The stated Situation that's no Solution

Michael Oren who used to be Israel's ambassador to America, and is now running for Israel's Knesset, has an ingenious idea: how to sell diplomatic stale bread soaked in water by calling it gourmet food. He explains all that in an article he wrote under the title: “Israelis, Palestinians and the Two-State Situation” and the subtitle: “Instead of demanding what each side cannot do, we must ask what each side can do – and then make the most of it.” It was published on February 25, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.

Oren begins the article by stating what the promise of policy makers had been for more than 20 years; goes on to say that the effort has failed and then explains why this happened. Without saying it bluntly though, he basically tells that Israel could not keep a single one of the promises with which it entered the peace talks. No way was Israel going to cede land that many regard as sacred; no way was Israel going to evict 100,000 citizens from the territories they occupied by force of arms; and no way was Israel going to vacate East Jerusalem.

But he was blunt about something else … actually, someone else. He writes this: “A final-status agreement would also mean creating a Palestinian state ruled by a corrupt, unelected regime that...” and he continues: “...in the current regional chaos, is likely to fall to radicals.” Well, in the first part of this statement, the author makes the point that the Palestinians would remain the bad guys even if they will keep their promises – having made the point earlier that the Jews will remain the good guys even if they already broke the promises they made. Explanatory note: This is the Jewish sense of balance as explained by Jewish moral clarity and reinforced by Jewish straightforward ambiguity.

As to the second part of that statement – referring to the current situation, and using it as if to say there is some cosmic force out there agreeing with him – is a Jewish habit that used to impress the people who first heard of it, but has now turned into a kind of farcical expression capable at times, but not always, of eliciting a smile.

Sensitized enough by now to feel that he will not get away with a Jewish-style presentation of reality that is skewed to this extent, Oren tries to iron things out by blaming the Palestinians. He says this: “Such sacrifices and risks could be justified if the Palestinians were genuinely willing to end the conflict.” Mind you, he says so having shown earlier that Israel did not keep the promises it made. Still, he feels that the Palestinians are not willing to end the conflict because if they were, they would do something to prove it, he says.

He explains what that would be: “They would have to renounce all further claims to Israeli territory and a 'right to return,' and to recognize a legitimate Jewish state on their border.” He then unfurls the big deception: “But no Palestinian leader has ever agreed to those terms.” Well, even if we accept that these are meaningful demands – which they are not as we shall see in a moment – look at what Israel is holding back against them: No way is Israel going to cede land that many regard as sacred; no way is Israel going to evict 100,000 citizens from the territories they occupied by force of arms; and no way is Israel going to vacate East Jerusalem. Explanatory note: This is the Jewish sense of equity as explained by Jewish moral clarity and reinforced by Jewish straightforward ambiguity.

Let's now look at the Oren deception. By agreeing with the UN resolution to swap lands of equal value with Israel, the Palestinians have, in effect, renounced further claims. By stating that the right of return is a decision that only a Palestinian can make for himself, the Authority did the only thing it could do which is to invite Israel to negotiate individually with the Palestinians it displaced.

As to the recognition of a “legitimate Jewish state,” this is something that never happened before because nations call themselves what they want but do not force others to accept it. Moreover, the stupidity behind the call that Netanyahu made was demonstrated not long ago when he tried to ram the idea through his own regime. He caused a counter-reaction so fierce; he was forced to back off. Thus the question: Why would the Palestinians call Israel a Jewish state when the Israelis themselves will not do it?

Nothing is working, says Michael Oren, because the Jews are inherently good, and the Palestinians inherently bad. For this reason, he suggests that: “the time has come for a new approach,” which is this: “we can strengthen what already exists: the two-state situation.” Translated into English, this means: Let’s keep the status quo but call it something else … like saying ‘situation’ instead of ‘solution.’

How much more creative can this lad get? Some people sell old wine in a new bottle; he sells stale bread soaked in water and calls it gourmet food for the mind. He'll have a bright future in the Jewish Parliament where they practice Jewish moral clarity, and reinforce it with Jewish straightforward ambiguity.

