Question: What's involved in an
argument that's designed to persuade others of one's own point of view?
Answer: If the debate is about whether
or not an existing condition should be retained or altered, the argument
involves two parts. One part would mention the existing “facts on the ground,”
and the other part would speculate on the consequences that will follow if
those facts were altered one way or the other.
With regard to the occupation of
Palestine, the English mouthpieces of the Zionist movement first tried to
portray the occupation as a festival of contentment and joy for the
Palestinians who never had it so good. When the Jews were persuaded that when
they talk like this, they signal to the human race they wish to be viewed and
treated like animals rather than human beings, the Jews shut up … and then
changed their tune.
What the Jews say now is set out in
the article that came under the title: “Peace processing 2.0”, written by
Clifford D. May and published on October 30, 2018 in The Washington Times. Here
is the writer's opening statement in condensed form: “Tibetans, Uyghurs, Kurds
and Chechens would like a state of their own” but they are not having it
because other powers are not letting them.
Clifford May went on to say that, by
contrast, the Palestinians were offered a state of their own but did not take
the offer because … well; because of what? To answer this question, the
Palestinians say they were never offered a state of their own by the Jews or by
the Americans. On the contrary, they were pressured by the Israelis and by
America's Jewish representatives to sign a document that would have nullified
UN resolutions 242 and 338 as well as the articles in the peace treaty between
Egypt and Israel concerning the latter's promise to withdraw from Palestine.
Had they taken the Judeo-American so-called offer, they would have been left
with cantonized patches of undefended land over which they would have no more
sovereignty than they do now.
These being the facts on the ground as
described by both sides, we now look at the consequences that would follow – as
described by each side, if the facts on the ground were altered one way or the
other. The answer of the Palestinians is a simple one. It goes like this: If
Israel pulls its troops out of Palestine, peace will follow whether or not
Israel wishes to establish diplomatic relations with the sovereign state of
Palestine. As to the view of the Jews regarding the consequences, that's
another matter. It consists of haggled rubbish based on twisted logic of the
kind that's known only to Jews. Here is Clifford May's contribution:
“The Palestinians would like a state
of their own. They'd have to agree to end the conflict with Israel, negotiate
borders and security issues, and embrace coexistence with Israel. Mahmoud Abbas
never accepted those concessions. Were he to sign a peace treaty, it is
doubtful Palestinians would accept it, or that he would be able to implement
it. I think it's possible for Trump to create new and improved facts on the
ground. Actually, he already has. UN Resolution 2334 declared the West Bank,
including East Jerusalem, Palestinian territory. The resolution has sent
Palestinians a message: That the Hamas narrative is right. Jews are not a
people. That's the precondition for a final solution. Trump moved the US
embassy to Jerusalem. He slashed funds to UNRWA which provides services to
Palestinian refugees”.
What's so odious, even at the instinctive
level, about this Jewish manner of addressing an audience? It is that Clifford
May begins by telling his readers –– who know that negotiations went on for
twenty years –– that the Palestinians would have to agree to end the conflict
with Israel. Well, that's what the negotiations were about. What kind of
disrespect is this for an audience that's looking for substance and not spin?
And Clifford May didn't stop here. He
added two more “concessions” to which the Palestinians must agree before they can
have their state. One concession is that they must negotiate borders and
security issues. But the audience knows that negotiations went on for twenty
years. What's Clifford May trying to pull here? The other concession is that
the Palestinians will have to embrace coexistence. Well, well, well, for a Jew
to tell someone they have to embrace coexistence is like a serial rapist
telling his victims they have to be nice to their neighbors. This is getting
sick!
To top that detestable performance, Clifford
May tries to explain why Jewish logic wasn't the reason for the failure to
reach a peace accord. He says this: “Were Abbas to sign a peace treaty, it is
doubtful Palestinians would accept it, or that he would be able to implement
it.” That is, May is telling the audience that the Jews have been torpedoing
the negotiations because they suspected that the Palestinians didn't want
peace, and that Abbas wouldn't be able to implement it anyway.
And so, Clifford May tells the
audience to accept as reasonable the Jewish attitude of pretending to negotiate,
and then blaming the failure on the Palestinians. That's because the Jews,
being the chosen children of God, were able to see into the future. They saw
that the Palestinians wouldn't know what to do with a peace accord, and so the
Jews decided not to negotiate, opting instead to have fun pretending to
negotiate.