There was a time not long ago when people used to say to a relative, a friend or a good neighbor: “Your wish is my command” to show how much they valued and appreciated them. There was a time even before that when benevolent kings and ruling tyrants ruled over fiefdoms where every whim they expressed was translated into a command to be obeyed by their subjects failing which someone was made to pay a high price. The good news is that this trend has disappeared from most of the cultures; the bad news is that it is making a comeback in some of the cultures. The trend is not coming back because it is generated by a natural process but because someone is growing it artificially. If you think there is someone out there deliberately reviving the culture of fiefdom you are correct but if you believe this is happening in a backward society you are mistaken.
Believe it or not the West in general is where the trend is being revived, and America in particular is where it has been revived to an advanced state already. America is where a wish that is made in the name of Israel takes on the force of law whether or not Israel needs any help to stay alive or to protect its security. And a whole culture has flourished around America's preoccupation with tending to Israel's needs, a reality that consistently leads to the bewilderment of those who try to understand America's behavior and make sense of her response to Israel's commands.
People ask: “How did America get to be like that?” and the answer is difficult to formulate. However, Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut did something this time which gives a glimpse as to how a trend such as that can grow roots and flourish even inside a superpower. On June 15, 2010 Lieberman published an article in the Wall Street Journal under the title: “Who's the Enemy in the War on Terror?” and the subtitle: “The U.S. is at war with violent Islamist extremism, and the Obama administration does moderate Muslims no favor by refusing to recognize this.” What does he say? Well, he begins the article like this: “In the … strategy released … last month, the … administration … reaffirms that America remains … at war [but] refuses to identify our enemy … as: violent Islamist extremism.” Like the Administration, I too have a problem with this definition, and it is the same problem I had with the resolution that was passed by the United Nations years ago equating Zionism with racism. I opposed the resolution then and I oppose Lieberman's argument now for substantially the same reasons though I see a few differences between the two situations.
What the two sayings have in common is that they are slogans worthy of being called bumper stickers and no more. Yet Lieberman and others like him want to give this sort of notions the force of law and the respect that goes with that. I opposed the saying “Zionism equals racism” because it does no justice to the reality of the situation. I look at the matter this way: The Nazis were racists in that they thought they were above the other races. They believed in this fantasy because they had a culture that was the most advanced at the time in terms of social organization, technical accomplishments, scientific achievements and so on. However, what these people failed to see was the reality that many races were more advanced than they at other times in history. Also the certainty was there that other races will again pull ahead of them because these things go in cycles. In fact, the future is here now and we see that a few races have pulled ahead of these people already. And the descendants of the Nazis are now realizing how wrong their forefathers have been. The essential point to take from this is that we can now close this file and put the matter behind us because a way existed at the beginning to prove or disprove the Nazi claims and ideas.
Not so with the Zionist claims and ideas. In fact, those who call themselves Zionists and who adhere to notions of their own are basing the premise of their superiority on the belief that God has said they were chosen to sit as a preferred race above all the other races. Thus, unlike the Nazis whose claims could be disproved by getting ahead of them, there is nothing that anyone can do to disprove the Jewish claims because you do not argue with God who never gets to reveal Himself anyway. Therefore, the notion of Jewish superiority is a definitive one in the minds of those who entertain it, and there is no way by which someone can appeal it or ask for the closure of the file that holds it. For these reasons, I believe that to say Zionism is a form of racism is to elevate Zionism to the level of Nazism when it is clear that the first is irredeemable and the second is redeemable and has, in fact, been redeemed. Thus, to equate the two is unfair to Nazism if not an insult to it because the Zionist movement is based on a principle of absolutism, a principle that makes of the movement the only absolute thing in the realm of the hideous and the horrible, a principle that sets it apart from everything else by its own definition of itself. Until God reveals Himself and admits He made a mistake in setting one race above the other races or that a misunderstanding has occurred, the Jews shall continue to suffer unless a miracle happens but the likelihood is that Hell will freeze over before such miracle has materialized.
And so, even though I knew that those who believe in Zionism embrace the notion that they are a superior race and that such belief can be traced to what they say is their Judaic religion, I did not ask that a law be passed or that a finding be made which would classify extreme Judaism as a dangerous phenomenon requiring humanity to fight it to the death. Instead, I left the door open for the debate to continue until such time the matter is settled by all of society. By contrast, Joe Lieberman wants to make a connection between Islam and violent extremism right now thus bypass the public debate even though he acknowledges that only a small minority of people has misused the Muslim religion to its own end.
