme elements,” which are “more committed to settlements than any in Israel’s history.”

Kerry then presented his princi­ples for a future final status agree­ment: An Israeli and a Palestinian state based on the 1967 lines; full rights for all citizens; a solution to the Palestinian refugee issue; Jerusalem as the capital of both countries; an end to the occupa­tion, while satisfying Israel’s se­curity needs, with a demilitarised Palestinian state; and end to all claims by both sides.

Just before the end of the Obama administration’s term, France called a conference of stakehold­ers to discuss a possible way for­ward but that too failed to move matters. Some, including British representatives, thought it odd that the two parties to the conflict were deliberately not invited.

US President Donald Trump’s senior adviser on the Middle East, his son-in-law Jared Kushner, is leading attempts to broker the “ultimate deal.” He has expressed uncertainty about the United States’ ability to broker a peace deal between Israel and the Pales­tinians and told a recent gathering “there may be no solution.”

On August 1, China issued its own four-point plan to move the matter forward: Advancing the two-state solution based on 1967 borders with East Jerusalem as the capital of a new Palestinian state, upholding “the concept of common, comprehensive, coop­erative and sustainable security,” immediately ending Israeli set­tlement building, taking immedi­ate measures to prevent violence against civilians and calling for an early resumption of peace talks, coordinating international efforts to put forward “peace-promoting measures that entail joint par­ticipation at an early date” and promoting peace through devel­opment and cooperation between the Palestinians and Israel. None of the main parties have reacted to the plan.

There is, therefore, no short­age of initiatives from the inter­national community. The most serious one to come out of the Middle East was the Arab Peace Initiative, which was announced by then-Crown Prince Abdullah bin Abdulaziz Al Saud of Saudi Arabia during a meeting in Bei­rut in 2002. The initiative calls for normalising relations between the Arab region and Israel, in ex­change for a full withdrawal by Israel from occupied territories (including East Jerusalem) and a “just settlement” of the Palestin­ian refugee problem based on UN General Assembly Resolution 194.

The initiative was met with en­thusiasm by former US President George W. Bush and generally sup­ported by former President Barack Obama. Trump has referred to it as a basis for the “ultimate deal.” He has said he is in favour of what­ever the two parties agree upon, whether one state or two.

Israel’s reaction from the outset was lukewarm. Its position can be summarised as recognising some of the initiative’s positive ele­ments while insisting that there are issues it would not compro­mise on, including the return of Palestinian refugees, the status of Jerusalem and complete with­drawal from occupied Arab land.

Netanyahu rejected the ini­tiative in 2007, when he was the leader of the opposition. He told visiting Arab foreign ministers that “the withdrawal from Gaza two years ago proved that any Is­raeli withdrawal — particularly a unilateral one — does not advance peace but rather establishes a ter­ror base for radical Islam.”

In 2015, he stated “there are pos­itive aspects and negative aspects to it.” While noting that the situ­ation has changed in the 13 years since the deal was proposed, Ne­tanyahu asserted that “the gen­eral idea — to try and reach un­derstandings with leading Arab countries — is a good idea.”

Israel probably believes that some Arab countries see it as a potential ally against Iran and are therefore more likely to offer it more concessions on the final out­come of a deal with the Palestin­ians. The recent tensions in and over Jerusalem showed that was unlikely but Israel still did not feel the need to accept the Arab Peace Initiative.

Palestine must push back against loss of traditional allies

First published by the Middle East Monitor on 4/8/2017

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivers a speech during the opening ceremony of the 29th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 3 July, 2017 [Minasse Wondimu Hailu/Anadolu Agency]

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas delivers a speech during the opening ceremony of the 29th African Union Summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on 3 July, 2017 [Minasse Wondimu Hailu/Anadolu Agency]

 

When the PLO asked the United Nations General Assembly for an upgrade in Palestine’s status to “non-member observer state” on 29th November 2012, the motion was passed by a vote of 138 to 9, with 41 abstentions. The vote was met with ecstatic celebrations by the Palestinian delegation and disappointment on the faces of Israeli diplomats. The Israelis knew this could be a game changer, for although they, together with their American ally had scuppered the attempt in the Security Council (UNSC) for full recognition of Palestine as a state, the new status would offer the Palestinians the opportunity to pursue their ‘internationalisation’ strategy.

