Tuesday, July 31, 2007
Coming out
Je souhaiterais répondre aux divers appels qui clignotent sur une certaine blogosphère.
Cette page en appelle à un "Mai 68 de droite" >>> ;
Polydamas y souscrit et l'enrichit >>> ;
le Grand Charles évoque la problématique de la "visiblité de la réacosphère" >>> ;
une autre page compile "300 sites francophones de droite" >>> ;
ILYS concentre une liste de liens anticonformistes en tous genres >>> ;
HappyFruits lance un portail de la pensée dissidente et/ou antimoderne >>> ;
etc.
De plus en plus de petits nouveaux se lancent dans la blogosphère, et je suis heureusement surpris de la qualité qu'on y trouve.
Il y a un vrai besoin de liberté, un vrai besoin de critique pertinente envers notre temps, une détestation raisonnée et nécessaire d'une modernité qui perd totalement les pédales.
Quand je lis des blogs comme Le Bal Des Dégueulasses, Gai Lulu, Psychothérapeute, RectitudineSto, Grincheux grave, P.O.S.T., Polydamas, Les Enfants de la Zone Grise, Le Grand Charles, Polyphème, Isabelle des Charbinières, ChicType, – j'en oublie des dizaines !!!
–, il est évident qu'il existe une grande diversité dans la mouvance "néo-réac", mais qu'il y existe une vraie intelligence, un véritable appel à la Raison autant qu'à la Foi.
Cette galaxie complexe illustre l'évidence que la liberté, l'impertinence, l'insoumission, la culture, la dérision,... ne sont pas les chasses gardées de la "Gauche" et du Camp du Progrès en général.
Il suffit de lire certaine brillante analyse de Barton Fink chez l'un, certaine condamnation éclairée de l'ineptie de la "silver ring" chez l'autre, la vacuité imbécile du quotidien moderne chez de nombreux autres. La blogosphère est riche de gens qui ont des lettres, de l'esprit, de la verve, des argumentaires mûrs pour défendre leur foi, des armes pour contrer l'imbécillité ravie de l'an 2000. [1]
Mais, pour autant, je ne crois pas – du moins pour le moment – que la "réacosphère" doive gagner sa "lisibilité" sur le support internet.
En l'état actuel des choses, elle ne gagnera jamais sa crédibilité auprès du [grand] public si elle reste sous ce format.
Telle qu'elle existe pour le moment, elle touche des gens, elle fait réfléchir un certain public, elle suscite l'enthousiasme dans un lectorat qui n'est pas négligeable, elle est lue et appréciée, je pense sincèrement qu'elle est un grand bol d'air pour pas mal de monde.
Elle est l'espace qui permet d'échapper enfin au formatage orchestré par un Système anonyme et qui répète partout le même discours, même s'il se prétend de la Diversité©.
On ne sait plus si les hommes politiques sont des prêtres, des nutritionnistes ou des juges ; on ne sait plus si la culture est un marché capitaliste en prime-time ou une démarche citoyenne de solidarité obligatoire à ruban rouge ;
on ne sait plus si les frontières sont une insulte aux Droits de l'Homme, si Molière est un auteur antifasciste, ou si Jules César a inventé les chambres à gaz ; les codes modernes étouffent complètement la lisibilité du monde autant que la possibilité de sa splendor veritas.
Les gens ressentent le besoin de lire des choses comme ça, ils sont rassurés de savoir qu'ils ne sont pas seuls à pester contre le Parti de la Tolérance™ et de la Diversité,
contre le festivisme pathologique des Mutins de Panurge,
contre le citoyennisme comme seule transcendance,
contre le baratin satisfait des Trissotin des musées d'art contemporain.
Ils savent que quelque part, on pense encore, on résiste contre la mollesse et la tiédeur consentie démocratiquement.
Sans vouloir jouer la carte de l'autosatisfaction, je peux affirmer que par l'intermédiaire de mes blogs, j'ai reçu beaucoup de messages de remerciements et de sympathie de la part de lecteurs. Tous vont dans le même sens :
les gens en ont marre de la propagande de l'AFP, de la bien-pensance lyophilisée, et de la tolérance institutionnalisée envers tout et n'importe quoi.
Il est difficile d'agréger sur un même projet la somme des sensibilités de la "réacosphère".
Certains s'inscrivent dans une Tradition chrétienne,
d'autres se revendiquent d'un certain libéralisme conservateur,
d'autres encore du paganisme antimoderne,
certains de l'anarchisme [de droite, of course !], etc.
Pourtant, je voudrais prendre un exemple simple, qui fonctionne un peu partout en France depuis des décennies, et avec un certain succès.
Les radios associatives fonctionnent très bien [2] malgré la grande diversité des mouvances qui la peuplent.
Des radios comme Radio Campus [Lille] ou Radio Canut [Lyon] proposent une grille des programmes de ce genre :
8:00 > 10:00 : Émission féministe
10:00 > 11:00 : Programme reggae-ragga-dub
11:00 > 13:00 : L'actualité gay et lesbienne
14:00 > 15:00 : Chanson française [engagée]
15:00 > 17:00 : Émission bilingue français-espagnol à la gloire des démocraties révolutionnaires latino-américaines
17:00 > 19:00 : L'actualité de la scène musicale idépendante
19:00 > 20:00 : Le forum des militants altermondialistes
20:00 > 21:00 : "La société pue", analyse de l'actualité et de la politique françaises [rubrique animé par Nénesse et Gégé depuis 1973 sans interruption]
21:00 > 22:00 : Une heure de grind-core finlandais commentée par un mec hyper pointu
22:00 > 00:00 : Deux heures d'actualité et de débat sur l'anarchisme révolutionnaire [entrecoupé de la musique idoine]
Vous voyez, la recette d'une certaine diversité [3] peut marcher.
Au sein de la diversité, un fil directeur se dégage, un esprit se démarque, un courant de pensée global devient lisible et, malgré tout, très cohérent.En tout cas, on peut très bien agréger dans un même "paquet" un chroniqueur politique, un critique culturel, un animateur satirique, un DJ éclairé, etc. !!
Pour donner du corps aux volontés éparses, faut-il imaginer un support radio ?
Une web-TV ?
Une publication en papier ?
Un super-site ouaibe plus ou moins associatif mais régenté par un minimum de discipline pour assurer sa cohérence et sa crédibilité ?
Je lance quelques petites pistes, et manifeste mon envie de faire émerger le projet.
[1] Je dénonce sur simple demande. Demandez-moi les liens si vous ne les trouvez pas.
[2] Il est vrai aussi qu'ils vivent de subventions, ces petits rebelles.
[3] À ne pas confondre avec La Grande Déesse Diversité [génuflexion citoyenne].
Sunday, July 29, 2007
L. Voulzy soutient N. Sarkozy
Exclu CGB : Après Jeane Manson, Mireille Mathieu ou Gilbert Montagné, c’est au tour de Laurent Voulzy de rejoindre les people qui soutiennent Nicolaï Sarkozy !
Via culturalGangBang
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Things on wheel(s)
It may look like a spare tyre, but the makers of this one-wheeled scooter claimed yesterday that it will take Britain by storm.The "Magicwheel" has no handlebars or brakes, can turn on a sixpence and reach speeds of up to 20mph (32.1 km/h).
The Magic Wheel - video powered by Metacafe
The Magic Wheel - video powered by Metacafe
Monday, July 23, 2007
Sunday, July 22, 2007
The Palestinians, Alone
Some 6,000 Palestinians have been stranded for the past month on the Egyptian side of the border with the Gaza Strip because of the closure of the Rafah border crossing.
The terminal was closed after the European monitors who had operated there for the past two years left their jobs following Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip in mid-June.
At least 20 of these Palestinian travelers have died either of illness or other causes while waiting on the Egyptian side.
Most of them are complaining that the Egyptian authorities are not doing anything to alleviate their suffering.
Attempts by Israel to find a solution to this humanitarian crisis have been foiled by both Fatah and Hamas, who turned down an Israeli offer to help the Palestinians return home through the Israeli-controlled border crossing at Kerem Shalom.
Meanwhile, not a single Arab country has come forth to help the marooned Palestinians. Egyptian and Palestinian families living along the border have been hosting some of them, but the majority, including women and children, are forced to sleep in mosques and on sidewalks.
“The Arabs don’t care about us,” Muhammed Haj Jamil, a university student who was on his way home from the Gulf, told me in a phone interview.
“The Arabs hate the Palestinians. The Egyptians are treating us as if we were terrorists. Even the Jews treat us better than most Arabs.”
And he’s absolutely right.
Most of the Arab countries stopped providing the Palestinians with financial aid when Yasser Arafat and the PLO openly supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Since then, the Palestinians are almost entirely dependent on handouts from the U.S. and Europe.
Many Palestinians who travel to Arab countries complain of maltreatment and harassment at by intelligence officers at the airports and border crossings.
Today, most of the Arab countries don’t want to help the Palestinians because of the Fatah-Hamas fighting and the Palestinian leadership’s failure to establish good governance and end financial corruption and anarchy.
The Arabs are simply fed up with the Palestinians’ failure to get their act together.
In the absence of Arab support, Israel is the only country that has been sending tons of food and medicine to the Gaza Strip on a daily basis over the past month.
The Egyptians, who have a joint border with the Gaza Strip, don’t allow Palestinians to enter Egypt in search of work.
The Jordanians, for their part, “divorced” the West Bank in 1988; since then they haven’t wanted anything to do with the Palestinians living there.
The dream of many Palestinian laborers today is to work in Israel—as they used to do in the days before the “peace process” began.
Or as one Palestinian in Gaza told me recently:
“We wish the [Israeli] occupation would return and improve our conditions.”
Khaled Abu Toameh - 7.12.2007 - 5:50PM
The terminal was closed after the European monitors who had operated there for the past two years left their jobs following Hamas’s takeover of the Gaza Strip in mid-June.
At least 20 of these Palestinian travelers have died either of illness or other causes while waiting on the Egyptian side.
Most of them are complaining that the Egyptian authorities are not doing anything to alleviate their suffering.
Attempts by Israel to find a solution to this humanitarian crisis have been foiled by both Fatah and Hamas, who turned down an Israeli offer to help the Palestinians return home through the Israeli-controlled border crossing at Kerem Shalom.
Meanwhile, not a single Arab country has come forth to help the marooned Palestinians. Egyptian and Palestinian families living along the border have been hosting some of them, but the majority, including women and children, are forced to sleep in mosques and on sidewalks.
“The Arabs don’t care about us,” Muhammed Haj Jamil, a university student who was on his way home from the Gulf, told me in a phone interview.
“The Arabs hate the Palestinians. The Egyptians are treating us as if we were terrorists. Even the Jews treat us better than most Arabs.”
And he’s absolutely right.
Most of the Arab countries stopped providing the Palestinians with financial aid when Yasser Arafat and the PLO openly supported Saddam Hussein’s invasion of Kuwait in 1990.
Since then, the Palestinians are almost entirely dependent on handouts from the U.S. and Europe.
Many Palestinians who travel to Arab countries complain of maltreatment and harassment at by intelligence officers at the airports and border crossings.
Today, most of the Arab countries don’t want to help the Palestinians because of the Fatah-Hamas fighting and the Palestinian leadership’s failure to establish good governance and end financial corruption and anarchy.
The Arabs are simply fed up with the Palestinians’ failure to get their act together.
In the absence of Arab support, Israel is the only country that has been sending tons of food and medicine to the Gaza Strip on a daily basis over the past month.
The Egyptians, who have a joint border with the Gaza Strip, don’t allow Palestinians to enter Egypt in search of work.
The Jordanians, for their part, “divorced” the West Bank in 1988; since then they haven’t wanted anything to do with the Palestinians living there.
The dream of many Palestinian laborers today is to work in Israel—as they used to do in the days before the “peace process” began.
Or as one Palestinian in Gaza told me recently:
“We wish the [Israeli] occupation would return and improve our conditions.”
Khaled Abu Toameh - 7.12.2007 - 5:50PM
L'avortement est un non-droit.
Personne n'a plus peur de l'hémoglobine, de la chair démanbrée et des films d'horreurs en général aujourd'hui n'est-ce pas ? Ames sensibles, soyez-le mieux
A talk with a suicide bomber
Friday, Jul. 20, 2007
A Talk With a Suicide Bomber
By Robert Baer
Last week, at the Directorate of National Intelligence in Kabul, I met a failed suicide bomber. Arrested two weeks before in Jalalabad, preparing to assassinate the governor of Nangahar Province, Farhad was setting outside of Pakistan's Waziristan Province for the first time.
