The similarities between Alan Dershowitz and
Stuart E. Eizenstat are such that each has dedicated his life's work to the
exploitation of his American citizenship in furtherance of the Jewish causes,
especially Israel. The difference between them is that Dershowitz has worked
from his academic position as well as his access to the public square, whereas
Eizenstat has worked from his position as an insider, mostly in the Executive
Branch.
To listen to Dershowitz and read his writings as
they relate to former President Jimmy Carter, you are left with the impression
that Dershowitz considers Carter to be the most evil thing ever to have existed
on Earth, in the Milky Way or the Universe we know about … not to mention those
we don't. Well, that's as far as Dershowitz is concerned. But what about Stuart
Eizenstat who worked for Jimmy Carter, among others? What does he think of his
former boss?
As a matter of fact, Clifford D. May wrote a
column to say that Eizenstat wrote a long book on Jimmy Carter under the title:
“President Carter: The White House Years,” saying mostly good things about his
former boss. As to May's column, it came under the title: “The life, times and
foreign policies of Jimmy Carter,” published on October 2, 2018 in The
Washington Times.
I have not read Eizenstat's book, so I cannot pass
judgment on it. What I can do, however, is pass judgment on how Clifford May, a
Jew, has used his writing skills to exploit the achievement of Stuart
Eizenstat, another Jew that in all likelihood did not ask May to review his
book. To understand what Clifford May did that is outrageous, we recall that
Eizenstat is a lifelong Democrat who worked only for Democratic presidential
candidates such as Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey, as well as Presidents
Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
This means Stuart Eizenstat was not in the White
House during the presidency of Richard Nixon at which time the October 1973
Egyptian crossing of the Suez Canal took place. This was the decisive battle in
which the Israeli Bar Lev Line (modeled after the Maginot Line) was
obliterated, the Israeli forces were pushed back deep into the Sinai, and the
Canal was dredged and reopened for international shipping after six years of
closing.
During the ten months that Nixon was still
President of the United States, he put Henry Kissinger in charge of the
situation. Kissinger's task was to reassure the Israelis that Egypt's Sadat was
a man of his word and that he will not attack Israel “in depth” as he promised
Nixon. But despite these assurances, Golda Meir who was Prime Minister of
Israel prepared the poison she was to ingest should the Egyptians cross the
border into Israel. As to Moshe Dayan who was Minister of Defense, he went
berserk and was sent to a mental institution where he died.
What Kissinger also did, was to call on Sadat to
work on separating the forces to give the Israelis the chance to take down
their installations in the rest of the Sinai and withdraw in an orderly
fashion. This process began while Nixon was still in the White House, but was
now embroiled in the Watergate Affair. He resigned in 1974, handing the
Presidency to Gerald Ford his Vice President. The process of Israel's
withdrawal from the Sinai continued, and was completed by the time that Jimmy
Carter was elected President.
In keeping with the Arab tradition of the
victorious in a conflict showing magnanimity by visiting his defeated opponents
and reassuring them of his goodwill toward them, Anwar Sadat of Egypt visited
the Israelis in their Parliament, and told them what he wants is that there be
“no more war” between them. Familiar with this Arab tradition, the Israelis
believed him and were reassured.
As to America's Jews, the reaction there was
abominable. The way they behaved then has not changed forty years later as
you'll judge for yourself when you see what Clifford May has done. Here is the
part of his column which reveals how much filth these people can pack in 86
words:
“In 1973, President Anwar Sadat launched a war
that ended with Egypt soundly defeated. After that, Mr. Sadat understood that
to recover lost territory he'd have to stop fighting. Mr. Eizenstat does not
contradict this thesis. To conclude the Camp David Accords, Mr. Carter had to
exert relentless pressure on Israeli Prime Minister Manachem Begin, who was
distrustful of Mr. Sadat, and on Arab leaders adamant that Egypt demand
concessions the Israelis would not countenance in return for a promise Mr.
Sadat's successors might not keep”.
Mindful that Clifford May is writing to motivate
the hardcore fanatics of the Jewish-American rank-and-file, as well as the
zombies in the American Congress who give out the store when you titillate them
enough, Clifford May has spun the above passage the way that he did to
editorialize about the current situation by pretending to talk about history.
And he had two objectives.
The first objective was to say that Israel never
loses, so keep your chin up and continue working for the cause, ye
congressional zombies, and ye foot soldiers of the Diaspora! Clifford May said
this much by falsely stating that Egypt was soundly defeated, instead of
telling the truth which was the opposite.
Furthermore, what is exploitative in the approach
that he used, comes out in this sentence: “Mr. Eizenstat [that was never in the
Nixon Administration] does not contradict this thesis.” Okay, my friend, let me
tell you something: Someone has said that Clifford May has a tail like that of
a monkey. No one asked me if that's true, and so I'm not contradicting it. Does
that make it true? Well then, do you see the absurdity in the way that Clifford
May writes sometimes? Shame on him. Or maybe he does have a tail, after all …
who knows?
The second objective has to do with May’s
knowledge of how the Trump effort at putting together a peace plan for the
Middle East, is proceeding. It is that the Arab leaders who were consulted have
asked for things that the Jews who bankroll the occupation do not like. They
argued that Israel should never make such concessions for a promise made now
that future Palestinians may not keep.
And so, Clifford May did the very Jewish thing of
mutilating history to make it sound like the current debate, thus pretend that
history is on the side of the Jews. It is the filth embedded in the Jewish DNA
that prompted Clifford May to write: “Arab leaders adamant that Egypt demand
concessions in return for a promise Mr. Sadat's successors might not keep.” This
kind of talk is the self-serving fabrication of a Jewish-American low life.