Search This Blog

Tuesday 31 May 2011

La Libye et nous.. Entre « otanisateurs » et haine de la démocratie

Par Ahmed Selmane, La Nation, 24 Mai 2011
Les preuves de l’envoi par l’Etat algérien de mercenaires pour soutenir Mouammar Kadhafi n’ont, jusqu’à présent, pas été fournies. Les opposants libyens de Benghazi qui sont à l’origine de ces accusations font flèche de tout bois politique et ne s’embarrassent pas du principe qui veut que l’accusateur a la charge d’administrer la preuve.
La « rébellion » de Benghazi, dirigée en bonne partie par des soutiens fervents de Kadhafi durant son long règne, ne se trompe pourtant pas en constatant que le gouvernement algérien se refuse à la soutenir. Pour de mauvaises raisons parfois. Sadek Bouguetaya, caricatural apparatchik du FLN qui a des liens familiaux en Libye leur a donné une expression grossière et choquante en clamant à Tripoli un « que Dieu maudisse la démocratie ! ». Ses propos ont d’ailleurs servi à ceux qui en Algérie sont prêts, pour des mauvaises raisons également, à croire que le gouvernement a bien envoyé des mercenaires en Libye. Ceux-là soutiennent totalement le CNT libyen et n’ont aucun état d’âme – bien au contraire – face à l’intervention de l’Otan comme acteur dans la crise libyenne. Dans le meilleur des cas, la question est balayée par un « c’est la faute à Kadhafi » qui permet de ne pas avoir à discuter, politiquement, des implications de ce « nouveau » précédent. Pourtant l’Alliance Atlantique – apparemment il est nécessaire de le rappeler- est une organisation militaire qui n’est pas et n’a jamais été en charge de la diffusion de la démocratie. « Nous allons sûrement jouer un jouer un rôle de soutien dans le processus démocratique de la Libye post-Kadhafi", a affirmé le secrétaire général de l’Otan Anders Fogh Rasmussen. Voilà qui est d’une grande clarté. Les officiels algériens ont démenti avec vigueur un « soutien » militaire au régime de Kadhafi tout en ne cachant pas qu’ils ne nourrissent aucun enthousiasme pour le clan de Benghazi. Les accusateurs n’ayant pas – jusqu’à présent – apporté d’éléments prouvant cette implication, ces allégations relèvent de la propagande politique ou de la pression.

« Mais que font nos services ! »

A priori, l’extrême prudence du gouvernement algérien sur l’affaire libyenne ne devrait pas le conduire à prendre des risques à apporter une aide militaire à une Libye dont le territoire est scruté avec attention par les moyens de l’Otan. Il faut en outre constater que le « sujet » a été surtout traité par la chaîne Al Jazira et de la presse algérienne. L’affaire libyenne, contrairement à ce qui s’est passé en Tunisie et en Egypte, est source d’embarras général. Le régime de Kadhafi n’est pas défendable mais la manière dont il est entrain d’être éliminé, méthodiquement, par l’Alliance Atlantique, ne peut dispenser d’une réflexion politique sérieuse pour l’avenir proche. Idéalement, l’affaire libyenne aurait du être réglée, en faveur de la population, par une implication forte et directe des pays voisins (Algérie, Tunisie, Egypte) qui ont infiniment plus de légitimité à le faire que les occidentaux. Cela ne s’est pas fait et on ne peut que le regretter. Et même paraphraser une interjection célèbre sur la police en clamant « mais que font nos services » ! Il faut bien admettre que le régime de Kadhafi est en agonie mais aussi que la Libye va être durablement sous le contrôle des occidentaux à travers la Société Anonyme OTAN. Personne ne regrettera – hormis Bouguetaya and co – Kadhafi, mais beaucoup se refusent à suivre un courant qui s’affirme dans les champs politiques arabes muselés, celui des « otanisateurs ». Beaucoup d’adeptes de ce courant sont à leur « place » et ont participé en tant que partie prenante des régimes en place à faire de la « menace islamiste » une justification du rejet de la démocratie. Mais, il faut bien le noter, les « otanisateurs » comprennent aussi des hommes et des femmes chez qui la détestation des régimes en place est devenue, au fil des décennies, surdéterminante. Au point de faire taire la traditionnelle prévenance à l’égard des occidentaux qui ont soutenu avec constance et détermination les régimes autoritaires arabes.

