I lived nearly all my adult life in North America, and there is
something I still cannot get used to. It is that the culture here favors the
secret backroom deals over the transparent deals of the open door.
I have been curious about this phenomenon in all its
manifestations since I detected it a number of decades ago. And so, I developed
the tradition that when I have the opportunity, I quiz immigrants who came here
when they were old enough to remember how things were like in the “old
country,” and how different they are from those they encounter here.
I can report that whichever country these people came from, they
sensed that the “nativists” prefer to talk around the point rather than go directly
to the point where they can quickly resolve the issues under discussion and
dispose of them. But it appears that the North Americans enjoy having an
elephant in the room and talk about it without acknowledging its existence,
more than they enjoy reaching a solution to the issues they say they wish to
resolve. And so, they go round and round talking about everything in the hope
that they will stumble on the solution that will reveal the nature of the
elephant in the room.
In all fairness, I cannot attribute this habit to the
Judeo-Yiddish influence because all indications are that it predates the Jewish
cultural conquest of the continent. However, I can see how much the Jews have
taken advantage of this North American habit, and made it an essential component
in the practice of attacking the people they don't like.
What the Jews do, is exploit that North American habit, to engage
in the business of slandering the people they don't like behind their backs.
The Jews do that by running to the authorities who, unfortunately, assign a
higher value to a stranger's whisper in their ear than they do to what they see
with their own eyes. Their motto seems to go like this: “I don't care what I
see, I like better what you tell me.” And once you've seen this scenario
unfold, my friend, you understand why Washington and Ottawa are such screwed up
places.
Still, there is no denying that every culture has the occasional
quirk that can irk the people of another culture. But the difference between
these quirks and the one that's plaguing North America, is that they play-out
only within the social games of mundane living without rising to a higher
level. In contrast, the North American quirks, rise to the highest level of the
social ladder and then spill onto the stage of foreign policy.
You can see a stark example of that in the piece which came under
the title: “Jared Kushner's Middle East Development Project,” and the subtitle:
“His conference in Bahrain hears of big dream plans divorced from reality.” It
is an editorial of the New York Times that was published on June 28, 2019.
You know that a quirky habit has overwhelmed a culture as
powerfully as the craving for a fix can overwhelm an addict, when you see the
editors of a publication as prominent as the New York Times first criticize the
quirky habit and then exalt it. This is precisely what the editors of the New
York Times did. Look how much they criticized the Kushner plan for Palestine
throughout the editorial before exalting its “unrealistic” potential at the end
of the same editorial:
“The publication described an investment in the Palestinian
economy like a fantastical promotion. There's little new about the plan, which
relies on the construction of projects made in previous failed efforts. It
deals only in generalities. While tantalizing, it is unrealistic. Making it
even more surreal, is that it arrives after the administration cut funds for
programs that support schools and health care. There is broad international
discomfort about the plan. Mike Pompeo admitted that it may be ‘unexecutable.’
The only enthusiastic cadre appeared to be the billionaire investors”.
After all that pessimistic withdrawal, look how these same editors
ended their piece:
“But if Mr. Kushner can mobilize powerful investors and
international businesses as cheerleaders for Mideast peace, he could make a
real contribution”.
What happened here? What happened is that the esteemed editors of
the New York Times were caught between the two jaws of a pincer.
On one side of the pincer, there is the evidence which suggests
that this kind of approach has never resolved the Palestinian issue because the
wishes of the Palestinian people were never given serious consideration.
On the other side of the pincer, there is the editor's burning
desire to see America resolve the issue and take credit. But because one side
or the other had to give for the issue to be resolved, the editors did what an
addict would do: They made the wrong choice.