The Political Use of the Myth

by Roger Garaudy

1 - The Israeli-Zionist Lobby in the United States

"The Israeli Prime Minister has a lot more influence
over the foreign policy of the United States in the
Middle East than he has in his own country."

Source: Paul Findley, "They Dare to Speak Out", p. 92


How were such myths able to lead to such deep-rooted
beliefs in millions of sincere people?

- By the creation of all-powerful "lobbies" capable of
influencing the action of politicians and of
conditioning public opinion.

The modes of action are adapted to the country. In the
United States, where 6 million Jews live, the "Jewish
vote" can be an important factor in determining the
electoral majority where (because of the high number
of abstentions and the absence of major policy
differences between the two parties) victory can often
be had with a margin of 3% or 4%.

"What's more, the volatility of public opinion, which
depends to a large extent on the "look" of the
candidate or on his performance on television, depends
on the budget of his committees and of the potential
of his marketing policy.'In 1988 the American Senate
elections required an advertising budget of 500
million dollars.'"

Source: Alain COTTA, "Capitalism in all its States,"
Ed. FAYARD 1991. p. 158


The most powerful officially listed lobby on the
Capitol is the A.I.P.A.C. ("American Israel Public
Affairs Committee")

The strength of the Israelis in the U.S. as early as
1942, is such that at the Biltmore Hotel in New York a
maximalist convention decides that it is necessary to
move from the "Jewish homeland in Palestine" (promised
by Balfour: a slow colonization by buying land under
British or American protection) to the creation of a
"sovereign Jewish state".

The duplicity which characterizes the whole history of
political zionism is expressed in the
"interpretations" of what was to be the outcome of
Herzl's efforts : "The Balfour Declaration" (in 1917).
The formula of a "national Jewish homeland" is taken
up again at the Congress of Basle. Lord Rothschild had
prepared a declaration advocating "the national
principle of the Jewish people". Balfour's final
declaration does not talk any more about all
Palestine, but only about the "establishment in
Palestine of a national homeland for the Jewish
people". In actual fact everybody says "homeland" (as
if it were a spiritual and cultural center), and, in
reality, thinks "State", as did Herzl himself. Lloyd
George wrote in his book : "The Truth About the Peace
Treaties", (Ed. Gollancz 1938, vol. 2, pp. 1138 39) :
"There could be no doubt about what the members of the
cabinet had in mind at the time... Palestine would
become an independent state." It is significant that
General Smuts, a member of the War Cabinet, declared
in Johannesburg on 3 November 1915: "Over the coming
generations, you will see the emergence over there (in
Palestine) once again, of a great Jewish state."


On 26 January 1919 Lord Curzon wrote: "While Weizman
is telling you one thing, and you are thinking "Jewish
national homeland", he has something completely
different in mind. He is envisaging a Jewish state and
a subjugated Arab population governed by Jews. He is
trying to realize this behind the protective screen of
the British guarantee."

Weizman had clearly explained to the British
government that the objective of zionism was to create
a "Jewish state" (with 4 or 5 million Jews). Lloyd
George and Balfour gave him the assurance"that by
using the term "national homeland" in the Balfour
Declaration, we did indeed mean a Jewish state."


On 14 May 1948 Ben Gurion proclaims independence at
Tel Aviv:

"The Jewish state in Palestine will be called
Israel"."


Despite the divergence between those who, like Ben
Gurion, considered it a duty for every Jew in the
world to come and live in Israel, and those who
thought that the action of the Jews in America was
more important, in the very interest of Israel, it was
the latter tendency which was to be more powerful :
out of the 35,000 Americans or Canadians who
immigrated into Israel, only 5,400 stayed there.

Source: Melvin I. Wofsky: "We are one! American Jewry
and Israel", New York, 1978 Pub. Ander Press -
Doubleday pp. 265 - 266


The State of Israel was admitted to the United Nations
thanks to brazen pressure from the lobby.

Eisenhower didn't want to alienate the oil producing
Arab countries: "A prodigious source of strategic
power and one of the greatest sources of wealth in the
history of the world", he said.

Source: Bick, "Ethnic Linkage and Foreign Policy", p.
81


Truman swept aside his scruples for electoral reasons
and it was to be the same with his successors. On the
subject of the power of the Zionist lobby and of the
"Jewish vote", President Truman himself had declared
in 1946, to a group of diplomats: "I am sorry
gentlemen, but I have to answer to hundreds of
thousands of people who are expecting the success of
Zionism. I don't have thousands of Arabs among my
electors."

Source: William Eddy, F.P. Roosevelt and Ibn Saoud,
N.Y. "American Friends of the Middle East", 1954 p. 31
(or 39)


The former British Prime Minister Clement Atlee gives
this testimony: " U.S. policy in Palestine was shaped
by the Jewish vote and by the subsidies of several
large Jewish companies."

Source: Clement Atlee, "A Prime Minister Remembers",
Pub. Heinemann, London 1961, p. 181.


Eisenhower had, in agreement with the Russians,
stopped the Israeli aggression (supported by the
British and French leaders) against the Suez Canal in
1956.

Senator J.F. Kennedy had, in this matter, shown no
enthusiasm.

In 1958 the "Conference of Presidents" of the Jewish
associations charges its president, Klutznik, with
contacting Kennedy, a possible candidate. He declared
to him plainly, "If you say what you have to say, you
can count on me. If not, I will not be the only one to
turn his back on you."

Source: Melvin I. Wofsky, "We Are One", p. 265 - 266


Klutznik summed up for him what he had to say : The
attitude of Eisenhower in the Suez affair was wrong
but in '48 Truman was on the right track. Kennedy
followed this "advice" in 1960 when he was designated
as candidate by the democratic convention. After his
declarations in front of Jewish V.I.P.'s in New York
he got 500,000 dollars for his campaign, Klutz as
adviser and 80% of the Jewish vote.

Source: Ibidem, p. 271 to 280


During his first meeting with Ben Gurion in the New
York Astoria Waldorf Hotel in spring 1961, John F.
Kennedy said to him: "I know that I have been elected
thanks to the votes of American Jews. I owe my
election to them. Tell me what I have to do for the
Jewish people."
Source: Edward Tivnan, "The Lobby", p. 56 (quoting the
biographer of Ben Gurion, Michel Bar Zohar)


After Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson went even farther. An
Israeli diplomat wrote: "We lost a good friend. But we
have found an even better one... Johnson is the best
friend the Jewish State has ever had in the White
House."

Source: I. L. Kenen, "Israel's Defense Line",
Prometheus Book, 1981. pp. 66 - 67


Johnson did indeed give strong support during the "six
day war" of 1967. From then on, 99% of American Jews
would support Israeli zionism. "To be a Jew today
means to be tied to Israel."

Source: Schlomo Avineri: "The Making of Modern
Zionism", N.Y., Basis Book, 1981, p. 219


U.N. resolution 242 of November 1967 demanded the
evacuation of the territories occupied during the war
and De Gaulle, after this aggression, declared an
embargo on arms destined for Israel. The American
congress followed. But Johnson lifted it in December
and, under pressure from the A.I.P.A.C., delivered the
Phantom planes ordered by Israel.

Source: Bick, p. 65 and 66 or 166


As a consequence of this Israel didn't criticize the
war in Vietnam.

Source: Abba Eban, autobiography. D. 460


When Golda Meir came to the U.S. in 1979, Nixon
compared her to "biblical Deborah" and smothered her
in praise for Israel's economic boom.

Source: Steven L.S. Spiegel: "The Other Arab-Israeli
Conflict", University of Chicago Press, 1985, p. 185


The "Rogers Plan", taking up again the essence of U.N.
Resolution 242, was rejected by Golda Meir.

Source: Kenen, p. 239


Nixon delivered 45 Phantoms and more than 80 Skylark
bombers to Israel.

Nasser died on 8 September 1970 and Sadat proposed
peace with Israel. Moshe Dayan, Minister of Defense,
refused, in spite of the views of the Minister for
Foreign Affairs Abba Eban.

So on 6 October 1973 Sadat launched the offensive
which was to be known as the Yom Kippur War and
destroyed the reputation of both Golda Meir, who had
to resign on 10 April 1974, and Moshe Dayan.

