There is a genre of entertainment called tragicomedy. It
refers to a presentation that is a tragedy at its core but contains enough
comic relief to make you smile once in a while. But this will not adequately
describe what people like John Bolton – who is an American lawyer and a diehard
Israeli supporter – proposes for the world. To describe what he is proposing,
we need to invent a new expression. Let's for now call it: Laughable horror
show.
Think about what is happening in the Middle
East at this time. You have a civil war in Syria that has
attracted all sorts of self-designated stakeholders, each fighting for whatever
legitimate or illegitimate stake has attracted them to the war theater. There
is a legitimate Syrian faction that is fighting the regime because it wants to
build a decent nation where all the people can live peacefully under the law.
But there are also illegitimate terror organizations whose agendas would
horrify decent people anywhere in the world. At any given time, one or the
other of these organizations would score a small victory and the world takes
notice.
Sometimes, however, an apparent victory of that kind is spun
into an intriguing mystery and so remains for a few days. It is then revealed
by a series of well orchestrated clandestine leaks that the perpetrator was
none other than the joker of all jokers; the terrorist state of Israel . As
usual, the super-joker would have caught the Syrian system of defenses
off-guard – while fighting the other terrorists – and would have lobbed a bomb
or two at a target inside Syria .
The joker would then instruct the media dogs who run the American echo
repeaters to sing the refrain: I marvel at the erection of thy castration oh
Lord of the ambiguous moral clarity.
And what John Bolton wants to do now is nothing less than
institutionalize this behavior, and make it the copyrighted exclusive property
of the New-York/Tel-Aviv axis of the laughable horror show. You can read all
about the logic that led him to this construct in a piece he wrote for the
Pittsburgh Tribune under the title: “Syria , International law & the
use of force” and published on September 8, 2013.
Even though he does not mention Article 51 of the U.N.
Charter till he gets near the end of his column, you eventually realize that it
forms the starting point of his train of thought. First, he mentions that the
UN article says every member has the “inherent right of individual or
collective self-defense.” He then argues a point of view: “Obviously, if a
right is inherent, the holder can decide entirely for itself when and under
what circumstances to exercise it. If that were not so, the right would hardly
be 'inherent.'”
Really, only a shameless Jewish lawyer could make an
argument like this while maintaining a straight face based on a principle like
that. Let's see what I could do with it if I lived in America where
it is taken for granted that I would have the inherent right to life, liberty
and the pursuit of happiness. To simplify matters, forget about life and
liberty, concentrating only on the pursuit of happiness. According to the
Jewish lawyer, if it makes me happy to go urinate at the door of my neighbor, I
should have every right to do so, or my right would not be inherent. Thus, if
the neighbor tried to castrate me, the state is compelled to protect me by
prosecuting him and compensating me. What can be more Jewish than this? No
wonder some people still feel it is advantageous to convert to that religion.
You can see that the aforementioned is what Bolton had in the back of his head when he started
writing the column that he did. After a brief introduction in which he
introduced his main character, Barack Obama who happens to be the current
President of the United States, the author starts this argument like this:
“America needs no external authorization to do what it decides is in its best
interest.” Very quickly he gets into the Jewish morass of creating ambiguity by
advocating moral clarity – which he does like this: “Obama dwells more on the
legal than the policy issues, and many of the criticisms of Obama's direction,
couched in legal terms, are actually policy objections. We would do well to
sort out the legal from the political.”
So you read carefully what he says but find that he actually
sorts out nothing. What he does instead is reject everything that may restrict America from
doing what it wants, thus give the same right to every nation (and every
dictator) who seek to lead a cowboy sort of existence. And Bolton 's
rejection begins with the most astounding of them all; the very principle upon
which the whole edifice of the English Common Law is erected. Look at this:
“Obama contends that since so many nations have ratified the Chemical Weapons
Convention, it is, in effect, binding.” Nullify this principle, and all the
nations (mostly English speaking) that practice the Common Law rather than the
Civil Code will have to throw away their bodies of law – hence the whole
civilization – and start from scratch. Bolton
gets back to this theme once more later on.
Perhaps mindful of all the repercussions, he now takes cover
in the notion that America
is “exceptional” without saying so overtly. Here is how he puts it: “This is a
dangerous approach for the United
States , given the number of almost universal
treaties we have wisely not joined, such as...” After that, he muddies the
debate by mentioning the “amorphous theory promulgated almost invisibly in the
enormous 'Outcome Document,' another diaphanous concept … Anyone reading Paragraphs
138-139 of the document will strain to discern its meaning.” Does that sound
like sorting out the legal from the political? Not to me.
But there is more: “State Department lawyers were clear that
the wording was not legally binding … along with other caveats, any exercise
must come 'through the Security Council.'” Aha! Finally, you say, he leaves
intact at least one mechanism by which a semblance of restriction can be placed
on America ,
thus make it conform to the law. But no, that's not what he has in mind because
he shoots the idea down in a hurry: “Russia
and China have repeatedly
frustrated action on Syria ...”
He voices this frustration without mentioning that America
used the veto to protect Israel
several more times than the combined use of the other permanent members as they
sought to protect their own interests and those of their friends.
Lest a reader or two be turned off by his argument, he does
what people like him do instinctively under such circumstances which is to
associate any objection to his argument with an existing villain. Look how he
does that: “asking 'what authority do I have to act?' is a quintessential
European question.” Which is a good place for him to again invoke American
exceptionalism without saying so openly: “America has always been a 'go
ahead' nation.”
But where does that leave us? He has an answer for that:
“U.N. acolytes object that such a reading leaves use-of-force decisions to each
member state's discretion. So be it.” He then says something that should
horrify every lawyer who earns a living by practicing the law, and not by
writing articles or trotting in front of television cameras or living off the
50 million taxpayer dollars which are donated each year to the Holocaust
Memorial. This is what he says: “the charter has been violated so many times
one wonders how much 'legal' obligation still binds the remaining members.” In
other words, he says that if a mob gets big enough to make a mockery of the
law, it's okay to make a mockery of the law … and the hell with the judicial
process.
Dissolving the law in this manner is the exact opposite of
the Common Law principle by which the members of a society make a law. It is
that when they deem something to be good, they practice it long enough to make
it the law of the land. And the cumulative effect of such laws is what makes
the English Civilization what it is.
What the Jewish lawyer, John Bolton, is advocating is
nothing less than the dissolution of that civilization by killing the principle
upon which it was founded. And he is doing all of this for the benefit of Israel