The moment I heard Pat Buchanan express concern that if
George H. Bush (41) would bomb an Arab capital (Iraq's Baghdad,) there will be
riots throughout the Arab World, I knew that his side had lost the argument,
and that Bush was going to bomb Saddam's Iraq as planned.
There were many reasons why Bush was not going to listen to
Buchanan, the most important being that chasing Saddam out of Kuwait was an
Arab initiative in which several Arab armies participated. But there was one
other factor that caused me to dismiss Buchanan's concern. It is that no matter
how well-meaning the Americans are, they have a deeply ingrained erroneous
belief that if two or more of them got together and discussed an issue, they
would resolve it because they own the secrets of the “democratic” process.
Hell, these people can't even resolve issues related to
their country, let alone foreign ones. And we're not talking about the limited
capabilities of a high school debating society, we're talking about the
“greatest deliberative body in history” known as the Congress of the United States
getting paralyzed and coming to a halt even when the members debate purely
American issues.
What I sensed was missing in Buchanan's concern was the realism
that's necessary to formulate a point of view of this kind. I was convinced
that his belief as to how the Arabs will react to Bush's move was based on the
image that Hollywood
had created of the Arabs. Unfortunately, this is what most Americans – from the
lowly pedestrian to the mighty chair of a Congressional committee – also
believe is the real world out there.
That being said about America under normal circumstances,
try now to imagine the abnormal circumstance in which the most powerful
disinformation machine gets into the act, silences everyone and distorts
reality to the point of mutilating it beyond recognition. This, in fact, is
what the Jewish hate and incitement machine has done to those who tried to
correct the tsunami of raw sewage that the mob of Jewish pundits has been
throwing unopposed into the marketplace of ideas for half a century. It did it
to hurt the Muslims and the Arabs, but especially to justify the Jewish
occupation of Palestine .
This is the perspective from which you should read and try
to understand the article that Morton A. Klein and Daniel Mandel wrote under
the title: “Move the U.S.
embassy to Jerusalem ,
and do it soon,” published on February 5, 2017 in the New York Daily News. In
fact, this is their response to an earlier article that appeared in the same
publication, written by Talia Sasson under the title: “Move the U.S. embassy at Israel 's peril”.
What we have here is a typical case of an argument having
two sides: one Arab and one Jewish. But the absurdity of it is that the Jewish
side is told by Jews, and the Arab side is also told by Jews. This defines it
as a dialogue alright, but being presented from only the Jewish side makes it a
one-sided dialogue.
In fact, this has been the pattern according to which the
democratic process has unfolded in America during the past fifty
years. It is no wonder, therefore, that the haggling between the two Jewish
parties is about a promise made by a candidate for the presidency of the United States
to a Jewish audience. It was a promise to give them what does not belong to
him; a promise whose merits and demerits are now being debated from purely
Jewish points of view.
But because the situation is of concern to the Arabs as much
as it is to the Jews, their name was dragged into the debate. Fictitious
sayings, false intentions and invented activities were attributed to them.
Worse, all of this was done – not to challenge any of the premises made by
either of the Jewish sides in this debate – but done to reinforce the premise
upon which they based their arguments. In so doing, they too contributed to the
false portrayal of the Arabs, handing them a gratuitous insult to add to the
injury of incessantly stealing more properties from the already dispossessed
Palestinians.
And so, Morton Klein and Daniel Mandel had the usual verbal
diarrhea that affects Jews like them when they decide to malign the Arabs,
especially the Palestinians. And they reached this conclusion: “The Palestinian
ambition to detach Jerusalem from Israel is an
impediment to peace prospects. The U.S.
position on Jerusalem emboldens jihadist
aggression and reinforces Palestinian hopes that Jerusalem ,
and eventually Israel ,
will pass out of Jewish hands … Deferring or refusing to move the embassy
entrenches this aspiration”.
In other words, having a debate with no Arab participation
has allowed the Jews to portray the Arabs as evil; also allowed them to
conclude that the Palestinians are aspiring to snatch Jerusalem from the hands of Jews. For these
reasons, the Jews thought they needed to warn President Trump that if he does
not move the American embassy to Jerusalem
pronto, he'll help promote those Palestinian aspirations, and be culpable of
something nefarious.