Archive for International Law

Israel’s Legitimacy in Five Minutes

Brother Alan Dershowitz explains it all for you:

We’ve presented much of this material before ourselves, but Dershowitz is nothing if not persuasive. Some of the 20th century reaffirmations of the nation-state of Israel were unknown to me.

One word of caution: Israel may well have been founded in a lawyerly fashion, but as we have seen with tragic consequences over the years, legal documents are nothing against guns and tanks. Bring your lawyers, Israel, but make sure they’re packing heat.

Comments (1)


Don’t take it too hard, Arab squatters on Jewish land. I think the Audubon Society is looking for members. Or public broadcasting—those guys will take anyone!

Senior members of the Palestinian leadership were set to convene Wednesday evening in Ramallah to discuss applying for membership in international organizations after a resolution on Palestinian statehood failed to pass a UN Security Council vote the night before.

A senior Palestinian source confirmed to The Times of Israel that Fatah’s Central Committee and the Executive Committee of the PLO will decide whether to sign the Rome Statute, among other international bodies, in their ongoing bid to become full members in International Criminal Court.

The ratification of the Rome Statute — the treaty established by the ICC — would make the Palestinian Authority eligible to present cases of alleged war crimes against Israel in international courts.

Then what’s to decide? Why wouldn’t they have joined years ago? If they had a case to make, why didn’t they barge through the doors and demand justice?

Or were they afraid of getting turned down? Again.

Technically, this item should be filed under Apartheid State Update, but while we’re enjoying the “daily humiliation of the ‘Palestinian’ people”, let’s feast on it here:

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Tuesday evening thanked African leaders for helping to thwart the Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN Security Council.

Netanyahu called the leaders of Rwanda and Nigeria, two countries that abstained during the vote after Netanyahu and US Secretary of State John Kerry convinced them to instruct their UN envoys not to support the Palestinian draft resolution.

Netanyahu maintains warm ties with Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan. At the beginning of December, Netanyahu sent Jonathan a personal letter expressing his “heartfelt condolences” over a terror attack at a mosque in the city of Kano in which at least 120 people were killed. Jonathan made a high-profile visit to Israel in late October, coming with an entourage of 20 Nigerian political and religious leaders. He was in Israel on a private Christian pilgrimage.

I have no faith—zero, zilch, nada—in so-called international agencies and fora (least of all the UN) to adjudicate wisely or fairly. If I want something from government, I start with town hall. I do not do to such godforsaken settlements as Brussels or The Hague (or any other hague). But then, their legitimacy is on par with the so-called Palestinians’. Let an invented people seek ephemeral justice from a powerless court. Is Judge Wapner still around?

And if the ICC tells you to take a hike, Arab squatters, there’s always Triple-A. At least they will be there for you.


Time to Make Israel Whole

With john Kerry poking his hairdo into Israeli sovereignty, it’s a good time to revisit why Israel must act now to secure peace.

It’s long past time to incorporate Judea and Samaria into Israel proper.

Everyone says so:

Resolution 242 is best known for its famous withdrawal clause, which did not call on Israel to pull back to the pre-war 1967 lines. While the Soviet Union insisted that the resolution specifically call for “a withdrawal from all the territories occupied” by Israel in the Six-Day War, the U.S. and Britain countered with very different phraseology that was reflected in the final draft, that was eventually adopted by all 15 members of the Security Council. It would only state that there had to be a withdrawal “from territories.”

The U.S. and Britain recognized that the pre-1967 line had only been an armistice line from 1949 and was not a final international border. Indeed, Article 2 of the original 1949 Armistice Agreement between Israel and Jordan clearly stipulated that it did not prejudice the territorial “claims and positions” of the parties since its provisions were “dictated exclusively by military considerations.”

The British, under Prime Minister Harold Wilson, were the main drafters of Resolution 242. Their Ambassador to the U.N. in 1967, Lord Caradon, clarified what the language of the withdrawal clause meant in an interview published in 1976 in the Journal of Palestine Studies: “We could have said, ‘Well, you go back to the 1967 line.’ But I know the 1967 line, and it’s a rotten line. You couldn’t have a worse line for a permanent international boundary. It’s where the troops happened to be on a certain night in 1948. It’s got no relation to the needs of the situation. Had we said that you must go back to the 1967 line, which would have resulted if we had specified a retreat from all the occupied territories, we would have been wrong.”

