On the twelfth day of February, the New York Times gave us the editorial: “Egypt's Unwise Course”. On the thirteenth day of February, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) gave us Alan Dershowitz. On the fifteenth day of February, the same WSJ gave us Daniel Schwammenthal. Yes, this is the year 2012 but no, it is not Christmas in February though it may feel like it for a moment when you consider the gifts that came wrapped in those three pieces of writing. Look at the title of the Dershowitz article: “Warning Iran Against Hitting 'Soft' American targets.” The fact is that America does not need to warn someone against attacking it; everyone knows that if attacked, America will hit back, and hit back hard.
So then, what was the purpose of that article to begin with? Obviously, it was written for the mysterious gift it carries inside it. Now consider its subtitle: “The Obama administration should deem an attack on a synagogue or embassy as tantamount to a military attack on the U.S.” The mystery deepens, does it not? Now look at the title of the Schwammenthal article: “Containment Won't Work Against Iran” and the subtitle: “Mutually assured destruction might be more of an incentive than a deterrent for Ahmadinejad and those around him.” How is that you ask? As a possible response to your question, you find the following assertion buried deep inside the article: “Iran lacks second-strike capability and Israel is too small to absorb a nuclear attack.” What? Is this guy saying that Israel must now prove to the world it has no nuclear weapons, and thus save itself from a nuclear holocaust lest Iran decide to do short work with it using a one and only strike against it? We are intrigued as to what gift this guy is about to give us?
But the real gift is that the three pieces employ arguments by authors who known they are so absurd, they fail to make a point (any point at all) that is serious. This tells the reader he or she should overlook the superficial meaning of the arguments and seek instead to turn up the hidden messages in them. Look at this vacuous logic in the Times editorial: “In Egypt [no] group receives more money from foreign sources than the military … Yet, the generals … have [gone] against civil society groups that … get far less...” Believe it or not, this was written in one of the oldest and most prestigious publications in America where at least two former Presidents in recent memory – Nixon and Clinton – came close to being crucified for accepting gifts from foreigners they failed to declare.
As to the Dershowitz article, it is so uncharacteristically rambling, it is hard to make heads or tails reading it, but like the essay of a kid who spends the night at the arcade then sits down in the wee hours of the morning to do his homework, you can still get the essence of what a tired mind is trying to communicate. Let us, therefore, do just that by first looking at the absurd and unnecessary part: “An attack on an American synagogue is no different than an attack on the World Trade Center or on American aviation. We correctly regarded those attacks as acts of war … and we responded militarily. All American citizens, regardless of their religious affiliations, are equally entitled to the protection of the American military.” Well, the fact is that America does not need to be reminded how it responded to the events of 9/11. So then, what was the purpose of having this unnecessary passage in the first place?
We get a sense of the purpose of that passage when we go back to the start of the article and, once again, navigate our way through the atrocious ramblings we encountered in several paragraphs early on, while trying this time to figure out what the author is trying to build up to. Doing this, we find a pathetic attempt to put together an argument that will satisfy both the American laws and the international laws with the view that if Iran responds to an Israeli terrorist attack against it, America must automatically and reflexively respond to the Iranian response by attacking Iran's nuclear installations. Oh yes, we see it now, it is the return of that same old Israeli obsession which is reflected in that same old incitement, the one that has always been propagated by the Jewish lobby in America. The difference this time, is that the incitement is gift-wrapped inside a new package.
What is common to the three pieces of writing is that they carry inside them, and they propound a philosophy around them that is far removed from what the American government, from what its institutions and from what its people want now or have ever wanted throughout the history of their republic. In fact, what America wants now and has always wanted is a peaceful world in which everyone is entitled to have life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The stance is called isolationism by some people, and called non-interventionism by other people but it is what it is. On the other hand, what the authors of those three articles seek to achieve is a world that is dominated by an America which is itself dominated by them – whoever they are, whatever they are and wherever they live.
But how do they do what they do? you ask. Looking for an answer to this question, you find that the New York Times has found a novel way to spread its gibberish hokum among its readers. But in reality, is it that much of a gibberish? and is it that much of a hokum? Look what's happening here, the NY Times begins by asking a question in the name of the readers: “Their [rulers of Egypt] paranoid argument?” It then responds like this: “That the groups – which do voter and poll-worker training among other things – are 'foreign hands' out to destroy Egypt … The generals portray themselves as defenders of the country's sovereignty.” Wow! Look at that! What a hidden grand message in them words! What a supreme gift to us!
