We, the Jury find Israel and NYDN guilty

In a feud where deception plays a major role, the important skill a player can possess is that of setting up an invisible trap for the opponent to fall into before their encounter takes place. And the way to achieve this feat is to make sure that nothing leading to the “high noon” moment looks out of place or irrational.

Playing this kind of game is the forte of the Jews who gained four thousand years of experience rigging their way through every major culture on the planet, learning something from each, and swindling its people before leaving to go pull off similar tricks on the next victim. And that's what the Jews are trying to pull at this time both on the people of Palestine and the rest of world ... with special emphasis on their great American suckers.

You get to see an actual attempt at pulling this scam when you read the New York Daily News (NYDN) editorial which came under the title: “The fruits of hatred” and the subtitle: “The outrage over the Temple Mount in Israel perfectly encapsulates cycles of Palestinian terrorism.” It was published on July 28, 2017.

To explain what happened at the al-Aqsa mosque recently, the editors gave their version of the animosity that has existed between the two sides for half a century. They did so in the first paragraph of the article, made of two sentences. The first sentence goes like this: “Israel takes rational steps to protect its people from terrorism.” The second sentence goes like this: “The Palestinians and the Arab states, in bad-faith hysterics, misrepresent those actions and incite violence”.

Speaking of the Arabs and the Palestinians, the editors pepper the rest of the article with that same sort of characterization. Here is some of that: “The Palestinians and the Arab states play victim and foment more bloodshed … a steady stream of Palestinian lies about imminent Jewish domination of a holy site has fueled histrionics, and death … Those who represent their people gladly watch hatred aimed at Israel's very existence metastasize because they have grown addicted to tragedy”.

The point that the Jewish editors of the New York publication are making, is to the effect that the Jews of Israel are innocent of the charges leveled against them by hysterical Arabs and Palestinians who express the opinion that in their appraisal of the situation, Israel is trying to dominate the holy site. This is not true, say the Jews of New York, because the truth is in the Jewish appraisal of the situation, which goes this way: “[Arab leaders] watch hatred aimed at Israel's very existence metastasize”.

So that's what the clash is about. After a stalemate that lasted fifty years, the following situation has developed: On the one hand, the Palestinians have come to resent Israeli domination of their properties because domination of something has always presaged Israel's acquisition of same. On the other hand, the Jews of Israel and America reject the apprehension expressed by Arab and Palestinian leaders, because they are certain that the Palestinian people don't really dislike being dominated by foreigners. It is just that their leaders use the reality of domination as an excuse to try and put an end to Israel's very existence.

This leaves it up to us, human beings of Planet Earth, to act as jury and weigh the evidence so as to determine on which side it preponderates, thus pass judgment on the case. There are two things we must look at: The current situation and the history that has led to it.

Here is the current situation as reported by the editors of the Daily News: “Three Arab-Israelis entered the Temple Mount and opened fire on police, killing two. The officers happened to be of the Druze faith.” That is, the gunmen were not from the West Bank or Gaza or an Arab country, but from Israel itself. They were, therefore under the influence of no one, but were unhappy about Israeli police guarding the mosque. Yes, the police were not Jewish but Druze, but even if they were Muslim Israelis, it would not have made any difference because the security of the mosque must, by law, remain in Jordanian hands. Doing otherwise was proof enough to everyone, including non-Jewish Israelis, that Israel was implementing a stealthy program of acquisition-creep.

When we add to this the reality that in 69 years of creeping acquisition, the Jews have expanded the territory they dominate from a tiny enclave given to them by the United Nations to 80% of Palestine, it is understandable that the Palestinians and Arab countries feel apprehension about what the Jews are up to now.

Add to this the reality that the current public debate in Israel and America centers around the best way for Israel to acquire the remaining 20% of Palestine without stirring too much repugnance in the rest of the world, and you wonder what the Jews mean when they claim that they think, talk and act rationally.

Given these findings we, the jury representing humanity, find Israel and the New York Daily News guilty as charged. What's more, we find the Palestinians and the Arab countries to be fully justified warning the Jews they are playing with fire.

Furthermore, in the interest of contributing to the clarification of this situation and future ones, we make the following observations and recommendations:

First, it must be understood that the occupier of someone's property is deemed to represent the quintessential terrorist that cannot be terrorized, but must be resisted and/or fought against by any means available to the victims of his aggression.

Second, whereas the Palestinian leaders have a young constituency that does not need to be told how much it is suffering under occupation, the Jewish leaders have a young constituency they continually brainwash with stories and images of the Holocaust, turning the youngsters into foot soldiers that will do their bidding for them on command.

Third, the intent of the Palestinian leaders is the legitimate effort to end the occupation, thus liberate their country from the yoke of Jewish colonialism. In contrast, the aim of the Jewish leaders is the illegitimate effort to maintain the occupation and use it as model to creep-replicate it elsewhere in the region, thus realize the long held Jewish dream of creating a Jewish empire that will last to the end of time.

Fourth, in the same way that the Jews have come out the walled ghettos of medieval times, creating the virtual ghetto of audio-visual and cybernetic spaces, they are currently working on creating congregations in virtual cyberspace. These are presided over not by rabbis, but pundits that proselytize by purveying the gospel which comes out the Likud boiler room. Their prospective flocks are the feeble minds in high places that will convert and work to create the Jewish empire envisaged by the Jewish leaders.

When a beastly War is called a Jewish Miracle

The editors of The Washington Times wrote a 500-word piece that is so bizarre, it is impossible to discuss like a normal article. That's because the editors have failed to respect the structure of a normal discussion-piece on three levels.

See for yourself. The editorial came under the title: “When a murderer is called a martyr,” and the subtitle: “The Palestinian Martyr's Fund is flush with blood money from America.” It was published on July 27, 2017 in The Washington Times.

First, the editors speak of ethics in relation to the situation in Palestine cum West-Bank cum Israel, without once mentioning the words “war” or “occupation,” which is like speaking of an accidental pregnancy without mentioning the unprotected casual sex that has led to it.

Second, the editors equate the violent killing that's committed by an angry spouse or a street hoodlum to that of a terrorist, without defining what they mean by “terrorist or terrorism”.

Third, the editors use the word “martyr” and the words “murder or murderer” several times in the piece without defining any of them.

Because the editors have denied us the clarity of their thinking by failing at these levels, we have the right to judge them by the method of conjecture. That is, we can guess what they might think if Russian settlers invaded and occupied Crimea or Georgia or any of the old Soviet republics they may decide someday to invade, occupy and suppress the local inhabitants. But if we cannot make a guess, we'll ask the applicable questions.

What would the editors say if such policy was implemented by the Russians, and kept for several decades during which time the systemic stealing of properties, including the land, the buildings, and the water and food supplies of the locals was done by the Russians openly and defiantly? Would the editors recognize such behavior as being repeated acts of war? If a local that's resisting the occupation kills a Russian settler – be that a civilian or a soldier – would the editors consider such act, one of spousal violence? Or would they consider it the senseless act of a street hoodlum? Or would that be an act of terrorism in their eyes?

If during an altercation between Ukrainian and Russian forces, one of each is killed, which of them will the editors of the Washington Times call a martyr, and which will they call a terrorist?

