The Entity Alone...As If Everything Has Yet to Begin

By Ali Fedda

Henry Kissinger established a different concept for the changes in Western-Israeli relations, transforming the entity from an ally to a part of the American interest system—essentially, a part of its national security.

Since the beginning of the turmoil, Netanyahu has repeatedly stated at every opportunity that this war is "existential"! We rarely paused to consider this characterization by the head of the Israeli government, perhaps assuming that he was merely seeking support or begging for more aid. The truth is that Netanyahu means what he says. This becomes clear if we review the literature of the founding fathers of this entity, particularly David Ben-Gurion, the first Prime Minister of what is called "Israel." The founders, especially Ben-Gurion, laid down recommendations—or rather prohibitions or guidelines—that the entity's administration should not fall into or surpass, stemming from their understanding of the strengths and weaknesses inherent in their settler entity. Things have changed over time, yes, but the essence remains the same...

What Has Changed?

We will briefly outline the changes in the phases of Western support and its development for what is called "Israel," something that current officials of the occupied entity frequently mention, especially in this particular battle.

Here, let's pause a bit. Discussing external changes is not necessarily more important than internal changes, because after more than seventy-five years, the internal environment has undergone many complex changes. It may not be useful to explain them currently because a single article would not do justice to them and would not serve the purpose of our article except by hinting at them rather than delving into them. However, this is of structural importance and requires accurate information, linking the phases, and interconnecting the reasons for social disintegration tied to interests. Thus, we are facing a range of vital factors that I cannot fully explain, especially since any interpretive deficiency may not lead us to logical, scientifically consistent conclusions. These conclusions, I dare say, are terrifying for a settler entity whose existence is based on psychological, social, economic, demographic, and other factors typical of any multi-ethnic, multi-racial society with fundamental contradictions. But all this revolves around the settler in all forms of research, leading only to them. But...

Without prolonging the discussion, political changes and relations with the West are important to the extent that they answer questions on many followers' minds: "We understand that the United States absolutely supports the Israeli entity; but why?" This "why?" serves as a keyword to delve into the reasons—many of which are secondary, while others are fundamental. We will focus on the fundamental ones.

It is known that America has no allies, only interests—this is always declared by Americans and is a staple in their political literature. The pragmatic, Machiavellian, developed America means that its interest has a beginning and an end and is not a strategic partner but an open market for interests. But "Israel" is not so. I will give a small example to illustrate the idea: the F-35 aircraft, which is available to several countries, including South Korea and Japan, but neither country can use it as they please because they need an operating code that changes daily, with the source of the code being the United States. The conclusion is that those who own this aircraft are renters, not owners! Except "Israel," which does not need codes or anything else to operate it. Why all this distinction then?

Because Henry Kissinger established a different concept for the changes in Western-Israeli relations, transforming the entity from an ally to a part of the American interest system—essentially, a part of its national security. The reasons are many, but this is where we stand today. Thus, this is the most significant change that has extended to other colonial countries over time and has established a different relationship between the West and the occupied entity.

Why Netenyahu is Right!

Returning to Zionist literature, there has been and continues to be a constant discussion about the "end obsession," but we will focus on David Ben-Gurion. The latter was very keen on points that he found, as he said, that if these possibilities began to occur, "the countdown to the end of Israel" would begin.

First: Wars must be swift and short; any prolonged war harms the entity structurally. This is not happening now, as we are on the verge of a year of war, which is considered the fiercest and most dangerous in the history of "Israel" since its inception.

Second: Wars must be fought on others' lands, not on the occupied entity's lands. This, too, is not happening. The Israeli "army" does not know where the strikes are coming from, does not understand their development, or from where and how.

Third: Reverse migration, meaning the migration of settlers from the entity instead of to it. This, too, is not happening now, as the available figures talk about the migration of two million settlers, despite restrictions on departure and secrecy on the numbers.

All this worries any head of government of the entity, as they fully understand its repercussions and dangers in the short and long term.

Netanyahu senses these dangers, which do not fully align with what Kissinger did, especially since the balances and priorities have changed. America has done its utmost to protect "Israel" without sparing any detail. It can be said that it has made it a miniature America in the region. But not everything can be done by America. What about the role of the entity's security, intelligence institutions, "army," and administrations...etc.?

Finally, let's come to what happened recently. The enemy assassinated the senior commander in the resistance in Lebanon, Mr. Fouad Shaker, and the head of the political bureau of Hamas, Ismail Haniyeh.

Everyone talked about the assassinations being a result of Netanyahu's meetings in Washington. This is a guess and not confirmed information. However, it is likely, according to leaks, that this option was the ladder that brought Netanyahu down from the tree, presenting him as a victor with American political and media marketing for this alleged victory. In the American view, there is no debate about the entity's interest, but the Zionist mind occupying Palestine and our lands has different approaches from the American one. After the assassinations, Netanyahu became exhilarated and decided to negotiate on his terms. A foolish move, to say the least. The American might say, "We gave you a ladder to get down from the tree, but we didn't tell you to descend and tumble into the abyss."

The axis is concerned with the inevitable painful response, but what is of urgent importance is exhausting the entity, which cannot breathe without Western oxygen and cannot confront alone, especially if we consider what has been mentioned above as determinants of its existence. The resistance and its axis focus on this point, and it is not a favor that America does not want a comprehensive war because it is a dilemma it tries to escape from in any way, due to different and more urgent priorities. The Israeli has all the Western military and political support in multiple fronts, and yet, alone, it will face dark days as if everything has yet to begin.