lundi 23 septembre 2013

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





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






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


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

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


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


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




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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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


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

Adelson: Nuke Iran to get it to talk business

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

netanyahu1




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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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




Ex-Knesset speaker confirms Israel’s possession of nukes

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



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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ULTRA JEW Cantor Seeks New House Resolution to Kill Iran Talks

Eric Cantor Girds His Iran War Loins

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

Canada plans to invade Syria


Sur ce blog:


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

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

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

John McCain et les guerres pour Israël

Devoir de mémoire devoir de vitrifier l'Iran

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

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

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

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

Le Hamas dénonce l'escroquerie de l'Holocauste

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

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

Guerres sionistes: vers la délivrance ultime

S'ils vont en enfer ils nous emportent avec eux

THE JEWISH WAR OF SURVIVAL, By Arnold Leese



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

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

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

Armes non-conventionnelles expérimentées par Israël à Gaza

Gazés à Gaza

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

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

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

Le responsable des crimes de guerre à Gaza en 2009

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

L'Holocauste justifierait le trafic d'organes

Détenteur d'un important arsenal nucléaire et chimique, Israël est responsable de la course à l'armement nucléaire et chimique au Proche-Orient... Qu'attendent nos chères démocraties pour condamner cet état terroriste partisan d'al-Qaïda et le compter parmi leurs ennemis?

  • Si des nations arabes comme la Syrie ont décidé de se munir d'un arsenal de destruction massive (chimique ou autre), c'était en réaction à la menace très réelle que constitue l'arsenal nucléaire de l'état voyou israélien.
  • Concernant l'appui d'Israël aux rebelles syriens anti-Assad que l'on sait dirigés par al-Qaïda, l'ambassadeur d'Israël aux États-Unis, Michael Oren, a déclaré qu'Israël "préfère les bandits qui ne sont pas financés par l'Iran aux bandits financés par l'Iran".
  • Les politiciens sionistes et les groupes juifs et pro-israéliens (AIPAC, ADL, Simon Wiesenthal Center, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations) poussent ouvertement en faveur d'une guerre contre la Syrie, tout en essayant de dissimuler et minimiser leur rôle dans cette affaire. La Syrie représente la pièce centrale de "l'arc stratégique" Liban-Syrie-Iran que veut détruire Israël.
  • La Droite conservatrice républicaine en profite pour accuser Obama d'appuyer al-Qaïda, mais omet soigneusement de mentionner qu'Israël appuie ouvertement al-Qaïda et pousse le monde occidental à entrer en guerre (et non l'inverse).  


2015:
Israel denies treating injured al-Qaeda fighters, locals say otherwise
Israel’s Dangerous Game with Syrian Al Nusra Islamists
Syria’s “Moderate Terrorists”: Neocons Urge Embrace of Al Qaeda
Par erreur, la CIA a financé Al-Qaida en 2010
Une chaîne d'information israélienne et le Wall Street Journal le confirment : Israël soutient Al-Qaïda et Al-Nostra mais craint l'Iran et le Hezbollah.
Israeli government is aiding al Qaeda terrorists
Le Wall Street Journal reconnaît qu’Israël soigne les djihadistes du front Al-Nosra blessés en Syrie
Report: Israel treating al-Qaida fighters wounded in Syria civil war



2013:

"Israël préfère qu’al-Qaida accède au pouvoir en Syrie"!
Al-Manar

L’ambassadeur d’Israël à Washington Michael Oren  a déclaré au quotidien américain Washington Post que l’intérêt d’Israël réside dans le renversement du Président Bachar el-Assad, même si c’est al-Qaida qui va accéder au pouvoir à sa place!
« Israël est intéressé par la chute du Président Assad. Il a toujours voulu le renverser, avant même la crise syrienne. Nous préférons les méchants qui ne sont pas soutenus par l’Iran aux méchants qui bénéficient de son appui. Nous avons voulu toujours le départ d’Assad », a-t-il dit.
Et d’ajouter : « Nous réalisons qu’il existe des gens très méchants parmi les rebelles, mais le plus grand danger pour Israël est représenté par l’axe stratégique qui s’étend de Téhéran à Beyrouth, en passant par Damas ».
« Nous trouvons que le régime d’Assad est la pierre angulaire qui maintient debout cet axe et telle est notre position avant même l’éclatement des événements en Syrie », a-t-il dit.
« Pour Israël, la ligne rouge est la possibilité que l’Iran ou la Syrie transporte des armes chimiques ou des armes non conventionnelles au Hezbollah ou à d’autres organisations terroristes. Dans ce cas, Israël ne restera pas passif », a insisté Oren, tout en démentant les rapports médiatiques faisant état du transfert d’armes chimiques syriennes au Hezbollah.
Dans le même cadre, le quotidien israélien "Maariv" a révélé que l’ambassadeur israélien à Washington, et avec l'autorisation de Netanyahu, a mené une série de réunions au Congrès américain pour convaincre le Sénat et les membres de la Chambre de soutenir une frappe militaire en Syrie.
Citant Oren, le journal a dit: "Evidemment, une série de réunions a été tenue", soulignant qu'il n'avait pas pris l'initiative, mais qu’il "était au service de ceux qui ont cherché à connaître la position d'Israël en la matière."
Oren n’aurait pas tenu ces réunions s’il n’avait pas reçu le feu vert du Premier ministre israélien, poursuit le journal.
Aux efforts d’Oren s’ajoute une campagne assidue menée par le lobby sioniste à Washington, à la demande de la Maison Blanche, pour convaincre les membres du Congrès de voter en faveur d’une offensive contre la Syrie.


