More on the US pro-Islam, pro-Arab Policy

US policy in the Middle East in the 20th century followed in the footsteps of British Middle Eastern policy, and can be seen as a continuation of it. It was no accident that the British upper crust called the American elite "our American cousins." Indeed, this was often true in a literal sense as many titled Britishers married rich American men and women. Therefore, cousins were found on both sides of the Atlantic.

British policy announced a pro-Islamic turn in 1920 when the Supreme Command of the WW One allies, the Entente powers, ordered the Greek army to stop advancing in Anatolia, and thereby to stop defeating the Turkish army. There is reason to believe that Britain was the leading power pushing for the order to the Greeks to stop. In that same year, British officers in Jerusalem --in what was then officially called Occupied Enemy Territory Administration-South-- encouraged Haj Amin el-Husseini to instigate anti-Jewish riots in order to discourage Great Power approval of the Jewish National Home principle at the San Remo Conference. This British encouragement for Arab violence against Jews in Israel was not at that time the official policy out of London but seems to have been a local initiative of British officers in the country, some or all of whom had been influenced by the notorious Tsarist forgery/plagiarism, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Later, the London policy towards the Jewish National Home followed the local initiative and became hostile to the Jews, encouraging Arab hostility to Jews in the country. In other words, the Arabs became a tool of London for its own anti-Jewish hostility.

Back in Anatolia, in 1922, naval ships of the UK, US and other Western Great Powers watched as Ataturk's new Turkish army drove the Greeks of Anatolia and Smyrna into the sea at the Smyrna port, although Greek boats of all sorts were allowed to pick up refugees. Meanwhile, the powers did not oppose renewed massacres of Armenians in the city [see George Horton, Marjorie Housepian]. The new revolutionary Soviet Union also sided with the Turks in those years, thereby taking the same stance as the Western capitalist powers.

In other parts of the British Empire, the British encouraged Muslims against non-Muslims, and Arabs against non-Arab Muslims. In India, the UK encouraged Muslim demands for a separate state ["pakistan", which had never existed before] against the aspiration of the Indian National Congress for a unified India. In the former Ottoman Empire, the UK saw to it that the vilayet [province] of Mosul, inhabited not by Arabs but by Kurdish Muslims , Assyrian Christians, Jews and smaller ethno-religious groups, be transferred to the new, British-sponsored Kingdom of Iraq and taken away from the new Turkish Republic. Some say that this was because oil had been discovered in and around the city of Mosul, which would be more under British influence as a part of Iraq --then under a British mandate-- than as a part of Turkey. In Iraq, the British winked at the massacre of thousands of Assyrians in 1933 at the hands of the Iraqi Arab army.

During WW2, the UK violated its mandate to foster development of the Jewish National Home by severely limiting the number of Jews to be allowed to immigrate into the Jewish National Home when the Jews most needed a home. This was the notorious 1939 White Paper policy. More generally, UK foreign minister Anthony Eden came out in support of pan-Arab nationalism by calling for formation of what became the Arab League. Eden's speech came on 29 May 1941, just three days before the notorious pro-Nazi pogrom against Jews in Baghdad [1 & 2 June 1941]. Hence, it would have been only natural for Eden to keep British troops outside Baghdad at that time from intervening to stop the massacre of the Jews. Be that as it may, British troops there at that time did not intervene.

When the Jewish underground in Israel was fighting for independence and to have the UK let Jewish Holocaust survivors into the country, the UK continued to refuse to honor its commitments under the mandate. Although Pres. Truman had called for 100,000 Jewish Holocaust survivors to be allowed into Israel by the UK in 1946, by 1947 the US State Dept and other USGovt agencies were encouraging the Arab war effort against the as yet unborn Israel. Here the US slipped into the role of continuing the British anti-Jewish, pro-Arab, pro-Muslim policy.
The UK in Israel supported Arab forces against the Jews, fighting the Jews directly in Yafo [Jaffa] and in Jerusalem.

In 1952, British and US operatives encouraged and helped Nasser and his pro-Hitlerite "Free Officers" to overthrow the parliamentary monarchy of King Farouq. Mubarak belonged to the regime put in place by Nasser and the "Free Officers" in 1952. In that year, American mainstream publications celebrated the fall of King Farouq by explaining that the rebels were against Farouq's "corruption." In Iraq, in the 1960s and 1970s, the USA supported the Arab national socialist Ba`ath Party, the crowning glory of which was Saddam Hussein. After Israeli aircraft had destroyed the Iraqi Osirak atomic development facility [1981], the US administration wanted to denounce Israel for this defensive action, although it did not because public opinion was with Israel. The US also formally "recognized" the PLO in November 1988, although high level contacts with the PLO had gone on for decades.

In early 1979, the Carter Administration --its foreign policy directed by the Sorcerer's Apprentice, Zbigniew Brzezinski-- helped the Islamist fanatic Ayatollah Khomeini, take over Iran. Was Zbig unaware of Khomeini's fanaticism and bigotry? It was no secret to specialists on Iran at that time where Khomeini stood. Likewise, James Clapper, Obama's director of national intelligence [Intelligence?], knows where the Muslim Brotherhood stands and pretended it was something else. Interestingly, Zbigniew Brzezinski, Carter's national insecurity advisor has also been an advisor to Obama. Zbig's grand theory was and --apparently-- still is to build up Islamic fanaticism. No doubt in pursuit of this purpose, Obama sent Zbig to Damascus in February 2008, months before his election. Zbig was probably supposed to tell Junior Assad that if Obama were elected, then the Assads would have a friend in the White House. The fact that Damascus and Assad's very own mouth are world centers of Judeophobic agitprop and hate indoctrination, did not deter either Zbig or Obama.

These facts among others are the background to Obama administration efforts to put the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt. I think that the disciples of Zbig succeeded all too well in Iran. We don't need another Khomeini, this time in Egypt. But stopping Obama's goal from being realized needs constant criticism of Obama for the dangerous course that he is taking.

Sources
Mitchell Bard, The Arab Lobby (New York: Harper Collins 2010) [a lengthy excerpt is found here]
Isaiah Friedman, British Pan-Arab Policy, 1915-1922 (2009) [see synopsis here & here]
Martin Gilbert, Exile and Return (London 1978)
George Horton, The Blight of Asia [Horton was the US consul in Smyrna in 1922]
Marjorie Housepian, The Smyrna Affair
Lord Kinross, Ataturk; A Biography of Mustafa Kemal (1965)

Richard Meinertzhagen, Middle East Diary
Jacques de Morgan, The History of the Armenian People (Boston: Hairenik Press 1918)
Horace Samuel, Revolt by Leave (London)
E K Sarkisian & R G Sahakian, Vital Issues in Modern Armenian History (Watertown, MA: Armenian Studies 1965)
Shlomo Slonim, "The 1948 American Embargo on Arms to Palestine," Political Science Quarterly, (Fall 1979)
Bernard Wasserstein, Britain and the Jews of Europe, 1939-1945.
_ _ _ _ _ _. The British in Palestine: The Mandatory Government and the Arab-Jewish Conflict 1917-1929. (British Historical Society)
Meir Zamir [see several online articles by Zamir on British policy in the 1944 to 1948 period in HaArets & Jerusalem Post]
William Ziff, The Rape of Palestine

- - - - - -
One Jerusalem on the changes in Egypt [includes link to Victor David Hanson].
2-24-2011 At least one mainstream journalist, Arnaud de Borchgrave, talks common sense about the Muslim Brotherhood. If he could only get the ears of Obama, Hilary, James Clapper, and the other fantasy mongers in the Administration [here]
Another MSM journalist, Jeffrey Goldberg, also gives helpful info about the MB's hatred of Jews, specifically Qaradawi's explanation that Muslim hatred of Jews is rooted in Islam and that Muslims must kill all Jews before Judgment Day can come [here]. For those unfamiliar with Islamic lore, this article demonstrates that hatred for Israel is rooted in Islam's hatred for Jews and has nothing especially to do with "settlements" or "occupation."

