For example, Obama's sentence "If Chinese live an American life, it will be a disaster for the earth", in terms of the meaning of Israel's existence, Biden has a very straightforward statement: "If there is no Israel, the United States will also create an Israel to protect American interests in the region" "The aid to Israel is the best investment we have ever made in the $3 billion."
In fact, even without the structural contradictions between Jews and Arabs, a route connecting the Mediterranean and Europe via Israel is not the best solution for Saudi Arabia. The plan that is truly in line with Saudi Arabia's positioning is to build a Red Sea bridge to connect Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two core countries in the Arab world.
The Kazakh-Israeli conflict is still ongoing, and the current impact is as analyzed in my previous two articles, on the one hand, the pressure on Russia has been eased, so much so that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky told French television not without anxiety that "the attention of the international community may leave Ukraine, which will have subsequent effects"; Putin, on the other hand, can easily tell the media that Russia can help mediate the conflict between Palestine and Israel, and that "there is no alternative to resolving the conflict through peaceful means" and that "no one will suspect that Russia is trying to take sides."
The implication of this statement is clear to all: any Western country that mediates in the middle will inevitably favor Israel. When Putin said this, he did not hope that Hamas and Israel would really ask him to be a mediator, but that he wanted to find a reference for breaking the current stalemate in the Russian-Ukrainian war. After all, the Russian-Ukrainian battlefield has dragged on for so long, and Russia sees that it is impossible to make more progress, and it has to face the pressure of the entire West.
It is difficult to say when the Russia-Ukraine war and this round of Palestinian-Israeli conflict will end, but it is certain that the United States and Western countries will favor Israel. When you know how Israel came into being, you can understand why I say that.
At the end of the article, I will also tell you what kind of weather vane appears to indicate that the Arab world has broken the blockade of Israel.
A battleground for soldiers
Sun Tzu has a saying in the Art of War, "If you fight for land, you will not attack", and the so-called "land fight" according to Sun Tzu's own interpretation is "I will benefit, and Peter will also benefit, for the fight for land", which means that for the warring parties, this type of strategic place is a battleground for soldiers, and whoever seizes it will be beneficial to whom. The so-called "no attack" means that in the event of a land dispute, it must be seized, and if the enemy has already occupied it first, it must not be attacked.
The land that Palestine and Israel are fighting over today is a land dispute. The tragedy of the Jews in history also stems from this nature of land grabbing.
From the geographical point of view, if it were not for the geological movement that filled a section of the Grand Canyon in East Africa to form the "Red Sea", from the geographical point of view, the Arabian Peninsula should be classified as a continent. The creation of the Arab Empire in the 7th century AD and the unification of the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa were the formal geopolitical integration of the two tectonic plates.
As a pivotal point connecting North Africa to the Arabian Peninsula, the land was contested by Jews and Arabs before the Arab Empire was established. Jerusalem, the holy place of the three religions, is the focus of attention.
Of course, purely geographically, the Sinai Peninsula, sandwiched between the Suez Canal and the Arabian Peninsula, looks more like a connecting point. It's just that deciding whether a piece of land is important is not only based on location, but also on population carrying capacity. In this respect, the desertified Sinai Peninsula is much worse.
In contrast, the situation in the area around Jerusalem is much better. The relatively abundant precipitation brought by the warm and humid currents of the Atlantic from the west to the eastern shores of the Mediterranean led the Jews to believe that the land that God had promised them was "flowing with milk and honey." It's just that this green land is too small, and it is destined to not be the foundation of an empire, and can only exist as a place where soldiers must fight.
In the beginning, this "land struggle" was only the focus of contention between Asia and Africa. Whether it is the Assyrian Empire, the Neo-Babylonian Empire, the Persian Empire from Asia, which wants to expand into North Africa, or Egypt, which represents Africa, wants to expand into Asia, this pivot point must be taken.
When the Roman Empire established an empire with the Mediterranean Sea as its inland sea, the Palestinian/Israeli region became the focus of tripartite power rivalry in Europe, Asia and Africa. In 135 A.D., the Roman Empire, which represented European powers, expelled the Jews from the land where they had established their kingdom and renamed it Palestine, the historical name of de-Judaization.
When Europe entered the Christian Middle Ages, and the Arabian Peninsula and North Africa were integrated by Arabs and their religions, the "Crusades" aimed at retaking the holy city of Jerusalem became a landmark event for the eastward expansion of the West.
Later, with the destruction of the "Kingdom of Jerusalem" (1099-1299 AD) established by the Crusaders by Muslim armies, the Ottoman Empire became the ruler of the Arabs and the Holy City, and confronted European Christendom on behalf of the Islamic world, and the West did not have the opportunity to re-establish control of Jerusalem for seven centuries. Even later, with the dividends of the Age of Discovery, the West gradually took control of the world.
