Overblog
Suivre ce blog Administration + Créer mon blog
5 novembre 2008 3 05 /11 /novembre /2008 11:41
Les Libanais aux Etats-Unis appellent le futur président à poursuivre le soutien américain à la souverainté du Liban

mercredi 5 novembre 2008 - 00h00, par Chawki Freïha - Beyrouth

Logo MédiArabe.Info

L’avenir inquiète les Irakiens et les pays du Golfe, si les Américains élisent Barack Obama à la Maison-Blanche. Ils craignent que, s’il est élu, ne mette à exécution son programme et ne se désengage d’Irak, le laissant une proie facile à l’Iran superpuissant.

La même perspective inquiète aussi les Libanais. Leurs associations et autre groupes de pression aux Etats-Unis ont adressé une lettre ouverte au futur président, quel qu’il soit, lui demandant de poursuivre le soutien américain à la souveraineté du Liban, son indépendance et sa liberté.

Pour y parvenir, le futur président des Etats-Unis est appelé à faire appliquer les résolutions onusiennes relatives au Liban, notamment la 1559 et la 1701, consistant à tracer les frontières entre la Syrie et le Liban, l’arrêt des ingérences syriennes et étrangères (iraniennes) dans le pays du Cèdre, et le désarmement des milices (Hezbollah et organisations palestiniennes). Le prochain locataire de la Maison-Blanche est également sommé à soutenir le Tribunal international qui doit juger les commanditaires et les exécutants de l’assassinat de Rafic Hariri, et d’une trentaine d’hommes politiques et intellectuels libanais.

A ce sujet, l’opposition libanaise, menée par le Hezbollah, Amal et le Courant Patriotique Libre du général Michel Aoun, a invité la majorité à signé une charte destinée à résorber les tensions, comprenant l’arrêt de toutes les campagnes médiatiques. Ainsi, l’opposition, proche de la Syrie, cherche à faire taire les médias de la majorité. Elle propose l’interdiction de toutes les déclarations hostiles à la Syrie et favorables au Tribunal international. Cette manœuvre vise, en définitive, à enterrer le Tribunal et à sauver le régime de Damas. Une manœuvre qui intervient à la veille du lancement du dialogue national conformément aux accords de Doha conclus en mai dernier, après l’invasion de Beyrouth par le Hezbollah et les milices proches de la Syrie.

Chawki Freïha

© Nos informations, analyses et articles sont à la disposition des lecteurs. Pour toute utilisation, merci de toujours mentionner la source « MediArabe.info »

Partager cet article
Repost0
5 novembre 2008 3 05 /11 /novembre /2008 11:24
America turns left

Sever Plocker says Obama win opens unfamiliar social-democratic chapter in US history

Obama – Better for Israel? Photo: AFP


Published:  11.05.08, 06:26 / Israel Opinion

It wasn’t about skin color, but rather, about the views. For the first time in history, a statesman who can be characterized as a European-style social-democrat will enter the White House. It never happened before and it wouldn’t have happened now had it not been for the American financial crisis, which exposed the failure of unrestrained, merciless, rampant capitalism.

 

The broad and overwhelming objection to the collapsing “Wall Street system” enabled Obama to convey his message to the masses: Things will change. No more business as usual! I will lead the change. America under my leadership will forever part ways with the decayed financial system that brought us here, Obama told the young men and women who melted in the face of his gaze and quivered to the sound of his voice.

 

And what will replace the old system? Obama has remained economical in respect to the details of his presidential plans. However, his latest appearances conveyed great credibility because of the three figures standing by him: Former Treasury Secretaries Larry Summers and Bob Rubin, as well as former Fed Chairman Paul Volcker. The three aces.

 

Republican candidate John McCain not only lacked such dream team – during his election campaign he relied on the advice of dubious economists bordering on charlatanism. Only towards the end of the campaign he brought in some distinguished characters, such as the plumber from Ohio and the governor of California. But that was too late.

 

I do not view the election of a dark-skinned citizen as America’s president as a historic revolution. Afro-Americans have already served in the most senior government position: Secretary of state. Had Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice run for president and won, the change in America’s political life would be minor; marginal even.

 

The great turnaround has to do with the unique blend featured by Obama: Not only is he a social-democrat, he is black too; not only is he black, he is young; not only is he young, he is a Muslim who became Christian; Not only is a Muslim-turned-Christian, he’s pro-Zionist; not only is he pro-Zionist, he is black too; not only is he black, he’s a social-democrat.

