Israël doit reconnaître le génocide arménien

Il est temps pour les autorités les plus représentatives d’Israël, son président, le chef de son gouvernement, la Knesset, de reconnaître le génocide dont ont été victimes les Arméniens de l’Empire ottoman.
Dans moins de vingt-cinq ans, ce sera au tour du centenaire du génocide des juifs d’être célébré dans le monde entier, et – nous l’espérons – y compris dans le monde musulman. Comment cultiver cette espérance d’unanimité si l’Etat des juifs se refuse encore à cette reconnaissance formelle pour ne pas indisposer son puissant voisin turc ?
Le génocide arménien a été reconnu par de nombreux pays, et le président de la République, François Hollande, s’est engagé à ce qu’une loi sanctionne la négation du génocide arménien comme la loi Gayssot sanctionne depuis un quart de siècle la négation du génocide juif.
En un temps ou les massacres des chrétiens d’Orient se multiplient, la voix du pape s’est fait entendre pour le déplorer et pour, enfin, proclamer que les Arméniens ont été victimes d’un génocide.
Ce n’est pas pour condamner la Turquie moderne, pas plus qu’à Nuremberg on a voulu condamner l’Allemagne qui naîtrait des ruines du IIIe Reich. D’ailleurs, l’Allemagne fédérale dès sa naissance, la République démocratique allemande peu avant sa chute et l’Allemagne enfin réunifiée ont reconnu le génocide commis par l’Allemagne hitlérienne et, en en assumant les conséquences sur tous les plans, ont libéré le peuple allemand d’une partie de son fardeau moral.
Les dirigeants de la Turquie doivent suivre cet exemple. Tant qu’ils nieront la vérité historique, tant qu’ils essaieront d’échapper à leurs responsabilités et qu’ils continueront à prétendre que les Arméniens les ont trahis pendant la première guerre mondiale et qu’eux ont seulement riposté, ils seront tenus à l’écart par la communauté internationale, et en priorité par l’Union européenne. Tant qu’Israël ne reconnaîtra pas le génocide arménien, la Turquie se refusera à le faire.
L’Etat juif sait que les nazis ont pu se risquer à commettre au XXe siècle un second génocide parce que les auteurs du premier n’avaient pas été punis. Aucun argument ne peut s’opposer valablement à la reconnaissance que nous demandons à Israël en ces jours ou nous commémorons Yom HaShoah (la Journée du souvenir de l’Holocauste en Israël).

Krakow for Holocaust Remembrance Day: my journey

In Krakow, Poland the sun was shining, the wind blew pleasantly and a large group of Charedim pushed passed me as I disembarked the plane, ready for what one organiser had already promised was going to be ‘a deeply personal journey that would change my life’.
Here we go; already a stranger talking to me about 'my journey' in connection to what I’ve heard cynics refer to as ‘Holocaust tourism’.
As one of 250 British delegates taking part in this year’s March of the Living – an annual educational programme, which brings students from all over the world to Poland in order to study the history of the Holocaust – I was not sure what to expect.
It’s a subject I’ve written about, a history that was taught to me, but a reality always too unimaginable to grasp.
We were split up and put on one of six buses accompanied by an educator and survivor. I met my group who were all on the same but inevitably different ‘journey'.
Mine started at baggage reclaim when survivor Zigi Shipper 85, shuffled up to me and said: "You are the reporter from the JC?
“You are more beautiful than any of the other ones I’ve met."
He winked and as he continued to tell the group this is his third trip to Poland this year.
Zigi was 14 when he arrived at Auschwitz. He told us how he spent days in a cattle truck so crowded there was only room to sit down once several passengers had died.
He said: “I didn’t feel human I was so desperate to hope that someone would die so I could just sit.
“I didn’t understand how I could think that.”
All that before lunch. We got on to our bus with two destinations ahead.
First stop was a restored synagogue in Dabrowa Tarnowska, once home to 2500 Jews and a building surrounded in controversy.
Many locals opposed the restoration of the building after the war and the Polish money that went into doing it. Our tour guide told us: “There were posters that went up saying ‘the Jews have a synagogue but we have no money. "A lot of people did not want it."
Under the decorative ceilings that looked more Italian church than synagogue to me, youth groups gathered together to sing, others walked around looking at artefacts in glass cases, quietly reflecting.
I noticed instantly nowhere were there descriptions (in English at least) of what happened to the shul or the Jews in the war, in fact there was no mention of Jews or Holocaust at all.
This quite remarkable building that said something, on the outside, wasn’t actually saying much at all. Even stranger the synagogue, or The Centre for the Meeting of Cultures as it is called, makes no reference to it being a synagogue at all.
And with it serving no local Jewish community because all were killed, its presence has an eerie irrelevance, a reminder of what was once. But sadly no longer is, because there are literally no Jews left in the town.
Its irrelevance was visible on the faces of locals who sat at the bus stop outside it too.
Their eyes scanned me up and down as if I might be another species and their gaze was far from welcoming.
We got back on the bus with a warning the next part wasn’t going to be so easy.
"You're like a naughty school boy at the back of the bus,” I say to Zigi as he commanded the attention of his audience punch line after punch line.
And as if we never joked, he answered: "I wouldn't know what that's like; I didn't get to go to school."
A sobering reminder of how my own childhood experience was totally lost on a man who grew up seeing many of his friends shot in front of him.
We drove to a forest with trees twice the height of the toy-like houses surrounding it and are told the ground we are walking on is where 800 children were taken on the same day and killed along with their parents and 2000 Polish who opposed the Nazis.
As we stood where fathers were forced to dig pits for the bodies of their own children, my stomach turned as my boots sunk into the muddier parts of the ground.
All that marked the children's graves were the odd candle and drawing of a Disney character.
‘My journey’ so far has had some unexpected laughs and some very expected sorrow.
It’s only day one.

Biden: No deal with Iran

President Barack Obama would reject any Iran deal that does not increase its breakout time to a nuclear weapon to a year, Vice President Joe Biden told Israelis.
Biden, addressing the Israeli embassy’s Independence Day festivities, also said the United States will deliver F-35 fighter jets to Israel next year to help maintain its military edge regionally.
Biden said Obama’s minimum requirement for a deal between the major powers and Iran would be to increase Iran’s breakout time from the current 2-3 months where the United States estimates it currently stands to a year.
“If it doesn’t, no deal,” Biden said. A final deal is due June 30. Biden said it would include verifiable reductions of Iran’s stock of enriched uranium and guarantees that Iran could not manufacture plutonium.
The pledges come as the Obama administration is seeking to improve ties frayed with Israel over Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s expressions of opposition to the talks, including his speech to Congress last month organized without consulting the White House.
Biden also said there would be a phased reduction of sanctions on Iran, measured against Iranian cooperation with a regimen that would keep it from acquiring a nuclear weapon. Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has said he wants immediate sanctions relief.
Biden described the F-35 as “our finest, making Israel the only country in the Middle East to have this fifth-generation aircraft” and said the United States would maintain Israel’s qualitative military edge.
“You protect our interests like we protect yours, so let’s get something straight in this moment of some disagreement, occasionally, between our two governments,” Biden said. “No president has ever done more to protect Israel’s security than President Barack Obama.”
Likening Israel and the United States to “family” he said: “Sometimes, we drive each other crazy, but we love each other and we protect each other.”
Israel’s Defense Ministry announced in mid-February that it had signed a deal with the United States to purchase 14 more F-35 planes for the Israel Air Force at $110 million each, bringing the total to 33. Israel in 2010 said it would acquire 19 of the aircraft.

Wonder of wonder, miracle of miracles! Topol wins top honour

Chaim Topol has received Israel’s highest civilian honour.
Nine distinguished Israelis were awarded this year’s Israel Prizes in a state ceremony held on Thursday night in Jerusalem attended by Benjamin Netanyahu.
Two Lifetime Achievement Awards for special contributions to society and the State of Israel were given to Chaim Topol, who played milkman Tevye in the much-loved 1971 movie Fiddler on the Roof.
The acclaimed star is also the founder of the Jordan River Village for children suffering from life-threatening diseases.

ONG

assalam and Development association, a ONG charity operates through grants and donations from people like you. If everyone reading this was donating a few dollars, we could financed our work for the coming year. 15 § 10 § 5 § donate
 name of bank : banque populaire
 N° bank account of the association 164640212144948474000558
city : tangier
country : Morocco
 donated us

PM Netanyahu declares victory

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu celebrated what he called a “major victory” in Tuesday’s elections.

“Against all odds: a great victory for the Likud. A major victory for the people of Israel!” he wrote on his official Twitter account.
Soon after the election exit polls were announced at 10:00 p.m. Tuesday,Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett called Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu and congratulated him. “They agreed to begin accelerated negotiations for establishing a national government and working in cooperation for the security of the state of Israel and the nation of Israel.”
In an interview with Arutz Sheva earlier in the day, Bennett urged supporters not to fall into the complacency trap – and not to give their votes to Netanyahu, as anxious as they might be to ensure that he, and not Yitzhak Herzog, is chosen by President Reuven Rivlin to form the next government.
Although the polls showed Jewish Home losing support over the past several weeks, Bennett was optimistic that the party could beat the polls, which showed Jewish Home receiving

Federal Government lists Evangelical Christianity as a top terrorist threat.

