by Jonas E. Alexis
Neta Golan, a spokeswoman for the Israeli group “Jews against Genocide,” made a powerful point that bears repeating here:
“We, as concerned Israeli citizens, need to tell the world that military cooperation and diplomatic and trade ties with Israel must stop immediately until they [Israel] respect international law.”
In a similar vein, Israeli peace activist and writer Miko Peled, who grew up in a Zionist family, added:
“I call on people of conscience… around the world to support the Palestinian struggle and unite to call for an end to the apartheid regime in Palestine.”
Peled moved on to say that Israel’s “horrendous crimes” against the Palestinians can no longer be ignored.
“Israel is getting billions of dollars from America [and] it is doing business with the entre Western world, mostly in the defense industry. Western powers are supporting what Israel does…
“We don’t see sanctions or Israeli ambassadors being sent back to Tel Aviv, but quite the opposite. These need to be done immediately, without conditions.”
Medical doctor Gabor Mate has recently written in the Toronto Star:
“As a Jewish youngster growing up in Budapest, an infant survivor of the Nazi genocide, I was for years haunted by a question resounding in my brain with such force that sometimes my head would spin: ‘How was it possible? How could the world have let such horrors happen?
“It was a naïve question, that of a child. I know better now: such is reality. Whether in Vietnam or Rwanda or Syria, humanity stands by either complicitly or unconsciously or helplessly, as it always does.
“In Gaza today we find ways of justifying the bombing of hospitals, the annihilation of families at dinner, the killing of pre-adolescents playing soccer on a beach.
“In Israel-Palestine, the powerful party has succeeded in painting itself as the victim, while the ones being killed and maimed become the perpetrators.
“In Israel-Palestine, the powerful party has succeeded in painting itself as the victim, while the ones being killed and maimed become the perpetrators. ‘They don’t care about life,’ Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says, abetted by the Obamas and Harpers of this world, ‘we do.’
“Netanyahu, you who with surgical precision slaughter innocents, the young and the old, you who have cruelly blockaded Gaza for years, starving it of necessities, you who deprive Palestinians of more and more of their land, their water, their crops, their trees — you care about life?
“There is no understanding Gaza out of context — Hamas rockets or unjustifiable terrorist attacks on civilians — and that context is the longest ongoing ethnic cleansing operation in the recent and present centuries, the ongoing attempt to destroy Palestinian nationhood.”
How does Netanyahu respond? Well, he made a statement last Sunday saying that those children have been indirect victims of the war, since Hamas have been using human shields. But Netanyahu knows very well that there is no evidence for this mumbo jumbo:
“On the day that Al-Farouq was attacked, the Israeli military also carried out a missile strike on a home for the handicapped in Beit Lahiya, killing two disabled residents and injuring four others.
“A neighbor claimed that a member of the Islamic Jihad group and his wife had also lived in the building, but he could provide no names or dates for this.
“Jamilla Alaiwa, a 59-year-old social worker who founded the home 24 years ago told me that this was categorically untrue. ‘If the Israelis have proof of this let them make it public. There was no one from Islamic Jihad or Hamas living there. We are not involved in politics.’
“The Israeli military stated they were investigating what happened; their conclusions have not reached Gaza. Were they, perhaps, fed false information?
“Some Gazans have admitted that they were afraid of criticizing Hamas, but none have said they had been forced by the organisation to stay in places of danger and become unwilling human shields.
“The Bani Sobeila area, near Khan Younis, where the Abu Jamaa deaths took place received leaflets dropped from the air last week warning them to leave.
“But almost all stayed. One reason for that was many of the houses belonged to the Abu Jamaa clan who felt there was safety in staying together. Another reason was given by a neighbour, Abdullah al-Daweish:
“‘Where do we go to? Some people moved from the outer edge of Khan Younis to Khan Younis centre after Israelis told them to, then the centre got bombed. People have moved from this area to Gaza City, and Gaza City has been bombed. It’s not Hamas who is ordering us in this, it’s the Israelis.’”
