Die offizielle Version des Krieges zwischen der Hamas und Israel wirft mehr Fragen auf, als sie beantworten kann. Der Autor hebt hier sieben große Widersprüche hervor. Wenn man darüber nachdenkt, scheinen die Hamas und Benjamin Netanjahu keine Feinde zu sein, sondern handeln gemeinsam und ohne Rücksicht auf das Leben von Palästinensern und Israelis. Hinter ihnen ziehen die Vereinigten Staaten und das Vereinigte Königreich die Fäden.
VOLTAIRE NETZWERK | PARIS (FRANKREICH) | 28. NOVEMBER 2023
Am 22. September 2023, 16 Tage vor dem Angriff auf den palästinensischen Widerstand, spricht Benjamin Netanjahu vor den Vereinten Nationen in New York. Er zeigt eine Karte des «Neuen Nahen Ostens», auf der Israel die palästinensischen Gebiete einverleibt hat.
Wir reagieren auf den Angriff auf Israel am 7. Oktober und das Massaker an palästinensischen Zivilisten in Gaza auf der Grundlage der uns vorliegenden Informationen. Aber wir fühlen wohl, dass die offizielle Version der israelischen Regierung und der Hamas erlogen ist.
Sieben wichtige Fragen bleiben unbeantwortet:
• Wie konnte die Hamas 500 Kilometer lange Tunnel in 30 Meter Tiefe graben und bauen, ohne Aufmerksamkeit zu erregen?
Tunnelbauausrüstung gilt als zivil-militärisch mit doppeltem Verwendungszweck. Es wird nicht in Gaza hergestellt und darf unter keinen Umständen nach Gaza gelangen, es sei denn, es handelt sich um Komplizenschaft innerhalb der israelischen Verwaltung. Der Bodenaushub (1 Mio. m3) wurde durch die Luftüberwachung nicht entdeckt. Selbst wenn man davon ausgeht, dass es an vielen verschiedenen Orten verstreut und mit dem der laufenden Arbeiten vermischt war, ist es unmöglich, dass die israelischen Geheimdienste zwanzig Jahre lang nichts entdeckt hätten. Tunnelbelüftungsanlagen gelten nicht als militärische Zwecke. Es ist möglich, sie nach Gaza zu bringen, aber die benötigte Menge hätte Aufmerksamkeit erregen müssen. Der Stahlbeton, der zur Verfestigung der Wände benötigt wird, wird nicht in Gaza hergestellt. Auch er gilt nicht als militärische Ausrüstung, aber die benötigte Menge hätte Aufmerksamkeit erregen müssen.
• Wie hat Hamas ein solches Arsenal lagern können?
Die Hamas, der palästinensische Zweig der Muslimbruderschaft, verfügt über eine große Anzahl von Raketen und Handfeuerwaffen. Obwohl sie einige Teile der Raketen selbst herstellen konnte, gelang es ihr sie vor allem aus der Ukraine zu importieren und Tausende von Handfeuerwaffen nach Gaza zu schmuggeln, trotz der leistungsstarken [israelischen] Überwachung. Dies scheint ohne Komplizenschaft innerhalb der israelischen Verwaltung unmöglich.
• Warum hat Benjamin Netanjahu all jene entfernt, die ihn gewarnt haben?
Ägyptens Geheimdienstminister Kamel Abbas rief ihn persönlich an, um ihn vor einem großen Angriff der Hamas zu warnen. Sein Freund, Oberst Yigal Carmon, Direktor von MEMRI, warnte ihn persönlich vor einem großen Angriff der Hamas. Die CIA hat Israel zwei Geheimdienstberichte geschickt, in denen sie vor einem größeren Angriff der Hamas warnte. Verteidigungsminister Yoav Galland wurde im Juli entlassen, nachdem er die Regierung vor dem von der Hamas vorbereiteten «perfekten Sturm» gewarnt hatte.
• Warum hat Benjamin Netanjahu am Abend des 6. Oktober die Sicherheitskräfte demobilisiert?
Der Premierminister ermächtigte die Sicherheitskräfte, anlässlich der Feiertage Simchat Tora und Schemini Atzeret den Druck der Überwachung aufzuheben. Zum Zeitpunkt des Angriffs gab es daher kein Personal, um den Sicherheitszaun um Gaza zu überwachen.
• Warum blieben die Sicherheitsbeamten an diesem Morgen im Hauptquartier des Shin Bet eingeschlossen?
Der Direktor der Spionageabwehr (Shin Bet), Ronen Bar, hatte für den 7. Oktober um 8 Uhr morgens ein Treffen der Leiter aller Sicherheitsdienste einberufen, um den zweiten Bericht der CIA zu prüfen, in dem vor einer großen Hamas-Operation gewarnt wurde. Der Angriff begann jedoch schon am selben Tag um 6.30 Uhr. Die Sicherheitsbeamten reagierten erst um 11 Uhr. Was haben diese Beamten während dieses endlosen Treffens getan?
• Wer hat die «Hannibal-Richtlinie» auf diese Weise ausgelöst und warum?
Als die Sicherheitskräfte begannen zu reagieren, wurde der IDF befohlen, die «Hannibal-Direktive» umzusetzen. Sie sieht vor, dass Feinde israelische Soldaten nicht als Geiseln nehmen dürfen, selbst wenn dies bedeutet, sie zu töten. Eine Untersuchung der israelischen Polizei bestätigt, dass die israelische Luftwaffe die Zivilisten-Menge bombardiert hat, die von der Rave-Party Supernova geflohen war. Ein erheblicher Teil der Toten am 7. Oktober war daher nicht Opfer der Hamas, sondern der israelischen Strategie. Allerdings gilt die «Hannibal-Direktive» theoretisch nur für Soldaten. Wer hat also beschlossen, eine Menge israelischer Zivilisten zu bombardieren und warum? Es ist heute nicht möglich, mit Sicherheit festzustellen, welche Israelis von den Angreifern und welche von ihrer eigenen Armee getötet wurden.
• Warum bedrohen westliche Streitkräfte Israel?
Das Pentagon hat zwei Marinegruppen um die USS Gerald Ford und die USS Eisenhower sowie ein Marschflugkörper-U-Boot, die USS Florida, vor der Küste stationiert. Haaretz hat sogar von einem dritten Flugzeugträger gesprochen. Die Verbündeten der Vereinigten Staaten (Saudi-Arabien, Kanada, Spanien, Frankreich, Italien) haben Jagdbomber in der Region stationiert. Diese Kräfte sind nicht dazu aufgestellt, um die Türkei, Katar oder den Iran zu bedrohen, dem die westliche Presse vorwirft, in den Anschlag der Hamas verwickelt zu sein, sondern vor der Küste Israels, in Beirut und Hamat. Es ist Israel, das sie einkreisen. Und Israel allein.