Israel "created" by the Anglo-Americans
The end of the First World War gave the West another opportunity to return to Jerusalem. At the end of the war, the Ottoman Empire, as a defeated country, had to relinquish its rule in Arabia and instead maintain its base in Asia Minor and Istanbul.
This gave Britain, as the victorious power, an opportunity, and in order to control the Arab region, Britain expressed its willingness to support the Arabs to break away from the Ottoman Empire and establish an independent state; On the other hand, it was decided to use the Jewish Natonism plot to drive a wedge in the Arab region.
As early as November 1917, before the end of the war, the British Foreign Secretary Balfort, who had invaded Jerusalem, sent a letter to Rothschild, vice president of the British Zionist League, on behalf of the government, saying that "the British government is in favor of the establishment of a national home for the Jews in Palestine and will do its utmost to promote its realization", which is known as the "Balfour Declaration".
Since the defeat of Britain and France in the Hundred Years' War, Britain has gradually begun to implement a "continental balance policy" in diplomacy. To put it simply, if the British want to control an area with a simple primitive ethnic structure, then the British do not mind direct immigration occupation, such as North America; If the geopolitical structure is too complicated, then use or even create regional contradictions to turn the situation in its favor.
Throughout the history of the United Kingdom, whether it is constantly shifting the camp to suppress the rising momentum of France, Russia and other continental European countries; Whether India uses the contradictions between the princely states to break down each other, it follows this diplomatic principle. This time in the Palestinian region, the British operation line is the same. Turning Jerusalem into a colony would have angered all Arabs, but it would have been a different story if they had been helped to return to their homeland out of "sympathy" for the Jews.
Thereafter, with the support of the British, European Jews began to emigrate to the Bale region. In 1932, as Nazi power began to gain ground in Germany and anti-Semitic sentiment was at an all-time high in Europe, Jews accelerated their immigration to Palestine.
After the end of World War II, Britain became a second-rate country, but the United States, which took over the baton to dominate the Western order, had the same idea as Britain. In the final analysis, the United States is a maritime nation originating from Britain, and it also agrees with the strategy of creating contradictions in various parts of the Old Continent and using the "continental balance policy" to establish hegemony.
Thus, as you can see, in 1947, with the support of the United States, the United Nations issued Resolution 181 on the future of Palestine to deal with the partition plan, which stipulated that the British mandate in the region would be terminated in 1948 and the Arab and Jewish states would be established respectively. It is worth mentioning that the United Kingdom, believing that it had lost its right to speak in the Palestinian areas, abstained from voting; The Soviets, on the other hand, voted in favor of the partition situation, which would also give them the opportunity to intervene in the Arab region, including allowing a large number of Jews in the Soviet Union who could not be assimilated to have a place to move.
Eventually, after the Arab countries started the Middle East war because of their strong opposition to the establishment of the Israeli state, the United States and the West became Israel's backers; The Soviet Union seized the opportunity to win over Arab countries to buy Soviet weapons. The Middle East and Jerusalem became the focal points of the Cold War.
From a larger historical point of view, the emergence of Israel is almost inevitable, whether it is the Americans or the Russians who represent Christendom. After all, both superpowers believed that it was no longer possible to expand their spheres of influence by colonial means. Thanks to the vote politics of the United States, we can often see American politicians unabashedly expressing the selfishness of the country. Don't think that only an atypical US president like Trump can speak amazingly, even politicians who usually present themselves as hypocrites will speak their minds.
For example, Obama's sentence "If Chinese live an American life, it will be a disaster for the planet" is a typical case. As far as the meaning of Israel's existence is concerned, the current US President Joe Biden once stated very bluntly when he became a senator in 1986: "If there is no Israel, the United States will create an Israel to protect American interests in the region" and "the aid to Israel is the best investment of $3 billion we have ever made".
Having told the truth, it should be clear to everyone that the contradictions between Israel and the Arab countries will never be resolved. Unless one day Christendom can be reconciled with the Islamic world.
Saudi Arabia and Egypt have a double core
There is no doubt that, based on the structural contradictions between them, the Arab countries are also well aware of their irreconcilable contradictions with the West. Under the West's unwillingness to help the Arab world modernize, the Arab world can only have the slightest possibility of re-emerging if it unites itself.
For this reason, in March 1945, before the end of World War II, Arab countries could not wait to establish the "Arab League" (Arab League for short) under the leadership of Egypt, which was even ten years earlier than the time when the European Union was created. However, it was precisely because of the strong sense of unity among the Arabs that Christendom, who was reluctant to see the emergence of a strong Arab confederation two years later, jointly promoted Israel's dream of reassurance.
Judging purely from land area and population, the Arab League, which currently has 22 member states, does seem to have the strength to enter the "imperial system" (a type of geopolitical plate) and compete with the United States, China, Europe, Russia, and India. In 2022, the Arab countries have a total area of 13.13 million square kilometers and a population of 430 million (2022). It is second only to Russia in terms of size and has a population about the size of the European Union (448 million).
