Vor 40 Jahren: Der politische Film “Der Schakal”

February 2, 2013

Die Verfilmung von 1973 von Fred Zinnemann, nicht die schlechte Hollywood Neuverfilmung von 1997; Hollywood klaut leider sämtliche europäische Produktionen, um sie als Blockbusters zu degradieren.

Historischer Hintergrund war der Anschlag auf das Leben des damaligen französischen Staatspräsidenten Charles de Gaulle im Jahre 1962, das sogenannte Attentat von Petit-Clamart.

Alle Attentäter wurden gefasst und zum Tode verurteilt; sie wurden jedoch von De Gaulle begnadigt außer dem Anführer des Kommandos Oberstleutnant Jean Bastien-Thiry. De Gaulle begründete seine Entscheidung wie folgt: “Die anderen haben ihr Leben riskiert, um mich zu töten; der Anführer dagegen war nicht dabei.”


Michel Rocard, figure de proue de la gauche pragmatique

August 23, 2011

L’ancien Premier ministre fête aujourd’hui ses 81 ans.

J’aimais bien cet homme politique, qui avait eu le courage (ou la pusillanimité prétendent ses rivaux de gauche comme de droite) de renoncer à se présenter à la présidentielle de 1988, pour éviter ainsi à la gauche une lutte interne fratricide qui aurait bénéficié au camp adverse.

A l’époque, j’étais aussi déçu de sa décision, bien que je n’avais pas encore l’âge de voter. Un débat Chirac-Rocard (qui dans le privé sont des amis inséparables depuis Sciences-Po) aurait été sans nul doute intéressant.

N’importe: Michel Rocard a laissé une trace mémorable dans la vie politique française. Ce Protestant doté d’une intelligence brillante et d’une volonté d’action intrépidante a en réalité révolutionné la culture politique de la Vème République. Je fais notamment allusion à la fameuse «méthode Rocard» qui a résolu bien des problèmes, pas seulement celui de la Nouvelle-Calédonie.

Joyeux anniversaire, Michel Rocard!


Gérard Philipe – Un Prince en Avignon

January 15, 2011
Gérard Philipe en compagnie d'Albert Camus
Gérard Philipe en compagnie d’Albert Camus

 

Gérard Philipe lors d'une manifestation du Parti Communiste
Gérard Philipe et son épouse Anne lors d’une manifestation du Parti communiste français
Gérard Philipe en compagnie de Jean Vilar, fondateur du Festival d'Avignon

Gérard Philipe en compagnie de Jean Vilar, fondateur du Festival d'Avignon

Il faut vieillir, ou mourir jeune. (Philibert-Joseph Roux)

Bonheur suranné à la (re)découverte de la beauté immaculée du prince du théâtre français d’après-guerre, Gérard Philipe.

Paraphrasant pour ainsi dire le destin tourmenté d’Antigone, son père était collaborateur, lui résistant, Gérard Philipe, mort en pleine gloire à 37 ans, se devait d’être inhumé drapé des oripeaux du Cid, figure éponyme qu’il restera à jamais aux yeux de ses admirateurs.

A cet égard, il va sans dire que la ballade “Il était un prince en Avignon”, interprétée par Esther Ofarim, lui est taillé sur mesure:

“Il était un prince en Avignon
Sans royaume, sans château, ni donjon
Là-bas tout au fond de la province
Il était un prince
Et l’enfant que j’étais
Cueillant pour lui bien des roses
En ce temps le bonheur était peu de chose

Il était un prince en Avignon
Sans royaume, sans château, ni donjon
Mais ses mots nous chantaient les campagnes
Des grands rois d’Espagne
Quand le soir descendait
On devenait spectateurs
Et la ville avec lui n’était plus qu’un coeur

Il nous emportait dans son empire
Nous attendrissait d’un sourire
Combien je rêvais, combien je l’aimais
Et puis vers ma ville je m’en retournais

Il était un prince en Avignon
Sans royaume, sans château, ni donjon
Là-bas tout au fond de la province
Il était un prince”

Crédits photos: avec l’aimable autorisation de la Bibliothèque nationale de France 


The Meaning of Hiram in Freemasonry and Judaism

November 27, 2010

Forever Faithful and Forthright, We Pledge Ourselves to Guard The Light. (The Magic Flute, Mozart)

All men are equal; it is not their birth, but virtue itself that makes the difference. (Voltaire)

It is a fine thing to be honest, but it is also very important to be right. (Winston Churchill)

HIRAM

HIRAM

Hiram Abiff & the ever-dying gods

by Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple, Emeritus Rabbi of the Great Synagoge, Sydney. Past Grand Chaplain of the United Grand Lodge of New South Wales.

This paper was delivered at the Discovery Lodge of Research, Sydney, on January 27, 2010.

***

In the third degree ritual the central feature is the death and upraising of Hiram Abiff. It brings solemnity and drama into the occasion, though our version lacks the theatricality of some other rites which use costumes and elaborate dialogue. All versions believe it is a true story that happened at the time when Solomon constructed the Temple in Jerusalem, but those who look for Biblical backing are bound to be disappointed.

In an article I wrote for the “NSW Freemason” in 1978 I examined the view of W. Bro. Rev. Morris Rosenbaum concerning the Biblical account as found – with intriguing differences – in the First Books of Kings and the Second Book of Chronicles. The relevant chapters are I Kings 5, where Solomon asks his friend Hiram king of Tyre for building materials; and II Chronicles 2, where he asks him also for an expert artisan. Both passages feature a – non-royal – Hiram, who in one account appears to be an architect-craftsman and in the other an artisan skilled in working with brass. Both are called Hiram in tribute to the king: it is possible that Hiram was a generic name for a king of Tyre, like the title Pharaoh for a king of Egypt.

Rosenbaum thought there were two separate Hirams. The Hiram of the Book of Kings is the son of “a widow of the tribe of Naphtali”: the one in Chronicles is the son of “a woman of the daughters of Dan”. If there are two Hirams the mother of one is from Naphtali and the mother of the second from Dan; if there is only one, which I will argue in a moment, his father is from Naphtali and his mother from Dan. The connection with Tyre is more than geographic co-incidence, since there was a Tyrian school of craftsmanship and Solomon wanted to use Tyrian expertise.

Next problem: if Hiram (or at least one of them) is the son of a widow, his father is dead. II Chronicles mentions Hiram aviv, “Hiram his father”. Maybe Hiram the father started the work and Hiram the son completed it. This is the view of the 19th century commentator Malbim, who quotes I Kings 7:40 and II Chron. 4:11, though Malbim may have been influenced by the Masonic legend that Hiram was murdered; when I Kings 7:13 says that Solomon “sent and fetched Hiram out of Tyre” it may mean that an escort was sent to bring the younger Hiram to Jerusalem to finish his father’s work.

This in outline is Rosenbaum’s theory, but I believe he has read too much into the scriptural account. The Books of Chronicles are not always objective history and it is possible that we have not two Hirams but two versions of the one narrative with slight differences between them.

If then there was only one Hiram, how are we to handle the reference to “Hiram his father”, with its implication that father and son were both involved in the work? The answer is that av, a father, does not necessarily mean a parent. It can also be an originator or master. Hence the title “Hiram Abif(f)” tells us of Hiram’s professional status as a master craftsman, not about his parentage. Even so, there is no objective evidence that one Hiram dropped out and another replaced him. It is more likely that there was only one Hiram and the Bible does not record his eventual fate.

For that we have to go to legend. In a moment we will examine the Masonic version, but first we need to know whether Jewish Midrash knows of a murder during the building works and whether the victim could have been Hiram. There are Midrashim (e.g. Pesikta Rabbati, Friedmann ed., 1880, p. 25a) which hold that some of the builders met an unusual death, but Freemasonry compresses the tragedy into the death of one builder, the foreman, and though the midrashic material speaks of the dead men entering the afterlife, Freemasonry thinks the foreman was restored to earthly existence, though it is silent as to his subsequent life.

The Midrash asserts that whilst the Temple was being built none of the workmen died or even became ill, enabling the project to proceed apace – presumably illustrating the principle that God protects those who are engaged on a sacred mission (Talmud Pesachim 8a). However, once the project was completed, they all died, for God wished to prevent heathens using the Temple builders to erect idolatrous shrines, illustrating the rule that one must ascend in sanctity and not descend (Talmud B’rachot 28a). The builders were assured of a rich heavenly reward, and as for Hiram the master craftsman himself, he went straight to Paradise and never tasted real death (Louis Ginzberg, “Legends of the Jews”, vol. 4, page 155 and notes).

There is a midrashic idea that nine people did not die in the usual way but entered Paradise alive. These included Enoch and Elijah… and Hiram king of Tyre (Derech Eretz Zuta 1:9; Yalkut, Gen. 42 and Ezek. 36:7).

The commentators debate whether Hiram really deserves a place in the list, but in any case the reference must be to Hiram the craftsman and not Hiram the king. The formulators of Masonic ritual possibly knew enough Hebrew to access rabbinic works, but they totally changed the Midrash to make Hiram die a very earthly death at the hands of the other workmen and then rise from the dead. They must have been influenced by Christian tradition about the death of Jesus, though they were careful not to turn the story into an antisemitic canard. However, we should not read too much theology into the Masonic story, which probably has contemporary political motives.

If the story as we have it has been deliberately crafted (I dislike the stronger term “fabricated”) with a basis in the Hebrew Bible and the Jewish Midrash, we must still investigate whether there are additional sources from other cultures. But first we have to add one more attempt, over and above those of countless historians, to posit a theory of Masonic beginnings.

There are three main historical theories about Masonry. One begins at the time of Creation with God as Great Architect, Grand Geometrician and Master Builder, Adam as the first Grand Master, and Masonry as a thread running through ancient history. The second does not make claims about Biblical times but posits a fellowship of builders working on the great edifices of the Middle Ages. The third sees Enlightenment man creating cultural-scientific societies to study ideas and ethics and giving them a pre-history, a well-known habit developed in the interests of credibility.

The third theory is bound up with 17th and 18th century events. The Stuarts ruled England from 1643-1688, except for 1649-1660 after Charles I had been executed by Parliament under Oliver Cromwell. The last Stuart, James II, had to abdicate in 1688. After the Hanoverian George I assumed the monarchy in 1714, the Stuarts mounted invasions in 1715 and 1745 via Scotland but failed to win back the throne. They lived in exile in France with support from some quarters in England. They were called “Jacobites”, from the Latin (and prior to that the Hebrew) for “James”. Some Jacobites were Masons, including Bonnie Prince Charlie, the grandson of James II; some French and Italian lodges were entirely comprised of Jacobites, who may have adopted or invented Hiram Abiff to represent the executed Charles I and to express their belief in the restoration of the Stuarts.

