Continued from Part A
My struggle against the Zionist politics of the State of Israel that feeds
antisemitism is an integral part of my unremitting struggle against antisemitism,
which is a crime justifiably punished by law.
The worst enemy of the prophetic Jewish faith is the nationalist, racist
and colonialist logic of tribal Zionism, born of the nationalism, racism
and colonialism of 19th century Europe. This logic, which inspired all
the colonialisms of the West and all its wars of one nationalism against
another, is a suicidal logic.
There is no future or security for Israel and no peace in the Middle East
unless Israel becomes "dezionized" and returns to the faith of
Abraham, which is the spiritual, fraternal and common heritage of the three
revealed religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
This is why, after so much trash published in "Le Monde" by the
Kouchners, the Vidal-Naquets and others, Bedarida or Weill, the record
of infamy is held by Claude Imbert, who likened my book to the "Protocol
of the Elders of Zion" in "Le Point" of May 4, 1996. While
on p. 249, I analyse the mechanism of fabrication of this vile falsehood
(which I refuted in detail in a preceding work, "Palestine, Terre
des messages divins," Ed. Albatros, 1986, pp. 206-212).
For slanders of this type, I demand the "right to reply" from
"Le Monde,""Libération," "Le Parisien,"
"Le Journal du dimanche," "La Croix," "L'Humanité."They
all refused me this right, recognized by law. This shows the power of the
lobby. In fact, those who deny the "crimes against humanity"
are precisely the newspapers, radio and television stations, almost the
entire media, where nobody dared to designate, as "crime against humanity,"
the shelling of ambulances carrying wounded children, the deliberate bombardmentof
a UN camp resulting in over 100 civilian deaths, the pounding of Beirut
and all of the coastline by Israeli warplanes. To them, there is no "crime
against humanity" when it does not affect Jews.
A crushing UN report shows that it was a deliberate criminal action, supervised
and controlled by a helicopter. All of this is treated as a blunder of
some air force captain, or some technical mistake, excusing the real villain,
the government of Israel and its military command, as it acted in Sabra
and Chatila, whose main culprit, Ariel Sharon (recognized as such by the
Kahn Commission of Inquiry), was immediately appointed minister in charge
of precisely the establishment of "colonies" in the occupied
territories (despite UN condemnation and the violation of international
law).
All of this shows the diversionary role of the lynching by the media of
AbbePierre and of myself. The day of the shelling of Cana, the front page
headline of the largest French newspaper announced the crime of Cana in
the same character type as "the mistake of Abbe Pierre" and not
the reality: "Shimon Peres' crime against humanity."
The day this criminal was received in Paris with great pomp, and when "Likud
of France" welcomed in Paris another criminal, General Rafael Eytan
(who knowingly let the massacre of Sabra and Chatila take place, and who
is now #2 in Likud) with a hymn to the Messiah, the newspapers' headlines
announced "Abbe Pierre is expelled from LICRA" for his support
of Garaudy.
Such unanimity is a testimony to the existence and power of the lobby.
First, because it is an organ of the State of Israel. Its status appears
in the Law of November 24, 1952 of the "World Zionist Organization."
Articles 5 and 6 specify its attributes.
Article 5: "The State of Israel counts on the participation of all
Jews in all Jewish organizations in building the State" (Israel Government
Yearbook. Jerusalem, 1953-54, p. 243).
In the United States, this powerful lobby is officially credited in the
Capitol. It is AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). Zionist
leaders in the United States do not hide their role. In the 23rd Congress
of the World Zionist Organization, Ben Gurion stated clearly: "The
collective obligation of all Zionist organizations in all nations to help
the Jewish State in all circumstances is unconditional, even if such an
attitude is in conflict with their respective nations" (Jerusalem
Post, August 17, 1952).(See my book, p. 206.)
An example of this power is when Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate
Foreign Affairs Committee, summarized on CBS television on October 7, 1973
his investigation of the lobby, saying: "The Israelis control politics
in Congress and in the Senate." He lost his senate seat in the following
elections.
