The Holy Alliance

Category: World Affairs Topics: Europe, Russia, Vladimir Putin Views: 1611

At the reception desk of the War-Against-Terror Coalition, there lies an application form for new partners. After stating his name, country and function (king / president / emir / dictator / tyrant), the applicant is invited to answer the question: "Do you have local opponents that you wish to have branded as terrorists and dealt with accordingly?"

Nearly all the applicants so far have answered this question with great enthusiasm. Vladimir Putin designated the Chechnyian rebels, Spain mentioned the Basque ETA, Turkey the Kurds, India the Kashmiris, just to mention a few of a long list. In short, every potentate, big and small, pointed a finger at the people he oppresses, hoping that the United States will help him get rid of their war of liberation. "Send in the big bombers," they beg, "and blow these miserable terrorist bandits sky-high!"  

All this might remind students of history of events nearly 200 years ago. After the downfall of Napoleon, the tyrant who promoted liberty throughout Europe, the rulers of the continent decided to set up an insurmountable wall to any further aspirations of national and social liberation. "All this nonsense about democracy, freedom, equality and constitutions has to stop once and for all," they told each other.  

And so in 1815 the Czar of all the Russians, the Emperor of Austria and the King of Prussia signed an agreement, which they called the Holy Alliance, to institute the rule of God in Europe. Abusing the name of the mild and vaguely socialist rabbi from Nazareth, they created in reality a international mafia of the Iron Fist. Wherever an oppressed people dared to raise its head in rebellion, all the rulers of Europe would band together, one for all and all for one, to help their threatened colleague. The Russians, for example, sent troops to squash the Hungarian and Italian rebellions against Austria; the secret services of all cooperated against the socialists and anarchists.

Almost all the rulers of the continent joined the Alliance, as did England in practice, without doing so formally. The Pope, vicar of Christ, did not, and neither did the Ottoman Sultan, who, not being a devout Christian, had to oppress his many peoples without outside help.

Henry Kissinger, one of the modern admirers of the alliance and its major statesman, the Austrian Prince Metternich, credits it with maintaining order in Europe for many decades. Less morally-handicapped historians might point out that this unholy coming-together of reactionary princes held up the progress of Europe throughout the 19th century, denying liberty to many peoples and allowing narrow-minded kings and aristocrats to hold on to their privileges against far more productive and forward looking social forces. Nothing very holy about that.

Under the umbrella of the War Against Terror, a new Holy Alliance is in the making. George W. Bush is now the supreme judge who decides who is a terrorist and who is not, as once a mayor of Vienna decided who is a Jew. (Karl Lueger, who was elected in 1897 on an anti-Semitic platform, once cheered a Viennese team at a football match against Hungarians. Told that the Viennese team is Jewish, he answered: "What the hell, it's I who decides who is a Jew!")

The inherent danger of this development is that the new alliance will hold up the most needed reform of the 21st century: the narrowing of the gap between North and South, the rich and the poor nations. The abominable outrages of Osama bin Laden and his ilk may be seen, in times to come, as the first manifestation of the coming fight of the teeming billions of deprived and oppressed members of mankind against the privileged few, who almost literally drown in their own fat. The timely recognition of this problem and a determined efforts to deal with it, while there still is time, may prevent an imminent world-wide disaster. Fighting for the unlimited Western hegemony and monopoly of the world's riches, camouflaged as anti-terrorism, will lead to a world-wide catastrophe in the future.

In the meantime, George W. and his advisors, female and male, will have to decide whether Arafat is a terrorist or an ally in the new equation. Ariel Sharon, an unofficial ("Don't call me, I'll call you") member of the coalition, insists that he, like Putin, has the right to call his enemies terrorists, so that he can bomb the Palestinians back to the stone-age and lock them up in some disconnected Bantustans.

The Pentagon and Condoleeza Rice agree, the State Department doesn't. The national interests of the United States clearly point to the recognition of Palestine as a corner-stone of peace and stability in the Middle East. Domestic politics points in the opposite direction.

It remains to be seen whether Kissinger's dictum that "Israel has no foreign policy, only a domestic one" applies to the United States, too.

Uri Avnery is a writer and former member of the Israeli Knesset.


  Category: World Affairs
  Topics: Europe, Russia, Vladimir Putin
Views: 1611

Related Suggestions

The opinions expressed herein, through this post or comments, contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of IslamiCity. These are offered as a means for IslamiCity to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being an educational organization. The IslamiCity site may occasionally contain copyrighted material the use of which may not always have been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. IslamiCity is making such material available in its effort to advance understanding of humanitarian, education, democracy, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and such (and all) material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Older Comments:
Salam alaycoum
It remind me the teaching of the prophet mohamed (SAW) who said :"it will com a time in the fight against evil that all muslim will be oppress by SATAN those who are in the right path(who fight for ALLAH) will be the minority among the Islamic nations the unbelevers state will betraid there brothers and sisters muslim by choosing money and this little time of life insted of FAITH".....l

RR FROM US said:
To:Peter Arendovich
Your question:
"I like to know what would you do if a foreign person would distroy your country's property not once but more then once. ( 1992 bomb world trade center, 2001 finish distroing it,Kenya , Lebanon, Yemen, I suppose the the TAW airplane out of New York, plant bomb in Germany, and son meny more."

