dimanche 15 mai 2011

Ça commence à sentir la fin...








VIDEO - The Samson Option, Israel's Threat to Take Down the World With It - Part 1/2 - Part 2/2


VIDEO - 11 Sept. 2001 - Partie 5 - Le 9/11 et l'option Samson




Les Sionistes sont prêts à déclencher
la Troisième Guerre mondiale, selon
le nouveau livre "How The End Begins"
Par Michael Collins Piper

Un nouveau livre dérangeant, How The End Begins: The Road To A Nuclear World War III, établit clairement que la troisième guerre mondiale, impliquant probablement l'utilisation d'armes nucléaires, pourrait être déclenchée par Israël. Bien que l'auteur, l'écrivain juif américain Ron Rosenbaum, croit qu'il y a un certain nombre de points chauds possibles pouvant mener à une guerre nucléaire, il place Israël parmi les premières sources d'une telle conflagration.Il prévoit une frappe «préventive» par Israël, utilisant des armes nucléaires ou conventionnelles, contre une autre nation, sans doute l'Iran, afin de l'empêcher d'acquérir des armes nucléaires. Cela pourrait déclencher une réaction en chaîne résultant en l'utilisation d'armes nucléaires au cours de la crise qui suivra, impliquant potentiellement les États-Unis, la Russie, le Pakistan, l'Inde---et la liste continue.En fait, Rosenbaum note qu'en 2007, quand Israël a lancé une attaque militaire sur une installation nucléaire syrienne présumée, le Spectator (basé à Londres) a publié, le 6 octobre, un article ayant passé inaperçu, citant un haut responsable britannique: «Si les gens avaient su à quel point nous sommes passés proches de la Troisième Guerre Mondiale, ce jour-là nous aurions vu une véritable panique de masse. . . [Et nous] aurions vraiment eu affaire au Livre de l'Apocalypse et au sanglant Armageddon. "Rosenbaum écrit:
. . . Le fait que la main de l'homme se trouve de manière récurrente à écrire de manière obsessionnelle une conclusion d'auto-immolation cataclysmique à la saga de l'homme pourrait bien être, à tout le moins, une prophétie qui s'auto-réalise. Cela voudrait aussi dire qu'au fond, nous sommes vraiment une espèce obsédée par sa propre auto-destruction. . .

Cette idée d' "auto-destruction" profondément enracinée est particulièrement terrifiante considérant que les politiques nucléaires d'Israël se fondent dès l'origine sur l'option Samson, immortalisée par le juif américain lauréat du prix Pulitzer et critique d'Israël Seymour Hersh dans son livre du même titre.Comme le Samson biblique qui a fait s'écrouler le temple sur lui-même et ses ennemis, l '«option Samson» est le concept selon lequel Israël commettrait un suicide nucléaire et entraînerait avec lui le reste du monde si les dirigeants d'Israël en venaient à croire qu'Israël est sur le point d'être vaincu. Ce thème remonte à la célèbre légende juive antique de Massada---le prétendu "dernier combat" des guerriers juifs, qui se sont suicidés face à une attaque romaine perdue d'avance.Bien que les chercheurs israéliens aient prouvé que l'histoire de Massada n'en grande partie qu'un mythe, l'importance de la légende pour l'État moderne d'Israël est telle que les officiers nouvellement intronisés de l'armée israélienne sont assermentés en promettant que "Massada ne doit jamais tomber à nouveau".Selon Rosenbaum, l'esprit moderne israélien est profondément enraciné dans la crainte d'un «second Holocauste». Ce concept, écrit Rosenbaum, "est une expression qui est devenue un motif en puissance, si ce n'est un déclencheur, pour la déflagration de la Troisième Guerre au Moyen-Orient." Rosenbaum rapporte: « Les Israéliens me disent que l'utilisation de l'expression «second Holocauste» est devenu normalisée là-bas ».Rosenbaum suggère que les Israéliens croient que la conférence internationale sur l'Holocauste, tenue à Téhéran en 2006 par le gouvernement iranien (à laquelle a assisté le présent auteur), constitue une incitation au génocide, un appel délibéré pour un "second Holocauste", et fournit donc une certaine justification à Israël pour lancer une attaque "préventive" contre l'Iran pour empêcher un "second Holocauste". Aucun de ces thèmes n' a été discuté lors de la conférence.En ce qui concerne la moralité d'une telle action, Rosenbaum cite Moshe Halbertal, professeur d'éthique et de droit international de la guerre à la fois à la New York University Law School et à l'Université hébraïque de Jérusalem, décrivant Halbertal comme "l'un des penseurs les plus respectés sur les dilemmes moraux et éthiques de la guerre moderne", à avoir rédigé un code de déontologie pour les Forces de Tsahal.Halbertal dit que, dans certains cas, une attaque préventive nucléaire peut être "morale", même s'il croit, comme l'indique Rosenbaum, que "des représailles faisant suite à des frappes nucléaires ne peuvent l'être".Pourtant, bien qu'Halbertal croit qu'Israël pourrait avoir le droit de lancer une attaque préventive contre l'Iran, Halbertal, selon l'auteur, semble dire: "Cela va arriver que je le veuille ou non."Rosenbaum conclut: "C'est presque un aveu fataliste qu'il le fera."Rosenbaum conclut:

Tout cela rend plus probable que---tôt ou tard---Israël va lancer ses armes nucléaires [et] risque d'inaugurer la Troisième Guerre mondiale---pour empêcher ce qu'ils perçoivent comme une attaque nucléaire imminente. Israël ne va pas attendre que les autres frappent les premiers. Ils peuvent même pas attendre d'être sûr de leurs renseignements. . . cela est une certitude inébranlable. Ils ne peuvent pas se permettre de prendre ce risque. Ce n'est pas quelque chose que je préconise, c'est quelque chose que je prédis.

Rosenbaum---qui se dit "laïc, libéral, non-pratiquant, non-sioniste, Juif né en Amérique dont aucun membre de sa famille immédiate n'a péri dans l'Holocauste"---craint à juste titre la guerre nucléaire, qu'elle soit lancée par Israël ou par quiconque. Il ferme son livre avec cet appel:

. . . Si vous êtes en mesure de lancer, qui que vous soyez, maintenant ou dans l'avenir, si vous êtes en mesure d'envoyer les codes de ciblage, s'il n'en tient qu'à vous, qui que vous soyez, mon exhortation est que «Rien ne justifie de suivre des ordres de génocide. N'envoyez pas ces codes, n'appuyez pas sur ce bouton. "

How The End Begins: The Road To A Nuclear World War III, by Ron Rosenbaum

Will The Jewish State Destroy the World? Let there be no doubt that Israel's nuclear weapons of mass destruction are the cornerstone of Israel's national defense policy and that this is founded on a deep-rooted, underlying religious (even racist) fanaticism., by Willis A. Carto

The Golem, A World Held Hostage - Israel's Nuclear Hell Bomb, by Michael Collins Piper


« Nous possédons plusieurs centaines d’ogives atomiques et de fusées et pouvons atteindre nos cibles tous azimuts, ET MEME ROME. La plupart des capitales européennes font partie des cibles potentielles de notre Armée de l’air. Nos forces armées ne sont pas la 30e la plus forte dans le monde, mais la 2e ou la 3e. NOUS SOMMES CAPABLES DE FAIRE TOMBER LE MONDE ENTIER AVEC NOUS. ET JE PEUX VOUS ASSURER QUE C'EST QUI VA SE PASSER AVANT QU'ISRAËL NE TOMBE. » (Martin Van Creveld, professeur d'études militaires de l'Université hébraïque de Jérusalem.)




