Zbigniew Brzezinski in the news.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Zbigniev Kazimierz Brzezinski

Born on March 28, 1928, in Warsaw, Poland, the future national security adviser to President Carter and son of a Polish diplomat spent part of his youth in France and Germany before moving to Canada. He received a B.A. and M.A. in political science from McGill University, in 1949 and 1950 respectively, and in 1953 earned his doctorate in political science from Harvard. He taught at Harvard before moving to Columbia University in 1961 to head the new Institute on Communist Affairs. In 1958 he became a U.S. citizen. During the 1960s Brzezinski acted as an adviser to Kennedy and Johnson administration officials. Generally taking a hard line on policy toward the Soviet Union, he was also an influential force behind the Johnson administration's "bridge-building" ideas regarding Eastern Europe. During the final years of the Johnson administration, he was a foreign policy adviser to Vice President Hubert Humphrey and his presidential campaign.

In 1973, Brzezinski became the first director of the Trilateral Commission, a group of prominent political and business leaders and academics from the United States, Western Europe and Japan. Its purpose was to strengthen relations among the three regions. Future President Carter was a member, and when he declared his candidacy for the White House in 1974, Brzezinski, a critic of the Nixon-Kissinger foreign policy style, became his adviser on foreign affairs. After his victory in 1976, Carter made Brzezinski national security adviser.

Aiming to replace Kissinger's "acrobatics" in foreign policy-making with a foreign policy "architecture," Brzezinski was as eager for power as his rival. However, his task was complicated by his focus on East-West relations, and in a hawkish way -- in an administration where many cared a great deal about North-South relations and human rights. On the whole, Brzezinski was a team player. He emphasized the further development of the U.S.-China relationship, favored a new arms control agreement with Moscow and shared the president and Secretary of State Cyrus Vance's view that the United States should seek international cooperation in its diplomacy instead of going it alone. In the growing crisis atmosphere of 1979 and 1980 due to the Iranian hostage situation, the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan and a deepening economic crisis, Brzezinski's anti-Soviet views gained influence but could not end the Carter administration's malaise. Since his time in government, Brzezinski has been active as a writer, teacher and consultant.


Zbigniew Brzezinski

The Grand Chessboard

American Primacy And It's Geostrategic Imperatives

Key Quotes From Zbigniew Brzezinksi's Seminal Book

"Ever since the continents started interacting politically, some five hundred years ago, Eurasia has been the center of world power."- (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

“The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

Zbigniew Brzezinski's Background

According to his resume, Zbigniew Brzezinski lists the following achievements:

Harvard Ph.D. in 1953

Counselor, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Professor of American Foreign Policy, Johns Hopkins University

National Security Advisor to President Jimmy Carter (1977-81)

Trustee and founder of the Trilateral Commission

International advisor of several major US/Global corporations

Associate of Henry Kissinger

Under Ronald Reagan - member of NSC-Defense Department Commission on Integrated Long-Term Strategy

Under Ronald Reagan - member of the President's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board

Past member, Board of Directors, The Council on Foreign Relations

1988 - Co-chairman of the Bush National Security Advisory Task Force.

Brzezinski is also a past attendee and presenter at several conferences of the Bilderberger group - a non-partisan affiliation of the wealthiest and most powerful families and corporations on the planet.

The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski – More Quotes

"...The last decade of the twentieth century has witnessed a tectonic shift in world affairs. For the first time ever, a non-Eurasian power has emerged not only as a key arbiter of Eurasian power relations but also as the world's paramount power. The defeat and collapse of the Soviet Union was the final step in the rapid ascendance of a Western Hemisphere power, the United States, as the sole and, indeed, the first truly global power...” (p. xiii)

"... But in the meantime, it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges, capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of also challenging America. The formulation of a comprehensive and integrated Eurasian geostrategy is therefore the purpose of this book.” (p. xiv)

"The attitude of the American public toward the external projection of American power has been much more ambivalent. The public supported America's engagement in World War II largely because of the shock effect of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.” (pp 24-5)

"For America, the chief geopolitical prize is Eurasia... Now a non-Eurasian power is preeminent in Eurasia - and America's global primacy is directly dependent on how long and how effectively its preponderance on the Eurasian continent is sustained.” (p.30)

"America's withdrawal from the world or because of the sudden emergence of a successful rival - would produce massive international instability. It would prompt global anarchy." (p. 30)

"In that context, how America 'manages' Eurasia is critical. Eurasia is the globe's largest continent and is geopolitically axial. A power that dominates Eurasia would control two of the world's three most advanced and economically productive regions. A mere glance at the map also suggests that control over Eurasia would almost automatically entail Africa's subordination, rendering the Western Hemisphere and Oceania geopolitically peripheral to the world's central continent. About 75 per cent of the world's people live in Eurasia, and most of the world's physical wealth is there as well, both in its enterprises and underneath its soil. Eurasia accounts for 60 per cent of the world's GNP and about three-fourths of the world's known energy resources." (p.31)

“It is also a fact that America is too democratic at home to be autocratic abroad. This limits the use of America's power, especially its capacity for military intimidation. Never before has a populist democracy attained international supremacy. But the pursuit of power is not a goal that commands popular passion, except in conditions of a sudden threat or challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being. The economic self-denial (that is, defense spending) and the human sacrifice (casualties, even among professional soldiers) required in the effort are uncongenial to democratic instincts. Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization." (p.35)

"Two basic steps are thus required: first, to identify the geostrategically dynamic Eurasian states that have the power to cause a potentially important shift in the international distribution of power and to decipher the central external goals of their respective political elites and the likely consequences of their seeking to attain them;... second, to formulate specific U.S. policies to offset, co-opt, and/or control the above..." (p. 40)

"...To put it in a terminology that harkens back to the more brutal age of ancient empires, the three grand imperatives of imperial geostrategy are to prevent collusion and maintain security dependence among the vassals, to keep tributaries pliant and protected, and to keep the barbarians from coming together." (p.40)

"Henceforth, the United States may have to determine how to cope with regional coalitions that seek to push America out of Eurasia, thereby threatening America's status as a global power." (p.55)

"Uzbekistan, nationally the most vital and the most populous of the central Asian states, represents the major obstacle to any renewed Russian control over the region. Its independence is critical to the survival of the other Central Asian states, and it is the least vulnerable to Russian pressures." (p. 121)

[Referring to an area he calls the "Eurasian Balkans" and a 1997 map in which he has circled the exact location of the current conflict - describing it as the central region of pending conflict for world dominance] "Moreover, they [the Central Asian Republics] are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely Russia, Turkey and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold." (p.124)

"The world's energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia's economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea." (p.125)

"Uzbekistan is, in fact, the prime candidate for regional leadership in Central Asia." (p.130)

"Once pipelines to the area have been developed, Turkmenistan's truly vast natural gas reserves augur a prosperous future for the country's people.” (p.132)

"In fact, an Islamic revival - already abetted from the outside not only by Iran but also by Saudi Arabia - is likely to become the mobilizing impulse for the increasingly pervasive new nationalisms, determined to oppose any reintegration under Russian - and hence infidel - control." (p. 133).

"For Pakistan, the primary interest is to gain Geostrategic depth through political influence in Afghanistan - and to deny to Iran the exercise of such influence in Afghanistan and Tajikistan - and to benefit eventually from any pipeline construction linking Central Asia with the Arabian Sea." (p.139)

"Turkmenistan... has been actively exploring the construction of a new pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Arabian Sea..." (p.145)

"It follows that America's primary interest is to help ensure that no single power comes to control this geopolitical space and that the global community has unhindered financial and economic access to it." (p148)

"China's growing economic presence in the region and its political stake in the area's independence are also congruent with America's interests." (p.149)

"America is now the only global superpower, and Eurasia is the globe's central arena. Hence, what happens to the distribution of power on the Eurasian continent will be of decisive importance to America's global primacy and to America's historical legacy." (p.194)

"Without sustained and directed American involvement, before long the forces of global disorder could come to dominate the world scene. And the possibility of such a fragmentation is inherent in the geopolitical tensions not only of today's Eurasia but of the world more generally." (p.194)

"With warning signs on the horizon across Europe and Asia, any successful American policy must focus on Eurasia as a whole and be guided by a Geostrategic design." (p.197)

"That puts a premium on maneuver and manipulation in order to prevent the emergence of a hostile coalition that could eventually seek to challenge America's primacy..." (p. 198)

"The most immediate task is to make certain that no state or combination of states gains the capacity to expel the United States from Eurasia or even to diminish significantly its decisive arbitration role." (p. 198)

"In the long run, global politics are bound to become increasingly uncongenial to the concentration of hegemonic power in the hands of a single state. Hence, America is not only the first, as well as the only, truly global superpower, but it is also likely to be the very last." (p.209)

"Moreover, as America becomes an increasingly multi-cultural society, it may find it more difficult to fashion a consensus on foreign policy issues, except in the circumstance of a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat." (p. 211)

To order The Grand Chessboard by Zbigniew Brzezinski through, click here



Is Democracy Inimical To Empire Building? Written by Zahir Ebrahim   
Wednesday, 18 June 2008

by Zahir Ebrahim

Zbigniew Brzezinski asserts quite candidly:
"Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization."
Well! If this is indeed the case, then that would explain many things wouldn't it? At the least, it would explain the ignorance of the US public with respect to it's government misdeeds abroad, for if informed, they just might hold their rulers accountable, and not allow atrocities to be committed in their name in the guise of protecting or extending "national or geopolitical interests". ZB has perhaps also made the unstated assumption that in a democracy, its people are basically kind and not blood thirsty war mongers. This is why he observes that they will only agree to war if they perceive a "direct external threat" or a "challenge to the public's sense of domestic well-being".

Let's examine this assertion by ZB. How does one define well-being? For instance, would the US public go to war if they couldn't fill up their SUVs anymore? Or will they only go to war upon a Pearl Harbor? What is their national threshold? History further demonstrates the execution of Socrates at the hands of a democracy, and a cynic could perhaps argue that democracy is necessarily ignorant, and ZB is being unnecessarily optimistic. He could also argue, that the self indulgent population of this opulent country couldn't care less even if they knew what was going on in their name, and may point out the example of Israel.

Israel is billed as a Democracy in the midst's of a barbaric and dictatorial Middle East, an enlightened Europe in the Arab heartland, a beacon of education and civilization among the backward and unruly Arabs – as Moshe Katsav, Israel's President had so dramatically pointed out about the Palestinian Arabs living under Israeli military occupation:
“... people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy.”*1
A cynic may well argue that ZB's theory of Democracy being inimical to empire building seems to be hogwash when applied to Israel. Everyone admits that Israel has a freer printed press than the United States, with a broader range of opinions being expressed there, and furthermore, that it is a democracy, even if only a racist one and primarily only for its Jewish population, at least they do elect their leaders. Then how comes Israel can persist in its illegal occupation and systematic genocide of their own Semitic brethren and cousins, the Palestinians, and the same war criminals get re-elected time and again? How can they persist in enjoying ecstatic visions of owning all the lands between the Nile and the Euphrates rivers? Perhaps this “informed people” concept of the “populist democracy” is overblown? The cynic might even argue that the premise of people giving a damn just because they live in a democracy, even when they might have strong moral traditions, is beguiling. Aren't the Jews in Israel supposed to be very moral and highly aware people, especially given their own recent history of a terrible holocaust, and a free press? Then how do they still end up being led by known killers and war criminals?

The cynic might further protest that if the chief proponent of the Holocaust museum, himself a Holocaust survivor, and a Nobel Laureate author of such works as “Night”, who while vociferously argues that the world should never forget and condemns the silence of the people that led to the holocaust: “and I still curse the killers, their accomplices, the indifferent spectators who knew and kept silent”,*2 is silent himself to criticize Israel's own racial genocide in their own back yard, then how do you expect the ordinary citizenry to behave any differently?

The cynic would suggest that America is no different than Israel, aren't they ideological allies? Why should democracy be inimical to imperial mobilization in one case, and not the other?

Faced with these basic contradictions that few in the mainstream media would dare enlighten him about, perhaps because of their own ignorance as the basic qualifications for them seems to be "good looks" rather than "good minds", our cynic would have to go to Mars and seek counsel from the alien observers to learn that over there on Mars, they call it hypocrisy and thuggery. But here on Earth it is called Anti-Semitism and “war on terrorism”.

An Empirical Model of Apartheid Israel

Our cynic would be informed by the alien observers from Mars that all of Israel's funding comes from the United States, therefore their own populace don't have to shell out the money to finance their country's economic growth or militarization. He would learn that Israel is a fraudulent creation born of a fraudulent motto a land for a people, for a people without land, for a land without people (how do they keep that going?). A country acquired by mercilessly displacing the local Palestinian population and making them refugees in their own homeland, while inviting the Jews from the entire world to come live in Israel. Founded on the racist ideology of a Jews only country much like apartheid South Africa's 'white only neighborhoods', born of the Zionist vision of a handful of ideologues over a century ago to re-gather the Jews of the Diaspora of over 2000 years into a single homeland before any holocaust had occurred, they dream of conquering all the Arab lands from the “Nile to the Euphrates" as the greater Israel. The Zionist among them, living both in Israel and in the United States, continue to plan for the realization of their vision in the corridors of power in Washington. They seem to be succeeding.

The cynic will learn that the Zionists founded the organization JINSA in the mid 1970s with the explicit charter to make US strong in the Middle East, a land of oil and natural riches coveted by the US for fueling its own Hegemonic plans, with Israel as its core instrument of execution. Israel maintains a very influential lobbying group AIPAC, to not only influence the elections of politicians that support their cause and to defeat those politicians who oppose them, but also to systematically and continually influence the policy decisions of the law makers in Washington to favor Israel's interests, and actively discourage those policies that even while in favor of US interests may not be in Israel's best interest. The American politicians from both its parties dutifully report to AIPAC and show their true bipartisan spirit of working together for the sake of Israel by candid remarks like:

"I have always fought for the vital economic and military assistance that Israel needs. ... I called upon President Bush to respond to Israel's urgent request for assistance to confront its unprecedented economic and military crisis. The President answered with the [$9 billion] aid package he submitted to Congress last week. As House Democratic Leader, I pledge to you today: Democrats in Congress will be in the lead in the fight for passing this emergency package. ... Let no one ever question our unshakable commitment to the security that Israel must have and the safety of the Israeli people and to its qualitative military edge. Israel will never stand alone, because America will never abandon Israel."*3

The Zionists have organized other powerful think tanks and institutions to maintain their influence over the United States' politicians and upon its all important public opinion - the key to their continued survival in the Middle East. They are also a direct beneficiary of this US "war on terrorism", which is a pretext to redraw the map of the Middle East, with Israel exercising its own mini Zionist hegemony in the region in service of their benefactors in Washington.

