A story that need not be analogized to be clear

 Here is a story that speaks for itself loudly and clearly without the need to create the analogy that would clarify the most obscure nitty gritty of its functions.

 

It is the story of a country that was stolen by spiteful thieves. The story of a people who are continually traumatized by powerful tormentors who came under the spell of the thieves that stole the country. These are thieves whose ultimate goal is to destroy the owners of the country, thus leave no one alive that can challenge their possession of what they stole.

 

It is the story of Palestine, the Land of Milk and Honey that was so coveted by the dispossessed, yet envious Hebrew tribes that were roaming the deserts of antiquity, they schemed a multimillennial plan to acquire the enchanted land by hook or by crook—at times laboring alone; at times aided by accomplices who may or may not have understood what they were asked to do.

 

Having sickened the Europeans for centuries while sojourning throughout their continent, the Hebrew tribes caused the creation of a European frame of mind to the effect that they must wipe out those tribes (now calling themselves Jews) from the face of the Earth. Failing this, the Europeans resolved to create a Jewish-free Europe by shipping the Jews out of the continent. And so, despite a meticulously planned Holocaust that was designed to execute every Jew alive, the Europeans failed to achieve their primary goal. And so, they implemented plan B, which was to ship the Jews to someplace else.

 

That place turned out to be Palestine. In need of a big power to help them execute their diabolic plan for the stolen country, the Jews managed to lure the Soviet Union, then France and Britain who stood by them for a while but became so disgusted with what the Jews were doing, they dropped them cold. This is when the Jews turned to America, a regime of governance they discovered was like supervising a classroom of first-graders.

 

This is the sense you’ll develop as you read the article that came under the title: “Biden Must Give the Palestinian Authority a Wake-Up Call,” and the subtitle: “Although the Biden administration is justifiably focused on Russia and Iran, it must also hold the Palestinians to account and declare that deepening alliances with America's enemies and breaching U.S. law will have consequences.” The article was written by the Israeli Eitan Fischberger, and published on October 30, 2022 in the American publication The National Interest.

 

The first thing that happens—when you expose yourself to the reality of a country that was stolen by home invaders who labored for centuries at scheming and executing a plan of such magnitude—is that you wonder what else can happen on this planet that will not shock humanity enough to make it rise and stop the ongoing crime before it goes too far. The second thing that happens is that you wonder if what you see unfold in Europe and East Asia at this time, is not the direct result of America being treated by the Jews like thumb-sucking obedient toddlers.

 

In fact, here you have two societies at war against each other, the Jews having invaded the home of the Palestinians. So, what happens? The Jews order the Americans to increase their punishment of the Palestinians because the latter do not behave like the Swiss who live in freedom in their country with no foreign boots crushing their necks every time they wiggle as they try to free themselves.

 

But what exactly do the Jews want from America now? It is that the Americans have realized that the billions upon billions they ship to Israel overtly and covertly every year, serve to maintain the occupation of Palestine and the subjugation of its people by the invaders with a Stone Age mentality. As a result, America saw fit to contribute a tiny (absolutely tiny) amount of relief money to make life a little bearable for the Palestinians. And this is the humanitarian gesture the Jews are telling the Americans to end.

 

The following is the condensed form of passages excepted from the article of the Israeli Eitan Fischberger, commanding America to run its affairs in the way that serves the interests of Israel:

 

“Over the past year, the Palestinians have strengthened their relationships with Iran and the Assad regime in Syria. At the same time, the Palestinian Authority continues to aid the families in need. Mahmoud Abbas, the president of the Palestinian Authority (PA), met with Russian president Vladimir Putin. At the meeting, Abbas remarked that ‘Russia stands by justice and international law,’ a laughable contention considering Russia’s invasion of Ukraine [unless you take into account the Jewish invasion of Palestine.]” Adding insult to injury, the Biden administration gave $201 million for the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees. The administration should not ignore the Palestinians' decision to double down on ties with Russia, Iran, and Syria. The US should reiterate to the PA that it cannot allow Iranian influence to continue penetrating its territory. With President Abbas’ tenure nearing its conclusion and new leadership preparing to take the reins, this may be the Biden administration’s best shot at resetting its dynamic with the PA”.

 

Do you see how the vicious Jewish cycle works and grows, my friend? Here is how it does: Israel tells America to punish the Palestinians. America does that. The Palestinians have no choice but to seek friends where they can find them. Israel points to that reality and demands that America double down on its punishment of the Palestinians. America does that, and the escalation continues unabetted. Thanks to the childishness of the Americans, Israel wins and everybody else loses.

You cannot give away what does not exist

 The Israelis learned a hard lesson. It is that they cannot give away what they don’t have. The situation became more embarrassing when that which they said they had, turned out never to have existed.

 

It is the story of a fantom “Iron Dome” which the Israelis have been promoting as the cream of the crop in the high-tech fields that the “Startup Nation” of Israel has mastered. The Jews sold the idea to the American public and the forever snoozing Congress of absolute uselessness, which responded by authorizing the transfer of hundreds of millions of dollars to Israel.

 

The Israeli pitch to the Americans was that the Iron Dome was a system that can defend against incoming short-range missiles. They added, this was a system that America never developed because it could not produce it at a reasonable cost to make it worthwhile. Well, the Israeli genius went to work, said the Israeli propagandists, and produced an Israeli Iron Dome whose performance has exceeded all of America’s expectations – and done so at a cost so reasonable that the reluctant American military must now be pressured by Congress to use the Israeli system.

 

Unable to say no to the snoozers of the Beltway, the American military that feared the use of Israeli system would result in killing Americans rather than protect them, went through the motion of testing a concocted contraption—put together for the occasion by the Israelis and their American friends—one that proved to be a sorry piece of junk. This is what the American military said it was, but the Congress of uselessness refused to take no for an answer. Against all logic, it ordered that the system be tested again in Guam where a number of phony journalists and military personnel were stationed. Their task was to say they observed tests that were never conducted, and they were perfect.

 

To put out a believable story, the phony group split into two groups who vouched once more that the Iron Dome worked perfectly well. But how did they go about doing the vouching? Well, it was the usual Israeli vouch which consisted of group A quoting group B saying they saw the experiment succeed. And group B quoting group A saying they saw the experiment succeed.

 

And then a terrible war happened in Europe; a war that has been invaded by more journalists carrying more recording equipment than had ever been seen before. It became obvious to the Israelis – under these circumstances – that offering to help the embattled Ukrainians by sending them the overhyped Israeli equipment will result in the disastrous unveiling of the criminal scheme dubbed “Iron Dome” by which the Jews of Israel were able to siphon off billions of dollars from the American treasury, hyping a fantom system that never was.

 

Here is what the Ukrainians wanted: The Israeli Iron Dome, and a variety of American missiles designed to intercept incoming rockets, drones and airplanes, and destroy them in flight. Israel said no to all of that because there never was an Israeli Iron Dome. As to the American missiles, Israel could not give them away without America’s permission which was not forthcoming due to the White House decision not to force Russia to escalate the war at a time when there was talk of the possible use of nuclear weapons.

 

Amid all of that confusion, the Israelis thought they could still do something to gain credit by helping the Ukrainians fight the Russians. They told he Ukrainians they can give them the Israeli designed and produced “Early Warning” system that has worked well in Israel. Well, my friend, there has been a story of deception there too. Before they started calling it, early warning system, the Jews made the world believe it was an “Over the Horizon” radar. This would have been so advanced a system, it would surpass anything the superpowers have in their arsenals. Nobody has perfected that system yet.

 

As it turned out, however, the Israelis had concocted a system made of optical and heat sensors that can “see” the launch of a rocket from a distance, and give warning to this effect. To make the system see as far as possible, the Israelis attached it to a balloon that would take it high in the atmosphere, therefore see farther way … hence, the word early in the name “Early Warning.” The technology involved here being primitive, the Ukrainian students could whip it up in no time at all. And so, the Ukrainian military said to the Israeli offer: Thanks but no thanks.

