On the first day of December in the year 2012, the editors
of the Wall Street Journal published an opinion piece under the title: “The
Palestinian Mirage” and the subtitle: “A futile U.N. gesture that violates the
1993 Oslo Accords.” It is a response to the resolution passed by the United
Nations a few days earlier recognizing Palestine
as a state.
As can be seen, the piece is about the law. It can also be
seen that nearly 20 years have passed between the Oslo Accords and the move by
the United Nations to correct the failure of a document whose reason for being
was to dispense of the Palestinian issue in a few short years. Why then are the
editors of the Journal dismayed at what the U.N. has done now? Did they want the
Palestinian question to remain unresolved for ever?
In answering that question we get to understand why the
Palestinian issue was not resolved long ago. In fact, a thorough probing of the
subject shows that without U.N. intervention this time, the Palestinian
question will never have been resolved because the Jewish Lobby and the Jewish
propaganda machine that is headed by the Wall Street Journal have always wanted
the matter to so remain.
To get our arms around the matter, we first need to
understand how the rule of law took hold on Planet Earth.
When we think of the rule of law, we think of a system of
justice that is administered by the courts. We think of judges, lawyers,
members of parliaments, members of congress and what have you. Well, this is only
the latest manifestation of the rule of law because it all started long before
that. It started with the Big Bang when the laws of physics for our Universe
were first spelled out by Nature itself, and what else may have been behind
Nature.
The laws of physics ruled the Universe as they governed the
behavior of inanimate matter for billions of years all alone. But then, the
first organisms appeared on Planet Earth and perhaps somewhere else too in the
vast Universe out there, and it all happened as a consequence of those laws of
physics. And this is when a new set of laws to govern the behavior of organic
matter arose, superimposing itself on the laws of physics without dethroning
them.
As the early organisms started to evolve into more complex
species about half a billion years ago, new layers of laws to govern the
behavior of each new arrival were formulated. These layers superimposed
themselves on top of the laws already in existence without dethroning any of
them. After that came the higher species, and they began to formulate their own
rules and laws to suit their individual needs. These were the protocols by
which the interaction between individuals was regulated, and by which the
social behavior of the collective was governed.
When it came to mankind, the highest of all the species, its
governance required that an elaborate set of rules and commandments be
formulated, and these took the form of a body of laws called the “law of man.”
It took roots in the caves and the jungles as well as the mountains and the
savannahs of our Planet where the early members of our species first lived. In
time, the body of laws grew so complicated it required the installation of
members of parliament and the like to legislate and codify them. This, in turn,
required that lawyers and judges be trained to administer what had become an
elaborate system of justice.
But for every case that goes to court to be adjudicated by a
judge and a jury, millions of other cases are adjudicated every day by the
litigants themselves or by a mediator who may be a friend, an acquaintance, a
member of the family or a prominent figure in the community. And this is where
we see that the law of man is predominantly made on the spot by individuals,
and predominantly adjudicated by them outside of the system of justice. But
where a resolution cannot be reached, people go to court and seek justice
there.
What this means in practical terms is that we all
participate in the making of the laws that suit us, and we help adjudicate the
cases that come to our attention. We get involved in the affairs of other
people when invited, and recommend that the issues be resolved in a way that
will serve our interest now and in the future. We do so by setting the
precedent that will form the example to be followed, and hope that the table
will not someday be turned resulting in the irony of making the precedent work
against us.
The same applies to nations on the international scene. This
has been the norm since the time that the nations of the world gave themselves
an international code of conduct (called International Law) by which to govern
the interactions among its members thus insure that the rule of law will be
there to resolve the issues that individual nations cannot resolve on a
bilateral or multilateral basis. Institutions such as the UN, the International
Court of Justice and the International Criminal Court were created to perform
that function.
But because the making of the law, and the adjudication of
the cases depend on the truthful representation of the facts, some people make
it their business to constantly hide the facts they can hide, distort those
they cannot hide and fabricate new ones out of thin air and out of their
fertile imagination. The people who are most active in this area are the Jewish
lobby and the Jewish propaganda machine as can be detected in the piece written
and published by the editors of the Wall Street Journal.