The Israeli governments regardless of their stripes (Likud or Labor), usually dominated by Zionist ideologues, continue to oppress the remaining Palestinians now living in less than 22% of their original pre-1948 land, known as the West Bank and Gaza strip. The Zionist desire is to grab even this region in the West Bank (the thin densely populated Gaza strip being useless for them for anything besides a giant prison camp for the unwanted Palestinians) which contains all the waters of Palestine underneath its rich fertile soil that Israel desperately needs for its own Jews only cities. The successive governments purposely force one crisis after another to make pretexts for building more settlements and partitioning the area into disjointed Bantustans. Their hope is that the Palestinians will finally give up and just leave out of desperation.

The Zionists look towards the "settler" model of apartheid South Africa and the Pilgrim settlers of the United States of America. They seem to be following the same polices that put the majority of the black South Africans in their own mineral and diamond rich homeland into poverty stricken slums and disjointed Bantustans, and the native American Indians resettled into isolated barren reservations as the white man took upon himself the burden to civilize them, taking over their choice lands in the process to construct the egalitarian United States of America. Egalitarian that is, for everyone else except the native Indian. The Zionists well understand that justice will be hard to administer once a new Jewish generation is born and raised on the soil in Palestine, for they were born there, it's not their fault that their ancestors stole the land from the Palestinians. They will defend themselves as vigorously from eviction as a Californian would if the lowly Mexican were to come knocking at their door.

Thus one sees the Zionist rulers of Israel delay making any reasonable peace because they know that time is in their favor, that making any kind of just peace in the future will have to take into account the facts on the ground that they are busy seeding! They also learn from the post apartheid South Africa that once the wealth and power is accumulated in the hands of the minority ruling class, its just and equitable redistribution later, when justice purportedly prevails and peace has been established between the warring factions, is next to impossible.

As a consequence of this "settler" policy that most everyone in Israel would admit to themselves, but perhaps only in their bathroom mirrors, they also live in perpetual fear that the injustices and oppression they have afflicted on the Palestinians and the region, would one day come to haunt them. They especially fear that the Palestinians and their surrounding Arab neighbors may one day become strong enough that they will come back and demand their homes and their lands back. Having studied their own histories quite carefully, they well understand that they have bit the hand that has fed them in the past, when the Christian West was persecuting them for centuries, the Islamic East offered them refuge and shelter in their dominion. The Zionists can also recall the hand of Islam on the necks of the Jews in the battle of Khayber during the early period of Islam, when the residents of Khayber were paid back for their treacherous subversion of a peace treaty, by the Prophet of Islam with Justice prescribed in their own Torah and of their own choosing. They further realize that every Muslim in the billion plus population is also aware of this history and may seek retribution one day:

“It will have blood, they say: blood will have blood.”*4

They are afraid of the day of reckoning!

This fear, has now become so deep rooted in the very fabric of Israeli society, that they are blinded to any suffering they continue to inflict on the Palestinians, as they feel it is either them or us, and this is a positive feedback loop. More brutally they suppress the Palestinians, more paranoid they get when the Palestinians hit back with whatever little means at their disposal. Thus as a nation, the Israelis are on permanent war footings of their own deliberate making, and as per ZB's threat perception model, their populace will tend to elect people whom they see will protect them from the enemy. The killers of their enemy are their saviors. They regularly send their young sons and daughters to fight their enemies in the military. Almost every household in Israel has some family member having served in the armed forces, many of them stay on reservist duty. For Israel, democracy isn't inimical to their expansion plans, because the majority of the public is complicit in these goals, either through direct contribution, tacit acceptance, or willful ignorance.

Moral ambiguities of Elie Wiesel - a Holocaust survivor!

These however do not include the small percentage of pathological cases so traumatized by their holocaust memories and sufferings that they are psychologically unable to see Israel do any wrong. Some of these survivors have become very high profile writers, and exercise a great deal of influence in policy making related to Holocaust remembrance that helps sustain support for Israel. They argue that their suffering is so unparalleled that

"It is a mystery whose parallel may only be the one of Sinai when something was revealed",

and therefore they deserve special moral privilege as victims of the Holocaust. They generate a lot of controversy among Jewish moralists themselves who point out that:

"Although the Holocaust inflicted horrible injustice upon us, it did not grant us certificate of everlasting righteousness. The murderers where amoral; the victims were not made moral. To be moral you must behave ethically. The test of that is daily and constant."

Their consequent and sustained subjecting of the Palestinians to immoral and illegal occupation and daily persecution is debated heatedly among the moralist and academics. But it's mainly that, a source of intellectual debate and polemics, because the reality on the ground has been there for more than half a century, if their debate had any value, they would have surely figured it out by now and rectified their injustices.

Those unable to see 'Israel do any wrong' due to their own Holocaust experience are clearly psychologically unable to deal with it and unable to reason or tell the difference between right and wrong any more. For them, perhaps it was the cataclysmic and apocalyptic event they feel it to be. Albeit not all Holocaust survivors have lost their ability to reason as traumatized they might be, this is the case with the author of “Night” as stated in his own defense for his censurable silence on Israel:

"Do not ask me, a traumatized Jew, to be pro-Palestinian. I totally identify with Israel and cannot go along with the leftist intellectuals who reject it. Perhaps another generation will be free enough to criticize Israel; I cannot.";

"My loyalty to my people, to our people, and to Israel comes first and prevents me from saying anything critical of Israel outside Israel. That is the price I pay for living in the Diaspora. As a Jew I see my role as a melitz yosher, a defender of Israel: I defend even her mistakes. Yes I feel that as a Jew who resides outside Israel I must identify with whatever Israel does - even her errors. That is the least Jews in the Diaspora can do for Israel: either speak up in praise, or keep silent. Therefore, I believe if I have something to say about certain things I do not like about Israel - and there are some - I must go there".

These words are not from a rational mind, rather a severely scarred for life person by his own admissions. Hence when he says the following about the Palestinian occupied territories:

"Israel did not want those territories; they were imposed on Israel in war.",*5

it is unfair to label that as hypocrisy, but rather someone who cannot see reality because he is so wrapped up in his own trauma. Hence those who criticize this prolific author and Holocaust survivor for his hypocrisy, must realize that he is not a rational person. For a rational mind, it would indeed be hypocrisy. Those psychologically ill may perhaps be forgiven for what appears to be their moral ambiguities, just as those not able to reason are not held to account in any judicial system. By the same token, they are also unfit to hold important positions of influence where their inability to tell right from wrong due to their own loss of objectivity and rational thinking, can lead to another's suffering.

If they do hold such positions, as the author of “Night” does, then they must be removed from those positions. The fact that they are not removed, and continue to be given prominence and influence that helps perpetuate the occupation of another people, is not an indictment against them. But against those who keep them there, in order to exploit the personal and collective sufferings of the Jews in the Holocaust, in the service of their own nefarious Zionist agenda that was planned in the centuries past to occupy Palestine, before the Holocaust even transpired. Those who are so indicted, and justify the stealing of the land and the lives of another innocent people, shattering their tabula rasa, are hypocrites and plain old thugs, and will not be forgiven. The Zionists have hijacked the holocaust memories and Judaism itself, one of the great religions of the world, and the rational and moral Jews themselves will not forgive them. They are orchestrating and perpetuating such crimes against humanity, their complicity and contrivance in this fictitious "war on terrorism" bringing such worldwide destruction and economic exploitation, that humanity itself will not forgive them.

The motivations and achievements of bringing the plight of the European Jewry who were hitherto oppressed themselves in many Christian European countries of the world, into the limelight of the world, and freeing them of their social bondage, and honoring and remembering the plight of its victims of horrors of WWII concentration camps, is indeed a prerogative and a right dutifully exercised by its people, in fact by all people as such atrocities are a calamity for all mankind. But not at the expense of victimizing another innocent people and subjecting them to such sustained sufferings, that their plight now begins to rival those of their oppressors.

While the Holocaust suffering of the Jews lasted for six long apocalyptic years, the suffering and persecution of many Palestinians has gone on for more than three decades and is no less cataclysmic for the victims, some displaced in 1948 are still living in refugee camps with generations growing up and dying in these camps. With children being born in refugee camps in appalling conditions in the sniper gun-sights of the Israeli soldiers, and dying in the same camps under a hail of Israeli tank shells, never having seen the outside world, and never having entertained any hope of escape from their predicament, in their innocence they ask what makes the Jews suffering an holocaust and theirs merely murder that the world can tolerate as if it was an ordinary street crime? Millions are being held captives in their own homeland with daily humiliations and torture, treatment that one would not met out to a dog.

Those who advocate support of Israel at the expense of enslaving Palestinians and killing them in small numbers at a time on a daily basis and wounding many more so that they would eventually die off as cripples but not raise the alarm in the rest of the world because numbers seem to define when mass killing is called a genocide and when it isn't, or removing them forcibly from their homeland euphemistically calling it a "population transfer", are guilty of the same crimes of genocide they accuse their own oppressors of. Their claims to ancestral lands as justification for their destruction of the indigenous population that has existed for 10,000 years, far older than their own claim of 2500 years, and in justification of their own sufferings at the hands of quite another people, ring hollower than an empty drum, and not able to withstand the scrutiny of any court of law, penal or moral, not just on Earth, but also here on Mars. And indeed, any such claims if entertained, need to be argued in a court of law, not at the barrel of a gun, and certainly not against a defenseless civil population using the animalistic “might makes right” morality long outlawed in the developed Universe, but somehow still being practiced ubiquitously on earth.

Were it not for the Zionists and their machinations to forcibly create “Der Judenstaat” - the Jewish State - as envisioned by their founding father Theodor Herzl in 1896 in modern day Arab Palestine, the Jews and Muslims would be living in peace, cousins that they are, sharing many of the same ancestral Prophets and traditions, all being children of Prophet Ebrahim (Abraham), and there perhaps would also not be this fictitious "war on terrorism" being waged now. Before the Zionists set their eyes on Palestine, the Jews, and Arabs, Christians and Muslims alike, were living in Palestine peacefully, side by side, culturally intermingling, and it used to be difficult to tell them apart except by their respective religious clothing if they were religious, and not at all otherwise. Now they are at daggers drawn. How the Zionist thugs will be brought to justice on earth remains to be seen. They are for the moment very powerful, and this power may ultimately also spell their death knell, and that of their people, as it did for Firoun (Pharaoh) and his people. The silent prayers of innocent victims, be they Palestinian, Jews, or any peoples, are never ignored! There is a day of reckoning, for everyone!

Ineffectiveness of the minority Jewish Voices of Dissent

There is also a small minority of conscionable and outspoken Jews living both in Israel and in the United States, who actively oppose this 'moral ambiguity' and the vicious cycle of violence, and argue that this will lead to their collective suicide, both morally and physically, and they must stop oppressing the Palestinians and make a just peace with them. They come from all walks of life and professions, from the intellectual professors to teenagers. They oppose the Israeli government's oppressive policies and many of them even refuse to serve in the Israeli military preferring to go to jails instead. To last count, there were approx. 750 such Refuseniks. Some Jews even bravely put themselves in the path of the Israeli military onslaught in order to protect the innocent Palestinian homes, and sacrifice their own lives as moral witnesses to the crimes against humanity being committed in the name of Jews, putting to lie the Zionist claims to Judaism. But these voices for peace are presently a small minority and not very influential on the government or the elections. Their ideas of justice and morality also vary widely, from a single democratic non racist homeland for all the indigenous peoples, including the Palestinian Muslims and Christians in accordance with principles of modern statehood in the civilized world and with full rights of return restored for all Palestinians earlier displaced and as demanded by the UN resolutions, to a further partitioned two very co-dependent and unequal states with Israel kept much stronger than Palestine along the 1967 borders to continue to serve the imperial interests of the power-brokers on Earth, and the Zionist Jews allowed to hold on to majority of stolen Palestine.

The proponents of the latter, and there are many, do not really understand the realities on the ground today for the Palestinians, and the Bantustans that have been created by annexations and appropriations by Israel, nor the stratification in Israeli society where the wealth of the region is concentrated in the hands of an elite few. The facade of the peace process also revolves around this latter idea and intentionally ignores any redistribution of wealth, return of the refugees, significant compensation for pain and suffering, and return of all the appropriations and land theft done by the Zionists since 1948. There are only a few proponents of the former more just and equitable solution.

In either case, the very courageous Jews who dare to speak out against the Jewish State and its systematic and genocidal oppression of the Palestinian people are often derided and labeled by the Zionists as “self-hating Jews” and “Judenrats”. For Christians, the honorific becomes “Nazis” and “anti-Semites”, and for Muslims as for the rest of the world opposed to the Jewish State and its theology of Zionism, it remains the rallying battle cry “rise of anti-Semitism” in the world. The memories of the holocaust are deftly splashed across the globe in movies to television in response so that the world may never forget what they did to the Jews, and because of which the Jews today deserve special considerations and are beyond the pale of ordinary morality and law, for they follow their own god’s law as the chosen peoples. It is often very effective in silencing the critics. Indeed, not only is this theology preached to the world, but to the Jewish populations themselves both in Israel as well as in the Diaspora so that they too may be convinced that Zionism is Judaism that Moses brought from the Mountain exclusively for them. Thus all its moral commandments are interpreted to only apply to them and as such being endowed with a super morality above all else as god’s chosen peoples. The teachings are kept well hidden in Hebrew but are an open secret among the Hebrew speaking populations as composing the essential Jewish ethos of domination of the lowly goyems by the chosen ones. All this ultimately results in most Jews having attended such Hebrew schools growing up believing in this theology of “superiority”, leaving only a handful of rational dissenters behind who are easily dismissed as “self-hating Jews”.

Help: those nasty boys are pelting stones at our tanks!

Finally, our cynic will learn that in order to maintain the very essential US public opinion support, and knowing quite well that the US is a democratic nation where the populace will not stand for injustices committed on an innocent people with their tax dollars, the Israelis and their Zionist supporters spend considerable resources and energies in spinning myths and rewriting history. Their most impressive and successful myth, that will one day perhaps rival those in ancient civilizations, is that "it is the poor Israel that is under siege by the evil and barbaric Palestinians illegally living on land given to the Jews by God Almighty Himself and it is so written in their ancient scriptures". This is the dominant image in the minds of the mainstream Americans when they see the stone throwing Palestinian kid protesting his slavery of a different sort - he is free to flee but not to stay on his own land! The myth is now so powerful that it has swept over the usually rational minds of even the educated and the scholarly, the newsman and the congressman, such that the truly innocent among them do not even stop to ponder simple questions like: where are the tanks, the check points, the homes being demolished, the UN built refugee camps slum dwellers, the curfews, the midnight knocks on the door, the arbitrary beatings and imprisonment of men of all ages, the bulk of the dead kids shot in the head or the eyes, and permanently crippled casualties in this ultimate battle of biblical proportions between good and evil? In Tel Aviv Or in Jenin?

