Saturday, November 18, 2023

Unenforceable International Laws

 Public Jurists,

​  Yitzhak Rabin’s Murder Is Prehistory of Gaza-Israel 10/7​  Thanks Wiggs.
​  The Oslo Accords comprised a Declaration of Principles (DoP), a memorandum clarifying some points in the main document, and four appendices. The appendices dealt with election in the occupied territories, the withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza and Jericho, Israeli-Palestinian economic cooperation, and the regional economic development. The DoP provided the framework for the interim agreement setting up Palestinian self-rule in Gaza and Jericho and its implementation through further technical discussions to be concluded within three months of signing of the Accord. The significance of the DoP was the agreement that Palestinians were to be given a full measure of autonomy and that Israel would bring to an end its military occupation. The Oslo Accords were in effect confidence-and-security building measures within a fixed time frame of five years with negotiations starting no later than the end of 1995 on a list of issues, such as the status of Jerusalem, the Jewish settlements in the occupied territories, demarcation of borders and issues left over from previous negotiations, and at the end of which there would be negotiation to seal the final status agreement.
​  Rabin was in a hurry to bring an end to the Intifada, reach an agreement with the PLO leadership giving Palestinians autonomy in the occupied territories administered by their own elected representatives with policing powers and thereby relieving Israelis of that onerous responsibility, and build trust between Israel and Palestinian Authority before concluding the final status agreement for a meaningful future in terms of peaceful coexistence for both people. But there was also the need to hurry the process if it was not to be derailed by those forces seeded in the territories during the years of occupation since June 1967. The Intifada began in December 1987 marking the twentieth anniversary of the occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, and in these two decades the new political phenomenon of religious fanaticism in the territories was bent upon shutting the doors on any compromise of trading land for peace as implied in the UN security council resolution 242.
​  Jewish settlements in the occupied territories began to grow and spread in the period following the October war of 1973, and pushed by the settler movement Gush Emunim (the Bloc of the Faithful) had become a powerful lobby that no political party could ignore. Menachem Begin, as Likud leader with coalition partners on the religious right and elected prime minister in 1977, spoke of occupied territories as part of Eretz Israel (Land of Israel) to be settled by a new generation of Israelis making the land non-negotiable. The settler movement inevitably came into violent confrontations with Palestinian inhabitants of West Bank and Gaza, and such incidents coalesced to finally erupt in the Intifada of 1987-93.
​  The Palestinian uprising came from within the occupied territories surprising the PLO leadership based in Tunisia after being expelled from Lebanon during Israel’s Lebanese war. The extent and depth of Palestinian support for the uprising brought into prominence a new generation of activists connected with mosques and religious institutions and among them was “Hamas”, an acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement founded by Ahmad Yasin, teacher and local imam (religious leader), in Gaza around the time the Intifada started. Ahmad Yasin, a paraplegic, was connected with the Muslim Brotherhood organization in the territories and Hamas was established as an off-shoot of the Brotherhood. The Intifada also became the conduit for the supporters of Hamas to organize the politics of “resistance” in terms of the Brotherhood ideology of “jihad” (holy war). Gush Emunim’s use of the terminology Eretz Israel/Land of Israel, meaning the “land” over which Jews claim “historical rights” and for them to redeem and settle, was countered in the Hamas Charter that all of Palestine is Islamic Waqf (religious endowment) “consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgment Day” and, hence, cannot be despoiled, squandered, given or taken away from Muslims by anyone. As Hamas gained popularity it posed a threat to secular nationalist appeal of the PLO, a threat that its enemies among Arab states in the region, including Israel, would exploit to create divisions among Palestinians. Israeli intelligence agencies, Mossad and Shin Bet, would have been negligent in failing to penetrate Hamas with informers and goad Hamas activists escalate the rhetoric of religious extremism and terrorist violence to out-flank the PLO from the right.
​  Rabin had failed during his time as Defence Minister to impede the settler movement in the territories that came to haunt him as prime minister. After signing the Oslo Accords Rabin was a marked man, his death foretold. The Intifada had taken the lid off domestic terrorism. Gush Emunim and the ultra-religious right in Israel had found in Hamas their partner in the zero-sum dance of mutual hate and violence. Within six months of signing of the Oslo Accords the ring of fire was ablaze.​..
​..Rabin’s government was branded by the opposition coalition Judenrat, the deadly smear against Jews who collaborated with the Nazis. Ariel Sharon, nicknamed the “Butcher of Beirut” after the Kahane commission inquiry into the 1982 massacres of Palestinians in the refugee camps of Sabra and Shatilla during Israel’s Lebanese war, went public against Rabin, his former commander and mentor. Sharon accused Rabin’s government as “an insane government that shrinks Israel to Auschwitz borders, a reckless government, submissive, confused, treacherous, insane.”
 ​  On October 19, 1994 a Hamas suicide bombing of a bus in Tel Aviv killed twenty-two Israelis and wounded as many. Netanyahu appeared at the site of the bombing and addressing the television cameras denounced Rabin saying, “The PM chose to prefer Arafat and the welfare of Gaza’s residents at the expense of the inhabitants of Israel.”​ ...
..As the year 1995 opened the opposition to Rabin and the Oslo Accords grew increasingly belligerent. Orthodox rabbis in the diaspora were drawn into the discourse over the “law of the pursuer” and the “law of the informer” that sanctioned the killing of a Jew in breach of either law.​..
..On October 5, the Knesset was scheduled to vote on Oslo II, and the opposition called for a mass rally on the same day in Zion Square in Jerusalem. The rally turned into a mob chanting “Death to Rabin.” Netanyahu as the leader of the opposition in the Knesset addressed the rally and taunted the non-Jewish character of the government relying on Arab-Israeli votes for the approval of Oslo II...
..A month later on November 4, Rabin and Peres were enthusiastically greeted at a peace rally in Malchei Yisrael Square near the City Hall in Tel Aviv. Yigal Amir had been stalking Rabin since the signing of the Oslo Accords in Washington in September 1993. Amir was waiting at the rally, which drew a crowd of a hundred thousand supporters of Rabin...
..Rabin was among his people, and both he and Peres were heartened by their genuine affection. Rabin had another private reception to attend after the rally. He took leave shortly after addressing the friendly crowd and walked behind Peres for his car. Yigal Amir waited in ambush close to the stairs that Rabin descended, and unloaded his weapon at point-blank range into the prime minister. Two of the bullets smashed into Rabin. His security detail had failed him, and by the time he was rushed to Ichilov hospital nearby Rabin was clinically dead.

