A foolish Gamble only America would take

You may be old enough to remember “Lassie” and/or “The Littlest Hobo.” Or you may be too young to remember them, but were lucky enough to have seen reruns of the two-TV series. They featured dogs that helped human beings save lives or helped solve mysteries of criminal nature.

That's pure fiction. It is because in reality dogs do not have the ability to engage in the kind of judgment that's the exclusive endowment of human beings. In fact, you can run a thought experiment and you'll reach that same conclusion. So, I ask you to imagine someone seeing the unattended toddler of a neighbor fall into the backyard swimming pool. The neighbor jumps over the fence to go save the child, but the pit bull that's guarding the house, tears into the flesh of the would-be savior. It's because the dog cannot reason that the neighbor is trying to save the life of its owner's baby.

This is the reality that runs contrary to any fiction they put on film about dogs having exceptional abilities. In our story, the dog was trained to do something that did not involve engaging in human-like reasoning. It was all that the dog could do, even if the outcome ran afoul of its trainer's wishes. But could the dog have been trained to do better? Well, it could have been trained to do something different, but not necessarily something better. In fact, whereas it is impossible to train dogs to rise to the level of human beings, it is easy to train human beings to descend to the level of dogs. This is what the Jews seek to do to every American that enters the politico-journalistic field. The Jews employ every trick they learned during the centuries to promote Israel and the Jewish causes no matter the consequences.

Very few Americans remain unresponsive to the Jewish attempts. Unfortunately, the majority of them succumb to the Jewish tricks that ensnares them into a mafia-like spider's web from which they cannot escape. What happens to someone in politics that holds a high position (such as the chairmanship of a congressional committee, for example) and he fears being exposed as a stooge of the Jewish syndicate — is that he quits politics altogether. Those who are steeped in politics and have no other skill, run to fill a position at the State level. In fact, most run to be governor of their State.

As to the poor souls that get trapped in a journalistic position, having no skill to do something else, but having a family to feed and children to raise — they go through hell. Their fate is to live day after day holding their noses while writing the kind of pieces, which they know will sicken their readers. Having no choice but to do what their Jewish masters command them to do, they hold on to the hope that their audiences will forgive them.

You can see an example of this in the article that came under the title: “Europe Loves the Mullahs,” and the subtitle: “The EU's faith in Iran is foolish, dangerous—and a mystery.” It was written by the editors of the Weekly Standard and published on November 28, 2018 in the Weekly Standard.

Having negotiated a nuclear deal with America and five other powers, the Iranians are sitting pretty, watching their American nemesis wilt like a rotting fruit that got afflicted with a disease for which there may not be a cure. What happened was that America reneged on the nuclear deal, and tried to pull the other signatories to its side by threatening to sanction them along with Iran.

But instead of knuckling under — as predicted by the mob of Jewish pundits — the other signatories to the nuclear deal started the process of stripping America of the tools it has been using to punish anyone it did not like … for good reasons and for bad.

Like the dog that attacked the neighbor who tried to save a drowning baby — “believing” it was doing the right thing as per training — the editors of the Weekly Standard reveal what credence is behind their descent to a level of judgment that puts them at par with canine intelligence.

Speaking of America's menace to sanction its allies for standing with Iran, here is the sentence that reveals the editors' diminished intelligence: “The Europeans appear fully aware of these risks—but don't care”.

What the editors are missing is that America got itself in a tug of war where it stands alone on one side. Meanwhile the world—including the five signatories to the nuclear deal—is standing on the other side.

The stakes are such that if America wins, it will only win this one round. But if the world wins, it will have kneecapped America never again to threaten someone with sanctions.

Is America “fully aware of these risks—but does not care?” Or have the Jews drained America of the thinking matter that's supposed to fill the cranial cavity between its ears?

We’ll soon have the answer to this vital question.

The baffled and disappointed Boys of the Whip

When the horses cease to respond to the whip being cracked on their backs, the boys at the front of the horse carriage get baffled at the bullheadedness of the horses, and feel disappointed.

This is a spot-on analogy representing what's happening to the Jewish “hawks” that have been cracking the whip on the backs of horses pulling the ship of state in America, and the backs of godfathers pulling the murder-and-loot syndicate in Israel.

Two articles were published recently, one expressing the bafflement of Benny Avni at the bullheadedness of President Donald Trump for refusing to condemn the Russians with regard to the maritime altercation they had with the Ukrainians. The other article expresses the disappointment felt by Shmuel Rosner at Benjamin Netanyahu that refused to carpet bomb Gaza from the air or invade it on land.

The Benny Avni article came under the title: “Russia made its move — and Trump blinked,” published on November 26, 2018 in the New York Post. The Shmuel Rosner article came under the title: “In Israel, War Is for the Weak,” and the subtitle: “Why did Prime Minister Netanyahu avoid a bigger fight in Gaza this month?” It was published on November 27, 2018 in the New York Times. Here is a condensed version of the story that baffled Benny Avni — as told by him:

“Russia mounted an aggression against Ukraine, and America punted. Nikki Haley vowed that Washington would stand with Kiev. So what's the plan? Hailey referred to a toothless Obama-era gabfest that legitimized Moscow's annexation of Crimea. This is like showing up to a gunboat fight without even a knife. Russia and Ukraine are already at war. But the current crisis is different. Interrupting freedom of navigation threatens Europe and beyond. For Washington, this incident implicates an important principle. America is the guarantor of free navigation across the globe. The president can't permit this aggression to go unchecked. But Haley only promised that Russia's standing will be undermined. Russia hawks inside the White House must be cringing. Meanwhile, the Kremlin is becoming bolder”.

Whereas Benny Avni is distraught at America's performance in the Russia-Ukraine affair, Shmuel Rosner expresses his disappointment that Gaza was not punished. And he does something else also. To protect the reputation of his hardline idol, Benjamin Netanyahu, Rosner employs the Jewish trick of pointing the finger at the sun and call it moon, while pointing the finger at the moon and call it sun. Look how Shmuel Rosner does that, and marvel at the ability of these people to engage in shameless self-deception:

“Hamas discovered an Israeli military unit in Gaza. A battle ensued. Palestinians were killed, and Hamas fired rockets into Israel. The public wasn't pleased. Many wanted to see more effective measures against Hamas. Avigdor Lieberman asked for a heavier bombing or the use of ground forces against Gaza. Netanyahu rejected this position and initiated a cease-fire. Politicians don't go against the public's sentiment but Netanyahu did. Why isn't clear. But he pulled it off because he is adept. Military action is popular. Using force is what weak prime ministers do. Stronger leaders take their time as they ponder their options. It was Netanyahu's time to show restraint. Was it the right call? The public must trust that the prime minister is the right person to handle the situation. Netanyahu understands something his colleagues fail to grasp: A leader has to gain the people's trust by demonstrating that he is cautious. It's what Netanyahu did by not rushing into a new conflict in Gaza”.

