Discus

Archive jusqu'au 23/mars/2006-1

Discus: ADRA : LES COMMENTAIRES D'HARISSA: Commentaires 2006: Commentaires Mars 2006: Archive jusqu'au 23/mars/2006-1

Par Girelle (Girelle) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 15h22:

Nao,

C'est plus grave encore que vous ne pouvez le croire: Il ne reste presque plus de chrétiens en France, et ceux qui ne portaient pas de chales étaient des convertis discrets.

Demandez à vos sources d'information, vous verrez...

Par Bazooka (Bazooka) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 10h43:

Pour voir l'interview de Jonasz avant le spectacle:

http://www.guysen.com/videos.php?vid=307

Par Maxiton (Maxiton) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 10h07:

Châles ?

ma femme appelle ce truc une serpillière

Par Bazooka (Bazooka) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 07h29:

Juste pour vous dire que je suis encore sous le charme du concert qu'a donne Michel Jonasz dimanche dernier a Tel Aviv, voir les premieres images sur:
http://www.guysen.com/videos.php?vid=310

Je vous relaterai ce concert memorable dans quelques jours ...

Une preuve supplementaire, s'il en fallait, que la Francophonie se porte vraiment bien en Israel.

Par Mena (Mena) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 06h16:

Le livre politiquement incorrect sur l’Irak d’une journaliste de FR2 (info # 012103/6) [analyse]
Par Viviane Miles © Metula News Agency

La différence entre "Irak, la vérité" de Jeanne Assouly et les autres ouvrages publiés en France sur le même thème, c’est "la vérité".

Je viens de dévorer un polar. Enfin, presque. C’est en tous cas ainsi que se présente le début du livre que Jeanne Assouly vient de publier : « Irak, la vérité : ce que la France peut craindre du procès Saddam Hussein ».

Avant de décrire la chute du despote irakien, Jeanne Assouly, journaliste à la rédaction de France 2 depuis dix-huit ans, commence par emmener ses lecteurs dans un bond en arrière de mille deux cents ans, dans un décor inspiré des Mille et une nuits. Très exactement lorsque « en l’an 803 de notre ère, Haroun al-Rachid, calife abbasside légendaire de Bagdad, envoie une ambassade au tout aussi célèbre empereur Charlemagne, roi des Francs », rencontre qui marque le début d’une amitié durable entre la France et l’Irak, même si les relations entre les deux nations connaissent quelques périodes creuses dans leur histoire. Puis sautant en une page quelques générations, le lecteur est projeté au XXème siècle, en 1958 précisément, quand Charles de Gaulle réalise l’intérêt territorial que représente l’Irak pour la France. Le Général va alors poser les premiers jalons d’une présence française pour contrebalancer celle des anglo-américains dans la région, avec, en arrière-plan, il faut bien le reconnaître, la convoitise du pétrole irakien.

L’instigateur du rapprochement entre la France et l’Irak est un certain Jacques Benoist-Méchin. Expert militaire sous de Gaulle, il avait déjà eu le temps de tisser des liens très solides en Irak depuis 1941, alors que, sous les ordres du gouvernement de Vichy, il tentait de négocier des livraisons d’armes au chef irakien Rachid Ali pour renverser le régent pro-britannique.

Intérêt français bien compris, à la démission du général de Gaulle, en 1969, peu après l’accession au pouvoir de Saddam Hussein à Bagdad, ce sont les successeurs du président sortant – Georges Pompidou, puis Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, et enfin Jacques Chirac – qui concrétisent les accords initiés par Benoist-Méchin.

La destruction de la centrale nucléaire Osirak (Tamouz) par l’armée israélienne en 1981 incite François Mitterrand à réduire la coopération nucléaire avec le raïs du Tigre et de l’Euphrate. Et, lorsque, quelques années plus tard, l’Irak envahit le Koweït, les relations franco-iraquiennes connaissent une sérieuse éclipse.

Aujourd’hui la France a à nouveau resserré ses liens avec l’Irak, comme le démontre clairement Jeanne Assouly, alors qu’une grande partie de la population française – composée d’une frange croissante de musulmans – exprime haut et fort, bien plus qu’hier, ses penchants pro-irakiens et anti-américains. Cette nouvelle donne explique que la réaction française en 2003 n’est plus celle de 1990 ; et que Chirac, contrairement à Mitterrand, ne s’est pas rangé aux côtés de la coalition anglo-américaine.

Au chapitre suivant, changement de style. Jeanne Assouly réussit le tour de force de faire naître sous sa plume un suspense intense qui dépasse la fiction. Un compte à rebours haletant. C’est le récit d’une traque, jour après jour, heure après heure, qui s’achève par l’arrestation de Saddam Hussein, débusqué dans le terrier où il se cache, et par quelques mots prononcés par le gouverneur d’Irak Paul Bremer : « We have got him. », (Nous l’avons !).

L’art de la journaliste de France 2 est de passer d’un genre à l’autre avec un égal brio. Elle enchaîne sous la forme d’un journal de bord, alternant les descriptions factuelles et les interviews de personnalités qu’elle a rencontrées.

Elle nous fait ainsi partager, au fil des pages, les confidences intimistes – parfois d’une cécité frisant la mauvaise foi – de Ziad et Zeinab, les enfants de Tarek Aziz, inconscients que leur père eût pu être au service d’un tyran sanguinaire. Puis les révélations d’Amine Gemayel, ancien président du Liban, investi par Saddam Hussein, comme le fut également Tarek Aziz, d’une mission de bons offices auprès de représentants français, anglais et américains ainsi que du pape, pour essayer d’éviter la guerre et de ménager au président irakien une sortie honorable. Alain Juillet, ancien directeur de la DGSE, et Evgueni Primakov, ancien ministre russe des Affaires Etrangères, confirment dans leurs témoignages ces négociations secrètes.

