Savage Scenario of the 'Situation' Thing

Asaf Romirowsky and Alexander Joffe are associated with the Middle East Forum, and they co-authored an article that came under the title: “The world must finally awaken to the UN refugee agency's failures in the Palestinian territories,” published on June 12, 2017 in the New York Daily News.

It must be said that the Middle East Forum was founded by Daniel Pipes who wrote articles promoting the idea that there is no substitute to winning. His conclusions have been for Israel and America to manufacture situations in which Israel can confront the Palestinians and score as many wins as possible. It does not matter what kind of wins they will be as long as they are wins. An example in which Pipes saw Israel win without even trying, is the war in Syria. He wrote at least one article in which he expressed joy that the Arabs were killing each other, and wished that the various sides in the conflict would finish off one another.

But other winnings must be schemed for, and the latest was cobbled together by an alliance of Jews from America and Israel, and given the name “Situation.” It aims to ethnic-cleanse Palestine of its Palestinian population, thus complete the Jewish takeover of the land. The scheme is meant to accomplish that demonic feat by making life extremely unbearable for the Palestinians, causing them to flee the only home they have known since the beginning of time.

In fact, ratcheting up the savagery of the occupation has already begun with the occupier allowing the armed Jewish settlers to ransack the fields where Palestinians grow their food; with the steady reduction of the amount of water that the Palestinians receive to drink and to irrigate their fields; and with the recent call to cut off the vital help that the Palestinians are getting from international organizations. In fact, this is what the Romirowsky and Joffe article is about.

The authors tell of the meeting that Netanyahu had with US Ambassador to the UN, Nikki Haley, in which he urged her to put the weight of the United States behind the said criminal scheme, deemed to be of cosmic proportions. Netanyahu wants to see the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA) shut down because – in the competition between Jewish savagery and Palestinian stoicism – the “Palestinians continue to receive overdue attention,” say Romirowsky and Joffe.

The situation on the ground as seen by humanity is such that in the contest between the Palestinian “Right of Return” and the Jewish “Desire to Connect,” the Right to Return wins hands down. Who in his right mind would say that someone who converted to Judaism to get a job at CNN has a greater right to a piece of Palestine than a Palestinian that has lived on the land since the beginning of time?

The recent convert may have developed a burning desire to “connect” with a land he could not find on the map a few months before his conversion, whereas the Palestinian yearns to return to the home from which he was chased out at gunpoint. Not even John King or Wolf Blitzer would say that the desire to connect is stronger than the yearning to go home.

Thus, a clash has erupted in the points of view pertaining to the actual situation as it exists on the ground, and the artificial situation that the Israelis and their enablers have concocted out of thin air, and continue to peddle. In that regard, the latter have advanced the argument that the problem is not Israel's savage treatment of the Palestinians or the neglect of its obligations as an occupier, but the work of UNRWA which continues to bring humanitarian relief to a suffering people when – according to the Israelis – it is doing more harm than good.

Their reasoning is so horrific and diabolic, you know right away it can only be Jewish. What these people are arguing now is what they have been arguing for decades. It is that the only way they envisage peace coming to the region, is for someone to voluntarily give Palestine to them. You can make this choice, they say, or you can expect to see the peace of the grave impose itself on the people of Palestine.

Here is how they formulated that principle: “Israel's position and ongoing U.S. funding have created a situation that has promoted Palestinian rejectionism.” In other words, they say that the money contributed by the United States to UNWRA has kept the Palestinians fed so well, they adopted the “refuseniks” method to fight oppression that Jewish dissidents used in the old Soviet Union, and won the sympathy of people everywhere. And so, our writers are urging America to take Netanyahu's advice, and join the effort to starve the Palestinians and get rid of them before they win the sympathy of people anywhere.

Until this happens, the Jews will continue to lament that America's money has kept the Palestinians from having to choose between fleeing the land of their birth or taking a premature trip to the grave.

This is why they want to force a choice between one or the other by convincing Nikki Haley to put the weight of the United States behind their criminal scheme of shutting down UNRWA.

