Bret Stephens has given us a great opportunity to study the
role that “splitting hairs” and “conflating the issues” plays in Jewish
discourse. He wrote “On the Unity of Terror” a column that also came under the
subtitle: “Orlando, Istanbul , Dhaka, Baghdad – and a
13-year-old girl murdered in her sleep,” published on July 5, 2016 in the Wall
Street Journal.
This presentation is based on the premise that: “ISIS , aims to annihilate anything it doesn't consider
Islamic. Understanding its takfiri version of Islam, with its sweeping
declarations of apostasy, is essential to understanding how it thinks and
operates.” There are two notables in this passage. First, Stephens does nothing
to help the reader understand what he says is essential about how ISIS thinks and operates. Second, he invokes the Jewish
habit of pointing to the latest news event and say: See. This proves I was
correct all along.
In taking this approach when they deliberate, the Jews often
ignore the core of the matter at hand, and haggle over trivial things … and
Stephens is doing just that. Thus, while elaborating his part of the haggle, he
ignores the core of the matter at hand which is that the war is not between
Sunni and Shia, or between one civilization and another, or between America and the
Muslim world. Rather, the war is between Muslim kids and a Jewish establishment
that keeps riling them to produce a calamity so big, it will play a pivotal
role in the implementation of the grand Jewish design.
To understand what separates Jewish haggling from a
civilized discourse, we need to remember that a civilized discourse is made of
two parts: the analysis and the synthesis. To analyze a complex paradigm that
may be disorganized, you use a knife of logic as sharp as you can make it. You
separate the components of the paradigm, and discuss each part separately. This
done, you recombine the components in a coherent and organized manner.
By contrast, Jewish haggling lets each side in a debate use
a hammer that may or may not be of logic, and smash the parts of the paradigm
that the other side is trying to organize. This sounds more like trying to
split hair than to draw a distinction between the issues. Thus, by the time
that both sides are done with the haggle, you have a pile of dust that's ready
to be turned into a mound of mud. And this sounds more like conflating the
issues than recombining their components.
The most horrific example of the Jewish smashing of
paradigms is the claim that the Jews inherited the patrimony of Palestine , thus have the
right to take the land and other properties from the Palestinians. This belief
also makes them of the Semitic race, which is something they conveniently use
when accusing others of antisemitism. Otherwise, they prefer to call themselves
Europeans who are terrorized by local kids (that happen to be authentic
Semites) not because of what they do to the kids and their families but because
they are Jews who belong to the superior race of Europe. It cannot get muddier than
that.
As to the example of Jewish synthesis of the paradigm's
components, the following passage in the Stephens column illustrates the point:
“Their deaths are supposed to be different from those of
others, since they were 'occupiers' whose political crimes rendered them
complicit in their own tragedy. That's how global public opinion has treated
terrorism when the target is Israel .
It has a rationale. It's understandable, if not justifiable. It's Israel 's problem, Israel 's fault, and has no bearing on
the rest of us.”
Here, Stephens begins the synthesis by lamenting that the
world is not equating the Palestinian act of engaging the armed Israeli
soldiers manning checkpoints in a foreign land – with the murder of a French
civilian having coffee in a Paris
restaurant. Also, conscious of the fact that decades ago his elders (especially
the rabbis) did a masterly job at legitimizing the crimes committed by Jews –
calling them political crimes – he calls the occupation of Palestine and the
settling of it a political crime.
And he ends the passage with a polemic that suggests the
rest of the world should feel the weight of the Palestinian resistance, and
stand with Israel
by encouraging it to maintain the occupation at perpetuity.