​  What international order?​ , by Thierry Meyssan ​ Thanks Eleni
​  In the 17th century, the Treaties of Westphalia established the principle of state sovereignty. Each is equal to the others, and no one may interfere in the internal affairs of others. For centuries, these treaties governed relations between the present-day Länder, as well as between European states. They were reaffirmed by the Congress of Vienna in 1815, when Napoleon I was defeated.
  On the eve of the First World War, Tsar Nicholas II convened two International Peace Conferences (1899 and 1907) in The Hague to "seek the most effective means of assuring all peoples the benefits of a real and lasting peace"...
..The Conference agreed that, during armed conflict, populations and belligerents must remain under the protection of the principles resulting from "the usages established between civilized nations, the laws of humanity and the dictates of public conscience". In short, the signatories undertook to stop behaving like barbarians.
  This system only works between civilized states that honour their signatures and are accountable to public opinion. It failed, in 1914, because states had lost their sovereignty by entering into defense treaties that required them to go to war automatically in certain circumstances that they could not assess for themselves.
  Léon Bourgeois’s ideas gained ground, but met with opposition, including from his rival in Georges Clemenceau’s Radical Party. Clemenceau did not believe that public opinion could prevent wars. Nor did the Anglo-Saxons, U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and British Prime Minister Lloyd George. At the end of the First World War, these three men substituted the might of the victors for the fledgling international law. They shared the world and the remnants of the Austro-Hungarian, German and Ottoman empires. They blamed Germany alone for the massacres, denying their own. They imposed disarmament without guarantees. To prevent the emergence of a rival to the British Empire in Europe, the Anglo-Saxons began to pit Germany against the USSR, and secured France’s silence by assuring her that she could plunder the defeated Second Reich. In a way, as the first President of the Federal Republic, Theodor Heuss, put it, they organized the conditions for the development of Nazism.
  As they had agreed among themselves, the three men reshaped the world in their own image (Wilson’s 14 points, the Sykes-Picot agreements, the Balfour Declaration). They created the Jewish homeland of Palestine, dissected Africa and Asia, and tried to reduce Turkey to its minimum size. They organized all the current disorders in the Middle East.
  Yet it was on the basis of the ideas of the late Nicholas II and Léon Bourgeois that the League of Nations (League) was established after the First World War, without the participation of the United States, which thus officially rejected any idea of International Law. However, the League also failed. Not because the United States refused to join, as some say. That was their right. But firstly, because it was incapable of re-establishing strict equality between states, as the United Kingdom was opposed to considering colonized peoples as equals...
​..Joseph Stalin, First Secretary of the CPSU, was opposed to the idea of a world government, and an Anglo-Saxon one at that. All he wanted was an organization capable of preventing future conflicts. In any case, it was Russian conceptions that gave birth to the system: that of the United Nations Charter, at the San Francisco conference.
​  In the spirit of the Hague Conferences, all UN member states are equal. The Organization includes an internal tribunal, the International Court of Justice, responsible for settling disputes between its members. However, in the light of previous experience, the five victorious powers have a permanent seat on the Security Council, with a veto. Given that there was no trust between them (the Anglo-Saxons had planned to continue the war with the remaining German troops against the USSR) and that it was unknown how the General Assembly would behave, the various victors wanted to ensure that the UN would not turn against them (the USA had committed appalling war crimes by dropping two atomic bombs against civilians, while Japan... was preparing its surrender to the Soviets). But the great powers did not understand the veto in the same way. For some, it was a right to censor the decisions of others; for others, it was an obligation to take decisions unanimously.