Et l’auteur de soulever des questions troublantes, dont la première est indubitablement de savoir si le soi-disant camp de la paix n’a pas, par son attitude irresponsable et sa vision à court terme, précipité la guerre. C’est ce qu’établit Jeanne Assouly dans son enquête minutieuse. Qui aboutit à la conclusion que si Saddam Hussein s’est accroché à son pouvoir alors qu’il avait la possibilité de trouver refuge dans divers pays du Moyen-Orient, ou même en Russie, c’est en grande partie parce que le « camp de la paix », France en tête, a réussi à le convaincre qu’il était intouchable. L’auteur l’explique d’ailleurs fort bien dans une chronique sur France Info, le 12 mars dernier, au micro de Philippe Vallet : « (…) Mais les manifestants pacifistes dans le monde l’ont conforté dans la décision qu’il devait rester pour faire plier Bush et l’Amérique. En outre la France l’avait assuré d’un veto contre la guerre à l’ONU, ce qui l’a convaincu de son choix. ».

Le raïs, pourtant méfiant de nature, s’est donc laissé gagner par les promesses de ses amis et en a perdu sa clairvoyance.

Après le temps des négociations ratées vient celui de la confrontation. Mais, comme le souligne l’auteur, l’intervention des Américains, contrairement aux vœux des média français, est rapide et efficace au lieu de s’enliser dans un remake du bourbier vietnamien. En un peu plus d’un mois, la coalition anglo-américaine, soutenue par les Kurdes, prend le pays presque sans rencontrer de résistance. La surprise, voire la déception des Français est encore plus grande à la découverte de la joie manifestée par la population irakienne d’être enfin débarrassée de son tourmenteur. La journaliste, qui a passé au peigne fin la presse hexagonale, relève l’acharnement des grands journaux généralistes, en particulier Le Monde et Libération, – toujours à l’affût du moindre faux pas ou de la moindre bavure américaine – à désinformer l’opinion publique. Pourtant les choses avancent : en quelques semaines, un gouvernement provisoire irakien est mis en place au grand dam de la France, persuadée que la guerre ne fait que commencer et que les Etats-Unis « ne sont pas au bout de leurs peines ». Mais le 3 septembre 2003, soit moins de six mois après l’entrée des troupes de la coalition en Irak, le « premier gouvernement de l’après-Saddam prête serment. ».

L’arrestation de Saddam Hussein a marqué un tournant dans le conflit. Aujourd’hui, les Irakiens ont une constitution ; l’économie redémarre ; la vie reprend le dessus, malgré les attentats quotidiens. C’est aussi l’heure des bilans. Jeanne Assouly analyse sévèrement l’attitude de la France et met en relief les motivations douteuses qui ont conduit le gouvernement de Chirac à soutenir envers et contre tout le régime tyrannique de Bagdad. Pour l’auteur, cette attitude est en train de coûter cher à la France sur les plans économique, politique et diplomatique. La France, qui était surtout, tel un gamin capricieux, motivée par le désir compulsif de dire non, de s’opposer au « grand frère » américain pour affirmer son indépendance.

Se basant sur les interviews d’une dizaine de personnalités connues, l’auteur apporte un éclairage nouveau et original sur les coulisses de l’avant-guerre, de la guerre et de l’après-guerre en Irak, dans une analyse percutante et réfléchie. A contre-courant du credo anti-américain des media et du gouvernement français. On peut toutefois regretter que le thème suggéré par le sous-titre prometteur ne soit abordé qu’à la fin, et encore de façon incomplète. Avec tout de même la confirmation que Chirac et son entourage pourraient bien faire les frais de révélations embarrassantes, notamment dans le cadre du programme « pétrole contre nourriture », lorsque les témoins et les principaux protagonistes seront appelés à la barre dans le procès du dictateur irakien.

Par Nao (Nao) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 00h40:

Avez-vous remarque le nombre de chales palestiniens arborés par les manifestants lyceens et non lyceens???
Assez inquietant!
Ca prouve que tous ces jeunes sont manipules par les gauchistes, LCR et compagnie..

Par Michka (Michka) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 00h35:

Et pendant ce temps-là, en France , on défile…

Le meilleur marché de l’emploi pour les jeunes diplomés depuis 2001
Mardi 21 mars 2006 par lagrette

WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Les jeunes diplômés d’université ont devant eux le meilleur marché du travail depuis 2001, la plus forte demande allant vers les diplômes en business, en informatique , en ingénierie, en éducation et en santé, selon le rapport d’ une société de conseil en emploi.
“Nous nous approchons du plein l’emploi et certains employeurs conçoivent déjà des avantages pour attirer les meilleurs talents,” a déclaré John Challenger, le directeur général de Challenger, Gray & Christmas.
Dans sa perspective annuelle sur le premier emploi, la société estime que la forte croissance des emplois et la baisse du chômage font de ce printemps le meilleur marché du travail depuis l’éclatement de la bulle internet en 2001 pour les 1.4 millions de diplômés americains.
Une enquête par la National Association of Colleges and Employers montre que les employeurs projettent d’engager 14,5% de nouveaux diplômés de plus qu’il y a un an.
L’enquête a aussi montré une augmentation des salaires de départ cette année. Les diplômés en économie ou en finance verront la plus grande augmentation avec les salaires de départ en hausse de 11 % à $45 191, alors que les salaires en comptabilité sont en hausse de 6.2 %, les salaires en administration des affaires en hausse de 3.9 % et ceux des ingénieurs civils de 4.3 %.