 

This multifaceted blend excited Americans to the point of losing all senses, including the natural sense of criticism and skepticism. Leading American intellectuals, ranging from columnists to physics professors, from authors to filmmakers, bowed down before Obama. And they were not the only ones. According to a poll by British weekly The Economist, citizens of the world would have granted Obama 80% support, at least, had they been able to vote in the elections.

 

Obama’s courage
Obama became the darling of the media, of the Third World, of Europe, of young voters, of the street, and even of the Jews. Moreover, he matured and became much more serious during his campaign. In my view, he crossed the line from demagogical candidate to worthy candidate when he did not hesitate to back the treasury of secretary and the fed chairman – both members of an opposing party – and granted overwhelming support to their bailout plan.

 

While the Republican McCain was stammering, the Democratic Obama was quick to convene a press conference aired coast-to-coast and declare: When it comes to the economic plan, I back the Administration. If we need to bail out banks, we will. If we need to assist mortgage crisis victims, we will. If we need to increase the budget, we will.

 

It is easy for a US presidential candidate to speak out against the war in Iraq: Most Americans hate it. However, significant political courage is needed in order to back complex and very expensive economic moves, which are perceived by parts of public opinion as a matter of “bailing out the fat cats” or as “socialism in America.” Obama proved that he possesses this kind of courage; that he is no populist.

 

Obama’s victory opens an unfamiliar chapter in the history of the US; the social-democratic chapter. We shall see greater government involvement in the American economy, more federal funds earmarked to infrastructure and development, a more vigorous nationwide struggle against poverty, and higher taxes on the income of the wealthiest individuals. Moreover, we will see an Administration willing to manage financial institutions in practice during times of need and crisis.

 

Obama’s election as US president will signal to the whole world that America is bidding rampant capitalism farewell and making a left turn, big time.
Partager cet article
Repost0
5 novembre 2008 3 05 /11 /novembre /2008 11:14

http://www.israelvalley.com/


Par David Rosenfeld
Rubrique: Environnement
Publié le 5 novembre 2008 à 08:36

L’intronisation d’Obama aura pour conséquence une recrudescence des investissements high-tech en Israël.

Ce petit pays qui a su faire fleurir le désert et en passe de devenir le centre mondial d’expertise dans le domaine des énergies renouvelables et écologiques. Israël se place parmi les leaders mondiaux du traitement de l’eau, de l’irrigation de nouvelle génération, de la désintoxication des sols, de l’énergie solaire, des turbines, des batteries, des voitures électriques, des moteurs à hydrogène, etc.

Avec 7 millions d’habitants, l’Etat Hébreu renferme un réservoir unique de technologies pour le développement durable dont le futur Président Obama a fait son cheval de bataille.

Parmi ces leaders on retrouve Ormat (turbines pour pompes à chaleur et fours solaires), Solel (capteurs et usines solaires, Project Better Place (voiture électrique), Genova (traitement des déchets pour production d’énergie) et bien d’autres encore.

Après une révolution internet et hardware en 1998-2002 qui aura vu l’avènement de leaders mondiaux (CheckPoint, Aladdin, Amdocs), Israël devrait nourrir la nouvelle fièvre pour les technologies de protection de l’environnement dans les 10 prochaines années.

Par Mati Bn Avraham
Rubrique: Editorial
Publié le 5 novembre 2008 à 08:22

Il ne faut pas s’en cacher : Barack Obama, élu 44ème président des Etats-Unis suscite des craintes dans divers cercles politiques israéliens. En particulier, parmi ceux qui se situent à droite de l’échiquier politique.

Ces craintes sont-elles fondées? Non, a répondu à l’avance Martin Indick, ancien ambassadeur des Etats-Unis en Israël, qui fit partie du premier cercle des conseillers de Bill Clinton pour tout ce qui touchait au Proche-Orient.

S’appuyant sur le discours prononcé par Barack Obama devant la Conférence des présidents des communautés juives américaines, Martin Indick a souligné deux points essentiels à ses yeux : et d’un, Barak Obama est convaincu que la politique menée par G. Bush au cours de ses huit années de présidence a davantage nui que profiter à Israël; et de deux, les Etats-Unis se doivent de revenir à un rôle de partenaire actif dans le processus de paix, israélo-palestinien d’une part, israélo-syrien d’autre part. C’est-à-dire, ne plus se contenter de fortes déclarations, de conférence internationale pour la frime, mais orienter, pousser, presser les partenaires vers ces compromis sans lesquels aucune paix n’est envisageable.