Here is why America must drop Israel

It must be said that if you wait long enough, the perpetual slippery slope machine will make the case for you. In fact, this is what just happened thanks to the article that came under the title: “The Appalling Talk of Boycotting Netanyahu” and the subtitle: “Congress has every right, and even an obligation, to hear the Israeli leader speak about the Iranian threat.”

Written by the quintessential self-appointed Jewish leader: Alan Dershowitz; and published on February 24, 2015 in the quintessential Jewish mouthpiece: the Wall Street Journal – the article demonstrates that the only strong thing about the American-Israeli alliance is the stink that the fusion of the two entities has been generating all these years.

There has always been suspicion that Jewish activities on the American political scene were not entirely kosher, but very few people ventured to discuss the subject with the candor that would have shed enough light on the subject to make it possible turning off the machine which keeps the slope in perpetual lubrication. But Alan Dershowitz proved to be animated by a character so flawed, he made the case that – far from being a strong alliance – the relationship between America and Israel is worse than unhealthy; it is obscene. Why is that?

Well, a normal alliance is based on the premise that it remains free of coercion. It becomes a strong alliance when each member demonstrates a willingness to forgo something voluntarily to better accommodate the other member or members. It ceases to become normal when a member constantly pushes their luck, demanding more from the others. It can also become obscene when a member pushes their luck for no reason than to show he has the power to bully the others. This is what Alan Dershowitz – a recognized longtime formulator of the American Israeli relationship – has been doing from the start.

It must be said that in the matter of governing a ship of state, two codes of conduct are followed. One code is based on protocol and politics, the other on the law. The people who run the ship are given enough discretionary powers to use the protocol and the politics in a manner that suits them best. This is what expedites the decision making process which the democracies are famous for. But when it comes to the law, little flexibility is accorded to the members … and this is what can hold things back, even to the point of total paralysis.

And so, even though it is impossible to look at the contemporary American scene without noticing that it is paralyzed politically, and even though the suspicion has been there to the effect that the Jews have something to do with this paralysis, no one put their finger on how it is happening … until now. Very simply, the Jews have confused the two codes of conduct to give themselves maximum flexibility in promoting their interests. They do so by making things look like protocol and politics when they need to; and they do it by paralyzing everything else by making things look legal when they need to.

Dershowitz shows us how this is done practically in five steps. (1) He sets up the confusion: “This controversy is not simply about protocol and politics – it is about the constitutional system.” (2) He begins the legal talk: “it is the responsibility of every member of Congress to listen to Netanyahu.” (3) He creates the actual confusion by applying 'violate' which is a legal term to protocol which is not: “the idea that some members of Congress will not give [Netanyahu] the courtesy of listening violates protocol.”

He continues (4) by attacking the integrity of his opponent, the President of the Unites States: “What the president objects to is not that Netanyahu will speak but the content of what he intends to say.” And (5) by coercing: “This will endanger support for Democrats among pro-Israel voters. I would never vote for a member of Congress who walked out on Israel's prime minister.”

But wait a minute. This is Alan Dershowitz talking. He is the flawed character that dissed President Carter by having him uninvited after being invited; something that Alan has been bragging about ever since. What's going on? It is the obscenity of the situation displaying its ugly head. The truth is that the Jews are not looking for someone to protect them; they are looking for a cat they can come home and kick when everything they touch starts to suck except the vacuum cleaner. And so they procured America and made it their cat.

Better drop this household and go live somewhere else, America … before they skin you.

A phony Excuse after a revealing Pattern

Rudolph Giuliani says: “My Bluntness Overshadowed My Message” in an article that came under that title. It also came under the subtitle: “Whether you agree with me or not, I hope this can be the basis of a real conversation about national leadership.” That's a phony excuse to explain what he tried to do earlier, and a work that the Wall Street Journal saw fit to publish on February 23, 2015.

Giuliani writes this: “My blunt language suggesting that the president doesn't love America notwithstanding, I didn't intend to question President Obama's motives or the content of his heart.” This is his denial, after which he goes on to say: “My intended focus really was the effect his words and his actions have on the morale of the country, and how that effect may damage his performance.” And this is his excuse.