Having failed to make progress in direct peace negotiations under the auspices of the Americans, the Palestinians used their newly found status to join an array of international organisations and conventions. Palestine had already secured membership of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) the previous year, which resulted in Israel freezing its $2 million annual contribution to it.

On 12th April 2014, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas signed the relevant documentation to join 15 treaties and conventions including the Four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the First Additional Protocol. Perhaps the most important organisation Palestine was able to join as a result of its upgraded status was the International Criminal Court (ICC), which it formally joined in April 2015. Joining the ICC allows Palestine to bring cases against Israeli officials for alleged crimes, including the 2014 war on Gaza and continued illegal settlement construction.

While Palestine struggles to have resolutions passed in the UN Security Council due to the likelihood that the US will wield its veto to protect Israel, in other forums where the veto does not exist, it has generally secured enough support to pass relevant motions. The UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) regularly investigates Israeli human rights abuses and passes resolutions condemning its practices. UNESCO has passed important resolutions regarding Israeli policies in East Jerusalem and the status of Hebron’s old city and Al Aqsa Mosque that have raised severe criticism by Israel and its American backer; they were, however, unable to block these without the weapon of a US veto.

Despite these successes, support for the Palestinians in international forums is under threat from a sustained diplomatic effort by Israel to dissuade states and organisations traditionally hostile to it and supportive of the Palestinians to change course.

A Palestinian statehood resolution at the UNSC in December 2014 seemed to have secured enough votes to force the Obama administration to wield the US veto. That was until Nigeria, which has traditionally supported the Palestinians had a last minute change of heart and abstained; meaning the US did not need to exercise its veto. That was despite France, China and Russia voting in favour of the resolution. Nigeria’s Ambassador echoed the US position stating that the ultimate path to peace lies “in a negotiated solution”. This came after heavy pressure on the Nigerians which included telephone calls to the then Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan by Netanyahu and US Secretary of State John Kerry.

In another first, India’s Narendra Modi made the first state visit to Israel by an Indian Prime Minister last July. Commenting on a visit in which he physically embraced Prime Minister Netanyahu he said that India and Israel shared a “deep and centuries-old” connection. Suffice to note that that connection had not translated into a similar visit by a sitting Indian Prime Minister since Israel’s creation in 1948. Furthermore, it is worth noting that India is now Israel’s biggest arms market worth about $1bn per annum.

Israel’s relations with China have been developing since the establishment of diplomatic relations in 1992. China has moved from support for the Palestinians and opposition to Israel to support for a nebulous “just and peaceful resolution” to the issue instead.

Football’s governing body, FIFA, which had been due to sanction Israel for allowing teams from the illegal West Bank settlements to participate in Israel’s league, against FIFA’s own rules. The move was kicked this into the long grass following a telephone call from Israel’s Netanyahu to FIFA’s President Gianni Infantino.

In recent months, particularly following US President Trump’s visit to the region, even Arab states that had unreservedly supported the Palestinians have shown signs of change. Netanyahu insists relations with Arab states which have largely been hostile to Israel is shifting. There has even been talk of limited normalisation by some Gulf States to incentivise Israel to halt settlement construction and re-engage in the “peace process” with Palestinians.

An even greater danger for the erosion of Palestinian support lies in Africa. Prime Minister Netanyahu has long been pursuing closer relations and support from the African continent. On a visit to Kenya in 2016, he said “There are 50 countries in Africa”, “Just about all of them,” he continued “could be allies of Israel. They vote at international forums, and I know people don’t believe this, but I think we can change the automatic majorities in the UN and so on if you begin to shift this.”

The next step in Netanyahu’s pursuit of this change is the forthcoming ‘Africa-Israel Summit’ which has been called for 23- 24 October in Lome, Togo. The Summit’s website sells it as a “framework that will permit the leaders of the trade, security and diplomatic sectors of Africa and Israel to meet, network and collaborate”. It quotes Netanyahu saying Israel is coming back to Africa, and Africa is coming back to Israel”. The last time the Israeli and Togo leaders were due to meet was at the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Summit in Monrovia, Liberia back in June. However, the meeting was cancelled following a scuffle between the two leaders’ body guards.

