b. traven
Well known, veteran Middle East journalist, Robert Fisk. tells how he really feels about our president. Of course it is “fake” news but if words like “Booby,” “Crank,” “Crackpot” and “Mad” ring a bell with you as possibly apt descriptions you can add, “a dangerous and racist xenophobe,” or ” …to enter Trump’s Middle East (policy)it’s necessary to enter the lunatic asylum”.
To read Fisk’s full article click on the link below to see how far our president has driven this usually calm, professional journalist, who has covered numerous Middle East conflagrations, over the literary cliff.
The Contrary Perspective 
I think it is essential for well-meaning people of good will, who prefer peace in the Middle East to the status quo, to understand that US foreign policy has NEVER [for some reason, I don’t have use of bold or italics type on this website, so I have to use all upper-case letters for emphasis] favored an arrangement–call it “Two States Solution” or what have you–that would displease the Israeli regime in office at any given time. In the past, whenever a “solution” seemed to hover tantalizingly near by (one that would have required the Palestinians to yield far more than Israel, of course), Israel would always find a way to scuttle it. With the current, virulently rightwing regime in Tel Aviv, there is absolutely NO HOPE of a peaceful settlement. The Israeli regime, always acting with the promise of full military support from the US, absolutely does not desire peace, so why even bother with sham negotiation? Trump’s decision to move the US Embassy to Jerusalem, so triumphantly crowed over by bible-thumping VP Pence just recently on his visit to Israel, is so blatantly, obviously a naked provocation against pro-peace elements as to not require further comment. Things will end very, very badly in the Middle East, and that is ENTIRELY BY DESIGN.
You raise two excellent points, Greg: (1) the increasing geopolitical isolation of the United States due to its lockstep and unblinking support for the Zionist Occupation of Palestine, Apartheid Zionist Entity, or Tenth Crusade (whichever descriptive nomenclature one wishes to employ in preference to mythological biblical misnomers) and (2) the domestic political manipulation of fundamentalist Christians by the Republican party for purely electoral and economic reasons. As regards the first point you raised about America’s self-inflicted geopolitical isolation and the primarily ideological reasons for it, you might want to check out four concise paragraphs from a comprehensive and dispassionate analysis by a former U.S. diplomat. See: The Middle East in the New World Disorder, by Ambassador Chas W. Freeman, Jr., Information Clearing House (December 14, 2017). Specifically:
The Euro-American embrace of Zionism after World War II was motivated in large measure by a felt need to atone for the horrors of the Holocaust, which we sometimes forget was an atrocity perpetrated by European Christendom, not Middle Eastern Islam. The establishment of an expansionist, externally-supported Zionist state in Palestine immediately became a major driver of radicalization in the region and among the world’s Muslims. The Arab reaction to Israel’s mass expulsion of Palestinian Arabs was to seek revenge on ancient communities of Arab Jews in their midst, inducing them to flee to Israel.
Universal opposition to Zionism continued to fuel anti-Americanism and revolutionary agitation in the Middle East. This facilitated Soviet influence-building there and threatened the ability of conservative Arab and Iranian governments to justify continued alignment with the West. In the 1973 “Yom Kippur War,” the massive resupply of Israel by the United States saved it from defeat but caused most Arab states to break relations with Washington. The American answer to Arab antipathy was the launch of shuttle diplomacy and a so-called “peace process” between Israel, the Palestinians, and Arab states.
But once the Cold War ended, the endlessly unproductive “peace process” lost its most compelling strategic rationale: the diplomatic outflanking of America’s Soviet enemy. In the first decade of the twenty-first century, with no Soviet threat left to drive it, the “peace process” petered out. American presidents no longer saw a persuasive reason to endure the domestic political pain involved in mediating between Israelis and Palestinians. Washington went through the motions for a while and then stopped. This led both the Arabs and Israel to reappraise the United States and its role in their region.
In retrospect, the “peace process” was a highly effective diplomatic equivalent of sleight of hand, diverting international attention from Israeli obduracy, displacing Arab rage at Zionism’s ongoing humiliations of Arab honor, and providing political cover for Israel’s relentless dispossession of the Palestinians from both their homes and their homeland. With American collaboration, Israel was able to use diplomatic pseudo-events and showmanship to string along hopes for Palestinian self-determination even as it eroded the basis for anything other than Palestinian capitulation to eternal subjugation or exile. (Whether or not this will ultimately prove to be a wise survival strategy for Israel is an open question.)
That about covers your first point. Regarding your second point, you might want to look at Christian Zionism: The Heresy of Choice for Neocons. For each Jewish Zionist there are ten wacko Evangelical Christian Zionists, by Stephen Sizer, Russia Insider (Jan 5, 2018). Before getting into the text, check out the graphic photo illustration showing a rather portly Christian preacher with his eyes (and, no doubt, his mind) closed, wearing what looks like a Judaic prayer shawl, and making the Mr Spock “Live Long and Prosper” gesture — with BOTH hands. The first two paragraphs of the article pretty much cover the most germane — and relatively recent — historical developments of malignant racist Zionism, both Christian and Jew:
At least one in four American Christians surveyed recently by Christianity Today magazine said that they believe it is their biblical responsibility to support the nation of Israel. This view is known as Christian Zionism. The Pew Research Center put the figure at 63 per cent among white evangelicals. Christian Zionism is pervasive within mainline American evangelical, charismatic and independent denominations including the Assemblies of God, Pentecostals and Southern Baptists, as well as many of the independent mega-churches. It is less prevalent within the historic denominations, which show a greater respect for the work of the United Nations, support for human rights, the rule of international law and empathy with the Palestinians.
The origins of the movement can be traced to the early 19th century when a group of eccentric British Christian leaders began to lobby for Jewish restoration to Palestine as a necessary precondition for the return of Christ. The movement gained traction from the middle of the 19th century when Palestine became strategic to British, French and German colonial interests in the Middle East. Proto-Christian Zionism therefore preceded Jewish Zionism by more than 50 years. Some of Theodore Herzl’s strongest advocates were Christian clergy.
That ought to do it for one comment. However, getting further into the bible-thumper derangement — which, if carried to its desired conclusion, will most certainly end badly for all life on Planet Earth — will require more time and patience than I have available at present. Therefore, the piously pretentious and pompous Vice President Mike Pence will just have to wait awhile longer for his long-overdue, literary lampooning. Others could, of course, step in at this point and save me the trouble. [hint, hint]
Mike–I would only add that to the extent the US WASP Establishment is even able to feel guilt or shame over the Nazi Holocaust, this didn’t stop them from TURNING AWAY European Jewish refugees at the US borders. “We don’t want you here! Try going to Palestine! Carve out a new life for yourselves, make the desert bloom!” A small percentage of the refugees who WERE admitted were allowed to socialize (country clubs, posh restaurants, etc.) with the “native” (the sons and daughters of earlier immigrants, of course!) population in more “liberal” parts of the US, under the “quota system.”
I sense an epic poem growing in your mind, Mike! Sorry, I’m not going to relieve you of the burden! Besides, I’m reading Volume 2 of Mark Twain’s “autobiography” now, and he’s letting christian hypocrites have it with both barrels! The competition’s too tough in the arena! I won’t challenge the master.
Mike–Scrolling thru the comments right now (just turned over to Feb. 1, US Eastern Time), I do not see your comment that contained links to 4 new poems and my reply to that comment. I have no idea what’s going on.
Postscript: I also don’t see my comment about the “Anti-Defamation League”!