As a parting shot, our cynic was warned by the alien observer from Mars about tolerating hypocrisy in the earthly societies, and the consequence of turning a blind eye towards it. While not being a penal crime on earth, it was a moral crime in every religion and value system in the Universe, and especially in the Earth's major religions it was the gravest of sins punishable by eternal damnation in the lowest recesses of hell. The reason why hypocrisy is morally so repugnant, our cynic was informed, is because it is the essential seed that enables spreading of the “banality of evil” possible in society.*6

This is what had led to the holocaust of the Jews in the first place, and is indeed responsible for spreading oppression and misery wherever it flourishes, on Earth, or elsewhere in the Universe. There would be peace and justice in the Universe, if all its inhabitants eschewed hypocrisy and adopted the simple universal moral truth logically stemming from not being hypocritical in the self-interest of survival:*7

what is good for me to do to you, should be good for you to do to me,

what is evil for you to do to me, should be evil for me to do to you too!

But of course mortals forget sometimes. A gentle reminder is all it takes to put them back on track, their sense of self preservation and conscience being deadly weapons against hypocrisy. Those Neanderthals who argue that human beings came about because of the struggle for “survival of the fittest”, and “might makes right” is the only evolutionary path to higher life forms and progressive civilizations as it winnows out the weak, can perhaps be asked to explain why those who willingly sacrifice themselves and their offspring at the higher altar of “truth and justice” in their courageous battles against corruption and oppression, with no guarantees of success within their own or even foreseeable life times, are immortalized as heroes and role models for all future time, while there is no memory left of the “arrogant and the mighty”, who are only derided even when remembered?

Phew, what a lesson for our cynic! Better not visit Mars anymore, lest more hypocrisy gets revealed. They seem to have a dossier prepared on the earthlings!

These “reflections from Mars” are first order models to help understand what is really going on in the Apartheid Israel, and are only accurate to the extent that they explain the observed phenomenon.*8

The fraudulent creation of Israel in Palestine through Machiavellian machinations are plainly manifest in the writings of David Ben Gurion and his political Zionist progenitor Theodor Herzl. Even a simple search in Google on the internet will reveal their dastardly plans for systematically depopulating Palestine of its indigenous Arab people in their own Machiavellian words a plenty: “What is inconceivable in normal times is possible in revolutionary times” as David Ben Gurion insightfully noted, and which Ariel Sharon is diligently putting into practice in annexing the rest of Palestine piece meal by deceitfully inventing the “revolutionary times” as did all his predecessors. Unlike the ordinary person in the West who seeks immediate gratification, the Zionists are long term strategic planners as evidenced by Herzl's own statement:

“In Basle I founded the Jewish state ...
Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.”

They take baby steps in accomplishing their goals, which become irreversible steps once taken. This Zionist strategy is also what is at play in the Neocon occupation of Iraq as will become apparent through the course of this book – which is why neither the front face in the American White House, nor the front face in the Israeli Knesset, really matters a whole lot so long as the overarching goal of Eretz Israel: “from the Nile to the Euphrates” is employed as a political ideology, and its realization, a national mandate.

Information today is easily accessible to anyone – if they seek it. We don't even have to go very far in history. The Israeli contemporary scholars keep reminding themselves of how they acquired the Palestinian lands, as in the recent short book from a courageous and outspoken Israeli Jew, scholar, and writer, Tanya Reinhart: “Israel/Palestine - How to End the War of 1948”. A brief excerpt from its very first page is reproduced below. Her own introductory words are a telling example of the brain washing that goes on in the Israeli society to convince its new generation, and whatever conscionable population there might be, to tow the Zionist's ideological fiction much like in the United States:

"The state of Israel founded in 1948 following a war which the Israelis call the War of Independence, and the Palestinians call the Nakba - the catastrophe. A haunted, persecuted people sought to find a shelter and a state for itself, and did so at a horrible price to another people. During the war of 1948, more than half of the Palestinian population at the time - 1,380,000 people - were driven off their homeland by the Israeli army. Though Israel officially claimed that a majority of refugees fled and were not expelled, it still refused to allow them to return, as a UN resolution demanded shortly after 1948 war. Thus, the Israeli land was obtained through ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Palestinian inhabitants. This is not a process unfamiliar in history. Israel's actions remain incomparable to the massive ethnic cleansing of Native Americans by the settlers and government of the United states. Had Israel stopped there, in 1948, I could probably live with it. As an Israeli, I grew up believing that this primal sin our state was founded on may be forgiven one day, because the founder's generation was driven by the faith that this was the only way to save the Jewish people from the danger of another holocaust."

While Tanya Reinhart is courageous enough to openly admit the hypocrisy that she was raised in, other academics who presumably are also “leftist” dissenters and the voice of conscience of Israel – or so they project themselves, aren’t quite as forthcoming. They celebrate the existence and accomplishments of Israel as their Jewish State, albeit sometimes with mixed feelings and occasional pangs of guilt that they are famously known for in the Middle East - they will first plan to kill you with a design most brutal, and then come to your funeral lamenting:

“We can forgive them for killing our children, we cannot forgive them for making us kill theirs.”*9

And during this show of “profound remorse”, they still continue to inhabit the same lands that they have militarily usurped under self-righteous prerogatives that they have given themselves as god's chosen people, and where they weren't even born to start with. Here is one such voice – Israeli Professor Barauch Kimmerling, a self proclaimed leftist dissenter and teacher of sociology in Hebrew University in Jerusalem, writing in an article “My Holiday, Their Tragedy”:

“As a Jew, an atheist and a Zionist, I have two memorial days in my country, Israel. One for the Holocaust and one for soldiers who fell in wars. I also have one day of celebration, the anniversary of the day Israel declared its statehood. [...] Independence Day is a holiday for me, but also an opportunity for intense self-introspection. A person needs a state and land, and this is my land, my homeland, despite the fact that I was not born here. I am proud of the unprecedented accomplishments of this country, and feel personally responsible for its failures, foolishness, injustice, evil, and its oppression of its citizens and residents (Jewish, Arab, and others) as well as of those who are defined and defined themselves as her enemies. I know that my holiday, a day of joy and pride for me, is a day of mourning and tragedy for some of Israel's citizens and, more so, for members of the Palestinian people everywhere. I know that as long as we, all Jews everywhere, do not acknowledge this, we will not be able to live here in safety, every man and woman under their vine and under their fig tree. Happy holidays, Israel.”*10

I am still trying to parse what it means to be a “Jew, an atheist and a Zionist” all at the same time. Only intellectual moralists living in Israel can perhaps unravel such intricate conundrums and still sleep well at night and be able to look at themselves in the morning. While David Ben Gurion can claim god gave the Jews Palestine thousands of years ago in one breadth, and in the other find it okay to use god’s name to bring misery to another peoples by his own hands:

“If I were an Arab leader, I would never sign an agreement with Israel. It is normal; we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs. There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?”*11

“We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return ...
The old will die and the young will forget.”*12

As now, there is no fear of a god anymore. Nietzsche had made sure of that in the nineteenth century for them as the elite prerogative of the superman having their own super morality beyond that of the ken of ordinary men, as no one morality may fit all sizes of peoples - some chosen by god, others chosen to serve the ones chosen by god, and then god died after issuing substantial land grants to his superior and choicest peoples:

“According to Halachah, classic Judaism's laws and customs, for example "compassion towards others" extends to Jews only. Murder or manslaughter is judged mildly when the perpetrator is Jewish and the victim a non-Jew. Also according to Halachah, it is accepted for a Jew to kill a non-Jew if he is laying claim to "eternal Jewish land". This is what the settlers' religious organisations are alleging. There is no corresponding law in Israel's judicial system but in effect it influences the system as punishment of such crimes is very mild. Israel's state terrorism, theft of land and occupation, demolition of houses, the building of the Wall etc including the so called 'extra-judicial killings' (assassinations), are seen by Zionists as legitimate defence of the Nation and therefore fall under international law - which Israel ignores [..] Buber critisised Nazism while commending the Jewish Religion (Hassidism) but keeping quiet about its dehumanising of non-Jews (goyim). These double standards act to increase Israel's chauvinism and hatred of all non-Jews.”*13

“There is a huge gap between us (Jews) and our enemies not just in ability but in morality, culture, sanctity of life, and conscience. They are our neighbors here, but it seems as if at a distance of a few hundred meters away, they are people who do not belong to our continent, to our world, but actually belong to different galaxy.”*14

‘ “The bitter irony of fate decreed that the same biological and racist argument extended by the Nazis, and which inspired the inflammatory laws of Nuremberg, serve as the basis for the official definition of Jewishness in the bosom of the state of Israel” (quoted in Joseph Badi, Fundamental Laws of the State of Israel NY, 1960, P.156)’*15

And the divine sanction to acquire the Promised Land with a now dead divine made it entirely reasonable to destroy indigenous Palestinian history, culture, villages, and society entirely from the face of the earth with open unreserved declarations, as there is no fear of retribution by the God of anger and Retribution – eye for an eye - of the Old Testament:

“Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I do not blame you because geography books no longer exist. Not only do the books not exist, the Arab villages are not there either. Nahlal arose in the place of Mahlul; Kibbutz Gvat in the place of Jibta; Kibbutz Sarid in the place of Huneifis; and Kefar Yehushua in the place of Tal al-Shuman. There is not a single place built in this country that did not have a former Arab population.”*16

“We declare openly that the Arabs have no right to settle on even one centimeter of Eretz Israel ... Force is all they do or ever will understand. We shall use the ultimate force until the Palestinians come crawling to us on all fours.” and “When we have settled the land, all the Arabs will be able to do about it will be to scurry around like drugged cockroaches in a bottle.”*17

One could argue as did the Martian, that it is actually the “superiority” complex imparted to the Jews by their Zionism theology that makes them so inhuman. But in reality, the majority of Zionist power-brokers and their executers are atheists and “cultural Jews”! So it must only be that god died for them after giving them the fantastic land grants. If they had remained religious and then carried on with their murder and mayhem, the Martian observations may have been more correct that they are imbued with this sense of superiority over others. Indeed, I have not been able to discern any visible signs of this superiority in them in much closer examinations - they only appear to be common criminals perpetuating monumental crimes because they can get away with it due to the support of their super-power sponsors, and possess no more extra-ordinariness about them then did their arch nemesis Eichmann. They only have courage to wage wars by way of deception, and on defenseless civilian populations; they live off hand-outs from the American tax payers, and offer only spying on their generous sponsors in return.

It might be worth an American asking the questions what does the Jewish State do for America for all their tax dollars except be its thuggish bouncer in the Middle East? Could they use that money on themselves in improving their own schools, social security benefits, and healthcare? The $9 Billion that was just given to Israel, how many public schools and libraries could that have kept open and properly funded in America? How much more Federal tax refund could they have got back, and continue to get back for all the Pentagon Defense contracts and military aid given to Israel for it to remain an effective bouncer? Do they want a bouncer in the Middle East? By what moral right? The one of law of the Jungle, that “might makes right”? Then how would they claim to be anything more than just glorified baboons in T-shirts and slacks? A civilization of sunglasses wearing baboons?

Now that we have discovered the true reality of Israel, mainly in the words of the Israeli Jews themselves, and also tried to answer some hard questions for ourselves (which I hope the astute reader has done before reaching here), where does that leave us today?

We can write and lament all we want, but so long as the American peoples continue to finance and arm Israel with their tax dollars and permit this genocide and hypocrisy to continue, there will be more and more books written in the future about the “banality of evil”!

The all and mighty Zionist military machinery in Israel is operating with full impunity and with extreme prejudice against a defenseless peoples using the same terror regime as they employed to create the Jewish State in Palestine in 1948 (see Rachel Corrie in the next Chapter). Especially in the backdrop of this fiction of “war on terrorism”, they have acquired the “license” to take over whatever remaining land there is in the fertile West Bank in the guise of fighting the “terrorists”.

Only the American public can stop them and force them to roll back – indeed to return to the land they were born in, the United States of America (and Eastern Europe), and return what they stole in 1948 back to its real owners as the only Just and moral solution to the Question of Palestine.*18

And this is also why the American public is deliberately kept the least bit informed about Israel lest they should demand just such a moral solution for their brethren in humanity suffering entirely due to the American sponsorship of their oppressors. But you be the judge of that as you also peruse through the next chapter about the media’s role in keeping you locked up as prisoners of the cave, and reach your own thoughtful and conscionable conclusions!

It is possible that some may dismiss my “Martian discourse” that I have employed here, a tool of objectivity I learned from my honored college Professor Noam Chomsky, as liberal (or conservative) propaganda (as the case may be). These labels have become a convenient modus operandi for both sides in the very narrow spectrum discourse on any issue that exists in America, to discredit the other side. There is of course no need to evaluate what one is hearing, since one owns the truth, everyone else is a liar. For these people, my only message is 'you can bring a horse to the pond, you can't force it to drink', and if Socrates were alive today, you would be leading the charge of 'drink the hemlock'!

However, the critical reader experiencing that slight tug at their conscience, and perhaps hearing the fleeting whisper of clanking chains for the first time, might wish to look into this further. They might hear a ring of truth in this Muslim writer, whose politics cannot be captured by the narrow straits of American labels such as Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, fundamentalist or secular, because Islam encompasses elements from all of them, and then some. But they are perhaps daunted at the prospect of reading all these books and undertaking the massive amounts of research needed to uncover truth which is always kept a Herculean effort away in this society. They may start by referring to the series of educational but brief pamphlets brought out by the grass-roots organization "If Americans Knew". Get their pamphlet "Rachel's Letters" to hear from a conscientious 23 year old Jew in her own words, why she gave her life in safeguarding her Jewish ideals to an Israeli Caterpillar bulldozer that was made in the USA and paid for by the American tax payer as part of America’s continued billions of dollars in annual financial aid to Israel. See next chapter for an excerpt from her letters to her mother.

The mission statement of this organization ably captures the sentiments of the founding fathers of this nation when they made Freedom of the Press an integral part of the very first amendment to the US Constitution. It reads:

“In a democracy, the ultimate responsibility for a nation's actions rests with its citizens. The top rung of government - the entity with the ultimate power of governance - is the asserted will of the people. Therefore, in any democracy, it is essential that its citizens be fully and accurately informed. In the United States, currently the most powerful nation on earth, it is even more essential that its citizens receive complete and undistorted information on topics of importance, so that they may wield their extraordinary power with wisdom and intelligence. Unfortunately such information is not always forthcoming. The mission of If Americans Knew is to inform and educate the American public on issues of major significance that are unreported, underreported, or misreported in the American media. It is our belief that when Americans know the facts on a subject, they will, in the final analysis, act in accordance with morality, justice, and the best interest of their nation, and the world. With insufficient information, or distorted information, they may do the precise opposite.”

Is America really different from Israel? Why is ZB so concerned about American Democracy?