Netanyahu’s attendance at the annual conference was to try and garner support for Israel at the UN and other forums and to “dissolve this majority, this giant bloc of 54 African countries that is the basis of the automatic majority against Israel in the UN and international bodies”. The conference saw Togo’s President Faure Gnassingbe named the new chairperson of ECOWAS in Liberia’s capital, Monrovia.

Although the Africa-Israel Summit is still on schedule, pressure to cancel it appears to be growing. Morocco and the Palestinian Authority have reportedly been pressuring the Togolese President to cancel the summit and African countries to boycott it. This pressure must grow rapidly to avoid Israel reaping the fruits of its efforts in Africa, the continent which experienced apartheid in South Africa and which until relatively recently saw its fall. How can Africa, in particular, entertain Israeli apartheid?

The Nobel Peace Laureate Desmond Tutu has labelled Israeli policies as Apartheid for over a decade. “I have witnessed the systemic humiliation of Palestinian men, women and children by members of the Israeli security forces,” he said in a statement in 2014. “Their humiliation is familiar to all black South Africans who were corralled and harassed and insulted and assaulted by the security forces of the apartheid government.”

The Palestinians may have assumed that Africa would resist Netanyahu’s charm offensive. However, increasingly it seems economic considerations trump human rights. The PLO has representative offices in 20 African countries. Apart from the North African Arab countries and other member states of the Arab League, Palestine has in South Africa and the African National Congress in particular strong supporters of the Palestinian cause. South Africa has been considering downgrading its embassy in Tel Aviv in protest at the lack of progress towards peace and Israel’s policies against the Palestinians. The Palestinian leadership must use every ally to push back against Israel’s diplomatic offensive in Africa or face further erosion of support where it matters for the just Palestinian cause.

أحداث وأصداء: عن بيان منظمة التعاون الإسلامي عن الأحداث في المسجد الأقصى

قناة المغاربية في ٢/٨/٢٠١٧

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKgswbGcnNI

Israel is sleepwalking towards tyranny not practising democracy

First published by the Middle East Monitor on 28/7/2017

Israeli forces injure Palestinians with tear gas as they gather to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque following the removal of Israeli security measures in Jerusalem on 27 July 2017 [Mahmoud İbrahem/Anadolu Agency]

Israeli forces injure Palestinians with tear gas as they gather to enter the Al-Aqsa Mosque following the removal of Israeli security measures in Jerusalem on 27 July 2017 [Mahmoud İbrahem/Anadolu Agency]

Let me start by acknowledging that democracy is in short supply in the Middle East. However, only one state claims to be a democratic state. In fact, Israel claims to be “the only democracy in the Middle East,” with the “most moral army in the world”.

Increasingly, extremist Israeli governments with no respect for international law, international humanitarian law or international norms have been using the pretence of democracy to entrench Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and to place the state’s Jewish identity above democracy. The Nation State Bill, making its way through the Knesset, seeks to do just that, despite claims a future draft would tone this down.

All is not well with democracy in Israel. Every so often former, senior Israeli politicians or retired security personnel warn that Israel is edging towards apartheid and even more recently towards tyranny.

Former prime ministers Ehud Olmert and Ehud Barak have warned that Israel’s policies are leading towards naked apartheid; Barak said as recently as last month that Israel was on a “slippery slope towards apartheid”.

Former Israeli officials were blind to the impact of their policies while in office. After all, the settlement project saw a major expansion during Barak’s reign. How is it that he could not see the devastating effect of this on the prospects for peace? It is also true that when it comes to settlements, current Prime Minister Netanyahu needs no excuse to expand the enterprise but still uses this as punishment for perceived Palestinian indiscretions such as joining world bodies or conventions.

To many observers the label of apartheid is already justified. Anyone who has visited the occupied Palestinian town of Hebron can testify that they saw apartheid, felt it and smelt it.

