So what you’re really saying about Israel is that it’s the rook protecting the king, the United States/West from harm and blame, and the Palestinians are being exploited for the sake of continuing instability in the middle east to ensure western dominance. Or am I misunderstanding something?
America isn’t the king. America is the player. The king is the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, and as the rook, Israel isn’t so much protecting the king as it is left vulnerable to attack while the king uses the rook for shade.
Since you guys seem so interested in exploring this chess metaphor, the opposing king is the Islamic Republic of Iran. The opposing player is either China or Russia, depending on the move. (Although some would say at this point, America is also playing against itself.)
The queen is Iraq, although it could also be Egypt, depending on the game. (Egypt used to be the queen until Sadat was assassinated. After that, diplomatic relations shifted, and Iraq became the queen. Hell, under Nasser, Egypt was the opposing queen.) The opposing queen is currently the Assad regime in Syria, and the opposing castled rook equivalent would be Hezbollah.
Both sides use Palestinians as pawns. America uses the State of Palestine as a pawn, and the opposing side uses Hamas as a pawn. Either way, pawns are meant for sacrificing, and the Palestinian people suffer.
Oh, and the game isn’t about western dominance. The game is about global energy policy. In a word, oil. Everything else is public relations.
One thought on “On playing chess in the desert”
Does this still apply? Also, book recommendations for trying to understand “diplomacy” in the Middle East better?