Source USA Today.

Par Michka (Michka) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 00h17:

Héhé !!! Heureux comme un juif en France !!!

Agression à caractère antisémite à Paris 19 eme. Deux jeunes juifs, frères, sont insultés et frappés par 4 individus le samedi 18 mars 2006.
BUREAU NATIONAL DE VIGILANCE CONTRE L'ANTISEMITISME
21/3/2006

Le Président
Sammy GHOZLAN

Le Bureau National de Vigilance Contre l'antisémitisme déplore une nouvelle agression à caractère antisémite qui s'est produite le samedi 18 mars 2006 à Paris 19 eme .

David H 15 ans et son frère Ilan H 12 ans regagnent leur domicile vers 19h50, lorsqu'ils croisent 4 jeunes gens qu'il décrivent comme étant l'un d'origine nord africaine, et les autres d'origine africaine. Ils reconnaissent parmi eux des élèves du collège qu'ils fréquentent. Arrivés à leur hauteur, l'un d'entre eux leur dit "SALUT YOUPIN".

Au moment ou David, interloqué, se dirige vers l'auteur de l'insulte pour en comprendre les raisons, les autres individus provoquent l'altercation, profèrent des insultes antijuives, et frappent les deux frères juifs.

Ceux ci blessés et traumatisés, déposent plainte. Ils sont conduits à l'IMJ qui leur prescrit une première ITT de 2 jours et un suivi psychologique de réparation.

Nous demandons à la Police chargée de l'enquête d'interpeller tous les auteurs des faits, et les mettre à la disposition de la justice .

Nous demandons au chef d'Etablissement fréquenté par les mis en cause de prendre les mesures disciplinaires imposées par le comportement violent et raciste de ces collégiens, même si les évènements se sont déroulés en dehors du collège.

Sammy GHOZLAN

Par Lalla (Lalla) le mercredi 22 mars 2006 - 00h07:

super comme debut!qui c'est ce JANOS SEVILLARD??

Par A_Soued (A_Soued) le mardi 21 mars 2006 - 21h50:

PSYCHANALYSE D'UNE PALESTINE EN CHUTE LIBRE

Symposium réalisé par www.FrontPageMagazine.com et animé par Jamie Glazov, réunissant Kenneth Levin, professeur de psychiatrie à la Harvard Medical school, David Keyes, assistant d'un ex-ambassadeur d'Israël à l'Onu et journaliste au Jerusalem Center of Public affaires et David Gutmann, professeur Emeritus de psychologie à la Northwestern University de Chicago, le 17 mars 2006

Résumé et conclusions en français par Albert Soued, www.chez.com/soued/conf.htm

Pour le site www.nuitdorient.com - 21 mars 2006

Les 2 questions posées par l'animateur sont: Pourquoi les Palestiniens ont utilisé une ouverture démocratique pour élire un gouvernement islamo-fasciste et pourquoi la gauche israélienne profite de l'occasion pour considérer le Hamas, voué à l'extermination des Juifs, comme une force de justice sociale ?

Depuis 1947, dans les choix successifs qu'ils ont faits, les Palestiniens ont toujours cru qu'ils allaient gagner et les raisons d'aller en guerre n'avaient rien d'auto-destructif, mais résultait d'une détermination à tuer le maximum de Juifs. À chaque fois, ils ont péché par un mauvais calcul ou par optimisme exagéré. Avec le choix du Hamas, nous sommes dans le même processus d'une illusion paranoïaque qui est entretenue par les maîtres, les sheikhs, les médias et les dirigeants. Les Palestiniens rêvent d'en découdre avec des voisins "infidèles non musulmans, lâches et efféminés".

Il appartient aux Israéliens de s'en rendre compte et de les en dissuader périodiquement par une action punitive d'envergure et surtout en ne montrant, à aucun moment, une attitude de faiblesse (concession territoriale, transfert de fonds, acceptation de travailleurs, acceptation de construction illicite etc….). Le coma de Sharon a été décisif dans le choix du Hamas par les Palestiniens, car Sharon était un personnage craint et sa disparition de la scène politique a donné de nouvelles ailes au rêve Palestinien d'expédier les Israéliens dans la mer Méditerranée. Et le Hamas semblait le plus décidé et le plus apte à assouvir ce rêve.

De même, une société aveuglée par les moteurs culturels de la "honte subie" et de "l'honneur à défendre" est à la fois dangereuse pour elle-même et pour les autres. Cette société frustrée rumine son humiliation et nourrit une psychose, pouvant aller jusqu'au syndrome génocidaire.

D'un autre côté les "peacenik" israéliens subissent la culture de la culpabilité, se sentent coupables d'avoir infligé la défaite et la honte à leurs voisins et ils cherchent à se rédimer. Dans ce syndrome, certains vont jusqu'à agir contre leur nation, leur famille et leurs propres intérêts.

Certains disent qu'on n'aurait pas dû laisser un groupe terroriste se présenter à des élections démocratiques, car ceci est antinomique au sens véritable de la démocratie. Or le choix se situait entre deux groupes terroristes, l'un avoué le Hamas, l'autre voilé le Fatah. Pour les Palestiniens, le Hamas, qui a tué plus de 600 Israéliens pendant l'intifada, est l'image du héros islamique libérateur. Il a été élu parce que les Palestiniens sont d'accord avec ses objectifs: destruction d'Israël, lutte contre la corruption, installation d'une société régie par la loi islamique.

