Roger Garaudy
Right to Reply
Reply to the Media Lynching of Abbe Pierre and Roger Garaudy
Samizdat
Roger Garaudy
1996
(June)
No "Right
to Reply" (yet written in our law) was granted to me by the media when
they discharged the worst lies against my book, "The Founding Myths of
Israeli Politics."
I was walled up in silence.
Only Abbe
Pierre dared raise his great voice.
By enacting laws that limit
freedom of expression, the French State has ceased to be a State of Law.
In particular, the Gayssot Law restores the law, abolished after Vichy,
that defines questioning of official truth as a criminal offense (delit
d'opinion). In fact, this law restores discrimination against anybody who
does not submit to "one-track thought" and to the cult of "politically
correct" taboos imposed by American leaders and their Western mercenaries,
especially the Israelis.
After this imposed silence, here is my
reply to the "witch hunt" lobby, the guardian of taboos.
Machination of a Lynching:
Not a word of refutation about the
collaboration of Zionist leaders with Hitler.
In the flood of
insults unfurled against Abbe Pierre and myself, no argument was produced
to refute the proofs I provided of each accusation in my book against
Israeli politics.
For example, the collaboration of Zionist
leaders (who became Israeli leaders) with the Nazis, since the Haavara
agreements allowing Jewish billionaires to transfer their German capital
to Palestine.
Then there was the collaboration of the Zionist,
Betar, in Hitlerian uniforms and under the flag of the Star of David until
1938 (during 5 years under the Hitler regime).
Then there were the
propositions of collaboration, including military, made by Itzhak Shamir
to the Hitlerian authorities in 1941. And until the negotiations with the
"Jewish Agency" to provide Hitler with 10,000 trucks with the single
condition that these trucks be used solely on the Eastern front against
the Soviet Union, so as to achieve a separate peace with the United States
and England, thus fulfilling the dream of the Western "allies", viz., to
use Hitler to crush the Soviet Union (see the proofs of this collaboration
with Hitlerism in my book, "Founding Myths of Israeli Politics" (pp.
65-90).
Not a word on Israeli terrorism.
No word to question
my analysis of Israeli state terrorism from the massacre of 237 civilians
in Deir Yassin by Begin's troops, to the massacre of Arabs praying in
Hebron by Baruch Goldstein; the assassination of Comte Bernadotte and of
Lord Moyne, who were guilty of denouncing at the U.N. the terror against
the Palestinians driven out by the hundreds of thousands from their
villages and their desecrated and bulldozed cemeteries; to the aggression
against the Suez Canal planned by Sharon and Perez with General Challe
(future leader of the coup in Algier); the massacre of thousands of
Lebanese civilians by Sharon in 1982 and his responsibility, together with
General Rafael Eytan, for the killings of Sabra and Chatila; the
occupation, after the "Six Day War" of whatever remained of Palestine and
also of South Lebanon, of the Syrian Golan.
To the Israeli leader,
the UN resolutions condemning these occupations were not worth "the paper
they were written on": Resolution 181 of 1947 stipulating the partition of
Palestine; resolution 242 of November 22, 1967, requiring "the withdrawal
of Israeli forces from the occupied territories"; resolution 338 of
October 22, 1973, reiterating this demand after the Kippur War; resolution
425 condemning the occupation of Lebanon. Like the one (adopted
unanimously) of July 4, 1967, on the annexation of Jerusalem. On March 12,
1991, the French foreign minister, M. Roland Dumas, stated in an interview
with "Le Monde," "The Security Council has taken a total of 197
resolutions concerning the Arab-Israeli problem and 34 concerning the
Palestinians. All these resolutions remain a dead letter."
The
first, dealing with the partition, was dismissed by Ben Gourion as "a
piece of paper." For 50 years, the Israeli leaders, irrespective of their
party, have put themselves above international law. They are not afraid to
make public their project of disintegration of all Arab states in the
region, as they did in 1982 in the magazine, "Kivounim" (see pp. 203-204
in my book, "The Founding Myths of Israeli Politics.")
Nobody has
contested my analysis of the control of American politics by the Israeli
"lobby" and of the financing of the State of Israel as a proxy of American
politics in the Middle East.
The Scorned "Right to Reply"
Not even an attempt at
refutation. With a naive cynicism, Vidal-Naquet wrote in "Le Monde" of
April 4, 1996: "The day we accept one of these gentlemen in a public
debate on television or in a colloquium of historians, they will have won
the game. They are considered as a school. We have to absolutely bar them
from such activities." It is in the name of this "principle" that I was
refused any "right to reply" by all the newspapers, which told brazen lies
about my book. Yet the "right to reply" is written in the laws. And this
goes from "La Croix" to "L'Humanite," passing by "Le Monde," "Liberation"
or "Le Journal du Dimanche." Similarly, none of the 3 television channels
let me speak directly, but they set up caricature montages, never allowing
me to answer the slanders. It is significant that they all spoke with the
same voice, that of a "litany of hatred" using the same jargon to accuse
me of "negationism," a word that does not exist in any French dictionary,
for lack of being able to define what is being denied.
It is as
though the watchwords came from the same central agency of lies and hate
that led General de Gaulle to say, "There exists in France a powerful
Israeli lobby, exerting its influence most notably in the information
world."
In 1978, a former president of the World Jewish Congress,
Mr. Nahum Goldman, asked President Carter "to break the Jewish lobby,"
which he considered "a force of destruction, an obstacle to peace in the
Middle East."
