Published by The Freeman Center

The Maccabean Online

Political Analysis and Commentary
on Israeli and Jewish Affairs

"For Zion's sake I shall not hold my peace, And for Jerusalem's sake I shall not rest."

Israel's Siege Mentality
By Dr. Eugene Narrett
Last July 17, the cover story and lead page in The Economist was titled "Thank You and Goodbye." It explained that Hosni Mubarak had outlived his utility and needed to go. The "objective" column--unsigned, like all the Economist's instructive pieces--sanitized the Muslim Brotherhood, referring to them as the "Brothers" and asserting their committment to democracy, the will of the people, and free elections. (The British helped form up the Brotherhood, by the way, the better to stir the regional pot and to abort reconstitution of the Jewish National Home.)
What a remarkable display of predictive might! Less than seven months later, Hosni has been accosted by "spontaneous" street demonstrations, acclaimed as a great friend of Israel, and invited to "facilitate a transition" by Secretary of State Clinton and her putative boss, Mr. Obama, both of whom have subsequently blurred their remarks.  
Grabbing an old mag for my daily bike ride today, I found The Economist of June 05, 2010. The upper half of the cover was red and orange; it looked like a burning sky. It silhouetted coils of barbed wire above a solid black ground on which large white letters blared the cover story: "Israel's Siege Mentality." A full-face photo of Bibi Netanyahu was cropped in the lower right corner, bisected by the edge of the magazine.
It was a nice objective hatchet job in the fine tradition of the fair and balanced British Mandate. Israel's "macho attitude" (??) is fingered for making Hamas stronger. Egypt (who blockades the "Gaza strip") was not mentioned, but Israel (who feeds and supplies energy and fuel to it) was, of course, blamed for starving it. The Economist (founded in 1843 to oppose "timid ignorance obstructing our progress" with "intelligence") explains that "Israel's hawks...shoot first and ask questions later," with Bibi Netanyau being a model of intransigence. ("He does not give the impression of being willing to give ground in the interests of peace," as The Economist would define it.) So the problem with Israelis is that she doesn't take enough punishment. Exhibit 'A' for this spanking by the mouthpiece of British "intelligence" and "progress" was Israel's "clumsy bully" routine vis-a-vis the Gaza flotilla. If only Israel did have "a macho attitude" or a "shoot first" rather than "shoot-after-Jews-are-dead" attitude....
Israel is tarnished by her "harsh treatment of the Palestinians," The Economist summarizes as it delivers its closing lesson. "The West, led by Mr. Obama, should call for Hamas to be drawn into negotiations" etc. etc., just like Hitler should have waited to get the Polish corridor and Danzig by "negotiation" after the British gifted him with the Sudeten land and, thus, Czechoslovakia.
Do make it a point to peek at this mag now and again, old chap. Really, it's quite instructive."Thank You and Goodbye."
P. S. "Israel's Siege Mentality" 
Two points: 1. If you recall those Time magazine cover stories, "Why Israel Can't Win" and "Why Israel Doesn't Care About Peace," you will notice who disseminates and popularizes The Economist's propaganda for consumption by the American "target audience." 2. A frequently-reiterated official "truth" of the coverage of the "Chaos in Cairo" is that Israel's security depends on Egypt. In fact, State Department senior Edward Walker, while dozing through an interview, actually said, "Israel's security depends totally on Egypt," before half-correcting himself. Many lesser fry have mouthed versions of this bromide. Less frequently mentioned is that Israel depends on its "peace" treaty with "Jordan" for security.
The truths about Israel's "peace" agreement with Egypt are that 1. To get a "Peace of Paper," America brokered a crippling job in which Israel gave up the entire Sinai penninsula (won and defended in three wars)--her essential naval and air bases, oil wells, settlements and strategic depth--so that Anglo-American diplomats could sell the illusion that Egypt is a "moderate" Arab nation who wants peace, unlike Israel who, says Time, "Doesn't Care About Peace," and is instead a nation who "shoots first and asks questions later," as The Economist put it in one of those stunning inversions of truth of which Orwell wrote so eloquently.
2. Egypt's security depends on her reluctance to fight another war with Israel. In exchange for Egypt's restraint, American corporations and government have made her the best equipped military in the Arab and perhaps the Islamic world. Israel's real security was the strategic depth, forward positions and resources of the Sinai; thus, the Carter "peace treaty" was a major step in crippling Israel and destroying her security and peace.
3. Same with Jordan: If Israel had maintained the Lehi and original Etzel position--the historically true position that Israel includes the entirety of the land mandated for reconstitution of the Jewish National Home--there would have been no protection of "Jordan" (e.g. 1970), no "peace treaty" in 1994, and Israel's security would be in her strategic depth with airfields and missile bases one or two minutes from Baghdad. Kowtowing to the fiction that "Jordan" is a nation--and not just an artificial State--undermines Israel's security and gives logistical support to the meta-fiction, the "Palestinian people" and their "leaders."
To Conclude: As unrest--by coincidence, no doubt--unsettles "Jordan" as it "spontaneously" is doing in Egypt (after the Economist predicted it 6+ months ago), the "peace process" which began in 1977 reveals itself as a plan of phases for strangling Israel gradually, like the Fabian plan for a "world socialist collective." By 1981 Israel had relinquished all of the Sinai (making future Entebbes and "Raids on the Sun" impossible); instead of conquering the Gilead and establishing its security, by 1994 Israel had been nudged into being a co-guarantor of the fiction that geographically drives the Anglo-Arab push to the sea and "an Arab Federation with its front door on the Mediterranean" (John Dove, editor of the Round Table 1921-34). The current unrest in these states, glorified by left-globalist elites and useful idiots, now has "Israel hemmed in," as all and sundry are saying. Clearly, the "world community" will have to broker a regional agreement "for peace" either before or after a conflagration that they again, as in 1973, adroitly have planned. Why should Israel be allowed to develop those oil reserves in the Negev, or the ones that lie waiting east of Yam Ha Melach, or those gas fields in Yam HaMaaravi, when Britain or America could share or take them all?
It's all about "peace and security," ie. the burial/absorption of Israel which--by the book, anyway--is the life-saving alternative to the apocalyptic image-dazzle of the West and Beit Laban.