Qu'est-ce que [Israël] va faire? J'ai d'autres rêves aussi - des rêves apocalyptiques. Je pense que: Israël construit des armes nucléaires depuis trente ans. Les juifs ont compris ce que l'acceptation passive et impuissante de leur malheur a signifié pour eux dans le passé et ils se sont assurés contreune telle éventualité. Masada n'était pas un exemple à suivre - ça n'a pas fait mal aux Romains le moins du monde, mais, Samson à Gaza? Avec une bombe H?Qu'est-ce qui ferait mieux payer au monde haineux des juifs pour ces milliers d'années de massacres, qu'un hiver nucléaire? Ou inviter tous ces chefs d'État européens bien-pensants et des militants pacifistes à nous rejoindre dans les fours?Pour la première fois dans l'histoire, un peuple qui a fait face à l'extermination pendant que le tout le monde ricanait ou détournait le regard ... détient le pouvoir de détruire le monde. La justice ultime? (David Perlmutter, professeur à l'université de l'État de Louisianne, The Los Angeles Times, 7 avril 2002)









.American Free Press

.Vol XI .#15 April 11, 2011 americanfreepress.net


Page 12, AMERICAN FREE PRESS * April 11, 2011 *
Issue 15 * AMERICANFREEPRESS.NET * BEHIND THE SCENES


New Book Says
Zionists Ready
to Start WWIII

By Michael Collins Piper

A disturbing new book, How the End Begins: The Road to a Nuclear World War III, makes it clear that a third world war, involving the likely use of nuclear weapons, may be instigated by Israel. Although the author, Jewish-American writer Ron Rosenbaum, believes there are a number of possible flashpoints for nuclear war, he places Israel among the foremost sources for such a conflagration.
He foresees a “preemptive” strike by Israel, using either nuclear or conventional weapons, against some other nation, probably Iran, in order to prevent that nation from acquiring nuclear arms. This could set off a chain reaction resulting in the further use of nuclear weapons in the ensuing crisis, potentially involving the United States, Russia, Pakistan, India — the list goes on.
In fact, Rosenbaum notes that in 2007 when Israel launched a military strike on a presumed Syrian nuclear installation, the London-based Spectator published a little-noticed article on Oct. 6 quoting a senior British official: “If people had known how close we came to World War III that day there’d have been mass panic . . . [and we] really would have been dealing with the bloody Book of Revelation and Armageddon.”
Rosenbaum writes:
. . . The fact that the hand of man finds itself recurrently, obsessively scripting fiery, self-immolating cataclysmic conclusions to the human saga may well be, at the very least, self-fulfilling prophecy. It may also say that deep down, we really are a species obsessed with its own self- destruction . . .
This idea of “self-destruction” being deeply rooted is particularly chilling since Israel’s nuclear policy — from the beginning — has been based on the Samson Option, immortalized by Jewish-American Pulitzer Prize winner and critic of Israel Seymour Hersh in his book by that title.
Like Samson of the Bible who brought the temple down upon himself and his enemies, the “Samson Option” is the concept that Israel would commit nuclear suicide and bring the rest of the world down with it if Israel’s leaders believed Israel was about to be conquered. This theme goes back to the much-heralded ancient Jewish legend of Masada — the purported “last stand” of Jewish warriors, who committed suicide in the face of a Roman onslaught.
Although Israeli scholars have proven the Masada story to be largely a myth, the importance of the legend to modern Israel is such that newly anointed Israeli military officers are sworn into their posts proclaiming: “Masada shall never fall again.”
According to Rosenbaum, the modern Israeli mindset is deeply rooted in the fear of a “second Holocaust.” This concept, writes Rosenbaum, “is a phrase that has become a potential motive, if not a trigger, for the outbreak of WorldWar III in the Middle East.” Rosenbaum says: “Israelis tell me that the use of the phrase ‘second Holocaust’ has become normalized there.”
Rosenbaum suggests the Israelis believe the international conference on the Holocaust,* held in Tehran in 2006 by the Iranian government which this writer attended, was an incitement to genocide, a deliberate call, in effect, for a “second Holocaust,” and therefore provides some rationale for Israel to launch a “preemptive” strike against Iran to prevent a “second Holocaust.” No such topic was discussed at the conference.
As for the morality of such an action, Rosenbaum cites Moshe Halbertal, a professor of ethics and the international law of war at both New York University Law School and the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, describing Halbertal as “one of the most widely respected thinkers on the moral and ethical dilemmas of modern warfare,” who has authored a code of ethics for the Israeli Defense Forces.
Halbertal says that, in some cases, a preemptive nuclear strike can be “moral” although, in Rosenbaum’s assessment of his views, “retaliation after being struck by nuclear weapons cannot be.”
Yet, while Halbertal believes Israel could have the right to launch a preemptive strike against Iran, Halbertal, according to the author, seems to be saying, “It’s going to happen whether I like it or not.”
Rosenbaum concludes: “It’s almost a fatalistic admission that it will.”
Rosenbaum concludes:
All this will make it more likely that — sooner or later — Israel will unleash nuclear weapons [and] risk inaugurating World War III — to prevent what they perceive as an impending nuclear strike. Israel will not wait for the world to step in. They may not even wait to be sure their intelligence . . . is rock-solid certain. They can’t afford to take that chance. It is not something I advocate; it is something I foresee.
Rosenbaum — who calls himself a “secular, liberal, nonobservant, non-Zionist,American-born Jew with no immediate family members murdered in the Holocaust” — rightly fears nuclear war, whether instigated by Israel or otherwise. He closes his book with this plea:
. . . If you’re in a position to launch, whoever you are, now or in the future, if you’re in a position to send the targeting codes, if it’s up to you, whoever you are, my plea is “Nothing justifies following orders for genocide. Don’t send those codes, don’t twist those keys.”

*For proof that Jews (in any number) were not gassed by Adolf Hitler, send $10 for a 100-page special issue of THE BARNES REVIEW magazine dedicated to the subject. Assembled by AFP’s Michael Collins Piper, this “All Holocaust” issue has all the information you need to convince yourself that the Holocaust is the biggest hoax of the 20th century. Send request with payment to TBR, P.O. Box 15877, Washington, D.C. 20003.



Open Threats of Nuclear Apocalypse by Israel

Demonstrating the mindset of those who endorse Israel’s use of nuclear weapons, author Ron
Rosenbaum cites well-known American Jewish academic, Dr. David Perlmutter, who wrote a
shocking piece in the Los Angeles Times on April 7, 2002. In his essay, “Dark Thoughts and Quiet Desperation,” Perlmutter issued a threat in no uncertain terms:
What [is Israel] to do? I have other dreams as well — apocalyptic ones. I think: Israel has been building nuclear weapons for 30 years. The Jews understand what passive and powerless acceptance of doom has meant for them in the past and they have ensured against it. Masada was not an example to follow— it hurt the Romans not a whit, but Samson in Gaza? With an H-bomb?
What would serve the Jew-hating world better in repayment for thousands of years of massacres but a nuclear winter? Or invite all those tut-tutting European statesmen and peace activists to join us in the ovens? For the first time in history, a people facing extermination while the world either cackles or looks away . . . have the power to destroy the world. The ultimate justice?
Perlmutter is not the only distinguished Jewish voice making such threats. Dr. Martin van Crevald of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Israel’s preeminent geopolitical and military thinker, made his own threat against the non-Jewish world in the January 2003 edition of the Dutch magazine Elsevier:
We [Israelis] possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets of our air force. Our armed forces are not the 30th strongest in the world, but rather the second or third. We have the capacity to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that this will happen before Israel goes under.