But how does Woody Allen explain the situation in Gaza? Well, after admitting that it is “a terrible, tragic thing,” Mr. Allen added,
“I feel that the Arabs were not very nice in the beginning… The Jews had just come out of a terrible war where they were exterminated by millions and persecuted all over Europe, and they were given this tiny, tiny piece of land in the desert.
“If the Arabs had just said, ‘Look, we know what you guys have been through, take this little piece of land and we’ll all be friends and help you,’ and the Jews came in peace, but they didn’t. They were not nice about it.”
What is this man really saying? If wiping out at least 750,000 Palestinians from their homes in 1948 is not mean, what would count as evidence for Allen?
Perhaps he spent too much time sexually abusing teenagers like Dylan Farrow that he cannot crack open a history book to see what happened to the Palestinians in 1948. Perhaps he should give Israeli and Zionist historian Benny Morris a call.
What, then, should be done about the perpetual carnage in the Middle East, the Zionist thought-police in America, and political and economic subversion in the West by the Neo-Bolshevik state?
I have been asked over and over again by several individuals to lay out exactly what ought to be done as a response to the Zionist invasion of much of the West and indeed the Middle East, since I do believe that the issue is primarily theological/Talmudic and moral and not genetic. The plan is pretty simple.
Step 1: No one or country should be above the law.
A politician or country must abide by the international rule of law, whose major purposes include reducing “the recourse to war, preserving human rights, and constraining (albeit imperfectly) the pursuit of state self-interests.”
If any country cannot abide by this basic principle and in contrast seeks to slaughter innocent civilians using the “self-defense” pretext, that country must face the consequences. Albert Camus declared, “I believe in justice, but I will defend my mother above justice.”
No way. No free lunch for anyone or country.
Step 2 (a corollary to number 1): Israel gets no special treatment. If the Zionists think that Nazi Germany actually gave them a license to slaughter the Palestinians like animals and split their bodies into different tiny and bloody particles, then they need to think again.
Furthermore, the Israelis can no longer propose the dumb idea that they are only defending themselves. As journalist Mehdi Hasan has recently put it, you just cannot bomb schools and wipe out entire families in a few hours and then call that “self-defense.”
Just recently, the regime bombed a U.N. school in Gaza, “killing at least 15 civilians and leaving a sad tableau of blood-spattered pillows, blankets and children’s clothing scattered in the courtyard.”
And how do the Zionists respond to all of this? Listen to Mark Tapson of FrontPage Magazine:
“As the Israeli-Hamas conflict rages, a familiar pattern asserts itself: Israel bends over backward to demonstrate her moral innocence to the world, and the world heaps condemnation on her anyway…
“Forced to defend herself, but under the microscope of worldwide scrutiny, Israel has gone to extreme lengths to avoid civilian deaths.”
Tapson certainly got lost in his Zionist and insane world and could not find his way out. If he cannot see how his ideas are literally worthless in light of the evidence, we certainly cannot help him.
Step 3: Prosecute those who violate the law. That certainly will require an intrepid politician with backbone. This politician must no longer fear the Zionists; he must stop leaving in a Neo-Bolshevik world and face reality. If he is going to fear that he will be called an anti-Semite for upholding the rule of law, then he is not fit to be a serious leader.
Step 4: If those who violate the law are guilty, then they should be punished accordingly. Here are some people who would almost certainly be guilty of war crimes and other criminal activities:
George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Condoleezza Rice, Richard Perle, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, Douglas Feith, Elliott Abrams, John Bolton, William Kristol, and indeed nearly all the other neoconservatives who fabricate perpetual wars in the Middle East in the name of freedom and democracy.
