France is walking straight into a disaster of epic proportions

Francois Hollande, already one of the most hated Presidents in French history, is clearly desperate to try to change his image of being Mr "couille molle" (literally: limp dick), a nickname he got from within his own political party.  Like Sarkozy, he wants to flex some military muscle to prove that he is also a great man.

Nevermind that the French soldiers are underpaid, under-equipped, and that most their promotions have been put on indefinite hold.  Hollande has clearly tried to show some good old machismo, and the results are a total disaster.

a) In Somalia, the French botched a commando rescue operation to save one of their operatives who had been kidnapped 3 years ago.  Result: dead hostage, one killed commando, one missing in action.

b) In Mali, the French have embarked on a major military operation to try to somehow prop up the collapsing Bamako government.

c) In Algeria, French hostages have been taken by Islamist insurgents.

In the first case, the French have been on the wrong side of history since many years already, but in the second and third cases, this is a direct result of "blowback" form the French war on Libya to topple and murder Muammar Gaddafi.

It is sadly ironic that the forces which the French Rafales are bombing today in Mali are the very same forces on whose behalf the French Rafales bombed Libya.  This time, however, the French are engaged in a war they simply cannot win. Take a look at the size of the real theatre of operations:

This territory is *huge*.  Just the size of the newly declared state of Azawad (in red in the picture above) is twice the size of Germany.  The actual theatre of operations is far bigger as this map shows in green.  One could wonder what in the world the French were thinking before taking on such an insane task?

The sad reality is that France has a long history of engaging in insanely stupid military operations.  Most of you probably heard of the Dien Bien Phu disaster.  But very few people know that under President Jacques Chirac the French proposed a copycat of the Dien Bien Phu operation to the NATO command, but this time in the mountains of eastern Bosnia: the French offered to send paratroopers into the Bosnian-Muslim city of Gorazde which was surrounded on all sides by mountains controlled not by the Viet Minh forces, but by the Bosnian-Serbs.  Take a look at where the French wanted to send their troops:

All they wanted from the Americans was to have US helicopters transport the French troops into Gorazde.  Needless to say, the Americans categorically refused.  In disgust, Holbrooke even called this crazy idea ‘Dien Bien Gorazde’!  Anglo pragmatism and sense of history really saved a lot of lives on this occasion!

This time around, the French don't want to send their paratroopers into a surrounded "rice bowl bottom" as in Dien Bien Phu or Gorazde, this time they want to control most of the Sahara desert with roughly 1'400 men and airstrikes.  Brilliant no?

Nevermind that there are no good targets to strike there.  The best the French aviation can provide is reconnaissance and close air support to its contingent on land.  Useful, yes, but most definitely not enough to make a real difference.  Desert warfare is very similar to naval warfare in which the battlefield constantly changes, with no real lines of defense, no key objectives to control, and an environment which basically cannot be "held" in any meaningful way.  Logistics, however, are always a nightmare.

According to the BBC these are the forces available to the French right now:

• Some 1,400 French troops in Mali, 900 troops involved elsewhere in Africa
• French Mirage and Rafale jets, Gazelle helicopters
• Chad to send 2,000 troops
• Nigeria to send 900 troops; Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger and Togo expected to send 500 each, and Benin 300
• Ghana, Guinea and Chad also to send troops
• UK providing two C17 cargo planes for French effort
• Belgium and Denmark also sending transport planes
• US to provide communications help

You can immediately forget the cosmetic contributions in forces from Chad, Senegal, Burkina Faso, Niger, Ghana and other African "military superpowers".  They will not fire a single shot and most of what they will do is provide some (mostly symbolic) security in populated areas.

As for the transport planes provided by NATO allies, they are not sufficient and this is why Russia is "helping" France by transporting heavy equipment in AN-124 heavy lift transporters (for money, of course).  Needless to say, the Western corporate media is not reporting this rather embarrassing need for Russian assistance.

The USA has secret bases inside Mali, even in Azawad, mostly special forces deployed as part of the GWOT and the US hunt for al-Qaeda, but they are staying well clear from the French operation.  For all practical purposes, the French are very much on their own, at least as far as real, boots on the ground, combat is concerned.

The French will enjoy better mobility, better communications, better electronic intelligence and superior firepower.  None of that will make any damn difference.  The Tuaregs, whom the French are now fighting have been at this war literally for years, and now they have benefited from an absolutely huge influx from fighters and military equipment from Libya, courtesy of France's war on Libya.

As for the Islamists, as the attack in Algeria has shown, they can strike anywhere they want, even in Senegal, Ivory Coast or even Cameroon.  Heck, they can easily strike even in France itself, which now has something in the range of 25% of all of its population immigrants from northern Africa.

Bottom line: France is walking straight into a disaster of epic proportions, and it is doing that at a time when the French economy has come to a practical standstill and under the rule of a clueless President whose only distinguishing characteristic is his formidable mediocrity and absolute lack of imagination.

This is an explosive situation which could explode into a real social crisis very rapidly.

The Saker

First Depardieu, then Bardot - does any of that matter?

By now we probably have all seen the footage of French actor Gerard Depardieu proudly showing his Russian passport and most of us have also heard reports about French actress Birgitte Bardot declaring that she will leave France in disgust and also ask for Russian citizenship.  Does any of that matter?  Depardieu was angered by a comment made by a French minister who condemned his move to Belgium to avoid paying high taxes, as for Bardot, her wrath was triggered by the fact that French authorities have decided to put down two elephants in the Lyon zoo rather than treat them for tuberculosis.  Taxes, elephants and movie stars, hardly something worth spending much time on.

And yet.

There is much more to this than meets the eye.

First, all this is taking place while the European media is replete with general anti-Russian hysteria and especially vicious Putin-bashing articles.  Behind all this there is a powerful constellation of big money interests which include Boris Berezovsky, of course, but also the business partners of Mikhail Khodorkovsky, top officials of BP Oil and Gaz and MI6, Chechen and Israeli mobsters and key members of the Russian "non-systemic opposition" (i.e. those parties which could not even get a single representative elected to the Duma: folks like Boris Nemtsov, Valeria Novodvorskaya, Aleksei Navalnyi, Ksenia Sobchak, etc.) and Georgian intelligence agents.  To say that Depardieu and Bardot are swimming against the stream is an understatement.

The "new Russian" Depardieu

Second, both stars have added insult to injury by not only heaping praise both on Russia as a country and a real democracy, but especially praising Vladimir Putin himself.

Third, and this is extremely important and yet almost totally overlooked by most commentators, it would be difficult to find a bigger contrast then between Depardieu and Bardot.  No, I don't mean the looks, I am referring to the fact that Depardieu comes from a Communist family and still considers himself as a Communist whereas Brigitte Bardot has very strong connections to the French national right, the National Front, and Jean Marie Le Pen personally.  And yet, for all their differences, they both looked to Putin's Russia as a viable alternative to what is taking place in their native France.

Lastly, this is happening against the background of a huge, truly unprecedented economic, social and political crisis in Europe which will probably see the collapse of the Euro and possibly part of the EU.  In France specifically, a total loser was elected as President - Francois Hollande - whose nickname inside his own socialist party was, forgive the crude expression, "limp dick" (the French Socialists had planned for years to present Dominique Strauss-Khan as their candidate, an man of immense personal charisma and intelligence, but whose inability to control is sexual impulses made him a perfect target for a discreditation operation by agents of the US and British banking interests).

Bardot as Marianne

Why does all this matter?  Because Depardieu and Bardot are but the tip of an iceberg of Europeans totally disgusted with what is taking place in their country and who are looking towards Russia as much more than just a "somewhere else" - they could have easily picked far less controversial countries such as Switzerland, Iceland, Monaco or even Costa Rica or Thailand.  It is absolutely clear that both actors picked Russia because, unlike the other countries I mentioned, Russia is a *political alternative to the EU*, a country which dares to openly defy the European political elites. By their choice of Russia Depardieu and Bardot gave a direct slap in the collective face of the European elites.