Only 17, he was terrified.
Not only because of an uncertain fate, but perhaps more so because the world was not as the Taliban had described it. The Taliban indoctrinated him well, convincing him the Americans were stealing the faith of Afghan Muslims.
Turning them into kafirs.
I asked him if he hated the governor.
No, it was simply that in working with the Americans he'd fallen away from Islam.
He deserved to die.
It was immediately clear this kid was ignorant of the world; the boundaries of his village were his world. I asked him if he'd heard of Iraq.
He had, but when I asked him if he could point it out on a map, he said he couldn't. The same with Palestine. I doubt that he'd ever seen a map.
That begged the question what he knew about Islam. When I asked he said he'd read the Quran. I asked it him if he understood it. He shook his head. It was then it became apparent his education went no farther than the madrassa—he was taught to recite the Quran in Arabic but did not understand a word. Other than what he was told.And this is where the Taliban came in.
Spotting him in the village mosque, they invited him to attend what can only be called an indoctrination course in Waziristan. There he was taught that suicide bombers go directly to heaven, where they're met by virgins and lush gardens.
Farhad was also taught that any Muslim working with the Americans in Afghanistan was no longer a Muslim, but a "munafiq," a pretend Muslim.
It was written in the Quran, Farhad was assured.Even I, who have tried to get a grip on Muslim suicide bombing, was stunned by the depth of the brainwashing. I'd never seen anything like it. So I asked the question,
What religion is Musharraf, the president of Pakistan?
He's a Jew, the Taliban had assured Farhad.
No wonder Farhad agreed to go to Jalalabad to kill a fellow Muslim. Still, wasn't there a doubt in his mind about taking his life like that and who knows how many others?
No. The Taliban had told him that when he pushed the button on his suicide vest, it was Allah then who would decide whether to summon him to heaven or not.
Earlier that day I'd visited NATO headquarters to talk to an American Marine colonel who tracks suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices.
He came straight to the point:
neither military force nor intelligence is going to stop suicide bombings.
Only "mitigate" them.
What NATO is pressing the Afghans to do is to deindocrinate young men like Farhad.
But how do you get someone like Farhad, who may never have seen a map, change his radical world view? Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1645461,00.htm l
A Talk With a Suicide Bomber
By Robert Baer
Last week, at the Directorate of National Intelligence in Kabul, I met a failed suicide bomber. Arrested two weeks before in Jalalabad, preparing to assassinate the governor of Nangahar Province, Farhad was setting outside of Pakistan's Waziristan Province for the first time.
Only 17, he was terrified.
Not only because of an uncertain fate, but perhaps more so because the world was not as the Taliban had described it. The Taliban indoctrinated him well, convincing him the Americans were stealing the faith of Afghan Muslims.
Turning them into kafirs.
I asked him if he hated the governor.
No, it was simply that in working with the Americans he'd fallen away from Islam.
He deserved to die.
It was immediately clear this kid was ignorant of the world; the boundaries of his village were his world. I asked him if he'd heard of Iraq.
He had, but when I asked him if he could point it out on a map, he said he couldn't. The same with Palestine. I doubt that he'd ever seen a map.
That begged the question what he knew about Islam. When I asked he said he'd read the Quran. I asked it him if he understood it. He shook his head. It was then it became apparent his education went no farther than the madrassa—he was taught to recite the Quran in Arabic but did not understand a word. Other than what he was told.And this is where the Taliban came in.
Spotting him in the village mosque, they invited him to attend what can only be called an indoctrination course in Waziristan. There he was taught that suicide bombers go directly to heaven, where they're met by virgins and lush gardens.
Farhad was also taught that any Muslim working with the Americans in Afghanistan was no longer a Muslim, but a "munafiq," a pretend Muslim.
It was written in the Quran, Farhad was assured.Even I, who have tried to get a grip on Muslim suicide bombing, was stunned by the depth of the brainwashing. I'd never seen anything like it. So I asked the question,
What religion is Musharraf, the president of Pakistan?
He's a Jew, the Taliban had assured Farhad.
No wonder Farhad agreed to go to Jalalabad to kill a fellow Muslim. Still, wasn't there a doubt in his mind about taking his life like that and who knows how many others?
No. The Taliban had told him that when he pushed the button on his suicide vest, it was Allah then who would decide whether to summon him to heaven or not.
Earlier that day I'd visited NATO headquarters to talk to an American Marine colonel who tracks suicide bombings and improvised explosive devices.
He came straight to the point:
neither military force nor intelligence is going to stop suicide bombings.
Only "mitigate" them.
What NATO is pressing the Afghans to do is to deindocrinate young men like Farhad.
But how do you get someone like Farhad, who may never have seen a map, change his radical world view? Robert Baer, a former CIA field officer assigned to the Middle East, is TIME.com's intelligence columnist and the author of See No Evil and, most recently, the novel Blow the House Down.
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1645461,00.htm l
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Deux poids, deux mesures
Près de deux mois après le début des combats entre l'armée libanaise et une milice islamiste palestinienne dans le camp de Nahr al-Bared, qui ont fait au moins 220 morts (dont 100 militaires libanais et 80 combattants islamistes), il vaut la peine de s'intéresser à la perception de cet événement.
La prise d'un secteur urbain fortifié de façon progressive est certainement l'une des opérations militaires offensives les plus difficiles qui soient.
La prise d'un secteur urbain fortifié de façon progressive est certainement l'une des opérations militaires offensives les plus difficiles qui soient.
Les pertes très élevées subies par l'armée libanaise, certes peu entraînée à ce type d'engagement, en témoignent.
Pourtant, ce n'est pas faute d'employer des moyens lourds : un feu indirect soutenu, avec entre 5 et 10 obus d'artillerie par minute dans le camp, un feu direct également important avec des chars de combat et des pièces antichars, des véhicules blindés transporteurs de troupes, ont tous contribué à des destructions considérables. Sans que les combattants islamistes ne soient pour autant contraints de cesser le combat, mais aussi sans que le Gouvernement libanais perde sa liberté d'action sous la pression internationale.
Cet investissement d'un camp de réfugiés palestiniens occupé par des combattants rappelle en effet celui d'un autre camp, à Jénine, lors de l'opération israélienne "Bouclier Défensif" au printemps 2002.
Cet investissement d'un camp de réfugiés palestiniens occupé par des combattants rappelle en effet celui d'un autre camp, à Jénine, lors de l'opération israélienne "Bouclier Défensif" au printemps 2002.
A l'époque, une partie des médias avait repris les cris au massacre de Jénine, une grossière manipulation visant à qualifer de génocidaire une opération militaire au contraire précise et ciblée qui ne fera que 79 morts, dont 23 soldats israéiens et une majorité de combattants palestiniens.
La pression médiatique sera d'ailleurs suffisante pour que l'ONU décide de former une commission d'enquête afin de vérifier les accusations de massacre, qui mettront environ un mois avant d'être entièrement démenties.
D'autres démarches similaires ont également eu lieu ces dernières à propos d'autres opérations offensives israéliennes.
Rien de tout cela ne se produit aujourd'hui au Liban : la destruction même partielle d'un camp de réfugiés palestiniens par l'armée libanaise, avec son fardeau inévitable de dommages collatéraux, n'éveille pas la moindre accusation de force disproportionnée ou de génocide délibéré. Pourtant, les Israéliens n'ont pas employé d'artillerie à Jénine, au contraire des Libanais à Nahr al-Bared, une arme qui offre une précision très douteuse en milieu urbain non seulement par l'absence de munition guidée, mais également par ses trajectoires peu adaptées. Il n'est donc pas difficile d'en conclure que l'on assiste là à un bel exemple de ce traitement partiel et partial qui entache souvent la production médiatique, et que ce dernier serait bien différent si les forces attaquantes étaient israéliennes ou américaines.
Rien de tout cela ne se produit aujourd'hui au Liban : la destruction même partielle d'un camp de réfugiés palestiniens par l'armée libanaise, avec son fardeau inévitable de dommages collatéraux, n'éveille pas la moindre accusation de force disproportionnée ou de génocide délibéré. Pourtant, les Israéliens n'ont pas employé d'artillerie à Jénine, au contraire des Libanais à Nahr al-Bared, une arme qui offre une précision très douteuse en milieu urbain non seulement par l'absence de munition guidée, mais également par ses trajectoires peu adaptées. Il n'est donc pas difficile d'en conclure que l'on assiste là à un bel exemple de ce traitement partiel et partial qui entache souvent la production médiatique, et que ce dernier serait bien différent si les forces attaquantes étaient israéliennes ou américaines.
J'en veux d'ailleurs pour preuve que les Palestiniens n'ont guère tenté de mobiliser l'opinion publique occidentale à coups de manipulations médiatiques, contrairement à une pratique éprouvée.
Deux poids, deux mesures, et une leçon :
Deux poids, deux mesures, et une leçon :
laisser faire le sale travail à des forces locales, que ce soit au Liban, au Pakistan, en Somalie ou en Irak, est un avantage énorme pour les armées occidentales et leur redonne la liberté d'action perdue par la perception biaisée de leurs propres médias.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Introducing the "peace scarf"
Urban Outfitters & Palestinian solidarity activists called their kaffiyeh an “anti-war scarf.” Delias.com gives it the Orwellian name: “Peace Scarf.”
I don’t see plenty of kaffiyehs around Jerusalem, but the ones I see are draped around two groups of people: Arabs and the ubiquitous foreign, non-Jewish, non-Arab, Palestinian solidarity activists.
Now let's look at those Palestinian solidarity activists.
For them the kaffiyeh is only partly an expression of identification with the Palestinian cause - the other part, perhaps the greater part, is sticking a thumb into the eye of the State of Israel, the Zionist enterprise, and every Jewish Israeli man, woman and child they pass on the street. It’s a cheap way of screaming, “Look at me, you Zionist apartheid pigs!” while they take advantage of the many amenities those selfsame Zionist apartheid pigs brought to the region.
Let’s paint a portrait of the typical Palestinian solidarity activist:
they are American or Europeen.
They are white.
They are rarely either Jewish or Arab.
They are upper-middle-class to upper class.
They are in their 20s.
They are well-educated, although their knowledge of the history of Jews, Zionism, Palestinians and Arabs are often sorely lacking or at least filtered through the bottleneck of standard far left-wing intellectual ideology.
Their Western social mores, their use of alcohol and sometimes drugs, their uncovered hair and their foreign ideologies often clash very sharply with the conservative, traditional and highly religious Islamic areas in which they find themselves (which confuses them, because after all, they think they’re helping).
They can be found kicking back in downtown Tel Aviv or Jerusalem after a long day at a Hevron checkpoint or a Rafah refugee camp, knocking back bottles of Taybeh, the Palestinian beer, because a shot of whiskey or a Goldstar would represent an inexcusable betrayal of the Cause and an inappropriate monetary endorsement of Zio-nazism.
They don’t know any Israelis, except the pet Israelis their particular solidarity movement of choice keeps around to deflect any charges of anti-Israelism or anti-Semitism, who are about as representative of general Israeli society as a cold bottle of Taybeh is of general Palestinian society.
They swap stories about protesting house demolitions, and sharing moments with their newfound Palestinian charges.
By day, they like to get into the action, the heavy stuff - the checkpoint monitoring, the picture-taking, the meetings with Palestinian activists, standing in front of bulldozers, throwing rocks at riot police at that day’s camera-ready anti-security barrier demonstration. Somehow they’ve gotten it into their heads, counter to all logic, that an effective way to help the Palestinians is to persistently scream at, physically harrass and in general hamper the efforts of a few 19-year-old kids in uniform who can’t legally do anything to stop them, 19-year-old kids already unduly stressed by the long hours and high risks of checkpoint duty, who just want to be at home with their family and friends and their bed and their mom’s cooking. Children of privilege, they are irrationally convinced that their Americanness and their whiteness ensures that nothing worse than being dragged away from a riot zone will ever happen to them, that they are somehow immune to the vagaries of the very real war in which they’ve embroiled themselves - and as such, react with utter shock and rage after the extremely rare occurences wherein one of their number stands in front of a moving bulldozer and gets run over, or walks into a live fire zone and gets shot.
So why do they come?
Certainly they have a passion for justice, sometimes universal justice, sometimes only justice insofar as it extends to their favorite revolutionary group.