This will rig the competition between Jewish savagery and Palestinian stoicism in such a way as to allow Jewish savagery to triumph … which is their ultimate goal.

He believes Humanity exists to serve Israel

There is the legal approach to understanding what a writer says, and there is the psycho-cultural approach to understanding what he is trying to say.

The legal approach does not necessarily mean it has something to do with the judiciary. It is simply a way of saying that the ideas you should assign to a piece of writing can only be derived from the meaning of the words taken at face value ... nothing more complicated than that. As to the psycho-cultural approach to understanding a piece of writing; it is to take into account the psychology of the writer that put it together, and the cultural context in which he functions.

It will help the readers of the New York Times to know all of that when reading – perhaps for the first time – the columns of a newly arrived writer in their midst. He is Bret Stephens who defected from the Wall Street Journal, a right-wing publication with a preference for the Jewish agenda that is as one-sided as that of the New York Times, but very different in most other respects.

What the readers need to know about Stephens is that he believes the human race was created for one reason only; to serve the Jews and Israel. Also, because he grew up – and now lives – in an era when the Jewish psycho-culture in America is reducing every concept to a single word or a short phrase that can fit a bumper sticker, the word “democracy” has come to identify the one principle that alone, can legitimize a system of governance. In other words, Bret Stephens believes that no system that's free of Jewish style democracy – endless haggle, deceptive ambiguity, double-talk and all – can claim to be legitimate.

When you combine that belief with the view he holds about Israel's place in the scheme of things, you begin to understand why he thinks and feels the way he does despite the reality that Israeli troops occupy another country and its people; a crime against humanity that is reviled by all of humanity.

That characterization of Bret Stephens' creative profile should help the readers better understand his latest column. It came under the title: “The Year of Voting Recklessly,” and was published on June 11, 2017 in the New York Times. When you get past his views regarding the politics of the Left and the Right in both America and Europe, you'll find that those views are encapsulated in three short passages:

First, Bret Stephens quotes approvingly from a report that mentions someone as having slandered a Labor leader in Britain, accusing him of creating “a safe space for those with vile attitudes toward Jewish people”.

In other words, Stephens believes that no one who criticizes Israel or anything Jewish should have a space in which to go and be safe from the wrath of a World Jewry that will work to mobilize the forces of hell and heaven to destroy his career and ruin his life. Apparently, this too is part of “legitimate” Jewish democracy.

Second, Stephens quotes, also approvingly, from a book titled “The End of Europe,” a passage that reads as follows: “As the memory of World War II and the Holocaust fades...”

In other words, he believes that only one thing counts in all of history. It is the Holocaust that happened during World War II. Nothing of what transpired before that event or after it can be discussed without referring to the Second World War and what happened to the Jews.

Third, Stephens opines that “it has taken just a single generation to forget the sin of anti-Semitism masquerading as anti-Zionism; fellow-traveling with dictators and terrorists masquerading as sympathy for the wretched of the earth”.

In other words, Bret Stephens believes that Jews are paragons of perfection trying to fix a vile humanity that's bending to the will of dictators and terrorists fellow-traveling with Western leaders who are themselves bores and authentic jerks, elected to serve by reckless voters.

And he believes that whereas a heavily armed Jew has the right to practice predatory savagery in the name of self-defense, a disarmed Palestinian has no right to grab a knife and scare off a Jew he catches robbing his house.

Should something like this happen, says Bret Stephens, the Palestinian must be called a terrorist and not a wretched of the earth deserving sympathy. On the contrary, it is the Jew who deserves to be showered with sympathy, says Stephens.

Unless the Western leaders understand all that, we'll fall off the cliff's edge, he goes on to explain.

Israeli Pearl Harbor killed Americans

Do you want to know why for thousands of years, humanity around the globe has felt no compunction about inflicting pogroms and holocausts on the Jews? If that's what you want, read on.