 

What should we make of all this?

 

More than anything else, what happened here demonstrates how immersed the Judeo-Yiddish culture is in the habit of lying, disinforming, committing intellectual dishonesty, misinforming, cheating and stealing from those who do not keep their guards up when they deal with Jews.

 

For decades, the Jewish leaders, among them the rabbis, have been telling the world that when contrasting the affairs of gentiles with those of Jews, “You can’t compaaaare, you can’t compaaaare.” Well, it is time to accept that notion and let the Jews know that they are indeed so different from the rest of us, we accept all the differences they have been urging us to consider.

 

We see those differences now, and shall never again commit the mistake of offering the Jews the same level of reverence we offer each other, ordinary human beings.

Can DEFCON mean both Offense and Defense?

 Get this: Decades ago Israel told the world that the best defense is a good offense. And ever since that time, the Jews of Israel and their cohorts in America have been making a mockery of the concept known as self-defense.

 

For example, under the guise that they can read the mind of others, the Jews have regularly advanced the accusation that someone was up to no good. Based on this alone, they launched preemptive attacks against those others, and called their own actions self-defense. When the victims defended themselves, the Jews howled their pain, pretending that they were terrorized by those they were victimizing.

 

You can imagine that in a world that’s turned upside down by the Jews, it is possible that someone like Kanye West may have been confused or may have used the Jewish definition of defense to address an issue he knew they will blow out of proportions. What Kanye West did deliberately, at least according to Clifford May, was use the military invented acronym DEFCON (defense condition) to say he is going on the offense against the Jews.

 

But why would Clifford May go through all that trouble? You’ll know why he did so when you read the article he wrote under the title: “United Nations goes DEFCON 3 on Israel,” and the subtitle: “Global bureaucrats are less angry with Putin, Xi, and Khamenei.” The article was published in The Washington Times on October 25, 2022.

 

In fact, the title of the article alone gave away Clifford May’s intention. Instead of associating Kanye West with DEFCON 3, which is what the discussion is supposed to be about, May associated the acronym with the United Nations. He then tossed in Putin, Xi and Khamenei to thicken the plot of what’s coming next.

 

But what can be Clifford May’s ultimate aim in all of this?

 

Well, knowing that he and the other Jewish leaders made inevitable an anti-Jewish blowup that’s almost certain to happen in America – and that the political elites are aware of – Clifford May does not take seriously the expressions of sorrow mouthed by those elites as they see antisemitism spread and deepen throughout the land. He knows that those elites shed crocodile tears to protect themselves for when the blowup will happen and everyone will be called to account for what they did or failed to do to protect the Jews. The excuse of the elites will be that they expressed sorrow at the antisemitism of others, therefore cannot be blamed for what happened.

 

But Clifford May does not care about any of that. His aim is to exploit the current situation all he can, and use it to enrich Israel by fleecing America when he can, and glorify Israel by denigrating America if he must. And so, given that the musings of Kanye West generated a negative reaction among the elites of America – however phony that reaction may have been – Clifford May thought it beneficial to associate Kanye West’s utterings with those of Israel’s archenemies: Putin, Xi and Khamenei. Hence the article that lumps together the UN, DEFCON, Putin, Xi, and Khamenei.

 

But the question still remains: What’s Clifford May trying to accomplish with that article?

 

Surprisingly, here we have a member of the crowd that brays: “You can’t compaaaare, you can’t compaaaare,” starting his article by comparing what he calls the Jewish people, with the activities of Putin, Xi Jinping and Khamenei. Basically, what Clifford May is saying here, is that the Jews are good whereas the others are evil. This, in fact, is the only comparison the Jews will ever allow to be made between themselves and others.

 

Satisfied of what he has accomplished, Clifford May proceeded to mention what Kanye West had muttered, then quickly associated those words with the Commission of Inquiry (COI) that was set-up by the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC)—in his words—“for the express purpose of demonizing and delegitimizing Israel in perpetuity”. Can paranoia ever exceed a case such as that?

 

This done, however, Clifford May went on to repeat the Jewish talking points that have been debunked time after time throughout the years and decades. But he ended this article with something that is both new and puzzling. It reads as follows:

 

“The UN’s self-proclaimed ‘central mission’ is to prevent conflict, help parties in conflict make peace, and create ‘the conditions to allow peace to hold and flourish.’ Regarding the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, the COI and the UNHRC instead send the message that Palestinians should seek ways to peacefully coexist with their Jewish cousins. To them, clearly, Jewish lives don’t matter. But they regard Palestinian lives as cheap, too. What other conclusion can we draw when they incessantly give Palestinians incentive to kill and be killed?”

 

This forces us to pose the question: What’s the difference between—on the one hand—helping the parties in conflict to create conditions that will allow peace to flourish … on the other hand, urging the parties to seek ways to coexist? It sounds like a distinction without much of a difference.

 

But having made this statement, Clifford May concluded that Jewish lives don’t matter to COI or UNHRC. What? How so? This is so incomprehensible, it requires further clarification.

A declining power displays grace not defiance

General Dwight Eisenhower who won the war against tyranny for the Europeans and perhaps the world, was humble enough to forgo taking a victory lap in favor of doing something else.

 

What the General did was warn against the American military industrial complex getting so greedy that it might develop a powerful influence inside the Pentagon and State Department, thus cause the kind of trouble for America and the world that must never happen.

 

Now, almost three quarters of a century later, Eisenhower’s warning seems to have faded away, drowned by the loud voices that urge the American governing elites to make the military industrial complex the supreme oracle whose wishes will always be honored, and whose dictates will always be obeyed.

 

A clear example of that is the article that came under the title: “Drills, drones and deterrence,” and the subtitle: “We are rapidly running out of time to rebuild our miliary.” It was written by Jed Babbin and published on October 21, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

What the article shows is how the war mongering hawks latch on to what is said that may be innocent, distort the intent of what’s advocated, and piggyback on the contortion of their making to lobby for the military industrial complex, disguised as lambs when in reality they are hungry wolves on the prowl.

 

Here is the observation that was made by innocent eyes, but that Jed Babbin utilized to build on, and lobby for the militarization of America:

 

“A recent study by the Air Force Association’s Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies said: “Today’s Air Force is smaller, older and less ready [to fight] than it has ever been. It lacks the ability to fight a peer conflict, deter elsewhere and defend the homeland as required by the National Defense Strategy”.

 

It must be noted that the Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies was founded by the dovish Senator George Mitchell whose intent was to encourage young people to get a college education, an endeavor that was funded and continues to be funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

 

And here is how Jed Babbin used what was said by others to build on, and get to where he intended to go without making the necessary mental effort to put together a sound argument that would construct a convincing case and sell his pet project to the elites in the Washington corridors of power:

 

“The Navy’s picture is just as ugly. Our fleet now consists of 295 ships, and needs 530 ships to meet its mission requirements. The Army and the Marines can’t be in better shape. That’s plenty bad enough, but our operational doctrine apparently does not include basic force protection”.

 

As if to cement those views, Jerry Hendrix who is a fellow at the Sagamore Institute of religious fanaticism, came out the next day – October 22, 2022 – and added his voice to that of Jed Babbin with an article that came under the title: “The United States Is in a Coffin Corner,” and the subtitle: “The US faces a window of strategic vulnerability unlike any it has experienced in the past two generations.” The article was published in National Review Online.

 

Whereas Jed Babbin used what was said by others to build on and make his case, Jerry Hendrix did not have to do likewise because the giant of the military industrial complex itself expressed the will of the oracle this time. What follows is how Hendrix first put it, shown here in condensed form:

 

“The Heritage Foundation released its annual Index of US Military Strength. It rated the US military as ‘weak, charging that the forces are under-strength, under-trained, and under-funded, and thus are not ready to meet the current challenges of competition. Heritage highlighted in particular the small size and poor material condition of the US Navy and Air Force, which will be critical in facing a potential conflict in the Asia–Pacific region”.

