No Weapon Left Behind: The American Hybrid War on China

Pepe Escobar February 21, 2020

The New Silk Roads – or Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) – were launched by President Xi Jinping in 2013, first in Central Asia (Nur-Sultan) and then Southeast Asia (Jakarta).

One year later, the Chinese economy overtook the U.S. on a PPP basis. Inexorably, year after year since the start of the millennium, the U.S. share of the global economy shrinks while China’s increases.

China is already the key hub of the global economy and the leading trade partner of nearly 130 nations.

While the U.S. economy is hollowed out, and the casino financing of the U.S. government – repo markets and all – reads as a dystopian nightmare, the civilization-state steps ahead in myriad areas of technological research, not least because of Made in China 2025.

China largely beats the U.S. on patent filings and produces at least 8 times as many STEM graduates a year than the U.S., earning the status of top contributor to global science.

A vast array of nations across the Global South signed on to be part of BRI, which is planned for completion in 2049. Last year alone, Chinese companies signed contracts worth up to $128 billion in large-scale infrastructure projects in dozen of nations.

The only economic competitor to the U.S. is busy reconnecting most of the world to a 21st century, fully networked version of a trade system that was at its peak for over a millennia: the Eurasian Silk Roads.

Inevitably this state of things is something interlocking sectors of the U.S. ruling class simply would not accept.

Branding BRI as a “pandemic”

As the usual suspects fret over the “stability” of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the Xi Jinping administration, the fact is the Beijing leadership has had to deal with an accumulation of extremely severe issues: a swine-flu epidemic killing half the stock; the Trump-concocted trade war; Huawei accused of racketeering and about to be prevented from buying U.S. made chips; bird flu; coronavirus virtually shutting down half of China.

Add to it the incessant United States government Hybrid War propaganda barrage, trespassed by acute Sinophobia; everyone from sociopathic “officials” to self-titled councilors are either advising corporate businesses to divert global supply chains out of China or concocting outright calls for regime change – with every possible demonization in between.

There are no holds barred in the all-out offensive to kick the Chinese government while it’s down.

A Pentagon cipher at the Munich Security Conference once again declares China as the greatest threat, economically and militarily, to the U.S. – and by extension the West, forcing a wobbly EU already subordinated to NATO to be subservient to Washington on this remixed Cold War 2.0.

The whole U.S. corporate media complex repeats to exhaustion that Beijing is “lying” and losing control. Descending to sub-gutter, racist levels, hacks even accuse BRI itself of being a pandemic, with China “impossible to quarantine”.

All that is quite rich, to say the least, oozing from lavishly rewarded slaves of an unscrupulous, monopolistic, extractive, destructive, depraved, lawless oligarchy which uses debt offensively to boost their unlimited wealth and power while the lowly U.S. and global masses use debt defensively to barely survive. As Thomas Piketty has conclusively shown, inequality always relies on ideology.

We’re deep into a vicious intel war. From the point of view of Chinese intelligence, the current toxic cocktail simply cannot be attributed to just a random series of coincidences. Beijing has serial motives to piece this extraordinary chain of events as part of a coordinated Hybrid War, Full Spectrum Dominance attack on China.

Enter the Dragon Killer working hypothesis: a bio-weapon attack capable of causing immense economic damage but protected by plausible deniability. The only possible move by the “indispensable nation” on the New Great Game chessboard, considering that the U.S. cannot win a conventional war on China, and cannot win a nuclear war on China.

A biological warfare weapon?

On the surface, coronavirus is a dream bio-weapon for those fixated on wreaking havoc across China and praying for regime change.

Yet it’s complicated. This report is a decent effort trying to track the origins of coronavirus. Now compare it with the insights by Dr. Francis Boyle, international law professor at the University of Illinois and author, among others, of Biowarfare and Terrorism. He’s the man who drafted the U.S. Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 signed into law by George H. W. Bush.

Dr. Boyle is convinced coronavirus is an

“offensive biological warfare weapon” that leaped out of the Wuhan BSL-4 laboratory, although he’s “not saying it was done deliberately.”

Dr. Boyle adds, “all these BSL-4 labs by United States, Europe, Russia, China, Israel are all there to research, develop, test biological warfare agents. There’s really no legitimate scientific reason to have BSL-4 labs.” His own research led to a whopping $100 billion, by 2015, spent by the United States government on bio-warfare research: “We have well over 13,000 alleged life science scientists… testing biological weapons here in the United States. Actually this goes back and it even precedes 9/11.”

Dr. Boyle directly accuses “the Chinese government under Xi and his comrades” of a cover up “from the get-go. The first reported case was December 1, so they’d been sitting on this until they couldn’t anymore. And everything they’re telling you is a lie. It’s propaganda.”

The World Health Organization (WHO), for Dr. Boyle, is also on it: “They’ve approved many of these BSL-4 labs (…) Can’t trust anything the WHO says because they’re all bought and paid for by Big Pharma and they work in cahoots with the CDC, which is the United States government, they work in cahoots with Fort Detrick.” Fort Detrick, now a cutting-edge bio-warfare lab, previously was a notorious CIA den of mind control “experiments”.

Relying on decades of research in bio-warfare, the U.S. Deep State is totally familiar with all bio-weapon overtones. From Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki to Korea, Vietnam and Fallujah, the historical record shows the United States government does not blink when it comes to unleashing weapons of mass destruction on innocent civilians.

For its part, the Pentagon’s Defense Advanced Research Project Agency (DARPA) has spent a fortune researching bats, coronaviruses and gene-editing bio-weapons. Now, conveniently – as if this was a form of divine intervention – DARPA’s “strategic allies” have been chosen to develop a genetic vaccine.

The 1996 neocon Bible, the Project for a New American Century (PNAC), unambiguously stated, “advanced forms of biological warfare that can “target” specific genotypes may transform biological warfare from the realm of terror to a politically useful tool.”

There’s no question coronavirus, so far, has been a Heaven-sent politically useful tool, reaching, with minimum investment, the desired targets of maximized U.S. global power – even if fleetingly, enhanced by a non-stop propaganda offensive – and China relatively isolated with its economy semi paralyzed.

Yet perspective is in order. The CDC estimated that up to 42.9 million people got sick during the 2018-2019 flu season in the U.S. No less than 647,000 people were hospitalized. And 61,200 died.

This report details the Chinese “people’s war” against coronavirus.

It’s up to Chinese virologists to decode its arguably synthetic origin. How China reacts, depending on the findings, will have earth-shattering consequences – literally.

Setting the stage for the Raging Twenties

After managing to reroute trade supply chains across Eurasia to its own advantage and hollow out the Heartland, American – and subordinated Western – elites are now staring into a void. And the void is staring back. A “West” ruled by the U.S. is now faced with irrelevance. BRI is in the process of reversing at least two centuries of Western dominance.

There’s no way the West and especially the “system leader” U.S. will allow it. It all started with dirty ops stirring trouble across the periphery of Eurasia – from Ukraine to Syria to Myanmar.

Now it’s when the going really gets tough. The targeted assassination of Maj. Gen. Soleimani plus coronavirus – the Wuhan flu – have really set up the stage for the Raging Twenties. The designation of choice should actually be WARS – Wuhan Acute Respiratory Syndrome. That would instantly give the game away as a War against Humanity – irrespective of where it came from.The views of individual contributors do not necessarily represent those of the Strategic Culture Foundation.

Palestine: Legally Overriding a UN Security Council Veto. In Response to Trump’s Annexation Scheme

By Stephen Lendman

Global Research, February 03, 2020

In response to the Trump regime’s annexation scheme of the century, Palestinians have binding recourse — in the General Assembly, not the Security Council.

US veto power prevents adoption of a SC resolution that upholds their rights under international law.

By invoking General Assembly Uniting for Peace Resolution 377 (1950), SC actions can be overridden by a two-thirds majority vote of UN member states.

This step if taken and adopted by the GA cannot be overturned by SC veto.

GA Res. 377 can be invoked immediately by a UN member state at times when SC members fail to act as required to maintain international peace and security.

The State of Palestine exists — on the one hand as a PLO-represented observer state.

More importantly, the PLO  adopted the Palestinian Declaration of Independence on November 15, 1988 — drafted by Law Professor Francis Boyle, its legal advisor at the time.

He explained that Palestinian statehood is “determinative, definitive, and irreversible,” adding:

Palestine satisfies all essential criteria for sovereign independence and full de jure UN membership.

All UN Charter states (including America and Israel) provisionally recognized Palestinian independence in accordance with UN Charter article 80(1) and League Covenant article 22(4).

As the League’s successor, the General Assembly has exclusive legal authority to designate the PLO Palestine’s legitimate representative.

The Palestine National Council (PNC) is the PLO’s legislative body. It’s empowered to proclaim the existence of Palestine.

According to the binding 1925 Palestine Citizenship Order in Council, Palestinians, their children and grandchildren automatically become citizens.

So do diaspora Palestinians.

Those living in Israel, Jordan, and elsewhere have dual nationalities.

Occupied Territory residents remain “protected persons” (under Fourth Geneva) until a final peace settlement is reached.Obama Rejects Palestinian Statehood

According to the following characteristics, Palestine qualifies for world community recognition as a de jure UN member state — with all rights and privileges of other world body members:

It’s territory is determinable even though not necessarily fixed, its borders negotiable, the state comprised of the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza — where Palestinians have lived for thousands of years, deserving legal recognition of sovereignty over their homeland.

Palestine has a fixed population and functioning government. It supports peace, stability, and cooperative relations with other nations.

It accepts UN Charter provisions and can administer them on their own, along with the ability to establish diplomatic relations with other states.

Palestine fully qualifies for world recognition as a UN member state. If gotten, it can render Trump’s no-peace/peace scheme stillborn.

The General Assembly has sole UN member state admission authority, not the SC.

By invoking GA Res. 377, Palestinians can petition the General Assembly for de jure recognition as a UN member state.

Yet Israeli installed Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas never took this step and is highly unlikely to go this route ahead — why new leadership is essential to pursue fundamental rights Palestinians have been long denied.

Francis Boyle earlier predicted that Palestine “would eventually achieve de jure diplomatic recognition from about 130 states” if its leadership formally seeks it.

He prepared the roadmap for its recognition as a UN member state — by “invok(ing) the UN General Assembly’s Uniting for Peace Resolution…to overcome US vetoes at the Security Council.”

Never taken before, now is the time to go this route in the wake of Trump’s annexation scheme.

Separately I said united under new leadership there’s hope for Palestinians. Divided under traitors in Ramallah serving Israeli interests as its enforcer there’s none.

On Friday, Trump regime UN envoy Kelly Craft warned Palestinians against pursuing their case in the Security Council.

Its UN envoy Riyad Mansour said he’d seek SC support for a draft resolution that counters Trump’s scheme by upholding Palestinian right — a dead-on-arrival initiative.

If followed by invoking GA Res 377, General Assembly UN member states can override the SC veto as explained above.

Mansour said no “Palestinian official will meet with American officials now after they submitted an earthquake, the essence of it the destruction of the national aspirations of the Palestinian people.”

Israel’s UN mission said it’s working to thwart (Palestinian) efforts, and will lead a concerted diplomatic campaign with the US.”

Palestinians have a choice. Invoke GA Res. 377, seeking a two-thirds UN member state majority for their rights or face continued subjugation under Israel’s repressive boot — fully supported by the US and West.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.The original source of this article is Global ResearchCopyright © Stephen Lendman, Global Research, 2020

“Towards a World War III Scenario” by Michel Chossudovsky

Bestselling book from Global Research

Global Research, April 14, 2017

“In a world where engineered, pre-emptive, or more fashionably “humanitarian” wars of aggression have become the norm, this challenging book may be our final wake-up call.” –Denis Halliday, Former Assistant Secretary General of the United Nations

Following the highly acclaimed 2012 release of the latest book by Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War“, this title is now available for purchase through the Amazon Kindle program! Now you can take this bestselling title wherever you go and access it through your portable reader.

This highly reviewed title is available to purchase through the Global Research Online Store:

Click to visit Online Store

Ordering from Canada or the US? Save on bulk orders of “Towards a World War III Scenario”:

3 copies for $25.00

10 copies for $65.00

90 copies for $540.00

Combined offer: 2 books for 1 price!

Save on shipping costs and purchase a PDF copy of this title for only $6.50!

Click to purchase PDF  directly from Global Research

Kindle listing of Amazon: “Towards a World War III Scenario

The US has embarked on a military adventure, “a long war”, which threatens the future of humanity. US-NATO weapons of mass destruction are portrayed as instruments of peace. Mini-nukes are said to be “harmless to the surrounding civilian population”. Pre-emptive nuclear war is portrayed as a “humanitarian undertaking”.

While one can conceptualize the loss of life and destruction resulting from present-day wars including Iraq and Afghanistan, it is impossible to fully comprehend the devastation which might result from a Third World War, using “new technologies” and advanced weapons, until it occurs and becomes a reality. The international community has endorsed nuclear war in the name of world peace. “Making the world safer” is the justification for launching a military operation which could potentially result in a nuclear holocaust.

Nuclear war has become a multibillion dollar undertaking, which fills the pockets of US defense contractors. What is at stake is the outright “privatization of nuclear war”.

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The military deployment of US-NATO forces is occurring in several regions of the world simultaneously.

Central to an understanding of war, is the media campaign which grants it legitimacy in the eyes of public opinion. A good versus evil dichotomy prevails. The perpetrators of war are presented as the victims. Public opinion is misled.

Breaking the “big lie”, which upholds war as a humanitarian undertaking, means breaking a criminal project of global destruction, in which the quest for profit is the overriding force. This profit-driven military agenda destroys human values and transforms people into unconscious zombies.

The object of this book is to forcefully reverse the tide of war, challenge the war criminals in high office and the powerful corporate lobby groups which support them.

Editorial Reviews

Professor Chossudovsky’s hard-hitting and compelling book explains why and how we must immediately undertake a concerted and committed campaign to head off this impending cataclysmic demise of the human race and planet Earth. This book is required reading for everyone in the peace movement around the world.
–Francis A. Boyle, Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law

This book is a ‘must’ resource – a richly documented and systematic diagnosis of the supremely pathological geo-strategic planning of U.S. wars since 9-11 against non-nuclear countries to seize their oil fields and resources under cover of “freedom and democracy”.
–John McMurtry, Professor of Philosophy, Guelph University

WWIII Scenario

About the Author

Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, Editor of Global Research. He is the author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and The New World Order (2003), America’s “War on Terrorism” (2005), The Global Economic Crisis, The Great Depression of the Twenty-first Century (2009) (Editor), Towards a World War III Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War (2011), The Globalization of War, America’s Long War against Humanity (2015). He is a contributor to the Encyclopaedia Britannica.  His writings have been published in more than twenty languages. In 2014, he was awarded the Gold Medal for Merit of the Republic of Serbia for his writings on NATO’s war of aggression against Yugoslavia.

Hillary Clinton Is A Psychopath And A War Criminal

By Prof. Francis Boyle

MN: Joining us today on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series is international lawyer and professor of international law at The University of Illinois Dr. Francis Boyle. Boyle has served as legal counsel to the Palestinian Authority, to Hawaiian independence groups, and served on the legal team which led to the conviction of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney for war crimes. Professor Boyle, welcome to our program today.

March 02, 2016 “Information Clearing House” – FB: Well, thank you very much for having me on, and my best to all my friends in Greece. Great country, great people. I spent about two weeks traveling around in 1974, and another two weeks traveling around in 1982.

MN: Wonderful…well, let’s get started by talking about the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission and the case which led to the conviction of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Alberto Gonzalez and others in absentia for war crimes. Tell us about this commission, and about this case that you were a part of, and its aftermath.

FB: Well, there were two different proceedings. The first one was against Bush and Tony Blair, for their war of aggression and Nuremburg crime against peace against Iraq. I was part of the team that helped get a unanimous conviction there. And then, the second proceeding was against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Gonzalez, and several others, for torture and war crimes. Again, I was part of the team that helped get a unanimous conviction, both for torture and for war crimes. Those materials have been filed with the International Criminal Court, and I’m doing the best I can to follow up on my own, tracking these people and staying in touch with all the lawyers to see if we could get them apprehended.

Now, Bush was about to go to Switzerland, and a Swiss parliamentarian aware of my work demanded that the Swiss prosecutor-general apprehend and prosecute Bush for torture and war crimes, under the domestic implementation of legislation for the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. So when word got back to Bush, he didn’t go to Switzerland. So that’s the way I’m proceeding, and other international human rights experts—I’m not the only one out there, I know the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York is involved, I believe Amnesty International is involved, and there’s some other human rights lawyers I stay in contact with around the world—we’ll keep after these people the best we can.

MN: Now, let’s look more closely at the role of United States foreign policy, its military, and the role of NATO in the world today…almost eight years ago, President Obama came to office promising to shut down Guantanamo Bay, promising to right the wrongs of the Bush administration, but instead, we’ve seen Guantanamo remain open, we’ve seen U.S. military involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan and the Middle East continue and, in fact, intensify, and we’ve seen the growth of military operations using unmanned drones, in Yemen and elsewhere. How does international law view the actions of the Obama administration and the United States today?

FB: Well, actually I wrote a book that comprehensively covered all the violations of international law, human rights, the laws of war, and United States constitutional law by the Bush Jr. administration, called “Tackling America’s Toughest Questions,” and in the conclusion—I wrote the conclusion three weeks after Obama was inaugurated—I said it looked like we very well might be getting a third Bush term, and that’s what we’ve got here, two more Bush terms under Obama. He’s pretty much continued the Bush policies, both abroad and here at home, compounding and continuing the Bush police state here in the United States. At some point I guess I’ll get around to writing a book on the Obama administration’s violations of international law, but in the meantime you can read my book on the Bush violations, “Tacking America’s Toughest Questions,” and he’s basically continued the same policies.

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… Years ago, you had written about the plans of the United States, the European Union and NATO for the Ukraine and indeed for the world, with a stated goal of destroying specific states and listing seven countries that were slated to be taken over. What were those plans and have they come into fruition?

FB: Yes they have. In my book, “The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence,” I have in there a statement by deputy secretary of defense Wolfowitz, made right after 9/11/2001, that the United States government was going to get into the business of destroying states, and I analyze that sentence. It’s genocidal. And then soon thereafter, NATO general Wesley Clark was in the Pentagon and he was told they had a list of seven Muslim states that they were going to destroy. Basically, they’ve all been taken out now except for Iran. They’ve destroyed Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Somalia, Yemen, Lebanon has been pretty much paralyzed, and they lopped out South Sudan from Sudan. So that process continues, and now they’re moving towards the Ukraine and China. They’re moving towards Russia from the Ukraine, and also China. They’re moving directly to confront China.

MN: Is there, in your view, any political candidate, any political force in the United States at the present time that can put an end to this foreign policy and to the U.S. military machine overseas? For instance, there’s many progressives who have placed their hope in Bernie Sanders as the man to do this. Is this hope misguided, in your view?

FB: Well I’m not going to criticize Senator Sanders here, I’ve dealt with him personally, but everyone had the same hope about Obama during his campaign. Now, Obama was behind me at Harvard Law School, and he moved to the Hyde Park area in Chicago with the University of Chicago, where I was an undergraduate, so I had my own sources out there in Chicago, and they told me not to trust Obama, so I never have. And indeed, I didn’t vote for him two times in a row and I was not deluded by Obama, which is why I said, three weeks into his administration, in my book, “Tackling America’s Toughest Question,” it looked to me like we were going to get a third Bush term. You know, hope springs eternal. Maybe Bernie Sanders will actually do something, I don’t know.

Hillary Clinton is a psychopath and a war criminal, [who said] “we came, we saw, he died,” mimicking Julius Ceasar and laughing hysterically after Colonel Kaddafi, my former client, was sodomized with a knife and beaten to death. She’s a certified psychopath and war criminal. As for the Republicans, none of them look very good at all, between you and me, so I guess maybe Senator Sanders might make a difference. The last time around I did support Jill Stein of the Green Party, I thought she was the best candidate and had the best platform, but unfortunately the Greens, with all due respect to them, didn’t really get themselves organized and accomplish everything. So there we are here in America, what can I say?

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… The ongoing and worsening conflict in Syria and all across the Middle East has led to a tremendous wave of refugees fleeing their homelands and traveling, under treacherous conditions, to Europe, with Greece often serving as the European entry point for these refugees. What do you make of the European Union’s stance towards the refugee crisis and the stance of the international community, and what does international law foresee in such circumstances?

FB: All these refugees are fleeing because the United States government has been destroying their states, as we’ve already discussed. Syria, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, and Libya accounts for most of them, so that’s why they are fleeing, the outright terror of the aggression, war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity that the United States government is inflicting upon them. With respect to Europe, everyone there in Europe, all the states are parties to the U.N. refugees convention that’s the international law. Unfortunately it appears that they’re going to be making Greece the scapegoat for all of this and confining all of these refugees in Greece, if you’re reading the plans here, which is completely unfair. I don’t know exactly how to advise Greece as to how to deal with the situation. The refugee convention is there, but you’re being made the scapegoat for American policies here, and Europe is going along with it.

