An
important feature that's lost to those who engage in public debates these days,
was that the two sides having an argument, made sure nothing of what they said
would paralyze the debate, but that everything they said would help advance it.
This is no longer true.
When
that rule is violated, and the debate gets paralyzed in the sense that it goes
round and round without achieving a breakthrough, the moderator must intervene
to break the paralysis and help the debate move forward again. This used to be
the norm in the public debates held in America, but is not the case anymore.
And the question to ask is this: How and why was that feature lost to America?
There
are two immediately observable reasons and a stealthy reason why this happened.
First, what is often observed during television debates these days, is that the
moderators have abandoned their traditional role, becoming instead a part of
the debating antagonists. They do so by pretending to ask questions but in
reality delivering long preambles that sound more like opening statements.
Second,
it is often observed that the moderators are almost always biased to one side
of the debate. When they finally get to ask the questions, they help their
preferred side by throwing them softballs while suppressing the other side,
which they do by cutting them off the moment they reveal something damaging to
the opponent, or when they say something that sounds intelligent or
interesting.
As
to the stealthy reason why debates get paralyzed in America these days; it can
be seen in the article that came under the title: “Donald Trump, Pittsburgh and
the lessons of Kristallnacht,” and the subtitle: “You don't have to hate Jews
to stoke anti-Semitism.” It was written by Joshua Shanes and published on
November 9, 2018 in The Washington Post.
What
you'll see in that article is an endless exercise in haggling. It is composed
of real and imagined segments of history which are mixed with speculations, conjectures
and guesses. This conception has two goals. One is to fashion a history of
events about which it can be said that they culminated in the Holocaust. The
other goal is to make it look and sound like today's events parallel that
history. A conclusion can then be drawn to the effect that what's happening
today will follow in the footsteps of what happened in history, and will
inevitably lead to a new Holocaust.
As
a theory, that conception sounds concise and elegant. Unfortunately for its
author, however, it carries within it the element of its own disassembly. That
is, when you put together an elegant theory, you give it the aura of being
universal. But when you look at the conclusion that Joshua Shanes has reached,
you'll find that the theory has failed the test of universality in America and
the other places around the globe.
For
example, the first thing that comes to mind when reading the Shanes theory is
that the Jewish propaganda machine in America spent decades demonizing the
Arabs and the Muslims. But when Donald Trump's kiddie Jewish adviser forged a
policy to keep Arabs and Muslims out of America, the courts, the politicians
and the masses responded with a resounding: “hell no!” to Donald Trump and to
his formula-fed minion.
As
well, the genocides that happened in the former Yugoslavia and the current
Myanmar did not happen because someone campaigned against an ethnic group –– as
the Joshua Shanes theory would claim –– they happened because of animosities
that have been brewing for centuries. The following is a condensed version of
what the Shanes theory says:
“Kristallnacht
was the culmination of anti-Semitic politics exploited by men who never
intended to act on it. Therein lies the lesson for today. What Trump feels is
less important than what he says or does. This has historical precedent. Take
Karl Lueger, he certainly did not believe in his own rhetoric. The problem is
that once you stoke hatred of a minority, it no longer matters whether you
believe it or intend to act on it. That legacy ultimately helped pave the way
for the rise of new anti-Semitic parties in the 1920s and 1930s. Words matter.
Hatemongering, fearmongering, violent rhetoric and the dehumanization of
people: These are the signs. They must be fought, regardless of the intentions
of the politicians who wield them”.
That's good and dandy to say and to haggle about interminably. But
Joshua Shanes should be telling it to the Jewish hate machine that did exactly
that, and continues to do it. In fact, it is doing it relentlessly, but
thankfully failing to score any of the intended gains.
The truth is that not a single Christian Arab––such as yours
truly––or a single Muslim of any ethnicity, was seriously hurt or killed in
North America … to the dismay of those who support the Jewish hate machine, and
pay it to show results. It hasn't to this day because the theory underlying its
operation is false.