Les terroristes: qui sont-ils vraiment?

The Ugly Truth Podcast Dec 18 2009: guest Joe Cortina, ex U.S. soldier in Gaza

The Ugly Truth Podcast April 6 2010
Israel’s “Legitimacy”–hear author Jeff Gates of www.criminalstate.com discuss the largest crime syndicate in human history–The Jewish state.

Police suspected ‘Jewish terrorist’ 10 years ago
Extremist settler Yaakov (Jack) Teitel is supected of multiple murders and a string of alleged murder attempts.

A Closer Look at Israel’s Role in Terrorism
Jeff Gates
Criminal State
Wed, 09 Dec 2009 13:00 EST

Israel 9/11

« It’s very good….Well, it’s not good, but it will generate immediate sympathy (for Israel)« .

Response of former Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu when asked on September 11, 2001 what the attacks meant for U.S.-Israeli relations

Game theory war-planners rely on mathematical models to anticipate and shape outcomes with staged provocations. For the agent provocateur, the reactions to a provocation – as well as the reactions to those reactions – thereby become predictable within an acceptable range of probabilities.

With ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan poised to expand to Iran and Pakistan, it is time to take a closer look at how conflicts are catalyzed – by way of deception.

When Israeli game theorist Robert J. Aumann received the 2005 Nobel Prize in economic science, he conceded from Jerusalem, « the entire school of thought that we have developed here in Israel » has turned « Israel into the leading authority in this field. » A professor at the Center for the Study of Rationality at Hebrew University, Aumann’s Nobel lecture, titled « War and Peace, » expounded on the rationality of war.

With a well-modeled provocation, a target’s anticipated reaction can even become a weapon in the aggressor’s arsenal. In response to the provocation of 9-11, how difficult was it to foresee that the U.S. would deploy its military to avenge that attack? With U.S. intelligence « fixed » by well-placed insiders around a predetermined goal, how difficult was it to anticipate that the reaction to 9-11 could be redirected to wage war in Iraq?

The emotional component of a provocation plays a key role in game theory warfare. With the nationally televised mass murder of 3,000 people, a state of shock, grief and outrage made it easier for Americans to believe that a known Evil Doer in Iraq was responsible – regardless of the facts.

For false beliefs to displace real facts requires mental preconditioning so that a targeted population can be persuaded to put their faith in fictions. That conditioning enhances the probability of a successful deception. Those who deceived the U.S. to invade Iraq in March 2003 began a decade beforehand to lay the « mental threads » and make the requisite mental associations to advance that agenda.

Notable among those threads was the 1993 publication in Foreign Affairs of a theme-setting article by Harvard University professor Samuel Huntington. By the time his analysis appeared in book-length form in 1996 as The Clash of Civilizations, more than 100 think tanks were prepared to promote it. The result created a widely touted narrative – a thematic storyline – supporting a « clash consensus » five years before 9-11 provided a plausible rationale for war.

Also published in 1996 under the guidance of Richard Perle was A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm (i.e., Israel). A member since 1987 of the U.S. Defense Policy Board, this self-professed Zionist became its chairman in 2001.

As an adviser to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Perle’s Pentagon advisory post provided a powerful insider position to shape the national security mindset around the removal of Saddam Hussein, a key theme of A Clean Break – released five years before 9-11. That same year Netanyahu addressed a joint session of Congress at the invitation of Newt Gingrich, the Christian Zionist Speaker of the House.

Murders, books, articles, think tanks and well-placed insiders are common components in a « probabilistic » model deployed by war-planning game theorists. Lawmakers are also a customary ingredient. They provide credibility and a facade of legitimacy – a critical element when inducing a nation to war with phony intelligence fixed around a preset agenda.

That role was eagerly filled by Senators John McCain, Joe Lieberman, a Jewish Zionist from Connecticut, and Jon Kyl, a Christian Zionist from Arizona, when they co-sponsored the Iraq Liberation Act of 1998. By promoting Israel’s 1996 agenda for Securing the Realm, their legislation laid yet another mental thread in the public mindset by calling for the ouster of Saddam Hussein – three years before 9-11.

