On May 17, 2011 the Wall Street Journal published an editorial under the title: “The Third Intifada” and the subtitle: “Back to the future in the Middle East.” If you know anything about the recent history of the Middle East, the thought that will come to you when you read the first sentence of the editorial is that whoever wrote this thing must have been young and inexperienced. Here is the sentence: “Sunday's coordinated attacks on the Israeli border mark a dangerous turn back toward Mideast conflict.” The writer(s) of this piece must be young because he, she or they obviously do not remember that there was a time when the churches in Canada and the United States had tried to organize the Palestinian people to come by the millions to the Israeli border and stage the Palestinian version of the Exodus to see if the Israelis would mow them with machine guns as someone had suggested the Israelis were savage enough to do.
Also, that writer or writers of the editorial must have been inexperienced because they give someone like me the opportunity to point to the word “attacks” and show how laughable has become the editorial board of a once respected publication. You see, my dear reader, all cogs in the Jewish propaganda machine never tired from using the false image of the Arabs attacking Israel with lethal conventional weapons if not weapons of mass destruction. And these people went on to say that the Israelis have always managed to fend off the Arabs perhaps by blowing kisses at them or something without suffering a single casualty. Most publics in the West reserved judgment, however, because they did not have enough information about the matter given that the technology was not there to give it the coverage it now receives. But the sights and sounds are transmitted instantly now, including a picture accompanying the editorial. And what they show is a number of unarmed Palestinians “attacking” Israel simply with their presence. Furthermore, the editorial itself describes the worst of these confrontational incidents this way: “The usual suspects in the West are calling this a Palestinian version of the Arab Spring, but it looks more like the familiar violence of rock-throwing at Israeli conscripts.”
Get this, my friend? What the editors describe as these Israeli conscripts are actually soldiers of an occupation that has lasted several generations. International law as well as tradition and precedents give the Palestinians the right to resist the presence of foreign soldiers on their soil by any means they determine will help end the occupation. But all that the Palestinians did was to present themselves bare hands or carrying a sign that says end the occupation or daring to throw a rock. And the little snorts that pass for editorial writers at the Wall Street Journal wail the refrain we used to hear in the old days: “They throw rocks at our soooldiers … oh pity me, pity me.”
But guess what the result of the confrontation between the unarmed Palestinians and the gun totting Israeli soldiers has been. Well, the editorial said it all: “More than a dozen people were killed.” And this is what someone had long ago predicted will be the result if the Palestinians staged their version of the Exodus. And this was the reason why the churches in Canada and the United States did not go through with the plan. It took years to prove the point but the Israelis have finally demonstrated that they are every bit the savages that someone said they were. You would now think that as a result of repeated criminal acts committed by the Israelis against humanity, a prosecutor at the International Criminal Court would move to file charges and try to get someone prosecuted. But no, this does not happen because of reasons that shall be discussed in a minute.
In any case, certain that they have written a piece so solid that no one will be able to knock it, the editorial writers of the Journal proceed with confidence. To see how they do this, we go back to the first paragraph and look at the rest of it: “Such a coda to the Arab Spring would be cheered only by Iran, Arab dictators and Islamists. And as perennial pawns in games played by stronger Muslim players, the Palestinians will suffer the worst consequences.” Why are these two sentences laughable? To answer this question I must digress for a moment. It is that “pattern recognition” is a measure of intelligence. For example, a kitten that enjoys watching television and tells you to turn it on by touching the screen with its paw will do the same thing if you take it to another house where the television set looks different. To your surprise, you will find that the kitten has recognized the pattern from a few clues and has deduced that this too is a television set that will entertain it when turned on. And this ability of the kitten is more than can be said about the editorial writers of the Wall Street Journal who were trained long enough to refrain from describing what goes on inside the heads and the hearts of the Arabs or the Muslims because the attempt makes them look like they have an IQ inferior to that of a kitten.
But if they are inferior in this department, they are superior in another department where their gall and their hubris surpass anything you have seen before. It is that they want you to believe they know what the consequences will be of that which they know nothing about. The reality is that since the Balfour Declaration more than a century ago to this day when the United States is threatening to stand in the way of the Palestinians gaining recognition at the United Nations, the game of those who call themselves democrats has been to do to the rear end of Jewish voters what a kitten does to a nipple of its mother. And the characters at the Wall Street Journal show not the slightest shame accusing what they call the stronger Muslim players of using the Palestinians as pawns in games they don't identify or give an example of because the Arabs and the Muslims play no such games. For them to write such falsehoods is to prove that the editorial was written by members of the Jewish propaganda machine because they have the gall and the hubris to do so or it was written by the non-Jewish writers who crave digested kosher foods. And this too is the reason why the matter is not in the hands of the International Criminal Court.
The editorial goes on to repeat a few more clichés and stereotypes then ends this way: “President Obama plans to deliver a major speech on the Middle East Thursday, and he could help by saying candidly that this latest Arab turn is self-defeating. At a moment of great hope for a changed Arab world, nothing would be as destructive as a fourth Mideast war.”
Well, that speech is only a few hours away. Unlike his Secretary of State who has clearly opted to continue playing politics with this matter, the hope is that the President will prove to be smarter than that and call for a change in Israeli politics if not the complete depoliticization of this matter both in Israel and in America. Enough is enough.