|
THE CON ARTIST WHO BECAME PRIME MINISTER OF ISRAEL - A PARABLE (If there is anything in this parable which the reader finds to be disproportionate, it should be disregarded.) There was once a nice young man who loved his family and his nation. As he grew older he developed a strong dislike for those who did not love his nation. For many who were not part of his nation, he did not consider them as equals but almost as animals or insects. If he decided that their existence slowed his nation’s development, he thought that they deserved to be killed or squashed. He especially did not remember that these human beings had significant relations with their mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, brothers, sisters, aunts, uncles, friends and other relatives. If death or injury visited these persons, to him it was as if one more obstacle to the building of their democratic, Jewish nation had been eliminated. But this mental immaturity which enabled him to consistently devalue the worth of people different from himself, had not always been a major part of his mental convictions. Perhaps it was his choice of career in the military which contributed, most to the rapid growth in his ability to devalue the worth of others. As he moved along in his military career, he found that the first person he had to brainwash was himself. Before his military career he had only thought that foreigners were expendable and that his contributions to the building of a democratic, showcase nation had priority over any foreigner’s survival. However, after his commitment to the military, he decided that he could no longer only think that this was the case. He now had to know with a certainty that the welfare and very lives of all Palestinians were subordinate to the needs of his democratic nation. Due to the positive values that he had been exposed to throughout his youth, he found that it was hard work to brainwash himself to be convinced that any human being was expendable. After all, each member of his own family was dear to him. Nevertheless, because he had an iron-will, he was usually successful in everything which he decided to accomplish. So, it was no surprise that with this great challenge he was also successful. He was actually able to convince himself of the ultimate unimportance of all persons who he thought hindered the progress of his nation. Especially was this true if those persons inhabited the land before outsiders gave their land to his people. Yes, his victory was now virtually total. He finally was certain that the lives of certain despised people had little or no value. Of course, in both situations justifications for the murders were put forth. For instance, for one of the villages there were unsubstantiated rumors that some of the defenseless women and children must have been sheltering someone who had allegedly raped a woman who was one of his people. But their murder also had another tactical justification. He knew that the word would quickly spread about the ugliness and inhumanity of what occurred. So, the people living in other villages would live in constant dread of something similar happening to them. Therefore, they would be much more compliant under their conquerors harsh rule. Having received virtually no discipline for his crimes, he learned a valuable lesson; crime in the military pays. So, it was not at all surprising that when he himself achieved success at murdering innocent persons, officers and others under his authority soon realized that inhumane actions would gain the approval and commendation of their ultimate commander. Within this context, it should have come as no surprise when the world heard news that shocked even the most calloused. Hundreds of defenseless old men, women and children in the Sabra and Shatilla refugee camps were mercilessly slaughtered by pro-Israeli Lebanose forces. Shamefully, these camps were supposedly under the guard of Israeli soldiers. In turn, these soldiers were under the command of the Israeli Defense Minister, the great con artist. After this man had convinced himself that what is immoral is moral, he was able to influence others to adopt this sick, twisted thinking. They had all come to believe that what is best for their nation is what is moral. They also believed that what does not promote their nation is immoral. One would honestly think that this crown of shame earned by this amazing con man would have brought an end to his immoral and depraved achievements. However, being the consummate artist in his ability to make immoral behavior appear to be moral behavior, he had new mountains to conquer. Through skillful manipulation of the fears of his own people, he convinced them that he was the man who should lead them in the defense of their nation. Further displaying his skills as a masterful artist, though they knew that much blood had dripped from his hands, he was able to accomplish the impossible. He convinced a democratic people that he would lead them to a peaceful agreement with those whose own relatives he had mercilessly slaughtered. But what masterful stroke of genius would this artist find in order to accomplish such an impossible task? Would it be by publicly repenting for his past murders and thus demonstrating that he had learned that crime does not pay? No! That would not be honest. He could not possibly do that because his whole adult life had taught him that crime does pay. His professional and material success had vividly convinced him that achieving progress by committing immoral acts was a proven guarantee of success. So, what