Une analyse intelligente du discours de Barak Obma par Caroline Glicks. Il est bien long mais il souleve pas mal de points extremement importants pour Israel.

Obama's Arabian dreams

By Caroline B. Glick


US President Barack Obama claims to be a big fan of telling the truth. In media interviews ahead of his trip to Saudi Arabia and Egypt and during his big speech in Cairo on Thursday, he claimed that the centerpiece of his Middle East policy is his willingness to tell people hard truths. Indeed, Obama made three references to the need to tell the truth in his so-called address to the Muslim world.

Unfortunately, for a speech billed as an exercise in truth telling, Obama's address fell short. Far from reflecting hard truths, Obama's speech reflected political convenience.

Obama's so-called hard truths for the Islamic world included statements about the need to fight so-called extremists; give equal rights to women; provide freedom of religion; and foster democracy. Unfortunately, all of his statements on these issues were nothing more than abstract, theoretical declarations devoid of policy prescriptions.

He spoke of the need to fight Islamic terrorists without mentioning that their intellectual, political and monetary foundations and support come from the very mosques, politicians and regimes in Saudi Arabia and Egypt that Obama extols as moderate and responsible.

He spoke of the need to grant equality to women without making mention of common Islamic practices like so-called honor killings, and female genital mutilation. He ignored the fact that throughout the lands of Islam women are denied basic legal and human rights. And then he qualified his statement by mendaciously claiming that women in the US similarly suffer from an equality deficit. In so discussing this issue, Obama sent the message that he couldn't care less about the plight of women in the Islamic world.

So too, Obama spoke about the need for religious freedom but ignored Saudi Arabian religious apartheid. He talked about the blessings of democracy but ignored the problems of tyranny.

In short, Obama's "straight talk" to the Arab world, which began with his disingenuous claim that like America, Islam is committed to "justice and progress; tolerance and the dignity of all human beings," was consciously and fundamentally fraudulent. And this fraud was advanced to facilitate his goal of placing the Islamic world on equal moral footing with the free world.

In a like manner, Obama's tough "truths" about Israel were marked by factual and moral dishonesty in the service of political ends.

On the surface Obama seemed to scold the Muslim world for its all-pervasive Holocaust denial and craven Jew hatred. By asserting that Holocaust denial and anti-Semitism are wrong, he seemed to be upholding his earlier claim that America's ties to Israel are "unbreakable."

Unfortunately, a careful study of his statements shows that Obama was actually accepting the Arab view that Israel is a foreign — and therefore unjustifiable — intruder in the Arab world. Indeed, far from attacking their rejection of Israel, Obama legitimized it.

The basic Arab argument against Israel is that the only reason Israel was established was to sooth the guilty consciences of Europeans who were embarrassed about the Holocaust. By their telling, the Jews have no legal, historic or moral rights to the Land of Israel.

This argument is completely false. The international community recognized the legal, historic and moral rights of the Jewish people to the Land of Israel long before anyone had ever heard of Adolf Hitler. In 1922, the League of Nations mandated the "reconstitution" — not the creation -- of the Jewish commonwealth in the Land of Israel in its historic borders on both sides of the Jordan River.

But in his self-described exercise in truth telling, Obama ignored this basic truth in favor of the Arab lie. He gave credence to this lie by stating wrongly that "the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history." He then explicitly tied Israel's establishment to the Holocaust by moving to a self-serving history lesson about the genocide of European Jewry.

Even worse than his willful blindness to the historic, legal, and moral justifications for Israel's rebirth, was Obama's characterization of Israel itself. Obama blithely, falsely and obnoxiously compared Israel's treatment of Palestinians to white American slave owners' treatment of their black slaves. He similarly cast Palestinian terrorists in the same morally pure category as slaves. Perhaps most repulsively, Obama elevated Palestinian terrorism to the moral heights of slave rebellions and the civil rights movement by referring to it by its Arab euphemism, "resistance."

But as disappointing and frankly obscene as Obama's rhetoric was, the policies he outlined were much worse. While prattling about how Islam and America are two sides of the same coin, Obama managed to spell out two clear policies. First he announced that he will compel Israel to completely end all building for Jews in Judea, Samaria, and eastern, northern and southern Jerusalem. Second he said that he will strive to convince Iran to substitute its nuclear weapons program with a nuclear energy program.

Obama argued that the first policy will facilitate peace and the second policy will prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Upon reflection however, it is clear that neither of his policies can possibly achieve his stated aims. Indeed, their inability to accomplish the ends he claims he has adopted them to advance is so obvious, that it is worth considering what his actual rationale for adopting them may be.

The administration's policy towards Jewish building in Israel's heartland and capital city expose a massive level of hostility towards Israel. Not only does it fly in the face of explicit US commitments to Israel undertaken by the Bush administration, it contradicts a longstanding agreement between successive Israeli and American governments not to embarrass each other.

Moreover, the fact that the administration cannot stop attacking Israel about Jewish construction in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria, but has nothing to say about Hizbullah's projected democratic takeover of Lebanon next week, Hamas's genocidal political platform, Fatah's involvement in terrorism, or North Korean ties to Iran and Syria, has egregious consequences for the prospects for peace in the region.

As Fatah leader Mahmoud Abbas made clear in his interview last week with the Washington Post, in light of the administration's hostility towards Israel, the Palestinian Authority no longer feels it is necessary to make any concessions whatsoever to Israel. It needn't accept Israel's identity as a Jewish state. It needn't minimize in any way its demand that Israel commit demographic suicide by accepting millions of foreign, hostile Arabs as full citizens. And it needn't curtail its territorial demand that Israel contract to within indefensible borders.