Nevertheless, the Jewish lobby on the Capitol won a
great success for the accelerated rearmament of
Israel: 2 billion dollars, on the pretext of fighting
a competing Arab lobby.

Source: Neff, "Warriors of Jerusalem" (p. 217)


Money from the Jewish banks of Wall Street was added
to the governmental aid.

Source: Bick, p. 65 and Abba Eban, p. 460.


Of the 21 people who contributed more than 100,000
dollars to Senator Hubert Humphrey, 15 were Jews, at
their forefront the bosses of the "Hollywood Jewish
mafia" like Wasserman. Overall, they contributed more
than 30% of the Democrats' election fund.

Source: Stephen D. Isaacs, "Jews and American
Politics" (N.Y. pub. Doubleday, 1974, chapter 8)


The A.I.P.A.C. mobilized again and got in three weeks,
for 21 May 1975, the signatures of 76 senators asking
President Ford to support Israel, as they did.

Source: Full text in Shechan, "Arabs, Israelis and
Kissinger", Reader's Digest Press (p. 175)


Jimmy Carter's path was marked out for him: at the
Synagogue of Elizabeth in New Jersey, dressed in the
blue velvet toga, he proclaimed:


"I honor the same God as you. We (The Baptists) study
the same Bible as you." And he concluded,"The survival
of Israel does not come down to politics. It is a
moral duty."


Source: "Time", 21 June, 1976


This was the period when Begin and the religious
parties had taken power from the Labor Party in
Israel:"Begin considered himself more as a Jew than as
an Israeli", wrote his biographer.

Source: Silver, "Begin: The Haunted Prophet", p. 164


In November 1976 Nahum Goldmann, President of the
World Jewish Congress, came to Washington to see the
President, Vance and Brzezinski and gave the Carter
administration this unexpected advice: "smash the
Zionist lobby in the United States".

Source: "Stern", New York, 24 April 1978


Goldmann had dedicated his life to zionism and played
a key role in the "lobby" since the time of Truman and
he said now that his own creation, The Presidents'
Conference, was a "destructive force" and a "major
obstacle" to Peace in the Middle East.

Begin was in power and Goldmann was determined to
undermine his policy, even if this meant destroying
his own pressure group.

Six years later Cyrus Vance, one of the interlocutors
at this meeting, confirmed Goldmann's proposals:
"Goldmann suggested to us to smash the lobby but The
President and The Secretary of State replied that they
didn't have the power and that, besides, this could
open the way to anti semitism."

Source: Interview with Cyrus Vance by Edward Tivnan,
"The Lobby", pub. Simon and Schuster, 1987, p. 123


Begin, sharing power with Labor, appointed Moshe Dayan
as Minister for Foreign Affairs in place of Shimon
Peres. The President of the Jewish Presidents'
Conference in the U.S Schindler, had this turn in
favor of the extremists accepted, stressing the
pragmatism of Dayan. Begin, for a while, hardly had to
worry about the American zionists whom he considered
to be Labour's supporters.

But American businessmen, noticing the influence of
the rabbis on Begin and especially the latter's
attachment to "free enterprise" (contrary to the state
intervention of Labour), welcomed the Camp David
Agreement (September 1978). Sadat, making a separate
peace with Israel, did not get to touch. The West Bank
(Judea and Sumeria, "biblical" lands according to
Begin) and only kept Sinai which, for Begin, was not
"biblical land".

Source: Stephen D. Isaacs: "Jews and American Policy",
Doubleday. 1974 D. 122


In 1976 Carter got 68% of the Jewish vote; in 1980 he
only got 45% of it having, in the meantime, sold F15
planes to Egypt and "AWACS" planes to Saudi Arabia,
ensuring, however, that these would never be used
against Israel as the American Army controlled all the
system's data from the ground.

In 1980 he was, however, beaten by Reagan who, on the
contrary, extended 600 million dollars of military
credit for the following 2 years.

Begin, reassured after Camp David of not being
attacked from behind by the Egyptians and also by the
fact that the AWACS sold to Saudi Arabia were entirely
under American control, was able to show the Americans
his capacity for a preventive war (like the Japanese
at Pearl Harbor and the Israelis with the Egyptian
aviation during the Six Day War) by proceeding to
destroy, without a declaration of war, the Iraqi power
station of Ozirak which had been built by the French.
Begin always invoked the same sacred myth:


"There will never again be another Holocaust."


Source: "The Washington Post", 10 June 1981


Encouraged by the weakness of the American protesters
who feared an escalation in the Middle East situation,
Begin, one month later, on 17 July 1981, bombarded
West Beirut to destroy, he said, P.L.O. bases.

Reagan then announced the project to sell 8 billion
dollars worth of AWACS along with missiles to Saudi
Arabia, still under conditions that in no way
threatened Israel as American control was total.

To such an extent that a Senate majority accepted this
good economic deal and reinforcement of American
control in The Gulf. (The Saudis had to bind
themselves to overfly neither Syria nor Jordan, and
therefore not Israel.)

Source: Facts and Files, 20 September 1981, p. 705


Begin, still possessed by the vision of "Greater
Israel" of biblical legend, continued with the
establishment of Israeli colonies in The West Bank
(begun by Labour) which Carter had declared "illegal"
and which were in breach of U.N. Resolutions 242 and
338. But Reagan saw in Israel a way of blocking Soviet
designs on the oil of The Gulf. In November 1981 Ariel
Sharon, Begin's Minister of War, met his American
opposite number Casper Weinberger and drew up with him
a "strategic cooperation" plan to dissuade any Soviet
threat in the region.

Source: "N.Y. Times", 1 December 1981


On 14 December Begin annexes The Golan. Reagan
protests against this new violation of Resolution 242.
Begin flares up: "Are we a banana republic ? A vassal
state of yours ?""

Source: Steven Emerson, "Dutton of Arabia" in "New
Republic", 16 June 1982


The following year Begin invaded Lebanon. General
Haig, at the head of the war department, gives the "go
ahead" for this invasion destined to set up a
Christian government in Beirut.

Source: Ze'ev Shiff and Ehud Ya'ari: "Israel's Lebanon
War", N.Y., Simon and Shuster, 1984


Few Americans criticized this invasion just as few
Israelis had criticized that of Vietnam. But the
massacres of Sabra and Chatila (carried out under the
eyes of, and with the complicity of, Sharon and Eytan)
and the images which were given to television, forced
the Jewish lobby to break the silence.

The Vice-President of the World Jewish Congress,
Hertzberg, and many rabbis criticized Begin in October
1982. Begin reproached rabbi Schindler who had made
his criticism on television, for being "more American
than Jewish" and one of his assistants denounced him
as a "traitor".

Source: Michael Kremer, "American Jews and Israel. The
Schism", N.Y., 18 October 1982


A spokesman for A.I.P.A.C. explained the strategy of
those who, like him, approved of the invasion:


"We want to reinforce our support for Israel on the
right wing - with people who aren't worried about
what's going on on the West Bank but who target the
Soviet Union."


Source: interview recorded by Tivnan, p. 181.


On this occasion the Zionist christians supported the
Israeli aggression and their leader, Jerry Falwell,
whom Begin called "the man who represents 60 million
American Christians" in a country where there are only
6 million Jews, received the highest Zionist honor:
The Jabotinski Prize for services rendered to Israel,
plus 100 million dollars from the State of Israel and
140 million dollars from the Swaggert donation.

Source: "Time", "Power, glory, politics", 17 February
1986


Financial power and, consequently, political power, in
a world where everything is bought and sold, is
becoming more and more decisive.

Since 1948 the U.S. has supplied Israel with 28
billion dollars in military and economic aid.

Source: "Time" magazine of June 1994


* * *

Comforted by the financial flux which flooded into
Israel:

1 - From German and Austrian "reparations";

2 - Because of unconditional American generosity;

3 - From payments from the Diaspora;

the Israeli leaders could consider, in foreign policy,
the most ambitious aims of a "greater Israel".

We have an accurate testimony from an article of the
revue "Kivounim" (Orientations) published in Jerusalem
by "The World Zionist Organization" on "the strategic
plans of Israel for the 80's":


"As a centralized body, Egypt is already a corpse,
especially if one takes account of the ever more
violent confrontation between muslims and christians.
Its division into distinct geographical provinces must
be our political objective for the 90's, on the
western front.

