After the lions and the tigers
hunt their prey, catch it and eat it, they leave the scene and go to the
waterhole where they quench their thirst and take a nap. This is when the scavenging
hyenas and vultures come out looking for the scraps left on the dinner table by
the kings and queens of the natural jungle.
Something similar happens in
the artificial jungle that the marketplace of ideas in the so-called
democracies, has become. When a big event takes place on the local or
international scene, you might first see the foolhardy come out unprepared and
seek to score a scoop which they hope will make them famous. The heavyweights
then come in, crack the case open, expand on the relevant points, and when the
rumination that must be done has been done, go to a quiet place and take a
recharging siesta.
This is when the scavenging
lightweights come to the deserted dinner table looking for the scraps that the
masters may have left behind. They pick a morsel here and a morsel there,
assemble them into a potpourri, and fool themselves into believing that they
are treated like the kings and queens of the democratic jungle. In fact, they
are assisted in their self-deception by the clueless media bosses who pay them
handsome sums to eat and discharge garbage to an audience that wants
journalistic quality but finds it nowhere.
An example of garbage-eating
and garbage-producing lightweight is Lee Scott Lingamfelter who used to be an
army colonel and a politician, but is now a retired nobody looking for fame
writing pieces that even the toilet finds so disgusting, it throws them back at
him rather than flush them down the tube where they might pollute the septic
tank.
Lingamfelter's latest foray
onto the deserted dinner table of the masters, came under the title: “Will
Israel-UAE agreement foster peace or more violence?” and the subtitle: “Israel
and the United Arab Emirates strike a deal,” published on August 19, 2020 in
The Washington Times. It is a clear case of going to unprecedented extremes
kissing Jewish asses in the hope of securing their support the next time he
runs for offices.
What Lingamfelter did is tell
the story of military encounters between the Arabs and the Jews since 1948, having
read not a single paragraph on the subject in a history book, and obviously not
being old enough to remember many of the events he talks about. Instead, his
writing betrays his reliance on information he must have picked up in the
gossip basement of some crack-house built in a place where no one knows your
name or cares what it is.
Lee Lingamfelter wrote about
all the encounters that took place between the Arabs and the Israelis in the
same ignorant manner and tone. And so, it suffices to discuss one encounter,
aware of the fact that the ignorance displayed here, is displayed everywhere
else. The encounter we choose to discuss is the Egyptian front where action
began in 1956, went quiet for 11 years, and blew up again in 1967 to remain
active till 1973. Here is what Lingamfelter would have you believe has
happened:
“In 1956, it was Israel's turn
to blunder into a war with instigators Britain and France, both angry at
Egypt's nationalization of the Suez Canal. Nasser hated the British presence in
Egypt as well as Israeli statehood. While the Arabs were regarded as the
victim, their military response was a disaster. In 1967, they attempted to set
that record straight. They lost. In the 1973 war, the Arab surprise attack on
Israel turned into a rout with the IDF surrounding the Egyptian 3rd Army”.
There it is. In a true
crackhead fashion, Lee Lingamfelter has tried to show that if Israel blundered
once, the blunder was due to someone else––France and Britain to be exact. But
even if the 1956 encounter was an Israeli blunder shared by two colonial
powers, do not forget, says the writer, that it happened because Egypt's
President hated the presence of the British in Egypt as well as Israel's
statehood. This is in keeping with the Jewish teaching that everything boils
down to who loves whom, and who hates whom.
And then, to show that when it
comes to kissing Jewish asses, a hungry for power treasonous ex-colonel would
stand with Israel and dump America in a heartbeat, Lingamfelter did it by
painting a glowing image of Israel, and choosing to ignore the role that
President Eisenhower played when he ordered the French and Brits, whom he saved
from Nazi destruction, to get their armies out of Egypt or else.
The purpose of that incursion
into Egypt's Sinai being to teach Israel how to do it again on its own –– thus
get in the way of an Egyptian economic development that was moving at a rapid
pace –– Israel prepared for the offensive during 11 years of training and of
storing arms and munitions acquired from Britain and France. When ready, Israel
attacked Egypt at a time when the country was busy implementing a massive
development program based on the electricity that was now generated by the
hydroelectric station at Aswan.
That attack started the 6-year
War of Attrition during which time the Egyptians went behind enemy lines on a
daily basis and degraded the Israeli ability to supply the Bar Lev line along
the Suez Canal, or defend it when the Egyptians will decide to cross the Canal
and liberate the Sinai.
That day came in October of
1973. However, months before then, Anwar Sadat that had replaced Nasser as
President of Egypt, warned the Americans that if Israel does not vacate the
Sinai, Egypt will launch an all-out war. The Americans relayed the message to the
Israelis who laughed it off, believing that they were invincible. To convince
them that he is serious, Sadat staged a crossing of the Nile using actual
military hardware. He did it in front of the Nile Hilton Hotel where American
diplomats and journalists were staying. Still, the Israelis did not budge. And
so, the Egyptians launched the promised all-out counterattack.
So then, how does Lingamfelter
present these events? Well, he says nothing about the surprise nature of
Israel's 1967 attack, but falsely characterizes the 1973 Egyptian counterattack
as an Arab surprise attack on Israel. He puts out these humongous lies despite
the numerous warnings that were given the Israelis to vacate the Sinai or face
an all-out war.
And so, my friend, if you want
to characterize what that is, call it the work of an ass-kissing former colonel
and hungry for power, treasonous crack-headed male prostitute. It is what he
will do to an American audience looking to him for accurate information but
getting venomous Jewish propaganda instead.