Because haggling is made to look like democratic debate, people in the West long believed that the Jews had established a democratic entity in the land they stole from the Palestinian people and called it Israel. These people were wrong.
The reality is that democracy is a constructive exercise
whereas haggling is at best neutral; at worst a destructive exercise. And this
is why Israel remains a pariah entity to this day.
But if some people did not know that democracy and
haggling were different things, how did other people figure that haggling was
destructive? The answer to this question requires a short discussion on the
subject of pattern recognition. Here it is, given in the form of an example:
For several mornings in a row, go into the garden with a
handful of edible grains, and spread them around. The nearby birds will
eventually recognize the pattern that links your appearance (the cause) to them
having breakfast (the effect.) This is a form of pattern recognition that’s
shared by most organisms. It can thus be thought of as managed at the level of
the instinct.
This is different from the pattern recognition that’s
done at the level of the analytic human brain. To see the difference, write
down 1 … 3 … 5 … and ask a child what comes next in that pattern. At a certain
level of maturity, the child will recognize the pattern as being a series of
odd numbers, thus identify 7 … 9 … as what comes next. No other organism can do
that.
What this demonstrates is why it could be instinctively sensed
that Jewish haggling was destructive, but nearly impossible for the analytic
human brain to explain why. This situation has now changed thanks to Jonathan
Schanzer and Joe Truzman who cowrote an article under the title: “Why the West
Bank is in chaos,” published on February 24, 2023 on the FDD Website.
Excerpts from the first few paragraphs of the article
tell the story that the writers whish to convey to the audience. Compiled and
condensed into a single paragraph, the excerpts read as follows:
“Palestinian terrorism in Israel is on the
rise. Few expect the media to be fair, much less balanced. Some observers
falsely assert cause and effect. Look at Mideast violence as different
waves. Delineating such trendlines helps to determine the intent behind the
violence and better anticipate future ones”.
As can be seen, in the same way that a painter
first chooses the right canvas and makes it the background on which he paints
his visual story, Schanzer and Truzman chose a background that says: “Palestinian
terrorism in Israel is on the rise” to tell the story of what they see as
unfolding in the West Bank of occupied Palestine.
The writers then proceeded to make a few points.
They complained about the media which does not see things the way they do. They
rejected the idea that there exists a cause and effect in what’s happening out
there. And they asserted that violence in the region comes as different waves that
can be delineated and used to anticipate future waves.
These observations are products of the analytic
human brain. They can be valued material for use in legitimate debates. They
could have served the Jews well, had the latter used them to counter what irritates
them about the way that others see things. Instead of using them intelligently,
however, the writers allowed themselves to be sucked into the vortex that leads
to the abyss of haggling.
A quick glance at the article shows that it was not
written for the purpose of carrying on a debate meant to counter those who
disagree with the two writers. Instead, the latter wrote the article to carry
on with an (FDD) in-house haggling. What follows is a compilation of the excerpts
that show how Schanzer and Truzman dealt with the haggling:
“Daily headlines convey a steady stream of
stabbings, vehicular attacks, and other forms of violence. A recent and
much-maligned New York Times headline blared: “At Least 2 Dead as
Driver Rams Bus Stop in East Jerusalem.” No mention of the driver’s motivation
(Palestinian nationalism). No mention of who was targeted or why (Israelis,
just for being Israeli). Notably, a December op-ed by New York Times
columnist Thomas Friedman implied that the newly elected right-wing Israeli
government, which had yet to take office, was driving up attacks. Equally
cringeworthy are reports describing recent bloodshed as a ‘fresh’ surge of
violence. That’s flat wrong”.
Having chosen a canvas that helps them make the
false assertion that Palestinian resistance to occupation constitutes
terrorism, the writers went on to build on that falsehood. They said to each
other what could not be said to others without being ripped for talking
nonsense. Thus, they alluded to the opinion that Palestinian nationalism was an
evil motivation. And they asserted that the Palestinian people resent them, not
because they occupy their land, but because they are Jews.