Ron Trowbridge, undersheriff of Prowers County Colorado, attended a training session in La Junta, Colorado which was hosted by the Colorado State Patrol (CSP) and funded by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The training was on sovereign citizens and Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, but also on the agenda was the subject of Christians who believe the U.S. was founded on Godly principles and who interpret the Bible literally. This describes many in the sovereign citizen movement but it is also indicative of many mainstream right-of-center Americans.
Trooper Joe Kluczynski, who conducted the training, said he got his training materials from the DHS. Many will recall back in 2011, the DHS released the controversial publications, “Domestic Terrorism and Homegrown Violent Extremism Lexicon” and “Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Training Guidance and Best Practices.” Both documents provided the impetus for the type of training tools government agencies across the country are using.
Todd Starnes, writing for Fox News, reports that during a U.S. Army training event, an Army instructor cited Evangelical Christianity and Catholicism as examples of religious extremism—along with Al Qaeda and Hamas.
Not only was it implied that Evangelical Christianity is as dangerous as a terrorist organization, but it was at the top of the list of threats. And, here is that list:
Evangelical Christianity
Muslim Brotherhood
Ultra-Orthodox Jews
Christian Identity
Al Qaeda
Hamas
Abu Sayyam
Ku Klux Klan
Sri Ram Sene
Catholicism
Kamane Movement / Kach
Army of God
Sunni Muslims
Nation of Islam
Jewish Defense League
Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints
Hutaree
“Islamophobia” was also listed as a form of religious extremism.”
“We find this offensive to have Evangelical Christians and the Catholic Church to be listed among known terrorist groups,” Ron Crews, executive director of the Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty, said. “It is dishonorable for any U.S. military entity to allow this type of wrongheaded characterization.”
Army spokesman George Wright told Fox News that the presentation of the extremist threats list was an “isolated incident not condoned by the Dept. of the Army.” Wright said that the, “slide was not produced by the Army and certainly does not reflect our policy or doctrine.” He added that, “it was produced by an individual without anyone in the chain of command’s knowledge or permission.”
But, the incident was made public by a soldier who had attended the briefing. He requested copies of the presentation which he subsequently sent to the Chaplain Alliance. “He considers himself an evangelical Christian and did not appreciate being classified with terrorists,” Crews explained to Fox News. “There was a pervasive attitude in the presentation that anything associated with religion is an extremist.”
The Archdiocese for the Military Services was stunned upon learning that the Army considers Catholicism to be an example of extremism: “The Archdiocese is astounded that Catholics were listed alongside groups that are, by their very mission and nature, violent and extremist.”
Wright had the opportunity to speak with the officer who did the presentation and she told him that she got her information from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC). To this Crews responded with: “Why is there such dependence upon the work of the SPLC to determine hate groups and extremist groups.” He added that, “it appears that some military entities are using definitions of ‘hate’ and ‘extreme’ from the lists of anti-Christian political organizations. That violates the apolitical stance appropriate for the military.”
According to Mark Potok, Senior Fellow & Editor-in-Chief at the SPLC, the SPLC has never labeled Evangelical Christianity or Catholicism as extremist groups. But, they have labeled a number of conservative Christian organizations as “hate groups” due to the organizations’ stance on homosexuality.
A handful of domestic Muslim hate groups, such as the As-Sabiqun movement were not tallied by the SPLC, even though disapproval of homosexuals is prevalent among Muslims. Jonathan Brown, an Assistant Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies at the University of Washington in Seattle, writing for Patheos reports that while a group of liberal Muslims in the West argue that homosexuality is in fact allowed in Sharia law, almost all traditional Muslim scholars reject this argument. But, the SPLC chose to zero in on Christians instead of Muslims.
The SPLC does have a ‘General Hate’ category into which people like Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller are placed. Accusing Spencer and Geller of ‘anti-Muslim’ sentiment would be inaccurate because much of the material produced by the two is in defense of Muslims (i.e. women and children) who are oppressed by other Muslims. In as much as the SPLC claims to be monitoring hate, there are no ‘Muslim Fundamentalist’, ‘Jihadist’, or ‘Anti-Christian’ hate groups listed.
Both the SPLC & federal government agencies such as the DHS and FBI harbor an interest bordering on obsession with Christians and “right wing extremists” while ignoring the following findings from a U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee report titled “Terrorist Arrests and Plots Stopped in the United States 2009-2012″:
Ninety-eight terror suspects/defendants from the 2009-2012 time period revealed 17 who were not Muslim and not connected to Islamic terror plots.
Nearly 83% of the terror suspects involved in U.S. terror plots from 2009-2012 were Muslim
A report issued by the Department of Justice in 2011 relating to “National Security Division Statistics on Unsealed International Terrorism and Terrorism – Related Convictions 9/11/01 – 3/ 18/10″ identified, after analysis, more than 80% of all such convictions tied to international terrorist groups and homegrown terrorism involved defendants driven by a radical Islamist agenda.
The Senate Intelligence Committee report, that overlaps by 2009 and early 2010 with the noted DOJ statistical conviction report, clearly validates and continues the 80+% finding related to the post-9/11 case conviction analysis.
These reports confirm that while the vast majority of Muslims in America are not terrorists, the clear and significant majority of terrorist plots and cases identified within the United States involve radicalize Muslims.
(Via The Investigative Project on Terrorism)
To be sure, government agencies need to be vigilant in regard to all terrorist threats. But, as is the case with the politically motivated SPLC, the DHS and FBI appears to be not as focused on the groups representing 83% of domestic terrorist plots as they are on groups far less likely to present a threat. In both the case of the law enforcement training in Colorado and the Army training, uneasiness with viewpoints deemed to be outside of the mainstream was evident. Entire groups of people are being singled out for having ideologies that some find offensive. It would behoove those offended to read the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

Note from Mario:

Once again a well-meaning but uninformed believer asks why I am speaking out in these blogs.  I believe Obama is deliberately trying to dismantle America and pull our nation under the thumb of government.  I believe he also has Islamist sympathies that reveal themselves in incidents such as the one that I have posted above.   It would be sin for me not to pray for him.  I bear no malice toward him as a person but I recognize that right now, he is an instrument for destruction.
It is the height of naivete to ignore the signs of a national take over.  The steps have been clearly outlined for years by experts and Obama is going by the book. Here are the official rules:
1. Seize control of healthcare and you will control the economy.
2. Bring division, distraction and demonize your opposition by creating false crisis and the people will blindly give you more power.
3. Undermine core values and discredit constitutional laws that block your takeover.
4. Disarm law abiding citizens.
There are of course many more steps but these are the 4 that are the most glaring.
Should a man of God involve himself in these matters?  Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey those who rule over you, and be submissive, for they watch out for your souls, as those who must give account. Let them do so with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.
As a man of God I must warn those entrusted to me about anything that will harm them or bring disaster.  I must do this especially if I see that there is still hope to avert the danger. However, my greatest motivation is that I will stand before God to answer for what I did in this moment in history.
I would that my brethren who remain silent would see that last part.  To be sure there is a short term benefit to silence.  The masses may still like you, your tithers may not leave you but in the end you will be listed among those who abandoned their post in America’s darkest hour.  You will stand before God and He will ask you why you buried your prophetic gift when it was so desperately needed.
It is possible to tell the truth without love but it is impossible to love without telling the truth.

Senate panel probing possible Obama administration funding of effort to unseat Netanyahu

A US Senate investigatory committee has launched a probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the State Department of US President Barack Obama gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, Fox News reported on Saturday. 

According to the news outlet, a source with knowledge of the panel's activities told it that the probe was underway and was  bipartisan in nature.

According to the source, the probe is looking into “funding” by the OneVoice Movement – a Washington-based group that has received $350,000 in recent State Department grants, Fox News reported.

A spokesperson for Sen. Rob Portman, (R-Ohio), the chair of the committee, refused comment on the report to Fox. 

“The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not comment on ongoing investigations,” Caitlin Conant, spokeswoman for Portman, told Fox.

Earlier this week, Netanyahu suggested to a meeting of Likud activists in Kiryat Gat that there is an international effort to remove him from power.

In a recording of the meeting obtained by Army Radio, Netanyahu is heard saying of the current election campaign, "This is a very close battle. Nothing is ensured because there is a great, worldwide effort to topple Likud rule."

According to Fox, the Israel-based Victory 15 campaign which seeks to “replace the government” in Israel is a "subsidiary" of OneVoice.

OneVoice defines itself  as an "international grassroots movement that amplifies the voice of mainstream Israelis and Palestinians, empowering them to propel their elected representatives toward the two-state solution."

One expert told Fox earlier this month that the State Department grants constituted "indirect Obama administration funding of the anti-Netanyahu campaign by providing OneVoice with the $350,000 – even though State Department officials said the funding stopped in November, ahead of the announcement of the Israeli election."

OneVoice is barred from directly targeting Netanyahu by US law regulating its tax-exempt status, and doing so would threaten that status, Fox News wrote in the report. 

Last month, Central Elections Committee chairman Justice Salim Joubran ruled that the Likud was unable to prove a connection between V15 and other organizations to the Zionist Union and Meretz. 

Joubran rejected the Likud’s petition to block activity by organizations V15, One Voice and Molad and by strategist Eyal Arad on grounds that they are indirectly campaigning for the Zionist Union and Meretz, and required the party to pay NIS 48,000 in legal fees.

The Likud accused the Zionist Union and Meretz of illegally accepting donations from non-Israeli citizens and organizations with foreign funding via V15, which seeks Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s defeat in the election, and other left-wing organizations. V15 is partly funded by S. Daniel Abraham and Daniel Lubetzky, who are not Israeli citizens.

Joubran also said that the party would have to prove that V15 was campaigning for a specific party for it to be illegal, and not the organization’s stated purpose of changing the country’s leadership, or even support for the Center-Left.

Likud bigwig rules out Netanyahu-Herzog power-sharing arrangement

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will not agree to share the premiership with Zionist Union leader Isaac Herzog in a "rotation government" following the election, Communications Minister Gilad Erdan (Likud) told a town hall meeting in Tel Aviv on Saturday.

The latest polls show Zionist Union with a four-seat lead over Likud, prompting speculation that if the results are borne out in this week's election, Netanyahu will have no choice but to invite Herzog into a unity government in which both men will share power.