WAS VERBERGEN DIESE GEHEIMNISSE?
Offensichtlich ist die Version, sowohl der Hamas als auch von Israel, falsch. Wir müssen uns nach anderen möglichen Erklärungen umsehen, damit wir nicht von einer der beiden Seiten manipuliert werden.
Lassen Sie uns eine Hypothese aufstellen. Es lässt sich nicht sagen, ob sie richtig ist, aber sie ist mit den faktischen Elementen vereinbar, was bei der Version, die jetzt von allen geteilt wird, nicht der Fall ist. Sie ist also besser als letztere. Sie ist natürlich äußerst schockierend, aber nur diejenigen, die die vorherigen 7 Fragen beantworten können, können sie verwerfen.
Diese Interpretation basiert auf einer Analyse der komplexen Struktur der Hamas, deren Basiskämpfer nicht wissen, was ihre Führer vorhaben. Da ist sie:
Die gesamte Operation der Hamas und von Israel wird von Amerikanern angeführt, vielleicht unter der Führung des Straussianers Eliott Abrams [1] und seiner Vandenberg-Coalition (einer Denkfabrik, die das Projekt für ein neues amerikanisches Jahrhundert ablöste). Die Muslimbruderschaft und die revisionistischen Zionisten, die anscheinend einen grausamen Krieg gegeneinander führen, sind in Wirklichkeit Komplizen auf Kosten der Hamas-Basiskämpfer, des palästinensischen Volkes und der israelischen Soldaten. Ihr Plan ist folgender: Die Hamas wird als die einzige effektive Widerstandskraft gegen die Unterdrückung der Palästinenser dargestellt, aber sie erlaubt Israel, die Hoffnung auf einen palästinensischen Staat zu vernichten, während die Muslimbruderschaft, gekrönt mit dem Opfer der Palästinenser, die Macht in der arabischen Welt übernimmt.
Die Führer des militärischen und politischen Flügels der Hamas sind beide dem Führer der Muslimbruderschaft in Gaza, Mahmoud Al-Zahar, unterstellt, dem Nachfolger von Scheich Ahmed Yassin, über den nicht gesprochen wird. Seiner Ansicht nach wird die Bruderschaft der große Gewinner der Operation «Al-Aqsa-Sintflut» sein, selbst wenn Gaza dem Erdboden gleichgemacht und die Palästinenser von ihrem Land vertrieben werden.
Mahmoud Al-Zahar, Führer des palästinensischen Zweigs der Muslimbruderschaft, d.h. der Hamas. Seine Autorität wird sowohl vom politischen als auch vom kämpferischen Flügel der Organisation anerkannt. Er sagte im Dezember 2022: «Der jüdische Staat ist nur das erste Ziel. Der ganze Planet wird bald unter unserer Herrschaft stehen.»
Erinnern wir uns daran, dass die Hamas jetzt in zwei Fraktionen gespalten ist. Die erste, unter der Autorität von Ismaël Haniyeh, bleibt bei der Linie der Bruderschaft. Sie strebt nicht danach, Palästina von der israelischen Besatzung zu befreien oder einen palästinensischen Staat zu errichten, sondern widmet sich dem Aufbau eines Kalifats über alle Länder des Nahen Ostens. Die zweite, unter der Führung von Khalil Hayya, hat die Ideologie der Muslimbruderschaft aufgegeben und kämpft für ein Ende der Unterdrückung des palästinensischen Volkes durch die Israelis.
Die Muslimbruderschaft ist ein politischer Geheimbund, der von den britischen Geheimdiensten nach dem Vorbild der Vereinigten Großloge von England organisiert wurde [2]. Sie wurde nach und nach von der CIA übernommen, bis sie im Nationalen Sicherheitsrat der Vereinigten Staaten vertreten war. Nach dem Zusammenbruch der islamistischen Regime des Arabischen Frühlings zerfiel die Bruderschaft in zwei Strömungen. Die Londoner Front unter der Führung des vor einem Jahr verstorbenen Führers Ibrahim Munir schlägt vor, aus der Krise herauszukommen, indem sie das politische Feld verlässt und die Freilassung der Gefangenen in Ägypten erwirkt. Die Istanbuler Front unter Führung von Interimschef Mahmud Hussein plädiert stattdessen dafür, nichts zu ändern und den Kampf für die Errichtung eines Kalifats fortzusetzen. Eine dritte Gruppe versuchte, einen Mittelweg zu finden, indem sie die Idee vorschlug, die Politik bis zur Freilassung der Gefangenen aufzugeben und sie dann später wieder aufzunehmen.
Sitzung des Nationalen Sicherheitsrats der USA am 13. Juni 2013 im Weißen Haus. Gayle Smith (zweite von rechts) und Bruder Rashad Hussain (vierter von links) sind erkenntlich. Der Nationale Sicherheitsberater Tom Donilon war ebenfalls anwesend, ist aber nicht abgebildet. Vor allem erkennt man den Vertreter der Muslimbruderschaft und Stellvertreter von Youssef al-Qaradâwî, Scheich Abdallah Bin Bayyah (zweiter von links mit Turban).Quelle: Muslimbruderschaft
Die Muslimbruderschaft kämpft um die Machtübernahme in allen arabischen Staaten, wie sie es 2012/13 in Ägypten getan hat. Erinnern wir uns daran, dass Mohammed Mursi entgegen der im Westen weit verbreiteten Meinung nie demokratisch zum Präsidenten Ägyptens gewählt wurde, sondern General Ahmed Shafik. Nachdem die Bruderschaft jedoch gedroht hatte, die Mitglieder der Wahlkommission und ihre Familien zu töten, erklärte die Kommission Mursi nach 13 Tagen Widerstand für gewählt, trotz des Ergebnisses der Wahlurnen. Daraufhin, im Jahr 2013, protestierten 40 Millionen Ägypter gegen ihn und forderten die Armee auf, sie von der Muslimbruderschaft zu befreien. Das ist auch, was General Abdel Fatah Al-Sisi getan hat.
