Zionist denial disorder

The psychoanalysts are busy thinking up news disorders to expand their business and find ever new ways to defame the politically incorrect.
See, for example, Anne Applebaum (who is Jewish, by the way) indict
the ultimate all-American boy, Tom Sawyer.
I remember reading Tom Sawyer in my high school years,
without him being pointed out as
a boy who needed professional medical help.
Obviously,
what Team PC wants is a New, Improved version of the traditional WASP male.

Well, I’m a WASP male who feels the time has come to return the favor
(even if I have no academic training whatsoever in psychiatry).

As I have gotten older (I am now over sixty)
and have observed what I have of the national dialogue,
I have developed an ever-growing conviction that
Jews, quite simply, have their own reality.
They are truly oblivious to the real reality.
Now, I realize that
many Jews will find that statement unacceptable, to say the least,
but perhaps they will allow me to give a concrete example.

Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen, who is Jewish,
has certainly over the years gone a long way
to present a fair-minded, balanced approach
to various topics relating to both Israel and Jewish-gentile relations.
I really appreciate the effort he has made to be fair-minded.
But even he, it seems to me, sometimes fails in that quest,
evidently without realizing it.
For example, consider his 2010-08-10 column
(which happened to appear on the very same op-ed page
as the Anne Applebaum column cited above),
“The Economist's unforgivable silence on Sayyid Qutb's anti-Semitism.”
In that column he makes an assertion which is clearly not original to him.
He writes (but the emphasis is added by the current author):

“As Jacob Weisberg pointed out recently in Slate,
the ‘boycott Israel’ movement is oddly unbalanced --
so much fury directed at Israel,
so little at countries like China or Venezuela.”
Can it be that
the French philosopher Vladimir Jankelevitch was prescient
when he suggested years ago that anti-Zionism
‘gives us the permission and even the right and even the duty
to be anti-Semitic in the name of democracy’?
The line between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism,
a demarcation I have always acknowledged,
is becoming increasingly blurred.”

Well, this WASP says “Hey, wait a minute.”

Before bringing out the heavy rhetorical artillery of
accusations of anti-Zionism or, even worse, anti-Semitism,
is it possible that
there is a much more innocent reason for the indicted behavior?
Like,
is there a salient, blatant difference between
the relation of the West to Israel versus
its relation to China and Venezuela?
Of course there is.

Israel is, in the first instance, a total creation of the West,
dating back to the days of the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes-Picot Agreement
and continuing through the U.N. resolution which created Israel in 1947,
in which the West voted as a bloc to create the state of Israel,
over the vehement opposition of Muslim states.
Are Weisberg and (sorry, Richard) Cohen so literally mentally ill
that they cannot see that distinction,
and observe that it is relevant?

Now let us continue to the present day.
If we look at America’s post-war presidents who won reelection
(Eisenhower-34, Nixon-37, Reagan-40, Clinton-42, and Bush-43)
it was said about each of them since Eisenhower:
“He is the most pro-Israel president ever”.
(The notable exceptions were Carter-39 and Bush-41,
who oddly enough were denied reelection.)
In general, the pattern is clear:
American administrations and Congresses
have given ever more fervent and unquestioning support for
practically whatever actions the Jewish state takes.
Support for actions such as

• Israel’s forty-year violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention
  in its settlement of half a million Israelis in the occupied territories,


• Israel’s creation of a security fence/wall
  outside of its internationally-recognized border,
  despite a ruling from the International Court,


• Israel’s wars and disproportionate retaliations against Lebanon in 2006,
  and the post-2000 Intifada,


• Israel’s blockade of Gaza.

All these actions have certainly been noticed by the Muslim world,
including the fact that
the U.S. has been Israel’s supporter, protector, and enabler
in all these actions.
Further, although the U.S. “elite” will go to practically any length
to avoid either noticing or commenting on it,
this U.S. support for Israel was, in the words of both Osama bin Laden and KSM,
the main reason for the September 11 2001 attack. [Cf.]

Summarizing, the West in general, and the U.S. in particular,
bears a great load of responsibility for Israel’s actions
(have you noticed how American Jews go all but berserk with outrage
when any U.S. political leader or person of prominence
(hello, Norman Finkelstein)
dares to suggest the U.S. should not support Israel
or, perish the thought, pressure Israel?).

So I think that anyone who cannot see
the difference in responsibility of the U.S. towards Israel
versus, to cite the examples of Weisberg or Cohen, China and Venezuela,
is out of his cotton-picking mind.

---

Here is the relevant paragraph from the article by Jacob Weisberg:

The stronger case against the cultural boycott of Israel
is based on
principles of consistency and proportionality—and on history.
[Oh, proportionality.
What was your attitude toward that
when Israel bombed the shit out of Lebanon in 2006
over three dead Israeli soldiers?]
Supporters of boycotting Israel seldom focus on China, or Syria, or Zimbabwe,
or other genuinely illegitimate regimes
[“illegitimate”? China is an illegitimate regime?
It may not be democratic,
but it sure seems to have the support of its people.
But perhaps that does not matter to creeps like Weisberg.]
that violate human rights not in deviation from their own principles but systematically. [??? Did that make sense to you?]
This underscores their bad faith.
[That statement underscores Jacob Weisberg’s Zionist denial disorder.]
Boycotters are not trying to send a specific message, such as
“We object to your settlement policy in the West Bank” or
“We think you need to be willing to give up more for peace.”
What they’re saying instead is:
“We consider your country so intrinsically reprehensible that
we are going to treat all of your citizens as pariahs.”
[Notice that Weisberg has the Magic Decoder Ring issued to all Jews
to decode precisely the motivations of
anyone who says anything that they take offense to.]
Instead of warning that Israel risks becoming an apartheid society
if it fails to make peace,
boycotters have concluded that
Israel already is an irredeemable apartheid society.
Like the older Arab economic boycott of Israel,
which dates back to the 1940s,
the cultural boycott is a weapon designed not to bring peace
but to undermine the country.

Jacob, Jacob, Jacob.
You really have a problem.
How do you know that the boycotters are not simply trying to
urge, force, compel, pressure (choose the appropriate word)
Israel into modifying its behavior into a behavior that they,
and the great majority of the world's population,
think is more, yes, legitimate?

I think the bottom line is that Jacob Weisberg no doubt is a fine editor,
but cannot be regarded as anything but a partisan for Israel.