Thread: Vichy

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=16763

September 5, 2009
In France, screwing Israel makes you a hero
[I am meeting with Philippe Karsenty on Sunday for the second time..]

FresnoZionism

Charles Enderlin has received the Legion of Honor. Enderlin is the Jerusalem correspondent of the France 2 TV network who narrated the footage shot by a Palestinian cameraman which supposedly showed 12-year old Mohammad al-Dura shot to death by Israeli soldiers.

The film, shown all over the world, inflamed sentiment against Israel at the beginning of the second Intifada, and the event was used to ‘justify’ several murders, including the Ramallah lynching of two Israeli reservists and the beheading of Daniel Pearl.

Various investigations showed that it was impossible for al-Dura to have been hit by Israeli bullets, and pointed strongly to the conclusion that he had not been shot at all.

French media critic Philippe Karsenty called the film “a hoax”. Enderlin sued Karsenty for libel and won his initial suit primarily on the basis of a character reference from then-President Jacques Chirac. Karsenty appealed, and the verdict was overthrown:

On May 21, 2008, in a stunning reversal of the lower court’s verdict, the appeals decision was handed down. It cited “the contradictory answers given by Charles Enderlin to the questions relating to the editing of the film,” the “inexplicable inconsistencies of the viewable images,” and the “contradictory answers of [cameraman Talal Abu Rahma] on the issue of the sequence of the scenes and the conditions under which they were filmed.” It also noted “France 2’s persistent reluctance to allow the viewing of its cameraman’s rushes,” and Enderlin’s “imprudent claim that he edited out the images of the child’s agony.”

While the court could not say that Karsenty had definitively proven the broadcast to be a hoax, it did find that there was a “sufficient factual base” for the charges he had made.

But apparently, rather than damaging his career, the incident made him a hero.

Vive la France!

My note:
Antisemitic media industry continues massive brainwashing of entire World. Goebbels may cheer to his french collegues.

The French basically washed their hands of Israel in 1956..

Read your history.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/default...=178&nid=19557

Thursday, September 10, 2009 Israel Today Staff

German student fined for waving Israeli flag

A German university student was fined 300 euros by a district court in the western German city of Bochum on Wednesday. Her crime - waving an Israeli flag near an anti-Israel demonstration in January.

The anti-Israeli demonstration was organized by local Muslim groups to protest Israel's military incursion into the Gaza Strip in response to incessant Hamas rocket fire.

When the student and her friends heard about the demonstration, they decided to show up and display their solidarity with Israel by waving an Israeli flag and holding a banner bashing those who practice anti-Semitism disguised as legitimate criticism of Israel.

But the court ruled that displaying an Israeli flag near an authorized anti-Israel demonstration was an unlawful act of "provocation."

The student responded by telling a local newspaper that it was the Muslim demonstrators who were truly provocative in their display of banners and use of chants accusing Israel of perpetrating a Holocaust in Gaza.

The student intends to appeal the court's ruling.

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=16914

September 12, 2009
Israel can and must act in her own best interests.
By Ted Belman

Carpe diem quam minimum credula postero – “Seize the day, trusting as little as possible in the future.” Horace.
As I read Ettinger’s excellent piece below, I was reminded of other historical facts having to do with limiting Jewish settlement, emigration or immigration. Even before the British Mandate, Britain was actively limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine. Stalin also prevented Jewish emigration. The Mandate didn’t change much. Britain continued to limit immigration and so so did Russia/USSR right up to its downfall. Remember the “Let my people go” campaign in the seventies.

Haj Amin el Husseini, the grand Mufti of Jerusalem and confidant of Hitler, led a full scale Arab revolt against the Jews between 1936 and 1939 causing much Jewish bloodshed. In response the Peel Commission was set up and recommended limiting Jewish immigration to Palestine. Just what the Arabs wanted. In fact, the Peel Commission even recommended the abolition of the Mandate and recommended two states. Ben Gurion fought hard to maintain Jewish immigration and even supported partition while most of the Zionist movement did not. To his chagrin, friends of Zionism in England including Churchill and Lloyd George persuaded the British Parliament to vote against partition.

In 1938, Ben Gurion commented on Chamberlain’s “Peace in our time” and said “They handed Czechoslovakia over. Why shouldn’t they do the same with us?”

Shortly thereafter Ben Gurion made his case to Malcolm MacDonald, the Colonial Secretary, who suggested, that the Arab and Muslim world could rise up and threaten the British Empire and therefore to prevent this, Britain had to make sure that the Jews in Palestine remained a minority. In other words Britain was against the creation of a Jewish state.

