Article par Serge Berdugo

Merci Lison2 de cette mise au point et pour tous vous convaincre allez donc faire un tour sur ce site:


[abbc.net]


J'espère de nombreuses réactions et surtout de nos dafouineurs de tous bords.

mon Dieu

quel ramassis de haine et de mensonges ce lien, abbc.net

Je ne me rappelle nulle part dans l'histoire et ni pour le futur, avoir entendu ou lu que les "juifs" aient jamais pu inciter la haine et la violence tels que ce site le fait.

Elisabeth

les titres m'ont suffit.

Lune a écrit:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lison2 merci beaucoup pour l'article. Au fait, je
> suis plus a l'aise dans la langue Anglaise que
> Francaise.
>
> Quand au fond de l'article je crains qu'il ne
> deforme les propose de M. Carter. D'ailleurs
> Carter etait l'invite de Inside Edition hier sur
> CNN et a encore une fois repete que quand il parle
> d'apartheid, il ne parle pas des Israeliens Arabes
> mais des Palestiniens.


Completement d'accord avec vous.Les statistiques montrent aussi l'attachement de tout un chacun à sa terre natale.Si la question posée est "desirez vous vivre ailleurs qu'ici" ,c'est clair qu'aucun natif du pays ne voudrait le quitter.

kripouche

l'article n'était pas pour n'importe qui ? la question a été posé à des arabes Israeliens !!! qui vivent avec des juifs à la réputation mondiale telles que vous l'acceptez et vous l'enseignez dans vos livres d'histoire !!! et comme les Nations Unis nous ont étiquetez, un peuple raciste........

ça suffit.

Elisabeth

Lison2,

Felicitations

You hit the nails right on their heads, in the last few posts

Go on dear

Qui n'a pas aimé Carter lors de sa campagne éléctorale et au moment de son investiture? Lui qui tenait toujours une Bible à la main. Il nous a beaucoup séduit. Et Camp David.. Ceux parmi nous, qui n'avons pas pris Sadate pour un traître,mais pour un homme réaliste et courageux,on s'est dit: ouf!enfin,cette sale histoire touche à sa fin. Mais...(il y a toujours un "mais" qui gâte tout)

Il me semble que Carter,devenu vieux,au lieu de s'occuper de ses cacahuètes, fait comme certains anciens hommes politiques,qui voudraient avec des déclarations fracassantes, revenir au devant de la scène politique. Il faut reconnaître que le cas d'Israel n'est comparable à aucun autre cas dans le monde.Comme je l'ai dit précédement,quand un petit peuple est entouré de toutes parts de gens qui le menacent dans son existence,ce peuple, s'il en a les moyens,doit se barricader et se défendre.

Lison2 a écrit:
-------------------------------------------------------
> kripouche
>
> l'article n'était pas pour n'importe qui ? la
> question a été posé à des arabes Israeliens !!!
> qui vivent avec des juifs à la réputation mondiale
> telles que vous l'acceptez et vous l'enseignez
> dans vos livres d'histoire !!! et comme les
> Nations Unis nous ont étiquetez, un peuple
> raciste........
>
> ça suffit.

Elisabeth,

Thanks for seeing so clearly in MY mind.Please do not mix politics with religious beliefs.History shows this is a dynamite mixture.Being a jew does not allow me-or any other one-to victimize myself and face all other ethnic or religious groups as real or potential threats.

So,
I saw so clearly into your mind ??

The rest of your post does not make sense ?mixing religious beliefs and history is dynamite ??

the german jews were German, the French Jews were French, the Polish Jews were Polish ... they (Germany !and Vichy France went after them why ?? can you tell me ? and today, has this hatred stopped ???

being docile victims is over and done ! and I am proud of our people, always reasoning and giving a chance to those so called country who think they can make peace for us !!! foutaise.

Elisabeth

A tous ceux qui ne comprennent pas l'Anglais, je vous propose, si vous le voulez bien,la traduction du post ci-dessus de KHRIPOUCHE 19:35
S'adressant à Elisabeth.


"Merci d'avoir deviné mes pensées, s'il te palit, ne mélanges pas la politique aux croyances religieuses,l'histoire nous a montré qu'il s'agit là d'un cocktail dangereux. Etre juif ne me permet et ne permet d'ailluers à personne de se "victimiser"et considerer les autres éthnies et groupes religieux comme étant des traitres potentiels.

