« Le visage de la vengeance juive »

Scène du film Inglourious Basterds, montrant « le visage de la vengeance juive » dans toute son ignominie…Voir aussi le vidéo « Vengeance »

Partie 1: Comment des juifs ont chassé des « nazis » (Allemands ayant survécu à la guerre) jusqu’à la fin du 20e siècle (et au-delà)
Partie 2: Comment des juifs ont tenté d’empoisonner l’eau d’une ville Allemande pour « venger les 6 millions »…

Lethal loaves of bread should have caused thousands of deaths Jewish avenger’s sole regret: No Nazis died in post-war arsenic plot 70 years later, it’s still not clear why bid to poison 12,000 SS men held by the Americans in Nuremberg failed; Joseph Harmatz, 91, is adamant that it was his ‘duty’ to try (C’est décrit dans ce documentaire sur les dossiers secrets de l’histoire de la 2e guerre mondiale)



Voici une des rares publications à documenter les crimes très peu connus de la vengeance juive contre les Allemands en réponse au prétendu « Holocauste des 6 millions »…

[PDF GRATUIT] Eye for an Eye


John Sack’s An Eye For An Eye

You might have heard of concentration camps that the Germans ran for the Jews. But, have you heard about the 1255 concentration camps that the Jews ran for ethnic Christian Germans AFTER THE SECOND WORLD WAR? Did you know that 60,000 to 80,000 thousand Germans died in those camps? Did you know that the German government refused to investigate these crimes? Did you know that when John Sack, a well-known Jewish reporter, decided to write a book about these camps, no publisher in the « Free World » would dare to publish it? Did you know that one publisher printed it and pulped the entire edition? This is his account in his own words. (You can read the book online at http://www.scribd.com/doc/89657197/An-Eye-for-an-Eye-by-John-Sack-PDF