Il est évident que, pour imprimer une nouvelle dynamique, Barack Obama ne sera tendre avec quiconque. Il ne ce contentera pas de rappeler aux uns et aux autres les engagements pris, à la manière de son prédécesseur, mais en exigera l’application. En ce sens, les nominations à la tête du secrétariat d’Etat et du Conseil National de Sécurité constitueront des indices précieux sur la politique étrangère que compte mener le nouveau président, en particulier par ici.

Question : le vote américain va-t-il influer sur les législatives israéliennes? Bien entendu. A priori, il vient conforter la ligne politique prônée par le camp Tzipi Livni, mais il n’est pas impossible qu’il amène Binyamin Netanyahou à témoigner de pragmatisme.

Cela dit, et hors nos petits soucis locaux, l’élection de Barack Obama est une formidable leçon de démocratie. Et de réalisme politique. Le peuple américain s’est mobilisé pour porter à la Maison blanche un homme, et peu importe la couleur de sa peau, qui incarne au mieux l’essentiel du dynamisme américain, à savoir que l’origine peut être un fardeau, mais non un obstacle à la réussite.

Partager cet article
Repost0
4 novembre 2008 2 04 /11 /novembre /2008 22:16

Conference Proceedings
From President to President: U.S. Middle East Policy at a Moment of Transition

Format: PDF, 72 Pages
Published: 2008 Weinberg Founders Conference

Price: Free Download
File Size: 1 MB



http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/templateC04.php?CID=300

Featuring

Isaac Herzog, Riad Malki, Dennis Ross, Max Boot, Richard Danzig, Richard Williamson, Richard Clarke, Colin Mellis, Maajid Nawaz, Farah Pandith, J. Scott Carpenter, Mohamed Abdelbaky, Oussama Safa, Engi El-Haddad, Nader Said, David Makovsy, Ghassan Atiyyah, Reul Marc Gerecht, Michael Knights, Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Giora Eiland, Marwan Muasher, Soner Cagaptay, Philip Gordon, Maj. Gen. (Ret.) Isaac Ben-Israel, Kassem Jaafar, Anthony Cordesman, Jackson Diehl, and Jeffrey Goldberg

The Proceedings

The 2008 presidential election is a watershed event, both historically and politically. It may also represent a landmark in America's engagement with the Middle East over the next decade. On so many critical issues -- Iranian nuclear capability, Iraq's stability, Israeli-Palestinian relations, radicalization in the region -- the next U.S. president will have to determine the direction of U.S. policy. For its twenty-third annual Weinberg Founders Conference, which took place September 19-21, 2008, The Washington Institute convened an exceptional group of scholars, diplomats, experts, officials, and policy practitioners for an in-depth look at the implications of foreign policy to the presidential candidates at this critical juncture in American history.

This year's conference featured twelve keynote presentations and panel discussions:

  • Is Peace Still Possible? The Future of Israeli-Palestinian Relations
  • America's Grand Strategy in the Middle East: Views from the Campaigns
  • McCain-Palin on the Middle East
  • Obama-Biden on the Middle East
  • Reversing the Tide of Radicalization
  • What Arab Democrats Want from Our Next President
  • Israeli Politics: A Guide for the Perplexed
  • Will Iraq Be an Ally of the United States or of Iran?
  • Is the Two-State Solution Still Relevant?
  • What Should the Next Administration Expect from Turkey?
  • Bombing Iran or Living with Iran's Bomb?
  • From Campaigning to Governing: What Really Matters on the Stump

In addition, this year's conference featured a very special event: the announcement of the first annual Washington Institute Book Prize. This lucrative prize is awarded by an independent jury to recognize three outstanding books that advance America's understanding of Middle Eastern politics and U.S. policy.

Partager cet article
Repost0
4 novembre 2008 2 04 /11 /novembre /2008 20:38

by Michael Ledeen

Faster, Please!
November 3rd, 2008 5:57 pm

Election Thoughts

Michael Ledeen
Author Photo

What makes me angriest:  that there is no outcry against election fraud;  that the media have become pure political instruments;  that our “educational system” has produced an ignorant electorate.