In April former Shin Bet chiefs Ami Ayalon and Carmi Gillon warned that the country’s political system had sunk in the process of “incremental tyranny”. They were speaking ahead of a public meeting at a Jerusalem gallery that was threatened with closure after hosting a meeting organised by the military whistleblowing group Breaking the Silence, one of the main targets of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Ayalon explained that “incremental tyranny [is a process] which means you live in a democracy and suddenly you understand it is not a democracy anymore,” adding that “this is what we are seeing in Israel. The tragedy of this process is that you only know it when it is too late”.

Attacks on human rights organisations within Israel are nothing new. Breaking the Silence,B’TselemAl-Haq, Peace Now and Yesh Din have all been demonised and individuals issued with death threats. MK David Bitan called for the citizenship of B’Tselem Director Hagai El-Ad to be revoked simply because he criticised Israel’s occupation to the United Nations Security Council.

In 2017 Israel passed a law compelling NGOs to reveal their foreign funding which would allow the government to lobby those states that fund these critical NGOs. This scrutiny does not to extend to those that support and fund illegal settlements.

Israel’s targeting of the media is constant and is hardly a sign of democracy. It regularly raids offices of Palestinian radio and TV stations and confiscates equipment. The 2017 World Press Freedom Index placed Israel 91st out of 180 countries, way behind many Western-style democracies that it claims to emulate including Germany (16), France (39), UK (40) and the US (43). Palestine was ranked 135th.

During assaults on Gaza, Israel deliberately attacked buildings housing media channels, which caused damage and casualties. Israel’s most recent attack on the media came during the recent coverage of protests and Israeli army violence at Al-Aqsa. The Israeli Prime Minister threatened to close Al Jazeera’s offices accusing its journalists of “inciting violence,” a claim the Qatari owned network strongly rejects.

In recent months Israel has escalated its war on freedom of speech both at home and abroad, particularly in relation to proponents of the BDS movement. While it generally claims the movement is ineffective, it has appointed Gilad Erdan as minister for strategic affairs to combat individuals and organisations that pursue this tactic for pressuring Israel.

At the 2016 Yediot Achronot conference which attacked BDS, Israel’s transport minister Yisrael Katz called for the “civil targeted killing” of BDS leaders like Omar Barghouti. Thankfully, Barghouti is still alive but he was banned from travelling abroad for a period of time and was recently arrested on allegations of tax evasion, which he denied.

Israel has also turned its attention to critics abroad. In March 2017 the Knesset passed a law that would empower the immigration authorities to deny proponents of the BDS movement abroad entry to Israel. Commenting on the new law Erdan said “the rules of the game have changed,” and that organisations seeking to harm Israel’s “national security” through boycotts would be denied entry to the country.

A few days after the law was passed Chair of the Palestine Solidarity Campaign (PSC), Hugh Lanning, was denied entry to Israel. A few days later I was travelling with my wife and son to visit family in East Jerusalem when I was also denied entry. This was particularly ironic given it is the year Britain plans to celebrate the centenary of the Balfour Declaration.

The first question I was asked during my interrogation was whether I had heard of the new BDS law. I believed that I was denied entry because of my role in PSC where I am a member of the executive committee, and our promotion of BDS. I did wonder at the time whether the law would be applied equally to Jews holding foreign passports and residing abroad who supported BDS or a more limited boycott of the illegal settlements.

When campaign director for Code Pink, Ariel Gold, made it into Israel recently I noted that a Jewish supporter of Palestinian rights and of BDS had been allowed in. However, she was ‘outed’ in the press and accused of “tricking” her way into the country, which she denied. She is now worried about being denied entry in the future.

At least Gold made it to Tel Aviv. On the 23 July Jewish Rabbi Alissa Wise and two other faith leaders were not allowed to board a flight to Tel Aviv by Lufthansa on the orders of Israel. Wise is from Jewish Voice for Peace. It’s important to remember that Israel has a Law of Return for Jews but denies the right of return to Palestinians.

Israel’s borders extend as far as it wants them to and in Alissa’s case they extended all the way to Washington and will be coming to an airport near you if critics of Israel decide to visit. Israel has developed criterion for entry denial and will demand that airlines deny boarding to individuals in their country of departure.

