Vers un échange Shalit-Barghouti ?
 
La libération du plus célébre prisonnier politique palestinien a rarement été entouré d'auspices aussi favorables. Marwan Barghouti figure en haut de la liste des prisonniers réclamés par le Hamas en échange du soldat Shalit.
 
Ces dernières semaines, une commission interministérielle a été chargée de réexaminer les critères de libération des prisonniers palestiniens. L'homme qui a été condamné à 5 peines de prison à vie pour son implication dans différents attentats pourrait faire partie d'un échange de prisonniers a confirmé le vice-ministre israélien de la Défense. Même l'opinion publique israélienne approuve cette option.
 
D'après un sondage réalisé pour le compte du quotidien Yedioth Aharonot, 71% des 500 personnes intérrogées se disent favorables à un tel échange, seulement 23% y sont opposés. Il est vrai aussi que Marwan Barghouti semble redevenu depuis sa cellule un dirigeant politiquement correct. Tout récemment, il déclarait à la presse palestinienne qu'il pensait qu'il y avait une chance pour que 2008 soit l'année de la paix et celle de la fin de l'occupation.

Sinon Obama c'est une girouette, donc meme si il enfonce des portes ouvertes en Israel en disant que Jerusalem est la capitale d'Israel, ca l'empechera pas une fois rentre aux USA dire autre chose. "le grand revolutionnaire qui va changer la politique des USA", c'est juste du flan

De meme de l'autre coté je ne savais pas pour cet officier Israelien qui s'est "égaré" à Jénine en Octobre : http://video.aol.com/video-detail/ [...] 3401464692 et que les Forces de sécurité palestiniennes ont reussi à sauver de la foule   et ont rendus à israel. Comme quoi ils ne kidnappent pas tout ce qui bouge. L'officier risque la court martiale et la prison apparemment.

I take refuge with God from Satan, in the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate; praise be to God, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds; and God's peace and prayer be upon our master and Prophet, Abu al-Qassem, Muhammad Bin-Abdullah, his pure family, chosen and righteous companions, and all prophets and messengers.
 
Excellencies; representatives of the three presidents; His Excellency resisting President Brigadier General Emile Lahoud; Highnesses, Eminences, and Excellencies, representatives of diplomatic missions; official delegations, particularly the delegation of the Islamic Republic of Iran; brother representatives of the Lebanese parties and Palestinian factions; families of martyrs and freed prisoners; brothers and sisters; and esteemed gathering, may God's peace, mercy, and blessing be upon you all. I welcome you all during this great national festival.
 
Welcome to Samir, Mahir, Khodor, Hussein, and Muhammad; welcome to the righteous martyrs whom we will receive tomorrow as we have received the righteous living ones today; and welcome to the virtuous Lebanese, Palestinian, and Arab martyrs, who represent this nation's source of pride.
 
On July 12, 2006, a group of mujahidin in the Resistance carried out an operation in which two Israeli soldiers were abducted to free the remaining patient prisoners in Zionist jails, led by Samir al-Kantar, the longest-serving Arab and Lebanese prisoner. On July 16, 2008, Samir comes back, and ahead of him to freedom was Nassim Nisr. Samir returned with the brothers who fought for the sake of his freedom, the living ones who are sitting beside him, and the martyrs whom we will receive tomorrow.
 
Is it a coincidence that the promise is fulfilled and the dream comes true in July? And on the same days? Or is it the unavoidable wish of God and His uncontested and all-powerful will? Each one explains this according to his own beliefs and faith. However, the timing too bears a lesson and implications for those who learn from and consider lessons. How did we arrive at this result, which, at some point, seemed impossible or far-fetched?

Dear brothers and sisters, the key and main factor – which has led us to today's achievement, which is rightfully named the Al-Radwan Operation – is the steadfastness and victory in the face of the 2006 July aggression and the failure of the enemy to accomplish any of its objectives. This is in addition to the serious repercussions of this defeat on this entity, its leadership, army, and people.
 