However, no matter how high the data on paper is, it does not mean that there is a chance to form a synergy. Against the backdrop of the overall failure to keep up with the pace of industrialization, the Arab League must look for strong foreign aid if it wants to rise. In the case that the United States and the West as a whole are unwilling to see the Arabs united, there is actually only one standard for foreign aid, and that is to have the strength to compete with the United States.
As we will see, from 1948 to 1982, Arab countries fought five Middle East wars with Israel, almost throughout the entire Cold War period, and the Soviet Union became the largest foreign aid for Arab countries. During this period, Egypt and Syria even formed a United Arab Republic that was ready to include Iraq, Yemen and other countries. Israel's victory in this proxy war was a prelude to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The outbreak of the Iraq War in 2003 and the collapse of Saddam's regime in that year marked the complete shattering of the dream of military revival in the Arab world. Since then, Saudi Arabia, which has relied on the dual advantages of oil and holy cities, has become the de facto representative of the Arabs to exert influence in the world.
However, unlike Egypt during the four Middle East wars, Iraq under Saddam Hussein, and Syria today ruled by military strongmen, Saudi Arabia's basic attribute is the Gulf monarchy, and its closest allies are also Gulf countries with similar political and economic attributes, including the United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, Qatar, and Bahrain.
This makes Saudi Arabia more inclined to use religious centripetal forces as a call and the economy as a means to expand its influence. The Gulf Cooperation Council, co-founded by the six monarchies, is also a platform for Saudi Arabia to expand its geopolitical influence.
So we will see a very peculiar phenomenon in Saudi Arabia. On the one hand, the country is particularly conservative in religion, and funds from Saudi Arabia have been flowing into various extremist groups (such as al-Qaeda in the past). On the other hand, it will pragmatically cooperate with the United States, and the United Kingdom, in the first place, to maintain its monarchy. (Regarding this psychology, it is recommended to watch a film "Black Gold" based on the founding monarch of Saudi Arabia, Ibn Saud, which was co-produced by France, Italy, and Qatar in 2011).
The problem is that Saudi Arabia is the core country of the Arabian Peninsula. Even without Israel in the middle and without institutional differences, it will be difficult for it to truly extend its control to North Africa, especially to subordinate Egypt, a traditional Arab power. This means that the most likely structure of the Arab League is a dual-core model similar to that of France and Germany to the EU. Egypt, as a secular state, a republic, and a representative of North Africa, worked with Saudi Arabia to determine the direction of the Arab League.
It is worth mentioning that the charter of the Arab League stipulates that the permanent address of its headquarters is Cairo, the capital of Egypt. For the first 30 years, Egypt's position as the leading big brother remained unchanged until 1979, when Egypt signed a peace treaty with Israel, which turned to the United States as its most important ally.
This turn was tantamount to a betrayal, which led other Arab countries to sever diplomatic relations with Egypt, suspend their membership in the Arab League, and move their headquarters to Tunisia. It was not until 1987 that Egypt gradually re-established diplomatic relations with some Arab countries, and in 1989 it regained its membership. In September 1990, the headquarters of the League of Arab States was moved back to Cairo.
If you look at the changing Cold War situation at the time, you can see why Egypt was re-recognized. In 1985, Gorbachev became the supreme leader of the Soviet Union and soon initiated a comprehensive political reform. It took only six years to bury the most powerful continental empire in human history.
This failed reform not only led to the rapid collapse of the Soviet Union, but also made other countries outside the United States and the Soviet Union realize that the Soviet Union itself had rejected the old model. Against this historical backdrop, Egypt's early pivot would be considered a wise move. At the same time, cooperation between Saudi Arabia and the United States on the "petrodollar" issue will also be considered a pragmatic move.
When all betrayals and compromises have been forgiven, and the vast majority of Arab countries have silently accepted the fact that the United States is the sole superpower, Egypt, as the legal leader of the Arab League, and Saudi Arabia, as the largest financier of the Arab League, have been removed.
The Red Sea Bridge – a symbol of the revival of the Arab world
The wars in the Middle East and the repetition of Egypt's relations with the Arab League have proved one thing, that is, the Arab countries cannot realize the dream of national rejuvenation on their own. Unless one day another empire emerges to rival the United States, the Arab world may regain a strategic window for integration.
As for whether this strategic window has been opened now, it is up to the rest of the world, at least the United States has regarded China as the biggest strategic threat. Even if India does occupy China's ecological niche, as the West hopes, the self-described world-class country would be equally willing to see the Arab countries pin their hopes for revival on themselves.