The legislation also appropriated $97 million to promote their agenda. Distracted by mid-term Congressional elections and impeachment proceedings catalyzed by a well-timed presidential affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky, Bill Clinton signed that Zionist agenda into law in October 1998 – 4-1/2 years before a U.S.-led invasion removed the Iraqi leader.

After 9-11, McCain and Lieberman became inseparable travel companions and irrepressible advocates for the invasion of Iraq. Striking a presidential pose aboard the aircraft carrier USS Theodore Roosevelt in January 2002, McCain – a son and grandson of admirals – laid another mental thread when he waved an admiral’s cap and proclaimed, alongside Lieberman, « On to Baghdad. »

By Way of Deception

The confidence with which this game theory strategy progressed in plain sight could be seen in the behavior of Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz, another Zionist insider. Four days after 9-11 while in a principals’ meeting at Camp David, he proposed that the U.S. invade Iraq. At that time, the intelligence did not point to Iraqi involvement and Osama bin Laden was thought to be hiding in a remote region of Afghanistan.

On that same day, San Diego FBI Special Agent Stephen Butler interrogated Iraqi Munther Ghazal at his home near San Diego to determine if he was funding Mel Rockefeller, an American with whom Ghazal traveled to Baghdad in early 1997. After meeting for several days with a top nuclear physicist with oversight of Iraq’s mothballed nuclear weapons program, Rockefeller returned to the U.S. with a practical proposal for removing Saddam Hussein without this war and without triggering an insurgency.

When regional specialists at the U.S. Department of State would not meet with him, he traveled to Ottawa in April 1997 where he met with Middle East specialists in the Canadian government to ensure a written record was made to confirm there was an alternative to war in Iraq – six years before the invasion. Instead of debriefing him, FBI agents sought to discredit him. Though FBI agents interviewed Ghazal many times, they have yet to meet with Mel Rockefeller.

Agent Butler cashed checks and paid rent for the two San Diego-based hijackers who piloted planes into the World Trade Center towers. The same Iman counseling Major Nidal Hasan (with FBI knowledge) before he was transferred to Fort Hood also counseled the San Diego-based hijackers – with FBI knowledge. As of December 1, 2009, no one from the FBI or national security had debriefed Mel Rockefeller – eight years after 9-11.

When President George H.W. Bush declined to invade Baghdad and remove Saddam Hussein during the 1991 Gulf War, Pentagon Under Secretary for Policy Paul Wolfowitz imposed a No-Fly Zone in northern Iraq. By the invasion of March 2003, the Israeli Mossad had agents deployed for a decade in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul.

Intelligence reports of Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda were also traced to Mosul – reports that proved false. Mosul again emerged in November 2004 as a center of the insurgency that destabilized Iraq. That reaction precluded the speedy exit of coalition forces promised in Congressional testimony by senior war-planner Wolfowitz in the lead-up to the invasion.

An Inside Job?

The common pro-Israeli source of the phony intelligence that induced war in Iraq has yet to be acknowledged even though intelligence experts agree that deception on such a scale required a decade to plan, staff, pre-stage, orchestrate and – until now – cover up. The leaders of the 9-11 Commission conceded they were thwarted by Commission members adamantly opposed to hearing testimony on the hijackers’ motivation for 9-11: the U.S.-Israeli relationship.

The fictions reported as facts by mainstream media included Iraqi WMD, Iraqi ties to Al Qaeda, Iraqi meetings with Al Qaeda in Prague, Iraqi mobile biological weapons laboratories and Iraqi purchases of « yellowcake » uranium from Niger. Only the last claim was conceded as bogus prior to the invasion.

Only after the war began were the balance of the claims disclosed as false, flawed or outright fabricated. An attempt to punish former U.S. Ambassador to Iraq Joe Wilson for his exposure of the phony yellowcake account led to a federal conviction of vice-presidential chief of staff Lewis Libby, another well-placed Zionist insider.

The multi-decade consistency of agent-provocateur fact patterns suggests that this game theory-modeled warfare includes the Israeli provocation that catalyzed the Second Intifada. An intifada is an uprising or, literally, a « shaking off » of an oppressor. The Second Intifada dates from September 2000 when Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon led an armed march to Jerusalem’s Temple Mount – one year before 9-11.

