Ever since the year 1973 when the Israelis got the Egyptian
boot up their rear end in the Sinai, and were sent back to where they had come
from, they made use of the most developed talent they have to save face and
protect what was left of their rear end. They have been fabricating lies to
suit every moment.
What suited them at the time, and suited their Jewish
cohorts as well as their non-Jewish running dogs, was to sing variations of the
refrain: “Never again will someone boot us out of a land we occupy by force of
American arms because we now have a homegrown arsenal of nuclear bombs that
will send that someone or anyone else for that matter, to kingdom come.” But
did they actually use these words? And did they sing?
Not really; they did not use these words and they did not
sing. What they did, however, is get the likes of Oliver North to write a novel
and go on the Christian Broadcasting Network where he dropped hints to the
effect that the novel was based on reality. This cemented the notion in the
minds of the gullible that Israel
had a nuclear arsenal, and was ready and willing to use it. The Jews also got
the likes of Mona Charen to say without hesitation that Israel had many bombs of the mushroom cloud
variety; it had them on rockets, and had the rockets in submarines that can
sail to Iran
and wipe that spot off the face of the Earth.
And of course, there would not be an effective propaganda
for Israel
without the participation of CNN. Indeed, the Jews use this network like a
patient afflicted with diarrhea uses toilet paper. No, they did not rely on
Wolf Blitzer this time because they like to keep him in reserve for use in more
dire circumstances. What they did instead was to pick someone even more convincing,
and had him sing their song. They used Fareed Zakaria, and had him warn his
fellow Muslims that Israel
was the nuclear superpower that can flatten them like pita bread if they are
foolish enough to challenge it.
And each time that an Israeli spokesman was asked if these
stories were true, he answered something to the effect that he reserves the
right to maintain the silence of ambiguity in matters regarding Israel 's
nuclear capabilities. So much for the vaunted Jewish clarity.
So think about it, my friend, and ask this question: What
would a Jew think if a non-Jew came up with something that defines clarity? You
got it; he'll slander the non-Jew no end and tell lies about him. That, in
fact, is what you'll find in the article which came under the title: “Fooling
many of the people much of the time” and the subtitle: “Hamas, the Muslim
Brotherhood and Qatar
are all very good at it,” written by Clifford D. May, and published on May 9,
2017 in The Washington Times.
What happened is that the Palestinian group Hamas has
undergone the kind of transformation all protest movements experience at some
point. The difference is that Hamas got there in record time. Tired of fighting
an occupying power that is supported by superpower America and her NATO allies, Hamas
signaled its willingness to compromise. It did so by redefining itself using
the civilized method of amending its Constitutional Charter.
To respond, Clifford May first slandered Hamas in his
article. He then constructed the big lie he believed would make the case for
him but did the opposite. To understand how this happens to Jews all the time,
we need to recall something about the Jewish character. The best way to do
this, is to recall that the Israelis never call an act of aggression they commit
against others an act of aggression. They say they were defending themselves.
And that's the Orwellian style of communication that Clifford May is using to
mutilate history. Here is how he tells that history:
“Hamas says it is willing to accept a provisional
Palestinian state within the 1967 lines. Recall how these lines came into
being. Israel
declared its independence within part of Mandate Palestine, territory the
British had taken from the Turks. A chunk became Jordan . The UN proposed dividing
the remainder into two states: one Jewish and one Arab. The Israelis said they
could live with that. The Arabs said they would not. The armies of Egypt , Syria ,
Lebanon and Jordan invaded
and attempted to destroy the Jewish state. In 1949, the conflict came to a halt.
The armistice lines held until 1967 when a second attempt was made to push the
Jews into the sea. That effort also failed and the Israelis ended up taking Gaza from Egypt
and the West Bank from Jordan ”.
First, you don't need to be an expert in that history to see
that what Clifford May is telling does not hold. Second, even if you ignore the
flaws in the story, you'll find that the logic he uses to justify the
occupation and annexation of Palestinian territory would send a criminal to
prison for life. It is that his premise is based on the notion that if attacked
by A and B and C and D, the Jew has the right to murder E and take his
property. He explains that Egypt ,
Syria , Lebanon and Jordan
invaded Palestine ,
and this gave the Jews the right to murder the Palestinians and take their
land.
As to the veracity of the story, for May to suggest that a
band of “skin on bones” Holocaust survivors just liberated from the
concentration camps of Europe, were able to defeat four Arab armies, is to
suggest that the story is fake, or that the Jewish fighters were neither Jewish
nor survivors, or that the Arab armies were no armies at all. Take your pick.
But, if you're old enough to remember what was said up until
the early 1970s, you'll recall that the Jews were saying seven Arab armies
attacked Israel ,
not just four. They were also saying something else. To justify the Jews taking
Palestinian farms, they said that the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem used to urge the
Palestinian farmers to run away to the neighboring countries lest they be
slaughtered by the advancing Jews. And so, when the Jews stumbled on good
arable land with not one soul in it, they walked in and took it. What would you
have done?
Finally, Clifford May does something that is new to his
style of writing. He says the following, early in the article: “When it comes
to Islamists, journalists are losing what George Orwell called the 'constant
struggle' to see 'what is in front of one's nose.'” And he ends it like this:
“When it comes to Islamists, too many academics gave up the struggle to see
what's in front of their noses”.