In other words, if we had been defeated in July 2006, Samir, his brothers, and the martyrs would not have come back. Besides, Lebanon and the whole region would have been gone and would have entered into the maze of the new US-Zionist Middle East. Even at the beginnings, when brother Speaker Nabih Berri was entrusted with the task of negotiations on the swap and came under strong pressures during the first days of the war, provided that he was a full-fledged partner in managing that stage of the conflict, the world did not want to listen to Lebanon's terms or talk.  The only talk that was repeated by the delegations and the world was that you should release the two Israeli soldiers without any restrictions or conditions.
 
Steadfastness and victory allowed Lebanon, the Resistance, and all of us to stand on solid grounds to continue the process of freeing our prisoners and martyrs. Here, we should remember those who fought in that battle in the command position, in the martyrdom position, in the wounded position, in the defiance position, and on the front lines.
 
The first one we should remember is their unique, genius, pious, and beloved commander, Al-Hajj Imad Mugniyah, may God be pleased with him.  We also remember our lofty people, their historic and courageous position, and their embracing of each other in all their sects and areas.
 
We also recall the position of pride in some official positions and the people's suffering and patience, of the owners of the destroyed houses, demolished shops, and burnt livelihoods; and hundreds of thousands of the displaced who stayed under the open sky for 33 days without saying a word of hesitation, weakness, or feebleness. This victory is the major and main factor that contributed to making this achievement and this victory.

The other thing is the hard and difficult negotiations in which we had several supporting factors. First, the enemy failed to restore the two soldiers without negotiations. This was evident through the outcome of the war. The war came to an end and the Israelis were aware that they would not get their soldiers back except through negotiations and not through any other channel. The other point is the fact that the enemy failed, at the security and intelligence levels, not only to identify their location but also to know their fate.
 
This was a point of strength during the negotiations. Had the fate of the two soldiers been revealed – either due to a tactical or performance error, or due to an error in the handling of the negotiations – the negotiations and the outcome of the negotiation would have taken a different course. This was a strong point in the negotiations. The third issue, which is highly important, is the enemy's fear to declare that the negotiations failed or to lead the negotiations to a deadlock in case the Resistance launched another kidnapping operation.
 
Therefore, the factors exerting pressure on the Israeli enemy were not humanitarian only. Other factors were there as well, including failure to save the two soldiers; failure at the information and intelligence levels; and fear of the Resistance, which the enemy knows pretty well that it made a promise and that it would fulfill its promise.
 
Had what was in its hand not been enough to free Samir and his brothers, it would have definitely done anything that would return Samir and his brothers. This issue was clear through the discussions of the Israelis and it was present at the enemy's Council of Ministers when the overwhelming majority voted. In fact, the Israelis began to blame each other.
 
They were the ones who obstructed the chance of freeing Samir, Nasim, and Yahya in 2004 as a result of the internal one-upsmanship between Netanyahu and Sharon. We told them when we received the freed prisoners in 2004 that you have held Samir al-Kantar, but you will regret this, and they have regretted this indeed. They know that if the negotiations had not led to this outcome, they would push the situation to a position that I do not believe Israel is ready for at all.
 
These are main factors and I add to them a fourth one; namely, Samir al-Kantar’s steadfastness, firmness, and strength that he communicated in his messages from prison. He did not pressure us throughout the months of negotiations to expedite the achievement and the result. He, however, used to give us time to achieve the best possible result for the other brothers. This also includes the steadfastness of the other prisoners.
 
Those resisting, fighting, and mujahidin brothers, we used to watch them on TV during the bogus court sessions. I tell them that I used to listen to your statements. During the last session, when one of you was asked that if so-and-so orders you to fight again, will you fight again? He answered: If we see so-and-so crossing the sea, we will cross it with him without him asking us to do so. These words made my eyes shed tears of longing and love for these mujahidin who cannot be changed by jail cells or the lashes of executioners.
 