From the start, the Israeli mantra has been that deterrence is what guarantees the survival of Israel. The way that deterrence works, is when Israel hits hard at anyone that does as much as think of hurting Israel — not by engaging in restraint. Benjamin Netanyahu having been the strongest proponent of that mantra, for him to come now and say he abandoned it in favor of adopting the wisdom of restraint, is to stretch credulity.

And when credulity is stretched, we are compelled to guess as to the real reason why Netanyahu sued for peace, while Lieberman was said to have resigned his cherished job. Given that there have been numerous indications to the reality that the Americans have had it up to here protecting Israel against the consequences of its criminal activities, and paying the price for it themselves, we can only conclude that President Trump must have warned Netanyahu of something that paralleled Putin's warning to Netanyahu.

Come to think of it, the two warnings could only have gone something like this: One more reckless move on your part, Bibi, and you won't have the opportunity ever again to repeat that move or any other move.

And all of a sudden, the world became a better place for it. All we can say is this: May it last forever.

America, a Democracy for the Ages or ephemeral?

Is America's Democracy so exceptional that it will defy gravity and remain afloat to eternity? Or will it follow the pattern established by previous empires and come down to earth eventually? Two recently published articles give us a chance to probe into these questions.

One article came under the title: “The Case for Leaving Syria,” and the subtitle: “With the military and various domestic programs facing budget cuts, the United States shouldn't be throwing more money at the Middle East.” It was written by Douglas MacGregor and published on November 23, 2018 in The National Interest. The other article came under the title: “The democracy myth,” written by Richard Rahn and published on November 26, 2018 in The Washington Times.

Before we delve into what these two gentlemen are saying, we'll do well to dispense of a canard that has always interfered with the proper conduct of debates on this topic. It is false to say that the wealthy countries of Western Europe became wealthy because they adopted a liberal democratic system of government. There simply was no such cause and effect relationship between the two.

The truth is that wealth and the adoption of democracy have one and the same origin. They are the outcomes of three elements that converged at the same time. These were the Industrial Revolution, the invention of artillery (the gun) and the revival of the Roman concept of conquering and colonizing the resource-rich lands that had not the means to defend themselves.

The Industrial Revolution so disrupted the lives of ordinary people in Western Europe, the people revolted and demanded a better distribution of the wealth. This forced the feudal rulers at the time to devolve some of their “political” powers, but were reluctant to part with their wealth. Thinking hard, they got the idea of enlarging the pie and distributing some of it among the masses rather than share what they had, and live a poorer life.

From this point on, it did not require much imagination for the rulers to realize that enlarging the pie could be realized with the use of the gun to go conquer and loot the wealth of those overseas that lacked the means to defend themselves. And this is when the triplets of liberal democracy, colonialism and Europe's rise to wealth were born at the same time to the same parents.

In time, a kind of schism developed between the North and the South of Europe. The Northern colonial powers accumulated wealth at a faster rate than the South, and transferred it to their North American colonies which became wealthy as well. As to the colonial powers of Southern Europe, they transferred their diminished level of wealth to their South American colonies, which remained poorer than the North. What both had in common, however, was that they gave themselves a higher standard of living than the rest of the world by continuing the tradition of their European founders of using the gun, the conquest of the indigenous populations, and the colonization of their lands to enrich themselves and their people.

The question before us is this: Considering that (1) industry is no longer the monopoly of one group of people, but is spread throughout the globe, (2) the gun has lost its effectiveness when it comes to subjugating even the people that have little with which to defend themselves, and (3) colonization by conquest to acquire the land or resources of others, is no longer a viable option — can the democracies, including America, continue to carry on as usual? Or will they have to adapt lest they perish?

Douglas Macgregor uses the Syria situation to show why the gun is no longer effective at subjugating people who are willing to die defending the freedom of those they leave behind. And so, he recommends that America should pull its troops out of Syria, and let the locals sort out their differences. Failing this, Macgregor warns that: “Now, on the precipice of more cuts in defense spending with the survival of Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid at stake, the misguided use of US military power and the disaster it creates are not affordable”.

As to Richard Rahn, he begins his discussion with a question that throws doubt at the idea that democracy is as real as described by its adherents, let alone the panacea it is cracked up to be. Here is that question: “Would you prefer to live in a country that has a high degree of individual liberty but is not a democracy, or live in a democracy where individual liberties are curtailed?”

What this says is that liberty and democracy do not necessarily march together. When you add to this the Macgregor's idea that democracy does not guarantee the good management of the nation's finances, you begin to wonder if the existing liberal democracies, including the United States, will remain the dominant powers in the future.

Adaptation is a hard thing to do; and the longer you wait the harder it is to adapt. Europe is adapting to the world in the making; when will America wake up and join the march that will not wait for those lagging behind?

Purveyors of Hate imposing a Regime of Hate

If you try to name a crime that's worse than saying rape was committed in the name of love, you won't find one. But you'll find something that’s comparable. What stands as morally equal to saying that rape is an act of love, is to ask the public to hate someone to end anti-Semitism.

Complaining about anti-Semitism is the gimmick to which the Jewish leaders return when they sense they are losing their grip on the levers of power in the American ship of state. It is that the charge of anti-Semitism both frightens and confuses everyone, thus allows the Jews to reshuffle the ongoing agendas, sending them in directions more amenable to the Jewish endgame.

Having centuries of experience at playing this game, the Jews developed a good nose for detecting the random events of daily life that can help them start a new round of anti-Semitic accusations. In fact, there has been several bursts of accusations lately, as the mob of Jewish pundits was having a field day pointing the finger at people and institutions, calling them purveyors of anti-Semitism.

The Jewish pundits went on to counsel innocent third parties on the need to declare their hatred for those who stand up to the Jewish hate and attack machine. They convinced the innocent that to oppose the Jews was not an exercise in free speech, but a kind of anti-Semitism whose intent is to pave the way for the next holocaust.

Three articles in that vein can be reviewed at this time. One piece came under the title: “Airbnb's act of corporate anti-Semitism,” written by David Harsanyi and published on November 20, 2018 in the New York Post. A second piece came under the title: “Liberal Jews are still turning a blind eye to anti-Semitism on the left,” written by Karol Markowicz and published on November 25, 2918 in the New York Post. The third piece is a New York Post editorial that came under the title: “Linda Sarsour is still refusing to condemn Farrakhan's hate,” published on November 25, 2018 in the New York Post, of course.