Given that the editors end their article like this: “The geopolitics of the Middle East may be complicated, but the morality of terrorism is not; it's evil,” do they mean to say that an act of war – such as the ongoing occupation of Palestine – is a harmless game of geopolitics? Do they also mean that by comparison, the act of a desperate kid who was robbed of a dignified life at birth because he wasn't born a Jew, is evil no matter what the act he committed might have been? The editors of the Washington Times will have to explain this mentality if they want to be taken seriously.

If they consider the occupation to be more understandable than a child's act of desperation when faced with a life of eternal agony under that same occupation – they must stop whining when someone tells them the Palestinians may be trying to arm themselves. On the contrary, the editors should rejoice, even urge their congress of zombies to arm the Palestinians with machine guns, bazookas and RPGs so that they may launch “acceptable” wars against Israel instead of going against its tanks, field artillery and helicopter gunships with bare terrorist hands or biblical slingshots or serrated knives.

And then there is an idea which needs to be explored and explained. When Israel does targeted killing in Gaza or the West Bank, does it deny the pilots who conduct such raids and their families any kind of financial assistance because the pilots would have committed what Israel is beginning to call a terrorist act? Or is it that a killing done by a Jew is kosher, and must not be categorized as terrorism no matter how it was done and what the consequences may have been?

How about the hypothetical case of an Israeli soldier that might be capture and disarmed, but then manages to escape, only to be confronted by the enemy once more. Having no “acceptable” weapon with which to defend himself, he grabs a heavy object, hits the enemy on the head with it, and kills him. Did this Jew commit an act of terror? Or is it that war is hell, and the way to end it is to end the occupation?

It is obvious that there is an urgent need for the Jews to stop whining and stop running to the Americans asking them to self-castrate in full view of the world so as to cement the notion that the occupation of Palestine is not an act of war against the Palestinians but is a Jewish miracle.

The dishonest Lawyer and the Panhandler

Imagine yourself growing up as the child of a well-to-do family, but you know very little about your inheritance because the adults that were supposed to tell you about your roots passed away too soon.

The lawyer that's in charge of the estate has not been telling you much, and neither have the people he hired to look after your needs … and whom he fired when they talked too much or said what they weren't supposed to say. But yesterday was your birthday, and today is your first full day as an adult. You have legal rights that even the lawyer cannot prevent you from exercising.

The first thing you discover is that absent a will from your departed elders, the lawyer appointed himself executor of the estate, skimming it blind and leaving just enough for you to lead a life that was comfortable enough, you had no reason to complain. But you've seen enough of what he did to the family fortune that you decide to fire him. This done, you start a program of discovery to unveil the stories that were hidden from you.

This being a metaphor, it represents the story of the American public which is you, and the relationship that the country is having with the Jewish leaders, all of whom are acting as a single dishonest lawyer equipped with many faces and a single voice. One face is that of Benny Avni who wrote: “The Palestinian plot to end-run Trump at the UN,” an article that was published on July 27, 2017 in the New York Post.

Of the stories you unveil, the most heart-wrenching is that of the panhandler named Palestine whose elders used to enjoy a princely life. But as a child, he saw the family fortune stolen by Israel, a clan of the dishonest lawyer. The entire town, including your elders, came together and formed a United Network (UN) to help the panhandler stay alive, and help him fight his case in court. To that end, everyone in town had donated to an endowment fund for Palestine that the dishonest lawyer tried to dissolve. You learned about his scheme, and this added to your decision to fire him.

The case that the lawyer was trying to make is told in the Benny Avni article. As usual, the approach he took is that of turning the truth on its head, painting the victim as aggressor, and the aggressor as victim. He begins the article by saying that “The Palestinians want your money,” at a time when 38 billion dollars were allocated to go to Israel in addition to the quarter trillion that have already gone there, and the trillions more that will most certainly go in the years and decades to come.

The reason why the lawyer had managed to pull off his schemes during all those years is that he used some of your money to bribe and blackmail the jokers in charge of the town's purse. He trained them to congregate in a place that came to be known as the greatest haggling site to ever dishonor a superpower. When in session, these characters paralyze the business of the nation while falling over each other to give Israel what it needs and does not need, in addition to a bonus or two or three for being so good as to rob you, the American public, and then spit in your face for not being generous enough.

Thus, while all this money is shoveled into the umbilical cord and sent to Israel in the middle of the night without you knowing when or why this is happening, Avni is blowing his entrails out of his belly hollering that the little that's spent on the panhandler is much too much. He also complains that you have no say in how the money is spend even if the whole world is witness to the money being used to feed and shelter Palestinian families, victimized by the money that's taken from American families and sent to Israel hush-hush, courtesy of the congress of good for nothing clowns; except when they are good to Israel, of course.

Mindful of the fact that much of the money which goes to Israel is used to add to the firepower the evil entity uses to suppress the Palestinians and help ethnic cleanse them out of the homeland where they lived since the beginning of time, Benny Avni cannot help but counsel that when you deal with the Palestinians, you ought to have fire in the belly, fire in your eyes, fire in your breath, and a firearm in your hand.

Well then, guess what he tells the congress of fools it must do the next time it convenes to discuss the Palestinian issue. You guessed it, he spoke of fire. Here are his words: “Congress should fight fire with fire,” he says, even if the only fire the Palestinians have known since the advent of armed Jewish thugs into their homes is that of the beastly creatures that humanity has kept in check by incinerating them in fiery ovens. They never learn and never quit.

The self-Deception that fools no one else

Imagine you're an Arab or a Jew of any ethnic background, and you're interested in Middle Eastern affairs. Big shots in Arabia, America or Israel sound you out to see if you'd be interested to participate in the effort to resolve the issues separating the Arab and Israeli sides.

You respond in the affirmative, and even though you already know a great deal about the issues, you look for material that might add to your knowledge, thus make you even better prepared for the task. And you find an article that's written under the title: “Iran Is Pushing Israel and the Gulf Closer Together,” authored by Emily B. Landau and Shimon Stein. It was published on July 26, 2017 in the National Interest.

You read the article and become so discouraged, you wonder if you should get involved in this project if that's the Jewish mentality you'll encounter and will have to put up with. The history, the analysis and the advice given out in this piece look like a tall building that's standing on a pool of mud. It has not crashed yet because there has not been a serious push-back against it. But the moment there will be the slightest push by an opposing opinion, the thing will fly away like a soap bubble in the wind.

What follows is one of the many examples in the Landau and Stein article showing how fallacious is the foundation upon which the two authors have erected their presentation:

“When there are strong interests driving Arab states to cooperate with Israel, we have seen cooperation realized, without insisting on resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The most prominent example is when Egyptian president Anwar Sadat's interest in regaining control of Sinai encouraged him to forge a peace treaty with Israel. Although Sadat included the Palestinian issue as part of the treaty negotiations, the result was a far cry from resolution of the conflict”.

Do you know what this is like, my friend? It's like the Japanese saying they won World War II because they hit the American navy so badly at Pearl Harbor, the American brass realized it was in its interest to cooperate with Japan. And this is what encouraged the Americans to forge a peace treaty with the Japanese.

Pearl Harbor happened in 1941. Twenty six years later in 1967, Israel launched a sneak attack, not on Egypt's navy, but on its air force. This allowed the Israelis to occupy the Sinai. They called on Egypt to start negotiating, but Egypt gave the famous three nos, one of them being “no negotiation.” Instead of negotiating – which would have amounted to surrender – Egypt fought a behind-the-lines war of attrition while preparing its military to cross the Suez Canal in force, and kick the Israelis out.

