Whereas it is possible to evaluate the morality guiding an
acquaintance with whom we interact frequently, and judge him or her
accordingly, it is impossible for a branch of government, called the judiciary,
to do so.
Thus, to make it possible for the state – which is the
enforcer of the Social Contract – to adjudicate disputes between citizens, it
was necessary to create laws, rules and regulations, and enforce them. And so,
where the moral standing of the litigants figures little or not at all in a
judicial proceeding, adherence to the rule of law plays the determining role in
the evaluation of each case.
All forms of government – whether they are democratic or
autocratic – make laws by which they govern their citizens. They also attend
international forums and participate in making laws that govern the manner with
which nations interact with each other.
Half a century ago, it became obvious to some of us that the
Jews had a concept about the rule of law that was different from anything
considered normal in a democratic or autocratic system of government. It also
happened that we perceived anomalies in the way that the Jews interacted with
other people no matter who the latter were.
In addition, we detected disturbing patterns about the Jews,
we felt obliged to air publicly to the extent that we were allowed to do so. We
had, in fact, detected that the Jews did to North America
the things they did to hurt their enemies abroad. The difference, however, is
that they modified those hurtful things, and applied them in more subtle ways
in North America to make them imperceptible as
much as possible.
One of the things they did more glaringly than anything was
to display their contempt for the rule of law. The Jews who most vociferously
rejected that rule were none other than the Officers of the Court: the Jewish
lawyers. But while they took that stance, they also labored to make the
existing laws work for them. It is that they attacked the concept of rule of
law when they lost, but worked diligently to take advantage of the existing
laws, making them work for their community and for Israel .
And so, whereas the Jews mobilized massive resources to
reverse every decision rendered against Israel
by a competent international tribunal, they simultaneously mobilized other
resources to pass laws that favored Israel
and the Jewish communities in North America
and elsewhere. This disturbing pattern has continued to this day, becoming more
abusive with the passage of time.
A recent example of that was published in no less
prestigious a publication than the Wall Street Journal. It came under the
title: “America Recognizes One Jerusalem” and the subtitle: “The new U.S.
Embassy straddles the 'Green Line,' refusing to dignify claims of Israeli
'occupation.'” It was written by Eugene Kontorovich, a prominent Jewish lawyer,
and was published on May 14, 2018 in the Journal. The following is a montage of
what he said to display his contempt for the rule of law:
“The embassy site demonstrates that the U.S. sees Jerusalem
as Israel 's
capital –– recognizes the city as unified. The international community came up
with a demand: Any move to unify Jerusalem
would be considered a war crime. By ignoring the armistice line today, the U.S. is showing
that it attaches no legal significance to this demarcation. The U.S. no longer
buys into the legal theory behind claims of Israeli 'occupation'”.
Whether these takes represent America 's
position regarding the situation in occupied Palestine ,
or they represent Kontorovich's interpretation of America 's position, is beside the
point. What's shocking is that he is a lawyer, he does not like what the
international community, including the United States, have legislated under the
name “Security Council resolutions 242 and 338” – and he set out to show
contempt for the rule of law because it did not work for Israel or the Jews on
this occasion.
Is this attitude something to be dismissed as
inconsequential, especially that it was endorsed by the “mighty” Wall Street
Journal which published it? The answer is: No; it is not to be dismissed,
precisely because it was taken seriously by an institution as powerful as the
Wall Street Journal.
Open your eyes and ears, and you'll detect a marked increase
in the rejection of the rule of law, not by outlaws and street gangs, but by
municipal and state institutions that disobey federal laws, doing so
deliberately, openly and noisily.
What is disquieting about all of this is that the people who
insist on enforcing the laws that work for them, and reject those that do not –
have found a way to legitimize their attitude. They say they are breaking the
law because: “it's the right thing to do”.
And when it comes to the Jews, everything that's right with
humanity is wrong with them. As well, everything that's wrong with humanity is
right by them.