général | Accueil
GAZETTE DU GOLFE ET DES BANLIEUES
Numéro 14 -- novembre 2002
en français et en anglais
en 1991 par Serge Thion
News in French
1991 by Serge Thion
US GO HOME
FORMONS PARTOUT DES COMITÉS
A ZACCARIA MOUSSAOUI
MOUSSAOUI, COURAGE !
8000 PRISONNIERS POLITIQUES
TORTURÉS CHAQUE JOUR
DÉMANTELONS LES USA
RESTAURONS LA PALESTINE
LET'S HANG THE BUSHES AND LYNCH
L'IRAQ DES BOURBIERS SE RAPPROCHE
CHIRAC NE TIENT SON PANTALON
QUE D'UNE MAIN
LES USA PIÉTINENT LES
Avec la collaboration volontaire
ou involontaire de Tareq Aziz, Ibrahim Alloush, Yair Sheleg, Israël
Shamir, Robert Fisk, Leonard Spencer, Neil Mackay et quelques
devrait rejeter, tout autant, la notion d'Etat juif.
Shamir, 24 sept. 2002.
PAYS DE LA CONNERIE
Le 11 septembre 2001 est maudit pour la
justice américaine. Un nouveau scandale met en lumière
les dysfonctionnements du système judiciaire. "Le
parquet fédéral a donné par erreur 48 dossiers
du FBI, classés "secret défense", à
Zacarias Moussaoui", révèle le New York
Times. Le jeune Français, seul terroriste présumé
d'Al Qaida arrêté par les services américains,
a décidé de se défendre sans avocat. Le parquet
lui a alors transmis les documents nécessaires à
sa défense. Malheureusement, raconte le New York Times,
"un certain nombre de rapports ultrasecrets et non-transférables
se sont glissés dans le lot". Ces documents "sont
les résumés des interrogatoires de Moussaoui, mais
aussi l'ensemble des conclusions des enquêtes du FBI sur
le réseau Al Qaida".
Une fois la bourde connue, les juges américains
chargés du procès ont ordonné la fouille
de la cellule de Zacarias Moussaoui. Après deux jours de
recherches, la majorité des documents ont été
retrouvés sous les yeux bienveillants du prisonnier, qualifié
de très "coopératif", par le New York
Times. Cependant, deux rapports manquent encore, "ce
sont les plus importants", assure un proche de l'enquête.
Pour un responsable du ministère de la Justice américain,
cité par le quotidien, "il est pratiquement impossible
que le prévenu ait lu ces documents perdus dans un million
.courrierinternational, 28 septembre 2002
Le procès de Moussaoui est repoussé
à mai ou juin. Il croule sous le poids des documents qu'il
doit compulser. Il se plaint d'avoir été perturbé
par les connards du FBI venus reprendre les documents qu'ils n'auraient
pas dû lui donner, in the first place ! L'incompétence
du FBI est proverbiale. Ils avaient aussi "oublié"
des documents dans l'affaire de Tim McVey (explosion de l'immeuble
officiel d'Oklahoma City).
Ce procès sera d'une grande importance
car, à moins d'autres événements, il devrait
être l'occasion pour l'Etat américain de dire, pour
le première fois, ce qu'il sait, ou ce qu'il croit savoir
de ce qui s'est passé le 11 septembre 2001. Jusqu'à
présent, vous aurez remarqué qu'on nous gave de
rumeurs mais sous le prétexte des enquêtes en cours,
les instances politiques sont enfermées dans un mutisme
qui prête à toutes les interprétations. Or
face à l'armée des procureurs, des enquêteurs
du FBI et d'autres officines, on trouvera un type tout seul, qui
n'a pas fait confiance -- et qui lui reprocherait ? -- aux avocats
américains, un Marocain de culture française, Zaccaria
Moussaoui. Il a vécu à Londres et doit donc maîtriser
l'anglais. Il va donc défendre sa peau contre la raison
d'Etat du plus puissant Etat du monde...
Nous appelons donc à la formation
de Comités de soutien à Moussaoui. Il va
en avoir besoin et, sans même parler de l'hostilité
que l'on peut éprouver pour les politiques ignobles des
Etats Unis, tout un chacun comprendra que l'on est en droit d'espérer
que ce procès permette d'entrevoir la vérité
sur les attentats du 11 septembre qui justifient et valident la
politique de terreur mondiale déclenchée par la
Maison Blanche et le Pentagone.
Zaccaria, tous les amateurs de vérité
sont avec toi !
October 4, 2002
- An Exclusive
interview with Mr. Tariq Aziz
- Deputy Prime Minister
of Iraq, Member of the Revolution Command Council, and former
long-time Foreign Minister
- This meeting took place
in the Prime Minister's offices in Baghdad on 29 September 2002.
The far-ranging interview dealt with a wide variety of topics,
including the Iraqi rationale behind the unconditional acceptance
of the return of the international inspectors, Iraq's military
strategy in the coming confrontation with America, the issue
of democracy in Iraq, the case of Abu Nidal, Iraq's position
on the Palestine Authority and Yassir Arafat, as well as some
theoretical issues. Mr. Tariq Aziz is known for his political
sophistication, intelligence, and unique ability to deal with
the media and diplomatic corps. In what follows he fully lived
up to that reputation. But this dialogue essentially aimed at
lifting the veil on how things are thought out in the mind of
the Iraqi leadership, going beyond the usual journalistic fare
that is restricted to the events of the moment. On this basis,
our talk began with a focus on general issues, not on specifics.
The Free Arab Voice was represented by its editor-in-chief, Dr.
Ibrahim Naji Alloush.
- FAV: Mr. Aziz, the decision to allow
the inspectors to return was a decision that did not conform
to the interests of Iraq or to Arab interests. That is, it was
clear that among the inspectors are some individuals known to
be foreign agents who were plotting with the Zionists and Americans.
There is a whole archive of news reports attesting to this. In
addition, Iraq had been demanding that the return of inspectors
be linked to the end of the embargo and a solution to the issue
of mass destruction weapons throughout the whole region. In spite
of that, we find that you agreed to the return of the inspectors
- Of course this occurred
just days after a number of Arab countries changed their positions
and declared that they were ready to participate in an attack
on Iraq because "they had no other choice", or words
to that effect. Do you believe that your agreement to the return
of the inspectors will lead to restraining the aggression, or
that this decision will prevent an attack by the United States,
Britain and the Zionists on Iraq altogether? Or do you believe
it can result in delaying an attack, that it's a way to gain
time, and to compel them to show more of their cards, even those
who claim that Iraq has mass destruction weapons?
- Tariq Aziz: We have no illusions about the
intentions of American imperialism and Zionism, both the international
Zionist movement and the entity in the occupied Palestinian territories.
We have no illusions. But in any battle you wage, you must take
the steps necessary to reduce the number of your opponents, in
the first place, steps that will help you gain friends. We analyzed
the situation deeply.
- Support for American aggression
in the world and in the region is very limited. There is no Arab
or foreign party, other than the Zionist Entity, and other than
the British government in the person of Tony Blair and his group,
[other than them] no one wants this aggressive military action
against Iraq. Everyone is afraid of the consequences that will
result from it.
- FAV: Particularly since they are openly
raising the issue of redrawing the map of the region.
- Tariq Aziz: Yes, exactly. We said that if
we took this step, we would strengthen those who do not want
the attack, and this would place us in a much more comfortable
position. We would free ourselves from all the pressures, and
the pressure had reached a point where it was coming from all
directions, "Brothers, please, accept the return of the
inspectors so you can avoid a war". We know that this decision
might not prevent a war, or prevent aggression. We know that.
Nevertheless, we took that decision. But now we can say, in case
the aggression occurs, that the political position of those opposing
the aggression will be stronger than it would have been had we
not made such a decision.
- There are some weaklings
for whom it is easy to blame Iraq. They say, "Iraq is fanatical.
Iraq is stubborn. Iraq won't listen to advice, etc." That
position gives them an excuse to get out of their obligations,
whether they are Arabs or foreigners. We have our foreign friends
who should supposedly shoulder their responsibilities, the legal
ones in the first place, according to international law, and
shoulder their responsibilities with respect to a country that
was friendly to them, like Russia. The weaklings in Russia come
along and say, "We advised the Iraqis but they have been
obstinate. They didn't behave as wisely as they should have.
So we should sit by quietly and let the attack take place".
This would be a loss. As for the aggression, it is likely that
it will take place. If it doesn't take place it will be first
and foremost due to Iraq's steadfastness. The aggressor will
feel that his adventure will be extremely costly. I tell you,
my personal analysis is that the aggression has been planned
for a long time, but they have been postponing the zero hour,
if we can call it that, because the more deeply they study Iraq's
situation, they find more and more difficulties in front of them.
They are trying to treat these difficulties but they are not
- I'll give you a specific
example. George Bush linked the aggression against Iraq to changing
the regime. But when they started to discuss how to change the
regime they discovered that this goal is either impossible or
at the very least exorbitantly costly and very complicated, and
also not convincing for those who are supposed to take part along
with them, even the British. I am not generally convinced by
what the British say, but they say that they have now succeeded
in convincing Bush that military action against Iraq need not
have regime change as its slogan. This, I think, in my opinion,
is because the British are more aware of the facts and realities
than is that stupid administration in America. It is an aggressive
administration, but it is also stupid at the same time; it doesn't
know the realities, whether in Iraq or in the Arab world.
- These are the reasons
that led us to taking this decision. At the same time, we will
strive every day to clarify our position to the world. When the
inspectors come, they will engage in activities. Perhaps they
will engage in bad activities...
- FAV: That's for sure...
- Tariq Aziz: But we will expose them. Not with
memoranda to the Security Council, as we used to do in the past.
We will expose them before Arab and international public opinion.
There are lots of interested people now who will follow these
events very closely indeed.
- FAV: But Mr. Aziz, I want to tell
you two things that I'm sure you already know, but I would like
to hear your response to them.
- First, there was a law
passed by the American Congress in 1998 that literally stipulated,
and this was in 1998, that the Iraqi regime had to be changed
and that provided for the financial and organizational measures
needed for such a regime change. Besides that, there was a paper
issued in 1996 under the title a Clean Break that discussed the
- I think that imperialist
and Zionist strategic interests at this stage have come to demand
the break up of this region, and they are saying this openly,
so this is not just one analysis...
- Tariq Aziz: Precisely...
- FAV: So, do you believe that these
measures [the return of the inspectors] even if they can delay
the aggression, that in the end they can put an end to the clash
with imperialism ?
- Tariq Aziz: No. I told you we have no illusions.
But in any battle you wage, you can make some non-essential concessions
in order to improve your political position. The return of the
inspectors to Iraq will not shake our regime. It will not lead
to our giving up all the necessary preparations we've made for
the aggression, when it comes. But it will give us a political
opportunity that is better than what we used to have before we
took this decision.
- We have no illusions,
and as I said in the forum*, the aim [of America in the Arab
region] is a new Sykes-Picot agreement, beginning with Iraq,
and ending with other countries, including Jordan, Saudi Arabia,
and other countries in the region. This arrangement is needed
because, the [old] Sykes-Picot that served the Zionist Entity
and imperialism throughout the last century, today no longer
works in the interest of the aims of imperialism and the Zionist
presence in Palestine. It has come to constitute a kind of danger,
despite the weakness of the regimes that surround "Israel",
and the regimes that have signed agreements with "Israel".
