I was born in Cairo, Egypt. How would you
like it if I had said I'm a Cairene, and someone objected? What if he went on
to say, no, no, he's not a Cairene; he's Egyptian? Let's try another one. At
this time, I live in Ontario, Canada. How would you like it if I said I'm an
Ontarian, and someone objected? What if he went on to say, no, no, he's not an
Ontarian; he's a Canadian?
If that thing stopped here, you might
think it's a tryout for a comical sketch meant to make people laugh. But what
if this is not the case? What if it is part of an elaborate orgy out of hell,
whose ultimate goal is to give a native of Lithuania or Russia or some other
place, the right to own the house in which I was born in Cairo, and the right
to own the apartment in which I now live in Ontario? What would you think of
that?
If you feel that this nonsense is making
your brain swell to the point that your head might explode, get a hold of the
following title for an article: “Jesus was not a Palestinian, He was a Mizrahi
Jew,” and imagine seven billion heads explode. Do you know how they define,
Mizrahi Jew? They define it as a native of the Middle East and North Africa.
This is the space that stretches from Morocco
to Pakistan, and Palestine happens to be situated in the middle of that space.
Because Jesus was born and lived not in Morocco or Pakistan but in Palestine,
he is a Palestinian as distinct from being a Moroccan or a Pakistani. He can
also be a Mizrahi, if that's the definition you wish to give that word. But
this does not negate Jesus the identity of being a Palestinian … which is what
the infamous title says.
In the same way that someone would have
wanted a Lithuanian or a Russian to own the Cairo house in which I was born or
the Ontario apartment in which I now live, Hen Mazzig who wrote the article
with that idiotic title, has tried to explain the logic by which Jesus may be
called a Mizrahi but not a Palestinian.
The writer's goal has been to find a way
by which to give every Jew in Lithuania or Russia or some other place –– the
right to own every parcel of land and every property in Palestine, while
negating that same right to the Palestinians. You can see how he makes this
attempt in the article that was published on December 24, 2019 in the Jewish
publication Algemeiner.
I can't even begin to put together a
condensed version of that piece of drivel, given the hodgepodge manner in which
it was written by its author. Thus, I cannot give you the opportunity to have a
full sense of how exactly the writer was attempting to reach his conclusions.
But as painful as the experience will be, you'll just have to read the whole
thing yourself.
I'll only mention the one aspect of Jewish
logic that is of horrendous absurdity, yet is brought out by these people time
after time without shame. It has to do with messing the chronological order of
events. You'll catch Hen Mazzig say that the name Palestine was given to the
no-name land in question by the Romans, a century or so after Jesus.
Accordingly, the existing inhabitants came to be known as Palestinians.
He then vaguely refers to the reality that
a thousand and eight hundred years later, in the year 1949, that same land ––
now known as Palestine –– was renamed Israel by the Jews who invaded it, having
come mostly from Europe. And this fact alone, according to Mazzig, makes the
Jews more indigenous to the land than the Palestinians. Figure this out, my
friend, and you'll deserve being compensated with your weight in gold. I gave
up long ago.
As revoltingly farcical as this is, it
comes with enormous consequences on top of that. It affects the people who are
directly involved, the region and the whole world. You can see that when you go
over the article that came under the mendacious title: “Just Another Way for
the Palestinians to Avoid Peace,” written by the notorious Jonathan S. Tobin
and published on December 25, 2019 in the Jewish publication Algemeiner.
Speaking of Fatou Bensouda, who is the
chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Court at the Hague, Tobin says
that the good woman started an investigation into Israeli war crimes, and that
she “is also seeking authorization to treat Jews living in the West Bank and
parts of Jerusalem as a war crime.” This is directly related to the Jewish idea
that a native of Lithuania or Russia or some other place converting to Judaism,
automatically gains the right to own the house in which I was born in Cairo,
and the right to own the apartment in which I now live in Ontario.
Jews from everywhere around the world;
most especially from America, use that kind of Satanic-Evangelical logic to
displace the Palestinians that have lived in the West Bank since time
immemorial––and rob them of their properties. They settle on that land under
the protection of the American equipped Israeli army.
As to the Palestinians, with everything
taken from them, they had no choice but to do the civilized thing and seek
relief from the behavior of the uncivilized savages. They went to the
International Criminal Court seeking redress for what the beastly primitives in
Israel and America are doing to them. So, how do you think Jonathan Tobin
responded to that move? Here is how he responded:
“As outrageous as her stand may be, the
reason this is happening is because a Gambian lawyer [Fatou Bensouda] whose
resume includes a stint as the chief legal adviser to a dictator, decided to
target the Jewish state. The effort to treat the presence of Jews in parts of
Jerusalem and the West Bank as a war crime is outrageous. The fact that her
office refused to meet with Israelis and Jews also ought to taint her. This is
an example of a hypocritical international community that judges Israel and the
Jews by a double standard. Netanyahu's accusation that Bensouda's decision is
pure antisemitism, is spot on”.