If journalism were a wall, the Wall Street Journal would be the obscene graffiti staining it, and what the Journal has displayed during the first full week of the month of April this year makes this point more clearly than anything it published in the recent past. On April 6, the paper published a piece by Robert Bate under the title “Water Security in the Promised Land”. The next day it published a piece by Mia Farrow under the title “Sudan's Sham Election Has U.S. Support”. And the day after that it published a piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz under the title “What’s Not Happening to American Muslims”. And what all three articles have in common is that they were deliberately designed to distort reality to such an extent as to make the useless look useful and the good look bad.
The piece by Robert Bate is without a doubt an attempt to attenuate the stinging reality brought to light by Don Belt who demonstrated in the April issue of National Geographic the demonic character of the Israelis who use American weapons to steal Palestinian water then sell some of that water back to the Palestinians at exorbitant prices. Robert Bate accomplishes his satanic task by applying the lessons taught in the Talmud in that he begins by telling the American readers the Jews are better than them and better than everyone else on the planet. Here are the words as he wrote them in the Wall Street Journal: “Israel's lessons in combating water problems should prove useful in other arid locations, including the rest of the Middle East and the western United States.”
But Israel has a water problem which is what compelled him to write the article in the first place. So then, how does the Talmud say you get out of this apparent contradiction? Well, you do it this way: “Like nearly every country in the world, the farm lobby is strong in Israel”. As you can see, he blames the problem on politics which he says is a common occurrence plaguing the whole world. But he quickly goes on to explain that the problem is not as bad in Israel as anywhere else because the Jews are better than everyone else, remember? And here is the proof: “Israel's agricultural favoritism is less egregious than in other countries. Take the US where water … is squandered … Israeli farmers generally deploy the least wasteful irrigation techniques … I saw [in Israel] only one irrigation system which appeared to be even slightly wasteful.” There you are, folks, another proof as to who are the superior ones in the world. Close the books on this one and never again doubt that the Jews are head and shoulder above humanity, including the Americans.
Well then, you expect Robert Bate to recommend that politics be taken out of water management in Israel, right? No, says he because Israel's security hurdles justify political control over the water. And this, he goes on to say: “…inevitably means waste. Also, Israel's huge exports of citrus fruits … ships valuable water out of the country for a modest return to a politically favored group.” He calls huge Israel’s export of citrus fruits? This guy is badly misinformed or he is one heck of a bull you know what. And what about that other word he used: waste? Did he not say previously that there was no wasted water in Israel but now says the waste is inevitable? This guy is all screwed up in the head as you can see. And you’re telling me he was advising other nations about the use of water? What happened to this world; has everyone gone mad?
Yet, all of that, according to this screwed up guy means that the: “Israelis are skilled both in technology and governance”. But then he adds this: “If Israel's authorities care to look further afield -- to Chile and Australia, for instance -- they will find models for successful and popular water allocation … [and] the rest of the world can certainly learn from Israel.”
That’s it folks; I give up on this guy and the Wall Street Journal because I cannot take it anymore. Stop the planet and get these two off it or I get off. Until then I rest my case on this piece of journalistic graffiti and move on to the Mia Farrow piece.
Writing 4 days before the beginning of the election in Sudan she says this: “In Khartoum this past weekend, U.S. Envoy to Sudan Scott Gration expressed his confidence that the April 11 elections in that country … will be as free and fair as possible … [but] No one in Sudan believes the elections will be anything approaching free or fair.” So there you have it, dear reader, she begins by saying that the US envoy in Sudan is no one, meaning he is a nobody. And she claims to know what everyone else in Sudan believes. She is one heck of a mind reader, you see.
She reports on the speculation done by two characters (more about them in a moment) as to why the election in Sudan will not be free or fair and she quickly gets into what she is really after which is to try and motivate President Barack Obama. She reminds him of what he said about Darfur when he was a senator and later a candidate for the presidency of the United States. She goes on to say that based on his words, the Darfuris hoped and believed that he will appoint an envoy who would be an honest broker but that Mr. Gration turned out to be “spectacularly” naïve. Maybe she conducted a poll in Darfur but she is not telling us.