After a year of calm during which Palestinians believed that Israel was sincere about peace, suicide bombings recommenced. As Sharon conceded, his march was meant to demonstrate Israeli control over a site considered holy by Muslims worldwide. In response to this second failed attempt at « shaking off » Israeli domination, Sharon and Netanyahu observed that only when Americans « feel our pain » would they understand the plight of the victimized Israelis.

These Likud Party leaders commented that the requisite empathy (« feel our pain ») would require a weighted body count of 4,500 to 5,000 Americans lost to terrorism – the initial estimate of those who died in the twin towers of the World Trade Center – one year later.

In other words, only with pain could we identify with the Israelis. Does that mean that only with a mass murder could we be induced to respond with our military to advance their agenda? Was the U.S. response mathematically modeled at the Center for the Study of Rationality? Seven months after 9-11, Benjamin Netanyahu gave a speech in a U.S. Senate office building where he was introduced by Senators Jon Kyl and Joe Lieberman

American Valkyrie?

When successful, game theory warfare strengthens the agent provocateur while leaving the target discredited and depleted by the anticipated reaction. By game theory standards, 9-11 was a strategic success because the U.S. – by its response – was widely criticized for waging war on false pretenses. Only in hindsight did a deceived public realize that Iraq had nothing to do with that mass murder. However, that invasion had everything to do with « securing the realm. »

Our response (predictably) triggered a deadly insurgency with devastating consequences for Iraqis, the U.S. and a « coalition of the willing » led to war by a successfully duped U.S. From a game theory perspective, that insurgency was a predictable reaction in a nation populated by three long-feuding sects: Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds. A violent invasion led by a nation closely allied with Jewish nationalists only further fueled the flames of violence and extremism – another foreseeable outcome.

Until the U.S.-led invasion, peace was maintained by an unsavory dictator and former U.S. ally who was rebranded an Evil Doer in the lead-up to war. As the cost in blood and treasure from our « liberation » of Iraq expanded, the U.S. became overextended militarily, financially and diplomatically.

The sectarian violence unleashed in Iraq is precisely what Messrs. Rockefeller and Ghazal were cautioned against in early 1997 should Saddam Hussein be removed suddenly and violently. The 1.3 million Iraqi deaths from war-related causes exceeds the worst of Saddam Hussein’s atrocities. As any competent game theory war-planner knew, the strategic winner in this war was certain to be Tehran as the U.S. neutralized its key foe – and is now urged by Israel to wage war on Iran.

As the U.S. – the primary target of this deception – emerged in the foreground, the agent provocateur faded into the background. But only after catalyzing dynamics that steadily drained the U.S. of credibility, resources and resolve. This « probabilistic » Israeli victory also ensured widespread cynicism, insecurity, distrust and disillusionment along with a steadily declining capacity to defend our real interests.

Meanwhile the American public came under a system of oversight and surveillance packaged and sold as « homeland security. » This ominously titled operation includes rhetorical echoes of a WWII-era « fatherland » featuring a domestic security force completely alien to U.S. traditions. It is not yet clear whether this new agency was established to protect Americans. Or whether it is meant to shield from Americans those responsible for deceiving us to wage their wars.

In January 2003, Secret Service Agent Richard Sierze interrogated Mel Rockefeller at his home in Fresno, California after he sent an email to Florida Governor Jeb Bush. The email said, in effect, that if the governor’s brother (President George Bush) did not interview him on a public record prior to invading Iraq, he would do his best to ensure that lawful means were deployed to see the president executed for treason by a firing squad.

When questioned by Sierze, Rockefeller offered to have the agent speak with Dr. Glenn Olds, an adviser to four presidents, his senior adviser since 1994 and a former U.N. Ambassador who assisted him in entering Iraq through Jordon at a time when Americans were prohibited from traveling there. Sierze declined.

He also repeated his intent to see the president executed for treason and insisted that he be charged and taken before a federal magistrate to present evidence that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that an alternative to war had been available since early 1997. Agent Sierze declined his demand to be arraigned in a U.S. Federal District Court – seven weeks before the invasion.