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

Syrie : Israël préfère le pouvoir d’al-Qaïda à la victoire d’al-Assad 
04/06/2013
La radio de l’armée israélienne a rapporté mardi que les responsables du gouvernement israélien préfèrent que la Syrie soit dirigée par l’organisation d’al-Qaïda à la victoire du président syrien, Bachar al-Assad, sur les rebelles qui combattent pour la chute de son régime.
Selon la radio militaire de l’Etat hébreu, relayée par arabic-upi, "une crainte règne au sein du gouvernement israélien envers la force grandissante de Bachar al-Assad dans les batailles opposant l’armée syrienne aux insurgés". A ses yeux, "la gouvernance d’al-Qaïda en Syrie serait meilleure que la victoire de Bachar al-Assad".
"Si la résistance de Bachar al-Assad se poursuit dans la confrontation avec les rebelles, et s’il continue à gouverner la Syrie, il serait très attaché à l’Iran et lui sera reconnaissant, ce qui est de nature à renforcer la place de l’Iran comme une puissance régionale menaçant Israël", estiment les responsables israéliens.
"La relation entre la Syrie, l’Iran et le Hezbollah sera renforcée et sera plus dangereuse pour Israël", ajoutent-ils, selon la radio.
"Il existe un seul Etat qui dit que son but est de supprimer Israël c’est l’Iran. Assad est l’Iran, n’importe quel pouvoir en Syrie est de ce fait préférable, même s’il s’agit d’al-Qaïda et de l’Islam radical, tout est moins pire qu’un Assad faible qui sera une marionnette entre les mains des Iraniens", considèrent les responsables israéliens.
Le ministre de la Défense israélien, Moshe Ya’alon, avait déclaré lundi lors de la réunion de la commission des Affaires étrangères et de la sûreté, relevant de la Knesset, que "les forces de l’armée syrienne contrôlent 40 % seulement des territoires syriens, et que seuls quatre quartiers à Damas sont sous leur contrôle".
Selon ses dires, Israël suit avec inquiétude la possibilité que la Russie ravitaille la Syrie par le dispositif S-300. "Conformément à ce qui a été publié, ces missiles n’ont pas été encore acheminés, et s’ils venaient à être transférés, ils ne le seront qu’en 2014", a-t-il indiqué.
Moshe Ya’alon a encore dit qu’"Israël n’interviendrait pas dans la guerre en Syrie, tant qu’elle ne touche pas nos intérêts, y compris le transfert des armes développées, des missiles et de l’armement chimique au Hezbollah, et tant que le front n’est pas chauffé".



L’Egypte se transformera en chaos comme en Irak, c’est encore Mordechai Kedar qui le déclare à un journal israélien. M.Kedar est un politologue qui a réalisé sa thèse sur la Syrie de Hafez El-Assad. Il a été pendant 25 ans officier des renseignements israéliens, spécialisé dans le contre-terrorisme et l’analyse des médias arabes. Maîtrisant cette langue, la télévision des Frères musulmans, Al-Jazeera le sollicite régulièrement pour « éclairer » l’opinion arabe. Il déclare publiquement préférer Al-Qaïda au régime actuel, pronostique une implosion de la Syrie en plusieurs entités, un chaos en Egypte et la division des palestiniens en plusieurs tribus. (...)


Ambassador Oren: Israel has wanted Assad ousted since Syria war began
In interview with Jerusalem Post, Israel's envoy to the U.S. says Jerusalem prefers 'bad guys who aren't backed by Iran', adds that Assad's overthrow could also weaken Hezbollah.

'Israel wanted Assad gone since start of Syria civil war
"Tehran-Damascus-Beirut arc is the greatest danger," says outgoing Israeli envoy to US Michael Oren.

Israeli Bombers over Syria: Al Qaeda's Air Force

Syria opposition leader praises Benjamin Netanyahu ÇA C'EST UN NOUVEAU CLASSIQUE!

Israel Support to Al Qaeda Rebels: New Free Syrian Army (FSA) Commander Trained in Israel

Le grand dilemme étasunien. Faut-il sacrifier la Syrie ou Israël ?



• Israelis admit they prefer U.S. enemies over Assad regime
• Now is the time to end American aid to Israeli terror state

By Michael Collins Piper
for American Free Press (Issue 39, 2013)

Israel has finally admitted publicly (what has long been known): Israel would prefer rebels aligned with the al Qaeda terror network seize control in Syria, rather than the secular regime of Bashar al-Assad retaining power.
This eye-opening revelation will shock those who perceive Israel as America’s closest ally, particularly in the “war on terror” (aimed at al Qaeda) waged in the 12 years following the 9-11 attacks which the United States government claims were al Qaeda’s doing (despite profound evidence to the contrary).
Returning American troops—who fought against al Qaeda—and families of the dead will now rightly have some serious doubts about Israel. And troops still abroad will surely ask why they are fighting al Qaeda if America’s “best friend” supports that terror network’s ambitions in Syria.
Israel’s ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, told The Jerusalem Post why Israel supports the al Qaeda-aligned forces. While noting—of the rebels loyal to al Qaeda—that while Israel understands “they are pretty bad guys,” Oren told the Post for an article published on Sept. 17 that Israel views Assad’s regime as “the keystone” in “the strategic arc” between Lebanon and Iran, the nation Israel is eager to destroy.
“We always wanted Assad to go,” he said. “We always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.”
So Israel believes al Qaeda-allied forces are useful for its own ends, America’s interests in the “war on terrorism” notwithstanding.
This eye-opening revelation will shock those who perceive Israel as America’s closest ally, particularly in the “war on terror” aimed at al Qaeda waged in the 12 years following the 9-11 attacks which the U.S. government claims were al Qaeda’s doing, despite profound evidence to the contrary.
Returning American troops—who fought against al Qaeda—and families of the dead will now rightly have some serious doubts about Israel. And troops still abroad will surely ask why they are fighting al Qaeda if America’s “best friend” supports that terror network’s ambitions in Syria.
From an American perspective, the toll in the Afghan and Iraqi wars has been staggering: 2.5 million Americans were deployed, about half of them more than once. Some 6,650 died. Another 106,000 were wounded in action or evacuated for injury or disease. Some 675,000 veterans of the war on terror applied for disability. Suicides and other deaths among returning troops—drug overdoses, car crashes etc—are unusually high.
Academic estimates say the wars will ultimately cost U.S. taxpayers some $5 trillion. And that figure does not include untold trillions Americans give Israel, much of it for purported assistance in the “war on terror” that is being waged against al Qaeda.
Now that Israel has betrayed America and supports al Qaeda, the U.S. should cut off relations with Israel, expel its diplomats and citizens from the United States, and henceforth consider Israel an enemy in the war on terror.
---
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.


