The French Connection

Editorial: The French Connection

www.ExposingZionism.com

Over the past few months, and in the aftermath of the academic paper by Professors Walt and Mearsheimer, you may have noted more than a touch of sarcasm in many alternative news commentaries and editorials dealing with the obvious and excessive influence of the 'Israel lobby' in America and beyond. "Israel lobby?! What Israel lobby?!" one title exclaimed, following it up with several official news releases that left the reader in no doubt that to be a Zionist representative on Capitol Hill is to hold the keys to the Kingdom of 'G-d'. However, as time progresses and this particular infection continues to worsen and spread across the globe, mere sarcasm becomes insufficent for dealing with this problem, and must make way for outright condemnation, in the strongest possible terms, of the flagrant policy of appeasement of the fascist Zionist ideology and its exponents by Western governments.

Counterintuitively, Western 'democratic' governments have a long and ignoble history of appeasement of tyranny and tyrants, most notably in the case of the rise of the Nazis and WWII.

Definitions of Appeasement on the Web:

Policy adopted by major Western political powers towards Adolf Hitler's ambitions in the Munich Agreement of 1938. Leaders, famously including Britain's Neville Chamberlain, agreed to allow Hitler portions of land in Eastern Europe in order to avoid war.

Making of concessions to an aggressor in order to avoid war.

Wikipedia tells us: Appeasement is a policy of accepting the imposed conditions of an aggressor in lieu of armed resistance, usually at the sacrifice of principles. Since World War II, the term has gained a negative connotation, in politics and in general, of weakness, cowardice and self-deception.

In short, Appeasement can be defined as ‘giving a bully what he wants’.  

Let's look at how appeasement worked with Adolf Hitler and the Nazification of Germany.

After coming to power in 1933, Hitler immediately began to re-arm Germany which was a breach of the Treaty of Versailles..  After 1936, he reintroduced conscription, and by 1939 Germany had 95 warships, 8,250 airplanes and an army of 1million.  Britain, France and the U.S. turned a blind eye; Britain even made a naval agreement with Germany, accepting Germany’s right to have a navy that equalled 35% of the British navy. This was appeasement.

In 1936, Hitler moved his troops into the Rhineland.  France did nothing to stop this open breach of the Treaty of Versailles.  Again, this was appeasement.

In March 1938 Hitler invaded Austria and declared Anschluss in violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Again, France and Britain did nothing – even though the Austrian Chancellor Schuschnigg asked Britain and France to help. This (and the West’s ignoring of human rights violations such as Kristallnacht, 1938) were also acts of appeasement.

The fact is, many people in France and Britain were not just appeasing Hitler; many of the French and English actively sympathised with Hitler’s aims; so their inaction was purposive.  

It is the crisis of 1938 that is usually marked as the major act of appeasement. Local German officials asserted that the Sudeten people had been discriminated against by the Czech government. On 15 September, British Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain, met with Hitler at Berchtesgaden.  Hitler threatened war, but promised that this was the ‘last problem to be solved’. Chamberlain apparently believed that Hitler was ‘a man who can be relied upon’, and persuaded the Czechs to hand over the Sudetenland. But when he met Hitler again, at Bad Godesberg on 22 September, there were more demands which Chamberlain refused. War seemed near, and Chamberlain was not sure Czechoslovakia was a ‘great issue’ which needed war.  Instead, he decided that it was ‘a quarrel in a far-away country between people of whom we know nothing’ and, at Munich (29 September), Britain and France gave the Sudetenland to Germany. This was appeasement.

In March 1939, Hitler invaded the remains of Czechoslovakia without resistance from the French or the British. It was this event that finally convinced France and Great Britain that the Fuhrer would not stop his multi-lateral aggressions without forcible intervention. Soviet leaders saw the weakness of France and Britatin, and signed the non-aggression pact with Hitler that divided Poland into German and Soviet territories.

