It happens at times that someone may go beyond the pale
doing the wrong thing, and have the “constitutional” right to continue doing
it. Unable to end it, the people affected by it dream up something positive and
pray will come out of such behavior. This gives them temporary relief, and the
hope that things will soon return to normal.
Alas, such positive outcome does not happen often if at all.
An example pointing to this being a pipe dream more than a reality, is what
used to be said during the Watergate Scandal. People were saying at the time,
it was a good thing that the scandal happened because it will lead to the
cleansing of the system. Well, anyone looking at the system today will not
believe it was cleansed or even hope it will soon be.
These are the thoughts that come to mind every time that a
reader is hit with the Pittsburgh Tribune's rubric “U.N. Watch.” This is the
section where the editors disparage the United Nations for not allowing its
creation, Israel ,
to run amok like a wild beast trampling on everything that’s noble and
expressive of a peaceful coexistence where human development can thrive.
This time, the editors saw fit to attack the UN in a piece
that came under the title: “Another biased 'adviser,'” published on June 12,
2016 in the Tribune. Their complaint is not that the UN did something; it is
that the UN did something that's natural to do. Here is how they put it: “By
its very nature, the job of 'special rapporteur' to the United Nations Human
Rights Council is rigged against Israel . That person is charged with
investigating Israel 's
violations of international laws–”.
So you want to know what makes them believe this is a
legitimate complaint. They believe it because they added this thought: “–not
the abuses by the Palestinian Authority [PA] or Hamas.” But they said it
themselves that the rapporteur's job was to investigate only Israel 's
violations, not those of the Palestinian Authority or Hamas. And from all we
know, it is logical that when an investigator is given a mandate to investigate
one thing, he does not go investigating another. Apparently, that logic goes
over the head of the Tribune's editors.
And there is more. It is that the rapporteur was sent to
investigate violations of international laws, a jurisdiction that's exclusively
the UN's. So now, you want to know what the editors mean when they say the
rapporteur should also investigate the PA and Hamas for violating international
laws pertaining to Human Rights. And you find no reference to such a thing in
the editorial. The reason is simple: there are no such violations.
The fact is that the Palestinians are not occupying Israel or
anyone else. Thus, they could not be committing violations of an international
character. But if the editors mean to say that the Palestinians are violating
the rights of their own citizens, well then – that would not be a violation of
international law. This being the case, it falls outside the mandate of this
rapporteur.
Maybe someone told the editors of the Tribune that their
logic is so full of holes, it can only attract mice hungry for Swiss cheese. So
instead of scrapping the laughable paragraphs and writing a different piece,
the editors kept those paragraphs, and did what third rate lawyers often do.
They attacked the character of the rapporteur.
But wait a minute. Did I say third rate lawyers? No, no, I
take it back. I take it back because what I did is insult third rate lawyers.
The fact is that the editors of the Tribune tried to convince their readers
that the best way to prove your point is to quote yourself making the point.
This is like saying two plus two is five, and the proof is that I said two plus
two is five.
You wish to see how they did that? Here it is: “The job went
to an academic regardless of his inflammatory rhetoric about Israel ,
according to U.N. Watch.” UN Watch being themselves. And there is this:
“Michael Lynk has accused Israel
of 'apartheid' according to Hillel Neuer, executive director of U.N. Watch.”
And this: “Mr. Lynk blamed the 9/11 attacks on 'disregard by Western nations
for the international rule of law,' U.N. Watch said”.
No, these guys do not qualify as third rate lawyers; they
are jerks. Come to think of it, they are not any jerks; they are third rate jerks
whose presence lets everyone else know there is someone worse than them.