Damocles‘ Exit Light!
Have you no decency, Sir?
If language is not correct, then what is said is not what is meant; if what is said is not what is meant, then what must be done remains undone; if this remains undone, morals and art will deteriorate; if justice goes astray, the people will stand about in helpless confusion. Hence there must be no arbitrariness in what is said. This matters above everything. (Confucius)
Dear Mr President, Benjamin Netanyahu!
This is a slightly altered and enriched reissue of a letter you were sent about a month ago. Do you imply libel[1] and lies, as soon as you witness people, telling (you) the truth about you?!
Well, being above such things and in a way, flying over the Kibbutz‘ … sorry … Cuckoo's Nest, only legendary Kishon[2] would probably slap on a charmingly casual smile – as usual – meaningfully and sighingly whispering shalem aleichem[3].
The news of this bill comes like a blow between the eyes to those of us who have always associated the State of Israel with liberty and enlightenment. (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Author addressing Ben-Gurion, 22 March 1962 / NY)
Does that ring a bell somehow?
One might think, whatever holds true for the Oldest Democracies[4] on Earth needn’t necessarily apply to the Rest of the World or at least some countries. Come on … sapere aude[5]!
One should know, the Israel People aren’t (as) stupid (as you believe they are)!
They have the Right to have Rights[6], don’t you know?!
Ain’t we all human beings?
Ain’t we still longing for Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité[7], whoever we are and whereever we are?
So, you’re trying to undo the Demos[8] in your country too, calling for somewhat of a Parliamentary Neoliberal Jewishism , a kind of an Israel Consensus[9], right?!
We believe that the freedom of every individual is limited by the freedom of rights of others and that no individual or a newspaper has the right to humiliate his fellow man or to make him the object of hatred and contempt if he has no reasonable basis for believing that the statement which he wishes to publish against him is true. (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Ben-Gurion addressing Author, 25 March 1962 / Jerusalem)
With all due respect Mr President, are you suffering from somewhat of an accute case of Ben-Gurionitis[10]?
Perhaps, one of your Ghostwriters is currently preparing a State of the World Address featuring the following introduction aimed at countering international critics on your controversial policy serving to undermine your country’s judiciary guarding its Supremacy of Law.
Critics All Over The world, Listen!
You‘ve voiced a plentiful of naive statements on certain facts relating to particular events in our country.
Well, these’ve been well known to us! Accordingly, you‘ve come to rather damning judgments in regard to the efficacy and role model of our domestic and foreign politics. Now, we’ve been well aware of this too! If I may, our Jewish nation isn‘t interested in whether those facts you claim in general are true or not! We’re also not interested in whether the conclusions you draw are true or not!
As a matter of fact, only one pivotal issue is of concern to us. The bottom line is, your undulating statements weaken Israel's international position! However, those people and politicians undermining Israel's international position play into the hands of global terrorism, henceforth endangering global peace! Congratulations!
Consequently, we‘re to treat you as enemies of global peace more than ever. So, think carefully whether you would want to hold on to your original perceptions and findings. Truth ... falsehood ... does that really (!) matter?! What is more important to you, global peace or believing, your adamant selfish, local perceptions could play a leading role in international politics?!
You see?! Well, I thought so ... your silence seems to prove I‘m right at least not wrong, doesn’t it?!
Why don’t you just mind your own business and do your homework properly!
Have you no Decency, Sir?[11]
As if by magic, wouldn't it be nice to have certain geographical regions' soil and people excavated, kneaded into neat little celestial bodies sent into Earth's orbit? – with the exception of Israel, of course!
Who could master such a kind of magic … Bezos … BigBlue … Copperfield … ET … Gates … God … Godot … Google … Meta … Musk … OpenAI … Oz … Potter … Simon?! Alas … Atlas shrugged!
Nonetheless, I’m addressing you for a distinctively different reason. What the hell‘s been going on in your country?!
How could you, having proven a conspicuous Consumer of Law[12] yourself, be keen on abolishing the Supremacy of Modern Law[13] itself.
Even under the best of ministers, the mere availability of a power of suspension – regardless of the discretion and care with which it is exercised – constitutes a sword of Damocles, a perennial threat to the freedom of the press. (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Author addressing Ben-Gurion, 30 May 1962 / NY)
What's the point?
Well, good morning Sir, you must’ve been out of your senses! Having given way to turning Israel into a fundamentalist theocratical monotheist state, you might as well consider rechristening Israel to "Iran II" – essentially, a conceptual, i.e. denominational Oxymoron; hence, literally it wouldn’t make sense, so let’s drop at least this minimally exceptional verbal subject.
In the game … out of the game … in the game … you‘re a genuine skipjack, right?!
Quite likely, uneasy Begin[14] will have been turning persistently in his grave and will continue doing so! Haven’t the most recent earthquakes seemed kind of weird to you?!
If highly decorated Dayan[15] were to witness his country’s/fellow politicians‘ and troopers‘ creeping atrophy, he‘d require a second eye patch, two ear plugs, a mouth gag; most of all, a straight jacket, leg cuffs and a wheel chair featuring no flat tyres!
I am well aware that I cannot hold my own in an argument with a distinguished jurist like yourself. In a democracy, however, even laymen have the right to their opinions, and if I venture to continue this discussion it is by right after democracy and not by virtue of juridical expertise. ... In my opinion, however, the article in your constitution which authorizes a court to anull an Act of Congress is undemocratic, although I understand the historic reasons that have led to such a position in the United States, and I doubt whether the Supreme Court will use this power often in our day. (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Ben-Gurion addressing Author, 1 April 1962 / Jerusalem)
By the way, how about Hannah Arendt[16]? How would she perceive Israel's rampant political, ethical and constitutional decay? Perhaps, she would hold public lectures free of charge on Personal Responsibility under Dictatorship[17].
