The editors of the Washington Post tell us that Khaled A. Beydoun is a professor of law, and he has something to say about the situation in which the world finds itself at this time. And so, they published the article he wrote in which he discussed his point of view.
For the record: Beydoun’s article came under the title,
“The world of inconsistencies between Ukraine, the Middle East and beyond,”
published on March 7, 2022 in the Washington Post. But the article that you are
reading—written by yours truly—is not about the Beydoun article which
speaks for itself and does not need explanation or interpretation.
In fact, my article is a response to the one that attacked
the Washington Post for publishing the Beydoun article, and attacked Beydoun
himself for what he thinks and what he writes. That infamous article was
written by Sean Durns the Jew under the title: “Media Outlets Use Russia’s
Invasion of Ukraine to attack Israel,” published on March 10, 2022 in the
online Jewish publication Algemeiner.
Before I critique the Sean Durns article, I need to say
something I hope will circulate among all Jewish writers because many of them
do something that stinks so badly, it can turn your stomach. It is about the
use of the Latin word [sic] placed between brackets. This word is used when you
need to quote a passage that contains a mistake (grammatical or a typo) and you
want your readers to know you’re quoting the passage as is, therefore the
mistake is not yours.
Mistakes were rare in the past because people had enough
time to write and revise their work before sending it for publication. When
received at the other end, a proofreader would go over the piece before the
editor would publish it. This is no longer what happens thanks to the internet.
Now, writers hurry to complete the work before the deadline. They email it to
the editor who sends it to be published as is. Sometimes the work that gets
printed, contains an error. When I see it in the work that I need to quote, I
correct it and proceed to make my point.
I do not admire those who use [sic] because they do so to
say they are better than the author they are quoting. Worse, I absolutely
detest those who use it even when there is no mistake in what they are quoting.
These characters are such a lowlife, they diminish the value of what they write,
and they debase the profession. You know what, my friend? Sean Durns used that
trick, having quoted a passage from the Khaled Beydoun article that contained no
mistake. It proves that this guy, Sean Durns, is a stinko.
From the looks of it, Durns used that cheap trick because
he felt frustrated at his inability to come up with a good argument that would
demolish the Beydoun article. Instead of looking for something else to write
about, he stayed with the subject because he felt it was his duty to respond to
the Beydoun article. After all, Sean Durns brags about being Senior Research
Analyst at Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting and Analysis … and
so he could not pass up the opportunity to argue as erroneous Khaled Beydoun’s
article, and argue as ill-advised the Washington Post decision to publish it.
In so doing, Sean Durns did worse than injure himself and
his cause. He gave the world a gift whose value he cannot begin to gauge. The
value resides in the fact that his reaction demonstrates how Jews who work for American
institutions—from the State Department to the Governors
of the various States—and get paid for the supposed advice they give,
actually get paid for concoctions they devise to benefit Israel while pretending
to work for America. Look what Sean Durns wrote:
“There has never been an independent
Arab state known as ‘Palestine.’ Jews are indigenous to Judea and Samaria,
which the Post refers to
as the West Bank. Jews were residing in the land more than a thousand years
before the Arab and Islamic conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries. Put
simply: if one side can be categorized as ‘invaders’ or ‘colonizers,’ it isn’t
the Jews who have maintained a continual presence in the land for thousands of
years — long before the birth of Islam”.
To understand what is wrong with that, we first
acknowledge we cannot say that “Arab” and “Muslim” are interchangeable, anymore
than we can say “Catholic” and “Irish” are interchangeable, anymore than we can
say “Jewish” and “Hebrew” are interchangeable. Now that we acknowledged this
irrefutable fact, we pretend for a moment that we can make those false
assertions. We need to do this because it’s the only way we can stitch together
the history that Sean Durns describes.
According to him, Palestine was populated by an unknown
race (neither indigenous nor Palestinian) since the beginning of recorded
history. At some point, the Hebrews (also named Jews) conquered Palestine, kicked
its unknown inhabitants out, and made of Palestine the indigenous home of the
Hebrews/Jews. A few centuries later, the Romans conquered Palestine, kicked the
Jews out, and occupied it for a while. A few centuries after that the Christian
Arabs and Muslim Arabs kicked the Romans out of Palestine and made it their own
turf. Then came the marauding, armed to the teeth Jewish terrorists who retook
Palestine and renamed it Israel.
It is possible that you may find a handful of Flat Earthers
who believe in that Jewish interpretation of history. But there is a simpler
interpretation that rational people are more inclined to believe in. It is that
Palestine is situated in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region of the
globe. This being at the crossroads of the known world at the time—Europe,
Africa and Asia—it was the place where ethnicities of every kind mingled,
learned from each other, influenced one another and intermarried.
To make a long story short, three religions sprung from
that place. They were Judaism, Christianity and Islam. The Jews that maintained
their nomadic habit of traveling from place to place, converted very few others
to their religion. The Christians who sent apostles to the three known
continents, had a better luck converting others to Christianity. Islam which
came later, had an even better luck at spreading their religion by converting
others to it.
This being the case, the MENA region—more
specifically the Levant part of the MENA—is considered the least “purebred”
region of the world. This raises the interesting question: Fundamentally
speaking, to which ethnic groups do Syria or Palestine or Iraq or Jordan belong?
In fact, a similar question can be asked about the world of
today. That’s because there are very few places where ethnic purity is strictly
maintained. We are all of mixed races and ethnicities, and can hardly claim
exclusive ownership of a piece of real estate based on our genetic makeup. So
then, what this does, is invite chaos. Does it not?
Yes it does, and that’s how things were before the onset
of the First World War when the global situation was characterized as a
catch-as-catch-can for those that had the might to grab what they wanted in
defiance of every sense of justice and morality. The League of Nations that
came as a result of the war was supposed to fix this situation, but failed.
This led to the Second World War that forced the creation of the United
Nations. So far, the creation of this international institution proved to be
the best thing that humanity has done for itself.
The question of who owns what real estate has been
settled by the United Nations. Its Charter says that everyone owns where they
stood at the end of World War II. If a dispute arises between two groups, they
should settle by negotiation. Failing that, the Security Council of the United
Nations, which has jurisdiction over the International Criminal Court, will
adjudicate the case.