In short, by attacking Israel and claiming that Israel is responsible for the absence of peace, the administration is encouraging the Palestinians and the Arab world as a whole to continue to reject Israel and to refuse to make peace with the Jewish state.

The Netanyahu government reportedly fears that Obama and his advisors have made such an issue of settlements because they seek to overthrow Israel's government and replace it with the more pliable Kadima party. Government sources note that White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel played a central role in destabilizing Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's first government in 1999, when he served as an advisor to then president Bill Clinton. They also note that Emmanuel is currently working with leftist Israelis and American Jews associated with Kadima and the Democratic Party to discredit the government.

While there is little reason to doubt that the Obama administration would prefer a leftist government in Jerusalem, it is unlikely that the White House is attacking Israel primarily to advance this aim. This is first of all the case because today there is little danger that Netanyahu's coalition partners will abandon him.

Moreover, the Americans have no reason to believe that prospects for a peace deal would improve with a leftist government at the helm in Jerusalem. After all, despite its best efforts, the Kadima government was unable to make peace with the Palestinians as was the Labor government before it. What the Palestinians have shown consistently since the failed 2000 Camp David summit is that there is no deal that Israel can offer them that they are willing to accept.

So if the aim of the administration in attacking Israel is neither to foster peace nor to bring down the Netanyahu government, what can explain its behavior?

The only reasonable explanation is that the administration is baiting Israel because it wishes to abandon the Jewish state as an ally in favor of warmer ties with the Arabs. It has chosen to attack Israel on the issue of Jewish construction because it believes that by concentrating on this issue, it will minimize the political price it will be forced to pay at home for jettisoning America's alliance with Israel. By claiming that he is only pressuring Israel in order to enable a peaceful "two-state solution," Obama assumes that he will be able to maintain his support base among American Jews who will overlook the underlying hostility his "pro-peace" stance papers over.

Obama's policy towards Iran is a logical complement of his policy towards Israel. Just as there is no chance that he will bring Middle East peace closer by attacking Israel, so he will not prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons by offering the mullahs nuclear energy. The deal Obama is now proposing has been on the table since 2003 when Iran's nuclear program was first exposed. Over the past six years, the Iranians have repeatedly rejected it. Indeed, just last week they again announced that they reject it.

Here too, to understand the President's actual goal it is necessary to search for the answers closer to home. Since Obama's policy has no chance of preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, it is apparent that he has come to terms with the prospect of a nuclear armed Iran. In light of this, the most rational explanation for his policy of engaging Iran is that he wishes to avoid being blamed when Iran emerges as a nuclear power in the coming months.

In reckoning with the Obama administration, it is imperative that the Netanyahu government and the public alike understand what the true goals of its current policies are. Happily, consistent polling data show that the overwhelming majority of Israelis realize that the White House is deeply hostile towards Israel. The data also show that the public approves of Netanyahu's handling of our relations with Washington.


Moving forward, the government must sustain this public awareness and support. By his words as well as by his deeds, not only has Obama shown that he is not a friend of Israel. He has shown that there is nothing that Israel can do to make him change his mind.

[www.jewishworldreview.com]

Machon Ohr Aaron & Betsy Spijer


Thought to Ponder


Yom Ha’atzmauth
Independence day of Israel

A Phenomenon called Israel (1)

A Reminder in these difficult times

Throughout the centuries, historians, philosophers and anthropologists have struggled with the notion called Israel more than with nearly any other topic. While attempting to place Israel within the confines of conventional history, they experienced constant academic and philosophical frustration. Any definitions they suggested eventually broke down due to serious inconsistencies. Was Israel a nation, a religion or an altogether mysterious entity which would forever remain unexplainable? By some it was seen less as a nation and more as a religion; others believed the reverse to be true. And there were those who claimed that it could not fit into either of these categories.


It was clear to everyone, though, that “Israel” did not fit into any specific definition or known scheme. It resisted all historical concepts and generalities. Its uniqueness thwarted people’s natural desire for an explanation, since explanation generally implies arrangement in categories. Anything that flies in the face of such an attempt is alarming and terribly disturbing. This fact became even more obvious once Titus the Roman forced the Jews out of their country, and specifically after the collapse of the Bar Kochba rebellion. It was at that moment that the Jew was hurled into the abyss of the nations of the world. Since then, the Jew has been confronted with a new condition: ongoing insecurity. While mankind has always faced moments of insecurity, it is the Jews who have been denied even the smallest share of the dubious security that others possess. Whether Jews were aware of it or not, they always lived on ground that could, at any moment, give way beneath their feet.


In 1948 Israel once again became a country. But many forgot that while it became a country once more, it was not only a country. All the other dimensions, such as nationhood, religion, mystery, the lack of definition and insecurity continued to exist. Today, the people of Israel do not find themselves exclusively in the land of Israel, and instead of one Israel the world now has two. But the second new Israel has until now been seen as responding to the demands of history, geography, politics and journalism. One knows where it is. At least one thinks that one knows where it is. But it becomes clearer and clearer that this new and definable Israel is now seriously on the way to becoming as much a puzzle and mysterious entity as the old Israel always was. In fact, it already is.