would be his key for more success? Of course. Unleash more bloodshed. No one but a genius - an artist like himself could reach such a conclusion. But how could he accomplish this in a context where many sincere leaders on both sides were trying to find peace? He would advertise in advance a great heroic act that he would perform. To help his own people see that he is the One to demonstrate to the “enemy” that his people maintained sovereignty over an area sacred to both sides, he would publicly visit this site. Of course, since he made certain that thousands knew when he would perform his historic act, he would need a multitude of armed police in order to guarantee his own safety. He was well aware that his guaranteeing his own safety would also guarantee a certain tragic reality. It would guarantee that the greatly offended and humiliated people would respond with an uprising that would lead to great bloodshed. Would this tragic reality cause this “want-to-be” prime minister to regret that he incited such bloodshed? Not for one minute. This bloodshed would be a wonderful guarantee that he would become the prime minister. For now the people were so strongly in need of a calloused leader who would show no mercy that they would vote for a man that millions of people considered a calloused murderer. Nevertheless, it is not what millions of people consider a man to be. It is what the right people say that they consider a man to be. In fact, powerful men might consider a man to be a murderer, but if that means losing votes, they convince themselves that they view the man differently. So, it was that the vast majority of leaders of the most powerful nation on earth voted overwhelmingly to blame the victims for starting the bloody uprising known as the second Intifada. By voting this immoral way, these democratically elected congressmen in the U.S. virtually absolved the great con artist of any guilt. While this was quite an achievement for even an accomplished con artist, he was to present more great demonstrations of his skill to deceive. A new leader had been democratically elected to lead the most powerful nation on the earth. This man was not a person who would ever think of assisting an alleged murderer to accomplish his own evil purposes. Rather, he had been a leader who had developed a reputation for putting murderers to death, some of whom had less compelling evidence for convicting them than the con artist. This leader once boasted that never had a person been wrongfully put to death in his time as leader. So, in the eyes of multitudes, he had unquestioned integrity. Nevertheless, he was subtly manipulated to warmly entertain the man who was directly and indirectly responsible for the cold-blooded murders of hundreds of women and children. In front of the television cameras in the one house that supposedly represents authority and integrity throughout the world, this man of known integrity sat and held hands with the man responsible for many, many murders. What were they seen doing together? We know that they were seen warmly grasping each other’s hand so the image of cooperation could be seen on television sets throughout the world. But, to millions throughout the world this symbolized this president’s open declaration that his country would support a murderer and virtually ignore the victims of the murderer. Tragically there is one question that we can be almost certain that these two would be statesmen discussed. Because of the great skill and influence of the con artist and others who support him, these two respected leaders thoroughly discussed together the following: How can we cooperate together in order to blame and tame Israel’s victims? A magnificent triumph for a con artist and a horrible defeat for integrity. Tragically, there was an invisible phenomenon occurring while these two great men were squeezing each other’s hand so tightly in front of the television cameras that I previously failed to mention. Though not seen by the human eye, what was invisibly happening deeply grieved the Merciful ALLAH. Neither did this inherent outcome of Wickedness escape the discerning eyes of so many in and from the Arab world as well as a few others. Great drops of blood slowly but certainly dripped down from the squeezed hands to the floor below, permanently staining the floor and floor covering. How much this precious blood forever stained the hands of the powerful leader who now lives in the large Gray House in which they were so comfortably sitting, is known only to ALLAH. Yes, this truly was a dark day for the renowned Gray House and all that it represents. Many of the undiscerning saw it only as another day of triumph for the great con artist and for all those he represents. Tragically, this con-artist was not only honored by being invited to the Gray House shortly after the powerful leader took up residence there, but three more times during this new leader’s first year of office, this artist was invited to have highly visible meetings with the man who is considered by many to be the leader of the free world. Even more shocking than the repeated invitations and meetings was this. The artist grew so confident that he had this powerful leader under his hypnotic spell and in his hip pocket that he told the press about a particularly arrogant request he would make of the great man. He would try to influence him to totally ignore and isolate the leader of the very people who the con- artist himself had been so busy suppressing, persecuting, and stealing from, defaming and killing. This irony should