Known for processing information
and analysis through a system of logic that resembles the contorted pretzel,
the editors of the Wall Street Journal have added credence to that view with
yet another editorial that will leave the readers as baffled as ever. The piece
came under the title: “Iran 's
Secret Weapons” and the subtitle: “Israel
intercepts a missile cache intended for Gaza .”
It was published in the Journal on March 7, 2014.
Their beef this time is that the
Palestinian people of Gaza
have dared do what any people under air and naval blockade would do. And that
is to try and procure weapons from anywhere they can, to defend themselves
against a military force that says it has a qualitative edge over all its neighbors
– not just tiny Gaza – thanks to superpower America that arms it, finances it and protects
it in world forums no matter what crimes it commits in Palestine or anywhere.
And the latest incident; the one
that caused all those memories to come to the fore is that Israel says it
intercepted a shipment of weapons. These were Syrian-made munitions, say the
editors of the Journal, and they came on a Panamanian-flagged ship. The editors
add without reservation that the weapons were loaded in Iran and were going to Gaza . In reality, all that information had
come in the releases that Israel
put out – but there was more to it than the journal decided to reveal. It is
that the weapons were supposed to have been unloaded somewhere in Sudan to travel overland to Egypt 's Sinai Peninsula, and from there to Gaza .
The editors say that Iran denies sending those weapons, then make the
point that the weapons “happened to be disguised among cement bags labeled
'Made in Iran .'”
This, of course, is no proof that the Syrian-made weapons had come from Iran,
but even if they were, why is it that America has the right to arm Israel to
the teeth, allowing it to blockade the Palestinians and kill them when they try
to break out to freedom, whereas the Iranians are not allowed to give the
people of Gaza the capacity to defend themselves?
Instead of answering that question
and starting a debate along this line, the editors of the Journal go on to
assert: “The seizure of the ship is a reminder that the aims and methods of
Iranian foreign policy remain unchanged,” which provokes a counterargument that
goes along this line: Does it also mean that the aims and methods of American
foreign policy remain unchanged? What are those aims and methods on both sides?
And since the editors are relying
on the flimsy evidence that Iran
may be associated with that shipment of weapons, however remotely the
association may be, what about the Syrians? The Panamanians? The Sudanese? The
Egyptians? Are they all in the pickle sharing the same American jar with the
Iranians because Israel
mentioned their names in association with that incident?
The truth is that the Iranians say
they want to see the people of Palestine
enjoy freedom like everyone else on this Planet – and maybe they are arming
them and maybe not. But the Americans say without a hint of shame that having a
Congress that is slavishly beholden to the Jewish lobby, they will most likely
remain subservient to their Jewish masters – perhaps for ever. So the question
is this: Which is more honorable? Is it the work of the Iranians who want
freedom for themselves and for their neighbors? Or is it the work of the
Americans who seek to destroy anyone that strives to remain free of the Jews?
The world has an answer. What do you say, America ?
Finally, having boiled the debate
down to this simple formulation, you hope to find a clue in the Journal
editorial that will tell you how these people think, and in which direction they
are inclined to take their country. But what you find is this: “Iranian Foreign
Minister said Iran would not close its reactor in Arak … if the Administration
won't draw conclusions from what the Iranians do in secret, is it too much to
ask that it draw conclusions from what they say in public?”