Si ces chrétiens sionistes du Texas aiment les juifs à ce point, ils devraient les accueillir chez eux, pour résoudre une fois pour toute le problème israélo-palestinien.
Creating a “New Israel”, a Jewish State in Southeast Texas
The “Uganda Plan” Revisited? US Congressional Candidate Proposes Creation of Jewish Homeland in Southeast Texas
Global Research, April 28, 2014
A congressional candidate named Allan Levene is proposing a solution
to Israel’s problem with the Palestinians (since 1948) by creating a
second ‘Israeli’ state in Eastern Texas. Yes, you read this right.
Eastern Texas. According to the Times of Israel, Mr. Levene’s idea would
only work if “eminent domain” is established by the US government and if Israel withdraws to it pre-1967 borders. That would set the stage for a ‘New Israel’ within the United States:
The idea, briefly, is to take (through
eminent domain) roughly 8,000 square miles of sparsely populated land
bordering the Gulf of Mexico and give it to Israel as a second,
non-contiguous part of the State of Israel. Israel would get the land
only if it agrees to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders
I would be curious to see how Texans would react to a Jewish homeland
in East Texas. Besides one of the largest pro-Israel organizations in
the United States is located in San Antonio, Texas called ‘Christians
United for Israel (CUFI)’ who wish to educate Christians on why they
should support the State of Israel:
While millions of Christians support
Israel, there are millions more who do not yet vocally stand up for the
Jewish state. It is crucial to educate Christians on the Biblical and
moral imperatives to support Israel and to build Christian support for
Israel throughout America
If Levene’s plan follows through if he is elected to congress, Will
Texans still support a state of Israel in their own backyard? But Levene
says “everybody wins” if the US government agrees to partition the state of Texas:
Israel wins because it would gain a new,
peaceful territory far from the strife of the Middle East, in a place
where, as Levene suggests, “the climate is similar,” and Israel could
“have access to the Gulf of Mexico for international trade.” The U.S.
wins because it would no longer need to send Israel billions of dollars a
year in foreign aid. Texas wins because of all the construction jobs
from building an entirely new state within its borders. The Palestinians
win because they get the West Bank, and because now Israel, too, gets
to see just how fun it is to have a non-contiguous state. Everybody
wins!
The father of modern-political Zionism and the founder of the State
of Israel, Thomas Hertzl considered a number of locations including
Uganda, Argentina and even Alaska to form a Zionist state of Israel. The
Times of Israel also stated:
And, in fact, it’s an idea with plenty of
precedent. Theodor Herzl temporarily embraced a British proposal to
establish a Jewish homeland in Uganda (though the backlash against the
idea almost destroyed the Zionist movement). And in 1938-40, various
plans were floated to settle European Jewish refugees in the Alaska
territories – a notion that later inspired Michael Chabon’s novel, “The
Yiddish Policeman’s Union.”
This idea of a Jewish State besides one based in Palestine is not
new. An interesting event took place in Basel, Switzerland on August
26th, 1903. Before the British government offered the country of
Palestine to the Zionist political movement in 1948, a country in Africa
called Uganda was on the list of possible future Jewish settlements
known as the “Uganda Plan”. Before Palestine was turned into the state
of Israel, Uganda was seen as a possible home for the Jewish people who
were persecuted in Russia. They were subject to anti-Jewish sentiments
among the Russian population. Other areas in the world were also
considered for a Jewish homeland including Patagonia in Southern part of
Argentina.
In Joseph Telushkin’s ‘Jewish Literacy: The Most Important Things to
Know about the Jewish Religion, Its People, and Its History’ stated a
historical fact that “Britain stepped into the picture, offering
Herzl land in the largely undeveloped area of Uganda (today, it would be
considered an area of Kenya).” The proposal was controversial to
the Jewish community. The idea was rejected at the Seventh Zionist
Congress in 1905. It is interesting to note that a small number of
Jewish families did immigrate to Kenya before and after World War II,
mostly in the capital of Nairobi. Today, there are a few hundred Kenyan
Jews living in Nairobi.
It is hard to imagine the state of Israel in Africa. Besides, racism
in Israel is comparable to Apartheid South Africa in the 1960’s. With
Ethiopian Black Jews living in Israel facing unprecedented levels of
racism including the forced massed sterilizations on Ethiopian women
according to a report conducted by Haaretz in 2012 reported that “Women
who immigrated from Ethiopia eight years ago say they were told they
would not be allowed into Israel unless they agreed to be injected with
the long-acting birth control drug Depo Provera, according to an
investigative report aired Saturday on the Israel Educational Television
program “Vacuum.” According to IRIN, a humanitarian news and
analysis service launched by the United Nations Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) in 2012, racism against
Ethiopian Jews in Israel does exist:
An estimated 125,000 Ethiopian Jews live
in Israel, but while they are supposed to be full citizens with equal
rights, their community has continued to face widespread discrimination
and socio-economic difficulties, according to its leaders. A recent
decision – as reported by local media – by 120 homeowners not to sell or
rent their apartments to Israeli-Ethiopian families has brought
discrimination against Ethiopian Jews in Israel back into the spotlight.
Hundreds of Ethiopian Israelis took to
the streets on 18 January to protest the move by landlords in the
southern city of Kiryat Malakhi – Shay Sium’s hometown.
It is an interesting part of history that forces to ask the question:
What if Israel did make Uganda, a country in Eastern-Africa their home?
If the Palestinians, Ethiopian and Sephardic Jews suffer from racism in
modern-day Israel, imagine if Uganda was turned into a Jewish homeland?
Would it have been another Palestine? “Shall we choose Palestine or Argentina? Thomas
Hertzl wrote. Argentina? That would have been interesting, but Eastern
Texas as the ‘New Israel’? Would Texan’s then be the new Palestinians?
Creating a state through “eminent domain” would treat the citizens of
Texas as such. And it sure won’t be a good start to diplomatic
relations. What is interesting about Allan Levene is that he is running
for a congressional seat in two states, Hawaii and Georgia under the
Republican Party, but not in the state of Texas.
Another very interesting note on Levene’s candidacy is that “He
also wants to put conspiracy theories to rest by investigating national
catastrophes with not one, not two, but three separate commissions.” I
actually agree with his idea for new commissions, perhaps a new “911
commission?” Allan Levene’s proposal would not happen anytime soon, even
if he is elected. But the real question we should ask is, would
Washington and Brussels consider creating a ‘New Israel’ in Eastern
Texas if a war were to take place in the Middle East resulting in the
destruction of several countries including Israel? It does raise a
serious debate.
About the author:
Timothy Alexander Guzman is
an independent researcher and writer with a focus on political,
economic, media and historical spheres. He has been published in Global
Research, The Progressive Mind, European Union Examiner, News Beacon
Ireland, WhatReallyHappened.com, EIN News and a number of other
alternative news sites. He is a graduate of Hunter College in New York
City
Poll shows: Jews Love Jews, Christians Love Jews, but Jews Despise Christians–Even More than Muslims!
What part of the USA supports Israel the most
Congressional
candidate Allan Levene has a Middle East peace plan: have Israel
exchange the West Bank for this land in southeast Texas.
(http://allanleveneforcongress.com/new-israel/)
With the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations floundering, it may,
perhaps, be time to consider an entirely different kind of two-state
solution. One that involves the State of Texas.
Congressional candidate Allan Levene is proposing to cut the Gordian
Knot of Middle East peace by creating a second State of Israel on the
eastern coast of Texas, which he would call New Israel.
The idea, briefly, is to take (through eminent domain) roughly 8,000
square miles of sparsely populated land bordering the Gulf of Mexico and
give it to Israel as a second, non-contiguous part of the State of
Israel. Israel would get the land only if it agrees to withdraw to its
pre-1967 borders.