It is important to realize the immense symbolical weight that the names Depardieu and Bardot have in France.  Both of these actors are in a very direct way national symbols.  Take Bardot, for example, not only was she considered for years as an international sex-symbol but she was actually used as a model for Marianne, the French symbol for Liberty.  As for Depardieu, not only is he universally considered as the most talented French actor alive, he is also a Chevalier of the Légion d'honneur and a Chevalier of the Ordre national du Mérite.

General de Gaulle

As for Russia and France, these two countries always have had a very strong, if complex, relationship.  This relationship began in 11th century when the Russian Princess Anna of Kiev married the French King Henri i and eventually ruled France as the Regent and Queen for her son Phillip I.  Ever since the relationship between Russia and France has always been very strong, to the point that even Napoleonic wars paradoxically ended up strengthening them (both sides very much admired each other).  During World War II, I would argue that France was the only real ally of the Soviet Union (if only because both the British and the US were busy planning various types of military attacks on the USSR and even holding secret negotiations with the Nazis up to the very last days of the war).  Finally, General de Gaulle, arguably the most important French political figure of the 20th century, always tried hard to strengthen the alliance between the Soviet Union and France until he was overthrown by a revolution in May of 1968 organized by a cabal of Anglo-Jewish bankers who replaced the patriotic de Gaulle by George Pompidou, an ex-Director General of the Rothschild Bank, who proceeded to immediately subordinate France to Anglo-Jewish financial interests (see for example the infamous "Rothschild Law" - Google translated) and May 68 became the prototype for all the future Anglo "color-coded" revolutions.

De Gaulle was overthrown, but he left behind a powerful and uniquely French ideology called "Gaullisme" which is a mix of strong and independent patriotism in foreign affairs and social solidarity inside France.  While this ideology has been comprehensively betrayed by the officially 'Gaullist' parties, it is still very much alive in the French collective memory and, in particular, amongst the supporters of the influential French dissident Alain Soral.

The "defection" of personalities such as Depardieu or Bardot very much feed into what I would call an "underground Gaullism" which is seeing a strong rebirth in large segments of the French society.  At the core of it is a comprehensive rejection of the Anglosphere's attempt to rule the planet, a rejection of the current international financial system (WTO/WB/IMF/EU/NAFTA/etc.) imposed by international banking cartels and a fundamental rejection of both internationalism and capitalism, seen as two sides of the same coin.

This is, of course, very similar to what we could refer to as "Putinism" even though Putin himself still goes out of his way not to overly antagonize the Anglosphere (if only because Russia is not strong enough yet to do so).  This French attraction to Russia is thus very natural.

The rest of Europe is, however, unlikely to join into this phenomenon.  Northern Europe, from Germany to the Scandinavian peninsula, is firmly under the control of the Anglosphere.  Central Europe, being even more spineless and intellectually dull, has turned into a confederation of US banana republics, and only in southern Europe is there a strong sense that something has gone terribly wrong and that new ideas are needed (hence the economic warfare waged by the international banking system against countries such as Greece, Spain or Italy).

Still, France is the country of revolutions par excellence and arguably still the intellectual powerhouse of Europe.  France it has the potential to become a trend-setter if it decides to do so.  It therefore shall be very interesting to see if the Depardieu-Bardot phenomenon will remain a one-time-only event, or if other signs of a growing Franco-Russian bond will begin to emerge.

The Saker

Nicolas Sarkozy ordered the assassination of Hugo Chavez

Voltaire Net reports:

The Venezuelan Minister of Correctional Services, Iris Varela, has announced on her Twitter account the expulsion of a French citizen known as Frédéric Laurent Bouquet, December 29, 2012


 
Mr. Bouquet (photo) had been arrested in Caracas on June 18, 2009, with three Dominican nationals in possession of an arsenal. In the apartment he had acquired, forensic police seized 500 grams of C4 explosives, 14 assault rifles including 5 with telescopic lenses, 5 with laser sighting and one with a silencer, special cables, 11 electronic detonators, 19,721 cartridges of different calibers, 3 machine guns, 4 hand guns of different calibers, 11 radios, 3 walkie talkies and a radio base, five 12-gauge shotguns, 2 bulletproof vests, 7 military uniforms, 8 grenades, one gas mask, one combat knife and 9 bottles of gunpowder.

During his trial, Mr. Bouquet admitted he had been trained in Israel and was an agent of French military intelligence service (DGSE). He admitted planning an attack to assassinate Constitutional President Hugo Chavez.

Mr. Bouquet had been sentenced to four years in prison for "illegal possession of weapons." He served his sentence. He was taken from his cell by Ordinance No. 096-12 of trial judge Yulismar Jaime, then was expelled for "undermining national security" under Article 39 paragraph 4 of the Migration and Foreigners Act.

French magazing to publish "shocking caricatures of the Prophet Mohammed"

Amazing. According to Ha'aretz,

A French satirical weekly magazine announced Tuesday it would publish caricatures depicting the Prophet Mohammed, a move that could spark further protests by Muslims already enraged at an internet video insulting Islam.   Stephane Charbonnier, editor of the weekly Charlie Hebdo, told broadcaster iTele that the caricatures to appear Wednesday "would shock those who wanted to be shocked." He said the decision was aimed at defending freedom of the press

Worthy of the Darwin Awards, if you ask me.

Excellent, the "gene pool" of the French "caviar-Left" badly needs some cleaning :-)

The Saker

Good news from France, Russia and Greece

Bad day for the Empire, good day for the rest of us.

First, Hollande won the Presidency in France.  Or, to put it in a more realistic way, Sarko lost.  Which is good, even if Hollande is likely to be as "Sarko light".  Sarko was all about rabid  turbocapitalism and Zionism, whereas Hollande at least pretends to care about social issues and has declared that he would recognize a Palestinian state.  Of course, Hollande will prove at least as sold out to the French Israel lobby as Sarko was, but at least this shows that the French Israel Lobby does not hold power over the French people, but only over the French government.  Finally, Sarko out is also good for Europe where Madam Merkel is now alone in trying to impose wealth on the bankers and austerity on everybody else.

The other good news comes from Moscow where the modestly named "March of the Millions" ended up bringing less than 10'000 people out in the streets.  And even though the demonstration had been allowed by the authorities, the organizers clearly had to compensate for their lack of numbers by breaking police cordons, beating up TV crews, and getting arrested.  Bottom line, the opposition is clearly desperate and using its last whiffs of energy to try to get some "repression" going, mostly for the Western audiences, really, and in particular their generous sponsors (Soros, the CIA, NED, etc.).

Finally, the pro-financier parties in Greece have suffered huge losses at the polls.  New Democracy (pseudo-democrats) down from 33% to 20% while PASOK (pseudo-socialists) crashed down from 44% to 14%.  These are provisional figures, but the trend is clear.

France, Russia and Greece - three traditionally very anti-capitalist countries (at least culturally, on the grassroots level) have today clearly shown the middle finger to Obama and his Zionist overlords.  Oh, I am not so naive as to think that now these countries will peacefully prosper.   What happened today is not so much a tectonic shift as a gradual erosion of Anglo-Zionist power.  But it might well be that 2012 will mark the beginning of a slow process of European decolonization.

The Saker

The French newspapers are really ridiculous...

This is the front page of the French magazine Le Figaro:

That's right - a Dubya-style "mission accomplished".  It took these folks 32 hours to get a single guy.  And they got at least three colleagues shot in the process...

Even the excuse "we were told to get him alive" is not credible.  There are plenty of "special technology weapons" which can be used to catch an armed terrorist which, in this case, was made even easier by the fact that he had no hostages and that the entire building was evacuated.  As a Russian anti-terrorist officer commented in the newspaper Rossiiskaia Gazeta, the use of special weapons such as "flash-bang" grenades and paralyzing gas should have made this a 3min operation, not a 32 hours one.