Once Egypt has been thus dislocated and deprived of
central power, countries like Libya, Sudan and others
farther away will experience the same dissolution. The
formation of a Coptic state in Upper Egypt, and of
small regional entities of little size is the key to a
historic development which has been slowed down by the
peace agreement, but is inescapable in the long term.

In spite of appearances, the western front presents
fewer problems than the one in the east. The partition
of Lebanon into five provinces... Will prefigure what
will happen all over the Arab world. The
disintegration of Syria and Iraq into regions, based
on ethnic or religious criteria, must be, in the long
term, a primary goal for Israel, the first step being
the destruction of the military power of these states.

The ethnic structures of Syria expose it to a
dismantling which could lead to the creation of a
Shiite state along the coast, a Sunni state in the
Aleppo region and another one in Damascus, and a Druze
entity which might hope to constitute its own state -
perhaps on our Golan - in any case with Houran and the
north of Jordan... Such a state would be, in the long
term, a guarantee of peace and security in the region.
It is an objective which is already within our reach.

Oil-rich, and victim of internal strife, Iraq is in
the Israeli firing line. Its dissolution would be, for
us, more important than Syria's, because it is Iraq
which, in the short term, represents the more serious
threat for Israel."

Source: "Kivounim", Jerusalem, No. 14, February 1982,
pp. 49 - 59


(The integral text, in its Hebrew original, is
reproduced in my book: "Palestine, terre des messages
divins", Pub. Albatros, Paris, 1986, pp. 137 to 387,
and in its French translation starting on page 315.)


For the realization of this enormous project the
Israeli leaders had at their disposal limitless
American aid. Of the 507 planes which they had on the
eve of the invasion of Lebanon, 457 came from the U.S.
thanks to gifts and loans sanctioned by Washington.
The American lobby took it on itself to obtain the
necessary means even if this meant going against the
national interest, under pressure from the Zionist
lobby.

When the objectives of the Kivounim plan were too far
away and the confrontation too risky, the Israeli
lobby succeeded in having the job done by the U.S. The
war against Iraq is a striking example.

"Two powerful pressure groups push the U.S. to opening
of hostilities.

1 - The "Jewish lobby", because the elimination of
Saddam Hussein would do away with the threat of the
most powerful Arab country.. The American Jews play a
key role in the North American media. The permanent
state of compromise between the President and Congress
leads the White House to pay serious attention to
their entreaties.

2 - The "business lobby"... has got to the stage of
thinking that war could relaunch the economy. Didn't
the Second World War, and the enormous orders which it
generated for the U.S put an end to the crisis of 1929
out of which it hadn't really emerged? Didn't the
Korean War provoke a new boom?

Oh happy war which would bring prosperity back to
America..."

Source: Alain Peyrefitte, "Le Figaro", 5 November 1990


"It is difficult to overestimate the political
influence of the American Israeli Public Affairs
Committee (A.I.P.A.C.)... which has a budget which
quadrupled between 1982 and 1986 (1,600,000 dollars in
1982 ; 6,900,000 dollars in 1988)."

Source: "Wall Street Journal", 24 June 1987


The Zionist leaders didn't hide the role of their
lobby. Ben Gurion stated clearly: "When a Jew, in
America or in South Africa, talks to his Jewish
companions about 'our' government, he means the
government of Israel."

Source: "Rebirth and Destiny of Israel", 1954, p. 489


At the 23rd congress of the World Zionist Organization
he stipulates that the duty of a jew abroad includes
"the collective obligation of every Zionist
organization in various countries to help the Jewish
State unconditionally and in all circumstances even if
such a stance is in contradiction with the authorities
of their respective nations."

Source: Ben Gurion: "Tasks and Character of a Modern
Zionist", "Jerusalem Post", 17 August 1952 and "Jewish
Telegraphic Agency", 8 August 1951


This confusion of Judaism as a religion (worthy of
respect like all others) with political zionism
including unconditional allegiance to the State of
Israel (substituting for the God of Israel), can only
feed anti-semitism.

The State Department was forced to react. In a letter
addressed to the "American Council for Judaism", made
public by the latter on 7 May 1964, Secretary of State
Talbot, referring to the very principles of the
American Constitution, regarding which the demands of
the Zionist leaders constituted a challenge, reminded
us that his country"recognizes the State of Israel as
a sovereign state, and the citizenship of the State of
Israel. It "recognizes no other sovereignty or
citizenship in this regard. It doesn't recognize any
politico-legal relationship founded on a religious
identification of American citizens. It doesn't
discriminate between American citizens on religious
grounds. Consequently, it should be clear that the
State Department doesn't consider the concept of a
"Jewish people" to be a concept of international law."

Source: Quoted by Georges Friedman in "Fin du peuple
juif", (Gallimard, 1956), Idees poche, p. 292


A strictly platonic declaration, besides, as this
obvious legal reminder was followed up by no measure
against the lobby.

The Pollard affair gives us an example.

In November 1985 an American Zionist militant,
Jonathan Pollard, an analyst at navy headquarters, was
arrested while taking home some secret documents.
Interrogated by the F.B.I., he admits having received
50,000 dollars since the beginning of 1984 for sending
these documents to Israel.

"The Pollard affair didn't come out of nowhere. It is
in keeping with the current system of American-Israeli
relations, more and more unwholesome, characterized by
an excessive dependence which favorizes brazen
attitudes.

This situation was created in 1981, when the Reagan
administration gave Israel what was interpreted as a
"carte blanche" to its military adventurism, under the
pretext of self-defense. The first result of this was
the invasion of Lebanon.

...It was predictable that such complacency from
Washington would encourage arrogance in Jerusalem. It
is well known that ties of close dependence sow
resentment and aggression. In Israel's case, this
resentment takes ill-considered forms ; the attack on
Tunis is one. It is possible that the Pollard affair
is another."

Source: "Washington Post", 5 December 1985


"For decades American Jews have been trying hard to
convince American public opinion that their
unconditional support for Israel didn't effect their
loyalty to the U.S.. It now seems that it will be
difficult to trust them on this point, and those who
talk about "double allegiance" will find an
understanding ear."

Source: "Haaretz", 1 December 1985


There is no shortage of examples where the
israeli-Zionist lobby succeeds in imposing on the U.S.
an attitude which is unfavorable to American interests
but useful for Israeli policy.

Here are some examples:

The president of the Senate Foreign Affairs
Commission, Senator Fullbright, decided to summon the
main Zionist leaders before a committee which threw
some light on their underground activities. He summed
up the results of his enquiry in a "Face the Nation"
interview on C.B.S., 7 October 1973: "The Israelis
control policy in Congress and in the Senate". He
added:"Our colleagues in the Senate, about 70% of
them, make up their minds more under the pressure of a
lobby than from their own vision of what they consider
to be the principles of liberty and justice."

In the next elections Fullbright lost his seat as
senator.

Since Senator Fullbright's enquiry, the Zionist
"lobby" has continued to strengthen its grip on
American policy. In his book, "They Dare to Speak
Out", (published in 1985 by Lawrence Hill and Co.)
Paul Findley, who had a seat in the U.S. Congress for
22 years, described the current working and power of
the Zionist "lobby". This veritable "branch of the
Israeli government" controls Congress and Senate, the
Presidency of the Republic, the State Department and
the Pentagon as well as the media and it exercises its
influence in the universities as well as in the
churches.

