When reading the editorial in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ)
of September 28, 2013, you may be forgiven for believing that those editors
think Mr. Hasan Rouhani was running for the Congress of the United States of America .
And your astonishment will be understood given that the man was recently
elected President of Iran. The Journal editorial in question came under the title:
“CNN's Tehran Translation” and the subtitle: “The network relied on an Iranian
government interpreter.”
That piece of work pertains to a quarrel that the editors
are having with Ms. Christiane Amanpour of CNN regarding the accuracy of a
translation done by her network. I discussed the subject in my previous article
and shall refrain from repeating myself here. What interests me this time,
however, is the approach that the editors of the Journal are taking. It is
typical of what the Jewish organizations do when they blackmail someone that is
running for office. Directly or indirectly, to help the candidate or to hinder
his efforts, the Jews get involved in the campaign early on, and make him walk
in a minefield of ambiguities they call field of moral clarity.
To get a sense of the game they play, it helps to remember
the English saying: Six of one or half a dozen of the other, what's the
difference? Likewise, there is no issue that these people will not jumble and
confuse to make it so that if you say “six,” they will holler their pain and
accuse you of antisemitism. If you ask how they came to such conclusion, they
will say you should have said “half a dozen.” And it goes without saying that
if you had said half a dozen; they would have insisted you should have said six
to prove that you're not antisemitic.
A recent example of this is when they accused someone
running for a high office of being antisemitic for saying the “Jewish lobby.”
Even though this is what they have been saying for half a century, they
insisted this time that he should have said “Israeli lobby.” And needless to
say that if he had said Israeli lobby, they would have accused him of seeking
to strip Israel
of its “Jewishness,” which would indicate that he was antisemitic at heart.
So how did they play the game this time in the context of
the row they are having with CNN? Well, the target here is Mr. Rouhani of Iran who is on
a charm offensive trying to prove to the world, including the Americans, that
he and his country should not be feared because all they want to do is forge
normal relations with everyone else. When Rouhani started making gains in this
regard, the Jewish lobby unleashed a smear campaign against him and his
country, but the lobbyists lost and were forced to admit, as they did in their
latest editorial, that they were standing on shaky grounds.
They did not come right out and said so honestly because if
they did, they would have had to apologize to someone. Instead, they admitted
in their own subtle way that they stood on shaky grounds but (and there is a
but) they pulled another Jewish trick while making the admission. Look at this
sleight of hand and marvel at their skill: “The point may seem small to Western
ears, but [here is their BUT] it's significant in the context of a regime for
which Holocaust denial is an article of ideological faith.” By this, they mean to
say that even if they could not prove Rouhani denied the Holocaust this time,
he and his country are guilty as charged. So then, how did they try to prove
this point?
This is how they tried: “Ditto for the second comment:
Rouhani did not speak narrowly of Nazi crimes against the Jews, but more
broadly of crimes 'against the Jews and non-Jews.'” In other words, speaking in
the name of the Jewish organizations, the editors of the WSJ have now
formulated a new definition for what is a denier of the Holocaust. It is
someone who refuses to single out the Jews as being the possible target of
victimization by lumping them with the rest of humanity. If he is not guilty
for saying six, he is guilty for saying half a dozen.
And this has prompted the editors of the Journal to exclaim
no, no, no, followed by an explanation as to why: “This distinction is also
important, because central to the claims of Holocaust revisionists is the lie
that Jews were not the deliberate and principal target of Nazi genocide.” Whoa!
Do you see that word revisionist stuck in there, my friend? It indicates that
with the new definition of what is a Holocaust denier, comes a new
politico-cultural religion that is based on a dogma. And this dogma says that
to revise history is to be scholarly but to revise Jewish history is to commit
a damnable offense. And they made it clear, over and over again, that this
offense subjects the offender to being bombed into the stone age, a demand they
have been trying to force the Americans to carry out against Iran .
The problem of this pathetic bunch is that they are only now
sensing they lost the battle. This forced them to treat Mr. Rouhani not as the
pariah they have tried to say he was, but as the important personality that is
out there seeking to win support for his campaign. And this means they have no
alternative but to try and walk him into the minefield of ambiguities they call
moral clarity. This is what they believe they can do but to the rest of the
world, the story is entirely different.
In the eyes of the world, the minefield is the charge of
antisemitism; the ambiguities are reflected in the interplay between outright
denier of the Holocaust and revisionist of history; the moral clarity is that
no matter which way history unfolds, the Jewish leaders will always manage to
turn the people who follow them into perennial losers.