If you want to see a glaring example of the mentality that
powers the Judeo-Israeli movement, there are a plenty of them around; all
provided by the self-appointed leaders of that movement. One such leader is Clifford
D. May whose gift to us this time is a column he wrote while visiting Israel . It has
the title: “Discussing Islam: A Religious Taboo” and the subtitle: “American
officials can kill our enemies. They just can't discuss our enemies' beliefs.”
The column was published in the National Review Online on January 24, 2013.
Despite the author's effort to be subtle, the column
demonstrates how these people use trickery to confuse their interlocutors and
score a success. To be sure, this would be the kind of success that history
says cannot be a lasting one. The reality has been that the aftermath of each
act of trickery was never the concern of the people that pulled it because they
believed that no matter how much they blundered, God will come to their rescue
in the end and give what they started a happy ending.
Alas, this has remained the fantasy they held onto for
thousands of years despite the fact that they could see they lost the trust and
the goodwill of their interlocutors each time that the latter put the pieces
together and saw the full picture of the tricks they were pulling. As to the
anticipated rescue by the divine, that thing never came, and the happy ending
never materialized. On the contrary, the end of each episode in Jewish history
has been a calamity for the Jews and a difficult time for those who stayed
close to them.
With regard to the latest Clifford May column, the picture
he is painting can be framed in the reader's mind by looking at the start of
the presentation then looking at the way he ends it. Having such a frame in
mind at the outset will help the reader formulate a better understanding of the
tricks that the author uses while taking the reader from point to point, and
working his subtle magic to affect the psyche and shape the thinking.
Here is how he begins the discussion: “Can we at least agree
that reports of al-Qaeda's death have been greatly exaggerated?” And here is
how he ends it: “Can we at least agree that … the death of the peace process
have not been exaggerated – and that Israelis' constructing … in and around Jerusalem … is not the
reason why?” Thus, we see that after hitting us with a title that speaks of
Islam, the author makes the point that the war against the Muslims is not over
because al-Qaeda is still alive. And this leads him to conclude that the peace
process is dead therefore Israel
can go ahead and steal Palestinian lands. What can be more Jewish than this?
How the author gets from the beginning of the column to that
conclusion is what the rest of the column is about. Indeed, what we have here
is an example of how these people dismantle several historical events and –
using parts from each event – manage to assemble something new; a monstrosity
that will support their newest argument. And here is how Clifford May does it
this time: “In stump speeches [Obama] said al-Qaeda had been 'decimated' … in
his inaugural address … he claimed that 'a decade of war is now ending' [but]
the evidence that AQ is alive and lethal is abundant.”
The truth, however, is that President Obama was talking
about a war in Iraq
that he ended as he promised he will do. As to the war in Afghanistan , it
too was coming to an end which is what the President promised he will do also.
This is what he was referring to in his speeches, nothing more and nothing
less. Come to think of it, the Iraq
war had nothing to do with al-Qaeda (AQ). As well, the Afghanistan war
was launched not against AQ but against the Taliban who refused to hand over
the leaders of AQ; those responsible for the 9/11 event. Bringing these people
to justice being the goal of the Afghan operation, the President achieved that
goal by decimating the AQ leadership. This is also what he was referring to in
his speeches, nothing more and nothing less.
Thus, for a Jewish author like Clifford May to take bits of
those speeches and bits of the events to which they refer, then assemble the
pieces into an argument that leads to the conclusion Israel can steal with
impunity what belongs to the Palestinians is the sort of mentality that someone
has called the Jewish hunger to acquire and use the proverbial one-way ticket
to the gas chamber. And from the looks of it, these people have no intention to
stop buying that ticket now or ever.
But contrary to May's conclusion, we reach our own
conclusion which is that each event mentioned by the President was correct when
looked at in the context in which it came. When taken out of that context, and
when assembled with other pieces that were themselves taken out of their
contexts, an author can give himself the possibility of putting together a new
picture showing an al-Qaeda Islamic army marching across the Globe the way that
the Nazi army marched across Europe . This is
what Clifford May has done. It is a Jewish montage of pieces of truth assembled
in such a way as to produce a big lie.