Writing Lola’s Story

Now, this story I liked. If it was true, this was a story worth telling. I had this dream: maybe the Serbs and Croats will read it, the Irish Catholics and Protestants will read it, the Hutus and Tutsis, the Israelis and Palestinians … Maybe they’ll read it, and maybe they’ll learn, as Lola did, that to hate your neighbors may or may not destroy them, but it does destroy yourself. And maybe these people will stop their revenge, stop their genocide.
We Jews always say of the Holocaust, « Never again. Never again will people hurt us simply because we are Jews. » But Lola was apparently saying, « Yes, and never again will I hurt a German simply because he’s a German. » Fifty years ago, Lola was apparently saying, « Let there be peace on earth, and let it begin with me. » This story I wanted very much to write. So …
I start interviewing Lola. At the Inn of the Seventh Ray in Los Angeles. At a Jewish cemetery in New Jersey. On the Champs Elysés in Paris. I interview Lola on and off for two-and-a-half years. Her memories just pour out, and she also introduces me to a dozen other people, all Jews: people who knew her in Gleiwitz, prison guards in Gleiwitz, even the man who appointed her the commandant in Gleiwitz.
I write a twenty-page article on Lola’s revenge and Lola’s redemption. Lola reads it and likes it. The story runs in California magazine. Lola, at her own expense, comes to Washington to promote it on National Public Radio. The story is sold internationally, and it’s reprinted in Best Magazine Articles, 1988. We have movie offers. Bette Midler and Suzanne Somers want to play the Lola part.
And then I write a book proposal. I write, « It’s Lola’s redemption, not Lola’s revenge, that this book’s about. » I’ll go to Germany. I’ll find some prisoners maybe. I’ll go to Poland. I’ll find some more guards, maybe. I’ll write a book. The title will be Lola. And in August 1988, the publisher Henry Holt in New York City says, « Okay! We want it! » Good news, and I phone it to Lola.
And Lola on the telephone says, « Listen, John, I don’t want you to write it. » I say, « Lola? Lola, this is the first time you’ve told that to me. » I say, « Lola, we signed a contract. » We had signed one. Lola had written, « I grant you the exclusive right to write and to publish a book about my life. »
That night I go to Lola’s apartment in Hollywood. Anyone here ever been in an encounter group? Remember your first night? Everyone shouting and screaming. You’re just sitting there stupefied. You’re thinking, « What is going on? » Well, I’m in Lola’s condo. Lola is saying, « Lookit, John. I don’t like the way you write. You write like a reporter. If you start writing this book, I will stop you. I will stop you! »
Lola’s daughter is there. She’s saying, « John, give it up. I’m begging you to give it up. John! Give it up! » Another daughter of Lola’s is there. She’s a lawyer, and she says, « John! You’re going to have instantaneous and very expensive litigation! » Lola’s saying, « I’ll go to court. » The daughter’s saying, « John, I want you to sign this release. John! Sign the release! » The other daughter’s saying, « John! Just leave us! Just go! » Lola’s saying, « John! Get out of our lives! »
I leave. I telephone Lola but she doesn’t answer. I write her, but she sends the letters back, unopened, inscribed « refused. »
And not just Lola. Lola’s second-in-command at the prison in Gleiwitz was Moshe, also a Jew. He won’t talk to me. His wife on the telephone says, « We don’t give you the permission to write this. » I say, « I … You … » That’s what I say, « I … You … One doesn’t need permission! » I have permission, from the Constitution of the United States. Moshe’s wife hangs up.
And then there is Jadzia, also a Jew, she was one of Lola’s guards in Gleiwitz. Jadzia says on the telephone, « I was never in Gleiwitz! » Then she says, « Yes, I was in Gleiwitz, but I’ll never talk about it! » And then she talks for an hour saying, « I don’t know nothing, nothing, nothing, nothing. Nothing! Nothing! »
People won’t talk to me. People tell other people, « Don’t talk to John Sack. » People talk to me, and they lie to me. People say they’ll sue me, they’ll destroy me, they’ll kill me. One man takes my driver’s license, writes down my address, and says, « If you write about me, I will call the Israeli Mafia. »
Here’s some advice. Never tell a reporter, « You’d better not write this. » I have a contract with Henry Holt. I’ve made a promise to Henry Holt. I keep my promises.
In April 1989, I fly to Germany. I go to this castle, this concrete castle, high on a hill above the Rhine. It’s the German Federal Archives, and they’ve got forty thousand statements there by Germans who lived in what now is Poland during World War II. The statements of course are in German, in German script, and I find five statements from Germans who were in Lola’s prison.
I go to another place in Germany: a great medieval hall, with banners on the stone walls. It’s a reunion of a thousand people from Gleiwitz. They’re drinking beer. They’re eating sausages and sauerkraut. They’re laughing and singing, « Ein prosit, ein prosit … » And I’m like a little flower girl. You know, the girl who goes from table to table selling roses? I’m going around asking, « Uh, excuse me. Anyone here who was in prison in Gleiwitz? » Yeah, I am a party pooper. I admit it. But eventually I find five of Lola’s prisoners.
I take the train to Gleiwitz. Now it’s Gliwice, Poland. And going through Communist East Berlin, I’m arrested, taken off the train, and locked up in a little room because with me I have a copy of the book Die Vertreibung der deutschen Bevìkerung aus den Gebieten ótlich der Oder-Neisse [« The Expulsion of the German Population from the Territories East of the Oder-Neisse, » published in the 1950s by the Bonn government]. Hours later I’m let out and I get to Gleiwitz/ Gliwice at four in the morning. It’s a city of two hundred thousand people, almost none of whom speak English. I don’t speak Polish, but I find three of Lola’s guards. They remember her well.
It’s 1989, Poland is still Communist, but I get into Lola’s prison, into the prisoners’ cells. I tell them, « Djien dobre. Good morning. » I see the prison records. Remember when, according to Lola, she went to the Polish government and said, « I want revenge »? Well, I find her application, in her own handwriting. She wrote, « I want to cooperate against our German oppressors. » I find the official document appointing her commandant in Gleiwitz.
After that, I go to Germany eleven more times, to Poland three more times, to France, Austria, Israel, Canada, and all around the United States. Through interpreters I talk to two hundred people in Polish and Russian, Danish and Swedish, German and Dutch, French and Spanish, Yiddish and Hebrew. I left out English. I get three hundred hours of tape-recorded interviews, and I see thousands of documents.
And what do I learn? Well: Lola was telling the truth. She was the commandant in Gleiwitz. And she was taking revenge. She slapped the Germans around. And just as she said, she stopped. I remember one day in 1989, I’m having lunch with one of her guards at the Hotel Leszny. We’re eating wienerschnitzel. And out of the blue the man says, « You know, Lola stopped. She told us, ‘Stop!’ She said, ‘We’re going to show the Germans we’re not like them.' »
So Lola was telling the truth. But, she wasn’t telling the whole truth. Lola had told me the people in her prison were German soldiers. And yes, twenty of them were German soldiers, men who worked as painters, carpenters, and such. But there were a thousand other prisoners there, and they were German civilians: German men, German women, German children.
One prisoner was a fourteen-year-old boy. He had been out in Gleiwitz wearing his boy scout pants. A man cried out, « You’re wearing black pants! You’re a fascist!, » and he chased the boy and tackled him at the Church of Saint Peter and Paul, and then took him to Lola’s prison. Now, the boy was completely innocent. So were most of the people in Lola’s prison. They weren’t Gestapo. They weren’t SS. They weren’t even Nazis. Out of a thousand prisoners, just twenty were ever even accused of it.
