As usual, the intent of Richard N. Haass
is to make America tend to Israel's every need, including coming to its rescue
if and when Israel blundered into an adventure that would get it into deep
trouble from which it could not extricate itself by itself.
This is the subtle message that Haass is
advancing in his latest piece of work; the one that came under the title: “The
Post-American Middle East,” and the subtitle: “The United States has dialed
down both its presence and role in a region that it has dominated for nearly a
half-century.” It was published on December 18, 2019 on the website of the
Council on Foreign Relations.
To argue his point in a convincing way,
Richard Haass relied on history to say to the current rulers of the United
States that their country pursued a winning formula for half a century, but
they are now deviating from that formula, which will result in unpredictable
consequences. Haass's conclusion being that America must get back to pursuing
the old policy or at least pursue something that approximates it.
The trouble with the Haass argument
however, is that it is based, not on real history, but on mutilated history. He
imposed the mutilation in four instances that altered the appearance of what
America stood for in the Middle East during the half century that he took pain
to describe. Here are those instances:
First, Richard Haass neglected to say that
before George H.W. Bush (41) had publicly uttered the words: “This will not
stand, this aggression against Kuwait,” he privately said that Saddam Hussein's
invasion of Kuwait was an inter-Arab affair, and that he will not interfere.
When the Arab League got wind of this, it put pressure on the American
president to interfere, and he did. He thus helped the Arab coalition, which
included Syria, Egypt and the Gulf countries, to kick Saddam out of Kuwait.
When all was said and done, and to show
their appreciation for being cooperative, Saudi Arabia handed America a check for
a cool thirty billion dollars. What remains to be unveiled, perhaps by future
historians, is how the idea of an Arab payment for American mercenary services
came about. Did the Saudis offer the payment on their own? Did America ask for
it? Was the deal negotiated before the war, or was it after the war? History
will be served well if these questions are answered honestly.
Second, speaking of other American
interventions in the Arab and Muslim worlds, Richard Haass neglected to mention
serious facts that would show how asinine these interventions were. There was
the invasion of Iraq by Bush (43). There was the unnecessary policy of overkill
that was adopted in Libya. And there was America's withdrawal from the Iran
nuclear deal. Haass failed to mention that all these American adventures were
carried out at the insistence of the Jewish mob that's occupying the American
State Department, and the mob that makes up the foreign policy pool of Jewish
punditry.
Third, Richard Haass says that, “increased
domestic production of oil and gas has diminished the importance of the Middle
East to the US.” What he neglected to say is that the statement belies the
persistent American claim that America was spending a great deal of money, and
was putting its own people in harm's way to ensure the free flow of oil, thus
protect the economies of Europe and Japan. This was said even at a time when
the Americans were expressing glee that the closing of the Suez Canal due to
the 1967 war, was serving America well by making oil more expensive to the
European economies that had grown enough to seriously challenge the American
economy. No, the Americans were not paying a heavy price to benefit the
Europeans and Japan; they were doing it to serve their own interests.
Fourth, Richard Haass says that the Trump
“administration has not made any serious effort to resolve the
Israeli-Palestinian conflict,” when the reality is that every attempt made by
the administration was torpedoed by the Jews of America who turned out to be
fanatically loyal to Israel. This was proven time and time again by the fact
that they unashamedly served as mouthpieces for Netanyahu's Likud Party.
In addition, the claim that's made by the
Jews of Israel to the effect that they adhere to a system of liberal democracy,
was proven to be a sick joke. In fact, an important precept of democracy –– that of having an election –– proved to
be not a concept that leads to a way of governance in Israel, but a trinket
that’s used by the Jews to distract the Americans and make them believe that
the democratic mirage they see in Israel is an oasis in a desert that’s
otherwise an arid expanse.
The Jews turn the trinket on or off to
coincide with the events that develop in Washington. Thus, when the
administration came up with a plan to resolve the Palestinian question, the
Jews of both Israel and America joined hands, and had the unveiling and
implementation of the plan postponed indefinitely by turning off having a
government in Israel.
To that end, the Jews manufactured an
incident and used it as excuse to dissolve the existing pseudo-government. They
subsequently went several times through the motion of forming a new government
only to fail for no apparent reason. They still don't have a government, which
is why it has been nearly a year that the American plan to resolve the
Palestinian question has remained in limbo.
In fact, that is where the Jews want the
plan to remain until they determine whether the current administration in
Washington will survive the predicament it has created for itself. After that,
the Jews will decide on what kind of virtual government they'll have, and who
will pretend to head it.