MN: You have written and spoken extensively about growing Israeli belligerence in the Middle East and about the Palestinian right of return. How does international law view Israeli actions in the region, such as the continued construction of settlements, and how can the Palestinian people defend their homeland and their sovereignty, from a legal point of view?

FB: Well I’ve written three books, including “Palestine: Palestinians and International Law: Breaking All The Rules,” and “The Palestinian Right of Return Under International Law,” so I’m not going to go through all that, but basically what we have here is outright genocide being perpetrated by Israel against the Palestinians, with the full support of the United States government. And that is what confronts us today as citizens of the world community. Israel wants all of Palestine and they don’t want any Palestinians there, so it’s going to get worse. I gave the best advice I can to the Palestinian leadership, I’ve worked with them to get them up to the point where they are now a United Nations observer state, I have devised a means whereby they can overcome Obama’s threatened veto of their membership, full-fledged state membership in the United Nations, and I have also offered to sue Israel at the International Court of Justice in The Hague, the world court, for inflicting genocide against them and trying to stop the settlements, the genocidal siege of Gaza. So, the Palestinian leadership has my recommendations and offer to help. In the meantime, I’m doing everything I can…I was the one who set off the Israeli divestment, disinvestment campaign of November of 2000, and then in 2005, the Palestinian civil society contacted me and asked me if I would go in with them on a BDS campaign, which I agreed to do. So the BDS campaign has taken off now all over the world, and I would encourage your listeners to work with the Palestinian BDS campaign for sure. It’s having an impact.

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… Having mentioned Israel and the Middle East, this past summer, the Greek government signed an agreement with the armed forces of Israel, a so-called “status of forces” accord, which Israel has apparently signed with only one other country in the world, the United States. What does this accord mean and what do you make of the Greek government’s efforts to forge closer ties with Israel

FB: Well, I haven’t read this document, so I don’t think I should comment on a document I haven’t read. But, it is very unfortunate to see Greece move towards working hand-and-glove with Israel, when you did have a previous history there of supporting the Palestinians, and I think the Greek people need to make it clear to the current SYRIZA government that you’re not going to accept this at all, and you want the Greek government to go back and support the Palestinians.

MN: You used to be a member of the board of Amnesty International USA, back in the late 80s and early 1990s. However, you have since turned into a fierce critic of NGOs such as Amnesty International. Describe for us the relationship that exists between such NGOs and power structures in Washington and elsewhere.

FB: Yes. These western NGOs, and you probably have some of them in Greece, all operate on the basic principle: he who pays the piper calls the tune. There’s nothing objective, neutral, or dispassionate about any of them, including and especially Human Rights Watch, the Red Cross, I could go down an entire list of these NGOs. So they’re really not there to help you and the people of Greece. You might have your own internal Greek NGOs that get money from Greek sources, but that’s a different matter. You have to be very careful with these NGOs. For example, this summer Amnesty International adopted a resolution to the effect that it was going to promote the sex industry and sex trade on a worldwide basis, which I did my best to stop. I read the documents in support of this, and it all went back to George Soros documentation. So it seems that Soros must have made a very big contribution to Amnesty International to get this reprehensible policy rammed through their headquarters in London, and then Amnesty worldwide. I take it that Soros must have some type of investments in the sex industry—you know, he’s a hedge fund manager—and you know, Soros gave $100 million to Human Rights Watch, so you can figure it out from there. It’s true of all of these western NGOs.

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… Your outspoken criticism of U.S. foreign policy, against Israel, also issues such as being in favor of independence for Hawaii and for many other issues has put you on the radar of the FBI and other intelligence agencies. Describe for us an encounter you had with the FBI about a decade ago.

FB: One day, two agents of the FBI and the CIA showed up at my office, misrepresented to my secretary who they were, what they were about. I let them in to my office. They proceeded to interrogate me for one hour and tried to get me to become an informant against my Muslim clients, which I refused to do, repeatedly refused. So they went out then and put me on all the United States government’s terrorist watch lists. According to my lawyer, there’s six or seven of them and as far as he can figure out, I was put on all of them. You know, what can I say? My lawyer did appeal, but he was told I would remain on all of these watch lists until the FBI and CIA take me off, which course is not going to happen in my lifetime. He did make it possible for me to travel, but there we are.

MN: Now let’s turn to Greece one more time…over the past six years, successive Greek governments, including the supposedly leftist SYRIZA government, have signed a series of memorandum agreements which have not only imposed harsh economic austerity, which have not only resulted in the privatization and sell-off of key public assets, but which have also essentially signed away, at least on paper, Greece’s sovereignty. The EU and the troika have final approval rights over key legislation that is brought before the Greek parliament, while the memorandum agreements have been placed under the legal authority of the United Kingdom and Luxembourg. Are such agreements valid under international law, and what could Greece do to restore the country’s sovereignty? Are there any precedents in international law that Greece could turn to?

FB: It does appear that SYRIZA has abandoned and betrayed the Greek people and the promises it had made originally to get elected. You know, you’re asking me this question for the first time, but certainly one could use an argument of economic duress and threats of coercion under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, to try to claw back some of these agreements that SYRIZA has made. As for this debt, there is a well-known doctrine under international law known as “odious debt” that I think Greece could consider to repudiate a good deal of this debt. I haven’t studied the elements of the Greek debt, but it does appear there are more than enough elements there that could be repudiated as odious debt. And then finally, clearly Germany owes massive reparations to Greece for the Nazi occupation and war crimes in Greece during World War II. They still have not paid up, and I think the Greek government or the Greek people need to insist on that, and that gives you a lot of leverage against Germany, which is really the most powerful country in Europe right now and is pretty much calling all of the shots here. I think there the Greek people understand this. So you have a lot of leverage, but the SYRIZA government has to use it.

MN: Are the examples of countries such as Iceland or Argentina possible precedents that could be used in the case of Greece?

FB: Well Iceland’s pretty small… yes, you could look at Argentina, and then also Malaysia, when it was threatened by Soros with his hedge fund’s attack on the “Asian Tigers.” Malaysia was able to pull through that.

MN: We are on the air with international law expert Francis Boyle here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series… We live in a global society today that is marked by increased government surveillance, police violence, an increasingly neoliberal and authoritarian world. In light of this, what can ordinary people do to not only stand up for human rights and the rule of law, but to also identify political and social movements that will truly stand up for their rights and not betray them?

FB: Well you just had a general strike in Greece. I thought that was great, it really shows the Greek people have had enough. Everyone taking to the street, I think we need to see more of that in Greece, and then some type of leadership emerge out of those general strikes. It seems to me they’re really in contact with people. SYRIZA has forfeited, in my opinion, its right to lead the Greek people. They’re working in cahoots with the IMF, the World Bank, the European Central Bank, Brussels, and Berlin.

MN: Professor Boyle, thank you very much for taking the time to speak with us today here on Dialogos Radio and the Dialogos Interview Series, and for sharing your insights and experiences with our listeners.

FB: Thanks for having me on, and I look forward to coming back to Greece sometime when I can fit the trip in. Great country, I learned so much from your people and the history and the culture.

MN: Thank you once more, greatly appreciated.

Transcript byDialogos Radio.

Jewish Statistics

By Gilad Atzmon

The ultra Zionist Jewish Chronicle revealed last week that, “41 per cent of young Jews would back sanctions against Israel to advance peace.” This may sound as if young Jews are, at last, moving in the right direction. Not really!

The JC was quick to amend its article to correct the wrong impression. Though 2 out of 5 young Jews back sanctions on Israel to promote peace, most young Jews “also believed that there is no credible partner (to peace) on the Palestinian side.”

So, many young Jews support Israel in making peace, once they find a ‘partner.’ If only Jews could choose their enemies. I would similarly guess that at least 40% of young Jews would be happy to drive a Rolls Royce if only they could afford it.

If you insist upon indulging yourself with the thought that Jews are moving away from support of Israel, the polls contradict such an idea in clear terms: “On fundamentals such as recognising Israel’s legitimacy, British Jews “speak as one””*

The message is clear. The Jews are not going to bring Israel down and the progressive Jews who insist that Jews are moving in the right direction are lying to us. Maybe for them also, ‘by way of deception,’ is a kosher strategy.

If you ask yourself what the above poll may really mean, the answer is simple. Political Jews do and say what they believe to be ‘good for the Jews.’ Indeed, Jews don’t agree amongst themselves what is good for the Jews. Some believe that Jews should pretend to be humane, other believe that Jews should be seen as hawkish and aggressive. Accordingly 41% amongst young British Jews believe that saying that they support sanctions is good for the Jews because it makes the Jews look empathic and peace loving. But when it comes to questions on the legitimacy of Jews dwelling on someone else’s land, Jews apparently “speak as one.”

 

* The overwhelming majority – 93 per cent – said that their relationship with Israel forms part of their identity as Jews; 90 per cent supported its existence as a “Jewish state”;

Neo-Cons, Fundies, Feddies, and Con-Artists

Global Research, December 17, 2005
Perdana Peace Forum 17 December 2005

It is now a matter of public record that immediately after the terrible tragedy of 11 September 2001, U.S. Secretary of War Donald Rumsfeld and his pro-Israeli “Neoconservative” Deputy Paul Wolfowitz began to plot, plan, scheme and conspire to wage a war of aggression against Iraq by manipulating the tragic events of September 11th in order to provide a pretext for doing so.1 Of course Iraq had nothing at all to do with September 11th or supporting Al-Qaeda . But that made no difference to Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, their Undersecretary of War Douglas Feith, Undersecretary of State John Bolton, and the numerous other pro-Israeli Neo-Cons inhabiting the Bush Jr. administration.

These pro-Israeli Neo-Cons had been schooled in the Machiavellian/Nietzschean theories of Professor Leo Strauss who taught political philosophy at the University of Chicago in its Department of Political Science. The best exposé of Strauss’s pernicious theories on law, politics, government, for elitism, and against democracy can be found in two scholarly books by the Canadian Professor of Political Philosophy Shadia B. Drury.2 I entered the University of Chicago in September of 1968 shortly after Strauss had retired. But I was trained in Chicago’s Political Science Department by Strauss’s foremost protégé, co-author, and later literary executor Joseph Cropsey. Based upon my personal experience as an alumnus of Chicago’s Political Science Department (A.B., 1971, in Political Science), I concur completely with Professor Drury’s devastating critique of Strauss. I also agree with her penetrating analysis of the degradation of the American political process that has been inflicted by Chicago’s Straussian Neo-Con cabal.3

The University of Chicago routinely trained me and innumerable other students to become ruthless and unprincipled Machiavellians. That is precisely why so many neophyte Neo-Con students gravitated towards the University of Chicago or towards Chicago Alumni at other universities. Years later, the University of Chicago became the “brains” behind the Bush Jr. Empire and his Ashcroft Police State. Attorney General John Ashcroft received his law degree from the University of Chicago in 1967. Many of his lawyers at the Bush Jr. Department of Injustice are members of the right-wing, racist, bigoted, reactionary, and totalitarian Federalist Society (aka “Feddies”),4 which originated in part at the University of Chicago. Feddies wrote the USA Patriot Act (USAPA) I and the draft for USAPA II, which constitute the blueprint for establishing an American Police State.5 Meanwhile, the Department of Injustice’s own F.B.I. is still covering up the U.S. governmental origins of the post 11 September 2001 anthrax attack on Washington D.C. that enabled Ashcroft and his Feddies to stampede the U.S. Congress into passing USAPA I into law.6

Integrally related to and overlapping with the Feddies are members of the University of Chicago “School” of Law-and-Kick-Them-in-the-Groin-Economics, which in turn was founded upon the Market Fundamentalism of Milton Friedman, now retired but long-time Professor of Economics at the University of Chicago. Friedman and his “Chicago Boys” have raped, robbed, looted, plundered, and pillaged economies and their respective peoples all over the developing world.7 This Chicago gang of academic con-artists and charlatans are proponents of the Nazi Doctrine of “useless eaters.” Pursuant to Friedman’s philosophy of Market Fundamentalism, the “privatization” of Iraq and its Oil Industry are already underway for the primary benefit of the U.S. energy companies (e.g., Halliburton, formerly under Vice President Dick Cheney) that had already interpenetrated the Bush Jr. administration as well as the Bush Family itself. Enron.

Although miseducated8 at Yale and Harvard Business School, the “Ivies” proved to be too liberal for Bush Jr. and his fundamentalist Christian supporters, whose pointman and spearcarrier in the Bush Jr. administration was Ashcroft, a Fundie himself. The Neo-Cons and the Fundies contracted an “unholy alliance” in support of Bush Jr. For their own different reasons, both gangs also worked hand-in-hand to support Israel’s genocidal Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, an internationally acknowledged war criminal.9

According to his own public estimate and boast before the American Enterprise Institute, President Bush Jr. hired about 20 Straussians to occupy key positions in his administration, intentionally taking offices where they could push American foreign policy in favor of Israel and against its chosen enemies such as Iraq, Iran, Syria, and the Palestinians.10 Most of the Straussian Neo-Cons in the Bush Jr. administration and elsewhere are Israel-firsters: What is “good” for Israel is by definition “good” for the United States. Dual loyalties indeed.11

In addition, it was the Chicago Straussian cabal of pro-Israeli Neo-Cons who set up a special “intelligence” unit within the Pentagon that was responsible for manufacturing many of the bald-faced lies, deceptions, half-truths, and sheer propaganda that the Bush Jr. administration then disseminated to the lap-dog U.S. news media12 in order to generate public support for a war of aggression against Iraq for the benefit of Israel and in order to steal Iraq’s oil.13 To paraphrase advice Machiavelli once rendered to his Prince in Chapter XVIII of that book: Those who want to deceive will always find those willing to be deceived.14 As I can attest from my personal experience as an alumnus of the University of Chicago Department of Political Science, the Bible of Chicago’s Neo-Con Straussian cabal is Machiavelli’s The Prince. We students had to know our Machiavelli by heart and rote at the University of Chicago.

As for the University of Chicago overall, its biblical Gospel is Allan Bloom’s The Closing of the American Mind (1987).15 Of course Bloom was another protégé of Strauss, as well as a mentor to Wolfowitz. In his Bloom-biographical novel Ravelstein (2000) Saul Bellow, formerly on the University of Chicago Faculty, outed his self-styled friend Bloom as a hedonist, pederast, and most promiscuous homosexual who died of AIDS. All this was common knowledge at the University of Chicago, where Bloom is still worshiped and his elitist screed against American higher-education still revered on a pedestal.

In Ravelstein Wolfowitz appeared as Bloom’s protégé Philip Gorman, leaking national security secrets to his mentor during the Bush Sr. war against Iraq. Strauss hovered around the novel as Bloom’s mentor and guru Professor Davarr. Strauss/Davarr is really the éminence grise of Ravelstein. With friends like Bellow, Bloom did not need enemies. On the basis of Ravelstein alone, Wolfowitz warrants investigation by the F.B.I.

Just recently the University of Chicago officially celebrated its Bush Jr. Straussian Neo-Con cabal, highlighting Wolfowitz Ph.D. ’72, Ahmad Chalabi, Ph.D. ’69 (the CIA’s Iraqi puppet), Abram Shulsky, A.M. ’68, Ph.D. ’72 (head of the Pentagon’s special “intelligence” unit), Zalmay Khalilzad, Ph.D. ’79 (Bush Jr’s roving pro-consul for Afghanistan and then Iraq), as well as faculty members Bellow, X ’39, and Bloom, A.B. ’49, A.M. ’53, Ph.D. ’55, together with Strauss. According to the University of Chicago Magazine, Bloom’s rant “helped popularize Straussian ideals of democracy.”16 It is correct to assert that Bloom’s book helped to popularize Straussian “ideas,” but they were blatantly anti-democratic, Machiavellian, Nietzschean, and elitist to begin with. Only the University of Chicago would have the unmitigated Orwellian gall to publicly assert that Strauss and Bloom cared one whit about democracy, let alone comprehended the “ideals of democracy.”

Does anyone seriously believe that a pro-Israeli Chicago/Strauss/Bloom product such as Wolfowitz could care less about democracy in Iraq? Or for that matter anyone in the Bush Jr. administration? After they stole the 2000 presidential election from the American People in Florida and before the Republican-controlled U.S. Supreme Court, some of whom were Feddies?17 Justice Clarence Thomas is a Straussian to boot.18

At the behest of its Straussian Neo-Con Political Science Department, in 1979 the entire University of Chicago went out of its way to grant the “first Albert Pick Jr. Award for Outstanding Contributions to International Understanding” to Robert “Mad Bomber” McNamara.19 In other words, the University of Chicago itself maliciously strove to rehabilitate one of the greatest international war criminals in the post-World War II era.20 Do not send your children to the University of Chicago where they will grow up to become warmongers like Wolfowitz or totalitarians like Ashcroft! The University of Chicago is an intellectual and moral cesspool.

Endnotes

1. See, e.g., Rahul Mahajan, Full Spectrum Dominance 108 (2003).

2. Shadia B. Drury, The Political Ideas of Leo Strauss (1988); Leo Strauss and the American Right (1999). See also Alain Frachon & Daniel Vernet, The Strategist and the Philosopher: Leo Strauss and Albert Wohlstetter, Le Monde, April 16, 2003, translated into English by Norman Madarasz on Counterpunch.org., June 2, 2003.

3. See also David Brock, Blinded by the Right (2002).

4. George E. Curry & Trevor W. Coleman, Hijacking Justice, Emerge, October 1999, at 42; Jerry M. Landay, The Conservative Cabal That’s Transforming American Law, Washington Monthly, March 2000, at 19; People for the American Way, The Federalist Society (August 2001); Institute for Democracy Studies, The Federalist Society and the Challenge to a Democratic Jurisprudence (January 2001).

5. Francis A. Boyle, Bush’s Banana Republic, Counterpunch.org, Oct. 11, 2002.

6. Francis A. Boyle, Biowarfare, Terror Weapons and the U.S.: Home Brew?, Counterpunch.org, April 25, 2002.

7. See Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy (2003), at 5 et seq.

8. See Chomsky on Miseducation (Donald Macedo ed. 2000).

9. Francis A. Boyle, Take Sharon to The Hague, Counterpunch.org, June 6, 2002.

10. White House Press Release, President Discusses the Future of Iraq, Washington Hilton Hotel, Feb. 26, 2003.

11. Nasser H. Aruri, Dishonest Broker, 193-216 (2003). See also Tanya Reinhart, Israel/Palestine (2002); Cheryl A. Rubenberg, The Palestinians (2003).

12. Norman Solomon, The Habits of Highly Deceptive Media (1999); Noam Chomsky, Media Control (1997).

13. Seymour M. Hersh, Selective Intelligence, New Yorker, May 8, 2003; Michael Lind, The Weird Men Behind George W. Bus’s War, New Statesman – London, April 7, 2003; Julian Borger, The Spies Who Pushed for War, The Guardian, July 17, 2003.

14. Machiavelli, The Prince 147 (M. Musa trans. & ed. 1964): “. . . and men are so simple-minded and so dominated by their present needs that one who deceives will always find one who will allow himself to be deceived.” This Bilingual Edition of The Prince by Mark Musa was the one preferred by Joseph Cropsey to teach us students.

15. But see Lawrence W. Levine, The Opening of the American Mind (1996).

16. Between the Lines, University of Chicago Magazine, June 2003, at 54

17. Vincent Bugliosi, The Betrayal of America (2001); Greg Palast, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy 11-81 (2003).

18. Gerhard Sporl, The Leo-Conservatives, Der Spiegel, Aug. 4, 2003.

19. McNamara Receives Pick Award Amid Protests, University of Chicago Magazine, Summer 1979, at 4.

20. Noam Chomsky, Rethinking Camelot (1993); Robert S. McNamara, In Retrospect (1995).

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

New Video Evidence of America’s Coup in Ukraine — and What It Means

 

Eric Zuesse

New video evidence has been added to the already-conclusive video evidence which shows that the U.S. Government was the controlling power behind the extremely violent  and illegal 18-27 February 2014 Ukrainian coup, which overthrew the democratically elected and never legally removed-from-power Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych.

This new evidence proves, even more than before (if that were even possible to do), that the current regime in Ukraine is definitely illegal — but that’s not all. Even after fake ‘democratic’ elections, it’s the same illegal regime in Ukraine that the U.S. imposed at its February 2014 coup, because no nationwide vote has occurred in Ukraine throughout that country’s expanse after the American coup; it’s still just a rump-Ukrainian Government, not one representing the residents either in Crimea or in Ukraine’s far east (neither of which regions participated in Ukrainian elections after the coup) — and yet this illegal violent coup-imposed Ukrainian regime (and the U.S. that imposed it, and even the EU that sheepishly backed it) nonetheless demand (against all legalities) that this blatantly illegal U.S.-imposed Ukrainian Government must control those areas, which reject this nazi imposed Government — that the residents in the regions that had voted overwhelmingly for Yanukovych don’t have the right to self-determination, but must instead accept a coup that goes exactly against, and even has gone so far as to overthrow, the Government for which the residents in those regions had overwhelmingly voted.

