When in the future they will surf the pages of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) looking at the first draft of history, December 29, 2008 will represent a day of journalistic infamy to some people but a gold mine to other people. It is not that the second group will miss detecting the infamy but that it will have made an important discovery. It will have discovered that the infamy was the reason why the superpower that was America turned into the sickly joke that it became in less than a generation.
Three pieces, two of them editorials, were published on December 29 in the WSJ, and they made allusion to the undercurrents that sweep our world today. The pieces make the allusion not because the authors meant to describe the events that shape world history but because the authors are using the events as a stepping stone to construct their own fantasies.
In so doing, the authors are demonstrating that they have become the only story there is to tell in America as they have managed to make their fantasies the foundation upon which America shapes her own history. And this became the new reality when the authors rendered America deaf and blind to everything that is not their own, then trained the nation to march to their drumbeat and theirs alone. Thus, the authors and their kind became more pertinent to the fate of America than all the forces that move the rest of the world today.
The first infamous piece in the WSJ is an editorial that came under the title: "Israel’s Gaza Defense". Right at the outset, the editors of the Journal complain about the international denunciation heaped on Israel’s acts of savagery, acts that can only be described as biblical in their proportions. The editors then quote Barack Obama’s comment that went this way: "If somebody was sending rockets into my house where my two daughters sleep at night, I would do everything to stop that, and would expect Israel to do the same thing."
What the editors of the WSJ failed to mention was that the sleeping daughters who were maimed and killed have always been the Palestinian children and their mothers who came under the relentless fire of the Israelis, fire that was produced by the most sophisticated of America’s weapons. When Mr. Obama hinted he would do everything to stop that, he may well have signaled his intent to end America’s military aid to Israel.
And so, one would hope if not assume that the editors of the WSJ only missed the drift of this sophisticated and subtle pronouncement in the same way that they failed to realize Israel had been blockading Gaza for nearly three years now, an ongoing act of war that gave the Palestinians the right to do everything they can "to stop that." And this is in addition to the fact the Israelis violated the terms of the cease-fire more than a hundred times and murdered dozens of women and children from the air in the middle of the night, again using American-made weapons.
In any case, to bolster their argument, whatever it was, the editors of the WSJ introduced the second piece which was written by Michael Oren and Yossi Halevi under the title: "Palestinians Need Israel to Win". It may as well have been: "Rape in the Name of Virginity". Let me digress for a moment before I go further. Sometimes a writer would hit on an idea so grand it is called a tour de force because it has the potential to become a game changer. A sickly parody of a tour de force that is no game changer is called an act of intellectual self-massage (this is to avoid using another word.)
What Michael Oren and Yossi Halevi do in the article is intellectual self-massage of the most Talmudic kind, as this sort of talk has come to be known. Just look at this representative sentence: "If Israel was guilty of acting disproportionately, it was in its willingness to seek any means, even at the risk of its citizens' lives, to resolve the crisis diplomatically." Using this kind of atrocious and convoluted language, the two guys and the editors of the Journal undoubtedly fantasize that the readers will come to believe Israel bombed its own citizens disproportionately to play the diplomatic game. Well, there is only one thing to say to that: Stop what you’re doing, guys; it’s getting too pornographic to watch you operate as you do.
That statement of the authors actually reveals more than meets the eye. It says that they and their editors have been conditioned to instinctively attribute to themselves the virtues they see in others, and attribute to others the evil they see in themselves. And this leads to the conclusion that if you want to interpret them correctly, you must reverse what they say completely. This is the "rule of reversibility" as it has come to be known, and applying it to what they say is a surefire approach that leads to their thinking.
So then, what do we make of a sentence that came in paragraph 6 of the Oren and Halevi article? Speaking of the Palestinians, the two men say this: "The thousands of rockets and mortar shells … represented more than a crude attempt to kill -- they were expressions of a genocidal intent." Apply the rule of reversibility to this statement and you hear the two men confess that Israel’s intent is to wipe out the Palestinian people by creeping genocide. In fact, as far back as when Golda Meir was Prime Minister of Israel, she repeatedly said in the name of all Jews that there was no such thing as a Palestinian people.