Throughout its short history, the State of Israel has gone through the most mysterious events modern man has ever seen. After an exile of nearly two thousand years, during which the old Israel was able to survive in contradiction to all historical criteria, it returned to its homeland. There it found itself surrounded by a massive Arab population that was and is incapable of making peace with the idea that this small mysterious nation lives among them. After having experienced a Holocaust in which it lost six million of its members, it was not permitted to live a life of tranquility on its tiny piece of land. Once again, the Jew was denied the right to feel at home in his own country. From the outset Israel was forced to fight its enemies on all fronts. It was attacked and condemned for defending its population and fighting for its very existence. Over the years it had to endure the international community’s policy of double standards. Today, as in the past, when it calls for peace it is condemned for creating war. When it tries as no other nation to avoid hurting the citizens of the countries that declared war on it, it is told that it is more brutal than nations that committed and still commit atrocities against millions of people. Simultaneously and against all logic, this nation builds its country as no other has done, while fighting war after war. What took other nations hundreds of years it accomplished in only a few. While bombs and katyushas attack its cities, and calls for its total destruction are heard in many parts of the world, it continues to increase its population, generate unprecedented technology and create a stronger and more stable economy. But the more it succeeds, the more its enemies become frustrated and irritated, and the more dubious Israel’s security becomes. The more some nations aspire to destroy it, the more the world is forced to deal with this small people and its survival capacity. By now its news occupies more space in major newspapers than any other political issue or general topic ­­– as if to say that its dubious security and irritating population are at the center of world history.


Jews must ask themselves what this non-classification really signifies. Is it due merely to lack of vision and insight on the part of the nations? Is it that Jews could really fit into a system but the nations have not yet allowed them entry? Is it a negative phenomenon? A temporary one, until it will rectify itself in the future?


We have only one way to comprehend the positive meaning of this otherwise negative phenomenon – the way of faith. From any other viewpoint, the inability of Jews to fit into any category would be intolerable and a meaningless absurdity. What we need to understand is that the Jews’ inability to fit into any category is the foundation and meaning of their living avowal of Israel’s uniqueness. Israel’s very existence is the manifestation of divine intervention in history to which Israel must attest. In Israel, history and revelation are one. Only in Israel do they coincide. While other nations exist as nations, the people of Israel exist as a reminder of God’s involvement in world history. Only in Israel is humanity touched by the divine.


The realization of this fact has become modern Israel’s great challenge. Its repeated attempts to overcome its geographic and political insecurity by employing world politics will not work. Driven by its desire to overcome its insecurity, it wavers from geography to nationhood, appealing to its history and religious culture while unable to find a place that it can call its existential habitat.


Reading Israel’s prophets, we see how they warned against such false notions of security. They predicted that Israel would perish if it would insist on existing only as a political structure. Yet it can survive – and this is the paradox of the reality of Israel – as long as it insists on its vocation of uniqueness.



Israel was summoned to remind the world of God’s existence, not only concerning religion but as a historical reality. There is no security for Israel unless it is secure in its own destiny. It must assume the burden of its own uniqueness which is nothing other than to assume its role as God’s witness. And it must draw strength from this phenomenon, especially in times such as ours when Israel’s very existence is again at stake. Once it recognizes its uniqueness, it will – paradoxically – enjoy security and undoubtedly be victorious.


****


(1) This essay appears in my book: For the Love of Israel and the Jewish People, Urim Publications, Jerusalem and

New York, 2008

[www.youtube.com]

enjoy

another self-satisfying video !

555 -

Un article de Aluf Ben poste sur "Haaretz" proposant un desengagement total de la Bande Gaza.


It's time for real disengagement

The attempt to control Gaza from outside, via its residents' diet and shopping lists, casts a heavy moral stain on Israel and increases its international isolation.



The "flotilla affair" offers a good opportunity to complete the disengagement from the Gaza Strip, five years after Israel withdrew. It's time to sever the last ties of the occupation and leave Hamastan to its own devices.



Israeli soldiers walking in front of one of the Gaza-bound ships at the port of Ashdod June 1, 2010
Photo by: Reuters

The attempt to control Gaza from outside, via its residents' diet and shopping lists, casts a heavy moral stain on Israel and increases its international isolation. Every Israeli should be ashamed of the list of goods prepared by the Defense Ministry, which allows cinnamon and plastic buckets into Gaza, but not houseplants and coriander. It's time to find more important things for our officers and bureaucrats to do than update lists.

How could a disengagement be done? Israel would inform the international community that it is abandoning all responsibility for Gaza residents and their welfare. The Israel-Gaza border would be completely sealed, and Gaza would have to obtain supplies and medical services via the Egyptian border, or by sea. A target date would be set for severing Gaza's water and electricity systems from those of Israel. The customs union with Israel would end, and the shekel would cease to be Gaza's legal tender. Let them print their own Palestinian currency, featuring portraits of Sheikh Ahmed Yassin.

Israel would also make it clear that it will exercise its right to self-defense by inspecting suspicious cargo on the high seas in order to thwart arms smuggling. That is also how the Western powers behave: They search cargo ships for nuclear weapons and missile components. And if we are shot at from Gaza, we will shoot back - with intent to cause harm. We have already proved that we can do so.

This scenario has a precedent: Until the peace agreement was signed with Egypt, all of Israel's borders were sealed tight. Israel's foreign trade was conducted entirely via its air and sea ports. Even today, traffic over its land borders remains negligible.

This isn't pleasant, but it is legal. A sovereign state has the right to close its borders, especially when its neighbors are hostile and hate-filled.

The situation in which the border is intermittently open, based on the judgment of some anonymous Defense Ministry bureaucrat, is no longer acceptable to the world. It is perceived as intolerable brutality toward the civilian population of the party being blockaded.

