Archive pour mars 2007

La droite au Québec: Alain Dubuc et Mathieu Bock-Côté à Bazzo.tv

Vendredi 30 mars 2007

Analyses des plus intéressantes sur la droite au Québec avec Alain Dubuc et Mathieu Bock-Côté. Au-delà de l’épiphénomène, les interlocuteurs de Marie-France Bazzo replacent la droite dans une perspective historique tout en évitant les explications faciles (le vote de protestation). Intéressant point de vue sur la droite et la modernité et le retour du refoulé au Québec. C’est ce que j’ai entendu de plus pertinent jusqu’à maintenant sur les dernières élections au Québec.

Au lieu de n’écouter que l’extrait, je vous engage à télécharger toute l’émission et d’écouter l’entrevue qui débute vers 17 m 10 s après le début de l’émission.

Bazzo.tv, émission du 29 mars 2007, La droite au Québec, (wmv[extrait], mp3[toute l'émission])

L’épreuve de la réalité

Mardi 27 mars 2007

Somme toute, je suis assez content du résultat des élections. J’avais trouvé totalement surréaliste la course à la chefferie au Parti Québécois (mais non Pauline, il n’y aura aucune turbulence après le référendum). J’étais enclin à aller voter pour André Boisclair malgré son discours ampoulé, mais le fait qu’il veuille quand même tenir un référendum, même s’il se trouvait à la tête d’un gouvernement minoritaire m’a parut complètement idiot et farfelu. C’est lorsqu’il a tendu la main à Mario Dumont, en lui disant que le rapport Grenier montrerait probablement que la chimère que le dernier référendum avait été volé s’avérerait, qu’il a enfoncé le dernier clou dans le cercueil de mon intention de vote envers le PQ. Franchement, songer à lancer un peuple dans l’aventure de la séparation du Canada et la construction d’un nouvel État en n’ayant que quelques milliers de voix de majorité ne fait aucun sens à mon avis.

Par conséquent, le fait que le PQ se retrouve en troisième position l’obligera à repenser ses options et son programme politique. Ça peut aller d’un bord (SPQ-Libre) ou d’un autre (une social-démocratie moderne à la scandinave). Je n’ai pas beaucoup d’espoir. Je crois que le PQ va continuer à se durcir et devenir un groupuscule aux mains des purs et durs, les crétins qui sont pour ne pas permettre de choisir la langue de son CEGEP et qui nous farcissent des c’est à ton tour mon cher … de nous parler d’amour, et de on veut un pays, on veut pays. Continuez de gueuler pour mettre votre criss de flag du Québec à l’ONU pendant que la caravane passe et qu’on produit des illettrés à la pelletée. Il n’y a qu’à voir l’état lamentable des bibliothèques publiques et scolaires, pour se convaincre que les véritables enjeux ne sont jamais vraiment débattus.

D’autres parts, l’épreuve de la réalité sera aussi servie au Parti Libéral du Québec qui devra aussi revoir son plan de match s’il ne veut pas rester le parti qui est le moins populaire chez les Québécois francophones.

Enfin, notre petit roitelet de la démagogie devra, j’espère, être plus conséquent avec son discours et proposer autre chose que des clips de trente secondes comme politique. Il sera intéressant de voir sa députation. Sauront-ils formuler une réelle alternative, ou va t’-on les voir s’enfermer dans des déclarations fracassantes comme celles qu’on a vues pendant la dernière campagne électorale ? Est-ce que l’ADQ sera un parti de beaufs, ou un parti qui dépasse le populisme dans ce qu’il a de plus crasse. On verra bien…

Et si vous vous demandez pour qui j’ai voté, moi qui habite la République du Plateau ? Non, ce n’est pas pour le nouveau censeur de la gauche, ce cher Amir (c’est à ton tour….), mais pour le Parti Vert. J’ai trouvé que Scott McKay était celui qui avait le discours le moins pogné, tout en mettant l’accent sur ce qui aurait dû être un enjeu majeur de cette campagne, l’écologie (en plus de l’éducation, évidemment, et de tout le reste qui a été escamoté, comme la mondialisation des économies).

Death Swamps

Mardi 27 mars 2007

Darryl Li: This is life in a ‘disengaged’ Gaza: It is not enough to be locked into an open-air prison by Israel. Nor to be turned into a beggar by the international community for voting in a democratic election. Nor to be torn apart by internal feuding. Now Palestinians have to drown in their own shit? I can’t wait to hear the latest excuse about how this, too, is their own fault.

A vivid account on the history that is behind the collapse of Gaza’s northern sewage treatment where five palestinians dies.

Laila El-Haddad, The Death Swamps, Raising Yousuf: a diary of a mother under occupation

The Mecca Charity Show

Vendredi 9 mars 2007

Powerful analysis from Roni Ben Efrat reprinted from CHALLENGE magazine.