On his first State of the Union Address to Congress, the newly elected President of the United States condemned the threatening phone calls that were made to Jewish organizations, and the vandalism that was done to Jewish cemeteries. He did so even though it was clear by then that the Jews had done it to themselves as usual, in order to garner sympathy for themselves and claim compensation. Alas, the truth of what happened was covered up, and will continue to be hidden … unless and until something drastic happens.

This is not surprising, however, considering that coverups of this kind happen all the time when it comes to Jewish and Israeli matters. One of those is the fact that not only did the Japanese surprise the American navy and dealt it a severe blow at Pearl Harbor – an event that is discussed all the time – but so did the Israelis in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean. Shamefully, however, the story has been covered up for half a century with no sign it will be told … unless and until something drastic happens.

The American ship that suffered the cowardly and treacherous Jewish attack was the USS Liberty. It was a reconnaissance ship monitoring the 1967 Israeli attack on Egypt when, on the third day of the operation, the Israelis still feared that America might give Egypt information it could use to protect itself or counterattack. And so, the Israelis attacked the Liberty with the full intention of killing everyone on board and sinking the ship.

Fifty years later, the survivors of the ship, now connected under the name Liberty Veterans Association (LVA), are called antisemites and neo-Nazis every time they try to get their story out to the public. They want this to happen because they want the known facts to be given out, and want an inquiry set-up to answer the remaining questions. To add insult to America's flag, and add injury to its Constitution, a standing order forbids the mention of Israel as the attacker, and threatens the survivors with fines and imprisonment if they tell what happened on that calamitous day.

Add to this the avalanche of subversive tricks and parliamentary sleights of hand as well as the end-runs that the Jews pull every hour of the day on America, and you'll be convinced that something is bound to happen; one that will put a drastic end to a madness that is as banal as it is abusive. The Jewish intent is to turn America into a constitutional and judicial banana republic they can play with … and the pot is about to boil over.

Are there signs this is about to happen? Yes there are. A simple way to find out is to read the article that came under the title: “A New Tolerance for Antisemitism,” written by Alan Dershowitz and published on June 7, 2017 on the website of Algemeiner. It is a long article that lists too many names, but a number of passages give a feel of what it's about. Here is a compilation of those passages:

“All over the world antisemites are becoming mainstreamed. It is no longer disqualifying to be outed as a Jew-hater. In the US hard-right antisemitism came into public view, as did bigotry of the hard-left, prevalent on many university campuses. Extreme right-wing antisemitism continues to be a problem in many parts of Europe. The same trend is detectable among the hard-left in Europe, particularly in Britain. Increasingly, antisemitic discourse is also seeping into the arts and academia. Likewise, the marketplace of ideas on college campuses and within academic institutions has seen an embrace of antisemitism often disguised as anti-Zionism. The growing tolerance for antisemitism by both the extreme Left and Right is quickly becoming mainstream”.

Jews such as Alan Dershowitz like to tell why antisemitism flourishes. What they say boils down to accusing humanity of having a defective gene that cannot be cured, therefore, must be suppressed. They believe they stand on valid ground when calling for the suppression of truths such as the sinking of the Liberty and the vandalism they did to their cemeteries. To that end, they recruit gentiles who spread their false gospel for them.

These would be feeble minds, cowardly characters and spineless operators such as Lindsey Graham, Marco Rubio, John McCain, Ted Cruz and Ed Royce who would stab the veterans of Liberty in the heart, insult the flag of the United States and injure its Constitution rather than stand up to a Jew and say: enough is enough; I have developed the necessary self-respect to want the truth getting out even if it means losing your pat on my back, and the fake smile you flash in my face. The gentiles will only do that if and when something drastic happens.

They exploit the Fantasies they create

Two articles have appeared in the same week telling how the Jewish fantasy–and–exploitation machine creates the fantasies it then exploits.

Ben Cohen wrote: “Our Friends in the Gulf,” an article that shows how Jewish fantasies are created. It was published on June 9, 2017 on the website of Algemeiner. Four days before that, on June 5, 2017, Benny Avni had written: “Gulf states' feud is a big test for Team Trump,” an article that shows how the fantasies are exploited by that same machine. His article was published in the New York Post.

