Tag Archives: Syria

Chechens Join Syrian Jihad

Two interesting quotes from a Reuters piece on the appearance of Chechen jihadists on the battlefield in Syria. The first is from Omar Abu Al-Chechen, who reminds us of what the real strategic goal remains,

“(We) have missed many chances, but truly today there is a chance to establish (an Islamic state) on Earth,” he said.

Plain as day and utterly unmistakable, Abu Al-Chechen tells us that the reason why the fighting in Syria captures the imagination of foreign fighters (and many Syrians as well, no doubt), is that it is the primary front for the strategic goal of implementing sharia on real territory.

The second interesting quote, comes from a Free Syrian Army commander who says:

“We call all brothers from all the countries, please, my brothers we do not need men. Stay in your own countries and do something good inside your own countries. If you want to help us just send us weapons or funding or even pray for us but you do not have to come to Syria,” said Brigadier Selim Idris, head of a rebel military command.

“(Those) who are entering the country have a negative impact on the revolution, because we need the help from (Western and regional) countries. Please understand this issue,” he said.

Don’t let the West get wise to the game, he urges. Fortunately there’s not much risk of that, considering how Reuters prefaces his remarks,

“The presence of foreign fighters in Syria, many of them espousing a more firebrand form of Islam, has troubled many Syrians who see the fight as a secular war to oust Assad.”

But that’s not actually what Idris said. Idris, who took over for FSA founder Riad Al-Asaad during a meeting where a series of Muslim Brotherhood and other-aligned Islamists moved into positions of power within the rebel military command, is actually expressing a mere tactical consideration. Still, some valuable quotations in this piece despite Reuters attempt to “spin” their own reporting.

Al-Qaeda takes the initiative on Israel’s doorstep

Last night, the Times of Israel newspaper highlighted a riveting but chilling YouTube video of al-Qaeda-affiliated fighters on the Golan Heights border between Syria and Israel.  The al-Furqan jihadists, depicted in front of a heavily-armed vehicle, are seen patrolling and speaking confidently just feet from a barbed-wire fence and an apparent Israeli border structure.

Elsewhere on the Golan Heights this morning, Syrian rebels seized vehicles from a UN convoy and kidnapped 20 Filipino personnel.  They were part of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), a contingent of about 1,000 tasked with implementing the ceasefire between Israel and Syria since 1974.  But, like the UNIFIL troops in Lebanon, they are at best impotent and at worst enabling Israel’s enemies.  The Syrian front has been quieter than the Lebanese front, but only because Israel’s massive firepower advantage is more effective against a nationalist regime with a lot to lose (Assad) than a wily and flexible Islamist militia with no state-level responsibilities (Hezbollah).

Now, with al-Qaeda literally peering over the fence from Syria, that calculus has changed.  The Israeli leadership should be preparing for the jihadists in the Golan to join their fellow non-state actors, Hezbollah and Hamas, in creating a third border with Israel where the enemy is exceedingly difficult to deter.   And by now the Israeli leadership should have learned the lesson that no international force, especially from the UN, will be there to protect them from the vanguard of jihad.

In the face of incontrovertible evidence that enabling the jihadist opposition in Syria will create a new nest for international terror, will the western powers change their tacit (and occasionally overt) support for the Syrian opposition?

Not likely.  The UK government announced the same day that it would be sending armored vehicles to the rebels.

Syria Next

The Obama administration says it will start aiding directly the so-called “Syrian opposition.” The practical effect will be to provide assistance to al Qaeda and other Islamists that now dominate the groups seeking to bring down Syria’s dictator, Bashir Assad.

This folly comes as the abiding danger posed by al Qaeda was exposed yesterday by experts at the American Enterprise Institute.  Despite the President’s insistence that the jihadist organization is “on the path to defeat,” AEI’s Katherine Zimmerman reported “al Qaeda is stronger at an operational level than it has been for many years.”

Every day brings fresh evidence that Mr. Obama made a serious mistake in helping bring Islamists to power in Egypt, Libya and Tunisia.  We must not compound it by now doing so in Syria.

Rise of the Militias in the Middle East

Hoping that the implosion of the Assad regime in Syria will break Iran’s strategic lifeline to the Mediterranean Sea, separating the mullahs from their key Lebanese ally Hezbollah?  Think again.  Kyle Shideler of the Endowment for Middle East Truth argues that well-armed and well-trained militias are replacing traditional armies as the indispensable sources of military power in the region.  Iran and Hezbollah are reportedly preparing a 50,000-strong militia to seize key areas of Syria should Assad fall.

