Look at this headline: “Lawmakers Slam Obama Administration
For $400 million Payment to Iran ,”
that's actually the title of the article that Jenna Lifhits wrote for the
Weekly Standard. It was published on August 3, 2016 in that publication.
So you want to know, why the slam? You look into the article
and find reference to the operation that led to the payment made to Iran as being a
quid pro quo. Now you wonder: Is this a bad thing? Or what exactly is this thing
they call quid pro quo?
Believe it or not, quid pro quo is the single most important
invention that nature came up with to make organic life possible. From the
service that bees render to the plants they pollinate in exchange for their
nectar, to the swap of vital goods and services between human beings, life
depends on quid pro quo.
We constantly exchange one thing for another in transactions
that go smoothly most of the time but not all of the time. They go smoothly
when there is trust between the parties. That is, I give you something knowing
that you'll “pay me back” because we have good relations, and have been
exchanging goods and/or services for a time now. But there can happen at times
that you need to conduct a transaction with someone you do not trust for
whatever reason. How do you conduct a quid pro quo in this case?
Since the beginning of time, people have relied on the
principle of an intermediary in a position of authority playing the role of
witness or judge to insure that one party does not receive something and then
break his promise of paying for it with something of equal value. Because this
is sometimes a difficult thing to do in international relations, mechanisms
were invented to facilitate such transactions.
The most familiar in commercial transactions is the letter
of credit from a recognized bank that a seller requires from a buyer before the
goods are shipped. That is, the buyer deposits the money with the bank, which
releases it to the seller when the buyer receives the goods.
In political affairs, however, things can get a little
sticky. The most telling of transactions in this realm was the bridge that used
to connect a capitalist country with a communist country – a bridge on which
the simultaneous release of prisoners used to be effectuated. Officials
resorted to this method because each party feared that the other may get its
prisoner and not release the one it is holding. The visual execution of the
quid pro quo on the bridge solved this problem.
Whatever the merit of such cases, this kind of quids pro
quos are legitimate. What is not legitimate – in fact, what can be as morally
reprehensible as the repeated gang rape of helpless children – is the quid pro
quo in which one party gives something in return for what belongs to a third
party. The most notorious criminals practicing this sort of transactions are
the Jews.
Their current game is to help American legislators get
elected in return for the Americans paying them with a piece of Palestine . That is, the
legislators get America to
support the Jews financially, militarily and diplomatically for Israel to maintain the occupation of Palestine , and add more
Jewish settlements on Palestinian lands.
And when you look at the names of the “lawmakers” who raise
their hysterical voices as they “slam” the Obama Administration for doing what
is common to human culture even before there were humans on this planet – you
find them to be the same characters who make possible the gang rape of
Palestine by criminals that have been condemned everywhere they went on this
planet by everyone they met, now and throughout time.
Quid pro quo as practiced by the Obama Administration is
legitimate. Quid pro quo as practiced by the lawmakers and their Jewish masters
is morally reprehensible and criminal.