This also applies to the families of prisoners and martyrs, the honest, patient, and anticipating families which put their confidence in us and were certain about this. Consequently, they used to help and assist us in making things proceed on the right track in order to achieve the best result possible. These are major and main factors. During the same negotiations, you should know that through the outcome it will become clear to you the great efforts exerted by our negotiating delegation as well as its competence, accuracy, patience, and the pressures that were exerted on it.
 
On behalf of all of you and in the name of the prisoners, martyrs, and honest families, I thank those brothers who perform jihad secretly for the sake of God. We should also recognize the great efforts exerted by the international mediators with both sides to reach this result. This is also an occasion to thank His Excellency UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon and his envoys to this region, the German mediators.
 
Today, the longest-serving Arab and Lebanese prisoner has returned to us as well as all the brother prisoners in the enemy's jails who we know are alive, and a large number of the bodies of martyrs who are affiliated with resistance parties and factions, Lebanese and Palestinian, and who fell some decades ago. When Samir al-Kantar went, Hezbollah did not exist. When martyr leader Dalal al-Mughrabi and her colleagues carried out their quality martyrdom operation, Hezbollah had not yet come into being.

The fact that Hezbollah brought back the prisoners, either alive or martyred, has many indications, most important of which is that the project of resistance, which the people, the nation, and the world know, and which we accept and work upon.  It is one project and the Resistance is one movement and has one course, one destiny, and one goal, despite its different parties, factions, beliefs, sects, and intellectual and political trends. This is first, and second, this also proves that the resistance movements in this region, especially in Lebanon and Palestine, complement one another and are contiguous groups, the efforts, expertise, and sacrifices of which aim to achieve the same goal of liberating the land, the people, and holy shrines.
 
Brothers and sisters, from this position, with this crowd of martyrs throughout 30 years, we evoke all the sacrifices of the Lebanese, Palestinian, and Arab Resistance men – Islamists, nationalists, Arabists, and pan-Arab irrespective of any ideological trend they are affiliated with.
We are proud of and appreciate all the resistance factions and parties and all the resistance men and martyrs, who joined the arenas of resistance, jihad, and struggle before us. We benefit from their experience, seek inspiration from their sacrifices, and recognize their status in the past, present, and future of the Resistance. In this context too, through what I have said, I would like to stress that the genuine and well-established identity of our region and nation is the identity of resistance, the will of resistance, the culture of resistance, and the rejection of humiliation and occupation, regardless of occupiers, dictators, and tyrants.
 
Based on this, throughout decades, you can see that the flag did not fall, the Resistance flag does not fall, but it moves from the hand of one group to another, from one faction to another, from one party to another, and from one heading to another. However, the parties, factions, frameworks, and headings are only an external appearance of the genuine nature of this nation, the nature of resistance and the rejection of injustice and despots.
 
Some of us might get tired, some of us might get killed, some of us might leave the arenas, and some of us might change their options, but Almighty God has always sent someone in this nation and this region who receives the flag to pursue the march. Therefore, the resistance movements and factions give an example for peoples and generations to benefit from. Our resistance in Lebanon, through what it has done, achieved, and performed, also tries to give an example in order to integrate with the other examples to be emulated by others. We will have the honor to have this example generalized even if this generalization leads to us being on the lists of terrorist states.
 
Here we must talk about the brother and sister Palestinian, Jordanian, Syrian, and Arab prisoners. Let those dear people know – as I said in my press conference – that they were not absent from our minds or our negotiations throughout the past two years, notwithstanding our awareness of the difficulties that face us in this matter: political difficulties in the region, the real situation of the two soldiers with us.
 
The Israelis always used to cite arguments for their inability to release non-Lebanese prisoners in negotiations with the Lebanese Resistance. We used to say to them: What interests us is that the prisoners return to their homes. Hand them over to whoever you wish: to any leader, any government, any state, at any address, within any scenario, within any decor, in any form. It is not important that their release is attributed to us. We do not seek glory, but our aim is that those prisoners return to their homes.

