There are two remarkable pieces to read on this day,
September 17, 2012. The first came in the Wall Street Journal under the title:
“The Video Did It” and the subtitle: “The White House finds a root cause of
anti-American violence.” It is an editorial reflecting what the Journal has
been advocating since it was taken over by its current honcho, Rupert Murdoch.
The second article came in the New York Times under the title: “A Preventable
Massacre” It was written by Seth Anziska who is a doctoral candidate in
international history at Columbia
University
Discussing the protests that erupted in much of the Arab and
Muslim Worlds, the Journal chided Ms. Susan Rice who is the American Ambassador
to the UN, and Jay Carney who is the White House spokesman for saying that the
protests were the result of an anti-Islamic video made in America and
shown on the internet. However, the Journal also admits that “Ms. Rice did
concede … that the deadly attack on the U.S.
consulate in Libya
might have been the work of 'individual clusters of extremists.'”
The Journal goes on to say that the debate continues “with
the view of Libyan officials, who say they believe the attack was the work of
Islamists linked to al Qaeda.” This said, the Journal editors add their two
cents worth of opinion. It is made of two parts; one part impugns the motives
of Ms. Rice, and one part exploits the situation as only the leaders of Israel do things -- working hand in hand with
World Jewry and the Jewish lobby in America . Here are the motives as
they see them: “Ms. Rice … explanation is no doubt intended to shield Obama
Administration policies...” And here is the exploitation: “But far worse is the
message it sends to adversaries and even friendly governments abroad...”
So now, you want to know what the editors of the Journal
conclude from all this. Here is the first part of their conclusion: “...it
should be obvious that there is no end to the insults that Islamic radicals can
imagine or cite as an excuse to foment anti-American ... violence.” And here is
the second part of their conclusion: “The far greater provocation to violence
is the appearance of U.S. weakness … The Administration's feeble response …
invites radicals to use more such excuses to kill more Americans.” Thus ends
the Journal editorial.
And you ask yourself: What have the editors said that might
be instructive or helpful? Nothing really. In fact, all they did was attack Ms.
Rice and Mr. Carney for saying that the protests were the result of an
anti-Islamic video, to which they added that the deadly attack on the U.S. consulate in Libya was the work of radicals –
what Ms. Rice called “individual clusters of extremists.” You see no difference
between the two except in the philosophical stance of each. It is that the
editors of the Journal are pushing the idea that the “radicals” can be scared by
an American response which is not a feeble one. But given that you cannot scare
a radical who is prepared to die for his cause, you question this premise and
try to determine what really motivates the Journal editors.
You find the answer in the Seth Anziska article that is
published in the New York Times. It is the history of the massacre that took
place on September 16, 1982 in Sabra and Shatila, two Palestinian camps in
Southern Lebanon where: “In the ensuing three-day rampage, the militia, linked
to the Maronite Christian Phalange Party, raped, killed and dismembered at
least 800 civilians, while Israeli flares illuminated the camps' narrow and
darkened alleyways. Nearly all of the dead were women, children and elderly
men.” So you ask: How could something like this happen? And you hit on the
following answer:
“I found … documents that chronicle key conversations
between American and Israeli officials … The verbatim transcripts reveal that
the Israelis misled American diplomats … and bullied them into accepting the
spurious claims that thousands of 'terrorists' were in the camps … As a result,
Phalange militiamen were able to murder Palestinian civilians, whom America had
pledged to protect just weeks earlier.”
The article is a long one, and it gives a detailed account
of what happened during those days of authentic Jewish horror as it was carried
out not by Jews this time, but by mercenaries they recruited to do the dirty
work for them the same way that they now recruit the American military to do
the dirty work for them in Arab and Muslim lands. It is worth reading the
entire article.
Here is a revealing passage: “Mr. Draper warned: 'the IDF …
will let the Lebanese go and kill the Palestinians in the camps.' Mr. [Ariel] Sharon replied: 'So,
we'll kill them. They will not be left there. You are not going to save them …
If you don't want the Lebanese to kill them, we will kill them.'” Later on you
hit on this passage: “When it comes to our security … When it comes to
existence and security, it is our responsibility and we will never give it to
anybody to decide for us,” which is exactly what you hear them repeat again and
again these days as they have always done it.
In fact, it is always about an existential threat that they
want the Americans to help them stave off without having a say in the matter
except that if and when they get into trouble doing something they cannot
finish, they want the Americans to come to their rescue. In a case like that of
Iran where they cannot even begin an aggression against that country “in self
defense” of course, they want the Americans to do it for them – and they will
want to tag along just to show the world they are still potent and in control
of America.
And this, my friend, is the horror that the editors of the
Wall Street Journal under the direction of Rupert Murdoch are working to
duplicate on a much grander scale.