Sometimes, when you listen to the Jews, or when you read
what they write, you get the impression they are burdened by a skin that's very
thin. You get this impression because instead of letting some things pass and
“move on,” which is what they advise everyone else to do, they freeze on the
spot and refuse to budge.
They stay there till they get an apology or compensation or
whatever … for something that someone may have said or may have done; something
that would normally not merit a moment's attention – but not when it comes to
the Jews. And when, in hindsight, you look closely at what happened, you find
that the Jews were the ones who instigated the incident that brought the
situation to this point.
Knowing this much about the way that these people operate;
knowing how they have been operating for hundreds of years, and knowing that
they have been punished for their habit time after time, you wonder why they
continue to embrace that philosophy of life knowing that the approach never
worked for them. And so, you devote all the time that's necessary to fully
analyze the matter, and you finally conclude that the problem is not that these
people have a thin skin they can do nothing about; it is that they have a thick
skull they fashioned centuries ago and have been thickening ever since.
This becomes apparent from the column that Bret Stephens
wrote under the title: “The Rational Ayatollah Hypothesis” and the subtitle:
“If President Obama can forgive us our trespasses, he can forgive the Ayatollah
Khamenei's, too.” It was published on May 26, 2015 in the Wall Street Journal.
If you are modestly familiar with the ways of the Jews, you would know of their
saying that the truth will come out if you ask him this “one question,” which
they pronounce “waaaaan question”.
Thus, Stephens asks the readers one question at the start of
his column: “Can there be a rational, negotiable relatively reasonable bigot?”
And that's because he is about to discuss the 'waaaaan' question that another
Jew, Jeffrey Goldberg, had asked of President Obama: to reconcile his view of
an Iranian regime steeped in venomous anti-Semitism with claims that the same
regime is practical and responsive to incentive and reason.
As shown in the subtitle, the prime objection that Bret
Stephens raises about the President's answer is that he equated two situations,
which is a no-no in Jewish parlance, because the practice tends to demolish the
hierarchy of worthiness of causes that the Jews have established, and where
they always put themselves at the pinnacle of what is worthy. Here is Obama's
supposed infamy: “There were deep strains of anti-Semitism in this country.” To
this, Stephens comments: “If the president can forgive us our trespasses, he
can forgive the ayatollah's too.” And forgiveness to a Jew is what Jesus did
when he was on the cross – perhaps the reason why he deserved to be crucified
in the first place, according to Jewish thinking.
And so, our author sets out to “recall some basic facts”
about the nature and history of antisemitism. Reading this, the first thing
that comes to your mind is that this guy is finally going to call the spade a
spade. He will tell of an Israel
where Jews of every race – most having nothing to do with the Semitic race, and
only a fraction descending from it – have displaced the authentic Palestinian
Semites and stolen their country. Not only that, but the more removed from the
Semites someone is, the more privileges they would have in Israel . This is
why European Jews occupy the top parts of the totem pole whereas the Asian,
Mideastern and Ethiopian Jews occupy the bottom parts.
Sadly, however, this is not what Bret Stephens does.
Instead, he gives a history of the long and cordial relationship that used to
exist between the Jews and Persia
(now Iran ,)
trying to make a point he totally misses. Instead, he inadvertently highlights
what normal people have been saying to the Jews for a long time. It is that:
“We don't hate you because of who you are; we lived with you in peace for
thousands of years. We hate what Rabbinical Judaism has made of you in more
recent times. We find out about it not by looking at you but by dealing with
you. This is when our tolerance turns into disgust. Since you insist that we
love you even when you stab us in the back, we say go do it to the Americans
who seem to like the feel of your knife in their backs.”
As if to emphasize the validity of humanity's understanding
of the Jewish character, Bret Stephens who started by rejecting the idea of equating
two things, now does equating of his own. He writes this: “Modern Iran is not
Nazi Germany, or so Iran 's
apologists like to remind us. Then again, how different is the thinking of an
Eichmann from that of a Khamenei who [said] that Israel was a 'cancerous tumor that
should be cut?'”
What our author did not say is that it is legitimate to
denounce an apartheid regime such as that of Israel ,
even wish it to disappear from the face of the Earth the way that it happened
in Rhodesia and South Africa .
Thus, there is no equating Iran
and Nazi Germany.
But if there is the semblance of a perfect equation between
two regimes, it is that of the Nazis and the one that calls for the destruction
“of the entire Palestinian people, including its elderly and its women, its
cities and its villages, its property and its infrastructure.” This is the
declared intent of the current Zionist regime of Israel , as reported by Henry
Siegman in an article that was published on May 20, 2015 in the New York Times,
and discussed on this website that same month. It is in the archives under the title: Welcome into the Brotherhood of civilized Man.