jeudi 18 janvier 2018

Hassan Nasrallah: Trump heads for Armageddon, Israel will be more easily defeated than ISIS

Interview of Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah by Al-Mayadeen TV, January 3rd, 2018



In case these videos are censored by Youtube:


[...] Journalist: At the end of the first part of our interview, we concluded on two points. In the first point, you said that the events in Iran will have no consequences and are over, and in the second point we evoked, the most dangerous, is that Trump and Israel are pushing the region towards a big war, and in case this war would be triggered, the Resistance Axis is preparing and has to be prepared. And I ask Your Eminence, are you really worried and concerned that this war happens ? Because I understand from your comments that the war is (a real) possibility, they will perhaps trigger it, and that you (are certain to) be victorious in this war.

Hassan Nasrallah: Listen, regarding the possibility of war, it is real. As for the degree of probability, we cannot rule it out, not even for a moment. Because with such a mentality, such an administration... And whatever they say, it's not just Trump, but the Vice-President, the whole of this administration, their vision... You see how some approached the cause of Al-Quds. He approached it with a religious point of view! These things are related to... 

If you read the statements of the Americans and even the Israelis, you see he wants an Armageddon, he prepares a (real) Armageddon and heads towards it with force. We know their mentality. 

Journalist: They are supported by Christian Zionists. 

mercredi 17 janvier 2018

Hassan Nasrallah : Trump va vers l'Armageddon

Interview du Secrétaire Général du Hezbollah par la chaine Al-Mayadeen, 3 janvier 2018

Traduction :

Transcription :

[...] Journaliste : A la fin de la première partie de notre entretien, nous avons conclu sur deux points. Dans le premier point, tu as dit que les événements en Iran étaient sans conséquence et terminés, et le deuxième point dont on parle, le plus dangereux, est que Trump et Israël poussent la région vers une grande guerre, et pour le cas où cette guerre serait déclenchée, l’Axe de la Résistance s’y prépare et doit s’y préparer.  Et je te demandais, est-ce que Ton Eminence est vraiment inquiète et craint que cette guerre advienne ? Car je comprends de tes propos que la guerre est (une possibilité) réelle,  qu’ils vont peut-être la déclencher, et que vous allez être victorieux dans cette guerre.

lundi 15 janvier 2018

Hassan Nasrallah : Israël sera vaincu plus facilement que Daech

Interview du Secrétaire Général du Hezbollah, Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, par la chaine libanaise Al-Mayadeen, le 3 janvier 2018

Transcription :

[…] Journaliste : Eminent Sayed, afin qu’on ne dise pas directement après cette interview (comme c’est souvent le cas) que tu exagères dans tes propos (et qu’on se demande) comment (le Hezbollah) pourrait être victorieux dans cette guerre (à venir contre Israël) alors qu’il y a (en face) des Etats puissants, l’OTAN, la possibilité d’une guerre mondiale, et tu affirmes cependant que vous allez entrer (en Palestine occupée) au-delà de la Galilée durant la prochaine guerre si elle se produit. Peut-on imaginer raisonnablement que des combattants du Hezbollah vont envahir la Galilée et au-delà ?

Hassan Nasrallah : Si une grande guerre se produit... Maintenant, la question de la Galilée est distincte, c’est une question dont on a parlé par le passé, et nous avons toujours clairement dit que la position de base (annoncée) aux combattants de la Résistance est : « Soyez prêts pour le jour où les dirigean

dimanche 14 janvier 2018

Hassan Nasrallah Calls for an Online Intifada to defend Al-Quds (Jerusalem)

Speech by Hezbollah Secretary General Sayed Hassan Nasrallah on December 7, 2017, following Donald Trump's decision to recognize Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as the capital of Israel 


See also: Kafka 2.0: How Youtube’s Political Censorship is Exercised


[...] Regarding our position (against Trump's decision about Al-Quds / Jerusalem), I wish to express some (recommended actions) that I will categorize into two parts. 

The first part concerns the protest against this decision. (On the one hand), any form of protest, condemnation, denunciation, objection, rejection, refusal expressed against this open American aggression and dangerous move, and, on the other hand, any announcement of solidarity, support, expression of the fact that we stand alongside Palestine, the people of Palestine and the cause of Al-Quds (Jerusalem), that it is important for all of us, that it is our responsibility and concerns all of us, are indispensable actions, it is the lesser degree of faith (of struggle imposed on everyone).

Maybe someone will ask what are words good for, but no, it is necessary and indispensable to speak, it is the lesser degree of faith. Let no one devaluate ​​or shrink (the importance of) positions, statements, speeches and all forms of denunciation and protest which I will discuss in a moment. These actions are essential. Of course, more is needed, but if some (countries and factions) do not do more, this responsibility remains nevertheless imposed on each and everyone of us.

samedi 13 janvier 2018

Kafka 2.0: How Youtube’s Political Censorship is Exercised

Five years of archives of resistance to Zionism and imperialism deleted by Google

Someone must have been telling tales about Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested.” Thus begins The Trial, Franz Kafka’s 1925 work, in which Joseph K., ordinary bank employee, is arrested at his home by mysterious agents and notified of legal proceedings against him. He is not informed of the offense or crime of which he would allegedly be guilty – he is only given to understand that he must have broken some unknown law – and is notified of a summons to court a certain day, without knowing the exact time or place. The protagonist is dragged into a completely absurd circle, wavering between inspectors, bailiffs, lawyers and judges, and not knowing at any time for what or against whom he must defend himself. He is finally executed by three distinguished executioners who, with “odious politeness”, plant a butcher’s knife in his heart.

The procedure by which Youtube deletes videos and even the entire content of a channel is comparable to this Gothic novel in more ways than one. As I mentioned in a previous article, my channel Sayed Hasan, which, for more than five years, has subtitled in French and English speeches of Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of Hezbollah, as well as Vladimir Putin, Bashar al-Assad and Sayed Ali Khamenei (in addition to interviews with Norman Finkelstein, content about revolutionary Latin America, etc.), was given two strikes by Youtube in less than one month because of two Hassan Nasrallah speeches, on the pretext of a “violation of the rules concerning violent or graphic content on Youtube”. The total suppression of the channel did not take long, since it occurred on December 20th, 2017, after a third and last strike announcing the guillotine, still because of a Hassan Nasrallah speech published in... 2014 – there is no prescription on Youtube, nor half measure. Thus, 400 videos, more than 6 million views and soon 10,000 subscribers have vanished, at the time of the greatest growth in their history. Youtube strives to hide its censorship behind a pseudo-legalistic procedure, but in fact, as we will see, all creators are under the constant threat of its political blade that drastically restricts tolerated contents.

  Sayed Hasan channel in mid-December 2017

The first strike is dated October 24, 2017, and concerns a February 2015 speech titled “Hassan Nasrallah: ISIS is Israel’s ally and aims Mecca and Medina”. Its complete transcript is available here: As we can see, this speech only denounces the terrorist group ISIS, characterizing it as a danger for Islam, Muslims and all humanity, and recalls its collusion with Israel. It contains absolutely nothing legally reprehensible (call to hatred, murder, etc.). Youtube does not in any way indicate where or how such a video would have violated the “rules regarding violent or graphic content”, probably relying on the acumen of the accused – who finds himself de facto convicted. I have found absolutely nothing wrong with it, even by the strictest standards – unless, of course, any negative mention of Israel is unsustainable for the good souls of the IDF, who are tirelessly and relentlessly striving in this work of cyber-denunciation (their soldiers and mercenaries are more enterprising on the Internet than facing real fighters), and find in Google, Facebook and other giants of the Web a particularly complacent ear. We will come back to this point in more detail.

In good faith, I immediately appealed this decision – shockingly, Youtube does not grant more than 200 characters for this “procedure” (spaces included), but true, it is difficult to be loquacious in the face of an unknown crime – and to date, I have received no response. It is a sort of witchcraft trial, where, in violation of the most elementary principles of law, it is up to the accused to prove his innocence in the face of an unspecified violation, and where the mere fact of being suspected by (or denounced to) the all-powerful “Google” Inquisition entails an automatic conviction, without at any time the grievances being clearly stated, the defense, even muzzled, being heard, a semblance of reasoned judgment being rendered or the pseudo-appeal procedure being taken into account, even formally. “We don’t answer questions like that,” opposes a police officer to Joseph K.’s requests regarding the reason for his indictment. “But in general we don’t proceed with trials we’re not certain to win.”

The second strike came on December 14, and concerns a December 11, 2017 speech entitled “Hassan Nasrallah: We are about to liberate Al-Quds (Jerusalem) and all of Palestine,” which only stayed online half an hour before its suppression. Its transcript is available here: Again, beyond the title of the offense regarding “violent or graphic content”, Youtube has not provided any details to justify its decision. It is true that in this extract, Hassan Nasrallah supports the dismantling of the racist, terrorist and colonialist state of Israel, world champion of human rights abuse and international law violations, and invites Palestinians and all the Resistance Axis to take up arms in defense of Palestine and the holy places of Islam and Christianity (he is joined by the Neturei Karta, an orthodox Jewish group that publicly burns Israeli flags in the heart of Jerusalem, as can be seen on its YouTube channel). And it turns out that the rallying slogan “Death to Israel” is spoken by Hassan Nasrallah and echoed by thousands of protesters participating in an opposition rally to Donald Trump and his decision to recognize Al-Quds (Jerusalem) as the capital of Israel. But beyond the fact that armed resistance to an occupier is perfectly legal according to international law (United Nations Resolution 37/43 of December 3, 1982 reaffirming “the legitimacy of the struggle of peoples for independence, territorial integrity, national unity and liberation from colonial and foreign domination and foreign occupation by all available means, including armed struggle”), the right to information must prevail, because without this, no political speech in a warlike context could be published on Youtube. However, Google does not consider in any way problematic statements much more “violent or graphic” like Donald Trump threatening to “completely destroy” North Korea, the Israeli bragging about bombing Iran and toppling its regime, assassinating Hassan Nasrallah or even General de Gaulle’s June 1940 appeals, or Aimé Césaire’s speeches, which should be banned on Youtube according to a purely literal application of the regulation concerning violent content or call for violence (in these cases, calls to resist against Nazism or colonialism). But obviously, with Kafka, Youtube seems to have also integrated Orwell: “All [contents] are equal but some are more equal than others.” Only videos hostile to imperialism and Zionism are subject to censorship and banishment.

With two strikes in less than a month, the life of my Youtube channel was hanging by a thread: it is true that after 3 months, a warning is removed, but three successive warnings on an account lead to outright removal of the channel and all its content, not just the videos concerned. And it was clear to me that these two unjustified and unprecedented warnings would soon be followed by a third and a complete suppression of my channel. To make a judicial analogy, it is as if a conviction for defamation (which, in any body of law, cannot be held from 3 months to 1 year after the offense, but Google seems to have opted for imprescriptibility) resulted in the removal not only of the passage incriminated (for example, in Zola’s “J’Accuse”, the two incriminated words “by order”, Zola obviously not having the means to prove materially that the second War Wouncil had been forced to acquit Esterhazy by the military hierarchy), but of all the work of the journalist, author – or producer of Youtube content. Without conviction, I conducted the Orwello-Kafkaesque 200-character appeal, protested to Google by email and published an article denouncing this censorship and the announced deletion of my channel. This time, I received a response from Youtube in 12 hours, which showed me, if any doubt still remained, that these procedures are nothing more than a masquerade meant to conceal the totally arbitrariness, or rather political orientation of Google’s censorship: indeed, the answer was in three lines in which Youtube thanked me for having made this appeal procedure, informed me that after a closer examination of the content of my video, they determined that it did not respect the Community rules, and addressed me cordial greetings. Can we conceive of a judgment, let alone an appeal procedure, which dispenses with all argumentation? Google has completely automated the pseudo-legalistic process of deleting content, which is done for the unfortunate victim without any human interlocutor and therefore without any possibility of defense.

vendredi 12 janvier 2018

Norman Finkelstein : Netanyahou est le vrai visage d'Israël

Interview de Norman Finkelstein sur Democracy Now, 10 janvier 2018

Transcription :

[...] Amy Goodman : Je voulais vous poser une question sur Benjamin Netanyahu et sur les enquêtes de corruption auxquelles il est confronté. Bien sûr, Benjamin Netanyahu a récemment parlé de sa relation très proche avec les Kushner, du fait qu’il avait dormi dans la chambre de Jared Kushner lorsqu’il a visité les Etats-Unis, alors qu’il était encore un petit garçon. Le Premier ministre israélien Benjamin Netanyahu fait face à une controverse politique interne après qu’une chaîne de télévision israélienne a diffusé un enregistrement audio secret de son fils devant un club de strip-tease en 2015. Dans l’enregistrement, on entend Yair Netanyahu parler de prostituées, exigeant de l’argent au fils d’un magnat du gaz israélien. Yair sous-entend que son père, le Premier ministre Netanyahu, a aidé à faire passer un accord de 20 milliards de dollars au profit de l’homme d’affaires, disant : « Mon père a arrangé 20 milliards de dollars pour le tien et tu chicanes pour 400 shekels [120 dollars] ? », ce au moment où le Premier ministre Netanyahu est confronté à de multiples enquêtes de corruption.

En septembre, Yair Netanyahu a également fait polémique en publiant une caricature antisémite sur Facebook. Des suprématistes blancs, y compris l’ancien dirigeant du Klan David Duke, ont félicité Yair Netanyahu pour avoir posté une image représentant l’investisseur milliardaire George Soros au sommet d’une chaîne alimentaire, faisant miroiter le monde devant un reptile et devant l’ancien Premier ministre Ehud Barak, un critique fréquent de son père, Benjamin Netanyahu. Par la suite, David Duke l’a félicité sur Twitter. C’est une histoire stupéfiante, rapportée par Slate et d'autres médias.

Pouvez-vous nous parler de ce qui se passe actuellement ? Est-ce que les enquêtes de corruption mettent Netanyahu en péril ? Et qu’en est-il de son fils ?

Norman Finkelstein : Eh bien, je vais évoquer le dernier point brièvement et ensuite aller au cœur de la question – ce qui me parait être le cœur des questions que vous posez. La relation entre son fils et Netanyahu, entre Yair [Netanyahu] et son père, Benjamin Netanyahu, est très similaire à celle entre Jared et Donald Trump. Ce sont des individus privilégiés, gâtés-pourris et remarquablement insignifiants.

Mais la question que vous avez posée sur la corruption en général est une question intéressante. Vous n’êtes pas tout à fait aussi âgée que moi, mais vous pouvez remonter assez loin (dans votre mémoire) pour vous souvenir que durant notre jeunesse, Israël était très austère. C’était un endroit simple et relativement « honnête ». C’est cette image d’Israël qui reste dans l’esprit de beaucoup de Juifs américains, disons, âgés de plus de 50 ans. Et donc, à l’époque, si on prend par exemple, dans les années 1970, Yitzhak Rabin, qui était le Premier ministre, il a dû quitter son poste. Il a été contraint de démissionner parce que sa femme avait ouvert un compte bancaire – un simple compte bancaire – aux États-Unis. Et apparemment, il n’y avait même pas d’argent sur ce compte, si ma mémoire est bonne. Mais de nos jours, c’est juste un scandale après un autre scandale après un autre scandale après un autre scandale. Et ce qui est remarquable, c’est que cela n’affecte pas vraiment la position de Benjamin Netanyahu. Malgré une succession de scandales, il est resté au pouvoir pendant une période remarquablement longue.

La question est donc : pourquoi ? Et je pense que la réponse est celle-ci : parce que, que cela plaise ou non, Benjamin Netanyahu est le vrai visage d’Israël. C’est un individu ignoble, une grande gueule, un raciste, un suprématiste juif.  Et c’est maintenant le cas de toute la population. Maintenant, je ne dis pas que c’est dans leur ADN. Je ne dis pas que c’est génétique. Mais l’Etat d’Israël a dégénéré en quelque chose de vraiment navrant. Et c’est…

Amy Goodman : Attendez, ce n’est clairement pas le cas de toute la population. Il y a beaucoup de critiques. Il y a un mouvement de paix.

Norman Finkelstein : Eh bien, non, je dirais... Vous savez, Amy, j’aimerais bien que ce soit le cas. J’aimerais que ce soit le cas. Mais si vous posez la question aux critiques eux-mêmes, si vous posez la question à un Gideon Levy, à une Amira Hass, à...

Amy Goodman : Qui écrivent pour Haaretz.

Norman Finkelstein : Oui. Si vous posez la question à B’Tselem, à...

Amy Goodman : Le groupe de défense des droits de l’homme.