She also mentions former President Carter who is there to observe the elections with his team as he has done on many occasions in the past, and she quotes him as saying before the election that the process was “at risk on multiple fronts.” Well, the election has come and gone and nothing out of the ordinary has happened. We may, in fact, paraphrase Desiderata to describe what has transpired by saying that the universe has unfolded as it should. And Mr. Carter who was concerned before the election expressed during and after it that things were as ordinary as they can be. As for President Obama who expressed his views forcefully before he was in government, has expressed through the government he now heads that there were no serious breaches to what constitutes a normal election.
Should this be the end of the story? No it should not and the following quotes from the two speculators as reported in Mia Farrow’s article give the chilling reasons why we must not stop here: “…the Save Darfur Coalition is urging the U.S. and the international community not to legitimize Sudan's presidential election … says Robert Lawrence, the Coalition's director of policy: The last thing WE WANT (emphasis mine) is for the results to legitimize the rule of President al-Bashir." This shows how personal the fight has become to this speculator. As to the other speculator, Mia Farrow says this: “The Sudanese elections will move forward with what the International Crisis Group has labeled catastrophic consequences … [in Darfur] warns EJ Hogendoorn, the Crisis Group's Horn of Africa project director … many will look to rebel groups to fight…” This then is their aim; they want to see the fight resume. Motivated by the most evil of sentiments, these people started the fight; they incited the various factions in Sudan, they armed them and promised them power and riches at the end of the day. But now that the fight has stopped and the reconstruction has begun, they want the fight to resume and to go on for ever. But we must never let them realize their evil dreams.
And talking about President al-Bashir, Mia Farrow adds her own thoughts: “Following this Sunday's election, there is little doubt as to who will be the president of Sudan … His regime must not be granted the legitimacy he craves.” She too has made the fight a personal one. Well, no sane person doubts what the President of Sudan craves. He craves to develop a country in Africa that the sexual predators and the looters from Europe and America masquerading as latter day Tarzans want to see fail. In the old days, such characters craved the gold and the other treasures they saw in the lands of simple people. They went in with the cross and the musket to kill, conquer and loot those places. Nowadays, they go in with the cross of the televised church, a Star of David fashioned inside secret organizations and the penis of the pedophiles. They distribute the guns among the local gangs who fight each other while they conquer, loot and satisfy their weird sexual cravings as we saw them do in Thailand, Sri Lanka, Chad, Haiti and Uganda where the Lord’s Resistance Army shares in their satanic pleasures.
And what does Mia Farrow get out of all this? Well, she never raised an eyebrow about the activities of the Lord’s Resistance Army whose members murder, plunder and rape women and children but she gets apoplectic about Darfur now that peace has broken out by the signing of treaties with the central government and Chad, and now that the satellites circling the Earth have discovered water under its desert thus giving the Darfuris a new lease on life with African dignity. This stance is so perplexing that there can only be one explanation: Mia Farrow is an aging actress who is worried about finding a male to satisfy her desires in the years to come. Unlike Elizabeth Taylor who can, at any age, charm a virile male to perform the functions of a sex machine, Mia Farrow knows she could not charm a dog to even look at her. And so, she reckons that if she helps those Tarzan impersonators satisfy their deviant cravings in Africa, one of them will return the favor and answer the phone when she calls to have a romantic evening.
We must never let these creatures have it their way in Africa but must protect the Continent from the sick and the weird who go there to do what they cannot do here.
Let us now look at the piece by Dorothy Rabinowitz who is a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board. She says she is not surprised that Hollywood is perpetuating the myth of Muslim victimization and she laments that this trend encourages Americans to view themselves as oppressors and racists. And to justify what she is advocating -- however slyly she does it -- she takes cover in what has come to be known as the Alan Dershowitz doctrine. It is the idea that Israel (or in this case American Jews) can inflict on the Palestinians (or in this case Muslims of all races) an act of terror that someone has inflicted previously on someone else. This is how Rabinowitz puts it: “Ask the members of religious and racial minorities who served, say, in World War II, when it wasn't unusual to hear slurs like kike and such hurled at them.” Is this Jewish woman saying without realizing it that the Jews were not victimized then and that their current complaints are bogus?
She also says this: “Ask black Americans who had the incomparably worse experience of serving in a racially segregated military, where they were … made witness … to the sight of German POWs held in the U.S. eating in restaurants barred to black Americans in uniform … Still, there were no instances of those enduring this treatment undertaking mass murder of other American servicemen.” Well, I was two years old when that war ended, I don’t remember a thing about it and I know that the historical record is incomplete, thus I cannot say I am as certain as Rabinowitz of what she is reporting. But I am old enough to remember the Vietnam War and I suggest that she ask someone of my age what the word “fragging” meant then.
