Le mouvement juif Néo-conservateur : du trotskisme au bellicisme sioniste

Statue remémorant la défaite historique des Khazars par les armées russes chrétiennes.

La division entre staliniens et trotskistes

Les trotskistes juifs et mai 68

Les Juifs et la révolution
En 1988, le quotidien Le Monde publie un article intitulé : ‘’Le mouvement de mai 68 fut-il une « révolution juive » ? En effet, la proportion de Juifs dans les mouvements révolutionnaires, que ce soit en 1917 ou en 1968, est importante. Est-ce une tradition juive que de vouloir changer le monde et de s’y engager ? Est-ce que le messianisme révolutionnaire fait écho (laïque) au messianisme juif dans sa version émancipatrice ? (…) Ces enfants d’après la Shoah exorcisent leur lourd héritage familial en devenant membres de groupes trotskistes, maoïstes ou anarchisants. Ils fondent et militent dans des mouvements révolutionnaires d’extrême gauche (Gauche prolétarienne, Jeunesse Communiste Révolutionnaire trotskyste (actuelle LCR), Organisation communiste internationaliste trotskyste) peut-être pour faire le pendant de l’extrême droite. Il est d’ailleurs intéressant de noter que les meneurs sont principalement ashkénazes. Tous ces intellectuels de la gauche radicale aujourd’hui reconvertis en député européen, maître de conférences, professeur d’histoire, philosophe (Daniel Cohn-Bendit, Daniel Schulmann, Yves Fleischl, André Glucksmann, Robert Linhardt, Henri Weber, Alain Krivine, Daniel Gluckstein, Alain Finkielkraut) ont en commun d’avoir grandi dans des familles profondément marquées par le drame de la Shoah.(…)
Même laïcisés, les Juifs gardent ancrés en eux cette mission qui incombe à Israël de mener l’humanité à son accomplissement (…) Il y a un écho entre le déterminisme historique marxiste et le Judaïsme vecteur de l’histoire de l’humanité. Comme l’a formulé Benny Lévy, philosophe ancien soixante-huitard revenu aux sources de la pensée juive, le Juif est un passeur. Il est le vecteur de l’Histoire jusqu’à l’accomplissement de l’humanité dans le projet divin « .

Moise, Marx et Trotski
Mai 68 fait appel aux deux grands théoriciens de la gauche révolutionnaire : Marx et Trotski. Eux-mêmes Juifs, ils cherchent à travers le communisme une réponse au « problème juif « . Le marxisme et le trotskisme dans sa version plus radicale de mouvement permanent et mondial seraient donc en quelque sorte sa solution globale.

Force est de constater qu’un grand nombre des ces anciens trotskistes (dont j’ai souligné les noms dans le texte) sont devenus des chantres de l’impérialisme anglo-sioniste, tant au États-Unis qu’en France et ailleurs dans le « monde libre ». Plusieurs d’entre eux ont en effet exigé d' »intervenir » en Irak pour « chasser le tyran fasciste Saddam Hussein » et « restaurer la démocratie ». On peut en voir quelques exemples en visionnant les vidéos suivants: Zemmour (juif) face à André Glucksmann (juif) ; Bruckner (juif)_plaidant pour la guerre en Irak ; De Mai 68 à Bush.

C’est de cette matrice révolutionnaire trotskiste qu’émergent les néocons.

Qui sont les néo-conservateurs?