Shideler says filling the void left by traditional dictators is an ‘Iranian specialty’:

Even if you lose the war, you can still win the post-war chaos. They have played a similar game in Iraq with great success. So pervasive is the Iranian presence in Iraq that the Sunni opposition there has accused Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki of granting Iran permission to bring in 50,000 Iranian Basij militiamen to crack down on protestors and target foreign embassies, including that of the U.S.

He goes on to profile the use of lo-fi thugs to enforce Muslim Brotherhood rule in Egypt, and the disastrous American policy of sending weaponry to unstable Sunni regions.  Read more at Frontpage Magazine.

Speculating on Venezuela’s Future

There is a great deal of speculation these days about the immediate political future after Chavez’ expected death.

Some analysts, like Amherst University professor Javier Corrales argue that regardless of what happens, the next government will have to deal with a serious problem left behind by Chavez . This problem centers on the previous irrational approach to government spending in which money was used as an instrument of political influence domestically and abroad.  Government officials never worried or valuated whether these expenditures made sense or whether they were creating a huge deficit and debt.  Therefore, Corrales believes that the main challenge for Venezuelan leaders will be economic adjustment and that no successor will have the same level of largesse or fiscal irrationality as Chavez had.

However, there are other commentators who focus more on the ideological differences and potential conflicts that may ensue after Chavez’s departure.

They view Chavismo as being deeply divided between the military and the civilian factions.  This division was kept together under Chavez but it is likely to explode after the commander’s death.

Nicolas Maduro, the current foreign Minister and the man Chavez appointed as his successor, leads the civilian faction.  Maduro has strong ties to the Cuban government and plays a key role in forging alliances with rogue states such as Iran, Syria, and Belarus.  He was also instrumental in strengthening alliances with the Bolivarian countries and in raising the status of Venezuela in the region, including its inclusion in the South American common market (MERCOSUR).

The current President of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, leads the military faction.  He is more nationalist oriented, has only visited Cuba once, and  is not close to the Cuban government.  However, Cabello played a role in Chavez’s domestic agenda, particularly in cracking down on the media.  He was also instrumental in helping Chavez corrupt the machinery of government in order to strengthen his power.  Cabello was part of the group of officers that orchestrated the coup d’état in 1992 that helped Chavez rise to the public scene as an anti-establishment figure.

According to Vladimir Gessen, a former congressman, the military reject the Cuban model and also resent their presence in the Venezuelan military.

Thus, according to his view, the conflict between the two factions could  be very serious as the military has played a role in the social missions and eleven of twenty Chavista governors are former military officers. Therefore, Gessen assumes that Cabello will do everything he can to prevent the civilian faction led by Maduro from taking the reins of the Bolivarian Republic.

In my opinion, these analyses are relevant and important to note.

However, I would like to reflect upon the situation from a different angle before relating to the arguments presented above.

Going forward, the first major question to consider is whether the Bolivarian Revolution will change its course. In other words, is  there any incentive to change a revolution that has shown considerable success both domestically and abroad?  While taking into account Corrales’ serious arguments about the Venezuelan fiscal deficit, it is important to understand  that Chavez was not only re-elected in the October 7th elections but also was victorious in the December 16th elections, winning the overwhelming majority of governorships (20 out of 23.)  Though these results reflect continued popular support for Chavez, elections in Venezuela are not transparent.  Chavez and his cronies have an overwhelming advantage because the Electoral Commission is controlled by the regime as well as large segments of the media.

At the domestic and regional level, Chavez has earned an image as the father of the oppressed, thus his followers believe he is the only leader in the region that has the ability to unite different and diverse sectors of the population.  Following the thought of scholars Hannah Fenichel Pitkin and Ernesto Laclau, we can say that, how the constituent is kept satisfied matters less than the symbol the government or the leader represent.  Whether or not the Bolivarian Revolution succeeded in fulfilling its promises or whether it has created a fiscal cliff has less weight than the loyalties and identification of its followers.  One of the great accomplishments of Chavismo has been its ability to homogenize and bring together a diverse group of people, who now have a sense of representation, unknown to them prior to the revolution.