In any case, what was possible to achieve was that the exchange agreement should – in its final stage – provide for the release of Palestinian prisoners, regardless of the number and the names. This matter was entrusted to the international mediator and the UN secretary general. In a short time, the United Nations will publish the letters that have been addressed and the letter addressed by me to the UN secretary general in which I demand and insist on the release of the greatest number of women, children, and sick prisoners, and I hope some of that will be achieved.
 
For us, that is a symbolic step, a humanitarian step. We do not expect great or big results from it. Our Palestinian brothers know what the complications are really like. However, we insisted on the principle of the symbolism of having the exchange agreement with the Lebanese Resistance include Palestinian prisoners, regardless of the names and numbers, in order to affirm the unity of the cause, the unity of destiny, and the linkage between all the tracks in the humanitarian and jihadist subject.
 
Brothers and sisters, as we rejoice at the return of our prisoners, I want – through you – to address the Arab World, the hundreds of millions of Arabs and the one billion and hundreds of millions of Muslims, and the Arab and Muslim governments some of which are among the richest states in the world, and some of them have very strong relations with the United States of America. I want to turn to the governments and peoples to remind them, on the occasion of the freedom of our prisoners, of 11,000 Palestinian prisoners, men and women, and scores of Jordanian, Syrian, and Arab prisoners. It is impermissible for the Arab and Muslim world to wash their hands of them and say:
That is a Palestinian affair. Let us leave the matter to the Palestinian Authority, or let us leave the matter to Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Martyrs of the Al-Aksa Brigades, or the other Palestinian factions, or the other frameworks and movements of the Palestinian people. That is a Palestinian affair and the Arab and Muslim world is absolved from it.
 
Such talk, or such a stand or vision, are incorrect by legal, national, pan-Arab, humanitarian, moral, religious, or canon law considerations. Therefore, the entire nation should recall the suffering of 11,000 prisoners and detainees, and the suffering of the families of 11,000 prisoners and detainees, and the difficulties they face in their lives at the psychological, morale, and material levels. The Arab World has not lifted a finger.

I am one of those who believe in the option of the Resistance. However, I say to all those who talk about the option of diplomacy: let Arab diplomacy and Muslim diplomacy and the great relations which our governments and states have move and make an effort. I say to you: no real effort was made on that level. There are lip-service statements issued at the end of some summits or foreign minister meetings. Let a serious framework be formed at the official level.
 
Let a serious framework be formed at the level of movements, political parties, and forces throughout the nation, and let those two frameworks act – each from its position – to support the Palestinian people and their various forces. Let the cause of Palestinian and Arab prisoners be a living cause for which we work in the media, politics, and diplomacy and some of us work for it in the battlefields and in resistance. Let the efforts be integrated so that we achieve the desired result.
 
To go back to Lebanon, today the achievements become complete. After the end of the July 2006 war we had two aims: The first was to seek to bring about the release of the prisoners through complicated and difficult negotiations. This was achieved today, with God's help. The second aim was to call for a national unity government and that was achieved today as well, with the help of Almighty God.
 
After the end of the war, we stood at the victory rally and called for a national unity government, not for supremacy, not for defiance, not for deception, not for obstruction, but, as I said at the time, in order to stand shoulder by shoulder and join hands to reconstruct Lebanon, protect Lebanon, and build Lebanon. Today, the Lebanese government, the national government, the first government under the new era has this big and historic opportunity. Today the national unity government met and a commemorative photograph was taken of it.
 
It formed its committee to draw up the government statement. It was a successful conjunction –and I do not say a coincidence, for I do not believe in coincidence: He who believes in God does not believe in coincidence, for everything that happens in this universe is subject to, arranged, and governed by a great Will – that the new government should meet for the first time and have its commemorative photograph taken, and that its first task should be to receive the freed prisoners at the martyred prime minister Rafik al-Hariri Airport. That is a great success for Lebanon, the State of Lebanon, and the people of Lebanon.
 