Years and years ago, during Watergate, Barbara and I were living in Rome, and we had lots of journalist friends (I was then a correspondent for The New Republic, so…we saw lots of Italian journalists).  They were all openly jealous of America, because they saw American journalism as clearly superior to theirs.  American journalists reported, while they, the Italians, were doing politics.  “We could bring down our entire Political Class,” they would say, “we all have information so devastating that no politician could survive,” but they didn’t publish it, because they didn’t see an acceptable alternative.  We would tell them that their job was not to make political decisions, but to report the news, and let the people decide.  But they couldn’t;  they were doing politics.  And we felt superior, because American journalism, we thought, just reported the news and let the people decide.

Well, that’s over and done with now.  Never before has the ignorance of the electorate been so intensely cultivated as in this election.  We all know that major publications and broadcasters have simply refused to report news, and what they did report was spun politically.  And among the stories they are not reporting, is the massive electoral fraud, from the “where is all that money coming from?” to the “how dare state officials refuse to verify the identity of voters?” one, to the refusal to report, day by day, on Joe Biden’s scandalously inept, incompetent, and often meretricious campaign.  Instead, they obsess on every real and imagined misstatement by Sarah Palin, who for me has been the most attractive of the four candidates.

An ignorant electorate is a real threat to good government, and the whole point of the First Amendment is to create a wide-open national debate from which the truth might emerge.  The current behavior of the media–now totally politicized–makes it very hard to get to the truth.  They censor themselves, just as our Italian friends confessed they were doing to themselves thirty years ago.

Rush today played some clips from a conversation about Obama between Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw.  Each said repeatedly “we really don’t know much about him.”  Well, duh, whose fault is that, y’all?  Yours.  You haven’t done your job.

For years now, most thoughtful Americans have known they were being misled by the MSM.  But they didn’t know exactly where to go to get the real news.  Over time, many of them learned to read blogs, to listen to talk radio, and to read the few good journalists who still believe they should report, and let the people decide.  It’s only natural that the Dems should want to shut down these outlets and those reporters, and I think that’s going to be a very big battle in the very near future, whoever wins tomorrow.

It follows from all this that there’s another thing that has my dander flying:  the snooty treatment of Palin.  It’s as if that old New Yorker cover–the one that shows Manhattan occupying most of the map of the United States, then the Mississippi River and fly-over country in a small strip, then San Francisco and Los Angeles in a larger area–has now become the template for all proper thinkers.  I’m sure lots of folks in fly-over country are enraged by this, but many others want to have a seat at the table, want to join the celebrities, want to be thought of as serious thinkers.  And so they join the swarm.

American exceptionalism rests upon independent thinking, pride in community and heritage, and disdain for ivory tower intellectuals combined with admiration for self-help and achievement.  My greatest fear is that these values are going to be trashed over and over again the next few years, and we will have to fight it very fiercely.

The Ledeen family is now a military family.  All three of our children are engaged in the war which to my way of thinking is the single greatest issue for America, but which has virtually vanished from our national debate.  There is no escape from this war, there is only victory or defeat.  But the Democrats can’t win a national election on that question, and so it has been spiked.

Tough times.

Partager cet article
Repost0
3 novembre 2008 1 03 /11 /novembre /2008 19:06

Hold-up électoral en Albanie

Par Claude Moniquet

Président de l’ESISC

 Les deux partis dominants de la scène électorale albanaise, le Parti démocratique du Premier ministre Sali Berisha et le Parti socialiste, sont en train d’organiser un véritable holp-up électoral. Dans l’indifférence totale d’une Europe qui, une fois de plus, a la mémoire bien courte et risque d’avoir à en payer le prix…

 Lire la suite sur www.esisc.org (Opinion)

Partager cet article
Repost0
3 novembre 2008 1 03 /11 /novembre /2008 15:28

Having an Obama In Its Future--- Good Or Bad For US? 

By B. Raman

http://www.southasiaanalysis.org/%5Cpapers30%5Cpaper2905.html

The world has seen made-in-the-Internet scholars, made-in-the-Internet stock-brokers, made-in-the-Internet lovers and even made-in-the-Internet terrorists. 

If Senator Barrack Obama is elected the President of the United States on November 4, the US and the rest of the world will be seeing for the first time a made-in-the-Internet President. 

The way his advisers and entourage have effectively used the Internet to make him known to the people, to collect funds for him and to project him as a right-thinking person, who will take the US into a brave new world, will form the theme of many likely best-sellers if he wins the elections, as he seems destined to do. 