 

And here is what Hendrix said has followed those events:

 

“Following on the heels of Heritage study came the earnings report of the Lockheed-Martin corporation. In it, Lockheed CEO reported that the company had expanded its efforts to produce more High Mobility Artillery Rocket System missile launchers. Twenty of them have already been sent to Ukraine, and another 18 have been promised to that nation, draining US stocks of these launchers. Support for Ukraine has also drawn down the nation’s supplies of the Javelin anti-tank weapon and large-caliber artillery rounds. The implication of Lockheed’s report is that it will take years for the US to restore its inventories of these weapons. The takeaway is that supplies of the weapons central to the American way of war, are low, and the nation no longer has the robust defense-industrial base that can rapidly replenish them”.

 

Now, my friend, imagine how many trillions of dollars it will take to increase the number of warships in the American navy from what Jed Babbin says are 295 ships to what he says must be 530 ships. Add to those surface ships the number of submarines that will be needed to protect them from below. And when all is said and done, do not forget that the new ships will have to be staffed with competent personnel to operate, fuel and maintain them — all that at the cost of about $100 million per ship per year.

 

Now the big and inevitable question: Where will the indebted to its eyeballs America borrow the money to dream and bankroll that impossible dream? Will it turn to China which will be the target of its rebuilt navy? Absurd.

 

Let’s be real. America is a declining power. It can engage in defiant fantasies such as those of Babbin and Hendrix, and continue to be the laughingstock of the world. Or it can moderate gracefully with age such that those who are poised to overtake it, will continue to venerate it even as they sit at the zenith of power while America is seen to struggle as it tries to keep its head above water.

What happened? Was Planet Earth sent into an alternate universe?

 When you see Clifford D. May and Shoshana Bryen turn against America – their supposed country – and when you see them go against their own President … doing so to protect Saudi Arabia as well as its regime and its iron-fisted ruler, you know that something has gone unkosher, and done so in the blink of an eye. But what was it that went out of whack?

 

Could it be that Planet Earth was hurled into an ion storm like you see happen in science fiction movies, and left to fend for itself in an alternate universe? Worse, could that be a nemesis universe where things are done contrary to the way they are on Earth?

 

If this is the case, the clocks must be running anti-clockwise. So, you look at your watch to see if this is happening but find that the watch runs normally, which means so do all the clocks. You look out the window to see if people walk and if cars run backward, but see them walk and run forward like they always did. You are puzzled, and so you hypothesize.

 

You think that maybe the attitude of May and Bryen was temporarily reversed by the gods to give humanity the message that the time has come for the self-styled hawks to turn dovish and work to fashion the Planet into a paradise-like place where suffering is diminished to the minimum level, and happiness is augmented to the maximum level for everyone alive.

 

You check the validity of that hypothesis by talking to family and friends, and by checking the print media as well as the electronic ones, but find that everything is indicating all remains as it has been since the beginning of time.

 

Furthermore, you get filled with the sense of more confusion (1) reading the Clifford May article which came under the title: “Mohammed bin Salman has legitimate grievances against US,” and the subtitle: “Biden vowed to make him a 'pariah.'” It was published on October 18, 2022 in The Washington Times. And (2) reading the Shoshana Bryen article that came under the title: “Biden Deflects to Saudi Arabia,” published on October 14, 2022 in the American Thinker.

 

Well then, if the May and Bryen reversal was not engineered by the gods, maybe it was engineered by the demons who wish to give humanity a different message. But what could that be? This is when your memory is jogged to a time when something close to what’s happening today, happened then. It did right after the fall of the Berlin wall, which the Jews saw as an opportunity to turn the Eastern European countries into suckers who will work to serve Israel in the belief that such will make America’s Jews use American resources to turn their countries into democratic heavens.

 

The Eastern Europeans turned themselves into suckers extraordinaire and helped Israel to the hilt but got nothing in return. It did not take them long to figure out why. Living under a Socialist regime that sounded good on paper but difficult to implement in real life, they realized that the same thing was happening to the Capitalist system they just came under: It sounded good when promoted by the Western propaganda that sold it to them over the decades, but when the Wall fell, and they tried the system, they found it as wanting in practice as was the Socialist system they left behind.

 

Angered that the ever-opportunistic Jews suckered them for many years, the leaders of Eastern Europe turned against what they came to view as a cabal of parasitic bloodsuckers. They attacked the Jews verbally, rejected Capitalism totally and started experimenting with new governance systems, certain that they will find the right formula to suit their circumstances.

 

As if this were not enough to warn the current Western leaders they have deviated much from the Capitalist ideals formulated and written down by the founders – those leaders are also shown to have brought the system close to collapse as elaborated in the article that came under the title:

 

“Time for course correction on war in Ukraine,” and the subtitle: “A regional crisis cannot escalate into a global catastrophe.” It was written by Mark Burkhalter, and published on October 18, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

Here, in condensed form, is what Mark Burkhalter is saying:

 

“Never in all my travels have I sensed such financial insecurity or concerns about safety among the people of Europe than in the past few weeks. Residents in places from Scandinavia to the United Kingdom are worried about how they are going to afford to eat and stay warm. The impact on their lives is devastating. The costs of war are crimes against innocent people; also environmental crimes. Yet all we hear from the White House and Congress is the need for another appropriation for war without making a case for a strategic interest. Peace rarely gets discussed among our leaders, yet the stakes get higher every day and not just for Europe. Energy costs across Europe will be catastrophic. In Britain energy costs are up 50% and rolling blackouts are expected across Europe. There will be only a small supply of natural gas coming to the continent. Countries closest to Ukraine are seeing astounding inflation related to groceries. In Latvia and Lithuania, inflation was more than 22% for September; in the Netherlands, it was more than 17%; and in Poland, almost 16%”.

 

And so, following the path to ruin taken earlier by the Socialists, it happens that rather than listen to the concerned thinkers telling the governing crowd it must return to the fundamentals of Democracy to save it, that crowd is cancelling the thinkers and persecuting them for criticizing its approach to governance.

 

And no one knows how it will all end.

Taking the usual road to repeated insanity

 If there is one thing that remains constant in what the self-appointed Jewish “campus watchers” project, it is that no matter what problem they take to the regular media, their presentation of it ends up with the Jews whining loudly: Look what those others are doing to us.

 

Without telling what they did that caused those others — mostly students but at times also adults — to react the way they did, the Jews describe at length their side of the story without once hinting that there might be another side to it. Still, they always conclude that they were done wrong, wrapping their pain inside a package that drips with victimhood, self-pity, and a prayer for the higher-ups to give them relief if not compensation, as well as punish the students and/or adults they accuse of doing them wrong.

 

You can see that pattern play out in the article that came under the title: “College leftists expand campaign to silence all talk of Zionism and Israel,” written by Melanie Notkin, and published on October 15, 2022 in The New York Post. Here is how the article begins to tell the Jewish side of the story:

 

“On college campuses across the nation, progressive activists have accelerated their efforts to silence and ban any talk of Zionism. Nine progressive law groups amended their collective bylaws to exclude speakers that support ‘Zionism, the apartheid state of Israel, and the occupation of Palestine’”.

 

What’s missing in that description is an account of the reasons why the progressive groups are pushed to take the actions that they do. In fact, those of us who spent a lifetime watching and studying the propaganda antics of the Jews — including their despicable behavior on campus — remember a time when the indoctrinated Jewish students used to run to the regular media and complain about two things:

 

First, the Jewish students complained that they were silenced by other students when they tried to correct the professors who did not praise Israel enough while lecturing on the Middle East. Second, the Jewish students complained that they were kicked out of the safe-spaces for gentiles when they barged in on the latter, ordering that they stop doing what they do, and listen to the Holocaust stories which the Jews came to tell them about. And the Jewish campus watchers thought they had two solid cases of antisemitic discrimination against them.

