Hopelessly confused Weekly Standard Editors

Imagine the distress of a child who grows up in a family that appeared ideal in every way. Now a young man and wishing to give the children of the world a similar kind of upbringing, he does research on the bad things that can happen to a family, intending to find ways to mitigate them. But while doing the research, he discovers that his own family lived through dark chapters, some of which can still flare up without prior notice.

The editors of the Weekly Standard are about to live through that kind of scenario. They wrote a piece describing the United Nations as a horrible institution, believing that the world organization allowed the Syrians to get away with bad behavior. What they do not know––because they were not around when it all happened––was that if the Syrians are getting away with something today, it's because Israel, which happens to be the Weekly Standard's moral and ethical North Star, had established the bad example long ago.

The editors' piece describing the relationship between the United Nations and Syria came under the title: “The U.N. Covers for Syrian War Machine” and the subtitle: “What kind of 'ceasefire' allows a rogue regime to bomb civilians?” It was published on February 26, 2018 in the Weekly Standard. Here is the passage that tells what is so upsetting to the Standard's editors:

“That Syrian government forces should lay siege, only hours after the passage of the ceasefire, to rebel-held neighborhoods tells us something we already know: U.N. ceasefires are worthless … Actually, worse than worthless. The Assad regime is using the ceasefire as cover to destroy potential opposition … ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates may pose a threat to law and order in Syria, to the extent law and order still exist, but it's hard to see how an aerial and ground campaign is a counterterrorism operation.” There is so much to peel off in here; we begin from the beginning.

First, the Weekly Standard editors say this: “something we already know: U.N. ceasefires are worthless.” They don't say what exactly it is that they know, because if they knew the full truth, they'd be so shocked they couldn't write that editorial. So let me tell them the history of what transpired as I was old enough to witness the events when they unfolded. I realize this may shock the editors, even distress them, but all I can say is this: So be it; they asked for it.

The first time it happened that someone disobeyed a UN resolution was 1967. It happened that Israel had launched a surprise attack on Syria with the intent of seizing the city of Quneitra, capital of the province of Quneitra on the Golan Heights. Despite several Security Council resolutions and other UN pleas to end the fight and observe the called-for ceasefire, Israel continued to forge ahead till it seized the coveted city. It kept it for 6 years till the city was liberated by Syria in 1973. Since then Israel made a mockery of the UN General Assembly resolutions, while America's veto protecting it, made a mockery of the Security Council resolutions.

Second, the editors say this: “The Assad regime [wants] to destroy potential opposition. ISIS and al-Qaeda affiliates may pose a threat to law and order in Syria, but it's hard to see how an aerial and ground campaign [will do that.]” Note that the editors chide the government of a sovereign country for working to destroy ISIS and al-Qaeda, which the Jewish editors treat as a legitimate “potential opposition.” Do you now see why Israel––the North Star of most American editors and politicians, and the self-described ally of America––is considered to be the natural ally of terrorists?

Not knowing what history will be brought to light by their piece, the editors of the Weekly Standard ended their discussion with the mention of a news item and a commentary about it. Here is the item:

“Syria was given chairmanship of the U.N. council on the 'subjugation, domination, and exploitation' of people. The council is supposed to deal with 'decolonizing' Gibraltar and the Falkland Island, but the idea of Assad's emissaries having moral authority over issues of human exploitation is outrageous”.

And here is their commentary: “Or perhaps it isn't so strange: The Syrians at the U.N. know plenty about the 'subjugation, domination, and exploitation of innocent people”.

What these editors will never grasp is that Syria and not Israel was given that chairmanship because the job of the council is to deal with the subject of colonialism. Syria is suited to do the job because its hands are clean in the sense that Syria is not colonizing someone. Israel, on the other hand, is still colonizing a piece of the Golan Heights as well as the West Bank of Palestine.

Because it is in the colonies that subjugation, domination and exploitation happen, Israel – that has known plenty about that for half a century – will never qualify to sit on the council anymore than a serial rapist will ever qualify to run a shelter for victims of sexual aggression.

I hope there is enough here for the editors of the Weekly Standard to wise up.

Amending Einstein's Definition of Insanity

From the looks of it, Einstein solved one problem in science, and later created a similar kind of problem in the humanities. In science, he has shown that Classical Newtonian Physics is but a subset of General Relativity.

As to the humanities, Einstein enunciated the definition of insanity as doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Recent events, however, have shown that this definition describes only a subset of what happens in the larger context of real life. The challenge now is to find a definition for the “thing” we see in the expression “doing the same thing,” that will encompass as large a context as possible.

The situation highlighting that need manifested itself when the Jews convinced the American administration to violate the international laws it helped write by recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. The reason the Jews gave to force America into action, was that failing to do so would constitute doing the same thing and expecting a different outcome with regard to the never-ending Middle East peace talks.

As trained to respond when the Jews make a demand, the American administration rushed to give them what they wanted without a public debate or even a private one. The reason the Jews gave, and the administration accepted, for making such a move, was that “taking Jerusalem off the table” was going to change the thing that will change the outcome. But missing in all of this was a definition for the “thing.” Consequently, the Jerusalem move not only failed to achieve its purpose, it created a situation so nefarious; it magnified the wickedness of the original problem.

Had there been a public debate, the reality of the “thing” would have shown to be that America kept tightening the noose around the neck of the Palestinian victims year after year by taking from them and giving to the Israeli aggressors, thus causing no change at all. Consequently, insanity would have been defined as recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and expecting the Palestinians to love the move and thank the Americans.

Absent a debate, America made the move anyway, expecting to see what the Jews had promised will be a different and positive outcome. Well, there was a different outcome alright, but it wasn't the result that anyone sane had expected or hoped for. And this is why we need a definition for the “thing” that will avoid a similar result from repeating itself. How to do that?

An interesting but unrelated article may help us find a way to define the “thing.” It came under the title: “Iran and Israel Could Go to War Next Year,” written by Raymond Tanter and Ivan Sasha Sheehan. It was published on February 25, 2018 in The National Interest.

What we see in that article is a method that applies generally in every pro-Israel presentation. It consists of laying out three stages. First, the presenter goes into the speculation mode. Second, he or she cites true and/or false evidence to the effect that unprovoked Israeli aggression, even against the innocent, constitutes self-defense. Third, the presenter demands that America sends more support to Israel in the form of money, weapons and diplomatic cover. The following is a condensed version of the article, highlighting those three stages:

“We ask: Will Israel and Iran go to war by 2019? Growing tensions between them may heat up further between 2018 and 2019. A resurgent Iran is a new player on the scene. Converging events are opening scenes of a wider war. As Damascus and Tehran threaten Jerusalem, the State Department indicates to Israel it stands alone. Secretary Tillerson's Middle East tour included Amman, Ankara, Cairo, Kuwait City and Beirut, but not Jerusalem. Tillerson should go to Jerusalem. The United States supports Israel's right to defend itself. The Pentagon asserted that we support Israel's right to defend itself. More than such expressions of support are necessary from State and Defense! Studies indicate there should be an increase in arms to Israel, including replacement of the F-16 Syria air defense batteries shot down”.

