A lawyer can be one of two things but not both at the same time.
He can be an attorney taking the side of his client and defending it blindly in
a legal case. Or he can be a journalist specialized in the art of popularizing
legal matters to a general audience that appreciates discussions on this sort
of topic.
However, it happened at some point during the past few decades
that Jewish lawyers broke with the established pattern by writing articles in
which they unabashedly defended Israel's behavior, addressing the public as if
it were both judge and jury summoned to determine Israel's fate. And the
lawyers sent their articles to editors who published them without reservation. As
far as I can tell, it was Alan Dershowitz that started this new trend, but I
stand to be corrected.
Because Jewish-inspired trends were being established in other
fields at the same time, a spillover happened between the fields. One such
spillover had lawyers of the Evangelical type, take up Israeli cases, and
defend them publicly with as much vigor as Jewish lawyers and more fanaticism
than them. One such Evangelical is David French who just published: “The Law of
War Permits Israel to Destroy Hamas,” an article that appeared on May 6, 2019
in National Review Online.
This is a 1,300-word article that is a one-sided defense of
Israeli actions, as well as being a prior justification for Israel to “destroy
Hamas” if it will so decide in the future. Because this is a one-sided view of
the subject, the best way to respond to it, would be to take it up point by
point and show that what is good for the goose is good for the gander. That is,
show that according to the law of war, every defense and every justification
mounted on behalf of Israel, apply equally to Hamas and anyone that will stand
with it in the way that America stands with Israel. But to do this, would
require a 1,300-word write-up to fully counter those of David French. For this
reason, I shall only give a condensed version of some points he made and move
on to more important considerations. Here is that condensed version:
“It's important to be clear about Israel's [Hamas's] legal
obligations. The law of war would allow Israel [Hamas's friends] to invade Gaza
[Israel,] destroy Hamas [the Knesset,] and occupy Gaza [retake Palestine.]
Firing at targets in[blockading] a neighboring country is an act of war. As
such, it grants the victim the authority under the international law of armed
conflict to disable the assets used to carry out the aggression and those that
carried it out. A terrorist army of occupation cannot protect itself from
destruction by hiding behind front-line kibbutz, deliberately filled with
children, or using civilians as human shields. Under the law of war none of
that limits Israel's [Hamas's] right to defend itself. The resulting civilian
casualties and damages are Hamas's [Israel's] moral and legal responsibility.
It's that simple. Think of it like this: Nations have a right to defend
themselves, and that includes the Palestinians”.
Well, my friend, go over the entire David French article, and
other articles like it … while paying special attention to two categories of
behavior: What people say, and what people do. You'll find that, whichever way
the narrative of the Jews and their friends is expressed, it always boils down
to this: Accept and praise the horrible things that Israel does to the
Palestinians because the Jews have good intentions. By the same token, reject
whatever natural responses the Palestinians exhibit, because they have bad
intentions. And so, when we kill scores of their civilians––which happens all
the time––it's because we're trying not to. And when they kill none of our
civilians but a handful of our soldiers––which happens some of the time––it's
because they couldn't get to our civilians. In other words, take to heart and
believe what we say to you, and not what you see the Palestinians do with your
own eyes. When you do that, you’ll understand why it’s okay for us to deny them
a nation of their own while falsely accusing them of wishing to deny us a
nation.
As absurd as this is, why did the Jews and their fanatic friends
devise this approach to defend Israel? They did because the alternative would
have been to dispassionately judge the cases that pit the Jews against the
Palestinians. It would reduce Israel to the only legal borders it is entitled
to have: those of 1948. It will also condemn the Israelis to pay reparation to
the Palestinians for an eternity, and will send every Jew that engaged in
politics to the International Criminal Court for a quick trial and a quicker
dispatch to a gulag where they'll spend a lifetime producing letters of apology
begging the Palestinians and the rest of humanity to forgive them for being a
pain in everyone’s ass during the four thousand years of their existence.