During the Gulf War, Mr. Alain Peyrefitte wrote in
"Le Figaro" of November 5, 1990: "Two powerful pressure groups push for
the outbreak of the conflict: 1) The Jewish lobby, playing an essential
role in the transatlantic media; 2) The business lobby (to revive the
economy by the war)."
The Witch hunt
To burn me on the stake, a magic word
"negationism" replaced the Middle Ages' accusation of those who dealt with
the devil and thus deserved the stakes: "witchcraft."
Like the
word, "negationist," that of Shoah (which means extermination in Hebrew)
comes, too, from the litany of hate. It was popularized by Lanzmann's
film, financed by Menachem Begin (author of the "crime against humanity"
in the massacre of hundreds of civilians in Deir Yassim), who invested
850,000 dollars in this "project of national interest."
The witch
hunt started in "Le Monde" (which, since it has been rescued from its
financial difficulties by other investors, is no longer the newspaper of
Beuve-Mery or Jacques Fauvet).
"Roger Garaudy negationist" was the
headline of an article in the book section of January 26, 1996.
The
rumor spread like the slander in the Barber of Seville. It already
occupies 4 columns in "Liberation" of January 31st: "Roger Garaudy joins
the 'negationists'".
With time, exaggerations increase. In
"Liberation" of May 8, 1996, where the headline stretches across the whole
page: "Negationism is reassessment."
The same obsession spreads
through the whole gamut of the press. From "L'Humanite" of January 25,
1996, which hypocritically pities "a man whose humanism left its mark on
an era" and became a "racist," to "La Croix" of February 2, 1996, which
was saddened by "the suicidal drowning of a man who might have been the
witness of an era" had he not gone to "the most servile madness of
antisemitism."
Obviously, my past bothers them. Three months after
being decorated with a war medal as a soldier against Hitler, I was
arrested on September 14, 19440. When we rose against Nazism prior to the
existence of deportations in Germany, we were sent to the Sahara. I was
subjected to 33 months in a concentration camp, together with the founder
of "LICA" (International League Against Antisemitism, which became
"LICRA," International League Against Racism and Antisemitism), Bernard
Lecache, with whom I gave lectures about the prophets of Israel to our
atheist companions. Upon my return, I received the deportation medal. This
is what the LICRA people call today a "neo-Nazi"!
Struggle Against All Fundamentalisms
I fought all
fundamentalisms as an organizer of Christian-Marxist, then
Christian-Muslim dialogues. In 1970, I was expelled from the Communist
Party (of which I was one of the theoreticians and leaders) for declaring
that "the Soviet Union is not a socialist country"!
In my last
three books, I have analyzed, one after the other, 1) Roman Catholic
fundamentalism in "Do We Need God," where I wrote, despite the anger of
some people, that Jesus could not be the founder of reigning theologies of
domination; 2) in "Greatness and Decadence of Islam," I denounced
"Islamism" as a sickness of Islam; 3) finally, in "The Founding Myths of
Israeli Politics," I analyze the "Zionist heresy" that replaces the God of
Israel with the state of Israel and thus, through tribal nationalism,
renounces the universalist faith of the great Jewish prophets.
My
critiques of Christian and Muslim fundamentalisms naturally raised
polemics, which is normal and fruitful. But with my last book, I was
touching a taboo, and this time, lacking arguments, they called the
police.
Naturally, all the provincial press orchestrates the rumor.
It crosses borders, for the Zionist organization has a worldwide network.
In Canada, the World Jewish Congress succeeds in banning my lectures (on
other topics. But it is the man that must be demonized!) In Switzerland,
the LICRA leader, Vodoz, asks the courts to press charges against me. The
international press spreads the same slander as the French press,
exported, for example, by Finkelkraut in "Corriere de la Sera" in Italy
and "El Mundo" in Spain. From the "New York Times" in the United States to
"Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung" in Germany, the same chorus sings the
same song.
The Magic Word that Kills
"Negationist," negation of "SHOAH."
The same supranational vocabulary serves to "banish" me, as Joshua would
say.
Let us see what I "DENY":
1) Nowhere do I deny Nazism's
crimes or its persecution of Jews. It is an attack against my honor to
attribute to me a "denial of crimes against humanity." My book does not
cease denouncing "the monstrous objectives of Hitler (pp. 62, 251), their
savagery (p. 97); these "immense crimes do not need lies to reveal their
atrocity (p. 54). After describing "the horrible conditions that resulted
in tens of thousands of victims," I conclude: "Such was the martyrdom of
Jewish and Slavic deportees and the ferocity of Hitlerian masters treating
them as slaves without any human value" (p. 257).
I add (p. 257),
"These crimes cannot be underestimated, nor can the unspeakable suffering
of the victims." "Doubtless, the Jews were one of Hitler's preferred
targets because of his racist theory of the superiority of the Aryan race"
(p. 152).
As for the lies instituted at Nuremberg:
4 million dead at
Auschwitz (according to a Soviet report) and the successive "revisions" of
historians; 2 million, according to Zionist historian Poliakov in his
"Litany of Hate"; 1 million, 250 thousand, according to another Zionist
historian, Raoul Hilberg (p. 160 in my book). Bedarida, Director of the
Institute of Contemporary History at CNRS reached the conclusion that "the
number of 4 million does not rest on any serious basis and must not be
kept." "The number of about one million dead is corroborated by all
specialists because they agree on a number of victims that varies between
950,000 and 1,200,000" (Le Monde, July 23, 1989).