Here, once again, Hamas reveals a characteristic lack of consistency. We saw this first a year ago, when it chose to take part in elections that were based on an infrastructure provided by the Oslo Accords. It accepted the Oslo framework without the content. Now it deepens its entrapment by entering a unity government, hoping to gain Western funds without accepting Western conditions. Saudi Arabia has won a brief span of glory, but what about the Palestinian people?

Certainly, there’s no question as to the horror of the bloody scenes we witnessed between Fatah and Hamas. They occurred in utter opposition to the popular will. The Palestinian street rejoiced sincerely over the Mecca Agreement.

The problem, however, is: unity for the sake of what? The Oslo Accords did not establish the basis for a true Palestinian state, rather the mold for a state dependent on handouts: a donations state, which would serve Western and Israeli interests. From the beginning, the donations were intended to finance a political entity composed of corruptible, docile elitists like those in other Arab regimes. The Palestinian Authority, under Fatah leadership, wasted a whole decade without establishing an infrastructure and without creating real jobs. It purchased quiet by handing out cash in paper bags to the workers of a bloated public sector.

The election of Hamas did not bring a change of direction. Even if we acknowledge that the movement is not corrupt, it offered no alternative to the donations state. On the contrary, the notion of charity rather than work is a principle of the Hamas movement. Now this notion has become the basis of the entire unity government. Unless the latter can thaw Western coffers, the streets will again erupt.

Roni Ben Efrat, The Mecca Charity Show, electronicintifada.net

On Saudi diplomacy, see also this podcast from On Point with Tom Ashbrook.

On Point, The New Saudi Pushback, wbur.org (mp3)

Around the Mecca Accord, Obama’s love for Israel

Mardi 6 mars 2007

Deep analysis on the political dance around the Mecca accord. A fascinating narrative by Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry on how the Saudi diplomacy distanced itself from the US to try to end the infighting between Hamas and Fatah. Infighting partly supported by the US diplomacy (Elliot Abrams from the NSC and the neocons) against Condi Rice. So, it seems to me that the infighting inside the White House are doing a spill over on the Middle East.

Alastair Crooke and Mark Perry, How the Saudis stole a march on the US, atimes.com

Another good read is this analysis on Barack Obama’s position toward Israel from Ali Abunimah.

On Friday Obama gave a speech to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in Chicago. It had been much anticipated in American Jewish political circles which buzzed about his intensive efforts to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors who up to now have generally leaned towards his main rival Senator Hillary Clinton.

Reviewing the speech, Ha’aretz Washington correspondent Shmuel Rosner concluded that Obama « sounded as strong as Clinton, as supportive as Bush, as friendly as Giuliani. At least rhetorically, Obama passed any test anyone might have wanted him to pass. So, he is pro-Israel. Period. »

Although, Abunimah think that Obama is more favorable to Palestinians than what he profess now, the interesting part of this article is, in my opinion, the conclusion.

Obama has also been close to some prominent Arab Americans, and has received their best advice. His decisive trajectory reinforces a lesson that politically weak constituencies have learned many times: access to people with power alone does not translate into influence over policy. Money and votes, but especially money, channelled through sophisticated and coordinated networks that can « bundle » small donations into million dollar chunks are what buy influence on policy. Currently, advocates of Palestinian rights are very far from having such networks at their disposal. Unless they go out and do the hard work to build them, or to support meaningful campaign finance reform, whispering in the ears of politicians will have little impact. (For what it’s worth, I did my part. I recently met with Obama’s legislative aide, and wrote to Obama urging a more balanced policy towards Palestine.)

If disappointing, given his historically close relations to Palestinian-Americans, Obama’s about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico.

Only if enough people know what Obama and his competitors stand for, and organize to compel them to pay attention to their concerns can there be any hope of altering the disastrous course of US policy in the Middle East. It is at best a very long-term project that cannot substitute for support for the growing campaign of boycott, divestment and sanctions needed to hold Israel accountable for its escalating violence and solidifying apartheid.

Ali Abunimah, How Barack Obama learned to love Israel, electronicintifada.net [via SyriaComment]

Seymour Hersh on Open Source

Jeudi 1 mars 2007

Fascinating interview with Seymour Hersh on Open Source with Christopher Lydon following its piece The Redirection (New Yorker). What is scary is that you get the feeling that the White House is playing with fire while being delusional and ignorant of the history/culture of the Middle-East. The fact of the matter for Sy Hersh is that the White House is a major contributing factor in pitching whole religious/ethnic groups against themselves, pursuing interests that maybe make sense in the short-term, but will bring more instability in the Middle-East in the long-term.

I must say that sometimes I find Sy Hersh sounding too much like if he was revealing a plot with black helicopters hovering over it, that his analysis are too much based on individuals but, overall, he presents solid arguments on how the US administration is misguided and improvising regarding its Middle-East policies.

Open Source, Making the Rounds with Seymour Hersh (mp3)