Bosnia, Hillary’s Playground
by Srdja Trifkovic
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
At a time when the U.S. power and authority are increasingly challenged around the world, the incoming team sees the Balkans as the last geopolitically significant area where they can assert their “credibility” by postulating a maximalist set of objectives as the only outcome acceptable to the United States, and duly insisting on their fulfillment. We have already seen this pattern with Kosovo, and it is to be expected that we’ll see its replay in Bosnia under the new team.
There have been strong pressures from the West, ever since the signing of the Dayton Peace Accords 13 years ago, to reduce the authority of the Republika Srpska (RS), to question its legitimacy and to label it a “genocidal creation” unworthy of existence. Prime Minister Milorad Dodik was able to weather the latest storm—caused by the pro-Muslim policies of the “high representative” (i.e., unelected governor, jointly appointed by Brussels and Washington), Miroslav Lajcak, and his crew of international bureaucrats—but the political momentum in Washington has taken an alarming turn for the Serbs in general and for the Republika Srpska in particular.
Now that intervention is “an American tradition,” Hillary Clinton is getting ready to practice some more in the Balkans—as if her husband’s contribution in the 1990s had not brought sufficient misery to the former Yugoslavia. She wants to place the entire region, and specifically Bosnia’s “unification” based on a radical revision of the Dayton framework, near the top of her list of foreign priorities.
Barack Obama’s foreign policy and national security team includes a number of influential figures, and notably Vice-President-elect Joseph Biden, who are committed to the establishment of a centralized, unitary Bosnian state dominated by Muslims. Mrs. Clinton’s commitment to that goal is of an altogether different order of magnitude, however.
Her “framework for peace” in the Balkans is the same as her husband’s and that so doggedly applied by her friend and role-model, Dr. Albight: unqualified U.S. support for Muslims in Bosnia and Kosovo against their Christian neighbors. The theme is so important to her that during the primaries Mrs. Clinton listed a number of fact-free, Balkan-related foreign-policy “accomplishments” as proof of her bravery and experience. She repeatedly invoked some embelished memories of a “dangerous” trip to Bosnia in 1996, when she was supposedly threatened by Serb sniper fire at Tuzla airport – although the Bosnian war had ended six months earlier, and video footage shows smiling schoolchildren greeting her in Tuzla.
Mrs. Clinton’s exact reasons for wanting to abolish the Bosnian-Serb Republic and help Iran’s best friends in Sarajevo are deeply personal, and even psycho-pathological. They are therefore not amenable to rational discourse and costs-and-benefits analysis. Her motives are less important, however, than the fact that this is indeed what she wants.
A hint of what is to come was provided recently by the Clinton family confidante Richard Holbrooke, slated for a key role at State under her management. Together with the former Bosnian “high representative” Paddy Ashdown, he authored an alarming article, “The Bosnian Powder Keg,” published in several influential daily newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic on October 22, 2008. Anticipating Obama’s victory, Holbrooke and Ashdown presented a plea that “the new US administration gets engaged” and renews its pledge “to Bosnia’s survival as a state, by maintaining an effective troop presence and … finding ways to untie Bosnia’s constitutional knot.” This last phrase is a clear code word for the liquidation of the entities.
Holbrooke was the chief U.S. negotiator at Dayton in 1995. He boasted a year later: “We are re-engaged in the world, and Bosnia was the test.” This “we” meant the United States, not “the West” or “the international community.”
The interventionists prevailed then, their narrative dominates the public commentary now, and they are coming back to the White House tomorrow.
Heralding the new spirit, the New York Times pompously headlined “Fears of new ethnic conflict in Bosnia” on December 13. Presented as an analytical feature, the article was in fact a pro-Muslim plea for more American intervention to “unify” Bosnia-Herzegovina as the only way to avoid another war. The article further claimed that “leaders across Bosnia expressed hope that Mr. Obama would be more engaged in Bosnia than President Bush has been,” whereas in reality such hopes are entertained only in the Muslim camp. Its clear purpose was to start preparing the political and ideological ground for the new Administration’s policy of “untying Bosnia’s constitutional knot.”
Hillary Clinton’s commitment to cutting that knot should not be doubted. Like a dog returning to lap up its own vomit, she just cannot let go of Bosnia. The U.S. manstream media is doing its bit, maintaining an almost daily feed of largely fact-free stories on how,
once again, Bosnia is in deep crisis, with tensions running high … There is even talk of a new war. Might this be a sudden test for the new Obama Administration?
Like in a three-act tragedy, if there are headlines heralding a non-existant crisis in Bosnia in Act I, there will be a crisis in Act II — Mrs. Clinton and her team will make sure of that — and there may be U.S. bombs hitting Serb markets and hospitals, yet again, in Act III.
It is fortunate that there is little appetite in Western Europe (Britain always exempted, of course) for rekindling the Balkan powder keg with a “sudden test.” Several attempts by Washington to impose risky or even reckless strategies on its European partners have failed lately thanks to Germany’s, France’s and Italy’s prudence – most notably an attempt by the Bush administration to put Ukraine and Georgia on fast track to NATO membership by offering them Membership Action Plans (MAPs).
Trusting Europeans to be reasonable is not enough. A long-overdue proactive PR and diplomatic strategy by the RS authorities is urgently needed. Prime Minister Dodik should act to improve the flow of information to the Srpska government that warrant a response, especially the challenges to its status and legitimacy.
Such challenges are not limited to the explicit pleas for Bosnia’s “integration.” It is, indeed, absurd for the United States to wage a “war on terror,” and at the same time to return to Bosnia three Algerian-born militants released from Guantanamo who are now ”Bosnian citizens” thanks to their military service with the Mujahideen units of Izetbegovic’s army in the early 1990s. Such people were supposed to be permanently removed from Bosnia, in accordance with the Dayton agreement and with the support of the U.S., over a decade ago.