Here I must thank His Excellency President Michel Sleiman, who organized and insisted on receiving the prisoners in this patriotic, dignified, and great manner as his predecessor had done before: as His Excellency President Emile Lahoud had done in 2004. The entire homeland was in the airport and its vicinity. I thank His Excellency President Sleiman for what he did, and also for what he said, and I support every word he said at the reception speech. The last time, when we talked after His Excellency the president had talked, they said we were replying to him.
 
But we were not replying to him, we were adding to what he said. Today, we do not want to add or subtract. I agree with every single word in the president's speech at the airport reception for the prisoners. I thank all those who participated in that reception: present and past prime ministers and parliament speakers, ministers, MPs, representatives of the heads of religious sects, and all those who were present there.
 
Once again, through the official scene at Beirut Airport, through the repeated stand of the Resistance and the Lebanese national army side by side, and shoulder to shoulder, and martyr alongside martyr, and once again, through the popular scene and the stand of the political forces, Lebanon proves that it is a homeland that deserves to have one sacrifice his blood, children, and beloved for the glory, high standing, and dignity of this homeland.
 
This is an auspicious day, a festive day that should be built upon. Hence, we reiterate the call for unity, avoiding sensitivities, shunning hatreds and grudges, and benefiting from the new opportunity that is available to us as Lebanese to solve all major problems and crises that are afflicting our people and country, in a spirit of solidarity – no one is joining the government to be difficult, or to defy, or to obstruct. Everyone, God willing, should join the national unity government to participate effectively and seriously in solving the country's main problems and to revitalize Lebanon in a way that best befits the sacrifices of its young people, women, martyrs, and prisoners, in a spirit of solidarity and cooperation, and not in a spirit of settling accounts or excluding others.
 
I declare anew – in view of what I raised for discussion – that all our concern is to liberate the rest of our land. We in Hezbollah are open to every discussion on a strategy to liberate the Shebaa Farms, the Kfar Shouba hills, and the part of Al-Ghajar that is still under occupation. Our concern, brothers and sisters, all our concern is to defend our country, land, waters, the sovereignty of our country, and our people and their dignity and security. We in Hezbollah are open to every discussion on a strategy for national defense. We insist on this discussion.
 
Some people imagine we do not like this discussion or we are evading it. No, now we insist on it. We do not want it to be postponed. How does the saying go: "Let us burst this boil." Let us see this defense strategy which we have been talking about for some years. Let us get somewhere. That is because the threats and dangers to Lebanon have not ended.

We go to this dialogue and discussion in a positive and serious spirit. Our aim is to protect our country. We insist on this discussion, and we insist that everyone participates in protecting this country, and that the State bears the primary responsibility for protecting and defending this country. And thus we end the story of who is monopolizing defense and who is monopolizing resistance, as though it is a feast over which the people are competing. Usually people escape from the fighting, even the believers. Almighty God says: "Fighting is ordained for you, though you dislike it."
 
It is human nature to prefer to turn to politics, economic activity, cultural activity, and commercial activity, but people do not want to hear about fighting, staying up all night, captivity, wounds, sacrifices, hunger, staying in the valleys and plains. What is this thing which we are monopolizing and for which we are envied? Are we envied because our youth are in prisons, and that we are getting them back? Or are we envied because hundreds of our young have lost the flower of their youth to defend this homeland, and we get back their dead bodies?
 
No, I say to you today as we celebrate the freedom of the prisoners: We will ask everyone to contribute to protecting and defending this country, and whoever abandons this duty is the traitor. That is a national responsibility which all of us should seek to fulfill. At the same time, and within the context of the national unity government, I would like to affirm that we are ready to cooperate in handling all – and please underline the word "all" twice – files without exception or reservations in a way that will serve the national interest and enhance national unity and Lebanon's strength and impregnability, and enable Lebanon to overcome its crises.
 
In the coming few days, the fate of some of those missing will become clear to us. The remains of the martyrs will be identified and the identity of the martyrs will be determined, and on that basis we will be able to talk about the dossier of those missing and held by the Zionist enemy. Also we will be talking about the dossier of the Iranian diplomats in the light of the report which the international mediator handed over to us. Those are matters which I leave for the coming days.
 
