Samizdat Roger Garaudy
1996 (June)
No "Right to Reply" (yet written in our law) was granted to me by the media when they discharged the worst lies against my book, "The Founding Myths ofIsraeli Politics."
I was walled up in silence.
Only Abbé Pierre dared raise his great voice.
By enacting laws that limit freedom of expression, the French State has ceased to be a State of Law. In particular, the Gayssot Law restores the law, abolished after Vichy, that defines questioning of official truth as a criminal offense (délit d'opinion ). In fact, this law restores discrimination against anybody who does not submit to "one-track thought" and to the cult of "politically correct" taboos imposed by American leaders and their Western mercenaries, especially the Israelis.
After this imposed silence, here is my reply to the "witch hunt" lobby, the guardian of taboos.
Not a word of refutation about the collaboration of Zionist leaders
withHitler.
In the flood of insults unfurled against Abbé Pierre and myself,
no argument was produced to refute the proofs I provided of each accusation
in my book against Israeli politics.
For example, the collaboration of Zionist leaders (who became Israeli leaders)
with the Nazis, since the Haavara agreements allowing Jewish billionaires
to transfer their German capital to Palestine.
Then there was the collaboration of the Zionist Betar, in Hitlerian uniforms
and under the flag of the Star of David until 1938 (during 5 years under
the Hitler regime).
Then there were the propositions of collaboration, including military,
made by Itzhak Shamir to the Hitlerian authorities in 1941. And until the
negotiations with the "Jewish Agency" to provide Hitler with
10,000 trucks with the single condition that these trucks be used solely
on the Eastern front against the Soviet Union, so as to achieve a separate
peace with the United States and England, thus fulfilling the dream of
the Western "allies", viz., to use Hitler to crush the Soviet
Union (see the proofs of this collaboration with Hitlerism in my book,
"Founding Myths of IsraeliPolitics" (pp. 65-90).
Not a word on Israeli terrorism.
No word to question my analysis of Israeli state terrorism from the massacre
of 237 civilians in Deir Yassin by Begin's troops, to the massacre of Arabs
praying in Hebron by Baruch Goldstein; the assassination of Comte Bernadotte
and of Lord Moyne, who were guilty of denouncing at the U.N. the terror
against the Palestinians driven out by the hundreds of thousands from their
villages and their desecrated and bulldozed cemeteries; to the aggression
against the Suez Canal planned by Sharon and Perez with General Challe(future
leader of the coup in Algier); the massacre of thousands of Lebanese civilians
by Sharon in 1982 and his responsibility, together with General Rafael
Eytan, for the killings of Sabra and Chatila; the occupation, after the
"Six Day War" of whatever remained of Palestine and also of South
Lebanon, of the Syrian Golan.
To the Israeli leader, the UN resolutions condemning these occupations
were not worth "the paper they were written on": Resolution 181
of 1947 stipulating the partition of Palestine; resolution 242 of November
22, 1967, requiring "the withdrawal of Israeli forces from the occupied
territories"; resolution 338 of October 22, 1973, reiterating this
demand after the Kippur War; resolution 425 condemning the occupation of
Lebanon. Like the one (adopted unanimously) of July 4, 1967, on the annexation
of Jerusalem. On March 12, 1991, the French foreign minister, M. Roland
Dumas, stated in an interview with "Le Monde," "The Security
Council has taken a total of 197 resolutions concerning the Arab-Israeli
problem and 34 concerning the Palestinians. All these resolutions remain
a dead letter."
The first, dealing with the partition, was dismissed by Ben Gourion as "a piece of paper." For 50 years, the Israeli leaders, irrespective of their party, have put themselves above international law. They are not afraid to make public their project of disintegration of all Arab states in the region, as they did in 1982 in the magazine, "Kivounim" (see pp. 203-204 in my book, "The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics.")
Nobody has contested my analysis of the control of American politics by the Israeli "lobby" and of the financing of the State of Israel as a proxy of American politics in the Middle East.
Not even an attempt at refutation. With a naive cynicism, Vidal-Naquet
wrote in "Le Monde" of April 4, 1996: "The day we accept
one of these gentlemen in a public debate on television or in a colloquium
of historians, they will have won the game. They are considered as a school.
We have to absolutely bar them from such activities." It is in the
name of this "principle" that I was refused any "right to
reply" by all the newspapers, which told brazen lies about my book.
Yet the "right to reply" is written in the laws. And this goes
from "La Croix" to "L'Humanité," passing by
"Le Monde,""Libération" or "Le Journal
du Dimanche." Similarly, none of the 3 television channels let me
speak directly, but they set up caricature montages, never allowing me
to answer the slanders. It is significant that they all spoke with the
same voice, that of a "litany of hatred" using the same jargon
to accuse me of "negationism," a word that does not exist in
any French dictionary, for lack of being able to define what is being denied.
It is as though the watchwords came from the same central agency of lies
and hate that led General de Gaulle to say, "There exists in France
a powerful Israeli lobby, exerting its influence most notably in the information
world."