During the war, the world conspired to prevent Jews from escaping Europe to Palestine. Britain, even after the war, actively attempted to limit Jewish immigration to Palestine. Remember the DP Camps in Cypress and “Exodus”.

It was due to Jewish resistance after the war that the British turned the matter over to the UN which ultimately voted for the partition that the British Parliament had turned down.. Ben Gurion preferred half a loaf to no loaf and so declared the State of Israel.

The Law of Return was quickly passed welcoming all “Jews” to come to Israel. All you needed to be eligible was one Jewish grandparent.

After the Six Day War in ‘67 the World attempted to prevent Jewish settlement of Judea and Samaria even though Jews had the legal right to do so stemming from the British Mandate. Neither Res 242 nor the Oslo Accords made mention of restricting such settlement, so the international community tried to brand the settlements as illegal pursuant to the Geneva Convention. Many legal scholars beg to differ with this and argue convincingly that the Convention doesn’t make settlements illegal.

Prior to the Roadmap, in response to atrocities the Arabs committed with their suicide bombers, the Mitchell Report rewarded them by recommending a settlement freeze just like the Peel Commission did. This freeze was incorporated into the Roadmap which came into existence in 2003.

Another refrain that developed particularly after the Roadmap, was that no one, meaning Israel, should do anything, meaning settle the land, to prejudge the outcome. Of course the Arabs could do anything they wanted to prejudge the outcome and the US cooperated with them. A case in point is opening her Consulate in Jerusalem to serve the Arabs while at the same time refusing to open her Embassy in Jerusalem to serve the Israelis. The US also supports illegal Arab construction and condemns Jewish construction, legal or otherwise.

The demand in the Roadmap that Palestine be “viable” and “contiguous” also prejudges the outcome as does the demand that Jerusalem be divided.

And now Obama is demanding a settlement freeze. Fortunately he doesn’t have the support in the US or in Israel to bring it about.

As Ettinger points out, Israel can and must resist the pressure and act in her own best interests.

US Pressure on Israel - A Guide for the Perplexed

By Yoram Ettinger,

Fact: In 1950, the US Administration pressured Israel to refrain from Jewish construction in Jerusalem and from declaring Jerusalem the capital of Israel - Prime Minister Ben Gurion built, relocated government agencies and thousands of immigrants to Jerusalem and declared Jerusalem the capital of the Jewish State. In 1967, the US Administration pressured against annexation of East Jerusalem - Prime Minister Eshkol annexed, reunited Jerusalem, and built the formidable Ramat Eshkol neighborhood. In 1970, the US Administration pressured Israel to relinquish control over parts of
Jerusalem - Prime Minister Golda Meir constructed the neighborhoods of Gilo, Ramot and Neveh Yaakov (current population over 100,000!). The US Administration pressured, Israel constructed, Jerusalem expanded and the Jewish State earned strategic respect.

Fact: In 1948, the US Department of State, Pentagon and CIA pressured Ben Gurion to avoid a declaration of independence. In 1961, President Kennedy pressured to stop the construction of Israel’s nuclear reactor. In 1967, President Johnson pressured against pre-empting the Egypt-Syria-Jordan military offensive. In 1977, President Carter pressured Prime Minister Begin to abstain from direct negotiation with President Sadat and participate -
instead - in an international conference, focusing on the Palestinian issue and Jerusalem. In 1981, President Reagan pressured Prime Minister Begin against bombing Iraq’s nuclear reactor.

Defiance of pressure entails short-term cost but enhances long-term national security. Submission to pressure exacerbates pressure. Fending off pressure is required, in order to attain strategic goals. Avoiding pressure - through concessions - leads to departure from strategic goals.

Fact: US public and Congressional support of Israel is robust. “The Rasmussen Report” documents a 70% support (Aug. 10, 2009) and “Gallup” ranks Israel as the fourth-favored ally (March 3, 2009). 71 Senators signed an August 10, 2009 letter calling upon President Obama to shift pressure from Israel to Arab countries. The Democratic Chairman of the House Foreign Relations Committee, Howard Berman, called upon Obama to end his preoccupation with settlements. The Democratic Majority Leader, Steny Hoyer, resents Obama’s opposition to Jewish construction in East Jerusalem. The strongest (Democratic) Senator, Daniel Inouye, Chairman of the Appropriations Committee, is the most effective supporter of the US-Israel connection since 1948. Obama cannot get his legislative agenda without Inouye’s support. While Congress has reservations about Israel’s settlements policy, Congress opposes sanctions against Israel.