Large sections of the American people are in a state of guilt----- over having suppressed the Blacks for so many years, over having supported President Bush and his Neo Conservatives in their Iraq adventure under the pretext of removing non-existent weapons of mass destruction,  and over so many other  perceived wrongs of the Bush Administration. 

What better way of ridding themselves of their gnawing sense of guilt than to vote for a candidate, who is an Afro-American and who promises to rid the US of the legacies of the Bush administration. Just by casting their vote for him on November 4, they would in one stroke be able to get rid of all their guilt feelings and start a new life as Americans. So they think. As they stand before the voting machine, it will be their hour of the confessional ---- that they were wrong in having supported Bush. 

His advisers and entourage have skillfully exploited the widely prevalent mood of guilt in the US to project him as a transformational figure (to quote Colin Powell) the like of which comes but rarely. Vote for Obama and vote for all that that is good and great in the US. 

The liberals---- in the civil society, in the media, among the opinion-makers--- have made Obama seem a cult figure. For them, it will be blasphemous to ask questions about his past, to find out who he really is. 

Had a white been the Democratic candidate like Senator John McCain, the Republican candidate, they would not have had the least qualms in researching into his past and in dissecting every inch of him.

How can one do it for a transformational, cult figure? Cult figures have to be accepted as such without questions. How can one do that for a Black, who is on the threshold of history by being the first Black to become the President of the US? To question his past and his credentials would be racist. So the American voters have been told.
 

Can anyone in the US or in the rest of the world assert that he knows Obama well ---- his past and his present and what he will be in future? Future is the child of the past. 

Obama is a mix of two vintages. The old pre-2006 vintage and the new post-2006 one.  All his admirers know Obama of the new vintage. How many know Obama of the old vintage? 

 Very few. There is no desire to find out either. 

Obama of the new vintage has nothing but the highest words of praise for India and Indians. He wants to continue with Bush’s policy of promoting a strategic relationship with India. 

What about Obama of the old vintage? Cautious and reserved in exuding any warmth for India and the Indians lest his Pakistani friends and constituents misunderstand. 

It is said that as a student he had more Pakistani friends than Indians. He felt more comfortable in the company of the Pakistanis than Indians. It was his choice and nobody could grudge it. 

It was at the invitation of one of his Pakistani friends that he visited Islamabad, Karachi and Hyderabad (Sind) in the 1980s. Nobody can hold that against him. 

As an Indian, one will be but human if one felt troubled that he did not disclose this till he became the Presidential candidate. He disclosed this----as if in passing--- when it was alleged that he did not understand the Islamic world and its divisions. He mentioned his visit to Pakistan to show that he knew about the divisions in Islam, about the Shia-Sunni differences. 

Why did he keep mum on his visit to Pakistan till this question was raised? Has he disclosed all the details regarding his Pakistan visit? Was it as innocuous as made out by him----to respond to the invitation of a Pakistani friend or was there something more to it? 

One would have expected the US journalists to have gone into this, to have quizzed him on it. But, they didn’t. 

As I read about Obama’s visit to Pakistan in the 1980s, I could not help thinking of dozens of things. Of the Afghan jihad against communism. Of the fascination of many Afro-Americans for the jihad. Of the visits of a stream of Afro-Americans to Pakistan to feel the greatness of the jihad. Of their fascination for Abdullah Azzam, who came to Pakistan in the 1980s and started teaching in the International Islamic University in Islamabad. Of the fascination of some Afro-Americans for him. Of the frequent visits of Cat Stevens, the pop singer, to Pakistan and of his fascination for Islam and the on-going jihad. Of his conversion to Islam. 

One might think that I am morbid in entertaining such thoughts and questions in my mind. But morbidity is understandable when one has a feeling that one has not been told the whole story, but only a part of it. 

It is the right of the Americans to decide who should be their President. It is my right to worry about the implications of their decision for the rest of the world, including India.  

(The writer is Additional Secretary (retd), Cabinet Secretariat, Govt of India, New Delhi, and, presently, Director, Institute For Topical Studies, Chennai. E-mail: seventyone2@gmail.com)

 
Partager cet article
Repost0
3 novembre 2008 1 03 /11 /novembre /2008 13:36
Le principal conseiller d’Obama est un faucon anti-Iran

Le récit de « Bakchich ».

lundi 3 novembre 2008

Un faucon anti-Iran pourrait bien hériter du poste de secrétaire d’Etat dans la future administration Obama si le démocrate est élu le 4 novembre. Dennis Ross, le principal conseiller de Barack Obama sur l’Iran mais aussi possible successeur de Condeleeza Rice au poste de Secrétaire d’Etat, a signé un manifeste sur l’Iran qui prône une ligne dure. Tellement dure que, si elle est appliquée, elle provoquera l’entrée en guerre de l’Amérique contre le pays des mollahs.