"[Netanyahu] will not be prime minister in a rotation arrangement," Erdan said.

The minister said that he doesn't believe Herzog and his running mate, Tzipi Livni, will accept the Likud's governing guidelines in the event that Netanyahu is tasked with forming the next coalition.

Erdan said that the Likud would first seek to invite its natural ally, the religious Zionist Bayit Yehudi party, into the coalition before negotiating with other parties.

The minister repeated a Likud accusation that foreign donors are bypassing Israeli election laws and funding campaigns aimed at toppling the ruling party. The specific reference was to the V15 movement, whose wealthy backers are known to support liberal causes in Israel.

"Non-profits spring up right before elections, and a lot of foreign money flows into the country in order to bypass campaign finance laws with the intention of removing the Likud from power," Erdan said.

The veteran Likud power broker said that the ruling party is on track to form the next coalition.

"There is no significant drop-off in the number of Knesset seats the Likud will win, and that's natural because we are the ruling party," he said. "We've led the State of Israel in the proper fashion. We've been responsible and careful, and while it is clear there are problems, when you examine life here in the face of our neighbors, and when you look at the economy compared to that of other Western countries, then you will see that good work has been done here."

Erdan said he was concerned over the possibility that Likud could lose power in a last-minute development.

"We are in danger of seeing the Likud and the nationalist camp lose the ability to form the next government," he said. "That would mean Bouji (Herzog's nickname) and Tzipi will do it with the support of Ahmed Tibi, who apparently will be a member of the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee."

"Assuming that Netanyahu forms the next government, I prefer [Bayit Yehudi's] Naftali Bennett, the ultra-Orthodox, [Moshe] Kahlon, and [Avigdor] Liberman in the coalition. I'm not ruling anyone out on condition that they accept the government guidelines as spelled out by Likud."

obama and israel

The Obama administration stands by its rejection of claims that it has worked to influence the outcome of Israel's March 17 election.

Since January, the State Department has questioned the veracity of reporting on a connection between its funding of OneVoice, an organization committed to the two-state solution, and the work of its subsidiary known as Victory 15, which has campaigned against the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu since December.

In November 2014, the same month Netanyahu called for new elections, payments to OneVoice from the State Department ended as scheduled.

Roughly $350,000 in funds were transferred between September 2013 and November 2014 from the US embassy in Tel Aviv " to promote dialogue and support for peace negotiations and a two-state solution," State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki said on January 28. The embassy approved an implementation plan for the funds by OneVoice, and monitored its performance, "before the advent of V15," she said.

"As is routine for such a grant, final payments are disbursed after the grantee provides documentation showing completion of the grant terms," Psaki continued, noting that reports to the contrary stem from "inaccurate reporting – and a lack of reporting, perhaps I should say."

Nevertheless, Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas sent a letter to US President Barack Obama at the end of January asking for an explanation of the reported connection. And on Saturday, Fox News reported that the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations has opened a formal investigation into OneVoice's funding of V15. The inquiry has support from Democrats and Republicans, according to anonymous sourcing to Fox News.

No committee member has confirmed the authenticity of report, but Fox notes that the office of the committee chairman, Senator Rob Portman of Ohio, did not deny the opening of a probe.

“The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations does not comment on ongoing investigations,” Portman spokeswoman Caitlin Conant told Fox

Attentats islamistes en Europe

Je ne crois pas du tout aux larmes de crocodiles et aux mines contrites des leaders européens sur l’antisémitisme alors qu’ils financent par milliards – avec l’argent de leurs contribuables – les ONG de la haine contre Israël et contre le peuple juif qu’ils tentent de détruire de l’intérieur en corrompant des Israéliens et des juifs. Ils s’indignent de l’émigration de leurs concitoyens juifs quand ils ont tout fait pour créer la culture antisémite/antisioniste actuelle. En fait ils veulent les empêcher d’aller en Israël pour ne pas irriter leurs alliés arabes.

Pour pallier les déficiences des analyses géopolitiques et à l’indigence du débat d’idée des grands médias, nous avons demandé à notre amie Bat Ye’or, historienne et spécialiste de l’histoire de la dhimmitude des chrétiens et des juifs dans le Moyen Orient islamique, de porter son regard sur les récents attentats qui ont déchiré la France et le Danemark.

Pour rappel, et selon l’analyse de Bat Ye’or, la dhimmitude ne peut se comprendre que dans le cadre du djihad – Jean-Patrick Grumberg

Les accords Eurabia ont-ils été rompus unilatéralement par les musulmans ?

Qu’est-ce que vous entendez par « accords Eurabia » ? Si ce sont des documents officiels ponctuels signés entre chefs d’Etat, ces accords n’existent que partiellement et sont relatifs à Israël. Pour simplifier, Eurabia représente deux stratégies connexes et inséparables conçues par l’Europe avec ses partenaires de la Ligue arabe: 1) la création de la Palestine qui remplacera Israël, et 2) le projet méditerranéen de fusion euro-arabe, projet fondateur d’une civilisation commune méditerranéenne. Les deux stratégies sont liées.

Ces accords euro-arabes concernant Israël cités dans mon livre Eurabia*, sont :

Bruxelles 6 novembre 1973 résolution conjointe de la CEE.

Copenhague 15 décembre 1973, sommet de la CEE entérinant son alignement sur les conditions énoncées par le VIe Sommet arabe tenu à Alger le 26-28 novembre 1973 soit : recul d’Israël sur les lignes de 1949, reconnaissance de la Palestine avec Jérusalem comme capitale arabe, reconnaissance d’Arafat comme seul représentant de la Palestine, arrêt du soutien militaire et économique de l’Europe à Israël.

New York, Assemblée générale de l’ONU 26 septembre 1977, déclaration d’Henri Simonet, ministre belge des Affaires étrangères et président du Conseil de la CEE énonçant la position des Neufs conforme à celle de la Ligue Arabe.

Venise, 13 juin 1980, Déclaration du Conseil européen sur le Moyen-Orient qui entérine toutes les exigences arabes et impliquent l’Europe dans un processus pro-palestinien et anti-israélien.

Des sanctions contre Israël pour l’obliger à remplir les promesses faîtes par les Européens aux peuples arabes

Ces accords sont les premiers et postulent la position de l’Europe, d’autres suivirent. Or une lettre du 10/12 2010 adressée par d’anciens leaders, ambassadeurs et fonctionnaires de l’UE exhorte leurs remplaçants actuels à contraindre Israël par tous les moyens pour qu’il exécute les obligations pris par les Européens envers les Arabes relatives au territoire israélien, à sa population et à sa capitale. Ceci indique que l’UE, non seulement a adopté une position anti-israélienne dans un conflit qui ne la concernait pas, mais s’est engagée directement auprès de ses partenaires arabes à obliger Israël à s’exécuter. (usmep.us/2010-12-10-EFLG-letter-to-EU.pdf). Ces réclamations des pays arabes envers l’Europe ressortent de nombreux documents que j’ai examinés.

La stratégie du projet méditerranéen relève d’une autre structure. Il n’y a pas « d’accords» stricto sensu.

Elle consiste en un ensemble de lobbies et de réseaux officieux regroupant des parlementaires représentant tous les partis européens de la gauche à la droite, et leurs collègues arabes délégués par les parlements arabes. Ces parlementaires arabes et européens travaillaient ensemble dans divers comités spécifiques sous la double présidence de la Commission européenne et de la Ligue arabe. Michel Jobert, ministre français des Affaires étrangères nomma cette structure en 1974 le Dialogue euro-arabe. Saleh A. al-Mani, professeur saoudien à l’université King Saoud, la définit comme « une diplomatie associative » titre de son livre édifiant : The Euro-Arab Dialogue: A Study in Associative Diplomacy* (1983).

Ces réseaux établirent les fondations de la civilisation euro-arabe basée sur l’immigration, le multiculturalisme et l’antisionisme

Dès 1974 ces réseaux établirent au niveau européen et dans tous les secteurs d’activités les fondations idéologiques, politiques, culturelles, économiques, médiatiques, universitaires de la civilisation euro-arabe méditerranéenne basée sur l’immigration, le multiculturalisme et l’antisionisme. Une profusion de documents attestent l’existence et les activités de ces réseaux efficaces jusqu’à aujourd’hui. Le Dialogue euro-arabe, le Processus de Barcelone (1995), la Fondation Anna Lindh (2003), le Parlement euro-méditerranéen, l’Union méditerranéenne, Medea et bien d’autres instruments financiers, culturels et stratégiques démontrent l’existence de cette politique. Eurabia est tout cet ensemble qui repose sur un nombre très variés de documents.

Un projet antisémite sorti des cartons du nazisme

Cette politique fut conçue par la France dans les années 60. Après plusieurs années d’efforts infructueux pour y associer les pays de la Communauté Européenne rebutés par ce projet antisémite sorti des cartons du nazisme, la France obtint l’adhésion à son projet en 1973. Sous les coups de boutoir du terrorisme international palestinien et du terrorisme économique de la Ligue arabe qui menaçait de boycott tout pays ami d’Israël, les neuf pays de la Communauté européenne adhérèrent à la politique française.

Un nouveau facteur est apparu : l’Etat islamique qui s’inscrit dans la pérennité théologique et juridique du jihad

Pour répondre à votre question, si « les musulmans ont rompu les accords », mot confus dans ce contexte, je ne le crois pas. Un nouveau facteur est apparu : l’Etat islamique qui s’inscrit dans la pérennité théologique et juridique du jihad et de la guerre contre les mécréants.

