|
|
|
|
|
◄ PREV.
|
TRUMP & THE MIDDLE EAST
|
NEXT►
|
|
|
|
|
|
- AN HIR SERIES -
|
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
|
|
 En español
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
According to many in the mainstream media, the
Trump-Netanyahu summit evidenced a ‘pro-Israeli’ turn. That would be a
direct challenge to the HIR model. But we don’t see it. The result of the
summit, we claim, was ‘pro Iran.’ To say otherwise, as we show, requires
important historical omissions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Historical &
Investigative Research – 5 April 2017, by Francisco Gil-White
http://hirhome.com/TRUMP/TRUMP_03_eng.htm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
print friendly
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Preliminary note
To edit and correct a scientific model one must make
predictions and see how close to reality they come. This is why, before Donald Trump took his oath of office,
we made public in Foreign Affairs
our predictions concerning his policies (Part 1).
We have found a consistent and traditional US policy to strengthen jihadism
generally and Iran particularly, and to undermine Israeli security (Part 2);
so we predicted, based on that, that Trump would do the same. Our conclusion:
“We suspect that, though the discourse will be different,
Trump’s policies in the Middle East will be quite similar to Obama’s.”
After Trump became president, and shortly before his summit
with Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Vox seemed to call out the president’s
true colors. His proposals, this publication commented,
“echo the past two administrations. Trump has now said settlements
aren’t helpful for Mideast peace; made clear that the embassy move won’t
happen anytime soon, if at all; and given no indication that he was actually
prepared to walk away from the nuclear pact and reimpose sanctions on Tehran.
The Trump White House’s position on Israel, in other words, has emerged to
look a lot more like a diluted version of Obama’s…”[0]
This, said Vox,
“has… befuddled many here [in the US] and in Israel.” And this is without
mentioning that the Trump administration’s commemoration of the Holocaust
omitted any mention of the Jewish people, something that is difficult to
interpret except as a deliberate and joyful insult.
It all squares nicely with HIR’s predictions (we are not befuddled). But following
the summit between the US and Israeli heads of state, many now see Trump
taking a ‘pro-Israeli’ turn. Why?
At that summit, Trump declared that he would accept, should
the parties agree to it, a ‘one-state solution.’ This implies Israel’s
annexation of Judea and Samaria; put differently, it implies that PLO/Fatah (what we now call the
‘Palestinian Authority’) would no longer receive these territories to govern
as a separate state. This is interpreted as ‘bad’ for PLO/Fatah and therefore as ‘good’ for
Israel.
But to me this looks like the ol’ fast one. When young,
another kid once pulled this on me to resolve a conflict of interest: he
flipped a coin and announced: “Heads, I win; tails, you lose.” He showed me
the coin: “It’s heads. I win.” It seemed fair (it went by fast).
The trick played on Israelis has the same structure, but it
depends less on speed than ignorance. Common Israelis—as I found myself when
I traveled to that country—have zero knowledge of certain key historical
events; for this reason, they cannot really hear what they’ve been told:
“Heads, Iran wins; tails, you lose.” If the outcome is a ‘two-state
solution,’ as Obama and his predecessors wanted, or if it is ‘a one-state
solution,’ as Trump now imagines out loud, it is always the Iranian ayatollahs
who win—the same who promise to exterminate the Israeli Jews.
To explain all that, I wrote the article which I translate and
reproduce below, published in the Mexican newspaper El Universal.
|
|
|
Go to
original
The political summit is a stereotyped ritual with a standard
script: the bosses have a chat, they go to the microphones, they make
statements. The media then interpret. They seem to share information with
the public—and it’s packaged that way. But the public never hears the
historical context. To interpret the recent summit between Donald Trump and
Benjamin Netanyahu, we need four historical facts that are usually omitted.
Let us begin with the statements. Trump said that he
supports Israel and will make an effort to negotiate ‘peace’ between Arab
Palestinians and Jews in the Middle East. This is utterly
traditional—obligatory, even—and every president says it. But Trump let on
that he doesn’t care whether all that bargaining produces two states in
what is now Israel, as his predecessors insisted, or just one. The second
option would imply the Israeli annexation of Judea and Samaria (the ‘West
Bank’). This is new.