My "revisionism"
that my detractors (none of whom read my book) call "negationism" without
saying what I deny is nothing but the resumption of "revisions" of "all
the specialists" (as Bedarida says), which led in 1994 to replace the
plaque that said 4 million (in Auschwitz) with one that says "a little
over one million" (p. 159). I add: "It is not a matter of establishing a
macabre counting."
The assassination of one single innocent,
whether he is Jewish or not, is a crime against humanity (which I repeat,
p. 257).
2. As for the "gas chambers," I clearly said that no
tribunal, neither Nuremberg nor those that followed it, have ever sought
to examine this crime weapon. Expert opinions exist, namely that of the
engineer Leuchter, a specialist in the United States, of gas chambers
built in 6 states for those sentenced to death. His investigations at
Auschwitz-Birkenau led him to radically negative conclusions. "One would
have expected the detection of higher rates of cyanide in samples taken
from the alleged gas chambers (due to the larger quantities of gas used in
these places) than in the control samples taken from the disinfection
chambers. Since the opposite is true, it is imperative to conclude that
these installations were not execution gas chambers."
Given in
Malden (Massachusetts) April 5, 1988 by Fred A. Leuchter Jr., Chief
Engineer.
Subsequent studies by other experts in Cracow in 1990 and
in Vienna did not produce any new findings.
Since I am not a
chemist or a biologist, I cannot decide. I simply say in my book (p. 150)
that I am surprised that these reports were not published and openly
debated. The only attempt to refute them was a book by Pressac, subsidized
by the Klarsfeld Foundation, which curiously enough, nobody refers to.
Even Pressac, in his 1993 book, does not even cite the Leuchter Report,
while at the same time he triumphantly refutes it.
Concerning the
interpretation of the "final solution" and the "gas chambers," my book
states clearly these problems.
1. According to the official theory,
Hitler might have given the extermination order. However, in a colloquium
on "revisionism" in February 1982 at the Sorbonne, Raymond Aron and
Jacques Furet stated in the closing press conference: "Despite the most
scholarly research, no Hitler order to exterminate the Jews was ever
found."
We are told later that the order was given at the Wannsee
Conference of January 20, 1942. In the January 30, 1992 issue of "Canadian
Jewish News," Yehuda Bauer wrote that this interpretation of Wannsee is
silly.
Pressac is the latest scourge of revisionism. On p. 114 of
his book, "Les crematoires d'Auschwitz," he refers to "the Wannsee
Conference on the driving back of the Jews towards the East."
Was
there a "coded language?" In the absence of proof, this is suggested
by
Nicolas Weill (after many others) in "Le Monde" of May 6,
1996.
Pressac maintains that public works projects did not use any
coded language: "Contrary to what is said, there was never a camouflage."
(Quoted by Laurent Greilsamer in "Le Monde" of September 26 and 27,
1993.)
After being hailed as a savior of the extermination
propagandists, he became more and more suspect: he destroyed their "coded"
interpretations of Wannsee. He questioned their "testimonies" refuting
Hoss, commander of Auschwitz, the main witness, and Eichmann, too (pp. 41
and 132).
He contradicted their Dantesque interpretations of
"Sondermassnahmen" (special measures): contrary to what was believed,
these terms have no criminal connotation (p. 107).
He ridicules the
numbers given by Wallers, of Jews passing through Auschwitz: "It is
obviously inexact." (p. 147)
Is it a matter of a repenting or
camouflaged "revisionist?"
While waiting for this technical debate,
I stand by what is clearly established: the odious watchword of the Nazis,
"all the Jews out of Europe!"
The execution of this plan was
initially realized by pushing back Jews toward the East under such inhuman
conditions that tens of thousands succumbed. Then, as it was clearly
written and asserted, after the war and victory, all European Jews shall
be deported to an African island (Madagascar was mentioned, following the
fall of France).
This project was already monstrous enough so that
even the first stages of its execution cost the lives of hundreds of
thousands of Jews.
It is always this objective: the deportation to
an African ghetto which was considered as the "final solution," and it is
pure barbary.
As to "the extermination," during his 10 years of
absolute rule, four of which were over all of Europe, Hitler had all the
time to realize it, and fortunately, despite all the indisputable
massacres, the Jewish community, though decimated, remained in Europe
among us.
Then what do I deny?
I deny that the Zionists assume the power
to minimize Hitler's crimes by reducing them to the indisputable
persecution of Jews. His drive for expansion and conquest resulted in 50
million dead, of which 16 million were Slavs, Russians and Polish, as Pope
John Paul II recalled in Miami.
What I deny, what I fight, is the
will to remember only one category of victims and to hedge the language so
as to conceal contempt for others.
This leads to an inversion of
even the meaning of our history, to the negation of the resistance of the
overwhelming masses of our people to the Nazi occupation and to the
handful of renegade, ruthlessly ambitious collaborators put in power by
Hitler's invasion. During the first years of the liberation, "deported"
meant resistance fighter. Today, through perversion, "deported" would only
mean Jewish victims.
The massacre of a large number of Jews is
indisputable, but why call it "genocide"? Genocide means extermination
("There remained no survivor" as it is said in the book of Joshua, telling
of the conquest of Canaan). This is unquestionably boastfulness, since the
majority of the Canaanite population survived. But if, as Francois
Bedarida pretends in "Le Monde" of May 5 and 6, 1996, "the invocation of
Joshua by Roger Garaudy seems to me an intellectual stupidity," [note 1:
this new tone of language was set in "Le Monde" by Kouchner (the comic
actor who carried a rice bag in a Somalian port in order to attract the
attention of the media) who called me "bastard."] because "it was put
together many centuries after the fact and based on fairly embellished
traditions." If this is the case, would Mr. Bedarida explain to us why the
Bible that is distributed to young Israeli soldiers with, since 1990, a
preface by the Grand Army Rabbi, Gad Navon, stresses the book of Joshua?
Its characteristic is the extreme chauvinism underlying the antagonism
between Jews and other peoples, to the point of presenting Abraham as "the
father of the Jewish nation" standing on one side, and the whole world on
the other.
This is what gives Joshua an extreme relevance, all the
more as to this Bible, transformed into a nationalism manual, where every
stranger is an "enemy," an Atlas has been added where every young soldier
can find a map of all the land of Israel, including not only Judea and
Samaria but also Jordan, with a glorification of the GOD of armies, who
gives victory over the enemies in order "to reenforce the combative spirit
of soldiers." (Source: Haaretz of January 22, 1996. Article of Yaron
Ezrahi about "the chauvinistic preface of the Bible currently distributed
to Israeli soldiers.")
Without denying the extent and the horror of
massacres of Jews and other opponents (3.5 million Russian prisoners died
in captivity said Bedarida in the same article of "Le Monde"), I reject
this "Apartheid of the dead." Under the theological name of Holocaust, it
makes the martyrdom of Jews irreducible to any other.
By its
sacrificial character, it could be integrated into a divine project in the
manner of the crucifixion of Jesus in Christian theology (p. 156 of
my
book).
But such discriminations are inherent to the heresy logic of
political Zionism, breaking off with the grandiose universalism of the
Jewish prophets.
According to the founding father of Zionist
heresy, and to Professor Klein, Director of the Institute of Comparative
Law at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, the notion of a Jewish state is
incompatible with any true democracy. The definition of Jewish is given by
Professor Klein in his book, "Le caractere juif de L'Etat d'Israel" (Ed
Cujas, Paris, 1977) as it is formulated in the "Law of Return," the
fundamental law of 1950, article 4b: "A Jew is considered any person born
to a Jewish mother or converted according to halakah." A racial criterion
and a parochial criterion. All others are second class citizens.
A
true democracy cannot exist in a state based on such discrimination. Not
in a "Christian state" where Jews, nonbelievers, Muslims and even non
catholics would be second class citizens, even enemies to destroy, as the
Crusaders did (by pogroms of Jews along their way to the holy land, where
they would massacre the Muslims) or to organize Saint Bartholomews against
the Protestants, or today where every Muslim immigrant is a potential
terrorist.
Neither can there be "democracy" in a "Muslim state,"
where Christians cannot worship GOD in a church or Jews in a synagogue,
and where their rights are not equal to those of all other members of the
nation.
One Goal: Gag Abbe Pierre and Garaudy
Being unable to find in
my book any trace of antisemitism, a negation or even a minimization of
Hitler's crimes towards the Jews or any other opponent of the regime, my
accusers had only one recourse: the question of justice at the Nuremberg
Tribunal fell under the blow of the Gayssot Fabius Law.
After
dooming me to public prosecution as a "negationist," they try to silence
me by resorting to the police and to a gag law.
It is true that the
court of one-track thought is subject to abrupt variations. On Sunday,
April 28, 1996, the Grand Rabbi Sitruk, speaking on "Jewish Radio,"
thought it useful to "assemble historians to debate the Shoah." Abbe
Pierre, hoping for a dialogue, was quickly disappointed. He said in
"Liberation" of May 2, 1996: "The Grand Rabbi accepts what LICRA refuses."
Monday, April 30, Rabbi Sitruk declared on Europe 1: "There can be no
debate on the Holocaust" and that "historians have given definitive
proofs." [Note 2: This led Max Clos, one of the rare journalists who, even
in his criticism, managed to save the honor of his profession by
commenting
that "the notion of 'definitive proof' irrespective of the
subject is offensive, for these were the practices of totalitarian regimes
such as those of Hitler and Stalin."]
Then the cries of triumph
rose to hound me: "Roger Garaudy is under investigation for contesting
crimes against humanity" is a headline in "Le Monde" of April 27, 1996.
The Zionized "L'Humanite" rejoices that Garaudy is charged under the
Gayssot Law that punishes "questioning of crimes against humanity." Pierre
Aidenbaum, the president of LICRA, set the tone in his press release of
April 24, 1996: "Some can no longer hide their antisemitism under the
cover of antizionism. In our country, this has been decided by the
courts."
Yes, Mr. Aidenbaum, this has been decided by the courts
and precisely to convict your "LICRA," which seeks to make believe that
Zionism which is politics is identical with Judaism which is a religion. I
recall only the sentence rendered by the High Tribunal of Paris on March
24, 1983 (upheld by the Appeals Court) in the lawsuit filed by LICRA
against Father Lelong, Pastor Matthiot, Jacques Fauvet (Le Monde) and
myself: "In view of the fact that this is lawful criticism of the politics
of a state and of the ideology that inspires it, and not a racial
provocation, the court dismisses the suit and orders LICRA to pay the
legal costs."
What Nourishes Antisemitism is Not to Denounce its Crimes, but to
Commit Them
My struggle against the Zionist politics of the State
of Israel that feed antisemitism is an integral part of my unremitting
struggle against antisemitism, which is a crime justifiably punished by
law.
Zionism against Israel
The worst enemy of the prophetic Jewish
faith is the nationalist, racist and colonialist logic of tribal Zionism,
born of the nationalism, racism and colonialism of 19th century Europe.
