Mensonges et propagande des médias libanais (financés par l'Arabie Saoudite)

"وذكر التلفزيون التونسي أن مسيرات شعبية عارمة سارت في شوارع تونس تجاوباً مع خطاب الرئيس بن علي الليلة الماضية إلى مواطنيه.
وأكد مواطنون تونسيون أن خطاب بن علي أعاد الأمور إلى نصابها، وطالبوه بمنح الاعلام مزيدا من الحرية."


"Et la télévision tunisienne a rapporté que des manifestations massives et populaires ont marché dans les rues de Tunisie en réaction favorable au discours fait par le président Ben Ali à destination de ses citoyens la nuit passée. Et les citoyens tunisiens ont affirmé que le discours de Ben Ali avait permis un retour à la normale, et ont appelé à plus de liberté des médias."

The Israel Project unveiled / Le projet Israël dévoilé

Israel propaganda's dictionnary / Manuel de propagande pro-Israélienne.

Where is Palestine on this map of the Israeli Ministry of Tourism ?

Source

Has the mainstream media in the US replaced serious coverage with "junk news" and tabloidism?

Haaretz : les USA informés d'avance de l'assaut d'Israël contre la flottille

Selon le quotidien israélien Haaretz, citant des sources diplomatiques américaines, le président américain Barak Obama était tout à fait au courant de l’assaut des forces militaires israéliennes contre la flottille internationale humanitaire de Gaza !

Footage proves indiscriminate Israeli live fire at Mavi Marmara passengers in Gaza Flotilla

EXCLUSIVE: New Video Smuggled Out From Israel's Flotilla Assault

Watch Iara Lee's Raw footage

A short primer on Israeli propaganda for media dummies* By Stuart Littlewood

Stuart Littlewood deconstructs the Israeli propaganda that has been flooding the airwaves following Israel’s murder of humanitarian activists aboard the Gaza-bound international aid flotilla, most notably from the orifice of the Israeli prime minister’s spokesman, Australian-born Mark Regev, and debunks the propaganda manual used by Israeli officials and stooges to hoodwink Westerners.

What were Israel’s excuses for hijacking the Free Gaza ships in international waters and imprisoning their passengers after gunning down nine of them and wounding several more?

• There is no humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and
• Israel already allows sufficient humanitarian aid into Gaza so the flotilla was “an armada of hate and violence", said Israel’s deputy foreign minister.

But according to John Ging, United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) director of operations in Gaza, “It’s a struggle to survive [with] the infrastructure and water and sanitation in a state of collapse and all that goes with that... People are at their wits’ end to understand when all of this will come to an end.”

• If the Free Gaza ships delivered the humanitarian cargo to the Israeli port of Ashdod, Israel would ensure it was delivered to Gaza after checking it for arms.

That’s very unlikely. The report “Failing Gaza: No rebuilding, no recovery, no more excuses” by a group of 16 European non-governmental organizations, published in December 2009, showed that the Israelis allow only a feeble trickle and what is permitted changes from day to day.

• Israel could not allow the ships into Gaza without searching them for arms that might be of use to Hamas.

There are peaceful alternatives for checking cargoes. Besides, it’s time Israel implemented The Agreement on Movement and Access it signed in November 2005, under which it promised to allow its crossings into Gaza to “operate continuously” so that people and goods could move freely.

The agreement also provides for

• the reduction of obstacles to movement within the West Bank
• bus and truck convoys between the West Bank and Gaza
• the building of a new seaport in Gaza
• reopening of the airport in Gaza

There would then be no need for ships bringing humanitarian aid.

The European Council on 8 December 2009 stated: “The EU again reiterates its calls for an immediate, sustained and unconditional opening of crossings for the flow of humanitarian aid, commercial goods and persons to and from Gaza. In this context, the council calls for the full implementation of The Agreement on Movement and Access.”

Israel has ignored countless verbal appeals. The EU is in position to twist its arm because it has granted Israel privileged access to European markets under the EU-Israel Association Agreement and the plug can be pulled. These trading advantages are conditional on Israel showing respect for human rights and democratic principles. Compliance is an essential element, not an option.

• Israel’s interference with the mercy ships was an act of self-defence against the threat posed by Hamas firing rockets and mortars out of Gaza.

This isn’t about rockets. A ceasefire, brokered by Egypt, was negotiated with Hamas in June 2008. Hamas honoured the agreement, firing no rockets and restraining other resistance groups. Israel broke the ceasefire on 4 November by suddenly making a military incursion into Gaza and killing seven members of Hamas. Operation Cast Lead followed, supposedly to stop the rockets. The deaths of over 1,400 people and the maiming of thousands more were unnecessary. All Israel needed to do was observe the ceasefire. It chose not to.

And whatever Israel may say, the blockade inflicts “collective punishment” on the people of Gaza, which is a violation of international law and Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

• Hamas wants to destroy Israel.

Not true. Hamas has said it will accept Israel within its internationally-recognized 1967 borders, which is the same position the United Nations has adopted.

• Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu now says "dozens of thugs" from what he called "an extremist, terrorism-supporting" organization were on-board the flotilla.

No evidence has been produced so far.

• Israel is a vibrant democracy.

Actually, Israel is a racist ethnocracy, which discriminates in countless vile ways against its Arab minority.

As usual, Israel's chief propagandist, Mark Regev, was on hand to give the tragedy the benefit of his spin.

• "We did everything we could to avoid violence... They [the aid workers] chose the path of confrontation… Our boarding party was attacked with live fire…”

No such weapons were found.

• "Violence was initiated by these activists..."

No, violence was initiated by armed troops storming the peace ships in the dead of night.

• "We didn't attack them, they attacked us... We tried to do, in accordance with international law, a peaceful intervention as they were entering a blockaded area..."

International law does not permit armed intervention in international waters, and the blockaded area has no legal basis.

• "There are no shortages in Gaza..."

That is not what the UN and countless NGOs and charities say.

Meanwhile, in London, Israel’s ambassador, Ron Prosor, was saying:

• “The people on board the ships behaved appallingly… they really did everything in order to provoke and confront…”

What is confrontational about sailing lawfully and peacefully on a humanitarian mission?

• “We disengaged completely out of Gaza…”

No, Israel remains in occupation of Gaza's airspace and coastal waters and in control of all entrances and exits except on the Egyptian border. It has Gaza bottled up.

As always, newspaper and television editors, reporters and presenters were happy to retell the Israeli version of events, the distortion and the plain lies, along with the exaggerated language such as “extremists” and “militants” to describe aid workers, without bothering to examine or question the material in any way.

More pearls of wisdom from Regev

Mark Regev, the Israeli prime minister’s spokesman, is a rich source of propaganda nonsense, for example…

• "It’s not just Israel who refuses to speak to Hamas. It’s the whole international community… Most of the democratic world refuses to have a relationship with Hamas because Hamas has refused to meet the most minimal benchmarks of international behaviour."