The French special police forces (RAID, GIPN, GIGN) have a very good reputation and some of their success were spectacular (remember the successful storming of the Air France Flight 8969 in 1994?).  I have no idea what went so wrong this time, but the kind of jingoistic flag-waving nonsense printed by Le Figaro is really only an embarrassment for the French police.

France leads the world in hypocrisy

Amazing, mind-boggling, brazenly hypocritical!

Check this out: the BBC reports that,

A top French judicial body has ruled a law backed by President Nicolas Sarkozy making it illegal to deny the Armenian genocide as unconstitutional as it infringes on freedom of expression.

Oh yeah?  Then what about the infamous Gayssot Act which is in the French law books since 1990!!

Some victims are clearly more equal than others...

Nothing new, but absolutely nauseating nevertheless.

Could the following have something to do with that? (in French only, sorry!)

France implicated in Hariri murder case

Press TV reports:

A witness who gave false testimony in the case of the murder of the former Lebanese premier says France had provided him with a forged passport to help him get away with perjury.

A report by the Volatairenet website said that France had provided Mohammed Zuhair Siddiq -- the key witness in the case of Rafiq Hariri's murder -- with a forged passport to grant him immunity from prosecution.

The report came amid accusations by the US and Israel against Syria and Hezbollah, claiming that traces of their involvement were found in Hariri's assassination in 2005.

According to the report, a UN probe committee headed by German prosecutor Detlev Mehlis had relied on the testimony given by Siddiq, who claimed to be a former senior Syrian intelligence official.

In his testimony, Siddiq had accused the Syrian and Lebanese presidents of masterminding the murder. He also accused seven Syrian and four Lebanese generals of organizing the assassination.

After presenting his testimony, Siddiq took refuge in the Spanish property of Rifaat al-Assad, who is the pro-US uncle of incumbent Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

Siddiq was then offered support by the French General Directorate for External Security (DGSE).

While being under the protection of DGSE, the French police department eavesdropped on his telephone calls and found out that Siddiq had lied to the tribunal tasked with probing Hariri's murder case that he was a senior Syrian official.

It was later reported in Lebanese media that Prime Minister Saad Hariri and Lebanon's Druze leader Walid Jumblatt had paid him to commit perjury.

In their defense, Hariri and Jumblatt denied paying for perjury, but admitted to having encouraged Siddiq to testify, believing he was sincere.

Siddiq was then arrested in France under an international arrest warrant issued by the Lebanese judiciary but was later released with Paris refusing to extradite him to Lebanon.

He was living in Paris for a while but later vanished into thin air in March 2008. The French government did not provide any explanation on the issue.

Siddiq was then traced in the UAE, where he was arrested and sentenced to six months in prison for carrying a forged Czech passport.

After being released from prison in the UAE, Siddiq told reporters that he received his passport from the office of French President Nicolas Sarkozy to escape Lebanese justice.

Hariri was Lebanon's most prominent politician since the end of the 1975-1990 civil war. He was killed in a massive truck bombing that set off a spiral of political turmoil in Lebanon.

Musings on yesterday's elections in Lebanon in France

It sure looks like yesterday was a good day for the USraelian empire as some of its most obsequious stooges won the elections they were participating in: Sarkozy, Cohen-Bendit, Hariri, Siniora and Jumblatt all did unexpectedly well. Not only that, but the Far Right also did rather well in the EU elections - always a good thing for Washington.

In France, the Anti-Zionist Party's list lead by Dieudonne only got 1,3% of the vote in the regions were it was running and the main Jewish organization in France, the CRIF, has already expressed its delight with this result.

Disappointing as it may be, that result must be seen in the following context:

a) The media blackout about the Anti-Zionist Party (PAS) was total. Even the (previously ostracized) National Front was given more time on the air. The PAS got literally nothing. Zilch.

b) The PAS had about one month to organize and to print only a few posters. All the other parties had years to prepare.

c) It is likely that there is a large proportion of PAS supporters among those who did not vote this Sunday and since the French law makes the voter registration process a slow process (with lists made up in March of each year only) it is a safe bet to assume that a lot of PAS supporters did not get to vote this time around.

d) The PAS undeniably lacks a competent campaign organization. Not only did they not succeed in systematically organize themselves, but they even committed rather stupid blunder like having Ilich Ramírez Sánchez aka "Carlos" call in on a press conference by Dieudonne and his supporters from the jail he is sitting in to express support for the list.

The reality is that the Anti-Sionist Party is not a real "party" at all, at least not yet. It is rather something of a club created by a group of outraged friends of Dieudonne who were joined by various anti-Zionists elements who might have been full of enthusiasm, but would could not compete against the Tsunami of pro-Zionist propaganda of the French state and corporate media, or even break against the wall of silence placed around the PAS by the French Ziomob.

I spent a couple of hours with some PAS supporters on a website hastily turned into a discussion group, and while nobody was too happy about the results, most were also quite confident that for a first try with a month old "party" and without any money this was not too bad either.

The key issue now is whether Dieudo and his friends will have the staying power to turn this one-time event into a real grassroots movement. Resistance to the USraelian Empire has always only been successful when it was based on a grassroots base of support. That is what made the difference in Iran, Venezuela, Lebanon, Bolivia and many other countries and that is the only way the iron grip of the Zionists on France can be slowly weakened. This is a long-term process which will take many many years, and only time will show if the PAS of Dieudo will have the ability to plan its future for the long term.

The situation in Lebanon is quite different. Several well-informed observers have noted that Hezbollah had little to gain and much to loose by unseating the Three Stooges from power in Lebanon. Proponents of this theory make a good case and this kind of "deliberate election loosing" is something which has been done in the past (I have always suspected that Putin and his supporters waited as long as was needed for Eltsin to become really universally hated before making their move). Still, it is hard for me to believe that Hezbollah could in any way let such obnoxious agents of Israel as the Three Stooges say in power one minute longer than was needed.

I also note that Hezbollah did not loose anything. It was Aoun's Free Patriotic Movement which lost votes, not Hezbollah. So did Hezbollah really want its allies Amal and the FPM to loose or, at least, "not win" these elections? I don't know, of course, but I am dubious.

Moreover, it is well known that thousands of Lebanese were flown in from abroad and that the CIA and Israel supported Three Stooges were given lavish support by their masters to make sure that the elections went the "right" way.

My guess is that yesterday's defeat has less to do with sly Hezbollah tactics as it does with bad old Lebanese corruption politics. That, and the sad fact that a substantial segment of the Lebanese population is willing to vote for those who are obsequious allies of the country which left Lebanon in ruins in 2006 and many times before. Call them corrupt, immoral or plain stupid, but the sad reality of Lebanon is that Hezbollah's worst enemy is neither in Israel nor in the USA, but in the back offices of Lebanese banks and business centers.

I am in no way a Marxist, but Lebanon seems to be a good illustration of the fact that class consciousness is a powerful factor in politics. How sad, really.

One thing is certain - both the French and the Lebanese will pay dearly for their vote. In France Sarkozy has been given free reign to engage in even more pro-American and pro-Israeli antics, and in Lebanon the tensions between the various groups will only get worse. In fact, the Israeli bosses of the Three Stooges have not waited even 24 hours before demanding the disarmament of Hezbollah. While the Three Stooges are unlikely to try that again - last time was humiliating enough - we can expect a covert operations galore by the Empire to further destabilize Lebanon.

For those who, like myself, love the French and the Lebanese yesterday was a sad day. Let us all hope that at least through the (now inevitable) pain to come will at least serve to unmask the empty promises of the Imperial proxies in power.

Dieudonne's anti-Zionist campaign in full swing in France

(For those of you who do not know who Dieudonne is, or what he does, please check my previous article on this topic here).

