Doron Hindin of the law firm Covington & Burling made
the fatal mistake of trying to defend the indefensible, and in the process,
highlighted a flaw of logic that demonstrates why the Jewish haggle seems to
win at first, but ends up losing in the long run.
Hindin wrote: “The United Nations' campaign against business
in Israel
makes no sense,” an article that was published on May 2, 2017 in The Washington
Post. To make his point, the writer first mentions what the American Congress
is doing to stand up to what he calls the “United Nations' campaign,” and then
discusses the legal merits of the case. And this is where he commits the
mistake that does him in.
The problem according to him is that the UN Human Rights Council
is working on creating “a database designed to shame companies for doing
business in the West bank.” The fatal mistake happens as a result of utterances
he makes throughout the article, and the killer trap which he sets for himself.
First, he says this: “The reality is that any meaningful
business in Israel
entails business in disputed territories.” Second, he invokes this precedent: “A French Court has
held that business in disputed or occupied territory is often essential to
ensure the well-being of the local population...” Being a lawyer discussing the
legality of the case, he should have immediately realized the need to explain
why he says the West Bank is disputed
territory and not occupied territory. And he should have attempted to show how
the well being of the local population – as stipulated in the precedent he
cited – is being served in the West Bank . He
did neither.
Hindin also invokes another precedent without explaining how
it strengthens his case. Here is how he describes this precedent: “A British
tribunal determined that if a company's relationships with foreign governments
technically run afoul of ethical norms, the company should work toward
leveraging its commercial influence to bring about positive change.” And that's
where Hindin traps himself.
Look how it is that instead of strengthening his case, this
lawyer shoots himself – not in the foot – but in the head. Mull over the
disgrace that follows and don't be embarrassed if you get sick. Here is the
lawyer's recommendation: “Meanwhile, multinationals must mobilize in
opposition, leveraging their considerable economic ties to prevent the United
Nations from erecting harmful hurdles to international businesses”.
What Doron Hindin seeks are not the positive changes that
can rectify the ethical norms the companies may have violated – as suggested in
the precedent he cited – but those that would legitimize the Israeli
violations. So here you have it, an officer of the court that has no
compunction invoking what is noble about the human character to justify
maintaining what is evil about his client.
How did this man get himself in a situation like this? Well,
he started on the wrong foot and kept going without looking back. Here is how
he started, and how he dug his own trap: “All 100 U.S. senators admonished the UN for
anti-Israel bias, and Sen. Marco Rubio recently sponsored a bill to withhold UN
funding because of anti-Israel, or anti-Semitic rhetoric or propaganda”.
If only someone had told him. The truth is that propaganda
is done by the few to poison the mind of the many. Whereas the US senators are
a few, the billions that the UN represents are the many. To say that the many
are propagating their poisonous message among the few is to reveal a level of
confused incompetence that should disqualify this man from continuing in this
profession.
Had he known better, he would have tried to differentiate,
at least in his mind, between “disputed territory” and “occupied territory.” He
would have done that to avoid making the mistake of describing the situation in
places like Northern Cyprus, Western Sahara, Crimea and Taiwan , as being no different from the situation
in the West Bank .
The situation on the ground is this: whereas the indigenous
people in those places remain in their homes while the powers “dispute” who
should rule the territory, Israel
is the undisputed ruler of the West Bank .
Moreover, it is helping to chase the indigenous Palestinians out of their homes
and territory, to make room for maniacs imported from all over the world, to
come and settle in their places. This is how “occupation” is defined.
Like everything having to do with the Jews, this case is
discussed by the lawyer that's handling it, in an upside down manner. Perhaps
this is why when it comes to Israel ;
the UN shies away from using its coercive powers to force it to comply with its
resolutions.