Fact: Following the 1991 Gulf War, Israel asked for emergency assistance, which Bush/Baker rejected, Congress supported and Israel received $650MN in cash and $700MN in military systems. In 1990, Bush/Baker attempted to cut 5% of the foreign aid to Israel, on account of Israel’s settlements activity. Congress opposed and the initiative was rescinded. The Legislature and the Executive are equal-in-power and fully independent of each other. The US Congress has been a systematic bastion of support of the Jewish State since before 1948.

Fact: President Obama has been transformed from a coattail President to an anchor-chained President, taking a dive from a 65% approval rating in January to less than 50% in September, the sharpest decline in recent decades, other than President Ford’s (due to his pardon of Nixon). Thus, Democratic House candidates/members are experiencing the lowest ebb in two years, while Republicans enjoy a systematic edge. Obama is confronted by an effective Blue Dog Democratic opposition.

Fact: President Obama exercises psychological pressure against Israel. He cannot exert an effective tangible pressure. He was not elected to uproot Jewish settlements and prevent Jewish construction in Jerusalem. His political future - and that of Democratic legislators - does not depend on these issues. The Arab-Israeli conflict is not among Obama’s top priorities, and his position on Israel is not compatible with most Democrats. Obama
needs the support of Israel’s friends on Capitol Hill, in order to advance his primary domestic and national security/international agendas.

http://www.israpundit.com/2008/?p=18805

December 4, 2009
The Left’s Love Affair With Islam
by Chuck Hustmyre

The union between the American Left and fundamentalist Islam seems like a marriage made in hell.

The Left hates religion, particularly Christianity, and has succeeded in ripping nearly all vestiges of it from American public life. Through the legal machinations of its lapdog, the American Civil Liberties Union, the Left has banned Christmas from public schools, nativity scenes from City Hall, and the Ten Commandments from courthouses.

In liberal newspeak, “Happy holidays” has replaced “Merry Christmas.” Holiday trees have replaced Christmas trees, and Christmas break has become “fall break.”

Yet a few years ago, seventh-grade students in California were required to participate in a religious studies program during which they were told to wear Muslim clothing, memorize passages from the Quran, and choose an Islamic name for themselves.

Interestingly enough, the ACLU did not file a lawsuit.

The American Left champions causes such as gay rights (including gay marriage), equality for women (suffrage, the right to work, etc.), and religious freedom (usually in the form of freedomfrom religion). Yet, fundamentalist Islam opposes nearly everything the American Left stands for.

In many Islamic countries, homosexuality is punishable by death. In Iran, a top government official recently said that torture followed by death is the appropriate punishment for being gay.

In Saudi Arabia, women can’t vote, run for public office, or drive cars. Women are routinely jailed and beaten for merely being in the presence of a man not related to them. The Saudi version of Dr. Phil provides televised lessons to men on how to properly beat their wives.

In many Islamic countries, women are forced into arranged marriages and held as property by their husbands, something not exactly in line with progressive Western thinking. In some Muslim countries, women aren’t even allowed to decide what clothes to wear. To reveal even the smallest patch of skin is a crime.

Religious freedom is often nonexistent under Islamic rule. In countries like Afghanistan and Iran, people who convert from Islam to another religion face public execution.

So why does the American Left hate Christianity yet love Islam?
In this country, a shadow army of apologists works tirelessly to provide alternative explanations for faith-based Islamic violence–shootings, bombings, stabbings, and beheadings. These shadow soldiers work in government, media, and on college campuses. Most are members of the American Left. The rest are bureaucrats who have been cowed by the omnipresent specter of political correctness. You hear these apologists every time a Muslim goes berserk and murders people in the name of Islam.

That’s an important distinction I’d like to be clear about. Every week someone goes nuts in this country and commits a sensational crime that captures the attention of the media for a few days. Last weekend, a convicted felon from Arkansas murdered four Seattle-area cops at a coffee shop. Before that, some nut shot up an Orlando office building.

Truly impulsive and insane acts of violence are unpredictable. But when horrific violence is based on a theology that preaches hatred, intolerance, and global conquest, there are usually plenty of warning signs. According to the FBI, imams preach jihad in at least 10 percent of the United States’ 2,000 mosques.