First, the big news is that the French government has not succeeded in outlawing Dieudonne's Anti-Zionist Party or the list he has presented for the upcoming European elections. Official polls put the party's estimated support at 4% which, considering who is running such polls in France, probably means that Dieudo has at least 8-10% support. That is, of course, not enough to make a difference in the European political scene, but that is more than enough to keep openly challenging the Zionist lobby in France.

In fact, Dieudo's campaign is in full swing. Check out the new posters his list has released:

Translation:

"For a Europe free from censorship, communitarianism (ethnicity based politics - VS) and NATO speculators - The Antisionist List"

I would add that it is rather amazing that such a movement would be allowed to exist anywhere in the West, and even more so in France as the power of the Zionist lobby is far greater in France than it is in the USA or, should I maybe say, it is more brazen, more arrogant, more overt. The one factor which proved decisive in this case is the fact that France, like all European countries, has a multi-party political system whereas the USA has, in essence, only one party split into two vaguely competing factions. A "Dieudonne" in the USA is simply impossible as long as a third party is impossible.

Another interesting feature in the Anti-Zionist Party's campaign is the support it is getting from French rap singers. Check out these two videos:







Amazing, no? Considering the explosive tensions between the French "banlieue" (suburban-ghettos) and the government, this double endorsement of Dieudonne and his anti-Zionist platform spells out major troubles for the Zionist lobby in France.

As is well known, French banlieues are heavily Black and Maghrebian which potentially gives an ethnic character to any governmental policy towards them. It now appears that Dieudonne's movement is turning what used to be the alienation of the French youth against the establishment directly at the most powerful component of that establishment: the Zionist lobby. This could very easily repeated in the rest of Europe. I would even argue that this evolution is probably inevitable. This simple truth has now been re-discovered: Zionist is a form of racism (which UN Resolution 3379 clearly declared before being revoked); it is also a form of neo-colonialism, imperialism and it is fundementally anti-democratic.

The other interesting feature of this movement is that is clearly links the Zionist lobby, Israel and the USA into one power structure, what Dieudonne once called "The Axis of Goodness" (again using humor to ridicule and denounce). The Israeli bloodbath is perceived as much as an American or French policy as an Israeli one. This analysis is, of course, fundamentally correct.

Considering how immensely unpopular the USA has become during the Dubya years and his GWOT (Global War on Terror) the merging of the ideas of USA and Zionist in the minds of the French and, possibly, European youth is a very worrying development for the Zionist lobbies everywhere. It would not be incorrect to see all this as a case of "blowback" for what Israel did, and still does, in Gaza.

Dieudonne supporters see themselves as opponents of racism, of course, but also of imperialism, capitalism, globalisation and neo-colonialism. They see countries like Russia, Iran, Venezuela or Bolivia as potential allies. In fact, the number 2 on Diedonne's list, Alain Soral, spoke of Russia as "our future". It appears that a growing segment of the alienated French youth has evolved from the mindless rage stage (throwing stones a cops) to a much more conscious and informed opposition to the system in place and its immoral policies.

All this is rather fascinating and I encourage you all to keep a close eye on the situation in France.

For those who speak French, check out the latest press conference of Dieudonne's list:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-pDQFq21A8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oj1FNhFAazc

Further information:

Anti-Zionist Party (in French)
Anti-Zionist List (in French)

Israel lobby commits major blunder in France: tries to silence a comedian

Amazing stuff is happening in France. It all began with a relatively well-known French-Cameroonian comedian, Dieudonné M'bala M'bala was invited to participate on a TV show on the channel France 3. The show also featured a Maghrebian artist and Dieudonne decided to impersonate an extremist Israeli settled infuriated by the presence of an Arab on a French show (for those of you who understand French, you can see an excerpt of his appearance that day here).

Dieudonne who, in the past, had always enjoyed ridiculing pretty much every segment of French society clearly had never expected the hysterical uproar that his humor would trigger that day: the huge constellation of French Zionists organizations lead by the notorious CRIF ("Representative Committee of Jewish organization in France" - the French version of AIPAC) immediately attacked Dieudonne, suing him for racists comments and suing him for "anti-Semitism" (a criminal offense in France). This was hardly the first time that the French Zionist mob had decided to crush an outspoken critic of its role in French politics or its unconditional support for the last racist state on the planet: Israel. But this time, the Ziomob miscalculated, badly.

Dieudonne began making the accusations of anti-Semitism made against him a central piece of his shows. Here is a sampling of the kind of the hilarious skits Dieudonne came up with:

Les racistes anonymes

L'antisemitisme

Peuple Elue

Mes excuses premiere partie

Mes excuses deuxieme partie

J'ai fait le con

Dieudonne et Faurisson au Zenith de Paris

Dieudonne et Faurisson 1

Dieudonne et Faurisson 2

This was not at all what the Ziomobsters in France had hoped to achieve when they attacked Dieudonne for his appearance on France 3. In response to his defiant stance, they then used their total control over the French political class to shut down his shows under the pretext that they would "threaten the public order". Dieudonne immediately replied that France is capable of providing the security needed for an event like the G8 summit, but not to let one comedian make his show.

Still, while in the past he had filled the biggest concert halls in France, Dieudonne was forced to perform his skits in a rented bus (you can see a report about this here). But Dieudo, has he is known, had one more thing up his sleeve.

His logic was simple: if I cannot use my freedom of speech as a comedian, why not use it as a politician?

Dieudo had already tried one to run for office a couple of times, but he never achieved any measure of success. This time, however, he came up with a stunning argument. Basically, Dieudo claims that the Left-Right chasm is an artificial and meaningless chasm in French politics and that the real issue which separates the parties in France is their attitude towards the Zionist ideology, the state of Israel, and the role of the Israel Lobby in France. Check out his press conference here:

Conference de presse de Dieudonne 1

Conference de presse de Dieudonne 2

Conference de presse de Dieudonne 3

Conference de presse de Dieudonne 4

Needless to say, the French political elites had a total hysterical breakdown at such inpudence. Doubleplusgoodthinking reporters and commentators declared that his political party had to be banned and that Dieudonne was probably mentally insane (the latter reminds me of the old trick invented by Yuri Andropov's KGB who used to declared that Soviet dissidents were "obviously" insane because how could any mentally sane person oppose the Soviet rule: QED).

Still, Dieudo did not back down and he has recently presented some of the members of his political movement "the Anti-Zionist Movement" running as candidates for the European Parliament. Here is the press conference of this event:

Conference de presse liste UE 1

Conference de presse liste UE 2

Conference de presse liste UE 3

Conference de presse liste UE 4

Candidats du Parti anti-sioniste: presentation

What is most interesting in this list is that its candidates come from every political movement imaginable. Unionists, nationalist conservatives, Roman-Catholics, Muslims, ex-Communists, Socialists, etc. Ethnically, everybody is also present. It appears that the Zionist threat is truly uniting many of those who until recently were virulently opposed to each other.

What is the potential of this political movement?

On one hand, the entire weight of the French political establishment is now coming crashing down on Dieudonne. Every politician, every newspaper, every commentator either completely ignores Dieudonne and his movement or, when they speak of him at all, it is with a vitriolic loathing which cannot be imagined. The French newspaper even calls him a "comedian" in quotation marks, showing that such a hideous figure as Dieudonne cannot be called a comedian or somebody who makes people laugh. The fury of the establishment is such that I find it very likely that Dieudonne's political movement will be simply banned and declared a criminal organization (in France, the membership in an organization declared illegal is considered a crime in itself). If not, Dieudonne might do very, very well.

The fact is that there are literally millions of French citizens from all parts of the society who are sick and tired of being ruled by a small group of mutually interchangeable elite (all of which is 100% loyal to anything Zionist or Israeli). The fact is that in the French "banlieue" (suburbs) there are hundred of thousands of Muslims who are outraged by the events in Gaza, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan and the constant threats against Iran. The fact is that the economic crisis had hit France - and the rest of the Eurozone - very badly and that more and more people are making the link between the Israeli-American model of globalization and the economic collapse of the world markets. In fact, I would say tha the potential of Dieudonne's movement is huge and that it represents a very real threat to the French and, beyond that, USraelien elites in the West.

