By Schmoel Yitzhak
While everyone and your Uncle Dudley is passing judgement on upheaval in the Arab world, approximately ninety-nine and forty-four one-hundreths of the so-called "experts" are completely missing the point.
But first, let's dismiss what's supposed to be the point; that the thundering rush to "democracy" in Arab countries will be beneficial to mankind.
Actually, no such democratic movements are unfolding but quite the opposite. The onrushing movement happens to feature the forceful annexing of assorted countries by militant Islamic forces.
You can count them on the fingers of one hand:
1. IRAN: Democracy was supposed to thrive after Jimmy Carter backstabbed The Shah. Some "democracy in Mullah-ville." Dissenters are cut down faster than ten-pins in a bowling alley.
2. LEBANON: Like the National Socialist (Nazi) Party in 1933 Germany, Hezbollah's private militia -- adjoining and coupled to the Lebanese army -- has intimidated all opponents by force and, in effect, runs the country, with guns.
3. GAZA: When confronted with opponents in the Palestinian Liberation Organization, Hamas goons simply tossed them off buildings and murdered them in other less wholesome fashion. Democracy in Gaza is as real as Looney Tunes.
4. SYRIA: Bashar-al-Assad is the prototypical dictator who would welcome democracy the way he would embrace the Bubonic Plague.
5. EGYPT: White House dreamers -- led by the empty-suit disguised as a president -- would lead us to believe that a genuine democracy will prevail in Cairo. Reality has proven that such a wonderful event never happens in the Arab world. What, in fact, soon will evolve is the emergence of Egypt's Israel-hating Muslim Brotherhood, another fanatic branch of militant Islam.
Given an opportunity to intervene against any of the above in order to produce a true, peace-loving democracy in either Tehran, Beirut or Gaza, Barack Obama has done nothing more than target Israel for building homes for its citizens.
The ludicrous American response to the Libyan massacres would border on hilarious were it not so pathetic.
As always, Uncle Sam's Secretary of Sloth, Hilary Rodham Clinton, spouts her cheery -- and sometimes not-so-cheery -- homilies about what should and should not be done to restore revolutionary decorum.
Her latest tirade included the suggestion that America actually might resort to force in order to once and for all depose of Libya's Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
That, of course, will never happen because the White House never seems to flex its muscles when it's supposed to do so. When the United States gets really serious about firing guns at the enemy, it's invariably the wrong foe and not the genuine troublemaker who feels the pain.
Anyone with a good chunk of reality in his or her brain knows that America under the chicken-hearted Muslim president never will confront -- head-on -- the real enemy which is Iran. And if ever there was an appropriate time to take arms against any Arab nation now is the moment and the obvious enemy is Iran.
You won't find any of the New York Times Obama-apologists dissecting the true problem. Fortunately, there are some journalists who get it and one happens to be Michael Slackman. His most recent article, "Arab unrest propels Iran as Saudi influence declines" is a clear-cut treatise about what's really happening. By rights it should open some eyes -- and minds -- at the White House but that would be too much to expect.
"The popular revolts shaking the Arab world have begun to shift the balance of power in the region, bolstering Iran's position while weakening and unnerving its rival, Saudi Arabia," notes Slackman.
"Iran has already benefitted from the ouster or undermining of Arab leaders who were its strong adversaries, and has begun to project its growing influence."
Bear in mind that Saudi Arabia has been America's staunch ally -- apart from the only pure democracy known as Israel -- in the Middle East. One would think that Obama understands that by shying away from a confrontation with Iran, he is undermining the Saudis. But his actions indicate a 180-degree turn from that reality.
With these facts in mind, what should Benjamin Netanyahu do on behalf of Israel?
Trust nobody; not Obama, not Clinton-of-the-forked tongue and certainly not any Arab leader.
What we have seen for decades is that Arab leaders invariably employ the Israeli-Palestinian battle as a "distraction from their own oppressive regimes." The quote comes directly from UK Prime Minister David Cameron.
More important is Barry Rubin's answer to Cameron. Director of the Global Research in International Affairs Center and editor of the Middle East Review of International Affairs Journal, Rubin never fails to understand the realities.
Rubin: "The problem is that it (the Israeli-Palestinian confrontation) is such a good distraction precisely because doing so is wildly popular with the Arab masses, who may well want more militancy than those governments are willing to provide."
My advice to Bibi is to be as pro-active as necessary to protect his citizens.
The "democratic" movement in Egypt already has resulted in a dangerous weapons-smuggling increase to bolster Hamas. Therefore, to halt the weapons-smuggling, Israel must re-take the strategic Philadelphi Corridor. No longer can Israel rely on the new Egyptian leaders to support the peace treaty.
"The Egyptian revolution removes the most powerful Arab country countering the Islamists (and Iran)," writes Rubin. "It will produce a new government that will not be allied to the U.S. but will work more closely with its enemies. Eventually, a revolutionary Islamist government may emerge."
If Barack Obama believes that such a turn of events will be beneficial to America, he is more addle-pated than I think he is and that's pretty bad.
Worse still, his thinking is inherently dangerous to the United States and a huge challenge to Israel.