Agent Sierze should be interviewed to see if, in retrospect, he agrees that – had this advice been followed – the war in Iraq may well have been prevented. To date, no one with line responsibility has interviewed Mel Rockefeller on a public record. Why? The answer to that question would reveal those responsible for this ongoing deception.

The victims of these serial deceptions, including the families of those murdered in November at Fort Hood, may have a wrongful death cause of action against those with line responsibility who aided these operations by failing to engage the Rockefeller record in a timely fashion.

Foreseeable Futures

By manipulating the shared mindset, skilled game theory war-planners can wage wars on multiple fronts with minimal resources. One proven strategy: Pose as an ally of a well-armed nation predisposed to deploy its military in response to a mass murder.

In this case, the result destabilized Iraq while creating (predictable) crises that could be exploited to greater strategic advantage by expanding the conflict to Iran, another Israeli goal announced in A Clean Break – seven years before the invasion of Iraq.

Today’s mathematically model-able outcomes undermined U.S. national security by discrediting our leadership, degrading our financial condition and disabling our political will. In game theory terms, this devastation was perfectly predictable – within an acceptable range of probabilities.

Pakistan is primed to emerge as the next battleground for game theory war-planners. When India, an ally of Israel, became the nation honored by the Obama administration’s first state dinner, that occasion gave reason for concern due to the dynamics already at work in the background.

See ‘What is Israel’s Role in the Destabilization of Pakistan?

In the asymmetry that typifies modern warfare, those who are few in number have no alternative when pursuing an expansionist agenda but to wage their wars by way of deception. To maintain its perceived status as a perennial victim, Israeli aggression must proceed non-transparently. Its only option is to operate with duplicitous means, including leveraging the power of its insider influence to advance an agenda from the shadows.

Thus the strategic necessity that this extremist enclave befriend the U.S. – with the intent to betray that friendship to advance its geopolitical goals. Thus the strategic need to create a relationship of trust with a post-WWII super power – in order to defraud us. How else could Colonial Zionists wage their wars except with our military? How else could Jewish nationalists induce our aggression absent the widely shared belief that Israel is not an aggressor but a victim?

Winning Wars from the Inside Out

Game theory war-planners manipulate the shared mental environment by shaping the perceptions and impressions that become consensus opinions. With a combination of well-timed crises, fixed intelligence and a complicit media, policy-makers can be induced to support a predetermined agenda – not because lawmakers are Evil Doers but because the public mindset has been pre-conditioned to respond to manipulated thoughts, emotions and beliefs.

Without the mass murder of 9-11, would America’s credibility be in tatters and its creditworthiness in jeopardy? By steadily displacing facts with false beliefs, those duplicitous few-within-the-few amplify the impact of their deceit. By their steady focus on the mental environment, game theory war-planners can defeat an opponent with vastly superior resources.

Today’s intelligence wars are waged in plain sight and under the cover of shared beliefs. By manipulating consensus opinion, psy-ops wars can be won from the inside out by inducing a targeted populace to freely choose the very forces that imperil their freedom.

Thus in the Information Age the disproportionate power wielded by those with outsized influence in media, popular culture, think tanks, academia and politics – domains where Zionist influence is pervasive not only in the U.S. but also in other nations induced to war on false pretenses.

Germany offers a case study in manipulation of the public mindset in plain sight and under the banner of a free press. In 2003, Zionist media mogul Haim Saban acquired the second largest media conglomerate in Germany. Why? As Saban investment banker Steve Rattner explained his client’s motivation: « Because Germany is important to Israel. » Or, as Saban concedes: « I have only one issue and that issue is Israel. »

By 2005, Saban had succeeded in electing Angela Merkel as German Chancellor. She quickly became the European Union’s most reliable and forceful advocate for Israel. By November 2009, she was prepared to sponsor in Berlin an unprecedented joint session of the German and Israeli governments. Following his political success in Germany, Saban acquired in 2007 a controlling interest in Univision, a Latino-focused network serving the fastest-growing voting bloc in the U.S.