not have been a surprise to any one. The great con- artist had only recently boasted that he should have had the leader murdered when he had the opportunity. Of course, he used the milder word killed instead of murdered. But the reality is that this great con- man let down his guard to the press. He virtually confessed to them that he should have arranged for the murder of the leader of the people whose land he is now illegally occupying. Hypocritically, he still wants us to think that he is nice and that it is only his enemies who practice injustice, murder, and violence and to use his words, “terrorism.” But of course he does not consider it terrorism when he encourages or instructs his subordinates to murder suspected instigators which often leads to innocents losing their lives. Remarkably, this con man represented himself as a person who had earned the right to advise the Gray House manager how about how he should treat the elected leader of the oppressed, exploited dispossessed, persecuted people. In reality, his horrible example of how he himself had humiliated and imprisoned the leaders of his enemies was a louder message than his words. For with great ostentation and publicity, this skillful artist had placed the elected leader of those impoverished people under a humiliating house arrest. He even deployed tanks and weapons to make certain he did not escape his home- prison. But the artist truly did not need to teach this esteemed leader how to humiliate the leader of an oppressed, disinherited people. This desperate leader had done everything but beg the great man in the Gray House to allow him to visit his large Gray House. Nevertheless, the respected, proud and naive leader would not even speak to the harassed elected leader of the persecuted people. We must ask, why would this important world leader not show pity on another leader so needing help and encouragement? Why would he purposely add to his discouragement, isolation, and humiliation? Why for nearly a year would this wealthy, respected leader lock this weary leader out of his great Gray House, while he warmly welcomed the great bloody con- artist there again and again and again. To the great con- man and to the proud leader living in the Gray House, and even to a multitude of con- artist supporters, the answer is obvious. Regretfully, it was not just these two proud leaders and their supporters who thought the answer was totally self- evident. The great con- artist and his supporters had actually convinced tens of millions throughout the world that the marginalized leader of a desperate, impoverished people had committed an unpardonable sin. He had not been able to effectively prevent his desperate, impoverished, angry and even enraged people from committing acts of horrible violence against many innocent people on their oppressor’s side. Yet, somehow those who blamed this man conveniently overlooked all that their tormentors did to remove all hope from these desperate people- all that they did to virtually guarantee that at least a very tiny percentage of these tormented would commit acts of horror. These con- man supporters also refused to factor in to their considerations all that the con- man’s regime did to undermine the beleaguered elected leader’s potential to be an effective leader. Any tools that he needed to effectively prevent such acts, they made certain that these tools became unavailable to him. So the name of the game for the two great leaders and for their supporters continues to be to blame, tame and defame the victims. But, the Omniscient ALLAH observes what happens in the great Gray House and simultaneously records what occurs in the disputed land. To think that He does not know the evil in the hearts of leaders and followers is absurd. Yes, He sees the situation as totally unacceptable and worthy of stern discipline. So, the great con- artist continues to have his own personal welcome mat at the great Gray House. But the elected leaders of the victims continue to be considered persona non grata at the main house. When I reached this point in the Con Artist story, the following horrible event happened: A former important ally of the great con artist with his three bodyguards had their bodies blown into small pieces. But, why was he blown to pieces? He had just recently announced that he was going to Belgium to testify to a Belgium court against the current Prime Minister with whom he had formerly cooperated. But, he also had publicly announced that his testimony to the current Prime Minister’s role in the two refugee camp massacres was certain to cause him to leave his office in disgrace. 1. Due to the well known fact that several senators from a Belgian court had just visited Mr. Hobeika in Beirut and had received his assurance that he would give damaging testimony against the Israeli Prime Minister in a war crimes trial in Belgium in June. 2. It is very unlikely that the Israelis would do nothing when they knew that someone of this man’s stature would give such embarrassing and damaging testimony against such a high profile person as Ariel Sharon. 3. The timing of the killing. 4. This type of killing very much fits the modus operandi of the Israeli secret service. 