Here is an example that should be taught by teachers of
creative writing as a style that must be avoided. It is a New York Times
editorial that came under the title: “Mr. Netanyahu's Holocaust Blunder,” published
on October 23, 2015 in that publication.
The essential element of the story which the editors are
tackling is that Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel – being
the brainless attack dog that he is – did what he always does which is to attack
the person he chooses to be his hated competitor for the day. The last time
before now that Netanyahu did this, he targeted President Barack Obama of the United States of America
and challenged him. This time, he chose to go after President Mahmoud Abbas of Palestine .
What Netanyahu did, according to the editors of the Times,
is that he made this claim: “a Palestinian man persuaded Adolf Hitler to
exterminate the Jews of Europe.” The editors called the claim outrageous, and
advised that “the Holocaust is not a history to tamper with.” But that's not
all they did in this botched attempt at writing creatively in a style that is
subtle without being sublime.
What the editors tried to do is avoid what the rabbis did
some time ago when a Jew went into a mosque in occupied Palestine and machine-gunned something like
four dozen Muslim worshipers. Instead of coming right out and condemning the
act, the rabbis who were in charge of the Jewish propaganda machine, tried to
justify it by describing the perpetrator as an ordinary man, even a noble one
who cracked under pressure and went berserk because the people of Palestine
were resisting the occupation. They refused to accept it, and rejected the idea
of learning to live with it, said the rabbis in a style that employed little or
no subtleties.
Well, the editors of the New York Times, who are driven by
that same mentality, wrote a piece that achieves the same objective but does it
in a deceptively subtle way. Still, like the stink that cannot be masked by any
measure you employ against it, the attempt of the Times editors remains as
transparent and as obnoxious as the rabbis' work of an earlier time. The first
thing that the editors did is reject the Netanyahu claim. They did so not
because it is the view of a despicable war criminal that's seeking to monetize
a lie, but because tampering with the history of the Holocaust is not a good
idea, they advise.
Oh yes, the editors did absolve the Palestinians of the
Netanyahu accusation by arguing against its very premise. But the idea to do so
is one that was formulated some time ago by thinkers who were endowed with an
IQ higher than that of Netanyahu. They reasoned that if the Holocaust is turned
into a shared responsibility between the Germans and the Palestinians, the Jews
will have to return half the compensation money they received from the Germans,
and go after the Palestinians. But since the Palestinians have nothing, the
Jews will collect nothing. It was therefore concluded by the Jewish
Establishment that it is better to shut up and be fed than blurt out nonsense
and go hungry.
All of those considerations paved the way for the editors of
the New York Times to begin a process akin to that of the rabbis of yore. They
tried in their clumsy way to justify Netanyahu's accusation to the effect that
an Arab pushed the idea of exterminating the Jews on Hitler. What follows is a
montage of the way that they approached this attempt. It is one that is subtle
but not so high-minded as to be sublime:
“Mr. Netanyahu's evident intent was to drive home the idea
that the current wave of violence has been incited by Palestinian leaders.
Palestinian attackers have murdered at least eight Israelis in multiple attacks
and more than 50 Palestinians have been killed. Mr. Abbas and other Fatah
leaders not only have failed to denounce the knife attacks, but have made
comments that seemed to fan the violence and even celebrate the killers. John
Kerry called for an end to the violence but for that to happen, Mr. Abbas and
the Palestinian leadership must make clear that these terrorist attacks are
unacceptable.”
Of course, the editors know that for Abbas and other leaders
to say that something is unacceptable; will not motivate third generation
youngsters under occupation to listen to them. So then, why are the editors
calling for it? They are for the same reason that the rabbis of yesteryear
justified the crimes of the Jews by describing the perpetrators as good people
who were forced to commit extreme acts by a Palestinian population that refused
to enjoy the occupation, and never thanked the Jews for it.