To understand the criminal insanity that's powering a mentality like that of David Harsanyi, we need to take a real-life example and discuss it under different scenarios. There was a time in America when non-whites were forbidden from renting or buying a house or an apartment in some neighborhoods. Call these places color-free neighborhoods. They sounded like Nazi Germany where they had Judenfrei neighborhoods. In fact, some people even wanted to make all of Germany, if not all of Europe, Judenfrei.

The civil rights movement in America, and the Second World War in Europe, put an end to those practices. Now, Africans, Asians, Latinos and Natives can rent or buy any property they want, anywhere they want. So do the Jews. But there is one thing that neither the colored folks, nor the Jews of any color are allowed to do. They cannot kick a white family out of its home and take it under the pretext that if forbidden from doing so, the Jews will be discriminated against for no reason but that they are Jews. In fact, this is how the criminally insane who call themselves Jews define anti-Semitism. And that's what David Harsanyi is peddling in his article.

As to the Karol Markowicz article, it legitimizes one false analogy, and avoids highlighting a legitimate analogy. The false analogy compares (a) Israel's displacement of the Palestinians and the acquisition of their properties to give to Jews who come from around the world to receive a freebie — with (b) “Russian-annexed Ukraine and Turkish-occupied North Cyprus,” where no one was displaced, and no property was seized or given to strangers. Every time that the Jews make this kind of analogy, they reveal a state of mind that is seriously impaired.

As to the legitimate analogy that Karol Markowicz avoided highlighting, it is that the world once boycotted the apartheid Regime of South Africa. This happened not because the world was anti-White, but because White South Africans instituted a regime that robbed the Blacks of their rights, and refused to change. That situation corresponds with the way that the Jews now treat the Palestinians. The white South Africans did not complain about anti-Whitism because they knew better, and neither can the Jews complain about anti-Semitism because they should know better.

As to the editorial of the New York Post, its destructive effect can only be understood in terms of what it does to the art of engaging in politics. To do politics is to try persuading others of one's point-of-view. When those who engage in politics stick to such principles, they produce debates so memorable, they are studied and quoted centuries later.

However, it happens at times, that feeble minds play a game they believe mimics the art of doing politics, but end up doing something else. Instead of helping the debate go deep, move forward and bring forth the insights of the participants, they politicize the subject being discussed, which means they maintain the haggling at the superficial level.

And that’s what the New York Post editorial does. What follows is a sample of that:

“Linda Sarsour tried to fend off criticism of her embrace of Louis Farrakhan. She made an effort to get something on the record so that she could pretend she's resolved the issue, hoping she can get away with refusing to condemn the Nation of Islam leader. Other Women's March leaders have supported Sarsour and Mallory in the face of calls for them to condemn Farrakhan, prompting Alyssa Milano to call for the march leaders to condemn the hate or step down”.

This is how the feeble minds play the game of politics instead of saying intelligent things having the potential to shed light on the dimensions of free speech in the age of social media, for example.

A Teacher's Nightmare in the Editors' Boardroom

Do you want to know what it feels like to be a teacher, and be handed a student's paper that tells a horror story? Read, “Coming awake again,” a Washington Times editorial that was published on November 13, 2018.

What's horrible is not the subject matter that's discussed in the editorial — though some people view the Jewish occupation of Palestine as a full-blown horror story — what's horrible is that the editors reveal how scary their state of mind was when they wrote the piece. They must have been like the student who did not sleep for a full day, was on dope and without food when he did his homework. Because he used the excuse of the dog eating his homework many times before, he felt compelled to write something this time, and hand it to the teacher.

If you can imagine how horrible such a piece of work would sound like, you can tell what the Washington Times editorial sounds like. In fact, the most telling sign that a kid is on dope, is when he retells the lesson he heard in class, but tells it in a mixed-up order. That is, instead of listing the elements of the story in the order that makes sense, such as A-B-C-D, he lists them as C-A-D-B, for example.

The first sign of such confusion you'll encounter in the Washington Times editorial, hits you in the face like a hammer. It is that speaking of the “Peace Process” that followed the Oslo Accord of two decades ago between Palestine and Israel, here is what the dopey editors of the Times wrote: “The settlement was a step-by-step, US-led negotiations over almost two decades, husbanded for the most part by Henry Kissinger, the former secretary of State”.

As you can see, what the goosey heads who sit on the editorial board of the Washington Times did, is confuse the Palestine-Israel peace process with the shuttle diplomacy that Henry Kissinger conducted between Egypt and Israel in the wake of the 1973 war. This was the mediation that allowed for the separation of forces in the Sinai, giving the Israelis the chance to withdraw their badly battered troops without being further decimated by the Egyptians. This initiative ended 45 years ago, fully a quarter century before the Oslo Accord.

Here is another confusion, courtesy of the wide-eyed, hopped-up changelings who pretend to stand on guard protecting the American Constitution by the sheer force of their ignorance: “After victory in the Six-Day War, Ariel Sharon, then the prime minister, pulled Israeli arms [sic] out of Gaza, forcing Jews there to leave.” The term “Six-Day War” is used in reference to the Pearl Harbor style sneak attack carried out by Israel on Egypt in 1967. This was the time when Israel went on to occupy Gaza. But it was not until 38 years later, during the reign of Ariel Sharon in 2005, that the Hamas forces kicked the Jews out of Gaza.

And here is a lesson of history that the bumbling idiots who sit on the editorial board of The Washington Times may find interesting. During the negotiations carried out at Camp David between Egypt's President Anwar Sadat and Israel's Prime Minister Manachem Begin, under the auspices of America's President Jimmy Carter, Begin asked Sadat to take custody of Gaza but Sadat refused. There has been considerable debate about what Begin knew the Gaza population was capable of doing for which he wanted to “dump it.” And there must have been a reason why Egypt refused to take the offer. No one has come up with a definitive explanation as yet, but whatever it was, it must have been the lesson that Ariel Sharon learned more than a generation later.

As to the rest of the Washington Times editorial, it is the long mishmash of a rambling, tedious and boring repetition, rehashing the Jewish talking points created and spewed during the half century that the Jewish pundits were shooting off the mouth pile after pile of nonsense. This was the time when there was no one to check what they were saying or balance out what they were advancing. They had the field all to themselves.

Now, my friend, guess what the result of that situation has been on America's congressional culture, journalistic tradition, politico-diplomatic philosophy and popular culture. Actually, you don’t have to guess because everywhere you look, you see nothing but gridlock, paralysis, mediocrity, selfishness … and the loss to America of just about everything that Civilization has produced during seven thousand years of evolution.

Can America be redeemed? Yes, it can. But there is only one way this can be done. Because America got here, pushed to the brink by the perpetual lie machine of Jewish punditry — the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth must never be held hostage by political correctness. Thus, every American, from the President of the Republic down to the dog catcher of the smallest municipality, must gather the courage to look at the lying Jew in the eye when they run off the mouth, and order him or her to shut the fuck up.