What comes out clearly from this piece is that the game the
Jews play consists of doing the unthinkable while accusing their opponents of
doing just that. In the case under discussion, having called the UN action a
Mirage and a futile gesture, they simultaneously attack the Arabs for rejecting
the 1947 UN resolution that partitioned Palestine .
But this is not all because the game that these people play is even more
complicated than that.
What they do in practical terms is grab what belongs to
someone else then play the carrot and stick game with that someone. They did so
when hordes of them fled the Europe of the Nazis and went to Palestine
illegally where they unleashed a wave of terrorist attacks against the British
troops that were stationed there and the Palestinian civilian population that
lived there since the beginning of time. The Jews grabbed all the land they
could grab, and waved a threatening stick to the effect that they may just grab
some more if not blessed and loved for what they just did.
But they also waved a carrot to the effect that they would
accept peace if the Palestinians relinquished title to what the Jews had
already stolen. Now these questions to you, my friend: Would you have trusted a
horde of armed barbarians that crashed through the gates of your city, robbed
you of your possessions and committed atrocities along the lines of those committed
by the Nazis in Europe ? Would you have shaken
hands with a hand that was still dripping with the blood of your loved ones
murdered by these hands? You would be nuts if you accepted an offer like that.
But look how the Wall Street Journal describes those events:
“The Jews accepted the [1947] Resolution … Had the Arab world voted for the
plan, a Palestinian state would be as old as Israel today, and within larger
borders than [what] the Palestinian President now claims for his new, national,
'state.'” And guess what, my dear reader; this is not all they say which
describes how the Jews play the carrot and stick game. What they do next is prepare to play another
round of the same game. The way they do it this time is by enumerating the
conditions they hope will lead the Palestinians to the carrot they dutifully
place at the door of the trap which the Jews will be setting for the
Palestinians.
For one thing, the editors of the Journal want Mr. Abbas “to
acknowledge the Arab error in rejecting the creation of a Jewish homeland [in Palestine ].” They also
want him to stop talking about the “...injustices inflicted on the Palestinian
people since … 1948.” The editors also want Mr. Abbas to stop accusing Israel
of “ethnic cleansing,” of being “an apartheid system of colonial occupation,”
of symbolizing “the plague of racism,” all of which being so obvious to the
rest of the world, even the editors admit that Mr. Abbas was given a standing
ovation for telling the story of his people as he sees it; as he personally lived
it.
But to think that a demand of this kind is coming from a
publication whose pages are filled day after day with calls to the effect that
everyone who has access to a megaphone should be out there insulting this
Palestinian, damning that Arab, cursing those Muslims, “sending a signal” to
that enemy or kicking the ass of that other one without showing a moment's
respite – is to look directly into the face of dread itself. This horror, in
fact, is so horrendous, it can only be Jewish. No one, but no one on this
Planet but a Jew can acquire an attitude as disgusting as this and flaunt it.
No wonder these people always end up as badly as they do.
As to the waving of the stick, the Journal begins by
pretending to speak on behalf of the Israelis. Never mind that in reality, the
Journal speaks only for Rupert Murdoch and for the Jewish lobby in America , both of whom stand at variance with the
population of Israel and the
ordinary Jews in America .
But the Journal editors confer on the Israelis of their imagination the final
say as to whether or not “a Palestinian state is ever to come into being.” This
done, they warn of the following: “Those Israelis won't be reassured by the
lopsided [UN] vote.”
Still, the Journal editors do not believe it is enough to wave
the stick at Mr. Abbas alone, and so they decide to warn someone else while
they are at it. This is how they do it: “Israelis will know that countries such
as France … and Germany will
not have their backs.” Watch out Europe , the
editors of the Journal who happen to have a European edition to play with, have
you in their cross-hairs as of this moment.