To create a fantasy, you start with something you believe no one can verify, and then build on it. This is how Ben Cohen started his article, and went from there to build a case that doesn't hold. He says he knows what used to linger in the heart and mind of the late President Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt more than half a century ago, and in the heart and mind of al-Qaeda's leader Bin Laden more than a quarter century ago. He is so certain of that, says Cohen, he can guaranty that the two leaders would have been outraged by “the decision of [Arab countries] to sever links with Qatar over its deep ties to terrorism funding”.

Someone should remind this guy, Ben Cohen, that no one disciplines their own as do the Arabs. They did during the First Gulf War when Saddam Hussein went too far. And they did it when they gave the green light for NATO to rein in Libya's Gaddafi.

Cohen may believe there is no way to verify what went on in the hearts and minds of dead people, therefore we must believe him. But that's only because he ignores a number of pertinent facts, and because he remains too intellectually lazy to verify the history he writes about. The fact is that Nasser was very much a secular leader interested only in the economic progress of his country. In fact, this is what got him in trouble with two groups. One group was World Jewry which disliked the 1954 decision to build the Aswan Project; as did the Jews with every progress made in the neighborhood. The other group to dislike the project was the Muslim Brotherhood whose interest since 1928 had been to fully mobilize Egypt, and get it ready to fight the Jewish savagery that was being inflicted on the people of Palestine.

The bad blood between Nasser and the Brotherhood reached its highest point when the latter tried to blow up the platform on which Nasser was to stand and give a speech in open air. This prompted him to view the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, and so he banned it from public life. When Sadat took over, he relaxed that restriction, which is why some people consider him to have been more religious than Nasser. In any case, Bin Laden who was tutored by a lieutenant of the Brotherhood, Ayman al-Zawahiri, could not have been more different than Nasser. Thus, for Cohen to ascertain that the two leaders would have been inclined to think and feel the same way, is to turn reality on its head.

But what does that reality look like anyway? Well, all you need to do to find out, is to read the New York Times and the Washington Post. These two publications – edited by Jews – have such a love affair with the Muslim Brotherhood, you can only conclude they are inclined to think and feel the same as Ayman Al-Zawahiri. It is not that those editors are going to convert to Islam; it is that they seek to promote every opposition that develops against an Arab or a Muslim regime. Their aim is to establish a puppet government in those countries, the same way they turned the US Congress into a puppet regime for the Jews to dally with.

Achieving those goals is the fantasy that keeps the Jewish leaders ticking. But how do they exploit the fantasy and make it work to their advantage? You get a sense of that when you read the Benny Avni article. In fact, he expresses his sentiment clearly in the opening sentence. Here it is: “Escalating hostility among Gulf countries can be an opportunity for America”.

It must be noted, however, that when a Jew writes an article, he does not think America. He would have the word “Israel” strewn all over the page as if to say “this is what's good for Israel.” When he is done writing the article, he goes over it and writes the word “America” where there is “Israel” to hide his intention. Thus, what Avni really meant by that passage is this: Gulf hostilities can be an opportunity for Israel.

He doesn't know how exactly things will unfold, but he knows this: “Arabs have never been good at unity. For decades, enmities between the region's potentates and strongmen were hidden behind a veneer of 'unity' over opposition to Israel … Arab leaders have realized they had bigger problems than the Jewish state … A unified Sunni Arab front could possibly lead to public Arab-Israeli ties”.

These people can only think of Israel, always Israel and no one but Israel.

Zakaria knows very little of Mideast Issues

Fareed Zakaria wrote: “Trump didn't know the Middle East could be so complicated,” an article that was published on June 9, 2017 in the Washington Post.

I do not watch Zakaria's CNN show or read his Washington Post articles all the time but when I do, I'd say he does a reasonably good job except when it comes to Mideast issues. This is when he falls into the trap of pretending to know foreign policy because he is a foreigner, but does no more than peddle the prevailing common wisdom.