It's not Saudi Arabia, stupid –– it's Israel

If there is a lesson the Americans should take away from what is transpiring on the world stage at this time, it's that they are not as good as they believe they are, and they don't have the influence they fantasize they do.

Had this been known to the Americans, Fred Ryan who is publisher and chief executive of the Washington Post, would not have written the piece that he did. That piece came under the title: “Trump's dangerous message to tyrants,” and the subtitle: “Flash money and get away with murder.” It was published on November 21, 2018 in the Washington Post, of course.

Speaking of the role that the press is purported to play in America's so-called democracy, Fred Ryan's article condenses down to the following text:

“Our mission is public service. We will continue to expose the truth. Trump doesn't advance the United States' interests. He places commercial deals above American values of respecting liberty and human rights. Security is a US interest. We do not make the world safer by setting a double standard or by abandoning our values for anyone that offers to buy enough weapons [or buy enough votes.] Congress must stand up for America's values. It should press for an independent inquiry, and use its powers to suspend the sale of weapons to the Saudis. From John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan, presidents took courageous stands for human rights. The world has come to know that America's power is derived from America's principles. We live under a Constitution that ensures the rule of law”.

Even though Fred Ryan has been around long enough to have seen the transformation that America has gone through during the past few decades, his article shows not a hint that he is willing to take into consideration the forces that changed America to what it has become … what he feels is unbecoming of a superpower. For him to come now and complain that America should not abandon its values to those that buy American products––in this case weapons––but not those that buy American votes, is to commit an act of intellectual dishonesty that is truly unbecoming of a publication that was once the flagship of American journalistic excellence.

Look at the difference between two situations, one that's approved by Fred Ryan, and one that's not. And then judge for yourself if that man, Fred Ryan, deserves to be taken seriously.

Situation number one: Saudi Arabia sells its oil resources and uses the money to create a diversified economy that will be self-sustaining when the kingdom will have run out of oil. Because external threats challenge the country, Saudi Arabia allocates a budget to buy weapons and get training for its troops, thus have them ready to defend the country should it be attacked.

Situation number two: Sheldon Adelson is a Jewish billionaire that piles up his fortunes through the avails of gambling. His passion is breaking American and international laws by financing the illegal settlement activities in the West Bank of occupied Palestine. Since money alone does not guarantee the success of what he has in mind, he spends hundreds of millions of dollars buying the kind of American Congress that will keep the entire United States of America ready to go in and assist the savage beasts that gather from every corner of the globe. These beasts, in human form, come to rob and kill the unarmed people of Palestine who bother no one but live quietly on their land as they have done since the beginning of time.

So, you have Fred Ryan looking at these two situations and feels motivated enough to call on the Congress of the United States to stop the sale of whatever to Saudi Arabia because he considers Saudi money to be dirty money, while closing his eyes on Sheldon Adelson's gambling money buying up the US Congress because he considers gambling money to be kosher money. Now, my friend, ask yourself this question: Is this an intellect that's capable of flashing a scintilla of honesty?

The reality is that America's relation with the rest of the world is not going to change now because of what Saudi Arabia has or has not done. It is that America's relation with the rest of the world has changed long ago because of what America did and has failed to do with regard to its relation with Israel, and with regard to how it continues to respond to the Jewish manipulation of its affairs –– both internal and external.

Thus, if Fred Ryan wants to get the world to respect America again, he must focus on the Jewish question rather than waste his time working on the Saudi question.

How the Jewish Lie becomes an American Truth

The ultimate aim is to put into effect the dictum: “divide and conquer.” There are many ways to do this; one of which being the Jewish way, proven to be extremely effective in America.

In fact, that effectiveness is everywhere to see in America. You see it: (1) In a Congress that's hopelessly fragmented on every American issue, yet beholden in a solidly bipartisan way to every Jewish whim. (2) In a State Department that sees the two sides of every international issue except those pertaining to Israeli matters where there is only one choice to make; the Israeli way or the highway. (3) In the media coverage of Middle Eastern affairs where events are interpreted from two angles: The way the Jews tell the Jewish side of the story, and the way the Jews tell the Arab side of the story.

These being the outcomes of divide and conquer, how did the Jews achieve this much success? Well, you need to have lived half a century, and seen how the Jews did it. But if you're too young to have seen it, you can do what astronomers do when they study the evolution of a galaxy. They look into space and see various galaxies at different stages of evolution. They connect the dots, and draw a complete picture as to how a galaxy begins, how it develops through different stages, and how it ends up being a mature galaxy.

You can employ that same method to determine how the Jews have managed to divide, conquer and take control of America's political and diplomatic life. You may study two articles, which you'll find helpful in this regard. One article came under the title: “What happened to Arab Support for Palestinians?” written by Sarah Feuer and Neri Zibler. It was published on November 16, 2018 on the website of the Washington Institute. The other article came under the title: “Linda Sarsour Apologizes for Failure to Condemn Anti-Semitism,” written by Jack Crowe and published on November 21, 2018 in National Review Online.

What is common to both articles, is the celebration by the writers of the idea of wedges coming between people. This is how the divide part of “divide and conquer” begins the process. Once you've established a feel for this reality, you'll sense the writers' expectation that the “conquer” part will soon follow.

The Sarah Feuer/Neri Zilber article is about the fantasy that the Arabs have abandoned the cause of Palestinians. More than that, the writers even assert that the Arab countries are moving apart from each other on this issue and other ones too. In fact, this happens to be the grand fantasy of the Jews since Israel came into existence. However, the Jews failed to have Iraq split in three parts, and failed to have Syria split in several parts. To compensate for these failures, they started to pretend that the fantasy had come true, and the Arab split was happening.

Here is how Sarah Feuer put it: “It's that the nature of Arab support for the Palestinians has become fragmented; a shift reflecting the general fragmentation afflicting the Arab world”.

And here is how Neri Zilber put it: “The Israeli government has, for a few years now, been marketing the notion that the Palestinian question no longer troubles the rest of the Arab world”.

As to the Jack Crowe article, it is supposed to be a reporting piece and not an opinion piece. And yet, what you encounter is a title that suggests Linda Sarsour had failed to condemn Anti-Semitism. But here, in condensed form, is what Sarsour has said: “Amid the media storm, our message has been lost, causing harm and pain. We should have been faster and clearer in helping people understand our commitment to fighting anti-Semitism. We regret that.” This is a statement of regret that the media storm distorted the message of the Women's March, and not an admission of failure to condemn anti-Semitism.