We see in that passage how the Jewish lobbying has always been responsible for maintaining the status quo. This has caused the “same thing” to be done over and over again, and the result to always be the same. The solution therefore is to define the “same thing” as “maintaining the same direction whether or not other changes are made”.

The point is that if you want a different result, you must change the direction of the current situation. In the case of the Middle East peace process, it would have meant empowering the Palestinians by taking from Israel what used to belong to the Palestinians and returning it to them. In other words, reverse the status quo.

Thus, Einstein's saying should be amended to read as follows: The definition of insanity is maintaining the same direction and expecting a different result.

The Method has softened, the Message hardened

Haisam Hassanein is said to be an Egyptian that traveled to Israel as a young man. Apparently, he liked something he saw there, stayed for a while and then traveled to America where he started working for the extreme Zionist organization calling itself Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

He wrote an article about Egypt whose content would suggest he knows much of what is going on in the most protected of Egypt's institutions. When you read the article, you get the impression that Hassanein is either a top ranking official in the Egyptian government or a charlatan who invents things for reasons that remain obscure or he is a confused young man that made a mistake from which he cannot retreat. Unable to return to Egypt where he would be tried for treason and sent to prison, he allowed the Jews to stick his name under whatever they write about Egypt in exchange for a paycheck that helps him put a roof over his head and food on his table.

The article that Hassanein is supposed to have written came under the title: “Easing the minds of Egyptian generals is key to continued cooperation with Israel,” published on February 24, 2018 in the news magazine The Hill, which is aimed at “educating” America's legislators.

Had the person or committee that wrote the supposed Hassanein article, written instead a story as innocent as say, a tale of travel, it would still reveal itself––to those that know anything about comparative literature––to have been written not by an Arab but an American; and more specifically a Jewish American. The thing is that style in literature, when practiced in a foreign language, has an accent that's as pronounced and revealing as the spoken language. It often betrays its author.

The question to ask therefore is this: What's the Jewish establishment that's behind the article – fraudulently signed by Hassanein – trying to tell America's legislators? Well, we first notice that those who wrote the article began their presentation using the most Jewish-American trick in their toolbox. They accused the Egyptian generals of doing to their population what they, themselves were doing to the American legislators. Here's what they did:

“Cooperation between Israel and Egypt has increased … but this somewhat secret alliance has not been easy for some Egyptian generals given their predilection for conditioning the public to believe that Israel is Enemy No. 1 in order to gain legitimacy and maintain control”.

Gain legitimacy in the eyes of the Congress and maintain control over it is what the Jews were doing with the article. To achieve their goal, they did two things simultaneously. First, they wanted the Congress to believe that Israel was doing well not because America had mortgaged its honor to finance its crimes and bail it when in trouble, but because Israel had developed the technology and the might to do what it wants using its own resources. Thus, if America was helping, it was doing it to associate with a winner, said the Jewish charlatans.

Second, those beasts wanted the Congress to believe that Israel was also doing well diplomatically, winning the hearts and minds of the Arab masses despite the Israeli occupation of Palestine, and what the Arab governments, such as that of Egypt, were saying to them. The truth, however, has always been that when the government of Egypt saw that it was in the interest of the country to cooperate with Israel, it did so in the open, treating Israel as any other country. On the other hand, opposition to cooperating with Israel has always come from the public.

In fact, the Egyptian people are so fiercely independent, the young and the angry among them always demonstrate, even riot, when the government gets too cozy with a foreign power; be that America, Qatar, Saudi Arabia or Israel.

For example, the young and the angry pelted the Israeli embassy in Cairo; scaled the walls of the American embassy; bombed the pipeline that took natural gas to Israel; demonstrated against handing two islands to Saudi Arabia, and so on.

Still, despite all of this, the government of Egypt continues to abide by the QIZ agreement with Israel, and has just green-lighted the private sector to go ahead and sign a 10-year contract to buy natural gas from Israel, treating it the way it treats Cyprus, which also has natural gas to sell. The reality is that, contrary to what the Jews are falsely propagating; Egypt's goal is to turn itself into an energy hub that will serve the Euro-Mediterranean Basin.

But despite the fact that all of this is in the public domain, the American legislators are not aware of it because the Jews, that monopolized the media in America, have not allowed the truth to circulate freely. Instead, they continually put out self serving disinformation like those discussed above, prefaced by the lie that they are revealing secret information known only to them. This too, is a false preface.

As you might have expected, the horrible Jews who wrote that piece of trash and had it published over Hassanein's signature, did not stop here. Like the hyena that tasted red meat, they fought to grab every morsel they could see. To that end, they said that the Egyptian military was full of anti-Semites, and that it hated the Christians of Egypt. The savagery of these Jews is only matched by their cowardice.

They went on to say that contrary to Israel's wishes, the Egyptian military does not want the Kurds to have a country of their own. But they also said that aligning itself with Israel's views, the Egyptian military does not care about the Palestinians having a country of their own.

Translation: The Egyptian military is so mean to America; it doesn't want it to butcher Syria to create a country for the Kurds. But the Egyptian military is okay with America standing in the way of allowing the Palestinians to establish a country of their own. This means America must create Kurdistan, and must forbid the creation of Palestine, according to the authors of the so-called Hassanein article.

Preposterous as it is, this is how the Jews ejaculate their moral syphilis into the heads, hearts and souls of the American Congress; an already miserable institution that has become worse than useless for the American people. It is now the terror arm of the worldwide Jewish crime syndicate.

Will this nightmare ever end? If yes, when will that be?

How they wrap the Truth in Layers of Lies

The most truthful of all the sciences is mathematics. That's because to construct a theorem, you begin with one or more postulates that are simple and demonstrably true. You go from there to build evermore complex mathematical theorems that do not violate any of the postulates with which you began.

This method can be duplicated when doing the hard sciences, even the humanities. We must however, be conscious that it is not always easy to find irrefutable postulates with which to begin a theorem outside the mathematics. But this doesn't mean we cannot rely on the method to arrive at close-to-perfect conclusions; it means we must be humble not to be absolutely certain we have the ultimate truth in science or the humanities.

How can we use that method to determine responsibility for the suffering caused by an ongoing war? We begin with the postulate that a war is prolonged, and the suffering is increased when the force level of the two sides locked in a dispute are matched. It also means that if the force level of one side is so high that it can overwhelm and annihilate the other side, the war will end quickly and the suffering eliminated.

With this in mind, we look at the example of an analysis done by Jonathan S. Tobin about the Syrian civil war. It is an article that came under the title: “Don't Expect Justice for the Syrian War Criminals,” published on February 23, 2018 in National Review Online. In the article, Tobin apportions responsibility for the war and for the ensuing suffering, not based on a self-evident postulate or one that can be verified, but on the postulate which says: Ultimate good is what serves the interests of Israel; ultimate evil is what does not.

To that end, Tobin distributes most of the responsibility on Syria's Bashar Assad and Hezbollah as well as “the rulers of Iran and the Putin regime in Moscow.” But that's not all because in his view, some responsibility falls on the shoulder of those who could have intervened years ago to stop the war but neglected to do so. To make that point, Tobin said the following:

“The opening for Russia and for Assad to butcher civilians was the work of Obama. It was he who warned Assad that his use of chemical weapons would be a red line, but then backed down. This does not get Trump off the hook. The fact that Syria has become the focal point for an Iranian effort to create another frontline threat to Israel is now Trump's problem to solve”.

