George Orwell had the pigs write a law to govern their
kingdom of animals. It said this: “All animals are equal except that some are
more equal than others”.
Decades later, someone convinced the Congress of the American Republic
It then happened that Anne Bayefsky discovered the law was
not enforced. So she started squealing like a pig, braying like an ass and
barking like a dog to communicate her familiar message: Bloody murder! You can
almost hear her vocal noises by reading the article she wrote under the title:
“The Trump Administration Is Letting the PLO Wage Lawfare Against Israel” and
the subtitle: “In November, the group was told to vacate its D.C. Office. Then
the State Department backtracked.” The article was published on Dec. 1, 2017 in
The Weekly Standard.
Before I discuss the Bayefsky article, let me say something
that might sound funny to you, but was not to the seven-year-old that I was
when, for the first time, I found myself forced to sort out the relationship
between pure reason and irrational dogma. I was attending a Catechism class
when the Christian Brother asserted the dogma that God has infinite powers, and
can do anything he wants. Before I had the opportunity to learn there was only
one God that no one was challenging, my mind contemplated a situation in which
two Gods, each possessing infinite powers started to will opposite things. For
example, what if one God wanted to create me and the other was opposed to my
creation. Would I be here?
I remember this moment every time I hear that an American
law has come into conflict with another American law or into conflict with an
international law or that of another country. It is challenging enough to be in
charge of resolving a conflict such as this when the laws are created in good
faith for good reasons. It is infinitely more complicated when the Jews plan
ahead of time to have the Congress make laws that conflict with other laws or
with international laws or those of other countries. If laws are made to be as
absolute as the will of a God, how do you decide which law takes precedence
over the others?
This is the question that Anne Bayefsky says was resolved by
the genius of the Jews. They resolved it, she says, by designing a law that has
the American Congress say to the Palestinians: Do you see this gun we're
holding to your heads? It will go off and kill you if you seek to exercise your
right to have your day in court. In effect, therefore, the Jewish American law
says to the Palestinians they are so inferior, they can be sued but they cannot
sue others, especially not the superior Israelis. This is like saying that the
power of the Jewish American God so exceeds that of the international God
protecting the Palestinians, the American gave the Jews the right to do what
they want and be immune from prosecution.
And the Jews of Israel have been committing all the crimes
they want, and literally getting away with murder for half a century. Unable to
take it anymore, the Palestinians decided to take their case to the
International Criminal Court. In response, Anne Bayefsky ran to the
journalistic allies of the Congress of infamy and screamed her distress. She
reminded them that the Congress legislated holding the gun to the head of the
Palestinians, and authorized the Executive to pull the trigger the moment that
the Palestinians decide to have their day in court, but the Executive decided
not to pull the trigger.
Given the track record of all the moments of distress she
produced over the years, Bayefsky reckoned that screaming one more time about
an Executive that's not coming to the rescue of Israel , will not have much effect.
And so, she decided to take a different approach. She said this to the media:
“Palestinian lawfare at the ICC is a shameless in-your-face challenge to U.S. lawmakers
… They gave American law the middle finger.” In other words, she is telling them:
Get outraged not for me or for Israel
but for the U.S.
lawmakers to whom the Palestinians gave the middle finger.