In every argument about Israel, you will hear how Israel is defying X number of UN resolutions, and that Israel is defying international law by continuing to build the separation barrier. It is a mainstay of the anti-Israel crowd that Israel is a rogue state that refuses to get along in the family of nations. And of course, there are many toothless UN resolutions calling on Israel to follow other toothless resolutions. Israel, you see, is supposed to abide by international law, even when there is no Israeli agreement binding the state to the law, and even though the ICC ruling against the fence states that it is an advisory ruling. But Israel must obey international law. So says all of her critics.
And then you have the rest of the world.
“No ICC or Security Council or any other party will change our path or touch an eyelash in our eye,” al-Bashir shouted. “The president of Sudan is not elected by Britain or America. Sudan is an independent country.”
Sudan has been openly defiant of the ICC ruling. Iran supports Sudan. The Arab League rejects the arrest warrant for al-Bashir.
The Arab League rejected an international arrest warrant for Sudan’s president on charges of war crimes in Darfur, and its leader said Qatar had done the same. That clears the way for the beleaguered Sudanese leader to attend an Arab summit there later this month.
“The court asked Qatar and the Arab League at the same time, but our legal position on the matter does not allow what the International Criminal Court is requesting,” Arab League head Amr Moussa said Monday during a visit to Syria.
And you have the head of the UN General Assembly calling the ICC racist:
The indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Beshir on Darfur war crimes charges deepens the perception that international justice is ‘racist,” the president of the UN General Assembly said Tuesday.
[…] “It helps to deepen the perception that international justice is racist because this is the third time that you have something from the ICC and for the third time it has to do with Africa,” he noted.
The other two warrants are as follows:
The ICC has also targeted Democratic Republic of Congo militia leader Thomas Lubanga, who was issued an arrest warrant for alleged war crimes involving the use of child soldiers during DRC’s five-year civil war tHat ended in 2003.
And it has an outstanding arrest warrant against the shadowy chief of Uganda’s rebel Lord’s Resistance Army, Joseph Kony, accused of rape, mutilation and murder as well as of forcible recruitment of civilians and child soldiers.
Apparently, the head of the UN General Assembly isn’t interested in justice for African civilians. What concerns him the most? Take a guess.
Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, a Roman Catholic priest from Nicaragua with openly leftist views, also reiterated that the more he thinks about the conditions that Israel imposes on the Palestinians, the more he tends “to think about apartheid.”
Yes, the condition of the Palestinian is far more important than the millions killed in Africa. We can actually tell that by the number of UN resolutions regarding each issue. There are almost none for the latter, and dozens for the former.
The attitude of al-Bashir and his supporters is not surprising. International law doesn’t really apply to any nation—except for Israel.
That’s why we invoke Israeli Double Standard Time on issues like these. But don’t worry. It only occurs on days that end with a “y.”
I wonder if the barn door is already closed or we should still try to resist the term “apartheid” for Israel’s policy regarding the Palestinians. Whatever that policy is, it isn’t apartheid.
If Israel imposed movement restrictions on Israeli Arabs, that might be apartheid. But imposing them on a population that is not Israeli and doesn’t want to be Israeli is not apartheid.
On the other hand, gosh, someone is lying about Israel. Stop the presses.
Rear Admiral Daniel Gallery, who wrote some amusing stories about life in the Navy, used to say, only half tongue-in-cheek: The First Rule of International Law is, Might makes right. This rule, he noted, is very strictly enforced.
So basically if International Law applies only to Israel and the USA,then it does not really exist. For example, just about everything the Palestinians do violates International Law, especially the laws of war. Why should it then apply to Israel?
People ought to think about this a bit more rationally. The Muslims’ preferred method of making war is terrorism, that preferential, indiscriminate, and deliberate attack on civilians by ununiformed, clandestine “fighters” in order to terrorize governments and peoples into doing what the jihadists want. They massacre civilians because, poor dears, everytime they try fighting Israel by conventional means they get their asses whipped. So they have fallen back on terrorism, which has now spread from attacks on Israel and Jews to attacks on Hindus and India to attacks on just about everybody everywhere, in true Niebuhrian fashion. The Muslims should stop and think, and realize that if Israel and the USA and India wanted to do like they do, and attack civilians in order to terrorize them into doing what we want them to do, we could outdo their killings by orders of magnitude. They should not assume that we will never do this. They have started this progression, they will not like what happens when others follow their lead.
On 9/11 an Indian working in the US as a consultant told a friend of mine that the time was coming soon when Kali would begin to march west. The Muslims had better recover from their cranial rectal impaction PDQ, and prevent that from happening by stomping out the jihadists soonest. Do it now Muhammed, before Kali comes for you.