Realizing that to mention the word 'Israel' has become the
toxic expression that would kill a serious discussion about war and peace in
the Middle East, Michael Makovsky who is Israel's unofficial attorney in
America, has pleaded his client's case without mentioning its name. And he did
a job that's as poor as he would have, had he mentioned the dreaded word.
That doomed exercise came in the form of an 1100-word
article written under the title: “On the Consequences of the Deal,” published
on July 17, 2015 in the Weekly Standard. The gist of it is so typically Jewish;
it is as toxic as to write the word 'Israel' 1100 times back to back on a
sheet, and nothing else. The following is basically what Makovsky is saying: The
consequences of the deal are that Iran will be able to “support terrorist
groups and proxies in the region. It will trigger nuclear proliferation, which
will increase the risk of nuclear conflict that could draw in the United
States.”
But don't pass any judgment yet because that's not the end
of it. Of course, that passage in Makovsky's article is meant to scare the
reader. Now look what comes in the next paragraph: “the deal not only fails to
address Iran's attempts to develop missiles with which it will eventually be
able to fire nuclear weapons at the United States, it lifts the embargo that
prevents it from buying those weapons, and other systems from Russia and
China.”
Now that you are really scared, look how Makovsky – the
quintessential Jew that's dripping his Jewishness like puss oozing from a
festering wound – begins the next paragraph of the article. He writes: “Rather
than defend the deal on its merits, Obama attempted to scare the American
people with misleading 'alternatives.'” Did he say scare the American people?
What could be scarier than to say Iran will fire nuclear weapons at the United
States? How toxic is the puss that Makovsky is oozing? How much more of it he
holds back?
Are you ready for an answer? Here is what he says about
President Obama scaring people. He quotes him as having said: “Consider what
happens in a world without this deal.” And this is how Makovsky comments on
what Obama has said: “He would have us believe that there is no possibility of
getting a better deal.”
And you, my dear friend, are supposed to be more scared by
what Obama said than Makovsky saying: The consequences of the deal is that Iran
will support terrorist groups and proxies ... will trigger nuclear
proliferation, which will increase the risk of nuclear conflict that could draw
in the United States … The deal fails to address Iran's attempts to develop
missiles ... to fire nuclear weapons at the United States [and] lifts the
embargo that prevents it from buying those weapons and other systems from Russia
and China.
That's a basketful of terror. However, to be fair, it must
also be said that Obama mentioned what the alternative to the deal would be.
Makovsky describes it as a nuclear program run amok. The words of the President
being these: “No deal means no lasting constrains on Iran's nuclear program.”
And given how the debate has developed over the past few
years – much of it done on the pages and website of the Weekly Standard, and
responded to on this website by yours truly – the President had no alternative
but to mention: “Without a diplomatic resolution, I or a future U.S. president
would face a decision about whether or not to allow Iran to obtain a nuclear
weapon or whether to use our military to stop it. Put simply, no deal means a
greater chance of more war in the Middle East.”
Makovsky says that to have mentioned that reality was
shameful even though it was the choice which people of his ilk have been
highlighting for years. The problem has always been the non-stop war-mongering
these people have been doing – as indeed, he is doing in his current article –
and will continue to do if the deal is rejected. But instead of ending his
war-mongering, and calling on his comrades to do likewise, Makovsky says that
to mention the war-mongering is to do fear-mongering. Go figure. Well, it takes
a Jew to put on a show like this.
He goes on: “[in] Obama's narrative, the consequences of
accepting this deal will be peace rather than war.” Makovsky rebuts that
assertion with this counterpoint: “But our allies made clear they see this deal
as making more likely the conflicts Obama is trying to prevent.” Who are these
allies? Are they the Arabs? No; he mentions the Arabs right after that. It
must, therefore, be the Israelis he finds too toxic to mention by name.
As to the Arabs, he says this: “...our traditional Arab
allies will develop nuclear programs or acquire nuclear weapons.” Well, this
was the worry before the deal. But now that the deal with Iran has been
concluded, the worry has evaporated. The Arabs have welcomed the deal, and said
they look forward to calmer times ahead.
Having pulled a stunt of the reversing kind, Makovsky now
gives it a distinct Jewish look. He does it by turning reality on its head. He
achieves this feat by accusing President Obama of not having “an honest
discussion about all this” when, in fact, he was the dishonest character from
start to finish. And that's why he calls on the Congress to “stand up to the
president … and vote to disapprove the deal.”