Step 5: No double standard. One of the reasons double standard is rampant in the U.S. is because we have powerful Jewish organizations such as AIPAC dictating what the U.S. needs to do. As Stephen M. Walt of Harvard has recently written,
“The official name for Israel’s latest assault on Gaza is ‘Operation Protective Edge.’ A better name would be ‘Operation Déjà Vu.’ As it has on several prior occasions, Israel is using weapons provided by U.S. taxpayers to bombard the captive and impoverished Palestinians in Gaza, where the death toll now exceeds 500.
“As usual, the U.S. government is siding with Israel, even though most American leaders understand Israel instigated the latest round of violence, is not acting with restraint, and that its actions make Washington look callous and hypocritical in the eyes of most of the world.
“This Orwellian situation is eloquent testimony to the continued political clout of AIPAC (American Israel Public Affairs Committee) and the other hardline elements of the Israel lobby.
“There is no other plausible explanation for the supine behavior of the U.S. Congress–including some of its most “progressive” members–or the shallow hypocrisy of the Obama administration, especially those officials known for their purported commitment to human rights…
“Behind all these maneuvers looms Israel’s occupation of Palestine, now in its fifth decade.
“Not content with having ethnically cleansed hundreds of thousands of Palestinians in 1948 and 1967 and not satisfied with owning eighty-two percent of Mandatory Palestine, every Israeli government since 1967 has built or expanded settlements in the West Bank and East Jerusalem while providing generous subsidies to the 600,000-plus Jews who have moved there in violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
Indeed, AIPAC is powerful, but the Mephistophelian organization has received a number of defeats, which indicate that they can be challenged by the vast majority of Americans. Walt continued:
“AIPAC and other hardline lobby groups could not convince the Obama administration to intervene in Syria, and they have been unable to convince the Bush or Obama administrations to launch a preventive strike against Iran’s nuclear infrastructure. They have also failed to derail the nuclear negotiations with Tehran–at least so far–though not for lack of trying.
“Pushing the U.S. toward another Middle East war is a lot for any interest group to accomplish, of course, but these setbacks show that even this “leviathan among lobbies” does not always get its way.
“But the lobby is still able to keep roughly $3 billion in U.S. aid to Israel flowing each year; it can still prevent U.S. presidents from putting meaningful pressure on Israel; and it can still get the U.S. to wield its veto whenever a resolution criticizing Israel’s actions is floated in the U.N. Security Council. This situation explains why the Obama administration made zero progress toward ‘two states for two peoples’:
“If Israel gets generous U.S. support no matter what it does, why should its leaders pay any attention to Washington’s requests? Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry could only appeal to Netanyahu’s better judgment, and we’ve seen how well that worked.”
Step 6: The Church has to play a major role in rearticulating its teachings on the Jewish question. The Church has stood idly for far too long, and it is high time that someone blows the trumpet once more. The sad fact is that even some Catholics have already made an alliance with the Zionists and Neo-Bolsheviks.
For example, people like William F. Buckley had to betray Joe Sobran in order to maintain a “conservative” or neoconservative outlook. The late Sobran denounced the Israel Lobby as “the most powerful lobby in America,” and it is the reason
“why Congress so quickly endorsed a direct military strike against Libya while it quibbles endlessly about whether aid to the contras in Nicaragua might lead, someday, to American military involvement in Central America. Quadafi is an enemy of Israel. Communist Nicaragua isn’t. …
“So we fight Quadafi, and maybe the administration hints, Syria and Iran as well. Ostensibly the issue is ‘terrorism’ but that sounds more and more like a surrogate word for enemies of Israel.”
We would concede that much of the problem in the Middle East would be gone within a few months if the Church actually returned to its teachings.
The problem is that the church has been fraternizing with the enemy, and many in the clergy have already been involved in sexual sins, which makes them politically and spiritually powerless.
How did the Church keep the Jewish question under the radar for almost a thousand years? Pretty simple.
