Liberate America To Liberate Palestine

It has been said and repeated over and over that all the ingredients are here for the conclusion of an agreement between the Palestinians and the Israelis yet this is not happening. People are asking why it is not happening and no one seems to have a satisfactory answer. The chance which is now described as being the last chance to conclude an agreement between the two parties is here again but everyone, including those who profess to be optimistic by nature, are fearful that the negotiations will fail again and leave the world with only dire alternatives to choose from once more. Well, there are reasons why the quest to forge a peace agreement in the Middle East has been failing. If these reasons are well understood and if they are duly removed, their removal will make possible the conclusion of a peace treaty between the antagonists. However, all those reasons rest on one essential point, the courage to admit that the establishment of the state of Israel was an illegitimate act to begin with, and that its continued existence will remain illegitimate until it has been redeemed one way or the other. If and when this happens, work to repair the damage done to the people of Palestine can begin in earnest and thus form the foundation on which the peace agreement can be erected. If done right, it can be fashioned into a durable agreement that will give Israel the sense of legitimacy it never had.

To put things simply, it is possible for the United States of America to make that elusive peace treaty a reality after only one day of negotiations because this is all it will take to tell Israel and her supporters they are on their own because America has had it up to here with them. Such move has not happened until now because there was and there still is a problem; it is that instead of playing a constructive role, America has stood as impediment to a successful outcome all along. More precisely, America was turned into the instrument by which the enemies of peace have torpedoed the path to it every time the parties came close to an agreement. This sort of thing has been happening because America's power and prestige were utilized to try and legitimize the illegitimate. And this was done in the worst possible way, that of leveling an absurd accusation against other people, the accusation that they are out to delegitimize what is already illegitimate by its very nature.

We begin to get an understanding as to how all this is woven together into one sad fabric when we analyze the address given at the UN General Assembly by the President of the United States of America, Barack Obama, on September 23, 2010. After reviewing the state of the world, he talked about the Middle East by saying that most people are skeptical about the peace negotiations now underway because there have been many previous attempts, all of which failed. And he goes on to say this: “...But I ask you to consider the alternative. If an agreement is not reached, Palestinians will never know the pride and dignity that comes with their own state. Israelis will never know the certainty and security that comes with sovereign and stable neighbors who are committed to coexistence.” What you have here is the description of a situation that does not reflect reality totality or accurately. What is remarkable about it is that it was voiced by the President of the United States. What is disheartening in all of this is that the President is proving he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the undercurrents animating the struggle in the Middle East. The reality is that the Palestinians are not up against the Israelis alone, they are up against the entire World Jewry which is looking beyond the borders of Palestine and has ambitions past all of that.

If the talks were left to the Palestinians and the Israelis alone, the chances would be good that a peace agreement can be put together after only one day of negotiations. However, the reality is that the Palestinians are negotiating not with the Israelis alone but with a World Jewry that is manipulated by the America Israel Political Action Committee (AIPAC). And this organization is using American power and prestige to advance its own causes. It has ambitions that go beyond Palestine to all the Arab nations, and beyond that to all the Muslim nations. The proof of this is that America was dragged in at least two quagmires, Iraq and Afghanistan, to fulfill those ambitions. And how do you verify this theory? Well, let's hear it from the President himself: “I know many in this hall count themselves as friends of the Palestinians. But these pledges of friendship must now be supported by deeds. Those who have signed on to the Arab Peace Initiative should seize this opportunity to make it real by taking tangible steps towards the normalization that it promises Israel.”

What in Heaven, on Earth and in Hell is this about? Well, the Arab Peace Initiative was formulated by the Arab League in the name of the Arab countries after repeated demands from America that all the Arabs -- not just the front-line states -- agree to normalize relations with Israel if and when a peace agreement is reached between the two parties, and Israel has withdrawn from all Arab territories, especially the Palestinian territories. This Initiative was forged years ago at which time the world thought that because the Jews got what they wanted they will now withdraw in exchange for the peace they have been seeking for decades. The Arabs thought so too but not some Jews who were skeptical because they knew what their self-appointed leaders were up to. I used to have a Jewish friend who, I am certain, would have been skeptical as well. In the face of this situation he would have thrown his hands up in the air and cried out: “Light up the oven”. Knowing that the self-appointed leaders of the Jews were all phony, he used to complain that they will again force mankind to send the Jews to their holocaust then convert to another religion, and live the good life with the money they made at the expense of ordinary Jews.

My Jewish friend would have seen in the call of the American President a treachery with the Star of David stamped all over it. He would have seen a President call on the Arabs to fulfill their part of the bargain by normalizing relations with Israel before Israel had withdrawn from the occupied lands so that Israel take the normalization and not fulfill its part of the bargain by giving back the territories. In reality therefore, the American President is advocating that Israel get both the recognition and the land. You know, my dear reader, Shylock in the Merchant of Venice only wanted the money or a pound of flesh but not both, and look how Europe responded in the end; it baked the Jews to a crisp in the ovens of the Holocaust. Now try to imagine what the world will think of a new breed of Jews who want the money, the pound of flesh and the land. Is this the end that Barack Obama is seeking for the Jews? If the answer is no, then he must never, never, never again call on the Arabs to fulfill their part of the bargain without Israel fulfilling its part. On the contrary, he should be out there in every forum calling on the Israelis to withdraw from the occupied lands so as to receive the Arab recognition they have been asking for; and more importantly because America has had it up to here with them and wants to begin looking after its own interest and its people.

And if you ask why America cannot be preoccupied with both Israel and itself at the same time, I say look at the following statement made by the President in that same address: “Israel is a sovereign state, and the historic homeland of the Jewish people. It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.” Let's parse this statement and look at it piece by piece. First, he says that Israel is a sovereign state. And I say so was South Africa during the apartheid years, yet people chipped away at the legitimacy of the regime till it fell and was replaced by a normal regime. And this is why America is now seen as standing on the wrong side of history, siding with a savage Israeli regime, a heavy burden to carry even for a healthy superpower. Second, the President says that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people. I say that until someone defines “Jewish people” the statement will make no sense, and America will be chasing wild geese chasing after authentic Jews. But even if a goose could be caught, the President of America will have to explain which history he is talking about. If he means the history of the Promised Land that God gave to the Jews, I have news for him. God also promised me an island in the South Seas, and I am still waiting.

Third, we come to the last and juiciest part of that infamous statement: “It should be clear to all that efforts to chip away at Israel’s legitimacy will only be met by the unshakeable opposition of the United States.” This part must be juxtaposed (a) with the often repeated statement to the effect that there is no daylight between the positions of the United States and that of Israel, and (b) with the often repeated statement that America will always maintain in Israel weapons with a qualitative edge over those procured by the other armies in the region. In effect then, he is saying that when it comes to need, Israel will be treated like an American territory and her needs fulfilled promptly, to the hilt and then some. But when it comes to obligation, no one in America will dare question what the leaders of Israel can or cannot do in America's name with America's money and America's weapons. Well, my answer to this is that if the American President is serious about all this, I have news for him: I have a better chance at getting that Island in the South Seas from God than America has the ability to deliver on these promises and look like anything but a ship of fools.

The good thing is that the American President seems to understand that even though America is still a superpower, it has its limits. Look at a statement he made in that same address: “The world that America seeks is not one we can build on our own. For human rights to reach those who suffer the boot of oppression, we need your voices to speak out. In particular, I appeal to those nations who emerged from tyranny and inspired the world in the second half of the last century -- from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to South America. Don’t stand idly by, don’t be silent ... Recall your own history. Because part of the price of our own freedom is standing up for the freedom of others.” To me, what the President is here referring to is clear like the sun on a day free of clouds. This is because I still recall the days when during the savage campaigns mounted by the Jewish organizations in America to silence every voice that opposed the criminal behavior of Israel, even Bishop Tutu of South Africa was prevented from speaking his mind at a forum that had invited him and was preparing to hear him out. Clearly, the President feels that America is the one country in the world that needs to be liberated from the Jewish boot of oppression pressing on its neck. Maybe he has found a subtle way to appeal to those nations who emerged from tyranny and inspired the world in the second half of the last century -- from South Africa to South Asia; from Eastern Europe to South America not to stand idly by, and not to remain silent but recall their own history because part of the price of their freedom is standing up for the freedom of America too. How beautiful, how poetic, bravo Mr. President, may you give many more of these speeches.

And I say amen to all that because when this is done, the problems of the Middle East, indeed the problems of the world, will be resolved automatically.

The Sad Discovery Of Two Missing Links

It is usually a joyful occasion to find a missing link and it should have been a doubly joyful occasion to find two missing links at the same time but such was not the case on this occasion. What happened this time was not that two early primate fossils were found but that they found each other and fell into the embrace of one another. These were not the remains of real monkeys, in which case they would have been valuable, but were the fossilized ideologies of a writer and an editor-in-chief who found each other and discovered a most eloquent method by which to give credence to the old saying: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Here is the story. On September 9, 2010 Forbes Magazine printed an article written by Dinesh D'Souza under the title: “How Obama Thinks” and the subtitle: “The President isn't exactly a socialist. So what's driving his hostility to private enterprise? Look to his roots.“ This tells you right away that both D'Souza and Forbes adhere to the notion that socialism is inherently hostile to business, an idea not worth the poop of a monkey – fossilized or not. Yet, building on this, the author sets out to show that President Obama is worse for America than a socialist president would have been, and you deduce that the publisher of the magazine embraces the theory because it aligns itself with what the magazine has become, a rag you avoid stepping on.

The writer begins the article this way: “Barack Obama is the most antibusiness president ... big government is back. Obama ... has expanded the federal government's control over home mortgages, investment banking, health care, autos and energy.” As a reader you expect to see the author expand on these ideas because you expect him to show respect for your intelligence. But no, this is not what he does until he reaches the end of the article where he returns to those same ideas but barely touches on them. What he does in the meantime is tell you this: “The Weekly Standard summarizes Obama's approach as omnipotence at home, impotence abroad.” That is, he tells you to go read enough issues of the Standard to get a feel of what that publication stands for at the end of which you will understand what it has summarized. And this prompts you to ask yourself if D'Souza means to disrespect your intelligence or is it that he does not know what he is talking about, and he hopes that someone else will do a better job making the point for him?

He then continues in that same vein as he seeks to acquire energy both from Obama's critics and his supporters. To this end, he reaches out to the Wall Street Journal from where he tries to absorb one big gulp of energy. Without discussing in detail any of the points he makes, he hopes to expand on his theory that Obama is a bad President by simply saying this: “The President's actions are so bizarre that he mystifies his critics and supporters alike. Consider this headline from … the Wall Street Journal...” Well, I'll get to that headline in a moment but first let me tell you something important. I am a retired teacher and I used to run my own school. I started it because I realized there were kids in this world who had a tough life and needed a special attention which I knew I could provide. But I made it clear to the parents of each kid that I had my limits; if their kid pushed past that limit or proved to be hopeless, I shall call them and tell them to take their kid out of my school. And I tell you now, my friend, I would have called the parents of Dinesh D'Souza. This kid is a hopeless case.

Now to the Wall Street Journal headline that mystified him. This is the one: “Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling.” The story is that an American bank specializing in bankrolling imports and exports offered to loan money to the Brazilian oil company Petrobas which is drilling off the Brazilian coast among the many other places where the company operates. The bank is a huge American bank and the loan is but a drop in the basket of its operations. Also, the Brazilian company is a huge oil company that operates everywhere on the globe, and the discovery off the Brazilian coast, although promising, is so far but a drop in the operations of Petrobas. And what these two companies did is exactly the sort of business that good, wholesome capitalists do all the time. But what they did is also the sort of business that increasingly mystifies the sham advocates of distorted capitalism such as Forbes Magazine and sometimes the Wall Street Journal whose preoccupation is increasingly becoming less about how to create wealth and more about how to accumulate the wealth that someone else creates. This is their problem not Obama's.

Past that, the author lists what he calls oddities about President Obama. They are positions taken by the Administration which are economic in nature, and so you would think that the writer will attempt to demonstrate how this can be worse for America than socialism. You expect to read economic criticism of the President's position but no, you find nothing of the sort. Instead, the author goes into foreign policy which gives you hope that maybe there is something here that ties with America's economy but you are disappointed again because this is not what you find here either. In fact, you find nothing that has anything to do with economics and worse, you find the blatant misrepresentation of positions taken by the President on the other issues.

With all this embarrassment under his belt but believing that he has the tiger by the tail, he gets into the business of explaining the President's behavior. Without saying that he, Dinesh D'Souza, did not come to America from India until he was 17 years of age, he slams President Obama because: “Here is a man who spent his formative years -- the first 17 years of his life -- off the American mainland, in Hawaii, Indonesia and Pakistan, with multiple subsequent journeys to Africa.” The author then asks what may be Obama's dream. And he right away asserts that it is certainly not the American dream as conceived by the founders. And he does this in a tone that leaves you with the impression that he, Dinesh D'Souza, is an All American, blue-blooded, several generation WASP – maybe a WASP with a funny name but a WASP nevertheless.

Now that he has conferred on himself the right to speak with authority about the dream of the founding fathers of America, he examines the dream of Barack Obama only to discover that it is the dream of his father, the dream of Obama Sr., a Luo tribesman who grew up in Kenya and studied at Harvard. He says that Barack had his father as inspirational hero because the old man represented a great and noble cause, the cause of anti-colonialism. Only now does Dinesh tell us that he was born in Mumbai, India and not the United States. And he admits to this only because he wants to show that he has the credentials to speak about anti-colonialism which he says was the rallying cry of Third World politics.

The writer explains what anti-colonialism is; he argues that Barack Obama inherited the philosophy from his father and he sets out to show how the President uses that philosophy to govern America thus fulfill his own dream which happens to be that of his father as well. Here is one example the author gives that relates to Obama's style of governance: “Why support oil drilling off the coast of Brazil but not in America? Obama believes that the West uses a disproportionate share of the world's energy resources, so he wants neocolonial America to have less and the former colonized countries to have more.”

To respond to this, we must be reminded, first of all, that in the decade of the Nineteen Sixties, when Dinesh was still a toddler living in India with his grandfather, we were told in our schools and our universities here in North American that we only represented 2% of the population of the Earth yet consumed more than 20% of its resources; exactly what Obama is saying now. But we were told more than that. We were told this is why we were swamped by garbage and were bathing in acid rain. We were told by our WASP teachers, professors and politicians that the solution to our problems was to consume less and conserve more. Well, we have solved the problems of garbage and of acid rain without cutting down on consumption, and it remains to be seen if we can do so again. But to go from here and say that Obama is anti-colonialist is to imagine things that have more to do with D'Souza's grandfather than with Obama's father. As for the Brazilian oil, Dinesh must know that unlike natural gas which is still a regional form of energy but is getting less so with the proliferation of pipelines and of liquification plants, oil is international and has been since the beginning. Consequently, it does not matter from where oil is extracted, if you have the money you get the oil, any amount of it from wherever it is extracted – off the Brazilian coast or off the Louisiana coast.