The collective perception that Chavez and his revolution represent the oppressed and disadvantaged, is crucial, regardless of whether people truly are better off now than they were fourteen years ago.  The revolution has also succeeded in blaming the opposition for the problems it has created. The Chavez regime has adopted a patronizing attitude towards the opposition, accusing it polarization, when in truth, the larger polarizing force is the regime itself.

The Bolivarian Revolution has excited the masses, not only in Venezuela, but also across Latin America. It has expanded the revolution to Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua.  It is a symbol among the grassroots of the ruling Workers and Peronist Parties in Brazil and Argentina respectively, and the Movement of Popular Participation (MPP), one of the largest sectors in Uruguay’s ruling party, the Broad Front.  The Bolivarian Revolution is popular among the indigenous grassroots, including CONAIE, the largest indigenous movement in Ecuador.  The revolution has also fascinated important sectors of the intellectual left.

Chavez and his revolution are so powerful that various governments in South America, including that of Brazil, a rising world power, viewed the victory of Chavez in the October elections as a necessary condition for the continuity of regional integration.  A proud atheist such as the Uruguayan president, Jose Mujica, took time out of his schedule to pray in a Church for Chavez’s health.

The success of the Bolivarian Revolution provides no incentive to the new leadership in Venezuela to change its course, whether there is economic bankruptcy or internal divisions.  Contrary to the Fascist or the Communist Revolutions, the Bolivarian Revolution has neither been challenged nor contained.

Once we have reached this conclusion, we can discuss how, for example, the Maduro-Cabello confrontation might play out. The assertion that the military is anti-Cuban requires a more comprehensive analysis than this piece can cover.

However, even if the military were anti-Cuban and succeeded in expelling Cuban advisors and officers from the Venezuelan Armed Forces, this act alone would probably not constitute a major turning point or the end of the Bolivarian Revolution as we know it. One might also ask, is the military now anti-Cuban enough after all the purges that have taken place in the last 14 years and after all the bribery and luxurious life that has been provided to many of the military officers?  What role are the 125,000-troop militias likely to play after Chavez’s death?  Will the alliance with Iran or the drug cartels end?  Will the revolution lose ideological strength?  Will it become less hostile to America?

The Bolivarian Revolution does not depend on the Cuban government economically but, rather, the other way around.  Nor, does the revolution depend on Cuba for ideological support.   In fact, it has already achieved an influence that the Castros never had.  The Castro Regime, at its peak, responded to the Soviet Union, whereas, the Bolivarian Revolution maintains its own leadership. The Cubans mostly play a role in assisting the Bolivarian regime in consolidating a repressive and controlling regime.

From a geo-political point of view, governments of the region, including the United States, must look beyond hasty conclusions because, as has been repeatedly pointed out, the Bolivarian Revolution is the most far-reaching and most challenging phenomenon in the Western Hemisphere.

Hold John Kerry accountable

Members of the United States Senate are surely tempted to give their insufferably arrogant colleague from Massachusetts a pass in confirmation hearings for his nomination to become the next Secretary of State.  Quite apart from the tradition of senatorial courtesy practiced in the exclusive club once known as “the world’s greatest deliberative body,” most of them must be anxious to see John Kerry leave it.

There are, however, compelling reasons to resist this temptation and ensure that Sen. Kerry is subjected to rigorous scrutiny with respect to his past conduct, his judgment and his policy predilections.

Conventional wisdom holds that he is certain to be confirmed.  Whether that proves to be the case or not, Senators have a duty to serve as the Framers had in mind– as a means of ensuring quality control with respect to cabinet-level and other senior presidential appointments and with respect to the treaties that a secretary of state in particular is wont to promote.

A number of topics cry out for such scrutiny.  Herewith a few of the more important:

For starters, there is the question of John Kerry’s integrity.  His conduct during and immediately his service in the Vietnam War– much of it compellingly documented by his former comrades-in-arms in the Swift Boat community– suggests a serious deficit in this personal quality. Senators could usefully revisit Mr. Kerry’s damning indictments of the U.S. military’s conduct of the war, including his depiction of its alleged “war crimes,” his fraudulent Winter Soldier testimony and his treating with the North Vietnamese enemy in the midst of hostilities.