Sicut Judaeis non, a papal bull which was issued in the fifth century by Pope Gregory and which was reaffirmed by virtually every pope over the centuries, declared:
“We decree that no Christian shall use violence to force them to be baptized as long as they are unwilling and refuse, but that if anyone of them seeks refuge among the Christians of his own free will and by reason of his faith, after his willingness has become quite clear shall he be made a Christian without subjecting himself to any calumny.
“For surely none can be believed to possess the true faith of a Christian who is known to have come to Christian baptism not willingly, and even against his wishes.
“Moreover, without the authority of the land, no Christian shall presume to wound their persons, or kill [them] or rob them of their money, or change the good custom which they have thus far enjoyed in the places where they live.
“Furthermore, while they celebrate festivals, no one shall disturb them in any way by means of sticks or stones, nor exact from any of them forced service, except that which they have been accustomed to perform from ancient times.
“In opposition to the wickedness and avarice of evil men in these matters, we decree that no one shall presume to desecrate or reduce the cemetery of the Jews, or, with the object of extorting money, to exhume bodies there buried.
“If anyone, however, after being acquainted with the contents of this decree, should presume to act in defiance of it (which God forbid), he shall suffer the loss of honor and office, or he shall be restrained by the penalty of ex-communication unless he shall have made proper amends for his presumption.”
There is a second clause to the bull. It also states that “Just as license ought not to be presumed for the Jews to do anything in their synagogues beyond what is permitted by law, so in those points conceded to them, they ought to suffer nothing prejudicial.”
Israel Shamir seems to have articulated this principle in a slightly different nuance when he argues quite rightly that
“Christendom made a grave mistake by unilaterally abandoning ideological struggle against the Jewish paradigm. One should make a clear distinction between Jews as persons, and the Jewish paradigm as ideology. Jews are just human and deserve to be treated and accepted as human.
“The Jewish paradigm should be confronted and counteracted. Two important issues were confused: the question of external relations, human and civil rights, human dignity on one side and ideological difference and variance, on the other. They can and should be treated separately.”
In other words, Jewish revolutionaries ought not to subvert the political order and moral law and thereby creating chaos in society. If they do, they ought to be punished according to the law.
Lastly, the bull makes it clear that since Jewish revolutionaries were (and still are) at war with the moral and political order, they are not to be granted cultural influence precisely because they always end up corrupting the moral order.
For example, revolutionaries ought not to be granted permission to spread pornography in the name of “democracy.” Nor should they be given freedom to spread lies so that they can perpetuate wars in the Middle East and elsewhere.
Sicut Judaeis non, as E. Michael Jones puts it, “was the essence of Christian realism and Christian charity. No Christian should harm a Jew but Jews should be excluded from positions of cultural influence.”
How should they be excluded? Once they have committed a crime, they ought not to have political influence over us.
For example, why are companies like Goldman Sachs continue to influence the economic haves and have-nots of America, when in fact Goldman Sachs has been guilty of cheating its client?
If you think that Jones is just pulling your leg, think about the war in Iraq again, a war that will cost us at least six trillion dollars. Think about how Hollywood has changed the cultural fabric of America in particular and largely much of the world.
Think about what Jewish professor Nathan Abrams wrote back in 2003, where he specifically and explicitly declared that pornography is not only largely a Jewish enterprise but it has been used intentionally to weaken the moral fabric of the culture and indeed Christianity.
Think about what the late Jewish pornographer Al Goldstein:
“The only reason that Jews are in pornography is that we think that Christ sucks. Catholicism sucks. We don’t believe in authoritarianism.”
Think about directors such as Stanley Kubrick (A Clockwork Orange, which later had a huge impact on the late Heath Ledger), David Cronenberg (recently Cosmopolis), Eli Roth (Hostel), Frank Miller (Sin City), Darren Aronofsky (Black Swan), etc.
Roth for example meant it when he stated quite explicitly last year that his work is intended “to fu$k an entire generation.”
Well, what if an entire generation does not want to be…you know? Would we not have a serious conflict? And would not Roth bear at least some responsibility for the conflict?