He then says that the refusal to accept the bailout paybacks offered by some banks is proof that Obama wants to “decolinize” these institutions. What he is talking about are the banks whose CEOs wanted to return the bailout money so as to give themselves the same size bonuses that nearly collapsed the financial system. No, said the Obama Administration, we will neither nationalize you -- which would be the socialist thing to do -- nor let you run roughshod over the public this soon after it bailed you out. Of course, Dinesh is entitled to continue believing this decision was worse than socialism but we are also entitled to laugh at him. As for his remarks about health insurance, this guy should know that the entire Western industrialized world, made of the former colonial powers and a few others, is using one form or another of the single payer system. The exception is the United States of America which will at least now leave the league of the Third World colonies, thanks to Barack Obama, and join the advanced nations having given itself a more civilized system at long last.

Whatever Obama the father says in his book, the President of the United States never suggested the levying of a tax at the 100% rate on the rich like the article insinuates. But if the President wants to allow a “temporary” tax cut to lapse, and if the author of the article says this is proof that the President wants to decolonize the American government, then what D'Souza is saying is that America was a colony during all the years that the tax cut was not in place. How do you talk to a guy like this? As for his remarks about the New York mosque and the Lockerbie affair, this is the ravings of a mad man and they may have a place in a publication as disgraceful as Forbes Magazine but they do not deserve a comment on this website.

Now a word about NASA. Let me tell you something I never tire talking about. Space was my first and my last frontier as I was growing up, and so it was with many kids my age the world over in the late Nineteen Fifties and early Sixties. The Soviets knew that and the Americans knew that. These two nations were fighting a fierce propaganda battle in the non-aligned countries which comprised among others, Egypt, India and Ghana. Yes, the two superpowers did some politicking to speak to the older folks but what I remember most were the glossy magazines that the two powers put out and we, the kids, picked up for free on the stands. These were basically science magazines extolling the accomplishments of their respective countries and we absorbed the ideas like ice cream on a hot day. And guess what I learned one day, I learned that the first Mercury capsule to carry a man into space and return him safely to Earth was coming to Cairo to be displayed at Tahrir Square in a huge tent so that the people can go and see America's accomplishment. And guess what, I did something I never did before or since; I spent the night near that tent to make sure I was going to see the capsule in the morning, and I did get to see it.

Decades later I was the owner of a private school and teaching a class where, one day, I and the students knew that something important was going to happen soon. We waited anxiously, barely ably to do some learning until it finally happened. We heard the sound of a plane fly low over our heads at which point I dismissed the class and we all went outside to watch a Boeing carry the space shuttle on its back. It went several times around Montreal to give everyone the chance to see the magnificent sight. And this is the kind of goodwill gesture that superpowers do to have the world share in their accomplishments, share the joy and celebrate the oneness of humanity. For someone like Dinesh to try and cloak an effort like the Obama Administration is conducting to use the science of space exploration to capture the imagination of young people in the Arab and Muslim Worlds says that he missed out on something in his youth. Neil Armstrong was right; landing on the moon was a giant leap for mankind, and no little ciphers like Dinesh or Forbes are going to second guess him this many decades later and get away with it.

The author of the infamous article then goes into a psychoanalytical rant to explain what he believes motivates Barack Obama. I shall let others respond to that but offer my own psychoanalysis of Dinesh D'Souza. This guy is of the same age as Obama; they were born the same year only a few weeks apart. They came to settle on the mainland of the American Continent at about the same time. Dinesh feels he is as qualified as Barack to be the leader of the free world and commander in chief of the most powerful army ever to exist. There is one problem though, he was not born in America which is a constitutional requirement, and Barack was. This is why he is not President of the United States and Barack is. He is jealous and he hates him.

One more thing. Unlike the people of the Middle East who feel comfortable in their brown skin, some people of Southeast Asian descent experience an identity crisis when they find themselves surrounded by Whites. They hate to be thought of as brown or worse as black because they are not classified as Negroid. In fact, they are not even classified as Mongoloid but are classified as Caucasian even though some of them can be as black as Africans. I saw individuals draw laughter from the crowd at a reception when they described themselves as a white man who happens to have a black skin. All indications are that Dinesh D'Souza is one of these individuals. In this sense, he regards himself as superior to Barack Obama who is only half White. And realizing that he will not be governing America by the power of his pen, he chose to play the role of a White Knight wearing the armor of Don Quixote who is out to rescue America from a man whose stated mission is to pepper the landscape with windmills. Some people call this borderline insanity.

Dinesh D'Souza has overplayed his hand already; it is time for him to write his memoirs and tell us what happened to him during the 17 years that he lived in India with his grandfather which he said -- while discussing Obama -- that they were formative years. There may be a clue in there as to why he wants to start an argument with Neil Armstrong. I am interested because I have not lost that spark yet and space is still my first and last frontier.

To Exit The Labyrinth Of Darkness

Sometimes a subject matter is so complex we feel like groping inside a dark labyrinth when we try to tackle it intellectually. We wish we had something to help us navigate around the intricacies of the intellectual exercise we are grappling with in the same way that we can have a magnetic compass to help us navigate around the walls of a real labyrinth. But what could be an appropriate compass of the intellect? My answer is that every exercise comes with it a compass which may or may not be obvious but is always there. If we can find that compass and learn how to use it, we can find the answer to every intellectual exercise we take up. Therefore, we can say that to look for answers in a debate is the same as to look for the compass of that debate; and to find one is to find the other. The point is this: if you are engaged in a debate and you are not sure how to proceed, make a moral judgment and use that to guide you like a compass. The honest expression of your morality will be the correct answer no matter how it may sound to someone at the time or to you at the end of the debate. In the final analysis, my promise to you is not that the exercise will be made easy to deal with but that it will be made easier than grope in the dark. In addition to this benefit, honesty will help you move the debate forward and reach a conclusion one way or the other which is something that the other debaters will appreciate about you, and you about yourself.

An example I can use as springboard to illustrate how this works came in the international edition of the Wall Street Journal on September 9, 2010. It is an article titled: “Funding Palestinian Incitement” written by Matthew Sinclair and Raheem Kassam both of whom are said to lead the international "Coalition Against Hate Education" through the TaxPayers' Alliance in the United Kingdom. The point of the article is summed up in the subtitle that was chosen for it. Here is that subtitle: “European taxpayers are made to pay for the propaganda that fuels the Mideast conflict.” Well, I am not familiar with the situation in Europe to speak about it with authority because I live across the ocean here in North America, but I have an interest in this debate because it touches on many subjects that are close to my heart. And so I ask myself: what should I do? Do I accept what is reported by two individuals who profess to be experts on the subject as indicated by the name of the institution they lead? Or do I use my moral judgment as compass and try to navigate around the walls of the intellectual labyrinth in which I find myself? I choose to do the latter and I invite you, my friend, to come with me on a journey in search of a way out of the labyrinth and out of the darkness.

I see that the authors of the article begin it by making this emphatic assertion: “...many Westerners are bewildered by the conflict in Israel-Palestine. Confrontations ... make it easy for people to see the situation as too complex ... But we can't ignore what goes on in Israel and the Palestinian territories … Our money is supporting indoctrination in the territories that is sowing the seeds of future conflict...” The authors then list the monies given to the Palestinian Authority (PA) administering the territories, and they lament this way: “Much of that money comes through direct budget support, which means unconditional checks to the Authority, or paying off its debts. In that way our governments support everything, good and bad, that the Palestinian Authority does … [like] run official media and print schoolbooks that radicalize Palestinians...” They have thus identified the problem they want to solve as (a) the manipulation of the media which the PA does to educate the public, and (b) the ideas that the PA allows into the textbooks by which the children are educated. On the surface, it all seems legitimate because the authors say they stand against hate education and that their disagreement with the PA stems from that authority's involvement with the education of the Palestinian people.

