C’est l’admission d’un journaliste juif influent, Ethan Bronner, dans son commentaire sur Israël face au chaos du dit « printemps arabe ». Bronner est lauréat d’un Pulitzer pour ses enquêtes sur les liens entre Al-Qaïda et le 11 septembre (rires!). Il était responsable jusqu’à tout récemment du bureau de Jérusalem du New York Times, avant de passer « tout naturellement » (ou plutôt parce que son biais sioniste et surtout son fils militaire israélien lui valaient de graves critiques) aux affaires légales du même journal juif (dont l’éditeur actuel est Arthur Ochs Sulzberger Jr., un membre de la famille qui contrôle le journal depuis 1896)…
Au-delà de la concrétisation ou de l’échec potentiel du projet du Grand Israël, l’essentiel est qu’il s’agit pour eux de générer sans cesse de la guerre et du conflit. Sans ennemi extérieur à combattre, les Israéliens se souviennent à quel point ils se haïssent les uns les autres. Les contradictions et les lignes de fracture sociale sont à ce point profondes que les tendances à l’éclatement l’emportent et ils se font la guerre entre eux. L’ampleur de cette guerre interne peut être maintenue à un certain niveau minimal tant et aussi longtemps qu’est artificiellement entretenue la peur et la haine du monde extérieur. C’est seulement ainsi qu’une telle société au bord de l’éclatement peut tenir ensemble dans une « paix » relative. La cohésion (artificielle), voire la survie-même de la société israélienne dépend du maintien d’un état de conflit permanent. C’est leur seule façon d’oublier les conflits internes qui les déchirent.
What Mideast Crisis? Israelis Have Moved On
Published: May 25, 2013
The New York Times
FOR years, conventional wisdom has held that as long as Israel faces the external challenge of Arab — especially Palestinian — hostility it will never come to terms with its internal divisions. The left has sometimes used it as an argument: we must make peace with the Palestinians so that we can set our house in order — write a constitution, figure out the public role of religion. Others have viewed the threat as almost a silver lining keeping the place together: differences among Israeli Jews (religious or secular, Ashkenazic or Sephardic) are so profound, the argument goes, that if the society ever manages to turn its attention inward, it might tear itself apart. (…)
Cette philosophie a un nom: le « sionisme de guerre » (War Zionism)!
By Michael Collins Piper
(…) The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel — as a state — relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence.
This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel. In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is vital — fundamental — to Israel’s survival.
And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
In actual fact, this notion — that peace could be dangerous to the survival of Israel — is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide. #/////
• Big Media confirms what AFP said more than two years ago
By Michael Collins Piper
July 26, 2013 AFP
The current crisis in Egypt recalls a warning put forth by AMERICAN FREE PRESS more than two years ago. On February 14, 2011, AFP suggested that Israel benefited from (and was most likely instigating) the chaos raging as a consequence of the so-called Arab spring tearing apart its neighbors—including,most particularly, the uprising in Egypt, which led to the rise of the new government that was just recently toppled by the military. At the time, critics accused AFP of promulgating outlandish “conspiracy theories.”
However, no less than David Ignatius—the influential veteran foreign affairs correspondent for The Washington Post—has now confirmed the critical essence of what AFP reported.
For the record, here is what AFP told its readers more than two years ago, in reviewing the events in Egypt and describing the little-known Israeli strategic policy known as “catastrophic Zionism”:
While most rational people would assume Israel would prefer to have neighboring states that are stable, successful participants in the region, this is not necessarily the case.
In fact, a carefully crafted “think piece” entitled “A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s,” featured in the February 1982 edition of the World Zionist Organization’s Jerusalem-based publication Kivunim: A Journal for Judaism and Zionism, candidly put forth an Israeli strategy to wreak havoc in the Arab world, dividing the Arab states from within.
The program—which amounted to “balkanizing” the various Arab republics, splitting them into religious enclaves in which, for example, Shiite Muslims or otherwise Sunni Muslims would predominate—was an agenda that Israeli dissident Israel Shahak said, quite simply, was designed “to make an imperial Israel into a world power,” by disrupting the Arab states and thereby setting the stage for Israeli dominance in the Mideast.
The formula was founded on the idea of creating chaos among Israel’s Arab neighbors, hardly a policy any decent, well-meaning neighbor could be credited for fostering.
In fact, the current-day political and religious divisions and devastation in Iraq—the consequence of the American invasion of Iraq demanded by the pro-Israel lobby in Washington—mirrors precisely what the Zionist position paper laid forth as the ideal state of affairs for Iraq, from an Israeli point of view, that is.
