To Change A Mindset That Refuses To Evolve

If you ever thought there is no harm in mouthing off a few words to keep the Jewish leaders happy and off your back, the examples that follow will make you think twice before you say yes to people whose malicious intent has now been revealed to be deadly. These leaders approach honest people like you and ask them to utter this harmless thing or express that noble sentiment but mean to accomplish evil things based on what you utter.

In a moment, you will see how a word, a thought or an expression can be made to haunt you in ways you never expected. And you will see that someone you never heard of before or someone you will never hear of in the future, can be made to pay for what you say today. Those who approach you and ask that you say this or that abuse the gift of speech not to free the human spirit but to bind people like you to an agenda they prepare years or even decades ahead of time so as to achieve purposes that would horrify you if only you knew.

The first example is that of an article written by Michael Oren who is Israel's ambassador to the United States. It is titled: “What happened to Israel's Reputation?” and has the subtitle: “How in 40 years the Jewish state went from inspiring underdog to supposed oppressor.” It was published in the Wall Street Journal on May 15, 2012. Four days before that, on May 11, 2012, there was an article published in the National Review Online, written by Elliott Abrams under the title: “Obama, Carter, and the Missing Words on Iran.” It had the subtitle: “Our current president's rhetoric on Iran doesn't even stand up to Jimmy Carter's.”

What is remarkable about the Oren article is that it begins with a lengthy quotation from a piece that was written in Life magazine in 1973. In fact, it was more than a piece; it was an event that Oren describes like this: “In a 92-page special issue 'The Spirit of Israel,' the magazine extolled the Jewish state...” He then goes on to tell how Israel was viewed then as opposed to how it is viewed today. And what is remarkable about the Elliott Abrams article is that he compares the saying of President Crater when he was President with the saying of President Obama, now that he is President.

What is astonishing about the two articles is that instead of learning something from the change they see and so aptly describe, the two authors fail to draw the proper conclusions. You look closely and you discover that such is the case because these people suffer from a mindset that does not allow for the evolution of thought. They remain frozen in biblical times which is the reason why Jews have suffered throughout history and will continue to suffer till we help them change.

With nostalgia he cannot restrain, Oren tells of the way that the magazine described Jewish Israel: “enlightened, robustly democratic and hip, a land of 'astonishing achievements.'” Juxtaposed with this comes the writings of the editor of the magazine who said this about the Arabs/Palestinians: “'The Arabs' bloodthirsty threats' … 'Arab terrorist attacks' … The word 'Palestinian' scarcely appeared.” After listing a few more of the superlatives that were used to describe the Jews, and a few more of the denigrations that were hurled at the Arabs, Oren asks this question: “Would a mainstream magazine depict the Jewish state like this today...?”

He answers the question with one word: “Unlikely” but then elaborates by describing a few realities that exist on the ground: “Israel's brutal conduct in warfare and eroding democratic values – plus the Palestinians' plight and Israeli intransigence. The photographs would show … soldiers at checkpoints and religious radicals.” He then does something that tells you he is totally dissociated from reality. It is that he asks the question: Why has Israel's image deteriorated?” Hell, you exclaim to yourself, he just answered the question even before asking it. But this is not how he sees the matter as he goes on to elaborate: “After all, Israel today is more democratic … even more committed to peace.”

And you cannot help but ask yourself if this man is a mental case or what? He just belied the superlatives that were uttered in Life magazine while describing Israel, and thus hinted at the reasons why the Palestinians resisted the Jewish occupation of their motherland. If, as he says, Israel was worse then than it is today, and if what people see today has turned them against Israel, imagine how you would have felt if you were a Palestinian living under occupation. Yet, these were the people that the editor of Life magazine has described as bloodthirsty Arabs; an image that the Jewish propaganda machine in America has injected like moral syphilis into every aspect of the culture: from the news and the commentaries to the scenes of entertainment, to the laws and the politics of the land, and more ominously into a military that is supposed to protect the republic not implement an alien agenda.

And the man keeps amazing you with his absolute, infinite and total inability to see what is wrong with him, his mentality, his religion, his politics and everything he stands for both as an individual and a representative of the Jewish state he calls Israel. What he does to convince you of this is that he repeats the false old narrative about the situation in the Middle East, a narrative he keeps refuting -- not knowing what he is doing -- whenever he tries to have it both ways. It  is like someone saying: I deny doing this but I am sorry for what I did.

Look at this piece of nonsensical Jewish filth: “Few countries have fought with clearer justification, fewer still with greater restraint … Whereas Israelis in 1973 viewed the creation of a Palestinian state as a mortal threat, it is now the official policy of the Israeli government.” So you ask yourself: What the hell did the Jews expect the Palestinians to do between 1973 and now? Kiss and thank their oppressors for oppressing them? Thank them for maintaining the occupation? For describing them as bloodthirsty Arabs to the Americans who armed them, financed them and protected them in world forums and on the battlefields?

For several more paragraphs, he goes on to tell how bad Israel was then, and how good it is now. But he does this at the same time as he describes Israel and the Jews as being impeccable saints while describing the Palestinians as being entirely flawed demons. As if this were not enough, he astounds you with something that renders you so numb, you feel for a moment like floating in the zero gravity of outer space. Look at this passage: “In 1993, Israel recognized the Palestinian people ignored by Life magazine.” Did you get it, my friend? He blames the American magazine and by extension all of America not for what they did but for what the Jews have concocted and have injected onto the American scene: the crime against humanity that was the denial of the existence of a people called Palestinians.

Having done this, why not go all the way and blame the change of heart now taking place in America not on the fact that the people see the truth they were denied seeing before, but blame the change of heart on the “anti-Israel libels once consigned to hate groups becom[ing] media mainstay.” This done, why not stuff the list with more complaints, and mention the culprits who are responsible for it. In short, why not say this: “It burgeoned through the boycott of Israeli scholars, artists and athletes, and the embargo of Israeli products. It was perpetuated by journalists...”

And so you ask: Any sign of remorse or penitence? Nope. Instead, this is what he throws at you to end the dissertation: “Israel must confront … delegitimization … 'The Spirit of Israel' has not diminished … The state that Life once lionized lives even … today.” For a moment you wonder how America allowed itself to be imbued with the philosophy of these people and remain under their influence for this long. To gain insight as to how it could have happened, you go back and analyze the Elliott Abrams article.

You get a sense at the start of this article what is wrong with the thesis you are about to read because the author makes an assertion he neither explains nor elaborates but takes for granted that you will automatically agree with. Here it is: “American interests and allies in the Persian Gulf are threatened. What's needed is a clear and tough statement right from the top...” Even if you accept the notion that a threat exists, you still need to know how it is that a tough statement from the top will change things given that the more America escalates the rhetoric, the more the opponents in the Persian Gulf respond in kind.

As you continue to read, you realize that even if you had the explanation and the elaboration you seek, the thesis would remain nonsensical because it is stuffed with contradictions throughout. Look what the author writes: “...the president starts making speeches. What does he say? That depends on whether it's Jimmy Carter in 1980 or Barack Obama in 2012 … Carter was a lot tougher.” Thus, according to the thesis, Carter must have had better luck in 1980 but that's not what the author says. In fact, he says nothing about how well or how badly Carter has fared with his foreign policy. But after making comparisons throughout the article between the two presidents, he ends the dissertation like this: “...we are left longing for the comparative clarity and toughness of the Carter policy.”