Michael Collins Piper can now be heard on the Internet at michaelcollinspiper.podbean.com. He is the author of Final Judgment, the controversial “underground bestseller” documenting the collaboration of Israeli intelligence in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. He is also the author of The High Priests of War, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America , The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Dirty Secrets: Crime, Conspiracy & Cover-Up in the 20th Century, The GOLEM: Israel's Hell Bomb, and Target: Traficant. These works can be found at America First Books and FIRST AMENDMENT BOOKS: 1-888-699-NEWS. He has lectured on suppressed topics in places as diverse as Malaysia, Japan, Canada, Russia and Abu Dhabi.
(Issue #15, April 11, 2011, AMERICAN FREE PRESS)



THE GOLEM
Michael Collins Piper

INTRODUCTION
What is "The Golem"? How Does This Jewish
Religious Icon Relate to the Most Dangerous Arsenal of Nuclear
Weapons of Mass Destruction on the Face of the Planet Today?

The legend of The Golem, in one form or another, can be found in the most ancient days of Jewish folklore and is notably referenced in the Talmud—an extended record of discussions amongst Jewish rabbis about matters pertaining to Jewish laws, ethics, customs and history, dating back to the mid-years of the First Century, A.D. However, the best-known rendering of the tale came in a story first published in Prague in 1847 in a collection of Jewish tales.
A subsequent version was published in 1909 by Yudl Rosenberg in a collection of short stories about The Golem entitled The Golem and the
Wondrous Deeds of the Maharal of Prague.
The so-called Maharal of Prague was a real-life 16th Century rabbi, a highly-regarded authority on Jewish mysticism, who lived between 1525 and 1609. Generally known at the time as Yehudah Levin ben Betzalel Levai (or Loew)—or variations thereof—the rabbi is most commonly recalled in the legend of The Golem as simply "Rabbi Loew." (The rabbi's title, "MaHaRaL," incidentally is the Hebrew acronym of'Moreinu ha-Rav Loew," which means, simply, "Our Teacher the Rabbi Loew") A wealthy heir to a distinguished Jewish family which included his uncle, who was the Rabbi of the Jews of the Holy Roman Empire, Rabbi Loew was not only influential in Prague, but at one point, he later journeyed to Poland where he was named Chief Rabbi of Poland. Today his tomb in Prague, the city to which he returned during his final years, is a popular tourist attraction
Loew's work, as a Talmudic scholar and as a teacher of Talmudic scholars, is hailed in modern times as being critical to the foundation of Jewish philosophy. So the fact that Rabbi Loew is the key figure in the story of The Golem is highly relevant indeed. He was a living, breathing human being of historical record, one highly esteemed among the Jewish people for more than 500 years.
According to the basic thrust of the legend of The Golem, the Emperor of the Hapsburg Empire had proclaimed that the Jews of Prague were to be expelled or killed—an early "Holocaust," so to speak. The legend varies, but it's clear the emperor had ill will toward the Jews.
In any case, at the time, the Jewish community in Prague was under fire—as many Jewish communities in Europe had been, time and again—because certain Jews were accused of killing Christian children and using their blood in Passover rituals. (The question of whether the Jews, as a group, or as individuals, or whether factions of Jews actually committed such crimes is a topic of serious debate, as evidenced by a recent scandal in Italy in which an Italian Jewish scholar, Ariel Toaff—based at the Bar-Illan University in Israel, suggested in a book—subsequently withdrawn from circulation for revision after a frenzied response from Jewish organizations—that there is solid historical evidence of such crimes, generally known as "Jewish Ritual Murder."
Whatever the case, at the time, angry Christians in Prague believed the allegations of ritual murder and were waging a campaign of retribution against the Jews. It was Rabbi Loew, according to the legend of The Golem, who found a way to defend the Jewish people.
The rabbi, a skilled practitioner in Jewish mysticism, gathered clay from the River Vitava and created The Golem, a large man-like figure— an early Frankenstein's Monster, more or less—to defend the Jewish community and strike back at the evil Christians.
(There are those who contend that Mary Shelley, the author of Frankenstein, was inspired by the legend of The Golem, when she first crafted her now-famous tale.)
The legend says that Rabbi Loew made the clay image into a living being by placing in his mouth a parchment, known as the "Shem," upon which was inscribed "the life-creating, ineffable Name of God," according to Nathan Ausubel, writing in The Book of Jewish Knowledge.
However, the good Rabbi's creation, Ausubel noted, became "drunk with the immense power he was wielding, menaced the entire Jewish community, even trying to bend the Maharal to his will, which had now turned evil and destructive."
In the end, the rabbi removed the "Shem" from the mouth of The Golem and took away the mad monster's life force.
Yet, the rabbi preserved the body of The Golem and locked the monster away in the attic of Prague's Old-New Synagogue and issued an order barring anyone from visiting there. The tale says that The Golem remains there to this day.
It is claimed that not even the German Gestapo dared to enter the attic of the old synagogue during World War II and that—presumably because of the presence of The Golem—the Old-New synagogue somehow survived destruction by the Nazis. Or so the legend goes.
Writing at Jewishmag.com, Joyce Ellen Weinstein, provided a concise overview of the legend of "The Golem" noting that the Talmud actually mentions several instances of rabbis creating such man-like creatures and using them to conduct errands. However, in the popular rendition of the Golem legend, as we've seen, the creature ran amok, even turning on his creator. Ms. Weinstein notes:
The word golem comes from the Hebrew word gelem, meaning raw material. The golem is outwardly a real person, yet he lacks the human dimension of personality and intellect.
Life is interjected into him through a mystical process using God's special name. He is created from the ground, as was the first man. When his mission is over, the name of God is removed from him and he returns to the ground.
Many trace the golem to the mystical teaching of the Kabbalistic book called "Sefer HaYetzera",the book of formation. This ancient book is still in print today and studied by Jewish mystics. The book deals in great length with the actual process of creating the universe.
Essentially, the Golem legend suggests that human beings—in this case, Jewish rabbis—have a power almost equal to that of God: being able to create a living creature that is almost human, but not quite.
And this is significant, from a theological standpoint, in that—quite in contrast to the Christian and Muslim traditions—such power is reserved to God and God alone: It is only God who can create life.
But the Jewish tradition evidently grants superior powers to rabbis, skilled in magic arts that they have used (or perhaps abused or misused, however one defines it) for their own earthly purposes and—in the popular legend of The Golem—Rabbi Loew used supernatural power to bring to life the man-like creature crafted from the natural elements given to man by God, in this instance, the clay of the River Vitava.
So it is that in the Hebrew Bible (see Psalms 139:16) and in the Jewish Talmud, the term galem or gelem—or Golem—refers to an "unformed substance."
The 1971 edition of an Israeli edition of The Encyclopedia Judaica noted the evolving concept that The Golem, as a servant of his creator, "developed dangerous natural powers ... [and that the underlying theme of The Golem] is joined by the new motive of the unrestrained power of the elements which can bring about destruction and havoc."