Any Israeli withdrawal had to be to “secure and recognized borders,” as the resolution stated.

Lord Caradon’s American counterpart, Arthur Goldberg, fully supported this interpretation repeatedly over the years, such as in his 1988 statement: “The resolution stipulates withdrawal from occupied territories without defining the extent of withdrawal.” Goldberg was a legal scholar who served previously on the U.S. Supreme Court, before coming to the U.N.

This is not just “interpretation”, this is hard fact. That’s how it was written, and that’s how it was meant. It’s funny how the “international community” conveniently forgets treaties and accords when they favor Jews. See the Balfour Declaration, and see the League of Nations concordance with the establishment of a Jewish State on ALL the land in dispute (and Jordan too, originally).

But there’s more that Resolution 242 does not say:

There were no land swaps in Resolution 242. Nor was there any corridor crossing Israeli sovereign territory so that the West Bank could be connected to the Gaza Strip (just as there is no land corridor across Canada connecting Alaska to the rest of the U.S.). These diplomatic innovations were thought of by negotiators in the 1990s, but Israel in no way is required to agree to them, according to Resolution 242.

One of the intriguing aspects of Resolution 242 was that it said nothing about Jerusalem. In a letter to The New York Times on March 6, 1980, Arthur Goldberg wrote: “Resolution 242 in no way refers to Jerusalem, and this omission was deliberate.” He explained that he never described Jerusalem as “occupied territory.” Goldberg was reacting to the policy of the Carter administration, which was criticizing Israeli construction practices in east Jerusalem and misrepresenting Israel’s legal rights. Goldberg believed that the status of Jerusalem had to be negotiated, but he insisted that “Jerusalem was not to be divided again.”

There you go. Those are the legal facts on the ground. Israel has tried negotiating in good faith for decades, with only intifadas and Qassam rockets to show for it. They have returned the Sinai and Gaza—more than 90% of all “occupied” territory. Anything less than full Israeli sovereignty, now, over the provinces of Judea and Samaria is a crime—against man’s law and God’s. It was so yesterday, it is today, and will be for however long such a crime persists.


How’s That Arab Spring Working Out, Mr. President?

He took time off his vacation to bloviate today.

Did you hear his remarks? I did. They were condescending and contained the quintessential dog-ate-my-homework pout. Not our fault. Egyptians, you really need to pull it together. Meanwhile, apparently more than 500 people were killed by the military yesterday.

Egyptian authorities on Thursday significantly raised the death toll from clashes the previous day between police and supporters of the ousted Islamist president, saying more than 500 people died and laying bare the extent of the violence that swept much of the country.

Despite the government’s declaration of a nighttime curfew and a state of emergency, violence continued into the next day. Angry men presumed to be supporters of deposed President Mohammed Morsi stormed and torched two buildings housing the provincial government of Giza, the city across the Nile from Cairo.

The death toll, which stood at 525, according to the latest Health Ministry figures, makes Wednesday by far the deadliest day since the 2011 popular uprising that toppled longtime ruler and autocrat Hosni Mubarak – a grim milestone that does not bode well for the future of a nation roiled in turmoil and divisions for the past 2 1/2 years.

I wonder what the O-bots are saying about this? We had dinner with various O-bot friends during the blossoming of the Arab Spring. We expressed skepticism, verging on certitude, that the Arab Spring would become a blood bath, and that we are responsible because we are the most powerful nation on earth and we had a lot to do with forcing Mubarak out. Say what you will about him, life was better for minorities, women, children… let’s just say people.. that it is currently.

NPR was amusing this morning. They quoted someone who blamed John Kerry for making statements that sounded like a green light for the military government. This spokesperson, whoever he was, was pretty sure that the military government misunderstood our brilliant Secretary of State.

