To be fair let's recall at the outset that when a writer
submits an article to an editor, he loses control over the headline that will
be chosen to represent the article. Thus, the fact that Jonah Goldberg's article
has very little to do with the headline under which it appears, could well be
someone else's fault; not his own. However, let's not lose sight of the fact
that Goldberg is a senior editor at the National Review where the article
appeared. No more comment from me on this matter.
The title reads: “Netabyahu's Framing of the Middle East
Situation is Spot-on,” published on November 13, 2015 in National Review
Online. The author starts it like this: “Americans could learn a thing or two
from Bibi Netanyahu.” Well, let me tell you something, my friend; this is
standard Jewish diet. For example, the Jews want the world to believe that
jewelers, musicians and tailors from Eastern Europe went to Palestine and
taught the indigenous farmers of the Land of Milk and Honey, also known as the
Fertile Crescent – how to farm the land they have been farming for thousands of
years, and how to plant it with produce, trees and everything good.
The Jews also want the world to believe that they taught the
Americans how to make drones, taught the Chinese how to make airplanes, taught
the Koreans how to make steel and taught the Germans what to do with magnesium.
Next, presumably, they will claim that they taught every man on the planet how
to make babies; and every woman how to get pregnant.
By that time, it is possible to imagine that their appetite
for showing off how grandiose they are, will have exploded to such an extent,
they will claim they taught God how to Big Bang the singularity He created,
turning it into the full-blown Universe in which we all live, and ponder the
good things that the Jews are doing for us. In recognition of that, let us pray
brothers and sisters.
But if Netanyahu was not framing the Middle
East situation like says the title of the article, what was he
doing according to Jonah Goldberg? Believe it or not, Goldberg proved to be far
from sympathetic to what Netanyahu was saying or doing. In fact, the author
said two things about the politician, neither of which was flattering. He then
started to compare George W. Bush to himself, Jonah Goldberg; and that's how he
ended the article before closing with the obligatory political spin. Yeah,
that's what he did. Read the thing and see for yourself.
Now, the two things that Goldberg said about Netanyahu are these:
(1) “He made some controversial remarks – at least controversial at AEI, where
I am a fellow.” (2) “Less controversial [but still controversial] and more
intriguing was his description of the turmoil in the Middle
East .” Goldberg tried to explain what all this meant to him, but
got caught very quickly in the Jewish trap of rattling off endless polemics
that lead nowhere and resolve nothing. In this case, the verbiage centered on
the definition of words like “medievalism”, “Islamism”, “Jihadism”. “terrorism”
and others.
This is the point at which Goldberg recalled the choice that
was made by George W. Bush who settled on the expression “the war on terror.”
But there are problems with this choice, says our author, who went on to
describe three of them. Doing this to refute the points that were raised by the
former President, Goldberg further inflated the volume of the polemics, yet
added not one iota of understanding that would have helped to alter the current
situation or replace it by something different.
Looked at from the point of view of adding depth to our
understanding of the situation, this article is as devoid of merit as they
come. But looked at from the point of view of scoring political points, some
people will find that it has some merit.
Here is the political point that Jonah has managed to score:
“President Obama went on a tear about how we in the West shouldn't get on our 'high horse' about it because … The reason why Obama's statement was so morally
obtuse is that...”