Certainly Army Major Nidal Hasan signaled his intent when he told fellow Army doctors that infidels (those who don’t accept Allah as the one true God) should have their heads cut off and have burning oil poured down their throats. After telling everyone around him that non-Muslims should be killed and that the U.S. Army was engaged in a war against Islam, Hasan murdered 13 people at Ft. Hood, Texas.
Practically before the sounds of the last gunshots had faded, professional apologists in government and the media were saying Hasan was not a terrorist and that the shootings had nothing to do with his belief in Islam. Of course, the exact opposite is true. Nidal Hasan is a jihadist and he committed mass murder because of his belief in Islam.

Nearly a month after the shootings, the American Left is blaming the Ft. Hood murders on everything but Islam. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley took the opportunity of announcing the expansion of the city’s Arabic language program in public schools to blame the killings on America’s love affair with guns.

Other apologists blame the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, claiming Hasan, a psychiatrist, suffered from “secondary trauma” after hearing of the horrors of war from the soldiers he was counseling. Still others invented a new psychological malady, pre-traumatic stress disorder, meaning the mere thought of going into a combat zone so traumatized Hasan that he snapped.

The proof that all of these excuses are just so much hot air is that Hasan himself told us why he shot more than 40 people before he did it.

Major Hasan’s business card identified him as a “Soldier of Allah.” He was in email contact with a militant Muslim imam who fled the United States and now operates in Yemen. He tried several times to contact al Qaeda.

To anyone but an American Left apologist, Hasan’s motive for murdering 13 fellow soldiers and wounding another 30 is quite clear: He did it because he was fighting for Islam. As Hasan repeatedly told fellow Army doctors, he is a Muslim first, an American second.
In unambiguous terms, fundamentalist Islam has announced again and again that it despises the values, culture, and traditions of America. The American Left does too.

Consistent with the Arabic proverb that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, the American Left has formed an alliance with fundamentalist Islam to transform this country into something far removed from its Judeo-Christian origins and ideals.

The mistake the Left is making is that its so-called progressive goals have nothing in common with the medieval tenants of fundamentalist Islam. Militant Muslims have no respect for American progressives, any more than they respect the very existence of Israel.
Fundamentalist Islam is using the American Left to advance its own agenda. Militant Muslims want Islam and sharia law to dominate the West. Their goal is to subvert the U.S. Constitution and our way of life to the will of Allah. The word Islam means submission.

What members of the American Left seem blind to is the fact that in countries where Islam dominates, their progressive ideas would be crushed and many of them would be thrown in jail simply because of their lifestyle choices.

Yet, the American Left continues to serve as apologist-in-chief for fundamentalist Islam.
Why?

Because deep down American Leftists are terrified of Islamic fundamentalists.

Last year, publishing giant Random House canceled the publication of Sherry Jones’s novel The Jewel of Medina because it might be offensive to some Muslims. According to its own press release, the publisher feared Muslim violence against its offices and employees. Apparently, Random House’s fears were well founded.

In September 2008, three Muslim terrorists firebombed the home and office of the British publisher who bought the rights to the novel.
In 2006, the Apple computer company drew howls of rage from Muslims who claimed the glass cube the company built outside its midtown Manhattan store was modeled on the Kaaba, the Muslim shrine in the Saudi city of Mecca, and was meant as an insult to Islam.

The American Left’s affair with fundamentalist Islam is essentially a love-fear relationship. The Left loves Islam’s hatred of America and its desire to radically change this country, but the Left also fears what militant Muslims are capable of, especially if they turn their murderous rage on their so-called friends.

So the Left, like Neville Chamberlain with the Nazis, walks a tightrope, appeasing Muslims at every turn, offering excuses for Islamic violence, and hoping Muslim fundamentalists won’t bite the hand that feeds them their excuses.
===
Chuck Hustmyre is an award-winning journalist and a retired federal agent. He is the author of three books and hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles. ...

Chuck Hustmyre is an award-winning journalist and a retired federal agent. He is the author of three books and hundreds of magazine and newspaper articles. ...

Is he a Jew??

Any article that shows the short comings of Arab cultural differences as debating points on the 'Lefts Affair with Anything..is a bullshit article..and should be ignored...
Just as all Houseknight Zionists postings...all meaningless Zionist propaganda garbage...


TATA

Originally Posted by Eann

Is he a Jew??