The Piper Report Broadcast - Sept 24, 2013
mcp1
Download Here
THANK YOU FOR ASSISTING WITH THE COSTS ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCING THIS PROGRAM





Syrian Crisis Exposes Israeli Lobby

• The reason Syria developed bio-weapons in the first place was for defense against Israeli nukes

by Michael Collins Piper, for American Free Press (Issue 39, 2013)
Although Syria’s weapons of mass destruction— in this instance, chemical weapons —are now the focus of global media attention, what is largely suppressed in the mainstream media is the “back story” as to why Syria even has chemical weapons in the first place.
On April 17, 2003 veteran Washington Post correspondent Walter Pincus, who happens to be Jewish, acknowledged in a story relating to angry claims by the George W. Bush administration—relating to Syria’s alleged “weapons of mass destruction”— that Syria had built its arsenal as an “equalizer” and that “Israel’s arms spurred [Syria’s] fears.”
Although, at the time of Pincus’s story, Syria had asked for a United Nations resolution calling for nuclear arms inspections all across the Middle East—including Israel—few expected the United States would support Syria’s request. And, of course, the United States did not, despite the official U.S. position that, according to then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, the United States wanted to see the entire Middle East free of weapons of mass destruction.
Pincus’s article regarding Syria’s drive for a military arsenal designed to counter Israel’s nuclear weapons cache was instructive. Pincus wrote:
Syria’s current arsenal of chemical warheads and Scud missiles to deliver them was started more than 30 years ago to counter Israel’s development and possession of nuclear weapons, according to present and former U.S. intelligence officials.
“They have been developing chemical weapons as a force equalizer with the Israelis,” a former senior intelligence analyst said yesterday. “Hafez al-Assad, the present president’s father, saw chemicals as a way to threaten the Israelis and an equalizer for their nuclear program.” Assad knew, the former analyst said, that “military aid from the Soviets would never be able to match what Israel developed in the nuclear field and received from the U.S.”
Syria’s possession of chemical weapons was an important part of the Bush administration’s recent, week-long verbal offensive against Damascus. But it also has brought attention briefly to another highly sensitive issue: the impact that Israel’s nuclear arsenal has had on its enemies in the Middle East.
The consensus from Middle East experts is that almost every country in the region has pursued weapons of mass destruction programs— and they have done so primarily because of the arsenal that Israel has built up, said Joseph Cirincione, head of the non-proliferation programof the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 
“You can’t get rid of chemical or biological or nuclear programs in Arab countries unless you also address the elimination of Israel’s nuclear and chemical programs,” Cirincione said.
Now, in recent days—despite overwhelming American popular opposition to an attack on Syria in retribution for its purported use of chemical weapons—we have seen the Jewish lobby in America loudly banging the drum for a U.S. military attack on Syria.
On Sept. 3 The Washington Post bared the truth in a story quite candidly headlined: “Pro-Israel and Jewish Groups Strongly Back Military Strike Against Syria.”
The Post article noted that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the Conferenceof Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai Brith and the SimonWiesenthal Center had all endorsed military action against Syria.
Noting that, theretofore, there had been “intense discussion” among pro-Israel partisans about whether they should be open about their concerns, the Post pointed out that that many in the Jewish lobby were “worried” that critics of the proposed attack on Syria were casting it “as a move to protect Israel’s interests rather than an action to defend U.S. credibility.”
One pro-Israel activist, who spoke in what the newspaper described as “the condition of anonymity” admitted to the Post, “There is a desire to not make this about Israel.” In other words, the Jewish lobbywould prefer the public not knowIsrael does indeed have an interest in seeing Syria subjected to American military might.
Later—even after President Obama’s address to the nation in which polls show he failed to convince Americans of the need to strike Syria—the Post reported on Sept. 9 that AIPAC had nonetheless mobilized its traditionally influential lobbying team—some 300 strong—to continue to besiege members of the House and the Senate demanding they support the attack.
However, despite the infamous Capitol Hill clout of the well-funded Jewish lobby groups, the good news is that public pressure on Congress against another Middle East war is so overwhelming that even the pro-Israel forces are being beaten back.
Now, with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s energetic intervention setting the stage for an agreement which seems to be undercutting the Jewish lobby’s push for war, it appears that for the first time in many years, that powerful lobby will be defeated.
Nonetheless, many people are still concerned that an angry Israeli leader, Benjamin Netanyahu, may engage in some covert measure such as a “false-flag” terrorist attack on America—to be blamed on Syria or Iran or groups friendly to Syria and Iran—designed to redirect American public opinion.
The bottom line is that recent events have brought into widespread attention the fact that the Jewish lobby in America stands in opposition to the vast majority of the American people, who are saying, “No more U.S. intervention in the Middle East.” And many are beginning to see that those interventions have, in fact, been on behalf of Israel— not America.
-----
Michael Collins Piper is a world-renowned author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and, of course, the United States. He is the author of Final Judgment, The New Jerusalem, The High Priests of War, Dirty Secrets, My First Days in the White House, The New Babylon, Share the Wealth: Huey Long vs Wall Street, The Judas Goats: The Enemy Within, Target: Traficant and The Golem: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb. You can order any of these books with a credit card by calling AFP/FAB toll free at 1-888-699-6397 or calling FAB direct at 202-547-5585 to inquire about pricing and Shipping and Handling fees







We favour Al-Qaeda over Assad: Israeli Ambassador

The Zionists seem to have loose lips. Michael Oren, Israeli ambassador to the U.S., admitted in a recent interview that Israel prefers the throat-slitting Takfiri Jihadist militants over Assad.




This confirms what many political commentators have rightly postulated — that Israel and its American and British puppets, in collaboration with Saudi and Qatari kingpins, are covertly supporting the Takfiri terrorists who are stampeding their way across Syria, chopping off heads, cutting out hearts, machine-gunning captive prisoners and unleashing sarin gas on civilians.
Oren’s statement is consistent with the decades-old Israeli strategy of divide and conquer. Israel’s plans to destabilize and eventually destroy the nation of Syria was laid out in plain English by the Neoconservative cabal of Zionist Jews led by Richard Perle and Douglas Feith in 1996:
Israel can shape its strategic environment, in cooperation with Turkey and Jordan, by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq — an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions. (“A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm,” IASPS, 1996)
After issuing that sinister and deadly “Clean Break” strategy paper for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in 1996, Perle and Feith would go on to become the two of the three principal architects of the Iraq war from within the Bush Regime in 2003. The other was Paul Wolfowitz, a Zionist Jew with intimate ties to Israel.
The Jewish-Zionist war agenda in the Middle East is documented in full in chapter 14 of my book Masters of Deception.





Israel prefers Al-Qaeda over Syria’s al-Assad

Israeli envoy: Tel Aviv prefers Al-Qaeda groups rather than Iranian-backed groups.

