Avant hier, conférence de presse au Département d’État. Un certain Philip J. Crowley répond aux questions des journalistes.
►http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2010/11/152148.htm
M. Crowley se fend d’une déclaration officielle condamnant une déclaration par un officiel palestinien, qui n’a pas l’heur de plaire aux Israéliens et aux Américains. Et là, tout déraille.
Un journaliste teigneux lui demande d’expliquer pourquoi un officiel américain, à Washington, prend le temps de condamner publiquement une déclaration d’un officiel palestinien, alors qu’il n’a pas condamné publiquement, la semaine précédente, la reprise des constructions juives à Jerusalem Est, les É-U se contentant d’évoquer la question en privé avec les israéliens.
“QUESTION: Before moving on, P.J., on that, if you recognize that the Jerusalem – status of Jerusalem is so important to all sides, why were you so noncommittal when I asked the other day about the Israeli approval of new Jewish construction – new Jewish housing in East Jerusalem?”
“QUESTION: Well, you’re right. There’s absolutely no equivalence between some guy mouthing off and giving his opinion, whether you agree with it or not, and actual bricks and mortar going up in an area that’s disputed. I mean, the equivalent – you come out and denounce this statement, which is mere – simply words, and it took a question from a reporter to get you to say anything about the actual, physical, on-the-ground construction there. So I don’t understand the equivalence that you’re – your idea of equivalence here. One seems to be much more serious than another.”
“QUESTION: In the city of Hebron, which is home to 220,000 Palestinians and 600 settlers, there is an area called the Martyrs Street that is completely closed to Palestinians where they have to traverse on rooftops. Are you aware of a situation like this? Is this something that you would raise with the Israeli Government to sort of relieve the hardship of the Palestinians in Hebron?”