lundi 23 septembre 2013

Devoir de mémoire, devoir de faire tomber l'axe Iran-Syrie-Liban





http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/images/prevent_another_holocaust_bomb_iran.gif






3 Sept. 2013
(...)
L'Armée nationale s'obstinant à leur tenir tête et les expulsant même victorieusement de partout, devait donc resurgir, comme il était prévisible, la vieille recette inusable du gaz exterminateur que les Anglo-américains exploitent avec un art consommé depuis la première guerre mondiale : arme absolue pour paralyser les consciences et justifier les coups fourrés les plus tordus quand tout espoir s'éteint...
« Selon des informations dignes de foi, le nombre des victimes des Autrichiens et des Bulgares a dépassé 700 000. Des régions entières, avec villes et villages, ont été dépeuplés par des massacres. Femmes, enfants et vieillards ont été enfermés dans des églises par les Autrichiens et passés à la baïonnette ou étouffés au moyen de gaz asphyxiants, etc. » (Daily Telegraph du 22 mars 1916, p.7)
Un quart de siècle plus tard, le crapuleux bobard ayant été profitable, les experts en désinformation britanniques reprendront purement et simplement le filon sans même changer les chiffres ; pourquoi se fatiguer ? :
« Au cours du plus grand massacre de l'histoire du monde, les Allemands ont abattu plus de 700 000 Juifs polonais […] Les plus horribles détails de la tuerie mentionnant l'utilisation de gaz toxique figurent dans un rapport envoyé secrètement à Londres par un groupe d'activistes polonais, etc. » Je passe sur la suite : elle est consultable au même Daily Telegraph du 25 juin... 1942, p.5.
Inouï ce qu'on peut faire avec le gaz pour étouffer l'adversaire ! On sait avec quelle constance et succès cette fine imposture fut ensuite reprise ad nauseam, au point qu'elle fonctionne toujours si parfaitement qu'elle en permet aujourd'hui cette nouvelle provocation "humanitaire" que le monde occidental civilisé appelle une fois de plus de ses vœux : Mort au Kaiser ! mort à Hitler ! mort à Saddam ! mort à Miloševic ! mort à Kadafi ! mort à Bachar el-Assad ! Enfin mort à tous ces gueux qui s'obstinent à refuser notre pure et sainte Démocratie ! Le gaz, les armes de destruction massives, vraies ou supposées, ça marche toujours, et quand ça ne marche plus on vous écrabouille aux missiles de croisière, on vous scalpelise chirurgicalement au depleted uranium ou au phosphore blanc (non sans vous bénir auparavant aux Droits de l'Homme : restons humains quand même). (lire l'article complet sur Sagesse Païenne, Foi Chrétienne)


http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-TpH1p8MW1FQ/T4kN8xHHhrI/AAAAAAAAAk0/JtlAauGLkXA/s1600/Iraqi+Gas+Chambers+Hoax.png

Intractable trauma || Israel doesn't have to 'get over' the Holocaust
It's perfectly legitimate for Israel to recognize the Holocaust as a key factor in formulating its defense policy, despite the liberal polemics seeking a 'post-Holocaust' Israel
Israeli students at Auschwitz in May.
Many years ago, I asked a senior French official to explain the strategic logic of France's independent nuclear capacity, its force de frappe. The Soviet Union, after all, had immeasurably greater and more powerful nuclear capacities. There was no question of mutual destruction or mutual deterrence.
I will never forget his gobsmacking reply. "Our force de frappe's not aimed at Russia; it's aimed at Germany." The previous century had been an intermittent saga of Franco-German wars, he continued, all of them the results of German militarism and aggression. Even though they were allies and partners now (with West Germany), France still needed to keep its guard up.
In other words, its recent historical experience was the basis for a central part of France's defense policy.
And that was sans a Holocaust. There had "just" been bombing, shelling, invasion, trench warfare, tank warfare, and periods of occupation.
What's wrong with that? Why should a nation not rest its policy upon its recent collective experience? I ask this in connection with the latest welling up of 'anti-Holocaust' sentiment among the Israeli intelligentsia following interviews in Haaretz with top Air Force officers who took part in the symbolic fly-past over Auschwitz exactly ten years ago. IAF Commander Amir Eshel said he considered that fly-past, by three F-15s which he led, the flight of his life. Photographs of the IAF planes over the notorious – and notoriously unbombed – rail lines adorn many military and civilian offices in Israel's governing establishment. Men like Eshel keep mementos of that fly-past with them as they contemplate and plan today a possible strike in Syria or a possible strike in Iran.
All this seriously worries liberal opinion. In Haaretz's own editorial two weeks ago, "Israel today is a strong, independent entity that has been accepted by the international community. The Holocaust's memory is a historical obligation, a monument to human brutality that must not be forgotten. But it cannot constitute a strategic or security consideration that statesmen and army chiefs must deal with today. They must outline Israel's strategy and its diplomatic and military way, while focusing on its future and on the needs of its people, who want to live not as captives of past traumas." 
Arguably though, what's wrong is not the IAF's memorable demonstration a decade ago nor Eshel's legitimate and proud memory of it, but rather the unremitting inability of left-liberal Israelis to assimilate the Holocaust into their Zionist ethos – and hence into our national history and policy. The Yishuv, they insisted before and after 1939, comprised New Jews, to be distinguished, if not dissociated, from the millions writhing under Hitler's jackboot. If Rommel defeated the British and swept through Egypt, they would fight him from the Carmel (…!)
This sad and complex reaction, which had ramifications beyond the establishment of the State in 1948, has been amply documented and debated by some of our best historians.
Later, Menachem Begin's incessant rhetorical hyperbole exploiting the Holocaust achieved precisely the opposite effect than he intended, at least among left-liberal opinion. His tasteless analogies – Arafat in Beirut to Hitler in Berlin for instance – triggered an almost instinctive spurning of any Holocaust analogy as demagogic and devaluing.
But arguably this instinctive reaction has itself become polemic and hyperbolic. Such reactions become outright irrationality when Prime Minister Netanyahu proclaimed his own Holocaust analogy, pointing out that Iran, pursuing the Bomb, was threatening to incinerate Israel and was denying the Holocaust.
This, of course, is the sub-text of the criticism of Eshel and the other IAF generals. They are accused, in effect, of reinforcing Netanyahu's analogy by referring back to their dramatic fly-past over Auschwitz.
Well, it certainly works with me. Whenever I see that photograph of the IAF at Auschwitz my eyes tear. When I saw on Mossad Chief Meir Dagan's wall, next to the government's instructions to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions, the photograph of his grandfather, on his knees, about to be shot, the tears flowed.
Granted, as Haaretz asserts, Israelis "want to live not as captives of past traumas." But, as the French official helped me understand, many people find it natural and unavoidable to live – and make policy – as captives of their past traumas. Our trauma was the worst of all.


