It is no longer strange to see the self-appointed leaders of
the Jews curse someone – perhaps a concerned American or an Arab or a
Palestinian – who might express misgivings about what the Jews are doing in
Palestine, for example. In response to any such expression, the Jews will fill
the air, the cyberspace and the pages of the printed media with indignation and
accusations of antisemitism.
Their point is that no matter how much horror the Jews have
inflicted and continue to inflict on the region, especially on the Palestinians
who have been under occupation for half a century already, civilized behavior
dictates that they should ignore the malfeasance of their Jewish “brother,”
forgive him for what he is doing, and work toward reconciling with him.
The trouble is that the Jewish leaders do more than write
about the way they wish others would treat them. They also write about how
others should treat third parties. Thousands of such articles were discussed on
this website, and there is one more that needs to be parsed. It came under the
title: “How Obama is like Ike” and the subtitle: “His dalliance with Iran
mirrors Eisenhower's courtship of Egypt.” It was written by Clifford D. May and
published on December 13, 2016 in The Washington Times.
So we want to know what it is that Clifford May did now that
would have been strange but – having gotten used to it – is no longer strange.
To visualize what he did, think of writing as being like painting. In painting
you have a white canvas to fill with pictures that represent something. In
writing, you have a white page to fill with words that represent something. In
painting you use the whiteness of the canvas as background, or you alter it to
give it a different look. You do a similar thing in writing when you choose to
start the discussion right away or you start with a backgrounder and then
discuss a subject.
Well, my friend, what Clifford May did is that he started
the discussion with the kind of backgrounder that Jews always use. It is a
tsunami of hate-filled propaganda that's designed to incite the readers not to
“ignore the malfeasance of their 'brother,' forgive him for what he is doing,
and work toward reconciling with him,” but to hate him so much, you would want
to literally tear him apart.
Here is Clifford May's opening paragraph: “The Islamic
Republic of Iran is, according to no less an authority than the U.S.
government, the world's leading state sponsor of terrorism. Its Lebanese proxy,
Hezbollah, suicide-bombed U.S. Marines in Beirut in 1983. Iranian-backed Shia
militias killed hundreds of America troops in Iraq more recently. Just months
after the Islamic Revolution of 1979, Iran's rulers began taking American
hostages. They continue to do so”.
Now that you are primed to savage the Iranians, Clifford May
tells you that Obama loves them. But he doesn't want you to worry too much
about this relationship because he has something else in mind. He draws a
parallel between this relationship and one that formed long ago between
Eisenhower and Egypt's Nasser. What May wants you to do now is channel the
hatred you built up for the Iranians and the Iran-Obama relationship, and
direct all that hate toward the Egyptians and the Egypt-Eisenhower
relationship.
No, he is not suggesting that Egypt was a state sponsor of
terrorism in the 1950s – everyone knows this was the specialty of the Jewish
Irgun and Haganah who brought the practice to the region before anyone had
heard of it. There were no suicide bombers either at the time. And there were
no Egyptian “militias” that killed even one American trooper in Iraq or
anywhere. And, of course, Egypt's rulers did not take American hostages. So
then, what's the problem?
The problem – according to a self-made mutilator of history,
recently added to a long list of them, and used by Clifford May to write his
article – is that Eisenhower “miscomprehended pan-Arabism” therefore developed
a cozy relationship with Egypt's Nasser instead of guarding against his doings.
But the truth is that Eisenhower was so busy rebuilding
Europe, developing a strategy for the Korean Peninsula, worrying about the Cold
War and a growing Military-Industrial Complex, he might not have heard the name
Nasser more than once a year. As well, Nasser had his hands so full, turning
Egypt from an agrarian economy to an industrial one, he could not care less
about the other Arab countries. And he did not think highly of the Eisenhower
Administration either whose John Foster Dulles at the State Department was no friend
of Egypt, having blocked the country's request for a loan from the World Bank
to build the Aswan dam and hydroelectric station.
It wasn't until Nasser nationalized the Suez Canal to use
the revenues to build the dam and the station at Aswan, that things changed.
What happened was that the old colonial powers attacked Egypt towards the end
of 1956 trying to retake the Canal. And it was the history of the Jews
whispering hateful propaganda in the ear of Dulles that led to the denial of
the bank loan that led to the nationalization of the Canal that led to the
attack on Egypt that horrified Eisenhower who ordered the invaders to get out
of Egypt before Christmas of 1956. And they did.
The relationship between Nasser and Eisenhower improved a
little following this episode but did not go beyond that. At the same time,
however, Nasser's stature grew large in the Arab world, and that's how
pan-Arabism developed organically, not by design. But that's not the history
that May's new quack is citing. In fact, he wrote what he claims is the history
of the era without mentioning the link between the Aswan project and the Suez
Canal. That's like writing the history of the Pacific War without mentioning
Pearl Harbor.
What would you do with a history like that? You throw it in
the garbage. Right? Well, that's what you do with the Clifford May article as
well as the book on which he based it.