However, on the day of freedom and the day of liberation and the day of resistance, it is absolutely impermissible that we forget the imam of the Resistance, the imam of the homeland, the imam of freedom, and the imam of liberation, His Eminence the leader and Imam Al-Sayyed Musa al-Sadr, may God bring him back safely together with his two companions.
 
If brother Samir is known to the entire world as the dozen of Lebanese and Arab prisoners because he spent 30 years in the jails of the Zionist entity, 30 years have also passed since the absence, kidnapping, and imprisonment of Imam Al-Sadr. As I said at the end of the celebration for the prisoners freed in 2004, I will reaffirm that we do not want to enter into a conflict, quarrel, or enmity with anyone. We want to close the painful, sad, and embarrassing dossiers, and that is in the interest of the Arab states, peoples, and nation. It is time for this dossier to reach its decisive end, whatever that decisive end may be.

Some years ago, I said at a public meeting that if Imam Al-Sadr is still alive then return him to us and you are to be thanked, and if the Imam has been martyred then inform us of that and return to us his pure body, for martyrdom is a celebration for this imam, his family, and his fathers and forefathers.
 
It is impermissible for the case of Imam Al-Sadr to remain shrouded with ambiguity, neglect, and constant deferment, notwithstanding my awareness of the sensitivity of official inter-Arab relations and what happens every now and then on that level.
 
We recall this issue once again as we talk about the resisting prisoners and detainees. None of us should forget the founder of the Resistance in Lebanon and the imam of the Resistance in Lebanon. I call again for serious and real Arab and Muslim cooperation to end this issue and to return the Imam and his two companions to Lebanon and the nation.

O brothers and sisters. O freed prisoners. O families of the prisoners. O families of the martyrs who are waiting for their beloved tomorrow. Honorable audience, on this festive day I congratulate you on your victory, because this is your victory, your achievement, your promise, your deed, your steadfastness, and your patience. With you we triumph. With you we impose defeat and failure on our enemies. With you we continue along the road and we honor our homeland and nation.

Let us pray for all the prisoners that Almighty God will grant them freedom. Let us pray for Lebanon that it deals with this dossier – in the manner we saw today – with great national responsibility at the level of all the prisoners, and especially with regard to brother Samir who after 30 years should be viewed as a real national, pan-Arab, human, cultural, and jihadist treasure. We should deal with this person in a manner commensurate with all the forbearance he experienced, the ordeal he suffered, the injustice he faced, and the steadfastness and resoluteness he showed.
 
All freedom for the prisoners, all mercy to the martyrs, victory to you and to all resistors. All glory and honor to Lebanon, Palestine and the nation. Peace and God's mercy and blessings be upon you.

 
19 juillet 2008 Joseph Berbery
 
Le nouveau ministre libanais des télécommunications a rapporté que : «Des centaines de personnes dans tout le Liban ont reçu sur leur ligne fixe des coups de téléphone menaçants provenant d'Israël... Le téléphone sonne, la personne décroche et entend un message disant : Ceci est l'Etat d'Israël, ne soutenez pas le Hezbollah ou il y aura une nouvelle guerre, comme en 2006».
 
[...]

Curieusement, jusqu’en 1998, aucun des ouvrages des « nouveaux historiens » sur la guerre de 1948 - les premiers étaient pourtant parus depuis douze ans - n’avait eu l’heur de plaire aux éditeurs français. C’est pourquoi j’ai décidé, avec mon confrère Joseph Algazy, journaliste au quotidien Haaretz, de pallier cet « oubli ». Synthétiser en quelques minutes des années de recherches historiques est une impossible gageure. Disons, pour nous en tenir à l’essentiel, que ces historiens ébranlent en particulier trois grandes thèses :
 