Despite their weak positions, this situation has come to pose
a danger. Nowadays, for example, the number of Arabs who have
university degrees is greater than the number of all residents
in "Israel", and not all residents of "Israel"
hold university degrees.
- This is a qualitative
change. The steadfastness of Iraq and the steadfastness of the
Palestinian resistance, of the Palestinian intifada, have created
a qualitative political and psychological change as well that
wasn't there before. Today, the Arab citizen is deeply convinced
that resistance to imperialism and Zionism is possible and that
it will not lead to his obliteration.
- Yes, there will be sacrifices
and martyrs, but this will not lead to the obliteration of the
Arab nation. In 1990-1991 many believed, when America launched
its aggression against Iraq, that Iraq would be obliterated,
that there would be no more Iraq on the face of the earth. Iraq's
steadfastness established that there would be sacrifices and
losses but that it is possible for Iraq, as a country, and a
people, and a leadership, to remain.
- FAV: Since we agree that imperialism
and Zionism have strategic interests that will inevitably lead
to their undertaking aggression, sooner or later, this raises
the issue of Iraq's state of readiness for such an attack. What
I'd like to say is that to wage traditional-style warfare against
forces that are superior militarily, technologically, and that
have nuclear weapons might not be the most appropriate way to
wage war in this situation. I mean, some people point to the
experience of south Lebanon, and the Jenin refugee camp, recently,
and other such examples, to demonstrate the principle that to
fight an enemy who is superior in conventional terms, one must
use unconventional methods, such as guerrilla warfare and martyrdom
operations. What is your comment on that ?
- Tariq Aziz: We will be fighting inside our
own country. We will not fight the aggressors in open country.
Someone said that the Vietnamese had jungles. I said, "we
have cities and our cities are our jungles".
- FAV: Jungles of Concrete?
- Tariq Aziz: Exactly right! We have declared
this. Even President Saddam Hussein said that we will fight them
in the cities. Their aim is regime change. They can't change
the regime by remote control, with missiles and airplanes. Yes,
they can damage buildings and installations, but they can't topple
the regime with airplanes and missiles.
- So, if they really want
to achieve their goal -- and their ultimate goal is to divide
up the region and control the oil -- they will have to occupy
the land. In that case, our points of strength will stand out,
and their weak points will be exposed.
- FAV: A question that is posed by lots
of supporters of Iraq abroad concerns the issue of democracy.
Naturally, we know that the United States uses the rhetoric of
human rights and democracy as an argument justifying its political
and military interference in various places around the world,
not only in Iraq. But, among the forces outside Iraq, among Iraqis
abroad, we note that they fall into two main types. One type
cooperates with the CIA and others, and no rational person expects
Iraq to cooperate with them. Personally, I believe that treason
is not just another point of view, and this is the opinion of
a lot of people. Anyone who holds hands with the CIA, whoever
that may be, is not someone with another point of view, he is
a traitor. But on the other hand there are some Iraqis in Syria,
for example, and in other places... I mean we meet Iraqis who
say and who consider themselves to be against imperialism and
against the American plots against Iraq, but their relations
with the regime in Iraq are not good. Don,t you think that forces
like this must be given the opportunity to take part in repelling
aggression on the basis of their opposition to the Americans?
I am not proposing, of course, a liberal conception of the matter.
But don,t you think that there should be some overtures towards
these groups, like the approaches that were made towards groups
that were previously opposed to Iraq, like the regimes in Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait that actively attacked Iraq? [This is a question
that concerns] the cohesion of the domestic front on the basis
of a shared opposition to the Americans. Are you thinking along
these lines? Or is the Iraqi leadership thinking along these
- Tariq Aziz: Since 1991, and until today,
we have been ready for dialogue with any person or any group
that wants to have a dialogue with us. I personally have had
long discussions with people who are Marxists, Arab nationalists,
and Islamists. There is, nevertheless, one problem that I must
speak about plainly. When one of those people talks with you,
if he wants to come to Iraq or to return to Iraq, or work with
Iraq and with the rest of the Iraqis, on the basis of his position,
or standing, the door is open to him. We don,t force him to become
a Baathist or to conform one hundred percent to our thinking.
But sometimes, mostly for personal reasons, a member of the opposition
comes to you -- a patriot, no doubt about that -- and with him
is a group of people, and he is looking for a measure of power
that he doesn,t really command. But when he comes and asks to
be made a partner with the Baath Party in decision making, while
he doesn,t have the degree of effectiveness, nor does he bear
the responsibility that the Baath Party does, such a request
is, naturally, unreasonable. I mean, today, for example, when
we decide to resist imperialism, we are able to put a million
Baathist fighters in the field. He can put twenty or fifty or
a hundred or maybe a thousand. Yet he wants, on that basis, to
assume the prerogatives of Saddam Hussein himself, a man who
is a builder of a country, a revolution, a society, and a party!
This is a political excessiveness with a narcissistic quality.
That is the problem here.
- FAV: You mean they make that the precondition
for their coming back and cooperating?
- Tariq Aziz: No. Some don't make any conditions.
And they have come back and worked in the country -- each one
according to his position: in universities, in the press, in
- FAV: But you don't have any problem
in principle, officially?
- Tariq Aziz: No, we have no problem. We aren't
afraid of anything. As a party, now, let us suppose that our
system had been transformed into a liberal regime. Of course,
this is just a supposition. But if we had elections, we are sure
that we would win more than two-thirds of the seats in parliament.
We have no problem. Ours is a big party. It's been in power for
34 years and it has served Iraq. And the Iraqis who are fifty
years old or older know what the Baath Party has done for Iraq.
They know what the living standards, the cultural level, the
social environment, the level of industry and agriculture were
like in 1968, and what they are like today. That is the accomplishment
of the revolution. So the citizen in the village or in the urban
neighborhood will vote for the Baathist candidate to represent
- FAV: But do you have plans in this
direction for the future?
- Tariq Aziz: Yes, this is possible. Democracy
too has to grow gradually. But it must grow in peaceful conditions.
- FAV: Yes, one is reminded here that
in America itself during wartime . . .
- Tariq Aziz: Let's look at America: it has
not been afflicted by war, but by the events of 11 September,
and they have created an atmosphere of intimidation and apprehension
about security to the point that they have reduced all the freedoms
that they used to boast of before the world. In all the wars...
in the Second World War, for example, the Labour Party and the
Conservatives in Britain formed one joint government, having
distanced themselves from all their social, political, class,
and other differences, in order to wage war on Nazi Germany.
- These are facts from the
real world. But for one of them, in the present circumstances
when we are facing the likelihood of aggression, to demand that
we implement liberal practices and forms right now, this is not
possible. It's not even a popular demand.
- And here is another fact.
When they call the regime in Iraq a dictatorship or fascist or
Nazi, we know that the Nazi party won the elections in Germany.
That is, that there was freedom for parties to operate, and when
it gained power, it banned the other parties and stayed on ruling
Germany by itself. That is a dictatorship. I mean, it came in
a democratic system, in democratic forms, then it eliminated
democracy. Augusto Pinochet came to power in a military coup
against a popularly-elected democratic regime.
- OK, whom did the Iraqi
regime succeed? The Iraqi regime that [is represented by] the
Arab Socialist Baath Party and President Saddam Hussein, came
to power after the regime of President Abd al-Rahman Muhammad
- President Abd al-Rahman
Muhammad Aref along with ten officers ran the country by themselves.
Then came the Baath Party. First, this is a party, and not ten
individuals. It has an ideology and a program. Second, if you
think of the number of people who take part in political decision-making,
whether in the party or the trade unions, or the federations,
or the National Assembly, or the people's assemblies in the villages
and cities, you will find that the number of those taking part
in decision making has become millions. This is democratic development.
True, it is not completely liberal development, but it is democratic
development. And this can proceed further. In the trade unions,
for example, the Baath Party does not nominate a list of candidates
in the name of the Party, even though it could impose such a
list. In the lawyers, guild or the doctors, union, for example,
there is a Baathist majority. If a list came down made up exclusively
of Baathists, it would win a majority of votes. But we don,t
send down such lists. People are nominated only as individuals,
and this is so that we can give room also for the independent
to win on the basis of his personal merit. This is development
. . .
- FAV: Even the liberal model isn,t
necessarily the most democratic in the world.
- Tariq Aziz: The
liberal model is democratic in form only. In reality, however,
it is clear that whoever has no money whoever doesn,t control
the media, which can only be obtained by money won,t win, not
even if he is the most capable and sincere person there is.
- FAV: And then we could talk about
true democracy... Another subject, one concerned with the Palestinian
situation. In some quarters it is said that what happened to
Abu Nidal was an attempt by Iraq to rid itself of old remnants,
or of something that could attract condemnation. Of course, I
know, as you do, that Abu Nidal was a person who killed a lot
of Palestinians, and hundreds of his own group, and that he was
a person who committed many crimes against the Palestinian people
and against individuals who had differed with him or against
people who were patriots and revolutionaries. But in spite of
that, what is your response to those claims?
- Tariq Aziz: First, I would reply that the
forces that are threatening Iraq were not focusing on the person
of Abu Nidal. You know, the focus now is on the fighters in Palestine.
The name Abu Nidal at one time was reputed to be an activist
in the Palestinian movement, but Abu Nidal came to an end, and
in the Arab-Zionist struggle he had no role for more than twenty
years now. So, he wasn,t even an issue. There was no request
from America saying, ,Either hand over Abu Nidal or we will attack
you_. No. That was not the case. Abu Nidal was expelled from
Iraq in 1983, by order of the country,s leadership, because he
went too far and we had a confrontation. And I was one of those
who confronted him. I said to him: "You are killing people
now because you don,t like them, even if they are patriots, even
if they are Palestinians".
- FAV: And his response to that was
to accuse you personally of certain things.
- Tariq Aziz: He accused me personally, and
I confronted him, as authorized by our leadership, with facts.
We supported all the Palestinian forces. We still are supporting
them. But we always gave advice and insisted on maintaining the
unity of the Palestinian people and the unity of the Palestinian
organizations. We never supported any split within any Palestinian
movement. As for killing people just because you're angry with
them, and differ with them personally, this we could not accept.
The other thing was that we were in a state of war with Iran.
Abu Nidal carried out operations in countries that were friendly
to us during that war. This was in violation of the logic of
fraternal relations and of joint work, not to mention that it
had no justification. So when he would carry out an operation
in France... France wasn't an enemy of his for him to carry out
an operation there that harmed Frenchmen but didn't do any harm
to the Mossad. So we told him: "Enough. Get out!" He
came back, secretly. We were surprised that he was here. The
Jordanian Intelligence Division told us that Abu Nidal is in
Iraq. We told them it wasn't true. Then it became clear that
he had entered Iraq with a forged passport and had gone into
hiding. We didn't do anything. We knew he was here, and we told
him: "Welcome. As an Arab citizen you have come to live
here. So stay in your house, and don,t do anything that damages
the security and political interests of the country". But
he wasn't able to do that. He had come to have an obsession for
destructive activity. I mean, we found in his house a quantity
of explosives and devices, and other things. For whom were all
those explosives intended? Against whom? If you want to fight
the Zionist Entity, go ahead. Palestine is open, go and fight
there. So his behavior became a purposeless threat to domestic
and Arab national security. The struggle is not a theory similar
to [the theory of] art for art's sake. The struggle is a way
to attain an end. If armed activity and killing and assassinations
have no goal, then this is a mockery. Therefore, when he didn't
comply with our guidance and the instructions of the specialized
agencies dealing with him, when he continued his wild activities,
we decided to bring him to court, and he committed suicide. That
is what happened. Imperialism has not thanked us "because
we got rid of Abu Nidal", because he wasn't threatening
them in the first place.
