Read Clifford D. May's column: “What does America owe Iran?”
and then imagine (sit alone in a quiet place for a few minutes and) just imagine
people as helpless as the Palestinians who are totally deprived of clout,
trying to negotiate with the fully armed Jews the return of what they stole
from them.
Be advised that May's column also came under the subtitle:
“Debt to victims is more important than the government's claims.” It was
published on August 9, 2016 in The Washington Times. Before you get to the end
of the piece, you'll have gotten the feeling that trying to negotiate with
these people is like talking to a wall made not of bricks but of mud and animal
dung.
Having explained that to purchase military equipment from America “the Shah of Iran deposited $400 million
into a Pentagon account [but] was overthrown soon after,” May goes on to say
that the White House revealed “the equipment was not transferred and we didn't
return Iran 's
money either.” And this is when Clifford May interjects with the scream:
“Return the money to whom?”
He explains his interjection, but before I tell you about
it; consider the following: A non-Jew converts to Judaism and instantly becomes
a citizen of Israel .
He goes to the West Bank of occupied Palestine
under the protection of the American equipped Israeli army where he pushes a
Palestinian family out of the property it has owned since the beginning of
time, and takes the property. Why is he able to do that?
He is able to do it because the Jews argue that no matter to
which ethnic or religious group one belongs, converting to Judaism gives him
the Jewish identity that connects him to Palestine .
He thus acquires all the rights and privileges of the “Jewish people,”
including the unquestioned military, financial and diplomatic support that America bestows
on this sort of crimes against humanity.
Now look at the explanation that Clifford May gives to
justify the interjection ‘return the money to whom?’ Here is how he explains
it: “At what point does the property of a government that has been toppled
become the rightful possession of those who have done the toppling?
International law is murky on this matter.” And there must be millions of
Palestinians who are now interjecting: “By what logic does a convert to a
religion acquire instant ownership of a property that has been in the hands of
others since the beginning of time?”
Despite the fact that America unabashedly protects Jewish
savagery in Palestine, including the demand that Palestinian leaders ought to
sit with the Jews – deprived as they are of any clout – and negotiate the
surrender of their country to a wall of mud and dung, America was wise enough
not to use a similar logic on the Iranians. In fact, Clifford May cites the
names of five American presidents who refrained from doing so.
Here is what he says in that regard: (1) “President Carter
negotiated the Algiers Accord, agreeing that Iran 's rulers would be granted
immunity from criminal or civil penalties.” (2) “President Reagan could have
revoked it but did not.” (3) “President Bill Clinton considered [but only so] using
the $400 million to pay [those] who won judgments against Iran in U.S. courts.” (4) President George
W. Bush could have reimbursed the Treasury using frozen Iranian funds. He did
not. (5) President Obama boasted that the United
States and Iran
are settling an Iranian claim, and Iran
will be returned its own funds, including appropriate interest but much less
than the amount that Iran
sought”.
Did you think for a moment that Clifford May would look at
the word “interest” and not pull his hair off his skull? Well, maybe he didn't,
but he did something else. He screamed: “Shouldn't there be some controversy
over the notion of 'appropriate interest' – which is how the $400 million
'owed' to Iran
rose to the $1.7 billion that is being paid?” In fact, there was controversy as
shown in the saying: “less than the amount that Iran sought”.
If Clifford May and those in his organization cannot do the
math that shows America negotiated a good deal for itself, here is how it is
done: 1.7 billion divided by 400 million means that the principal grew to 4.25
times its original size. This happened over a 36-year period of compounded
interest. You now take the 36th root of 4.25, and that shows an
annual compounded increase of 4.1 percent.