TATA

The point is, he isn't.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/Ne...137682#replies

Despite War on Terror, Australia Expels Israeli Diplomat
Sivan 12, 5770, 25 May 10 11:29by Hillel Fendel(Israelnationalnews.com) Despite warm Australian-Israeli relations, the "Down Under" country has expelled an Israeli diplomat in protest of four cloned Australian passports used in the assassination of a Hamas agent in Dubai in January. Israel supporters complain of a double standard.

“Investigations and advice have left the Government in no doubt Israel was responsible for the abuse and counterfeiting of these passports,” Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith said. However, he all but acknowledged publicly that he has no proof of this accusation when he added, “The high quality of these counterfeited passports points to the involvement of a state intelligence service.”

Two months ago, Britain took a similar move, expelling an Israeli diplomat for the first time in ten years.

Leading Hamas terrorist Mahmoud al-Mabhouh, responsible for smuggling weapons from Iran to Gaza, died in a Dubai hotel this past January. It was first believed that he had died of natural causes, and only later was it found that he had been murdered. Analysts say that the presence of surveillance cameras throughout the hotel was not taken sufficiently into account by the murderers. Israel has not accepted responsibility for the assassination.

It is believed that the killers also used forged French, German and Irish passports to enter Dubai. These three countries have not yet announced whether they intend to follow the British and Australian leads and expel Israeli diplomats.

Minister Smith said Israel’s alleged forgery endangered “confidential undertakings” with Australia, and “these are not the actions of a friend. This is not what we expect from a nation with whom we have had such a close, friendly and supportive relationship.”

Israel appears to be diplomatically restricted in its response, but supporters of Israel have asked the following questions: “Will England and Australia give up their forged international passports that are used for intelligence work? Or is it only Israel that is not allowed to do what every other nation does? Are we [Western countries] trying to send the message that terrorists are untouchable and are under our protection? … Talk about hypocrisy: We are in Afghanistan, we have killed thousands going after a terrorist who struck us, and yet we condemn Israel for the possible killing of one known terrorist?”

My note:
When Israel kidnaped Adolph Eichman, Argentina protested sharply violation by Israel Argentinian sovereignty.

http://www.israpundit.com/archives/24913

July 15, 2010
France 2 Needs to Apologize For Al-Dura Hoax
Might France 2 Actually Apologize For Al-Dura Video?

Media Backspin

The Mohammed Dura video raised its head at a hearing with France 2 TV’s new president, Remy Pflimlin. There’s no way to tell if the winds of change at France 2 will result in an apology 10 years after the fact, but credit Senator Jean-Pierre Plancade for not letting the station off the hook.

It’s significant that the issue isn’t fading away. Pajamas Media quotes Sen. Plancade’s question and Pflimlin’s response:

Mr. President, you talked about trust, independence, rigor and accuracy. I really care about these words. Your appointment comes at a time when each and every profession should show its deontology and ethics which are essential values on which we shouldn’t mitigate. The French public TV should be irreproachable and exemplary.
This is why I’d like to talk to you about an affair which is so important to me, which has been lasting for much too long, and which concerns France 2.

I’d like to talk to you about the so-called death of Mohammed al-Dura, who according to this news report, was killed by an Israeli bullet.

After France 2 aired this news report came a suspicion that French public TV broadcast a fake news report; suspicion confirmed by the fact that France 2 didn’t succeed when the channel sued one of our fellow citizens who accused France 2 of having aired, let me quote him, “a pure and simple staged scene.”

I recently watched a documentary coming from the German public TV, ARD — “The Kid, the Death, and the Truth” — which also proves that France 2 aired a fake news report.

Let me remind you that this news report triggered the second Intifada, incited Muslims all over the world; that squares are dedicated to the child and that postage stamps have been printed with the picture of Mohammed al-Dura. The American journalist Daniel Pearl was even beheaded to avenge Mohammed al-Dura’s death.

Recently, a book of the French philosopher Pierre-André Taguieff has been published in a prestigious book house which also claims that France 2’s news report was a hoax, and he was not sued for defamation.

I think it is high time to raise this suspicion over France 2 which has probably breached the code of ethics of the French public TV.

Therefore, I’d like to know, Mr. President, what are the steps you intend to take to regain confidence and reveal the truth on this matter? I take advantage of our meeting to give you Taguieff’s book and the DVD of the German public TV.

Pflimlin’s unfortunate response didn’t surprise me.

Of course, I’ll look at this story.

Is it conceivable that France 2 might just apologize for the Dura video?

And if it does, what value do you think it will have 10 years later?