Clifford D. May has once again felt it necessary to pull the
Jewish ace card out of his sleeve to defend the indefensible. He did so in the
article he wrote under the title: “Terrorism and economic warfare” and the subtitle:
“It's a one-two punch meant to bring about a Middle East
without Jews,” published on June 14, 2016 in The Washington Times.
What is the Jewish ace card, anyway? It is a chain of
arguments made of interlocking assertions that start with a real or imagined
observation to the effect that a harmless event has occurred. It is then used
as a basis on which to make a series of affirmations that rise in intensity to
warn eventually that the original event will lead to a catastrophic outcome.
The most famous of these chains is the accusation (true or
false) that you are antisemitic. That is, your antisemitic discourse promotes
hatred for the Jews who will be subjected to maltreatment by a society that
will want to emulate the Crystal Night of the 1930s, thus lead to the Holocaust
and ultimately the Final Solution.
Another chain is the one which starts with the accusation
that if you call for the end of Israel's occupation of Palestine, it is because
you wish to destroy Israel and push the Jews into the sea where they will
perish, thus achieve the Final Solution you dream about.
As to the ace card that Clifford May is using in this
article, it begins with the accusation that if you boycott products made by
Palestinian workers under Israeli occupation, it is because you mean “to bring
about a Middle East without Jews.” What he
does not say is why this would be the case when Jewish leaders would (1)
boycott products made by child workers anywhere in the world, and (2) boycott
products made in South Africa if apartheid were to return to that country. So
the question: Why would these two cases not bring about something as awful as a
Middle East without Jews?
The boycott of Israel being the current preoccupation of a
Jewish establishment that's made of self-appointed leaders like Clifford May –
you'll find the boycott to be at the center of every discourse undertaken by
members of that establishment. This explains why May has done his utmost to
resurrect the long demolished arguments that were relegated to the can labeled
“mutilated history”.
To argue that Arab economic warfare against Israel means a
Middle East without Jews, Clifford May has avoided using the examples of (1)
the Israelis who keep for themselves the tax money they collect from
Palestinians on behalf of the Palestinian Authority, and (2) the incessant
demand made by Jewish Americans for the US Congress to end its financial
support of the Palestinian Authority. If he did that, he would be arguing that
the Jews want a Palestine
without Palestinians. In other words, he would be admitting that the occupation
as implemented by Israel
is an act of genocide, pure and simple.
Instead of doing that, Clifford May relied on examples from
the 1930s and early '40s to make his point. He might have gotten away with the
exaggerations he piled up had he stopped there, but he did not. Instead, he
invoked a more recent history and proceeded to mutilate it. Indeed, to make it
sound like the Jews who invaded Palestine
were the innocent group whereas the Palestinians who were invaded in their
homes were the aggressors, he made up fantastic fallacies that fly in the face
of a well established history.
The biggest of those fallacies is the description he gave of
the 1967 Israeli blitz on Egypt
that started the six-year war. He says this: “In 1967, Israel 's neighbors launched a war aimed at
eliminating Israel .”
The truth is that Israel had
been preparing for that war with the help of Britain
and France since the three
of them attacked Egypt
eleven years earlier, and were ordered by then President Eisenhower to end the
aggression and get out of there.
Confident that they had the plan and the means to mount a
massive assault on Egypt 's
army, and itching to cripple it in 1967, the leaders of Israel chose
the most opportune moment to do so. What they saw was the elite force of Egypt away from
home supporting one side in the Yemeni civil war. Knowing that despite all
this, Egypt will speak up on
behalf of its Arab allies, the Israeli leaders intensified their stealing of
the waters from Syria and Lebanon . Egypt spoke –
not to Eisenhower who was no longer there – but to Lyndon Johnson who began the
process of selecting a delegation to go mediate the dispute.
The Egyptians saw this as a reassuring sign, the Israelis
saw it as an opportunity to do to Egypt
what the Japanese did to the Americans at a time when peace talks were in the
air, the Americans were relaxed and the Japanese had Pearl
Harbor dancing in their heads. However, the Israelis had three
problems they needed to solve before launching their sneak attack. While Egypt 's fighting forces were in Yemen , its defense forces were protecting the
homeland, and could deal a severe blow to Israel 's air force. What to do?
As it happened, the Egyptians had deployed most of their
defenses along the Suez Canal anticipating
that if an Israeli air attack were to come, it would be from the East the way
it happened eleven years earlier. The Israeli solution to this problem was to
take the longer route over the Mediterranean Sea, and attack Egypt from the
West. They could do it because they had received the newest longer range Mirage
bombers from France .
The second problem was that an American spy ship named Liberty was stationed in the Eastern Mediterranean,
monitoring the activities of Egypt
and Israel .
Still reeling from what Eisenhower had done eleven years earlier, the Israelis
feared that the Americans will tell Egypt an armada of bombers was
coming towards it from the West. The Israeli solution to this problem was to
sink the Liberty ,
killing the entire American crew.
As to the third problem, the Israelis knew that Egypt
maintained a number of warplanes in the air twenty-four hours a day. Their
strategy being to destroy the entire Egyptian air force on the ground, they
could not do it while some planes were in the air. The solution to this problem
was to take advantage of the fact that during peace time, the planes in the air
would land and another group of planes would take off to start a new shift. In Egypt that was
done between 9:00 and 9:15 in the morning. This meant that the best time to
attack and destroy the air force on the ground was to do it during those 15
minutes. And that's what the Israelis did.
Now, despite the fact that this history is documented and
well known to those who seek the truth, you still have people like Clifford May
shamelessly proclaiming that “In 1967, Israel's neighbors launched a war aimed
at eliminating Israel.” The truth, however, remains that it took the Jews
eleven years to plan this war, procure the necessary equipment, do the training
and rehearse the attack before they could execute it.
And what do the likes of Clifford May want you to believe?
They want you to believe that the Arabs attacked Israel causing no damage. Israel then
counter-punched and won the war. This, despite the fact that following the
Israeli blitz, it took Egypt six years to repatriate its army from Yemen,
procure new equipment, and do it while fighting a War of Attrition that denied
Israel the full exploitation of the natural riches in the Sinai.
And then, in October of 1973, the Egyptians crossed the
Canal, kicked the Israelis out of the Sinai and took it back only to discover
that parts of it had become a haven for terrorists who were pouring in from
everywhere. Egypt
is now in the process of mopping them.
All that is but a microscopic part of the layers upon layers
of lies that the Jews have been telling the American public and political
elites during the half century they had the arena to themselves without someone
pushing back. They cemented the notion that you're anti-Semitic and rooting for
the Final Solution if you do not constantly display your infinite love for
everything that is Jewish or Israeli.
This is why Clifford May can now say with pride that “in
recent months, more than 20 governors have signed anti-BDS laws.” That is, 20
governors have committed the terrorist act of forcing their subjects to engage
in a pattern of commerce they would otherwise want to do differently.
This is a crime that should send 20 governors to jail having
sold their motherland cheaply for a Jewish pat on the back. They must also be
ordered never to contact their biological mothers lest they be tempted to sell
them cheaply as well, and hand the money to their Jewish masters.