But why do they come to Israel specifically, whose conflict with the Palestinians, when looked at objectively and in light of all current world conflict, is pretty low on the worldwide scale of violence, brutality and injustice (which is not to say that those things don’t exist here).
Why do we see so many people willing to go to the Palestinian Territories and next to none willing to go to Tibet or Darfur, both current instances of real live genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Why do they not march on Beijing?
Why do they not rally at the DMZ in Korea?
Why do they not distribute food and medicine and education to malnourished AIDS-infected children in sub-Saharan Africa?
Simple: those places are highly dangerous, often take a much dimmer view towards foreign interlopers than the Israeli government and army, don’t get hyperactive media attention and in general aren’t developed Western nations with clubs and comprehensive bus service and youth hostels and plentiful bars.
Where else but Israel can you feel like a hero fighting against an army who will go out of its way to make sure you come to no serious harm?
Where else can you go from fighting the Man in a refugee camp to a hamburger and a beer in a nice restaurant in a clean and modern city where everyone speaks English, all in the space of a couple hours at most?
Where else can you mug for the international news cameras at an anti-security barrier protest in Bethlehem and send all your friends back home, who think you’re so brave, the link to the CNN Video that has you throwing a rock at a cop, or the Indymedia article about your fearless exploits?
You think you can do that in Zimbabwe?
Why would you risk a long stay in a cell in a Chinese jail if you can get easy glory, relative safety and cheap hashish all in one place?
Look, I know a lot of these guys and girls are perfectly nice, well-meaning people who just haven’t been exposed to, or have purposely avoided, any sort of nuance.
And I know some of them are doing genuinely good work.
I’m not a right-wing zealot.
I support the creation of a Palestinian state.
I want the Palestinian people to succeed economically and culturally, as long as the Jews can have a safe and secure state beside them.
But I’m honestly really sick of seeing the Palestinian people’s self-proclaimed advocates walking around in those damn scarves ignorant of what they might mean to anybody here, interested only in making a callow “statement,” wearing their uber-chic radicalism around their neck in the Holy City.
Take your kaffiyehs and go home.
Via Jewlicious & LGF
I don’t see plenty of kaffiyehs around Jerusalem, but the ones I see are draped around two groups of people: Arabs and the ubiquitous foreign, non-Jewish, non-Arab, Palestinian solidarity activists.
Now let's look at those Palestinian solidarity activists.
For them the kaffiyeh is only partly an expression of identification with the Palestinian cause - the other part, perhaps the greater part, is sticking a thumb into the eye of the State of Israel, the Zionist enterprise, and every Jewish Israeli man, woman and child they pass on the street. It’s a cheap way of screaming, “Look at me, you Zionist apartheid pigs!” while they take advantage of the many amenities those selfsame Zionist apartheid pigs brought to the region.
Let’s paint a portrait of the typical Palestinian solidarity activist:
they are American or Europeen.
They are white.
They are rarely either Jewish or Arab.
They are upper-middle-class to upper class.
They are in their 20s.
They are well-educated, although their knowledge of the history of Jews, Zionism, Palestinians and Arabs are often sorely lacking or at least filtered through the bottleneck of standard far left-wing intellectual ideology.
Their Western social mores, their use of alcohol and sometimes drugs, their uncovered hair and their foreign ideologies often clash very sharply with the conservative, traditional and highly religious Islamic areas in which they find themselves (which confuses them, because after all, they think they’re helping).
They can be found kicking back in downtown Tel Aviv or Jerusalem after a long day at a Hevron checkpoint or a Rafah refugee camp, knocking back bottles of Taybeh, the Palestinian beer, because a shot of whiskey or a Goldstar would represent an inexcusable betrayal of the Cause and an inappropriate monetary endorsement of Zio-nazism.
They don’t know any Israelis, except the pet Israelis their particular solidarity movement of choice keeps around to deflect any charges of anti-Israelism or anti-Semitism, who are about as representative of general Israeli society as a cold bottle of Taybeh is of general Palestinian society.
They swap stories about protesting house demolitions, and sharing moments with their newfound Palestinian charges.
By day, they like to get into the action, the heavy stuff - the checkpoint monitoring, the picture-taking, the meetings with Palestinian activists, standing in front of bulldozers, throwing rocks at riot police at that day’s camera-ready anti-security barrier demonstration. Somehow they’ve gotten it into their heads, counter to all logic, that an effective way to help the Palestinians is to persistently scream at, physically harrass and in general hamper the efforts of a few 19-year-old kids in uniform who can’t legally do anything to stop them, 19-year-old kids already unduly stressed by the long hours and high risks of checkpoint duty, who just want to be at home with their family and friends and their bed and their mom’s cooking. Children of privilege, they are irrationally convinced that their Americanness and their whiteness ensures that nothing worse than being dragged away from a riot zone will ever happen to them, that they are somehow immune to the vagaries of the very real war in which they’ve embroiled themselves - and as such, react with utter shock and rage after the extremely rare occurences wherein one of their number stands in front of a moving bulldozer and gets run over, or walks into a live fire zone and gets shot.
So why do they come?
Certainly they have a passion for justice, sometimes universal justice, sometimes only justice insofar as it extends to their favorite revolutionary group.
But why do they come to Israel specifically, whose conflict with the Palestinians, when looked at objectively and in light of all current world conflict, is pretty low on the worldwide scale of violence, brutality and injustice (which is not to say that those things don’t exist here).
Why do we see so many people willing to go to the Palestinian Territories and next to none willing to go to Tibet or Darfur, both current instances of real live genocide and ethnic cleansing?
Why do they not march on Beijing?
Why do they not rally at the DMZ in Korea?
Why do they not distribute food and medicine and education to malnourished AIDS-infected children in sub-Saharan Africa?
Simple: those places are highly dangerous, often take a much dimmer view towards foreign interlopers than the Israeli government and army, don’t get hyperactive media attention and in general aren’t developed Western nations with clubs and comprehensive bus service and youth hostels and plentiful bars.
Where else but Israel can you feel like a hero fighting against an army who will go out of its way to make sure you come to no serious harm?
Where else can you go from fighting the Man in a refugee camp to a hamburger and a beer in a nice restaurant in a clean and modern city where everyone speaks English, all in the space of a couple hours at most?
Where else can you mug for the international news cameras at an anti-security barrier protest in Bethlehem and send all your friends back home, who think you’re so brave, the link to the CNN Video that has you throwing a rock at a cop, or the Indymedia article about your fearless exploits?
You think you can do that in Zimbabwe?
Why would you risk a long stay in a cell in a Chinese jail if you can get easy glory, relative safety and cheap hashish all in one place?
Look, I know a lot of these guys and girls are perfectly nice, well-meaning people who just haven’t been exposed to, or have purposely avoided, any sort of nuance.
And I know some of them are doing genuinely good work.
I’m not a right-wing zealot.
I support the creation of a Palestinian state.
I want the Palestinian people to succeed economically and culturally, as long as the Jews can have a safe and secure state beside them.
But I’m honestly really sick of seeing the Palestinian people’s self-proclaimed advocates walking around in those damn scarves ignorant of what they might mean to anybody here, interested only in making a callow “statement,” wearing their uber-chic radicalism around their neck in the Holy City.
Take your kaffiyehs and go home.
Via Jewlicious & LGF
heuuu…
I’m more convinced than ever that Osama bin Laden is no longer consuming oxygen, as another videotape is released by the As Sahab freakazoids: Bin Laden praises martyrdom in new video.
CAIRO, Egypt - A new al-Qaida videotape posted Sunday on a militant Web site featured a short, undated clip of a weary-looking Osama bin Laden praising martyrdom. The bin Laden clip, which lasted less than a minute, was part of a 40-minute video featuring purported al-Qaida fighters in Afghanistan paying tribute to fellow militants who have been killed in the country.
Bin Laden glorified those who die in the name of jihad, or holy war, saying even the Prophet Muhammad “had been wishing to be a martyr.”
“The happy (man) is the one that God has chosen him to be a martyr,” added bin Laden, who was shown outdoors wearing army fatigues and looking tired.
The authenticity of the video could not be verified, but it appeared on a Web site commonly used by Islamic militants and carried the logo of as-Sahab, al-Qaida’s media production wing. It was not immediately clear when the video of bin Laden was filmed.
Sorry to contradict Associated Press writer Omar Sinan, but it was immediately clear when the video was filmed—in October 2001.
It would be a huge propaganda blow if Al Qaeda could release a video showing Bin Laden indisputably alive. But repackaging six-year old videos (even if they fool the AP) is strong evidence that he’s Bin Dead. For quite a while.
Monday, July 16, 2007
T-55 converted to Merkava MK3
Could the Hizbullah organization want to celebrate one year to the second lebanon war with a movie which include the Merkava tank?
A Merkava MK3:
Now take a closer look at the gap between the wheels at the front
And what an old Russian T55 looks like
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Que fait l UNESCO?
Lors de la période de deuil des trois semaines, observée entre les jeûnes du 17 Tamouz et du 9 Av, Ticha BeAv, on commémore la tragédie vécue par le peuple juif lorsque des armées ennemies ont envahi la ville sainte de Jérusalem et ont détruit le Temple. La première fois, la capitale a été investie par les Babyloniens et la seconde fois par les Romains. Il ne reste plus que l’un des murs qui entouraient le sanctuaire, le Kotel, qui est devenu un lieu de pèlerinage pour les Juifs.
Le Har Habayit, emplacement du Temple, a été reconquis par Tsahal lors de la guerre des Six Jours mais il n’a pas été placé sous souveraineté israélienne. La gestion des lieux saints, où se trouvent à présent la mosquée Al Aqsa et le dôme du Rocher, a été confiée au Waqf musulman.
Des groupes de Juifs montent régulièrement sur le Mont du Temple après s’être purifiés conformément à la tradition. L’un d’entre eux, qui s’est rendu lundi sur l’esplanade, a découvert avec stupéfaction que les Arabes continuaient leurs fouilles sous terre et détruisaient les vestiges juifs qui s’y trouvaient.
Le site NRG, de Maariv, qui rapporte cette information, précise que les Arabes ont creusé une galerie de 200 mètres depuis l’aile nord de la colline jusqu’à son centre. Il souligne que bien que la police affirme que ces travaux sont effectués avec l’accord des autorités, soi-disant pour installer des câbles électriques, il s’avère que tout ce qui est sorti du sous-sol dans ces fouilles est systématiquement détruit ou dans le meilleur des cas, jeté aux ordures.
Le mouvement en faveur de la reconstruction du Temple a pris des clichés des lieux. Ses membres ont indiqué que les vestiges du lieu le plus sacré du judaïsme étaient régulièrement détruits sans que personne n’intervienne. Et d'ajouter: "Les droits élémentaires du peuple juif, comme par exemple des prières ou l’introduction d’un livre saint, ne sont pas respectés (sur le Mont du Temple). Et ne parlons pas d’organiser sur place un office".
Le mouvement a appelé à une présence juive permanente sur le Mont du Temple, incitant le public à se rendre sur les lieux conformément à la loi juive (Halaha). Par ailleurs, il a engagé la population à se joindre à la marche traditionnelle autour des murailles de la Vieille Ville, qui a lieu tous les débuts de mois.
Le Har Habayit, emplacement du Temple, a été reconquis par Tsahal lors de la guerre des Six Jours mais il n’a pas été placé sous souveraineté israélienne. La gestion des lieux saints, où se trouvent à présent la mosquée Al Aqsa et le dôme du Rocher, a été confiée au Waqf musulman.
Des groupes de Juifs montent régulièrement sur le Mont du Temple après s’être purifiés conformément à la tradition. L’un d’entre eux, qui s’est rendu lundi sur l’esplanade, a découvert avec stupéfaction que les Arabes continuaient leurs fouilles sous terre et détruisaient les vestiges juifs qui s’y trouvaient.
Le site NRG, de Maariv, qui rapporte cette information, précise que les Arabes ont creusé une galerie de 200 mètres depuis l’aile nord de la colline jusqu’à son centre. Il souligne que bien que la police affirme que ces travaux sont effectués avec l’accord des autorités, soi-disant pour installer des câbles électriques, il s’avère que tout ce qui est sorti du sous-sol dans ces fouilles est systématiquement détruit ou dans le meilleur des cas, jeté aux ordures.