However, because the assembly is made of pieces that reflect
a half truth here and a partial truth there, it has the ultimate effect of
deceiving the onlooker as to its veracity. And that's where the confusion
begins; one that these people turn to their advantage till they are unmasked
and dealt with harshly.
And the author of the column does not stop here for, he
starts what may be called the second act of his dissertation. He does so with a
preface which he sticks in the middle of the presentation – one that is worthy
of a book on philosophy. Take a look at this: “Serious analysts sometimes
arrive at wrong conclusions. But serious analysts acknowledge their errors,
attempt to determine what data or misassumptions led them astray, and work to
reshape their narrative in conformance with reality.”
To show how and where this philosophy may apply, he does
something that is very Jewish. Here it is: “I spoke with someone I'll identify
only as a senior American military official.” He then proceeds to put words
that will make his point, in the mouth of that mythical someone. But because
you know of the standard Jewish practice of arguing he was led to a conclusion
that had been developing in his head for ages, you say “bunk.” You skip the
useless verbiage, go directly to the conclusion and see for yourself what he is
up to now.
And this is his conclusion: “American officials can kill our
enemies … They just can't analyze, criticize, or challenge the beliefs that
motivate them. Fighting a kinetic war is permitted, but waging a cognitive war
is prohibited. If we are to avoid defeat, we need to be fighting both.” In
other words, Clifford May is saying he went to Israel where he met a senior
American official who told him that if the politicians and the media types in
America do not start frothing at the mouth the kind of lies and insults that he
and those of his ilk froth regularly, America will be defeated on the
battlefield no matter what weapons of war she uses and what strategies she
employs. It all boils down to this: It's not the drones or the smart bombs,
stupid; it's the shower of Yiddish style insults. And so you think to yourself,
no wonder these Jews always end up in the gas chamber.
Is that the end of May's presentation? Of course not. Why
would he end here when the going looks so joyful in his eyes? See for yourself
what comes next; it is what may be called the third act of his presentation.
Here it is: “Closely related to the 'AQ is dead' thesis is the 'Muslim Brotherhood
is moderate' thesis.” Thus, in line with what these people do which is to
identify a new enemy each day and call on the Americans to join in the
celebration of hate and incitement, Clifford May has called the Muslim
Brotherhood enemy of the day.
To incite the Americans, he is doing yet again what he has
been doing for years. He is doing the two things where I repeatedly challenged
him on this website. It is that he mutilated history, and he accused someone of
saying something in a foreign language he did not say. This time, he tried to
malign the President of Egypt.
I shall not discuss every distortion he made this time but
will take up one point because it is the one that pops up everywhere these
days. Here is what May wrote: “he [Morsi] called Jews and Israelis 'the
descendants of apes and pigs.'” In fact, Morsi did not speak of Jews or
Israelis; he spoke of the Zionists who were at the time bombing with unusual
savagery the unarmed women and children of Palestine as they slept in their bedrooms.
Thus, Clifford May did what the Jewish leaders have been doing for ages which
is to treat as synonymous and substitutable the words Jew, Israeli and Zionist.
What is noteworthy about this is that the discussion these
days concerns the latest Jewish lament to the effect that someone has called
the “Israeli lobby” a “Jewish lobby;” a confusion that reeks of antisemitism,
they say. But what Clifford May has inadvertently demonstrated is that these
people will do it to themselves then complain that someone has hurt them by not
saying exactly what they can never get exactly right themselves – either
because they are confused or because they want to confuse someone else. Who
cares anyway? I don't.
As to Mr. Morsi calling the murderous Zionists a bunch of apes and pigs,
I apologize to the apes and the pigs in the zoos and the jungles of the world,
especially those among them who will never fly an American warplane or drop an
American bomb on women and their babies. They did nothing to merit being so
insulted.