The implications for critics of Israel and organisations that promote BDS are clearly significant in term of accessing the country to show solidarity with Palestinians. However, they are unlikely to be perturbed about campaigning for the rights of Palestinians and promoting BDS, unless Israel’s lobby in key countries succeeds in wrongly criminalising BDS as the US is currently attempting to do.

In reaction to recent events around Al-Aqsa, Minister of Regional Cooperation Tzachi Hanegbi – a key Netanyahu ally – threatened Palestinians with a “third Nakba”. The reference here is to the Arabic term for catastrophe or the mass expulsions of Palestinians from their homeland in 1948 and then 1967. How democratic is that?

It seems to me that Israel has found it difficult to reconcile its role of delivering the Zionist project and acting as a democracy. It has to deal with non-Jews that it wishes had all been ethnically cleansed in 1948. Their sheer existence is a demographic threat and as we saw recently in Jerusalem, if they had all gone the ‘third Temple’ would have been built by now in place of Al-Aqsa Mosque in a state only for Jews.

Israel claims to be Jewish and democratic but the reality is that it is a settler, colonialist and apartheid state with a stockpile of nuclear weapons to boot.  It seems that if democracy does not deliver its colonialist aims then – as some of its own senior citizens fear – it will head towards tyranny. I acknowledge that Israel is not there yet but the direction of travel worries me as a Palestinian and should worry Israelis who want to make peace with their neighbours.

Those that support Israel in the West should also worry. Will they heed the fears of former Shin Bet chiefs Ami Ayalon and Carmi Gillon, or will they only know it when it is too late.

برنامج وراء الحدث: جمعة الغضب نصرة للأقصى

مشاركتي يوم ٢١/٧/٢٠١٧ ببرنامج وراء الحدث على قناة الغد

https://youtu.be/0v7TbpBmGRE

Attaque d’al-Aqsa : les Palestiniens quasiment abandonnés

18/7/2017 Middle East Eye FR

La défense de la mosquée al-Aqsa, chérie par 1,6 milliard de musulmans de par le monde, a été laissée aux 300 000 Palestiniens de Jérusalem, qui font face à un occupant particulièrement brutal et impitoyable

 

Les implications de l’incident mortel de vendredi dernier à Al-Aqsa vont bien au-delà du droit à la prière.

Cinq citoyens israéliens ont été tués lors de cette attaque perpétrée à la porte des Lions qui donne accès au complexe d’al-Aqsa, le troisième site le plus sacré de l’islam et également le site le plus sacré du judaïsme, connu sous le nom de mont du Temple.

Les assaillants, trois cousins ​​de la famille Jabareen, étaient originaires de la ville arabe israélienne d’Um al-Fahm, qui se trouve juste à l’intérieur de la Ligne verte. Ils étaient dans le collimateur des forces de sécurité israéliennes qui les considéraient comme des menaces potentielles.

Les deux policiers israéliens tués lors de l’incident provenaient de la communauté druze minoritaire d’Israël. L’un venait de la ville essentiellement druze mais aussi arabe de Maghar et l’autre du village druze de Hurfeish.

Les corps des policiers ont été remis rapidement à leurs familles et ont été enterrés le jour même, alors que ceux des assaillants sont encore détenus par les autorités israéliennes.

La famille Jabareen a monté trois tentes consacrées au deuil à Um al-Fahm, lesquelles ont été rapidement démantelées suite aux ordres du Premier ministre israélien, Benyamin Netanyahou. Lundi, le ministre israélien de la Sécurité publique, Gilad Erdan, a suggéré que les maisons des attaquants étaient susceptibles d’être démolies.

En raison de cette attaque, on pourrait observer dans les jours à venir une augmentation des tensions entre les communautés palestinienne et druze d’Israël. L’enrôlement des druzes dans l’armée israélienne n’est pas apprécié par les citoyens palestiniens d’Israël et par les résidents de Jérusalem, et des confrontations ont souvent lieu aux entrées d’al-Aqsa.

La première fois depuis 1969

Immédiatement après l’attaque, les autorités israéliennes ont évacué le lieu saint, expulsant toutes les personnes qui étaient venues y prier, ainsi que les responsables religieux et les employés du Waqf, l’entité qui administre le site, avant de le fermer. Les prières du vendredi ont été annulées et l’appel à la prière n’a plus été entendu.