But the Germans in Lola’s prison were slapped and whipped. And I’m so sorry to have to say it, but they were also tortured. The boy scout: the guards poured gasoline on his curly black hair and set it on fire. The boy went insane. The men: they were beaten with a Totschläger, a « beater-to-death. » It’s a long steel spring with a big lead ball at the end. You use it like a racketball racket. Your arm, your wrist, the spring: they deliver a triple hit to a German’s f ace.
Lola didn’t tell me, but the Germans in her prison were dying. I found their death certificates in Gleiwitz city hall. One of Lola’s guards told me, « Yeah, the Germans would die. » He told me, « I’d put the bodies in a horse-drawn cart. I’d cover them with potato peels so no one would see. I’d ride to the outskirts and, after I threw the potato peels out, I’d take the Germans to the Catholic cemetery. To the mass grave. »
We all know about Auschwitz. But I have to tell you, the Germans in Lola’s prison were worse off than Lola had been at Auschwitz. Lola at Auschwitz wasn’t locked in a room night and day. She wasn’t tortured night after night. She herself told me: « Thank God, nobody tried to rape us. The Germans weren’t allowed to. » But all of that happened to German girls at Lola’s prison in Gleiwitz.
One woman I talked with wasn’t even German. She was Polish. In 1945 she was twenty years old: a tall, blonde, beautiful medical student. The guards at Lola’s prison pulled off her clothes and told her, « Let’s do it! » They beat her and beat her, night after night, until she was black and blue. One morning, she came back to her cell and fell on the floor, sobbing. Her cellmate asked her, « What, what is that blue thing you’re wearing? Oh, oh, it’s your skin. »
And ten feet away was Lola’s office. Lola in her brass, braid, and stars. I once asked her, « Lola, where did you get that uniform?, » and Lola said, « Well, the Russians must’ve given it to me. » That wasn’t the whole truth either.
Lola was in the Polish secret police. Its name was the Office of State Security, in Polish the Urzad Bezpieczenstwa Publicznego. The Germans called it the Polish Gestapo. One of its missions was to round up Nazi suspects. But for all practical purposes, if you were a German, you were a Nazi suspect. So the mission was to round up Germans, imprison them, interrogate them, and if they confess, prosecute them.
In the Office of State Security, the lower ranks were Polish Catholics, but most of the leaders were Polish Jews. The chief of the Office in Warsaw was a Jew. (When I was in Poland he wasn’t alive, but I met some of his family.) The department directors, all or almost all of them, were Jews.
In Silesia, the province where Lola was commandant, the director of the Office of State Security was a Jew. I met him in Copenhagen, a little bald-headed man. The director of prisons was also a Jew. I met his whole family in Tel Aviv. The secretary of state security was a Jew. I met him time and again at his home in New Jersey. And in the Office of State Security in Silesia in February 1945, of the officers – not the enlisted men, not the guards, but the lieutenants, captains and such – one-fourth were Catholics, and three-fourths were Jews.
I interviewed twenty-four of them. And I learned that the Office of State Security ran 227 prisons for German civilians like Lola’s. It also ran 1,255 concentration camps, and I interviewed four of the commandants. They were also Jews. One was Lola’s boy friend, a man who’d lost in the Holocaust his mother, his father, all his brothers (he had no sisters), all his uncles and aunts, and all but one of his cousins. I hope that, like me, you can all have compassion for Solomon Morel.
But one night in February, 1945, Solomon went to his concentration camp in the city of Swietochlowice. He went into the Germans’ barracks, and said, « My name is Captain Morel. I am a Jew. I was at Auschwitz. I swore I would take revenge on you Nazis. » They weren’t Nazis, but Solomon said, « Now! Everyone! Sing the Horst Wessel song! » That was a Nazi anthem. No one wanted to sing it. One boy, fourteen years old, didn’t even know it.
Solomon had a club. He said, « Sing it! » Some people began, « Die Fahne hoch! Die Reihen fest geschlossen … » « Sing it! Sing it, I say! » They started singing, « Clear the streets for the brown battalions. Clear the street for the Storm Section men. » Solomon had all this hate inside him, and he released it. He picked up a wooden stool and he started beating the Germans to death. For this one camp, I found the death certificates for 1,583 Germans.
In other camps and other prisons, thousands of German civilians died. German men, women, children, babies. At one camp there was a barracks for fifty babies. They were in cribs, but the camp doctor, Dr. Cedrowski – he was a Jew who had been in Auschwitz — he didn’t heat the barracks, and he didn’t give the babies milk. He gave them only some soup, and forty-eight of the fifty babies died.
All in all, sixty to eighty thousand Germans died. Some were killed by Jews, some by Catholics, and many by typhus, dysentery, and starvation, but sixty to eighty thousand died in the custody of the Office of State Security. Now, someone, a German, once told me that this was another holocaust. Well, I’m sure it seemed like a holocaust to the Germans.
But let’s not forget: sixty thousand is one percent of the number of Jews who died in the capital-H Holocaust. Jews didn’t do what the Germans did. We didn’t plot to exterminate the German people. We didn’t mobilize all the Jews and the Jewish state. (There was no Jewish state.) We didn’t send the Germans systematically to cyanide chambers.
But let’s also remember that sixty to eighty thousand civilians is more than the Germans lost at Dresden, and more than, or just as many as, the Japanese lost at Hiroshima, the Americans at Pearl Harbor, the British in the Battle of Britain, or the Jews at Belsen or Buchenwald.
All this was covered up for nearly fifty years. Jews who were involved didn’t talk about it. For example, the chief of police in occupied Breslau, Germany, in 1945, who was Jewish, later wrote a book about the Holocaust. And in telling about his time as chief of police in Breslau, all he says is, « We moved westward to Breslau and … from there … to Prague. » That’s it. And Jewish reporters who knew didn’t write about it. There’s a working reporter right now in New York City who was in Poland right after World War II. He told me, « Whatever, whatever the Germans tell you, believe me, it’s true. » But he himself, he never wrote about it.
The truth was covered up, and was still being covered up. In 1989, I went to Yad Vashem in Jerusalem, Israel’s central Holocaust center. As you may know, they have fifty million documents there about the Holocaust. I ask them, « Well, what do you have on the Office of State Security? » They have nothing. I ask them, « What do you have on the Jews in the Office of State Security? » Nothing. I say, « Well, there were Jewish commandants, Jewish directors, Jewish … » The chairman of Yad Vashem responds, « It sounds rather imaginary, » and the director of archives says to me, « Imm-possible! Impossible! »
Denial, denial. I know that denial is a very human thing. But historically I don’t think it’s a Jewish thing. When Abraham, Isaac and Jacob committed sins, we Jews didn’t deny it. Yes, Abraham, the father of our people, sinned. God told him to go to Israel, instead he went to Egypt, and we admitted it in the Book of Genesis. Judah (the word « Jew » comes from Judah) made love to a prostitute. We admitted it in Genesis. Moses, even Moses sinned, and God didn’t let him into the Promised Land. We admitted that in Deuteronomy. Solomon — good, wise, old King Solomon — did evil. He « worshipped idols. » We didn’t cover it up. We admitted it in the Book of Kings.
