To be fair to the editors of National Review Online (NRO) we
must acknowledge at the outset that there came a time in America when
criminals were given more protection than they deserved to the chagrin of their
victims and the families thereof.
A backlash ensued as a result, and ideas such as “three
strikes and you're out” took hold. Now, young people are given long jail
sentences for small offenses, and the editors of NRO are all for that, if not
more. But they make an exception … not only insofar as the severity of the
sentences are concerned, but in the role that “law and order” should play in
regulating civilized behavior.
You can see where, how and why they make that exception when
you go over the editorial they wrote under the title: “Obama's Shameful Parting
Shot at Israel ,”
published on December 23, 2016 in National Review Online. Discussing the
resolution approved by the Security Council of the United Nations without being
vetoed by America , they
lament the fact that it was reintroduced by “four nations with precisely zero
security interests at stake in the Middle East ”.
This alone tells you that the NRO editors have no idea, no
sense and no feel for what they are talking about. Just think about it, there
are five permanent members on the Security Council, and there are ten whose
terms are rotated. If those fifteen dealt with matters that concern their
region only, what do the editors think the other two hundred or so members
should do?
The resolution passed, and there is nothing in it that says Israel should
be bombed immediately into the Stone Age. It only calls on Israel to stop
building more settlements on Palestinian territory because it is illegal to do
so. Also, the government of Israel
is encouraged to sit with the Palestinians – who own what is being stolen – and
work out an accommodation with them. In response to that, the NRO editors call
the Obama administration feckless for not vetoing the resolution, and claim
that it will harm Israel
and endanger ordinary Israelis.
They explain this point by lamenting that the prevailing
set-up in which Israel
enjoyed American largess to the tune of being armed to the teeth, financed to
overflow, and covered diplomatically to the detriment of America 's
standing in the world – that this set-up has now been balanced to some degree
by “the U.N.'s most powerful body.” This is in keeping with the Jewish delusion
that balance should mean they have everything, and that you or the Palestinians
or whomever should have nothing.
Aside from this apparently incurable mental disease, the NRO
editors are worried that “by declaring that settlements violate international
law, the resolution purports to carve into stone the [1948] armistice lines.”
The reality is that Israel
is entitled only to those lines because that's what the U.N. gave to the Jews,
and no more. Thus, by rejecting this principle, the editors are rejecting the
very idea of the rule of law.
Moreover, no one in the world – not the Palestinians, not
the Arabs, not the Americans and not the UN – is asking Israel to
retrench to the 1948 lines. They are only asking it to retrench to the 1967
lines with provisions that will allow the two sides to negotiate a swap of
equal value so as to take into account the effect of the fait accompli that was
engineered by criminally minded successive Israeli governments.
Now guess what the NRO editors do to take up that issue and
confuse the mentally retarded cockroaches populating the American Congress of
uselessness and worse. They do a typical Jewish masturbation of the intellect.
Check this out: “Yet these lines [1948] didn't become lawful because Arab
nations refused to recognize the existing battle lines as Israel 's
borders”.
Yes, the Arabs didn't like what happened then, and many of
them don't like it now. But that changes nothing because once the Security
Council passes a resolution; it becomes international law regardless as to who
likes it and who doesn't.
The consequence of disobeying the law is that the world can
and most likely will build on that in the same way that it is building on
Russia for what it has done in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine.