Terrorism – A Geopolitical Perspective
Who will tell you about the origins of the different forms of terrorism ? Who will explain the geopolitical role of this destructive logic in the confrontation between the two opposing blocks in the world? So far, sociologists and other experts have not been able to usefully categorise the different types of terrorism, according to their geostrategic role, and put them into a historical perspective.
By Youssef Hindi
Source: Arrêt Sur Info
The Clash of Civilisations – A Messianic Strategy
Some people know, superficially at any rate, Samuel Huntington’s pseudo theory which has been greatly promoted by the media. The “clash of civilisations” divides the world according to religion and civilisation and presents the diversity of cultures as the root cause of geopolitical conflict. It therefore implies that only cultural and political unification will eliminate all conflict. This is in line with Francis Fukayama’s idea of “the end of history”, which is constantly proven wrong by reality
Few know that this so-called theory was taken from Bernard Lewis who, in 1957, developed his clash of civilisations concept. According to this, the Christian world and the Muslim world are, by their very nature, destined to confront each other until the end of “history” – or, rather, until both of these civilisations destroy each other in an eschatological war which will be to the benefit of a third party…
My latest historical research (1), which identifies the origins of Zionism and this clash of civilisations strategy, shows that what Lewis had put forward as a theoretical conflict between the most important religions in the world is in fact a messianic strategy, which was developed during the Middle Ages as part of the project to re-establish the Kingdom of Israel. This project gave birth to political Zionism in its atheist form at the end of the 19th century.
Bernard Lewis – who holds Israeli, Britsh and Amerian passports – is not just an historian. He is also a strategist who has worked at the heart of both the British and American state, and has done so ultimately for the benefit of Israel. He is, moreover, one of those influential stateless people who are members of, or allies to, the powerful American pro-Israel lobby, which pushed the American administration to destroy Iraq (2) to the benefit of Israeli expansionism. Lewis will go down in history as having given a scientific facade, a theoretical disguise, to this messianic strategy. History will recognise that Huntington brought this strategy to the masses in order to justify global chaos, which is not a natural state of affairs, but is encouraged by powerful forces (3).
Terrorism has not always been international. Nor has it always had that shade which certain ideologues close to Zionist and neo-conservative circles describe as “green-fascism”+. Neither has terrorism always benefited from Hollywood-style media promotion on a global scale.
What we describe as being terrorism – sometimes wrongly – can take a large number of forms and have many definitions.
We can draw a parellel between the terror linked to the expansion of the Cromwell regime in the 17th century with that of Wahhabism in the Arab peninsula in the 18th century. We can also make a comparison with the French revolution of 1789, which preceded the social-anarcho revolutions of the 19th and 20th centuries.
These revolutions, which were accompanied by territorial conquest, all had one point in common : mass extermination as a means of achieving ideological domination. The goal was to construct modern institutions on the ruins of the traditional society.
The socialist ideology behind these historical catastrophes also gave birth to the Haganah, created in the early 1920s, which in turn led to the creation of the Irgun. These Jewish homeland (Yishuv) terrorist organisations, which formed the basis of what was to become the IDF, were created to support and expand the Jewish settlements in Palestine.
Wahhabi Terrorism, Zionist Terrorism and False Flag Attacks
It is necessary to distinguish two types of terrorism, the analysis of which will allow us to see geopolitics from a different perspective:
- Wahhabi terrorism, directed by America, whose aim is territorial conquest and the disintegration of nations.
- Zionist terrorism which aims to divide and provoke.
Although the British created a Jewish homeland for the Zionists at the end of the First World War, the Irgun led a violent campaign against the British in order to drive them out of Palestine (4). This culminated with the bombing of the British administrative headquarters in the Hotel King David on the 22 July 1946. An important detail : the Irgun terrorists dressed as Arabs for the occasion so that the Palestinians would be blamed for the attack…This is an excellent example of a “false flag” attack.