The very point that The Golem of Jewish folklore was created from the earth as a means by which to defend the Jewish people, only to have The Golem become a force for evil—one that could even redound against his creator and the Jewish people—is a point that bears repeating, and one that calls out to be brought to the attention of the world at large. For today, a very real Golem stands at the brink of bringing the globe to the longawaited Armageddon.
The legend of The Golem has been told in literature, on the stage and on film. In 1915 Gustav Meyrink commemorated the tale in a Geman language novel entitled Der Golem, although the latter-day 20th Century Yiddish-language writer, Isaac Bashevis Singer, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, brought more widespread commemoration of the legend in his own short story first published in 1969 in Yiddish, later translated into English.
Beyond question, the best known film production of the tale (one which introduced a visual image of The Golem to the world) came in a three-part silent film series (from 1914 to 1920) by German actor and director Paul Wegener, the best known installment of the series of which is the final film, The Golem: How He Came Into the World, an expressionist drama in which Wegener himself played The Golem. That film was released in the United States in 1921 under the title, The Golem. The image of The Golem, appearing on the cover of this book, is reproduced from Wegener's film. The film is considered a classic, by all estimations.
An often-produced stage production of the tale, also entitled The Golem, was written by a famed Yiddish writer, H. Leivick, and was first introduced in 1924 in Moscow. It's been replayed time and again and in 2002 David Fishelson produced it in New York City through his Manhattan Ensemble Theater.
On April 7, 2002 The New York Times discussed the play in a review entitled, "A Jewish Avenger, a Timely Legend."
Of the Jewish-themed play, the Times noted: "Its central concern is the self-destructive consequences of Jews resorting to violence to defend themselves... The Golem wreaks fierce retribution and the Jews proclaim him a hero. But he gets carried away. He goes on a rampage, spilling the blood of those he was meant to protect."
In 1984, the aforementioned much-beloved Yiddish writer Isaac Bashevis Singer (who, as noted, had previously adapted the story of The Golem) wrote of the legend of the Golem and, quite aptly, compared the Golem to the nuclear arms race: "While we attempt to surpass our enemies and to create new and more destructive golems, the awful possibility is lurking that they may develop a volition of their own, become spiteful, treacherous, mad golems."
Seymour Hersh, the Pulitzer Prize-winning American Jewish journalist, invited controversy by issuing, The Samson Option, his revealing book on Israel's nuclear ambitions, in 1991.
But since then, Israeli journalist Avner Cohen, in his 1999 book, Israel and the Bomb, has not only validated Hersh's earlier work, but provided an even more detailed exposition of the history of Israel's nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
In that volume Cohen wrote of how David Ben-Gurion—the great Israeli (and Jewish) icon, one of Israel's founding fathers and then its prime minister—focused on the development of an atomic bomb and how Ben-Gurion viewed nuclear weapons as being central to Israel's very survival.
Ben-Gurion, in fact, was obsessed with the bomb.
Describing Ben-Gurion's obsession with Israeli nuclear supremacy—and of his dissatisfaction with the efforts by President John F. Kennedy to bring an end to Israel's nuclear ambitions—Cohen wrote:
Imbued with the lessons of the Holocaust, Ben-Gurion was consumed by fears for Israel's security . . .
In his public speeches and writings as prime minister Ben-Gurion rarely discussed the Holocaust. In private conversations and communications with foreign leaders, however, he returned to the lessons of the Holocaust time and again.
In his correspondence with President John F.Kennedy in 1963, he linked Arab enmity to Israel with Hitler's hatred of the Jews, and wrote:
"As a Jew I know the history of my people, and carry with me the memories of all it has endured over a period of three thousand years, and the effort it has cost to accomplish what has been achieved in this country in recent generations . . . Mr. President, my people have the right to exist, both in Israel and wherever they may live, and this existence is in danger" . . .
Anxiety about the Holocaust reached beyond Ben-Gurion to infuse Israeli military thinking. The destruction of Israel defined the ultimate horizon of the threat against Israel. Israeli military planners have always considered a scenario in which a united Arab military coalition launched a war against Israel with the aim of liberating Palestine and destroying the Jewish state.
This was referred to in the early 1950s as mikre hkol, or the "everything scenario." This kind of planning was unique to Israel, as few nations have military contingency plans aimed at preventing apocalypse.
Ben-Gurion had no qualms about Israel's need for weapons of mass destruction . . .Ben-Gurion saw Arab hostility toward Israel as deep and long-lasting ...
Ben-Gurion's pessimism ... influenced Israel's foreign and defense policy for years. Ben-Gurion's world view and his decisive governing style shaped his critical role in initiating Israel's nuclear program . . .
Ben-Gurion believed that science and technology had two roles in the realization of Zionism: to advance the State of Israel spiritually and materially, and to provide for a better defense against its external enemies.
Ben-Gurion's determination to launch a nuclear project was the result of strategic intuition and obsessive fears, not of a well-thought-out plan. He believed Israel needed nuclear weapons as insurance if it could no longer compete with the Arabs in an arms race, and as a weapon of last resort in case of an extreme military emergency Nuclear weapons might also persuade the Arabs to accept Israel's existence, leading to peace in the region [he thought].
On 27 June 1963, eleven days after he announced his resignation, Ben-Gurion delivered a farewell address to the employees of the Armaments Development Authority in which, without referring to nuclear weapons, he provided the justification for the nuclear project: "I do not know of any other nation whose neighbors declare that they wish to terminate it, and not only declare, but prepare for it by all means available to them. We must have no illusions that what is declared every day in Cairo, Damascus, Iraq are just words. This is the thought that guides the Arab leaders ... I am confident ... that science is able to provide us with the weapon that will secure the peace, and deter our enemies."
To summarize: The "nuclear option" was not only at the very core of Ben-Gurion's personal world view, but the very foundation of Israel's national security policy. The Israelis were essentially willing, if necessary, to "blow up the world"—including themselves—if they had to do so in order to destroy the Arab neighbors they hate so much.
This policy is better known by what Jewish-American Pulitzer Prizewinning author Seymour Hersh referred to, in the book by the same name, as "The Samson Option"—that, as Samson of the Bible, after being captured by the Philistines, brought down Dagon's Temple in Gaza and killed himself along with his enemies. As Hersh put it: "For Israel's nuclear advocates, the Samson Option became another way of saying 'Never again," (in reference to preventing another Holocaust).
When the late Winston Churchill said that two ancient peoples— the Greeks and the Jews—suffered from a strong impulse of self-destruction, he was not far off the mark.