In France, this pressure is not lesser but is less blatant.
For example, while in Israel, the Grand Rabbi Sitruk declared to Shamir
(who proposed an alliance with Hitler in 1941): "Every French Jew
is a representative of Israel. Rest assured that every Jew in France is
a defender of what you defend" (Le Monde," July 12, 1990). But
upon his return to France, he added "without necessarily thinking
of double allegiance" ("Le Monde," July 13, 1990). That
could be a mistake!
More recently, July 16, 1995, under the leadership of the same grand rabbi,
Chirac declared: "The criminal madness of the occupant was assisted
by the French people and the French government." This is a double
denial of General de Gaulle's attitude.
General de Gaulle refused:
What is this media racket?
In other words, what do I deny in what they call, in the jargon, "negationism"?
It is sufficient to read the book in order to see that I do not deny the
crimes against humanity committed by Hitler due to his bloody racism against
the Jews. He accused them of being the authors of the OctoberRevolution
(he coined the phrase, "Judeo-Bolshevism") and of being the masters
of international capitalism. This is a criminal double demagogy: First
to please the West as a rampart against communism, and second, for internal
consumption, to appeal to the masses. His main trump card was the Treaty
of Versailles of 1918, which bled Germany dry. The great English economist
Lord Keynes stated in his book, "The Economic Consequences of Peace"
(1922): "With this treaty, you will have war within 20 years!"
Here, too, the Nuremberg Tribunal's designation of "crimes against
peace" did not indict those who facilitated the rise of Hitler, thus
allowing the butcher of people to pass for a savior of his people.
What I deny is that the Nuremberg Tribunal set a legal precedent and served
as a criterion of historic truth, while many scholarly revisions have shown
how distorted its deliberations and procedures were. (See my book, pp.91-150.)
My criticism of the "principles" of Nuremberg is based on:
a) The very definition of the Tribunal, given on July 26, 1946 by its Presiding
JudgeRobert Jackson, Attorney General of the United States: "The Allies
are technically still in a state of war with Germany. As a military tribunal,
this tribunal represents a continuation of the Allied nations' war efforts."
b) The emergency statutes of this Tribunal (put together in London on August
8, 1945 by American, English, French and Russian leaders) leave no doubt
on their "exemplary legal value."
"Article 19: The tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules relating
to the admission of evidence."
"Article 21: Documents and reports of allied governments shall be
admitted as authentic evidence."
Thanks to the application of these "principles," or rather the
absence of principles and deliberate violation of legal ethics, the Soviet
prosecutor Rudenko, for example, forced the admission of the report that
blamed the German army for the massacre at Katyn of 11,000 Polish officers,
while it was proved that the perpetrators were the Soviet leaders.
Similarly, when the Soviets liberated the Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, they
presented a report, accepted on their word, of 4 million dead. Since then,this
number continues to be controversial, as we have seen.
I have shown in my book that the rules that govern courts were not applied
at Nuremberg. Neither texts nor testimonies concerning "the final
solution"were verified, and the crime weapons (exhaust from trucks,
or "gas chambers") were never authenticated.
Making this taboo sacred evidently required a ban on all research, the
suppression of all scholarship and the demonization of whoever dares to
raise questions.
This is similar to the trial of Captain Dreyfus, where it was deemed blasphemous
to question the ruling of an antisemitic military tribunal backed by a
Church that demonized Jews by calling them a "deicidal people."
The symmetry is striking. Today, the lobby has taken over the military
and religious headquarters, not only to lynch people (like Abbe Pierre
and myself) who dare to break the new idols of one-track thought and the
"politically correct," but to put under investigation entire
peoples, the new "deicidal peoples," against the only "chosen
people."
Today, there is a resumption of themes launched by Theodor Kaufman in
1942: "Germans, whoever they are, do not deserve to live." He
showed the means by which the German race will be totally eliminated in
60 years. He mistook a whole people for its criminal leaders ("Germany
must perish"). His racist frenzy paralleled that of Hitler.