When ready, Sadat gave Israel an ultimatum: “get out of the Sinai or we'll come after you,” he said. The Jews in Tel Aviv did not laugh but those in New York did, and they told the Israelis not to budge. To show how serious he was, Sadat staged a demonstration. He ordered the military to use the Nile in front of the Cairo Hilton Hotel (where the Americans usually stayed) and do a rehearsal there, mimicking the crossing of the Suez Canal. The Americans – Jews and others – could not have missed the show because it was a full dress rehearsal, complete with pontoon bridges, tanks, artillery and helicopters … the whole works. Still, the Jews of America were not impressed, and they told the Israelis not to worry about a thing.

The Egyptians attacked in 1973, blew away the Israeli Bar Lev line, and took control of the canal region. Sadat that had promised America's President Nixon he would not cross into Israel proper, kept his word. Kissinger got involved in what came to be known as shuttle diplomacy. He arranged for a ceasefire and worked out a timetable for Israel's orderly evacuation of its troops without further bloodshed.

While this was happening, the Egyptians cleaned up the canal and reopened it for navigation and for the stream of revenues they were missing so badly. When all was quiet except for the American diplomatic effort, Sadat extended a magnanimous hand of friendship to the Israelis. This happened in 1977, four years after the Egyptians had crossed the Canal, and ten years after uttering the three nos. Two more years after that – with the assistance of America's Jimmy Carter – the two sides signed a peace treaty in 1979 to take effect a year later.

Now, my friend ask yourself why it is that in the face of this chronology, Landau and Stein would characterize those events like this: “The most prominent example is when Egyptian president Anwar Sadat's interest in regaining control of Sinai encouraged him to forge a peace treaty with Israel”? There is only one answer to that question: Because they are Jews. And that's what is so depressing about our dear Planet.

What is at stake now is what's left of Palestine. The Jews who already gobbled up 80% of it wish to acquire the remaining 20%. For this to succeed, they plan to get rid of the millions of Palestinians who live there. Given that Israel never returned an inch of stolen land it did not lose in a fight, no negotiator will resolve that situation without the full use of the clout that America has over Israel.

Using its clout, America has the means to help Israel see that the time has come to evacuate the West Bank. If this happens – not only Israel – but America too will come out the pool of mud where Israel has erected its soap bubble. It's about time.

The Coin of Compromise has three Sides

Call it the relativism of absoluteness if you want, but that's what Clifford D. May has just discovered, though he still has a long way to go before he'll see the full landscape of this convoluted condition.

He wrote: “Does Al Jazeera deserve to die?” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Reporting the news is not the primary mission of the Qatari-owned network,” published on July 25, 2017 in The Washington Times.

Clifford May does not respond directly to the question that's in the title of his article because he likes the idea that Al Jazeera is in the Middle East attacking what he views as the despotic regimes of the region. But he also dislikes the idea that Al Jazeera is owned by a regime that's no different from those it is attacking.

And so, Clifford May does what comes naturally to those who – like the owners of Al Jazeera – try to extract something from the existing condition by milking it … doing so while giving away nothing in return. In fact, he wants the “Western media professionals” to learn how Al Jazeera does it, having himself embraced the teaching of the al Qaeda leader who said, “More than half of this war is taking place on the battlefield of the media”.

But look what just happened. Clifford May says that the despotic rulers of the Middle East as well as the owners of Al Jazeera and the leader of al Qaeda are not different from each other when it comes to the way they treat the media and how they use it. Moreover, he discloses that he has grown to love the capabilities these people have developed, and wishes that the Western media professionals do as much.

But how does that stack up against what he used to preach until now? Well, he used to say that the world was divided into two distinct factions as different from each other as black and white. He would take pains to explain that there was no gray area between them because a sharp demarcation line kept them clearly and absolutely separated. One side was made of good guys; the other of bad guys.

There is no doubt now that Clifford May will have to drop the view he used to hold about the structure of the ideological landscape being absolute. But because it will be impossible for him to make a hundred and eighty-degree turn and adopt the view that everything is relative, he'll be forced to create a third condition that's neither absolute nor relative but one to which he may give the oxymoron name “relative absoluteness.” And he'll be named the pioneer that started the science of the three-sided coin.

You'll understand how Clifford May got trapped in that logical conundrum when you find out how blown away he was by the discovery that his belief in the structure of everything being of the binary “either or” kind, does not apply in the Arab World, and perhaps in some other places too. Here is how that revelation came to him:

He first noticed that the Gulf Cooperation Council comprises six nations, “all of them Arab, Sunni, ruled by royals and wealthy thanks to vast reserves of petroleum,” who were not best friends as he expected. He then learned that three were joined in a common cause by Egypt that's neither oil-rich nor monarchical, but completing the quartet of solidarity. There goes the theory of birds of the feather sticking together. And there goes Clifford May's view of a coin that's made of two separate and unequal sides. Welcome theory of the three-sided coin.

All of that prompted the writer to recall the saying: “hypocrisy is the tribute vice pays to virtue,” leaving no doubt that he means to say Qatar is the vicious and hypocritical party, paying tribute to someone. But what's the tribute, and who is the virtuous recipient? We can find out by employing the process of elimination as follows:

Listing all the parties that he mentions minus Qatar and Al Jazeera, there remains two groups. One is the Arab quartet, the other Al-Qaeda and the Western media professionals. That is, either the Arabs are virtuous and deserve praise whereas the terrorists and the Western media are villains, or it is the other way around.

But Clifford May spent a lifetime professing his hatred for the Arabs, except on this occasion when he seems to tolerate them somewhat. As well, he spent a lifetime loving and “protecting” the democratic nature of the Western media, except on this occasion when he seems to dislike them somewhat. So, what's he to do?

His solution seems to coincide with that proposed by the State Department: “Convince Qatar to make significant compromises but not close Al Jazeera.” Will he still continue to pretend protecting the so-called democracies?

The full Flowering of a despotic Democracy

Here is a perfect example showing how Jewish pundits set up a deception and use it as a foundation upon which to erect an entire deceptive monument on top of it. The example came in the form of an article under the title: “Malice on the Mount” and the subtitle: “The hate behind the latest Mideast crisis.” It was written by Benny Avni, and published on July 24, 2017 in the New York Post.

Here is how the writer has set up a deception to serve as foundation:

“Are they really going to start World War III over metal detectors? Yes, it's a holy site. But so is Mecca, which has metal detectors. And the Vatican. And many buildings in Manhattan and around the United States. Yet the UN Security Council convened a session on this 'threat to peace and security' – and did so behind the safety of UN metal detectors. This isn't about metal detectors”.

He mockingly says it's not about metal detectors. But you know what? He is correct because the Arabs never said it was about metal detectors, even if he tried to give the impression it's what they said. In fact, the Arab view is that Israel has been robbing Palestinian property in the name of security ever since 1948. Now that the Jews have decided to implement a scheme of annexation that encompasses the entire West Bank, they realize they must first get the world accustomed to the idea of Israel controlling (1) the borders that the West Bank shares with Jordan, and (2) the al-Aqsa mosque compound which is currently under Jordanian control.

