If you wonder why there exists a paralyzed superpower called
America
that's run by a paralyzed political apparatus that's made of two paralyzed
political parties, wonder no more my friend, because you'll now have answers to
all your questions.
Actually, you have Elliott Abrams to thank for that. He does
more than answer the questions pertaining to that situation; he plays the role
of the lowlife scoundrel who might have participated in the fifty-year-old
exercise to haggle America 's
democracy to death. He plays the role so well, in fact, that you'll come to
think he's not acting, but that he is the real McCoy … or maybe not. Well, see
for yourself.
Abrams wrote: “The New State Department Assault on Israel ,” an article
that was published on July 28, 2016 on the website of the Council on Foreign
Relations. What the State Department did that caused him to accuse it of
hostility toward Israel, assault on Israel, and display of sheer ignorance – is
that the Department voiced “concern by reports that the Government of Israel
has published tenders for 323 units, following [a previous] 770 units” in
occupied Palestine. And this was enough to bring a ton of Jewish bricks on the
Department's head.
How can something like this happen when Israel lives by America 's charity, and could not
exist for a day without the generous help it receives on an ongoing basis? To
answer this question, we need to take a quick look at some history. When the
Jews tried to take and keep the Sinai, the late President Nasser of Egypt said what
was taken by force will only be returned by force. He started preparing Egypt for the
fight ahead but died before completing the job. Anwar Sadat took over, and was
the one to kick the Jews out of the Sinai.
When the Jews tried to take and keep the Golan, the Syrians
fought back and managed to retake half of it. When they tried to take and keep South Lebanon , Hezbollah fought back and kicked them out.
When they tried to take and keep Gaza ,
Hamas fought back and kicked them out. But when the Palestinians tried to kick
the Jews out of the West Bank, the latter went crying to America and haggled their way into convincing a
Congress of zombies that America
must do what's necessary to prevent this from happening.
The congress agreed, and that's when America started
sliding down the slippery slope … all the way to a cistern full of mythological
beasts called Jewish haggling. These are creatures whose diet consists of
preying on democracy twenty four hours a day. It is fair to say that the
congress had no clue what was going on, anymore than a far gone drug addict
realized his wife and children were out in the street hustling donors and
offering favors for a handout that helps them eat and maintain a roof over
their heads.
So the question is this: How did Jewish haggling suffocate
the democratic process? To answer the question, we look at one example. Without
saying why the Palestinians had 'shut down' on negotiation with the Jews after
50 years of occupation and 20 years of fruitless talks to end it, Elliott
Abrams cites history by quoting words that were written in an Israeli
newspaper, itself quoting a Jewish American of Australian descent who
apparently had said: “Netanyahu moved to the zone of possible agreement. Abbas
for his part did not show flexibility.” This would be the hearsay of hearsay of
a hearsay that no one but the likes of Elliott Abrams takes seriously.
So now you want to know what the 'zone of possible
agreement' was. And you find a passage in the article that gives an indication
of what it may have been. Here is a condensed version of that passage:
“The position of the U.S.
has been under Clinton, Bush and Obama that Israel and the Palestinians should
engage in land swaps … Swapping for what? Swapping for major Israeli settlement
blocs such as Maale Adumim, population 40,000. Same for Gilo and Har Homa. In
1997, the United States vetoed two UN Security Council resolutions demanding
that construction in Har Homa stop … the president at that time was a democrat
, and the husband of the current Democratic nominee … One might wonder if the
Department has no other matters to concern it these days. It seems nothing is
as dangerous to the world as Jewish settlements”.
He asks: Swapping for what? Well, swapping lands is what the
UN and America
have been insisting on since 1967. It is what Clinton, Bush and Obama
reiterated several times. When the Jews promised they will take the settlements
down at the end of negotiations, America swallowed this crap and
vetoed UN resolutions demanding that the construction activities stop. The
Palestinians knew that the Jewish promise was crap and 'shut down' after 20
years of giving the Jews the benefit of the doubt. So now, Abrams is rubbing
the crap in America 's
face, and blowing his entrails out of the belly crying out: But you vetoed two
UN resolutions, you vetoed them, you vetoed them. Now you change your mind. Why
do you change your mind? Why? Why? Tell me why.
Can this sort of behavior – when repeated over and over again
for half a century – paralyze a superpower and bring it to its knees? Yes it
can. That's because a democracy relies on intellectual honesty and mutual
trust. The Jews, on the other hand, view these qualities as a weakness. And so
they fashioned an ideology that takes advantage of the people who live on
honesty and practice mutual trust.
When a country becomes infested with that ideology for the
first time, it gets paralyzed as if stung by a scorpion. Anything can happen
after that, ranging from overt antisemitism to full blown holocaust. America is
in the paralysis stage at this point in time, and no one knows how far things
will go, or how they will be resolved.