Posted by: M. Klostermayr September 17, 2013

The Israeli envoy to the United States, Michael Oren, confirmed in a new statement that the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv fears the alliance of Syria, Iran, and Lebanon, and the Israeli Ambassador even confirmed that Tel Aviv prefers al-Qaeda jihadists rather than the secular government of Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad in Damascus. Although not Syria has recently attacked Israel, but the Israeli regime has conducted at least three airstrikes on Syria in 2013.
The Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, also said in his new statements that the alliance of Syria, Iran, and Lebanon would pose the greatest danger to Tel Aviv and that the regime in Israel prefers Al-Qaeda linked groups rather than groups that are supported by the Iranian administration. However, not the alliance of Iran, Syria, and Lebanon has carried out attacks on Israel, but the Israeli regime has conducted airstrikes on targets in Syria – at least three airstrikes in 2013, which all have violated international law and were acts of aggression.
But it seems that the alliance of Iran, Syria, and Lebanon, the so-called “Resistance Axis”, remains the main enemy of the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv and the rest simply doesn`t matter. Further, the statements by the Israeli envoy to the United States confirm that Israel rather supports the terrorist organization of Al-Qaeda than a secular government in the Middle East. Although Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad has never attacked Israel, the regime in Tel Aviv wants rather Al-Qaeda in power in Syria and the overthrow of the secular-minded President. And this, although Al-Qaeda should afterwards become a serious threat for Israel. In a normal world and in the case that the common information and propaganda about Al-Qaeda is correct.
Therefore, it is easy to assume that Israel backs the armed terrorist groups in Syria and even supports the Syrian al-Qaeda offshoots such as the al-Nusra Front (Jabhat al-Nusra) in order to topple the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and his government in the capital, Damascus. Further, the regime in Tel Aviv wants to weaken the axis of resistance in the Middle East by supporting the terrorist groups and armed jihadists fighting in Syria. Not to mention that the Saudi regime also supports the Al-Qaeda-affiliated groups in Syria and that this is less surprising as the support for Al-Qaeda-linked terrorists by the Israeli regime.
In addition, it is already confirmed that the totalitarian dictatorship in Saudi Arabia is a lackey of the Zionist regime in Israel and that both are in bed with the leadership of the United States. However, the Syrian-Iran-Lebanon alliance is certainly a threat for Israel because the alliance of resistance, including the resistance movement Hezbollah and other resistance groups in the region, have the power to destroy the occupation regime of Israel.
In case, it would come to such a dangerous situation of a new war in the Middle East. The first victim would certainly be Israel of such a new war by Western-led military forces (e.g. by the United States) against an Arab country in the Middle East. There are certainly several persons on both sides who are waiting for such a moment. However, no war is good and every war has to be prevented.
Israel’s Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, also explained in his statement that Israel always wanted “the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to go” and this has been the “initial message (by Israel) about the Syria issue.” According to the statements by the envoy of the Israeli regime to Washington, Tel Aviv was always willing to see the overthrow of Syria’s Bashar al-Assad and his government before the beginning of the conflict and armed terrorism in March 2011. Primarily, because the overthrow of Bashar al-Assad and the government in Damascus certainly weakens the axis of resistance against Israel in the Middle East.
While some might consider it as somehow schizophrenic or even dangerous that Israeli rather supports and prefers al-Qaeda terrorists and jihadists than the mainly secular government of al-Assad in Damascus, it seems such a logic is valid for Michael Oren and the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv. However, as mentioned, it is to expect that in the case the Syrian al-Qaeda branch would overthrow the Syrian governance and President al-Assad, these armed terrorists would probably start to hate Israel again – despite the current support by the Israeli regime for their armed fighting against the Syrian Army and government.
Of course, the Israeli Ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has no shy to mention the real reasons for the support of Al-Qaeda in Syria. On the one hand, it weakens the axis of resistance and thus, the Lebanese resistance movement Hezbollah and also the Iranian administration in Tehran. On the other hand, a weak Syria would pose no threat for Israel and has no more abilities to support the axis of resistance or the Palestinians in the occupied areas. Israel would have an easier life and would be able to expand its territory even further and more easily.
The envoy of the Israeli regime to Washington said that “greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc.” However, this is partly propaganda. On the one hand the usual propaganda by Israel and on the other hand a useful propaganda for the government in Syria, which supports the resistance against the Israeli regime but the phrase about “Syria being the keystone” is questionable. As said, Israel has attacked Syria, not vice versa. There is so much talking every day. The deeds show the true colours, not the words of any of those sides.
As mentioned in another article (see here), the Israel’s hostility toward Syria and Lebanon has increased in recent months. Not vice versa, although probably due to the reason that e.g. Syria has no more capabilities to really support the axis of resistance or to carry out any acts against the Israeli regime in Tel Aviv.
Syria has been successfully weakened, but to which is extent is still questionable and it hopefully has never to be shown. However, while the Israeli envoy talks about the reasons why the regime in Tel Aviv prefers to support Al-Qaeda operatives rather than the secular government in Damascus or Iranian-backed groups, it is questionable if the members of the regime in Tel Aviv really consider all possible consequences of its support of Al-Qaeda-affiliated terrorists in Syria just for the reason that they are not “Iran”.
At least, one thing might be funny about the statements of the Israeli envoy. They really fear the axis of resistance and are still afraid of Syria. However, the propaganda is not quite correct by the Israeli Ambassador to the United States. As documents prove, there were several meetings and debates between Israel and Syria in recent years and especially when Bashar al-Assad came to power in Syria.
According to several information and documents, Syria’s President was never interested in a war on Israel. In contrary, he wanted to resolve several problems, but the Israeli regime has hampered or even dumped every attempt by al-Assad. Israel really is notoriously hostile, fearful, and a liar. Not to mention all its crimes against humanity since the establishment of the little state of Israel.











Former Bush Regime official: “Israel-firsters McCain and Graham are bordering on treason”

Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff of Colin Powell in the Bush Regime, has stated in an interview with The Real News Network that U.S. senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, known for their servile groveling to Israeli interests, are “bordering on being traitors.”



In the second part of the interview Wilkerson confirmed what many political commentators have been saying for years, that Israel is engaged in a divide and conquer strategy in the Middle East to pave the path for their grand vision of a “Greater Israel”. Israel intends to weaken and undermine all of its regional competitors by instigating and fomenting internal conflict in those countries — just as they did in Lebanon in the 1980s.
Wilkerson recently stated that the chemical attack in Syria that took place in late August of this year was likely an Israeli false-flag operation.




