An ass is a donkey, and donkeys are stubborn animals. If
they do something once because they were trained or because they chose to, they
tend to repeat doing the thing the same way. They will persist as if it were an
inviolable law no matter how much effort you put into retraining them to do it
differently.
This is also how the laws are made, and how they are
applied. It is why a human judge must oversee the application of the laws, and
why they cannot be fed into a computer (even if equipped with artificial
intelligence) for the machine to adjudicate the cases. The reason is that human
judges have the ability to see how something small can affect the big picture,
thus avoid future complications. And so, judges use their discretionary powers
to adjudicate according to what some people call the “natural law” and others
call common sense.
Three recent articles having to do with the making of the
law or its application, or having to do with quasi-legal arguments – shed light
on the subject. They are (1) “Boycotting Israel Isn't free speech,” written by
Eugene Kontorovich and published in the New York Daily News on June 11, 2016.
(2) “The Anti-Israel Left Suffers a Rare, Close, and Welcome Defeat in
Academia,” written by Theodore Kupfer and published in National Review Online
on June 9, 2016. (3) “Four New Peace Plans for Palestinians,” written by Josh
Gelernter and published in National Review Online on June 11, 2016.
Eugene Kontorovich makes the point that the State of New York is not violating the American Constitution,
having legislated against the boycott of Israel . He maintains that the First
Amendment protects free speech whereas the right to boycott is not a right to
free speech. He discusses the logic of his argument citing cases that support
it. Well, if someone were to take the case to court, it will certainly end up
at the Supreme Court where the precedents cited by Kontorovich will be weighed
against other precedents (such as Citizens United,) and decided one way or the
other.
But the chances are that no one will take the New York law to court, anymore than the law pertaining to
the Arab boycott of Israel
was taken there. One reason is that a would-be plaintiff will want to avoid the
publicity that the case will generate. Another reason is that he or she can get
around such laws as easily as they can get a stubborn ass to do what they want
… differently perhaps, but still achieve their goals as planned.
That, however, does not guarantee there will not be resentment
of a different kind to having laws that punish American taxpayers by denying
them the fruits of their own money for choosing to follow their conscience, and
express solidarity with the Palestinian people who suffer under Israeli
occupation. This being an example of Jewish depravity that's financed by the
federal government using money also collected from the same public or borrowed
from foreigners in the name of that public. How much hate can these people pack
in a single act?
In fact, I witnessed how the possible ramifications of such
a trend have horrified the people who lived this kind of horror. It happened in
Canada that a Minister of Justice whose skull was as void as empty space,
wanted to engineer for an executive ruling to favor the Jews at the expense of
others. His aim was to set a precedent that will then be used by the regular
courts, thus permanently put the Jews on a pedestal above everyone else.
And I happened to be in the company of people, one being a
Jewish lawyer who was old enough to remember what happened decades earlier in Germany when
the Jews tried to tamper with the laws of that nation. It led directly to the
Holocaust, he cried out. It led to the Holocaust, he repeated again and again.
Luckily, there arose such uproar in Canada that the
minister backed off from his sick idea. What this says is that making laws is
like breeding asses; you never know how far they'll go till invoked by people
who have as much affinity with common sense as a jackass. This condition, if
you want to know, is what defines the Jewish culture, and what motivates the
Jews to act. Not only that, it is also like a contagious disease that affects
those with whom it comes into contact. It happened to a Canadian Minister once,
and it happens to America 's
politicians at all levels all the time.
Thus, the solution to avoiding this sort of madness from taking
roots in the first place is to raise uproar the moment that legislation of this
sort is contemplated. The alternative is to wait for the Holocaust to happen,
an event that will do a thorough job at expunging the law books of this kind of
rubbish.
We now look at the Theodore Kupfer article. He says he is
worried about the trend of academic associations passing resolutions in favor
of the BDS movement to boycott Israel .
His point is that “such resolutions are advanced [based on] the labeling of
Israel as an apartheid state, the notion that its existence is an insidious
instance of colonialism … Academic associations that endorse BDS tend to do so
as part of a post-colonial impulse. It's hogwash.” And he does not elaborate
further on this point.
Someone else did just that, however, not realizing how
effectively he has demolished the fallacy which denies that the Zionist
movement is a colonial project. The man is Josh Gelernter, the writer of the
third article that's reviewed in this presentation. Given that what's happening
in the Levant is universally recognized as being the result of the Sykes-Picot
colonial project to redesign the borders of the region and better serve the
interests of the colonial powers – any new suggestion to redesign the borders
in the Palestine-Israel-Egypt region must be viewed as being a Zionist colonial
project that will have the same nefarious effects as Sykes-Picot. And yet,
that's exactly the project – periodically bandied about – that Josh Gelernter
is trying to resurrect.
Having abruptly left the Theodore Kupfer article, we return
to it. He wrote this: “In a recently filed lawsuit, the American Studies
Association is accused of violating its corporate charter when it passed its
boycott resolution … the legal team includes the legal scholar Eugene
Kontorovich. Pow! Kaboom! That would be the same Kontorovich who wrote the
article we discussed earlier.
Well, well, well, what have we here? We have a so-called
legal scholar discussing the same case from both sides of his legal mouth. He
sided with the defendant for one audience, and sided for the plaintiff for a
different audience. Whereas he said that the State of New York had the right to
deny its citizens (a third party) their own money if they boycott Israel, he
now says that the academic association does not have the right to suspend a
provision of its own rule of conduct; a suspension that neither denies
something to a third party nor hurts them. And he does all this so that Israel can get
it coming and going. Talking about intellectual dishonesty, this one takes
Satan’s trophy.
This being a concept of justice so weird, it can only be
Jewish. Indeed, Kontorivich has highlighted the stereotype of the Jews
constantly doing the things that lead them to the gas chamber and the
incinerator. And this is proof that when good men do nothing to stop evil in
its tracks, evil triumphs and causes unimaginable horror.