The answer to your question is in the second part of your question (Read once again). You have answered yourself to your question.


I like to know what would you do if a foreign person would distroy your country's property not once but more then once. ( 1992 bomb world trade center, 2001 finish distroing it,Kenya , Lebanon, Yemen, I suppose the the TAW airplane out of New York, plant bomb in Germany, and son meny more. I like you to think good what has the USA done to the muslim world, your own brother stole oil from your brother Irak, then Irak ocupied it and it said this is my southern province of kuwait. We helped to establish an order. Now look into Afganestan prior Sept. 11 2001 all the million of refugy along the Pakistany border you can' not say we did it your own muslim did it.In my opinion your thinking is that all county in the midlle east are one nation because they are muslim, pardon so other eastern country up to the Philippines. Sir I am a Christian not born in the USA I come to live here so there are several million of muslims, most are new comers like I. Why do we have to promote the Religious Imperialism and that what it seems the muslim intent to do. I understand that you want to convert the INFIDELS, please do it but not by force as Muslims Have done in the past. Please don't conquer try to convert the spirit of men not the flesh.I think a belief in God or Alla is between the person and his God and not submitting the person to God as the muslim philosophi is since its inseption. I think islam as the it's meaning is beautiful, I read about it and I am impresed, but one thing disturbes me is the political influence. The word jihad is used much by the political underground for their own interest. As I read jihad should be all efford is to serv the Lord and it is used to figth the Infidels.

The article in question represents speculation on hypothetical possible future circumstances. One can debate what a terrorist, or what terrorism, is. But unless the word "terrorist" is to have no meaning at all, which appears to be a view of many people who oppose America's right to self-defense, bin Laden, al-Zawahire, and the remaining rest of Al Qa'eda are terrorists. Mr. bin Laden asked that history be a witness to that categorization of Al Qa'eda, claiming that there is good terrorism and bad terrorism, and that "what we are practicing is good terrorism." Those are his words, a translation of a direct quotation. "We" is not an abstraction. It is a group of which he is a part.

The end game is coming for bin Laden and Al Qa'eda, probably faster than they ever imagined. Let's see what the future actually brings before writing about it as though possible future events have already occurred.

One can call this - World Play: Act 2001. If you are amongst the audience, you'd probably take the message from the play as they are intended. Like Romeo & Juliet. Many versions, but always the same story and usually camouflaged as a love story. In real life, its about Life, Power and Faith. To enjoy Life, one needs Power but Faith shall always be the Worldly enemy.

I would have to agree with Benjamin Rodkin. Willis makes a good point about birth control. However, it is not white people who are over populating.

Are you suggesting that Osama is NOT a
terrorist? Isn't it to quote him to say:
"Send in the big bombers and blow these
miserable terrorist bandits sky-high!"  
Have you forgotten what Osama planned and
his men did in New York? Do you suggest
that what happened in NY could be branded
as something other than terrorism and that
President Bush or any one for that matter
could not rightly judge that act? Why would it
be any different for other acts of terrorism?


Although I am a conservative republican, this article does make some good points, and i hope that our war against terror wont go overboard. However, people that murder innocent civilians in terror attacks are terrorists, not freedom fighters, and they should be oppossed. Are the Chechens an oppressed people or terrorists? Well, as I remember they all but won their independence from Russia, but a few years later attacked sovereign Russian territory without provocation and launched a terrorist blitz against moscow. Russia has a right to call em terrorists and deal with them accordingly. If the Palestinians only wanted an independent state in west bank and could i be against them? But the truth is that Israel offered them that, they rejected and now send suicide bombers against teenagers at discotheques and pizza parlors...they want Israel destroyed. Self determiniation they are allowed, destroying an entire nation?...uh-uh thats a no no and yes they are then terrorists. We do need to be careful on who we label terrorists, this i agree, but organizations that openly declare they intend to kill civilians or destroy nations are not oppressed peoples...they are murderers.

What a lopsided piece of editorialism this article is!
The writer would have one believe that all of the terrorists are oppressed, and are justified in slaughtering innocent people wherever they can strike!
Making statements such as "the first manifestation of the coming fight of the teeming billions of deprived and oppressed members of mankind against the privileged few, who almost literally drown in their own fat" are patently untrue and making such statements gives Islam a bad reputation.
When I read this statement I get the impression that the "teeming masses" of Muslims (this is a Muslim web site) are incapable of supporting themselves, and further are incapable of contolling an explosive birth rate.
Population control is the problem folks. Regardless of the religion, race, or creed, overpopulation is the problem.
As the population soars it's only going to get uglier. Controlling population at a sustainable level is the only hope.


By introducing executive law America has ended its so called way of life. There is no decocracy or freedom for humans living here specially muslims. the opposition has succeeded in their cause. The seed has been laid down and it will give its fruit in times to come