Look what a savage attack is delivered to your sense of
moral rectitude at the start of the latest New York Daily News' editorial. The
first sentence says this: “Bernie Sanders … plans to make the section related
to the Middle East more 'even handed' toward
the Palestinians.” As to the title of the editorial, it reads as follows:
“Bernie Sanders' anti-Israel push,” published on June 5, 2016 in the Daily
News.
Look closely at that first sentence, and note the logical
horror that's packed into it. First, the editors make the concept of
even-handedness a bad thing in itself. Having done that, they suggest that
Sanders chose to favor the Palestinians. What is atrocious about this logic is
that even-handedness means to be unbiased towards any side … and yet, the
editors assert that to be unbiased in the Middle East
is to side with the Palestinians.
Whether or not the people who think that way are conscious
of the contradiction that's inherent to their logic, there is utility in
turning the concept of even-handedness on its head. It is that it opens the
door for them to say that even-handedness in the Middle
East makes you anti-Israeli, anti-Jewish and anti-Semitic.
However, there is not here the suggestion that even-handedness
in other circumstances does not mean what it says: to be unbiased toward any of
the sides. Thus, what the editors are establishing, is the principle that when
it comes to Jewish affairs, to treat the Jews the same as anyone else, amounts
to favoring someone else. That is, either you are one hundred percent on the
side of the Jews no matter what they do, or you are against them. In fact,
against their right to even exist.
And so, they ask the question: “What might that mean?” And
they answer: “Nothing good”.
They go on to tell what Bernie Sanders has done wrong in
their view. It is that he “appointed to the platform committee two activists
who view Israel
as an occupying power.” The implication here is that in their view, the
existence of Israeli soldiers in Palestine
– half a century already – does not constitute an occupation.
Well, up until today, the unwanted presence of soldiers in a
country that's not their own has been called occupation. So, once again, a
question poses itself: Has the definition of occupation changed for everyone?
Or is it that things have changed on this occasion only because it concerns the
Jews? It should be obvious by now that the Jewish editors of the Daily News
have again singled out the Jews for special treatment.
They go on to tell who the two appointees are, and what
preoccupies them: the normal humanitarian concern that anyone would have for
the plight of a people under occupation. However, standing for the right of the
Palestinians to be rid of the occupation and live freely like everyone else,
the Sanders appointees have displeased the editors of the Daily News, and may
even have frightened them.
Look what the editors complain about: “The unifying
viewpoint is that the Democratic Party must reduce emphasis on standing with Israel as a
nation under existential siege and increase emphasis on the suffering of
Palestinians.” What the editors mean is that Israel
exists because the existence of Palestine
is denied. If Israel is
forced to terminate the occupation to end the suffering of the Palestinian
people, the result will be that Palestine will
come into existence and Israel
will cease to exist.
That's a rephrasing of the old fantasy which goes like this:
It is us or it is them because God has said there is a place for only one, not
two. And when you look closely at everything that the Jews have said and done,
you'll find that this mentality has accompanied them throughout time everywhere
they went. In fact, it is the core of their religious belief as spelled out in
the book of ideology they call the Old Testament. And this is why the Jews have
been treated so badly by the entire human race since they came into existence.
To buttress their argument, the editors repeat the
Judeo-Israeli talking points which basically say that the Jews are good people
deserving to enjoy all the rights that are due to them. On the other hand,
those same talking points say that the Palestinians are evil people who must
not be given any of the rights enjoyed by everyone.