Larbi (Pardon Khripouche si moi j'ai trahi ta pensée par une maivaise traduction) (but if you want I will go...)

Larbi, merci d'avoir traduit le texte de Kripouche, en fait, il m'était adressé, et je l'ai tres bien compris.

il dit bien que d'être un juif, ne me donne pas le droit de me victimiser, et de considérer les autres ethnies ou groupes religieux comme traitres potentiels.


Kripouche,
et Larbi

ma réponse sur le post, si vous ne le comprenez pas, je vous le dit en Français. Avant la guerre les juifs d'Europe étaient Allemands, Polonais et Français, citoyens de leur pays, comme nous les marocains-juifs.

QUI?? dites moi a mélangé la politique et la religion. victimes nous l'avons été. Aujourd'hui, depuis que notre vie est entre nos mains, ça dérange. (that little shitty country)

En revanche, les musulmans, je comprends que l'idée d'être pris ou considéré comme terroriste potentiel doit être insupportable pour quiconque. le travail doit être fait entre vous, le courage nous le voyons chez Wafa Sultan et d'autres. Chacun de nous avions vécu des calomnies et des mensonges, par rapport à notre religion ou nationalité, et malgrè tout, j'ai de l'espoir pour la Paix.

Elisabeth

OUI ELISABETH,

nous avons tous l'espoir que la paix viendra un jour -

c'est simple, si les arabes aiment ISRAEL, les iSRAELIENS aimeront tous
les arabes -

la preuve, DERKA et HAIFA , sont appréciés et se sont fais des amis, c'est grâce à leurs bonnes intentions envers nous juifs -

vois tu, nous ne sommes pas méchants, nous juifs - ce qui nous manque
c'est la confiance des arabes - si les pays arabes se rapprochent
d'Israel, Israel sera reconnaissant -

NOUS AIMONS CEUX QUI NOUS AIMENT - NOUS NOUS APPROCHONS DE CEUX QUI S'APPROCHENT DE NOUS..............

Lison2 a écrit:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So,
> I saw so clearly into your mind ??
>
> The rest of your post does not make sense ?mixing
> religious beliefs and history is dynamite ??
>
> the german jews were German, the French Jews were
> French, the Polish Jews were Polish ... they
> (Germany !and Vichy France went after them why ??
> can you tell me ? and today, has this hatred
> stopped ???
>
> being docile victims is over and done ! and I am
> proud of our people, always reasoning and giving a
> chance to those so called country who think they
> can make peace for us !!! foutaise.
>
> Elisabeth
>
>
>
As a matter of fact my answer refers to your post quoted just above it.Your comment on teaching hatred to oncoming generations spurred my comment.Mixing religious beliefs with politics (not history as you mistakenly read)is a dangerous thing.
Moreover,I said "potential threats" not "traitors" which does not make sens at all.
Je voulais répondre a ton post en Anglais puisque tu "sembalais" maitriser cette langue plus que le Français...je me suis trompé.
Voici MA traduction française de MON post:

Elisabeth,

Merci de lire si clairement dans mes pensées.(sous entendu puisque tu sembles connaitre mes pensées plus que moi-meme et que tu pars du postulat que je preche la haine des juifs,ce qui n'est pas vrai).Ne mélange pas,s'il te plait,les croyances religieuses et la politique.L'Histoire a montré que c'est un mélange explosif.Etre juif ne me permet pas de me comporter - et ne permet a personne de me traiter- en victime ni de voir dans les autres groupes ethniques ou religieux des menaces reelles ou potentielles.
Voila.Si tu veux une traduction en espagnol ou judéo-marocain,fais moi signe.

Kripouche, je n'ai jamais voulu vous traiter de quoi que soit, je parlais en général - Jamais je n'oserais parler de la sorte à Derka ou Haifa ou meme notre jeune Rali.

comme vous Kripouche, nous lisons la presse des pays arabes, ce qui s'enseigne dans les écoles. vous avez répondu à Lune, ( si la question avait été posé à n'importe qui, il choisirait de vivre dans son pays.) les arabes israeliens sont heureux en Israel, où ils ne resteraient pas.
Les journaux ne sont pas favorables à Israel, ils disent combien on est racistes. C'est pour cela que j'ai répondu de la sorte. je sais que ce n'est pas vraix.

voici ce que j'ai dit

"la question a été posé à des arabes Israeliens !!! qui vivent avec des juifs à la réputation mondiale telles que vous l'acceptez et vous l'enseignez dans vos livres d'histoire !!! et comme les Nations Unis nous ont étiquetez, un peuple raciste...