And so as I was reading the words of Matthew Sinclair and Raheem Kassam I asked myself the following question: What does the PA say or do that these two authors call incitement and claim to be horrified by? This question comes to mind because you can only be astonished at the fact that the authors of the article are recommending the complete cut off of aid to the Palestinian refugees without mentioning, let alone worrying about the hardship that will befall these people in terms of hunger, disease and the hopelessness that will inevitably make them lash out in retaliation at the Israelis who occupy their land and blockade their people. To accept consequences like these, the authors must have concluded that the PA was doing something truly evil and doing it on a grand scale. Thus, reading through the article, you would have asked questions and looked for answers like I did, but instead of discovering what you might have expected, you discover something that goes beyond anything you could have imagined, something to clobber you so hard morally, you would have felt the pain physically. This is what happened to me ultimately and this is what I want you to experience, to feel and to understand because it goes to the heart of everything that is important to us as human beings.

What you discover in the article is what Matthew Sinclair and Raheem Kassam consider to be horrible crimes committed by the Palestinian Broadcasting Corporation (PBC), crimes that deserve to be punished with a cruelty that is unusual in its intensity. Here is what they call incitement as described in their own words: “More recently, the European Union funded a television quiz show from Nov. 2009 through Jan. 2010 entitled 'The Stars,' which told its viewers that the size of 'Palestine' is 27,000 kilometers – an area that includes all of Israel. The show also described Nazareth as a 'Palestinian city.' The European Union funded the entire first season of 'The Stars' – the flag of the European Union was proudly displayed behind the host throughout the broadcasts.” That was one complaint and here is another description of what they call incitement: “During [the Annapolis] peace talks, the PBC was running graphics showing all of Israel-Palestine draped in the Palestinian flag. While the Palestinian leadership was sitting at the negotiating table supposedly working for a two-state solution...”

Oh my God! you exclaim as I did. These two wish to literally starve to death a population of three million people or more for something as inconsequential as this? I took a deep breath and thought to myself I am here in North America not even in Palestine or Israel, and I regularly see advertisements placed in Jewish and in mainstream media where the Canadian and American flags are intertwined with the Israeli flag. And I see articles filled with arguments to the effect that the West Bank of the Jordan River is called Judea and Sumeria and that it was given to the Jews by none other than God Himself. Are Matthew Sinclair and Raheem Kassam aware of this? If yes, are they asking the Canadian and American public as well as our governments to see to it that the Jews are made to starve to death? If so, do they want this to happen inside concentration camps built in the style of the camps that housed the Japanese in WWII? Or do they want the concentration camps to be in the style of those built by the Nazis to house the Jews before gassing them and cremating their remains? After all, the Jewish organizations, speaking on behalf of all the Jews, said decades ago at the start of this campaign that they were engaged in educating the public; and they have been doing just that in their style ever since.

And if education is the preoccupation of those two individuals, here is one lesson they must never forget: You will be judged by the rules you set for others whether they are your rules or those of your masters. Given that no one who reads that article fails to see that Matthew Sinclair and Raheem Kassam are but the faithful lackeys of the Jewish organizations, the consequences will go beyond them and spill over to the Jews everywhere. They have set the rules for the treatment of the Palestinians, and people the world over will decide that those rules must now be applied to the Jews who hired the two authors and allowed them to speak on their behalf. Such turning of the table happens all the time because justice dictates that a hole dug up by someone must serve as the grave to bury that someone whether or not the intended victim has been victimized. Thus, innocent Jews who may have no idea what is being said in their name or done on their behalf will be made to pay a price for sins they never committed and never knew were being committed – which is the story of the pogroms and the holocausts that have been happening everywhere on this planet, and happening all the time since the beginning of time.

This thing is so puzzling now that you want to stop for a moment and reflect anew on the whole subject. You ask yourself if a pogrom or a holocaust are not too drastic a reaction to what is basically a hypocritical stance taken by someone, and you embark on a fresh analysis of the whole matter right from the start. You look at the reason that triggered this chain of events and find it to be the grief that was expressed by the Palestinians in their own media. These people lost their land to an invading army and they responded with nothing worse than grieve over it the way that the Americans, for example, still grieve over Pearl Harbor and over 9/11, subjects they discuss in their media all the time. Yet, no one accuses the American broadcast outlets of inciting the population to do something so bad as to merit a call to starve the entire American population to death. And what about the grief that is regularly expressed by the Brits, the French, the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans, the Quebecois, the Latin Americans, the Philippinos, the Vietnamese and so on and so forth, all of whom have gone through a painful moment or two throughout their history and still talk about them with pain and with anguish. Should these people be made to starve to death also? And putting all this aside, what about the Jews who never cease to grieve and to bellyache about everything real and imagined they say happened to them during their stay in the various countries where they drifted in and out since ancient times? Should the Jews be made to stave to death, for example, on account of the quack stories they tell about their enslavement in ancient Egypt when the evidence abounds to the effect that they lived the good life in that country and were treated well?

No. When a people grieve among themselves, they do not incite and they do not commit an act that deserves to be punished this severely. If at all, what they do will only merit to be rebuked verbally and this, if and only if the grieving is done over something as fraudulent as the story of Jewish maltreatment in Egypt. Otherwise it is acceptable to grieve if it makes you feel better. But here is a question: if grieving is not incitement, what is incitement? Well, incitement is the urging of someone to harm a third party for any reason -- a good reason or a bad one. And when we accept this definition, we see that Jewish organizations and Jewish individuals have spent the last half century inciting others to hate, denounced, rebuke, humiliate in public, fire from their job, loathe, go after, deport, bomb, maim or kill someone for one reason or another in the Middle East, the Far East, the Near East, North Africa, sub-Saharan Africa, Latin America, Central America, Europe, Canada, The United States and so on and so on and so on without end or the promise of an end. If Matthew Sinclair and Raheem Kassam are asking the world to starve the Palestinians to death because they grieved over the loss of their land, what do these authors want to do with a people that call themselves Jews and do nothing but incite others to do this much evil everywhere in the world as a matter of religious worship? Is there punishment cruel enough in their estimation to fit these crimes?

To put the question another way: Is there enough here to prompt someone like Matthew Sinclair or Raheem Kassam to recommend the pogrom or holocaust of the Jews? It is important to ponder this sort of question because understanding what is involved here will explain why the Jews have been badly treated throughout history. Well, the answer is no, there is not enough here to call for the pogrom or holocaust of the Jews because a hypocrisy based on a double standard would only elicit a moral response whereas a pogrom or a holocaust are a visceral response. And so the next question to ask would be this: In addition to that hypocrisy, is there something that the Jews or their organizations do to trigger a visceral response in human beings, something that would make ordinary people wish that the Jews disappear one way or the other?

Before we answer this question, we must think long, hard and seriously about something. Those of us who live in North America but outside the legal jurisdiction of the United States still feel protected by the First Amendment of the American Constitution which bestows the freedom of expression on everyone. As such, we watched with horror every time Israel sent the most terrible weapons of mass destruction to bomb the PBC and the other media outlets with the intention of killing journalists in their offices for no reason except that these people chose to reflect reality as they saw it, and to express themselves freely like journalists do everywhere all the time. Not only that, but Israel's agents in America mounted an effort of biblical dimension and of satanic caliber to incite the Bush Administration to bomb the Al Jazeera television network in the Middle East having failed before that to incite the Clinton Administration to silence the other Arab media, especially the Egyptian newspapers which the Jewish organizations absurdly accused of being anti-Semitic, disregarding the fact that Egypt is the most populous Semitic country in the world. Oh well, when you're out of it, you're out of it; what can I say!

