PIPISTRO

just something to say

Posts Tagged ‘UN

Humbly our voice

leave a comment »

I’ve read, and I know that “the world” has forgotten Syria for two years. That’s correct, but there ain’t anything as “the world”. There’s people, and we can only work on them. On us.
Not taking a position is tantamount to side with the oppressor. We know this very well, inasmuch as we’ve behaved like this (mainly from our safe living rooms) for so long, without a shiver for the slaughters that were happening all over the outside world.
Let’s not lie, today.
We’ve watched entire peoples being torn apart, notwithstanding any evident injustice. Seldom, we’ve taken side for the one or the other just as we would do looking at a soccer match.
But from the safety of our homes, well hardly we have the right to express our thoughts. For sure we are not entitled to yell (from outside, just as somewhat delegates combatants, from a distance, into a foreign war) the rights and the wrongs of one or the other, insofar as we are well away from the blood and neither with brain nor with soul we are able to perceive and evaluate what is happening. And the media just keep on adding new lies to old ones.
Now, are we really able to estimate that a US strike will lead to any better? If we are obviously not willing to support a murderous dictator (for such he is) how can we trust a long since designed US/Israel further invasion of the Middle East towards the next war of aggression on Iran? Are we ready to claim the good faith of one party – considered as a whole – against the bad faith of the other? Are we willing to be fooled, once again, by mandate of the imperial war machine? For the umpteenth time, by the way, in the last 10 years?
I fear we’re not. Nor we are able to assess our good faith, in this case, while we have failed to be honest in tens of other occasions.
There’s so little we can give to the people of Syria, maybe our heart, humbly our voice in the arena among the nations, some concrete humanitarian help, food, welcome and accomodation. Certainly not our powerful weapons, nor our inconsistent advice.

Advertisements

Written by pipistro

September 9, 2013 at 9:05 pm

Posted in Syria, violence, War

Tagged with , , ,

Side effects (excerpt, Monday Nov 28, 2005)

leave a comment »

lostThere are no side effects possibly acceptable of the war. Indeed, as for drugs, it doesn’t exist such a thing as side effects, but, be they prosecuted or not, only effects. Effects certain, or only possible, probable and/or incidental.
On the one hand, the first intuitive, undeniable effects of the war are the dead, the destruction, suffering, despair.
On the other hand, incidental and uncertain are all the other possible effects connected to objectives presented from time to time as apparently reasonable, such as the fight on terrorism, whatever this term is meant to indicate (and I was inclined to consider it, in the Iraqi case, as the “deadly and indiscriminate instrument of resistance of the weaker”), and anxiety or presumption of safety and all kind of preventive actions; questionable, such as the maintenance or achievement of a demanded precarious planetary balance; presumptuous or uncritical, as the defense of the “Western values​​” and the presumed civilization that would accompany them; vile and murderous, such as the forced maintenance of military control and economic exploitation of a territory through the power of the weapons, which aim at grabbing the resources, also in terms of strategy, of a particular region.

Written by pipistro

August 27, 2013 at 9:38 pm

Posted in War

Tagged with , ,

UNSC Resolution 242

leave a comment »

A norm must be interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of the language, unless the result would be absurd. Moreover, a norm must have a practical meaning, otherwise it would be void and useless. In this respect, it is obvious and necessary, firstly, to confer a meaning to the norm, even if its litteral content is ambiguous, instead of assessing that the norm has no meaning at all. Or, worse, conferring to it a meaning at will.
Insofar as UNSC Resolution 242 must have a meaning, otherwise being it absurd/useless, saying it requires an indeterminate withdrawal from (…) occupied territories would mean nothing, leaving undecided the rule dictated by the norm itself. And this is impossible.
A simple application of this principle is that Security Council Resolution 242 has a sole possible and almost litteral meaning. It requires Israel to withdraw from 100% of the territories occupied in the Six Day War. The goal of different interpretations whatsoever (as the one which claims that its extent is set on the necessity of subsequent direct negotiations between the parties) is aimed at devoiding the norm of any actual meaning. And that’s absurd and unlawful as well.
The try of depriving it of any meaning is unlawful and ineffective even if it’s endorsed by the very persons who, for opportunism, politics, or any other reason, purposedly gave it an ambiguous formulation.
In this respect, any interpretations aimed at sinking that norm, all the more if coming from Lord Caradon or others who purposedly have tried to take off any meaning from it, is ineffective and illegitimate, as the norm, once it has taken life, is in any case subordinated to the International Law, no more to political pressures, nor to the fancy of those who may have drafted it in bad faith and/or with reservations.
Moreover, insofar as the Resolution stated the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war”, and the relevant territories were undoubtely the whole of West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza, Golan and Sinai, any different understanding would be illogical, before being unlawful.

Written by pipistro

December 22, 2012 at 10:37 pm

From octopus to cuttlefish

leave a comment »

Weakened by the vote of the General Assembly of the United Nations and the embarrassing ability of Palestinians of Gaza to stay alive in spite of the abysmal disparity of forces in the field, the drift pro-Israel limps. The Italian lobbyists fume in a desperate attempt to gain ground, now lost, that the history and the widespread move towards a fairer system refuse to grant, confining them to the edge of the ridiculous. While the state of Israel earns full widespread definition of rogue state, embraces and exposes his war policies and apartheid, the remnants of home israelism insist on spreading as they can – by the usual bad press and networks – a message now turned into lie in a desperate attempt to “facere de albo nigrum.” From octopus to cuttlefish, in fact.