Je ne vous juge pas, ni vous accuse de quoi que ce soit. j'ai réagis immediatement.
Elisabeth,

Here is a little something for the admirers of Mr. Carter



The best President Money Can Buy












>Carter's Arab financiers
>

By Rachel Ehrenfeld
>Published: The Washington Times December 21, 2006
>
>Rachel Ehrenfeld is the director of the American Center for Democracy.
>
>To understand what feeds former president Jimmy Carter's anti-Israeli
>frenzy, look at his early links to Arab business.
>
>Between 1976-1977, the Carter family peanut business received a bailout in
>the form of a $4.6 million, "poorly managed" and highly irregular loan from
>the National Bank of Georgia (NBG). According to a July 29, 1980 Jack
>Anderson expose in The Washington Post, the bank's biggest borrower was Mr.
>Carter, and its chairman at that time was Mr. Carter's confidant, and later
>his director of the Office of Management and Budget, Bert Lance.
>
>At that time, Mr. Lance's mismanagement of the NBG got him and the bank
>into trouble. Agha Hasan Abedi, the Pakistani founder of the Bank of Credit
>and Commerce International (BCCI), known as the bank "which would bribe
>God," came to Mr. Lance's rescue making him a $100,000-a-year consultant.
>Abedi then declared: "we would never talk about exploiting his relationship
>with the president." Next, he introduced Mr. Lance to Saudi billionaire
>Gaith Pharaon, who fronted for BCCI and the Saudi royal family. In January
>1978, Abedi paid off Mr. Lance's $3.5 million debt to the NBG, and Pharaon
>secretly gained control over the bank.
>
>Mr. Anderson wrote: "Of course, the Saudis remained discretely silent...
>kept quiet about Carter's irregularities... [and] renegotiated the loan to
>Carter's advantage."
>
>There is no evidence that the former president received direct payment from
>the Saudis. But "according to... the bank files, [it] renegotiated the
>repayment terms... savings... $60,000 for the Carter family... The
>President owned 62% of the business and therefore was the largest
>beneficiary." Pharaon later contributed generously to the former
>president's library and center.
>
>When Mr. Lance introduced Mr. Carter to Abedi, the latter gave $500,000 to
>help the former president establish his center at Emory University. Later,
>Abedi contributed more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different projects.
>Even after BCCI was indicted � and convicted -� for drug money
>laundering, Mr. Carter accepted $1.5 million from Abedi, his "good friend."
>
>A quick survey of the major contributors to the Carter Center reveals
>hundreds of millions of dollars from Saudi and Gulf contributors. But it
>was BCCI that helped Mr. Carter established his center.
>
>BCCI's origins were primarily ideological. Abedi wanted the bank to reflect
>the supra-national Muslim credo and "the best bridge to help the world of
>Islam, and the best way to fight the evil influence of the Zionists."
>
>Shortly after assuming office, in March 1977, Mr. Carter made his first
>public statement regarding a Palestinian "homeland." Since then, he has
>devoted much of his time to denouncing Israel's self-defense against
>Palestinian terrorism, which he claims is not only "abominable oppression
>and persecution" of the Palestinians, but also damages U.S. interests in
>the region.
>
>By the time BCCI was shut down in July1991, it operated in 73 countries
>with a deficit of $12 billion, which it had managed to hide with wealthy
>Arab shareholders and Western luminaries. Among them Sheikh Zayed bin
>Sultan al-Nahayan of Abu Dhabi, who gave hundreds of millions of dollars to
>Yasser Arafat and Palestinian terrorist groups, and who branded the United
>States: "our enemy number one"; Former head of Saudi foreign intelligence
>service, and King Faisal's brother-in-law, Kamal Adham � who with another
>Saudi, the banker of the royal family, Khaled bin Mahfouz, staged BCCI's
>attempt to illegally purchase the Washington-based First American bank, in
>the early 1980s.
>
>True to its agenda, BCCI assisted in spreading and strengthening the
>Islamic message; they enabled Pakistan's nuclear ambitions, and helped the
>Palestinian leadership to amass a $10 billion-plus fortune, used to further
>terrorist activities and to buy more influence in the West.
>
>BCCI founders also supported the Islamic fundamentalist opposition to the
>Shah of Iran, and saw it as an opportunity to undermine Western influence
>in the Gulf. They assisted the revolution financially, reinforcing their
>position within the leadership of the Iranian revolution. Ironically, the
>success of that revolution cost Mr. Carter his presidency.
>
>BCCI's money also facilitated the Saudi agenda to force Israel to recognize
>Palestinians "rights," convincing Egyptian president Anwar Sadat to sign
>the Camp David Accords in September 1978. Since then, Mr. Carter repeatedly
>provided legitimacy to Arafat's corrupt regime, and now, like the Saudis,
>he even sides with homicidal Hamas as the "legitimate" representative of
>the Palestinian people.
>
>In a recent interview with the Los Angeles Times, Mr. Carter again laid
>responsibility for U.S. bias against the destitute, depressed and
>(consequently) violent Palestinians on American policy makers'
>helplessness, over the last 30 years, against the menacing tactics of the
>powerful American-Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC).
>
>However, it seems that AIPAC's real fault was its failure to outdo the
>Saudi's purchases of the former president's loyalty. "There has not been
>any nation in the world that has been more cooperative than Saudi Arabia,"
>the New York Times quoted Mr. Carter June 1977, thus making the Saudis a
>major factor in U. S. foreign policy.
>
>Evidently, the millions in Arab petrodollars feeding Mr. Carter's global
>endeavors, often in conflict with U.S. government policies, also ensure his
>loyalty.

