When you wear glasses that distort your vision, you think you see a paradigm that’s not there, and you build your case on a shaky foundation. When you see something move, you believe that the non-existent paradigm has shifted, and rebuild your case on a shakier foundation.
This is what's happening to
those who never understood what was going on in the Middle East before the
recent moves were undertaken in the region. They still do not understand what’s
going on there now, and continue to demonstrate that they'll never understand
what's unfolding in that part of the world.
One of those who fits this
description is Mark Leonard who is Director of the European Council on Foreign
Relations. He wrote an article under the title: “The Middle Eastern Past Is
Never Dead,” published on October 23, 2020 in the online magazine Project
Syndicate.
The paragraph that follows is
Leonard's description of the false paradigm that reigned for decades. It was
created by the Jewish propaganda machine to ascertain continued financial
support from an American Congress that didn't know the difference between a
real economy and an operation that's run by a criminal syndicate; one that’s
kept afloat by donated money and by extortion:
“In the Arab world, the
displacement of the Palestinians and the Israeli occupation, were a perpetual
rallying cry for successive regimes, most of which capitalized on Palestinian
suffering to divert attention from their own failures at home. In recent years,
Arab elites' threat perceptions have changed. If their primary enemy in the
past was Israel, today it is Iran, followed by Turkey. As the United States has
pulled back from the region, many Gulf leaders have come to believe that a
regional axis with Israel will be crucial to safeguarding their interests. And
on the Arab street, public opinion has followed suit”.
There was a time––for a reason
that remains obscure to this day––when it dawned on the American mob of Jewish
pundits that Israel had to be described as being an important player in world
affairs. To that end, each member of the mob came up with a way to inflate
Israel’s importance. For example, Bret Stephens who was then with the Wall
Street Journal, spoke of Israel as being a giant in the region. Victor Davis
Hanson spoke of Israel's establishment as an important event in world history.
As to Thomas Friedman who
seems to be well versed in reverse psychology, he came up with the argument
that the Arab leaders were in such trouble, they blamed their failures on a
bright object called Israel, thus confused their people. While this may or may
not have turned Israel into an important player in the mind of the readers,
every know-nothing idiot that wanted to impress his readers but had no good
idea to impress with, has used the friedmanite piece of garbage to make waves
which, unfortunately, smelled like a stink.
This is what Mark Leonard has
repeated in his article. The reality is that the Arab governments, which came
up with the Initiative of 2002, just after the 9/11 event, always wanted to put
the troubles of the region behind them so as to devote their full attention to
the development of their respective countries. It was the masses, some of them
motivated by extreme views, that wanted the governments to reverse their
priorities. This meant hit Israel in the deep, and cripple its military so that
commandos from around the world may come in and finish off the Jews. But this
was a responsibility that no Arab government was going to assume.
With this in the background,
it should be easy for the reader to see why someone who lived with a paradigm
that's a bag of friedmanite garbage, would hang on to an obsolete idea; one
that the American government has tried to realize recently but failed. It was
to organize the Arabs into a NATO kind of grouping that will be associated with
the Americans. Forget it, said the Arabs, we don't operate in this fashion. But
despite this rejection, you see Mark Leonard say this: “Gulf leaders have come
to believe that a regional axis with Israel will be crucial to safeguarding
their interests.” The Arabs said no to the Americans, but Mark Leonard believes
they will eagerly say yes to Israel. Nothing can be more primitive thinking
than this.
So, the obvious questions to
ask are these: What was it that the Arabs tried to accomplish with their 2002
initiative? Can they accomplish it now, in view of the latest developments?
Well, the Egyptian argument
from early on was that the best way to secure the rights of Palestinians, was
to adopt the “constructive engagement” approach with Israel. This brought
Jordan to the idea, but many Arabs were skeptic, maintaining that as long as
America will diminish itself to augment Israel, nothing good will come out of
being nice to Israel because it will not budge.
After 9/11, Saudi Arabia saw
the situation as did the Egyptians and the Jordanians, thus spearheaded the
movement that produced the Arab League Initiative. But guess what, my friend,
the Arab skeptics proved to be correct.
As long as America was burning
its candle at both ends to help Israel remain obstinate, that's what Israel
remained. But then it happened that the American President Donald Trump got
himself into deep trouble, and wanted to score a visible success before the
election that will determine his political fate and legacy.
He called Netanyahu and told him that he must accept the Arab Initiative or it will be hell for him and for Israel. Netanyahu knuckled under, the Arabs were so informed, and the negotiations started with the goal of working out a comprehensive settlement that will address the rights of Palestinians.