When the Shah of Iran was ruling Iran ,
that country was friendly to Israel .
This kind of relationship had been cultivated by the Jews
with Iran and Turkey as part of their strategy to use the non-Arab Muslim nations
situated at the periphery of the Arab World––what they used to call the Arab
Core––to develop leverage they can use to pressure the Arab countries when it
suits their purpose to do so.
The argument the Jews utilized when talking to these
countries (and a few others in Asia, Africa and Latin America) was that they
and Israel
were alike as much as they were different from the Arab countries. For this
reason – they went on to tell those countries – they are the natural allies of Israel . And so
they suggested to those countries that they should develop good relations with Israel , and be
weary of the Arabs.
In trying to pull this stunt, the Jews proved incapable of
understanding a fundamental principle. It is that a friendship designed on the
basis of hating someone – exemplified by the saying: the enemy of my enemy is
my friend – inevitably implodes. It happens because a bond that relies on the
mutual hatred for others, is a manifestation of cannibalistic tendencies. And
in the same way that cannibals consume each other when they run out of prey,
those who adhere to a hate pact will inevitably hate each other. And they will
figuratively cannibalize each other, as it happened when Israel had a falling out with Iran and Turkey .
The highpoint in the Iran-Israel friendship came about
during the year and a half that the Iran-Contra Affair was ongoing. That was a
time, during the second term of Ronald Reagan, when a number of Americans were
held hostage by a group in Lebanon
that was allied with Iran .
To help get the hostages released, Iran
– that was no longer governed by the Shah – asked for weapons and spare parts
from America
to replenish the American arsenal that the Shah had left behind.
President Reagan agreed to the deal, but because there was
an American embargo against selling arms to Iran ,
the shipments could not go directly from America
to Iran .
However, because there was an America-to-Israel open route as well as an
Israel-to-Iran open route, a roundabout scheme was devised for the weapons to
take the two-legs route from America to Iran, and for the payments to take the
same route but in the opposite direction.
To this day, the Judeo-Israeli establishment views that
period of time as the golden age of Israel 's influence in the region.
Jews everywhere, be they in America
or Israel
or anywhere in the world, hunger to see that age return. So does Neri Zilber
who wrote: “Israel 's
Secret Arab Allies,” an article that was published on July 14, 2017 in the New
York Times.
The trouble is that everyone who delves in realistic
thinking, knows there is no way that Israel
will ever again reestablish the relationship it used to have with Iran or Turkey or anyone else for that
matter. However, those in Israel
and elsewhere who delve in Jewish fantasy, are rejecting that logic. And they
have gone as far as to delude themselves into believing they can develop a
similar kind of relationship … with the Arab Core no less.
That fantasy is what Zilber expresses in his article. You
don't have to go far into it before realizing that you're not witnessing the
senility of an ordinary man that's beginning to lose it; you're witnessing the
senility of a man that had mental issues to begin with, and is now adding
senility on top of that.
First of all, look what the title of the article says. It
says the Arabs (meaning some Arab rulers) wish to keep their alliance with Israel secret.
Even if it is true that Israel
has Arab allies, the fact that they wish to keep it a secret, means it is an
alliance that the Arab public does not approve of.
Second of all, look how Zilber describes the relationship
that he says Israel has with
the Arab countries: “Israel
finds itself deeply involved in Arab wars.” This popped up in the first
paragraph as a harbinger of what the rest of the article looks and sounds like:
pointless. So the question is this: Why was the article written in the first
place? And the answer is to be found in an idea that was expressed in two
parts. One part came at the start of the article; the other came at the end of
it.
Here is the early part: “The main stumbling block remains
the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an emotive issue that still carries strategic
weight in Arab capitals.” And here is the latter part: “Absent movement on the
Palestinian front, this new Israeli role isn't likely to bring normalization of
relations or an end to the region's conflict. But it may help [establish] a
semblance of Middle East peace”.
Do you realize what this means, my friend? Here is a
translation of the article's message:
“The way to normalize Israel 's
situation is to end the occupation of Palestine
and forge open, not clandestine relations with the Arab countries. But we
cannot do that because we want all of Palestine
to ourselves. Still, our running around the war fields like a puppy that's
trying to catch a Frisbee thrown at each other by a group of boys, may help
bring peace to the Middle East . That's our
promise to the world. Do you hear us, America ? Now here is what we need
you to do: send money, money, money and all the bombs you can ship to us”.