WOULD YOU HIRE...?

On the day after the barbaric Hamas invasion of Israel, in which the terrorists killed or wounded 3,000 men, women, and children and kidnapped several hundred, a number of college student organizations blamed Israel for the attack. The Hamas attack was, in their view, justified and caused by Israel’s position in the politically tortuous history of Israel’s “occupation” of the West Bank. In other words, the Hamas murder, and kidnapping of unarmed Israeli civilians of all ages was Israel’s fault, not Hamas.

Any number of these pro-Hamas views were publicly reflected in statements published by various student groups on the campuses of prominent universities, such as Harvard, Penn, ( and my alma mater NYU Law School.) 

Not surprisingly, some grownups were taken aback.

 

The prominent law firm of Winston & Strawn, upon learning that three of its summer associates who had received permanent offers were members of pro-Hamas groups, promptly rescinded the employment offers. Doubtless, other professional firms are facing similar issues as well. (I am pleased to report that Brad Karp, my distant successor as Chairman of Paul, Weiss, issued a statement “unequivocally condemning the Hamas attack and standing in solidarity with Israel.”) 

In addition to the hiring issue, a number of prominent US business leaders urged alumni to curtail monetary support of universities that made or tolerated pro-Hamas statements.

Naturally enough, these pro-Israel, and anti-Hamas statements and actions by law firms and business leaders have produced a fierce negative reaction from the extreme left. Indeed, this yesterday's New York Times suggests much of this reaction is from ultra-liberal Jewish groups.

As I see it the defenders of the Hamas attack raise two points: 

First, they dislike Netanyahu (and so do I) and blame him for Israel's current position with regard to the intractable West Bank problem, as well as a number of internal Israeli political issues in which Netanyahu moves further to the right. (The West Bank issue has been the subject of discussion and negotiation for scores of years, and any number of efforts at a solution have failed. It is not a subject of this piece, other than to say there is arguably a fair amount of blame that can be assigned to each side.)

Second, the dissidents raise First Amendment issues. They claim they have a right to speak their mind and take positions that are not only unpopular but are offensive to the majority of the population.

As to the first point, Israel could possibly have done more to solve the thorny political problem, but the notion that this justifies the horrific terrorist attack by Hamas is, IMHO, borderline insane. 

Second, the First Amendment argument is evidence of an unequivocally ignorant view of our Constitution. The only thing barred by the Amendment is government abridgment of speech. There is nothing in the First Amendment that requires law firms to hire morons or holders of any particular political views. For example, law students are free to parade wearing brown shirts and swastika armbands, and law firms are free to decide to reject any applicant who does so. Similarly, law firms are free to conclude that anyone who thinks the horrific Hamas attack was Israel's fault fails to exhibit the kind of intelligence and logical thinking they seek to help them solve their client’s legal problems.

Bottom line, the First Amendment grants absolute freedom to you to believe Hamas was justified in invading Israel and killing and kidnapping thousands of people, and it guarantees you the right to join organizations of like-minded persons.  But there is nothing in that Amendment that bars me from concluding you are far too stupid to represent me or my clients and there is nothing in that Amendment that bars me from refusing to hire you or refusing to contribute to your scholarship fund--and urging others to do likewise.

Duh.

A bientot.

..........................

This blog is public and can be forwarded at will.

There is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each new posting, please fill out the form at <"http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">. 

RULES OF WAR

The United States has come out in full support of Israel’s war against Hamas, but has cautioned the aggrieved nation to abide by the “rules of war” and to “take every possible step to avoid harming civilians.”

I am not a historian, but I am old enough to have been able (and eager) to read the newspapers during World War II, and later to read histories of that conflict. 

As part of the fight against the Nazis, the Americans and the British executed a 24-hour-a day bombing campaign against German cities and towns, including the infamous firebomb raid against the city of Dresden. While the announced targets were munitions factories, etc., the round-the-clock bombing campaign failed to crush the Nazi industrial system. But it did kill an estimated 600,000 civilians before Nazi Germany surrendered (after killing 6,000,000 Jews, homosexuals, and other “non-Aryans.”) 