America is a very unique country in modern times, with a relatively free civil society, its composition highly multicultural, and the majority of its population generally not seeking to dominate the world unlike the empires of colonial times. At least ZB does not think so, and neither does the 1996 public opinion poll that ZB cites betray so. I dare to presume that ZB is likely rather surprised himself by the sudden prominence of the crusading Evangelical Christians and their influence over an American President. But since they do not constitute a majority in this multicultural nation, ZB might tend to dismiss the impact of their 'la mission civilisatrice' crusading adventure, while still endorsing the “doctrinal motivational” value that can be squeezed out of it to rally the larger multicultural majority against the evil enemy of the West and hence garner their sustained support for imperial mobilization. However, for the Muslims at the receiving end of their “love of Jesus”, they are a significant menace, especially when their convoluted fanatical beliefs motivate major policy decisions in the White House – like support of Ariel Sharon and Israel over the beleaguered Palestinians, or making it “morally easier” for the American President George W. Bush Jr. to launch invasions upon Muslim nations driven by some insane religious zeal with “god” whispering in his ears:

“God told me to strike at al-Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East”

Apart from this mutational aberration however, ZB's thesis appears correct for America, as evidenced by the massive antiwar protests that brought Nixon to his knees and an end to the Vietnam War. Indeed, at least in theory, accurate and timely public knowledge has the ability to forestall governmental and institutional misdeeds in a democracy. And ZB would argue (I presume again) that in fact, it can even derail this new Crusade if the American people begin to understand what is really going on in the White House, because the majority of Americans are not motivated by such outdated passions anymore than they are motivated for imperial mobilization. But if they perceive an enemy (real or imagined) is out to get them, they will rise in self defense, as any self respecting nation would. ZB boldly recognized this about the Americans and cleverly argued that only a new Pearl Harbor will mobilize them for war, as otherwise: “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization.”

Some might argue however that despite his sagacious insights into the makings of empires, ZB could be too optimistic about Democracy. That this lofty ideal of Democracy, what Winston Churchill called the ~“worst form of government except for all the others”, can only become a reality in practice if the democracy is a genuine public franchise and not a carefully crafted deceptive process to support the democracy of the elite few; if the face of the elected leadership and presidency is not just a public image over behind the scenes policy makers who remain constant across administrations, and remain beyond the pale of democratic selection by the populace; if the election process offers real choices for intelligent candidates and is not a selection between carefully crafted dumb and dumber clones who invariably carry out the policies of the same “imperial thinkers” and “special interest” groups; if the majority public gets out to vote and does not remain apathetic even to the timely and accurate information delivered them; and if their votes are honestly counted in an unrigged election process. ZB does seems to have conveniently neglected to mention any of these self evident truisms of Democracy in his idealized projection of American Democracy, even while he is not unaware of them.

These are a lot of ifs. Does America really behave as the democracy ZB projects? Or does it act more like an oligarchic empire (or dare I say oily-garchic) with the veneer of democracy where the populace indeed does vote in elections but has little impact on essential imperial policy? An oilygarchy composed of the hydra of the military-industrial-financial-media-corporate-academia-special_interests complex largely run by the same small coterie of enormously wealthy institutional elite. How useful would accurate and timely public knowledge of their ruling elite's misdeeds be in such a case even if it were possible? Wouldn't it just change the actors at best every 4 years, the script remaining the same?

ZB, knowing full well the true makeup of American democracy, having been associated with both the Democrat and Republican Administrations for decades, and having claimed the dubious credit for handing the Soviets their Vietnam three decades earlier whose aftershock enables this “war on terrorism” today, is still worried that even in this bastardized democracy, adverse public opinion can be dangerous – primarily because he fears that the present generation of ordinary American people are not out to get the world (unlike the Zionist public of Israel forcibly occupying another's homeland), and can potentially fill the American main streets in protest! That their refusal to cooperate can bring the giant industrial wheels of the country to a grinding halt, send her lifeline - the Wall Street tumbling, and eviscerate the imperial pipe dreams in short order. Just think what could happen if just the dock workers refused to load and unload containers, and the truck drivers refused to drive? There'd be no food on the American tables and riots in the streets in no time! What forced the South African white apartheid leadership to accommodate Nelson Mandela and lift the ban from ANC? It was the millions of black South Africans in the streets – and they didn't even have a democracy for the blacks at the time! What toppled the Shah of Iran was not democracy, but an angry people each willing to loudly proclaim: 'I have had it up to here and am not gonna take it anymore'. The power of an angry peoples willing to lay down their lives for their rights and justice worries all tyrants and empires.

And it is all the more worrisome when a nation's Constitution has awarded its informed citizenry the rights to protest, to be armed, and to gather in the streets – regardless of how the Government is elected or constituted!

There is indeed a lot of thought behind his deceptively laconic statement “Democracy is inimical to imperial mobilization”, for what it really states is that public protest can be destructive to the oilygarchy interests. ZB surely realizes that the latter needs the public more than the public needs them. Thus the formulation of the Patriot Acts by the Neocons and kept on the back burner until just the right moment, then hurriedly rushed into Law by the current administration just before launching World War IV. This is according to a preemption plan for democracy, to systematically and in stages, deprive the public their Constitutional rights to legally protest and voice their dissent by creating a climate of fear, persecution, derision, and incarceration on any pretext and without producing evidence or criminal charges. Whereas note that in Israel, there is no such plan of record. Their press, their scholars, and their politicians openly debate all aspects of their colonization and “resettlement” of the Palestinians. Even the dissenters and Jewish peace activists get their voices prominently heard in Israeli press, primarily because the majority of the citizens are complicit in the Zionist aspirations of the state.

Also noteworthy is what is common with Israel – fear psychology. While Israel has set herself up on permanent war footings with Palestinians and is in perpetual state of war with them, America is also attempting to create a similar and permanent war footings with “World War IV”. The constant barrage of red alerts and threats from the terrorists as Pearl Harbor scenarios convinces the populace into accepting the ideas of “invasion”, “preemptive aggression”, oppression, and long term occupation of the enemy in the name of self defense.

Thus we see that ZB's observation for imperial mobilization has necessitated both a new Pearl Harbor, and the curtailment of civil liberties in order to counter the democratic instincts of the American public against imperial mobilization. Perhaps the Americans should create a new Prize in Honor of Zbigniew Brzezinski: “The Brzezinski Peace Prize”, awarded annually to the person creating the shrewdest Machiavellian doctrine in the world!

A word about the Swiss Cheese State

We hear about the “Palestinian state” and the “peace process” a lot. Can anyone draw for me what the Palestinian state looks like? Can you then spell Swiss cheese? Would you accept such a Swiss cheese as your country with no rights to air, sea, or a proper military for self-defense, with your economy entirely subservient to the larger nuclear armed neighbor’s who controls all the ingress and egress into your country at all the borders with military checkpoints, and who not only has you completely surrounded by a fourteen foot high wall, but also controls transitions from one Swiss hole to another? Before anyone utters another word about the “Palestinian state”, please think if you would accept such a state. If not, why would you compel a poor defenseless and beleaguered peoples of over fifty years under miserable military occupation to accept it on a Buntustan’d piece of their own continuously inhabited ancestral lands at the hands of American and European Jews who weren’t even born there? But wait another 50 years and they will all be born there. That is the Israeli plan!
Footnotes Chapter 3

*1 Moshe Katsav, President of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001.

*2 See Elie Wiesel's memoirs “All Rivers Run to the Sea”.

*3 This bipartisan American institutional support of Israel was declared in a speech to AIPAC by Nancy Pelosi on April 1, 2003. It's a twain twilight zone, President Bush, a right-wing Republican, calls Israeli Prime Minister a "man of peace" as he seeks to dispense justice to "evil doers", and House Leader Pelosi, a liberal Democrat, assures Israel of her unflinching allegiance, as she leads the supposed opposition party in the legislature. And they intend to compete with each other in kissing the Prime Minister's enormous gluteus maximus to see who can get there first, when she states that “Democrats in Congress will be in the lead in the fight for passing this emergency [aid] package”. Some fight between two combatants who have identical aims!

*4 William Shakespeare in Macbeth (3:5:121).

*5 The quotes of Elie Wiesel, author of “Night”, are from Mark Chmiel's study of the sources of this lamentable hypocrisy in “Elie Wiesel and the Politics of Moral Leadership”. This is quite an illuminating exposé and a must read for every conscionable student of Zionism to appreciate how Zionist Jews have become so mentally chained to Israel – the Jewish State - that they have lost all sense of morality when it comes to Israel's barbarism on an innocent civilian peoples. This deceitful self-imposed blindness – perhaps derived from their millennia in Diaspora and their intense subjugation at the hands of the Christian goyims culminating in their abominable holocaust at their hands - may eventually be their own undoing.

Unless of course other Jewish and Christian intellectuals start speaking up loudly against such hypocrisy and moral perversion, denounce Theodor Herzl as a traitor to the moral teachings of Moses, denounce the duplicity of Elie Wiesel loudly, and demand the dismantling of the perverse apartheid state Der Judenstaat. There is a lot of empty space in California where the Americans can provide all the Jewish settlers from New York, Eastern Europe, and Russia now living in Israel, a reservation that they can call Der Judenstaat if the Americans wish somehow to compensate the Jews for two Millennia of Christian persecution in Europe and the Holocaust. They can have the Hollywood set designers and architects even build them a replica of the Wailing Wall and all the Biblical cities of Eretz Yisrael. After all, America is the “Zion that will light up all the world” and that’s the rightful place for Der Judenstaat as well. Now why don’t the Christian majority and the American mainstream chew on that a little bit?

A failure to combat intellectually what was seeded intellectually, is the prime source of the problem today not just in the Middle East, but in the Zionists’ conquest of America itself. The battle front is not with missiles, but in the intellectual space – a counter Balfour Declaration is urgently needed. Who has the courage in America to take the lead? Any takers? It is far easier to write messages on bombs that are dropped on defenseless civilians isn’t it? Or write useless books of history with no concomitant demand for redressing of injustices and restitution. Well let’s change all that!

*6 For reference to "banality of evil", and for a better understanding of what led to the Jewish holocaust and what helped perpetuate it, see Hannah Arendt's seminal work “Eichmann in Jerusalem: A Report on the Banality of Evil”. I had studied this work over a quarter century ago, along with another "From Genesis to Genocide" written by Professor Steve Chorover, my college teacher at M.I.T., the lessons of which still ring true to me today as I witness what is beginning to happen to the Muslims in America, as discussed later in this book. It is interesting to note that Hannah Arendt had observed that Eichmann seemed to have been such an ordinary person, there appeared nothing remarkable or outstanding about him as he pathetically sat there during the Jerusalem trials – and yet having committing such extraordinary terror and genocide upon an innocent peoples.

What would she observe of George Bush and his Neocon advisors, and Ariel Sharon and is terror machine in Palestine today when these monsters are ever brought to trial for monumental war crimes against humanity? It is a separate issue altogether that such war crimes trials have not deterred perpetuation of new war crimes by successor tyrants – the deterrence factor of such post crime persecution is nil and perhaps requires a gestalt shift in thinking if humankind is actually going to successfully and preemptively deter such monumental crimes being visited upon innocent civilians in the future. There isn't any atonement possible after the fact for the shattering of the tabula rasa of a peoples.

The eye witness testimony of a holocaust survivor is also provided later in this book that draws parallels between the early stages of Jewish persecution in Germany, and the xenophobic fascism being experienced by Muslims in America today. While the fate of the Muslims in America will likely be a lot subtler than extermination obviously, the fascist trends are unmistakable and there is no justification for tolerating American-fascism today anymore than there was for tolerating Nazi anti-Semitism yesterday. Both are crimes against humanity whether or not the Americans recognize it. The Americans also did not seem to show much concern for the fate of the Jews during World War II as is well documented in history. Going overboard today in compensation to the Zionists at the expense of Palestinians and Muslims is as much a war crime today as the failure to act was then.

*7 The source of this universal moral truth is the Biblical commandment “Do unto others as you have others do unto you” (Luke 31). However, much like the philosopher Bertrand Russel's approach towards morality, as being composed of those laws and principles that increase the common good of all the people and minimize social conflict (see his essay “What I Believe” in “Why I Am Not A Christian”), this cliché too expresses a similar morality that does not necessarily require belief in any particular religion or social order in order to follow it – obeying it increases the common good universally and minimizes social conflict. It is a common uniting principle for mankind, that if incorporated in the Constitutions of all nations, like in the Declaration of Independence in the American Constitution, and if it became the guiding principle behind all foreign and domestic policies, there might yet be lasting peace among humankind, and among nations of differing civilizations. But then how would empires be built?

*8 For reference to the concentration of wealth in Israeli society, see "Middle East Illusions" by Noam Chomsky. For issues related to the return of refugees and just compensation, see "Palestinian Refugees - The Right of Return", edited by Naseer Aruri. For further discussion of a combined democratic non racist Palestine from a conscionable Jew's perspective, see the writings of Israel Shamir on the web.

Question for Noam Chomsky

It is inexplicable that Noam Chomsky, while being fully cognizant of the history of the usurpation of Palestine at gun point in 1948, has not publicly called for the complete dismantling of the Apartheid state of Israel and returning of all of the stolen lands back to their rightful owners. He has instead, supported the arbitrary two state solution, with Israel retreating back to the 1967 borders and a new Palestinian State in the rest. Would he himself accept such a solution for his own country if he were a Palestinian? Would any Zionist, if the roles were reversed? Chomsky had however, not called for a similar two state solution for Apartheid South Africa earlier, with the Swiss cheesed Bantustans going to the indigenous majority black African inhabitants, and the rest of their mineral rich lands going to the white South African usurping minority as the latter had persistently demanded. Why this difference in positioning in the case of Palestine? The two situations are more than just identical, the Palestinian case is far more egregious, far more brutal and genocidal, and a contemporary usurpation within our own lifetimes. And they also share the support of the American Government to sustain the Apartheid status as demanded by their favored allies and “man of peace”, with the present American Vice President Dick Cheney, as a Congressman in his earlier career, even voting against a House resolution for the release of Nelson Mandela from prison. Indeed, the only thing uncommon between the two situations, is an uncompromising honest leader and statesmen like Nelson Mandela. And for a cynic, the other thing uncommon might be the Jews and their power in America. But Noam Chomsky has never been influenced by such banal considerations.

So why is Noam Chomsky agreeable to grant any portion of Palestine to the Jews for a Jews-only state when he does not even like the idea of any “religion-only” state to start with? Is it a) because God promised them Palestine and Eretz Israel; b) because it was a terrible holocaust and the Jews need a homeland; c) because “might is right” and Israel was exclusively sanctioned by the victorious Allies of World War II, built upon another victorious Allies’ loot of World War I, and that is the international reality today; d) because now that the Jews have already been there for over half a century, they might as well keep some of the stolen property; e) because it is time to have mercy on the victims who are needlessly suffering the wrath of being alive on Eretz Yisrael, so make peace at any cost under the diktats of realism rather than hopeless idealism for the sake of the suffering victims; or f) because of self-interest as he is also Jewish.