Most Americans have no idea that the possibility of a full-fledged nuclear "suicide bombing" by the state of Israel itself is a cornerstone of Israel's national security policy.
And the frightening fact remains that Jewish (and, in particular, Israeli) attitudes toward non-Jews could play a major role in triggering the activation of Israel's modern-day (and very real) Golem: its nuclear arsenal of weapons of mass destruction..
To understand this danger, we must turn to the fascinating revelations and insights of the late Israeli writer Israel Shahak, a native of Poland who spent a portion of his childhood in the Nazi concentration camp of Dachau, and who emigrated to Palestine in 1945. As years passed, Shahak became an open and very vocal critic of Israeli policies, both foreign and domestic, a valuable source for facts about Israel that few Westerners would dare to address.
While admirers have called Shahak a "prophet," and his critics have called him a "self-hating Jew," there is no doubt that Shahak was an outspoken, articulate and fearless analyst and critic of Israeli foreign policy and Shahak's written works provide a dramatic testament to this.
In his book Open Secrets: Israeli Nuclear and Foreign Policies, Shahak said that—contrary to the general perception—Israel does not seek peace.
It is a myth, he said, that there is any real difference between the supposedly "conflicting" policies being pursued by the "opposing" Likud and Labor blocs whose rivalries have been played out on the global stage and which have overflowed into the American political process, pitting American Likud supporters against Labor backers in America.
Shahak contended that the Israeli lobby in the United States—with all its factions—is ultimately propping up Israel's policy of expansionism with the final aim of consolidating "Eretz Israel"—an imperial state in complete control of practically the entire Middle East.
Shahak dared to point out that Israel's nuclear policies—and the influence of the Israeli lobby on the American political process—are a very real danger in a certain respect that few would dare to imagine. Not only is Israel prepared to destroy itself, but because of its underlying religious and racial bigotry toward non-Jews—the Gentiles—Israel's outlook toward the world at large is driven by a deep-rooted hostility, founded in the religious teachings of Judaism itself.
Shahak's writings in the realm of Israel foreign policy were based almost entirely on public pronouncements in the Hebrew language
press in Israel and, in that realm, Shahak pointed out that what the Israeli government tells its own people about its policies is entirely inconsistent with Israel's insistence to the West and the world at large that Israel "wants peace."
Israel, Shahak contended, is essentially a militarist state and an undemocratic one at that, evidenced by the second-class status accorded its Arab inhabitants and those Christian and Moslem Palestinians in occupied territories. One cannot understand Israel until one understands this vital fact.
The nation's very foundation rests upon its military and defense policies, which, as Shahak made clear, ultimately stem from the fanatic religious tendencies that dictate the thinking of its military and intelligence leaders who are the prime movers behind the engine of state.
Although Israel is quite capable of forging temporary (and often covert) alliances and strategic arrangments even with Arab states—even to the point of dealing with the hated Saddam Hussein when it was in Israel's immediate interest—the bottom line is, quite simply, that—as Shahak demonsrated quite chillingly—Israel will say and do anything to pursue its determined goal of winning total domination at all costs.
If it fails, Israel is perfectly willing to choose "the Samson Option."
The legend of The Golem, first in the tales of the Talmud and later brought forth into popular (or rather Jewish) consciousness in the story of Rabbi Loew of Prague, is a very real warning for our modern world.
The state of Israel mined the earth for uranium in order to produce its atomic "Golem," much as Rabbi Loew took the clay from the River Vitava to produce his own.
And Israel proclaims its Golem as its means to protect Israel from its enemies, real and perceived.
So, now, today in Israel, increasing religious fanaticism, coupled with growing hysteria about purported threats to the nation's survival, raise the very strong possibility that its Golem might be put into force. Israel is determined to prevent other nations of the Middle East from assembling their own nuclear weapons or even having access to peaceful uses for nuclear power.
But like the Golem of Prague, Israel's Golem could produce ugly results that not even the Jewish people might be able to imagine.
And that is why Israel's very real modern day "Golem" is a danger to the world, one that must be dealt with.
Can there be any doubt that the singular and central mission of the modern, civilized world must be to ensure, once and for all, that Israel's nuclear Golem is dismantled, before it's too late?
While there are those who might be inclined to suggest that we are unfairly targeting "little Israel—the nation that rose from the ashes of the Holocaust, a nation that rightly feels the need to defend itself from yet another Holocaust," the fact is that—as we shall demonstratein the pages that follow—it is the very existence of Israel's Golem that could indeed lead to another Holocaust—a very real Holocaust in the dictionary definition of the word.
The potential of a nuclear catastrophe arising from the problems surrounding The Golem could lead to the absolute destruction of not only the state of Israel but spark a global conflagration that could bring about the end of life on Earth.
At the very least, the existence of Israel's nuclear Golem—and the troubles it has brought to the Middle East and the world at large (particularly because of the iron-clad "special relationship" between the United States and Israel)—could very well ultimately set in motion a worldwide wave of anti-Jewish fervor. Neither Israel nor the Jewish people in diaspora want that.
In such works as Future Fastforward and Brainwashed for War, Programmed to Kill, Malaysian diplomat and attorney Matthias Chang demonstrated that the Zionist global war agenda is operating through a military-industrial-media complex central to the world of warfare that plagues mankind today. And according to Chang, Israel and its intrigues will be the linchpin for forthcoming—and inevitable—nuclear warfare.
Although Chang foresees a "meltdown" of the far-reaching financial forces that drive this war machine, this meltdown will not come without a struggle—and indeed, he says, that struggle has already begun, that we are facing a Long War of the 21st Century.The prospect is not appealing for those who seek peace.
This maelstrom of violence swirls around Israel and its Golem, a direct result of the imposition of the state of Israel upon Palestine in 1948 and the consequences that have come in its wake, particularly as Israel has sought to assert itself—supported by the United States—as a regional power, with the United States waging wars (covert and otherwise) to advance Israel's interests in a variety of realms.
But we must bear in mind that Israel's institutional philosophical and religious outlook toward the rest of the planet is the foundation of the problem we face as a consequence of the existence of The Golem.
As such, in the chapter which follows we will review some of Israeli dissident Israel Shahak's earlier work on the topic of Jewish racism and its attitudes toward "the other."
As we shall see, this institutionalized Jewish racial and religious outlook has significant bearings when one considers the fact that Israel does indeed have its own nuclear Golem.
(...)