Oh well. You get what you vote for. One more prediction: With a nut job Islamic government, Egyptians will starve. Will we support that?

– Aggie


France Is So Much More Sophisticated And Ethical Than The United States…

But they aren’t too into freedom of speech

A T-shirt worn by a 3-year-old nursery-schooler named Jihad has led to an unusual and politically charged criminal trial here that tests the limits of free speech — and common sense — in a France increasingly ill at ease with its growing Muslim population.

“I am a bomb,” the shirt said on the front. The back read, “Jihad Born Sept. 11.”

The prosecution and the defense both have predicted that the outcome is likely to become a legal precedent as the government and justice system handle recurring friction between France’s 8 percent Muslim minority and the majority of the country’s 65 million inhabitants who recognize their roots in an ancient Christian tradition.

The tensions have been increasingly visible as French soldiers combat Islamist guerrillas in Mali, in northwestern Africa, and anti-terrorism police scour the country’s poor suburbs in search of Muslim youths drawn by the call to jihad or revenge.

An Islamist cell broken up in nearby Marignane this month, for instance, was preparing to construct bombs for terrorism attacks in French cities, authorities declared. In another sign of the strain, France’s highest court, the Cour de Cassation, last week overturned a lower-court decision that endorsed the firing of a nursery school teacher who refused to remove the Islamic veil covering her hair. [Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite! – Aggie!]

The case in Sorgues, a small town just north of Avignon, where Pablo Picasso and Georges Braque pursued their cubist art, began Sept. 25 at an unlikely place: the Ramieres de Sorgues municipal nursery. As she dressed the children after a lunch break, a teacher there became alarmed when she saw Jihad’s T-shirt.

Although little Jihad was born on Sept. 11, the teacher saw an outrageous reference to Islamic war and the al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the United States on Sept. 11, 2001, in which nearly 3,000 people were killed. Concerned, she spoke with the principal, who was equally upset and called in Jihad’s 35-year-old Moroccan-born mother, Bouchra Bagour.

Told of the indignation produced by Jihad’s shirt, the single mother, who works as a secretary, apologized for causing trouble and said she had no intention of conveying a political message via her toddler. The shirt, she pledged, would be put away for good.

But the issue did not rest there. The principal wrote a report to school district authorities. A copy of the report landed on the desk of Mayor Thierry Lagneau. The mayor, from the conservative Union for a Popular Movement (UMP) party, said in an interview that he regarded the T-shirt as a “provocation,” and he immediately stepped into action.

“I said to myself, we can’t let that go by,” Lagneau recalled. “I didn’t know what was behind it, but we could not let that go. We have to impose limits.”

Lagneau wrote a letter Sept. 29 to the region’s chief prosecutor, Bernard Marchal, asking for an investigation for possible criminal prosecution as well as a “thorough” investigation by child-welfare authorities to see if Bagour is a fit mother. If Jihad showed up again in the T-shirt, the mayor warned, the principal had orders to turn him away, “given the attitude of his parents, who cannot decently ignore the dramatic impact of their acts.”

So, go to the link for the rest, but the upshot is that France is taking both the mother and her brother to court for something like not hating crime enough. The potential penalties are $58,000 each and five years in the slammer. Yoohoo!! Lefties!! Are you listening? Why aren’t you out on the streets, protesting? Is it too cold outside? Cat got your tongue? Or are you afraid of terrorism and glad that the French government is going overboard, as only Europe can go overboard? Do you think this family will be deported?

– Aggie


Hey, Remember Benghazi?

Clinton supposedly will testify tomorrow

Do you remember Benghazi or shall I dig into the deep, dark past to refresh your memory? The Benghazi terror attack happened on September 11, 2012. The President of the United States, Barack Obama, and the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, blamed a hapless Coptic Christian originally from Egypt, but living in California at the time. He had produced a “trailer” for a “movie” about Mohammed, and the footage was incomprehensible, but derisive, you could tell. So, the government of the United States of America had him arrested in the middle of the night, but in full view of television cameras, and tossed him in jail. He remains in jail.