 

Had Melanie Notkin told the two sides of the story—the Jewish behavior and the responses to it—she could not have gone on to repeat the Jewish talking points that falsely paint the Jews as being morally superior yet victimized by the morally inferior aggressors whom, Notkin asserts, the university higher-ups are duty bound to stop and punish but fail to do so. Here are those infamous talking points that Melanie Notkin saw fit to propagate:

 

“Woke ideologues have decided that freedom of speech is only for those who agree with them without the possibility for debate. And this impacts Jews — particularly those who are Zionist. How has this happened? The campus debate is pitting the ‘oppressed’ vs. ‘oppressors.’ In this case, oppressed Palestinians must be advocated for and kept safe from their pro-Israel oppressors”.

 

Now, let me ask you this question, my dear reader: Did you detect something weird in that last paragraph? It is that on behalf of the Jews, Melanie Notkin, as well as her editors and publishers, openly complained that the woke ideologues (of Palestinian origin) are negating the possibility of having a debate on the subject. Hell, the Palestinians do not own or run the New York Post. The Jews do, and they are the ones who blacklist the people that do not agree with them. I know that for a fact because I am on that list, and have been for more than half a century. Who are these Jews trying to con?

 

Having dropped a lie the size of a whale, Melanie Notkin went on to play the Jewish game of tying together all the issues of importance to Jews, making them look like a continuously developing chain of links; one that will lead to the annihilation of the Jews if not stopped early on.

 

Usually, the progression of the chain goes something like this: To question the officially published number of Jews who were killed during the Holocaust, will lead to the denial of the Holocaust. In turn, this will lead to the rise of antisemitism and the possible election of a dictator who will want to annihilate the Jews. It happened before, it can happen again.

 

And here is how Notkin began to lay out and string the newest chain of links:

 

“Along the way, pro-Palestinian groups have the right to share their views, but pro-Zionist groups – not so much. And this leaves many Jewish students unable to defend themselves against increasingly hostile campus attacks”.

 

And here is how new links were added to the chain, making it progress to its absurd conclusion:

 

“David L. Bernstein, author of the book ‘Woke Antisemitism: How Progressive Ideology Harms Jews’ has studied how anti-Semitism has been rebranded as anti-Zionism. ‘Oppressor v. Oppressed is always the default orientation of the woke left, whose ideologies equate power with depravity, and powerlessness with virtue.’ This ideology has become so pernicious and so widespread that mainstream Jewish leaders have little chance to move the needle on progressive attitudes to Jews and Israel, writes Bernstein”. 

 

In fact, the rest of the article goes on to catalogue the incidents in the various colleges and universities of America, making that piece of writing sound like a replay of the insane but familiar Jewish cry which goes like this: Look what they are doing to us.

Two markers that seek to define good vs. evil

 If we begin with the notion that we are not knowledgeable enough or wise enough as a species to determine if there exists something that may represent the absolute good, or something that may represent the absolute evil—we’ll have acknowledged the reality of our current level of acumen.

 

The reality (which I cannot vouch is absolute) is that even though we like to project the image of absolute certainty to the effect that we hold the correct point of view, there remains at the back of our heads at least a grain of doubt that we may be wrong.

 

We are reminded of this reality every time that a controversy erupts at the local or global levels. What happens then, is that two or more parties that hold different points of view, go after each other, each arguing that they represent good thinking, whereas the other party or parties represent evil thinking. We take the side of one or the other, and hope we’ll someday prove to have been on the right side of history.

 

Two pieces illustrating that conundrum, were published recently. Neither indicates what we need to do to move from a state of uncertainty to one of absolute or even relative certainty, but they assure us (or so I believe) that uncertainty is so much a part of our makeup, we would not be human without it. And this is where we see why nature has been wise to negate us the luxury of being endowed with absolute certainty. It is that the absolute can exist only when everybody agrees on one and the same thing. But if this happens, we kill our quest to seek new ideas and new approaches … that which is the hallmark of our species, that which separates us from the others species.

 

Of the two pieces showing how those realities unfold in real life, one is an article that came under the title: “Marjorie Taylor Greene is not an antisemite,” and the subtitle: “To honor the Holocaust is to recognize the first sprouts of government tyranny and stop them.” It was written by Rabbi Jonathan Gross, and published on October 13, 2022 in the Washington Times. The second piece was an editorial that came under the title: “Biden’s Wrongheaded National Security Strategy,” published on October 14, 2022 in National Review Online.

 

If you need proof that a viewpoint can be so unmoored to the base from which it has originated, that of Rabbi Gross fits the bill. The title alone of his article, is so shocking to both Jews and gentiles, many must wonder if the man wearing the Jewish attire has fallen on his head. If you’re not certain that a phenomenon like him can exist, see how the rabbi started his article (shown here in condensed form,) and you’ll be convinced he is real – sort of. Here is what he wrote:

 

“Marjorie Taylor Greene is antisemitic, say the media, because she tweeted that Joe Biden is Hitler, having attacked the MAGA Republicans. Apparently, criticizing Mr. Biden, who is not Jewish, is anti-Jewish. Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, whom The Washington Post calls ‘the most famous Rabbi in America,’ explained that Mrs. Greene’s tweet was antisemitic because it denigrates the Holocaust and constitutes a form of Holocaust denial. Democrat Representative Brad Schneider, who is Jewish, drafted a resolution to censure Mrs. Greene calling on his colleagues to join in condemning her rather than amplify hate, bigotry, and racism. In other words, Mrs. Greene is a Nazi for calling Biden a Nazi, and if you fail to condemn her, you’re a Nazi too”.

 

So, there you have it. Everyone appears to be an antisemitic Nazi in the eyes of the other, says Rabbi Jonathan Gross, with absolute certainty. In addition, he established new criteria by which antisemitism can be gauged. For one, if you call a non-Jew a Nazi, you commit an anti-Jewish act, and expose yourself to being antisemitic, he says. For another, if you call someone a Hitler, you denigrate the Holocaust – which is a form of Holocaust denial – and this too makes you an antisemite, he adds. Another criterion that sounds somewhat convoluted but would identify you as an antisemitic Nazi in the eyes of Rabbi Gross, would be to fail calling Nazi, individuals who oppose Marjorie Greene.

 

As to the editorial that appeared in National Review Online (NRO,) it deals literally with the subject of life and death, including the survival or destruction of Planet Earth. The certainty or lack of it as to which stance is more conducive to peaceful coexistence (as opposed to the state of perpetual conflagrations that has been the human condition for thousands of years) is creating sharp divisions among protagonists even within the same family. This is what’s taking place in America at this time between those who view themselves as hawks and those who view themselves as doves.

 

In fact, whereas the Biden security strategy for America seems to favor taking the dovish approach, the editors of NRO do not hide their hawkish stance. This is generating a contention between the two sides; one that demonstrates the reality that while both are looking at the same thing, and while they agree on what it is, they nevertheless assess the danger it represents differently. Here are the passages in the editorial that bring out that reality, presented here in condensed form:

 

“The Chinese Communist Party is a significant threat to American primacy on the world stage. In addition, Russia is a near-term threat that Washington must meet. The document calls the threat from the Chinese regime ‘America’s most consequential geopolitical challenge’ and points out that the People’s Liberation Army is growing in strength and reach globally. It also notes that Russia poses an immediate and ongoing threat to the regional security order in Europe and it is a source of disruption and instability globally. Then it undercuts its warnings about the CCP by leaving the door open to cooperate with Beijing, as has been the administration’s wont since the start, and by neglecting to endorse providing sufficient resources to meet these threats”.

 

Neither Rabbi Jonathan Gross nor the editors of NRO have shown convincingly how we can be certain which side of an ongoing debate represents the good, and which represents evil while the points of view are hotly contested.

 

And so, all that we can do is remain humble about the choice we make, and remain open to changing our mind.

They reap what they sowed, so now they whine

 Bear with me for a moment and look at the juxtaposition of the following three sentences and phrases.

 

First, there is this: The wrong way to fight antisemitism.

 

And then, there is this: comparing antisemitism to all other forms of bigotry fails to acknowledge the particularities associated with antisemitism.