This was a violent takeover of the Ukrainian Government, by profoundly racist anti-Russian nationalist Ukrainians, who were in the pay of the U.S. Government. And, it sparked such terror into the hearts of Russians and of Ukraine’s minorities (who were especially large a proportion of the Crimean population), so that, first, Crimea broke away and declared its no longer being a part of Ukraine (it would return to Russia, of which it had been a part from 1783-1954, almost its entire modern existence); and, then, starting on May 9th of 2014, a Ukrainian civil war broke out when the U.S.-installed Government of Ukraine actually invaded the regions (other than Crimea) that rejected it; and the United States oversaw and sent even more mercenaries to this extremely bloody ethnic cleansing campaign to get rid of the residents in the specific region (called “Donbass” and shown in dark purple on this map) of Ukraine that had voted 90% for Yanukovych.

This was the first outright nazi action ever undertaken by any American President. Ever. That’s how bad it is, as a historical precedent for this country. It is being carried out by proud racist fascists (nazis), who are specifically admirers and followers of Adolf Hitler’s Nazis, which were the first, the original, nazi political party, and which are the pattern for Obama’s operatives in Ukraine — the perpetrators of this coup and its subsequent (also totally illegal) ethnic-cleansing campaign. (For examples: all these firebombings that Obama’s forces are doing to the residents in Donbass are against international law.) These Ukrainian nazis even send their children to nazi schools where kids are trained to hate Russians. Obama uses these people; he found this extermination of pro-Russians in Ukraine to be necessary; so as to get rid of the voters whose votes had made Yanukovych President. In Donbass, 90% of the voters had voted for Yanukovych; so, this was the prime area to be ethnically cleansed (and sometimes they’re driven at night to the countryside and shot at the edge of a ditch). If those voters were ever again allowed to vote in Ukraine, then a pro-Russian government could again be elected in Ukraine, and Obama’s action in that country (his turning it rabidly anti-Russian in its policies) could thus turn out to have been a mere waste for him — just a temporary matter. The strategy here is carefully thought-out, and this is also one reason why it has the support of almost every member of the U.S. House and Senate (even though 67% of the American public oppose it). A similar strategy would be as if Obama were to firebomb and otherwise lay waste Utah because it had voted in the 2012 election 73% for Romney and only 25% for Obama, and so killing the residents there would increase the future chances of electing a Democratic President in the U.S. But in Donbass, Yanukovych had actually won 90% of the vote, not a mere 73%; and, besides, nobody in the U.S. and its allies is even so much as criticizing Obama’s exterminations of the residents in Donbass (the people that Obama’s Ukrainian Government calls “terrorists” for simply living there), but instead Vladimir Putin is being criticized in the West for his “Russian aggression,” because he helps those forlorn people defend themselves from the Obama team’s firebombs, clusterbombs, bullets, and other killing-machines. (And here’s one of the Obama team’s firebombings of the city of Donetsk just a few days ago.)

The nazi United States Government today is ideologically, by its nazi actions, at war against the democratic United States that, by its democratic actions, had fought and shed blood to defeat Hitler’s Nazis in World War II. (And — unlike the firebombing of Nazi Dresden in February 1945 — Donetsk and the Obama team’s other Donbass targets are anti-nazi; the U.S. is this time the nazi invader, via its local Ukrainian surrogates. This is not to say that any firebombing should be allowed, but just to say that America has ideologically switched sides since then, which is atrocious.) Of course, there have been nazis in America even before Hitler came to power in Germany; but they were not running the U.S. Government until now; and, now, for the first time ever, the U.S. has itself a nazi Government, which is backed up by nazi American think tanks and media, etc., the entire panoply of political horror. The chief difference from Hitler’s (other than that this nazi government hasn’t yet gone as far toward its ultimate objectives as Hitler’s did) is that this one hates and seeks to destroy mainly Russians, whereas Hitler’s focused mainly against Jews. However, this one seems to be just about as obsessive about eliminating Russians as Hitler’s was about eliminating Jews. In fact, Obama’s hatred of Russia explains not only his Ukrainian policy but also his Syrian policy. Furthermore, Iran is also allied with Russia, and American policy there too might partly be a reflection of Obama’s bigotry against Russia — it should instead be a reflection of strictly U.S.-Iranian issues. Understanding Obama’s foreign policies without recognizing his vicious (and until fairly recently, secret) anti-Russian obsession, which is proven by his actions (not his rhetoric, which is basically dishonest and should simply be ignored except as his PR) can’t be done: it produces only misunderstanding (which is the real purpose behind most of his rhetoric).

So, this new item of evidence, which was posted to youtube on 27 January 2015, shows a courageous member of the “Rada” or Ukraine’s parliament, Oleg Tsarev, on 20 November 2013, and you can see the video’s (broken) English translation transcript, by clicking there on “More.” This is a parliamentary speech, in which he says (and I’ve cleaned up the translation here, only to make it easier to understand):

In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people, activists from the Volya Public Organization turned to me, providing clear evidence that within our country, with support and direct participation of the US Embassy in Kiev, a “TechCamp” project is under way in which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine. The “TechCamp” project prepares specialists for information warfare and for the discrediting of state institutions [the Government] using modern media — potential revolutionaries for organizing protests and the toppling of the Government. This project is overseen by and currently under the responsibility of the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the Volya Organization, I learned that they actually succeeded to access facilities in the “TechCamp” project [they had hacked into it] disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, were found briefings that were held on peculiarities of modern media. American instructors explained there how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate potential protest to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine — radicalization of the population, and triggering of infighting. American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. “Tech Camp” representatives currently hold conferences throughout Ukraine. A total of five events have been held so far. About 300 people have been trained as operatives, who are now active throughout Ukraine. The last conference took place on 14 and 14 November 2013, in the heart of Kiev, inside the US Embassy! You tell me which country in the world would allow an NGO to operate out of the US Embassy? This is disrespectful to the Ukrainian Government, and against the Ukrainian people! I thus appeal to the constitutional authorities of Ukraine with the following question: Is it conceivable that representatives of the US Embassy who organize the “TechCamp” conferences misuse their diplomatic immunity? [Someone tries to interrupt him.] A UN Resolution of 21 December 1965 regulates inadmissibility of interference in the internal “affairs of any State, and protects its independence and sovereignty.  I urge that there be an official  investigation into this matter.

Wikipedia’s “Timeline of the Euromaidan” starts on 21 November 2013, the day after Tsarev’s speech. It says there:

Euromaidan started in the night of 21 November 2013 when up to 2,000 protesters gathered at Kiev’s Maidan Nezalezhnosti and began to organize themselves with the help of social networks.[7] After he heard of the Ukrainian government decree to Yatsenyuk government,”suspend preparations for signing of the Association Agreement on 21 November 2013,[8][9] opposition party Batkivshchyna faction leader Arseniy Yatsenyuk called, via Twitter, for protests (which he dubbed as #Euromaidan) on Maidan Nezalezhnosti.[10]

Of course, Yatsenyuk was the person who, in a 4 February 2014 phone-conversation between Victoria Nuland of Obama’s State Department and Mr. Pyatt of her Kiev Embassy, she told Pyatt was to be selected by him, as the head of the coup-Government that would become installed during the coup, which extended from 18-27 February 2014. (In other words: the coup started two weeks after that phone-conversation in which the new leader had already been selected.)

The CIA edits wikipedia articles, and so the title of the wikipedia article on the coup is titled “2014 Ukrainian revolution,” not “2014 Ukrainian coup.” Also because of the CIA’s editing, the date of Yatsenyuk’s official appointment to head the Government is buried, instead of being featured in that article (as it should be). The day-by-day account given there starts on 18 February, and ends on 21 February. Then comes: “Deal’s Aftermath.” Then, after yet 9 more such sections, comes “Lustration,” which mentions the new leader’s appointment only in passing: “On 26 February 2014, Ehor Sobolev was nominated to lead the ‘Committee on Lustration’ in the new Yatsenyuk Government.” In other words: the appointment, and the official installment, of “Yats” to run the new Government, isn’t even so much as mentioned in that article. If one clicks there on “Yatsenyuk government,” then one comes to an article that opens: “The first government headed by Arseniy Yatsenyuk was created in Ukraine on 27 February 2014 in the aftermath of the Ukrainian revolution.[1] The cabinet was formed as a coalition of the parties Batkivschyna, UDAR and Svoboda and the parliamentary factions Economic Development and Sovereign European Ukraine and other independent MPs.[1]” Nothing is said there about the new Government’s domination by nazis (who were selected by Victoria Nuland’s man “Yats”). The rest of the article is just as deceptive, in the standard way: by avoiding to state the things that are the most important to state in order for a reader to be able to understand or interpret the given matter accurately. In other words: It’s written for deception.

The time when this speech was delivered by Tsarev was also extremely significant: The very next day, Yanukovych rejected the EU’s deal. On 21 November 2013, the reporter for Britain’s Guardian headlined online, “Ukraine suspends talks on EU trade pact as Putin wins tug of war,” and he reported that “Ukraine has abruptly ditched its plans to sign a historic pact with the European Union aimed at shifting the country out of the Kremlin’s orbit.” What Tsareve was saying on November 20th was that the U.S. had geared up long before that decison by Yanukovych, to overthrow him if he didn’t cave to the pressures from the U.S. and its allies, and that the “Euromaidan” demonstrations which immediately thereafter became stage-setting for America’s coup against him, were extremely well planned in advance, and constituted only the ‘democratic’ cover for the coup and would be nothing more than that — which turned out to be the case.

Oleg Tsarev, the man who warned parliament one day prior to the start of the Euromaidan demonstrations, was subsequently, in mid-May of 2014, phoned by the oligarch Ihor Kolomoysky, a friend of the Obama White House, and he was told to leave Ukraine or else he would be killed because some unnamed individual(s) had placed a million-dollar price on his head. Tsarev didn’t comply. (His courage was remarkable: he had already survived a beating by a nazi crowd on 15 April 2014. Speaking truth to power was his characteristic way.) Instead, Tsarev became elected to the parliament in one of the two breakaway new republics constituting Donbass. On 19 December 2014, Tsarev wrote that the Ukrainian Government was failing miserably all Ukrainians, not only in the areas that had left Ukraine; and he also mentioned, in passing, that, in one of Kolomoysky’s businesses, “Kolomoysky delivers cheesy vests for the price of gold chain mail.” Here’s what that passing reference meant: On 11 August 2014, “Life News” in Russia had headlined, “Ukrainian Ministry of Defense spent $ 3.5 million on substandard body armor” and reported that, in a no-bid deal with Ukraine’s army, the insider Kolomoysky had sold to the army substandard fake bulletproof vests, which they couldn’t use, and which were moreover priced at twice the going rate for real bulletproof vests. Kolomoysky then stole one of the Tsarev family’s own businesses, but there was no legal recourse, because Kolomoysky had been appointed by Obama’s people as the local governor in the region where that business happened to be located.

So: Obama is treated as if he is a respectable person, while Putin is treated as if he had been the aggressor in all this. But there was once a time when the differences between the U.S. and U.S.S.R. were ideological, and the U.S. was an authentic democratic nation, and the U.S.S.R. was an authentic communist dictatorship; and, in that time, and specifically back in 1962, it was the U.S.S.R. that was seeking to place nuclear missiles near to us (in Cuba), not like now, when the dictatorial U.S. is instead trying to place nuclear missiles near to democratic Russia (inside Ukraine). Did America’s major news media, back at that earlier time, think that what the U.S.S.R. was trying to do to us was tolerable, and should be permitted? Of course not! So: why their double standard now? Or is today’s U.S. instead a totally different country, an outright nazi one now, against Russia? Even if Russia were a dictatorship (and it’s probably less so than the U.S. now is), what America is trying to do to it is disgraceful. And what the U.S. Government is trying to do to the residents in Donbass is absolutely outrageous, and should be

presented to the International Criminal Court for war-crimes trials. (Maybe that’s why the U.S. has refused to sign to the Court’s jurisdiction; maybe G.W. Bush and Obama were intending to commit international war crimes.)

America (and its client Ukraine) is the aggressor; Russia (and its client Donbass) is doing what it needs to do in order to defend themselves from the U.S. and its allies: there are 27 of those other nations in the U.S.-run Russia-hating club; it’s called NATO, and it needs to be disbanded immediately, because its constructive function ended when the Soviet Union did; and, afterwards, it’s just nazi, and is a huge threat against the entire world.

This new evidence from Tsarev, piled on top of all the other evidence that already proved the assertion by the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor, that the overthrow of Yanukovych was “the most blatant coup in history,” simply cements the reality, that all of the sanctions against Russia, and all of the “me too” statements supporting Obama’s coup and ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, by David Cameron, Steven Harper, and Obama’s other co-nazis, are abominations, which should be loudly condemned by all decent persons in all countries. The aggressor here is Obama, not Putin; and NATO must end, now: all decent nations should quit it ASAP. (War crimes trials against Obama and his agents should follow. After all: these people are bringing the world closer to a nuclear war than has been the case since 1962, and there is no decent reason for it.)

Here was Professor Francis Boyle, the most internationally prestigious authority on such matters, summing it all up:

Boyle told RIA Novosti on May 8: ’The Ukrainian crisis had been planned as well as the war. There was a war plan, there was a war game. Then it was revised and implemented. … We are seeing steps now being taken that were planned in advance,’ Boyle said, adding, ‘This is all being used as a pretext to bring NATO military forces, as Rasmussen said, by air, sea, and land right up to the borders of the Russian Federation. They are clearly going ahead with this.’

Boyle extolled Russia for trying to exhaust all diplomatic means possible to resolve the Ukrainian crisis, and accused the United States and NATO of deliberate escalation.

‘So that the US won’t be provided with any more pretexts for hostile provocative maneuvers that they are going to take in any event,’ Boyle asserted, … Russian President Vladimir Putin is in a very difficult and dangerous situation and needs to be very careful. ‘The US has already resumed the Cold War with the neo-Nazi coup d’état in Ukraine that the United States sponsored, controlled, and directed,’ he said.

It’s still not too late for the condemnation by the entire decent world to come down upon the leading nazis and force them to stop, before they blow the entire habitable world up with their evil.

Never before in the history of the world have the proofs of perfidy come so voluminously and so much in current time, as has now happened here, in the Age of the Internet. One doesn’t have to wait for places like Auschwitz to open up to the world before the evil is laid bare for all to see: it already has been, well before things get that far. Thus, what’s desperately needed now is action: the condemnation, by the publics, in all countries, against those nazis.

The time for the collecting of evidence is already past. The evidence is already here. There are already international war crimes enough, and so no need exists for us to await the ultimate one — a totally unnecessary nuclear war — before finally acting.

To start with: the sanctions against Russia must end — immediately. They are crimes that can end fast. And they must, in order for the prosecutions against the perpetrators to start, and in order for this nazi cancer upon humanity to be removed before it’s too late to be able to do that. The patient might already be in the emergency room.

—————

Needed: New York March Against War, Because U.N. Is About to Pretend to Legalize It

So this is a Chapter 7 Resolution, which arguably establishes the predicate for the use of force. It should have been adopted under Chapter 6 to rule out any use of force against Syria. It was not. SC resolutions are binding under either Chapter 6 or Chapter 7 according to ICJ in Namibia Advisory Opinion. So obviously, Obama wants to set the predicate here for using force against ISIS in Syria, which will ultimately lead to the deposition of the Assad government, the crack up of Syria, and genocide against the Alawites and the Christians.

OK. Well obama’s puppet government that he just installed in Iraq could on the basis of this Resolution, Article 51 right of collective  self-defense and the bogus doctrine of hot pursuit ask Obama to bomb ISIS in Syria in order to prevent their cross-border movement from Syria into Iraq and back. Under international law there is no doctrine of hot pursuit on land, only at sea. That Obama scenario and strategy become very clear in OP5 and OP10 and OP14, inter alia. Basically trying to create a right of hot pursuit across land  borders where it did not previously exist —at least Obama will interpret it that way to justify bombing ISIS in Syria at the request of Iraq. There is nothing in this Resolution to rule out that scenario. Indeed, it seems that this Resolution has been drafted for precisely that purpose.

OK. I have read but am not going to go through the rest of this Resolution. It appears that USG specifically drafted this Resolution so that its puppet government in Iraq can on its basis as well as UN Charter Article 51 right of collective self-defense bomb ISIS in Syria. Otherwise, it would be naked aggression against the wishes of the Syrian government. So Obama will use this Resolution as his legal fig-leaf to start the bombing campaign in Syria upon his return to Washington. He will do to Assad and Syria  what he did to Ghadafy and Libya.

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

 

For Washington’s neocons the world is a huge playground. In the name of “democracy” they have destroyed one regime after another.

Ukraine is now on the agenda. CrossTalking with Robert Parry, Jim Lobe and Francis Boyle.

 Chaos Incorporated

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Israel’s Gaza Genocide Redux

By Professor Francis A. Boyle

11 July, 2014
Countercurrents.org

I delivered the following Oral Argument before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Commission for the Indictment of Israel for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity on November 21, 2012 during Israel’s genocidal Operation Cast Lead II against the 1.7 million Palestinians living in Gaza. The analysis and conclusions remain the same today during Cast Lead III. May it please the Commission:

You have heard the statutory declaration and evidence provided so far for your information. My purpose here now is to explain the law to which you will apply the facts in formulating your indictments. Of course, it is for you to decide whether or not to indict, or whom to indict. But you have already received my recommendation that you should indict the state of Israel, and named officials that I have already provided to you that will be found again in the transcript of the proceedings, including and especially General Yaron for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. And you’ve heard evidence and testimony from all of our witnesses on those three points. Now let me briefly review the witnesses and what they said from a legal prospective, so that you can formulate your opinions of law in your indictment.

Palestinians in Gaza

First of all, with respect to the Al-Sammounis testimony, Salah and Mahmoud. They are both from the Gaza Strip. Now, we have to understand, the Gaza Strip is under military occupation by Israel. And Israel is the belligerent occupant of the Gaza Strip. That means, at all times, Israel is governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 that protects civilians and the Hague Regulations of 1907 on the Laws of Customs of Warfare. You can find that also in the Chapter 5 for the Tribunal that is roughly based and patterned upon them.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the two Al-Sammounis are absolutely protected. They are what are known as protected person. They are civilians. Their rights are inviolable by Israel, or anyone else. In fact, protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention have more rights that legally are more perfectly protected than you or I have. That is the gospel truth under International Law.

There are 147 articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that were supposed to protect the Al-Sammounis and everyone else in Gaza. And if you look at all of the human rights reports that have been produced on Gaza, you will see that Israel has violated almost each and every one of these 147 articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention with respect to the civilian population of Gaza such as the Al-Sammounis.

Now, Israel has maintained that it is no longer the occupying power in Gaza and therefore is not bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Regulations because it withdrew its troops from Gaza. That does not change the situation legally. They are dead wrong. Professor Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur for Palestine, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council itself had said, “No, this is nonsense, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza.” His predecessor, Professor John Dugard of South Africa, has also taken for the same position. The International Committee of Red Cross has taken the same position. Why is that the case?

Because the test of belligerent occupancy is control. You could read this for example, in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10: The Laws of Land Warfare, that set forth the basic rules of Customary International Law applicable to all States in the world, including Israel and the United States.

Control of Gaza

Who controls Gaza today? We have heard testimonies Gaza is like an “open air prison.” Gaza is like a concentration camp. Gaza is surrounded at sea where it is currently being bombarded today by the Israeli navy – as we speak. Gaza City, a city, is being bombarded by a navy. And it is controlled by Israel on both the east and the south and surrounded by a fence. As for the border of Egypt, it is completely cut off. Israel bombs that border. They’ve just destroyed all the tunnels. In addition, despite his rhetoric, President Morsi of Egypt has not opened up that border. It is still sealed because the Egyptian military, that really runs Egypt today, is in cahoots with Israel and the United States and keeps the Egyptian border sealed.

The only exception, just announced two days ago, President Morsi has said, “I will allow the evacuation of severely injured Palestinians through the Rafah crossing into Egypt to get medical care. ” But other than that, the Egyptian border is sealed as well, and this has been the case since the imposition of the siege of Gaza by Israel starting in 2007 with the support of Egypt and the United States and the entire European Union. They are all accomplices in the siege of Gaza.

And you have in your bundle Volume 2, tab M, a document produced by my office: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Crime of Genocide, Gaza vs. Israel. As of this summer, it’s quite comprehensive on all these issues. Of course, it doesn’t take into account the recent Cast Lead II, as I will call it, that goes on today as we speak.

But clearly it is Israel that exercises control over Gaza. They bomb it. They artillery shell it. They attack it. They invade it at will. So, of course, they exercise control over Gaza, and for that reason, they remain the belligerent occupant of Gaza subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 that protects all the civilians in Gaza, and the Hague Regulation of 1907 that also protects the land and the environment of Gaza as well as to some extent, the civilians. So, this is the legal regime applicable to Gaza.

During the course of Mr. Al-Sammouni’s testimony, Commissioner Chossudovsky asked the question of “command and control” and I did want to address that briefly: Who is responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide? And my brief develops the argument, 55 pages long, about why Israel is committing genocide in Gaza today as we speak since at least the time they imposed the siege of Gaza after Hamas had won a democratic election in Gaza.