In addition, the government in Banja Luka needs to take an active interest in the ongoing as well as forthcoming cases at The Hague Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and specifically to help with their funding. It is clear that unfavorable outcome of those cases – especially the ones including charges of “genocide” – would be eagerly used by the enemies of the RS to renew their calls for abrogating Dayton.
Every time people like Ashdown and Hollbrooke regurgitate the old mantra about disruptive Serbs and virtuous “Bosniaks,” it is necessary to reassert that the RS is an essential factor of stability in Bosnia-Herzegovina and the Western Balkan region, and that those calling for its liquidation (under whatever name) are effectively aiding and abetting the forces of global jihad.
All along, an old question remains unanswered by the unitary Bosnia partisans: If Yugoslavia was untenable and eventually collapsed under the weight of the supposedly insurmountable differences among its constituent nations, how can Bosnia – the Yugoslav microcosm par excellence – develop and sustain the dynamics of a viable polity?
Mrs. Clinton may go on supposing ex hypothesi that if there is a “Bosnia” there must be a nation of “Bosnians,” and she may even try to impose her vision on that long-suffering corner of the Balkans. That she will fail goes without saying. The only question concerns the price of that failure, and the identity of those footing the bill.
[Subscribe online to Chronicles: A Magazine of American Culture. Click here for details].
1 Comment by Etienne Gervaise on 27 December 2008:
Her exact reasons for wanting to abolish the Bosnian Serb Republic are likely personal and psychological rather than rational … Indeed! Hillary is a socialist and a woman, therefore a rational thought out of her dense cranium is out of the question.
Brace yourself Serbia, and pray that America’s creditors cut us off so we can no longer wage pointless wars against nations which pose no threat.
2 Comment by Grumpy Old Man on 27 December 2008:
There are no limits to the folly of graduates of the Ivy League and the Seven Sisters.
God save Serbia (and us).
3 Comment by george on 28 December 2008:
The Obama administration will include senior people who implemented the pro-Islamist policy in the Balkans and Europe in general, specifically Brzezinski and Soros — a fact that no one seems to mention. People seem to believe the US is still going to attack Iran or Obama will be assassinated. Appointments and remarks by Obama officials suggest the US is moving away from the Middle East and focusing on Europe.
Lyndon LaRouche has done good background on this George Soros character. His field of operations seems to be centred in Europe, financing coloured revolutions in Serbia, in the Central Asian stans, Ukraine and Georgia, a failed one in Belarus, and I would guess opposition media outlets in Russia and NGO’s. He is the major financier of HRW. He’s been operating in Georgia since 94.
Brzezinski’s family clan held positions in US government working against Russian interests in Europe, supporting Chechen separatists and lobbied for US intervention in the Balkans.
Then there’s also NATO war criminal, General Jones, who engineered the NATO bombing of Serbian civilians in 1999 when he served as NATO’s Supreme Commander while leading the American operation in Kosovo.
Another gaff was in the Milosevic trail where video was shown of Ashdown inspecting KLA weapons while talking to KLA commanders assuring them of PM Blair’s support.
4 Comment by Michael Kenny on 28 December 2008:
The permanent problem with US foreign policy is that it is Israel-driven. The whole “Bosnian powder keg” was manufactured so as to divide and conquer by setting Europeans at each other’s throats: Muslims against Christians, Russia against the EU etc. The point, of course, was to prop up a NATO which had become useless to post-cold war Europe but which is an essential legal pretext for keeping US force and military supplies near to Israel. Obama is even more in the pocket of the Israel Lobby than was Bush, so it is inevitable that Hillary will attempt to re-ignite the conflict in ex-Yugoslavia. Europe, however, will probably do what it always does: smile sweetly but do nothing.
5 Comment by Brock H. on 28 December 2008:
Why does the American foreign policy establishment hate the native people of Southeastern Europe, especially Bosnia and Serbia, so much? I have heard that the last remaining vestiges of influence the Orthodox Church has on those people has something to do with it, but what else? Are they not small and not-too-powerful nations? What should the American Empire of Criminals find so threatening about the Balkan peoples?
6 Comment by Natalie on 28 December 2008:
Excellent article, Dr. Trifkovic. I’m sure Hillary Clinton (and the Obama administration in general) will want a war with Russia as well, to take our minds off the real problem at hand, Islam.
@Michael Kenny, comment #4:
Are you kidding?? First off, Obama hates Israel and certainly won’t be giving them any help. Second of all, what’s wrong with our support for Israel? They are our ally in our struggle against Islam. They have every right to exist and I hope we will remain close to them for a long time.
7 Comment by Jacob Aitken on 28 December 2008:
I am curious if Russia will respond. In the 90s Russia did not have the same clout as it does today. The Ossetian war demonstrated that Russia can play smashmouth and that the US’s unilateralism might be at an end. Let’s hope so.
8 Comment by Boba Borojevic on 28 December 2008:
The Washington Post ranks Hillary’s 1996 trip to Bosnia as one of top 10 scandals of 2008. Dr. Trifkovic is right to describe Hillary’s handling of the Bosnian portfolio as “deeply personal and even psycho-pathological “. In addition I would paraphrase M. Albright: for the Clintons the Bosnian war “was worth it” big money! Bill and Hillary (as well as some of their faithful Balkan collaborators in general and – Holbrooke and Albright in particular) became multimillionaires by cashing in on their White House “experiences” and connections in the world, most notably the Islamic world.
The Clinton-led Washington regime became one of the most corrupt and most war happy regimes in existence. As wife of then president Clinton, Hillary urged her husband to bomb Serbia for no justifiable reason. Serbia has posed no threat to American interests ever. Big money and not big decisions are ahead of Madame Secretary Clinton. We can only imagine what she will do to get it.
This is an excellent column Dr. Trifkovic. I hope that Chronicles will persuade you to stay and write for them.