​  Except that, right from the start, the Anglo-Saxons didn’t play ball: an Israeli state declared itself (May 14, 1948) before its borders had been agreed, and the UN Secretary-General’s special envoy to oversee the creation of a Palestinian state, Count Folke Bernadotte, was assassinated by Jewish supremacists under the command of Yitzhak Shamir. Moreover, the seat on the Security Council allocated to China, in the context of the end of the Chinese civil war, was given to Chiang Kai-shek’s Kuomintang and not to Beijing. The Anglo-Saxons proclaimed the independence of their Korean zone of occupation as the "Republic of Korea" (August 15, 1948), created Nato (April 4, 1949), and then proclaimed the independence of their German zone of occupation as "Federal Germany" (May 23, 1949).
​  The USSR considered itself fooled, and slammed the door ("empty seat" policy). The Georgian Joseph Stalin had mistakenly believed that the veto was not a right of censure, but a condition of unanimity of the victors. He thought he could block the organization by boycotting it.
​  The Anglo-Saxons interpreted the text of the Charter they had drafted and took advantage of the Soviets’ absence to place "blue helmets" on the heads of their soldiers and wage war on the North Koreans (June 25, 1950) in the "name of the international community" (sic). Finally, on August 1, 1950, the Soviets returned to the UN after an absence of six and a half months...
​..With the dissolution of the USSR, things began to get worse. The US Undersecretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, drew up a doctrine according to which, to remain masters of the world, the United States had to do everything in its power to prevent the emergence of a new rival, starting with the European Union. It was in application of this idea that Secretary of State James Baker imposed the enlargement of the European Union to include all the former states of the Warsaw Pact and the USSR. By expanding in this way, the Union deprived itself of the possibility of becoming a political entity. It was again in application of this doctrine that the Maastricht Treaty placed the EU under NATO’s protection. And it is still in application of this doctrine that Germany and France are paying for and arming the Ukraine.
​  Then came Czech-US professor Josef Korbel. He proposed that the Anglo-Saxons should dominate the world by rewriting international treaties. All that was needed, he argued, was to substitute Anglo-Saxon law, based on custom, for the rationality of Roman law. In this way, in the long term, all treaties would give the advantage to the dominant powers: the United States and the United Kingdom, linked by a "special relationship", in the words of Winston Churchill. Professor Korbel’s daughter, Democrat Madeleine Albright, became Ambassador to the UN, then Secretary of State. Then, when the White House passed into Republican hands, Professor Korbel’s adopted daughter, Condoleeza Rice, succeeded her as National Security Advisor, then Secretary of State. For two decades, the two "sisters" [3] patiently rewrote the main international texts, ostensibly to modernize them, but in fact to change their spirit.
​  Today, international institutions operate according to Anglo-Saxon rules, based on previous violations of international law. This law is not written in any code, since it is an interpretation of custom by the dominant power. Every day, we substitute unjust rules for International Law and violate our own signature...
​..As Léon Bourgeois explained in the last century, to be effective and lasting, disarmament treaties must be based on legal guarantees. It is therefore urgent to return to international law, failing which we will plunge headlong into a devastating war.
​  Our honour and our interest lie in re-establishing international law. It’s a fragile construction. If we want to avoid war, we must re-establish it, and we can be sure that Russia thinks as we do, that it will not violate it.
​  Or we can support NATO, which brought its 31 defense ministers together in Brussels on October 11 to listen to their Israeli counterpart announce, via videoconference, that he was going to raze Gaza to the ground. And none of our ministers, including Germany’s Boris Pistorius, dared to speak out against the planning of this mass crime against civilians...
..We don’t have to choose between two overlords, but to protect peace, from the Donbass to Gaza, and, ultimately, to defend International Law.

