Here is a tragi-comical case of: I didn't do it but I
apologize, and will pay the applicable penalties. The tragedy is that the thing
has been going on since the dawn of history. The comedy is that it is a case
which is playing itself out in the upside-down mode. It sounds more like: They
kicked me in the butt, but I don't mind it because they don't mind it.
That's what comes out a freakish piece that was written by
the editors of the Wall Street Journal. It came under the title: “The
Parliament of Palestine” and the subtitle: “British MPs show the extent of
their anti-Israel leanings.” It was published in the Journal on October 18,
2014. And here is the summoner of both the smile and the tears: “The vote by
the British Parliament to recognize a Palestinian state is being treated as a
nonevent in both Jerusalem and London … But symbolism can also be
revealing.”
The people at the Journal who wrote that passage are the
same who bring out the bugles, the drums and the megaphones to trumpet to the
world that there has been another unanimous and bipartisan vote in favor of Israel in the
American Congress. How is that? It is that a handful of legislative cockroaches
got together in the middle of the night, suspended the rules and voted – all
half-dozen of them – on a nonbinding resolution which basically says nothing
except that when it comes to choosing between serving the interests of America and those of Israel ,
the cockroaches always choose Israel .
Understood. But how does that compare with their view on
what happened in the British Parliament? See for yourself. Here is their
rendition on that score: “Though the margin of 274 to 12 was lopsided in favor
of recognition, more than half the Parliament either abstained or didn't show
up. The nonbinding resolution will have no effect on Britain 's policy...” No bugles, no
drums and no megaphones in this case to trumpet to the world that Palestine is one step
closer to being born at last.
Instead of that, the editors have come up with the usual
lamentations which are meant to say that the Jews didn't do it even if they
apologized for it at times. Here is how they put it this time: “Some of the
revelations came in comments by the MPs. A Tory offered the view that the U.S. was 'susceptible to well-funded lobbying
groups in America .'
A Liberal Democrat tweeted that he'd fire rockets at Israel
if he were living in Gaza .”
Well, let me ask: If this is not bipartisan, what is?
Still, the lamentation is not produced simply to lament and
stop here. It is used as a tool to turn the whole matter upside-down. It is
also used as a weapon to scare off anyone who might want to end the tragedy
here and now – once and for all. Here is the tool: “The mindset such statements
betray speaks for itself.” And here is the weapon: “It is particularly
disturbing after witnessing anti-Semitic venom on Europe 's
streets.”
Used as a tool, the lamentation has the effect of saying
that the Jews didn't do it because they never do anything wrong. If they
periodically murder thousands of people they have been occupying for several
generations, it is because these people have the habit of becoming restless for
being robbed of their freedom. They become agitated instead of doing the right
thing which is to love the Jews who keep them confined. Look at the American
legislators, the more that the Jews screw them and screw their country, the
more the legislators love the Jews. That's being civil. Why can't the
Palestinians be like them?
To use the lamentation as a weapon, the editors of the
Journal summon what has come to be known as the pretzel logic. With it, they
contort the argument in such a way as to make mind blowing statements. A
favorite of theirs is the one about there being a cause and effect relationship
between say, someone wearing brown shoes on a Wednesday and the advent of World
War III. A variation on that theme is used in their latest editorial. Here it
is: “Meanwhile, ISIS is at the gates of Baghdad
– realities Palestinian statehood does nothing to fix.”