Just about 50 years ago, I was a freshman in college taking a
course that listed as required reading, a book written by Thomas Kuhn, which
came under the title: “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions”.
These days –– more precisely on April 18, 2019 –– Richard N. Haass
of the Council on Foreign Relations, published an article on the website of his
organization, in which he drew a parallel between the way that Thomas Kuhn said
how scientific revolutions occur, and how he––Richard Haass––believes, a
diplomatic revolution should occur in our thinking with regard to the Middle
East. In fact, the title of his article is: “The Structure of a Diplomatic
Revolution,” and the subtitle: “It is time for a paradigm shift about the
Middle East”.
I have not read Kuhn’s book in fifty years, but I am confident
enough to take issue with Richard Haass regarding his assertion that Thomas
Kuhn believed: “breakthroughs in science occur not through the gradual
accumulation of small changes to existing thinking...” In fact, Copernicus,
Newton, Maxwell and Einstein would be the first to say –– as some actually did
–– that they weren't born knowing what they knew. Instead, they made their
discoveries standing on the shoulders of the giants that came before them. The
reality is that it was the accumulated weight of the small changes that made
the scientific revolutions inevitable, and Thomas Kuhn was well aware of that.
Still, based on his misunderstanding of what Kuhn had said,
Richard Haass proceeded to suggest that we should reject the paradigm we
currently hold with regard to the existing situation between Israel and its
neighbors, and come up with a revolutionary new paradigm … though he did not
come right out and said what the new paradigm should look like. But did he stop
here and let the readers decide for themselves what the new paradigm should be?
No, he did not.
Richard Haass did not respect his readers enough to do that. What
he did was create two baskets. He put in one basket what he says are the
elements of the existing paradigm that must be rejected. And he put in the
other basket the same old Jewish arguments which, time after time, have led the
diehard fanatics to conclude that Jews must be allowed to ethnic cleanse
Palestine of its indigenous Palestinian population, and take the whole thing
for themselves.
To help him advance his theory, Haass came up with the fallacy
that would have stunned Kuhn. It is this: “The sudden emergence of radical
ideas causes existing models to be replaced with something different as was the
case when astronomers determined that the earth revolves around the sun and not
vice versa. These shifts usher in a new model that becomes the basis for study
and experimentation”.
But the reality is that study and experimentation, conducted by
many researchers over a long period of time, have been the ingredients that led
individuals (usually working alone) to put it all together and come up with a
theory that caused the paradigm to shift. In fact, there was in the second
century BC, the Ptolemaic system which had it that a celestial sphere was going
around the earth. It then took researchers one thousand and eight hundred years
of painstaking observations and theorizing before Copernicus was able to look
at all the data, synthesize them, and assert that it was the earth which
revolves around the sun.
But having confused what happens in the realm of science, Richard
Haass felt he could now draw a parallel with the situation in the Middle East, thus
suggested what he termed, the revolutionary idea of rejecting the existing
paradigm; the one based on UN Security Council Resolution 242 –– and he urged coming
up with something new. But this was never revolutionary because it is what
Israel has been doing for more than half a century. In fact, it is a reality
that was marred by wars and a series of military defeats for Israel. But look
how casually and falsely Richard Haass has interpreted an important piece of
history that lasted 52 years:
“Nearly everything said and written about the issue reflects the
outcome of the 1967 War, which left Israel in control of territories that
belong to Jordan, Egypt and Syria. Since then, the normal diplomatic model has
assumed that Israel would trade this territory in exchange for security and
peace. For some time, the paradigm appeared to have validity. Israel returned
the Sinai to Egypt, allowing the two countries to sign a peace treaty that has
endured to this day”.
No, that's not all that happened. There was a sneak Israeli attack
on its neighbors in 1967 that started a 6-year war with Egypt known as the War
of Attrition. In 1973, the Egyptians smashed through the Bar Lev line and went
after the Israeli army in the Sinai. Lest Egypt enter Israel itself, America
intervened, accepted Egypt's victory, and asked for a ceasefire so that Israel
may withdraw from the rest of the Sinai in an orderly fashion. To save lives,
Egypt accepted the deal, and Israel withdrew what was left of its forces as
planned.
Concurrent with Egypt's crossing of the Canal, the Syrians moved
to take back the Golan Heights that Israel had occupied in 1967. Having retaken
the important province of Quneitra, the Syrians stopped their offensive in
accordance with the American initiative, thinking that they too might recover
the rest of the Golan without further bloodshed. This did not happen, and
Israel remained in control of a narrow sliver in the Golan.
After 1973, the people of Gaza were able to kick the Israeli army
out of their territory, and had several wars and skirmishes trying to diminish
the effect of the air and sea blockades which Israel is maintaining against a
population that has neither an air force nor a navy with which to break the
blockade. As well, Israel kept trying to steal the fresh water sources of
Lebanon, but the Lebanese fought back and repeatedly kicked the Israelis out of
their territory.
The lesson that emerges from this 52-year history, is that Israel
takes land by force and never gives it back through negotiations. With the
exception of the West Bank and a thin sliver of the Golan, Israel was kicked
out of everywhere else it has tried to expand its territory. This is the
paradigm that has persisted for more than half a century. Now, the Jews see
credible signs that the status quo can no longer be maintained, and they are
panicking.
This is why Richard Haass has suggested the creation of a new
paradigm without describing one. However, he tried to lead the readers in the
direction of accepting the ethnic cleansing of Palestine, and the eventual
transfer of the entire territory to the Jews.
As shown over and over again, these people never give up staging
fake theatrics to fool someone, in their eternal quest to get something for
nothing … and they never escape their morbid fate.