By definition, to be in charge of the security of something is to control the thing. Thus, the Arab anger is not about the metal detectors; it's about the Israeli policy of robbing the Palestinians of their properties under the false pretense of security. This is why the metal detectors were brought-in the moment that an excuse to do it presented itself. So we ask: in light of all that, what does Avni say the detectors are about?

Well, he reacts in the typical Judeo-Yiddish tradition of not responding directly to the question. What he does instead, is throw a ton of insults at his bête noire, President Abbas of the Palestinian Authority. This done, he follows the Jewish tradition of shooting himself in the foot trying to have it both ways. He does that by complaining that: “Abbas has never acknowledged Jewish ties to the Western Wall – or any place in Jerusalem, for that matter.” And he shoots himself a second time by wondering aloud: “Is it reasonable to expect Israeli leaders to acquiesce to complaints at the risk of Israel's own security?”

He thus establishes that the issue is about security. However, whereas security is of real concern to the unarmed Palestinians who were robbed of most everything they own over the past half century, it is fake concern to the fully armed Jews who keep using security as a pretext to extend their control over Palestinian properties. In fact, like night follows day, the use of that excuse has always served as harbinger of the Jewish moves that culminate with the grabbing of more Palestinian properties, and the annexation of more Palestinian lands.

But how do these people get away committing this level of criminal activities for this length of time when no one else would last a month? They can and they do because they lived 4,000 years without a country of their own. During that time, they acquired the experience and developed the methods by which they infiltrate the ruling class of the countries that give them shelter.

Once entrenched in their positions, the Jews promote their interests at the expense of the people that welcome them into their homes. They serve themselves handsomely not by winning the goodwill of the public; they do it by convincing the rulers to impose their design for changing the existing way of life on a society that will most certainly reject their vision.

As to the approach they use to work on the rulers; it is always the same. They find out what argument sells in a given place at a given time, and they embrace it as if it were written in their DNA. This is why they, who invented Marxism, now masquerade as liberal democrats in the countries that used to be authentic liberal democracies but were altered by them to now practice a form of Jewish despotism. But they continue to call themselves democracies.

You can see how Benny Avni plays his role in this masquerade by watching him accuse others of what the Jews do in occupied Palestine. Here is a passage: “Remember: Israel is a democratic Jewish anomaly in a despotic, largely Muslim region.” Who else but a Jew would beg to be holocausted with this much force and conviction?

Adding a new Chapter to the Old Testament

There are two new pieces of evidence showing that among the mandates of the Jewish propaganda machine, there is one about writing a new chapter to add to the Old Testament. This is the Jewish equivalent of writing the first draft of history, which is something that the official and unofficial chroniclers of real history do.

The first piece of evidence that tells what the Jews are up to, is the mangled way that their media outlets both in Israel and America have been describing an incident that took place while President Trump was visiting occupied Palestine not long ago. They said that Netanyahu showed Trump a video about Abbas inciting the Palestinian public to commit violence. They went on to say that the American President was so deeply touched, he confronted Abbas with the truth, accusing him of trickery. And they capped it all by asserting that Trump angrily dressed down Abbas who was visibly shaken.

Well, my friend, this is the kind of stuff that blends nicely with stories written in the genre of the whale that swallowed a Hebrew prophet and regurgitated him alive on the beach days later. It is something like the story about parting the sea, letting the Jewish looters and murderers pass, and closing it to drown the cops that came after them. Or how about the story of the Moses snake that swallowed the Pharaoh's snake?

These stories are religious fantasies that were tailor-made to fit the Old Testament. So was the story about Donald Trump cocooning with Benjamin Netanyahu, to then have a tantrum confronting Mahmoud Abbas, thus scaring the stuffing out of him the way that the mighty Pharaoh of Egypt was scared when he lost his snake.

The second piece of evidence that tells what the Jews are up to, came under a title that says: “America's Future Is with India and Israel,” which is an article that was written by James Jay Carafano, and published on July 23, 2017 in The National Interest. The remarkable thing about this piece is that the writer draws no demarcation line between the reality of the events he describes as being historical facts, and the fantasies he imagines in fulfillment of the deep seated wishes he harbors. He navigates between one and the other; and sails through them both as if reality and fantasy were made of one and the same substance.

As indicated in the title of the article, Carafano asserts that reality is to the effect that the trio of America, India and Israel are natural allies that must take on the task of fixing the world. The trouble is that he does not believe this is true. And so, he blends the assertion with advice he gives about the need for the threesome to form such an alliance and go save the world.

Here is what Carafano says about India:

“America needs to coordinate with India on how to respond to China. The Trump team needs new ideas … An initiative from India offers the U.S. another opportunity to help reset the global stage. India is an emerging economic power. For decades, India has had warm relations with Iran. India is principal investor in the Chabahar Port project in Iran. Delhi has not walked away from Tehran. Modi's visit to Iran last spring was carefully orchestrated. The Trump administration shows every sign of continuing the momentum toward a closer relationship with India. The recent meeting between Modi and Trump could not have gone better, and there is plenty of room to grow that relationship”.

And here is what he says about Israel:

“Before the trip to Israel there were signs Modi was broadening relationships in the region with Gulf countries as well as Israel. Trump also signaled he wants to be a friend to Israel. Few steps signal shifting strategic intentions more than multilateral dialogues. In that respect, a trilateral dialogue among India, the United States and Israel would draw the attention from friends and competitors. U.S. participation in this dialogue would demonstrate that the White House is thinking of the long bridge that spans U.S. interests across the Indian Ocean. Cyber will be a cornerstone of the U.S.-India strategic relationship. Already a small-cyber power punching above its weight, Israel fits in nicely between the interests and capabilities of the other two countries”.

We can see from these passages that India views itself as a superpower in the making. It is looking to draw smaller nations into orbit around it. What India is not doing, is seek to become a satellite around America, or heaven forbid, share an orbit with America around Israel. Carafano knows this as well as anyone.

A short Argument and a long tedious Haggle

Noah Daponte-Smith wrote an article in two parts. The first is about the Boycott, Divest and Sanction (BDS) movement that's mounted across the globe, including America, in an effort to discipline Israel and make it a normal country … if that's at all possible.

The second part is about what he calls the hypocrisy and barren public sphere in America. In fact, the title of the article is just that: “BDS, Hypocrisy, and Our Barren Public Sphere.” It was published on July 21, 2017 in National Review Online.

Having articulated a short argument on BDS in the first part of the article, Noah Smith started the second part by expressing his hope that his “condemnation of the Senate bill that would ban boycotts of Israeli products, will suffice for those who ask when the right-wing defenders of free speech would profess their opposition to the bill.” He then carried on with a long and tedious haggle … which is a continuation of the usual debate he's been having with his left-wing opposites.

My interest in this discussion is what he says about BDS, and only that. What he says, in fact, is very little, all the more so because he only repeats what the ACLU said in a letter to the senators backing the bill. To that, he simply adds the obvious remark that the “proposed legislation is unconstitutional and unconscionable. The senators supporting it should be ashamed of themselves.” Big deal.

To explain my point of view regarding the BDS movement, I start by recalling an incident I experienced two decades ago of which I had the opportunity to tell the story nine years ago; just a few months after I started this blog. I did so in an article I wrote under the title: “Charity Begins At Home Not Israel.” It can be accessed in the archives at the right side of this page by clicking the year 2008, and then clicking the month of June. It is worth reading the entire article.

