Look at this, my friend: “I would just as vehemently defend
the free-speech rights of George Soros … The Times has never criticized Mr.
Soros as they have Mr. Adelson. In other words: I am championing a principle
without exception; the Times – not so much.” Guess who wrote that. Who else,
you ask? Clifford May, of course, who else could it be? He does not say he ever
defended the free-speech rights of George Soros, and he does not defend it now
in any serious way. What he has blabbered, in fact, is only that he would “just
as vehemently defend” those rights. And having done so, he boisterously
concludes: “In other words: I am championing a principle without exception; the
Times – not so much.” Is that what he just said: “In other words”? Yes, indeed,
these are very much other words, and they come from the very mythical place
where bull manure comes from; the stuff they colloquially call B.S.
And who is giving us all that B.S.? He is none other than
Clifford D. May, president of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies which
he says is a non-partisan, non-profit policy institute focusing on terrorism
and Islamism to support work on national-security issues. You will find that
load of manure in a column he wrote under the title: “New York Times v.
Adelson” and the subtitle: “They have different agendas. But surely they have
an equal right to promote their agendas.” It was published on July 5, 2012 in
National Review Online (NRO). And when you read the column, you wonder how the
hell a thing of this low caliber can pretend to defend the democracies; even if
we assume they need someone to defend them – which they don't.
And if you think there is enough here to dismiss the whole
thing as a bad joke and go on to something else, look what else I have
encountered: “There is the fact that Palestinian Authority official Adli Sadek
has written in the official PA daily, Al-Hayat Al-Jadidda that Israelis 'fool
themselves, assuming that Fatah accepts them and recognizes the right of their
state to exist … They ignore the fact that this state, based on a fabricated
[Zionist] enterprise, never had any shred of a right to exist.”
Wow, look at this, the guy who keeps quoting what someone
else has said in a foreign language has finally given a link I can go to, see
the quote for myself, and check the veracity of what is being attributed to a
foreigner. I am especially enthused because the expression: “Al-Hayat
Al-Jadidda” is not just a name that could be of any origin, it is an Arabic
phrase that means the New Life. Therefore, it must be that I shall find the
actual quote as it was uttered in Arabic, and see for myself if the translation
was done accurately.
But guess what, my friend, guess what. Guess what I found
when I clicked on the link? I was sent not to Al-Hayat Al-Jadidda in Arabic but
to the Jerusalem Post in English. Yes, the link was a fake; as much a fake as
the pretense to defend the democracies. Even then, I still hoped against hope
to find something in the Jerusalem Post article that would show me the saying
in Arabic – the saying upon which Clifford May has built his theory. But all I
found when I read it was a reference to a London Based Arabic Newspaper called
Al-Quds Al-Arabi which means Arab Jerusalem.
And what the Jerusalem Post said Al-Quds Al-Arabi had
written was that: “The Fatah Leadership fears that the Israeli government would
exploit such meetings to tell the world that there is some kind of dialogue
going on between Israelis and Palestinians and that the only problem is with
the PA leadership, which is refusing to return to the negotiating table.” So
here we have the Jerusalem Post, an Israeli publication, painting the
Palestinian position as being understandably apprehensive given the distrust
that exists between the two sides in that region of the world. And here we
have, Clifford May, a self-designated barking dog taking up the Israeli causes
by pretending to defend America and all the democracies -- painting the same
Palestinian position as something that is only worth barking about.
And bark, he does. Look what it is in the New York Times
editorial that has riled that guy Clifford May. Writing about Adelson, the
editorial says this: “He is … spending [great] sums to advance his personal,
ideological and financial agenda, which is wildly at odds with the nation's
needs.” In response, the NRO columnist latches on to the subject of the
nation's needs and says this: “Readers of the Times are expected to take it on
faith that … Mr. Adelson who … rose from dire poverty to fabulous wealth by
building businesses, has not a clue.”
Now that he is riled up and ready to go full blast, he comes
up with an argument which he hopes will neutralize the new York Times editorial
and highlight his own ideas. To this end, he begins by saying that he once
worked for the Times, and that he can assert -- based on personal experience --
they have some of the world's finest journalists but that the editorial writers
are not up to par. And then he drops this bombshell: “I have heard Times reporters
grumble about this – though not on the record.” And for the record I, Fred
Habachi, don't believe these words anymore than I believe the translations he
quotes each time he writes about a foreigner having said this or that. As far
as I am concerned, it is all fantasy, all B.S.
Aside from this, what is it that Adelson wants that the
editors of the New York Times do not agree with? It is this: “...his disgust
for a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, supported by
President Obama and most Israelis.” So, the columnist asks the question: “What
is the basis for the Times' use of a loaded word such as 'disgust'? Readers are
not told.” Oh yes, they are told. He himself tells what the Times editorial
went on to say, and not all of it for that matter. It is that he dropped this
part: “and he called the Palestinian prime minister a terrorist. He is even
further to the right than [AIPAC] which he broke with in 2007...”
Yes, Cliff, it is disgusting to call the prime minister of Palestine a terrorist
when the Palestinian people are terrorized non stop by settlers whose
activities are paid for by the likes of Adelson. You cannot hide the fact he is
the foremost terrorist these days, the one that is paying to make sure a
president will be elected in America
who will maintain the regime of terror in occupied Palestine . And you are defending that
terrorist.
And if you, my dear reader, want to know how pedestrian,
uneducated, primitive and backward the characters who run this kind of think
tanks are, look at this passage: “If Times editorial writers have contradictory
evidence, reasons to believe that Hamas and Fatah do not see a Palestinian
state as 'a stepping stone for the destruction of Israel and the Jewish
people,' it would be useful for them to present it.”
Well, well, well, anyone who asks someone to prove a
negative is good enough to be flushed down the tube into the septic tank to
which he belongs. If you do not believe me, Clifford May, I accuse you of being
an asshole and challenge you to prove otherwise. Until you do, stop farting
your nonsense and learn to talk sense for a change.
People might believe what you say.