How to spin it? The New
York Times, as usual, will give the most influential interpretation. This newspaper comments that “Palestinian
leaders lamented Mr. Trump’s stance, seeing it as an abandonment by the
United States, which has been the main patron of the Palestinian
Authority.”[1] By publicly imagining the possible
annexation of Judea and Samaria, the Times
suggests, Trump has taken an ‘anti-Palestinian’ or ‘pro-Israeli’ turn.
Does this interpretation have merit? Let us have the four
facts.
The first one was splashed, in 1979, on the cover of the New York Times, no less, but today
hardly anyone knows it because, since then, neither the Times nor anybody else has seen fit
to mention it again: PLO/Fatah—called
today ‘Palestinian Authority’—was the godfather of Iran.
You read correctly. Yasser Arafat and Mahmoud Abbas, eternal
leaders of the terrorist group PLO/Fatah,
armed and trained Ayatollah Khomeini’s guerillas. They were also the first
foreign dignitaries to deplane in Teheran, in 1979, to celebrate with
Khomeini the revolution. Right away, they helped to create the Iranian
secret police (SAVAMA) and the Revolutionary Guard (creator of Hezbollah
and guardian of the regime).
|
We document that here : [2]
|
|
|
|
|
Arafat and Khomeini announced their joint goal: to export
the Islamic revolution and to destroy Israel. To achieve the latter, as
Abbas explained to Arab reporters in Teheran, PLO/Fatah had developed the ‘Plan of Phases’: promise ‘peace’ in
order to gain entry into Israel (first phase); then, with Iran’s help,
destroy the Jewish state (second phase). This would soon be called—with
Orwellian cunning—the ‘Peace Process.’
Is the plan still running? Make way for the second and third
facts.
In August 2015, while US and Iranian negotiators finalized
the line items in their nuclear treaty—which neglects to inspect certain
Iranian military installations, but doesn’t neglect to unfreeze tsunamis of
money for the ayatollahs—Iran signed with PLO/Fatah
an “all out cooperation” agreement.[3]
To cooperate in what? There is hardly need to speculate: in public, at
least once a month, the Iranian ayatollahs promise to exterminate the
Israeli Jews.
In light of these historical facts, it is obvious that the
hallowed ‘two-state solution,’ much favored by previous presidents, is anti-Israeli, for it proposes that
Judea and Samaria—territories that a 1967 Pentagon study declared
indispensable for Israeli survival [4]—be
separated from Israel and given to PLO/Fatah.
In other words, to Iran.
But in the summit Trump said that he was willing to support
a ‘one-state solution’: the annexation of Judea and Samaria. This is
interpreted as a ‘pro-Israeli’ turn. Does that make sense? No. In this
‘solution,’ PLO/Fatah—in other
words, Iran—settles itself
indefinitely inside Israel.
There is no pro-Israeli turn. Take it from Obama’s hand or take
it from Trump’s; either solution is a Final Solution.
What would real support for Israel mean, then? This: a
demand that PLO/Fatah—in other
words, Iran—be expelled from the
Jewish state. (This would also be support, by the way, for the Arab
Palestinians, today enslaved by PLO/Fatah,
and waiting to be turned into Iranian suicide bombs.)
I can already hear the objection: “But Netanyahu seemed so
happy with Trump’s statements! Doesn’t that mean that Trump’s policies are
pro-Israeli?”
Absolutely not. To reason this way is to make political
science impossible. Netanyahu’s patriotism cannot be assumed a priori. We must evaluate the
import of his policies by considering the—mostly unknown—facts that we are
reviewing here, and then, supported by that analysis, evaluate his
patriotism. Netanyahu’s posturing and speeches are neither here nor there;
actions speak louder than words.
This is underscored by the fourth and last historical fact
(which, again, nobody remembers): it was Netanyahu himself who brought PLO/Fatah—in other words, Iran—into the Jewish state. You read
correctly.