9 Comment by jack bailey on 28 December 2008:
I have a great idea! Governeor Blagojevic should appoint Dr. Trifkovic as an independent to the vacant Senate seat. Serbs need a voice in the Senate and this is the best time for Blagojevic to come home and do something for his kin, before he gets impeached
10 Comment by J. M. on 29 December 2008:
@ Natalie comment #6
“@Michael Kenny, comment #4: Are you kidding?? First off, Obama hates Israel and certainly won’t be giving them any help. Second of all, what’s wrong with our support for Israel? They are our ally in our struggle against Islam. They have every right to exist and I hope we will remain close to them for a long time.”
Natalie, OBAMA IS in the pocket of the zionists — just look at his main sponsors (e.g. Goldman Sachs), or his “new” staff, Rahm Emmanuel (who served in the Israeli army but hasn´t spent a day in a US military base), Madeleine Albright, Holbrooke (whose grandfather changed names when he emigrated from Germany to the US), and so on…
I agree with you that Israel has its right to survive, but as a follower of Christ I CANNOT support an anti-Christian state, whether Islamic or Jewish, where is allowed to libel Christianity and to burn New Testaments… They CANNOT BE OUR ALLIES in a war against Islam for as long as their brethren in the West are the main abettors for this: the Muslims wouldn´t be a menace if we weren´t so decadent and so “doped” with holocaust guilt.
11 Comment by Alex on 29 December 2008:
As a Greek married to a Serb, I do believe that there is a bias against Orthodox nations, caught in the scissors between the West that demands total assimilation to their norms, and the East that brandishes Islam’s sword. That said, I have lived in the Balkans, have served in the Greek army, and while I love my country, I know that Greece, like Serbia, is often its own worst enemy. Before looking outward, we must look inward. I would like to hear Dr. Trifkovic talk about and analyze the rot inside Serbia as well as that from without. It is far too easy to blame others all of the time.
12 Comment by J Meng on 29 December 2008:
Natalie @6: You said, “@Michael Kenny, comment #4:
Are you kidding?? First off, Obama hates Israel and certainly won’t be giving them any help. Second of all, what’s wrong with our support for Israel? They are our ally in our struggle against Islam. They have every right to exist and I hope we will remain close to them for a long time.”
First, according to Joshua Frank at http://www.lewrockwell.com/frank/frank41.html, on Sunday’s Face the Nation, David Axerod, Senior Adviser to Barack Obama, explained “how an Obama administration would handle the situation, even if it turns for the worst.” That is, he would handle it in the same fashion as Dubya has and all the Presidents going back to Truman have, with a momentary exception by Eisenhower during the 1956 war.
Second, I think Israel is an outlaw state, because the Zionists, for the most part, with British acquiescence and U.S. indifference, stole Palestine from the Palestinians through terrorism.
Third, we have been supporting Israel militarily, poliltically, and economically ever since 1948. Billions of dollars have been given to Israel. In other words, the American taxpayer is being fleeced for another unjust cause, again. And, by the way, what is the benefit to America of this so-called alliance? Historically, it has been a continuous one-way-street: all for the benefit of Israel.
Fourth, up until the Zionist theft of Palestine, no Islamic state was at war against the United States. America was not on any crusade against Islam. War has come against the U.S. only after our year-in and year-out support of Israel against her enemies.
Fifth, I can only hope and pray that a U.S. government will be elected, someday, that will recognize these facts and terminate once and for all this loathsome alliance, because it is not only debilitating for America, but it maintains the cruel injustice being inflicted upon the Palestinian people.
13 Comment by PcH on 29 December 2008:
Don’t forget that Israel brutally persecutes Christians. The vast majority of Christians native-born in the holy land have been forced into exile, and let us not forget the severe civil penalties for preaching the Gospel there.
14 Comment by Michael Averko on 29 December 2008:
Re: Alex # 11
See:
The Condescension of the Christian West
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=3190
The West continued to bomb Serbia during the Orthodox Easter. On the other hand, if I correctly recall, it was noted that a bombing campaign against a predominately Muslim nation was stopped during a Muslim holiday. Relative to all of this, I seem to recall Dr. T (I think it was on an Oliver North hosted MSNBC show) rhetorically ask where’s the separation of mosque and state?
For whatever their differences, the populations in predominately Orthodox Christian nations opposed the 1999 NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia. When it comes to Russia and Serbia, the Ashdowns and Kristols are more concerned with pleasing the so-called “Muslim street.” Never mind that this diverse religious grouping at large doesn’t fully embrace the Muslim backgrounded foes of the Russians and Serbs.
You don’t see the neocons and neolibs sacrificing Israel on the same premise (to please the so-called “Muslim street”).
The Kristols and Ashdowns haven’t succeeded in pleasing that street (9/11), while supporting morally questionable policies, which arguably don’t serve the best interests of the West.
15 Comment by Natalie on 29 December 2008:
So you think Islam would just leave us alone if we didn’t support Israel? You are very deluded if you believe this. Islam was at war with us long before the state of Israel was created and will continue to be at war with us until we decided vanquish it, or they defeat us. Read your Koran, people! Islam has a special hatred for the Jews, but even if we cut off all ties to Israel this very minute, Islam would still continue to fight us because we are not Muslims. They are persistent and will never rest until they’ve converted the world to Islam, or are dead. It’s that simple.
Therefore, Israel is a valuable ally in the war with Islam. Why shouldn’t the Jews have a state of their own? Historically, that land is theirs and they have every right to it. America ought to help them–if we didn’t, we’d still be fighting Islam, but with one less ally.
And please don’t say that Obama’s going to support Israel. He’s surrounded by anti-Semitic advisers and is a sympathizer with Islam.