Plans for the return of the Stuarts were made in secret vaults which may have been Masonic lodges. HA’s refusal to divulge a secret bolstered the pledges of confidentiality which these Brothers made to each other. This theory implies that Jacobite influences were involved in the development of Masonic ritual, which was the combination of the ideas and efforts of a number of men, notably Anderson, Desaguliers and Preston, though they might have been kept in the dark about the hidden agenda of Jacobite lodges.

Hiram’s name was not new to the authors of the third degree since he is referred as the master artisan in the Regius Poem of c 1390. The first time we find the Hiram legend in a degree ritual is in the 1730 pamphlet, Freemasonry Dissected, by Samuel Prichard, though there was a rival attempt to give Freemasonry a death/resurrection story in the narrative of Noah and his sons (Graham MS, 1726; cf. Harry Carr, “Hebraic Aspects of the Ritual”, Ars Quatuor Coronatum, vol. 97, 1984, page 77).

Hiram Abiff conveyed the message better because the Noah story lacked betrayal, violence, martyrdom and revenge, even though there was a theory that his sons put his body together again after he died. Hence HA supplanted Noah and settled into the newly created third degree.

The idea of Hiram as Charles I might derive from Elias Ashmole (1617-92), the antiquarian, lawyer and alchemist who is the first (or second) known Speculative Freemason, initiated in 1646. Ashmole (like other early Speculatives, Robert Moray, Inigo Jones and Nicholas Stone) was a Royalist and a supporter of Charles II, and his lodge may have practised Masonic ritual with a Royalist meaning. However, we do not know enough about the ways of early Speculative lodges and can only conjecture.

C.S. Madhavan of the Grand Lodge of India notes that a drastic change entered Freemasonry between the first and second editions of Anderson’s Constitutions. In the first edition in 1723 we read only that “The king of Tyre sent (Solomon) his namesake Hiram Abif, ‘prince of architects’”. The second edition in 1738 speaks of the sudden death of Hiram Abiff who was interred “in the Lodge near the Temple”. The new wording shows that the displacement of Noah by HA had taken place between 1723 and 1738.

The change must have had something to do with Prichard, whose work was published in 1730, but we need more than circumstantial evidence. English Masons would presumably have welcomed the general idea of a good man who died and rose again and would have been on familiar territory in linking royal history with poetic symbolism in view of the well-loved legends of King Arthur, the symbol of chivalry and idealism, about whom Tennyson later wrote, “He passes to be King among the dead/And after healing of his grievous wound/He comes again” (Idylls of the King, 1859).

The Hiram Abiff story was not concocted out of thin air. On the other hand no-one has found any proof that there really was a Hiram Abiff who was murdered on the Temple site and then brought back to life by his supporters. Nor has anyone proved that there was an Israelite custom to pray at “high twelve”, to bury a person in proximity to the Temple, or to place an acacia sprig on a grave. There is also no proof that the real Hiram (unless he was the king of Tyre) was on close terms with King Solomon.

HA is a cultural typology developed at and reflecting the mores of a later time. Its lineage appears to have travelled through two disparate lines:
• the well known concept of gods and messiahs that die and overcome their death (examples are Osiris, Isis, Horus and Tammuz), an idea that appealed to members of secret or other societies who saw true believers martyred but the cause survive;
• widespread accounts of disasters that occurred during the building of churches, palaces and other major edifices.

The first idea has a modern equivalent in Nietzsche’s Death of God theory, plus the religious insistence that God will make a comeback. In Jewish thinking the Death of God is inconceivable, since it is an article of faith that God was not born and cannot die (“I am the first and I am the last”: Isa. 44:6), though in a metaphorical sense it could possibly tolerate the Nietzschean notion that human beings had “killed” Him. Christianity might be thought of as receptive to a Hiram Abiff narrative as consonant with the history of Jesus. However, it is difficult to reconcile a pro-Christian interpretation with the Andersonian dechristianisation of Masonic ritual, though there is admittedly a more Christian element in the Royal Arch.

Whatever the case, it is likely that this is one more example of how Masonry utilised well-known strands of folklore to construct its narratives and rituals, often starting with sketchy Biblical material but adding so much from other sources that it almost completely changed the original story. Other examples are the stories about King Solomon and the dedication of his temple, which, though crucial to the craft, should not be taken literally but understood as an amalgam of folk ideas and literary imagination.

All Masonic writers attach symbolic significance to the HA story, regardless of its origins and political significance. A popular interpretation links it to the three stages of life; as the first degree symbolises birth, when one begins to glimpse light, the second stands for manhood, when one toils toward wisdom and experience, and the third represents old age, when human powers gradually wane but one yearns for a life after death.

Perhaps Anderson and Desaguliers, unaware of or unconvinced by Jacobite political theories, decided to incorporate HA into the third degree because the death/resurrection theme appealed to them as Christians. In 1775 William Hutchinson wrote in his Spirit of Masonry, “The Master Mason represents a man under the Christian doctrine, saved from the grave of iniquity, and raised to the faith of salvation”. The dechristianisation of the craft must inevitably have been difficult for some Masons.

However, with or without christological issues the narrative illustrates and justifies the doctrine that goodness must and will prevail over doubt and difficulty, and is evidence of the common phenomenon whereby a custom or story loses its original significance, undergoes reinterpretation and rationalisation, and gains a new message and mission.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Raymond Apple, “Who was Hiram Abiff?”, The NSW Freemason, Dec., 1978
Harry Carr, “Hebraic Aspects of the Ritual”, Ars Quatuor Coronatum, vol. 97, 1984
W.W. Covey-Crump, The Hiramic Tradition, 1934
Louis Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews, various eds., vol. 4
R.F. Gould, History of Freemasonry, 5 vols., 1905
W.B. Hextall, “The Hiramic Legend and the Ashmolean Theory”, Transactions of the Leicester Lodge of Research, 1903-04
Bernard E. Jones, Freemason’s Guide and Compendium, 1950
Jacob Katz, Out of the Ghetto, 1978
C.S. Madhavan, “The Hiramic Legend” (http://www.freemasons-freemasonry.com)
Alexander Piatigorsky, Who’s Afraid of Freemasons?, 1997
Morris Rosenbaum, “Hiram Abif: The Traditional History Illustrated by the Volume of the Sacred Law”, Transactions of the Leicester Lodge of Research, 1903-04
Gershom Scholem, Kabbalah, 1974

 Copyright © 2010 Rabbi Dr. Raymond Apple & HIRAM7 REVIEW


French Presidential Election 2012: Nicolas Sarkozy reshuffles his Cabinet ahead of 2012 battle

November 14, 2010

French President Nicolas Sarkozy, facing slackening polls ahead of the 2012 re-election, reappointed his old friend and new rival François Fillon, the country’s prime minister, as part of naming a new, more conservative French cabinet, The New York Times reports.

François Fillon's quiet tenacity has earned him the respect of the nation. Foto: RFI.
François Fillon’s quiet tenacity has earned him the respect of the nation. Foto: RFI.

France’s Socialist Party leader Martine Aubry, the charismatic daughter of former European Commission President Jacques Delors, and far-right veteran Jean-Marie Le Pen could challenge Nicolas Sarkozy for the country’s leadership, the article said.

“Mr. Sarkozy won in 2007 by uniting the right around him. He is known to be worried now about a growing level of support for the National Front to his right, which could damage his 2012 re-election prospects if the opposition Socialists united around a credible presidential candidate.”

Read full story.


The Beginning of the End for NATO?

October 15, 2010

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert Gates said the cuts to defense budgets in Britain and other European countries endangered the strength of NATO, which requires members to spend 2 percent of national income on defense.

“As nations deal with their economic problems, we must guard against the hollowing out of alliance military capability by spending reductions that cut too far into muscle,” Gates said. British Foreign Secretary William Hague rejected the concerns, saying Britain will remain a reliable U.S. ally. Britain’s planned cuts – which could shave off more than six hundred thousand public-sector jobs by 2015 – would make it the most aggressive deficit-reducer among major economies.

On STRATFOR, analyst Marko Papic says perceptions of the “threat environment” that unifies NATO have undermined in the post-Cold War era, marking the beginning of the end for the alliance.

Read full story.


Französische Philosophin Élisabeth Badinter: “Der Ökofeminismus ist reaktionär”.

September 27, 2010

Der Feminismus sieht überall nur Opfer. Das Opfer ist der grosse Held unserer Gesellschaft geworden. Wer in der Politik oder sonst wo etwas erreichen will, muss heute als Opfer auftreten, erst dann wird er gehört und geachtet. Die Feministinnen haben diesen Stimmungswechsel schnell kapiert und präsentieren Frauen unter allen möglichen Gesichtspunkten permanent als Opfer – Opfer der Männer, der Arbeitswelt, der Politik – kurz: als hilflose Wesen, die immer öfter beim Gericht Zuflucht suchen wie Kinder bei Papa und Mama. Aus den Frauen werden Kind-Frauen gemacht. (Philosophin, Frauenrechtlerin und Hochschulprofessorin Élisabeth Badinter, dreifache Mutter, Aufsichtsratspräsidentin des Medienkonzerns Publicis Groupe, Interview Die Weltwoche, 13/04)

Élisabeth Badinter
Élisabeth Badinter

In einem Gespräch erschienen in der WELT AM SONNTAG kommentiert die stets brillante Élisabeth Badinter die Kinder- und Frauenfeindlichkeit der grünen Ideologie bzw. Öko-Bewegung. Nach dem Willen der Ökofeministen ist die Lösung ganz einfach: Familie, Kinder und Karriere verweigern…der Umwelt zuliebe. Für das Wohl der Frauen interessieren sich diese Feministen in keiner Weise, da sie selbst weder kinderlieb noch frauenfreundlich sind.

[Intermezzo: Françoise Hardy, eine echte Frau - kein hasserfülltes kinderloses hässliches Gestalt à la Alice Schwarzer]

“Diese ganze Ideologie der Ökoradikalen, die auch verlangen, dass man Windeln nicht wegwirft, sondern wäscht, lastet schwer auf den Frauen. Ich war schockiert, als unsere ehemalige Umweltministerin – selbst Mutter von zwei kleinen Kindern – eine Strafsteuer auf Wegwerfwindeln verlangte. Das bedeutet, dass die Anliegen der Frauen hinter jenen der Natur zurückzutreten haben. Zwischen der Verteidigung der Rechte der Natur und der Verteidigung der Rechte der Frauen entscheide ich mich aber für Letzteres.” [...]