Lire le texte en PDF

Partager cet article
Repost0
3 novembre 2008 1 03 /11 /novembre /2008 09:50
http://www.rebelles.info/

Conservateur, thatchérien, reaganien, Stephen Harper a gagné les élections canadiennes le 14 octobre. Voilà qui mérité réflexion et débat.


L’événement est passé presque inaperçu : le14 octobre, le premier ministre conservateur du Canada, Stephen Harper, a été reconduit à la tête de son pays. Mieux, sa majorité s’est étoffée d’une vingtaine de sièges par rapport au parlement sortant, élu en 2006. A un moment où l’on n’entend parler que de la fin de l’ère Thatcher-Reagan, de l’effondrement du néo-capitalisme ou de la chute finale de l’Occident, ce succès dérange les uns et réconforte les autres. Il mérite en tout cas réflexion et débat. Car Harper n’est pas seulement conservateur en paroles. C’est un conservateur en actes.

La crise économique a frappé le Canada comme le reste du monde. Chacun s’attendait à ce que Harper prenne à Ottawa les mêmes mesures que George W. Bush à Washington, ou les Européens à Bruxelles : qu’il sauve le système financier sur des deniers publics. Il a fait le contraire : l’Etat confédéral canadien ne doit garantir, selon lui, que les dépôts des particuliers. Mais pas les banques et les autres institutions financières en tant que telles. Si elles ont fait des erreurs de gestion, ou fraudé, qu’elles paient et au besoin disparaissent. Et que les responsables soient traînés en justice s’il le faut, jusqu’au dernier.

La nation canadienne a entendu ce langage. Le drame de l’Amérique est peut-être que ses propres conservateurs n’ont pas su parler aussi net, ou penser aussi clairement. Un de mes amis, président d’une grande société française installée au Canada, m’a dit que l’erreur de l’administration Bush sortante, face à la crise, a été de justifier, à travers un plan de sauvetage mastodontique ressembant étrangement à une nationalisation, la politique qu’Obama, ou du moins ses conseillers, prétendent mettre en application à partir de 2009. Et que celle de John McCain a été de ne pas prendre suffisamment de distance vis à vis de ce non-sens, qu’il n’approuvait pourtant pas réellement.

Mais au moment suprême, quand l’électeur américain sera seul devant sa machine à voter, sa conscience et son Dieu, les choses se décanteront peut-être. Le conservatisme, ce n’est pas une idéologie, ni même une orthodoxie financière ou économique. Ce sont des valeurs. Bush n’a pas toujours été à la hauteur de sa mission, mais ses valeurs étaient solides. McCain s’est toujours battu pour ses valeurs, de la géhenne vietnamienne aux marigots washingtoniens, même s’il a commis quelques faux pas véniels. Mais Obama ? Que sait-on de lui ? Faut-il croire l’homme qui a caché son enfance musulmane ou celui qui a attendu vingt ans pour rompre avec le pasteur qui l’a converti à un christianisme raciste et révolutionnaire ? Faut-il croire l’homme qui a défendu, en Israël, le caractère israélien de Jérusalem, ou celui qui, le jour suivant, de retour en Amérique, a affirmé qu’on avait mal transcrit ses propos ?

John McCain a pour a ami Steven Harper, qui déclarait en 2007, à l’occasion de la Journée nationale canadienne pour la mémoire de l’Holocauste : « Cela ne suffit pas que des personnalités politiques disent aujourd’hui… qu’il faille garder la mémoire de ce qui s’est passé voici plus de décennies. Il faut que ces personnalités se dressent contre ceux qui, aujourd’hui, se font les avocats de la destruction d’Israël et de son peuple ».

