.comment-link {margin-left:.6em;}

Emet m'Tsiyon

Sunday, July 30, 2006

The Everyday Lies about International Law in order to Justify Murdering Jews

Law is a matter of interpretation. Since the "international community" decided to pretend to make war more humane, through the Hague conventions before World War One and the Geneval conventions after World War Two, the deliberate misinterpretation of law has become a prime weapon of parties in conflict AND their backers among the great powers. Britain [United Kingdom] has supported the Arabs against the Jews in Israel fairly consistently since 1920, in violation of the San Remo decision [April 1920] and League of Nations Mandate for a Jewish National Home [1922], an endorsement and elaboration of the San Remo decision. Ironically, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were agreed upon under the auspices of the International Red Cross and the International Committee of the Red Cross, a Swiss government agency. During the Holocaust, the ICRC collaborated with the German Nazis, even sending Swiss physicians to provide succor to the German forces on the Eastern Front where most and the worst atrocities were taking place. These physicians reported the mass murders of Jews on the Eastern Front [Ukraine, Belarus, etc.]. These reports made their way into the Swiss press by 1942, however, the ICRC, which was in possession of these reports, took a vote among its 25 Swiss government-appointed members and decided that "international law" forbid it to announce the massacres of Jews to the world. How unlike ICRC in more recent years in regard to Arab accusations of Israeli atrocities!! Later in WW 2, ICRC representatives visited concentration camps for Jews [not all camps] and pronounced them sufficiently humane. Yet, in 1949, the Geneva conventions were promulgated under IRC and ICRC auspices in Switzerland.

Not surprisingly, the ICRC hired the veteran Swiss Nazi, Francois Genoud, as one of its agents in Belgium after WW2. Further, in Israel, during the Israeli War of Independence, the ICRC delegate in Israel was one Jacques de Reynier, a fervent Judeophobe, who invented atrocities that had supposedly taken place at Deir Yassin village which even the Arabs had not reported or claimed at that time. [Just by the way, de Reynier worked with the British government of Israel at that time which was pro-Arab and anti-Jewish]. Now, since the Swiss government has interests like any other, its ICRC department makes false interpretations of international law when these false accusations can harm Israel. In this, the ICRC is in harmony with other Judeophobic propaganda agencies, such as the BBC [the BBC role in the Holocaust is discussed in earlier posts on this blog]. For the record, here are articles of the Geneva Convention that have to do with 1) the presence of non-combatants 2) the property of civilian individuals and institutions:

Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights [quoting Geneva Convention, adopted 12 August 1949]
Article 28

The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations

Below are the words of Mr Niemann, a prosecutor in the case of a Croatian Bosnian accused of war crimes against Muslims in Bosnia, International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia 22 March 1999:

7 Turning now to the issue of human shields. . .

. . .

9 Article 28 of the Civilian Geneva Convention 4

10 of 1949 provides that the presence of protected persons

11 may not be used to render certain points or areas

12 immune from military operations.

The following article 53 deals with the issue of protected property [from site of UN High Commissioner for Human Rights {see first link above}:
Article 53
Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.
This reminds us that Israel was justified in destroying civilian infrastructure that could serve the military/terrorist/mass murderous/ purposes of the Hizbullah. Further, Hizbullah deliberately places rocket launchers and other military installations and equipment among civilians, not only those civilians who support the Hizbullah [mainly Shi`ites but also among Christian villagers whose village, such as `Ain Ebel [or `Eyn Ebel] are near Hizbullah strongholds in the south of Lebanon. This was reported by none other than the New York Times a few days ago. Bear in mind that the Geneva Conventions were drawn up under major influence by great powers that expected to fight wars in the future and would certainly not want to hamper their own military actions with what they would have seen as excessive humanitarianism. But when it comes to fighting Israel, a war in which most of the major EU powers are auxiliaries to the Arabs, then international law is misrepresented in order to besmirch Israel. The "international community" is at least as hypocritical and bloodthirsty [especially for Jewish blood], as ever, using the Arabs as fronts for their own genocidal drive. The UK and its propaganda arm, the BBC, are among the most proficient and skillful in this endeavor, at turning victims into aggressors and the reverse.

Bear in mind that the Hizbullah and its Syrian and Iranian sponsors have a clearly Judeophobic world view going back to the early days of Islam. The Hizbullah is Nazi. If the EU and UN defend the Hizbullah from Israel, then they are defending Nazis. A cease fire in Lebanon without destroying the Hizbullah means supporting Nazi murderers. Meanwhile, the plight of Black Africans in the Sudan is of no interest to the fake "humanitarians" of the EU, UN, Amnesty Int'l, Human Rights Watch, etc.
- - - - -
Coming: more on Jews in Jerusalem, Jews in Arab lands, etc.


  • Whenever anyone talks about alleged Israeli violations of International Law, I point them to this essential essay on the subject: Sanctuary

    I demand that they it (and part 2 it links to) and then come back with their charges.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:48 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home