Israel has just announced the intention to build new settlements on stolen Palestinian lands in the West Bank of the Jordan River only a few days after the American President implicitly gave them the green light to do so with a promise to veto the Palestinian request for membership at the UN no matter what Israel does which is a reversal of his previously stated policy of opposing Israel's criminal behavior. The difference between now and then is that an election is now looming which is the time when the American democracy transforms its political hopefuls into puppies that fall over each other to lick the toes of their Jewish masters. And no one helps to explain this better than Michael Oren even if his intent is not to tell history as it unfolds but to confuse the truth and thus mutilate history.
Michael Oren is the Israeli ambassador to the United States. He wrote a piece that was published in the Wall Street Journal on September 24, 2011 under the title: “Israel Offers Peace – Again” and the subtitle: “By accepting a Jewish state, Palestinians can have their own.” What Oren does in the piece is declare the existence of a confusion that does not exist to place himself in a position to clarify it -- which is what he sets out to do. To this end, he paints a picture that masks and muddies the existing reality, and he portrays in its stead a fantasy of his creation or rather the creation of the entire Jewish propaganda machine of which he is a part. And this would be the latest fantasy concocted by a machine which, for a long time, has been concocting fantasies to clarify situations it has itself masked and muddied for every occasion.
So then, what is it that Oren says is confusing? Here is the answer in his own words: “The Palestinian Authority … seeks recognition for a … state at the United Nations. President Barack Obama … declares his intention to block that scheme … Congress … threatens to cut off aid to the Palestinian Authority … American mediators … lobby the other members of the Middle East Quartet … to forge a new framework for renewing Israeli-Palestinian negotiations.” Having said all this, he asks: “Sound confusing?” But of course, the answer must be no, there is no confusion here. What happened, however, was that instead of relating the facts back to back as shown here, the author of the article peppered them with adjectives, interjections, opinions disguised as facts, pseudo-explanations and the like – precisely to confuse the situation. And here are three examples that give a taste of this style. First example, “The [PA] which has already made a pact with [a] terrorist organization…” Second example, “Obama, though deeply committed to Palestinian statehood…” Third example, “And Israel's … Netanyahu waits for the Palestinians to rejoin him at the negotiating table.” You may agree that his peppering has caused some confusion but even then -- what's the big deal, you ask?
You want to know what the big deal is? It is that Michael Oren does not answer the question directly. But if you have been reading him for a while and you are familiar with his style, you would hear his voice whisper some kind of answer in your ear. You would hear him say this: I am Michael Oren, Jewish historian. When I relate a historical event, I do so NOT to tell history but to use the event as a trampoline where I grab the hand of the reader and jump into the world of my fantasy. Once there, the reader finds himself or herself with no point of reference against which to check the facts and so they remain confused. You may say this is diabolic but it works for us, Jews, and this is how we were able -- as a propaganda machine -- to turn the US Congress and other political hopefuls into shameless puppies falling over each other to lick our toes -- and proudly do it in public.
So now you want to know what there is in the realm of the Oren fantasy which is supposed to confuse you. Well, not only does he say you ought to be confused, he assures you that “many observers” are. He makes this assurance without giving details as to who these people are, where he met them or how he assessed them. What he can tell you is that they were dizzied by the diplomacy in New York and that they talked to the self -- not because they are crazy -- but to ask “themselves what exactly had transpired at the U.N., and why?” Thus, take his word for it and be confused like the others because that's the work he does, being the Jewish historian that he is. To this end, forget the picture you ever had in your mind about the situation in the Middles East and replace it with the one engendered by this passage: “What had spurred the Palestinians to turn their backs on a sympathetic U.S. president and a strong Israeli statesman capable of leading his skeptical people to peace? How could the Palestinians risk all they had achieved in recent years – a thriving economy, restored law and order, and significant U.S. Aid – in a reckless bid to snatch the statehood that they could easily have earned?”
Get the new picture, my friend? You have here a sympathetic American president and an Israeli statesman who is strong enough to brave the tide of his skeptical people -- both able and willing to help the Palestinians but the latter turn their backs on them. Not only that but the Palestinians have in recent years achieved a civil and economic life that is as close as it can get to normal life, all of which they risk to lose. But to what end? the Jewish historian forces you to ask. And he responds on your behalf: “...to snatch the statehood that they could easily have earned.” And this is what he guesses may be confusing to others but not to him who sees the matter so very clearly: “The Palestinians came to the U.N. to get a state, but without giving Israel peace in return.” And you, my dear reader, you cannot take it anymore and you scream: This is how Jews write history?