As for a) David Ben Gurion himself clarified it that: “... we have taken their country. It is true God promised it to us, but how could that interest them? Our God is not theirs.” As for b) perhaps those so sympathetic to the Jews can give them a piece of their own real estate, perhaps in Boston, Michigan, New York, California, or London, or even Basle where Israel was founded to start with. On what basis can they award Arab lands of continuously inhabited peoples to another in compensation for their own European Christian crimes of anti-Semitism and holocaust upon the Jews? As Ben Gurion again clarified it: “There has been Anti-Semitism, the Nazis, Hitler, Auschwitz, but was that their fault? They see but one thing: we have come and we have stolen their country. Why would they accept that?” As for c) does international sanction i.e., agreement among the superpowers, then becomes a legitimate method of genocide and displacement of an indigenous peoples and defines a new morality? As for d) does longevity of occupation lend moral legitimacy to land theft and genocide of an innocent population? As for e) is it another disingenuous attempt to legitimize the existence of a usurper in the name of minimizing the suffering of its victims? In his own words: xx

As for f) only Noam Chomsky can answer that question completely, but actions speak louder than words, and my appreciation of him stems from the fact, which he disclosed publicly, that in 1950s when he realized the realities on the ground, he left Israel to return to the United States. Actions still do continue to speak louder than words – for claims to morality is one non-stop continuous action with every breadth we take, until our very last one, as demonstrated by another moral Jewish princess, Rachel Corrie.

Those who who accede to c) and d) also accede to the morality that is espoused in them. If it is indeed either of these, then is that what an intellectual is ultimately reduced to in the real world as the bottom line when the rubber meets the road and all the talk of crimes of the emperors has been peeled away? How is that any different from any petty timeserving politician who says all the right things to his constituency but recognizes the reality of power-plays and modulates his opinions and morality to suit the reality of the times when it comes time to vote on issues? I have no doubt that Noam Chomsky would agree with the following job description of an intellectual in the eloquent words of another intellectual - for his own conscionable life's work is but a reflection of these very ideals:

“I too think the intellectual should constantly disturb, should bear witness to the misery of the world, should be provocative by being independent, should rebel against all hidden and open pressure and manipulations, should be the chief doubter of systems, of power and its incantations, should be a witness to their mendacity. For this very reason, an intellectual cannot fit into any role that might be assigned to him, nor can he ever be made to fit into any of the histories written by the victors. An intellectual essentially doesn't belong anywhere; he stands out as an irritant wherever he is; he does not fit into any pigeonhole completely.” (Vaclav Havel: “Disturbing the Peace: A Conversation with Karel Hvizdala”, quoted by Mark Chmiel in “Moral Leadership”)

Hence that being the imperatives of an intellectual, especially of one who espouses the Golden rule “Do unto others ... ” and specifically if it is good enough for you to do to me, it must be good enough for me to do to you, why support anything short of the Just and moral solution for Palestine – the complete and immediate dismantling of Israel and complete restitution of the Palestinians forced into the new Diaspora; allowing those Jews who are born in Palestine to stay as a compromise, but evicting everyone else transplanted from New York, Eastern Europe, Russia and South America? If South Africa could be disarmed of its nuclear capability, so can Israel of its Samson options.

The demand for Israel’s dismantling starts in the intellectual space, just as the demand for its construction was started in the intellectual space by Theodor Herzl when he wrote Der Judenstaat and asserted: “In Basle I founded the Jewish state ... Maybe in five years, certainly in fifty, everyone will realize it.” A delaying tactic only brings to fruition Ben Gurion’s predictions: “We must do everything to insure they (the Palestinians) never do return ... The old will die and the young will forget”. Those who indulge in it, once again demonstrate that they willingly accede to the morality espoused in such tactics – the law of the jungle. Then how is one any better than the baboons who espouse the same morality?

One is known by the morality one keeps! Politicians are already lost to Machiavelli. The latter day Zionist Neocons to Strauss. The moral scholar however carries the mantle of Plato and Socrates! He cannot compromise to the reality of power-plays, to international sanction and recognition, and what the majority of his antagonists may want – for the majority killed Socrates.

Who better person to demand such a dismantling of Der Judenstaat than "arguably the most important intellectual alive"?

Who can more persuasively argue for its deconstruction than Theodor Herzl argued for its construction?

Only one among the Jews today, Noam Chomsky, leaving a legacy of moral greatness for the successive Jewish generations to overcome the one Herzl left them of depravity and perversion!

Anything short of that is but an eyewash and a morality of the baboons. There are no illusions in the Middle East – only lack of full spectrum moral courage from those who proclaim it as their inheritance.

Your response please Professor Noam Chomsky?
Other references for the main text

For reference to the long ancestral lineage even identifiable today and dating back millenniums, far older than the Jews, see the research done into ancient history of Palestine by Professor Hatem Bazian, Professor of Near Eastern Studies at UC Berkeley, who has argued that why should the history only begin 2500 years ago when the Jews first arrived? There were people still living there for far longer. When the premise of 2500 years is accepted as the starting point of debate that is already a red-herring to start with, more than half the argument is already conceded. The argument really needs to stay focussed on how Palestine was usurped by super-power blessings, not whose ancestors where there earlier or whose god gave them what land grants. But if the antagonist do throw that red-herring, then the Palestinian ancestry still prevails as the continuously living inhabitants of that land, as shown by Professor Bazian. As for god’s promise argument and the Biblical theological red-herring, please see William W. Baker’s "Theft of a Nation". There is not a single red-herring that the Zionist mind has ever synthesized that has not been cogently repealed, ultimately leaving one, and only one proposition on the table for the raison d'être for existence of Der Judenstaat in Palestine - the big stick of super-power primacy and its geostrategic imperatives. I don’t have any problems if this Jewish State is moved to America or Europe where it belongs (if at all) in compensation for past crimes of the Christians upon the European Jews. It is not the problem of the Muslims or the rest of the world – we have treated the Jews fairly in our own civilizations and we did not culminate any holocaust upon them, and nor did we then, or do we now, espouse any anti-Semitism towards them, as they are our brothers in religion and in humanity. That however does not relinquish our right to fight them if they impose injustice upon us. Their plight through history is entirely an internal matter of the Judeo-Christian civilization around which Samuel Huntington has already drawn a protective fault-line. Well live within those civilizational lines my friends, and solve your own problems amongst yourselves only.

For reference to inequitable redistribution of wealth and just compensation in South Africa post apartheid, witness that after years of oppression and suffering, and despite all the promises of just compensation by the reconciliation efforts, the blacks were awarded a mere $4000 per person recently. No more than 5% of the land and wealth has been redistributed since apartheid officially ended a decade ago. The vast majority of wealth in South Africa is still in the hands of the white minority.

*9 Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir – another born and bred in the USA Zionist leader.

*10 Baruch Kimmerling: “My Holiday, Their Tragedy”,

*11 David Ben Gurion – Quoted by Nahum Goldmann in Le Paraddoxe Juif (The Jewish Paradox), 121. Culled from the web.

*12 David Ben Gurion, 1948. Culled from the web.

*13 Lasse Wilhelmson: “Zionism as Jewish National Socialism”,

*14 Moshe Katsav, President of Israel, The Jerusalem Post, May 10, 2001. It is incredible how powerful the lapses of some short term memories can be – perhaps Moshe Katsav has forgotten the Jewish Ghettos from New York to Poland that the Jews inhabited not too long ago. Furthermore, this was their state of being when they were free and no military occupying power was constricting them to death.

The people whom Katsav is belittling on the other hand are living under a brutal Israeli military occupation – generations have been wasted under the murderous occupiers watchful gun turrets. Shame! What has happened to the humanity of these Israelis? Why should the world take any sympathy on these peoples anymore for their holocaust? They are handing the same systematic genocide to another innocent peoples – only spread out across generations and in plain sight of the silently spectating world. Witness the following comments of an American President Harry S. Truman from his Diary July 21, 1947. Every word of it is reflected in the Zionist Jews’ own merciless actions in Palestine since the founding of Israel in 1948. If the American public does not know it, or if the Campus Watch does not want it debated in American academia, it does not mean that the rest of the world does not know it, or that the victims of Zionist aggression do not exist.

Read and weep if you are a Jew and have a conscience, as to what bad name a minority among you have brought your entire peoples:

“The Jews, I find are very, very selfish. They care not how many Estonians, Latvians, Finns, Poles, Yugoslavs or Greeks get murdered or mistreated as D[isplaced] P[ersons] as long as the Jews get special treatment. Yet when they have power, physical, financial or political neither Hitler not Stalin has anything on them for cruelty or mistreatment to the under dog.”

*15 Haim Cohen, former judge of the Supreme Court of Israel, quoted by Tariq Ali in “To be Intimidated is to be an Accomplice”,

*16 Moshe Dayan: Haaretz, April 4, 1969. Culled from the web.

*17 Raphael Eitan, Chief of Staff of the IDF: “New York Times 14 April 1983”. Culled from the web.

*18 It would be interesting to count all the American Israeli Zionists since 1948 until the present who have made Israel their homeland and are born and raised in the USA. Under which Western “human rights” regime can they displace the indigenous and continuously living population in Palestine?

I rather fear for the fate of the Jews, the recipient of God’s Messenger Moses (Peace be upon him) – if they are Jews in the sense of religion – for a coterie of misanthropic fanatics among them have hijacked their religion, their ethos, their morality, their history. And ultimately, they will surely all be made to pay, and with compounded interest! This is the Greek tragedy of the Jews – perhaps that is what is meant by “chosen”? Chosen to create mischief among mankind, the fourty year punishment by God Almighty Himself to the entire Hebrew peoples for the disobedience of a few among them to His Message, being the manifest evidence of this mischief from the very inception of the Hebrew religion. And then to be paid back with compound interest by other anti-Semitic mortals down the ages – and repeat? How would a conscionable Jew respond to such a cynical assessment of the Zionist led Jewish peoples by the vast majority of Muslims du jour, apart from the usual “anti-Semitism” slogan? Rachel Corrie responded by courageously standing in front of the murderous Israeli Bulldozer to save an innocent Palestinian home from the aggression of her own peoples, and reclaimed for herself her hijacked moral Judaic identity from the clutches of the misanthropes! Israel Shahak responded by producing works like "Jewish History Jewish Religion - The Weight of Three Thousand Years" and "Jewish Fundamentalism in Israel". Lenni Brenner responded with works like: "Zionism in the age of Dictators", “The Iron Wall', and "51 Documents". Tanya Reinhart responded with: "Israel/Palestine - How to End the War of 1948". Israel Shamir responded with "The Writings of Israel Shamir For One Democratic State In The Whole of Palestine (Israel)". The Neturei Karta Jews respond by having nothing to do with the murderous Israeli Zionists du jour: How thou'st respond? And not just with lofty words, but with thine pocket books?


Major Barack Obama supporter slams Jewish groups

Thursday, May 29th 2008

A high-profile supporter of Barack Obama accused American Jewish groups of engaging in "McCarthyism," a statement that could further complicate the Illinois senator's appeal to Jewish voters.

"It's not unique to the Jewish community - but there is a McCarthy-ite tendency among some people in the Jewish community," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter. "They operate not by arguing but by slandering, vilifying, demonizing.

"They very promptly wheel out anti-Semitism," he said. "There is an element of paranoia in this inclination to view any serious attempt at a compromised peace as somehow directed against Israel."

Reached for comment, Obama spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Brzezinski "is not an adviser to our campaign, and does not speak for the campaign. Sen. Obama profoundly disagrees with the sentiments he expressed."

Obama has stepped up efforts to court the Jewish vote, most recently speaking at a synagogue in Boca Raton, Fla.



Zbigniew Brzezinski on Obama

May 4th, 2008 by Richard Silverstein |

ZB: “In my judgment the United States confronts, and the world, a fundamental historical discontinuity. The world of the cold war or earlier, the world of the struggle against the totalitarianism of the Nazi/Stalinist variety, is finished. We live in a complicated, much more dynamic, much more politically awakened world, in which the population of the world for the first time is politically active, stirring, restless, increasingly anti-western, increasingly anti-American. And to manage that world well one has to understand how history has changed, how the global context has changed. Hillary Clinton would be a perfectly competent president, but her view of the world in my judgment is quite conventional and traditional. That criticism is even more applicable to John McCain, who is in my view is a great patriot and a great hero but represents essentially the past. I have been impressed talking with Barack Obama and also from reading what he has been saying by the fact that he understands that this great historical discontinuity has taken place and that America has to redefine its place in the world. In fact, that America has to redefine itself. And I think that he symbolizes that needed change, and if he becomes president he can help America effectively make that change.”

VIDEO - Brzezinski supports Obama :


The Smart Way Out of a Foolish War

By Zbigniew Brzezinski
Sunday, March 30, 2008; Page B03
Both Democratic presidential candidates agree that the United States should end its combat mission in Iraq within 12 to 16 months of their possible inauguration. The Republican candidate has spoken of continuing the war, even for a hundred years, until "victory." The core issue of this campaign is thus a basic disagreement over the merits of the war and the benefits and costs of continuing it.

The case for U.S. disengagement from combat is compelling in its own right. But it must be matched by a comprehensive political and diplomatic effort to mitigate the destabilizing regional consequences of a war that the outgoing Bush administration started deliberately, justified demagogically and waged badly. (I write, of course, as a Democrat; while I prefer Sen. Barack Obama, I speak here for myself.)

The contrast between the Democratic argument for ending the war and the Republican argument for continuing is sharp and dramatic. The case for terminating the war is based on its prohibitive and tangible costs, while the case for "staying the course" draws heavily on shadowy fears of the unknown and relies on worst-case scenarios. President Bush's and Sen. John McCain's forecasts of regional catastrophe are quite reminiscent of the predictions of "falling dominoes" that were used to justify continued U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Neither has provided any real evidence that ending the war would mean disaster, but their fear-mongering makes prolonging it easier.

Nonetheless, if the American people had been asked more than five years ago whether Bush's obsession with the removal of Saddam Hussein was worth 4,000 American lives, almost 30,000 wounded Americans and several trillion dollars -- not to mention the less precisely measurable damage to the United States' world-wide credibility, legitimacy and moral standing -- the answer almost certainly would have been an unequivocal "no."

Nor do the costs of this fiasco end there. The war has inflamed anti-American passions in the Middle East and South Asia while fragmenting Iraqi society and increasing the influence of Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent visit to Baghdad offers ample testimony that even the U.S.-installed government in Iraq is becoming susceptible to Iranian blandishments.

In brief, the war has become a national tragedy, an economic catastrophe, a regional disaster and a global boomerang for the United States. Ending it is thus in the highest national interest.

Terminating U.S. combat operations will take more than a military decision. It will require arrangements with Iraqi leaders for a continued, residual U.S. capacity to provide emergency assistance in the event of an external threat (e.g., from Iran); it will also mean finding ways to provide continued U.S. support for the Iraqi armed forces as they cope with the remnants of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

The decision to militarily disengage will also have to be accompanied by political and regional initiatives designed to guard against potential risks. We should fully discuss our decisions with Iraqi leaders, including those not residing in Baghdad's Green Zone, and we should hold talks on regional stability with all of Iraq's neighbors, including Iran.