The implied postulate here is that if Obama had bombed Syria when it was accused of using chemical weapons, the war would have ended and the suffering stopped there and then. But Trump did send five-dozen Tomahawk missiles into Syria, and the war has continued to rage more intensely than before. If anything, this shows that the postulate which says you can end the war by escalating the fight without annihilating the other combatant is a mistaken postulate.

To get a feel for how enormous Jonathan Tobin's error in logic has been, note the chronology of what happened here: (1) Obama warned Assad not to use chemicals; (2) Assad used chemicals; (3) Obama backed down; (4) the war continued at the same level; (5) Trump bombed Syria; (6) the war intensified; (7) Tobin says Obama should have bombed Syria earlier to end the war. Conclusion: Jews are severely handicapped when it comes to grasping temporal relations and the understanding of history. And yet, they want you to believe they are the greatest historians that history has ever produced. Go figure.

And when someone is handicapped to that extent, he makes the kind of mistakes you see in the following passage: “While the world obsesses over other conflicts –– in particular the one going on between Israel and the Palestinians, which hasn't produced a fraction of the suffering that has taken place in Syria –– the slaughter in Syria continues without the international community paying attention”.

If Tobin had a sense of history, he would have known that life unfolded peacefully in most colonies because the balance of power was overwhelmingly tilted in favor of the colonial powers that had the guns. Their settlers subdued and/or annihilated their victims who had nothing with which to defend themselves but bare hands, stones, slingshots and the occasional knife to scare heavily armed foreign savages.

Whereas the colonies of yesteryear were eventually liberated by the oppressed when help came to them from the outside, Palestinians (excluding Gaza’s) have not been able to adequately fight the foreign savages in their midst because the Jews saw to it that America devoted its honor as well as its financial and political capital to make sure that the Palestinians of the West Bank will never get off from under the American supplied boots of the Jewish animals crushing them.

And then you see Jonathan Tobin summon the temerity to lament as follows:

“Those who let Iran and Russia win the war for Assad are in no position to complain when those same powers stonewall a tribunal that will be charged with applying international law to what happened in Syria. We also know that as long as the U.S. and the West continue to act as if what happens in Syria doesn't matter, the murderers will never be brought to justice”.

All of that is conjecture designed to slander people and institutions based on events that have not happened. Meanwhile what we know has happened is that if America had one iota of honor, the entire ruling class in Israel would be behind bars today … as ordered by the International Criminal Court.

A modern devious Strategy to sucker America

Why did America win the war against the two most formidable war machines of the Second World War – Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan – but was brought to a standstill by North Korea's ill equipped army a few years later, and lost decisively to the ragtag army of North Vietnam a few more years after that?

The reason is that America's involvement in World War II was an honest act that did not have to be labeled self-defense, whereas America's operations against North Korea and North Vietnam were devious acts conducted under the false pretense of self-defense – meaning America's defense and that of its allies. It is that America was attacked at Pearl Harbor by a Japan that was already committing much evil in Asia; and called to help liberate a European continent that had succumbed to an evil force it could not defeat by itself.

Realizing how much Britain was diminished by the war, and seeing how America had become a rising power, Britain's Winston Churchill incited America's leaders to prepare for a quixotic battle against an enemy that simply did not exist in the aftermath of World War Two. Still, Churchill managed to instill in the minds of the American leaders and their successors, the false impression that a communist domino effect headed by the Soviet Union will sweep Asia and the rest of the world, including America, which it wants to destroy.

This is why America got involved in Korea where the Chinese communists were helping the North in its effort to unify the country. The same scenario was later repeated in Vietnam when the French said they could not stop the anti-colonial revolutionary forces that were sweeping the country. In both cases America was under the illusion that the self-determination expressed by the people in those places, constituted a threat to its own existence. And it was this belief that caused America to view its involvement in those countries as a war of self-defense. The thing is that the American narrative remained the same even after the evidence came out to the effect that such fears were baseless.

Thus, whereas North Korea and North Vietnam adopted the honest strategy of steadfast resistance, America adopted the devious strategy of pretending to liberate and democratize the people of the region when in fact it was fighting the Soviet Union in accordance with Churchill's instructions. This is why America lost big.

Now, decades later, that same scenario is repeating itself in that America was called upon to support the colonial aspirations of the Jews whose plan is to have Israel dominate the Middle East. This struggle is still ongoing, and you can get a sense of the effort that the Jews are putting into it by reading the editorial which came in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Iran's Syrian Front” and the subtitle: “Assad's atrocities grow as Tehran builds a new anti-Israel satellite.” It was published on February 22, 2018 in the Journal.

Replaying the role of Churchill who demagogued the Soviet Union, the Jews are now demagoging Iran and Russia. And this is how they are doing it: “Iran, along with Russia are largely responsible for the survival of [Assad's regime.] The trio will use peace talks to re-establish Assad's control over Syria. Russia will keep its military bases, and Iran wants to establish a new imperial outpost on the border with Israel”.

Thus, in the same way that America helped liberate its European allies, the Jews have been trying to make it sound like America and Israel were allies in the fight against a common enemy that the Jews were never able to clearly identify or even define. And so they stuck with the mantra that America and Israel are friends, and that Israel is facing an existential threat. The conclusion being that America must continually help Israel stay afloat; and when it gets into trouble, America must rush to rescue it.

The Jews are saying that this moment has come. Because they called on America to help many times before, and because their plea increasingly falls on deaf ears in Washington, they have now changed the way they call on America to help. Their new approach uses a more subdued and subtle presentation. Mind you, it is still a devious approach, but it's the only way they know how to get America involved in a Middle Eastern war again.

Here is how the Wall Street Journal ends its editorial:

“If the Trump Administration is worried about the gathering storm, you can't tell from its actions. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson toured the region and called for a 'whole and independent Syria with no demarcations dividing it.' Mr. Trump promised to work with allies to counter Iran's 'support for proxies in the region,' but the U.S. has shown no strategy for doing so. Meanwhile, an Iran-Israel conflict grows more likely by the day”.

With the use of the term “gathering storm” of “Shock and Awe” fame; with the reminder that Tillerson is resisting the colonial project of truncating Syria; with the reminder that Trump promised to work with allies (such as Israel) but has not done so, and with the subtle blackmail that Israel will start a war aimed at dragging America into it, the Jews of the Wall Street Journal are hoping to duplicate the Churchill ruse of keeping it at war for another three quarters of a century or longer.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

The indigenous Clock versus that of Imposters

Ever since the 1960s – two decades after the creation of Israel – the rabbis began their hard drive to take over America. They did so by pretending to defend themselves against the evil they said was lurking out there, and by the same token, protecting America from the harm it fails to see coming at it.