Compte tenu qu’il n’y a jamais eu un aggiornamento théologique de l’islam et que les pays musulmans ont reconnu dans la charte de l’OCI (2008) s’enraciner dans les principes de l’islam, on doit pour comprendre la situation de l’Europe, l’interpréter selon le cadre juridique et idéologique dans lequel la situe le jihad qui n’a jamais été abrogé. On pourrait dire qu’Eurabia instaurait un état de trêve conditionnelle qui n’excluait pas le terrorisme pour obliger l’Europe à exécuter à la fois ses obligations contre Israël, et sur le plan intérieur la promotion de l’immigration musulmane, clé de voûte du projet méditerranéen.

Maintenant, l’Europe et l’Amérique ont donné un coup de pied dans la fourmilière, prodigué des armes aux islamistes qu’elles ont poussé à la rébellion contre les anciens dictateurs. L’Ummah a éclaté en tribus et clans hostiles les uns aux autres et manipulés par les financiers de la guerre.

La présence en Europe de millions d’immigrants qui refusent de s’intégrer et affiliés à leur pays d’origine importera en Europe les conflits et les divisions de ces pays

Dans certaines régions, il n’y a plus d’Etats, les frontières héritées de la colonisation après la Ier Guerre mondiale n’existent plus. L’Etat islamique qui règnent sur ces régions agit conformément aux règles du jihad, il se considère en guerre contre les Etats occidentaux qui combattent les mouvements islamistes en Afrique et au Levant. Il a donc ordonné à ses cellules dormantes en Europe de tuer ses citoyens et de les terroriser. Cela n’a rien à voir avec une soi-disant discrimination sociale de racistes blancs. Il est clair que la présence en Europe de millions d’immigrants qui refusent de s’intégrer et affiliés à leur pays d’origine importera en Europe les conflits et les divisions de ces pays.

Ont-ils perdu le contrôle de leurs éléments les plus radicaux qui déclenchent des attentats « spontanés » ?

Ces éléments obéissent à l’Etat islamique.

Mais on ne peut s’empêcher de penser que peut-être d’autres pressions utilisent le terrorisme pour obtenir de l’Europe les atouts qui ont toujours été exigés par la terreur depuis les années 1960 :

la reconnaissance de la Palestine obtenue de plusieurs états européens sous une très forte menace terroriste ;

l’aggravation des sanctions en Europe contre l’islamophobie et un renforcement de la censure culturelle contre la liberté d’opinion ;

une plus grande représentativité musulmane à des postes politiques importants et dans les médias. Cet argument d’ailleurs a été repris par la presse et des politiciens pour exonérer les coupables, culpabiliser la société européenne et promouvoir une plus forte influence islamique à tous les niveaux sociaux. Ce sont des demandes constantes formulées par l’Organisation de la Coopération Islamique.

Est-ce l’effet de la division entre l’Etat islamiste et les pays du « statut quo » qui rejailli sur des musulmans incontrôlés nés en Europe, et dans ce cas l’avenir proche promet d’être cauchemardesque ?

Les musulmans d’Europe ne sont pas incontrôlés. Les terroristes sont organisés et agissent rationnellement dans la logique du jihad et du dar al-Harb. Ce sont les Européens et leurs leaders qui sont fautifs d’ignorer leurs principes et leurs croyances.

La division est devenue un chaos de guerres et de barbarie qui n’épargnent personne. Mais les musulmans d’Europe ne sont pas incontrôlés. Les terroristes sont organisés et agissent rationnellement dans la logique du jihad et du dar al-Harb. Ce sont les Européens et leurs leaders qui sont fautifs d’ignorer leurs principes et leurs croyances. Ces leaders ont fait preuve de leur incroyable incompétence pour n’avoir pas prévu ce désastre en s’étant installés dans le déni depuis quarante ans alors qu’ils ont l’obligation d’assurer la sécurité de leurs concitoyens.

S’agit-il d’un prélude pour exiger de l’Europe plus de soumission, plus d’acceptation de l’Islam, et un rejet plus offensif d’Israël ?

Oui c’est exactement cela, et les concessions ont déjà commencé.

En fait ils veulent empêcher les juifs d’aller en Israël pour ne pas irriter leurs alliés arabes

Je ne crois pas du tout aux larmes de crocodiles et aux mines contrites des leaders européens sur l’antisémitisme alors qu’ils financent par milliards – avec l’argent de leurs contribuables – les ONG de la haine contre Israël et contre le peuple juif qu’ils tentent de détruire de l’intérieur en corrompant des Israéliens et des juifs. Ils s’indignent de l’émigration de leurs concitoyens juifs quand ils ont tout fait pour créer la culture antisémite/antisioniste actuelle. En fait ils veulent les empêcher d’aller en Israël pour ne pas irriter leurs alliés arabes.

Comment analysez-vous le futur ?

Catastrophique pour tout le monde. L’UE ne changera pas de politique, elle s’est trop engagée pour reculer. Elle a menée trois politiques parallèles et connexes :

l’affaiblissement d’Israël pour lui substituer la Palestine qu’elle a soutenue, financée et formée dans ce but

la destruction des nations européennes pour construire l’UE

la construction de la civilisation euro-méditerranéenne, c’est-à-dire euro-arabe par l’immigration, la mixité des populations, la suppression du judéo-christianisme afin de rendre les populations européennes islamo-compatibles.

Eventuellement l’UE pourrait mener des actions militaires contre Israël si la campagne BDS qu’elle préconise et soutient en sous-main s’avérait insuffisante.

Et avec cela, comme si ce n’était pas assez, Obama pousse à la confrontation avec la Russie, rêvant de recréer la guerre en Europe et le chaos qu’il a semé dans les pays musulmans.

TREASON: BREAKING News :Obama gave $500 MILLION For Weapons To Al-Qaeda Terrorist Used On Our Four Dead Americans In Benghazi.

Benghazi attack could have been prevented if US hadn’t ‘switched sides in the War on Terror’ and allowed $500 MILLION of weapons to reach al-Qaeda militants, reveals damning report.

Citizens Committee on Benghazi claims the US government allowed arms to flow to al-Qaeda-linked militants who opposed Muammar Gaddafi
Their rise to power, the group says, led to the Benghazi attack in 2012
The group claims the strongman Gaddafi offered to abdicate his presidency, but the US refused to broker his peaceful exit
The commission, part of the center-right Accuracy In Media group, concluded that the Benghazi attack was a failed kidnapping plot
US Ambassador Chris Stevens was to be captured and traded for ‘blind sheikh’ Omar Abdel-Rahman, who hatched the 1993 WTC bombing plot
The Citizens Commission on Benghazi, a self-selected group of former top military officers, CIA insiders and think-tankers, declared Tuesday in Washington that a seven-month review of the deadly 2012 terrorist attack has determined that it could have been prevented – if the U.S. hadn’t been helping to arm al-Qaeda militias throughout Libya a year earlier.
‘The United States switched sides in the war on terror with what we did in Libya, knowingly facilitating the provision of weapons to known al-Qaeda militias and figures,’ Clare Lopez, a member of the commission and a former CIA officer, told MailOnline.
She blamed the Obama administration for failing to stop half of a $1 billion United Arab Emirates arms shipment from reaching al-Qaeda-linked militants.
‘Remember, these weapons that came into Benghazi were permitted to enter by our armed forces who were blockading the approaches from air and sea,’ Lopez claimed. ‘They were permitted to come in. … [They] knew these weapons were coming in, and that was allowed..
‘The intelligence community was part of that, the Department of State was part of that, and certainly that means that the top leadership of the United States, our national security leadership, and potentially Congress – if they were briefed on this – also knew about this.’
The weapons were intended for Gaddafi but allowed by the U.S. to flow to his Islamist opposition.
The White House and senior Congressional members,’ the group wrote in an interim report released Tuesday, ‘deliberately and knowingly pursued a policy that provided material support to terrorist organizations in order to topple a ruler [Muammar Gaddafi] who had been working closely with the West actively to suppress al-Qaeda.’
‘Some look at it as treason,’ said Wayne Simmons, a former CIA officer who participated in the commission’s research.
Retired Rear Admiral Chuck Kubic, another commission member, told reporters Tuesday that those weapons are now ‘all in Syria.’
‘Gaddafi wasn’t a good guy, but he was being marginalized,’ Kubic recalled. ‘Gaddafi actually offered to abdicate’ shortly after the beginning of a 2011 rebellion.
‘But the U.S. ignored his calls for a truce,’ the commission wrote, ultimately backing the horse that would later help kill a U.S. ambassador.
Kubic said that the effort at truce talks fell apart when the White House declined to let the Pentagon pursue it seriously.
‘We had a leader who had won the Nobel Peace Prize,’ Kubic said, ‘but who was unwilling to give peace a chance for 72 hours.’
In March 2011, Kubic said, U.S. Army Africa Commander General Carter told NBC News that the U.S. military was not actively targeting Muammar Gaddafi. That, Kubic revealed, was a signal to the Libyan dictator that there was a chance for a deal.
Gaddafi responded by ‘verifiably … pull[ing] his forces back from key rebel-held cities such as Benghazi and Misrata.’
Gaddafi wanted only two conditions to step down: permission to keeo fighting al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), and the lifting of sactions against him, his family, and those loyal to him.
The Obama administration’s unwillingness to help broker a peaceful exit for the Libyan strongman, ‘led to extensive loss of life (including four Americans)’ when al-Qaeda-linked militants attacked U.S. diplomatic facilities in the city of Benghazi,’ the commission told reporters.
The White House and the National Security Staff did not immediately respond to questions about the group’s findings.
‘We don’t claim to have all the answers here,’ said Roger Aronoff, whose center-right group Accuracy in Media sponsored the group and its work.
‘We hope you will, please, pursue this,’ he told reporters. ‘Check it out. Challenge us.’

