This is in response to two articles; one written by Anne
Bayefsky, the other by Bret Stephens. Lest you get confused, dear reader, let
me tell you right away that neither of these two is a pretzel or a pita. In fact,
both are writers of the kind you may call Jewish fanatic. And rest assured that
you'll soon know what the pretzel and the pita in the title stand for.
Bayefsky's article came under the title: “How Much Will
Obama Extract from Israel
in His Last Year?” It was published on November 9, 2015 in National Review
Online. As to the Stephens article, it came under the title: “Palestinian State
Both articles discuss the relationship between the United States of America and Israel . And
both writers are upset if not bitter, because they feel that America isn't doing enough to support Israel ; an entity
they regard as being an authentic nation. They voice their unhappiness with America despite the fact that they acknowledge –
in one subtle form or another – that Israel
could not have survived for as long as it did were it not for America 's support, and that it
cannot continue to survive without more support. Why is that? Because Israel has bad
neighbors, say Bayefsky and Stephens.
Exposed to the reality that Israel
could not survive without external support makes you wonder how the two authors
– and in fact other people like them too – consider Israel to be an authentic nation.
More importantly, you want to know why Israel cannot forge a normal
relationship with its neighbors. You look for answers, and find them in the
Bayefsky article.
You find that she is upset because the Palestinian president
has dared to tell the UN human Rights Council that his people are suffering –
living as they do under Israeli occupation. She quotes him at length when he
cited a long list of hardships that the Israelis are imposing on his people.
And she hints that the only way to remedy this situation would be to grant the
Palestinians the “right to return.” Sounds reasonable to any ear, does it not?
But that's exactly what she is fearful of, she says, because
it will result in an Israel
where the Jews will be demographically outnumbered by other races and other
religions. Well, do you know what this means, my friend? It means that the Jews
of Israel and those of the Diaspora are building an ethnically cleansed nation
– cleansed of its indigenous people, that is. And they want you to believe this
is not racism.
Bayefsky goes on to explain in her distinctive way that the
Palestinian quest for justice and equity is a bad thing. On the other hand, the
Jewish effort to create a purified ethno-religious entity for Jews, is a good
thing, she goes on to say. And this kind of twisted logic is what I call
Pretzel Logic.
As to Bret Stephens, he expresses the same sort of twisted
logic, but in a different context. He says that to “give peace a chance” or to
do “nation building at home” are not only bad notions; they are worse than
saying “make peace with your enemies.” In his view, peace comes about when one
side defeats the other, or when the two sides simultaneously experience a pleasant
epiphany.
To illustrate the last situation, he gives a false example.
He says that by some miracle, the parties to the 1973 War realized it was
better to negotiate than to fight. No, Bret no. Negotiations happened after Egypt had smashed through Israel 's
defenses known as the Bar Lev line. In fact, for several years, and while
conducting a fierce behind-enemy-line war of attrition, President Sadat had
been warning that Egypt will cross the Canal if Israel did not withdraw
peacefully. To prove how serious he was, and to show off the military hardware
he possessed, he had the Egyptian army practice the crossing of the Nile River