- FAV: Your position is, of course,
clear, and the position of the Baath Party is clear in your denial
of any right that the Zionist enemy state might have to exist.
I have read statements that you yourself have made that make
it clear to everyone what your position is regarding political
agreements and security coordination with the Zionist enemy.
In spite of that, and against the backdrop of that political
position, how do you translate that into political support for
the Palestine Authority? Everyone, on the popular level in Palestine,
highly esteems Iraq's position, as they do Iraq's assistance
to the families of the martyrdom fighters. But on the political
level, how do you balance between rejecting any agreements with
the enemy and your coordination with forces that are working
for such agreements? Doesn't this require some explanation?
- Tariq Aziz: Here, we must be precise. We must
write of this with a fine-tipped pen, not with a broad, blunt
marker. We do not officially recognize the Palestine Authority,
and we have not dealt with it as the Authority. But we have preserved
our relations with Yassir Arafat, but only in his capacity as
Chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, and the president
of the State of Palestine that was proclaimed in Algiers [in
November 1988], and as the leader of the Fateh Movement. Any
minister in the Palestine Authority whom we received, we received
him on the basis that he was a representative of the Palestine
Liberation Organization, not of the Palestine Authority. So much
for the formal side of the matter. As to the subject itself,
we never gave any support to the Palestine Authority, but we
continued to support Palestinian institutions, and these are
not entirely official. In recent times, in addition to the assistance
that we gave directly to the Palestinian people, and which is
well known, there arose an acute need on the part of some circles
within the Palestine Authority [for assistance]. They told us:
"We don't have money for salaries", so we gave them
some of the funds. They told us they had a very big deficit in
their educational budget. So we gave them funds for their educational
budget, and this goes on until now. On another occasion, the
Palestinian housing minister said that we [in Iraq] give money
to those whose houses were destroyed, but the Palestinian housing
ministry will also be rebuilding some of the housing of a number
of Palestinians. So we cooperated with them. This is the situation.
- FAV: A final, theoretical question.
I heard you in your opening address to the Forum on Arab Nationalist
Thought -- the End of One Century and the Beginning of Another
-- in Bayt al-Hikmah, on the morning of 28 September 2002. In
your lecture there you referred to an issue related to class
struggle. Specifically you criticized those who have tried in
the past to present class struggle as an alternative to the cause
of Arab unity and the work for the sake of that unity. What I
would like to ask [is]: Can we really separate the two? When
imperialism came to our homeland and divided it up, and placed
it within the borders of Sykes-Picot entities, it was working
basically with feudal families. From the womb of these feudal
families there emerged the compradores, the economic middlemen
between the West and us. These export raw materials and import
commodities. Then there arose other forms of compradores among
us, such as the political compradore who serves as a mercenary
by taking on a regional political role for the good of imperialism.
Then there are the cultural compradores who serve as mercenaries
by taking on a cultural role for the good of imperialism.
- If we take land reform
or the nationalization of oil, as examples, we find them to be
an attempt to contain the social strata that support imperialism
locally. At the same time they are an Arab national need and
a step towards unity. So, how can we separate the class struggle
and the cause of Arab unity, if the imperialist presence in our
region rests upon the support of those social strata whose economic
interests are tied to the West, and who on the side spread intellectual
and political propaganda from which they also make a living?
So, again, can we separate the two?
- Tariq Aziz: First, I am a Baathist, and a
Baathist is a socialist. The socialist inclines to the laboring
classes and against the exploiting classes. A person is not a
socialist unless he believes in that. But the real battle in
the Arab homeland was and still is the battle for national liberation.
In the battle for national liberation, the class struggle is
not the basic aim. But if, in the course of the national liberation
struggle against imperialism and against the Zionist entity,
if in the midst of this struggle, if there appear groups or classes
that are allied with imperialism, yes, we place them on our list
of enemies. But, if there is a merchant or any wealthy person
or a feudalist -- even though there is no more feudalism in our
homeland -- who is not an enemy of the national movement, then
we will not consider him an enemy just because he is wealthy.
- I am not advocating Marxism
here, in its absolute sense; I am advocating the Arab nationalist
revolutionary socialist concept. Whoever stands with the anti-imperialist,
anti-Zionist revolutionary national movement is an ally.
- FAV: But doesn,t it follow from that
that the social strata that feel that their interests are threatened
by this socialism will take a stand against it?
- Tariq Aziz: If they stand against it, then
we will fight them. I am not speaking of a stratum in the sense
of class, but about individuals. Any individual can be rich but
a sincere patriot [at the same time].
- FAV: This is surely another question
. . .
- Tariq Aziz: I don't consider the wealthy
patriot an enemy nor do I fight against him. But if there is
really a class ...
- In our homeland, there
are no classes in the pure sense in which Marxism spoke of them.
There are only individuals and groups and strata. Within these
strata are patriots who are true to their country who assist
the national movement to the extent that they can. Within these
strata there are also traitors who link their destiny and their
interests with imperialism and Zionism. We know them and we know
their makeup and we fight them. This is what we did in Iraq.
Today, the national bourgeoisie that works in the national framework
in the conditions of the socialist system -- we don't fight against
them. In fact, we assist them in some specific fields of work.
But anyone who stands against socialism or colludes with imperialism,
we will fight.
- [Note by FAV to readers:
It should be remembered that merchants in Iraq play an important
role in penetrating and breaking down the embargo, even as they
strive to increase their own profits.]
- The Free Arab Voice <http://www.freearabvoice.org/>
NATO Used The
Same Old Trick
- by Robert
- It's the same old trap.
Nato used exactly the same trick to ensure that it could have
a war with Slobodan Milosevic. Now the Americans are demanding
the same of Saddam Hussein buried well down in their list of
demands, of course. Tell your enemy that you're going to need
his roads and airspace -- with your troops on the highways --
and you destroy his sovereignty. That's what Nato demanded of
Serbia in 1999. That's what the new UN resolution touted by Messrs
Bush and Blair demands of Saddam Hussein. It's a declaration
- It worked in 1999. The
Serbs accepted most of Nato's Interim Agreement for Peace and
Self-government in Kosovo, but not Appendix 8, which insisted
that "Nato personnel shall enjoy ... free and unimpeded
passage and unimpeded access throughout the Federal Republic
- It was a demand that
Mr Milosevic could never accept. US troops driving through Serbia
would have meant, in these circumstances, the end of Yugoslav
- But now we have the
draft UN resolution which Presidents Bush and Blair insist the
UN must pass. Arms inspection teams, it says, "shall have
the right to declare for the purposes of this resolution... ground
and air-transit corridors which shall be enforced by UN security
forces or by members of the UN [Security] Council".
- In other words, Washington
can order forces of the US (a Security Council member) to "enforce"
these "corridors" through Iraq -- on the ground --
when it wants. US troops would thus be in Iraq. It would be invasion
without war; the end of Saddam, "regime change", the
- No Iraqi government
-- even a Baghdad administration without the odious Saddam --
could ever accept such a demand. Nor could Serbia have accepted
such a demand from Nato, even without the odious Slobodan. Which
is why the Serbs and Nato went to war.
- So here it is again,
the same old "we've-got-be-able-to-drive through-your-land"
mentality which forced the Serbs into war and which is clearly
intended to produce the same from Saddam.
- America wants a war
and here's the proof: if the United States truly wished to avoid
war, it could demand "unfettered access" for inspectors
without this sovereignty-busting paragraph, using it as a second
resolution only if the presidential palaces of the Emperor Saddam
- Saddam can open his
country to the inspectors; he can open even his presidential
palaces. But if he doesn't accept the use of "Security Council"
forces -- in other words, US troops -- on Iraqi roads, we can
go to war. There's also that other paragraph: that "any
permanent member of the Security Council may request to be represented
on any inspection team." In other words, the Americans can
demand that their intelligence men can return to become UN inspectors,
to pass on their information to the Israelis (which they did
before) and to the US military, which used them as forward air
controllers for their aircraft once the inspectors were withdrawn.
- All in all, then, a
deal which President Saddam -- yes, Saddam the wicked, Saddam
the torturer, Saddam the lover of gas warfare -- could never,
- He's not meant to accept
this. Which is why the Anglo-American draft for the UN is intended
to give us war, rather than peace and security from weapons of
- The Independent; October 04, 2002, <http://www.independent.co.uk/>
CHICHI ET POUPOU
- Le géant français
du pétrole Total-Fina-Elf dispose de la position la plus
avantageuse en Irak, avec les droits exclusifs pour l'exploitation
de Majnoon, un gisement de pétrole situé près
de la frontière iranienne et dont les réserves
sont estimées à dix millions de bariils. La Russie
a un contrat de vingt-trois ans, pour un montant de 3,5 milliards
d'euros, pour l'exploitation de plusieurs vastes gisements irakiens,
ce qui confère une position dominante au groupe pétrolier
russe dirigé par Luk Oil.
- The French oil giant TotalFinaElf
has the largest position in Iraq, with exclusive negotiating
rights to develop Majnoon, a field near the Iranian border with
estimated reserves of 10 billion barrels. Moscow has a $3.5 billion,
23-year agreement for several huge Iraqi fields that gives a
lead position to a Russian oil consortium led by LukOil.
SAGA DES FAUX JUIFS
- Three journeys
to the Kuki-Chin-Mizo people on the Indochinese border convinced
Hillel Halkin that they are descendants of the Children of Israel
- By Yair Sheleg
- Some of the elders of
the Kuki-Chin-Mizo people, who live on the border between India
and Myanmar (Burma), still remember that some time during the
20th century, before they became totally Christian, they marked
"the memory of ritual circumcision." They testified
to this with their signatures; some of them gave fingerprints
as their signature. At the ceremony, according to their testimony,
the priest would pass a knife over the sexual organ of male babies
a few days old and say, "it used to be that our ancestors
- In another place, translator
and journalist Hillel Halkin encountered a holiday very similar
to Passover, "a three-day holiday, on the first day of which
they make bread from rice flour -- and this is a group that during
the rest of the year eats no bread at all. They prepare the bread
without yeast and without baking; they just wrap the flour in
banana leaves and boil them in water. During the entire three
days it is forbidden to eat rice, and only at the end of the
third day they hold a festive meal for the whole village. The
priest blesses the people and the bread, and only then is it
permitted to eat rice -- which is also reminiscent of the prohibition
on eating leavened products (the Jews and the Kuki are the only
peoples in the world that observe a holiday of eating unleavened
bread) and of the ceremony, held on Passover in the Temple, of
waiving the Omer (a measure of produce)."
- These are just two of
the pieces of evidence that convinced Halkin that the Kuki-Chin-Mizo
are indeed descendents of the Children of Israel. According
to their own traditions, the identification is even more precise:
They consider themselves to be descendants of the tribe of Menashe.