Mr. Obama also observed that Sen. Kerry will not require “a lot of on the job training” because of his extensive dealings with foreign leaders, including in his role as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  Among those with whom he has consorted are Syrian despot Basher Assad and Nicaragua’s Sandinista revolutionaries during their conflict with the United States in the 1980s. As the Wall Street Journal’s Mary Anastasia O’Grady put it last week: “Mr. Kerry’s record of promoting American values abroad is dismal. It isn’t that he opposes U.S. intervention – far from it. The trouble is that he has a habit of intervening on behalf of bad guys.”

As Jim Kouri of the Law Enforcement Examiner pointed out recently, Senator Kerry has also been suspected by the FBI of problematic dealings with the Communist Chinese.  Kouri cites revelations by Judicial Watch in 2004 based on government records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. The investigative organization’s president, Tom Fitton, said: “These disturbing FBI documents raise further questions about Sen. Kerry’s involvement in what looks like a quid pro quo (cash for meetings) with the Communist Chinese.”

Senators will want to examine closely John Kerry’s promotion of the United Nations and various treaties that would increase its stature, influence and/or power at the expense of U.S. sovereignty.  Cases in point are his support for the Disabilities Convention recently rejected by the Senate, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty rejected by it in 1999 and the Law of the Sea Treaty that Senators may reject this year.

Because the Senate has actually been performing its constitutional quality control function with respect to such defective accords, there is growing concern that the Obama administration may pursue its goal of denuclearizing the United States through unilateral action.  As John Bolton and John Yoo observed in the Wall Street Journal, a Secretary Kerry would likely support the findings of

a State Department advisory group headed by former Defense Secretary William Perry suggest[ing] that Mr. Obama ignore Congress. Its November report urges that America and Russia reciprocally reduce nuclear weapons without any international agreement: ‘Unilateral and coordinated reductions can be quicker and less politically costly… relative to treaties with adversarial negotiations and difficult ratification processes.'”

Senators should seize this chance to make clear their strong objection to such a strategically reckless and constitutionally unacceptable disarmament strategy.

Speaking of the Constitution, the Kerry nomination would be a good time for a debate about the Obama administration’s practice of dispensing with its requirements.  A December 30th op.ed. by a law school professor at Georgetown published in the New York Times under the controversial title “Let’s Give Up on the Constitution” seems to track with the practice of the former law school professor at Chicago who is now  president of the United States.

Of particular concern is a priority of Mr. Obama and the outgoing Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton – namely their efforts to appease Islamists determined to circumscribe our First Amendment right to free expression. Will John Kerry as America’s top diplomat continue to pursue this agenda in the so-called “Istanbul Process,” or stand up for our sovereignty and freedoms?

The Kerry confirmation process offers an opportunity to examine both the nominee’s fitness to serve in high office and the security policies President Obama and he will be pursuing, all other things being equal.  This chance must not be squandered in the interest of realizing as quickly as possible his colleagues’ understandable desire to get John Kerry out of the Senate.

No Christmas future for the Middle East?

Did you have a Merry Christmas?  If so, chances are you are not a Christian in the Middle East or many other parts of the world.

Under the headline “Christianity ‘close to extinction’ in Middle East,” London’s  Telegraph reported this week on the findings of a shocking new study by a British think tank known as Civitas: the Institute for the Study of Civil Society.

The new study is entitled “Christianophobia: A Faith Under Attack,” thereby making the foundational point that – as opposed to the purported problem of “Islamophobia” manufactured by Islamic supremacists to cow and induce Christians and other infidels to submit to their dictates – followers of Christ are truly being persecuted in much of the planet.  Civitas puts it this way: “It is generally accepted that many faith-based groups face discrimination or persecution to some degree. A far less widely grasped fact is that Christians are targeted more than any other body of believers.”

As the Telegraph observed, the report draws on published estimates showing that as many as “200 million Christians, or 10 per cent of Christians worldwide, are ‘socially disadvantaged, harassed or actively oppressed for their beliefs.'” And “between a half and two-thirds of Christians in the Middle East have left the region or been killed in the past century.”

The study’s author is Rupert Shortt, a journalist and visiting fellow of Blackfriars Hall, Oxford. He argues that, “Exposing and combating the problem ought in my view to be political priorities across large areas of the world. That this is not the case tells us much about a questionable hierarchy of victimhood.”

“Hierarchy of victimhood” is one, very anodyne way of describing the forces at work.  Another would be to call it what it is: a blatant double-standard that has the effect of excusing and enabling Islamists, the Chinese Communists and other totalitarians to engage in mass and often brutal repression of Christians for simply exercising religious liberties our country claims to consider unalienable.

