Animals mimicking human Beings

What would you say about someone standing in front of a gas chamber where Jews were gassed, and shouting loudly for the whole world to hear: What a lovely sight! Here is what we must do now with the surviving Jews to give current and future Nazis something by which to elevate their spirits when they need to.

Impossible, you say? Not even a hardcore Nazi would be so beastly as to behave like this? Perhaps you are right. Perhaps not even a Nazi would do such a thing. Except, my friend … yes, there is an exception … there is a bunch – no doubt a bunch of Jews – who write editorials for the New York Times who did something like that. They did not stand in front of a gas chamber; they stood in front of the holocaust that Israel has inflicted on the Palestinians in Gaza, and they expressed their content at what they were seeing. Not only that, they murmured to each other how to make political and financial gains from this depraved work.

What passes for an editorial published on a website but is no more than the printed twin of the videos depicting the beheading of innocent people, the horrifying work of the New York Times came this time under the title: “Having to Rebuild Gaza, Again” and was published on October 11, 2014. Try to get your arms around a mentality whose logic develops this way: “Thousands of Gazans desperately need help … Still, one question arises: What is the point of raising and spending millions to rebuild Gaza just so it can be destroyed [again]?”

This is the question that only an animal would pose. And there is a response that only an animal would give. It happens in this case that the animal asking the question is the animal giving the response. It says this: “make sure any rebuilding is linked to a cease-fire designed in a way that strengthens peace with Israel, while weakening Hamas, Israel's implacable enemy.”

Before they go on to reveal the content of the next chapter in their logic of beastly demons, the editors of the New York Times do the very Jewish thing of mutilating history both by commission and by omission. They begin: “when Hamas seized control of Gaza from the Palestinian Authority...” No, Hamas did not seize control; it won the election and was given the control. But that's not all that the editors have done; they also wrote of the “draconian blockade that Israel and Egypt have enforced on Gaza.” No, only Israel's doing was draconian. Egypt made sure that the Israeli plan to push the Palestinians out of Gaza and into the Sinai did not happen.

That mutilation of history was the background against which the narrative of the New York Times unfolded. Now is the time to describe the two main characters. There is Hamas which only acts when it has its back against the wall. Here is the Times argument supporting this notion, provided without proof: “Faced with financial problems, Hamas forged a unity government with Fatah.” And there is Israel which is so intent on protecting its people; it “used the blockade to restrict imports of construction material.” What is omitted from this part of the narrative is the fact that Hamas built the tunnels which contributed mightily to the defeat of Israel's murderous aggression.

Now comes the comic relief. It is to say that the Jews have rights, and the Palestinians have none. This is how the editors expressed that point of view: “Israel has a right to insist that Gaza not be used as a launchpad for attacks against Israelis. To that end, it has demanded that Hamas be disarmed.” There is nothing in this passage or anywhere in the editorial about Israel being disarmed … which makes the Times point of view good for a chuckle and nothing else.

As they approach the moment when they will murmur to each other how to make financial gains, they pull something out of thin air: “Donor nations are demanding,” they say. And that is baloney because the donors have not met yet, and nobody has demanded anything.” But the editors go on to do the most Jewish thing that can be done. They murmur this: “The reconstruction program should be used to increase trade … with Israel, ensuring that reconstruction benefits all.” How can you not think of them metaphorically as cannibals drinking from the blood of their victims to wash down their flesh?

Having started with: What is the point of raising and spending millions to rebuild Gaza just so it can be destroyed again,” they now say, let Israel benefit from this project. But in case this does not happen, they have a fallback position. It is another thing they pull out of thin air with which they end the editorial: “It is little wonder that donor nations are reluctant to pour money into what many see as a black hole.” They are hopeless.