But where does Egypt fit into all of this? Reflecting on the Zionist strategy paper, Ralph Schoenman—an eminent American Jewish critic of Zionism—writing in 1988 in his book, The Hidden History of Zionism, pointedly noted the paper’s intent of “double-crossing Mubarak” and emphasized that the Yinon paper hoped for “the downfall and dissolution of Egypt,” despite the 1979 Camp David peace agreement.
This is geopolitics at its best—or worst—and demonstrates the kind of gambles Israel has historically been willing to take.
Such gamesmanship by Israel is part of a philosophy known as “catastrophic Zionism,” a termused almost exclusively by Israeli and Jewish writers.
The theme of “catastrophic Zionism,” sometimes called “war Zionism,” suggests that Israel—as a state—relies on crisis and the potential of war with its neighbors as a foundation of its very existence. This has actually been the belief of many hard-line “right wing” elements going back to the earliest days of Israel.
In short, there are many Zionists who believe such crisis is vital—fundamental—to Israel’s survival.
And for this reason, the believers in “catastrophic Zionism” will never lend their support to any policy, domestic or international, that could lead to a final solution of the conflict between Israel and its Arab and Muslim neighbors.
In actual fact, this notion—that peace could be dangerous to the survival of Israel—is a governing concept in the minds of many Israelis and their supporters worldwide.
Hard Assets Alliance
Now Ignatius has underscored AFP’s controversial assertions. Writing in the Post on April 26, Ignatius described what he called the “upbeat and introspective mood” in Israel—despite the fact the Middle East is in turmoil—and explained the reason for this positive worldview:
Israelis are realizing that, however much the upheaval threatens the established Arab order, it doesn’t necessarily hurt them. Israelis have been predicting for decades that the arbitrary borders set by the 1916 Sykes-Picot accord would ultimately dissolve and the Ottoman ethnic “vilayets” (or provinces) would return. Now, to some Israeli analysts, this Arab crackup seems to be happening, and what’s not to like?
The paradox of the Arab revolutions is that, though they have created instability on Israel’s borders, they have also reduced the conventional military threat. Israel’s enemies are tearing each other apart: Egyptians are squabbling internally as the economy sinks; Syrians are battling each other in a bloody civil war; Sunni and Shiite extremists are waging a war of attrition across the region.
On top of this, Ignatius noted, all of this turmoil positions Israel even more strategically if and when it finally decides to launch a military strike against Iran.
And although the Post’s foreign policy guru didn’t mention it, Ignatius has known for at least 30 years of this unusual and little-noted Israeli agenda for wrecking its neighbors from within.
As far back as December 8, 1982, when Ignatius was a young staff writer for The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Ignatius wrote an article for the WSJ describing the Israeli plan for balkanizing the Arab world (referenced in AFP’s report).
Describing the scheme as “a recipe for chaos,” Ignatius’s article acknowledged that the Israeli writer Oded Yinon argued that “Israel should encourage the dissolution of Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the other Persian Gulf nations into a series of weak, ethnic ministates, noting that Yinon said the Arab world was like “a temporary house of cards, put together by foreigners (France and Britain in the 1920s),” and that because of the dissent within those nations, this gave Israel “far-reaching opportunities” to undermine its Arab neighbors.
Although Ignatius asserted, at the time, that the article was not politically significant, other than for the outrage that it sparked in the Arab world, virtually everything theWorld Zionist Organization journal Kivunim advocated as an Israeli strategy toward the Arab world has since come to pass.
The fact that Israel—in collaboration with the United States, Britain and other NATO powers—has played a part in stirring up and financing the assorted “rebel forces” throughout the Arab world may thus be no coincidence.
Michael Collins Piper is an author, journalist, lecturer and radio show host. He has spoken in Russia, Malaysia, Iran, Abu Dhabi, Japan, Canada and the U.S.
Guerres impérialistes: Seule la guerre permanente fait survivre Israël…
Un analyste politique dit que le régime israélien a besoin de déclencher des guerres à travers le monde, spécifiquement au Moyen-Orient, s’il veut assurer sa survie et demeurer le récepteur principal de l’aide financière et militaire américaine, rapporte Press TV.
Israel better off with Arab tyrants Op-ed: In the name of our egoistic interest, we only want dictators in our neighborhood. Let Washington deal with democracy and freedom of expression.
Quel aveu! C’est ça que je dis depuis longtemps. Israel veut juste des méchants arabes excités autour de lui, pour lui servir de repoussoir. Car si Israel est entouré d’États modérés et pleins de bon sens, c’est Israel qui passe pour le méchant.
