If you have been around children between the ages of 3 and
6, or if you remember yourself at that age, you can tell that the fictitious
example which follows is not an exaggeration. It is the story of a child at
that age who looks everyday at the house being built across the street and
tells her mother that the house looks bad because it does not have a red roof
like the one beside it. And the mother keeps telling the child that the roof is
the last thing they install on a house … and so she'll have to wait till this
happens.
This is what comes to mind when you listen to the supposed
grownups who whine about one thing or another that is still missing in what has
been negotiated up to now between the world powers. And this is what you see in
the piece that was written by the editorial team at the Wall Street Journal
under the title: “Obama's Iran
'Framework'*” which also came under the subtitle: “*Details to be disclosed,
and even negotiated, later.” It was published on April 3, 2015.
To be sure, this is not the first time that something like
this has happened. In fact, Henry Kissinger was hounded by the child-like
grownups who incessantly barked at him during the SALT negotiations, that
something was missing because they could not see how these negotiations were
going to reduce the number of warheads that each of the US and the USSR had in
their arsenals. And Kissinger kept reminding them that in the “current” arms
race, you first negotiate a halt to the race and then reverse it.
But there is a difference between what was happening then
and what was said about it – and what is happening now and what is said about
it. It is that politics used to stop at the water's edge in those days; it does
not now. Worse, everything is now spun as if captured by the centrifuges of the
Jewish propaganda machine. Look at the following “damned if you do and damned
if you don't” approach used by the followers of that machine, and you'll
understand why America is so
paralyzed: “The framework is only an understanding … but Mr. Obama wanted to
announce some agreement … lest Congress ratchet up sanctions on Iran .” The
fault is not that of Obama; it is that of a system which used to work well till
the Jews dragged it into their cesspool of uselessness.
After mentioning a few things they like in the deal, the
editors of the Journal pull from their sleeve the Jewish joker whose jokes are
too deadly to be funny. It is this: “All this would be somewhat reassuring if
the U.S. were negotiating a
nuclear deal with Holland or Costa Rica –
that is, a law-abiding state with no history of cheating on nuclear agreements.
But that's not Iran .”
Look who's talking. This is the same U.S.
which is twisting arms day in and day out, and kicking in the teeth the nations
that dare to demand that Israel
be made to abide by the laws which everyone else is asked to obey or forced to
obey.
To buttress their argument, the editors make it sound like Iran has
violated a provision of the Additional Protocol that was added to the Non-Proliferation
Treaty in1997 when in fact, no such provision ever existed. Moreover, the same
characters are now moaning that Iran
has promised to sign the Protocol again … with the “anywhere, anytime”
provision still not included in it. And they blame Iran for that? The truth is that –
like the Hollands and the Costa Ricas of their dream – Iran did not
cheat on any agreement, but the editors of the Wall Street Journal committed an
unforgivable act of intellectual dishonesty.
And now, they pull the joker from their sleeve again:
“Another giant asterisk concerns the lifting of sanctions.” They express this
concern because, they say, there are loopholes of the kind that allowed North Korea to field nuclear weapons after
reaching its deals with the U.N. and the U.S. And they do something that is
very Jewish; they slap guilt on Iran
by association: “Iran is
probably North Korea 's
best friend.” So what, when neither is twisting arms on behalf of the other the
way that America twists arms on behalf of blood-thirsty Israel?
Speaking of themselves and those like them, the editors do
another thing that is Jewish. They predict what will happen in the Middle East if Mr. Obama does not listen to them. They
call it a “horrific war a decade from now.” This will happen, they say, because
“contrary to the President, the critics of his Iran framework do not want war.”
Coming from those caught practicing intellectual dishonesty,
this is enough to gall you for the day. Still they end with this: “That's why
this agreement needs a thorough vetting and genuine debate.” The
trouble is, they don't know that a genuine debate rests on the intellectual
honesty the Jews robbed them of.