http://www.jta.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/180136147-1-430x280.jpg


Haaretz - Israel should be more than Yad Vashem with an air force
 
Ten years after the Israel Air Force flyby over Auschwitz, the awareness of the Holocaust and the dread of its recurrence are consciously and deliberately blended into the air force's policy, and into the IDF and defense establishment's policy in general.(...)
The great value that senior air force officers attribute to the Auschwitz flyby - whose photographs were distributed to every air force squadron commander and base commander - points to the Gordian knot between the Holocaust trauma and the perception of security and army in Israel. This knot has been preserved to this day. The people in charge of the attacks in Syria and Lebanon (according to foreign sources) and of preparing the air force for a future attack in Iran, see the September 2003 flyby as one of the most important flights of their lives.
This means that the awareness of the Holocaust and the dread of its recurrence are consciously and deliberately blended into the air force's policy, and into the IDF and defense establishment's policy in general. At the same time, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu frequently compares the Iranian nuclear threat to the murderous outcome of the Nazis' rule, and warns time and again that the Jewish people can trust no one but themselves to prevent another tragedy of the Holocaust's proportions.
Journalist Thomas Friedman wrote years ago that "Israel is Yad Vashem with an air force." Not only is this provocative statement not denied by Israel's policy makers and military top brass, it is defiantly adopted by them.
Israel today is a strong, independent entity that has been accepted by the international community. The Holocaust's memory is a historical obligation, a monument to human brutality that must not be forgotten. But it cannot constitute a strategic or security consideration that statesmen and army chiefs must deal with today. They must outline Israel's strategy and its diplomatic and military way, while focusing on its future and on the needs of its people, who want to live not as captives of past traumas.




http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTgLH1he7hL-ECZ7VxxQJ4ufTumOa6-6LT0m_kP3SK4wdoBsbYCTg

• First real evidence emerges proving U.S. ally behind Syria attack
by Victor Thorn for American Free Press
October 06, 2013   AFP
AMERICAN FREE PRESS is opposed to military interventions and wars that are not in this country’s interest and only benefit the military-industrial-banking complex and Greater Israel. 
And with that in mind, this week, AFP examines how doctored intelligence reports, an incoherent foreign policy and powerful special interests have the potential to lead the United States into World War III.  
Once restricted merely to conspiracy circles, the term “false flag attack” became part of the popular lexicon during the recent Syrian chemical weapons debacle. Former Representative Ron Paul (R-Tex) referred to allegations that the Syrian government had used sarin gas as a false flag before adding, “The group most likely to benefit from it is al Qaeda.” But even though Muslim revolutionaries were most likely involved in the use of chemical weapons, the source of these heinous attacks can be traced to familiar players.  
On September 17, Jason Ditz, news editor of the website “Antiwar.com,” wrote, “Israeli ambassador Michael Oren revealed that the Israeli government has privately been seeking change in neighboring Syria for the past two years since the ongoing civil war began.”  
Four months earlier, Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, Secretary of State Colin Powell’s right-hand man during his term in the Bush administration, spoke of an earlier chemical attack in Syria.  
“This could have been an Israeli false flag operation,” he said. “You’ve got basically a geo-strategically, geo-political — if you will — inept regime in Tel Aviv right now.” Wilkerson is known for calling intelligence on Iraqi weapons of mass destruction in October 2005 a “hoax.”  
In regard to Syria, respected ex-Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) analyst Ray McGovern averred that so-called evidence presented by the Obama administration “would not stand up in a court of law.” According to McGovern, despite Israel’s attempts at perpetual instability in the Middle East, saner heads prevailed via our military’s top brass.  
Scott Baker, senior editor of the liberal website “Op-Ed News,” addressed this issue on September 11. “McGovern says the military got to the president, overriding even the objections of the military’s Joint Chiefs of Staff,” wrote Baker on his website.  
On September 2, popular news website “The World Tribune” editorialized about the military’s wise request to slow down the path to war in the form of General Martin Dempsey, who showed his reluctance to be a participant in this potential fiasco.  
“Dempsey has been unusually blunt in his remarks with both Obama and Vice President Joe Biden,” opined the “Tribune.” “His assessment is that any U.S. war against Assad will involve his foreign allies, and that means Tehran and to a smaller extent, Moscow.”  
Already, comparisons between Obama and President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney have been made, particularly in terms of lies and exaggerations regarding weapons of mass destruction. 
For example, Secretary of State John Kerry stated that 1,429 people, including 426 children, died in the August 21 chemical attack just outside Damascus. Yet humanitarian group Doctors Without Borders, which has doctors on the ground in Syria, estimated the total at only 355. Red Cross Operations Director George Kettaneh directly contradicted Obama administration claims that a Syrian man had tested positive for traces of toxic gases in his bloodstream.  
Yossef Bodansky, the senior editor for Defense & Foreign Affairs magazine, took it a step further in a September 1 article published on the news agency’s website, entitled “Did the White House Help Plan the Syrian Chemical Attack?”  
As former director of the Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, Bodansky’s sources acknowledged that on August 13, at a Turkish military prison in Antakya, representatives from Qatar, Turkey and the U.S.—including U.S. Ambassador Robert Ford—met with Syrian opposition leaders to unleash a “war changing development.”  
Saleh Muslim, overseer of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party, agreed with Bodansky’s assessment, asserting that this secret meeting was “aimed at framing Assad and provoking an international reaction.”