But if the Carter rhetoric was tougher than the Obama rhetoric, and if nothing good came of it, why is it that Elliott Abrams and those like him insist that harsh rhetoric be used against everyone they call enemy which happens to be the whole world as they pick on one country after another? The answer is that they do not believe the rhetoric will scare the people who stand up to America. They insist on harsh rhetoric because it isolates America in the world, and this allows them to control the individuals at the top of the various American chains of command. This is how America has allowed itself to be imbued with the philosophy of these people and remain under their influence for this long.

After telling how weak Jimmy Carter was at the start of his presidency but then had a change of heart and a change of policy, Abrams makes this comparison between the two presidents: “...he stated ... the Carter Doctrine: 'Let our position be absolutely clear: An attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.' … President Obama's statements do not meet these standards.”

He goes on to describe the intellectual wrestling that President Obama lived through with regard to the Iran question then says this: “...Obama faces a world that is not what he had hoped for … But his rhetorical response has been markedly weaker than Carter's ... During Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu's March 2012 visit to the White House, Obama said the following...” And you stop here because you begin to get a sense that the thesis he is building is based on words that were spoken in a different context by people that were living under different circumstances. And he is trying to hold Obama's feet to the fire based on this rhetoric alone. He goes on and on and on doing more of the same till you have it up to here and your mind shuts down.

You start to draw your own conclusion which is this: Never say anything that these people can invoke at the wrong time or in the wrong place or for the wrong reason. Like children they will hang on to every word you say, and throw it back at you or at someone else if and when it will suit them to do so.

The best way to deal with these people and prevent them from provoking the pogroms and holocausts such as they suffered during the time that they lived in the West, is to treat them the way that the Arabs have treated them and kept them out of trouble. It is never to allow them to throw nonsense at you without you telling them off. This is how you help these people change their mindset and live like normal human beings.

Wishful Thinking Of A Nutty Psychiatrist

When someone hears voices, he knows it is time to go see a psychiatrist and have his head examined. When the psychiatrist says he hears echoes from the past, the possibility is that he needs to have his head examined or that he is playing reverse psychology. To choose from among these two possibilities is what preoccupies you when you look into the latest creation of Charles Krauthammer who used to be a psychiatrist but is now writing a syndicated column. The latest that he wrote comes under the title: “Echoes of '67: Israel Unites” and the subtitle: “The country is ready militarily – and now politically – for an attack on Iran.” It was published on May 11, 2012 in the National Review Online.

The author writes about the decision of Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to scrap a plan that calls for an early election he devised a few days earlier. The scrapping was done in exchange for inviting the opposition Kadima party to join him in a coalition national unity government. In the article, Krauthammer argues that what happened here -- in May of 2012 -- parallels what happened in May of 1967. And so, he regards the Netanyahu move as being a prelude to attacking Iran, an echo of what Israel did when it attacked its neighbors long ago. It is that when it comes to anniversaries, Jews are a superstitious lot; when the Jew is also a former psychiatrist, the superstition becomes almost like a wishful thinking.

But given that there was a claim concerning a time-specific window after which it would be impossible to attack Iran, and given that the window has almost closed, it would be absurd to think that Netanyahu is planning to attack Iran in the first week of June as did Israel 45 years ago. And to say that he is planning such a move in partnership with the man who was opposed to it even when the window was wide open should sound like an illogical proposition even to a former psychiatrist. Thus, we must conclude that yes, Krauthammer could be nuts and in need of someone to examine his head, but he could also be playing reverse psychology with us, his readers. Whatever the case may be, however, let us not be angry with him for trying to fool us because he has performed a valuable service not knowing what he just did.

You see, my friend, it used to be that the Jewish leaders together with their writers, talking heads, septic tank thinkers and the like would paint full-scale landscapes of lies complete with an ocean of falsehoods flanked by hills and mountains of half-truths, and protected from above by massive clouds of pure deception. They did this to have things done their way, and they managed the whole operation without someone daring to push back against anything they said or anything they did. By the time someone had discovered that the entire sordid mess was a lie from top to bottom, from east to west and from north to south, things would have gone very far in the direction that was planned for them. Thus, no one bothered to do anything to reverse what was clearly wrong and visibly false. And the Jews almost always had it their way.

But things have changed for the better in the sense that there is now some push back -- however little that may be -- against the Jewish claims. The problem, however, is that people have forgotten what used to be said, or they never looked at history with the critical eye that it deserves. Enter someone like Charles Krauthammer who causes the past to blast on the scene, a happening that gives us the opportunity to examine the dubious past with the critical eye of today. And this is why we should not be angry with him but be happy for his nuttiness, and wish not that his head be examined – well, at least not for now.

Let us see what he says. He packs more than half a dozen assertions in the first paragraph of the column, all of which are either false or deceptive or meaningless while much else that is true, informative and meaningful is omitted. For example, he asserts that Egypt ordered U.N. peacekeepers out of the Sinai in May of 1967 “in brazen violation of previous truce agreements.” This is false because the agreements provided for the peacekeepers to vacate on a simple request from Egypt. In fact, the reason why this provision was inserted in the agreement is that the peacekeepers were supposed to have been deployed on both sides of the border following the tripartite invasion of the Sinai by Britain, France and Israel eleven years earlier, in 1956. But, as it often happens, Israel reneged at the last minute on this part of the deal, and Egypt was given the right to tell the peacekeepers: Thank you but you must go now. And so it happened in 1967.

Krauthammer goes on to say that Egypt “marched 120,000 troops to the Israeli border.” This too is false. In fact, when the Israelis attacked, and the Egyptians were left without air power to protect their tank force and their armored vehicles, most of the tanks and the vehicles that were destroyed in the initial attack were destroyed in the Mitla Pass which is a mini canyon that is closer to the Egyptian border and the Suez Canal than it is to Israel. When the attack came, the troops that were stationed there may or may not have been ordered to move eastward but they were still a long way away from Israel and posing no threat to it.

Krauthammer also says that Egypt “blockaded Eilat ... signed a military pact with Jordan, and, together with Syria, pledged war for the final destruction of Israel.” He is here repeating the story that was given to the general public in America at the time even though the big diplomatic, military and journalistic honchos knew better. Moreover, several Israelis of those who participated in the planning of that war have since written memoirs in which they bragged about the way they schemed the whole thing to take advantage of the fact that Egypt was embroiled in its own Vietnam-like quagmire in Yemen. It had the bulk of its elite fighting force in that desolate nation and was in no position to repulse a Nazi style full-scale Israeli blitzkrieg.

What has also been revealed about this history is that Egypt was prompted to react by the activities of Israel along the borders of Lebanon, Syria and Jordan where the Jewish state was attempting to divert the streams of water away from the Arab countries, and make them flow into Israel. The Israelis had been doing this for years, but they were doing it in subtle ways and in small steps. This time, however, they did it in a big way, did it openly and did it provocatively. No one at the time understood why Israel was behaving in this manner but as it turned out, the theatrics were part of a scheme to force Egypt to act and thus fall into a trap set for it at a time when its military was bogged down in Yemen. Given that the peacekeepers had been in the Sinai for eleven years and had done nothing to bring peace to the region where a one-sided war was still raging while Egypt had its hands tied by an agreement it could revoke, Egypt did just that.

