On June 7, 2011 Bret Stephens wrote a column in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Iran, Syria – and Seymour Hersh” and the subtitle: “Why won't the New Yorker reporter debate me?” I am not going to take up any of the points made by Stephens and I am certainly not going to guess what may or may not be motivating Mr. Hersh. But I had a tasteless experience once with fanatic Jews inviting me to a debate, and I would be leery to accept an invitation by such people again whether I am a Christian or a moderate Jew.
Here is my story. After half a century or so of studying the behavior of the North American self-appointed leaders of the Jews – some of whom came and went and some of whom are still around – I can say that I find them to be motivated by one and the same idea. They operate on the basis of constructing a monument of hate they throw at the entity they choose to be their enemy of the day. This is how they move their agenda forward and this is how they manage to accomplish their plans if and when things work out for them. Of course, when you come right down to it there is not much that is new at the core of this idea. In fact, you see it in every dispute when the defense lawyers and the prosecutors spend time discrediting their opponents to make a case for their side given that the decision of the judge or the jury will ultimately depend on the credibility and the character of each side. Thus, what the Jewish leaders do, in effect, is that they choose a target for the day and they build a case against it by painting the face representing it as a portrait that deserves to be hated. This could be Seymour Hersh or Fred Habachi as much as it could be Iran or Syria.
These observations force us to pose an interesting question: If the method used by the Jewish leaders is also used by many others, why does the hate that the Jews generate turn around and bite them when no such thing happens to the other people who may do the same thing? The answer is that there is the method and there is the way that the method is applied. And there is a big difference between the two. In real life, people do engage in rivalries and in competition; and they do so as individuals, as corporations, as nations and even as factions inside the same institution. In most part, however, the games that the parties play are understood by everyone because the rules are well publicized and they are known to everyone. These rules remain constant throughout the game and they exist to regulate the intensity with which the game is played. That intensity may range from low to high but there is a limit as to how high the players can go and how unfairly they can make their moves before a siren is triggered ordering that the game be stopped and restarted again. And it is at this point where the Jewish organizations apply the method in a way that is different from everyone else. What they do is that they intervene when they are not supposed to and they throw sand in the gears of the mechanism that regulates the game if and when one of their own participates in the game. The reason why they do this is that they seek to change the rules of the game in the middle of it by having the mechanism stop the game every time their side begins to lose, and by letting the game go on when their side plays unfairly. Thus, the hate that the Jews build up against their opponents does not only hurt the opponent but turns around and bites them as well.
Let me give an example to illustrate all this. It happened that I was writing a column for an Arabic newspaper published in Montreal when one day in the mid to late Nineteen Nineties my editor received a call from the radio station CJAD letting him know they wanted me to appear on a show that was broadcast live in the afternoon of every weekday during the drive home. I accepted the offer expecting to be asked tough questions and knowing full well that the Jewish lobby which was headed by the Canadian Jewish Congress had it in for me because of what I was writing. The day and the hour came, and the host of the show called me at home to say I was on the air and that he had a few questions to ask me. I said I was ready and we proceeded with the interview. I shall come back to this in a moment.
The reason why I came to the attention of the Canadian Jewish Congress was that many events were unfolding worldwide at the time, and they were of interest to the Jewish organizations. I was writing or talking about them and I did so from a position that was diametrically opposed to the points of view propagated by the Jewish machine of distortion and disinformation. Those events were happening in South Lebanon, in the town of Hebron on the West Bank of the Jordan River, in the former Yugoslavia and in Montreal. I was saying the Israelis should get out of South Lebanon before they have their ass kicked by Hezbollah at which point they will be forced to withdraw in humiliation. The Israelis did not listen to me, they got their ass kicked as I had postulated and they withdrew with tail between their legs. As for the other events, even though they were unrelated on the surface, they were very much related in the mind of the individuals that populated the Jewish lobby. I got wind of this and I wrote about it which is why the lobby was pissed off to put it mildly.
Here is what was happening and what I was writing about. Hebron is a town deep inside Palestinian territory where the most extreme of the North American religious savages loved to go and settle. Armed by the Israeli army, these people walked in groups in the Arab marketplaces and their residential streets with machine gun hanging from the shoulder, pistol tucked in the holster and a communication device held to the ear and the mouth as they remained in constant touch with the army which rushed to their aid when they were challenged by rock throwing Palestinian kids. The images that came out of Hebron were so disgusting that the whole world urged the government of Israel to put an end to this display of mindless savagery. Israel did little to change the situation while the Jewish propaganda machine responded in its typical manner. It represented the situation in Hebron as one of ethnic cleansing -- but get this now, my friend -- the infamous machine said that when Jews from North America are asked to refrain from settling in Arab towns such as Hebron, ethnic cleansing takes place at par with the cleansing that was happening in Yugoslavia.
