So much telling in the following video of the CNN debate between Peter Beinart, Allen Dershowitz, and Dennis Prager regarding the UN Security Council Resolution 2334 which condemns the illegal Israeli settlements in Palestinian territory.

Here are a few points:

When CNN’s Don Lemon addresses Allen Dershowitz with the question, ‘[President Obama] is still the president, shouldn’t he, if he want’s to change policy, shouldn’t he be able to do it as he sees fit?’ Dershowitz responds, ‘Well, he can change policy, he can make speeches, what he should not do is change America’s policy 40 years at the United Nations…’

So, a sitting president can ‘change policy’ and ‘make speeches’ but when it comes to being President of the United States he shouldn’t be the President of the United States when it comes to making a decision as important as a vote in the United Nations’ Security Council – that is idiotic. Dershowitz gets to his real concern following that point:

If the Security Council resolution goes through it completely ties the hands of an incoming president, you can’t undo a Security Council Resolution, you can’t take away a veto. And this Security Council resolution is an invitation for the International Criminal Court to go after Israel, it’s a (sic) invitation to the BDS [Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions] movement to start sanctioning Israel, it’s a very very bad resolution…

Of course it’s a bad resolution – for the murderous and oppressive Israeli regime who have, since its inception, defied international law in the most egregious ways possible without having to answer for any of it. It’s reasonable to conclude that these breaches of International Law have been allowed to continue as long as they have exactly because Israel has never been made to answer for their crimes due to a lack of international  involvement via the UN – with the US’ continued role as blind submissives to Israel’s demands of its veto being a major factor.

Dershowitz goes on about Obama ‘tying the hands’ of an incoming president because of the ‘irrevocable’ nature of a Security Council resolution. He states, ‘this president is acting undemocratically, 88 senators have opposed [sic] to this, the vast majority of congress, vast majority of the American people. This is a parting shot by a frustrated president who thinks more of his own legacy…’

Last I checked, Obama is the democratically elected President of the United States – the theory is that the people hired him to act on their behalf. Of course congress would be opposed to the resolution, what else can be expected when the ‘vast majority’ are beholden to the powerful Israel lobby. As for the vast majority of the American people – I don’t recall any vote by the American people in which they voiced an opposition to this. As a matter of fact, the ‘vast majority of the American people’ are probably blissfully unaware of the this issue at all – and Israel and their US lackeys are probably very happy about that as the decent people of the US would probably be appalled at the level of US largess to the terrorist state if they were informed about the truth. I, as one US citizen, born and bred, am pleased that the president decided to act on my behalf rather than on behalf of a foreign government and their agents within the United States. Dershowitz states that Obama ‘thinks more of his own legacy…’ This implies that by his decision the president is hoping to leave a positive impression for history as part of his ‘legacy’. Indeed, history will record this act as one of which a US president behaved like a US president – putting American values of freedom and justice ahead of a morally indefensible foreign extortionist regime.

Peter Beinart, in his decency, interrupts the bloviating Dershowitz by interjecting, ‘You have no right to slur the president ad hominem when you don’t know what his motivations are and that’s beyond the pale.’

Dershowitz slides in this zinger, ‘It makes it much harder for the Palestinians to come back and negotiate when they think they can get a state through the UN.’ WTF?! Seriously Dersh…? The Palestinians haven’t gotten anywhere in their US brokered negotiations with Israel – specifically because of their disadvantage in having to deal with hostile entities who have no desire to pursue the interests of the Palestinian people. If the UN Security Council isn’t an appropriate entity which acts as a fair and balanced arbiter between nations in conflict, as well as one which seeks to uphold and enforce international law, then what is it? UN involvement in this situation is perhaps the best hope for the Palestinians to ‘come back and negotiate’ – of course, not ‘back’ to the fruitless-by-design US brokered negotiating table, but a table where both sides are given even considerations. In a Jerusalem Post article written by former brigadier-general division head of the Shin Bet (Israel Security Agency) Lior Akerman, titled, Is Israel A Democracy?, the author quotes the Declaration of the Establishment of the State of Israel – in it we find, ‘…on the strength of the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly…’ Apparently, for the Zionists, a UN resolution regarding the establishment of their state seems just fine, but not when it comes to anyone else.

When Beinart is finally given a chance to speak he does so eloquently and truthfully:

‘…we have to understand what settlements mean: You are entrenching Israeli control over a territory where Palestinians live under military law, lack free movement, are not citizens in the state which they live, and lack the right to vote for the government of their country, and we Jews have all of those rights. Many of the settlements, according to the Israeli government, are built on Palestinian – individually owned – Palestinian land. What settlement growth means is that you essentially use the fact that they are non-citizens to take that land from them and give it to Israeli Jewish settlers. That’s morally wrong and many of Israel’s own leaders have said it’s very bad for Israel.’

Beinart’s point is made even more profound when one considers the Israeli demolition projects occurring in the West Bank. On 13 December of this year the EU made a joint statement slamming Israel’s ongoing destruction of Palestinian structures in the Palestinian territories.

After the Beinart-Dershowitz exchange, Dennis Prager steps in and comes up with this one: ‘It is morraly bankrupt to…accuse Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East. In the history of the world, where there has been a conflict of a democracy and an autocracy, there has not been a single instance when a democratic and free state was the obstacle to peace…this would be the unique exception in human history that the free people wanted war and the autocracy wanted peace. It is morally sick to blame Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East.’