Germany, for its part, had killed thousands of British civilians with its V2 rockets. 

On the Pacific front, the United States was island-hopping westward leading up to a planned invasion of the Japanese home islands. The estimate for that invasion was one million US casualties, but the Allied command saw no choice but to pursue that course of action to end the war against a determined enemy.

In early 1945, the United States discovered that a mixture of gasoline and certain chemicals would produce a jellied substance that they called napalm. When brought to bear, a relatively brief United States firebombing campaign killed an estimated 100,000 Japanese home-island noncombatants, This was just months before we dropped the two atomic bombs that killed an additional 100,000 civilians. (The napalm bombing was so effective that Air Force brass suggested atom bombs were unnecessary. It is likely they were correct). Whatever the negative consequences of the napalm and atom bomb attacks, the 200,000 civilian deaths led directly to the Japanese surrender and the saving of the one million American lives that would have been lost in a ground invasion of Japan.

Last week, Hamas launched a barbarous attack on virtually undefended towns in the southern part of Israel. The latest reports indicate hey inflicted 3,000 casualties on civilian men, women, and children and took 100-150 hostages, most but not all Israeli. (Media reports that the Hamas attack in Israel was the equivalent of 9/11 in the United States are way off the mark. There are 9 million residents of Israel. A proportionate attack on lower Manhattan would produce 100,000 casualties.) In any event, it is the largest Jewish death toll since the Holocaust.

In the barbaric Hamas attack, there are added factors in the equation: Hamas uses civilian structures to hide its rockets and rocket launchers — basements of apartment houses, mosques, and even schools and hospitals. Israel says its bombing and artillery targets thus far are aimed at those targets. 

And no one (in Israel) knows where the hostages are. Media reports indicate that it is likely they are in several different locations and it may well be that Israel's bombing and artillery campaign against Hamas is endangering them, either directly or indirectly inasmuch as Hamas has threatened to kill a hostage for each unannannounced bomb Israeli bomb drops.

Bottom line: Can Israel respond to the Hamas attack without endangering the civilian population of Gaza, and without possibly endangering the hostages?

Let's be a little cold-blooded about this: Israel is between a rock and a hard place. Were it to reject military action in order to avoid injury to civilians and possibly even to hostages, a noncombatant course of action would leave the country in a javelin-catcher role — sit back and do nothing more than attempt to shoot down a percentage of Hamas rockets aimed at its civilian population. Worse, it would convey a message to Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and Syria that, despite all of its military technology, Israel is a paper tiger-- an open invitation to all is surrounding enemies. really.

I don't propose, but I do ask:

Suppose there were not 3,000 Israeli casualties and 150 hostages, but 3,150 casualties and no hostages. Would Israel’s options be different? 

If sacrificing 150 lives today would save 1,000 lives tomorrow, wouldn’t you be willing to make that decision? Doesn't the United States make that kind of decision every time it sends troops into battle? Doesn't every warrior nation do that — take action that sacrifices lives today in order to save a greater number of llives tomorrow?

 I am no military tactician, but when you put all the factors together, it is inconceivable that Israel can or will fail promptly to militarily respond to the Hamas atrocity, and no degree of pre-warnings can avoid injury to non-combatant Gaza civilians, and possibly hostages as well, (the latter either directly or at the hands of the Hamas terrorists.)

I don’t know what Israel’s short-term or long-term plans are to solve the Hamas crisis, but in this case, like in so many other situations, citizens suffer at the hands of their leaders’ misdeeds. It has been true of every war in history and it will be true in this one too.

So be it. 

A bientot.

....................................

This blog is public and can be forwarded at will.

There is no fixed schedule for these posts. If you would like to receive a notice of each new posting, please fill out the form at <"http://eepurl.com/gf7fS9">.