But to get back to command and control. Of the tests under International Law, the laws of war is that of command responsibility, that is, if a commander of troops or others in the field, whether those commanders are civilian or military personnel, either order war crimes or crimes against humanity or genocide or committed themselves or know that their subordinates are ordering it or committing it themselves and refused to prevent it or stop it or punish it, they themselves are responsible for those atrocities – for those acts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

And as the situation is in Gaza today, when you have war crimes that are widespread or systematic, they also become crimes against humanity. And what we see in Gaza, certainly in the 2006 invasion, then Operation Cast Lead 2008 and 2009, and now Operation Cast Lead II in 2012, is widespread systematic war crimes against the civilian population that clearly constitute crimes against humanity and even beyond that, genocide, for the reasons cited in my brief that is part of the record.

And I also have distributed to you and introduced now formally into evidence my article, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You already have that but I’ll introduce it.

And then the recommendation I personally put into the hands of the late President Arafat that he sue Israel for committing genocide against Palestine and the Palestinians at the International Court of Justice. And I have also given this proposal, this recommendation, to President Abbas. But because of enormous bullying, threats, intimidation inflicted upon them, I don’t think they’re going to do it, though I stand by ready to receive those instructions. That means it’s really up to you to defend the Palestinians because they’re not really in a position to defend themselves.

Palestinians Rejected by the I.C.C.

Indeed, after Operation Cast Lead, I recommended to President Abbas that Palestine accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which President Abbas did do. And what happened? Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor threw it out and said, “Well, it’s not for me to determine whether Palestine is a state,” despite the fact that Palestine had de jure diplomatic relations with 133 states and also state membership in UNESCO, a U.N. specialized agency. Still Mr. Moreno-Ocampo this coward and this hypocrite had the gall to just throw aside Palestine’s acceptance of jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and to investigate Israel for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

And there we stand today even when the Palestinians file a valid complaint with the International Criminal Court, the ICC refuses to defend them. And Mr. Moreno-Ocampo would not even lift one finger to help them. Not one finger in their moment of desperation. He is truly a despicable human being for this. And for this reason, we turn to you five Commissioners to act to protect the Palestinians when the ICC prosecutor, Moreno-Ocampo, refused even to lift one finger for them.

West Bank

Now, we come to the testimony of Mr. Alissawi. He’s from Bethlehem, the West Bank. And let me again briefly explain to you the legal status of the West Bank and Jerusalem and the regime of International Law that applies.

The West Bank too is occupied territory. All of it. This A-B-C baloney is nonsense. This is just an apartheid regime set up by Israel that is in violation of the Apartheid Convention of 1973. And apartheid is a crime against humanity. The fact is Israel remains the belligerent occupant of the West Bank. It is governed by the Four Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Regulations, and every Palestinian living on the West Bank is a protected person. Their rights are sacred under the International Law. They have more rights than you and I have. And yet Israel has violated each and every 147 Articles of that Convention with impunity.

Why? Because they have the backing of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world. So, of course Mr. Moreno-Ocampo copped out and refused to help them.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice accepted this argument in its Advisory Opinion on Israel’s wall on the West Bank. We have that Advisory Opinion in the bundle of materials. If you read that Advisory Opinion, you will see the World Court rejected each and every argument Israel has ever made to maintain that it is not a belligerent occupant on the West Bank; that is not governed by the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949; that it is not governed by the 1907 Hague Regulations. The World Court rejected all of it. All those arguments-fully, completely. They considered them all and rejected every one of them. Israel does not even have a leg to stand on. And there is no argument on the West Bank that’s even plausible. No argument.

Indeed, the World Court ruled that the settlements violated the Fourth Geneva Convention. Any violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is a war crime. And when they are widespread and systematic as these settlements are, they become a crime against humanity. And the settlers are committing war crimes – all 600,000 of them. They are war criminals, except for the children who legally are not capable of formulating criminal intent.

I would ask you, in drawing up your indictment, to bring John Does for every settler living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as war criminals. They should all be prosecuted, each and every one of them. They go in there and knowingly steal Palestinian land in violation of Hague Regulations of 1907. They steal this land. They destroy the olive trees, as we’ve heard. They steal the water. They rape and pillage Palestine to support their own lifestyle and in pursuit of their fanatical dreams of religious exclusivism that I don’t believe people of any religion or good faith or good will should tolerate or condone. The Bible had no right to give Palestine to the Jews. Palestinians had lived there even before the Bible was written.

We heard testimony about the use of dum-dum bullets against Mr. Alissawi. Dum-dum bullets are clearly illegal and criminal in this context, armed conflict, going back to the 19th century. Everyone knows it. Even the Unites States of America government takes the position that dum-dum bullets are illegal and their use is a war crime.

So, that is sort of the lowest common denominator, isn’t it? The United States government. Israel in its behavior is even beneath and below the criminal behavior that we’ve seen the United States government perform around the world. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any recent use of dum-dum bullets by the United States government. They could do it, but generally speaking, it’s a prohibited weapon.

Jerusalem

Now, with respect to Jerusalem, there has been discussion here on the status of Jerusalem. I’m here to advise you on Jerusalem. Israel has not one shred of right to Jerusalem.

They said, “Oh, it’s our eternal capital.” No one believes that. Even the United States government does not accept that. Obama said that in his campaign in 2008 to appeal to the Jewish vote. But once he got elected president, even President Obama does not maintain this position. It is the official position in the United States Government that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel. And that is why almost every government that has diplomatic relations with Israel maintains their embassy in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. No one recognizes that Israel has title to anything in Jerusalem – East Jerusalem or West Jerusalem.

This is because Resolution 181 provided that Jerusalem would be a special International Trusteeship not under the control of either the Jewish state or the Arab state called for in the Partition Resolution. No one recognizes Israel has any right to Jerusalem. Period. Even America does not. It’s not the position of the executive branch of the United States government, and has never been. The last official articulation of our position on Jerusalem can be found in this book. I will introduce this book into evidence: Palestine, Palestinians, and International Law. I have an entire chapter here on the legal status of Jerusalem.

Even George Bush Senior, when he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nation, fully articulated this position as our Ambassador to the U.N., that Israel does not have title to Jerusalem. So technically, again, Jerusalem is occupied territory. All the Palestinians living there, certainly in East Jerusalem, are protected persons. All the settlers living in East Jerusalem are committing war crimes and are war criminals, except for the children who are not old enough to formulate criminal intent. These are war crimes. I’ve been there. I’ve seen them. They steal the land. They expel the Palestinians. And that process still goes on as we speak today, day in and day out.

Torture

Mr. Musleh from Bethlehem, again, part of the West Bank. He is a civilian – not a guerrilla, not a fighter. He was tortured. Yes, torture – a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, a serious war crime mandating universal jurisdiction. I was all up and down Palestine, both the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza myself in 1986. Torture was rampant all over. I met many victims. They showed me the signs of torture on their bodies.

Mr. Musleh ‘s testimony is certainly consistent with what I saw in two weeks travelling there. And when I went to protest this at the American Embassy, the torture, the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the attaché said to me, “Well, we are not going to get involved in Israel’s domestic affairs.” It’s astounding. It’s an attaché at the American Embassy at Tel Aviv.

I said, “What do you mean their domestic affairs? Torture violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United States government is a party the Fourth Geneva Convention. Under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, we have an obligation to respect and ensure respect for that convention in all circumstances, which means stopping Israel’s torture.”

At that point he didn’t argue with me. He just said, “Well, you’ll have to take it up in Washington.” Well, as we know, Washington is controlled and dominated by Zionists. That’s a total waste of time.

But clearly Mr. Musleh’s allegations of torture are consistent with my investigation for two weeks, back in 1986. And again, where torture is widespread and systematic, it becomes a crime against humanity. And in addition, when you take a look at the Genocide Convention in this context: Genocide consists of the following acts – causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

Clearly we have had widespread systematic torture against the Palestinians ever since 1967 up until today, both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. This has been documented by every human rights organizations in the world, including Amnesty International which is notoriously pro-Israel and pro-United States. And I say that having spent four years on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International USA. They are notoriously pro-Israel and pro- United States. And yet, even Amnesty International has condemned their torture. Professor Falk has condemned their torture in his reports as Special Rapporteur. Professor Dugard, his predecessor, has condemned this torture.

Children

Israel, also with respect to Mr. Musleh’s testimony on children, is a party to the Children’s Convention. And yet, they have abused Palestinian children. They’ve tortured them, they’ve imprisoned them, and they’ve deprived them of education. There are hundreds of Palestinian children still being detained in Israeli prisons. The World Court ruled, in its Advisory Opinion, that Israel is bound to apply the Children’s Convention to Palestinians in occupied territory. They ruled that because it is a party to the Children’s Convention. Israel has violated almost each and every provision of the Children’s Convention when it comes to Palestinians children. That’s how pathetic that State is: They even torture and imprison children.

Water

We’ve heard Mr. Musleh’s testimony of the theft of the water, the main aquifers, I’ve been there, I’ve seen this myself. The main aquifer is, of course, on the West Bank, this is Palestinian water. They are stealing the Palestinian water so that settlers, these war criminals, can have swimming pools.

I remember the first time I went to the Ariel settlement, in 1986, and there was a Palestinian village down the road that was dying for lack of water. And I followed the water pipe that had basically been cut off up from the village to Ariel. Ariel had an Olympic-size swimming pool for their war criminal-settlers. Meanwhile, the Palestinians were having their water stolen and their village dying so that war criminals could go swimming. I have read since then that Ariel has produced two Olympic-size swimming pools. Israel does not have one shred of right under the Hague Regulations of 1907 to one ounce of this Palestinian water. And yet they are thirsting the Palestinians to death.

And this gets back to the Genocide Convention my colleague, Professor Nijar, has pointed out, genocide means also “deliberately inflicting on the group [here, Palestinians] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” They’re thirsting them to death so that their war criminals-settlers can swim in Olympic-size swimming pools. The olive groves, pillaged. Outright pillage that goes on all the time. One indiscriminate gang behavior by these war criminal-settlers with the full cooperation and support of the Israeli government. And it is organized, it’s systematic and it’s widespread. It’s a crime against humanity and a war crime.

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

The testimony by Dr. Elkhatib dealing with the psychological conditions. What the Genocide Convention says here? “Genocide – causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group.” We have heard the testimony here today, that the entire Palestinian population suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. I’ve been there, I’ve seen it myself. Not just the children. Men, women, parents, children. And especially the people in Gaza who are being bombarded and killed and destroyed as we speak today.

The report I heard this morning was 120 Gazans had been killed in this murder in this Operation Cast Lead II. Where will this lead to? Where will it end? Cast Lead I, 1,400 Palestinians were exterminated. In 2006, when Israel bombed Lebanon, they exterminated 1,200 Lebanese. Just wiped them out. Absolutely no accountability at all. And again, that’s where you come in.

Tear Gas

Tear gas: We have heard testimony of tear gas during the First Intifada. It still goes on today. Israel uses special military-grade tear gas against Palestinian civilians that they get from the United States and the Republic of Korea, last I looked. We tried to stop it in the United States – two factories manufactured it. We threatened to sue one of them, and they stopped. We threatened to sue the second, they didn’t stop. We sued them and we lost. Why did we lose all these cases on behalf of Palestinians in the United States? Zionist control and domination of the U.S. Federal Judiciary.

I personally have been involved in litigation going back to the Yaron case which I submitted into the record. That was the first case ever filed in the entire world against an Israeli official for perpetrating a massacre against Palestinians. Being my involvement in these cases since then, I’m aware of only one case Palestinians had won in the United States courts.

The only one Meese v. P.L.O., Ramsey Clark, I did work with him. When the Reagan administration tried to shut down the Palestinian Mission to the United Nations organization in violation of U.N. Headquarters Agreement. We did win that one. That’s the only case I’m aware of we’ve won. And it’s pretty much a waste of time for any Palestinian to file any lawsuit in the Zionist controlled and dominated United States. And I’ve been advised by my Canadian friends that Canada isn’t much better. So, we come to this Commission, to this Court, for justice.

Sabra and Shatilla

Madam Abouardini and Anne K. Sunde on the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacre: I’ve already given you my essay on the Yaron case, the first case ever on the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I’ve already described to you our efforts, failed efforts to do anything both in the United States and in Belgium, and I’m not aware of any other Court where we’ve been able to get justice for the victims of Sabra and Shatilla. So we’re coming to this Court, to this Commission. We are asking, certainly, to indict General Amos Yaron for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for Sabra and Shatilla; and at a minimum, at least, to list Ariel Sharon as un-indicted co-conspirator, not that he isn’t as guilty as sin, but he is apparently in an irreversible coma, and for that reason would be incapable of assisting in his defense.

And for that reason under basic legal principles, you probably should not indict him but you can certainly list him as an un-indicted co-conspirator for the Sabra and Shatilla massacre. You’ve expressed an interest in my papers in this lawsuit. You can find them at Volume 5 of the Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1989. It’s in the article I gave you.

We saw in the testimony by Anne Sunde where General Yaron was located, on the building, on the hill, overlooking the camp which is completely consistent with what I told you. He could see everything. Indeed, it was his troops that completely surrounded these camps. The flares are going off at night. He then ordered his troops to let the Phalange militia to go in there to perpetrate the massacre. The flares were going off at night so that they can see what they were doing to carry out the massacre at night, figuring they had a limited amount of time to carry out the massacre. So they were working day and night to exterminate 3,500 completely innocent Palestinians and some Lebanese as well- it’s hard to figure out precisely what their breakdown is, but mostly are, Palestinians, and some Lebanese – all of them were completely unarmed.

And as Anne Sunde pointed out, the United States government under Philip Habib had given a formal pledge of protection to the P.L.O. that if their soldiers abandoned the camps where they were protecting these completely innocent civilians, the United States government would assure their safety. And on that condition, the P.L.O. fighters pulled out and moved off to Tunis.

Now the Phalange militia, the Christian Phalange militia, was organized under the Gemayel family. They were not part of the regular Lebanese army. I have no information that the Lebanese army units were involved in this massacre but the Christian Phalange militia were and when Bachir Gemayal was assassinated, there’s no evidence to believe that the Palestinians assassinated Bachir Gemayal. Rumour had it it might have been Syria, it might even have been Israel. We really don’t know. But no evidence Palestinians did it.

General Yaron permitted the Christian Phalange to take out their revenge on the completely innocent Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla. And this was known by Prime Minister Begin and Defence Minister Ariel Sharon – speaking of the chain of command – and Rafael Eitan, the Chief of Staff, though the only survivors, as I’ve said, are General Yaron and Sharon, and he is in irreversible coma.

But again, the massacre took place with Yaron on that roof with the full view of the camps, illuminated at night by flares and in communication with the Phalange militia with their head Elie Hobeika there on the roof with him with a walkie-talkie commanding them through the night on how to carry out this massacre. And the United States government knew from the get-go that a massacre was taking place. And despite the Habib promise of protection, they refused to do anything at all about it. They just let the massacre go on. Which raises the question for you to resolve of complicity by the United States government with the genocide at Sabra and Shatilla. And I will urge you to consider that. And if you agree with me, to indict the United States for complicity in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre. Obviously these proceedings are directed against the state of Israel and its highest level officials, but as Commissioners Halliday and von Sponeck correctly pointed out, it is fair to consider aiders and abettors by other states, and those other states that are complicit. And certainly, we know for a fact, Israel gets most of its weapons from the United States government that it uses to kill and destroy and exterminate Palestinians.

Genocide – Health-care

Ms. Nimat’s testimony: Yes, Israel has consistently bombed and destroyed hospitals, health-care facilities and have attacked professional health-care people. Doctors, we’ve also heard the testimony, the doctor from Bethlehem. They’re deliberately targeted. We know they have special protections under the Geneva Conventions. Israel couldn’t care less. Indeed, again, it raises the issue of genocide – deliberately inflicting on a people conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole and in part. How? By destroying their whole health-care infrastructure. That’s how. Including their doctors, their nurses, their psychiatric people, etc.

We’ve already discussed Professor Manduca’s testimony about the white phosphorus. Again, even the United States government itself takes the position that the use of white phosphorus in warfare is a war crime, and at least says it’s not supposed to do it. Notice, Israel doesn’t care. We all saw those picture in Cast Lead I, of Israel, live footage on Press TV and Al-Jazeera, not the Zionist-controlled and dominated U.S. news media – but live pictures of them raining white phosphorus down on Gaza city and Gaza civilians. And it doesn’t help to say, “Well we’re just using it as tracers for artillery,” because it just means that the artillery was aimed at Gaza City and the Gaza civilians, which is also a war crime.

In its resolution of 19 October 2000, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, later Council, condemned Israel for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians. The Goldstone Report reached the same conclusion. And Goldstone was a Zionist who was put in there to do damage control for Israel. And that’s exactly what he did. He softened that Report as best he could. And even the Goldstone Report found that they had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The better report that does not do damage control for Israel is the Dugard Report that is cited in my brief on behalf of the League of Arab States. Professor Dugard was the Special Rapporteur for Palestine, very courageous human being – white resister to apartheid in South Africa, at threat to his life he stood up against apartheid in South Africa. So if you’re going to go for a definitive account on Cast Lead I, you should look at the Dugard Report and realise that Goldstone was put in there to do damage control for Israel and he significantly watered down his findings and conclusions. But even there, Goldstone found Israel had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Cast Lead I.

Crimes against Humanity

Where do crimes against humanity come from? They come from the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, drafted by the United States government and intended to deal with the Nazi persecution of the Jews. And let me repeat this. This is the idea of the United States of America to legally come to grips with the Nazi persecution of the Jews. And what does Nuremberg say? Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds. Well, that’s exactly what Israel does to the Palestinians. These are Nazi crimes. We have to be honest about it. They are not yet on a scale of 6 million dead Jews. But they are moving in that direction. So it’s not the number here, but it’s the quality of the offence. So we have to understand. Just applying the Nuremberg definition intended to prosecute Nazi crimes against Jews, these are the same types of crimes. Not the number, but certainly the type.

Genocide

The crime against humanity is a precursor to genocide. Indeed, it was thought that crime against humanity was so serious that it should be codified in an international treaty. That what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews should be made a crime for any government to do to any people. And so we had the 1948 Genocide Convention. And Article 2, if you read the proposal I gave personally to President Arafat to sue Israel for genocide, defines the crime of genocide, “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic or racial or religious group as such.” So notice, “in part.” It does not have to be like Hitler and the Nazis intending to exterminate all of the Jewish people. Nope. The Genocide Convention tried to prevent this from happening and say, “well, we have to set the threshold lower.” If you have the intention to destroy “in part” a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, that qualifies as genocide. And clearly, let’s take “Cast Lead”, 1,400 exterminated Palestinians. The International Court of Justice ruled that even the 7,000 exterminated Bosnians at Srebrenica constituted genocide.

As documented by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his seminal work, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Israel’s genocidal policy against the Palestinians have been “unremitting” extending from the very foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 until today, and continuing today as manifest in what we see in Gaza.

Even the U.N. General Assembly President, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, the former Foreign Minister of Nicaragua called “Cast Lead” ‘genocide’. And Brockmann should know. He was Foreign Minister of Nicaragua during Reagan’s war against Nicaragua when Reagan exterminated 35,000 Nicaraguans; and I was down there for a week up in the war zone investigating contra atrocities.

Certainly Israel and the Zionist agencies, forces and terrorist groups have committed genocide against the Palestinians that started on or about 1948 and has continued apace until today in violation of the Genocide Convention. Israel and its Zionist agencies and predecessors have ruthlessly implemented a systematic, comprehensive military, political, economic, campaign with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, racial and religious group — Jews versus Muslims and Christians — constituting the Palestinian people. This consists of killing members of the group, in violation of Article 2(a), inflicting serious bodily and mental harm to the Palestinian people in violation of Convention Article 2(b). And also deliberately inflicting on the Palestinian people conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part.

Peace process

We have heard a lot about the so-called peace process. This is a joke and a fraud. I was the lawyer for the Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace negotiations from the start in 1991 until Oslo was signed in 1993, both for the P.L.O., President Arafat, and my client the late, great Dr. Haidar Abdul-Shaffi, who was Chair of those peace negotiations. Israel never demonstrated one iota of good faith in their negotiations with the Palestinians. Not one. Oslo was an Israeli Bantustan proposal that was imposed upon President Arafat despite the best advice I gave him, and the opposition of Dr. Abdul-Shaffi. As he saw it, he had nothing better to do at that time. I am certainly not here to criticize him. He was the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people, not Dr. Abdul-Shaffi, certainly not me. But the bottom line is, I’ve been involved in this process from the beginning.

There is no peace process. This is a Palestinian surrender process. A Palestinian Bantustanization process devised by the United States in cooperation with Israel and with the full support of the European Union and its member states. Indeed, shortly before he died in the summer of 2007, I called up Dr. Abdul-Shaffi, and he said to me — this is the man in charge of negotiating peace — and he said, “The Zionists have not changed their objectives since the Basel Conference of 1897!” That was 2007.