Contrary to Republican claims that our departure will mean calamity, a sensibly conducted disengagement will actually make Iraq more stable over the long term. The impasse in Shiite-Sunni relations is in large part the sour byproduct of the destructive U.S. occupation, which breeds Iraqi dependency even as it shatters Iraqi society. In this context, so highly reminiscent of the British colonial era, the longer we stay in Iraq, the less incentive various contending groups will have to compromise and the more reason simply to sit back. A serious dialogue with the Iraqi leaders about the forthcoming U.S. disengagement would shake them out of their stupor.

Ending the U.S. war effort entails some risks, of course, but they are inescapable at this late date. Parts of Iraq are already self-governing, including Kurdistan, part of the Shiite south and some tribal areas in the Sunni center. U.S. military disengagement will accelerate Iraqi competition to more effectively control their territory, which may produce a phase of intensified inter-Iraqi conflicts. But that hazard is the unavoidable consequence of the prolonged U.S. occupation. The longer it lasts, the more difficult it will be for a viable Iraqi state ever to reemerge.

It is also important to recognize that most of the anti-U.S. insurgency in Iraq has not been inspired by al-Qaeda. Locally based jihadist groups have gained strength only insofar as they have been able to identify themselves with the fight against a hated foreign occupier. As the occupation winds down and Iraqis take responsibility for internal security, al-Qaeda in Iraq will be left more isolated and less able to sustain itself. The end of the occupation will thus be a boon for the war on al-Qaeda, bringing to an end a misguided adventure that not only precipitated the appearance of al-Qaeda in Iraq but also diverted the United States from Afghanistan, where the original al-Qaeda threat grew and still persists.

Bringing the U.S. military effort to a close would also smooth the way for a broad U.S. initiative addressed to all of Iraq's neighbors. Some will remain reluctant to engage in any discussion as long as Washington appears determined to maintain its occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Therefore, at some stage next year, after the decision to disengage has been announced, a regional conference should be convened to promote regional stability, border control and other security arrangements, as well as regional economic development -- all of which would help mitigate the unavoidable risks connected with U.S. disengagement.

Since Iraq's neighbors are vulnerable to intensified ethnic and religious conflicts spilling over from Iraq, all of them -- albeit for different reasons -- are likely to be interested. More distant Arab states such as Egypt, Morocco or Algeria might also take part, and some of them might be willing to provide peacekeeping forces to Iraq once it is free of foreign occupation. In addition, we should consider a regional rehabilitation program designed to help Iraq recover and to relieve the burdens that Jordan and Syria, in particular, have shouldered by hosting more than 2 million Iraqi refugees.
The overall goal of a comprehensive U.S. strategy to undo the errors of recent years should be cooling down the Middle East, instead of heating it up. The "unipolar moment" that the Bush administration's zealots touted after the collapse of the Soviet Union has been squandered to generate a policy based on the unilateral use of force, military threats and occupation masquerading as democratization -- all of which has pointlessly heated up tensions, fueled anti-colonial resentments and bred religious fanaticism. The long-range stability of the Middle East has been placed in increasing jeopardy.

Terminating the war in Iraq is the necessary first step to calming the Middle East, but other measures will be needed. It is in the U.S. interest to engage Iran in serious negotiations -- on both regional security and the nuclear challenge it poses. But such negotiations are unlikely as long as Washington's price of participation is unreciprocated concessions from Tehran. Threats to use force on Iran are also counterproductive because they tend to fuse Iranian nationalism with religious fanaticism.

Real progress in the badly stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace process would also help soothe the region's religious and nationalist passions. But for such progress to take place, the United States must vigorously help the two sides start making the mutual concessions without which a historic compromise cannot be achieved. Peace between Israel and Palestine would be a giant step toward greater regional stability, and it would finally let both Israelis and Palestinians benefit from the Middle East's growing wealth.

We started this war rashly, but we must end our involvement responsibly. And end it we must. The alternative is a fear-driven policy paralysis that perpetuates the war -- to America's historic detriment.

Zbigniew Brzezinski was national security adviser to President Jimmy Carter. His most recent book is "Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower."



Seven Questions: A Conversation with Zbigniew Brzezinski
Posted October 2007
Vladimir Putin’s Russia is growing more authoritarian at home and increasingly aggressive abroad. China’s global clout seems to expand by the day. And in the Middle East, a possible conflict with Iran looms on the horizon. For insights on this dangerous new world, FP turned to Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. national security advisor, author, and all-around foreign-policy guru.
The Brzezinski doctrine? Zbigniew says, “The West should be clear regarding its own interests and promote them firmly.”

FOREIGN POLICY: Russian President Vladimir Putin has angled himself into a position of power for years to come, going so far as to compare himself with former U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt. Should the West fear Putin, and how should the United States deal with him going forward?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: No, I don’t think the West should fear Putin, even though he might not be the most attractive personality. He’s basically a Russian autocrat at a time of considerable transition in Russia’s position geopolitically and in Russia’s national self-identity. The West should be clear regarding its own interests and promote them firmly. It should oppose any attempts at Russian imperial restoration, and whenever possible, it should cooperate with the Russians regarding issues of joint interest.

FP: Will Russia’s influence on the European Union continue to grow? There have been many dire warnings about EU member states’ reliance on Russian energy. Do you believe this is a threat, and can Europe wean itself off Russian energy?

ZB: It’s a potential long-range threat. It is not yet a threat. If Europe and the United States jointly do not do what is needed to obtain great diversification of access to energy, Europe could become politically vulnerable. This is why it’s important to the West to see access to the Caspian Sea energy resources and beyond the Caspian to Central Asia. This is why the West should promote such projects at the Nabucco pipeline through southeastern Europe to central Europe.

FP: The situation in Iraq looks direr each day. If the United States manages to get out of Iraq soon, should it take a hands-off approach to dealing with the Middle East, as some have advocated?

ZB: The United States is bound to have one kind of a relationship with Egypt and another kind of a relationship with Syria. It is bound to have one kind of a relationship with Saudi Arabia and another kind with Iraq. I think one has to look at the Middle East in terms of a very diversified geopolitical terrain and fashion a policy accordingly.

FP: What are your thoughts on the upcoming Middle East peace conference, especially in light of Israel’s recent attack on Syria? Do you think any progress can be made?

ZB: Progress will be made at the forthcoming conference only if the United States forthcomingly leads and starts out by defining explicitly the minimum requirements of an eventual settlement. That is: no right of return, the genuine sharing of Jerusalem, lines with reciprocal accommodations, and a demilitarized Palestinian state.

FP: You’ve defended your decision under the Carter administration to back the mujahedin in Afghanistan on the grounds that backing the jihad was crucial to defeating the Soviet Union. But wouldn’t the Soviet Union have collapsed on its own, for economic reasons? Was it worth it to support a movement that led to the rise of the Taliban and al Qaeda?

ZB: I think that question is so crazy that it really makes you wonder. Afghanistan was destroyed by the Soviets, and that is what has bred the Taliban years after. The support for Afghan resistance has created support of America for a whole generation of Afghans who are still on our side. We would be in a terrible mess if we hadn’t supported the Afghans.

FP: You and many other critics of the Bush administration’s policy toward Iran argue that the United States needs to engage Iran. But it seems that at every turn, the hardliners outmaneuver so-called pragmatists within the Iranian regime. Madeleine Albright, for instance, bent over backward as secretary of state under the Clinton administration to reach out to former Iranian President Mohammad Khatami, and got nowhere. “Engagement” isn’t so simple, is it?

ZB: It has been demonstrated—during the Bush administration, and even during the Clinton administration, both of which rebuffed efforts by the more moderate Iranians to establish some sort of a dialogue with us—that simply calling them names or threatening to change the regime certainly is not going to be very productive. And a war with Iran, initiated by the United States, would be a historical disaster for the United States, making Iraq look like a very moderate afternoon football game. It certainly is a possibility. I’m not prepared to say if it is a probability.

FP: China’s economy is growing rapidly, and its diplomatic clout around the world is expanding accordingly. Would it be such a bad thing if China became the regional hegemon in Asia? Or do the United States and its allies need to find ways to counter the Chinese?

ZB: I don’t think all Asians want to be subject to Chinese hegemony, but the United States has an obvious interest in accommodating China and not seeking to exclude it from a prominent place in the global hierarchy. It is not in the interest of the United States to repeat the mistake that was made in 1914, which led to the collision that produced World War I. China has to be integrated into the system. That means it also has the right to enjoy a proper place in it.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, former national security advisor to President Jimmy Carter, is professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies and a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies.

  • For other timely interviews with leading world figures and expert analysts, visit FP's complete Seven Questions Archive.


How to Avoid a New Cold War

America's relationship with Russia is on a downward slide. President Vladimir Putin's recent threat to retarget Russian missiles at some of America's European allies is just the latest flash point.

The elaborate charade of feigned friendship between Putin and President George W. Bush, begun several years ago when Bush testified to the alleged spiritual depth of his Russian counterpart's soul, hasn't helped. The fact that similarly staged "friendships"--between F.D.R. and "Uncle Joe" Stalin, Nixon and Brezhnev, Clinton and Yeltsin--ended in mutual disappointment did not prevent Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice from boasting not long ago that U.S.-Russian relations were now the best in history. Surely it would be preferable to achieve a genuine, sustainable improvement before staging public theatrics designed to create the illusion that one has taken place. It's a lesson Bush should keep in mind in July, when Putin is scheduled to visit the President in Kennebunkport, Maine.

There are many reasons for the chill but none greater than the regrettable wars both nations have launched: Russia's in Chechnya and the U.S.'s in Iraq. The wars have damaged prospects for what seemed attainable a decade and a half ago: Russia and the U.S. genuinely engaged in collaboration based on shared common values, spanning the old cold war dividing lines and thereby enhancing global security and expanding the transatlantic community.

The war in Chechnya reversed the ambiguous trend toward democracy in Russia. Mercilessly waged by Putin with extraordinary brutality, it not only crushed a small nation long victimized by Russian and then Soviet imperialism but also led to political repression and greater authoritarianism inside Russia and fueled chauvinism among Russia's people. Putin exploited his success in stabilizing the chaotic post-Soviet society by restoring central control over political life. The war in Chechnya became his personal crusade, a testimonial to the restoration of Kremlin clout.

Since the beginning of that war, a new élite--the siloviki from the FSB (the renamed KGB) and the subservient new economic oligarchs--has come to dominate policymaking under Putin's control. This new élite embraces a strident nationalism as a substitute for communist ideology while engaging in thinly veiled acts of violence against political dissenters. Putin almost sneeringly dismissed the murder of a leading Russian journalist, Anna Politkovskaya, who exposed crimes against the Chechens. Similarly, troubling British evidence of Russian involvement in the London murder of an outspoken FSB defector produced little more than official Russian ridicule. All the while, Russia's mass media are facing ever growing political restrictions.

It doubtless has not escaped the Kremlin's attention that the West, including the U.S., has remained largely silent. The Bush Administration was indifferent to the slaughter in Chechnya, and after 9/11 it even tacitly accepted Putin's claim that in crushing the Chechens, he was serving as a volunteer in Bush's global "war on terror." The killing of journalist Politkovskaya and Putin's dismissal of its import similarly failed to temper the affectations of personal camaraderie between the leaders in the White House and the Kremlin. For that matter, neither has the general antidemocratic regression in Russia's political life.

The apparent American indifference should not be attributed just to a moral failure on the part of U.S. policymakers. Russia has gained impunity in part because of the effects of America's disastrous war in Iraq on U.S. foreign policy. Consider the fallout: Guantánamo has discredited America's long-standing international legitimacy; false claims of Iraqi WMD have destroyed U.S. credibility; continuing chaos and violence in Iraq have diminished respect for U.S. power. America, as a result, has come to need Russia's support on matters such as North Korea and Iran to a far greater extent than it would if not for Iraq.

As a consequence, two dominant moods now motivate the Kremlin élite: schadenfreude at the U.S.'s discomfort and a dangerous presumption that Russia can do what it wishes, especially in its geopolitical backyard. The first has led Moscow to take malicious slaps at America's tarnished superpower status, propelled by feel-good expectations of the U.S.'s further slide. One should not underestimate Russia's resentment over the fall of the Soviet Union (Putin has called it the greatest disaster of the 20th century) and its hope that the U.S. will suffer the same fate. Indeed, Kremlin strategists surely relish the thought of a U.S. deeply bogged down not only in Iraq but also in a war with Iran, which would trigger a dramatic spike in the price of oil, a commodity in plentiful supply in Russia.

The second mood--that Russia has free rein to act as it pleases on the international scene--is also ominous. It has already tempted Moscow to intimidate newly independent Georgia; reverse the gains of the Orange Revolution in Ukraine; wage aggressive cyberwar against E.U. member Estonia after the Estonians dared to remove from the center of their capital a monument celebrating Soviet domination of their country; impose an oil embargo on Lithuania; monopolize international access to the energy resources of Central Asia. In all these cases, the U.S., consumed as it is by the war in Iraq, has been rather passive. U.S. policy toward Russia has been more grandiloquent than strategic.

Despite the tensions, the uneasy state of the relationship need not augur a renewed cold war. The longer-term trends simply do not favor the more nostalgic dreams of the Kremlin rulers. For all of Russia's economic recovery, its prospects are uncertain. Russia's population is dramatically shrinking, even as its Asian neighbors are growing and expanding their military and economic might. The glamour of Moscow and the glitter of St. Petersburg cannot obscure the fact that much of Russia still lacks a basic modern infrastructure.

Oil-rich Russia (its leaders refer to it as an "energy superstate") in some ways is reminiscent of Nigeria, as corruption and money laundering fritter away a great deal of the country's wealth. To an extent, Russia can use its vast profits to get its way. But buying influence, even in Washington (where money goes a long way), cannot match the clout the Soviet Union once enjoyed as the beacon of an ideology with broad international appeal.

In these circumstances, the U.S. should pursue a calm, strategic (and nontheatrical) policy toward Moscow that will help ensure that a future, more sober Kremlin leadership recognizes that a Russia linked more closely to the U.S. and the E.U. will be more prosperous, more democratic and territorially more secure. The U.S. should avoid careless irritants, like its clumsily surfaced initiative to deploy its missile defenses next door to Russia. And it should not dismiss out of hand Moscow's views on, for example, negotiations with Iran, lest Russia see its interests better served by a U.S.-Iran war.

But the U.S. should react firmly when Russia tries to bully its neighbors. America should insist that Russia ratify the European Energy Charter to dispel fears of energy blackmail. The U.S. should continue to patiently draw Ukraine into the West so that Russia will have to follow suit or risk becoming isolated between the Euro-Atlantic community and a powerful China. And, above all, the U.S. should terminate its war in Iraq, which is so damaging to America's ability to conduct an intelligent and comprehensive foreign policy.