Jack Straw dénonce « l’argent corrupteur des juifs » et « l’Allemagne pro-israélienne » L’ancien ministre britannique des Affaires étrangères et député travailliste Jack Straw, n’a pas fait dans la dentelle lors d’un débat au parlement britannique la semaine dernière.Selon Straw, « l’argent des juifs est un obstacle à la paix » : « l’AIPAC, par exemple, contrôle et détourne la politique américaine de la région. »
Former UK foreign secretary: AIPAC is the main barrier to peace
Jack Straw tells conference Germany is obsessed with defending Israel; outlines AIPAC’s attempt to divert American policy.
‘Ex-U.K. FM: Jewish money biggest obstacle to Mideast peace’: ‘Unlimited’ funds available to U.S. Jewish groups are controlling American Mideast policy, Jack Straw reportedly states in British parliament debate.
Sensitive to Republican mistrust of Obama’s foreign policy, Dani Dayan
tells House leaders that the peace process would harm US interests
Head of the Yesha Council Dani Dayan (photo credit: Yonatan Sindel/Flash90)
JTAIsraeli settler leader Dani Dayan has made it his mission over the years to warn members of Congress, particularly Republicans, of the perils of Israeli-Palestinian peace talks.
Dayan has been a regular visitor to Washington, his trips often coinciding with developments in the peace process. During the Annapolis talks in 2007-08, Dayan would watch Israeli officials as they met with the media in the lobby of the venerable Mayflower Hotel, just blocks from the White House, and then move in to offer his own spin.
In June, Dayan met with GOP House leaders in a meeting organized with help from the Zionist Organization of America. The meeting was followed by a Washington Jewish Week report that another settler leader, Gershon Mesika, met with 20 Congress members just days before the relaunch of peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians.
The intensive cultivation of relationships on Capitol Hill appears to be bearing fruit.
Within days of talks kicking off in Washington last week, Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz.), a freshman who attended the June meeting with Dayan, drafted a letter asking the US attorney general to hinder the release of Palestinian prisoners — a move approved by Israel to help kick-start negotiations.
Dayan didn’t ask Salmon to write the letter. That request was made by the Endowment for Middle East Truth, a conservative lobby funded in part by gaming billionaire Sheldon Adelson.
But the congressional measures now being undertaken to impact the trajectory of peace talks have their roots in the warm relations that settlers and their American friends have forged in Congress over the past two decades.
“It was important to meet with the Yesha people,” a GOP official said of the June meeting, using the Hebrew acronym for the settlers’ council, “to find out who the settlers are, what they feel obstacles to peace are, what Judea and Samaria means from a historical perspective.”
In addition to Salmon’s letter, a perennial effort to tighten a 1995 law requiring the United States to move its embassy to Jerusalem reappeared just as talks resumed. The strengthened law would remove a presidential waiver that has enabled successive presidents to delay the move on the grounds of national security.
Members of Congress behind both initiatives deny that the measures — neither in timing nor in substance — are intended to scuttle the peace talks. On the contrary, the lawmakers say they are intended to improve the chances of success for the talks by strengthening Israel’s bargaining position and making American parameters clear to the Palestinians.
“There will never be clear sailing as long as there are people who do not recognize Israel as a Jewish nation,” said Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colo.), one of the sponsors of the new Jerusalem bill.
But the settler leaders and the right-wing pro-Israel groups that support them are more blunt about their objectives.
“I told the congresspersons that the strategic choice that John Kerry made to go on with the conventional peace process to try to renew negotiations … will have catastrophic consequences for the American national interests,” Dayan said. “Because when he fails — and he will fail — the fact that the secretary of state of the United States failed will be noticed very clearly in Tehran and in Damascus and in Moscow and in Pyongyang.”
Daniel Mandel, the director of ZOA’s Center for Middle East Policy, said his group was gearing up to push back against talks it believes are doomed because the Palestinians remain unwilling to accept Israel’s existence as a Jewish state.
“Our strategy now that negotiations have resumed is to unblinkingly focus on the unregenerative nature of Abbas’ Palestinian Authority,” Mandel said, referring to Mahmoud Abbas, the P.A. president.
Efforts to exert congressional pressure to affect the outcome of peace talks are not new.
Following the launch of the Oslo peace process in the early 1990s, right-wing Israelis and their allies helped pass a congressional bill that would move the American embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — a move that would buttress Israeli claims to the city whose ultimate fate was to be determined by Israelis and Palestinians.
