Thursday, December 29, 2016

Intellectual Dishonesty of the WSJ kind

One of the most hideously dishonest intellects on this planet is that of Alan Dershowitz. Some people even think of him as unique in this sense. If that was the case, it is no more because the editors of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) are beginning to crowd him in this exclusive domain.

They tell who they really are in a piece they wrote under the title: “Kerry's Rage Against Israel” and the subtitle: “The Secretary doesn't understand why his peace failed.” It was published on December 29, 2016 in the Wall Street Journal. Here is the revealing passage:

“The Security Council resolution substantially changes diplomatic understandings stretching to 1967. Mr. Kerry claimed that Resolution 2334 'does not break new ground' … The reality is that the resolution denies Israel legal claims to the land while reversing the traditional land-for-peace formula that has been a cornerstone of U.S. diplomacy for almost 50 years”.

Look what the editors did. They sandwiched the principle of Israeli “legal claims” between two non-legal arguments. The one before it says this: “diplomatic understandings.” The one after it says this: “the traditional … formula.” Because neither diplomatic understandings nor traditional formula carry legal significance, you want to know what the editors mean by denial of legal claims.

You do the research and discover that this is an Alan Dershowitz kind of exercise in intellectual dishonesty. Here is what he has been doing. Every time that Israel committed the criminal offense of expanding the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, and the world expressed disgust, Dershowitz shielded members of the brainless Congress from the fury by telling them – in any number of writing styles – that if Israel was not allowed to expand beyond the 1967 lines, it will be forced to go back to the 1948 lines. And that area is so small, you couldn't cram five and a half million Jews in it.

So now, the editors of the Wall Street Journal have adopted that same approach, and used the writing style of sandwiching the scary lie between two apparent realities to make it believable. The lie is that they hide the fact that the only legal claim the Security Council gave to Israel since 1967 is the ability to negotiate a land swap with the interested parties – Egypt and Jordan at the time – now the Palestinian Authority. Everything else that the Jewish mob of pundits has been asking for since that time never had legal force.

Still, the Dershowitz character is not the only aspect of Jewish mentality that is abhorrent to the human race. There are many more aspects, and the editors of the Journal make use of two in their piece.

One of the aspects may be called the stealthy lie. Here it is: “...a worthy goal assuming a Palestinian state that doesn't become another Yemen or South Sudan.” The fallacy inherent to this statement is that the Israel/Palestine combination is not now a version of Yemen or South Sudan. But the fact is that the combination is that, if not worse … and has been for half a century. In fact, there have been three hot wars and a number of quieter ones; and there has been two intifadas with a quieter one that has been ongoing for some time. And this is not chopped liver as would say the dear natives.

The idea of separating the antagonists by implementing the two state-solution is meant to resolve this problem. The trouble is that the Jewish character allows the Jews to look at reality and see something else. So while they are screaming from one side of the mouth that the Palestinians are not being good boys or good girls; they are also screaming from the other side of the mouth that Israel is an island of serenity in a turbulent Middle East. Go figure.

The other abhorrent Jewish character is that when the Jews see something they covet and decide they must steal, they attribute to its owners bad characteristics, and use that as excuse to relieve their victims of what they have. Here is that passage: “Palestinians will now be emboldened to believe they can get what they want at the U.N. and through public campaigns to boycott Israel without making concessions”.

But the fact is that using the legal channels and the civilized art of communicating one's grievances to the world, has been pursued by the Palestinians since the beginning. They did not need that resolution to do so now because they need not make concessions to a thief in their house pointing the gun of a tank at the family.