Thursday, October 8, 2015

A dignified Pull back is no humiliating Defeat

A child may believe that his daddy is so omnipotent, he can make things happen as simply as wishing them to happen. Now imagine the trauma through which this child will go if a dangerous event develops that the father cannot counteract but looks helpless as he grabs the child and pulls away from the source of the danger.

This is an occurrence that can be viewed as a metaphor in situations where the leaders of a nation that used to have things done their way on the international scene, decide to pull back and maintain their dignity and that of the nation rather than stand up to a rising rival that's behaving in a manner which appears confrontational.

A situation such as that developed in the 1940s to a Britain whose empire “the sun never set” but then, one day, found itself helpless in the face of events it could no longer control. This is the situation which the editors of the Wall Street Journal use to draw a parallel with current events. Here is how they describe the British experience: “As Britain's status as a global power was coming to an end, then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Dalton warned that his government was 'drifting in a state of semi-animation, toward the rapids.'”

There is in that locution nostalgia for the good old days when Britain used to have things done its way. But the relative curtailment of Britain's power could not be denied at that time given the history which led to that moment of reckoning. It was a history during which the rising powers of Germany, Japan, the Soviet Union and America made their entrances on the global stage with resounding fanfare following the Second World War.

This is not exactly what is happening to America these days, yet the editors of the Wall Street Journal quote the locution of Chancellor Hugh Dalton to then opine: “For the Obama Presidency, the rapids are in earshot.” This is totally infantile and at par with the child that used to think his father was omnipotent then discovered otherwise. It is infantile because America has not experienced the equivalent of a Battle of Britain; the event that heralded the end of the British Empire as it was known at the time.

The editors of the Journal expand on their thesis in the piece they wrote under the title: “Syria's Radiating Danger” and the subtitle: “Russia's incursions into Turkey risk tension with NATO.” They published it in the Journal on October 7, 2015. What tells you this editorial is from the imagination of an infant appear in the first paragraph in the form of a hypothetical situation: “What will the U.S. do if Russia shoots down a Turkish jet?”

Following that opening shot, the editors cite a litany of thinly related occurrences, thus indicating that they aim not to shed light on a situation for which they may suggest a solution, but aim to score political points for domestic consumption. And like a child that cannot be separated from his favorite toy, they get right back to the business of speculating another hypothetical: “Don't be surprised if Moscow locks a missile radar on a U.S. fighter, or shoots down an American drone.” Let's not kid ourselves; this is what they wish will happen.

Now they give a hint as to which domestic audience they are trying to please: “When an American President indicates he'd rather accept humiliation than responsibility, you can be sure he's going to be humiliated some more.” This, my friend, is the signature of the Judeo-Israeli lobby. The story is that the Jews who were humiliated everywhere they went – to the point of being forced to lick their own spit – live with the intense desire to see the humiliation of everyone that disobeys them.

These people cannot force Obama to lick his spit, but they believe they can have the same effect if thousands of them and their Evangelical running, barking dogs keep talking about an Obama that was humiliated at the hands of someone. This is why thousands of them are out there, at this very moment, echo-repeating that Obama has been humiliated, and will be humiliated some more. The editors of the Wall Street Journal represent but one of those voices … as disgustingly pathetic as they sound.

And as always, these same editors chose to adopt the Jewish habit of tying the hypothetical argument they have devised for the moment, to a contemporary situation that is of importance to Israel and to World Jewry. It is their burning desire to see America bomb Iran. Here is what they say in that regard: “Also exposed as false is the Administration's hope that the Iran deal would open avenues of regional cooperation with the ayatollahs.”

These Jews are hopeless. Obama and America will survive them. And history will record that they dug their own graves once more … this time in America.