Quds force leader, commanding Iraqi forces against ISIS, alarms Washington

Twice designated a terrorist by the United States government, considered responsible for up to 20 percent of American casualties in the Iraq war, Major General Qasem Suleimani, the legendary Iranian spymaster and leader of the Quds Force – the elite special operations wing of the hardline Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) – is now stirring alarm in Washington for doing something the Obama administration would ordinarily cheer: taking the fight to ISIS in Iraq.
Photographs circulating on social media show Suleimani operating alongside senior Iraqi officials in the theater in and around Tikrit, the Sunni ancestral home of Saddam Hussein that is located almost equidistant between Mosul, the ISIS-controlled city 120 miles to the north, and Baghdad, the capital of the Iraqi government 100 miles to the south.
The presence of Suleimani at the forefront of Iraqi forces’efforts to reclaim Tikrit from ISIS control underscores both the expanding influence of Iran on the central Iraqi government and the increasingly critical role that Shi’ite militiamen, thought to be operating under Quds command, are playing in the Iraqi fight against ISIS. Neither development brings pleasure to senior U.S. officials or lawmakers in Congress.
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J., raised the issue of the Iranians with President Obama’s new defense secretary during a House Appropriations defense subcommittee hearing on Wednesday. “I know we're keeping our distance physically from them in Baghdad,” Frelinghuysen said. “Have we ceded most of the governance of Iraq to Iranians?...And will the military operations that are undergoing, which we are watching, divide the country and require us in some ways to spend more of our resources?”
“I absolutely share your concern about the role of Iran in Iraq and the wider region,” Defense Secretary Ashton Carter told the panel.
Among those concerns is a fear about what may happen if and when ISIS fighters surrender or flee Tikrit, which is presently said to be encircled and witnessing combat. Of the advancing forces, two-thirds are believed to be Shi’ite militiamen loyal to Iran, with the remainder belonging to Iraqi security forces, and officials worry that the Shi’ite troops may seek to avenge ISIS’ massacre of 1,700 Iraqi troops, almost all Shi’ites from nearby Camp Speicher, last June.
“The killings that were perpetrated in the time after we left Iraq would never be forgotten,” Frelinghuysen said.
“I completely agree with you,” Carter replied. “And sectarianism is one of the things that concerns me very much. And of course, it's the root of the Iranian presence in Iraq.”
“We're watching carefully,” added U.S. Army Gen. Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who appeared alongside Carter at the hearing. “If this becomes an excuse to ethnic cleanse, then our campaign has a problem and we're going to have to make a campaign adjustment.”
An additional reason the battle for Tikrit bears close watching at the Pentagon is because it may serve as an indicator of how well the Iraqi forces and their Shi’ite comrades can perform when the larger contest for Mosul is engaged. Analysts who have examined recent Iranian casualty reports said the data show the Islamic regime deploying more rank-and-file troops to Syria, but higher-level commanders to Iraq, to oversee the Shi’ite militia groups.
Ali Alfoneh, an Iranian-born scholar at the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, cast the involvement of the Quds Force in the ISIS conflict as reflecting a larger trend in Iranian society: its slow transformation from a radical Islamic theocracy to a military dictatorship, with the IRGC assuming ever greater powers.
“This is an organization which has engaged in spreading sectarian terror in Iraq. And now, this is the force that the Iraqi government has turned to for help in order to liberate Tikrit from Islamic State terrorists,” Alfoneh told Fox News. “In other words, we have one terrorist organization which is helping the Iraqi government get rid of another terrorist organization.”
Such tangled lines of authority and influence are exactly what Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had in mind on Tuesday, when he told a joint meeting of Congress: “When it comes to Iran and ISIS, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.”

Obama Leaks Info On Israel’s Nuke Program To Iran

Officials from the Islamic Republic of Iran claim they have documents that prove the United States assisted Israel in its development of a hydrogen bomb, which they claim is a crime according to international laws, according to the Iranian news media. And there is suspicion that President Barack Obama declassified the documents and released them to a left-wing think-tank to hurt Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
The Iranians published a copy of a 129-page memorandum they claim is one of about 100 copies distributed by the Institute for Defense Analysis (IDA) while under contract with the Pentagon in 1987. The Iranian press reported that Israeli nuclear facilities that were built independently were similar in structure to U.S. nuclear facilities such as Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories which are key facilities for creating and testing nuclear weaponry, Iranian-controlled news agencies reported.
But according to Veterans Today, there are rumors in the Pentagon that President Barack Obama was the person who ordered his minions to release the documents claiming the United States had allowed Israel to conduct not only nuclear espionage and openly sell nuclear weapons technology, but they received illegal American financial aid to build the nuclear weapon. VT claims that Obama’s release of the documents was in reaction to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s visit to the U.S. Congress in March. Not surprising is the fact that few, if any, American news media outlets covered the story.
“What we see here is a possibility that Obama and the Iranians conspired to hurt Netanyahu and Israel since they oppose a U.S.-Iran nuclear agreement. It’s a possible conspiracy and the right hand, the U.S., doesn’t have to know what the left hand, Iran, is doing and vice versa for there to be a conspiracy,” Lyle Kaplan a former counterterrorism unit operative and a prosecutor. “It’s a mysterious paradox that most American Jews hold Ronald Reagan in low-regard after he, right or wrong, helped to make Israel a safer nation in a sea of enemies, while they appear to love Barack Obama who has disrespected Israel and favors the Jewish State’s enemies,” Kaplan noted.
The report titled, “Critical Technology Assessment in Israel and NATO Nations,” claims that Israel’s nuclear facilities were advanced enough for them to formulate, design and build nuclear weapons. The Israelis were “developing the kind of codes which will enable them to make hydrogen bombs. That is, codes which detail fission and fusion processes on a microscopic and macroscopic level,” the report states.

US Senator Feinstein

Diane Feinstein, the Democratic senator from California, told CNN on Sunday that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s contention that he is speaking for all Jews in lobbying against an agreement between the US and Iran is “arrogant.”

Netanyahu, upon boarding a plane to Washington for what his office says will be a historic address to Congress, said Sunday that he is going as an "emissary of all the citizens of Israel, even those who don't agree with me, and the entire Jewish people."

Netanyahu, whose speech has triggered a great deal of friction with the White House said, "I am greatly concerned about the security of the citizens of Israel and I will do what is necessary in order to ensure our future."

“He doesn’t speak for me on this," Feinstein told CNN's State of the Union. "I think it’s a rather arrogant statement. I think the Jewish community is like any other community. There are different points of view. I think that arrogance does not befit, Israel, candidly."

The senator said that she will attend Netanyahu's speech, even though some of her Democratic colleagues plan to stay away in protest to what they feel is the Israeli premier's overt undermining of President Barack Obama and his administration.

"I intend to go, and I’ll listen respectfully," she said. "I don’t intend to jump up and down."

US Secretary of State John Kerry pressed the case on Sunday for completing nuclear diplomacy with Iran despite Israeli opposition, saying the United States deserves the benefit of the doubt on getting a deal that would prevent any need for military action to curb Tehran's atomic ambitions.

Two days before Netanyahu is due to address the US Congress to warn against an Iran deal, Kerry delivered a stout defense of talks that are entering a critical phase with a key March 31 deadline looming.

Kerry said he hoped Netanyahu's speech does not turn into "some great political football" but said the Israeli leader is "welcome to speak in the United States, obviously."

Six powers - the United States, Russia, China, Britain, France and Germany - are negotiating with Iran toward an agreement to restrain Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for easing economic sanctions. Netanyahu has spoken scathingly about a possible deal and says a nuclear-armed Iran would pose an existential threat to the Jewish state.

Netanyahu was invited to speak by Republican congressional leaders, but they did not inform President Barack Obama's administration about the speech in advance. Signs are growing that the speech could damage Israel's country's broad alliance with the United States.

In an interview with the ABC program "This Week," Kerry said of the Iran negotiations: "It is better to do this by diplomacy than to have to do a strategy militarily which you would have to repeat over and over again and which everybody believes ought to be after you have exhausted all the diplomatic remedies."

Kerry said he could not promise that a deal can be reached, but said that "we are going to test whether or not diplomacy can prevent this weapon from being created."

"We have said again and again, no deal is better than a bad deal. We're not going to make a bad deal," Kerry said.

Kerry, who said he spoke with Netanyahu on Saturday, is heading to Switzerland and is due to meet with Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif this week just as the Israeli leader comes to Washington.

"Our hope is diplomacy can work," Kerry added. "... Given our success on the interim agreement, I believe we deserve the benefit of the doubt to find out whether or not we can get a similarly good agreement with respect to the future."

Susan Rice Forbids Israel from Criticizing Kerry

Who the hell does National Security Advisor Susan Rice think she is? Does she believe in freedom of speech? How else to explain her disdainful tweet: “Personal attacks in Israel directed at Sec Kerry totally unfounded and unacceptable.” Unacceptable? Is it only Israel that has no right to criticize him? Has Rice forgotten that Israel, like the United States, is a democracy that enshrines the freedom of speech?

There has been a penchant of late by those in the Obama Administration to treat Israel like an errant schoolboy. When Israel Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said, according to media reports, that John Kerry is “obsessive and messianic,” State Department spokeswoman Jennifer Psaki said that Ya’alon’s remarks, if accurate, are “offensive and inappropriate, especially given all that the U.S. is doing to support Israel’s security needs.”

Aha. So, it would follow that any country that the US is similarly doing a great deal for would come under similar condemnation by the State department were they to criticize American leaders.

Let’s see. I would assume that most of us would agree that the United States, in seeing its brave soldiers die to stop the Taliban from taking over Afghanistan, not to mention spending a trillion-odd dollars in the war there, has done a great deal more for Afghanistan than Israel. Yet, here is President Hamid Karzai’s official pronouncement about the United States, just this past January 17:

“As a result of bombardment by American forces last night … in Siahgird district of Parwan province, one woman and seven children were martyred and one civilian injured. The Afghan government has been asking for a complete end to operations in Afghan villages for years, but American forces acting against all mutual agreements … have once again bombarded a residential area and killed civilians.”

