Abrams Exposes Himself And His Community

On January 12, 2012 Elliott Abrams wrote an article that was published in the National Review Online (NRO) in which he discussed an article he had written on January 7, 2012 and was published in the Weekly Standard. This article is titled: “Mr. Hagel and the Jews,” while the discussion about it in the NRO has the title: “Questioning Hagel” and the subtitle: “Anti-Semitism or not, it's about the legitimacy of Jewish advocacy.”

It is evident from what Elliott Abrams is saying that the discussion about Mr. Hagel has been exhausted, and there is no need to go over it again or rehash any of its parts. What is left to do now is point out that Abrams has managed to do with two articles (written five days apart) what researchers could have only accomplished after spending countless days; even years researching something.

And that something would be the pattern by which the “organized Jewish community” as he calls it, exposes itself trying to have it both ways, then blames the consequence of its own action on a human race that the community says is suffering from a genetic defect called antisemitism. That pattern unfolds in the following manner. First, some members of the community make a slanderous accusation against someone. When the accusation is shown to be baseless, they counter by saying that it can still be proven true if someone would only ask “this one question” which they pronounce: this ooone question.

Thus, according to the members of the Jewish community, the unmasking of the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth hinges on that ooone question being asked. It is just that ooone question, my friend, just ooone question. If only someone would ask it, they assert, the whole Universe will be illuminated and mankind will be saved.

And the ooone question that Elliott Abrams wants the senators to ask about Mr. Hagel during the confirmation hearing concerns his demeanor when he said something – which in itself is not considered antisemitic – but that his demeanor while saying it may well be. You see, it is not what he said that counts; it is how he said it. Get this piece of information out, and the whole Universe will bathe in a flood of light, they promise. After that will come eternal salvation; they want you to believe.

And look how else these people expose themselves. In his January 7 article, Abrams reveals his annoyance at the fact that “in the case of allegations of anti-Semitism, Hagel has not even apologized.” To be sure, such allegations were made by none other than Elliot Abrams himself and a few other characters like him. Then, in his January 12 article, he says this: “Senator Hagel used the term 'Jewish lobby' … for which he has now apologized. In truth I am not disturbed by this comment.” Does he like apologies or not?

Thus, what we see here is that Abrams and his community will hound you to get an apology for a comment you may or may not have made. If they get the apology, they will say that in truth the comment had not disturbed them in the first place. But if they don't get the apology, they will demand that you apologize, and will keep demanding till you do. In the meantime, they will justify their demand by throwing arguments which are accusatory, defamatory and absurd on their face.

This is how Abrams does that. Writing about the remark that Hagel made to the effect that he is an American senator, Abrams writes the following: “This remark … suggests that those who challenged his views have different loyalties.” What does he mean by “those” when Hagel was speaking of only one guy? What does Abrams mean by “challenged his views?” What views were these? Also, what does Abrams mean by “different loyalties?” The truth is that the Hagel remark came out this way: “this guy kept pushing and pushing. And he alluded to the fact that maybe I wasn't supporting Israel enough or something. And I just said … I'm not an Israeli senator. I'm a United States senator.”

This clearly demonstrates that there is a big difference between what Mr. Hagel said and what Elliott Abrams says Mr. Hagel meant to say. It also demonstrates that Abrams and his community will distort anything that does not suit them, and will do so to the point of putting words in the mouth of someone – words that he never said and never meant to say.

Thus what comes in the subtitle of the second article: “Anti-Semitism or not, it's about the legitimacy of Jewish advocacy,” may now be understood to mean that Abrams is sending a message to the senators who will be questioning Mr. Hagel. It is that Abrams is telling them if they don't find Mr. Hagel guilty of antisemitism or something close to it, they will forever extinguish the legitimacy of Jews to keep pushing and pushing till they get what they want. If this right of the Jews is extinguished, people like Hagel will keep making the claim that the lobby representing the Jewish community is trying to intimidate people like him. Horror of horror, this practice may then be curtailed as a result.

It is obvious that Elliott Abrams has reasoned in the darkest corner of his mind that if someone pushes back against the annoying Jewish habit, that someone may say something that could be interpreted as antisemitic, an occurrence that will turn him into toast on the spot. But if that someone only says things which are beyond reproach, he may say them with a demeanor that could be interpreted as harboring antisemitic tendencies. And the Jewish community will be able to seize on the occurrence and savage him anyway.

But for this to happen, the senators of the Armed Services Committee who will be questioning Mr. Hagel will have to crucify him now. If they don't, it will be the end of the Universe and the end of everything in it – which includes all of us.