The way I see it, so-called “paleocons”, for lack of a better term, seem to think that all of America’s foreign policy woes are caused by our support for Israel. They seem to think that if America didn’t intervene anywhere, we’d be much better off. This is so blatantly untrue–evil will flourish if we don’t stop it. Islamic countries will always hate us unless we convert to Islam. Isolationism doesn’t work–what do you think would have happened if we’d stayed out of World War II? Let’s just put it this way: I wouldn’t be typing this in English right now. We’d all be speaking German.
There’s nothing wrong with Zionism, either. As I said before, the Jews deserve their own state. They’ve always been persecuted terribly. Everything wrong with the world, past and present, somehow gets blamed on the Jews or Israel. It’s stupid and offensive, and a big ideological difference I have with the paleocons. You can’t say you support the Jewish people but not Israel. That just doesn’t work. Condemning the alleged (but not true) evils of “Zionism” is a favourite tactic of anti-Semites, both covert and overt.
16 Comment by PcH on 29 December 2008:
Israel and international Jews support Islam in Christian countries.
Israel brutally persecutes Christians and has ethnically cleansed Christian natives from our holy land. Israel and international Jews are fanatical backers of the current Islamic invasion of all Europe. Israel and international Jews formulated the policy to make war on Serbia and ethnically cleanse the heart of Serbia, Kosovo, of the native Christians and hand it over to Islam in order to give it a foothold in Europe.
Therefore, support of Israel is to back Islam and to rebel against God’s will.
17 Comment by Michael Averko on 29 December 2008:
Re: Natalie #15
So that there’s no misunderstanding, I was noting a double standard prevalent in neocon/neolib foreign policy circles.
That said, I’m understanding of Israel’s position.
As for Islam at large, it’s a reality which isn’t likely to go away. Moreover, it’s by no means uniform in outlook.
18 Comment by Michael Averko on 29 December 2008:
Let me stress that the previous post is stated in case the remarks in 15 were meant for me.
19 Comment by J Meng on 29 December 2008:
Dear Natalie, @15
I am assuming this post of your’s was directed at me. If I am wrong, ignore what follows.
First, you declared, “Islam was at war with us long before the state of Israel was created and will continue to be at war with us until we decided [sic]vanquish it, or they defeat us.” Would you please refresh my memory and give me the names of the wars, and the whens and the wheres that Islam was at war with the United States? Other than the episode of the Barbary Pirates of the early 19th century (who preyed on any European trade in the Mediterranean), when and where was the U.S. the specific target of Islamic hostility before our support of the outlaw nation of Israel?
Second, you conjectured, “but even if we cut off all ties to Israel this very minute, Islam would still continue to fight us because we are not Muslims.” Since this is nothing more than speculation, we’ll have to wait and see. But don’t worry your little heart, this corrupt U.S. government is not going to caste aside Israel.
Third, the term alliance implies reciprocity between allies. How has the United States benefited from the Israeli alliance? You did not address the fact that billions of dollars in arms, loans, grants, and technology has been sent to Israel since 1948. What did Israel return, other than spies to tap U.S. secrets and sell them to China?
Fourth, you assert, “Historically, that land is theirs and they have every right to it.” Not any longer. After two serious defeats had been inflicted upon the proud Rabbis by the Romans, they left Palestine and dispersed throughout the world. Not only that, but the Jews rejected the Messiah, our Lord Jesus Christ, and thus disobeyed God, and therefore, lost whatever claim they had to the Holy Land.
Fifth, you wildly speculate, “Isolationism doesn’t work–what do you think would have happened if we’d stayed out of World War II? Let’s just put it this way: I wouldn’t be typing this in English right now. We’d all be speaking German.” We’ll never know whether Isolationism works or not, because it wasn’t given a chance by the Roosevelt machine and its supporters. What evidence can you present to us that if we had stayed out of World War II you would be speaking German, now?
Sixth, so now you get around to calling me an anti-Semite, because I have criticized the thugs of Zionism who stole Palestine from the Palestinians. It isn’t the first time I have been pelted with such injustice. You talk in generalities and do not give us any particulars. You do nothing more than continue the ongoing lie perpetuated by Jews ever since the revelation of Christ the King.
20 Comment by TJF on 29 December 2008:
I am curious about the use of moralistic language in discussing practical politics. “The Jews deserve their own state. They’ve always been persecuted terribly.” Always? Even when they were persecuting their non-Jewish subjects in the ancient world? Deserve? In other words they have some sort of claim on humanity to provide them with not only a state but a particular state. I believe in Realpolitik, and if people want something bad enough to kill for it and get away with it, who am I to stand in their way–so long as my money is not in their pocket, their victims’ blood on my hands. I wish the Israelis, whom I came to admire on a brief visit with Dr. Trifkovic, well. They are tough people and know how to crack down hard when they need to or merely want to. I support a strategic alliance with Israel, but when I hear crazy talk justifying their misdeeds on moral grounds, I begin to have second thoughts. Zionism is a fine religion-substitute for Jews who have rejected Judaism, but it can have no appeal for believing Christians or believing Jews who think more deeply than a WSJ editorial.
21 Comment by D Simmons on 29 December 2008:
If the most basic questions were asked of the culture of critique, anti-semetism would have no appeal, but it seems taboo and conspiracy theory are more intriguing and interesting.
22 Comment by Josh Cooney on 29 December 2008:
“Historically, that land is theirs and they have every right to it.”
1) Even in ancient times most Jews lived in diaspora.
2) If I recall correctly, the Jews were given this land as part of a covenant with God. Is modern Israel really a manifestation of the historic Jewish faith of Moses and the Prophets?
3) What if every ethnic group claimed whatever land the possesed 2,000 years ago? Needless to say, this is an absurd idea.
23 Comment by PcH on 29 December 2008:
Cooney-
Right on.
What about the genetic claim? What evidence does any one have that these people calling themselves “Jews” have any relation to those in the Bible?
Do the Black Ethiopian “Jews?”
Or the Arab “Jews?”