To begin with, using blunt language as opposed to using a diplomatic formulation to convey a message does not change the content of the message. If I tell the love of my life she is fat and ugly instead of telling her she needs to lose weight, does not change the fact that I believe she is fat and ugly … there is no two-ways about it. By that same logic, Rudolph Giuliani did question Obama's motives and the content of his heart … there is no two-ways about it.

As to the excuse that Giuliani was concerned about the effect which Obama's words and actions were having on the morale of the country, and their possible damage on his performance … well, this is an excuse that comes right out the Jewish book of demonic sleight of hand. The intent here was not to enhance the president's performance but to damage it by lowering the morale of the country with an accusation that Giuliani hoped will shake the confidence of the American people about their president.

And this is not the only thing that Giuliani plucked from the Jewish book of demons. His earlier assertion that Obama was not “like us” because he was not raised like him may be true in the sense that Obama was raised by a mother who contributed to the war effort, and a grandfather who fought in the war … whereas Giuliani was raised by a father who served jail time and worked for a relative in the business of organized crime. This is a difference that Obama can be proud of; and one about which Giuliani should want to keep his mouth shut.

This is not even the worst part of that statement because Giuliani's contention is that America is more like him than it is like Obama. That approach has been the pattern which the Jews have used since time immemorial each time that they decided to invade the space of a society with the intent of taking it over by plying their tricks inside it. So the question: What does Giuliani want, and who does he want it for?

We get a sense of what the answer may be when we look at a statement he made near the end of the article. It is this: “To say that American exceptionalism is no more exceptional than the exceptionalism of any other country in the world does not suggest becoming and endearing modesty, but rather a stark lack of moral clarity.” And as he noted earlier, this is the conversation he wants to have about national leadership.

Now, given that the Jews have defined moral clarity as the unequivocal dedication of the self to the interests of the chosen children of God, Giuliani's association of moral clarity with American exceptionalism reveals that his intent has been to blow the Obama administration to smithereens before Netanyahu's arrival where he is expected to make the point that America is threatened because Israel is threatened. And this, in the sick mind of Giuliani, is the test of leadership that the unexceptional Obama has failed to deliver, whereas Netanyahu that is the chosen child of God, has proven he can.

This again, confirms that Giuliani's intent had been all along to damage the president's performance even if it meant the lowering of morale in America. But it was all to the good, according to his sick mind, because he believes that Netanyahu's leadership of the American ship of state by remote control is more favorable than Obama's hands-on sailing of that ship.

In this sense, Giuliani can only be the worst kind of traitor; the type that is made to appear as working for the good of the country while sabotaging it to cripple it enough while the Jews take it over and make it their own.

That's what Giuliani has wanted all along, and has wanted it for his Jewish masters.

Is it a Rerun or a Repeat?

The interesting thing about looking at history and then attempting to draw parallels with a contemporary situation is that you can fall into a trap that will mislead you. To see how this can happen, imagine yourself turning on the television set and seeing a riot happening somewhere in the world. You watch for a minute and then turn off the TV because you believe you saw this scene before.

As you ponder the meaning of the riot, a question begins to nag you: Was that a rerun of the tape I saw before? Or was it a scene that has unfolded in the way that it did before? In other words: Did I see history repeat itself exactly as it did before? Or did history put on a show that only mimicked what it did once before? And there lies the dilemma of looking at history then trying to match moment for moment what happened in the past with what is happening now.

In addition, what we must keep in mind is that our view of history is only an interpretation of the never-complete knowledge we have of it. Also, our view of the contemporary scene is only an interpretation of the facts and the fiction that we choose to believe in. Thus, the attempt to draw parallels between history and a contemporary situation is an exercise that can be no better than ten percent science and ninety percent art. But how useful can that be, if it can at all?

To answer this question, we look at five thousand years of human thought on the subject. Surprisingly, we find the record to be remarkably simple and remarkably consistent. It is that thinkers, writers and ponderers – sages all – have boiled down the whole thing to a two pronged approach to life. They say that one prong will lead to a happy ending while the other will lead to a tragedy. But considering that in every unfolding drama, the two prongs do exist simultaneously, how do we know which side to take and which to suppress?

