Neumann Responds to his critics

Dear Lord: Protect me from Neumann's wreckage of logic, which sends my head spinning. Please Lord: keep Neumann's silly articles away from my screen and I promise to keep my distance from him. It is a solemn promise. Besides what a waste of precious time having to address his so numerous pieces of shattered logic.

Michael Neumann replies on March 14 to his critics of his article of March 11 about one state vs. two state. His three critics were Jonathan Cook, Kathy Christison and Assaf Kfoury. You will find links to all the articles by his critics and his origianl article and his rebuttal at the bottom of this page. Neumann begins his rebuttal by saying:

What follows is blunt, but this is not an expression of contempt. To the contrary, I have great respect for these critics.

My Response: I don't know how blunt my response to his response is going to be, but what I did notice on my printed copy of his rebuttal is a lot of my own writings all over the pages, which indicates there was so much broken logic that I encountered on those pages that had me scribbling all over them. So here we go:

Neumann: Christison says: "The case Neumann puts forth is ultimately an argument for the notion that might makes right." Nothing I said could conceivably support that notion. It's true that the Palestinians, in their weakness, have only one practicable alternative, the two-state solution, so it is right for them to pursue it. But the Israelis, in their strength, have all sorts of alternatives, and so it is wrong for them to impose the two-state solution. In other words, might makes wrong. To say that this is 'might makes right' is like saying the following: if concentration camp inmates try to escape rather than overthrow the state - on the grounds that the latter alternative isn't feasible - they're 'ultimately' giving in to 'might makes right'.

My Response: Dear Lord: My head is beginning to spin again; because his statements are so disconnected I can't comprehend. Will you Lord please translate for me? Kidding aside, I don't understand what the Professor is trying to say, I don't! That statement about the concentration camp just flew over my head, as did the rest of that statement.

Neumann: Christison also has some problems with my logic.

My Response: Yes she does. Her exact words were:"I find it sometimes difficult to navigate Neumann's logic.: She was being very kind to you, Professor. My difficulty with your logic is not 'sometimes' but most of the time.

Neumann: As for getting out in a large hurry, that's indeed what the settlers did. What took time and lives was convincing Israel to stop sponsoring and protecting them. Once the time and lives were taken, the swift evacuation increased the credibility of a two-state solution: Israel has shown itself much more ready to get out of the occupied territories than, for instance, to give up on its pre-1967 borders. Also, it seems elementary and indeed proven that Israel does not consider the occupied territories fundamental to its existence; not so, obviously, Israel itself.

My Response: Whose lives were taken, that of the 'Chosen people'? 1967 vs. 1948 borders: I guess one is legitimate theft and the other is deserved theft by Europe's Ashkenazi Jewry? I have no idea what his last statement above means ... oh Lord ... my head is beginning to spin again.

Neumann: I'd also caution against seeing South Africa, and the allegedly huge concessions of the whites, through rose-coloured glasses. Ask anyone who's been there.

My Response: this statement by the Professor happens to be true. The South African elite is known to have said that had they known how much more easy it would be post apartheid to suck the blood of the lower classes who also happen to be blacks that they would never have resisted the dismantling of apartheid. But Neumann is not worried that the Palestinians may meet the same fate as the black South Africans. His main goal is the separation of the races, his Ashkenazi race and the Palestinians.

Neumann: Northern Ireland isn't comparable because there is no land issue, no gross inequality of power, no paranoia about a people being wiped off the map

My Response: Here we go! The truth does come gushing out inadvertently, doesn't it Professor? What people would be 'wiped off the map'? Those would be the European Ashkenazi Jews also known as Khazars, right? But why use the scary expression of 'wiped off the map'? Why not call it 'de-colonization'. Huge chunks of the globe have been decolonized, but the departing Europeans never claimed that they were being 'wiped of the map'. They were just returning home after decades of sucking the blood of blacks and browns i.e. people of color.

