The Jews of North America had managed to silence all critics
of Israel
by the 1970s. They did it by using the trick of conflating the two words “Israel ” and
“Jewish.” They later added the word “Zionism” to the list, and made the three
words interchangeable.
The plan of the Jewish leaders was to “educate” the public
to the effect that to criticize Israel
was to put down the Jews because of who they are. When you do that, they said,
you express the wish to exterminate all Jews. Therefore, to criticize Israel was to
display the kind of virulent antisemitism that will repeat the events of the
1930s and lead to the next holocaust, they explained.
This kind of logic was so new to the North American
Continent no one knew how to respond to it. Those that tried to feel their way
by asking questions, were quickly shut down, accused of denying the Holocaust
even if they did not mention that event, and did not make a subtle reference to
it.
But what about the mountain of horrors that Israel was piling in the Middle East, especially
in the occupied West Bank of the Jordan
and in Gaza ? Oh
well, that's easy to explain, said Alan Dershowitz, the number one lobbyist for
Israel at the time. And so he explained. He gave long and short explanations
that boil down to this: Israel
has the right to do to the Palestinians anything that anyone has done to
others, anytime, anywhere in the world.
Rabbis and Jewish leaders explained that to deny the Jews
the right to do what they deem necessary in the occupied territories, was to
consider the Jews inferior to the races that protected themselves using similar
tactics. But this argument was so incomprehensible to the rest of society, no
one bothered to remind Dershowitz, the rabbis or the other Jewish leaders what
happened next. What happened was that the Nazis and the fascists they were
holding as the role models Israel
was emulating, were made to pay a heavy price for their behavior.
And so, in the absence of a push-back, the Jews had the
field all to themselves, and went on to inflate the virtues of Israel . They
heaped so much praise, so relentlessly on that thing, the mother of Mother
Theresa would have blushed had she tried to describe her saintly daughter in
that same fashion, using the same superlatives and using them so profusely.
Eventually, the Israeli bubble that the Jews were creating took on such
grotesque dimensions, it began to crumble under its own mass.
And then something began to happen that changed all that. In
defiance of the barrage of threats that the Jewish leaders were throwing at
them, the people who saw the damage that Israel
was causing to America 's
standing in the world – due to its unquestioned support for Israel –
developed the courage to question that relationship. This is when the Jews went
back to using the trick of accusing the people who criticize Israel of being
anti-Semitic, and of trying to bring about the next holocaust.
You can see an example of that in the article that came
under the title: “Understanding the Human Rights Assault on Israel ,”
written by Elliott Abrams and published on November 7, 2016 on the website of
the Council on Foreign Relations. Abrams begins by praising Israel to let the readers know just who it is
he's talking about: “Given that Israel
is the freest nation in the Middle East , and
the only stable democracy there...”
But how can he call free or stable a society in which half
of its people occupy the other half? How can he call free a people that must go
through several checkpoints to reach school, work or go see their relatives?
How can he and the other Jewish leaders describe as stable, a regime whose
documented mistreatment of human beings fills volumes at the UN and the various
human rights organizations?
To answer those questions, Abrams points to an “independent
judiciary” as proof that Israel
is governed by a regime of freedoms. And that's what tells you these people
have no concept what it means to live freely in a modern society. If they knew,
they wouldn't be dissing, blacklisting or shutting up the people that criticize
them, a habit they brought into and spread throughout the English speaking
world.
It is the Constitution of a country and its Bill of Rights
that guaranty the freedom of its citizens; they are the law of the land.
Independent or not, the judiciary does not make the law; it only applies it.
Of all the nations of the world, Israel does not have a Constitution
or a Bill of Rights. That's because it follows the edicts of the Old Testament,
a Stone Age document that was codified into something they call the Talmudic
Law.