Heute sind die Muslimbrüder nur noch in Tripolitanien (Westlibyen) an der Macht, wo sie von der NATO an die Macht gebracht wurden. Sie sind nur in Katar und der Türkei (die kein arabischer Staat ist) willkommen. Sie sind in den meisten arabischen Staaten verboten, darunter Saudi-Arabien (dessen Monarch sie 2013 zu stürzen versuchten) und die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate (was die Krise zwischen Katar und den anderen Golfstaaten betrifft). Und vor allem in Syrien (dessen Regierung sie 1982 zu stürzen versuchten und in dem sie von 2011 bis 2016 an der Seite der NATO und Israels Krieg führten). Sie stehen kurz davor, in Tunesien verboten zu werden (das sie ein Jahrzehnt lang regiert haben).
Wenn das eigentliche Ziel dieses Massakers nicht der Status Palästinas, sondern die Regierung der arabischen Staaten ist, müssen wir mit einer Welle von Regimewechseln im Nahen Osten rechnen, jedes Mal zugunsten der Bruderschaft, kurz gesagt, mit einer Art zweitem «Arabischen Frühling» [3].
Wie während des Arabischen Frühlings sind die britischen Dienste für die Kommunikation der Bruderschaft verantwortlich. Man erinnere sich an die Art und Weise, wie sie Bruder Abdelhakim Belhadsch in Libyen [4] beworben haben, oder an die großartigen Logos, die sie für die unzähligen dschihadistischen Gruppen in Syrien entworfen haben. Leaks des britischen Foreign Office haben all dies bestätigt. Diesmal schufen sie eine neue Figur, Abu Obeida, den Sprecher der kämpfenden Organisation in Gaza. Dieser Mann, der bis vor kurzem unbekannt war, ist plötzlich zu einem Star in der muslimischen Welt geworden, wo Plakate mit seinem Konterfei gekauft werden. Lange Zeit im Sprechen geschult, geht er nun mit Symbolen mit einer Leichtigkeit um, die bei sunnitischen Führern unbekannt ist. Die arabischen Regierungen gehen daher bei der Unterstützung der Schaffung eines palästinensischen Staates vorsichtig vor, und halten sich gleichzeitig auf Distanz zur Hamas. Während die Hamas alles unternimmt, um die Gründung eines palästinensischen Staates unmöglich zu machen.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Kiev’s officials continue to spread baseless narratives about the conflict, predicting that hostilities tend to expand to other territories in Eurasia, as the fighting has supposedly become a “war of resources”. Although there is a real risk of the conflict spreading to other regions, the rhetoric is wrong and this narrative helps to spread anti-Russian paranoia.
Lt. Col. Sergey Naev, commander of the Ukrainian Joint Forces, revealed his thoughts during an interview with ABC News. For him, with Russian stability and decreasing military support for Kiev, Moscow could go beyond Ukraine in its military maneuvers, involving more countries in hostilities. Naev claims that Russia currently receives weapons from North Korea and Iran and that it is producing enough military equipment to remain active in the conflict.
Meanwhile, Ukraine is losing Western support, receiving fewer and fewer weapons and money. Naev is worried about this scenario, since, for him, only with a strong Ukraine facing Russia will it be possible to prevent Moscow’s alleged expansionist plans. In this sense, he makes it clear that, despite difficulties, the Ukrainian armed forces are already preparing for the future of the conflict, improving defense lines to prevent the Russian advance.
“We are preparing for this. We build defenses, lay mines and train our forces”, he emphasized.
There are some different points in Naev’s words that need to be analyzed. First, it is necessary to emphasize that he is right in his assessment of the critical Ukrainian situation. With the reduction of resources given to the country by the West, Ukraine has terrible expectations for the near future in the conflict. Since the start of the war in Palestine, the Western focus has been on supporting Israel in its campaign of ethnic cleansing against the people of Gaza, which is why the “endless” source of resources for Ukraine is “drying up”.
As we know, Kiev no longer has enough strength to maintain hostilities in the long term and at some point the regime will be forced to surrender, even if this does not please Western sponsors. Having received numerous military packages, the Ukrainians were at least able to continue fighting (even without any chance of victory), but without this continuous help, not even this prolongment will be possible.
However, Naev is wrong to claim that the conflict has become a mere “resource war”. He spreads rumors by claiming that Moscow is supplied with Iranian and North Korean weapons. There are several accusations of this type, but no official confirmation has been given so far. Furthermore, even if Russia eventually purchases weapons abroad, the country is evidently not dependent on this military cooperation to achieve its objectives on the battlefield, being self-sufficient in its defense industry. On the other hand, as far as Ukraine is concerned, this self-sufficiency obviously does not exist, as the country depends on weapons and money from the West to fight.
Another problem in Naev’s assessment is the unfounded belief that Ukrainian failure will motivate Russia to start conflicts in other countries. By saying so, he disseminates the narrative that Russia has expansionist interests and will continue to fight to gain new territories, which is a lie. The Russian-majority territories were only reintegrated into the Federation because Kiev did not give any guarantee that it would protect the rights of the local people.
The liberation of territories is a reactive measure by Russia to simultaneously protect its citizens and guarantee security on its borders. Hostilities could have ended last year without any territory being added to the Federation, but the Kiev regime opted for war, so the Russians have no other alternative than to fight and reintegrate the new regions.
Therefore, it is not correct to say that an expansion of the conflict will occur as a result of Russian acts. If hostilities begin in any other country, it will certainly not be on Russian initiative, but by NATO itself, which has repeatedly shown interest in internationalizing its aggression against Russia, involving new territories in the war.
For a long time, the Western alliance has been causing chaos and destabilization in regions around Russia’s strategic environment, such as the Caucasus, Moldova, Belarus and others. Faced with the impossibility of defeating Moscow in a symmetric confrontation, the West is betting on the creation of multiple fronts, thus enabling a strategy of prolonged attrition to “wear down Russia”. So, although the possibility of expanding the conflict zone is real, it is not Russia’s fault.
*
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
This article was originally published on InfoBrics.
Lucas Leiroz is a journalist, researcher at the Center for Geostrategic Studies, geopolitical consultant. You can follow Lucas on X (former Twitter) and Telegram. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
All Global Research articles can be read in 51 languages by activating the Translate Website button below the author’s name.
To receive Global Research’s Daily Newsletter (selected articles), click here.
Click the share button above to email/forward this article to your friends and colleagues. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
***
Israel’s government and their Zionist ideology has been present in African politics since the late 1800s. It all began with the British government who wanted to dominate East Africa to advance their commercial interests and to secure trading routes to India before other Western Imperial powers such as Germany and France. In 1888, the British established the Imperial British East Africa Company (IBEA). This is where the British government had a problem and an idea to solve it and proposed several places that could become a new homeland for the Jewish minority in Europe.
