As details of the deal between the P5+1 with Iran were
coming out drip by drip, the Judeo-Israeli lobby in America and the entire
Jewish propaganda machine felt compelled to drop the claims they were making about
how bad the deal was, and how much in favor of Iran its provisions seemed to
be.
In the end, the lobby and the machine were left with only
one accusation they could fallback on; the usual Jewish habit of badmouthing
the enemy – something that is so nebulous, it is always very difficult to push
back against. This time, the Jews were ascribing bad intentions to the
Iranians, claiming that these people were untrustworthy; an accusation they
kept repeating as they had nothing else to work with.
And that's what conjured up the image that the Jews had
acquired throughout the centuries – the image of the Jew who would smile in
your face while maneuvering you to turn around so that he may stab you in the
back, grab your wallet and run away shouting how evil you've been for refusing
to accept he has special privileges no one else can have. Thus, the claim that
the Iranians were untrustworthy was reflected back on the Jews as they made up
all sorts of stories to tell why the Iranians must not be trusted.
A consequence of those developments had been that the few
Jewish voices which seemed to dissent from the official line, were ignored. One
of those voices was heard from very faintly about a month ago, at a time when
it was becoming clear that the deal with Iran was not going to be stopped.
Well, now that the deal is certain to become reality, that same voice has
returned a little louder this time.
That would be the voice of Ami Ayalon who wrote an article
under the title: “Israel
in a Post-Deal World” which the New York Times published on September 8, 2015.
And so, the question that comes to mind is whether or not you can trust this
guy. The immediate answer being that it all depends on what he says, and what
he is asking for, we are left with no choice but to examine his missive with a
critical eye.
But the reality is that you don't have to be too critical to
see that Ayalon is holding a long sharp dagger in his hand while trying to
maneuver the Americans into turning around so that he may stab their country in
the back aiming to turn it into the beast of burden it has been while serving
the Jews faithfully and without question during the decades ... losing lives,
treasure and reputation in the process.
This is what Ayalon is now saying: “In order to act effectively
on our skepticism of Iran 's
intentions and trustworthiness, Israel
must enhance its alliance with America .”
As you can see, the Jewish intent and the approach have not changed; they are
the same old intent and the same old approach. What has changed – but only by a
little – is that the formulation of the new “old” demands now come with a tinge
of contrition that is as real as crocodile tears streaming down the eyes of a
fox that's eying your free range chicken.
Here is how the Jews shed tears: “What I and my fellow
signatories oppose is Mr. Netanyahu's spiteful battle with America 's president – precisely because it risks
limiting cooperation in monitoring Iran . Mr. Netanyahu needs to
recognize that the nuclear accord is a done deal.” He sheds a few more tear
drops then, speaking of future challenges, says that America
and Israel
must “jointly prepare for the post-deal world.”
But why does he wish to do that? Because: “the outcome of
the deal will depend on what steps the US
and Israel
take now.” In other words, he wants Israel to be in a position to
influence the outcome of the deal aside from what the P5+1 negotiators put into
it. He wants the Jews to maneuver themselves back again into America 's
driver's seat.
After saying “we must not be fooled,” talking about the
Iranians, he now reveals what the appetite of the fox looks like once you get
passed the crocodile tears. Here is that Jewish appetite: “We must prepare a
viable military option … The reason it would be viable now is precisely because
the West has already used sanctions … military strikes against Iran would be
seen as a legitimate measure.”