Le premier grand néo-conservateur à avoir adopté ce mot et qui est considéré comme le fondateur de cette idéologie est Irving Kristol, un Américain juif né dans une famille juive orthodoxe et père de William Kristol, fondateur du think-tank néo-conservateur Project for the New American Century. Irving Kristol a été un militant trotskyste actif pendant sa jeunesse et a exposé ses vues néoconservatrices en 1979 dans l’article « Confessions of a True, Self-Confessed ‘Neoconservative.' » Les idées de Kristol sont influentes depuis les années 50 quand il a cofondé et édité le magazine Encounter. Un autre idéologue de ce mouvement était Norman Podhoretz, éditeur au magazine Commentary de 1960 à 1995. (…)
Les journaux néo-conservateurs prééminents sont Commentary et The Weekly Standard. Il existe aussi des think-tanks néo-conservateurs sur la politique étrangère dont notamment American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Project for the New American Century (PNAC), The Heritage Foundation et le Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA).(…)
Le néo-conservatisme apparaît véritablement dans les années 1980, quoique l’on puisse trouver des éléments précoces de ce qui peut apparaître comme une école de pensée politique dans les années 1960, autour de personnalités comme Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Wilmoore Kendall, John M. Olin, James Burnham, Francis Fukuyama, ou Charles Krauthammer. (…) Ses adeptes sont souvent d’anciens démocrates, voire d’anciens trotskistes, déçus par l’évolution culturelle et intellectuelle depuis les années 1960. C’est le cas d’Irving Kristol, ou de Martin Diamond, spécialiste de la Constitution américaine.(…) Si de nombreux néoconservateurs sont de confession juive et catholique (Gerson, Mark: 1987 : 285), il serait faux de réduire cette vision politique à une approche communautaire. Il est plus juste de dire que les néoconservateurs sont le plus souvent des pro-israéliens proches du Likoud, la droite israélienne (…)

Paul Wofowitz lors d’une conférence de l’AIPAC devant le Capitole

Perle et Cheney, tous deux membres du Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), ont été tour à tour directeur du Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), un puissant lobby sioniste similaire à l’American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) et tout aussi partisan de la guerre au terrorisme, de la guerre en Irak et de la prochaine guerre contre l’Iran. Perle est un ancien lobbyiste pour des vendeurs d’armes israéliens et il est très proche des juifs sionistes Michael Ledeen (le théoricien de la « destruction créatrice » du Moyen-Orient) et Elliott Abrams (le gendre du gourou belliciste néo-con Norman Podhoretz). Les liens un peu trop étroits de Perle avec Israël lui ont valu de faire l’objet d’une enquête en 1970 pour avoir passé des secrets à Israël, comme Wolfowitz l’a été en 1978.

Voici une liste un peu plus longue des principaux signataires du PNAC, tous néo-conservateurs, impliqués dans la politique américaine ou dans les médias américains. Les noms juifs sont marqués d’une astérisque.

Il n’est donc pas surprenant que les promoteurs du « surge » (remontée en force, déferlante) aient été pratiquement tous juifs, comme le signalait l’édition du 24 août 2007 du journal israélien JTA: « Pro-‘surge’ group is almost all Jewish : Four of five members of the board of a campaign promoting President Bush’s policies in the Iraq war are Republican Jews ».

Le PNAC est, grosso modo, une réitération d’un document antérieur, intitulé « Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm« , écrit par Richard Perle, Douglas Feith et James Wurmser (tous juifs) et inspiré par la clique d’extrémistes de Benjamin Netanyahou, à la tête du Likoud (le parti israélien d’extrême-droite). Le document appelait les États-Unis à se rapprocher d’Israël et à envahir et détruire l’Irak pour le bien d’Israël, puisqu’il était forcément, selon eux, dans l’intérêt des États-Unis de se débarrasser de Saddam Hussein. Et le document Clean Break suivait la même ligne pensée que le plan de l’Organisation sioniste mondiale intitulé A Strategy for Israel in the 1980’s.

Le PNAC préparait donc la guerre en Irak. À la tête d’un pays très fort économiquement et politiquement, Saddam Hussein, un nationaliste qui soutenait activement la cause palestinienne et nouait des alliances économiques avec des puissances des quatre coins du monde, représentait une grande menace aux yeux des sionistes. Les néo-conservateurs et les sionistes ont même tenté de blâmer l’attentat d’Oklahoma City sur les Irakiens, mais le président Clinton s’y est fortement opposé, ce qui l’amena à privilégier la thèse du « fou solitaire » Tim McVeigh. (Un geste d’obstruction que les néo-conservateurs lui ont fait payer cher: Bill Kristol a « révélé » le premier aux médias les détails de l’affaire Lewinsky, une affaire qui allait entraîner la destitution de Clinton. Hillary Clinton parlait d’un « grand complot de la droite » contre son mari; peut-être voulait-elle parler de la droite israélienne?)

