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