Le mouvement en faveur de la reconstruction du Temple a pris des clichés des lieux. Ses membres ont indiqué que les vestiges du lieu le plus sacré du judaïsme étaient régulièrement détruits sans que personne n’intervienne. Et d'ajouter: "Les droits élémentaires du peuple juif, comme par exemple des prières ou l’introduction d’un livre saint, ne sont pas respectés (sur le Mont du Temple). Et ne parlons pas d’organiser sur place un office".
Le mouvement a appelé à une présence juive permanente sur le Mont du Temple, incitant le public à se rendre sur les lieux conformément à la loi juive (Halaha). Par ailleurs, il a engagé la population à se joindre à la marche traditionnelle autour des murailles de la Vieille Ville, qui a lieu tous les débuts de mois.
in english:
Iran : Nous avons tué un homme à coups de pierres
Un Iranien condamné pour adultère a été exécuté par lapidation le jeudi 5 juillet dans le nord-ouest de l’Iran, a annoncé mardi 10 juillet le porte-parole du pouvoir judiciaire Alireza Jamshidi. Les préparatifs nécessaires à l’exécution de la sentence avaient été mis en oeuvre dès le 20 juin.
L’homme exécuté s’appelait Jafar Kiani, il avait été condamné pour relation en dehors du mariage avec une femme nommé Mokarrameh Ebrahimi. Tous deux mariés, ils avaient quitté leurs familles pour vivre ensemble il y a treize ans, avant d’être arrêtés il y a onze ans. Ils ont alors été séparés de l’enfant qui venait naître de leur union amoureuse et aucun n’a pu élever cet enfant qui a aujourd’hui 11 ans. La mère est en prison et depuis 11 ans, elle attend dans le couloir de la mort, l’instant où elle périra fracassée par les pierres.
Une lapidation, ca ressemble a ca...
http://www.iran-resist.org/IMG/wmv/lapidation-stoning.wmv
Via Iran-resist.org
L’homme exécuté s’appelait Jafar Kiani, il avait été condamné pour relation en dehors du mariage avec une femme nommé Mokarrameh Ebrahimi. Tous deux mariés, ils avaient quitté leurs familles pour vivre ensemble il y a treize ans, avant d’être arrêtés il y a onze ans. Ils ont alors été séparés de l’enfant qui venait naître de leur union amoureuse et aucun n’a pu élever cet enfant qui a aujourd’hui 11 ans. La mère est en prison et depuis 11 ans, elle attend dans le couloir de la mort, l’instant où elle périra fracassée par les pierres.
Une lapidation, ca ressemble a ca...
http://www.iran-resist.org/IMG/wmv/lapidation-stoning.wmv
Via Iran-resist.org
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Monday, July 09, 2007
The Big Story That Isn’t
One of the biggest stories in recent times is due shortly to hit the British media.
This follows the unprecedented decision of Mohammad Sarwar, Labour MP for Glasgow Govan since 1997, to stand down before the next elections, following threats upon both his and his children’s lives.The press are in frenzy because there are so many aspects to this story deemed irresistible to the media-driven modern Britain in which we are so fortunate to live today.
Mr. Sarwar has the dubious honour of being both Britain’s first Muslim MP, and Britain’s first MP to be driven from office upon threat of death.
When he was elected, to a fanfare of media coverage, Mr. Sarwar managed yet another first; he refused to swear allegiance to the Queen, preferring instead the ancient British tradition of swearing his oath upon the Koran — the copy of which, incidentally, was placed inside an envelope lest it “be touched by one not of the faith.”
This, unsurprisingly, drew the ire of the racist Right and Mr. Sarwar was subsequently threatened by an assortment of organisations, including Combat 18 and the National Front.
This of course is manna from heaven for the British media.
The BBC have led the way, camping outside Mr. Sarwar’s constituency home, interviewing local Pakistanis who feel “threatened and uncomfortable” and conducting an undercover infiltration of the BNP in order to track down the perpetrators behind the violent threats that have forced a standing British MP to go into hiding for the first time in our modern history.
If you possess a powerful telescope, and train it carefully upon Glasgow, you may well be able to view the events unfolding. Be sure though, to point it at Glasgow, Planet Fantasy, Milky Way 1.
If you do not, you will see very little, because this story exists only in the Britain of a parallel universe. Back here on planet reality it is a non-story, indeed almost a non-event. A by-line here, a by-line there, but virtually unreported on television news stations.
The reason for this media blackout is very simple. It is not the National Front, Combat 18 or the BNP who have issued the recent death threats, it is local Muslims themselves, incensed by what they see as his treacherous behaviour in relation to the murder of Kriss Donald, a white Glaswegian, in 2004.Those of you familiar with the case, or those of a sensitive disposition, need not read the next paragraph. I note the details only because they have a relevance which I will come to later.Kriss Donald, a slightly built, 15-year-old schoolboy was abducted from the streets of Pollockshields, Glasgow, on March 14, 2004. His kidnappers were five British Muslims of Pakistani descent, intent on exacting retribution on a white male — any white male would do — following a fight in a night club the previous weekend. Kriss was driven around for several hours whilst he was held down and tortured in the back of the car. He was eventually taken to an area of waste ground where he was finished off. Before he died, it is alleged that he was castrated, burned with cigarettes; his eyes were gouged out and he was stabbed repeatedly. Once on the waste ground he was doused with gasoline and set alight whilst still alive. He crawled a few metres and then, mercifully, died. A walker who discovered his body the following morning was unaware that it was even human, remarking, that at first, he thought it was the carcass of an animal.- - - - - - - - - -Two men were subsequently arrested, but the other three, aware the police knew their identities, fled to Pakistan. The Foreign Office at that time was involved in delicate negotiations with Pakistan over the extradition rights concerning full-blown terrorists, so an unimportant little murder such as Kriss Donald’s was simply a fly in the ointment they did not need. As a result, they did their best to frustrate attempts by the British police to retrieve their suspects.Enter Mr.
Mohammad Sarwar, a man with a clearer sense of right and wrong, and a political position with which to do something about it. Mr. Sarwar was instrumental in forcing the British government to press ahead with the extradition of the three men, and thus, in the eyes of some British Muslims, committed a crime of such magnitude that only his death could adequately compensate for his treachery.I apologise for detailing the gory details of Kriss Donald’s torture and murder, but its relevance is shown in the following quotes from Mr. Sarwar, printed in the Daily Telegraph:
“Life is not the same since I brought them back… I received threats to my life, to murder my sons, to murder my grandchildren…I was told they wanted to punish my family and make a horrible example of my son… they would do to him what they did to Kriss Donald.”There were other firsts in the story that should have interested the media. Daamish Zahid, one of the five killers, was the first person in Scotland to be convicted of racially motivated murder, whilst the sheer brutality of the murder itself was unprecedented in Britain. (An issue all too predictably rectified a year later by six black British men who gang raped, tortured and murdered Mary Ann Leneghan.)But I digress.To recap, Britain’s first Muslim MP is also Britain’s first ever politician to stand down in the face of death threats; threats uttered by followers of the Religion of Peace who sympathise with the Islamic savages involved in the most horrific racial murder in Britain’s recent history, one of whom, to boot, was also the first “Scotsman” to be convicted of racially aggravated murder.Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but surely there’s a story in there somewhere? I know it is now a tired old cliché, but imagine if Mr. Paul Boateng, Britain’s first black MP, had been driven from office by a bunch of white, right wing Christian fundamentalists, enraged that he had succeeded in bringing the white killers of the black Stephen Lawrence to justice?A foolish hypothesis, I admit. One could discard the telescope, whilst an investment in blinkers and earmuffs would be necessary to avoid the media hysteria. We are used to the double standards utilised by the media with regard to racial murder, but this time it is different. This is not any old murder, not any old death threats, and Mr. Sarwar is not any old person.When Britain, a First World country, loses a democratically-elected politician because he fears for his life, we are entering a wholly new era. Britain is now an Iraq, a Zimbabwe.We are becoming, in political terms, a genuine Third World country, and our BBC-led media, showing a total disregard for impartiality, has veered from mere bias to dangerous censorship, with all the disturbing implications this portends for our democratic future.Many political commentators believe that Britain is dead, Lawrence Auster in particular, but Mr. Auster also thinks it can be resurrected. If this is to happen it must happen soon.Our national heart has ceased to beat. Our national soul is hovering indecisively above the operating table. The crash team have been called, but the politically inclined hospital switchboard have told them there is no problem, that everything is under control.The life support boys have heard otherwise, they are hurrying to get there, but other hospital staff members have switched the signage to the operating theatre and killed the lights. It is a big hospital, they only have minutes to get there, they are lost, confused, misinformed, and the clock is relentlessly ticking, and ticking, and ticking…
“Life is not the same since I brought them back… I received threats to my life, to murder my sons, to murder my grandchildren…I was told they wanted to punish my family and make a horrible example of my son… they would do to him what they did to Kriss Donald.”There were other firsts in the story that should have interested the media. Daamish Zahid, one of the five killers, was the first person in Scotland to be convicted of racially motivated murder, whilst the sheer brutality of the murder itself was unprecedented in Britain. (An issue all too predictably rectified a year later by six black British men who gang raped, tortured and murdered Mary Ann Leneghan.)But I digress.To recap, Britain’s first Muslim MP is also Britain’s first ever politician to stand down in the face of death threats; threats uttered by followers of the Religion of Peace who sympathise with the Islamic savages involved in the most horrific racial murder in Britain’s recent history, one of whom, to boot, was also the first “Scotsman” to be convicted of racially aggravated murder.Now, correct me if I’m wrong, but surely there’s a story in there somewhere? I know it is now a tired old cliché, but imagine if Mr. Paul Boateng, Britain’s first black MP, had been driven from office by a bunch of white, right wing Christian fundamentalists, enraged that he had succeeded in bringing the white killers of the black Stephen Lawrence to justice?A foolish hypothesis, I admit. One could discard the telescope, whilst an investment in blinkers and earmuffs would be necessary to avoid the media hysteria. We are used to the double standards utilised by the media with regard to racial murder, but this time it is different. This is not any old murder, not any old death threats, and Mr. Sarwar is not any old person.When Britain, a First World country, loses a democratically-elected politician because he fears for his life, we are entering a wholly new era. Britain is now an Iraq, a Zimbabwe.We are becoming, in political terms, a genuine Third World country, and our BBC-led media, showing a total disregard for impartiality, has veered from mere bias to dangerous censorship, with all the disturbing implications this portends for our democratic future.Many political commentators believe that Britain is dead, Lawrence Auster in particular, but Mr. Auster also thinks it can be resurrected. If this is to happen it must happen soon.Our national heart has ceased to beat. Our national soul is hovering indecisively above the operating table. The crash team have been called, but the politically inclined hospital switchboard have told them there is no problem, that everything is under control.The life support boys have heard otherwise, they are hurrying to get there, but other hospital staff members have switched the signage to the operating theatre and killed the lights. It is a big hospital, they only have minutes to get there, they are lost, confused, misinformed, and the clock is relentlessly ticking, and ticking, and ticking…
©2007 Paul Weston
The Columbus Dispatch Mutilates a LA Times Jerusalem Feature
How do you fit a feature article of more than 4,500 words into a space of less than 2,000 words?
The Columbus Dispatch’s June 10, 2007 publication of “Who owns Jerusalem?”,
a drastically shortened version of a June 3 feature by the Los Angeles Times, “A holy city still divided,” is a prime example of what not to do.
The original Times piece, by Jerusalem correspondents Ken Ellingwood and Richard Boudreaux had its own faults, but its shortcomings paled in comparison to the Dispatch’s hackneyed rendering of the relatively balanced original work.
The Columbus editors expunged humanizing Israeli accounts but preserved those concerning Arabs while deleting references to Arab responsibility for the ongoing de facto divisions of the holy city.
Period of Coexistence Ignored
The Columbus Dispatch glosses over the period of coexistence and mingling following the city’s reunification, which came to an end due to Arab violence in the late 1980s. In the Times version, an Israeli woman, Madlene Vanunu, discussed this point in a first-person account. Her humanizing testimony, excised by the Dispatch, follows:
Madlene Vanunu spent her youth on Israel’s side of the barbed wire that once carved Jerusalem into Israeli and Jordanian halves.
“We used to see the Arabs through the fence. Sometimes we would talk. Sometimes they said, ‘Good morning.’ Other times they threw stones,” said Vanunu, who is 58 and still lives in the same house in the working-class Musrara neighborhood.
When the fence came down, it was just a five-minute walk to the spice-scented lanes of the Old City.