Intérêts occidentaux et insécurité nationale

Ce que la Libye révèle est que la tyrannie fini par créer une disponibilité chez une partie au moins de la société à faire sauter les digues et à accepter une intrusion étrangère dont le coût sera immanquablement très élevé. De ce point de vue, les régimes autoritaires sont les plus grands « otanisateurs » même si leur discours met en avant, ad nauseam, les notions de souveraineté pour l’opposer à la démocratie. Ce faisant ils créent les conditions pour que l’énorme supercherie d’une OTAN qui «démocratise » et « moralise ! » passe presque comme une lettre à la poste. Le cas libyen concerne tous les pays. Il concerne l’Algérie. Sommes-nous condamnés à choisir entre l’Otan et la haine de la démocratie ? Les questions s’adressent, en premier lieu, aux tenants du pouvoir. Les occidentaux sont des « pragmatiques », ils jouent aussi bien la carte de la dictature que celle de la démocratie. Ces excellents amis de Kadhafi se blanchissent aujourd’hui à son détriment. Et, aussi, au détriment du peuple de Libye. Et que nul ne s’y trompe : tous les régimes arabes sont susceptibles du même traitement. Servir docilement les occidentaux n’est donc pas un gage de reconnaissance ni une garantie de loyauté de leur part. L’histoire montre que l’Occident utilise systématiquement les opportunités pour orienter les politiques et qu’il s’adapte avec une étonnante ductilité aux mouvements des sociétés. Les occidentaux ont des intérêts dans nos pays, c’est un fait établi. Ils jouent un rôle important dans les politiques des régimes arabes par des voies occultes. Les sociétés arabes gagneraient beaucoup à ce que ces intérêts occidentaux soient identifiés et transparents afin de s’assurer qu’ils sont mutuellement utiles et qu’ils ne servent pas de simples objectifs particuliers des gens de pouvoir. Plus ces intérêts sont opaques et plus ils deviennent un prétexte à l’ingérence étrangère. A l’heure où le pouvoir algérien annonce des « réformes », peut-on s’attendre à ce que le « cas libyen » soit apprécié dans sa véritable dimension ? L’autoritarisme est devenu une source d’insécurité nationale et une menace contre une souveraineté nationale acquise au prix fort. A trop vouloir ruser, gagner du temps et leurrer l’opinion, on détruit les ultimes digues. A détester la démocratie – et donc à mépriser le peuple -, on fabrique des « otaniseurs » convaincus que le pire, c’est le régime… Cette réalité est désormais visible… sauf pour les aveugles.

Russian Orthodox Church: The Growing Manifestations of Christianophobia in the World