Despite all that, you still observe and correctly so, that this does not explain why people everywhere on Earth and throughout time have wanted to do away with the Jews. And then it hits you. All of a sudden you see that maybe something serious accompanies all this. It is something that looks innocent when it begins, but then reveals itself so slowly that by the time it is fully revealed it is too late to do something about it because another victim would have fallen into the grips of the Jewish organizations. The victims are embarrassed by what has happened to them and they respond by pretending that nothing unusual has happened. In fact, what has been happening in North America and what continues to happen to this day is a well organized campaign to silence the people who disagree with the Jewish organizations. We have now reached the point where no journalistic outlet or institution of consequence in North America is out of the Jewish grip or its censorship. And anyone who wants to do more than menial work for a living in this part of the world must begin their career by declaring their loyalty and total devotion to the Jewish causes. People feel shame for doing this but they try not to think about it. In the meantime they see Jewish individuals, institutions and organizations do an end run on everything that is sacred to them but they remain paralyzed and they stay mum about it because the instinct of self-preservation kicks in and forces them to keep their mouths shut. Hello North Korea, you want to know what effective authoritarian rule looks like? Look in this direction because North America beats North Korea when it comes to effective and brutal authoritarian mind control.

In Canada, for example, it is the habit of the Jewish organizations to regularly do end runs on the system of justice then see their members go about their daily lives as if they only flushed the private toilet of an executive -- nothing more serious than that. In the United States, those same organizations have managed to turn nearly 100% of the legislators into male and female prostitutes who gain legitimacy not by being voted into office -- this is only a minor formality -- but by running to Israel and getting the blessing of the government there, something they earn by lending their name and the prestige of their office to a list of demands written by AIPAC or some such organization and printed in a prestigious publication. And then, the prostitutes get into the business of voting to transfer America's wealth and weapon systems to Israel free of charge but vote to defeat legislation aimed at helping the Americans who lost their jobs and cannot find work. The prostitutes also vote to stop the sale of weapons to paying customers, something that could put American workers back to work. And the question to ask is whether or not situations like these can trigger a visceral response on the part of the public thus lead to a pogrom or a holocaust.

Well, that silent shame mentioned a few moments ago is similar to the shame we used to read about when books and articles were written by victims of incest and of other forms of child rape. You could sense the rage that was built up in the hearts of the victims, a rage that would have prevented them from coming to the aid of a former abuser if the latter were about to perish in a horrible circumstance. In a similar fashion, the people who wake up to the fact that their country has been subjected to end runs and dragged into a life of political and journalistic prostitution consider their country and themselves to have been victims of child rape. They develop a rage so intense that you could not count on them to lift a finger and rescue the Jews if a pogrom or a holocaust were unleashed on these people. This is not anti-Semitism, it is normal human reaction.

Nothing could explain an attitude like this previously because the evidence was kept hidden. Thus, the common wisdom was to accept the explanation that Jews were saints and that humanity suffered from a genetic defect called anti-Semitism. But the hubris of the Jewish organizations has now brought the evidence to the fore, and we can see that humanity is innocent of all charges while the Jewish organizations are immersed in guilt up to their ears -- so much so that ordinary people increasingly fall into the category of those who believe that Jews are not saints but are the devil incarnate. Blame AIPAC and like organizations; don't blame humanity.

We can now see that the Palestinian institutions are as clean as a whistle. We can also see that the people of Palestine deserve to be lauded for what they suffer in their daily lives to redeem the sins of silence and of neglect being committed in their regard by a part of humanity. As to the question: What is it that bothers Matthew Sinclair, Raheem Kassam and their Jewish masters? The answer is that it is not the education of the Palestinian people that is bothering them because that trio could not care less what the people of Palestine are taught. Rather, it is the money that goes to the Palestinians, money that keeps them alive and in place instead of being forced to emigrate to other lands for which they would have to cede Palestine to the Jews.

And ceding Palestine is what the Jewish and the Israeli leaderships fantasize about and work for. That is what Matthew Sinclair and Raheem Kassam were commissioned to articulate.

Snatchers Of The Double X Chromosomes

Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel has repeatedly asked the Palestinians to call Israel home of the Jewish people. He says that in the same way the Palestinians want Israel to call Palestine home of the Palestinian people, the Palestinians have the obligation to reciprocate in like manner if only to be consistent. Of course, this is a dishonest presentation of the situation because all what the Palestinians have asked for is that the Israelis vacate the territory they have occupied for too long already. This done, the Israelis can call the territory any name they want. They can call it Judea, Sumeria, the West Bank, Palestine or Arafatland if this will stroke their fancy. As for the Palestinians, they know what they will call their country; they will call it Palestine -- pure and simple. But when it comes to signing a document that will compel them to assign to Israel a specific moniker, this is something the Palestinians must never do because such act will carry with it a set of rights that no reasonable country will want to acquire, and will carry obligations that no sensible country will want to shoulder, let alone a country that is forming and still taking tentative steps into nationhood.

When two countries sign a document whose content is a collection of agreements they pledge to honor, they create between them a legally binding contract that should be enforceable and it usually is. To oversee the process of enforcement, they either set up a bilateral tribunal specific to their cases to adjudicate disputes that may arise between them, or they depend on the existing international courts and tribunals to adjudicate the disputes for them according to international law. As members of the world community, they will themselves play a role both as advocates and judges in those tribunals, and they will fully participate in the procedures whether the tribunals are bilateral or they are international. Thus, if the Palestinians agree to include in the contract the designation that Israel is the home of the Jewish people, they will have the obligation to sit in judgment as to who is a Jew and who is not. And this may well happen one day because it is realistic to think of circumstances under which people who want to live in Israel could be denied the status of immigrant on the ground that they did not prove they were Jewish enough. These people will then be given the right to have their cases heard by a tribunal that will most likely be presided over by a Palestinian judge or presided over jointly by a Palestinian and an Israeli. Is this what Netanyahu wants? I think not.

But let us assume for a moment that even though he does not want to see something like this happen, Netanyahu will, for the sake of expediency, not raise any objection to it. The idea should still be seen as wrongheaded at least from the practical point of view; and here is the reason why. No one would dispute the notion that two solidly established countries conducting a run-of-the-mill negotiation will want to keep things simple by avoiding as much possible the unnecessary tackling of a complicated subject if they can avoid it. Thus, it makes no sense for Palestine and Israel to tackle such a subject given that they are nowhere near being solidly established, and that the negotiation they are conducting now is anything but run-of-the-mill. In fact, when measured by any yardstick you may use, the situation will always seem unique and will feel abnormal in more ways than one. And given that the problem staring the Palestinians and the Israelis in the face is notoriously intractable and has been for a long time, it would be foolish for two novices like them to try and sail the uncharted waters that even the old and seasoned nations would recoil at the thought of having to sail.

Okay, but with all this being as clear as crystal and this easy to see, why does Netanyahu insist on including such a provision in the contract? The answer is that there can only be one reason; it is that he could not think of something else at the last moment. The trick was not to come up with this idea or that idea; the trick was to come up with a last minute idea, period. This is how the Israelis and the Jewish organizations have always conducted negotiation because it is the way by which they manage to control the agenda. It is the way that gives them the chance to blow the whole thing off the table the moment they determine they will not, at the end of the day, obtain something for nothing – which is the reason why they participate in any negotiation in the first place. Consequently, if someone out there is enjoying the reputation of being sane, they should not come out and say they believe in a concept so far fetched as to expect these people to conduct a negotiation in good faith because if they do, they will exhibit a degree of naïveté that may earn them a one-way ticket to another planet, and a stay away from Earth till the end of time or at least the end of this solar system. And that's a very long time.

