On June 30, 2017,
Anne Gearan and Karen DeYoung published an article in the Washington Post under
the title: “Trump is seeing how hard it can be to land the 'ultimate' deal
between Israel
and the Palestinians”.
You read the article
and wonder why someone would consider this deal hard to land. A case that's
hard is one in which each litigant has a claim on something, and a section of
the law that gives him cause. When a case like this goes to court, the judge wants
to know how each side sees the facts, and how he interprets the law. Oftentimes
the judge finds that the two demands are legitimate, having more or less equal
rights to the claim. He thus adjudicates the case based on ratios he deems fair
to both sides.
But all the cases
are not like that. There are times when one litigant would have the law – or
what may be called the sense of fairness – on his side, and he would argue the
law or equity. As to the opponent, he would offer a bubble of arguments that
amount to nothing more than emotional fluff and little else. In addition, he'll
engage in endless haggles that are often unrelated to the case. And he'll throw
uncalled for slanderous lies at his opponent in an attempt to discredit him.
This is the kind of
case you encounter among students following a courtyard brawl where the sense
of fairness is thrown by the wayside, and the ego of juveniles gets the upper
hand. It is also what you see in matrimonial disputes where the sense of
betrayal heightens the emotions to uncontrolled levels, and suppresses the
antagonists' ability to think rationally. And you see it in the Middle East where the Jewish haggle is skillfully used to
make a pebble look like a mountain, and make a mountain look like a pebble.
The Middle East case that's crying out for adjudication is
that of an occupation that's violating international law. The Jews, who are
entitled to a piece of land within the confines of the 1948 lines, have
committed countless infractions in the succeeding years but were shielded from
condemnation and possible sanctions by the U.S. veto most of the time. The Jews
expanded the size of Israel
to the 1967 lines, and expanded it again to the current lines with every
indication that they will not stop till they have taken all of Palestine .
That is the core of
the problem. It is what the Palestinians insist on discussing despite the noise
and distractions which are constantly raised by the Judeo-Israeli side ... the
side that avoids discussing the substance of the litigation lest it be derailed
from the criminal intent of grabbing all of Palestine. In fact, the Jewish team
acts the way it does because it has neither the law nor the sense of justice on
its side. It knows that Israel
has relied on America 's
help in the military, financial and diplomatic fields to perpetuate the crime
against humanity it commits every day that the occupation is maintained, thus
chooses to keep things the way they are. Indeed, if the Jews were to talk the
law or justice, their case would collapse like a house of cards hit by a
hurricane.
The following is a
condensed version of the account that's given by Gearan and DeYoung in the
Washington Post on how Netanyahu of Israel presented his side of the story to
Donald Trump, the American President who will have to make a choice between
continuing America 's support
for the ongoing Jewish crime against humanity, or ending America 's involvement. He can do
the latter and regain the respect of the world for his country; a valuable
commodity that keeps eroding the more that America remains beholden to the
Jewish lobby. Here is the Gearan and DeYoung account:
“Trump got firsthand
exposure to the tactics used during his trip to Israel and the West bank. Netanyahu
used an intimate meeting with Trump to show an Israeli video of what Netanyahu
called anti-Israeli incitement by Abbas. Trump met with Abbas and surprised him
with accusations about Palestinian attitudes. Afterward, Abbas thanked Trump
for attempting negotiations, but made a point of reiterating Palestinian
demands for an [equitable] settlement. U.S. officials concluded that by
showing Trump the video, Netanyahu was intent on killing any possibility of
peace talks”.
What Netanyahu did
is typical of the haggle that a bloodsucker creates to impress the host whose
blood he has been sucking for fifty years and intends to suck for fifty more
years and beyond. He made the mountain
of Israel 's crimes look like a pebble;
and made the pebble of Palestinian frustration look like a mountain of
opposition to Israel 's
act of war against a population that's armed with nothing more than the gift of
speech.
If Israel were a
normal country relying on its resources and industry to feed itself and remain
on its feet, the American President would have had the obligation to insist
that Netanyahu stop talking nonsense, and explain the legal justification for
continuing the occupation.
Absent a convincing
explanation, the President would have had to conclude that the Jews have no
case but are operating like a worldwide crime syndicate.
Yet Israel is not even a normal country, and could
not survive a week without America 's
help. And so, the way to deal with it is to tell it that America will
stop feeding the crime against humanity it is committing. This will force it to
comply with the international laws it has been violating with impunity.