In 1978, a former president of the World Jewish Congress, Mr. Nahum Goldman,
asked President Carter "to break the Jewish lobby," which he
considered "a force of destruction, an obstacle to peace in the Middle
East."
During the Gulf War, Mr. Alain Peyrefitte wrote in "Le Figaro"
of November 5, 1990: "Two powerful pressure groups push for the outbreak
of the conflict: 1) The Jewish lobby, playing an essential role in the
transatlantic media; 2) The business lobby (to revive the economy by the
war)."
To burn me on the stake, a magic word "negationism" replaced
the Middle Ages' accusation of those who dealt with the devil and thus
deserved the stakes: "witchcraft."
Like the word, "negationist," that of Shoah (which means extermination
in Hebrew) comes, too, from the litany of hate. It was popularized by Lanzmann's
film, financed by Menachem Begin (author of the "crime against humanity"
in the massacre of hundreds of civilians in Deir Yassim), who invested
850,000 dollars in this "project of national interest."
The witch hunt started in "Le Monde" (which, since it has been
rescued from its financial difficulties by other investors, is no longer
the newspaper of Beuve-Mery or Jacques Fauvet).
"Roger Garaudy negationist" was the headline of an article in
the book section of January 26, 1996.
The rumor spread like the slander in the Barber of Seville. It already
occupies 4 columns in "Libération" of January 31st: "Roger
Garaudy joins the'negationists'".
With time, exaggerations increase. In "Libération" of
May 8, 1996, where the headline stretches across the whole page: "Negationism
is reassessment."
The same obsession spreads through the whole gamut of the press. From"L'Humanité"
of January 25, 1996, which hypocritically pities "a man whose humanism
left its mark on an era" and became a "racist," to "La
Croix" of February 2, 1996, which was saddened by "the suicidal
drowning of a man who might have been the witness of an era" had he
not gone to "the most servile madness of antisemitism."
Obviously, my past bothers them. Three months after being decorated with
a war medal as a soldier against Hitler, I was arrested on September 14,1944.
When we rose against Nazism prior to the existence of deportations in Germany,
we were sent to the Sahara. I was subjected to 33 months in a concentration
camp, together with the founder of "LICA" (International League
Against Antisemitism, which became "LICRA," International League
Against Racism and Antisemitism), Bernard Lecache, with whom I gave lectures
about the prophets of Israel to our atheist companions. Upon my return,
I received the deportation medal. This is what the LICRA people call today
a "neo-Nazi"!
I fought all fundamentalisms as an organizer of Christian-Marxist, then
Christian-Muslim dialogues. In 1970, I was expelled from the Communist
Party (of which I was one of the theoreticians and leaders) for declaring
that "the Soviet Union is not a socialist country"!
In my last three books, I have analyzed, one after the other, 1) RomanCatholic
fundamentalism in "Do We Need God," where I wrote, despite the
anger of some people, that Jesus could not be the founder of reigning theologies
of domination; 2) in "Greatness and Decadence of Islam," I denounced
"Islamism" as a sickness of Islam; 3) finally, in "The Founding
Myths of Israeli Politics," I analyze the "Zionist heresy"
that replaces the God of Israel with the state of Israel and thus, through
tribal nationalism, renounces the universalist faith of the great Jewish
prophets.
My critiques of Christian and Muslim fundamentalisms naturally raised polemics,
which is normal and fruitful. But with my last book, I was touching a taboo,
and this time, lacking arguments, they called the police.
Naturally, all the provincial press orchestrates the rumor. It crosses
borders, for the Zionist organization has a worldwide network. In Canada,the
World Jewish Congress succeeds in banning my lectures (on other topics.But
it is the man that must be demonized!) In Switzerland, the LICRA leader,
Vodoz, asks the courts to press charges against me. The international press
spreads the same slander as the French press, exported, for example, by
Finkelkraut in "Corriere de la Sera" in Italy and "El Mundo"
in Spain. From the "New York Times" in the United States to "Frankfurter
Allgemeine Zeitung" in Germany, the same chorus sings the same song.
"Negationist," negation of "SHOAH." The same supranational
vocabulary serves to "banish" me, as Joshua would say.
Let us see what I "DENY":
Subsequent studies by other experts in Cracow in 1990 and in Vienna
did not produce any new findings.
Since I am not a chemist or a biologist, I cannot decide. I simply say
in my book (p. 150) that I am surprised that these reports were not published
and openly debated. The only attempt to refute them was a book by Pressac,
subsidized by the Klarsfeld Foundation, which curiously enough, nobody
refers to. Even Pressac, in his 1993 book, does not even cite the LeuchterReport,
while at the same time he triumphantly refutes it.
Concerning the interpretation of the "final solution" and the
"gas chambers," my book states clearly these problems.
It is always this objective: the deportation to an African ghetto which
was considered as the "final solution," and it is pure barbary.
As to "the extermination," during his 10 years of absolute rule,
four of which were over all of Europe, Hitler had all the time to realize
it, and fortunately, despite all the indisputable massacres, the Jewish
community, though decimated, remained in Europe among us.
Then what do I deny?
