Imagine a brave new world, or maybe a cowardly one, in which
France reoccupies Algeria , Britain
reoccupies Zimbabwe , Italy reoccupies Ethiopia ,
Holland reoccupies Indonesia ,
Germany reoccupies South Africa , Portugal
reoccupies Brazil , Spain reoccupies Mexico ,
and America
reoccupies Philippine.
The occupying powers declare that because they took in
people at home from the lands they are occupying, and because they treat these
people “far better” than they are treated in most Asian, African and Latin
American countries, they as occupiers, deserve to have rights no one else has,
and must be treated with respect. What would you say about that, my friend? Of
course you would say that moral syphilis must have infested the brains of the
people advocating this sort of lunacy.
Well, believe it or not, this is what the editors of the
Wall Street Journal are advocating in the piece they wrote under the title:
“Shame of the Academy” and the subtitle: “The American Studies Association
votes to boycott Israel .”
The piece was published in the Journal on December 17, 2013.
In presenting their case, the syphilitic editors of the
Journal not only argue in favor of Israel and against the boycott,
they do it by attacking their own country – something that comes at the very
start of the editorial. Here is how they have formulated their sickly thought:
“The political corruption of the American academy is by now an old story...”
They go on to call the story “shocking.”
This done, they attack the decision of the American Studies
Association (ASA) on two levels; one level being a reference to Jonathan Marks
who wrote a piece that was published nearby under the title: “A Vote Against
Israel and Academic Freedom” and the subtitle: American Studies professors have
decided that democratic Israel deserves a U.S. boycott.” You can read the piece
if you want. I read it but I'm not going to discuss it because it is the
account of one individual that has taken the vote of the ASA personally, and is
feeling bitter about his defeat.
As to the other level at which the editors of the Journal
discuss the decision of the ASA, what they did is display in full bloom what
moral syphilis has done to them. Are you ready for it, my friend? Here it is:
“It is worth pondering what must have gone through the mind of a professoriate
that would choose to boycott the most democratic country in the Middle East . The country in which Arabs [Palestinians]
are treated far better and have more rights than they do in most Arab lands
[there are 22 of them.]” Did you catch that? They said the Palestinians are
treated “far better” than the citizens in the other Arab countries.
Well, disregard for a moment the argument which says that a
Palestinian woman should not suffer because an Arab that lives somewhere else
has no rights, and assume it is true that it is “far better” for a pregnant
Palestinian woman to have a baby on the street near an Israeli checkpoint in
her own Palestine on her way to a hospital – than it is for an Arab woman in
say, Morocco, Egypt, Kuwait or Oman getting to hospital, and having her baby
there.
Have you disregarded and have you assumed? Good. Now, do you
know what my Jewish friend would have said about that?