Du grand Chomsky: « There was no beginning to the « Clash of Civilisations » so it cannot have an end »

chomsky_cartoon

Comment dit-on déchirer sa race en anglais?

A déconseiller aux obamolâtres.

Q. What is your advice and recommendations for the Obama administration in relation to U.S. policy in Iraq and towards the Kurds?

A. I cannot respond. I disagree with the foundations of policy, and cannot offer advice within that framework.

C’est publié sur le site de Chomsky.

Tiens, il y a aussi ceci:

Q. « We Are Not At War With Islam », this is what Obama said during his recent visit to Turkey. Do you think, as some suggest, this new approach towards the Islamic world will be « End of the Clash of Civilisations »?

A. There was no beginning to the « Clash of Civilisations » so it cannot have an end. Simply consider the circumstances at the time when the doctrine was promulgated by Bernard Lewis and Samuel Huntington. The most populous Muslim state was Indonesia, a close US ally since 1965, when General Suharto carried out a murderous coup, killing hundreds of thousands of people and opening up the country’s rich resources to the industrial societies. He remained an honored friend though innumerable crimes at home and abroad, among them the invasion of East Timor, which came about as close to genocide as any event of the modern period. He remained « Our kind of guy, » as the Clinton administration declared in 1995, and maintained that status until he lost control and the US determined that his time was over. The most extreme fundamentalist Muslim state was Saudi Arabia, Washington’s oldest and most valued ally in the region. At the time Washington, was bringing to a bloody end its murderous wars in Central America, specifically targeting the Catholic Church. Its practitioners of « liberation theology » sought to bring the radical pacifist lessons of the Gospels to the peasant society that was suffering under the yoke of US-imposed tyrants. That was clearly unacceptable, and they became primary victims of Washington’s terrorist wars. One of the « talking points » of the famous School of the Americas is the proud boast that the US army « defeated liberation theology. » If we continue, we find familiar confrontations, but no « clash of civilizations » — a notion that was constructed at the end of the Cold War as a pretext for policies undertaken for other reasons, also familiar. Bush’s policies evoked enormous hostility in the Muslim world. Quite sensibly, Obama is trying to reduce the hostility, though there is no indication of a substantive change in policies or motives.

Hat-tip: rezo.net

Plus haredi que le rabbin Loubavitch…

Je m’amuse pas mal ces derniers temps, après la semaine noire de la politique moyen-orientale étatsunienne, qui a vu:

1-L’annonce officielle de négociations indirectes entre Israël et la Syrie au sujet d’une paix éventuelle incluant le retour du Golan occupé à la Syrie (1), quelques jours après le discours de Bush devant le parlement israëlien condamnant tout dialogue avec « des dictatures et des terroristes« , termes qui désignent dans le langage courant les Etats et les courants politiques qui se distinguent non pas par le seul usage de la violence et de la répression, mais par l’usage de la violence et de la répression dans un sens contraire à celui de la politique étrangère étatsunienne.  

2- L’annonce officielle de négociations entre Israël et le Hamas dans le même laps de temps – là encore, pas d’optimisme débridé.

3- La fessée déculottée du bloc du 14 mars (Hariri, Jumblatt, Ja’ja) au Liban, confirmée par les accords de Doha, laquelle fessée déculottée a placé en position difficile les alliés les plus inconditionnels des Etats-Unis au Liban, déçus que l’armée étatsunienne ne soit pas intervenue contre le Hezbollah – le rôle du gouvernement étatsunien semble effectivement difficile à cerner.

4- Un éditorialiste étatsunien, connu pour sa proximité avec Israël, ancien chroniqueur du Jerusalem Post (journal de tendance Likoud), reconnaît que ça va un peu loin:

The unsentimental analysis of men like Mr. Olmert and Mr. Barak came to mind this week as I spoke to Barack Obama about his views on Israel. He spoke with seemingly genuine feeling about the post-Holocaust necessity of Israel; about his cultural affinity with Jews (he may be the first presidential candidate to confess that his sensibility was shaped in part by the novels of Philip Roth); and about his adamant opposition to the terrorist group Hamas. He offered some mild criticism of the settlement movement (“not helpful”) and promised to be unyielding in his commitment to Israeli security.

There are some Jews who would be made anxious by Mr. Obama even if he changed his first name to Baruch and had his bar mitzvah on Masada. But after speaking with him it struck me that, by the standards of rhetorical correctness maintained by such groups as the Conference of Presidents and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, or Aipac, Mr. Obama is actually more pro-Israel than either Ehud Olmert or Ehud Barak. (To say nothing of John McCain and President George W. Bush, who spoke to the Knesset last week about external threats to Israel’s safety but made no mention of the country’s missteps.)

This is an existentially unhealthy state of affairs. I am not wishing that the next president be hostile to Israel, God forbid. But what Israel needs is an American president who not only helps defend it against the existential threat posed by Iran and Islamic fundamentalism, but helps it to come to grips with the existential threat from within. A pro-Israel president today would be one who prods the Jewish state — publicly, continuously and vociferously — to create conditions on the West Bank that would allow for the birth of a moderate Palestinian state. Most American Jewish leaders are opposed, not without reason, to negotiations with Hamas, but if the moderates aren’t strengthened, Hamas will be the only party left.

Comment dit-on plus catholique que le pape en hébreu?

(1) Ne révez pas les yeux ouverts cependant: Comme d’habitude, Israël est très peu disposé à la moindre concession sérieuse.

%d blogueurs aiment cette page :