5. It was an unknown Lebanese group which claimed responsibility for the murder. Of course Israel would pay someone to claim responsibility in order to cover for a murder committed by Israelis. I feel compelled to make the following comment. If a fatal “accident” were to happen to the author of this parable, I will leave behind one sincere request. No matter the circumstances or who might claim responsibility, please don’t think that any Muslim was ultimately responsible. Also, I am personally persuaded that I have not over stated the case in the Con Artist Parable. Therefore, I request that all of us who have a love for either Palestinians, Israelis or Americans or all of the above, weep and pray for the tragic circumstances that now prevail in the West Bank where the Israelis are apparently using the bombing of innocent Israelis to crush and murder a totally disproportionate number of often innocent Palestinians. Of course, the Israelis realize that their disproportionate response will create even more suicide bombings. This then will give them more international support and sympathy so that they can finally expel a majority of the Palestinians from the West Bank and Gaza. Now to continue with the few more comments about what the great Con Artist cause to occur at the large Gray House. There is some consideration by some of the more progressive advisors of the great man living in the great house. They think that despite the expected protests of the great con- artist and his supporters that they have thought of a suitable compromise. The will have built a quite small house in the back yard of the great house where this disgraced elected head of state will be welcome. So, in order that none of the voters for the man in the great Gray House will think that the man they have demonized has received too much honor, they will have a special sign on his house guaranteed to remind him of the special circumstances of his conditional welcome. Also, they must take every precaution to make certain that by mistake he does not get into the wrong house. So, his own special house will have its own special sign that reads: DOG HOUSEOf course, they can find some consolation in knowing that some of the stains on the house occurred during the previous administration. However, where there is a careful examination of the stains, there can be little disagreement that the darker stains are the more recent ones. But some of the persons who have a valid spiritual dimension in their life, have a very deep concern. They realize that it is the darker stains that can be easily seen by the Omniscient One who lives above. So, they realize that these stains must be taken care of at once. But there is also an additional very troubling concern. They know that the bloodstains on the floor of the great Gray House cannot be removed unless the very foundations of the house are repaired. May all of us learn from this story that we must never underestimate the skill, influence and damage that a con artist can accomplish! THE DICK CHENEY PROPOSALIt is now appropriate for those who have not had the benefit of reading any of Bob Woodward’s excellent books, to have a brief look at what else occurred behind the closed doors of the Gray House that Mr. Woodward did not know about. The source of this information has asked not to be named and I have agreed to comply with that person’s request. Actually, the decision on what to name the very, very small house out in the back yard of the Gray House was not as simple a decision as has so far been implied. In reality, it was a very close call between Out House and Dog House. For those who are unfamiliar with the American connotations of the two terms, a brief explanation will be helpful. An Out House is a term that applied to outside bathrooms in the U.S. before indoor plumbing allowed the place for people to take care of their physical toilet needs inside the house. Needless to say, the Out House was quite a smelly place, and often had many flies buzzing around. People always avoided a visit to this smelly little house until nature’s urges made a trip to the outhouse unavoidable. The doghouse in its primary meaning is a place where a pet dog stays when it is outside of its owner’s house. But it is often used as a metaphor symbolically revealing the status of person when they have gotten in trouble with another person. For instance, a husband who forgot to wish his wife happy birthday may describe himself as being in his wife’s “doghouse.” With this relevant background we will now look into the closed-door decision on the naming of Yasser Arafar’s very, very small but special house. The Vice President in a very serious and convincing voice made a proposal that the name of the new Arafat House should not be Dog House but should be Out House. He pointed out that the word Dog House has a friendly connotation that the Palestinians did not deserve. He reasoned that since someone has said that a dog is men’s best friend this totally ruined the possibility of the new house being called Dog House. This was because the Palestinians were definitely not the Americans’ best friends, but the Israelis were. He further pointed out that the fact that the house should be called Out House, was totally logical. His facts were: An outhouse is very small. The Arafat house would also be quite small. The outhouse is out of the main house. The Arafat house will be out of the main house. The outhouse was usually located in the back yard. The Arafat house was to be located in the back yard. So, the Vice President insisted that there was no decision to be made since logic had made their decision for them. The Arafat House would be called The Out House. The second of the three making the decision was no less than the president himself. His conclusion was also the Out House. But his reasons were somewhat different than those of Mr. Cheney. While he was impressed with Mr. Cheney’s wise