Media manipulation serves as an essential force-multiplier to wage intelligence wars from the periphery or, as with Haim Saban, in plain sight. At the operational core of such psy-ops are game theory war-planners skilled at personality profiling and masterful at anticipating responses to staged provocations and then incorporating those responses into their arsenal.

In the case of Iraq, our (mathematically) foreseeable response to 9-11 led, in practical effect, to Israel’s deployment of our military to invade Iraq. For aggressors adept at psy-ops warfare, facts are only an inconvenience to be overcome when waging war by way of deception. Thus the key role played by consensus-shapers featured in mainstream media outlets who focus not on informing the public but on mental conditioning.

For targeted populations dependent on facts and informed consent to protect their freedom and preserve the rule of law, such treachery poses the greatest possible threat. Yet even now many Americans believe that Israel is not an aggressor but a victim and even an ally despite facts confirming a multi-decade pattern of expansionist nationalism and geopolitical deception.

Adhering to an Enemy

The U.S. is far less secure than before 9-11. Tel Aviv clearly intends to continue its serial provocations as evidenced by its ongoing expansion of settlements and its continuing blockade of Gaza. Israel has shown no willingness to negotiate in good faith. With few exceptions, Barack Obama has named as senior advisers either Zionists are those known to be strongly pro-Israeli.

The greatest threat to world peace is not Islam. The most fundamental threat that underlies all others is our « special relationship » with a skilled agent provocateur. Without U.S. support for an enclave of nuclear-armed religious extremists, the common source of this threat could long ago have been identified and steps taken to ensure its containment.

In the same way that lengthy pre-staging was required to induce the U.S. to invade Iraq, a similar strategy is now underway to persuade the U.S. to invade Iran or support an attack by Israel. Pakistan is also now on the agenda of those marketing The Clash narrative with its vision of a perpetual war against « militant Islam. » Similar mental conditioning is again at work, including the high profile branding of the requisite Evil Doer: Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinajad.

From its outset, the Zionist enterprise sought supremacy in the Middle East. To date, its alliance with the U.S. has enabled the deployment of American military might in pursuit of goals set by Jewish nationalists more than a half-century before a Christian Zionist U.S. president was induced to extend nation-state recognition. Harry Truman made that fateful decision despite his fears that Israel would become what Zionist lobbyists assured him it would not become – and what it immediately became: a racist and theocratic state.

Only one nation had the means, motive, opportunity and stable nation state intelligence required to take the U.S. to war in the Middle East while making it appear that Islam – not Israel – is the problem. When a long-deceived American public – especially the U.S. military – grasps the common source of this devastating duplicity, the response will shift the geopolitical landscape. The facts suggest that « sympathy for Israel » is not among the probable reactions.

If Barack Obama continues to cater to these extremists, this Nobel peace laureate can rightly be blamed when the next attack features the usual orgy of evidence pointing to a pre-staged Evil Doer. Should another mass murder occur, that incident may well be traceable to the U.S.-Israeli relationship and to the failure of our policy-makers to protect America – and world peace – from this enemy within.

Israel gets No-Fault Espionage – With friends like this who needs enemies

No-Fault Espionage
‘If you spy for Israel the consequences should be the same as if you spy for China or Cuba – arrest, conviction, and hard jail time. No exceptions, no excuses’
By Philip Giraldi
It is interesting to note what happens to espionage cases in the United States. If you spy for China, or Cuba, or Iran you will be exposed, excoriated in the media, locked up and denied bail, convicted, and sentenced to many years in a federal prison. Spying is serious business and the harsh punishment most often fits the crime because when spies steal highly sensitive defense and policy information they are not only betraying their fellow citizens, they are also making all Americans less secure. And the spying is only slightly less serious when American technology is being targeted. When spies acting for a foreign country steal sensitive technology with commercial applications that is developed at great cost either by the US government or private companies, their betrayal is also taking away the livelihoods of thousands of American workers who rely on the competitive edge of US technology to keep their jobs.
Spies are traitors in every sense of the word, unless, of course, if one is spying for Israel. Israel aggressively spies on the US both to influence policy and steal high technology, but getting caught only very rarely has any consequences. Leading neoconservatives like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and Stephen Bryen have all been detected in flagrante providing classified information to Israel but the investigations were halted and their security clearances were godfathered so they could continue to hold high office. FBI counter intelligence officer John Cole has reported on the frustration of his colleagues over the many cases of Israeli espionage that are dropped under orders from the Justice Department. He provides a “conservative estimate” of 125 worthwhile investigations into Israeli espionage in the US involving both American citizens and Israelis stopped due to political pressure from above. Israeli citizens and diplomats who are caught in the act spying are routinely freed without criminal charges and allowed to return home. (more…)