Merci anidavid

tout s'explique et c'est clair.

Elisabeth

More on Jimmy.


x-President for Sale

By Alan Dershowitz

I have known Jimmy Carter for more than thirty years. I first met
him in the

spring of 1976 when, as a relatively unknown candidate for
president, he
sent me a handwritten letter asking for my help in his campaign
on issues of

crime and justice. I had just published an article in The New York
Times
Magazine on sentencing reform, and he expressed interest in my
ideas and
asked me to come up with additional ones for his campaign. Shortly
thereafter, my former student Stuart Eisenstadt brought Carter to
Harvard to

meet with some faculty members, me among them. I immediately liked
Jimmy
Carter and saw him as a man of integrity and principle. I signed on
to his
campaign and worked very hard for his election. When Newsweek
magazine asked

his campaign for the names of people on whom Carter relied for
advice, my
name was among those given out. I continued to work for Carter over
the
years, most recently I met him in Jerusalem a year ago, and we
briefly
discussed the Mid-East. Though I disagreed with some of his points,
I
continued to believe that he was making them out of a deep
commitment to
principle and to human rights.

Recent disclosures of Carter's extensive financial connections to
Arab oil
money, particularly from Saudi Arabia, had deeply shaken my belief
in his
integrity. When I was first told that he received a monetary reward
in the
name of Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahayan, and kept the money,
even after
Harvard returned money from the same source because of its
anti-Semitic
history, I simply did not believe it. How could a man of such
apparent
integrity enrich himself with dirty money from so dirty a source?
And let
there be no mistake about how dirty the Zayed Foundation is. I know
because
I was involved, in a small way, in helping to persuade Harvard
University to

return more than $2 million that the financially strapped Divinity
School
received from this source. Initially I was reluctant to put
pressure on
Harvard to turn back money for the Divinity School, but then a
student at
the Divinity School Rachael Lea Fish showed me the facts <
[www.thecrimson.com] . They were
staggering. I
was amazed that in the twenty-first century there were still
foundations
that espoused these views. The Zayed Centre for Coordination and
Follow-up a

think-tank funded by the Sheikh and run by his son hosted speakers
<
[www.adl.org] who called
Jews "the
enemies of all nations," attributed the assassination of John
Kennedy to
Israel and the Mossad and the 9/11 attacks to the United States'
own
military, and stated that the Holocaust was a "fable." (They also
hosted a
speech by Jimmy Carter.) To its credit, Harvard turned the money
back. To
his discredit, Carter did not.


Jimmy Carter was, of course, aware of Harvard's decision, since it
was
highly publicized. Yet he kept the money. Indeed, this is what he
said in
accepting the funds: "This award has special significance for me
because it
is named for my personal friend, Sheik Zayed bin Sultan al-Nahyan."
Carter's

personal friend, it turns out, was an unredeemable anti-Semite and
all-around bigot.

In reading Carter's statements, I was reminded of the bad old
Harvard of the

nineteen thirties, which continued to honor Nazi academics after
the
anti-Semitic policies of Hitler's government became clear. Harvard
of the
nineteen thirties was complicit in evil. I sadly concluded that
Jimmy Carter

of the twenty-first century has become complicit in evil.