Revoking the agreement automatically meant that while the state of war between Egypt and Israel existed, the truce was maintained without the peacekeepers as it had been during the period between 1948 and 1956. The departure of the peacekeepers from the Sinai also meant that Egypt had the right to intercept ships bound for Israel and search them but the Israelis never tested this possibility. In fact, it is generally accepted that the Egyptians were not going to do a thing in this matter because their aim was not to have a war; it was to get the Americans to restrain Israel. They talked to the Americans, and President Johnson dispatched someone to mediate between the various players in the region. But like the Japanese who launched a sneak attack on the American naval bases at Pear Harbor as the peace talks were about to begin between them and the Americans, so did the Israelis who launched a sneak attack on Egypt's air bases as the peace talks were about to begin. They copied the Nazis and they copied the Japanese. Who will they copy next? Joseph Kony?

Another indication that the Egyptians did not expect or contemplate a war, and that the Israelis knew it, was the fact that the Israelis attacked the Egyptian airbases at nine o'clock in the morning when such attacks are usually carried out at dawn. The significance of this is that when you expect a war, you do not land your retaliatory airplanes then get the next batch up in the air. What you do is get the next batch up before you land the one that is up there. Yet, what the Egyptians had been doing every day during the standoff was that they landed the planes at nine o'clock (the end of their shift) before letting the next shift go up. Thus, there was a moment when all the planes were on the ground; and this was the precise moment that Israel attacked, inflicting severe damage to the Egyptian air force. Between this act and the situation in Yemen, Israel had nothing to fear contrary to the propaganda that the Jewish leaders were putting out at the time, and what Krauthammer wants us to believe even now.

But telling this history the way that he did gave him the opportunity to do something that the Jewish propaganda machine relies on heavily. It is to pick moments in history, exaggerate their importance and let the audience believe they were moments of glory that Israel can duplicate at will. To wit, beside the 1967 battle that started the six year war, there was the bombing of the Iraqi civilian nuclear power station and the bombing of the Syrian center for the irradiation of agricultural products. The first moment ended in the defeat of Israel, a war that forced the Americans to intervene and save it in 1973. The second prompted Saddam to attack Iran thus start a chain of events that made of Iran a superpower in the region. The third opened the door for Iran to get a strong footing inside Syria and elsewhere in the region. And so, it can be seen that instead of being a moment of glory, each Israeli action turned out in the long run to be a disastrous move for Israel and for America.

Despite all this, however, Krauthammer still wants to view the matter this way: “On June 5 [1967], Israel launched a preemptive strike … The Six-Day War is legend … on June 1, the ... opposition was … brought into the government, creating [a] national-unity coalition,” after which he concludes with this: “Forty-five years later … Netanyahu [brought] the main opposition party … into a national-unity government.” And you can see that he is here invoking a false moment of glory, a moment he says Israel can duplicate at will when it so decides which, he argues, will soon be the case. Or is it?

There is no credibility in any of that because Israel cannot launch a sneak attack on Iran the way it did on previous occasions given that its intention is known to everyone, including the Iranians. Thus, Israel's defeat will be as certain as it was when it did not have the advantage of surprise. This is what happened in the Sinai in 1973; what happened in the Eastern Golan, what happened in Gaza and what happened twice in Lebanon. You can be certain that Israel's defeat this time will come faster and will be more thorough than ever before. In fact, many highly placed military and intelligence Israelis sounded the alarm and warned Netanyahu not even to think about it. Sadly, however, what is happening is that instead of listening to those voices and doing what other writers have done which is to add his voice to theirs and tell Netanyahu to restrain himself, Krauthammer chose to attack the high ranking Israelis and badmouth them as if they were losers, not concerned citizens.

Those who counsel Netanyahu to seize the moment and go along with the position of his new coalition partner are optimistic enough to view his move as being a preparation to get serious about negotiating peace with the Palestinians. If they are correct, it means that Netanyahu will back off from his longstanding call to the Palestinians that they accept his continued rape of their motherland while negotiating what else they are prepared to offer him to appease his insatiable Jewish appetite to grab and grab, and then grab some more.

Opposed to the view of the optimists is that of Charles Krauthammer and others like him who would assert a half-truth then build on it a false theory. He says in his column that for two years Netanyahu has waited for Mahmoud Abbas to show up for negotiation but that “Abbas hasn't. And won't. Nothing will change on that front.” Left out of this affirmation is a condition to the effect that Netanyahu has always wanted to keep raping even as he negotiates. But in blaming the lack of negotiation on Abbas, the writer opens the door for rejecting the view that Netanyahu is serious about talking peace. This done, he expresses the opinion that Netanyahu must be preparing to attack Iran. Well, the month of June is only a few days away, and we'll see if his thinking is real or it is a wish.

Still, the columnist gives as evidence that: “Netanyahu forfeited September elections that would have given him four more years in power. He chose instead … 18 months during which … to stop Iran...” And this is where he unknowingly hints at something else going on inside his head. Given that the window of opportunity is almost closed, and 18 more months will not reopen it -- something he understands better than anyone – we are led to the following inevitable conclusion:

The psychiatrist most probably does not need to have his head examined. Instead, he will need to reexamine his method of using reverse psychology to deceive his readers.

They Only Reflect What America Has Become

On May 8, 2012, I came across two editorials on the subject of the military trials being held at Guantanamo. The first was of the Wall Street Journal, coming under the title: “The KSM Trial Spectacle” and the subtitle: “Is it too much for Eric Holder to defend these prosecutions?” The second was of the Washington Times, coming under the title: “The courtroom jihad” and the subtitle: “Islamist antics make a mockery of justice in 9/11 trial.” This was the day when the defendants were arraigned, and their courtroom behavior attracted much attention. You can be certain there were other opinion pieces on the same subject, and certain they were critical of the way that the arraignment proceeded.

But what was that all about? And why were so many observers surprised by what they saw? Well, it may be that because the defendants looked like grownups – which they are physically -- the observers were fooled into believing they were looking at adults. But the fact is that these are children who ceased to grow up mentally long ago given what they lived through. To understand their behavior, you need to imagine the police catching five rowdy young men who were playing a game of “catch me if you can” with the police. What you need to know is that it did not just happen that the men and the police (meaning America) came to play the game; it happened that they and the police had a long history together. And it was this history that prompted the men to develop contempt for the system which the police and the court have come to represent. Thus, you begin to understand that the behavior of the defendants only reflects the way that they see America through their juvenile eyes and through the experience that they had interacting with America.

The question to ask now is this: How much of what these men see about America is seen by the rest of the world. Let me tell you, my friend, if you realize how close the world view of America is to the view of these men, you would be horrified. It is that wise people have always said you earn the respect you deserve by the way you behave and the way you treat people. On the other hand, the ruffians have always said you earn the respect that you want by the way that you battle people and the way you rough them up. For a long time, America listened to its wise men and women, and was respected the world over. Then America started to listen to the ruffians that have infested it, and it lost the respect it earned. The result is the horrifying situation you saw in that courtroom and see around the world.

