When it comes to a law that someone does not like and sets
out to disparage, you can tell the difference between a lawyer that is arguing
against such law, and a layman that is struggling to do likewise.
The lawyer will construct a legal argument that highlights
the weaknesses of the law, and its possible negative effects on society. And he
will suggest some ways as to how this can be rectified, such as amending the
law or replacing it entirely. As to the layman, he will attack the law on
grounds that may have nothing to do with its weaknesses or the possible
negative effects it might have on society.
And then, there are a third kind of people who will astound
you. Listening to them, you'll think they are laymen with very little education
and a false idea about what the law means in general and why it exists in the
first place. Yet, here they are attacking a particular law not knowing what it
is supposed to stand for. The worse part comes at the end of their presentation
when they blow your mind with the revelation that they are not laymen but
trained lawyers – actual lawyers and members of the bar, which also makes them
officers of the Court. Imagine!
Is this for real, or is it a metaphor? Believe it or not, it
is for real; and there is an example of it in black and white. It is an article
that was written by David French who is a lawyer and a contributor to National
Review Online. What he has contributed this time is an article that came under
the title: “Palestinian Reasoning: Yield to our Crazy Religious Intolerance or
We'll Kill You,” published on October 13, 2015.
No one can deny that French knows how to express outrageous
ideas in subtle ways, thus fool his readers. Lawyers often do that, and he
seems to have learned at least this trick of the profession. He is using it in
the current article as shown in the following montage of relevant passages:
“The holy compound in Jerusalem, a place revered by Jews and Muslims …
According to security arrangement [the law] dating back to 1967, the site,
while open to Jewish visitors at specific times, is sealed off to non-Muslim
prayer … Let's be clear – this is crazed, anti-Semitic religious intolerance,
and Israelis are expected to 'respect' this intolerance.”
Behold a supposed lawyer who is speaking like a layman
that's raised on little education or none at all. He is attacking the law on
grounds that have nothing to do with its weaknesses or the possible effects it
might have on society. He calls anti-Semitic an arrangement that has remained
in force and has worked well for nearly half a century, moaning that Israelis
are expected to respect this law. And he calls himself a lawyer. Imagine!
This being a dispute that can and must be discussed on merit
only, David French chose to do otherwise. He chose to attack the Palestinians
who demand that the law be respected and enforced. He does that because he
knows that to discuss the law on merit will lead to the Palestinian point of
view prevailing over the Jewish,
Is David French stupid or is he hiding something he is
guarding jealously? The chances are that he is hiding something. This view
flows from the fact that he accuses the Palestinians of anti-Semitism because
they advocate respect for the law, which he complains advances their agenda.
Well, experience tells us that when someone does that, he has an agenda of his
own which he guards jealously. What could it be?
It is a risky business to speculate on something when there
is not enough data to rely on. Having made this admission, I venture to guess a
possible Jewish agenda. The model I see is one that was adopted by the late
Ariel Sharon. At a low point after suffering several political defeats, he sent
his soldiers to the holy site knowing that the Palestinian will come out in force
and defend it. He counted on a major disturbance and got an intifada.