Don’t worry. I shan’t deny that Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon
Peres signed in Washington, in 1993, the Oslo Accords with Yasser Arafat
and Mahmoud Abbas. That’s what happened. But that agreement would hardly
have happened without the negotiations of the previous Israeli government
at the Madrid Peace Conference of 1991.[5] There, the sacred taboo of Israeli
politics, which forbade any negotiation with PLO/Fatah, was for the first time violated.[6]
The pioneer responsible for this, much feted at Madrid, was the Israeli deputy
foreign minister. His name was Benjamin Netanyahu.[7]
What—in God’s name—is Netanyahu doing? Yes, precisely.
Somebody should ask him.
Francisco Gil-White,
professor at ITAM, is author of
The
Collapse of the West: The Next Holocaust and its Consequences.
|
|
|
Conclusion
So
far, everything matches the predictions of the HIR model. A pro-jihadist and
anti-Israeli policy now running for almost 40 years is being continued
forward in the Trump administration, despite contrary appearances promoted in
public discourse.
But all of this motivates a question: How can this have been
going on for so long? Why does the democratic process—the alternation in
power of the two main parties—not affect such a consequential policy?
That
will be the topic of our next article.
Footnotes
and further reading
[0] “Netanyahu liked candidate Trump; President Trump might be
a different story: The president’s Israeli policy has shifted course”;
Vox; 15 February 15 February 2017;
by Sarah Wildman.
[1] “Trump, Meeting With Netanyahu, Backs Away From Palestinian
State”; The New York Times;
15 February 2017; By PETER BAKER and MARK LANDLER
[2] “PLO/Fatah and Iran: The Special Relationship”; Historical
and Investigative Research; 25 May 2010; by Francisco Gil-White
[3]
“PLO figure: Iran, Palestine in
deal for all-out cooperation”; IRNA; 11 August 2015.
http://www.irna.ir/en/News/81716001/
[4]
This Pentagon document, created
in 1967, was apparently declassified in 1979, but wasn’t published until 1984
in the Journal of Palestine Studies.
"Memorandum
for the Secretary of Defense"; Journal of Palestine Studies, Vol. 13,
No. 2. (Winter, 1984), pp. 122-126.
http://www.hirhome.com/israel/pentagon.pdf
The
study contains a map that shows the “minimum territory needed by Israel for
defensive purposes”
Netanyahu
included this study as an appendix in his book:
Netanyahu,
B. 2000. A durable peace: Israel and its place among the nations, 2 Edition.
New York: Warner Books. (APPENDIX: The Pentagon Plan, June 29, 1967;
pp.433-437)
[5]
“The successes and failures of
the Madrid process had several unanticipated consequences, perhaps the most
important of which would be the breakthrough in relations between Israel and
the PLO that occurred in 1993,” when the Oslo Accord was signed.
SOURCE:
Kurtzer, Daniel C.; Lasensky, Scott B.; Quandt, William B.; Spiegel, Steven
L.; Telhami, Shibley. The Peace Puzzle:
America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011 (Published in
Collaboration with the United States Institute of Peace) (p. 16). Cornell
University Press. Kindle Edition.
[6] “Israel initially refused to negotiate with a
Palestinian delegation that included Saeb Erekat,” a prominent member of Fatah, “after Erekat said publicly that
he and the delegation represented the PLO.” But ‘Israel’—which is to say, Netanyahu—in the end did negotiate
with Erekat, who was “ultimately named as chief Palestinian negotiator.”
Netanyahu was the first Israeli politician to violate the taboo and negotiate
with PLO/Fatah.
SOURCE:
Kurtzer, Daniel C.; Lasensky, Scott B.; Quandt, William B.; Spiegel, Steven
L.; Telhami, Shibley. The Peace Puzzle:
America's Quest for Arab-Israeli Peace, 1989–2011 (Published in
Collaboration with the United States Institute of Peace) (p. 30). Cornell
University Press. Kindle Edition.
