International law

Since the title of this thread is about international law, let's talk about international law as well as international rights.

In order to really understand the entire issue in regard to Israel's relationship with international law, one has to understand the larger context, specifically, what constitutes international law and whether is Israel bound by it. If international law is not applicable toward Israel, then this post is moot. As far as I know, international law is determined by UN Security Council resolutions, as General Assembly resolutions are only non-binding recommendations. But, Security Council resolutions should have no say in what Israel does.

The UN charter is set up so that each country is segregated into a regional group, determined by the continent upon which it sits. Each regional group selects its representatives to the UN Security Council, to be voted upon and approved later. The only way to get a seat on the S.C., and therefore participate in the structure of international law, is to be nominated by one's (continental) regional group.

However, Israel is the only country without a continent as far as the UN is concerned. Geographically, Israel sits on the Asian continent and therefore, belongs in the Asian regional group. Nevertheless, she is not "allowed" to participate with all those Asian-Islamic nations who refuse to condescend to participate with her in a regional group. Why? Because, to do so, would mean they would first have to acknowledge Israel's "sovereign equality" which they will not do. (Note: Israel was admitted to the West European and Others Group with the agreement that she cannot seek a seat on the Security Council. This was done as some sort of convoluted compromise.)

Conclusion? Because of pan-Islamist bias against non-Islamic Israel, Israel is the ONLY nation in the world not allowed to participate on the Security Council and therefore is the ONLY nation NEVER allowed to vote on her own behalf and is also the ONLY nation NEVER allowed to participate in the shaping of international law, which, weirdly, she is told she is obligated to follow anyway. That's bigotry in all practical effect.

The question therefore, is whether Israel should be enslaved to a court where she has no real say on her own behalf due to inherent bias. It does not matter that the US acts as benefactor because it still casts Israel as a sub-nation. Any reasonable person would admit that Israel should not have to participate in a court that is inherently biased against her. How can "anti-Zionism" decry that Israel thinks she is above the law when they themselves force her to exist below it?

"Anti-Zionism" is like playing "Where's Waldo." All that matters is what Waldo is doing, the entire rest of the picture is deemed irrelevant. The picture can encompass people being raped, crucified and and enslaved (literally), decapitations, murder and mayhem, but all that matters is where Waldo is. Waldo, however small in reality, is still magnified in the mind of the beholder. "Anti-Zionism," as determined by the sham called international law, finds its soul in a thoroughly microscopic vacuum and therefore "ignores the great for the good." The entire notion is so preposterous for rejectionist Islamic nations to dictate anything to Israel. How can such nations speak to an entity they do not recognize while, at the same time, demanding she do what they say? How does one dictate terms to terra non grata? What a bizarro, bizarro world.

Answer this, folks, if you want to talk about international law and "sovereign equality." How many Islamic nations have implemented UN Resolutions 242 and 338, in which they are instructed to recognize Israel's "sovereign equality"? How many embassies of Islamic nations are in Tel Aviv? There is nothing saying that their recognition is contingent upon any action by Israel. And even more than that, explain to me why nations that participate in the shaping of international law are less obligated to implement it than is the one nation not allowed to participate.

And please, don't say that by putting political pressure upon Israel, that once Israel recognizes the Palestinians' "sovereign equality," they will recognize hers. Because anybody who knows anything about history knows that the staunch rejectionist movement against Israel existed long before 1967, when Israel's borders were those which she is now so graciously told can be hers after all, since the wars of anihiliation didn't work. When the UN partition plan was voted upon, the Arab League representative warned of war. And that war has never stopped.

Why do Muslim nations stand in solidarity with the Palestinians but not the Sudanese Dinka at the United Nations? Nobody is saying that they should not also stand in solidarity with Palestinians, but why not also the Dinka? Is it that none of them has the time to bring about just one resolution on behalf of protecting the Dinka from the Sudanese govt? Why has not one Muslim nation decried the worst, most racist anti-Palestinian laws in Lebanon? Artificial borders do not render human rights more or less relevant. Palestinians suffer no less due to Lebanese bias because it is an Arabic nation. One must beg the question therefore, whether such countries really are motivated out of a sense of justice. Do their concerns find themselves born out of empathy for suffering? Do their concerns really lie with the Palestinians? Or is it all just identity politics run amok and translated into international law because such bias has the fortune to be wide-spread? We all know this question was answered before it was asked. Nobody gives a rat's ass about the Palestinians unless it's a means to an end: the end being somehow translating negative bias toward Israel into practice. Unfortunately, the Palestinians have been brainwashed into thinking that they have friends when, in fact, they have none in the world. They're just being used.

Anyway, in terms of either ethics or international law, why must Palestinian "sovereign equality" exist before Israel's? To recognize Israel's "sovereign equality" first is not only ethical, but pragmatic for the Palestinians. What makes more sense? Give land to your enemies with a promise by them that they will eventually make peace? Or make peace with your enemies first, then give them the land they need?

The answer is obvious to those willing to see.

(written by a reader who wishes to remain anonymous)