How did America
fall from the position it used to occupy as sole superpower scraping the sky
like a tall building, to a position that is as low as the bottom of the Jewish
cesspool known for its uselessness? The simple answer to this question is that America was
made to believe Jewish ideas were divine. It listened to them, adopted them,
and then realized – when it was too late – that the ideas were worthless
demonic contraptions worthy of a place, not high up in the firmament but down
below, scratching the bottom of the pit.
An example of this kind of ideas is given by David Schenker
and Gilad Wenig, both of whom belong to the Washington Institute for Near East
Policy; a Jewish cesspool, one of the many that pretend to act like think
tanks. The two men co-authored an article under the title: “Uncertain of Obama,
Arab States Gear Up for War” and the subtitle: “A pan-Arab coalition with a
patchy record steps up as Yemen
falls apart and U.S.
policy remains unclear.” It was published on March 30, 2015 in the Wall Street
Journal.
Someone who may not be fully familiar as to who these people
are, but knows a little of what they do – having read some of their writings –
would realize from the title of their article that they are delving into an
exercise in self-delusion. The evidence is that they pretend to know for a fact
that the Arabs are “uncertain of Obama” when the thing that is most uncertain
is their qualification to write about this subject ... or any subject that is
more complicated than a high school preoccupation.
Moreover, they say in the subtitle that the pan-Arab
coalition they are about to discuss has a patchy record without giving a hint
as to what that means. This leaves the reader with the notion that the only
patch these two are feeling as apposed to seeing, are the patches that cover
their eyes, blinding them from the reality of life. And that's not all because,
unsatisfied with committing only two demonic blunders before elaborating on the
subject that is promised in the title, they commit the third and biggest of
their blunders.
It is that they assert the following at the start of the
discussion: “Few organizations boast a reputation of dysfunction comparable to
the Arab League's.” Is that so? But what evidence do they give to illustrate
this statement? This is what they give: “Over seven decades the Arab League has
distinguished itself through infighting and fecklessness.” Is that it? Yes,
that's it. It's all they have. But hold on, hold on. It happens all of a sudden
that the Jews have found someone to hate more than the Arabs; a discovery that
has revived the Arabs and put them on the map. Here it is: “But now, with the
Obama administration seen as missing in action in the Middle
East , the alliance of 22 countries is undergoing a renaissance.”
Wow! One dies and one is reborn.
Aside from the idiotic cause-and-effect linkage they make
between what they believe has been Obama's response or lack of it, and what
they see as the Arab renaissance – above and beyond the so-called Arab Spring –
the description that the two authors give of the way the Arab alliance has
responded to the events in its backyard, is no different from what any alliance
would have done. The Arabs did as well as they could when and where they
intervened, and refrained from intervening when there was no clear purpose for
them to intervene.
The Arab League is intervening at this time in Yemen , and it may have to do the same in other
Arab countries because their world is undergoing a transformation similar to
the ones experienced by other cultures in Europe, Asia and the Americas . As
always, there will be outside forces that will try to take advantage of the
chaos that ensues, which is why the Arab League will be there to protect the
evolutionary process, and allow it to take its natural course.
As to the view of Schenker and Wenig, they express the
Jewish and loathsome opinion that the Arab response “represents a growing
desperation.” Speaking of the campaign in Yemen , they say: “Although the
initial progress was promising, it is not clear the enthusiasm will endure – or
be effective. What the f**k does that mean? Since when has a military campaign
been clear about its durability or enthusiasm? Can't the Jews ever report on an
event in a straightforward manner without being f***ing opinionated about it?
And so they list all the things they wish to see come into
play so as to make the Arab effort fail. Of course, they do not say this is
their wish but suggest this is the reason why America should poke its nose in
what the Arabs are undertaking.
But there too, they do not want to come right out and say so
openly; thus they only pretend to know what the Arabs are feeling. This is how
they put it: “Will Washington provide backing to the Sunni Arab force? The
Arabs don't appear to be counting on it.”