You see, my friend, to suggest that Egypt's current rulers are not the defenders of Egypt's sovereignty but that the foreign hands who came into the country to do things behind their backs are, is to advocate the replacement of those rulers by the foreign hands. And this is to advocate a regime change – not of an Egyptian you dislike by another Egyptian you may like – but of an Egyptian you dislike by a foreigner that is imported into the country from abroad. You bolt, saying to yourself this is it, and you decide that you have seen enough of what comes out the brain, the soul (or is it the rear end of the Times editors?); and because you deem that what you just witnessed is worth less than what comes out the rear end of a dog suffering from diarrhea, you end your analysis of the Times editorial here and now, thus save yourself from having to continue smelling a stink you can no longer bear. And down the toilet where it belongs goes the NY Times. And to think that you were so hopeful as to believe for a moment there was a valuable gift wrapped in this package; it is amazing.
But realizing that regime change is what these people have just advocated for Egypt, it hits you that regime change is what they advocated for Iran on previous occasions except that the change never came. So then, what do they advocate for Iran at this time? You find the answer to this question at the very end of the Dershowitz article. Here is how he put it: “As George Washington … counseled … 'To be prepared for war is one of the most effectual means of preserving peace.'” But the world knows that America is not only prepared for war, it is in a permanent state of war with somebody at any given time. Dershowitz understands this but you find him saying just before he gave his last counsel that: “...for deterrence to succeed … the threat of military action must be credible.” But here too, the world knows that America has “all options on the table.” What more does this man, and all those like him want from America?
You find the answer to that question in this passage: “The U.S. government should deem any Iranian attack against Israeli or Jewish ... targets … to be an armed military attack on the U.S. – to which the U.S. will retaliate militarily … Washington should not treat such an attack as the Argentine authorities did, merely a criminal act.” So that's what it's all about; and the way it will work is this: Israel will steal or forge Canadian and New Zealand passports which it will give to agents who will use them to travel and do something criminal in the name of Israel, something that will provoke Iran. When the latter will retaliate by committing an act that will be similar in nature and proportional to the provocation, America will call it an act of war and pounce on Iran, unleashing a massive and disproportionate attack on its nuclear facilities. What can be more Jewish and more syphilitic morally than to ask for something like this?
But to pull it off and hope to fool the world, you need to justify it, especially if you are a lawyer urging your suggestion on a superpower that pretends to be a nation of laws. In fact, this is the spot in which Dershowitz found himself and for which he tried to do fancy footwork that unfortunately did not work for him. He put it this way: “...the legal justification for such an attack would be … predominantly pre-emptive or preventive, though it would have reactive elements as well, since Iran has armed our enemies in Iraq and caused the death of many American soldiers.” Come again, Alan baby! You are counseling America to respond to a criminal act by launching a massive attack on Iran's nuclear facilities under the pretext that years previous, the Iranians helped the fighters of a neighboring country defend themselves when America invaded them under the false pretense that they had developed weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons? Whoa! There is no doubt that the world will dismiss this idiocy because it will see it as a moral syphilis of the most Jewish kind, the kind that only a Dershowitz can formulate and still maintain a straight face.
As to that guy Schwammenthal, you look for the gift inside his package and discover this: “But will any country rely on Western promises to protect them from a nuclear Iran after the same promises failed to curtail a conventionally armed Iran?” And you ask yourself is this a trick or a treat? And you decide after a moment of deep reflection that it is a trick because these are the people who continually tell the Americans not to worry about what the world thinks of them, and add this: “Just go ahead and do what you need to do because then, everything will fall into place as they should, and the world will come to love you, respect you and most importantly, fear you.”
However, when these people have a shaky argument they wish to present, and when they know not how to convince America to send its children to fight and die for them, they tell the superpower that if it did not do what they ask, it will lose what valuable credibility it may have in the eyes of the world. What chutzpah! What hubris! What gall!
And then you come to the sad conclusion that this is not Christmas in February; it feels more like a spooky Halloween moment full of tricks.