In the Basel conference, the Zionists made it clear: They want all of Palestine – West Bank, Jerusalem, what is 1948 Israel. They want it all. And they want it without Palestinians. And nothing has changed. That is the objective of Netanyahu, and Barak and Peres, and Lieberman, that I’m asking you here today to indict. And if we don’t bring Israel, this rogue criminal state, to justice, and if we do not bring their leaders, their highest level officials to justice, they will take all of Palestine and they will expel, disperse, and drive out the Palestinians. And that is what is at stake here today. And that is the task confronting you.

Conclusion

I have gone all over the world seeking justice for the Palestinians for the last 30 years. And I am now coming here today and asking you to indict this criminal rogue state Israel, its aiders and abettors, and its highest level officials, President Peres, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Barak, its chiefs of staff and their predecessors, the rapist Katsav, Olmert, Livni, Ashkenazi, and before that, General Amos Yaron. Thank you.

Professor Francis A. Boyle is an international law expert and served as Legal Advisor to the Palestine Liberation Organization and Yasser Arafat on the 1988 Palestinian Declaration of Independence, as well as to the Palestinian Delegation to the Middle East Peace Negotiations from 1991 to 1993, where he drafted the Palestinian counter-offer to the now defunct Oslo Agreement. His books include “ Palestine, Palestinians and International Law” (2003), and “ The Palestinian Right of Return under International Law” (2010).

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

“Ode” by Professor Francis Boyle

Saher Abu Namous, 4, after the targeting of their house next to the Kamal Adwan hospital in the north.”

 by Nahida Exiled Palestinian

A poignant, heart-wrenching and profoundly truthful poem by Professor Francis A. Boyle

Ode to My Colleague and Friend Frank Newman

I.
Way to go Berkeley Law!
Deeming Yourselves above The Law
Your Dean Frank Newman now crying in Heaven
Berkeley Law can go to Hell!

Accessories After The Fact to torture, murder and war crimes
Law Prof Carl Schmitt would be proud of You All
The Nazis had Their Law Schools too
Replete with John Yoo

RIP Berkeley Law
Into the Ashcan of History You All go
Good Riddance to Cal’s Neo-Nazi Rubbish!.

II.

American Law Professors
What have we become?
American Law Professors for torture!
American Law Professors for Gitmo Kangaroo Courts!
American Law Professors for indefinite detention!
American Law Professors for spying!
American Law Professors for drone strikes!
American Law Professors for murder!
American Law Professors for assassinations!
American Law Professors for war crimes!
American Law Professors for crimes against humanity!
American Law Professors for genocide!
American Law Professors for wars of aggression!
American Law Professors for murdering US citizens!
American Law Professors for murder courts!
American Law Professors for trashing the US Constitution!
American Law Professors for trashing the Bill of Rights!
American Law Professors for trashing International Law!
American Law Professors for trashing Human Rights!

How much lower can American Law Professors sink
Into this criminal shit
Of Neo-Nazi Legal Nihilism?

The Nazis had their Law Professors too
The worst of the bunch was Carl Schmitt
And now we have: American Law Professors
For Carl Schmitt too!

Arabs and Muslims
Have become
American Law Professors’
New Jews
And now at Berkeley Law too
With Chaired John Yoo

Francis A. Boyle is an attorney and a professor  at the University of Illinois College of Law. His books include Foundations of World Order (Duke University Press: 1999) and Tackling America’s Toughest Questions (2009).   His most recent book is United Ireland, Human Rights and International Law.   This is his poem “Ode to My Colleague and Friend Frank Newman.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Gaza genocide and criminal rogue Israel

By Francis A. Boyle

Fri Jul 11, 2014 5:21PM GMT

Prominent international lawyer Professor Francis Boyle calls on international community to indict the criminal rogue state Israel, its aiders and abettors.

I delivered the following Oral Argument before the Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Tribunal Commission for the Indictment of Israel for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity on November 21, 2012 during Israel’s genocidal Operation Cast Lead II against the 1.7 million Palestinians living in Gaza. The analysis and conclusions remain the same today during Cast Lead III.  May it please the Commission:

You have heard the statutory declaration and evidence provided so far for your information. My purpose here now is to explain the law to which you will apply the facts in formulating your indictments. Of course, it is for you to decide whether or not to indict, or whom to indict. But you have already received my recommendation that you should indict the state of Israel, and named officials that I have already provided to you that will be found again in the transcript of the proceedings, including and especially General Yaron for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. And you’ve heard evidence and testimony from all of our witnesses on those three points. Now let me briefly review the witnesses and what they said from a legal prospective, so that you can formulate your opinions of law in your indictment.

 

Palestinians in Gaza

First of all, with respect to the Al-Sammounis testimony, Salah and Mahmoud. They are both from the Gaza Strip. Now, we have to understand, the Gaza Strip is under military occupation by Israel. And Israel is the belligerent occupant of the Gaza Strip. That means, at all times, Israel is governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 that protects civilians and the Hague Regulations of 1907 on the Laws of Customs of Warfare. You can find that also in the Chapter 5 for the Tribunal that is roughly based and patterned upon them.

Under the Fourth Geneva Convention, the two Al-Sammounis are absolutely protected. They are what are known as protected person. They are civilians. Their rights are inviolable by Israel, or anyone else. In fact, protected persons under the Fourth Geneva Convention have more rights that legally are more perfectly protected than you or I have. That is the gospel truth under International Law.

There are 147 articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention that were supposed to protect the Al-Sammounis and everyone else in Gaza. And if you look at all of the human rights reports that have been produced on Gaza, you will see that Israel has violated almost each and every one of these 147 articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention with respect to the civilian population of Gaza such as the Al-Sammounis.

Now, Israel has maintained that it is no longer the occupying power in Gaza and therefore is not bound by the Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1907 Hague Regulations because it withdrew its troops from Gaza. That does not change the situation legally. They are dead wrong. Professor Richard Falk, the Special Rapporteur for Palestine, appointed by the UN Human Rights Council itself had said, “No, this is nonsense, Israel is still the occupying power in Gaza.” His predecessor, Professor John Dugard of South Africa, has also taken for the same position.  The International Committee of Red Cross has taken the same position.  Why is that the case?

Because the test of belligerent occupancy is control. You could read this for example, in U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10: The Laws of Land Warfare, that set forth the basic rules of Customary International Law applicable to all States in the world, including Israel and the United States.

 

Control of Gaza

Who controls Gaza today? We have heard testimonies Gaza is like an “open air prison.” Gaza is like a concentration camp. Gaza is surrounded at sea where it is currently being bombarded today by the Israeli navy – as we speak.  Gaza City, a city, is being bombarded by a navy. And it is controlled by Israel on both the east and the south and surrounded by a fence. As for the border of Egypt, it is completely cut off. Israel bombs that border. They’ve just destroyed all the tunnels. In addition, despite his rhetoric, President Morsi of Egypt has not opened up that border. It is still sealed because the Egyptian military, that really runs Egypt today, is in cahoots with Israel and the United States and keeps the Egyptian border sealed.

The only exception, just announced two days ago, President Morsi has said, “I will allow the evacuation of severely injured Palestinians through the Rafah crossing into Egypt to get medical care. ” But other than that, the Egyptian border is sealed as well, and this has been the case since the imposition of the siege of Gaza by Israel starting in 2007 with the support of Egypt and the United States and the entire European Union. They are all accomplices in the siege of Gaza.

And you have in your bundle Volume 2, tab M, a document produced by my office: Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Crime of Genocide, Gaza vs. Israel. As of this summer, it’s quite comprehensive on all these issues. Of course, it doesn’t take into account the recent Cast Lead II, as I will call it, that goes on today as we speak.

But clearly it is Israel that exercises control over Gaza. They bomb it. They artillery shell it. They attack it. They invade it at will. So, of course, they exercise control over Gaza, and for that reason, they remain the belligerent occupant of Gaza subject to the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 that protects all the civilians in Gaza, and the Hague Regulation of 1907 that also protects the land and the environment of Gaza as well as to some extent, the civilians. So, this is the legal regime applicable to Gaza.

During the course of Mr. Al-Sammouni’s testimony, Commissioner Chossudovsky asked the question of “command and control” and I did want to address that briefly: Who is responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide? And my brief develops the argument, 55 pages long, about why Israel is committing genocide in Gaza today as we speak since at least the time they imposed the siege of Gaza after Hamas had won a democratic election in Gaza.

But to get back to command and control.  Of the tests under International Law, the laws of war is that of command responsibility, that is, if a commander of troops or others in the field, whether those commanders are civilian or military personnel, either order war crimes or crimes against humanity or genocide or committed themselves or know that their subordinates are ordering it or committing it themselves and refused to prevent it or stop it or punish it, they themselves are responsible for those atrocities – for those acts of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

And as the situation is in Gaza today, when you have war crimes that are widespread or systematic, they also become crimes against humanity. And what we see in Gaza, certainly in the 2006 invasion, then Operation Cast Lead 2008 and 2009, and now Operation Cast Lead II in 2012, is widespread systematic war crimes against the civilian population that clearly constitute crimes against humanity and even beyond that, genocide, for the reasons cited in my brief that is part of the record.

And I also have distributed to you and introduced now formally into evidence my article, Israel is committing genocide in Gaza. You already have that but I’ll introduce it.

And then the recommendation I personally put into the hands of the late President Arafat that he sue Israel for committing genocide against Palestine and the Palestinians at the International Court of Justice. And I have also given this proposal, this recommendation, to President Abbas.  But because of enormous bullying, threats, intimidation inflicted upon them, I don’t think they’re going to do it, though I stand by ready to receive those instructions.  That means it’s really up to you to defend the Palestinians because they’re not really in a position to defend themselves.

 

Palestinians Rejected by the I.C.C.

Indeed, after Operation Cast Lead, I recommended to President Abbas that Palestine accept the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, which President Abbas did do. And what happened? Mr. Moreno-Ocampo, the ICC prosecutor threw it out and said, “Well, it’s not for me to determine whether Palestine is a state,” despite the fact that Palestine had de jure diplomatic relations with 133 states and also state membership in UNESCO, a U.N. specialized agency.  Still Mr. Moreno-Ocampo this coward and this hypocrite had the gall to just throw aside Palestine’s acceptance of jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court and to investigate Israel for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

And there we stand today even when the Palestinians file a valid complaint with the International Criminal Court, the ICC refuses to defend them. And Mr. Moreno-Ocampo would not even lift one finger to help them. Not one finger in their moment of desperation. He is truly a despicable human being for this. And for this reason, we turn to you five Commissioners to act to protect the Palestinians when the ICC prosecutor, Moreno-Ocampo, refused even to lift one finger for them.

West Bank

Now, we come to the testimony of Mr. Alissawi.  He’s from Bethlehem, the West Bank. And let me again briefly explain to you the legal status of the West Bank and Jerusalem and the regime of International Law that applies.

The West Bank too is occupied territory. All of it. This A-B-C baloney is nonsense. This is just an apartheid regime set up by Israel that is in violation of the Apartheid Convention of 1973. And apartheid is a crime against humanity. The fact is Israel remains the belligerent occupant of the West Bank. It is governed by the Four Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Regulations, and every Palestinian living on the West Bank is a protected person. Their rights are sacred under the International Law. They have more rights than you and I have. And yet Israel has violated each and every 147 Articles of that Convention with impunity.

Why?  Because they have the backing of the United States of America, the most powerful country in the world.  So, of course Mr. Moreno-Ocampo copped out and refused to help them.

Indeed, the International Court of Justice accepted this argument in its Advisory Opinion on Israel’s wall on the West Bank. We have that Advisory Opinion in the bundle of materials. If you read that Advisory Opinion, you will see the World Court rejected each and every argument Israel has ever made to maintain that it is not a belligerent occupant on the West Bank; that is not governed by the Four Geneva Conventions of 1949; that it is not governed by the 1907 Hague Regulations. The World Court rejected all of it. All those arguments-fully, completely. They considered them all and rejected every one of them. Israel does not even have a leg to stand on. And there is no argument on the West Bank that’s even plausible. No argument.

Indeed, the World Court ruled that the settlements violated the Fourth Geneva Convention. Any violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention is a war crime. And when they are widespread and systematic as these settlements are, they become a crime against humanity. And the settlers are committing war crimes – all 600,000 of them. They are war criminals, except for the children who legally are not capable of formulating criminal intent.

I would ask you, in drawing up your indictment, to bring John Does for every settler living in the West Bank and East Jerusalem as war criminals. They should all be prosecuted, each and every one of them. They go in there and knowingly steal Palestinian land in violation of Hague Regulations of 1907. They steal this land. They destroy the olive trees, as we’ve heard. They steal the water. They rape and pillage Palestine to support their own lifestyle and in pursuit of their fanatical dreams of religious exclusivism that I don’t believe people of any religion or good faith or good will should tolerate or condone. The Bible had no right to give Palestine to the Jews. Palestinians had lived there even before the Bible was written.

We heard testimony about the use of dum-dum bullets against Mr. Alissawi. Dum-dum bullets are clearly illegal and criminal in this context, armed conflict, going back to the 19th century. Everyone knows it. Even the Unites States of America government takes the position that dum-dum bullets are illegal and their use is a war crime.

So, that is sort of the lowest common denominator, isn’t it?  The United States government. Israel in its behavior is even beneath and below the criminal behavior that we’ve seen the United States government perform around the world. To the best of my knowledge, I don’t know of any recent use of dum-dum bullets by the United States government. They could do it, but generally speaking, it’s a prohibited weapon.

 

Jerusalem

Now, with respect to Jerusalem, there has been discussion here on the status of Jerusalem. I’m here to advise you on Jerusalem. Israel has not one shred of right to Jerusalem.

They said, “Oh, it’s our eternal capital.” No one believes that. Even the United States government does not accept that. Obama said that in his campaign in 2008 to appeal to the Jewish vote. But once he got elected president, even President Obama does not maintain this position.   It is the official position in the United States Government that Jerusalem is not the capital of Israel.  And that is why almost every government that has diplomatic relations with Israel maintains their embassy in Tel Aviv and not Jerusalem. No one recognizes that Israel has title to anything in Jerusalem – East Jerusalem or West Jerusalem.

This is because Resolution 181 provided that Jerusalem would be a special International Trusteeship not under the control of either the Jewish state or the Arab state called for in the Partition Resolution.  No one recognizes Israel has any right to Jerusalem. Period.  Even America does not. It’s not the position of the executive branch of the United States government, and has never been. The last official articulation of our position on Jerusalem can be found in this book. I will introduce this book into evidence: Palestine, Palestinians, and International Law.  I have an entire chapter here on the legal status of Jerusalem.

Even George Bush Senior, when he was U.S. ambassador to the United Nation, fully articulated this position as our Ambassador to the U.N., that Israel does not have title to Jerusalem. So technically, again, Jerusalem is occupied territory. All the Palestinians living there, certainly in East Jerusalem, are protected persons. All the settlers living in East Jerusalem are committing war crimes and are war criminals, except for the children who are not old enough to formulate criminal intent. These are war crimes. I’ve been there. I’ve seen them. They steal the land. They expel the Palestinians. And that process still goes on as we speak today, day in and day out.

 

Torture

Mr. Musleh from Bethlehem, again, part of the West Bank. He is a civilian – not a guerrilla, not a fighter. He was tortured. Yes, torture – a grave breach of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, a serious war crime mandating universal jurisdiction. I was all up and down Palestine, both the West Bank, Jerusalem and Gaza myself in 1986. Torture was rampant all over. I met many victims. They showed me the signs of torture on their bodies.

Mr. Musleh ‘s testimony is certainly consistent with what I saw in two weeks travelling there. And when I went to protest this at the American Embassy, the torture, the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the attaché said to me, “Well, we are not going to get involved in Israel’s domestic affairs.”  It’s astounding. It’s an attaché at the American Embassy at Tel Aviv.

I said, “What do you mean their domestic affairs? Torture violates the Fourth Geneva Convention. The United States government is a party the Fourth Geneva Convention. Under the terms of the Fourth Geneva Convention, we have an obligation to respect and ensure respect for that convention in all circumstances, which means stopping Israel’s torture.”

At that point he didn’t argue with me. He just said, “Well, you’ll have to take it up in Washington.” Well, as we know, Washington is controlled and dominated by Zionists. That’s a total waste of time.

But clearly Mr. Musleh’s allegations of torture are consistent with my investigation for two weeks, back in 1986. And again, where torture is widespread and systematic, it becomes a crime against humanity. And in addition, when you take a look at the Genocide Convention in this context: Genocide consists of the following acts – causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group.

Clearly we have had widespread systematic torture against the Palestinians ever since 1967 up until today, both in the West Bank and East Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip. This has been documented by every human rights organizations in the world, including Amnesty International which is notoriously pro-Israel and pro-United States. And I say that having spent four years on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International USA. They are notoriously pro-Israel and pro- United States. And yet, even Amnesty International has condemned their torture. Professor Falk has condemned their torture in his reports as Special Rapporteur.  Professor Dugard, his predecessor, has condemned this torture.

 

Children

Israel, also with respect to Mr. Musleh’s testimony on children, is a party to the Children’s Convention. And yet, they have abused Palestinian children.  They’ve tortured them, they’ve imprisoned them, and they’ve deprived them of education. There are hundreds of Palestinian children still being detained in Israeli prisons. The World Court ruled, in its Advisory Opinion, that Israel is bound to apply the Children’s Convention to Palestinians in occupied territory. They ruled that because it is a party to the Children’s Convention. Israel has violated almost each and every provision of the Children’s Convention when it comes to Palestinians children. That’s how pathetic that State is: They even torture and imprison children.

 

Water

We’ve heard Mr. Musleh’s testimony of the theft of the water, the main aquifers, I’ve been there, I’ve seen this myself.  The main aquifer is, of course, on the West Bank, this is Palestinian water. They are stealing the Palestinian water so that settlers, these war criminals, can have swimming pools.

I remember the first time I went to the Ariel settlement, in 1986, and there was a Palestinian village down the road that was dying for lack of water. And I followed the water pipe that had basically been cut off up from the village to Ariel. Ariel had an Olympic-size swimming pool for their war criminal-settlers. Meanwhile, the Palestinians were having their water stolen and their village dying so that war criminals could go swimming. I have read since then that Ariel has produced two Olympic-size swimming pools. Israel does not have one shred of right under the Hague Regulations of 1907 to one ounce of this Palestinian water. And yet they are thirsting the Palestinians to death.

And this gets back to the Genocide Convention my colleague, Professor Nijar, has pointed out, genocide means also “deliberately inflicting on the group [here, Palestinians] conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.” They’re thirsting them to death so that their war criminals-settlers can swim in Olympic-size swimming pools. The olive groves, pillaged. Outright pillage that goes on all the time. One indiscriminate gang behavior by these war criminal-settlers with the full cooperation and support of the Israeli government. And it is organized, it’s systematic and it’s widespread. It’s a crime against humanity and a war crime.

 

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder

The testimony by Dr. Elkhatib dealing with the psychological conditions. What the Genocide Convention says here?  “Genocide – causing serious bodily or mental harm to the members of the group.” We have heard the testimony here today, that the entire Palestinian population suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. I’ve been there, I’ve seen it myself. Not just the children. Men, women, parents, children. And especially the people in Gaza who are being bombarded and killed and destroyed as we speak today.

The report I heard this morning was 120 Gazans had been killed in this murder in this Operation Cast Lead II. Where will this lead to? Where will it end? Cast Lead I, 1,400 Palestinians were exterminated. In 2006, when Israel bombed Lebanon, they exterminated 1,200 Lebanese. Just wiped them out. Absolutely no accountability at all. And again, that’s where you come in.

 

Tear Gas

Tear gas: We have heard testimony of tear gas during the First Intifada. It still goes on today. Israel uses special military-grade tear gas against Palestinian civilians that they get from the United States and the Republic of Korea, last I looked. We tried to stop it in the United States – two factories manufactured it. We threatened to sue one of them, and they stopped. We threatened to sue the second, they didn’t stop. We sued them and we lost.  Why did we lose all these cases on behalf of Palestinians in the United States? Zionist control and domination of the U.S. Federal Judiciary.

 

I personally have been involved in litigation going back to the Yaron case which I submitted into the record.  That was the first case ever filed in the entire world against an Israeli official for perpetrating a massacre against Palestinians. Being my involvement in these cases since then, I’m aware of only one case Palestinians had won in the United States courts.

 

The only one Meese v. P.L.O., Ramsey Clark, I did work with him. When the Reagan administration tried to shut down the Palestinian Mission to the United Nations organization in violation of U.N. Headquarters Agreement. We did win that one. That’s the only case I’m aware of we’ve won. And it’s pretty much a waste of time for any Palestinian to file any lawsuit in the Zionist controlled and dominated United States. And I’ve been advised by my Canadian friends that Canada isn’t much better.  So, we come to this Commission, to this Court, for justice.

 

Sabra and Shatilla

 

Madam Abouardini and Anne K. Sunde on the 1982 Sabra and Shatilla massacre: I’ve already given you my essay on the Yaron case, the first case ever on the Sabra and Shatila massacre. I’ve already described to you our efforts, failed efforts to do anything both in the United States and in Belgium, and I’m not aware of any other Court where we’ve been able to get justice for the victims of Sabra and Shatilla. So we’re coming to this Court, to this Commission. We are asking, certainly, to indict General Amos Yaron for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide for Sabra and Shatilla; and at a minimum, at least, to list Ariel Sharon as un-indicted co-conspirator, not that he isn’t as guilty as sin, but he is apparently in an irreversible coma, and for that reason would be incapable of assisting in his defense.

