Except in a small number of cases, almost all contracts
entered into by two or more parties exclude mentioning that the agreement is
entered into freely by parties of sound mind, all of whom consenting to every provision
in the agreement. That's because it is assumed that such is the case.
The exception happens in cases like those of near-end of
life for example, when a person transfers wealth or gives power of attorney to
someone, and conditions exist that could cast doubt as to whether the transfer
was done freely and not under duress, or when the donor was of sound mind. To
give extra legal strength to such an agreement, witnesses other than the
lawyers or the moderator involved in drafting it, are asked to witness it thus
add to the credibility that it reflects the true wishes of the donor.
We need to keep these notions in mind as we go through the
article that came under the title: “Move the Embassy to Jerusalem
and Promote Peace,” and the subtitle: “Such a move would make clear that the U.S. supports Israel 's claim to the city's
Western part.” It was written by Daniel B. Shapiro and published on October 25,
2017 in the Wall Street Journal.
The reason why it is worth spending time discussing this
article is that it was written by a former American ambassador to Israel who is
currently a visiting fellow at an Israeli think tank. This means that, given
Israel's manner of communicating with the intelligentsia as well as the Jewish
lobby in America, this can only be considered a high level Israeli message sent
to all those concerned. And the message that's reflected would have to be the
maximalist position with which Israel 's
leaders are opening their argument. They are putting it out there to rally the
troops and nudge them to pressure the Trump administration to accept the
argument as is.
Of course, the Palestinians too will bring to the table
their own maximalist position, and the give-and-take between the parties will
begin, with the representatives of the United States acting as mediator,
lawyers, witnesses, counselors and what have you. If and when this happens, it
will not be easy at this time to guess how the overall discussion will go, or
how the Jewish pundits in America
will react.
But there is one thing you can be certain of. It is that the
demand for the Palestinians to recognize Israel as a Jewish state will cause
a great deal of brouhaha. It will consist of empty talk using undefined terms
to say nothing – and yet will accuse the Palestinians of not being serious
negotiators. The reason given for leveling such accusation will be that the
Palestinians refuse to acknowledge a harmless truth.
In fact, this is why I started the article by defining the
word “consent.” My experience with Jewish debating habits tells me that the
Jews will conflate the word “consent,” which means free will, with the word
“duress,” which means coerce, and will accuse the Palestinians of negotiating
in bad faith. Why? Because the Palestinians refuse to accept what they see as
the plant of a Jewish booby trap in the agreement. The Jews will then pressure
the Americans to coerce the Palestinians – under some kind of subtle threat –
to give consent to a provision that no one has ever given under duress or
freely or willingly.
Planting booby traps in legislation and giving the President
the option to wave them on the condition that he reports to the so-called
people's assembly, makes the Executive – not co-equal to the Legislature – but
makes the President a faithful servant of the Jews and not of the American
people. How so? It is so because the Jews plant booby traps in the law to
extend to the Executive Branch the control they have over the Legislative
Branch. That's because in every chain of command, the subordinate always
reports to the boss.
Look what they did to the resolution on Jerusalem ,
the one on the Iran
nuclear deal and the countless other resolutions which are Israel-specific. Now
they wish to replicate this performance on the global stage so that they can
control the world the way they do the American Congress, and hope to do the
American Executive.
In consequence of all that, the United
States of America as mediator and witness to the
negotiations, must adopt the position that if the Jews have one or more
specific things they want to accomplish with a provision in the agreement that
has the Palestinians recognize Israel
as a Jewish state, they should spell out those things. They will be debated one
by one, and adopted or rejected, each on its own merit.
This must be the way to proceed with this matter rather than
ask the Palestinians to accept a nebulous statement; one that will give the
Jews the right to interpret it anyway they want, anytime they choose in the
future.
To let the Jews have it their way would be like giving the
key to your daughter's bedroom to Harvey Weinstein, and hope he'll behave the
way that Mother Theresa would have.