In fact, this kind of opinion dissemination disguised as news reporting is what sets the stage for the Jews to conquer in their grand scheme to “divide and conquer.” As to the divide part of the scheme, you can see it further down the Jack Crowe article. It came in this form:

“Mallory faced backlash in February when she posted a video from Farrakhan's address in which he railed against the satanic Jew. The Women's March made clear that Farrakhan's beliefs are not aligned with the Women's March principles. But Mallory refused to condemn Farrakhan personally. Sarsour also came under fire for her praise of Farrakhan”.

This is clearly intended to drive the wedge between the Women's March and a large group of African Americans who cherish the American Louis Farrakhan — a man that hurt no one — as much as the Jews cherish the bloodthirsty and serial war criminal named Benjamin Netanyahu … who is not even an American.

And this, my friend, is how the Jewish owned and/or influenced media repeat those distortions. In time what began as a trickle grows to become a flood. In other words, this is how the Jewish lies morph into American truths.

Egyptians are getting exactly what they wanted

When in 2011 the people of Egypt realized their government was getting too cozy with foreign entities, they told their president “erhal” which is Arabic for leave.

When the aging president dragged his feet, some 30 million Egyptians marched into the streets of cities and villages, calling on their beloved army to remove the recalcitrant president from office. Despite the huffing and the puffing of foreign voices that warned against such a move, the army listened to the people it is serving and did exactly what they asked for.

A new president was elected in Egypt, and when he too became too cozy with another set of foreigners, the people asked him to leave. When he refused, they once again descended into the streets and asked the army to remove him from office. The army did just that, a new president was elected … and he happened to be from the military. His name is Abdel Fattah el-Sisi ... affectionately referred to as Sisi.

Sisi made a bargain with the people of Egypt. He said he'll give them what they asked for, which is strict adherence to the independence of the country, a booming economy, and transparency in the form of constantly explaining what the government is doing and why it is doing it. In return, he wants the people to use the proper channels to voice their descent if any. He said that serenity was the necessary prerequisite to having a government that can implement the difficult program the country needs at this juncture, and he wants the people to help him achieve that serenity.

The people of Egypt said amen to that, and Sisi formed a government that immediately began to implement a program so ambitious, the foreign haters that wished to see Egypt fall into chaos, began to wail their despair. They said modernizing the Suez Canal will change the marine ecosystem of the region. Building a dozen new cities, including a new capital, is a pipe dream that will never be realized. Adding a million and a half acres of arable land to the existing eight million cannot be achieved because there wasn't enough water to do so... etc... etc... In other words, they were saying that Egypt had died, and it was time to bury it. But Sisi managed to achieve all that he promised and more; did it in record time, and did it with flying colors.

Because two back-to-back “revolutions” had taken their toll on Egypt's foreign currency finances, the Sisi government had to do what the people never wanted to see happen. Egypt accepted the IMF offer to loan it 12 billion dollars over a period of time. The big deal was not the size of the loan for, Egypt could do without it. Rather, it was the fact that a loan from the IMF represented a vote of confidence in the solidity of the Egyptian economy; something the foreign investors wanted to see return to Egypt before doing business with that country again. Well, Egypt had not yet received the fifth two-billion tranche from the IMF when foreign money to the tune of 160 billion dollars had already poured into the country.

Now that the world has recognized that Egypt is on its way to become the next economic tiger — as predicted on this website even during the country's darkest moment — the braying agents of doom and gloom, are back again playing their tricks. Because they got smart enough to hide their faces and refrain from using their own voices, they recruited a new crop of junior doom and gloom agents, and taught them how to bray the anti-Egypt refrain. You see an example of this in the article that came under the title: “Egypt's Economy Rising, Rights Declining,” written by Barak Barfi, and published on November 19, 2018 on the website of the Washington Institute.

This is a “yes but” kind of article. It says that yes, Sisi has delivered on his promise to bring the economic boom that Egypt deserves, as well as the stability that the people have yearned for after 5 years of turmoil … but all is not well in the land that comes back to life every time it is left for dead, say the doomsters. If you want to know what's wrong with Egypt, they go on to explain, it is that—unlike Chicago where people are free to kill each other; unlike America where the police are free to shoot them in the back—the people of Egypt behave well, and turn against the handful that misbehaves.

In a country that's surrounded by out-of-control armed settlers, checkpoints of humiliation, walls of apartheid and desperate suicide bombers, Egypt remains as stable and serene as a pyramid. Its people need not be told to say something when they see something; they do it on their own. They even turn-in those who would endanger the security of the country.

If you want to know what this is called; it is called adherence to human rights the likes of which America may not achieve in a million years or more … or ever.

Many lost Years and he wants more of the same

If you want proof that indoctrination has such a powerful hold on its victims, even seventeen years of observation cannot alter a mind that was warped by it –– you'll see the proof by going over the article that came under the title: “Substitutes for victory in Afghanistan,” written by Clifford D. May and published on November 20, 2018 in The Washington Times.

Clifford May has been with it since the start. In fact, he founded the outfit over which he still presides, in response to the 2001 incident known as 9/11, which motivated America to launch the Afghan operation. May gave his outfit the comical name “Foundation for Defense of Democracies,” and from the start, assigned two senior colleagues to cover the Afghan operation.

And then, ten years ago –– seven years after the start of the Afghan operation –– Clifford May and a group of like-minded observers traveled to Afghanistan to see for themselves what America was doing in that country. He says he was not impressed with what he saw America was doing. But that was the time when a new president, Barack Obama, had been elected, and his rhetoric indicated he might have a plan, which included a surge of troops in Afghanistan, that should turn things around.

Alas, things did not go as planned during the eight-year tenure of Barack Obama, says Clifford May, especially that the surge ended barely two years after it was put in effect. As to where things stand at this time, this is how Clifford May put it: “The Taliban, we may now safely conclude … fought hard, badly bloodied Afghan forces and civilians alike, and gained ground.” So little to show for their effort after seventeen years of defending the democracies. And this prompts the question: Where to from here?

From May's standpoint, things are even worse than they appear to the casual observer. That's because the Taliban are receiving help from Pakistan that's supposed to be an ally of America, and from Iran that's the implacable foe of America, he says. In addition, al Qaeda that started this long chain of events with the execution of the 9/11 incident “remains joined at the ideological and operational hip with the Taliban,” he explains, suggesting that, in his mind, America can run from al Qaeda but cannot hide from it.

And now, after seventeen years of a war that promises not to end well for America — even as Clifford May and his people became convinced of this reality — they could not bring themselves to doing what the Soviets did when they realized they could not win the war in Afghanistan. They admitted they lost, packed their war gear and went home. As to the Americans? Look what May is now saying:

“Thomas Joscelyn and Bill Roggio, my colleagues and senior fellows at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, have now concluded that the Taliban has indeed prevailed, and that the unenviable task assigned to American diplomats is to find a way out — 'one in which the United States can leave without the appearance of losing'”.

