For half a century, every time
that a country – especially an Arab or a Muslim country – was reprimanded by an
international body for whatever offense, the American pundits and politicians
harped on the event as if they were all Jews clamoring for the blood of the
enemy. But when Israel was
reprimanded for a serious offense, those same pundits and politicians spoke of
a world that is “ganging up” on Israel .
For a reason that remains obscure
at this point in time, the world is no longer viewed as a gang having Israel in its cross-hairs, but a mob that is
appeasing the enemies of Israel .
This is what Jonah Goldberg is saying in a column that came under the title: “Israel vs. the
Mob” and the subtitle: “Politics is in large part a numbers game, and Jews are
at a numerical disadvantage.” It was published on January 21, 2015 in National
Review Online.
Goldberg makes the point that Israel is a
small country, and that the Jews worldwide are small in numbers. He goes on to
say that all the troubles which are experienced by Israel and the Jews stem from those
two realities. He then builds a case based on this assertion to ultimately
conclude that nations may be realistic when it comes to dealing with each
other, but this is also worshiping the powers they seek to appease.
Why does this sound like the
useless rant of a delinquent recidivist who believes the world is conspiring
against him simply because he is small? Well, it is because that's exactly what
it is. The fact is that Israel
is not the smallest country in the world, and the Jews are not the smallest
group of people in it. There are many smaller countries which the world adores,
and there are many smaller groups of people that the world worships. There are
also big countries with big populations that the world does not care much
about, and says so. Thus, the Goldberg rant is no more than a useless rant
which is neither here nor there.
If Jonah Goldberg had started
writing his column with those realities in mind, he would have been compelled
to draw parallels between Israel
and the other small nations; between the Jews and the other small groups. In
doing so, he would have realized that Israel and the Jews do things as a
matter of course that others may do only on rare occasions. And when they do,
the rest of the world reprimands them the way that it does Israel . The
fact that the UN Human Rights Council has condemned Israel
50 times, but not once any of Iran ,
Saudi Arabia or China says that
the Jews miss something they ought to learn about if they want to be treated
like everyone else.
And the fact that Goldberg has
mentioned the number of times which Israel was condemned without
mentioning the number of times it violated human rights, demonstrates a
deficiency in logic. Worse, the fact that he compared that number with those of
Iran, Saudi Arabia and China demonstrates that the deficiency is not only in
logic but also in the ability to think in the way that human beings are wired
to think.
That harsh reality poses a serious
question: Is there something about the Jewish ideology which physically alters
the wiring in the brain of those who adhere to it? In other words, is Judaism a
brain disorder that can be induced by indoctrination?
The answer seems to be yes. And
that's because these people have for centuries been luring individuals from
every race and every ethnic background into their religion. The remarkable
thing is that all those converts end up displaying the same deficiency in
logic, and the same deficiency in the ability to think like human beings.
At first, the sum total of their
belief system boils down to them being eligible for a reward every time that
someone else is rewarded, even when they do noting to deserve the reward. It
also boils down to someone else being punished every time that they are
punished, even if the other party did nothing to merit the punishment. This is
how they view what they call balance.
Before long, however, you see them
upgrade that system of beliefs. What they do now is demand that they never be
compared with someone else. They rationalize this on the basis that no
equivalence can ever exist between what they are and what someone else is;
between what they mean to the act of creation, and what someone else may or may
not mean.