Furthermore, and perhaps most importantly, would it be anti-Semitic if an entire generation does not want to be “fu$ked” and instead resist that idea? Well, if one follows the standard definition of anti-Semitism as propounded by organizations such as the ADL, it would be anti-Semitic to stand against the pornographisation of the culture. Here is a slightly related example.
Jewish writer and Hollywood historian Neal Gabler wrote a fairly decent book entitled An Empire of Their Own: How Jews Invented Hollywood in 1988, saying that Jews control Hollywood.
Six years later, in 1994, British journalist William Cash adopted Gabler’s premise, arguing that Jews largely invented Hollywood in an article for the highly-read British journal Spectator.
Gabler, seemingly oblivious to the fact that Cash was simply reiterating the sentiments of An Empire of their Own, called Cash’s article “an anti-Semitic bleat from a reactionary crackpot”!
Sicut Judaeis non was the solution to the Jewish question in Europe for at least a thousand years, and it turned out to be a blessing to both innocent Jews who had nothing to do with subversive activity and Western societies at large.
In fact, when innocent Jews were falsely accused by the mobs over the centuries, they quickly appealed to the popes, who were more than happy to protect them from physical harm.
pope-francis-timeAt this present moment, Pope Francis is not helping at all. When the Wall Street Journal had a headline in the summer of last year entitled, “Pope Francis is Good for the Jews,” it was almost an infallible sign that Pope Francis was being handcuffed by the Zionist ideology.
Ignoring historical contexts and scholarship, the Wall Street Journal propounded the idea that there was a string of anti-Semitism “encouraged or tolerated by [the Church’s] leaders and members over the centuries,” which culminated into widespread anti-Semitism to this very day.
Pope Francis seemed to have nodded his head on this false notion. In fact, he has not been able to articulate clearly the doctrines of his forefathers, including the church’s stand on homosexuality. In some instances, he seems to reverse some of those doctrines. For example, in his “Apostolic Exhortation,” he issued that
“We hold the Jewish people in special regard because their covenant with God has never been revoked, for ‘the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable’ (Rom 11:29).
“The Church, which shares with Jews an important part of the sacred Scriptures, looks upon the people of the covenant and their faith as one of the sacred roots of her own Christian identity (cf. Rom 11:16-18).
“As Christians, we cannot consider Judaism as a foreign religion; nor do we include the Jews among those called to turn from idols and to serve the true God (cf. 1 Thes 1:9).”
What Pope Francis ends up saying is that some people (Gentiles) can be saved by accepting Christ and others (Jews) can be saved by rejecting Christ, a complete violation of the law of non-contradiction.
Just a few days ago, we were told that
“Pope Francis called for justice to be served in his native Argentina on Friday, the twentieth anniversary of the deadly bombing of a Buenos Aires Jewish community center that local courts blamed on Iran.”
Yet during the same time that Pope Francis made his announcement, the Israeli regime was slaughtering innocent Palestinian civilians by the hundreds. More than six hundred Palestinians have already lost their lives, including 100 children.
In fact, as I write, the death toll in Gaza has already passed one thousand. Iraqi Christians are also being evaporated. The Vatican again stayed silent.
Pope Francis criticized Jewish “Holocaust denial” as “madness,” but he said nothing about true holocaust denial such as Stalin’s slaughtering of innocent peasants, which the Holocaust establishment does not want to examine fairly in light of Nazi Germany. Shamir once again got it right when he declared that the Jewish paradigm is
“an adaptation of the Jewish spiritual rule for Christian minds, as it replaces Christ with Israel, Golgotha with Auschwitz, and the Resurrection with the creation of the Jewish state.”
Germany for example is still paying billions upon billions of dollars to the Zionist state for what happened in World War II. As Jewish scholar Norman Finkelstein has pointed out, this enterprise is a racket.
Did the Soviet peasants or their children receive a penny from the Jewish Neo-Bolsheviks for Stalin’s crime? The answer is a resounding no.