Ariel Sharon decided to withdraw from Gaza all the way to the Green Line, and hoped thereby to obtain international acknowledgment that the occupation had ended. But Israel did not truly succeed in disengaging.

Even before Hamas took control of the Strip, Israel insisted on controlling entry to and exit from it. After Hamas won the Palestinian election, and Gilad Shalit was kidnapped, the blockade and the supervisory regime only tightened.

It was as if Israel had regretted the disengagement at the last moment and sought to retain at least a little something - a tiny handful of hated Gaza.

Today, the blockade of Gaza has a fourfold purpose: to compel the Palestinians to reunite Gaza with the West Bank under a leadership friendly to Israel; to pressure Hamas to restrain the rocket fire and other attempts to attack Israel; to maintain the fiction that the Palestinian Authority, led by Mahmoud Abbas and Salam Fayyad, is still the legal sovereign in Gaza; and to prevent friction with Egypt, which fears the opening of its border with the Palestinians.

But judging by the results, this policy has been unsatisfactory. True, strategic cooperation with Egypt has been strengthened, and Hamas has been restrained since Operation Cast Lead in Gaza in 2008-09. But Hamas' control over the Strip has not weakened. Abbas and Fayyad exercise no authority in Gaza.

The Israeli public is being told that the ban on coriander and the like is aimed at "helping Gilad Shalit." The very mention of the captive soldier now languishing in a Hamas prison has prevented any serious discussion of what policy Israel should adopt toward Gaza. But this merely demonstrates the government's populism and lack of leadership: It is hiding behind Shalit and his family, who justly have the public's sympathy, instead of seeking a new reality.

Those who oppose Israel's very existence will continue to fight and persecute it even if Jerusalem abandons the last shred of responsibility for Gaza. No disengagement will persuade them to change. But they are not the audience at which Israeli policy is aimed: Its target audience is Western governments, from which it needs support and with which it needs diplomatic and economic ties. And these Western governments are telling it to end the blockade and free Gaza.

Monday's deadly operation against the aid flotilla has only strengthened these demands. Hence this is Israel's opportunity. Instead of arguing with the international community, it should tell it: You want Gaza? Fine. Take it.

[www.haaretz.com]

Rien de meconnu mais voici une video qui explique tres bien l'affaire de la flotille MARMARA.

"Suicide Activists on the Gaza Flotilla"

Superbe video !!!!!! A voir et a revoir:clap: ! Merci Emilio !

The truth and only the truth.
Darlett, la vérité et seulement la vérité.

Le même Glenn Beck s'emploie à promouvoir la publication d'un livre anti-juif écrit par un nazi apologiste de l'action hitlerienne.Dr jekyll et ....

Its a bit long but its worth reading all the way through.


Pilar Rahola is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist and member of the far left. Her articles are published in Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in Latin America. Here she addresses that pro-Palestinian demonstrations:


Why don't we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London , Paris , Barcelona ?

Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship?

Why aren't there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection?

Why aren't there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam?

Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan ?

Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel ?

Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism?

Why don't they defend Israel 's right to exist?

Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism?

And finally, the million dollar question: Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, who have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn't care.


And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: "We want freedom for the people!"

Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan , or other such nations. And they are never preoccupied when Hammas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press.

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don't inform, they propagandize.

When reporting about Israel , the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel , that there aren't any accusations left to level against her.

At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel ; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain.

And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel w eb site. I quote from the expulsion document: "Our friends are the people of Iran , Libya and Venezuela , oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like Israel ."

In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Palestinian Nabka Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

Or in my native city of Barcelona , the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel , by having a week of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70's and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against Israel .

This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of president Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the Middle East , he is unequivocally pro Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on Israel the blame for the conflict in the Middle East , and the policies of foreign minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a kafiah in the midst of the L eb anon conflict is no coincidence; it's a symbol.

Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us with cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. An yet the Spanish left is the most anti Israeli in the world.

And then it says it is anti Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference.

Conclusion:

I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not anti Israeli like my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel . To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews.

As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles.

Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say, that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty, I have a triple moral duty with Israel , because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity and culture will be destroyed too.

The struggle of Israel , even if the world doesn't want to accept it, is the struggle of the world.

First objective information about flotilla from the US Administration

Jo Biden explique pourquoi il comprend parfaitement la politique et le comportement d'Israel concernant le blocage sur Gaza.

Excellentes explications et surtout, il a parfaitement compris le probleme et les raisons qui amene Israel a stopper les bateaux qui arrivent a Gaza ou du moins a s'obstiner a en verifier le contenu.

Je traduis la derniere partie de l'interview avec Jo Biden. (video ci-dessus. Merci Emilio)

Il raconte qu'apres la guerre des six jours, il se trouvait avec Golda Meir et Itzhak Rabin et ils sont sortis se faire photographier par les photographes qui se trouvaient dehors.

Joe Biden semblait inquiet et Golda Meir s'est tournee vers lui et lui a demande pourquoi etes-vous inquiet ?
- Vous ne devriez pas etre inquiet car nous, les israeliens, nous avons une arme secrete !

- Quelle arme secrete ? demanda Jo Biden

- Nous n'avons nulle part ailleurs ou aller. C'est notre arme secrete !

Incroyables paroles et tellement justes !!!

LE COMBAT D'ISRAEL EST LE COMBAT DU MONDE LIBRE



Pilar Rahola (above) is a Spanish politician, journalist and activist and member of the far left. Her articles are published in Spain and throughout some of the most important newspapers in Latin America. She writes:


Why don't we see demonstrations against Islamic dictatorships in London, Paris, Barcelona?