Well, it seems that Victor Davis Hanson is trying to answer that question. His latest attempt comes in the form of an article he wrote under the title: “Our Dangerous Historical Moment” and the subtitle: “Obama and European leaders are repeating the mistakes of their 1930s predecessors.” It was published on February 19, 2015 in National Review Online.

After drawing blow by blow parallels between the present and a past which he says has caused “the most destructive war in history,” Hanson posits in a very subtle manner that the world is made of a handful of good people, a handful of bad people and a whole lot of indifferent people. He then says that the destructive war happened because the indifferent people were too apathetic to join the handful of good people who wanted to confront the bad ones, and stop them before they do the damage that they did. And he suggests that the same thing is happening again at this time.

Of course, if Hanson's cherry picking of historical events are the only legitimate highlights of the era, if his interpretation of these events is the correct one, and if his description of the current situation is impeccable, then his conclusions as well as his suggestion will have to be considered absolutely correct. And the consequence of this will have to be that the world must mobilize right away, and go on a rampage to kill everyone that is pointed at by the finger of a Jew.

But this is not how the thinkers, writers and ponderers of the bygone eras are telling us to look at events. In fact, they caution that you cannot always judge someone by their appearance, and that a wolf comes in sheep's clothing … which is why every script has its unexpected twists and turns. The sages also say that the apparently indifferent people of the world are actually active both mentally and emotionally, except that they move slowly because they are a cautious bunch. These people take their time, say the sages, before deciding on something, but when they take a side or suppress one, they are always correct.

This being the case, the very fact that humanity has always sided with the Jews at the start of an event only to turn against them after the latter move to Jew the world, says that the silent majority of the human race is the good bunch that brings order back each time that the Jews screw it up.

And we should expect the same thing to happen again sooner or later.

On Love and the Desire for Perfection

Try to answer the two questions that follow, then read Kevin D. Williamson's article of February 20, 2015 in National Review Online. It came under the title: “Rudy is Right” and the subtitle: “Barack Obama doesn't even like America.” And here are the two questions: Can a father continue to love a son that shamed him by raping the little girl next door? Can a daughter love a mother that continually embarrasses her in public where she is never seen in a state of sobriety?

The point is that love manifests itself in many ways; one of which being “tough love,” which means disapproving of someone's conduct so vehemently as to hurt them now in the hope of saving them from something worse. With this in mind, you deduce that Williamson's article is not worth considering as a legitimate contribution to the conversation on the subject. And this may answer his own question: “Those are questions that we are not allowed to ask in polite society. Why?” He answered it: “Because polite society does not want to hear the answers.” But the fact is that a good debate on the subject would interest everyone regardless as to the conclusions that may be reached by the various debaters.

So then, we repeat the question that Williamson kept asking on behalf of Rudy Giuliani: “Does Barack Obama love America?” To respond, we recall that if you ask any politician why they run for office, the answer invariably comes back to the effect that they love the country so much, it hurts them to see it kept below potential by the management style of those they seek to replace in office. This is what candidate Barack Obama was saying … and a change in the style of management is what President Obama is now delivering.

As to Michelle Obama, she sounds like the daughter who never gave up loving her mother even when she thought the mother was ashamed of her. Michelle appeared to return the feeling till such time that the mother clearly expressed her pride in the daughter and her husband. Only then did Michelle utter the words: “I have always been proud of you too, mother America … and I never stopped loving you.”

The question to ask should not pertain to someone's love but to their loyalties. This is because love can neither be measured nor compared to something, whereas loyalty to someone or to something can be assessed and compared to the loyalty that one has to another someone or something. In this regard, it is better not to question Rudy Giuliani's own love for America, but to question the degree of his loyalty to America as opposed to say, his loyalty to Israel and to other Jewish causes.