Just wow. One can refer back to the previously mentioned post by Lior Ackerman in which, after much scrutiny he writes:

If we were to try to write a new Israeli declaration of independence today, there’s no way all the various sectors – secular, religious, communist, etc. – would succeed in reaching a consensus, and there is no chance that the word democracy would be included in the text.

Israel would be described as a Jewish state only, since a democracy cannot coexist with the Jewish religion (or with communism for that matter).

Many articles and studies have been written about the belief that a country cannot be both democratic and Jewish, since the essence of a Jewish state means that one population is considered more worthy than the others (and in the case of Israel, rightfully so)…

Is Israel a democracy? Maybe it is an oligarchy, or an aristocracy, or some sort of anarchistic monarchy? What I do know for sure is that no one actually cares.

Prager’s hubris in the statement – ‘In the history of the world, where there has been a conflict of a democracy and an autocracy, there has not been a single instance when a democratic and free state was the obstacle to peace…’ – is breathtaking. One need only consider Adolf Hitler’s numerous efforts for peace in Europe, including serious proposals for armaments reductions, and limits on weapons deployment, which were spurned by the leaders of France, Britain and other powers, to fully grasp the level of audacity in Prager’s comment. Of course, Jews like Prager would prefer the facts which led to the worldwide conflagration of WWII to remain obscure, particularly the role which International Jewry played in it – on 24 March 1933, the London Express newspaper ran the screeching headline: JUDEA DECLARES WAR ON GERMANY: Jews Of All The World Unite In Action.

Judea Declares War On Germany - London Daily Express

What was it that caused this unprovoked attack only three months after Hitler assumed power? Vladimir Jabotinsky, founder of the Irgun Zvai Leumi terrorist organisation, made it clear when he wrote in the January 1934 issue of Mascha Rjetach:

‘For months now the struggle against Germany is waged by each Jewish community at each conference in all our syndicates and by each Jew all over the world. There is reason to believe that our part in this struggle has general value. We will start a spiritual and material war of all the world against Germany’s ambitions to become once again a great nation, to recover lost territories and colonies. But our Jewish interests demand Germany’s total destruction, collectively and individually. The German nation is a threat to us Jews.’

The German nation was a threat to Jewish Bolshevism – plain and simple. The National Socialists wiped out the Marxist/Bolshevik plans for Germany. It’s telling that Jabotinsky uses the term ‘syndicates’ – a favorite among those serving the Soviet International. By 1933 Stalin’s red goons, led by the Jew Lazar ‘the butcher of Ukraine’ Kaganovich, had already murdered millions of innocents by an intentional man-made famine – this horror has become known as “The Holodomor‘.  While Encyclopedia Britannica estimates the number of murdered at 8 million people, 5 million of them Ukranian, other estimates have the number as high as 10 million. Rather than castigate the Jewish led Soviets, US president Franklin Roosevelt chose to reward the bloodthristy regime with formal recognition in November 1933. In 2010, the Israeli president and veritable war criminal Shimon Peres visited the Ukraine and made the following statement in a speech:

If I were asked what advice Ukraine, I would say: forget history. History in general is not important at all.

The level of vile hubris in that statement is bottomless. While the world is inundated by ‘Holocaust’ memorials and museums, and is extorted of billions of dollars since the end of WWII in the name of the ‘six million’ (with the official count being lowered every year without public announcement), this demonic creature could tell a people whose families and fellows suffered a hideous and torturous demise – in true millions – that they should forget about it, that ‘it’s not important at all.’ Simply monstrous.

Unlike Churchill and Roosevelt, Hitler and the National Socialists weren’t going to ignore or forget about it – and world Jewry called for an (un)holy war against the German people because of it.

Prager’s malignant and self-righteous declaration that it is ‘morally sick to blame Israel for the lack of peace in the Middle East’ is another bit of breathtaking hubris. Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research summed it up when he wrote in 2011:

The destabilization of Syria and Lebanon as sovereign countries has been on the drawing board of the US-NATO-Israel military alliance for at least ten years.

Action against Syria is part of a “military roadmap”, a sequencing of military operations. According to former NATO Commander General Wesley Clark–the Pentagon  had clearly identified Iraq, Libya, Syria and Lebanon as target countries of a US-NATO intervention:

“[The] Five-year campaign plan [included]… a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan” (Pentagon official quoted by General Wesley Clark)

In “Winning Modern Wars” (page 130) General Wesley Clark states the following:

“As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Iran, Somalia and Sudan.

…He said it with reproach–with disbelief, almost–at the breadth of the vision. I moved the conversation away, for this was not something I wanted to hear. And it was not something I wanted to see moving forward, either. …I left the Pentagon that afternoon deeply concerned.”

The objective is to destabilize the Syrian State and implement “regime change” through the covert support of an armed insurgency, integrated by Islamist militia.

This is all in keeping with the largely Jewish neo-conservative militaristic philosophy in the US and the Israeli Likudnik’s goals for a ‘Greater Israel’. While the neoconservative think tank, Project for a New American Century (PNAC), took to the hills after their deceptions which led to the abject destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan became known to the public, the core of their philosophy lives on in the Foreign Policy Initiative.

Israel and their American neocon lapdogs have everything to do with the violence and destablization in the Middle East. For a major news network to recognize anyone with such blatant disregard for the facts as an expert of any kind – and worthy of a position in a serious political debate – is a disturbing reminder of how far gone US mainstream media has really become.

There’s more in the following segment, but it’s really just more of the same – lies, distortions, hubris, hate, arrogance…and just plain devilry. Bless Peter Beinart’s heart – he was a lion in a circus ring and never gave way to the whip.