It seems to me that that’s the Jewish tradition. How can we say to other people — to Germans, to Serbs, to Hutus — « What you’re doing is wrong, » if we ourselves do it and cover it up? I wish it were someone else who was here today. Abraham Foxman. Elie Wiesel. I wish he or she would simply say yes, some Jews, some Jews, did evil in 1945. But when the Jewish establishment didn’t say it, then I had to say it.
I’m a reporter. That’s what reporters do. Someone kills sixty thousand people, we report it. If we don’t report it, it might become common, or more common, than it already is. But also I’m a Jew, and the Torah says (Leviticus 5:1), that if someone does evil, and if I know it and don’t report it, then I am guilty too.
So I start writing this book. The title now won’t be Lola. It’ll be An Eye For An Eye. And on the third page I write, « I hope that An Eye For An Eye is something more than the story of Jewish revenge: that it’s the story of Jewish redemption. » I write about Jews taking revenge, yes. But that is one tenth of An Eye for an Eye. Mostly I write …
I write about Zlata, Moshe, Mania, and Pola. They were Jews who refused to look at, much less work at Lola’s prison. I write about Ada, who visited the prison once, just once, and then fled to Israel. I write about Shlomo, who was in the Office of State Security and, at the risk of his life, told people in it, « You must stop doing this. »
I write about Lola. I write that in Gleiwitz she finally remembered how a Jew should act and, at the risk of her life, she got bread, her own bread from her own home, and smuggled it to the German prisoners. Now this isn’t something that Lola told me. No, the prison guards told me. They said that if Lola had been caught, she’d have gone to prison herself.
And I write that at Yom Kippur, 1945, Lola — again at the risk of her life — escaped from Gleiwitz, just as she had escaped some months earlier from Auschwitz, and came to the United States. Almost all the Jews in the Office of State Security escaped, at the risk of their lives, in September, October, and November 1945. And I write that too. They crept through the woods into Germany, or climbed the pass into Italy. They did what the SS never did: they deserted, they defected.
I was crying while I was writing this. My advance from Henry Holt was $25,000, and for three years I was writing An Eye For An Eye. In September 1991 I finally finished it, wrapped it up, and mailed it to Henry Holt in New York. And I told myself: « Okay. I’ve done it. That’s the end of the cover-up. »
No. Because then the people at Henry Holt say, « We don’t want it. » They don’t say it’s wrong. They know it’s right. They just say, « We don’t want to publish it. Keep the twenty-five thousand. » Okay. My agent and I send the manuscript to other publishers: to Harper’s, to Scribner’s – you name it, we sent it – to two dozen other publishers.
And let me tell you. The letters we get from these people, they’re practically blurbs. The publishers say: « well-written, » « extremely well-written, » « chilling, » « compelling, » « disturbing, » « dismaying, » « shocking, » « startling, » « astonishing, » « mesmerizing, » « extraordinary, » « I was riveted, » « I was bowled over, » « I love it! » And the publishers all reject it. The letter from St. Martin’s Press says, « I am always moved by Holocaust books, but I’d have trouble distinguishing this book … from other books … in this vast area of literature. »
Okay. My agent and I agree that if we can’t sell a book, we’ll try magazines. One of the chapters is on Solomon Morel. Remember? The man who lost his mother, father, all his siblings, uncles, and aunts in the Holocaust. The man who had so much hate for the Germans, he had to disgorge it, who commanded a concentration camp at Swietochlowice, and beat Germans to death.
Solomon is still alive. He’s wanted by Interpol for crimes against humanity. Interpol has an international warrant out for his arrest. But he’s fled to Israel. He’s taking refuge in Tel Aviv, and no one in America — no newspaper, magazine or television network — has ever reported it.
So we send the chapter on Solomon Morel to Esquire magazine. I’ve been a contributing editor there, a war correspondent in Vietnam, Iraq, Bosnia. Esquire says, « No. » We send it to GQ magazine. GQ says, « Yes! » The editor says it’s the most important story in GQ’s history. He even tells that to an editor of Esquire at a bar in Greenwich Village. He tells him, « Ha, ha! You don’t have it! We do! »
For six weeks GQ is fact-checking. They don’t find a single error. They send me the galley proofs, the page proofs, and on Wednesday the presses will roll. And then the telephone rings at my home in the Rocky Mountains. The editor of GQ says, « John, this isn’t a happy phone call. We aren’t going to run it. » He tells me to keep the $15,000 and to sell the story somewhere else.
So once again my agent and I are making calls, sending faxes, passing out the GQ page proofs. Harper’s magazine says no. Rolling Stone says no and « I’m sure you’ll understand. » Mother Jones, that great exposé magazine (« Extra! Extra! Cigarettes are bad for you! ») doesn’t even call back. The New Yorker (which has published ten pieces by me) refuses even to look at it.
But finally, finally, in March 1993, the story of Solomon Morel is published in the Village Voice. And in November, An Eye For An Eye is published by Basic Books, a division of HarperCollins. So, thank God, now it’s all over. I can relax now. Not.
Because one day later there’s a telephone call to Basic Books. It’s from the executive director of the World Jewish Congress. He says he wants an immediate retraction, and if he doesn’t get it he’ll call a major press conference tomorrow. He says he’ll denounce me, Basic Books, and HarperCollins, and say, « They are all anti-Semites. » Well, we don’t retract, and the World Jewish Congress doesn’t denounce. But …
Then the reviews come out. And the reviewers say that An Eye for an Eye isn’t true, that what I wrote there never happened at all.
Please! Much of An Eye For An Eye had been fact-checked by California magazine, fact-checked by GQ, and, for the Village Voice, fact-checked by a woman who is the Fact-Checker from Hell. She and I checked every single word, even if we had to call up Poland. And when, after two weeks of this, night and day, we were finally done, the editor of the Voice gave an interview saying, « This may be the most accurate story in the history of American journalism. »
Much of An Eye For An Eye was corroborated by 60 Minutes, which found eight eyewitnesses I hadn’t found. It was corroborated by the New York Times and the International Herald Tribune. Historians hired by major newspapers in Germany went to the German Federal Archives and wrote, « The facts are true, » « The facts are right, » « The facts are iron-bound. »
But in the United States, one review was entitled « False Witness. » Another was headed « The Big Lie, Continued. »
The Jewish paper Forward said, « Sack is transparently writing docudrama, » and told readers that Lola Potok was not the commandant of the prison in Gleiwitz. Well, Lola herself had told me, « I was the commandant, » and thirty-five other people, including the current commandant, including the current director of prisons, said yes, Lola was the commandant. I have the document that says, « We appoint Citizen Lola Potok Commandant, » and I have a document signed by Lola Potok, Commandant. But still the Forward said, « The unlikelihood is overwhelming but Sack … seems … oblivious. » As I read this, I felt I was being lectured by Chico Marx. Remember? « Who you gonna believe? Your own two eyes or me? » I wrote a letter to the Forward. Over the last seven years, I’ve had to write, at last count, about 1,500 letters about An Eye for an Eye. And all those letters, added up, are twice as long as the book is.