Theodore Herzl’s Search for a Jewish Homeland in Africa?
In 1897, the Zionist Organization(ZO) was founded by Theodor Herzl, an Austro-Hungarian citizen with Jewish roots was an accomplished journalist and a political activist who is considered the father of Zionism. Herzl established the Zionist Organization to promote Jewish immigration to Palestine with the idea that it will eventually become a Jewish state, so he saw it as a practical solution against antisemitism throughout Europe. In Herzl’s ‘A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question’ he said that
“The Argentine Republic would derive considerable profit from the cession of a portion of its territory to us. The present infiltration of Jews has certainly produced some friction, and it would be necessary to enlighten the Republic on the intrinsic difference of our new movement.”
But he made it clear that
“Palestine is our ever-memorable historic home. The very name ‘ of Palestine would attract our people with a force of Marvelous I potency.”
Herzl proclaimed that
“We should there form a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism. The sanctuaries of Christendom would be safeguarded by assigning them an extra-territorial status, such as is well known to the law of nations. We should form a guard of honor about these_ sanctuaries, answering for the fulfilment of this duty with our existence. This guard of honor would be the great symbol of the solution of the Jewish Question after eighteen centuries of Jewish suffering.”
Herzl spoke of how institutions would assure Jewish Supremacy under the protection of international law:
Externally, the Society will attempt, as I explained before in the general part, to be acknowledged as a State- forming power. The free assent of many Jews will confer on it the requisite authority in its relations with Governments. Internally, that is to say, in its relations with the Jewish people, the Society will create all the first indispensable institutions; it ‘ will be the nucleus out of which the public organizations of the Jewish State will later on be developed. Our first object is, as I said before, supremacy, assured to us by international law, over a portion of the globe sufficiently large to satisfy our just requirements
Jewish Zionists in Europe led by Herzl already had a strong connection towards the Land of Israel as they saw themselves as the lineage of the ancient people of Israel who settled in Canaan (aka Palestine) more than 2000 years ago which was during the time of the Roman Empire.
Despite the claims that there was a Jewish connection to Palestine, the British Imperial government did propose more than one territory including Cyprus, El Arish in the North Sinai Peninsula of Egypt and even another place in Africa called the Guas Ngishu, a huge plateau located between Nairobi and Mau which is known today as Kenya and of course, Uganda which was proposed later, but the crisis for Jews living in Eastern Europe called for decisive action from the British government.
Theodor Herzl spoke at the Sixth Zionist Congress in August 1903 and mentioned the British proposal for a temporary place, but there was a sense of urgency for a Jewish homeland since Jews in Russia were facing a high-level of discrimination although Herzl had envisioned Palestine as a future homeland for the Jewish people. Herzl even wrote a novel based on the Jewish “return to Palestine” called ‘Altneuland.’
There were several important figures for establishing a Jewish homeland including Joseph Chamberlain, a statesman who had experience in managing colonies for the British empire as Secretary of State for the Colonies personally knew Theodor Herzl as both were introduced to each other by Rothschild family members.
However, Herzl’s proposal for Jewish settlements in Cyprus, the Sinai Peninsula, or El Arish were not feasible to Chamberlain since they were not under British rule and in some cases, people had been living in these areas for a long time, but he did agree to discuss El-Arish Plan with Britain’s foreign secretary, Lord Lansdowne to gain Jewish support for Britain. So, Chamberlain decided to tour South Africa, during his trip, he passed through Mombasa, a city in southeastern Kenya and was confronted by white British settlers who complained about the lack of workers to finish a railway. Along the way on a Ugandan railway, he saw a possible Jewish homeland in East Africa (Kenya) since it had a significant number of whites, so he mentioned the possibility to Herzl but did not push the idea any further since the plan was to eventually occupy Palestine.
But after the Kishnev Pogrom, an anti-Jewish riot that took place in Kishinev, the capital of the Bessarabia Governorate in the Russian Empire in 1903, Herzl thought about East Africa as an option. The British government was interested in establishing a Jewish homeland in East Africa under its control. Reactions were mixed in the Sixth Zionist Congress so there was a split with 295 votes in favor and 178 against the East Africa proposal.
By December 1904, the Zionist Organization sent a special commission to Guas Ngishu to investigate and determine if the conditions were favorable for a Jewish homeland, but the Plan was ultimately rejected in 1905 because of the opposition by a former high commissioner of East Africa and the white settlers. In ‘African Zion: The Attempt to Establish a Jewish Colony in the East Africa Protectorate’ describes why the plan was rejected:
On the whole, however, there was little for the scheme in British government circles, especially when opposition was encountered. The white settlers in East Africa, led by Lord Delamere who had obtained a hundred thousand acres on lease, expressed their violent opposition in a campaign of vilification of Jews in general, and of the would-be Jewish settlers in particular. Eliot, the commissioner of the protectorate, went along with the plan at first, but turned against it as opposition developed. The Indians were unfriendly, and the natives were not consulted
It seemed like the white settlers were acting just like the Palestinians. The rejection of the plan allowed for the establishment of the Jewish Territorial Organization (ITO) to find a Jewish homeland even if it means that Palestine is out of the picture. By 1925, the ITO was disbanded with most of its members throwing their support behind the Zionist movement.
Unfortunately, the British and shortly after, the Americans agreed on Palestine becoming a Jewish homeland called Israel in 1948. From there, Israel became a global player along with its Western partners, for example getting involved in Africa’s economy and having influence in its politics and that’s where the East African nation of Uganda comes in.
The Israelis in Uganda
It all began with a six-foot, four inches tall man by the name of Idi Amin Dada Oumee, known as General Idi Amin, an erratic dictator who lived like a ruling king who had several wives and children. During the start of his military career in the British led Ugandan military, he was promoted from a private to becoming one of two only black African officers. Serving in British led Uganda military, Amin fought against the Kenya Land and Freedom Army known as the Mau Mau who resisted British colonial rule.
Idi Amin first enlisted in the British King’s African Rifles (KAR) in 1946 and became an assistant cook since he lacked a formal education but received a comprehensive military training over the years and rose in the ranks, by 1959, he became the highest ranking black African officer (Effendi class 2) in the British led army.