 

And finally, there is this: the study found that nearly half of Jewish respondents think antisemitism is taken less seriously than other forms of hate or bigotry.

 

What should that say to you? It should say that the rabbis of an earlier era succeeded at getting things done their way when they brayed: “You can’t compaaaaare, you can’t compaaaaare.” They got their wish fulfilled when society stopped comparing antisemitism to other forms of bigotry, saying in effect: You Jews wish to be different? So be it. But you won’t be taken more seriously than anyone else. You’ll be different alright, but you’ll also be taken less seriously than the rest of us.

 

That’s what prompted Irit Tratt to write an article under the title: “The Wrong Way to Fight Antisemitism,” published on October 9, 2022 in Algemeiner. So, why do you think she is whining now? She is whining because in her words: “antisemitism is [at times] compared to other forms of bigotry, thus failing to acknowledge the particularities associated with antisemitism.” Here we go again. As pointed out over and over, and warned against taking such approach through the ages, the good woman wants to do the same thing while expecting a different result. What was it they said about madness?

 

But what is it in the Judeo-Yiddish culture that makes these people wish they were perceived the same as everyone else, yet treated differently from what such perception would entail? The answer to that question is found in the Jewish belief that they are the chosen children of God. They feel they are superior to humanity and deserve to be treated as such. Because this is not happening at this time, however, they are willing to settle for being treated as equals—but only if society would simultaneously acknowledge their supremacy, as do the weirdoes of some far right religious groups.

 

What the Jews of the Irit Tratt mentality expect will result from the acknowledgement by humanity that they are superior, goes beyond being treated with respect in America and the Western World. The Jews expect that such acknowledgement will give force to the Zionist movement which continues to be attacked by foes as well as some friends of Israel. In addition, a universal acknowledgement that the Jews are superior will make a statement like the one that follows, accepted as undeniable reality:

 

“The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is virulently anti-Zionist, with its co-founder and executive director, expressing support for terrorist groups like Hamas, calling Tel Aviv ‘occupied,’ and with numerous CAIR staff members explicitly supporting Palestinian terrorism”.

 

That is, in the on-again, off-again war between the indigenous Palestinian defenders of Palestine and the foreign Jewish invaders, the Jews rather than the Palestinians will henceforth be given the benefit of the doubt when it comes down to the designation: Who is victim and who is terrorist? When this moment will have arrived, the Jewish invaders will have a free hand to openly implement their long cherished plan of grabbing all of Palestine without being opposed by the rest of humanity.

 

Fortunately for the world and for the Palestinians, this is not what’s happening at this time. In fact, even worse for the Jews, instead of seeing their plan implemented by the relentless portrayal as terrorist every Palestinian who resists the occupation of their land, the Jews gave rise to a new pro-Palestinian movement; one that started to establish itself throughout America and the Western World. Here is how that movement was described in the Irit Tratt article:

 

“The implications regarding a misdirected approach to fighting antisemitism are pivoting into dangerous territory. In a recent op-ed, Kenneth Marcus explains how several law student groups at the University of California, Berkeley’s School of Law are creating Jewish-free zones by amending their bylaws to exclude speakers who support Zionism (which is supported by an overwhelming super-majority of Jews)”.

 

It is obvious that Irit Tratt has failed to see that the relentless Jewish slander of their victims—calling  them terrorists when the whole world knows that terror is perpetrated by none other than the Jews—has caused ordinary people to tell those Jews they are not welcome in civilized society. And despite them being frightened by this development, the Jews still think it is a good idea to repeat the failures of the past. Here is how Irit Tratt expressed that madness yet again:

 

“For the Jewish community to successfully confront antisemitism, it must first be willing to define the particularities that enable its growth, and reckon with its unique nature, one that defies the paradigm through which we view other hatreds. Until then, anti-Zionists will be more than willing to step in and help frame the conversation for us”.

 

Day by day, it becomes increasingly clearer that, gripped tightly by the Judeo-Yiddish culture as they are, these people are doomed to perish without any hope of someone coming to their rescue.

Telling the other side of diplomacy with Putin

 Clifford D. May has done a good job setting up a scene for telling how a diplomatic exchange may unfold between the Russian President Vladimir Putin and his Western counterparts.

 

Whereas his point of view is expressed with clarity, there is another point of view that needs to be expressed if only to balance what he offered as opinion based on his observations.

 

May did all that in an article that came under the title: “What diplomacy with Putin would look like now,” published on October 1, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

I shall keep intact the excellent scene that Clifford May has created, and use it to tell the other side of the story. In fact, I shall even use the two characters he adopted to represent and speak for the Western countries. The characters are French President Emmanuel Macron (nicknamed Manny) and German Chancellor Olaf Scholz (nicknamed Scholzy,) both of whom Clifford May assures us have long enjoyed amicable relations with Mr. Putin.

 

Here is how the conversation unfolds:

 

Manny: It is nice of you, old friend, to find the time to meet with us and listen to what we have to say.

 

Putin: Let’s get on with it, what do you have on your minds?

 

Manny: What else could we have on our minds at a time like this but freedom. We want freedom for the Ukrainian people, something that is dear to them and to us, something you’re robbing them of.

 

Putin: Freedom? What kind of freedom is that? The one that America drilled into your heads? Is it the freedom of total permissiveness that leads to crimes like mugging, sucker punching and shooting people in public, in broad daylight? Hah!

 

Scholzy: Surely, my wise Russian friend, it must be that you understand that when we say freedom, we mean the fresh air of freedom that allows you to live your life in liberty, and pursuing happiness as you see fit. Yes, some people deviate from that ideal, but this is why we have laws that protect us from the deviants among us.

 

Putin: Talk all you want about breathing the fresh air of freedom, Scholzy my boy, but what the world sees are the choke holds that prevent people from inhaling the life-sustaining breath – killing them before they get to a courtroom or see how America’s legal system works or fails. That’s what you’re telling me is superior to what we have? Hah!

 

Manny: And then, there is the matter of foreign policy, Vlad my old friend. You support regimes like those of Iran, Syria, North Korea and others whose record on human rights is dreadful. What is it that attracts you to those kinds of leaders?

 

Putin: Not a single regime of those you mentioned did anything that comes close to the one you skipped. This would be Israel, the only entity on the planet today that is occupying another country and engaging in genocide, which it commits with impunity in public and in broad daylight being protected, financed and armed by America. That’s what you’re telling me is superior to those who defend themselves against attackers by remaining within their own borders even when they have the means to pursue the attackers and annihilate them once and for all? Hah!

 

Manny: We came to talk to you about Ukraine but you kept referring to America. It is obvious you have a fixation on that country. So, tell me, is there a message you want me to take to the Americans; one that would guide them on what to say or do that will alleviate your anxieties about them?

 

Putin: Yes, there is a message that tells of the difference between the life-sustaining culture of Russia, and the life-depleting culture of America. Take the message to the Americans, and hammer it into their thick skulls.

 

Sholzy: I believe we covered that subject already.

 

Putin: No. What we did is discuss what ordinary Americans have become, living as they do in a culture of death that’s trickling down on them from above.

 

Manny: I don’t believe what I’m hearing. But I’m listening.

 

Putin: The difference between us and the Americans is demonstrated in the way that we both developed our nuclear deterrent. We, Russians developed the hundred-megaton hydrogen bomb to let our potential adversaries know that we love life so much, if someone tries to destroy us, we’ll take him down with us as ferociously and thoroughly as we can.

 

Sholzy: Isn’t that what the Americans are doing with their ten and twenty-megaton bombs?

 

Putin: Yes, the ten, twenty and hundred-megaton bombs do that. But the Americans have done something else—something that tells you what motivates them. They built the neutron bomb that kills people without destroying the buildings or the assets they house. This means, the Americans consider the nuclear weapons to be not instruments of deterrence, but instruments of murder and theft of what belongs to those they murder.