Neumann: Israel discarded justice long ago, and bleating about it won't change anything. I made it entirely clear that a two-state solution is unjust. If, as many believe, it's the best the Palestinians can get, then the Palestinians will do best to accept it. I suppose that means it's 'acceptable' in some impoverished sense of the word.

My Response: Professor, one discards of something that one was in possession of. When did the Jews' state ever possess an iota of justice since its brutal coming into being? Yea, Professor, let the indigenous Palestinians accept the crumbs thrown at them by those European Jews who stole their land. Might does make it possible for the Jews' state to demand 'justice' at its won terms, doesn't it?

Neumann: I merely think that, in the case of the one-state solution, the attempt fails miserably: just or unjust, one state is not an available option ... A real-two state solution is the most the Palestinians can get; it hardly follows that they are sure to get it.

My Response: Well professor, if I were a Palestinian, I would have recognized long time ago that the 'the two state solution' had always been a mirage, and if I am going to dream, why not dream big and attempt to recoup as much of my stolen land as possible. It does not cost much to dream, right? Btw professor: what is 'real' two-state solution. What does the 'unreal' two state solution look like?

Neumann: As for Sharon, he disengaged from Gaza when he decided that the dream of a Greater Israel was too costly. No doubt he also didn't want the demographic hassle of a Jewish state full of Arabs. How this proves he expected a single secular state is quite beyond me. He certainly didn't want one, just as I certainly don't want a vacation home in Kandahar - but I don't expect one either.

My Response: I do believe dear Professor that it will serve you well if you remove yourself as examples in your statements.

Neumann: Cook says there are practical problems with a two-state solution. One is water. Yes, Israel might make a water agreement a condition of ending the occupation. What insurmountable obstacle does this pose? At least Israel within 1967 borders won't need water for the settlers' gardens and swimming pools ... Under the two-state solution, the present smaller demographic threat is further reduced by the return of the settlers, and Israel can offer Palestinian Arabs all sorts of inducements to leave.

My Response: I think there is no better example than the above to prove that there is something wrong with the professor or with his thinking pattern or both. At first he attempts to solve the water problem by having the European Ashkenazi invaders of Arab land (conveniently called 'settlers') leave in order to create a two state solution. But then he has them coming back to solve the demographic problem after the creation of the two state. So where is the water going to come from to satisfy European Ashkenazi Jewry desire for a life of luxury on Arab land surrounded by swimming pools? And about those 'inducements', do they come in the form of money to have someone remove oneself from their home to make room for Europe's and America's Ashkenazi Jewry? Money can buy a lot of things including the dislocation of people from their homes. No wonder there is such a strong and tight relationship between those who rule the West and International Jewry.

Neumann: It is not for us to discard or not to discard justice. Israel discarded justice long ago, and bleating about it won't change anything. I made it entirely clear that a two-state solution is unjust. If, as many believe, it's the best the Palestinians can get, then the Palestinians will do best to accept it. I suppose that means it's 'acceptable' in some impoverished sense of the word.

My Response: 'bleating about it' is what abolished slavery in America, what sent European colonizers packing and rushing home (except for the Ashkenazi European colonizer). 'Bleating' is what abolished apartheid South Africa and the list goes on. Hell no, people should never stop 'bleating', dear Professor when they are under a chokehold by a foreign occupier.

Neumann: Then there's economic disruption. If the shift from wartime to a peacetime economy were a deal-breaker, there would never be any peace, anywhere. No doubt the US, the EU and the Gulf States would fork up a lot of money to solve these problems. And with endless warfare as an alternative - a war that diverts untold economic resources - I don't see any economic argument against peaceful solutions. That Cook speculates on what water-wars Israel might or might not initiate hardly strengthens his case, especially since Israel hasn't enjoyed it's recent wars very much. As for the idea that Israel's lucrative defense industries cannot flourish without the occupation - who's being naive?