While the Jews were adept at confusing their American hosts by uttering contradictory statements in one and the same breath, they proved that they suffered from a serious problem. It was that they could not get themselves in synch with the concept of time. This inability became obvious when they attacked the Arab opposition to Israel's expansionist policies in the Middle East. They did so by accusing the Palestinians of trying to turn the clock back 20 years; to a time when Palestine belonged to Palestinians.

The rabbis in charge of propaganda kept leveling that accusation at the Palestinians by making the point that the latter should resign themselves to the reality that the Jews have come back to the homeland that was theirs 2000 years ago. But while in their view, looking 20 years into the past was turning the clock back, looking 2000 years into the past was not turning the clock back. And ever since that time, the Jews kept showing themselves to be illiterate when it came to making sense of chronology.

While this is a serious handicap in itself, it adds to the woes of the Jews by diminishing their ability to construct solid arguments that remain valid past the moment they are uttered. An example of this Jewish affliction is demonstrated in the editorial that came under the title: “Abbas Abandons the Show” and the subtitle: “Rather than work for peace, the Palestinian president walks out.” It was written by the editors of the Weekly Standard and published on February 21, 2018.

The passage in the editorial that shows how severely handicapped these people are, and shows that the handicap is a permanent condition of the culture that animates them – goes like this: “Israel's minister of education fired back: Abbas should focus not on building an imaginary past, but rather on creating a practical future.” The Israeli minister went on to say that “a nation inventing its past has no future”.

But what was it that caused the minister to fire back with these words? Well, it was that the Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas was responding to the Jewish claim that Jews of every race and every ethnic background have the right to displace the Palestinians and take their properties because the Hebrew nomads of antiquity adhered to the Jewish religion. They may have crossed into Palestine at one time or another looking for green pasture to feed their sheep. And so, because there were Jews in the past and there are Jews today, Jewish logic ascertains that Palestine belongs to the Jews more than it does to the Palestinians.

The point that Abbas made in response was that the Palestinians of today are the descendants of people that lived on the land 5000 years ago and never left the place. Given the long history of the region, given that it gave birth to the three monotheistic religions, and given that converting from one religion to another was a common occurrence throughout the ages, ownership of the land cannot be determined by religion. Only the people who lived there and never left the place are deemed to own it whether they are Christians, Muslims or Jews.

The next thing that the editors of the Weekly Standard did was attack Mr. Abbas for walking away after the conclusion of his speech instead of staying to hear what the representatives of America and Israel had to say. This shows that maybe the editors had no idea what they were commenting on. Maybe no one had told them that Abbas asked for the Security Council to convene to let the world know he was saying goodbye to American mediation, and was seeking an international coalition to replace America. If this were the case, why would he stay and listen to America ... having said goodbye?

Or maybe there was another reason for the wrath of the editors. To find out, we look at the attack they leveled against Abbas to see if there is something there. The attack went like this:

“Abbas walked away from the table. He was [seen] having a photo taken with the Belgian foreign minister. If he compromises on the 'right of return'––the idea that Palestinians can [return] to the land from which they [were pushed out], thus obliterating the Israeli state––he will be deposed by political adversaries”.

And there lies the clue which explains the wrath of the editors. It is that the right of return for the Palestinians is gaining traction among the Europeans – the proof being that after his speech, Abbas stood beside the top diplomat of Belgium where Brussels, the capital of the European Union, is located.

This means that Europe has finally joined the rest of the world in seeing that the right to turn the clock 20 years (now 70 years) into the past by the indigenous people of Palestine, is a lot more valid than turning the clock 2000 years into the past by a collection of international imposters, all claiming to be Hebrews by a very convenient conversion to Judaism.

Catch a serial Rapist suggest fake Solutions

Can you imagine the gall of a serial rapist who offers a way to protect others from his addiction? How do you think he'll approach the discussion? Will he begin by admitting he is very sick and in need of therapy? Or will he blame his victims for what he'll describe as self-inflicted wounds? Because serial rape does not always have to be of the sexual kind, you'll find it practiced in other fields as well; and there are stories to tell in this regard.

If you want to know what a seriously afflicted rapist of the politico-diplomatic kind will say, read “Hopeless in Gaza,” an article that was written by Clifford D. May and published on February 20, 2018 in the Washington Times. To spin a story that will make the rapist – in this case, Israel – look good, and make the victims – in this case, the Palestinians – look bad, Clifford May did two things. He dipped into his old bag of spun assertions, all of which were debunked dozens of times on this website and elsewhere, and he relied on the sayings of others.

Now, my friend, guess who were those others. Well, there was David M. Halbfinger, a Jew that happens to be the Jerusalem bureau chief of the New York Times. There were David Makovsky and Lia Weiner, two Jews of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. There was Michael Oren, an Israeli Jew who used to be Israel's ambassador to the United States, and is now deputy diplomacy minister in the Netanyahu government. And last but not least, there was the late Golda Meir, a Jewess who served as Prime Minister of Israel.

To avoid being redundant, we'll have to set aside what Clifford May has fished out from his old bag. Set aside the contribution of the New York Times for, it too has been debunked many times before. The same goes for David Makovsky and Lia Weiner whose Washington Institute becomes useful only when there is a need to wipe the floor. And set aside Golda Meir who got her reward when she came as close as the width of a hair to committing suicide when, in her old age, she discovered how wrong she had been all her life.

Let us concentrate, instead, on the sayings of Michael Oren. Clifford May tells us that the Israeli deputy minister offered a suggestion on what to do about the situation in Gaza. It is that “Israel should take significant steps to alleviate the crisis in Gaza –– expecting nothing in return,” he said. But why did he say that? He said it because there is now the promise of a breakthrough in the Palestinian situation thanks to the effort that Egypt is putting into resolving this matter.

If the breakthrough is realized, Israel wants to say it participated in making it happen. And you can be certain that a year later, most publications in America, and most politicians will be running around mouthing off that Israel did it alone, and did it against the will of the neighbors, especially Egypt. Some of the trained monkeys in the Washington Beltway will even blather that Egypt played a destructive role trying to sabotage the Israeli effort, but failed to stop the Jews from doing the great humanitarian work they are famous for. Serial rapists sink to the level of animals and do this sort of thing, you know! It is how they increase the pleasure they derive from rape.

But what is the excuse that allowed Michael Oren to suggest Israel should alleviate the crisis in Gaza? Clifford May tells us that Oren explained it this way: “Abbas wants Hamas to start another war with Israel –– one that would end with Israel defeating Hamas and expelling it from Gaza. Israel would be accused of war crimes and Abbas would benefit twice: He would be hailed for having dealt Hamas a final blow, and would be revered for defending the Palestinians from the Zionists”.

Given that there have been three wars between Gaza and Israel, and nothing of the sort came close to taking place, you can tell this is not the suggestion of a sane man. A good advice to give Michael Oren is that he should keep his day job as deputy minister in Netanyahu's government, and quit moonlighting insane ideas.

Having rejected Oren's fantasy, we look at Clifford May's imagination to see if there is anything there. Here is what he said: “Imagine Hamas stops spending millions of dollars building missiles and digging tunnels. Imagine that in response Israel stops building an anti-tunnel system costing $1 billion. Israel offers to spend those funds to assist the people of Gaza. Imagine Gazans have clean drinking water, electricity and a modern sewage system. Do you not think Gaza would become much more attractive to job-creating investors?”