The Muslim Brotherhood, a Ravenous Wolf in Sheep's Clothing

UPDATED 2-4&5&6-2011 at bottom

The Muslim Brotherhood and its ilk are wolves in sheep's clothing. It is now fashionable to depict the Islamic bigots and warmongers as mere "democrats" and "a few agitated Islamist fundamentalists" [as by Zbig Brzezinski].
Here is Richard Cohen, a Washington Post journalist, with whom I usually disagree, on the MB:

A democratic Egypt or a state of hate?

Richard Cohen

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

Things are about to go from bad to worse in the Middle East. An Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement is nowhere in sight. Lebanon just became a Hezbollah state, which is to say that Iran has become an even more important regional power, and Egypt, once stable if tenuously so, has been pitched into chaos. This is the most dire prospect of them all. The dream of a democratic Egypt is sure to produce a nightmare.

Egypt's problems are immense. It has a population it cannot support, a standard of living that is stagnant and a self-image as leader of the (Sunni) Arab world that does not, really, correspond to reality. It also lacks the civic and political institutions that are necessary for democracy. The next Egyptian government - or the one after - might well be composed of Islamists. In that case, the peace with Israel will be abrogated and the mob currently in the streets will roar its approval.

My take on all this is relentlessly gloomy. I care about Israel. I care about Egypt, too, but its survival is hardly at stake. I care about democratic values, but they are worse than useless in societies that have no tradition of tolerance or respect for minority rights. What we want for Egypt is what we have ourselves. This, though, is an identity crisis. We are not them.

It's impossible now to get a fix on what is happening in Egypt. The Muslim Brotherhood seems to be lying low. Is this a reflection of weakness or canniness? The Brotherhood remains the only well-organized institution in Egypt other than the military. It has been underground for generations - jailed, tortured, infiltrated, but still, somehow, flourishing. Its moment may be approaching.

Under a different name (Hamas), the Muslim Brotherhood runs the Gaza Strip. Hamas's charter states unequivocally that it wants to eradicate Israel. It mentions the 1978 Camp David accords, and not with admiration. ("Egypt was, to a great extent, removed from the circle of the struggle through the treacherous Camp David Agreement.") No doubt that in an Egyptian election, the call to repudiate the treaty will prove popular - as popular as the peace with Israel has not been.

The Muslim Brotherhood's most influential thinker was the Egyptian Sayyid Qutb. He was hanged in 1966, but not before he had managed to turn out a vast amount of writings. He showed almost superhuman courage and was, in many respects, a formidable man. But he was also a racist, a bigot, a misogynist, an anti-Semite and a fervent hater of most things American. As if to prove that familiarity breeds contempt, he had spent about two years in the United States.

The Egyptian crisis has produced the usual blather about the role of America. The United States remains powerful and important, but it has already lost control of events - not that it ever really had it. Moreover, it hardly matters what Washington now says. The Islamists of the Brotherhood do not despise America for what it does but for what it is. Read Qutb's purplish alarm at the dress and appearance of American women. Read his racist remarks about blacks. The Islamic state Qutb envisioned would be racist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian as well. It would treat women as the Taliban now does - if only because the Taliban, too, reveres Qutb. He rejected a clemency offer, saying his words would matter more if he was dead. He was right.

Majority rule is a worthwhile idea. But so, too, are respect for minorities, freedom of religion, the equality of women and adherence to treaties, such as the one with Israel, the only democracy in the region. It's possible that the contemporary Islamists of Egypt think differently about these matters than did Qutb. If that's the case, then there is no cause for concern. But Hamas in the Gaza Strip, although recently moderating its message, suggests otherwise. So does Iran.

Those Americans and others who cheer the mobs in the streets of Cairo and other Egyptian cities, who clamor for more robust anti-Mubarak statements from the Obama administration, would be wise to let Washington proceed slowly. Hosni Mubarak is history. He has stayed too long, been too recalcitrant - and, for good reason, let his fear of the future ossify the present. Egypt and the entire Middle East are on the verge of convulsing. America needs to be on the right side of human rights. But it also needs to be on the right side of history. This time, the two may not be the same.

- - - - - - - - - - - -end of Cohen's op ed - - - - - -

Lately, the MB has formed an odd couple with Muhammad Barada`i [Mohammed Barade'i] Now Barada`i, who was such a disaster at the International Atomic Energy Agency, because he promoted the Iranian Nuke Project, is being promoted in turn by US diplomacy as a transitional ruler for Egypt. It is time to examine the personal record of this assistant to Iran's aspirations to nuclear terrorist capability. Although an Egyptian, Barada`i at the IAEA was partial to Iran's policy. This was against Egypt's interest. Indeed, most Arab states opposed the Iran Bomb Project, seeing it as a threat to their states and govts. But Barada`i pretended that the US and Israeli bombs [assumed in Israel's case] were the main problem.

The articles linked to below take up both Barada`i and the MB:

Here is Barry Rubin on Barada'i and the MB [& here] and on the fanatical Muslim distaste for democracy.

Like a typical apologist for tyrants and warmongers, Barada`i does his thing.

But Barada`i's own supporters see him as a "transitional figurehead." This report in the Wall Street Journal also tells of a "shadow legislature" aiming to replace Mubarak. It includes MB leaders and wants to use Barada`i merely to bring down Mubarak. Remember what happened to the so-called "moderates" in Iran who supported Khomeini's overthrow of the Shah. [this paragraph added on 2-4-2011]

More of Barada`i's hatred of Israel [here] & here]

Elder of Ziyyon and Bataween of Point of No Return bring evidence about the MB from the 1940s, both from the book Cairo to Damascus by Armenian-American author, John Roy Carlson [Avedis Derounian / Arthur Derounian] and from Egyptian Jews [for this testimony see both links to Point of No Return, but especially the comments on Butros-Ghali's propaganda slop here. Butros Butros-Ghali was once secretary-general of the UN].

Ambassador Dore Gold on the MB and its support for Barada`i as a temporary figurehead leader and, I would add, like Mohammed Naguib who fronted for Nasser in Egypt in 1952.

Yossi Klein HaLevi in the NYTimes on an MB rise to power in Egypt and its meaning for Israel [here]

Carlo Panella on Obama's Middle Eastern policy after the Egyptian uprising [qui e qui]

Once again Obama's diplomacy recklessly favors enemies of Israel and enemies of civilization.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 2-4-2011 Barry Rubin asks: Who's Afraid of the Muslim Brotherhood? [here], & talks about what Egypt would be like under MB hegemony [here] & reports that the MB will disavow the peace treaty with Israel if it takes power [here & Russian report here]
Also See paragraph above starting "But Barada`i. . . "
On 2-6-2011 More by Barry Rubin [here], on silly ideas about Egyptian reality, particularly those of the NYT's roger cohen.
UPDATING 2-5-2011 Fiamma Nirenstein calls Obama "The Bull in the Mideast China Shop" [English translation below the Italian original here]. She also sees through the slimey faker, al-Barada`i [in Italian qui]
Two short items on the MB wanting to end the peace with Israel [unsatisfactory as it is for Israel-here & here]
Food being smuggled out of Gaza to Egypt [here][So much for the fake "human rights" gangs that claim that Israel is starving Gaza]
Hatred of Jews on the pro-govt, pro-Mubarak side too [here]. Indeed, after the treaty with Israel, both Sadat and later Mubarak encouraged or allowed MB Judeophobic agitation besides that carried on state-owned media and in state schools. So Mubarak is --to an extent-- hoist on his own petard, so to speak.
The Wall Street Journal cites the Hamas takeover of Gaza after an election [2006] as a cautionary tale against demanding that the MB be allowed to take part in elections in Egypt [here]. An election victory for the MB, like that for Hamas, would be "one man, one vote, one time." What is key here is "one time." Once in power the MB, like its affiliate Hamas, would not conduct further elections or allow free elections or other liberal, democratic freedoms. This is besides its love for jihad.
UPDATING 2-6-2011 The NYTimes depicts the MB following as decent and respectful, and their leader is depicted as cultured & civilized and living in a "tasteful" apartment [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]

Zbig Brzezinski Wants to Protect the Iranian Bomb Project

Zbig and Jimmy Carter helped Ayatollah Khomeini take over Iran in early 1979, unceremoniously pushing out the Shah, an American ally. By aiding --even sponsoring-- Khomeini's takeover, the Carter administration opened the road for Ahmadinejad, the current Iranian president, who is presiding over a project to develop nuclear bombs in violation of Iran's commitment to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. Neither Pres. Obama nor Pres. Bush before him is showing any real determination to stop this very dangerous eventuality from coming to fruition. Zbig Brzezinski must feel that he did not do enough damage when Carter was president. He now urges the Obama administration to protect the Iranian Nuclear Bomb project from Israel, although Israel has grounds under international law and the UN charter to attack Iran and destroy its bomb-making efforts, since Iran under A-jad has already threatened to destroy Israel. Here is Zbig at his best or his worst [about the same]:

The national security adviser for former President Jimmy Carter, Zbigniew Brzezinski, gave an interview to The Daily Beast in which he suggested President Obama should make it clear to Israel that if they attempt to attack Iran's nuclear weapons sites the U.S. Air Force will stop them.

"We are not exactly impotent little babies," Brzezinski said. "They have to fly over our airspace in Iraq. Are we just going to sit there and watch? ... We have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a 'Liberty' in reverse."

The USS Liberty was a U.S. Navy technical research ship that the Israeli Air Force mistakenly attacked during the Six Day War in 1967.

Brzezinski endorsed then-Sen. Obama's presidential campaign in August 2007, which at the time was portrayed in the media as a boost to Obama's foreign policy cred. The Washington Post reported: "Barack Obama, combating the perception that he is too young and inexperienced to handle a dangerous world, got a boost yesterday from a paragon of foreign policy eminence, Zbigniew Brzezinski."

Brzezinski was never an official campaign adviser, but Republicans jumped on the endorsement to push the meme that Obama wouldn't be a friend to Israel, as Brzezinski's views of Israel attracted criticism from some quarters in the American Jewish community.

“Brzezinski is not an adviser to the campaign,” former Ambassador Dennis Ross, then a senior adviser on Middle East affairs to the Obama campaign, said at the time. “There is a lot of disinformation that is being pushed, but he is not an adviser to the campaign. Brzezinski came out and supported Obama early because of the war in Iraq. A year or so ago they talked a couple of times. That’s the extent of it, and Sen. Obama has made it clear that on other Middle Eastern issues, Brzezinski is not who he looks to. They don’t have the same views.”

Brzezinski plays no role in the Obama administration; the White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment. [ABCNews 20 Sept 2009]

--end--

Note Zbig's contempt for Iraqi sovereignty. He describes Iraqi airspace as "our airspace," that is, United States airspace. However, allowing Iran to get the Bomb is not healthy for the American people --or for the rest of the world for that matter.
Also note that Zbig's hostility to Israel is palpable in the quotes above. He surely hates Israel more than the current Iranian regime, if he is opposed to them at all in any way.
- - - - - - - - - -

Earlier posts on Zbig on Emet m'Tsiyon [here & here]

Obama's Secret Dinner with Behind the Scenes Movers & Shakers [mainly white folk]

Obama's secret dinner with behind the scenes movers and shakers, including Lee Hamilton of the notorious Baker-Hamilton Report, requested by George Bush Jr.

Accounts in
American Thinker
Silobreaker
Foreign Policy

Seems obama needed to work out a destructive foreign policy strategy with Hamilton, a Democratic ally of the Republican James Baker. Maybe Zbig got too much bad publicity to be useful.

Barry Obama's Evil Genius -- Part II

UPDATING 9-22-2009 & 10-11-2009 see at bottomhttp://ziontruth.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-lurks-behind-obamas-pro-islam-anti.html

Barry Obama's Evil Genius [cont.]
Obama's remarks in the last two days of the Gaza War [1-6 & 1-7-2009] hint at a harsh new anti-Israel policy once The One gets into the White House. Obama's mentor in foreign affairs is one Zbigniew Brzezinski, called an "Evil Genius" by Nessim Cohen-Tanugi. On 1-6 he expressed concern over the civilians in both Gaza and Israel. On 1-7, he only expressed concern only over the well being of "palestinian" civilians in Gaza, not Jews in Sderot or anywhere else. This reflects a deeper problem which is one of the reasons why Obama was put into office as president. This problem is that he serves powerful interests in Washington, in the US political establishment, and among entrenched interests in the foreign policy establishment particularly. Simply because he is black he can be more useful than a white-skinned president. This is because he can persuade constituencies in the United States and around the world to work for US foreign policy goals. He will be more trusted than a white, at least at the start of his term of office, by the American black community, by Blacks outside the US, and by "leftists" in general who today seem more influenced [manipulated] by psywar, by misleading images, by prejudices, by hate campaigns, than in the past. They are more emotionally directed than reason-directed.

The Obama policy will be the same as that of a white president [or worse than what a white president might dare to do] because he will be insulated, at least at the start, from charges of racism and Judeophobia. Yet his policy will be old wine in new bottles. How could it be otherwise if Zbig is his mentor? What does it mean that he is supported by jimmy carter, whose relatively short, four-year presidency was a disaster for civilization and for mankind? After all, it was Zbig and carter who pressured Israel to give up land to the Arab Nazi-admirer Anwar Sadat. They aggressively pushed the Shah of Iran to get out and make way for the Islamomaniac, IslamoNazi, Khomeini, whose disciple Ahmadinejad is now building the Bomb. They helped consolidate a PLO-Syrian condominium [co-rule] in Lebanon. And they helped Osama bin Laden and the Taliban to get their start by providing training, money, and weapons [with Saudi cooperation] for the war against the Russians in Afghanistan. The American people had the good sense to get rid of jimmy [& zbig] after only four years, thus preventing a fourth term for these two monsters.

Nessim Cohen-Tanugi calls zbig Obama's Evil Genius. Barry does seem to be directed by an evil genius. Zbig is known to have been working with him for several years. Bear in mind too that Obama's mother worked in the US foreign policy apparatus, with an outfit that provided microcredit or some such for poor folk in Pakistan. So Obama seems almost to have grown up as a part of the system. On 2 November 2008, we quoted from the beginning of Cohen-Tanugi's article on zbig and his nefarious accomplishments. C-T calls zbig the originator of the green belt strategy to harass the Communist Soviet Union. But sometimes the cure is worse than the disease.

In 1998, after Jihadists connected to Afghanistan were already causing mayhem in the Middle East, Africa and Europe, zbig was interviewed by Le Nouvel Observateur and asked if he had any regrets about helping al-Qa`ida get started in Afghanistan. He answered that there was no reason to worry over "a few excited Islamic fundamentalists." If you want to feel the chill that some people get from horror movies, consider that zbig was making policy for the most powerful state on earth. Zbig is for Obama the Portrait of Dorian Gray, as it were. Zbig is the real inner ugliness of Obama.

Cohen-Tanugi goes on:

. . . Islamism has spread to all the continents in less than 30 years [since Khomeini's takeover in 1979], not only in America and in Russia, but in England, Spain, France, Pakistan, India, China, Turkey and Iraq and, obviously, all around Israel. There are tens of thousands of dead who were victims of it [Islamism] and this is only the beginning [C-T's numbers are much too low. An estimated 150,000 have already died in Algeria alone because of fanatic Muslim movements]. The severest international problem of this century is the destructive Islamist epidemic.