Meanwhile, it became more and more obvious that the film had nothing to do with the attack, and that it was a September 11th attack. Oh yeah – did I mention that the media failed to cover it at all until September 12th? This is because it wouldn’t have helped President Obama’s reelection chances to point out that we’d suffered another September 11th attack.

Somehow the administration shut up the media and Congress. Hillary Clinton took an extended vacation to Jupiter, and when she returned, she had a headache. So finally, tomorrow, some of our elected representatives will get to ask her a few questions.

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is scheduled to be on Capitol Hill Wednesday, to give long-awaited testimony about State Department security and the attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, Libya.
Clinton, who had to postpone testimony because of health issues, is scheduled to appear before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee at 9 a.m. and the House Foreign Affairs Committee at 2 p.m. Wednesday. She will be the only person giving testimony in the hearing called, “Terrorist Attack in Benghazi: The Secretary of State’s View.”
More than four months have passed since an act of terrorism killed U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans in Libya. Clinton was expected to testify about a report on security failures in Benghazi in December, but first a concussion and then a blood clot near her brain kept the out-going secretary of state away from Capitol Hill.
The report led to the firing of three State Department employees from their posts and one resignation because of ”systemic failures and leadership deficiencies at senior levels in securing the compound.” The departing staff are still on administrative leave, however, meaning they are still State department employees.

As you know by now, the US is a Banana Republic (The Banana Republic of the United States of America) and nothing that she says will matter. But it is kind of nice that she has decided to appear.

– Aggie


What Do You Say, Dear?

A hostile entity sworn to your destruction persists in shelling you with ever more—and ever more powerful—rockets and missiles.

The doctrine of proportionality does not require some sort of a balance between Israel and Hamas dead, or some equivalence between the deeds of Hamas and those of the Israel government.

Rather, in the context of international humanitarian law, there must be proportionality between what the Israel government actually does and what is reasonably required to prevent the firing of Hamas rockets at Israel civilians and soldiers.

Specifically, if the Israel government would be reasonably able to prevent the firing of those Hamas rockets via measures that fall well short of using nuclear weapons to obliterate Gaza, then the Israel government is legally obliged to use those less drastic means that are likely to be kinder to the civilians in Gaza.

However, international law certainly does not require the Israel government to sit back and accept the firing of rockets at Israel civilians and soldiers, just because measures to prevent that firing would likely result in some collateral civilian injury and death in Gaza. And here the reasoning is obvious: The Israel government has to choose between (A) some Israel deaths (civilian and military) resulting from Hamas missiles hitting Israel; and (B) some Hamas deaths (civilian and military) from Israel preventive measures. In this context, the Israel government has to opt for (B) to prevent (A). Any other decision would irrationally privilege the lives of Muslim Arabs in Gaza over those of civilians and soldiers in Israel.

And here the ancient rabbis would probably have agreed, because morally it is better for the wicked to die than for the innocent to perish.

As the legal scholars would say, duh!

But I’m still troubled. If Israel is the victim of these random and immoral attacks, why shouldn’t it employ any method it sees fit to protect its innocent civilians? Because the innocent of Gaza will die?

At least the author calls into question the very idea:

The civilian adult population of Gaza is probably directly or indirectly to some degree morally complicit in the willful aggression of Hamas, which the Muslim Arabs of Gaza clearly supported in the 2006 Palestinian elections, and which they probably continue to back even today. For example, pollsters tell us that Gaza’s adult population specifically endorses the notion that rockets be targeted at Israel civilians, which is a flagrant war crime.

A population elected to power a political party dedicated to the annihilation of a neighboring state. Furthermore, that population has served at the very least as a cover for the attacks (willfully or not), and often as an abetter of them.

And we’re talking about the morals of the victim?