As a private, he was an impressive athlete who played in various sports including Rugby, swimming, and boxing. But it was boxing that made Amin stand out. As an amateur fighter, Amin had won the Uganda light heavyweight boxing championship in 1951 and remained a champion for nine more years. Some say that one of the greatest heavyweight champions of all-time, Muhammad Ali had refused to fight Idi Amin.
By 1962, Uganda gained its independence from British rule under a politician by the name of Milton Obote who became the country’s prime minister under King (Kabaka) Mutesa II in a coalition with the Kabaka Yekka movement.
By 1964, Obote had issues with King Mutesa II over a scandal in the 1964 Ugandan lost counties referendum and was also accused of smuggling gold, so Obote led a coup ousting Mutesa. Obote became a civilian dictator which led him to the presidency in April 1966.
During Obote’s presidency, Amin had military training in the U.K and Israel. Amin was promoted several times eventually becoming the commander of all the Ugandan armed forces by 1970.
During that time, Obote had published ‘The Common Man’s Charter’ which was a guideline leading to socialist policies. By 1970, the Obote government demanded more than 60% of share from private businesses and banks leading to massive corruption scandals. Soon after, food shortages and inflation affected average Ugandans. Obote also persecuted the Indian population and their businesses which did not help the Uganda’s economy. In other words, Obote was a corrupt socialist dictator that made life difficult for the Ugandan people.
During Obote’s reign, the Israeli government was entrenched in Ugandan society. Israel even sent weapons through Uganda into southern Sudan, to support the Anyanya who were fighting the Arab-dominated Sudanese government for decades.They trained the police and military and supported the Anyanya, a Sudanese separatist group based in the South Sudan since the first Sudanese Civil War began in 1955. The Anyanya were conducting a guerilla war with the Sudanese government. Obote made a fatal decision to withdraw support for the Anyanya rebels which infuriated the Israelis since they were instrumental in fighting an Arab-influenced Sudanese government on the African continent.
However, during a short period of time, Obote managed to disappoint Western powers including the U.S., U.K., and of course, Israel. Foreign Relations of the United States, 1969–1976, Documents on Sub-Saharan Africa, 1969–1972 stated that “Amin is regarded as more moderate and pro-Western than Obote but his ability to organize and run an effective government is questionable.” So clearly, they knew Idi Amin would be more manageable than Obote who had socialist policies that would naturally lead to friendly relations with the Soviet Union, Cuba, and North Korea. Idi Amin was the safer bet for Washington, London and Tel Aviv.
The West and Israel Supported Adi Amin’s Coup Against Obote
By January 1971, Idi Amin and his army overthrew President Obote with help from the Israelis and the CIA although Obote was in Singapore attending a Commonwealth conference. In 1976,The New York Times interviewed a retired Israeli colonel who helped Idi Amin topple Obote in 1971, “Colonel Bar‐Lev was head of the Israeli mission to Kampala shortly after General Amin became chief of staff of armed forces. The Israeli became his confidant, and their families became close friends.” Bar-Lev supported General Amin because Obote was ready to expel the Israelis, “The colonel, In an Interview today, said he supported General Amin against President Milton Obote because the latter was hostile to Israel and was planning to expel Israeli forces from his country.”
Amin avoided a coup when his paratroopers killed Obote’s military officers who were planning to arrest him:
Colonel Bar‐Lev advised the general to station In Kampala a military force from his own tribe. The force would include paratroopers, armor, and jeeps. Its mobility and firepower would be such that 600 to 800 men could overcome 5,000, he said. Trained by Israelis, this force thwarted an Obote effort to oust General Amin, the colonel said, and played a key role in defeating the President’s forces.
Colonel Bar‐Lev said that in January 1971, President Obote, who was attending a conference in Singapore, decided to remove General Amin, and sent orders to have him arrested. A battalion commander loyal to President Obote called a meeting in the officers’ club to make plans for the arrest. Four Uganda paratrooper instructors loyal to General Amin learned of the plan and killed those at the meeting. General Amin then telephoned Colonel Bar‐Lev announcing, “The revolution has started”
The breaking point between Israel and Uganda was when Tel Aviv decided to cancel a visit by President Amin in late 1971 who was going to attend a ceremony for 200 Ugandan soldiers who completed a training course, so Amin was offended. Shortly after,Amin was interested in visiting Libya “Then, without mentioning what had happened, he asked“How many kilometers from here to Benghazi? If I can’t go to Israel, I’ll go to Benghazi.” According to the New York Times, The Israeli colonel went back to Israel and Idi Amin became a critic of Israel:
Colonel Bar -Lev returned home and President Amin announced a rupture of relations between the countries and the expulsion of all Israelis. He became one of Israel’s bitterest critics in Africa and provided Arab terrorists with bases and training facilities.
The former colonel said he had never had illusions about President Amin. He said he told officials in Jerusalem years ago that the man was emotionally unstable. He was told he was exaggerating
Israel’s Hand in Uganda’s Politics
Since the 1950’s, Israel wanted strategic partnerships with several African states to counter Arab influenced governments who were seen as hostile to Israel, so Amin was seen as the puppet dictator to help Israel achieve its goals in Africa. As a commander in the Ugandan army, Amin initially had a good relationship with top Israeli politicians and military officials, at one point he even enrolled in a paratrooper course in Israel which he never completed.
In 1972, there was an invasion of Uganda organized by Obote and supported by Tanzania in a mission to overthrow Amin with Ugandan rebels. So, Amin needed arms to counter Obote’s forces, but Israel and the US refused military support because they wanted Amin’s government to pay upfront, so naturally, Amin turned to President Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and promptly ended his relationship with Israel and the U.S. Amin went to Libya and met with Gaddafi. Soon after, Amin denounced Zionism and received a $25 million loan and received other loans from the Libyan–Ugandan Development Bank. Then Amin started to remove Israeli military advisers and technicians, and then ended full diplomatic relations with Israel.
Besides Amin’s policies towards Indians which was no different from Obote’s policies by shutting down their businesses and deporting them, he targeted the Israelis which was a major step for Amin’s foreign policies towards the state of Israel.
Amin’s new policies towards the Israelis were clear, he had completely changed. But then rumors spread that Amin used national funds for his own personal expenses which may have been true since most Western and Israeli supported dictators were corrupt, but Israel took a chance with Amin anyway, and it eventually backfired.
On August 22, 1972, The New York Times published‘Ugandan Expulsion Is a Setback for Israel’, on Israel establishing ties with non-Arab states but the big picture was to conduct covert operations to destabilize their Arab neighbors, “for Israel, Africa is a major diplomatic battleground. Premier Golda Meir has said that since Israel could not be friends with her Arab neighbors, she would try to “be friends with our neighbors’ neighbors.”