The Israelis carried out several disguised attacks of this sort in order to drag their allies into armed conflicts:
- In 1954, Israeli agents attempted to blow up several American buildings in Egypt in order to turn the Americans against the Egyptians.
- In 1967, the Americans avoided intervening in the Six-Day War as the Soviet Union was an ally to Syria and Egypt. The Israelis attempted to draw the Americans into the war by attacking their reconnaissance ship, the USS Liberty. The Israelis attempted to pass this off as an attack by the Egyptians, in the same way as they had done in 1954.
The same pattern can be found with the 9/11 attacks which led the United States into a permanent war with one part of the Muslim world, in accordance with the clash of civilisations strategy and the Israeli project to redraw the boundaries of the Muslim world (5). The World Trade Centre attacks were viewed with suspicion by various analysts, scientists and politicians.
Certain facts lead me to believe that we are dealing with the same strategy as that deployed in 1946, 1954 and 1967.
Among the stack of evidence highlighting the implication, albeit indirect, of the Israeli secret services in these spectacular attacks, we have the fact that five Israelis were arrested by the New York police: they were caught rejoicing while taking photos of each other in front of the burning towers. The police had discovered documents in their possession which proved that they knew the exact time and location of the attacks. It turned out that they were Mossad agents. Their names: Sivan and Paul Kurzberg, Yaron Shmuel, Oded Ellner and Omer Marmari.
Some thirty other Israeli agents, who went undercover as art students in America, lived close to 15 of the supposed hijackers (6).
An article in the New York Times, published on the 18 February 2009, revealed that Ali al-Jarrah, who was a cousin of Ziad al-Jarrah, the hijacker of flight UA93, had been a Mossad spy for 25 years and had infiltrated the Palestinian resistance movement in 1983.
Moreover, the US Army School for Advance Military Studies published a report, quoted in a Washington Times article *, which stated that Mossad “has the capability to target US forces and make it look like an Arab/Palestinian act”.
What’s more, journalists working for Le Monde revealed on February 2015 that a Mossad agent in Panama, Shimon Yalin Yelinik, had confessed to having funded the 9/11 terrorists.
Benjamin Netanyahou, the current Israeli Prime Minister, gladly admitted that the terrorist attacks benefitted Israel. The Israeli newspaper Maariv quoted Netanyahou, who declared the 9/11 attacks had been “good for Israel” and added: “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq. These events have swung American public opinion in our favour”
When interviewed by a French journalist for I-Télé on the 7 August 2014, Netanyahou implied, somewhat menacingly, that terrorists would attack France if it did not support Israel in its policy with regard to the Palestinians.
We do not have solid proof to hand of Mossad involvement in the terrorist attacks against France, carried out in 2012 and 2015. Nevertheless, Georges Malbrunot, journalist for Le Figaro, stated in a Tweet 17 days after the November attacks that: “A military official confides that the DGSI (the French secret service) refused Israeli assistance in the aftermath of the Paris terrorist attacks” and adds that “Mossad took advantage of the honeymoon between Sarkozy and Israel to reinforce its presence in France”. He concludes with the DGSI’s own words:
“Mossad already has an active presence on French soil and we must not reinforce it”
This confirms the statement of the former French minister for foreign affairs, Roland Dumas. In his book, Coups et Blessures, he delared that:
“The Israelis do what they like in France and manipulate the French intelligence service, the DST, in any way which suits them … The Jewish lobby, as Mitterrand used to call it, was extremely active”.
This Zionist form of terrorism combines perfectly with the nihilistic Wahhabi form of terrorism, a product of two ideologies which appear foreign to one another. From an historical and geopolitical point of view, they merge within the framework of the clash of civilisations strategy.
What is extraordinary is the fact that Wahhabism and Zionism, as incarned by a nation state, appeared at the same time and were both backed by the British armed forces.
The British, who supported at arms’ length the accomplishment of the Zionist project in the aftermath of the First World War, also encouraged Saudi-Wahhabi expansionism in the Arab peninsula in the early 1920s.