Brzezinski and the Oil Stakes
In fact, the theory of the green belt was conceived as early as 1970 by the Englishman Bernard Lewis (great specialist on Arab and Jewish history) with Huntington (another celebrated geopolitical expert) and Brzezinski who was to become Jimmy Carter's national security advisor in 1977. His [Lewis'] analysis --later deformed and redirected by Brzezinski-- was to "Balkanize" the Muslim states in order to create mini oil states and prevent the creation of an immense Muslim state possessing the absolute majority of oil resources, thus capable of imposing its views on the Western world. Hence, it would be better to allow the creation of and give rise to a long series of independent oil states. This was already what Britain undertook with Kuwait, the Emirates, etc. Iran and Iraq, the two founding states of OPEC, wanted on the contrary to establish a common oil policy with OPEC.

Brzezinski's original contribution was to have focussed the problem on the Muslim states encircling Russia, not in order to balkanize the Muslim world but in order to use it against Communist ideology by means of Islamism. Brzezinski was able to convince the Democrats, under the presidency of Carter to give support to Khomeini in order to overthrow the Shah and start the operation of his doctrine. Brzezinski was the one truly responsible for the islamization of Iran. Once again he played the sorcerer's apprentice.

Khomeini, far from allying with America, called it the Great Satan and Israel the Little Satan. Everybody remembers the painful episode of the American hostages in Iran in Carter's time. The frightful American disaster in Iran was the result of Brzezinski's evil sorcery.
[more to come of Cohen-Tanugi's article on Zbig]
- - - - - - - - - - - - -
UPDATING 9-22-2009 Zbig is feeling rambunctious again. He called lately for the US air force to shoot down Israeli planes flying over "our" [i.e., American] airspace in Iraq on their way to wreck Iranian nuclear facilities [here & here & here]. Curious, isn't it, that Iraqi airspace is "our" [= American]
airspace in Iraq?? Sounds imperialistic, doesn't it? Yet Zbig was Pres. Obama's mentor and Obama is supposed to be "leftist." What do the terms right and left mean anyhow nowadays??
- - - - - - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Obama's Senior Advisors, Zbig & Scowcroft, Smell Jewish Blood

Israel's weak international standing, partly because of Western and Arab-Muslim Judeophobia, partly because of Israel's own weak leadership, especially since Sharon's "conversion" to the "peace now" creed, have led the enemies of Israel and the Jews to think that now is the time to administer a death blow to Israel. Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft, old foreign policy paladins, zombies in the netherworld between life and death, smelled Jewish blood and returned to earth. Having taken a vacation from their tombs, these undead creatures now advise the president-elect of Change, Youth, the New, Purity and Innocence on how to bring death to Israel. They used one of the usual channels of the Old Politics --the Washington Post (also see JTA report)-- to advise Obama. Now is the time to make "peace" between Israel and "palestinians" and thereby solve all Middle East problems [the linkage lie]:

We believe that the Arab-Israeli peace process is one issue that requires priority attention [over all others]

Because they now smell Jewish blood!

. . . in many ways the current situation is such that the opportunity for success has never been greater, or the costs of failure more severe.

Shmuel Rosner rightly sneers at the fraud perpetrated by zbig & scowler, starting off by summarizing their claims:

Israeli-Palestinian peace is important, it can make Arab governments more cooperative, we already know the parameters in which to solve it, etc. (Scowcroft and Brzezinski include the laughable idea that an international peacekeeping force should be the one responsible for preventing terror attacks from Palestinian territory. These guys, apparently, have never heard of Hezbollah and Lebanon.)

Referring to zbig-scowler's claim quoted above: ". . . the opportunity for success has never been greater. . . " Rosner responds:

Oh, really? How so?

The authors do not provide any proof from which to conclude that now, more than ever (to coin a phrase), success stands so close that the American government can simply reach out and grab it. How soon they forget! Bill Clinton went to Camp David thinking exactly the same. Condi Rice, similarly misguided, dragged dozens of leaders to Annapolis.

"Never been greater"? Why? Because Hamas controls Gaza and Abbas's Palestinian Authority can barely claim to represent a fraction of the Palestinian people? Or maybe because Iran is on the rise and is funding Palestinian terrorists? Or is it because Hezbollah has proved, in the past two years, that international monitoring is a bad joke? Or because both Israel and the Palestinians are undergoing severe leadership crises?

Lest anyone conclude that zbig & scowler are decent folk, sincere peacemongers perhaps tragically misunderstood, he may read our earlier post: on Zbig, "Barack Obama's Evil Genius," Part 1, and on Scowler, see this JTA report.
- - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Obama's lies about the economy, Part II of "Barak Obama's Evil Genius," propaganda analysis, psychological warfare, etc.

Obama vows to promote genocide process called "peace process"

What has happened in and to Israel since the Oslo Accords [9-1993] has demonstrated that it was a tragic mistake at best to try to make peace with the PLO. The number of Israeli victims of Arab terrorism has increased manifold since Oslo, fifteen years ago, compared with the fifteen preceding years. Jewish rights in the Land of Israel have been reduced and --in Judea-Samaria-- have been almost obliterated. The PLO has never changed its charter which vows to destroy Israel in several verbal formulations. Somehow Clinton was persuaded to accept the swindle of PLO charter changes which never occurred. Meanwhile, arch-terrorist arafat has died to be replaced by Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen and by the Hamas which is even franker in its genocidal aims than is the Fatah. There has not been anything going on worthy of being called a "peace process." Yet the diplomats continue to heave and churn in their nefarious efforts for the "peace process" cause. The electronic and print media, the schools from K to university level, the mosque preachers, in Judea-Samaria [Fatah-dominated] and Gaza [Hamas-dominated] continue to incite genocidal hatred of Jews, slanders against Jews medieval and modern from the Muslim Hadith to the Protocols and Hitlerite ravings. This mass murder incitement cannot but have an effect on future events, basically vitiating any hope for real peace. Yet the peace-processors churn on and on.

As expected, champion faker, Barack Obama, George Bush's true successor in the White House, has taken up the relay for genocide from Bush's administration. He assured Holocaust-denier Abu Mazen that the murder process must go on:

"Obama promised that he'll continue efforts to push the peace process forward in order to arrive at a two state solution," Erekat said. "He said he will work with both the Palestinians and the Israelis to achieve peace, which is in the interest of both parties"

This was according to Abu Mazen's advisor Sa'eb Erikat, a propagandist trained in communications skills by US taxpayer funds supplied through the USAID working through the PASSIA. It is no wonder that zbig brzzzzzzki's protege hastens to support the "peace process." Of course, there is nothing peaceful about it. The only peace in the "peace process" is peace of mind for antisemites.

Those who doubt this should ask why the "peace process" includes Syria, the govt of which has slaughtered tens of thousands of its own citizens, suppresses freedom of expression, democracy, etc. , and also spreads Nazi-like lies against Jews [not only against Israel], such as the lie about Jewish ritual murder. Former Syrian "defense" minister Mustafa Tlas finds Jewish ritual murder in the 1840 Damascus Affair in which scores of Jews were tortured to force confessions. Tlas tortures his fellow Arab Syrians. Why wouldn't he do it to Jews? What kind of peace could ensue from a "peace" accord with these Arab Nazis?

The more important question perhaps is why Washington is so eager to build up Syria, knowing its many crimes in Syria itself, in Lebanon, its participation in terrorism against American troops in Iraq, and its sponsorship for genocidal anti-Jewish terrorists in Judea-Samaria and Gaza.

Those who want to believe that Obama is not racist against Jews should ask him and his flunkeys two questions:

1-- Why has he never spoken out in favor of pardon or clemency for Jonathan Pollard? Doesn't Pollard have rights under the 8th Amendment to the US constitution that forbids "cruel and unusual punishments"? This is asked in view of the light sentences given to non-Jewish spies, including an Arab spying for Egypt, in the same period when Pollard was sentenced. Don't Jews have human rights, civil rights?