Jewish Leaders Push Back On ‘Warmonger’ Accusation ‘We have a dog in this fight,’ they say in supporting Obama on Syria strike.

Les fournisseurs de la Syrie et l’arsenal israélien en question
(...)Fayçal al-Maqdad, le vice-ministre syrien des AE, a balayé les accusations occidentales, rappelant avec ironie le flacon présenté en 2003 par Colin Powell, le secrétaire d’État américain, représentant la preuve d’armes chimiques que Saddam Hussein était sur le point d’utiliser pour exterminer son peuple.
Pour lui, ce sont les groupes islamistes qui auraient employé le gaz sarin que les États-Unis leur ont livré, dès lors qu’ils ont vu que ces terroristes perdaient du terrain. Aucune obligation morale de cette sorte n’est, cependant, invoquée à l’égard d’Israël, pays qui détient le plus important stock d’armes chimiques biologiques et nucléaires au Moyen-Orient, et qui est le seul État à ne pas avoir signé le traité de non-prolifération nucléaire. Ce n’est pas simplement qu’Israël possède un important arsenal d’armes chimiques. Il s’en est servi contre les Palestiniens en Cisjordanie et à Gaza : après l’éclatement de la deuxième Intifadha, il y a eu plusieurs incidents rapportés de soldats israéliens utilisant un “gaz inconnu” contre les Palestiniens, en particulier durant une campagne de six semaines, par les forces militaires israéliennes à Gaza, durant l’opération Plomb endurci.

Obama’s ‘source’ on Syrian gas attack–Israel’s Unit 8200


FRANÇAIS-Le rôle d’Israël dans l’annonce de l’attaque contre la Syrie
ENGLISH-Voltairenet: Israel’s role in the announcement of the attack against Syria

Israeli intelligence 'intercepted Syrian regime talk about chemical attack' Information passed to US by Israeli Defence Forces' 8200 unit, former official tells magazine.

La condamnation par les États-Unis de l’usage des armes chimiques ne s’applique pas à Israël

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2011/11/488008.jpg

U.S. media suppressed 2009 UN report showing Israel using chemical weapons against Palestinians

http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/latuff_cartoon_israel_collective_punishment.jpg
 http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/2d0ca10afa98e0ad41e7070363dd9b80.jpg
Reid compares Assad’s attacks to Nazi gas chambers Senate majority leader tries to drum up support in Congress for American military actions against Syria



http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/b19919cb77206899e93f2ff92a59e8fd.jpg
British PM cites Holocaust as a reason for military action in Syria

Cameron: I wanted to act in Syria because of the lessons of the Holocaust

http://fotos.fotoflexer.com/176e0d1166646c68156d2256a9a701d5.jpg


Sheldon Adelson wants U.S. to nuke Iran, likens two-state solution to Russian roulette

Adelson: Nuke Iran to get it to talk business

Sheldon Adelson Wants Nuclear Strike on Iran — Says Two-States 'Russian Roulette'
Adelson, the multi-billionaire casino magnate known for his support of Republican causes, his close relationship with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and his Jewish philanthropy, spoke broadly on a range of topics.

netanyahu1




Netanyahu’s rage at Iran nuclear deal is fueled by 1938 Western betrayal at Munich

For PM and others, Israel is Czechoslovakia, Geneva is Munich, P5+1 are Chamberlain’s heirs and American Jews should now atone for Holocaust silence.
By Chemi Shalev | Nov. 11, 2013 | 10:58 PM | 6
Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Nov. 10, 2013. Photo by Reuters
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, to paraphrase Groucho Marx, cannot accept any agreement that Iran has agreed to. Conversely, the only nuclear accord that Israel can live with is one that Tehran can’t.
Actually, nothing short of complete and utter dismantlement of Iran’s nuclear infrastructure can convince Israel that the mullahs in Tehran have changed their ways. That Iran has given up its quest for nuclear weapons. That Tehran is no longer pursuing a bomb with which to achieve regional hegemony and to threaten Israel with extinction.
In his book “A Place Among The Nations,” Netanyahu wrote about the Iranian drive for nuclear weapons. In this very context, he noted that a “deep cultural and psychological distortion” of Islamic fundamentalism has turned it into a “cancerous tumor that threatens modern civilization”. You don’t treat cancer by reasoning with it. You need to stop it in its tracks, and then eradicate it altogether.
In Netanyahu’s eyes, Iran’s fanatic regime is no more capable of reversing its raison d’etre than the National Socialists were in Germany or the Bolshevik communists in the Soviet Union. The only realistic way of neutralizing the clear and present danger presented by Iran is by using the methods that worked so well against similar evil tyrannies in the past: subjugation or regime change or both. The Allies vanquished the Nazis by using brute military force, while the United States caused the collapse of the Soviet Union by bringing its overwhelming economic and technological superiority to bear.
It follows, therefore, that any accommodation with the ayatollahs is, by definition, weak-kneed appeasement, a clear indication of Western naiveté, an act of capitulation to rival Neville Chamberlain’s 1938 surrender to Adolf Hitler.
Declarations by Iranian President Hassan Rohani that Iran is not seeking a nuclear bomb are as worthless as Hitler’s signature on Chamberlain’s infamous “piece of paper” in which the two leaders proclaimed “their desire never to go to war with one another again.” And under the surface of U.S. pledges to safeguard Israel’s security one can hear distant echoes of Chamberlain’s blunt words to the British Parliament: “However much we may sympathize with a small nation confronted by a big and powerful neighbor, we cannot in all circumstances undertake to involve the whole British Empire in war simply on her account.”
Indeed, Netanyahu’s harsh reaction to reports of the impending agreement in Geneva were but an unrehearsed, gut-instinct rendition of a speech from which he is sure to quote if such a deal is ultimately concluded: “We have sustained a defeat without a war, the consequences of which will travel far with us along our road,” as Winston Churchill told the House of Commons a few days after the Munich Agreement was signed. And as he told Chamberlain: “You were given the choice between dishonor and war. You chose dishonor, but you will have war.”
The analogy may seem contrived, lopsided or farfetched to many and perhaps even most outside observers, but for Netanyahu, indeed for many Israelis, the concept of “Western Betrayal” has a deep and enduring resonance that is pertinent and prominent to this very day. In fact, its impact has probably increased exponentially in recent decades, as the Holocaust has claimed an ever-growing presence in Israel’s educational system, political discourse and national psyche.
The Munich precedent has consistently featured as a staple of Netanyahu’s core beliefs. In “A Place Among the Nations”, written in 1995, Netanyahu devotes significant space to the Hitler-Chamberlain analogy, comparing Israel to pre-War Czechoslovakia, Judea and Samaria to the German-speaking Sudetenland, a generic Arab monolith to Nazi Germany, and the Palestinian claims of human rights abuses and demand for self-determination to the irredentist provocations of the Sudeten Nazis led by Konrad Henlein.
“It is small wonder that like in other anti-Israeli schemes, the Arabs are implementing important chapters from the propaganda strategy of the Nazis,” Netanyahu wrote. “But what is surprising and disappointing is that fact that elitist circles in the West were quick to ‘swallow’ this transparent fraud.”
Unlike Menachem Begin, Netanyahu has made only rare public comparisons between Yasser Arafat and Hitler, but he was far less restrained when it came to the Iranian regime and former President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. In a 2006 Knesset speech, Netanyahu said that the Iranian president was even worse than the Nazi Fuehrer. "Hitler went out on a world campaign first, and then tried to get nuclear weapons. Iran is trying to get nuclear arms first. Therefore, from that perspective, it is much more dangerous," he said.
And if Iran is Nazi Germany, and its nuclear plans are but an updated version of the Final Solution, then it follows that U.S. Jews are now being given a chance to atone for their self-inflicted silence during the Holocaust. This was the undisguised gist of Netanyahu’s audacious “I will not be silenced” statement this week at the Jewish General Assembly in which he called on American Jews to fight the proposed deal in Geneva: “When the Jewish people were silent on matters relating to our survival, you know what happened. This is different,” he said.  
That leaves U.S. President Barack Obama with a choice of alternatively being cast as history’s ultimate Patsy Chamberlain or as America’s thirty-second president, Franklin Delano Roosevelt. But this is not your Jewish grandfather’s FDR who saved the American economy from collapse and the world from Fascist domination. This is the FDR who “abandoned the Jews,” who succumbed to the anti-Semites in his midst, whose public image has been slowly evolving in recent years from being a hero of the Jews to a misguided leader who was callous about their tragic fate.
These will be the popular Israeli terms of reference, no matter what is ultimately concluded in a nuclear accord with Iran. Even under much improved stipulations, Netanyahu’s scrutiny of such an agreement will be filtered through a 75-year-old prism and a direct line will be drawn from Geneva to Munich and back.
Follow me on Twitter @ChemiShalev 


