The Moral Depravity of the "Free Gaza" Flotilla movement

Somehow the aura of "humanitarianism" has attached itself to the so-called "free gaza flotilla." However, let's examine what their actions are designed to accomplish and who their allies and beneficiaries are in this effort.
The "free gaza" movement openly demands removal of the blockade on Gaza. That would mean that the Hamas Islamofanatic/Islamofascist govt of Gaza would be free --free to bring in any sort of heavy weapon that can be loaded on a ship. And shipping by sea is a more convenient way of transporting heavy weapons than by land. So they want Hamas in Gaza to have heavy weapons. In the past, Hamas has used the lighter, simpler weapons available to it to attack the Jewish civilian population in southern Israel, not only in Sderot but in Ashqelon, Ashdod, Beersheva and other towns and villages. The children of Sderot have been living under rocket attack, first by the rather simple Qassam rockets "home made" in Gaza which were not very accurate. The children often developed serious traumas from rocket attacks, even if they were not physically touched by the rockets or the shrapnel or pieces of broken houses. Now the Hamas has longer-range heavier rockets, like the Grad or Katyusha, which are somewhat more accurate and bear more explosives. In the last Israel-Hamas war 12-2008/1-2009 the Hamas shot rockets from Gaza that hit schools and kindergartens in Beersheba, a city previously out of range. The "free gaza" flotillas want to improve Hamas' chances in the next war. So much for the purposes of the flotilla.

Now about the beneficiaries and allies of the "free gaza" movement. Christopher Hitchens has drawn up a powerful indictment of flotillamania, also explaining what Hamas stands for. By the way, I don't always agree with Hitchens:

Boat People

Some questions for the "activists" aboard the Gaza flotilla.

By Christopher HitchensPosted Monday, July 4, 2011, at 11:03 AM ET

Palestinian boats and the Freedom Flotilla in the port of Gaza City

The tale of the Gaza "flotilla" seems set to become a regular summer feature, bobbing along happily on the inside pages with an occasional update. A nice sidebar for reporters covering the Greek debt crisis: a built-in mild tension of "will they, won't they?"; a cast of not very colorful characters but one we almost begin to feel we know personally. Such cheery and breezy slogans—"the audacity of hope" and "free Gaza"—and such an easy storyline that it practically writes itself. Since Israel adopts a posture that almost guarantees a reaction of some sort in the not-too-distant future, and since there was such a frisson of violence the last time the little fleet set sail, there's no reason for it not to become a regular seasonal favorite.

However, given the luxury of time, might it not be possible to ask the "activists" onboard just a few questions? (Activist is a good neutral word, isn't it, with largely positive connotations? Even flotilla, with its reassuring diminuendo, has a "small is beautiful" sound to it.) Most of the speculation so far has been to do with methods and intentions, allowing for many avowals about peaceful tactics and so forth, but this is soft-centered coverage. I would like to know a little more about the political ambitions and implications of the enterprise.

It seems safe and fair to say that the flotilla and its leadership work in reasonably close harmony with Hamas, which constitutes the Palestinian wing of the Muslim Brotherhood. The political leadership of this organization is headquartered mainly in Gaza itself. But its military coordination is run out of Damascus, where the regime of Bashar Assad is currently at war with increasingly large sections of the long-oppressed Syrian population. Refugee camps, some with urgent humanitarian requirements, are making their appearance on the border between Syria and Turkey (the government of the latter being somewhat sympathetic to the purposes of the flotilla). In these circumstances, isn't it legitimate to strike up a conversation with the "activists" and ask them where they come out on the uprising against hereditary Baathism in Syria?

