When you betray your country and pledge allegiance to a
foreign entity, your view of the world becomes so twisted, you begin to look at
everything else through a distorted lens.
In fact, this is the reality that emerges from the Wall
Street Journal editorial which came under the title: “Obama Loses the Sunni
Arabs” and the subtitle: “They reject his attempts to reassure them over the Iran nuclear
deal.” It was published on May 12, 2014.
Embracing the pattern that was adopted by those who say they
sit at the right side of the political spectrum, the editors of the Journal
display their skewed modes of thinking by first making the suppositions that
suit their point of view, and then using these suppositions to conclude that
they prove the validity of their point of view.
The supposition they make in this case is that the Arab
kings and princes of the Persian Gulf region changed their minds about
attending President Obama's invitation to come to the United States personally for the purpose of
discussing the situation in their region, especially with regard to Iran 's
ambitions. And so, the editors attribute the Arab change of mind to the failure
of Mr. Obama's foreign policy, arguing that this validates their long held view
about that President.
This done, the editors get specific, and point out that
Obama failed to lead on the matter of Iran's nuclear ambitions, a development
that displeased the Arabs greatly, according to them. But they do not tell what
happened during the days from when the six heads of state agreed to attend the
Obama meeting personally, to when two of them decided to send someone else
instead. And so, the reality is that attributing that change of heart to
Obama's failure to lead, does not make sense because the condition that the
editors call failure has been there for many years – even according to the
editors themselves – and did not happen at the time that the change of heart
occurred.
We must therefore accept the explanation that was given by
the King of Saudi Arabia to the effect that his country's involvement in the
war now raging in Yemen
requires his attention more urgently than the Washington meeting. As to the king of Bahrain , it is worth recalling that he faced an
insurrection similar to that of Yemen .
That's when Saudi troops entered the country and restored order. Thus, the
likelihood is that the two kings are working on something too important to
leave behind and go to America
at this time.
Still, true to their nature, the editors of the Wall Street
Journal use the occasion of the two kings not coming to America personally, to
celebrate what they perceive as being a defeat for this President when, in
reality, the defeat – if it existed – would have been that of America. Here is
an example of their celebratory mood: “These rejections can only be described
as political snubs rooted in distrust of President Obama and his diplomacy.”
And so, what comes out the Wall Street Journal presentation
is that in the view of its editors, it is acceptable to see America get
hurt if this means Obama gets hurt in the process. This can only lead a neutral
observer to conclude that because Israel
and World Jewry gain when Obama gets hurt, the jovial mood of the editors must
be rooted in their love for Israel .
It also leads to the view that these editors would sacrifice the welfare of the
American people for the benefit of Israel and the Jews – which is what
defines this insidious new form of national treason.
The rest of the article shows why the editors of the Journal
are happy. They say that because “Arab leaders have shown how little trust they
put in Mr. Obama's assurances … the acute irony of this meeting is that it
reveals the failure of Mr. Obama [to] detach from the Middle
East .” They further explain that these developments have spawned
new crises which force America
to make more security guarantees in the region – a euphemism to mean that America is putting itself at the disposal of Israel .
And while they foresee good things happening for Israel ,
they foresee that: “His [Obama's] Arab guests … concluding that in the end they
are on their own.” What can be better than seeing America
get hurt so badly, it must now embrace Israel even more tightly while
distancing itself from the Arabs even more broadly?