“In the years after the war, we went to the Old City every Saturday,” said Vanunu, who works in the municipal art gallery in West Jerusalem. “We would go to restaurants, meet with people and talk.”
But in the 20 years since the first Palestinian intifada, she has been there only once, and then with fear. The six years of on-and-off clashes that began in 1987 drove the two sides apart. The [Arab] violence became a turning point in their relations.
No mention of Vanunu appears in the Dispatch report. All that is retained from this section of the Times report is:
Today secular Jews rarely venture into East Jerusalem’s traffic-choked downtown near the Old City. Observant Jews still walk through the Old City’s Muslim quarter on their way to worship and study, but they have been assaulted.
Israeli Couple Cut
Hillel and Shlomit Mali, a young couple who moved into the Arab populated Mount of Olives section of Jerusalem, get the same treatment as Vanunu. They, like Vanunu, exhibited neighborly coexistence, which was met by Arab hostility. But the Dispatch chose to delete Ellingwood and Boudreaux’s humanizing story about them, reporting only that the “arrival of the Jewish families set off riots, followed by an icy coexistence and made the red-roofed apartment house on Mansouriyeh Street a microcosm of the struggle of Jerusalem.” Here is what did not make the cut:
Hillel and Shlomit Mali could hardly have picked a less welcoming place to settle as newlyweds. They arrived three months after the first Jews moved into the building. Their new home was directly upstairs from Mahmoud, his wife, mother and four children.
Unlike Elad’s instrusive security agents, Hillel, a 24-year-old musician, and Shlomit, a 23-year-old graduate student of literature, were solicitous and polite. Though it is assertive in acquiring property, Elad says it tries to minimize backlash by choosing settlers who are not confrontational.
Soon after the couple moved in, Hillel phoned downstairs to introduce himself in rudimentary Arabic. Mahmoud hung up and still won’t speak to the couple.
The Malis sent sweets on the Jewish holiday of Purim. Mahmoud’s mother, Fatima, tossed them into the garbage.
Saturday mornings, when the Jews pray in their top-floor synagogue, the Abu Hawas tune in a radio broadcast of Muslim prayers and turn up the volume. Neighborhood children stone the Jewish apartments and smash the cameras installed by 24-hour armed guards who watch the building from a control room just off the stairwell.
“They try to be nice,” Fatima said. “But they were the reason my son was killed. [See below.] They took my house. How can I accept them? I want to make their lives miserable so that they will leave.”
Yet they remain. Forty years after the war, Hillel and Shlomit embody the unfulfilled aspiration of a united Jerusalem under Jewish control.
“I try to talk with my neighbors,” said Hillel, taking in a spectacular view of the contested holy sites from his roof. “Sometimes this is a very hard mission. But if I don’t do this, if I leave the Mount of Olives, I fail.”
Mahmoud would consider the battle won.
“The Israelis say to me, ‘Shalom,’ but I never say anything back because, honestly, there can be no relationship with these people, no peace. They fight you with their weapons, with their money, with everything.
“They’re trying to take over this whole area, all these houses, and kick us out. We say, ‘No way.’”
One Israeli Account Retained
There is, however, one Israeli whose personal story the Dispatch considers worth retaining: that of Moshe Amirav, one of the paratroopers who captured eastern Jerusalem from Jordanian troops in 1967. Amirav’s present-day stance is highly critical of Israel’s presence in the eastern part of the Jerusalem, and his message conforms with the Dispatch’s simplistic narrative that Israeli policies are to be blamed for a reunification in name only. The Dispatch recounts:
By annexing East Jerusalem, an exuberant Israel bit off too much, said Amirav, now head of the public policy department at Beir Berl College.
“The notion of a united city does not exist anymore,” he said.
Lengthy Palestinian Stories Preserved
In contrast to the total deletion of any reference to the humanizing stories about Israelis Vanunu and the Malis, the humanizing testimonies of three Palestinian families are largely preserved in the Dispatch version. No Palestinians are erased like Madlene, Hillel and Shlomit.
Indeed, the detailed story about the aforementioned abu Hawa family, the unreceptive Arab neighbors of Hillel and Shlomit Mali, is mostly retained. It begins dramatically:
At 2 o’clock one morning last spring, Mahmoud abu Hawa awoke in his house on the Mount of Olives to the sound of banging on the door.
He was horrified to learn that his new neighbors were Jews.
They arrived escorted by dozens of armed security agents, he recalls. Even though it was the middle of the night, men from Elad, a Jewish settlers group, rousted the 44-year-old Palestinian tour-bus driver from his sleep and insisted on talking to him. Abu Hawa watched in disbelief as they opened a suitcase on his children’s bed. It contained about $300,000 in cash.
The story continues in this vein, including:
Working through a Jordan-based company, Elad signed a deal to pay Mahmoud abu Hawa and two of his brothers $900,000 for their building. Mahmoud said they thought they were selling to Arabs, but he became suspicious and backed out; his brothers Khalil and Mohammed took the money.
Two weeks later, Mohammed was found dead in the West Bank city of Jericho, shot eight times at close range.
Other than excluding any mention of the “solicitous and polite” Malis, what else does the Dispatch leave out about the abu Hawas? How about who, exactly, shot Mohammed, and why? The Times reports, but the Dispatch doesn’t:
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Palestinian militant group, claimed responsibility. Mahmoud thinks his brother, who left six children, may have been killed not for selling but for trying to expose the Arab middlemen who deceived him. [CAMERA notes: Mahmoud’s supposed theory is nonsensical. Why would the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade object to the exposure of deceptive Arab middlemen? The Brigades opposes the sale of Arab property to Jews.]
In addition, the family-owned restaurant has been burned since the sale and Mahmoud has suffered a heart attack.
Surely, intimidation and even murder on the part of a Palestinian terror group is a significant factor to weigh in light of Mahmoud’s words: “Nobody in this neighborhood will sell voluntarily to Israeli Jews. Never.”
Another important piece of deleted information undercuts the storyline of Jewish trespassing on Arab terrain:
Elad’s founder, David Beeri, discovered in the 1980s that some Holy Basin properties had been purchased by Jews before the 1948 war and that the deeds were being held by the Jewish National Fund, a major custodian of land in Israel. [The Mount of Olives where the abu Hawas and the Malis live is in the Holy Basin.]
In addition to the personal story of the abu Hawa family, the Dispatch preserves most of an extensive account of Kamil and Suad Saou and their demolished home in eastern Jerusalem. This section constitutes a significant portion of the entire feature. Readers get details about the Saou’s crushed olive, almond, apricot and lemon seedlings; their children returning from school to a pile of rubble, and the view from their kitchen window.
What did the Dispatch cut out from the Saou saga? Omitted are crucial details that undercut the picture of an unreasonable, brutish Israel victimizing hapless Palestinians, such as the fact that in the face of Palestinian appeals, the municipality backed down from demolishing 27 homes without permits; that “the family missed a deadline for renewing its permit application,” and:
According to Meir Margalit, a former Jerusalem city councilman who opposes demolitions, Palestinians have constructed more than 1,000 homes a year in East Jerusalem in this decade, more than 90% of them without permits. The most torn down in a single year was 152.
Palestinians have fended off the bulldozers with Israeli help.
Israeli courts routinely delay demolition orders. The Israeli press has given sympathetic coverage to Palestinian protests, such as a peaceful sit-in two years ago that forced the city to call off plans to destroy 88 homes in one neighborhood. Many Israelis oppose the demolitions on humanitarian grounds or object to the diversion of large number of police to protect the wrecking crews. . .
“You have anarchic growth in East Jerusalem,” [said lawyer Daniel Seidemann].
Similarly, the story of Palestinian builder Ibrahim Dakkak, who in 1967 “huddled with his family under their kitchen table and listened to the sound of combat” is kept intact in the Dispatch version. His humanizing personal account includes the details:
Fearful of being discovered by Israeli troops, Dakkak’s wife muffled the cries of their year-old son by cramming a tomato into his mouth. . . .
“I felt defeated,” said Dakkak, now 78.
Arab Responsibility Deleted
The Dispatch cuts out critical background information which points to an Arab role for the divided nature of the city.
Israel offered citizenship to Palestinians in East Jerusalem after the war, but few accepted. The rest were given the status of Jerusalem residents who can work in Israel and must pay Israeli taxes. They also can run and vote in municipal elections, and their numbers would give them significant clout. But they have largely boycotted city politics. [CAMERA notes: In other words, if they exercised their right for representation, they would have a more significant say in the matters that concern them, such as funding and services. The demographically similar ultra-Orthodox population, much of which also does not recognize the idea of a sovereign Jewish state, nevertheless acknowledges the pragmatic advantage to be had by participating in local politics, and therefore enjoys the benefits.]
“If we accept to have elections in East Jerusalem under the umbrella of Israeli law, it means that we recognize the legitimacy of the annexation,” said Ziad Abu Zayyad, a former Palestinian Cabinet minister who edits a journal on Israeli-Palestinian affairs.
In the 1990s, interim peace accords enshrined Palestinian demands that residents of Jerusalem be allowed to vote and run in elections for the Palestinian Authority. That helped reinforce a non-Israeli identity.
“We failed to bring the Arabs to the idea that they are part of Jerusalem,” said Rivlin, the lawmaker. “And when we let them vote for the Palestinians election, we let them declare that they are not part of Israel.”
The severe violence of the second intifada, which erupted in 2000, made the chasm seem unbridgeable.
Vanunu said she favored a more conciliatory line toward Arabs, but she wondered when she would feel comfortable strolling in the Old City again. Last time, on the Yom Kippur holiday four years ago, “I went trembling,” she said.
“These days, I hear more and more voices saying they don’t want us here, that they want to throw us into the sea, she said. “It is when I stop hearing these voices that I may go to East Jerusalem again.”
This passage highlights the Arab refusal to take part in their own municipal government, compounded with Arab violence against and hostility towards Jews, both significant factors contributing to the city’s de facto division.
Conclusion
To be sure, passages and sentences from the original Los Angeles Times feature that reinforce the Arab notion Israel is a brutal occupier of the oppressed Arab residents are also deleted. Nevertheless, that view, as expressed by Ibrahim Dabbak, Kamil and Suad Saou, Moaz Zatari, Mahmoud and Fatima abu Hawa, and aided by Moshe Amirav, is the overwhelming narrative of the Dispatch’s version.
As Dabbak observes about Israel’s victory in 1967, “We were talking two completely different languages. They were thinking they were liberating the land, and we were thinking they were occupying the land.”
In the Dispatch’s lopsided editing of the Times story, only one side was allowed to do the talking. The other, represented by Madlene Vanunu and Hillel and Shlomit Mali, was completely muted.
by Tamar Sternthal
The Columbus Dispatch’s June 10, 2007 publication of “Who owns Jerusalem?”,
a drastically shortened version of a June 3 feature by the Los Angeles Times, “A holy city still divided,” is a prime example of what not to do.
The original Times piece, by Jerusalem correspondents Ken Ellingwood and Richard Boudreaux had its own faults, but its shortcomings paled in comparison to the Dispatch’s hackneyed rendering of the relatively balanced original work.
The Columbus editors expunged humanizing Israeli accounts but preserved those concerning Arabs while deleting references to Arab responsibility for the ongoing de facto divisions of the holy city.
Period of Coexistence Ignored
The Columbus Dispatch glosses over the period of coexistence and mingling following the city’s reunification, which came to an end due to Arab violence in the late 1980s. In the Times version, an Israeli woman, Madlene Vanunu, discussed this point in a first-person account. Her humanizing testimony, excised by the Dispatch, follows:
Madlene Vanunu spent her youth on Israel’s side of the barbed wire that once carved Jerusalem into Israeli and Jordanian halves.
“We used to see the Arabs through the fence. Sometimes we would talk. Sometimes they said, ‘Good morning.’ Other times they threw stones,” said Vanunu, who is 58 and still lives in the same house in the working-class Musrara neighborhood.
When the fence came down, it was just a five-minute walk to the spice-scented lanes of the Old City.
“In the years after the war, we went to the Old City every Saturday,” said Vanunu, who works in the municipal art gallery in West Jerusalem. “We would go to restaurants, meet with people and talk.”
But in the 20 years since the first Palestinian intifada, she has been there only once, and then with fear. The six years of on-and-off clashes that began in 1987 drove the two sides apart. The [Arab] violence became a turning point in their relations.
No mention of Vanunu appears in the Dispatch report. All that is retained from this section of the Times report is:
Today secular Jews rarely venture into East Jerusalem’s traffic-choked downtown near the Old City. Observant Jews still walk through the Old City’s Muslim quarter on their way to worship and study, but they have been assaulted.