This follows a pattern of Karzai of attacking American troops—who have saved his country from Taliban Neanderthals—as killers, rapists, marauders, etc. Just two days ago this wretched ingrate actually had the temerity to say that in the 12 years NATO troops have been in Afghanistan his country has gone backward. Yet, I have searched in vein on Susan Rice’s Twitter feed for a condemnation of Karzai for his absolutely disgusting remarks about our heroes in uniform.

Less so have I found a State Department spokesman condemning the Afghan president as having no right to falsely accuse American troops.

No, it seems that Israel alone is prevented from offering a dissenting opinion from the United States.

But there is another reason Susan Rice deserves special opprobrium from her condemnation of Israel, and that is the unique insensitivity she is famous for when it comes to genocide.

Susan Rice was part of Bill Clinton’s National Security Team that in 1994 took no action whatsoever during the Rwanda genocide, leaving more than 800,000 men, women, and children to be hacked to death by machete in the fastest genocide ever recorded.

Not content to insist on American non-involvement, the Clinton administration went a step further by obstructing the efforts of other nations to stop the slaughter. On April 21, 1994, the Canadian UN commandeer in Rwanda, General Romeo Dallaire, declared that he required only 5000 troops to bring the genocide to a rapid halt. In addition, a single bombing run against the RTLM Hutu Power radio transmitting antenna would have made it impossible for the Hutus to coordinate their genocide.

But on the very same day, as Phillip Gourevitch explains in his definitive account of the Rwandan genocide, We Wish to Inform You that Tomorrow We will Be Killed With Our Families, the Security Council, with the Clinton Administration’s blessing, ordered the UN force under Dallaire reduced by ninety percent to a skeleton staff of 270 troops who would powerlessly witness the slaughter to come. This, in turn, was influenced by Presidential Decision Directive 25, which “amounted to a checklist of reasons to avoid American involvement in UN peacekeeping missions,” even though Dallaire did not seek American troops and the mission was not peacekeeping but genocide prevention. Indeed, Madeleine Albright, then the American Ambassador to the UN, opposed leaving even this tiny UN force. She also pressured other countries “to duck, as the death toll leapt from thousands to tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands … the absolute low point in her career as a stateswoman.”

In a 2001 article published in The Atlantic, Samantha Power, author of the Pulitzer-Prize winning A Problem from Hell and arguably the world’s foremost voice against genocide and who is now Rice’s successor as America’s Ambassador to the UN, referred to Rice and her colleagues in the Clinton Administration as Bystanders to Genocide. She quotes Rice in her 2002 book as saying, “If we use the word ‘genocide’ and are seen as doing nothing, what will be the effect on the November congressional election?” That Rice would have brought up the midterm elections as a more important consideration than stopping the fastest slaughter of human life in all history – 330 dying every hour – is one of the saddest pronouncements ever to be uttered by American public official.

But she did not stop there.

Rice then joined Madeline Albright, Anthony Lake, and Warren Christopher as part of a coordinated effort not only to impede UN action to stop the Rwanda genocide, but to minimize public opposition to American inaction by removing words like “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing” from government communications on the subject.

In the end, eight African nations, fed up with American inaction, agreed to send in an intervention force to stop the slaughter provided that the U.S. would lend them fifty armored personal carriers. The Clinton Administration decided it would lease rather than lend the armor for a price of $15 million. The carriers sat on a runway in Germany while the UN pleaded for a $5 million reduction as the genocidal inferno raged. The story only gets worse from there, with the Clinton State Department refusing to label the Rwanda horrors a genocide because of the 1948 Genocide Convention that would have obligated the United States to intervene, an effort that Susan Rice participated in.

It was painful enough to watch Kofi Anan elevated to Secretary General even though as head of UN peace-keeping forces worldwide he sent two now infamous cables to Dallaire forbidding him from any efforts to stop the genocide (the cables are on display in the Kigali Genocide Memorial).

It’s nearly as painful watching Rice lecture the Jewish state, which lost one third of its entire people in a genocide of four short years, lecture the Jews about how unacceptable it is for them to criticize those who claim to know how to protect them better than they know themselves.

US national security advisor Rice says Netanyahu address 'destructive'

Susan Rice, US President Barack Obama's national security advisor, said on Tuesday night that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's acceptance of an invitation to address Congress next month is "destructive of the fabric of the relationship" between Israel and the United States.

"We've been fortunate that politics have not been injected into that relationship," Rice said to American journalist Charlie Rose.

But "what has happened over the last several weeks, by virtue of the invitation that was issued by the Speaker and the acceptance of it by Prime Minister Netanyahu on two weeks in advance of his election, is that on both sides, there has now been injected a degree of partisanship."

Those decisions from both men were "not only unfortunate," Rice continued, but "destructive."

"It's always been bipartisan," she said. "We need to keep it that way. We want it that way. I think Israel wants it that way. The American people want it that way. And when it becomes injected or infused with politics, that's a problem."

Netanyahu accepted the invitation in late January, originally scheduling him to speak in mid-February. He requested the speech be delayed until March 3, when he will already be in Washington for the annual conference of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee.

Both of his speeches, to AIPAC and to Congress, are expected to focus on a pending international deal on Iran's nuclear program, which he vehemently disapproves of. In a letter to Senate Democrats on Wednesday, Netanyahu said he planned to "voice Israel's grave concerns about a potential nuclear agreement with Iran that could threaten the survival of my country."

Negotiators from Iran, the US, United Kingdom, France, Russia, China and Germany seek to clinch a political framework agreement on the nuclear issue by the end of March.

As first reported in The Jerusalem Post in November, US officials are suggesting a deal with a sunset clause in roughly ten years, during which Iran would gradually be granted the rights and privileges of fellow signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

All five permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, Arab powers and Israel believe Iran has been in violation of its international obligations under the NPT, growing its nuclear program in size and scope while experimenting with weaponization techniques.

"They're not going to be able to convince anybody on day one that they have stopped enrichment," Rice said to Rose, speaking of a possible deal.

"They're going to have to prove over time through their actions which will be validated that they are, in fact, upholding their commitments. So this will be a phased process any way you slice it."

Israel asks UN to condemn Iran Holocaust cartoon contest

Israel called on United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and on UN member countries to condemn an international cartoon contest on Holocaust denial hosted by Iran which is set to take place in two months.
“The contest legitimizes Holocaust denial and encourages those who deny the Shoah to continue with their incitement,” Israeli ambassador to the UN, Ron Prosor, wrote in a letter released Saturday.
The competition is organized by Iranian organizations that have said it comes in response to the controversial depictions of the Prophet Muhammad in the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo last month.
Iran’s House of Cartoon and the Sarcheshmeh Cultural Complex are organizing The Second International Holocaust Cartoons Contest, Masud Shojaei-Tabatabaii, the contest’s secretary, announced in a press conference earlier this month, according to the Tehran Times.
Shojaei-Tabatabaii, who is also the director of Iran’s House of Cartoon, added that contestants will be asked to submit their drawings before April 1.
The winner will receive a cash prize of $12,000, with those in second and third place taking home $8,000 and $5,000, respectively.
The announcement marks the second time such a contest is being held.
After the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Postens caused controversy throughout the Muslim world in 2005 by publishing cartoons depicting the Prophet, the two organizers held a competition calling for contestants to draw cartoons denying the Holocaust or comparing it to the plight of the Palestinians.
According to the organizers, the contest was meant to challenge perceived Western double standards on free speech.
“Why is it acceptable in Western countries to draw any caricature of the Prophet Muhammad, yet as soon as there are any questions or doubts raised about the Holocaust, fines and jail sentences are handed down?” Shojaei-Tabatabaii said to the Observer in 2006.
The winner of the previous contest, Abdellah Derkaoui of Morocco, drew an Israeli crane erecting a wall around the Dome of the Rock. The Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp is featured on the wall.
Top works from the upcoming competition will be displayed at the Palestine Museum of Contemporary Art in Tehran and several other locations throughout the Iranian capital.

Obama administration: Israel must quit distorting details of Iran talks

Israel is distorting the U.S. negotiating position in nuclear talks with Iran and must stop, Obama administration officials said.
“The United States is mindful of the need to not negotiate in public and to ensure that information that is discussed at the negotiating table is not taken out of context and publicized in a way that does not distort the negotiating position of the United States and our allies,” Josh Earnest, the White House spokesman, said Wednesday when asked to comment on reports that the Obama administration was withholding details of the talks from Israel.
“There’s no question that some of the things the Israelis have said in characterizing our negotiating position have not been accurate, there’s no question about that.”
Neither Earnest, who was addressing the daily media briefing, nor Jen Psaki, the State Department spokeswoman, would give details of which details they think the Israelis are distorting. But a New York Times report on Wednesday said U.S. officials are angered that the Israelis seem to be leaking the number of centrifuges that the Iranians would be permitted to operate under an agreement while omitting details of other means of keeping at a minimum Iran’s uranium enrichment.
“Its safe to say that not everything you’re hearing from the Israeli government is an accurate reflection of the details of the talks,” Psaki said at her own daily briefing. “There’s a selective sharing of information.”
Psaki and Earnest each emphasized that U.S. negotiators continue to brief their Israeli counterparts.
“There is no country that is not participating in the negotiations that has greater insight into what’s going on at that negotiating table,” Earnest said.
Netanyahu, meeting Wednesday in Jerusalem with Sen. David Perdue (R-Ga.), said he was aware of the details of the proposal.
“The Iranians of course know the details of that proposal and Israel does too,” the Times of Israel quoted him as saying. “So when we say that the current proposal would lead to a bad deal, a dangerous deal, we know what we’re talking about, senator.”

l’Italie cède au terrorisme palestinien

En pleine vague d’attentats islamistes en Europe, l’Italie s’apprête jeudi à reconnaître l’entité terroriste « Autorité palestinienne », à la suite d’une proposition parlementaire déposée par la gauche italienne et soutenue par le parti démocrate du Premier ministre Matteo Renzi.
Mi-décembre, le Parlement européen a adopté, à une écrasante majorité, un «soutien de principe» à la « Palestine », sans appeler ses États membres à reconnaître un État palestinien.
En 2014, les parlements irlandais, français, espagnol et britannique ont reconnu l’entité terroriste « Autorité palestinienne ». Seule la Suède a reconnu de facto le présumé « État palestinien ».
L’Allemagne et les Pays-Bas ont refusé de suivre leurs homologues européens, préférant appeler Israéliens et Palestiniens à reprendre les négociations.
Selon un décompte de l’Autorité palestinienne, 134 pays à travers le monde ont reconnu l’Etat Palestinien. En grande partie des pays musulmans et ou régimes totalitaires.