In 1942, Clifton Fadiman requested the weekly "New Yorker" to
incite blazing hatred against all Germans and not only their Nazi leaders,
when he said: "The actual Nazi aggression is not the work of a group
of gangsters, but rather the final expression of the deepest instincts
of the German people."
In 1996, a product of American Zionist education (like Ygal Amir, Rabin's
assassin, or Baruch Goldstein, killer of Hebron), a certain Daniel Jonah
Goldhagen, inspired by the same "litanies of hate," describes
Germans as a "Nation of Killers" in his book, "Hitler's
Willing Executioners."
A similar process in operation by Bernard-Henri Levy in his book, "L'idéologie
francaise" (French Ideology). At the price of the worst historical
distortions, he tries desperately to make all the French people under the
Vichy regime the creators of a "French fascism." Vichy would
be the product of all French culture. "French culture is a witness
to our seniority in abjectness" (p. 61), and it makes France "the
homeland of National-Socialism" (p. 125).
The Zionist feeling of superiority very much resembles the glorification
of Aryan racial purity, which serves as a justification for any bloody
domination policy.
In his book, "Le Talmud," (Ed. Payot, 1983), Rabbi A. Cohen is
quite diligent in finding universalist elements in the Talmudic tradition.
Early in the introduction (p. 19), he apologizes in advance for discriminatory
passages: "A Jew needed a religion that not only distinguished him
from pagans, but constantly reminded him that he is a member of the Jewish
race."
He says that he found in Esdras what he calls "the fire frontier,""distinguishing
and separating the Jew from all other people." This, he says, is the
seed of the Talmud (p. 19).
We will not tackle here a discussion in theology, but we will only mention
the political interpretation and the feeling of superiority that follows
from a fundamentalist and literalist reading.
"One is more of a man when one is more Jewish" writes Rabbi Eisenberg,
who runs the Sunday Jewish program on Channel 2 (Source: Rabbi Eisenberg,
"Une histoire des juifs" (CAL, 1970).
This theme is taken up by Elie Wiesel, citing the Talmud in his book, "Celebration
Talmudique" (Ed. du Seuil, 1990): "A Jew is closer to humanity
than anybody else."
This tribal reading of sacred texts, be it by Israeli extremists,"Islamists"
or Christian fundamentalists is a permanent source of conflicts.To track
them down is our task, whose aim is unity among men and not division.
Israel has no future in the harmonious fraternity of peoples, unless it
is "dezionized," that is, becomes faithful to the admirable Jewish
faith of the Prophets, whose goal was not nationalist and colonialist military
conquest, but illumination of the divine message on the whole earth.
I have no word to change in my book, which is in line with my human struggle
during the past half century, changing my fraternal ties whenever my challenge
was not accepted. But I never changed my aim: the defense of man, every
man. For GOD dwells in everyone.
This brotherly love for all mankind is precisely what unites me with
Abbe Pierre all through this century despite the different paths that we
have followed in order to try to accomplish our divine task for humanity.
This brotherliness does not require any blinding of one to the other. When
we had divergent views, from the Miners' Strike of 1948 until the Maestricht
Treaty, we confronted our differences candidly, but always enriching ourselves
with our mutual criticisms, as a brother should help his brother along
the path of truth.
That is why the treacherous attacks waged against Abbe Pierre because he
refused to disown me are a disgrace to those who do not know that dialogue
can be filled with controversy and that love means to be in harmony with
a truth that is human, hence relative and humble, but filled with divine
faith.
How pitiful are those who spoke of "blind friendship" or insulted
the Father by accusing him of being senile, or "manipulated"
by his entourage, or "antisemitic."
At the beginning of this "Affair," when I met the Abbe, I said
to him: "You know, Pierre, how much I admire your work for the excluded,
especially the homeless. Millions of Palestinians have been driven out
of their homes by Zionist terror and millions of Lebanese had to flee on
the road during Israeli aggressions. Don't you think that their defense
is an extension of your work for the homeless of France?"
The untiring prophet went to Gaza and asked forgiveness in the name of
the West from Palestinians for the despoliation of their lands and homes
(he was criticized by the "Jewish Tribune" and the Kouchners).