My Response: Unlike other European colonizers, the European Ashkenazi Jew came to stay. This colonizer is also paid to keep the Arabs divided and disorganized so that empire can lap up their resources with much ease than from a strong and united people. The Jew state has performed a stunning job of having the Arabs divided and impoverished and for that it gets paid handsomely. Under the one state solution, all the luxury the Ashkenazi Jews have been enjoying, as welfare recipients from the American government would vanish overnight. But Neumann will not address such vital concerns, would he. He does not even mention the word 'Ashkenazi'. No power is relinquished out of kindness. The power is usually taken away when a people who have been colonized find the strength to vanquish their colonizers. In the case of the Palestinians, the tragedy of all tragedies is that they have been abandoned by the wealthy Arab regimes. Palestinians with their blood have stopped the International Zionist Jewry from its ultimate goal of world (gentile) conquest.

Neumann: A real-two state solution is the most the Palestinians can get; it hardly follows that they are sure to get it.

My Response: yes Neumann, they sure are! Those Palestinian kids better put away those stones they have been fighting the European enemy with. The enemy's heart has just turned soft and is about to be benevolent towards the colonized darkies, the Palestinians.

Neumann: If the shift from wartime to a peacetime economy were a deal-breaker, there would never be any peace, anywhere.

My Response: I think the reverse would also be true. But there are certain groups who are war-profiteers, that are how they make huge bundles of money; it would be in their interest to ignite wars, especially if those fighting and dying are considered not members of their own kind.

Neumann: That Cook speculates on what water-wars Israel might or might not initiate hardly strengthens his case, especially since Israel hasn't enjoyed its recent wars very much.

My Response: But it had enjoyed them except not so the recent wars? It is the same Arabs who sent the British and the French colonizers packing. But the Ashkenazi colonizer has been too clever thus far, mainly utilizing divide and rule. But now that the Jews' state has now shown to be vulnerable, they are willing to settle for a two state solution? And what does the new Palestinian state look like with a very vicious enemy next door who would never let them live in peace from here to eternity?

Neumann: As for the idea that Israel's lucrative defense industries cannot flourish without the occupation - who's being naive?

My Response: I would say to you Neumann, look in the mirror.

Neumann: Another alleged problem: the decline of "Israel's vital strategic alliance with the US in dividing the Arab world". Hello, if there's peace, the alliance isn't vital any more.

My Response: Is the professor that naive or stupid? Does he not realize that The Ashkenazi Jews can afford to live a life of luxury because of the billions of dollars that are being hijacked to the Jew's state from the American taxpayer, which would dry up the day the billions are believed to benefit Arabs?

Neumann: Many Arab governments find the Palestinians a pain in the ass and would be delighted to improve their economic relationship with Israel.

My Response: That may be true, but not the Arab people. Saddam did not find them 'a pain in the ass' and for that he found himself swinging from the rope! Do the Arab governments find the European Ashkenazi Jews who stampeded to their land pleasing? Sir: My head is beginning to spin again. The Arab regimes find the Palestinians (their own brothers) 'a pain in the ass' and for that reason they would improve relations with the Jews' state. What is the logic here? How does it help the Arab governments by improving relations with the Jews state, which would in turn make the Palestinians more pains in the ass? What do the Arab governments gain by forsaking their own people in favor of an alien and vicious europan Ashkenazi enemy?

Neumann: Cook tells us that the Palestinians living within pre-1967 Israel would demand equal rights. Well, they have always demanded such rights; it doesn't seem to have troubled Israel too much.

My Response: yes, Neumann, it won't trouble the Jews' state because of the immense backing it receives from the west. Remember: Black Americans demanded equal rights but it did not bother those who had the power to grant it until they had no choice but to grant it. Those Arab regimes that you spoke of who love the Jews' state against their own brothers the Palestinians are the problem as to why the Jews' state could get away with denying them rights. Did you not get that?

Neumann: And if Israel would resort to ethnic cleansing at the mere prospect of an eventual Palestinian majority, what would Israel not do to avoid a one-state solution, which entails both the certainty of a Palestinian majority and the end of Jewish sovereignty?