Let me now tell you a story that should illustrate the sort of problem that may arise if the Palestinians agree to call Israel home of the Jewish people and allow this to be included in the contract. There was a time when I was young and was dating. I met a girl of stunning beauty but there was more to her than great looks. She was adopted, a fact she became aware of because she did not look like her parents, and the kids at school teased her about it. She looked very much like a Northern European while her parents looked like Middle Easterners. In fact, they were Jewish. Eventually, the girl developed an urgent need to know more about her biological parents, but the only information she could gather was that they were non-Jewish college students that did not have the time or the financial means to raise her so they gave her away for adoption. She also wanted to know how and why her adoptive parents came to adopt her, and this proved to be more difficult than gathering information about her biological parents. Like a setup that is operating in slow motion, she asked a question that begot an answer that led to other questions that led to more answers, and so on till the complete story was slowly and painfully painted before her eyes. And when all was said and done, the story turned out to be a gut wrenching narrative as much as it was intriguing.

She learned that she was part of a deliberate plan designed by Jews to shed their Semitic look as a people and take on the European look. This was not something new to Jews as I had read enough history to make a similar observation myself. I knew that the ancient Hebrews used to infiltrate the neighboring tribes and ethnic groups by disguising themselves when they had to, and by cross-breeding with them when they had the opportunity to do so. In modern times, according to the girl, the Jews felt it necessary to do the same thing because the Nazis thought of them as an inferior race and have tried to exterminate them. Thus, the Jews that survived the Holocaust took the measures they thought were necessary to remedy a situation they thought was the cause of their misery. To that end, they began to implement a massive project to make themselves look less Semitic and more European, something they continue to do to this day by reforming and rejigging their genetic pool. To reach their goal the quickest way possible, they devised several tricks of which two have become their most favored ones.

First, they are adopting children, especially girls that look like the one I dated. Second, they are giving lavish bar mitzvah parties at which they invite European looking non-Jewish boys and girls to mix with Semitic looking Jewish boys and girls so as to initiate relationships they hope will end up in racially mixed marriages where the non-Jews are expected to convert to Judaism thus create a Jewish population that looks European. In effect then, they are snatching all the European looking chromosomes they can get their hands on, having a preference for the XX chromosome while not entirely rejecting the XY chromosome which they still accept especially if they determine there is something exceptional about a specific specimen. In essence therefore, the bar mitzvah ritual that was a rite of passage has transformed into an occasion to celebrate the metamorphosis of the Jewish people yet again. Move over Josef Mengele of the Third Reich; here come the cross-breeders of the Third Temple. But wait a minute; the center of economic gravity is shifting to Asia, does this mean the Jews will now look down at the white chromosomes and begin a program to snatch the yellow ones?

Because of those reasons and because of other reasons that may yet come to light, the question as to who is a Jew and who is not has not been settled in Israel or anywhere else in the world. The struggle for ownership of the designation is still ongoing between those who consider themselves to be the authentic Semitic Hebrews to whom God gave the land of Israel, and those who view themselves as reformed, re-fabricated or recycled wannabe Jews that have labored hard and paid much money to give birth to modern Israel. The first group says they remained close to the land and has protected it throughout the centuries; the second say they were the financial muscle behind Israel's continued existence which they claim they still are and will continue to be whatever they look like and whichever method was used to make Jews out of them. But of course, what can change all this would be the consideration that they are Jews no more in which case, they warn, there will be Israel no more either.

I now ask you to imagine this scene, dear reader. A Palestinian judge presiding over an immigration tribunal still remembers that as a toddler he was kicked out of Palestine together with his siblings and parents having lived on the land for countless generations. They were kicked out to make room for someone that has now come before him because the would-be immigrant has been denied the right to live in Israel as immigrant on the ground that he or she did not prove they were Jewish enough. How do you think the judge will feel about someone whose lineage was concocted by an artificially designed social encounter and a diabolic experiment in cross-breeding? And what criterion should the judge use to determine whether this applicant does or does not have the right to inherit the home from which he was kicked out together with his parents and his siblings?

And who do you think might be this would-be immigrant? Might they be the offspring of someone carrying the XX chromosome such as Bianna Golodryga, Campbell Brown, Carole Macneil, Caroline Kennedy, Chelsea Clinton, Christiane Amanpour, Jan Crawford, Maria Bartiromo, Paula Zahn, Samantha Power? Or might they be the offspring of someone carrying the XY chromosome such as the exceptional specimen that is John King? Or if we move away from the politico-journalistic world to examine the countless conversions that happen in places like Hollywood and the boardroom of corporations where unions of convenience are forged and broken everyday -- might they be the offspring of a tycoon who is loaded with enough cash to command the attention of the Washington Beltway? And given that this beltway is the place where honor is bought and sold with a handful of dollars, will a torrent of binding and non-binding resolutions be passed by the low life and the shameless who will work to make life unbearable for the newly formed Palestinian state on the excuse that the Palestinian people are not making the Jews feel Jewish enough despite the Netanyahu inspired agreement that they signed? What a horrible mess results when something ends up in that sordid place they call the US Congress!

No, it would not be a good idea for the Palestinians to call Israel home of the Jewish people and make the appellation a part of a legal document. Let Netanyahu and his friends call Israel what they want in the same way that the Palestinians will call their country what they want, and refrain from asking the Israelis to assign to Palestine a moniker that will unleash nefarious consequences. Things are difficult as they are already, and let us not make them more difficult for no reason except to give Netanyahu the option to blow the whole thing off the table in case he determines he will not get something for nothing at the end of the day – the reason why he pretends to be negotiating in the first place.

Senatorial Snake Oil From Massachusetts

A stereotype of the Jew that lingers in most cultures is that of someone who would con you into believing you are going on a cakewalk as he prepares to send you on a mission that is so fraught with danger he would not undertake himself. You are made to believe that the mission will serve both of your interests when in fact it is intended to serve only his. This is the fast one that Israel and its agents are pulling on America yet again. In the same way that they pushed the superpower into the Iraq war by promising a cakewalk, they are now trying to push it into a war with Iran by making the same sort of promise. However, because America is still in Iraq and is also in Afghanistan, the trick about Iran is more sophisticated than before and made to look a little more elaborate. To achieve this, a number of sleights of hand have been added to the presentation, sleights that are every bit as stereotypical of the Jew as the original trick.

You become aware of the trap that is being constructed for America when you see an article written in the Wall Street Journal under a cakewalk-like title such as this: “Want Middle East Peace? Deny Iran Nukes” authored by a US Senator. Of course, it sounds like a snake oil salesman is trying to sell both the oil and the snake but an article was actually published under this title on September 3, 2010 over the signature of the newly elected senator from Massachusetts, Scott Brown, something that happened upon his return from a trip to Israel. He says in the article that attaining peace in the Middle East and saving the world are a cakewalk that rests on the idea of denying Iran nuclear weapons.

But knowing that the modern world is so complex it is possible for procedures to become gridlocked, you wonder if Brown had not come back from the Holy Land with a miracle in his pocket; or perhaps come back deluding himself. He is, after all, a member of the US Senate which is home to the most snarling of all procedures known as the filibuster. And given that America is a single country where there are only two parties, you can imagine what it must be like if you have to contend with a dispute that has festered for decades between two national entities, each made of a myriad of political groupings and factions, all of which are at war with each other and have been for the entire period. But no matter because when Israel wants something, everything is made to look like a cakewalk even inside the world capital of gridlock -- I should say especially inside the world capital of gridlock.

And this is why it is not surprising to know that the Senator insists on the notion that if we just deny Iran the nuclear weapon it seeks, peace can be forged in the Middle East. Well, Iran does not have a nuclear weapon now and there has not been peace in the Middle East for a long time; you must, therefore, conclude that the argument is flawed. Furthermore, peace began to elude that part of the world exactly at the time that Israel was established. Your sense of logic thus dictates that the problem is more Israel than it is Iran. Right? Wrong, says Scott Brown and he gives his reasons.

