If you want to know how and why a minnow can swallow a big
whale but not a small carp, you'll have to read three articles written in a
little more than 3,000 words total.
June 2, 2017 is the day the three articles appeared; two of
them in the New York Times and one in the Wall Street Journal. But guess what;
one of the Times articles was written by Bret Stephens who used to be with the
Journal but defected to the opposition for reasons other than his Jewish fanaticism.
This should not surprise anyone given that in America's democracy, all things
are subjected to the checks and balances of the system except when it comes to
Judeo-Israeli matters where you must be a fanatic Jew or act like one
everywhere you go, or you'll be pushed out of the game.
In fact, Bret Stephens shows what Jewish fanaticism looks
like. Under the title: “Six Days and 50 Years of War,” he wrote the following
condensed passages, highlighting his view of Israel as being a model of
absolute perfection; whereas the rest of the world, without a single exception,
being a model of absolute depravity:
“On June 4, 1967, Israel
faced the fact that France, hitherto Israel 's ally, had imposed an arms
embargo on it. Lyndon Johnson failed to deliver on previous assurances. In 1973
Egypt and Syria unleashed a devastating attack on Israel . Israel offered
Arafat a state; he rejected it. Olmert offered a Palestinian state in Gaza and the West Bank ;
the Palestinians rejected the proposal. Egypt and its allies provoked a
war. The 'international community' abandoned Israel . Jordan
ignored Israel 's
warnings. The Arab League rejected the possibility of peace. Arafat adopted
terrorism; rejected the offer of a state; renounced his renunciation of terror.
Mahmoud Abbas rejected peace again. Gazans turned their territory into a
terrifying model. The United Nations treated Hamas's attacks on Israel as a nuisance but Israel 's
self-defense as a crime against humanity”.
This brings us to Nathan Thrall who wrote his article under
the title: “The Past 50 Years of Israeli Occupation. And the Next,” published
in the New York Times. He begins the article by telling a true story that
captures the Jewish sense of avarice. He then gives a reason why this
particular act has – to the surprise of everyone – lasted as long as it did
with no end in sight. Here is how that goes:
“In 1967 Golda Meir asked Levi Eshkol what he planned to do
with the Arabs now living under Israeli rule.’I get it,' Eshkol replied, 'you
want the dowry but not the bride.' Meir responded, 'my soul yearns for the
dowry, and let someone else take the bride.' It is clear that over the
half-century that followed, Israel
managed to keep control of the land indefinitely without wedding itself to the
inhabitants. This arrangement stood on pillars, among them American backing.
From State to editorials, Americans are told Israel will have to choose to give
Palestinians citizenship or independence. Yet, no one calls on the US to force
this choice. Thus, Israel
chooses continued occupation. The fallout is major increases in American
financing of it, with Israel
receiving more military aid than the rest of the world combined”.
So here you have Bret Stephens lamenting that Israel could not persuade the Palestinians to
accept any offer to settle their differences; and you have Nathan Thrall
lamenting that Israel and
its American cohorts have persuaded the US government to not only accept
the status quo, but finance it at an ever accelerating rate. It is the story of
Israel
the minnow that could not munch on the Palestinian carp yet swallowed the
American whale.
To understand how something like this can happen, we turn to
the editorial of the Wall Street Journal which came under the title: “The Trump
Jerusalem Waiver,” and the subtitle: “The President made the embassy move a
test of the U.S.
credibility”.
The editors begin by telling what the story is about:
“Congress passed a law requiring the State Department to move the US Embassy in
Israel to Jerusalem . Trump issued a waiver to put the
move off”.
Let it be known that every time the Congress passes a law
requiring the Executive to do something for Israel, the scene looks like that
of a wife telling her husband to shine the shoes of her lover or she'll have
sex with him in a public venue. That's how these laws have diminished Uncle Sam
who has reached the point of looking like a male bimbo trying to turn up a
trick in the red light district of the Beltway but can't even find a dog to
shag him.
The editors of the Journal continue: “Moving the embassy is
not a US
priority. But because Mr. Trump made a point of it in the campaign, the waiver
damages American credibility [like] Obama's red line in Syria ”.
Did you see that? Did you see the torrent of filth that the
Jews have loaded into a bag, and attached it to Uncle Sam's neck? They now say
that moving the embassy was never a priority to begin with even if America was made to mortgage its superpower
credibility to satisfy a Jewish whim, and also to show the world who wears the
proverbial pants in America .
Guess what the low life editors of the Wall Street Journal
did after that. They set up a session for Uncle Sam in the horror chamber of
the Jewish dominatrix so that she may show the world how much more she can
humiliate the male bimbo that could never say no to her caprices. Read what
follows and throw up as you weep:
“The White House claims the waiver was given in hopes of
boosting chances for a peace accord. Here lies the bigger problem of the White
House concluding it should spend political capital on the peace that has eluded
Presidents for decades”.
This echoes what Israel
and the mob of Jewish pundits have been spewing since the Oslo Agreement
because, as Nathan Thrall has shown, Israel wants the dowry (land) but
not the bride (population.) And so the leaders of Israel came up with a scheme they
call “the situation,” according to which they started making life so unbearable
for the Palestinians, the Jews expect them to start leaving everything behind
for the Jews to steal, and go look for a new life somewhere else.
But of course, the editors of the Journal do not admit this
is a Judeo-Israeli crime against humanity. What they say instead is this: “The
peace will have a chance when the parties are prepared to negotiate, and the
Palestinians are not.” Yes, this is their habit of yelling: no peace, no peace,
no peace from one side of the mouth; and yelling: blame them, blame them, blame
them from the other side of the mouth.
But that's good enough to get the Congress of brain dead
zombies to look for Jewish shoes they can shine by licking them while pondering
what else they can do to augment Israel
by diminishing America .
And finally, the editors have the gall to say this: “No one
forced Mr. Trump to make his pledge. The Palestinians will pocket this
concession and hold out for more”.