There is no shortage of examples showing how the
Israelis' demands take priority over the interests of
the U.S.: On 3 October 1984 the House of
Representatives repealed, by a majority of 98%, all
limitations to exchanges between Israel and the U.S.
in spite of the unfavorable report of the Ministry of
Commerce and the opposition of all the unions (p. 31).
Every year, whatever the restrictions on other areas
of the budget, credit for Israel is increased. The
degree of espionage is such that the most secret
dossiers fall into the hands of the Israeli
government. Adlai Stevenson (former presidential
candidate in the U.S.) wrote in the winter '75 - '76
issue of "Foreign Affairs": "Practically no decision
concerning Israel can be taken, or even discussed, at
executive level, without being immediately known about
by the Israeli government." (p. 126) In spite of the
refusal of the Secretary of State for Defense, founded
on American law, to deliver to Israel, during its
offensive in Lebanon, fragmentation bombs (a weapon
used against civilians), the Israelis get them from
Reagan and use them on two occasions in Beirut to
massacre the population. (p. 143)

In 1973 the American admiral Thomas Moorer (head of
combined military H.Q.) testifies: The Israeli
military attache in Washington, Mordecai Gur (future
commander-in-chief of the Israeli forces), asks for
planes armed with a very sophisticated missile (called
"Maverick") from the U.S.. Admiral Moorer remembers
that he said to Gur:"I cannot deliver these planes to
you. We only have one squadron. And we swore to
congress that we needed them." Gur said to me, "Give
us the planes. As for Congress, I'll take care of it."
That's how", the Admiral adds, "the only squadron
equipped with Mavericks went to Israel." (p. 161)

On 8 June 1967 the Israeli air force and navy bombard
the American ship "Liberty" (equipped with very
sophisticated detectors) to prevent it from detecting
their invasion plans for the Golan. 34 sailors are
killed and 171 wounded. The ship is overflown for 6
hours and bombarded for 70 minutes. The Israeli
government excuses itself for this "error" and the
matter is closed. It is only in 1980 that one of the
eyewitnesses, Ennes, an officer on the bridge of the
Liberty, can establish the truth, destroying the
"official" version of the "error", ratified by the
"commission of enquiry" at the time, chaired by
Admiral Isaac Kid. Ennes proves that the attack was
deliberate and that it was a question of murder.
Admiral Thomas Moorer, while Ennes' book was smothered
by the Zionist "lobby", explains why this crime was
kept quiet: "President Johnson feared the reaction of
the Jewish electorate..." . The Admiral adds: "The
American people would go crazy if they knew what had
happened." (p. 179)

In 1980 Adlai Stevenson, having sponsored an amendment
demanding a reduction of 10% in military aid to Israel
in order to force them to stop setting up colonies in
the occupied territories, reminded us that 43% of
American aid went to Israel (3 million inhabitants)
for its arms, to the detriment of 3 billion people
starving in the world.

Adlai Stevenson concluded,"The Prime Minister of
Israel has a lot more influence over U.S. foreign
policy in the Middle East than he has in his own
country." (p. 92)

Any thing goes for the Zionist lobby: from financial
pressure to blackmail, from boycotting the media and
publishers to death threats.

Paul Findley concludes: "Whoever criticizes Israeli
policy can expect painful and incessant reprisals and
even the loss of his means of existence by the
pressure of the Israeli "lobby". The President is
afraid of it. Congress gives in to all its demands.
The most prestigious universities see to it that in
their programs there is nothing which opposes it. The
media giants and the military chiefs give in to its
pressure." (p. 315)

Source: Hearings, Part 9, 23 May, 1963


2 - The Israeli-Zionist Lobby in France

"There is in France a powerful pro-Israeli lobby
exercising its influence especially in the domain of
information."

(General De Gaulle)

Source: Philippe Alexandre. "Le préjugé
pro-israélien", "Le Parisien Libéré", 29 February,
1988

In France, General De Gaulle was the only one to dare
to say: "that there was in France a powerful
pro-Israeli lobby exercising its influence especially
in the domain of information. This affirmation. at the
time, caused an uproar. However, it contains an
element of truth which is still relevant today."

Source: Philippe Alexandre. "Le préjugé
pro-israélien", "Le Parisien Libéré", 29 February,
1988

Since then there hasn't been a single candidate for
the Presidency of the French Republic, whatever his
party, from Michel Rocard to Jacques Chirac, by way of
Mitterand, who hasn't gone to Israel to get the media
investiture.

The media power of the lobby, the controlling center
of which is constituted by the "LICRA" (League against
racism and anti-semitism), is such that it can freely
manipulate opinion. Although the Jewish community
constitutes about 2% of the French population, zionism
reigns over the majority of decision makers in the
media, on television and radio, in the press, weeklies
or dailies, the cinema (especially with the Hollywood
invasion) and even publishing is in their hands (by
the reading committees where they can impose their
veto) as is advertising, financial regent of the
media.

The proof is the general alignment of the media where
it's a case of reversing, in Israel's favor, the
nature of events: The violence of the weak is called
"terrorism" and the violence of the strong is called
"fight against terrorism".

An invalid jew is thrown overboard from the "Achille
Lauro" by a P.L.O. renegade. It is, incontestably,
terrorism. But when, by way of reprisal, an Israeli
bombardment of Tunis causes 50 deaths, including
several children, this is called "fight against
terrorism", defense of "law and order".

As if under the baton of a clandestine conductor, we
hear the same music in all the media, whether it is
attacks on the synagogue of rue Copernic or the
desecration of the graveyard at Carpentras, the
invasion of Lebanon or the destruction of Iraq.

I can contribute my personal testimony: Until 1982 I
had free access to the biggest publishing houses,
T.V., radio and press.

At the time of the invasion of, and massacres in,
Lebanon I got the publication of a full page (paid) in
"Le Monde", 17 June 1982, from the Director, Jacques
Fauvet, where, with Father Michel Lelong and Pastor
Matthiot, we drew a conclusion "after the massacres in
Lebanon" about "the meaning of Israeli aggressions".

We showed that it wasn't a momentary lapse but the
internal logic of political zionism on which the State
of Israel is founded.

I received, by anonymous letters and by phone calls,
nine death threats.

L.I.C.R.A. instituted proceedings against us for
"anti-semitism and provocation of racial
discrimination".

Jacques Fauvet's lawyer reiterated that one cannot
confuse the Jewish community, and even less, its
faith, with the State of Israel, the exactions of
which in Lebanon were denounced by Jewish people of
great standing such as Mendes France and Nahum
Goldman.

Our defense (Father Lelong's, Pastor Matthiot's and
mine) comes from the text itself: we reiterate what
our lives owe to the faith of the Jewish prophets.

But political zionism has replaced the God of Israel
with the State of Israel.

Its behavior, in Lebanon and in Palestine, by creating
odious hodge-podges, dishonors judaism in the eyes of
the world. Our fight against political zionism is,
therefore, inseparable from our fight against
anti-semitism.

For my part, I reiterated, in front of the court, the
analyses of my study on "La Palestine, terre des
messages divins": Political zionism, founded by
Theodor Herzl (and condemned at the time by every
rabbi in the world as a betrayal of the Jewish faith),
flows, not from the Jewish faith but from l9th century
European colonialism and nationalism.

The last vestiges of colonialism by settlement, in
Palestine like in South Africa, come up against, by
their racism (officially denounced by the U.N.), the
resistance of the native inhabitants to the colonial
occupier.
As with any colonialism and any regime of occupation
(we experienced it in France under Hitler), repression
is called "maintenance of order" and resistance is
called "terrorism".

Listening to the judge of the L.I.C.R.A. trying to
portray me as an anti semite, I could see myself in
Jerusalem, at the Wailing Wall accompanied by the
Israeli minister Barzilai in 1970, and then in Nahum
Goldmann's house (at the time president of the World
Jewish Congress), in 1967.

I see myself at the concentration camp with my friend
Bernard Lacache (founder of the L.I.C.R.A.), who was
helping me to prepare my classes to our comrades,
deported like us, on "Les Prophètes d'Israël."

The almost total domination of the French and American
media by Israeli zionism imposes on the world this
subversion of meaning: An Israeli diplomat is attacked
in London (Mrs. Thatcher herself proves, in the House
of Commons, that the author of the attack wasn't from
the P.L.O.), it's "terrorism". The Israeli army
invades Lebanon and cause thousands of deaths: the
operation is called "Peace in Galilee"!

On 1 January 1989 I hear of the toll of the "revolt of
stones" on the television: 327 killed on the
Palestinian side (mostly children, throwing stones)
and 8 on the Israeli side (mostly soldiers, firing
bullets). The same day an Israeli minister declares:
"Negotiation will only be possible when the
Palestinians renounce violence." Is it me who is
dreaming? Or is this anaesthesia of the critical
spirit a collective nightmare?: the triumph of
nonsense!

As early as 1969 General de Gaulle was denouncing the
"excessive influence" of the Zionist lobby in all the
media: From the press to television, from cinema to
publishing. Today this "excessive influence" has
succeeded in effecting a total inversion of meaning,
calling the artisan resistance of the poor "terrorism"
and the infinitely more murderous violence of the
strong "fight against terrorism".