The effect of this practice is especially palpable in the region that was the birthplace of Christianity.  Few native Christians feel safe living in Bethlehem anymore  and Islamic supremacists like Mahmoud Abbas instead preside over the holiday observances there.  Christians have fled Iraq – one of their ancient homelands – en masse.  Many of them have wound up in neighboring Syria where they and their native co-religionists face rape, torture and extermination at the hands of the “rebels” striving, with our help, to overthrow Basher Assad.

Meanwhile, in Egypt – a country that long was Christian before it was conquered by Muslims and still has a sizeable minority known as Coptic Christians – has just adopted a constitution based on shariah law.  Even before that legal basis was established for treating such Christians as dhimmis (enslaved peoples) they were relentlessly attacked, and in some cases murdered, as their businesses were ruined or expropriated and their churches burned.  In due course, it seems likely that those who can get out will do so.

Yet, as the Civitas study recounts, “Western politicians and media largely ignore the widespread persecution of Christians in the Middle East and the wider world because they are afraid they will be accused of racism.  They fail to appreciate that in the defense of the wider concept of human rights, religious freedom is the ‘canary in the mine….'”

Unfortunately, in the case of the present U.S. administration, the practice of ignoring Christians’ plight seems rooted in far more ominous impulses.  A powerful new book by Phyllis Schlafly and George Neumayr entitled “No Higher Power: Obama’s War on Religious Freedom,” recounts the President’s pervasive “Islamophilia” and relentless hostility towards other faiths.  The authors conclude that Mr. “Obama is at war with Christianity.”

Which makes all the more problematic the plight of Middle Eastern Christians seeking refuge from their oppressors.  Under a practice deplorably begun during the George W. Bush administration, Team Obama relies on the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to determine who should receive that status and be allowed asylum in this country.  And since the Organization of Islamic Cooperation – the official Islamist multinational group that is the modern day equivalent of the Muslim world’s governing caliphate – largely calls the shots at the UN these days, we generally wind up bringing in Islamists unwilling, or at least unable, to assimilate.  Often they come from Somalia, Iraq and Bosnia, displacing Christians seeking to practice their faith in freedom and security.

There is a lot of talk at the moment about immigration reform.  One strategically vital place to start would be by revisiting the practice of importing: Islamic supremacist clerics under the R-1visa program; tens of thousands of Saudi “students” annually; lottery winners disproportionately drawn from Muslim-dominated nations and regions; and Islamist-heavy “refugee” populations, to the effective exclusion of Christians genuinely in desperate need of that status.

An “Islamophilic” Obama administration “at war with Christianity” is unlikely to take such steps left to its own devices.  The American people and their congressional representatives must therefore insist that it does so.

Mightier Pen 2012: The Media, the Election and National Security

On December 11, 2012 the Center for Security Policy honored radio host and bestselling author Monica Crowley with the Mightier Pen Award and hosted its annual National Security and New Media Conference.

 

The 2012 Mightier Pen Award

The Mightier Pen Award recognizes journalists who promote the need for robust US national security policies through the indispensability of American strength to preserving international peace. As a political and foreign affairs analyst, Monica Crowley has been a long-standing supporter of the Center’s belief that America’s national power must be preserved and properly used; for it holds a unique global role in maintaining peace and stability. Ms Crowley’s new book, What the (Bleep) Just Happened?, asks the questions that are on the minds of Americans today and makes the case for a “great American comeback,” including a return to the security posture that made America great.

 

The Media, the 2012 Election and National Security

In addition to the Mightier Pen Award, the Center’s National Security and New Media Conference will bring together some of the the most experienced and provocative voices in journalism to address several problems in mainstream media reporting on national security topics, with an emphasis on the recent presidential election.

