Is it possible for someone who normally projects the image
of sanity to secretly believe that 75 years ago is older than 2000 years ago?
Apparently there is a language that makes it possible for someone to believe in
such things. In fact, the language often makes nutcases believe they can
“educate” others about the truthfulness of their views however skewed they may
be. Do you want to know what language that is? It's the Jewish haggle.
And no one has used the Jewish haggle more effectively than
Alan M. Dershowitz. He spent a lifetime arguing that up was down; that left was
right, and that backward was forward. And you know what, my friend! There were
enough nutcases to believe in his gospel. No wonder he has done it again in an
article that came under the title: “What Is a 'Refugee'? The Jews from Morocco versus the Palestinians from Israel ,”
published on March 10, 2018 on the website of the Gatestone Institute.
Because the haggle is an event of long duration, it requires
fuel to keep it swirling. The way to harness a large source of fuel is to
maneuver the haggle up to the edge of a word's definition. That's where the
haggle gets trapped in the vortex of the swirl. From the title of the
Dershowitz article, you can see how he did just that. He asked for the
definition of the word 'refugee,' then wrote hundreds of other words trying to
define it while at the same time insidiously turning the known universe into an
upside down version of itself.
But why is Dershowitz doing all this? He is doing it because
he senses that the day of reckoning is approaching when Israel 's
obligation to the Palestinians will be tabulated, and the bill presented to it
and its promoters for payment. Since Israel
has no domestic economy, the money will have to come from America whose
government will be in no mood to fork up billions more than it does now, and
from the Jewish moguls abroad whose preference is to pay for killing
Palestinians, not for compensating them.
The moguls abroad being Dershowitz and his buddies, you can
see why the idea of Israel
being forced to pay compensation for the crimes it committed is abhorrent to
them. It is that they are used to collect compensation, not pay it out. In
addition, there is the reality that Dershowitz is an inside-out Jewish lawyer
who sees good as bad, and sees bad as good. That's what prompted him to revive
an old idea and give it a modern twist.
The idea being Jewish, it is no surprise that it follows a
logic that unfolds along this line: I hurt you, and this is proof that you're
bad. Being bad is proof that you owe me something. So, you better pay up or
I'll double your punishment, and you'll end up owing me even more.
This is the kind of argument that Dershowitz and his buddies
composed four decades ago to show that the Soviets and the Arabs were bad. The
Soviets were bad, said the Jews of America, because they would not let the Jews
of Russia respond to Israel 's
beckoning call and leave the country without paying for the free education they
received in the Soviet Union . As to the Arabs,
they were bad, said the Jews of America, because they let the Jewish Arabs
respond to Israel 's
beckoning call, letting them leave the country instead of holding on to them
tightly.
Because the Arabs failed to show the Jews this kind of
brotherly affection, say the Jews of America, they must compensate Israel . As to
how much compensation the Arabs owe Israel ,
it all depends on how much the international community will say Israel owes the
Palestinians. The effect the Jews hope to engineer is for Israel to
receive from the Arab countries at least as much as will be needed to
compensate the Palestinians for what the Jews stole from them. This way, Israel will have done to the Arabs what it has
been doing to America
for decades. It will have taken what it wants – Palestinian properties – and
gotten someone else to pay the bill. In other words the Jews wish to turn the
Arabs into American style suckers.
But where is the Jewish logic that justifies this kind of a
deal? Here it is: Dershowitz says the Jews have the right to return to Palestine because they
left the place only 2000 years ago, and ceased to be refugees. Their right of
return supersedes that of the Palestinian refugees who left Palestine a whopping 70 years ago. The
contrast here is between the two adjectives “only” 2000 and “whopping” 70. What
follows is a condensed version of the verbiage surrounding the word “refugee”
that Dershowitz has spewed to make those points:
“How does this relate to the Palestinian claim of the right
to return to their homes? Quite directly. Approximately 700,000 Arabs were
displaced. Approximately the same number of Jews were displaced from the Arab
homelands during this period. It has now been 70 years since this exchange of populations
occurred. Almost all of the Arab refugees are the descendants –– some quite
distant –– of those who were actually displaced in 1948. In life as in law
there are statutes of limitations that recognize that history changes the
status quo. The time has come for the world to stop treating these Palestinians
as refugees. That status ended decades ago for the relatives of the
Palestinians who have lived outside of Israel for nearly three quarters of
a century”.