Dieser ‘Zurück zur Natur’-Feminismus hält sich für die Avantgarde. In Wirklichkeit ist er aber reaktionär. Da die Ökofeministen auf komplette Fusion mit ihren Kindern eingestellt sind und sie den ganzen Tag in diesen schrecklichen Umhängetüchern herumtragen, haben sie die Männer aus der Verantwortung entlassen; so konnten diese ihr altes, traditionalistisches Verhalten wieder aufnehmen.”

Vollständiges Gespräch lesen.


America at Risk: Albert Camus, National Security, and Afghanistan

July 22, 2010

One leader, one people, signifies one master and millions of slaves. (Albert Camus)

Almost nine years after the 9/11 attacks, the United States has yet to confront the threat posed by the extremist and irreconcilable wing of Islam.

Former Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) senior fellow Newt Gingrich will warn that now is the time to awaken from self-deception about the nature of our enemies and rebuild a bipartisan commitment, in Afghanistan and elsewhere, to defend America.

Drawing on the lessons of Albert Camus and George Orwell, Gingrich will describe the dangers of a wartime government that uses language and misleading labels to obscure reality.

He will explain why we need a debate about this larger war against the irreconcilable wing of Islam—which mortally threatens America’s way of life, freedom, and rule of law—and how it relates to the nuclear threat from Iran and the various other risks posed to America’s very existence.

Most importantly, Gingrich will argue that America will remain at risk until it confronts this willful blindness about the nature of its enemies and the nature of the war in which it is engaged.

Date: Thursday, July 29, 2010
Time: 2:00 PM — 3:00 PM
Location: Wohlstetter Conference Center, Twelfth Floor, AEI
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20036

Media Contact: Hampton Foushee

American Enterprise Institute
1150 Seventeenth Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: 202-862-5806


Die “Endlösung der Judenfrage” in Frankreich: Razzia der Pariser Winter-Radrennbahn (1942)

July 17, 2010

Daß die Juden, wenn sie wollten – oder, wenn man sie dazu zwänge, wie es die Antisemiten zu wollen scheinen –, jetzt schon das Übergewicht, ja ganz wörtlich die Herrschaft über Europa haben könnten, steht fest; daß sie nicht darauf hinarbeiten und Pläne machen, ebenfalls. Einstweilen wollen und wünschen sie vielmehr, sogar mit einiger Zudringlichkeit, in Europa, von Europa ein- und aufgesaugt zu werden, sie dürsten darnach, endlich irgendwo fest, erlaubt, geachtet zu sein und dem Nomadenleben, dem ‘ewigen Juden’ ein Ziel zu setzen –; und man sollte diesen Zug und Drang wohl beachten und ihm entgegenkommen. (Friedrich Nietzsche)

Als Rafle du Vélodrome d’Hiver (frz. Razzia der Winter-Radrennbahn) wird die am 16. und 17. Juli 1942 in Paris durchgeführte Massenfestnahme durch die französische Polizei (auf Anordnung des Generalsekretärs der Polizei des Vichy-Regimes René Bousquet - der nach dem Krieg eine steile Karriere machte und leider 1993 erschossen wurde, bevor man ihn den Prozess machen konnte) und darauf folgende Deportation von 13.000 französischen Juden, darunter über 4.000 Kinder, in die Gaskammern nach Auschwitz bezeichnet.

Die aktive Beteiligung der französischen Vichy-Regierung sowie französischer Polizeibeamter – ohne ausdrücklichen Befehl der nationalsozialistischen Besatzungsmacht – an diesem Verbrechen war jahrzehntelang ein Tabu in Frankreich.

Am 16. Juli 1995 entschuldigte sich der französische Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac öffentlich im Namen der französischen Republik

Am 16. Juli 1995 entschuldigte sich Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac öffentlich im Namen der französischen Republik.

 “Von diesem Moment an konnte man beginnen, echte Fragen zu stellen, wurde den Opfern der Opfer-Status zuerkannt. Erst dann konnte die Arbeit der Erinnerung, der historischen Auseinandersetzung und die Trauerarbeit der jüdischen Familien wirklich beginnen. Ich nenne das eine „Befriedung“. Denn seit der Erklärung des Staatspräsidenten Jacques Chirac fühlen sich viele Juden mit ihrer Geschichte versöhnt, mit der Geschichte ihres Landes, des Landes, in dem sie leben.”, bemerkte Jacques Fredj, Direktor des Mémorial de la Shoah, ein Gedenk-, Forschungs- und Dokumentationszentrum zur Geschichte des Holocaust.

Jacques Chirac & Simone Veil vor der Mauer der Namen in Paris

Jacques Chirac mit der französischen Politikerin, einstigen Präsidentin des Europäischen Parlamentes und Auschwitz-Überlebende Simone Veil vor dem Pariser Denkmal Mur des Noms (Mauer der Namen)

***

Am 16. Juli 1995, hielt der französische Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac eine sehr bewegende Rede, in der er auf die Verstrickungen des französischen Staates in dieses Verbrechen einging.

Rede des französischen Staatspräsidenten Jacques Chirac

Monsieur le Maire,

Monsieur le Président,

Monsieur l’Ambassadeur,

Monsieur le Grand Rabbin,

Mesdames, Messieurs,

Il est, dans la vie d’une nation, des moments qui blessent la mémoire, et l’idée que l’on se fait de son pays.

Ces moments, il est difficile de les évoquer, parce que l’on ne sait pas toujours trouver les mots justes pour rappeler l’horreur, pour dire le chagrin de celles et ceux qui ont vécu la tragédie. Celles et ceux qui sont marqués à jamais dans leur âme et dans leur chair par le souvenir de ces journées de larmes et de honte.

Il est difficile de les évoquer, aussi, parce que ces heures noires souillent à jamais notre histoire, et sont une injure à notre passé et à nos traditions. Oui, la folie criminelle de l’occupant a été secondée par des Français, par l’Etat français.

Il y a cinquante-trois ans, le 16 juillet 1942, 450 policiers et gendarmes français, sous l’autorité de leurs chefs, répondaient aux exigences des nazis.

Ce jour-là, dans la capitale et en région parisienne, près de dix mille hommes, femmes et enfants juifs furent arrêtés à leur domicile, au petit matin, et rassemblés dans les commissariats de police.

On verra des scènes atroces: les familles déchirées, les mères séparées de leurs enfants, les vieillards – dont certains, anciens combattants de la Grande Guerre, avaient versé leur sang pour la France – jetés sans ménagement dans les bus parisiens et les fourgons de la Préfecture de Police.

On verra, aussi, des policiers fermer les yeux, permettant ainsi quelques évasions.

Pour toutes ces personnes arrêtées, commence alors le long et douloureux voyage vers l’enfer. Combien d’entre-elles ne reverront jamais leur foyer? Et combien, à cet instant, se sont senties trahies? Quelle a été leur détresse?

La France, patrie des Lumières et des Droits de l’Homme, terre d’accueil et d’asile, la France, ce jour-là, accomplissait l’irréparable. Manquant à sa parole, elle livrait ses protégés à leurs bourreaux.

Conduites au Vélodrome d’hiver, les victimes devaient attendre plusieurs jours, dans les conditions terribles que l’on sait, d’être dirigées sur l’un des camps de transit – Pithiviers ou Beaune-la-Rolande – ouverts par les autorités de Vichy.

L’horreur, pourtant, ne faisait que commencer.

Suivront d’autres rafles, d’autres arrestations. A Paris et en province. Soixante-quatorze trains partiront vers Auschwitz. Soixante-seize mille déportés juifs de France n’en reviendront pas.

Nous conservons à leur égard une dette imprescriptible.

La Thora fait à chaque juif devoir de se souvenir. Une phrase revient toujours qui dit: “N’oublie jamais que tu as été un étranger et un esclave en terre de Pharaon”.

Cinquante ans après, fidèle à sa loi, mais sans esprit de haine ou de vengeance, la Communauté juive se souvient, et toute la France avec elle. Pour que vivent les six millions de martyrs de la Shoah. Pour que de telles atrocités ne se reproduisent jamais plus. Pour que le sang de l’holocauste devienne, selon le mot de Samuel Pisar, le “sang de l’espoir”.

Quand souffle l’esprit de haine, avivé ici par les intégrismes, alimenté là par la peur et l’exclusion. Quand à nos portes, ici même, certains groupuscules, certaines publications, certains enseignements, certains partis politiques se révèlent porteurs, de manière plus ou moins ouverte, d’une idéologie raciste et antisémite, alors cet esprit de vigilance qui vous anime, qui nous anime, doit se manifester avec plus de force que jamais.

En la matière, rien n’est insignifiant, rien n’est banal, rien n’est dissociable. Les crimes racistes, la défense de thèses révisionnistes, les provocations en tout genre – les petites phrases, les bons mots – puisent aux mêmes sources.

Transmettre la mémoire du peuple juif, des souffrances et des camps. Témoigner encore et encore. Reconnaître les fautes du passé, et les fautes commises par l’Etat. Ne rien occulter des heures sombres de notre Histoire, c’est tout simplement défendre une idée de l’Homme, de sa liberté et de sa dignité. C’est lutter contre les forces obscures, sans cesse à l’oeuvre.

Cet incessant combat est le mien autant qu’il est le vôtre.

Les plus jeunes d’entre nous, j’en suis heureux, sont sensibles à tout ce qui se rapporte à la Shoah. Ils veulent savoir. Et avec eux, désormais, de plus en plus de Français décidés à regarder bien en face leur passé.

La France, nous le savons tous, n’est nullement un pays antisémite.

En cet instant de recueillement et de souvenir, je veux faire le choix de l’espoir.

Je veux me souvenir que cet été 1942, qui révèle le vrai visage de la “collaboration”, dont le caractère raciste, après les lois anti-juives de 1940, ne fait plus de doute, sera, pour beaucoup de nos compatriotes, celui du sursaut, le point de départ d’un vaste mouvement de résistance.

Je veux me souvenir de toutes les familles juives traquées, soustraites aux recherches impitoyables de l’occupant et de la milice, par l’action héroïque et fraternelle de nombreuses familles françaises.

J’aime à penser qu’un mois plus tôt, à Bir Hakeim, les Français libres de Koenig avaient héroïquement tenu, deux semaines durant, face aux divisions allemandes et italiennes.