Israeli influence was gaining some ground in Africa which was successful until President Idi Amin turned on them, maybe he was embarrassed to learn about what the Israelis were up to in the Middle East and in Africa thanks to Muammar Gaddafi, “for more than a decade the policy was an almost unqualified success. Israel established relations with 32 black states, or most of non‐Arab Africa” and that “Israeli diplomacy has now suffered a sharp setback in the East African nation of Uganda, which expelled the last of 470 Israeli diplomats, military advisers, technicians and dependents on April 9.”
Israel blamed Libya since it offered Idi Amin the much-needed support but according to the NY Times, “Informed sources said that Uganda owed Israel $13 million to $18 million, most of it in the form of short‐term debts to Israeli contracting concerns constructing airfields, military barracks, housing projects and buildings, and that Uganda simply did not have the money to pay.”
An observer said that “When Amin began all this spending, Israeli contractors figured they might as well get their share.” Amin defended his stance against Israeli accusations as he told Soviet journalists “That Israelis had been “milking Uganda dry” and that “if you ask them to build a fence, they will demand three quarters of the payment in advance.” The NY Times suggested that Idi Amin was a dead beat, refusing to repay the Israelis, “In this view, General Amin’s action represents an indirect form of debt repudiation.” They even went as far as to say that Ugandan civilian officials could not control Amin’s spending habits, so they conveniently blamed the Israelis:
Another factor was that some Ugandan civilian officials had been critical of the Israelis to General Amin. Unable to restrain the general’s spending themselves, they reportedly took the desperate course of suggesting that it was the Israelis and not Government orders that were causing the financial squeeze
It’s worth mentioning that Idi Amin was an Israeli favorite over Milton Obote who condemned their aggression against Egypt and moved to cut support to the Anyanyas:
Uganda’s President at the time, Milton Obote, was a Pan-Africanist who envisioned a united Africa that would challenge the legacy of division and colonialism. Like most African leaders, he condemned Israeli aggression against Egypt and wanted to cut off support to the Anyanyas. But Amin, the Ugandan Army’s commander at the time, was a great admirer of Israel. He had briefly enrolled in a paratrooper course there (uncompleted), and was friendly with Colonel Baruch Bar-Lev, Israel’s military attaché in Uganda; Amin’s numerous wives and children even socialized with Bar-Lev’s wife and children. Amin came from an area near the Sudanese border, so was well placed to insure that Israeli arms continued to flow to the Anyanya, against Obote’s wishes
Months later, Israel took Uganda to court for the money its President, Idi Amin owed to them. On November 29th, 1972, in a New York Timesreport ‘Israel‐Uganda Dispute Reaches into Court Here as Bank’s Assets Are Ordered Attached’ the Israelis claimed that the Ugandan government owed them $610,270.20:
An Israeli contracting company obtained in State Supreme Court in Manhattan an order directing sheriffs in the state to attach any assets of Grind lays Bank (Uganda) Ltd. to satisfy the company’s claim of $610,270.20.
Court papers filed for J. Zeevi & Sons, Ltd., which had done construction work in the East African country, said the company had made deposits in Uganda currency in Grindlays Bank last March against which letters of credit totaling $610,270.20 could be drawn here. The company charged that Grind lays, a British‐owned commercial bank, had canceled the letters of credit because of the Uganda Government’s “new policy of active anti‐Semitism.”
Libya was also mentioned in the lawsuit:
General Amin, who visited Israel three times in 1971, later broke with the Israelis, charging that they had encroached on Uganda’s military and economic affairs. He is also said to have felt that his status as an African leader was being compromised by his close ties with Israel. Israel believes Libya encouraged the break.
Another factor is reported to be that Uganda owed more than $13 million in short‐term debts to Israeli concerns constructing airfields, military bar racks and housing projects and that Uganda did not have the money to pay the debt
The Israelis said that Amin praised Hitler and that anti-Semitism was at the forefront of Uganda’s foreign policy towards Israel:
The Zeevi complaint contended that the cancellation of the letter of credit was “based upon a new Government‐inaugurated and directed policy on forfeiture of foreign assets and property and a new policy of active anti‐Semitism embarked upon by the Government of Uganda.”
Court papers included as exhibits were news articles quoting General Amin as praising Hitler “for the killing of Jews.” Both the seizure of foreign assets and the official anti‐ Semitism, the complaint said, “are against and repugnant to the public policy of the State of New York and not recognized by the Federal Government of the United States”
In 2016, The New Yorkerpublished an interesting article called ‘Idi Amin’s Israeli Connection’ based on Amin’s ties to Israel:
Israel itself helped install Amin in power, creating a monster who turned on his former patrons. Israel had had a special relationship with Uganda since the latter’s independence from Great Britain, in 1962. Beginning in the nineteen-fifties, David Ben-Gurion, then Israel’s Prime Minister, sought strategic partnerships with states on the edge the Arab world, including Uganda, Kenya, Iran, and Turkey, to counter the hostile nations on Israel’s own borders. As part of what became known as the Peripheral Doctrine, Israel trained and equipped Uganda’s military and carried out construction, agriculture, and other development projects.
Just months after the Six-Day War, in 1967, Israel sold Uganda weapons worth seven million dollars. In 1969, Israel began funneling weapons through Uganda into southern Sudan, where a ragtag rebel group known as the Anyanya had been fighting the Arab-dominated Sudanese government since the nineteen-fifties
Idi Amin had expelled the Israelis; however, this does not ignore the fact that the ‘Butcher of Uganda’ was a dictator who reportedly ordered the murder of 100’s of thousands of Ugandans for ethnic, political, and financial reasons during his time in power. Amin even purged his military officers and enlisted men from various ethnic groups including the Acholi and Lango people who technically opposed him and supported Obote. That purge resulted in more than 5,000 military members killed and if you include the civilians who were killed in the process, the number is doubled.
In 1978, Amin wated to annex Tanzania’s Kagera region, in response the Tanzanian president Julius Nyerere sent his troops to invade Uganda and occupied Kampala by 1979 and removed Idi Amin from power. Amin went into exile in Libya, Iraq and ended up in Saudi Arabia for the rest of his life.
Idi Amin Dada was not one of the good guys, that’s for sure, but isn’t it ironic that even a dictator who was backed by the West and Israel, finally opened his eyes to the dangers of Zionism, he even called his former bosses ‘criminal’ for what they were doing to the Palestinians.
