To say that history has ended is to say that the human soap
opera has come to an end. But since the characters of a drama cannot vanish
into thin air, to end history means to freeze-frame the action. The result is that
you get a static snapshot of a point in time, and you never know what might
have transpired next.
This is the concept that paralyzes the Jewish thinking; the
one that has caused them horrendous misery for thousands of years. Yet, Benny
Avni is again invoking that concept to tell how he understands the current
episode of the human soap opera. He presents his analysis in an article titled:
“How Obama gave us a new world disorder,” published on June 18, 2015 in the New
York Post.
After a long analysis of what he believes is reality, the
writer concludes the article with this opinion: “The next president's
challenge, then, is to understand that Obama has ushered in the return of
history.” And all of a sudden, the questions that you have been asking while reading
the piece are answered. Now you know that you wondered, you were astonished and
you puzzled because Avni was not describing an unfolding drama; he was
describing a static snapshot … at best, a handful of snapshots.
What's wrong with this approach is that it differs markedly
from what is required to understand history. Whereas authentic historians
(whether trained academically or having a natural talent for it) view history
in terms of the forces that move the populations of nations and their leaders
to act this way or that way, the Jewish ideology compels its adherents,
wherever they may be on the globe, to do something else.
In Judaism, each “interesting” moment is viewed as a sign
that the promise they will be rewarded for being who they are and for their
patience, is about to be fulfilled. When this does not happen, their leaders
tell them to consider such moments as dots that must be connected to understand
why the promise has not yet been fulfilled. And their conclusion always boils
down to the finding that a non-Jew did them in yet again.
In their view, the villain that stood in the way of their
getting their just reward this time is none other than the President of the United States of America ,
Barack Obama. Despite all that he did to help Israel secure its survival, he did
not do the one thing that would have fully satisfied them. It was to maintain
the ongoing wars, to start new ones, or at least remain on a permanent war
footing.
Here is how Avni has formulated that thinking: “He [Obama]
ignored 'old' conflicts; he's also failing at the 'new' wars of our time … the
'new' conflicts include: non-state militias, fanatics, terror groups, and
nuclear proliferation.” So you want to know what snapshots he used as dots to
make the connections that led him to that insane conclusion.
This is what you encounter as you read the article he wrote:
(1) in the 2012 debate with Mitt Romney, Obama offered a now-famous line. (2)
Obama's crack was intended to be made at Romney's expense, but the president
turned out to be the punch line. (3) Hillary Clinton presented Russia's Lavrov
with “reset” button – only it has the Russian word for 'overcharge,' not
'reset,' on it. (4) Obama learned the wrong lessons from the past. The right
approach was laid out by Ronald Reagan: “We win, they lose.” (5) Obama's lack
of historical perspective deprived him of any coherent strategic thinking.
Putin realized that what makes sense for Russia is to revert to the policies
of yore.
That is the list Avni discusses,
having started with this: “Vladimir Putin reacted to a Pentagon plan to place
5,000 troops in [the former Soviet satellites] with a counter-threat: 'Our
nuclear forces will be supplied with more than 40 new intercontinental
ballistic missiles.'” Had he possessed a historical perspective based on
history being an ongoing drama rather than a series of snapshots, he would have
realized that the world is where it is today because NATO reneged on its
promise not to recruit into its ranks the nations that the Soviet
Union let go.