Le choix palestinien a été guidé par le fait qu'à ses yeux le Hamas représente mieux le combat contre l'occupant, du fait même qu'il est encore plus violent que le Fatah et qu'il glorifie encore plus le "martyr", le suicide. Rappelons que le Fatah au pouvoir cherchait à montrer vis à vis de l'extérieur un visage plus conciliant ou plus modéré; d'où une attitude globalement moins ouvertement engagée dans la violence.

Le problème aujourd'hui est que certains Israéliens ne veulent pas voir la réalité de la situation qui empire et se voilent la face, par lassitude ou par manque d'espoir. Il est étonnant de comparer les propos du futur 1er ministre d'un pays en guerre avec ceux d'un Churchill pendant la dernière guerre mondiale.

Winston Churchill, 4 juin 1940, discours devant le Parlement britannique:

"Nous ne faiblirons pas et ne faillirons pas. Nous irons jusqu’au bout. Nous combattrons en France et sur les mers et sur les océans ; nous combattrons avec une confiance accrue et une force croissante dans les airs. Nous défendrons notre île quoiqu’il en coûte; nous combattrons sur les plages, sur les terrains d’atterrissage, dans les campagnes, dans les rues et sur les collines. Nous ne nous rendrons jamais et même si, ce que je ne crois pas pour le moment, cette île ou un grande partie de celle-ci était soumise et affamée, alors notre empire d’outre-mer, armé et protégé par la flotte britannique, mènera le combat jusqu’à ce que dans le temps voulu par D., le nouveau Monde avec toute son pouvoir et sa puissance, se mette en route pour la libération et le secours de l’Ancien Monde".

Ehoud Olmert, 9 juin 2005, discours devant le Forum Politique d’Israël à New York: "Nous sommes fatigués de nous battre, nous sommes fatigues d’être courageux, nous sommes fatigués de gagner, nous sommes fatigués de vaincre nos ennemis, nous voulons être capables de vivre dans un environnement de relations totalement différent avec nos ennemis"

Levin dans son livre "le Syndrome d'Oslo, illusions d'un peuple assiégé" explique bien

pourquoi certains Israéliens, assiégés par les arabes depuis bientôt 60 ans, finissent par adopter le point de vue de l'assiégeant. Le conflit du Moyen Orient est spécifiquement un conflit entre des résistances de volontés. Et la plus grande menace pour Israël n'est pas celle des armes ou des armées ennemies, mais celle de la capacité du citoyen à résister au siège, à l'assaut de la propagande ennemie et à son boycott moral.

On dit que la colombe présente docilement son cou à l'abattoir, sans se révolter par atavisme ou par passivité narcissique. Il n'y a pas place en Israël pour un comportement suicidaire d'une "colombe" qui se sent coupable des maux subis par les Palestiniens, qu'ils se sont infligés à eux-mêmes directement ou par le biais de chefs qu'ils ont choisis.

Les Palestiniens sont des gens adultes responsables de leurs actes et pour lesquels il n'y a aucune excuse à trouver. Ils se sont engagés délibérément dans la voie de la guerre et ils méritent d'en subir les conséquences s'ils persistent.

Et vu la situation psychique de l'adversaire, il ne reste pas de place ni à l'apaisement ni aux concessions.

SYMPOSIUM: THE FALL OF PALESTINE

By Jamie Glazov - FrontPageMagazine.com | March 17, 2006

Hamas’ recent stunning victory in the Palestinian parliamentary elections has forced the international community to face a precarious challenge. As the U.S. and Israel regroup to to deal with unapologetic Islamo-Fascists running Palestinian office, several pertinent questions beg analysis: (1) Why did the Palestinians utilize a democratic experiment to elect Islamo-Fascists? (2) Why are Israeli leftists using the occasion to paint the new rulers of Palestinians as forces of social justice?

To discuss these and other questions relating to Hamas’ takeover of the Palestinian Authority, we have assembled a distinguished panel. Our guests today:

Kenneth Levin, a clinical instructor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, a Princeton-trained historian, and a commentator on Israeli politics. He is the author of the new book The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People Under Siege.

David Keyes, who assisted a former Israeli ambassador to the U.N. and specialized on terrorism at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs. He recently returned from the Middle East where he co-authored academic papers with the former U.N. ambassador and the former head of Israeli military intelligence research and assessment. His latest paper, entitled “Al-Qaeda Infiltration of Gaza: A Post-Disengagement Assessment” was published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

And David Gutmann, Emeritus professor of Psychology and Behavioral Sciences at North-Western university Medical School, in Chicago. As a clinician, he has practiced and taught intensive psychotherapy. As a researcher, he has conducted psychological studies of the Galilean and the Golan Heights Druse, as well as the Bedouin of the Negev and Sinai deserts.

FP: David Keyes, Kenneth Levin and David Gutmann, welcome to Frontpage Symposium.

David Gutmann, let’s begin with you.

In July 2000 in the Camp David talks, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak offered the Palestinians 95% of their negotiating demands, their own sovereign state in Judea, Samaria and the Gaza Strip, more than 90 percent of the West Bank, and a capital in Jerusalem.

Barak offered the Palestinians sovereignty over all Arab-populated parts of East Jerusalem, over all of the Old City except the Jewish Quarter, and over the Temple Mount, with Jewish sovereignty only over the Western Wall below the Mount.

The Palestinians had a chance to enter a new era of peace, with their own state, on incredibly generous terms.

They chose death. Yasser Arafat rewarded the Israelis for their offer by spawning another onslaught of gruesome terror – the al-Aqsa Intifada.

Instead of choosing peace and their own state, the Palestinians decided it was a better idea to strap bombs onto their children and to send them into Israeli buses, cafés and teenage discos to blow themselves up alongside innocent Jews.