C’est dans le PNAC que les faucons de la guerre en Irak révèlent avoir besoin d’un événement révolutionnaire, un «nouveau Pearl Harbor», pour catalyser l’expansion hégémonique américaine et plus spécifiquement au Moyen-Orient: «Le processus de transformation, même s’il apporte un changement révolutionnaire, est susceptible d’être long, en l’absence d’un événement catastrophique catalyseur comme un nouveau Pearl Harbor». Le 11 septembre fut précisément ce «nouveau Pearl Harbor». L’analogie est d’autant plus pertinente que le traître Roosevelt savaitpertinemment que le Japon allait attaquer la base de Pearl Harbor, mais il n’a rien fait l’empêcher, car l’objectif était de convaincre les Américains d’entrer en guerre.

Les juifs néocons qui ont tiré les ficelles pour faire la guerre en Irak:
William Kristol, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Douglas Feith
Mis à part Abrams, ils ont tous déjà été invités à la réunion de Bilderberg.

L’union maudite du fascisme sioniste et de l’anti-fascisme des ex-trotskistes

En France, on dénombre aussi une bonne quantité de néo-conservateurs à la solde de l’atlanto-sionisme. Prenons par exemple Bernard Henri Lévy qui s’époumone à dénoncer le « fascislamisme » (voir les vidéos suivants: « Fascislamism » by Bernard-Henri Lévy et BHL contre le fascisme) C’est une constante évidente chez les néo-conservateurs: tous pro-fascistes en ce qui concerne Israël, mais anti-fascistes lorsque vient le temps de réclamer des guerres pour abattre « les bourreaux de la liberté et de la démocratie », c’est-à-dire tous ceux qui osent leur tenir tête!

Ouverture

Edmund Connelly Naming Neocons (Jan 22 2008)

Prof. Kevin MacDonald, Neoconservatism as a Jewish Movement

Michael Collins Piper, The High Priests of War: How America’s “Neo-Conservative” Trotskyites Came to Power and Orchestrated the War Against Iraq as the First Step in Their Drive for Global Empire (lire l’intro et des extraits; section photo)

Michael Collins Piper, ‘The New Babylon – Those Who Reign Supreme : A Panoramic Overview of the Historical, Religous and Economic Origins of the New World Order. Inside the Rothschild Empire – The New Pharisees’ (2009)

Michael Collins Piper, The Judas Goats — The Enemy Within: The Shocking Story of the Infiltration and Subversion of the American Nationalist Movement (lire l’intro et des extraits; section photos)

Michael Collins Piper, The New Jerusalem: Zionist Power in America (according to jewish sources) (lire l’intro et des extraits)

****Dr. Stephen Sniegoski: The Sanitized Version of Neoconservatism****

Derrière Northwoods: Israël et « l’équipe B » (néocons)

James Petras lève le voile sur les agents sionistes responsables de la guerre en Irak et du scandale d’espionnage à l’AIPAC

The Source of America’s Wars – Kristol Clear [VIDEO] (Richard Cohen called the war in Iraq: « Kristol’s War »)

takeourworldback.com Ligne du temps du 11 septembre

takeourworldback.com Sionistes, psychopathes et 11 septembre

takeourworldback.com A Comprehensive History of Zionist Crimes

takeourworldback.com How to Achieve Total World Domination – over 1,250 to 6,000 Years / Concise version

VIDEO – Willis Carto explique la ploutocratie médiatique des Bronfman

VIDEO – War Made Easy: propagande guerrière

AUDIO – Michael Collins Piper explique la nouvelle Babylone

AUDIO – Les dessous de l’empire Rothschild, les nouveaux pharisiens. Entrevue avec Michael Collins Piper