Is there something else in the Oren and Halevi article that will further corroborate this charge? Yes, there is. Look at this passage in paragraph 11: "Israelis will rightly perceive a two-state solution as an existential threat". You see, dear reader, having operated on the principle that the Palestinians should not exist, these two Israelis now say there is no place for them and for the Palestinians in Palestine because there can be no two-state solution.
So then, what is the solution? Genocide, of course, since the Palestinians will not leave on their own accord. And this is what the Israelis are doing at this moment using American bombs and American missiles. Of course, there was a time when they openly said God gave Palestine to the Jews, and He said there can only be one people inhabiting the land. And to make their point clear, they used to run around and chant: Kill the Arabs, kill the Arabs. Now they don’t do the chanting themselves but let their moral slaves in the editorial rooms of America do the chanting as they free themselves to do the actual killing.
All what is needed now to complete the Journal’s sickly fantasy of a situation that is one of good-versus-evil is an editorial to cement the notion that Jews are good and the Palestinians are evil by nature. How to do that? Well, Palestinians are Arabs therefore the editors of the WSJ can again use the rule of reversibility to attribute to the Arabs what they see in themselves and in their friends.
And this is how they did it in the third piece they published on December 29, 2008. Under the title: "Sudan's Slaves" and the subtitle: "Adding to the list of crimes in Darfur" the Journal had this to say: "Women and girls are … forced into marriages … They used us like wives in the night and during the day time we worked all the time, [said] one woman."
This argument is so weak it does not deserve a response, but what must be tackled here is the game that America’s Friends of Israel are playing in Africa. And when you say Friends of Israel you cannot escape recalling the image of the one who calls himself Pastor John Hagee. This is a guy who goes on television and tells his flock that every Jew is a God and that every American must pick a Jew and worship him or her as they worship Jesus. Not exactly a master-slave relationship but one of Lord and his obedient slaves.
What about the teachings of John Hagee and those like him? Well, it all goes back to the time when an African American professor discovered that the Jews were as responsible for the enslavement of Africans as anyone else, and said so. The rule of reversibility kicked in and a group of self-designated Jews in collaboration with the Friends of Israel in America tried to make it look like it was the Arabs who wronged the Africans. They failed to find something in history upon which to build a credible argument so they turned to the likes of John Hagee who recruited a group of self-designated Christians to do the dirty work for them.
This latter group went to Africa, shot footages that proved nothing to implicate the Arabs, so they made a documentary anyway in which the narrator explained there was proof that the Sudanese Arabs were engaged in slavery. Later on, a whistleblower from among the group had a crisis of conscience and admitted that the self-designated Christians were missionaries who actually bought a Black child so as to attribute the crime to the Arabs.
Being who I am and having studied film and theatre rather than journalism, I was approached many times by the Canadian Jewish Establishment to do as they say, and see myself get off their blacklist then move on to where my talent will take me. One of those moments came when I was approached to participate in making a film about slavery in Southern Sudan even before Darfur had become the big story that it is today. I declined the lucrative offer that included an Oscar and possibly a Nobel Prize, and I told my contact the story of the missionaries who bought a Black child to frame the Sudanese Arabs. I explaining to her that the circles which created the Biafra horror a few decades ago when oil was first discovered in Nigeria were preparing to unleash a horror of the same magnitude in Sudan now that oil has been discovered there too.
One thing led to another as I discussed the subject with my contact, and this is when my memory reached back decades into the past to a time when I was a student taking film at York University. It was there that I met filmmakers from Africa who were invited to come and talk about their works. Given that I had spent a few years of my childhood in Africa where I met a few good missionaries, I was shocked to learn a terrible truth from one of the filmmakers. Talking about the missionaries, he said: They say they come to do God’s work but they are deviant people. He went on to explain that they become sexually aroused watching the footage of dying Black children with puffed up bellies, and they are not shy about engaging in self-massage in your presence as they watch the footage if they think you will keep the secret.
I said this to my contact and told her I was not interested to make films that will entertain a depraved bunch of trash made to look like human beings. She took my response to those who tried to tempt me into selling my soul as did the Hagee friends of Israel and the editors of the Wall Street Journal.
All I can do now is to publicly ask the editors of the Journal to step back from this road because whatever they believe the payment will be for selling their soul to the devil himself will not be worth it because what they will give away together with their soul will be nothing less than the soul of America.