In that regard, he sounds okay when discussing Europe, Asia, Latin America or sub-Saharan Africa because there is no concerted effort by anyone to distort the realities of these regions. The common wisdom can be wrong at times because of collective ignorance, and not because of deliberate mischief. Thus, if someone does their research well, they can put together a reasonable piece.

The problem will manifest itself if you're not astute enough to realize that the prevailing wisdom on the Middle East is a gigantic fraud painting a situation that was distorted and mutilated for half a century by the Jewish noise and propaganda machine. Thus, when someone like Fareed Zakaria says, “trust me when I discuss policy issues regarding the Middle East because I'm a foreigner,” say “no way.” Treat his assertion like a general practitioner who says: trust me I can do brain surgery on you because I'm a doctor.

Zakaria begins his article by opining that President Trump has failed in his mission to the Middle East because a few days after his return, the terrorists struck in Europe and the Middle East. Also, the Arab countries started to feud among themselves. These were two situations that Trump was supposed to have addressed successfully, says Zakaria but did not. How shallow and simplistic that is! And yet, he asks: “What is going on?” and he answers the question with apparent confidence.

First of all, it takes time to prepare and execute terrorist acts such as we saw lately. Thus, they could not have happened in response to Trump's visit to the Middle East, and they could not have been prevented if he were a magician performing miracles. As to the feud among the Arab countries, the reason behind it is of the kind that's understood instinctively if not intellectually, but seldom mentioned publicly. Why? Because it would be too embarrassing. Simply put, the reason is rivalry – call it sibling rivalry – among the Arab countries. It is usually initiated and maintained by the smaller countries, especially if they are of the “nouveaux riches” kind. What they want is to be the go-to authority America will want to consult regarding all Arab matters.

Discussing the relationship between Saudi Arabia and Qatar, Zakaria misses that point entirely. To understand how and why, it must be said that the Arabs have a view of the United States (fair or unfair) that is not flattering. Because they see America tear itself apart to please Israel, the crackpots among the Arab leaders believe they can get America to do the same for them if they flatter it enough by pretending to love it or love its friends, or by pretending to hate its enemies.

What crackpots such as Saddam's Iraq, and now Qatar miss, is that Israel has a fifth column in America, controlling the important media outlets and a formidable carrot-and-stick machinery, both of which bribe those who get in line, and punish those who refuse to toe the line … this includes Zakaria's CNN. The reality is that America's elites of any kind respond ten times more readily to this sort of clout than to a Saddam attacking Iran, for example, or Al Jazeera of Qatar attacking the “undemocratic” Arab regimes.

Most of the bigger countries, especially Saudi Arabia and Egypt (even non Arab Iran and Turkey) wish America would stop enabling every adolescent gadfly that pokes the ribs of his neighbors, no matter how unsavory the latter may be. The day that Fareed Zakaria will understand these realities and factor them into his analysis, is the day he'll be ten times better than he is today.

Had he known this much before writing his article, he would have sensed that the days of nouveau riche Qatar playing the role of gadfly were coming to an end – not because “Trump gave a green light to the Saudis to pursue their increasingly aggressive, sectarian foreign policy,” like he says – but because Trump turned off the green light that America was flashing in Qatar's face since before the advent of Donald Trump.

There are two more things that Zakaria needs to understand. First, the sibling rivalry among the Arabs extends beyond the immediate Arab family, and has become a rivalry among the Muslim cousins as well, especially the bigger ones such as Iran and Turkey.

Second, Egypt was thrust into the game in Nasser's era not because he wanted to play, but because there were no nouveaux riches to challenge him at the time. He thus became the de facto leader of the Arab world, if only by default.

When Sadat followed Nasser, he relished being wooed by the international media; and this drew the ire of the Egyptian people who told him they want an Egypt leader, not a world leader.

Mubarak followed Sadat and played the quiet role so well, the people saw him as being too lax with the foreigners who began to interfere in Egyptian affairs. And they did not like it.

The people of Egypt now have Sisi who seems to embody the qualities they liked in Nasser with a little of Sadat's daring do. It remains to be seen for how long they'll embrace this combination.