The fact that Dieudonne himself is (half) Black, and that he succeeded in federating very different currents of the French society under his stance will make it impossible to simply ignore him. Can the French political establishment engage Dieudonne and prevail over him in an open political debate? Not in a million years. Banning Dieudonne's political party will, at best, be a stop-gap solution as we can be certain that Dieudo will sue the French courts in Brussels and that, if needed, he will simply re-compose his movement under another name.

Under the infulence of the recent immigrants to France, the French society is changing and it appears that while the "native" French did not have the wits and guts to take on the Ziomob in power, those who immigrated to France do have what it takes.

It is amazing to listen to these recent immigrants defending the secular and multi-ethnics nature of the French Republic and denoucing the ethnic and tribal nature of Jewish ortanizations in France. For example, Dieudo was once asked what he thought of the attemps made by such French Blacks to create an organization which woud speak for them. Dieudo rejected this approach, saying that the organization which should speak for them should be the French Parliament. Amazing idea, no?

Thanks to Dieudonne, Zionism is now finally being denounced as a tribal and racist, ideology and suport for Israel is now becoming as morally repugnant as support for Apartheid. The entire intellectual edifice which was carefully built by the Zionists in France for many decades is not coming crashing down because once these issues are out in the open, the Ziomob has already lost the key battle. In fact, Dieudo has said that he has already won the next election.

What will happen next? Dieudonne does not take his participation in the upcoming elections too seriously. As a typical comedian, he can sit there and say "I will bring you all to the light" with a serious face. When asked if he is really serious, her replies that nobody in French politics is serious and that the difference between him the the rest of the French politicians is that they are lousy comedians whereas he is a professional.

Humor as a weapon of liberation can be very powerful. The ridicule which Dieudonne is now heaping on the previously sacred cows of French Ziopropagnda, such as the "The Eternal Memory of the Shoah" (all in caps), and all the rest of the Zionist brainwashing toolkit might well prove to be a formidable weapon for which the Ziomob does not have a standard answer.

It will be very interesting to see what happens between now and June 7th - the next election.

In the meantime, here are some links to Dieudonne's non-political skits. Enjoy!

L"equipe du 11

Avant le mariage

Apres le mariage

Le garagiste

La prison

Le journaliste premiere partie

Le journaliste deuxieme partie

L'institutrice

L'avocat

Meet the Israel Lobby "à la française"

First: here is the 'approved" official version of the events by Ynet and AFP

French official sacked over for anti-Israel slur: Senior civil servant sacked for writing in online column Israel is 'only state where snipers shoot down little girls outside their school gates'

A French senior civil servant has been sacked for publishing a violent anti-Israeli diatribe on a website, the Interior Ministry said. The article was published on March 13 on the Oumma.com website, which serves the Muslim community in France. Bruno Guigue, deputy prefect of the southwestern town of Saintes, wrote that Israel was "the only state where snipers shoot down little girls outside their school gates."

The author of several books on the Israli-Palestinian conflict, Guigue wrote of the "Israeli jails where – thanks to religious law – they stop torturing on the Sabbath."

The article sparked a row in the country and was harshly condemned by politicians from all sides of the political arena. Interior Minister Michele Alliot-Marie dismissed the official after learning of the column on Wednesday, the ministry said.

Oumma.com, which is said to have 6 million unique users per month, presents itself as "the first website for French-speaking Muslims worldwide." According to its owners, it helps to distribute cultural and civil information and advance the dialogue on integration and the representation of Muslims in Europe and in the French-speaking world.
-------

This is the full text of the article:

Quand le lobby pro-israélien se déchaîne contre l’ONU

Par Bruno Guigue

Dans sa rubrique « Point de vue » du 27 février 2008, « Le Monde » a généreusement offert ses colonnes à un texte d’une hystérie verbale et d’une mauvaise foi insondables. Les accusations qu’il profère à l’égard du conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU sont si mensongères que même la liste des signataires ne tempère qu’à peine notre stupéfaction : Pascal Bruckner, Alain Finkielkraut, Claude Lanzmann, Elie Wiesel, Pierre-André Taguieff, Frédéric Encel .. On peut facilement compléter la liste tant l’omniprésence des intellectuels organiques du lobby pro-israélien nous est devenue familière.

Le titre sans nuances de cette prose haineuse est déjà tout un programme : « L’ONU contre les droits de l’homme ». Dès les premières lignes, on peut y lire cet appel angoissé : « L’année 2008 verra-t-elle simultanément le soixantième anniversaire de la déclaration universelle des droits de l’homme par l’ONU et la destruction de ses principes par la même ONU ? Tout porte à le redouter, tant depuis un certain nombre d’années, par ses dérives, l’ONU s’est caricaturée ». Inévitablement le lecteur non averti s’alarme : l’organisation internationale serait-elle brusquement devenue suicidaire ?

Mais par bonheur la suite nous éclaire aussitôt sur les préoccupations profondes de nos signataires : « A Durban, en Afrique du Sud, s’est tenue en 2001 la conférence mondiale contre le racisme, à l’initiative des Nations-Unies. C’est au nom des droits des peuples que furent scandés des « mort à l’Amérique ! » et « mort à Israël ! » et c’est au nom du relativisme culturel qu’on fit silence sur les discriminations et violences commises contre les femmes ».

Quel rapport entre la géopolitique du Moyen-Orient, manifestement en cause dans les appels à combattre les Etats-Unis et Israël, et l’oppression des femmes que viendrait cautionner le « relativisme culturel » ? Probablement aucun. Mais amalgamer les deux sujets présente l’intérêt polémique de suggérer une pernicieuse concurrence entre les victimes : vous qui condamnez Israël et l’Amérique, vous ne dites rien de la souffrance des femmes opprimées dans les pays musulmans. C’est une antienne dont la rhétorique lobbyiste est coutumière : elle permet de détourner le lecteur occidental de la critique de la politique américaine ou israélienne en fixant son attention sur un problème interne des sociétés moyen-orientales.

Ce rapprochement polémique entre les deux sujets, pourtant, est particulièrement cocasse. L’Arabie saoudite, où le port du voile est obligatoire et les femmes interdites de conduite automobile, est l’alliée historique des Etats-Unis dans la région. Le régime obscurantiste des talibans, lui, a vu le jour sous les auspices d’une CIA qui a prêté ses camps d’entraînement sur le sol américain aux combattants du mollah Omar. En revanche, l’Irak et la Syrie baasistes, plus proches de la norme occidentale en matière de condition féminine, n’eurent pas droit aux mêmes égards. Le premier a été pulvérisé sous les bombes US, la seconde est rangée dans la catégorie des « Etats voyous ». Mais peu importe : les partisans de la politique américaine au Moyen-Orient se croient fondés à donner des leçons en matière d’émancipation féminine.

S’agissant de l’ONU, en outre, on ne s’étonnera guère d’un tel ressentiment de la part des porte-parole du néoconservatisme à la française. Car les résolutions du conseil des droits de l’homme, comme hier les déclarations de l’assemblée générale, ont osé mettre en cause la répression israélienne en Palestine occupée. Les 47 Etats élus par leurs pairs au CDH bénéficient de l’égalité de vote. La sensibilité qui s’y exprime reflète donc une opinion majoritaire qui n’a aucune raison de cautionner l’occupation militaire des territoires arabes. Que les thuriféraires d’Israël, cependant, se rassurent : ces résolutions demeurent symboliques à défaut d’être exécutoires. Mais ce n’est pas suffisant. Il leur faut aussi en stigmatiser le principe par un usage grossier de la calomnie.