Claims Rebels Using Poison Gas;
Message to Obama from Congress:
No War on Syria Without Our OK

 By Michael Collins Piper
September 09, 2013
for American Free Press (Issue 36, 2013)


• ‘No smoking gun’ evidence that Syria used chemical weapons
• Israel the source for current charges of sarin gas use by Assad

One of America’s most respected military figures charged publicly that long-standing allegations about the Syrian government’s use of chemical weapons may have been, in his words, “an Israeli false flag operation” calculated to stir up opposition to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, long perceived by Israel as a threat to its geopolitical agenda.
And now that the United States seems poised to attack Syria on the basis of new claims about the use of such weapons, what former U.S. Army Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson told Current TV on May 3 bears noting.
A longtime military intimate of U.S. General Colin Powell, and later his chief of staff when Powell was secretary of state under “W” Bush, Wilkerson said his intelligence sources dismissed claims at that time that Assad’s military had used chemical weapons against terrorist forces.
Having loomed over Assad for months, that charge has been reinvigorated and the media revels in the possibility the U.S. will now attack Syria. However, the Los Angeles Times reported August 27 that Germany’s Focus magazine—citing a former Israeli intelligence official—said Israel was the primary source for current charges about Syria’s alleged use of chemical warfare.
Noting “U.S. intelligence sources long have relied on Israel to help provide intelligence about Syria” the Times didn’t mention it was also Israel that previously supplied the Bush administration much of the false data about supposed weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which provided the pretext for the invasion of that Arab republic.*
The mainstream media carefully suppresses the fact that—as demanded by the Israeli lobby in Washington—U.S. tax dollars (underwriting Israeli covert expertise) instigated the rebellion against Assad that led to the civil war that U.S. blood and treasure are now expected to resolve in a manner satisfactory to Israel.
Although the media suggests the Pentagon is eager for war on Syria, the fact is that—just as before the Iraq war when multiple military leaders were warning of the dangers of such a venture—top brass are likewise urging restraint vis-à-vis Syria. Even Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman General Martin Dempsey recently told Congress that U.S. intervention in Syria would not be in America’s interests.
Yet, despite widespread public opposition to war, many Republicans and Democrats alike—bankrolled by pro-Israel campaign contributors—are clamoring for action.
* See THE GOLEM: Israel’s Nuclear Hell Bomb and the Road to Global Armageddon for more data on this little-known scandal.
Michael Collins Piper Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.




"Israel, everyone agrees, is an established nuclear weapon state. It was the sixth nation in the world—and the first in the Middle East—to develop and acquire nuclear weapons. Indeed, while exact figures are speculative, Israel's nuclear forces are believed to be (in qualitative terms at least) more like those of France and the United Kingdom than India's and Pakistan's. Yet Israel's code of conduct and discourse in the nuclear field differs distinctly from the other established nuclear weapon states. Unlike the seven acknowledged nuclear nations—the five de jure nuclear weapon states under the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) (the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, and China) and the two de facto nuclear weapon states outside the NPT (India and Pakistan)—Israel has never advertised or even admitted its nuclear status __ Nobody—in or out of Israel—cares to ask Israeli leaders uncomfortable questions about the nation's nuclear status... In Washington, and subsequently in other Western capitals, the Israeli bomb has become a most sensitive issue, almost untouchable ... under which the United States treats Israel as a special (and unique) nuclear case. Under this policy, the United States has exercised its diplomatic influence and power to ignore and shield the Israeli case. Israel is treated as an exception, somehow exempt from the nonproliferation regime that applies to everyone else. Friends and foes of Israel (and of the United States) have to reckon with this aura of exceptionalism. For friends it is a matter of political embarrassment; for foes it highlights the double standard and inequality of America's unevenhanded approach to non-proliferation."
—Israeli historian Avner Cohen "The Last Taboo: Israel's Bomb Revisited" Current History - April 2005 (in Michael Collins Piper's The Golem)



‘Back Story’ on Putin-Obama Deal: Plug Pulled on Israel, Warmongers
• Zionists up in arms that peaceful solutions to Mideast problems being considered
By Mark Glenn
NEW YORK, N.Y.—To say it has been a month of political roller coasters powerful enough to give even the most seasoned veterans a case of severe whiplash is an understatement. This all culminated when the U.S. president, for the first time in three-and-a-half decades, telephoned the newly elected Iranian president on Sept. 27 to discuss firsthand the future of the two countries they lead.
September began with the possibility of yet another military disaster in the Middle East for Israel’s benefit. By all appearances, a nagging Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had finally gotten on President Barack Obama’s last nerve and pushed him into doing what he had resisted doing for the last four years—war with Syria.
The calls for war were built around circumstantial evidence implicating the Syrian government led by Bashar al-Assad in a chemical weapons attack that took place in a suburb of Damascus on Aug. 21. Secretary of State John Kerry was out in front, accusing the Syrian military of gassing its own people. Ghastly videos of children dying were quickly posted to the Internet for the world to see, and estimates of the death toll escalated to more than 1,400 Syrians.
It was Iraq all over again. In spite of weak proof that the Syrian military was actually behind the attack, it looked as thoughWashington had made up its mind and was going to war whether or not the Assad regime was responsible or not.
With up-to-the-minute news reports featuring U.S. military assets steaming toward the Syrian coast, the drama was breathlessly reported by the mainstream media.
And then, almost as quickly as it all started, the shouts for war ended abruptly. Suddenly, Obama announced there would be nomilitary action without Congress being brought in, just as the Constitution demands.
Of course, even themost politically naive would have a hard time leaving out of this curious political equation the fact that a few days before Obama had suddenly became a conscientious constitutionalist he and other world leaders met in St. Petersburg, Russia for the G20 conference. Equally difficult would be dismissing the possibility of Obama having discussed the messy business of Syria with Russian President Vladimir Putin, who up to this point had made it clear that, when it came to a war with Syria, “nyet” means “nyet” and that his country was not going to sit by as another Middle Eastern country was bombed into oblivion by the United States.
However, even the most optimistic watchers of politics found it hard to believe that the Russian president could rein in the lawless America. After all, Putin does not control the U.S. Congress, the U.S. media or the U.S. financial system like Netanyahu’s kith-n-kin. Jewish groups around the globe have made it clear that wars in the Middle East are vital for the continued survival of Israel.
It was against this backdrop that the crazy notion of an American president calling his Iranian counterpart on the phone actually took place on the last Friday in September, despite 34 years of silence between the two offices.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu (third from right; shown with members
of the Israeli delegation), addressed the UN secretary general (not shown) during
the UN General Assembly in New York on Oct. 1. Netanyahu reiterated Israel’s belief
that only tough sanctions and a “credible military threat” would force Iran to bow
before Israel’s will. He also said Israel was not afraid to bomb Iran alone if he felt
it necessary.STAN HONDASTAN HONDA/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The mainstream media was in an uproar over the phone call. Fox News headlined its report: “Netanyahu decries Iran’s Rouhani as ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing.’” The Washington Post titled its article:
“Worries about the Rouhani phone call.” And The New York Times printed this bizarre story: “Iranians Welcome Home Rouhani With Protest.”
However, Obama’s gesture in reaching out to Rouhani and intimating that a deal could be struck between the two nations to resolve the difficult diplomatic situation only makes sense when the events of the lastmonth involving Syria and Russia are factored in.
By all appearances, this is exactly what has taken place. An out-of-control America, firmly in the grip of the Israeli lobby and its voracious appetite for war, would not restrain itself on principles of the Constitution, the rule of law or even thebasic tenets of right versus wrong. The U.S. establishment would only stop the drive to war if it were trapped in a cave with a large, angry bear that was standing in its way.
——
Mark Glenn is a commentator and activist fluent in several languages. He is currently based in Idaho. See more from Glenn at www.crescentandcross.com.