President George W. Bush may well rank—by virtue of his high office—as perhaps America’s most insidious and most dangerous Judas Goat. His role in guiding America into the war in Iraq—not to mention his lead part in covering up the truth about the forces behind the 9-11 attack on America—has cast him as a veritable Enemy Within-in-Chief, so to speak. Now he urges America to fight another war against Iran.
However, the truth is that Bush’s messianic call for a worldwide “democratic revolution” (enunciated in his second inaugural address and sounding much like the rhetoric of the global Trotskyite Bolshevik movement) was not really of his own making. His words were written by others far more intelligent than Young Bush.And the origins of Bush’s newfound philosophy are very telling indeed. Perhaps what is most frightening is that the rhetoric of the American president—prodded by his behind-the-scenes “advisors”—points toward more and more military action around the globe in the years to come.
Although a documentary, Bush’s Brain, suggested that Karl Rove, purportedly the president’s chief political tactician, is the mastermind who tells the president what to think, it is now clear—based on solid evidence—that Soviet-born Israeli cabinet minister Anatoly “Natan” Sharansky is the one who actually has bragging rights to that title. Despite the fact that he gained worldwide attention in the 1970s as a Soviet dissident, make no mistake in thinking that Sharansky was ever any kind of Western-style free-market conservative or anti-communist.
Instead, Sharansky was a traditional old-line communist who—like many others in the Soviet Union—simply ran afoul of the ruling regime.
But thanks to an adoring international media, Sharansky capitalized on his imprisonment by the Soviets—who accused him of being a CIA spy—and emerged as a much-touted “human rights activist.”
Later, after his release from prison, Sharansky emigrated to Israel and soon established himself as one of Israel’s most outspoken extremist leaders who damned even Israel’s heavy-handed Prime Minister Ariel Sharon—known as “the Israeli Caesar”—as being “too soft” on the Palestinian Christians and Muslims.
The role of Sharansky in guiding Bush’s thinking is no “conspiracy theory.” Instead, disclosures from the White House itself—published, although not prominently, in the mainstream media—demonstrated that not only did Sharansky personally consult with the president in drafting the now-controversial inaugural address, but also that at least two of Sharansky’s key American publicists were among those brought in to compose Bush’s revolutionary proclamation.
Bush himself told The Washington Times in an interview published on January 12, 2005—even prior to his inauguration: “If you want a glimpse of how I think about foreign policy, read Natan Sharansky’s book, The Case for Democracy. It’s a great book.”
Buried in the very last paragraph of a very lengthy article published on January 22, 2005 The New York Times reported that “The president was given [Sharansky’s] book and asked Mr. Sharansky to meet with him
in the Oval Office . . .Mr. Bush also gave the book to several aides, urging them to read it as well. Mr. Sharansky visited the White House last November.”The Times did not say who gave the book to the president in the first place, but to find out who actually pressed the book upon the president might be very telling indeed.
Affirming the Times’ disclosure, The Washington Post likewise revealed on January 22, 2005 (although, again, in the closing paragraphs of an extended analysis) that an administration official said that planning for Bush’s address began immediately after the November election and that Bush himself had invited Sharansky to the White House to consult with him and that, in the Post’s words,“Sharansky also helped shape the speech with his book.”
It was the Post which revealed that two well-known hard-line “neoconservative” supporters of Israel—William Kristol, publisher of billionaire Rupert Murdoch’s Weekly Standard magazine, and psychiatristturned-pundit Charles Krauthammer, a strident advocate for harsh U.S. military and economic warfare against the Arab and Muslim worlds—were also among those brought in to help draft the president’s address.
Kristol—in particular—and Krauthammer are generally acknowledged even in the mainstream media in America as being among those we’ve dubbed as “the high priests of war” who were instrumental in orchestrating the U.S.war against Iraq,was a measure high-up on Israel’s “want list” for the Bush administration.
It is no coincidence that the individual on the White House staff whom the Post said helped set up the planning conferences to direct Bush’s thinking was one Peter Wehner, director of the White House Office of Strategic Initiatives.Wehner—it happens—is a Kristol protégé, having been his deputy when Kristol was serving as chief of staff for former Reagan administration Education Secretary William Bennett himself a protégé of Kristol’s very influential father, famed “ex-Trotskyite” communist-turned-neo-conservative, Irving Kristol.
So, considering Kristol’s wide-ranging input, shaping Bush’s mindset, it is really no surprise that, as the Post put it,“Bush’s grand ambitions excited his neoconservative supporters who see his call to put the United States in the forefront of the battle to spread democracy as noble and necessary.”
Meanwhile, for his own part,William Kristol chimed in with an editorial in The Weekly Standard on January 24, 2005 declaring “it’s good news that the president is so enthusiastic about Sharansky’s work. It suggests that, despite all the criticism, and the difficulties, the president remains determined to continue to lead the nation along the basic foreign policy lines he laid down in his first term.”
The BBC News noted on January 22, 2005 that Sharansky “has in fact been moving in American conservative circles for some time.”
As far back as July 2002—just prior to the time Bush delivered a hotly-debated speech calling for “democratization” of the Arab world—neo-conservative Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz was in attendance at a conference addressed by Sharansky during which the Israeli leader put forth the same demand.
Shortly thereafter, when Bush gave his own speech, echoing Sharansky, the Israeli hard-liner “provided an important bit of last minute affirmation,” according to American neo-conservative Richard Perle, who—between stints in government, during which time he was suspected of espionage on behalf of Israel—peddled weapons for an Israeli arms manufacturer.
Although the news of Sharansky’s profound influence was not widely known among grassroots Americans, it was big news in Israel where The Jerusalem Post headlined a story declaring “White House takes a page out of Sharansky’s democracy playbook.” In fact, the Israeli newspaper actually went so far as to say that Bush is “doing [Sharansky’s book] promotion free of charge,” pointing out that the president hyped Sharansky’s book in an interview on CNN.
But it’s not only Bush who is relying on Sharansky. On January 20, 2005, Scotland’s independent-minded newspaper, The Scotsman, noted that “Mr. Sharansky’s influence on the way Washington now sees the world was clear this week when Condoleeza Rice quoted him during her Senate confirmation hearings,” confirming that the Israeli hard-liner is very much the brains behind Bush policy.
The fact that Sharansky happened to be in charge of “diaspora affairs” in the Israeli cabinet was significant indeed.The term “diaspora” refers to all Jews living outside the borders of Israel and the “mission statement” of Sharansky’s cabinet office says it places its “emphasis on Israel, Zionism, Jerusalem and the interdependence of Jews worldwide.
In essence, this translates into a single, general aim: securing the existence and the future of the Jewish people wherever they are.” In short, Sharansky is no less than a powerful spokesman for the worldwide Zionist movement.And now, beyond any question, his views are directing George Bush’s worldview.
Considering all of this, it is no wonder that on January 22, South Korea’s English-language media voice, Chosun Ilbo, went so far as to describe Sharansky’s philosophy as outlined in his book The Case for Democracy—now being touted by Bush—as “a blueprint for U.S. foreign policy.”
The propaganda line of Israeli hard-liner Natan Sharansky upon which the president’s inaugural address was based was virtually a complete turn-about from Bush’s rhetoric in the 2000 presidential campaign.
This contradiction is a point that—theoretically—should have given pause to many Republicans who voted for Bush the first time he ran for the presidency.
Enthusiastically proclaiming in a front-page analysis on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address laid the “groundwork for [a] global freedom mission,” The Washington Times—a leading “neo-conservative” voice which advocates a hard-line globalist foreign policy in sync with Israel’s security demands—stated flat out that:

President Bush’s inaugural address sends the United States on a new, expansionist and far more aggressive global mission to free oppressed countries from dictators—a sharp departure from his 2000 campaign that warned against becoming the world’s policeman . . . an ambitious, perhaps unprecedented internationalist doctrine that could deploy U.S. military power far beyond America’s present commitments . . . .

For its own part, the Times’s daily “liberal” counterpart, The Washington Post, declared editorially on January 21, 2005 that Bush’s address was “more Wilsonian than conservative”—that is, recalling the messianic internationalism of former U.S. President Woodrow Wilson, hardly a hero of American nationalists or traditional conservatives.
Effectively endorsing Bush’s turnabout, the Post acknowledged.
that Bush’s pronouncement “promised an aggressive internationalism, one that if seriously pursued would transform relations with many nations around the world,”saying that if Bush is serious,U.S. policy “is on the verge of a historic change.”
James Steinberg, the former deputy national security advisor in the Clinton administration, found Bush’s emergence as the voice of globalism quite intriguing, inasmuch as it is a determined betrayal of what had been traditional Republican opposition to international meddling.
Steinberg told The New York Times on January 21, 2005 that it is “quite remarkable that one of the notions that’s been so resisted by Republicans is the idea of a deep interdependence in the world, and now [Bush has] essentially adopted the notion that tyranny anywhere threatens freedom anywhere.”
In the same vein, hard-line American-based Zionist Robert Kagan, one of the most aggressive neo-conservative media voices, echoed American Free Press (AFP) when he wrote in the Post on January 23, 2005 that Bush’s “goals are now the antithesis of conservatism.”
According to Kagan,“They are revolutionary.”
In its January 31, 2005 editorial,AFP called Bush a “revolutionary,” and this came very much to the dismay of many traditional conservatives who—inexplicably—still viewed the president as the voice of American patriotism.
These folks are evidently unaware that what is called “neo-conservatism” is anything but what Americans long viewed to be “conservative” in the traditional American nationalist sense of the word.
However, Zionist Robert Kagan understands this distinction and that’s precisely why he said that “Bush may lose the support of most oldfashioned conservatives” once they realize what his new internationalist policy is all about. In short, conservatives have been “had.”And that’s why AFP reminded its readers not to forget what Jesus said: “Beware wolves in sheep’s clothing” or, rather,“Beware the Judas Goats.”