C’est à quoi s’emploient rageusement les signataires. « Par sa mécanique interne, les coalitions et les alliances qui s’y constituent, les discours qui s’y tiennent, les textes qui s’y négocient et la terminologie utilisée anéantissent la liberté d’expression, légitiment l’oppression des femmes et stigmatisent les démocraties occidentales .. Le CDH est devenu une machine de guerre idéologique à l’encontre de ses principes fondateurs. Ignorée des grands médias, jour après jour, session après session, résolution après résolution, une rhétorique politique est forgée pour légitimer les passages à l’acte et les violences de demain ».

Symptôme d’une psychose paranoïaque ou monument de la démonologie occidentale : on hésite sur le diagnostic. La seule certitude, c’est que ce réquisitoire contre des forfaits inexistants témoigne d’une inventivité hors du commun. Le conseil des droits de l’homme de l’ONU voudrait « anéantir la liberté d’expression » ? On se demande bien pourquoi et comment. Mais nos interrogations demeurent sans réponse. Nos polémistes annoncent « la mise à mort de l’universalité des droits » par l’ONU elle-même, mais cette mort annoncée reste nimbée de mystère. Aucune citation des résolutions du CDH ne vient étayer cette accusation, et les détracteurs de l’ONU condamnent ses idées supposées avec une violence inversement proportionnelle aux preuves de ce qu’ils avancent. Visiblement, ils préfèrent parler à sa place en procédant directement au commentaire de ce qu’elle est censée avoir dit.

En guise de citations, on doit alors se contenter des propos résumés au style indirect, sans guillemets, qu’aurait tenus M. Doudou Diène, rapporteur spécial sur le racisme, la discrimination raciale et la xénophobie auprès de l’ONU. L’intellectuel sénégalais aurait ainsi déclaré qu’« énoncer une critique contre le port de la burqa constitue une agression raciste, que la laïcité est ancrée dans une culture esclavagiste et colonialiste, et que la loi française contre le port des signes religieux à l’école participe du racisme antimusulman ». Seul problème : ces citations sont introuvables. Si chacun de ces énoncés soulève évidemment des objections, encore faut-il qu’il ait été formulé. Une polémique grossière sur des citations qui n’en sont pas : le procédé condamne ses auteurs.

Au demeurant, les seules citations que les idéologues publiés par « Le Monde » auraient dû produire à l’appui de leur propre thèse sont celles du CDH lui-même. Mais ils se gardèrent bien de le faire. Livrant leur interprétation tendancieuse en lieu et place de la pensée d’autrui, ils pérorent gravement en prenant leur fantasme pour la réalité : « La confusion est à son comble, affirment-ils, quand est dénoncée comme une attitude raciste toute critique de la religion ». Mais d’où vient cette idée ? Qui l’a émise ? Nul ne le sait. N’importe qui, en revanche, peut vérifier ce qu’a énoncé le CDH sur la question religieuse. Il suffit de consulter les compte-rendus officiels des six sessions réunies depuis sa création en juin 2006.

Le 30 mars 2007, le CDH a ainsi adopté une résolution « sur la lutte contre la diffamation des religions ». Ce texte nuancé insiste sur « le droit de chacun à la liberté d’expression, qui devrait s’exercer de façon responsable et peut donc être soumis à de restrictions, prescrites par la loi et nécessaires pour le respect des droits ou de la réputation d’autrui, la protection de la sécurité nationale, de la santé ou de la morale publiques, et le respect des religions et des convictions ». Sur le plan des principes, ce texte ne diffère guère du droit positif en vigueur dans la plupart des pays, les Etats occidentaux ayant eux aussi entouré l’exercice de la liberté d’expression de certaines limites juridiques. En France, la reconnaissance de la liberté d’expression n’entraîne aucun droit à diffamer son voisin, toute forme d’injure manifestant une discrimination raciale ou religieuse est punie par la loi, et certaines dispositions législatives ont même eu pour effet d’énoncer une vérité officielle sur des faits historiques.

Naturellement, la teneur de cette résolution du CDH n’est pas indifférente au contexte politique lié à la « guerre contre le terrorisme » menée tambour battant par Washington. « Le Conseil se déclare préoccupé par les images stéréotypées négatives des religions et par les manifestations d’intolérance et de discrimination en matière de religion ou de conviction. Il se déclare en outre profondément préoccupé par les tentatives visant à associer l’islam avec le terrorisme, la violence et les violations des droits de l’homme. Il note avec une vive inquiétude l’intensification de la campagne de diffamation des religions, et la désignation des minorités musulmanes selon des caractéristiques ethniques et religieuses depuis les événements tragiques du 11 septembre 2001 ».

L’adoption de ce texte s’est heurtée à l’opposition des pays occidentaux, mis en minorité lors du vote final. Aucun d’entre eux n’y a vu, toutefois, le danger mortel pour la civilisation universelle que dénoncent les signataires de notre pamphlet antionusien. Au nom de l’Union européenne, la représentante de l’Allemagne « a fait remarquer que, comme l’a établi le rapport de M. Doudou Diène, la discrimination fondée sur la religion ne concerne pas uniquement l’islam, mais également le judaïsme, le christianisme et des religions et croyances venues d’Asie, ainsi que des personnes sans religion. Elle a également souligné qu’il est problématique de séparer la discrimination fondée sur la religion des autres formes de discrimination. Elle a aussi jugé l’utilisation du concept de diffamation contre-productive, préconisant plutôt un texte axé sur la liberté de religion ou de conviction ».

Que ce débat témoigne d’une différence de sensibilité sur les questions religieuses entre pays membres de l’organisation de la conférence islamique (OCI) et pays occidentaux est une évidence. Cela méritait une réflexion sur la sécularisation relative des sociétés concernées et la référence, explicite dans les pays musulmans, à des valeurs religieuses. Mais cette réflexion n’effleura même pas l’esprit de nos intrépides signataires qui, faute d’avoir lu les textes auxquels ils font vaguement allusion, en dénaturent volontairement la signification. Refusant de discuter rationnellement les arguments de l’autre, on préfère le stigmatiser en imaginant une dramaturgie grossière mettant en scène des personnages réels. Ce théâtre de marionnettes, du coup, tient lieu d’argumentaire.

C’est ainsi que nos signataires s’en prennent violemment à Mme Louise Arbour, haut-commissaire aux droits de l’homme de l’ONU. « Elle a participé à une conférence à Téhéran consacrée aux droits de l’homme et à la diversité culturelle, dénoncent-ils. Portant le voile, comme la loi de la république islamique l’exige, la haut-commissaire a été le témoin passif de l’énoncé de principes à venir, ainsi résumés : offense aux valeurs religieuses considérée comme raciste. Bien pire, dès le lendemain de cette visite, vingt et un Iraniens, dont plusieurs mineurs, furent pendus en public. C’est en sa présence que le président Ahmadinejad a renouvelé son appel à la destruction d’Israël ».

Encore une fois, l’art de l’amalgame intellectuel atteint des sommets. Mêlant tout et son contraire, le texte publié par « Le Monde » mise sur la confuse indignation du lecteur en anesthésiant au passage son jugement critique. Louise Arbour portait le voile à Téhéran, soit. Mais aurait-elle pu, en Israël, organiser une réunion pendant le shabbat ? Les régimes religieux ont des exigences que n’ont pas les autres. On peut le déplorer, mais ils sont chez eux. L’offense à la religion, dans certains pays, est considérée comme une forme de racisme. Faut-il que nous allions les convaincre du contraire, et de quelle manière ? La peine de mort, enfin, est cruellement appliquée en Iran. Mais les aspects odieux du régime de Téhéran ne le résument pas pour autant, et le régime saoudien n’a rien à lui envier. Surtout pas l’amitié des Etats-Unis, où un président texan a été élu sur sa réputation d’exécuteur intraitable des criminels supposés. Sans parler d’Israël, seul Etat au monde dont les snipers abattent des fillettes à la sortie des écoles.