logic in reaching his decision, it was not Mr. Cheney’s logic that convinced the President of the United States that the Out House was the right choice. It was the fact that this had been Mr. Cheney’s choice that convinced him to follow Mr. Cheney’s lead. You see, the President had learned from experience that whether facts supported Mr. Cheney’s decisions, or whether facts did not support his decisions, Mr. Cheney’s vast wisdom and broad experience caused him always to be right. Even though the president’s intuition was telling him that he might be missing some important factor in choosing Out House, he felt very comfortable deferring to the to the Vice President’s superior wisdom and broader experience. So, with two voting for Out House and only one vote to go, it appeared that the new Arafat house would be called something like Chairman Arafat’s Personal Out House. However, because both the President and Vice President were polite, and would not think of shutting out the Secretary of State, they decided to hear Colin Powell’s vote. This was even though for all practical purposes the decision had been made. There was an awkward silence, as Mr. Powell looked deep into the eyes of the President, and then into the eyes of the Vice President. Then, in a gentle voice just above a whisper, like he was attempting to calm two run away horses, trying desperately to get them to stop running to nowhere, he quietly spoke: “Whoa Cheney! Whoa Bush! Whoa Cheney! Whoa Bush! Continuing in his gentle voice he said, Gentlemen, while I have great respect for both of you, I violently disagree with your decision. Respectfully, I ask you both; Are the two of you crazy? (majnoon?) Don’t you two realize that by your stupidity you’re running the risk of starting a world recession that could lead to a nuclear war?” In unison they both cried out, “What?” And once again in unison, they cried out, “How?” Then they both began to cry and to say over and over that they were sorry. When Mr. Powell knew he had gotten their attention, he quietly explained that sometimes, certain facts about similarities like “out” and “small” and “back yard” appear to be important but are actually not important. Then he further explained that perceptions, though they are not facts, can be much more important than certain irrelevant facts. Then he explained that OPEC in general and especially the Saudis would go ballistic or absolutely bananas that officials would have the audacity and insensitivity to name the new, small Arafat house after a house full of stinking defecation (a more unpleasant word is often use for defecation which begins with ‘s’ that the polite secretary of state refrained from using) and putrid urine. In fact, Arab leaders would be so upset at this gross humiliation that they would probably shut off the world supply of Mid East oil and send the world into such a horrible recession that it could lead to nuclear war. At this Cheney protested that they were all mature adults and that all of the Arabs had to realize that there was no humiliation intended in naming the Arafat house, Out House. He further explained that all Arabs had to approach this in a mature way and to accept the indisputable logic of their decision. To this explanation the President nodded his vigorous approval. He further added that to give into the Arabs on some minor cultural point would send the wrong message for which the United States would pay a heavy price later. However, Mr. Powell then got up and stood on the table looking down at them: “Gentlemen, you are wrong. So, if you call the Arafat House, Out House, I resign. It is bad enough that you call it Dog House, because dogs are generally not popular with Arabs. But, they may graciously accept our explanation and simply humor us for being less intelligent than they are. So, when we say that it is simply an indirect way or symbolic way of saying to Arafat that he is always in trouble, they may reluctantly accept Dog House as a bad compromise. Then President Bush stood up and motioned for silence. Then he said to the two other men with extreme self-assurance and confidence. “Gentlemen, after serious consideration of all factors, I have made my decision using as a model, the way that John F. Kennedy handled the Cuban Missle Crises. I have listened to all sides and recognize the gravity of my making the right decision. And I might add that I have learned another lesson from another Democratic President, Harry Truman. So, as Harry would say, “The Buck Stops Here!” So gentlemen my decision is the Arafat House will be called ‘Dog House.’” After the three men walked out of the Square Office (formerly known as the Oval office) the president was heard to whisper to his private secretary, “something really statesman like happened in my office today. Like Kennedy, I may have saved our world from nuclear war. I’ll give you more details when I have opportunity. But don’t tell anyone about this conversation or our future conversations unless it will help future historians to give me my due recognition for this day’s achievements.” So, there you have the story behind the story of how the title of Dog House beat out the title of Out House for the name of Yasser Arafat’s special house. A COMPARISON BETWEEN ARIEL SHARON AND OSAMA BIN LADENDoes the number of persons massacred in a particular mass murder determine its degree of wickedness? Or, does the amount of shock to the western world determine a horrible event’s degree of wickedness? The answer to both questions is obviously, no. So, the degree of wickedness of Ariel Sharon’s