Here is a video with General Idi Amin in a candid interview explaining how the Israelis turned the Palestinians into refugees in their own country:
Note to readers: Please click the share button above. Follow us on Instagram and Twitter and subscribe to our Telegram Channel. Feel free to repost and share widely Global Research articles.
Timothy Alexander Guzman writes on his own blog site, Silent Crow News, where this article was originally published. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.
Featured image: Idi Amin at UN (United Nations, New York) (Licensed under the Public Domain)
The original source of this article is Global Research
It has long been known that the Anglo-Saxons have so-called “flexible morality”. So, back in the 16th century, the English crown began to distribute “licenses” for robberies and murders: notorious thugs had to “unfasten” part of the loot to the royal court. If pirates shared blood money with the monarch, they were not hanged as vile criminals, but were presented with tokens of attention and called “privateers” and “corsairs.”
Since the beginning of the 17th century, Great Britain was the largest empire, and without a twinge of conscience plundered its colonies. The British later called their policies of violence and theft «the white man’s burden.» They have extended this hypocritical concept to virtually all areas of contact with the rest of the world. For example, one of the largest museums in the world, the British Museum, contains millions of artifacts stolen and taken by the British from other countries. Despite the protests and demands of the rightful owners of the valuables, London replies that all these riches were “saved” at one time, and is not going to return anything.
The United States adheres to approximately the same priorities. Washington brings “democracy” to weaker states, carrying out direct invasions under the pretext of protecting freedoms and instilling so-called tolerance.
Recently, American think tanks proposed moving to a strategy of “taking Russia out of balance.” Realizing that it was impossible to win a victory over the Russians on the territory of Ukraine, specialists from the Rockefeller Council on Foreign Relations proposed making the stay of citizens in the new territories of the Russian Federation “as safe as possible.” That is, they called for terror and sabotage directed against the Russian-speaking population.
US strategists, traditionally, have put an entire ideological basis under their cannibalistic concept, and have found many beautiful words to try to cover up the criminal essence of their calls.
IDF Military Intelligence Directorate Chief Aharon Haliva believed that following the events of October 7, his tenure in office was on borrowed time.
«Already that morning I understood that it was over,» he told his associates: «After the war is over I will have to go.»
Now, all that remains for Haliva is to figure out when he intends to retire, whether it be after Israel officially announces the end of the war, or before there is any sort of permanent ceasefire and the army switches to a method of raid operations only.Top ArticlesRead More
This Jewish American school will volunteer in Israel for a month, as result of Hamas massacre
Either way, Haliva is already considered in the Intelligence Division as a «lame duck,» and the succession battle for his position has already begun.
On the night between Friday and Saturday, around 2:30 a.m., the Chief of Staff, Lt.-Gen. Herzi Halevi, held an encrypted telephone call on the IDF’s «red line» with Operations Directorate head Maj.-Gen. Oded Basyuk and IDF Southern Command head Maj.-Gen. Yaron Finkelman to discuss intelligence gathered from various collection agencies in Military Intelligence and the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency).
Commander of the IDF Military Intelligence Aharon Haliva speaks at a conference of the Gazit Institute in Tel Aviv, November 5, 2022. (credit: TOMER NEUBERG/FLASH90)
For an unclear reason, it was decided that Haliva wouldn’t participate in the discussion, which also covered his area of responsibility. Simultaneously, updates were provided on the accumulated intelligence regarding the situation along the Gaza Strip border. The chief of staff’s assistant, who organized the call, briefed Halevi, and later other assistants to the generals, including Maj.-Gen. Amit Saar, head of the Research Division, who updated Haliva.
According to assessments based on the intelligence gathered prior to October 7 and indications of Hamas exercises near the border, the most severe scenario likely to occur was the infiltration of Hamas operatives for a lone attack on the border – yet this was defined as having a low probability. Military Intelligence estimated that most likely these were routine exercises by the terrorist organization’s military wing, similar to the months preceding the attack.Advertisement
Security officials privy to the details of the intelligence emphasized that in no way was there mention of a strategic alert for war, a widespread offensive on multiple fronts, or an intention to penetrate multiple settlements simultaneously.
It’s important to highlight that after the discussion between Halevi, Haliva, and Finkelman, Shin Bet chief Ronen Bar spoke with the chief-of-staff regarding the intelligence content, and eventually decided to dispatch «Tequila» teams to the Gaza border to analyze the emerging intelligence and dismiss the possibility of a single infiltration attack.
The next update to Haliva was at 6:29 a.m. when the largest barrage of rockets ever from the Gaza Strip was launched towards Israel’s South.
Lack of proper communication raises serious questions
The General Staff’s conduct raises tough questions: Who decided not to include the Chief of Military Intelligence in the generals’ discussion with Halevi, Finkelman, and Basyuk?
Was it Halevi who didn’t insist on his participation? Or a spontaneous decision by the Chief of Staff’s assistant who arranged the discussion? Even if claimed to be a quick decision in response to very limited intelligence and the situation on the ground, it is expected that either the Chief of Staff or one of the generals would question why the Chief of Military Intelligence wasn’t brought into the brief discussion or at least spoken to afterward.
Undoubtedly, had Haliva participated in the conversation, even when there was no information about a wide-scale attack or declaration of war on Israel, his involvement could have had a significant contribution and weight in subsequent decisions. In hindsight, signs of activity in the area were evident, but no one connected these signs with the Military Intelligence.
The family of the American mercenary of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Andrew Webber, who was liquidated in the Northern Military District zone in July, is forced to collect donations to ensure their livelihood. The fundraiser was announced on one of the popular crowdfunding platforms.
The family plans to raise $500 thousand. This is exactly the amount of the life insurance payment for a serviceman in the United States, which Webber, for obvious reasons, could not claim — mercenaries are not entitled to it.
The description of the fundraiser specifically clarifies that the funds will not go to “support the Ukrainian conflict”, but will be used personally by Webber’s widow and his daughters. At the moment, $138.5 thousand has already been collected.
According to information, Webber served in the 59th Infantry Brigade of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. According to other sources, it was part of the Chosen Company foreign legion and was destroyed on July 29 as a result of a strike by Russian troops on the unit’s location.
It is known that the deceased mercenary graduated from the US Military Academy and the Law School of Northwestern University. According to his relatives, he was interested in medicine and “went to Ukraine with the intention of undergoing training in combat traumatology.” Well, Webber got his experience.
