Ambiguity – no matter how creatively it is crafted – is a
double-edged sword that is certain to turn against its creator whether or not
it has had the desired effect of allowing him to have it both ways in the first
place.
A creator of ambiguity uses his handicraft as a tool and a
weapon to try and falsely enrich himself or hurt his opponents or both. Because
this is a double-think sort of behavior that is not accustomed to in any
civilized society, people do not immediately respond to ambiguity. This gives
its creator a chance to score a few gains initially. But sooner or later,
people come to realize what's behind the ambiguity, and turn against its
creator. If lucky, he is stopped in his tracks and forgotten about. If unlucky,
he is made to pay for his behavior.
No one plays the game of ambiguity like the Jews who are
religiously programmed to seek having it both ways in everything they do and
everything they choose not to do. Those among them who renounce that approach
when interacting with others, end up living as normal a life as anyone. Those
who embrace the game, turn repulsive and are treated as such by a society that
would not touch them with a ten foot pole.
Thus, you find that from its beginning, Israel and all
those who promote it have played the game of ambiguity because their endgame
has been to acquire properties that belong to Palestinians. Their aim has been
and continues to be giving them to the Jews who have nothing to give in return.
Here again, we assume that the Palestinians would have agreed to sell their
homeland … and do what? Exit the planet?
And so, the Jews came up with all sorts of ambiguities
designed to work on a variety of temperaments. As expected, they had a few
initial successes but were stopped in their tracks eventually. This happened
everywhere in the world except in America where the Jews still forge
ahead unimpeded. One of the reasons for their continued success in that
country, is their appropriation of think tanks – what used to be institutions
of high integrity they turned into grotesque propaganda factories for Israel and for
all the Jewish causes.
A think tank whose members rank among the most notorious of
the Jewish fanatics you'll see anywhere, is the Council on Foreign Relations.
It happens to be headed by Richard N. Haass who published an article you might
view as a model of ambiguous double-think. It came under the title: “The
Six-Day War at 50,” posted on May 23, 2017 on the website of the Council on
Foreign Relations.
Speaking of the 1967 sneak attack on Egypt – which
he calls a war – he says early in the article that “its legacy remains
pronounced a half-century later.” A little further down the article, he says
this: “the 1967 war has had an enormous impact all the same.” This means he
admits that the attack has had consequences – make that “enormous” consequences
– that persist to this day.
In fact, Richard Haass tells what these consequences are:
“The battle and its outcome put an end to the notion that Israel could be
eliminated. It made Israel
permanent. The new state acquired a degree of strategic depth. Most Arab
leaders came to [see] their strategic goal as Israel 's return to the pre-1967 war
borders.” In effect then, Richard Haass is saying that the 1967 Israeli attack
on its neighbors has resulted in good consequences accruing to Israel .
Okay, we hear you Richard Haass. But has there been a
nefarious consequence to someone? Perhaps to Israel or the neighbors or the
world? No … don't expect him to go there. The principle of double-think
ambiguity will not allow him to commit an act as sacrilegious as this. What
Haass does instead, is respond to those who think the Jews can be responsible
for something nefarious – by offering them his yang to their yin. Here it is:
“Even if there were peace between Israelis and Palestinians,
it would not bring peace to Syria ,
Iraq , Yemen , or Libya . Fifty years after the war,
the absence of peace between Israelis and Palestinians is part of an imperfect
status quo that many have come to accept and expect”.