Well yes, he says, and now that he has finished painting a new picture representing the current situation, he uses the same approach to history and the same skills to review the events that have unfolded over the past decades which brought us to this point. He does it in an effort to make you, the reader, understand the Palestinian decision of that dizzying week in New York. He begins in 1947 and tiptoes over the historical highlights till he reaches the year 2008, always portraying the Israelis as being reasonable, generous, open to peace and agreeing to all the demands of the Palestinians but that the Palestinians ended up rejecting the deal each and every time. As to why they did this, he does not repeat the accusation about snatching a statehood they could easily have earned. Instead, he makes this new accusation: “Each time, accepting a Palestinian State meant accepting the Jewish State, a concession the Palestinians were unwilling to make … Yet, in spite of their rejection and trauma, Israelis continued to uphold the vision of two peaceful adjacent states.”
And this is saying a mouthful, my friend, because this is where history is mutilated big time in a very Jewish way. “That goal,” writes Oren “was embraced by Mr. Netanyahu, leader of the Likud Party, in a speech at Bar Ilan University in June 2009.” And so you ask: If the Likud Party did not embrace that vision until June 2009, who was it that upheld the vision of two peaceful adjacent states from 1947 to 2008? He only says that it was the Israelis. But how did they uphold the vision? He does not say. But he has an answer when it comes to Netanyahu. He says the leader of the Likud declared his intention to turn to “our Palestinian neighbors … let's begin negotiations immediately without preconditions.” Apparently, this is how you uphold a vision.
So then, what happened after that? you ask. Well, before you can understand what happened after that, you ought to know what happened before that which led to that point in the first place. What happened was that a new Administration led by Barack Obama was elected in the United States and was demanding a change. Since Israel cannot exist without the permanent support, aid and nurture of the United States, Netanyahu did what they always do in Israel at a time like this which is to go through the motion of being responsive and reasonable just to buy time until the spectacle of a new election gets into full swing in America and the Jewish organizations sprint into action and start to blackmail the Administration. And they force the White House to join the congressional puppies at competing for the privilege of licking Jewish toes in public.
But the Jewish historian does not tell you this. Instead, he explains what happened in his own style by hitting you with this: “But Mr. Abbas refused to negotiate.” A little later in that same paragraph, he says this: “But over the course of two and a half years, Mr. Abbas negotiated for a total of six hours, and then refused to discuss Israel's security needs.” Between the two contradictory statements, he says this: “Nevertheless, Mr. Netanyahu ordered the removal of hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, facilitating remarkable economic growth and dramatically increased transport in and out of Gaza.” Wow! Hundreds of checkpoints? How big is the West Bank and how many more checkpoints are there? But never mind answering; let us not get bogged down on account of the numbers. Let us, instead, move on to the notion that the removal of the checkpoints has facilitated a remarkable economic growth in Palestine.
Dear reader, I need to pause here for a moment to relate two important points before I resume the discussion on the matter of Oren's writing style. The first point is that the Jewish propaganda machine has used the growth that happened in Palestine to give credit to Israel as if the Israeli genius was responsible for that growth, an approach that is as Jewish as matzoh bread. The second point is that if you want to know how disgusting a habit this is, ask any teacher what it feels like when everyday a horrible student comes into class 10 minutes late thus interrupting the lecture till he gets settled. You plead with him to be on time, and the next day he comes 5 minutes late instead of 10. He bursts into the classroom and in the name of fairness, demands that you congratulate him for doing better than the previous days. Well, dear reader, this is how it feels like when the Israelis commit a horrible crime and maintain it by the grace of the toe-licking American political puppies till they are forced to ease on it at which time they give themselves full credit for being so generous, and demand that the world acknowledge their magnificence. It is galling like only a Jew can gall you.
But one crime that the Israelis have refused to stop committing is the building of settlements on stolen Palestinian lands. This is what Oren wrote in this regard: “When President Obama asked him to freeze construction in the West Bank settlements, Mr. Netanyahu announced an unprecedented 10-month moratorium.” But to freeze temporarily the act of stealing land is not what is called for here. Throughout history, the land has always been viewed as the “motherland,” and trespassing it by an invading horde or a foreign army has always been viewed as raping it. To call a moratorium instead of stopping the settlement activities definitively is to say to someone: I shall stop raping your mother for a little while then resume the rape. In the meantime, I expect you to thank me for my generosity and reward me by handing me your wife to rape as well. The American political types do it all the time, why not you?
And this is the kind of peace that World Jewry seeks. In the words of Michael Oren: “Though doubtful of the Palestinians' readiness for genuine peace, Israelis retain the hope … Mr. Netanyahu championed that hope and ... brought it to the UN … Unfortunately, Mr. Abbas … wrote earlier this year, 'will pave the way for the internationalization of the conflict [and] pursue claims against Israel at the United Nations.'”
World Jewry has turned America into a rogue elephant that gets crazier and crazier at election time. This is why Abbas has gone to the world to seek relief. The world will now stop the elephant in its tracks or go along with it and transform the Planet into a harem of men, women and children, all dedicated to deliver maximum pleasure to the proverbial Jewish rapist in the same way that the American democracy has been transformed into a despicable form of pornography.