Israeli Couple Cut
Hillel and Shlomit Mali, a young couple who moved into the Arab populated Mount of Olives section of Jerusalem, get the same treatment as Vanunu. They, like Vanunu, exhibited neighborly coexistence, which was met by Arab hostility. But the Dispatch chose to delete Ellingwood and Boudreaux’s humanizing story about them, reporting only that the “arrival of the Jewish families set off riots, followed by an icy coexistence and made the red-roofed apartment house on Mansouriyeh Street a microcosm of the struggle of Jerusalem.” Here is what did not make the cut:
Hillel and Shlomit Mali could hardly have picked a less welcoming place to settle as newlyweds. They arrived three months after the first Jews moved into the building. Their new home was directly upstairs from Mahmoud, his wife, mother and four children.
Unlike Elad’s instrusive security agents, Hillel, a 24-year-old musician, and Shlomit, a 23-year-old graduate student of literature, were solicitous and polite. Though it is assertive in acquiring property, Elad says it tries to minimize backlash by choosing settlers who are not confrontational.
Soon after the couple moved in, Hillel phoned downstairs to introduce himself in rudimentary Arabic. Mahmoud hung up and still won’t speak to the couple.
The Malis sent sweets on the Jewish holiday of Purim. Mahmoud’s mother, Fatima, tossed them into the garbage.
Saturday mornings, when the Jews pray in their top-floor synagogue, the Abu Hawas tune in a radio broadcast of Muslim prayers and turn up the volume. Neighborhood children stone the Jewish apartments and smash the cameras installed by 24-hour armed guards who watch the building from a control room just off the stairwell.
“They try to be nice,” Fatima said. “But they were the reason my son was killed. [See below.] They took my house. How can I accept them? I want to make their lives miserable so that they will leave.”
Yet they remain. Forty years after the war, Hillel and Shlomit embody the unfulfilled aspiration of a united Jerusalem under Jewish control.
“I try to talk with my neighbors,” said Hillel, taking in a spectacular view of the contested holy sites from his roof. “Sometimes this is a very hard mission. But if I don’t do this, if I leave the Mount of Olives, I fail.”
Mahmoud would consider the battle won.
“The Israelis say to me, ‘Shalom,’ but I never say anything back because, honestly, there can be no relationship with these people, no peace. They fight you with their weapons, with their money, with everything.
“They’re trying to take over this whole area, all these houses, and kick us out. We say, ‘No way.’”
One Israeli Account Retained
There is, however, one Israeli whose personal story the Dispatch considers worth retaining: that of Moshe Amirav, one of the paratroopers who captured eastern Jerusalem from Jordanian troops in 1967. Amirav’s present-day stance is highly critical of Israel’s presence in the eastern part of the Jerusalem, and his message conforms with the Dispatch’s simplistic narrative that Israeli policies are to be blamed for a reunification in name only. The Dispatch recounts:
By annexing East Jerusalem, an exuberant Israel bit off too much, said Amirav, now head of the public policy department at Beir Berl College.
“The notion of a united city does not exist anymore,” he said.
Lengthy Palestinian Stories Preserved
In contrast to the total deletion of any reference to the humanizing stories about Israelis Vanunu and the Malis, the humanizing testimonies of three Palestinian families are largely preserved in the Dispatch version. No Palestinians are erased like Madlene, Hillel and Shlomit.
Indeed, the detailed story about the aforementioned abu Hawa family, the unreceptive Arab neighbors of Hillel and Shlomit Mali, is mostly retained. It begins dramatically:
At 2 o’clock one morning last spring, Mahmoud abu Hawa awoke in his house on the Mount of Olives to the sound of banging on the door.
He was horrified to learn that his new neighbors were Jews.
They arrived escorted by dozens of armed security agents, he recalls. Even though it was the middle of the night, men from Elad, a Jewish settlers group, rousted the 44-year-old Palestinian tour-bus driver from his sleep and insisted on talking to him. Abu Hawa watched in disbelief as they opened a suitcase on his children’s bed. It contained about $300,000 in cash.
The story continues in this vein, including:
Working through a Jordan-based company, Elad signed a deal to pay Mahmoud abu Hawa and two of his brothers $900,000 for their building. Mahmoud said they thought they were selling to Arabs, but he became suspicious and backed out; his brothers Khalil and Mohammed took the money.
Two weeks later, Mohammed was found dead in the West Bank city of Jericho, shot eight times at close range.
Other than excluding any mention of the “solicitous and polite” Malis, what else does the Dispatch leave out about the abu Hawas? How about who, exactly, shot Mohammed, and why? The Times reports, but the Dispatch doesn’t:
The Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade, a Palestinian militant group, claimed responsibility. Mahmoud thinks his brother, who left six children, may have been killed not for selling but for trying to expose the Arab middlemen who deceived him. [CAMERA notes: Mahmoud’s supposed theory is nonsensical. Why would the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigade object to the exposure of deceptive Arab middlemen? The Brigades opposes the sale of Arab property to Jews.]
In addition, the family-owned restaurant has been burned since the sale and Mahmoud has suffered a heart attack.
Surely, intimidation and even murder on the part of a Palestinian terror group is a significant factor to weigh in light of Mahmoud’s words: “Nobody in this neighborhood will sell voluntarily to Israeli Jews. Never.”
Another important piece of deleted information undercuts the storyline of Jewish trespassing on Arab terrain:
Elad’s founder, David Beeri, discovered in the 1980s that some Holy Basin properties had been purchased by Jews before the 1948 war and that the deeds were being held by the Jewish National Fund, a major custodian of land in Israel. [The Mount of Olives where the abu Hawas and the Malis live is in the Holy Basin.]
In addition to the personal story of the abu Hawa family, the Dispatch preserves most of an extensive account of Kamil and Suad Saou and their demolished home in eastern Jerusalem. This section constitutes a significant portion of the entire feature. Readers get details about the Saou’s crushed olive, almond, apricot and lemon seedlings; their children returning from school to a pile of rubble, and the view from their kitchen window.
What did the Dispatch cut out from the Saou saga? Omitted are crucial details that undercut the picture of an unreasonable, brutish Israel victimizing hapless Palestinians, such as the fact that in the face of Palestinian appeals, the municipality backed down from demolishing 27 homes without permits; that “the family missed a deadline for renewing its permit application,” and:
According to Meir Margalit, a former Jerusalem city councilman who opposes demolitions, Palestinians have constructed more than 1,000 homes a year in East Jerusalem in this decade, more than 90% of them without permits. The most torn down in a single year was 152.
Palestinians have fended off the bulldozers with Israeli help.
Israeli courts routinely delay demolition orders. The Israeli press has given sympathetic coverage to Palestinian protests, such as a peaceful sit-in two years ago that forced the city to call off plans to destroy 88 homes in one neighborhood. Many Israelis oppose the demolitions on humanitarian grounds or object to the diversion of large number of police to protect the wrecking crews. . .
“You have anarchic growth in East Jerusalem,” [said lawyer Daniel Seidemann].
Similarly, the story of Palestinian builder Ibrahim Dakkak, who in 1967 “huddled with his family under their kitchen table and listened to the sound of combat” is kept intact in the Dispatch version. His humanizing personal account includes the details:
Fearful of being discovered by Israeli troops, Dakkak’s wife muffled the cries of their year-old son by cramming a tomato into his mouth. . . .
“I felt defeated,” said Dakkak, now 78.
Arab Responsibility Deleted
The Dispatch cuts out critical background information which points to an Arab role for the divided nature of the city.
Israel offered citizenship to Palestinians in East Jerusalem after the war, but few accepted. The rest were given the status of Jerusalem residents who can work in Israel and must pay Israeli taxes. They also can run and vote in municipal elections, and their numbers would give them significant clout. But they have largely boycotted city politics. [CAMERA notes: In other words, if they exercised their right for representation, they would have a more significant say in the matters that concern them, such as funding and services. The demographically similar ultra-Orthodox population, much of which also does not recognize the idea of a sovereign Jewish state, nevertheless acknowledges the pragmatic advantage to be had by participating in local politics, and therefore enjoys the benefits.]
“If we accept to have elections in East Jerusalem under the umbrella of Israeli law, it means that we recognize the legitimacy of the annexation,” said Ziad Abu Zayyad, a former Palestinian Cabinet minister who edits a journal on Israeli-Palestinian affairs.
In the 1990s, interim peace accords enshrined Palestinian demands that residents of Jerusalem be allowed to vote and run in elections for the Palestinian Authority. That helped reinforce a non-Israeli identity.
“We failed to bring the Arabs to the idea that they are part of Jerusalem,” said Rivlin, the lawmaker. “And when we let them vote for the Palestinians election, we let them declare that they are not part of Israel.”
The severe violence of the second intifada, which erupted in 2000, made the chasm seem unbridgeable.
Vanunu said she favored a more conciliatory line toward Arabs, but she wondered when she would feel comfortable strolling in the Old City again. Last time, on the Yom Kippur holiday four years ago, “I went trembling,” she said.
“These days, I hear more and more voices saying they don’t want us here, that they want to throw us into the sea, she said. “It is when I stop hearing these voices that I may go to East Jerusalem again.”
This passage highlights the Arab refusal to take part in their own municipal government, compounded with Arab violence against and hostility towards Jews, both significant factors contributing to the city’s de facto division.
Conclusion
To be sure, passages and sentences from the original Los Angeles Times feature that reinforce the Arab notion Israel is a brutal occupier of the oppressed Arab residents are also deleted. Nevertheless, that view, as expressed by Ibrahim Dabbak, Kamil and Suad Saou, Moaz Zatari, Mahmoud and Fatima abu Hawa, and aided by Moshe Amirav, is the overwhelming narrative of the Dispatch’s version.
As Dabbak observes about Israel’s victory in 1967, “We were talking two completely different languages. They were thinking they were liberating the land, and we were thinking they were occupying the land.”
In the Dispatch’s lopsided editing of the Times story, only one side was allowed to do the talking. The other, represented by Madlene Vanunu and Hillel and Shlomit Mali, was completely muted.
by Tamar Sternthal
Possible Eruption of Violent Crisis in Lebanon After July 15
In the past few days, Arab and Iranian media reports have pointed to the possibility that Lebanon's current political crisis may become a violent conflict after July 15, 2007.
It should be noted that certain international events concerning Lebanon and Syria are expected in mid-July, specifically:
1. The U.N. Security Council session scheduled for July 16, 2007, which is to discuss a report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on the progress in the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. This discussion will be devoted in part to the report submitted by a delegation sent by Ki-Moon to the Syria-Lebanon border to assess border supervision. According to the London daily Al-Hayat, the delegation's recommendations included the stationing of international experts in border control to aid Lebanon's security apparatuses in monitoring the Syria-Lebanon border. [1]
2. Between July 15 and 17, 2007, the submission of another report to the U.N. Security Council, by the head of the International Investigation Commission into the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri, Serge Brammertz.
The following are excerpts from these Arab and Iranian media reports:
Reports of Syria Instructing its Citizens to Leave Lebanon by July 15
On July 5, 2007, the Iranian news agency IRNA reported that Syrian authorities had instructed all Syrian citizens residing in Lebanon to return to their country by July 15, 2007. [2] The next day, the Israeli Arab daily Al-Sinara similarly reported, on the authority of a Lebanese source close to Damascus, that Syria was planning to remove its citizens from Lebanon. [3] Also on July 5, the Lebanese daily Al-Liwa reported rumors that Syrian workers were leaving Lebanon at the request of the Syrian authorities. [4] In addition, the Syrian government daily Al-Thawra reported that Syrian universities would accept Syrian students who were leaving Lebanon due to the instability there. [5]
These sources offered a number of explanations for Syria's calls for its citizens to leave Lebanon. IRNA tied these calls to Lebanese President Emil Lahoud's ultimatum to the Lebanese opposition to decide on how to deal with the crisis in Lebanon, and also claimed that the calls were connected to Syria's intention to mobilize reserve units in expectation of an attack on it by Israel. On the other hand, the Lebanese daily Al-Liwa tied Syria's calls to the upcoming additional report by the International Investigation Commission into the Al-Hariri assassination, which is expected next week.
The Lebanese Opposition: After Mid-July, We Will Establish a Second Government in Lebanon
For the past month, senior officials in the Hizbullah-led Lebanese government, as well as Lebanese President Emil Lahoud, have been threatening to establish a second government in Lebanon, or to take "historical" and "strategic" steps that will be announced in due course.
