There is a French saying which goes this way: The more
things change, the more they remain the same. And this is used as analogy to
explain many of the situations we encounter in real life. One way that the saying
can be rephrased to better reflect the situation I am discussing in this
presentation is to say that it is easier for some things to alter their outer
shape and look differently, than alter their inner core and behave differently.
This is the lesson that comes out when you analyze the Bret
Stephens article: “The Palestinian Blessing” which also came under the
subtitle: “Israel 's
enemies deliver an unwitting favor.” It was published on July 15, 2014 in the
Wall Street Journal. I view the content of this article in a specific way
because of what I witnessed through the years, and because of the experiences I
lived through during that time. Thus, I must give examples on what I witnessed
and what I experienced to make it easier for the readers to follow my reasoning.
Example one: When the rabbis were in charge of the Jewish
propaganda machine decades ago, there came a time when they felt so comfortable
telling the public how it should behave, they went as far as to patronize the
reporters who asked them difficult questions. They did so by telling the
reporters they are doing a bad job, by showing them how to ask this sort of
questions, and by inviting them to ask the question again, using the approach
they just told them about.
Example two: When I was writing missives in English to set
the record straight with regard to things that appeared in print or were
uttered in the audio-visual media (even though I knew the missives will only be
circulated inside the loop of elites, and not published anywhere given that I
was blacklisted) my friends in those same media would give me unsolicited
advice. It was advice that related to Jewish interest only and nothing else. My
friends did this even though I did not ask for advice nor did I expect any.
Example three: When I wrote a column in Arabic, and another
one in English for several bilingual publications serving the Montreal
and Toronto
markets, people like those I had witnessed in the media and those I encountered
in person, contacted my publisher and/or editor, and told them to advise me
that I was doing the wrong thing. They further told them to tell me how I
should write the sort of columns I was writing. Needless to say I gave them my
middle finger.
What reminded me of all those incidents is something that
came near the end of the Stephens article. Here it is: “It may someday be that
Palestinians will wise up; that the next intifada, should it come, will be
Gandhian in its methods and philosophy; that the next Palestinian leader will
be in the mold of Vaclav Havel, not Fidel Castro.” This is subtle enough to
appear in the column of a major newspaper, yet transparent enough to convey the
intended message which is advice of a Jew instructing Arabs how to have an
intifada. Yes, these characters can be comical at times.
This performance of Bret Stephens reflects the nature of the
Jewish culture. It is one that is so rigid when it comes to the need for
controlling their own environment and that of others; it suggests that the Jews
become paranoid at the thought that someone may be controlling his or her
environment without Jewish supervision. A situation like this engenders in the
Jew the fear that the “other” may someday use such control to challenge or hurt
him. Thus, when Jews meet someone that is adamant about opposing them on
something, they will reluctantly accept the opposition, but will insist that
they be in a position to tell the dissenter how to dissent. Strange but true
and extremely annoying when it is not comical.
The question that poses itself now is this: What sort of
logic did Stephens use to give himself this power and this privilege? Well, he
blasted the whole world for opposing, even hating Israel ... those that are civilized
and those that are not. And since he failed to praise anyone in the article –
which he should have done if only to show some kind of balance – he left the
readers with the impression that he believes the entire world is against Israel . He then
did this: “If you must have a nemesis, better be a stupid one … Israel 's
enemies indict themselves, whether or not the rest of the world has the wit to
see it.” But how can the rest of world see the indictment when the rest of the
world is the indicted?
In any case, when done with all that, Stephens feels this is
a good time to inform the stupid enemies of Israel that they can win by
exploiting not its strength, but exploiting its weakness. He writes: “The real
weakness is a certain kind of vanity that confuses stainlessness with virtue,
favors moral self-regard over moral self-interest, and believes … in
self-examination.” He goes on: “People, and nations, with such attitudes cannot
be beaten militarily. But can easily be shamed.” In other words, he is telling Israel 's
enemies not to fight it with military means, boycotts, calumnies or barbaric
protests but fight it by shaming it. Well, it is obvious this is another case
of the Jew telling the world what to do.
Is Bret Stephens different from the Jews I witnessed in the
media or those I encountered in person decades ago? To be honest, I detect no
profound difference between the two. And this is because it is easier for these
people to alter their outer demeanor than alter their inner core.