[7]
“David Levy wanted to attend the
[Madrid] peace conference to represent Israel as its foreign minister. But…
Shamir decided that he would attend the conference and Levy would stay at
home. …Shamir decided to bring along Deputy Foreign Minister Benjamin
Netanyahu as the delegation’s spokesman with the rest of the delegation
consisting of professional diplomats and lawyers.”
SOURCE:
Mitchell, Thomas G. (2015). Likud
Leaders: The Lives and Careers of Menahem Begin, Yitzhak Shamir, Benjamin
Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon. Jefferson, North Carolina: McFarland &
Company. (p.117)
www.hirhome.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
█ 1. Will Trump be different?
|
|
|
|
Will Trump be different? Israeli patriots expect
him to be. After all, he postures as an enemy of Iran and ISIS. But, what
evidence will be diagnostic that Trump really is delivering on his Mideast
promises?
|
|
|
|
█ 2. Can Trump buck the trend?
|
|
|
|
Can Trump (assuming he wants to)
transform US foreign policy in the Middle East? To get a sense for how
difficult this might be, we must appreciate how traditional the pro-jihadi
policy has been. (It wasn’t just Obama.)
|
|
|
|
█ 3. Trump &
Netanyahu: How to interpret their summit?
|
|
|
|
According to many in the mainstream
media, the Trump-Netanyahu summit evidenced a ‘pro-Israeli’ turn. That
would be a direct challenge to the HIR model. But we don’t see it. The
result of the summit, we claim, was ‘pro Iran.’ To say otherwise, as we
show, requires important historical omissions.
|
|
|
|
█ 4. Is Trump the boss?
|
|
|
|
Is US policy-making run by a bipartisan elite
cartel? Perhaps the president is a figurehead; the media show changes, but
the long-term goals—chosen by the CFR—are always the same. If so, Trump’s
Middle East policies will feel different, but they will yield familiar
fruits.
|
|
|
|
█ 5. Who makes
foreign policy for Trump?
|
|
|
|
When we examine the backgrounds of those chosen
to make foreign policy for Trump, we find they are Establishment figures
with a history of supporting pro-jihadi policies.
|
|
|
|
█ 6. Why does Trump bully Mexico? (It’s a
con)
|
|
|
|
What does Trump’s bullying of Mexico have to do
with supporting jihad and undermining Israel? Oddly enough, everything. By
thus tugging at people’s identity-based emotions, Trump’s handlers divide
the political field and weaken opposition to their dangerous policies. It’s
psychological warfare. Trump is a con artist. And you’ve been conned.
|
|
|
|
█ 7. Obama, too, was a bully
|
|
|
|
In the last century, US policy was never so violent
against Mexico as in the Bush Jr.-Obama period. What changes with Trump is
just the style—and that’s the clue that this is a con—.
|
|
|
|
█ 8. Trump!: He’s conned us before
|
|
|
|
In the year 2000 a well-known businessman and
media personality announced himself as presidential candidate in order to
fight racism, denounce border walls, and defend Mexicans. His name was
Donald Trump.
|
|
|
|
█ 9. Political grammar of the anti-Mexico
con
|
|
|
|
To preserve the West as the refuge of human
rights and modern liberties, we need to be, simultaneously, pro-liberty and anti-jihad. But the
identity-driven emotions stirred by the anti-Mexico con make Westerners
either 1) anti-jihad but fascist; or 2) pro-liberty but pro-Islam. Either
combination dooms the West.
|
|
|
|
█ 10. The anti-Mexico con and Trump’s
foreign policy
|
|
|
|
Trump, naturally, makes a few noises to satisfy
those who expect him to implement an anti-jihadi and pro-Israeli foreign
policy—these are obligated moves, forced by the political grammar. But if
we look at what Trump is achieving, we find that, like his predecessors, he
is making radical Islam stronger and Israel weaker.
|
|
|
|
█ 11. Why the US pro-jihadi tradition?
|
|
|
|
Even granting that the US is run by a
power-elite cartel, it may be difficult to accept that it would want to
support jihadism and destroy Israel. But if we consider the cartel’s
history, we shall find nothing implausible in this.
|
|
|
Notify me of new HIR pieces!
|