Les diatribes iraniennes contre l’Etat hébreu relèvent, elles, d’un affrontement géopolitique dont l’un des principaux paramètres est l’attitude d’Israël lui-même. S’il avait appliqué la peine de mort aux civils palestiniens avec davantage de discernement depuis soixante ans, il n’aurait pas suscité un tel rejet de la part de ses voisins proches ou éloignés. Sous occupation militaire, amputés d’une partie de leur territoire, ou régulièrement bombardés par son aviation, ces derniers ont d’excellentes raisons de le détester. Mais peu importe. Décidés à instruire à charge contre Mme Arbour pour son séjour à Téhéran, nos polémistes incriminent « son silence et sa passivité », qu’elle aurait justifiés par « le respect de la loi iranienne et le souci de ne pas offenser ses hôtes ».

« Charbonnier est maître chez soi, commentent-ils. C’est le docteur Goebbels qui utilisait cet argument d’opportunité, à la tribune de la Société des nations en 1933, pour se soustraire à toute critique d’une institution internationale impuissante ». On croit rêver. Car, analogie pour analogie, frappante est la ressemblance entre le Reich qui s’assied sur la SDN en 1933 et l’Etat hébreu qui bafoue le droit international depuis 1967. Comme son lointain prédécesseur, Israël, lui aussi, se « soustrait à toute critique d’une institution internationale impuissante ». Et s’il le fait, c’est pour mieux conquérir « son espace vital, de la mer au Jourdain », selon la belle formule employée par Effi Eitam, ministre d’Ariel Sharon, en 2002.

« Les grands crimes politiques ont toujours eu besoin de mots pour se légitimer. La parole annonce le passage à l’acte », philosophent nos signataires. Ils n’ont pas tort : le 29 février, le vice-ministre israélien de la Défense Matan Vilnaï a brandi la menace d’une « shoah » contre les Palestiniens avant de lancer à Gaza la sanglante opération qui fit 110 victimes palestiniennes en une semaine. Quitte à enfreindre un tabou religieux, l’Etat hébreu, manifestement, a franchi un cap sémantique avant de déchaîner sa puissance militaire : il est passé « de la parole à l’acte ».

Mais le meilleur a été gardé pour la fin. « Les idéologies totalitaires avaient remplacé les religions. Leurs crimes, les promesses non tenues d’avenir radieux ont ouvert grande la porte au retour de Dieu en politique. Le 11 septembre 2001, quelques jours après la fin de la conférence de Durban, c’est bien au nom de Dieu que le plus grand crime terroriste de l’histoire fut commis ». Lier dans une même trame le 11 septembre 2001 et les résolutions du CDH, il fallait oser. Il est vrai que nous avons affaire à des spécialistes.

« Retour de Dieu en politique », disent-ils. Nos intellectuels savent de quoi ils parlent : Israël n’est-il pas l’Etat confessionnel par excellence ? « Si la revendication d’un coin de terre est légitime, affirmait Theodor Herzl, alors tous les peuples qui croient en la Bible se doivent de reconnaître le droit des juifs ». Bibliquement établie, la légitimité d’un Etat juif en Palestine va de soi : le texte sacré tient lieu de titre de propriété. Pour les sionistes religieux, le retour des juifs en Eretz Israël est inscrit dans le récit de l’Alliance lui-même. Prendre possession de la terre que Dieu a donnée aux juifs fait partie du plan divin, et ce serait le contrarier que de renoncer à cette offrande.

Du coup, aucun compromis n’est possible avec les Arabes. En 1947, le grand rabbin de Palestine martelait le statut théologique du futur Etat juif : « C’est notre forte conviction que personne, ni individu, ni pouvoir institué, n’a le droit d’altérer le statut de la Palestine qui a été établi par droit divin ». Chef du parti national-religieux, le général Effi Eitam expliquait à son tour en 2002 : « Nous sommes seuls au monde à entretenir un dialogue avec Dieu en tant que peuple. Un Etat réellement juif aura pour fondement le territoire, de la mer au Jourdain, qui constitue l’espace vital du peuple juif ». Au moins, c’est limpide.

Rien d’étonnant, par conséquent, à ce que le lobby pro-israélien exècre l’ONU : son appétence pour le droit international est inversement proportionnelle à son engouement pour le droit divin. Il est vrai que l’un est infiniment plus favorable au Grand Israël que l’autre. Percuter les résolutions de l’ONU avec la Thora relève de l’exploit intellectuel et du prodige politique : Israël l’a fait. Pour nos signataires, « c’est au nom de Dieu que le plus grand crime terroriste de l’histoire fut commis ». Ce n’est pas tout à fait faux, à condition d’inclure dans l’analyse l’Etat hébreu, cet artefact colonial bâti au forceps sur les ruines de la Palestine au nom de la Bible et de la Shoah.

A propos de terrorisme, l’Etat d’Israël, qui plus est, peut se targuer d’un palmarès hors compétition. Les odieux attentats du 11 septembre 2001 ont fait dix fois moins de victimes que le siège de Beyrouh par Tsahal en 1982. Ses admirateurs occidentaux doivent certainement s’extasier sur les prouesses d’une armée capable de tuer aussi aisément des enfants avec des missiles. Ils doivent aussi se confondre d’admiration devant les geôles israéliennes, où grâce à la loi religieuse, on s’interrompt de torturer durant le shabbat. L’Etat hébreu mérite bien ce concert de louanges que les intellectuels organiques lui décernent à longueur de colonnes. Et quelle outrecuidance, de la part de l’ONU, de vouloir fourrer son nez sale dans les affaires intérieures israéliennes !

A l’instar des pires calomnies, les accusations publiées dans « Le Monde » du 27 février se sont répandues sur la toile. Elles suscitent sur certains blogs des commentaires haineux que l’on ose à peine citer. M. Doudou Diène y est qualifié de « défenseur de la secte du pédophile fou et des adorateurs du caillou ». On y lit que « depuis les invasions musulmanes le croissant fertile est devenu le croissant stérile, et la civilisation a émigré en Occident ». Sur l’ONU, un internaute déchaîné résume à sa façon l’article publié par « Le Monde » : « l’ONU, c’est un ramassis de la racaille islamiste et tiers-mondiste ». Qu’attend-on pour supprimer l’ONU ? Ce sera encore plus simple. Islamophobie déclarée, haine du monde arabe, stupéfiante arrogance occidentale, tout y est. Opération réussie, mesdames et messieurs les intellectuels organiques.

Bruno Guigue
Diplômé de l’Ecole normale supérieure et de l’ENA
Auteur de "Proche-Orient : la guerre des mots", Harmattan, 2003
-------

Commentary: the case of Bruno Guigue illustrates something which most people outside Europe (and often even inside!) are usually not aware of: there is an Israel Lobby in Europe too, and while the nations in hijacks are not nearly as powerful as the USA, at least in military terms, they are no less submitted to the influence of the Lobby. The situation in Europe is even made worse by the fact that there is no European equivalent of the First Amendment right, thus anyone daring to research the history of the genocide of Jews during World War II and who could come to the wrong conclusions about the scope, scale or methods used by the Nazis risks being jailed. The election of Sarkozy, an Ueber-Neocon even by French standards, marked the big "coming out" of the Lobby in France which now imposes its rule with a brazen arrogance quite unthinkable under Mitterand or Chirac (not that the Lobby was not active then, it was, only in a much less visible manner). All this just goes to show that, alas, Europe is very much part of the Empire and nobody should expect anything constructive to come from there for a long, long while.

PS: check out another good piece by Guigue here: Stupéfiante indulgence pour un Etat voyou

Pakistan's Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman condemns French war threat to Iran

ISLAMABAD: Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Mushahid Hussain Sayed on Wednesday condemned the French government’s threat of a new war with Iran over its nuclear programme.

French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner had said that the world should brace for a possible war over Iran’s nuclear programme. “We’ve to prepare for the worst, and the worst is war,” he had said in a television interview.