What is at stake here is a hugely serious principle of governance however subtle it may be. What Joseph Lieberman, that US Senator, is trying to do is reverse the principles upon which the system of democracy is based and how it works. The worst part is that the Senator's effort is not an isolated case brought about by one individual based on his ideas alone. Rather, it is a part of a concerted effort belabored by the Jewish organizations that work together to turn the system of democracy on its head. And we can clearly see what the Senator is trying to do when we look at another trick that those same organizations have tried to pull years ago in a place called Canada, a place that has always served as the soft underbelly of America where ideas are tested before taking them south of the border.
We had a Minister of Justice in this country who was persuaded to try and use the executive tribunals to pass judgments favoring the Jewish litigants so as to establish precedents that will, in the future, compel the constitutional courts of law to follow the trend established by his artificial process. What the Minister was persuaded to do, in fact, was to turn the system of justice on its head. This would have been the result of his work because instead of judging every case on its merit then look to precedents to maintain continuity in the jurisprudence, future judges would have been compelled to break from centuries of established jurisprudence and replace the process with a trend that would serve the interest of Jewish litigants before anything else. Clearly then, the intent here was to establish the Jews, once and for all, as a favored master race and give this notion the force of law. In the eyes of many people, including some Jewish lawyers, the Minister's attempt could only be described as criminal insanity of the first order. And now, Joe Lieberman wants to do something similar in that he wants to turn on its head the system of public debate through which public policy is usually determined.
Why is that? Where do such notions originate? Well, when it comes to governance there are two ways to doing things. The first is to debate a situation, discover the relevant points, formulate the rules -- preferably by consensus -- and proclaim the rules in a public setting to make certain that everyone is made aware of them. The second way to doing things is to formulate commandments -- not necessarily on a mountain but in a secret ivory tower -- then promulgate such commandments among the masses who will not debate the merits thereof but seek instructions as to the best way to obey the commandments and to implement them in full. The first way is the way that most nations are governed from the most democratic among them to those that are slightly authoritarian. The second way is how the religious dogmas are formulated and taught to members of the flock. This is how the Talmud was written and taught nearly two thousand years ago, it is how it is written and taught today and this is how Joe Lieberman wants to govern America. The Talmud is both a book of religion and a book of law governing everyday Jewish life; Lieberman is both a religious person and a legislator; he is therefore the very personification of the Talmud. And if this man has it his way, every word of every official document will be written in secret by the Jewish lobby to then be debated by the masses not to test the legitimacy of the dogmas but to embrace them and seek ways to implement them in full without dissent. We see here that the difference between the two forms of governance is that you either debate the issues and make the law, or you turn this process on its head and make the law first then debate how best to obey it. Joe Lieberman wants to force the second form of governance on the American people.
Under him, this is how a typical situation may unfold. An expression declaring that America is at war with violent Islamist extremism is coined away from the eyes and the ears of the public by a body such as the National Security Council that would be dominated by the Jewish organizations. The expression is thrown at the politicos and the media types to use without question as if it encapsulated the distilled wisdom of the US government. Public debates follow not to question the appropriateness of the expression but to use it as a principle upon which to interpret all future events. For example, no matter which side starts a fight in the ongoing struggle between the Palestinians and the Israelis, the Palestinians will always be described as the aggressors and the Israelis as the victims. And this will happen because the notion that the Palestinians are born with bad intention written into their DNA would have been cemented into the American political and journalistic folklore. This being the case, Israel will be allowed to take any aggressive measure it wants, and America will be obliged, as if by divine command, to provide that country with the support it asks for and then some.
Thus, you can foresee moments when the whim of someone speaking on television in the name of the government of Israel will take on the force of command directed at America, and the whole world will look and will be perplexed. Sounds familiar? This is because it's the way it has been until such time the new Administration decided to alter the expression “violent Islamist extremism” by omitting the reference to Islam. And this is what has prompted the Jewish organizations to use Joe Lieberman, their Moses in America, to protest the injection of sanity into America's dealings with the world, and to ask that things be put back the way they were. These people never give up doing the wrong thing.
Finally, Israel was treated like a friend, a relative and a good neighbor by America for several decades, and what America got in return can only be described as criminal insanity. The saying: “Your wish is my command” was treated not figuratively but literally by Israel and its supporters. As a result, America paid dearly in terms of blood, treasure and prestige to protect Israel and promote its interests at a time when the agents of the latter were implementing a hidden agenda in America -- that of establishing a culture of fiefdom where they would govern like a master race. Everyone now realizes that things cannot go on like this in America anymore than they did everywhere else in the world where the Jews were pogrommed and holocausted over and over again. Consequently, what the Jews need now is not a phony Moses in the person of a Senator with a flair to deceive the Congress and betray America but a quiet Jewish revolution led by those who are willing to live as equals with the rest of humanity.