I am aware of no formula that calculates how many innocent victims of terror must die before one “innocent” on the side of terrorism may be put at risk. Given the duration of the conflict so far, given the failures of negotiation and withdrawal, given the eliminationist language of Ham’ass’ founding charter—not least its racism and Jew-vilification distilled from Nazism—why shouldn’t the use of “nuclear weapons to obliterate Gaza” be considered? The USA dropped two on Japan and stopped the war on a dime. The unimaginable destruction and unspeakable horror were different only in degree from what had preceded Fat Man and Little Boy, and from what would have followed. Those two body blows, as horrific as they were to endure and disturbing as they are to recall, put an end to Imperial Japan. With American help, Japan recovered and rebuilt to become the economic powerhouse and peaceful nation it is today. (Even after a decade-plus long slump, Japan has the 3rd largest GDP, after America and China.)

Let me fire the first Qassam in the discussion. The green and pleasant land of Gaza comprises 141 square miles of prime Mediterranean beachfront property. The bomb dropped on Hiroshima destroyed 4.7 square miles of the city. You do the math. If Israel had nuclear weapons, it would need 30 of them to “obliterate” Gaza. But that hardly seems necessary. If mighty Japan fell after two mushroom clouds, surely one glowing shitake would do the trick in Gaza. Especially if it were strategically placed over Ham’ass HQ.

I’m a monster? I should be ashamed of myself for making light of nuclear annihilation?

I didn’t bring it up, some moralist did. I’m just pursuing the argument. And I’ve never bombed anyone (save rigging a paper cup of water above an ajar door). But the issue becomes a little more personal and less theoretical when it’s your kids on the line. The only thing that separates Ham’ass from Adam Lanza, the butcher of Newtown, is aim and proximity. Both fired on schoolchildren, both had the same intent. What would you have done to stop Lanza? What would you forbid Israel to stop Ham’ass?

The floor is yours.

Thank you.

Oh yeah, Happy Holidays!

Comments (1)

Every Challenge an Opportunity

The UN’s laughably-named Human Rights Council wants to examine how Israel’s right to Judea and Samaria might affect the Arabs living there:

The United Nations’ Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed on Friday three officials to conduct a fact-finding mission on how the Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria (Yehuda and Shomron) affect the lives of Palestinian Authority Arabs.

According to a CBS News report the Council president, Uruguay Ambassador Laura Dupuy Lasserre, named three women to the panel: Christine Chanet of France, Unity Dow of Botswana and Asma Jahangir of Pakistan.

Dupuy Lasserre was quoted in the report as having said their mission will be to look at how Israeli communities impact “the civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights of the Palestinian people.”

Isn’t that phrasing prejudicial? Couldn’t the same be asked of Israelis—just add terror to the list?

In March, the 47-nation UNHRC adopted a resolution establishing the “fact-finding mission” as one of five resolutions condemning Israel.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry subsequently decided to sever its ties with the UNHRC, saying the decision stems from a series of unilateral moves that the “Palestinians” are trying to lead against Israel.

On Friday, Israel called the mission “flawed and biased,” accusing the rights body of corruption for again singling out the Jewish state while “systematically ignoring massive human rights violations” elsewhere.

Exactly so. Still, Israel might want to look at this is one of those “teaching moments” we hear so much about:

‘Israelis have a legal right to settle all Judea and Samaria’

Retired Supreme Court Justice Edmond Levy, who heads a committee tasked with examining the legality of Jewish construction in Judea and Samaria, declared on Tuesday that Israelis have a legal right to settle the region.

“According to international law, Israelis have a legal right to settle all of Judea and Samaria, at the very least the lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority,” Levy stated. “Therefore, the establishment of Jewish settlements [in Judea and Samaria] is, in itself, not illegal.”

[T]he basic conclusion is that from an international law perspective, the laws of ‘occupation’ do not apply to the unique historic and legal circumstances surrounding Israel’s decades-long presence in Judea and Samaria.”

“Likewise,” the report said, “the Fourth Geneva Convention [relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War] on the transfer of populations does not apply, and wasn’t intended to apply to communities such as those established by Israel in Judea and Samaria.”

Note the ambiguity: “Israelis have a legal right to settle all of Judea and Samaria, at the very least the lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority.” I’d like to know more about why it’s either “all” or “at the very least”.

Arlene Kushner, at whose blog I first read this story, helpfully notes:

“The lands that Israel controls under agreements with the Palestinian Authority” refers to Area C under Oslo, which is under Israeli civilian and military (security) control. This includes every Jewish community and the Jordan Valley.

I suppose the conclusion is that Israel has already made deals with the “Palestinian” “Authority”, so it is bound by them.


From now on, it must be made very clear to the proponents of the settlement enterprise and to the political echelon that they are to operate only within the confines of the law, and the various law enforcement institutions must decisively enforce the law in the future.”

The committee’s recommendations include the following: The government must clarify its position on the issue of Israeli settlement in Judea and Samaria to prevent varying interpretations of its policy; a new community will only be built after the government or an authorized ministerial committee has approved it; the expansion of a community outside the bounds of its authorized jurisdiction must first be approved by the defense minister or a ministerial committee on settlements, in coordination with the prime minister.

On the other hand, the committee declared that the encouragement provided by the government to the settlement enterprise constituted authorization. According to the committee, communities that were built on land owned by the state, or privately owned Israeli land, with the help of government bodies could not be classified as “unauthorized” due to the absence of an official government decision to authorize them. The very assistance provided by the government in their establishment constitutes implicit authorization.

Under these circumstances, the report concluded, the evacuation of such communities would be impractical and another solution, such as compensation or land swap, should be implemented. Therefore, the committee recommends in its report, the government should avoid issuing demolition orders for these communities because it is the government itself that created this situation in the first place.

What I like especially is that Israel is to make its own determinations about what is lawful and what is not—according to Israeli, not “international”, law. The rest of the world can go pound sand—especially the Arab world which has so much of it.

PS: Note also that no reference is made to any binding historical documents or announcements regarding Israeli legal authority. Not the Balfour Declaration, not the British Mandate of 1922, not even UN Resolution 242, which called only for return of lands (i.e. Sinai, Gaza, negotiated plots of Judea and Samaria), and a cessation of belligerency. (Who’s kept their end of that bargain?)

I just thought I’d bring them up (again).


So Much For Sanctions On Iran

Obama’s loopholes gut sanctions

n Istanbul Tuesday, U.S. and Iranian nuclear negotiators meet for the fourth time in four months, with the classic diplomatic assignment of talking about whether to hold future talks. They’ll likely agree to do so, but the real news happened under the radar last week: Though economic sanctions still haven’t slowed or stopped Iran’s nuclear drive, the Obama Administration has decided to make them even weaker. The Iran sanctions regime is looking like the U.S. tax code—filled with loopholes.

It’s so weak, in fact, that all 20 of Iran’s major trading partners are now exempt from them. We’ve arrived at a kind of voodoo version of sanctions. They look real, insofar as Congress forced them into a bill President Obama had to sign in December. The Administration has spoken incantations about their powers. But if you’re a big oil importer in China, India or 18 other major economies, the sanctions are mostly smoke.

Now, when Iran gets the bomb and uses it on us or one of our allies, I don’t want to hear one word from a leftist along the lines of “We didn’t know…” You knew, and you know. You are enabling this and when it happens, you own it.

– Aggie

Comments (2)

The 2nd Worst President In The Modern Era Attacks The Worst President We’ve Known In Our Lifetimes


Former president Jimmy Carter has blasted the United States for anti-terror strategies such as targeting individuals for assassination and using unmanned drones to bomb suspected targets, saying they directly flout the basic tenets of universal human rights and foment anti-US sentiment.

In an article written for the New York Times headlined “A Cruel and Unusual Record”, Mr Carter, who won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his work trying to resolve conflicts around the globe, suggested that the US is in violation of 10 of the 30 articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is a rare attack by a former commander-in-chief on a sitting President – especially of the same party.

While Mr Carter does not name President Obama, there is little disguising that he is the principle target of his stinging words. Recent weeks have seen a slew of media reports detailing how Mr Obama has grown increasingly dependent on drones to take out suspected terror cells and describing how he has the final word to approve names on a “hit-list” of most-wanted terror suspects overseas for assassination. “Revelations that top officials are targeting people to be assassinated, including American citizens, are only the most recent, disturbing proof of how far our nation’s violation of human rights has extended,” Mr Carter wrote, concluding that the US is “abandoning its role as the global champion of human rights”.