Iranian American Council Slams Netanyahu Speech

The National Iranian American Council took out a full-page advertisement in The New York Times slamming the planned speech to Congress by Israel's prime minister.

"Will Congress side with our president or a foreign leader?" reads the ad in Thursday's edition. "President Obama is on the verge of a diplomatic victory that will prevent war and prevent a nuclear-armed Iran. But Congressional hawks are bringing Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu to Capitol Hill to push for new sanctions that could kill the talks and start a war."

In the ad, a figure identified as House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner fills out a mock multiple-choice quiz, choosing Benjamin Netanyahu over Obama on the question "Who is our Commander in Chief?"

The ad's publication comes amid reports that the White House has been keeping Jerusalem in the dark about certain details of U.S.-Iranian negotiations in order to avoid giving the Israelis fodder with which to inveigh against a potential nuclear deal.

"There's no question that some of the things that the Israelis have said in characterizing our negotiating position have not been accurate," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Wednesday. "We see that there is a continued practice of cherry-picking specific pieces of information and using them out of context to distort the negotiating position of the United States."

Netanyahu has warned against the perils of dealmaking with Iran and plans to visit Washington to make his argument in a speech to Congress on March 3, two weeks before Israeli elections. The speech has been the subject of much controversy. It was planned by Netanyahu administration officials and Boehner without the White House's knowledge, and Obama was informed about it only hours before it was publicly announced.

Several prominent Democrats have announced that they will not attend the speech, Obama has said he will not meet with Netanyahu during his visit because of the proximity to Israeli elections, and some prominent American Jews and Jewish groups have urged the prime minister to cancel. In Israel, Netanyahu has come under fire for what critics say is his antagonizing of the U.S. administration.

Black Members of Congress Will Skip Netanyahu’s Speech

A number of Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members will not be in attendance when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addresses a joint session of the House and Senate.
They plan to boycott the March 3 speech because they believe Netanyahu’s appearance is disrespectful to President Obama, Politico reported.
House Speaker John Boehner did not consult the White House or congressional Democrats before inviting the prime minister to come to Capitol Hill. Netenyahu will tell lawmakers about the threat Iran’s nuclear weapons program poses to the United States and Israel.
One of the leaders of the CBC, Democratic Rep. John Lewis of Georgia, was the first caucus member to tell reporters he will skip the speech. Rep. Jim Clyburn, D-S.C., and others quickly made similar announcements.
“To me, it is somewhat of an insult to the president of the United States,” said Rep. Greg Meeks, D-N.Y. “I’m not going to be there, as a result of that, not as a result of the good people of Israel.”
Obama and Biden also have said they will not be in the audience for Netanyahu’s speech.
Israeli officials who plan to travel to Washington, D.C., with Netanyahu want to meet with the CBC, according to Politico.

Israelis must protest Iran deal outside US Embassy

Israelis should take to the streets and protest in front of the US Embassy in Tel Aviv against the emerging Iranian nuclear deal, former Strategic Affairs Ministry director-general Yossi Kuperwasser said Tuesday.

Kuperwasser, who before the ministry job he left at the end of 2014 was a senior officer in Military Intelligence, attributed a great deal of importance to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned speech to Congress.

He told the annual Institute for National Security Studies conference in Tel Aviv that “everyone will be listening, and he will present the case of why this is dangerous, and why we should prevent an extremely radical regime like Iran from having the potential to have nuclear weapons.”

However, Kuperwasser said, the battle should not be waged by Netanyahu alone.

“It is not like fighting the Philistines in the Bible, and sending David to present our case,” he said. “The people of Israel should speak up. We should go to the American Embassy here and protest against this dangerous move.

“This is our fate, our fate. Why should we leave it only to the prime minister,” Kuperwasser said to applause. “We should have all the experts sitting here write a paper to the president [US President Barack Obama] saying this is not about politics, it is about our fate. Stop it.”

According to Kuperwasser, the Obama administration is moving toward an “extremely dangerous” deal. Basing himself on reports that the US has agreed to allow the Iranians more than 6,000 centrifuges, he said the problem is not only that figure, “which is unbelievable,” and which “nobody raised a year ago.”

It is also about what will happen to the other 14,000 centrifuges the Iranians now have available, he said. “If not totally dismantled, then within weeks they can reinstall them. What will happen with that?” Kuperwasser also asked about “what will happen” to the Iranian ballistic missiles or the enriched uranium Tehran has stockpiled, or its nuclear research and developments.

“There is a long list of issues of which we hear nothing,” he said. “And we want to know that at the end of the day the [nuclear] threshold will be extremely wide.”

It is a mistake to personalize the matter and set it up as a disagreement between Netanyahu and Obama, Kuperwasser said. It is much deeper than that, he asserted, and represents a fundamental difference between how the “Israeli establishment and the American establishment” view the issues.

While Washington obviously does not want Iran to get nuclear arms, Kuperwasser said the US “looks at it in a different way.”

The US can “afford” to live with a situation where there is a period where it will take Iran a year to produce a nuclear weapon, he said.

“They believe this is a threshold that can be sustained, because in their view Iran is not that terrible,” he said. “It is terrible, but not that terrible.”

According to Kuperwasser, Washington makes a distinction between the “ultra radicals, and the ultra, ultra radicals.

They want to focus on the ultra, ultra radical [Islamic State], and the ultra radicals can be helpful in fighting them.” Because of that, he asserted, a one-year nuclear threshold for the US is “not the end of the world.”

Ex-Obama aide says US should pass law mandating military action if Iran violates nuclear deal

Congressional legislation mandating US military action against Iran in case it breaches commitments under the accord being negotiated may be one way of bridging gaps between the US and Israel over the Iranian nuclear issue, Dennis Ross said on Tuesday.

Former Middle East envoy Ross, who from 2009-2011 was a key White House official dealing with Iran, told the annual conference of the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv that the US must be clear in any agreement what the consequences would be for Iranian violations.

“You cannot wait until you face the violations, and decide what it [the consequences], will be,” he said. “You actually should work that out now.”

Ross said this is one area where the administration could work together with Congress, which “has made clear it wants to put its imprint” on a possible agreement, and agree in advance what the price of violations will be.

For example, he said, if despite an agreement the Iranians were found to be engaged in a “dash” to nuclear breakout, the consequence should be the use of American military force.

“There should be legislation, worked out with the Hill in advance, which says if we catch them with the following kinds of violations, then the implication is that we are going to take out those facilities.” he said.

Ross said this is something that would deter the Iranians, and go a long way toward addressing one of Israel’s main concerns.

Ross also said that a new set of protocols will also be necessary to ensure that there is a transparent regime that allows supervisory access at anytime and at any place inside Iran, and that these new protocols have to take into account tens of thousands of centrifuges, not just one or two thousand.

If the Iranians know they can be detected trying to dash to a nuclear device, and if they also know that this would automatically trigger the American use of force, “it is likely to deter them in the first place, and goes a long way toward addressing the core of Israel’s concerns,” he said.

Yossi Kuperwasser, formerly the director-general of the Strategic Affairs Ministry, was not convinced.

He said this would not assuage Jerusalem’s concerns, because Israel does not trust the Iranians. The Iranians would not take seriously an American threat to use force, he added, since what would have driven such legislation in the first place is the “fear of having to do anything.”

Former Mideast envoy and envoy to Israel Martin Indyk also expressed skepticism at the idea, which he nevertheless called “creative,” saying that both the White House and Congress would be hesitant to forge an agreement that would essentially “put Iran’s finger on the American trigger. Not that the US would not be willing to use force, but to have it done automatically is something I suspect both the president and Congress would have a problem with.”

Indyk suggested that one way the gap could be bridged between America’s being able to tolerate Iran as a “near threshold” nuclear power, while Israel cannot, is for the US to enter immediately into discussions with Jerusalem “about a nuclear guarantee for Israel.”

He said these discussions were already held at Camp David in 2000 during negotiations between Ehud Barak and Yasser Arafat, and Barak asked – in the context of an agreement with the Palestinians – for an American nuclear defense guarantee.

“It was approved then, and the US president [Bill Clinton] said if there is a deal, we’ll do this,” Indyk said.

It would now be a different kind of deal, but Indyk said such a pact “may go a considerable distance toward calming Israel’s concerns about the Iranians reneging on commitments it makes in this deal.”

Indyk suggested that this would be not just a presidential guarantee, but a “treaty arrangement that would require legislation, and I’m sure it would pass pretty much unanimously.”

Khamenei: 'American Sniper' encourages harassment of Muslims

Iranian Supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has become the latest person to criticize US film American Sniper for its allegedly anti-Muslim message.

The Iraq war bipopic directed by Clint Eastwood tells the real-life story of late US Navy SEAL sharpshooter Chris Kyle, whose 160 kills in Iraq is considered the highest count ever in US military history. The film has been nominated for six Oscars including best picture and grossed over $300 million at the US box office.