He added that no Arab was responsible for the crimes of Hitler (a "Christian
apostate," said Abbe Pierre). Responding to the infamous and untruthful
lawsuit against me, he said that violence annuls the Promise. In denouncing
the "suicidal policy" of Israeli leaders, he was speaking the
language of the Jewish Prophets, from Amos to Micah, shouting: "Listen,
leaders of the House of Israel, you are building Zion with the blood of
Jerusalem and with crime. Because of you, Zion will be plowed like a field;
it will become a pile of rubble."(Micah, III, 1-12.)
Abbe Pierre refused to call a conquered land a "Promised Land,"
whether conquered by the legendary sacred exterminations of Joshua in Jericho
orHebron, or the very real massacres of Begin and the Irgun in Deir Yassin
in 1948, in Kafr Kassim in 1956, or in Lebanon, from Sharon in 1982 to
Perez in 1996.
The pack of apostates of the grand universalist faith of the Prophets was
set against Abbe Pierre: Jacques Attali, Schwarzenberg, Kouchner, and the
"high priests," Sitruk and Kahn, who summoned him to appear,
like Jesus, before the Sanhedrin, before the new Inquisition tribunal,
charged by the thought police, "LICRA." He refused to recant
and was expelled. This was his honor and the shame of the Pharisees.
It is not at all a matter of a religious quarrel, as the sophist, JeanDaniel,
wrote in an editorial in "Le Nouvel Observateur" on "Religions
Against Peace." On the contrary, Abbe Pierre and myself are against
the use of religions for political ends. Jews, Christians and Muslims recognize
the same "Father of believers," who was neither Jewish, nor Christian,
nor Muslim but anterior to all of them, an "Aramean wanderer,"
who announced a Covenant of GOD with "all the families of the earth."
And since we are all filled with the same GOD, Abbe Pierre, myself and
all people who struggle for human unity resist the temptation to attempt
to appropriate the divine promise, which is in all of us, thereby making
it a tool of bloody nationalism and colonialism.
It is not true, as Jean Daniel claims, that it is religions that are against
peace but rather the nationalist heresies, a striking example of which
is Israeli leadership. It sanctifies a policy of despoliation, aggression
and violation of international laws, according to the goal assigned by
its spiritual leader, the atheist Herzl, who wrote in his book, "The
Jewish State": "We will be an advanced bastion of Western civilization
against the barbarism of the Orient."
Today, there is no other resource for the thought police than to press
charges against us in the name of the Gayssot Law. This law has not only
disgraced the "communist" party and the "socialist"
party, but all the political parties that fought it when they were in the
opposition. They do not dare abrogate it now that they are in power, for
fear of the lobby. During the debate of May 2, 1990, at the National Assembly
(Official Record of May 3, 1990) when the "Gayssot Law" was passed,
its stated objective was "to repress what is called "revisionism"
(O.R., p. 912). "Revisionism must be sanctioned because it is a vehicle
for antisemitism" (O.R., p. 956).
The hidden premise of the text is that there is no "crime against
humanity" unless the crime is against Jews.
The meeting took place under heavy surveillance. A deputy remarks (O.R.,
p.905): "We witnessed tonight an extraordinary stage production. During
our debate, we rarely saw so many journalists and television cameras. They
wanted to show that those who will vote 'against,' refuse to fight racism."
(Then current Justice Minister) Toubon said, "It is not a law against
racism, it is a manipulation" (O.R., p. 929) and he added, "The
law they are going to enact is a media coup" (O.R., p. 936).
Already in an article of July 5, 1983 in "Libération,"
Luc Rozenzweig wrote, "'LICRA' enjoys an incredible privilege: the
law of July 1, 1972 against racial discrimination, delegates to it the
power to automatically decide who is antisemitic and who is not. It alone
judges the appropriateness of proceedings, and within the framework of
the law, reduces judges to the role of notary public in the register of
infamy."
The "Gayssot Law" increases this power further. As Toubon said,
"This proposition [Article 7, R.G.] was made by 'LICRA' during the
work of the consultative commission on human rights" (O.R., p. 948).