Brzezinski, who served in the Carter Administration, is author of Second Chance: Three Presidents and the Crisis of American Superpower


Brzezinski: Israel's Actions in Lebanon Essentially Amount to "the Killing of Hostages"

Tuesday, Jul 25, 2006

On Thursday, 20 July (last week), former National Security Advisor and one of America's top strategic thinkers, Zbigniew Brzezinksi, spoke at a public policy dinner salon that my colleagues and I at the New Amerca Foundation organized.

Brzezinski's presentation and responses to questions were riveting. He framed the stakes of what was evolving in the Middle East as well as the basic motivations of all the players in ways that many policy intellectuals and senior foreign policy writers had not considered.

I am posting Zbigniew Brzezinski's comments here. The Q&A was not fully on the record, so I will be working to digest the best material from the Q&A to protect the identities of those posing questions or making comments -- and will post that material at a later time. But I wanted to get Zbigniew Brzezinski's opening remarks on line now.

Some of the notable points made by Brzezinski were:

1. America's "policy in the Middle East is the basic test of America's capacity to exercise global leadership." This is similar to "what transpired during the Cold War when the ultimate test of America's capacity to act as a defender of the free world was its ability to conduct a meaningful policy in Europe."

If America does not do well in its Middle East challenge, the U.S. will lose its capacity to lead.

2. Neither the United States nor Israel "has the capacity to impose a unilateral solution" to Israel's problems in the Middle East. "There may be people who deceive themselves of that. We call them neo-cons in this country and there are other equivalents in Israel as well."

3. Israel and its neighbors alone "can never resolve their conflict peacefully, no matter how much they try, now matter how sincere they may be." When one party is sincere, the other's intentions are not synchronous.

4. Brzezinski stated: "I hate to say this but I will say it. I think what the Israelis are doing today for example in Lebanon is in effect, in effect -- maybe not in intent -- the killing of hostages. The killing of hostages."

"Because when you kill 300 people, 400 people, who have nothing to do with the provocations Hezbollah staged, but you do it in effect deliberately by being indifferent to the scale of collateral damage, you're killing hostages in the hope of intimidating those that you want to intimidate. And more likely than not you will not intimidate them. You'll simply outrage them and make them into permanent enemies with the number of such enemies increasing."

5. "The solution can only come if there is a serious international involvement that supports the moderates from both sides, however numerous or non-numerous they are, but also creates the situation in which it becomes of greater interest to both parties to accommodate than to resist because both of the incentives and the capacity of the external intervention to impose costs. That means a deliberate peace effort led by the United States, which then doubtless would be supported by the international community, which defines openly in a semi-binding fashion how the United States and the international community envisages the outlines of the accommodation."

6. It's becoming increasingly difficult to separate the Israeli-Palestinian, problem, the Iraq problem and Iran from each other.

7. "The Iraq problem, look what Prime Minister al-Maliki said today -- it's an indication of things to come. The notion that we're going to get a pliant, democratic, stable, pro-American, Israel-loving Iraq is a myth which is rapidly eroding and which is now being contradicted by political realities."

8. "And that leads me then to the proposition beforehand, namely that we have now, we're not only committed to what I said earlier, regarding the Israeli-Palestinian process, but more deliberately by terminating our involvement in Iraq. And I have put forth a four-point program which [I am sure] I have discussed in one of the rare occasions within the last year administration has talked to me, some top level people in the administration. They listened to this:

That we start talking to the Iraqis of the day of our disengagement., We say to them we want to set it jointly, but in the process, indicate to them that we will not leave precipitously. I asked Khalilzad what would be his definition of precipitous and he said four months and I said I agree. Are you saying to the Iraqis, we intend to disengage by some period? We need to."

9. "As far as Iran is concerned--and with this I'll end--thanks to Iraq, I think we have made an offer to the Iranians that is reasonable. I do not know that Iranians have the smarts to respond favorably or at least not negatively. I sort of lean to the idea that they'll probably respond not negatively but not positively and try to stall out the process. But that is not so bad provided they do not reject it.

Because while the Iranian nuclear problem is serious, and while the Iranians are marginally involved in Lebanon and to a greater extent in Syria, the fact of the matter is that the challenge they pose to us, while serious, is not imminent. And because it isn't imminent, it gives us time to deal with it. And sometimes in international politics, the better part of wisdom is to defer dangers rather than try to eliminate them altogether instantly, because the later produces intense counter-reactions that are destructive. We have time to deal with Iran, provided the process is launched, dealing with the nuclear energy problem, which can then be extended to involve also security talks about the region.

In the final analysis, Iran is a serious country, it's not Iraq. It's going to be there. It's going to be a player. And in the longer historical term, it has all of the preconditions for a constructive internal evolution if you measure it by rates of literacy, access to higher education, the role of women in society, a sense of tradition and status which is real.

I'm convinced that the mullahs are part of the past in Iran, not its future. But that process can change in Iran, not in a confrontation but through engagement. I think if we pursue these policies, we can perhaps avert the dangers that we face but if we do not, I fear that the region will explode, and for that matter, Israel will be in the long run in great jeopardy."

Again, the transcript of Zbigniew Brzezinski's opening comments is available by clicking here.

There was an amazing small group assembled to participate in this discussion.

Those who attended the dinner included (not complete list):

ZBIGNIEW BRZEZINSKI, his wife the artist EMILIE BRZEZINSKI Hauser Foundation President and International Peace Academy Chair RITA HAUSER, Financial Times Diplomatic Correspondent GUY DINMORE, American Prospect Editor in Chief MICHAEL TOMASKY, Middle East blogger and University of Michigan professor JUAN COLE;

AP Diplomatic Corresponent ANNE GEARAN, Correspondent for The Nation ARI BERMAN, New America Foundation Whitehouse Senior Fellow MICHAEL LIND, Inter-Press News Service correspondent JIM LOBE, New York Times Diplomatic Correspondent HELENE COOPER, Juniper Financial CEO RICHARD VAGUE, Open Society Institute Founder and Chairman GEORGE SOROS, New America Foundation Geopolitics of Energy Initiative Director FLYNT LEVERETT;

McGuire Woods attorney MARK BRZEZINSKI, journalist and NYU Center on Law & Security Senior Fellow SIDNEY BLUMENTHAL, Los Angeles Times Diplomatic Correspondent PAUL RICHTER, Washington Post columnist DAVID IGNATIUS, Georgetown professor and Council on Foreign Relations Fellow CHARLES KUPCHAN, CNN Washington, DC Bureau Chief DAVID BOHRMAN, former Hill & Knowlton Chairman FRANK MANKIEWICZ, "The Week" Washington Editor MARGARET CARLSON;

Dallas Morning News DC Bureau Chief CARL LEUBSDORF, Slate Chief Political Correspondent JOHN DICKERSON, Trammell & Co. CEO JEFFREY TRAMMELL, Washington Post intelligence correspondent DANA PRIEST, New Yorker correspondent JANE MAYER, Department of State analyst HILLARY MANN, Johns Hopkins University/SAIS professor FRANCIS FUKUYAMA;

New America Foundation/Century Foundation Fellow DANIEL LEVY, Washington College professor ANDREW OROS, Wall Street Journal political correspondent NEIL KING JR., Time Magazine diplomatic correspondent ELAINE SHANNON, New York Times investigative correspondent and "State of War" author JAMES RISEN, Financial Times Correspondent HOLLY YEAGER, EDS Executive BILL SWEENEY, and others.



CHARLIE ROSE TALKS WITH Zbigniew Brzezinski about Israeli Policy   Video - 2006


Banquet Address: Time for Course Corrections in US Foreign Policy
November 07, 2005

Event Featuring:

Zbigniew Brzezinski, Counselor and Trustee, Center for Strategic and International Studies


Event Summary

Former National Security Advisor, Dr. Zbigniew Brzezinski, opened stating that, "15 years after winning the Cold War, America's leadership role, in my view, is in jeopardy today." He explained that the US is growing increasingly isolated, largely as a consequence of its post-9/11 policies, and that this increasing isolation has long-term negative consequences for US national security interests. This has led to an increase in regional interest arrangements in Asia, Europe and elsewhere that exclude the United States and have serious long-term repercussions for US standing worldwide.

Brzezinski laid out four course corrections that are necessary to address this impending crisis. First, the US needs to be more cautious with its rhetoric and avoid associating terrorism with Islam. Referring to terrorist groups as Islamic has created a sub-conscious identification between Muslims and the terrorists. He pointed out that this was not done in other instances such as with the IRA or ETA, who are not referred to as Catholic. He also complained of high-level officials who have spoken of fighting a “crusade” or a “war against the Caliphate.” Such rhetoric could result in the US entering into a long, lonely war against Islam as a whole, which Brzezinski emphasizes is not inevitable. It is also important that calls for reform and democratization not become code for destabilization of regimes.

The second course correction needed is to outline and clearly articulate the final destination of the Roadmap. The current lack of clarity creates suspicion on both sides who fear that the other intends to cheat and outmaneuver them in the process. Many of the things that need to be codified as a final objective have already been stated by George Bush, such as no comprehensive right of return and the importance of a Palestinian state being viable and contiguous. All these things must be unified and codified as a stated objective of the Roadmap. This will aid the peace process.

The next course change required of US policy concerns the situation with Iran. The US must explain to Iran that it only has two options; damaging isolation or the benefits of participation. It is necessary to avoid the inflammatory rhetoric employed against Iran, which only excites the nationalist sentiments of Iranians more generally. The US has engaged with North Korea in both multilateral and bilateral talks and it should do the same with Iran. The US has refused to engage in such talks with Iran out of fear of legitimating the regime, but does this mean they wish to legitimate the North Korean regime? As in the case with North Korea, there must be an understanding that with concessions, there will be benefits for Iran as well.

The final and most difficult course change needed is the scaling down of the definition of success in Iraq. Today, success requires that Iraq become a viable, democratic, secular, freedom-loving state with American values. The US needs to do a cost/benefit analysis in which it considers the costs of this war in terms of blood, money, and international standing. It is preferable to leave Iraq sooner rather than later, perhaps after the Constitution is implemented and the new government is elected. The longer the US stays, the more the insurgency will grow. At this time the US position in Iraq is comparable to the French in Algeria.

These four course corrections need to be implemented in conjunction; they cannot be taken on individually. In order for such shifts in policy to take place, the decision-making process must become more open. They will not be adopted in the group-think environment of the current administration.

About this Event

Speaker Details

Zbigniew Brzezinski served as the National Security Advisor in the Carter Administration and is currently a Counselor and Trustee with the Center for Strategic and International Studies, and the Robert E. Osgood Professor of American Foreign Policy at the School of Advanced International Studies, at Johns Hopkins University.


Timothy Kaldas, a senior majoring in Political Science and Middle Eastern Studies at The George Washington University, wrote this Summary.
Disclaimer: Assertions and opinions in this Summary are solely those of the above-mentioned author(s) and do not reflect necessarily the views of the Middle East Institute, which expressly does not take positions on Middle East policy.





  • Annual Report Request

    If you wish to receive a printed copy of one of our annual reports, please email your request to or call +1-212-434-9665.

    Be sure to include your complete mailing address, phone number, and the year of the annual report that you wish to receive.

  • FROM:


URL for this article:

Subscribe to our newsletter at

Please forward this article or send the link to a friend!
Emperor's Clothes


Ex-Security Chief Brzezinski's Interview makes clear:

The Muslim Terrorist Apparatus was Created by US Intelligence as a Geopolitical Weapon

Le Nouvel Observateur's Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter's National Security Adviser 
Published 15-21 January 1998
Translated by Jean Martineau

I. Comment:
The US & European States are still using Brzezinski's Muslim terrorist strategy!

by Jared Israel

II. Interview with Brzezinski

[Posted 6 September 2004]


- Comments -

Below is our translation of an interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski.  It is important for three reasons.

First, it flatly contradicts the official US justification for giving billions of dollars to the mujahideen in Afghanistan in the 1980s, namely that the US and Saudi Arabia were defending so-called freedom fighters against Soviet aggression.

Not so, says Brzezinski. He confirms what opponents have charged: that the US began covert sponsorship of Muslim extremists five months *before* the Soviets invaded Afghanistan.  He says that after President Carter authorized the covert action:

"I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets."

Second, the interview is instructive concerning so-called "conspiracy theory." To be sure, there are plenty of nutty theories out there. And of course, there are plenty of just plain wrong theories. But as Brzezinski demonstrates, the US foreign policy establishment did, for want of a better word, conspire. Even as they claimed to oppose Muslim extremism, they knowingly fomented it *as a weapon of policy.* And they lied about what they were doing, pretending they were helping freedom fighters resist an invasion. In other words, deceit on two levels.

One must ask oneself: if the US foreign policy Establishment used Muslim extremism as a weapon once, how can one argue  *in principle* that they would not use it again?

We say they *have* used it again; that they have used it continuously; and that we are seeing the fruits of this policy. Most recently we have seen the real essence of the Brzezinski doctrine in the horrendous events this past week in Russia (culminating in the school attack) and Israel (the double bus bombing).


Lying with dollars


Brzezinski and his protégé, Zalmay Khalilzad, set up a corporation in 1985, funded by the US congress, to train the mujahideen to sell reporters the lie that the mujahideen were freedom fighters and victims of aggression:

[Excerpt from Associated Press dispatch starts here] My emphasis

Headline: U.S. Provides $500,000 So Afghan Rebels Can Tell Their Story

AP, September 16, 1985, Monday, PM cycle SECTION: Washington Dateline



Guerrillas in Afghanistan are about to get money from the United States government for a public relations campaign intended to bring their struggle against Soviet troops to the world's attention.

The money will train Afghan rebel journalists to use television, radio and newspapers to advance their cause. Reporters will be given mini-cameras to photograph the war inside Afghanistan.

"It is the goal of this project to facilitate the collection, development and distribution of credible, objective and timely professional-quality news stories, photographs and television images about developments in Afghanistan," said a notice in the Federal Register. The program will be overseen by Uncle Sam's own propaganda arm, the U.S. Information Agency. Congress appropriated $500,000 to hire experts and may provide more later.

In making the money available, Congress all but instructed USIA to consider an organization like Friends of Afghanistan, a new group whose board includes former Carter administration national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski, known for hard-line anti-Soviet views.

USIA has solicited proposals, due Sept. 25.

Friends of Afghanistan includes other American foreign policy luminaries such as Lawrence Eagleburger, a former undersecretary of state, and Dr. Zalmay Khalilzad, a Columbia University political science professor and some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan.

[Note from Jared Israel - Eagleburger played a prominent role in first Bush administration in demonizing the Bosnian Serbs.]


Afghan rebels, called the Mujahadeen, have been battling 100,000 Soviet troops who have occupied the rugged, mountainous country since December 1979.