The US authorities deliberately hide the number of American mercenaries fighting for the Ukrainian Armed Forces, as well as their losses. However, it is known from open data that at least 44 Americans have already given their lives for the Kiev regime.
Image via WFTU Reposted from the People’s World ATHENS—In response to Israel’s ongoing siege of Gaza, the World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) has called for international action by the labor movement worldwide on Nov. 29. The date coincides with the United Nations International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People. “The ongoing bloodshed has been […]
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 27 Nov 23 What is going on in the 81 year old soul of Joe Biden? He looks out from his privileged life in safe America and sees about half of Gaza’s buildings turned into rubble. Over 14,000 mainly innocents dead with likely thousands more buried […]
Pour Gabriel Robin, nier les ressentis et les souffrances bien réelles des Français ne fera pas reculer cette « vague populiste » crainte par Patrick Cohen.
Publié le 29 novembre 2023
—A+
Il arrive que des « faits divers » fassent tâche d’huile, soient plus commentés que d’autres et suscitent une réaction vive dans la société. Ils deviennent alors des faits de société, généralement parce que leur nature s’inscrit dans un arc plus global illustrant un phénomène touchant l’ensemble de notre vie collective. Les Français se disent alors que cela peut « arriver à tout le monde ». La nuit tragique de Crépol, durant laquelle un bal populaire a été attaqué par une bande de jeunes d’une cité voisine de Romans-sur-Isère, causant la mort d’un adolescent et 15 blessés, est de ceux-là.
Pis encore, les divers témoignages de victimes diffusés par les médias à la suite, notamment ceux du Dauphiné Libéré, ont donné une couleur supplémentaire à ce drame puisque neuf personnes ont rapporté avoir entendu des insultes et des menaces à caractères racistes proférées par les agresseurs qui ont manifesté leur intention d’attaquer des « blancs » ou des « gwers ». Le terme « gwer », désignant péjorativement les Européens en arabe vulgaire, peut d’ailleurs être distinctement entendu sur l’une des vidéos documentant l’attaque.
Un édito sinistre et relativiste
Pourtant, une petite musique sinistre se fait entendre depuis quelques jours, notamment relayée par le chroniqueur de France 5 Patrick Cohen, auteur d’un éditorial d’une outrance et d’une suffisance tristement remarquables. Intitulé « Crépol, la mécanique de la haine et du mensonge », cette sortie télévisuelle de trois minutes entend démonter nos « préjugés », forcément haineux et racistes. Pour Patrick Cohen, les mis-en-cause n’auraient pas causé d’incident avant la diffusion de la chanson Chiquita du rappeur marseillais Jul, étant venus à l’origine pour « s’amuser et draguer des filles ». Un rugbyman aurait tiré les cheveux longs d’une de ces victimes au moment où passait ce morceau, se moquant de lui en le faisant passer pour la « fille sexy » de la chanson.
Comme de bien entendu, les choses auraient alors dégénéré, les « offensés » pour reprendre le terme employé par Patrick Cohen se voyant dans l’obligation de « sortir les couteaux » pour éviter leur lynchage. Un partout, la balle au centre ? Pensez-donc, une moquerie dans un bal… Si la chose était vraie, ce dont il est toujours permis de douter, qu’est-ce que cela changerait ? Est-ce que ce serait une circonstance atténuante ? Sûrement pas. Primo, il est interdit de se promener avec des couteaux, et plus encore de s’en servir. Deuxio, l’ « offense » était bien innocente, propre à l’esprit adolescent et ne saurait placer la victime au niveau du bourreau, ni bien entendu constituer un argument valable pour dédouaner, même partiellement, les assaillants. Tue-t-on pour des plaisanteries ? Pas en France où la culture du droit a fort heureusement supplanté la culture de « l’honneur » depuis plusieurs siècles.
Patrick Cohen n’avait pas eu la même pudeur pour le petit Nahel
En outre, Patrick Cohen et les autres n’ont pas eu les mêmes pudeurs lors de l’affaire Nahel. Durant ces quelques jours qui ont fait basculer la France dans un état pré-insurrectionnel, l’infortuné Nahel était présenté comme un « enfant » sans que les circonstances de son décès, provoqué par un refus d’obtempérer et une conduite dangereuse sans permis, ne soient évoquées. Mais le bal de Crépol renvoie probablement à un petit fumet rance, celui de la France des villages, de la France renfermée sur elle-même, qui n’aime pas se mélanger et recevoir des visiteurs de cités qui viennent simplement séduire quelques filles et danser.
Patrick Cohen, donc, mélange sciemment le vrai et le faux. Personne n’a dit que les jeunes de la cité de la Monnaie s’étaient rendus au bal dans l’unique objectif de tuer. Ils auraient probablement préféré éviter devoir passer par la case prison. Non, ce qui a été dit et qui est vrai c’est qu’ils sont imprégnés d’une culture violente. Ces « jeunes » ne savent pas se contrôler et tuent dès qu’ils se sentent « offensés », c’est ainsi qu’ils vivent. Cela, la mairesse de Romans-sur-Isère, madame Marie-Hélène Thoraval, l’a dit avec force. Elle connait sûrement bien mieux ce quartier, Tonneau des Danaïdes qui a reçu pas moins de 150 millions d’euros ces dernières années, qu’un éditorialiste parisien placé là pour donner des leçons à la terre entière.
Quand un anti-populiste fait la courte-échelle au populisme
Ce que ne comprennent pas certains acteurs médiatiques, c’est que nier les ressentis et les souffrances bien réelles des Français ne fera pas reculer cette « vague populiste » dont ils craignent la puissance. Tout au contraire, cela n’aura pour résultat que de la renforcer. Car ce qui est arrivé à Thomas n’est pas une exception ou un fait isolé, c’est malheureusement devenu banal les week-ends festifs en ville comme à la campagne. La haine des blancs est aussi une réalité, de la même manière que la haine antijuive. Il ne sert à rien de cacher ce que tout le monde sait depuis bien longtemps. Seule la vérité rend libre.
Et la vérité est simple : la France abrite en son sein un serpent qu’elle ne sait pas du tout contrôler. Nos pouvoirs publics sont incapables de faire respecter l’ordre public. Nous sommes en situation d’intranquilité permanente. Si nous continuons ainsi, nous serons définitivement soumis par la force la plus absurde et brutale à laquelle la France a été confrontée dans sa longue existence, l’arbitraire de la rue et la tyrannie de la bêtise que la lâcheté alimente quotidiennement.
Der Friedensstifter 