Haaretz--Obama and Kerry's betrayal of 'never again'
What President Obama means when he says he has Israel's back is that he will partner with Israel's enemies behind its back, giving succor to a regime that operates against both Israel and the U.S.
By | Nov. 24, 2013 | 11:03 PM
“Never again” was the statement Menachem Begin made after sending a wave of F-16s against Iraq’s nuclear reactor. "There won't be another Holocaust in History. Never again."
No such language could have been used by President Obama in respect of the agreement reached in Geneva. In plain English, the best that could be said of it is that — for the time being — the mullahs can keep their crematoria, so to speak, on standby.
That may sound harsh. But feature the fact that President Obama has been saying for years that he has Israel’s back. What this turns out to mean is that he will treat with Israel’s enemies behind Israel’s back, enter a partnership with them on terms to which the freely elected government in Jerusalem objects, and in boasting about the betrayal declare that Israel has good reason to be skeptical of Iran’s intentions.
The intentions about which this deal raises questions are Obama’s — and not just his. The concerns of those of us who opposed the elevation of John Kerry to Secretary of State go way beyond Tehran. This, after all, is not the first time Kerry went to Europe to treat with an American enemy and emerged to put the gloss on the enemy’s position. He began his political career by traveling to Paris in 1970 to meet with envoys of communist Vietnam.
It took fewer than five years between Kerry’s trip to Paris as a young reserve officer in the Navy and the decision of the 94th United States Congress to abandon free Vietnam. People tend to forget the particulars. There were no American combat troops in Vietnam when the Congress voted to cut off all aid to Saigon. It just decided to pivot out of Indochina and move on, ignoring the pleas of President Gerald Ford and Secretary of State Kissinger. The devil took the hindmost.
We’re a long way from that in respect of Israel. But President Obama clearly understood what he was doing when he picked Kerry as state secretary. And picked, in Charles Hagel, a defense secretary who had also turned against the war in Vietnam. A lot of patriotic Americans turned against the war in Vietnam. All the more reason to remember the consequences. The last negotiation for which Kerry plumped plunged a population the size of Eastern Europe’s into the darkness of communism.
Neither Kerry nor Obama were alive at the time of Munich. But the catastrophe of 1938 was well marked on Sunday by Israeli MK Moshe Feiglin, who called the handshake at Geneva this weekend “the Iranian version of the Munich Agreement.” He noted that like the doughty Czechs in 1938, Israel was not a party to the parley. “Israel today watches from the sidelines,” is the way he put it.
One could but add that there was one difference between Geneva today and Munich in 1938. The envoys of the free European governments knew deep down that they had blundered at Munich. “Imbeciles” was the word Prime Minister Daladier of France famously muttered when, on his arrival back at Paris, he was cheered by throngs of his countrymen. Where is the self-awareness in the Western leadership today?
We are but 15 years after India stunned the world by disclosing that it had an A-bomb. Yet “after spending billions of dollars,” the New York Times spumed in its astonishment, our spies “inexplicably gave President Clinton no warning that India was ready to test nuclear weapons.” It and the rest of the Left was almost inchoate with surprise when the North Koreans betrayed their assurances in respect of their own atomic bomb.
It is too soon to tell what the Republicans in Washington will make of the deal in Geneva. But there is a faction that reckons the problem in Iran is not only the weapons but the regime, which for years has been operating against us, surreptitiously in combat, the same as it has against Israel. This faction reckons that Reagan would have long since either found a way to bolster Iran’s democratic opposition or helped found a government-in-exile of Iran that could have levied a revolution. That is the surest way to put the “never” in the phrase “never again.”
Seth Lipsky is editor of The New York Sun. He was a foreign editor and a member of the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal, the founding editor of The Forward and its editor from 1990 to 2000. His books include “The Citizen’s Constitution: An Annotated Guide,” and most recently “The Rise of Abraham Cahan.”