What begins you on this track is the fact that Giuliani married three times. Right there, an endless stream of questions can be asked as to when he stopped loving one woman in favor of the next. And by what percentage his love for one woman was reduced before realizing that he loved another by a higher percentage. This being a futile exercise, it is better to leave it aside, and to stick with the question of loyalties.

And given the fact that the last of Giuliani's wives is Jewish; an ideology where no love is allowed to exist unless it is transformed into loyalty to Israel and to all Jewish causes, the question becomes this: Does Rudy Giuliani realize that he is motivated not by love but by a Svengali kind of brainwashing which makes him sabotage America's interests in favor of promoting Israel's interests – and the other Jewish causes?

This is pertinent in view of the fact that – like Rudy Giuliani – the people who question Obama's love for America are the ones who clearly, unequivocally and shamelessly display their “love” for Netanyahu … an almost exact replication of the intense love that the Jews used to display towards Joseph Stalin; the butcher of the old Soviet Union to whom they referred as their dear uncle.

When we see the intensity with which subject matters are being debated nowadays, we cannot fail to conclude that we are approaching the apogee of something without knowing what it is. The only thing we can be certain of is that a general kind of dissatisfaction is setting-in among the masses which are clamoring for the perfection of the authentic, wishing to see it triumph over the shoddiness of the fake imitations.

And Rudy Giuliani is a fake imitation of what human beings are really like.

The Bang that starts an ideological Universe

In the same way that the Universe came into being with a Big Bang, philosophical constructs start with a single idea from which branch out clusters of other ideas, constellations of thoughts and classes of concepts. If now, we reject the notion that religion is handed to us by a divine power we cannot question, accepting instead the notion that religion is an ideological construct we formulate in our mind – we must as a consequence, view religion as starting with a single idea from which eventually will flow an entire construct that resembles the Universe.

And so we ask: What was the starting point for each of the three Middle Eastern religions which shaped the history of the world so profoundly? In response, we can argue that Islam – being the most recent – makes no effort to hide the reality that it came to build upon the work done by the two which preceded it. Its founder, Mohammad, who was illiterate to begin with, suddenly found himself able to read and write when he embraced the notion that religion was the source of all knowledge. Ever since that time, when religion is not corrupted, Islam and the quest for new knowledge have remained tied together as a single movement.

As to Christianity, the notion of peaceful coexistence has been its foremost preoccupation. Its founder, Jesus, spent his time working to establish a sense of calm and serenity in the relationships that were forged by then between the Roman rulers and the Jewish masses. But when it comes to Judaism – which is the first of the three Middle Eastern religions – we discover that the entire Jewish universe had come out the single notion of hate.

In fact, the folklore relating to the birth of the Jewish religion and Jewish nation makes it clear that the prerequisite to being a Jew is to hate Egypt. The history which the Jews have been celebrating for nearly four thousand years on the day of Passover is that a nation was born to them the moment that they started to hate the land which nurtured them for something like four hundred years. Thus, for the Jew to be, he must first hate Egypt most profoundly, and he must do so at the visceral level … otherwise he cannot be a Jew and cannot claim to be one.

On that day, and in response to an urging of mysterious origin, the Jews got into the business of slaughtering the first born in every Egyptian household. They looted the treasures in the homes and the temples of the land, and they fled Egypt to embark on a long journey toward the Promised Land of Milk and Honey, as they called it. But in reality, that was Palestine – now known to be a member of the Fertile Crescent.

By contrast, to fulfill their mandate, the Muslims gave to the world (1) the university where interdisciplinary knowledge was taught; (2) the hospital where people went to get well as opposed to where they used to go while waiting to die; and (3) they gave to the world the principles of personal hygiene so as to remain healthy because the Muslims reckoned that a healthy mind can only exist in a healthy body.

The Christians, on their part, gave to the world the idea of love, togetherness and peace. Art of every kind sprung up around these notions – including literature and philosophy – thus making it impossible to put together a cannon law or a system of governance that does not encompass tolerance for the other … however different from the norm that other may be. Thus began the system of Liberal Democracy which served the Christian nations so very well for several decades.