Isn’t that a little cheeky, Mr Regev, coming from a regime widely condemned for war crimes, piracy and mega-lawlessness?

• "It was the former UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, that put four benchmarks on the table. And he said, speaking for the international community…That if Hamas reforms itself… If Hamas recognizes my country’s right to live in freedom… If Hamas renounces terrorism against innocent civilians… If Hamas supports international agreements that are being signed and agreed to concerning the peace process… then the door is open. But unfortunately – tragically – Hamas has failed to meet even one of those four benchmarks. And that’s why today Hamas is isolated internationally. Even the United Nations refuses to speak to Hamas.

Which of those benchmarks has Israel met, Mr Regev?

If you’re getting the impression that Israel is going all-out to demonize Hamas you’d be right, as we’ll see later.

• "Iran’spPresident openly talks about wiping Israel off the map. The Iranian nuclear programme is a threat, not just to my country, but to the entire region. And it’s incumbent upon us all to do what needs to be done to keep from proliferating.”

Why is Israel the only state in the region not to have signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, Mr Regev? Are we all supposed to believe that Israel's 200 (or is it 400?) nuclear warheads pose no threat to the region? Would you also tell us why Israel hasn’t signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, and hasn’t ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty or the Chemical Weapons Convention? What proof do you have of Iran's nuclear weapons plans?

And why do you deliberately misquote Mr Ahmadinejad? For the record, the Iranian president said, quoting the late Ayatollah Khomeini: "The Imam said this regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time."

Israel’s Crapaganda Handbook

The Israeli administration’s scriptwriters use a propaganda training manual that teaches the art of lying and how to sugar-coat their poison so that gullible audiences will easily swallow it. Everything Israel dislikes, and everything that thwarts their lust for domination, is now labeled “Iranian-backed”… They would have us believe that everyone in the West – and that includes you and me and the dog – is in mortal danger from Iran and must therefore huddle together in a collective act of aggression orchestrated by Tel Aviv and Washington.

Situations are defined in language that suits only Israel’s case and ensures that Israel’s narrative, which has little or nothing to do with truth, is the one that is carried by the media.

Take, for example, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s speech to the UN in 2009. Referring to the critical Goldstone report on Israel’s blitzkrieg against Gaza, he said:

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and unjust report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

The false choice is a propaganda favourite. Why would anyone wish to stand alongside either? The fact is, Israel reneged on a ceasefire agreement just before it launched its murderous onslaught, which it had been planning for months.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza… We didn't get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base 50 miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Israel, camped on the Gazans’ doorstep and still occupying Gaza’s airspace and coastal waters, lobs high explosives into the tiny enclave’s 1.5 million starving and defenceless civilians, and there’s no escape because all exits are sealed.

…If Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

What exactly are these “risks for peace” Israel has so bravely taken? In 62 years what peace dividends has Israel delivered?

The 116-page manual is designed to help the worldwide Zionist movement win the propaganda war, keep their ill-gotten territorial gains and persuade international audiences to accept that their crimes are necessary and in line with “shared values” between Israel and the West.

It was written by The Israel Project, which describes itself as “devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace”. The organization claims to provide journalists, leaders and opinion-formers with “accurate information about Israel”.

What it really does is undermine with clever words and discredited techniques the inalienable rights pledged by the UN to all peoples, including the Palestinians.

The manual teaches the sort of propaganda bollox that Israel’s scribblers and drivellers use to try to justify the slaughter, the ethnic cleansing, the land-grabbing, the cruelty and their blatant disregard for international law and UN resolutions, and make it all smell sweet with a liberal sprinkling of persuasive words. It is designed to hoodwink hard-bitten media types into believing that we actually share values with the racist regime in Israel and that its abominable behaviour is therefore deserving of support.

Priority: isolate Hamas

How does it do that?The manual’s strategy from the start is to demonize the democratically-elected Hamas and rob the resistance movement and the Palestinian population of their human rights. It is packed with advice such as this:

• “Clearly differentiate between the Palestinian people and Hamas… Hamas is a terrorist organization – Americans get that already. But if it sounds like you are attacking the Palestinian people (even though they elected Hamas) rather than their leadership, you will lose public support.”

• "The big picture approach is this: You must isolate Hamas as:

- A critical cause of the delay in achieving a two-state solution
- The biggest source of harm to the Palestinian people, and
- The reason why Israel must defend its people from living in terror.
- Read from the Hamas Charter. Now, here’s how to attack Hamas: indict them with their own indoctrination materials. Yes, people know Hamas is a terrorist organization – but they don’t know just how terrifying Hamas can be. The absolute best way to heighten their awareness is to read from the Hamas Charter itself. Don’t just “quote” from it. Read it. Out loud. Again and again. Hand it out to everyone."

That’s a very good point. Hamas is mad not to have rewritten its charter. Israel’s barbarous behaviour makes Hamas look good, but all that will count for nothing if the charter remains unchanged.

• "Israel’s right to defensible borders: The big picture is that they [specifically the Americans, but equally the British and other Europeans] believe that Hamas’s leadership of Gaza has made Israel and the region less safe… they are willing to grant Israel more leeway in resisting calls to give more land for more peace."

Here we see the motive for demonizing Hamas: Israel wants more leeway to continue its land-grabs and colonization. The idea that they are “giving land for peace” is utterly absurd – they are required to return land they have seized at gunpoint.

• “If… If… If…Then. Put the burden on Hamas to make the first move for peace by using If’s. If Hamas reforms… If Hamas recognize our right to exist… If Hamas renounces terrorism… If Hamas supports international peace agreements… then we are willing to make peace today.”

Just substitute Israel for Hamas. It reads much better.

• “Peace can only be made with adversaries who want to make peace with you. Terrorist organizations like Iran-backed Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad are, by definition, opposed to peaceful coexistence, and determined to prevent reconciliation. I ask you, how do you negotiate with those who want you dead?”

Hamas and Hezbollah are only regarded as terrorists by the White House and Tel Aviv, and by US-Israeli stooges elsewhere.

The definition Bush used to blacklist those it suited him to accuse of committing, threatening to commit or supporting terrorism goes as follows…

“The term “terrorism” means an activity that –

(i) involves a violent act or an act dangerous to human life, property, or infrastructure; and
(ii) appears to be intended –

(a) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population;
(b) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(c) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, kidnapping, or hostage-taking.

This of course fits the US and Israel perfectly.

• "There is never, ever, any justification for the deliberate slaughter of innocent women and children. Never ... civilized people do not target innocent women and children for death.”