 

If the world will come to a nuclear exchange, America will then be doing on a global scale what Israel is doing now in Palestine. It is that the Jews want a Palestine without Palestinians. The Americans may have demonstrated they want a Russia without the Russians.

That carrot is for me, but the stick for thee

 Think of “reward and punishment” as being a principle invented by nature to regulate life on Earth so that it evolves according to rules that will sustain it.

 

Learning that principle from nature, human beings gave the abstract concept a physical appearance by turning it into a saying that can be visualized and grasped by everyone. They call their transformation, the principle of “the carrot and the stick”.

 

A reality that shows the usefulness of the transformation is the “greed and fear” which investors experience when they trade on the stock market. It is easier to explain what happens to these people by saying that when they make the right trade, the market rewards them with a carrot. But when they make the wrong trade, the market hits them with a stick.

 

In fact, even the primates – that do not reason or communicate verbally the way we do – can still be trained to do the right things and avoid doing the wrong things by rewarding them with what they like to eat, or punishing them when doing the wrong things.

 

Unfortunately however—like everything else that’s handled by human beings—that concept has been corrupted and made to serve nefarious ends. How can that be, you ask? Well, imagine you are a humorist who is asked to write a story involving the concept while highlighting how it can be used to cause destruction instead of used to help sustain life on Earth.

 

You rack your brain and hit on the right idea. Instead of having a character agonize over a choice he must make between two options, with consequences that can be grave if he made the wrong choice, you delve into your humorist disposition and come up with a solution: You write a story involving two characters, not just one.

 

The two are fighting over the same thing, causing enough destruction to worry the entire neighborhood. Everyone wants the dispute to end as soon as possible so that they can all return to the tranquil life they used to pursue. What you do that is certain to make people laugh and cry at the same time, is dedicate the use of the carrot to reward and incentivize one character, while dedicating the use of the stick to punish and intimidate the other character. This removes the agony of a single character having to choose between two options.

 

If you wonder about something like this happening in real life, you’ll be convinced that it can happen when you read the article that came under the title: “The Palestinian Tragedy Is Israel’s Too” and the subtitle: “Given the urgent need for a two-state settlement, Israel should pursue a revitalized peace process by building off the Abraham Accords.” The article was written by Chuck Freilich, and published on October 10, 2022 in The National Interest.

 

The two fighting characters are the Palestinians and the Jews of Israel. The writer of the article is an Israeli Jew who once served as deputy national security adviser in Israel. He chose America to be the character that agonizes over making a choice between two options. Freilich solved the problem by giving America two characters to work with. Being an Israeli Jew, he dedicated the use of the carrot to reward and incentivize Israel, while dedicating the use of the stick to punish and intimidate the Palestinians.

 

Here, in condensed form, is how Freilich wants America to reward and incentivize Israel:

 

“Israel has become a global high-tech power, and its economy is booming. The Israelis have adopted the approach of yehiye beseder (“things will work out”) and simply moved on. A peace process should build off the Abraham Accords. Several nations should be invited to help broker the talks, under the auspices of the US. Inclusion among the ‘conveners’ would be based on a number of principles. First, Israel’s final borders will reflect ‘demographic realities’ of the settlement blocs. This means Israel will retain 4 to 6 percent of the West Bank. Second, Palestinian refugees would be offered a choice between a ‘return’ to the Palestinian state, or moving elsewhere, but not to Israel itself. In effect, this would result in a de facto international disavowal of the Palestinian claim to an unlimited ‘right of return’. The thousands of rockets fired into Israel from Gaza demonstrate the need for ongoing Israel Defense Forces deployments throughout the West Bank for defensive purposes. US leverage over Israel is, and should remain, constrained by the closeness of the relationship and Israel’s ongoing need for assistance in the face of the threats of Iran and Hezbollah. Even limited American pressure has major resonance in Israel. Overall, a ‘carrot’ approach would be most effective, including even greater American assistance for missile defense and potentially a defense treaty; an upgrade of EU ties with Israel”.

 

In other words, Freilich is saying that Israel is perfect, thus America should give it all the carrots it wants – no questions asked.

 

And here, in condensed form, is how Freilich wants America to punish and intimidate the Palestinians:

 

“With the Palestinians, American and convener leverage is more straightforward, and the demands must be stark: abandon the all-or-nothing approach, agree to a state on almost all of the territory, but not all, and compromise on refugees and Jerusalem or lose outside support for a Palestinian state. A breakthrough should only be attempted if and when the appropriate circumstances prevail on both sides, and even then, only if Washington is truly willing to apply pressure [on the Palestinians] and offer significant inducements [to Israel.] Bitter experiences with the corrupt dictatorship of the Palestinians in the West Bank and the theocracy in Gaza indicate that a future Palestinian state will be another failed Arab state. This begs the question of why one would continue to pursue a two-state solution. The answer is simple. The alternative, a binational state, is far worse”.

 

In other words, Freilich is saying that the Palestinians are evil. Left to their own devices, they will establish yet another failed Arab state. Therefore, they must be treated with the stick of Israeli military deployment throughout their state at perpetuity. They must also be blackmailed into accepting everything else that Israel demands of them.

The deliberate misunderstanding of opponents

 Every language I know or heard about has a saying that matches the English: “Once bitten twice shy.” For example, translated into English, the Egyptian version goes like this: “He who gets bitten by a snake fears the rope.” Of course, the level of shyness in the English saying, and the level of fear in the Egyptian version vary from one individual to another, but the idea is there.

 

These sayings do more than express an observation seen by different people in different parts of the world. They carry within them a package of wisdoms that need to be understood to be beneficial. One such wisdom can be expressed as follows: If someone deceives you once, be wary of him lest he deceive you again.

 

We are lucky that Clifford D. May gave us an example of the kind of deception that causes even the most seasoned of politicians to swallow his false presentations hook, line and sinker. May did all that in an article that came under the title: “The problem with tyrants like Kim Jong-un and Vladimir Putin,” and the subtitle: “They’re not like us.” The article was published on October 4, 2022 in The Washington Times.

 

The following is a condensed version of the excerpts showing how Clifford May juggles ideas in a repeated sleights of hand that dazzle the readers while giving the writer the opportunity to convince the unwary that down is up, left is right and the sun rises from the West. Here is that passage:

 

“We’re inclined to believe that those who rule nations are not different from us. Does the evidence support this belief? I don’t think so. Recall Donald Trump’s approach to Kim Jong-un. He told the North Korean [leader,] if he’d adopt more moderate policies, he could have ‘prosperity like he has never seen’ and become ‘the hero of his people.’ Mr. Trump communicated, too, that if Mr. Kim declined this offer, he might find American missiles raining down on his head. Wouldn’t you have been tempted by that carrot and frightened by that stick? Sure. But Mr. Kim is not like you. Similarly, President Barack Obama offered Iran’s theocrats respect, power and lucre. He asked only that they pledge to delay — not end — their nuclear weapons program. He didn’t understand that, for Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, ‘Death to Israel!’ and ‘Death to America!’ are not slogans but the goals of the revolution. He will do whatever is necessary to achieve these goals — including, at this moment, murdering, torturing and imprisoning Iranian women”.

 

Let’s analyze that passage:

 

Sleight of hand # 1: Clifford May says that Kim Jong-un is not like us because he did not accept the Donald Trump offer to become prosperous, and did not tremble in his boots when the former President warned that declining his offer could result in American missiles raining down on his (Kim’s) head.

 

Whereas this formulation is an exact replica of what May has written, it will cause the readers to react differently. This version will prompt the readers to say: “Some foreigners are so principled, they don’t hunger for the carrots of idiots, and don’t fear the sticks of jokers. We wish we had some of them in our Congress; people who would raise our profile a few notches in world forums”.

 

But when Clifford May asked the rhetorical question: “Wouldn’t you have been tempted by that carrot and frightened by that stick? Sure. But Mr. Kim is not like you,” he asserted to the politicians that they should feel comfortable living in the unprincipled state of being tempted by the bribes, and frightened by the warnings that will most surely shadow them throughout their political careers.

