The word habit has two meanings in the English language. It
is employed to describe a human behavior that is not easily relinquished. For
example, it can be said that someone has the bad habit of smearing the people
who disagree with him. The word is also employed to describe an attire that
people wear. For example, it can be said that the habit worn by priests has not
changed in style since the beginning of the Christian era.
I am using the word in the title of this article as a
theatrical metaphor to help me describe a group of people who change their
posture as easily as they change the habit they wear. They do so when the
circumstances change and they find themselves thrust into a new scene. But this
does not make them throw away the old habit of smearing the people they
designate as the enemy of the day. Thus, the situation as I see it is not that
of an old wine in a new bottle; it is that of an old habit in a new habit – by
which I mean they maintain the old behavioral habit while changing their look
by wearing a new habit.
These are the people who deceptively call themselves Jews,
Hebrews, Israelis, Zionists or what have you depending on what would be more
convenient for the moment and the circumstances. To illustrate my point, I use
two articles published in the Wall Street Journal – one on March 27, 2013; the
other on March 28, 2013. The first has the title: “Stopping an Undetectable
Iranian Bomb” and the subtitle: “Washington and its allies must insist that Tehran verifiably stop
increasing the number and quality of its centrifuges.” It was authored by David
Albright, Mark Dubowitz and Ordie Kittrie. The second article has the title:
“How Iran
Could Get the Bomb Overnight” and the subtitle: “Building a nuclear weapon
takes time. Buying one does not.” It was authored by Edward Jay Epstein.
What tells me there has been a change of habit to
misrepresent the old habit, is the fact that the Foundation for Defense of
Democracies is now associating itself with David Albright. In getting him to
author an article with one of its members Mark Dubowitz, it is attempting to
project an image that is less that of a clown in his colorful habit, and more
that of a scientist in his white coat. Indeed, to associate itself with Mr.
Albright at this time suits the Foundation well because he is known to have
gone against the grain, warning repeatedly that there was no evidence to
suggest Iraq
possessed weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
This being the false reason why Paul Wolfowitz and his band
of emotionally rattled “children of Holocaust survivors” unleashed Armageddon
in a quest to set the world on fire, the Foundation whose name has heretofore
been synonymous with Armageddon is now trying to distance itself – if only
temporarily – from its own past. Thus, when you read the article signed by
Albright and Dubowitz, you see at the start that the discourse about Iran has
shifted away from what used to be a forceful and persistent old emphasis.
What you detect now is not a rant about an Iran that is building a nuclear bomb in hiding;
it is about stopping Iran 's
advance toward “critical capability.” Make no mistake though, because you still
sense the fingerprint of the Foundation's Mark Dubowitz when you read a passage
like this: “Mr. Obama has implicitly threatened to use force, if necessary, to
prevent Iran
from 'obtaining' nuclear weapons.” But as the article starts to explain the
technical steps that would allow Iran to dash to fissile material
and the bomb, you sense that David Albright had taken charge of this portion of
the presentation.
But then, after all the marvelous technical talk, the
writers find themselves compelled once again to go back to the old habit of
setting a date after which they proclaim being fearful that all hell may break
loose. They set the new date at mid-2014 when they estimate that Iran “will be
able to dash to fissile material in one to two weeks.” Unlike the past,
however, they do not recommend that America
bomb Iran .
What they recommend instead is that “the U.S. intensify
economic sanctions and crack down on Tehran 's
imports of centrifuge equipment and materials. In addition any interim deal
must verifiably prohibit Iran
from upgrading the type or increasing the number of operational centrifuges.
More frequent IAEA inspections at key Iranian sites are also essential.” Thus,
the Armageddon look of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies has suddenly
changed to project not the image of a gory devil seeking blood to feed on, but
the image of an entity that is more reasonable.
But don't bet the
house on it because this is where something typically Jewish happens as these
people turn greedy and try to have it both ways. You see this phenomenon
materialize in the Epstein article that came the next day on the same page of
the same Journal. His point being that: “By focusing on
preventing Iran from manufacturing a nuke ... the U.S. may be neglecting Iran's
far more dangerous option of buying the bomb … Not being ready to stop it could
prove catastrophic,” the author finds himself compelled to demolish the
argument that was advanced the day before.
Look at this passage: "When it comes to manufacturing WMD, the Iranian regime is in a bind. To further enrich its current stockpile ... to weapons-grade material, Tehran would need to reconfigure its
centrifuges. Since these are closely monitored by inspectors of the IAEA, Iran would have
to ... break out of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. Then it would take
four to six months ... to produce enough enriched uranium for a bomb. During
this interval, Tehran would invite an attack by the U.S which has munitions
capable of destroying all of Iran's centrifuges … Iran would likely lose the
means to manufacture nuclear weapons before it could make a single one.”
The Albright/Dubowitz argument thus demolished, Epstein
advances his own. He begins by asking the question: “What if Iran
buys one or two nuclear warheads from North Korea ?” To answer the
question, he tells why such a deal could take place between the two countries.
He then counsels that America
concentrate on preventing a deal of this kind from going through.
This being a far cry from advocating that Iran be bombed,
it projects a more reasonable image of what the Jewish organizations have been
projecting thus far. All they need to do now is stop being so greedy as to
contradict themselves and each other every time that one of them opens his
mouth.