Americans need to examine if their involvement with NATO in the Middle East is contributing to the persecution of Christians there. Liberal and neo-conservative foreign policy is identical. Both operate under the assumption that when secular dictators are removed, democracy will emerge in its place. We have not seen that happening. Instead we see Christians persecuted and displaced.
This document was adopted by the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church at its meeting on May 30, 2011 (Proceeding No. 51)
With profound concern the Russian Orthodox Church has taken reports coming from various countries in the world about recurring manifestations of Christianophobia. Christians have been subjected to persecution, becoming victims of intolerance and various forms of discrimination. The recent tragic events in Egypt’s Giza on May 7 and 8, when during mass disorders Christian churches were set on fire and parishioners of the Coptic Church were killed, are only one chain in the link of such developments. Our brothers and sisters are killed, driven away from their homes, separated from their relatives and friends, deprived of the right to confess their religious beliefs and to bring up their children according to their faith. Regrettably, the manifestations of Christianophobia cannot be treated as occasional incidents: they have become a settled tendency in some parts of the world.
Discrimination against Christians varies in expression from country to country. In some cases Christians are attacked in hooligan actions, which as a rule are manifestations of extremism on religious grounds. In some countries where Christians are a minority their freedom of faith is considerably restricted with regard to the right to celebrate, to own property and to establish and run theological schools. There are cases where Christians are rendered extremely severe court judgments and given even death sentences according to laws on blasphemy (as disagreement with the beliefs of other religions is described in such cases). But even in those countries where Christianophobia is manifested only in seeing Christians as ‘second-rate citizens’, our brothers in faith remain in distress. All this leads to the mass emigration of Christians from countries in which they have lived for centuries, as we see it in today’s Iraq and some other countries of the Middle East.
At the same time there are manifestations of Christianophobia also in countries where a majority of citizens confess Christianity. The domination of rigid and sometimes even aggressive secularism leads to the forcing Christians out of public life, while public statements and actions motivated by Christian faith, especially its moral assessment of events taking place in a society, rouse a negative reaction.
By drawing the public attention to the growing manifestations of Christianophobia, discrimination and persecution against Christians of various confessions, we do have as our aim to interfere in the internal affairs of state and do not call the world community to do it. Christianity teaches its followers to obey law and to respect lawful governments, according to St. Paul who said, Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities (Rom. 13:1). At the same time, governments, too, as responsible before their citizens, are obliged to respect people’s dignity and rights and, accordingly, to ensure the free confession of religious faith and security of religious communities.
Nor do we see other religions as sources of Christianophobia. The Russian Orthodox Church has always opposed any discrimination against individuals and peoples on the grounds of their religious affiliation and resolutely condemned any manifestations of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. Russia, just as other countries under the canonical jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate, has accumulated a rich experience of peaceful coexistence between religions, as well as mutual respect and interreligious solidarity. We are ready to share this experience with all those who wish to build a just society.
Christianophobia is manifested in the first place in situations where religious differences are used in political struggle mostly by extremist forces who pursue their own purposes incompatible with the welfare of the whole society. Such manifestations ought to be unequivocally condemned by all the healthy social forces including public and religious leaders. Discrimination on religious grounds can be overcome only through a broad dialogue involving governments, international organizations, religious communities and the civil society.
We call the world community, religious leaders and all the responsible public forces to develop a comprehensive and effective mechanism for protecting Christians and Christian communities who are subjected to persecution or restrictions in their religious life and work.
The Russian Orthodox Church stands for a more intensive dialogue between religious leaders and the international community for working out foundations for peaceful coexistence between believers belonging to different traditions.
We express solidarity with our brothers and sisters – Christians who are subjected to discrimination, persecution and violence, empathizing with their suffering and deprivations wherever they may be on their earthly journey.
We pray and call the faithful of the Church to augment their prayers for suffering and persecuted brothers and sisters. We pray that they may be strengthened in their faith and spiritual courage.

Boycotting Israelis, Playing The Victim And West Dunbartonshire Council.

