Good news! If up to now you could take a horse to the water
but could not make him drink, you can now because you have it from the horse's
mouth how to do it. This is the mixing of two metaphors into one, of course,
but they describe a real situation that has vexed mankind for a long time. The
reluctant horse represents the group of Jews who are incapable of drinking from
the waterhole of civilized behavior, a situation that has damaged the interests
of humanity too deeply for too long.
Believe it or not, the potential for the impossible to
suddenly become possible has been communicated to us by none other than Elliott
Abrams who is one of the most stubborn horses at rejecting everything
resembling civilized human behavior. He tells about the potential for
transformation in an article he wrote under the title: “Martin's Myths,”
published in the Weekly Standard on May 9, 2014. But make no mistake, Abrams
did not set out to deliberately yield information that would help us understand
the likes of him; he set out to communicate a bunch of falsehoods not realizing
that precious nuggets of gold were buried in his trash.
He is not the first to have created trash containing
precious metals, but in the thousands upon thousands of articles that were
written by Jews over the decades on the Middle East and the other subjects
which are of interest to them, a critical mass was never formed to assist in
cracking open the case – like does the current article. What you have in the Elliott
Abrams piece is at the origin a complete story that develops around an
intriguing plot having a beginning, a middle and an end. It unfolds by the
sheer force of interesting characters that can move the emotions of the
audience in several directions. But the origin is one thing, and the way that
Abrams tells the story is another thing, something that will soon become
apparent to the chagrin of the readers.
In the beginning there was not “day one,” says Abrams, but
“day two when the president selected former senator George Mitchell as his
special envoy.” What happened as a result is the following: “It was downhill
from there,” he goes on to say. And why is that? Because Mitchell who is a
moderate and affable person of Arab descent wanted something for the
Palestinians that even they never asked for, according to Abrams. It is that
Mitchell insisted “on a 100 percent Israeli construction freeze … a condition
on which [even] Arafat and Abbas had never insisted.” This is where the
beginning of the story ends, and where it connects with the middle.
The plot starts to thicken in that middle as Mitchell
becomes ever more frustrated by the games that the Israeli officials played,
and the obstructionist tactics they employed. He resigns his commission with
the net result that the President of the United States is left with nothing
to show for his Middle Eastern effort during the first term of his presidency.
Then, early in the second term, the President appoints Martin Indyk who is an
Australian Jew that became American, having acquired a reputation for being an
anti-Palestinian fanatic hawk that could make a Jewish settler in occupied Palestine look and sound
like a dove.
Indyk worked for the State Department, was appointed
ambassador to Israel for a
while, and upon his return to America
got together with like-minded fanatics with whom he founded a so-called think
tank where they developed pro-Jewish and pro-Israeli viewpoints to promote in
the corridors of the American power structure. Now appointed a special envoy to
the Middle East talks by President Obama in
the expectation that he will do the work that Mitchell left undone, Indyk
produces exactly zero result.
And this is where the ending of the storyline begins to take
shape. Having chided the President for appointing Mitchell and producing “four
years without any negotiations” Elliott Abrams now fulminates about Indyk who
produced the sought after negotiations but no result. And this goes to show
that even if Mitchell had produced negotiations, they would have come to
naught. Which leaves the audience with the question: What's the moral of this
story?
Well, Mitchell and Indyk had one thing in common. They were
both preoccupied with the settlement issue. Mitchell started with the
proposition that construction should stop “100 percent” whereas Indyk seems to
tolerate a little of it but not too much. As a result, Mitchell did not go
through the charade of having phony negotiations whereas Indyk had the
negotiations and something else. That something else is what makes the bulk of
the Abrams article. Of the 1250 words he wrote, 200 are devoted to recounting
the full drama unfolding in the Middle East .
The other 1050 are employed to bicker about the settlement expansion being
rampant or not; the land confiscation being
large scale or not, and other Jewish-to-the-core trivial nonsense.
The lesson that comes out the horse's mouth loudly and
clearly is that when you negotiate with the Jew, do not give and take like you
would with a human being. Instead, send him a signal like you would to a dog,
and wait to see if he gets the message. If he gets it, collect. If he does not,
walk away and seek an alternative. Anything else you do will be a waste of time
and energy.