In the meantime, however, Sharansky’s influence on American Republicanism—under George Bush and in the years ahead—remains substantial. In fact, there’s a new brand of Republicanism, at least according to Ken Mehlman, whom President George W. Bush personally hand picked, following the 2004 election, to serve as chairman of the Republican National Committee.
In a March 14, 2005 speech in Washington to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the lobby for Israel, the GOP’s national chairman candidly and enthusiastically described himself as a “Sharansky Republican.”
What was so striking is that this appeared to be the first time in American history that the chairman of one of the national parties used the name and ideology of a political leader from a foreign nation—one known as an “extremist” at that—to describe his own ideology.
In the past, there were self-described “Taft Republicans,” who supported the presidential ambitions of the nationalistic and traditionally conservative Sen. Robert Taft of Ohio—popularly known as “Mr. Republican”—who was the undisputed leader of the America First bloc in Congress from 1936 until his untimely (and some say “suspicious”) death in 1953.
Later, there were the conservative “Goldwater Republicans”who—under the leadership of Sen. Barry Goldwater (Ariz.)—set the stage for the ascendancy of the “Reagan Republicans” who came to power in 1980 under the popular two-term president, Ronald Reagan.
At the same time, in opposition to the Taft and Goldwater Republicans, there were the more liberal and internationalist-minded Republicans who rallied behind New York Governor Thomas E. Dewey and Wall Street lawyer Wendell Willkie,dubbing themselves—naturally—“Dewey Republicans” and “Willkie Republicans.”
And later, of course,many of those same party leaders evolved into “Rockefeller Republicans” following New York Governor Nelson Rockefeller. And there were even a few folks, for a time, who called themselves “Eisenhower Republicans,” stressing their so-called “mainstream, moderate” point of view (however defined) in the spirit of America’s 35th president, Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Now, however, the new GOP national chairman is not calling himself a “Reagan Republican” or even a “Bush Republican” (after the reigning GOP president who is wildly popular among grass-roots members of his party), but, instead, is hailing a foreign leader—a known extremist—as the role model for what 21st century Republicanism is all about.
And this is a direct legacy of George W. Bush who so proudly installed Sharansky as one of the GOP’s ideological dictators, betraying the historic legacy of the GOP. Sharansky’s policy of promoting “global democracy”is hardly in the American tradition, but it’s now part and parcel of what the “modern” Republican Party is all about.

03/26/03
This War is for Us
by Ariel Natan Pasko
http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Articles/Article.aspx/2125

[Traduction: Arrêtez-vous et réfléchissez un moment: la dernière Guerre du Golfe en 1991 s’est terminée le jour d’erev – juste avant – Pourim . La présente Guerre en Irak a débuté le jour de motzei – juste après – Shushan Pourim.]

Stop and think for a moment:the last Gulf War in 1991 ended erev – just before – Purim. This Gulf War began motzei – just after – Shushan Purim. Get the picture? In between, « The Jews had light, and gladness, and joy, and honor. » (Book of Esther 8:16)

Of course this war against Iraq and Saddam Hussein is for us. Even the anti-Semites, like Patrick J. Buchanan and Congressman Jim Moran know it. (…)

However, we already knew that this war is for us – i.e., the Jews and Israel. Chazal – our sages – throughout the ages have explained the Torah, telling us that everything that happens in the world is for the benefit of the Jewish People.