For those who will not do so, I here repeat its most salient parts. When Egypt got interested in relaunching its mining industry after a long hiatus, I approached a number of mining executives in Ontario, Canada where I live, and asked why they were not bidding for the opportunities that were opening up. They said they were worried, and one of them explained the reasons why. Here is a condensed version of that:

“The government of Ontario passed legislation that prohibits business from complying with the Arab boycott of Israel. Now, every time a company does business with an Arab country, the executives can be dragged to court and forced under the threat of ruin and doing time in jail to explain why they are not doing business with Israel. They would be considered guilty of anti-Semitism, forced to apologize publicly and made to promise they will do business with Israel as soon as possible. They will be placed on a watch list, and expected to jump on every occasion to pour money into Israel whether or not it made business sense. Meanwhile, every document in their filing cabinets could be subpoenaed and examined by the Jews to ascertain that no one in the company harbors now, or has ever harbored ill feelings toward Israel or the Jews”.

This is how McCarthyism in reverse looks like.

Things have changed, and several Canadian companies – including some from Ontario – have gone to Egypt and are operating in the country, or have applied to operate there. What is unlikely to happen now, is that another Canadian province will contemplate looking at this kind of legislation any time soon.

As to the United States of America, what is flabbergasting in that country about the already weird federal congress as well as the State governors and their legislatures, is that they embraced the Jewish argument that was responsible for the worldwide popular uprisings repeated across time and space. They all demanded that the Jewish question be resolved in any fashion and without delay.

Are these politicians so dumb they have difficulty grasping the truth? Or are they so devilish, they know the truth but pretend not to because their goal is to make the violent outcome happen as soon as possible to get rid of the Jews in their midst while pretending to be friends with Israel?

Think about it … knowing the history of the Holocaust, the lieutenants of the American ship of state are well aware they cannot impose the will of the Jews on their people, forcing them to buy products they don't want to consume. And yet, here they are doing it. In fact, they seem to feel so proud of what they are doing, they pin their evil act on the chest to display their unbounded pride.

What they may not know, however, is that in the eyes of others, this performance looks like a parent that has gone berserk, has raped or murdered everyone in the family, and now asks the world to congratulate him or her for a job done well. Just follow what the American ambassador to the UN is telling the world and be disgusted.

It is a horrible position to have adopted even for an autocrat, let alone one that pretends to be a liberal democrat.

The Lesson America needs to learn quickly

Time after time the Jewish leaders walked into a perilous situation without an exit strategy or a plan B on which to fall back in case something went wrong. And time after time something did go wrong, and the innocent Jewish rank and file that the leaders dragged behind them, paid a heavy price for the irresponsible behavior and the myopia of those who deceived them.

At times the Jewish leaders even convinced someone like Joseph Stalin of the Soviet Union or Anthony Eden of the United Kingdom or Guy Mollet of France to walk with them into a situation that was described as a cakewalk, only for the fools to realize they made a big mistake listening to charlatans. They eventually pulled back, with Stalin doing so before his country had suffered serious damage.

As to Anthony Eden and Guy Mollet, their two countries quickly descended into irrelevance. Some historians have even argued that Britain ceased to be an empire as a result of its participation in the ill-advised Suez adventure. In time, the three countries cut their ties with the Jews, licked their wounds and promised themselves never again to be taken for sucker by a Jew.

The same cannot be said about the newest fool to be suckered by those same Jews, however. Despite its repeated humongous losses, the United States of America – acting like a giant supplicant to an Israeli midget that's bossing it around like a slave driver – continues to let the Jews send it into one misadventure after another. Two articles, one written by a Jew living in Israel; the other by a Jew living in America, tell a story that could easily be adapted for The Twilight Zone.

Shmuel Rosner, who lives in Israel, wrote: “Why Israel can't Support a Cease-Fire in Syria,” an article that was published on July 20, 2017 in the New York Times. Two days later, the American columnist Bret Stephens published: “Trump's Foreign Policy: The Conservatives' Report Card,” appearing also in the NY Times that has become the new base of operation for Stephens since his defection from the conservative Wall Street Journal.

Rosner's point is that Israel finds itself backed into a corner from which it cannot see a way out because the cease-fire that was arranged by America and Russia seems to take hold in Syria. No option except the one upon which Israel has always relied, can save it now from its quandary. Rosner describes the option as follows: “The United States, being a superpower, must have a strategy for Syria.” No kidding!

So here you have it, the Jews who sent America into the Middle East without a strategy or a plan B, but only with the promise that Assad is doomed, that Syria will become Putin's Vietnam, and that Iran's influence will be contained – are now admitting that all those predictions turned out to be false. The consequence is that the situation in the Levant has come close to the point of no return, and the Jews are begging America to develop a strategy for Syria that will save Israel. Who would have thought?

As to the Bret Stephens article, the writer's point is that President Donald Trump has not lived up to the conservative foreign policy he promised he will adopt if elected. One reason why Stephens levels this charge is that once elected, “Trump showed how eager he was to oblige the man in the Kremlin, this time at the expense of Israel.” He is lamenting that the cease-fire which is meant to save Syrian lives, will disadvantage Israel in the competition it is running against Iran to become the hegemon of the Levant. What were those two leaders thinking? That a million Syrian lives are more valuable than the ego of a bunch of Jewish losers? Phew!

Thus, on one hand, America becomes a worthy superpower only when it rescues Israel every time that the little thing puts itself into trouble, according to the Israeli Shmuel Rosner. On the other hand, the Republican Party becomes worthy of its conservative label only when it caters to the needs of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel, according to the Jewish American Bret Stephens. But what does the authentic American public think?

Two relevant questions remain hanging in the air. One: Will America relent under pressure similar to the non-stop nagging that's produced by the likes of Shmuel Rosner, and go back to playing the role of Israel's bodyguard? Two: Will the Republican Party relent under pressure similar to that produced by Bret Stephens, and go back to being the obedient servant of Israel, as well as the supplier of all its needs?

Please respond, ye Congress of useless traitors.

Separation of Powers and the Package Deal

The week during which the Trump administration certified for the second time that Iran was complying with the nuclear deal, the veil was lifted on the most damning weaknesses inherent to the so-called liberal democratic system of governance.

It happened when the mob of Jewish pundits and its slavish followers descended on those weaknesses like a family of crocodiles gathers around the carcass of a wildebeest that had fallen into their pond. And like the crocodiles, the mob took advantage of the weaknesses, ripping apart the safeguards that were put in place to protect the philosophy of governance that served the American Republic reasonably well for more than two centuries before the advent of the Jewish mob.

The important safeguard inserted into the system by the Constitution being the principle of separation of powers between the institutions, the Jews deliberately targeted it for dismantlement. That's because the principle protects the right of the institutions to check and balance each other. In fact, this is how the system cleanses itself and remains free of corruption as much as this can be done in practice. But all of that stood in the way of the Jews being able to monopolize the resources of the Republic, and this is why the Jewish mob kept attacking it whenever it could. It did so this time, hitting the principle of separation with unprecedented savagery.