Obama a pour partisan le pasteur et activiste noir américain Jesse Jackson, qui a déclaré à Evian, vingt-quatre heures après la victoire de Harper :
« Avec l’élection d’Obama, c’est la fin de décennies où les intérêts d’Israël ont constitué une priorité… et les sionistes vont subir une perte immense ».
Partager cet article
Repost0
3 novembre 2008 1 03 /11 /novembre /2008 08:52
Obama's Connection to Sirhan Sirhan

by Daniel Pipes
Sun, 2 Nov 2008

Send Comment RSS Share:    

The cover of "Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism," co-authored by William Ayers and dedicated to, among others, Sirhan Sirhan.

From the perspective of a Middle East & Islam specialist, the just-concluding U.S. presidential election is extraordinary for the outsized role of one's subject area. Consider some of the topics:
  • Barack Obama's birth and youth as a Muslim, a fact that he completely denies ("I've always been a Christian," "I have never been a Muslim").

  • Obama's networking with extremist Islamic groups, including the Nation of Islam and such organizations as the Council on American-Islamic Relations, the North American Islamic Trust, the Muslim Alliance in North America, and the Muslim American Society.

  • Obama's indirect connection to Saddam Hussein via two corrupt Middle East businessmen living in the West, Nadhmi Auchi and Antoin S. "Tony" Rezko.

  • Obama's ties to Ali Abunimah, the Palestinian extremist who praised Obama as "progressive, intelligent and charismatic" and as someone who "used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation." But, Abunimah bemoaned the fact that his once-state senator, on aspiring to higher office, cynically "learned to love Israel."

  • Michelle Obama's Internet "friend" relationship with Hatem El-Hady, former chairman of "Kindhearts," an Islamic so-called charity shuttered for funding terrorism.

  • Obama's friendship with Rashid Khalidi, the PLO official now teaching at Columbia University, as well as Obama's apparently viciously anti-Israel remarks at Khalidi's Chicago farewell party in 2003.

In this context, yet another connection, documented at zombietime.com, may not come as a great surprise, but it nonetheless remains shocking: William Ayers, Obama's close associate at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, dedicated the 1974 terrorist manifesto he co-authored, Prairie Fire: The Politics of Revolutionary Anti-Imperialism, to (among others) Sirhan Sirhan, Robert F. Kennedy's Jordanian assassin.

Comment: Other than Obama's lies about his childhood religion, which cast doubt about his character, all the other connections establish the radical circles he frequented during his Chicago years, associations he is trying hard – and with apparent success - to keep from the attention of just enough voters until after election day. (November 2, 2008)

Related Topics: Muslims in the United States, US politics

Partager cet article
Repost0

Présentation

  • : Le blog de Gad
  • : Lessakele : déjouer les pièges de l'actualité Lessakele, verbe hébraïque qui signifie "déjouer" est un blog de commentaire libre d'une actualité disparate, visant à taquiner l'indépendance et l'esprit critique du lecteur et à lui prêter quelques clés de décrytage personnalisées.
  • Contact

Traducteur

English German Spanish Portuguese Italian Dutch
Russian Polish Hebrew Czech Greek Hindi

Recherche

Magie de la langue hébraïque


A tous nos chers lecteurs.

 

Ne vous est-il jamais venu à l'esprit d'en savoir un peu plus sur le titre de ce blog ?

Puisque nous nous sommes aujourd'hui habillés de bleu, il conviendrait de rentrer plus a fond dans l'explication du mot lessakel.

En fait Lessakel n'est que la façon française de dire le mot léhasskil.

L'hébreu est une langue qui fonctionne en déclinant des racines.

Racines, bilitères, trilitères et quadrilitères.

La majorité d'entre elle sont trilitères.

Aussi Si Gad a souhaité appeler son site Lessakel, c'est parce qu'il souhaitait rendre hommage à l'intelligence.

Celle qui nous est demandée chaque jour.

La racine de l'intelligence est sé'hel שכל qui signifie l'intelligence pure.

De cette racine découlent plusieurs mots

Sé'hel > intelligence, esprit, raison, bon sens, prudence, mais aussi croiser

Léhasskil > Etre intelligent, cultivé, déjouer les pièges

Sé'hli > intelligent, mental, spirituel

Léhistakel > agir prudemment, être retenu et raisonnable, chercher à comprendre

Si'hloute > appréhension et compréhension

Haskala >  Instruction, culture, éducation

Lessa'hlen > rationaliser, intellectualiser

Heschkel > moralité

Si'htanout > rationalisme

Si'hloul > Amélioration, perfectionnement

 

Gageons que ce site puisse nous apporter quelques lumières.

Aschkel pour Lessakel.

 

 

Les news de blogs amis