We were wrong, Father Lelong, Pastor Matthiot and
myself, to denounce the lie of this subversion of
meaning. The 'High Court' in Paris, in it's ruling of
24 March 1983"considering that it was a case of
legitimate criticism of the policy of a state and of
the ideology which inspires it, and not of racial
provocation... "Nonsuits the L.I.C.R.A. of all its
requests and orders it to pay costs".

The L.I.C.R.A. appeals the decision. On 11 January
1984, the "Haute Chambre" of the Court of Paris
pronounced its judgement.

The appeal court quotes a passage of our article where
we accuse the State of Israel of racism.

The court "considering that the opinion given by the
signatories only concerns the restrictive definition
of judaism held by Israeli legislation... confirms the
referred judgement where it nonsuited the L.I.C.R.A.
of its requests and orders the L.I.C.R.A. to pay
costs".

The L.I.C.R.A. goes to the Court of Appeal. The ruling
of the Appeal Court of 4 November 1987 destroys the
hope of the zionists of legally dishonoring us : The
Court "rejects the appeal and orders the plaintiff to
pay costs".

The smothering operation continues above the legal
domain. The Zionist lobby has the means. If we had
been found guilty, we would have had the right to
appear on the front page of every paper to be
pilloried as anti semites. However, the L.I.C.R.A.'s
condemnation by the courts was systematically hushed
up - even 'Le Monde', whose former director, Fauvet,
is involved with us in this fight, contented itself
with a bland statement.

However, the blockade I had been hoping for was
realized masterfully. At the time of the appearance of
the page in "Le Monde" on the logic of Zionist
colonialism, I added two lines asking the readers to
make contributions to pay for the cost of the
advertisement. This had cost five million centimes. I
received seven, in hundreds of small checks. Almost a
third of the donors were Jews, two of them rabbis.

But, from this point, the media asphyxiation begins:
no more access to television, my articles refused. I
had published forty books in all the great publishing
houses, from Gallimard to Seuil, from Plon to Grasset
and Laffont. They had been translated into
twenty-seven languages. From now on, all the big doors
are closed: One of my biggest publishers is heard to
say to his adviser: "If you publish a book by Garaudy,
you will no longer have the right to translate
American works." To have accepted me would have
brought the firm down. Another "big wheel", about
another work, said to his literary director (who,
impassioned by the book, worked for three months to
help me to finish it): "I don't want any Garaudy in
the house."

Such is the story of the walling up of a man.

Our networks of resistance to nonsense are condemned
to secrecy. And myself to literary death. For the
crime of hoping.

This is just one example, on which I can personally
testify, of the "inversion of meaning" of zionism.

We could give many more examples but every day we all
witness it: It is the very meaning of Hitler's crime
against all humanity which is perverted by Zionist
propaganda, which reduces this crime against humanity
to a vast pogrom of which only the Jews were victim.


* * *

A further step will be taken when these ukases are
imposed by law, turning the magistrates into judges of
historical truth in spite of prior laws on the liberty
of the press.

The crime of opinion is henceforth on the statute
books thanks to the Fabius law (no. 43), (the
so-called "Gayssot Law", after the communist deputy
who accepted to sponsor this wicked law), in May 1990.

It consists of inserting into the law on the freedom
of the press of 1881, article 24b, saying:


"They will be punished according to the sixth
paragraph of article 24, those who contest... the
existence of one or several crimes against humanity,
as defined by article 6 of the statute of the
International Military Tribunal annexed to the London
Agreement of 8 August 1945."


Source: Proposition for adoption by the National
Assembly, transmitted by the President of the National
Assembly to the President of the Senate, no. 278, an
annex to the minutes of the sitting of 3 May 1990.

Mr. Aseni's (deputy) report stipulated (p. 21): "You
are asked to create a new means of incrimination
regarding 'revisionism'".

Furthermore, it recommended "enhancing the possibility
for associations to legally pursue in the case of
infraction." (article 7)

At the moment of its introduction the reporter defined
the goal: "To complete the existing repressive
arsenal, to see to it that the criminal law... fully
plays its role of intimidation and repression." (p.5)

Source: Report no. 1296, annex to the minutes of the
sitting of 26 April 1990

The Nuremberg Trials, as we have shown, deserve less
than any other to make jurisprudence.

A year later an amendment to the law was proposed by
Mr. Toubon:

"Article 24b of the law of 29 July 1981 on press
freedom is repealed." This canceled the repression
proposed by Mr. Gayssot against "revisionist"
historians", and refused to put historical criticism
in the same camp as racism or Hitler's apologists.

His argument went as follows:


"When we discussed it in 1990, on the basis of a bill
proposed by the communist group, of which the first
signatory was Mr. Gayssot, I had challenged - and I
wasn't the only one - the principle of this text,
which consists of fixing historical truth by means of
the law instead of letting history reveal it.

Certain people object that if it is history which
reveals the truth, it is not up to the law to impose
it. Certain proposals go to far and they must not be
allowed to be expressed. This would be to slip
imperceptibly towards making politics a crime and
opinion a crime

Article 24b represents in my opinion, a very grave
political and legal error. In reality, it constitutes
a "law of circumstance", and this saddens me greatly.
A year has passed. We are not a month away from the
events of Carpentras. There is no need to examine a
text which the 'Presidents' Conference' had, I
remember, hastily registered on the day's agenda, 48
hours after its deposition, and which had been
discussed immediately because the President of the
Assembly, Mr. Fabius, had decided to subscribe
himself. One year later, we can, as I have just done,
calmly examine the validity of this law, the validity
of this offence of 'revisionism' presented by Article
24b and conclude, with Simone Veil, that this offence
is ill-timed."


Source: 'Journal Officiel", of 22 June 1991, p. 3571,
Parliamentary Debates, 2nd sitting of 21 June 1991

In effect, it was forbidden, from then on, for any
historian to question the conclusions of the Nuremberg
Trials which the American President had, nevertheless,
sincerely recognized to be "the last act of the war"
and as such"wasn't bound to the legal rules of
ordinary courts on matters of proof or conviction."


* * *

Hot on the heels of this wicked law, Jacques Chirac's
declaration of Sunday 17 July 1995 marks an important
moment in our history: That of the end of the unity of
the nation, replaced by the collusion of renunciation.
When the President of the Republic proclaims that"the
criminal madness of the occupier was seconded by the
French and by the French State [two crimes are
committed against France].

* First, by talking of Vichy as a 'French State',
thereby giving it legitimacy;

* Next, by degrading the French people by confusing
them with the servile leaders who served the occupier.
And so in this way was rendered official the
conception of zionism defended by Bernard-Henri Levy
in his book,"L'Idéologie Francaise", where he writes:
"It's the whole of French culture... it is our most
cherished French traditions which, one by one, testify
to our long history of abjection."

Source: Bernard-Henri Levy, "L'Idéologie Francaise",
where he writes: "The icing on the cake was that the
ceremony was presided over by the Chief Rabbi of
France, Sitruk, who, on 8 July 1990, declared to
Yitzhak Shamir in Israel (the very man who offered his
services to Hitler and whose policy, that of the State
of Israel which he presided over, hasn't stopped
violating international law and takes no notice of
decisions of the U.N.O.): "Every French Jew is a
representative of Israel... Rest assured that every
Jew in France is a defender of that which you defend."

"Without, however", he said on his return, "thinking
of a 'double allegiance'."

Source: "Le Monde", 9 July, 1990

Such remarks to Shamir (who offered his collaboration
to Hitler) would have rightly earned him his place
among the penitents rather than the presidents.

Of course, this smearing of the French people was
greeted with enthusiasm by the leaders of the C.R.I.F.
(Representative council of Jewish Institutions in
France) who expressed their "intense satisfaction to
see the continuity of the "État Francais" between 1940
and 1944 at last recognized by the highest French
authority."

The shame is that the leaders of all the French
parties approved this denial of Chirac's in all the
public organs, from "Le Figaro" to "L'Humanité."

De Gaulle never considered Vichy to be a state.
"Hitler", he said, "created Vichy" (Memoirs I, p. 389)
and he talked of the "stooges of Vichy" (idem. p.
130).