2- Why doesn't Obama defend the right of Jews to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza? If Blacks have rights to live wherever they like in America, why don't Jews have the right to live in Judea-Samaria, part of the Land of Israel? Would Obama support exclusion of Jews from certain areas of the United States? If he doesn't support Jewish rights of residence in the Jewish homeland, why should he support them in the USA? Does Obama support the use of armed force by US Army and US marshals to enforce equal residence rights for Blacks in the USA [which has happened], why shouldn't Israel use its armed forces to support Jewish residence rights in the Land of Israel?

Now, if Obama and his fellow Democrats were really against Bush Jr, why didn't they challenge Bush Jr's policy against Jewish settlement and housing construction in Judea-Samaria???
In foreign policy Obama looks to be a more virulent, more destructive version of Bush.

Obama has many Judeophobic advisors. Melanie Philips and others have mentioned zbig, McPeak, Scowcroft, and so on. The least to be said about these advisors is that they are dominated by oldtimers from carter's harmful administration up through Clinton's. This belies of course obama's claim to represent Change, the New, the Innocent, the Untainted, the Uncorrupt ad nauseam.
- - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Zbig's schemes, Obama's dishonesty, the "Left's" lies, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, archeology, propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

Obamanazi & Rahm Kapo's advisors Reveal the Plan

UPDATING at bottom 11-17-08

Hiding behind the Young, Fresh, New, Innocent face of Barack Obama, the "non-politician" supposedly untainted by Washington's corruption, are zbigniew brzezinski and brent scowcroft, corrupt foreign policy paladins from the carter and Reagan administrations. Their hate for Jews and Israel is palpable. They are now sharpening their knives over the prostrate body of Israel that they now believe has been brought down by domestic termites, the olmerts, livnis, and pereses and other species of pest.

Barack Obama is to pursue an ambitious peace plan in the Middle East involving the recognition of Israel by the Arab world in exchange for its withdrawal to pre-1967 borders, according to sources close to America’s president-elect.

Obama intends to throw his support behind a 2002 Saudi peace initiative endorsed by the Arab League and backed by Tzipi Livni, the Israeli foreign minister and leader of the ruling Kadima party. [London Times, 11-16-2008]

Arrogantly overlooking Israel's rights to Judea-Samaria and Gaza under international law, contemptuously eager to trample the human rights of Jewish inhabitants of Judea-Samaria and Jerusalem, eager to put all Jews in Israel in danger of both large conventional Arab armed forces and Arab low-intensity warfare so as to finish Hitler's work through the instrumentality of the Arabs --Hitler's allies during WW 2 and the Holocaust-- obama, the handmaiden of zbig and scowcroft, wants Israel to go back to the 1949-1967 armistice lines [Israel had no borders], which Abba Eban, a notorious dove, called "Auschwitz lines." Obama's Dorian Gray portrait is looking more hideous than ever [see link].

The Saudi plan is not a peace plan. It is silly of course to think that merely signing a paper called a "peace treaty" brings peace. Poland had correct diplomatic relations with Nazi Germany in 1939. They were "at peace" before the German invasion in September of that year. Moreover, Israel needs the high ground of Judea-Samaria to defend the country as a whole. This area would have to be given up by Israel according to the Saudi Plan and according to the State Department and UK Foreign Office as well. Yet, from the international legal standpoint, the whole country, including Transjordan, was legally part of the Jewish National Home juridically erected by the international community in 1920 at San Remo. The notion of a "palestinian people" is a post-1948 invention of British psychological warfare experts. Indeed, the UK is a more dangerous enemy of Israel than the Arabs are. Note that zbig is to speak before the ChathamHouse, that is, the Royal Institute of International Affairs, a bastion of Judeophobia since Arnold Toynbee's days there from the 1920s through the 1950s. Don't forget the UK's silent partnership in the Holocaust. Britain's policy is based now as then on sheer Judeophobia. It cannot be appeased by Israeli territorial concessions to the Arabs. If the Arabs wanted to make real peace with Israel, the British would try to thwart it.

All this is not to say that the Arabs, including apartheid-like Saudi Arabia, are not a problem in themselves. Saudi Arabia forbids Jews to even enter the kingdom, let alone live there. This is based on old Muslim law. Arab-Muslims allowed Jews to live in the Land of Israel but only as oppressed, economically exploited, humiliated dhimmi subjects when the Arabs ruled the Land. Today, the Arabs and other Muslim fanatics have added Nazi and other European forms of Judeophobia to their age-old Islamic Judeophobia [on this see Andrew Bostom's recent compilation on Islamic Antisemitism].

The enemies of the Jews and Israel want Israeli retreat on the ground in order to seriously weaken Israel so that it cannot defend itself. It would also mean erasing the residence rights of Jews anywhere in the world. If they cannot live in their own homeland, then where do Jews have a right to live? Retreat would also mean deep humiliation of Jews. Israel's going back to the 1949 armistice lines "with insubstantial alterations," was the thrust of the 1969 Rogers Plan by Nixon's first secretary of state, William Rogers. So Obama's policy will not only be a worsening of George Bush Jr's anti-Israel policy [which also hides behind the black face of Condonazzia of the Third Rice] but will be a return to Nixon's declared policy in 1969.

The Obama policy is sheer evil. It is the true countenance behind obama's Young, Fresh, Innocent face.

UPDATING: LGF refers to the deceitful background of Uzi Mahanaimi, coauthor of the piece in the London Times.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on obaminable, more on zbig b, history of Jewish-Arab relations, Jews in the Land of Israel, in Jerusalem, archeology, British silent partnership in the Holocaust, etc.

Is Rahm Emanuel a kapo or merely a Vichyite?

There is no reason to have any more confidence in Obama now than before the election. The appointment of Rahm Emanuel was a clever way of disarming foolish Jews who are not aware that this person was instrumental in foisting on the Israeli people the worst disaster since the Holocaust. I refer to the Oslo accords. He worked at the Clinton White House in 1993 and directed the setting up of the signing ceremony on the white house lawn, where arafat and Rabin made a false "peace." Emanuel's views are "peace now" views, that is, they are Vichyite views and he could charitably be called a Vichyite. No doubt there is much more to be said about both Emanuel and Obama, which we will do as time goes on.

Meanwhile, Shabbat Shalom

- - - - - - - - - -
Coming: more on Obama, Emanuel, Zbig; Jews in the Middle East, Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, etc; the fascism and Nazism of the so-called "Left," Arabs and Muslims as imperialists and allies of the "Left," propaganda analysis, peace follies, etc.

No 100 Days of Grace for Zbig Brzezinski's Front Man "president"

Barack Obama won the presidential election thanks to his own lies and massive support for him by the media [MSM]. This is not to mention intimidation of voters by Obama supporters in Philadelphia and other places, apparently deliberate late dispatch of absentee ballots so that overseas voters would not be able to vote, an effective propaganda campaign in parts of the Jewish community, etc.

It is likely that he will soon make lying propaganda against Israel. He might declare that Israel is an apartheid state, that it oppresses "poor palestinians", that it took Arab land away from "poor palestinians", that it has no right to exist [this might be insinuated rather than explicitly stated], that Jews have no human or civil right to live on "Arab land," that Israel is to blame for the wars, etc. Since this is what is likely to happen, especially if no opposition emerges, then Obama should not get any days of grace at all. Strong criticism of Obama must continue. His critics must continue to demand release of what Obama said at the Khalidi farewell party in Chicago. Public demos and rallies would be helpful if some participation is assured. Even a small demonstration can be helpful. Interviews on talk radio, letters and articles for Jewish newspapers, lectures by and interviews with competent experts should be considered.

Remember that the Holocaust president Franklin D Roosevelt was a Democrat. Why can't a president Obama be just as bad? At the same time, bear in mind that certain Republicans, such as the Dulles family, helped the Nazis and later the Arabs. Eleanor Dulles was head of the German desk in the State Dept in the 1930s [This is not the time to speak of her relationship (tragic for him) with the Zionist and scholar of medieval Jewish literature, David Blondheim.]. Allen and John Foster Dulles were notoriously pro-Arab while running the foreign policy of the Eisenhower administration.

