Since antiquity, philosophers have had a
hard time coming up with a conclusive definition of what is good and what is
bad, but they never ceased trying. When you go over their arguments, however
long and circuitous they may be, you'll see in them a kind of universal
agreement that what's good can be determined by two measurements:
First, it is a good thing to try
preserving life at all time. The rationale being that if we don't preserve
life, we perish as a species, and this should be postulated as a bad thing.
Second, we must try to practice equal treatment among people because if we
don't, the aggrieved party will seek redress by fighting back, a move that
will, in all likelihood, lead to misery and the loss of life.
These are the thoughts that come to mind
the instant that you see a title like this: “Good Move on the Golan Heights,”
which is an article that was written by Douglas J. Feith and published on March
27, 2019 in National Review Online.
Eager to find out how the writer defines
'good,' and how his definition might apply to the Golan Heights' move, you get
surprised by what you see in the subtitle of the article where the writer
summarizes his view. It goes like this: “Now that the U.S. has recognized that
they belong to Israel, Syria's leadership after Assad would not be asked to
humiliate itself by ceding the territory”.
You'll be surprised if you're an old-timer
because you'll recognize this approach as harking back to the days when the
Jews started implementing their plan to conquer America. In fact, if you've
been interested in studying how the semi-sophisticates of the Old World used
their blunt skills to confuse and conquer the cultural peasants of the New World,
you'll exclaim: Here we go again!
Made of disparate pieces that have not yet
fused into a melting pot, or jelled into a coherent culture that's based on
solid principles or a unifying philosophy, the Americans were smitten by the
Jewish ability to present things in a manner that was so novel, they saw it as
“out of the box” and refreshing.
Well, Douglas Feith did it again by
ignoring the principles of life preservation and equal treatment, choosing
instead, to explain why it was a good thing for America to give the Jews the
Golan, a property that belongs neither to the Jews nor the Americans. Feith did
it by arguing that future leaders of Syria will have an excuse to accept the
injustice imposed on them by an outside force. And this is the sort of screwed-up
logic that used to impress the Americans so much, they came to believe that
Jews were guided by a culture far superior to theirs. It is how, in the span of
fifty years, America became a Jewish banana plantation.
Starting anew with a logic borrowed from
an earlier era, Douglas Feith went on to build a case that led him to establish
criteria by which he defined 'good' as being what favors the Jews and promotes
the interests of Israel. He did it by making a list of all the negative
arguments that apply to Israel, and falsely attributing them to Syria. For this
reason, I prepared a condensed version of what he said, using the name Syria as
he did, but adding [Israel] in brackets to indicate what should have been.
Here is what resulted:
“Syria [Israel] has been an unhappy
political experiment. The regime won a war by imposing on other countries
millions of refugees. There is no reason for world powers [America] to remain
committed to Syria [Israel]. As a rule, preserving borders is a good thing; but
not always. Syria's [Israel's] borders have spawned belligerence. Its leaders
have continually used their military forces to violate the sovereignty of
Lebanon and other neighbors. In light of the disastrous domestic and
international history, it is reasonable to ask: What borders might better serve
the interests of Syria's [Israel's] neighbors, and the world in general?
Syria's [Israel's] borders do not have deep roots in religion, culture, or
history. They reflect the old interests of France and Britain. Until 1920
[1948], there had never been a nation called Syria [Israel]”.
What is missing in the Douglas Feith
presentation is an attempt to identify a value system that would be universally
accepted as good, and build on it to reach the conclusion that he did. It is
this: “President Trump announced his new Golan policy without finesse … but the
policy has merit”.
However, in keeping with the Jewish
tradition of laying out screwy logics, Douglas Feith speculated on what the
implementation of the policy will lead to, and concluded that it had merit. Big
deal!