Cela ne s’était pas produit depuis qu’un Australien avait mis le feu à la mosquée en août 1969, deux ans après l’occupation de Jérusalem-Est par Israël durant la guerre des Six jours.

Les forces israéliennes surveillent une rue menant à l’entrée principale d’al-Aqsa ce lundi. Les rues et les magasins de la vieille ville étaient vides alors que les Palestiniens protestaient contre les nouvelles mesures de sécurité imposées par Israël (M

Le président de l’Autorité palestinienne, Mahmoud Abbas, a téléphoné à Netanyahou et « a exprimé sa forte condamnation de la fusillade mortelle de Jérusalem et de la fermeture du lieu saint musulman de la mosquée al-Aqsa par Israël », selon l’agence de presse palestinienne WAFA.

Abbas a exprimé son « rejet de tout incident violent de toute part, en particulier dans les lieux de culte », et appelé Netanyahou à « mettre fin à la fermeture imposée du site sacré, mettant en garde contre les conséquences de ces mesures ».

Netanyahou a assuré à Abbas que le « statu quo » en vigueur dans le complexe ne changerait pas et a appelé toutes les parties au calme. Les Palestiniens n’ont pas apprécié la condamnation d’Abbas et sa cote de popularité est susceptible de baisser davantage, faisant de lui un partenaire pour la paix encore plus faible.

Comment en sommes-nous arrivés là ?

Selon le « statu quo » établi suite à l’occupation par Israël de Jérusalem-Est, y compris de la vieille ville, le Waqf jordanien administre le sanctuaire, les musulmans ont le droit d’y prier et les non-musulmans, y compris les juifs, peuvent le visiter mais ne peuvent y prier ou y pratiquer tout autre rituel religieux.

Le rôle spécial de la Jordanie à Jérusalem a été reconnu dans le traité de paix de 1994 entre Israël et la Jordanie, qui stipule qu’Israël « respecte le rôle spécial du royaume hachémite de Jordanie dans les sanctuaires musulmans à Jérusalem ».

Mais le traité ne va pas jusqu’à donner à la Jordanie une autorité juridique, politique ou religieuse sur les sanctuaires islamiques de Jérusalem.

À maintes reprises, Israël a poussé les limites du « statu quo », en particulier en permettant des visites plus fréquentes et nombreuses de colons, de responsables religieux et d’hommes politiques juifs sur le site, ce que les Palestiniens et le Waqf considèrent comme des incursions dans la mesure où elles ne sont pas coordonnées avec ce dernier. Cela a provoqué de fréquentes tensions entre Israël et la Jordanie et fait craindre aux Palestiniens qu’Israël ne cherche à imposer sa souveraineté sur le site.

En 2003, craignant qu’Israël change le statu quo à Jérusalem, Abbas a signé un accord avec le roi Abdallah de Jordanie pour solidifier la responsabilité de ce dernier vis-à-vis des lieux saints musulmans et chrétiens de Jérusalem.

Dans un communiqué, le palais royal jordanien avait alors déclaré : « Dans cet accord historique, Mahmoud Abbas a réitéré que le roi est le gardien des lieux saints à Jérusalem et qu’il a le droit de déployer tous les efforts juridiques nécessaires pour les préserver, en particulier la mosquée al-Aqsa ».

L’accord a également souligné « les principes historiques convenus par la Jordanie et la Palestine en vue d’exercer des efforts conjoints visant à protéger la ville et les lieux saints des tentatives israéliennes de judaïsation ».

Une réaction régionale mitigée

Alors qu’en 2014, la Jordanie a rappelé son ambassadeur pour protester contre les pratiques israéliennes sur le site, sa réaction à l’incident de vendredi dernier et à la fermeture de la mosquée a été plutôt discrète.

Le roi Abdallah a condamné l’attaque lors d’une conversation téléphonique avec Netanyahou et a vivement critiqué la fermeture de la mosquée décidée par Israël, exigeant sa réouverture.