The Jewish machine went on to say that instead of asking the Jews to end their settlement activities in the occupied territories, the world should help move the Palestinians out of Hebron even though they lived there since the beginning of time. The mouthpieces of the machine also said that the world should help transform the town into a Jewish enclave by helping to settle the Jews from North America in it even though they never saw the place except in pictures. When all this is done, said they, Israel should be invited to annex the town and make it Israeli territory. You see, my friend, what a neat little piece of logic that was? How could anyone sane have rejected it? And to give credit where credit is due, not one word of insanity was uttered by the Congress of the United States. Of course, this was the congress that financed the takeover of Palestine by Jewish settlers and this was the congress that financed the army which made possible the implementation of the American project in Palestine. And they managed to do all this not under the American flag where America would have had to take responsibility but under the Star of David which gave America the opportunity to deny responsibility. In the language of diplomacy this is called deniability which means you do something dirty in someone else's name and deny you had anything to do with it. But no one is being fooled anymore because everyone is coming to the conclusion that the blood of the Palestinian people is being shed by American hands operating American weapons bought and paid for with American money – and all this being protected by the American veto.
Eventually, the American military entered the war in Yugoslavia at the urging of then Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. I wrote an article in favor of the intervention but with a proviso that was spelled out in the title of the article. It went something like this: “It is a good idea but...” And I explained that the intervention will turn out to be a good thing if the intent is to help the people who are discriminated against. But if the intent is to set a false precedent for the Jewish propaganda machine to argue that Jews have the right to chase the Palestinians out of their towns and villages and take over, then America should stay home and mind its own business. You would expect at this point that everyone will quiet down and let matters take their natural course without further ado but no, this is not what happened. What happened instead was that characters from the Quebec detachment of the Canadian Jewish Congress started to agitate for the implementation in Montreal of something resembling what the Jewish settlers wanted to do in Hebron. They wanted to create a Jewish enclave out of a district in Montreal -- a city deep inside the Province of Quebec – and have the enclave annexed by the Province of Ontario. I called the idea the hebronization of Montreal and I held it as an example of how the Jewish leaders dig a grave for their people every time they are allowed to scoop up a shovel of dirt.
Let us now get back to the radio interview. It proceeded as abnormally as it could which is what I had expected and was mentally prepared for. But instead of me getting angry and fuming publicly which was what they had intended to do by asking provocative questions and hinting on live radio that agents from Israel will be inclined to come and kill me here in Canada, I was not the one to lose my cool but the host of the show who lost his. And I was not even provocative in any way; I simply made my points and he lost his cool when he realized he was not going to succeed at confusing me or knocking me off track or budging me off message. But I shall discuss this interview on another occasion to leave it now and discuss what happened after that.
The interview ended and I hung up the phone. I started doing something else when about half an hour later I received a phone call from someone I knew who wanted to know how come I did not respond to the man from the Canadian Jewish Congress. What man from the Canadian Jewish Congress? I yelled. The caller did not know I was not at the radio station even though I lived a few steps away from it. And I did not know they had someone from the Canadian Jewish Congress called Sultan who sat in the studio without saying a word until I hung up after which the interview continued with him and without me. I said this to the caller and revealed that I did not turn on the radio after I gave the interview; therefore I had no idea what was said. The caller filled me in on some things after which I called the station and said I wanted to hear what was said in my absence and wanted the right to respond. They said not today but that they will make a copy of the interview and give it to me. It took them three weeks to do that, and I finally got to hear what the man from the Canadian Jewish Congress and the host of the show said in my absence. It was what you would see when you flush a toilet.
Under any regime you can think off – from an ideal First World democracy to a primitive Third World single-man dictatorship – when they invite someone to have a debate, they don't pull a trick as filthy as this unless it is Jewish inspired. And like my Jewish friend would say: “Now you know why Jews end up in the oven every so often; and why there are more Hitler's Executioners in this world than there are Schindlers making up a list of Jews to save.”
Seymour Hersh may just be saving his people from the likes of Bret Stephens, the Wall Street Journal and the Canadian Jewish Congress.