Evidence and claims about the connection between the Kuki and
the early Jewish people are not new. Rabbi Eliyahu Avichail has
been in contact with them for more than 20 years, and he is active
in bringing them closer to Judaism as it is today. His
activities, however, are mostly perceived as having a messianic
- Halkin, however, is
a Western secular rationalist, a native of New York and a nephew
of Shimon Halkin, a scholar of Hebrew literature. He immigrated
to Israel in 1970 and gained fame for his book Letters to
an American Jewish Friend: A Zionist's Polemic (Jewish Publication
Society, 1977, out of print), in which he tried to clarify to
his friends who remained behind in the United States the motivations
for his immigration and his devotion to Israel. Meanwhile, Halkin
became a prolific and respected translator of Israel's best writers
(Amos Oz, A. B. Yehoshua, Meir Shalev, Shulamit Hareven and even
S.Y. Agnon and Haim Brenner) and a journalist. He also served
as a correspondent for the weekly Forward in Israel. Now
he devotes himself to writing articles and essays for leading
American journals, among them Commentary and The New
- In a recent book, Across
the Sabbath River: In Search of a Lost Tribe of Israel (Houghton
Mifflin, 2002), Halkin describes the discovery of the "children
of Menashe" (as those members of the Kuki who have decided
to return to Judaism call themselves) and tells how he became
convinced of the veracity of their story. He also writes of his
prior journey in search of "the 10 lost tribes." This
is an echo of the legend that the 10 tribes who were exiled by
the Assyrians in the 8th century B.C.E. -- from which time they
lost touch with the rest of the Jewish people - are to be found
beyond the Sambatyon River, which is a torrential, rushing river
all the days of the week, apart from the Sabbath.
- A god called Y'wa
- Halkin's love affair
with the story of the 10 tribes goes back to his childhood. "I
grew up in Manhattan, in a largely Irish neighborhood, and the
Irish kids always made trouble for us," he says. "We
would run away from them, or else we would fight with them and
lose. Once, one of my friends told me that there was an enchanted
place called Brooklyn, where Jewish kids beat up gentiles. I
decided that at the first opportunity I would run away there.
Therefore, when at the age of 12 or 13 I encountered the legend
of the 10 tribes, I already knew what a 'lost tribe' was. Altogether,
as a romantic soul, I found this legend very attractive."
- Several years ago, Halkin
had an offer from an American publisher to write a book about
anything he liked. At the time he was reading about Avichail's
activities in search of the 10 tribes and he decided to combine
his childhood longings and the book he had been asked to write.
He contacted Avichail. "We agreed that if I could find funding,
we would go on a journey together in search of the tribes. And
then I had an offer from The New Yorker to write a long
article about such a trip. [In the end, the article was not published
- Y.S.] So in the summer of 1998 we set out on our journey."
- Originally, they had
not planned the trip to the India-Myanmar border, but rather
to the province of Szechwan in northwestern China, home
of the Chiang tribe, which according to British missionary Thomas
Torrance, who proselytized there at the beginning of the 20th
century, had its origins in the early Hebrews. Halkin was not
convinced by the evidence about the Chiang. "Torrance spoke
about Semitic facial features, a belief in one God, houses similar
to Middle Eastern construction, sacrifices similar to those mentioned
in the Bible and a god called Y'wa, reminiscent of the biblical
God. Some of the things he described do exist in reality, and
for Avichail this was enough to convince him that these were
descendants of the Hebrews. However, in my opinion what we saw
there could definitely be interpreted otherwise. We did not encounter
the God Y'wa there, or Semitic physiognomies. They really do
live in villages that look more like the Arab style than the
Chinese, but this is not proof of Hebrew origins, and sacrifices
are also something common throughout the world, especially in
- The trip in China did
not satisfy Avichail's and Halkin's hunger, one reason being
that the journey was undertaken in difficult circumstances. "Visiting
those villages is prohibited by Chinese law -- apparently out
of awareness of the fact that their culture is different, and
they are afraid that they will be aroused to rebellion [perhaps
like the Tibetan precedent - Y.S.] And in general, conducting
research without a permit is itself forbidden in China, so that
the whole time we lived in fear and flight from the law-enforcement
- Because of the truncated
trip to China, the two decided to use the time for additional
visits: to the Karen tribe in Thailand and to the Kuki people
on the India-Myanmar border. The Karens, too, are a people that
was extensively converted to Christianity back in the 19th century,
and even then it was linked to early Hebrew roots. "They
have stories about early traditions that are very reminiscent
of Bible stories: the Tower of Babel, a God called Y'wa, the
expulsion from the Garden of Eden that is connected to a primal
serpent. All this does not prove a Hebrew origin, but it nevertheless
sounded more serious than the Chiang story, and was definitely
worth looking into deeply."
- And then the two came
to Mizoram, one of the Indian republican states, which is located
on the eastern border of India with Myanmar, the home of the
Kuki-Chin-Mizo people. The three names derive from the fact that
these people live in three different areas: They are the dominant
population in the state of Mizoram; they are also a considerable
part of the population of the Indian state of Manipur (also on
the border with Myanmar); and they form a significant percentage
of the population of the Chin region of Burma (where Halkin could
not go because the Myanmar authorities have prohibited entry
into the region).
- One obvious difference
between the testimonies of the Kuki and other groups Avichail
spoke to is that while the Chiang and the Karen were linked only
by external factors to the 10 tribes, among the Kuki this was
an internal tradition. During the first half of the 20th century
they underwent an intensive process of conversion to Christianity
by missionaries from the West, which led them largely to forget
"the old religion," as they call it. However, in 1954
two inhabitants of a small village in northern Mizoram suddenly
appeared and related visions they had had. In the visions, they
were told that they were from the children of Israel, and their
origin was in the tribe of Menashe.
- "According to local
Christian custom, people who have visions have to come to the
elders of the community, and it is they who must confirm their
authenticity. In this case, the elders not only authenticated
the vision, but also recalled that even before their Christian
period there were Israelite elements in their religion. Several
months later there was a split in the village, and some of the
people began to live according to the 'Old Testament:' to observe
the Sabbath, offer sacrifices and so on. Each group shunned the
other, though there were no physical hostilities between them.
- "Gradually, this
belief spread throughout Mizoram and Manipur, though they lived
not as Jews but as 'Judaizing' Christians and adopted certain
Jewish practices. By the 1970s there was already a group of 'children
of Menashe' in Manipur that had made contact with Jews in
Calcutta. They decided to dissociate themselves entirely
from belief in Jesus and to live as Jews. They sent letters to
various elements in Israel, and among others they reached Rabbi
Avichail. In the 1980s he met with them for the first time; initially,
because of the difficulty of access to those states, they met
in Calcutta, and at the end of the 1980s he finally came to visit
them where they lived and became their spiritual teacher.
He brought them the Judaism of our day for the first time. Today,
there are about 5,000 people living full Jewish lives, even though
they have not undergone ritual conversion. [Conversion is undergone
only by those who come to Israel, in Israel - Y.S.] When you
go into their synagogue and close your eyes it is certainly possible
to feel as though you are in a synagogue in Jerusalem or New
- Children of Manmasi
- During the visit to
Mizoram, Avichail and Halkin began to get more and more evidence
of the historical connection between the members of the group
and the Jewish people. Halkin sensed that this time it was serious,
and decided to go back there again, this time on his own. To
date, he has made two additional trips, and the accumulation
of evidence he heard during the three trips convinced him of
the veracity of their story.
- Thus, for example, on
the very first trip he heard about a number of special prayers
in which they call themselves "the children of Manmasi"
- i.e., Menashe. Halkin noticed that the very name itself does
not follow the rules of the Kuki's everyday language, "and
also those prayers were recited in special circumstances, such
as lunar eclipses or dangerous situations." They also mention
the "old God" Ya. But despite it all, Halkin continued
to suspect that these things could be attributed to influences
instilled in them by the Christian missionaries, "who were
familiar with the 'Old Testament' and perhaps caused them to
believe that they were descendants of the ancient Hebrews."
- During his subsequent
visits Halkin met two people who offered testimony that was even
more convincing. One was Yosi Hualngo from Mizoram, who spoke
of prayers that had been known in the "old religion"
(before Christianity), among them names and concepts that were
clearly reminiscent of Judaism -- for example, the names of the
patriarchs Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, as well as the words "His
cloud that dwells on Mount Moriah" and "His cloud that
dwells on Mount Sinai."
- "The prayers are
the most authentic source, as folktales and customs can be suspected
of being influenced by later traditions, but it is harder to
be suspicious of prayers, as they are sacred and it is forbidden
to alter them, especially as the priests of the 'old religion,'
who were responsible for the prayers, in any case were in conflict
with the missionaries and it is not reasonable that they of all
people would be influenced in their prayers by the missionaries."
- At one point, Hualngo
brought Halkin a "will" that was dictated by his uncle
(who did not know how to read and write) back in 1948, when he
was mortally ill and thought he was about to die. In the will
the uncle, who was a priest of the "old religion,"
made his family swear that they would not abandon their religion
and not convert to Christianity, "and there he mentions
all the names known from the Bible; the names of the patriarchs
and many others. The date of the writing of the will is very
significant, as the belief among the members of the group that
they are 'children of Menashe' began to spread only in 1954 --
that is, it wasn't influenced by that story. I took the document
to a police investigator in Jerusalem and asked him to check
its authenticity. He came to the conclusion that he could not
determine with certainty that the document had indeed been written
in 1948, but there were also no signs of forgery: the type of
paper was known at that period and there are no signs of artificial
aging. He also compared the handwriting of Yosi and the friend
who came with him to the handwriting in the document, and came
to the conclusion that they were different, that is, that they
hadn't forged the document."
- In Manipur, Halkin met
Dr. Mi Lui Khuplam, an elderly member of the Kuki people who
had studied primitive medicine back in the 1930s and for many
years worked as a licensed doctor. At the same time, as someone
who from childhood loved his people's folk tales, he decided
to devote himself to collecting those traditions and in fact
was the only person to have done so in a systematic way.
- "He too collected
mainly prayers, in which the names of the patriarchs are repeated,
as well as the expression in which they call themselves 'children
of Manmasi.' Among other things, the word 'sela' appears repeatedly
-- a word that also appears in the Psalms and is a mystery to
Bible scholars to this day. As in the Bible, with them too this
word also appears at the end of a prayer or at the transition
to a new segment.
- "Khuplam explained
that for them, the meaning of the word is an instruction to the
priest to recite the segment again, and this could also suit
the biblical meaning. After all, originally the Psalms were sung
and it is possible that there too this is an instruction to repeat
- From the combination
of testimonies he heard -- including testimony concerning the
names of the stations in the people's wanderings -- Halkin constructed
a picture of its history: "There is a prayer that mentions
among the places the name Ulam and also the name Geled. Both
are mentioned in the Book of Chronicles in the area of the tribe
of Menashe in Transjordan. Geled recalls the word Gilad, which
is also across the Jordan. If so, this tribe was exiled by the
Assyrians as far back as the days of Tilgath-Pilneser (732 B.C.E.),
when the Transjordanian tribes were exiled, and not during the
main exile under Shalmaneser (720 B.C.E.), when the tribes were
exiled from Samaria. Apparently they first went to Assyria, and
then wandered during the course of history throughout Asia. From
the testimonies I heard I understood that in fact only a small
part of the current Kuki people are originally related to the
tribe of Menashe. Apparently, descendants of Menashe came to
the area of Manipur at some stage in history, and when the Kuki
invaded there, at the end of the 15th century, they were assimilated
into them, as the Kuki invaders were more numerous. And really,
the further you get from a certain area of Manipur, the historical
traditions linked to Menashe grow weaker."