When it comes to the Jews, however, we see that in contrast to all of the above, these people gave to the world trickery, wars, hate, fake racial supremacy, and what have you. The Jews see in these traits not a deficit of character but a source for their supremacy over the other races. Thus – in the eyes of the Jews – while any of those traits would be considered a reason to impeach an ordinary mortal, they become a virtue when seen to animate a Jew.

Thus, in a world that is made of authentic Jews, Christians and Muslims as well as fake Jews, Christians and Muslims – there unfolds a drama in which the stakes are high because they relate to matters of life and death. But this is a passion play that resembles a soap opera more than a one-off because the storyline never ends. The play keeps on going day after day without an end in sight because history does not end with the closing of one chapter.

Proof that a different Approach is needed

The February 19, 2015 edition of the Wall Street Journal carries an article by US Secretary of State John Kerry concerning the situation in the Middle East, and a piece by the editors of the Journal which demonstrates that the Jewish forces of destruction in America will kill the baby in the womb and abort it before the thing will have seen the light of day.

Kerry's article came under the title: “Our Plan for Countering Violent Extremism” and the subtitle: “Show the world the power of peaceful communities, and tackle bad governance that breeds frustration.” Expanding on these two themes, John Kerry seems to use the backdoor approach to promoting the George W. Bush so-called Freedom Agenda.

And this is the Agenda that landed among the unhappy peoples of Africa and Southwestern Asia like a lightening bolt, telling them that if they let the Jews run their lives the way they run the American Congress, those people will see their standard of living rise to levels they never dream about. And the peoples of Africa and Southwest Asia responded that the last thing they want is to see “Western” schools built across Africa and Asia to teach the dancing boys and little girls how to compete with the bordellos of Thailand and Sri Lanka where tourists go to have a moment of pedophilia ecstasy.

And they further cried out: “Boko Haram (or no Western education for our kids,) shoot or kidnap the girls before the Jews turn them into cheap sex toys they can play with. And they further commanded: “strap on an AK-47 or a suicide vest,” young lad, because we have been given the sacred duty of safeguarding the future and honor of our people in this generation and all those to come.”

It is the failure to understand the depth of feeling among these people which prompts someone like John Kerry to innocently say the following, and not realize he is throwing more gasoline on the fire: “We have to devote ourselves not just to combating violent extremism, but to preventing it. This means building alternatives that are credible and visible to the populations where terrorists seek to thrive.” To those who see the advent of the Western ways as the dissolution of their societies, the message means that Kerry will now seek to bribe and distract the entire society with shiny objects while implementing the plan to transform it into a giant bordello that will service the depraved men of North.

While it would be a monumental task to try and convince these societies that the Jews will not be allowed to turn them into a Congressional style Jewish whorehouse, it will be an even more gigantic task now, because past history is still fresh in the mind, and the plan for the future is evident in statements such as those carried by the Wall Street Journal and promoted on Fox News … as well as CNN.

Listen carefully to the guests that go on Fox News and put forth a plan to address the current situation. You'll find they behave like robots programmed to speak by one and the same programmer. They all say the same thing even if they say it differently. And what they say now is that America must avoid giving the people of Africa and Western Asia an economic plan that will work because in doing so, they may repeat the experience of the South-Asian nations which curtailed their pedophile prostitution practices when they got wealthy enough to do without it. Hence, the Fox News guests want to implement the old plan in the new lands, but do so minus the economic component.

This idea is repeated in the Wall Street Journal article which argues the point in the following way: “that narrative requires something more than a State department spokesperson did this week … working on 'root causes’ such as insufficient schooling and job opportunities in the Arab world.” In tandem with this, the editors of the Journal want to see a strengthening of the military offensive against people who are fighting for what they believe is their honor and the future of their people.

They want America to reply in this manner: “we need to recognize that the strength of radical Islamists is directly correlated to their battlefield success. Communist ideology lost its appeal when it was seen to fail against the prosperity and freedom of the West. Islamic state will lose its allure when it is defeated and humiliated in the arena it cares about most, which is the battlefield.” In other words, the editors want a war of the religions after which the entire Muslim world will be turned into a sexual fantasyland in the style of a giant Abu Ghraib.