[Note: This post has been made sticky for a few days whilst I update it. Cllr Mc Coll's videos have been added at the bottom, as a matter of public record.]
West Dunbartonshire Council and the man, that made a critical amendment of the motion to boycott all Israeli goods, has now released a video on the matter.
Why the deputy leader of West Dunbartonshire Council, Councillor Jonathan McColl, decided to make this video is a mystery to me.
I would have thought that Cllr McColl and West Dunbartonshire Council might have learnt the expression,when in a hole stop digging, but alas, no.
I suppose, being charitable, that Cllr McColl wants to get his point across, but from my brief viewing it doesn’t do them any favours.
The tone and content of the video suggest that West Dunbartonshire Council and Cllr McColl didn’t understand or appreciate the sensitivity of the term “boycott” when applied to Israelis or Jews. Moreover, there is an attempt within the video to play the victim, to gain pity and say that people have said terrible things to them.
It is quite possible that members of the public vented their understandable anger at Cllr McColl or West Dunbartonshire Council, presumably the lesson to learn is, don’t go posturing about issues that you barely understand and sensitivities that you couldn’t.
The sight of politicians whining about how people have said nasty things to them, in this instance, is unedifying. They might do well to remember that Israelis and Jews have faced far, far worse things than a bit of name-calling.
I think that they could have spent their time more profitably by reading, thinking and understanding that Europeans posturing about the Middle East is both condescending and decidedly unnecessary, it achieves little and potentially aggravates many.
I would suggest that the councillors of West Dunbartonshire Council make an effort to read up on antisemitism, in depth, and the history of Poland and Germany in the 1920s/1930s in particular. If the libraries in West Dunbartonshire Council don’t have books on the topics I am happy to provide a reading list for said councillors.
Any way, please do view the video and let me have your comments. I have taken the liberty of posting Cllr McColl’s full comments as a public record:
“Israeli Goods Boycott
Posted by CllrJMcColl at 9:04 pm, May 30th 2011.
Council Motion & Statements
Personal Statement
The following is intended to answer a number of questions that have been asked and assertions made in emails etc…
This boycott was not made at the request, suggestion or upon reading a pamphlet from any Anti-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian group.
This boycott was in response to and in support of international media coverage two years ago by the BBC, AP, CNN, SKY, REUTERS which showed Israeli forced murdering innocent women and children and firing rockets at civilian targets.
I have never seen, read or heard any material from Pro-Palestinian or Anti-Israeli groups and I would put little stock in either. I get my information from reputable, recognised sources.
Hamas’ use of hospitals and other civilian buildings (and indeed civilians themselves) as human shields is utterly despicable, but that does not give the Israeli Government the right to kill those unfortunate enough to be used by this terrorist organisation.
West Dunbartonshire Council remains committed to our boycott of Israeli goods and our resolve has only been strengthened by the torrent of vile abuse threats of violence against our families that has come from people who claim to be peace loving people.
This is not an anti-Semitic act.
I don’t care whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Agnostic or any other such label you might want to give someone. We are all members of the human race and we should all stand together in asking the Israeli Government to think again about their methods.
I agree that the Israel Government has the right and responsibility to defend their people, but I do not agree that this should come at such a high cost. They need to think again.
That assumption on your part says more about you than it does about me. To quote a Jewish woman from Glasgow who telephoned me on this issue,
“We are brought up in a culture of ‘poor wee us’, automatically thinking that the world is against us and perhaps we should take stock of that before we draw conclusions about other people’s motivations.”
The reason the Council discussed this matter was because it was raised by an individual Councillor as a private member’s motion.
You’d have to ask Cllr Jim Bollan what his personal motivations were for bringing this forward, but I do not believe him to be racist. I have never found him to talk down or discriminate against anyone.
It is not normal for issues of International significance to be brought before Council my individual members. Our main function is to govern our small local area and provide Education and Social Care services as well at things like refuse collection and recycling.
We do on occasions hear motions from members of this type, although never before a boycott. For example, the Council has condemned the actions of China, Burmha and various other places and has twice since 2007 been successful in aiding Amnesty Internation to free political prisoners from such countries.
All I ask is that when you read this and other responses you might get from our Councillors, that you look at this issue objectively and try to see this from our point of view.
My Great Grandfather fought in WWII and was awarded the highest decoration an enlisted man can get in the British Army for his bravery on the battlefield in the fight against Hitler’s Nazis and being compared to such evil people is not only extremely hurtful, but the first time I read one of these emails, I was physically sick.
If you are one of the many many people who have been sending vile emails, please…I urge you to take a step back and consider your position from our point of view.
Any further threatening email received will be forwarded to the police.”
Update 1:
Just noticed that Cllr McColl left out the actual minutes of the meeting. Reading them you will notice that he effectively amended the motion to extend the boycott to all councils in Scotland. Some omission.
This is the link to them as a Word document. I have highlighted the parts concerning the boycott of Israeli goods, as a public record.
” WEST DUNBARTONSHIRE COUNCIL
At the Meeting of West Dunbartonshire Council held in the Council Chambers, Garshake Road, Dumbarton on Wednesday, 28 January 2009 at 7.00 p.m.
Present: Provost Denis Agnew and Councillors George Black, James Bollan, Margaret Bootland, Jim Brown, Geoff Calvert, Gail Casey, Jim Finn, William Hendrie, Douglas McAllister, David McBride, Jonathan McColl, Ronnie McColl, Jim McElhill, Patrick McGlinchey, Craig McLaughlin, Willie McLaughlin, Marie McNair, John Millar, Iain Robertson, Martin Rooney and May Smillie.
Attending: David McMillan, Chief Executive; Bill Clark, Executive Director of Social Work and Health; Elaine Melrose, Executive Director of Housing, Environmental and Economic Development; Terry Lanagan, Executive Director of Educational Services; Joyce White, Executive Director of Corporate Services; Tricia O’Neill, Head of Human Resources and Organisational Development; Liz Cochrane, Head of Service, Policy and Performance; William Gibson, Section Head of Estates; Andrew Fraser, Head of Legal, Administrative and Regulatory Services and Craig Stewart, Committee Officer.
Provost Denis Agnew in the Chair
PROVOST’S REMARKS
Prior to the meeting commencing, Provost Agnew sought advice from the Head of Legal, Administrative and Regulatory Services concerning the issue of banners/placards being carried by members of the public and on display in the public gallery area and the possible health and safety implications thereto. Having heard the Legal Officer’s advice, Provost Agnew ruled that given the dimensions of the banners/placards that they be allowed in the Chamber.