Or the 60-90% of Jews, which descend from Turkic tribes?
Or maybe the Western European Jews?
None of these are of the same race. I am sure I could find a real Viking in my family tree, therefore I can takeover Norway. Chase out them nasty Norwegians.
24 Comment by slim on 29 December 2008:
Meng,
google and read ‘British Record on Partition’. Then weep about how pathetically wrong you are, and what a ‘big lie’ spewer you are.
Natalie,
you are indeed correct. Only an idiot would think that Soros-Brzezinski driven policy is actually ‘pro Israel’ or driven by zionists.
The Israel haters fail to comprehend that there has never been, and never will be, a ‘pro Israel’ zionist in high position in the US government. Pro Israel zionists do not support the cleansing of Jewish land and creation of Muslim nazi states therein.
Pch: provide some citation for this ‘cleansing’ of Christians. I’ve never seen any evidence of this.
Why is it that so much of the pro-Serb crowd adopt all of hitler’s talking points when it comes to Israel?
25 Comment by Brock H. on 29 December 2008:
Comments #19-23:
Good points, everyone, I wonder if Neocon Natalie has gotten the picture. Probably not, as the absence of any replies from her is evidence of. Most leftists probably just get angry and engage in name-calling whenever facts which upset their delicate sensibilities are presented to them.
Invoking ancestral claims from the past when declaring a people’s need to migrate to a given land is nothing more than a convenient political tactic, an effective one, but still nothing more than a tactic. New civilizations rise up, their armies sweep across lands and claim them as war spoils, for the purposes of expanding their populations, economies, kingdoms, empires, etc., and citizens of those victorious peoples move onto those lands as a result. That is the way the world works, and it will never change. Playing the victim card or the ancestral lands card in response is akin to a toddler screaming because he did not get something he wanted from his mother.
26 Comment by slim on 29 December 2008:
The ‘need’ to migrate to the land was not driven by the Jews. It was driven by the Jewhaters, who are so pathetic that their beloved hajj amin not only helped slaughter hundreds of thousands of Jews, and then they whine incessantly about ’stolen’ land–which was sold to the Jews by hajj amin himself.
It’s the Israel haters and big lie spewers like Ming that have proven that Israel needed to exist.
While Ming lies about ’stolen’ land, the reality is that the British, their Arab league pets, and various imported German and Bosnian nazis all colluded to sabotage partition, finish the final solution, and establish British military bases in the region.
Not surprisingly, the various historical genocide perpetrators, which include the husseini lead Muslims, their aiders and abbettors in the US State Department (Dulles brothers, Gehlen, Wisner, etc.), the Vatican, and the Germans, must all work furiously to re-write history to cover up for their depravity and sickness.
And those that support their re-written garbage are as sick and pathetic as they are today, and were 65+ years ago.
27 Comment by george on 30 December 2008:
@26slim
But why do international organised Jewry support Muslim Islamist linked regimes in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya and encouraging Muslim separatists in Russia’s other neighbouring regions where they are hostile to the local Jewish population.
I assume they support causes or groups where they see a political or financial advantage.
I don’t if Bosnia had a Jews community but I know Jews in Chechnya along with the majority ethnic Russians have been cleansed from the region and militants have targeted Jews in neighbouring Dagestan region and targeted by the KLA with native Serb population in Kosovo.
Even in the latest Georgian conflict when Israeli trained Georgia forces lead the blitz on South Ossetia the Jewish quarter was blitzed yet Jewish media pundits and Georgian Jews in Israel as well as Albright, Holbrooke, Kagan, etc. and the Israeli government itself supported the Georgian regime because Israel has invested $1.5 billion dollars in Georgia investing in the oil pipeline.
Even members of George Soros installed Georgian government where former Israeli officials and the person that organised the operation was the Israeli general that organised the disastrous war in Lebanon.
28 Comment by Brock H. on 30 December 2008:
slim @26:
You blame an entire nation of people at the end of your comment, the Germans, for the deeds of their government, the 3rd Reich. Governments have a long history of treating their election to power as blank checks to do whatever they want, and the realm of foreign policy is what we are concerned with here. Are you so blinded by your obsession with rooting out anti-Semitism that you believe all Germans in the 30s and 40s were rabid anti-Semites, simply because they elected an opportunistic politician like Hitler?
I recognize that Hitler was an evil man, as Mein Kamf shows. I also maintain vehemently, and I hope that you will respectfully trust me on this, that to seek to eradicate an ethnic group of people by mass murder is evil, and henceforth I condemn it, not condone it. But show a bull a big red carpet, and he will charge. Poke a viper with a stick too many times, and he will strike.
The Germans’ empire was emasculated in 1919 at Versailles by the Western powers. The German economy then crumbled. Hitler advertised his campaign of economic nationalism including the reunification of the German nation by taking back historically German lands and populations of people from Poland and Czechoslovakia, by force if the West would not give its consent – plus the crackdown on and eventual expulsion of Jews from their land.
One more time, I do not condone mass murder, but surely you might allow this certain point: The Reich would not have NEEDED to murder the Jews if they had been allowed by their westernmost neighbors to simply expel them, would they???
I also have a question 4 u: If there has never been a fiercely pro-Israel Zionist in a high U.S. government position, how would you ideologically describe Paul Wolfowitz?
And to answer your question at the end of comment #24, I believe it is because Serbia feels it has its back against the wall and they are being provoked. They are being denied their desires and ambitions as a nation of people by the Western powers . . . gee, that description kind of reminds me of the Germans in the 30s. Hitler spoke for his people when he denounced the West for boxing them into a corner.
29 Comment by Michael Averko on 30 December 2008:
Interesting discussion where opposing views have (IMO) some merit. I hope the discussion doesn’t esacalate into a flame war.
I respectfully note that such matters aren’t always so clear cut.