That solution being as fake as a three dollar bill, Clifford May would do better suggesting to his cohorts in Israel they should let the industrious Gazans rebuild the airport, the roads and the buildings that Israel regularly destroys using American weapons. If this happens, Gazans will not have to spend their energy building defensive missiles or tunnels.

As to the means of financing all of that work, Israel should let Gazans develop – among other things – the gas field they have in their territorial waters. Investors are lined up right now wanting to develop this field and explore for more gas and oil in Gaza’s waters. All they need to know is that the Israelis will not yet again behave like savage and cowardly animals by getting in the way of completing those projects.

As to Israel's billion dollar offer, you can be certain that Gazans will tell the Israelis: take that billion and shove it.

Two brutal Combatants and one muffled Sucker

If there is any redemption in having someone like Benny Avni write columns on Middle Eastern issues, his latest column made it clear there is. It's the one that was written under the title: “No, America: Lebanon is not your friend,” and was published on February 19, 2018 in the New York Post.

What Avni did unwittingly is confirm what this blog has been arguing for many years, mainly that the numerous horrors unfolding in the Middle East and beyond are the result of two combatants fighting each other: the Jewish establishment and the Muslim kids it stirred up. In addition, as soon as the fight flared up, the Judeo-Israeli lobby in America dragged the Washington band of reckless suckers into it, and started to suck America's blood.

The shooting war between the two combatants has been going on-and-off for several decades, with interludes marked by a deluge of propaganda conducted by each side to impress its rank-and-file. Benny Avni being a cog in the Jewish propaganda machine usually deferred to headquarter of the American operation known by the comical name: Foundation for Defense of Democracies. It is both the face of the Judeo-Israeli lobby in America, and the embodiment of the Jewish establishment.

It happened that when Avni deferred to the Foundation, he revealed the truth about the identities of the combatants. He told that story in two paragraphs.

First, he said this: “That – as the Foundation for Defense of Democracies' Lebanon watcher observes – is an assumption [that was] never borne out by the facts”.

He later said this: “No, Hezbollah isn't similar to the old Irish Republican Army where distinct political and military wings existed. Hezbollah's chief has clearly stated no such distinction exists”.

Benny Avni has thus demonstrated that the fight is between the Jewish Establishment which combines all the elements of the worldwide Judeo-Israeli criminal syndicate, battling the elements of another syndicate made of angry kids stirred up and forced into action by the Jewish syndicate.

Because everything you do has consequences that you cannot predict, Israel's actions in the Middle East, and Jewish lobbying in America have ramifications with a potential to get out of hand. In a case like this, logic would dictate that those who caused the nefarious consequences should stay out of the game and let someone else fix the situation. The trouble is that Jewish logic looks like regular logic turned on its head. For this reason, you find the likes of Benny Avni make the effort to tell the Washington band of suckers what to do next. The sad part is that the reckless characters in Washington will listen to him and drag America into a deeper hole.

If you want an example of the upside-down Jewish logic, Avni has provided one. First, he said this: “After the discovery of oil and gas reserves in the Mediterranean, the Lebanese government argued that the exploration was done in Lebanese waters.” Moments later, he said this: “When Israel left Lebanon in 2000, the UN drew a ‘blue line’ along the Israeli-Lebanese border. The Lebanese government never accepted that line”.

The error of logic is that he said the Lebanese objection came after the discovery of oil; and in the next breath said the Lebanese never accepted that line even before the oil was discovered. Benny Avni made the effect precede the cause – an absurdity acceptable in Jewish logic. That aside, there are deliberate lies in those two statements, and there is confusion that even he has not sorted out in his head.

The deliberate lie is that Avni made it sound like oil was discovered in the disputed area between Lebanon and Israel. No. There has not even been exploration in that area as yet. It is a long triangle with its apex at the point where Lebanon and Israel meet. To delineate its territorial waters, Lebanon drew a line perpendicular to the shore at that point. It happens to be the way they did things since time immemorial. By contrast, Israel drew an oblique line tilted toward the north and into Lebanon's territorial waters. As to the UN blue line that Avni has mentioned, it is a land based demarcation line that has nothing to do with the sea. It’s another story altogether.

When Israel will try to explain the reason for drawing an oblique line, there is invalid argument it will most likely use. Because most maps do not show an area as small as that part of the Mediterranean, I'll use another larger layout that’s similarly configured to explain what Israel may be tempted to say.

Look at the map where Canada and Alaska (American territory) meet. You'll see that Alaska is made of a large, almost square mass with a long narrow strip that extends south along the Pacific Ocean, as if to intrude into the Canadian landmass. To delineate the territorial waters of both countries, you draw a line perpendicular to the shore at the point where the Alaskan strip ends, and Canada's landmass begins. Above that line are American territorial waters; below it are Canadian waters.

Look again at the map. Even though you have a long American strip kissing the ocean, the vast landmass east of that narrow strip is Canada. This prompts two questions. First, can a narrow American strip along the ocean nullify Canada's right to the riches of that part of the Ocean? Second, will Canada have an argument saying that to be fair, the line projected into the sea must not be perpendicular to the shoreline, but must be drawn obliquely?

That is the situation in the Eastern Mediterranean where a narrow strip of Lebanese territory along the sea intrudes into the Israeli landmass. Centuries of tradition and the law of the Sea – ratified by most nations – say Lebanon is correct. Will Israel's arguments, whatever they may be, prevail in the end? Time will tell.

They sneer at her; they sneer at America

Joseph Goebbels was the master of propaganda in the Third Reich. Despite the ignoble position he occupied, people around the world respected him because he represented a government whose war machine was second to none. This situation lasted till the Reich's military was defeated by the combined forces of the allied nations and their foreign legions.

After the defeat of the Reich, America emerged as the leading military power in the world and has retained that position ever since. It is now several orders of magnitude more powerful than the Third Reich ever was. In addition, America began its tenure as the dominant power not only as a military superpower but also a force for good in the world. And yet, despite all this, there are moments today when the world cannot help but sneer at America. Why is that?

The reason is that a movement started in America half a century ago that culminated in horrible things happening such as the appointment of Nikki Haley ambassador to the United Nations, who is now the face representing America in world forums. Looking at her antics, the world sees the dark side of a system of governance that's able to defend itself against external threats, but remains defenseless when faced with the stealthy intrusion of elements determined to degenerate America by chewing at its moral fiber from the inside.

The world sneered at Nikki Haley when immediately after her appointment she rushed to stand before the international delegates to the United Nations, and verbalized the proclamation that was written for her by the speechwriters of the worldwide Judeo-Israeli crime syndicate. She repudiated what her country had done at an earlier time when it refrained from vetoing a resolution that would have condemned Israel for its beastly behavior.

When Haley went on to promise that such act of nobility on the part of America will never happen again as long as she is there, she informed the world that when looking at her to see the face of America, it will instead be seeing the monstrous creation of demons in charge of the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of cultural pestilence. And the world never ceased to sneer at Nikki Haley from that day forward. In so doing, it also sneers at America herself.