Israel wins because it would gain a new, peaceful territory far from
the strife of the Middle East, in a place where, as Levene suggests,
“the climate is similar,” and Israel could “have access to the Gulf of
Mexico for international trade.” The U.S. wins because it would no
longer need to send Israel billions of dollars a year in foreign aid.
Texas wins because of all the construction jobs from building an
entirely new state within its borders. The Palestinians win because they
get the West Bank, and because now Israel, too, gets to see just how
fun it is to have a non-contiguous state. Everybody wins!
And, in fact, it’s an idea with plenty of precedent. Theodor Herzl temporarily embraced a British proposal
to establish a Jewish homeland in Uganda (though the backlash against
the idea almost destroyed the Zionist movement). And in 1938-40, various
plans were floated to settle European Jewish refugees in the Alaska territories – a notion that later inspired Michael Chabon’s novel, “The Yiddish Policeman’s Union.”
Admittedly, the plan raises a few questions. OK, a lot of questions. Texans don’t generally seem too excited about the federal government stepping in and seizing land.
And it’s not clear exactly how the construction of an entirely new
state, and all those delectable construction jobs, gets funded (since,
remember, this is supposed to save the U.S. billions of dollars). And
while Israelis have generally shown plenty of enthusiasm for moving to
places like New York and Los Angeles, coastal Texas has never ranked all
that high on the list of preferred destinations. And – well, you get
the picture. There are questions.
But Allan Levene has never been daunted by long odds – or, for that
matter, by multi-state solutions. A British Jewish immigrant and
naturalized citizen, Levene is simultaneously running for Congress, as a Republican, in two non-contiguous states — Georgia and Hawaii (though not, interestingly, in Texas).
Why, you might ask, is Levene running in two states? Easy – because
he couldn’t get on the ballot in two other states, Minnesota and
Michigan (where he was aiming for two separate congressional districts,
because why not?).
Aside from creating New Israel, Levene also hopes to reduce the
national debt, largely by eliminating U.S. corporate taxes and using
pension rules to set congressional term limits. He also wants to put
conspiracy theories to rest by investigating national catastrophes with
not one, not two, but three separate commissions.
Levene’s candidacies are long shots – his support in polls has been
minimal, and his fundraising has been negligible. The odds that a New
Israel will appear just south of Corpus Christie are not much better.
Allan
Levene really wants to serve in Congress. So much so, that he plans to
run in four states: Georgia. Minnesota. Michigan. Hawaii. It’s puzzling,
but the Republican freely admits his strategy increases his odds of
winning a House seat, CNN reports.
“No matter where you win a seat in
Congress, you go to the same building. You do the same work,” he said.
“You can work for your constituents, which all have similar needs, but
the key is you go to Washington and help solve the country’s problems.”
But if this isn’t bizzare enough, read his plan to solve the Middle East – Israeli – Palestinian Crisis.
For decades, I have watched and read
about our repetitive, traditional efforts to help Israel, all based on
giving money and weapons. Those efforts have failed to provide peace. We
must do something different.
The United States has spent over $118 billion to
help Israel survive and prosper. When adjusted for inflation,
that‘s nearly one-half trillion dollars! Each American family has
“donated” over three thousand dollars of their inflation-adjusted tax dollars to help Israel with no end in sight. In the next four years, our government has agreed to give them twelve billion dollars in military aid alone.
Therefore here‘s a solution, that I call “New Israel”.
New Israel can be the new Promised Land, where peace and prosperity can
dominate, not risk, war and fear that exists in the State of Israel
today and in the future.
I suggest that we carve out a New Israel in the United States, a second non-contiguous part of Israel that can coexist with the country created in 1948.
In the same way that Israel was created, we could unilaterally do it
again, but this time in Texas where the climate is similar and so the
Israelis have access to the Gulf of Mexico for international trade.
Texas
is such a big state that you could drop Israel into it over thirty
times, with room to spare. I believe that we could carve out ~8,500
square miles where I’ve circled on this map without impacting Texas,
except in a positive way.Saturday, April 26, 2014
A ‘New Israel’… in eastern Texas?
Shalom y'all
- Long-shot congressional candidate Allan Levene has a uniquely improbable two-state solution.
With the Israeli-Palestinian peace negotiations floundering, it may,
perhaps, be time to consider an entirely different kind of two-state
solution. One that involves the State of Texas.
.
GOP Congressional candidate Allan Levene is proposing to cut the Gordian Knot of Middle East peace by creating a second State of Israel on the eastern coast of Texas, which he would call New Israel. The idea, briefly, is to take (through eminent domain) roughly 8,000 square miles of sparsely populated land bordering the Gulf of Mexico and give it to Israel as a second, non-contiguous part of the State of Israel. Israel would get the land only if it agrees to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders reports the Times of Israel.
GOP Congressional candidate Allan Levene is proposing to cut the Gordian Knot of Middle East peace by creating a second State of Israel on the eastern coast of Texas, which he would call New Israel. The idea, briefly, is to take (through eminent domain) roughly 8,000 square miles of sparsely populated land bordering the Gulf of Mexico and give it to Israel as a second, non-contiguous part of the State of Israel. Israel would get the land only if it agrees to withdraw to its pre-1967 borders reports the Times of Israel.
.
Israel wins because it would gain a new, peaceful territory far from the strife of the Middle East, in a place where, as Levene suggests, “the climate is similar,” and Israel could “have access to the Gulf of Mexico for international trade."
Israel wins because it would gain a new, peaceful territory far from the strife of the Middle East, in a place where, as Levene suggests, “the climate is similar,” and Israel could “have access to the Gulf of Mexico for international trade."
 |
| Allen Levene Allan Levene for Congress |
The U.S. wins
because it would no longer need to send Israel billions of dollars a
year in foreign aid. Texas wins because of all the construction jobs
from building an entirely new state within its borders. The Palestinians
win because they get the West Bank, and because now Israel, too, gets
to see just how fun it is to have a non-contiguous state. Everybody
wins!
!
Admittedly, the plan raises a few questions. OK, a lot of questions. Texans don’t generally seem too excited about the federal government stepping in and seizing land. And while Israelis have generally shown plenty of enthusiasm for moving to places like New York and Los Angeles, coastal Texas has never ranked all that high on the list of preferred destinations.
Admittedly, the plan raises a few questions. OK, a lot of questions. Texans don’t generally seem too excited about the federal government stepping in and seizing land. And while Israelis have generally shown plenty of enthusiasm for moving to places like New York and Los Angeles, coastal Texas has never ranked all that high on the list of preferred destinations.
.
But Allan Levene has never been daunted by long odds – or, for that
matter, by multi-state solutions. A British Jewish immigrant and
naturalized citizen, Levene is simultaneously running for Congress, as a Republican, in two non-contiguous states — Georgia and Hawaii (though not, interestingly, in Texas).
Why, you might ask, is Levene running in two states? Easy – because he
couldn’t get on the ballot in two other states, Minnesota and Michigan
(where he was aiming for two separate congressional districts, because
why not?).
Aside from creating New Israel, Levene also hopes to reduce the national
debt, largely by eliminating U.S. corporate taxes and using pension
rules to set congressional term limits. He also wants to put conspiracy
theories to rest by investigating national catastrophes with not one,
not two, but three separate commissions.
Levene’s candidacies are long shots – his support in polls has been
minimal, and his fundraising has been negligible. The odds that a New
Israel will appear just south of Corpus Christie are not much better.