The crisis between the March 14 Forces and the Lebanese opposition has deepened with the approach of the legal date set for the presidential elections, which the opposition is threatening to prevent, and in light of harsh criticism by the Lebanese government and the March 14 Forces accusing Syria of being behind all the recent attempts to destabilize Lebanon.
On June 18, 2007, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to the Lebanese opposition, reported that Lahoud had postponed until mid-July the deadline on his ultimatum requiring the opposition to apprise him of their plans against the March 14 Forces. According to the paper, if the crisis is not resolved by July 15, the opposition will form the second government. [6]
On June 25, 2007, Al-Akhbar reported that the opposition had already discussed plans to form a second government and to take over the government ministries, in the event that the Al-Siniora government continued to adhere to its current positions. The paper added that the opposition had even begun to name the individuals who will form the second government.
A senior member of the Lebanese opposition told Al-Akhbar that he believed that if the second government is established, the Lebanese army will adopt a neutral stance. He estimated that the regions that would be loyal to the second government would be larger than the ones remaining loyal to Al-Siniora's government. He further said that people from the South, from the Beqa' valley, and from a large part of the Mount Lebanon region, as well as in the North, would refuse to recognize Al-Siniora's government. He added that UNIFIL would find itself facing a new reality when it discovered that Al-Siniora's government was no longer able to support its activities or ensure its security. [7]
It should be noted that an article in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, which is affiliated with the March 14 Forces, estimated that the second government's jurisdiction would include South Lebanon, that is, the area bordering Israel, and the Beqa' valley, that is, the region bordering Syria. [8]
Al-Mustaqbal Warns of Syrian-Iranian Plan for Coup in Lebanon
A series of op-eds in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustabal, by Nusair Al-As'ad, warned of a planned Syrian-Iranian coup in Lebanon. [9] According to these articles, Hizbullah was planning to launch, in the near future, a new stage in the coup being led by Syria and Iran in Lebanon, during which it would use its weapons on the domestic Lebanese front. The threats by the Lebanese opposition to establish a second government in Lebanon were part of this planned coup, and the coup was to be carried out under the banner of establishing a second government.
The articles stated that the threat voiced by Syrian President Bashar Assad during his April 2007 meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, namely, that the situation in Lebanon would "reach the point of civil war," was actually "an official declaration of the coup he is now staging in Lebanon."
Hizbullah Arms Itself in Preparation for the Next Stage; One of Its Military Targets May Be Beirut
According to the series of articles in Al-Mustaqbal, Hizbullah was continuing military preparations in a number of locations in Lebanon, as part of preparation for the next stage in the Lebanon coup. Hizbullah's weapons were for two main purposes: a) to be used in a conflict with Israel, to assist the Syrian regime in a war with Israel, or to assist Iran in a confrontation with the U.S.; and b) to be used for fighting in Beirut.
The articles said that Hizbullah's military preparations fell under several categories:
a) Military activity both south and north of the Litani River, in defiance of U.N. Resolution 1701;
b) Transformation of the Beqa' region into a military zone, so that it could be used as a war zone in Hizbullah's next confrontation with Israel and as a frontline in the next war. In this context, the articles mentioned several events: a recent military parade in the Beqa' valley, in which hundreds of Hizbullah activists participated; days-long truck traffic from the northern villages in the Beqa' towards a village where permanent military positions had been reinstated in several buildings; groups of young people who had gone to train in Iran; and earthworks in Balbeq for installing Hizbullah's private telephone communications network;
c) Hizbullah's training of activists from other organizations loyal to the Syrian regime.
Change in Iranian Policy: From Preventing Civil War in Lebanon to Adopting Syria's Position
One of the articles in Al-Mustaqbal asked whether Iran's involvement in the Lebanon coup was evidence of a change in Iranian policy, which had previously been that everything possible must be done to prevent Sunni-Shi'ite civil war in Lebanon. It read:
"The dossier of Iranian-Syrian relations, and Iran's relations with influential Arab countries, has passed entirely into the hands of Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, and Iranian National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani no longer has anything to do with this issue…"
According to the articles, the positions of Larijani - who had previously been in charge of this dossier as the personal envoy of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei - had been more flexible, and he had represented the position that Iran's relations with Lebanon should not depend entirely on Syria. Further, Larijani had even expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the Syrian regime, and at the fact that "Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad had closed off all horizons for a solution in Lebanon..."
The articles stated that "during his last visit to the Syrian capital, Mottaki heard from the leadership of the Syrian regime some sort of protest over the 'red line,' to which Iran had agreed in its negotiations with Saudi Arabia with respect to Lebanon [and] which was aimed at preventing civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Lebanon… The fact that Mottaki has [now] been given the entire dossier begs the question: Does this development [mean] a return to the previous stage in the relations between Iran and Syria, that is, the stage at which Iran had to go through Damascus and back it [on the Lebanese issue]?"
The articles also stated: "A review of recent Iranian activities reveals that lately Iran has not refused any Syrian request… Does Iran's current backing of a coup in Lebanon [mean] that it has reneged on the January 2007 agreement with Saudi Arabia on the 'red line'… of [preventing] civil war in Lebanon?..."
[1] Al-Hayat (London) June 27, 2007. It should be noted that on July 2, 2007, Lebanon deployed about 300 soldiers from the internal security forces along the Syria-Lebanon border to assist the Lebanese army in supervising the border. Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon) July 3, 2007.
[2] IRNA (Iran), July 5, 2007.
[3] Al-Sinara (Nazareth), July 6, 2007.
[4] Al-Liwa (Lebanon), July 5, 2007.
[5] Al-Thawra (Syria), July 5, 2007.
[6] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), June 18, 2007, June 19, 2007.
[7] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon) June 25, 2007.
[8] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), July 2, 2007.
[9] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), June 30, 2007; July 2, 2007; July 3, 2007.
It should be noted that certain international events concerning Lebanon and Syria are expected in mid-July, specifically:
1. The U.N. Security Council session scheduled for July 16, 2007, which is to discuss a report by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon on the progress in the implementation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701. This discussion will be devoted in part to the report submitted by a delegation sent by Ki-Moon to the Syria-Lebanon border to assess border supervision. According to the London daily Al-Hayat, the delegation's recommendations included the stationing of international experts in border control to aid Lebanon's security apparatuses in monitoring the Syria-Lebanon border. [1]
2. Between July 15 and 17, 2007, the submission of another report to the U.N. Security Council, by the head of the International Investigation Commission into the murder of former Lebanese prime minister Rafiq Al-Hariri, Serge Brammertz.
The following are excerpts from these Arab and Iranian media reports:
Reports of Syria Instructing its Citizens to Leave Lebanon by July 15
On July 5, 2007, the Iranian news agency IRNA reported that Syrian authorities had instructed all Syrian citizens residing in Lebanon to return to their country by July 15, 2007. [2] The next day, the Israeli Arab daily Al-Sinara similarly reported, on the authority of a Lebanese source close to Damascus, that Syria was planning to remove its citizens from Lebanon. [3] Also on July 5, the Lebanese daily Al-Liwa reported rumors that Syrian workers were leaving Lebanon at the request of the Syrian authorities. [4] In addition, the Syrian government daily Al-Thawra reported that Syrian universities would accept Syrian students who were leaving Lebanon due to the instability there. [5]
These sources offered a number of explanations for Syria's calls for its citizens to leave Lebanon. IRNA tied these calls to Lebanese President Emil Lahoud's ultimatum to the Lebanese opposition to decide on how to deal with the crisis in Lebanon, and also claimed that the calls were connected to Syria's intention to mobilize reserve units in expectation of an attack on it by Israel. On the other hand, the Lebanese daily Al-Liwa tied Syria's calls to the upcoming additional report by the International Investigation Commission into the Al-Hariri assassination, which is expected next week.
The Lebanese Opposition: After Mid-July, We Will Establish a Second Government in Lebanon
For the past month, senior officials in the Hizbullah-led Lebanese government, as well as Lebanese President Emil Lahoud, have been threatening to establish a second government in Lebanon, or to take "historical" and "strategic" steps that will be announced in due course.
The crisis between the March 14 Forces and the Lebanese opposition has deepened with the approach of the legal date set for the presidential elections, which the opposition is threatening to prevent, and in light of harsh criticism by the Lebanese government and the March 14 Forces accusing Syria of being behind all the recent attempts to destabilize Lebanon.
On June 18, 2007, the Lebanese daily Al-Akhbar, which is close to the Lebanese opposition, reported that Lahoud had postponed until mid-July the deadline on his ultimatum requiring the opposition to apprise him of their plans against the March 14 Forces. According to the paper, if the crisis is not resolved by July 15, the opposition will form the second government. [6]
On June 25, 2007, Al-Akhbar reported that the opposition had already discussed plans to form a second government and to take over the government ministries, in the event that the Al-Siniora government continued to adhere to its current positions. The paper added that the opposition had even begun to name the individuals who will form the second government.
A senior member of the Lebanese opposition told Al-Akhbar that he believed that if the second government is established, the Lebanese army will adopt a neutral stance. He estimated that the regions that would be loyal to the second government would be larger than the ones remaining loyal to Al-Siniora's government. He further said that people from the South, from the Beqa' valley, and from a large part of the Mount Lebanon region, as well as in the North, would refuse to recognize Al-Siniora's government. He added that UNIFIL would find itself facing a new reality when it discovered that Al-Siniora's government was no longer able to support its activities or ensure its security. [7]
It should be noted that an article in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustaqbal, which is affiliated with the March 14 Forces, estimated that the second government's jurisdiction would include South Lebanon, that is, the area bordering Israel, and the Beqa' valley, that is, the region bordering Syria. [8]
Al-Mustaqbal Warns of Syrian-Iranian Plan for Coup in Lebanon
A series of op-eds in the Lebanese daily Al-Mustabal, by Nusair Al-As'ad, warned of a planned Syrian-Iranian coup in Lebanon. [9] According to these articles, Hizbullah was planning to launch, in the near future, a new stage in the coup being led by Syria and Iran in Lebanon, during which it would use its weapons on the domestic Lebanese front. The threats by the Lebanese opposition to establish a second government in Lebanon were part of this planned coup, and the coup was to be carried out under the banner of establishing a second government.
The articles stated that the threat voiced by Syrian President Bashar Assad during his April 2007 meeting with U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon, namely, that the situation in Lebanon would "reach the point of civil war," was actually "an official declaration of the coup he is now staging in Lebanon."
Hizbullah Arms Itself in Preparation for the Next Stage; One of Its Military Targets May Be Beirut
According to the series of articles in Al-Mustaqbal, Hizbullah was continuing military preparations in a number of locations in Lebanon, as part of preparation for the next stage in the Lebanon coup. Hizbullah's weapons were for two main purposes: a) to be used in a conflict with Israel, to assist the Syrian regime in a war with Israel, or to assist Iran in a confrontation with the U.S.; and b) to be used for fighting in Beirut.
The articles said that Hizbullah's military preparations fell under several categories:
a) Military activity both south and north of the Litani River, in defiance of U.N. Resolution 1701;
b) Transformation of the Beqa' region into a military zone, so that it could be used as a war zone in Hizbullah's next confrontation with Israel and as a frontline in the next war. In this context, the articles mentioned several events: a recent military parade in the Beqa' valley, in which hundreds of Hizbullah activists participated; days-long truck traffic from the northern villages in the Beqa' towards a village where permanent military positions had been reinstated in several buildings; groups of young people who had gone to train in Iran; and earthworks in Balbeq for installing Hizbullah's private telephone communications network;
c) Hizbullah's training of activists from other organizations loyal to the Syrian regime.
Change in Iranian Policy: From Preventing Civil War in Lebanon to Adopting Syria's Position
One of the articles in Al-Mustaqbal asked whether Iran's involvement in the Lebanon coup was evidence of a change in Iranian policy, which had previously been that everything possible must be done to prevent Sunni-Shi'ite civil war in Lebanon. It read:
"The dossier of Iranian-Syrian relations, and Iran's relations with influential Arab countries, has passed entirely into the hands of Iranian Foreign Minister Manuchehr Mottaki, and Iranian National Security Council Secretary Ali Larijani no longer has anything to do with this issue…"
According to the articles, the positions of Larijani - who had previously been in charge of this dossier as the personal envoy of Iran's Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei - had been more flexible, and he had represented the position that Iran's relations with Lebanon should not depend entirely on Syria. Further, Larijani had even expressed dissatisfaction with the actions of the Syrian regime, and at the fact that "Syrian President Bashar Al-Assad had closed off all horizons for a solution in Lebanon..."