It has become a flashpoint in US public debate with some liberals and conservatives sparring over its portrayal of war, soldiers, and Eastwood's interpretation of the history leading up to the 2003 Iraq invasion.

The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee has said that its members have been targets of "violent threats" caused by the film's language directed at Muslims.

Khamenei attacked the film on his Twitter feed Monday, relaying via the social media network his quotes from a meeting with religious minorities in Iran.

Israel approves $46 million plan to abosrb Jewish immigration

The cabinet approved a special NIS 180 million ($46 million) budget on Sunday to finance the costs of absorbing thousands of new immigrants expected to arrive in Israel this year from Ukraine, France and Belgium.
“We are telling our Jewish brothers and sisters that Israel is your home,” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said during the cabinet meeting. “We are bracing ourselves and calling for a mass immigration from Europe.”
Under the Law of Return, all Jewish immigrants to Israel are entitled to a package of financial benefits. The government expects the sharp upward trend evident in immigration from Ukraine, France and Belgium last year to strengthen even further in the coming year. In Ukraine, this increase has been attributed to the political turmoil in the country, while in France and Belgium, it has been associated with a combination of rising anti-Semitism and a weak economy.
The supplemental budget approved today is earmarked for information fairs, subsidized Hebrew lessons, extra office staff, and beefed up social and employment services.
According to figures published by the Ministry of Immigrant Absorption, a record number of 6,658 Jews immigrated to Israel from France last year – more than double the previous year’s number. Last month alone, the ministry reported that 1,835 new files were opened for candidates for immigration from France. The Jewish Agency expects 15,000 French Jews to immigrate to Israel this year.
Last year, 5,921 Jews immigrated to Israel from Ukraine – more than triple the previous year’s number. Last month alone, the ministry reported, 1,300 new files were opened for candidates for immigration from Ukraine.
Although immigration from Belgium has been on a much smaller scale in absolute terms, the percentage increase has been dramatic, ever since the terror attack last spring outside the Jewish Museum in Brussels.
Jewish Agency Chairman Natan Sharansky said in response to the cabinet decision that allocated extra funding this year to immigration absorption was not sufficient, and that it was incumbent on the government to come up with a long-term plan that addresses the housing and employment needs of new arrivals to the country. “Without long-term solutions to these issues, Israel will have a hard time attracting immigrants seeking a new future,” he said. 

on entend des échos

Maintenant, il devrait être évident pour toutes les parties concernées que les États-Unis, dirigés par Barack Obama, n’auront pas recours à l’option militaire pour contrecarrer les ambitions nucléaires de l’Iran, ni qu’ils auront recours à des sanctions économiques. En traitant de la République islamique, il y a essentiellement trois options et Obama en a écarté deux d’entre elles.

La première option privilégie une approche trilatérale impliquant la diplomatie couplée à de paralysantes sanctions et la menace crédible du recours à la force si des sanctions ne devaient pas parvenir à convaincre les mollahs à changer de cap. Cette option bénéficie d’un soutien bipartisan au Congrès et est favorisée par de nombreux analystes politiques notables.

La deuxième option consiste à une action militaire immédiate pour détruire le vaste programme nucléaire de l’Iran. Nul doute que les États-Unis agissant seul, ou en coordination avec Israël, pourrait accomplir cette tâche. Néanmoins, quelques-uns parmi les plus bellicistes des faucons considèrent cette option comme responsable de la politique étrangère.

À l’opposé du spectre il y a l’option trois qui implique un apaisement classique dans l’esprit de Neville Chamberlain et c’est cette approche qui est favorisée par l’administration Obama. Jusqu’ici, le tortueux « P5 + 1 » des négociations avec l’Iran a sans cesse traîné en longueur, avec au moins deux prolongations injustifiées alors que les Iraniens poursuivent fébrilement leurs ambitions néfastes.

Deux violations iraniennes notables et inacceptables au cours de la période intérimaire ont prêté foi à l’idée que les iraniens sont malhonnêtes.

La première concerne la facilité de production de plutonium et d’eau lourde à Arak par l’Iran, où les Iraniens ont été pris à acheter des matériaux pour l’usine de fabrication de bombes, une violation flagrante des restrictions imposées par les Nations Unies sur cette activité.

Dans le second cas, les mollahs ont été pris alimentant en gaz UF6 les centrifugeuses IR-5 plus avancées, un acte manifestement interdit en vertu de l’accord du Plan d’Action conjoint de novembre dernier.

Dans les deux cas, les transgressions ont été aplanies et les Iraniens ont eu une simple tape sur la main.

L’absence de toute réaction américaine significative à ces violations graves montre avec une plus grande clarté que l’administration ne cherche plus à empêcher l’Iran de devenir une puissance au seuil du nucléaire.

L’accord qui semble se dégager est celui qui permet à l’Iran de conserver ses centrifugeuses et autres infrastructures essentielles, nécessaires à la production et à la livraison d’armes de destruction massive.

Les Iraniens ont brillamment agi avec « l’impartialité » de l’administration Obama, quelque chose que l’ancien Secrétaire d’État George P. Schultz avait averti qu’elle se produirait si l’administration Obama adopte une démarche débonnaire aux négociations.

Dans une interview à la BBC, Schultz a correctement noté que « l’Iran d’aujourd’hui est le premier état sponsor du terrorisme mondial et que les mollahs, « tout en souriant, vous endorment et puis vous coupent la gorge. » Malheureusement, Obama a omis de tenir compte des conseils du Secrétaire et le monde est devenu un endroit beaucoup plus dangereux à cause de cela.

Pour Israël, un pays habitué à des menaces d’anéantissement iraniennes systématiques, la perspective d’armes nucléaires ou d’infrastructures capables de développer de telles armes entre les mains des mollahs apocalyptiques est un non-sens. En outre, un tel scénario déclencherait instantanément une course aux armements nucléaires au Moyen-Orient et transformerait cette région déjà instable en un baril de poudre. L’Egypte et l’Arabie saoudite naturellement se sentiraient obligés de se munir d’armes similaires comme une couverture contre un Iran toujours plus impérialiste et agressif, désireux d’étendre son hégémonie et de fomenter des troubles bien au-delà de ses frontières.

L’Europe ne serait pas épargnée non plus. L’Iran a développé fébrilement et a testé une nouvelle génération de plus en plus sophistiquée de missiles balistiques. En effet, un satellite commercial israélien « B Eros » a récemment découvert des preuves convaincantes d’une nouvelle génération iranienne de missiles balistiques intercontinentaux (ICBM) capables d’atteindre l’Europe et au-delà.

L’Imagerie satellite affiche un missile d’environ 27 mètres de long sur une rampe de lancement. Le missile, qui n’avait jamais été vu auparavant dans l’Ouest, est censé être capable de transporter des charges conventionnelles et non conventionnelles.

Mis à part les États-Unis, la nation la plus capable de porter un coup décisif au programme nucléaire iranien est Israël. Avec sa formidable force aérienne, considérée comme la meilleure pour ses capacités de ravitaillement aérien au monde, les puissantes plates-formes basées en mer de missiles sol-sol, Israël est dans une position unique pour lancer une attaque réussie et dévastatrice sur les infrastructures nucléaires de l’Iran.

Mis à part Israël, aucune autre nation dans le monde n’a réalisé avec succès une frappe sur une installation ennemie de fabrication de bombes nucléaires.

Ironiquement, l’Iran a tenté de le faire pendant la guerre Iran-Irak et a lamentablement échoué.

Israël a déjà réalisé avec succès deux de ces opérations. En 1981, ses chasseurs F-16 ont détruits le réacteur nucléaire français conçu pour l’Irak connu sous le nom Osirak situé près de Bagdad. Israël a été largement condamné pour ses actions à l’époque, mais au fil des ans, beaucoup, y compris ceux qui initialement ont critiqué l’opération israélienne, sont venus à apprécier la nature prémonitoire des actions d’Israël.

Et en 2007, dans une action baptisée « Opération Orchard », des F-15 israéliens ont attaqué et détruit en Syrie un complexe nucléaire Al Kibar, réduisant l’installation en déchets radioactifs.

Si Obama conclut un accord avec la République islamique, ce qui laisserait l’infrastructure nucléaire de l’Iran intacte, Israël n’aura pas d’autre choix que de lancer une opération militaire comme il l’a fait en 1981 et 2007. Dans le passé, l’administration a perfidement fait de son mieux pour contrecarrer les initiatives militaires israéliennes visant à préserver la stabilité régionale. En 2012, l’administration Obama, inexplicablement, a cherché à saboter une alliance stratégique naissante entre Israël et l’Azerbaïdjan et en 2013, les responsables de l’administration, furieux par les tensions régionales, ont fait fuir des informations reliant Israël à une série de frappes contre la Syrie visant à prévenir l’afflux d’armes au Hezbollah.

Malgré les efforts d’apaisement d’Obama, un accord avec la République islamique n’est pas une fatalité. Le président doit encore surmonter de fortes objections bipartites du Congrès, une perspective qui semble peu probable étant donné les fortes vues des membres de rang au sein de son propre parti démocratique.

Cependant, comme nous l’avons vu d’innombrables fois, la libération non autorisée d’agents d’Al-Qaida à Guantanamo à sa politique d’immigration et de santé irresponsables, Obama a développé un penchant à mentir à l’opinion publique américaine, affichant une désinvolture pour la Constitution et une tendance à contourner le Congrès.

Tout accord qui tenterait de contourner le Congrès et permettrait aux mollahs de conserver leurs « jouets » déclencherait presque à coup sûr une crise constitutionnelle.

Il mettrait également en mouvement une conflagration inévitable que rendra le monde beaucoup moins sûr.