Un tribunal britannique émet un mandat d’arrêt contre Tzipi Livni

Un tribunal britannique a émis un mandat d’arrêt contre l’ancienne ministre israélienne des Affaires étrangères Tzipi Livni, pour son implication dans l’attaque israélienne sur Gaza l’hiver dernier, a rapporté ce lundi la chaîne qatarie Al-Jazeera. Il y avait des informations contradictoires sur le lieu où elle se trouverait, et il a été même supposé qu’elle était à Londres lorsque le mandat a été émis. Mais Livni aurait été vue dans la ville israélienne d’Herzliya à l’occasion du 3e jour de la Hanoukka. Le journal londonien « The Jewish Chronicle » a rapporté que Livni, craignant une arrestation, avait annulé une visite au Royaume Uni prévue ce week-end. Elle devait prendre la parole à la Conférence 2010 du Fonds national juif [FNJ) à Londres et rencontrer le premier ministre britannique Gordon Brown, selon le communiqué. Interrogé par Ma’an, le président du FNJ Samuel Hayek a déclaré que Mme Livni était « dans l’impossibilité d’assister à la conférence » et qu’elle avait envoyé un message pré-enregistrée à la place. « Je ne peux pas confirmer les raisons précises de son absence. En tout état de cause, il est regrettable que le gouvernement britannique ne soit pas en mesure de mener un dialogue comme il l’entend avec les plus hauts responsables d’état et politiciens d’Israël », a-t-il déclaré dans un communiqué. Shawqi Issa, avocat pour les droits de l’Homme et spécialiste du droit international, a indiqué que ce type de mandat émis à Londres ne s’appliquait que si Livni se trouvait dans les frontières du Royaume-Uni. « Juridiquement, le tribunal britannique ne peut pas avoir émis un mandat d’arrêt que dans le cas où est confirmé la présence [de Livni] sur le sol britannique », a-t-il déclaré dans une interview. Dans le même temps, Ma’an a appris que la police avait perquisitionné une résidence où la responsable de l’opposition israélienne était supposée venir. Selon ce rapport de police, Livni était au Royaume-Uni et non pas en Israël ce lundi après-midi. Un porte-parole du ministère israélien des Affaires étrangères a refusé de répondre. Les appels au consulat britannique à Jérusalem sont restés sans réponse, et l’ambassade britannique à Tel-Aviv n’a pas répondu aux demandes de commentaires. Le bureau de Livni a nié les informations à propos d’une arrestation mais a affirmé qu’elle avait annulé sa visite au Royaume-Uni. « Nous avons décliné l’invitation à la conférence annuelle du FNJ il y a deux semaines. Livni est fière de toutes les décisions qu’elle a prises en ce qui concerne l’opération [contre Gaza] », a déclaré son bureau dans un communiqué, selon le quotidien « Yedioth Aharonot ».


Israël continue à financer les colons

Le gouvernement israélien a voté dimanche l’octroi de subventions supplémentaires aux colonies de peuplement juives en territoire palestinien occupé, en dépit du moratoire partiel décrété le mois dernier sur les nouvelles constructions. Une allocation de 30 millions de dollars sera attribuée à une centaine de colonies de peuplement juives, afin à calmer la colère de leurs habitants, qui jugent le gel provisoire gratuit et unilatéral. « Au lieu de faire de la paix sa priorité numéro un, Israël continue de donner la priorité aux colonies et à la colonisation implacable des territoires palestiniens occupés, rendant ainsi politiquement et économiquement impossible la solution à deux Etats« , a estimé en retour Saëb Erekat, conseiller du président de l’Autorité palestinienne Mahmoud Abbas.


