The Israeli-Zionist Lobby in France
By Roger Garaudy
[Excerpt from the book "The
Founding Myths of Israeli Politics"]
"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
This was an excerpt from Roger Garaudy's book "The
Founding Myths of Israeli Politics".