NOTICES OF MOTION
(A) Motion by Councillor Jim Bollan – Proposed Boycott of Israeli Goods
This Council deplores the loss of life in Palestine which now numbers well over 1,000. This Council also recognises the disproportionate force used by the IDF in Palestine and agrees to boycott all Israeli goods as a consequence. Officers should immediately cease the purchase of any goods we currently source, which were made or grown in Israel. Officers should also ensure we procure no new goods or produce from Israel until this boycott is formally lifted by WDC.
Councillor Bollan was heard in support of the above motion.
After hearing Councillor J. McColl, Councillor Bollan agreed to accept the undernoted wording as an addendum to his motion:-
That the Chief Executive be instructed to write to all other Councils in Scotland with regard to seeking their endorsement of the motion.
Councillor McGlinchey asked Councillor Bollan to accept a further addendum to his motion. After hearing the Head of Legal, Administrative and Regulatory Services, Provost Agnew ruled that this addendum did not arise directly out of the motion. However he would accept it as a separate motion in light of urgency. Thereafter, Councillor McGlinchey seconded the motion.
The Council unanimously agreed to approve the above motion, as amended.
Councillor McGlinchey, seconded by Councillor Calvert, moved:-
That the Chief Executive be instructed to prepare a letter to be signed by the Leaders of the Council and Opposition to the Director General of the BBC and the Chief Executive of Sky News requesting that they reconsider their decision not to screen the Disasters Emergency Appeal concerning humanitarian aid to Gaza.
The Council unanimously agreed to approve the motion. “
Update 2:
These are the videos of Cllr McColl’s statement. I feel his words deserve a wider audience and are available onmy YouTube channel, as a matter of public record:
1 of 2
2 of 2
Update 3: It seems that some of West Dunbartonshire’s councillors are going on the offensive, or at least thathow’s it seems here:
“You will recall I posted about some correspondence I had with one of the councillors of Scotland’s West Dunbartonshire Council, which has banned books from Israel. The councillor in question, Lawrence O’Neill, promised to bring up the issue at a council meeting last week, but despite my repeated emails to him asking for an update, I have received no response from him.”Thanks to ModernityBlog



Union of Jewish Students respond to their lecturers’ decision at Congress

Throwing the bathroom out with the bathwater


This piece is by Dan Sheldon, incoming Campaigns Director of the Union of Jewish Students.