"I proclaimed the illegitimacy of a regime which was
at the discretion of the enemy" (I, p. 107)."A truly
French government doesn't exist." (I, p. 388,
Brazzaville).

Referring to the agreement of 28 March 1940 with
Britain, excluding any suspension of separate arms (I,
p. 74), he said clearly: "The organ located at Vichy,
and which claims to carry this name (State), is
unconstitutional and is subjected to the invader...
This organ is only, and can only be, an instrument
used by the enemies of France." (I, p. 342)

De Gaulle stuck to this attitude for the whole war. On
23 September 1941, in the order creating the "Comité
National Francais" he proclaimed:


"Given our orders of 27 October and of 12 November
1940, together with our organic declaration of 16
November 1940 ;

Considering that the situation resulting from the
state of war continues to prevent any reunion or free
expression of national representation ;

Considering that the Constitution and the laws of the
French Republic have been, and are still being,
violated over the whole metropolitan area and in the
Empire, as much by the action of the enemy as by the
usurpation of the authorities which collaborate with
it ;

Considering that many instances of proof establish
that the massive majority of the French Nation, far
from accepting a regime imposed by violence and
treason, sees in the authority of "Free France" the
expression of its wishes and free will..."


Source: "Memoires", I p. 394

He thus dissociated the French People from the
servility of its leaders.

"The condemnation of Vichy in the person of its
leaders dissociated France from a policy which was one
of national renunciation." (III, p. 301)

Evoking the uprising of the people of Paris, he wrote:


"Nobody could ignore, neither in our enemy's camp nor
in our own, that four years of oppression hadn't been
able to grind down the soul of the capital, that the
treason was only the vile scum on the surface of a
body which had remained healthy, that the streets,
houses, factories, workshops, offices and building
sites of Paris had seen the heroic acts of the
Resistance in the gun battles, torture, imprisonment."


Source: III, p. 442

"Even in the worst moments, our people never gave up."
(III, p. 494)

That is what Chirac, in a few words, denied in order
to pander to the media power of the Zionist leaders
and , by the same token, the vassalage vis-a-vis the
U.S. stronghold of the Zionist lobby, which had
already made him abandon his opposition to Maestricht,
ruin of France, and confirm his submission to the
American dictates of G.A.T.T. (rebaptized "World Trade
Organization") destroying the possibility of
independence and of a renewal of France by the radical
transformation of its relationship with the Third
World.


* * *

Zionism has always agitated the "bogeyman" of
anti-semitism to have us believe in a permanent threat
against Israel and in the necessity of running to its
aid. There is no shortage of recent provocations
destined to hide Israel's exactions. The method is
always the same. At the time of the massacres of Sabra
and Chatila, the writer Tahar Ben Jelloun wrote:


"There are coincidences which, by virtue of repeating
themselves, end up becoming a major clue. At the
present time we know what purpose an anti-semitic
attack in Europe serves, and who benefits from the
crime: It serves to mask a deliberate massacre of
Lebanese and Palestinian civilians.

One can remark that these attacks preceded, followed
or coincided with a blood bath in Beirut. These
terrorist operations are mounted in such a way and
executed with such perfection that they have, until
now, directly or indirectly met the political
objective: To divert attention every time the
Palestinian question gains a little more understanding
or even sympathy. Is this not a case of systematically
turning the situation upside down in order to turn the
victims into torturers and terrorists? By turning the
Palestinians into terrorists, they are expelled from
history and, consequently, deprived of their rights.

Didn't the killing of rue des Rosiers on 9 August
precede by a few hours the deluge of all sorts of
bombs on Beirut ?

Wasn't the assassination of Bashir Gemayel followed,
two hours later, by the entry into West Beirut of the
Israeli army (which, in the same way, eclipsed Yasser
Arafat's historic meeting with the Pope) ?

Didn't the explosion of the booby-trapped car in rue
Cardinet and the gun battle the following day coincide
with the unprecedented massacre in the Palestinian
camps of Sabra and Chatila ?"


Source: "Le Monde" Wednesday 22 September 1982. p. 2

There are historical precedents from which we should
learn lessons: a systematic effort to shape opinion by
saturating it with "information" of ethnocentric
inspiration fans antisemitism.

"In Berlin the theater, journalism, etc... was a
Jewish business. The "Berliner Tageblatt" was the
biggest German newspaper and, after it, the "Vosiche
Zeitung". The first belonged to Mese, the second to
Ulstein, both of them Jews. The director of
"Worwartz", the main socio-democrat paper, was a Jew.
When the Germans accused the press of being Jewish -
"juden press" - it was the pure truth."

Source: Y. Leibowitz: "Israel et Judaisme", Desclée de
Brouwer, 1993, p.
113 (chapter on the sources of anti-semitism.)

The most recent example of these maneuvers and their
media exploitation is that of Carpentras.

In May 1990 in the Jewish cemetery of Carpentras,
tombs were desecrated. A corpse was impaled and
transported onto another tomb.

The Minister of the Interior, Pierre Joxe, declared
immediately: "There is no need for a police enquiry to
know what criminals are guilty of this 'racist
abomination'." And yet, five years later, despite the
involvement of dozens of investigators, judicial or
police, nobody can say for sure who the perpetrators
of this vile deed are.

All that we know is that there was desecration in the
Jewish cemetery, that there was a "stating", because
the body of Mr. Germon hadn't been impaled, as the
enquirers admitted a few days later. So, one might
wonder by whom? Why? In whose interest was this
"staging" to increase the horror of the event and to
stir up the hatred of public opinion?

The method was practiced at Timisoara where corpses
were taken out of the morgue so that photographs sent
all over the world might provoke more indignation and
hatred against so-called massive massacres.

Jean-Marie Domenach (former director of the magazine
"Esprit") wrote in "Le Monde" of Wednesday 31 October
1990, under the heading "Silence on Carpentras": "It
is almost six months since the desecration of the
Jewish cemetery of Carpentras... Six months later we
still don't know who the criminals are. There is
something more disturbing: the written and audiovisual
media, who had made from this abominable event a
scandal which brought hundreds of thousands of
protesters onto the streets and tarnished France's
reputation abroad, have not sought to pursue the
enquiry and have fallen silent. No parliamentarian, no
moral or intellectual authority dares to question the
government. Carpentras seems to be definitively part
of the black legend of the nation without our knowing
the guilty and without our knowing exactly what
happened. Nobody yet can, or dares, speak the truth
about Carpentras."

The strange "silence on Carpentras", denounced by
Jean-Marie Domenach, contrasts with the racket made by
the media in the early days.

At the time of the organized demonstration of 14 May
1990, 80,000 people, according to the police, (200,000
according to the organizers) had marched in the
streets of Paris. The great bell of Notre Dame was
rung in their honor.

In reality, nobody knew who the authors of the
terrible act of Carpentras were. So whom were they
protesting against ?

Against whom? Only the enquiry could have told us but
it didn't.

But who gains ?

It was obvious: the flag of Israel stood out in all
its splendor at the head of the demonstration.

This strange "Union Nationale" during this
demonstration where Georges Marchais ostentatiously
shook the hand of Francois Leotard, set the stage for
the launching of a global attack against anyone who
questioned the dogmas which put Israel above any
international law. Chief Rabbi Sitruk, who gave a
short speech defining the meaning of the
demonstration, was able to shout: "Let's not allow any
old thing to be said. Let's give a lesson to the
"revisionist" professors and the irresponsible
politicians."

Source: Le "Méridional". Monday, 14 May, 1990

However the truth about the desecration of Carpentras
still hasn't been established because of all the leads
suggested to the investigators, only one has been
ignored, the one which is the most likely.

Why were those who could have been the most necessary
witnesses ordered to be quiet ?

"The caretaker of the Carpentras synagogue and
keyholder for the cemetery, Mr. Kouhana, who had been
one of the first to discover the body of Felix Germon,
refuses to talk to us : "Even if you were the Prefect,
I got the order to say nothing. the President of the
Consistory forbade him to talk "because he would have
said any old thing to the T.V. people", argues Dr.
Freddym Haddad, himself very reticent to talk about
the desecration, as is Rabbi Amar."

