Fox hunting used to be the sport of royals in the United Kingdom
but was banned due to pressure brought about by animal rights advocates.
However, the image of dogs, all barking incessantly while sniffing the ground and
running in the same direction trying to catch the fox ahead, remains with us.
No; it's not the image of four-legged running dogs chasing a
fox; it's the image of two-legged running dogs chasing a human being they
failed to cannibalize. They are the mob of Jewish pundits working in concert
with their echo-repeaters who take orders from central command and go after the
one they could not bring to his knees. Mahmoud Abbas is the one that has eluded
them all that time, and they started to chase after him only lately. You almost
hear them bark the eerie sounds stuffed in their mouths by the Likud Party of Israel .
The latest to represent that unnatural phenomenon is Elliot
Kaufman who wrote: “Mahmoud Abbas's Legacy Blows Up in His Face,” an article
that was published on July 11, 2017 in National Review Online. He uses the
first sentence to tell the readers why he is writing this column. He says this:
“The Palestinian leader's efforts to secure a place in history appear likely to
backfire in disastrous fashion.” It happens to be the kind of expression that
best represents a Jewish fantasy. The rest of Kaufman's column shows how that
fantasy becomes an obsession.
To see how this comes about, we first recall the relevant
background. The Jews believe that Planet Earth was created to play out their
history. They also believe that history is governed by “good” and “evil” where
everything that happens can be tested and determined to be one or the other. It
does not matter if an act is one of generosity or murder. It is good if it will
tell the history of Jewish triumphs; it is evil if it will tell the history of
Jewish defeats. For the system to work, people too are classified under one of
two rubrics. Those whom the Jews call “with us” and those they call “against us”.
For example, the Jews classify the who's who of Middle
Eastern leaders under a rubric they call Nasser ;
and one they call Sadat. They considered Nasser
to be bad despite the fact that he was the most secular of Egyptian presidents.
They attacked him in 1967, and he responded by launching a War of Attrition to
retake the territory they grabbed, but died before he could inflict any serious
damage on them. He was succeeded by Sadat who was one of the most religious of
presidents. Sadat inherited the War of Attrition, intensified it and then
launched the assault that seriously damaged the Israeli military, defeating it
and liberating the Sinai.
So why was Nasser bad and
Sadat good in their eyes? They hated Nasser
because they could not force him to bend. This meant they could not write good
Jewish history recounting their experience with him. On the other hand, they
loved Sadat not because they forced him to bend – they never could – but after
beating them, he was so magnanimous as to shake hands with them. And this was
the scene they saw as providing them with good material to tell the right sort
of Jewish history.
The unfolding history of the Jews being their preoccupation,
they put Mahmoud Abbas under the Nasser rubric
because he did not give them material to write good history. They also launched
a campaign to slander him and soil his name so that history will remember him
as evil. This done, they decided to pin their hopes on someone named Mohammed
Dahlan who is – get this – of Gaza, and having as much in common with Hamas as
any Hamas operative.
To participate in this game, Elliot Kaufman tells the
history of the Palestinian struggle to liberate itself from the Jewish yoke.
For a reason that's hard to understand, he gives a great deal of details that
must be taken with a grain of salt because history will most certainly see
things differently in hindsight. Still, there is much of what can be taken away
from the Kaufman piece. It is the realization that the Jewish fantasy can so
intensify as to become an obsession … which is what happens most of the time.
The Jewish dream is to perpetuate the occupation till the
situation evolves enough to morph Palestine into
becoming a de facto province
of Israel Palestine into a piece of Israel became
his obsession:
“A Dahlan-Hamas alliance would break the PA's monopoly on
international legitimacy [without which] what does the PA have to offer?
Reliant on Israeli support, the PA would find itself in dark woods. Worse, the
division between the West Bank and Gaza
would solidify. Fatah would cling to a proto-state in the West Bank, separated
from a Hamas-Dahlan proto-state in Gaza .
This could kill the dream of a unified Palestinian negotiating position, and a
unified Palestinian state. How's that for a legacy?”