Third Rate Novel telling a massive Lie

I write this article in response to the one that Ronen Bergman wrote under the title: “How the K.G.B. Started the War That Changed the Middle East,” published on June 8, 2017 in the New York Times.

The story he is telling is about Russian (then Soviet) fabrication of fake news. Honestly, I have no way of telling what the Russians were doing when they were in a Union of Soviets. But I can tell that Bergman's article is a prime example of Jewish fake news and mutilation of history because of the other evidence he neglected to hide. Let me first tell what came to mind when I read his piece.

Living in Toronto in the late 1960s and during the 1970s, I bumped into an old professor of mine who had just moved into the neighborhood. He was teaching a course called science and society which I enjoyed very much. He asked me what I was doing now, and I said I was working, still taking night courses and just beginning to write science fiction stories. He said he assigned a new book for the class. It is meant to show the students how not to write science fiction, he said, and gave me a copy.

It was a novel written by an Israeli. I don't remember his name or the title of the book. I don't remember the plot of the novel either because there was nothing memorable about it. The action (if you can call it that) was about horrible murderous cars with minds of their own, bent on destroying the world of humanity. As horribly boring as it was, the message of the story was unmistakable.

It was urging the end to America's dependence on Arab oil so that Israel may feel safe. This can only happen, according to the story, when cars will be banished as a mode of transportation. In fact, this kind of agitation is what started the anti CO2 environmental movement which continues to this day. It took a life of its own, and keeps going despite the fact that the Jews started to love CO2 when a gas field was discovered in Israeli waters, and they started to fantasize about Israel becoming an “oil giant”.

All of that came to mind as I was reading what could be Ronen Bergman's outline for a novel. If that's his intention, the novel may just make it as a third rate work in the caliber of the story about killer cars. Whereas in the past, the cars were portrayed as villains bent on murdering the motorists who refuse to embrace other modes of transportation; now the Russians are portrayed as villains inheriting the old KGB method of producing fake news, and making full use of it.

You can tell this whole messy thing is a massive Jewish fraud and mutilation of history because Bergman takes the reader through a meandering journey that makes no sense. The current vogue being to attack Russia for putting out fake news, Bergman attempts to make it look like the Soviet Union was playing a game of fake news long ago, but unwittingly provoked the 1967 war. He is also saying, in the same breath, that the Soviets were desperately trying to prevent the war even though they were convinced that if it happened, Egypt, which was their ally at the time, would win it in two weeks.

And then, after going through the trouble of putting together a story that doesn't hold, Bergman does the very Jewish thing of shooting himself in the foot trying to have it both ways. He does that while making this admission: “Amit (Israeli head of Mossad) understood from McNamara's response (American Secretary of Defense) that he had obtained a 'flashing green light' to launch a pre-emptive attack. It came on June 5.” This means that the culprit responsible for the 1967 war was not Russia but America.

A glaring clue revealing that Bergman consulted nothing that's pertinent to the era whose history he is writing, comes out clearly in this unforgivable passage: “American arms had won a knockout over the Soviets' weaponry and military doctrines.” But the fact is that, at the time, Israel had not yet received American weapons of any kind … and was using French weapons.

This is why no one in his right mind speaks about a contest between the various weapon systems, given that the Israeli attack surprised the Egyptians and destroyed their air force on the ground before there was any contest. That reality makes Bergman's false assertion look like shooting someone asleep in his bed and boasting: “my gun is better than your gun”.

Another monstrous falsehood told by Bergman actually stands on several legs. It is this: “In April 1967, as the U.S. was making gains in Vietnam, the Soviets decided to undertake dramatic Active Measures to weaken Israel – and thereby also deal a blow to the Americans”.

The truth, however, is that at the time, the Americans had completely lost the ability to plug the routes that were used by the North Vietnamese to infiltrate the South and resupply the Vietcong. The situation was so dire, the so-called Pentagon Speak reached its apogee describing a rosy situation that was contrary to what the international media was observing and reporting on.

In fact, it all came to an explosive confrontation several months later when the well supplied Vietcong combined forces with the North Vietnamese and started the Tet Offensive that presaged the ultimate American defeat.