Loon Star State…
Offrant ainsi une solution définitive à la situation de la Palestine (cf.carte ci-dessous)*
Les points forts :
- Les Israéliens sont très aimés des Américains
- Les Américains accueilleront les Israéliens à bras ouverts dans leur pays
- L’Amérique a suffisamment de terres pour faire d’Israël son 51ème Etat
- Israël sera un vrai Etat juif, en sécurité, entouré d’Etats amis
- L’Amérique ne ponctionnera plus 3 milliards de dollars par an sur les impôts de ses
contribuables pour la défense d’Israël
- Le coût du transfert d’Israël sur le territoire américain ne dépassera pas trois années de
dépenses militaires
- Les Palestiniens retrouveront leur pays et une vie normale
- Le Moyen-Orient sera de nouveau en paix sans ingérence étrangère
- Le prix du pétrole baissera, l’inflation aussi et le monde sera heureux
Source : https://www.facebook.com/pages/Relocate-Israel-Into-United-States/872502099445042
Traduction et adaptation: Xavière Jardez
* Carte: Taille d'Israël sur le territoire des Etats-Unis
Les points forts :
- Les Israéliens sont très aimés des Américains
- Les Américains accueilleront les Israéliens à bras ouverts dans leur pays
- L’Amérique a suffisamment de terres pour faire d’Israël son 51ème Etat
- Israël sera un vrai Etat juif, en sécurité, entouré d’Etats amis
- L’Amérique ne ponctionnera plus 3 milliards de dollars par an sur les impôts de ses
contribuables pour la défense d’Israël
- Le coût du transfert d’Israël sur le territoire américain ne dépassera pas trois années de
dépenses militaires
- Les Palestiniens retrouveront leur pays et une vie normale
- Le Moyen-Orient sera de nouveau en paix sans ingérence étrangère
- Le prix du pétrole baissera, l’inflation aussi et le monde sera heureux
Source : https://www.facebook.com/pages/Relocate-Israel-Into-United-States/872502099445042
Traduction et adaptation: Xavière Jardez
* Carte: Taille d'Israël sur le territoire des Etats-Unis
(Montage: The Onion)
"En
1932, Michael Higger, Ph.D., a assemblé un livre remarquable intitulé
'The Jewish Utopia', qu'il dédia à l'Université hébraïque de Jérusalem,
décrit par lui comme [le] "symbole de l'utopie juive". L'ouvrage
de Higger est un document remarquable que le regretté Robert H.
Williams, un écrivain nationaliste américain des années 1950 et 1960,
décrivait comme une somme de la philosophie derrière ce que Williams a
appelé "l'Ultime Ordre Mondial" - qui n'est autre que le Nouvel Ordre
Mondial. Ce
qui est remarquable à propos de ce livre de Higger est que la copie que
Robert H. Williams a découvert le premier pour ensuite le populariser
auprès les nationalistes américains, a été trouvée dans la collection
Abraham I. Schechter d'ouvrages hébraïques et judaïques de la
bibliothèque de l'Université du Texas, offerte par la Kallah des rabbins
du Texas. Donc le livre de Higger n'était pas un simple "document de réflexion" d'un auteur isolé. L'organisation rabbinique du Texas tenait l'œuvre en si haute estime qu'elle en a
offert une copie à la bibliothèque de l'université de l'État." (Michael Collins Piper, THE NEW BABYLON--THOSE WHO REIGN SUPREME)
On pense toujours
au pouvoir des barons du Texas, mais n'oublions pas que ce sont les
criminels "philanthropes" juifs sionistes Bronfman qui en 1963 ont racheté Texas Pacific Oil, un importante compagnie pétrolière texane.
La communauté juive du Texas est très puissante. Il faut voir l'assassinat de JFK à Dallas à la lumière de ce fait.
Et fait intéressant: Holly Bronfman, la fille d'Edgar Bronfman Sr, a la même avocate juive texane qu'Alex Jones...
Assassinat de JFK: C'était pas des "WASP" (la connexion juive texane)
Le premier État juif le Birobijan
Exceptionalism Rules in Tel Aviv and Washington
Soulignons la semaine internationale de l'Apartheid israélien: Un documentaire dérangeant demande: Israël qui vit de ses ventes d'armes (testées sur des Palestiniens) a-t-il intérêt à faire la paix?
Sionisme et christianisme sont inconciliables et antithétiques
Médiats juifs anti-juifs? Le milliardaire juif ultrasioniste Sheldon Adelson est "tout droit sorti des pages des Protocoles", selon un journaliste de Ha'aretz
Un autre grand comique juif, Sheldon Adelson, qui s'autoproclame "le juif le plus riche du monde", appelle à bombarder l'Iran avec du nucléaire, donnant ainsi raison à Jack Straw
Le jeu des devinettes: qu'ont en commun Al Capone et la contrebande d'alcool durant la prohibition, Meyer Lansky et l'armement de tsahal, Jack Ruby et l'assassinat de JFK, la production d'anthrax à Grosse-Ile au Québec et la Seconde guerre mondiale, John McCain et Rupert Murdoch, la guerre contre le nationalisme québecois et le nouveau chef des finances du parti Libéral canadien?
Le directeur de l'organisation 'Christians United for Israel' (CUFI) de John Hagee (Texas) est l'un des 50 juifs les plus influents selon le magazine Forward
Wiesel, Lieberman et Dershowitz se joignent à Hagee pour présenter une pétition visant l'inculpation d'Ahmadinejad pour 'incitation au génocide'
Des manifestants tabassés par un juif sioniste à la conférence de John Hagee à Washington
Le devoir de mémoire: source de motivation pour Alex Jones (Austin, Texas)
Rand Paul (Texas) se distancie des idées de son père, se rapproche des juifs et reçoit l'appui de l'establishment républicain et des médias
Piper Michael Collins - The New Babylon : Those Who Reign Supreme
Piper Michael Collins - The New Jerusalem
Les grandes fortunes familiales qui contrôlent la finance et les affaires (trombinoscope)
La montée du pouvoir financier juif Rothschild
Excerpt from THE NEW JERUSALEM--ZIONIST POWER IN AMERICA:
Modern-Day Zionist Philosophers:
“America IS The New Jerusalem”
Lest there be any doubt that the leaders of the American Zionist community do now view the United States as The New Jerusalem, it is vital to consider this salient—and undeniable—fact:
The Zionists now openly charge that critics of Israel are not only anti- Semitic and anti-Israel but also anti-Christian and anti-American, that anti- Israel sentiments are actually the underlying foundation of anti-Americanism and, in turn, anti-Americanism is inextricably indivisible from anti-Israel, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian sentiments.
In short, the bottom line of this proposition is America is indeed “The New Jerusalem.” That America and Israel are one. Such views are being nurtured at the highest levels of the Zionist movement and even now being inserted into the discourse of public debate in America. As such, we can only conclude that all of this is very much a confirmation of the thesis put forth in the pages of The New Jerusalem.
In a certain sense, there is some truth to the theme that “anti- Americanism” is a form of opposition to Israel, for most people around the world who are concerned about the new imperialism being pursued by the United States know full well that this policy is not really “Americanism” but, in fact, the product of the Zionist powers and their policymakers in high places who have come to reign supreme in America, particularly during the presidency of George W. Bush.
However, as usual, the Zionists always show great capacity to twist reality in order to make it fit their peculiar worldview. People worldwide are not “anti-American” (in the sense that they have no problem with the American people). If anything, it seems, because people from all walks of life from around the globe often have a better understanding than even Americans themselves of who really rules America, they actually have a certain sympathy for Americans for having allowed themselves to be manipulated so relentlessly by the Zionist minority. So there’s no “anti-Americanism” in the sense that the Zionists would have us believe.
It is also important to acknowledge that people worldwide have no trouble with the principles of democracy, liberty and freedom—however loosely defined. The idea that the rest of the planet (with the exception of Israel) is somehow “anti-American” is a destructive and dangerous myth the Zionists have propagated in order to turn Americans against anyone around the globe who dares to question Zionist power in America.