​  The collapse of Israel and the United States​ by Thierry Meyssan​  Thanks Eleni​.  I don't ​yet see the people's wishes translating into policy changes.
​  For the first time in history, civilians are being massacred live on television.
Everywhere - except in Europe - Jews and Arabs unite to cry out their grief and call for peace.
People everywhere realize that this genocide would not be possible if the United States did not supply bombs to the Israeli army in real time...
..The "Jewish supremacists" are behaving today as they did in 1948.
  When the United Nations voted to create two federated states in Palestine, one Hebrew and one Arab, the armed forces self-proclaimed the Hebrew state before its borders had been fixed. The "Jewish supremacists" immediately expelled millions of Palestinians from their homes (the "Nakhba") and assassinated the UN special representative who had come to create a Palestinian state. The seven Arab armies (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Syria and North Yemen) that tried to oppose them were quickly swept aside.
  Today, they are no more obedient to their protectors and massacre again, without realizing that this time the world is watching and no one will come to their rescue. At a time when the Shiites accept the principle of a Hebrew state, their madness is jeopardizing the very existence of that state...
..This inevitable process has just begun for the "American Empire". The question is not how far Benjamin Netanyahu’s "revisionist Zionists" will go, but how far the US imperialists will support them. At what point will Washington decide it has more to lose by allowing Palestinian civilians to be massacred than by correcting Israel’s leaders?