He begins with this: “I don't pretend to have all the answers on how to end the conflict between Arabs and Israelis ... Now is the time to ratchet up the pressure, to further isolate Iranian President Ahmadinejad...” Here the senator makes a direct link between the current conflict in the Middle East and the current president of Iran and he presents that as the reason for the conflict. He then goes into a convoluted presentation to establish once again the reason for the conflict. To see how he does this, you must jump back and forth all over the article to piece the narrative that holds the reason together. When you do this, you end up with a narrative that goes something like this: there is no peace in the Middle East now but there can be one in the future because the Palestinians have finally agreed to direct negotiations without preconditions. Get it? Up to now the problem has been the Palestinians but from now on the problem will be the Iranians. As for Israel, it was blameless before, it is blameless now and it will be blameless for ever. This is because Israel is the saint that does nothing wrong, period. Okay you say, whatever turns you on Senator, but what about President Ahmadinejad? Was he not the current problem or has he been absolved or is he still to blame?

Well, don't push this logic thing too hard; what's a little weakness of argument between friends anyway. Skip all that and follow the senator for more wonders. And so after going through a long dissertation in which he paints everyone as wicked or near to that while painting Israel as victim, he hits you with a final paragraph that makes you dizzy. It is this: “...let's not lose sight of the real threat to peace in the Middle East: Iran ... armed with a nuclear weapon.” And you are right back to where you started, back to the original set of arguments which is that Iran does not have a nuclear weapon now, yet there is not at this point and there has not been peace in the Middle East since the inception of Israel … and so on and so on and so on in a dizzying merry-go-round that never comes to a stop. And you certainly don't want an explanation anymore because what the senator is saying is what you have been hearing from the AIPAC crowd for decades, and you are sick and tired of it.

When you get to this point you know what to do. You dig deeper into what is being said to find out the true motive behind AIPAC sending a US senator to Israel at this time, and in writing this sort of article in his name. You discover that AIPAC makes a point to the effect that while no condition must be imposed on Israel, conditions must be imposing on everyone else. In fact, AIPAC wants conditions to be imposed not only on Palestine but also America and the other Arab countries. Surprised, you exclaim with a loud voice and you shout a question: Oh yeah! Conditions like What? Well, the first condition is that we must deny Iran the nuclear weapon it may or may not be seeking. You see, the thing is a quid pro quo that must be understood by everyone. It is that Israel will stop raping the neighboring little girl which is Palestine if America will agree to rape the muscular boy that is Iran who lives across the hall. What can be more logical, fair and balanced than this? If Palestine is to be spared, Iran must pay the price, failing which Israel will continue to rape helpless Palestine in consequence of which the Middle East will remain in turmoil, the world will remain in mortal danger and the whole thing will be blamed on the Arabs and maybe America too but not on Israel which is never at fault. Take it or leave it, and if you don't like it, get off the Planet.

And so you ask yourself what is it that makes someone like Scott Brown go along with a set of ideas and a scheme like these? Not only did he lend his name to the article, but being a US senator he is also promising to play a major role if not a leading one in obstructing the business of America while facilitating the business of Israel. That is what the US constitution allows him to do and this is what AIPAC commands them to do. You know he will obey and you inevitably hit on the image of him that if America were his daughter, Scott Brown would sell her to the highest bidding pimp and have an affair with him. And to be sure, it is through characters like him that Israel and AIPAC will keep a tight grip on the American Congress and pave the way to implement the mother of all conditions; the destruction of Iran along with the further reduction of America in return for a promise to vacate Palestine, a promise they fully intend to break. And you throw your hands up in the air and you shout: What can be more Jewish than this!

And here is a sleight of hand that every American who holds office or intends to run for one should tattoo in the palm of both hands lest they forget it. You find this quote near the end of the article: “...presidential candidate Barack Obama ... proclaimed that the world must prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon … also said: If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I'm going to do everything in my power to stop that. And I would expect Israelis to do the same thing.” The juxtaposition of two statements that were made at different times within two different contexts gives the false impression that President Obama wants to say he believes that Iran intends to send nuclear bombs to kill children in Israel when the truth is that it is Israel that is killing unarmed Palestinian children and their mothers in their beds in the middle of the night using the most terrible of American weapons given free to Israel as mandated by the US Congress.

The occasion that has allowed AIPAC to come up with this sleight of hand was the senator's visit to a town in Israel where the people of Gaza have occasionally sent homemade firecrackers to signal their anger at the murderous attacks that are conducted on them almost on a daily basis by Israel's air force, its navy and tank divisions, cutting down unarmed civilians like chicken in a slaughterhouse, and doing so not just over one town but over the entire Palestinian territory. The result has been that the scene in Israel, as described by the senator, looks like this: “...my tour included ... viewing ... a bunker-playground. There, throngs of children of all ages were playing games, swinging and practicing their jump-shot ... I was reminded that the playground was ensconced in reinforced steel and equipped with a half dozen shelters and a broadcast system that allowed kids a 15-second warning for incoming [firecracker] rockets.” Now contrast this with the savage, biblical size terror under which the Palestinian children live, having nothing to protect them but the bodies of their mothers, and if lucky those of their fathers if they are not out there trying to stop the American-made Israeli tanks with their bare hands, their bare arms and their bare chests -- with tears in their eyes and fear in their hearts. It is natural to feel sympathy for the Israeli children but if blood does not rush like a torrent to your brain and fills you with anger and the determination to tell those who neglect to mention the Palestinian children that they are sick liars, you are yourself a liar not worth listening to. Senator, you are a sick liar, and you are not worth listening to.

Thus, what every American who holds office or intends to run for one should tattoo in the palm of both hands is this: “Never say anything they can use to distort your views and make you look like a sucker. Better yet, never say anything good about them or anything bad about the enemy they choose for the day.” Let them do their dirty work alone; you are not their boy.

Somewhere in the article Senator Brown makes the point that Iran poses a threat to America's national security. I have news for him, he and the other male and female prostitutes of the US Congress are the real threat to America's national security. If they want to protect their country, they should do away with themselves in any way shape or form they want. No one will shed a tear over their demise.

Zionism And The Closet Neo-Nazis

We tend to think of politics as being a strange animal that behaves irrationally because we see politicians who get elected go on to practice a craft that often seems strange and irrational. In the meantime, however, we ignore the behind-the-scenes stakeholders who play a political game that can be as strange as the one played by the ubiquitous politicians. But if we look closer at what these people do and try to understand the motivation that lurks behind their behavior, we may well understand the logic of it all and cringe at what we see. In truth, these stakeholders are not invisible because they stay behind the scenes, on the contrary they are as visible on the scene as the real politicians but what is invisible about them is what motivates them. When the public does not know they have hidden motives, it does not know they have an agenda, let alone what the agenda is. It is time, therefore, that we all wake up to the fact that a hidden agenda exists, and cringe in unison because the stakes are a lot higher than we ever thought they were.

The collective name given to these people is opinion makers. They are the journalists who express their own opinions or edit those of others. They are the self-described researchers who may be attached to an institution of higher learning -- usually one that is well established and has a sterling reputation in one field or another. And they are the so-called “thinkers” who think inside joints thought to be think tanks but prove most of the time to be closer to a septic tank full of stinking drivel. These, in sum, are the opinion makers whose opinions can turn a superpower into a laughable farce in less than a generation. And you cannot be more generous than that describing these people when you look at America and see how fast and how massively they have managed to shrink it with advice they gave free of charge or advice that was solicited and paid for by the politicians.

