All we could do up to now when studying America's
predicament at being caught in the never-ending quicksand of haggle that keeps
it paralyzed, was to reverse engineer each situation and try to make an educated
guess – going backward – as to how the process might have started.
Lucky for us, we now have an example that shows how the
process actually starts. It deals with a situation that the world wants to see
resolved but the Jews want to see paralyzed. The example came in the form of an
article written under the title: “The U.S. Role in Palestinian Reconciliation:
Three Scenarios.” It was undoubtedly authored by a committee of Jews, but was
signed for the collective by David Makovsky. It was published on October 20,
2017 on the website of the Washington Institute.
The blurb, written in Italic, at the head of the article
summarizes the purpose of the article. It begins with “for now...” and goes on
to blame the Palestinians for something they did not do but the Jews wish they
did. It goes like this: “For now, Palestinian officials will likely [note the
adjective] pursue half-measures rather than a true unity government...” Don't
expect to see a definition for the terms “half-measures” or “true” in the
article.
Still, the Makovsky writing committee goes on to suggest
what Washington
must do next. Here it is in its own words: “Washington may find limited value in a
formal statement.” Translation: Why don't you, America , forget about the whole
thing, and go play golf or something. Well, this is the first indication that,
true to form, the Jews want to paralyze the current situation and maintain it
where it stands.
But what was it that put the Jews in this frame of mind,
anyway? Here is Makovsky's answer: “Following the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation
talks, the Trump administration reiterated its commitment to the 'Quartet
principles' of 2006.” The quartet being the United Nations, the European Union,
the United States and Russia , the
Jews have realized that their only chance to scuttle the initiative would be to
convince the Americans it is not worth pursuing this specific initiative. In
addition, if they cannot make Israel provoke a situation that will cause
America to walk away from the initiative, they want at least, the ability to
place America on the rail track of perpetual Judeo-Yiddish yakety-yak.
Despite the fact that rail tacks have only two rails,
Makovsky and his committee set out to contrive three possible scenarios for the
Quartet to choose from. Even if the three were suggested by Jews, the author of
the article tattles to blame the Palestinians for the outcome that may result.
Here is how he does that: “The U.S.
position would be relevant if Abbas and Hamas actually want to create a
coalition government. This seems unlikely; other scenarios bear
considerations”.
Makovsky goes on to discuss the three scenarios, putting
each one under a rubric of its own. They are: (1) “Abbas wants to govern, Hamas
wants the 'Hezbollah model.'” (2) “Neither side is serious.” (3) “Neither
breakthrough nor breakdown.” And then there is the 'Conclusion' which is the
one most preferred by Jews. It came under the rubric, “Washington Waits,”
hopefully for an eternity.
So you want to know what's in those scenarios, and the
answer is absolutely nothing worth knowing. They are piles of name-dropping,
conjecture and the attribution of false motivation to Palestinians. In short,
they are the stuff that interminable Jewish haggling is made of.
But they all have one and the same purpose. They are a
desperate, last minute Hail Mary attempt, to convince America it must not even make the first step of
participating in the initiative aimed at bringing peace to Palestine . So here is how each scenario ends:
(1) “A U.S. statement on Palestinian reconciliation efforts would lose much of
its punch. (2) “A U.S.
statement would not be impactful.” (3) “A U.S. statement would be tangential
to this scenario.” In simple English, this means: Whatever happens, America , don’t
work for peace because to us, Jews, peace is more painful than crucifixion.
Under the pen of David Makovsky, the Judeo-Israeli committee
that’s writing the article concludes its presentation as follows:
“The United States will likely [again that adjective] wait
to see which of the above scenarios materializes … More Broadly, these
considerations suggest that the U.S. will not be putting forward any peace plan
or engaging in high-stakes Middle East diplomacy until the Gaza situation is
clarified … As for the long-term peacemaking, U.S. officials have indicated
that the Cairo talks will keep any U.S. effort on a very low flame for the time
being.” They hang on to any straw that gives them hope America will
not work to bring peace to the region.