This concept of “anti-Americanism” is thus largely a Zionist invention. It was in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and in the period leading up to the utterly insane (and Zionist-ordered) U.S. invasion of Iraq in the spring of 2003, that the Zionist-controlled media in the United States began hyping “anti-Americanism,” as a consequence of the urgent need to stoke up a worldwide (and apparently unending) “war against terrorism” of which President Bush and his Zionist handlers said the campaign to destroy Iraq was a vital component.
As a direct consequence of lies and inflammatory language coming from the Bush administration, coupled with deliberate distortions and disinformation in the media, good, honest, decent patriotic Americans truly believed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had played a part in the 9-11 terrorist attacks and that the war against Iraq was thus justified.
And in the build-up to the Iraq war, Zionist propagandists and the media increasingly began touting the message to Americans that “The whole world is against us”—or, to put it more accurately, at least as it was rendered in the media: “The whole world is against us good Americans and our good friends, the Israelis, who are certainly our only democratic ally in the Middle East and our only real, solid, dependable ally in the whole big wide world.”
The theme that “anti-Americanism” had run rampant was instilled in Americans for the very purpose of making them “anti” everyone who refused to support the war against Saddam that the Zionists demanded Americans fight on their behalf. In a sense, the Iraq war became a—if not “the”—measuring stick of determining who was supportive of the bigger, more broadranging Zionist agenda and who wasn’t.
In any case, the theme of “anti-Americanism” is now being introduced by the Zionists in the media into the public debate and now, as noted, “anti-Americanism” is being equated by the Zionists with opposition not only to Israel and Jewish interests but even to Christianity itself—an extraordinary theme indeed.
Yet, although it may be quite difficult for the average American to accept (or even understand) such a broad-ranging historical and geopolitical contention with obviously immense global ramifications, this is precisely what one of Zionism’s most highly regarded “intellectuals” contended in an audacious essay published in the January 2005 issue of Commentary magazine, the always-pompous, but nonetheless candid, journal of the American Jewish Committee.
In his Commentary essay, “Americanism—and Its Enemies,” Yale Professor David Gelernter says that “Americanism” itself—at least as defined by Gelernter and his fellow Zionists—is no more than a modern-day evolution of old-line Zionist thought, going back to the Bible itself. America, he contends, is essentially the new Israel, The New Jerusalem, a virtual adjunct of the State of Israel itself.
However, before we explore the specifics of Gelernter’s amazing essay, it is critical to understand the particular milieu from which it emerged, for that, in itself, points toward how significant this thesis is, at least from the standpoint of the circles of influence in America that truly count for something, that is, the Zionist elite.
That Gelernter’s proposition was put forth in Commentary—long-edited by neo-conservative “ex-Trotskyite” Norman Podhoretz, who still remains the power-behind-the-scenes at the journal—means quite a lot. Generally recognized as one of the foremost media influences directing U.S. foreign policy in the Bush administration, Commentary is certainly one of the leading— and hardline—voices of Zionism, not only in America, but worldwide.
In addition, although Gelernter is a computer specialist, his views on political affairs are regularly published with great fanfare in the pages of The New York Times and The Washington Post, and in such staunch pro-Israel publications as The New Republic, National Review and Zionist billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s house journal, The Weekly Standard, edited by William Kristol, who is perhaps the chief media publicist and public affairs strategist for the so-called “neo-conservative” point of view today.
As such, what Gelernter has to say should be considered carefully, inasmuch he is very much a part of the Kristol network and also given free rein in Commentary to air such provocative opinions. Gelernter is one of the most widely-read voices of Zionism today.
Thus, to understand what the “neo-conservatives” such as Gelernter believe is to understand the very mindset of the hard-line Zionist movement not only in the United States and Israel, but worldwide, for neo-conservatism is probably best described as perhaps the foremost influence within the always-multifaceted world of Zionism today.
Although the history of the neo-conservatives (outlined in detail in this author’s previous work, The High Priests of War) is beyond the scope of our present study, it is important to note that the aforementioned William Kristol’s father, Irving Kristol, is known as “the godfather” of the neo-conservative movement and was himself, as an old-line Trotskyite communist, one of the self-dubbed “New York intellectuals”—part of a cell which actually called itself “The Family”—who acted as mentor for Podhoretz during the time when Commentary was emerging as one of the Israeli lobby’s most powerful media voices.
Today, the Kristols and Podhoretz—along with those such as Gelernter— are stalwart forces behind the global agenda of the Bush administration, allied with such key administration policymakers as Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and collaborating intimately with like-minded allies in hard-line factions in Israel.
(...) it is very much a philosophical complement to the theme put forth by Sharansky—and dutifully and enthusiastically echoed by Bush—and part of a not-so-subtle ongoing effort to underscore and promote the new international imperium the Bush administration is working to effect.
While his essay was published before Bush’s inaugural address was publicly delivered—although it had already been privately concocted in the hands of Gelernter’s Zionist associates—Gelernter contends that what today is the Sharansky-Bush point of view goes back, in American historical terms, to the days of the Puritan and Pilgrim founding fathers.
Noting that “Puritans spoke of themselves as God’s new chosen people, living in God’s new promised land—in short, as God’s new Israel,” Gelernter asserts that “Many thinkers have noted that Americanism is inspired by or close to or intertwined with Puritanism,” noting that “one of the most impressive scholars to say so recently is Samuel Huntington, in his formidable book on American identity, Who Are We?”
An old Council on Foreign Relations hand, Huntington seems an ironic choice for Gelertner to cite when preaching about Americanism and democracy, inasmuch as Huntington’s earlier book The Crisis of Democracy (published by the Rockefeller-funded Trilateral Commission) suggested there was too much democracy in America and that it needed to be suppressed. However, then again, “democracy”—in the eyes of the elite—applies only to those whom they want to have freedom.
More recently, Huntington emerged a vocal spokesman for a determined high-level campaign to block certain groups of immigrants—namely Muslims and Hispanic Catholics—from coming into the United States, basically in the name of “fighting terrorism and anti-Semitism,” since the Jewish elite have concluded that Catholic immigrants, along with Muslims, are suspicious of Jewish power and not easily controlled.
In any case, Gelernter says that the Puritanism of Huntington’s chosen type is the real foundation of America. He writes:
Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism, it turned into Americanism. . . . You cannot really understand the Pilgrims, or Puritans in general, unless you know the Hebrew Bible and classical Jewish history; knowing Judaism itself also helps . . . Early exponents of Americanism tended to define even their own Christianity [emphasis Gelernter’s] in ways that make it sound like Judaism.
And it is probably worth pointing out that Gelenter notes that Puritanism, in its classic sense on American shores, underwent transition, so much so that many Puritan congregations became Unitarian. And the irony there, of course, is there are quite a few Christians—including fundamentalist supporters of Israel—who don’t even consider Unitarians to be Christians. (But that’s another question for another day and for others to debate.)
In any case, for all intents and purposes, Gelernter is perhaps hinting that (at least in the Zionist view) the modern-day form of “Puritanism” underlying “Americanism” is actually anything but Christian. And this, of course, again, would surprise many Christian supporters of Israel who proclaim that America is a Christian nation doing its part in helping fulfill God’s so-called promises to the Jewish people.
Gelernter’s assessment of the Bible, as he reads it, is that, among other things, Americans, in particular, have “a divine mission to all mankind” and that three conclusions can be reached: “Every human being everywhere is entitled to freedom, equality, and democracy.” (What Bible Gelernter refers to may be a good question, but certainly beyond our scope here.)
Suggesting that those whom he calls “the theologians of Americanism” understood that freedom, equality and democracy were not just philosophical ideas but “the word of God,” Gelernter concludes that the consequence is “the fervor and passion with which Americans believe their creed.” Gelernter says that creed is that “Americans, virtually alone in the world, insist that freedom, equality, and democracy are right not only for France and Spain but for Afghanistan and Iraq.”