A separate bill sought to prevent US troops from patrolling the Golan Heights to help cement a peace deal with Syria. Yitzhak Rabin, then the Israeli prime minister, expressed his frustration at both moves.
Back then, the right-wingers had mainstream allies; the American Israel Public Affairs Committee lobbied for the Jerusalem law. AIPAC did not respond to requests for comment on the new Jerusalem bill, which is backed by the ZOA.
Republican House officials say their members are deeply skeptical about the renewed talks, which were launched after an intensive round of shuttle diplomacy by Kerry. Sensitive to Republican mistrust of President Obama’s foreign policy agenda, Dayan said he attempted to persuade House leaders that the peace process would harm US interests.
“I would like Congress to explain to the State Department that this is a morally improper way to conduct diplomacy,” Dayan in an interview this week.
Sarah Stern, the director of the Endowment for Middle East Truth, said her primary concern was for the families of those killed by the released prisoners, but she acknowledged there was a dividend in alerting Americans to the dangers of the peace process.
“I can’t petition the Israeli government as an American citizen, I can only petition our officials,” Stern said. “But as a sidebar, it’s painful to see Israel has to go through so much just to get the Palestinians to sit down, and it’s a very sad thing that Israel has been subject to so much pressure by Kerry.”
FREE EBOOK: The Holocaust Is Over ; We Must Rise From its Ashes
Palgrave Macmillan, December 2009
ISBN : 978-0-230-61897-8, ISBN10 : 0-230-61897-9,
6 1/8 x 9 1/4 inches, 272 p.
“Modern-day Israel, and the Jewish community, are strongly influenced by the memory and horrors of Hitler and the Holocaust. Burg argues that the Jewish nation has been traumatized and has lost the ability to trust itself, its neighbors or the world around it. He shows that this is one of the causes for the growing nationalism and violence that are plaguing Israeli society and reverberating through Jewish communities worldwide. Burg uses his own family history—his parents were Holocaust survivors—to inform his innovative views on what the Jewish people need to do to move on and eventually live in peace with their Arab neighbors and feel comfortable in the world at large. (…)”
“This is an important book by a very courageous man. The shadow of the Shoah and its abusive application to the contemporary Middle East have been a catastrophe for Jews, Israelis and Arabs alike. In Burg’s view Israel must move beyond Hitler’s poisoned legacy. If they cannot or will not do this, the Middle East will never see peace and Israel has no future.”
— Tony Judt, bestselling author of Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945 and Professor at New York University
“An Israeli-born son of Holocaust survivors, Burg addresses a heartfelt plea to his countrymen: remember the past, but do not be its slaves; pathology is neither patriotism nor statescraft. A compelling and eloquent cri de coeur from a veteran of Israel’s wars and politics.”
— Howard M. Sachar, bestselling author of A History of the Jews in the Modern World and A History of Israel
« Burg takes a blunt, loving, painful and desperately important look at the state of the Jewish soul today. Anyone who cares about the future of the Middle East and the fate of victimized peoples needs to read this book and think hard. »
— J.J. Goldberg, author of Jewish Power: Inside the American Jewish Establishment and Editorial Director of The Forward
“This fascinating and thought-provoking book should be read by every person who cares about Israel. Burg’s central theme is that Israeli leaders use the memory of the Holocaust in ways that are warping the country’s soul, creating unnecessary fear, and making it impossible to achieve peace with the Palestinians.”
— John J. Mearsheimer, bestselling author of The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy and Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago
« [An] assured and provocative polemic. . . . [A] lecture with much wisdom . . . worthy of global consideration. »
— Kirkus Reviews
“An honest reflection of a tormented man searching for the universal values in Judaism.”
— Le Figaro
“In this book of memories and reflections, the former Knesset Speaker delivers his disquieting findings about Israel that ‘became a Kingdom without a prophesy.’… Foremost a book of hope from a man who wants to find ways to return Judaism to its universal calling.”
“Short of being Prime Minister, Burg could not be higher in the Zionist establishment.”