Under Muslim rule in Spain, Jews did comparatively well. Likewise with Jews in the Ottoman Empire.
At times, some predominately Christian nations favored the Turkish dominated Ottoman Empire in the latter’s relationship with Orthodox Christian peoples and predominately orthodox Christian nations.
Concerning the Bosnian Civil War, Iran and some other predominately Muslim nations showed signs of essentially working with Western neocon/neolib interests.
On the other hand, Iran hasn’t appeared so gung ho in supporting Chechen separatists. The latter has received support among some elements in Turkey, Jordan and some other nations (predominately Muslim and non-Muslim alike).
In the Azeri-Armenian conflict over Nagorno-Karabakh, the Iranians have (if anything) showed signs favoring the Christian Armenians over the Muslim Azeris. In this instance, the historic geopolitical rivalry between Turks and Persians seems to come into play. Such a rivalry is evident elsewhere. Nations of the same predominating religious affiliation have warred with each other.
Regarding a comment pertaining to Zionism, it can be considered a nationalist political ideology. Over the years, Lenni Brenner (a left Trots) and Alfred Lilienthal (more conservative leaning) have been staunch critics of that movement. I try to take a live and let live within reason attitude on this and some other topics.
On the mentioned bias point, note the US State Dept. not using the word “disproportionate” to describe Israel’s recent strike in Gaza. This contrasts from how the Russian counterattack against Georgia was described among a good number of neocons and neoilibs.
All this is said with my understanding of the difficulties when fighting violent forces who utilize civilian areas as bases of operation.
30 Comment by Michael Averko on 30 December 2008:
You can take out the “some” in paragraph one of my last set of comments.
I respectfully caution against such terms as “international Jewry” to suggest Jews marching lock step on every point.
Mass media can nurture certain stereotypes. Most Jews aren’t neocons. Conversely, neoconservatism is well represented with Jews. The Jews seen in mass media and government are reflecting the slant within such structures. Reference Rod B of Illinois. I know my share of Serbs who weren’t pleased with him prior to the scandal involving him.
On a related front, as I ‘ve noted before, it often seems that English language mass media favors one particular kind of Ukrainian view over the other. This results in a number of folks thinking that Ukrainians hate Russians. The reality is quite different.
31 Comment by george on 30 December 2008:
@29Michael Averko
I think you need to brush up on your history and not use mainstream historians like Anatol Lieven who was tutored under Brezinski and works for the Rothschild affiliated NGO Carnegie Endowment for Democracy.
“The latter has received support among some elements in Turkey, Jordan and some other nations (predominately Muslim and non-Muslim alike).”
Turkish state intelligence has lead the way in training and help finance Chechen terrorism.
In 92 they started training Chechen militants in military camps in Turkey and accompanied the Chechen president touring US universities including Harvard where he meet Brezinski and got the backing to train militants in Bosnia in the same year.
In Turkey they were even running terrorist training camps for Turks, Chechens and others to fight in Chechnya.
In the first war Turkey and Jordan were running charter flights for militants.
Most nations intelligence agencies actively recruit and train militants to fight in Chechnya including EU, US, Pakistan and most Middle Eastern countries especially Saudi Arabia.
Britain’s MI6 runs an NGO in the Czech Rep where it teaches militants how to lay mines and Mohammed Atta was recruited by German intelligence with the aid of Czech intelligence and the CIA to fight in Kosovo and Chechnya.
So called international terrorism is bogus what there is, is an international Islamic mercenary force that continued after the Afghan war to fight for the CIA and western intelligence
That what the Bosnian war was about as training and recruiting ground for militants in Europe and the Middle East to fight Russia just like in WW2 with Operation Blue.
I suggest you read Paul Murphy’s book Wolves of Islam: Russia and the faces of Chechen Terrorism to get some idea of the real background behind the conflict.
“I respectfully caution against such terms as “international Jewry” to suggest Jews marching lock step on every point.”
But organised Jewry controls the media, banking and financing of political parties in western governments which they have used to further there political objectives like getting the US to invade Iraq and pushing with war against Iran and deposing the Czar and installing Communism in Russia.
32 Comment by Michael Averko on 30 December 2008:
George:
“I suggest” you brush up on some of your comments.
Lieven hasn’t been with the CEIP for some time now.
His leaving that org. seems to have been related to his disagreeing with the slant that org. has taken.
As he was leaving, he wrote a critical piece (I think it was in The IHT) about the KGB (I’m referring to the apparently Lozansky coined term for Khodorkovsky, Gusinsky and Berezovsky) and its sway in the West (if I’m not mistaken, the CEIP received a half million dollar donation from Khodorkovsky).
Offhand, I think (could be wrong) that Lieven is editor of The Nixon Center affiliated In The National Interest, while maintaining an affiliation with the New America Foundation.
I understand that Lieven is of a White Russian background. I don’t always agree with him. However, I think it’s off base to say that he thinks along the general lines of Brzezinski.
You make some interesting comments. I’d appreciate seeing some detail to them in the form of well documented links. I didn’t necessarily express disagreement with some of the points you make. Rather, for accuracy sake, I was careful in what I stated.
At last note, Lieven is highlighted at the RT guest section at the bottom of this link:
http://www.rttv.ru
Your earlier used term “international Jewry” has since been replaced with “organized Jewry.”
Regarding support for the Bolsheviks, the Germans (among other things, transferring Lenin from Zurich to St. Petersburg), Poles (Pilsudski’s attack in 1919, followed by his refusal to support the Whites, despite the latter’s recognition of Polish independence) and non-Jews like John Reed and Mary Louise Bryant did a good deal in aiding the Reds.
A good number of Jews have opposed the 2003 attack on Iraq.
33 Comment by Michael Averko on 30 December 2008:
Re: last post
Can take quotes out of first paragraph, with the edit to read as “I think you need to brush up…”
Pointedly stated to reflect the tone of the comments it was answering.