Unfazed by the destruction she brings to America's credibility and its standing in the world every time that she expresses the Jewish point of view pretending it is America's, Nikki Haley went on to sign an article that was written by others. It came under the title: “The U.N.'s Uncomfortable Truths About Iran,” and was published in the New York Times on February 18, 2018.

Using the Jewish formula of attributing to others the sins of the Jews, Nikki Haley attributed to Iran the sins of Israel. They would be the sort of complaints that come before the UN Security Council prompting the sort of resolutions that Haley promised she'll veto to protect Israel from the wrath of humanity.

For example, instead of saying that Israel is violating just about every international law in the books, Nikki Haley says that “Iran is violating its international agreement.” Instead of saying that Israel has created the world's worst humanitarian crisis in Gaza, she says that “Iran has created the world's worst humanitarian crisis in Yemen.” Instead of saying that Israel keeps bombing neighbors that cannot defend themselves, she says that Iran “launches missiles into Saudi Arabia.” And so on and so forth.

Moreover, as if to give credence to the saying, “different strokes for different folks,” Nikki Haley mentions a UN report that reproaches Iran for committing a minor violation as compared to what Israel commits on a regular basis. The report says that Iran sold weapons to others when it should not have, and Haley seized on it, trying to make big hay. By contrast, numerous UN reports have said that Israel regularly commits crimes against humanity whereupon people such as John Bolton get to work on reversing the findings; or at least making the story sound like the findings were recanted.

Haley's reaction to the UN report being the condemnation of what amounts to an Iranian parking violation while absolving Israel's numerous hit-and-run offenses in which people get killed, you wonder what the puppet masters of Nikki Haley are up to now. You look into her article and find that they are still preoccupied with the Iran nuclear deal.

Haley says that Iran's bad behavior has intensified since the signing of that deal, suggesting that the world should concentrate on nixing it. And that happens to be priority number one in Israel's genocidal agenda, which is why no one in the world is listening, and America is paying the price.

The newest oldest Snake Oil Argument

In the world of fashion, they say that “everything old is new again,” and so it is with the Jewish ‘fashionable’ habit of trying to legitimize their never ending quest to live on what belongs to someone else.

The name of the game they used to play was 'fait accompli,' which is French for 'accomplished fact.' And the new name is 'recognize reality,' which is English for 'I robbed you. What was yours is now in my hand. You won't get it back without a fight'. And make no mistake, my friend, the two names refer to one and the same game.

Using an old snake oil sort of argument, the Jews conned the Trump administration into recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and called their act 'recognizing reality.' The reality being the fait accompli of an Israel that has annexed Jerusalem in contravention of international law formulated by the United Nations Security Council with the active participation of the United States of America.

As to the snake oil argument, it consisted of bastardizing an old saying. The actual version goes like this: “Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting a different result.” The lesson being that if you want a different result, you must do things differently. And so, the Jews told the Trump administration that the Middle East peace process was going nowhere because of one reason and one reason only. It's that America did not recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.

Recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, said the snake oil argument, and peace will happen instantly not only in Palestine but over the entire Middle East. America bought the argument and made the announcement. The result was that nothing good happened. Peace remained as elusive as ever, but the Jews went back to square one, celebrating with the chant: reality finally recognized, reality finally recognized. It replaced the old chant: see it as a fait accompli, see it as a fait accompli.

Unlike America that bought the new version of the snake oil argument –– thus compounding the problem it was trying to solve –– Poland that had been consuming the old snake oil for decades finally rejected it in favor of adopting a more realistic attitude toward its responsibility for what happened during the Second World War. And that move proved to be the change that brought about a different result. However, having discovered a correct method by which to effectuate a change when change is sought does not mean that we can automatically solve all of our problems, or that we can solve them in an instant.

An article that shows the potential difficulties ahead, came under the title: “Do Israeli Students Need to Visit Auschwitz?” It was written by Shmuel Rosner and published on February 14, 2018 in the New York Times. This is how Rosner starts the article: “Poland decided to outlaw claims of Polish complicity in the Holocaust.” And this is how he ends it: “What I believe we Israelis need is a realignment. Let's not confuse ourselves by making Auschwitz the axis of our culture and the culmination of our civic religion”.

Between the start and the end of the article, Rosner wrote a thousand words expressing ideas that say in effect: even though a breakthrough was achieved, the road ahead will not be easy to navigate. Some of the words are his own, some are quotes that belong to others. But they all came in response to the Polish decision, and they all point to difficulties that lie ahead. And that's not all because what was left unsaid is equally disturbing.

The following is a sampling of what was said: The law is baseless. One cannot change history. The law is spitting in the face of Israel. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered without ever meeting a German soldier. The blood of Polish Jews cries from the ground and no law will silence it”.

And here is the passage that achieved the breakthrough: “But with crisis comes opportunity. Israel should take this chance to change its relationship not with Poland but with the Holocaust. Each year young Israelis visit Poland. They visit the sites of the ghettos, the cemeteries and the death camps. It is time to end these trips”.

What was left unsaid is mention of the Palestinians. Rosner asked the question: “Why end these trips?” And he answered: “A healthy society cannot be defined by the memory of a tragedy. Israel is not a compensation for Auschwitz. Jewish youngsters would do better to focus their energies on the site that all generations of Jews have wanted to make pilgrimage to: Jerusalem”.

There is an unmistakable message in these words for the Trump administration. It is that giving Israel all it wants – including Jerusalem – without doing justice to the Palestinians will continue to make of Palestine the compensation that America is giving to the Jews for crimes committed by someone else. And this is increasingly taking on the look of an American crime no less hideous than that of the Nazis.

Forty Years to pull the Rug from under America

Those who were old enough four decades ago, and interested enough in the Jewish insidious manipulation of the American politico-cultural setting, might remember an episode of the CBS program 60-minutes that showed an American woman pouring her heart out and drowning it into a sea of tears.

Do you know what her problem was? She was attached to the American military and sent to Saudi Arabia to do something but guess what horror, what calamity and what disaster befell her when she got there. She was told that when appearing in public, she must cover her head with a scarf or wear a veil. Oh, what humiliation! What scandal! What blasphemy! It was worse than being gang-raped in public in broad daylight with a million men watching, laughing and clapping.

The point of the episode was that America must cut its relations with Saudi Arabia immediately. That is immediately; not tomorrow or the next hour but immediately. But why did the Jews want this? They wanted it because they felt they were at the cusp of locking America tightly into their Judeo-Israeli bubble of influence, but they could see a weak patch that had the potential to burst and blow the project asunder. That weak patch was the good relationship that America was maintaining with Saudi Arabia. So the Jews did the usual thing: go to the most influential American publication at the time – 60-minutes – and through it inject their usual venomous slander into the heads, hearts and souls of the American people. That was the woman who played victim.

Fast forward to February 12, 2018 and lo and behold, you read an article in one of today's most influential publications, the Washington Post, under the title: “America should get behind Saudi Arabia's revolutionary crown prince,” written by the extreme Jewish fanatic and arch-Zionist, Dennis Ross. So you wonder what happened in the four decades between then and now.

