What is the bet on regarding the whirlwind of the American-Israeli dispute?

There is a belief that I do not agree with, among some observers of political affairs and international relations, that there are deep and fundamental differences between the United States and the colonial occupying state that may lead to dispensing with the functional role of this state created by the United States itself and a decline in the level of strategic relations between them.

The nature of the United States' relationship with Israel is determined by the origins of the emergence of the two states from ethnic cleansing and racial discrimination, as well as religious, ideological, political, military security determinants, and the nature of societies of an ethnic mixture, determinants that cannot be overcome under the current international system and attempts to sustain unilateral hegemony of the United States.

Therefore, in the two places today there are trends that predict the unsustainability of stability emanating from the reality of the history of those determinants and similar facts, including the illusion of nationalities creating religious groups and overcoming the contradictions of the ethnic mixture of the population who came as immigrants to settle in those homelands that possessed civilization and history.

Two lies that were invented at the expense of the rights of other nationalities of the indigenous owners of the country, and at the expense of civilization and history through all the attempts that are still underway to bring awareness to the indigenous peoples.

Progressive thinker Noam Chomsky says in this regard that, first of all, we must not lose sight of the fact that the three major countries most supportive of the Israeli occupation state are the United States of America, Canada and Australia. They are entities based on colonial settlement movements, which exterminated the indigenous population.

Today, what the Israeli colonial occupation is doing in Palestine is a picture similar to what happened in those countries, policies that were built with careful planning since the beginnings of the crime of population replacement and ethnic cleansing of our people in their homeland.

The motives of the United States' unconditional support for Israel are based on what I mentioned at the beginning of the religious and cultural reasons represented in the thought and approach of Christian Zionism. Christian fundamentalism arose before Jewish fundamentalism, as Christian fundamentalists read in the Bible about the need for the Jews to return to Palestine according to their vision.

Among these fundamentalists are “evangelicals who enjoy great influence in decision-making circles in the United States and even in European countries where they are spreading, and they believe in the literalness of the Old and New Testaments together, as according to their belief, “the establishment of the State of Israel is a prelude to the return of Christ the Savior, who will confront the pagans, among Muslims and other Arab Christians, specifically in the East, during a major battle called “Armageddon”, meaning the plain of Armageddon in Palestine, and that Peace between the Palestinians and the Israelis is a delay in God's promise, according to their claim.

On the other hand, there is the role of the Israeli lobby in guiding American foreign policy that supports the colonial occupation state without limits, and even exercises its role as a partner since before its recognition of the State of Israel in preventing our Palestinian people from exercising their right to self-determination and limiting this right to the so-called Jewish people.

Here, it is necessary to refer to Chomsky's approach between the apartheid regime of South Africa and the Israeli colonial regime. Chomsky adds, "In the case of South Africa, the international community eventually exerted intense pressure to end apartheid within a single state, while in the case of Palestine, the international community appears ready to support "statehood" without seriously addressing Israeli apartheid.
The slogan of “constructive engagement” and the two-state solution are two myths that distract attention from the core issue and allow continued colonization and ethnic cleansing in Palestine, as well as allowing the United States, Britain, the European Union, and Canada to affirm over and over again their support for apartheid through political rhetoric, military support, contracts and trade agreements with Israel, and profiteering at the level of monopolistic and multinational corporations from colonialism and continued occupation.

The strategic relationship that binds the Israeli occupation state to the United States and those in the orbit of American foreign policies is based on the ideology of colonialism and oppression of peoples and ensuring the continuation of American hegemony as the policeman of this world, despite what appears today to be the beginnings of the collapse of this path based on the unipolar system.

Terrorism was and still is one of the features of that strategic relationship, and it is not limited to those operations carried out by “ISIS” and “Al-Qaeda” and others in the region. My brothers in the region to continue striking the Arab national state and the goals of the Palestinian national project to defeat the colonial occupation, because Kandahar is more important to them than Bethlehem, as I mentioned in my article last week.