34 Comment by Michael Averko on 30 December 2008:
I also want to note that I’ve run into my share of Jews on the left and right who sympathize with the mainstream Serb position, while agreeing with the mainstream Russian view on Chechnya.
This reality isn’t often reflected in English language mass media.
Why misrepresent things with broad comments that can be reasonably seen as inaccurate, if not offensive to folks who are essentially agreeing with you?
Some otherwise prefectly valid views can get side-tracked.
There’re hacks out there looking for the slightest perceived mis-step to pounce on.
35 Comment by slim on 30 December 2008:
George and Brock,
first off, there is no ‘organised Jewry’. There never has been. There are Jews among the elites, and they work towards the same fascist goals as those of the people that hired them.
And there are everyday Jews–who know only what is stated on CNN and the NYT. These news sources do not report on Chechnya, Serbia, and they fully legitimize the movement of Husseini as a rational response to the presence of Jews. They also fully support an ethnically clean Muslim state on Israel’s land.
And when they repeat their lies often enough, the ‘big lie’ concept works even better than it did in WWII.
Regarding Germany, it is nice that they have paid reparations. It is not nice that they also fund Arab Jewhate, and they send their kids to work for Muslim nazis in palestine, and to rebuild Islamist houses in palestine.
Their policy regarding the Jews is very much two-faced, not unlike that of the US, who funds fatah/hamas via the UNRWA and propagandizes a revisionist history on their behalf. So what? one might say.
What exactly did the Jews do to the US or Germany to warrant having them become shills for Muslim nazis?
Regarding Wolfowitz, I’ve seen zero evidence that he is either pro Israel, or a zionist. Having the NYT tell me 10,000 that he is both does NOT constitute actual evidence. Bold statements or policy would constitute evidence.
Read up on the history of the revisionist vs. labor zionist movement to see what I’m talking about. The latter are the lackeys of the antisemites. The latter have all the funding and propaganda on their side, and they are basically traitors to the Jewish people, helping sell government ‘big lies’ to the masses.
Read about the Altalena affair, when the government backed Jews literally fired their guns upon the revisionists, who were the Jewish patriots.
Because of the fact that the Jewish patriots (the ‘hardline, rightwing, ultranationalist, extremist Jews’) always lose out to the government lackeys (the ‘leftist’ Jews, that get a nice pat on the head from the antisemites), Jews are destined to die again and again.
36 Comment by Boba Borojevic on 30 December 2008:
Here is an excellent column by Dr. Trifkovic about American failed policy towards Republika Srpska/ Bosnia/ Serbs; about raising militant Islam ‘in the heart of Europe’. All thanks to the former and the upcoming Clintonists’ led American administration.
The article has nothing to do with Israel, Jews …. and everything to do with the suffering of Serbs due to a corrupt, twisted, biased and wrong American politics that favours Muslims and scarifies Christian Serbs in the Balkans. Yet, the tendency is that we focus on Israel (plight of Jews etc.) whenever a good and insightful column about Serbs comes up.
I do not care about Israel; Palestinians right now – I do care about Serbia and the Serbs.
37 Comment by Michael Averko on 30 December 2008:
There was a digression for sure.
Awhile back, Nebojsa Malic noted what I sensed about Republika Srpska leader Dodik.
If anything, the latter started out as someone “safe” (for lack of a better word) for the Western neolibs and neocons involved with Bosnia.
The biased policies of the latter have arguably pushed him to a position, where Dodik has since been threatened with being removed as Republika Srpska leader.
Doing so (as was ealier done with another post-Bosnian Civil War Bosnian Serb leader) challenges so-called “democratic values.”
The next to last paragraph in Dr. T’s article is quite pertinent:
“All along, an old question remains unanswered by the unitary Bosnia partisans: If Yugoslavia was untenable and eventually collapsed under the weight of the supposedly insurmountable differences among its constituent nations, how can Bosnia – the Yugoslav microcosm par excellence – develop and sustain the dynamics of a viable polity? ”
****
RS was recognized at Dayton. The disregard for such agreements (like UNSCR 1244) is spun away.
Did the result of the last Serb presidential election encourage the idea (at least in some circles) that mainstream Serb views can be easily pounced on? If so, this appears to overlook some aspects. The Western leaning Serb president still had to make statements in support of Kosovo remaining in Serbia during his election campaign.
The other aspect pertains to to Dr. T touching on the flawed manner of some of the main opponents to the Serbs in former Yugoslavia.
38 Comment by george on 30 December 2008:
@36Boba Borojevic
I agree I personally could not care less about what Israel does in regards with the Palestinian conflict but I find it hypocritical when senior Jewish officials and media pundits in the US and Europe condemn Palestinian militants yet excuse and support the most radical Muslim separatists in Bosnia, Kosovo and Chechnya a good example is Glen Howard of the Jamestown Foundation although this seems to be the prevailing mainstream view of most Europeans and Americans.
I have mentioned before it amazes me how in Europe they can hold and organise mass demonstrations for Tibet but barely a peep of protest over Kosovo.
There’s also the fact that Muslims seem to protest how Israel was created yet have no problem supporting the creation of ethnically pure Muslim states most noticeably in Kosovo through terrorism and organised crime with the aid of western powers.
39 Comment by TJF on 30 December 2008:
I do not know which position is weirder: 1) the allegation that Jews around the world are merely minding their own business and not really working together–whether out of a shared instinct or a more formal understanding, at least at some levels, to control book and magazine publishing, universities, movie studios, television networks, etc., which are then given an entirely anti-Christian spin, or 2) the breathless recitation of unsubstantiated or partially known facts that could only be understood by a committee of well-informed and experienced intelligence operatives with unrestricted access to secret documents. Even if everything the conspiracy theorists are saying happened to be true, it would be an accidental truth, because these people cannot possibly know anything, really, and if they could they would have to be completely insane to ventilate it publicly. Enough and get back to the point.
