By: Yedidya Atlas
Sara Hirschorn, in her recent op-ed in The Times of Israel, “Who Has the Monopoly on Truth at Migron?”, challenged my article “Something is Rotten in the State of Israel: The Strange Case of Migron” criticizing Israel’s Supreme Court’s decisions regarding Migron. While she is certainly entitled to disagree with me, her article missed the point.
Sara’s main contention follows the argument of the late history Professor Peter Novick of the University of Chicago that there is no objective truth. However, whether or not, objectively or subjectively, this is true or even makes sense – it is not relevant.
By definition, in a court of law the truth is determined by accepted procedures applying to evidence. In the case of Migron, the Peace Now lawyers represented Palestinian Arabs who were purported to be the registered owners of the land upon which Migron is built. The court of law that dealt with validating or rejecting the plaintiffs claim was the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court.
In that case, the Arab plaintiffs who claimed to be the owners of what is actually only one quarter of the land upon which Migron was built were unable to produce evidence to prove their claim. In fact, Migron’s lawyer at the time, now Supreme Court Justice Hanan Melcer, proved that their claims were false, and in fact, the Peace Now lawyers of said plaintiffs subsequently withdrew their case.
Again, this did not stop Peace Now from pursuing their legally baseless petition in the Supreme Court. Justice Melcer, then Migron’s attorney, in his written response to the Peace Now petition to the Supreme Court wrote:
Read the whole thing
The author is a veteran journalist specializing in geo-political and geo-strategic affairs in the Middle East. His articles have appeared in such publications as The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Times, Insight Magazine, Nativ, The Jerusalem Post and Makor Rishon. His articles have been reprinted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and in the US Congressional Record.
Technorati Tag: Israel and MIgron.
3 comments:
hmmm... no truth hmmm? I had a problem with a certain University of Chicago alumni who was a teacher of mine. I pulled out a gun in an art video to describe why there was most certainly a reality of the situation. the video was not live... it was a hypothetical related to a debate about truth on a blog. She got the silly feminist authorities in Seattle to extradite me without ever having a felony. there was no understanding over prior restraint. She got the media to believe she was being cyberbullied and broadcast it on the news.,... all to cover the fact that she felt there was no truth. I'm not even allowed to say her name legally now... all because the law thinks people with these views have a privileged status to abuse those who try to explain why there most certainly is a truth.
Of course the moment she accused the entire campus of sexual harassment there most certainly was a truth for her... and some of the information released about her from the college saved my ass. But there it is... when someone seems crazy... don't explain it to them. They probably are. It doesn't matter to our liberal courts however. These academic fascist liberals receive a privileged status... and you can't question them without being accused of stalking.
(updated because the story was never consistent for those without truth) She claimed her husband was at University of Chicago (though that could be BS).
Post a Comment