And that's how the democracies are being defended: The leaders lie to themselves, to their people and to the world, claiming they are winning the war when they are not — and knowing full well that nobody believes them, if only because they ceased to believe their own lies long ago.

So, guess what Clifford May is suggesting. You'll find it hard to believe, but read it anyway, and you'll be amazed. In fact, what follows is a layout of his philosophy; slightly altered to make it more comprehensible:

“I believe that the conflict in Afghanistan is not just about Afghanistan. It is instead one battle in a long, world war to defend the West against the resurgent forces of Sunni and Shia jihadism. It is possible to lose battles and still win wars. But one must avoid self-deception, and revises strategy consistent with changing circumstances, keeping a coherent theory of [reality on the ground] in mind”.

What this says is that, being indoctrinated with the precepts of Judaism, Clifford May is seized by the doctrine, and cannot escape its warping clutches. For this reason, he will never give up doing the wrong thing again and again, even after seeing it fail repeatedly.

So here he is, admitting that his side has lost a seventeen-year battle. And in the same breath arguing in favor of a perpetual war of many battles — some to be won and some to be lost — but an epic war of biblical dimensions against Islam; one that's worthy of its name.

So, go ahead America, draft your most talented children and send them to fight the battles of the Jews. Open your coffers and replenish them with borrowed money because you'll need as much as the coffers can hold, and then some.

The Americans are prepared to spend and die. The Jews are prepared to collect and lie. What can be more harmoniously compatible than that? It's a heavenly marriage put together in Satan's Hell.

Doing Business according to the Jewish Gospel

When a culture runs on two legs; one called “trickery” and the other “leverage,” you see a group of adherents that can only live among productive people because they can only live at the expense of others.

When you give those adherents a place of their own, thus compel them to live by the work they do, they fail to produce the minimum necessities of life. And so, they go back to the business of locating outside suckers on whom they can sponge. When they find one that will finance their existence, they pretend to be a nation like any other ... then quickly move on to claim they are the best of nations.

This has been the history of the Jews throughout time where they operated as “Merchants of Venice” not only in the imagination of William Shakespeare, but in real life ... in places like India in Asia, England in Europe, America in the New World and everywhere in between. Among their other tricks, the Jews lent money that was not theirs, and made profits that became theirs. They achieved all this by the force of leverage which gave them the opportunity to say: Your silver pieces or your pound of flesh.

This is the culture that's behind Benny Avni writing the article that he did under the title: “Hitting China on trade would be easier with a few more allies,” published on November 19, 2018 in the New York Post. You already see everything that is vintage Jewish in this title. You see “hitting” because hurting others is what Jews love to do most. You see “easier” because getting the biggest bang for the buck is a Jewish passion. And you see “allies” because having suckers doing the work for them is a Jewish specialty.

What we have here is a weasel that wants to incite his everyday muscular sucker to go after someone regardless of the consequences of such folly. What do you think he would say to him? To be precise, what do you think Benny Avni would want to tell Donald Trump he must do with regard to the trade relations that America has with China?

Well, the standard Jewish pattern is to portray America's antagonists (whether or not they are enemies) as being strong enough to hurt the innocent, which they do regularly — being the vicious characters that they are, as would say Benny Avni — but not so strong as to survive America's attacks on them. Avni will further explain that America will do itself and everyone a great deal of good if Donald Trump played hardball with the Chinese who are today's designated antagonists opposed to America. What follows is a condensed version of the passages that illustrate this reality:

“Xi wants Beijing to displace America as global leader. Trump has imposed tariffs on Chinese goods and enhanced America's presence in the neighborhood. China's growth slowed to 6.5 percent. Even these growth numbers are suspect. China is still an economic power to reckon with. China is deeply involved in the economies of the neighborhood and in faraway places such as Africa and Latin America. China's involvement is predatory and even colonial. Beijing's initiative helps countries across Asia, Africa and Europe improve national infrastructure. But when loans go unpaid, the road could become a noose, choking debt-ridden clients”.

As can be seen, Avni begins by suggesting that China's effort to grow its economy, is not meant to give its people a higher standard of living, but meant to displace America as a global leader. He follows with the suggestion that such evil was not lost on Trump who imposed tariffs on Chinese goods, and sent warships to China's neighborhood.

This done, Benny Avni fell into the trap of echo-repeating what the economic ignoramuses have been peddling for a time now. Not knowing that there are two kinds of consumption, the economic dumbos have attributed to one the potential pitfalls of the other. Here is what escapes these people:

If a country keeps borrowing money to buy consumer goods, and has no means to pay back the loans, the country will get into trouble. But if the country borrows to invest in education, plant or infrastructure, it will be rewarded because the investment it makes today will more than pay for the interest when tomorrow will come.

Unlike the old colonial empires, China is not lending money to the elites of Third World countries to buy luxury goods it manufactures in its own plants. No; China is lending those countries to invest in infrastructure, and all that's necessary for them to grow their economies, pay back the loans, and have a solid base from where to advance and become self-sustaining economies.

If despite all this, the loans go unpaid, which is what Avni and those like him predict, the Chinese will suggest they can run the infrastructure and the plants efficiently and have them produce a profit.

The Chinese will not move the infrastructure to China; they will only appoint Chinese managers to run those places till the locals had the time to learn doing it themselves. And things will go back to normal again … leaving Avni and those like him gnashing their teeth.

Alter your Frame of Mind or be humiliated

The strange thing about there being a debate in America concerning North Korea living up to its promise to denuclearize, is that there is a debate on the subject at all.

There was a summit meeting between the leaders of the United States and North Korea resulting in an agreement that went no farther than delineating what normally happens in such circumstances. For example, when during the Cold War, the two superpowers deemed it necessary to reduce their nuclear arsenals, they set-up a protocol that determined what each side will do and when, so that no side will find itself at a disadvantage during the process.

As well, when deep distrust exists between two sides, they would first agree on what the ultimate outcome of the talks should look like. But recognizing that the distrust between them will be a big factor, they work out a protocol that sets up a number of confidence building measures whose purpose will be to show each side that the other is serious about reaching a deal. The antagonists need such a protocol to allay the fear that one side might want to pull a surprise by which to put the opponent at a disadvantage or even at peril.

In fact, this is the language you'll find in the joint statement signed by Trump and Kim at the Singapore Summit. To wit, one passage in that statement says this: “...recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula...” Another passage reads as follows: “Trump committed to provide security guarantees to North Korea, and Kim reaffirmed his commitment to complete denuclearization of the [entire] Korean Peninsula”.

Unfortunately, what happened a few weeks after the summit, was that the American Secretary of State pompously declared the following to the base of Trump's supporters: America will ease the sanctions on North Korea only after that country has disarmed fully, verifiably and irrevocably. The trouble is that when someone in authority uses the media to send a message to the masses out there, the whole world hears that message. And so, they heard the message in North Korea, and they were not amused.