The existing relationship between the two states and what the bias in the US Congress represents to the Jewish state is not new, of course, but there is space, at least narrow, for understanding the Palestinian situation and the rights of our people, even though it is on paper.

Now this space no longer has a significant effect in Congress except for a small minority represented by a group of left-wing progressives or socialists in the Democratic Party led by Bernie Sanders and a number of members of Arab roots whose number unfortunately does not exceed the fingers of the hand. It is similar to objecting to the war against the Vietnamese people, with its vastness and popularity in all states.

Two months ago, a draft resolution was put forward in the House of Representatives "Congress" to congratulate Israel on its "75th" anniversary. Contrary to the usual, he completely ignored the mention of our Palestinian people and only referred to peace between Israel and “the other neighboring countries.” The Republicans rejected any reference to the two-state solution as was the case in the past, and the reference was limited to the “Abraham Accords” only.

Another resolution passed two days ago by a majority of congressmen from both parties, except for the objection of only 9 members, rejects the claim that Israel is an apartheid state, and affirms its right to defend itself, as did the Europeans, although Israel only defends the continuation of its colonial occupation.

This is in addition to the course of the United States voting in the Security Council and the United Nations General Assembly on resolutions related to Palestine, which protects the occupying state and even encourages it now to continue its crimes without any accountability or sanctions, but rather to continue following the policy of carrots without sticks, with the aim of lifting the blame or absorbing some objections from here and there.

Even old Biden did not hide his Zionism, which he professed during his visit to Bethlehem, and which we demanded by waiting for the return of Christ to fulfill our requests and rights. Thus and with all insolence, this is the American policy drawn by the deep state in the United States with the influence of the owners of the military and financial industries complex there to ensure that it continues to serve the determinants of this strategic relationship that I referred to.

The transient crisis today between the American administration and the government of the occupying state does not, in my opinion, constitute a disagreement about the nature of the strategic relationship or the functional role of the occupying state not only in the region, but also in interfering with the internal conditions in a number of countries of the world to preserve the role and hegemony of the United States and their common interests related to the Zionist movement and money interests and manage the conflict of some hotbeds of conflict around the world, including the continuation of managing our conflict with the Zionist movement and its outcome represented by the occupying state and the apartheid regime, through the approach of managing the crisis without resolving it in a way that allows the way to impose new realities on the ground by implementing the vision of Zionist Christian fundamentalism And the consensus of the Zionist parties related to this, despite the erosion and internal conflict that the occupying state suffers from between the interests of ethnic tendencies in their society and the reality under the repercussions of the differences of the Zionist movement itself since its inception.

The American administration wants guarantees of stability of affairs in the occupying state and the preservation of its unity and strength so that it can implement its plans in the region that it drew half a century ago or more, as is the case on its part in the eastern central Europe region and the attempts to besiege Russia through the war it is waging by proxy, that plan that was talked about four decades ago by the US National Security Adviser Zionist Brzezinski, in addition to its attempts to prevent the expansion of China's power in the world and the transition to a multipolar system and the weakening of Europe as a subordinate to American policies.

The United States has nothing to do with what the Zionist opposition raises, which has nothing to do with the issue of occupation, and related to their interest in judicial procedures and their claim of the absence of democracy and the rise of dictatorship. The history of American foreign policy is based, within its various components, on support for the leaders of dictators who trampled democracy and even oppressed their peoples in Latin America, Africa, Asia and the Balkans. It is the United States that carried out or supported coups against elected democratic regimes. The criterion for it is the existence of dictatorial or democratic regimes is the extent to which these regimes serve their policies, influence and plans. It is a whirlwind that began to dissipate with the agreement on Netanyahu's invitation to Washington, the enthusiastic reception by Herzog, and perhaps the imminent return of Gantz to the government if Netanyahu's protection and the American vision are guaranteed according to a deal that can be concluded.