Did you see the article on the website of Project Syndicate?
It came under the title: “Donald Trump's Choices in the Middle
East ,” and was published on November 21, 2016. It was written by
Shlomo Ben-Ami of the Toledo
International Center
Let me tell you in condensed form how the article ends:
“Trump should recognize that America 's
allies have an incentive to make peace with Israel and collaborate with it on
regional security. Such an arrangement could be legitimate only with the
creation of a Palestinian state. This would also support US reconciliation with the Arab peoples, thereby
serve America 's
national security interests. Trump should not hesitate to seize the
initiative”.
Now you know why the title of my article says the New York
Times will never publish an article like that of Ben-Ami. You see, my friend,
the New York Times is a phony “liberal, progressive” rag. It might have been a
genuine one in the past, but it has been taken over by the war mongering
neocons who don't want the world to know they are now in charge. This is why
the editors pretend to stand for peace in the world, which is a liberal
progressive ideal. But in reality, they are giving cover to those who beat the
drums of war day after day. To put it simply, the editors of the New York Times
follow a hypocritical editorial policy, and they write lying editorials.
Aside from Ben-Ami urging President-elect Donald Trump to
recognize Palestine as a sovereign state, what else is there that might irk the
editors of the New York Times so much that they would never consider publishing
an article like that of Ben-Ami? The answer is plenty. Yes, there is plenty
that would irk the neocons-in-liberal clothing who populate the editorial
offices of the Times.
Here is a declaration that will most certainly blow a few
minds at the New York rag: “America 's
'moderate' jihadist allies are no more palatable than President Bashar
al-Assad.” This stands in direct opposition to the neocon philosophy of toppling
the existing systems in the Middle East , and
replacing them with lackeys who will be open to turning their sovereign nations
into client states.
The aim of the neocons has always been to bring about a Pax
Americana that will effectuate regime change and put the nations of the region
under the influence of Jewish America (or Jew.S.A. as it is now called.) And
so, to see Ben-Ami articulate the notion that President Bashar al-Assad is no
worse than America 's
moderate jihadists, is nothing short of sacrilegious to these people.
What is even more galling to the neocon editors of the New
York Times is that Ben-Ami went further than his original declaration and made
this assertion: “The only way to defeat a movement that thrives amid chaos is
to build strong and competent states.” How else to interpret this, but to think
that Ben-Ami wants to do more than preserve the Assad regime; he wants to
strengthen it. Is 'profane' a stronger word than sacrilegious?
How about a characterization that goes beyond these two
words? For example labeling 'revolting' what Ben-Ami says next? You don't
believe he could have gone further than that? Well then, see for yourself: “If
Trump opts for a purely military approach, he will find that every 'victory'
merely creates space for more violence and terror.” Are you convinced now? To
tell a neocon that to seek a military solution is bad for the world, is like
telling a serial rapist sex is bad for his health.
Okay, mister; we're numb by now. Hit us; what else is
Ben-Ami saying? He is saying this: “America 's
allies would be well advised to drop their opposition to the Iran deal, and
instead encourage Trump to keep it in place.” Oh no! Oh yes, we're staying
cool, we're not screaming, we're not hysterical. We're cool, we're cool.
Good you're cool because there is more where this came from.
In fact there are two more things. To shorten the agony, I'll give them to you
back to back. And I'll run like hell before your mind explodes and blows me
away like a feather in a hurricane. Here they are:
(1) “Turkish President Erdogan wants to quell the Kurd's
ambitions of self rule … it is clear that Kurdish independence is not in the
cards”.
(2) “A settlement building spree [in the West
Bank ] might trigger a fierce third Palestinian intifada”.