So where does that leave Israel, which recently killed 320 children in Gaza and 773 civilians including 109 women? From 2000 up to the start of Operation Cast Lead in December 2008 Israel had slaughtered 4,790 Palestinians in their homeland, including 952 children, according to the Israeli human rights organization B’Tselem. In the same period Palestinians killed 490 Israelis in Israel including 84 children. So Israel’s kill-rate is nearly 10 to 1, and rising since the blitzkrieg on Gaza.

Israelis are also expert at making families homeless. Since 1967, according to the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions (ICAHD), Israel has demolished in total 24,145 homes in the occupied territories, including 4,247 (a UN figure) destroyed during Operation Cast Lead.

Israel talks a lot about its right to defend itself. Here is the rationale:

• “Americans fundamentally believe that a democracy has a right to protect its people and its borders… There is one and only one argument that will work for Israel:

(1) As a democracy, Israel has the right and the responsibility to defend its borders and protect its people.
(2) Terrorist groups, including Iran-backed Hezbollah and Hamas, continue to pose a direct threat to Israeli security and have repeatedly taken innocent Israeli lives.
(3) Israel is America’s one and only true ally in the region. In these particularly unstable and dangerous times, Israel should not be forced to go it alone.
(4) With America’s financial assistance, Israel can defend its borders, protect its people, and provide invaluable assistance to the American effort against the war against terrorism.”

But it seems that Americans don’t believe in democracy enough to allow Palestinian democracy to flourish.

• “When the terror ends, Israel will no longer need to have challenging checkpoints to inspect goods and people. When the terror ends we will no longer need a security fence.”

No rockets are coming out of the West Bank, so why is the wall still there – and still being built? Why are the occupation troops still there? Why are hundreds of checkpoints still there? Why is Israel still stealing land, demolishing Palestinian homes and building settlements there?

• "Remind people – again and again – that Israel wants peace. Reason One: If Americans see no hope for peace… they will not want their government to spend tax dollars or their president’s clout on helping Israel. Reason Two: The speaker that is perceived as being most for peace will win the debate... peace should be at the core of whatever message you wish to convey."

Israelis do NOT want peace and never have. They failed to honour previous peace accords. Every action is directed at provoking security crises and keeping the conflict boiling until they have stolen enough land and established enough '”acts on the ground” – Jews-only settlements, highways, disconnected Palestinian bantustans – to enable them to re-draw the map to suit their expansionist agenda and make the occupation permanent.

• "Draw direct parallels between Israel and America – including the need to defend against terrorism... The more you focus on the similarities between Israel and America, the more likely you are to win the support of those who are neutral. Indeed, Israel … faces many of the same challenges as America in protecting their citizens."

Israel’s strategy is dependent on the false idea that they are victims of terror and Western nations need to rally round Israel for mutual protection.

• "The language of Israel is the language of America: 'democracy’, 'freedom’, 'security' and 'peace'. These four words are at the core of the American political, economic, social and cultural systems, and they should be repeated as often as possible because they resonate with virtually every American… Remind your audience that Israel wants peace and then repeat the messages of democracy, freedom and peace over and over again.... we need to repeat the message, on average, ten times to be effective… But don’t confuse messages with facts.... "

Right, never let facts get in the way of a good message! The only word that matters to Israel is security (at everyone else’s expense, of course). How can democracy be a shared value when Israel is a nasty ethnocracy? How can freedom be a shared value when the world is still waiting for Israel to end the occupation and allow the Palestinians their freedom.

• “How can the current Palestinian leadership honestly say it will pursue peace when previous leaders rejected an offer to create a Palestinian state just a few short years ago and now refuse to live up to their responsibilities as outlined in the Road Map?”

This refers to Ehud Barak's so-called "generous offer”, a favourite myth. It wasn't enough that the Palestinians, at the time of the Oslo Agreements in 1993, were willing to concede 78 per cent of the land that was originally theirs, accept the remaining 22 per cent and recognize Israel within “Green Line” borders (i.e. the 1949 Armistice Line), Barak wanted to include 69 Israeli settlements within the Palestinians’ 22 per cent. He also demanded that the Palestinian territories be placed under "temporary Israeli control", meaning Israeli military and administrative control indefinitely. The “generous offer also gave Israel control over all the border crossings of the new Palestinian state. What nation in the world would accept that?

• “Why is the world so silent about the written, vocal, stated aims of Hamas?”

Why is the world silent about the written, stated aims of the racist regime and its political parties? Read their manifestos.

• “The situation in the Middle East may be complicated, but all parties should adopt a simple approach: peace first, political boundaries second.”

Why should Palestinians renounce resistance while Israel’s jackboot is still on their throat? The international community should first insist on Israel’s compliance with international law and the many UN resolutions it has defied. The boundaries are already defined by these. Whatever issues then remain to be decided, Palestinians should not have to negotiate with a gun to their heads.

• "Bottom line: What will happen if we fail to get the world to care about the fact that Israeli parents in southern Israel need to literally dodge rockets when they drive their children to kindergarten in the morning?”

Only one in 500 makeshift Qassam rockets causes a fatality. The devastation and carnage resulting from the barrage of Israel’s state-of-the-art rocketry targeted on Gaza is a very different story.

• “Humanize Rockets: Paint a vivid picture of what life is like in Israeli communities that are vulnerable to attack. Yes, cite the number of rocket attacks that have occurred. But immediately follow that up with what it is like to make the nightly trek to the bomb shelter.”

Israel claims 12,000 rockets were fired from Gaza in the eight years up to the start of Operation Cast Lead. Would they care to tell the world how many bombs, rockets and shells (including the illegal and prohibited variety) Israel’s F-16s, tanks, armed drones and navy gunboats poured into the densely-packed humanity that is Gaza in the same period? Probably not.

And Israelis are careful not to mention that the township of Sderot, targeted by Gaza’s rockets and a major propaganda asset for Regev and company, is built on the ruins of an ethnically cleansed Palestinian village whose inhabitants were forced to flee by Jewish terrorists.

• “Living together, side by side. This is the best way to describe the ultimate vision of a two-state solution without using the phrase.”

Sounds cute and fluffy, but who would want to live alongside bigots and extremists who have made your life hell for 62 years?

• "When talking about a Palestinian partner, it is essential to distinguish between Hamas and everyone else. Only the most anti-Israel, pro- Palestinian American expects Israel to negotiate with Hamas, so you have to be clear that you are seeking a 'moderate Palestinian partner'."

What gives anyone, American or Israeli, the right to ignore a nation’s democratically elected representatives? And where are the moderate Israeli partners?

• "The fight is over ideology, not land; terror, not territory. Thus, you must avoid using Israel’s religious claims to land as a reason why Israel should not give up land. Such claims only make Israel look extremist to people who are not religious Christians or Jews.”

If the fight isn’t about land, why has Israel been stealing it? And why won’t they give it back when told to by the UN?

• "Think pro-Palestinian…I particularly want to reach out to Palestinian mothers who have lost their children. No parent should have to bury their child.”