I deny that the Zionists assume the power to minimize Hitler's crimes by
reducing them to the indisputable persecution of Jews. His drive for expansion
and conquest resulted in 50 million dead, of which 16 million were Slavs,
Russians and Polish, as Pope John Paul II recalled in Miami.
What I deny, what I fight, is the will to remember only one category of
victims and to hedge the language so as to conceal contempt for others.
This leads to an inversion of even the meaning of our history, to the negation
of the resistance of the overwhelming masses of our people to the Nazi
occupation and to the handful of renegade, ruthlessly ambitious collaborators
put in power by Hitler's invasion. During the first years of the liberation,
"deported" meant resistance fighter. Today, through perversion,
"deported" would only mean Jewish victims.
The massacre of a large number of Jews is indisputable, but why call it
"genocide"? Genocide means extermination ("There remained
no survivor" as it is said in the book of Joshua, telling of the conquest
of Canaan). This is unquestionably boastfulness, since the majority of
the Canaanite population survived. But if, as Francois Bedarida pretends
in "Le Monde" of May 5 and 6, 1996, "the invocation of Joshua
by Roger Garaudy seems to me an intellectual stupidity," [note 1:
this new tone of language was set in "Le Monde" by Kouchner (the
comic actor who carried a rice bag in a Somalian port in order to attract
the attention of the media) who called me "bastard."] because
"it was put together many centuries after the fact and based on fairly
embellished traditions." If this is the case, would Mr.Bedarida explain
to us why the Bible that is distributed to young Israeli soldiers with,
since 1990, a preface by the Grand Army Rabbi, Gad Navon, stresses the
book of Joshua? Its characteristic is the extreme chauvinism underlying
the antagonism between Jews and other peoples, to the point of presenting
Abraham as "the father of the Jewish nation" standing on one
side, and the whole world on the other.
This is what gives Joshua an extreme relevance, all the more as to this
Bible, transformed into a nationalism manual, where every stranger is an
"enemy," an Atlas has been added where every young soldier can
find a map of all the land of Israel, including not only Judea and Samaria
but also Jordan, with a glorification of the GOD of armies, who gives victory
over the enemies in order "to reenforce the combative spirit of soldiers."(Source:
Haaretz of January 22, 1996. Article of Yaron Ezrahi about "the chauvinistic
preface of the Bible currently distributed to Israeli soldiers.")
Without denying the extent and the horror of massacres of Jews and other
opponents (3.5 million Russian prisoners died in captivity said Bedarida
in the same article of "Le Monde"), I reject this "Apartheid
of the dead." Under the theological name of Holocaust, it makes the
martyrdom of Jews irreducible to any other.
By its sacrificial character, it could be integrated into a divine project
in the manner of the crucifixion of Jesus in Christian theology (p. 156
of my book).
But such discriminations are inherent to the heresy logic of political
Zionism, breaking off with the grandiose universalism of the Jewish prophets.
According to the founding father of Zionist heresy, and to Professor Klein,
Director of the Institute of Comparative Law at the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem, the notion of a Jewish state is incompatible with any true democracy.
The definition of "Jewish" is given by Professor Klein in his
book, "Le caractere juif de L'Etat d'Israel" (Ed Cujas, Paris,
1977) as it is formulated in the "Law of Return," the fundamental
law of 1950, article 4b: "A Jew is considered any person born to a
Jewish mother or converted according to halakah." A racial criterion
and a parochial criterion. All others are second class citizens.
A true democracy cannot exist in a state based on such discrimination.
Not in a "Christian state" where Jews, non believers, Muslims
and even non catholics would be second class citizens, even enemies to
destroy, as the Crusaders did (by pogroms of Jews along their way to the
holy land, where they would massacre the Muslims) or to organize Saint
Bartholomews against the Protestants, or today where every Muslim immigrant
is a potential terrorist.
Neither can there be "democracy" in a "Muslim state,"
where Christians cannot worship GOD in a church or Jews in a synagogue,
and where their rights are not equal to those of all other members of the
nation.
Being unable to find in my book any trace of antisemitism, a negation
or even a minimization of Hitler's crimes towards the Jews or any other
opponent of the regime, my accusers had only one recourse: the question
of justice at the Nuremberg Tribunal fell under the blow of the Gayssot-Fabius
Law.
After dooming me to public prosecution as a "negationist," they
try to silence me by resorting to the police and to a gag law.
It is true that the court of one-track thought is subject to abrupt variations.
On Sunday, April 28, 1996, the Grand Rabbi Sitruk, speaking on "Jewish
Radio," thought it useful to "assemble historians to debate the
Shoah." Abbe Pierre, hoping for a dialogue, was quickly disappointed.
He said in "Libération" of May 2, 1996: "The Grand
Rabbi accepts what LICRA refuses." Monday, April 30, Rabbi Sitruk
declared on Europe 1: "There can be no debate on the Holocaust"
and that "historians have given definitive proofs." [Note 2:
This led Max Clos, one of the rare journalists who, even in his criticism,
managed to save the honor of his profession by commenting that "the
notion of 'definitive proof' irrespective of the subject is offensive,
for these were the practices of totalitarian regimes such as those of Hitler
and Stalin."]
Continue . . .