In the midst of this unprecedented change, countries that had relied heavily on global trade have become more anxious, fearing that the fire at the city gate will affect the fish in the pond. On the other hand, the Arab countries, which have always regarded the West as their old enemies and had only had to submit to the political level before, are happy to see that there is finally a country that dares to stand on the opposite side of the United States.
As I analyzed in the previous two articles, the Saudi attitude, which is the ballast stone of the petrodollar system, is the most subtle. In recent years, Saudi Arabia's de facto ruler, Crown Prince and Prime Minister Mohammed Salman, has had a lot of feuds with the United States. Based on its own needs, it launched the "Vision 2030 Plan" in 2016.
In order to dovetail with China's Belt and Road Initiative, Saudi Arabia and Iran completed the reconciliation of the century under the auspices of Beijing in March this year, which is clearly against the will of the United States. Of course, this does not mean that Saudi Arabia will become hostile to the United States. Saudi Arabia's accession to the India-Middle East-EU Economic Corridor (India-Middle East-EU Economic Corridor) in September under the auspices of the United States is another manifestation of Saudi Arabia's pragmatic diplomacy.
For the United States, promoting the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel (establishing diplomatic relations) is not only to help Israel win more free geopolitical space, but also to prove its influence in the Middle East. It's just that for Saudi Arabia, on the one hand, this Indo-European Economic Corridor is in line with its goal of building itself into a hub for Europe, Asia and Africa in the "Vision 2030 Plan"; On the other hand, they know that the plan to draw Israel into the plan is selfish.
Under these circumstances, Hamas's attack aimed at destroying Saudi Arabia and normalizing relations is a relief for Saudi Arabia to reject the U.S. demands.
More importantly, the removal of Israel from the Indo-European Economic Corridor will not affect Saudi Arabia's ambitions to create a tricontinental hub. In fact, even without the structural contradictions between Jews and Arabs, a route connecting the Mediterranean and Europe via Israel is not the best solution for Saudi Arabia. The plan that is truly in line with Saudi Arabia's positioning is to build a Red Sea bridge to connect Saudi Arabia and Egypt, two core countries in the Arab world.
If Israel were to connect to Europe, the route would also have to pass through Jordan between the two countries. Although Jordan, as an Arab country, does not seem to be too risky, from a purely geopolitical point of view, one more intermediate country would be an additional layer of risk. Who can guarantee that there will be eternal peace between the Jordanian royal family, which considers itself a saint, and the Saudi royal family, which controls the holy cities of Mecca and Medina?
In contrast, the option of connecting Egypt looks much more reasonable. On the one hand, Egypt can be deeply tied to its own interests, and even dependent on itself; On the other hand, Egypt as a port state connecting Europe and the entire Mediterranean Sea is much less geopolitically risky than having Israel take on this task.
Finally, the route via Egypt allows you to eat two fish. It not only bypasses Israel to open up the Asian-African channel, but also wins a strategic channel for Saudi Arabia to connect with Europe, and truly helps Saudi Arabia realize its desire to be a hub on three continents. As for the other end of this channel, neither China nor India will necessarily decide that this channel can only be useful if it goes through Israel.
So if you have been following all kinds of news in the Middle East, you may have noticed one thing: in 2016, the year Saudi Arabia launched Vision 2030, Saudi King Salman announced during a visit to Egypt - "I have agreed with my brother, His Excellency President [Sisi] and I to build a bridge between our two countries." ”
Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi responded positively by saying that the Red Sea bridge connecting the two countries will be named the "King Salman Bin Abdulaziz Bridge" after the Saudi king. At the same time, it was declared that "the bridge marks a new chapter on the path of joint Arab action".
epilogue
From a purely technical point of view, the best option for the bridge would not be to directly cross the Red Sea itself, which has an average width of nearly 200 kilometers, but to build it on the Gulf of Aqaba, which extends from the Red Sea to the Jordan Valley, to connect Egypt's Sinai Peninsula. In this way, the distance across the Red Sea Bridge can be reduced to a minimum of 14 kilometers.
However, the northernmost point of the Gulf of Aqaba borders Israel's southern border, and this location would inevitably have an impact on the possibility of direct Israeli access to the Indian Ocean. Moreover, from a geopolitical point of view, it is clear that the United States and Israel would not want to see the Red Sea bridge open without this impact. So much so that today this iconic bridge is still in the site selection stage.
As far as the current conflict between Hamas and Israel is concerned, the disruption of the normalization of relations between Saudi Arabia and Israel is inevitable. The current US administration is eager to use Saudi Arabia and normalization of relations as a campaign bargaining chip. One bargaining chip is that Saudi Arabia will agree to build the Red Sea Bridge between the United States and Israel in exchange.
Of course, whether to drink to quench thirst is also something that the United States needs to consider. But whether Saudi Arabia seizes this opportunity or not, if one day we can see the news of the construction of the bridge, we can see it as a bellwether for the Arab world to begin to shake off the influence of the United States and regain its independence.