Elliott Abrams wrote an article under the title: “The
Scholars Who Ban Disagreement” and posted it on the website of the Council on
Foreign Relations on December 14, 2014. That title is a blatant lie because no
one is banning disagreement.
In Abrams own words, what happened is this: “A group of
academics is calling on the US government and EU to impose sanctions on four
prominent Israelis who lead efforts to insure permanent Israeli occupation of
the West Bank and to annex all or parts of it in violation of international
law.”
This is what the American academics have said, and what
Abrams quoted them as saying. When you look at the matter closely, these people
have a good reason for wanting to see their suggestion implemented. It is that
the Israeli individuals are advocating at least the cultural genocide of the
Palestinian people if not their long-term physical annihilation … which will
most certainly happen as it did to other cultures, including some here on the American
continents.
In arguing against that suggestion, Abrams does something
strange even for a Jew. First, it must be noted that these people are notorious
for shooting themselves in the foot every time that they try to have it both
ways – which must be said is often. But what this guy has done is to fire at
least four bullets into his body. In fact, he mentions Iran , China ,
Syria and Russia , and laments that the academics who cited
Israel ,
have failed to cite those nations as well for sanction.
Elliott Abrams did all that despite the fact that he is a
member of the Council on Foreign Relations, a position that allows him to know
for certain that those nations have been sanctioned for activities that come
nowhere near being as severe as the Jewish genocide of the Palestinian people.
Did he not realize that the mere mention of these nations would destroy the
point he is trying to make? Really, this is a strange phenomenon that happens
to be purely a Jewish one.
Abrams does another thing that suggests he must be
undergoing a serious transformation – perhaps having a bout with male menopause
or something. Look what he says: “the brilliant idea of these intellectuals is
to ban from the United States
democratically elected parliamentarians with whom they don't agree. Or with
whom they really, really don't agree, seriously, a lot.” Well, set aside for
now all those who were elected in the past, who rose to high positions and then
committed horrible acts.
What does Elliott Abrams think of Hamas, Hezbollah and the
Iranian members who were democratically elected to their parliaments? Will he
urge the Council on Foreign Relations to invite them to America even
though he disagrees with them on many issues – really, really, seriously, a
lot? Failing this, will he be happy to see someone else invite them? Perhaps to
give a commencement speech at some college, or to address the chambers of the
United States Congress? Or maybe even promote the idea that America must now drop the sanctions imposed on Iran ?
Abrams further demonstrates how much his mental faculties
have been affected when he tackles the same subject but from a different angle.
He makes the point that what separates the prominent Israelis from the American
academics is not that a fundamental principle is involved – given that one side
is advocating genocide while the other is abhorred by it – but that a simple
disagreement exists between two democratic groups.
Thus, it must be
said that according to Elliot Abrams, it does not matter what the disagreement
is about because what matters more is that the two sides are democratic. This
alone lifts the disagreement from the level of the fundamental – in this case
genocide – and places it at the level of the trivial – in this case a simple
chicanery about nothing between two democrats.