The ruffians have invaded superpower America, and their presence is felt in every corner and at every level of the Republic. Compared to America, they are small and powerless but like tiny Lilliputians, they encountered the giant that is Gulliver America while he was asleep. They managed to tie him down with strings but it must be said that unlike the work of fiction authored by Jonathan Swift, the reality of America today is that it is supplying the ruffians with the strings they use to keep it tied down, keep it paralyzed and keep it gridlocked. So you ask: Who are the ruffians and where did they come from?

It is no secret that the various groups who came to America from everywhere around the globe have from time to time asked that their adopted country intervene in matters concerning the country from which they originated. Such requests were of a short duration, limited in scope and clear in objective. The result has been that America responded in a way that helped the causes of these people while advancing its own interests. Thus began and ended America's involvement with every international conflict that has erupted during the Twentieth Century -- with one glaring exception. It is that there came a group of people calling themselves Jews who changed the rules of the game with respect to matters that deal with their agenda.

At first, these people looked like helpless Lilliputians but they turned out to be the sneaky ruffians that managed to tie down superpower America, mobilize it effectively, make it work exclusively for them and do so for a duration they promise will be unlimited, a scope they say is unbounded, and objectives that look as clear as their moral ambiguity. And the strings by which they tie down America are the use of the process of legislation, the law itself when it is enacted, and the way that the law is implemented. All these are procedures that the Jews manipulate and abuse; they are tools they use to freeze America's ability to act till they are certain the action will work for them, serve their interests and serve no one else.

You see all this at play in two articles. The first was written by Brett Schaefer under the title: “UNESCO: Not Exactly Indispensable” and the subtitle: “Contra Obama and the agency itself, there is no reason for the U.S. to keep funding it.” It was published in National Review Online on May 7, 2012. The second article is a column written by Clifford D. May under the title: “The Real Palestinian Refugee Problem” and the subtitle: “Most of them aren't really refugees. They're pawns.” It was published in the National Review Online on May 10, 2012.

The reason for writing his article, says Brett Schaefer, is that “Last Fall, UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, granted membership to the Palestinian Authority, which is not a state.” This being his motivation first and foremost, you expect that he will explain how and why the act of granting membership to a non state is serious enough a reason to cut off America's financial contribution to the Organization. But Schaefer did not have to explain this part because the funding had already been suspended due to a law that is on the books. What prompted him to write was that the Obama administration and UNESCO were pressing the Congress to repeal that law thus allow the funding to resume. And he is opposed to this idea.

To justify his position, he takes up the argument made by the administration and the Organization in favor of resuming the funding, and he refutes it point by point. The argument being of two parts -- one discussing the work done by the Organization, and the other discussing its role as a voice of moderation and integrity in the world -- he attacks the Organization on both fronts. There is no point rehashing those arguments given that they are there in print for everyone to see. Suffice it to say that Schaefer is not impressed with anything that UNESCO is doing except the work that relates to Holocaust education – but here too, he is not very enthused.

To mislead the readers in his presentation, the author ignores the fact that money is fungible which means that a shortfall to the funding of one program means a shortfall to general revenue, thus a shortfall to all programs. And so, he argues that it will be just fine to stop America's contribution to UNESCO because the programs it implements -- such as literacy in Afghanistan and the tsunami-warning systems -- are “not vital and in some cases minimal.” They can be tossed out the window, he says, while the Holocaust program can be funded by Israel alone. What he does not realize is that when ordinary human beings of any race, religion or color of the skin read paragraph after paragraph where everything is denigrated except the Jewish causes -- chief among them the Holocaust -- people tend to exclaim: the hell with the Holocaust, spread literacy in Afghanistan and keep installing those tsunami-warning systems! People that died seventy years ago are no more worthy than people dying today or may die tomorrow.

As to the UNESCO being a voice of moderation and integrity, Schaefer surpasses himself when it comes to the denigration of the world, which he does at the same time as he dignifies Israel and all the Jewish causes. He begins that part of the argument by saying this: “the organization and its executive board have exhibited repeated lapses in judgment.” From here on, it is open season on everyone where in paragraph after paragraph, he ignores the murderous rampage that Israel has been on since its inception but attacks everyone else for not being perfect. And he vehemently attacks the Organization for acknowledging the little things that people he does not like happen to do right. Here too, ordinary human beings of every race, religion and color of the skin tend to exclaim: the hell with Israel and the Jewish causes, tell us more about the beautiful people that live in Africa, Arabia, Asia and Latin America; tell us what they do that is right in their homes and their palaces; what they do in their churches, their mosques and their temples.

We now come to the Clifford May column. He begins it by doing something that is very much a Jewish habit. It is that he sets the stage in such a way as to draw a false analogy that will be hard to detect by someone not familiar with what is at stake in the matter he discusses. And so, speaking of what used to be the Indian Subcontinent, he says this: “[it] was partitioned into two … nations. One of them would have a Hindu majority, the other a Muslim majority … Muslims moved to the territory that became Pakistan … Hindus and Sikhs moved to India.” He then says that the same thing should have happened to Palestine where Jews moved to what is now Israel but where many Palestinians are still classified as refugees; a big problem according to him. This done, he argues for cutting American funding to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) which he says is wholly responsible for this problem.

Whoa! Get a hold of this, my friend. This part fits with the subtitle of the article: “Most of them aren't really refugees. They're pawns.” Until now, this sentence was used to defame the leaders of the Arab countries who were accused by the likes of Clifford May for “using the Palestinian refugees as pawns.” Now here he comes; a quintessential mutilator of history reversing himself and basically saying this: Forget that old history; it is not serving our purpose anymore. We now decree that the real culprit using the Palestinian refugees as pawns is UNRWA and not the Arab leaders. And the reason for the change of heart; for the change of mind and the change of hat is that it suits us better to have the agency defunded than badmouth the Arab leaders. We did so for many decades but only managed to make people the world over view us, Jews as obnoxious stinkers. We want to stink no more -- obnoxious being all that we can live with at this time.

Thus, Clifford May starts a new argument that sets the legal, moral and humanitarian reasons why UNRWA must be hated and defunded. The aim of the argument is to demolish the tons of arguments that the Jewish propaganda machine has piled up over the decades to blame the Arabs for the criminal behavior of the Israelis. And when this is done, he and those like him will want you to start blaming the United Nation agency. But a liar is a liar is a liar, and having bathed us in a sea of lies, no one has the stomach to believe what Clifford May or anyone like him have to say now or ever again. No one, that is, except a couple of Congressional morons in the American Federal legislature.

What these morons seem to have done is buy the false analogy that was discussed earlier. They did so instead of recognizing what happened in the Indian subcontinent as being analogous to say, Belgium breaking up and each citizen going to the part of the country they feel most comfortable with. This is also something that could happen here in Canada where the Province of Quebec may choose to separate in which case the francophone individuals who live in the English provinces may choose to go live there, while the reverse migration may also take place.