Source: "Var Matin" magazine, Monday 15 April 1995, an
article by reporters Michel Letereux and Michel Brault

Why did the Carpentras Rabbi, who was asked if the
place would be resanctified, reply :"It is not my
resort !", the President of the Consistory: "There's
no reason it should be !" and the Mayor :"No one has
asked me." Why didn't any French newspaper refer to a
totally similar precedent - that of a "desecration"
which happened in the Israeli cemetery of Rishon
Letzion near Tel Aviv during the night of 2 March
1984: the body of a woman had been dug up and thrown
out of the Jewish cemetery. "Barbaric anti-semitic
act" proclaimed Jewish communities around the world
immediately. A few days later the Israeli police,
after an enquiry, revealed the true meaning of this
abjection: The body which had been so shamefully
treated was Mrs. Teresa Engelowicz's, the wife of a
jew but of christian origin. The Jewish
fundamentalists considered her presence in the Jewish
cemetery contaminated the purity of the place and the
rabbi of Rishon Letzion had already called for her
exhumation.

Why did no French newspaper point out this parallel?
Mr. Germon, whose body had also been exhumed during
the night and subjected to the sinister "staging" of
the impaling, was also "guilty" of having married a
christian, and his body was transported onto a
neighboring tomb, that of Mrs. Emma Ullma, "guilty",
too, of having married a catholic. Why did nobody
remind us that in Israel, in order to convince that
before Israel Palestine was a "desert", hundreds of
villages were razed by bulldozers - their houses,
their walls, their cemeteries and their tombs.

Source: Israel Shahak, "Le racisme et l'État
d'Israel", p. 152 and after.

The day after the "Day of Democracy" in the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem Jewish students put the real
question:


" Why do you not protest when you know that Agron
Street in Jerusalem and the Hilton Hotel in Tel Aviv
are constructed on destroyed muslim cemeteries ?"


Source: "Students of The Israeli Socialist
Organization (Matzpen)", P.O.B. 2234, Jerusalem


3 - The myth of the "Miracle of Israel": The External
Financing of Israel.

"The power of the Jewish fist comes from the American
steel glove which
covers it and the dollars which line it."

Source: Yeshavahou Leibowitz in "Judaism and Israel",
p. 253

As far as the sums paid to the State of Israel by
Germany are concerned, I'll let Nahum Goldmann (the
principal negotiator on the amount of reparations)
speak. He gives the details in his "autobiography"
which he kindly signed for me on 23 April 1971 to
thank me for the work which I had carried out, at his
request, two years earlier, with Nasser after the "SIX
DAY WAR".


"At the beginning of 1951 Israel entered the stage for
the first time, sending two notes to the four allies
in which the Jewish claim for compensation from the
new Germany came to the sum of a billion and a half
dollars of which one half should be paid by West
Germany and the other by East Germany. This total was
based on the following calculation :

Israel had taken in 500,000 Jews and the economic
reintegration of a refugee cost about 3,000 dollars.
Having saved these victims from the nazis, having
personally assumed an enormous financial burden,
Israel considered itself within its rights to make
these demands in the name of the Jewish people, albeit
without a legal basis, as the Jewish State didn't
exist under the nazi regime." (p. 262)

It is in these circumstances that the Israeli Minister
for Foreign Affairs contacted me, during the summer of
1951, as President of the "Jewish Agency for
Palestine" and asked me to invite to a conference the
big Jewish organizations of the U.S., of the countries
of the British Commonwealth and of France, in order to
support the Israeli claims and to find a way to have
them accepted. (p. 263)

The negotiation which we had in mind would have to be
of a very special nature. They had no legal basis
whatsoever. (p. 268)

With a lot of courage and magnanimity the Federal
Chancellor had accepted the sum of a billion dollars
as starting point for the discussion but l knew that a
group hostile to such a huge bill had already formed
within the government, among the leaders of the
political parties and in the world of banking and
industry. It was repeated to me from very different
quarters that it was useless to count on a sum even
close to this.

In the first phase of negotiations between the Germans
and the delegation of the Claims Conference a general
agreement is reached on the matter of reparations and
the legislation regulating it. We put off until
another phase the issue of the global claim coming to
five hundred million marks.

After long conversations, this series of meeting ended
with the agreement of the German delegation which
undertook to recommend to the government an Israeli
claim of three billion marks (25% less than what we
had asked for). (p. 272)

I had to return to Bonn on 3 July where I made the
following concession: 10% of the five hundred million
would be destined for the non-jewish victims of the
nazis and distributed by the German government itself.
(p. 282)

The agreement was signed on 10 September 1952 in
Luxembourg: The Chancellor represented Germany, the
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Israel, and myself, the
'Claims Conference'. (p. 283)

The German payments have been a decisive factor in
Israel's economic boom over the last few years. I
don't know what the fate of Israel would have been at
certain critical moments in its economic development
if Germany hadn't respected its undertaking. The
railroads, the telephones, the infrastructure of the
ports, the irrigation systems, whole sectors of
industry and agriculture wouldn't be in their current
state without the German reparations. Finally,
hundreds of thousands of Jewish victims of the nazis
have received, over the last few years, significant
amounts under the indemnity law. (p. 286)

When, on the morning of my arrival, I went to the
house of the Israeli Prime Minister, David Ben Gurion,
he came to me solemnly: 'You and I have had the
pleasure of experiencing two miracles: The creation of
the State of Israel and the signing of the agreement
with Germany. I was responsible for the first and you
for the second'. (p. 284)

Source: Nahum Goldmann, "Autobiographie", Pub. Fayard,
Paris 1969


In another one of his books, "The Jewish Paradox",
Nahum Goldmann talks not only about his negotiations
with Germany but also how he got reparations from
Austria and from Chancellor Raab. He said to the
Chancellor: "You must pay reparations to the Jews !"

"But we were victims of the Germans !" said Raab.

And Goldmann replied: "In that case, I'll hire out the
biggest cinema in Vienna and every day I'll show the
film of the German troops and Hitler entering Vienna
in March 1938."

Raab then said: "All right, you'll get your money !"

It was in the order of 30 million dollars. After a
while Goldmann came back: "We need another 30 million
!"

"But," said Raab, "we agreed on just 30 million."

"Now, you have to give more !", said Goldmann and he
got it. He came back
a third time and got the same amount. (31.8507)

There were two other sources of financing of what some
people call "the Israeli miracle" in the economic
field and also of the enormous arsenal (including
nuclear) of the State of Israel, which renders
laughable the image so often used of a little David
with his catapult facing the giant Goliath. In modern
warfare strength is not measured in the number of
soldiers mobilized but in the technical equipment of
the army. Israel's, thanks to the flow of capital into
the country, has an attack capability infinitely
superior to that of all the Arab states together.

Apart from the "reparations", Israel benefits from an
almost unlimited supply of arms and money coming,
principally, from the U.S., where its all powerful
lobby has shown itself to be particularly efficient,
and also from the "diaspora".

Mr. Pinhas Sapir, at the time Minister for Finance,
revealed in 1967 in Jerusalem at the "Conference of
Jewish Billionaires" (sic) that from 1949 to 1966 the
State of Israel received 7 billion dollars.

Source: "The Israeli Economist", September 1967, vol.
9

Doctor Yaakov Herzog, Director-General of the Israeli
Prime Minister's cabinet, defined as follows the goal
of these meetings: "To examine how to attract greater
investment to Israel and to closely associate Jewish
holders of capital resident abroad with the Israeli
economy in such a way that they have an immediate
feeling of responsibility and participation... We are
now planning something else: a sort of dialogue on a
grand scale on the identification of the Diaspora with
Israel, in the framework of the struggle against
assimilation abroad."

The operation proved to be lucrative as American
Jewish organizations sent, on average, a billion
dollars each year to Israel. (These contributions,
regarded as "charitable", are deductible from the
income tax returns of the donor, in other words, they
cost American taxpayers even if they go to support the
Israeli "war effort".)

But the greatest share comes directly from the
American State, whose "aid" amounts to more than three
billion dollars each year. Almost half of this
"official" aid consists of gifts and "loans" which are
quickly "forgotten"... The rest is added onto the
Israeli foreign debt, which is growing rapidly and is
now approaching twenty billion dollars - that's to
say, an unprecedented average of five thousand dollars
per head of population.

