The thing to know about scientists – be they physics
scientists or social scientists – is that they spend a great deal of time
observing what happens in nature or in real life situations. When they have
accumulated most of the elements that can form a theory, those elements
synthesize in their minds as if by miracle … and eureka, the scientists have an
equation or a social formula that explains something about the world in which
we live.
Bret Stephens is neither a physicist nor a social scientist
but a Zionist fanatic that seems to have experienced a eureka moment of his own
when he stumbled on the elements of a formula that would have pleased his Stone
Age ancestors. And so he rushed to his modern keyboard and banged an article
containing four rules he says should help Jared Kushner deal with the Jewish
occupation of Palestine .
Stephens tells the readers who Jared Kushner is before
telling him what to do. He says that Kushner is the son-in-law of Donald Trump,
President of the United
States of America . He is 36 years old, and
used to be a newspaper publisher but is now the administration's point man on
Arab-Israeli issues. Because the young man has no experience in diplomacy but
will have to handle Netanyahu's visit to the White House, Stephens saw fit to
reveal his newly concocted Stone Age formula on how to handle this sort of
thing.
He put all that in an article that came under the title: “Mideast rules for Jared Kushner,” published on February
14, 2017 in the Wall Street Journal. The writer discusses four rules, two of
which he attributes to their originators, Clark Clifford and George Shultz. A
third seems to be something he lifted from the works of Henry Kissinger, and a
fourth that is entirely the product of his imagination – or so it seems.
What these rules boil down to is a formula which says that
the best way to deal with the Middle East is
to do nothing, says Bret Stephens. The poor kid, he may think he reached that
conclusion by digging into the works of Clifford, Shultz and Kissinger, but the
reality is that the formula is more complex than that, and reaches much deeper
than that.
Long before the public had heard of Shultz or Kissinger, the
Judeo-Israeli propaganda was rooted in the primitive savagery that's displayed
in the Old Testament. It rested on two notions expressed by two phrases
designed for American ears. They were “Give us the tools and we'll do the job”
and “Let's have a division of labor” which meant: we, Israelis will do what we
can; and you, Americans will have to do the rest.
The Palestinians had not yet risen up at the time, and the
rest of the Middle East was still the Garden
of Eden it had been for thousands of years. This situation displeased a Jewish
establishment that was already angry because Germany
had given Israel
only 900 million dollars to compensate for 6 million dead Jews (150 dollars per
head). And so the Israelis did all they could to set the region on fire, thus
have something to play with. And so they created all the chaos they could, and
used it to maneuver America
by exploiting its political novices.
They started provoking the neighbors, one after the other,
and when a neighbor responded, the Jews ran to the American Congress and warned
that the world was full of evil people who wish to harm America . They
claimed they were the only ones who could protect America but “you must give us the
tools to do the job.” And they added that there may be occasions when they will
need to divide the labor with the Americans.
But once the Israelis had secured a steady stream of cash
and weapons from America ,
they wanted its diplomats to do nothing that would bring peace to the region.
Thus “give us the tools” meant: Give us money, weapons and diplomatic
protection, otherwise keep your noses out of the Middle
East unless we get into trouble, at which time you must come and
rescue us.
Expanding on the theory, Bret Stephens does something else.
He exposes what has always been the Judeo-Israeli strategy regarding the
conflict with the Palestinians. Look at this: “when bureaucratic prestige has
been invested in a policy, it is easy to see it fail … So it is with the
formulas that govern US thinking: 'Land for peace' and the 'two state
solution.'”