Haaretz--Total, unmitigated defeat
President Obama had to choose between dishonor and war, and he chose dishonor. Now we will have war. He has dishonored US allies in the Middle East, including Israel and the Persian Gulf states, by abandoning their security concerns regarding a nuclear Iran by believing that appeasing Iran is the only way to avoid war.
These words are those of Churchill after the Munich Agreement was signed, when Britain and France believed that handing Czechoslovakia to Hitler was the only way to save the world from another war. It is regarded as the shameful culmination of the Allies refusal to confront Nazi aggression and gave Hitler what he wanted in exchange for his verbal promise of "peace in our time" as Chamberlain called it.After the Munich Agreement, Churchill gave a speech in the House of Commons on the future consequences to Europe and the world of the agreement which he called “total and unmitigated defeat." Following the Geneva agreement, these warnings ring as true now as they did then.
W
e cannot consider the abandonment of US allies only in the light of what happened the last few weeks. This agreement in Geneva is the culmination of the uninterrupted retreat of US power under Obama for the last five years in the Middle East. For five years, the president has been betraying Israel, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the UAE but accommodating enemies and tyrants like Syria’s Assad, Iran’s Khamenei, and Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood. (...)
US will not be trusted again
Obama, Kerry and other White House official’s panicky statements during the last two weeks that threatening to impose additional sanctions on Iran will be a "march to war" reassured the Iranians that Obama was desperate for any deal. US officials' defamatory attacks against legitimate Israeli concerns about a potential bad deal by calling them "war mongers" and keeping many of the details of the negotiations from them, as well as US reluctance to attack Syria, has told the Israelis that there is no longer any credible US military option against Iran.
Israel is not Czechoslovakia. Israel was abandoned by its ally but it is not broken and will never be silent. Israel is a nuclear power and can attack Iran on its own like it did against the Iraqi and Syrian nuclear reactors. The only obstacle is that Obama has tied Israeli hands for the next six months of negotiations. By then Iran will be a month away from building a bomb.
Knowing that Obama will never attack Iran militarily and will do his best to delay Israel from attacking Iran in time will have disastrous consequences to the Middle East.(...)

La juiverie sioniste admet qu'Israël détient un arsenal nucléaire et prétend que sa survie en dépend! C'est pour cette raison que ses voisins ont été forcés eux aussi de se munir de telles armes ou du moins d'armes chimiques.

The NYT article by Anne Barnard reported, “Some government supporters — and indeed, some rebel fighters — have criticized the deal as giving up weapons that belong to the Syrian people and are needed as a deterrent against Israel, which maintains an undeclared nuclear arsenal. But Syrian officials said that the weapons were of little practical use and that giving them up allowed them to claim new moral standing and draw attention to the push for the elimination of Israel’s nuclear weapons.”
Un Moyen-Orient sans nucléaire et sans armes chimiques, c'est surtout pas Israël qui veut ça! C'est la Syrie et l'Iran. Israël a accumulé un important arsenal chimique et nucléaire, soi-disant pour assurer sa survie. En voyant Israël faire ça et les menacer en plus, les autres pays qui environnent Israël ont été forcés de se procurer un arsenal chimique.

Obama paying ‘lip service’ on Iran strike option, says top MK C'est exactement que nous disons depuis le début du premier mandat d'Obama...

AIPAC, AJC won’t suspend Iran sanctions lobbying; ADL willing
AIPAC: ‘Absolutely no pause’ in Iran sanctions lobbying
US Jewish groups divided over more Iran sanctions



Selon Peter Novick, pour reprendre contact avec la réalité et retrouver leur confiance envers le monde, les juifs doivent comprendre qu'il n'y a aucune leçon particulière à apprendre de la "Shoah"...

August 17, 1999
Vexing NewBook
By MICHIKO KAKUTANI
http://img1.imagesbn.com/p/9780618082322_p0_v1_s260x420.JPG