40 Comment by TJF on 30 December 2008:
PS One does not have to be a conspiracy theorist or a Jew-hater to acknowledge the truth. Here is the LA Times’ Joel Stein on who controls Hollywood. Even funnier than the piece are some of the responses that warn him that gentiles might take this the wrong way”
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-stein19-2008dec19,0,6620255.column
41 Comment by Michael Averko on 30 December 2008:
Some libertarian/paleocon folks might be familiar with this chap, who was part of that Hollywood scene:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aaron_Russo
BTW and contrary to the Wiki piece, his family were if anything more Greek Sephardic than Italian. After Spain and Italy, his family spent several generations in Greece.
For a variety of reasons, some fields get predominated with a given ethno-religious grouping. Among themselves they can nevertheless have differences.
42 Comment by Joseph Salemi on 30 December 2008:
It’s silly to blame “the Jews” or “Jewry” for everything that has gone wrong with the Western world. We Christians have a long track record of generating plenty of our own problems and difficulties.
Here are some people who have had a disastrous effect on Western civilization: Descartes, John Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Robespierre, Kant, Tom Paine, Alexander Hamilton, John Stuart Mill, John Dewey, Woodrow Wilson, George Bernard Shaw, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, and Franklin D. Roosevelt. That’s just a sample — I could go on and on.
Are any of them Jews?
43 Comment by TJF on 30 December 2008:
Absolutely right. The fault, dear Brutus, lies not with the Jews but with ourselves. It was only in the later 19th century that some Jews took leading roles in our destruction, but even Marx and Freud are inconceivable without dozens of postChristian intellectuals who blazed the trail for them. So long as we blame the Jews for what is wrong, we shall never have the mental clarity or courage to begin reforming ourselves.
44 Comment by P. Stwart on 30 December 2008:
How disappointing that the discussion on Dr. Trifkovic’s excellent article has been so derailed.
45 Comment by PcH on 30 December 2008:
At least, whenever ST writes about Kosovo and Slim and friends chime in that they didn’t do it, readership instantly skyrockets. For they are forthwith refuted in a 1000 comments.
Is Kosovo is not only Serbia’s heart but the whole world’s?
46 Comment by george on 30 December 2008:
Did Srdja Trifkovic mention before about three German intelligence officers throwing bombs at EU offices in Kososvo?
http://www.slobodan-milosevic.org/news/ds112408.htm
Perhaps there is a wider geopolitical agenda for causing instability in Bosnia and further intervention?
47 Comment by Natalie on 30 December 2008:
I’m not a neocon. I technically don’t even consider myself a conservative.
To suggest that the Jews are engaging in a vast conspiracy or “international” or “organized” Jewry is possibly one of the stupidest things I have ever heard in my life. Do you also believe that they steal Christian children and murder them to use their blood for matzah?
48 Comment by PcH on 31 December 2008:
And so the flood resumes…
49 Comment by george on 31 December 2008:
@32Michael Averko
“Your earlier used term “international Jewry” has since been replaced with “organized Jewry.”
I said international organised Jewry in my previous comment not international Jewry which I later shortened to organised Jewry.
“I understand that Lieven is of a White Russian background. I don’t always agree with him. However, I think it’s off base to say that he thinks along the general lines of Brzezinski.”
When he was made an appearance on C-Span he or the announcer mentioned that he tutored under Zbignew Brezinski.
Being of white Russian background has no relevance on the objectiveness of his views. On the contrary outside of Russia Russians have no ethnic loyalty to there homeland like say the Irish or any other ethnic group in fact the opposite is true they are hostile to Russia as much as a Pole, Czech or any of the Baltic countries.
50 Comment by Michael Averko on 31 December 2008:
Wow!
You’re uncritically watching, listening and reading the selected biases.
You’re right that being of a given ethno-religious background doesn’t automatically make one think in a certain way (this includes Jews).
If every person from a given group thought in one particular political direction, I can see why some might’ve a basis for a collective dislike.
What do Catholic paleocons think of Frank Gaffney and the late Jeane Kirkpatrick (a rhetorically put question)?
I know Jews who are patriotically inclined towards Russia.
Mass media outlets seem to not find such people as much as those that have apparently influenced what you’ve said.
Lieven studying under Bzrezinski hasn’t made the former think like the latter. Say what you want of Lieven, he’s not close to Brzezinski. Lieven’s criticism of Russia’s wars in Chechnya is along the lines of an across the board liberal.
As per what some others said, these matters have been discussed at length and drift away from the above article.
I raised some earlier points regarding Dr. T’s article and am interested in any feedback to them.
http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/?p=832#comment-184767
What I’m seeing at this thread is bickering among folks who despite their differences on other topics seem to be sympathetic to Dr. T’s core views on former Yugo.
51 Comment by TJF on 31 December 2008:
Frank Gaffney and Kirkpatric have always struck me as imperialistic and not a little duplicitous. Gaffney in particular is still fighting the Cold War. The question of anti-Christian minorities–let us frame it in generic terms–is trivialized, when it is reduced to a Semitic conspiracy. The problem developed when a robust Christian civilization began, simultaneously, to undermine its foundations and to permit non-members of that civilization to rise to positions of power and influence, which they have used to degrade still further what is left of Christendom. It is all too easy for people like Natalie to deride paranoid conspiracy theories–and to refuse to address historical questions with candor–but what is not so easy is to be honest about “The Way We Live Now.” How many have read that magnificent novel that explores these problems with far greater intelligence and sensitivity than one can find on any website?
52 Comment by Andrew G. Van Sant on 3 January 2009:
TJF@51
I presume you are refering to Trollope’s novel about Augustus Melmotte. (So many books, so little time!) It is available at deepdiscount.com for $10.36, including free shipping.
http://www.deepdiscount.com/viewproduct.htm?productId=8065613