Evidently, too many of Israel‘s citizens have opposed somnambulantly approving of your odd course of action. Hasn’t the political Run of Events been conspicuously mimicing your Jewish forebears‘ Experiences of Life during the Third Reich, in the sense of staged Popular Sentiment … Enabling Acts … Repeal of Division of Powers?!
Big Ben, congratulations on your self-coronation, i.e. self-proclaimed monarchy! All current notoriously totalitarian monotheists (e.g. Assad, Kim Jong-un, Xi Jinping etc.) and pseudo-democratic blockheads (e.g. Erdogan, Orban, Putin etc.) around the world appreciate this big whig-style of yours.
However, among other signature democracies such as those of the UK, US, France and also Germany, Israel’s Status Quo and State of Being/Doing have always had a decisive signalling-effect on the rest of the world’s political regimes‘ standing, in terms of strengthening or weakening democracy, the division of powers and rule of law, human rights, equity and equal opportunity, as well as freedom and prosperity.
Israelis are put under a moral obligation to protest against official misdeeds that may come to their notice. Representative government implicates the people. Like the age-old Jewish tradition, it leaves no option about protesting against injustice; it compels citizens to come forward and raise their voices. Hence a press free of prior restrained, though desirable anywhere, becomes a moral necessity in a democracy. (Edmond Cahn, Confronting Injustice – Author addressing Ben-Gurion, 7 May 1962 / NY)
Biblically spoken, the State of Israel’s pontiffs are about to crucify Jesus Christ Superstar a second time.
Who’re you, the Judas or one of the many Shlemiels?!
What is more powerful than our senses to perceive what is? What is more powerful than our mind to understand how and why it is as such? What is more powerful than our language to communicate mutual understanding? What is more powerful than our Supremacy of Law to guide us humans right?
Come on Ben, critics are our friends, they show us our faults[18], don’t you think?!
Respectfully yours,
Cal Caleido
Frame of Reference
[1] By analogy: John Peter Zenger | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu) ––– related: Andrew Hamilton – lawyer – (Wikiped) ––– An important date in Supreme Court history for the press | Constitution Center: New York Times v. Sullivan: On March 9, 1964, a unanimous Supreme Court said public officials in defamation cases against the press needed to prove actual malice or “knowledge that [a statement made] was false or with reckless disregard for the truth.” In a world before the New York Times decision, the press had limited legal protections against libel and slander lawsuits, especially those launched by public officials who didn’t like negative press coverage. ––– Famous Libel Cases Through History - Bochetto and Lentz: Libel is defined as “a published false statement that is damaging to a person’s reputation; a written defamation.” Though it has been the topic of litigation here and abroad for centuries, one of the most famous libel cases in the United States — and the one that set the benchmark for how libel is addressed today — was the 1803 case, People of New York versus Croswell, which pitted the editor of a newspaper against Thomas Jefferson. In arguing on behalf of the newspaper, Alexander Hamilton said, “Truth is an ingredient in the eternal order of things, in judging of the quality of acts,” thus establishing the idea that if a defamatory statement was true, then it was not libelous.
[4] RTL Today - World Economic Forum: World's oldest democracies: USA number one, Luxembourg 6th place
[5] Sapere Aude! | Issue 49 | Philosophy Now
[6] Hannah Arendt: The Right to Have Rights (criticallegalthinking.com)
[7] Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité: The Meaning and History of France’s National Motto | liberties.eu
[8] Wendy Brown, Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution (utoronto.ca)
[9] By analogy: The Beijing consensus : legitimizing authoritarianism in our time : Halper, Stefan A., author : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
[10] Rhode Island Herald, Report Ben-Gurion Threatens to Resign Over Lavon Probe, 4 November 1960 (rijha.org) ––– The Issue - Norman Podhoretz, Commentary Magazine: Should Eichmann be executed? A few weeks ago, in a letter to the New York Times, Professor Edmond Cahn of the New York University Law School, wrote: “If Eichmann should be convicted and put to death, we could only say that the Israelis had conducted themselves ‘like the nations.’ On the other hand, if the prosecutor should recommend or the court impose a sentence of life imprisonment, the whole world would respond with gratitude, renewed faith and admiration.” This is probably true, but I wonder why it is that Israel must always be asked to act more nobly than other nations. Isn’t this demand a way of telling Jews that they must justify their existence instead of taking it for granted that they have a simple right to exist and therefore to be “merely” human, and “like the nations”? ––– Edmond Cahn, Defamation Control vs. Press Freedom: A Current Chapter in Israel 13 Journal of Public Law 1964 (heinonline.org) ––– Nieman Reports, Sylvan Meyer, We Call it Privilege, They Call it Freedom to Smear, December 1965 (niemanreports.org): The Journal published a series of letters between David Ben-Gurion, former prime minister of Israel, and Edmond Cahn, late professor of law at New York University. Mr. Ben-Gurion permitted publication because of the clarity of his debate with Mr. Cahn and the understanding the letters might bestow on the entire issue of control of defamation against officials vs. a free press. ... Mr. Dissentshik also reported that the existence of the Ben Gurion-Cahn correspondence is unknown in Israel.
[11] "Have You No Decency?" | McCarthy | American Experience | PBS - YouTube
[12] By analogy: Edmond Cahn, Law in the Consumer Perspective (upenn.edu) ––– related: Edmond Nathaniel Cahn (1906-1964) | The National Library of Israel (nli.org.il)
[13] By analogy: Ronald D. Rotunda, The Role of the Modern Supreme Court (core.ac.uk)
[17] Hannah Arendt, Responsibility under a Dictatorship (wordpress.com)
[18] Quote by Benjamin Franklin: “Critics are our friends, they show us our faults.” (goodreads.com)