Whenever the Security Council or the General Assembly of the
UN refer to the law with regard to an issue that involves Israel, the mob of
Jewish pundits in America reflects Israel's attitude toward the subject by
snickering at the principle of the rule of law.
It is not that the Jews reject the rule of law in principle;
it is that they reject the idea of Israel being subjected to rules
made by someone else. Still, the view of the Israelis and the Jewish mob remains
that rules meant to apply to other nations must be obeyed voluntarily or
enforced by the worldwide application of sanctions; including bombing the
delinquent country to the Stone Age should it disobey the UN's ruling.
Stated often, that Jewish worldview has caused people around
the globe to wonder what governing set of principles the Israelis choose to
follow. Well, from time to time, a kind of semi-ambiguous response is uttered
by an Israeli or a surrogate of Israel to the effect that instead of creating a
regular constitution by which to define Israel and its purpose, the early
leaders of the Jewish terrorist groups Irgun and Haganah spoke of governing
principles inspired by words lifted from the Old Testament. And ever since that
time, those principles have served as adequate substitute for a would-be
Israeli constitution.
Needless to say that this kind of explanation left the world
as confused as ever with regard to understanding how Israel defines itself, or
what its purpose as a member of the international community might entail. A
recent article will show the reader why this remains the case even today. The
article came under the title: “The Fantasy of an International Jerusalem,”
written by Martin Kramer and published on December 28, 2017 on the Website of
the Washington Institute.
Kramer's purpose for writing the article is to say, ditch
the idea of internationalizing Jerusalem .
He did so in response to the resolution that was adopted by the UN General
Assembly demanding that the rule of law be respected in this case as in all
cases. Of course, the mob of Jewish pundits in America
came out in force and snickered at the idea of Israel respecting laws not made by
its terrorist founding fathers.
To explain all that and justify it, Martin Kramer wrote the
history behind the idea of internationalizing Jerusalem . As you would expect, he chose the
parts of history which led him to the conclusion that internationalizing Jerusalem was a bad idea.
And he left out the parts that argue in favor of respecting the rule of law.
Kramer described the bickering that took place with regard
to the joint administration of Jerusalem between
France and Britain whose
Sykes-Picot Agreement had given equal rights to both colonial powers. But what
happened instead, according to Kramer, was that Britain double-crossed the French
and reneged on this part of Sykes-Picot. Britain
then went on to impose its exclusive administration on Jerusalem . This history, according to Kramer,
is proof enough that the idea of internationalizing Jerusalem was bad from the start. Of course,
no one but a Jew would conclude that a double-cross nearly half a century ago
is justification to ditch a good idea now.
As to the application of the rule of law or lack of it in
that history, Kramer does the very Jewish thing of taking what he likes, and
rejecting what does not work for his ideas. He distorts reality by
misrepresenting the importance of some events, and by mutilating the rest of
history.
He mentions the 1947 UN Resolution responsible for the
establishment of the state of Israel ,
and a host of other things. He likes the part that establishes Israel – and so
he keeps it. But he doesn't like the part that says Jerusalem must be internationalized – and so
he rejects it. To justify his rejection, he revives the argument that the Arab
countries surrounding Palestine were not happy
with the idea of partitioning Palestine .
And this, according to him, gives Israel
the right to do what it wants with Palestine and
with the status of Jerusalem .
Here is what's wrong with that Jewish style argument. Even if
we assume that history told by Kramer is one hundred percent accurate, when a
competent tribunal (a Court or the UN Security Council) renders a decision
giving something to the Jews, and giving another thing to the Palestinians, the
Jews cannot take the whole thing on the ground that the Palestinians were
unhappy with the Court's decision. What is more asinine about the Jewish
argument is that the Jews accuse the surrounding Arab governments; not even the
Palestinians, of being unhappy with the Court's decision. And that was enough
of an excuse for the Jews to launch an all out attack on the unarmed
Palestinians, and looting their possessions that included West
Jerusalem .
There is more. If things remain in limbo because of one
reason or another and the Court's decision was not implemented, the Court may
issue another decision resulting in one of two things. Either the Court
reaffirms the first decision and adds to it, or the Court nullifies the first
decision by overthrowing it. In either case, the last ruling becomes the
governing law until further notice.
Thus, the 1967 Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338
reaffirming that East Jerusalem is Palestinian
territory remain in force and biding to this day. This is true regardless of
how the Jews spin the events that unfolded between 1947 and 1967.
Furthermore, all of that is reinforced by the UN General
Assembly Resolution of 2017 repudiating America 's
1995 official decision concerning a “unified Jerusalem ” under Israeli rule, and the 2017
unofficial decision to make a mockery of the rule of law by issuing an
endorsement of the 1995 official decision.