What you will not see happen is people being bombed or machine-gunned out of their homes in Belgium or in Quebec – as it happened in Palestine -- in favor of airlifting hoards from places like Russia and Ethiopia to occupy the land and the homes thus abandoned by those who sought refuge somewhere else not because they like being refugees but because they had no other choice. And the question to ask is this: In the same way that the Muslims and the Hindus swapped places in India, will the Congressional morons now lobby Russia and Ethiopia to take in the Palestinian refugees? This would be the sort of thing that a moron would contemplate but don't hold your breath as to what the answer from Russia or Ethiopia will be.

What the Schaefer and May articles tell the world is the sordid story that has been trickling out quietly for several decades now; a story to the effect that America has become a private toilet and a urinal reserved exclusively for any Jewish leader that has a leak or a dump he wants to get rid of. These leaders are given the exclusive right to freeze the Congress and gridlock it till it massages them and relieves them of the stinking causes they go to dispense of in the toilet bowl they call Congress of the United States. It is in there that the Jewish leaders are given the right to do anything they want such as play with the rules and the procedures to advance their causes at the expense of the American people; to the detriment of the whole civilized world.

This is what the Guantanamo detainees have detected as did the rest of the world. Their case is especially acute because they are the people who, as children, were recruited to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan under the leadership of America that was then posing as the policeman of the world. These kids who never grew up since that experience were instructed to wear their religiosity on their sleeve and fight like the dickens in the name of Allah. In exchange for doing this, they were promised great rewards by the policeman when the Soviet bandits will have been defeated.

The kids fought till victory but then America was taken over by the Jewish organizations that made it start a war against their religion; the one they were told to wear on their sleeve and fight alongside America. This was the treacherous act – the one committed by a policeman they had come to trust -- that made them so cynical. They developed a big dose of contempt for what America has become, and they expressed that contempt during the court procedures on the day of their arraignment. Blame them if you want but then look in the mirror and spit in your own faces.

The rest of the world is now watching with amazement to see how much more people like Brett Schaefer, Clifford May and others will succeed at isolating America from the United Nations and the world, thus turn the superpower into an even more exclusive Jewish toilet bowl and urinal.

The New York Times Is Laying Eggs

If you want to know how the Jewish noise and spin machine works, read the series of columns that Thomas Friedman of the New York Times wrote on the Arab countries. As of now, the last column was published on May 9, 2012 (today) under the title: “Jobs[at]Arabia.com” It is about a business park in Amman, Jordan where start-up high-tech companies are nurtured. It is a good column but for the way it begins – especially that it comes after a number of bad columns in the series. In fact, this is how this last column begins: “Fortunately, there is another Arab Spring going on alongside the drama in the streets of Cairo and Damascus.” The column preceding it was published on May 6, 2012, under the title: “Lead, Follow or Get Out of the Way” It was about the absence of leaders that Friedman says could have pulled the Arab countries out of their rut.

You clearly see in the first sentence of the May 9 column that the writer draws a contrast between the new Arab Spring which he associates with Amman, and the old Arab Spring which he calls “drama in the streets,” and he associates with both Cairo and Damascus. To someone who knows little about the Arabs, it sounds like there is nothing in their countries but that one business park in Amman. To those who know better, it sounds like someone went to a chicken farm, saw no chicken, roosters or chicks, and came back with one measly egg. Did Friedman neglect to see if there is something else in the Arab world? Or was this a deliberate act on his part to mislead his readers?

Those who know what goes on inside the Jewish noise and spin machine will tell you that his trip to the Arab world was planned on April 25, 2012. This was the day that the website CNN Money published an article under the title: “Inside Egypt's bustling start-up scene.” and the subtitle: “Despite the economic uncertainty and social unrest in Egypt, tech start-up investors are finding plenty of promising options.” It was written by Christopher M. Schroeder who is an American entrepreneur and investor. His description of what he saw in Egypt says that  Friedman only saw a drop in the bucket of the Arab high-tech parks; only one egg in the entire chicken farm. But try to imagine the panic that hit the people inside the Jewish noise and spin machine when they read the Schroeder article, and try to imagine the frantic phone calls they made to Tom Friedman and to others like him urging them to look for and find ways that will mitigate (or in Jewish parlance, balance out) the positive piece on Egypt. They must have looked like chicken running around with their heads cut off. It must have been a pitiful spectacle.

To better understand the workings of the Jewish noise and spin machine, we analyze the May 6 column. Friedman begins it by describing as being a “huge volcanic political eruption” what he calls the “post-Awakening Arab world,” and he claims that not enough leaders have emerged from all this. Okay, you say, let's assume this to be true, so what? And he tells you so what. He says he wants to see men and women who will tell their people the “truth [that is] required to get their societies moving forward again.” Hmm, you say and you scratch your head as if to stimulate a thought that would end your puzzlement. It is that you always thought if and when people wake up and cause a huge volcanic eruption, it means they already know the truth about themselves, so much so that they do not need a little fart from America to come and tell them about it.

Oh no, says he without actually saying it, I am not a little fart from America, I am juggernaut Thomas L. Friedman, columnist for the New York Times. In fact, he writes that he even discussed the problem with his Arab friends. He does not say what their reaction was, and he does not mention them again in the rest of the column. But he assures us that he was quick to note to them: “...my own country – not to mention Europe – has a similar problem.” You see, my friend, this is a guy that believes the whole world is missing something because nobody is telling it the truth – the truth that only he and no one else knows.

He elaborates on the theme by asserting that while there is a global leadership vacuum, it is particularly problematic in the Arab world today -- this being a critical juncture for it. He then blows in your face a typical friedmanite fart that stinks so badly, it takes you a while before you realize what he just did. Here is how he does that: “Every … awakening … needs to … transition from Saddam to Jefferson without getting stuck in Khomeini.” What? What is this thing he calls Saddam? Is it a chicken salami of some sort? And that Jefferson thing? Is it a motorbike like the Harley? And the Khomeini one; could it be a chicken dish stuffed with rice or something? This guy has the habit of throwing smart aleck remarks that do not inform or entertain but simply distract.

Now he gets serious enough to tell you why “the Arab awakening produced so few leaders.” There are technical reasons, he says, but there are also “deeper factors at work.” And speaking of depth, the absolute truth is that these societies are confronting a deep hole, he explains. So then, what do you do when you need to tell the people about a truth so deep they could never see it by themselves despite the fact that they woke up on their own and caused a huge volcanic eruption? Simple; you get them a Moses-like leader to preach to them from the mountaintop a sermon they will never forget.

And so, here comes T. L. Moses Friedman who ascends to the top of the mountain and delivers the holiest of sermons: “Who [but I] will tell the people how much time has been wasted? Who [but I] will tell the people that, for the last 50 years, most of the Arab regimes squandered their dictatorship moments. [Yes] dictatorship is not desirable, but at least East Asian dictatorships, such as South Korea and Taiwan, used their top-down authority to build dynamic export-led economies and to educate all their people – men and women. In the process [I assure you, my children that] they created huge middle classes whose new leaders midwifed their transitions from authoritarian rule to democracy. [By contrast,] Arab dictatorships did no such thing. [Instead,] they used their authority to enrich a small class and to distract the masses with 'shiny objects' – called Israel, Iran and Nasserism to name a few.” And this is where you come out of your snooze and yell: What? Shiny Israel? Shiny Iran? An object called Nasserism? What's that? Did he finally get to see a rooster in the chicken farm?