Then again, Syria's other proxy party in the region is Hezbollah, which operates a state-within-a-state and maintains a private army on the territory of Lebanon. Senior associates of this group have recently been named in a U.N. indictment concerning the broad-daylight murder of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri in February 2005. Hezbollah's leadership and propaganda organs, while refusing all cooperation with the United Nations, are currently expressing undying solidarity with the Assad regime, which relies additionally on heavy support from the dictatorship in Iran. Again, the Hamas leadership seems compromised at best by its association with this local Tehran-Damascus axis. Surely there must be some spokesman for the blockade-runners who is able to give us his thinking on this question, too? At a time of widespread democratic and pluralist revolution in the region, Hamas imposes its own version of theocracy on Gaza and seems otherwise aligned with the forces that stand athwart the hope of continued and deeper change. Who wants to volunteer time to make this outfit look more presentable? Half the published articles on Gaza contain a standard reference to its resemblance to a vast open-air prison (and when I last saw it under Israeli occupation, it certainly did deserve this metaphor). The problem is that, given its ideology and its allies, Hamas qualifies rather too well in the capacity of guard.

Only a few weeks ago, the Hamas regime in Gaza became the only governing authority in the world—by my count—to express outrage and sympathy at the death of Osama Bin Laden. As the wavelets lap in the Greek harbors, and the sunshine beats down, doesn't any journalist want to know whether the "activists" have discussed this element in their partners' world outlook? Does Alice Walker seriously have no comment?

Hamas is listed by various governments and international organizations as a terrorist group. I don't mind conceding that that particular word has been used in arbitrary ways in the past. But what concerns me much more is the official programmatic adoption, by Hamas, of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. This disgusting fabrication is a key foundational document of 20^th-century racism and totalitarianism, indelibly linked to the Hitler regime in theory and practice. It seems extraordinary to me that any "activist" claiming allegiance to human rights could cooperate at any level with the propagation of such evil material. But I have never seen any of them invited to comment on this matter, either.

The little boats cannot make much difference to the welfare of Gaza either way, since the materials being shipped are in such negligible quantity. The chief significance of the enterprise is therefore symbolic. And the symbolism, when examined even cursorily, doesn't seem too adorable. The intended beneficiary of the stunt is a ruling group with close ties to two of the most retrograde dictatorships in the Middle East, each of which has recently been up to its elbows in the blood of its own civilians. The same group also manages to maintain warm relations with, or at the very least to make cordial remarks about, both Hezbollah and al-Qaida. Meanwhile, a document that was once accurately described as a "warrant for genocide" forms part of the declared political platform of the aforesaid group. There is something about this that fails to pass a smell test. I wonder whether any reporter on the scene will now take me up on this.

- - - - - - - - end hitchens - - - - - - -

To conclude, the whole notion of a "palestinian people" was invented for the sake of a psychological warfare/cognitive warfare struggle against Israel. The flotillas and fly-ins serve that purpose with professional expertise.
- - - - - - - -

Hamas organizer behind flotilla [here]
Israel officials explain the threat represented by the flotilla [here]
NGO Monitor: Flotilla won't bring peace [here]
Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs on Hamas organizers behind the fooltilla [here]

"The West's Proxy War against Israel"

UPDATING 6-24-2011 at bottom

The "peace" in Peace Process refers
to peace of mind for Judeophobes
- Eliyahu
When fascism comes to America, it
will be called "anti-fascism."
- Huey Long

Are ostensibly humanitarian or human rights-oriented NGOs serving as anti-Jewish, anti-Israel political tools of Western powers? Let us first look at the history of governments using "non-governmental" organizations to attack Jews, whether physically or verbally. The Encyclopedia Judaica [JTo], vol 3, col 86, tells us:

In Rumania and czarist Russia, anti-Semitism was to a large extent government-sponsored . . .

Focussing on the Russian Empire, where the most Jews lived at that time, we read:

. . . the first known reactionary anti-Semitic organization, the Sacred League [usually called the Holy League], which sprang up after the assassination of Czar Alexander II in March 1881, was clandestine, although arch-reactionary high officials and even ministers seem to have furthered it. In their eyes the Jews were the source of all rebellion, and they themselves used terror and violence to destroy the "leaven of revolution." It is generally believed that the Sacred League was instrumental in fomenting the pogroms of 1881 and 1882. It was dissolved at the end of that year. Toward the end of 1904, when the Japanese war was going badly for Russia, and early in 1905, when the revolution broke out, another anti-Semitic organization was formed, the Union of the Russian People, rather similar in character and aims to its predecessor. This league was openly recognized, and even furthered by the Czar and his government, together with its secret fighting squads, the "Black Hundreds," which were largely responsible for the pogroms of 1905 and for counterrevolutionary political assassinations. The Union of the Russian People, acting in the open, continued in existence until World War I, and inspired the formation of several similar "patriotic" organizations. . . Even during the war [WW 1], government-sponsored Anti-Semitism scarcely abated. . . [EJ, vol 3, col 86.]

Today, we see Israel confronted with a series of extremely hostile demands on it by several Western powers. Britain, France and Germany appear to have joined in with Obama's demand [enunciated on 19 May 2011] that Israel start negotiations after having already conceded that negotiations will start with the assumption that the 1949-1967 armistice lines will be the future border except for "land swaps" between the little vulnerable pre-1967 Israel and a future Arab state to be called "palestine." This acre-for-acre formula allows the Arab side, aggressors in two wars on the Judea-Samaria front [1947-1949 & 1967], to start over again without losses of territory to punish and compensate for their aggression. It also disregards the stipulation in Security Council resolution 242 [post-6 Day War] that negotiations between the parties should work towards "secure and recognized boundaries." This Obama formula would, therefore, deny Israel "secure" borders, which means defensible borders on the Judea-Samaria front.

But Obama's negotiating formula is a diplomatic position. It is in the area of open diplomacy. There are also surreptitious ways that Obama and his administration utilize for working against Israel. They seek to embarass and discredit [that is, delegitimize] Israel in world public opinion. Caroline Glick, referring to Joel Fishman's research, tells us that the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc sought to do that after the Six Day War.

. . . in the aftermath of World War II, and particularly after Israel’s victory in the Six Day War, the Soviets adapted Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda to demonize Israel as the new, collective Jew and in turn demonize the collective Jew as the new Nazi Germany. [Caroline Glick based on J Fishman, "The Big Lie and the Media War against Israel: From Inversion of Truth to Inversion of Reality," in Jewish Political Studies Review, March 2007]

Apparently, at least since the fall of the USSR, Western states too depict Israel in the colors of evil, playing on centuries-old themes of Western Judeophobia. One such device is the encouragement by the Obama administration and its close supporters for publicity stunts designed to embarass Israel, like the "Free Gaza" Flotilla which seems now to be coming out in its second, 2011 edition. The Hamas jihadists [a branch of the Muslim Brotherhood] who rule Gaza enforce Islamic law there and aim to go farther with it. It hardly needs to be said that Islamic law not only denies basic human dignity to non-Muslims but severely restricts what Muslims can do, and holds women --even Muslim women-- as degraded inferiors. That is, Islamic law --shari`ah-- is opposed to freedom. A movement aiming to support Hamas can no more be called a "freedom movement" than Simon Legree can be called a champion of liberty. In a widespread effort to besmirch Israel:

According to Fishman, . . . ex-Nazi propagandists [in Communist & Arab service, developed propaganda/psywar themes] to delegitimize Israel . . . after 1967. The call to arms was published first in a Pravda editorial in October 1967. There, Zionism, the Jewish national liberation movement was reviled as dedicated to “genocide, racism, treachery, aggression, and annexation . . . all characteristic attributes of fascists.”

Caroline Glick comments:

With both the Soviets and the Arabs spewing the same inverted message, it didn’t take long for it to become the rage in Europe. Europe’s adoption of the Nazi-inspired propaganda in which reality was inverted and Israel – the victim of Arab imperialist, genocidal aggression – became the imperialist, genocidal aggressor was facilitated by France’s embrace of the Arab camp after its withdrawal from Algeria . . .

Consider here too De Gaulle's notorious statement [27 November 1967] that the Jews were "a domineering people." Glick goes on:

By 1975, with the UN General Assembly’s adoption of the Soviet-Arab sponsored resolution 3379 defining Zionism as racism, most European governments had fallen in line with the Soviet-Arab propaganda war.