 

And for that reason under basic legal principles, you probably should not indict him but you can certainly list him as an un-indicted co-conspirator for the Sabra and Shatilla massacre. You’ve expressed an interest in my papers in this lawsuit. You can find them at Volume 5 of the Palestine Yearbook of International Law 1989. It’s in the article I gave you.

 

We saw in the testimony by Anne Sunde where General Yaron was located, on the building, on the hill, overlooking the camp which is completely consistent with what I told you. He could see everything. Indeed, it was his troops that completely surrounded these camps. The flares are going off at night. He then ordered his troops to let the Phalange militia to go in there to perpetrate the massacre. The flares were going off at night so that they can see what they were doing to carry out the massacre at night, figuring they had a limited amount of time to carry out the massacre. So they were working day and night to exterminate 3,500 completely innocent Palestinians and some Lebanese as well- it’s hard to figure out precisely what their breakdown is, but mostly are, Palestinians, and some Lebanese – all of them were completely unarmed.

 

And as Anne Sunde pointed out, the United States government under Philip Habib had given a formal pledge of protection to the P.L.O. that if their soldiers abandoned the camps where they were protecting these completely innocent civilians, the United States government would assure their safety. And on that condition, the P.L.O. fighters pulled out and moved off to Tunis.

 

Now the Phalange militia, the Christian Phalange militia, was organized under the Gemayel family. They were not part of the regular Lebanese army. I have no information that the Lebanese army units were involved in this massacre but the Christian Phalange militia were and when Bachir Gemayal was assassinated, there’s no evidence to believe that the Palestinians assassinated Bachir Gemayal. Rumour had it it might have been Syria, it might even have been Israel.  We really don’t know. But no evidence Palestinians did it.

 

General Yaron permitted the Christian Phalange to take out their revenge on the completely innocent Palestinians at Sabra and Shatilla. And this was known by Prime Minister Begin and Defence Minister Ariel Sharon – speaking of the chain of command – and Rafael Eitan, the Chief of Staff, though the only survivors, as I’ve said, are General Yaron and Sharon, and he is in irreversible coma.

 

But again, the massacre took place with Yaron on that roof with the full view of the camps, illuminated at night by flares and in communication with the Phalange militia with their head Elie Hobeika there on the roof with him with a walkie-talkie commanding them through the night on how to carry out this massacre. And the United States government knew from the get-go that a massacre was taking place. And despite the Habib promise of protection, they refused to do anything at all about it. They just let the massacre go on. Which raises the question for you to resolve of complicity by the United States government with the genocide at Sabra and Shatilla. And I will urge you to consider that. And if you agree with me, to indict the United States for complicity in the Sabra and Shatilla massacre. Obviously these proceedings are directed against the state of Israel and its highest level officials, but as Commissioners Halliday and von Sponeck correctly pointed out, it is fair to consider aiders and abettors by other states, and those other states that are complicit. And certainly, we know for a fact, Israel gets most of its weapons from the United States government that it uses to kill and destroy and exterminate Palestinians.

 

Genocide – Health-care

 

Ms. Nimat’s testimony: Yes, Israel has consistently bombed and destroyed  hospitals, health-care facilities and have attacked professional health-care people.  Doctors, we’ve also heard the testimony, the doctor from Bethlehem. They’re deliberately targeted. We know they have special protections under the Geneva Conventions.   Israel couldn’t care less. Indeed, again, it raises the issue of genocide – deliberately inflicting on a people conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole and in part. How? By destroying their whole health-care infrastructure. That’s how. Including their doctors, their nurses, their psychiatric people, etc.

 

We’ve already discussed Professor Manduca’s testimony about the white phosphorus. Again, even the United States government itself takes the position that the use of white phosphorus in warfare is a war crime, and at least says it’s not supposed to do it. Notice, Israel doesn’t care. We all saw those picture in Cast Lead I, of Israel, live footage on Press TV and Al-Jazeera, not the Zionist-controlled and dominated U.S. news media – but live pictures of them raining white phosphorus down on Gaza city and Gaza civilians. And it doesn’t help to say, “Well we’re just using it as tracers for artillery,” because it just means that the artillery was aimed at Gaza City and the Gaza civilians, which is also a war crime.

 

In its resolution of 19 October 2000, the U.N. Human Rights Commission, later Council, condemned Israel for committing war crimes and crimes against humanity against the Palestinians. The Goldstone Report reached the same conclusion. And Goldstone was a Zionist who was put in there to do damage control for Israel. And that’s exactly what he did. He softened that Report as best he could. And even the Goldstone Report found that they had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. The better report that does not do damage control for Israel is the Dugard Report that is cited in my brief on behalf of the League of Arab States. Professor Dugard was the Special Rapporteur for Palestine, very courageous human being – white resister to apartheid in South Africa, at threat to his life he stood up against apartheid in South Africa. So if you’re going to go for a definitive account on Cast Lead I, you should look at the Dugard Report and realise that Goldstone was put in there to do damage control for Israel and he significantly watered down his findings and conclusions. But even there, Goldstone found Israel had committed war crimes and crimes against humanity in Cast Lead I.

 

Crimes against Humanity

 

Where do crimes against humanity come from? They come from the Nuremberg Charter of 1945, drafted by the United States government and intended to deal with the Nazi persecution of the Jews. And let me repeat this. This is the idea of the United States of America to legally come to grips with the Nazi persecution of the Jews. And what does Nuremberg say?  Crimes against humanity: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds. Well, that’s exactly what Israel does to the Palestinians. These are Nazi crimes. We have to be honest about it. They are not yet on a scale of 6 million dead Jews. But they are moving in that direction. So it’s not the number here, but it’s the quality of the offence. So we have to understand. Just applying the Nuremberg definition intended to prosecute Nazi crimes against Jews, these are the same types of crimes. Not the number, but certainly the type.

 

Genocide

 

The crime against humanity is a precursor to genocide. Indeed, it was thought that crime against humanity was so serious that it should be codified in an international treaty. That what Hitler and the Nazis did to the Jews should be made a crime for any government to do to any people. And so we had the 1948 Genocide Convention. And Article 2, if you read the proposal I gave personally to President Arafat to sue Israel for genocide, defines the crime of genocide, “any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part a national, ethnic or racial or religious group as such.” So notice, “in part.” It does not have to be like Hitler and the Nazis intending to exterminate all of the Jewish people. Nope. The Genocide Convention tried to prevent this from happening and say, “well, we have to set the threshold lower.” If you have the intention to destroy “in part” a national, ethnic, racial or religious group as such, that qualifies as genocide. And clearly, let’s take “Cast Lead”, 1,400 exterminated Palestinians. The International Court of Justice ruled that even the 7,000 exterminated Bosnians at Srebrenica constituted genocide.

 

As documented by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe in his seminal work, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, Israel’s genocidal policy against the Palestinians have been “unremitting” extending from the very foundation of the State of Israel in 1948 until today, and continuing today as manifest in what we see in Gaza.

 

Even the U.N. General Assembly President, Miguel d’Escoto Brockmann, the former Foreign Minister of Nicaragua called “Cast Lead” ‘genocide’. And Brockmann should know. He was Foreign Minister of Nicaragua during Reagan’s war against Nicaragua when Reagan exterminated 35,000 Nicaraguans; and I was down there for a week up in the war zone investigating contra atrocities.

Certainly Israel and the Zionist agencies, forces and terrorist groups have committed genocide against the Palestinians that started on or about 1948 and has continued apace until today in violation of the Genocide Convention. Israel and its Zionist agencies and predecessors have ruthlessly implemented a systematic, comprehensive military, political, economic, campaign with intent to destroy in substantial part the national, ethnical, racial and religious group — Jews versus Muslims and Christians — constituting the Palestinian people. This consists of killing members of the group, in violation of Article 2(a), inflicting serious bodily and mental harm to the Palestinian people in violation of Convention Article 2(b). And also deliberately inflicting on the Palestinian people conditions of life calculated to bring about their physical destruction in whole or in part.

 

Peace process

We have heard a lot about the so-called peace process. This is a joke and a fraud. I was the lawyer for the Palestinian delegation to the Middle East Peace negotiations from the start in 1991 until Oslo was signed in 1993, both for the P.L.O., President Arafat, and my client the late, great Dr. Haidar Abdul-Shaffi, who was Chair of those peace negotiations. Israel never demonstrated one iota of good faith in their negotiations with the Palestinians. Not one. Oslo was an Israeli Bantustan proposal that was imposed upon President Arafat despite the best advice I gave him, and the opposition of Dr. Abdul-Shaffi. As he saw it, he had nothing better to do at that time. I am certainly not here to criticize him. He was the democratically elected leader of the Palestinian people, not Dr. Abdul-Shaffi, certainly not me. But the bottom line is, I’ve been involved in this process from the beginning.

 

There is no peace process. This is a Palestinian surrender process. A Palestinian Bantustanization process devised by the United States in cooperation with Israel and with the full support of the European Union and its member states. Indeed, shortly before he died in the summer of 2007, I called up Dr. Abdul-Shaffi, and he said to me — this is the man in charge of negotiating peace — and he said, “The Zionists have not changed their objectives since the Basel Conference of 1897!” That was 2007.

 

In the Basel conference, the Zionists made it clear: They want all of Palestine – West Bank, Jerusalem, what is 1948 Israel. They want it all. And they want it without Palestinians. And nothing has changed. That is the objective of Netanyahu, and Barak and Peres, and Lieberman, that I’m asking you here today to indict. And if we don’t bring Israel, this rogue criminal state, to justice, and if we do not bring their leaders, their highest level officials to justice, they will take all of Palestine and they will expel, disperse, and drive out the Palestinians. And that is what is at stake here today. And that is the task confronting you.

 

Conclusion

 

I have gone all over the world seeking justice for the Palestinians for the last 30 years. And I am now coming here today and asking you to indict this criminal rogue state Israel, its aiders and abettors, and its highest level officials, President Peres, Netanyahu, Lieberman, Barak, its chiefs of staff and their predecessors, the rapist Katsav, Olmert, Livni, Ashkenazi, and before that, General Amos Yaron.  Thank you.

 

FB/SL

 

Francis Anthony Boyle is a professor of international law at the University of Illinois College of Law.[1] Boyle received a A.B. (1971) in Political Science from the University of Chicago, then a J.D. degree magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, and A.M. and Ph.D. degrees in Political Science from Harvard University.

Related Viewpoints:

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian   

The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Blog!

Ukraine: The Brown (Shirt) Revolution – Prof Francis Boyle

22 February, 19:57

Ukraine: The Brown (Shirt) Revolution - Prof Francis Boyle

Play
Current Time0:00
/
Duration Time0:00
Loaded: 0%
Progress: 0%
00:00
00:00
Mute

Download audio file

 

Voice of RussiaIt is a fact that since 9-11-2001, the US Government has been in the business of destroying countries and using NATO as it principle instrument. That was stated more than a decade ago by then US Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz and later by General Wesley Clark. The Pentagon drew up a list of 7 states that were to be destroyed: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Syria and they have systematically proceeded to destroy all of the Countries on the list. The strategy in Ukraine is the same, US/NATO/EU are promoting the destabilization and the breakup of Ukraine in order to achieve the NATO goal of moving into Ukrainian territory closer to Russia. Harvard Professor Francis Boyle, a US based Russian expert who was invited to the Soviet Union to lecture spoke on these issues and more in an interview with the Voice of Russia.
While Russia was distracted into believing that the US wanted a reset US foreign policy was being planned and dictated by rabid Russia haters like Zbignew Brzezinski and Richard Pipes. Brzezinski wants to breakup Russia into approximately 68 parts and has placed his protégés in key US foreign policy posts. According to Mr. Boyle Brezezinski has staffed the Obama administration with his acolytes and protégées, including the US Ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul, a specialist in color revolutions. At the end of the day the US plan is to see the breakup of the Russian Federation, that is the goal.
Prof Boyle
This is John Robles, you are listening to an interview with Professor Francis Boyle. He is a Professor in International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law in Champaign, Illinois. This is part 1 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com
Robles: Hello Sir! How are you this evening?
Boyle: Very fine. Thanks for having me on, John, and my best to your listening audience.
Robles: Thank you Sir! And thanks for agreeing to speak with us. News of the day is Ukraine. Now you’ve recently made some statements and done some work regarding Syria. I’d like to ask for your correlations between what is going on right now in Syria and what is going on right now in Ukraine. Do you see a connection? Some people are saying that Ukraine, the push there was because the US was not allowed to carry out military operations against Syria. Do you see a relationship between them?
Boyle: Well I wouldn’t say that is “necessarily” the reason. As we know, Ukraine has for a long time been a strategic objective of the United States and trying to get Ukraine into NATO. And this EU plan was simply a first step in that direction. The EU wasn’t really offering anything to Ukraine. But it was very clear, if they could move Ukraine closer to the EU, that would be a step closer to NATO. In fact, I regret to say over the years, even though I have EU citizenship and carry an EU passport, the EU now has become nothing but an anteroom to NATO.
So, I think this really has to be understood in terms of the gradual movement of NATO further to the east in violation of the pledge that George Bush Senior and Jim Baker gave to then President Gorbachev that if he agreed to the reunification of Germany, NATO would move no farther east, towards Russia’s boundaries.
Robles: Well, we’ve seen those promises, similar promises were made to President Gorbachev – the first and last President of the Soviet Union – those were also ignored. And regarding …
Boyle: The problem was – he never got them in writing.
Robles: That’s exactly what I was going to say.
Boyle: That is incredibly naive on his part not to get them in writing. And I would point out, right now the United States is trying to do the exact same thing on the deployment of BMDs (ballistic missile defense) into Europe and around the borders of Russia saying “you have to accept our assurances, but we are not going to give you anything in writing.”
You know, it is preposterous. In fact, we had something in writing and that was the Anti-ballistic Missile System Treaty of 1972 that prevented all of this. And then Bush Junior pulled out of that treaty. So, as it stands now, really anything goes, these verbal assurances mean nothing.
Robles: Getting away a little bit from the ABM system now, you mentioned NATO and Ukraine; there is a military objective, if you could tell us about that? And is there a similar military objective for Syria? Or what is the objective of the US Government in Syria?
Boyle: Since 9/11 2001, as publicly admitted by then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, the United States Government would be getting into the business of destroying states. And that was later confirmed by General Wesley Clark, as you know in his memoirs, his meeting there at the Pentagon where they had the list of seven states they were going to proceed to take over.
Afghanistan was first, Iraq was second, Sudan was on the list, Libya was on the list and Syria was on the list, Iran was on the list. So, they are proceeding systematically down that list of destroying states. Syria is now near the top, Iran might be next. And it also appears now the same strategy is being applied to Ukraine to promote the crackup of Ukraine between east and west and, I would hate to say it, the dissolution of Ukraine as a state.
Robles: Can you repeat that quote again? He said…
Boyle: Yes Wolfowitz said… I have the citation in my book “The Criminality of Nuclear Deterrence”, where Wolfowitz said: “We are going to get into the business of destroying states”. And then, soon thereafter General Wesley Clark (head of NATO) was in the Pentagon and can confirm they drew up a list of seven states that they were systematically going to go after.
So, that’s really, the objective here of Syria, against Syria, is as they did to Libya: to crackup Syria as a state into its constituent, religious and ethnic units not only for the United States but also for the benefit of Israel.
As you know, Israel has been a long time opponent to Syria. They headed a plan there, the Yi Nolan Plan to crackup surrounding states in order to better manage them and keep them under control. So, here you see a congruence of interests certainly between the United States and Israel.
And I regret to say it, but pretty much they have cracked up Syria in its constituent units, as they had done to Iraq. We now have basically three mini states in Iraq. The same has been done to Afghanistan and also Libya, where you have, you know it is hard to say there is a meaningful state there anymore. I have a new book out called “Destroying Libya and World Order” where I have all these citations in there and an analysis. And then, I tried to extend this to Syria near the end of the book.
And it does appear we are seeing a similar pattern of behavior here on Ukraine: to destabilize Ukraine, promote a crack up, some type of civil war or who knows what. And I guess the theory is, well if NATO-EU can get western Ukraine – fine! – they can extend the borders of NATO, the EU that far.
So, it is a very dangerous situation, because, as you know, Ukraine is of utmost strategic significance to Russia. And second, Russia believes that Ukraine is the cradle of its civilization.
Robles: Well it is, that’s not a belief. Ukraine is the mother of Rus.
Boyle: I’ve been to Ukraine and I’ve been to where Nestor wrote his chronicles, and I have studied Russian and Ukrainian history, sure, at Harvard. And I went through the same PhD program at Harvard that produced Zbigniew Brzezinski before me and Richard Pipes, both of whom were, are ardent Russia haters, there is no question at all about it. And that is really part of the problem here in the United States, when it comes to Russian studies, that so much of it is biased against Russia inherently.
Robles: Why is that, please, if you could? You’ve been through the system, you know the system. Why does the US hate Russia so much? Why?
Boyle: Well I spent ten years at the University of Chicago and Harvard Law School studying Russian history, Russian literature, Soviet politics, Russian politics. Indeed I even offered Soviet politics and Russian history on my PhD General Exams at Harvard, which qualified me to teach both those subjects to undergraduates at Harvard. But I never learned the language because that was not what I was intending to do.
And all those years, ten years of studying, I only had two professors who I thought were fair, reasonable and balanced when it came to Russia and the Soviet Union. And understand Harvard and Chicago are two of the leading centers in the United States for training Russian experts. They train professors and experts, government officials and things of that nature.
Robles: Diplomats…
Boyle: So, and again, you had Brzezinski, I went through the same PhD program that produced Brzezinski and Kissinger. You know Brzezinski is an expatriate Pole who hates the Russians with a passion.
Robles: Oh God yes, yeah…
Boyle: Indeed Brzezinski wants to crackup Russia into its constituent units.
Robles: Right, I think it was 68 autonomous regions, if that’s what it was.
Boyle: It’s more dangerous than that! In that Obama’s mentor at Columbia was Brzezinski. And Brzezinski ran the foreign affairs apparatus for Obama’s campaign and he has staffed the Obama administration with his acolytes and protégés, like McFaul – the recently resigning ambassador.
Robles: I’m sorry, can you expand a little bit on McFaul? You said he is one of Brzezinski’sprotégé.
Boyle: Yes, he is from the Hoover Institute at Stanford, which is a neo-conservative operation out there, and Brzezinski is one of these people.
Robles: Was McFaul chosen by Brzezinski?
Boyle: I think all the high-level appointments in the Obama administration in foreign affairs have been run by Brzezinski. That is my personal feeling looking at it. Yes, Brzezinski decided not to take a position himself, but all these people that have surrounded Obama, not just on Russia, but other areas, are Brzezinski protégés and indeed that goes back in the Democratic Party I think since Carter came to power and Brzezinski was his National Security Advisor. You know, he was the one who started the Afghan Mujahidin war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan and bragged about it.
So, within the Democratic Party Brzezinski is considered to be their foreign affairs guru and he was Obama’s mentor at Columbia, and it is a matter of public record that Brzezinski was running the foreign affairs apparatus for the Obama campaign.
Robles: Wow!
Boyle: So, I certainly believe he helped staff this administration on foreign affairs matters.
Robles: People are thinking about a reset and trying to improve relations. And I don’t think anyone knew that it was all Brzezinski, because people knew who Brzezinski was a long time ago.
Boyle: Right. Well, this I think is part of their plan to see the crackup of the Russian Federation, at the end of the day. Sure, that’s I think what his objective is.
You know, if you want to get credentialed as an expert on Russia, you have to go to somewhere like Columbia or Harvard, or Chicago and get your Master’s degree or PhD from people like that. At Harvard they also had Richard Pipes, he was the Reagan’s top guru on the Soviet Union, The Committee on the Present Danger.
I had Pipes for imperial Russian history, again, another expatriate Pole who hates the Russians with passion. Pipes was so bad in his course on Imperial Russian history, he used to break into sweat when he was lecturing on Peter the Great or Catherine the Great and had to take a handkerchief out of his pocket and wipe his brow. So, he is another fanatic against the Russians, only prominent in the Republican Party.
So, we don’t really have … you know Professor Cohen at NYU I think is fair, balanced and reasonable when it comes to Russia. He just wrote something in The Nation on Ukraine. And I think he wrote a very good book on Russia. But you know, he is really the exception to a pretty abysmal rule here in the United States when it comes to training and credentialing what were Soviet and now Russian experts.
Robles: So, why are you fair-minded Sir?
Boyle: I try to come at Russia and the Soviet Union with an open mind. I lived through the Cuban missile crisis and I concluded that probably the most important issue of my time would be to learn to understand Russia across the board and the Soviet Union. So, that’s why I spent the ten years studying at the University of Chicago and Harvard and getting formally credentialed in these areas.
And I have to say I was pretty appalled. I did have Professor Edward Keenan at Harvard who was my teacher, mentor and friend. And he was Director of the Russian Research Center. And he is very fair, balanced and reasonable, and Professor Harold Berman at Harvard Law School, again, very fair, balanced and reasonable. But that was pretty much about it.
I was invited over twice by the Soviet Government to lecture, once around the country in 1986 and then in 1989. And I guess they just figured I was a reasonable American to talk to. And I was open, I met with people and lectured and I seemed to get along with everyone. We didn’t necessarily agree about everything, but at least we could try to talk it out.
But that’s not what we are seeing now. That’s for sure! As we know from the Nuland tape here with the Ambassador in Kiev, she admits they had spent at least $5 million right away now trying to promote opposition to the democratically elected government in Ukraine. Whatever you think of Yanukovych, he is democratically elected and so far I think he’s shown a remarkable restraint.
You were listening to an interview with Professor Francis Boyle. He is a Professor in International Law at the University of Illinois College of Law. That was part 1 of a longer interview. You can find the rest of this interview on our website at voiceofrussia.com

RT’S THE TRUTHSEEKER: WHO HAS NUKES IN THE MIDDLE EAST

SUNDAY, DECEMBER 15, 2013 AT 11:29PM

GILAD ATZMON

Israel instructs Obama: “Iranian and Syrian Sanctions are Not Painful Enough!”


