It happens in some cultures that parents preordain marriage
for their children when they are only toddlers. If you talk to such parents,
they will tell you that these marriages are not loveless because the couple
learns to love each other with the passage of time; a process that strengthens
the marriage and makes it endure.
Some parents go further than that, and explain that the
method is better than the experience of a phony love at first sight – which may
happen because of sexual attraction – but then turns into a prolonged period of
hate after only a short period of cooling off, and the discovery that love was
never really there after all.
Perhaps all of this is true, and perhaps it is not. But the
purpose of mentioning this example in this discussion is to use it as a
close-enough analogy; one that can lend perspective to a trick that the
self-appointed leaders of the Jews utilize to coerce the vulnerable Americans
into loving anything and everything that the Jews do no matter how atrocious
that may be.
An episode of this nature is discussed in an article that
came under the title: “The ASA's Israel Boycott” and the subtitle: “For
targeting Israeli academics, it faces a discrimination suit.” It was written by
Alec Torres and published on January 11, 2014 in National Review Online. The
article discusses the complaint that was filed by an American law firm with the
IRS “arguing that the ASA [American Studies Association] no longer warrants its
tax-exempt status because it violated its academic purpose.”
The story is that the ASA has finally caught up with a
civilized world that noticed some time ago the Israeli habit of learning all
the bad lessons of history, and repeating them in the belief that as long as
America will continue to single them out for protection when they do the things
that are forbidden to others, their Israel can continue to get aggressive and
grab more Palestinian land the way things were done in the 1930s. After all, it
was Alan Dershowitz who proclaimed that Israel has the right to do to the
Palestinians anything that anyone has ever done to someone else in the history
of the planet.
The ASA, however, did not go as far as that in its
condemnation of Israel .
All that the resolution, which it passed overwhelmingly, says in justification
of the boycott is the following: “There is no effective or substantive academic
freedom for Palestinian students and scholars under conditions of Israeli
occupation.” This leaves the door open for the Israeli academics who wish to
have exchanges with the Americans, to condemn their own government for pursuing
policies that make it impossible for Palestinian students and scholars to enjoy
the freedom that they themselves enjoy, especially when they go to America
where they never shy away from portraying Israel's actions as saintly and
angelic instead of what they really are which is evil and demonic.
That is not what some Israeli academics would like to see.
What they want is have it both ways. That is, they want Israel to maintain the occupation till most of Palestine , if not all of it, becomes the de facto annexed province of Israel America
like the greatest thing to have happened to the Universe since before the Big
Bang. And if the Americans cannot give them this kind of love, well, they
devised a way to coerce them into it. Simply put, they will talk to the IRS and
plead to have the ASA's tax-exempt status revoked. If this does not work, they
will go to court and apply the pressure there.
In the meantime, there are two more areas where the Jewish
leaders seek to buttress their chances at forcing the ASA to love them; one
political and one legal. On the political side, they recruited politicians and
academic organizations, and gave them the task of speaking on their behalf to
argue that the boycott carries antisemitic overtones. Given that the simple
charge of antisemitism carries a penalty more severe than when murder is
committed, they expect that some members of the ASA will change their mind.
This is how these people have always operated.
As to the legal side, their complaint to the IRS is but a
dry run for when they will go to court where they will try to have it both
ways. To understand this part, the reader must know that when a court rules on
something, the verdict becomes part of the jurisprudence and later invoked by a
litigant that is arguing a similar case where he will ask for a similar verdict
so as to maintain the fairness and continuity of the system. The irony is that
it happened over the decades that the Jews brought many cases and won a few,
thus establishing precedents that were later used against them when they
started violating the very principles they argued to uphold in the past.
To prevent this scenario from being repeated in the future,
they found themselves having to argue generalities from which they drew
conclusions which they then applied to the specific case at hand so as to win a
verdict that will apply only to Israel
and to no one else in the future. In other words, they want a narrow judgment
in their favor and not a sweeping judgment.
To do this, they argued in their complaint to the IRS that
generally speaking, academic boycotts run contrary to the purpose of academic
life which is the free exchange of ideas that are brought about by the
interaction of scholars and their institutions. But be careful, they go on to
say, they are not pleading to outlaw all academic boycotts, they only argue the
specific case where the boycott of Israeli academics fails to promote the study
of American civilization and culture by making such study more difficult. What?
What the hell is that?