Certes, il y a les erreurs commises, il y a les fautes, il y a une faute collective. Mais il y a aussi la France, une certaine idée de la France, droite, généreuse, fidèle à ses traditions, à son génie. Cette France n’a jamais été à Vichy. Elle n’est plus, et depuis longtemps, à Paris. Elle est dans les sables libyens et partout où se battent des Français libres. Elle est à Londres, incarnée par le Général de Gaulle. Elle est présente, une et indivisible, dans le coeur de ces Français, ces “Justes parmi les nations” qui, au plus noir de la tourmente, en sauvant au péril de leur vie, comme l’écrit Serge Klarsfeld, les trois-quarts de la communauté juive résidant en France, ont donné vie à ce qu’elle a de meilleur. Les valeurs humanistes, les valeurs de liberté, de justice, de tolérance qui fondent l’identité française et nous obligent pour l’avenir.

Ces valeurs, celles qui fondent nos démocraties, sont aujourd’hui bafouées en Europe même, sous nos yeux, par les adeptes de la “purification ethnique”. Sachons tirer les leçons de l’Histoire. N’acceptons pas d’être les témoins passifs, ou les complices, de l’inacceptable.

C’est le sens de l’appel que j’ai lancé à nos principaux partenaires, à Londres, à Washington, à Bonn. Si nous le voulons, ensemble nous pouvons donner un coup d’arrêt à une entreprise qui détruit nos valeurs et qui, de proche en proche risque de menacer l’Europe tout entière.


D-Day – June 6, 1944: The Meaning of the Supreme Sacrifice of Heroes and Guardians of Freedom

June 6, 2010

dday flags D-Day Message to the troops from Dwight D. Eisenhower

Let Our Hearts Be Stout – Roosevelt D-Day Prayer

My Fellow Americans,

Last night, when I spoke with you about the fall of Rome, I knew at that moment that troops of the United States and our Allies were crossing the Channel in another and greater operation. It has come to pass with success thus far.

And so, in this poignant hour, I ask you to join with me in prayer:

Almighty God: Our sons, pride of our nation, this day have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our Republic, our religion, and our civilization, and to set free a suffering humanity.

Lead them straight and true; give strength to their arms, stoutness to their hearts, steadfastness in their faith.

They will need Thy blessings. Their road will be long and hard. For the enemy is strong. He may hurl back our forces. Success may not come with rushing speed, but we shall return again and again; and we know that by Thy grace, and by the righteousness of our cause, our sons will triumph.

They will be sore tried, by night and by day, without rest – until the victory is won. The darkness will be rent by noise and flame. Men’s souls will be shaken with the violences of war.

For these men are lately drawn from the ways of peace. They fight not for the lust of conquest. They fight to end conquest. They fight to liberate. They fight to let justice arise, and tolerance and goodwill among all Thy people. They yearn but for the end of battle, for their return to the haven of home.

Some will never return. Embrace these, Father, and receive them, Thy heroic servants, into Thy kingdom.

And for us at home – fathers, mothers, children, wives, sisters, and brothers of brave men overseas, whose thoughts and prayers are ever with them – help us, Almighty God, to rededicate ourselves in renewed faith in Thee in this hour of great sacrifice.

Many people have urged that I call the nation into a single day of special prayer. But because the road is long and the desire is great, I ask that our people devote themselves in a continuance of prayer. As we rise to each new day, and again when each day is spent, let words of prayer be on our lips, invoking Thy help to our efforts.

Give us strength, too – strength in our daily tasks, to redouble the contributions we make in the physical and the material support of our armed forces.

And let our hearts be stout, to wait out the long travail, to bear sorrows that may come, to impart our courage unto our sons wheresoever they may be.

And, O Lord, give us faith. Give us faith in Thee; faith in our sons; faith in each other; faith in our united crusade. Let not the keeness of our spirit ever be dulled. Let not the impacts of temporary events, of temporal matters of but fleeting moment – let not these deter us in our unconquerable purpose.

With Thy blessing, we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy. Help us to conquer the apostles of greed and racial arrogances. Lead us to the saving of our country, and with our sister nations into a world unity that will spell a sure peace – a peace invulnerable to the schemings of unworthy men. And a peace that will let all of men live in freedom, reaping the just rewards of their honest toil.

Thy will be done, Almighty God. Amen.

U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt – June 6, 1944


Anna Karina – The Look

May 1, 2010

Anna KarinaDanish actress of the French New Wave. Arguably the Audrey Hepburn of her day - elegant and a free spirit.

Danish Actress Anna Karina

Danish Actress Anna Karina

If you’ve never seen a Karina’s film we would suggest Une Femme est Une Femme (A Woman is a Woman) from 1961. Great film, great clothes; written and directed by Karina’s then husband Jean-Luc Godard…with also the great master Jean-Paul Belmondo.


Report records shocking rise of violent anti-Semitism in western Europe in 2009

April 12, 2010

A new survey by the Stephen Roth Institute for the Study of Contemporary Anti-Semitism and Racism in Tel Aviv has revealed a strong surge in violent anti-Semitism in 2009, which in western Europe has now reached the highest level in decades.

The number of recorded violent incidents against Jews, or Jewish sites, totaled 1,129 last year, compared to 559 in 2008 – a rise of 102 percent. In addition, there were “many more hundreds of threats, insults, graffiti signs and slogans and demonstrations featuring virulently anti-Semitic content… sometimes resulting in violence,” according to the report.

“The year … was the worst since monitoring of anti-Semitic manifestations began two decades ago, in terms of both major anti-Semitic violence and the hostile atmosphere generated worldwide by the mass demonstrations and verbal and visual expressions against Israel and the Jews,” the study states.

Dina Porat, the director of the Stephen Roth Institute, told journalists at a press conference that anti-Semitism was directly linked to anti-Zionism. “Political goals are imbued with anti-Jewish sentiment and equations of Jews to Nazis,” she said. Her study was published on the eve of Israel’s Holocaust Remembrance Day Yom HaShoah.

In Britain, 374 manifestations of violence against Jews were recorded in 2009, compared to 112 in 2008. France – which has the largest Jewish community in Europe – reported 195 violent attacks against Jews, compared to 50 in 2008. Canada saw 130 incidents in 2009, compared to 13 in 2008, and the United States 116 compared to 98. The study records 566 incidents of vandalism targeting Jewish property worldwide in 2009, constituting 49 percent of all incidents. Germany, Russia and Ukraine were not as badly affected by the rise, and may even have seen a decrease in incidents for 2009, the report found.

Forty-one incidents were armed assaults against Jews because of their religion. Thirty-four arson attacks were recorded. Threats of violence against Jews and Jewish institutions accounted for 29 percent of all incidents.

The report attributes the surge in anti-Semitic acts in large parts to the 2009 Gaza war. However, Professor Robert Wistrich of Hebrew University in Jerusalem was quoted as saying by ‘Voice of America’ that “All kinds of new pretexts can serve to ignite anti-Semitism, particularly through anti-Israel feeling, through anti-Zionism; and above all it is Israel that has become the obsession of the anti-Semites.”

Moshe Kantor, the president of the European Jewish Congress, which co-sponsored the report, criticized some Jewish communities for “remaining silent” on anti-Semitism, but praised French and British Jewish leaders for speaking out forcefully against anti-Semitism. Kantor also said that the rise in anti-Jewish sentiment in Western Europe was a “new phenomenon financed and organized by pro-Islamic, pro-terrorist organizations and states.”

Porat said: “We had the feeling, which was corroborated by the facts, that the radical left – sometimes together with Jews and former Israelis, this is very disturbing – worked together with the radical Muslim leadership, using anti-Semitism and the Holocaust as political tools, to make Israel as a Jewish state a political target.”

Read full story.


USA and France Press for Quick Iran Sanctions

March 31, 2010

At a joint White House news conference, U.S. President Barack Obama, with French President Nicolas Sarkozy, said he wanted approval within weeks for tougher UN sanctions against Iran over its nuclear program.

President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France have a discussion in the Blue Room of the White House before their joint press availability, March 30, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

President Barack Obama and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France have a discussion in the Blue Room of the White House before their joint press availability, March 30, 2010. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

The White House – Office of the Press Secretary

For Immediate Release
March 30, 2010

Remarks by President Obama and President Sarkozy of France during Joint Press Availability

East Room

4:56 P.M. EDT

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Please, everybody have a seat. Good afternoon. Bienvenue. 

I am delighted to welcome my dear friend, President Sarkozy, to the White House. And I also want to welcome to the United States the First Lady of France, and Michelle and I are very much looking forward to hosting our guests at dinner this evening.

Now, I have to point out that the French are properly famous for their cuisine, and so the fact that Nicolas went to Ben’s Chili Bowl for lunch — (laughter) — I think knows — shows his discriminating palate. My understanding is he had a half-smoke, so he was sampling the local wares. And we appreciate that very much.

This visit is an opportunity to return the hospitality that the President and the French people have shown to me during my visits to France. And that includes our family’s wonderful visit to Paris last summer. Michelle and I will never forget the opportunity to introduce our daughters for the first time to the City of Lights. And I don’t think that Sasha will ever forget celebrating her 8th birthday at the Élysée Palace with the President of France. That’s a pretty fancy way for an 8-year-old to spend their birthday.

Today, President Sarkozy and I have reaffirmed the enduring ties between our countries. France is our oldest ally, and one of our closest. We are two great republics —- bound by common ideals —- that have stood together for more than two centuries, from Yorktown to Normandy to Afghanistan. 

Under President Sarkozy’s leadership, France has further secured its rightful place as a leader in Europe and around the world, recognizing that meeting global challenges requires global partnerships. France took the historic step of returning to NATO’s military command, and we are working to revitalize our transatlantic bonds, including a strong, capable European Union, which the United States firmly supports — because a close transatlantic partnership is critical to progress, whether it’s applying our combined strength to promote development and confront violent extremism in Africa, or reconstruction in Haiti, or advancing peace from the Caucasus to the Middle East.

Mr. President, on behalf of the American people, I also want to thank you for your personal efforts to strengthen the partnership between our countries.  We first met four years ago. I was a senator then; Nicolas was still running for President at the time, and I immediately came to admire your legendary energy —- and your enthusiasm for what our countries can achieve together. That was the spirit of your eloquent speech to Congress three years ago, which deeply moved many Americans.

Over the past year, the President and I have worked closely on numerous occasions. We respect one another and understand one another, and we share a belief that through bold yet pragmatic action, our generation can bend the arc of history toward justice and towards progress. And this shared commitment to solving problems allowed us to advance our common interests today.

We agreed to continue working aggressively to sustain the global economic recovery and create jobs for our people. And this includes, as we agreed with our G20 partners at Pittsburgh, to replacing the old cycle of bubble and bust with growth that is balanced and sustained. And this requires effective coordination by all nations. To that end, I updated the President on our efforts to pass financial reform, and I look forward to the Senate taking action on this landmark legislation so we never repeat the mistakes that led to this crisis.