- Halkin does not think
that active steps should be taken to convert the members of the
group to Judaism: "After all, they don't have any real connection
to the Judaism of today," he says. "I would also be
careful about saving souls, because in this there is a tangle
of political and cultural questions. In my opinion, they should
be left to act on their own and we should see whether they themselves
make the effort to come closer to Judaism. I do think, though,
that if they are interested, like the 5,000 who are already interested,
they should be accepted with open arms. I would make it possible
for rabbis to be sent there to convert those who are interested
there already, without encouraging them to convert. This should
definitely be an Orthodox conversion, because the strictness
of Orthodox conversion allows for the 'filtering' of people who
really want to live as Jews."
- Even though he does
not recommend embarking on conversion efforts, Halkin has come
to several practical conclusions: "First of all, a very
admiring recognition of the strength of the Jewish faith -- that
with all the historical reversals, and even after the missionary
efforts of the last century, this group still preserves traditions
that clearly link it to ancient Jewish history. [Ce pauvre
type est dans un délire complet. ] Secondly, their
story is very significant for Bible research. After all, we are
accustomed to hearing claims that the stories in the Bible did
not happen at the times attributed to them and they are just
a much later revision of history, which took place before
the destruction of the First Temple. Because they were cut off
from the Jewish people back in the 8th century B.C.E., it's clear
that the traditions that exist among them had existed in the
hearts of the people even before that period."
- To add another element
to the "Jewish" connection of the Kuki, Halkin is helping
with plans to carry out genetic testing. This is slated to be
performed in the near future by a group headed by Prof. Karl
Skorecki of the Technion, who for several years now has specialized
in research into Jewish genetics. The team will compare genetic
findings from the Kuki with those of the Jews and thus attempt
to examine common genetic roots. However, Halkin stresses in
advance that "even if a genetic match is not found, this
would not refute my belief in this connection. The textual findings
are simply too strong."
- A thousand immigrants
- About seven years ago,
Rabbi Avichail began to bring members of the Kuki-Chin-Mizo
to Israel as new immigrants; he prefers to call them the
Shin-Lung. He came to an agreement with the Interior Ministry
whereby he would bring at most 100 people to Israel each year
from among those who returned to Judaism with him back in India.
In Israel they complete their study of Judaism at the Nahalat
Zvi Yeshiva in Jerusalem, and then they undergo full Orthodox
conversion. Several hundred members of the group are already
living in Israel, most of them in Jewish settlements in the territories
in Judea, Samaria and Gaza, especially in Neveh Dekalim in Gush
Katif (the Gaza Strip). [C'est-à-dire dans les colonies.
Ces malheureux tibéto-birmans (leur véritable origine)
n'ont pas le choix et servent de chair à canon. Le cynisme
juif n'a pas de limites. ]
- The main establishment
foe of the "children of Menashe" is not the rabbinate,
as might perhaps have been expected, nor the Interior Ministry.
It is the Foreign Ministry, which is afraid that Rabbi Avichail's
activities will anger the Indian authorities and damage relations
between the two countries. According to Avichail, Foreign Ministry
opposition has already meant that for several years now he has
not been able to bring even 100 people, "even though my
activities don't bother the Indians themselves, because these
people are known as people who in any case are living as Jews,
and there is no fear that I am a missionary."
- Despite the opposition,
Avichail has recently been planning to step up his activities
in this matter. He says he has reached an agreement with the
people at the Chief Rabbinate whereby dayanim (religious
court judges) will be sent to convert the "children of Menashe"
who are living in India as Jews. He says that this will allow
for an increase of the number of immigrants to 1,000 a year.
At the moment, what he is mostly lacking is funding and people
who are qualified to teach Judaism at a level sufficient for
- Rabbi Yehiel Eckstein's
Jewish Friendship Fund, which raises money from American Christians
for immigration and welfare activities in Israel, has already
expressed willingness to contribute to the project; Avichail
is checking into the Christian context of the fund. He is not
afraid that a sudden relaxation of the possibilities for immigration
will lead to conversion of many people who perhaps would not
have thought of this initially: "I will not encourage them
to do this, but if they come of their own accord, even for marginal
reasons, of course we have to accept them. Nevertheless, these
are people who originally belonged to the Jewish people."
(Merci à Momo, le lecteur qui nous
a envoyé ce texte)
On peut sourire à la vue de
ce ramassis d'âneries et de naïvetés d'Américains
incultes. Mais n'oublions pas que l'histoire des Falashas d'Ethiopie
a débuté exactement de la même façon
et qu'elle abouti à faire émigrer 10 à 20.000
personnes (et 6000 morts), fort utiles pour remplacer la main
d'oeuvre arabe et gonfler les rangs de l'armée. Il y a
un utilitarisme inavoué qui se cache sous ces incroyables
élucubrations, évidemment liées à
un trait qui marque fortement la culture juive: sa crédulité
et son acceptation des croyances les plus irrationnelles (voir
le hassidisme, la cabbale, les ravs miraculeux, Sabbatai, Frank
et autres Jabotinsky. On n'a jamais traduit Descartes en hébreu...)
- Univ. of Michigan
to Host 'Zionism is Racism' Conference
- Sep. 30, 2002. -- The
University of Michigan at Ann Arbor is slated to play host to
a national student conference late next week, one of whose "guiding
principles" is that it "condemns the racism and discrimination
inherent in Zionism", the Jerusalem Post has learned.
- The Second National Student
Conference on the Palestine Solidarity Movement, which is scheduled
to begin on October 12, is being sponsored by pro-Palestinian
and socialist groups. It aims to promote an end to US aid to
Israel and to encourage divestment by universities and corporations
from the Jewish state.
- In the conference's promotional
material, organizers refer to "apartheid Israel", and
refuse to condemn Palestinian terrorism, stating, "As a
solidarity movement, it is not our place to dictate the strategies
or tactics adopted by the Palestinian people in their struggle
- In addition to asserting
that "racism" is "inherent to Zionism", the
organizers call for "the right of return and repatriation
for all Palestinian refugees" as well as "an end to
the Israeli system of Apartheid and discrimination."
- Panelists at the conference
include Dr. Sami Al-Arian, a former Professor at the University
of South Florida who was fired after reports surfaced linking
him to Middle Eastern terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda and Islamic
- A similar conference on
divestment, held earlier this year at Berkeley, caused an uproar
among American academics, leading Harvard President Lawrence
Summers to criticize the divestment scheme as "anti-Semitic."
- In a statement issued
last week, University of Michigan President Mary Coleman appeared
to distance the school from the conference, stating, "The
agenda of the conference represents the views of the organizers
and not the University of Michigan." She added that the
university had no intention of divesting from Israel. "I
do not support this divestment," she said, adding, "As
a matter of University policy, we do not believe political interests
should govern our investment decisions."
- The Truth behind
- by Michel Chossudovsky
- PUBLICATION DATE: SEPTEMBER
- Michel Chossudovsky
is the author of the international best-seller "The Globalisation
of Poverty" published in eleven languages. He is Professor
of Economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the
Centre for Research on Globalisation which hosts the critically
acclaimed website: <http://www.globalresearch.ca/>www.globalresearch.ca .
Le document de base qui sous-tend la
politique d'expansion américaine et qui explique comment
les USA doivent réagir à la crise pétrolière
et énergétique qui vient. Voici ce qu'en dit le
The Battle Over
- by Neil Mackay;
Sunday Herald; October 07, 2002
- IT is a document that
fundamentally questions the motives behind the Bush administration's
desire to take out Saddam Hussein and go to war with Iraq.
- Strategic Energy
Policy Challenges For The 21st Century describes how America is facing the biggest
energy crisis in its history. It targets Saddam as a threat to
American interests because of his control of Iraqi oilfields
and recommends the use of 'military intervention' as a means
to fix the US energy crisis.
- The report is linked
to a veritable who's who of US hawks, oilmen and corporate bigwigs.
It was commissioned by James Baker, the former US Secretary of
State under George Bush Snr, and submitted to Vice-President
Dick Cheney in April 2001 -- a full five months before September
11. Yet it advocates a policy of using military force against
an enemy such as Iraq to secure US access to, and control of,
Middle Eastern oil fields.
- One of the most telling
passages in the document reads: 'Iraq remains a destabilising
influence to ... the flow of oil to international markets from
the Middle East. Saddam Hussein has also demonstrated a willingness
to threaten to use the oil weapon and to use his own export programme
to manipulate oil markets.
Lisez-le. Vous n'aurez pas perdu votre
A strange case
of Jared Israel
- By Israel Shamir
- The Masters of the Discourse
would not be what they are unless they were cunning. Many people
arrive to the conclusion that they are misled by the media, experts
and politicians. But what is the true reality? The Masters provide
a huge choice of traps and misleading explanations of reality,
partly true, partly false. Only careful reading allows us to
notice the hidden trap.
- The site Emperor's
Clothes has all the qualities to pass for an opposition.
They object to the present policies of Bush administration. They
can disapprove of Israeli high-handedness. They show very well
some of the lies permeating the media and politics of the politics
in the US. And only sometimes their words express their true
agenda. A letter from a reader Mr Golub alerted me to one of
- A recent exchange of remarks
<http://emperors-clothes.com/letters/joan.htm> between Jared Israel, one
of the Emperor's Clothes most active voices, and a reader
provides us with unique opportunity to see through the fake opposition.
A reader asks Jared Israel, does not he see a connection between
the war axe grinding of Bush administration and the Jewish lobby.
- And the fake opposition
voice immediately denies it: "I know many Jewish people
and I can tell you that, regarding Israel, they are mostly convinced
that the aftermath of 9-11 has made things much worse for that
country. Most U.S. Jews do *not* want war with Iraq".
- If you believe that one
day you will buy Brooklyn Bridge. Most US Jews THAT MATTER push
for the Doomsday. Among them Richard Perle, the chairman of the
Pentagon's Defence Policy Board, an ex-employee of an Israeli
weapon manufacturer Soltam, and the great supporter of the war,
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Defence Secretary, a leading Zionist Douglas
Feith, a representative of an "Israeli Armaments Manufacturer",
Dov Zakheim, Under Secretary of Defence, Edward Luttwak, of the
National Security Study Group of the Department of Defence at
the Pentagon, Lewis Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's Chief
of Staff and a lawyer for the thief Mark Rich, Robert Satloff,
the U.S. National Security Council Advisor, and the executive
director of the Israeli lobby's "think tank," Washington
Institute for Near East Policy, Elliott Abrams, National Security
Council Advisor, and many, many others. For sure, there should
be some Jews against the war, but they keep their quiet.
- It is not classified information,
spread by obscure sites: an honest Jewish voice, Philip Weiss,
admits in the NY Observer[i], "Holy or Unholy, Jews and
Right in an Alliance" and they push for War. "What
about the natural proclivity of Jews to be liberals? asks Weiss,
and replies: liberals have yielded authority in the debate. The
refusal of liberal American Jews to make an independent stand
has left the American left helpless. American liberalism has
always drawn strength from Jews. Liberal Jews often have private
conversations about the Middle East in which they acknowledge
the absence of leadership in the Israeli government and the desperation
of the Palestinians, but they generally do not wish this to become
a public conversation with other American citizens". Intra-Jewish
discourse became coarsely racist, and the Jewish Press published
an attack on "The Plague of Jewish-Arab Marriages",
- So much for the first
lie of Jared Israel. But he does not stop here. He has to dissuade
his readers that it is Israel and the US Jews who push for war.