Reach for the sick-bag. Israel won’t even allow cement into Gaza to build the graves.

• "And so I say to my Palestinian colleagues … you can stop the bloodshed. You can stop the suicide bombings and rocket attacks. If you really want to, you can put an end to this cycle of violence. If you won’t do it for our children, do it for your children.”

This is recommended as “an effective sound bite” for pro-Israel activists.

• "I want to see a future where the Palestinians govern themselves. Israel does not want to govern a single Palestinian. Not one. We want them to govern themselves. We want them to have complete self-determination."

Pure tosh! That’s not what Israel’s political parties are pledging. For decades Israel has dismissed the Palestinians’ right to self-determination. It is desperate to snuff out Palestine's fledgling democracy and destroy its chosen government.

What’s to become of the Holy City?

• "The toughest issue to communicate will be the final resolution of Jerusalem. Americans overwhelmingly want Israel to be in charge of the religious holy sites and are frankly afraid of the consequences should Israel turn over control to the Palestinians.”

Israel is in control right now and prevents Muslims and Christians from outside the city from visiting the holy places. Israel has proved it can’t be trusted. In any case, the UN's partition plan decreed that Jerusalem should become a “corpus separatum" – an international city – under international management.

And here’s a final example of the twisted mentality of those who wrote the manual:

• “The force undermining peace is Iran and their proxies Hezbollah, Hamas and Islamic Jihad. You must not call Hamas just Hamas. Call them what they are: Iran-backed Hamas. Indeed, when they [the West] know that Iran is behind Hamas and Hezbollah, they are much more supportive of Israel.”

By the same token should we call the racist regime what it is – US-backed Israel or US proxy Israel? Take your pick.

In addition to their expertise in disinformation the Israelis are adept at concealing or destroying the evidence of their crimes. We saw it again with the confiscation of the flotilla passengers’ cameras, phones, laptops and other personal effects. If they ever get them back they’ll be corrupted. Israel also makes it difficult for even VIPs to enter Gaza – they don’t want outsiders inspecting their major crime scene. Anything to obstruct justice and make it difficult to bring their thugs to book.

Israel’s dirty tricks will be to no avail in the end. They are beginning to lose the propaganda war. That was inevitable. In the long run you cannot succeed with a communications programme based on lies and deception. Even the best public relations is only as good as the “product” or brand, and “Brand Israel’s” reputation was never great. It has now fallen off a cliff. The truth is spreading despite big efforts by mainstream media to block or disguise it.

The thing we must cling to is the obligation that binds all decent people to respect and promote human rights. The following words, written nearly 62 years ago, explain why good will eventually triumph over the selfish and evil outpourings of the Israeli crapaganda machine.

Now, Therefore the General Assembly proclaims this Universal Declaration of Human Rights as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

---

Stuart Littlewood is author of the book Radio Free Palestine, which tells the plight of the Palestinians under occupation. For further information please visit www.radiofreepalestine.co.uk.

Thanks to Dr David Morrison for sending me the Sadaka Briefing Papers that inspired this article. See:

http://www.sadaka.ie/Files/Israels_bogus_excuses_for_piracy.pdf and

http://www.sadaka.ie/Files/The_blockade_of_Gaza_must_be_lifted_completely.pdf

http://www.redress.cc/palestine/slittlewood20100609

---

Freedom Flotilla and IDF propaganda war

Vous voyez comme les "terroristes" méchamment armés du Mavi Marmara frappent avec de la gaze et du coton le gentil soldat israélien ?

En savoir plus.

Could someone explain to me why we only see this picture in the media?

The fake U.S.-Israel crisis: Obama's flawed response to an ally's gaffe

The word is that the decision to hammer Bibi Netanyahu on Friday for Israel’s settlements screwup last week came directly from President Obama.

He was apparently very upset at the seeming contempt the Israelis showed for the vice president and by extension for the president himself and his administration. In addition, Obama, like many of his top aides, felt that the Israeli action was undermining U.S. standing at a critical time in American efforts to both advance the "peace process" and to weave together tough, effective international sanctions on Iran.

Here's the problem: This is one of those diplomatic flareups that may trigger fire drills in the governments and polemic fireworks from pundits but which, upon analysis, is really much less than meets the eye. It's actually a fake crisis.

First, of all, on the face of it the Israeli action seems genuinely to have been much more of a screwup than a calculated affront. And if someone was trying to undercut the U.S.-Israel relationship, it seems certain they represented a fringe group and not the Netanyahu government. Subsequent statements of defiance by Netanyahu regarding building within Jerusalem were more in response to U.S. efforts to make additional political hay out of the dustup than they were related to the initial misstep.

Second, there is no real "or else" backing up U.S. demands for a reversal, an inquiry and the offering of a meaningful olive branch to the Palestinians. Obama, with few foreign-policy accomplishments to point to thus far in his young presidency, needs the peace process at least as much if not more than Netanyahu does. Time and leverage are, for the near term at least, on Netanyahu's side ... which is one reason why the U.S. government is opportunistically trying to use this crisis as a pretext to gain concessions out of the Israelis in advance of talks with the Palestinians.

Further, the United States can't really turn its back on Israel and embrace the Palestinian side any more closely than it has because there is really no there there. And were the United States to ally itself more closely to the Palestinian position (as I believe some at high levels wish they could), the administration knows they would inevitably find the Palestinian authorities made gaffes of the magnitude of this most recent Israeli blunder on an uncomfortably frequent basis -- thanks to the fact that the Palestinian government is more defined by rifts than by meaningful accomplishments.

Finally, most importantly, the U.S. argument that the Israelis need to be seen to be more quietly cooperative with U.S. efforts or Obama won't be able to effectively stop the Iranian nuclear weapons program is undercut by the fact that the United States won't, in the end, actually stop the Iranian nuclear program. We just don't have the domestic will or the international support to do so. Just as each successive deadline for Iranian compliance with international cease and desist requirements has evaporated so too will the illusions that the U.S. can engineer anything like effective sanctions against the Iranians in an effort to penalize them for their noncompliance.

Containment is rapidly replacing engagement as the false hope on which the U.S.-Iranian relationship will be built. (Engagement was dependent on the other side wanting to engage back. Containment is dependent on the government or some other rational actor exercising effective control over all nuclear warheads. Neither precondition will, I'm afraid, prove to have been sufficiently certain to warrant betting our vital interests on it.) In any event, when the Iranians do ultimately go nuclear, the United States will want and need a strong relationship with Israel more not less.

This has created the current, almost bizarre, set of circumstances. Everyone, including the Israelis, agree Netanyahu's government made a big-league error last week. (In a way, it's a real breakthrough: finally something that everyone on all sides of the Israeli-Arab divide can agree on.) But the reaction of the United States, regardless of all the robust language and diplomatic dressing down of top Israeli officials, is indicative of weakness not of strength.