Here we should add Bat Yeor's research on the EU-Arab alliance, which she calls Eurabia. After Europe was won over to the anti-Israel cause, Glick adds,

They in turn spent the next generation bringing their message to America.

But I trust that no one will be surprised if I point out that there were Judeophobes/antisemites in America even before the Six Day War. Judeophobes/antisemites can be found both among what is called "the Left" and what is called "the Right." These sectors of public opinion are not necessarily so different. Let's consider Franklin D Roosevelt to whom Obama has been compared. How did FDR feel about Jews? Did he try to help Jews during the Shoah or did he try to prevent them from being saved and rescued? Many books have been written on this historical issue. The truth of the matter indicts what are called Liberals and what are called the Left. To be sure, in America there were also Liberals and Leftists, as well as Conservatives and Republicans who helped the Jews. For example Hugh Scott, Republican congressman from Philadelphia, who revealed info about the ongoing Holocaust to Jewish activists with the Bergson Group. This was info that FDR was keeping back from the public. Others who helped spread the info as well as the fact that the FDR administration was not helping Jews were Josiah DuBois, Charles Beard, etc.

More characteristic of "Liberals" today is Senator John Kerry, Democratic candidate for president in 2004, a close associate of the White House, and several times an Obama envoy to Assad Basher in Syria. The significant point here is that Kerry has also been a friend of the "Free Gaza" movement, giving a letter of recommendation to Code Pink leaders before they set off to Egypt in December 2009 on a Freedom March to Gaza, five months before they joined the Turkish Armada to Gaza, thugs of which attacked Israeli naval commandos on 31 May 2010. Kerry called the Code Pinkers "humanitarian," whereas their aim was to undermine the blockade of Gaza by Israel and Egypt, thereby allowing Hamas to import heavy weapons by sea into the Hamas-ruled zone. The weapons would be used against Israel of course. As to humanitarian needs, tons of food were and are transported into Gaza from Israel every day, and Gaza gets much of its water and electricity supply from Israel.

Code Pink became widely known for acting out clownish antics in order to arouse opposition to President Bush's war in Iraq. However, Obama has sent more troops to Afghanistan than Bush had there, yet Code Pink has not played its flamboyant, histrionic, juvenile stunts to oppose Obama's war in Afstan, although formally opposing it. Here is something about Code Pink's relationship to the White House. First,

Jodie Evans [Code Pink founder and leader] . . . was one of Obama’s top funders and donors in the 2007-2008 presidential campaign [here]

She also "gave Kerry $1000 in 2004 for his presidential run." [here]
Next, Jodie Evans has White House access:

Code Pink has worked as a conduit between Hamas and Obama, delivering a letter from the terrorist group to Obama last June. Jodie Evans met with Obama administration official Buffy Wicks at the White House after Code Pink brought the letter out of Gaza. [here, also see here & here]

Evans and her other gal ghoul friends of code pink & male companions like Bill Ayres, another friend of Obama, took part in the "Gaza Freedom March" which in fact supported the Hamas, enemies of freedom [here].
Another friend of Free Gaza in Washington is Lee Hamilton, director of the Woodrow Wilson Center [1/3 US govt funded]. Hamilton is a mentor of Obama and the Hamilton of the Baker-Hamilton Report, which recommended that the US move closer to the Syrian Assad Basher regime at Israel's expense, pushing Israel to surrender the strategically vital Golan Heights to the murderous Assad gang. Hamilton had his Center confer the Woodrow Wilson Public Service Award [here] on Turkish foreign minister Davutoglu just a few weeks after his govt, Erdung's govt, had sponsored the May 2010 "Freedom Flotilla" to Gaza [here].
To top off all of this, Obama's misnamed "counterterrorism czar", John Brennan, was the chief White House contact for the "Free Gaza" convoy.