In a stupefying piece of disinformation, he writes: "There
is *nothing* worse for Israel than war in the Middle East. Israel
is a tiny country with very hard-to-defend borders, surrounded
by Muslim-dominated countries with about 50 times Israel's population
. The worst thing for Israel is a war in Iraq because it can
only fan the flames of Muslim fanaticism, which will then be
directed at Israel. The U.S. and England attack; Israel pays".
- Well, Israel is surrounded
by 'Muslim-dominated countries', but this 'tiny country' with
the third nuclear potential in the world is fully supported by
the 'Jew-dominated country', which happens to be the world's
only superpower. Though Jared Israel thinks the war against Iraq
is the worst thing for Israel, probably he has in mind some other
Israel, as all senior politicians of the Jewish state, its prime-ministers
and ministers for defence, its spokesmen, official and unofficial,
publicly and privately call for war. An ex-Mossad agent Victor
Ostrovsky[ii] asked his superiors why they were trying to cause
a war between the US and Iraq. The reply was that Israel does
not have the manpower and aircraft carriers to do the job. First
thing said by Ehud Barak and Bibi Netanyahu on 9/11 was their
demand to destroy Iraq (followed by Iran and Libya). Ariel Sharon
pushes for war relentlessly and even now went to Moscow in order
to bring President Putin to support the war.
- Yes, the war is against
true interests of Jews living in Israel. But we have no voice:
our politicians are fully integrated in the Judeo-American establishment,
they get their financial support from the American Jews, they
dance to their fiddle. Our true interests can emerge only if
and when the American Jews will lose their commanding heights
in the American discourse.
- The third lie of Jared
Israel is even more brazen: "The U.S. and England attack;
Israel pays". What nonsense! Israel NEVER pays. Whatever
happens, Israeli Army's redeployment or violent attack on Palestinians,
the settlements on the occupied territories or murder of children,
everything is paid for by the people of the United States and
Europe. They paid for Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon and from
a part of Golan heights, they pay now for food for the starved
Palestinians, they will pay for any 'peace settlement' Israel
would agree to sign. When Israeli 'peace camp' promotes an idea
of some compensation for the Palestinian refugees, they never
offer to pay for the stolen lands and houses they live in: it
is always one condition: "all will be paid for by the world
community". The bill of Israel is not paid by the US Jews,
either: they are not that silly. The US Jews pay their politicians
or threaten them into political oblivion, unless they pay with
the money of American Goyiim. If political considerations
cause them to desist, they force the Goyiim of Germany or Swiss
to foot the bill.
- How can a reader became
aware of the hidden agenda of a liar with the straight face?
There are telltale signs. He throws "Nazi" at everybody,
from brothers Dulles to your truly. He needlessly invokes
the Jewish holocaust. And whenever pushed he immediately
refers to 'conspiracy theories'. Jared Israel writes to his reader:
"If you see an Israeli plot in Fleischer being Jewish, why
not see an Israeli plot in *my* being Jewish as well?" Well,
that is what they said when all the luminaries of the Jewish
America AND of the state of Israel, from Foxman to Barak, begged
Bill Clinton to pardon their crony Mark Rich. The clear-thinking
Jewish American writer, Norman Finkelstein, remarked: "If
the leading Jews act together, should we shut our eyes in despair
and cry: oh no, it can not be, otherwise we shall be condemned
as 'conspiracy-theorists'?" In plain words, yes, Mr Jared
Israel, you are a part of the Judeo-Zionist plot. You provide
the Jewish instigators of the war with much needed camouflage.
- It is very good that Emperor's
Clothes object to the war. It is good that they do not support
the war effort of the Jewish Lobby. But it is not worth one penny
if they do not speak against the real instigators of the war.
It is not the nincompoop in the White House, neither Pentagon,
but the US Jewish establishment, *the Jews that matter*, push
for the war, with connivance of silent liberals. Our only hope
was expressed by the brilliant Canadian Jewish philosopher Michael
Neumann: "Sooner or later, the great white men of America
will wake up to their true interests, and get themselves a new
set of speechwriters and pundits. The Jews will go out of style".
- <[email protected]>3 octobre 2002
[ii] The Other Side of Deception: A
Rogue Agent Exposes the Mossad's Secret Agenda, 1995.
Les juifs poussent à la guerre.
Ô mâne de Céline ! Redis-nous Bagatelles
pour un massacre. (Massacre des non-juifs, c'est évidemment
ce que veut dire le titre de Céline. C'est bien ce qui
se prépare en Mésopotamie, non ?) On peut lire Bagatelles
Le libraire du coin ne vous le trouvera pas.
DU ONZE SEPTEMBRE (suite)
Résumé: le 9 septembre 2001,
deux cinéastes français qui tournaient un film à
New York ont fixé les images du premier avion entré
dans la première tour. Il paraît qu'un examen un
peu attentif des images montre qu'il ne s'agit sans doute pas
d'un Boeing et que l'avion envoie trois missiles dans la tour
juste avant qu'une bombe y explose. On peut se procurer la vidéo
des deux Français à <http://mail.yahoo.com/config/login?/plane_wtc1.jpg>.
- The Incredible
9-11 Evidence We've All been Overlooking
- In trying to piece together
what really happened on September 11, a lot of work has been
done -- much of it useful and interesting -- into those 'hijacked'
flights for which the publicly-available evidence is sketchy
and contradictory. There are web sites for instance wholly dedicated
to investigating the true fate of Flight 93 and others that attempt
to get a clearer idea of what really happened at the Pentagon.
Both these incidents however are characterised by a pronounced
absence of substantive material evidence and it is this, I suppose,
that raises our suspicions and curiosity.
- There is one flight
however that has received insufficient attention and this is
American Airlines Flight 11, the plane that allegedly crashed
into WTC1, the North Tower. It was the first of the terrorist
attacks that day. It has been a big mistake not to subject this
flight to the same kind of scrutiny as the others because, unlike
the others, a very good and important piece of documentary evidence
of this flight exists in the public domain. This is the so-called
'Fireman's Video' and we really haven't looked at it closely
enough. It really does deserve a second look.
- The story of the 'Fireman's
Video' is well known. Two French filmmakers, the Naudet Brothers,
were in New York on September 11 making a documentary about the
New York Fire Service. The footage shows that, while filming
in Canal Street, firemen and crew are distracted by a plane flying
low overhead. The camera operator instinctively turns his camera
towards the North Tower and, for little more than a second or
so, we get a clear view of the plane crashing into the tower.
It is a precious, priceless second. It is the one-second of video
that really makes the sinister Bush junta nervous. It
really gives them nightmares. They really didn't want a professional
cameraman to catch that moment on broadcast-quality tape.
- If you've got it on
tape I strongly suggest you take another look at it, with the
pause and frame-forward buttons at the ready. If you don't have
it taped you can purchase the documentary in which it appears
on video and DVD. It's called simply '9/11'.
- When seen at full speed,
you might first of all think that there isn't a great deal to
see. There's half a second or so when we see the plane flying
through the air then it smashes into the tower, creating an explosion
and leaving a great gash across the building. Notice though that
immediately before it hits the building the plane emits a brief,
bright flash. Notice too that the scar it leaves on the building
is rather larger than seems appropriate for the size of the aircraft.
- Now pause the sequence
at the beginning and advance it frame by frame. Firstly,
look at the plane. Does that look like a Boeing jet to you? Is
its wingspan wide enough? Does it have engines attached to its
wings? These however are but minor details compared with what
comes next. Watch carefully what happens as the plane approaches
and crashes into the tower. I leave you to come to your own conclusions
about what you see (watch it over and over again, backwards and
forwards), but I'll tell you what I see. Immediately before the
plane strikes it fires a missile that blows a hole in the building's
façade. This is the cause of that brief flash. The plane
then begins to disappear neatly into this hole, leaving no wing
impressions. (A plane disappearing into a hole? Where have I
heard that before; wasn't there something about a plane at the
Pentagon?) Just before it disappears however it fires two more
missiles from somewhere near its tail. One goes to the left,
one to the right (and up a bit) and it is the blast holes from
these three separate missiles that form the great gash across
- There's more. Keep an
eye on the adjacent east side of the building, which is also
visible. See how, a few frames into the explosion, a white jet
of smoke erupts out of the east side at the same level as the
plane. The jet comes straight out of the wall at right angles
to it, not angled in accordance with the trajectory of the plane.
Also it's just white smoke and dust, no orange flames or anything
like that. It is clearly a bomb going off, creating the gash
that appears on the east wall.
- I know what I am describing
sounds incredible. I suggest only that you look at the footage
yourself and come to your own conclusions about what you
- The plane that hit the
North Tower was not American Airlines Flight 11. It was not a
Boeing 767. It was a military plane carrying three missiles that
created the impression of a plane crash without leaving any wreckage.
In order for it precisely to strike the correct part of the tower
(in line with the bomb already planted in the east wall) it must
have been flown remotely using cruise navigation. I believe a
similar plane was used to strike the Pentagon.
- The 'Conspiracy Theorists'
have got it dead right this time. The true Flights 11, 175, 77 and 93 were indeed
substituted with other planes when the transponders were switched
off. Someone hijacked the hijackers to make sure the job was
- The 'Fireman's Video'
is Bush's true smoking gun. It is in the public domain and it
is even available on DVD. It is probably sitting in the video
shelves of thousands and thousands of homes across the world.
It is vitally important that the American people see this video
frame by frame so they can make their own minds up about what
really happened on September 11.
- There has been a silent
coup in America but few have noticed yet. The Bush Administration
is clearly very sinister indeed and God only knows what it has
in store for us next. There is a clue though in the things of
which it accuses Saddam Hussein: building and using weapons of
mass destruction (nuclear and biological) and killing his own
people. When Bush describes Saddam he is describing himself.
- We have entered the
Age of the Conjurer and it is going to be a tricky time. The
9-11 stunt was a huge magic trick and we all bought it at first.
Magicians can be very convincing. You have to look very hard
to see the trick and not be fooled. On this occasion slow motion
exposes the sleight of hand, but remember how the magician works:
he can make almost anything seem real if he can make his audience
look in the wrong place at crucial moments.
- Only the American people
can now stop the imminent slaughter and the imposition of a global
fascist police state, but they are currently sleepwalking into
their own enslavement. It may already be too late. But maybe
if enough Americans get out their videos and their remote controls
(pardon the pun) and take a long hard look at that remarkable
footage of that plane hitting the North Tower, then an armed
and outraged middle America might just pull it off.
- Please check out for
yourself what I am saying and circulate this.