The bigger message that will be unintentionally have been delivered to the world at the end of all this is that the United States is willing to get fierce with its friend Israel over a perceived insult but that we are likely to remain ineffective in the face of self-declared Iranian enemies' efforts to destabilize the entire Middle East with nuclear weapons. This is not only a problem for the president because the outcome is so dangerous. It's also that "tough on your friends, weak with your enemies" is neither a common trait among great leaders nor is it a particularly good campaign bumper sticker.

SOURCE

NY Times presents: Israeli cuisine course

"Prestigious newspaper's online university introduces course on emerging Israeli cuisine in its study program"

Now let me laugh a little bit : here is a sample of Israeli dishes:

- Hummus
- Kebab
- Falafel
...

Next step: they'll say he actually committed suicide

"Hamas: Assassinated Operative Put Himself at Risk

A Hamas leader assassinated during a visit to Dubai last month exposed himself to attack when he breached security protocol by talking about his trip over the phone and making hotel reservations on the Internet." AP

Israelis are pets lovers

Claws bared in fight over shelter for Auschwitz cat
(Rudolf/Bruno at home Photo: Reuters)

"A cat living at the former Nazi death camp of Auschwitz has caused fur to fly between an animal care group and Polish authorities refusing to allow a shelter to be built for it.

The grey and white cat, known variously as Rudolf or Bruno despite being female, can often be seen sitting near the notorious "Arbeit macht frei" ("Work sets you free") sign at the entrance to the camp.

She has seemed unperturbed by an unusually cold winter in Poland that has seen night temperatures dip as low as minus 34 Celsius (minus 29 Fahrenheit).

The museum that runs the camp has rejected a call from the group For Animals to build a cat shelter, saying other animals also live at the site and that visitors are its main priority."

Foreign press slams Israel's new PR campaign

""Foreign correspondents are depicted as ignorant and gullible in a new series of spoof videos by the Israeli government," says a Telegraph byline on the new campaign aimed at getting Israelis to improve their country's image in the world."

You didn't know? Israelis are environmentalists!

Can the enemy of my enemy be my ally?

By DOUGLAS BLOOMFIELD

The latest US arms sales to the Gulf states can be part of a de facto alliance of the US, the Gulf states and Israel to deter Iran's ambitions.
The Pentagon's favorite cash cow, the oil-rich Gulf Arabs, are on an arms buying spree, and that's good news and bad news for Israel, according to defense analysts in both countries.

The intended purpose is to bolster the defenses of friendly Arab countries against an aggressive Iran; at the same time the US is beefing up its own missile defense systems in the region.

The Arab shopping lists include F-15 and F-16 warplanes, Patriot missile batteries, Aegis cruisers, advanced anti-ship and anti-tank missiles, smart bombs and bunker-busters and missile boats.

And that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg; beneath the surface lie billions more in contracts for maintenance, training, spare parts, upgrades, facilities (buy a squadron of fighters and we'll sell you an airbase and everything that goes with it from runways and control towers to barracks and even air-conditioned mosques; the Pentagon once even sold sand to Saudi Arabia).

That's good for the US economy, although American taxpayers are footing the bill for Egypt and Jordan (as we do for Israel) and the American consumer will help pay for the rest though the gas pump. The Pentagon also profits on the deals. All major weapons sales go through the Defense Department, which not only collects a commission but also gets discounts on its own purchases thanks to economies of scale.

IN 2008, US foreign military sales were worth $37.8 billion, double the rest of the world combined, according to a Congressional study.

But don't get the impression all these customers are doing us a favor buying American, like the Saudi prince who told an American defense secretary, "You're just salesmen and we pay cash." Just the opposite. We're doing them a mitzva.

They are buying a place under the US defense umbrella. American systems are not only the best but they also provide reassurance for the buyers of a level of commitment, something particularly critical in the face of Iranian intimidation.

The goal of this latest round is to deter the Iranians, unnamed administration officials told The New York Times, and to "reassure the Arab states so they don't feel they have to go nuclear themselves." Those officials also say the arms sales are meant to "calm the Israelis."

The chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff was in Israel in the past week as part of the administration's effort to convince Israel that Washington takes the Iranian threat very seriously and Jerusalem does not need to take unilateral military action.

Throughout this buildup, which began under the previous administration, Israel has been kept informed of the sales and assured the US remains committed to maintaining its qualitative military edge - QME - but many analysts see that edge eroding as the Arabs turn to the United States for the same top-quality weapons, training and maintenance Israel buys.

Upgrades to Arab air defenses will limit Israeli freedom of action. Israeli attacks on the Osirak reactor in Iraq in 1981 and the Syrian nuclear site in 2007 had to be flown over countries that today bristle with some of the best anti-aircraft systems America has to offer - Turkey, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq.

Israeli planners welcome a strong American presence in the Gulf as a convincing deterrent to Iranian ambitions. They also recognize that the Gulf states have legitimate needs and selling them American arms (since they won't buy Israeli, as the Pentagon does) can serve Israel's political, diplomatic and security interests.

BUT THERE are also risks. These countries are ruled by repressive autocrats who are kept in power in part with American assistance. The historian Bernard Lewis has pointed out that the closer a regime is to the United States the more people in the Arab street hate America and blame us for their plight.

F-16s and F-15s, missile boats and smart bombs can't protect these dictators from the real threats to their regimes, which come from their military or Islamic extremists. On the other hand, there is a lot we sell - from machine guns to tanks - which corrupt and repressive regimes use to tighten their grip on power.

There is also the risk many of these weapons - particularly anti-tank and shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles - can get "lost" or end up in the hands of terrorists.

President Ronald Reagan once chided prime minister Menachem Begin that Israel and its friends shouldn't object to so many US arms sales to the Arabs because they were needed to defend against possible Communist threats. Begin responded, "With all due respect, Mr. President, they often use your arms against us and not the Communists." He may have had in mind the Johnson administration's 1966 sale of M-48 Patton tanks to Jordan, which King Hussein promised would not be used against Israel. Nonetheless, 170 of the tanks went to war against Israel in 1967 and more than 100 were destroyed or wound up in the Israeli inventory.

In the 1982 Lebanon war, I personally saw crates of American-built assault rifles that had been sold to Saudi Arabia and captured by the IDF from PLO forces.

With decisive American leadership and oversight, these latest arms sales can be part of a de facto alliance of the US, the Gulf states and Israel to deter Iranian ambitions to dominate the region and spread its revolution. It's not a new idea. Alexander Haig, the former secretary of state who died last week, proposed such an alliance against Soviet encroachment in the region 30 years ago. The threat may have changed, but the idea remains valid.

Really?

