Bret Stephens did something useful for a change. He didn't
do it because he wanted to; he did it because he tried to do the opposite and
failed. He wrote: “Obama's Curious Rage,” a column that also came under the subtitle:
“Calm when it comes to Putin, ISIS and Hamas, but furious with Israel .” It was
published on September 2, 2014 in the Wall Street Journal.
To be sure, Stephens is a Jew, and these are the people who
yell that you cannot compare Israel
with someone else ... but then compare Israel with someone else when it is
convenient for them to do so. And guess what; it is always convenient for them
to do so because there is nothing they will not spin in their favor. And this
time, Stephens compares Israel
with practically the whole world. You already get a hint of that from the
subtitle of the column, but there is more.
Having gained notoriety for calling people antisemitic for
saying “Jewish lobby” instead of “Israeli lobby.” And having gained notoriety
of calling people antisemitic for saying Israeli lobby instead of Jewish lobby,
Stephens is playing this Jewish game again. Or is it an Israeli game? No
matter. The point is that the game this time is played on the back of the word
“enraged.” Our author says that Obama used it when he could have used any of
the following alternatives: alarmed, concerned, irritated or angered. But
everyone knows that if Obama had used any of the alternatives, Stephens would
have asked: Why not enraged? You can't win with these guys.
He gets into the core of his argument by showing how much
his Jewishness has handicapped him when it comes to forming a perspective that
does not crumble under its weight. Look at this: “[Israel ]
has just been hit by accusations of genocide, anti-Semitic protests throughout Europe , general condemnation across the world. This is
the object of the president's rage.” Whoa! A thousand times whoa! This Jew is
asking the American President to cuddle an Israel that has done something so
bad, the whole world is mad at it. Can Stephens not see the absurdity of this
reasoning? Or is he so blind that he has no notion of what perspective is?
He now commits a classic Jewish mistake of lining the sins
of others to contrast with those of Israel , thus hangs himself not knowing
what hit him. He advises: “Think about this some more.” And he dresses up a
list: The IS seized Mosul , the Russian
separatists shot down a jetliner, Hamas executed collaborators, Assad forces
almost encircled Aleppo , a British jihadist slit
the throat of a journalist, Russia
invaded Ukraine ,
and Chinese jets harassed US planes.
These are the sins of the world, committed against the world
– 7.2 billion people offending 7.2 billion people. Against that, you have Israel killing about 2,100 people in a Gaza population of 1.65
million, a ratio that comes to more than 9 million dead humans when projected
onto the population of the world. And this is not counting the injured, the
destroyed homes and destroyed infrastructure … crimes committed with the use of
American weapons. Stephens could not perceive that the longer he made the list
of those committing sins, the weaker his argument because sins that are shared
by many get to be diluted.
And he commits a second classic Jewish mistake. It is that
of asking for a reward to balance the one received by someone, even if that
someone earned it and Israel
did not. Also, it is that of protesting that someone was treated as equal to Israel when no one can be equal to Israel .
Look how that concept emerges from his argument. He begins:
“Now think about what has enraged the president about Israel : Its
actions ... Actions? Hamas began firing rockets at Israel in June.” This would be June
of the year 2014. The author means to say that Hamas had no right to fire
rockets at Israel .
The fact that Hamas fired the rockets because Israel
had been blockading Gaza
for six years, does not factor into his equation because – as a Jew – he does
not recognize an equation with two sides.
Ever since the Arabs invented Algebra, the equation has had
two sides with the equal sign between them. If in solving it, the sides turn
out to be non-equal, you know that the reasoning has been faulty, and you
reject the premise with which you began.