Pourim expliqué aux terroristes sionistes
mars 4, 2013 

Ran HaCohen propose un papier sur la fête juive de Pourim qui est l’occasion pour les fidèles de se déguiser mais aussi de se saouler la gueule, ce qui serait d’après lui une des obligations liées à cette fête.
Toujours d’après Ran HaCohen, La fête de Pourim est intrinsèquement associée à la violence, celle qu’auraient subie les Juifs d’après le Livre d’Esther et celle que les Juifs auraient pour obligation d’infliger à leurs ennemis identifiés à Amalek/Haman.
Cette obligation allant jusqu’à l’extermination, Dieu faisant même le reproche à Saül d’avoir péché en épargnant le roi Agag qui aurait été un ancêtre d’Haman, le vizir de l’empereur Perse qui avait comploté pour exterminer les Juifs.
Ran HaCohen rappelle justement que certains actes de violence contre les palestiniens coïncident avec la fête de Pourim  tel le massacre perpétré à Hébron aux cris de  Joyeux Pourim» par Baruch Goldstein en 1994.
Si vous vous intéressez à ce salmigondis théologique, je pense que vous trouverez pas mal d’éléments sur la toile ou dans n’importe quelle bibliothèque municipale.
Quant à moi, je ne souhaite pas creuser présentement cet aspect mais simplement vous traduire le passage que Ran HaCohen consacre à une vidé éducative produite par le grand rabbinat de l’armée sioniste pour expliquer Pourim aux jeunes recrues.
On comprend mieux pourquoi l’armée sioniste est la plus morale du monde.
Elle [la vidéo] commence par exposer une évidence, c’est-à-dire que la Perse est l’Iran actuel ; parmi les images qui clignotent à certains moments quand le nom d’Haman est mentionné, on voit non seulement Ahmadinejad mais aussi Nasrallah le chef du Hezbollah ainsi que, à plusieurs reprises, Hitler et, oui, Jésus Christ qui fait une brève apparition.
Dans une réécriture sans fondement de la légende, qui vise à clairement les palestiniens d’aujourd’hui, Haman et ses fils sont présentés comme ayant vécu dans la terre d’Israël où ils prêchaient la haine contre les Juifs et exigeaient l’arrêt de la construction à Jérusalem (!) avant de partir s’installer en Perse qui est le lieu de l’action du Livre d’Esther.
En d’autres termes, la vidéo “éducative” de l’armée trace un continuum de Haman à Jésus puis à l’Allemagne nazie et à l’Iran actuel et au Hezbollah ainsi qu’aux palestiniens contemporains. Et Haman, ce que la vidéo ne s’embarrasse même pas à rappeler à son public, est Amalek, l’ennemi éternel des Juifs : «tu effaceras la mémoire d’Amalek de dessous les cieux, n’oublie pas.»

Tags : , , , , , , ,


Purim. One of the most popular Jewish holidays among Orthodox, traditional and so-called secular Jewish Israelis alike. The streets are packed with children and adults wearing costumes, make-up and all sorts of masquerading, on their way from one joyous Purim party to the next. Happy days. But behind the carnivalesque masks, ominous demons are lurking.
Tel Aviv, Sunday, February 24th
Hanan Usruf, a 40-year-old Arab sanitation worker for the city, was savagely beaten by some dozen Jewish men. The Jerusalem Post reported that Usruf’s injuries
include a fracture in his right eye socket and deep lacerations on his right ear and across almost his entire head. His vision is blurred in his left eye, but he can make out small numbers and letters, doctors said.
The Times of Israel added that the victim – an Israeli citizen, one should add – attacked by “drunken youth” required dozens of stitches and that doctors were doing their best to save his eye; under his horrendous photo in hospital, Usruf is quoted saying that
the youths kicked him and broke bottles on his head while shouting racial epithets at him. “They shouted things like ‘f**kin’ Arab’ and ‘get your own country.’
Jerusalem, Monday, February 25th
Hana Amtir, an Arab woman standing at the tram stop near the central bus station, was attacked by a group of young Jewish women. AFP quotes a (Jewish) eyewitness who took pictures of the attack and documented it on Facebook:
Suddenly shouts were heard, and a group of young religious Jewish women confronted the woman and suddenly a young Jewish woman punched her in the head, […] the rest then joined in, hitting and shoving the Arab woman. The woman tried to fight them off but they shouted at her not to dare touch Jews and they continued as a group to attack her and even forcibly pulled off her head covering, […] the incident was witnessed by a security guard from the rail company and a group of ultra-Orthodox Jewish students who stood by and did nothing.
Both events – the lynch in Tel Aviv and the attack in Jerusalem – were reported widely in the Israeli media (separately or eventogether [Hebrew]), justly framed as hate crimes, sometimes with reference to similar crimes in the recent past. Some public protest followed – a demonstration, petitions and op-eds. However, no report I’ve seen mentioned the fact that both crimes were committed on Purim (24.2), a one-day holiday that lasts a day longer in Jerusalem (24-25.2). At best, one could find the holiday mentioned in passing, for instance in the Times of Israelthat also described the Tel Aviv victimizers as drunken: “Police had yet to make any arrests […] After detaining suspects, the police will determine whether the attack was racially motivated, or the action of out-of-hand Purim revelers,” as if racist motivation and Purim revelry were mutually exclusive. But as a rule, Purim was simply ignored as irrelevant.
