Up until now the journalistic protocol in North
America has been to respect the demarcation line which separates
the verdict that's rendered by a legal body of any stripe – referred to as the
Court – from the speculative opinion that's delivered by a commentator.
If the commentator is appealing to the court of public
opinion aside from the legal considerations of the case being discussed, he can
say anything he wants about the case without dragging into the discussion the
verdict of the Court. But if the commentator wishes to dispute or criticize the
Court's verdict, he is expected to comport himself in accordance with the
procedure that's normally followed by the legal system.
That is, the commentator must tell where the judge has erred
in the law or in the facts, and must fully articulate his argument if he wants
to bring the audience to his side. Since this is what defense lawyers and
prosecutors do when they appeal a verdict to a higher court, the chances would
be that the case has gone to appeal already.
But there are reasons why the case might not have gone to
appeal. It's because there would have been alternatives. For example, the
defendant might have launched a separate suit against the plaintiff, making a
claim of his own. In this case the two trials would have gone forward
separately and simultaneously. Or perhaps, one of the antagonists could have
moved to join the two cases, thus had them go forward as a claim and
counterclaim in a single trial.
Mindful of the solemnity of this process, the North American
media – be they big or small; be they broadsheet or tabloid – have gone out of
their way to treat the process with respect when deciding to publish or to turn
away the commentary of a contributor, especially if he or she is not a lawyer.
Now, my friend, guess which publication threw that protocol
to the wind? Was it a tabloid? No. Was it a supermarket rag? No. It was none
other than the prestigious Wall Street Journal. And why did the editors of the
Journal make an exception this time? Because the contributors are two Jews
living in Israel who
co-wrote an article about Israel 's
legal difficulties at the Security Council of the United Nations.
It appears that the Journal editors have joined the crowd
which says that Israel is so
high above the law, any Court – be it local, national or international – that
dares to take up a case which puts Israel on trial, must be treated
like a toilet. And why not? If the mighty American Congress, which makes the laws
and not just adjudicates them, happily turned itself into a Jewish toilet, why
would the U.N. Security Council or any court not be honored to earn the
designation of Jewish toilet?
The unfolding in real life of the ideas, images and events
expressed above came in an article that was written under the title: “The U.N.
Can Find Balance in the Middle East” and the subtitle: “After its censure of Israel ,
the Security Council needs to send a similar warning to Palestinian
maximalists.” It was authored by two Israelis, Einat Wilf (a former Mossad
agent) and Adi Schwartz (a Zionist fanatic), and was published on January 14,
2017 in the Wall Street Journal.
The authors are maligning the UN Security Council resolution
condemning Israel 's
policy of looting Palestinian properties. And they are maligning the Paris peace conference
which they predict will harm the prospect of peace between the Israelis and the
Palestinians. This is not surprising since the only thing that the Jews will
say advances peace, is the Palestinians handing them their properties and
vacating the place. This is what they call balance; it is what they want
everyone to say … or shut up.
Still, the authors could have gotten away with treating the
subject the way they did, and the Wall Street Journal could have escaped
criticism if Wilf and Schwartz had appealed to the court of public opinion
without trying to tackle the legal aspects of the case. But that's not what
they did. Instead, they criticized the Security Council and disputed its verdict
in defiance of the protocol.