 La première, c’est la menace mortelle qui aurait pesé sur Israël à l’époque. Contrairement à l’image d’un frêle État juif à peine né et déjà confronté aux redoutables armées d’un puissant monde arabe, les « nouveaux historiens » établissent la supériorité croissante des forces israéliennes (en effectifs, armement, entraînement, coordination, motivation...) à la seule exception de la courte période qui va du 15 mai au 11 juin 1948. Mais il y a plus. Israël dispose à l’époque d’une carte maîtresse, étudiée par Avi Shlaïm dans Collusion across the Jordan : l’accord tacite passé le 17 novembre 1947 (douze jours avant le plan de partage des Nations unies) par Golda Meïr avec le roi Abdallah de Transjordanie. La Légion, seule armée arabe digne ce nom, s’engageait à ne pas franchir les frontières du territoire alloué à l’État juif en échange de la possibilité d’annexer celui prévu pour l’État arabe.
 
Assuré, dès février 1948, du feu vert explicite du secrétaire au Foreign Office, Ernest Bevin, ce plan sera effectivement mis en oeuvre. Comme le Haut comité arabe (palestinien) et l’ensemble des États arabes, la Transjordanie a rejeté le plan de partage de l’ONU. Si bien que la Légion arabe participe à la guerre à partir du 15 mai 1948. Mais elle ne pénétrera jamais en territoire israélien et ne prendra jamais l’initiative d’une bataille d’envergure - sauf à Jérusalem, qui n’était pas « attribuée » par les Nations unies à l’État juif ni à l’État arabe, mais dotée d’un statut international.
 
D’ailleurs, le schéma du 17 novembre 1947 se substituera bel et bien, à la fin des hostilités, au plan de partage du 29 : la Jordanie occupera et annexera la partie arabe de la Palestine, sauf les zones conquises par Israël (qui a augmenté sa superficie d’un tiers) et la bande de Gaza occupée par l’Égypte...
 
 La deuxième thèse ébranlée concerne la volonté de paix qu’aurait manifestée Israël au lendemain de la guerre. Organisée par la Commission de conciliation sur la Palestine des Nations unies, la conférence de Lausanne a notamment été étudiée par Avi Shlaïm dans le livre déjà cité et par Ilan Pappé dans The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict. Leurs conclusions contredisent largement la thèse traditionnelle.
 
Les archives montrent que, dans une première phase, Israël fait preuve d’ouverture : le 12 mai 1949, sa délégation et celle des États arabes ratifient un protocole réaffirmant à la fois le plan de partage des Nations unies et le droit au retour des réfugiés. Mais, ce même 12 mai 1949, l’État juif est admis à l’ONU. Dès lors, confiera peu après Walter Eytan, codirecteur général du ministère israélien des affaires étrangères, « mon principal objectif était de commencer à saper le protocole du 12 mai, que nous avions été contraints de signer dans le cadre de notre bataille pour être admis aux Nations unies » [Ilan Pappé, The Making..., op. cit., p. 212.]. De fait, Lausanne finira dans l’impasse... Et Elias Sasson, le chef de la délégation israélienne, confiera : « Le facteur qui bloque, c’est aujourd’hui Israël. Par sa position et ses demandes actuelles, Israël rend la seconde partie de la Palestine inutilisable pour tout projet, sauf un - son annexion par un des États voisins, en l’occurrence la Transjordanie. » [Cité par Avi Shlaïm, Collusion...., op. cit., pp. 474-475.]

« La guerre d’indépendance de 1948 n’est pas achevée. » Que signifie cette phrase qu’Ariel Sharon répète régulièrement depuis sa première élection, en février 2001 ? Quelle que soit l’interprétation qu’on en donne, elle souligne en tous cas toute l’actualité du travail de ceux qu’on appelle les « nouveaux his- toriens » israéliens et qui ont révélé à leurs concitoyens ce qui s’était vraiment passé en 1948. Entre le plan de partage de la Palestine adopté par l’Assemblée générale des Nations unies le 29 novembre 1947 et les armistices de 1949 consécutifs à la première guerre israélo-arabe, plusieurs centaines de milliers de Palestiniens ont dû quitter leurs foyers.
 
