Sometimes wisdom comes from the wackiest place. Listening to the “mouth from the South”, founder of CNN on a recent interview show on his old network (from which he was famously fired) one of the thorniest issues in international politics came into terrible clarity.
Turner was responding to questions from hoston May 3rd concerning the escalating nuclear threat posed by Iran when he proffered this epiphanic insight, “Well, first of all, I believe in total nuclear disarmament. That‘s the only way we’re ever going to get there. We all got to play by the same set of rules. We have 2,000 or several thousand nuclear weapons. Iran has none at the current time. It’s okay for Israel to have 100, but it’s not okay for Iran to have two.” He then socdolagered his own piece of rhetorical flourish with this unquestioned conclusion: “I think we’ve already voted at the U.N. and the Security Council to get rid of nuclear weapons. Let’s get rid of them. Let’s get rid of ours, and then Iran will stop ….”
…will stop attempting to acquire nuclear weapons, that is. In other words, unilateral disarmament. Consider how well this would work out with regard to the officially Jewish State of Israel which Ahmadinejad, President of Iran, has promised to “wipe off the map.”
While the mad mullahs plan to “de-Zionize” the world, the Madman of Montana (where he owns half the state, I believe) would have us sit like sheep on his ranch of unreason awaiting our churn in his famous Grill restaurant chain.
Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran has spoken of the “unnaturalness” of the Jewish State, to be cut out like a “cancerous tumor.” The rumored continued enrichment of uranium by Iran will certainly be adequate to that task.
So why would anyone think that with such a univocal, uncompromising articulation of intent, Iran would suddenly “stop” the pursuit of its most prized prey? Ted Turner is ignorant but he a’int no fool. He calls Christians the foulest names, even making “Polish jokes” with regard to the late, revered Pope John Paul II who was Polish. But, as the hustler who all but created round-the-clock cable news, a businessman who despite great losses remains a billionaire, there must be some other explanation for such simplistic assessments of such complexity as that of the Middle East.
The rub was in the rogue all along. The language gives the loon away. “It’s okay for Israel to have 100, but it’s not okay for Iran to have two [nuclear weapons],” Turner asks rhetorically. This, of course, is the classic mad moral equivalence argument. Israel is just another powermonger in the occupation-industrial complex. The most vulgar and vulgarian attacks that would have been inconceivable barely a generation ago have become more and more mainstream in condemnation of the Jewish State.
Remember that most vicious cartoon (just above) by Pat Oliphant, the aging hag-homme celebrated in the white liberal media as “the most widely syndicated political cartoonist in the world,” translates the recent Israeli-Palestinian conflict into the Nazi holocaust of Jews. The Star of David weighted down in historic Jewish despair is now rolled off by the jack-booted, goose-stepping monster-might of the Jewish state in a swastika of headless hate blindly directed at the cowering women and children of the Gaza strip.
A more Orwellian twist of history is not possible even in raw imagination.
And those articulating the new equivalences are getting younger and madder. Melissa Rossi has been arguing for some time now that “Israel no longer looks like the underdog or the victim, but instead appears like an overarmed killer on a rampage.” Wow. That certainly exhausts the vocabulary for Butcher Bokassa and his band of brother-butchers from Bangui to Baghdad to Beijing.
“Israel has a right to protect itself but then again so does Gaza,” Rossi declares. Point for point she equates Israeli actions with those of Islamist terrorists. In the end, small wonder, Israeli self-defense arguments which she only grudgingly concedes to begin with, she ends up dismissing as a “suicide mission,” as in suicide bombers, wouldn’t you know.
Like too many these days, Rossi wants the U. S. to stop arming Israel. But what about the consequences for Israel? Well, “tough,” the brazen bigot says.
The Israeli West Bank barrier that has dramatically dwarfed terrorist incursions into the Jewish state was baptized at birth as “apartheid,” after the savage racial segregation policies of the old South Africa. The United Nations, no less, formally adopted that language of moral equivalence in a 2007 report. Its Special Rapporteur for, John Dugard, himself a white South African jurist, said, "elements of the Israeli occupation constitute forms of colonialism and of apartheid.”
Now there are Jewish scholars (even in Israel) initiating academic boycotts against the Jewish state.
A notoriously bigoted British newspaper has accused Israel of squandering every last teaspoon of compassion toward international Jewry since the holocaust.
This is the unconscionable company Ted Turner keeps.
Israel has nuclear weapons, why shouldn’t Iran? What’s the difference? Turner has done Orwell one better. Orwell feared that people twist black into white. For Turner, there is no black versus white in the first place. There is only black. Or (if you prefer): everyone’s white. There is only white. How can there be differences where there is no distinction?
This is the lazy language that made the holocaust possible. Even a Mennonite would not equate a woman who does not care to be raped a second time with her rapist because she now carries a weapon.
So we give Ted the Twisted our own uncompromising equivalence to match. We deny him all benefit of difference in opinion. We equate him to gutter-banter anti-Semites.