Is the Jewish holiday really irrelevant? The notion that the attackers were drunken can be easily traced back to the religious duty to get drunk on Purim. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Purim has been identified with Jewish violence (and with accusations of violence against Jews, true or false) for centuries. Just think of the West Bank town of Hebron for example: it was Purim 1981 when Jewish settlers brought down the roof over an Arab upholstery in “Beit Hadassah”, expelling its owner and taking over the house, a crucial step in what has since developed into a full-fledged ethnic cleansing at the heart of the Palestinian town. The settlers’ Purim parades in that city have become a tradition of provocations, with Jewish violence escalating from year to year – culminating in Purim 1994, when a Jewish settler massacred 29 and injured 125 Muslim worshippers in the Cave of the Patriarchs. The butcher joined the settlers’ hall of fame: “Purim in Hebron after 1994 was like Purim in Hebron since 1981, only more so – with a new Jewish hero for Jewish children to dress up as,” writes Israeli historian Prof Elliott Horowitz in his excellent Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence (2006, p. 8), that documents the roots and history of Jewish Purim violence (alongside with its anti-Semitic abuses by Christians) from ancient times to the present.
Why Purim?
Like any legacy stretching from the Ancient World through the Middle Ages to Modern Times, Judaism is a multifaceted culture: it can be universal as well as nationalist; egalitarian as well as racist; liberal, even revolutionary as well as ultra-conservative – all these messages can be found in it. Among other things, Purim, however, has always reflected deep genocidal phantasies of revenge. The Book of Esther, the textual basis for this holiday, tells the story of the miraculous saving of the Jews of Persia from their enemies, most notably the evil Haman. It ends with the hanging of Haman by the Persian King. Consequently, the Jews take revenge and kill Haman’s ten sons, murder several hundreds of non-Jews in the capital Susa, and then massacre seventy-five thousand non-Jews all over Persia. That’s how the Book of Esther ends. The (probably non-existent) historical foundations of these events are irrelevant: it’s the myth and the memory that matter.
The genocidal roots of Purim go even deeper: Haman, as the short Book of Esther repeatedly stresses, is an “Agagite”, that is, an offspring of Agag. Agag was the King of the ancient Amalekites, the archetypal enemy of the Jews, on which the Bible commands to inflict genocide: “you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; do not forget” (Deuteronomy 25,19). When King Saul sins by sparing King Agag’s life, God regrets He had made him king of Israel, and Prophet Samuel “hews Agag in pieces before the Lord” (I Samuel 15,33).
These are not just idle interpretations for the learned or deep secrets known to the few; it’s all anchored in the liturgical practice of Purim. While the public reading of the Book of Esther is at the heart of the holiday itself, the Torah-text on blotting out Amalek is read in synagogue on the “Sabbath of Remembrance”, the last Saturday before Purim.Once the Arabs are seen as Haman/Amalek, Purim turns into a carneval of incitement against them.
Educating Israeli Soldiers
The Chief Rabbinate of the Israeli army has recently produced ashort video (in Hebrew) to “explain” Purim to Israeli soldiers. It opens by stating the obvious, namely that Persia is today’s Iran; among the images that flash every now and then when Haman is mentioned we see not only Ahmadinejad, but also Hezbollah’s leader Nasrallah, as well as (several times) Hitler, and, yes, Jesus Christ, who also makes a brief appearance. In a baseless rewriting of the legend, obviously aimed against present-day Palestinians, Haman and his sons are said to have resided in the Land of Israel, where they were inciting against the Jews and demanding to stop construction in Jerusalem(!) before moving to Persia, where the Book of Esther takes place.
In other words, the army “educational” video draws a line from Haman to Jesus, to Nazi Germany, to today’s Iran and Hezbollah, as well as to the present-day Palestinians. And Haman, as the video doesn’t even bother to remind its viewers, is Amalek, the eternal enemy of the Jews: “you shall blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven, do not forget.”
From Hebron to Tel Aviv
It’s truly amazing that the Israeli media ignored the Purim context of the violent events in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem. Jewish Israelis are witnessing a trend of “rediscovering of” and “reconnecting to” their “Jewish roots”. In such an atmosphere, one would expect those “rediscoverers” to be aware the Jewish context of the violence: after all, this is also part of the Jewish legacy they are allegedly so fond of. But no: instead of coming to terms with the lights and shadows of the rich Jewish tradition, non-Orthodox Israelis fall prey to ominous Jewish demons without even noticing them, demons that have enjoyed an uninterrupted existence among Orthodox Jews like the radical settlers of Hebron, but have now sneaked even into “secular” Tel Aviv.