No. It wasn't the Soviets who put out fake news; it was the Americans. The Jews are now mutilating that same history because they see it as a way to continue fooling the Congressional zombies, and getting them to send more cash to Israel by milking an American cash cow that's running out of milk.

New Narrative to suck more U.S. Blood

Astute observers, who are interested in the discourse that the mob of Jewish pundits has been spewing for half a century, must have noticed that the discourse has changed a bit lately.

As if on cue from a central command and control center, all pundits have ceased to say that in 1967 the Arabs were the ones to attack Israel. Proven to be in error time and time again, they changed the narrative to now say that the Arabs were only preparing to attack Israel and so, Israel launched a preemptive strike on them. This is not entirely true either, but it’s an improvement on the old.

The trouble, however, is that none of the pundits has explained why the Egyptians who were supposedly preparing to attack Israel left their air force on the ground to be attacked and destroyed by Israel. Maybe next year the Jewish lie factory will have come up with a new version to explain that puzzle.

Meanwhile, each pundit was left to his imagination to fabricate a reason as to why Israel attacked – not only to blunt the pending Arab attack – but to occupy Arab territory and maintain it … till it was kicked out most of them over the next six years. Clifford D. May is one of those who found himself in a quandary, having to fabricate a reason. He put together a tenuous one, and discussed it in an article under the title: “The Six-Day War and the 50-year occupation” and the subtitle: “The war and the motive behind it caused the occupation – not the other way around.” It was published on June 6, 2017 in The Washington Times.

To make his point, Clifford May has relied on two cartoons to tell a story that's too complicated to be told so casually. Nevertheless, he tells of one cartoon that came in a Lebanese newspaper at a time when Lebanon was not a party to the 1967 attack but had other issues with Israel. The other cartoon, says Clifford May, came in an Egyptian newspaper, but this one too is highly suspect and should be taken with a grain of salt.

Describing the Lebanese cartoon, Clifford May says it showed a Jewish figure standing on a ship with eight cannons pointing at him. Well anyone that knows the history of the region knows this was not the only cartoon to appear in Lebanese newspapers given that Israel had been trying to divert Lebanon's fresh water streams, with skirmishes erupting between the two all the time. In fact, it was not long before those events that Israel had bombed Bayreuth's airport … the reason why Charles de Gaulle imposed a French arms embargo on Israel.

As to the cartoon in the Egyptian newspaper, Clifford May says that three days after the start of the Israeli attack, a cartoon appeared showing “three intertwined serpents – one with an American flag, one with a British flag and one with the Star of David. A bayonet is being plunged into the Israeli snake”.

What’s unusual about this representation is the omission of France and the inclusion of America. The fact is that the Egyptians never forgot the 1956 tripartite attack on the Suez Canal, conducted by Britain, France and Israel. Normally, the cartoons of the time would show the flags of those three countries. But noting that the colors of the French flag are blue, white and red – the same as the American – it could be that someone got confused and mistook one for the other. But there is also the possibility that the switch was done deliberately to signal that America had replaced France in teaming up with the other two to hurt Egypt.

Whatever the reason, Clifford May takes it from there and assigns motivations to Egypt's President Nasser. What he says in essence, is that the two cartoons prove that President Nasser of Egypt was preparing to destroy Israel despite the fact that he left his air force on the ground for Israel to destroy. Go figure.

Still, it could be that a few brain cells have continued to function in Clifford May's skull for him to have reasoned that those arguments will not convince anyone. And so, he tried to reinforce them by doing the very Jewish thing of lying and mutilating history. To this end, he invented this story: “Nasser stated candidly: our aim will be the destruction of Israel.” A damned falsehood.

Let me tell you something, my friend. That statement is as true as saying it was the Jews who gassed and incinerated the Nazis. No. Nobody. Not even the Jews would want to gas or incinerate the Nazis because the Nazis are not in the habit of lying or mutilating history.

And neither are they in the business of living the parasitic life off America or anyone else.