Beyond Bias: The Mainstream Media

Outraged.  That’s how Americans feel about the performance of the mainstream media in the 2012 election season.  From the New York Times to the networks, CNN and of course, MSNBC, they have now moved far beyond their role as impartial journalists into active political operatives.  What happens to a nation when the mainstream media overwhelmingly become the propagandists for the Left? Featured panelists:

  • Richard Miniter: Columnist, Forbes Magazine and New York Times best-selling author and investigative journalis;
  • Bill Gertz: Senior Editor, Washington Free Beacon, Columnist, Washington Times and Best-selling author of six books on national security; and
  • Andrew McCarthy: Columnist, National Review Online and PJMedia, Executive Director, Philadelphia David Horowitz Freedom Centerand Former chief prosecutor in the 1993 WTC bombing

To the Rescue: The New Media & National Security

The election was the worst of times for the old mainstream media – but the best of times for the independent new media investigative reporters who are reinventing American journalism.  All our panelists broke major stories during the campaign, as new media pioneers setting the highest standards for professional journalism.  Can they and their colleagues become the future of a free press in America? Featured panelists:

  • Tiffany Gabbay: Assistant Editor, The Blaze;
  • Peter Schweizer: Founder, Big Peace (Breitbart.com); William J. Casey Fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University; New York Times and Washington Post best-selling author; and President, Government Accountability Institute
  • John Nolte: Editor in Chief, Big Hollywood (Breitbart.com)

 

Transcripts are on the following pages.

Pages: 1 2 3 4

The Gaza Crisis and the Intellectual Left in Latin America

The recent Gaza crisis, during which Israel responded with a limited military operation to stop Hamas missile attacks against Israeli populations, unleashed a number of reactions by intellectuals in Latin America.

Some of these reactions were expected but others raise serious concerns about the direction  Latin America is taking in what is called “the battle of ideas”.

The reaction to the Gaza crisis by some intellectuals reflects the ideological power of the Bolivarian Revolution and the challenge this revolution will present for us in the future.

This time we did not hear mere pacifist statements calling to stop the bloodshed. We heard a much more aggressive discourse that accused Israel of conducting genocide on the Palestinians; promoting expansionism; committing war crimes; and nothing short of serving the devil.

These types of accusations are not new and certainly not new for the left. However, if we carefully analyze what guides the viewpoint of these intellectuals the story is hair-rising. Not for the nonsense they say about Israel but rather because of the sources they draw from and its significance in the context of the current political situation in Latin America.

For example, Eduardo Galeano is a Uruguayan writer who became famous at a young age when he wrote “The Open Veins of Latin America”, a humorous account of Latin American economic history viewed as systematic exploitation of natural resources by developed countries and imperial powers. Since the transition to democracy in Uruguay, he has become a public intellectual, mostly representing the left. He is often a guest on national TV. He comes across as having a great sense of humor and warmth and remains a popular figure. He is close to the political circles of President Jose Mujica.

In reaction to the recent events in Gaza, Galeano launched a strong and vicious attack on Israel, to which I responded here in Spanish.

Galeano not only attacks Israel’s specific action but also claims that Israel was built at the expense of the Palestinians and continues to expand. What is curious about Galeano is that he literally uses elements drawn directly from Arab propaganda and distortion. Using the most vicious Arab propaganda he claims “the persecution of the Jews has been an old European habit but in the last half century this historical debt has been charged to the Palestinians who have never been anti-Semitic. Furthermore, they are Semitic themselves.” Galeano suggests that Israelis kill civilians on purpose, “knowing exactly what they are doing”. The military industry is “successfully testing (its equipment) in this operation of ethnic cleansing”. In another passage Galeano argues that the threat of a nuclear Iran is an invention of the pro-American media and that the real nuclear threat comes from the Americans because they burned Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The international community is repudiated by what Galeano calls another “piece of theater put on by the United States”.

Another intellectual who follows this same line of thought is Atilio Boron, an Argentinian columnist for a major national daily, a PhD from Harvard University and a person very close to the political circles of President Cristina Kirchner.

Boron accuses Israel of being a terrorist, murderous and a “scoundrel” state. He defines Israel as being far more evil than Al Qaeda. He quotes from fanatic Arab sources that claim that Israel manipulates the Europeans, the Egyptians and the entire world community, including President Barack Obama in order to keep its stand.(I have responded to Boron in Spanish here)  )

What is interesting is that Mr. Boron accuses Israel of murdering civilians but in regard to Syria he claims that the uprising against the tyranny of President Bashar Al Assad is nothing more than an “imperialist conspiracy”. Boron implies that the Syrian regime, that has already killed more than 40,000 people, is not a murderous regime but it is a victim.  He also holds Israel responsible for increasing tensions with Iran, despite the fact that it was Iran that broke off diplomatic relations with Israel 30 years ago.  Iran has also expressed its desire to destroy Israel, and has sponsored terrorist activities against it. Furthermore, using language drawn directly from Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and even Neo-Nazis, Boron blasts Israel for using the Holocaust as a way to blackmail the world.

