Let's think up a little story that could well involve you. A
gang of thugs breaks into your house, pushes you and your family into the
woodshed that's out in the backyard, and takes over the house with all its content.
The neighbors who have known you and your family for
generations – going back to the beginning of time – do not like what they see,
thus call the police and tell them what they believe is going on. A group of
law enforcement officers and legal experts arrive and tries to figure out what
the problem is, and what to do.
After talking to the neighbors, the legal group talks to the
gang of thugs, asking it to bring you and your family into the discussion. A
woman steps forward, identifies herself as an American thinker and says her
name is Shoshana Bryen. She gives the police a terse “no” to the request that
you and your family be included in the discussion. The legal experts advise the
gang they cannot talk to it without hearing the other side of the story
directly from you, the other party to the litigation.
Well, you'll know the rest of the story, dear friend, when
you read the article that came under the title: “Does Trump Get the Israel-Arab
Problem?” It was written by Shoshana Bryen and published on June 23, 2017 in
the publication of non-thinkers calling itself The American Thinker.
After an introduction as to who the players are in this
unfolding story, Bryen cuts to the chase and unveils the obligatory scene. Here
it is in her own words: “The parties to the dispute are Israel and the Arab states, not Israel and the
Palestinians.” In other words, she says that you and your family will stay out
of the property's site because from this point forward, you'll have no say in the matter. The
gang of thugs will only talk to the legal experts, telling them to impress upon
your neighbors that the property belongs to the gang. You have no valid claim
to it whatsoever, and they better get used to the idea.
To explain her reasoning, Bryen quotes Machiavelli as having
said that peace is “the condition imposed by the winner on the loser of the
last war.” She makes it clear she embraces this idea, and wants to say that Israel won the
war against the Arab states, therefore it can impose its peace on those states.
This means they must agree to give Israel
what it wants even if it is Palestine ,
which is not theirs to begin with. Try figuring this out.
Aside from the whole idea being a Machiavellian abomination,
Bryen created two serious problems with her reasoning. As stated, one problem
is that the Arabs cannot give away what is not theirs anymore than W. Bush
could. In fact, the Jews tried incessantly to pull that same stunt on him, and
so (to get them out of his hair) he responded by giving them a meaningless
letter. They tried to interpret it as saying that Bush gave them the go ahead
to plunder Palestine ,
and sang this song for years till someone told them to shut the (bleep) up. And
they did … for now.
The other serious problem created by Bryen for herself is
that Israel
never won a war fighting an Arab state. It scored a temporary success in the
initial surprise attack it launched against Egypt in 1967, but kept losing
after that till it was kicked out of the Sinai in 1973. The same thing happened
when the Gazans kicked Israel
out of Gaza ; when Hezbollah kicked it out of
South Lebanon, and when the Syrians kicked it out of East
Golan . This is why Israel
is no longer in those places. It is out not because it won those wars, as fantasized
by delusional Jews, but because it lost them.
So then, what do you think Shoshana Bryen did to justify
embracing the Machiavellian concept? She did what the Jews always do; she
mutilated history with this saying: “The crux of the dispute is the continuing
refusal of Arab states – the losers of all the wars – to meet the central
requirement of UN Resolution 242.” Oh gosh! The woman just shot herself in the
foot like a six-year old playing with a loaded gun. And in so doing, she
created yet another problem for herself.
Maybe she should sit with someone of the Alan Dershowitz or
John Bolton age. They'll fill her in on the history of Security Council
Resolution 242. Briefly stated, this is the resolution that started the Jewish
tsunami of insults against the UN. It is what prompted Dershowitz to dedicate
50 years of his professional life, hollering that accepting the resolution will
mark the start of Israel 's
retreat not to the borders of 1967, but to those of 1948. In fact, this is what
Israel
is legally entitled to, and no more. And that's what provoked John Bolton to
advocate blowing up a good part of the UN building.
What all this indicates is that the Judeo-Israeli propaganda
machine is running out pundits willing to commit journalistic suicide defending
the indefensible. Like every organized mob, the machine of infamy is now
recruiting child foot soldiers to carry on with the fight to the bitter end.