But if you really want to blow your mind, my friend, there
is something that will do it for you in grand style. It is a peek at the mental
retardation and the shameless gall which are simultaneously displayed by the
Journal's editors. To this end, you may read the following two passages which
come in back to back paragraphs. The first passage is this: “the General
Assembly voted to violate the 1993 Oslo Accords, which are the legal basis for
Mr. Abbas's Palestinian Authority and require negotiations with Israel to
create a state.” The second passage is this: “It will be interesting to see if
the Palestinians now use their new U.N. status to harass Israelis in venues
such as the International Criminal Court.”
Even if you accept the implication that the Israelis have
adhered to the Oslo Accords – which they never did – to say that the General
Assembly violated them after nearly 20 years of negotiations that went nowhere
is to say that a judge cannot alter the terms of an accord which proved to be
worthless, or say that a legislator cannot amend a law which proved to be
ineffective. This is never done, but what is even more significant in those
passages is that they show the extent of the contempt that Jews have for the
rule of law they pretend to be at the basis of their culture. To the
astonishment of the world, they make that claim with a straight face then
demand that they be recognized as being above their neighbors if not above
everyone else in the world.
In fact, that contempt is so deep that the editors of the
Journal are asking that the Palestinians be punished for wanting to adhere to
the rule of law. Can you believe it? And look how hard they push forward their
ideas. First, they hint at the stiff consequences that will result by telling
of the interest they have in seeing how the Palestinians will use their new UN
status. Then, they say this: “Somebody needs to send to Mr. Abbas the message
that there's a price to be paid for flouting the agreements with Israel and
ignoring the pleas of the Administration.” The editors did not have the courage
to directly threaten the Palestinians should they take their case to the
International Criminal Court; they only suggested that someone should threaten
the Palestinians. This is so cowardly, it can only be Jewish inspired.
What is also very Jewish is to do it to yourself trying to
have it both ways. Having made hay earlier in the article of the idea that the
U.N. voted for a Palestinian state in 1947 but that the Palestinians rejected
the plan, the editors of the Journal now say this: “in 1947 … the Jews of
Palestine demonstrated that they were ready to create a functional state. [Now]
the U.N. voted for a 'Palestine '
that has become a byword for political dysfunction, ideological extremism...”
Thus, the question that comes to mind: What happened in the 65 years between
1947 and 2012 that changed the situation so much?
Well, the question may or may not be relevant or even valid
in the current context but what comes out clearly from the passage is that the
Jews view themselves as superior. When they say so at a time that the world has
sent them a message saying their mentality stinks, they oblige people to
believe they are the opposite of superior which means they are inferior. But
since they are made of the same genetic material as the rest of us, their
inferiority must be caused by their culture. And the conclusion we draw is that
the inferiority of the Jewish culture is what caused the troubles that have
plagued these people since the beginning of time. If anything, the U.N. should
do with Palestine and Israel
what it did with mainland China
and Taiwan .
What is also worth noting is that the world can sometimes be
changed by a happenstance that seems innocent at the time it is observed, or a
saying that sounds innocuous at the time it is uttered. For example, there is
the story of a woman's face that launched a thousand war ships. There is also
the saying that broke the back of superpower America . It went like this: “Zey
know nossing about za damacracy of za Shamir.” And now, there is the saying
that goes like this: “Zey know nossing about za chustice of za Murdoch und za
Netanyahu.” It is the saying that may eventually break the bones of the
superpower's remains. What a compounded tragedy!
And yet, this is how they end their editorial piece: “The
tragedy of Thursday's vote is that it will only encourage Palestinians to
remain in their make-believe world.” Here it is, my friend, not only do they
pretend to speak for Israelis and for ordinary American Jews, they also want us
to believe they know the Palestinian people so well, they can predict how the
latter will react to the UN vote.
And of course, they expect us to believe that they, as
editors of the Wall Street Journal, have their feet planted firmly on solid
ground right here on this Planet of Man.
And I have a Brooklyn
bridge to sell to you. Wanna buy?