This logic, which inspired all the colonialisms of the West and all its
wars of one nationalism against another, is a suicidal logic.
There
is no future or security for Israel and no peace in the Middle East unless
Israel becomes "dezionized" and returns to the faith of Abraham, which is
the spiritual, fraternal and common heritage of the three revealed
religions: Judaism, Christianity and Islam.
This is why, after so
much trash published in "Le Monde" by the Kouchners, the Vidal-Naquets and
others, Bedarida or Weill, the record of infamy is held by Claude Imbert,
who likened my book to the "Protocol of the Elders of Zion" in "Le Point"
of May 4, 1996. While on p. 249, I analyse the mechanism of fabrication of
this vile falsehood (which I refuted in detail in a preceding work,
"Palestine, Terre des messages divins," Ed. Albatros, 1986, pp.
206-212).
For slanders of this type, I demand the "right to reply"
from "Le Monde," "Liberation," "Parisien," "Journal du dimanche," "La
Croix," "L'Humanite." They all refused me this right, recognized by law.
This shows the power of the lobby. In fact, those who deny the "crimes
against humanity" are precisely the newspapers, radio and television
stations, almost the entire media, where nobody dared to designate, as
"crime against humanity," the shelling of ambulances carrying wounded
children, the deliberate bombardment of a UN camp resulting in over 100
civilian deaths, the pounding of Beirut and all of the coastline by
Israeli warplanes. To them, there is no "crime against humanity" when it
does not affect Jews.
A crushing UN report shows that it was a
deliberate criminal action, supervised and controlled by a helicopter. All
of this is treated as a blunder of some air force captain, or some
technical mistake, excusing the real villain, the government of Israel and
its military command, as it acted in Sabra and Chatila, whose main
culprit, Ariel Sharon (recognized as such by the Kahn Commission of
Inquiry), was immediately appointed minister in charge of precisely the
establishment of "colonies" in the occupied territories (despite UN
condemnation and the violation of international
law).
All of
this shows the diversionary role of the lynching by the media of Abbe
Pierre and of myself. The day of the shelling of Cana, the front page
headline of the largest French newspaper announced the crime of Cana in
the same character type as "the mistake of Abbe Pierre" and not the
reality: "Shimon Peres' crime against humanity."
The day this
criminal was received in Paris with great pomp, and when "Likud of France"
welcomed in Paris another criminal, General Rafael Eytan (who knowingly
let the massacre of Sabra and Chatila take place, and who is now #2 in
Likud) with a hymn to the Messiah, the newspapers' headlines announced
"Abbe Pierre is expelled from LICRA" for his support of Garaudy.
A Very Powerful Lobby in the United States
Such unanimity is a
testimony to the existence and power of the lobby.
First, because
it is an organ of the State of Israel. Its status appears in the Law of
November 24, 1952 of the "World Zionist Organization." Articles 5 and 6
specify its attributes.
Article 5: "The State of Israel counts on
the participation of all Jews in all Jewish organizations in building the
State" (Israel Government Yearbook. Jerusalem, 1953-54, p. 243).
In
the United States, this powerful lobby is officially credited in the
Capitol. It is AIPAC (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee). Zionist
leaders in the United States do not hide their role. In the 23rd Congress
of the World Zionist Organization, Ben Gurion stated clearly: "The
collective obligation of all Zionist organizations in all nations to help
the Jewish State in all circumstances is unconditional, even if such an
attitude is in conflict with their respective nations" (Jerusalem Post,
August 17, 1952). (See my book, p. 206.)
An example of this power
is when Senator Fulbright, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Affairs
Committee, summarized on CBS television on October 7, 1973 his
investigation of the lobby, saying: "The Israelis control politics in
Congress and in the Senate." He lost his senate seat in the following
elections.
A Very Powerful Lobby in France
In France, this pressure is
not lesser but is less blatant.
For example, while in Israel, the
Grand Rabbi Sitruk declared to Shamir (who proposed an alliance with
Hitler in 1941): "Every French Jew is a representative of Israel. Rest
assured that every Jew in France is a defender of what you defend" (Le
Monde," July 12, 1990). But upon his return to France, he added "without
necessarily thinking of double allegiance" (Le Monde," July 13, 1990).
That could be a mistake!
More recently, July 16, 1995, under the
leadership of the same grand rabbi, Chirac declared: "The criminal madness
of the occupant was assisted by the French people and the French
government." This is a double denial of General de Gaulle's
attitude.
General de Gaulle refused:
1. All legitimacy to
the "puppets" of Vichy, which he never considered as a state: "I
proclaimed the illegitimacy of a regime that existed at the discretion of
the enemy." (Memoires, I, p. 107). "There did not exist a properly
constituted French government." (I, p. 388). "Hitler created Vichy." (I,
p. 389.)
The leaders of CRIF (Representative Council of Jewish
Institutions in France) enthusiastically welcomed this denial. They
expressed an "intense satisfaction to see the highest French authority
recognize the continuity of the French State between 1940 and 1944." All
the parties and all the press from "Le Monde" to "L'Humanite" fall in
behind.
2. De Gaulle did not have such contempt for the French
people: "The vast majority of the French people, far from accepting the
regime imposed by violence and treason, considered the authority of Free
France as the expression of its wishes and its will" (I, p. 394). And he
added, as proof, the uprising of the people of Paris: "Four years of
oppression did not crush the spirit of the capital. The treason was no
more than vile scum on a body that remained healthy" (III, p. 442). "Our
people never gave up, not even in the worst moments" (III, p.