Jobbik on the conflict in Syria
Jobbik has always spoken out against the use of weapons banned by international law, therefore, if it is proven that such a case has indeed taken place, our party objects to the use of poison gas in Syria as well.
However, Jobbik is worried to see the sinister events developing in Syria as well as the systematic attempts of the West to find a casus belli for an armed intervention against the Assad government. Jobbik disowns the provocation as well as the anti-Assad stance of the West and the servile attitude of the Hungarian government that runs to rally behind its Western allies. Jobbik also objects to the support provided for the forces being organized against the Assad government which also represent Islam's most extreme platforms, Wahhabism and Salafism and openly cooperate with Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organisations. Not only does the West contradict itself by supporting terrorism, but subordinates the already fragile stability of tension-ridden Middle East to its own short-term goals.
Jobbik firmly believes that the UN Security Council, which represents the interests of the powers that view the Syrian conflict subjectively and in light of their own goals, is unable to conduct a fair investigation of the gas attack. This has already been proven ten years ago, in the case of the shameful Iraqi invasion that was built on a smear campaign and propaganda.
Jobbik stands for the Assad government, which enjoys the support of the overwhelming majority of the Syrian people and has built up an economically, culturally and politically stable country during its rule of over half a century in one of the most complex Middle Eastern countries in terms of ethnicity and religion. We hope that the Assad government will soon be able to stabilize the situation and continue its governmental activity in the interest of the Syrian people.
Márton Gyöngyösi, deputy leader of Jobbik's Parliamentary Group


HAARETZ - Israel adamant it won't ratify chemical arms treaty before hostile neighbors
Talk of deal to eliminate Syria’s stockpiles of chemical weapons sends jitters through Jerusalem; will Israel be next?
With Moscow and Washington now discussing a diplomatic deal that would rid Syria of its chemical weapons, officials in Jerusalem are preparing for the possibility that Israel will be asked to submit to supervision of the chemical weapons that foreign reports say it possesses.
In the past few days, Foreign Ministry officials note, senior Russian officials have repeatedly drawn a connection between Syria’s chemical weapons and Israel’s military capabilities. President Vladimir Putin, for instance, told Russian media outlets that Syria’s chemical weapons exist as a response to Israel’s military capabilities, while Russia’s ambassador to Paris told Radio France that Syria’s chemical weapons were meant to preserve its balance of deterrence against Israel, “which has nuclear weapons.”
Israel signed the Chemical Weapons Convention in 1993, but never ratified it. Consequently, it hasn’t agreed to submit itself to international inspections or to refrain from steps that would violate the convention.
Syria, which has one of the largest chemical weapons arsenals in the world, has never even signed the convention, nor has Egypt, which also has a chemical weapons program. Iran, which suffered chemical weapons attacks from Iraq during their war in the 1980s, signed the convention in 1993 and ratified it in 1997. Nevertheless, senior figures at the Foreign Ministry in Jerusalem claim that Iran secretly maintains a large stash of chemical weapons.
Both Syria and Egypt used Israel as their excuse for not signing the convention. In various international forums over the years, Syrian and Egyptian officials have said their countries would agree to sign only if Israel signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and opened its nuclear reactor in Dimona to international inspectors.
Foreign Ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor told Haaretz on Wednesday that Israel would not ratify the Chemical Weapons Convention as long as other states in the region with chemical weapons refuse to recognize Israel and threaten to destroy it.
“Unfortunately, while Israel signed the convention, other countries in the Middle East, including those that have used chemical weapons recently or in the past, or are believed to be working to improve their chemical capabilities, have failed to follow suit and have indicated that their position would remain unchanged even if Israel ratifies the convention,” Palmor said in a written statement. “Some of these states don't recognize Israel's right to exist and blatantly call to annihilate it. In this context, the chemical weapons threat against Israel and its civilian population is neither theoretical nor distant. Terror organizations, acting as proxies for certain regional states, similarly pose a chemical weapons threat. These threats cannot be ignored by Israel, in the assessment of possible ratification of the convention.”
Despite not having ratified the convention, Israel does have observer status at the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, the international agency that monitors the convention’s implementation, and participates in many of its meetings.
In early 2010, then-Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman sent a letter to the OPWC’s director general saying that Israel was interested in increasing its cooperation with the organization. But he also stressed that Israel wouldn’t sign the convention until it has signed peace treaties with all its neighbors and is no longer threatened by its neighbors’ chemical weapons.
U.S. State Department cables leaked to WikiLeaks reveal that the American administration held lengthy talks with Israel about the possibility of ratifying the convention, including at a February 2007 meeting in Jerusalem between senior State Department officials and their Israeli counterparts.
An American cable summing up the meeting said that U.S. officials urged the Israelis to move forward on this issue, stressing that Israel is one of only five countries that haven’t yet ratified the convention, with the others being North Korea, Egypt, Syria and Lebanon.
Alon Bar, then director of the Foreign Ministry’s arms control department, responded that Israel signed the convention in the early 1990s, when the peace process was at its height, and that since then, the situation had changed.
Israel’s chemical weapons policy is overseen by a Defense Ministry panel comprising about 20 senior representatives from the defense establishment and the intelligence community. The committee was established in 1991, dismantled in 2007 and reconstituted in 2009. It meets every few months, but in recent years it has spent very little time discussing chemical weapons. 