To respond, the North Koreans did the very natural thing of reacting to the provocative words of the American Secretary of State by accusing him of acting like a gangster. Moreover, having taken several steps to prove their sincerity to the Americans, only to be treated so rudely in return, the North Koreans resumed their armament activities. What they refrained from doing, however, was launch ICBMs or detonate nuclear weapons. This was their way of signaling to the Americans that they do not want to burn the newly formed bridges between them … at least not for now.

It is against this backdrop that the current debate on the subject is unfolding in America. You can get a taste of it by going over the article that came under the title: “Consistency, the hobgoblin in North Korea,” written by Jed Babbin and published on November 18, 2018 in the Washington Times.

So, how do you think the debate is unfolding in America, my friend? Have the participants realized the gravity of the situation and asked America's leaders to refrain from engaging in the kind of provocations that can jeopardize the process just begun with North Korea? Not on your life. Instead, look how Jed Babbin describes the unfolding debate:

“New imagery shows that North Korea is deploying nuclear-capable missiles. The New York Times and The Washington Post seized upon the report, insisting that Trump's initiative with Kim had failed and that he was being played for a sucker”.

Trump being a Republican and a conservative, he was denigrated by the two liberal (and most supportive of the Democrats) newspapers. Was that a response to his Secretary of State attempting to use the initiative with North Korea to energize his base? Yes, it was. And that's a tragedy because when it comes to playing politics, those that have the responsibility to look after their people and the world, are acting like crackhead addicts.

Their opium is the game of politics for which they will sacrifice anything that'll give them the “fix” they crave … even if it means letting America slide down the path of total irrelevance. But should we conclude this is how America will perish?

Not necessarily because from all the appearances, America has disgusted enough goodwill people around the world, they will want to humiliate its foolish leaders.

In so doing, the goodwill people will shame those leaders and force them to alter their frame of mind and start behaving. Failing this, the defective leaders will leave office on their own or be kicked out before they can push America past the point of no return.

Like every Third World country that lost its way, America will be saved in time by foreigners.

Yemen is nobody's Property

You may have seen the title of an article that said: “US must be careful not to hand Yemen to Iran,” and were puzzled what the writer meant by that.

If that's what happened, allow me to give you insights you might find helpful. The writer is Benny Avni, a Jewish extremist who believes that God gave the Jews not only the land of milk and honey known as Palestine, but the world and all its content. That's where the idea of ownership originated, you see! Avni writes a regular weekly column for the New York Post, and that's where his latest piece was published on November 14, 2018.

Like all Jewish fanatics, Benny Avni sees things in terms of ownership when it comes to thinking about, and dealing with peoples and nations. When you, as reader of their works, think of the matter in these terms, you acquire the correct perspective; the one that will help you understand what they are saying. And so, look at the historical background that follows, and you'll get a sense how we got to where we are today.

The last time a country was someone's property, handed by an authority to an entity, was Palestine. That was the time when the world had seen fit to appoint the Brits guardians in charge of overseeing and protecting a land that was liberated from the clutches of the Ottoman Empire.

A great deal that remains murky to this day, happened during the three decades that separate the early part of the Twentieth Century from the middle part of the same century. The result of these occurrences was that Palestine left the hands of the Brits and landed into the hands of the Jews. These were groups that had come from diverse ethnic origins, associated as they were by a religion whose precepts offend every code of human behavior enunciated by humankind since the start of Civilization.

What's known for certain is that World War II brought a new awareness to the global community to the effect that colonialism was such an immoral activity, it must end as soon as possible. And so, the traditional colonial powers –– once referred to on this website as the Seven Sisters –– began the process of ending the occupation of the lands they had conquered and were exploiting.

At the same time, however, the Jews that had acquired Palestine for no better reason than they were reviled by just about everyone on the planet, that wanted to get rid of them, were starting to work on plans to make colonialism acceptable again. Activities associated with such plans became the all-consuming obsession of Jewish fanatics who worked on it relentlessly.

Mirroring the blood-soaked history, which they tell about themselves in the Old Testament, the Jews continue to believe that nothing can be settled amicably among human beings. According to them, for something to be done correctly, it must be done through violence. This is why you'll find that their current master plan involves using the military power of the United States of America to make themselves the new colonial owners of the Middle East … on their way to conquering the whole world in fulfillment of God's wish.

The current obstacle, standing in the way of achieving their goal being Iran, their latest instructions to the moronic captains of America's ship of state include the dictum that: “War is unlikely to end before someone wins,” which you'll find embedded in the Benny Avni article.

That is, the Jews are telling America to stay clear from trying to broker a peaceful solution to the dispute in Yemen. Instead, they want to see America continue to fight the Iranian side till victory is achieved. They want all this, despite the horrific situation they acknowledge already exists and will continue to worsen.

Yemen being a property to be owned by someone –– in their eyes –– the Jews believe it will end up being owned by the Iranian side which is Israel's nemesis, or by the opposing side which may not be allied with Israel as of now, but has a chance of being so at some point in the future. But even if this never happens, the Jews figure that it will be better for Yemen to vanish from the face of the earth by a never-ending civil war, than be owned by Iran.

For this reason, speaking in the name of the Jewish masterminds, Benny Avni proposes the following strategy: “Yes, food, water, medicine and other necessities are scarce. 14 million Yemenis are on the verge of starvation. The State Department and UN attempts to end the war have yet to show progress. The US will no longer refuel Saudi jets but [ending the war by] ending all US support would be a major blunder”.

What the Jews want to see is total victory over Iran or war at perpetuity –– but never a compromise.

The old Order is dead; long live the new Order

Seth J. Frantzman who is a kind of big wig in the eyes of the elites in America and Israel wants his readers to believe that Hamas alone was behind the shaking of the old order in Israel, and that America did not contribute to the shake-up. Well then, there is only one word to say to that: Bunk!

Frantzman expressed his views in an article he wrote under the title: “How Hamas Brought Israel to the Brink of Election Chaos,” and the subtitle: “Hamas didn't achieve a military victory. But toppling the defense minister is a kind of victory because it shows that Hamas can shake [occupied] Jerusalem's politics at the very top.” The article was published in the National Interest on November 16, 2018.

The writer began his piece by asserting that “Israel's defense minister resigned in the wake of a ceasefire agreement with Hamas in Gaza.” If true, this would indicate that the defense minister thought he was making progress fighting Hamas, and that the ceasefire undercut his ability to finish the job. If that's what the Israeli minister was thinking –– which is doubtful –– it is not what Seth Frantzman is thinking.