On the pretence of the importance of killing Jews, the Palestinians began to kill themselves – along with Jews – in mass numbers. The choice had been made for self-annihilation over creation. Palestinian kids detonated themselves into smithereens while their parents cheered on in ecstasy from the sidelines, proud that their children had become “shahids” (martyrs).

Then, as this madness ensued, we did all could to engender a democratic experiment among the Palestinians, hoping that democracy would free them from their addiction to mass death and suicide.

They finally got a democratic process. They took it and elected Islamo-Fascists.

Let me ask you a two-fold question now:

(1) What pathologies spawn a death cult like this?

(2) Many on the Israeli Left have taken the occasion of the Hamas victory to paint Hamas -- which has vowed to exterminate Jews -- as some kind of social justice party that is concerned with peace and the common welfare. This is just as obscene as the psychology of Hamas itself. What gives here?

Gutmann: In voting for Hamas, did the Palestinians opt for war and death, or for war and victory? I contend that they always opt for victory, but because their grandiosity leads to overconfidence and under-preparation, they end up with defeat.
In '47 an d '48 the Palestinian leadership chose war instead of the state that the UN offered them in a partitioned Palestine. It was the wrong choice: it led to defeat and to the loss of the lands designated for their state. Nevertheless, their motives in going to war were murderous, not self-destructive: they had every reason to believe that they would win a war of extermination against a relative handful of under-armed Jews - the same "Children of Death" who had gone unresistingly to the gas chambers.

And the Palestinians came pretty close to realizing this Holocaustic vision: a large proportion of Israel's precious younger generation had to die in order to stop them.

Again, the Palestinians had good reason to be optimistic in the second round of their war against the Jews, when Arafat led them into the Al Aqsa Intifada. Then, Israeli society was split between rather ineffectual Hawks and Peace-At-Any-Price-Niks, and Israel's borders were terribly porous to suicide bombers who struck almost every day.

Meanwhile, the Jewish state was condemned - also on a daily basis - by the UN, the Brits and the Europeans. Worst of all, the IDF had recently and for the first time run away from an enemy force: it had bugged out of Southern Lebanon with Hezbollah right behind it, leaving weapons, intact military installations and unprotected Christian allies in its wake.

Given this background, the Barak/Clinton offer of East Jerusalem and almost all of the West Bank was not welcomed by Arafat as a token of Israeli generosity, but as evidence of terminal Israeli weakness: "The Jews are beaten, they are suing for peace. If Hezbollah could chase them out of Lebanon, then Allah willing my Fatah boys can chase them from all of Palestine."
It took the election of Sharon, Operation Defensive Shield, the PLO's crushing defeat at Jenin, and Arafat's house arrest in Ramallah to temporarily correct this grandiose, essentially paranoid delusion. But only for a short while: Islamic dreams of slaughtering a cowardly, effeminate enemy can be temporarily refuted by reality, but they die hard.

They flourish again when, in Arab eyes, the enemy reveals some shameful weakness.
Churchill once said, "The Hun is either at your feet or at your throat." Similarly with the Arabs; and I suggest that their oscillations between quiescence and ferocity are driven by the Shame/Honor dynamic that is central to Arab psyche and Arab society. Shame and loss of honor, while toxic to the Arab, cannot be metabolized within the Arab self. Instead, the stigma must be ejected, spat out from the self, and downloaded onto lesser beings: women, defeated enemy, infidels and especially Jews. Once the weakness that originated in the Arab is discovered in the Other, then - symbolically or literally - he must be killed.

The shamed enemy has come to represent some hated part of the Arab's persona, and Killing him is a substitute for suicide, for the killing of the self. This is the psychodrama that Zionist Jews and Arabs have been playing out in Palestine for almost a hundred years.

Most recently, having crushed the Second Intifada, Sharon trades Gaza, which is a liability, for the strategic West Bank settlements around Jerusalem that he intends to keep. These would be guarded behind the Security Wall - the barrier that will, in the absence of a negotiating partner, unilaterally define Israel's final boundaries. Sharon has drawn back the better to advance; but - particularly now that Sharon is comatose - Hamas spins Sharon's calculated disengagement into a great victory for their own gunmen: "the Jews are running away from us. This is only the beginning: we will make them drown in the sea."

In it's turn, the Palestinian street sees in Hamas, the "liberators" of Gaza, the agents of final victory over Israel, and votes them into power. As in 1947 and 2001, the Palestinians smell blood in the water, indulge their triumphalist fantasies, and again choose the fever-dream of total victory over peace and statehood. They are by now so seriously addicted to Judeo-cidal Dreams that, like true junkies, they will pay almost anything - statehood, peace, the future of their children, life under Sharia law - in order to feed their habit. And in this hectic scenario, Hamas is the more reliable pusher. Again, the fantasied goals are murderous, destructive towards others; it is the Palestinian willingness to pay an exorbitant price for them that is self-destructive.

Not all Palestinians share this genocidal syndrome. Some no doubt voted against Fatah's corruption, while others elected for Hamas' Welfare State (Hitler's wartime charity, Winter Hilfe, comes to mind). But for Hamas' True Believers, why is the addiction to blood-drenched fantasy so powerful? Why this overwhelming desire to see the Jews blown to pieces, terrified, and running? Again, we must refer to the dynamics of shame: I saw the Palestinians abandon their villages in 1947 without a fight, even before we of the Israeli Hagana had enough guns or men to make them run. Their resulting shame was compounded by their Arab "brothers" in Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and egypt, who contemptuously shoved the dishonoured Palestinians into squalid camps. There, refugee kids grew up hearing taunts like these: "You Palestinian whores who sold your land to the Jews, and then ran away!