Israel Adamant it won’t Ratify Chemical Arms Treaty as Hypocrisy abounds on Syria

YNETNEWS ISRAEL - Assad: Israel should be first to disarm

TIMES OF ISRAEL Assad says US must stop military threats, and Israel must sign WMD treaties

New Syria “CW Initiative”: But What About Israel’s Stockpile?

Israel worried it may be pushed to join chemical weapons ban

If Syria is scrutinized over chemical weapons, so must Israel

Zionists Panic as Assad Move Outsmarts them on Chemical Weaponshttp://davidduke.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/israel-worried.jpg

Putin: Syria’s chemical arms are response to Israel’s alleged nukes

'Sign non-nuclear treaty' Syrian FM delivers UNGA address, noting his country supports Palestinians' right for state 

Poutine : "Israël n’a pas besoin de l’arme nucléaire"

Canada plans to invade Syria




Fineprint: A new approach for Israel?
By Walter Pincus, Washington Post, Published: October 2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/fineprint-a-new-approach-for-israel/2013/10/02/4cecf606-2ac9-11e3-b139-029811dbb57f_story.html
It's time for Israel to stop making military threats and to propose an imaginative diplomatic move — risky as it may seem — to help ease nuclear tensions in the Middle East.
It can start by acknowledging its own nuclear weapons program.
It has accused Iran of seeking the capability to produce nuclear weapons, when for years Israel has been believed to possess hundreds of nuclear bombs and missiles, along with multiple delivery systems. It continues to insist it doesn't have them.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders continue to accuse Tehran of deceit in describing its nuclear program as peaceful.
Perhaps Netanyahu sees Iran following the path Israel took 50 years ago when it's known that his country joined the relatively small nuclear weapons club.
Back in the 1960s, Israel apparently hid the nuclear weapons program being carried on at its Negev Nuclear Research Center (NNRC) at Dimona. It deceived not only the international community but also its close U.S. ally. It repeatedly pledged "it would not be the first to introduce nuclear weapons into the area."
In early 1966, at the time of a U.S. sale of F-4 fighter-bombers to Israel, the Johnson administration insisted that Israel reaffirm that pledge. "Foreign Minister Abba Eban told Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara that Israel did not intend to build nuclear weapons, 'so we will not use your aircraft to carry weapons we haven't got and hope we will never have,'" according to the State Department's Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Volume XVIII.
Sound familiar? Maybe that's why Netanyahu was so tough Tuesday during his U.N. General Assembly speech when attacking Iranian President Hassan Rouhani's statements that Tehran's nuclear program is peaceful. When the Israeli prime minister asked, "Why would a country that claims to only want peaceful nuclear energy, why would such a country build hidden underground enrichment facilities?" I thought Dimona.
According to the bipartisan, Washington-based, Nuclear Threat Initiative, the Machon 2 facility at Dimona "is reportedly the most sensitive building in the NNRC, with six floors underground dedicated to activities identified as plutonium extraction, production of tritium and lithium-6," for use in nuclear weapons.

So, along with easing up on the threats, what else could Israel be doing, perhaps with U.S. support? After all, since the 1960s, Washington has gone along with this idea of never openly acknowledging Israel's nuclear weapons.
What about following the recent example of Russia and Syria? After Russian President Vladimir Putin and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad both refused to acknowledge Syria having chemical weapons, they did what Americans would call "a flip-flop." They admitted that such weapons existed and that Damascus would join the Chemical Weapons Convention and destroy the whole program.
Inspection teams from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons are on the ground in Syria. (...)
Perhaps it's time to drop the facade hiding Israel's nuclear weapons program from the public, since Washington and the Israeli government say more transparency is one of the goals sought when dealing with Iran's nuclear program. It then might be easier to revive a once-planned conference on a Middle East nuclear free zone, linking it to progress made guaranteeing that Tehran's program remains peaceful.
No doubt, there would be risk. Israel must ask itself if it is a chance worth taking.

VIDEO - NEW — Dr. David Duke Exposes Nuclear Netanyahu Hypocrisy


New York Times: Netanyahu on ‘Messianic Crusade’
netanyahu1



La juiverie sioniste admet qu'Israël détient un arsenal nucléaire et prétend que sa survie en dépend!

C'est exactement que nous disons depuis le début du premier mandat d'Obama.
Un Moyen-Orient sans nucléaire et sans armes chimiques, c'est pas Israël qui veut ça, c'est la Syrie et l'Iran. Israël a accumulé un important arsenal chimique et nucléaire soi-disant pour assurer sa survie. En voyant Israel faire ça et les menacer en plus, les autres pays qui environnent Israel ont été forcés de se procurer un arsenal eux aussi, pour parer à la menace d'un Israël menaçant et  doté d'armes chimiques et nucléaires.

NYTimes Op-Ed Never Appeared in US Edition - Let’s Be Honest About Israel’s Nukes

Egypt foreign minister calls for a nuclear-free Middle East

A “Nuclear-Free Zone” in the Middle East? Why Israel will not Join the Non-Proliferation Treaty
La condamnation par les États-Unis de l’usage des armes chimiques ne s’applique pas à Israël

Now Iran Turns Tables on Zionist Supremacists and their Nuclear Arsenal
http://algerienetwork.com/usa/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/enough-already-vanunu.jpghttp://1.bp.blogspot.com/_qUFDMUpk9jE/SsCu_QyJe9I/AAAAAAAAZVE/uHWb9v-sXYo/s400/Passion+of+Vanunu.jpghttp://www.indymedia.org.uk/images/2011/11/488008.jpg



Pour une courte introduction en français, visionner cet extrait en français (@2:33) d'un important reportage de la BBC "Israel, Vanunu and the Bomb" (à voir en entier en version française).



Israel's Chemical Weapons Stockpile Highlights Western Hypocrisy

WMD Double Standards: 51 UN Member States Vote to Keep Israel’s Nuclear Arsenal Hidden from Public View

Israel’s Nuclear, Chemical and Biological Weapons Threaten World Peace

U.S.: Singling out Israel at UN would harm efforts for nuclear-free Middle East
En fait c'est précisément l'inverse qui est vrai: s'attarder sur le cas d'Israel est la clé pour faire du Moyen-orient une zone sans nucléaire! Car c'était précisément à cause de l'arsenal nucléaire israélien que les pays voisins ont senti la nécessité de se procurer des armes chimiques!