Books Google – Read Online for Free: Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence
Reviews | Table of Contents
Introduction [HTML] or [PDF]
Download Review (67 KB, PDF)
(Conseil: c’est le temps de commander des livres par internet aux USA: le dollar américain est quasiment à parité avec le dollar canadien!)


Pour moi, désormais Pourim aura toujours un arrière-goût de sang

Ruth Meisels

L’auteur rend compte de l’ouvrage : Reckless Rites: Purim and the Legacy of Jewish Violence [Des rites sans égards : Pourim et l’héritage de la violence juive], par Elliott Horowitz, Princeton University Press, 340 pages, US$ 35]
Permettez-moi de commencer par un aveu : aussi loin que remontent mes souvenirs, je n’ai jamais aimé la fête de Pourim, avec son histoire de massacre des Gentils et son message de revanche et de réjouissance devant l’écrasement d’autres que nous. A croire que la pendaison des dix fils d’Haman ne suffisait encore pas : le Livre d’Esther va jusqu’à vanter le fait que « les autres juifs qui vivaient dans les provinces du royaume du roi déchu se rassemblèrent et défendirent leur vie ; ils furent libérés de leurs ennemis, desquels ils égorgèrent soixante-dix et cinq mille » [Esther 9:16].
De plus, nous pouvons lire la requête horrifiante d’Esther demandant que les juifs de Shushan se vissent accorder une journée supplémentaire pour mettre en application « le décret pris en ce jour », c’est-à-dire, pour massacrer leurs voisins non-juifs. Comme pour éliminer tout risque de doute, l’auteur du Livre d’Esther souligne qu’il ne s’agissait absolument pas d’autodéfense et qu’« aucun homme ne put leur résister ; car la peur qu’ils (= les juifs) inspiraient s’imposa à tout le monde » [9:2]. Ainsi, chaque année, la seule chose qu’il me reste à faire, à la synagogue, c’est serrer les dents pendant la lecture de la Megillah, et me consoler en me disant qu’historiquement, tout au moins, la vérité de cette histoire est plus que douteuse…
Mais voilà que, juste au moment où cette fête prenait fin, cette année, le livre d’Elliott Horowitz, Des rites sans égards : Pourim et l’héritage de la violence juive m’étant tombé par hasard entre les mains, j’ai été soulagée d’y trouver des alliés dans mon aversion pour Pourim. J’y ai appris que depuis la seconde moitié du dix-neuvième siècle les critiques portant sur le Livre d’Esther ont commencé à s’infiltrer dans les cercles juifs, en particulier dans l’Angleterre victorienne, et que divers dirigeants de la communauté juive ont veillé à mettre la sourdine au massacre et à la forte composante revancharde qui sous-tend cette fête.
Ainsi, le Manuel de lectures bibliques adaptées à l’usage des écoles et des familles juives, publié en 1877 avec l’imprimatur du Grand rabbin de Grande-Bretagne, Nathan Marcus Adler, laisse tomber la plupart des détails sanguinolents qui apparaissent dans les derniers chapitres du Livre d’Esther. Claude Goldsmid-Montefiore, petit-neveu de Sir Moses Montefiore, suscita un certain émoi, en 1888, en publiant un article dans la revue londonienne Jewish Chronicle, dans lequel il critiquait impitoyablement le message véhiculé par Pourim. En des termes choisis avec grand soin, il déclara qu’il « n’aurait aucun regret » si cette fête « perdait graduellement la place qui est aujourd’hui la sienne dans notre calendrier religieux ». Dans des commentaires plus récents, publiés en 1896, sur le Livre d’Esther tel qu’il est présenté dans le Manuel biblique à l’usage des lectures domestiques, Montefiore fut sans doute le premier juif à qualifier les événements décrits dans ces deniers chapitres de « massacre de Gentils n’opposant [pourtant] aucune résistance. » « Si la Bible n’avait pas comporté le Livre d’Esther », concluait-il, « loin d’être appauvrie, elle n’en aurait que gagné en valeur religieuse et morale ».
Mais les libéraux du dix-neuvième siècle n’étaient pas les premiers à critiquer le Livre d’Esther. La censure suscitée par ce texte fut au tout début le fait de certains cercles, en particulier dans l’Eglise protestante. Déjà, au tout début du protestantisme, en 1543, dans son essai infamant intitulé : Des juifs et de leurs mensonges, [il n’a rien d’infamant] Martin Luther observait à quel point les juifs « aiment le Livre d’Esther, qui flatte tellement leur rapacité et leurs aspirations d’êtres assoiffés de sang, vindicatifs et criminels ». Ailleurs, Luther qualifia ce livre de « juif, à l’excès » et, dans une apparente alliance non consacrée avec les libéraux juifs qui allaient apparaître plusieurs siècles plus tard, il écrivit qu’il aurait souhaité que ce livre n’eût jamais existé. A travers les générations, ses disciples continuèrent à qualifier le Livre d’Esther du plus assoiffé de sang, et donc, du plus « anti-chrétien » des livres de l’Ancien Testament.
Dans le monde juif, toutefois, la critique du Livre d’Esther a toujours été une opinion minoritaire, ne reflétant en rien le consensus. Et c’est l’approche consensuelle qui fait l’objet de la thèse centrale – et iconoclaste – d’Horowitz sur la violence juive envers les non-juifs (en particulier, mais pas seulement envers eux), cette violence le plus souvent liée la fête de Pourim.
Contrastant fortement avec le stéréotype antisémite présentant le juif comme faible, passif et efféminé, Horowitz postule qu’à travers les siècles, les juifs ont commis leur part de violence, qui connaissait régulièrement des flambées autour de la fête de Pourim. Même si le récit sanglant du Livre d’Esther n’est pas historiquement attesté, le simple fait que les actes qui y sont décrits aient été glorifiés chaque année, des siècles durant, a créé une tradition de vengeance et de violence, et aussi l’opportunité d’exprimer ouvertement ce type de sentiments.
Il est bien vrai que le sionisme, en particulier après l’occupation des territoires par Israël, à la suite de la guerre de 1967, a permis à la violence juive à l’encontre des Arabes « Amalécites » de prospérer, mais d’après Horowitz, les semences d’un tel comportement avaient été plantées depuis bien plus longtemps. Haman, le « Hagaguite », est décrit dans le Livre d’Esther comme un descendant des Amalécites — qualificatif [désignant l’ennemi des juifs] appliqué, au fil des années, aux Romains, aux Arméniens, aux chrétiens, aux nazis et, de nos jours, par beaucoup de rabbins, aux Arabes. Et, c’est bien connu : Amalek doit être liquidé…
Moquer Jésus
En 408 avant J.-C, l’Empereur romain Théodose II publia un édit interdisant aux juifs de « brûler Aman en souvenir d’un châtiment passé, au cours d’une certaine cérémonie de leur rituel, ainsi que de brûler dans une intention sacrilège une silhouette conçue afin de ressembler à la sainte Croix, par mépris pour la foi chrétienne. » Autrement dit : la coutume consistant à se moquer de Jésus et de la Ccroix, lors de processions (juives) de Pourim — qu’Horowitz analyse longuement dans la deuxième partie de son livre — était déjà très répandue au cinquième siècle de l’ère chrétienne. L’édit de Théodose, explique Horowitz, ne mit pas un terme aux traditions anti-chrétiennes de la fête de Pourim. La combinaison entre un narratif de salut divin des juifs et de vengeance prise sur leurs ennemis et l’atmosphère carnavalesque accompagnée de beuveries qui caractérise Pourim avait fini par produire des comportements vraiment très différents du stéréotype du juif de la diaspora rasant les murs…
