Look how the editors of the New York Daily News start their
latest piece: “The Syrian city of Aleppo
has fallen under the control of dictator Bashar Assad's forces –– but not
before being reduced to an urban mass graveyard.” That's it? Yes, that's it as
far as this opening sentence is concerned. The rest of the editorial goes on to
cover other things, of course.
Did those editors not see fit to add the obvious to what
they had in that sentence? For example, something like: Not as badly as Gaza ; that coastal city
on which the Jews inflicted a worse sort of bombardment from the air, from the
sea and with a land based artillery? And did those editors not see fit to add
that the Israelis did what they did, not once but three times since they were
kicked out of Gaza ?
The answer to those questions is no, the Jewish editors of the Daily News did
not see fit to make those obvious additions.
Still, Gaza
is the place where children who played on the beach were deliberately targeted
by Israeli gunboats, and slaughtered in accordance with the biblical tradition
of killing children to make their parents suffer. It is the place where the
only water treatment plant, the only sanitation plant and the only power
station they had, as well as the UN schools and hospitals were deliberately
targeted and demolished with smart precision ordnance given to Israel by the United States of America free of
charge.
How can the editors of the New York Daily News, and the
multitude of Jewish pundits in America pretend to weep for the children of
Aleppo when they always defend, even celebrate the butchery that's inflicted on
the children, the women and the men of Gaza? We don't have to go too far to
find the answer to that question. It is right here in the editorial's opening
sentence.
That's where you find a lament that goes like this: “Aleppo has fallen under
the control of Bashar Assad's forces.” This, in fact, is what they are
deploring. Read any of the pundits who write on this subject, and you'll find
them mourning not the death of the Syrian people – children or otherwise – but
mourning the success of someone they dislike. It is what makes them worry not
about the death of human beings, but the death of what they perceive as America 's
influence in the world … and by extension their own influence.
In fact, the rest of the article takes the form of a braid
that's made of three themes interlaced with each other. One theme bemoans the
success that the Syria/Russia coalition is having. Another bemoans the
reduction in America 's
say in world affairs. And the third is a call to America , urging it to adopt a more
robust stance in this matter and other similar matters.
Here is what is bothering the editors of the New York Daily
News with regard to the Syria/Russia successes: “Assad's men have brutalized
the rebel stronghold … bombs have leveled buildings … Assad and Putin are
looking to rout every last vestige of opposition.” Obviously, they see the
confrontation in Syria as a
zero-sum game between America
and the others, where America
is losing. And to them, that's the bottom line that counts. Everything else is
just theatrics.
Here is what is bothering them with regard to the diminished
role that America is playing
in the world today: “Like [the prevailing] mantra 'the world is watching'
describing a putrid, passive form of spectatorship, the US has been
reduced to impotent bystander.” These people will never be happy till they see America 's
fingers in every pie.
And here is how the editors of the New York Daily News urge
America to stand up to the new foreign challenges facing it: “Accessory to
murder is what America risks becoming if it gives a free pass to Putin and
Assad under the incoming administration … the moral risks are bottomless.”
These characters should talk to a lawyer who will tell them that if America
will be named accessory to murder, it won't be because it did not stand up to
Russia but because it was arming the rebel groups in Syria the way it has been
arming Israel, already named war criminal.
Finally, because there can never be a Jewish discussion
without pointing the finger at an innocent scapegoat and blaming the whole
thing on him, the editors of the New York Daily News performed as expected and
came up with this: “It is the largest single blot on President Obama's stained
foreign-policy record”.