How is it that respected institutions can turn rotten
internally and yet look innocent enough on the outside that people continue to
respect them, not realizing how rotten they had become inside? There are even
cases in which some people – for reasons that will soon become apparent –
choose to ignore the rot they know is there.
These kinds of scenarios play themselves everywhere, and all
the time. That's because those who know what's going on, expect to benefit
directly from the rot inside these institutions. They benefit in the sense that
they get enriched by the situation the way it is. In other cases, people
benefit indirectly by the same situation. They do, in the sense that when they
keep their mouths shut, they know that silence will keep them from getting
hurt.
This being the case, how is it that a business scandal such
as Enron is cracked open? Or how does a political scandal such as Watergate get
unraveled, showing the public what it never thought it will ever see? Or how is
it that a military scandal such as Vietnam is cracked open, exposing
the fraudulent assertions that led the country into a losing war? Or how does
it happen that a diplomatic scandal explodes on the internet, demonstrating
that friends-in-pretense spy on, and tamper with the elections of each other as
if they were deadly enemies?
The answer is that such cases are cracked open because an
accountant decides she cannot keep her mouth shut seeing ordinary people being
fleeced of their life savings so that a handful of monsters may live the high
life. Such cases are cracked open because someone inadvertently reveals that
recordings, which may contain the truth of what happened, were made secretly
and kept hidden. Cases are cracked open because something like the Pentagon
Papers are leaked to a newspaper. They are cracked open because a service
calling itself Wikileaks reveals how small can be the people who make big
decisions affecting all our lives.
The truth is exposed when one person decides that what they
see appears at odds with what ought to be. They break their silence and point
out the anomaly despite the fact that everyone else is looking at the same
anomaly and sees nothing wrong with it.
Most of the time, a single whistleblower would be enough to
help crack a case wide open. At other times, the air would be so imbued with
fear that even the victims of a rotting system join the conspiracy of silence
thus keep the truth hidden from the public. A recent case in point is that of powerful
men preying on young women who put up with unwanted sexual advances or submit
to them to keep their job. This is the kind of situation that made Hollywood look like a crime syndicate ruled by omerta –
the mafia style code of silence.
Something similar happens in the political arena where men
and women willingly submit to the moral equivalent of being continually gang
raped – yet say nothing about it. They submit to this kind of treatment to get
elected or re-elected or get promoted to a higher office once elected to serve
as a backbencher.
You can get acquainted with one such case when you go over
the article that came under the title: “U.N. Support for Palestinian Lawfare
Against Israel Sparks Anger on Capitol Hill” and the subtitle: “Framework provides
funding to 'hold Israel
accountable for its violations under international law.'” It was written by
Jenna Lifhits and published on October 31, 2017 in The Weekly Standard.
To understand what anomalies play out in this case – indicating
that Israel
is the center of a global crime syndicate – we need to recall that a system in
which entities come together and accept to be governed by a set of rules
negotiated among them, two fundamental principles cannot be violated.
First, all members contribute financially to make the system
function, in accordance with a formula that is agreed to by all. If
circumstances change for one member, it can ask for a review of its
contribution, and it will be adjusted if the claim is justified.
Second, all members accept the decisions taken by the
governing body, having exhausted the various levels of appeal available to them,
if they feel they were treated unfairly in first instance. What no member can
do is claim that the system is not working for them, and act accordingly.
Such member may be forgiven if they do so once. They will
get reprimanded if they do it twice. But if they do it three times or more,
they will be considered a self-declared criminal outlaw, and shunned by the
others.
You'll find evidence of these realities in the Jenna Lifhits
article. She begins by saying that the idea of the Palestinians taking legal
action against Israel is
“Fueling calls to re-examine U.S.
funding of the U.N.” She names Senator Ted Cruz––who dreams of becoming
president of the United States
with Jewish help––as the agent who will nudge America 's
pseudo-parliament to violate the two fundamental rules … doing it by faithfully
executing Israel 's
orders.
In fact, the entire Lifhits article unfolds in that vein.
The arguments are based on the notion that the United Nations – which
represents all of humanity – is biased against Israel for no reason but that it is
occupying another country.