Pour recevoir des informations au jour le jour sur la session de Barcelone, merci de vous
rendre directement sur notre site Web Catalan-Espagnol (en cliquant sur la baniere ci dessus). Merci.
Well I enjoyed it tremendously. It was, like all his other speeches, a breath of fresh air. This man is honest, educated, extremely eloquent, extremely human,
determined to do the right thing and has the best interest of people at heart.
The only thing that bothered me was that whereas he spoke of Violent Muslim extremists around the world, emphasising these were a potent minority of Muslims, He declared that
Palestinians must abandon violence, as if all Palestinian are violent, as if this is their way of dealing with the problems, while we all know that most PAlestinians are not violent, dont have
weapons and resist the occupation in non violent ways that should have been admired by such a man. Also, he di not used the word violence even once when describing Israel's conduct, instaed he
limited himself to the settlelemts and the general evil of occupation.
But this is a marginal remark. I do believe he means business and will force the Israeli government to stop lying and do the right thing.
Neve Gordon:
President Obama is a great orator and, at least ostensibly, his Cairo speech does signify a change in US foreign policy in the Middle East. I would like to pause, however, on one sentence, the
one in which he declares that the US "will not accept the legitimacy of continued settlement activity" in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. I wonder why Obama inserted the word "continued"
into the sentence and how does this word change the meaning of the phrase.
The word continued could refer to the illegitimacy of continued settlement growth, it could mean the illegitimacy of the ongoing settlement project, etc. The purpose of the word continued is
accordingly not to clarify, but rather to render the meaning of the sentence unclear, imprecise. In a speech where every word is examined again and again, this is not an accident. If Obama had
not inserted the word continued in the speech, everyone would know that in his opinion the settlement project as a whole is illegitimate, but he chose to be vague even if this is in fact what he
thinks.
At the end of the day, though, it is less the words that count, and more the actions. Israel does not intend to freeze the settlement build-up nor is it going, of its own free will, to dismantle
the illegal settlements and bring the settlers back home. The question, then, is what Obama will do. Will he exert enough pressure to save Israel from itself? Or will he allow, following his
predecessors, to become a full blown Apartheid regime?
Ilan Pappé:
The speech was refreshing in its music and tone. It was impressive to hear reference to Iran not as a demonised entity and to learn that the USA is in no need anymore for such demons in order to define itself and its role in the world.
I was impressed with the reference to the term and concept of Palestine and not a Palestinian state as well to his recognition that Palestinian suffering did not begin in 1967, but at least in 1948.
I noticed, like everyone else, the correct pronunciation of Arabic and the employment of Islamic discourse and how well it was received. However, although it won accolades in the hall, I doubt whether it would satisfy people around the Muslim world. Many of them would wait for deeds and would be less impressed by gestures.
But on the whole, I have to admit that I was not disappointed, as I did not expect much. The substantial issues were not included in the speech, and I did not expect them to be. Even the settlements appeared only as illegitimate if they are continued, while their very existence is illegitimate. If the deal is, as one gathers from Rahm Emmanuel, is an America willingness to replace a Netanyahu government by a Livni government in return for endorsing systematic human rights violations in the Arab world, it means that cynicism still reigns. The Palestine issue would not be solved, human rights issues would not be improved and the destruction and dispossession of Palestine would continue.
But let us speak sweetly as we may have to eat our words, hopefully in this case. Whether this was a charade or a genuine opening of a new chapter only deeds and time would tell. Can Obama at all oppose Israel’s source of power: the Congress? If he can, this is a different ball game.
Dear Tali Shalom Ezer
From the beginning, Israel and its supporters have attacked their critics as anti-semites or racists. It is a tactic to undermine rational debate.
To be crystal clear: as a film maker you will receive a warm welcome in Edinburgh . You are not censored or rejected. The opposition was to the Festival’s taking money from the Israeli state.
The call for a boycott of Israeli cultural institutions comes from many Palestinians: writers, artists, journalists, lawyers, academics, trades unionists, teachers. They see it as “a contribution to the struggle to end Israel ’s occupation, colonisation and system of apartheid.” Who are we, that we should not heed their call? Your counter arguments were used against the South African boycott yet that proved eventually to be successful.
We remember that the Palestinians have been dispossessed for sixty years, houses destroyed, communities wrecked. Israel ignores international law, the Geneva Convention and many UN resolutions.
We saw with horror the recent massacres in Gaza , how the Israeli army used phosphorous bombs in populated areas, how UN food stores and shelters were destroyed. The Red Cross described strikes on medical crews and the injured denied attention. Israeli journalist, Amira Hass, wrote of the killing of people flying white flags and the annihilation of entire families.
Faced with such crimes, Israeli poet, Aharon Shabtai, writes: “I do not believe that a state that maintains an occupation, committing on a daily basis crimes against civilians, deserves to be invited to any kind of cultural (event).”
Those who have attacked the boycott here are the usual suspects, old hacks and right wing extremists. One thought you were a man. They would embarrass you.
Please stand with the oppressed against the oppressor. I hope you enjoy the Festival.
Ken Loach
Open letter from Tali Shalom Ezer to Ken Loach.
Dear Mr. Loach,
In the past 24 hours, I have been asked repeatedly to comment on your statement demanding to return Israel 's grant to our embassy in Edinburgh . I admit to have mixed feelings about your statement and all that it implies. As I have indicated in previous occasions, I have always been a member of the Israeli peace camp. Contrary to common perceptions in the media, ours is a large, strong camp – as I'd like to believe is the case amongst Palestinians.
I oppose, with all my heart, the Israeli occupation and settelments; I oppose an automatic resort to military solutions in times of conflict. I appreciate the wish to change the world by shunning what is perceived as an act of injustice, but I feel that what may seem right in theory, may be extremely wrong in practice.
In my opinion, every time a nation is subjected to a cultural boycott – be it a film or a lecture by an Israeli professor abroad – there is a tendency amongst its subjects to draw closer to more nationalistic elements; every time this happens, peace is farther away. Every time this happens, the concept of "A People that Dwells Alone" gathers more believers, and the conviction that the only way to survive is by strengthening the state's military power, is reinforced. Every time this happens, moderate voices are hushed, art is weakened.
I do not know if you are aware of this fact, but Surrogate was filmed by Radek Ladczuk, a talented Polish cinematographer. For 21 years, Israel and Poland had no diplomatic relations; all I knew about the country came from the media and history lessons about WWII.
I approached Radek from purely artistic considerations. Our work, despite difficulties in verbal communication, has proven to me once more the power of art and the many points of similarity which join people together, everywhere. I have no doubt that collaborations of this kind promote dialogue and lessen prejudice.
To conclude, I just want to stress my deep appreciation for your work. I have been an avid fan over the years, and will be honored if you attend the screening of Surrogate, thereby showing the world that despite your opposition to Israel's politics, you are a firm believer in the power of art, and the power of individuals to bring about change.
Yours
Tali Shalom Ezer