La deuxième partie du livre s’ouvre par divers récits de profanation de la Croix par les juifs tout au long du Moyen Age. Et cela, pas seulement à l’occasion de la fête de Pourim. Horowitz cite des dizaines de cas, dont beaucoup sont opportunément occultés par l’historiographie juive contemporaine, de violences symboliques juives — ou, pour être plus exacts, de « violences contre des symboles » — allant du fait de mettre le feu à la croix, à celui de pisser dessus publiquement, en passant par celui de cracher dessus. Ces agissements se terminaient bien souvent en « martyre », c’est-à-dire par la mort du profanateur, et par des atteintes à l’ensemble de la communauté juive concernée. Tels sont les « rites sans égards » qui ont donné son titre à l’ouvrage et qui sont liés au refus de Mordechaï — un refus obstiné, mais apparemment sans motif — de s’incliner devant le roi Haman, dans le Livre d’Esther…
Pour revenir au présent, en octobre 2004, un étudiant de la yeshiva [école religieuse juive, ndt] Har Hamor, à Jérusalem, Natan Zvi Rosenthal, a craché sur l’archevêque arménien, qui portait un grand crucifix, durant une procession marquant un jour de fête chrétienne, dans la Vieille Ville de Jérusalem. Cet incident, qui suscita un tollé dans la population et qui a été largement couvert par les médias locaux, est présenté dans le livre d’Horowitz comme un des maillons d’une interminable chaîne de violences juives à l’encontre du christianisme et des symboles chrétiens (Pour jeter encore un peu plus d’essence sur la braise, les Arméniens sont décrits, depuis le dixième siècle, dans les écrits juifs, comme les descendants d’Amalek !). L’acte sacrilège de Rosenthal doit par conséquent être vu dans son contexte historique : il s’agit d’une continuation directe de la tradition juive de mépris publiquement affiché pour la Croix.
Un agenda non dissimulé
Dans les derniers chapitres de son ouvrage, Horowitz élargit le débat historique, passant de la violence contre des symboles chrétiens à la violence physique contre les Chrétiens eux- mêmes. L’accusation la plus grave, ici discutée longuement, est la participation de juifs au massacre de dizaines de milliers de prisonniers chrétiens, à Jérusalem, en l’an 614, à la suite de la conquête de la ville par les Perses. [A ce sujet, voir l’article : La Piscine de Mamilla, par Israël Shamir. Ndt]
D’autres incidents cités par l’auteur sont peu nombreux, et espacés dans le temps : l’assassinat d’un jeune garçon chrétien durant une parade de Pourim, près d’Antioche, en Syrie, au cinquième siècle ; l’exécution lors d’un Pourim, au douzième siècle, d’un chrétien qui avait assassiné un juif dans la Brie, une région située au nord de Paris, [à l’est] en France (exécution extrajudiciaire, sans l’approbation des autorités), ainsi qu’un incident violent à l’intérieur de la communauté juive, un couple juif accusé d’adultère ayant été agressé physiquement lors d’un carnaval de Pourim, en Provence (au quatorzième siècle). Ce qui est intéressant, ici — plus que les incidents par eux-mêmes — c’est la brillante analyse historiographique faite par Horowitz de ce qui a inspiré la documentation, c’est-à-dire l’enregistrement par écrit, de tels incidents — depuis l’enthousiasme d’une poignée d’historiens chrétiens désireux d’attirer l’attention sur la violence juive, jusqu’aux efforts déployés par certains historiens juifs contemporains pour les occulter ou, au minimum, les minimiser…
Sur ces entrefaites, l’auteur lui-même ne cherche absolument pas à cacher son objectif. Bien au contraire ; dans son introduction, il met toutes ses cartes sur la table : « J’ai par conséquent choisi, sans doute de manière quelque peu désordonnée, de ne pas commencer par le commencement, mais par la fin », afin d’attirer notre attention sur les leçons à tirer pour aujourd’hui de sa recherche historique. « Depuis le massacre de musulmans en prière au Tombeau des Patriarches, à Hébron, lors du Pourim 1994, par Baruch Goldstein », écrit-il, « pour moi, et pour bien des gens, Pourim n’a plus jamais eu le même goût ». De fait, c’est cet événement qui l’amena à élargir l’étendue de son étude, qui aurait dû originellement se conclure sur le dix-neuvième siècle. Tout au long de l’ouvrage, c’est l’avertissement de Mordechaï à Esther qui lui sert de boussole morale : « Tout cela ne se serait pas produit, si tu avais été fidèle à la paix que tu observais à cette époque » [4:14]
En tant qu’historien juif, Horowitz a senti qu’il ne pourrait plus connaître la paix de l’âme tant qu’il ne dénoncerait pas le lien entre l’héritage de la violence juive et les exactions actuelles des « juifs, en Terre Sainte, qui continuent à vider leur « vieille et toujours nouvelle querelle contre ceux qu’ils considèrent comme les « Amalécites » [du moment], alors même que leur malice est très loin d’être aussi inoffensive qu’elle avait pu l’être aux temps reculés d’un Théodose II. »
Horowitz cite des rabbins et des colons qui assimilent les Palestiniens à Amalek. Il décrit les défilés de Pourim à Hébron, qui deviennent chaque année plus violents, depuis qu’un groupe de juifs est venu s’installer dans le quartier de Beit Hadassah afin de « renouveler » la colonie établie en centre-ville en 1981, choisissant, pour ce faire ˆ sans doute un hasard ˆ la fête de Pourim…
Sur le point de conclure son étude, Horowitz retourne vers ce qui fut pour lui un point de rupture — le massacre au Tombeau des Patriarches — et il conclut, amer : « Le fait même que la fête de Pourim ait continué à battre son plein dans les rues du centre de Jérusalem après qu’eut éclaté la nouvelle du massacre sanglant d’Hébron est une des raisons qui font que j’aurais tendance à être d’accord avec l’assertion prophétique de Samuel Hugo Bergman, pour qui la perpétuation de l’observance de cette fête ne saurait trouver d’autre explication plausible que la « profonde décomposition de notre peuple. » ».
Ha’aretz, 9 juin 2006
L’auteur est rédactrice en chef adjointe. http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/objects/pages/PrintArticleEn.jhtml?itemNo=72487
Traduit de l’anglais par Marcel Charbonnier, membre de Tlaxcala, le réseau de traducteurs pour la diversité linguistique (www.tlaxcala.es).

Nous avons amendé le texte. Cette traduction est en Copyleft.


La vengeance dans la peau

Tarantino et « The Hitler Channel »

Retour sur PourimLa guerre en Irak: Purimfest

La Judée déclare la guerre à Obama

Qu’est-ce que le judaïsme?

La secte

La matrice

THE WAR PARTY (BBC documentary | May 2003)

FRONTLINE – Israel’s Next War ? (PBS)

They do not believe in peace talks. They do not want to share the land. They are well armed and are carrying out increasingly violent attacks, even targeting innocent civilians. They are members of Israel’s militant far right, and they are threatening to become Israel’s next big problem

Massacre at the Mosque – Baruch Goldstein’s massacre at the Mosque of Jerusalem
(Michael A. Hoffman II)

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

Comments are closed.