There are times when you feel that an argument does not hold
water but it is difficult to expose its weakness because of the elegant way it
was packaged. What you do in this case is take the argument to its “absurd
extreme” in the expectation that, once there, it will crumble under its own
weight.
Many of the Jewish arguments which are based on ambiguity
fall in that category. One such argument is Benny Avni's column that came under
the title: “Obama keeps compromising his way to appeasement,” published on
March 2, 2016 in the New York Post. The thing about this argument is that we do
not need to take it to an extreme because it is already there, taken to
absurdity by the changing narrative of the Jewish pundits.
Recall that the early Jewish arguments were to the effect
that America ,
being the policeman of the world, must make itself feared by its enemies to be
respected by friends and foes alike. That's the best way to avoid conflict,
argued the Jewish pundits, because everyone in the world understands the
language of force.
It happened that America took that advice and poked
its nose in the business of the nations that were designated by the Jews as bad
ones, and were in need of fixing. The result has been that America
accomplished nothing of what was promised it will accomplish, but lost a great
deal in terms of treasure and the lives of young men and women who were killed
or disabled permanently.
This was a lesson powerful enough to convince the leaders of
America
that the world has changed in a way that the old adage 'might makes right' no
longer applied. In the new world order, a handful of kids proved capable of
wreaking havoc on big nations, even those protected by mighty armies. In
consequence of all this, America
wisely started to walk back on its bellicose interventionist policy.
It abandoned the go-it-alone approach of trying to fix the
world problems by force, choosing instead to collaborate with other nations at
achieving stability using diplomacy and economic incentives. However, it kept
alive the possibility of using force, but only if it proved necessary and only
as a last resort.
This change of policy direction panicked the Jews because
their strategy for the continued protection and empowerment of Israel had always rested on the principle of
isolating America from the
world, and keeping it as possession more closely tethered to Israel than a
dependent client state.
And so, the Jews took a new approach as they argued their always
shifting position. They began to say that America was given to the idea of
compromising with its foes, an attitude that has the effect of appeasing them.
They further explained that when you appease your foes, you do things the way
they dictate them. The Jews went on to lament that this is what America is doing
now instead of pushing back against the foes' arguments, and imposing its will
on them.
But how to do that? The Jews don't say how because they
don't know. The truth is that they never designed a complete plan for anything
they advocated because it is in their nature not to have a plan ‘B’ or an exit
strategy for a plan ‘A’ that consists only of shouting: Charge ahead! This is
why the Jews, including Avni, have asked the Obama administration to come up
with a plan they could not figure out themselves. All they know is that it must
be a plan that will make the world fear America and respect it.
And this, my friend, is the absurdly extreme argument that has
collapsed the new Benny Avni approach. Given that the collaboration between America and Russia
has secured a ceasefire in Syria
after so much horror for such a long time affecting so many people, who but the
insane would say this outcome is worse than America going alone and risking
being bogged down in a quagmire that would have intensified the bloodbath?
It seems that Avni and those like him believe that the
ceasefire – however long or short it may last – is worse than having an
American maintained bloodbath. This is why he ends the article as follows:
“What are America 's
goals around the world? Obama's successor must answer, or we'll continue to
forever compromise and do it everybody's way but ours.”