It should be pointed out that Obama's Israel policy is going to be a continuation of Bush's anti-Israel policy. But worse. Bush and his sidekick, Condonazzia of the Third Rice, oppose the Jewish right to live in Judea-Samaria, the Gaza Strip, and parts of Jerusalem under Jordanian control up June 1967. The Jewish majority in Jerusalem since 1853 makes no difference to them. That Arabs drove Jews out of their homes in Jerusalem starting in December 1947, in areas later taken over by Jordan, makes no difference to them. They always have an excuse: Peace. Even if their "solution" brings war not peace, they always claim to be working for peace. Even if their "solution" denies the national, human and civil rights of Jews, it is all for the sake of "peace."

So the answer to them has to be: Racism. You are for racism against Jews, not for peace. You hypocritically base your position on misrepresentations of international law. Your "peace process" is racist, Judeophobic. Your "humanitarian" concerns are hypocritical. If you really wanted peace, why not stop the mass-murder war in Sudan?? If you were really humanitarian, you should have intervened to stop the genocide against Blacks in southern Sudan fifty years ago. Why did the State Dept try to close the gates of immigration to the United States in the 1930s to Jews who were fleeing for their lives, whereas now neither Bush nor Obama really care about preventing illegal immigration of non-Jews who are not fleeing for their lives.

Why is Obama so dangerous? Because he is the new bottle for old wine. His skin color provides a hiding place for old time State Dept and CIA activists. He will shelter these old time racists and Judeophobes. He is their front man. You can't accuse us of racism against Jews. Our president is Black. Besides, Jews aren't a race. Jews have too much power. Jews are racist against poor palestinians [naturally, it is not mentioned that Arabs have oppressed Jews in Arabia and the lands conquered by the Muslim Arabs since the time of Muhammad, as well as holding them in theological contempt]. Jews are to blame for the wars. Even the wars that we helped start with our diplomacy, our espionage, our psywar guidance, our weapons, our training, our organizing, our money. The Dulles Brothers could not say these things so easily and have them believed since they were so obviously Establishment. They always appeared in public in jacket, tie, vest and tightly buttoned collar. But Obama's more relaxed sartorial style can be more effective in helping to convince the hoi polloi. His non-Establishment pretense can carry the day.

Then too, Obama is a superb demagogue, employing ruthless lies, as we have seen. You don't want to be the target of his demogoguery. He will come out in support of the whole Arab Judeophobic program and set of accusations. Apartheid, land theft, alien intruders, aggressors, oppressors, colonialists, racists, a Jewish state is illegitimate because a theocracy [and the Muslim states? Saudi Arabia?], etc. Unless friends of Israel and the Jews can anticipate him and state the truth about Arab oppression of Jews over the centuries before he gets control of the White House. As Zbig Brzezinski's front man, Obama is a danger not only to Jews but to the world [as N Cohen-Tanugi indicated in an earlier post]. And Obama is a great front man just as he is a superb demagogue. At the same time, protests against Obama should not spare Bush nor his secretary of state, Miss Bitter Rice [riso amaro].

The evil role of Jewish Democrats must be acknowledged before ending. They never effectively opposed Franklin Roosevelt's pro-Holocaust policy. Now they support Obama even when they understand what he really is. Congressman Jerold Nadler showed that he understood Obominable's cynical opportunism in remarks made at a Florida synagogue, not for public consumption [shown on Foxnews just before the election]. Yet Nadler still supported Obama.

Don't give Obama any days of grace. Don't wait until he makes his appointments. We know that they and he are going to be bad. His anti-Israel promises to Abu Mazen [Holocaust denier] have already leaked out. My last forecast is that even American Blacks may come to hate him, if their sons, boyfriends, husbands, brothers, start coming home from Afghanistan in body bags where the One says that he wants to send more troops.
- - - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on the dangers of the obominable one, Jews in Jerusalem, Zbig and the State Dept and Damascus fascists, history, propaganda analysis, psywar analysis, etc.

Zbig, "Barack Obama's Evil Genius" - Part I

UPDATING 10-11-2009 link added at bottom

When fascism comes to America,
it will be called anti-fascism.
attributed to Huey Long, governor of Louisiana

Zbig Brzezinski is "Barack Obama's Evil Genius," according to Nessim Cohen-Tanugi, a French-Jewish political analyst, writing in Israel Actualites published in Jerusalem. How so?

Barack Obama's Evil Genius -- by Nessim Cohen-Tanugi
Le mauvais Genie de Barak Obama

There are many Jews, even those seduced by Obama, who are troubled by some of his old --and new, alas-- associations and friendships. But the worst danger is yet to come: The presence at his sides of his advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, whom we consider a pro-Islamist Dr Strangelove.

Everything has already been said about some of Obama's devilish old associations, his ties with the extreme left, Black Power racist, Black Nazi antisemite, Farrakhan. . . [Ayers, ACORN, and] the Syrian swindler Antoin Rezko, currently a boarder at a federal prison. But the future is much more troubling than the past because of the presence at his side of Jimmy Carter's national security advisor, now 79 years of age, Zbigniew Brzezinski.

Incendiary
Zbigniew Brzezinski was the geopolitical theoretician . . . the architect of the American intervention in Afghanistan [1979]. . . It was he who elaborated the strategy called "the green belt." . . . that had as its goal the destabilization of Russia by igniting Islamism [Islamic fundamentalism].

In fact, Russia was encircled as by a belt by a series of countries with Muslim majorities (called green after the color of Islam), that were satellites in the framework of the Soviet Union. It was Brzezinski's idea to destabilize all these countries, secularized by Communism, by introducing into them the ferment of fanatical Islamism, with the help of Saudi Arabia. The Saudis were obviously interested. They sent a number of fanatical imams violently condemning secular Communist morals and calling on the Muslims to chase out the "infidels" who dared to subjugate Muslims. Afghanistan served as a testing platform and in a few years the fanatic Afghan rebels had obliged the Russians to leave the country. Osama ben Laden had been charged by the Saudis with managing the operation. We know with what success!

In [an] article in Le Lien [of 2000] we had severely criticized this strategy, estimating that it was extremely dangerous to fight against one evil by using an even worse evil. We had warned the Americans, seduced by Brzezinski's theories, against playing "sorcerer's apprentices." Two years later [after the article of 2000], Osama ben Laden burnt down and destroyed the Twin Towers as well as part of the Pentagon. The White House was spared thanks to the heroism and sacrifice of the passengers of another Boeing. Alas, we were right beyond what we had feared.
Brzezinski might at least have regretted his mistake. When a journalist asked him: "Don't you regret having favored Islamic fundamentalism, having given weapons and advice to future terrorists?" he answered unshaken, "What is more important for the history of the world: The talibans or the fall of the Soviet empire? A few excited Islamic fundamentalists or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the Cold War?" [This exchange was published in Le Monde in 2002-Eliyahu]
[This article by Cohen-Tanugi was published 28 Octobre 2008 in Israel Actualites].
-End Part I-

After the destruction of the Twin Towers, which took about 3,000 lives, Obama's mentor Zbig spoke of "a few excited Islamic fundamentalists." What manner of monster is this?
- - - - - - - -

UPDATING Link added about further Zbig shenanigans 10-11-2009 [here]
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Coming: More on Obama's lies about the economy, Part II of "Barak Obama's Evil Genius," propaganda, psychological warfare, etc.

Obama's Blatant Deceit & Dishonesty Are Revolting

Deception is a politician's middle name. But Obama goes beyond the rule even for politicians. His deceit and dishonesty are revolting.

I am most concerned about his pretense, his imposture, to be a friend of Israel. But first let's get to his misinterpretation of John McCain's words that the US economy was "fundamentally strong. " McCain said these words when the fall of Lehman Brothers brought the crisis dramatically to light. McCain did not mean that everything was perfect with the American economy. Attention should be paid to the word "fundamentally." McCain was saying that "fundamentally" the economy was sound, which was and is an arguable position, if we think of the immense US railroad network, electricity grid, road network, manufacturing capacity, skilled work force, and enterprising businessmen as the "foundation." McCain was well aware that there were major problems in the financial sector that needed to be fixed by proper regulations, which he said a few days later. In my view, he was implicitly distinguishing between the "foundation" and the much impaired financial and juridical superstructure which needed repair.

