Do you remember that guy, Elliott Abrams, the baker of shit
pies? He is back. This time he baked a big one – a very big one – and he
invited the editors of the New York Times as well as Dennis Ross to his table.
And they came, they dug in that thing, and they stuffed themselves with it as
if to follow the old advice: eat, drink and be merry for, there may not be a
tomorrow. And that's why all of them are full of shit.
This time, Abrams chose a misnomer by which to call his
creation, naming it “Abbas's 'bombshell'” when, in fact, neither Abbas nor his
people nor the Palestinian media had anything to do with that word. It is
something that came right out the Abrams imagination, perhaps to impress his
readers or to impress the editors of the Weekly Standard who published the
thing in their online magazine on September 30, 2015.
The Arabic words for “drop a bombshell,” which Abrams says
came up in the Palestinian media, would have been “Isqaat qonbulah” but in all
the Arabic media that I consulted, not once did I read those words. As to the
editors of the New York Times who attended his shit party, they were careful
not to attribute those words to the Palestinians. But because they did not tell
who created them or used them, they left the impression it was the Palestinians
who did. As to Dennis Ross, who normally oozes out a stink that makes any shit
pie smell like a bouquet of roses, he came right out and said, “the president
of the Palestinian Authority, Mahmoud Abbas declared that he would drop a
bombshell in his speech.” As stinky as ever, this guy Dennis Ross.
Check things out for yourself. The piece that was written by
the editors of the New York Times came under the title: “Mahmoud Abbas Gives Up
on Peace” and was published on October 1, 2015. As to the article that was
written by Dennis Ross, it came under the title: “Mahmoud Abbas's Bombshell
Fizzles” and was published on October 3, 2015 also in the New York Times. Even
though each handled the bombshell lie differently, they all followed the theme
that Elliott Abrams put down. That is, they railed against the Palestinian
President for not blessing, or at least welcoming, the Jewish rape of his
motherland. This is Jewish through and through.
This is how Abrams formulated the theme: “The speech was
mostly a rehash of tired complaints about Israel … Abbas continues to say
that Israeli settlements in the West bank are swallowing it up, which is false:
the settlements are growing in population but not territorially.” So he asks
the question: What does it all mean? And he answers it this way: Most likely,
not much. And that's the idea, Abbas accomplished not much.
So you ask: “From where did Abrams get that idea?” And he
answers: “Nathan Thrall who is head of the International Crisis Group's Jerusalem office, told the
New York Times that Abbas's line was old, old, old, old news … and definitely
not a bombshell.” That's where it all started, my friend. It is where the shit
came from. It is what Abrams stuffed in his pie. It is what the editors of the
New York Times and Dennis Ross have been ruminating on. It is someone in
occupied Jerusalem
who said something that became dogma to them. It is not journalism or punditry;
it is shit all around … Jewish shit.
To follow up on that, as would a mindless echo repeater, the
editors of the New York Times blurted out: “It is hard to gauge what President
Abbas's declaration amounts to.” But then, as if someone had poked them in the
rib to nudge them out of their ape-like sleepwalking state, they added this
comment: “Bombshell or not, it is not a speech to be lightly dismissed.”
Two days after the New York Times editorial, Dennis Ross
added his two-cents worth to the ongoing one-sided stinky debate. It is clear
from what he says that he is trying to build on what Abrams and the editors of
the Times had established before him. Starting with the lie that Abbas said
something he did not say, Ross goes on to ask dismissively: “These sound like
strong words, but what do they actually mean?”
He explains why it would be difficult for the Palestinians
to break free of the grip that is the Israeli occupation, then asks the
question: “Did he [Abbas] mean that security cooperation would stop?” And he
answers: “Don't count on it.” To explain all that, he absentmindedly does
something that highlights the nobility of Abbas and the ignoble nature of the
Jews. Nobody set out to gotcha him; he did it to himself – the eternal idiot
that he is.
What he says is this: “With 70 percent of the Palestinian
Authority's budget coming from the taxes that the Israelis collect, there will
be no rush to end the economic protocol. (Every time Israel withholds these funds, it creates a financial crisis in
the territories.) And given that Mr. Abbas emphasizes his opposition to
violence, he is unlikely to end security cooperation.” What Dennis Ross just
said is that the Jews are by nature low life disgusting thieves, and that
Mahmoud Abbas is forever the civilized gentleman that the Jews cannot imitate,
let alone become. Talking about the truth coming out the mouth of babies – this
one an intellectual baby.
All that reflects the true nature of the ongoing struggle in
the Middle East . It is the battle of good
versus evil. It is the people of Palestine
who draw nobility from their Arab-Semitic roots. They are made to suffer on the
cross of imposters pretending to be the inheritors of a nomadic clan of thieves
who never had anything more than a handful of camels, asses and sheep ... and
what they could steal from their neighbors.