Let’s say a television talk show invites you and your nemesis to come debate the subject which is of interest to both of you, and do it in front of a live audience. You both accept the invitation, you go to the meeting and start debating.
It turns out you
are defending what you call the interests of your people, and he is defending
what he calls the interests of his people. You have a strategy, and he does not
seem to have one. And so, you maneuver the unwrapping of the debate in such a
way as to give him ample opportunities to accuse your people of all kinds of
evil intentions, and predict that if they are not restrained, they will inflict
unspeakable damage unto themselves, his people and the world.
You see from the
response of the audience that your nemesis is winning the debate, but you’re
not worried because it is your strategy that this should happen till you come
near the end of the debate, at which time you aim to reverse the situation. So
you get to he end, and this is the moment when you stop talking to your
nemesis. You turn to the audience and tell it the following:
You are here
because you’re interested in this subject, which means you’ve been following
the events over time, and have a good idea what has been happening. And so, I
ask you not to put too much credence in what I said or what he said. Instead,
believe in what you’ve been seeing happen on the ground, and what you’ve been
hearing from him that was meant to confuse. You heard him tell his side of the
story. Now I ask you to compare what you know his people are doing to my people
on the ground, against what he accuses my people — not of
doing because they are doing nothing — but of intending to do in the future. You’ll find that because his
people have the guns, they are slaughtering my people while he accuses my
people of intending to do the same to his people. What you, as audience, are
asked to resolve is which of two baskets is more credible. In one basket you
have what you see, which is his people armed to the teeth, looting and killing
my people. In the other basket you have his accusation to the effect that my
people wish to harm his people. What do you believe? Is it what you see with
your own eyes right now, or what he speculates will happen in the future?
This is when the
audience rises to its feet, and gives you a standing ovation.
And that, my friend,
is what has been happening with the Jewish propaganda machine. For decades, it has
been telling the English speaking audiences not to believe what they see happen
in the Middle East with their own eyes, and believe instead what the Jews
speculate will happen if they are forced to lift their boots off the necks of
Palestinians.
You can see one
such performance in the article that came under the title: “The UN’s final
solution to the Israel question,” and the subtitle: “Its campaign of
demonization and delegitimization escalates.” The article was written by
Clifford D. May, and published on January 11, 2022 in The Washington Times.
What prompted
Clifford May to write that article, and what is he trying to achieve? Well, what
prompted him is a Commission of Inquiry (COI) that the United Nations (which
pitied the Jews so much, it gave them a piece of Palestine they promised to
turn into a home, and live in peace with their new neighbors) set-up, having discovered that you pity the Jews at the
peril of the planet, and give them a finger at the risk of losing your arm to
them.
The UN has
recognized the mistake it made when it took from the Palestinians and gave to
the Jews. Apparently the UN has now decided to get more involved in the effort to
give back to the Palestinians what the Jewish phenomenon has gobbled up by the
process of expanding metastasis. But because the UN effort will rely on the
international laws as written down and agreed to by the nations of the world,
it was necessary to begin the journey with the COI, which will identify the
legal bases upon which the criminal prosecution of Israel and its military
operators will be conducted.
Realizing that they
made self-defeating mistakes in trying to demonize and delegitimize the
Palestinian people, the Jewish pundits are now walking back on some of their
claims in the hope that the COI will retain some of the old UN pity for them,
and soften its description of the horrors that Israel has committed when
responding to the Hamas kites and weather balloons with savage attacks using
American-built F-16s, F-35s, smart bombs and thousands of sorties to drop
millions of pounds of ordnance on a territory no bigger than a city, comprising
two million Palestinians packed like sardine, and nowhere for them to go.
Calming the members
of the COI is what Clifford May is trying to achieve at this point. But he has
not lost sight of the reality that Israel is like a neighborhood fire. When the
firefighters succeed in preventing it from expanding, the fire dies. By that
same logic, recognizing Israel as being an apartheid state makes it so that the
West Bank is considered occupied territory. This will arrest the expansion of
Israel and cause it to die. It is what Clifford May and those of his ilk think.