Il semble que de nombreux Juifs retournent en Allemagne à l'heure où on se parle.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jh ... jews03.xml
Jews flock to Germany
By Harry de Quetteville in Berlin 03/04/2007
Almost 70 years after the Nazis plotted the Holocaust, German Jews yesterday celebrated the Passover holiday with the news that their community has become the fastest growing in the world.
This extraordinary reversal of fortune has even seen Jewish immigration to Germany outstrip that to Israel.
According to one rabbi, Israelis are flocking to Berlin, rather than German Jews making their aliya, or emigration, to Israel.
"Berlin is the place to be," Rabbi Walter Homolka, the principal of the Rabbinical Seminary in the German capital, said. Like Jews across the world, Rabbi Homolka was yesterday preparing for the Passover holiday, which celebrates the freeing of the Israelites from ancient Egypt.
-Est-ce pour suivre les conseils d'Amhadinejad?
'Move Jews To Germany'
Thursday December 08, 2005
Iran's hard-line President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said that if Germany and Austria feel responsible for massacring Jews, Israel should be moved there instead.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,, ... 53,00.html
-Ou est-ce pour obtenir des réparations (monétaires: dernièrement 117 millions ont été offerts par l'Allemagne à une famille juive de l'Holocauste)?
Ou parce que l'État Allemand punit sévèrement le discours haineux (révisionnisme et autre)?
En passant... Ahmadinejad n'a jamais dit qu'il allait rayer Israël de la carte. Dans les 4 traductions différentes fournies par le journal The Guardian, il n'utilise même pas le mot carte. Cette traduction frauduleuse vient du New York Times (qui contrôle le NY Times dites-moi? on n'a pas le droit de les nommer semble-t-il car ce serait du discours haineux.) Je ne dit pas que c'est un ange, il est même plutôt provocant à l'égard des USA. Mais sa menace est aussi importante que 'si Paris Hilton provoquait Mike Tyson en duel". C'est deux États sans commune mesure militaire: ce serait du suicide de la part de l'Iran que de se laisser entraîner en guerre contre l'Ocle Sam et la vieille Britannia.
voici ce qu'il a dit: "Imam ghoft een rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods bayad az safheh-ye ruzgar mahv shavad."
rezhim-e ="Regime" (on ne raye pas de la carte un régime, c'est trop abstrait. comme l'État n'est pas identifiable à la population.)
"rezhim-e ishghalgar-e qods" = régime occupant Jerusalem
le mot "nagsheh", pour 'carte', se trouve nulle part dans la citation.
"L'Imam (Khomeni) a dit que ce régime occupant Jérusalem doit disparaître de la page d'histoire".
Mot à mot:
Imam (Khomeini) ghoft (a dit) een (ceci) rezhim-e (regime) ishghalgar-e (occupant) qods (Jerusalem) bayad (doit) az safheh-ye ruzgar (de la page de l'histoire) mahv shavad (disparaître).
pour lire le speech au complet:
http://www.president.ir/farsi/ahmadinej ... yonizm.htm
Il est évident que les médias ont mal traduit et mal interprété ses proos, ce qui a considérablement contribué à envenimer les rapports déjà tendus entre la République Islamique et l'Ouest (fervent d'Israël).
Son discours dénonce le régime sioniste qui afflige des souffrances au peuple (Palestinien) habitant Jérusalem. Il a tout simplement nié la légitimité de l'État d'occupation colonial d'Israël en Palestine et IL A RAISON. Même l'ONU dénonce l'oppression des Palestiniens par Israël (on peu très bien dire aussi le sionisme, en tant qu'idéologie raciste justifiant la déportation, l'humiliation et la terrorisation des Palestiniens.
Dire que Ahmadinejad a lancé un appel à l'extermination des Juifs d'Israël est comme dire que Churchill voulait génocider les Allemands lorsqu'il dénonçait Hitler... Il s'agit d'un régime corrompu à vaincre et non pas d'une population à éliminer.
Selon prisonplanet.com:
The Guardian's Jonathan Steele cites four different translations, from professors to the BBC to the New York Times and even pro-Israel news outlets, in none of those translations is the word "map" used. The closest translation to what the Iranian President actually said is, "The regime occupying Jerusalem must vanish from the page of time," or a narrow relative thereof. In no version is the word "map" used or a context of mass genocide or hostile military action even hinted at.
The acceptance of the word "map" seemingly originated with the New York Times, who later had to back away from this false translation. The BBC also wrongly used the word and, in comments to Steele, later accepted their mistake but refused to issue a retraction.
"The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel. As a schoolboy opponent of the Shah in the 1970's he surely did not favor Iran's removal from the page of time. He just wanted the Shah out," writes Steele.
"It's important to note that the "quote" in question was itself a quote, writes Arash Norouzi, "they are the words of the late Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the Islamic Revolution. Although he quoted Khomeini to affirm his own position on Zionism, the actual words belong to Khomeini and not Ahmadinejad. Thus, Ahmadinejad has essentially been credited (or blamed) for a quote that is not only unoriginal, but represents a viewpoint already in place well before he ever took office."
Professor Juan Cole concurs, arguing, "Now, some might say, "So he didn't say, 'wipe off the map,' he said 'erase from the page.' What's the difference? Anyway he's saying he wants to get rid of Israel. Ahmadinejad was not making a threat, he was quoting a saying of Khomeini and urging that pro-Palestinian activists in Iran not give up hope -- that the occupation of Jerusalem was no more a continued inevitability than had been the hegemony of the Shah's government. Whatever this quotation from a decades-old speech of Khomeini may have meant, Ahmadinejad did not say that 'Israel must be wiped off the map' with the implication that phrase has of Nazi-style extermination of a people. He said that the occupation regime over Jerusalem must be erased from the page of time."
Let's consider for a moment that Ahmadinejad really does wish to initiate a nuclear war on Israel, is this feasible? It would be like Paris Hilton picking a fight with Mike Tyson. The CIA's own estimates put Iran five to ten years away from being able to produce one nuclear bomb even if they were in the planning stages now, which is highly unlikely given that international inspectors have found no evidence of such a program and CIA satellite imagery also shows no proof of nuclear arms. Contrast this to an Israeli arsenal of anything up to 200 launch ready nukes allied to the might of the U.S. which has nearly 6,000 active warheads not to mention so-called "mini-nukes."
While it can be reasonably argued that Iran is seeking a nuclear weapon at some point in the future, to then claim that this means Ahmadinejad wishes to enact a second holocaust is an unfathomable leap of logic. The real reason for any nation in that region trying to acquire a nuclear weapon is for self defense, because they are surrounded by other hostile powers that already have the bomb.
Denis