On September 1, 1939, Hitler invaded Poland, with the firm belief that Britain and France would not object. Ironically, in March, 1939, a British-French alliance pledged to aide Poland with all available power "...in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces," (Neville Chamberlain, Great Britain, House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, Vol. 3e45, March 31, 1939). On September 3, 1939, Great Britain and France finally declared war against Hitler and Nazi Germany.

However, a major War and the deaths of millions upon millions of innocent human beings could have been avoided by effective, early action. In his 1956 book "The Controversy of Zion", former Times of London chief correspondent, Douglas Reed, states:

"From the start of Hitler's regime (on that night) all professional observers in Berlin, diplomats and journalists, knew that it meant a new war unless this were prevented. Prevention at that time was relatively simple; Mr. Winston Churchill in his memoirs rightly called the Second War "the unnecessary war". It could have been prevented by firm Western opposition to Hitler's preliminary warlike forays (into the Rhineland, Austria and Czechoslovakia) at any time up to 1938 when (as Mr. Churchill also confirms) the German generals, about to overthrow Hitler, were themselves undone by the Western capitulation to him at Munich.

The trained observers in Berlin were agreed that he would make war if allowed and so advised their governmental or editorial superiors in London. The Chief Correspondent of The Times in Berlin, Mr. Norman Ebbutt (I was the second correspondent) reported early in 1933 that war must be expected in about five years unless it were forethwarted, and this particular report was printed. He, I and many other reporters during the following years grew alarmed and perplexed by the suppression, "burking" and ignoring of dispatches, and by the depiction of Hitler, in Parliament and the newspapers, as an inherently good man who would remain peaceable if his just grievances were met (at others' expense).

This period has become known as that of "the policy of appeasement" but encouragement is the truer word, and the policy changed the probability of war into certainty. The strain brought Mr. Ebbutt to physical collapse. From 1935 on I was Chief Correspondent in Vienna, which was then but another vantage-point for surveying the German scene. From there, late in 1937, I informed The Times that both Hitler and Goering had said that the war would begin "by the autumn of 1939"; I had this information from the Austrian Chancellor. I was in Vienna during Hitler's invasion and then, after brief arrest by Storm Troops on the way out, transferred to Budapest, where I was when the supreme capitulation of Munich followed in September 1938. Realizing then that a faithful reporter could do nothing against "the policy of appeasement", and that his task was meaningless, I resigned by expostulant letter, and still have the editor's discursive acknowledgement.

Fourteen years later, The Times publicly confessed error, in respect of its "policy of appeasement", in that curiously candid Official History of 1952. This contains a grudging reference to me: "There were resignations from junior members of the staff" (I was forty-three in 1938, was Chief Correspondent for Central Europe and the Balkans, had worked for The Times for seventeen years, and I believe I was the only correspondent to resign). In this volume The Times also undertook never so to err again: "it is not rash to say that aggression will never again be met at Printing House Square in terms of mere 'Munich'." The editorial articles and reports of The Times about such later events as the bisection of Europe in 1945, the Communization of China, the Zionization of Palestine and the Korean war seem to me to show that its policies did not change at all." [Douglas Reed, Controversy of Zion]

Hitler, as he appeared in "Home and Gardens" in 1938.

Official history, written as always by the victors, records WWII as a classic battle of good verus evil, yet as Reed points out, Hitler's reign could have been cut-short not long after the 'false-flag' burning of the Reichstag in 1933, if there had been more moral rectitude and less appeasment on the part of British, French and American political leaders of the day. As Reed also points out, many laypeople at the time (including Reed) saw the handwriting on the wall and attempted to expose it, but to no avail. By 1938, when Chamberlain was still greeting Hitler in London as the 'German gentleman' par excellance, Hitler had already invaded Czechoslovakia and his policies of oppression and murder of minorities and political oponents were already well advanced.

As late as November 1938, less than a year before the Nazi invasion of Poland that was the final straw for the British and French, Hitler was appearing in issues of magazines such as the British 'Homes and Gardens' where he was portrayed relaxing at his mountain retreat and described as a "droll ranconteur and art lover". Within a few short years thereafter, the self-deluded policies pursued by Chamberlain, Churchill, Roosevelt and later the French Vichy government towards Nazi fascism had contributed directly to the final World War II death toll of 65 million, mostly innocent, people.