Mushahid, in a statement, said it was the height of irresponsibility on the part of the French leader to talk of another war in the Muslim world when the Iraq adventure had abysmally failed, and the war in Afghanistan was not succeeding either.

He said that one of the major lessons, post 9/11, was that military might was not an answer to political problems, whether it be the Israeli aggression against Lebanon, US invasion of Iraq or the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation intervention in Afghanistan.

He said the recent revelation by former US Federal Reserve head Alan Greenspan in his book, that the motivation in the US war on Iraq was oil, had exposed the true nature of the war that has already incurred costs of over $500 billion.

He said issues pertaining to Iran’s nuclear programme should be resolved on the pattern of North Korea through dialogue, discussions and incentives and not through sanctions, threat of war or the use of force.

He said all political forces in Pakistan would strongly oppose any attack on Iran since a new war in the Muslim world would destabilise the region including Pakistan, and do irreparable damage to relations between the West and the Muslim world. Mushahid said the international community, including the Muslim ummah, the Gulf Cooperation Council countries and the International Atomic Energy Agency had rejected any notion of sanctions or war against Iran. He said that dialogue was the only way out, or else the region would face serious crises with uncontrollable consequences.

Interview with Iran's Foreign Ministry Spokesman Mohammad Ali Hosseini

By Franak Amidi, Press TV, Tehran

Q: It seems that the United States has found a new European ally and that the Anglo-American and Franco-German alliances don't exist any longer. France has adopted a hostile stance against Iran, especially toward its role in the Middle East. What is Iran's reaction to the shift in French foreign policy?

A: Perhaps it is the Western media, which issues statements, suggesting that France is also in the US camp. We believe that this is a premature assumption, although we confirm that such efforts are happening. This might be the main reason behind the policies of some French officials, who have adopted more extreme policies towards Iran's nuclear issue.

Of course, we are surprised by this change in traditional French policies. We have been acting in accordance with the rules and regulations of the IAEA since it is the only reliable center to review the technical and legal aspects of our nuclear program. We expect France to adopt a more realistic stance. If high-ranking French officials review their stances on Iran's peaceful nuclear activities, the results will run counter to what the Western media has been saying.


Q: Do you see this change due to a change of government in France? As you know some reports suggested that the United States has changed its unilateral policy and this policy shift is attracting some countries like France to the US, what do you think?

A: We see no changes in the hostile US policies, which have never ceased, against our country. The harsh US reaction to the IAEA report on Iran's nuclear program is a good example. The Iran-IAEA agreement has not brought about any change in the US approach toward Iran; although some American officials did offer support for the agreement, it is not enough.

We believe that France has supported Iran's peaceful nuclear activities in the past, but they have set forth some points, which are very close to US policies. We have repeatedly emphasized that Iran and France should make use of their good relations. The more the French government's policies are in line with the realities of international and regional arenas, the more it will help the expansion of Iran-France relations in the future.

Q: As you mentioned earlier, the United States intends to do some maneuvering concerning Iran's nuclear case, but it seems that it can't even manage to influence public opinion at home. Consequently, it has focused on other issues, like accusing Iran of sending arms to Iraq, which are supposedly then used against American soldiers, or even going beyond that and accusing Iran of having a hand in the escalating crisis in Afghanistan and supporting the Taliban. What are Iran's policies to counter these threats?

A: These accusations are not new. We have repeatedly dismissed such baseless allegations. Up to now, the US has not provided any documentation or other proof supporting these accusations, since they are determined not to take the responsibility for the Iraq debacle, it is necessary for them to put the blame on another country.

Apparently, the US president has chosen the easy way out, but this will not help him solve his problems in Iraq. The best way to resolve the crisis in Iraq would be to wake up and face reality after a 4-to-5-year futile presence in the war-torn country.

More than 700,000 Iraqis have been killed and injured and thousands of others have become homeless. Non-Americans and even Americans admit that the US is sinking in a quagmire.

Q: According to the western media, the United States plans to attack Iran or isolate the country. How do you assess this claim?

A: As I said earlier, the best, and most logical way for the United States, is to face realities. The easy way is to either put the blame on others or make the Iraqi government look inefficient. What the US is undertaking is a betrayal of public opinion, but what Iran has to do is to explain the basis of its relations with the Iraqi nation.

Restoration of security and peace in Iraq will also secure Iran and other regional states. We have to explain to the world that Iran would not benefit from instability in Iraq.

Iran was the first country to recognize the new Iraqi government and it has always supported the country's popular administration; Iran has had a great role in Iraq's reconstruction and it has had many business transactions with the country.

Any country, which establishes an embassy in a country under such critical conditions, is surly eager to bring security back to that country, and I would like to point out here that there are countries that are not willing to open embassies in Iraq.

All Iraqi officials have acknowledged Iran's positive role in the country's reconstruction. We have to help the Iraqi and American nations, and the people of the region realize this fact. We need explain Iran's policies to the world.

In my opinion, this is the most logical path for Iran. We have to strengthen our relations, develop our cooperation with neighboring states and support regional cooperation organizations. We will spare no effort in supporting the Iraqi government.

Before I talk about the security problem that faces the Iraqi government, I must mention that it does not have sufficient authority to implement security. After a 4 to 5 year presence in the country, US forces have not handed over the responsibility of the country's security to the Iraqi government. I think Iraqi officials would be able to restore security in their own country much better than US forces. The problem is that the United States does not want to accept such an idea.

Q: Iran has never recognized the Taliban. The US alleges that Iran has ties with this terrorist group. What is your opinion about the allegations?

A: The United States follows the very same policy in Iraq and Afghanistan. We have always supported the Afghan people and have had the most important role in reconstructing Afghanistan.

Terrorist groups in Afghanistan were either created by crooked US policies or supported by the US after their formation. The US turned a blind eye to their terrorist acts in Afghanistan and Iraq.

As I have said many times before, the stability and security of Iran's borders, including the country's border with Afghanistan, is in the best interests of the Islamic Republic. It is clear that security in Afghanistan will provide security for Iran as well.

We have always supported the Afghan government as it is elected and supported by the Afghan nation.

Western countries have promised many things to help the Afghan people, yet according to the people of Afghanistan, the Islamic Republic has had the biggest role in the reconstruction of their country.

Ask the West how many of their promises have been fulfilled. The Islamic Republic has tried to help the Afghan government by supporting it, as well as providing economic assistance and contributing to the reconstruction of the country.

The West accuses Tehran of supporting the terrorist groups based in Afghanistan or Iraq. These groups were actually formed either as a result of Washington's twisted policies in the region, or in some fashion, the groups were backed by the United States after they were formed.

The United States has somehow overlooked their terrorist acts in the region.

The terrorists, currently based in Iraq, are endangering the security of Turkey and Iran. They have used the presence of occupiers in Iraq as an excuse for their existence. The occupiers and these groups have held meetings in which the terrorists have been supported by the United States to continue terrorizing the region.

We have confronted countless weapon smugglers on our borders with Iraq and many of our soldiers have been killed.

Q: The Western media and the international community make it looks that it is Iran that smuggles weapons into Iraq. Why doesn't Iran move to counter such allegations? For example, the terrorist group PJAK based in Kurdistan; everybody knows that PJAK is a mercenary of the US and Washington supports it. Why don't we reveal the facts about them?

A: It is not true. There have been media works to reveal the facts. We have been trying to adopt an active approach in our diplomacy. For example, we have always been willing to expand ties and cooperation with Iraq, Afghanistan, or the Persian Gulf littoral states. We believe that by promoting cooperation in the region, groups like PJAK would not been provided with the opportunity to go on with their acts. The tactic has been successful and fruitful, so far.

Again, the existence of such groups is because of the incorrect policies of some governments, and their activities have been overlooked by certain countries. These are tricks by these governments to extend their stay in the region.