Chapter Four
Not Just the "Fanatics" . . . Israel's Mainstream
Leaders and the Threat of The Golem

Thus far, in this our study of Israel's nuclear Golem, we have largely focused on the threat of religious fanaticism in Israel vis-a-vis its possible impact on Israel's nuclear weapons policy.
However, we would be remiss in leading the reader to believe that only Israel's more fanatic elements would be inclined toward using Israel's nuclear arsenal.
As we noted, early on, it must always be kept in mind that Israel's nuclear weapons policy is at the very center of the nation's geopolitical and military strategy. It is a foundational part of the nation's being.
Assembly of a nuclear arsenal—long since achieved—was a foremost goal of Israel's founding father, David Ben-Gurion, and all subsequent Israeli leaders have relied on Israel's nuclear policies as a centerpiece of their foreign policy.
In any case, the historical record shows that even "mainstream" Israeli leaders—including David Ben-Gurion himself—were very much inclined toward heavy-handed imperial thinking hardly any different from that of some modern-day Israeli hard-liners of the likes of Avigdor Lieberman, whom we examined in an earlier chapter.
And as we pointed out, Lieberman, for his own part, becomes increasingly more "mainstream" by the day. Lieberman, in some respects, is only echoing publicly what Ben-Gurion said privately. Despite the heated denials that Israeli leaders still cling to the dream of a "Greater Israel" stretching "From the Nile to the Euphrates," the fact is that this unifinished dream remains one that is still very much in force in mainstream Zionist thinking.
What's more, although defenders of Israel claim that the Jewish state has no record of attacking other nations, their claims are belied by a wideranging array of data assembled by a variety of writers (coming from a variety of perspectives) who contend that Israel, in fact, could correctly be cited as the actual instigators of more than one of the Arab-Israeli wars fought since the establishment of Israel in 1948.
In addition, it must be recalled, in particular, that Israel—along with France and Great Britain—was instrumental in the offensive against Egypt during the Suez Crisis. So Israel is hardly blameless in regard to wars of aggression. Those who say otherwise are dissembling.
And it was during the Suez affair that then-Prime Minister Ben-Gurion frankly talked of Israel's imperial ambitions, its dream of expanding its geographical borders beyond those established in 1948.
For more on this, we turn to the work of U.S. Army Lt. Col. Warner Farr. In his previously cited briefing paper, "The Third Temple's Holy of Holies: Israel's Nuclear Weapons." Farr wrote:
In a tete-a-tete with [French Prime Minister Guy] Mollet, Ben-Gurion said he aimed to take control of all Sinai and to annex it to Israel, in order to exploit the oil, which he said was to be found there. At the meeting with the French delegation that opened the Sevres conference, Ben-Gurion expounded upon his vision for a comprehensive settlement in the Middle East, based on the following principles:
Internationalization of the Suez Canal, disbanding the Kingdom of Jordan and dividing it between Iraq and Israel, British patronage over Iraq and the Arabian peninsula, and French patronage over Syria and Lebanon (where Christian rule would be assured).
The French listened to the plan politely and [Israeli general Moshe] Dayan wrote in his diary that the plan "might be seen as fantastic, even naive."
Ben-Gurion would occasionally let himself get carried away with his visionary ideas when meeting with world leaders.
Although Ben-Gurion's colleague, General Dayan, might refer to the Israeli founding father's imperial ambitions as being "visionary," Israel's Arab neighbors—not to mention most of the rest of the world—might consider those ambitions something else entirely: a threat.
In fact, on November 6, 1956—at the height of the Suez campaign—Ben-Gurion gave a speech announcing the formation of "The Third Kingdom of Israel," referring, in fact, to that dream of "Greater israel" which—at that juncture—Ben-Gurion clearly believed was a very real possibility since little Israel was allied with the European powers of Britain and France against Egypt. It was only the intervention of American President Dwight D. Eisenhower that prevented the dream from becoming a reality.
The so-called "Third Kingdom" was (and is) indeed the philosophical foundation of the worldview of the fanatics in Israel. Yet, it was Ben-Gurion—who publicly portrayed himself the world as a secular force in Israeli affairs—who was adopting this imperial rhetoric.
And while Ben-Gurion's defenders in years since have suggested that the tensions of the conflict at Suez—coupled with a bout with influenza that afflicted Ben-Gurion at the time—caused what Lt. Col. Farr correctly referred to as Ben-Gurion's "bizarre messianic outbreak," the fact remains that Israel's leader was indeed talking in these potentially apocolyptic terms. So even "mainstream" Israeli leaders such as the vaunted Ben-Gurion have shown their capacity—for whatever reasons—to lean in dangerous directions.
But Israel did not have a nuclear arsenal in 1956. However—by all estimations—Israel did have a nuclear arsenal by the time of the so-called "Six Day War" in 1967 and Farr pointed out in his study that Israel, in fact, went on nuclear alert during that war, prepared to use its Golem to vanquish its Arab enemies. And that was just the first time.
In October of 1973, when Israel was fighting the Yom Kippur War against Egypt and Syria, Israel's front lines were crumbling, and, according to Farr, citing Time magazine, Israeli General Moshe Dayan, then defense minister, told Prime Minister Golda Meir that "this is the end of the Third Temple." In other words, the end of the state of Israel, in Dayan's judgment, was near.
And it was not for nothing that the word "temple"—Farr pointed out—was also the code word for nuclear weapons.
Thus, as Israel prepared for nuclear strikes against Egyptian and Syrian targets and word of the plan was leaked to the United States through Secretary of State Henry Kissinger—perhaps Israel's leading advocate inside the administration of President Richard Nixon—and the United States (under the pressure of Israel's threat to use nuclear firepower) began opening up a line of supply to the Israeli forces.
However, even before the United States support had come through the lines, the Israelis were able to counterattack and drive their Arab enemies into submission. And as Warner Farr pointed out: "Thus started the subtle, opaque use of the Israeli bomb to ensure that the United States kept its pledge to maintain Israel's conventional weapons edge over its foes."
So the historical record demonstrates that—at least twice—the Israelis (under so-called "mainstream" leadership) moved toward nuclear Armageddon, putting their Golem on ready, prepared to go full force in the first war-time use of atomic weapons since 1945.
Israel's nuclear Golem—in the hands of any Israeli government— has already been unveiled. It is not "just the fanatics" who might be tempted to use the Zionist Golem. Israel is a nation—its national security strategy founded on the concept of "national suicide if necessary" to defeat its enemies—that has a proven history of nuclear provocation. The next time there may be no way of stopping it.
Israel is a friend to no nation except itself, as we shall further in the chapter which follows.



http://fr.sott.net/article/9756-Israel-Bibi-les-rabbins-et-la-fin-du-monde

Discours messianiques

Cette connivence entre les sphères politique et religieuse n'est pas du goût de tout le monde, surtout quand elle semble engager la sécurité de l'État hébreu et de ses citoyens. « Je n'ai pas confiance dans une direction qui prend des décisions fondées sur des sentiments messianiques », s'était agacé Yuval Diskin en avril dernier. À l'instar de cet ancien patron du Shin Bet - les services de contre-espionnage -, plusieurs ténors de l'appareil sécuritaire récusent l'alarmisme de Netanyahou et de son ministre de la Défense, Ehoud Barak, à propos de la « menace » nucléaire iranienne. Tous deux partisans de la manière forte pour l'éradiquer, ils sont accusés de vouloir précipiter le pays dans une guerre aux conséquences dévastatrices.
Dieu interviendra pour sauver le "peuple élu" froudroyant au passage ses ennemis
Car derrière un sentiment de responsabilité morale à l'égard du destin du peuple juif - que ses détracteurs croient sincère -, l'actuel chef du gouvernement israélien ne serait pas insensible à certains courants rabbiniques. Celui de Menachem Mendel Schneerson, par exemple, défunt leader du mouvement Loubavitch, que Netanyahou avait cité lors d'une allocution à l'ONU en septembre 2011. Ses adeptes, dont ferait partie le Premier ministre, estiment que ce rabbin n'est autre que le Messie et qu'il vivrait toujours au milieu des hommes.

Un an plus tôt, dans un discours marquant la commémoration de la libération du camp d'Auschwitz, Netanyahou avait annoncé que la prophétie du chapitre 37 d'Ézéchiel, « Les ossements desséchés », était accomplie. Selon cette vision eschatologique, les prophéties des chapitres 38 et 39 seraient donc sur le point de se réaliser. Israël s'engagera dans une immense bataille, « Gog et Magog », où il essuiera de très lourdes pertes, mais à l'issue de laquelle Dieu interviendra pour sauver le « peuple élu », foudroyant au passage ses ennemis.

Guerre imminente

Dans un pays où la spiritualité guide le quotidien et les aspirations d'une partie non négligeable de la population, cette rhétorique messianique est loin d'être marginale. Sur internet, des dizaines de vidéos annonciatrices de la fin des temps apparaissent chaque jour. Des rabbins y décryptent les codes secrets de la Bible, présentant Mahmoud Ahmadinejad comme la réincarnation d'Aman, ce vizir perse qui, jadis, avait planifié la destruction des Juifs. La guerre contre l'Iran y est même annoncée pour le mois d'eloul 5772, ce qui, d'après le calendrier hébraïque, correspondrait... à septembre 2012.