Et si la Torah se substituait à la loi israélienne…

Adrien Jaulmes – Correspondant à Jérusalem

10/12/2009 |
Un colon israélien brandit la Torah, dans une colonie juive près de Ramallah,en juin 2009.
Un colon israélien brandit la Torah, dans une colonie juive près de Ramallah,en juin 2009. Crédits photo : AFP

Les Israéliens laïques voient avec inquiétude croître le poids des religieux.

Le ministre israélien de la Justice a déclenché un tollé en déclarant que la Torah devait progressivement remplacer la loi israélienne. «Petit à petit, nous imposerons aux citoyens d’Israël les lois de la Torah, et nous ferons de la Halakhah (la jurisprudence rabbinique) la loi régissant la nation , a déclaré lundi soir Yaacov Neeman lors d’une intervention publique devant une assemblée rabbinique à Jérusalem. «Nous devons imposer l’héritage des pères de la nation. La Torah donne la réponse complète à toutes les questions qui nous interpellent» , a-t-il ajouté. Le ministre a été vivement applaudi, notamment par le grand rabbin ashkénaze d’Israël, Yona Metzger, et le rabbin Ovadia Yossef, chef spirituel du parti orthodoxe séfarade Shass.

Exclusivité juridique

Retransmis mercredi par la radio israélienne, ces propos ont très vite soulevé une vague de réactions indignées. Tzipi Livni, chef du parti d’opposition Kadima, juge que de tels commentaires devraient «susciter l’inquiétude de tout citoyen soucieux d’Israël et de ses valeurs démocratiques». Yossi Beilin, figure de la gauche et ancien ministre de la Justice, estime que Yaacov Neeman devrait être «immédiatement démis de ses fonctions». «Cette remarque reflète l’inquiétant processus de talibanisation en cours dans la société israélienne» , met en garde Haim Oron, le chef du parti d’extrême gauche Meretz. Le bureau du ministre de la Justice a tenté de faire machine arrière en publiant un communiqué embarrassé : «Le ministre tient à souligner que cette remarque n’était pas un appel à remplacer les lois de l’État d’Israël par la loi religieuse. Il n’a fait qu’évoquer en termes généraux l’importance de la loi juive dans la vie du pays.»
La question de la loi religieuse est sensible en Israël. Le judaïsme reste le principal ciment d’une société d’immigrants issus de différents pays, mais les Israéliens laïques voient avec inquiétude croître le poids des religieux et l’influence politique de leurs partis.
La Constitution n’a jamais été adoptée depuis la création de l’État, pour ne pas placer un texte législatif au-dessus de la Torah. L’État fait respecter la fermeture du sabbat et laisse des pans entiers du système légal aux autorités religieuses. Les tribunaux rabbiniques bénéficient de l’exclusivité juridique en ce qui concerne le statut des individus. Mariages comme divorces sont soumis aux autorités religieuses, et il n’existe pratiquement pas de cimetières laïques. Un système d’éducation religieuse reconnu par l’État et bénéficiant d’aides publiques coexiste avec le système national. Les ultraorthodoxes sont exemptés de service militaire.

Autrefois très minoritaires, les partis religieux sont devenus des acteurs clefs du jeu politique, faisant et défaisant les majorités dans un système où la proportionnelle donne un poids considérable aux petites formations. La coalition du gouvernement actuel repose en large partie sur les partis religieux, notamment le Shass, séfarade, et les partis ultraorthodoxes de la Liste de la Torah unifiée. Ces partis sont favorables à une extension de l’influence religieuse. Nétanyahou s’est abstenu de commenter les propos de son ministre de la Justice.

FBI and Shin Bet began tracking ‘Jewish terrorist’ year before arrest

An American Jew who made aliyah four months ago was expelled from the West Bank for expressing support for an alleged Jewish terrorist.

C’étaient pas les musulmans

Le 11 septembre expliqué aux négateurs de réalité

Sionistes, psychopathes et 11 septembre

Sionisme: la fin du déni

Saints ou pécheurs?

L’appui inconditionnel à Israël et le terrorisme international


This entry was posted in Non classé. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.