We must provide sufficient oversight so that reckless speculation or reckless risk-taking by a few big players in the financial markets will never again threaten the global economy or burden taxpayers. We must assure that consumers of financial products have the information and safeguards that they need, so their life savings are not placed in needless jeopardy. And that’s why I press for the passage of these reforms through Congress when they return, and I will continue to work with President Sarkozy and other world leaders to coordinate our efforts, because we want to make sure that whatever steps we’re taking, they are occurring on both sides of the Atlantic. 

We agreed that sustained and balanced growth includes rejecting protectionism.  France is one of our largest trading partners. And we need to expand global commerce, not constrain it.  With that regard, we think it’s important that Doha trade negotiations move forward this year, and we need all interested parties to push for a more ambitious and balanced agreement that opens global markets. And we look forward to France’s presidency of both the G8 and G20 next year. So Nicolas is going to be very busy.

To address climate change, we agreed that all nations aligned with the Copenhagen accord must meet their responsibilities. And I would note that President Sarkozy’s leadership has resulted in significant new resources to address deforestation around the world. Upcoming meetings at the United Nations and the Major Economies Forum will be an opportunity for nations to follow up their Copenhagen commitments with specific and concrete actions that reduce emissions.

We reaffirmed our commitment to confront the greatest threat to global security —- the spread of nuclear weapons. And I updated President Sarkozy on our new START treaty with Russia. I look forward to welcoming President Sarkozy back to Washington in two weeks for our summit on securing vulnerable nuclear material so that they never fall into the hands of terrorists. 

We discussed our shared determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. On this the United States and France are united, are inseparable.  With our P5-plus-1 partners, we offer Iran good faith proposals to resolve this matter through diplomacy. But Iran thus far has rejected those offers. Today, the international community is more united than ever on the need for Iran to uphold its obligations. And that’s why we’re pursuing strong sanctions through the U.N. Security Council. 

And finally we discussed our efforts to advance security and peace around the world, including in the Middle East, where we agree that all sides need to act now to create the atmosphere that gives the proximity talks the best chance to succeed. 

I shared my impressions from my discussions with President Karzai on the urgent need for good government and development in Afghanistan. As I told our troops, we salute our coalition partners, and that includes France, which is one of the largest contributors to the NATO mission, and which has given its most precious resource, the lives of its young men and women, to a mission that is vital to the security of both our countries’ and the world’s security.

So I thank President Sarkozy for his visit and for the progress that our countries have made today, in large part because of his extraordinary leadership. We are global partners facing global challenges together, and I think that Nicolas will agree that when it comes to America’s oldest ally, we’ve never been closer.

So I’ll simply close with words that one American leader expressed to another French partner more than 200 years ago, because Washington’s words to Rochambeau reflect the bonds between our countries today: We are “fellow laborers in the cause of liberty and we have lived together as brothers should do — in harmonious friendship.” 

In that spirit, I welcome President Nicolas Sarkozy.

PRESIDENT SARKOZY:  Thank you, Mr. President. Thank you for your invitation. I think that we can say — I stand to be corrected by Bernard Kouchner and Christine Lagarde — but I think we can say that rarely in the history of our two countries has the community of views been so identical between the United States of America and France.

To wit, one example, which is that France would not be stepping next year into the presidency of the G20 had the United States of America not supported France for this presidency. Now, there are the words, there are the statements, and then there are the facts, the acts, and that is a fact. 

Now, I will not repeat what President Obama so eloquently said. On Afghanistan, we support President Obama’s strategy. We cannot afford to lose — not for us, not for ourselves, but for Afghanistan and for the people of Afghanistan, who are entitled to live in freedom. Of course the road is arduous. Of course nothing can be anticipated. And of course we are so sorrowful for the loss of young lives. But we have to have the courage to go to the end of our strategy and explain that there is no alternative strategy.  Defeat would be too high a price for the security of Americans, the French, and Europeans. By fighting in Afghanistan, what we are fighting for is world security, quite simply.

Now, on Iran, I am very satisfied with what President Obama has said. The time has come to take decisions.  Iran cannot continue its mad race. Now, we don’t want to punish Iran, which deserves better than what it has by way of leadership today, and therefore fully support in order to get stronger, tougher sanctions at the Security Council and take the necessary decisions is what you have. I have said to President Obama that with Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown we will make all necessary efforts to ensure that Europe as a whole engages in the sanction regime.

On the Middle East, it’s excellent news to hear that the United States are thus engaged. Of course peace in the Middle East is the — is something which concerns primarily the Israelis and the Palestinians. However, the absence of peace in the Middle East is a problem for all of us, because what it does is keep feeding terrorism all over the world. And I wish to express my solidarity vis-à-vis President Obama in condemning the settlement process. Everybody knows how engaged and committed I am vis-à-vis Israel’s security, but the settlement process achieves nothing and contributes in no way to Israel’s safety and security. There comes a time when you have to take initiatives in favor of peace.

Now, on financial regulation, again, it’s great news for the world to hear that the United States is availing itself of rules, adopting rules so that we not go back to what we have already experienced. And during the French presidency of the G20, Tim Geithner, Christine Lagarde are going to be working hand-in-glove in order to go even further in regulating world capitalism, and in particular, raising the issue of a new world international monetary order.

On all these subjects there’s much convergence of views. And of course I want to say to President Obama how glad we were for him and for the USA to hear of the successful passing of the health care reform. 

And insofar as the President has revealed a secret — namely, where I had lunch today — I should say that I have a good friend in Washington who had actually recommended that restaurant. When I walked in I saw a huge photograph of President Obama. And I’m afraid that when you go back to that restaurant you may see a smaller photograph of the French President.  (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  We’ve got time for a couple of questions. I’m going to call on Ben Feller. There you are, Ben — AP.

Q    Thank you, sir. Thank you for your patience. President Obama, you’ve talked about the importance of having consequences for Iran over its nuclear program, but is there ever a real deadline? What is your specific timeline for U.N. sanctions on Iran? And is it one that the American people can believe in?

PRESIDENT OBAMA:  Well –

Q   I’m sorry, sir, I just wanted to ask President Sarkozy, you said yesterday in New York that the world needs an open America, an America that listens. I’m wondering if you can elaborate; specifically if you think President Obama is open to the world and is listening to you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me answer the second question, even though that was to Nicolas. I listen to Nicolas all the time. I can’t stop listening to him.  (Laughter.) 

On Iran, we came in with a very clear approach and a very clear strategy, and it was an open book to the world. We said we would engage Iran and give them an opportunity to take the right path, a path that would lead to prosperity and opportunity for their people and a peaceful region, and one in which they would allow themselves to become a full-fledged member of the community of nations. The alternative path was further isolation and further consequences.

We mobilized the international community around this approach, including partners like Russia that in the past might have been more hesitant to take a firmer stance on Iran’s nuclear program. What we said, though, was that there was going to be a time limit to it and that if we had not seen progress by the end of the year, it was time for us to move forward on that sanctions track.

My hope is that we are going to get this done this spring. So I’m not interested in waiting months for a sanctions regime to be in place; I’m interested in seeing that regime in place in weeks. And we are working diligently with our international partners, emphasizing to them that, as Nicolas said, this is not simply an issue of trying to isolate Iran; it has enormous implications for the safety and the security of the entire region. We don’t want to see a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

A conflict in the Middle East as a consequence of Iran’s actions could have a huge destabilizing effect in terms of the world economy at a time when it’s just coming out of a very deep recession. 

The long-term consequences of a nuclear-armed Iran are unacceptable.  And so Nicolas, myself and others agree that we have engaged; the door remains open if the Iranians choose to walk through it. But they understand very clearly what the terms of a diplomatic solution would be. And in the interim we are going to move forcefully on a U.N. sanctions regime.

Now, do we have unanimity in the international community? Not yet. And that’s something that we have to work on. We think that we are in a much stronger position to get robust sanctions now than we were a year ago prior to us initiating our strategy.

But it’s still difficult, partly because, let’s be honest, Iran is a oil producer and there are a lot of countries around the world that, regardless of Iran’s offenses, are thinking that their commercial interests are more important to them than these long-term geopolitical interests. And so we have to continue to apply pressure not just on Iran but we have to make sure that we are communicating very clearly that this is very important to the United States.

Q   You can get unanimity within weeks?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: We think that we can get sanctions within weeks.

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: Well, I’ve read many comments — and I must say I’ve been quite amused — on the relations between European leaders and the President of the United States. I say I’m amused because I’ve thought to myself, well, when we speak to one another, people must be listening to our phone calls because I have seen reports on conversations and discussions which in no way resemble anything that has ever taken place between Barack Obama and myself. 

Now, why is it easy for us to work? And I speak on behalf of Chancellor Merkel, Gordon Brown, and other leaders. Well, because President Obama, when he says something, keeps his word. His word is his bond. And that is so important.  There’s a joke among us — we don’t like surprises. Well, from my point of view, there’s no surprises. When he can, he delivers. When he can’t, he says so. So there are no surprises. And we try to be likewise.

Furthermore, secondly, on all topics — and there have been some pretty tough topics. I mean, for instance, bonus — taxes on bonuses, regulation, financial regulations — pretty heavy going stuff — Copenhagen. I mean, I happen to think that President Obama is a step ahead of public opinion in the United States on this. But we’re constantly talking about it. It’s even President Obama who wanted us to have a call conference, a videoconference virtually every month with Angela Merkel and Gordon Brown.

Now, this doesn’t really mean that we absolutely agree neck and neck on everything, but we talk amongst ourselves. And this is a novelty from the point of view of Europe whenever we look at the United States that everything is put on the table, anything can be discussed, everything can be discussed.

What matters, you see, is not whether we agree once systematically before we’ve even started discussing — that’s suspicious — it’s to say whatever divergence of views we have, we can talk about it among ourselves. And I say things very frankly to you, and this is what all we European leaders believe and think.

I’ve also heard it said that Europe was less interested in the United States. Well, for heaven’s sake, how many times do we have to come over to show that we are interested? What would it mean if we were interested?

So, very frankly and very honestly on this, not only is it not an issue, not a problem, but it’s great to be able to work under such conditions. I would say that what I have to say about President Obama is the same as what Bernard Kouchner could say about Hillary Clinton, or Christine Lagarde about Tim Geithner. We’re constantly having a dialogue. 

I could even take you — give you an example of something on which we don’t necessarily agree, such as Syria — or we didn’t agree.  France took an initiative, as you know. Well, I’ll say this to you: At no point, no point, has President Obama turned his back on what we were doing. Constantly he’s watching, he’s listening. We’re constantly exchanging information on the subject. Even when there are more complex topics, including in our relations with the Russians, before even we inform our Russian — the Russians or our partners, I pick up the phone, I call President Obama, and he knows exactly what we’re going to do and why we’re going to do it. You follow me on that?

So, there may be disagreements, but never for the wrong reasons. And as we are very transparent on both sides, there’s confidence, there’s trust. And I really think I can say that. There’s a lot of trust.

Now, trust always helps one overcome perhaps diverging interests. It may be that the United States of America has slightly different interests of those of France, but the bedrock of trust between us is something that he also has with all European leaders. And I don’t say this to please you. I said this is true. And I took two examples of two topics that could, in other tide, other times, have led to head-on collision, and which in this case, on the contrary, are looked at on both sides of the Atlantic as a situation where we are complementary.

Perhaps he said, well, maybe on Syria, France is on the right track, and maybe one day we’ll have the opportunity to do likewise, and that’s exactly the way we work.

Go ahead, I’m not the one with the mic.

Q Since you’ve just talked about the United — the relations between Europe and United States, didn’t you get a bad surprise, a nasty surprise, on the Pentagon’s decision on the tanker planes, which reversed the decision which had originally been taken in favor of Airbus? Did you raise this subject with President Obama? And if so, did you try and put together a new approach so as to ensure that the competition would be fairer, new version of this contract with the Pentagon, and don’t you think that it would be probably fair to share this contract with the Europeans, since they are now full members of NATO and that they share the price of the war on the ground?

PRESIDENT SARKOZY: If I said I hadn’t raised it, it would mean that what I’ve just told you would be meaningless and senseless. Of course we’ve talked about it — and President Obama will give you his answer. But I said to him, I trust you. And I do trust him. If you say to me that the request for proposals, the call for tenders will be free, fair and transparent, then we say EADS will bid and we trust you.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: What I said to President Sarkozy is, is that the process will be free and fair, and that the trust is justified.

Now, it’s important for my European friends to understand that, at least here, the Secretary of Defense makes procurement decisions. The President does not meddle in these decisions. And that’s a longstanding policy. So I maintain an arm’s length approach, but I have assurances from Secretary of Defense Gates that, in fact, the re-bidding process is going to be completely transparent, completely open, and a fair competition. That’s in our interests. It’s in the interest of American taxpayers, and it’s also in the interest of our young men and women who rely on this equipment in order to protect this nation.

And it’s important to note, I think, for those of you who don’t know Secretary Gates, this is somebody who has actually taken on the military and weapons systems establishment and initiated some very significant procurement reforms that nobody ever thought would happen here in Washington. So he’s somebody who’s willing to call it like it is and make difficult decisions, and he will do so in this situation as well.

Thank you very much, everybody.


Jean Ferrat (Jean Tenenbaum) – 1930-2010

March 13, 2010

In Memoriam: Jean Ferrat (1930-2010)

“Avec Jean Ferrat, c’est une conception intransigeante de la chanson française qui s’éteint. Farouchement attaché à sa liberté et à son indépendance, il a toute sa vie pensé et vécu son art comme un artisanat, privilégiant constamment l’authenticité et l’excellence à la facilité consumériste des standards commerciaux. Jean Ferrat était avant tout un militant de la chanson française de qualité, démontrant qu’elle n’avait pas besoin de renoncer à un certain niveau d’exigence pour être populaire”. Président de la République Nicolas Sarkozy

Merci pour la leçon, Jean: être un homme debout dans la vie envers et contre tout!


Unsung Hero of World War II: Hiram Bingham IV

March 7, 2010

An American Vice-Consul stationed in Marseille, France in 1940, Hiram Bingham IV defied U.S. policy and issued false life-saving visas for thousands of Jews fleeing the Nazis, among them Hannah Arendt, Marc Chagall, Max Ernst and the family of the writer Thomas Mann.

Even after Washington lost patience with him and shuffled him off to Buenos Aires, Argentina in 1941, Bingham continued to annoy his superiors by reporting on the movements of Nazis there. Eventually, he was forced out of the American diplomatic service.

Because he went against U.S. policy, he never received national credit, and because he was a man of action and not of words, his story went with him when he died in 1988. That is until his son, Robert Kim Bingham Sr., 67, discovered some of his father’s documents hidden in the family farmhouse in Salem, Connecticut, and embarked on a journey to bring his father’s heroic story to light.

Hiram Bingham as young diplomat in Marseille

Hiram Bingham as young diplomat in Marseille

7 Questions: Unsung Hero
by Jenny Hazan, Canadian journalist and editor living in Tel Aviv

Jacques Bodner's visa issued by Hiram Bingham IV on Feb. 27, 1940

Jacques Bodner's visa issued by Hiram Bingham IV on Feb. 27, 1940

Q1: Describe the drama of discovering your father’s documents.

In 1996, eight years after my father’s death, my mom, a few of my 10 siblings and I started finding documents at the farmhouse in Salem. There were letters, visa papers, and photos from my father’s time in Marseille. Until then, our family was aware that he had a hand in the rescue of a handful of luminaries, but we had no idea of the scope of his activity, that he was sought out by thousands of people who went to him for their one last chance to live. We had no idea that he was sought out by thousands of people who went to him for their one last chance to live.

We found out that in addition to issuing false visas, he sheltered Jews in his home in Marseille and worked with the French underground to smuggle Jews out of France into Spain, or across the Mediterranean. He even contributed to their expenses out of his own pocket. I have heard estimates that he saved anywhere from 2,500 to 5,000 people.

About five years ago, we found a letter to him from Leon Feuchtwanger, an anti-Nazi writer, thanking my father for hiding him and his wife Marta in my father’s residence for some six weeks while my father prepared a false visa for him under the name of ‘Wet Cheek’. Feuchtwanger had written the letter while on board the Excalibur, heading to New York City, and signed it ‘Mr. Wet Cheek’.

My mother and brother, Thomas, sent some of the Marseille documents to the Holocaust Museum in Washington, and to Eric Saul, curator of the Visas for Life: The Righteous and Honorable Diplomats Project and the Jewish Rescuers Project, who should really be credited with bringing my father’s story to life.

Q2: How did the remembrance project get started?

In 1998 I went to Israel, on the 50th anniversary of the country, as part of a mission of diplomat children. I was very moved when I saw the exhibit at the Yad Vashem Holocaust Museum in Jerusalem. My father had been singled out for special honor. It was the first time I was really struck by what he had done.

There were many people who were so grateful to him for what he did during the early days of the nightmare of the Holocaust, and many people stepped forward to tell me so. We heard wonderful stories in different parts of the country of righteous gentiles, and it was as though it was my father’s turn to be recognized. That trip to Israel is what triggered my whole incentive to go forward with the remembrance project.

Q3: What is the remembrance project?

The unveiling of postage stamps in honor of righteous diplomats at Yad Vashem gave me the idea to petition our own government to issue a stamp in honor of my father. I started a stamp drive in December, 1998, and in May, 2006, a stamp in honor of Harry Bingham IV was finally minted.

Forty representatives of government and 40 U.S. senators forwarded their support for the stamp to the Postmaster General. We had the entire legislature of Connecticut supporting the drive. It was a thrilling bipartisan experience for me.

My book, Courageous Dissent: How Harry Bingham Defied His Government to Save Lives (2007) was part of the same effort.

Q4: What is your primary drive behind all of this?

For over 50 years, the U.S. State Department resisted any attempts to honor my father. To them, he was an insubordinate member of the U.S. diplomatic service.

At the same time, my father didn’t reveal any details. It was typical of diplomatic families that we traveled with that the fathers did not bring to light their activities to their children. I guess because it was such a terrible period and the memories must have been overwhelmingly negative, perhaps because of those they could not rescue.

Our family thought he deserved to be honored; he put humanity above his career.

For me personally, as a former government employee in the U.S. — I retired in July after 41 years of service as Inside Counsel to the Department of Homeland Security — it impressed upon me what my father had done.

Q5: What drove your father to take such risks?

He came from a long and illustrious line of risk-takers. His father, Hiram Bingham III — on whom the Hollywood character Indiana Jones is based — discovered the ruins of the Inca city of Machu Picchu, Peru in 1911.

My father was a deeply religious man who saw his role as saving lives during that nightmare. He felt tremendous compassion for human beings and that each person had a spark of divinity.

Q6: What is one of your fondest memories of your father?

He taught all of his 11 children that we should live according to the golden rule. One instance that made a deep impression on me goes way back to when I was six years old. We used to go to the beach in Connecticut, near an amusement park called Ocean Beach.

We were walking along the sand and snuck into the park without paying the three-cent ‘pedestrian fee’. When he found out he was very angry with us. It’s one of many examples of my father’s deep moral fiber.

Of course I loved my father. He was a wonderful father and we all adored him.

Q7: Is your father finally getting the recognition he deserves?

Besides the stamp, the State Department made a 180-degree turn in 2002 and Colin Powell invited our family to Washington to present us with a posthumous ‘Constructive Dissent’ award in my father’s honor. I was happy about that. He has also been honored by the United Nations and by the State of Israel. Yad Vashem opened an exhibit in his honor called ‘Harry’s Wall’.

But more than these things are the people who continue to come forward and tell us that our father saved their family. During the stamp drive, one 85-year-old lady told us that she and her sister were just teens when they got visas from my father.

Last October, one of my daughter’s professors at Harvard, the Dean of the Literature College, originally from Austria, told her that her grandfather had saved his family. The two of them cried together. It is very emotional. He is alive today because of my father. When we hear these stories, it comes very close to home.

Reprinted with kindly permission of Aish HaTorah International.


A message from Bill Clinton, United Nations Special Envoy for Haiti

January 12, 2010

Today, our thoughts and prayers are with the people of Haiti who are recovering from a devastating earthquake. Buildings have collapsed, thousands of people are missing, and many are presumed homeless.

My UN office and the rest of the UN system are monitoring the situation. While we don’t yet know the full impact of this 7.0-magnitude earthquake, we do know that the survivors need immediate help.

There’s a way you can help Haiti recover and rebuild right now.

Click here to make a donation and find information on other organizations providing emergency relief efforts.

Approximately 2 million people live in the capital of Haiti and the surrounding areas where the disaster struck.

What we do in these first 48 hours determines how many lives we can save. Together, we can help communities get back on their feet.

I have long been committed to helping Haiti “build back better” from the 2008 hurricanes and prepare for future disasters. Haiti, the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere, now needs our assistance more than ever.

Help provide immediate relief and long-term support to earthquake survivors by making a donation today:

www.clintonfoundation.org/haitirelief

Thank you for joining me in praying for the people of Haiti and bringing hope to the survivors. Working together, we can help them build back stronger and better.

Bill Clinton
UN Special Envoy for Haiti

P.S.: For missing family, please call the U.S. State Department hotline at 1-888-407-4747. To submit or request situation or survivor information, visit www.haiti.ushahidi.com.


4èmes Rencontres de Rueil-Malmaison: Territoire, Évaluation & Dévelopement Durable

November 7, 2009
 

Vendredi 20 novembre 2009, Rueil-Malmaison

Vendredi 20 novembre 2009, Rueil-Malmaison

Avec le soutien et la participation du CGDD (Commissariat général au développement durable),  de l’AMF (Association des Maires de France), de l’ADF (Assemblée des Départements de France) et de la SFE (Société Française de l’Évaluation)

Problématique

La conjonction de ces 4èmes Rencontres de Rueil-Malmaison avec la tenue de la Conférence de Copenhague sur le climat, induit à concentrer les travaux sur les engagements auxquels les différents pays s’apprêtent à souscrire. On sait que ces engagements devront être conséquents. Souscrits par les gouvernements, ils impliqueront les acteurs des territoires: entreprises, collectivités et simples citoyens.

Parmi les questions qui se posent, il y a celle de savoir si ces engagements seront bien à la hauteur des défis à relever. Il y a aussi celle de savoir si les territoires seront en mesure d’assumer la charge correspondante.

Comment apprécier «a priori» l’efficience des programmes territoriaux de réduction des gaz à effet de serre (GES)? 

La question est d’autant plus importante que les aides publiques devront aller aux programmes les plus pertinents et ne pas se diluer, alors même que, du fait de la crise économique, tous les territoires sont à la recherche d’investissements susceptibles tout à la fois d’aider l’économie à repartir, de limiter les émissions de gaz à effet de serre et de préparer l’avenir.

Sur le plan méthodologique, cette situation rejoint celle des évaluations «ex ante» auxquelles les porteurs de programmes soutenus par des fonds européens commencent à être habitués, puisqu’il s’agit dans ce cadre de faire la démonstration de la pertinence des actions programmées avant même qu’elles ne soient engagées, ce qui nous éloigne beaucoup de la culture française de l’évaluation ex post. En l’occurrence (Copenhague), la difficulté sera cependant plus grande encore, puisqu’il s’agira de pratiquer des «évaluations prospectives» portant sur des programmes ayant une portée de 10 ou 20 ans.

Mais comment évaluer ex ante les impacts attendus à long terme?

En outre, la pertinence de ces programmes de limitation des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES), relèvera non seulement de critères techniques mais également de paramètres relatifs à la qualité des actions d’information, de communication, de concertation, de formation et de mobilisation des acteurs des territoires, en un mot de paramètres de «participation».

Les dispositions techniques et réglementaires sont, sans doute, des dimensions importantes du sujet, mais les comportements et la participation en sont d’autres, au moins aussi importantes et qui répondent à des ressorts complexes mal repérés.

On voit se dégager des questions d’ordre méthodologique:

  • Comment évaluer une politique multidimensionnelle ciblée sur un critère dominant (la limitation des émissions de GES), mais faisant place aux critères d’efficacité économique et sociale?
  • Peut-on concevoir des indicateurs synthétiques intégrant les paramètres propres au territoire et à ses acteurs? 

Enfin, on sait que parmi les activités humaines contribuant le plus fortement au réchauffement climatique, le chauffage des bâtiments et les transports se trouvent en bonne position. Les villes sont donc des acteurs de premier rang. Comment les aires urbaines vont-elles pouvoir assumer leur part de l’effort? Comment imaginer des politiques et conduire des programmes efficaces de limitation des gaz à effet de serre associant les collectivités, les entreprises et les citoyens? 

La Ville de Rueil-Malmaison, qui est engagée avec celle de Suresnes dans la construction d’une importante et emblématique Communauté d’agglomération, veut lancer la réflexion et la faire partager à ses habitants afin  d’ouvrir le chantier sans tarder.

Ces Rencontres de Rueil-Malmaison, tout en s’adressant à un public de responsables et d’experts, sont également conçues pour intéresser les citoyens engagés dans la vie locale, par exemple à travers des comités de quartier, qui souhaitent s’impliquer dans les actions mises en œuvre par la collectivité pour lutter contre l’effet de serre.

***

Organisation et modalités pratiques

Lieu: Médiathèque Jacques Baumel

15, boulevard du Maréchal Foch (Mairie) – 92 500 Rueil-Malmaison

Horaires Accueil: à partir de 8h15 à l’auditorium de la Médiathèque

Remise des documents – accueil administratif

Allocutions de lancement à 9h00 dans l’amphithéâtre

Clôture à 16h30

Déjeuner: Buffet bio éthique servi dans la salle des mariages de la Mairie

Participation: 50 euros

Renseignements et inscriptions

Le service du Développement Durable de la Mairie de Rueil-Malmaison est à votre disposition pour tout renseignement:

Par téléphone au 01 41 39 08 96

Par télécopie au 01 47 10 01 29

Par e-mail developpementdurable@mairie-rueilmalmaison.fr


Jacques Chirac rechnet in seinen Memoiren mit Nicolas Sarkozy ab

November 3, 2009

Jacques Chirac memoires

Nicolas Sarkozy hatte damals schon diesen Willen, sich unentbehrlich zu machen und immer dabei zu sein, war hibbelig, übereifrig und begierig, zu handeln“, schreibt Jacques Chirac in seinen Memoiren, aus denen die französische Tageszeitung Le Parisien Auszüge veröffentlichte.

Der junge Sarkozy sei stets ein Meister der medialen Inszenierung gewesen.

„Er war immer mehr als ein einfacher Mitarbeiter“, schreibt Jacques Chirac. Sarkozys Unterstützung von Biedermann des bürgerlichen Lagers Edouard Balladur (im Hintergrund von Chiracs Erzfeind Valéry Giscard d’Estaing manövriert worden) bei der Präsidentschaftswahl gegen ihn habe ihn verletzt, gesteht der einstige politische Ziehvater von Nicolas Sarkozy, Jacques Chirac.

Der erste Band der Memoiren, der von Donnerstag an im Handel erhältlich ist, beschreibt den Beginn von Chiracs politischer Karriere bis zur Präsidentschaftswahl 1995.

Externer Link (französisch): Avec ses Mémoires, Jacques Chirac règle ses comptes, Artikel in der französischen Tageszeitung Le Parisien.


Défense et Illustration de Jacques Chirac

October 31, 2009

f

Une tribune de David Berger

Le renvoi de Jacques Chirac devant la justice pour “détournements de biens publics” et “abus de confiance” dans le cadre de l’affaire des chargés de mission de la Ville de Paris est non seulement superflu, mais aussi et surtout moralement douteux, eu égard au fait que les délits reprochés remontent à plus de vingt ans et que tous les partis politiques ont eu recours à ces pratiques.

La justice devrait faire le procès de la classe politique entière au lieu de s’acharner sur un homme qui a servi la France de manière exemplaire pendant plus de quarante ans.

C’est une constante bien française, la nation décapite le Père, celui qui incarne le mieux ce qu’elle est, en érigeant l’échafaud en place publique; observez la chose, elle est invariablement la même: la tête du monarque, bon, débonnaire, doit être donnée aux chacals qui n’en feront qu’une bouchée : Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité. Comme le disait le Général De Gaulle: “Les Français sont des veaux”. Jacques Chirac s’en sortira, c’est une question d’honneur pour la France. Souvenons-nous des années Mitterrand, des suicides, des scandales personnels et des dépenses royales, corruption et république bananière à tire-larigotOui, il ira devant les juges, il passera quelques nuits blanches, mais il se relèvera, tête haute.

L’ancien président de la République et maire de Paris Jacques Chirac s’exprimait il y a près de deux ans sur tous les chefs d’accusation calomnieuse lancés à son encontre. Sa tribune parue dans le quotidien Le Monde peut être lue ici.

NDLR: Les textes et essais publiés sur HIRAM7 REVIEW n’engagent que leurs auteurs et ne reflètent pas nécessairement l’opinion de la rédaction.


French-Israeli Soldier Gilad Shalit seen for the first time in a Hamas videotape

October 3, 2009

Following Gilad Shalit family’s authorization, video of Gilad Shalit received from Hamas in exchange for prisoner release distributed to news agencies as sign of life, more than three years since soldier captured.


USA, UK and France Tell Iran to Open Nuke Site

September 26, 2009

The New York Times reports that U.S. President Obama and the leaders of UK and France will accuse Iran of building a secret underground plant to manufacture nuclear fuel, saying the country has hidden the covert operation from international weapons inspectors for years, according to senior administration officials. 

The revelation, which the three leaders will make before the opening of the Group of 20 economic summit in Pittsburgh, appears bound to add urgency to the diplomatic confrontation with Iran over its suspected ambitions to build a nuclear weapons capacity. Mr. Obama, along with Prime Minister Gordon Brown of Britain and President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, will demand that Iran allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to conduct an immediate inspection of the facility, which is said to be 100 miles southwest of Tehran. 

U.S. officials said that they had been tracking the covert project for years, but that Mr. Obama decided to make public the American findings after Iran discovered, in recent weeks, that Western intelligence agencies had breached the secrecy surrounding the project.

On Monday, Iran wrote a brief, cryptic letter to the International Atomic Energy Agency, saying that it now had a ‘pilot plant’ under construction, whose existence it had never before revealed. In a statement from its headquarters in Vienna yesterday, the atomic agency confirmed that it had been told by Iran that a new pilot fuel enrichment plant is under construction in the country.

Read full story.


Le savoir en appel: Martin Heidegger et le tournant dans la vérité

September 12, 2009

Un essai de Franz-Emmanuel Schürch

Ce livre propose, à partir du constat de difficultés importantes et de paradoxes dans la conception heideggérienne de la vérité comme décèlement (aletheia), une nouvelle interprétation du fameux «tournant» qui sera compris comme la nécessité d’une structure d’inversion réciproque des rapports fondatifs.

Contre tous les replis subjectifs ou les fixations sur des subsistances illusoires, cette structure « tournante » (à la racine du cercle herméneutique) montre comment aucune vérité ne s’établit sans sortie hors de soi, sans être provoquée par ce qui la met en question et qu’ainsi, contrairement à ce que croyait Emmanuel Lévinas, la pensée de Martin Heidegger ne consacre.

Cet ouvrage, bien qu’il témoignera d’une attention scolaire, ne veut pas être un commentaire destiné aux seuls spécialistes, mais constitue l’effort, à partir d’une certaine autonomie philosophique, de présenter la pensée heideggérienne à ceux qu’elle devrait intéresser, de l’arracher aux préjugés dans lesquels elle est souvent emprisonnée et d’en défendre le meilleur.

“INTRODUCTION

Martin Heidegger se signala au monde philosophique en 1927 en rappelant la question de l’être à son attention. Il soutint d’un même geste que l’entente de la vérité s’était figée, par superposition d’égarements, jusqu’à se boucher toute issue. Notre compréhension même de ce que signifie « vérité » en serait venue à nous bloquer la vue. C’est plus précisément la conception traditionnelle qui faisait de la vérité l’accord d’une proposition ou d’un jugement avec la chose visée, l’adaequatio intellectus et rei, qu’il conviendrait d’abord d’interroger afin de découvrir la clé de ces égarements. Cette conception, en étendant son règne, et à cause de la définition même des termes et des modalités de l’accord qu’elle revendique pour la vérité, aurait sapé ses propres fondements, jusqu’à en arriver à s’anéantir elle-même sans s’en apercevoir, laissant ainsi, quant à nos possibilités d’un véritable rapport à ce qui est, le sol glisser sous nos pieds.

La conception heideggérienne de la vérité s’exposant d’abord – nous le verrons toutefois, de façon ambiguë – telle une critique de la vérité-adéquation donna cependant un nouvel élan à la critique générale de la raison inaugurée dans sa radicalité par Nietzsche, mais nourrie néanmoins par Kant et même par le scepticisme empiriste de Hume. En effet, on peut dire aujourd’hui que si le siècle de Kant était celui de la critique, alors celui qui s’est tout juste achevé, le vingtième, fut celui de l’hypercritique. Néanmoins, la critique prit alors un étrange tournant, passant d’une révolte guidée par l’exigence de lucidité à un comportement normalisé laissant s’abîmer jusqu’à la passion du savoir, et consacrant ainsi d’une certaine façon le règne de l’aveuglement dans l’auto-assurance de sa virtuosité intellectuelle, ce à quoi toute ironie, lorsqu’elle ne se soumet qu’à ses propres impératifs, sera toujours condamnée. Du passage à la maturité, la critique a sombré dans l’immaturité de la fuite.

Il n’est pas sûr, toutefois, que Heidegger puisse se voir sans injustice mis au rang des complices de ce que nous appellerons bientôt le renoncement au savoir. Peut-être Heidegger peut-il nous apprendre tout autre chose et peut-être que cela n’a pourtant rien à voir non plus avec un retour timoré à la solidité simple d’avant l’ébranlement critique.”

Franz-Emmanuel Schürch, PhD en philosophie de l’Université de Montréal, enseigne actuellement la philosophie au Collège André Laurendeau.

Commander ce livrer.


Festival Interceltique 2009 – Bagad de Lann-Bihoué

August 17, 2009

festival-interceltique2009

Ensemble traditionnel de musique bretonne, le bagad de Lann-Bihoué a vu le jour en 1952 sur la base aéronautique navale de Lann-Bihoué, près de Lorient.

Cette formation musicale militaire est unique en son genre. En effet, elle est la seule à représenter à la fois la Marine nationale française et la culture celtique avec un répertoire bigarré dans le cadre de diverses manifestations nationales et internationales, notamment lors du 39ème Festival Interceltique, qui s’est déroulé du 31 juillet au 9 août 2009.


Übersetzung und Hermeneutik / Traduction et herméneutique

July 2, 2009

Übersetzung und Hermeneutik

Der vorliegende Band bietet einen Überblick über die neueren Entwicklungen des hermeneutischen Übersetzungsansatzes, der Forschungsergebnisse aus der Linguistik und den Kognitionswissenschaften in seinen Diskurs integriert.

Besprochen werden hier Grundprobleme der Translation wie die Rolle des Übersetzers im Übersetzungsprozess und sein Umgang mit den Texten im Blick auf Verstehen, Interpretation, Kreativität der Formulierung u.a. Wege zur Anwendung des hermeneutischen Konzepts in der Übersetzungsdidaktik werden aufgezeigt und die Tragfähigkeit des zugrundeliegenden philosophischen Diskurses (F. Schleiermacher, E. Husserl, M. Heidegger, H.-G. Gadamer, J. Patočka, P. Ricœur) für die Translations-theorie wird überprüft.

***

Cet ouvrage offre une perspective d’ensemble sur les développements récents de l’approche herméneutique en traduction qui intègre dans sa conception théorique les résultats de la recherche actuelle en linguistique et en sciences cognitives.

On y débat des problèmes fondamentaux tels que le rôle du traducteur dans le processus de la traduction et son approche textuelle sous l’angle de la compréhension et de l’interprétation du texte, de la créativité en traduction etc. On y suggère des voies d’accès à l’application de la théorie herméneutique dans la didactique de la traduction et l’on discute la viabilité du discours philosophique sous-jacent (F. Schleiermacher, E. Husserl, M. Heidegger, H.-G. Gadamer, J. Patočka, P. Ricœur) pour la traductologie.

***

INTRODUCTION – FREE DOWNLOAD

Availability: Paperback & Electronic (pdf)

Publication date: 1 July 2009
Size: 6.50 x 9.45 in
Pages: 352
Language: German, French
ISBN: 978-973-1997-06-3 (paperback)

Inhalt / Sommaire

  
Larisa Cercel (Freiburg i. Br.): Auf den Spuren einer verschütteten Evidenz: Übersetzung und Hermeneutik (Einleitung)
Radegundis Stolze (Darmstadt): Hermeneutik und Übersetzungswissenschaft – eine praxisrelevante Verknüpfung
Lorenza Rega (Triest): Übersetzungspraxis und Hermeneutik im Spannungsverhältnis zwischen Vergangenheit und Gegenwart
John W. Stanley (Köln): Die Relevanz der phänomenologischen Hermeneutik für die Übersetzungswissenschaft
Jane Elisabeth Wilhelm (Genève): Pour une herméneutique du traduire
Arno Renken (Lausanne): Oui – et non. Traduction, herméneutique et écriture du doute
Inês Oseki-Dépré (Aix-en-Provence): Traduction et herméneutique
Domenico Jervolino (Naples): À la recherche d’une philosophie de la traduction, en lisant Patočka
Heinz-Otto Münch (Heidelberg) & Ingrid Steinbach (Worms): Verstehen und Geltung. Gadamers Hermeneutik im kritischen Licht der Übersetzungswissenschaft
Bernd Ulrich Biere (Koblenz): Die Rolle des Übersetzers: Bote, Ausleger, Verständlichmacher?
Ioana Bălăcescu (Craiova) & Bernd Stefanink (Bielefeld): Les bases scientifiques de l’approche herméneutique et d’un enseignement de la créativité en traduction
Marianne Lederer (Paris): Le sens sens dessus dessous: herméneutique et traduction
Alexis Nouss (Cardiff): La relation transhistorique
Alberto Gil (Saarbrücken): Hermeneutik der Angemessenheit. Translatorische Dimensionen des Rhetorikbegriffs decorum
Larisa Cercel (Freiburg i. Br.): Übersetzen als hermeneutischer Prozess. Fritz Paepcke und die Grundlagen der Übersetzungswissenschaft

Fondation Chirac

May 12, 2009

fondation-chirac-2008


The Geopolitics of Emotion: How Cultures of Fear, Humiliation, and Hope are Reshaping the World

May 9, 2009

geopolitics of emotion

Dominique Moïsi, a founder of the Institut Français des Relations Internationales, professor at Sciences Po Paris and Harvard University, and one of Europe’s leading geo-strategic thinkers, discusses in his new book how cultures of fear, humiliation, and hope are reshaping global politics.

“Fear, Humiliation, Hope, and the New World Order

Thirteen years ago, Samuel Huntington argued that a “clash of civilizations” was about to dominate world politics, with culture, along with national interests and political ideology, becoming a geopolitical fault line (“The Clash of Civilizations?” Summer 1993). Events since then have proved Huntington’s vision more right than wrong. Yet what has not been recognized sufficiently is that today the world faces what might be called a “clash of emotions” as well. The Western world displays a culture of fear, the Arab and Muslim worlds are trapped in a culture of humiliation, and much of Asia displays a culture of hope.

Instead of being united by their fears, the twin pillars of the West, the United States and Europe, are more often divided by them – or rather, divided by how best to confront or transcend them. The culture of humiliation, in contrast, helps unite the Muslim world around its most radical forces and has led to a culture of hatred. The chief beneficiaries of the deadly encounter between the forces of fear and the forces of humiliation are the bystanders in the culture of hope, who have been able to concentrate on creating a better future for themselves.

These moods, of course, are not universal within each region, and there are some areas, such as Russia and parts of Latin America, that seem to display all of them simultaneously. But their dynamics and interactions will help shape the world for years to come.

THE CULTURE OF FEAR

The United States and Europe are divided by a common culture of fear. On both sides, one encounters, in varying degrees, a fear of the other, a fear of the future, and a fundamental anxiety about the loss of identity in an increasingly complex world.

In the case of Europe, there are layers of fear. There is the fear of being invaded by the poor, primarily from the South – a fear driven by demography and geography. Images of Africans being killed recently as they tried to scale barbed wire to enter a Spanish enclave in Morocco evoked images of another time not so long ago, when East Germans were shot at as they tried to reach freedom in the West. Back then, Germans were killed because they wanted to escape oppression. Today, Africans are being killed because they want to escape absolute poverty.”

Buy your copy now from Amazon.


Prozessauftakt in Paris um den antisemitischen Mord an Ilan Halimi

April 29, 2009

Fotos: Gottesdienst am 23. Februar 2006 mit Frankreichs Staatspräsident Jacques Chirac, Ehefrau Bernadette Chirac und Premier Ministre Dominique de Villepin in der Pariser Grossen Synagoge de la Victoire zum Andenken an Ilan Halimi (© Fotos von A. Roiné, Pressestelle des Elysee-Palastes)

Ilan Halimi war ein 23-jähriger französischer Jude marokkanischer Herkunft, der am 21. Januar 2006 von einer Gang muslimischer Einwanderer, genannt die “Barbaren”, entführt und anschließend über einen Zeitraum von 24 Tagen zu Tode gefoltert wurde. Hauptmotiv des Verbrechens war Antisemitismus.

Die Tageszeitung Die Welt berichtet über den ersten Verhandlungstag im Pariser Schwurgericht im Prozess um den Mord an Ilan Halimi, der am 9. Februar 2007  in Jerusalem beerdigt wurde.

Zum Artikel.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 46 other followers