The Encyclopedia Judaica tells us that in Tsarist Russia, "high officials and even ministers seem to have furthered" the anti-Jewish Holy League. About 20 years later, the anti-Jewish body, "the Union of the Russian People, rather similar in character and aims to its predecessor [was founded]. This league was openly recognized, and even furthered by the Czar and his government, together with its secret fighting squads, the 'Black Hundreds'" who perpetrated pogroms. Is there any similarity between the tsarist Russian method for attacking Jews and the Obama method?
- - - - - - -
The Wiesenthal Institute cites EU funding for "Israel=apartheid" event at Erasmus University in the Netherlands [here]
EU foreign affairs commissioner, Catherine Ashton, makes a typically hypocritical EU utterance on violence in Gaza [here pdf].
Martin Peretz on Western hostility to Israel disguised as a "peace process." [here]
Gaza physicians complain that medicines brought by the ostensibly "humanitarian" Turkish Armada are past their expiry date [here]
Lee Smith welcomes Fatah-Hamas pact because it exposes Western mendacity re possibility of peace between Israel and Palestinian Arabs [here]
Pix of "Free Gaza" movement with Hamas honcho Ismail Haniyah in Gaza [here]
Organizers of the "Audacity of Hope" humano ship to Gaza admit to not carrying humano goods [here]
NGO Monitor researches funding sources for NGOs operating in the Land of Israel. Typically they are heavily funded by the EU, EU member states and powerful institutions in Western countries [here].
Phyllis Chesler describes the Flotilla of Fools and the ignorance, bigotry and narcissism of its actors [here]
Pajamas Media reported on Code Pink's obsequious visit to the ayatollahs of Iran back in 2008, oblivious to the execution of an Iranian woman [here]
6-24-2011 The pro-Hamas convoy to Gaza does not want to openly acknowledge what Hamas really stands for. Hamas stands for war and killing of Israeli civilians, while suppressing their fellow Arabs in Gaza [here]

What Lurks behind Obama's Pro-Islam, Anti-Israel Policy -- Zbigniew Brzezinski's Chilling Interview with Nouvel Observateur

UPDATINGS at bottom

As soon as I learned that Zbigniew Brzezinski was Obama's mentor, I knew that Obama himself was bad news. Not only was Brzezinski one of his mentors, but Obama sent Zbig off to Damascus before he was even elected to let the Assad gang and Assad Junior himself know that they would have a friend in the White House if Obama were elected president in November.

If you want to know the kind of sinister thinking behind Obama's policy, read this interview with his mentor, Zbig, in the French "leftist" weekly Le Nouvel Observateur [ici en francais]. No doubt that the man is cunning. According to his own admission, it was his policy to lure the Russians into the Afghan War back in 1978-1979. Recall that many Arab Islamic militants eagerly went off to Afghanistan to joyously join the jihad, including one Osama bin Laden who worked with American agencies there. So Brzezinski is cunning. Maybe like a sorcerer's apprentice. But sometimes cleverness causes its own problems. Zbig's egotism may get in the way of common sense or maybe he really likes to see armies slaughtering each other. This is supposedly all done for the sake of American national interests. But can that be said after al-Qa`ida's attack on the Twin Towers on 9-11-2001? Could it have been said after the first Islamist attack on the Twin Towers in early 1993? Zbig would have us believe that he did it all for the good cause of bringing down the Soviet Union. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. I suppose that Zbig didn't realize that.
See a translation of the interview below with the original below that. Curious isn't it, that Zbig revealed some important, if relatively obscure truths precisely to a "leftist" publication?:

"Yes, the CIA Went into Afghanistan before the Russians. . . "
interview with Vincent Jauvert