….impose an international blockade now!

 
Franklin Lamb
Beirut
Al-manar
Graphics by Alex

On 3/26/2013 Iran is expected to meet with other world powers in Astana, Kazakhstan to discuss its nuclear program. Discussions that the occupiers of Palestine fervently hope will not be successful. It is toward this end that their key demand this week to the US Congress, the White House and the European Union is “to cast responsibility on the Iranians by blaming them for the talks’ failure in the clearest terms possible.”

According to the Al-Monitor of 3/19/13, Israel also demands that the countries meeting in Kazakhstan“make it perfectly clear that slogans such as ‘negotiations can’t go on forever’ are their marching orders to the White House, and they want the Kazakhstan attendees to act “so severely that the Iranians realize that they face a greater threat than just Israeli military action.” 

“The message must be that this time the entire west, behind Israel’s leadership, is contemplating the launch of a massive military action.” Unsaid is that “the entire West” is expected to confront Iran militarily while Tel Aviv’s forces will mop up Hezbollah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Syria if necessary.

Pending the above arrangements, Israel this week is further demanding that the Obama White House issue another Executive Order dramatically ratcheting up the US-led Sanctions against Iran and Syria while it prepares for a hoped for “ game changing international economic blockade, including no-fly zones enforced by NATO.

To achieve yet another lawyer of severe sanctions, and at the behest of AIPAC, a “legislative planning” meeting was called by Congressman Eliot Engel, who represents New Yorks 17thDistrict (the Bronx) and who is the Ranking Member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and Rep. Ros-Lehtinen (Florida’s 27th District), Chair of the House Subcommittee on the Middle East and North Africa. The session was held in a posh Georgetown restaurant and participant’s included representatives from AIPAC, Israel, and Saudi Arabia, Bahrain plus half a dozen Congressional staffers.

Congressman Engel has co-sponsored virtually every anti-Arab, anti-Islam, anti-Palestinian, anti-Iran, and anti-Syrian Congressional broadside since he entered Congress a quarter-century ago. His campaign literature last fall stated: “I am a strong supporter of sanctions against those who repeatedly reject calls to behave as responsible nations. (Israel excepted-ed). I have authored or helped author numerous bills which have been signed into law to impose sanctions against rogue states including Iran and Syria.” Ros-Lehtinen and Engel led all members with AIPAC donations on the House side in last fall’s Congressional elections. They are ranked number one and two respectively as still serving career recipients of Israel-AIPAC’s “indirect” campaign donations.

 Some Congressional operatives accuse Rep. Ros-Lehtinen of being a bit lazy and neglecting the bread and butter needs of her Florida constituents. But others argue that it depends on which constituents one has in mind. Her election mailings and her Congressional website claim that the Congresswoman “led all Congressional efforts tirelessly to generate votes to block what she views as anti-Israel resolutions offered at the former UN Commission on Human Rights.”

A big fan of US-led sanctions against Iran and Syria, Rep. Ros-Lehtinen introduced the Iran Freedom Support Act on January 6, 2005, which increased sanctions and expanded punitive measures against the Iranian people until the Iranian regime has dismantled its nuclear plants. Rep. Ros-Lehtinen also introduced H.R. 957, the Iran Sanctions Amendments Act, which she claims “will close loopholes in current law by holding export credit agencies, insurers, and other financial institutions accountable for their facilitation of investments in Iran and sanction them as well.” In addition, H.R. 957 seeks to impose liability on parent companies for violations of sanctions by their foreign entities. She also co-sponsored H.R 1357 which requires “U.S. government pension funds to divest from companies that do any business with any country that does business with Iran.” Her campaign literature states that, “She was proud to be the leading Republican sponsor of H.R. 1400, the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act. This bill applies and enhances a wide range of additional sanctions.”
 

In addition, last year Illeana introduced H.R. 394, which enlarges US Federal Court Jurisdiction regarding claims by American citizens their claims in U.S. courts. Unclear is whether she realizes that one consequence of her initiative would be to open even wider US courtroom doors to Iranian-Americans and Syria-Americans who today are being targeted and damaged by the lady’s ravenous insatiable craving for civilian targeting economic sanctions.

 

But Ileana and Elliot appear to be fretting.

So is Israel.

The reasons are several and they include the fact that the US-led sanctions have failed to date to achieve the accomplishments they were designed to produce. These being to cripple the Iranian economy, provoke a popular protest among the Iranian people over inflation and scarcity of food and medicines, weaken Iran as much as possible before adopting military measures against it, and, most essentially, achieving regime change to turn the clock back to those comfortable days of our submissive, compliant Shah.

Zionist prospects for Syria aren’t any better at the moment. Tel Aviv’s to intimidate the White House into invading Syria have not worked. Plan A has failed miserably according to the Israeli embassy people attending the Engel-Ros Litinen’s informal conflab. Neither did the “how about we just arm the opposition” plan that originated last year with David H. Petraeus and was supported by Hillary Clinton while being pushed by AIPAC. The goal was to create allies in Syria that the US and Israel could control if Mr.Assad was removed from power. Moreover, the White House believes thatthere are no good options for Obama. It has vetoed 4 recent Israeli proposals including arming the rebels and is said to believe that Syria is already dangerously awash with “unreliable arms.”

 

The recent shriveling in Israeli prospects for a dramatic Pentagon intervention in Syria reflect White House war weariness. And also Israel’s predilection to bomb targets itself in Syria, as it did recently to assassinate a senior Iranian officer in the Quds force of the Revolutionary Guards, Gen. Hassan Shateri. Contrary to the false story that Israel attacked a missiles convoy, some unassembled equipment was damaged but that was not the primary target according to Fred Hof, a former U.S. State Department official. Gen. Shateri was.

 
Golani Brigade soldier Osher Maman
posts photos of himself playing with weapons in irresponsible ways

Making matters worse for Tel Aviv, the Israeli military is reportedly becoming skittish due to its deteriorating political and military status in the region and its troops have recently completed subterranean warfare drills to prepare them for a potential clash with Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the Jerusalem Post reported on 2/20/13.

“Today during training, we simulated a northern terrain, that included what we might encounter,” Israeli Lt. Sagiv Shoker, commander of a military Reconnaissance Unit of the Engineering Corps, based at the Elikim base in northern Israel near the border with Lebanon explained. Shoker added that his units spent a week focused on how to approach Hezbollah’s alleged underground bunkers and tunnels in South Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley quietly and quickly. 

Israeli forces commander Gantz has been complaining recently to the Israeli cabinet that Hezbollah Special Forces are gaining much valuable experience in Syria fighting highly skilled and motivated al Nusra jihadists and his troops may not be prepared to face them on the battlefield if a conflict erupts. It has been known since 2006 that Israeli soldiers “are having motivation deficits” as Gantz and others have complained.

Ordinary citizens in Iran and Syria with whom this observer met recently, including some with whom he has shared lengthy conversations while posing many questions, cannot ignore the burden of the US-led sanctions in various aspects of their lives. Nor can the Iranian or Syrian governments or their economic institutions. At the beginning of the summer of 2010, and even more so since the summer of 2012, the US-led civilian targeting sanctions imposed were significantly tightened by the Obama administration and its allies.

The administration realized that the sanctions imposed on Iran until then were ineffective and understood that Iran’s steady progress toward nuclear power capability would quickly leave the US with no alternative than the acceptance of a nuclear Iran. But the administration, according to former State Department official Hof, believed that unless it took more drastic measures against Iran, Israel would launch a military strike against Iran which would likely destroy Zionist Israel- a prospect not every US official and Congressional staffer privately laments. Congressional sources report that the White House now feels that Iran has achieved deterrence and that Israel would be dangerously foolhardy to attack the country.
 

While Israel advocates an economic blockade of Iran and Syria, under binding rules of international and US law, economic blockades are acts of war. They are variously defined as surrounding a nation with hostile forces, economic besieging, preventing the passage in or out of a country of civilian supplies or aid. It is an act of naval warfare to block access to a country’s coastline and deny entry to all vessels and aircraft, absent a formal declaration of war and approval of the UN Security Council.

 

All treaties to which America is a signatory, including the UN Charter, are binding US law. Chapter VII authorizes only the Security Council to “determine the existence of any threat to the peace, or act of aggression (and, if necessary, take military or other actions to) restore international peace and stability.” It permits a nation to use force (including a blockades) only under two conditions: when authorized by the Security Council or under Article 51 allowing the “right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member….until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.”

 

As International law Professor Francis Boyle reminds us, Customary International Law recognizes economic blockades as an act of war because of the implied use of force even against third party nations in enforcing the blockade. Writes Boyle,“Blockades as acts of war have been recognized as such in the Declaration of Paris of 1856 and the Declaration of London of 1909 that delineate the international rules of warfare.” America approved these Declarations, thereby are became binding US law as well “as part of general international law and customary international law.” US presidents Dwight Eisenhower and Jack Kennedy, called economic blockades acts of war.

 

So has the US Supreme Court.

 

In Bas v. Tingy (1800), the US Supreme Court addressed the constitutionality of fighting an “undeclared war” (read extreme economic sanctions). It ruled the seizure of a French vessel (is) an act of hostility or reprisal. The Court cited Talbot v. Seaman (1801) in ruling that “specific legislative authority was required in the seizure. In Little v. Barreme (1804), the Court held that “even an order from the President could not justify or excuse an act that violated the laws and customs of warfare. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote that a captain of a United States warship could be held personally liable in trespass for wrongfully seizing a neutral Danish ship, even though” presidential authority ordered it.

 

“The Prize Cases” (1863) is perhaps the most definitive US Supreme Court ruling on economic blockades requiring congressional authorization. The case involved President Lincoln’s ordering “a blockade of coastal states that had joined the Confederacy at the outset of the Civil War. The Court….explicitly (ruled) that an economic blockade is an act of war and is legal only if properly authorized under the Constitution.”

 

Iran and Syria pose no threat to the US or any peaceful law abiding nation. Imposing a blockade against either violates the UN Charter and settled international humanitarian laws as well as US law. It would constitute an illegal act of aggression that under the Nuremberg Charter is the designated a “supreme international crime”above all others. It would render the Obama administration and every government of other participating nations criminally liable.

 
maneuver
IRGC: Key Stage of “Great Prophet 8” Kicks Off

Contrary to what the occupiers of Palestine may fantasize, if the White House wants an economic blockade of Iran or Syria it must declare war, letting the American people be heard on the subject and convince the UN Security Council to pass a UNSCR under Chapter 7.

 

The White House cannot legally, morally or consistently with claimed American humanitarian values continue to target civilian populations with economic sanctions on the cheap.


Franklin LambFranklin Lamb is doing research in Syria and can be reached c/o fplamb@gmail.com

He is the author of The Price We Pay: A Quarter-Century of Israel’s Use of American Weapons Against Civilians in Lebanon.
He contribute to Uprooted Palestinians Blog
Please Sign http://www.petitiononline.com/ssfpcrc/petition.html
Beirut Mobile: +961-70-497-804
Office: +961-01-352-127

 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Will Syria Go on Offense at The Hague?

Franklin Lamb
Al-manar

A “legal intifada” appears likely for more than just the Palestinians
La Maison d’Avocats, Damascus

 

 

Even before the historic 139 to 8 vote of the UN General Assembly on November 29 of this year which opened up a plethora of legal remedies for Palestinians, a “legal intifada” — to borrow a phrase from Francis Boyle, Professor of International Law and a longtime advocate of advancing resistance to the illegal occupation of Palestine through the rule of law — has been taking form in this region.

The reasons include nearly seven decades of countless Zionist crimes against Muslims and Christians in occupied Palestine and far beyond. As Professor Boyle has suggested, the opportunities presented to the PLO by the lopsided UN vote “…can mean numerous available legal remedies ranging from the securing of a fair share of the gas deposits off the shores of Gaza, control of Palestinian airspace and telecommunications and, crucially, bringing the Zionist regime to account at the International Criminal Court and the International Court of Justice.

SyriaSyria too, currently under enormous pressure from international interference into the internal affairs of the country and the subject of an intense regime change project led by the US and France, has international legal remedies immediately available to it stemming from the actions of the US, UK, France and others in imposing on Syria’s civilian population one of the most severe and clearly illegal layers of sanctions. Were Syria and others to file an Application for an Advisory Opinion with the ICJ few in the international legal community have much doubt that targeting civilians economically and attempting to destroy the Syrian economy — for no other purpose than to ignite rebellion — would be considered a violation of international law at the International Court of Justice.
Granted there are some potential jurisdictional problems given that Syria has not yet accepted the Article 36 Compulsory Jurisdiction of the World Court, as provided in the Statute of the Court, and the strong campaign at the UN that would certainly be waged by the Obama Administration to challenge ICJ jurisdiction to hear a case on behalf of Syria and its civilian population, but they can be overcome. As a general rule, an Advisory Opinion requires a simple majority affirmative vote by the UN General Assembly or an Application by one of the designated UN Specialized Agencies. This might be a tough job to secure the former but it is doable with the latter. Moreover, should Syria accept the compulsory jurisdiction of the ICJ it could likely quickly resolve the issue of sanctions by claiming a legal dispute with one or more states that also accept CJ and are supporters of sanctions. For example, the UK, France and their NATO and Gulf allies.

Aspects of a possible filing at the International Court of Justice on the legality of US-led sanctions are currently being researched by seasoned international lawyers and academics, at various Western and International law centers. Supporting efforts being worked on include drafting amicus curie briefs on the issue of the legality of the US-led sanctions to be submitted to the Court, plans for securing the widest possible political support for challenging the US-led sanctions from among Non-Aligned Movement countries, international peace groups, NGO’s, pro-peace websites, bloggers, social media and online activists as well as organizing a skilled media center to disseminate information about the case including quickly publishing, in paperback book form, one of the key Annexes to be submitted to the ICJ upon filing the Application. This volume will present Syrian government and International NGO prepared data on the inhumane effects of the US led sanctions in all their aspects, including by not limited to children, the elderly and the infirm, plus the effects of the US-led sanctions on the Syrian economy generally, i.e. consumer goods, medical delivery systems, financial institutions, currency values and related aspects of the lives of the civilian population of Syria.

Were Syria, and others, to take the illegal and immoral US-led sanctions case to the World Court and other available venues, they would shift their diplomatic position from a defensive status to taking the offense. Such a bold initiative would advance accountability under international law and, because the ICJ would likely grant a Petition for Interim Measures of Protection, the US-led sanctions could be suspended during the course of the judicial proceedings. Obviously this lifting/freezing of the sanctions would immediately and directly inure to the benefit of the Syrian civilian population, including the half million Palestinian refugees in Syria as well as thousands from Iraq.

This would work in concert with the “THREE B’s”, to borrow a phrase from Russia’s top middle east envoy, Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Boganov, referring to Mr. Brahimi, Mr. Bogdanov, and Undersecretary William Burns, a former ambassador to Moscow, who would be urged to intensify their focus on achieving a diplomatic resolution of the Syrian crisis based on modified June 2011 Geneva formulation of a transition period leading to the 2014 elections.

Corte Internacional Justica (Tribunal de la Haya)According to several International lawyers surveyed between October and December, 2012, Syria clearly has the facts of the US sanctions case in its favor and there are ample solid legal theories to argue to and convince the World Court. Under the ICJ Statute, the Court must decide cases solely in accordance with international law. Hence the ICJ must apply:
(1) any international conventions and treaties;
(2) international custom;
(3) general principles recognized as law by civilized nations; and
(4) judicial decisions and the teachings of highly qualified publicists of the various nations. From this body of international law the International Court of Justice would find ample basis to support Syria’s claims not only for the benefit of its civilian population but also to advance the rule of law in the global community.

The ICJ is made up of 15 jurists from different countries. No two judges at any given time may be from the same country. The court’s composition is static but generally includes jurists from a variety of cultures. Among the Principles, Standards and Rules of international law that Syria may well argue to the World Court, may include but not be limited to, the following:

The US led sanctions violate international humanitarian law due to the negative health effects of the sanctions on the civilian population of Syria. This renders the sanctions illegal under international customary law and the UN Charter for their disproportionate damage caused to Syria’s civilian population;

The US led severe sanctions regime constitutes an illegitimate form of collective punishment of the weakest and poorest members of society, the infants, the children, the chronically ill, and the elderly;
The US, France and the UK, as well as their allies, have violated the UN Charter by their imposition of severe economic sanctions and threats of military force. The United States, Israel, and some of their allies, regularly threaten Damascus with the “option” of a military strike. The ICJ has ruled previously that “A threat or use of force is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the UN Charter and fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is therefore unlawful”. It has further ruled that “A threat of use of force must be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with threats to members of the United Nations.”

Moreover, unilateral US sanctions, without the imprimatur of the United Nations are blatantly illegal under International Law because they are in fact multilateral and impose penalties on any country which opposes the sanctions or does not choose to participate in them;

The US led sanctions amount to an Act of War given their effects including hardships on the general public and that Syria therefore has a legal right to Self-Defense.

The US led sanctions, given their design and intent, constitute acts of aggression against Syria in violation of Article 2 (4) of the UN charter.

The indisputable facts of the US led sanctions case warrant the imposition by the ICJ of Restraining Orders designed to prevent any type of blockade or no-fly zones in Syria and the immediate cessation of the imposition of further economic sanctions against Syria, and also their efforts of securing more sanctions against Syria at the United Nations Security Council. The Restraining Orders, under the umbrella of Interim Measures of Protection, would presumably also seek to prohibit the US and its allies from the Persian Gulf region and elsewhere, from advocating aggressive military actions against Syria, including supplying funding, weapons, and jihadists, as well as Western “Special Forces” currently pouring into Syria from its northern border with Turkey and to negotiate with the Syrian government in good faith to end the current crisis.

Syria can legitimately claim, and would presumably argue at the ICJ and other international forums that the bi-lateral or multilateral economic sanctions, led by the US and its Gulf allies, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, are illegal, indeed criminal due to their assault on international humanitarian law and required state practice.

Syria could successfully argue, according to a recent survey of international lawyers conducted in Brussels and The Hague, as well as within Syria’s Maison d’Avocats, that the US led sanctions violate the international law principle of Non-intervention in the internal affairs of UN member states and that the stewards of these sanctions could themselves be subject to international sanctions plus compensatory and punitive damages for the benefit of their victims.

In summary, as Germany’s Green Party, and increasingly, legal scholars and human rights organizations generally are insisting, sanctions against Syria’s civilian population fundamentally violate international law.

Should NATO sets up a no-fly zone and were to launch airstrikes against Damascus, it can and should immediately be sued at The Hague and if the situation deteriorates NATO can and should be held to account for targeting Alawites and Christians on the basis of the 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. All participating countries, 142 to date, are obliged to prevent and punish actions of genocide in war and in peacetime. Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, elements of a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group including killing members of the group, causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group, deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part.
Despite Syria’s strong case on both the facts and the law, and the diversity in structure and composition of the International Court of Justice, the International Tribunal has a few times over the years been criticized for favoring established powers. Under articles 3 and 9 of the ICJ Statute, the judges on the ICJ should represent “the main forms of civilization and principal legal systems of the world.” This definition suggests that the ICJ does not represent the interests of developing countries. Nevertheless, the World Courts record has been by and large exemplary in applying principles, standards and rules of international law both in contested cases and advisory opinions and Syria has an excellent opportunity to protect its citizens, thwart US and Israeli designs on the region, and advance international accountability — all to the inestimable benefit of all people and nations.

Syria, which the US and Israel and their allies are today working to keep off balance and on the defensive diplomatically, should consider immediately filing an application with the International Court of Justice, and use all other available international legal, political and humanitarian tribunals, to directly challenge and boldly confront the US led sanctions campaign against its people. The Syrian Arab Republic, by taking the offensive at the World Court and elsewhere, will help relieve the enormous pressures on its civilians and advance the principles, standards and rules of international law—for the benefit of all mankind.

