Allowing that Jews might deserve protection from Nazis opens the way toward allowing that a Jewish State, where Jews can protect themselves and not rely on the whims of host cultures to do so, might have justification. We cannot allow that, because it implies sympathy for Jews and the implication that Jews have rights - Jewish rights necessarily contradict Palestinian rights. To further that point we must portray Jews and Nazis as congruent, which in turn allows that the Nazis were the greatest evil known to history, but that, problematically, concedes that the Nazis did what the Jews claim the Nazis did to the Jews, and that automatically establishes that Jew suffered and need protection.
To put it another way, Holocaust denial, which enjoys a robust adherence in both pro-Jeremy and pro-Palestine circles (yes, the Venn diagram of those two groups would be a circle within a circle), softens the impact of the "Israelis are the new Nazis" charge, because if the Nazis didn't systematically kill all those Jews, then why were the Nazis so bad, or at least, why are they any worse than any other conquering or totalitarian force?
Unfortunately, we try to have it both ways; fortunately, the sympathetic Western media elite seldom call us out on the inconsistency. We have been fortunate enough to have them carry the two parts of our message, which more more less amounts to "The Nazis didn't do to the Jews what the Jews accuse them of doing, but we very much wish they had and are looking for any pretext to accomplish that in the Nazis' stead."
I know that putting it in those terms sounds wrong somehow, but we can count on our friends in politics, journalism, commentary, and the "human rights" community to phrase it more palatable, even virtuous, terms, à la "From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free."
|
Or order from your favorite bookseller, using ISBN 9798985708424. Read all about it here! |
|