[Excerpt from Associated Press dispatch ends here]

The Associated Press referred to Khalilzad as a "some-time paid adviser to the State Department on Afghanistan." This was in the late summer of 1985. Less than three years later Tass, the Soviet news agency, reported that Khalilzad was delivering the mujahideen an important message from the State Department.  Khalilzad told them that the State Department would continue to support them a) only if they could consolidate control of Afghanistan and b) only if they maintained an attitude of implacable hostility to the government in Kabul. In other words the US ordered the mujahideen *not* to make peace:

"'The United States has told the Afghan guerrillas that it would support them in an effort to form a provisional government if they consolidate their control of most of the country and meet other criteria,' the newspaper New York Times today quoted State Department officials as saying. A top State Department official made it clear that the government must oppose 'the soviet-backed regime in Kabul' and said that the USA did not 'accept the legitimacy' of the authorities in Afghanistan. The relevant message was delivered to the rebels in the Pakistani city of Peshawar last week by Zalmay Khalilzad, a special adviser on Afghanistan to under secretary of state Michael H. Armacost..."
[-- To Support Afghan Counter Revolutionaries
New York; The Russian Information Agency ITAR-TASS, May 6, 1988, Friday]


Applying the techniques developed in Afghanistan to Bosnia


Brzezinski's interview has tremendous importance today.  According to a Dutch intelligence report on Bosnia, in the early 1990s Pentagon intelligence worked with the Saudis and Iranians to bring weapons and mujahideen terrorists - the 'Afghan Arabs' - into Bosnia to indoctrinate and lead Alija Izetbegovic's Muslim extremists in fighting the Bosnian Serbs.  [1]

The same terrorists had been used against the pro-Soviet side in Afghanistan. Once again the media lied, claiming the Bosnian Serbs were fighting to destroy the Bosnian Muslims (i.e., genocide) when they were in fact defending their communities from the mujahideen, and were allied with a large group of moderate Muslims. [2]

This picture appeared in the London Times on December 11, 1995. The caption reads: "One of the Bosnian Army's Muslim brigades marches through Zenica in a demonstration of strength by 10,000 soldiers." Note that according to the Times these 10,000 troops constituted only *one* of "the Bosnian Army's Muslim brigades..."

During the 1990s, pictures like this were as rare as hen's teeth in the Western media.  Why? Because they graphically demonstrated that the media was lying when it claimed that the "Bosnian Government" was moderate and multiculturalist and so on.

The white costumes these troops are wearing are the uniforms of Middle Eastern mujahideen, not Yugoslav Muslims. The Bosnian Muslim troops wore them because they had been indoctrinated by Muslim extremists, including mujahideen imported by Iran, Saudi Arabia and other extremist states, with the participation of Pentagon intelligence.  In the early part of the Bosnian conflict (up until January 1993) Zalmay Khalilzad, the protégé of Zginew Brzezinski, was in charge of strategic planning at the Pentagon. [3]

In Afghanistan (as Brzezinski proudly states) and then in Bosnia, the US sponsored Muslim terror even as the State Department was officially condemning it. Because ordinary people would never support such a policy, it was sold to the public as support for freedom fighters (Afghanistan) or as defense of abused Muslims (Bosnia.)

By the late 1980s Brzezinski's protégé, Prof. Zalmay Khalilzad, was the  top strategist of the Afghan war.

Under the administration of Bush, Sr., Khalilzad was in charge of strategy at the Pentagon.  We have substantial evidence that it was under Bush, Sr., not Clinton, that the US began assisting the mujahideen in Bosnia.

So, in both cases, we have Brzezinski's protégé directing the use of Muslim extremism as a weapon against a secular state, with the media misrepresenting the nature of the fight.  The Brzezinski Doctrine in action.


2001: Brzezinski's protégé Zalmay Khalilzad was appointed Senior National Security Director for Southwest Asia, the heartland of Muslim extremist terror...


Want some food for thought? From May 23, 2001 until November 27, 2003, Prof. Khalilzad was "Special Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Gulf, Southwest Asia and Other Regional Issues, National Security Council." Southwest Asia covers the area from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia, including Iraq and Iran; it includes most of the Middle East and extends to Georgia. See White House map at

* Khalilzad was in charge of US policy on the ground in Afghanistan before and during the 2001 war. He then personally chose the Afghan government. It was under his watch that the US and Iran cooperated in convening a top level conference to give Afghanistan a government based on Muslim religious law. Now he's Ambassador and Special Envoy to Afghanistan. [4]

* Even while Khalilzad was in charge of Afghanistan he was also the key man on the ground before, during and after the invasion of Iraq. He was in charge of political relations with Iraqi exile politicians and the Iranian and Saudi governments up until the fall 2003. A crucial period.

* His area of official responsibility included Georgia during the period when the US was intensifying the financing and training of the Georgian military.  Russia accuses Georgia of aiding the Chechen terrorists.

So Brzezinski has been the key hands-on strategist, the leader on the ground, in a vast area plagued with Muslim extremist terror during most of the so-called war on terror. Oops - did I say Brzezinski? Sorry; I meant Zalmay Khalilzad...

Regarding US-Iranian cooperation to use Muslim extremist terror in Bosnia, see "How the U.S. & Iran have Cooperated to Sponsor Muslim Terror," at

Also see 'Articles Documenting U.S. Creation of Taliban and bin Laden's Terrorist Network' at

Regarding Brzezinski's protégé Zalmay Khalilzad, see

For more on the calculated creation of a Muslim extremist apparatus in Afghanistan in the 1980s by the US and Saudi Arabia, see the Washington Post's analysis at

The Brzezinski interview follows.

-- Jared Israel
Editor, Emperor's Clothes


Brzezinski's Interview with Le Nouvel Observateur

Le Nouvel Observateur: Former CIA director Robert Gates states in his memoirs: The American secret services began six months before the Soviet intervention to support the Mujahideen [in Afghanistan]. At that time you were president Carters security advisor; thus you played a key role in this affair. Do you confirm this statement?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version, the CIA's support for the Mujahideen began in 1980, i.e. after the Soviet army's invasion of Afghanistan on 24 December 1979. But the reality, which was kept secret until today, is completely different: Actually it was on 3 July 1979 that president Carter signed the first directive for the secret support of the opposition against the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And on the same day I wrote a note, in which I explained to the president that this support would in my opinion lead to a military intervention by the Soviets.

Le Nouvel Observateur: Despite this risk you were a supporter of this covert action? But perhaps you expected the Soviets to enter this war and tried to provoke it?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: It's not exactly like that. We didn't push the Russians to intervene but we knowingly increased the probability that they would do it.

Le Nouvel Observateur: When the Soviets justified their intervention with the statement that they were fighting against a secret US interference in Afghanistan, nobody believed them. Nevertheless there was a core of truth to this...Do you regret nothing today?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Regret what? This secret operation was an excellent idea. It lured the Russians into the Afghan trap, and you would like me to regret that? On the day when the Soviets officially crossed the border, I wrote president Carter, in essence: "We now have the opportunity to provide the USSR with their Viet Nam war." Indeed for ten years Moscow had to conduct a war that was intolerable for the regime, a conflict which involved the demoralization and finally the breakup of the Soviet Empire.

Le Nouvel Observateur: And also, don't you regret having helped future terrorists, having given them weapons and advice?

Zbigniew Brzezinski: What is most important for world history? The Taliban or the fall of the Soviet Empire? Some Islamic hotheads or the liberation of Central Europe and the end of the cold war?

Le Nouvel Observateur: "Some hotheads?" But it has been said time and time again: today Islamic fundamentalism represents a world-wide threat...

Zbigniew Brzezinski: Rubbish! It's said that the West has a global policy regarding Islam. That's hogwash: there is no global Islam. Let's look at Islam in a rational and not a demagogic or emotional way. It is the first world religion with 1.5 billion adherents. But what is there in common between fundamentalist Saudi Arabia, moderate Morocco, militaristic Pakistan, pro-Western Egypt and secularized Central Asia? Nothing more than that which connects the Christian countries...


Please forward this article or send the link to a friend!

Subscribe to our newsletter at
Receive articles from Emperor's Clothes.

* Footnotes and Further Reading

[1] Regarding Alija Izetbegovic's Muslim extremism, see "Who was Alija Izetbegovic?
Moderate 'George Washington' of Bosnia or Islamist Murderer?" 

[2]Regarding the Pro-Yugoslav Muslims who allied with the Bosnian Serbs, thus giving the lie to the charge that the Serbs were religious bigots, see "Pro-Yugoslav Muslim Leader Put on Trial," at

[3] Regarding Khalilzad's role in the Pentagon under the first Bush administration, go to

* Regarding the Dutch intelligence report on the Pentagon's coordination of intervention in Bosnia by Muslim states (especially Iran) see

[4]Regarding Khalilzad choosing the Afghan government, see

Regarding the top level conference where the US and Iran cooperated to design an Afghan constitution based on Muslim religious law, see "The IDLO, Backed by the US and Iran, Planned Muslim rule for Afghanistan," at 

The strategy Brzezinski helped develop is the key to understanding U.S. government actions today. See:

* "Why has USAID been Shipping Muslim Extremist Schoolbooks into Afghanistan...for 20 Years?" at

* 'Why Washington Wants Afghanistan' by Jared Israel, Rick Rozoff & Nico Varkevisser at

Thank you for reading Emperor's Clothes. or
[Emperor's Clothes]  

This article is copied from Parascope

The Bilderberg and the New World Order

Bilderberg Meets Secretly in Toronto - 2007
Article from 1996

From Staff Reports

The Bilderberg, the highest echelon of the global financial and political elite, recently met at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce Leadership Center (nicknamed the "Bohemian Grove of Canada" ) on the outskirts of King City, a suburb of Toronto.

At the meeting, which lasted from May 30 to June 2, the Bilderberg discussed global control of the air, water and public health, as well as the possible multi-billion dollar sale of the Canadian government-owned electric utility Ontario Hydro, according to informed sources quoted by The Spotlight.

As usual, the mainstream media completely ignored the event. This was not surprising, since many media power brokers regularly attend the meetings, including representatives of the major TV networks and the New York Times.

However, this year one major Canadian newspaper shattered the wall of silence in a spectacular fashion. The Toronto Star, one of the few remaining independent newspapers in Canada, ran a front page story on May 30 under the headline "Black Plays Host to World Leaders."

John Deverell, a Toronto Star business reporter, broke the story, based on a detailed news release from the Toronto-based New World Order Intelligence Update. Among the more than 100 attendees from around the world, Deverell listed U.S. Defense Secretary William Perry, Prime Minister Jean Chretien, Henry Kissinger, the queens of Netherlands and Spain "as well as other business, political and academic elite."

"For 42 years," Deverell reported, "the secretive organization has devoted itself to strengthening the Atlantic military alliance and economies... The guest list and agenda for the four-day conference are secret."

According to media magnate and permanent Bilderberg member Conrad Black, the ban on reporters "makes discussion more intimate and candid. There are no massive indiscretions, but the exchanges can be quite heated." This is a polite way of saying that members can secretly speak their minds about whatever grandiose schemes of world conquest they envision themselves as having the divine right to execute, without fearing that their words will ever be heard by the public.

This tactic is very similar to the Non-Attribution Rule used at Council on Foreign Relations meetings, which prevents statements made by attendees from being reported in the media. Many media CEOs, news anchors and influential members of the press fill seats in the CFR.

The Bilderberg and the New World Order

As far as global politics and finance go, the Bilderberg is the top of the pyramid, the all-seeing eye gazing upon the construction of a New World Order . This one-world system of governance, lurking in the shadows cast by flowery language about our new "global village," will transfer nearly all economic and political power into the hands of a small group of the world elite.

According to Bilderberg's draft document of 1989, "Bilderberg takes its name from the Bilderberg Hotel in Oosterbeek, Holland, where the first meeting took place in May 1954. That pioneering meeting grew out of the concern expressed by many leading citizens on both sides of the Atlantic that Western Europe and North America were not working together as closely as they should on matters of critical importance. It was felt that regular, off-the-record discussions would help create a better understanding of the complex forces and major trends affecting Western nations in the difficult post-war period."

According to Conrad Black, the Bilderberg "was set up in the mid-fifties by Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands.... [Meetings] normally include senior officials of the governments of all the countries represented, with a wide swath of enlightened business, academic, media and military leaders...."

Prince Bernhard gave the go-ahead, but the idea for the Bilderberg belonged to Joseph H. Retinger, a man who could make an appointment with the President of the United States just by picking up the telephone. In 1952, Retinger proposed a secret conference to Prince Bernhard which would involve the NATO leaders in an open and frank discussion on international affairs behind closed doors.

The Prince thought it was a grand idea, and they formed a committee to plan the conference. Berhhard briefed the Truman administration about the meeting in 1952, and although the idea was warmly embraced in the U.S., the first American counterpart group was not formed until the Eisenhower administration.

CIA Director General Walter Bedell Smith and C.D. Jackson were key players in organizing the American counterpart group, heavily influenced by the Rockefeller dynasty, whose Standard Oil holdings competed with Bernhard's Royal Dutch Petroleum. Hence, the interests of the oil industry were well-represented at Bilderberg meetings.

At early meetings of the Bilderberg, attendees expressed frustration with American politics, then in the throes of McCarthyism, whose nationalist ideology stood in the way of global planning. C. D. Jackson tried to quell their fears by saying, "Whether McCarthy dies by an assassin's bullet or is eliminated in the normal American way of getting rid of boils on body politics, I prophesy that by the time we hold our next meeting he will be gone from the American scene."

Bilderberg meetings are held in remote places, and attendees are encouraged to leave spouses and aides at home, to not use prepared texts, and to conduct discussions in English as much as possible.

Director and advisory board members include Gianni Agnelli of Fiat, Dwayne Andreas (controlling shareholder of Archer-Daniels Midland), Zbigniew Brzezinski (former national security advisor in the Carter administration), Lord Carrington (former British foreign and defense secretary and secretary-general of NATO), Andrew Knight (editor of the Economist), Richard Perle (former U.S. assistant secretary of National Defense and one of the champions of the Strategic Defense Initiative and Euro-missile deployment), Paul Volker (former Federal Reserve chairman), and George Will (U.S. conservative columnist and commentator), to name just a few.

"Providentially, the world became more accessible for me as Canada became less commodious," Conrad Black said in his biography, "A Life in Progress". "It was from Bilderberg that our company's eventual vocation as an international newspaper organization arose."

Critics of the Bilderberg say that the secret group:

  • perceives itself as being supra-governmental;
  • manipulates global finances and establishes rigid and binding monetary rates around the world;
  • selects political figures whom the Bilderberg decrees should become rulers, and targets those whom it wants removed from power;
  • decides which countries shall wage war on others.


  • Deverell, John. "Black Plays Host to World Leaders," Toronto Star , May 30 1996, page 1A.
  • "The Bilderberg Group: The Invisible Power House." Nexus Magazine , Volume 3, #1 (Dec '95-Jan '96).
  • New World Order Intelligence Update
  • Katson, Trisha. "Bilderberg To Meet Secretly in Toronto," The Spotlight, News Release.

(c) Copyright 1996 ParaScope, Inc.