In short, Sicut Judaeis non has two important clauses. If either one of them is ignored, troubles directly follow.
If the first proposition is ignored, violence will certainly rise. If the second proposition is dismissed and therefore disregarded, Jewish revolutionaries will control the west with an iron fist. And whenever they do, reactions in major centers in the world will always follow suit. For example,
“Hundreds of protesters have gathered outside the BBC Broadcasting House in Belfast, expressing their concerns over what they see as ‘biased’ reporting by the BBC on the current Israeli military offensive in Gaza..”
We see the same bias with NBC. The Zionist network actually “pulls [a] reporter from Gaza after witnessing Israeli attack on children.” Journalist Glenn Greenwald writes,
“Ayman Mohyeldin, the NBC News correspondent who personally witnessed yesterday’s killing by Israel of four Palestinian boys on a Gazan beach and who has received widespread praise for his brave and innovative coverage of the conflict, has been told by NBC executives to leave Gaza immediately.
“According to an NBC source upset at his treatment, the executives claimed the decision was motivated by ‘security concerns’ as Israel prepares a ground invasion, a claim repeated to me by an NBC executive.
“But late yesterday, NBC sent another correspondent, Richard Engel, along with an American producer who has never been to Gaza and speaks no Arabic, into Gaza to cover the ongoing Israeli assault (both Mohyeldin and Engel speak Arabic).
“Mohyeldin is an Egyptian-American with extensive experience reporting on that region. He has covered dozens of major Middle East events in the last decade for CNN, NBC and Al Jazeera English, where his reporting on the 2008 Israeli assault on Gaza made him a star of the network. NBC aggressively pursued him to leave Al Jazeera, paying him far more than the standard salary for its on-air correspondents.
“Yesterday, Mohyeldin witnessed and then reported on the brutal killing by Israeli gunboats of four young boys as they played soccer on a beach in Gaza City. He was instrumental, both in social media and on the air, in conveying to the world the visceral horror of the attack.
“Mohyeldin recounted how, moments before their death, he was kicking a soccer ball with the four boys, who were between the ages of 9 and 11 and all from the same family.
“He posted numerous chilling details on his Twitter and Instagram accounts, including the victims’ names and ages, photographs he took of their anguished parents, and a video of one of their mothers as she learned about the death of her young son. He interviewed one of the wounded boys at the hospital shortly before being operated on. He then appeared on MSNBC’s All In with Chris Hayes, where he dramatically recounted what he saw.
“Despite this powerful first-hand reporting – or perhaps because of it – Mohyeldin was nowhere to be seen on last night’s NBC Nightly News broadcast with Brian Williams.
“Instead, as Media Bistro’s Jordan Chariton noted, NBC curiously had Richard Engel – who was in Tel Aviv, and had just arrived there an hour or so earlier – ‘report’ on the attack. Charlton wrote that ‘the decision to have Engel report the story for ‘Nightly’ instead of Mohyeldin angered some NBC News staffers.
“Indeed, numerous NBC employees, including some of the network’s highest-profile stars, were at first confused and then indignant over the use of Engel rather than Mohyeldin to report the story.
“But what they did not know, and what has not been reported until now, is that Mohyeldin was removed completely from reporting on Gaza by a top NBC executive, David Verdi, who ordered Mohyeldin to leave Gaza immediately.” 
This is actual power, and there is no doubt that the network pulled the plug on Mohyeldin because the news was not in Israel’s favor.
If the West is serious about prosecuting criminals, the Zionist business would practically go out of sight within a few months. Let us give some examples. The Atlantic has recently reported,
“Washington Post’s latest article drawing on Snowden’s leaked cache of documents includes files ‘described as useless by the analysts but nonetheless retained’ that ‘tell stories of love and heartbreak, illicit sexual liaisons, mental-health crises, political and religious conversions, financial anxieties and disappointed hopes. The daily lives of more than 10,000 account holders who were not targeted are cataloged and recorded nevertheless.’