Opération 729

Pour défendre les produits israéliens contre leur boycott (illégal)
Youval Barzillai
Texte repris du site Israel Valley - ISRAËL FRANCE


Dans le cadre d’une opération très active de lutte contre Israël, des mouvements anti-israéliens font paraître dans la presse et sur le Web des listes de produits israéliens à boycotter.

L’impact de ses messages est marginal.

Pour ceux qui sont opposés à un boycott illégal et veulent soutenir les produits alimentaires israéliens, la liste ci-dessous est la bonne.

Le code barre sur la plupart des produits israéliens commence par : 729

Parmi les produits israéliens :

Carmel (fruits et légumes)

Jaffa (fruits et légumes)

Kedem (avocats)

Coral (cerises)

Top (fruits et légumes)

Beigel (biscuits apéritifs)

Hasat (agrumes)

Sabra (repas complets)

Osem (soupes, snacks, biscuits, repas complets préparés)

Dagir (conserves de poissons)

Holyland (miel, herbes)

Amba (conserves)

Green Valley (vin)

Tivall (produits végétariens)

Agrofresh (concombres)

Jordan Valley (dattes)

Dana (tomates cerises)

Epilady (appareils d’épilation)

Ahava (cosmétiques de la Mer morte)

Youval Barzillai

© Israel Valley

Information aimablement transmise par Victor Perez.

Mis en ligne le 11 janvier 2009, par M. Macina, sur le site upjf.org

http://www.upjf.org/
--
Aidez Israël en achetant des médicaments génériques

Le docteur Elie B., de Paris, s’adresse à nous pour nous communiquer cette information capitale.

Préférez les médicaments génériques : beaucoup sont fabriqués en Israël,

TEVA est un laboratoire pharmaceutique basé à Tel-Aviv.

Il vient de racheter le département « génériques » de Bayer.

Si vous souhaitez prescrire (ou vous faire prescrire) et faire connaître autour de vous certains de ces excellents médicaments, fabriqués par l’un des laboratoires les plus modernes et les plus fiables du monde, vous pourrez consulter la liste comportant le générique et le médicament correspondant.

La couleur est un élément fondamental du conditionnement des génériques Teva Classics *.

Pour les patients, la sécurité est garantie par les différentes couleurs de boîte limitant ainsi les risques de confusion en cas d’association des produits de la gamme.

Pour le pharmacien, la délivrance sera facilitée par les codes couleur des dosages, par le mode d’administration clairement identifiable sur les boîtes et par les cases réservées à l’inscription de la posologie et de la durée du traitement.

Pour le médecin, la prescription est simplifiée puisqu’il suffit de mentionner la DCI suivie de la marque "Teva".

De plus c’est moins cher que le produit original avec UNE EFFICACITE IDENTIQUE en tous points.

*Pour des raisons de durées légales incompressibles de transfert d’AMM, les boîtes resteront à la marque BAYER Classics jusqu’au 1er trimestre 2003.

ET MEME LES BEBES PEUVENT AIDER ISRAEL !

Dans les magasins 8 à 8 : lingettes pour bébés, marque GRAND JURY

Docteur Elie B. Paris

http://www.upjf.org/

WTC: la Vérité ne cesse de progresser (11 septembre 2001)
envoyé par ReOpen911. - L'actualité du moment en vidéo.

Le vol d'organes sur des Palestiniens, c'était donc vrai

Il y a quelques mois, un article d'un journal suédois faisait éclater un scandale: le vol d'organes sur des Palestiniens tués par l'armée israélienne. L'article a très vite été déparé de son contenu pour être ramené sur le terrain de l'antisémitisme et des attaques lancées contre Israël. Les relations entre Stockholm et Tel-Aviv se sont tendues, cette dernière réclamant des condamnations pour les propos jugés diffamatoires tenus dans le quotiden suédois. Pourtant, l'information a bel et bien été confirmée depuis. Nadal revient ici sur son parcours dans le paysage médiatique et analyse comment la propagande pro-israélienne s'est employée à en minimiser l'impact.

La méthode est désormais classique:
• un journaliste occidental publie un article très gênant pour Israël; l'article passe quasiment inaperçu;
• les réseaux sionistes repèrent l'article et montent un énorme scandale; l'article est immédiatement taxé d'antisémitisme, les autorités israéliennes en font des montagnes (exigeant une condamnation par le pays où est publié le journal);
• les médias occidentaux évoquent alors l'affaire, mais uniquement sous l'angle de l'accusation d'antisémitisme et des «tensions» entre Israël et un pays occidental;
• fin du premier épisode. Personne ne s'intéresse, évidemment, au contenu «gênant» de l'article d'origine, n'enquête sur les révélations, et se contente au mieux d'enquêter sur la personnalité du journaliste et sur ses «réseaux» (du genre: son texte a été repris sur les sites «conspirationnistes» sur Internet, donc le journaliste est bien quelqu'un de louche);
• puis on apprend, quelques mois après, que l'information gênante était vraie (généralement, parce qu'un média israélien l'a vérifiée; si Al Jazeera valide une telle information, ça n'a évidemment aucun intérêt); réaction des médias occidentaux: au pire (situation française), quasiment aucune reprise; au mieux, on évoque rapidement l'information, mais on essaie de circonscrire l'effet de cette info à «la colère du monde arabo-musulman».
L'histoire qui m'intéresse aujourd'hui, c'est celle du vol d'organes sur des Palestiniens tués par l'armée israélienne.

Pour les médias, l'affaire commence avec l'article de Donal Boström dans le journal suédois Aftonbladet. L'article a été traduit en français par le réseau Tlaxcala.
Les familles en Cisjordanie et à Gaza étaient sûres de ce qui était arrivé à leurs fils : «Nos fils sont utilisés comme donneurs d'organes involontaires», m’a dit un proche de Khaled de Naplouse, de même que la mère de Raed de Jénine et les oncles de Mahmoud et Nafes dans la bande de Gaza, qui ont tous disparu pendant un certain nombre de jours avant de revenir de nuit, morts et autopsiés.

«Pourquoi sinon garder les corps pendant au moins cinq jours avant de nous laisser les enterrer? Qu'est-il arrivé aux corps pendant cette période? Pourquoi effectuent-ils une autopsie, contre notre volonté, lorsque la cause du décès est évidente? Pourquoi les corps sont-ils rendus de nuit? Pourquoi avec une escorte militaire? Pourquoi la zone est-elle bouclée pendant l'enterrement? Pourquoi l'électricité est-elle coupée?» L’oncle de Nafe était bouleversé, et il avait beaucoup de questions.
L'article ne devient une «affaire» que lorsque le gouvernement israélien réagit avec une exagération proprement sidérante. Le traitement médiatique ne concerne alors jamais le fond de l'article (l'accusation du vol d'organe par les Israéliens sur des Palestiniens tués par l'armée israélienne), mais unique les «tensions» entre Israël et la Suède. On compte des dizaines de reprises dans les médias français. Par exemple sur le Point: «Israël hausse le ton contre la Suède après un article jugé antisémite»; sur le fond de l'article, comme tous les journaux, il est seulement indiqué «Aftonbladet n'apporte toutefois aucune preuve, le rédacteur en chef expliquant avoir autorisé la publication car l'affaire “pose un nombre de questions pertinentes”.»
«Nous ne demandons pas des excuses du gouvernement suédois, nous voulons de sa part une condamnation (de l'article)», a déclaré le Premier ministre Benjamin Netanyahu lors du conseil des ministres hebdomadaire, selon une source officielle.

