24 October 2009

Israel’s Fraudulent Casus Belli

Are UN Sanctions in order here? Israel uses the “peace process” as a casus belli to continue the war on Palestine, and nobody notices??? In the run up to the Goldstone draft Resolution and immediately afterward, Israel took the following position;

“Israel has threatened to pull out of Middle East peace talks if Britain and other European nations fail to back the country in a key vote at the United Nations”

and

“A furious Israel said it would not continue with the peace plan if the UN Human Rights Council endorses a controversial report condemning the Jewish state for war crimes during the Gaza offensive in January.”

Two statements which I personally found quite a stunning move. Given that this is quite possibly the first time in history that a country has used “a threat of peace” as a reason for a “continued war of aggression.” But then we ARE talking about Israel here, the master twister of words. Moreover, I wondered if anyone else would pick up on exactly what Israel was implying with those statements and threats. Israel, in essence, is creating a false Casus Belli for a war on Palestine. Israel is actually using “peace” as a reason to not make peace! So after checking my sanity, I decided to check wiki, and found this:
In the post World War Two era, the UN Charter prohibits signatory countries from engaging in war except

1) as a means of defending themselves against aggression, or
2) unless the UN as a body has given prior approval to the operation.
Gaza is flattened; there are no tanks, no weapons of mass destruction, no planes with white phosphorous and no drones to deliver DIME missiles. And the UN clearly has not given Israel permission to continue it’s aggression against a people living in a fishbowl under a compete siege. Additionally there is this:
The UN also reserves the right to ask member nations to intervene against non-signatory countries which embark on wars of aggression. In effect, this means that countries in the modern era must have a plausible casus belli for initiating military action, or risk UN sanctions or intervention.
So just where is the intervention then? Israel must have a “plausible casus belli” for initiating continued military actions, or risk UN sanctions or intervention. I would ask the UN if holding a “peace process” captive and using it as a reason for a continued war falls under the heading of accepted practice, according to the above UN rules.

3 comments:

nolocontendere said...

The terror entity should be booted from the UN and sanctioned as an international pariah. I mean really, Irish, How long should the world community put up with it's total disregard of decent human behavior? Any other country would be cordoned off and shunned by now; probably the only reason it's dealt with so leniently is because of it's big bad benefactor.

Irish4Palestine said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Irish4Palestine said...

G Mornin Nolo;o)

my typing is terrible, had to delete my first reply LOL

THIS:
"Any other country would be cordoned off and shunned by now; probably the only reason it's dealt with so leniently is because of it's big bad benefactor."


is the exact problem. It's like the world is a big sandbox, and America is the biggest bully with the most stuff, no one can beat them. Then there is this little nasty shit of a fellow called "Israel" who has managed to buy, with money, bribes and power, the backing of the Big Bully America.

Everyone else is forced to loathe the two in silence, whilst in public they must conform or risk expulsion from the sandbox


in a nutshell:)

Post a Comment

COMMENT POLICY UPDATE:

1. Comments accepted for one week only, posts older than one week, comments will be rejected.

2. We welcome your comments, but we operate on Dublin Ireland time and are 5 hours ahead of the US East Coast, hence comments may not appear immediately

3. Comments are moderated by the blog owners and writers