Of course, they both justify Hamas hostility against Israel because Israel is the “repressor”. Hamas is not at fault and its past suicide bombers against Israeli civilians or the bombardments of Israeli populations are not mentioned. The fact that Israel withdrew from Gaza seven years ago or offered peace concessions that were rejected altogether by the Palestinians does not seem to be important either.

What is important is that Israel is a U.S. ally. They detest American power with all their might.

But the most astonishing public figure and intellectual is the Nobel Prize laureate from Argentina, Adolfo Perez Esquivel. Mr. Perez Esquivel received the prestigious prize for his activism on behalf of human rights. He strongly opposed the Argentinean and other Latin American dictatorships during the 1970’s and 80’s and became a star during a dark time where tragic events where occurring in the Southern Cone of Latin America. Like the previous public intellectuals I mentioned he blames Israel for the conflict in Gaza, calls it a “terrorist state” and initiated a letter calling for a boycott of Israel. He drew on people like Noam Chomsky and 50 other like-minded individuals to participate in this effort.

In an article published on November 20th, Perez Esquivel wrote the following paragraph: “When will the international community stop allowing Israel to act with impunity, without attempting to limit its aggression against the Palestinian people? When will the United States and the European Union stop being part of the aggression against the people of the Middle East, Palestine, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq? When will they stop threatening Iran?

As the European Union received the Nobel Prize, Perez Esquivel repudiated the European countries’ intervention in the conflict in Libya and warned them of intervening in Syria, as well. Of course, this human rights activist does not mention that in both the case of Syria and Libya, we are talking about murderous dictators that launched a merciless war against their own people.

But Perez Esquivel is even more nefarious. In a letter directed to President Obama after the killing of Osama Bin Laden last year, he questioned why the U.S. didn’t capture Bin laden and try him in a court of justice. Then he answered his own question by suggesting that Bin Laden probably knew information that the United States did not want him to disclose. Thus, several paragraphs later, Perez Esquivel tells the U.S. president: “You know that there are people who have investigated the tragic events of 9/11/2001 and claim there is evidence that this was a self-coup (self-inflicted attack)”

Perez Esquivel continues “This event was the perfect excuse to launch a war against Afghanistan and Iraq and now against Libya”.  In the same letter the human rights activist and Nobel Laureate accused the United States of committing the worst atrocities in the world to keep world power. Finally, he calls the U.S. an “axis of evil”.

These three intellectuals are strong supporters of Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian Revolution. They also support the half -century old Cuban dictatorship. While three decades ago they were active in the struggle for democracy in the Southern cone, they now have no problem supporting Hugo Chavez, a putschist who in the name of economic and social justice subjugated the judicial power; limited freedom of the press; persecuted opponents; organized Para-military groups to intimidate people and potential opponents; who now controls the electoral council and has forced thousands of Venezuelans into exile. This is without mentioning Venezuela’s attempt to destroy the Human Rights Commission of the Organization of American States.

Galeano, Boron and Perez Esquivel are not just identified as bloggers or anonymous fanatics that run colorful website pages. These are opinion leaders who are respected in their societies.

But the most important point is that they are public intellectuals that not merely support the Bolivarian Revolution in its political form. They are also part of its ideology including the anti-imperialist lunacy, the admiration for tyrants and the delirious and venomous conspiracy theories that this revolution wishes to propagate.

In past writings, I mentioned how Chavismo will survive without Chavez and showed how this will most likely happen in Venezuela. I also mentioned that the Bolivarian revolution has absorbed many elements of the left, including moderate elements, and is gradually succeeding in achieving a regional unified message in what seems to be a continental movement of the left.

Now, the case of these three public figures shows that the Bolivarian Revolution has established its hegemony in the form of ideas and prejudices that will be very difficult to remove in the years to come. The Post-Chavez era will survive as a movement because it no longer depends on Chavez’s personal well-being for its ideological survival.

All this shows that ideas matter and that the intellectual left in Latin America has and continues to have an enormous impact influencing the thinking of large segments of their societies. Since the United States has retreated from communicating our ideas and values, many old notions about the U.S. as an exploitive and expansionist power still hold sway in the minds of many Latin Americans. By not taking seriously or participating in the political and ideological debate, our side will never be heard and freedom and democracy in Latin America will suffer as a consequence.