One opinion maker that deserves to be highlighted at this time is George Will who was summoned a few weeks ago along with other players to come forward and play an assigned role. The summon came in response to the start of a new drive that seeks to resolve the situation in the Middle East, and George Will wrote a number of articles on the subject. It all began early in August, 2010 when he was invited to go to Israel and sit with Netanyahu, the Prime Minister over there. By August 12, Will had formulated a view of the man, described him as the anti-Obama and wrote the first article under that title. George Will begins the article by mentioning the two photographs he saw hanging in Netanyahu's office. They are that of Theodor Herzl who founded the Zionist movement, and that of Winston Churchill who embraced the movement. As history will eventually show, Herzl was sincere about wanting a homeland for the Jews; Churchill welcomed the idea of seeing a place out of Europe where the Jews can be dumped and gotten rid of. But George Will does not mention these details because if he did, he would have revealed his own motives and his secret agenda.

Then came an article under the title “Netanyahu's Warning” which is about Iran and why America should immolate itself -- more like immolate what is left of itself -- on the altar of Israel's glory, always disguised as Israel's survival. Then came the August 19, 2010 piece under the title: Skip the lecture on Israel's 'risks for peace'. This article is not a real article; it is a catalog of the AIPAC talk points arranged in a way that is tailor-made to impress the American politico-journalistic establishment except for a deviation. I shall not discuss the points raised by Will as I have discussed them on numerous occasions on this website and elsewhere. As for the deviation, it is that you find in the article statements such as this: “Palestine has a seemingly limitless capacity for eliciting nonsense from afar” and this: “Patronizing American lectures on the reality of risks and the desirableness of peace, which once were merely fatuous, are now obscene.” In the old days, no conservative ever insulted a Brit or an American to kiss up to the AIPAC crowd but now the trend is getting to be a habit and a fashion among some so-called thinkers. As far as I can tell, it was Fred Barnes and Morton Kondracke who began the trend, and George Will is following suit because it fits nicely into his invisible agenda or maybe for another reason that escapes me.

Let us now look at some background. A number of American conservatives, George Will among them, were influenced early in their careers by the ideas of Democratic Senator Henry Jackson who was better known by his nickname Scoop. This man had forged a devil's alliance with the Jewish organizations because they had a falling out with their old communist ally, now their chosen enemy of the day. Reading articles and biographies, I formulated the opinion that Jackson took the stance that he did because his father had come to the United States from Northern Europe where the fear of the Soviet Union was intense and was passed from father to son even in the Diaspora. Considering the Jewish organizations to be the enemies of his enemy, Jackson embraced them along with their ideas and their methods. Some people see the Jackson move as the event that triggered the new conservative movement known as neocon which is made up mostly of liberals who converted to conservatism. Irving Kristol who is officially credited with the founding of this movement has suggested that the conversion actually came about because he and his followers were mugged by their fellow liberals but I believe the conversion came about because these people were of a culture that has been turning coats for millennial. They would have turned the coats whether they were mugged, bugged or hugged, and whether or not Scoop Jackson had ever existed.

George Will is not a neocon. He is an old conservative with an agenda that was transformed with time but not in the direction of the neocons. Style is another way that he changed; it is the way that he tries to implement the agenda as we can see by analyzing his articles. In addition to listing the AIPAC talk points and the Smart Alec remarks of the two-bit Jewish intellectuals that litter the landscape, he has adopted the Barnes and Kondracke style of insulting the Brits and the Americans to glorify the Israelis and the Jews, something he never did in his previously incarnation. He was then a proud man who persuaded the others of his point of view by relying on the image of the deep thinker he meticulously cultivated about himself. For example, he would give his image a boost every once in a while by injecting into the discussion scientific and mathematical terms that sizzled with incomprehensible vibes in the ears of the other attendees. They were terms like “critical mass” and “asymptotic” and “symmetry” which he used whether or not they meant something in the context of the discussion. But nobody raised an eyebrow perhaps because the ear is the domain of the vibe and not the eye or perhaps the attendees were stunned by the extent of the man's knowledge. But then something happened that changed all that in my view. At first, I did not know what it was except that old George was transforming because I could see that a plethora of new and sizzling terms such as “second derivative” and “inflection point” and “slope of the curve” were coming into vogue and he was not picking up on them. It was like seeing a group of mice invade the floor, and the cat not raise an eyelid or flutter a whisker.

Slowly but surely I began to understand what was happening to the man. It is something that can be seen clearly in the August 29 article whose title is: 'Peace Process' is fiction in the Middle East. Here, George Will begins the article by making this assertion: “...history is cyclical rather than linear...” He then paves the way to amplify on what he said in the previous article and he drops a bombshell. What he does is insult America as a nation by insulting high ranking American officials, naming them by name and making fun of them having shown great respect for the worthless nobodies he met in Israel. Here is the most disgraceful paragraph he wrote; the most disgraceful thing anybody can write: The Obama administration, which seems to consider itself too talented to bother with anything but "comprehensive" solutions to problems, may yet make matters worse by presenting its own plan for a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian problem. Barack Obama insists that it is "costing us significantly in terms of both blood and treasure," although he does not say how. Gen. David Petraeus says Israeli-Palestinian tensions "have an enormous effect on the strategic context." As though, were the tensions to subside, the hard men managing Iran's decades-long drive for nuclear weapons would then say, "Oh, well, in that case, let's call the whole thing off."

So I asked myself: What is it that motivates George Will to make him behave this bizarrely? Strangely enough, the answer is that despite the changes he has undergone, his motivation in this regard is what it has always been. He wants to see a place such as Palestine or any other place where the Jews who are there can stay there, and the Jews who are in America can go to because the less of them he sees in America the better he feels. This attitude was stated more or less openly by the hardline conservatives in the past, and everyone had an idiosyncratic way through which to express their sentiment. George Will's way was to speak gleefully about the perceived inability of the Arabs to change the status quo in the Middle East. Now he disparages none other than America itself to make his point -- a massive change in style to express the same motive. And when you understand all this, you see that the assertion he made to the effect that history is cyclical rather than linear, is a wish more than it is an observation based on fact. He likes the status quo and he wants it to stay where it is.

So then, what happened after that? What happened was that Israel and America managed to corner themselves so badly, any solution you can think of will ultimately cause the Jews to emigrate out of Israel, and most certainly head to the United States of America in droves, the nightmare scenario that is most feared by the old conservatives. And this is what made George Will stop gloating about the inability of the Arabs to change the status quo. He could see, in fact, that they have changed the status not by making war as predicted by the good-for-nothing thinkers in America's think tanks but with the vaunted Arab patience and humane approach to solving problems. This time the way has been to make love not war, and the Palestinians did it with a vengeance and have thus altered the demographic landscape of their beloved occupied Palestine. And this is what prompted George Will and the old conservatives who did not convert to the neocon movement to do something else; instead of pointing the defeated finger of recrimination at themselves, they pointed the finger at their leaders including the most revered of their military leaders, David Petraeus, who is considered to have attained the rank of modern hero. And when you think of the time when the conservatives wanted to criminalize the burning of the American flag, you wonder what punishment they feel they ought to be given for urinating the Netanyahu urine all over the Star-Spangled Banner. What a change! What a history!

Since it is folly in the modern era to even contemplate exterminating the Jews as the Nazis tried to do, those who want to get rid of them have what they consider to be a perfect solution -- to dump them in the backyard of someone else. Such a place now exists and it is called Palestine, part of which has been renamed Israel. In essence, therefore, the non-Jewish and mostly Christian followers of the movement called Zionism are a new breed of Nazis that can safely be referred to as neo-Nazi. And George Will who desperately wants the world to think of him as American as baseball is in reality a closet neo-Nazi. Whether or not this denies him being authentic American is for America and the world to decide.