Here Gelernter begins to spin his particular theme that Zionism is integral to and inseparable from what he says is “Americanism”:
To sum up Americanism’s creed as far as freedom, equality, and democracy for all is to state only half the case. The other half deals with a promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission. This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism.
Purporting that “Americanism” (as he defines it) is “American Zionism”— the idea that America is also a Zionist “promised land” that is as one with the state of Israel and traditional Jewish Zionism itself, Gelernter is suggesting that both Israel and America are Jewish states. He goes even further:
Classical Israel’s (and classical Zionism’s) contribution to Americanism is incalculable. No modern historian or thinker I am aware of . . . has done justice to this extraordinary fact. They seem to have forgotten what the eminent 19th century Irish historian William Lecky recognized: that “Hebraic mortar cemented the foundations of American democracy.” And even Lecky, I suspect, did not grasp the full extent of this truth. Unless we do grasp it, we can never fully understand Americanism—or anti-Americanism.
In short, Gelernter is avowing that “anti-Americanism” is nothing more (or nothing less) than opposition to the Zionist theology that he contends played such a considerable role as the “mortar” that “cemented the foundations of American democracy.” Then, Gelernter moves forward, applying his bizarre theory to the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. In the same spirit in which The Washington Post on January 21, 2005 declared President Bush’s global view to be “more Wilsonian than conservative,” Gelernter asserts:
[Woodrow] Wilson stands right at the center of classical Americanism. No president spoke the language of Bible and divine mission more lucidly . . . During Wilson’s administration, Americanism accomplished a fundamental transition. It had always included the idea of divine mission. But what was [emphasis in the original] the mission? Until the closing of the frontier in the last decade of the 19th century, the mission was to populate the continent. With the frontier closed, the mission became “Americanism for the whole world.”
According to Gelernter, subsequent presidents such as Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S Truman waged wars on behalf of Americanism. FDR’s war against a virtually united Europe, allied with Japan, was no less than a war to vanquish perhaps the greatest threat that ever emerged to Zionist power in the entire history of the planet. Truman, of course, launched the Cold War against the Soviets which we now know was yet another mechanism of global profiteering, for even while American kids were dying in Korea and later in Vietnam, international banking houses—many of them Jewish, some not— were propping up the Soviet tyranny while it was in their interests to do so.
However, Gelernter says, it was Ronald Reagan who affirmed this “Americanism” when he spoke of a “shining city upon a hill,” citing the Bible’s book of Matthew in the same spirit of Puritan father John Winthrop. It was Reagan, claims Gelernter, whose “use of these words connected modern America to the humane Christian vision—the Puritan vision—the vision (ultimately) of the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish people—that created this nation.” Now, Gelernter says, “That Americanism is the successor of Puritanism is crucial to [understanding] anti-Americanism.”
According to the Zionist-based slant that Gelernter puts forth, modernday European opposition to the global designs being advanced by the neoconservative policy makers in the Bush administration is nothing more than a current manifestation of something long past:
In the 18th century anti-Americans were conservative, monarchist and anti-Puritans. . . . In the 19th century, European elites became increasingly hostile to Christianity—which inevitably entailed hostility to America.
And with a grand flourish, Gelernter lays it on the line . . .
In modern times, anti-Americanism is closely associated with anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism. [Gelernter’s emphasis}
All of this reflects the mindset of the Zionist elite and those who are now dictating American foreign policy in the name of a grand scheme of advancing some ill-defined global democratic revolution.
What it represents is nothing more than the New World Order that genuine American patriots warned about for generations, a scheme that is genuine “anti-Americanism” in its most basic definition.
Real Americans—and their many good friends around the globe who are rightly concerned with the rise of Zionist power in America—would make a mistake to discount the influence of such thinking: agree or disagree, this is the philosophy of the Zionist elite, however immoral and Hellish it may be.
The end result, in the Zionist grand scheme, is the establishment of a global empire—ruled from America, The New Jerusalem.
While the “real” Jerusalem in the occupied land of Palestine may function as the spiritual capital of international Zionism, America will provide the money and the arms and the young men and women who will fight and die to make the world safe for Zionist wealth and supremacy, all in the name of “Americanism” which is now the great Jewish mask.(...)
Excerpt from THE NEW BABYLON - THOSE WHO REIGN SUPREME:
Their goal is to reinstitute the Throne of David and establish Jewish world rule—the Jewish Utopia.
The Rothschild Dynasty has hijacked the American republic and the
United States has now been established as the New Babylon with the New
World Order forces relentlessly pushing their agenda at a faster pace
than ever before. Ultimate victory, they perceive, is within their
reach, but only if they are able to destroy the opposition and to
continue to divide and conquer those who dare to challenge their agenda.
As such, the blood and treasure of the American people are being hurled
into global conflicts designed to bring the NewWorld Order into being.
The wars on behalf of Israeli hegemony in the Middle East are really
only the beginning. Many more wars of conquest lie ahead.Those nations
that challenge the NewWorld Order will be targeted.
And lest there be any doubt that the Rothschild Empire and the New
Pharisees now view the United States as the preeminent force in their
drive for a global imperium, it is vital to consider this point:
Propagandists for the Jewish agenda now openly charge that critics of
Israel (and of U.S. favoritism for Israel) are not only anti-Semitic
and anti-Israel but also anti-Christian and anti-American, that
anti-Israel sentiments are actually the underlying foundation of
anti-Americanism and, in turn, anti-Americanism is inextricably
indivisible from anti-Israel,anti-Semitic and even anti-Christian
sentiments. Such extraordinary assertions are being nurtured at the
highest levels of the Jewish-controlled mass media and are being
inserted into the discourse of public debate in America.
In a certain sense, there is some truth to the theme that
“anti-Americanism” is a form of opposition to Israel. Many people around
the world concerned about the new imperialism pursued by the United
States on Israel’s behalf recognize that this policy is not
“Americanism” but, in fact, the product of the Rothschild Dynasty and
the historic Jewish agenda.
However, as usual, the theoreticians of the Jewish Utopia always show
great capacity to twist reality in order to make it fit their peculiar
world view.Actually, people worldwide are not particularly
“anti-American” (in the sense that they have any problem with the
American people).
So because people from all walks of life from around the globe often
have a better understanding than Americans of who really rules America,
they actually have a certain sympathy for Americans for having allowed
themselves to be manipulated so relentlessly by a powerful minority. So
there’s very little “anti-Americanism” in the general sense of the
term.
In fact, most people worldwide have no trouble with the principles of
democracy, liberty and freedom—however loosely defined.The idea that
the rest of the planet (with the exception of Israel) is “anti-American”
is a dangerous myth propagated in order to turn Americans against
anyone around the globe who dares to question Jewish power in America.
Thus, the concept of “anti-Americanism” is a Jewish invention. It was
in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and in the period leading up
to the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003,that the Jewish-controlled media
began hyping“anti-Americanism,” to stoke up the so-called “war on
terrorism” of which, it was said, the campaign to destroy Iraq was a
vital component.
The media began advising Americans that “The whole world is against
us”—or, as it was generally rendered in the media: “The whole world is
against us good Americans and our good friend Israel.” The theme that
“anti-Americanism”had run rampant was instilled inAmericans for the
purpose of making them “anti” everyone who refused to support the wars
the Jewish lobby demanded thatAmericans fight. In a sense,support for
the Iraq war (in particular) became the measuring stick by which to
determine who was in sync with the more broad-ranging global Jewish
agenda and who wasn’t.
In any case, as noted,“anti-Americanism” is being equated with
opposition not only to Israel and Jewish interests but even to
Christianity itself—an extraordinary theme indeed.
Now although it is no doubt quite difficult for the average American to
understand such a broad-ranging historical and geopolitical contention
with obviously immense global ramifications, this is precisely what
one of the Jewish elite’s most highly regarded “intellectuals” contended
in an audacious essay published in the January 2005 issue of Commentary
magazine, the journal of the American Jewish Committee.
In his Commentary essay, “Americanism—and Its Enemies,” Yale Professor
David Gelernter said that “Americanism” itself—at least as defined by
Gelernter and his confreres—is no more than a modern-day evolution of
old-line Zionist thought, going back to the Old Testament itself.
America, he contended, is essentially the new Israel—a virtual adjunct
of the State of Israel.
That Gelernter’s proposition was published in Commentary—long-edited by
neo-conservative “ex-Trotskyite” Norman Podhoretz and which is now
under the direction of John Podhoretz, his son—means a great deal. Known
as one of the foremost media influences directing U.S. foreign policy
in the Bush administration,Commentary is certainly one of the
leading—and hardline—voices of the Jewish power elite, not only in
America, but worldwide.
In addition, although Gelernter is a computer specialist, his views on
political affairs are regularly published with great fanfare in the
pages of all of the elite magazines and newspapers in America, ranging
from The Washington Post to The New York Times to The Weekly Standard, the
“neoconservative” journal of Rothschild Empire media baron Rupert
Murdoch.
To understand what Gelernter asserts is to understand the mindset of
those promoting a New World Order, to recognize that America is now
perceived as the force for achieving that Jewish Imperium.
Asserting that what he called“American Zionism”goes back, in American
terms, to the days of the Puritan and Pilgrim founding fathers,
Gelernter noted that “Puritans spoke of themselves as God’s new chosen
people, living in God’s new promised land—in short, as God’s new
Israel.”
Gelernter added that “Many thinkers have noted that Americanism is
inspired by or close to or intertwined with Puritanism,” noting that
“one of the most impressive scholars to say so recently is Samuel
Huntington, in his formidable [2004] book on American identity,Who
AreWe?” (*) Gelernter says that the Puritanism of Huntington’s chosen
type is the real foundation of America and that which has driven
American thinking from the earliest days of our history. It’s all
Jewish—according to Gelernter:
Puritanism did not merely inspire or influence Americanism, it turned into Americanism. . . . You cannot really understand the Pilgrims, or Puritans in general, unless you know the Hebrew Bible and classical Jewish history; knowing Judaism itself also helps . . .
Early exponents of Americanism tended to define even their own Christianity [emphasis Gelernter’s] in ways that make it sound like Judaism.
And it is probably worth pointing out that Gelernter notes that
Puritanism underwent transition, so much so that many Puritan
congregations became Unitarian. And the irony is that there are many
Christians—including fundamentalist supporters of Israel—who don’t even
consider Unitarians to be Christians. (Another question for others to
debate.)
In any case, Gelernter is hinting that (at least in the Zionist view)
the modern-day form of “Puritanism” underlying “Americanism” is
actually anything but Christian. And this, of course, again,would
surprise many Christian supporters of Israel who proclaim that America
is a Christian nation doing its part in helping fulfill God’s so-called
promises to the Jewish people.
Gelernter’s assessment of the Bible,as he reads it, is thatAmericans,
in particular, have “a divine mission to all mankind” and that three
conclusions can be reached: “Every human being everywhere is entitled to
freedom, equality, and democracy.” Here Gelernter began to spin his
particular theme that Zionism is integral to and inseparable from what
he says is “Americanism”:
To sum up Americanism’s creed as far as freedom, equality, and democracy for all is to state only half the case.The other half deals with a promised land, a chosen people, and a universal, divinely ordained mission.This part of Americanism is the American version of biblical Zionism: in short, American Zionism.
Purporting that “Americanism” (as he defines it) is “American
Zionism”—that America is a Zionist“promised land”as one with the state
of Israel and traditional Zionism itself, Gelernter suggests that both
Israel and America are Jewish states, declaring:
Classical Israel’s (and classical Zionism’s) contribution to Americanism is incalculable.Nomodern historian or thinker I am aware of . . .has done justice to this extraordinary fact. . .Unless we do grasp it, we can never fully understand Americanism—or anti-Americanism.
In short, Gelernter was avowing that“anti-Americanism”is opposition to
the Zionist theology that he contends played such a considerable role
as the “mortar” that “cemented the foundations of American democracy.”
Gelernter applied all of this to his view of the internationalist bent
in American foreign policy that began to emerge in its most grandiose
sense, in particular, during the administration of Woodrow Wilson (at
which time, we must recall, the Rothschild Empire cemented its power
inAmerica with the institution of the Federal Reserve monopoly on the
American economy and political system).
In his 2007 work, pretentiously entitled Americanism: The Fourth Great
Western Religion—essentially a book-length exposition of his essay in
Commentary—Gelernter wrote:
America’s participation in World War I was her attempt to act like the new chosen people, to set forth on a chivalrous quest to perfect the world; to spread liberty, equality, and democracy to all mankind. . . .
No president spoke the language of the Bible, divine mission, and American Zionism more consistently thanWoodrowWilson . . .[and] Americanism inspired his agonized, epochal decision to take America into the war. . .
In time he came to believe that America, grown to be a great power,must fight to bring Americanism to the world. . . .And some of Wilson’s critics made a point of singling out the Old Testament component ofWilson’s beliefs as especially obnoxious.
Those who read Gelernter’s assessment ofWilson’s internationalism and
Wilson’s version of “Americanism” cannot help but be reminded—as they
should be—of the grand scheme of a Jewish Utopia as outlined earlier in
these pages. So by Gelernter’s estimation, let it be said, America is
now charged with the responsibility of establishing a NewWorld Order.
According to Gelernter, subsequent presidents such as Franklin D.
Roosevelt and Harry S Truman waged wars on behalf of Americanism. And,
he said, Ronald Reagan affirmed this “Americanism” when he spoke of a
“shining city upon a hill” citing the Bible’s book of Matthew in the
same spirit as Puritan father JohnWinthrop.
It was Reagan, claimed Gelernter in Commentary, whose “use of these
words connected modern America to the humane Christian vision—the
Puritan vision—the vision (ultimately) of the Hebrew Bible and the
Jewish people—that created this nation.”Now, Gelernter says,“That
Americanism is the successor of Puritanism is crucial to [understanding]
anti-Americanism.”
According to the Judeo-centric slant that Gelernter put forth,
modernday European opposition to the global designs of pro-Israel
neo-conservatives was no more than a manifestation of a longstanding
point of view:
In the 18th century anti-Americans were conservative, monarchist and anti-Puritans. . . . In the 19th century, European elites became increasingly hostile to Christianity—which inevitably entailed hostility to America.
Thus with a grand flourish,Gelernter proclaimed . . .
In modern times, anti-Americanism is closely associated with anti-Christianism and anti-Semitism. [Gelernter’s emphasis}
And while many American Christians might be delighted by Gelernter’s
discussion of Christianity as it applies to his version of
“Americanism” it should be pointed out to those Christians that, in his
book Americanism: The Fourth Great Western Religion, Gelernter stated
flatly that “You can believe in Americanism without believing in God—so
long as you believe in man.” So Gelernter’s definition of
“Christianity” (which most Christians affirm is a belief in God) is not
what Christians might mistakenly believe Gelernter is talking about
when discussing Christianity and “Americanism.”
In short, Gelernter’s version of “Americanism” is not Christianity at
all. Rather it is a modern-day expression of the age-old Babylonian
Talmudic dream of a Jewish Utopia: global rule of all people by the
Jews. But in today’s context, the Jews will use America and“Americanism”
to advance their agenda. Gelernter’s theory is fully in line with
Jewish philosopher Max Dimont’s suggestion (reviewed in our opening
pages) that America was truly the new locus of Jewish power, that
America was indeed the New Babylon.
In his book, Gelernter candidly expressed the contention that the
United States (base of what he has called “American Zionism”) is now
charged with an imperial (even God-given) duty to remake the world, that
“Americanism” is “the Creed,” of this global agenda, that this “Fourth
Great Western Religion” is the driving force behind—and which must
establish—a new planet-wide regime: in short, the New World Order:
We are the one and only biggest boy [in the world today]. If there is to be justice in the world, America must create it. . . .We must pursue justice, help the suffering, and overthrow tyrants. We must spread the Creed.
All of this reflects the mindset of those who are now dictating
American policy in the name of a grand scheme of advancing their global
agenda. What it represents is nothing more than the NewWorld Order that
genuine American patriots warned about for generations, a scheme that
is genuine “anti-Americanism” in its most basic definition.
The end result, in the grand scheme, is the establishment of a global
empire—ruled from America, which is now the new foundation—the New
Babylon—for the Jewish Utopia: the NewWorld Order.
While the “real” Jerusalem in the occupied land of Palestine may
function as the spiritual capital of international Zionism, America will
provide the money and the arms and the young men and women who will
fight and die to make the world safe for Jewish wealth and supremacy,
all in the name of “Americanism” which is now the great Jewish mask.
Thus, in the end, the thesis we’ve explored—that the Rothschild Empire
and the New Pharisees have laid claim to America as their new base of
power—is not some horrific and hate-filled “anti-Jewish conspiracy
theory.”
In fact, as we have seen, according to the Jewish world view, America is
the very foundation for Global Zionism in the 21st century.
That conclusion is inescapable.
The facts pointing to that conclusion are before us—all too visible.
Ultimately the only real question that remains is what Americans—and others worldwide—intend to do about it . . .
In 1940 the German news agency, World Service, accurately assessed the
state of affairs in the British Empire and, in retrospect, the German
commentary prophetically reflected what is the state of affairs in
America today. Substitute “American” for the word “English” in the
paragraphs that follow and ponder the shocking parallels in modern
American reality . . .
The statesmen of the English plutocracy are therefore no more than the deputies and the trustees of the ruling class consisting of Jews and a strongly Judaized aristocracy, who are in possession of the enormous wealth of the British Empire.
They are furthermore, nothing else but the general directors of an immense high-finance concern, with only one object in view, that of increasing the wealth of this concern within the shortest time-limit and to . . . as great an extent as possible.
Therefore the English statesmen are either themselves big capitalists, greatly interested in numerous industrial undertakings, or they are bought by Jewish-English finance-capitalism and must blindly obey the dictates of the Jewish-English plutocratic clique.(...)
Les “chrétiens sionistes” aux Etats-Unis sont notamment ces évangélistes qui prêchent un lien indéfectible entre Washington et Tel Aviv
VOXNR.COM
Les
calvinistes puritains partagent avec les juifs le culte de l’Ancien Testament. Ce n’est pas simplement une option religieuse, donc gentiment confinée à la sphère religieuse, mais une option bel et bien sécularisée qui a des retombées immédiates dans le domaine du politique. La plupart des calvinistes, tout comme une majorité de juifs, vivent aujourd’hui aux Etats-Unis, ce qui fait que les intérêts calvinistes et juifs ont de plus en plus tendance à fusionner Outre-Atlantique. Ceux qui ne veulent pas comprendre cette collusion d’intérêts se condamnent à ne pas comprendre les orientations spirituelles et politiques de l’hegemon mondial.
Certes, le christianisme ne saurait être perçu comme un bloc homogène et unitaire; cette remarque vaut également pour le calvinisme qui se subdivise en de nombreuses églises libres. Le judaïsme n’est pas davantage homogène. A l’intérieur du calvinisme, toutes tendances confondues, ce sont toutefois les évangélistes fondamentalistes qui donnent le ton, tout comme le font les sionistes au sein du judaïsme. Pour de nombreux observateurs des faits religieux et politiques, l’Amérique, et non pas l’Etat d’Israël, est le véritable siège du sionisme dans le monde (cf. Michael Collins Piper, “The New Jerusalem. Zionist Power in America”, Sisyphus Press, 2005).
Les “Evangelicals” sont des calvinistes qui, sur la base de leur doctrine, se sentent proches des juifs en général et des sionistes en particulier. Pour les juifs sionistes, Israël est la patrie de tous les juifs; les “Evangelicals”, eux, voient les juifs et Israël sous un angle très spécial, celui du “pré-millénarisme”. Celui-ci s’explique suit à une lecture fondamentaliste de l’Apocalypse de Saint Jean dans le Nouveau Testament. La philosophie chrétienne de l’histoire —qui s’en déduit— voit le monde actuel plongé dans le péché comme un monde soumis au Diable, au Semeur de confusion, au Séducteur, à Satan, Lucifer, l’Antéchrist, etc. A son tour, cette vision d’un monde soumis au Diable implique que ce monde doit passer par un temps de troubles et de désordres graves avant qu’une catastrophe apocalyptique le détruise et amène le retour triomphal du Christ. Après le retour du Christ, la première parousie, le Diable sera pris prisonnier et le Règne de Mille Ans, le “Millenium” des justes et des saints, adviendra. Mais le Diable va brièvement échapper à sa captivité puis sera vaincu et définitivement exilé dans les enfers. Le Christ reviendra alors une seconde fois (deuxième parousie) et prononcera le Jugement Dernier.
Les pré-millénaristes parmi les “Evangelicals” voient dès lors le retour des juifs en Palestine comme le préliminaire nécessaire à l’imminent premier retour du Christ. C’est pour cette raison qu’ils favorisent le retour des juifs en Palestine: ce retour précipitera le retour du Christ. Selon Ezéchiel 37:12, l’alliance vétéro-testamentaire repose sur la promesse suivante: “Ainsi parle le Seigneur votre Dieu: voyez, je veux ouvrir vos tombeaux et vous en sortir, ô mon peuple, et sortis de vos tombeaux, je vous mènerai au pays d’Israël”.
Le site visé par la promesse dans Ezéchiel est donc Jérusalem ou Israël: les pré-millénaristes fondamentalistes chrétiens, de manière bien étonnante, ne prennent pas pour argent comptant les paroles du Christ dans l’Evangile de Saint Jean 18:36, qui disent: “Mon royaume n’est pas de ce monde”. Ils ignorent tout autant le verset de l’Apocalypse (21:2), où l’on peut lire: “Et moi, Jean, je vis aussi la ville sainte, Jérusalem nouvelle, descendre du ciel d’auprès de Dieu”. Dans l’“Epitre aux Hébreux” (12:22): “Vous vous êtes approchés, vous, de la Montagne de Sion avec la cité du Dieu vivant, la Jérusalem céleste”. Propos similaires dans l’”Epitre aux Galates” (4:26): “Mais la Jérusalem d’en haut est libre, et c’est elle notre mère”. On peut déduire de ces textes que la Jérusalem et l’Israël du futur, d’un point de vue chrétien, ne sont pas des lieux géographiques, comme le veut le sionisme des “Evangelicals”, mais des lieux métaphysiques. Les prises de positions des “Evangelicals” pour l’occupation factuelle du territoire palestinien par les sionistes ne correspondent donc pas aux paroles du Nouveau Testament.