And you go on yelling: “What the hell is this self-styled dumbo/Moses talking about?” You do a little research and discover that there was a time when a debate had probed the reasons why South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong industrialized as rapidly as they did. The conclusion arrived at was that America and Britain invested in them enormous amounts to show to the communist Chinese, the North Koreans and the Soviets that Capitalism was better than Communism. To get there, they enriched a small class of tycoons that make the rich in the Arab oil-poor countries look like paupers, and make the rich in the oil-rich countries look like wannabe moguls on their way there but not yet there. And so, you ask, what was the role of Friedman in that debate? And the answer is zilch, zero, nada, zip, goose egg. In fact, while the debate was raging, he ran around yelling his own yell: The earth is flat, the oil is bad. High-tech is hot; the earth is hotter.

And this is where you wonder if he is preaching to the Arabs or preaching to us here. Reading further down the column, and giving the matter more serious thought, you conclude that being an important part of the Jewish noise and spin machine, he is talking to us here. What he is doing is implement a program of continuing education aimed at transforming the North American population into mindless human drones who live and die for the sole purpose of serving Israel and the other Jewish causes to the exclusion of everything and everyone else.

But what is he trying to “educate” us about? Not surprisingly, it is the same old propaganda of distortion and demagoguery; it is a package of things like: “Now … Islamist parties are trying to fill the void … Egypt and Tunisia … need loans.” And he goes on to say the things that show how little he knows about the debates now raging in the Arab world. In the same way that he missed the important debates in North America in favor of championing such Jewish causes as the threat of global warming and the evil of the oil companies, he remains deaf to the avalanche of ideas that emanate at this time from the Arab Revolution.

In fact, it is clear that he is oblivious of the debates which are now raging in the Arab world where they tackle subjects like governance in an age when the Left and the Right are seen to crumble under their own weight; the balance to aim for in education between the hard sciences and the humanities; the sort of economy that will ensure organic growth yet make room for innovation; the shape of a social safety net that will help the needy without encouraging the greedy; and so on, and so on, and so on. But to give us the impression that he is participating in the Arab debate over there, Friedman says this to us over here: “Islam is … not the answer … Math is.” What a joker wasting precious time and expensive space!

As if this were not enough, he takes advantage of the fact that he has rendered you giddy to sneak up on you and mug you. Look what he says: “Who will tell young Arabs that they have as much talent as young people anywhere?” Say that again, Tom. Are you saying that young Arabs need someone to tell them they have talent? Are you volunteering to do them this favor? Are you nuts or something? But he does not stop here; he goes on to tell us this: “Look at the worldwide trend their uprisings sparked.” Yes, we looked and we know what they have known for a long time which is that America needs a better press to help it create a better political system that will not waste time spinning every piece of news to serve Israel and the Jewish causes to the exclusion of everything and everyone else. At a time when America needs all its talent and all its energy to heal itself, the nation is being mobilized by the power of demagoguery so as to see but one foreign entity and serve it with utmost devotion. What a crime!

It is time for Thomas Friedman to get out of the way because he is doing America more harm than good. It is time for the New York Times to stop becoming worse than the rag it is now -- a toilet paper.

Incitement To Wage A Never Ending War

Clifford May has another article in the National Review Online. It was published on May 3, 2012 in a series I call: The Jewish American incitement to hate and to wage war. The article has the title: “The Foggiest War” and the subtitle: “We don't know the enemy. What's more: We don't want to.” May begins by telling the story of a Prussian military theorist who developed some kind of theory about a fog of war that envelops a fog of uncertainty whereby those who lead troops into battle lack what it takes to know whether they are winning or losing. And this, says May, causes them to take actions that weaken them and strengthen their enemies.

He makes it clear that this is an analogy to represent what he describes as: “a conflict so murky we can't even agree on its name.” He wonders if it is a war on terrorism, a long war, a war against al-Qaeda or just overseas contingency operations. He points out that the State Department and the White House disagree as to whether or not America is still pursuing al-Qaeda, and adds that this is the problem because it misses the point. In his view, al-Qaeda did not vanish with the death of Osama bin Laden; it is regrouping as a non-state actor in a number of places under its original name as well as other names.

He also mentions the state actors that have adopted views which are just as dangerous now, and will be more so in the future. He cites Iran as being the most significant example of a state that sponsors terrorism. But that's not all, says he, because what has come to be called “legitimate Islam” is also dangerous because even though its members do not embrace the means of the jihadis, they pursue the same ends. He predicts that because they sound moderate and act with moderation, such movements stand a good chance of being elected to power. The trouble is that once they get the power, they hang on to it and refuse to relinquish it as is the case in Iran despite the fact that the population there has become disenchanted with theocracy and wants to see change.

What worries Clifford May is that he believes we cannot escape the effect of what happens in that part of the world because it has the means to cross the ocean and spillover onto this Continent. He makes the point that even if the jihadis can no longer mount an operation that would be serious enough to endanger us, and even if we choose to deal with legitimate Islam at arms length, their influence will be felt here because our thinking has been befogged. Thus, we see that the author has painted a picture which is so comprehensive in its darkness and hopelessness, he leaves no possibility of a way out except through war. To his credit, however, he gives plenty of examples that illustrate every point he makes, and he discusses every one of them in depth.

But what is wrong with this? Well, what's wrong is that every age tends to construct a version of a debate that is comparable to the one sparked by the question: “How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?” This is a debate that the best minds in the Middle Ages spent endless days and nights hashing and rehashing in depth without ever getting somewhere. Why is that? Because the very premise of the debate was so absurd, the discussion could never go anywhere. The same applies to a modern day discussion whose premise is that the world must engage in an endless war. It is a concept worse than absurd; it is Jewish.

What should happen now is something similar to what happened then. It is that the great minds of the Middle Ages became tired of trying to determine how many angels can dance on the head of a pin; and so they used their skills to determine why they were so foolish as to waste time asking a baseless question in the first place. In this same vein, we must turn away from discussing the launch of an endless war, and discuss instead why someone has been advocating this sort of absurdity in the first place, and deal with this question rather than worry about the planning of an endless war; how to execute it and how to maintain it for ever.

Advocating an endless war is not a new phenomenon; it has been the main motivation behind the activities of Jewish leaders for nearly two thousand years. The Jews have often been accused of causing many of the wars that have plagued mankind since the beginning of time but they always denied the accusation and they always complained of being singled out. In turn, they accused their accusers of being antisemitic. They kept denying the charges and kept accusing their accusers till they could deny no more, and could never accuse again. It is that they had generated a mountain of evidence they could no longer hide or explain away.

Thus, in the absence of a better way to proceed with what they seek to accomplish, they now accuse the people who reject their warlike attitude of being antisemitic. They make this accusation not to deny that they are constantly inciting a war here and a war there (they are proud of this and they wear it like a badge of honor) but because some people do not accept them for what they are or what they do no matter how abhorrent that is. To them, being an obnoxious Jew is a natural state of being; one that is analogous to being a person of color. Thus, to reject this attitude is to commit the offense of discriminating against the Jews.