Nouvel Observateur: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, states in his memoirs (1) that the American secret services began to aid the Afghan Mujahidin six months before the Soviet intervention. At that time, you were President Carter's advisor for [national] security affairs. Thus you played a key role in that affair. Do you confirm that?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: (2) Yes, according to the official version of history, the CIA's aid to the mujahidin began some time in 1980, that is, after the Soviet army had invaded Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, kept secret up till now, is quite different. In fact, it was on 3 July 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive about clandestine assistance to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that, in my opinion, this aid was going to entail a military intervention by the Soviets.
NO - Despite that risk, you advocated this "covert action." But maybe you even wished for the Soviets to go to war and were trying to provoke them?
ZB - It wasn't quite that. We did not push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do so.
NO - When the Soviets justified their intervention by asserting that they intended to struggle against a secret United States interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. However, there was a basis of truth. . . You don't regret anything today?
ZB - Regret what? That secret operation was an excellent idea. It had the effect of attracting the Russians into the Afghan trap and you want me to regret it? The day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote to President Carter, in substance: "We now have the opportunity to give the the USSR its own Vietnam War." In fact, Moscow had to conduct a war intolerable for the regime for almost ten years, a war that brought with it demoralization and finally the collapse of the Soviet Empire.
NO - You don't regret either that you favored Islamist fundamentalism, that you gave weapons, advice to future terrorists?
ZB - What is more important from the viewpoint of world history? The Talibans or the fall of the Soviet Empire? A few agitated Islamist fundamentalists or the liberation of central Europe and the end of the Cold War?
NO - "A few agitated [Islamist fundamentalists]." But we say it and repeat it: Islamic fundamentalism today represents a worldwide threat. . . .
ZB - Stupidities! It is necessary, some say, that the West have a global policy in regard to Islamism. That's stupid. There is no worldwide Islamism. Let's look at Islam rationally and not demagogically or emotionally. It is the world's major religion with 1.5 billion faithful. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militarist Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt or secularized central Asia [secularized by the Soviets--note by Eliyahu]? No more than what unites the Christian countries . . .

[Comments by Eliyahu appear below the French original]
Interview done by Vincent Jauvert
(1) From the Shadows, by Robert Gates (Simon and Schuster).
(2) Zbigniew Brzezinski has just published The Great Chessboard, translation of the French title Le Grand Echiquier (Bayard Editions)
[Note by Eliyahu, this interview was published in Le Nouvel Observateur on 15 January 1998; the books cited were published before that date]

"Oui, la CIA est entrée en Afghanistan avant les Russes. . . "
Le Nouvel Observateur. – L’ancien directeur de la CIA Robert Gates l’affirme dans ses Mémoires (1) : les services secrets américains ont commencé à aider les moudjahidine afghans six mois avant l’intervention soviétique. A l’époque, vous étiez le conseiller du président Carter pour les affaires de sécurité ; vous avez donc joué un rôle clé dans cette affaire. Vous confirmez ?
Zbigniew Brzezinski (2). – Oui. Selon la version officielle de l’histoire, l’aide de la CIA aux moudjahidine a débuté courant 1980, c’est-à-dire après que l’armée soviétique eut envahi l’Afghanistan, le 24 décembre 1979. Mais la réalité, gardée secrète jusqu’à présent, est tout autre : c’est en effet le 3 juillet 1979 que le président Carter a signé la première directive sur l’assistance clandestine aux opposants du régime prosoviétique de Kaboul. Et ce jour-là, j’ai écrit une note au président dans laquelle je lui expliquais qu’à mon avis cette aide allait entraîner une intervention militaire des Soviétiques.
N. O. – Malgré ce risque, vous étiez partisan de cette « covert action » [opération clandestine]. Mais peut-être même souhaitiez-vous cette entrée en guerre des Soviétiques et cherchiez-vous à la provoquer ?
Z. Brzezinski. – Ce n’est pas tout à fait cela. Nous n’avons pas poussé les Russes à intervenir, mais nous avons sciemment augmenté la probabilité qu’ils le fassent.
N. O. – Lorsque les Soviétiques ont justifié leur intervention en affirmant qu’ils entendaient lutter contre une ingérence secrète des Etats-Unis en Afghanistan, personne ne les a crus. Pourtant, il y avait un fond de vérité... Vous
ne regrettez rien aujourd’hui?
Z. Brzezinski. – Regretter quoi ? Cette opération secrète était une excellente idée. Elle a eu pour effet d’attirer les Russes dans le piège afghan et vous voulez que je le regrette ? Le jour où les Soviétiques ont officiellement franchi la frontière, j’ai écrit au président Carter, en substance : « Nous avons maintenant l’occasion de donner à l’URSS sa guerre du Vietnam. » De fait, Moscou a dû mener pendant presque dix ans une guerre insupportable pour le régime, un conflit qui a entraîné la démoralisation et finalement l’éclatement de l’empire soviétique.
N. O. – Vous ne regrettez pas non plus d’avoir favorisé l’intégrisme islamiste, d’avoir donné des armes, des conseils à de futurs terroristes ?
Z. Brzezinski. – Qu’est-ce qui est le plus important au regard de l’histoire du monde ? Les talibans ou la chute de l’empire soviétique ? Quelques excités islamistes ou la libération de l’Europe centrale et la fin de
la guerre froide ?
N. O. – « Quelques excités » ? Mais on le dit et on le répète : le fondamentalisme islamique représente aujourd’hui une menace mondiale…
Z. Brzezinski. – Sottises ! Il faudrait, dit-on, que l’Occident ait une politique globale à l’égard de l’islamisme. C’est stupide : il n’y a pas d’islamisme global. Regardons l’islam de manière rationnelle et non démagogique ou émotionnelle. C’est la première religion du monde avec 1,5 milliard de fidèles. Mais qu’y
a-t-il de commun entre l’Arabie Saoudite fondamentaliste, le Maroc modéré, le Pakistan militariste, l’Egypte pro-occidentale ou l’Asie centrale sécularisée ? Rien de plus que ce qui unit les pays de la chrétienté...
Propos recueillis par Vincent Jauvert
(1) « From the Shadows », par Robert Gates, Simon and Schuster.
(2) Zbigniew Brzezinski vient de publier « le Grand
Echiquier », Bayard Editions.
Vincent Jauvert
[Nouvel Observateur, 15 Janvier (January) 1998]