Or demonstrations against the Burmese dictatorship?

Why aren't there demonstrations against the enslavement of millions of women who live without any legal protection?

Why aren't there demonstrations against the use of children as human bombs where there is conflict with Islam?

Why has there been no leadership in support of the victims of Islamic dictatorship in Sudan?

Why is there never any outrage against the acts of terrorism committed against Israel?

Why is there no outcry by the European left against Islamic fanaticism?

Why don't they defend Israel's right to exist?

Why confuse support of the Palestinian cause with the defense of Palestinian terrorism?

An finally, the million dollar question:Why is the left in Europe and around the world obsessed with the two most solid democracies, the United States and Israel, and not with the worst dictatorships on the planet? The two most solid democracies, which have suffered the bloodiest attacks of terrorism, and the left doesn't care.


And then, to the concept of freedom. In every pro Palestinian European forum I hear the left yelling with fervor: "We want freedom for the people!"

Not true. They are never concerned with freedom for the people of Syria or Yemen or Iran or Sudan, or other such nations. And they are never preoccupied when Hammas destroys freedom for the Palestinians. They are only concerned with using the concept of Palestinian freedom as a weapon against Israeli freedom. The resulting consequence of these ideological pathologies is the manipulation of the press.

The international press does major damage when reporting on the question of the Israeli-Palestinian issue. On this topic they don't inform, they propagandize.

When reporting about Israel the majority of journalists forget the reporter code of ethics. And so, any Israeli act of self-defense becomes a massacre, and any confrontation, genocide. So many stupid things have been written about Israel, that there aren't any accusations left to level against her.

At the same time, this press never discusses Syrian and Iranian interference in propagating violence against Israel; the indoctrination of children and the corruption of the Palestinians. And when reporting about victims, every Palestinian casualty is reported as tragedy and every Israeli victim is camouflaged, hidden or reported about with disdain.

And let me add on the topic of the Spanish left. Many are the examples that illustrate the anti-Americanism and anti-Israeli sentiments that define the Spanish left. For example, one of the leftist parties in-Spain has just expelled one of its members for creating a pro-Israel website. I quote from the expulsion document: "Our friends are the people of Iran, Libya and Venezuela, oppressed by imperialism, and not a Nazi state like Israel."

In another example, the socialist mayor of Campozuelos changed Shoah Day, commemorating the victims of the Holocaust, with Palestinian Nabka Day, which mourns the establishment of the State of Israel, thus showing contempt for the six million European Jews murdered in the Holocaust.

Or in my native city of Barcelona, the city council decided to commemorate the 60th anniversary of the creation of the State of Israel, by having a week of solidarity with the Palestinian people. Thus, they invited Leila Khaled, a noted terrorist from the 70's and current leader of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, a terrorist organization so described by the European Union, which promotes the use of bombs against Israel.

This politically correct way of thinking has even polluted the speeches of president Zapatero. His foreign policy falls within the lunatic left, and on issues of the Middle East he is unequivocally pro Arab. I can assure you that in private, Zapatero places on Israel the blame for the conflict in the Middle East, and the policies of foreign minister Moratinos reflect this. The fact that Zapatero chose to wear a kafiah in the midst of the Lebanon conflict is no coincidence; it's a symbol.

Spain has suffered the worst terrorist attack in Europe and it is in the crosshairs of every Islamic terrorist organization. As I wrote before, they kill us with cell phones hooked to satellites connected to the Middle Ages. An yet the Spanish left is the most anti Israeli in the world.

And then it says it is anti Israeli because of solidarity. This is the madness I want to denounce in this conference.

Conclusion:

I am not Jewish. Ideologically I am left and by profession a journalist. Why am I not anti Israeli like my colleagues? Because as a non-Jew I have the historical responsibility to fight against Jewish hatred and currently against the hatred for their historic homeland, Israel. To fight against anti-Semitism is not the duty of the Jews, it is the duty of the non-Jews.

As a journalist it is my duty to search for the truth beyond prejudice, lies and manipulations. The truth about Israel is not told. As a person from the left who loves progress, I am obligated to defend liberty, culture, civic education for children, coexistence and the laws that the Tablets of the Covenant made into universal principles.

Principles that Islamic fundamentalism systematically destroys. That is to say that as a non-Jew, journalist and lefty I have a triple moral duty with Israel, because if Israel is destroyed, liberty, modernity and culture will be destroyed too.

The struggle of Israel, even if the world doesn't want to accept it, is the struggle of the world.

Voici la traduction de ce texte.

Pilar Rahola (ci-dessus) est une femme politique espagnole, journaliste et militante et membre de l'extrême gauche. Ses articles sont publiés en Espagne et dans certains des journaux les plus importants en Amérique latine. Elle écrit ainsi :


Pourquoi n'assistons-nous pas a des manifestations contre les dictatures islamiques à Londres, Paris, Barcelone?

Ou des manifestations contre la dictature birmane?

Pourquoi ne voyons-nous pas des manifestations contre l'asservissement de millions de femmes qui vivent sans aucune protection légale?

Pourquoi n'y a t-il pas de manifestations contre l'utilisation d'enfants comme bombes humaines en cas de conflit avec l'islam?

Pourquoi n'y a t-il pas eu de leadership en soutien aux victimes de la dictature islamique au Soudan?

Pourquoi n'y a t-il aucune reaction contre les actes de terrorisme commis contre Israël?

Pourquoi y at-il aucune protestation de la gauche européenne contre le fanatisme islamique?