Instead, here is what Frantzman is thinking: “This kind of cycle of rocket fire and air strikes has become common over the last six months,” which means that Frantzman believes the cycle could have gone on forever without resolving a thing. So then, what is the truth? What's behind the resignation of the minister of defense?

Going over the article, we'll bump into a few clues that will help us answer those questions. Here is a short passage that tells a long story:

“In October, the IDF struck 80 targets in Gaza. In July, the air force struck 40 sites in Gaza … Since 2011, Israel struck 300 targets in Syria, 200 in the last two years. But Iran's ballistic missiles are becoming more precise and Iran transferred that precision guidance to Hezbollah ... In October, Russia transferred the S-300 anti-aircraft system to Syria and warned against any 'hot heads' in Israel testing the air defense. This means Israel has to work with the US Administration. Envoy James Jeffrey said it was the US goal to see Iranian forces leave Syria”.

Just think about it. Israel could not scare a ragtag army of semi-starved Palestinian kids by striking them 80 times in one month and 40 times in another month. But all that Israel could do against massively armed Syria was to hit it 300 times in seven years, which averages down to less than 4 times a month. And that's before Syria had acquired the S-300 air defense system that effectively brought Israel's air force to a screeching halt. What kind of useless military campaigns was Israel engaged in during all these years?

No wonder Israel called on America to help. But guess what, my friend. It was predicted time and time again that Israel would run America to the ground with its insatiable hunger for more American support, and the incessant pressure it brings to bear on America, forcing it to compromise itself over and over again, just to make Israel look bigger and more important than it is or will ever be.

Whereas it looked like someone in Washington was beginning to listen to the warnings that Israel was bad news to those that help it, you had the 'hot head' minister of defense in Israel getting ready to call President Trump's bluff to the effect that Israel will be left to its own devices should it try to pull the tail of the Syrian tiger.

That was the moment when Netanyahu felt the thumb of President Trump push down on his skull, telling him to get rid of the good-for-nothing Moldovan bumbler who was appointed minister of defense to scare the Palestinians but scared the Americans instead. Netanyahu heard the Trump call loud and clear, and told the Jewish symbol of military incompetence to resign or be kicked out. He resigned.

The net result of these comings and goings has come down to this:

First, we have the following in Frantzman's own words: “If Netanyahu is unable to sort out the instability, Israel will go to elections, which would be another distraction for Netanyahu; exactly what he sought to avoid in Gaza.” This means the old order has died in Israel.

Second, we have the following as can be determined from observing the global scene: America is no longer prepared to squander what little credibility it has left, doing favors to the black hole of utter uselessness and absolute waste that is Israel. This means the old order has died in America.

With the old order dead in both places, it is time to celebrate the emergence of a new order. As to what that will be, no one yet knows, but heck: let it be, or expressed differently, que sera sera.

When idiots talk to idiots, anything goes

Jonathan S. Tobin has a theory, and I am going to tell you about it in a moment. What I want to do first, however, is tell you about the theory I formulated, being inspired by Tobin's theory.

My theory says there will never be a peace treaty between the Palestinians and the Zionist losers of all eternity because a guy was spotted somewhere in Timbukstan (wherever that is) wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday. Got that, my friend? Now, here is Jonathan Tobin's theory: “The rockets from Gaza prove peace is a pipe dream right now,” which is also the title of an article he wrote to explain his theory. That article was published on November 15, 2018 in the New York Post.

Given that for several decades, members of the mob of Jewish pundits have come out by the hundreds and have used the buzz of the day as raw material around which to fashion a new reason why America must not end its financial and military support for Israel's occupation of Palestine, any reason given by anyone — no matter how silly it may sound — must be considered just as valid. This is why I deem my theory to be as good as that of Jonathan Tobin.

But why are the Jews always adamant about treating America's political and diplomatic elites like idiots? The reason is that they are themselves idiots talking to idiots. In fact, the Jews have been running two contradictory discourses simultaneously, and no one from the thousands of American politico-diplomatic gurus that think about these matters, were able to spot the logical oddities and cry out enough is enough.

And if you want to know, the Americans took each insult hurled at their intelligence as if it were gospel truth emanating from heaven; and acted on it as if it were commanded by God Himself. One way or the other, using words that consorted with the contemporary debate, the core of the Jewish arguments ran as follows:

One Jewish discourse asserted that God gave “Judea and Samaria” to anyone that calls himself a Jew. This automatically meant that peace talks or no peace talks, Israel had decided it will never end its occupation of Palestine, which made every peace talk dead on arrival (DOA).

The other Jewish discourse was to the effect that it was the Palestinians, not Israel, who were to blame for the failure to reach a peace accord with Israel. And the idiots of America lived comfortably with this contradiction for decades, never suspecting that billions of human beings thought of them as dangerously idiotic suckers.

What follows is what Jonathan Tobin — speaking for all the members of the mob of Jewish pundits — is saying to justify Israel's rejection of the idea of forging a peace treaty with the Palestinians:

“Trump shouldn't get his hopes up. The majority of Netanyahu's people have no appetite for a withdrawal from the West Bank. It would be folly for trump to push for adoption of his plan. If Trump creates a Palestinian state on the West Bank, it would probably lead to Hamas operating there or even running it. Most Israelis understand that if their army gives up security control of the West bank, the dilemma they are facing in Gaza will be replicated. The emergence of a legitimate Palestinian state is a recipe for more bloodshed, not peace. Trump's intentions may be good, but any effort to push Israel to give up territory is doomed”.

And what follows is what Jonathan Tobin — speaking for all the members of the mob of Jewish pundits — is saying to blame the Palestinians for the lack of progress at forging a peace treaty between Palestine and Israel:

“There is no sign the Palestinians are capable of making the kind of concessions necessary for a two-state solution. For starters, PA leader Mahmoud Abbas is too frightened of Hamas to sign any peace deal with Israel — that is, assuming he actually wants peace at all. Imagine a West Bank recognized by the rest of the world as a sovereign state that Israel wouldn't be free to attack — and you see what most Israelis think would be the only logical outcome of a two-state solution”.

With that in mind, it is easy to see why Tobin started his article with this lamentation: The State Department made it clear that rockets launched at Israel from Gaza won't stop Trump from rolling his plan for peace between Palestine and Israel.

It is that he senses the Americans are waking to the reality that the Jews are taking them for suckers, and beginning to reject the theatrics, which Israel stages every time that someone comes close to proposing a realistic plan for realizing a peace treaty between the combatants.

After all, Netanyahu did not take the chance of sending his forever-clumsy team of special operations into Gaza to assassinate someone on the eve of a new peace proposal being unveiled, unless he intended to sabotage the Trump effort before Trump realized what hit him.

We'll just have to wait and see if the American idiots have wised-up, or if the Jewish idiots will once again steamroll over them, and win the round one more time.