To understand anything that Victor Davis Hanson writes, you
must know he is the kind who would stand on your porch and urinate at your
door. If you ask him what the hell he thinks he is doing, he'll pretend not to
know what you're talking about, and then accuse you of urinating on your own
porch to blame him for the atrocious act.
Hanson has done it again in spades in an article he wrote
under the title: “Israeli Preemptive Action, Western Reaction,” published on
August 4, 2015 in National Review Online. The article itself is a 1600-word
hoax because its writer knows better than anyone that Israel will not
attack someone it cannot take by surprise or someone that is totally disarmed
and helpless. And Iran
is neither of those.
What is not a hoax is that humanity has had it up to here
with the antics of the Jews, and has been expressing this sentiment for
centuries if not for millenniums. People at all times and everywhere on this
planet have expressed that sentiment, first by generating warning signals, and
then by escalating the push-back against the Jewish habit of responding to
every signal with an in-your-face response which says: We, the Jews are the
favorite children of God who cannot be reprimanded for anything we do.
Despite the fact that the escalation has, in almost every
instance, gone as far as to pogrom or holocaust the Jews, their leaders started
the same old antics again and again, usually in a different place but sometimes
in the same place, and have faced the same old responses time and time again.
Here they are, once more, playing what the colloquial would refer to as the
same old movie; and no one does that more regularly than Victor Hanson … as can
be seen in his latest piece.
As a classicist by training, he does what he does the
classic way which, in this case, means to begin the round by demonizing the
people he feels are peeved by the antics of the Jews – Barack Obama, for
example – and the people who speak of their lost patience by hinting “darkly”
at what is bothering them – John Kerry, for example.
Hanson complains that these two, among others, see certain
Jewish groups as being pushy. And you know what? He does not like it that those
two are pushing back – something they do, not by taking any action that might
inconvenience the Jews, but simply by voicing their annoyance with what the
pushy groups are doing.
So then, how does he respond to that, whether in-your-face
or otherwise? He does it in two ways. First, he contends that the American
people are against the nuclear deal just concluded with Iran ; and that the same American people are
supportive of Israel .
Of course, these are false contentions based on fake polls conducted by quack
poll takers whose credibility sits beneath the belly of a crying crocodile.
Second, Hanson tells of the mistreatment of Jews by humanity
in a language that makes it clear he believes the conduct of the Jews has
always been angelic, while that of humanity has always been demonic. This has
the effect of saying to the world that humanity must change to accommodate the
Jews, whereas the Jews need not change because you cannot improve on
perfection.
Does he know this is the mentality that begins the round of
escalations by forcing humanity to push-back? Of course he does. And that's
exactly what the Jews have always done when they got caught in a stalemate.
They pulled their version of a Hail Mary in a desperate do-or-die attempt that
always ended with the innocent among them dying, and the leaders escaping punishment.
They later collected compensation to come out of their ears.
Coming close to the high
point in the escalation game, Hanson plays the trump
card. It is to say that a new holocaust is looming on the horizon, and like
before, humanity is not doing what it must to save the Jews from the evil
characters who seek to destroy the Jewish people by destroying Israel .
He gives a history of how things unfolded prior to the
mother of all holocausts, and he ties that history with the nuclear deal just
concluded between Iran
and the rest of the world. And so, he ends the article like this: “We should
conclude that any deal that leads to an Iranian bomb is unacceptable to Israel – a
nation that will soon have to consider the unthinkable to prevent the
unimaginable.”