Pourquoi ne defendent-ils pas le droit a Israël d'exister?

Pourquoi confondre le soutien de la cause palestinienne avec la défense du terrorisme palestinien?

Et Enfin, la question primordiale : Pourquoi la gauche en Europe et partout dans le monde est obsede par les deux démocraties les plus solides, les États-Unis et Israël, et non avec les pires dictatures de la planète? Les deux démocraties les plus solides, qui ont subi les attaques les plus sanglantes du terrorisme, et la gauche ne s'en soucie pas.

Dans tous les forums pro-palestiniens européens j'entends les hurlements de la gauche avec ferveur : «Nous voulons la liberté pour le peuple!"

Cela n'est pas vrai !

Ils ne sont nullement concernes pas la liberté du peuple syrien ou celui du Yémen ou de l' Iran ou du Soudan, ou des autres semblables nations. Et surtout ils ne sont jamais préoccupés lorsque le Hamas comprime et détruit la liberté des Palestiniens. Ils ne sont concernes par l' utilisation du concept de liberte lorsqu'il s'applique aux Palestiniens ou lorsqu'il s'agit d'accuser Israel. Ceci a pour consequence l'engagement ideologique des journalistes actifs dans la manipulation.

La presse internationale fait des dommages considerables en traitant du conflit israélo-palestinien. Sur ce sujet, ils n'informent pas, ils propagandent. En traitant du sujet se rapportant a Israël la plupart des journalistes oublient les codes minimales de déontologie journalistiques. Ainsi, tout acte israélien de légitime défense devient un massacre, et toute confrontation, un génocide. Tant de stupidites ont été écrites au sujet d'Israël.

Parrallelement a cela, cette meme presse ne discute jamais de l'ingérence syrienne ou iranienne dans la propagation de la violence contre Israël; l'endoctrinement des enfants et la corruption des Palestiniens. Et lors de l'annonce des victimes, chaque victime palestinienne est signalée comme une tragédie alors que les victimes israéliennes sont camouflées, cachées ou rapportées avec dédain.

Et laissez-moi ajouter au sujet de la gauche espagnole. Nombreux sont les exemples qui illustrent l'anti-américanisme et les sentiments anti-israéliens définissant la gauche espagnole. Par exemple, l'un des partis de gauche en Espagne vient d'expulser un de ses membres parce qu'il avait créer un site pro-Israël. Je cite le document de l'expulsion: «Nos amis sont le peuple d'Iran, de Libye et du Venezuela, opprimés par l'impérialisme, et non celui d'un Etat nazi comme Israël."

Autre exemple, le maire socialiste de Campozuelos a changé la date de la Journée de commémoration des victimes de l'Holocauste, avec celle du jour de la Nakba palestinienne, qui pleure la création de l'Etat d'Israël, montrant ainsi le mépris pour les six millions de juifs européens assassinés durant l'Holocauste.

Dans ma ville natale de Barcelona, le conseil municipal a décidé de commémorer le 60e anniversaire de la création de l'État d'Israël, en ayant une semaine de solidarité avec le peuple palestinien.
Ainsi, ils ont invité Leila Khaled, une terroriste des années 70 et actuelle leader du Front populaire de libération de la Palestine, organisation terroriste comme décrit par l'Union européenne, qui encourageait l'utilisation de bombes contre Israël.

Le politiquement correcte a même pollué le discours du président Zapatero. Sa politique étrangère relève de la gauche, et sur les questions du Moyen-Orient, il est clairement pro arabe.
Je peux vous assurer que en privé, Zapatero implique à Israël la responsabilite du conflit au Moyen-Orient, et la position du ministre des Affaires étrangères Moratinos reflecte cette opinion. Le fait que Zapatero a choisi de porter une kafiah au milieu du conflit libanais n'est pas un hasard, c'est un symbole.

L'Espagne a subi la pire attaque terroriste en Europe et il est dans le collimateur de chaque organisation terroriste islamique. Comme je l'ai écrit auparavant, ils nous tuent avec des téléphones cellulaires accrochés aux satellites branches sur le Moyen Age. La gauche espagnole est la plus anti israélienne du monde. Mais, ils pretendent qu'ils sont anti israéliens à cause de la solidarité palestinienne. C'est de la folie pure que je tiens a denoncer.

Conclusion :

Je ne suis pas juive. Idéologiquement, je suis de gauche et journaliste de profession. Pourquoi je ne suis pas anti israélien, comme mes collègues? Parce que, en tant que non-Juif, j'ai la responsabilité historique de lutter contre la haine juive et qui s'oppose actuellement à la haine pour leur patrie historique, Israël. TPour lutter contre l'antisémitisme n'est pas le devoir des Juifs, il est du devoir des non-Juifs.

En tant que journaliste, il est de mon devoir de chercher la vérité au-delà des préjugés, des mensonges et des manipulations. La vérité sur Israël n'est pas dite. En tant que personne de la gauche qui aime le progrès, je suis obligée de défendre la liberté, la culture, l'éducation civique pour les enfants, la coexistence et valeurs reposant sur des principes universels.

Principes que le fondamentalisme islamique détruit systématiquement. C'est-à-dire que comme non-Juive, journaliste et de gauche, j'ai le triple devoir moral de soutenir Israël, parce que si Israël est détruit, la liberté, la modernité et de la culture seront détruites aussi.