By stressing the soundness of the foundation McCain meant to be reassuring at a time of crisis, although aware of major flaws in the superstructure. The Obama campaign deliberately misinterpreted McCain's words as if he were a pollyanna pretending that everything was fine. This misinterpretation caused great damage to McCain and he did not properly respond by pointing to the deliberate misinterpretation on the part of his rivals. Perhaps the McCain campaign thought that any response would just sound like a weak excuse, like so many of Obama's own excuses, and would just get McCain into more trouble. But I am outraged by the dishonesty of the Obama campaign's deliberate misinterpretation, perhaps counting on the semi-literacy of much of the public not to understand McCain's actual intent.

Now to the gigantic fraud of Obama's alleged support for Israel. Obama was the friend of Israel's bitter enemies. He listened to outrageous anti-Israel arguments by Khalidi, whose historical research, meant for a small, restricted audience, may be acceptable [I have read books and articles by Khalidi] but whose public, political propagandistic statements are false, slanderous, paranoid, and deceitful and meant to serve Arab mass murderers who enjoy a certain support from Judeophobic circles in the West. If Arab Judeophobia did not enjoy a certain support in the West, then how did al-Khalidi and Edward Sa`id get to be professors at Columbia, a very very Establishment institution?? Just look at the roster of members of Columbia University's board of directors. Zbig Brzezinski too once taught at Columbia, now known to some as Bir Zeit on the Hudson.

At the fulsomely praise-ridden [praise for PLO spokesman al-Khalidi] farewell dinner for Khalidi leaving the Univ of Chicago for Columbia that has been the focus of so much controversy lately, an Arab boys dance group performed. We don't know what dances they exactly performed for Khalidi's farewell dinner, but on an earlier occasion they performed mock beheadings of Jews and Americans. [see Debbie Schlussel's report here]. Obama and his crew of professional liars like the kapo-like Miss Roginsky mentioned in our last post, have no scruples when it comes to hiding and denying his links to Judeophobic Arabs and plain and simple Jew-haters like Brzezinski. Don't forget that Zbig helped Khomeini take over Iran, helped Bin Ladin get his start as a terrorist in Afghanistan, and helped to entrench the Syrian invaders in Lebanon. Here is a photo of Zbig in his Dorian Gray ugliness.


[photo from Israel Actualites-Le Lien 28 Octobre 2008]

Nessim Cohen-Tanugi calls Brzezinski "Barak Obama's Evil Genius" [Le mauvais genie de Barak Obama] in the title of the article which the photo of Zbig accompanies. Cohen-Tanugi is rather mild in describing Zbig but I won't bother to complain because of the tedium involved in reaching a 100% correct and precise evaluation of this creature from the primordial muck.

Suffice it to say that Obama voters are voting for evil. On the other hand, some might want to think that maybe Obama is just ignorant. After all, he once called Iran a "tiny" country whereas Iran has an area of ca. 1,648,000 sq km [= 634,000 sq miles - Statesman's Yearbook]. This number of square kilometers makes Iran today roughly three times [3x] as big as Germany between the two world wars [Germany now is 326,789 sq km - Statesman's Yearbook]. Would Obama have called Germany "tiny" then --or now? Maybe Obama called Iran "tiny" not out of ignorance but in order to minimize the threat that a nuclear Iran would represent, perhaps on the advice of Zbig who helped the current Iranian regime to take power in the first place. If so, then Obama was not being ignorant about geography but rather disingenuous, that is, he was dishonest and deceitful. If so, he was not only being anti-democratic by deceiving the voters, but he was indeed evil as is his mentor Zbig.

[See several links from this linked to post for more on Zbig]
- - - - - - - - -
Coming: The evil, sinister schemes of Zbig as spelled out by Nessim Cohen-Tanugi of the French-language Le Lien newsletter.

Sinister Smears of the Obama Campaign -- Obama Follows in Bush Jr's Footsteps

The other day I saw a panel discussion on Fox TV [on Israeli cable TV] about the US election campaign. A young woman with more good looks than good sense was there to represent the Obama campaign. Her name was Roginsky and allowed that she was Jewish, adding that some people among the Jews had "craven fears" about Obama. That is not merely a smear, it is a vicious insult against millions of people. Millions, not only Jews, have well founded, justified fears of Obama. They are not "craven." How can you trust a candidate who has switched positions so cynically as Obama has, surpassing the typical cynicism of politicians?? How about the anti-war candidate during the primaries who now wants to send more troops to Afghanistan?? [This is not to judge whether or not more troops should be send to Afghanistan but his cyncism in being both for and against American troops in foreign lands].

In this same vein, Obama in his notorious infomercial promised to spend more on the US armed forces, and he also promised to create something like, as I recall, a "civilian security corps," whatever that means. This ominous-sounding body would be financed, according to him, in an amount equal to the regular defense budget, thus doubling it. It is now 500 billion dollars. Doubling would bring it to one trillion bucks. Doesn't quite make sense but maybe Obama will claim again that he was misunderstood or that he had made a "poor choice of words." Indeed, the promise of a new "security corps" with undefined functions sounds bizarre --and menacing!

Then we have his twin claims that McCain would mean another term for Bush and that McCain is somehow to blame for the economic crisis. But in foreign policy at least, an Obama presidency, as Carolyn Glick agrees, would more likely represent another term for Bush than would a McCain presidency.

Another indication that an Obama presidency, has v'shalom חס ושלום, would mean a fourth term for the Bush dynasty. Recall that Bush belongs to the very upper crusty Bush family of Connecticut. George Bush Sr [Prez George B I] moved down to Texas to be near the oil that he was investing in. George Jr [Prez George B II] was raised there. Now, quite a few upper crusties are openly backing Obama, including Christopher Buckley, the son of William F Buckley, jr., founder of the National Review. This fact belies Obama's repeated claim that the rich are on McCain's side. Of course, as the Prince de Ligne said: In order for things to stay the same, everything must constantly change.

Miss Roginsky claimed on Fox&Friends that she was not afraid --as a Jew, she insinuated-- of an Obama presidency, nor were her relatives in Israel. Well, I can't verify that claim but if she is not afraid of Zbig Brzezinski, Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, formerly jimma carter's national insecurity advisor, then she is a fool or a traitor to the Jews. Likewise for the influence on Obama of Rashid al-Khalidi, of the well-connected Jerusalem Khalidi family, once prominent in the Ottoman Empire's governing class, now well-connected with the British and American foreign policy establishments. Think of his relative Walid Khalidi, a Palestinian Arab spokesman back in the 1940s, later at the American University of Beirut and later well-ensconced at Harvard. Needless to say, both AUB and Harvard are well connected entities in the US Establishment.

Rashid al-Kh has been at AUB and the Univ of Chicago where he regularly palled around with Obama --giving Obama the Arab nationalist version of Middle Eastern history, particularly regarding Israel. Rashid is now at Columbia which some students call Bir Zeit on the Hudson due to the pervasive pro-Arab, anti-Israel bias there, especially in the Middle East studies department, now headed by Rashid, I believe. His career also included being a PLO spokesman in Beirut in the late 1970s, early 1980s [see Martin Kramer and Daniel Pipes for more on Rashid]. Non-Jewish Americans may be more concerned about Bill Ayers. This man was a violent terrorist back in the late 1960s-early 1970s. People did get killed in his and his comrades' [the Weathermen's] activities. He too has a rather upper crusty background. It's curious that after being a fugitive from the law for some ten years on the terrorist charges, when he finally was caught and tried on those charges, he got off. Did Daddy's money have anything to do with it?