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

Seven Israelis in Syria OPCW Chemical Weapons Team?

‘Syria army confiscates Israeli-made missiles’

TIMES OF ISRAEL - ‘Dayan pushed PM Meir to consider using nuclear weapons in 1973 war’

“We Used Chemical Weapons in Vietnam”: Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick Explain How Telling the Untold History Can Change the World for the Better

Winston Churchill's shocking use of chemical weapons

Hitler Never Used Chemical Weapons

Le secret des gaz israéliens Ce sont les recherches israéliennes sur les armes chimiques et biologiques qui ont poussé historiquement la Syrie à rejeter la Convention interdisant les armes chimiques. C’est pourquoi la signature par Damas de ce document risque de mettre en lumière l’existence, et éventuellement la poursuite, de recherches sur des armes sélectives destinées à tuer les seules populations arabes.

Israel amassing WMD due to US backing

Un document de la CIA récemment découvert révèle qu’Israël a mis aussi en place son propre arsenal d’armes chimiques.

Des documents de la CIA révèlent des réserves israéliennes d’armes chimiques

Israel’s History of Chemical Weapons Use

Et si on parlait des stocks d’armes chimiques en Israël ?

Israel’s chemical weapons under the spotlight

Israel’s chemical arsenal under new scrutiny

Israel keeps mum on its chemical weapons

Israel Silent on Chemical Weapons

Les armes secrètes nucléaires, biologiques et chimiques d’Israël

JERUSALEM POST Report: CIA believes Israel acquired chemical weapons decades ago

‘Should there be a need’: The inside story of Israel’s chemical and biological arsenal
http://www.loonwatch.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/latuff_cartoon_israel_collective_punishment.jpg
U.S. media suppressed 2009 UN report showing Israel using chemical weapons against Palestinians: Obama ignores Israel's chemical weapons abuse while targeting Syria http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Tszt5w0ybDI/UjuSWASLY8I/AAAAAAAACcs/f02JnTgDh94/s1600/1_article_photo.jpg

Revisiting “Red Lines.” Saving Syria from Chemical Weapons by “Punishing” With Chemical Weapons?

British PM cites Holocaust as a reason for military action in Syria

Reid compares Assad’s attacks to Nazi gas chambers Senate majority leader tries to drum up support in Congress for American military actions against Syria

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

Le dynamitage du monde musulman. Par Pierre Hillard









Glenn Beck: " I Personally Am Calling for the Impeachment of the President of the United States "
Les sionistes se servent des révélations sur l'appui US envers Al-Qaïda en Syrie pour attaquer Obama et demander sa destitution (comme pour l'affaire Snowden). Comme si c'était lui qui voulait aller en guerre... Les sionistes vont toujours trouver le moyen de blâmer Obama peu importe ce qu'il fait: s'il va pas en guerre c'est sa faute, s'il y va, c'est sa faute: "Damned if you do and damned if you don't." Faites attention au discours qui s'en prend à l'appui des USA envers al-Qaïda car cela peut aussi servir, de manière détournée, les plans d'Israël qui aime brandir constamment le spectre des "islamistes".

‘Scandalous’: Israel fumes as US officials spill the beans on Syrian missile strike
Le renseignement américain informe les médias sur les bombardements israéliens en Syrie et à Gaza: Israel se sent trahie

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Les médiats juifs tels que le New York Times dissimulent les efforts des groupes juifs pour pousser l'Occident en guerre en Syrie pour lsraël...

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

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

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

John McCain et les guerres pour Israël

Le printemps arabe: "une incroyable opportunité pour Israël", selon l'ancien directeur du Mossad Meir Dagan et le Maj. Gen. et criminel de guerre Yoav Galant'

A CLEAN BREAK': un document incontournable du gvt israélien pour comprendre le projet du Grand Israël et les agressions impérialistes au Moyen-Orient

Roland Dumas, ancien ministre français des affaires étrangères: "Israël contrôle le service de renseignement français"

Le sanglant sacrifice rituel de Pourim 2012: la pire attaque contre Gaza depuis Plomb Durci

Élections US 2012: Encore une fois, comme après l'élection d'Obama en 2008, Israël s'en va-t-en-guerre. Après tout, c'est lui le patron

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

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

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

Armes non-conventionnelles expérimentées par Israël à Gaza

Gazés à Gaza

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

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

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

Le responsable des crimes de guerre à Gaza en 2009

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

Les menaces d'Adam Pearlman (Gadahn), gracieuseté de l'organe de propagande sioniste SITE Intelligence Group

Le nouveau leader d'al Qaida est-il israélien?

Un Cohen dans les rangs d'al Qaida?

Les attentats revendiqués par al-Qaida... sur un site israélien de propagande

Incroyable! "al-Qaida" dément les théories du complot, défend Israël et attaque l'Iran et le Hezbollah!

Al Qaida ou Al Mossad?

Al-Qaeda et Israël, même combat contre la Syrie!

Le prochain 11 septembre sera-t-il concocté en Israël (et sera-t-il nucléaire)?

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

Après JFK et Obama, au tour de l'Onu de demander à Israël d'ouvrir ses installations nucléaires aux inspections

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

L'AIEA souhaite discuter des "activités" nucléaires d'Israël

Politique nucléaire talmudiste: une loi pour le peuple élu et une autre loi pour l'Iran

Conférence US: le nucléaire israélien brille par son absence

L'arsenal nucléaire israélien ne sera pas inspecté

Nucléaire iranien: les faux documents du Mossad

Israël a-t-il un programme nucléaire?

Israël rejette en bloc l'ONU comme étant "antisémite"

Le sionisme contre l'ONU

NYTimes: 16 agences US de renseignement confirment que l’Iran n’a pas la bombe // Le général Dempsey refuse d’être complice d'une attaque israélienne

Menace numéro un pour la sécurité mondiale: l'arsenal nucléaire israélien

Une blogosphère alerte et en santé est le dernier obstacle à une guerre contre l'Iran

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

L'affaire Lavon et le USS Liberty (Israël a utilisé une arme chimique - le Napalm - contre l'équipage américain du USS Liberty)

Vers un scénario de Troisième Guerre mondiale? Le rôle d’Israël dans le déclenchement d’une guerre contre l’Iran

L'Option Samson comme "justice ultime"

L'arsenal nucléaire israélien au centre de la guerre de l'administration Ben-Gourion contre J.F. Kennedy