​  The UN Security Council passed a resolution on Wednesday that called for a temporary pause to the fighting in Gaza. Tel Aviv said the call for a short peace was a decision “disconnected from reality and holds no significance.”
​  The resolution passed the UN’s most powerful body in a vote of 12-0. The US and UK did not vote for the motion because it did not condemn Hamas. Russia abstained over concerns that the resolution did not make a strong enough call for peace. Moscow’s representative said Washington is responsible for removing the word “ceasefire” from the text.
​  The resolution called for “urgent and extended humanitarian pauses” in Gaza to allow aid to reach Palestinian civilians and for “the immediate and unconditional release of all hostages held by Hamas and other groups
, especially children, as well as ensuring immediate humanitarian access.”​ 

​  Alastair Crooke ,  'Israel’s' ‘Nakba Doctrine’
​  "We are now actually rolling out the Gaza Nakba", says Avi Dichter, "Israel's" Minister for Agriculture and former head of Shin Bet. The Israeli cabinet has been briefed that up to 1,700,000 Gazans (out of a total population of 2.2 million) are no longer able to live in their own homes, either because they've been ‘displaced’, or because their homes have been destroyed/damaged...
..Simply put, the Israelis are fighting a conventional war-model (an armoured ‘fist’ inching ahead under massive air support). But the contradiction to this model is blatantly obvious: the so-called ‘enemy’ on the ground simply are civilians, who are dying in horrifying numbers, whilst the Hamas forces remain intact, deep underground. That, too, is where the Hamas infrastructure lies...
..The ineluctable logic to this analysis therefore is to continue with the status quo: If it isn’t working in respect to freeing hostages, or degrading Hamas, it can be presented to the Israeli public as ‘working’ through forcing civilians to flee their devastated communities (what Dichter calls the "Gaza Nakba").
​  With the ‘Nakba Doctrine’ taking a hold, so favourable conditions for the release of hostages (which Hamas predicates upon a lengthy ceasefire and humanitarian supplies) melts away...
  In this context, Israeli popular sentiment -- even amongst former liberals -- is moving toward a Greater Nakba. Gaza is under Nakba pressures. So is the West Bank, as settler violence against Palestinians surges. Even a ‘liberal’ such as former opposition leader Lapid now agrees that ‘settlers’ in the occupied West Bank are not ‘settlers’ at all, since the land is but the ‘Biblical land of Israel’.
​  Nakba ‘ambitions’ are widening to South Lebanon (up to the Litani River) too. The radical members of Netanyahu’s government say Israelis will never return to the kibbutz adjacent to Lebanon, without Hezbollah’s removal from the border area.
  So, the call is heard for "Israel" to ‘take’ Lebanon up to the Litani (a key water source) -- and ‘serendipitously’ the Israeli air force has begun operating up to 40 kms inside Lebanon. Cabinet members now openly speak of the IOF needing to turn its attention to Hezbollah once Hamas has been ‘obliterated’...
​..The US reportedly suspects that "Israel" is provoking Hezbollah, hoping to entice the US into a war on Lebanon.  
​  Plainly, the White House is struggling to avoid the slide towards full regional war, as both the Lebanese front and the Iraqi front heats up: On Sunday, Iraqi movements again fired missiles at the American base in Shaddadi.
​  "Israel" is sensing the present crisis to be both an existential risk, but an ‘opportunity’ too – an opportunity to establish "Israel" across ‘its Biblical lands’ over the long term.

​  Netanyahu's Surprise Admission: Israel "Not Successful" At Minimizing Civilian Casualties
​  He ultimately blamed Hamas for this while vowing the Israeli military would "try to finish the job" of eradicating the Islamist terror group.
But he emphasized in surprisingly blunt words: "That's what we're trying to do: minimal civilian casualties. But unfortunately, we're not successful."
​  He presented the context as one where Hamas was preventing civilians from leaving northern Gaza "at gun point". He claimed that Hamas "fired at the safe corridors that we provided for the Palestinians."

​Moon of Alabama, One Religion's War Against All Others​  The ​war to create "Greater Israel"​.