David Remnick, The New Yorker
« Mr. Burg…wrote a powerful book, an indictment of how Zionism and the Holocaust have been used. »
—Globe and Mail
« [A] compelling mix of polemic, personal memoir, homage to his parents and meditation on Judaism. »
« Avraham Burg has great faith in the creative power of argument. His book has already provoked much controversy and now that it has been translated is certain to provoke more. At a time when crass, catchpenny titles pour from the presses, it is that unusual thing: A new book that matters. »
— Arab News
VIDEO – (2 PARTS) FORMER SPEAKER OF THE ISRAELI KNESSET AVRAHAM BURG: Former Speaker of the Israeli Parliament Avraham Burg on « The Holocaust Is Over: We Must Rise from its Ashes »
See also: On Israel and the Holocaust: We Don’t Have a Monopoly on Suffering ; ‘Jewish democracy an oxymoron’ ; Des thèses racistes soutenues par des ministres israéliens
Bibi: the 1967 lines are ‘Auschwitz Borders’ By Frank Dimant CEO, B’nai Brith Canada
Once again, the United States is applying significant pressure on Israel to advance the Middle East peace process. Not satisfied with Israel’s freeing of over a hundred Palestinian terrorists with blood on their hands, Israel is called upon, once again, to accept the 1967 armistice lines, better known to informed Mideast observers as the “Auschwitz Lines”, as the basis for a starting point to the peace talks.
Ceux que le PDG de la B’nai Brith appelle « des observateurs informés », c-à-d ceux qui qualifient les vieilles frontières israéliennes de 1967 de « frontières d’Auschwitz », ce sont LES POLITICIENS ET ANALYSTES SIONISTES ISRAÉLIENS LES PLUS EXTÉMISTES! C’est connu dans la société israélienne que ceux qui tiennent ce discours en Israël ce sont les politiciens les plus à droite (incluant également plusieurs analystes qui se disent « de gauche » mais qui suivent quand même les idées radicales pro-colonisation normalisées par la droite).
Landau: 1967 lines are ‘Auschwitz borders
Tourism Minister Uzi Landau called pre-1967 lines « Auschwitz borders » ahead of Sunday’s cabinet meeting.
Landau’s comments, quoting a well-known turn of phrase by former foreign minister Abba Eban from 1969, came after US Secretary of State John Kerry visited the region and called for a treaty based on pre-1967 lines with land swaps.
Lieberman: The Conflict with the Arabs Has No Solution
Former Foreign Minister MK Avigdor Lieberman calls for Israel to go into negotiations « without illusions. »
(…) Lieberman noted that he has said many times that there is no solution to the conflict, at least not in the coming years. « What is possible and important to do is to manage the conflict, » he wrote.
He said that Israel must not agree that the negotiations be conducted on the basis of the pre-1967 borders, reminding that the late former Minister Abba Eban “called them Auschwitz borders » due to the fact that they would guarantee Israel’s destruction. In addition, said Lieberman, it is important to make clear to the PA that « there will be no construction freeze. Not in Jerusalem and not in the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria. »
The Simon Wiesenthal Center commended President Obama’s call for further democratization in the Arab world but expressed deep disappointment that he called for Israel’s return to the pre-June 1967 borders.
« Auschwitz » Borders: A term coined by Israel’s Foreign Minister Abba Eban who warned that a return to pre-1967 Six Day War borders would be Auschwitz borders for Israel.
Minister Landau: Yes, They’re Auschwitz Borders
Tourism Minister stands behind his statement opposing a return to pre-1967 lines.
The meeting with Tourism Minister Uzi Landau took place a day after he publicly quoted the well-known maxim of former Foreign Minister Abba Eban, « The ’67 borders remind us of the borders of Auschwitz. » These words were uttered by Landau at the beginning of a government meeting that took place on Sunday (May 26) and were widely quoted in the news broadcasts. (…)
Isn’t the Holocaust comparison somewhat exaggerated? After all, the president proclaims the vision of two states, and allows us to understand that he and the prime minister are in agreement … (…) Former Foreign Minister Abba Eban used that expression in 1969. Dozens of years have passed since then …
« That doesn’t make these borders less Auschwitz-like. Before ’67, they didn’t have Katyusha rockets and missiles to the extent owned today by Hezbollah in the north and Hamas in the south that constitute a strategic threat to Israel. One thing must be clear: A Palestinian state is not the solution. »
Israel’s Post-Traumatic Society
To Understand Israel, Understand the Holocaust
Given this state of affairs, one can certainly fathom the distrust that Israelis have in their surroundings. Their fear of a second attempt to exterminate them is certainly understandable, as is the term “Auschwitz borders,” coined by legendary Foreign Minister Abba Eban [1966–1974] in reference to a return to the 1967 borders. A nation which experienced that less than a hundred years ago will have a hard time shutting themselves up in a country that is just nine miles wide, especially given the fact that there are hundreds of millions of Muslims stirring behind those borders, and that some of those Muslims refer to the Jews as “the descendants of apes and pigs,” call openly for jihad and refuse to come to terms with the existence of a Jewish entity in the historic land of Israel.