Out of the dozens of verbal and printed condemnations that were  thrown at the administration's certification of the nuclear deal in the days that followed the certification, I mention nine printed articles, and recommend them for reading. They are the following:

1 – “The U.S. Should violate the Iran Deal,” an article that was written by Jonathan S. Tobin and published on July 20, 2017 in National Review Online. Like the title indicates, the Jews have grown so galling, they openly advise America – that used to be the respected enforcer of the rule of law – to break the law so as to better serve the interests of Israel.

2 – “Certifiable Madness,” a piece that was written by the editors of National Review Online and published on July 19, 2017. Like most of the National Review editorials, this one contains not a single idea that's not a rehash of what was said previously, repeated several times over, and echo-repeated several more times.

3 – “The Iran-Deal Swindle,” an article that was written by Elliot Kaufman and published on July 18, 2017 in National Review Online. Kaufman's main complaint is that Iran is too smart and getting smarter; too powerful and getting stronger. He wants to see something done to stop it in its tracks.

4 – “Compliant but dangerous Iran,” an article that was written by Patrick Meehan and published on July 18, 2017 in The Washington Times. Meehan admits he opposes the deal not because Iran would fail to comply with its provisions but because he believes the deal is flawed.

5 – “Time is Running Out on Iran,” a piece that was written by the editors of the Weekly Standard and published on July 18, 2017. As always, the editors of the Standard listened to the goofiest voices on the subject, and repeated them in their editorial. This time they heard the voice of the four bozos in the Senate's apocalyptic quartet: Tom Cotton, Ted Cruz, David Perdue and Marco Rubio – and seconded their refrain.

6 – “On Iran, Trump Is Obama 2.0,” an article that was written by Reuel Marc Gerecht and published on July 18, 2017 in the New York Times. Gerecht struggles trying to prove the point that Iran kidnapped an American student of Chinese origin because the nuclear deal is not perfect. He thus recommends that “the US needs to scare Iran's ruling class, convince it that hostage-taking carries an unbearable price”.

7 – “Iran on the march, Trump's tough talk aside,” a piece that was written by the editors of the New York Daily News, and published on July 18, 2017. As always, the editors of the Daily News – who parrot the sayings of Netanyahu, always Netanyahu and no one but Netanyahu – have done it again: they repeated what he said.

8 – “The Iran Nuclear Deal Isn't Working,” an article that was written by Timothy Stafford and published on July 20, 2017 in The National Interest. Stafford says that preventing Iran's long-term nuclear-armed trajectory is more important than compliance. And he hopes the Trump administration will take that into consideration.

9 – “The Iranian Express,” an article that was written by Emanuele Ottolenghi and published on July 21, 2017 in the Weekly Standard. Ottolenghi blames the nuclear deal for Iran obtaining the money, and for getting the green light to purchase airplanes. He says the planes are used in the Syrian war and in other offensive activities such as flying Hezbollah operatives on Boeing aircraft. He wants Trump to put a stop to that.

But how did the Jews come to the point of getting away using any incident in the news of the day to buttress the arguments that serve Israel's interests? They did it by playing a game you may call the double-path labyrinth. It's something they started playing in the sixties, and have been perfecting ever since in the absence of push-back from an Arab community that was not allowed to respond or to explain what the Arab governments were thinking.

This is how the game is played. The Jews set-up one path and call it “separation of powers.” They simultaneously set-up another path and call it “the package deal.” The Jewish lobby tells the American government to offer the Arabs “A” and “B,” if they will do “X” and “Z.” The Arabs protest that there is no connection between “A and B,” and there is none between “X” and “Z.” They don't see how the scheme can be made to work. Sorry, say the Americans, this is a package deal. Take it or leave it.

The Arabs mull over the American offer, tweak it enough to make it work without altering it too much so as not to upset the Americans. And they present it to them in this form: If you offer us “C” and “D,” we'll respond by doing “V” and “W.” The Americans take the modified proposal to the Jews whose representative explodes in a fit of rage, accusing the Arabs of knowing nothing about the fundamental principle of separation of powers which says that you cannot connect “C” and “D” anymore than you can “A” and “B.” And you cannot connect “V” and “W” anymore than you can “X” and “Z”.

This completes the Jewish labyrinth in which no one can find a way out. Now, my friend, read those nine articles again, and see how many As, Bs, Cs, Ds, Vs, Ws, Xs and Zs were conflated to achieve what purpose on behalf of Israel; and how many were separated to achieve what purpose.

And when you're done with all that, ask yourself what principle motivates these people. Is it a noble principle or a crass principle painted with the colors of nobility?

Wants to become a Decomposition Bacterium

When the biological devices that keep an organism alive cease to function, we say that the organism has died. When this happens, bacteria attack the remains of the organism, and begin the process of decomposing them. Such process is the most sickening thing to witness; to even think about.

Because there is a first for everything, Benny Avni has spoken in the name of the American nation, suggesting that the Iran deal has, for all practical purposes, died and the process of its decomposition is about to start. For this reason he wants America to become the bacterium that will help the decomposition take place because “it's best that we, not the mullahs or their allies, control the process of its demise,” he says. What's this about?

This is typical of what makes the Judeo-Yiddish culture what it is. You may call it the intellectual fuel that powers the schizo-paranoiac. The schizophrenic side of the Jew pushes him to wish he could own and control anything and everything he encounters. When he tries to do just that, he usually experiences an initial success that whets his appetite to try harder still so as to go farther still. However, sooner or later, he finds himself overstretched and thinly spread-out. This is when his paranoid side kicks in; forcing him to worry about the way the adventure might end. He responds by laying the groundwork that will allow him to blame his upcoming defeat on others.

You can see these tendencies in the Avni article (Obama’s Iran deal lives on but its days are numbered, NY Post, July 18, 2017.) To convince the public it should embrace the Judeo-Yiddish culture and become like him, he tells his readers not to believe what they see because he is ready to tell them all about what they don't see … which is the truth they are not aware of. Here is how Avni begins to explain all that: “Iran-deal supporters rejoice: Trump is signaling that the Iran deal is unassailable … Or is he?”

Avni then says that if the deal lives on – given that President Trump has certified yet again that Iran is in compliance of it – that's only temporary. He also says he is sure of that because he was privy to the internal discussions that took place inside the Trump administration. He reveals that he knows someone named James Carafano, an insider that leaked to him what's going on inside the administration. Carafano told him this: “The administration is working on an Iran policy review that's due to be completed this summer. Afterward, it may start to paint Iran's deal violations in darker colors”.

Until this happens, the mind of the schizo-paranoiac tells him he can latch on to a straw and pretend it is the winning round that presages the upcoming total victory. This is how Avni made this point: “Far from unassailable, the qualified certification indicates that its shaky foundations are beginning to crumble.” But what exactly is that qualification? It is the following, says Avni: “The administration announced new sanctions on Iran for various non-nuclear offenses.” Did he say non-nuclear offenses? So what's the connection with the nuclear deal? Nothing.

If there is no connection between the sanctions imposed and the nuclear deal, why not forget about this useless straw, and go ahead with real sanctions designed to bring about real results? Good question, and the answer is that such sanctions cannot be imposed if you take into account the repercussions that can be enormous as shown by the full internal debate which Avni says has appeared in numerous press reports:

“Rex Tillerson, H.R. McMaster and James Mattis won an internal debate against Steve Bannon, Mike Pompeo and Trump. The latter group wanted to put the deal in limbo and opening Iran to nuclear sanctions without tearing up the whole thing”.