What happened is that the cumulative effect of Israeli screw-ups in the Middle East –– using American cover, American weapons and American money –– caused Iran to grow into an anti-Israel giant; and forced Turkey into curtailing its relations with Israel. The latter had no choice but to turn to the Arabs and Russia for help. Russia responded with something like this: “Given your slandering of Russia for decades, and your passing anti-Russian laws in the U.S. Congress, we deemed that if you'll get as much as a fart from Russia, you'll have to go flat on your belly and kiss the boots of three Cossacks." When Netanyahu did something like that, Russia told him there has been a change of heart. Three Cossacks will not be enough; he'll have to kiss the boots of seven Cossacks.

Knowing that this game has no end – being the ones who invented it – the Israelis decided to leave Russia alone for now and concentrate on the Arab side of the equation. However, instead of admitting they fear Iran so much, they are kissing Arab asses (a reversal from asking America to kick Arab asses,) they said it was the Arabs who were seeking Israel's protection in the same way that America was seeking Israel's protection. Meanwhile, every time that the Jews approach the Arabs to ask for the privilege of kissing an Arab ass, they don't come empty handed; they come with a bouquet of flowers. One such bouquet is the Dennis Ross article.

Will the Arabs be seduced by this kind of antics? That's unlikely to happen because when a stinker brings you flowers; the chances are that you'll smell his stink more than you'll smell the scent of the flowers. So then, what else could happen? Well, judging by the history of the Jews, the same old scenario will repeat itself, except that the setting will have changed.

You'll get a sense of that when reading an article that came under the title: “Kim Yo Jong is a Twisted Sister” and the subtitle: “She holds a key post in Pyongyang's fearsome and brutal Propaganda and Agitation Department.” It was written by Claudia Rosett and published on February 14, 2018 in the Wall Street Journal.

Rosett begins her article by identifying who Kim Yo Jong is. She says Yo Jong is the sister of North Korea's leader Kim Jong Un. She goes on to tell how bad that woman is despite the fact that CNN praised her panache, and the president of South Korea gave her a royal welcome in the South.

Claudia Rosett went on to describe North Korea in terms reminiscent of the way that four decades ago the Jews described Saudi Arabia. And you can bet that in time –– if and when North Korea promises to help Israel build the atom bomb it has been dreaming about for a long time –– the Jews will praise the likes of Yo Jong, and hand bouquets of flower to her brother. As you can see, the more things change the more they remain the same.

It's the Mentality, Stupid!

On February 13, 2018 the Palestinian, Saeb Erekat wrote an article, laying out the Palestinian case. On that same day, the presumed to be American, Elliott Abrams responded, laying out the Israeli case.

The Erekat article came under the title: “Forget Trump's U.S. as the Mideast's Mediator,” published in the New York Times. The Elliott Abrams response came under the title: “A Palestinian Propagandist: Understanding Saeb Erekat's Ludicrous Times Op-Ed” and the subtitle: “Everything you need to know about Saeb Erekat can be found in the Jenin 'massacre.'” It was published in The Weekly Standard.

Making use of the deceptive Jewish trick of smothering the current debate with smoke and noise imported from a time long ago that no one will want to revisit, Elliott Abrams said what amounts to the following: Never mind the current debate. Concentrate instead on what I say happened 16 years ago in Jenin.

In fact, all sides in this big event were thoroughly fleshed out at the time. The debate unfolded over several days, and was handled by all major publications. So now, Abrams is spinning the old debate in such a way as to conclude that the readers must not believe their eyes when reading about the current debate. Instead, they should rely on what he tells them happened 16 years ago in Jenin, and infer from it that they ought to dismiss what Erekat is saying in the current debate even if it is clear, comprehensive and verifiable.

But what did Erekat say? Well, speaking of President Trump, this is what he said: “He has taken Israel's side while dismissing the roles of international law, international organizations and American diplomatic tradition in the Middle East peace process.” This is in reference to Mr. Trump saying he was abiding by a 22 year old American law which says that America will someday recognize a “unified” Jerusalem––meaning all of Jerusalem; not just the Western part––as the capital of Israel.

The law also gave the President the power to waver its implementation until certain conditions are fulfilled. Given that Jerusalem was a final status item, several presidents used the waver since the fate of Jerusalem had not been decided. Thus, when Trump gave what amounts to Presidential Ascent to that American law, he nullified the waver and in so doing, violated international law, international organizations and American diplomatic tradition; which is what Erekat said President Trump did. All of this means that Trump has taken the side of Israel, rendering America unfit to play the role of mediator. This should not be too difficult to understand, even for someone of the Elliott Abrams caliber … but apparently he had trouble with it.

What else is causing Abrams to go apoplectic? Well, speaking about the Trump envoys who refused to discuss issues important to the Palestinians, Erekat said this: “It is as if we have gone back in time –– to before Oslo –– without acknowledging the painful compromises the Palestinians have made for peace, including recognizing Israel and trying to build a state on just 22 percent of the land in the historic Palestine of 1948.” The way that Abrams responded to Erekat is the manifestation of a habit that’s as Jewish as matzoth bread. It is that while negotiating with them, if you indicate what you'd be willing to give up if they reciprocate with something of equal value, they'll pocket what you said you'll give up, and reciprocate with nothing.

Thus, hiding behind American power and prestige, that's what the Israelis did, and what Abrams is applauding. What happened at Oslo is that the Jews got the Palestinians to give up 78 percent of Palestine to the Jews for the promise that they will reciprocate by negotiating in good faith, addressing all the issues which are important to them, including ending the occupation. What happened next is that the Palestinians recognized Israel; the Jews pocketed that and reciprocated not just with nothing but with the scorn you see in the manner that Abrams responded to Erekat's article. This is what he did:

“Erekat returns to the usual Palestinian trope, criticizing Trump for failing to recognize the painful compromises the Palestinians have made for peace, including recognizing Israel and trying to build a state on just 22 percent of the land in the historic Palestine of 1948. It is striking to call those compromises; the first requires Palestinians to do no more than recognize reality, and the second to make their best efforts on behalf of their people”.

Do you know what that means, my friend? It is like the Old West of centuries ago when highway robbers used to attack passing stagecoaches and rob the passengers. To avoid a bloody shootout, a wealthy woman offers a compromise in the form of giving the robbers 78 percent of her jewelry if they'll let the stagecoach go. And the chief robber says: That's no compromise; it is recognizing the reality of the situation. He also tells her what she needs to do now: Learn to make do with only 22 percent of her wealth.

And this, my friend, is the mentality that has been sending Jews to the proverbial gas chambers and incinerators ever since they came into existence centuries ago. You've seen them play the game with your own eyes; now you know why it happened to them again and again and again.

Still trying to recruit gullible Suckers

Do you want to see ugliness that only a Congress of monkeys would say is beautiful? You'll not be surprised to know that the ugliest thing in existence today is the brainchild of the American Congress. It is the continued support for the genocidal concoction they call Israel.

This is why Israel needs someone like Dennis Ross to keep grooming it. It's not that grooming can mask Israel's ugliness; it's that the Congress was conditioned to believe grooming is proof that the subject being groomed is beautiful. Thus, members of the Congress see – not what their eyes are catching – but what the brainwashing they received makes them believe they see.

