The Jewish leaders who live in America and spend their time
developing the talking points with which they promote the Jewish and Israeli
causes, have a formula for success they use like a rule of thumb.
Those leaders have used the formula effectively on the most
important issue preoccupying them for half a century. It is to keep the
American public and Congress from becoming too preoccupied with the plight of a
Palestinian people that have been under Israeli military occupation ... one
that's paid for and protected diplomatically by America for three generations
already.
The formula the Jewish leaders use goes like this: When the
world is not preoccupied with Palestine ;
pick a prominent non-Jew such as a Mitt Romney for example, pay him a million
dollars and have him tell the American public that the Palestinians are worth
little, and must be forgotten about. But if, for some reason, the world is
preoccupied with Palestine ,
then you must pick a prominent Jew, such as Clifford D. May for example, and
have him say that the Palestinians are doing well under occupation, and no one
should mess with that.
The latest use of that rule has come under the title:
“French fried peace process” and the subtitle: “Another round of diplomatic
posturing would be the likely outcome,” an article that was written by Clifford
May, of course, and published on June 7, 2016 in The Washington Times.
It can already be deduced from the title of the article that
the author is trying to minimize the value of a recently launched French
initiative to bring peace to the Middle East .
As to the subtitle of the article, it indicates that Clifford May is using the
Jewish trick of predicting an outcome that's not dictated by normal logic, but
one that is the product of Jewish and Israeli wishes, substituting for
down-to-earth, common sense logic.
To minimizing the value of a peace initiative on Palestine , the Jews have
a trick that works for them when used on the Anglophile media and political crowd.
It is that they set up a phony hierarchy, at the bottom of which they place the
Palestinian issue. That, in fact, is what you see in the opening paragraph of
the May article. Here it is: “Ignoring the butchery underway in Syria , Iraq ,
Libya and Yemen , as well as the threat Iran poses,
their [the French] focus is the Palestinian-Israeli conflict”.
Well, my friend, say something like that anywhere in the
world, and even a twelve-year old Third World child that may be hungry and
walking bare feet, will look at you in the eye and say: As far as I can tell,
something is being done about Syria, Iraq, Libya, Yemen and Iran. So why in the
name of heaven, hell or earth, are you trying to single out Israel for absolution with regard to the ongoing
horror that is the Jewish occupation of Palestine ?
That's the response you'll get anywhere in the world where
English is not spoken. But study the reaction of the media types or the
politicians in the English speaking world, and you'll be astonished to see how
easily the thinking processes of these people can be paralyzed by a question of
logic that is as simple as 1, 2, 3. And yes, that pitiful condition is at the
basis of the paralysis you see in the America Congress.
And that's why Clifford May can then proceed with the second
paragraph, laying out a case as flimsy as suggesting that Israel has the right
to maintain the occupation of Palestine as long as the other problems of the
world have not been solved entirely …
meaning one hundred and one percent.
So how does Clifford May achieve all that? Here is that
second paragraph: “The French initiative could turn out to be a waste of time.
Let's hope so.” That is, the author expresses his wishful thinking in the form
of a speculation, and then draws the reader into his daydream with the innocent
sounding: Let's hope so.
Now that he has his audience where he wants it, what does he
tell it? Well, he sets up an imaginary agenda for the 26 nations attending the
French conference, and throws in a dilemma whose solution inevitably leads to
the proposition that America
must not interfere with the occupation of Palestine .
Well, “must not interfere” has a condition attached to it.
Here it is: except when it comes to paying hard cash for the horror that is the
occupation. Not only that, but the suggestion is that America must
also do what it can to stave off anything the rest of the world might do to end
the occupation.
Here is how Clifford May accomplishes all that: “They [the
world] agree on the answer. They do not agree on the question. Is the problem
that a Palestinian state does not exist? Or is it that a Jewish state does?”
Thus, he sets it up the question as an either-or
proposition. And this tells the Anglophile media and politicians they must
choose between the Jews and the Palestinians because there can be no compromise
here.