Norm Coleman is someone who seems on the surface to
understand the situation – perhaps because he had a hand at shaping it – and
yet, here he is trying to fix what he admits have been the unintended
consequences of bad policies. The sad part is that he is doing so with a forked
tongue – as would say the natives here in North America .
You get a sense of all this reading the article he wrote under the title: “U.S. must champion democracy in Egypt ” and
published in the Washington Post on October 18, 2013.
Speaking about America 's
decision to review its relationship with Egypt ,
Coleman begins the article by saying that the decision “adds ... ambiguity to a
Middle East policy that has yielded mostly
unintended consequences rather than stability and hope.” The two key words here
are “adds” and “ambiguity.” To say that ambiguity was added is to admit that
ambiguity was there already, and that the new decision has made matters worse.
And why is that? Because the stated intent was to foster stability and hope in
the Middle East but the unintended
consequences yielded an opposite result.
Whether Norm Coleman used the word ambiguity consciously or
unconsciously, the reference here is to the Israeli religious adherence to pursuing
a set of ambiguous policies in the Middle East .
This tradition translates into saying something and doing another thing –
usually the opposite – which signals to the observer that these people believe
that ambiguity is the mark of a superior intelligence because it has the power
to confuse those of inferior intelligence.
And he, being one of the staunchest supporters of Israel,
and a diaspora architect that helped to shape the Jewish-Zionist-Israeli
policies, it is reasonable to conclude that he must have had a strong influence
on how the policy of ambiguity was formulated and implemented by Israel as well
as the Jewish lobby in America.
So the question: What did the policy of ambiguity look like
with regard to the relationship with Egypt ? Here again, you find the
answer in the Coleman article not because he gave it in a straightforward and
honest manner but because he spoke with a forked tongue once again. Here is
that passage: “Now is the time to pull Egypt
… a key U.S.
ally in the region.” Did he say a key U.S. ally? Wow! You would not have
thought so had you been reading what the Jewish lobby, the hundreds upon
hundreds of mouthpieces, and the echo chamber followers were mouthing off all
those years.
I responded to as many of those characters as I could, and
you'll find my articles in the archives of this website, shown on the right
side of the page. It is that these authors came out waving the red flag and
yelling at the American administration, telling it to stop sending money and
weapons to Egypt .
They said so whether the country was governed by Mubarak, by the Supreme
Council of the Armed Forces (SCAF) or by the Brotherhood. Yes, that's how the
Jews were telling America to treat a key ally at a time when Israel was
enjoying the benefit of having a normal relationship with Egypt – what Coleman
now says was there all the time. Is this the mark of a superior intelligence or
is it that of an inferior intelligence? You decide.
And there is something that can help you decide. It is that
Norm Coleman did not end his article at this point. What he did is give advice
in a language which, if you look at it closely, you'll find it to be the
product of the same mentality which produced the ambiguous policies of the
past. Instead of doing this, he should have gone up to the highest rooftop in
the city, beat his breast like a King Kong and shouted: WE WAS WRONG. But
that's not what he did because he had something else in mind; he accused the
Obama administration of not adjusting to reality, which he says is adding to Egypt 's
instability.
What? Hold your horses, man! First of all, a mind that is
formed by ambiguity can never tell what reality looks like. Second, if there is
instability in Egypt , America 's
posture will not stabilize it. Third, if Coleman chooses to characterize what
is happening in Egypt as instability, the fact that America kills in peace time
as many of its own people in a month as were killed in an Egyptian revolution
that lasted two and a half years, says that America is the very definition of
instability. Fourth if, in his view, the political give-and-take in Egypt adds tons of instability to the country,
he must hold the view that America 's
continuing shenanigans in the congress and outside of it add megatons of
instability to America .
Still, he goes on to describe a situation in the Middle East that is stereotypical, then gives advice
about it which is the opposite of what he and his people have been giving over
the years. This is their newly formulated advice: “If the U.S. had a strategy,
it would point to supporting Egypt,” to which I can hear millions of Egyptians
express a collective sigh of astonishment that goes like this: Oh yeah! And
where were you during the last two or three decades?
Undeterred, Coleman goes on to say that the United States
badly needs to restore trust and credibility with the Arabs. You know what, my
friend? This trust and that credibility existed before the Jewish
organizations, headed by the likes of Coleman, spent energies of cosmic
dimensions to sabotage.
But now that the Egyptians have had it up to here, and have
decided to go their separate way, the architect of destruction sees fit to
blame the result of his handiwork on President Obama, then advocates a reversal
of his own policies, calling them those of Obama. What can be more Jewish than
that?