La lutte menee par Israël, même si le monde ne veut pas l'accepter, c'est la lutte du monde.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us
UNE REPONSE AUX "POURQUOI ?"
LES JUIFS," POURQUOI PAS?"#

6/11/2010
Studies Show Jews’ Genetic Similarity
Jewish communities in Europe and the Middle East share many genes inherited from the ancestral Jewish population that lived in the Middle East some 3,000 years ago, even though each community also carries genes from other sources — usually the country in which it lives. That is the conclusion of two new genetic surveys, the first to use genome-wide scanning devices to compare many Jewish communities around the world. A major surprise from both surveys is the genetic closeness of the two Jewish communities of Europe, the Ashkenazim and the Sephardim. The Ashkenazim thrived in Northern and Eastern Europe until their devastation by the Hitler regime, and now live mostly in the United States and Israel. The Sephardim were exiled from Spain in 1492 and from Portugal in 1497 and moved to the Ottoman Empire, North Africa and the Netherlands. The two genome surveys extend earlier studies based just on the Y chromosome, the genetic element carried by all men. They refute the suggestion made last year by the historian Shlomo Sand in his book “The Invention of the Jewish People” that Jews have no common origin but are a miscellany of people in Europe and Central Asia who converted to Judaism at various times. Jewish communities from Europe, the Middle East and the Caucasus all have substantial genetic ancestry that traces back to the Levant; Ethiopian Jews and two Judaic communities in India are genetically much closer to their host populations. The surveys provide rich data about genetic ancestry that is of great interest to historians. “I’m constantly impressed by the manner in which the geneticists keep moving ahead with new projects and illuminating what we know of history,” said Lawrence H. Schiffman, a professor of Judaic studies at New York University. One of the surveys was conducted by Gil Atzmon of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine and Harry Ostrer of New York University and appears in the current American Journal of Human Genetics. The other, led by Doron M. Behar of the Rambam Health Care Campus in Haifa and Richard Villems of the University of Tartu in Estonia, is published in Thursday’s edition of Nature. Dr. Atzmon and Dr. Ostrer have developed a way of timing demographic events from the genetic elements shared by different Jewish communities. Their calculations show that Iraqi and Iranian Jews separated from other Jewish communities about 2,500 years ago. This genetic finding presumably reflects a historical event, the destruction of the First Temple at Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar in 587 B.C. and the exile of many Jews there to his capital at Babylon. The shared genetic elements suggest that members of any Jewish community are related to one another as closely as are fourth or fifth cousins in a large population, which is about 10 times higher than the relationship between two people chosen at random off the streets of New York City, Dr. Atzmon said. Ashkenazic and Sephardic Jews have roughly 30 percent European ancestry, with most of the rest from the Middle East, the two surveys find. The two communities seem very similar to each other genetically, which is unexpected because they have been separated for so long. One explanation is that they come from the same Jewish source population in Europe. The Atzmon-Ostrer team found that the genomic signature of Ashkenazim and Sephardim was very similar to that of Italian Jews, suggesting that an ancient population in northern Italy of Jews intermarried with Italians could have been the common origin. The Ashkenazim first appear in Northern Europe around A.D. 800, but historians suspect that they arrived there from Italy. Another explanation, which may be complementary to the first, is that there was far more interchange and intermarriage than expected between the two communities in medieval times. The genetics confirms a trend noticed by historians: that there was more contact between Ashkenazim and Sephardim than suspected, with Italy as the linchpin of interchange, said Aron Rodrigue, a Stanford University historian. A common surname among Italian Jews is Morpurgo, meaning someone from Marburg in Germany. Also, Dr. Rodrigue said, one of the most common names among the Sephardim who settled in the Ottoman Empire is Eskenazi, indicating that many Ashkenazim had joined the Sephardic community there. The two genetic surveys indicate “that there may be common origins shared by the two groups, but also that there were extensive contacts and settlements,” Dr. Rodrigue said. Hebrew could have served as the lingua franca between the Ashkenazic community, speaking Yiddish, and the Ladino-speaking Sephardim. “When Jews met each other, they spoke Hebrew,” Dr. Schiffman said, referring to the medieval period.

LET ME SEE IF I GOT THIS RIGHT.


IF YOU CROSS THE NORTH KOREAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET 12 YEARS HARD LABOR.

IF YOU CROSS THE IRANIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU ARE DETAINED INDEFINITELY.

IF YOU CROSS THE AFGHAN BORDER ILLEGALLY, YOU GET SHOT.

IF YOU CROSS THE SAUDI ARABIAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE JAILED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CHINESE BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU MAY NEVER BE HEARD FROM AGAIN.

IF YOU CROSS THE VENEZUELAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE BRANDED A SPY AND YOUR FATE WILL BE SEALED.

IF YOU CROSS THE CUBAN BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU WILL BE THROWN INTO POLITICAL PRISON TO ROT.

IF YOU CROSS THE U.S. BORDER ILLEGALLY YOU GET

* A JOB,
* A DRIVERS LICENSE,
* SOCIAL SECURITY CARD,
* WELFARE,
* FOOD STAMPS,
* CREDIT CARDS,
* SUBSIDIZED RENT OR A LOAN TO BUY A HOUSE,
* FREE EDUCATION,
* FREE HEALTH CARE,
* A LOBBYIST IN WASHINGTON
* BILLIONS OF DOLLARS WORTH OF PUBLIC DOCUMENTS PRINTED IN YOUR LANGUAGE
* THE RIGHT TO CARRY YOUR COUNTRY'S FLAG WHILE YOU PROTEST THAT YOU DON'T GET ENOUGH RESPECT
* AND, IN MANY INSTANCES, YOU CAN VOTE.