THE HOLOCAUST IN AMERICAN LIFE By Peter Novick. 373 pp. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company. $27.
In his vexing new book, "The Holocaust in American Life," Peter Novick proposes to look at such questions as why has the Holocaust "come to loom so large" in contemporary American culture, what its cultural visibility says about American Jews and American society at large and what consequences its heightened place in our collective memory has on our thinking and our foreign policy. In addressing such issues, Novick, the author of "The Resistance Versus Vichy: The Purge of Collaborators in Liberated France" and a founder of the University of Chicago's program in Jewish studies, takes a willfully contrarian attitude toward the Holocaust and those he dismissively refers to as "Holocaust-memory professionals."
NovickHe argues that there are no "useful" lessons to be drawn from the Holocaust, and he suggests that the high level of Holocaust awareness in American society stems in large measure from decisions made by Jews who "occupy strategic positions in the mass media" -- remarks that echo assertions made by revisionist historians who play down the Nazi crimes of World War II.
Throughout this book, Novick contests the view that the United States should have done more during World War II to help the Jews, arguing that such "guilt talk" has simply provided useful leverage in persuading Americans that they have a continuing obligation to support Israel. He argues that the question of Allied bombing of the railway lines to the Nazi concentration camps "can be dismissed immediately," because "massive experience" taught us that "bombing rail lines was hardly ever effective," and adds that there were "dim practical possibilities" for other rescue attempts of the Jews.
As for the question of why the United States did not ease its restrictive prewar immigration policy to allow more Jews sanctuary, he writes that America was "still not out of the Depression, with unemployment still high" and that "anti-immigration sentiment was so strong in Congress and among the general public that to open the question for debate seemed likely to worsen rather than to ease conditions; better to leave bad enough alone."
For the first 20 years or so after World War II, Novick observes, the Holocaust was "hardly talked about": survivors were encouraged not to look back but to look forward to building new lives, and the upbeat, universalist Zeitgeist of those postwar years made the Holocaust "an inappropriate symbol of the contemporary mood." In addition, he says, the Cold War -- which taught that the Soviet Union, not Germany, was the new enemy, and totalitarianism, not Nazism, the great evil -- made "the Holocaust the 'wrong atrocity"' for purposes of galvanizing this new thinking.
EichmannIn the 1960s, all this began to change, as the Eichmann [left] trial raised consciousness of the Holocaust "as an entity in its own right, distinct from Nazi barbarism in general." The anxious prelude to the Six-Day War of 1967 fed fears of a renewed Holocaust among American Jews -- fears heightened further during the 1973 Yom Kippur War, which left many with the image of an isolated and vulnerable Israel.
"After 1967, and particularly after 1973," Novick writes, "much of the world came to see the Middle East conflict as grounded in the Palestinian struggle to, belatedly, accomplish the U.N.'s original intention. There were strong reasons for Jewish organizations to ignore all this, however, and instead to conceive of Israel's difficulties as stemming from the world's having forgotten the Holocaust. The Holocaust framework allowed one to put aside as irrelevant any legitimate grounds for criticizing Israel, to avoid even considering the possibility that the rights and wrongs were complex."
While concerns about Israel's security declined in the 1980s and 90s, Novick says, the Holocaust became more of a focal point for American Jews during those same years because it "offered a substitute symbol of infinitely greater moral clarity" than the problematic Israeli-Palestinian conflict. At the same time, he suggests, the rise of identity politics and the "culture of victimization" made it acceptable, even fashionable, for American Jews "to embrace a victim identity based on the Holocaust." In his view, the Holocaust became "virtually the only common denominator of American Jewish identity in the late 20th century" as assimilation and intermarriage led to a thinning sense of Jewish commitment among the young.
It is Novick's startling contention that while "there's nothing wrong with the affirmative lessons the Washington Holocaust Museum attempts to teach," such lessons "seem, if not useless, hardly necessary." He argues that the very extremity of the Holocaust and "the extremity of the circumstances in which it unfolded" seriously "limit its capacity to provide lessons applicable in our everyday world," adding that "an unintended consequence of our making the Holocaust our central symbol of atrocity" may in fact be a "desensitization" to other cases of mass death.
In support of this theory, he notes that the Persian Gulf war was motivated by geopolitical considerations, not moral outrage, and that the 1994 Rwandan genocide elicited "not the slightest will in American political circles for any U.S. intervention." He does not address the Kosovo crisis at all (though his book may have well gone to press before NATO air strikes began).
Although Novick has some useful things to say about the dangers of dwelling in the memory of oppression, although he can be eloquent on the sectarian use of the Holocaust as an easy moral touchstone, such observations are completely overshadowed by this volume's deliberate cynicism. Novick writes that survivors' memories "are not a very useful historical source." He glibly tosses around phrases like "the gold medal in the Victimization Olympics" and "Jewish moral capital." He asserts that for Jewish organizations intent on capturing the attention of a younger generation, "the Holocaust looked like the one item in stock with consumer appeal."
This flippant tone reflects Novick's determination to not merely demystify the Holocaust, but to diminish its place in the collective imagination. While he argues that Hitler would triumph if Jews were "to tacitly endorse his definition" of them "as despised pariahs by making the Holocaust the emblematic Jewish experience," the words of the scholar Emil Fackenheim remain a potent warning of the real dangers of forgetting the past: "We are commanded [to remember] the martyrs of the Holocaust, lest their memory perish," he declared in 1967. "We are forbidden . . . to deny or despair of God . . . lest Judaism perish. . . . To abandon any of these imperatives, in response to Hitler's victory at Auschwitz, would be to hand him yet other, posthumous victories."




Ex-Knesset speaker confirms Israel’s possession of nukes

Avram Burg a écrit l'ouvrage : THE HOLOCAUST IS OVER: WE MUST RISE FROM ITS ASHES.
"L'Holocauste" on en a assez et vous les juifs devriez décrocher une fois pour toute. C'est rendu maladif votre affaire...



Amazon.com
Publié en Israël en 2007, Vaincre Hitler a suscité de très débats. Et pour cause : l'auteur, ancien président de la Knesset y déplore le fait qu'Israël, plus de soixante ans après Auschwitz, définit son identité quasi exclusivement par rapport à l'Holocauste. (...) L' "autre" ne devrait plus être perçu, selon Burg, comme une menace, mais comme un potentiel de coopération.

The Holocaust Is Over; We Must Rise From its Ashes 
By Avraham Burg, 2009


Modern-day Israel, and the Jewish community, are strongly influenced by the memory and horrors of Hitler and the Holocaust. Burg argues that the Jewish nation has been traumatized and has lost the ability to trust itself, its neighbors or the world around it. He shows that this is one of  the causes for the growing nationalism and violence that are plaguing Israeli society and reverberating through Jewish communities worldwide. Burg uses his own family history--his parents were Holocaust survivors--to inform his innovative views on what the Jewish people need to do to move on and eventually live in peace with their Arab neighbors and feel comfortable in the world at large.


“This is an important book by a very courageous man. The shadow of the Shoah and its abusive application to the contemporary Middle East have been a catastrophe for Jews, Israelis and Arabs alike. In Burg's view Israel must move beyond Hitler's poisoned legacy. If they cannot or will not do this, the Middle East will never see peace and Israel has no future.” 
-- Tony Judt, bestselling author of Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 and Professor at New York University

“An Israeli-born son of Holocaust survivors, Burg addresses a heartfelt plea to his countrymen: remember the past, but do not be its slaves; pathology is neither patriotism nor statescraft.  A compelling and eloquent cri de coeur from a veteran of Israel's wars and politics.” 
-- Howard M. Sachar, bestselling author of A History of the Jews in the Modern World and A History of Israel