Alors que certaines fuites dans la presse suggèrent une attaque israélienne à l'automne, juste avant l'élection présidentielle américaine, des sages appellent déjà les Juifs à la rédemption. « Nous savons des choses que vous ignorez. Ni les abris ni les systèmes antimissiles de Tsahal ne pourront vous sauver », assure l'influent rabbin Amnon Itshak Chlita, qui prédit un déluge de feu contre les villes israéliennes. « Retournez à la foi, priez, respectez le repos du sabbat, et l'Éternel vous offrira sa protection. »


Minister calls for third Temple to be built
http://myjewishtimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/mk-uri-ariel-unveils-his-one-state-plan.jpg
Potentially explosive statement by Jewish Home’s Uri Ariel breaks taboo against damaging status quo on Temple Mount





Une guerre contre l’Iran serait un désastre, même pour les USA
traduction de Mecanopolis.org

Extraits des chapitres « conclusions» et «Postscriptum» du livre de Stephen Sniegoski: «The Transparent Cabal»

Ce livre a défendu la thèse que les origines de la guerre américaine contre l’Irak tournent autour de l’agenda de guerre américaine, dont les bases furent esquissées en Israël pour favoriser les intérêts israéliens, et que des néoconservateurs américains, amis d’Israël à l’intérieur et à l’extérieur du gouvernement Bush, firent avancer avec passion. Pour documenter cette affirmation, des preuves étendues furent produites dont beaucoup d’entre elles proviennent d’un document néoconservateur détaillé et compromettant. (p. 351)

L’influence des néoconservateurs fut avant tout démontrée par le fait que leur agenda de guerre se différencia radicalement de la politique traditionnelle américaine au Moyen-Orient, qui se concentrait sur le maintien de la stabilité régionale. La politique des neocons a par conséquent provoqué l’opposition de membres de l’élite traditionnelle dans le domaine de la politique étrangère/sécurité nationale. (p. 352)

Une partie fondamentale et plutôt tabouisée du sujet de ce travail est la combinaison intégrale d’Israël avec l’agenda de guerre néoconservateur. Les contours essentiels de cet agenda de guerre pour le Proche-Orient – à l’aide duquel la sécurité d’Israël devait être renforcée par la déstabilisation des voisins d’Israël – se profilèrent en grande partie dans la pensée du Likoud des années 1980. Des leaders neocons – Richard Perle, David Wurmser, Douglas Feith ‑ soumirent en 1996 au Premier ministre israélien Netanyahou un plan comparable, selon lequel les Etats-Unis auraient remplacé Israël dans son rôle de parti agresseur. Cependant, il y avait également une liaison israélienne lorsque l’Amérique s’achemina vers une guerre avec l’Irak, lorsque le gouvernement Sharon insista pour une attaque et favorisa l’idée d’une menace immédiate par les armes de destruction massives de Saddam. Plus tard, Israël aurait joué un rôle semblable en appuyant une ligne dure contre l’Iran.

Comme révélé dans cette étude, les néoconservateurs entretenaient d’étroits liens avec Israël et avaient indiqué, à l’occasion d’une série de manifestations, la sécurité d’Israël comme but de leur agenda de guerre pour le Proche-Orient. Mais ils insistaient sur le fait que les intérêts américains et israéliens concordaient et que le but fondamental de leurs recettes politiques consistait en un renforcement de la sécurité américaine. Afin de tirer au clair la justesse de cette affirmation des neocons, il est instructif d’évaluer les fruits de leur politique.

Principalement: dans quelle mesure un renforcement de la sécurité américaine a-t-il effectivement résulté de leur politique de guerre? Pour l’Amérique, les conséquences négatives de la guerre en Irak sont assez évidentes. Jusqu’à fin mars 2008, plus de 4000 Américains ont perdu la vie, le nombre de blessés dépassa 29 000, et on avait dépensé près de 490 milliards de dollars pour cette guerre.

Le total des coûts économiques de la guerre, auxquels n’appartiennent pas que les dépenses de guerre directes, mais aussi les effets de la guerre sur l’économie en général, était de loin plus élevé. Joseph Stiglitz, l’ancien président du conseil national des experts économiques, prix Nobel et professeur d’économie à la Columbia University, et Linda Bilmes, experte financière de l’Université de Harvard calculèrent dans leur livre intitulé «The Three Trillion Dollar War: The True Cost of the Iraq Conflict» [La guerre à trois billions de dollars: les coûts effectifs de la guerre], paru au début 2008, que le coût global de la guerre d’Irak se monterait à 3 mille milliards de dollars. (Cette estimation repose sur l’hypothèse que les Etats-Unis retireraient toutes leurs troupes d’ici 2012). Les coûts de la guerre ont déjà dépassé ceux de la guerre du Vietnam qui dura douze ans. Les auteurs font remarquer que la seule guerre des Etats-Unis qui coûta plus fut la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Ces coûts qui donnent le tournis ont déjà constitué un facteur important de la récession de l’économie américaine. (p. 352)

La guerre d’Irak n’a pas seulement aggravé le terrorisme, mais elle a aussi affaibli la puissance de l’Amérique dans le monde. Avant tout, cela a gravement nui à la position américaine au Proche-Orient. Richard Haass, le président du Conseil des relations étran gères, prétendit dans son essai «La fin d’une ère», paru fin 2006 dans Foreign Policy, que la guerre américaine contre l’Irak avait conduit à la fin du «primat américain» au Proche-Orient. (p. 354)

Les néoconservateurs voyaient la politique extérieure américaine à travers les lunettes des intérêts d’Israël, comme les Likoudniks ont défendu les intérêts d’Israël. Ils voyaient très probablement les intérêts d’Israël vraiment comme étant ceux de l’Amérique et ne se considéraient pas comme des gens qui sacrifiaient les intérêts des Etats-Unis en faveur d’Israël. Chez des individus orientés par une idéologie, l’automystification n’a rien d’extraordinaire.

Dire que les néoconservateurs tentaient de promouvoir les intérêts israéliens n’est cependant pas la même chose que de pré tendre que les néoconservateurs exécutaient les ordres du gouvernement d’Israël. Il n’y a pas d’indication qu’ils auraient reçu des instructions dans ce sens. Les positions des neocons et du gouvernement israélien se recoupaient dans bien des questions déci sives: concernant la guerre d’Irak; concernant la nécessité de liquider le pouvoir iranien; concernant la défense de l’Etat juif contre les Palestiniens. Dans les faits, la position des néoconservateurs concernant l’Iran – dans les années 1980 de façon bienveillante, ces dernières années de façon hostile – était totalement calquée sur celle d’Israël. Il semble cependant que quelques éléments importants en Israël affirmaient des opinions modérées et ne s’identifiaient pas à l’entier de l’agenda de guerre néoconservateur. C’est facile à comprendre. Avant 2001 déjà, il était patent que les neocons faisaient partie de l’aile dure des opinions israéli ennes, comme ils l’ont clairement affirmé dans leur papier «A Clean Break» publié en 1990, qui avait appelé le gouvernement likoud de Netanyahou de rompre avec le «processus de paix» du parti travailliste et d’adopter une attitude beaucoup plus agressive. Même le dur Netanyahou se distança de la mise en œuvre de leur ligne belliciste sans compromis. De même, le gouvernement Olmert s’abstint de suivre l’agenda néoconservateur lors de l’invasion du Liban en 2006. Apparemment la scène politique conflictuelle israélienne impose des limites à la marge de manœuvre d’un leader poli tique, de sorte que la mise en œuvre d’un programme politique devient très difficile. Malgré cela, il y a eu une relation évidente entre les neocons et des politiciens israéliens qui dépassait le simple échange d’idées. Des neocons n’étaient pas seulement proches de Netanyahou, mais encore de Sharansky, Dore Gold et dans une moindre mesure de Sharon. Ce qui est le plus significatif, et ça a été souligné dans tout le livre, c’est que l’agenda de guerre pour le Proche-Orient ne provenait pas du cerveau des neocons, mais qu’il reflétait la pensée des purs et durs du Likoud. Leurs idées fondamentales sur le nouvel ordre du Proche-Orient avaient été pensées pour l’essentiel en Israël pour faire avancer les intérêts israéliens. (p. 365 ss.)