194).
In the recent lynching of Abbe Pierre and of myself, the
lobby power was asserted not only in the media, but even in the Church. We
learned from "L'Humanite" (!) of April 30, 1996 that "Henri Hadjenberg,
president of the Representative Council of Jewish Institutions in France
(CRIF), requested that the Church hierarchy in France take a position on
the book of negationist Roger Garaudy and the support given to him by Abbe
Pierre."
The Church bowed immediately. Hadjenberg pronounced his
diktat on April 29. A text was published immediately by the Episcopate
"deploring the engagement of Abbe Pierre on the side of Roger
Garaudy."
Hadjenberg said that he was satisfied by the position of
the Church of France that on Monday "marginalized Abbe Pierre." The same
day, LICRA expelled Abbe Pierre because he "maintains his support for
Roger Garaudy."
The Nuremberg Taboo: An Inverted Dreyfus Affair
What is this
media racket?
In other words, what do I deny in what they call, in
the jargon, "negationism"?
It is sufficient to read the book in
order to see that I do not deny the crimes against humanity committed by
Hitler -- due to his bloody racism -- against the Jews. He accused them of
being the authors of the October Revolution (he coined the phrase,
"Judeo-Bolshevism") and of being the masters of international capitalism.
This is a criminal double demagogy: First to please the West as a rampart
against communism, and second, for internal consumption, to appeal to the
masses. His main trump card was the Treaty of Versailles of 1918, which
bled Germany dry. The great English economist Lord Keynes stated in his
book, "The Economic Consequences of Peace" (1922): "With this treaty, you
will have war within 20 years!"
Here, too, the Nuremberg Tribunal's
designation of "crimes against peace" did not indict those who facilitated
the rise of Hitler, thus allowing the butcher of people to pass for a
savior of his people.
What I deny is that the Nuremberg Tribunal
set a legal precedent and served as a criterion of historic truth, while
many scholarly revisions have shown how distorted its deliberations and
procedures were. (See my book, pp. 91-150.)
My criticism of the
"principles" of Nuremberg is based on:
a) The very definition of
the Tribunal, given on July 26, 1946 by its Presiding Judge Robert
Jackson, Attorney General of the United States: "The Allies are
technically still in a state of war with Germany. As a military tribunal,
this tribunal represents a continuation of the Allied nations' war
efforts."
b) The emergency statutes of this Tribunal (put together
in London on August 8, 1945 by American, English, French and Russian
leaders) leave no doubt on their "exemplary legal value."
"Article
19: The tribunal shall not be bound by technical rules relating to the
admission of evidence."
"Article 21: Documents and reports of
allied governments shall be admitted as authentic evidence."
Thanks
to the application of these "principles," or rather the absence of
principles and deliberate violation of legal ethics, the Soviet prosecutor
Rudenko, for example, forced the admission of the report that blamed the
German army for the massacre at Katyn of 11,000 Polish officers, while it
was proved that the perpetrators were the Soviet
leaders.
Similarly, when the Soviets liberated the
Auschwitz-Birkenau camp, they presented a report, accepted on their word,
of 4 million dead. Since then, this number continues to be controversial,
as we have seen.
I have shown in my book that the rules that govern
courts were not applied at Nuremberg. Neither texts nor testimonies
concerning "the final solution" were verified, and the crime weapons
(exhaust from trucks, or "gas chambers") were never
authenticated.
Making this taboo sacred evidently required a ban on
all research, the suppression of all scholarship and the demonization of
whoever dares to raise questions.
This is similar to the trial of
Captain Dreyfus, where it was deemed blasphemous to question the ruling of
an antisemitic military tribunal backed by a Church that demonized Jews by
calling them a "deicidal people."
The symmetry is striking. Today,
the lobby has taken over the military and religious headquarters, not only
to lynch people (like Abbe Pierre and myself) who dare to break the new
idols of one-track thought and the "politically correct," but to put under
investigation entire peoples, the new "deicidal peoples," against the only
"chosen people."
A "Litany of Hate"
Today, there is a resumption of themes
launched by Theodor Kaufman in 1942: "Germans, whoever they are, do not
deserve to live." He showed the means by which the German race will be
totally eliminated in 60 years. He mistook a whole people for its criminal
leaders ("Germany must perish"). His racist frenzy paralleled that of
Hitler.
In 1942, Clifton Fadiman requested the weekly "New Yorker"
to incite blazing hatred against all Germans and not only their Nazi
leaders, when he said: "The actual Nazi aggression is not the work of a
group of gangsters, but rather the final expression of the deepest
instincts of the German people."
In 1996, a product of American
Zionist education (like Ygal Amir, Rabin's assassin, or Baruch Goldstein,
killer of Hebron), a certain Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, inspired by the same
"litanies of hate," describes Germans as a "Nation of Killers" in his
book, "Hitler's Willing Executioners."
A similar process in
operation by Bernard-Henri Levy in his book, "L'ideologie Francaise"
(French Ideology). At the price of the worst historical distortions, he
tries desperately to make all the French people under the Vichy regime the
creators of a "French fascism." Vichy would be the product of all French
culture. "French culture is a witness to our seniority in abjectness" (p.
61), and it makes France "the homeland of National-Socialism" (p.
125).
A Tribal Reading of the Bible
The Zionist feeling of
superiority very much resembles the glorification of Aryan racial purity,
which serves as a justification for any bloody domination
policy.