  "Leverage" Turkish Parliament Postpones Vote On Sweden's NATO Membership , Turkey says Sweden must extradite PKK members considered terrorists by Ankara.
Turkey is joined only by Hungary as the NATO members yet to approve Sweden’s membership bid...
..“They’re spreading blatant lies about Hungary, about the rule of law in Hungary, about democracy, about life here; how, the argument goes, can anyone want to be our ally in a military system while they’re shamelessly spreading lies about Hungary?” he said during an interview on national radio in March.
“If they expect us to be fair to them, then they should also be fair to Hungary,” Orbán added.

​Caitlin Johnstone , Fifteen Things You Should Never Have To Say To A Country

  Long Term Economic Trend Analysis from Charles Hugh Smith  
Can We Reverse America's Distemper?  Social trust, a baseline measure of social stability, has erode

Power-Politics trumps science:  CDC Claims On Vaccination And Natural Immunity Made Without Seeing Underlying Data: FOIA Document

  Peter McCullough MD ,  Twitter "Community Notes" Deceptively Push False Claims on COVID-19 Vaccines  ("Twitter" is "X". a mixed-bag. See below.)
Anonymous Propaganda Agents Write False Commentaries to Deceive Public

​  Early Saturday morning, Elon Musk said his social media platform X will be "filing a thermonuclear lawsuit" against left-leaning non-profit Media Matters and "all those who colluded" for "completely misrepresenting" the real user experience on X.
​  "This week, Media Matters for America posted a story that completely misrepresented the real user experience on X, in another attempt to undermine freedom of speech and mislead advertisers," Musk said.
​  Media Matters shared a report Thursday that showed "white nationalist and antisemitic conspiracy theories" content next to "ads for major brands like Apple, Bravo (NBCUniversal), IBM, Oracle, and Xfinity (Comcast)."

  Pilots were forced to accept cardiotoxic injections to stay employed.  Airline Mayday Radio Calls Up 386% in 2023
What is causing steep rise of in-flight medical emergencies since 2021?

  Steve Kirsch wonders "how many?", Remembering Jane Thomsen of New Zealand
It is with great sadness that we share with you the sudden passing of New Zealand resident Jane Thomsen. Jane got her first shot of Pfizer on Aug 17, 2021 and died "unexpectedly" the same day!

​  Steve Kirsch ,  An open letter to the New Zealand Ministry of Health: an offer you can't refuse
I believe you have made a very serious mistake that is costing lives. Why not publish the anonymized record-level data just to be sure?
​  To the New Zealand Ministry of Health:
I read with great interest this “AAP fact check” article which states “NZ health authorities say four deaths have been linked to the vaccines.”
​  I have record-level data from multiple countries and it’s clear the COVID vaccines are killing at least 1 person per 1,000 doses on average which means that around 12,000 New Zealanders were killed by the COVID vaccines.
​  So we have a difference of opinion.
I’d like to suggest a way for you to definitively win the argument and prove that you are right and I am wrong.

​  Walter M. Chesnut explains the buildup of spike-protein as amyloid plaques, as mRNA "vaccinated" cells keep pumping it into the bloodstream for half a year.
Discussing A Recent Preprint from Yale: Is Post-Vaccination Syndrome (PVS) Actually a New Spike-Induced Amyloidosis?
When you break down the symptoms of Post-Vaccination Syndrome, a very strong case can be made for Post-Vaccination Amyloidosis.

​  New Email Shows Fauci Adviser Suggesting He Destroyed Records
​  A top deputy to Dr. Anthony Fauci indicated in a newly uncovered email that he purposefully did not keep records that he knew would be sought by the public and congressional investigators.​  "I have retained very few emails or documents on these matters, and continue to request that correspondence on sensitive issues be sent to me at my gmail [sic] address," Dr. David Morens, the deputy, wrote on June 17, 2021.

​Proceeding Thoughtfully (pictured mowing by the vegetable garden)

No comments:

Post a Comment