My Response: Beggars could never be choosers. Those who stampeded to Palestine are alien people who forced themselves on the people. They can afford to get away with murder because of so much acquired wealth and power from within and the rest of Ashkenazi scattered around the globe. But the Arab people are gifted with so much oil wealth, but alas they don't see it coming that one-day the Jews' state would also turn against them. As far as 'Jewish sovereignty', it was the European Jews who wanted sovereignty, and that land of European Jews' sovereignty belonged on European soil.

Neumann: Israel can offer Palestinian Arabs all sorts of inducements to leave.

My Response: I bet it would. Money is no problem for the Israelis, is it? American congress would send billions overnight if the Palestinians could be induced to leave their homeland for the European Jew. How about he reverses inducement: let the European Jew return to where he rightfully belongs, his own Europe?

Neumann: In a single state, Jewish ethnic supremacy can be maintained only by civil war.

My Response: six to seven millions Jews live in American and we don't see a civil war where they are trying to impose their 'Jewish Ethnic supremacy' upon the gentile American. They do it in subtle ways, like be over represented in the congress and the senate, and almost exclusive ownership of the media and clinching huge chucks of the American wealth in the hands of Jews who are a very tiny minority. By the way Neumann, do you also consider the Oriental Jews and the Black Jews in the same category of 'Jewish Ethnic supremacy' as the European Ashkenazi Jews?

Neumann: Why would keeping millions more Palestinians within its borders improve Israel's chances of remaining an ethnic state?

My Response: Why does a land occupied by different ethnic groups - browns (oriental Jews), blacks (African Jews) and Whites (European Jews) be called an 'ethnic state'? Is the notion of being a Jew makes all ethnic people one ethnic people? How wonderful? But the facts on the ground tell a different story. There is the hierarchy of class of 'choseness', with the White Jew being the most chosen followed by the brown Jew and as is the case in most places, the black Jew comes last. These are fact, but Neumann speaking on behalf of his white Jew tribe is attempting at falsehood big time.

Neumann: They may succeed in pushing Israel back to 1967 boundaries. To suppose they can go further, no doubt by moral suasion, presupposes such a good-hearted world that one wonder why there ever was a problem to start with.

My Response: Neumann: there is indeed good-hearted world out there. They fought for justice for black Americans for South Africans, for the Vietnamese. But in the end, it is the equation of power the determining factors. As long as the Jews' state receives billions of dollars from the American taxpayers, and the Palestinians are abandoned by their own Arab regimes, the balance of power is in the hands of the Jews. No power relinquishes its grip on power willingly. The Arabs could indeed succeed in having the European Ashkenazi Jew packing back home to Europe if they had the unity. But they don't have it and they will forever remain stuck with an enemy that will forever keep them divided and impoverished.

Neumann: Zionism doesn't conquer, starve, dispossess and kill. The state of Israel does that.

My Response: well, yea! Same scenario with colonialism, imperialism, racism, bestialism? ...........

Neumann: I also agree that it is not for us to tell the Palestinians what to do. Since most Palestinians appear resigned to a two-state solution, I see the one-state advocates as doing just that.

My Response: Neumann: beggars cannot be choosers. The Palestinian people are holding world Zionist Jewry's lust for world conquest in check, but most people do not seem to recognize that fact. It is true that the Palestinians should be speaking for themselves and if they could, their demands would be as follows

1. Send the Ashkenazi European Jew home, but not easily doable

2. Live in harmony under one democratic state with its former tormentors and colonzers

3. Take the crumbs thrown at them and do the best they can to live with a vicious Western supported Jewry.

Neumann: More and more, what counts is the ability of the Palestinians, in the occupied territories and through Hizbullah, to create facts on the ground. No longer is that the prerogative of Israel and the United States.

My Response: Dear Lord: that one just went over my head, and my head is beginning to spin again. Dear Lord, protect my head from spinning by protecting it from coming across any of Neumann's writings.