Les preuves de la relation entre les néoconservateurs et les Israéliens avec la guerre des Etats-Unis au Proche-Orient sont renversantes et d’accès public. Il n’y eut pas de «conspiration» obscure et secrète, une expression moqueuse qui est souvent utilisée par des gens qui veulent railler la représentation d’une relation des neocons avec la guerre. Mais dans le domaine de la politique, comme le faisait remarquer George Orwell, « il faut un effort constant pour voir ce qui vous pend au nez ». On serait en droit d’espérer que les Américains, dans leur autoproclamé «pays des hommes libres», ne devraient pas craindre de discuter honnêtement des dessous et des motivations pour la guerre d’Irak et de la politique des Etats-Unis au Proche-Orient en général. Ce n’est qu’en comprenant la vérité que les Etats-Unis pourront peut-être prendre les mesures correctrices adéquates au Proche-Orient; à défaut d’une pareille compréhension, la catastrophe se rapproche de façon inquiétante.

Pour créer une politique moyen-orientale dans l’intérêt des Etats-Unis et de leur population, il est apparemment essentiel d’avoir une vue claire de la situation. Des individus qui dans leurs analyses se trompaient complètement, comme c’était le cas pour les néoconservateurs dans leurs prises de position publiques, ne devraient pas participer à l’élaboration de la politique dans ce domaine. Par ailleurs, l’axe principal de la détermination d’une pareille politique devrait être mis sur les intérêts des Etats-Unis, sans interférence des intérêts d’autres pays. Des individus, ayant des relations étroites avec des Etats étrangers, ne devraient pas participer à l’élaboration de la politique américaine dans des domaines qui concernent les intérêts de ces Etats. C’est un conflit d’intérêts évident. Aucune de ces affirmations ne signifie que les Etats-Unis ne doivent pas réfléchir à la moralité internationale – étant entendu que tous les pays doivent être mesurés à la même aulne – mais on ne peut pas attendre des Etats-Unis qu’ils poursuivent une politique qui renforcerait la sécurité de certains pays étrangers au détriment de leurs propres intérêts. Un pareil principe de base devrait être valable pour Israël comme pour tous les autres pays. Lorsqu’il devient évident que les intérêts des Etats-Unis sont sacrifiés au profit d’un autre pays, des Américains ne devraient pas se laisser dissuader de démontrer cela. La survie à proprement parler des Etats-Unis et de leur population pourrait en dépendre. (p. 372 ss.)

Rien ne garantit l’application d’une guerre contre l’Iran ni les aspects complémen­taires de l’agenda de guerre des néoconservateurs. Cependant, au vu de la rhétorique qui s’exprima au printemps 2008, une pareille guerre parut être une possibilité indubi table du gouvernement Bush à son déclin. Vu la position de dur de McCain et de sa proximité des neocons, il apparaît que la probabilité d’une guerre contre l’Iran serait encore plus grande s’il était élu. Et un pareil engagement ne pourrait pas non plus être exclu sous Obama ou Clinton malgré leur critique de la guerre de l’Irak. On peut dire avec certitude que – bien que la politique moyen-orientale des neocons a une longue histoire – cette poli tique, et les neocons eux-mêmes, sont loin de devenir de l’histoire. (p. 382)
Source : Stephen J. Sniegoski. The Transparent Cabal. The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, and the National Interest of Israel. Norfolk Virginia 2008. ISBN 978-1-932528-17-6
Traduction : Horizons & Débats







Comme le Hollandais volant, le juif errant erre sur terre sans pouvoir mourir... la fin du monde serait pour lui une délivrance. S'il doit aller en enfer, il y entraînera le monde entier avec lui.

"La vérité, dit-il, est, en effet, telle que vous l'avez écrit un jour: on ne peut comprendre le Juif que si l'on connaît son but ultime. Et cet objectif est, au-delà de la domination mondiale, l'anéantissement du monde. Il doit écraser le reste de l'humanité, croit-il, afin de préparer un paradis sur terre. Il s'est convaincu que lui seul est capable d'accomplir cette grande tâche, et, compte tenu de ses idées concernant le paradis, il en est certainement capable. Mais on peut voir, si ce n'est que dans les moyens qu'il emploie, qu'il est secrètement mené par quelque chose d'autre. Alors qu'il prétend lui-même élever l'humanité, il tourmente les hommes au désespoir, à la folie, à la ruine. Si un arrêt n'est pas imposé, il détruira tous les hommes. Sa nature le pousse vers ce but, même s'il réalise confusément qu'il doit par là se détruire. Il n'y a pas d'autre voie pour lui, il doit agir ainsi. Cette prise de conscience de la dépendance inconditionnelle de sa propre existence envers celle de ses victimes me semble être la principale cause de sa haine. Le fait d'être obligé de nous rendre la vie dure et de nous anéantir de toute sa puissance, mais en même temps de soupçonner que cela doit entraîner inévitablement sa propre ruine - c'est là, si vous voulez, la tragédie de Lucifer ». (Adolf Hitler à Dietrich Eckart, in Bolshevism Form Moses to Lenin, A Conversation Cetween Hitler and Me)

"The truth," he said, "is, indeed, as you once wrote: one can only understand the Jew when one knows what his ultimate goal is. And that goal is, beyond world domination, the annihilation of the world. He must wear down all the rest of mankind, he persuades himself, in order to prepare a paradise on earth. He has made himself believe that only he is capable of this great task, and, considering his ideas of paradise, that is certainly so. But one sees, if only in the means which he employs, that he is secretly driven to something else. While he pretends to himself to be elevating mankind, he torments men to despair, to madness, to ruin. If a halt is not ordered, he will destroy all men. His nature compels him to that goal, even though he dimly realizes that he must thereby destroy himself. There is no other way for him; he must act thus. This realization of the unconditional dependence of his own existence upon that of his victims appears to me to be the main cause for his hatred. To be obliged to try and annihilate us with all his might, but at the same time to suspect that that must lead inevitably to his own ruin -- therein lies, if you will, the tragedy of Lucifer."












Israel–-the Only Country that has threatened to destroy the entire world with Nukes, yet Peres says world needs missile defense system against Iran

Iran urges world community to pressure Israel into joining Non-Proliferation Treaty


Sur ce blog:

La Syrie: prochaine cible du plan de chaotisation et remodelage du Moyen-Orient?

L'inventeur du concept d' "Axe du Mal" veut y inclure le Pakistan

Le gouffre à la place du coeur: BHL

L'utopie juive

Pourim 2011 et l'attaque atlanto-sioniste de la Libye

Flashback: Khadafi dénonce le rôle d'Israël et de son arsenal nucléaire dans l'assassinat de JFK

Les soldats sionistes avaient reçu l'ordre de "nettoyer" Gaza

La Grande-Bretagne craignait qu'Israël n'utilise la bombe atomique


Guerres sionistes: vers la délivrance ultime

S'ils vont en enfer ils nous emportent avec eux

L'option Samson comme justice ultime

Une blogosphère alerte et en santé est le dernier obstacle à une troisième guerre mondiale nucléaire

À lire