"Burg takes a blunt, loving, painful and desperately important look at the state of the Jewish soul today. Anyone who cares about the future of the Middle East and the fate of victimized peoples needs to read this book and think hard." 
-- J.J. Goldberg, author of Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment and Editorial Director of The Forward
“This fascinating and thought-provoking book should be read by every person who cares about Israel. Burg's central theme is that Israeli leaders use the memory of the Holocaust in ways that are warping the country's soul, creating unnecessary fear, and making it impossible to achieve peace with the Palestinians.” 
-- John J. Mearsheimer, bestselling author of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago 

"[An] assured and provocative polemic. . . . [A] lecture with much wisdom . . . worthy of global consideration."
-- Kirkus Reviews
“An honest reflection of a tormented man searching for the universal values in Judaism.” 
-- Le Figaro

“In this book of memories and reflections, the former Knesset Speaker delivers his disquieting findings about Israel that 'became a Kingdom without a prophesy.'... Foremost a book of hope from a man who wants to find ways to return Judaism to its universal calling.”  
--Le Monde

“Short of being Prime Minister, Burg could not be higher in the Zionist establishment.” 
David Remnick, The New Yorker
"Mr. Burg...wrote a powerful book, an indictment of how Zionism and the Holocaust have been used."
--Globe and Mail
 "[A] compelling mix of polemic, personal memoir, homage to his parents and meditation on Judaism." 
--The Independent
"Avraham Burg has great faith in the creative power of argument. His book has already provoked much controversy and now that it has been translated is certain to provoke more. At a time when crass, catchpenny titles pour from the presses, it is that unusual thing: A new book that matters." 
-- Arab News

VIDEO - (2 PARTS) FORMER SPEAKER OF THE ISRAELI KNESSET AVRAHAM BURG: Former Speaker of the Israeli Parliament Avraham Burg on "The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise from its Ashes"
See also: On Israel and the Holocaust: We Don't Have a Monopoly on Suffering ; 'Jewish democracy an oxymoron' ; Des thèses racistes soutenues par des ministres israéliens ; L'instrumentalisation vulgaire de la Shoah ; VIDEO - Sur l'occupation et la colonisation israélienne 1/2 - 2/2



 
Zionist Supremacists Now Censoring Facts about 1967 “Six Day War”

Tourism minister tells Ynet that 'no gestures should be made prior to talks'; objects to discussing 1967 borders, dubbing them 'Auschwitz' borders.

Landau: 1967 lines are 'Auschwitz borders
Tourism Minister Uzi Landau called pre-1967 lines "Auschwitz borders" ahead of Sunday's cabinet meeting. Landau's comments, quoting a well-known turn of phrase by former foreign minister Abba Eban from 1969, came after US Secretary of State John Kerry visited the region and called for a treaty based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps.

The Simon Wiesenthal Center commended President Obama's call for further democratization in the Arab world but expressed deep disappointment that he called for Israel's return to the pre-June 1967 borders.
"Auschwitz" Borders:  A term coined by Israel's Foreign Minister Abba Eban who warned that a return to pre-1967 Six Day War borders would be Auschwitz borders for Israel.

Minister Landau: Yes, They're Auschwitz Borders
Tourism Minister stands behind his statement opposing a return to pre-1967 lines.

Israeli Minister: A Palestinian State is not the Solution
The meeting with Tourism Minister Uzi Landau took place a day after he publicly quoted the well-known maxim of former Foreign Minister Abba Eban, "The '67 borders remind us of the borders of Auschwitz." These words were uttered by Landau at the beginning of a government meeting that took place on Sunday (May 26) and were widely quoted in the news broadcasts. (...)
Isn't the Holocaust comparison somewhat exaggerated? After all, the president proclaims the vision of two states, and allows us to understand that he and the prime minister are in agreement … (...) Former Foreign Minister Abba Eban used that expression in 1969. Dozens of years have passed since then …
"That doesn't make these borders less Auschwitz-like. Before '67, they didn't have Katyusha rockets and missiles to the extent owned today by Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south that constitute a strategic threat to Israel. One thing must be clear: A Palestinian state is not the solution."


Bibi: the 1967 lines are ‘Auschwitz Borders’ By Frank Dimant CEO, B’nai Brith Canada
Once again, the United States is applying significant pressure on Israel to advance the Middle East peace process. Not satisfied with Israel’s freeing of over a hundred Palestinian terrorists with blood on their hands, Israel is called upon, once again, to accept the 1967 armistice lines, better known to informed Mideast observers as the “Auschwitz Lines”, as the basis for a starting point to the peace talks.
Ceux que le PDG de la B'nai Brith appelle "des observateurs informés", c-à-d ceux qui qualifient les vieilles frontières israéliennes de 1967 de "frontières d'Auschwitz", ce sont LES POLITICIENS ET ANALYSTES SIONISTES ISRAÉLIENS LES PLUS EXTÉMISTES! C'est connu dans la société israélienne que ceux qui tiennent ce discours en Israël ce sont les politiciens les plus à droite (incluant également plusieurs analystes qui se disent "de gauche" mais qui suivent quand même les idées radicales pro-colonisation normalisées par la droite).


Israel's Post-Traumatic Society
To Understand Israel, Understand the Holocaust
Given this state of affairs, one can certainly fathom the distrust that Israelis have in their surroundings. Their fear of a second attempt to exterminate them is certainly understandable, as is the term “Auschwitz borders,” coined by legendary Foreign Minister Abba Eban [1966–1974] in reference to a return to the 1967 borders. A nation which experienced that less than a hundred years ago will have a hard time shutting themselves up in a country that is just nine miles wide, especially given the fact that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims stirring behind those borders, and that some of those Muslims refer to the Jews as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” call openly for jihad and refuse to come to terms with the existence of a Jewish entity in the historic land of Israel.

Lieberman: The Conflict with the Arabs Has No Solution
"It is important to negotiate - and even more important that negotiations be conducted on the basis of reality and without illusions," he said. Lieberman noted that he has said many times that there is no solution to the conflict, at least not in the coming years. "What is possible and important to do is to manage the conflict," he wrote. He said that Israel must not agree that the negotiations be conducted on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, reminding that the late former Minister Abba Eban “called them Auschwitz borders" due to the fact that they would guarantee Israel’s destruction. In addition, said Lieberman, it is important to make clear to the PA that "there will be no construction freeze. Not in Jerusalem and not in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria."