To repeat, Shame/Honor societies cannot manage shame except by inflicting it back on the enemy who shamed them. Until that happens, the timeless sense of humiliation festers in the soul, and breeds Psychosis: Arab leaders still bristle at the word "Crusade," and demand the return of Seville and Andaluz (Andalusia), since 1490 the "occupied territories" of Spain.

So of course the Palestinians will always sabotage - as they did in 1947, 2000 and now in 2006 – a negotiated peace with Israel. For the Palestinians, the only acceptable negotiating partners are Jews who mirror the Palestinians of '47 and '48 : defeated Jews, SHAMED Jews whose terrified mobs run like lemmings to the sea. Good faith negotiations with a still powerful, still undefeated Israel means living forever with the shame of NAQBA , and giving up the wet-dream of a total, redemptive victory.

Thus far, the Palestinian addiction to such orgiastic visions has proven too strong to be broken. In some ways Israeli and American-Jewish peaceniks are even more pathological than the Palestinians: it is the former who exhibit motivated rather than incidental self-destructiveness.

If the Palestinians constitute a typical Shame/Honor culture, then by contrast, Jews - especially Peaceniks - constitute a Guilt culture. The Arabs worry about what has been done to them by way of insults and humiliations; the Jews worry about has been done to others by them, or in their name. History is a tale of blood, and statehood shoved the Jews back into history, into the middle of the battle, where the choices were to fight or die. The Israelis proved to be successful warriors, but many Jews - Israelis as well as Americans - have sickened of the killing, and are fashioning a separate peace. They have reached the point where they plead the enemy's cause against their own people, and ultimately against their own children. Currently, they are starting to spin HAMAS as the wardens of a benign welfare state – Mother Teresa with a suicide belt.
The Palestinians won't be Shame-free until they have defeated the Jews; the Peacenik Jews won't be guilt-free until they have helped them do it.

Keyes: Hamas’ victory in the Palestinian election shatters the myth that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is driven by “a small group of fanatics on both sides.” It has reaffirmed the existence of profound radicalism among the general Palestinian community. The fact that a mass-murdering terrorist group was permitted to run in the first place was a disgrace to democracy. Just as Nazis cannot run in German elections and al-Qaeda is not allowed to run in elections anywhere, so it should have been with Hamas. In any case, the election was primarily a choice between two terrorist organizations—Fatah and Hamas.

Hamas has killed about 600 Israelis, executed nearly half of the suicide-bombings from 2000-2005, colluded with al-Qaeda, and encouraged the defeat of America in Iraq. Hamas couldn’t be less of a legitimate “resistance” group if it tried; a mere two percent of its attacks have been aimed at military targets. For these reasons and many more, Hamas—like al-Qaeda—must be utterly liquidated.

So why did the Palestinians elect this wretched organization? To be sure, in part it was a rejection of the systemic cronyism and dysfunction of Fatah. But Hamas’ main goals since its founding have been the destruction of Israel in its entirety and the implementation of strict Islamic law. Through hardly conducted in an environment of true tolerance or freedom, a majority of Palestinians have expressed solidarity with these goals through the ballot box. At the very least, it can be said that Hamas’ genocidal aims did not perturb the Palestinians enough to actually sway their vote. Indeed, it is the Palestinian people who bear the responsibility for this latest calamity. Even if the average German citizen’s primary goal in the 1930s was not the eradication of the Jews, they clearly did not mind electing someone whose chief aim was exactly that.

Hamas’ influence can be blamed in part on the nearly two decades of dictatorship and oppression under Arafat. Tyranny augments fundamentalism as subjugated populations seek an escape from daily suffering and repression. Totalitarianism and the absence of basic human freedoms are the well-spring of extremism and terror. The rampant hate-speech spewed from Palestinian media and mosques have also have also fostered radicalism. Palestinian children are told daily by their leaders, teachers, preachers, and in some cases even families, that martyrdom and suicide are heroic acts rewarded by eternal bliss. The amazing thing is not that so many Palestinians have chosen to strap bombs to their chest to kill Jews, but that more have not. From children’s suicide-camps in Gaza to an-Najah University’s glorified re-creation of a suicide bombing at an Israeli pizza parlor, generations of Palestinians have been indoctrinated into a cult of death.

As for any Israeli delusions of working with Hamas or moderating them, it can only be said that we have been here before. So much of what is being said about Hamas today is exactly what was said of the PLO two decades ago. Arafat was brought back from Tunis and needed only to sign a piece of paper renouncing terror. He uttered a handful of hollow platitudes denouncing violence in English and the world went forth appeasing this murderous tyrant. He became a frequent and honored guest at the White House. Rabin even said that Arafat could fight terrorism with greater efficiency because he was not accountable to human rights organizations. This was the warped mindset that led to the disaster of Oslo. Meanwhile, Arafat never gave up his dream of destroying Israel and certainly never stopped funding suicide-bombers. Emboldened by Israel’s recent unilateral disengagement, Hamas promises to be even worse than Arafat. The fact that Hamas provides social services to Palestinians should be about as relevant as if al-Qaeda handed out blankets to poor Afghanis after 9/11.

But most Israelis are tired of fighting and will do nearly anything to end the conflict. Israelis are a peace-seeking people who have been besieged by implacable enemies for so long that they simply want it to end. Some on the Israeli left have craved peace so badly that they have become delusional in the process; they are willing to sign a deal with whoever has paper. But overall, Israel has shown incredible tenacity in the face of seemingly endless terror. Nevertheless, perhaps fatigue is taking a toll. Consider the following two statements by leaders in a time of war:

Winston Churchill in 1940: "We shall not flag nor fail. We shall go on to the end. We shall fight in France and on the seas and oceans; we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air. We shall defend our island whatever the cost may be; we shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender…”

Ehud Olmert in 2005: "We are tired of fighting, we are tired of being courageous, we are tired of winning, we are tired of defeating our enemies, we want that we will be able to live in an entirely different environment of relations with our enemies."

That about says it all.

Levin: I agree with David Gutmann that the Palestinians' pursuit of their terror war against Israel, and election of Hamas, are less suicidal than genocidal. I also agree with his comments on the psychodynamics underlying the Palestinians', and broader Arab world's, genocidal agenda, except that I would emphasize the role of Arab leaders in cultivating and channeling individuals' psychodynamic predilections into murderous hatred toward perceived external enemies, most notable Jews.

On the recent Palestinian election, there has been much debate as to whether votes for Hamas were votes against PA/PLO corruption or for Hamas's exterminationist platform. But the distinction is based on a false premise in that - as David Keyes notes - the PA/PLO likewise promoted an exterminationist platform, using its media, mosques and schools over the past decade to further indoctrinate Palestinians into embracing Jew-hatred and believing in the illegitimacy of Israel, the necessity of its annihilation, and its ripeness for destruction.

As to Israelis, and western Jews, who ignore the other side's explicit agenda and replace it with fantasies of what they want the other side's agenda to be, fantasies that the Palestinians are simply asking for redress of supposed Israeli misbehavior and that sufficient concessions will end the conflict, they are the truly suicidal party, willing to risk their own lives and those of their children, their co-religionists and their countrymen for the sake of promoting their delusions.

The chief voice in this camp, Yossi Beilin, said explicitly that he was not willing to live in a world in which existential problems - such as Palestinian hostility - cannot be solved, and he chose to solve it not by confronting the enemy but by prettifying him, risking the very survival of his nation for the sake of his fantasies.

As I argue in my book, The Oslo Syndrome, embracing the perspectives of one's enemies is a common phenomenon within chronically besieged populations, whether minorities marginalized, denigrated and attacked by the surrounding society or small nations under chronic siege by their neighbors. It has been a recurrent theme in Jewish Diaspora history as well as in Israel.

A major counterweight to the psychological corrosiveness of besiegement must be leaders who convey to the community its true choices and bolster its will to resist. The Israeli-Arab conflict is ultimately a test of wills in that Israel has and will retain the military capacity to defend itself - despite its small population, its lack of strategic depth, and the rabidness of its enemies. It is self-delusion and loss of heart to defend itself that is likely to remain its greatest threat.

From this perspective, the 2005 statement by Ehud Olmert, cited by David Keyes, about Israelis being "tired of fighting" is an enormous dereliction of responsibility that, unless vigorously retracted, renders him unfit to lead the nation.

The Israeli people's response to the terror war launched against them in September, 2000, demonstrated that it was the Oslo era leadership, not the people, that had psychologically capitulated and was no longer willing to fight those determined to destroy Israel. The nation deserves leaders capable of reinforcing the nation's will, as Churchill did for England, not undermining it.

Gutmann: At the outset of this symposium, Jamie asked us to comment on the Palestinian's "death wish." But Dr. Levin, David Keyes and myself hold that the Palestinians have a death wish towards others, and that the truly suicidal version of Thanatos is lodged not in them, but in the Jewish Doves of Israel and the States. The Palestinians have no compunctions about killing: for them the act and its attendant fantasies have become eroticized - hence, addictive. They want to kill Jews so badly that they are willing to kill themselves in order to get at us.

Mr. Keyes and I agree that The Palestinians resemble the Germans under Hitler: convinced by him of their victimization at the hands of inferior enemies who did
not beat them fairly on the battlefield, the Germans poured their resulting "Victim's Rage" into various genocidal enterprises, including the Holocaust. Sharing similar delusions, the Palestinians turn their own version of Victim Rage against the Jew.
And as Mr. Keyes points out, too many Jews have become counterplayers in this psychodrama - enablers of the Arab psychosis. Guilty by nature, convinced of their own sins against the victimized multitude of third-world innocents, the Jewish Doves make the gestures of surrender. Turning the bared throat towards the knife they invite the Palestinians to punish them and their guilty nation for their sins. I grew up among Jews like these, and agree with Dr. Levin that they are the truly "suicidal" party. While I'm surprised to see them proliferate in Israel, I can understand them. What I don't understand is the passive response of so many European Christians, citizens of advanced Democracies, to the increasingly arrogant, murderous challenge that they face from the Eurabian Jihadists. Like their grandfathers who appeased Hitler, the European Doves find all kinds of reasons to spin and minimize the Jihadist fury that now openly mocks and threatens their comfortable lifeways.

The appeaser's whimper, "Just give Herr Hitler the Sudetenland, and that will be the end of his territorial demands" is echoed today, vis-a-vis Hamas: "Make those Jews give Hamas title to Jerusalem, allow the return of the 'Refugees', and the Palestinians will be happy democrats, participants in the comity of nations.."

In the Christian case, I don't believe that "Jewish" guilt is the driving motive behind their covert surrender. Instead, I sense a kind of narcissistic passivity, which is much less treatable. Post-war affluence sponsored the "Me" generations – the narcissistic personality of our times, which is founded in the demand for personal gratification. The individual demands for sexual conquest and material acquisition are idealized, and the capacity to revere entities beyond the self - family, nation, heritage, great causes and inspiring leaders - is blunted. In effect, the Jihadists reverse this syndrome. Despite their psychopathology (or perhaps, because of it) they are quite ready, even eager, to lay down their lives for nation, heritage, religion and charismatic leaders. They are like the Japanese Kamikazes, the suicide pilots who almost destroyed our Pacific fleet at the end of WWII. Confronted by God-obsessed Islam, the self-obsessed Europeans are finding all kinds of excuses to ignore and avoid the challenge. That kind of magical thinking did not work against Hitler and Tojo, and it won't work now.

We face a long struggle. As Dr. Levin reminds us, in the absence of "Churchillian" leaders, it is one that we may not win.

Keyes: Dr. Levin is absolutely correct to highlight Yossi Beilin as a symbol of the deep denial of reality that permeates many on the Israeli left. For Beilin, it seems, no moral red lines exist, whatsoever. No person—no matter how evil or corrupt—is beyond empowering or negotiating with. This is the only possible explanation as to how he could have openly called for releasing arch-terrorist Marwan Barghouti from prison in order to lead the Palestinian people. There is an Arabic proverb which states “Stupidity is a disease without a medicine,” and I think such words apply here. The warped mentality that allows someone to advocate freeing and empowering a convicted murderer and terrorist mastermind, is in large part why peace eludes us today. It will take sharp moral clarity and Herculean will to defeat global irredentism and jihad; those who ascribe to Beilin’s word-view, and learned not a whit from the mistakes of Oslo, certainly do not help in this fight.

Dr. Gutmann also raises important points regarding European appeasement. Undoubtedly, this is not a new story as Europe has historically done more than its fair share of appeasing the most brutal leaders known to man. In the modern sense, this means sending weapons and aid to the worst regimes on Earth. Take one look at the oil contracts and weapons deals that many European countries had with Saddam up until his final moments as President of Iraq. Add money skimmed from the UN Oil-For-Food program and it instantly becomes clear why certain nations were so adamantly opposed regime change in Iraq. European oil money funding mass-murder in Iraq—that was the real “blood for oil,” not America’s campaign of liberation against a fascistic tyrant.

Russia and China, incidentally, are often even worse in the appeasement department than their European counter-parts. Russia, for example, sends the government of Sudan, in the midst of their campaign of genocide in Darfur, the vast majority of its weapons. >From oil contracts in Iran to unceasing appeasement of Hamas, much of Europe and certainly Russia and China, actively subjugate democracy and aid the forces of tyranny and terror.

If there was any doubt as to who is an appeaser of terror, simply observe who invites Hamas into their capitals. One by one, seemingly giddy at the prospect of defending yet another murderous terrorist group, Iran, Jordan, Russia, Turkey, and even South Africa, are granting Hamas political legitimacy and a platform from which to spew hateful rhetoric. At a time when this unrepentant terrorist organization needs to be totally isolated and indeed destroyed, certain countries are welcoming their leaders with open arms. Some even speak of sending financial aid to the government of Hamas-stan. The lesson radical movements throughout the world are learning is that if you kill enough civilians (especially Jews) then you too can be invited as an honored guest to Ankara, Moscow and a host of other metropolitan capitals. Who knows, you might even be funded by the European Union! If radical jihad and terrorism are to be quashed, then precisely the opposite message must be sent. Terror—no matter what the grievance—must never extract political concession.

Levin: None of the genocidal forces that have created havoc in the Middle East and beyond in recent decades, not Saddam's regime in Iraq, or the Iranian mullahs, or the Sudanese leadership, or Arafat's PLO or the Palestinians' Islamist alternatives, would have attained their capacity for mayhem had they not enjoyed the support of Western, most notably European, powers. The Europeans have indulged them first and foremost because to do so has been very lucrative. Profit consistently outweighed any potential concern for these forces' victims, such as Iraq's Kurds or Sudan's blacks, and it appears that for many Europeans the murderous Palestinian assault on the Jews of Israel was not even a weak counterweight to the profit motive that drives indulgence of all things Arab but was rather an additional incentive to business as usual.

Europe's cynicism has been reinforced by the narcissism described by Dr. Gutmann, a narcissism characterized by a focus on personal gratification and a perception of little beyond the personal as meaningful. This indifference to the world beyond one's self is distinct from the self-involvement found among the acolytes of the Israeli Left. In Israel, such narcissism is largely a cultivated stance with a long pedigree in the history of Jews seeking to detach themselves from a besieged Jewry. A common response among such souls has long been to ostentatiously declare themselves free of any identity beyond their individuality and so properly exempt from being the object of popular negative attitudes toward Jews. The narcissism rampant in Europe evolved in the context of an American security umbrella under which for half a century nothing significant was asked or expected of western Europe.

A consequence of both the cynicism and the narcissism is that Europe has been prepared to see large numbers of people murdered elsewhere without feeling any need to rethink or refashion its policies. The question is how much mayhem will it require at home before there is an effective shift in policies. It is likely that the body count will have to be high and both the terror assault and the backlash will turn ugly at best before Europe fully sheds its torpor and fashions an effective response. If one looks for Churchillian leadership, it is hard to find in Europe today even the remnants of a cultural milieu that could produce a Churchill.

Given the realities of contemporary Europe, almost the entire burden for fighting the Islamofascist onslaught will continue to fall - as is all too obvious - on America. In view of the popularity of the politics of self-delusion even in America, it is yet to be seen how steadfast even the American effort will be; or, more precisely, how much will be lost before that steadfastness firmly asserts itself.

FP: David Keyes, Kenneth Levin and David Gutmann, thank you for joining Frontpage Symposium.