Search

band annie's Weblog

I have a parallel blog in French at http://anniebannie.net

Date

March 21, 2011

Dershowitz’s radioactive plume

“Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.”

While some friends of the Jewish state are preoccupied with the possibility of a sushi shortage in Israel thanks to the disaster in Japan, Harvard’s crazed law professor Alan M. Dershowitz has more important things on his mind.

His most recent dispatch, entitled “Israel Now Has The Right To Attack Iran’s Nuclear Reactors,” begins with the assertion that “Iran’s recent attempt to ship arms to Hamas in Gaza is an act of war committed by the Iranian government against the Israeli government.”

As we well know, it is not necessary for Harvard law professors to specify that Israel has merely alleged that Iran attempted to ship arms to Hamas, or that the credibility of Israeli arms allegations has been called into question by the fact that the photographs published by the Israeli Foreign Ministry of the “weapons cache” found on board the Mavi Marmara last year ended up consisting of items like a metal pail and marbles.

It is meanwhile unclear why Dershowitz has chosen to include the word “Now” in his title, given that he immediately announces: “Nor is this the first act of war that would justify a military response by Israel under international law.” Other acts are said to include the bombing of the Israeli embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992: “That bombing, which was carried out by Iranian agents, constituted a direct armed attack on the state of Israel, since its embassy is part of its sovereign territory.”

Persons required to adhere to truth and logic, such as investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter, have noted that in 1992 the Iranians clearly viewed with optimism the prospect of the resumption of transfer of nuclear technology from Argentina to Iran—thus removing the presumed motive for the attack. This suggests that the bombing may have instead been orchestrated by groups opposed to the Iranian acquisition of such technology.

Absolved of reason, Dershowitz spews on:

Two other recent events enhance Israel’s right to use military means to prevent Iran from continuing to arm Israel’s enemies. The recent disaster in Japan has shown the world the extraordinary dangers posed by nuclear radiation. If anybody ever doubted the power of a dirty bomb to devastate a nation, both physically and psychologically, those doubts have been eliminated by what is now going on in Japan. If Iran were to develop nuclear weapons, the next ship destined to Gaza might contain a nuclear dirty bomb and Israel might not intercept that one. A dirty bomb detonated in tiny Israel would cause incalculable damage to civilian life.

Moreover, the recent killings in Itamar of a family including three children, demonstrate how weapons are used by Israel’s enemies against civilians in violation of the laws of war. Even babies are targeted by those armed by Iran.”

First of all, if anybody ever doubted the power of a dirty bomb to devastate a nation, both physically and psychologically, their doubts would most probably have been dispelled by events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 rather than current radiation leaks from nuclear power plants. Second of all, it would seem that civilian life currently suffers a greater threat of incalculable damage not from a hypothetical Iranian dirty bomb but rather from Israel’s sizable nuclear arsenal—not mentioned by Dershowitz—which exists in violation of the very same Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty that is invoked as an excuse for attacking Iran. Lastly, the fact that Israel slaughtered 300 children in Gaza during Operation Cast Lead in 2008-09 indicates that those armed by the U.S. rather than by Iran are exceedingly capable of targeting babies.

After stressing the right of Israel to prevent its citizens from being murdered, our law guru concludes the following:

This is not to say that Israel should attack Iran’s nuclear reactors now. That it has the right to do so does not mean that it should not wait for a more opportune time. The law of war does not require an immediate military response to an armed attack. The nation attacked can postpone its counterattack without waiving its right.”

That the Palestinians do not enjoy the same right of response to military attack is obvious. A note to the Chinese, however: Remember that time NATO accidentally bombed your embassy in Belgrade? You can still retaliate!

And as for the United Nations, if you ever feel like attacking Israel, just invoke the 1996 bombing of your compound in Qana, or the 2006 bombing of your outpost in Khiam.

source

 

Funny EDL Interview – Incoherent Anger, Muslamic Infidels

Paul Williams says: This gentleman’s compelling arguments are sure to win over many people to EDL’s cause

My Father was the President of Egypt

Categories: New Arab Voices

Posted on March 21, 2011 by Amr El Beleidy
Caricature drawn by Sara Abd El Azim during the revolution, Photo: Sara Abd El Azim (Twitter @lujee), http://lewjee.blogspot.comCaricature drawn by Sara Abd El Azim during the revolution, Photo: Sara Abd El Azim (Twitter @lujee), http://lewjee.blogspot.com 

In the run up to the toppling of the then president Mohamed Hosny Mubarak, his parasitic group in power did their utmost to keep him in place. Government-controlled media took up mass propaganda by fabricating stories and advocating the ex-president’s merits.

The loyalists were using a message they thought would make most people quiet down, a message that had proven effective in the past – the president is your father.

It was a clever card to play, addressing the strong emotional bond between Egyptians and their families. A family in Egypt is widely seen as the building block of society, and its well-being is the number one priority to all its members.

Individuality is accepted so long as it does not harm or shame the family, at which point they have the right to intervene. But who decides what is harmful or shameful? The parents do, and traditionally the father has the last word.

Children are expected to love their parents unconditionally for life. And whether your parents treat you well or not, it’s a given you must learn to accept and deal with. Honour thy father and thy mother.

Kicking your father out of the house brings shame to you before anyone else. The government maintained that kicking the president out of power, in such a dishonourable way, would bring shame to the people. It would be unorthodox behaviour, and the president should stay for our own good.

But ‘I am your father’ is a phrase that could be used to insult. It implies an illicit relationship with the other person’s mother, the most sacred figure in any Egyptian family. Every time this message was repeated, I became furious and was even more determined than before to make the old man leave.

My father was the man sitting next to me as we watched the news on TV, and no one else has a claim to this right. Their message had backfired.

An Egyptian anti-government demonstrator touches a picture of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Tahrir squareFebruary 10, 2011, Photo: Picture alliance / © dpaAn Egyptian anti-government demonstrator touches a picture of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak in Tahrir squareFebruary 10, 2011, Photo: Picture alliance / © dpa 

There was a clash of realities. The revolutionaries in Tahrir square and throughout the country saw the ex-president as a man who is an employee of the people. They believed his job was to implement the people’s will. He believed his job was to will the people’s implementation.

He saw himself as our father, guiding us, with foresight and wisdom, through the perils of a world we were not ready to face by ourselves just yet. In these thirty years of emergency there was no room for discussion, all must obey. Those who don’t, risk putting us all in danger and must be dealt with accordingly.

In the end, the stronger reality prevailed.

But a revolution was not only happening on the streets, a revolution was and still is taking place in every home.

Almost everyone I’ve spoken to suffered from similar issues to those I had with my parents. My father wanted me to stay in and not take part in the revolution. He did not believe the movement would get anywhere, and thought I was putting myself, our family and the whole country in unnecessary danger.

While I managed to leave home and join the streets, some friends were not able to do the same because their parents stopped them. Others were able to join but only on certain days or for a certain amount of time, depending on family dynamics.

But succeeding in overthrowing the largest symbol of controlling and abusive paternity in the country means that the younger generations have now won a crucial bet against the older ones.

We are not going to accept absolute power over our destinies anymore, whether from outside the house or inside, but I suspect the latter might take more than eighteen days to materialise.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