Franklin Lamb is doing research in Damascus and can be reached c/o fplamb@gmail.com

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

More Than 30 Top U.S. Officials Guilty of War Crimes

Source
by Sherwood Ross

More than 30 top U.S. officials, including presidents G.W. Bush and Obama, are guilty of war crimes or crimes against peace and humanity “legally akin to those perpetrated by the former Nazi regime in Germany,” the distinguished American international law authority Francis Boyle charges.

U.S. officials involved in an “ongoing criminal conspiracy” in the Middle East and Africa who either participated in the commission of the crimes under their jurisdiction or failed to take action against them included both presidents since 2001 and their vice-presidents, the secretaries of State and Defense, the directors of the CIA and National Intelligence and the Pentagon’s Joint Chiefs of Staff and heads of the Central Command, among others, Boyle said.

“In international legal terms, the U.S. government itself should now be viewed as constituting an ongoing criminal conspiracy under international law,” Boyle said in an address Dec. 9th to the Puerto Rican Summit Conference on Human Rights at the University of the Sacred Heart in San Juan. Boyle is a Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and the author of numerous books on the subject.

Besides the presidents, Boyle identified as war criminals Vice Presidents Dick Cheney and Joseph Biden; Secretaries of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Robert Gates and Leon Panetta; Secretaries of State Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice, and Hillary Clinton; National Security Advisors Stephen Hadley, James Jones, and Thomas Donilon; Director of National Intelligence John Negroponte and James Clapper and Central Intelligence Agency(CIA) Directors George Tenet, Leon Panetta, and David Petraeus.

In the Pentagon, war criminals include the members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and some Regional Commanders-in-Chiefs, especially for the U.S. Central Command (CENTCOM), and more recently, AFRICOM. Besides Chairman General Martin Dempsey, U.S. Army, JCS members include Admiral James Winnefeld Jr.; General Raymond Odierno, Chief of Staff of the Army; General James Amos, Commandant of the Marine Corps; Admiral Jonathan Greenert, Chief of Naval Operations; and General Mark Welsh, Chief of Staff of the Air Force.

Those who have headed the Central Command since the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan include Lt. General Martin Dempsey; Admiral William Fallon; General John Abizaid; General Tommy Franks; Lt. General John Allen; and current commander General James Mattis. General Carter Ham of AFRICOM bears like responsibility.

Boyle told the Puerto Rican conference that President G.W. Bush had shamelessly exploited the 9/11 tragedy and “set forth to steal a hydrocarbon empire from the Muslim states and peoples living in Central Asia and the Middle East and Africa under “bogus pretexts.” These pretexts included fighting a war against “international terrorism” or “Islamic fundamentalism”, eliminating weapons of mass destruction, the promotion of democracy, and humanitarian intervention, Boyle said.

The serial aggressions of the U.S.violate such basic documents of international law as the Nuremberg Charter, the Nuremberg Judgment, and the Nuremberg Principles, Boyle said. As well, they violate the Pentagon’s own U.S. Army Field Manual 27-10 on The Law of Land Warfare, which applies to the President himself as Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Armed Forces under Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution.

U.S. administrations since 9/11 may be charged with “crimes against peace” for their attacks in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, Libya, Somalia,Yemen, and Syria, “and perhaps their longstanding threatened war of aggression against Iran,”

Boyle said.

The eminent international authority went on to charge that the war crimes included “torture, enforced disappearances, assassinations, murders, kidnappings, extraordinary renditions, ‘shock and awe’ (bombings), and (the use of) depleted uranium, white phosphorus, cluster bombs, drone strikes,” and the like.

Boyle said Americans “must not permit any aspect of their foreign affairs and defense policies to be conducted by acknowledged ‘war criminals’” but must insist upon “the impeachment, dismissal, resignation, indictment, conviction, and long-term incarceration of all U.S. government officials guilty of such heinous international and domestic crimes.”

Boyle said the so-called “targeted killing” of human beings in a non-battlefield situation is “pure murder” under basic principles of Anglo-American common law and international criminal law. And in this case, where these murders are both widespread and systematic, these murders constitute a Crime against Humanity under Article 7(1)(a) of the Rome Statute for the International Criminal Court.

Although the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute, Boyle said, “nevertheless President Obama is subject to the jurisdiction of the ICC and its Prosecutor for murdering people in ICC member States.”

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Franklin Lamb: "An historic victory for Palestine-another rejection of Occupation"

 

 
Some Palestinians in refugee camps consider the UN General Assembly vote of 11/29/12, 
a “birth certificate for Palestine” on 11% of Historical Palestine.
A rugged Palestine as Zahar called it
Personaly, I am with Zahar saying: “Abbas does not represent me and is not responsible for me in anything.”
 
I am afraid Mishaal and Iblishood would turn the so called “birth certificate” into a “Death Certificate” especially for the refugee cause.
70-year-old Palestinian refugee Christian, holds her birth certificate which was issued by the Palestinian Government in 1939. (Getty Images)
 
“After twenty-two years of getting nowhere but further screwed to Israel’s apartheid wall on the West Bank and strangulated in Gaza, it is now time for the Palestinians to adopt a new strategy, which I ( Francis Boyle) most respectfully recommend here for them:
The Palestinians must sign nothing and let Israel collapse!
It will
 

 “An historic victory for Palestine-another rejection of Occupation”

Franklin Lamb
Beirut

The United Nations General Assembly vote of 11/29/12, which some in Lebanon’s 12 Palestinian refugee camps are calling a “birth certificate for our country” is the latest of more than 400 UN resolutions on the Question of Palestine and a rare major victory for Palestinians after 65 years of resisting occupation.
The UN action, which was backed by an overwhelm majority of UN members with a lopsided vote of 138 to 9, may well force the Zionist regime to seriously consider a just peaceful resolution of the conflict.
With due respect to the nearly 50 percent of the UN members who voted against the historic Palestine Resolution on 11/29/12 at the General Assembly, which is to say the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Nauru ( the world’s smallest republic covering just 8.1 square miles with a population of 9, 378)), and Palau, with its approximately 20,000 inhabitants, all former U.S. Trust Territories and currently “freely associated states” of the United States, with U.S. zip/postal and telephone codes much more closely resembling American states (51st, 52nd, 53rd and 54th) than sovereign countries, the World spoke clearly in favor of Palestinian self-determination. Indeed, the only reason these dissenting four “countries”are UN Members at all is due to cold war era efforts of Washington to stack the General Assembly in its favor by running up the numbers of its safe votes.
Over the past fortnight, as the US and Israel piled layers of threats onto their mantra of derision regarding yesterday’s historic UN vote on Palestine, both countries desperately tried to dissuade the Palestinians from scrapping their application for non-member observer state membership status with the United Nations.
 
Way too much did Israeli officials and their US lobby protest, thus drawing more international attention and curiosity as they kept dissing the “purely symbolic empty gesture and meaningless act.”
 
Naftali Bennett, leader of the extremist right-wing national religious Zionist party in Israel, Habayit Hayehudi (“The Jewish Home”) warned the day before the vote that “the PA bid for non-member status at the UN has very real implications on Israel, and that we must take harsh measures in response. I don’t accept the claim that this is a symbolic move,” Bennet told Israel Radio. “This is not symbolic at all. This has very practical implications. “He added: “We must tell the Arabs, if you pursue a unilateral strategy at the UN, We will pursue a unilateral strategy in annexing settlements in the West Bank.”
There is some important symbolism in the UN admitting Palestine as a non-member observer on the 65th anniversary of the November 29, 1947, adoption by the UN General Assembly of the resolution on the partition of Palestine (resolution 181 (II)). On December 2, 1977, it was recorded that the assembly called for the annual observance of November 29 as the International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People (A/RES/32/40 B).
 
 Last minute appeals by Secretary of State Hilary Clinton plus a late night pre-vote visit by US Deputy Secretary of State William Burns and Middle East envoy David Hale to the hotel room of the Palestinian Authority hold-over President Mahmoud Abbas failed to convince him to withdraw the resolution and to include the demanded eviscerating codicils.
 
Secretary of State Clinton could not have been more mistaken as she insisted at her news conference on 11/28/12 that

the only path towards a Palestinian state was through direct negotiations. As I have said many times the only path to a two-state solution that fulfills the aspirations of the Palestinian people is through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not New York.

 
Few in the state department, according to congressional staff members who liaise with Clinton’s staff, believe that direct negotiations would ever lead to Israel voluntarily rejecting its current apartheid system or that the interminable “peace process” has ever been taken seriously by the Zionist regime and in fact constitute a hoax. In contradistinction, the growing reality in the Middle East and all five continents is the belief that only Resistance, with its scores of forms, will liberate Palestine from Zionist occupation.

 

Low balling the UN vote…..

 
Following the 138 to 9 vote, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, intimated, as did the usual Amen chorus of anti-Arab & anti-Islam zealots, from the US Israeli lobby, including the likes of ADL’s Abe Foxman, that” just as predicted, anti-Semitism was lurking behind the lopsided vote” and that it all amounted, in the words of Netanyahu spokesman Mark Regev, “to nothing but cheappolitical theater that should not come as a surprise to anyone.”
 
The American-Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), as it does on any issue involving Palestine and Israel issued Talking Points for members of Congress and other Zionist organizations to be used when communicating with constituents and giving media interviews. AIPAC keeps close track of how many interviews each member gives and how closely they tow the Zionist line so as to help determine how much cash the particular member will receive for re-election as well as other perks.
For this crucial UN vote, the US Zionist lobby used U.S. Senators Ben Cardin (D-MD) and Susan Collins (R-ME) drafted a letter from these AIPAC stalwarts to Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas opposing any unilateral attempts by the Palestinian Government to pursue non-member state status at the United Nations General Assembly.
 
In their letter, the Senators asserted that “Palestinian statehood can only be realized as a result of a broader peace agreement negotiated with the Israelis, not through unilateral measures at the United Nations. Should you decide, however, to bypass direct negotiations and unilaterally seek upgraded status at the UN, we want to again remind you of the potential for significant consequences. As S. Res. 185 notes, any such efforts may cause consequences in regards to U.S. policy and foreign aid.”
AIPAC instructed Congress to make the following points which was included in an “urgent advisory” to every member and many staffers.
 
1. This UN action won’t lead to peace.
Peace will only occur through direct talks. By refusing to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and seeking recognition of a state at the United Nations, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas is damaging U.S. peace efforts. (nothing in this point is accurate)
2. Recognizing a Palestinian state gives legitimacy to Hamas.
The Iranian-backed terrorist group has fired thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians and is sworn to the destruction of the Jewish state. By granting recognition of a state, the international community will reward Hamas for its terrorist actions, rather than condemn them.
 
3. The United States has rejected the Palestinian approach.
President Obama has said that “no vote at the United Nations will ever create an independent Palestinian state” and called the Palestinian efforts at the U.N. a “mistake.”
 
Other talking points AIPAC told Congress to use include: while Israel Takes Steps for Peace, Palestinians run to UN , Israel Wants Talks; Palestinians Still Refuse, Palestinians Glorify Terrorists by praising the Hamas victory.
 
What the Zionist leaders of Israel, as they franticly try to intimidate the region by stockpiling American weapons, while grabbing more Palestinian land, fear is that the 11/19/12 UN resolution may be a game changer. 
 
In this they are correct.
 
The UN action allows the Palestinians to participate in General Assembly debates and de facto grants recognition of Palestinian statehood on the pre-1967 ceasefire lines while re-enforcing the wide international consensus that the pre-1967 lines should form the basis of a permanent peace settlement.
It also opens up the 17 Specialized Agencies of the UN
As noted this week by Al-Haq, the Palestinian human rights organization “ Under such a strengthened position within the international legal system, the State of Palestine will be allowed to formally accede to international human rights instruments and other technical United Nations bodies, thus improving protection of Palestinian rights at the domestic and international level”.
 
It is also to be expected that Palestinian citizens under brutal Zionist occupation will demand to use their new status to join the International Criminal Court and might press for investigations of Zionist international crimes, crimes against humanity, attempted genocide, and a host of other practices in the occupied territories. Investigating such international crimes and bringing punishment to those convicted is why the ICC was established.
 
Professor Francis Boyle reminds us that Palestine can also now sue Israel at the International
Court of Justice and end the illegal siege of Gaza, and join the Law of the Sea Convention and secure its fair share of the gas fields lying off the Gaza coast with enormous economic benefits. Palestine can also now join the International Civil Aviation Organization and gain sovereignty over its own airspace; join the International Telecommunications Union and gain sovereign legal control over its own airwaves, phone lines and band-widths.
 
These are just some of the many reason the Obama administration, slavishly joined the Zionist leadership of occupied Palestine to defeat the UN application.
 
The actions of the Obama Administration and its vehement opposition to the UN vote continues to diminish the relevance of the US in the Middle East as it slides further down the wrong side of history with its client state in tow. Attempting to justify its shameful opposition to the Palestinian diplomatic undertaking in the UN, the Obama administration could only offer a weak brief from the State Department legal department accusing the PLO of acting unilaterally, in breach of signed agreements are simply parroting AIPAC talking points noted above.
Deepening Palestine’s international legal personality within the United Nations system is a legitimate presence on the world stage from which to assert rights guaranteed by fundamental principles of International Law. With more access to the United Nations system, Palestinians have gained a major political and legal framework from which to work and to encourage the international community to comply with its obligation to end Israeli crimes against them and bring Israel’s serious breaches of international law to an end.

 

 
River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

U.S. – U.K. Genocide Against Iraq 1990-2012

KILLED 3.3 MILLION, INCLUDING 750,000 CHILDREN

By Sherwood Ross

Approximately 3.3 million Iraqis, including 750,000 children, were “exterminated” by economic sanctions and/or illegal wars conducted by the U.S. and Great Britain between 1990 and 2012, an eminent international legal authority says.

The slaughter fits the classic definition of Genocide Convention Article II of, “Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part,” says Francis Boyle, professor of international law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, and who in 1991 filed a class-action complaint with the UN against President George H.W. Bush.

The U.S. and U.K. “obstinately insisted” that their sanctions remain in place until after the “illegal” Gulf War II aggression perpetrated by President George W. Bush and UK’s Tony Blair in March, 2003, “not with a view to easing the over decade-long suffering of the Iraqi people and children” but “to better facilitate the U.S./U.K. unsupervised looting and plundering of the Iraqi economy and oil fields in violation of the international laws of war as well as to the grave detriment of the Iraqi people,” Boyle said.

In an address last Nov. 22 to The International Conference on War-affected Children in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, Boyle tallied the death toll on Iraq by U.S.-U.K. actions as follows:

  1. The slaughter of 200,000 Iraqis by President Bush in his illegal 1991 Gulf War I.
  2. The deaths of 1.4 million Iraqis as a result of the illegal 2003 war of aggression ordered by President Bush Jr. and Prime Minister Blair.
  3. The deaths of 1.7 million Iraqis “as a direct result” of the genocidal sanctions.

Boyle’s class-action complaint demanded an end to all economic sanctions against Iraq; criminal proceedings for genocide against President George H.W. Bush; monetary compensation to the children of Iraq and their families for deaths, physical and mental injury; and for shipping massive humanitarian relief supplies to that country.

The “grossly hypocritical” UN refused to terminate the sanctions, Boyle pointed out, even though its own Food and Agricultural Organization’s Report estimated that by 1995 the sanctions had killed 560,000 Iraqi children during the previous five years.

Boyle noted that then U.S. Secretary of State Madeline Albright was interviewed on CBS-TV on May 12, 1996, in response to a question by Leslie Stahl if the price of half a million dead children was worth it, and replied, “we (the U.S. government) think the price is worth it.”

Albright’s shocking response provides “proof positive of the genocidal intent by the U.S. government against Iraq” under the Genocide Convention, Boyle said, adding that the government of Iraq today could still bring legal action against the U.S. and the U.K. in the International Court of Justice. He said the U.S.-U.K. genocide also violated the municipal legal systems of all civilized nations in the world; the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child; and the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its Additional Protocol 1 of 1977.

Boyle, who was stirred to take action pro bono by Mothers in Iraq after the economic sanctions had been imposed upon them by the Security Council in August, 1990, in response to pressure from the Bush Senior Administration. He is the author of numerous books on international affairs, including “Destroying World Order” (Clarity Press.)

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian  
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!

Alan hart bluffing Palestinians Again: "The Palestinians’ only option"

On July 27, 2010, Alan Hart, “a friend and supporter of Palestine”, invited ALL Palestinians, at home and in Diaspora with all their political shades, factions and affiliations to unite and “call israel’s bluff”. In his analysis the Palestinians now have only one option. Alan writes:

“They could do so with a joint Fatah-Hamas statement to something like this effect: “We cannot and will not recognise Israel’s “right” to exist because it has no such right, but we are a pragmatic people and we hereby declare that we are prepared to recognise and live in permanent peace with the reality of an Israel inside its borders as they were on the eve of the 1967 war, with Jerusalem an open, undivided city and the capital of two states… We further declare that our pragmatism extends to accepting that the right of the dispossessed Palestinians to returnmust and will be confined to the Palestinian state, which means that many of those who wish to return will have to settle for compensation for the loss of their homes and their land.”

A week later, sister Nahida,ed Palestinian asked  Who is trying to bluff the Palestinians?
REAL friends of Palestine should NEVER insist or even ask that Palestinians recognize “israel”?
Read Nahida exposing Alan’s bluff here
—-
Now, two years later, when Hamas leadership (Mishaal) backed by the international Brotherhood gave the (PA), the green light to go for vote on recognition of Palestine as a non-member state, the “brilliant magician, bases of his well known “good” name, drawn out of his sleeve, the one state solution card to obtain recognition by temptation and persuasion and close the so-called Palestinian file. 
Why?
The “UN General Assembly recognition of Palestine as a non-member state” does’t  fit, ansewred Alan arafat’s linkmam with Peres.

Why?

“As things are and look like going, and given that the Palestinians are never going to surrender to Zionism’s will by accepting crumbs from its table, the only alternative to one state for all is a final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. That might buy Zionism some more time for the short term, but in the longer term it would most likely guarantee that the rising global tide of anti-Israelism was transformed into classical anti-Semitism, setting the stage for Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere, and starting quite possibly in America.” 

Again, Alan, the fake friend of Palestine and the real friend of Israel as “Mother Israel” called him,  show his true face, “the rising global tide of anti-Israelism” will turn into “classical anti-Semitism, setting the stage for Holocaust II, shorthand for another great turning against Jews everywhere, and starting quite possibly in America.”
In other words, Alan’s concern is preventing Holocaust II, not the final Zionist ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Again, as Nahida said two years ago, Mr. Hart uses the carrot and the stick to bring Palestinians to line and trap them to surrender their rights and land, once and for all.” AS if zionist would accept the one state solution proposed by PLO faction since 1967.
Alan said :

“When announcing that he was winding up the Palestine Authority and handing responsibility for the occupation back to Israel, he could say to the world something like this: “We are truly grateful for this recognition of our rights and claim for justice, but we must also be realistic. Zionism has no interest in a two-state solution so we must move on. One state with equal rights for all is the only way of preventing a catastrophe for all.”

In Alan’s proposal, like in his previous proposal there is place for diaspora Palestinians.
In his  anal-ysis the Palestinians now have only one option.

For starters it requires the PLO to recognize and declare that the two-state solution is dead (not least because no Israeli prime minister is going to trigger a Jewish civil war in order to end the occupation of the West Bank including East Jerusalem).

The next step should be winding up the Palestine Authority and handing total responsibility for the occupation back to Israel.
That would open the door to what I believe to be the only viable strategy for the Palestinians if they are ever to obtain justice.
With the two-state solution not only dead but formally buried, they could then campaign, with growing global support, for equal rights and security for all in one state (all of pre-1967 Israel plus all of the West Bank plus the Gaza Strip).

In one or two decades at the most, because the Palestinians would outnumber the Jews, one state would mean the end of Zionism, but it would also open the door to real security for the one state’s Jews.

 I shall not spoil more time on Alan’s brand new bluff, serving “nothing but to finalize the zionist project by achieving the permanent Jewish conquest of Palestine.”
Now read Francis Boyle a leading expert in International Law and a true friend of Palestine:

“After twenty-two years of getting nowhere but further screwed to Israel’s apartheid wall on the West Bank and strangulated in Gaza, it is now time for the Palestinians to adopt a new strategy, which I most respectfully recommend here for them to consider:

Sign nothing and let Israel collapse! Recently it was reported that the United States’ own Central Intelligence Agency predicted the collapse of Israel within twenty years. My most respectful advice to the Palestinians is to let Israel so collapse!

For the Palestinians to sign any type of comprehensive peace treaty with Israel would only shore up, consolidate, and guarantee the existence of Zionism and Zionists in Palestine forever.”

Why would the Palestinians want to do that?

“Without approval by the Palestinians in writing, Zionism and Israel in Palestine will collapse. So the Palestinians must not sign any Middle East Peace Treaty with Israel, but rather must keep the pressure on Israel for the collapse of Zionism over the next two decades as predicted by the Central Intelligence Agency.” 

River to Sea Uprooted Palestinian
The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this Blog!
 

%d bloggers like this: