C'est l'avis de Shlomo Sand (Comment le peuple juif fut inventé?) : sous le nom de plume de P. Ivanov, Staline lui-même aurait signé un article fracassant dans la Pravda contre la théorie khazare. L'ironie de cette histoire est que la théorie khazare a été amplement développée par les chercheurs soviétiques des premières années après la révolution bolchévique, dont plusieurs étaient juifs. Plus tard, sous Staline, alors que ce dernier opérait un retour aux valeurs de la Russie ancestrale, cette théorie fut complètement discréditée et rejetée, associée aux bourgeois et aux juifs, ces "ennemis des Slaves".
Et qui était donc ce fameux Arthur Koestler, l'auteur le plus célèbre associé à cette théorie khazare? Rappelons simplement que cet auteur juif fut un sioniste de la droite la plus radicale, proche du mouvement de Jabotinski, avant de devenir communiste et de développer une aversion sans borne envers Staline et l'Union soviétique, mais cela sans jamais faillir dans son appui inconditionnel envers Israël! Tenez-vous le pour dit!
Voilà qui jette un éclairage quelque peu différent sur la question, vous trouvez pas?
"Comment le peuple juif fut inventé?", Par Shlomo Sand, 2008, p.324-331 :
"Le pouvoir soviétique, dans ses premiers temps, encouragea la recherche sur la Khazarie : de jeunes historiens s'attelèrent avec enthousiasme à la tâche consistant à défricher le passé pré-impérial de l'histoire russe. Du début des années 1920 à la seconde moitié des années 1930 apparut une création historiographique florissante qui n'hésitait pas à entourer ses découvertes d'idéalisation glorificatrice.
La sympathie des chercheurs soviétiques à l'égard de l'Empire khazar venait de ce que ce dernier avait échappé au pouvoir de l'Église orthodoxe et qu'il était resté tolérant et ouvert à l'égard de toutes les religions. Le fait que la Khazarie fut un royaume juif ne les gêna en rien, peut-être parce que en dépit de leur marxisme manifeste la majorité des chercheurs avaient des origines juives. S'ils pouvaient apporter un brin de fierté juive à l'internationalisme prolétarien, idéal supranational dans son essence, pourquoi pas ? Cependant, les chercheurs les plus distingués de ce groupe n'avaient aucun lien avec la judéité.
En 1932, Pavel Kokovstsov fit publier Les Documents khazars en hébreu dans une édition critique et systématique, en dépit de ses doutes sur l'authenticité de certains documents. Cette publication encouragea la recherche ainsi que des fouilles archéologiques dans les régions du Don inférieur. Les fouilles furent dirigées par Mickaël Artamonov, un jeune archéologue, qui publia ses résultats en 1937 sous le titre Etudes sur l'histoire des anciens Khazars (1), dans l'esprit de la tradition russe soviétique favorable au discours khazar et en faisant l'éloge de ces anciens rois dont l'empire fut le berceau de la Rus' de Kiev naissante. Le vif intérêt que les Soviétiques portèrent à la Khazarie et l'importance qu'ils attribuèrent à l'histoire du Sud-Est européen rayonnèrent sur les travaux de chercheurs juifs en dehors de l'Union soviétique. Durant la période de l'entre-deux-guerres, par exemple, Yitzhak Schipper, éminent historien juif polonais, consacra plusieurs chapitres de ses oeuvres à l'histoire des Khazars ; de même, Baron décida d'approfondir le sujet, qu'il développa longuement dans son vaste travail. Si, pour Doubnov, le passé khazar constituait un chapitre légitime de l'histoire du « peuple juif », dans l'oeuvre de Baron, rédigée au cours de la seconde moitié des années 1930, il prit, de façon assez surprenante, comme on le verra par la suite, une grande importance.(…)
1. Voir Lior, Les Khazars dans l'historiographie, op. cit., p. 126.
(...) L'ère du silence israélien présentait de
nombreuses similitudes avec la période de déni en Union soviétique, même
si, au pays du socialisme russe, le phénomène avait débuté une génération plus tôt. Depuis la publication du livre d'Artamonov en 1937 et jusqu'aux années 1960, les Khazars n'eurent droit qu'à quelques rares publications, oùs'exprimaient généralement des réserves et des calomnies à leur égard. Ce n'est pas un hasard si ces juifs bizarres de l'Orient furent considérés comme une déviation de la logique historique du marxisme-léninisme, en contradiction avec le caractère de la « mère patrie russe » qui réapparut sous Staline.
L'« internationalisme prolétarien » des années 1920 et de la première moitié des années 1930 fit place, bien avant la Seconde Guerre mondiale, àun nationalisme russe affiché. Cette idéologie nationale se transforma, surtout après 1945, durant la période de la guerre froide et de la russification accélérée des régions non russes, en un nationalisme ethnocentriste dur et exclusif.
Tous les historiens russes et soviétiques qui relatèrent par la suite l'histoire de la Khazarie furent à cette période classés comme des « bourgeois » qui n'avaient pas su approfondir le caractère populaire slave et qui, pour cette raison, avaient minoré l'importance de la Rus' de Kiev antique. À la fin de l'année 1951, la Pravda, le principal quotidien soviétique, se mobilisa même pour faire le procès public des Khazars « parasitaires » ainsi que de leurs commentateurs passés, tombés dans l'erreur et ayant induit en erreur.Dans un article retentissant, un « historien institutionnel »,P. Ivanov (probablement Staline lui-même), analysa les faiblesses de la recherche sur la question des Khazars et conclut péremptoirement : « Nos ancêtres luttèrent les armes à la main pour défendre les terres de notre patrie devant les envahisseurs venus des steppes. La Russie antique servit de bouclier aux tribus slaves. Elle repoussa l'État de Khazarie, délivra les anciennes terres slaves de l'assujettissement [...] et libéra toutes les tribus et les autres peuples du joug de la Khazarie (1). » Artamonov fut particulièrement attaqué pour avoir manifesté dans le passé une sympathie déplacée à l'égard de la culture khazare et pour lui avoir attribué un rôle historique positif dans la naissance de la Russie.Une réunion du conseil scientifique de l'Institut historique à l'Académie des sciences de l'URSS, tenue après la publication de cet article dans la Pravda, approuva la position défendue par le journal et lui donna entièrement raison. Dès lors, les rênes
1. Cité in Lior, Les Khazars dans l'historiographie, op. cit., p. 130.
furent lâchées et les Khazars transformés enêtres maudits et impurs qui avaient eu le malheur de s'immiscer dans les rouages du passé russe.Au cours des années 1960, après le relatif dégel ayant succédé à la rude période glaciaire stalinienne, les recherches sur les Khazars reprirent avec une grande prudence, mais elles furent alors nettement teintées de nationalisme et parfois même d'antisémitisme. (1)
1. Mickaël Artamonov, qui a avoué dans le courant des années 1950 qu'il n'avait pas été assez «patriote» dans les années 1930, publia en 1962 son second livre sur les débuts de la Khazarie, Histoire des Khazars, mais cette fois avec une fierté nationale de rigueur, à laquelle il ajouta même une touche antijuive. Cf. à ce propos la critique cinglante de Shmuel Ettinger dans la revue Kiriat Sefer (en hébreu), 39, 1964, p. 501-505, et également Irène Sorlin, « Le problème des Khazars et les historiens soviétiques dans les vingt dernières années », Travaux et mémoires du Centre de recherche d'histoire et civilisation de Byzance, 3, 51 1968, p. 423-455.
(...)
Les Khazars: problèmes et controverses, par S. Szyszman :
Soviet Archaeology: Trends Schools and History, by Leo S. Klejn :
Two-tiered Relexification in Yiddish: Jews, Sorbs, Khazars and the Kiev-Polessian Dialect, by Paul Wexler : FOUTRE LE KHAZAR
(...) Juif à 75 % khazar est imposture. Un des auteurs de cette thèse
absurde est Joseph Kessel, juif hongrois. Aussi que crussiez-vous que
nous fissions ? Nous avons rembarré le Lorrain, qui nous a raccroché au
nez en nous disant « Salut ! » Signe du temps, antijudaïsme devenant de
plus en plus respectable. (...) L’antisémite peut parfois être
séduisant, comme Dieudo’ dans son dernier film, où il semble
décrontracté, sûr de lui et dominateur, mais ne vous fiez pas aux
antisémites. Quant au juif khazar, c’est en grande partie mythe, auquel
souscrivent idiots comme Georges Theil et le Lorrain.(...)
À NE PAS MANQUER:
Koestler et son arnaque des "Khazars", intox visant à éradiquer à jamais l'antisémitisme ! Et ainsi à servir les intérêts juifs. Car il ne peut plus y avoir d'antisémitisme s'il ne reste que des Khazars non-juifs! “More on the Khazar Theory”: Koestler Admitted He Wrote His Book to Further Jewish Interests
“Should this theory be confirmed, the term ‘anti-Semitism’ would become void of meaning,” he said.According to Scammell, Koestler told French biologist Pierre Debray-Ritzen he“was convinced that if he could prove that the bulk of Eastern European Jews were descended from the Khazars, the racial basis for anti-Semitism would be removed and anti-Semitism itself could disappear.” (Source: Scammell, Michael. Koestler: The Literary and Political Odyssey of a Twentieth-Century Skeptic, Random House, 2009, ISBN 978-0-394-57630-5, p. 546.)
Dr. David Duke: “More on the Khazar Theory”: Koestler Admitted He Wrote His Book to Further Jewish Interests
À la différence des bolchéviques qui cherchaient à revaloriser les juifs en mettant en vedette les héroïques Khazars, Koestler ne présente pas les Khazars dans le but de les valoriser mais dans le but d'éradiquer une fois pour toute l'antisémitisme en lui enlevant son objet de haine: les juifs. En convainquant les antijuifs que les juifs sont seulement des "Khazars", les antijuifs vont disparaître, il ne restera plus que des anti-Khazars (qui plus est: des anti-Khazars inoffensifs puisque le soi-disant "problème Khazar" n'intéresse personne).
Toutefois, nous ne saurions suivre sans hésitation un Dr. David Duke lorsque ce dernier déclare que cette théorie khazare est un complot communiste juif. Nous pourrions dire trotskiste. Ou antisoviet, antistalinien... Ces antisoviets antistaliniens n'étaient pas forcément juifs mais, chose certaine, ils étaient pour la plupart philosémites convaincus. Or c'est justement ce portrait qui décrit parfaitement le profil des trotskistes qui deviendront plus tard les néoconservateurs, soit les principaux agitateurs-idéologues de la guerre froide, de la guerre au terrorisme et du retour actuel des tensions avec la Russie, comme au "bon vieux temps" de la guerre froide...
À l'opposé de Shlomo Sand sur le spectrum idéologique gauche-droite, l'orientaliste juif britannique Bernard Lewis, un des idéologues favoris des néoconservateurs anti-islam et pro-sionistes, le père du concept du "choc des civilisations", donne la même description des débuts pro-juifs du bolchévisme se métamorphosant en anti-judaïsme nationaliste sous Staline. En 1986, Lewis décrivait dans Semites and Anti-Semites les débuts pro-judaïques du bolchévisme ainsi que le virage nationaliste anti-judaïque opéré par les soviets sous Staline et après Staline, en révolte contre les "cosmopolites déracinés" internationalistes, qu'ils soient trotskistes ou capitalistes.
"Après la création de l'Etat d'Israël, Staline commença à
associer les juifs soviétiques à la conspiration capitaliste mondiale et
entama une campagne d'arrestation, de déportation et d'exécution des
principaux écrivains juifs. Il préparait une campagne antisémite de plus
grande ampleur encore lorsqu'il mourut, en 1953. Après la mort de
Staline, le communisme prit une coloration de plus en plus ethnique,
sous l'impulsion de gens qui désiraient renouer avec sa gloire passée,
corrompue, selon eux, par les juifs." (Le Monde)
Some Jews, wounded by the continuing
anti-Semitism that they encountered in the socialist rank and file
and even sometimes in the socialist leadership, lost hope of a
solution to Jewish problems through socialist internationalism, and
instead began to think in Jewish national terms. Socialist ideologies
are an important strain in the development of Zionism in the late
nineteenth and twentieth centuries. A number of different forms of
socialist Zionism evolved, all of which laid the main stress not so
much on the creation of a sovereign Jewish st;tte, as on the social
regeneration of the Jewish people by a return to productive labor.
Many Jews, however, remained in the
socialist movements which, despite the presence of some anti-Semitic
elements, still offered them a warmer welcome than any other
political party in Europe. at the time, and virtually their only road
to political power. This in tum gave rise to the second anti-Semitic
interpretation of the Jewish role in capitalism-that of a radical
subversive seeking to destroy it. This perception was strongly
reinforced in the aftermath of World War I, when the Bolshevik regime
in Russia and abortive communist revolutions. in Hungary, Bavaria,
and elsewhere brought significant numbers of Jewish leaders into
international prominence. White Russian anti-Soviet propaganda made
the fullest use of this, both at home and in the West. Their
arguments seemed to be confirmed by the prominence of such figures as
Trotsky, Zinoviev, and Kamenev in the Soviet leadership.
For a while, certain Jews were indeed
prominent in the Soviet leadership and exercised great power. But
after the rise of Stalin, all this came to an end. In due course,
Trotsky was driven into exile and later murdered, Zinoviev and
Kamenev arid many other Jews were executed for crimes against the
state. While these prosecutions and executions were in the first
iristance ideological rather than antiSemitic, they hit a
disproportionate nwnber of Jews, and prepared the way for the total
exclusion of Jews from the higher Soviet leader~ ship and the
initiation of a campaign against "world Jewry" which in its
language as well as its content is remarkably reminiscent of the
older anti-Semitism, both of the left and of the right.
By the beginning of 1949, however, it
was becoming clear that Soviet recognition of Israel was not aiding
Soviet policy as expected. Stalin felt free to resume and extend the
anti-Jewish attitudes which· were first discernible during the
interlude of friendship with Hitler. Before and during the war this
was tacit and on a small scale, and consisted principally in limiting
or barring Jewish access to positions of trust and power. Many Jews
still remained in the upper reaches of the communist hierarchy, but
fewer and fewer were permitted to set foot on the lower rungs of the
ladder.
In January 1949 Stalin inaugurated the
first of what was.to be a long series of anti-Jewish campaigns. In
all of these Stalin and his successors were careful-at least at the
higher levels-not to identify the adversary simply as the Jews, or
even as the Jewish ethnic nationality (natsional'nost'). They
preferred to use transparent synonyms, and, in case anyonefailed to
get the point, took care to emphasize in various ways the Jewish
origins of the persons under attack. The traditional Russian practice
of citing people by name and patronymic was useful in this regard.
For those who had changed their names or whb--as was common among
senior communists--made use of a pseudonym, the old and identifiably
Jewish name was usually added in brackets-that is, where the name was
cited in a negative context. Thus if G A. Fulanov received some honor
or decoration, he was the good Russian G. A. Fulanov. If, on the
other hand, he was accused of some crime, he became Grigori
Aaronovich Fulanov (formerly Finkelstein). A famous example was that
old enemy of Stalin, Leon Trotsky, now cited as "Lev Davidovich
Trotsky (formerly Bronstein)."
The first postwar attack on the Jews
begart with the campaign against "cosmopolitanism" in the
Soviet press. Launched in Pravda in January 1949, the campaign
against cosmopolitanism was at first concerned with theatrical and
other artistic matters. The word was used as a term of abuse for
those writers, artists, and critics who showed undue awareness of
Western writing, art, and criticism. Its meaning was soon changed,
widening to include political and ideological activities and
offenses, and at the same time narrowed, to become a virtual synonym
for Jews.
The "rootless cosmopolitan,"
as he was usually called, was contrasted with the true patriot or
even with the "indigenous population." He was "an
alien without a motherland" and "incapable of understanding
true Russian patriotism.''9 That such charges accorded ill with
communist internationalism did not trouble the increasingly
chauvinistic leaders of the Russian state. The attack on Jewish
culture had begun as far back as 1938, and by 1940 all Yiddish
schools had been closed, as had the Yiddish sections in the
Belorussian and Ukrainian academies of sciences. All teaching and
research in Jewish subjects was broughtto an end. At the same time
Jews were progressively. excluded from any branch of governmental or
party apparatus concerned with defense and foreign affairs. In
January 1948 Shlomo Mikhoels, the director of .the Yiddish language
state theater and chairman of the wartime Jewish Anti-Fascist
Committee was killed in a traffic accident later revealed to have
been officially arranged. to Before long such subterfuges were no
longer thought to be necessary, and in August 1952 more than twenty
prominent Jewish cultural figures were executed as "spies and
bourgeois nationalists."
From Russia the campaign against
cosmopolitanism was extended to the Soviet-dominated states in
Eastern Europe. In November 1952 a purge and show trial in
Czechoslovakia ended with the confession and execution of Rudolf
Slansky, a lifelong Stalinist and secretarygeneral of the
Czechoslovak Communist Party. In the course of the trial, he and his
fellow accused confessed that they had been Zionists; bourgeois
Jewish nationalists, traitors, and spies throughout their careers.
This was followed by the "Doctors'
Plot" in January 1953, when a group of doctors, tnost of them
Jews, was accused of plotting to murder Stalin and other Soviet
leaders in the interests of American intelligence and "the
international Jewish bourgeoisie." The power behind both the
Doctors' Plot and the Slansky plot, according to the accusers, was
the American Jewish Joint Distribution Committee, a well-known
charitable organization concerned with social relief and
rehabilitation. The Soviet, Soviet-controlled, and Soviet-influenced
media gave immense publicity to these two events, and found occasion
to stress their Jewish character. Of the fourteen accused in the
Czechoslovak trial, eleven were Jews; of the nine doctors, seven were
Jews. While both plots were said to have been organized by American
intelligence, the organizing agency was described as Jewish, and the
ideological impetus as "Zionism and Jewish bourgeois
nationalism."
The charges against the Slansky group
and the doctors were duly echoed by communist and fellow traveling
writers in the West, in an obedient chorus of denunciation. The
organizers where possible made a special point of mobilizing Jewish
communists for this work. 11
Another motive was certainly the
usefulness of anti-Semitism in the troubled Soviet domains in Europe.
In these countries, antiSemitism had long been a powerful factor in
social, economic, and public life. In Eastern Europe, unlike Western
Europe, the post-Hitler era did not bring a decline in anti-Semitism
through compassion for the victims, but rather an increase, directed
principally against those survivors who attempted to come home. What
made matters far worse, was that so many of these survivors had come
in the wake of the Soviet armies, and some played a prominent role in
the first governments set up under Soviet auspices. At some stage
Stalin seems to have decided that it was better to have anti-Semitism
working for Soviet power than against it. Thereupon, Soviet
propaganda in Eastern Europe made great efforts to identify its
enemies as Jews and thus harness the widespread and deeply felt
feelings of hostility to Soviet advantage.
Finally, in the system of capricious
and arbitrary autocratic rule established by Stalin, the personal
feelings and motivations of the dictator cannot be discounted. Among
many signs of growing paranoia in Stalin's last years, he was greatly
concerned with imagined dnngers from world Jewry. Such themes would
have been familiar to him from the czarist empire in which he was
born and received his education.
The death of Stalin in March 1953
brought a temporary respite, if only from the more extreme forms of
anti-Jewish activity. The doctors were released, and the whole case
against them ascribed to a "machination." Rudolf Slansky
and his fellow accused had already been executed and could no longer
benefit from this change of policy. They were, however, accorded the
communist form of recompense in an afterlife by being
"rehabilitated." Khrushchev's famous secret speech in
February 1956, denouncing the evils of the Stalin era, raised new
hopes among the Jews as among other elements in the Soviet
population.
For the Jews at least these hopes were
of brief duration. Khrushchev soon showed that while he did not share
Stalin's paranoiac fantasies, his view of the Jewish role in the
Soviet realms was not vastly different from that of his predecessor.
His off-the-cuff remark, during a visit to Poland, that "there
are too many Abramoviches around here" was heard and understood
by both the Abramoviches and their gentile neighbors. By this time
few but hard-core communist Jews had remained in Poland; most of the
others had left. Now even the communists realized that their time had
come, and as unobtrusively as possible took their departure. The
communist rulers of Poland undertook a very thorough and far-reaching
campaign against "Zionism and bourgeois Jewish nationalism,"
from which they hoped to gain a double advantage, by ingratiating
themselves at once with their Russian masters and their Polish
subjects. Khrushchev, outstanding among Soviet leaders for his
frankness, explained his own views on Jewish matters to a group of
French socialists who interviewed him in May 1956:
If now the Jews
wanted to occupy the top jobs in our republics, they would obviously
be looked upon unfavorably by the indigenous peoples. The latter
would ill receive these claims, especially at a time when they
consider themselves no less intelligent and no less able than the
Jews. Or, for instance, in the Ukraine if a Jew is appointed to an
important job and he surrounds himself with Jewish fellow workers, it
is understandable that there may be hostility towards the Jews.12
Introduction. Joseph Stalin’s legacy continues to haunt geopolitical
developments across the world. Stalin (‘Man of Steel’) ruled the USSR
and later Soviet-Russian Empire with an iron fist from 1928 until his
death in 1953. His individual resolve placed Russia on a course to
national greatness by reversing the Bolshevik-Marxist psychosis that
would have reduced Russia to chaos and destroyed the very soul of the
Russian people. In foreign policy Stalin assured Russia’s place as a
world power and maintained the national and cultural freedom of Russia
by rejecting the post- 1945 international policy that the USA aimed at
creating a one-world government. In the arts Stalinism repudiated
‘rootless cosmopolitanism’ in favour of a Soviet culture based on a
synthesis of Russian traditions. ...
"Purim, a Jewish holy day, just passed. It's a bloody tale of intrigue by Queen Esther of Persia and Haman, her opponent. Jewish kids celebrate by eating "Hamantashen" (Haman's flesh) cookies and the Jewish men get drunk in their synagogues. Rabbis name someone in the world as the "Haman of the Year". In 1953, at Purim, Joseph Stalin was murdered in the Kremlin. He had become the enemy of the Jews. Stalin had signed an order two months before his death for the arrest and deportation of all Jews in Russia."
Serait-ce le début d'une guerre opposant les États-Unis et Israël ? Ce serait extrêmement surprenant, mais pas impossible, surtout quand on voit à quelle vitesse leurs relations se détériorent.
En tous les cas, cela devrait raviver en nous l'espoir que tout n'est pas perdu. Espoir de jours meilleurs, du début d'un ordre mondial véritablement nouveau, à la place de ce vieil ordre mondial anglo-juif en perdition...
Obama n'a bien sûr rien d'un Hitler. Mais c'est quand même ainsi que la juiverie sioniste le perçoit!
Obama disliked in Israeli polls
Despite attempts at reconciliation after conclusion of Iran deal, US
president still struggles to find favor with Israelis more than any
other country.
"C'est à Netanyahou de choisir les représentants de son pays" (Maison-Blanche)
(...) Ran Baratz, le nouveau chef de la diplomatie publique et conseiller
médiatique du Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahou, dont la nomination
mercredi a déjà suscité la controverse, a qualifié le comportement du
président Barack Obama d'"antisémite", et affirmé que le secrétaire
d'État américain John Kerry était une personne "dont l'âge mental ne
dépasse pas celui d'un enfant de 12 ans", dans des déclarations faites
plus tôt cette année.
Dans un post publié sur sa page Facebook le 3 mars dernier, jour du
discours controversé de Netanyahou au Congrès américain sur l'accord, à
l'époque en cours de discussion, entre l'Iran et les puissances
mondiales, Baratz avait écrit : "Les propos d'Obama sur le discours de
Netanyahou : voilà à quoi ressemble l'antisémitisme moderne dans les
États libéraux occidentaux, et il est accompagné, bien sûr, de beaucoup
de tolérance et de compréhension à l'égard de l'antisémitisme islamique ;
une tolérance et une compréhension telle qu'ils sont même prêts à leur
donner (à l’Iran) une bombe nucléaire".
Depuis l'annonce de sa nomination mercredi, Baratz est sous le feu
des critiques pour une série de déclarations controversées publiées sur
sa page Facebook et dans ses articles sur le site Mida qu'il a fondé, et
sur lequel sont publiés des opinions et des analyses de droite.
Le chef de l’opposition israélienne, Yitzhak Herzog a appelé jeudi à
empêcher Baratz d’exercer cette fonction. “Un homme qui a humilié le
président d’Israël doit rentrer chez lui tout de suite”, a-t-il déclaré.
La nomination de Baratz et la controverse qui a suivi interviennent à
un moment particulièrement sensible : en effet, dans trois jours
Netanyahou se rend à Washington pour tenter de ressouder ses liens avec
le président américain.
L'année dernière, Baratz avait écrit un article dans lequel il
critiquait sévèrement l'hypothèse de Kerry selon laquelle l'émergence du
radicalisme islamique au Moyen-Orient pouvait être attribuée à la
persistance conflit israélo-palestinien.
Baratz avait alors écrit: "Au crédit de Kerry, il convient de noter
qu'aucune Miss Amerique aurait pu dire quelque chose de mieux que ce
qu'il a affirmé. Il est temps de souhaiter bonne chance au secrétaire
d'Etat, et de compter les jours avec l'espoir que quelqu'un au
département d'Etat se réveille et commence à voir le monde à travers les
yeux d'une personne dont l'âge mental dépasse celui d'un enfant de 12
ans".(...)
The settlements are not part of Israel The U.S. administration’s sharp message that protection of Israel from boycott doesn’t apply to the settlements should come as no surprise.
Republican candidate: Obama marching Israel 'to door of the oven' Mike Huckabee in hot water over comment comparing Iran nuclear deal to the extermination of Jews during the Holocaust; Obama: 'This pattern of attacks by Republican candidates would be considered ridiculous if it weren't so sad'.
Obama disliked in Israeli polls Despite attempts at reconciliation after conclusion of Iran deal, US president still struggles to find favor with Israelis more than any other country.
Dick Cheney : L’accord sur le nucléaire iranien est une "folie"
Les nazis ont mis 7 ans pour tuer 6 millions de Juifs, mais il faudra
seulement « un jour » à un Iran nucléaire pour parvenir au même
résultat, a déclaré l’ancien vice-président de George W Bush.
‘Nuke the Iran deal,’ Boston rally tells US Congress
Making frequent references to the Holocaust, up to 1,000 Bostonians
gather on Beacon Hill to protest the Obama administration’s ‘disgraceful
and dangerous’ nuclear accord.
The Price of Trying to Humiliate Obama Anyone who thinks to now teach the Americans what’s good for them and humiliate their leader should prepare to pay.
ISRAEL ON THE EDGE OF THE ABYSS – MUST READ
YNET – Analysis: Israel is willing to do anything to thwart the nuclear
deal, including publicly threatening Iranian scientists, interfering
with the internal affairs of the US, and dividing US Jews; meanwhile,
Netanyahu’s mistaken 2002 assessment of Iraq is coming back to haunt him
in his battle against Tehran.
US Jews must stay true to 'never again' pledge
Op-ed: American Jews, who are overwhelmingly Democrats, will have to
choose the Jewish state’s survival and security over the legacy of and
loyalty to a lame duck president from the party they support.
US Should Bring Israel Down a Peg – Buchanan
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu pushes things too far with
his audacious attempts to rip up Barack Obama’s Iran Nuclear deal, says
political commentator and author Patrick J. Buchanan.
Anti-Iran lobby chief backs Iran accord, steps down
Former US senator Joe Lieberman has been named chairman of “United
Against Nuclear Iran,” as the lobbying group’s president steps down
because he supports the nuclear agreement with Iran.
And Poof! Charles Schumer Disappears
Why, given that he's already burned bridges with the White House,
hasn’t the Democratic senator launched a full campaign to block the Iran
deal?
American Jews at the Service of Netanyahu
Who are U.S. Jewish leaders really representing when they lobby the
American president on behalf of Israel’s prime minister? Not their
fellow countrymen, for sure.
Le message d’Obama à Israël : vous êtes seuls
Dans un discours sur le nucléaire iranien, le président utilise une
tactique que les opposants juifs américains à l’accord auront du mal à
combattre : la question de la loyauté
Netanayhu, Herzog held secret meeting at Hollywood producer's home
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has held several unpublicized
meetings with the Hollywood film producer Arnon Milchan over the past
two months. The meetings were held at Milchan’s residence in Herzliya.
Did Barack Obama Hit Right Note in Call for Iran Deal Support?(..)In
his 20 minute appeal, Obama repeatedly weaved two themes known to
strike a chord among progressives: the Iraq war, and the role of big
money in Washington’s decision making process. When put together it
sounded something like this: Criticism of the deal, he said, comes
“partly from the $20 million that’s being spent lobbying against the
bill,” and “partly from the same columnists and former administration
officials that were responsible for us getting into the Iraq war.“ The
wording, though chosen carefully as not to conflate the two groups,
treaded into a highly sensitive area for some in the Jewish community.
The mention of $20 million is a clear reference to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee,
which is leading the lobbying efforts against the Iran deal and has
raised, through a sister organization, this sum in order to fight for
disapproving the agreement. Tying
AIPAC and those who pushed for military intervention in Iraq in the
same argument, could be read as accepting the notion that the American
Jewish community was behind the Iraq war. It is a notion the organized pro-Israel community has been trying to fight off for over a decade. The
idea that Jews laid the groundwork for the Iraq war stems, in part,
from the fact that several national security and defense advisers in the
Bush administration were Jewish neo-conservatives who supported the
war. The organized Jewish community, however, did not call on the Bush administration to launch a military offensive against Iraq. The
reference was not lost on Jewish officials who are attuned to this
sensitivity. “Canard,” tweeted William Daroff of the Jewish Federations
of North America as Obama spoke on the conference call. And while Obama may have had no intention of giving credence to it, the
pronounced equation he made between those supporting the Iraq war and
those opposing the Iran deal, is likely to make many in the community
feel uneasy. As is the reference to “billionaires” bankrolling the
political effort to defeat the agreement in Congress. “You’ve got a
whole bunch of folks who are big check writers to political campaigns,
running TV ads, and billionaires who happily finance SuperPACs and they
are putting the squeeze on members of Congress,” Obama said. Again,
Obama made no direct reference to any individual involved in funding the
drive against the Iran deal, but it is clear that most of the money raised by pro-Israel groups for this campaign has come from Jewish donors. And
the Republican Jewish Coalition was quick to issue a statement
condemning Obama for “demonizing” opponents of the deal and reminding
Jewish leaders that when George H. W. Bush complained in 1991 about the
power of lobbyists, he was criticized by Jewish groups for what was seen
as a negative reference to the political power of Jewish Americans. (...)
Steinitz rejette « le chantage » de Kerry sur l’accord iranien
Un ministre israélien rejette l’assertion du chef de la diplomatie
américaine selon laquelle l’Etat juif pourrait faire face à un «
isolement » si le Congrès ne valide pas l’accord sur le nucléaire
Mutual mistrust makes clash on Iran even riskier Any nuclear deal would have created friction, but with duos such as Sharon/Bush or Rabin/Clinton – and unlike with Netanyahu/Obama - the fallout could be contained.
Obama chose dishonor, war Op-ed: Jews and non-Jews ought to choose Israel's survival over US president's legacy and pressure Congress not to sign off on Iran deal.
Iran deal fight splits American Jews The signing of the accord and the upcoming vote on it in Congress come at a time when Jewish communal discourse vis-a-vis Israel is increasingly fractured.
US Republicans, pro-Israel groups step up campaign against Iran deal Poll shows increase in both Republican and Democratic opposition to Iran deal as thousands take to Times Square to protest it; Obama administration to defend agreement at Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing.
AIPAC girds for rare high-noon showdown with White House Iran deal marks first open rift in more than 20 years over a president’s major foreign policy initiative. Precedents indicate the pro-Israel lobby has cause for concern.
Why Isn’t Anyone Talking About Israel’s Nukes? Netanyahu wants to talk about Iran’s nuclear ambitions, but why isn’t anybody talking about Israel’s not-so-secret arsenal? | March 5, 2015
Netanyahu warns that nuclear deal ‘paves Iran’s path’ to a bomb | March 3 2015 Publicly, Israel neither confirms nor denies that it has nuclear weapons. But many experts in nuclear arms believe that Israel has extensive capabilities. In 1986, Mordechai Vanunu, a disgruntled Israeli technician at a suspected nuclear facility, leaked photos to a British newspaper that led foreign experts to conclude that Israel had a large nuclear arsenal. Israeli intelligence agents later arrested Vanunu in Rome.
The truth about Israel's secret nuclear arsenal Israel has been stealing nuclear secrets and covertly making bombs since the 1950s. And western governments, including Britain and the US, turn a blind eye. But how can we expect Iran to curb its nuclear ambitions if the Israelis won't come clean? 15 jan 2015
What happened to Ben Gurion when he finally quit Israel's government? The decade between Ben-Gurion’s resignation and his death, in 1973, was a kind of senile decline; the amount of hate he spewed and his preoccupation with bizarre matters did not permit one to think otherwise. 2 Nov 2013
Netanyahu sends implicit threat to Iran ahead of nuclear deadline 'Israel will always defend itself, and its air force will play a major role,' prime minister says in comments at pilots' graduation ceremony. Bibi Says Iran Nuclear Deal Getting Even Worse Netanyahu Warns: West Conceding Too Much to Iran Prime Minister issues last-minute warning to the West as deadline to nuclear talks looms in less than a week. Obama's Congress trick Analysis: Those relying on Iran deal being thwarted by US Congress are in for a disappointment, unless final agreement is much worse than draft proposed in Lausanne – and in such a case, American president himself may be unwilling to approve it.
Ils sont stressés à mort parce que l'accord avec l'Iran va passer si le Congrès est incapable de le bloquer.
VIDEO - [Jewish Neocon] Krauthammer slams Obama after Israeli TV interview 'The
overwhelming majority of the Israelis know that this president has been
probably the least favorable to Israel of any in Israel's history and
at a moment where Israel's existence is actually in question.'
Morbid Marco Rubio Asks America, ‘Is It Safe?’
The interesting thing about Marco Rubio’s emerging foreign-policy
profile is not his commitment to mindlessly bellicose neoconservatism.
(This remains Republican doctrine, and Rubio has a keen eye for locating
the most popular stance within his party.) Rather, the interesting
thing is that Rubio sees no need to hide his bellicosity behind feigned
sophistication. He is a loud and proud neanderthal, appealing to the
most primitive, fearful elements of the conservative brain, or
brain-stem.
Les USA, Israël et l'Iran
Depuis quelque temps, les médias occidentaux se font l’écho du
différent entre les USA et Israël concernant l’attitude à adopter envers
l’Iran.
Kerry: There is a lot of hysteria over Iran deal
U.S. Secretary of State tells Channel 10 that Washington would never
let Israel down; Netanyahu, meanwhile, says Lausanne nuclear deal makes
world a more dangerous place.
Democrats losing Jewish vote
Op-ed: Weakening alliance between US Jewry and Democrats due to Obama's
Israel policy could have effect on identity of next president.
Obama’s 67 degrees of separation from Israel
Op-Ed: As Israel turns 67 in the vicious, unstable Middle East, the
current US administration has proved a vital ally. But ties could and
should have been closer.
Netanyahu’s worst nightmare has arrived at humanity’s doorstep–a nuclear deal with Iran, and now he must do whatever is necessary in order to prevent its implementation. The electrical power failure in DC–a shot across the bow via Israel’s Stuxnet virus that if Obama doesn’t ‘get right’ with Bibi that the lights are about to go out in America?
Is Obama worse than Chamberlain? The comparison between Lausanne 2015 and Munich 1938 lets Iran off lightly, as Germany at the time wasn't calling for 'Death to the Jews'. Obama's lies about Iran framework agreement It is a sad moment in
American history when the supreme leader of the Islamic dictatorship of
Iran is much more believable than US President Barack Obama.
Is the Iran deal more a Munich or a Versailles? It can be said the nuclear agreement is like the treaty that helped cause World War II or the one that failed after World War I. Either way, Israel needs U.S. military commitments.
Give War a Chance J.J. Goldberg digs deeper into the conflicting roles that Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon played in George W. Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq — and what it means for Iran today.
Who cares what Jeffrey Goldberg and Netanyahu don’t like about the Iran deal? Nowhere does the editorial question Netanyahu’s judgment: his use of the Iran issue to distract attention from the criminal occupation, his massacre in Gaza last summer, his crazy conflation of Iran and ISIS as Islamists seeking world “domination.”
The growing anguish of American-Jewish moderates We are caught less between countries and more between two leaders with whom we are uncomfortable, torn between that eternal dissonance of the defiant and submissive Jew.
Humiliating Obama on Iran could fuel anti-Semitism Op-ed: Netanyahu can defeat Obama in battle over Iran agreement, but humiliating president of world's greatest power will serve as further 'proof' that Jews are pulling strings with their fortune.
American groveling before Israel reaches new low The brain refuses to believe what the eyes read: Israel will push Congress to pass a bill, Israel will lobby the Congress. Imagine the scandal the reverse headline would ignite.
The beginning of the American Spring At a conference Friday about the Israel lobby in Washington, remarks the likes of which are rarely heard in the United States were made.
Bad News for Hillary? By J.J. Goldberg President Obama’s approval advantage among American Jews has dipped to its lowest point since he took office. Is that a warning signal for Hillary Clinton?
Goldberg est l'auteur du livre JEWISH POWER.
Give War a Chance J.J. Goldberg digs deeper into the conflicting roles that Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon played in George W. Bush’s disastrous war in Iraq — and what it means for Iran today.
Nowhere
does the editorial question Netanyahu’s judgment: his use of the Iran
issue to distract attention from the criminal occupation, his massacre
in Gaza last summer, his crazy conflation of Iran and ISIS as Islamists
seeking world “domination.”
Jewish UK Politician Calls for Obama Kidnap As Michael Collins Piper reported over three years ago, “Andrew Adler, editor and publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times—joining an ever-more-boisterous chorus of angry voices—wrote a column declaring Israel had three options (all violent) to ensure its security. The first option was to attack its enemies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The second was to attack Iran. The third option: ‘Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.’” Now, another Jewish radical, Jeremy Zeid, a UK Independence Party’s (UKIP) candidate, said Israel should “do an Eichmann” on U.S. president Barack Hussein Obama.
La pax obamanienne Permettre aux ayatollahs de parvenir au seuil de la bombe nucléaire est donc dans l'ordre des choses pour le Prix Nobel de la Paix 2009 ! Par Victor Peretz
“It’s laughable that [Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu has
become everybody’s nonproliferation guru. He is sitting on 400 nuclear
warheads, nuclear warheads that have been acquired in violation of the
NPT [Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty].”
Israel Asks Egypt: Stop Move to Monitor Our Nuclear Facilities
Netanyahu's advisers went to Cairo three weeks ago to discuss matter
with Egypt Foreign Minister Sameh Shoukry, who heads effort to lobby
internationally against Israel's nuclear program.
The Institute for Defense Analyses (IDA), an entity on contract
to the US Department of Defense has released a previously classified
military document which confirms Israel’s nuclear weapons program.
This is considered to be a landmark decision, widely interpreted
as constituting a semi-official recognition by the US Department of
Defense that Israel is a bona fide nuclear power. While the document
confirms what is already known regarding Israel’s nuclear arsenal, the
political implications are potentially far-reaching, particularly in
relation to the ongoing negotiations pertaining to Iran’s alleged
nuclear program.”
Who Threatens Whom in the Middle East:
A de facto acknowledgement by the US that Israel is a nuclear
power threatening the Middle East in contrast to Iran’s non-existant
nuclear weapons program
Moreover, as detailed below, the IDA report tacitly portrays
Israel’s nuclear weapons program as an extension of that of the United
States.
This 386-page 1987 report entitled “Critical Technological
Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations” provides details regarding
Israel’s weapons systems including the development of the hydrogen bomb.
While the report was written 28 years ago, it confirms Israel’s
capabilities to develop nuclear weapons, with an explosive capacity
equivalent to 1000 times a (Hiroshima) atomic bomb:
that in the 1980s Israelis were reaching the ability to create bombs considered a thousand times more powerful than atom bombs.
The report also states that:
“[Israel is] developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. [1980s] That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,”.
The report also notes that research laboratories in Israel “are
equivalent to our Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore and Oak Ridge
National Laboratories,” the key labs in developing America’s nuclear
arsenal. (quoted in Israel National News, March 25, 2015)
Israel’s nuclear infrastructure is ”an almost exact parallel of the capability currently existing at our National Laboratories,”
The report intimates that Israel’s weapons industry including its
nuclear program is essentially an extension of that of the US, developed
with the active support and collaboration of US military research labs
and US “defense contractors”.
In this regard it also dispels the notion that the US was not made
privy to Israeli classified information concerning its nuclear program,
which in the earlier period was developed with the support of France.
The report also reveals that the Pentagon was fully informed
regarding the intimate details of the Israeli program, which also
suggests that it was developed in active collaboration with the US.
Between Obama and Netanyahu, It's Personal Is This Feud Just About Policy Differences?
On tente de personnaliser et psychologiser le conflit... Pour minimiser le problème réel!
Jewish UK Politician Calls for Obama Kidnap As Michael Collins Piper reported over three years ago, “Andrew Adler, editor and publisher of The Atlanta Jewish Times—joining an ever-more-boisterous chorus of angry voices—wrote a column declaring Israel had three options (all violent) to ensure its security. The first option was to attack its enemies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The second was to attack Iran. The third option: ‘Give the go-ahead for U.S.-based Mossad agents to take out a president deemed unfriendly to Israel in order for the current vice president to take his place, and forcefully dictate that the United States’ policy includes its helping the Jewish state obliterate its enemies.’”
John Boehner's Double Standard on Bibi — and Obama, by J.J. Goldberg (Jewish Power)
I think the animosity exhibited by our administration toward the prime minister of Israel is reprehensible. I think that the pressure that they’ve put on him over the last four or five years has frankly pushed him to the point where he had to speak up.
The Boehner Rules J.J. Goldberg says the best joke of the week came from John Boehner. The GOP leader thinks it’s really mean of President Obama to ‘put pressure’ on Benjamin Netanyahu.
Watch what Netanyahu does, not what he says Israel has again voted for a national leader who acts as if he considers one-fifth of its country's citizens -- including me and my family -- to be an existential threat. We were born into the wrong tribe, so to speak.
Revealing Israel's Nuclear Secrets The Pentagon Declassifies a Surprising 1987 Report Secret Place: Israel’s nuclear reaction in Dimona, photographed in 2014. By Michael Karpin (author of The Bomb in the Basement)
Allies behaving badly Where is the White House headed on Israel? What is the root cause of the tension between Netanyahu and the Obama administration?
Allies spy on allies all the time. Did Israel do something worse?(...)According to Adam Entous of the Wall Street Journal, Israel's surveillance of closed-door talks between Washington and Tehran was used to gather information that was then passed on to U.S. lawmakers. This detail is apparently what is causing the most anger within the White House. “It is one thing for the U.S. and Israel to spy on each other," one unnamed U.S. official told the Journal. "It is another thing for Israel to steal U.S. secrets and play them back to U.S. legislators to undermine U.S. diplomacy." Israel has denied the reports, though few people buy it. "I'd be more surprised if Israel did NOT spy on the Iran nuclear negotiations," Steven A. Cook, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, tweeted on Tuesday.(...)
Man Behind the Curtain? Awash in cash, the Israeli American Council has been growing by leaps and bounds. But some fear it is becoming a political tool of donors like Sheldon Adelson.
White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough Remarks As Prepared at J Street Annual Conference The White House - Office of the Press Secretary (For Immediate Release) March 23, 2015 (...)In the end, we know what a peace agreement should look like. The borders of Israel and an independent Palestine should be based on the 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps. Each state needs secure and recognized borders, and there must be robust provisions that safeguard Israel’s security. An occupation that has lasted for almost 50 years must end, and the Palestinian people must have the right to live in and govern themselves in their own sovereign state. President Obama still firmly believes what he said in Jerusalem two years ago—that peace is necessary, just, and possible. Peace is necessary because it is the only way to ensure that a secure State of Israel is both Jewish and democratic. Israel cannot maintain military control of another people indefinitely. That’s the truth. And as President Obama has said, neither occupation nor expulsion of Palestinians is the answer. Anything less than true peace will only worsen the situation. A “one-state solution” would effectively end Israel’s nature as a Jewish and democratic state. Unilateral annexation of the West Bank territories would be both wrong and illegal. The United States would never support it, and it’s unlikely Israel’s other friends would either. It would only contribute to Israel’s isolation. Peace is also undeniably just. Palestinian children deserve the same right to be free in their own land as Israeli children in their land. A two-state solution will finally bring Israelis the security and normalcy to which they are entitled, and Palestinians the sovereignty and dignity they deserve.
POUR LES EXTRÉMISTES JUIFS DERRIÈRE ISRAEL, LA SOLUTION À DEUX ÉTATS (ET LE RETOUR AUX FRONTIÈRES DE 1967) N'EST RIEN DE PLUS QU'UN EUPHÉMISME POUR "LA DESTRUCTION DE L'ÉTAT D'ISRAËL". Top Obama aide slams PM Obama's chief of staff tells J Street US 'cannot ignore Netanyahu's comments' on Palestine.
Netanyahu démasque Israël Prêt à tout pour se faire réélire, le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu a dépouillé Israël de son masque. Il a abandonné le subterfuge de la solution de deux États, affiché le racisme crasse qui sous-tend la politique israélienne et révélé le contrôle indiscutable d’Israël sur le congrès des États-Unis.
« Il faut tout d’abord que les Iraniens
démontrent clairement qu’ils ne fabriquent pas de bombes nucléaires, et
qu’ils nous laissent toute latitude pour nous en assurer ». Dans un
entretien vendredi 20 mars avec Sam Stein pour The Huffington Post, Barack Obama réitère son objectif d’obtenir un accord sur le dossier du nucléaire iranien « dans les semaines à venir ».
« Il n’y aura pas d’accord tant que tout
n’aura pas été résolu », a aussi indiqué le président américain,
réfutant les rumeurs selon lesquelles une première ébauche de l’accord
circule parmi les cercles autorisés. Les grandes puissances et Téhéran
reprendront mercredi 25 mars leurs négociations, après une semaine de
tractations marathon qui n’ont pas permis de sceller d’accord avant
l’échéance du 31 mars.
« Je dois avouer que les Iraniens n’ont
pas fait jusqu’ici les compromis que j’estime indispensables pour
parvenir à cet accord. Mais ils se sont montrés ouverts, ce qui laisse
la porte ouverte à la recherche d’une solution (…). Je vais devoir
démontrer au peuple américain, mais aussi aux Israéliens et au reste du
monde, que nous avons mis en place des mécanismes qui empêcheront l’Iran
d’accéder à la bombe atomique », a aussi dit Barack Obama au Huffington Post.
Le président Obama a promis qu’il ferait
tout, y compris militairement, pour empêcher Téhéran d’obtenir la
bombe. Mais depuis 2013, il mise sur la diplomatie et a fait d’un
rapprochement avec la puissance chiite une priorité. Ce qui met en
rage Israël et le Congrès américain.
« Il est évident que beaucoup
d’Israéliens se méfient, à juste titre, de leur voisin iranien, a aussi
commenté le président américain. L’Iran a tenu des propos ignobles et
antisémites, et menacé Israël d’annihilation. C’est précisément pour
cela que j’ai dit, avant même de devenir président, que l’Iran ne devait
pas disposer de l’arme nucléaire ».
Autres sujets de politique étrangère
évoqués durant l’entretien, la victoire de Benjamin Netanyahu aux
élections législatives anticipées du mardi 17 mars et la création d’un
Etat palestinien. « Disons que nous lui faisons confiance quand il dit
que cela n’arrivera pas tant qu’il sera Premier ministre. C’est pourquoi
nous devons explorer d’autres options afin d’empêcher que la région ne
sombre dans le chaos », a dit Barack Obama au Huffington Post.
« J’ai eu l’occasion de parler hier
(jeudi 19 mars, ndlr) à M. Netanyahu. Je l’ai félicité pour sa victoire,
et je lui ai réaffirmé mon attachement à une solution à deux États qui
est, de notre point de vue, la seule garantie sur le long terme de la
sécurité d’Israël, en tant qu’État juif et démocratique, a indiqué
Barack Obama. Je lui ai également rappelé qu’après ses récentes
déclarations, il serait difficile de croire qu’Israël est sérieusement
attaché à la poursuite des négociations ». Benjamin Netanyahu a à
nouveau rejeté durant les derniers jours de sa campagne la solution à
deux États.
« Cependant, nous continuerons
d’insister sur le fait que, du point de vue des États-Unis, le statu quo
est intenable, a poursuivi le président américain. Nous sommes attachés
à la sécurité d’Israël, mais il n’est pas possible de poursuivre cette
voie éternellement, avec l’implantation de nouvelles colonies. C’est un
facteur d’instabilité dans la région ».
Le président américain a aussi critiqué
les propos de Benjamin Netanyahu qui avait dénoncé le « danger » d’un
vote massif des Arabes israéliens aux élections législatives. « Nous
avons rappelé que ce genre de discours était contraire aux traditions
d’Israël. Bien que ce pays soit fondé sur une terre historiquement
juive, et sur le besoin de créer une nation juive, la démocratie
israélienne repose sur la notion que tous ses citoyens sont égaux en
droits. C’est ce qui fait la grandeur de cette démocratie. Si cela
venait à changer, je pense que cela donnerait des arguments à ceux qui
ne veulent pas d’un Etat juif, et que cela affaiblirait la démocratie
israélienne », a commenté Barack Obama. (Source Europe-Israel)
After Netanyahu win, Obama takes off the gloves All aspects of relationship up for reevaluation; coming weeks critical as US waits to hear if PM will dial down anti-two-state, anti-Arab rhetoric
'U.S.-Israel relations fundamentally changed' Three comments by the newly reelected Israeli prime minister left Team Obama fuming; U.S. officials say his stance on Palestinian statehood is forcing an American 'reassessment.'
We Were Right About Bibi
The left lost the Israeli elections. But Jay Michaelson thinks it can
take away one important gift: Benjamin Netanyahu finally revealed
himself and his ugly ideology.
Our Wrenching Dilemma
EDITORIAL: Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t King of the Jews. Our wrenching
dilemma is to support Israel’s humanistic values while distancing
ourselves from a leader who stands for the opposite.
After Netanyahu win, Obama takes off the gloves All aspects of relationship up for reevaluation; coming weeks critical as US waits to hear if PM will dial down anti-two-state, anti-Arab rhetoric
'U.S.-Israel relations fundamentally changed' Three comments by the newly reelected Israeli prime minister left Team Obama fuming; U.S. officials say his stance on Palestinian statehood is forcing an American 'reassessment.'
We Were Right About Bibi
The left lost the Israeli elections. But Jay Michaelson thinks it can
take away one important gift: Benjamin Netanyahu finally revealed
himself and his ugly ideology.
Our Wrenching Dilemma EDITORIAL: Benjamin Netanyahu isn’t King of the Jews. Our wrenching dilemma is to support Israel’s humanistic values while distancing ourselves from a leader who stands for the opposite.
Netanyahu says US money driving high Arab voter turnout
Netanyahu's Likud party sent out message warning Israelis of 'threat'
of a high voter turnout among Israel's Arab population in bid to shore
up hardliner right wing votes; Arabs and data contradict claim.
The Real Kingmaker Now
that Israelis have voted, meet President Reuven Rivlin. The man who
will crown the country’s next prime minister is a lifelong Likudnik who
advocates for Arab civil rights.
What It Means to Us
What Netanyahu has just proved, Nathan Guttman writes, is that an
Israeli leader can bring relations with the White House to a historic
low and still emerge victorious.
Don't Let Bibi Off the Hook The
anti-Arab fear campaign Benjamin Netanyahu used to win Israel’s
election is indefensible, Sigal Samuel writes. So why are some American
Jews letting him get away with it?
'War with Iran is probably our best option’ ed note by TUT–from the author’s Wikipedia page– ‘Joshua Muravchik
was one of the group of writers who moved away from the political left
in the 1960s and 1970s and came to be called “neoconservatives.”’ In
addition to being a member of WINEP, a 100% pro-Israel/pro-war/pro-Likud
outfit that never saw a Judaic massacre of Gentiles it didn’t like, he
also serves on the board of trustees and the executive committee of Freedom House, one of the groups responsible for all the unrest in Syria, Libya and the ‘Arab Spring’ in general. A partial list of some of the books/articles written by this Zionist rodent is as follows– 1. Making David Into Goliath: How the World Turned Against Israel 2. Liberal Oasis: The Truth About Israel 3. Trailblazers of the Arab Spring: Voices of Democracy in the Middle East 4. Exporting Democracy: Fulfilling America’s Destiny 5. Bomb Iranetc, etc, etc… There was a time in America’s history where he would have been arrested as a spy and summarily shot. Remember
as well, that despite op-eds such as this appearing every freaking day
in America’s media, when writers/speakers such as yours truly allege
that there is a concerted effort by organized Jewish interests to
embroil America in Israel’s wars, groups such as the ADL and all its
little cockroach-cousins scream ‘ANTI SEMITIC CONSPIRACY THEORY’ and are
echoed by ‘good Jews’ such as Medea Benjamin, Noam Chomsky, etc.
Former envoy and Knesset hopeful Michael Oren: Israel must repair ties with U.S.
Israel's former ambassador to U.S. says 'there's work to be done,'
regardless of who wins Tuesday's election. (C'est lui, Michael Oren,
ancien ambassadeur d'Israël aux USA qui a admis publiquement qu'Israël
soutient Al-Qaida contre Assad.)
Caligula’s Horse
by Eric Margolis (...)Just as Caligula reportedly watched the Senate
vote from behind a
screen, so America’s political Golem, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson,
watched the Senate proceeds from a balcony perch. Adelson, one of
America’s richest men, made his fortune through gambling, something Dr.
Johnson aptly called “a tax on fools.” Gambling preys on the poor and
addicted just as much as do drugs.
Thanks to his huge profits, Adelson has managed to buy most of the
Republican Party. Its presidential candidates flock to his palace in Las
Vegas to kiss his feet and vow eternal allegiance to Israel. Adelson,
who has reportedly called for nuking Iran, is also Bibi
Netanyahu’s primary political and financial sponsor. So Adelson can say
he owns the US Congress and Israel. Some Israelis, who will vote next
week in a very tight election, are uneasy that Netanyahu is “owned” by
the American gambling mogul Adelson. Is this the Zionist dream of a
state built on morality, social fairness, and honesty? Democrats are now
largely owned by Israeli-American billionaire Haim
Saban who calls himself somewhere to the right of the late Ariel Sharon.
Saban, a media mogul, recently gave $5-10 million to the Clinton
Library and is Hillary’s principal backer.
Bibi’s visit to Congress was clearly intended as pre-election
political grandstanding. Marketing fear of Islam, Iran, ISIS, Hezbollah,
Syria, al-Shebab and Boko Haram are now the stock in trade for
embattled politicians in Israel, Canada, Australia and France.(...)
Netanyahu's speech dodged Israeli election law
Apparently the Central Elections Committee did not deem the prime
minister's attack on Obama electioneering. The opposition leader,
however, was cut off the air mid-sentence during his response.
Netanyahou : "il y a un effort mondial pour me renverser" Netanyahu says sees ‘worldwide’ effort to topple him ed note, MG–those who think that in the event he loses that Nutty Netty is simply going to walk away from this and say ‘oh well, the best man won’–you can forget it. In the words of those who have worked closely with him and who know him best, he is ‘messianic’, in that he possesses a Jim Jones type mentality, believing that the entire ‘Jewish state’ project revolves around him and that if he is removed from the process of leading the Jewish state, that the Jewish state will cease to exist, and if the Jewish state ceases to exist, that there is no reason for the world to continue.
Israël: Des dizaines de milliers d'Israéliens anti-Netanyahu rassemblés Tens of thousands in Tel Aviv demand Netanyahu’s ouster pas entendu parler de ça nulle part dans les médias Bibi forever
"Une foule, probablement une horde, certainement des barbares, s’est
réunie samedi soir à Tel-Aviv sur la place Yitzhak Rabin. De toutes les
villes du pays, ils sont venus par cars spéciaux. Plusieurs dizaines de
milliers de surexcités suintant la haine et n’ayant que l’invective à la
bouche, avec peut-être aussi un mince filet de bave. Bibi forever Tous
des antisémites, aucun ne pouvant échapper à la règle. Des fous furieux
qui vont jusqu’à mettre sérieusement en danger l’existence du Grand
[Israël]."
Obama, Iran dismiss GOP Obama calls Republican senators' letter to Iran 'ironic' while Iran dismisses it as propaganda.
Du point de vue juif, Obama et l'Iran sont sur la même ligne de pensée... MDR!
Cantor reflects on Netanyahu speech, Jewish holiday of Purim
This past week was a momentous (if divisive) one for Jews across the
world, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s historic address
to both houses of Congress, and the controversy surrounding it. The
Jewish community also celebrated the holiday of Purim.
“The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of
genocidal enemies, those days are over. ... We are no longer scattered
among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our
sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home
have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the
Jewish people, can defend ourselves.”
Netanyahou rappelle la fête de Pourim
Le Premier ministre Binyamin Netanyahou a mentionné devant le Congrès
américain l’histoire de la fête de Pourim, qui aura lieu à la fin de la
semaine. « Aman voulait détruire le peuple juif et une courageuse femme
juive s’est dressée contre ce plan et a sauvé son peuple », a affirmé M.
Netanyahou, se comparant aux héros de l’histoire de Pourim. Et
d’ajouter: « Aujourd’hui, le peuple juif fait face à une nouvelle menace
de la part d’un Perse. L’ayatollah Khamenei a tweeté qu’Israël devait
être annihilé ! » « Le régime iranien n’est pas le problème des Juifs,
tout comme les nazis n’étaient pas le problème des Juifs », a précisé le
chef du gouvernement. Et de déplorer : « Les Iraniens sont issus d’une
civilisation magnifique, mais la révolution islamique a tout changé.
L’Iran est impliqué dans le terrorisme à Gaza, au Liban, en Syrie et au
Yémen. »
Haman, Khamenei and Netanyahu’s Speech
How ironic and appropriate that the Jewish World celebrates Purim this
week. Purim commemorates the survival of the Jewish people following a
decree that “all Jews, from Ethiopia to India be slaughtered.”
Netanyahu's misleading invocation of Purim
The Israeli prime minister conveniently ignores the first eight chapters
of the Book of Esther, recruiting only the revenge tragedy part to
justify his agenda.
HAARETZ - By invoking Purim, Netanyahu calls for a preemptive strike on Iran
The Israeli prime minister conveniently ignores the first eight chapters of the Book of Esther, recruiting only the revenge tragedy part to justify his agenda.
By Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi | Mar. 5, 2015 | 7:50 PM
Benjamin Netanyahu chose the day before the holiday of Purim on which to deliver his speech to Congress, and made the most obvious analogy: As in ancient times, the Persians intend to annihilate the Jews. Now, as then, the Jews will prevail over the villains and foil their genocidal plots. It doesn’t take more than a cursory reading of the text behind the festival, The Megillah ("Book of Esther,") to see that Netanyahu’s comprehension of scriptures is about as slanted as his apprehension of nuclear strategy and international relations. Although the holiday has become over the years an excuse for innocuous masquerade and revelry, the Megillah itself is problematic, revealing as much about our wounded psyches as our procession of enemies.
The Netanyahu approach ignores the first part of the Purim narrative, which is a comedy, and reflects only on the second part, a revenge tragedy, recruiting the popular version of the story to justify his militant position against Iran.
The first eight chapters, the crux of the Megillah, are an exercise in what might be called orientalist fantasy. King Ahasverus rules over an empire of 127 multilingual satrapies with Persian and faux-Persian names; he has an entourage of eunuchs and simpering officials who do his bidding, facilitating drunken revels lasting 180 days and punishing disobedient wives and instructing their husbands in the art of tyranny. The villain Haman is a grotesque counterpart to the virtuous Mordecai; the beautiful Esther is the damsel who will win the beauty contest. Parody, masque, commedia dell‘arte: what this text reflects in its early chapters is the comic impulse, nourished, as some scholars contend, by the rather beneficent conditions in which Jews lived in the Babylonian, Persian and even the Hellenistic diaspora (depending on where and when you date the composition of the text).
Clearly, although Netanyahu implies otherwise, the Book of Esther is a fantasy – not recounting any historical event. The only real “historical” reference is to Mordechai, who is presented as a fourth generation descendant of the Jews exiled from Jerusalem by King Nebuchadnezzer of Babylonia [2:1 – a verse singled out in public readings to be chanted in mournful tones].
The book’s middle is the part we – and the Israeli prime minister – know best: Mordechai, making the most of his luck, positions his niece Esther to become the queen in order to influence the hapless king to override Haman’s genocidal intent. But by the end of the book we might be too drunk to pay attention to the ways in which comedy has turned into revenge tragedy, an explosion of blood-curdling violence — not by Persians against innocent Jews, but by Jews against innocent Persians.
Esther, having thwarted Haman’s evil plot, is not satisfied with the public hangings of her arch-enemy and his 10 sons – but is granted permission to preemptively slaughter all who have received the order to kill the Jews. There is no textual hint that these Persians ever took up arms – “no one dared to stand up against them, out of the fear that they instilled” [9:2]. Yet the Jews go ahead and slaughter 500 innocent people in the satrapies that belong to the King. Then sweet Esther, the beguiling descendant of Babylonian exiles, wife of the clueless Ahasverus – whom little girls will emulate in gauzy costumes for centuries to come – asks for, and is granted, another day of slaughter: in the capital city of Shushan alone, 300 people are slaughtered, and in the surrounding satrapies 75,000 are slaughtered [9:15-16].
That is the text that all those Congressmen and women – who leapt to their feet with every platitude and oath Netanyahu uttered – should read. The prime minister of Israel, showing a pathetic lack of self-awareness, is valorizing the mind of Esther. The text he cites is the chronicle of how a people, shocked into seeking to thwart the evil decree, wind up using the excuse of preemption to justify vengeful, rampaging violence. (It is a universal story in this sense, not just a Jewish one: what genocidal act is not justified as retribution for some great or imagined grievance?) The historic persecution of the Jewish people has been real enough. But Jewish suffering has also engendered a fantasy of demon-enemies, of Jewish attacks as nothing but deterrence.
Two generations after the liberation of the concentration camps, Netanyahu brought Elie Wiesel to bear witness to his militant words. Another writer who survived the camps, the late Ilona Karmel, once warned about Jews like Netanyahu who have “scars but no wounds.”
Netanyahu declares: Don’t make a deal. He may have said the alternative is a "better deal" but by alluding to the Book of Esther, what he really implies is that the alternative is war. Esther – or at least the people who live in the chimerical world conjured by her book – would no doubt approve. Sidra DeKoven Ezrahi is Professor Emerita of Comparative Literature at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and a Guggenheim Fellow.
The day the Israeli PM was booed at AIPAC
Bibi, at 75, was fighting another campaign for reelection under the
slogan, 'A leader we have always believed in'; But thousands in the hall
were booing...
Purim, Jews and Netanyahu's Warning
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's speech this week comes at
the same time as the Jewish festival of Purim. Interesting.
The King of Israel Goes to Washington on Purim
With Purim just days away, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu
preparing to address the US Congress tomorrow, we present this analogy
of Israel’s past and present dealing with the Persian threat and
associated world leaders.
Netanyahu, Herzl and the Ever So Relevant Story of Purim
"The Jewish People have come home to the Land of Israel. Just as the
Purim hero Mordechai refused to bow to Haman, we will not bow to
anyone."
Ils s'agenouillent devant personne: même pas devant Dieu. En
effet, Dieu n'est pas mentionné une seule fois dans tout le Livre
d'Esther! C'est supposé être un texte religieux mais c'est un manuel
d'inversion acusatoire génocidaire!
Cantor reflects on Netanyahu speech, Jewish holiday of Purim
This past week was a momentous (if divisive) one for Jews across the
world, with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s historic address
to both houses of Congress, and the controversy surrounding it. The
Jewish community also celebrated the holiday of Purim.
“The days when the Jewish people remained passive in the face of
genocidal enemies, those days are over. ... We are no longer scattered
among the nations, powerless to defend ourselves. We restored our
sovereignty in our ancient home. And the soldiers who defend our home
have boundless courage. For the first time in 100 generations, we, the
Jewish people, can defend ourselves.”
In
the Bible, a Jewish woman named Esther marries the gentle king of
Persia. The king’s Prime Minister, Haman, develops a plan to kill all of
the Jews in Persia, including Esther’s cousin Mordecai. Thankfully,
Mordecai uncovers the plot and convinces Esther to appeal to the king on
behalf of her people to stop the genocidal plans. She succeeds and the
Jews are allowed to defend themselves from the Persians who try to kill
them. This story is chronicled in the Book of Esther and celebrated
during Purim. “Mordecai went and spoke to Esther, and said to Esther,
‘The king is about to kill all of the Jews. You have a position. You can
talk him out of this. You can stop this’,” Glenn said. “Haman is a bad
guy, and he has the ear of the king. And because the king is listening
to Haman, he is going to kill all the Jews.” Glenn sees the same story
playing out today. Persia/Haman is now modern-day Iran, looking to wipe
out the Jews. The king is President Obama and/or Congress, faced with a
choice between Esther and Haman. Benjamin Netanyahu is Mordecai warning
of the coming destruction of the Jews. And the American people are
Esther, the only one listening to the warnings of Mordecai, and the one
with the power to stop the genocide to come. “If history repeats itself,
this week, who is Mordecai? I believe Mordecai is Benjamin Netanyahu. I
believe Haman is Iran. Persia. I don’t know if the king is Barack Obama
or the Congress. But I believe the American people are Esther. And it
is why President Obama is trying so desperately to get people to not
listen to this speech. He has asked the Democrats to walk out, 34
Democrats have walked out of this speech,” Glenn said. (..)
Netanyahu's Purim Plan for PeaceThe
king granted the Jews ... to slay and to cause to perish, all the power
of the people and province that would assault them, both little ones
and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey. (Esther 8:11)
The Purim Hubris of Benjamin Netanyahu
To many American Jews, the story of Purim in Ketuvim’s Megillah of
Esther echoes the central narrative shared by Passover, Hanukkah, and
Jewish history – a narrative of powerlessness and victimhood. Haman, the
right-hand man to King Achashveros, tries to kill all the Jews in the
Persian Empire until his plan is ultimately foiled by the brave
Mordechai and his cousin, Esther. As the joke about all Jewish holidays
goes, “They tried to kill us; we survived; let’s eat”. When the Prime
Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, addressed Congress today about a
new Persian threat – the threat of a nuclear-armed Iran – he invoked
this age-old Purim narrative. Get The Times of Israel's Daily Edition
by email and never miss our top stories Free Sign up! But the story
of Purim actually ends with a much darker twist that Netanyahu did not
mention. After Mordechai and Esther save the Jews from massacre by
earning the sympathy of King Achashveros, the Jews over-retaliate in
self-defense with a massacre of their own that leaves seventy-five
thousand Persians dead and Haman’s ten sons hanging by the gallows.
Purim is ultimately not only a story of Jewish powerlessness, but also a
story at its end about the ethical test of Jewish power.
Netanyahu's Purim Message to Obama
Thursday
is Purim, the day Jews worldwide celebrate the deliverance of the
Jewish people from the cruel hand of a Persian tyrant more than two
thousand years ago. Parallels to today are striking. Like then, Israel,
where the plurality of the world's Jews lives, faces a dire threat from
Persia. Like then, when Haman, descendant of Amalek sought to kill
every Jewish man, woman and child, the president of Iran, Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad, seeks the same. So it was striking that Binyamin
Netanyahu, Israel's prime minister, gave President Obama a Megillat
Esther as a gift at their meeting last week. What was Netanyahu's
message? Perhaps that the Jewish people have faced foes like the modern
state of Iran before -- and in the end prevailed over their enemies. As
well, like then, the Jews did not need outside help. With God's silent
guiding hand, Haman's plots were foiled and in fact reversed. What he
wished upon the Jewish people was what he received. The Purim story
teaches us to recognize that we have been in this situation before. As
we say during the Passover Seder, in every generation a leader rises us
to destroy us, but the Jewish people will prevail. So it was in days of
old, so it will be today.
Bibi, the hard-bargaining merchant of Jerusalem
He didn’t appear in Congress solely as prime minister of Israel, or
even as king of the Jews; no, he was there to save the world. As a
goodwill gesture, Netanyahu even gave away his most precious ideological
asset, the singularity of the Holocaust, and reminded America – as if
it didn’t know – that the six million Jews murdered by Hitler were just a
fraction of the more than 60 million people killed during World War II.
He thereby qualified himself as an independent external consultant on
the negotiations with Iran.
Why him, of all people? Because who knows the
spirit of the Persian bazaar as well as the Jewish merchant? Who if not
the prime minister of Israel, the gold ring in the nose of the Middle
Eastern swine, a man well-versed in the secrets of “the most dangerous
part of the planet”?
Only Netanyahu can teach his Uncle Sammy from America how to bargain with these primitive peddlers.
La truie juive parle!
Paul Thomas: Netanyahu attack on Obama has silver lining
Despite - or perhaps because of - Netanyahu's moral and
intellectual bankruptcy, several Republicans embraced his analysis to
the extent of comparing Iran to Hitler's Germany (Godwin's Rule of Nazi
Analogies, anyone?) and Netanyahu to Winston Churchill. For the record,
Churchill's most famous pronouncement on international relations is "to
jaw-jaw is always better than to war-war".
The cynics believe the
whole exercise is first and foremost about the upcoming Israeli
election. As Obama's former political adviser and campaign manager David
Axelrod tweeted, Netanyahu's speech "is more about an 'existential
threat' to his own electoral prospects".
Pourim: la fête de la droite israélienne par
Avram Burg, qui vient de rejoindre le parti de gauche-arabe
israélien... Il a écrit un livre destiné aux juifs pour leur dire qu'il
faudrait en revenir un jour de cet Holocauste... ça fait 70 ans!
VIDEO - Obama's Israel snub disses Jews, Christians, by Donna Jacobs I have never been so ashamed of any president in my lifetime as I am because of Barack Obama's refusal to listen to the prime minister of Israel. None of the administration chose to attend. What a slap in the face of an important ally of the U.S. and all Christian and Jewish people.
Pourquoi Obama et Netanyahu se détestent L’inimitié entre les deux dirigeants sur l’accord iranien atteint un sommet, mais le discours de Netanyahu à Washington n’est qu’un épisode de plus d’une relation haineuse plus longue et plus profonde qui ne s’arrêtera pas une fois la crise résolue
Why Obama hates Netanyahu, and vice versa
The enmity between the two leaders over the Iran deal is at a fever
pitch, but it is an older and deeper loathing that will not end no
matter how that crisis is resolved
Where Canada stands on the Obama-Netanyahu Iran brawl: Walkom Canadian politicians are reluctant to cross the U.S. But they are even more wary of crossing Israel.
Ce rélexe de peur et de soumission des politiciens est le résultat de l'intimidation (néo)conservatrice harperienne.
Netanyahou et Obama s'affrontent sur le nucléaire iranien Le Premier ministre israélien a prononcé hier un discours très virulent devant le Congrès américain. Il a été ovationné en dénonçant un accord sur le nucléaire souhaité par Barack Obama.
Sur invitation des opposants au président Barack Obama, le Premier
ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu compte intervenir devant le
Congrès américain, le 3 mars 2015, pour rappeler le danger lié au
programme nucléaire iranien, alors que ses relations avec la
Maison-Blanche sont pour le moins tendues.
Dans le même temps, diverses sources, parmi lesquelles le Wall Street Journal,
rapportent l’existence d’une correspondance secrète entre le président
Obama et le Guide iranien de la Révolution islamique, Seyyed Ali
Khamenei. Selon le quotidien américain, la lettre de Téhéran était une
réponse tardive à un message du président américain envoyé en octobre
2014, dans lequel il proposait au dirigeant iranien de coopérer dans la
lutte contre « l’Etat islamique » en cas d'accord sur le programme nucléaire iranien.
La relation entre Benjamin Netanyahu et Barack Obama est
probablement la pire que les Etats-Unis aient connue entre un président
américain et un ministre israélien depuis que le président John F.
Kennedy ait dit au Premier ministre israélien David Ben Gourion « qu'Israël n’aura jamais d’armes nucléaires aussi longtemps qu'il sera président. »
La prochaine visite de Benjamin Netanyahu à Washington a suscité le
mécontentement de la Maison-Blanche qui refuse de l'accueillir.
Cependant, chaque fois qu’un dirigeant a voulu se dresser contre la
politique sioniste israélienne, il a eu droit en retour à des
représailles. Ce fut le cas de Folke Bernadotte, négociateur américain
pour la paix au Moyen-Orient, assassiné en 1948 par un groupe sioniste,
puis ce fut le tour du président Kennedy.
L'administration Obama a indiqué qu'elle n'avait pas non plus
l'intention d'envoyer un représentant de haut niveau à la conférence
annuelle de l’AIPAC (Comité américain pour les Affaires publiques
israéliennes, premier groupe de pression sioniste américain). « Si
l'administration américaine boycotte l'AIPAC, cela signifie qu’elle
rompt son alliance stratégique avec Israël, parce que le Comité est un
atout stratégique et il n’est pas permis de nuire à cette position », a affirmé Michael Oren, ancien ambassadeur d'Israël aux Etats-Unis.
La dégradation des relations entre Israël et les Etats-Unis,
si elle se confirme, aura-t-elle pour conséquence l’isolement de
l’entité sioniste ou sera-t-elle, au contraire, l’occasion pour Israël
de démontrer sa puissance, qu’il est désormais le nouveau maître du
monde ?
Bibi the 'Mansplainer' Was Benjamin Netanyahu at his condescending worst during his speech? Some women heard a ‘mansplainer’ when he talked down to Americans — and put down other cultures.
Raising the Stakes EDITORIAL: Benjamin Netanyahu gave us great political theater. He also raised the stakes in his battle with the White House on Iran — and that could be dangerous for all of us.
Obama right to spurn Netanyahu Israel’s premier completely omits any mention of his country’s nuclear arsenal, while warning against Iran’s alleged nuclear programme
[VIDEOS] WATCH: A look back at Obama and Netanyahu's greatest spats From 'chickenshit' to an accidental open mic insult, President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu's most tense moments in five video clips. [Nombreux conflits recensés depuis 2008 entre Netanyahou et Obama.]
Five must-read pieces on Netanyahu's Congress speech The day after Netanyahu's highly anticipated address to Congress, Haaretz analysts weigh in on potential ramifications of the speech on the Israeli election and impending Iran nuclear deal.
Netanyahu's speech - historic or hysteric?
Op-ed: Most Congress members don’t know much about foreign policy, but
they do know politics; they will assume it's Netanyahu's performance in
the polls and not Iran that brought him over at this time.
Iran's Zarif slams Netanyahu's 'scaremongering'
International, domestic pressure mounting ahead of Netanyahu's planned
address to U.S. Congress on the forthcoming agreement on Iran's nuclear
program.
Mr. Netanyahu, don’t go to WashingtonOp-ed: Ynet's
national security correspondent urges prime minister to consider
consequences of his address, in face of such strong opposition from
Obama administration.
Obama is Netanyahu’s greatest political asset The U.S. president bears
some responsibility for the sorry state of Israel-U.S. relations. He
has allowed himself to be maneuvered into a position where he can only
help Netanyahu in Israel’s elections.
Israel will feel US rage after Netanyahu leaves Washington Analysis: White
House officials already working on plan for day after Congress speech;
Israel, which has asked for another $317 million for defense, may find
out America far less generous than before.
White House may snub AIPAC as it seeks to undercut Netanyahu speech Administration considering media blitz, cold-shoulder for pro-Israel lobby in its diplomatic war over PM’s address to Congress Haaretz:The administration has been signaling that this year's conference of America's leading pro-Israel lobby may not be attended by a Cabinet-level guest.
Obama devrait assurer sa sécurité si il ne veut pas connaître le sort de Kennedy
IRIB-Un journaliste d'investigation états-unien a déclaré qu'il est bon que le président états-unien Barack Obama s'oppose à Israël mais il devrait améliorer sa sécurité pour éviter un destin à la John F. Kennedy. Dans un entretien téléphonique avec Press TV ce mercredi, Wayne Madsen a déclaré que le dernier président étatsunien qui s'est confronté au régime sioniste a été assassiné le 22 novembre 1963. "La relation entre [le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin] Netanyahu et Obama est sans doute la pire que nous ayons jamais vu entre un président états-unien et un ministre israélien depuis que le président John F. Kennedy a déclaré au Premier ministre israélien David Ben Gourion qu'Israël n'aurait jamais d'armes nucléaires aussi longtemps qu'il serait président", a déclaré Madsen. "Bien sûr, quelques jours après son assassinat, le président [Lyndon B.] Johnson a infirmé cette politique et a commencé à fournir la technologie nucléaire des États-Unis à Israël," a-t-il déclaré.
Il a ajouté que "c'est dans l'ensemble sain qu'[un] président états-unien résiste face au Premier ministre israélien ; Mais la dernière fois que cela s'est passé ce fut pour le président Kennedy, qui a été abattu alors qu'il était dans une voiture décapotable à Dallas, au Texas". [Source : Press TV]
Would a nuclear Iran truly pose an existential threat to Israel?
Netanyahu fears a second Holocaust, but even top security officials say
Tehran is unlikely to use a bomb if it had one. Yet the emboldening of
the ayatollahs, and a likely regional arms race, are worrying enough
Americans support Netanyahu and Israel Op-ed: Obama and Israel's center-left political camp in are panicking at the prospect of again having to witness the respect and adoration America has for one of the best prime ministers Israel ever had.
Netanyahou: "Israël a un différend avec l'administration américaine sur l'Iran" C'est rare qu'ils admettent publiquement être en conflit! D'habitude le conflit est caché derrière des signes à décoder, comme le refus de recevoir Bibi à la Maison Blanche par exemple. Ce n'était pas dit ouvertement mais c'était quand même clair. Maintenant cela va tellement mal qu'ils en sont rendus à déchirer leur chemise en public! MDR!
Netanyhou est en train d’affaiblir Obama, mais cela va peut-être lui coûter cher politiquement.
Commençant à se
rendre compte du danger, la gauche israélienne appelle à présent
Netanyahou à annuler son discours devant le Congrès américain et la
communauté juive américaine elle aussi préfèrerait l’annulation
Nazareth – Pendant 20 ans la Maison Blanche a contrôlé le processus
de paix, se réservant le rôle d’intendant d’Israël et des Palestiniens
dans la résolution de leur conflit. Comme certains « Parrains », les
États-Unis exigeaient une loyauté inconditionnelle.
Mais la prééminence de Washington dans la relation tant avec Israël
qu’avec la direction palestinienne s’effiloche avec une rapidité
étonnante.
La crise grandit depuis six ans. Obama est arrivé à la Maison Blanche
juste au moment où Israël élisait un des gouvernements les plus à
droite de son histoire, mené par Benjamin Netanyahou.
Lors de leur première rencontre, Obama aurait dit à son interlocuteur
israélien : “not one more brick” [pas une seule brique de plus],
insistant sur le gel des constructions de colonies pour que Washington
puisse ranimer le processus d’Oslo, au point mort depuis longtemps.
Netanyahou s’est empressé de défier le président et il n’a pas cessé
depuis. La dernière humiliation en date – la goutte qui a fait déborder
le vase – c’est quand Netanyahou a réussi à extorquer une invitation à
s’adresser au Congrès américain le mois d’après.
De toute évidence, le Premier ministre israélien espère faire un sort
à un élément essentiel de la politique étrangère d’Obama – la
négociation d’un accord avec l’Iran sur son programme nucléaire – en
persuadant le Congrès de durcir les sanctions à l’encontre de Téhéran.
C’est risquer une crise qui pourrait finir par entraîner les Etats-Unis
dans une guerre avec l’Iran.
Mais Netanyahou n’est pas seul à tester le pouvoir d’Obama.
Dernièrement le président palestinien Mahmoud Abbas, lui aussi, a choisi
de court-circuiter la Maison Blanche. Après des années de vaine
attente, il a placé ses espérances en de nouveaux donateurs
internationaux qui pourraient l’aider à atteindre son objectif de
parvenir à un état indépendant.
Ignorant les injonctions de la Maison Blanche, il a persévéré malgré
tout avec des résolutions aux Nations Unies et il vient de dégainer son
arme ultime : adhérer à la Cour pénale internationale (CPI) de La Haye.
Les Israéliens appellent cela « une intifada diplomatique » et ils pressent les Etats-Unis de supprimer leur aide annuelle de 400 millions de dollars à l’Autorité palestinienne.
Comme avec un parrain mafieux, Obama est en difficulté s’il n’arrive
plus à inspirer la peur, à défaut du respect. Mais lui seul est à
l’origine du problème.
Depuis six ans, "Netanyahou nous a craché au visage", comme un
responsable à la Maison Blanche en faisait la remarque mémorable lors de
la dernière crise, et apparemment sans avoir à payer le moindre prix
pour son impudence. A l’inverse, Abbas a fait tout ce que
l’administration Obama exigeait de lui, sans avoir eu la moindre
reconnaissance de ses efforts.
Les dirigeants israéliens tout autant que palestiniens
croient chacun de leur côté qu’ils ont des intérêts vitaux - voire
existentiels – que la Maison Blanche les empêche à présent de
concrétiser.
La désobéissance d’Abbas est issue de la nécessité. Se rendant compte
que les Etats-Unis n’agiront jamais en intermédiaire honnête dans le
processus de paix, il a été contraint de se tourner vers des tribunes
internationales, où le pouvoir de Washington est plus réduit, dans
l’espoir d’obliger Israël à concéder un petit état palestinien.
La manœuvre de Netanyahou, quant à elle, se base sur le raisonnement
risqué qu’il peut manipuler les USA pour provoquer une confrontation
avec l’Iran, afin de maintenir la domination régionale d’Israël. Pour ce
faire il se fondait sur deux hypothèses douteuses.
La première est qu’il peut attendre, puisque Obama n’a plus qu’un an
et demi de mandat. Netanyahou mise sur un successeur républicain tenant
de la ligne dure, qui suivra sa tendance contre Téhéran. Il pourrait
bien être déçu. Même en misant sur une victoire des républicains, leur
rhétorique de campagne de style faucon sur l’Iran sera sévèrement mise à
l’épreuve par les limitations du mandat. Les agences de renseignement
et les militaires étatsuniens enseigneront au prochain président les
mêmes froides réalités politiques qu’a dû affronter Obama.
Et deuxièmement, Netanyahou croit qu’il peut se servir du Congrès
pour faire obstacle à tout accord menaçant de se conclure entre
Washington et Téhéran. Son hypothèse de travail est que le Congrès est
« territoire israélien sous occupation », comme l’a dit un jour un
observateur des Etats-Unis.
Il est certain qu’Israël a une emprise énorme sur le Congrès, mais
Netanyahou est déjà en train de recevoir une leçon sur les limites de
son influence quand il s’attaque à un président des Etats-Unis fortement
acculé.
De hauts responsables démocrates semblent se ranger du côté d’Obama.
Nancy Pelosi, chef de file de la minorité à la Chambre des
représentants, a déjà averti que beaucoup de démocrates pourraient
boycotter le discours de Netanyahou. D’autres pourraient y assister mais
sans se joindre aux applaudissements frénétiques tels ceux qui ont
salué sa dernière intervention au Congrès.
Voici l’un des signes d’avertissement que Netanyahou a
catégoriquement refusé de prendre en compte. Son influence et celle
d’Israël aux Etats-Unis dépendent de leur nature bi-partisane. En jouant
contre le président, Netanyahou risque de détruire le consensus
politique sur Israël et d’exposer pour la première fois le public
américain à un débat sur la question de savoir si les intérêts
israéliens coïncident avec ceux des Etats-Unis.
La vraie dissension avec Obama qu’il est en train d’encourager risque
de lui retomber dessus, stratégiquement. Il donne à Téhéran le meilleur
incitatif pour signer un accord avec les puissances occidentales rien
que pour approfondir la fracture dans la relation entre Israël et
Washington.
Entre-temps, la CPI a préféré initier par elle-même un examen contre
Israël pour crimes de guerre, dès avant l’accession palestinienne,
plutôt que d’attendre une escalade des menaces de représailles d’Israël
et de la Maison Blanche.
Ce que la dégradation de la relation triangulaire – entretenue par
l’intransigeance de Netanyahou envers les Palestiniens et par son
insolence à l’encontre des Etats-Unis – a permis, c’est d’ouvrir la
marge de manœuvres diplomatiques.
D’autres états, de l’Europe à la Russie, la Chine et l’Iran, et des
institutions internationales comme la CPI, vont combler le vide laissé
par la crédibilité réduite de Washington et vont structurer leurs
conceptions du conflit israélo-palestinien. Ce qui pourrait avoir pour
Israël des conséquences imprévisibles – et dangereuses.
* Jonathan Cook a obtenu le Prix Spécial de journalisme Martha Gellhorn. Ses derniers livres sont Israel and the Clash of Civilisations : Iraq, Iran and the to Remake the Middle East (Pluto Press) et Disappearing Palestine : Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair (Zed Books). Voici l’adresse de son site : http://www.jonathan-cook.net.
Sous
pression de l’administration Obama, de nombreux élus démocrates ont
annoncé ou envisagent de boycotter le discours du dirigeant israélien
devant le Congrès sur la menace nucléaire iranienne, invité par les
Républicains au grand mécontentement de la Maison Blanche.
Le
vice-président des États-Unis, Joe Biden, a indiqué vendredi qu’il
serait absent lors du discours de M. Netanyahu. Officiellement, en
raison d’un déplacement à l’étranger, récemment programmé.
Le président américain Barack Obama est foncièrement hostile au discours du Premier ministre israélien, en raison des négociations en cours entre les États-Unis et l’Iran sur la question du nucléaire iranien.
Le
dirigeant américain craint un durcissement des sanctions contre le
régime des mollahs qui pourrait être voté par les Républicains, et
torpiller la stratégie conciliante de la Maison Blanche.
Netanyahu ‘determined to go to Washington’ Prime minister says ‘bad deal with Iran’ is too important an issue and insists trip not motivated by ‘party politics'; Obama acknowledges ‘differences of opinion but stresses ‘cooperation’
A
campaign of intimidation is underway to stop Democratic lawmakers from
skipping Netanyahu's upcoming Congress speech. God, save us from our
Jews.
By Yossi Sarid | Feb. 8, 2015 | 12:47 AM | 8
Now
it’s no longer a “crisis in the relationship” that they try to paper
over; now it’s no longer just “tensions with the White House” that
they’re making every effort to reduce in between meetings; now, it’s an
open war with the United States. It’s Sheldon Adelson versus Barack
Obama, and Israel is caught in the cross-fire.
After Vice
President Joe Biden, our greatest friend over there, announced an
unspecified trip abroad that will prevent him from being in Congress at
the fateful hour, Republican Jewish organizations launched a campaign of
intimidation against those lawmakers who had already announced their
intent to skip the joint session: Their political fate will be bitter.
Nothing
like this has ever happened in the history of nations. Only North Korea
still uses such violent language. Even tiny Cuba adopted a different
style and stopped roaring like a mouse. Ambassador to Washington Ron
Dermer, in the service of his master, is rallying his troops and
launching a combined assault on Capitol Hill. Benjamin Netanyahu is
determined to show the president once and for all who really rules in
Washington, who is the landlord both here and there.
It’s easy to
imagine what would have happened in eternally united Jerusalem if some
such Sheldon had made similar threats from Las Vegas and Macao against
our ministers and MKs: Look, if you’re absent, you’ll never see another
dollar.
One Matthew Brooks – the executive director of the
Republican Jewish Coalition, who does the will of its financial backers –
explained over the weekend, “We will commit whatever resources we need
to make sure that people are aware of the facts, that given the choice
to stand with Israel and Prime Minister Netanyahu in opposition to a
nuclear Iran, they chose partisan interests and to stand with President
Obama.” Mort Klein, president of the Zionist Organization of America,
added unambiguously, “We will, of course, be publicly condemning any
Democrats who don’t show up for the speech — unless they have a doctor’s
note.” Doctor, this man is sick and urgently needs tranquilizers.
God,
save us from our Jews; we can handle the non-Jews ourselves. How easy
it is to stir up the highest institutions of democratic America, and how
difficult to bomb Iran’s underground nuclear facilities. Ask the heads
of your intelligence agencies, or ours, and they’ll whisper it in
secret.
From Israel, the land you love so much and are so far
away from, we’d like to tell you American Jews, regardless of your
opinions and party affiliations – all those of you who won’t openly wash
your hands of these risky gambles – that our fate is in our own hands.
Don’t
play with fire that will burn us alone, or perhaps you as well: Because
of your silence, you’ll be accused of dual loyalty.
Israel,
which until now was a cornerstone of bipartisanship, has become
loathsome to its traditional supporters. Benjamin Nitay Netanyahu, the
Israeli-American, has made it into something that reeks, even among its
longtime supporters.
In these very moments, the protocols are
being rewritten. Rich Jews are writing them in their own handwriting.
They, in their wealth, are confirming with their own signatures what
anti-Semites used to slander them with in days gone by: We, the elders
of Zion, pull the strings of Congress, and the congressmen are nothing
but marionettes who do our will. If they don’t understand our words,
they’ll understand our threats. And if in the past, we ran the show from
behind the scenes, now we’re doing it openly, from center stage. And if
you forget our donations, the wellspring will run dry.
Recently,
two friends in Israel had a disturbing conversation: They fear that war
is liable to break out at any moment between us and America. One friend
cited two possibilities: In the worst case, they’ll conquer us, and
we’ll become the 51st star on the flag – that would be unpleasant. True,
the other said, but what happens if we conquer them? That, they agreed,
would really be terrible.
Scrap the Speech! EXCLUSIVE: As the controversy around Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress grows, Abraham Foxman of the ADL called on the Israeli prime minister to stay home.
Biden to skip Netanyahu's speech before Congress A statement released by Biden's office indicated that the vice president will be abroad on the day that Netanyahu is scheduled to address Congress.
commentaire de juif.org (Arutz Sheva): "Obama, le squatteur de la Maison Blanche, s'incruste dans les élections israéliennes pour faire échouer le Likoud. Du jamais vu dans l'histoire de la diplomatie. Mais ne nous trompons pas, Obama n'aime pas Israël, mais les plus grands dégâts, il les aura fait au Moyen Orient, en Europe, et surtout "chez lui", aux États-Unis."
Ron Dermer: A History of Arrogance No wonder Israel’s ambassador thinks he can get away with insulting the White House - he’s watched his mentor Netanyahu do it his entire career.
Should Netanyahu address Congress? But the reality is that Obama’s attitude towards Netanyahu is so toxic that it probably makes little difference how Netanyahu would act. Besides, whereas normally a US president has considerable control of foreign affairs, Obama is today a lame duck president and for him to engage in vindictive initiatives against the foremost US ally would further damage America’s standing and create a major revolt in Congress. The greater risk facing Netanyahu is that by forcing Democrats to choose between backing their president and supporting his call for sanctions against Iran, he could fragment the crucial bipartisan support Israel enjoys from most Democrats and Republicans, and on which the Israeli American alliance is based. There have already been harsh remarks by leading Democrats condemning the invitation. Nancy Pelosi, leader of the House Democrats, said it was inappropriate to invite Netanyahu while sensitive negotiations were in process about Iran’s nuclear program and two weeks before his own election. Former US Ambassador to Israel Martyn Indyk, notorious for intervening in domestic Israeli policies, accused Netanyahu of “using the Republican Congress for a photo-op for his election campaign.”