I don't know how old Ian Tuttle is but I bet he is not old
enough to remember what happened in 1967. And the reason I am so confident is
because if he did, he would have written his latest article which came under
the title: “Another Blockade of the Port
of Oakland
Tuttle tells the story of a Bay area coalition of 70
American organizations that decided to make their feelings known with regard to
the regime of occupation which is now ruling in Palestine – they boycotted a ship that is
partially owned by Israeli interests. Normally, something like this would have
sent federal and state politicians as well as characters of all sorts to hop
like kangaroos in front of the television cameras, where they would have tried
to outdo each other condemning in the strongest possible terms this act of
naked antisemitism. But that did not happen this time.
Why not? It did not happen because people have had it up to
here with Jewish moaning, and with the moaning of their echo repeating running
dogs who have nothing better to do. “Enough,” said the good people of America because
if this is antisemitism, you should give us and give the world more of it – it
is not a bad thing, it is a salutary thing. So now, instead of moaning, the
Jews and their mouthpieces have decided to use a different approach. You may
call it the positively disinterested tack until someone finds a better name for
it.
Here is how Tuttle expressed it at the end of his article:
“The [ship] will eventually unload its cargo … protesters in Oakland will have little
effect on it … As long as Oaklanders have something about which to protest,
they will be perfectly content.” Did you notice something? He inadvertently
drew a moral equivalence between protesting against Israel ,
and having “something about which to protest” in Oakland . This being a no, no, I wonder how
hard the Jewish organizations will want to punish him for this Freudian slip.
Now, what about this 1967 business? Well, as it happens,
even Ian Tuttle would know that before the new conservatives (neocons) turned
coat and became conservative, they were rabid liberals of the most progressive
kind – the Jewish brand. Having predicted, as disciples of Karl Marx the Jew,
that America would be first to turn communist, and having lost when the Russian
Bolsheviks turned their country communist, and America never did, the Jews
decided to study law in America, to become labor lawyers and to command – as
they did in may instances – the labor unions of America.
One of these unions was affiliated with the longshoremen of
the port of New York Israel launched a Pearl
Harbor style sneak attack on Egypt ,
an act that sparked the six year war which ended when the Egyptians crossed the
Suez Canal and booted the Israelis out of the
Sinai in 1973. That six year war was nickname War of Attrition, and while
raging was inflicting a heavy toll on the Israeli forces on a daily basis.
Believing then as they do now, that only Israel “has the right to defend itself” and no
one else, the Jewish lawyers of America
determined that Egypt
was acting aggressively in doing what was necessary to liberate the Sinai. And
so they called on the longshoremen of New York
to boycott an Egyptian ship that had docked there so as to express their
feelings with regard to what Egypt
was doing; and the unions responded affirmatively.
You see, my friend, the people of Oakland were not the first to employ this
method; the progressive-cum-conservative Jewish lawyers were. And they set the
example that has come to haunt them.