There are many words in English and the other languages to express
a difference of opinion between two or more interlocutors.
One of those words is “chicanery” which, to my understanding,
conveys a disagreement that’s laced with a sense of deception. This would be an
attempt, not only to deceive the opponent, but also the reality of an
engagement in self-deception.
Most of the time, chicanery happens when there has been a falling
out between people that were very close to each other such as members of the
same family, or between friends who were so close, they interacted almost like
members of the same family.
A disinterested observer that wants to follow these chicaneries, will
find the two sides engaged in this kind of arguments to be so alike, he'll get
the impression, not of two individuals arguing against each other, but of one
individual arguing against his own reflection in the mirror. The observer will
notice that neither side realizes he is saying the same thing as the one on the
other side of the divide.
Whereas chicanery takes place in most part between people who are
close to each other, it can on rare occasions, take place between people who
are far apart from each other. One group of people that is disposed to get into
chicanery with others –– be they close friends, not so close friends or
strangers –– are the Jews. They play the game of interchangeability to the hilt
by accusing the others of the defects they see in themselves while describing
the self by the virtues they see in others.
Knowing this about the Jews, will help the reader better
understand how Clifford D. May who wrote an article under the title: “The
Islamic Republic lashes out,” and the subtitle, “Iran's rulers threaten an
American think tank – mine,” sees the Iran situation he is describing. And the
reader will realize that the description he or she is reading, is but a mirror
image of how the Iranians see Clifford May and what he represents. The article
was published on September 3, 2019 in The Washington Times.
In the same way that in his writings, Clifford May has always
conveyed the view that the Iranian regime is interchangeable with its proxies …
in turn, the Iranians have always conveyed the view that America, Israel and
the Jewish-American propaganda machine are interchangeable. Also, in the same
way that Clifford May considers Tehran to be responsible for anything that is
uttered or committed by Hezbollah or Hamas or Islamic Jihad ... the Iranians
consider Zionism to be responsible for anything that is uttered or committed by
the State Department, Clifford May's Foundation or the Pentagon.
And so, you'll find that for every narrative that Clifford May
cares to articulate, the Iranians have a counter-narrative that is almost
identical. In fact, when reading Clifford May's writings on Iran, you may as
well imagine him wearing the turban of an Ayatollah and standing in front of
the mirror talking to himself. Here is what he says in his latest article:
“The Iranian regime has been behind terrorist attacks and
assassination plots in the Middle East, Europe, Latin America and the United
States. At the same time, it's been building an empire. Hezbollah works
hand-in-glove with international drug cartels. Shia militias are ensconced in
Iraq and Syria, where half a million Arabs have been killed and millions more
left homeless. The Iranians have grown accustomed to America and the
international community doing not a damn thing”.
And here is the counterargument with which his mirror image might
want to respond:
The Zionist regime has been behind military and economic terror
attacks designed to starve and annihilate Muslims in the Middle East, the Far
East and Africa. At the same time, the regime has been building an empire on
the sacred land of Palestine. Its agents and arms merchants work hand-in-glove
with anyone that would take a bribe. Zionist agents are ensconced everywhere in
the Muslim world where millions of Palestinian Arabs and others have been
killed and millions more left homeless. The Zionists have grown accustomed to
America and the international community doing not a damn thing.
So, the question to ask is this: How do you end this seemingly
perpetual cycle that has trapped the Jews in its throes for thousands of years?
Well, there is only one way to do it, and that's for one side to make the first
step at pulling back. The move will be reciprocated by the other side, and the
process will be repeated till the tension between the two sides will have
disappeared completely.
But who will decide which of the two must take that first step?
The answer is that logic will make that decision. In fact, it is easy to figure
that one out. It is that the side which has advanced the most, should be the
first to pull back.