Wednesday, February 21, 2018

Two brutal Combatants and one muffled Sucker

If there is any redemption in having someone like Benny Avni write columns on Middle Eastern issues, his latest column made it clear there is. It's the one that was written under the title: “No, America: Lebanon is not your friend,” and was published on February 19, 2018 in the New York Post.

What Avni did unwittingly is confirm what this blog has been arguing for many years, mainly that the numerous horrors unfolding in the Middle East and beyond are the result of two combatants fighting each other: the Jewish establishment and the Muslim kids it stirred up. In addition, as soon as the fight flared up, the Judeo-Israeli lobby in America dragged the Washington band of reckless suckers into it, and started to suck America's blood.

The shooting war between the two combatants has been going on-and-off for several decades, with interludes marked by a deluge of propaganda conducted by each side to impress its rank-and-file. Benny Avni being a cog in the Jewish propaganda machine usually deferred to headquarter of the American operation known by the comical name: Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It is both the face of the Judeo-Israeli lobby in America, and the embodiment of the Jewish establishment.

It happened that when Avni deferred to the Foundation, he revealed the truth about the identities of the combatants. He told that story in two paragraphs.

First, he said this: “That – as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Lebanon watcher observes – is an assumption [that was] never borne out by the facts”.

He later said this: “No, Hezbollah isn't similar to the old Irish Republican Army where distinct political and military wings existed. Hezbollah's chief has clearly stated no such distinction exists”.

Benny Avni has thus demonstrated that the fight is between the Jewish Establishment which combines all the elements of the worldwide Judeo-Israeli criminal syndicate, battling the elements of another syndicate made of angry kids stirred up and forced into action by the Jewish syndicate.

Because everything you do has consequences that you cannot predict, Israel's actions in the Middle East, and Jewish lobbying in America have ramifications with a potential to get out of hand. In a case like this, logic would dictate that those who caused the nefarious consequences should stay out of the game and let someone else fix the situation. The trouble is that Jewish logic looks like regular logic turned on its head. For this reason, you find the likes of Benny Avni make the effort to tell the Washington band of suckers what to do next. The sad part is that the reckless characters in Washington will listen to him and drag America into a deeper hole.

If you want an example of the upside-down Jewish logic, Avni has provided one. First, he said this: “After the discovery of oil and gas reserves in the Mediterranean, the Lebanese government argued that the exploration was done in Lebanese waters.” Moments later, he said this: “When Israel left Lebanon in 2000, the UN drew a ‘blue line’ along the Israeli-Lebanese border. The Lebanese government never accepted that line”.

The error of logic is that he said the Lebanese objection came after the discovery of oil; and in the next breath said the Lebanese never accepted that line even before the oil was discovered. Benny Avni made the effect precede the cause – an absurdity acceptable in Jewish logic. That aside, there are deliberate lies in those two statements, and there is confusion that even he has not sorted out in his head.

The deliberate lie is that Avni made it sound like oil was discovered in the disputed area between Lebanon and Israel. No. There has not even been exploration in that area as yet. It is a long triangle with its apex at the point where Lebanon and Israel meet. To delineate its territorial waters, Lebanon drew a line perpendicular to the shore at that point. It happens to be the way they did things since time immemorial. By contrast, Israel drew an oblique line tilted toward the north and into Lebanon's territorial waters. As to the UN blue line that Avni has mentioned, it is a land based demarcation line that has nothing to do with the sea. It’s another story altogether.

When Israel will try to explain the reason for drawing an oblique line, there is invalid argument it will most likely use. Because most maps do not show an area as small as that part of the Mediterranean, I'll use another larger layout that’s similarly configured to explain what Israel may be tempted to say.

Look at the map where Canada and Alaska (American territory) meet. You'll see that Alaska is made of a large, almost square mass with a long narrow strip that extends south along the Pacific Ocean, as if to intrude into the Canadian landmass. To delineate the territorial waters of both countries, you draw a line perpendicular to the shore at the point where the Alaskan strip ends, and Canada's landmass begins. Above that line are American territorial waters; below it are Canadian waters.

Look again at the map. Even though you have a long American strip kissing the ocean, the vast landmass east of that narrow strip is Canada. This prompts two questions. First, can a narrow American strip along the ocean nullify Canada's right to the riches of that part of the Ocean? Second, will Canada have an argument saying that to be fair, the line projected into the sea must not be perpendicular to the shoreline, but must be drawn obliquely?

That is the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean where a narrow strip of Lebanese territory along the sea intrudes into the Israeli landmass. Centuries of tradition and the law of the Sea – ratified by most nations – say Lebanon is correct. Will Israel's arguments, whatever they may be, prevail in the end? Time will tell.