Never before have a Jew and a half-Jew done so much to
signal to the World that everything which humanity did in the past with regard
to the way that it treated the Jews, was justified then and would be today.
Michael Makovsky and William Kristol spilled their guts out,
telling the world what they want for Israel , telling the Congress what
to do, and telling the American President off. They did all that in an article
they wrote under the title: “No Deal” which appeared on November 28, 2014 on
the website of the Weekly Standard, and the December 8, 2014 edition of the
magazine's print version.
After a short introduction as to the subject matter they are
about to discuss, and after making the observation that: “Maybe it's time to
learn the lessons … and adopt a new Iran strategy,” Makovsky and
Kristol start the core of their argument. And so they do the very thing which,
for half a century, has been turning the brain of American legislators into an
Ebola-like liquid; they inject their Jewish venom into that brain.
They do so by projecting into someone they hate the toxicity
that Jewish ideology is made of. This is the hate, only the hate and nothing
but the hate which they harbor for all of humanity, having adapted it to sound
like this: “Leader Ali Khamenei['s] hostility to the Great Satan is central to
his regime's raison d’être.” But the fact is that no one in Iran needs to
hate something or someone to survive, whereas the self-appointed Jewish leaders
need to hate and be hated to maintain the loyalty and obedience of a Jewish
rank and file they keep in a permanent state of anxiety, and sometimes outright
terror. And so, the two authors give Khamenei the lead role in the fictional
stage play they unfold throughout the rest of the article.
Having described the evil nature of the lead character,
Makovsky and Kristol start developing a
narrative that will allow them to make specific demands. Thus, they tell that
in the beginning: “The United
States had a strong hand to play.” In fact,
even Obama – who takes on the role of supporting character – seemed to be on
board when he pledged readiness to use American power to prevent Iran from
developing.” Alas, that same Obama had a character flaw, they point out … in
that he believed he could resolve differences with the Iranians by allaying
their suspicions. He thus undermined what leverage the United States had with Iran , turning a
strong American hand into a weak one.
And that flaw has manifested itself too often, they say,
most notably when (1) Obama failed to support the antiregime demonstrators in
Iran, (2) by sending letters to Khamenei and (3) by failing to confront Iran's
allies in the region. At the same time as those events were unfolding, Makovsky
and Kristol reveal that Obama distanced himself from Israel
and from America 's
traditional Arab allies. Well, what they are really saying is that Obama was
bad in their eyes because he did the right thing.
You see, the Jews were the ones to introduce to America the
idea that every time someone demonstrates against their government anywhere in
the world, the American president should be there barking slogans in harmony
with the demonstrators. The Jews could not care less if this would motivate the
leaders of other nations to start supporting demonstrations taking place in America . But
Obama did care, and he wisely chose to stay out of other people's business. But
the Jews who poke their noses in everyone's business all the time, and would
love to make America
do likewise, hated Obama for not playing the self-defeating game.
This is why the two authors conclude that the Obama
administration does not seem serious enough to prevent Iran from
developing its nuclear infrastructure. And this is why they turn their
attention to the Congress where they plead their case. They begin the talk by
reminding the legislators that they were the ones to impose tough sanctions on Iran that
nevertheless “have failed in their main purpose: stopping the nuclear program.”
And they suggest that this has been the case because: “the main element missing
from the strategy has been a credible military option.” And so they list the
things that Congress can and must do. They begin by trashing the President:
“Obama hasn't learned from his mistakes, so Congress will have to take the
lead.”
The reader must understand that whenever Makovsky and
Kristol say Congress from this point on, they mean to say “we the Jews” because
they know – as does the rest of the world – that the American Congress is an
assembly of traitors who sold their souls for a smile, a song and a Jewish pat
on the back.
The two authors proceed like this: “Congress could pass
stronger sanctions legislation … Congress could pass an Authorization for the
Use of Military Force against Iran … Congress could augment Israel's capacity
to strike Iran by passing legislation that would sell it bunker-buster bombs
and B-52s.” And they explain that this would “send a strong signal of support
for Israel ”
which is the idea behind this whole exercise. They want Iran to understand what
the rest of the world already knows which is that the American Congress would
bankrupt America and kill its young to promote the glory of Israel.
This takes us to the last sentence in the article which can
be rewritten to read the way it is meant to read: “It is time for Congress [us
Jews] to take the lead in this matter crucial to our [Israel 's]
national interest. It is time for us Jews to speak, and to act for Israeli
occupied America .”