If we consider the mountain of evidence they have created as being made of stones, one stone in that mountain would be the incitement to war that Clifford May has packed in the article we are here discussing. What he is advocating is a war that is as futile as the one the Communists have waged against Capitalism and lost. But as they often do, the Jewish leaders have turned their coats, have shed their communist ideology to embrace Capitalism, and have gone after the Arabs and the Muslims. To do this, they allied themselves with what they call the West; a group of virtual nations that is supposedly headed by America. They pitted this group against the Arabs and the Muslims, and they turned the engine of hate and incitement to full power. The result has been that the repulsive history of Jewish self-inflicted agony has started the cycle of repeating itself once more.

The Communists lost to Capitalism because their aim was to conquer the world by the trick of badmouthing their opponents. They had bet on the old saying: If you kill everybody, you get to be king. But what happened was that the people who believed in the promise of Communism did so for only a short period of time. It is that the opponents had a weak side which the Communists exploited to the hilt. But when the people began to realize that having a weak side was a natural state of the human condition given that nobody is perfect, they started to have doubts about the Communist ideology.

On the other hand, when you constantly accuse someone of being bad, you imply that you are perfect. Thus, when the inevitable happens and the people you incite to hate others for being imperfect, see that you are less than perfect yourself, they grab the hatred you stuffed into them and they throw it back at you. As if hit by a boomerang, you become the victim of your own doing. Thus, to  preach hate and to incite war has forever been the boomerang that turned around and hit the Jews in the face. They are the eternal victims of their own doing; the miserable people who forever drag into their wretched existence those they convince to follow in their footsteps.

But how do they drag people into their sphere of influence? In fact, we have an example in the May article that shows how they do it. Look at this quote: “Iran's rulers do not think that their war against 'the world of arrogance' is over.” If you remember that Iran was once a close friend and ally of America and of Israel, you wonder what happened that made the Iranians undergo a change of heart, and view themselves as being at war against a world of arrogance that used to be their friend and ally. But you do not have to go too far to find the answer because all you need to do is look at the paragraph below the quote on Iran to see a quote on Egypt. When you consider that Egypt has been a friend and ally for more than three decades, you get to understand how the obnoxious Jew can turn a friend of America into an enemy.

Pretending to speak for all Americans, here is how Clifford May, the Jew has characterized the people he wants you to hate and fight: “As for the Muslim … Brothers [they] and the jihadis … sing from the same hymnal … Both believe in Islamic supremacy; both are committed to the establishment of Islamic hegemony over the Middle East ... and beyond; both seek the power to silence critics at home and abroad; both are engaged in persecuting religious minorities in 'Muslim lands'; both are committed to the destruction of Israel.” Now imagine what this kind of talk will do to the relationship between Egypt and America if and when enough people repeat it, and do so for a long period of time. In fact, this is what happened to America's friends in Iran and elsewhere when they refused to bow to Israeli demands or refused to genuflect to American Jews. And the aim of May and all others like him is that it happens with Egypt as well.

That sort of characterization was responded to on this website on previous occasions, and I shall not take them up all again this time. I shall only take up the subject of religious persecution because it keeps recurring in Jewish writings over and over. What I have to say is that I lived in Egypt as a teenager and a young adult for seven years, and I never felt discriminated against overtly or covertly because of my Christian faith or anything else. When I came to Canada, the people in the media where I tried to start a career assumed automatically that I was a Muslim and told me openly that I will have to write anti-Arab and anti-Muslim articles if I want to be published or I shall never be published. I told them off and they blacklisted me.

In the meantime, I did not completely distance myself from journalism but stayed close to it, even had a few successes. What I did most of the time was try to lead as normal a life as I could while studying the Jewish character and the Jewish methods because I had in mind to write a book one day that will tell future generations how to decipher the Jewish doings and avoid the calamity that the Jewish existence keeps inflicting on the human race. And in my study, I came upon the monumental effort that the Jewish organizations were making -- first alone and then in conspiracy with the Christian fundamentalists -- to start sectarian wars in Lebanon and in Egypt. The plan was to start the wars then call on the American Congress of low-life imbeciles to bankroll them till both sides in each war finish off each other. Apparently they believe that this would be a good thing for Israel; something I was never able to figure out why or how.

They had a limited success in Lebanon but they failed miserably in Egypt. However, there was one incident during last year's revolution when a fire was started in a church. It was put out quickly, and the church was repaired in a day or two. No one knows exactly what happened then but you keep reading about it here both in the Jewish and non-Jewish publications. The writing is done by people who use the incident to make you believe that they have succeeded at long last to start the sectarian war in Egypt for which they schemed so diligently; about which they dreamed for so long. It is the victory lap of the mentally challenged.

But let me tell you what this is, my friend. It is nothing less than the cannibalistic hunger of delirious Jews and that of their running dogs. You see, I was reading the other day about ordinary air travelers who crashed on top of a mountain range in South America and were forced to eat the dead bodies of their fellow passengers. Eventually, they ran out of food and started to turn delirious. When found by a search team, they were clutching a piece of bone and sucking on it in the belief that it was the only thing keeping them alive. They would not let go of it even in exchange for real food.

In that same way, those who talk about religious persecution in Egypt are delirious Jews and their screwed up friends clutching a piece of bone and sucking on it in the belief that a sectarian war will soon explode in Egypt, and get this now – deliver them from their miserable existence. It is that these people consider a wish to be a prayer, and they see a Moses-like Messiah come to help them with every plague they wish upon Egypt. It is absolute lunacy but a fact of life.

So you ask: How miserable has Jewish existence become? Well, look what Clifford May is lamenting about: “Last week, General Martin Dempsey … ordered all military schools to make sure they are not including 'anti-Islamic themes' in training courses. Dempsey's order prohibits … 'advocating ideas, beliefs an actions … disrespectful of the Islamic religion.'” This is the writing of someone who first complains about religion being treated badly then laments that someone has ordered that religion be treated well. It is absolute lunacy but a fact of life.

To the delirious mind of Clifford May, this is the fog of war that the Prussian military theorist has warned against. The remedy according to the Prussian is 'a fine, piercing mind.' to which May adds that “it also requires intellectual courage – something not often exhibited by Western leaders in the current era.”

This man, and all cannibalistic Jews in his condition, need to stop sucking on the bone of dead issues and start nourishing themselves with the wholesome food for thought they will find in publications they have not yet contaminated with their dead and decomposition ideas.

Between The Incitement And The Act

I have been reminded by a number of correspondents that the Likud Party was not asked to form the government in Israel until February of 2009 which means that Benjamin Netanyahu could not have ordered the attack on Gaza that came at the end of 2008. And yet, I said in my last posting that Netanyahu was the one who ordered the attack on Gaza that killed 1,300 Palestinians. Moreover, I failed to mention that the acting Prime Minister at the time was Tzipi Livni who had replaced Ehud Olmert at the helm of the Kadima Party.

All this is true when you look at it from the point of view of histrionics which I should have given weight to and considered in my presentation. But I neglected to do this because I was geared to the theatrics of the whole event more than the sequence of its parts. The way my thought process was geared at the time was that I concentrated on the ceasefire that was brokered by Egypt between Hamas and Israel earlier in 2008. It was accepted by Kadima but rejected by Netanyahu who was in opposition and had, in fact, refused to join the coalition government of Ms. Livni. He attacked the ceasefire vehemently in the Knesset, and to my mind, this was the incitement that led to the shooting war that came about later in the year.