En Israël, des centaines d'Israéliens ont signé une pétition en ligne contre le géant du meuble suédois Ikea, selon Haaretz.

«La crise perdurera tant que le gouvernement suédois n'aura pas changé d'attitude à propos de cet article antisémite. Celui qui ne le condamne pas n'est pas forcément le bienvenu en Israël», a déclaré aux journalistes le ministre des Finances Youval Steinitz.

«Le gouvernement suédois ne peut plus se taire. Au Moyen-Age, on répandait des diffamations accusant les juifs de préparer le pain azyme de Pâques avec du sang d'enfants chrétiens, et aujourd'hui ce sont les soldats de Tsahal (l'armée israélienne) qui sont accusés de tuer des Palestiniens pour prélever leurs organes», a accusé le ministre.

Ces tensions diplomatiques tombent au plus mal, alors que le chef de la diplomatie suédoise Carl Bildt est attendu en visite officielle en Israël dans dix jours. La Suède exerce la présidence tournante de l'Union européenne.

[...]

Le chef de la diplomatie israélienne, Avigdor Lieberman, a carrément comparé l'attitude de la Suède dans cette affaire à la politique de neutralité qu'elle adopta durant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. «A l'époque aussi, la Suède refusait d'intervenir» contre le génocide nazi, a-t-il reproché.
On peut rechercher dans les archives autour de cet article, on ne trouvera aucun média français pour aller plus loin que cette phrase «Aftonbladet n'apporte toutefois aucune preuve». Des témoignages de Palestiniens ne sont, évidemment, jamais des preuves.

L'affaire est close.

Pourtant, selon Romandie, «Aftonbladet revient sur les trafic d'organes de Palestiniens» le 23 août:

Deux de ses journalistes ont interrogé cette semaine dans le village cisjordanien d'Imatten la mère et le frère de Bilal Achmad Ghanem, qui, selon le journal suédois, est un jeune de 19 ans tué par des soldats israéliens il y a 17 ans, soupçonné d'avoir été un meneur dans la première Intifada.

Saadega Ghanem, la mère de Bilal, affirme que le 13 mai 1992, après l'avoir tué, les soldats ont transporté le corps de son fils par hélicoptère en Israël. Rendu quelques jours plus tard à la famille, la mère précise alors que «Bilal était étendu dans un sac noir. Il n'avait plus aucune dent. Le corps avait été ouvert de la gorge jusqu'au ventre puis très mal recousu».

Le journal écrit que le frère cadet de Bilal, Jalal Achmad Ghanem, 32 ans, «croit que les organes ont été volés».
Pourtant, CNN publie un reportage le 2 septembre: «Donor says he got thousands for his kidney»:

According to Scheper-Hughes, who is in the final stages of writing a book on organ trafficking, much of the world's illicit traffic in kidneys can be traced to Israel.
(Selon Schepper-Hugues, qui achève d'écrire un livre sur le trafic d'organes, la plus grosse partie du trafic illicite de reins remonte jusqu'à Israël)

«Israel is the top,» she said. «It has tentacles reaching out worldwide.» (Israël est le sommet, elle a des tentacules partout dans le monde)
Certes, l'enquête ne concerne pas un «vol» d'organes, uniquement la vente illégale d'organes. Mais on a bien un trafic dont «Israël est le sommet».

Incidemment, on apprend qu'on ne parle pas ici de petites sommes. Des pots-de-vin entre 5000 et 10000 dollars, l'achat auprès des donneurs entre 5000 et 25000 dollars pour un rein, et, finalement:

A federal complaint against Itzhak-Levy Rosenbaum said he had offered to provide a new kidney for a relative of an undercover FBI agent for about $160,000.
(Une plainte fédérale contre Itzhak-Levy Rosenbaum a dit qu'il avait offert de fournir un nouveau rein à un proche d'un agent secret du FBI pour environ 160.000 dollars)
Surtout, Kawther Salam publie un article soutenant et complétant l'article d'Aftonbladet: «The Body Snatchers of Israel», traduit en français par le réseau Tlaxcala («Les détrousseurs de cadavres d'Israël»).

Je pense que le gouvernement israélien et tous ceux soupçonnés d'être complices se doivent de répondre à quelques questions difficiles, avant de se plaindre d'un rapport bien écrit paru dans un journal suédois et qui parle d'un seul cas parmi des milliers:
• Où sont les corps des deux frères Imad et Adel Awad Allah d'Al-Bireh, du district de Ramallah, assassinés le 10 Septembre 1998 dans la ferme d’Akram Maswadeh près -d'Hébron?
• Où sont les corps de Hani Ahmad Kharboush et Adel Mohammad Hadaideh assassinés le 6 Juin 2003 à "Ateel", une ville au nord de Tulkarem en Cisjordanie?
• Où est le corps de Borhan Sarhan, qui a été assassiné le 4 Octobre 2003 dans le camp de réfugiés de Tulkarem?
• Où est le corps de Hassan Issa Abbas, assassiné le 9 Octobre 1994, à Jérusalem?
• Où est le corps de Hisham Hamad, assassiné dans la bande de Gaza, le 11 Novembre 1993?
• Où est le corps de Salah Jad Allah Salem, assassiné le 14 Octobre 1994?
• Où sont les corps des deux ressortissants japonais qui ont été assassinés en 1972?
• Israël est-il à même de prouver que les organes de ces gens, et ceux des centaines, voire des milliers de Palestiniens enterrés dans des tombes numérotées de l'armée israélienne, n'ont pas été volés?
• Pourquoi Israël enterre-il les victimes de son occupation en secret, dans des tombes numérotées, s’il n’y a pas eu vol de leurs organes ?