Forget About It
Pro-Israel readers of the New York Times were startled on Sept. 15 when the Times’s widely read Sunday opinion section featured a commentary by Ian Lustick, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania,who contends that the long dreamed-of “two state solution” for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is an “illusion.” Often denounced as being a critic of Israel and accused of being “anti-Zionist,” Lustick—who is Jewish—suggests that a variety of elements (including self-interest on the part of many different players involved, including American politicians) has gotten bogged down in the two-state dream. Although he doesn’t suggest it directly, Lustick is hinting not-so-broadly at the concept of a demilitarized, secular “Holy Land State” first widely publicized in The Spotlight (forerunner of AMERICAN FREE PRESS) by the late Haviv Schieber. (American Free Press, Oct 7, 2013)


Israel busy trying to kick off World War III
Le renseignement américain informe les médias sur les bombardements israéliens en Syrie et à Gaza: Israel se sent trahie

‘Scandalous’: Israel fumes as US officials spill the beans on Syrian missile strike

Israel ‘furious’ with White House for leak on Syria strike

Israeli Warplanes Attacked Syria: Tel Aviv outraged by US Intelligence Leaks Concerning Strike

US claims Israel attacked Russian missile shipment in Syria Americans accused of damaging 'trust between allies' by revealing Latakia air strike

Airstrikes on Syria: Israel Acts While US and Europe Fret About Intelligence: Intelligence leaks attributed to Washington are a growing concern for the Israeli government (Aux yeux d'Israel, les USA sont en train de faire des Snowden d'eux-mêmes... c-à-d des "traîtres"!)

Kissinger wants Israel to know: The U.S. saved you during the 1973 war

Foxman: Perceived U.S. weakness endangering Israel, American Jews
Ça montre que pour eux, il faut que les USA soient intimidants et face l'étalage de sa puissance en faisant des guerres et en inspirant la terreur  dans le monde. Les USA sont leur "police mondiale", c'est leur Golem, leur assurance-vie! Si les USA ne font pu peur à personne, les juifs se croient vulnérables et sans défense!

Guerres impérialistes: Seule la guerre permanente fait survivre Israël…
Un analyste politique dit que le régime israélien a besoin de déclencher des guerres à travers le monde, spécifiquement au Moyen-Orient, s’il veut assurer sa survie et demeurer le récepteur principal de l’aide financière et militaire américaine, rapporte Press TV.

Israel better off with Arab tyrants  Op-ed: In the name of our egoistic interest, we only want dictators in our neighborhood. Let Washington deal with democracy and freedom of expression.
Quel aveu! C'est ça que je dis depuis longtemps. Israel veut juste des méchants arabes excités autour de lui, pour lui servir de repoussoir. Car si Israel est entouré d'États modérés et pleins de bon sens, c'est Israel qui passe pour le méchant.

ULTRA JEW Cantor Seeks New House Resolution to Kill Iran Talks

Eric Cantor Girds His Iran War Loins

Cette histoire de "jihad du sexe" continue d'être reprise dans les médiats alternatifs, même si ça fait longtemps qu'elle a été débunké!
Vous allez être déçus : le « Jihad Nikah » (Djihad du sexe) en Syrie n’a jamais existé!
Même des médiats anti-Assad reconnaissent le mensonge:
Spiegel online: ‘Sex Jihad’ and Other Lies: Assad’s Elaborate Disinformation Campaign Syrian President Assad's regime is waging a PR campaign to spread stories that discredit its rivals and distract from its own crimes. Aided by gullible networks and foreign media, it has included tales of rebels engaging in "sex jihad" and massacring Christians.

Canada plans to invade Syria


Sur ce blog:


NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL - PLUS JAMAIS DE GUERRES POUR ISRAËL! Prévisible false flag israélien et pressions sionistes pour envoyer l'Occident se battre pour les intétêts d'Israël

Un lobbyiste pro-israélien appelle à provoquer un nouveau Pearl Harbor pour déclencher une guerre contre l'Iran

L'utilisation d'armes chimiques en Syrie pourrait être un false flag israélien, selon l'ancien chef de cabinet de Colin Powell sous l'administration Bush, le colonel à la retraite Lawrence Wilkerson

John McCain et les guerres pour Israël

Devoir de mémoire devoir de vitrifier l'Iran

NY Times: Sans ennemi extérieur à combattre, Israël est voué à l'éclatement

“Ils menacent de sanctions et de représailles militaires tous ceux qui émettent des doutes sur la Shoah et le 11 septembre" -- Président Ahmadinejad

Inversion accusatoire : l'empire israélite accuse l'Iran d'être "la plus grave menace pour la paix dans le monde"

L'Iran ne croit pas la fable convenue du 11 septembre ; les États-Unis en mal de casus belli l'accusent d'avoir monté le coup

Le Hamas dénonce l'escroquerie de l'Holocauste

Le devoir de mémoire: source de motivation pour Alex Jones dans son combat, fondement du nouvel ordre mondial pour le B'nai Brith

L'option Samson: Israël menace le monde entier de déclencher un cataclysme nucléaire

Guerres sionistes: vers la délivrance ultime

S'ils vont en enfer ils nous emportent avec eux

THE JEWISH WAR OF SURVIVAL, By Arnold Leese



Les résultats de l'utilisation par Israël d'armes prohibées

Cancers et autres conséquences de l'utilisation par Israël d'armes prohibées par les lois internationales

Israël poursuit ses bombardements contre des civils dans Gaza: au tour des F-16, des armes illégales et d'une centaine de tanks de nettoyer la place

Armes non-conventionnelles expérimentées par Israël à Gaza

Gazés à Gaza

Déni de l'holocauste palestinien (Nakba) et criminalisation de sa mémoire par Israël

"Les Palestiniens et leur gouvernement doivent périr", déclare un rabbin orthodoxe israélien influent

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

Le responsable des crimes de guerre à Gaza en 2009

Célébrer le meurtre des Palestiniens est une Mitzvah (bonne action), déclare un rabbin d'une colonie illégale

L'Holocauste justifierait le trafic d'organes