Theatrical representations come in different forms, ranging from
the farce to the tragedy, and passing by the comedy, the drama, the melodrama
and what have you. And then there is the phantasmagoria which sits on top of
all of them as the ultimate in vacuous imagination.
And so, imagine a phantasmagoria in which a misfit named Mr.
Nutcase slaps a lawsuit against an individual he never met before, and knows
only by his name as Mr. Someone. They both go to court and the judge asks
Nutcase what his suit is about. Nutcase responds that Mr. Someone insulted him.
The judge asks: What did he say about you that is false? Nutcase says Mr.
Someone uttered things that were never defined as insults. He then adds that he
did not come here to define those things; rather he came to define what is
insulting to him.
The judge insists he must know what Mr. Someone said before he'll
allow the case to proceed. Nutcase relents and agrees to rattle off what Mr. Someone
said. To that end, he takes a deep breath, looks in the direction of the judge,
and with a straight face, says that Mr. Someone said A instead of B which makes
him an antisemitic slanderer of Jews. He also said B instead of A which makes
him a double slanderer of Jews. And since he, Mr. Nutcase, is a Jew, he takes
those insults personally, which is why he wants to define antisemitism the way
he just did, and why he wants the Court to grant him relief.
If you, my friend, believe that I'll tell you about a farce that's
playing on some stage, where a dialogue of this kind is unfolding, rest assured
it is not my intention. Instead, I'll refer you to an article that was printed
in the Jewish publication, Algemeiner, under the title: “I'm a Jew, So I'll Define
Antisemitism,” written by Sruli Fruchter and published on January 25, 2019.
Here is how Fruchter defines what he says is insulting to him:
“To claim that Israel is like Nazi Germany
with its treatment of Palestinians, is a demonization of Israel because it carries
a comparison to the Holocaust. This litmus test can be utilized to explain why
anti-Zionism is antisemitic. Zionism is the Jewish national movement of
self-determination in the land of [Palestinians]. This definition suggests a
belief that a people should return to their indigenous [Palestinian] homeland.
Anti-Zionism, however, implies that the Jewish people are not entitled to self-determination
and that is antisemitism”.
Whether or not you got it is not important because there are a few
million Jews on this planet, and each one will give you 5 nonsensical new
definitions every hour on the clock for as long as you're willing to waste your
time listening to them. And this brings us to the article that came under the
title: “Women's March Participants Colluded With Antisemitism,” written by Alan
Dershowitz and published on January 23, 2019 also in Algemeiner. Here is the
essence of what Dershowitz has said:
“Those who marched in the Women's March worship the antisemite
Louis Farrakhan. They admire him for his impact on the Black community. They
must understand that this impact includes influencing Blacks to consider Jews
to be termites. Hitler inspired pride in Aryans, Mussolini made the trains run
on time, and Stalin spread the wealth. But would the women who marched with
Farrakhan's admirers have marched with these bigots? Consider the front-page
story in the New York Times, which singled out the Palestinian issue as one of
the great moral challenges of our time — ignoring
Syria, Ukraine, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Chechnya, Tibet, Cyprus. Hitler was elected
as the result of his policies by people who gave him a pass for his
antisemitism because they approved of his other policies. People who support
Farrakhan because of the good he does for the Black community and despite his
antisemitism are complicit in bigotry”.
So, there you are. Alan Dershowitz does
not like the idea that Farrakhan called the Jews termites. Does he prefer being
called a hawk? Or maybe he likes dovish better. How about the lion of Judah? Or
just lionhearted? Would he hate it if someone called him a tiger? A hyena? A
snake? A cockroach? People are called these things every day by people who are
themselves called these things every day. But nobody tears their entrails out
of the belly hollering anti-one-thing or another.
Furthermore, Dershowitz complained that
the New York Times once mentioned the challenge posed by Palestine while
ignoring challenges in seven other countries, according to him. In so doing, he
hit the reader in the face with such a massive insult, the perfectly
understandable human reaction would be to cry out: The hell with these people.
Why should I care what Hitler did to them?
That's because Alan Dershowitz is lying to
the readers by pretending that the New York Times never in its history, criticized
the situation in Syria or Ukraine or Iran or Saudi Arabia or Chechnya or Tibet
or Cyprus.
Thus, Dershowitz wants it so that every
time the New York Times or any publication mentions Palestine, it must
immediately follow with: but to be fair to Israel and to avoid looking like we
are anti-Semites, we advise you, the reader, not to forget Syria and Ukraine
and Iran and Saudi Arabia and Chechnya and Tibet and Cyprus.
Well, like my Jewish friend used to do,
throwing his hands up in the air — when exposed to this kind of logic — and crying
out: The hell with this nonsense. Light up the oven!
Still, the indications are that neither
Alan Dershowitz nor those like him, will ever stop spewing that kind of
nonsense. The reason is easy to understand; it is that they have attentive ears
in the Congress — characters like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz and Tom Cotton who are just
as rotten as they are.