Ce billet, en particulier, met en cause un certain docteur Yehuda Hiis: « Le Docteur Yehuda Hiss a charcuté trois adolescents de Gaza»:
Le patron du département de pathologie d’Abou Kabir (du soi-disant Institut médico-légal), le docteur Yehuda Hiss, affirma qu’il avait reçu ces enfants sans connaître leurs noms, et qu’on les avait tous trouvés tués par des clous que l’on trouve dans les munitions des tanks ( les fléchettes).
Hiss enfreignait la loi israélienne quand il a accepté les corps des enfants sans savoir qui ils étaient et à l'insu de leurs familles, mais ce n'était pas son souci. Les trois corps furent donnés à l'Autorité palestinienne plusieurs jours après leur meurtre, bourrés de coton.
Mais en quelques jours, il était déjà trop tard. L'affaire n'avait déjà plus aucune autre importance que les «tensions» entre Israël et la Suède. Le grand show à base d'imputation d'antisémitisme orchestré par Israël avait parfaitement réussi: personne ne s'intéressera aux allégations de l'article, c'est-à-dire le vol d'organes sur des Palestiniens tués par l'armée israélienne, et sa possible connexion avec un trafic international d'organes dont Israël serait «le sommet».


Coup de théâtre. Hier (le 21 décembre), la révélation vient d'un reportage d'une télévision israëlienne: le docteur Hiss reconnaît le prélèvement illégal d'organes sur des Palestiniens, l'armée aussi, tout en précisant que la pratique aurait cessé.


Tout aussi spectaculaire: aucun journal français ne reprend l'information. Je n'en trouve trace ni sur le Figaro, ni sur le Monde, ni sur Libération. Seule une dépêche non signée de l'AP est passée sur le fil info du Nouvel Obs: «Israël: des organes ont été prélevés sur des Palestiniens». Et l'on retrouve des noms qu'on avait déjà croisés dans l'enquête de CNN et dans le billet de Kawther Salam.
Israël a reconnu que dans les années 1990, ses médecins légistes avaient collectés les organes de corps morts, notamment sur des Palestiniens, sans autorisation des familles.

[...]

L'auteur de l'entretien, Nancy Scheper-Hugues, professeur à Berkeley, a décidé de publier l'interview en réponse à la controverse soulevée par l'article du journal, qui avait créé des tensions diplomatiques. Pour cette anthropologue, la pratique symbolique de prendre la peau de l'ennemi a été reconsidérée. Pour le ministère de la santé israélien, les directives à l'époque n'étaient pas claires.
Les médias anglosaxons en parlent un peu plus mais, à l'image du Guardian, le traitement se limite au «damage control». Ainsi, dans l'article «Doctor admits Israeli pathologists harvested organs without consent» (déjà, le titre est un bel «understatement»), on peut lire:

The revelation, in a television documentary, is likely to generate anger in the Arab and Muslim world and reinforce sinister stereotypes of Israel and its attitude to Palestinians. Iran's state-run Press TV tonight reported the story, illustrated with photographs of dead or badly injured Palestinians.
(La révélation, dans un documentaire télévisé, va probablement susciter de la colère dans le monde arabe et musulman ainsi qu'à renforcer de sinistres stéréotypes sur Israël et son attitude vis à vis des Palestiniens. La télévision publique iranienne rapportait l'histoire, illustrée avec des photos de cadavres ou de corps sévérements blessés de Palestiniens.)


Deux phrases, deux saloperies. La crainte n'est pas que l'information soit affreusement grave et qu'Israël ait, à nouveau, battu ses records de bassesse, mais que cela «génère de la colère dans le monde arabo-musulman et que cela renforce les stéréotypes contre Israël». C'est pourtant bien Israël qui a lancé le thème de l'antisémitisme sur le sujet et établit le lien suivant: «Au Moyen-Age, on répandait des diffamations accusant les juifs de préparer le pain azyme de Pâques avec du sang d'enfants chrétiens». Le sujet n'est clairement pas un stéréotype antisémite propre aux arabes, c'est bien un acte d'une bassesse inimaginable commis par les israéliens. Et ensuite, la mention du fait que ça a été repris par la télévision iranienne permet d'insister sur l'aspect «louche» de ces stéréotypes «antisémites»; alors que c'est bien une télévision israélienne qui a diffusé cette information.


À ce stade, ça devient grandiose. Quasiment aucun média français ne reprend l'information (produite par une télévision israélienne), mais la télévision iranienne y consacre un reportage, et ce serait l'honneur de nos médias de ne pas diffuser ces «stéréotypes contre Israël»? On a là un crime qui doit choquer n'importe quel être humain, mais ça ne risque de «générer de la colère» que dans le monde arabo-musulman? Les «occidentaux» ne seraient donc plus capables de la moindre indignation?


Déjà, le courageux journaliste irakien qui a fait de la prison pour avoir jeté ses chaussures à la face du criminel de guerre Georges Bush nous a été présenté comme «un héros du monde arabe». Après le vote raciste suisse contre les minarets, la seule conséquence pratique que l'on agitait était des sanctions de la part des investisseurs arabes. Quant à la Grande-Bretagne, elle s'excuse parce que sa justice a émis un mandat d'arrêt contre une criminelle de guerre israélienne. Il y aurait donc des héros et une colère exclusivement arabes; les européens, eux, n'auraient que des excuses.


Dans cette histoire, le grand cirque de l'imputation d'antisémitisme, agitée initialement par le gouvernement israélien, continue à être efficace. L'info «sent mauvais» et plus personne ne veut y toucher.

Il y a trois jours, le Point était parvenu à nous informer qu'en Israël, «Les donneurs d'organes seront receveurs prioritaires» (comme quoi, la bassesse n'interdit pas le ridicule). Et, autant on a habituellement droit au détail des interdits religieux musulmans jugés aberrants, autant sur ce coup là, on évitera de faire le lien avec un interdit religieux juif:
Mais en même temps, la loi juive interdit la profanation d’un cadavre (nivoul hameth). Le corps d’une personne décédée, étant donné qu’il a accueilli une âme sainte, doit être traité avec un respect extrême.

[...]

Compte tenu de l’interdiction de profaner le corps humain, il est interdit de faire un don à une « banque d’organes », là où il n’y a pas de receveur spécifique et immédiat.

Il est également interdit de faire don d’un organe pour la recherche médicale ou pour permettre aux étudiants en médecine de se livrer à des dissections.

Le député arabe israélien qui explique que le scandale du vol d'organes est un nouveau signe du racisme de la société israélienne («inherent racism plaguing the Israeli Jewish society»), n'est donc pas cité. Pourtant, c'est assez transparent: il y a un déficit de donneurs en Israël, sans doute lié à un interdit religieux qui proclame «l'interdiction de profaner le corps humain», mais on s'y livre sur des cadavres palestiniens.

Alors quoi, une enquête européenne sur ce nouveau crime israélien, le vol d'organe sur des Palestiniens tués par l'armée israélienne, c'est totalement inimaginable? Est-ce que les échanges commerciaux «privilégiés» avec les États extra-européens ne sont pas conditionnés au respect minimum des droits de l'Homme?


En conclusion, citons le député arabe israélien Ahmed Teibi: "S'ils admettent cela, imaginez l'ampleur de ce qu'ils dissimulent."

Source: www.tokborni.blogspot.com
Traduction des passages en anglais: Investig'Action

Where is Jack Bauer?