In the past, Mr Carter, 87, has meted out similar criticisms, most notably George W Bush. This latest assault is embarrassing for Mr Obama as it will serve as a reminder that he specifically pledged to adjust America’s posture in the war on terror. …

It is poignant, moreover, that both men are Peace Prize winners. Critics believe Mr Obama has proved himself unworthy of the honour which he received soon after taking office. His supporters believe however that he has pre-empted criticism of his foreign policy performance. Under his watch, Osama bin Laden has been killed and much of the top echelons of al-Qa’ida have been gutted.

So, Obama’s supporters are anti-terrorism hawks? Really? Also, the Nobel Peace Prize isn’t worth the paper it is printed on. It is given to terrorist thugs (Yasser Arafat), naive appeasers (Jimmah) and primping, idiotic, hip politicians, such as the Justin Bieber of the Democrat Party (Barack Obama).

– Aggie

Comments (2)

In Your FACE!!!

Oh man, this is going to leave a mark!

The Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court in The Hague announced Tuesday that he rejected a complaint filed by the PA against Israel for alleged war crimes during “Operation Cast Lead” in Gaza in 2009.

The prosecutor explained that only states can file a complaint with the International Criminal Court. “The Palestinian Authority is only an observer at the United Nations and not a member state.

Allow me to translate: get away from me, kid, you bother me.

Israel tries not to gloat—and fails:

The Foreign Ministry responded to the decision, “Israel notes the decision of the Prosecutor International Criminal Court, that it does not have jurisdiction to hear complaints from the PA at this time.”

“Israel made it clear from the beginning that the ICC had no jurisdiction to hear such complaints and welcomes the prosecutor’s decision to that effect,” it added.

Israel is rightly suspicious of the ICC. Name me another international body that does not routinely and ritually demonize the Jewish state. I’ll go take a shower, walk the dog, and derive the last decimal of pi while I wait.

But for now, take a seat at the kids’ table, PA, and don’t speak unless spoken to.


Wanted: Dead

The expression “the law is an ass” stops one syllable short if you ask me:

The Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI) warned Tuesday that should the Palestinian Authority’s statehood bid in the United Nations prove successful, West Bank settlers may find themselves facing criminal charges before the International Crimes Court.

An ACRI position paper on the possible legal ramifications of the PA’s UN bid suggests that a General Assembly sanction of the Palestinian appeal with effectively subject West Bank settlements, and therefore settlers, to international criminal law and penal code.

As such, settlers would be exposed to individual criminal lawsuits in The Hague.

That isn’t law; it’s an inquisition.

After ’67, Israel found itself in possession of Sinai, Gaza, and Judea and Samaria*. I don’t give any weight to UN Resolutions, but for those who do, UN Res. 242 says Israel will return territories seized after the Arab perfidy and humiliation of ’67. Doesn’t say all—a deliberate omission—borders were to be negotiated. After returning Sinai and rendering Gaza Jew-free, came the harder part: negotiating with intractable, genocidal enemies over such “settlements” as Jericho, Bethlehem, Hebron, etc. (No Jewish history there!)

Skipping the rest of the nonsense of the last 45 years, the Arabs of Judea and Samaria* now threaten to abandon diplomacy for declarations. And the result of that repudiation of civilization and international law is that another part of this earth will be rendered judenrein.

[Beep] that. That’s not law; that’s not even an inquisition; that’s another Final Solution.

No, that’s not too strong. The first Final Solution (not so final, was it, fascists and other Jew-haters?) was also founded in “laws” about where Jews may and may not live, and even held that their very existence a criminal act. I do not acknowledge such law, much less respect it. The Devil can cite case law for his purpose.

If the ICC wants to join the lynch mob, that’s on them. International law is an ass, and international lawyers are a**holes.

*”West Bank”? “Palestinians”? Poppycock. Those are modern inventions. The Palestinians are Arabs who live in Judea and Samaria (and Jordan), and most of Judea and Samaria lies miles from either bank of the Jordan River. Stop corrupting my language.


« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »