Thanks to Rabbi Marvin Hier and simonwiesenthal for the award for my toons on #Gaza slaughter « Latuff Cartoons
http://latuffcartoons.wordpress.com/2012/12/29/thanks-to-rabbi-marvin-hier-and-simonwiesenthal-for-the-aw
According to Simon Wiesenthal Center I’m the 3rd “most anti-Semitic” for “slandering” Israel
Pelo fim da manipulação do antissemitismo para fins políticos
http://www.avaaz.org/po/petition/Pelo_fim_da_manipulacao_do_antissemitismo_para_fins_politicos
Zemmour & Naulleau 04/11/2011 : Nicolas Dupont-Aignan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EccQxP1rlKM
00:00 - Crise : peut-on se passer de l’Euro ?
Nicolas Dupont-Aignan, candidat à la présidentielle
25:25 - Utopie : peut-on changer le monde ?
Edgar Morin, sociologue et philosophe français
41:20 - Carlos : le procès d’un mythe ?
Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, avocate et épouse de Carlos
#Zemmour_&_Naulleau, #Eric_Zemmour, #Eric_Naulleau, #Nicolas_Dupont-Aignan, #Edgar_Morin, #Isabelle_Coutant-Peyre, #Carlos, #Ilich_Ramírez_Sánchez, #Le_Chacal
Socialism and/or barbarism: Revolutionary Body Mass Index
http://socialismandorbarbarism.blogspot.com/2010/11/revolutionary-body-mass-index.html
“In short, the rise and fall of anti-imperialist armed struggle in the rise and fall of his gut, blood pressure, and blood alcohol level.”
http://bombsite.powweb.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Carlos.jpg
As`ad AbuKhalil publie sur son blog (#Angry_Arab) la traduction en anglais de l’article qu’il a récemment écrit pour Al Akhbar au sujet de la minisérie “#Carlos”:
Carlos the Movie: the Palestinian Cause through Zionist Eyes
http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2010/11/carlos-movie-my-review-translated-into.html
En voici quelques extraits, mais il faut lire l’article complet: il contient notamment de nombreux détails sur des erreurs factuelles et des analyses biaisées du mouvement palestinien.
“However, the director’s intent was clear: to harm not only #Wadie_Haddad but the Palestinian struggle overall even when it didn’t involve ’foreign operations.’”
“The best proof of the movie’s Zionism is the complete absence of #Israel from the plot. Israel is completely absent from criminal and terrorist operations in Europe although Israel had started terrorism in Europe by sending explosives to embassies in the forties (the otherwise serious Economist magazine erred in a recent article as it failed to mention Israel’s pioneering role in sending letter bombs). The movie showed no concern for victims among the Palestinian people and other Arab civilians in Europe or thousands of victims in the Arab world. But it wanted to emphasize for the viewer foreign victims of Arab violence (such as the scene of shooting a pregnant French woman in Beirut. One doesn’t know if this actually occurred or if it was one of the many lies the movie fabricated). During a seventies’ recording of Bassam Abu Sharif explaining the attack on the Zionist Marks and Spencer’s owner in London, the director should have informed the viewer, at least cursorily, that the reason behind burns and wounds on Abu Sharif’s face was the Zionist letter bomb from Israel, which is dear to Assayas and his crew. Haddad targeted the owner of Marks and Spencer for funding ’Herut’ party and Zionist causes.”
“The movie wanted to depict the Arab revolutionary as hostile to Jews as Jews (only one German objected to hostility to Jews while in reality the matter was debated among the ranks of the leadership and membership, but the director deliberately mis-portrayed Palestinian organizations and characterized them as fascist and dictatorial. Not all leaders of Palestinian groups were like Yasir Arafat, and even he was questioned by his cohorts especially in the early years).”
“However, there is another instance of racism in the movie: the Latin American revolutionaries appeared driven by political principles. The same was true for German elements (which the movie exaggerated perhaps due to German funding). But Arab revolutionaries were hooligans and cared only for money and executing Arab intelligence’s orders.”
“Next is the question of assessing “Carlos’” work. No doubt, the revolution attracted meddlers, adventurers, criminals, opportunists and daredevils, as it also attracted true revolutionaries. “Carlos” last activity was a statement in which he saluted Bin Ladin and described him as a revolutionary. Who says that “Carlos” gets to decide the Arab revolution’s issues? We have no obligation to support those who support our causes when in fact they harm them.”
la pauvreté des infos sur Wikipédia sur ces sujets est frappante
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waddi_Haddad
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anis_Naccache
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/FPLP
Dans Al-Akhbar, Asaad Abou Khalil (alias Angry Arab) démonte le film #Carlos comme « la vision sioniste de la question palestinienne ».
http://www.al-akhbar.com/ar/node/215088
Une couche sur le réalisateur, Olivier Assayas, un couche sur le scénariste, Stephen Smith, qu’il qualifie d’auteur raciste (auteur de "Négrologie : pourquoi l’Afrique meurt"). Et une bonne couche sur le producteur, Daniel Leconte :
"أما مُنتج الفيلم فهو دانييل لوكونت، وهو معروف بمناصرته المُتعصِّبة لقضايا المحافظين الجدد وبترويجه لمصالح إسرائيل وللإساءة للعرب في برامج وثائقيّة وأفلام."
"Le producteur du film est Daniel Leconte, connu pour être un partisan radical des positions des néo-conservateurs, au service de la promotion des intérêts d’Israël et contre les Arabes au travers de programmes documentaires et de films."
Suit une longue analyse des stéréotypes et des orientations ("sionistes", donc) du film.
Richard Estes, sur Conterpunch, critique également le film comme «un chef-d’œuvre d’orientalisme»:
http://www.counterpunch.org/estes11192010.html
‘Unfortunately, for all of its brilliance, Carlos is a work of cinematic orientalism. With the possible of exception of Carlos, Assayas generally portrays the South American and European characters as politically and emotionally responding to an unjust society, while the Arabs are the ones that betray the revolution. Through their contact with the Arabs, they are corrupted by money, seduced by violence and ultimately acquiesce to patriarchal authority. There is a clear binary opposition within the film in terms of the characteristics of European and Middle Eastern society. Given the actual history of the radical left in the US and Europe, where many participants fell prey to them in the absence of any contact with Arabs or Muslims, it borders on being racist.’
“So, it may well be true that, for Assayas, the primary subject of his concern is the European radical left and Carlos’ opportunism, with the Arabs and Palestinians serving as props.”