- Leonard Spencer
- Serendipity Homepage
La page change. Vérifiez la dernière
version. On peut voir la vidéo à l'adresse suivante:
(Confessons que nous n'y voyons rien de révélateur)
ROSBIFS DANS LA PANADE
L'horrible Blair[eau] a interdit la diffusion
des preuves que les services secrets britanniques ont donné
cent mille livres à Ben Laden ainsi que des armes à
l'Irak; ils auraient disposé de renseignements préalables
à des attentats terroristes intervenus à Londres
dans les années 1990. La presse, ayant eu vent de l'affaire,
a publié des articles la révélant avant que
Blair ait pu imposzer le silence à tout le monde. Les journaux
ont alors été retirés de la vente et d'internet
mais un petit malin avait un des articles incriminés, tiré
de l' Evening Standard, 9 octobre 2002. Nous l'avons aussi
(grâce à lui!)
- Posted Wednesday, October
9, 2002. Propaganda Matrix.
- London, Wednesday, October
Press Gagged on Reporting MI5's £100,000 bin Laden Payoff
- Tony Blair has tonight
ordered a D-Notice on British media reporting government officials
signing court gag orders. This regards the case of former MI5
officer David Shayler, who has evidence to prove MI6 gave
£100,000 to bin Laden and Al-Qaeda, arms to Iraq and
had prior knowledge of several terrorist attacks on London in
- The original articles
stated that top Labour MP's had signed gag orders, whereby upon
mention of this evidence in court, media have to immediately
leave the trial.
- Newspapers all over the
country, including The Guardian, the London Evening
Standard and The Scotsman have either completely removed
or amended their articles.
- This evidence is damning. The British government is trying
to bury the story before it buries them. I first noticed that
the Guardian article I had earlier posted on my website
had disappeared. Already aware that Blair may well have ordered
a D-Notice to eliminate these reports, I immediately started
searching on Google for some more. [In Britain, a D-Notice is
where the government order a gag on a particular breaking story.
C'est ce que certqins appellent la "démocratie"
- I came across a very similar
London Evening Standard report and immediately put it
on my web site. Low and behold, five minutes later the link
was dead! Amazingly, I still had the article up on my screen
on a different browser window. I tried to archive the page to
my desktop but to no avail. I did manage to print out a copy
which I have scanned and linked below.
- This story is massive
because Shayler has them on the racks on a number of different
issues, from colluding with bin Laden, to arms deals with questionable
characters. This could be particularly embarrasing for Jack Straw,
who I, using mainstream reports, have identified as a key placeman
in hawking arms to Pakistan, India and even Iran.
- Bilderberg member Peter
Mandelson is also trying to cover his dirt by gagging these reports.
The London Times reported how his new 'think tank' was
being bankrolled by the Rothschilds two weeks ago.
- The Rothschilds control
the BBC, who haven't even mentioned that the trial has started,
never mind the accusations Shayler raises. The original London
Guardian report was entitled 'Ministers issue gag orders
for MI5 trial' - as you will see if you click on the link, it's
disappeared down the memory hole.
- The text I extracted from
the report for my original link to it is as follows...
- "Ministers issue
gag orders for MI5 trial: They appear to be worried that he will
make further allegations about MI5 and MI6 knowledge of a plot
to assassinate the Libyan leader, Muammar Gadafy, in 1996. A
book, Forbidden Truth, published this summer claims that
British intelligence was in contact with "Osama bin Laden's
main allies" who were opposed to Colonel Gadafy."
- The London Evening
Standard article was entitled 'Calls for secret Shayler trial'
-- again, it has now been removed. Luckily I saved the text to
a Word file and printed the article:
- [UPDATE - After pressure,
this article is now back online! But for how long? Save it to
your hard drive. ]
- Before you read this,
it is important to understand the issue at hand. We're talking
about MI6 cooperation with bin Laden, arms to Iraq and, as reported
today in the Scotsman, claims that, 'secret services ignored
warnings that might have prevented bombings in the London in
1993 and 1994.'
- Shayler has evidence that
MI5 wilfully failed to stop the bomb attack on Israel's London
embassy in 1994 and the IRA's 1993 Bishopsgate bombing, which
killed one person.
- Here it is in Shayler's
own words plus the actual MI6 Gaddafi plot document -- MI6 Plot
to assassinate Colonel Gaddafi: Police enquiry confirms Plot
is not "fantasy". Here is the London Evening Standard
report I managed to rescue.
- [Update! Take a look at
the scans of the article I printed off - why was it removed?
Judge for yourself... ]
- London evening
standard on line
- Calls for
secret Shayler trial
- By Patrick McGowan,
- THE Government has been
accused by lawyers of trying to interfere in the trial of former
MI5 officer David Shayler by insisting that part of the proceedings
are held in private.
- Ministers are demanding
that trial judge Mr Justice Alan Moses agree in advance that
the case go into private session without saying why and without
hearing arguments to the contrary from the defence.
- Shayler's trial, on
charges under the Official Secrets Act, was beginning at the
Old Bailey today. He is being prosecuted following newspaper
interviews he gave five years ago and the trial is expected to
last for at least four weeks. On Friday Home Secretary David
Blunkett and Foreign Secretary Jack Straw signed identical public
interest immunity certificates under which the press and the
public will have to leave court if sensitive security issues
- The certificates do
not specify what information they are trying to keep secret on
the grounds that to do so would cause the very damage the Government
is seeking to avoid. They claim:
- "Publication of
information of the kinds referred to would be likely to assist
those whose purpose it is to injure the security of the United
Kingdom and whose actions in the past show that they are willing
to kill innocent civilians, both inside and outside the UK, in
pursuance of their aims."
- Mr Blunkett and Mr Straw
also claim present and future intelligence operations would be
compromised. PII certificates signed by Conservative ministers
were controversially used during the arms-to-Iraq trials in the
- Normally the judge in
a trial would read documents in the case and, after hearing arguments
from both sides, decide whether they should be disclosed. Now
he is being asked to make his decision in advance. Shayler, 36,
faces three charges. They allege he disclosed information, disclosed
information obtained by interception of communications and disclosed
- The Crown Prosecution
Service has already given notice that it will apply for some
parts of the trial to be held in camera. This will apply to evidence
on "sensitive operational techniques of the Security
and Intelligence Services".
- It is expected that
the court will also be asked to keep the identities of MI5 agents
secret and allow them to give evidence from behind screens. Today
Geoffrey Robertson QC, representing civil rights group Liberty,
will oppose the Government's move. Michael Tugendhat QC, appearing
for various national newspapers, is expected to argue that the
Government has provided no evidence that national security will
be threatened by the trial and will underline the importance
of open justice.
- During the arms-to-Iraq
cases Mr Justice Moses was prosecuting counsel and Mr Robertson
was counsel for the defence when three directors of the machine
tool company Matrix Churchill were accused of selling equipment
to the Iraqi regime. Shayler will be defending himself during
- He is expected to claim
that British secret service agents paid up to £100,000
to al Qaeda terrorists for an assassination attempt on Libyan
leader Colonel Gadaffy in 1996.
- He is seeking permission
to plead a defence of "necessity" - that he acted for
the greater good by revealing wrongdoing by the security service.
Although much of the trial may end up being held in camera, the
arguments about which parts should be kept secret will be held
in public. Only after they are concluded is the jury expected
to be sworn in so the trial proper can begin.
- [UPDATE: The London
Evening Standard have published a shorter, watered down, version
of this story. It does not mention MI5's £100,000 transfer
to Al-Qaeda. Yet more evidence of a top down cover-up
- read the new whitewashed piece here and compare it to my scanned
original that was pulled along with all the others! ]
- The Scotsman also released
a report which remains online but both the title and the article
has been amended!!! The new article talks about new MI5 head
Eliza Manningham-Buller, only mentioning the Shayler case in
passing. It certainly does not include information concerning
the Labour MP's involved and government prior knowledge of terrorist
bombings in London. I archived the original at
- The report was originally
entitled 'Renegade MI5 agent ready to face jury' it is now called
'Has MI5 really emerged from shadows?' This is the report with
the most damning information (the one they erased).
- David Irving comments:
- I AM indebted to friends
in Canada who emailed this story back to me. Focal Point Publications
has mirrored it on its California website.
- The uncensored versions
of this article was posted on the Propaganda Matrix website,
which writes today: We can't let it disappear down an Orwellian
memory hole. Please E-mail all three publications and asked them
why they removed or altered their reports. E-mail the Guardian,
the Evening Standard and The Scotsman. Even
local papers such as the Leicestershire Mail and the Derby
Evening Telegraph have removed the story from their websites!
- They were entiled ''SHAYLER
AT OLD BAILEY FOR TRIAL' and 'SHAYLER ARRIVES FOR TRIAL.'
- Now they are gone. As
is a London Independent article that was entitled 'MI5
faces accountability test as new chief takes reins.' As of 4am
UK time, you can still see the original titles of the reports
as stored on Google's Beta News Search (these will probably also
be deleted in the coming hours).
- [UPDATE: It is now confirmed
that all details relating to the Shayler case cannot be reported.
- The UK government have
successfully gagged the cowardly pathetic mainstream media, but
I will continue to track this story. The Guardian reports
-- 'Shayler hearing' 'An Old Bailey court yesterday heard legal
arguments relating to the trial of David Shayler, the former
MI5 officer charged with breaking the Official Secrets Act. The
judge ruled that they cannot be reported. Mr Shayler's trial
is now expected to be heard before a jury next week."
- Focal Point <http://www.focal.org/ar/Shayler.html>
Oriana Fallaci est poursuivie en France
par les ligues de vertu pour un livre ignoble, La Rage et l'orgueil.
Nous sommes hostiles à ce genre de poursuites, et encore
plus hostile à cette pauvre conne qui a toutes les caractéristiques
du, ou de la journaliste. Mais il est amusant de relever qu'elle
a choisi comme avocat William Goldnadel, qui est certainement
ce qu'on fait de mieux à l'heure actuelle dans le genre
fasciste sioniste mondain, pousse-au-massacre et salopard toutes
mains. Il a dit que sa cliente "vouait une haine bestiale
aux islamistes"; ça ne va pas arranger son cas et
le pavé de New-York risque de lui sembler chaud dans peu
de temps. Pour en rajouter, elle vient de publier un article adjurant
les Florentins de fermer boutique au moment de la grande manifestation
anti-globale et pacifiste, en comparant les manifestants aux "hordes
nazies" devant qui il fallait "résister".
COPAINS DE PINPIN
- "SILENCE ABSOLU".
Formelle, la consigne a été transmise à
ses proches et collaborateurs par Richard Moatti, et appliquée
avec zèle. Depuis bientôt six ans, cet homme d'affaires
prolifique et familier de Lionel Jospin s'efforce d'éviter
la publicité, sans que l'on sache lequel des deux versants
de sa vie - professionnel ou personnel - imposerait une telle
discrétion. Régulièrement présenté
comme un pourvoyeur de fonds occultes pour le Parti socialiste,
il ne s'en est jamais défendu publiquement, réservant
ses démentis aux juges d'instruction. Mis en examen depuis
le 16 février 2000 dans l'instruction de l'"affaire
Destrade ", il a interdit à son avocat parisien de
répondre aux journalistes. Et dans l'entourage du premier
ministre, où il ne se montre plus, le simple énoncé
de son nom suscite une gêne perceptible. [...]
Voir ou revoir cet article signé
H.G. dans Le Monde, 15 mai 2001, p. 12.