Pour les historiens palestiniens et arabes, il s’agit d’une expulsion. La majorité de ces sept cent mille à neuf cent mille réfugiés ont été contraints au départ, au cours des affrontements judéopalestiniens, puis de la guerre israélo-arabe, dans le cadre d’un plan politico-militaire jalonné de nombreux massacres [ C’est notamment la thèse défendue, dès 1961, par Walid Khalidi (Middle East Forum, novembre 1961, republié avec un nouveau commentaire par le Journal of Palestine Studies, vol. XVIII, n° 69, 1988) et, plus récemment, par Elias Sanbar (Les livres de la Revue d’études palestiniennes, Paris, 1984). ].
 

Une nouvelle expulsion de Palestiniens paraît impensable, moralement et politiquement. Pourtant, l’idée du « transfert » a progressé dans l’opinion israélienne. Un tir de scuds chimiques irakiens, un méga-attentat palestinien, voire une manifestation qui dégénère, pourraient en donner le signal. En Palestine même, l’armée et les colons provoquent déjà de « mini-transferts ».
 
À la fin décembre 2002, un diplomate européen a découvert un nouveau panneau routier sur une route de la vallée du Jourdain : elle s’appelait désormais « Gandhi » - surnom paradoxal du général Rehavam Zeevi, fondateur du parti Moledet, qui avait explicitement appelé au « transfert » des Palestiniens vers les pays arabes. Plaisanterie de mauvais goût ou cynisme délibéré ? Le panneau se trouvait juste avant la bifurcation de la route vers l’est, vers le pont Allenby (passage vers la frontière jordanienne) - la direction du « transfert » souhaité par celui qu’un commando du Front populaire de libération de la Palestine (FPLP) assassina en octobre 2001.
 
Au lendemain d’un nouvel attentat-suicide, peu avant sa mort, Rehavam Zeevi avait osé déclarer tout haut à nouveau que la seule « solution » était le « transfert » (« accepté ») des Arabes, se sentant assez soutenu pour transmettre clairement à la radio un message que, pendant des années, il avait été obligé de brouiller. C’est que les Israéliens ne considèrent les attentats kamikazes ni comme une forme de lutte contre l’occupation ni comme une vengeance face aux agressions de l’armée - qui ont fait, selon le Croissant- Rouge palestinien, plus de deux mille morts palestiniens, dont au moins mille cinq cents civils : ils y voient la preuve que les Palestiniens entendent effacer l’État d’Israël de la carte et « tuer les juifs parce qu’ils sont juifs ».
 
Dans ce contexte, l’« initiative du transfert » se présente comme une solution défensive, une « réponse humaine » à une situation sans autre issue. Et les autorités légales ne font rien pour empêcher la propagation de cette idée. Ce qui reste volontairement flou, c’est la population visée. Les Palestiniens résidant dans la bande de Gaza et en Cisjordanie ? Les réfugiés ? Ou tous les Arabes vivant entre la Méditerranée et le Jourdain, y compris ceux qui sont des citoyens israéliens ?
En donnant pour consigne aux écoles de célébrer l’anniversaire de la mort de Rehavam Zeevi, la ministre de l’éducation a légitimé ce débat. De fait, des banderoles apparaissent, affirmant : « Pas d’Arabes, pas d’attentats », « Transfert = paix » ou « La Palestine, c’est la Jordanie ». Un sondage indique que 20 % des juifs « envisageraient » de voter pour le parti d’extrême droite Kach (C’est ainsi) fondé par le rabbin Meïr Kahane et interdit depuis 1988, s’il était autorisé à se présenter. Et 73 % des habitants des villes de développement [Ces cités champignons s’apparentent à ce que l’on appelait naguère, en France, « villes nouvelles », N.d.T. ] estiment qu’Israël doit encourager l’émigration des Arabes israéliens - 87 % des religieux et 76 % des immigrés de l’ex-URSS partagent cette opinion. Dans les années 1980, le Kach n’avait obtenu qu’un seul siège, avec environ 1,5 % des voix...