Who writes the rules of reality?

In order to tell this story properly, we will first zoom in for a couple of close-ups. Then we will pull out for the larger picture.

ZOOM IN:

The Israelis lobbed phosphorous at a UN food storage facility. Obviously, this was done in order to starve the Palestinians -- just as the entire Gaza operation was ginned up in order to make life there unendurable.

Yet the Israelis try to convince us otherwise. That UN facility wasn't targeted. The IDF was simply returning fire:

Israel's prime minister, Ehud Olmert, said the military fired artillery shells at the UN compound after Hamas militants opened fire from the location, a version of events John Ging, director of Unwra in Gaza, rejected as "nonsense"

Mr Ging said Israeli shells first hit a courtyard filled with refugees, then struck garages and the UN's main warehouse, sending thousands of tons of food aid up in flames. Later, fuel supplies ignited, sending a thick plume of smoke into the air.

"It's a total disaster for us," said Mr Ging, adding that the UN had warned the Israeli its shelling put the compound in danger.

It all comes down to a game of "Who do you trust?" It's the word of Olmert versus the word of the UN officials on the ground.

ZOOM IN:

The megaphonies (discussed in earlier posts) have invaded No Quarter in a big way. (I hate to admit it, but Johnson's coverage of the Gaza atrocities has been quite good.) The plants are so obvious that the reader may think that he has entered an arboretum. Example:

The residents of Gaza are not starving - the Israeli government has consistently allowed food aid. Has the food been getting to the people? That’s another story, because Hamas or whatever Palestinian leadership has been on the ground cuts off food, water and electricity to their own people and blames it on the Israelis, and then distributes it through black market networks and favouritism.

Israel consistently warned civilians well in advance of any bombing near them. They did this by dropping leaflets and making phone calls...

And so forth. Pure crap, all of it. Fortunately, other NQ readers did much to set the record straight.

ZOOM OUT -- WIDE SHOT:

I've noticed one telling fact about all of the pro-Israel commentary peppering the blogs. No independent evidence is ever cited.

Pro-Israel writers get their "facts" from sources which trace back, ultimately, to the government of Israel itself. None of their facts ever come from the United Nations, from the Red Cross, from Oxfam, from Amnesty, from independent journalists.

Why is that? Why are virtually all reports from independent sources consistently at odds with the "reality" that the Israelis want us to accept?

Anti-Semitism. It's just that simple.

At least, so the Israelis and their Jewish supporters in America would have us believe.

Any person or organization which tells the world uncomfortable facts about the treatment of the Palestinians (or the Lebanese) stands accused of bigotry. In order to take the Israeli apologists at their word, you have to accept the ultra-paranoid view that every gentile is a Nazi at heart.

For example, when Amnesty published a damning report on the scurrilous invasion of Lebanon, Amnesty was accused of being anti-Jewish:

Abraham H. Foxman, ADL National Director called the Amnesty International report, “bigoted, biased, and borderline anti-Semitic.”

He added that, “Amnesty International has a longstanding pattern of rushing to judgment to stigmatize Israel..."

Let us now turn to the Red Cross, which reports that the IDF has prevented the rescue of starving Palestinian children. How do Israelis and American Zionists (Jewish and Christian) manage to block out this unwelcome information? Simple. They presume that the Red Cross is a steaming nest of Hitler-adoring anti-Semites.

The afore-linked discussion also categorizes Doctors Without Borders as "Jew-Hating."

Israeli apologists have actually gone so far as to accuse all -- I'm not kidding: all -- non-governmental humanitarian organizations, including Oxfam and Christian Aid, of being party to the Great Anti-Semitic Conspiracy.

The network of non-governmental organizations that claim to promote human rights and humanitarian agendas, and are centrally involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, often use antisemitic themes and images in their campaigns. Some of these reflect classical antisemitism, while other cases involve the singling out of Israel, double standards, obsessive condemnations of responses to terror, campaigns for boycotts, divestment, and sanctions...

We are told that journalist Robert Fisk is an anti-Semite. AP is an anti-Semitic news agency. Former president Jimmy Carter is an anti-Semite. Daniel Seaman, the director of the Israeli Government Press Office, believes that every single member of the foreign press is an anti-Semitic liar; in particular, he accuses the BBC of being anti-Semitic.

Norman Finkelstein is an anti-Semitic Jew. So is Mossad tattle-tale Victor Ostrovsky. So is Heinz Galinski. So is any Jew who criticizes Israel. Secular Israelis who annoy the Orthodox are anti-Semitic. Most Israeli journalists are "self-hating anti-Semites." Pretty much every journalist or writer who says something that the Israeli government does not want you to believe is an anti-Semite.

In other words, in order to avoid the accusation of anti-Semitism, you have to accept the ultra-paranoid worldview that all goys -- and no small number of Jews! -- are part of a conspiracy.

Suppose Ehud Olmert were to enter your house and shoot a member of your family point blank, in the head, in full view of a security camera and a dozen witnesses. If he then denies the deed, you must believe him and not the masses of counter-evidence. If you insist on acknowledging reality, you are part of the Great Anti-Semitic Conspiracy. Even if the eyewitnesses who say "Olmert pulled the trigger" are Jewish, you must presume that they are anti-Semitic Jews. If you do otherwise, you might as well grow a mustache and call yourself Adolf.

Here's the problem: The loopy theory that all gentiles are part of an anti-Semitic conspiracy may convince a few Jews, though the majority of them probably don't buy that shit. But how long can Israeli apologists expect the gentiles themselves to buy that shit?

And yet that conspiracy theory is pretty much the width and breadth of their argument. They have nothing else.