Another threatening aspect of Obama is his promise to intensify US involvment in the so-called Arab-Israeli or "palestinian"-Israeli "peace process." In fact, nothing that deserves to be called a "peace process" has been going on. Israel allowed the PLO to take control of various pieces of territory in Judea-Samaria and Gaza in 1994 after the Oslo Accords. Since those accords were signed in 1993 on the White House lawn Arab terrorism against Israel intensified. The Jewish victims have increased manifold. In the past, US "peace process" involvement has almost always meant US pressure on Israel to concede to Arab demands. So US involvement in a fake "peace process" is not what Israel needs. More "peace process" means more death, more humilitation, more violation of Jewish national and human rights. This is because Israel's enemies among the Arabs, among Europeans and among Americans deny or belittle the Jewish right to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, all parts of the internationally designated Jewish National Home [San Remo Conference 1920, League of Nations 1922]. With advisors like Zbig and al-Khalidi, a president Obama would be likely to join the UK and the European Union in ganging up on Israel and giving much more money to the Palestinian Authority. The US already gives the PA a couple of hundred million bucks per year. Let's point out again that Bush talks a good game of anti-terrorism but in fact overlooks the terrorist nature of the PA and Abu Mazen and the genocidal nature of the anti-Jewish incitement in the PA's schools, mosques, press and electronic media. Bush's girl sidekick, Condi Rice, has already expressed some soft sentiments in favor of the openly genocidal Hamas [Article 7 Hamas charter].

Maybe Miss Roginsky doesn't understand that Judeophobia or antisemitism can be the policy of governments, not merely of private persons with prejudices. Governments do policy planning. It is my conviction that the UK and EU have both done very Judeophobic policy planning. The "peace process" is a Judeophobic policy. It takes on a fake color of "humanitarianism." But why aren't the UK, EU and other bodies more interested in the actual genocide that goes on in the Sudan, for instance?? Why aren't Rashid al-Khalidi and his tutorial pupil, Obama, more interested in the Sudan massacres than in what Israel is alleged to have done, which pales before what happens in the Sudan regularly and has been happening there since 1956, off and on. Part of the reason, but only part, is the influence and effect of millions of Arab dollars poured into US universities to set up Arab and Muslim studies centers which have become sources of pro-Arab, anti-Israel propaganda. Rashid has benefitted from some of that filthy lucre. Arabs are recycling their oil wealth, much provided as part of US, British and French tax manipulations. Check it out.
As said above, the focus on Israel's alleged wrongdoing, while overlooking the very gross wrongdoing of Arab states, represents Judeophobia, as does the denial of Jewish rights to live in Judea-Samaria and Gaza, often based on misrepresentations of international law. Yet Miss Roginsky is not worried. A fool or a traitor.

Unfortunately, many people, understandably angry about the economic crisis, are thinking of voting for Obama in order to spite Bush. But Obama's "community organizing" pals had a lot to do with persuading banks to give out risky subrprime mortgages and thus helped to bring down the system. McCain and other senators --not including Obama-- warned about the subprime threat two years ago. Bush is partly to blame for the crisis. So is Obama and those "community organizers" like ACORN whose thinking he represents. So is Allen Greenspan. But McCain is less responsible. It would be tragically ironic to vote for Obama against McCain out of spite at Bush, whose foreign policy gives a tragic, pro-terrorist prelude to an Obama foreign policy. Which is not to see McCain as perfect or absolutely trustworthy either. But Obama is so sinister, so menacing, such a cynical opportunist and ruthless liar that the choice for McCain is clear.

A few questions for Obama and his Jewish supporters

The Democratic Party and the Obama campaign started worrying several months ago that Obama would not get the kind of majority among Jewish voters that Democratic presidential candidates have gotten in the past. So they have made special efforts to bring the lost Jewish sheep back into the fold. Sheep is the right word for Obama voters, Jews and others. Obama might cause them to be slaughtered. Senator Carl Levin and Congressman Henry Waxman have defended Obama as a mentsh, to their everlasting shame. The deceitful, sinister Obama, good pal of Rashid al-Khalidi and Bill Ayers and Judeophobic imperialist strategist Zbigniew Brzezinski, is anything but a mentsh.

As to Obama's deceit, how can any sensible person accept Obama's dishonest excuse that, although he had sat in Rev Wright's church for 20 years, he didn't know what Wright was saying? Then there's Obama's demagogic charge that McCain represents the Rich. No doubt many rich folk support McCain. But how about the billionaires like George Soros and Theresa Heinz Kerry and malefactors of great wealth like Franklin Raines and Jim Johnson of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, formerly of Wall Street, who have contributed to Obama's campaign and serve it as advisors?? Raines and Johnson helped create the present economic crisis by giving out mortgages to people who were poor credit risks, which might sound kind and generous but wrecked the system when these people could no longer make their mortgage payments. This is what is called the subprime loan problem, and Obama's pals were in the thick of it. They helped to bring the economic system to its knees. And Obama got mucho dinero from them.

Now to a few questions for Jewish supporters of Obama:

1-- where does Obama stand on the human and civil rights of Jonathan Pollard? Where does he stand on the abuse of Pollard's rights under the Eighth Amendment to the US constitution? The 8th Amendment forbids "cruel and ususual punishments." Yet Pollard has been sentenced to what is virtually a life sentence for spying for a friendly country, whereas the US govt was withholding from Israel information that Israel was supposed to receive under a US-Israel treaty. Further, many persons convicted of spying for the enemy Soviet Union and for Arab states got sentences of only a few years. Hence, Pollard's sentence is "cruel and unusual." What will Obama do, if anything, to right the injustice against Pollard?

2-- Obama claims civil and human rights for Black people [if he will really deliver is another question]. What about the civil and human rights of Jews to inhabit Judea-Samaria, including the ancient Jewish holy city of Hebron?? The League of Nations mandate for the Jewish National Home recognized Jewish national and civil rights to live in Judea-Samaria, including Hebron, yet the Bush administration opposes those rights. Obama claims to be against Bush and insinuates that his presidency would not be another term for Bush. Yet he has never criticized the Bush administration's anti-Jewish racism concerning Jewish rights to live in Judea-Samaria and Hebron. Where does Obama stand on Jewish rights? Does Obama favor an apartheid policy against Jews living in those places?

3-- Obama's Jewish toadies tell us that he supports Israel as much as does McCain. But why don't we hear very specific pro-Israel promises from the mouth of Obama himself? Why is it always Senator Levin or Congressman Waxman or Alan Dershowitz? Does Obama have something to hide? Does he want to avoid committing himself to Israel's concrete needs and rights in his own voice?

4-- Why is Zbig Brzezinski being hidden from voters in general and Jewish voters in particular? Maybe there's a good reason because maybe too many people remember all the ill and evil that Zbig did to America, to Israel, and to the world when he was Carter's national insecurity advisor.

Can Obama's supporters say why they overlook Zbig's Judeophobia? Could they ask Obama to publicly repudiate Zbig as an advisor?? [on Zbig see here & here & here & here & ici &
aqui & qui & poh]

Note: I raise these questions not as a Republican --I am not now and have never been a Republican, in fact I don't believe that the parties are different enough on foreign policy-- but as a Zionist. I am concerned about the welfare of Israel and Jews, which I believe coincides with the world's welfare, since Zbig and Obama are hostile to most people in the rationally predictable outcomes of their policies. On the other hand, it is foolish to be in the pocket of any party, particularly not the Democrats with their history of collaborating indirectly in the Holocaust [through Franklin D Roosevelt]. Roosevelt refused to let Jewish refugees from the Nazis find refuge in the United States except under very stringent conditions. Remember that FDR sent the passenger liner St. Louis back to occupied Europe, knowing that it was full of refugees from Hitler.
- - - - - - - - -

Coming: More on Obama the war candidate, More on the anti-Jewish racism of the "Peace Process," Republicans, Democrats & Jews [FDR and Eisenhower and Carter and George Bush Sr]; Jews in Jerusalem, Hebron, the Land of Israel, archeological updates, peace follies, propaganda, etc