Be that as it may, I must say that it is a refreshing thing to see a Jew acknowledge that someone else in America had an experience that was at least as comparable to that of Jews, something that never happened before as far as I know without the Anti-Defamation League howling: “Horror of horrors, you can’t compare the two. Jews are over here, the others are over there and the two must never be mentioned in the same sentence.” And would Rabinowitz now call on the right wing media such as the Wall Street Journal to make the same acknowledgement without trying to use, as she did, the Black experience to denigrate the Muslim experience?
I am afraid this will never happen because I already see that she has fallen into the trap where every Talmudist ends up while trying to get more out of a story than the story can yield. This is what she says: “…we've seen the growth of a view that American Muslims became prime victims … President George W. Bush … [said] the nation's Muslims must be free to go about without fear or intimidation … [but] It had not … been necessary to remind Americans of who they were and were not … No menacing hordes … threatened American Muslims … [also] countless Americans had reached out to their Muslim neighbors to reassure them.” Undoubtedly the woman does not realize what she just did. She just revealed that the American President and the neighbors of Muslim Americans thought then as do some people now (both in Hollywood and elsewhere) that the Muslims are in danger of being victimized. Which prompts the question: If hordes of Americans are not going to victimize the Muslims, who will?
Again not realizing what she is doing, Dorothy Rabinowitz gives us a clue: “Every actual incident, every report of a nasty sign fitted the … theme taken up by large sectors of mainstream media … Each FBI … sting that went awry or seemed to, each wild goose chase … spurred a new portrait of besieged American Muslims … alienated American Muslims were forced to live in fear as second-class citizens.” My first reaction to this bewildering statement was this: Is Dorothy Rabinowitz talking about the McCarthy era? And will she now ask the Anti-Defamation League to stop reporting on acts of anti-Semitism, something that is done regularly to this day?
And there is more to American history than she cares to remember. For example, it was the institutions and not the hordes of Americans that hurt the Asian “aliens” during World War II. Thus, no one expected the hordes to hurt the Muslims this time either. What happened instead was the launch of a relentless attempt to alienate the Muslims; that is, to paint them as aliens and to make them feel like second class citizens. There were the incessant calls, such as the one voiced by Rabinowitz, to treat the Muslims harshly, to neglect protecting them or to do both. It was the American Jews and the New York branch of the FBI that engaged in such activities as they incited the other institutions to follow their lead. Thus, like Dorothy Rabinowitz is now doing, they worked on the media, the system of education, the legislative and executive branches of government at all levels to make life miserable for the Muslims by treating them like second class citizens if not criminals who committed the crime of being born. Dorothy Rabinowitz is one of the culprits she claims do not exist.
She also tells this story: “There are other faces of Muslim America … a cab driver from Pakistan remarked: "What would have happened if Americans had done this kind of attack in my country? Every American -- every Christian, every non Muslim -- would have been slaughtered…" And she concludes with this: “Countless American Muslims would … say the same. Theirs, of course, is not the face of Muslim America suitable for the continuing chronicle of the victimized American Muslim.” Is Rabinowitz saying that because she mentioned the victimization of Jews who were called kike and such long ago, and because the Anti-Defamation League is chronicling the victimization of contemporary Jews, these people should not be considered the face of America? Please explain, Dorothy, I am getting confused.
In my view, Rabinowitz is making a mistake telling the story of the taxi driver. It is a difficult story to believe because you do not need a Pakistani living in America to speculate as to what would happen in a Muslim country if two buildings were shocked and awed out of existence, droned into oblivion or cruise-missiled into rubble by a foreign power. These things have happened and they continue to happen, yet no serious retribution was ever directed against foreigners or local Christians in those lands. In fact, we, Christians of Arab descent, have lived with Muslims for centuries during periods in which the Muslims were butchered by Christians like the Palestinians are now butchered by the Jews, and nothing of the sort happened then or is happening now. And this is because pogroms and holocausts happen in places like Europe and may well happen in America but they never happened in Arab or Muslim lands. And the expectation is that despite the scheming and the provocations that come from the outside, this exemplary conduct shall remain the hallmark of Arab culture and Civilization.