That the UCU has chosen to condemn and disassociate itself from the EUMC Working Definition of Antisemitism is no surprise. Infact, that’s probably one of the worst aspects of this whole saga – that such a policy position has been able to establish itself without much serious consideration or opposition. Such is the sorry state of the national lecturers’ union.
Why, then, have I found myself so shocked by this grimly inevitable turn of events? Why have so many Jewish students – and others – expressed outrage?
Perhaps it is because this decision betrays an ignorance one wouldn’t expect of a collective of academics. Ignorance of the nature of antisemitism, with its coded language and deep rooted stereotypes. Perhaps they are unaware of the prevalence of such prejudice, and precisely why it is considered racist? Or perhaps they are ignorant of the recent NUS Hate Crime Interim Report, a survey of over 9,000 students? It found that 31% of Jewish students had experienced a hate incident – far more than any other religious group.
Ignorance, too, of a basic logic - spelt out by Eve Garrad here - that it is possible to be critical (or more) of Israel whilst also engaging in antisemism.  To state that criticism of Israel is always antisemitic is wrong and devalues antisemitism. However, those who hold that criticism of Israel can never be antisemitic are either blind to basic logic or acting in bad faith.
Ignorance, also, of what the Working Definition actually is. How anybody who has read the Working Definition can maintain that it “confuses criticism of Israeli government policy and actions with genuine antisemitism” is beyond me. In fact, it is this very confusion that the Working Definition aims to clear up.
To be sure, the Working Definition is not perfect. It never claimed to be, hence why it is known as the Working Definition. That’s why the preamble to the definition states that it is intended to be a “practical guide”, and the definition itself contains the caveat “could, taking into account the overall context” when listing potential examples of antisemitism.
In fact, any attempt to construct a perfect definition of antisemitism, or any form of prejudice, is something of a fool’s mission. No definition can capture every possible instance of prejudice, especially within something as multi-faceted and ever-evolving as antisemitism. Nor can a single definition ever take full account of the overall context and perception of the victim.
However, to afford the Working Definition the status of a definitive, water tight definition is to construct a massive, luminous straw man in this discussion.
Let me be clear – the Working Definition is not a binding hate speech code, it is not law and it should not be treated as such. Rather, it is a useful primer on antisemitism; an accessible tool for educating on and identifying antisemitism. For universities and students’ unions, it sums up in one page what Anthony Julius’ Trials of the Diaspora does in 864. It is the start of a serious conversation about antisemitism, not the last word.
Where, then, has this misplaced perception of the Working Definition’s intent and purpose come from? No doubt there are some who misunderstand and misuse the Working Definition. Instead of using it as a pedagogical resource or a tool for monitoring antisemitism, some may attempt to use the Working Definition as a means to punish those responsible for expressions similar to those potential examples of antisemitism it lists. To the contrary, this is not the position of the Union of Jewish Students, the Community Security Trust, the Parliamentary Committee Against Antisemitism, the American Jewish Congress or anybody else who does serious work on this issue.
To pretend, as the UCU policy does, that the Working Definition “is being used to silence debate about Israel and Palestine on campus” leaves the impression that this is a widespread issue; that the Working Definition is regularly used to punish those who criticise Israel.
Where, then, is the evidence for such a claim? The example cited in the debate at UCU Congresswas that the recent ‘Freedom for Palestine’ motion adopted by NUS had been objected to on the grounds that it breached the Working Definition. In fact, this example proves that it is, in fact, perfectly possible to debate and criticise Israel without being accused of antisemitism. Despite having adopted the Working Definition (twice, after full debates at National Conference), NUS was able to debate and adopt a policy extremely critical of Israel. No claims were made at the time, or subsequently, that this policy breaches the Working Definition.
Quite simply, the claim that the Working Definition – when properly used – shuts down debate on Israel does not stand up to scrutiny.
The UCU, however, cannot claim to be in any doubt about the purpose of the Working Definition. The proposers of the motion have clearly read it very carefully and they know full well that it is intended to be a working guide. They just don’t agree with the content – that’s why they have dismissed it entirely, making “no use” of it, not even in “educating members”.
If the UCU were merely guilty of ignorance, that could be understood and – through education and dialogue – resolved. If someone had proposed that the UCU adopt the Working Definition, and Congress were to reject it, that would be the result of ignorance. Regrettable, but understandable.
However, the UCU has never used the Working Definition, and nobody proposed that it should start doing so. Instead, UCU has decided, apropos of nothing, to condemn the Working Definition whilst offering no serious alternative. In doing so, they have singled out antisemitism from other forms of prejudice as something only they, and not the victims, have the right to identify.
That’s where this goes beyond ignorance into genuine malice. One is left wondering what occupies the thoughts of those who are so keen to lecture Jews on what constitutes antisemitism. Jewish students are left wondering whether their lecturers’ commitment to “combat all forms of racial or religious discrimination” is anything other than hollow rhetoric.

Re Israeli Goods Boycott I received the following statement from CLLR JONATHAN MCCOLL of West Dunbartonshire

 His claims of where he gets is sources are very vague. "This boycott was in response to and in support of international media coverage two years ago by the BBC, AP, CNN, SKY, REUTERS which showed Israeli forced murdering innocent women and children and firing rockets at civilian targets".

Maybe I could ask him (politely), in the hope that he had retained such important information, to provide me dates and links to any reports from his noted sources which could help realise his vague claims.

I think he is surprised by the strength of indignation he has received. If he had any threatening emails as he describes he would have published them or reported them already.
Renaud Sarda




Israeli Goods Boycott
Posted by CllrJMcColl 
at 9:04 pm, May 30th 2011.
Council Motion & Statements

Personal Statement
The following is intended to answer a number of questions that have been asked and assertions made in emails etc...
This boycott was not made at the request, suggestion or upon reading a pamphlet from any Anti-Israeli or Pro-Palestinian group.

This boycott was in response to and in support of international media coverage two years ago by the BBC, AP, CNN, SKY, REUTERS which showed Israeli forced murdering innocent women and children and firing rockets at civilian targets.
I have never seen, read or heard any material from Pro-Palestinian or Anti-Israeli groups and I would put little stock in either. I get my information from reputable, recognised sources.