But tearing up the whole thing would be risky as reported in the Avni article:

“The reason the mullahs do all this is that we have few tools to confront them. The Iranian Foreign Minister told CNN that Trump is in violation of not the spirit, but the letter of the deal. The Revolutionary Guard Corps may force a collapse of the deal. Some of our allies, and certainly China and Russia, may well buy the argument that America is at fault for the collapse”.

This leaves only one option for the schizo-paranoiac to take. It is to declare: We won a partial victory instead of a full victory because the previous administration did not do its job. But rejoice ye men and women of goodwill because the full victory will be realized when we decide to take the initiative and pull the plug on the nuclear deal. Like a mighty bacterium, we'll cause the deal to decompose rather than leave it to the Mullahs to do so.

Beware those wild Imaginings from Hell

What's the difference between an organism that's equipped with a highly developed electrochemical cortex, and one that has not evolved as much?

The answer is that the two organisms have a self-defense mechanism that's instinctively triggered when they see what appears to be an approaching danger. But the difference between the two organisms is that the developed one will ascertain the danger is real before attacking. As to the underdeveloped organism, it will attack regardless. The first specimen is called a rational human being. The second might be called a paranoiac or a psycho. It could also be a primate of lower rank.

It is bad enough to share space with an individual that's fearful of everything or that's self-protective from everyone. It is calamitous when his approach to life becomes a religion that's proselytized widely enough to attract millions of adherents. Unfortunately, such case exists in real life. It happens to be a religion called Judaism whose adherents call themselves Jews. Worse than the rampaging these specimens do around the globe, is that they have managed to persuade superpower America to become a spear in their hand. They use it to gore anyone they dislike; especially those who move up the ladder of aptitudes.

You can see for yourself what those specimens say to the mentally feeble elites of America to convince them they are in good hands turning their country into an instrument of death in the service of Jewish and Israeli interests. You'll see all that when you read: “The proliferation problem from hell,” an article that also came under the subtitle: “Imagine a world in which North Korea and Iran have nuclear missiles.” It was written by Clifford D. May, and published on July 18, 2017 in The Washington Times.

As indicated in the subtitle, Clifford May is not telling the elites of America there is danger out there that needs to be addressed. He tells them to “imagine” a world in which someone would be so advanced as to have the means to threaten America. After getting them to imagine the horror that's not there, he tells them how to deal with a situation that may never be.

Here is what he says to those willing to listen: “Imagine a world in which both North Korea and Iran can wipe out cities in America. What concessions would be made to prevent such an eventuality? What gestures of appeasement would be offered? What tribute would be paid? Is there anyone who does not regard this outcome as contrary to the security of the United States?”

And here is how he tells them they must respond: “Crippling sanctions should be imposed on North Korea. This will inflict pain on ordinary North Koreans. North Korea needs to become China's problem. [This] requires imposing sanctions on China, considering putting nuclear weapons in South Korea and encouraging Japan to become nuclear-armed. As to Iran, [its] behaviors should lead to further sanctions. Finally, the leaders of Iran and North Korea should be given reason to worry that the United States has military options that can end their regimes. If such options do not exist, developing them ought to be a highest priority”.

But how can someone come up with ideas such as these? Well, as mysterious as the functioning of the electrochemical cortex may be, what we can safely say is that the process of producing ideas is not spontaneous. It develops over time, and most likely by several authors, each of whom adds a piece to what he inherited before handing it to his successor. You get a glimpse of that in the Clifford May article as he asks:

“What happens if Iran's next leader believes that to bring about the 12th Imam, the Shia messiah requires an apocalypse? Bernard Lewis famously said that for those who hold such beliefs, the concept of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) is not a deterrent, but an inducement”.

What must be known about Bernard Lewis is that he is the inverter par excellence. Most of what he said about Islam, he got it from looking at himself in the mirror. As a Jew, he got tired waiting for the Jewish messiah that never came and most likely never will. And so, Bernard Lewis must have feared that the messiah may actually be Muslim, and that he'll come to annihilate the Jews.

Lewis must have lived with the nightmare of a Shia Samson triggering a MAD apocalypse that will bring about an inter-religious Rapture. He must have imagined members of the dreaded United Nations running around and raving about holocausting all the Jews once and for all. The poor fellow.

What this says is that Bernard Lewis was the consummate paranoiac. The sad part is that the people who follow his teachings get to be like him. You can tell this is true of Clifford May.

Generation steeped in Holocaust Psychosis

If you want to know how much the constant drumming of Holocaust stories into the heads of young Americans is costing the country at this time, and how much more it will cost future generations morally and materially, read what Elliott Kaufman just published.

He wrote: “The Cost of Supporting Israel Has Never Been Lower,” an article that was published on July 17, 2017 in National Review Online. Already, the title alone reveals that Israel continues to require American support to stay afloat, as it has for the past seven decades, which prompts the question: How is that?

Well, if you're old enough you'd remember what the Jewish propaganda machine was spreading during those decades. It was saying that Israel was such a winner in all fields of human endeavor; America would be smart to try riding on its coattail, thus get ahead of its Soviet rivals. What America needed to do to earn that high honor, said the Jewish propaganda, was to send money and weapons to Israel, as well as protect it diplomatically and legally in world forums.

Yes my friend, that's the point the Jewish propaganda machine has been making for decades to the American public and the ruling elites. If you want to know how the world views this situation, it is like the pauper who lives under the bridge telling anyone that stops to listen they should donate generously to him, thus make themselves feel ennobled by his grace as it will rub off on them in accordance with the size of the donations they make.

Using different words, that's what the Jews were saying at the time. But the property of time being that it moves ahead relentlessly, what used to be the future has become the present ... and lo and behold, the truth has come out. According to Team Trump, American adventures in the Middle East – inspired by the Jewish propaganda machine – cost the country 6 trillion dollars. That's not counting the hundreds of billions that were siphoned off both openly and stealthily by Israel for it to stay afloat, and for the Jewish moguls who may not even live there, to fatten up on the aid that's coming from America.

So then, what does Elliott Kaufman do in the face of the truth coming out and demolishing decades of Jewish deception, lies, misinformation and disinformation? In truth, the lad had no choice but to admit there has been a cost to America. Still, he promises that if the cost was high in the past, it is not now because the cost “has not been lower.” How does the saying go again? Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me?

Regardless of what Kaufman says, how can we verify he is telling the truth? After all, his elders were the bunch that raped America for decades, cost it trillions of dollars and thousands of dead and wounded soldiers. And they did all this without displaying the slightest regret for the harm they inflicted on the country. Is Elliot Kaufman cut from the same cloth, adopting the same mission to continue what they started? Or has he been so brainwashed, he believes in what he says not knowing how damaging that will turn out to be for America? To answer those questions, we go over the details of what he says, and try to determine what he is up to.

The first thing we notice is that Kaufman has built a case based on trivial anecdotes about how well one foreigner or another has received an Israeli dignitary. Even if such accounts were entirely true, we should read no more into them than the President of the United States praising the dear leader of North Korea one day, and damning him the next. Because these accounts take 80% of the space, we declare this much of the article to be irrelevant. That leaves us with a 20% slice on which to concentrate our attention.