Samedi soir, avant de partir pour sa visite d’État en France, Netanyahu a déclaré : « J’ai demandé à ce que des détecteurs de métaux soient placés aux portes d’entrée du mont du Temple. Nous installerons également des caméras de sécurité sur des poteaux situés en dehors du mont du Temple, mais qui donnent un contrôle presque total sur ce qu’il s’y passe.

« J’ai décidé que dès dimanche, dans le cadre de notre politique de maintien du statu quo, nous ouvrirons progressivement le mont du Temple, mais avec des mesures de sécurité renforcées. »

La déclaration de Netanyahou est contradictoire en soi car les mesures qu’il évoque ne font pas partie du statu quo. La Jordanie, pour sa part, n’a émis aucune autre réaction, ce qui est préoccupant pour les Palestiniens, qui s’attendaient à une action plus forte du roi.

Les Palestiniens sont également consternés par ce qu’ils considèrent comme une réaction discrète du monde arabe et musulman dans son ensemble à la fermeture de la mosquée – à l’exception du Qatar, dont le ministre des Affaires étrangères a déclaré que la fermeture d’al-Aqsa constituait « une grave violation des sites sacrés islamiques et une provocation pour des millions de musulmans à travers le monde ».

La Ligue arabe a demandé qu’al-Aqsa soit rouvert immédiatement et que cesse tout changement du statu quo. L’Égypte et la Turquie ont émis des déclarations plutôt clémentes. La Turquie a exprimé son regret pour l’incident, insisté sur la nécessité que le site reste ouvert et que sa fermeture par Israël soit immédiatement annulée.

Les inquiétudes concernant le troisième site le plus saint de l’islam déclenchent généralement des manifestations dans de nombreux pays arabes et musulmans, durant lesquelles l’on peut entendre les manifestants scander : « Nous sacrifierions notre vie et notre sang pour toi, al-Aqsa ». Ce slogan a été entendu à Jérusalem et en Jordanie, mais nulle part ailleurs.

En fait, la réponse globale du monde arabe et musulman est parmi les plus faibles jamais observées. Cela peut résulter de l’évolution du paysage politique au Moyen-Orient, qui a été provoquée par la récente visite du président américain Donald Trump dans la région et l’accent mis sur le terrorisme durant cette visite.

Après Riyad

Alors que les Palestiniens pourraient faire valoir que pour un peuple subissant une occupation illégale depuis 50 ans, les attaques contre « les forces d’occupation » constituent une forme légitime de résistance et non du terrorisme, le climat qui règne après la conférence de Riyad est moins favorable à cette idée.

La question du terrorisme, bien qu’aucune définition claire n’en ait émergé, est au cœur de l’impasse sans précédent entre le Qatar et quatre autres États arabes, y compris l’Égypte et l’Arabie saoudite.

L’ingérence d’Israël dans le droit des Palestiniens à bénéficier d’un accès sans entrave à al-Aqsa, accès qu’Israël pourrait rétablir progressivement, quoique selon des conditions sécuritaires plus strictes, a suscité leur colère, mais la situation ne retournera pas à ce qu’elle était avant l’attaque sans une action décisive de la Jordanie.

Alors que le monde arabe privilégie l’approche israélienne et américaine d’une paix régionale axée sur la normalisation, les autorités jordaniennes ont peut-être le sentiment qu’elles ne disposent pas du soutien de leurs frères arabes pour assurer le retour au statu quo.

La conclusion, pour le peuple palestinien, et en particulier pour les habitants de Jérusalem, est qu’ils ont été abandonnés.

Non seulement ils ont perdu le soutien de leurs frères et sœurs arabes et musulmans dans leur quête pour la libération, l’indépendance et la liberté, mais la défense d’al-Aqsa, chérie par 1,6 milliard de musulmans de par le monde, a été laissée aux 300 000 Palestiniens de Jérusalem, qui font face à un occupant particulièrement brutal et impitoyable.

Les ministres israéliens pourront se faciliter d’avoir su tirer profit de l’occasion de prendre le contrôle de ce site islamique vénéré, mais l’histoire montre qu’humilier les Palestiniens et écraser leurs espérances ne mènent qu’à davantage de violences.