Hamas' use of hospitals and other civilian buildings (and indeed civilians themselves) as human shields is utterly despicable, but that does not give the Israeli Government the right to kill those unfortunate enough to be used by this terrorist organisation.
West Dunbartonshire Council remains committed to our boycott of Israeli goods and our resolve has only been strengthened by the torrent of vile abuse threats of violence against our families that has come from people who claim to be peace loving people.

This is not an anti-Semitic act.

I don't care whether you are Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Agnostic or any other such label you might want to give someone. We are all members of the human race and we should all stand together in asking the Israeli Government to think again about their methods.

I agree that the Israel Government has the right and responsibility to defend their people, but I do not agree that this should come at such a high cost. They need to think again.

That assumption on your part says more about you than it does about me. To quote a Jewish woman from Glasgow who telephoned me on this issue,

"We are brought up in a culture of 'poor wee us', automatically thinking that the world is against us and perhaps we should take stock of that before we draw conclusions about other people's motivations."

The reason the Council discussed this matter was because it was raised by an individual Councillor as a private member's motion.

You'd have to ask Cllr Jim Bollan what his personal motivations were for bringing this forward, but I do not believe him to be racist. I have never found him to talk down or discriminate against anyone.

It is not normal for issues of International significance to be brought before Council my individual members. Our main function is to govern our small local area and provide Education and Social Care services as well at things like refuse collection and recycling.

We do on occasions hear motions from members of this type, although never before a boycott. For example, the Council has condemned the actions of China, Burmha and various other places and has twice since 2007 been successful in aiding Amnesty Internation to free political prisoners from such countries.

All I ask is that when you read this and other responses you might get from our Councillors, that you look at this issue objectively and try to see this from our point of view.

My Great Grandfather fought in WWII and was awarded the highest decoration an enlisted man can get in the British Army for his bravery on the battlefield in the fight against Hitler's Nazis and being compared to such evil people is not only extremely hurtful, but the first time I read one of these emails, I was physically sick.

If you are one of the many many people who have been sending vile emails, please...I urge you to take a step back and consider your position from our point of view.

Any further threatening email received will be forwarded to the police.

La communauté juive de Tunisie doit-elle craindre la révolution du Jasmin ?