The subjects that Kaufman discusses in that space, have to do with historical events. Given that the Jews are notorious mutilators of history, we can gauge the level of Kaufman's savagery by evaluating the way he treats history. Here is a condensed version of the relevant passages:

“In the Cold War, American presidents were desperate to appease the Arabs. In the Suez Crisis, President Eisenhower turned on his closest allies, Britain and France in an unsuccessful effort to win the favor of President Nasser of Egypt. American presidents were justified in their fears: Recall that OPEC seriously damaged the U.S. economy with an oil embargo in 1973, punishing America for [rescuing] Israel. For America, principled support of Israel often came with real costs attached. But there is no longer a USSR, and OPEC's power has been substantially diminished”.

What to make of this? Well, that is such a beastly mutilation of history, I want to be fair to Elliott Kaufman, and say he is not totally responsible for it. Other Jewish animals, too cowardly to show their faces, are hiding in some basement, and they keep coming up with rewrites of history to suit their current needs.

Here is the true chronology of the events Kaufman is describing on their behalf. Egypt revolted in 1952, kicked the king out of the country and declared itself a republic. In America, General Eisenhower that crushed the Nazi war machine a few years earlier, had just been nominated by the Republican Party to run for the presidency of the United States.

After an interim president (Mohamed Naguib) who governed Egypt for a few months, Nasser became president and declared Egypt's intention to build the Aswan project. In 1954, he asked the World Bank for a loan, but long-time politician John Foster Dulles who was Eisenhower's Secretary of State blocked the request. Nothing happened for the next two years till Nasser decided it was time to nationalize the Suez Canal, and use its revenues to build the Aswan project. That's when the two colonial powers, France and Britain, invited Israel to come along and see how Egypt can be made to suffer. The aggression took place in 1956.

And this is when Eisenhower intervened on behalf of Egypt. He did so on principle, the way he explained it to the French and the British. He told them he did not fight the Nazis to liberate them so that they do to others what the Nazis were doing to them. He told the aggressors to get the hell out of Egypt, and they did.

Now, my friend, contrast that real chronology against the way the beastly mutilators recount those events: “American presidents were desperate to appease the Arabs. In the Suez Crisis, Eisenhower turned on Britain and France to win the favor of President Nasser of Egypt. For America, principled support of Israel often came with real costs attached. But there is no longer a USSR, and OPEC's power has been substantially diminished”.

But there was no USSR influence in the Middle East at the time, and there was no OPEC power. In fact, Commander-in-Chief, General Eisenhower, having taken care of the military aggression, left it to the State Department to continue handling Egypt's request for a loan. When America did not reverse the decision to block the request, Egypt turned to the USSR for help. This happened towards the end of the decade when John Kennedy and Richard Nixon were already vying to replace Eisenhower.

Kaufman's performance is a product of the poison that's being drummed into the heads of the new generations. The young are made to absorb it without question because it comes woven with stories about the Holocaust, and with images that numb the young minds, preventing them from thinking normally.

It is clear that the Jewish establishment is raising a new generation of psychotic warriors who will stop at nothing whether armed with a pen or with a rifle.

Delusions of the Iran-Contra Dimensions

When the Shah of Iran was ruling Iran, that country was friendly to Israel.

This kind of relationship had been cultivated by the Jews with Iran and Turkey as part of their strategy to use the non-Arab Muslim nations situated at the periphery of the Arab World––what they used to call the Arab Core––to develop leverage they can use to pressure the Arab countries when it suits their purpose to do so.

The argument the Jews utilized when talking to these countries (and a few others in Asia, Africa and Latin America) was that they and Israel were alike as much as they were different from the Arab countries. For this reason – they went on to tell those countries – they are the natural allies of Israel. And so they suggested to those countries that they should develop good relations with Israel, and be weary of the Arabs.

In trying to pull this stunt, the Jews proved incapable of understanding a fundamental principle. It is that a friendship designed on the basis of hating someone – exemplified by the saying: the enemy of my enemy is my friend – inevitably implodes. It happens because a bond that relies on the mutual hatred for others, is a manifestation of cannibalistic tendencies. And in the same way that cannibals consume each other when they run out of prey, those who adhere to a hate pact will inevitably hate each other. And they will figuratively cannibalize each other, as it happened when Israel had a falling out with Iran and Turkey.

The highpoint in the Iran-Israel friendship came about during the year and a half that the Iran-Contra Affair was ongoing. That was a time, during the second term of Ronald Reagan, when a number of Americans were held hostage by a group in Lebanon that was allied with Iran. To help get the hostages released, Iran – that was no longer governed by the Shah – asked for weapons and spare parts from America to replenish the American arsenal that the Shah had left behind.

President Reagan agreed to the deal, but because there was an American embargo against selling arms to Iran, the shipments could not go directly from America to Iran. However, because there was an America-to-Israel open route as well as an Israel-to-Iran open route, a roundabout scheme was devised for the weapons to take the two-legs route from America to Iran, and for the payments to take the same route but in the opposite direction.

To this day, the Judeo-Israeli establishment views that period of time as the golden age of Israel's influence in the region. Jews everywhere, be they in America or Israel or anywhere in the world, hunger to see that age return. So does Neri Zilber who wrote: “Israel's Secret Arab Allies,” an article that was published on July 14, 2017 in the New York Times.

The trouble is that everyone who delves in realistic thinking, knows there is no way that Israel will ever again reestablish the relationship it used to have with Iran or Turkey or anyone else for that matter. However, those in Israel and elsewhere who delve in Jewish fantasy, are rejecting that logic. And they have gone as far as to delude themselves into believing they can develop a similar kind of relationship … with the Arab Core no less.

That fantasy is what Zilber expresses in his article. You don't have to go far into it before realizing that you're not witnessing the senility of an ordinary man that's beginning to lose it; you're witnessing the senility of a man that had mental issues to begin with, and is now adding senility on top of that.

First of all, look what the title of the article says. It says the Arabs (meaning some Arab rulers) wish to keep their alliance with Israel secret. Even if it is true that Israel has Arab allies, the fact that they wish to keep it a secret, means it is an alliance that the Arab public does not approve of.

Second of all, look how Zilber describes the relationship that he says Israel has with the Arab countries: “Israel finds itself deeply involved in Arab wars.” This popped up in the first paragraph as a harbinger of what the rest of the article looks and sounds like: pointless. So the question is this: Why was the article written in the first place? And the answer is to be found in an idea that was expressed in two parts. One part came at the start of the article; the other came at the end of it.

Here is the early part: “The main stumbling block remains the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, an emotive issue that still carries strategic weight in Arab capitals.” And here is the latter part: “Absent movement on the Palestinian front, this new Israeli role isn't likely to bring normalization of relations or an end to the region's conflict. But it may help [establish] a semblance of Middle East peace”.

Do you realize what this means, my friend? Here is a translation of the article's message:

“The way to normalize Israel's situation is to end the occupation of Palestine and forge open, not clandestine relations with the Arab countries. But we cannot do that because we want all of Palestine to ourselves. Still, our running around the war fields like a puppy that's trying to catch a Frisbee thrown at each other by a group of boys, may help bring peace to the Middle East. That's our promise to the world. Do you hear us, America? Now here is what we need you to do: send money, money, money and all the bombs you can ship to us”.

It is the same old, same old.