This interview is astounding in its brutal frankness. No maidenly wishes for world peace and good will to men, blah blah. This is the naked Zbig. What does it mean now? Since Zbig is a consultant to the Obama administration, somebody is still listening to his advice and maybe taking some of it seriously to the point of putting it into effect. For instance, Zbig believes in covert action and lying not only to enemies but to the American people. He believes in provocations and in acting through the agency of others, in fact in using Islamic fundamentalists against enemies. Does that mean that the Turkish Thug Armada, which was supported by the American group "Free Gaza Movement" led by a loyal member of the Democratic Party and supporter of Obama, one Jodie Evans, also had support, maybe not so covert from the Obama administration? After all, Evans' women's "peace group," Code Pink, demonstrated often and dramatically against President Bush for his war in Iraq. But Code Pink has been very quiet about the war in Afghanistan which is Obama's war. Still a war, but Obama's war. And that must mean that it's a good war. Not all wars are created equal.

The so-called "Left" and "peace camp" in America still supports Obama. But Obama follows the advice of Zbigniew Brzezinski. That advice is not peaceful advice, if we go by Zbig's record of service in the Carter administration. What can we conclude therefore about the "Left" and the "peace camp"??

There are various signs that Obama and his following from Code Pink through Fenton Communications, to J Street to Jeremy Ben Ami, to Lee Hamilton of the Woodrow Wilson Center were jointly working in cooperation with Turkey in favor of the Turkish Thug Armada in order to embaras Israel, possibly creating grounds for a UN Security Council resolution against Israel. Maybe some Euro govts --the UK, France, Germany-- were also along for the ride. What else will Obama, following Zbig's advice, do against Israel?

Getting back to Zbig, would he still say today that he has no regrets over helping the Talibans? Would he still deny that Islamist fundamentalism is a threat in many parts of the world to many countries? Are those Islamists just "a few agitated" fanatics?

When Carl Foreman made the film Doctor Strangelove many years ago, his real-life models for the character of Strangelove were, I believe, Henry Kissinger, Zbigniew Brzezinski, and Wernher von Braun. Today Zbig is an advisor to the president.
- - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 9-13-2011 Peter Wehner sees the disaster of Carter-Brzezinski foreign policy [here]