La communauté juive de Tunisie doit-elle craindre la révolution du Jasmin ?
Par Astrid Ribois 
La révolution du Jasmin est-elle un danger pour la communauté juive de Tunisie ? Si elle vivait en toute quiétude sous le régime du Président déchu Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali, il semble qu'elle attende désormais de voir comment évoluera la situation pour se prononcer sur un départ. Plusieurs familles ont déjà préféré quitter le pays pour Israël.
Israël doit-il s'attendre à voir davantage de familles qui, à l'exemple des 20 Tunisiens juifs ayant procédé à leur aliyah (émigration des Juifs en Terre Sainte) lors des émeutes, décideraient de quitter la Tunisie pour s'installer au sein de l'Etat hébreu ? Face aux événements, les Juifs tunisiens semblent ne pas savoir à quoi s'en tenir et restent pour l'instant dans l'expectative.
Composée de quelques 110.000 âmes il y a soixante ans, la communauté juive de Tunisie a largement décru au cours des dernières décennies pour ne compter à ce jour plus que 1500 personnes.
Tout à fait intégrée parmi la population musulmane, cette communauté distingue en son sein trois catégories, selon le journaliste Jacques Benillouche. ''La première catégorie et la plus importante se situe à Djerba''. Ne comptant pas moins de 1000 résidents, elle se compose ''essentiellement de commerçants qui se révèlent être très peu impliqués dans la vie politique tunisienne. Confirmant leur totale intégration, M. Benillouche souligne que les Juifs de Djerba ''ne parlent qu'arabe et hébreu, chose qui aurait été impensable il y a quelques décennies'' lorsqu'ils parlaient le plus souvent français. Les Juifs de Tunis sont quant à eux en grande majorité ''des industriels qui ont une situation très aisée et qui collaborent essentiellement avec les institutions pour des raisons financières'', explique M. Benillouche. Enfin il reste ''les retraités n'ayant aucune descendance et devant vivre dans des maisons de retraites dans le dénuement le plus complet''.
Paradoxalement, si la communauté juive de Tunisie est totalement intégrée, elle ne s'implique peu ou pas dans la vie politique du pays. Si elle a été très peu médiatisée lors des récents événements, c'est sans doute parce qu'elle ne se sent pas réellement solidaire de la cause des Tunisiens. ''Les Juifs de Djerba sont totalement en dehors du mouvement'', souligne M. Benillouche. Par conséquent très peu de Juifs prennent part aux manifestations et attendent plutôt de voir évoluer la situation. Liés au milieu des affaires ou alors étant trop âgés, les Tunisiens juifs semblent donc désolidarisés du mouvement de contestation qui a amené les plus démunis à se soulever contre le pouvoir en place incarné par Ben Ali. Les Tunisiens juifs ''sont confiants dans l'avenir, car ils ont l'habitude de collaborer avec les Arabes'', précise M. Benillouche, évoquant le remaniement du gouvernement.
La parfaite intégration de cette communauté pourrait s'avérer problématique dans un pays où la population, qui a réussit à renverser le pouvoir, veut en finir avec les vestiges de l'ancien régime. Déjà vingt personnes ont quitté le pays pour rejoindre l'Etat hébreu et entamer leur aliyah. Le risque pour les Juifs viendra au moment où leurs inquiétudes – la prise du pouvoir par les islamistes – se concrétiseront. Comme le souligne M. Benillouche, les islamistes sont pour le moment en dehors de la vie politique: ''Ils ne veulent pas intervenir ouvertement. Mais ils attendent le bon moment. La Tunisie va faire face à d'importants problèmes financiers. Le tourisme, qui fait vivre l'économie du pays, sera gravement touché. Le nouveau gouvernement tunisien risquera donc de tomber pour des raisons économiques, en ne tenant pas ses promesses à l'égard du peuple''. C'est à ce moment précis qu'ils essaieront de séduire la population pour espérer prendre les rênes du pouvoir.
Conscients de ce risque, les Tunisiens rejettent pour le moment cet islamisme. ''Ceux qui se battent contre le pouvoir aspirent à être libre, relève M. Benillouche. Et ils savent qu'ils perdront cette liberté si les islamistes s'imposent sur la scène politique''. D'autre part, le journaliste précise que l'armée tunisienne est acquise aux idées démocratiques, contrairement à la police qui a réprimé violemment les manifestants. ''L'armée est la garante de la démocratie en Tunisie et du combat contre les islamistes''.
Pour l'heure la communauté juive ne semble pas menacée. Seuls ceux qui ont été liés au pouvoir pourront subir des sanctions, principalement de type économique, mais aucune menace n'a pour le moment été proférée à l'encontre de la communauté juive. Le Conseil représentatif des institutions juives de France confirme d'ailleurs dans un communiqué qu'aucune ''attaque ni vexation (n'a été commise) à l'égard de la communauté juive et nous n'avons pas de signe alarmiste''. Cependant J. Benillouche souligne que la situation dans la capitale tunisienne est très différente par rapport aux régions plus au sud du pays ''où l'islam est davantage introduit. S'il y avait des problèmes à l'encontre des Juifs, explique-t-il, ils seraient essentiellement dus aux dirigeants de la communauté juive, qui contrairement aux époques précédentes, s'est très impliquée dans le gouvernement Ben Ali''.
La non-participation ne signifie pas pour autant l'opposition au soulèvement du peuple. Les Juifs de Tunisie sont au contraire enthousiastes, comme le témoignent les réseaux sociaux tels que Facebook et autre Twitter. Ils n'ont d'ailleurs subit aucune menace lors de la révolution de Jasmin. C'est notamment ce qui fait de cette révolte une particularité dans le monde arabe. Selon l'écrivain Marko Koscas, c'est ''la première fois qu'un soulèvement ne prend pas Israël et les Juifs comme prétexte. Pour une fois, les Juifs ne sont pas accusés. Ils se soulèvent pour la liberté de vivre et de respirer. Finalement, les Tunisiens se soulèvent pour devenir des occidentaux comme les autres''.
Il est donc peu probable qu'un départ massif des Juifs de Tunisie ait lieu dans les mois à venir. ''Les quelques familles qui ont décidé d'organiser leur aliyah ont probablement quitté le pays du Jamsin par choix, conclut M. Benillouche. Les événements n'ont sans doute fait que précipiter leur décision.''