A Look at How “Israel’s” Media is Dealing with US Withdrawal
Reem Issa Reem Issa

A Look at How “Israel’s” Media is Dealing with US Withdrawal

US withdrawal from the Middle East occupies a major position in the way various sides and countries in and around the region deal with their internal situations and their regional and international relations. This is particularly so as more tangible steps in the US’s repositioning of its presence in different parts of the world are crystalizing in more clear forms. Among those, for example, is the emergence of the AUKUS pact among Washington, London, and Canberra.

As for policymakers, away from what is in the media, the issue of US withdrawal from the Middle East, and for years now, has not been a question of “if” it will happen, but “when” and “how”.
Now that this is starting to take a clearer form, especially with the withdrawal from Afghanistan and the deal with Australia and the UK, those whose existence and survival had depended on the US’s policy and presence in the region, are making adjustments to ensure their existence is not threatened or terminated when the US “walks away”.
While there are many sides in the region whose cards will get mixed by this shift in the US policy, the Zionist is probably the one that is the most concerned. It is also probably the entity that is putting forth the most effort in trying to prepare for this withdrawal, of course in parallel with the continuous pressing efforts to delay this withdrawal as much as possible.

“Declared” Concerns

Media outlets and think tanks in “Israel” have been talking for some time about this matter and expressing concern about what would happen upon US withdrawal from the region. The main and clearest concern is that the US’s interests take precedence over anything else, and to achieve them it is willing to turn its back on and abandon its “allies” or “friends”. Today, it is clearer than ever that the US main battle is that which it has launched against China, and US policy everywhere in the world is changing in a manner that will enable it to reposition and refocus on that battle.
A Jerusalem Post article two days ago noted that “Israel, whose security is closely tied to the American presence in the Middle East, should take note and prepare for the future” particularly that the “US is busy in restructuring its power in the global arena and will not let anyone, even close partners, stand in its way”.
In an article in The Times of Israel, the author looks at where “Israel” should be positioned with regard to recent events involving the US, i.e., Afghanistan and the deal with UK and Australia. The author noted three effects of the US shift of “pivot to the Asia-Pacific and the consolidation of a more overt Sino-American rivalry”: 1) less appetite and motivation to restart the “Israeli”-Palestinian peace process; 2) forcing the “Israeli” government to choose whether it sides with the Americans or with the Chinese, as Washington will be increasingly unwilling to overlook Chinese investment in “Israeli” infrastructure and technology; and 3) the shift to Asia-Pacific will define US policy towards Iran, which can mean choosing not to apply additional pressure on Tehran and engaging therewith diplomatically.
Another Jerusalem Post article looked at how “Israel” should deal with the recent US-UK-Australia pact aimed against China, or in other words, what to do if forced to choose sides (as noted in the above article). In this article, the author says: “Israel already has effectively launched a neutrality policy, when it refused to join anti-Russian sanctions, despite the Obama administration’s pressure following the invasion of Crimea. It was a prudent policy which bore fruit when the Russian Air Force arrived in Syria. That should also be Israel’s attitude toward China and the new alliance that is now out to confront it, even though it includes our very best friends”.

What will the Zionist do?

A more appropriate question might be “what has the Zionist done so far?”, because the preparation for the US’s withdrawal from the region has started some time ago, mainly through the so-called “Deal of the Century”.
This is something we have discussed previously in Kassioun Editorial No. 989 (published 25 October 2020). We quote the following from that editorial:
“The far goal behind the various labels, whether ‘Deal of the Century’ or ‘normalization’ or ‘peace agreements’, is nothing but two main things:
First: Preparing the Zionists for the mass evacuation that the United States will carry out from the entire region, forced by its deep crisis.
Second: Zionist Israel hope (which is like a snowball's chance in hell) to pursue and complete its functional role through full control over the entire region, economically and politically, and implicitly through control that includes electricity, water, roads, etc. (Peres project for the Middle East).”
Needless to say, looking back nearly a year since we said that, it is exactly what has happened and at an increasing speed, whether through normalization agreements that have swept through the region, or the rise of activity in the region in certain sectors (e.g., energy, economic deals, etc.) that go towards normalization but overtly or covertly.
Looking to the future, we should expect to see more efforts to expand the normalization in the region by adding more countries to the normalizing list, and also deepening the normalization by getting more deals and agreements with the countries with which “Israel” has already normalized, particularly through economic relations and deals that aim to deepen dependency on the entity and its existence in the region.
Although, with the US withdrawal from the region, it would be expected that its role in the normalization process would be diminished, which the author of The Times of Israel we referred to above expressed by saying that one of the effects of US withdrawal will be less appetite and motivation to restart the “Israeli”-Palestinian peace process, something that will not go unnoticed.
Therefore, there are suggestions and perceptions about searching for alternative sponsors, especially among Europeans. This may explain to a large extent the new French roles, not only in Lebanon, but also in attending the Iraq Neighborhood Summit, in the East Mediterranean Gas Forum, and in standing behind some suspicious personalities and sides involved in the Syrian file, and other movements.

(Arabic Version)

Last modified on Monday, 27 September 2021 11:27
No Internet Connection