In his book, "Le Talmud," (Ed. Payot, 1983), Rabbi A. Cohen
is quite diligent in finding universalist elements in the Talmudic
tradition. Early in the introduction (p. 19), he apologizes in advance for
discriminatory passages: "A Jew needed a religion that not only
distinguished him from pagans, but constantly reminded him that he is a
member of the Jewish race."
He says that he found in Esdras what he
calls "the fire frontier," "distinguishing and separating the Jew from all
other people." This, he says, is the seed of the Talmud (p. 19).
We
will not tackle here a discussion in theology, but we will only mention
the political interpretation and the feeling of superiority that follows
from a fundamentalist and literalist reading.
"One is more of a man
when one is more Jewish" writes Rabbi Eisenberg, who runs the Sunday
Jewish program on Channel 2 (Source: Rabbi Eisenberg "une Histoire des
juifs" (CAL, 1970).
This theme is taken up by Elie Wiesel, citing
the Talmud in his book, "Celebration Talmudique" (Ed. du Seuil, 1990): "A
Jew is closer to humanity than anybody else."
This tribal reading
of sacred texts, be it by Israeli extremists, "Islamists" or Christian
fundamentalists is a permanent source of conflicts. To track them down is
our task, whose aim is unity among men and not division.
Israel has
no future in the harmonious fraternity of peoples, unless it is
"dezionized," that is, becomes faithful to the admirable Jewish faith of
the Prophets, whose goal was not nationalist and colonialist military
conquest, but illumination of the divine message on the whole
earth.
I have no word to change in my book, which is in line with
my human struggle during the past half century, changing my fraternal ties
whenever my challenge was not accepted. But I never changed my aim: the
defense of man, every man. For GOD dwells in everyone.
A Prophetic Reading: Abbe Pierre
This brotherly love for all
mankind is precisely what unites me with Abbe Pierre all through this
century despite the different paths that we have followed in order to try
to accomplish our divine task for humanity. This brotherliness does not
require any blinding of one to the other. When we had divergent views,
from the Miners' Strike of 1948 until the Maestricht Treaty, we confronted
our differences candidly, but always enriching ourselves with our mutual
criticisms, as a brother should help his brother along the path of
truth.
That is why the treacherous attacks waged against Abbe
Pierre because he refused to disown me are a disgrace to those who do not
know that dialogue can be filled with controversy and that love means to
be in harmony with a truth that is human, hence relative and humble, but
filled with divine faith.
How pitiful are those who spoke of "blind
friendship" or insulted the Father by accusing him of being senile, or
"manipulated" by his entourage, or "antisemitic."
At the beginning
of this "Affair," when I met the Abbe, I said to him: "You know, Pierre,
how much I admire your work for the excluded, especially the homeless.
Millions of Palestinians have been driven out of their homes by Zionist
terror and millions of Lebanese had to flee on the road during Israeli
aggressions. Don't you think that their defense is an extension of your
work for the homeless of France?"
The untiring prophet went to Gaza
and asked forgiveness in the name of the West from Palestinians for the
despoliation of their lands and homes (he was criticized by the "Jewish
Tribune" and the Kouchners). He added that no Arab was responsible for the
crimes of Hitler (a "Christian apostate," said Abbe Pierre). Responding to
the infamous and untruthful lawsuit against me, he said that violence
annuls the Promise. In denouncing the "suicidal policy" of Israeli
leaders, he was speaking the language of the Jewish Prophets, from Amos to
Micah, shouting: "Listen, leaders of the House of Israel, you are building
Zion with the blood of Jerusalem and with crime. Because of you, Zion will
be plowed like a field; it will become a pile of rubble." (Micah, III,
1-12.)
Abbe Pierre refused to call a conquered land a "Promised
Land," whether conquered by the legendary sacred exterminations of Joshua
in Jericho or Hebron, or the very real massacres of Begin and the Irgun in
Deir Yassin in 1948, in Kafr Kassim in 1956, or in Lebanon, from Sharon in
1982 to Perez in 1996.
The pack of apostates of the grand
universalist faith of the Prophets was set against Abbe Pierre: Jacques
Attali, Schwarzenberg, Kouchner, and the "high priests," Sitruk and Kahn,
who summoned him to appear, like Jesus, before the Sanhedrin, before the
new Inquisition tribunal, charged by the thought police, "LICRA." He
refused to recant and was expelled. This was his honor and the shame of
the Pharisees.
It is not at all a matter of a religious quarrel, as
the sophist, Jean Daniel, wrote in an editorial in "Le Nouvel Observateur"
on "Religions Against Peace." On the contrary, Abbe Pierre and myself are
against the use of religions for political ends. Jews, Christians and
Muslims recognize the same "Father of believers," who was neither Jewish,
nor Christian, nor Muslim but anterior to all of them, an "Aramean
wanderer," who announced a Covenant of GOD with "all the families of the
earth." And since we are all filled with the same GOD, Abbe Pierre, myself
and all people who struggle for human unity resist the temptation to
attempt to appropriate the divine promise, which is in all of us, thereby
making it a tool of bloody nationalism and colonialism.
It is not
true, as Jean Daniel claims, that it is religions that are against peace
but rather the nationalist heresies, a striking example of which is
Israeli leadership. It sanctifies a policy of despoliation, aggression and
violation of international laws, according to the goal assigned by its
spiritual leader, the atheist Herzl, who wrote in his book, "The Jewish
State": "We will be an advanced bastion of Western civilization against
the barbarism of the Orient."