“The article goes on to describe how exactly the privacy of these innocents was violated. The NSA collected “medical records sent from one family member to another, résumés from job hunters and academic transcripts of schoolchildren.
“‘In one photo, a young girl in religious dress beams at a camera outside a mosque. Scores of pictures show infants and toddlers in bathtubs, on swings, sprawled on their backs and kissed by their mothers. In some photos, men show off their physiques. In others, women model lingerie, leaning suggestively into a webcam …’
“Have you ever emailed a photograph of your child in the bathtub, or yourself flexing for the camera or modeling lingerie? If so, it could be your photo in the Washington Post newsroom right now, where it may or may not be secure going forward.
“In one case, a woman whose private communications were collected by the NSA found herself contacted by a reporter who’d read her correspondence.”
Does the law or Constitution of the United States say something about this illegal activity? Let us see:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.”
So what shall we do to those who have violated this basic right? Round them up for judgment, and if the chips fall on any foreign entity, then we should instantly cut our economic and political relationship with that country.
In fact, we should have stopped our relationship with Israel a long time ago. As former CIA official Michael Scheuer has constantly pointed out, Israel is a dangerous ally to the United States.
One more example. Title 18 of the United States Code states:
“Whoever willfully causes an act to be done which if directly performed by him…would be an offense against the United States, is punishable as a principle.”
In this context, Bush in particular is guilty of murder and should be prosecuted. As prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi writes,
“If Bush personally kills an American soldier, he would be guilty of murder. Under the law, he cannot immunize himself from this criminal responsibility by causing a third party to do the killing. He’s still responsible.”
In the article The Prosecution of George W. Bush, I said very plainly that the West needs to return to the moral law and practical reason to defeat any enemy. The West also needs a fearless politician in office who will consistently act upon that moral law.
When the moral law is consistently applied, we can predict that one of three things will happen: 1) the Zionists and the Israeli regime will be forced to comply or 2) they will agree with the rule of law on the surface but continue to marshal their own diabolical plan behind closed doors or 3) they will violently and relentlessly attack both the moral law and the people who try to act upon that moral law.
Let us say that the enemy embraces option three. Remember what Israeli military historian Martin van Cleveld said back in 2003? Here are his words again:
“We possess several hundred atomic warheads and rockets and can launch them at targets in all directions, perhaps even at Rome. Most European capitals are targets for our air force…. We have the capability to take the world down with us. And I can assure you that that will happen before Israel goes under.”
What should the West do if that ever happens? The West should continue to uphold the moral law by appealing to the “just war” theory. This would be rational, but there is one huge problem: no is one brave enough to apply the moral law across the board.
For example, the Israelis told us that three of their boys went missing and the entire regime went berserk. Hamas, of course, must be responsible and therefore be punished for the evil act.
But ABC News itself has reported that “Israeli strike kills four boys playing on Gaza beach.” Of course, we all know that this was all an accident and indirect result of war. Israel is invincible and cannot commit brutal acts of violence.
Where is the brave politician who will no longer accept Israel’s double standard and do something about the ethnic cleansing of Palestine? Who shall answer the call?
As the Israeli writer Mira Bar-Hillel has recently pointed out, the time has finally come: the Israeli regime can no longer hide its massive torture against the Palestinians. But to confront the problem, it will take a serious politician who has the will to act.
 At least seven Nobel Prize winners and sixty-four public figures—including Ilan Pappe, Noam Chomsky and others—have called for a complete embargo on Israel. “64 public figures, 7 Nobel laureates, call for an arms embargo on Israel,” Haaretz, July 20, 2014.
 Gabor Mate, “Beautiful Dream of Israel Has Become a Nightmare,” The Toronto Star, July 22, 2014.
 Kim Sengupta, “Israel-Gaza Conflict: The Myth of Hamas’s Human Shields,” The Independent, July 21, 2014.