But what of today? Has the lesson been learned? If the modern world were faced with a belligerant and extremist force that appeared bent on the creation of yet another, and perhaps decisive, world-wide conflagration, would the same powers that appeased Hitler continue to "appease" such a force? Sadly, the answer appears to be an unequivocal "Yes."

On the 10th October 2006, the French embassy in New York cancelled a planned party for a book, entitled "Bad Faith", dealing with Vichy France's collaboration with Nazi Germany because the author included a postscript stating that Israel has oppressed Palestinians. In writing the book, its author, Carmen Callil', sought to explore the nature of the collaborationist French Vichy government, and in particular the role of Louis Darquier de Pellepoix, the Vichy government official who organized the deportation of French Jews to Auschwitz.

In the book's postscript Callil writes: "What caused me anguish as I tracked down Louis Darquier was to live so closely to the helpless terror of the Jews of France, and to see what the Jews of Israel were passing on to the Palestinian people." "Like the rest of humanity, the Jews of Israel 'forget' the Palestinians. Everyone forgets; every nation forgets."

And so, the book launch party was cancelled by the French embassy in New York because, after having these final lines brought to their attention, "the embassy objected to the author's opinion ... equating what was done to the Jews of France (under the Nazi regime) with what has been done to the Palestinian people." Callil herself refuted this explanation stating that the decision to cancel was not the embassy's alone but rather French doplomats had come under disproportionate influence as a result of a "series of letters from various Jewish fundamentalists complaining. They take a view that that no one can say anything about Jews that is not 100 percent complimentary." Callil said.

The simple fact is that Callil's comments in the postscript of her book could not be more TRUE and appropriate. The parallels between what the Nazis and their sympathizers and appeasers did to the Jews in Germany and Poland and France etc. and what the Zionists are currently doing to the Palestinian people are shockingly similar. Indeed, for many years now it has been clear to anyone interested enough in Truth to circumvent the virtual media blackout, that the Zionists in the Israeli government have been following a policy of steady and genocidal ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians in their own land, just as it was very clear in 1938, (while the media was portraying Hitler as a 'country gentleman') that the Nazis were beginning to systematically exterminate Jews and other minorities in Germany, Czechosolvaki and later Poland.

The tragic, almost unbearable irony in all of this could not be more evident. The French Vichy government during WW II is today remembered with shame by the French people, precisely because of the appeasement and open collaboration in which it engaged with Nazi Germany during the War years, including the deportation to concentration camps of Jews and other 'enemies' of the Nazi ideology. Callil wrote her book in an attempt to highlight this historical appeasement and as a warning about where it leads, and. as a postscript, drew the very clear parallel to modern day Israel and the plight of the Palestinian people under Israeli occupation. The response from the French government to this salient reminder to the world of these hard-won lessons of history was appeasement. Cancelling of parties, muzzling of dissent and criticism of the extremism of the Israeli Zionist government towards the Palestinian people and the Arabs of the wider Middle East. France the appeaser, and then the occupied. Will history repeat itself?

Of course, this policy of appeasement of extremism is not limted to French politicians. Successive American governments, perhaps above all others, have pursued a policy of not only appeasement but outright encouragement of the Zionist threat to peace in the Middle East, and by implication, the world. For evidence of the truth of this statement, we need only look to the list of UN resolutions on recognising the basic rights of Palestinians and criticism of Israel over the years and the votes for and against:

Res. No: 33/110 Yes/No vote: 110-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Palestinian living conditions.

Res. No: 33/113C Yes/No vote: 97-3 (US, Israel, Guatemala) Subject: Condemnation of Israeli human rights record in occupied territories.

Res. No: 34/113 Yes/No vote: 120-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Request for report on the living conditions of Palestinians in occupied Arab countries.

Res. No: 34/133 Yes/No vote: 112-3 (US, Israel, Canada) Subject: Assistance to Palestinian people.

Res. No: 34/136 Yes/No vote: 118-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Sovereignty over national resources in occupied Arab territories.

Res. No: 34/160 Yes/No vote: 122-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Include Palestinian women in agenda on UN conference on women.

Res. No: 35/13E Yes/No vote: 96-3 (US, Israel, Canada) Subject: Requests Israel to return displaced persons.

Res. No: 35/75 Yes/No vote: 118-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living standards of Palestinians.

Res. No: 35/122C Yes/No vote: 118-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Israeli human rights practices in occupied territories

Res. No: 35/174 Yes/No vote: 120-1 (US) Subject: Emphasising human rights of nations and individuals.

Res. No: 36/15 Yes/No vote: 114-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Demand that Israel cease certain excavations in East Jerusalem.

Res. No: 36/27 Yes/No vote: 109-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Condemns Israel for its bombing of an Iraqi nuclear installation.

Res. No: 36/73 Yes/No vote: 109-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Condemns Israeli policy regarding the living conditions of Palestinian people.

Res. No: 36/87B Yes/No vote: 107-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Establishment of a nuclear-free weapons zone in the Middle East.

Res. No: 36/96B Yes/No vote: 109-1 (US) Subject: Urges negotiations on the prohibition of chemical and biological weapons.

Res. No: 36/120A Yes/No vote: 121-2 (US, Israel) Subject: Rights of the Palestinian people.

Res. No: 36/120B Yes/No vote: 119-3 (US, Israel, Canada) Subject: Palestinian rights.

It is interesting to note therefore that, while the British government during WWII recognised De Gaulle's 'Free French movement', which refused to accept French surrender and rebelled against the Vichy government of Pétain, then US President Roosevelt accepted the Vichy government as the official and legitimate voice of the French people. Some things never change it seems, and sadly, the lessons of history seem equally lost on the current British Labour government of Tony Blair, which has lost no opportunity to sit quietly by as the modern state of Israel effectively dictates British policy towards Israel and the Palestinians.

Appeasement, then, is the problem. But the tendency of American British and French political leaders to collapse in the face of manipulation and coercion from tyrants was not forged by their experience with Hitler. By 1938, British and American diplomats already had a disgraceful track record of fawning appeasement of powerful influences with a less-than-wholesome agenda. It was in fact at the turn of the century that British and American politicians first succumbed to a serious subversion of their supposedly sovereign power.

In the late 19th Century, Zionism as a distinct force with the aim of acquiring a "homeland for Jews in Palestine" appeared. The majority of ordinary Jews in Britain, America and elsewhere in Europe were strongly adversed to any plan that would see them being coerced morally or physically to move from the countries in which they felt very much at home, particularly given than Jewish emancipation had already been achieved for most European Jews and was soon to follow in Russia in the aftermath of the 1917 Bolshevik 'revolution'. Leading Zionists of the day, via their emmissary Dr Chaim Weizmann, effectively ignored oppostion from Jews to their plan for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, and proceeded to lobby British and American government officials to "grant them Palestine", a piece of land that contained somewhere in the region of 700,000 Arabs who happened to have been living there for about 1,500 years.

In his book "Controversy of Zion", Reed tells us that, in 1915, while Dr. Weizmann, was knocking on doors in White Hall, the long-established body that represented ordinary Jews living in England, the Anglo-Jewish Association, through its Conjoint Committee, declared that:

"...the Zionists do not consider civil and political emancipation (in England) as a sufficiently important factor for victory over the persecution and oppression of Jews and think that such a victory can only be achieved by establishing a legally secured home for the Jewish people. The Conjoint Committee considers as dangerous and provoking anti-semitism the 'national' postulate of the Zionists, as well as special privileges for Jews in Palestine. The Committee could not discuss the question of a British Protectorate with an international organization which included different, even enemy elements".

That is to say that the masses of ordinary Jews were entirely against such a move and their representative body even went so far as to say that the Zionists were in fact the enemy of ordinary Jews. And who could blame them? They saw very clearly that planting them by force on the land of another people would place them in a very perilous position for a long time to come.
In 1917 the Conjoint Committee again declared that the Jews were a religious community and nothing more, that they could not, and would not, claim "a national home", and that Jews in Palestine needed nothing more than "the assurance of religious and civil liberty, reasonable facilities for immigration and the like".

Such resistance from ordinary Jews to the Zionist idea of a move to Palestine had already been voiced for several years. In 1914, the same Dr. Weizmann had written that such Jews who opposed his grand plan "have to be made to realize that we and not they are the masters of the situation". In America, two prominent Zionists, Mr. Brandeis and Rabbi Stephen Wise, were equally vigilant against the ordinary Jewish people there who did not support Zionism. The Rabbi (from Hungary) asked President Wilson, "What will you do when their protests reach you?" For one moment only he was silent. Then he pointed to a large wastepaper basket at his desk. "Is not that basket capacious enough for all their protests?"

In England, Dr. Weizmann was enraged by "outside interference, entirely from Jews".

At this point he felt himself to be a member of the Government, or perhaps the member of the Government, and in the power he wielded apparently was that. He did not stop at dismissing the objections of British Jews as "outside interference"; he dictated what the Cabinet should discuss and demanded to sit in Cabinet meetings so that he might attack a Jewish minister! He required that Mr. Lloyd George put the question "on the agenda of the War Cabinet for October 4, 1917" and on October 3 he wrote to the British Foreign Office protesting against objections which he expected to be raised at that meeting "by a prominent Englishman of the Jewish faith".

"The Cabinet and even yourself attach undue importance to the opinion held by so-called 'British Jewry'. "Two days later (October 9 1917) Dr. Weizmann cabled triumphantly to Mr. Justice Brandeis that the British Government had formally undertaken to establish a "national home for the Jewish race" in Palestine.

Reed states:

No rational explanation for the action of leading Western politicians in supporting this alien enterprise (the granting of Palestine to Zionists) has ever been given, and as the undertaking was up to that point secret and conspiratorial no genuine explanation can be given; if an undertaking is good conspiracy is not requisite to it, and secrecy itself indicates motives that cannot be divulged. If any of these men ever gave some public reason, it usually took the form of some vague invocation of the Old Testament. This has a sanctimonious ring, and may be held likely to daunt objectors. Mr. Lloyd George (the British Prime Minister) liked to tell Zionist visitors (as Rabbi Wise ironically records), "You shall have Palestine from Dan to Beersheba", and thus to present himself as the instrument of divine will.

He once asked Sir Charles and Lady Henry to call anxious Jewish Members of Parliament together at breakfast "so that I may convince them of the rightfulness of my Zionist position". A minyan (Jewish religious quorum of ten) was accordingly assembled in the British Prime Minister's breakfast room, where Mr. Lloyd George read a series of passages which, in his opinion, prescribed the transplantation of Jews in Palestine in 1917: Then he said, "Now, gentlemen, you know What your Bible says; that is the end of the matter".

The main point is that the Zionist agenda, as identified by Reed and others is WORLD REVOLUTION that will end with Zionists controlling ALL governments on the planet. They managed to gain control of over half the planet via WW II, now they intend to finish it off, along with a few billion innocent people. Judaism is a tyrannical system of social control administered by rabbis and that is the coming New World Order, believe it or not.

The Yiddish word, chutzpah, is sometimes defined as the boy who kills his parents and then pleads for mercy on the grounds that he is an orphan. Unfortunately, this precisely describes the entire Zionist Agenda.

And appeasement is just helping this project along.

The slavishness of all of the so-called independent nations to Jewish interests as appeasers can be identified as coming from elements of pressure within the governments themselves. What is interesting is how the propaganda campaigns of these same governments (undoubtedly directed by Jewish lobbies or "pressure elements" within) are utilizing the word "appeasement" as a weapon against those they wish to destroy. It is a classic case of the aggressor accusing the victim of that which he, himself, is guilty. This is not passing unnoticed. For example, a recent letter to the editor of the St. Petersburg Times (Florida) points out:

I find the references to Nazi appeasement by our Defense Secretary and the letters they have provoked simply frightening.

Apparently Donald Rumsfeld slept through the class about how Adolf Hitler invaded Poland in 1939 after a deliberate propaganda campaign featuring staged attacks on German soil allegedly committed by the Poles.Details of that campaign were revealed in testimony at the Nuremburg trials. The project, called “Operation Himmler” involved more than 20 incidents staged to give the appearance that Polish forces had attacked Germany.In retaliation, Hitler invaded Poland.64 years later we have the Bush administration telling the world:

* Iraq has weapons of mass destruction * Iraq played a role in the 9/11 attacks * Saddam has reconstituted his military * Iraq is trying to acquire or build nuclear weapons * Iraq is an imminent and immediate threat to the USAll of which turn out to be false and part of a propaganda campaign to build support for a war against Iraq.Bush invades.

So I ask you, Mr. Rumsfeld (and all of you flag waving, chest thumping Republicans): Who do you think looks more like Hitler and the Nazi’s to the rest of the world, Bush or the terrorists whose country he invaded?

But France? Is it not reasonable that we might demand more of the modern French government, founded as it was on liberty, fraternity and equality for all? Has France, having fallen quickly into the clutches of the Nazi rampage across Europe in 1940, and thereafter openly siding with the Nazis in exchange for having only half of its territory occupied by German troops during WWII, not learned the hardest lesson of all the allied powers about the 'rewards' of appeasement of extremism? It appears not.

How else are we to explain the recent actions of the French ambassador to America in refusing to be associated with the simple comment that Palestinians are being oppressed by the Zionists in the Israeli government? When the Zionist Israeli goverment appears to be borrowing from the Nazi rule book on solutions to demographic problems, and the powerful countries of the world are standing idly by, or worse, supporting Israel, are we not seeing a repeat of the appeasement that led to the deaths of 65 million people just 60 short years ago?

And what are we to make of the current 'Zionophile' French Interior Minister and Presidential hopeful, Nicolas Sarkozy? When we see pictures of French Vichy leader Petain in 1940 warmly shaking hands with the Nazi dictator, side by side with images of Sarkozy warmly greeting Sharon, or Sarkozy receiving awards from the Zionist Simon Weisenthal Center, are we expected to NOT draw very clear parallels, and immediately feel a foreboding that history is indeed repeating itself?

In order to get an idea of the extent and reality of the undue influence weilded by Zionist groups around the world, consider the following report from 2001 about a scientific paper published by a Spanish geneticist:

Genetics paper erased from journal over political content

Nature - 11/22/01

A paper about the genetic origins of Palestinians has found itself at the centre of a political storm. In a highly unusual move, the journal Human Immunology has deleted the paper from its September issue after receiving a wealth of complaints over what some saw as inappropriate political comments about the Israeli­Palestinian conflict.

The paper examines genetic variability in the HLA complex ‹ a highly diverse complex of immune-system genes ‹ in a sample of Palestinians (A. Arnaiz-Villena et al. Hum. Immunol. 62, 889­900; 2001). But controversially, it also includes a historical introduction calling Jews living in the Gaza strip "colonists" and describing some Palestinians as living in concentration camps. The paper's publication sparked a "cascade" of angry letters complaining that such comments had no place in a scientific journal, says the journal's editor-in-chief, Nicole Suciu-Foca of Columbia University in New York.

The paper "purports to be a scientific treatise" but "offers opinion on geopolitical issues that cannot be substantiated by the data presented", wrote Dolly Tyan, then president of the American Society for Histocompatibility and Immunogenetics (ASHI), which runs the journal, in a letter to members on 3 October. "ASHI is offended and embarrassed by its inclusion within the journal."

The publisher of Human Immunology, Elsevier Science, has removed all electronic versions of the article and has sent a letter to individual subscribers and librarians advising them to ignore the article "or, preferably, to physically remove the relevant pages".

The paper's lead author, Antonio Arnaiz-Villena of the Complutense University in Madrid, says he did not intend to offend anyone and calls the decision to withdraw the article "unwise". He says he has several letters of support, including one from Jean Dausset, president of the Human Polymorphisms Study Centre in Paris, one of the founding fathers of HLA genetics. A more appropriate action, Arnaiz-Villena says, would have been to publish the letters of complaint and allow him to respond.

But the depth of anger the article raised made such a course impossible, argues Suciu-Foca. One ASHI member was so offended by the article that he resigned, she says. "We would have had mass resignations and the journal would have been destroyed if this paper were allowed to remain."

The paper was in a special issue on anthropology edited by Arnaiz-Villena. Although Arnaiz-Villena says the paper was approved by two reviewers, the incident has prompted the journal's editorial board to revise its policy so that in future the editor-in-chief will supervise work by guest editors, Suciu-Foca says.

The data announced in the paper, which indicated that Jews and Palestinians have a close genetic relationship, were worth reporting, says Steven Marsh, a member of Human Immunology's editorial board who studies the nomenclature of HLA genes at the Anthony Nolan Research Institute in London. "Had the authors confined themselves to announcing their scientific results, it would have been an interesting paper," he says.

The retraction of a scientific paper because of political statements is "unprecedented", says Sheldon Krimsky, an expert on publication ethics at Tufts University in Medford, Massachusetts. But the editorial board took legal advice before making its decision, Suciu-Foca says. "This has nothing to do with freedom of opinion," she says. "This journal is not the right forum for expressing political views."

No mention is made of who, exactly, was behind the hue and cry raised over the simple and truthful comments by the Spanish geneticist that Israelis living in the Gaza strip were colonists, and that Palestinians in the Gaza strip in particular are living in conditions not unlike those experienced by the Jews in Nazi Germany. The five years that have elapsed since this paper was published and then effectively "removed from the pages of history" has served only to reinforce the Truth of the Spanish geneticist's statement. We have to wonder, however, if it was the comments about colonists and concentration camps that provoked the ire of the Zionist lobby, or if was not in fact that findings of the paper itself. Note that the paper's findings indicated that "Jews and Palestinians have a close genetic relationship".

The brutality with which the Palestinians have been oppressed by Jewish soldiers over the past 60 years has to a large extent been facilitated by the belief among Jewish soldiers and civilians (a belief promoted by Zionist leaders) that Palestinians are as different in every way from Semitic Jews as dogs are different from human beings. If Israeli soldiers and civilians were to realise that when they shed Palestinian blood they are in fact shedding the same blood that courses through their own veins, and that of their own sons and daughters, would they continue to do so? And what of the term "anti-semitism"? In this case, in hating the Palestinians, every Semitic Israeli Jew becomes an anti-Semite in a very literal sense. To hate the Palestinians becomes the equivalent of self-hatred. Indeed, is this not the term already being used by Zionist leaders (themselves not of Semitic stock but Russian and Eastern European) for any Jew that utters a word in condemnation of Zionist policies? Policies that were roundly condemned and rejected when the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine was first floated by Zionist leaders at the beginning of the 20th century?

The modern-day equivalent of this story of appeasement of Hitler is being repeated today with Israel, and its puppets, the U.S. and Britain, attacking Iraq, than setting its sights on Iran, Syria, and who knows where and who else. In the rhetoric of the U.S. Neocons, the creatures of Israel, we hear echoes of Hitler and the Nazis. The bottom line is that the outbreak of war in Europe in September, 1939, was the dirext result of the aggressive foreign policy of Hitler's Third Reich opposed to the complete lack of preventative measures taken by the major european powers to prevent Hitler's increasing use of force. It could be said that the policy of appeasement is to blame for the onset of Worldwide conflict.

Don't be surprised if you see Homes and Gardens publishing a special feature on the statesmenlike virtues of Ehud Olmert or Benjamin Netanyahu, who will surely be pictured lounging around with animals and children at their respective Negev Desert retreats. Visiting, and pictured standing behind them with excited smiles on their faces will be Bush, Blair and Sarkozy. France: an Appeaser; controlled from within and without by Zionists it would seem.

Prepare yourself, French citizens, for the coming of the "New World Order."

Reproduced from: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/editorials/signs20061016_TheFrenchConnection.php