The main part of this annual aid is made up of arms
deliveries for which Congress, anxious to limit their
dramatic nature and to avoid public criticism,
organized a special means of finance through its Arms
Export Control Act of 1976.

To measure the significance of these figures of
external financial aid, we need only remember that the
aid of the Marshall Plan, given out from 1948 to 1954
to western Europe, reached thirteen billion dollars.
In other words, the State of Israel received for fewer
than two million inhabitants, more than half of what
two hundred million Europeans received. That means one
hundred times more, per head of population, than the
Europeans.

Second element for comparison: The average annual aid
received by the "underdeveloped countries" for the
period 1951 - 1959 didn't exceed 3.164 billion dollars
while Israel with, at the time, 1.7 million
inhabitants, received 400 million, in other words,
with less than a thousandth of the population of the
"underdeveloped" countries of the world, Israel
received a tenth of the total. Two million Israelis
received, per head of population, one hundred times
more than two billion inhabitants of the third world.

If we take only the American contribution into
account, we see that between 1945 and 1967, the United
States gave 435 dollars to each Israeli and 36 dollars
to each Arab, in other words that 2.5% of the
population gets 30% of the aid attributed to the
remaining 97.5%.

Source: Drawn from UN statistics published in "Le
courant international des capitaux a long terme et les
donations publiques" (1951-1959). Quoted by Georges
Corm in "Les finances d'Israel" (IPS,1968)

But the financing methods of the State of Israel are
even more ambitious still: they tend to create, in
favor of that State, a world financial network whose
investments they orientate (On the occasion, in 1967,
of the first "Conference of Jewish billionaires").

A recent doctor's thesis, presented at Paris II
University by Jacques Bendelac, published under the
title of "Les fonds extérieurs d'Israël" [examines
different aspects of Israeli finances with precise
information from impeccable sources].

Source: Jacques Bendélac : "Les fonds extérieurs
d'Israël", Ed. "Economica". Paris, 1982

The author chiefly studies the relations between the
contributions of the Diaspora and the direct aid of
the American government.

This is how he defines these relations: "If the
Diaspora was, until recently (the 70s), the main
supplier of Israeli capital, the present tendency
indicates that American government aid (about 2
billion dollars per year) largely outstrips the
financial contributions of the Diaspora (about 900
million dollars per year)."

Thus, for the tax year of 1980, the sale of one
billion dollars in armament was authorized to Israel.
But, immediately after these deliveries, half the sum
five hundred million in the form of loans - was wiped
out...and the remainder simply added to Israel's debt
towards the American government...A debt with a delay
for reimbursement of over ten years. Furthermore,
taking into account the constant worsening of Israel's
economic situation since 1973, these reimbursements
are fictitious insofar as the payments are immediately
compensated by an increase in U.S. Yearly aid.

Source: T.Stauffer. Christian Science Monitor,
December 20th 1981

Already, at the time of the 1956 Israeli aggression
against Egypt, the American aid in weapons was huge;
the Zionist, Michel Bar Zohar, wrote: "From the month
of June on, enormous quantities of weapons began to
flow into Israel as a result of a top-secret
agreement, and these deliveries would not be known
about either in Washington or at the Anglo-Franco
American organization in charge of watching over the
balance of power in the Middle East, or by the Quai
d'Orsay, jealously opposed to a rapprochement with
Israel, regarded as too risky, which would compromise
France's remaining links with its Arab clientele".

Source: Michel Bar Zohar: "Ben Gourion, le Prophète
armé", Ed. Fayard, Paris,1966, chapter 27.

A second financial source comes from the Israeli State
Bonds, in dollars, that are sold abroad but are
refunded in Israeli currency, as are the interests.

These bonds (of which 99.8% were sold in the United
States in 1951, and still 80% in 1978) have placed
more than 5 billion dollars at the disposition of the
Israeli economy.

Source: State of Israel Bonds, Jerusalem-New York,
American.Jewish yearbook 1972, p. 273 ; 1978, p. 205 ;
1980, p. 153

Between "gifts" and "bonds", the Zionist State
received almost eleven and a half billion dollars
between 1948 and 1982.

Source: Statistical abstract of Israel (annual) and
Bank of Israel, Annual Reports

Such efficiency implies what Mr. Bendelac calls
the"collusion between power and the world of finance"
in the Zionist movement. He gives a striking
illustration for 1982:


"Guy de Rothschild is president of the Unified Social
Fund and the AUJF ;

David is treasurer of the FSJU and French member of
the Administrative Council of the Jewish Agency;
Alain has been president of the Representative Council
of Jewish Institutions of France and of the Israeli
Central Consistory;

Elie is president of the executive Committee of the
AUIF ;

Edmond is president of the European Organization of
Israel Bonds ;

Finally, Alix de Rothschild was world president of the
"Youth "Aliya"."


Source: Bendelac, op.cit.p.76.

But dependence on the American government has been
even greater, especially since the 70s.

"At the time of the Six-Day War,the external deficit
reached 700 million dollars, and exceeded one billion
dollars at the beginning of the 70s. The financial
contribution of world Judaism no longer sufficed to
fulfill the needs in capital of the lsraeli economy ;
it therefore became necessary to appeal to the
American government for aid, which started off by
supplying military credits, before extending its aid
to the economic sector, after the Yom Kippur war. This
contribution of capital by the American government led
to a spectacular increase in Israel's foreign debt,
which rose above 20 million dollars in 1982. Thus, the
deterioration in the financial aid of the Diaspora
since the early 70s can be analyzed in two ways
regarding the economic dependence of Israel: American
government aid and the weight of the foreign debt."

Source: Bendelac. Op.cit.p.79.

Since 1948, American government aid to Israel has
reached almost 18 billion dollars, equally divided
between loans and gifts, two thirds of which were
destined for military purposes.

Source: until 1977: "Trésor, Division des échanges
extérieurs" from 1978 to 1981, US Embassy (Tel Aviv)

The acceleration of this aid is breathtaking: usually
inferior to 100 million dollars in 1975, and 2 billion
dollars in 1981. In January 1985, the State of Israel,
demanded a further 12 billion dollars over eight
years.

As for the external debt, it rose from 6 billion
dollars in 1973, 10 billion dollars in 1976, to 17
billions dollars by January 1st 1981, in other words a
record figure of 4,350 dollars per inhabitant!

Aid increases with sub contracting deals, especially
in the field of aviation (for example,Israel Aircraft
Industries receives manufacturing contracts for
elements for F4s and F15s).

Finally, economic aid includes facilities granted to
Israeli exports to the USA, with preferential tariffs
of developing countries, so that 96% of these exports
(1 billion dollars) enters the USA tax-free.

In a word, only one figure is enough to define the
nature of the Zionist State of Israel: the total
official US aid which it receives corresponds alone to
over 1,000 dollars per head, in other words as a bonus
added to its national revenue, more than three times
the net national income per inhabitant of Egypt or
most African countries.

Professor Yeshayahou Leibowitz of the Hebrew
University of Jerusalem, who wrote a major work on
"the faith of Maimonides". (translated into French in
1992, in Paris, Editions du Cerf), and who edited the
"Hebrew Encyclopedia" for twenty years, summed up the
attitude of a Jew living in Palestine since 1934,
whose religious Zionist faith has been outraged by
political Zionism, in "Israel and Judaism", published
in Hebrew at Jerusalem in 1987:


"Our system is rotten at the core" (page 245). And
this for two reasons:

1-"The misfortune comes from the fact that everything
is articulated around the problem of the nation and
the state." (page 182) "If the state and the nation
are held to be an end in themselves, then "Judaism" is
rejected since the State of Israel is the most
important." (p.182) " Nationalism is the essence of
the destruction of mankind." (p.182) "The State of
Israel is not a state which possesses an army, but an
army which possesses a state." (p.31)

2 - The dependence of this state on the United States
:"here, total collapse could occur overnight:
consequence of the total stupidity which makes our
whole existence depend on American economic aid."
(p.225) "The Americans are interested only by the idea
of maintaining an army of American mercenaries here
under the uniform of Tsahal." (p.226)" The strength of
the Jewish fist comes from the iron glove of America
which covers it,and from the dollars which cushion
it." (p.253)