What's wrong with these people? Every time that the thing
seems to have quieted down, and you begin to believe that the world is getting
back to normal, someone comes up with something more bizarre than before, and
you wonder if these people are stupid or something. This time you have not one,
not two but three Jewish lawyers -- prominent in the field of human rights, I
might add -- demonstrating in black and white that they know as much about
human rights as the bird which my neighbor keeps inside a cage. Their
demonstration being a testimony to the reality that the human race is still
ailing.
If you want to see for yourself why that is, get a hold of
an article published in the Wall Street Journal on May 2, 2012 under the title:
“Inciting Genocide Is a crime” and the subtitle: “Even if Iran's radicals could
be deterred from attacking Israel, their actions are already illegal under
international law.” The article is signed by Robert Bernstein and Stuart
Robinowitz both of whom are current members of the so-called Advancing Human
Rights, and Irwin Cotler who can be seen everywhere in Canada where he should
not be, doing everything he should not be doing and failing to do what he is
supposed to do.
The three authors begin their article in the typical Jewish
fashion of inciting the reader to hate someone they are about to attack with
assertions they have no intention of backing with proof. Here it is: “Many of Iran 's crimes
are well-known to Americans and observers world-wide.” They list a number of
what they call crimes then give the reader this follow-up: “Less recognized,
however, is the legal significance of Iran 's genocidal anti-Semitic and
anti-Israel rhetoric, which constitutes one of the most serious crimes under
international law.” As can be seen, what they complain about is Iran 's rhetoric
-- nothing more than that. But to counter this rhetoric, they come up with
their own rhetoric which is to accuse Iran of committing “serious
crimes.” Thus, what we apparently have here is one rhetoric countering another
rhetoric.
Now, let us get something clear before going any further. In
the balance between free speech and the laws of libel, I can say, for example,
that the three lawyers have brains that do not measure up to the brain of my
neighbor's bird. What I cannot say without submitting proof is that a test was
conducted in a nearby hospital whereby the brains of the lawyers were weighed
and were shown to be less massive than that of my neighbor's bird. This would
be libelous, therefore criminal.
Let us now suppose that the Iranians did engage in rhetoric
injurious to Semites and to Israel .
If we reject the notion that two wrongs can make a right, we would have to
conclude that the three human right lawyers are as guilty of committing a
serious crime as the Iran
they accuse of committing serious crimes. What is left for us to do now is
weigh the rhetoric of each side, thus determine which of the two is more guilty
than the other.
There are two groups of allegations leveled against Iran by the
three lawyers. The first group is listed in the first paragraph of the article.
It comprises the following: The regime wants to build a nuclear weapon; it
supports Syria 's
Bashar al-Assad; it sponsors terrorism; and it is engaged in domestic
repression. The authors do not bother to give any proof of this, and they do
not try to expand the discussion. They simply state that these are crimes well
known to Americans and to the world. Given that the allegations were stuck in
there for the purpose of inciting the reader to hate the Iranians, we dismiss
them without further ado for the sake of brevity.
As to the second group of allegations, the lawyers attempt
to give proof as to the kind of rhetoric that is used by the Iranians. They
mention a website “affiliated with Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei” where a
declaration of some kind was made. The trouble is that the declaration is
reported twice in two different ways in back-to-back sentences. The first
reporting is this: “Iran
would be justified in killing all Israeli Jews.” The second reporting is this:
“...there is 'justification to kill all the Jews and annihilate Israel ...'”
What this says to someone that might be completely detached from the issue is
that the Iranian declaration was made in a context that the lawyers are
distorting but are not smart enough to do so intelligently.
But to those who have followed the escalating rhetoric
between Iran and world Jewry (especially the extremists among American Jews),
this is nothing more than Iran's response to the Jewish threat of attacking
Iran either by Israel alone or by the combined effort of the Israeli and
American militaries. In fact, the rhetoric got so heated at one point that even
the mild mannered Secretary of State in America
threatened to obliterate Iran .
And while it is clear that the Iranian rhetoric reflects a kind of wrestling
with the moral issue of having to kill innocent people in the process of
defeating Israel 's
military, the Jewish rhetoric never carries with it a hint that someone regrets
what they call “collateral damage.” On the contrary, they describe the death of
innocent people as part of the business of conducting a war; or worse, they
present it as the fault of the civilian victims who do not leave the scene of
combat even if such move were impossible for them to make when there is no time
to escape or because the victims have nowhere else to go.
What the three lawyers do after that is throw at the reader
the sick joke that used to carry weight but carries weight no more. It is that
people used to be hauled to court and tried for denying the Holocaust. Some
people even went to jailed for that. I remember a time when the crimes of the
Nazis used to stir the emotion even of people who abhorred the Zionist
movement. But when the Jewish leaders came up with the notion that to deny the
Holocaust is deemed to be crime, they trivialized the Holocaust to such a
degree that most people now could not care less about Jews being gassed or
cremated or having their skin turned into lampshade. It is just that people
have it up to here with being forced to believe in a historical event when they
– as Mother Theresa herself – have trouble sometimes believing in the existence
of God. Criminalizing the denial of a historical event is now seen as being a
stain on the conscience of mankind as bad as the Holocaust itself.
From this point on, the writers formulate a dissertation in
which they argue that to incite genocide is recognized in international law as
being a crime. They also make the point that to insult Jews by characterizing
them as being this or that is a precursor to genocide, therefore a crime as
well. It surprises me that Irwin Cotler should sign an article that says such a
thing when he is old enough to remember how it was like before the wave of
political correctness that swept North America.
He should remember that there was a time when the Arabs were
characterized as nonhuman or subhuman: “bloodthirsty, viruses, a metastasizing
cancer, mad dogs, wild animals” and so on. Like he and his colleagues are
saying, I am inclined to believe that such behavior can lead to genocide but I
say so with a caveat. It is that to lead to genocide, you must also have the
ability to silence the opposition. In fact, this is what happened here in Canada when I
and people like me were silenced and subjected to the cultural genocide of
being blacklisted. By contrast, the Jews are more vocal everywhere in the world
than anyone else. Because they have the means to respond to every allegation
leveled against them, they will not be subjected to genocide even if it is true
that the Iranians characterize them as being this or that.
While the Jewish leaders were committing all these horrors
in Canada ,
Irwin Cotler was already a prominent lawyer laboring in the field of human
rights or pretending to do so. And yet, he did not lift a finger to put a stop
to the Jewish genocide of the Arab character, a genocide that has destroyed
many careers I, being the exception that refused to die at the hand of Jewish
inhumanity and Jewish treachery. I stayed with it till I had the opportunity to
start this website and tell my story.
Like they say it themselves: “Silence is no option.” Thus, I advise Irwin Cotler to surrender
himself to the International Criminal Court and be tried for being silent when
crimes were committed against humanity. I say to him: Speak up, Irwin. Speak up
against yourself and tell the truth; tell the whole truth.