- «Jospin a souvent
la langue qui fourche et le lapsus qui signifie. A l'Assemblée
et en plein débat sur son passé trouble, il parle
de "trotskistes" au lieu de "travaillistes",
donne du "monsieur le Président de la République"
à Fabius, alors au perchoir, parle de "pollution"
immigrée (pour "population"). Remercie les "chefs
d'entrepouille". Et, après que ses propos sur Chirac
"usé, fatigué, vieilli" eurent suscité
quelque émoi, il commence une intervention par: "Dans
l'hypothèse que j'appelle de mes vieux".»
Enfin cette anecdote: lorsqu'il a pris
des cailloux mérités sur sa gueule, à Bir
Zeit, il a saigné. Le cuir chevelu, ça pisse facilement.
Quelle infirmière a-t-il trouvée pour le panser
? L'insigne Guigou, qui savait déjà donner de sa
personne quand elle flûtait Mitterrand entre deux portes.
C'est elle qui a dû lécher l'auguste scalp. Quel
dévouement ! Mais bien récompensé ensuite,
il faut noter.
Et puisque nous en sommes là, nous
pouvons dire que nous croyons qu'il reviendra, l'auguste Troisième.
Il voudra encore se justifier et donner des leçons. Il
va falloir le recaillasser et le rejeter une fois plus là
où nagent tant de trotskystes fétides, les poubelles
de l'histoire, qui flottent près de l'île de Ré.
- Staline, co-fondateur
- Compte rendu de Laurent
Rucker, Staline, Israël et les Juifs, PUF, 2001.
- Staline co-fondateur
d'Israël ? C'est à peine une plaisanterie, ou une
manière de souligner un fait historique: le rôle
déterminant de l'URSS dans la fondation et même
la défense de l'état d'Israël après
qu'eurent échoué les premières tentatives
(et propositions soviétiques) d'état binational
judéo-arabe et d'états juif et arabe distincts.
- Laurent Rucker apporte,
sur cet épisode et toute l'Histoire des relations complexes
entre l'URSS et le monde juif, un éclairage précieux
en ces temps d'amnésies et de simplifications en tout
genre. La position soviétique -- pro-israélienne,
donc -- était motivée à cette époque
(1947-48) par les objectifs de lutte "anti-impérialiste"
contre la Grande-Bretagne, d'autant que les sympathies "socialistes"
d'une frange des pionniers d'Israël contrastent avec le
caractère "réactionnaire" et "féodal"
du monde arabe et palestinien à cette époque. L'URSS
changera de position lorsque deviendront évidentes l'orientation
pro-occidentale de l'état sioniste et l'intérêt
de soutenir une révolution arabe naissante d'orientation
anti-impérialiste voire socialiste. Il n'empêche
que ce soutien de Staline à Israël -- si hétérodoxe
en apparence -- s'inscrit aussi dans le prolongement de la lutte
contre le nazisme et de l'influence qu'y exerça une autre
création de Staline, le Comité antifasciste des
intellectuels juifs soviétiques, chargés de rallier
les Juifs du monde occidental, notamment américain, à
la cause de l'URSS contre Hitler. Faut-il rappeler l'immense
prestige de l'armée rouge, en 1945, parmi les Juifs et
le reste de l'opinion occidentale ? Ce que l'on sait moins, et
que montre Rucker, ce sont les liens noués à cette
époque entre les Soviétiques et les traditionnels
ennemis sionistes, les curieux débats qui s'esquissent,
tel celui d'une éventuelle république juive soviétique
en Crimée, resuçée d'un projet des années
vingt abandonné au profit de la région autonome
juive du Birobidjan. L'action du Comité antifasciste juif
et le rapprochement URSS-Israël auront des effets encourageants
pour le sionisme en URSS, auquel Staline réagira avec
la plus extrême violence, usant dans les dernières
années de son règne d'un véritable antisémitisme
d'état pour défaire non seulement l'influence sioniste
mais, surtout, les diverses oppositions communistes à
sa dictature, en Europe centrale et orientale.. La plupart des
intellectuels du Comité antifasciste seront fusillés.
- Des origines à
la fin de l'URSS, Laurent Rucker retrace ainsi, en finesse, les
rapports mouvementés, nullement univoques, et violents
qui ont pu exister entre les trois tentations du monde juif au
20ème siècle: le sionisme axé sur le "retour
en Palestine", le bundisme revendiquant l'autonomie culturelle
(mais non territoriale) pour les communautés juives en
Russie, le communisme prônant leur assimilation au sein
du nouveau peuple internationaliste, après que 1917 eut
effectivement libéré les Juifs des discriminations
tsaristes. L'un des paradoxes de cette Histoire est que les communistes
soviétiques (où les Juifs étaient nombreux
et influents au départ), après avoir écrasé
leurs oppositions politiques juives comme toutes les autres,
leur ont aussi emprunté des éléments : l'autonomie
culturelle fut réalisée avec l'essor de la culture
yiddish dans l'URSS des années 20-30, une sorte de "sionisme"
se fit jour sous la forme du territoire juif du Birobidjan. Aucune
de ces réalisations n'épargna au judaïsme
et aux Juifs soviétiques les rigueurs des répressions
staliniennes avec, en prime, le retour en force d'un antisémitisme
hérité du christianisme et des tsars. I.P.
- Samorevue 1.
- The Israeli Holocaust
Against the Palestinians
- by Michael Hoffman and
Moshe Lieberman, 110 pages. $12.95
- Compiled by two elite
scholars with impeccable credentials -- Hoffman, a former reporter
for the New York bureau of the Associated Press, and Moshe Lieberman,
a former Hebrew University researcher -- the authors combine
their sleuthing skills and erudition to bring the reader an irrefutable
dossier of Israeli war crimes in Palestine, profusely illustrated
with harrowing photos of the death and destruction which the
Zionist war machine has administered as collective punishment
upon the entire Palestinian nation.
- Nothing like this book
has ever seen print. The authors marshal a dossier of massive
evidence and stunning documentary photographs, proving conclusively
that the Israelis themselves are guilty of a holocaust.
- Hoffman and Lieberman
make a devastating case for Israeli criminality, while exposing
the ferocious Talmudic racism that fuels the Israeli identification
of the Palestinian people as "Amalek," and targets
them for the final solution of "total eradication."
The authors argue that to pretend that Zionist atrocities have
not been systematically perpetrated in Palestine as part of a
coherent dogma of eliminationism, constitutes nothing less than
- Reader Comments:
- This book had two main
objectives. First, to rally the general public against the slow
motion genocide of the Palestinians. Secondly, this book establishes
a basis for future war crime trials against the soldiers,
Army commanders, and Israeli/U.S. politicians who have facilitated
these crimes against humanity. It is interesting that the authors
generously provide George Bush, Jr., his only legal defense in
the next to last paragraph of the book; i.e., President Bush
is not responsible for his actions because he is acting under
duress, his Zionist handlers will assassinate him if he disobeys
orders. Much of the book is a catalog of Israeli war crimes committed
during March-April 2002. Reading this catalog of war crimes set
my teeth on edge and depressed me so much that the book was difficult
to read. I wish the book had a short history of Israel starting
with the Balfour agreement that dragged the U.S. into WWI. From
its inception, Israel has been a Frankenstein monster. I hope
the authors write a sequel to this book (when Israel "transfers"
the Palestinians into Jordan) and include a chapter called "The
Jew Haters that Created the state of Israel." One example
of a Jew Hater that helped to create the state of Israel is Dr.
Joachim Prinz, a Zionist rabbi who in Germany of 1934 (after
Hitler started systematic oppression of the Jews) wrote a book,
Wir Juden (We, Jews) celebrating the rise of Hitler and
Nazi ideology. Dr. Joachim later immigrated to the U.S., where
he rose to become vice-chairman of the World Jewish Congress.
The authors think their book may launch a ground swell of revulsion
about what is being done to the Palestinians. This seems an almost
naive hope to me. The sheeple in the U.S. and Europe are too
well indoctrinated and the politicians too well bribed or paid
off for anything to happen soon. However, this book will help
facilitate a war crimes trial in the future.
- To order this book e-mail
[email protected] your snail mailing address and
I will send a copy out for next day delivery. Will bill you 12.95
plus 3.50 shipping.
- Michael Santomauro, Editorial
Director, 253 west 72nd st #1711, New York, NY 10023, USA Tel
On peut aussi le commander: Independent
History and Research Company, PO Box 849, Coeur d'Alène,
IDAHO 83816-0849, USA.
Un site qui met en ligne les classiques
des sciences humaines, y compris Descartes, Comte, Toqueville,
Marx et Engels, Freud, etc. 319 bouquins, pour l'instant, réalisés
par des bénévoles. Un grand coup de chapeau !
Il faudrait y ajouter un proscrit, le
philosophe Georges Palante (1862-1925), rejeté par la Sorbonne:
Toutes les revues branchées, les
mecquetons à la mode, les rastignaculés, les trémoussantes,
les futures gloires qui cognent à la porte:
Le "christianisme d'origine"
retransmis par l'Eglise orthodoxe:
Un tour sur le forum romain, reconstruction
de synthèse. C'est le soir, mais il n'y a personne. Voyez
le temple du divin Jules:
Celui du divin Jospin n'est pas encore
ouvert au culte.
Livres arabes sur l'islam
Dar al-Kotob al-ilmiyah (Publishing House)
Tel & Fax : (+961-5) 804810 / 11 /
12 / 13
P.o.box : 11 - 9424 Beyrouth - Liban
e-mail : [email protected]
La malhonnêteté du dossier
Blair sur l'Irak, par Robert Fisk
La cassette se termine 3 minutes trop
Flight93, the Three-minute discrepancy
US Government Refuses to Release Communications
From 9/11 Planes
Les fachos du truc interdit, "unité
radicale" sont sur le net, à Kildare,
en Irelande, probablement au pub du coin:
La Guerre du Pétrole, Oil War !
Une collections de liens sur ce thème:
Ce texte a été affiché sur
Internet à des fins purement éducatives, pour encourager
la recherche, sur une base non-commerciale et pour une utilisation
mesurée par le Secrétariat international de l'Association
des Anciens Amateurs de Récits de Guerres et d'Holocaustes
(AAARGH). L'adresse électronique du Secrétariat
est <[email protected]>.
L'adresse postale est: PO Box 81475, Chicago, IL 60681-0475, USA.
Afficher un texte sur le Web équivaut
à mettre un document sur le rayonnage d'une bibliothèque
publique. Cela nous coûte un peu d'argent et de travail.
Nous pensons que c'est le lecteur volontaire qui en profite et
nous le supposons capable de penser par lui-même. Un lecteur
qui va chercher un document sur le Web le fait toujours à
ses risques et périls. Quant à l'auteur, il n'y
a pas lieu de supposer qu'il partage la responsabilité
des autres textes consultables sur ce site. En raison des lois
qui instituent une censure spécifique dans certains pays
(Allemagne, France, Israël, Suisse, Canada, et d'autres),
nous ne demandons pas l'agrément des auteurs qui y vivent
car ils ne sont pas libres de consentir.
Nous nous plaçons sous
la protection de l'article 19 de la Déclaration des Droits
de l'homme, qui stipule:
ARTICLE 19 <Tout
individu a droit à la liberté d'opinion et d'expression,
ce qui implique le droit de ne pas être inquiété
pour ses opinions et celui de chercher, de recevoir et de répandre,
sans considération de frontière, les informations
et les idées par quelque moyen d'expression que ce soit>
internationale des droits de l'homme, adoptée par l'Assemblée
générale de l'ONU à Paris, le 10 décembre