They banged their heads against the wall, they pulled their
hairs off their skulls, they beat their breasts to a pulp and they tore their
entrails out of their bellies hollering they were innocent of the charge that
they intended to change the status of al-Aqsa Mosque in occupied Jerusalem .
They even called on President Abbas of Palestine
and President Obama of the United States
to come out and say they knew for certain that Israel was not planning to change
the status of the mosque. No less than Benjamin Netanyahu went on television to
deny that charge, and to accuse President Abbas of perpetrating a lie. He did
so as Prime Minister of Israel despite the fact that his local propaganda
machine and the one in America
were preparing public opinion in the two places to accept a fait accompli on
its way to become a reality.
This is the game of ambiguities that the Jews rely on when
they have war crimes in the planning stage. From one side of the mouth they
pave the way to unleash an escalating horror on the innocent; from the other
side of the mouth, they try to convince someone prominent to absolve them of
what they are about to do … making him believe that this will do some good but
not telling him what repugnance they are about to let loose.
This is what the Jews have tried to pull off in the occupied
territories as shown by the example of David French's article, published on
October 13, 2015 in National Review online under the title: “Palestinian
Reasoning: Yield to our Crazy Religious Intolerance or We'll kill You,” and
critiqued on this website in an article that came under the title: “This Lawyer
has gone Banana.”
In that article, David French articulated the lawyer's point
of view with this argument: “The holy compound in Jerusalem, a place revered by
Jews and Muslims … According to security arrangement [the law] dating back to
1967, the site, while open to Jewish visitors at specific times, is sealed off
to non-Muslim prayer … Let's be clear – this is crazed, anti-Semitic religious
intolerance, and Israelis are expected to 'respect' this intolerance.”
Now, a week later and despite the dozens of people who were
killed, and the thousands who were injured, the war criminals in occupied Jerusalem are still at
it. They are trying to justify what they did, and trying to whitewash what they
plan to do next. This time, they summoned to the occupied city of Christians
and Muslims, Clifford D. May, the Jewish president of the joint they call
Foundation for Defense of Democracies – to come and articulate the jokers'
point of view.
Clifford May responded to the request with an article he
wrote under the title: “Cutthroats of the Holy Land ”
and the subtitle: “A spate of Palestinian knife attacks shows why peace remains
elusive.” It was published on October 29, 2015 in The Washington Times. After
listing the lies, the spins and the talking points that usually go into the
articles written by members of the comical outfit, May started telling the
story of Moshe Dayan, the Israeli General that was in charge of negotiating the
Mosque's fate with the Jordanian authorities. He wrote this: “considering
Islamic sensitivities, he decided that Jews should not pray there.”
In fact, that was the accord which Dayan and the Jordanians
haggled over for long periods of time and codified into an ironclad agreement.
But after spinning that history in a manner that suited him, Clifford May
resorted to a sleight of hand reminiscent of the David French trick.
He went on to say this: “It was a concession Israeli
officials have no intention of revoking. But ask yourself: While it may be
inadvisable to open this sacred site to non-Muslim worshipers, should it really
be unthinkable? How can there be progress toward a peaceful coexistence if
Palestinian leaders believe the very idea of Jews and Muslims praying side by
side justifies...”
What Clifford May has done here is kill two birds with one
stone. First, he played the role of the humble petitioner that's appealing to
the human side of the readers in the name of Arab-Jewish peaceful coexistence.
Second, he left the door open for the unthinkable to become thinkable. That is,
he signaled the Jewish rejection of what the Israelis have agreed to in 1967.
In fact, this approach is so typically Jewish, it falls in
the category of “what's mine is mine, and what's yours is debatable.” You see
it in practice when a ruling comes down in their favor and they seek to make it
irrevocable. In contrast, they work to repeal every ruling they deem is no
longer favorable to them. It's what they are trying to do with the al-Aqsa
deal. They want the world to know they will work on it till they get it
reversed or till hell freezes over, whichever comes first.
Meanwhile, the government of Israel will continue to provoke incidents
such as the one that's ongoing at this time. It will escalate the encounters
that result between the unarmed Palestinians and the armed-to-the-teeth
Israelis. And the soldiers of occupation will be instructed to kill as many
Palestinians as possible so that the rest will decide to submit in defeat, and
hand the mosque to the Jews.
It is either this, says Clifford May, or Jewish tolerance
“becomes more akin to submission.” The aim here is to tell Jews everywhere in
the world that the battle has come down to Palestinians submitting to the will
of the Jews, or the Jews submitting to the will of the Palestinians. There is
no compromise here as the sheep-like petitioner that used to appeal to the
human side of the readers in the name of Arab-Jewish peaceful coexistence, has
finally revealed his wolf-like canines.
That's because “peaceful coexistence” is a product that the
Jews fabricate in abundance by the muscles of their Jaws – and only that. They
sell the product; they pocket the money and they run away before the buyer
discovers how fake and useless it is.