crack in the spine of pan-Arabism¶

This is what I mean when I say that one of the roles of the occupation is to be a "crack in the spine of pan-Arabism." Among other, more active duties (intelligence, military operations, etc.), the occupation acts as a filter for whether a particular government is "agreeable." https://t.co/KJiBMJb0Bu Normalizing relations with the Zionist regime has, for decades, been the defining characteristic of states "achieving" the high rank of being a client state of the US, thereby shoring up its access to the resources of the region -- particularly oil and maritime trade routes. Opposing the occupation (in a way that matters, i.e. militarily and/or economically) leaves you open to counter strikes, preemptive attacks, terrorism, sanctions, color revolution, etc. The US doesn't even have to pur boots on the ground; its outpost does the dirty work. In this way, the US has been able to add to its stable: Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, Bahrain, Sudan, and Morocco.

(Saudi Arabia maintains an "official" policy of no normalization until a "two-state solution" is reached, but collaborates with its imperial master regardless.) There is nothing more dangerous to the empire than any unified bloc that is not completely under its economic dominance. A shared national identity, a shared economic agenda, a shared commitment to tossing out the imperial aggressor.