Thus, to my mind, even though Benjamin Netanyahu may not have been legally responsible for the crime, he was behind it wholeheartedly thus morally responsible for it as much as anyone else. I understand that there is a warrant to arrest Ms. Livni in England for what happened during that war, but I believe that a few other people must also be given the same treatment. I should have thought of this while writing the article, and should have clarified what I meant. But I did not have the presence of mind to do so then and I recognize my failing.

I thank those who reminded me of these facts, and I hope that everyone else will forgive me for the confusion I created.

A Ship Of State As Ship Of Fools

In Israel, they talk about having an election in October of this year which would be a year ahead of schedule. If and when this happens, it will probably look like an ordinary exercise in democracy but will be something else in reality. What is important to know is that democracy in Israel is a tool they use on the world stage the way that smoke and mirrors are used in a Broadway show. It is to create the right kind of illusion at the right time to keep the fake narrative of Israel going. In fact, the current government came to power when it became clear to the leaders that America was going to have a new President who will need to be educated in the Judeo-Israeli ritual. This is a practice that is not much different from the ancient sacrifice of children to please the gods. In modern Israel it is the use of American weapons and ammunition to welcome a new American President with the blood of unarmed Palestinians, both children and older folks.

To make the theatrics look authentic, the leaders of Israel needed to remove the Kadima Party which had been in power for some time, and replace it with a Likud Party that was headed by the notorious addict to Palestinian blood -- Benjamin Netanyahu. That was then; what they have now is a situation that is somewhat similar where an election will take place in America in November of this year, an election that may result in a brand new situation. Depending on what happens in America, they will modulate the events in Israel to get the result that will suit the new circumstances while making the whole thing look like coincidence. The way things stand now in Israel is that the Jewish state has managed to make itself isolated from its neighbors and from the world like never before. It is that the people at the helm have behaved so strangely, the people below them have started to speak out. Thus, a conflict was created that needs to be resolved. The denouement of the play will be written depending on how the American campaign will unfold.

We have an indication as to how this may happen when we study the events of four years ago. The idea then was to remove Ehud Olmert from power and call an election that will bring the Likud Party to power. They created a side show to the effect that Olmert had committed a few criminal offenses in the past (no surprise here given that criminal behavior is the natural way of life in Israel) and they said he should call an election then resign and prepare himself to go to jail. Except for the jail part, it all happened as planned when Kadima under a new leader lost the election, and the Likud under Netanyahu won. His first act was to launch an attack on the unarmed people of Gaza and kill 1,300 innocent Palestinians in three weeks which, when scaled to the size of the American population comes to 300,000 dead Americans in three weeks. Thus, even before ascending to the helm of American power, the newly elected President had been baptized in the reality of Judeo-Israeli democracy with the blood of Palestinians being shed with the use of American weapons.

So then, what theatrics are they preparing to stage in Israel at this time? To search for an answer, we begin by noting that the people at the helm of an institution do sometimes lose touch with reality and begin to do such things as to imperil the institution itself and all those in it. In the majority of cases, the big institutions would have a protocol spelled out in their code of conduct by which the lower ranking personnel in the command hierarchy are authorized to take steps that mitigate or neutralize the negative effect of illegal orders issued by the person at the helm. If necessary, that person may even be relieved from command altogether. This can happen in a relatively small institution and it can happen at the national level.

Something close to that happened in America in the year 1973 when the secretary of defense issued a directive to the military instructing them to check with him before obeying an order that may come from the commander in chief. The secretary of defense at the time was James Schlesinger (a Jew), the commander in chief was President Richard Nixon and the occasion was the combination of two major events unfolding simultaneously. At home, there was a Watergate affair raging in the media and in the Congress. Abroad, there was a full scale war raging in the Middle East. Schlesinger had feared that Nixon may go crazy under the strain of the Watergate revelations and do something – well, crazy.

What is known so far is probably as much as we'll ever know about what happened during those crucial days in 1973. There was the fact that America had participated directly in the Middle Eastern war to rescue Israel. And there was the fact that President Nixon had ordered the worldwide mobilization of American forces, something he did apparently based on reports -- never substantiated -- to the effect that the Soviet Union had mobilized its forces in response to the American participation in the war.

As it happened, President Nixon resigned shortly after that, the consequence of which being that the world will never know what the response of the American military to the Schlesinger order had been. It is also doubtful that historians will ever know whether or not Schlesinger or anyone in the military would have been summoned to the White House or to some congressional committee to tell how each one of the participants took the Schlesinger order.

Some people have called the Schlesinger move a mutiny. Of course, the American military, like everyone else, has a protocol to follow when a number of officers deem that a higher ranking commander is no longer fit to command. But Schlesinger never consulted with anyone before issuing his order, and there is no indication that anyone below him took the order seriously. But what if Nixon had issued an order after the Schlesinger directive was given out? Would the chiefs of staff have obeyed it, or would they have checked with Schlesinger?

Very few people in 1973 believed that America was at peril, therefore, the unfolding of those events were of little consequence to the nation. Still, it was a situation that America will never again want to be in regardless as to what pickle Israel will put itself in. By contrast, what is happening in the Middle East at this time looms large in the imagination of Israeli leaders such as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the minister of defense Ehud Barack. Opposed to them and worried about what they might do next are Yuval Diskin who was the head of the domestic intelligence agency, Meir Dagan who was the head of the foreign intelligence agency, and General Benny Gantz who is the current chief of staff.

All three believe that the Prime Minister and the minister of defense are approaching the subject of Iran the wrong way. Diskin has said that the two Israeli leaders are messianic in their responses, and that attacking Iran will accelerate the nuclear program of that nation instead of retarding it. Contrasting the messianic leaders of Israel are the leaders of Iran who, according to Gantz, are a very rational people as it is apparent from the way that they govern their country. As to Dagan, he put it succinctly when he said that a military action against Iran is the stupidest idea he ever heard of. Thus, the accusation leveled by the Israeli leaders to the effect that the Iranians are irrational and messianic has been thrown back at the Israeli leaders, not by the Iranians who would not waste their time responding to a barking dog in Tel Aviv, but responded to by second tier commanders in the Israeli hierarchy itself.

Piling on top of the Iranian problem are a few other problems that will play a big role in pushing Benjamin Netanyahu and Ehud Barack over the edge. One of those is the fact that the Israelis need as much as a billion dollars right away to get out of their financial difficulties. They have approached America to bail them out again but even the threat that they will default on the loans endorsed by America could not persuade the Congress to hand them this much money. And you know how dire the situation is when they put out stories to the effect that the girls in Israel are skinny not because they are starving but because they are fashionably anorexic. When presented with the fact that poverty in Israel is a serious problem approaching the level of famine, they blame the shortage of food on the Ethiopian women who, they say, are eating more than their fair share of the available meat, amounts they never ate in Ethiopia before they were brought to Israel.

This tells you that Israel which has been up to now a powder keg full of explosives made in America, has become a ship commanded by irrational and messianic fools who, when they look in the mirror, do not see themselves but see someone else as being irrational and messianic. It is the height of madness.

Watch how the staged play will play itself out but do not be fooled by how the fools will try to mislead you.