Today, it is precisely Kahn, the grand master of "LICRA," who
is the president of this commission!
Mssrs. Chirac, Juppé, Seguin, the current ministers of Justice and
of Domestic Affairs (Toubon and Debré) and 265 deputies voted against
the "Gayssot Law." One wonders what (or who) prevents them today
from abrogating this law that they had so clearly denounced?
Francois Terré, the great French jurist, Philosophy of Law Professor
at the Assas Faculty, and member of the Institut (the global name of the
official Academies), wrote: "The spirit of this law is totalitarian.
It instituted negationism as a criminal offense. It is up to jurists to
safeguard the fundamental freedoms undermined by the Gayssot Law: freedom
of opinion and of expression. It is not in the courts that history finds
its judges. Then, how can the implementation of the Gayssot Law be prevented
when, prior to its promulgation, it could have been annulled by those who
are legally able to submit laws to the Constitutional Council (the President
of the Republic, or the President of the National Assembly or of the Senate,
or 60 deputies, or 60 senators) but who did not have the courage to do
so?" The author proposes to submit it to the European Court in Strasbourg,
to put an end to "the appalling character of a law that restores 'délit
d'opinion' (i.e., making some opinions a criminal offense)." ("Le
Figaro" of May 16, 1996.)
It is sad to have to appeal to a foreign authority to remind France of
what is a state of law.
In the same issue of the paper, a reader wrote about "the dangerous
schizophrenia of a country where Salman Rushdie is a hero while Roger Garaudy
is banned and Abbe Pierre is exposed to public contempt."
When Mr. Vodoz, member of the Swiss Parliament, President of "LICRA"
in Switzerland, demanded that a lawsuit be filed against me (in Switzerland!),
Georges Andre Chevallaz, former President of the Helvetic Confederation,
wrote: "As a historian, I am amazed by this spirit of McCarthyism
and witch hunt every time the Holocaust is concerned" (Journal de
Genève, of May 2, 1996).
In France, during the debate on June 21, 1991 of the Gayssot Law in the
Assembly, Mr.Toubon, MP, not yet Justice Minister, proposed to reject it:
"It is a very grave political and legal error. It is an artificial
law that imposes historical truth instead of allowing truth to be determined
by history. I am sure this law will never be applied" (O.R. of June
22, 1991, p. 3571).
Today, another MP wrote about "the official truth that fossilizes
history." Recalling that the law was enacted during the Affair of
Carpentras Cemetery, he described the conditions at the time of the vote,
in an article entitled, "A Harmful Law": "The parliamentarians
were subjected to a kind of implicit blackmail: any deputy who did not
vote for this law would have been suspected of negationism. At the time,
influential groups created an unhealthy climate." He added, "It
is a law that imposes an official truth.It is worthy of totalitarian regimes,
not of a democracy" ("Le Figaro," of May 3, 1996).
If one remembers, as Max Clos wrote in his "Bloc Notes de la semaine,"
that "The Gayssot Law of July 13, 1990 makes a crime of 'negationism,'
the questioning of Nazi crimes against Jews," one can guess which
were the "influential groups" that exercised "implicit blackmail"
on the parliamentarians and why today, they do not have the courage to
abrogate it, as Professor Terré said. We now know who controls and
remote controls Presidents of the Republic (current or former), the Assemblies,
the Media,the Parties and the Churches, and how difficult it is, through
slander or silence, to help millions of well-meaning French people to liberate
themselves from this "brainwashing" that hides the role played
by this lie in the world domination strategy of the United States and its
mercenary guardian of Middle East oil, through a project of disintegration
of all the countries in the region (where the Kivounim plan is only an
outline).
But the Truth Bursts Against Darkness.
Efforts to silence us will be in vain. For this, they must kill us. The
surge of hate against our misquoted writings, a real call to murder, shows
that some are thinking about it, as though only prison will gag DREYFUS.
But this will be a new proof that they cannot find any argument against
us. --
Roger Garaudy