The extent of Carter's financial support from, and even dependence
on, dirty

money is still not fully known. What we do know is deeply
troubling. Carter
and his Center have accepted millions of dollars from suspect
sources,
beginning with the bail-out of the Carter family peanut business in
the late

1970s by BCCI, a now-defunct and virulently anti-Israeli bank
indirectly
controlled by the Saudi Royal family, and among whose principal
investors is

Carter's friend, Sheikh Zayed. Agha Hasan Abedi, the founder of the
bank,
gave Carter "$500,000 to help the former president establish his
center...[and] more than $10 million to Mr. Carter's different
projects." <
[www.washingtontimes.com]
Carter
gladly accepted the money, though Abedi had called his bank
ostensibly the
source of his funding "the best way to fight the evil influence of
the
Zionists." BCCI isn't the only source: Saudi King Fahd contributed
millions
to the Carter Center "in 1993 alone...$7.6 million" <
[frontpagemagazine.com] as
have other
members of the Saudi Royal Family. Carter also received a million
dollar
pledge from the Saudi-based bin Laden family, as well as a personal
$500,000

environmental award named for Sheikh Zayed, and paid for by the
Prime
Minister of the United Arab Emirates.

It's worth noting that, despite the influx of Saudi money funding
the Carter

Center, and despite the Saudi Arabian government's myriad human
rights
abuses, the Carter Center's Human Rights program has no activity
whatever in

Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have apparently bought his silence for a
steep
price. The bought quality of the Center's activities becomes even
more
clear, however, when reviewing the Center's human rights activities
in other

countries: essentially no human rights activities in China or in
North
Korea, or in Iran, Iraq, the Sudan, or Syria, but activity
regarding Israel
and its alleged abuses, according to the Center's website <


[www.cartercenter.org]
.html
.
The Carter Center's mission statement claims that "The Center is
nonpartisan

and acts as a neutral party in dispute resolution activities." How
can that
be, given that its coffers are full of Arab money, and that its
focus is
away from significant Arab abuses and on Israel's far less serious
ones?

No reasonable person can dispute therefore that Jimmy Carter has
been and
remains dependent on Arab oil money, particularly from Saudi
Arabia. Does
this mean that Carter has necessarily been influenced in his
thinking about
the Middle East by receipt of such enormous amounts of money? Ask
Carter.
The entire premise of his criticism of Jewish influence on American
foreign
policy is that money talks. It is Carter not me who has made the
point that
if politicians receive money from Jewish sources, then they are not
free to
decide issues regarding the Middle East for themselves. It is
Carter, not
me, who has argued that distinguished reporters cannot honestly
report on
the Middle East because they are being paid by Jewish money. So, by
Carter's

own standards, it would be almost economically "suicidal" for
Carter "to
espouse a balanced position between Israel and Palestine."

By Carter's own standards, therefore, his views on the Middle East
must be
discounted. It is certainly possible that he now believes them.
Money,
particularly large amounts of money, has a way of persuading people
to a
particular position. It would not surprise me if Carter, having
received so
much Arab money, is now honestly committed to their cause. But his
failure
to disclose the extent of his financial dependence on Arab money,
and the
absence of any self reflection on whether the receipt of this money
has
unduly influenced his views, is a form of deception bordering on
corruption.

I have met cigarette lobbyists, who are supported by the cigarette
industry,

and who have come to believe honestly that cigarettes are merely a
safe form

of adult recreation, that cigarettes are not addicting and that the
cigarette industry is really trying to persuade children not to
smoke. These

people are fooling themselves (or fooling us into believing that
they are
fooling themselves) just as Jimmy Carter is fooling himself (or
persuading
us to believe that he is fooling himself).

If money determines political and public views as Carter insists
"Jewish
money" does then Carter's views on the Middle East must be deemed
to have
been influenced by the vast sums of Arab money he has received. If
he who
pays the piper calls the tune, then Carter's off-key tunes have
been called
by his Saudi Arabian paymasters. It pains me to say this, but I now
believe
that there is no person in American public life today who has a
lower ratio
of real to apparent integrity than Jimmy Carter. The public
perception of
his integrity is extraordinarily high. His real integrity, it now
turns out,

is extraordinarily low. He is no better than so many former
American
politicians who, after leaving public life, sell themselves to the
highest
bidder and become lobbyists for despicable causes. That is now
Jimmy
Carter's sad legacy.