"Palestinian terrorism has to be rejected and condemned, yes. But it should not be translated defacto into a policy of support for a really increasingly brutal repression, colonial settlements and a new wall"
About this Quote
Zbigniew Brzezinski draws a bright line between moral judgment and policy endorsement. Condemning Palestinian terrorism is necessary, he says, but it must not become a blank check for policies that deepen occupation and harden separation. The force of his phrasing lies in the juxtaposition: a firm no to terror, and an equally firm no to translating that stance into support for repression, settlement expansion, and walls that render division permanent.
As Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser and a Cold War strategist, Brzezinski saw how fear can distort strategy. He understood that measures taken under the banner of security can create long-term insecurity if they ignore political realities. The reference to a new wall evokes the Berlin Wall as a symbol of stalemate and moral corrosion. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, it points to the West Bank barrier and the broader architecture of control that, while intended to stop attacks, also entrenches a one-sided status quo and forecloses the horizon of a negotiated peace.
Calling settlements colonial underscores the power imbalance at the heart of the conflict. He warns that conflating counterterrorism with territorial entrenchment invites a cycle of radicalization: repression breeds grievance, grievance feeds militancy, and militancy justifies more repression. The result is strategic myopia. Security achieved by force alone is brittle; legitimacy and consent are what make it durable.
He is also speaking to American policymakers and publics tempted by binary loyalties. Opposing terror does not require endorsing every tactic of an ally. A credible, law-anchored approach should resist de facto alignment with policies that violate rights and foreclose a viable two-state solution. Brzezinski’s realist caution is thus both moral and pragmatic: condemn violence against civilians unequivocally, but refuse to let that condemnation be weaponized to normalize permanent occupation, institutionalized inequality, and the cementing of borders that preempt peace.
As Jimmy Carter’s national security adviser and a Cold War strategist, Brzezinski saw how fear can distort strategy. He understood that measures taken under the banner of security can create long-term insecurity if they ignore political realities. The reference to a new wall evokes the Berlin Wall as a symbol of stalemate and moral corrosion. In the Israeli-Palestinian context, it points to the West Bank barrier and the broader architecture of control that, while intended to stop attacks, also entrenches a one-sided status quo and forecloses the horizon of a negotiated peace.
Calling settlements colonial underscores the power imbalance at the heart of the conflict. He warns that conflating counterterrorism with territorial entrenchment invites a cycle of radicalization: repression breeds grievance, grievance feeds militancy, and militancy justifies more repression. The result is strategic myopia. Security achieved by force alone is brittle; legitimacy and consent are what make it durable.
He is also speaking to American policymakers and publics tempted by binary loyalties. Opposing terror does not require endorsing every tactic of an ally. A credible, law-anchored approach should resist de facto alignment with policies that violate rights and foreclose a viable two-state solution. Brzezinski’s realist caution is thus both moral and pragmatic: condemn violence against civilians unequivocally, but refuse to let that condemnation be weaponized to normalize permanent occupation, institutionalized inequality, and the cementing of borders that preempt peace.
Quote Details
| Topic | Human Rights |
|---|
More Quotes by Zbigniew
Add to List
