An old saying goes like this: “all is fair in love and war.”
And those who win the war always deem it desirable and acceptable to write its
history the way that's most favorable to them.
One way to do that is to select what to put into the record
and what to leave out. In turn, this gives the historian the choice of calling
an object or a place by any of the names that were bestowed on it in the past
or were associated with it. For example, what is now Zimbabwe
was once Rhodesia .
What is now Myanmar was once
Burma .
What is now Israel was once Palestine … and the list
is long.
What you do not find, however, except among one group of
people, is the tendency to adopt this approach while at the same time moaning
about someone else taking the same approach to doing the same thing. Who might
these people be, you ask? Can you not guess? Try the Jews. Yes, that's them.
This is because no one else would do such a thing but them, and them alone.
They did it once again, and you can see it in the article
which came under the title: “The war against history” and the subtitle:
“Islamists destroy the past to shape the future,” written by Clifford D. May
and published on November 8, 2016 in The Washington Times. Ignoring that no place
was ever named Israel before 1948, and that hundreds of Arab towns and villages
in what used to be Palestine were given new Hebrew or Yiddish names since the
occupation, Clifford May is now moaning about the one place that UNESCO chose
to call by its Arabic name: “Haram al-Sharif” instead of the English version of
its Yiddish name: “Temple Mount”.
To give his moaning an air of legitimacy, Clifford May pulls an antic
for which the Jews are notorious. He did so by mentioning George Orwell's view
that those who seek to control the past and the future display totalitarian
ambitions. He does not say the analogy applies to what the Jews are doing in
occupied Palestine , but says it applies to the
Taliban leader Mullah Omar, to Ansar Dine which is affiliated with al-Qaeda,
and to ISIS .
What these horrible people did, says Clifford May, is that
they destroyed ancient monuments because they did not like the history that the
monuments represented. He goes from there to say that in like manner, UNESCO
committed the horrible act of calling a site by its Arabic name. Well, my
friend, this shows how far the Jews will go to draw a moral equivalence where
none exists. To say that choosing one name instead of another is the same as
destroying ancient monuments, is to say that an ice cube is equal to an
iceberg. And they call this logic an example of superior Jewish moral clarity.
Now you know.
And that's not all, believe it or not. Clifford May goes on
to accuse the UN organization of participating in the “war on history,” and
says that other people agree with that assessment. They are, according to him,
UNESCO's own director-general, the UN's Secretary General, and a swarm of
American legislators.
The thing is that each of the UN officials made a general
statement without referring to anything specific, whereas the Americans
referred specifically to “the resolution.” And what did the Americans say? What
else would they say, being who they are? Of course they would say things like:
“Dangerous, rabidly anti-Semitic and violation of religious freedom.” They are,
after all, steeped in Jewish style moral clarity.
Is there more to it than that? Of course there is. What
would be the worth of a Jewish article that does not contain a heavy dose of
mutilated history? In fact, May has mutilated a historical event of great
importance. The occasion is that we are approaching the centenary of the
Balfour Declaration, and the Palestinian Authority is asking that the Brits
apologize. It also wants an accounting of what motivated the Brits to offer
what does not belong to them (Palestine )
to a third party (the Jews).
Clifford May does two very Jewish things with that. First,
he falsely accuses the Palestinian Authority of portraying the Declaration as a
criminal act. Second, he mutilates the history surrounding the event like a
rabbit that's caught in the jaws of a hyena.
Is that it? No; there is one more thing. Here is what May
says: “The Palestinians are considering asking UNESCO to demand that the
Israelis turn over to them the Dead Sea Scrolls.” Well, that's an ordinary
thing which happens all the time, especially with countries like Egypt and Greece whose ancient treasures are
often smuggled out of the country and sold abroad.
The Dead Sea Scrolls belong to the Palestinians who say they
may want them back. If they were in the hands of anyone but the Jews, a period
of negotiations would ensue during which a deal is struck granting the current
holder a grace period and the right to borrow the treasures periodically in the
future.
But that's not how Clifford May, the Jew, sees things. Are
you ready for his reaction? Here it is: “One is tempted to say 'you can't make
this stuff up.' But, of course, you can”.