Do you remember the old Zeno paradox? It's a question that
goes something like this: Would you believe someone that says he is a liar? The
answer being a yes or a no, neither would make sense, hence the paradox. Zeno is
an ancient Greek philosopher who dabbled in the logic of absurdities. The
absurdity of this example comes from the fact that neither answer would make
sense for the following reasons:
First, a YES answer would make no sense because if you
believe the liar, it means you believe he lied to you saying he is a liar. If
so, it means he is telling the truth. But if he is telling the truth, he is not
a liar. And he cannot be a truth teller and a liar at the same time.
Second, a NO answer would make no sense either because if
you do not believe him saying he is lying, it must be that you believe he is
telling the truth. And if he is telling the truth about being a liar, he must
be a liar. And you cannot believe that he is lying and telling the truth at the
same time.
The modern version of this absurdity is the Jewish AIPAC
warning to the journalists, lawmakers and politicians of America: You say we
intimidate you and you're toast. Would you be intimidated by this warning?
This being more of a dilemma than a paradox, it engenders
the question: Would you be so intimidated as to deny you're intimidated? Or
would you defy the Jewish warning and admit you may have been intimidated in
the past but you're intimidated no more, and you prove it by standing up and
fighting back?
This is what Chuck Hagel did and won the fight. Now comes
Daniel Pipes and does what Jews are famous for; he whines over the waning of
the old order and its replacement by a new order. He does that, and he cries
out for the return of the old order in an article he published in National
Review Online on March 5, 2013. It has the title: “When AIPAC Went AWOL” and
the subtitle: “The Hagel nomination shows how ineffective the pro-Israel lobby
has become.”
The best thing about the Pipes article to the people who are
interested in studying the Jewish mentality in America is that it drips with
absurdities like nothing I saw before. Look how the author starts the
presentation. I have abbreviated it for the sake of clarity: “Chuck Hagel
claimed that the 'Jewish lobby intimidates.' Then a strange thing happened:
AIPAC did not lift a finger to influence the vote.” He seems to say that there
is a difference between “influencing” which he claims is what AIPAC does, and
“intimidating” which is what Hagel claims AIPAC does.
Well, let us go along with Pipes and accept this splitting
of the hair. It would mean we accept the notion that influencing the course of
events is a normal thing to do, therefore there is nothing strange about it. We
now consider the Hagel response to AIPAC which is to accuse the organization of
something. And this accusation caused the organization to do “a strange thing,”
says Pipes. Strange being abnormal, we must ask: Did Hagel intimidate or did he
influence?
According to many Jewish pundits who speak in the name of
the Jewish lobby of which AIPAC is the umbrella organization, Hagel has proven
to harbor a latent form of antisemitism by his pronouncements. Thus, the
question: Which is more daunting? To accuse a person of antisemitism or to
accuse an organization of intimidation?
Pipes goes on to explain that one of the reasons why
“AIPAC's initial logic made sense is: why antagonize a very powerful figure
[Obama]? As Steven Rosen explained, AIPAC also did not want to antagonize
increasingly skittish Democrats [including Senator Charles Schumer].” The use
of the word skittish means that somebody was spooked. Was this influence or was
it intimidation? Has powerful Obama intimidated less powerful AIPAC?
The author continues with this: “a search into Hagel's
record found more ugly statements about Israel.” Is it beautiful to call
someone's remark ugly? But what did Hagel actually say? He said that Israel's
aerial bombardment of Lebanon was a “sickening slaughter.” Even if this feeling
is exaggerated, is it appropriate to call it ugly? But it could not be
exaggerated because Hagel is a war veteran who knows what a slaughter is when
he sees one.
Look now how Pipes has described what Israel was doing:
“Israel's self-defense against Hezbollah.” This is an example of how these
people get away with throwing paradoxes. They talk about savagery but call it
self-defense; it's as simple as that. And they say it is fair game to bombard a
civilian population as long as they claim to be fighting Hezbollah; it's no more
difficult than that.
The absurd logic goes on and on for another 500 words to
culminate with this: “The age of Obama and Hagel needs the robust AIPAC of
old.”
Dream on, Danny boy, dream on.