A child may believe that his daddy is so omnipotent, he can
make things happen as simply as wishing them to happen. Now imagine the trauma
through which this child will go if a dangerous event develops that the father
cannot counteract but looks helpless as he grabs the child and pulls away from
the source of the danger.
This is an occurrence that can be viewed as a metaphor in
situations where the leaders of a nation that used to have things done their
way on the international scene, decide to pull back and maintain their dignity
and that of the nation rather than stand up to a rising rival that's behaving
in a manner which appears confrontational.
A situation such as that developed in the 1940s to a Britain
whose empire “the sun never set” but then, one day, found itself helpless in
the face of events it could no longer control. This is the situation which the
editors of the Wall Street Journal use to draw a parallel with current events.
Here is how they describe the British experience: “As Britain 's status as a global power was coming to
an end, then-Chancellor of the Exchequer Hugh Dalton warned that his government was
'drifting in a state of semi-animation, toward the rapids.'”
There is in that locution nostalgia for the good old days
when Britain
used to have things done its way. But the relative curtailment of Britain 's power
could not be denied at that time given the history which led to that moment of
reckoning. It was a history during which the rising powers of Germany , Japan ,
the Soviet Union and America
made their entrances on the global stage with resounding fanfare following the
Second World War.
This is not exactly what is happening to America these
days, yet the editors of the Wall Street Journal quote the locution of
Chancellor Hugh Dalton to then opine: “For the Obama Presidency, the rapids are
in earshot.” This is totally infantile and at par with the child that used to
think his father was omnipotent then discovered otherwise. It is infantile
because America has not
experienced the equivalent of a Battle of Britain; the event that heralded the
end of the British Empire as it was known at
the time.
The editors of the Journal expand on their thesis in the
piece they wrote under the title: “Syria 's
Radiating Danger” and the subtitle: “Russia 's
incursions into Turkey
risk tension with NATO.” They published it in the Journal on October 7, 2015.
What tells you this editorial is from the imagination of an infant appear in
the first paragraph in the form of a hypothetical situation: “What will the U.S. do if Russia shoots down a Turkish jet?”
Following that opening shot, the editors cite a litany of
thinly related occurrences, thus indicating that they aim not to shed light on
a situation for which they may suggest a solution, but aim to score political
points for domestic consumption. And like a child that cannot be separated from
his favorite toy, they get right back to the business of speculating another
hypothetical: “Don't be surprised if Moscow
locks a missile radar on a U.S.
fighter, or shoots down an American drone.” Let's not kid ourselves; this is
what they wish will happen.
Now they give a hint as to which domestic audience they are
trying to please: “When an American President indicates he'd rather accept
humiliation than responsibility, you can be sure he's going to be humiliated
some more.” This, my friend, is the signature of the Judeo-Israeli lobby. The
story is that the Jews who were humiliated everywhere they went – to the point
of being forced to lick their own spit – live with the intense desire to see
the humiliation of everyone that disobeys them.
These people cannot force Obama to lick his spit, but they
believe they can have the same effect if thousands of them and their Evangelical
running, barking dogs keep talking about an Obama that was humiliated at the
hands of someone. This is why thousands of them are out there, at this very
moment, echo-repeating that Obama has been humiliated, and will be humiliated
some more. The editors of the Wall Street Journal represent but one of those
voices … as disgustingly pathetic as they sound.
And as always, these same editors chose to adopt the Jewish
habit of tying the hypothetical argument they have devised for the moment, to a
contemporary situation that is of importance to Israel and to World Jewry. It is
their burning desire to see America
bomb Iran .
Here is what they say in that regard: “Also exposed as false is the
Administration's hope that the Iran
deal would open avenues of regional cooperation with the ayatollahs.”