premeditated murders and the wickedness of Osama Bin Laden’s premeditated murders are legitimately comparable. So, it is appropriate to compare the wickedness of the sixty- nine murders that occurred in a Palestinian village by the orders of Unit 101 Commander, Ariel Sharon and the wickedness of the twenty murders under the same Commander Sharon’s authority in the Gaza Strip with the wickedness of the 9/11 murders that were under the authority of Osama Bin Laden. Also, a somewhat similar comparison can be made with what happened under the authority of Defense Minister Ariel Sharon in the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps with the horrible events which occurred on 9/11. Whether events occurred in the U.S. or in the Middle East, the wickedness remains the same. If the events occurred recently or the recent past, the wickedness remains the same. Whether the victims were relatively few in little known places, or larger numbers in well-known places, the degree of wickedness remains the same. To the loved ones of those callously murdered, one horrible, inexcusable event is no more shocking and wicked than another horrible, inexcusable event. So, the decisions by two powerful men to perpetrate the tragic, needless murder of innocent persons is equally evil. The hard reality is that these wicked acts should be considered equally evil to all of us, not just to those loved ones who are emotionally involved with the innocent victims. This principle is valid no matter where the murders occur. It remains true irrespective of what kind of clothes the victims or the perpetrators were wearing. The same principle also applies no matter to what socio- economic group or to what religious group either the perpetrator or the victims may belong. This principle also remains true no matter how many times the perpetrator has visited the White House, how many close friends he has in high places or to what prestigious leadership position he may have attained. Shamefully, the perpetrator of one set of these wicked events is the elected leader of a democratic showcase nation. He is internationally respected, and is repeatedly welcomed by no less than the acclaimed leader of the free world. In extreme contrast, the perpetrator of the other set of wicked events is a despised, hunted and hated international outlaw. The very world leader who repeatedly welcomes one perpetrator to his White House, has said that the other perpetrator is wanted dead or alive. Without debating whether or not Osama Bin Laden should be wanted dead or alive, I am very perplexed about why Ariel Sharon is neither in prison nor on trial, for his crimes against humanity. Instead, in a circumstance that defies all human reason, he is repeatedly an honored guest in the White House. Could votes, contributions and political pressure have anything to do with this strange paradox? Or, is it just out and out callousness and hypocrisy? Or, is it an evil combination of all of these? Without for one fraction of a second implying that what Osama Bin Laden coordinated was anything but evil, we are still left with a legitimate question. How can the Western world be so severe and judgmental against some in the world who hold Bin Laden in some esteem, though they disagree with what he did, if we hypocritically approve of the welcome mat Ariel Sharon has at our White House. The facts concerning the two men’s involvement in several premeditated acts of murder against innocent civilians cause one glaring reality to confront us. The contrast between the wickedness of the premeditated murders coordinated by Osama Bin Laden and the premeditated acts of murder ordered orchestrated by Ariel Sharon are not as strong a contrast as western media and western leaders would have us believe. But, it is appropriate to examine some relevant differences regarding the two men. There is little question of whether Osama Bin Laden has effectively organized an international network of men who feel justified in callously murdering thousands of defenseless civilians throughout the world. From the facts that have been presented in the media, his organization has already caused the hideous deaths of several thousand of innocent civilian victims in a combination of the bombing of the two African Embassies and through the four tragic events of 9/11. It also must be admitted that it took a much longer time period for Ariel Sharon to accomplish slightly less if numbers murdered are the main criterion of comparison. But Ariel Sharon has definitely out performed Osama Bin Laden because Prime Minister Sharon has successfully manipulated an entire international community to approve of and support or possibly overlook his murders of innocent Palestinian women and children. These murders occurred in three different refugee camps and in a defenseless village over a period spanning approximately two decades. If the meaning of the word refugee in the term refugee camp is factored into the degree of wickedness, this makes his murders all the more hideous. Nevertheless, most of his supporters would argue that all of the murders were justified. When you legitimately enquire as to how they could possibly come to such a bizarre conclusion, to them the answer is obvious. Each of these vicious murders was committed under the glorious banner of building a showcase democratic nation -- a nation which will be a light for the world. back to "My Earlier Stirrings" page
__________________________________________________________ _________________________________________ __________________________ _____________ |