In 1945, the Americans took over from the British in their support for Saudi Arabia, in the same way as they did for the state of Israel, and contributed to the spread of the Wahhabi doctrine across the world (7).
Wahabbi terrorism was, right from the very start, a geostrategic weapon used by the British and Americans against their enemies. As mentioned previously, this form of terrorism is used by the Anglo-Saxons as a corrosive to fragment target nations.
Indeed, in the late 1970s, Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was at the time National Security Advisor to President Carter, masterminded the coordination of the CIA with the Pakistani and Saudi intelligence services in order to finance future terrorists, including Bin Laden, in order to draw the Soviet Union into Afghanistan.
In the late 1990s, this strategy was again deployed in Chechnya in order to trigger the collapse of the Russian Federation. It was then used in Iraq (in 2003) and again in Libya, in Syria and in Yemen. And, perhaps, it will again be used in Algeria.
This fact was finally admitted by the New York Times on the 23 January 2016:
“US relies heavily on Saudi money to support Syrian Rebels” **
Geopolitical Conclusion – America versus Russia in the Struggle to Control Eurasia
Let’s put this into a geostrategic perspective. The key issue in the geopolitics of opposing continental blocks is the control of Eurasia, the centre of which is the Middle East.
The Atlanticist policy, whose strategy for the year 2000 onwards was developed by Zbigniew Brzezinski in 1997, consists of penetrating deeply into Eurasia by making Europe one of the vital pillars of an American-sponsored Eurasian structure of security and cooperation (8).
This strategy aims to destroy, or at least weaken, Russia by pushing for Ukrainian independence. This would change the very geostrategic nature of Russia: “Without Ukraine, Russia ceases to be a Eurasian empire (9)”.
Russia is the main target. It is having to cope with a double strategy, as explained in article published in 2015 (10). First, there is the Brzezinski strategy, which serves American imperial interests. Secondly, there is the more covert Zionist strategy, epitomised by Henry Kissinger. This consists of disconnecting Russia from its allies in the Middle East, in particular Iran and Syria.
So far, Putin’s Russia has withstood the Kissinger strategy. On 11 May 2014, Kissinger declared that “we should not isolate Russia and it’s in everybody’s interests that it be maintained in the international system.”
As far back as 2008, he reached out to Russia, claiming that the United States should seek agreement with Russia, while describing Iran as being a danger for the region, in accordance with the Israeli geopolitical doctrine. This sent a clear message to the Russians : you will remain in the international system provided that you abandon your Middle Eastern allies in favour of Israel. But this geopolitical deal is a trap, the ultimate goal being to weaken Russia.
The conclusion is obvious: the stabilisation and the continued existence of the Middle East, the Maghreb and Europe depend on the formation of a mutually beneficial strategic axis, stretching from Brest to Vladivostock, running through Rabat and Alger. This would lead to Brezinski’s worst nightmare: the loosening of transatlantic ties which would bring an end to America’s primacy in Eurasia.
+Islamic extremism. Green is the colour of the cloth used to cover coffins in Islamic funerals.
(1) Youssef Hindi, Occident et islam – Sources et genèse messianiques du sionisme, éd. Sigest, 2015.
(2) Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy, 2008
(3) Youssef Hindi op. cit.
(4) Henry Laurens, L’Orient arabe, Arabisme et islamisme de 1798 à 1945, éd. Armand Colin, 1993, p. 353.
(5) Oded Yinon’s “A strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties”, Published by the Association of Arab-American University Graduates, Inc., Belmont, Massachusetts, 1982, Special Document N° 1 (ISBN 0-937694-56-8).
(6) Youssef Hindi, op. cit.
(7) Hamadi Redissi, Le pacte de Nadjd, ou comment l’islam sectaire est devenu l’islam, 2007, éd. Seuil.
(8) Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard, 1997.
(9) Zbigniew Brzezinski, op. cit.
(10) Youssef Hindi, La Russie, l’Europe et l’Orient, Revue Europe & Orient, N° 21, 2015.
Translated from French