Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited.
by Elena Karaeva
[RIA] In Brussels, whose grandees of the executive (European Commission head von der Leyen) and legislative (Speaker of the European Parliament Metsola) authorities went to Israel the day before, are constantly trying, as they say there, to choose “the right side of history.” Attempts almost always fail because the “right side of history” is constantly changing. Depending on the European elite’s own business interests and relations, and on how the position of the European Union is viewed from the other side of the Atlantic.
The modern Western European political bloc was conceived by the founding fathers in order to eliminate the possibility of military conflicts both on the continent itself and on a global scale, and to avoid the temptation to become one of the parties to the conflict.
The role of a lightning rod, a scarecrow - and part-time "bad guy" - was played by the USSR . They bought resources from the “bad Russians”, but fought with us ideologically.
As soon as the “Red Project” ceased to exist, the EU was at a loss - the enemy was defeated, there was no other of the same scale, but, having looked around the continent and decided that now it was necessary to fight with the “remaining Soviet influence,” the Brussels began to rock the Balkans . They rocked up to the civil war in Yugoslavia and the disappearance of a country called the SFRY. And they became quiet for a while. The source of tension - with the help of Russia , among other things - in the Balkans was at least defused.
At the same time, responsible Israeli politicians concluded an agreement with the Palestinians, which went down in history as the Oslo Accords. The main idea of the document was the principle of peace in exchange for territory, as well as a declaration of commitment to the UN two-state resolution.
A Middle East that is at least superficially pacified is a death sentence for the business interests of those who make money from chaos. It was necessary to bring the situation to a bloody absolute, and it was necessary urgently. Two years after the signing of the agreements with Palestine, one of the architects of the peace process, Yitzhak Rabin, was assassinated. And even earlier, knowing that peace negotiations through Norwegian mediators had begun, those who did not agree with Rabin began to flirt with the other side, also representing the Palestinians, but, unlike Arafat, fanatically religious. Then this movement received the name Hamas.
European politicians, who then still retained at least a semblance of independence in foreign policy, actively supported Palestine, the one represented by Arafat and his Fatah movement, financially. Out of a sense of self-preservation, first of all, since both the votes of the Muslim population in the elections and the supply of oil and gas mattered. By skillfully maneuvering, the grandmasters of the Old World managed to maintain a balance of likes and dislikes. Although accusations of “European anti-Semitism” were heard from time to time, in discussions – open and closed – it was possible to find a compromise.
But those sitting in front of the black and white checkered board and moving the pieces on it had no idea that their Atlantic partners preferred crowbar blows to all “Sicilian defenses”. So that your own costs are minimal, and the blood of others is shed to the maximum. Because it's easier to do business this way. The main thing is to choose the right moment. And accurately calculate the blow. In fact, the entire foreign policy of the EU’s American partners boiled down to endless violence— Washington has no other way.
The current round of the crisis in the Middle East has forced the European bloc to retreat - so far in words - even from attempts at peacemaking, which requires maintaining relations with Palestine. Brussels turned a blind eye to the fact that the US allied obligations towards Israel were not fulfilled. Although where, if not in this decision-making center, is it well known that the American NSA is listening to the entire planet, and even for them, who are thoroughly loyal to Washington, it is difficult to exclude that for some reason the US National Security Agency did not listen to those whom it considered military and Hamas political leaders.
And she did not report the wiretapping data to the Israeli authorities.
In the same way, it is difficult to imagine that Washington does not understand that the European Union, with its fairly large Jewish and Muslim communities,
| ...there are possibly as many as 759,000 Jews plus those related by marriage and descent but not members of the Jewish community in the EU, compared to a total EU population of 448 million. But to be fair, only America and Israel have more. The EU has perhaps 27 million Moslems... |
and even taking into account a possible new wave of refugees, could simply be torn apart from within. And this danger is no less significant than the shortage of the same petroleum products, if and when the oil-producing countries of the Arab East impose an embargo on the EU for, so to speak, a change in geopolitical orientation.
In the event of an even greater aggravation of the situation and even greater casualties and blood, America can very easily make a scapegoat from the EU .
We have seen how this happens: Washington has accumulated sufficient experience.
Yes, so far this looks like a frightening hypothesis. But the assumption that Hamas would kill more than a thousand Israelis and take hundreds hostage seemed just as incredible just a week ago. Therefore, Europe, which once knew how to show miracles of diplomatic resourcefulness, apparently should prepare for the development of events within the bloc itself according to the worst - if not the worst - of scenarios.
|