You'll catch all this when you read the article that came under the title: “After the weekend's Iran-Israel attacks, a burden on Trump to confront Russia and engage Europe,” written by Dennis Ross and published in the New York Daily News on February 12, 2018.

Here is a sample of the grooming that Dennis Ross has done on Israel:

“The Israelis not only intercepted the drone but also attacked the base and destroyed its command center and mobile launch vehicle ... Israel destroyed SA-5 and SA-17 missile batteries in Syria, with Israeli planes hitting 15 targets in all ... The Israeli response was designed to leave no doubt with the Iranians that they are playing with fire”.

And here is a sample of the real situation on the ground:

“The Iranians launched a stealth, armed drone into Israel. Advanced surface-to-air missile batteries opened fire against the Israeli aircraft, and an Israeli F-16 was shot down. This episode should set off a siren about the potential that the Iranian military and Shia militia presence creates in Syria. Because this may be a game-changer, it should be a wake-up call for the international community and the Trump administration. The continuing expansion of the Iranian military presence and infrastructure in Syria will produce a wider conflict involving the Israelis and Iranians and the Shia militias”.

Yes indeed, the game has changed in that the hunter has become the hunted. So then, besides calming the nerves of the Congress and the Jewish rank-and-file in America, what else is Dennis Ross trying to do for Israel? Actually, there is only one thing these people have been doing since they came into existence. It was to ask everyone to work on rescuing them when they got into trouble. And that's what Ross is trying to do now. What follows is a compilation of the fantasies he has been working on:

“President Vladimir Putin could immediately signal the Iranians that they crossed a line with him. Time for him to say that there will be no more Russian air cover for any Shia militia expansion. The U.S. can make it more likely that Putin will decide it is in Russia's interest to step up by conveying a message. Unless Putin sees that his current posture is likely to trigger American responses, he may not act. The Trump administration should be reaching out to the Europeans as well. They can go to the Iranians and say the EU will have little choice but to impose new sanctions on them”.

As can be seen, he wants America to warn Russia of yet undefined American responses if Russia does not pressure Iran to stop its expansion in Syria. And he wants America to make it so that the Europeans will have no choice but to go to the Iranians and warn them the EU will impose sanctions on them.

Looking at that, you can tell that Ross's fantasy is modeled after the strategy in America where the Jews have scored a few successes. They did it by convincing the governor of one state to impose Israeli law on the citizens of his state, thus circumvent the effect of the BDS movement. This done, they had the governor go around and urge the other governors to follow suit.

The Jews think of this strategy as a kind of domino game. It is a repeat of the old Jewish trick that gets suckers to recruit suckers and together, do the things that please their Jewish masters. The trick always ended badly outside America, and the chances are that it will not work this time either. As to its fate in America, the jury is out on this one.

And yet, there is a simple solution to the predicament that the Jews are facing today … and they know it. It is to end the occupation of Palestine by getting out of there. But being who they are, they will overlook that solution till they are pushed out the way they were from Gaza, the Sinai, South Lebanon and the Eastern Golan.

One Man's Dumbo is another Man's God

When the thuggish members of a consummate crime syndicate take control of the police force that's supposed to clean-up the world of crime and criminals, you have the image of an Israel whose Jewish lobby in America has taken control of the superpower that used to fancy itself as policeman of the world.

What the syndicate does in America is run the pro-Israel operations like a criminal underground business. However, having a polished facade above ground for doing public relations, the syndicate manages to make the criminal undertakings look like legitimate everyday American operations.

In fact, the primary function of the above ground operation – which is manned by a virulent mob of Jewish pundits – is to spin all acts committed by the underground in such a way as to make them look like business as usual, even heroic acts that protect humanity from what could become calamitous moments if left alone. But the reality of the situation is nothing of the sort. It is that the goons operating under the umbrella of the mob create mountains out of molehills to scare their audiences. They do so by slandering innocent people, attributing to them the evil they see in themselves and their Jewish brethren.

You can see how all this comes together in the article that came under the title: “Why peace can't be processed now,” written by Clifford D. May who is president of a farcical foundation pretending to defend the now extinct democracies. The article was published on February 13, 2018 in The Washington Times.

You'll find that Clifford May has followed the Jewish pattern of pointing to an event that just happened, and calling it proof that the Jews were correct all along in whatever they said and did. Look how he did it this time, and marvel at his ingenuity because it is nothing short of wondrous:

“A Palestinian leader shaking hands with an Israeli leader is inconceivable for the foreseeable future. One reason became vivid when Iranian forces launched a drone into Israeli airspace. An Israeli helicopter downed it. Israel sent F-16s to destroy the Iranian command center in Syria. One of the jets was [shot down.] No Palestinian leader condemned this provocation. No Palestinian leader has ever condemned Tehran, whose intentions toward Israel are openly annihilationist”.

That is, the Jews want the whole world, including the Palestinians they have been killing and robbing for half a century the way that savage beasts do things – to shed tears for them every time they send a warplane to bomb someone, and the thing is shot down. Failing to shed tears for Israel, says Clifford May, proves that the Palestinians are annihilationists … no different from the Iranians.

At this point I must tell a story I have not been able to verify; so make of it what you want. It happened between 25 and 30 years ago that someone approached Elie Wiesel and asked him if he would debate me. Wiesel said he will not because I was a Holocaust denier. But they pointed out I never denied the Holocaust, and he said I never condemned those who deny it either. And that, in his eyes, makes me a denier too. You can detect a similar kind of mentality powering both Clifford May and Elie Wiesel.

According to this mentality, everyone that does not condemned the Syrians for shooting down an Israel warplane that's bombing them; and everyone that does not condemn the deniers of the Holocaust, are annihilationists and deniers of a truth they do not bother to verify before denying it. Well then, what these two are saying is that 7 billion of us on this planet are terrible people.

Because the Jews think of us as such, they have never been able to get along with any of us in 4,000 years. They always found a fault in everyone they met, and used it as excuse to prevent a normal relationship from developing between them and any another group.

They are behaving the same way now with the Palestinians because they don't want to live with them. Instead, they want to rob them of the little they have left, and force them out of the land on which they lived since the beginning of time. You can see this mentality at work in Clifford May’s concluding statement:

“After 60 days, there are to be elections [in Palestine]. As has been the pattern in the Middle East for centuries –– power is taken by force of arms, who is likely to prevail? Hamas? Hezbollah? Other Jihadi groups? For those in the Trump administration focused on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict the task now is to work with Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Arabs to determine whether it may be possible to develop a next generation of Palestinian leaders who are open to conflict resolution”.

Let me ask you a question, my friend. Have you ever seen this much ignorance, unfitness and hypocrisy packed inside a single person? Go over his conclusion again, and try to delineate the points he is making.

First he imagines that the election of a people under occupation unfolds the same way as that of a free people. Second, he says that power in the Middle East has always been taken by force of arms. Third, he says that the only way Israel will consider ending the occupation is if the Palestinians learned the art of conflict resolution from the people that always changed government by force of arms.

If you think that Jews of the Clifford May caliber are dumb, what do you think of a Congress that believes they are gods?