Il faut rappeler ici la parole de Jésus, rapportée par l’Evangile selon Saint Matthieu (5:17): “Ne croyez pas que je sois venu abolir la loi ou les prophètes, mais pour les accomplir”. Cette parole doit se définir dans une perspective chrétienne selon l’Evangile de Saint Jean (14:6): “Je suis le chemin, la vérité et la vie. Nul ne vient au Père que par moi”. A quoi s’joute les mots de l’”Epitre aux Romains” (13:10): “La charité est donc l’accomplissement plenier de la Loi”. Les calvinistes étant théoriquement chrétiens, donc lecteurs du Nouveau Testament, on ne voit donc pas comment ils peuvent en arriver à penser “que chaque grain de sable entre, d’une part, le Jourdain et la Mer Morte, et, d’autre part, la Méditerranée appartient aux juifs et que, donc, leur appartiennent aussi la Cisjordanie et Gaza”. Et qu’ils puissent faire leur ce slogan: “Nous nous battons pour le droit à posséder tous les pays que Dieu a donné à Abraham au moment de l’Alliance il y a 4000 ans, pays qui appartiennent dès lors à Israël... Il n’y a pas de Palestiniens” (cf.: Jane Lampman, “Mixing Prophecy and Politics”, in: “Christian Science Monitor”, 7 juillet 2004). L’interprétation des calvinistes est donc contraire aux principes du Nouveau Testament.
En constatant cette interprétation sioniste et non néo-testamentaire des écritures, on ne s’étonnera pas que “les chrétiens sionistes américains, avec les forces armées israéliennes, sont les derniers bastions actifs de l’Etat hébreu” (cf.: Daniel Pipes, “[Christian Zionism]: Israel’s Best Weapon”, in: New York Post (on line)”, 15 juillet 2003). Le chef des services de communication de Benjamin Netanyahou écrivait un jour: “Remercions Dieu de l’existence des chrétiens sionistes” (cf. Michael Freund, “Christian Zionists Key to Continued U.S. Support for Israel”, in: “Jewish Press (on line)”, 27 décembre 2006).
Que cela nous plaise ou non, l’avenir des relations entre Israël et les Etats-Unis dépend finalement moins des juifs américains que des chrétiens américains”. Le représentant de la majorité républicaine, Richard Armey, déclarait naguère être satifsfait “du fait qu’Israël s’empare de toute la Cisjordanie” et ne s’est distancé que bien plus tard des paroles qu’il avait ajoutées à ses propos pro-israéliens, paroles selon lesquelles “les Palestiniens devaient partir” (cf. Matthew Engel, “Senior Republican Calls on Israel to Expel West Bank Arabs”, in: “The Guardian”, 4 mai 2002).
Certes, il faut bien admettre aussi que “la plupart des juifs américains ne veulent rien avoir à faire avec la nouvelle droite chrétienne” (cf. Naomi M. Cohen, “Dual Loyalties: Zionism and Liberalism” in Allon Gal, “Envisionning Israel. The Changing Ideals and Images of American Jews”, Magnes Press & Wayne State University Press, Jerusalem/Detroit, 1996, p. 326). Ces juifs, qui ne supportent pas les discours enflammés de la nouvelle droite chrétienne des “Evangelicals”, estiment que coopérer avec ceux-ci équivaut à forger une “alliance malsaine” (cf. Jo-Ann Mort, “An Unholy Alliance in Support of Israel”, Los Angeles Times, 19 mai 2002). Par ailleurs, les sionistes eux-mêmes craignent les intentions missionnaires qui se profilent derrière les déclarations d’amour des “Evangelicals” (cf. Gershom Gorenberg, “The End of Days: Fundamentalism and the Struggle for the Temple Mount”, Free Press, New York, 2000).
Finalement, malgré ces réticences perceptibles dans la communauté juive, David Harris, directeur de l’American Jewish Committee, voit les choses sous un angle pragmatique: “La fin des temps peut advenir demain mais ce qui importe aujourd’hui, c’est Israël” (cité par Bill Broadway, “The Evangelical-Israeli Connection: Scripture Inspires Many Christian to Support Zionism Politically, Financially”, in “Washington Post”, 27 mars 2004).
40 millions de personnes se déclarent “Evangelical Christians” dans le camp de la droite américaine et des Républicains (cf. John J. Mearsheimer et Stepehn M. Walt, “Die Israel-Lobby. Wie die amerikanische Aussenpolitik beeinflusst wird”, Campus verlag, Frankfurt am Main, 2007). Ces quarante millions d’“Evangelicals” travaillent au projet du “siècle juif” (cf. Yuri Slezkine, “Das jüdische Jahrhundert”, Vandenhoeck und Rupprecht, Göttingen, 2006). Selon d’autres sources, il y aurait 70 millions d’“Evangelicals” aux Etats-Unis et même 600 millions dans le monde entier (cf. Craig Nelson, “Christian Zionists: Evangelicals a New Lifeline for Israelis”, in “Atlanta Journal-Constitution”, 25 décembre 2003). A ce poids considérable, il faut ajouter les tendances généralement philo-sémitiques des églises évangéliques plus conventionnelles ou d’autres confessions chrétiennes après 1945.
Concluson: les “Evangelicals” qui s’engagent politiquement aux Etats-Unis, hegemon dans le monde, prennent parti pour l’un des deux grands partis, en l’occurrence les Républicains, tandis que la majorité des juifs opte pour les Démocrates (cf. Jeffrey Helmreich, “Amerikas Juden sind mehrheitlich für Obama”, in “Mittelbayerische Zeitung”, 28 juin 2012). Donc en Amérique, croit-on, dur comme fer, que le Millenium ou
l’accomplissement des prophéties de l’Ancien Testament sont sur le point
de devenir très bientôt réalité?
Meet the Worst Anti-Zionist of Them All (...) The new Likudniks have not only transformed the Likud party from a right wing, but basically liberal-democratic party into a one with totalitarian and racist leanings. They have also contributed much to the flourishing racism of their constituency ranging from the chants of “death to Arabs” by Beitar Jerusalem fans to Amir Benayoun’s latest song about the Arab student who is reveling in Israel’s delights only waiting to kill Jews at some point. But they have not yet purged Israel of old conceptions of Zionism as befits the genuinely totalitarian country they are envisaging, and parties like Labor, Yesh Atid and even Meretz, God forbid, still dare to call themselves Zionist. It’s time for the new Likudniks to leave a genuine mark on Israel, and I have the perfect plan for them. They should address a terrible scandal that taints Israel’s cities: all of them have one of their main streets named after a bearded Viennese self-hating Jew called Theodor Herzl. This man wrote a despicable book called Altneuland, containing absolutely horrid anti-Zionist propaganda. He promoted a country in which Jewish religion has no formal standing at all. Herzl believed that the Temple-Mount should be avoided, and any reconstruction of the temple should just be another synagogue. Worst of all: Herzl’s horrible work takes pride in the treacherous notion that the Nation-state of the Jews gives completely equal rights to all citizens, including Arabs, and is cosmopolitan in nature. (...)
Meet the Worst Anti-Zionist of Them All (...) The new Likudniks have not only transformed the Likud party from a right wing, but basically liberal-democratic party into a one with totalitarian and racist leanings. They have also contributed much to the flourishing racism of their constituency ranging from the chants of “death to Arabs” by Beitar Jerusalem fans to Amir Benayoun’s latest song about the Arab student who is reveling in Israel’s delights only waiting to kill Jews at some point. But they have not yet purged Israel of old conceptions of Zionism as befits the genuinely totalitarian country they are envisaging, and parties like Labor, Yesh Atid and even Meretz, God forbid, still dare to call themselves Zionist. It’s time for the new Likudniks to leave a genuine mark on Israel, and I have the perfect plan for them. They should address a terrible scandal that taints Israel’s cities: all of them have one of their main streets named after a bearded Viennese self-hating Jew called Theodor Herzl. This man wrote a despicable book called Altneuland, containing absolutely horrid anti-Zionist propaganda. He promoted a country in which Jewish religion has no formal standing at all. Herzl believed that the Temple-Mount should be avoided, and any reconstruction of the temple should just be another synagogue. Worst of all: Herzl’s horrible work takes pride in the treacherous notion that the Nation-state of the Jews gives completely equal rights to all citizens, including Arabs, and is cosmopolitan in nature. (...)