The articles stated that "during his last visit to the Syrian capital, Mottaki heard from the leadership of the Syrian regime some sort of protest over the 'red line,' to which Iran had agreed in its negotiations with Saudi Arabia with respect to Lebanon [and] which was aimed at preventing civil war between Sunnis and Shi'ites in Lebanon… The fact that Mottaki has [now] been given the entire dossier begs the question: Does this development [mean] a return to the previous stage in the relations between Iran and Syria, that is, the stage at which Iran had to go through Damascus and back it [on the Lebanese issue]?"
The articles also stated: "A review of recent Iranian activities reveals that lately Iran has not refused any Syrian request… Does Iran's current backing of a coup in Lebanon [mean] that it has reneged on the January 2007 agreement with Saudi Arabia on the 'red line'… of [preventing] civil war in Lebanon?..."
[1] Al-Hayat (London) June 27, 2007. It should be noted that on July 2, 2007, Lebanon deployed about 300 soldiers from the internal security forces along the Syria-Lebanon border to assist the Lebanese army in supervising the border. Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon) July 3, 2007.
[2] IRNA (Iran), July 5, 2007.
[3] Al-Sinara (Nazareth), July 6, 2007.
[4] Al-Liwa (Lebanon), July 5, 2007.
[5] Al-Thawra (Syria), July 5, 2007.
[6] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon), June 18, 2007, June 19, 2007.
[7] Al-Akhbar (Lebanon) June 25, 2007.
[8] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), July 2, 2007.
[9] Al-Mustaqbal (Lebanon), June 30, 2007; July 2, 2007; July 3, 2007.
Monday, July 02, 2007
Kosovo, Serbie : l’OTAN s’est trompé d’ennemi
« Nous [l’OTAN] avons bombardé le mauvais côté [au Kosovo et en Serbie en 1999].
Les écrans de nos télévisions débordaient d’images d’Albanais du Kosovo fuyant à travers les frontières pour aller chercher refuge en Macédoine et en Albanie.
Des rapports alarmistes disaient que les forces de sécurité de Slobodan Milosevic menaient une campagne génocidaire, et qu’au moins 100 000 Albanais du Kosovo avaient été massacrés et enterrés dans des charniers à travers toute la province.
L’OTAN entra promptement en action, bien qu’aucun des États membres de cette alliance n’ait été menacé, et se mit à bombarder non seulement le Kosovo, mais aussi les infrastructures et la population de la Serbie elle-même, sans que cette action soit autorisée par une résolution des Nations Unies.
On qualifia de « Munichois » ceux d’entre nous qui mirent en garde l’Occident contre le fait qu’il se laissait entraîner aux côtés d’un mouvement indépendantiste albanais extrémiste et partisan.
On oublia opportunément que l’organisation qui menait le combat pour l’indépendance, l’Armée de libération du Kosovo (UCK), était désignée universellement comme organisation terroriste et connue pour être soutenue par Al Qaida.
Depuis l’intervention de l’OTAN et de l’ONU en 1999 au Kosovo, ce dernier est devenu la capitale européenne du crime.
Le commerce des esclaves sexuels y est florissant.
La province est devenue la plaque tournante de la drogue en direction de l’Europe et de l’Amérique du Nord.
Et pour comble, la plupart des drogues proviennent d’un autre pays « libéré » par l’Occident : l’Afghanistan. Les membres de l’UCK, qui a été démobilisée mais non démantelée, participent à la fois à ce trafic et au gouvernement.
La police de l’ONU arrête quelques-uns de ceux qui sont impliqués dans ce trafic et les traduit devant une juridiction passoire ouverte à la corruption et aux pressions.
Le but ultime des Albanais du Kosovo est de purger celui-ci de tous les non-Albanais, y compris les représentants de la communauté internationale, et de fusionner avec la mère-patrie albanaise, réalisant ainsi la « Grande Albanie ».
Leur campagne a commencé au début des années 1990, par l’attaque des forces de sécurité serbes ;
ils ont réussi à retourner la réaction musclée de Milosevic en une sympathie universelle pour leur cause.
Le génocide proclamé par l’Occident n’a jamais existé ; les 100 000 morts prétendument enterrés dans des charniers se sont avérés être environ 2 000, toutes ethnies confondues, y compris ceux qui sont tombés dans les combats.
Les Albanais du Kosovo ont joué sur nous comme sur un Stradivarius.
Nous avons financé et soutenu indirectement leur campagne pour l’indépendance d’un Kosovo ethniquement pur.
Nous ne leur avons jamais reproché d’être responsables des violences du début des années quatre-vingt-dix, et nous continuons de les dépeindre comme les victimes d’aujourd’hui, malgré les preuves du contraire.
Quand ils auront atteint leur objectif d’indépendance, aidés par les dollars de nos impôts ajoutés à ceux de Ben Laden et d’Al Qaida, on peut imaginer quel signal d’encouragement ce sera pour les autres mouvements indépendantistes du monde entier soutenus par le terrorisme !
Notre acharnement à creuser notre tombe n’est-il pas comique ?
Major Général Mackenzie
Ancien commandant (canadien)des forces occidentales en Bosnie
Les apprentissages monstrueux, ou la haine enseignée aux enfants
Des petites filles inquiètes qui récitent leur leçon de mort.
Des garçons confiés à des adultes si pervers qu'ils les incitent au suicide et au meurtre.
Des corps déchiquetés ou mutilés pour modèles. Le mépris de la vie en leçon.
Depuis des années et des années, des enfants sont élevés dans la haine.
Silence presque unanime sur ces violences.
Le viol des consciences n'est pas un abus reconnu.
Les organisations internationales ignorent-elles que la Convention relative aux Droits de l'Enfant concerne tous les enfants du monde ?
Les enfants palestiniens en seraient-ils moins dignes ?
Derrière la complaisance, le mépris absolu. Il n'est pas nouveau.
On le retrouve chez de nombreux militants en occident.
Qu'importent les réalités aux défenseurs d'une 'cause'.
Le sujet est tabou. Sacrifier des enfants en les abandonnant à la folie haineuse des leurs, prix accepté pour pouvoir continuer de brandir son petit drapeau.
Les déviants des droits de l'homme contre les droits de l'enfant.
Une femme et des hommes témoignent.
Ce sont des bénévoles 'venus aider' et qui découvrirent la propagande.
Ils témoignent, dans un document vidéo. Il a été traduit en français par Pistache.
Il est présentée sur le site de l'UPJF qui publie également la transcription des interventions :...
Quand les yeux se dessillent.
Des bénévoles, abusés par la propagande palestinienne, témoignent - Par Menahem Macina
« Parmi les témoignages-choc qui figurent dans la vidéo transcrite ci-après, on retiendra surtout celui de Daril Jones, « bénévole australienne, qui, trompée par la propagande palestinienne, était venue aider les Palestiniens, et comprit, par la suite, qu’ils étaient comme possédés d’un désir irrépressible de tuer, au point de détruire des vies d’enfants.
Elle raconte, avec larmes, que des Palestiniens montraient [aux humanitaires] des photos de corps "mutilés, démembrés, déchiquetés", et affirmaient que c’était le résultat de "tortures perpétrées par les Israéliens".
Plus tard, quand elle vit un enfant palestinien se faire exploser devant elle, elle réalisa que [l’état des] cadavres mis en pièces [qu’elle avait vus sur les photos] était le résultat des corps bardés d’explosifs, que les Palestiniens utilisaient comme des bombes humaines contre les Israéliens.
Daril Jones a figuré dans le film "The road to Jenin" [la route de Jénine]*, réalisé par le cinéaste français, Pierre Rehov » (Note de YouTube).
Le chagrin émouvant de cette bénévole est à la mesure de l’horreur que lui ont causée la découverte de la culture, quasi mythique, de la haine, qui anime tant de Palestiniens, et l’immense déception qui fut la sienne de découvrir que les dirigeants de ce peuple non seulement ne font rien pour endiguer cette haine morbide, mais la célèbrent au contraire et la proposent en modèle à la jeune génération palestinienne.
Il faut diffuser largement ce document, non pour inciter à la haine des Palestiniens, mais pour aider les politiques et tous les hommes et les femmes de bonne volonté du monde à comprendre à quel fléau est confronté le peuple israélien, et à faire pression sur les dirigeants politiques palestiniens pour qu’ils répudient cet état d’esprit mortel et éduquent leur peuple, et surtout leurs enfants, à la paix et à la cohabitation entre les deux peuples qui se partagent la même terre, puisque, de toute façon, l’un comme l’autre n’ont pas d’autre choix. »
* Refusé par les télévisions françaises. Alors qu'un autre film, 'jénine, Jénine' est diffusé sans réserve. Voir l'article d'Aaron Kein publié par DesInfos.
Des garçons confiés à des adultes si pervers qu'ils les incitent au suicide et au meurtre.
Des corps déchiquetés ou mutilés pour modèles. Le mépris de la vie en leçon.
Depuis des années et des années, des enfants sont élevés dans la haine.
Silence presque unanime sur ces violences.
Le viol des consciences n'est pas un abus reconnu.
Les organisations internationales ignorent-elles que la Convention relative aux Droits de l'Enfant concerne tous les enfants du monde ?
Les enfants palestiniens en seraient-ils moins dignes ?
Derrière la complaisance, le mépris absolu. Il n'est pas nouveau.
On le retrouve chez de nombreux militants en occident.
Qu'importent les réalités aux défenseurs d'une 'cause'.
Le sujet est tabou. Sacrifier des enfants en les abandonnant à la folie haineuse des leurs, prix accepté pour pouvoir continuer de brandir son petit drapeau.
Les déviants des droits de l'homme contre les droits de l'enfant.
Une femme et des hommes témoignent.
Ce sont des bénévoles 'venus aider' et qui découvrirent la propagande.
Ils témoignent, dans un document vidéo. Il a été traduit en français par Pistache.
Il est présentée sur le site de l'UPJF qui publie également la transcription des interventions :...
Quand les yeux se dessillent.
Des bénévoles, abusés par la propagande palestinienne, témoignent - Par Menahem Macina
« Parmi les témoignages-choc qui figurent dans la vidéo transcrite ci-après, on retiendra surtout celui de Daril Jones, « bénévole australienne, qui, trompée par la propagande palestinienne, était venue aider les Palestiniens, et comprit, par la suite, qu’ils étaient comme possédés d’un désir irrépressible de tuer, au point de détruire des vies d’enfants.
Elle raconte, avec larmes, que des Palestiniens montraient [aux humanitaires] des photos de corps "mutilés, démembrés, déchiquetés", et affirmaient que c’était le résultat de "tortures perpétrées par les Israéliens".
Plus tard, quand elle vit un enfant palestinien se faire exploser devant elle, elle réalisa que [l’état des] cadavres mis en pièces [qu’elle avait vus sur les photos] était le résultat des corps bardés d’explosifs, que les Palestiniens utilisaient comme des bombes humaines contre les Israéliens.
Daril Jones a figuré dans le film "The road to Jenin" [la route de Jénine]*, réalisé par le cinéaste français, Pierre Rehov » (Note de YouTube).
Le chagrin émouvant de cette bénévole est à la mesure de l’horreur que lui ont causée la découverte de la culture, quasi mythique, de la haine, qui anime tant de Palestiniens, et l’immense déception qui fut la sienne de découvrir que les dirigeants de ce peuple non seulement ne font rien pour endiguer cette haine morbide, mais la célèbrent au contraire et la proposent en modèle à la jeune génération palestinienne.
Il faut diffuser largement ce document, non pour inciter à la haine des Palestiniens, mais pour aider les politiques et tous les hommes et les femmes de bonne volonté du monde à comprendre à quel fléau est confronté le peuple israélien, et à faire pression sur les dirigeants politiques palestiniens pour qu’ils répudient cet état d’esprit mortel et éduquent leur peuple, et surtout leurs enfants, à la paix et à la cohabitation entre les deux peuples qui se partagent la même terre, puisque, de toute façon, l’un comme l’autre n’ont pas d’autre choix. »
* Refusé par les télévisions françaises. Alors qu'un autre film, 'jénine, Jénine' est diffusé sans réserve. Voir l'article d'Aaron Kein publié par DesInfos.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)