(…)Read the Purim story in Megilat Esther again, it is a rags to riches story on a national scale. Haman, the proto-typical anti-Semite, plans mass murder of the Jews and in the end pays with his life, the life of his ten sons – all hanged – and the Jews kill 75, 800 members of the anti-Semitic – i.e. Nazi – party of the time.

This is not so different from the Nuremberg Trials after World War II, when 23 Nazi war criminals were tried. Originally 11 were to have the death penalty imposed if found guilty. Everybody in those days thought that they would be shot – as is customary in military executions – or get the electric chair – as was common in the United States. But when the judges announced the verdict of guilty, they also said that hanging would be the method of execution. Two hours before the execution, they found Hermann Goering dead in his cell. He had committed suicide. That left only 10 Nazis to execute.

There is more to this story than meets the eye. In Megilat Esther (9:7-9), when it describes the execution of Haman’s ten sons, their names are listed in a vertical column. If you look at the Hebrew closely, you’ll notice extra-small letters in three of the names. The first name, Parshandata, has a small tav. The seventh name, Parmashta, has a small shin. The tenth name, Vayzata, has a small zayn. Hebrew letters are also used as numbers, as well as for dates in the Jewish calendar. Tav, shin, zayn numerically means 707, corresponding to the year 5707, which began with Rosh HaShanah – the Jewish New Year – on September 25, 1946. On October 16, 1946, as foreshadowed in the names of Haman’s ten sons, ten Nazi leaders were hanged as war criminals. And if that doesn’t impress you, out of nowhere, with the rope around his neck, Julius Schtreicher – editor of Der Sturmer, the Nazi propaganda newspaper – shouted out with flaming hatred in his eyes, just as the trap door opened, « Purimfest 1946! » It was reported in the international press of the day.

As I said earlier, of course this war is for the Jews and Israel, and instead of hiding from the accusation, or crying, « anti-Semitic slur », we should gratefully acknowledge what the Master of the Universe is doing to our enemies for us. Saddam Hussein, Yasser Arafat, Bashar Assad, Osama Bin-Laden, and the other dictators, terrorists and mullahs of the region, are the modern day Hamans and Hitlers.(…)

Yes, the war is for the Jews. But it is also for all decent, peace-loving and freedom-loving people. Just as when the Jews were saved from Egyptian slavery, liberated, given the Torah at Mt. Sinai, and brought into the Holy Land, the world now has a great opportunity to rid itself of the Hamans, Hitlers, and Pharaohs who want to kill or enslave them today. (lire la suite…)

Rabbis: Purim, Iraq war linked
by Joe Berkofsky · March 18, 2003
http://jta.org/news/article/2003/03/18/10067/Forrabbisit8217

(…) Blu Greenberg, an Orthodox feminist leader based in New York, supports the Bush administration’s campaign against Iraq as a “preventive war,” much as the ancient Jews defended themselves against Haman’s plot to destroy them.(…)

Rabbi Martin Weiner of San Francisco, outgoing president of the Reform movement’s rabbinical union, the Central Conference of American Rabbis, used Shabbat Zachor to draw a line from Amalek to Hitler to Saddam. A modern-day Amalek, Saddam has attacked four of his neighbors, gassed tens of thousands of his own people and pays stipends to suicide bombers, Weiner said, so “it’s terribly important to remove him.” Last September, Weiner was among those who backed a resolution from the Reform movement’s Union of American Hebrew Congregations urging a pre-emptive strike against Iraq, if Congress supported it and U.N. backing was sought. But for Reform Rabbi Don Rossoff, of Temple B’nai Or in Morristown, N.J., Amalek casts a very different shadow. Rossoff said he has refrained from publicly sermonizing this Purim about the war, which he opposes, because he is “haunted by Baruch Goldstein, who called the Arabs Amalek.” Goldstein, a doctor in an Israeli settlement near the West Bank city of Hebron, shot to death 29 Palestinians praying in Hebron’s Tomb of the Patriarch on Purim Day in 1994. Saddam is “a tyrannical, murderous dictator” who “ would probably wipe out Israel if he could,” Rossoff added. “But he’s not the only one around. His name just starts with ‘H,’ ” like Haman.(…)

Pendaison de Saddam « Haman » Hussein

Pendaison du légendaire Haman