 Rachel X. Landes, “The Middle East Crisis, According to Woody Allen,” Jewish Daily Forward, July 21, 2014.
 Norman G. Finkelstein, Image and Reality of the Israel-Palestine Conflict, 3.
 Mehdi Hasan, “We single Israel out because we in the west are shamefully complicit in its crimes,” New Statesman, July 16, 2014.
 Mark Tapson, “Israel’s Pyrrhic Moral Victory,” FrontPageMag.com, July 25, 2014.
 Stephen M. Walt, “AIPAC Is the Only Explanation for America’s Morally Bankrupt Israel Policy,” Huffington Post, July 22, 2014.
 See for example Scott McConnell, “The Right’s Israel Turn,” American Conservative, July 22, 2014.
 Quoted in James Parkes, The Jew in the Medieval Community (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1976), 21; see also Edward Synan, The Popes and the Jews in the Middle Ages (New York: Macmillan, 1965), 231-232. Those books, however, only produce the first half of the bull.
 Quoted in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 88.
 Israel Shamir, Cabbala of Power (Charleston: BookSurge, 2007), 317.
 Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 106.
 Greg Smith, Why I Left Goldman Sachs: A Wall Street Story (New York: Grand Central Publishing, 2012).
 See for example Neal Gabler, An Empire of Their Own: How Jews Invented Hollywood (New York: Anchor Books, 1988).
 Nathan Abrams, “Triple Exthnics,” The Jewish Quarterly, Winter 2004.
 Quoted in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1056.
 Quoted in Stuart Dredge, “Netflix series Hemlock Grove: ‘People want their horror horrific,’ says Eli Roth,” Guardian, April 10, 2013.
 Quoted in Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit, 1035-1036.
 For historical context, see for example Will Durant, The Story of Civilization: Age of Faith (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1950); Ronald J. Rychlak, Righteous Gentiles: How Pius XII and the Catholic Church Saved Half a Million Jews from the Nazis (Dallas: Spence Publishing Company, 2005); Israel Abrahams, Jewish Life in the Middle Ages (Philadelphia and Jerusalem: Jewish Publication Society, 1930); David G. Dalin, The Myth of Hitler’s Pope: Pope Pius XII and His Secret War Against Nazi Germany (WA: Regnery Publishing, 2005); Jones, Jewish Revolutionary Spirit.
 Francis X. Rocca, “Pope Francis Is Good for the Jews,” Wall Street Journal, June 13, 2013.
 “Pope Calls for Justice in Bombing of Argentine Jewish Center,” Jerusalem Post, July 19, 2014.
 Suppose a cop witnesses a crime being committed by an individuals or a group and he stays silent. What would you say to that cop?
 Quoted in Josephine McKenna, “Pope Francis: ‘Inside Every Christian Is a Jew,’” Huffington Post, June 13, 2014.
 Shamir, Cabbala of Power, 92.
 Norman G. Finkelstein, The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering (New York: Verso, 2001).
 Glenn Greenwald, “NBC News Pulls Reporter from Gaza After Witnessing Israeli Attack on Children,” The Intercept, July 17, 2014.
 Conor Friedersdorf, “The Latest Snowden Leak Is Devastating to NSA Defenders,” Atlantic, July 7, 2014.
 Vincent Bubliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder (New York: Perseus Books, 2008), 88.
 Quoted in “The War Game,” Guardian, September 21, 2003.
 Mira Bar-Hillel, “Israel Has Discovered That It’s No Longer So Easy To Get Away With Murder In The Age Of Social Media,” The Independent, July 22, 2014.
Jonas E. Alexis has degrees in mathematics and philosophy. He studied education at the graduate level. His main interests include U.S. foreign policy, the history of the Israel/Palestine conflict, and the history of ideas. He is the author of the new book Zionism vs. the West: How Talmudic Ideology is Undermining Western Culture. He teaches mathematics in South Korea.