La télévision allemande est connue, à travers le monde, pour être l’un des pays le plus indépendant concernant le probleme palestinien … Et l’une des plus juste vis-à-vis du conflit israélo-arabe.

regardez cette video !elle parle d'elle meme !tres eloquante


"la diplomatie est l'art de repousser l'inévitable le plus longtemps possible".N.G

18 June 2010

The following article by the former Spanish Prime Minister José María Aznar was published in the British newspaper 'The Times' on 17 June 2010:



If Israel goes down, we all go down

Anger over Gaza is a distraction. We cannot forget that Israel is the West’s best ally in a turbulent region

By José María Aznar



For far too long now it has been unfashionable in Europe to speak up for Israel. In the wake of the recent incident on board a ship full of anti-Israeli activists in the Mediterranean, it is hard to think of a more unpopular cause to champion. In an ideal world, the assault by Israeli commandos on the Mavi Marmara would not have ended up with nine dead and a score wounded. In an ideal world, the soldiers would have been peacefully welcomed on to the ship. In an ideal world, no state, let alone a recent ally of Israel such as Turkey, would have sponsored and organised a flotilla whose sole purpose was to create an impossible situation for Israel: making it choose between giving up its security policy and the naval blockade, or risking the wrath of the world.

In our dealings with Israel, we must blow away the red mists of anger that too often cloud our judgment. A reasonable and balanced approach should encapsulate the following realities: first, the state of Israel was created by a decision of the UN. Its legitimacy, therefore, should not be in question. Israel is a nation with deeply rooted democratic institutions. It is a dynamic and open society that has repeatedly excelled in culture, science and technology.

Second, owing to its roots, history, and values, Israel is a fully fledged Western nation. Indeed, it is a normal Western nation, but one confronted by abnormal circumstances.

Uniquely in the West, it is the only democracy whose very existence has been questioned since its inception. In the first instance, it was attacked by its neighbours using the conventional weapons of war. Then it faced terrorism culminating in wave after wave of suicide attacks. Now, at the behest of radical Islamists and their sympathisers, it faces a campaign of delegitimisation through international law and diplomacy.

Sixty-two years after its creation, Israel is still fighting for its very survival. Punished with missiles raining from north and south, threatened with destruction by an Iran aiming to acquire nuclear weapons and pressed upon by friend and foe, Israel, it seems, is never to have a moment’s peace.

For years, the focus of Western attention has understandably been on the peace process between Israelis and Palestinians. But if Israel is in danger today and the whole region is slipping towards a worryingly problematic future, it is not due to the lack of understanding between the parties on how to solve this conflict. The parameters of any prospective peace agreement are clear, however difficult it may seem for the two sides to make the final push for a settlement.

The real threats to regional stability, however, are to be found in the rise of a radical Islamism which sees Israel’s destruction as the fulfilment of its religious destiny and, simultaneously in the case of Iran, as an expression of its ambitions for regional hegemony. Both phenomena are threats that affect not only Israel, but also the wider West and the world at large.

The core of the problem lies in the ambiguous and often erroneous manner in which too many Western countries are now reacting to this situation. It is easy to blame Israel for all the evils in the Middle East. Some even act and talk as if a new understanding with the Muslim world could be achieved if only we were prepared to sacrifice the Jewish state on the altar. This would be folly.

Israel is our first line of defence in a turbulent region that is constantly at risk of descending into chaos; a region vital to our energy security owing to our overdependence on Middle Eastern oil; a region that forms the front line in the fight against extremism. If Israel goes down, we all go down. To defend Israel’s right to exist in peace, within secure borders, requires a degree of moral and strategic clarity that too often seems to have disappeared in Europe. The United States shows worrying signs of heading in the same direction.

The West is going through a period of confusion over the shape of the world’s future. To a great extent, this confusion is caused by a kind of masochistic self-doubt over our own identity; by the rule of political correctness; by a multiculturalism that forces us to our knees before others; and by a secularism which, irony of ironies, blinds us even when we are confronted by jihadis promoting the most fanatical incarnation of their faith. To abandon Israel to its fate, at this moment of all moments, would merely serve to illustrate how far we have sunk and how inexorable our decline now appears.

This cannot be allowed to happen. Motivated by the need to rebuild our own Western values, expressing deep concern about the wave of aggression against Israel, and mindful that Israel’s strength is our strength and Israel’s weakness is our weakness, I have decided to promote a new Friends of Israel initiative with the help of some prominent people, including David Trimble, Andrew Roberts, John Bolton, Alejandro Toledo (the former President of Peru), Marcello Pera (philosopher and former President of the Italian Senate), Fiamma Nirenstein (the Italian author and politician), the financier Robert Agostinelli and the Catholic intellectual George Weigel.

It is not our intention to defend any specific policy or any particular Israeli government. The sponsors of this initiative are certain to disagree at times with decisions taken by Jerusalem. We are democrats, and we believe in diversity.

What binds us, however, is our unyielding support for Israel’s right to exist and to defend itself. For Western countries to side with those who question Israel’s legitimacy, for them to play games in international bodies with Israel’s vital security issues, for them to appease those who oppose Western values rather than robustly to stand up in defence of those values, is not only a grave moral mistake, but a strategic error of the first magnitude.

Israel is a fundamental part of the West. The West is what it is thanks to its Judeo-Christian roots. If the Jewish element of those roots is upturned and Israel is lost, then we are lost too. Whether we like it or not, our fate is inextricably intertwined.


José María Aznar was prime minister of Spain between 1996 and 2004.