Abrogate the Totalitarian Gayssot Law
Today, there is no other
resource for the thought police than to press charges against us in the
name of the Gayssot Law. This law has not only disgraced the "communist"
party and the "socialist" party, but all the political parties that fought
it when they were in the opposition. They do not dare abrogate it now that
they are in power, for fear of the lobby. During the debate of May 2,
1990, at the National Assembly (Official Record of May 3, 1990) when the
"Gayssot Law" was passed, its stated objective was "to repress what is
called "revisionism" (O.R., p. 912). "Revisionism must be sanctioned
because it is a vehicle for antisemitism" (O.R., p. 956).
The
hidden premise of the text is that there is no "crime against humanity"
unless the crime is against Jews.
The meeting took place under
heavy surveillance. A deputy remarks (O.R., p. 905): "We witnessed tonight
an extraordinary stage production. During our debate, we rarely saw so
many journalists and television cameras. They wanted to show that those
who will vote 'against,' refuse to fight racism." (Then current Justice
Minister) Toubon said, "It is not a law against racism, it is a
manipulation" (O.R., p. 929) and he added, "The law they are going to
enact is a media coup" (O.R., p. 936).
In Whose Interest?
Already in an article of July 5, 1983 in
"Liberation," Luc Rozenzweig wrote, "'LICRA' enjoys an incredible
privilege: the law of July 1, 1972 against racial discrimination,
delegates to it the power to automatically decide who is antisemitic and
who is not. It alone judges the appropriateness of proceedings, and within
the framework of the law, reduces judges to the role of notary public in
the register of infamy."
The "Gayssot Law" increases this power
further. As Toubon said, "This proposition [Article 7, R.G.] was made by
'LICRA' during the work of the consultative commission on human rights"
(O.R., p. 948).
Today, it is precisely Kahn, the grand master of
"LICRA," who is the president of this commission!
Mssrs. Chirac,
Juppe, Seguin, the current ministers of Justice and of Domestic Affairs
(Toubon and Debre) and 265 deputies voted against the "Gayssot Law." One
wonders what (or who) prevents them today from abrogating this law that
they had so clearly denounced?
Francois Terre, the great French
jurist, Philosophy of Law Professor at the Assas Faculty of the Institut,
wrote: "The spirit of this law is totalitarian. It instituted negationism
as a criminal offense. It is up to jurists to safeguard the fundamental
freedoms undermined by the Gayssot Law: freedom of opinion and of
expression. It is not in the courts that history finds its judges. Then,
how can the implementation of the Gayssot Law be prevented when, prior to
its promulgation, it could have been stopped by the Constitutional Council
(the President of the Republic, the President of the National Assembly and
of the Senate, 60 deputies, 60 senators) but which did not have the
courage to do so?" The author proposes to submit it to the European Court
in Strasbourg, to put an end to "the appalling character of a law that
restores 'delit d'opinion' (i.e., defines questioning of official truth as
a criminal offense)." ("Le Figaro" of May 16, 1996.)
It is sad to
have to appeal to a foreign authority to remind France of what is a state
of law.
In the same issue of the paper, a reader wrote about "the
dangerous schizophrenia of a country where Salman Rushdie is a hero while
Roger Garaudy is banned and Abbe Pierre is exposed to public
contempt."
When Deputy Vodoz, President of "LICRA" in Switzerland,
demands that a lawsuit be filed against me (in Switzerland!), Georges
Andre Chevallaz, former President of the Helvetic Confederation, wrote:
"As a historian, I am amazed by this spirit of McCarthyism and witch hunt
every time the Holocaust is concerned" (Journal de Geneve, of May 2,
1996).
In France, during the debate on June 21, 1991 of the Gayssot
Law in the General Assembly, Deputy Toubon, then Justice Minister,
proposed to reject it: "It is a very grave political and legal error. It
is an artificial law that imposes historical truth instead of allowing
truth to be determined by history. I am sure this law will never be
applied" (O.R. of June 22, 1991, p. 3571).
Today, another deputy
wrote about "the official truth that fossilizes history." Recalling that
the law was enacted during the Affair of Carpentras Cemetery, He described
the conditions at the time of the vote, in an article entitled, "A Harmful
Law": "The parliamentarians were subjected to a kind of implicit
blackmail: any deputy who did not vote for this law would have been
suspected of negationism. At the time, influential groups created an
unhealthy climate." He added, "It is a law that imposes an official truth.
It is worthy of totalitarian regimes, not of a democracy" ("Le Figaro," of
May 3, 1996).
If one remembers, as Max Clos wrote in his "Bloc
Notes de la semaine," that "The Gayssot Law of July 13, 1990 makes a crime
of 'negationism,' the questioning of Nazi crimes against Jews," one can
guess which were the "influential groups" that exercised "implicit
blackmail" on the parliamentarians and why today, they do not have the
courage to abrogate it, as Professor Terre said. We now know who controls
and remote controls Presidents of the Republic (current or former), the
Assemblies, the Media, the Parties and the Churches, and how difficult it
is, through slander or silence, to help millions of well-meaning French
people to liberate themselves from this "brainwashing" that hides the role
played by this lie in the world domination strategy of the United States
and its mercenary guardian of Middle East oil, through a project of
disintegration of all the countries in the region (where the Kivounim plan
is only an outline).
But the Truth Bursts Against Darkness
Efforts to silence us
will be in vain. For this, they must kill us. The surge of hate
against our misquoted writings, a real call to murder, shows that some are
thinking about it, as though only prison will gag DREYFUS. But this will
be a new proof that they cannot find any argument against us. -- Roger
Garaudy
|