 

Sleight of hand # 2: In starting this part of the discussion using the word “Similarly,” the writer instructs the readers to maintain the frame of mind that keeps them trapped in a reality which exits only because enough dupes believe in it, and respond to its demands. Thus, while ignoring that the slogans “Death to Israel” and “Death to America” are chanted by the kids of Iran—not the leaders of that country—in response to what the leaders of Israel and America blather when they say: “All options are on the table,” Clifford May slyly advances the notion that the leaders of Iran wish to kill all the women of the country. And of course you can’t expect May to explain what the Iranians have in mind when it comes to reproducing themselves after killing all their women.

 

Now that he believes he has you – and has those you elect to be your leaders – in his pocket, Clifford May feels confident playing the political card. Here is how he did that:

 

“He [Putin] recited the standard leftist dogma about slavery, genocide, Western racists, the American neocolonial system, totalitarianism despotism, and apartheid. For good measure, he threw in the plunder of India, of Africa, the wars of England and France against China. He said the US occupies Germany, Japan and South Korea. I understand the desire, on both the left and the right, for a diplomatic solution. I understand why many people believe that Mr. Putin must want an offramp — because that’s what they’d want if they were in his place”.

 

In saying “Many people believe that Putin wants an offramp” having said that they are not like him, Clifford May has thrown cold water on his entire theory.

 

And this is a good thing because his intent originally had been to deceive you again and again and again. He cannot do that now having shot himself in the foot.

The impossible endgame makes the status quo

 It is in the Jewish culture that when enough Jews fantasize about something, the fantasy becomes as potent as reality. This gives the Jews the right to act on their fantasies as if they were reality.

 

A Jewish fantasy peddled this days has it that the Arab countries have abandoned the Palestinians in favor of forging better relations with Israel under the influence of what’s known as the Abraham Accords. This point has been made so many times by so many committed Jews, other commentators—be they moderate Jews or gentiles—have come to believe it, and have been adding to the strength of the fantasy, not knowing how wrong they are.

 

You can see an example of that in the article that came under the title: “The Abraham Accords and the Imposed Middled East Order,” and the subtitle: “Having just marked two years since their ratification, the Abraham Accords continue to represent a top-down regional order destined to yield instability, not peace.” It was written by Jon Hoffman, and published on October 3, 2022 in the National Interest.

 

Jon Hoffman is a well meaning and thoughtful commentator who worked with the limited information he had, thus produced an incomplete canvas of what’s unfolding in the Middle East at this time. What he misses is the content of the internal debates taking place, not just inside the Arab countries but inside the entire Muslim world.

 

Whereas the Arabs are focused on Palestine, which they view as a stolen rump carved out of their homeland – separating its North African part from its West Asian part – the other Muslims are focused on the occupation of Jerusalem, which they view as the ultimate desecration of the ground from where the Prophet ascended to heaven.

 

Hoffman’s article is long, and must be read in its entirety to be fully appreciated. But the following condensed passage should give the reader a glimpse of what’s in it:

 

“The Abraham Accords represent the formalization of a coercive political, economic, and security order designed to maintain the status quo in the region. A top-down imposition, the framework of the Abraham Accords is designed to sideline Palestinians in order to push for high-level ‘normalization’ and the formation of a more formal coalition through which regional actors can maintain the status quo. This order is upheld via intense exclusion, repression, surveillance, and security guarantees from the world’s preeminent superpower. Furthermore, the accords are designed to keep the US deeply engaged in the Middle East as a security guarantor. In this new order, Israel’s project of apartheid and the survival of regional Arab autocracies have become intimately linked. This autocracy-apartheid nexus has led to a Middle East that is more exclusionary and repressive, while reinforcing authoritarianism in the region and Israel’s dominance over Palestine”.

 

But if all of that is erroneous, what are the Arabs and the Muslims thinking and saying to each other that most “Western” commentators are missing?

 

The first to grasp the realities of what existed on the ground, was the late President Anwar Sadat of Egypt, having led the army that expelled the Israelis who were occupying the Sinai. In fact, this was in fulfillment of his predecessor’s (Gamal Abdel Nasser) maxim that what’s taken by force will only be returned by force. Looking ahead even beyond Nasser’s vision, Sadat promised the Americans that despite possessing the means to cross the border into Israel and crush its war machine once and for all, he will not do so. However, he did not at that time, say why he would not do so.

 

The reason started to emerge later, and continues to be debated today sotto voce among the Arabs and the Muslims. The debate rests on finding a good answer to the question: What’s the endgame?

 

The Arabs that gave refuge to the Jews time after time when they were mistreated, even exterminated in Europe, felt betrayed by the Jews when the latter teamed up with their European “executioners,” and savaged their former Arab defenders verbally with lies, and physically with the use of European state of the art weapons. But why would the Jews do that? They did it for the promise of getting Western help to steal Palestine and turn it into Israel. This was the Jewish act that caused the Arabs and the Muslims to believe that what the Europeans thought of the Jews and did to them, were not the result of a fundamental European wickedness but the result of a deeply flawed Jewish culture that invited such treatment over and over again.

 

Does that mean the Arabs and the Muslims have no choice but to repeat the performance of the Europeans who saw no solution to what they termed the Jewish problem, but to impose a Final Solution that would exterminate all Jews? Surely, having a large concentration of Jews in Palestine gives the Arabs and Muslims the opportunity to start that process by crushing the Israeli war machine. Hordes of “Jew-haters” from around the world would follow by descending on occupied Palestine and participate in the massacre of Jews. As if this were not enough, you’d see copycats do the same thing in every country around the world.

 

But even when the Arabs seemed to have no choice but to go for the inevitable, they instead opted to implement the Anwar Sadat approach. So the question that many people pose is this: In the interest of avoiding the macabre endgame that is certain to follow if the Arabs decided to give the Palestinians all that is owed to them, did the Arabs sideline the cause of Palestinians?

 

The answer to that question is: No, they did not, even if it looks like they abandoned the Nasser maxim to the effect that what was taken by force will only be returned by force. It is that the difference between the liberation of the Sinai, and the liberation of Palestine involve two completely different processes. Whereas the battle in the Sinai involved two armies, the one in Palestine will involve civilians.

 

And when on 9/11, it became apparent that the battle will spill over and affect places as far away as New York, Saudi Arabia avoided that kind of endgame when it bought the Sadat reasoning and proposed an initiative to resolve the question of Palestine peacefully. It took the Israelis a while to embrace the principle but they finally affirmed to the General Assembly of the United Nations that they are open to the idea of a two-state solution.

 

There might still be a long road ahead during which time the status quo will remain the order of the day, but it is better to stay on this road than shift to the one that will be soaked with blood.

The Gladiator that needs to retire soon

 Imagine you live not in the twenty-first century AD but the first century BC. You are in a town that used to be occupied by Roman legions who left it to conquer other places. You don’t know how you ended up in that town, or what purpose you’re supposed to fulfill.

 

All you know is that things have changed since the departure of the Romans except for the one legacy they left behind. It is the amphitheater where they used to watch human gladiators and wild animals engage in battles to the death. This form of entertainment is no longer practiced, but one of the participants – a celebrity gladiator at the time of the Romans – put his old skills to good use.

 

It is that when the Romans departed, all kinds of gangs from the surrounding region raided the town’s folks, stole what they could from them and ran away. This is when the gladiator got the idea of declaring himself defender of the town. In time, the gangs learned that it didn’t do them much good to attack the town, and so they left it alone.

 

With the passage of time, and no threat coming from the outside, the role of the now aging ex-gladiator transformed gradually. The change became apparent when a domestic dispute erupted in one of the households. Unable to calm things down, the immediate neighbors called on the gladiator to come and help, and he did. Having succeeded so well, the people proclaimed him the town’s policeman.

 

Given the altruistic nature of his character, and the history that brought him to where he is today, the gladiator opened himself to being exploited, even abused by the small-minded folks. Knowing that whatever happens in their town, things will not get out of hand because the gladiator will rush to fix what went wrong, the undisciplined elements of the population played their differences up to the edge of violent behavior. Every time that point was reached, the folks called on the gladiator to get things to normal again, and he responded positively to such calls.

 

Unfortunately, while this was happening, the old raiders from outside the town, now accompanied by their grown offspring, learned that the once mighty gladiator is no longer in a position to fight them as ferociously as he did previously. That’s because time has taken its toll on him, and because the town folks have increased the load on his shoulder by constantly fighting among themselves and calling on him to restore the peace. And so, the outside raiders started to attack the town again, and loot what they can like the bad old days.

 

This is when you suddenly discover how you ended up in that place, and what purpose you’re supposed to fulfill. It happened when the gladiator came to you asking for advice on what to do next. Puzzled by his visit to you and his request, you ask him to explain. He says he has a name that should tell you everything you need to know. He is Uncle Sam. Upon that, he snaps his finger and you wake up from a deep sleep in your twenty-first century Washington apartment. You realize you were having a dream.

 

In real life, you own a political consulting firm. People from all political stripes come to you for advice. You give them what they want and they pay you. But once in a while, you also write an opinion piece and have it published to inform the public of new developments taking place. These would mostly be trends that society should be aware of if not weary of.

 

One such moment has arrived and likely was the cause for you to have that dream. You learned about what was happening when you saw a plea made to Uncle Sam—otherwise known as America—to intervene in a domestic dispute unfolding far away.

 

The plea came in the form of an article under the title: “For America to Be Secure, Assad must go,” and the subtitle: “The Assad regime is an affront to Western values, a threat to US global influence, and an imminent danger to American national security.” It was written by Tarek Kteleh, an American of Syrian descent, and was published on October 1, 2022 in The National Interest.

 

Even though America is already involved – all albeit in a small way – in the Syrian domestic dispute, Tarek Kteleh wants to see a more expanded American involvement. He laments that this is not happening because of the following:

 

“Some in Washington are fed up with America's ongoing involvement in the now eleven-year-old Syrian Civil War. They feel that Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad has mostly defeated the various rebel factions, so it makes sense to patch things up with Assad, remove sanctions on his regime, and wash our hands of the entire ordeal”.

 

To persuade Washington to change its mind and start working on bringing about a regime change in Syria, Tarek kteleh left nothing to the imagination as to how wicked Bashar al-Assad has been when dealing with his people. Worse, how much of a threat he can be to America and the world if left unchecked. Here, in condensed form, is a compilation of what’s in the Kteleh article:

 

“Assad is the linchpin for most of America's geopolitical enemies, including Iran, Russia, Hezbollah, and others. Assad has engaged in brutal and unrelenting attacks against his own people. He has taken over half a million lives and displaced about half the country's population. Assad has used chemical weapons, imprisoned and tortured innocent people on a massive scale, and deliberately targeted civilians. Assad is a dictator, a war criminal, and a murderer. He also happens to pose a very real threat to the most basic US security interests. Assad has permitted Iran to use Syria as a safe harbor from which to attack other countries in the Middle East, including Israel and Jordan. Assad paid a visit to Tehran to fortify his relationship with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Assad regime has a close, mutually beneficial partnership with Hezbollah, the Lebanese terrorist organization. Hezbollah has sent thousands of fighters to assist Assad, and the dictator has returned the favor by funneling Iranian weapons to the group. The Assad regime has helped bring together some of America's most dangerous geopolitical foes, undermining American interests in the Middle East and around the world”.

 

It is this kind of overkill that got people in Washington fed up with individuals and organizations that have foreign connections, calling on America to play the role of gladiator they can summon when they feel the itch to interfere in their country of origin.

 

Tarek Kteleh’s plea will fall on deaf ears as it should. Case closed.

When moral clarity is made as clear as mud

 Because the debate on antisemitism is entering the critical stage, it has become imperative to define with a high level of certainty what is meant by—not just the word—but the very idea of “conflation”.

 

In a new article that came under the title: “Antisemitism Once Again Rears Its Ugly Head on Campus,”  Bobby Miller seems to say he made that clarification the previous week. He said so in a new article he published on September 30, 2022 in National Review Online.

 

As to the previous week’s article, it had come under the title: “University of Vermont Fails to Confront Antisemitism on Campus,” and was printed on September 23, 2022 also in National Review Online. I responded to that article in a piece that came under the title: “The sort of wise failure that will save America,” published on September 26, 2022 on this blog.

 

When you read the September 23 Miller article and my response to it, you’ll know there was no real attempt by either of us to clarify with any level of certainty the meaning of the word “conflation.” In fact, what Miller is demonstrating in his new article, is that his logic is so mangled, he shot himself in the foot trying to build on what he wrote the previous week. Here is how he started the new article:

 

“Last week, I wrote about how the conflation of anti-Zionism and antisemitism is real and troubling, but that there are times, such as at the University of Vermont, when the delineation between valid critiques and genuine bigotry is laid bare”.

 

Do you see what that says implicitly, my friend? It says – or if you wish, it implies – that in Miller’s view, anti-Zionism is valid criticism whereas antisemitism is genuine bigotry. As can be seen, Bobby Miller neglected to define “conflation,” but did something else. He torpedoed the idea that to attack Zionism is to deny Jews the exercise of self-determination in their own homeland. When you recall that this had been the mantra which the Jews had been using to accuse anyone who differentiated between anti-Zionism and antisemitism of being a Jew hating bigot, you’ll know how much Bobby Miller has hurt the causes he says he is defending.

 

Having committed that gaffe, Bobby Miller proceeded to tell what his new complaint is about. Here is how he introduced the subject:

 

“Another example has occurred at the University of California at Berkeley where nine groups in the law school have amended their bylaws, in coordination with Berkley Law Students for Justice in Palestine (BLSJP), to ensure that no pro-Israel speaker will ever be allowed to address their respective groups”.

 

To respond to this development, Bobby Miller first quoted Kenneth Marcus who stated that this is “not just a political stunt. It is tinged with antisemitism and anti-Israel national origin discrimination.” Miller agreed, saying that Marcus was “spot-on.” And then Miller did what you would expect from a Jew. Having agreed that this was not a political stunt, he instinctively turned the supposed debate on Jewish Rights into a political football. Here is how he did that:

 

“Left-wing hypocrisy abounds. If progressives are serious about upholding civil-rights law, they wouldn’t be engaging in these blatant acts of discrimination. Everyone is free to denounce the Jewish State for any of its supposed sins. But once a public university permits student organizations to bar speakers of certain ethnicities and national origin, the threshold of illegality has been crossed”.

 

In fact, not only did Bobby Miller turn the debate into a political football, he used the trick to pull yet another typically Jewish stunt. It is one that’s close to Jewish hearts, generated by the fantasy to monopolize the making of laws they would impose on humanity. To satisfy the fantasy, the Jews think up laws that do not exist, and talk about them as if they did. In fact, this is what prompted Bobby Miller to speak of “upholding civil-rights law,” and of “the threshold of illegality being crossed”.

 

Apparently speaking about the student groups—or maybe speaking directly to them—who amended their bylaws in coordination with Berkley Law Students for Justice in Palestine, Bobby Miller did something that shows how muddy Jewish moral clarity can get. He wrote the following to end his article: “Apparently, self-awareness is not a prerequisite for joining organizations toeing the BLSJP line. There is no logic to illiberalism of this sort — only prejudice and intimidation”.

 

What on Earth is that? Which of the student groups are supposed to be self-aware but are not? Why would self-awareness be or not be a prerequisite for toeing the BLSJP line? What sort of illiberalism is Miller talking about? How did logic get lost in all of this to yield only prejudice and intimidation?

 

Unless and until Bobby Miller writes a coherent article in which he answers all those questions, thus clarify what he wrote, his latest article shall be taken as proof that Jewish moral clarity is worse than muddy. It is a never-ending torrent of mudslides.