There was a time when the Jews would yell at anyone who
dared to lump them or lump Israel
with everyone else, or treat them as equals. NO, screamed the rabbis who used
to form the bulk of the Jewish lobby in North America
at the time. In fact, the Jews and Israel were so special in the eyes
of these characters; they used to bray that no one should try to compaaaare
them with ordinary mortals. They even sounded like jackasses as they pronounced
the word compaaaare.
But when the Jews noticed that society had finally accepted
the proposition they were different, and started to treat them differently, the
Jews did not like it. There were two reasons for this. The first is the
standard Jewish penchant for ambiguity which causes them to call someone
antisemitic for saying A instead of B; and calling him antisemitic for saying B
instead of A. The other reason is that society did not make the Jews so special
as to put them on a pedestal the way they hoped for; it made them special, and
put them in the doghouse. Ouch!
You can imagine that the Jews did not like this development,
especially that a new generation of Jewish pundits was coming onto the scene
and was invited to the talk shows in lieu of the now aging rabbis. The new guys
distinguished themselves by not being shy about wanting their cake and eating
it too. In fact, they wanted some of what anyone and everyone received because,
they said, they don't like being discriminated against. And they wanted no one
else to receive what they received, they said, because this would be catering
to their jealousies. Thus, the Jews made themselves equal to and included with
everyone else when it came to taking things, but made themselves separate and
unequal when it came to sharing things with others.
The good news is that a newer generation of Jews came along
and rejected that pile of nonsense. These folks are young men and women making
their way through college. Some have graduated already but – trying to land a
position in the media – find themselves having to fight tooth and nail against
their older peers. One of these is Elliott Abrams who continues to try having
it both ways for Israel .
His latest article came under the title: “What happens When UN Security Council
Resolutions are Ignored?” It was published on January 5, 2017 on the website of
the Council on Foreign Relations.
Abrams is comparing the way that Lebanon
and Israel
are treated when it comes to abiding by Security Council resolutions. To
confuse the issues, he deliberately conflates two things. On the one hand he
speaks of the Security Council passing resolutions regarding Lebanon and Israel ;
on the other hand, he remarks that “no one complains, and no one ever argues
that Lebanon
must be punished with boycotts or prosecutions.” But the fact is that in the
recent past, only one resolution critical of Israel
was allowed to pass when the U.S.
did not veto it; and that resolution did not call for boycotting or punishing Israel . The
people who call for the boycott and/or prosecution of Israel are ordinary human beings whose hearts go
out to their fellow human beings – those who are treated savagely by Israel in occupied Palestine .
But why is it that ordinary human beings have adopted the
cause for which Israel was
criticized, and not the cause for which Lebanon was called upon to do
something? Well, let's look at the two situations. Israel was told to stop the
criminal activity of killing Palestinians and robbing their properties. Lebanon was
told to take control of its territory from the hands of militias. The Israeli
Jews say they will not stop murdering Palestinians or looting their properties
because they have God's permission to do so. Lebanon says it has disarmed
Palestinian militias in at least two camps, and is monitoring its border to the
best of its ability, turning away infiltrators and weapon smugglers when it
catches them.
Elliott Abrams says what Lebanon is doing is not enough
because it did not disarm Hezbollah even though he admits that the Security
Council Resolution did not mention Hezbollah. But having confused the issues,
and having accused Lebanon
of failing to do what it was never asked to do; now Abrams equates Lebanon and Israel by attributing to both the
element of fear.
His idea is that the Lebanese government is fearful of
Hezbollah even though Hezbollah (Party of God in Arabic) is part and parcel of
the government. Parallel to this, says Abrams, is a government in Israel that's a
coalition which includes members who oppose a freeze on settlements. If the
government were to defy them, they would leave the coalition and cause the
government to collapse, he explains. For these reasons, says Abrams , Israel