Written by pipistro

December 1, 2012 at 7:49 pm

Warning

with one comment

Provocation, reaction, disproportionate retaliation. Warning, it’s the same old trap, and now the Israeli warmongers are moving in a hurry. On the one hand, the PA circulated a draft resolution at UN in order to upgrade Palestine status as observer state, on the other hand, Hamas is getting recognition from all around the Arab world. Israel is scared. The (fake) issue of Iran nukes is cooling down a bit. Obama won the election. The risk, now, is the renewed search for a solution of the conflict, just while Israel hawks were on the way to ethnic-cleanse, little by little, the whole of the occupied territories. [1][2]
Warning! There’s another cast lead crime in sight.

[1] “We walked outside, Ben-Gurion accompanying us. Allon repeated his question, ‘What is to be done with the Palestinian population?’ Ben-Gurion waved his hand in a gesture which said ‘Drive them out!’” (Yitzhak Rabin, July 1948, in occasion of the conquest of Lydda and Ramla)

[2] “We’ll make a pastrami sandwich of them, … we’ll insert a strip of Jewish settlements in between the Palestinians, and then another strip of Jewish settlements right across the West Bank, so that in 25 years’ time, neither the United Nations nor the United States, nobody, will be able to tear it apart.” (Ariel Sharon, 1973, talking to W. Churchill III about Zionists’ aims)

Written by pipistro

November 10, 2012 at 7:23 pm

Awareness

leave a comment »

Between 150 and 170 nations out of the 193 UN member states will vote in favor of the Palestinian status upgrade at the UN.
On the Jerusalem Post a sickening remark: “Such an upgrade could nevertheless be uncomfortable for Israel. Being registered as a state rather than an entity would mean the Palestinians could join bodies such as the International Criminal Court and file complaints against Israel for its continued occupation”.
Who says thugs and madmen don’t know to be as such?

Written by pipistro

October 19, 2012 at 9:39 pm

Further reflections (media and international law)

leave a comment »

A destabilizing factor within the Israel-Palestine conflict, has been the division between the followers of the Palestinian dream, skilfully orchestrated by the western mainstream, particularly after the 2006 elections. On the one hand, we find an entity openly collaborationist, headed by Mahmoud Abbas, with the legacy of Fatah, on the other, there’s the faction we are used to summarize (but it’s not entirely correct) as Islamic Resistance, headed by Hamas.
In this respect the Western world has given its worse with the help of the media. In fact, the US-Israeli bloc, with its clients and contingent valets, has omitted to consider the political process initiated by the movement of Hamas, and has stubbornly refused to advance the dialogue and appreciate its proposals. In short, Western countries have embraced U.S. and Israeli propaganda. They made themselves accomplice in the blackmail to the Palestinians, and consented to the unacceptable collective punishment imposed on those, who – anything one can think – had chosen democratically their leadership.
Thus, the definition given by Israel to the Gaza Strip controlled by Hamas, as “hostile entity”, has been a step toward new, disturbing scenarios. To some extent a leap of faith, unsusceptible of analysis. Hard to imagine that this development would have lead to positive consequences. Moreover the usual Ehud Barak, defined by Avnery, of the Israeli left, “criminal of peace” (referring to the facts of Camp David) and later by Hamas – more prosaically – “brutal murderess of children,” had elaborated a plan of gradual strangulation of the Gaza Strip, saying, according to the Palestinian agencies, that he wanted to be sure that very little food and medicines could reach Gaza, and specifying that the Strip should be forbidden from being provided with electricity, pace the message of the Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, who had to declare the international lack of legitimacy of the siege.

In relation to the intention of starving the population of the Strip – regardless of the provisions of international law, discussed below – the path to peace (I speak of a path, but it is something completely different from those that are normally described as peace processes) needs fixed points determined. It should simplify, with the few tools available. And this after having excluded, a priori, the reserves and the apparent pathology of the mind (and soul), favoring a minimum of ethical behavior, outside of obvious lust for power, for expansion, far from the claims of moral heritage, and from result of millennia of fabulous and anachronistic divine investiture. And even beyond (is intuitive) of a principle now elected as a justification of all evil, that the end – as the disproportionate response to the Qassam craft missiles – justifies the means. The same principle that led people in justify aberrations such as the use of torture and targeted assassinations, Guantanamo, extraordinary rendition, the brutality of mercenaries and their misdeeds in occupied Iraq, and Afghanistan, and so forth.

Take in good faith a way for peace requires, as we said, some tools. One is the international law. There are rules that must apply to the mere fact that they are basically aimed at the peaceful coexistence of peoples and are in each case the best tool that the international community has managed to develop. But the law is nothing if its application is not fair and, moreover, equally applied to all its members. First of all, if you do not get that these rules are considered mandatory, and if you do not impose the principle that those who claim to be freed from these rules, are not worthy of protection. A goal still unattained. Specifically, the sponsorship of the only remaining superpower, the USA, has introduced an unnatural imbalance in the whole affair Middle East, opposing, its veto to dozens of UN resolutions sponsored or endorsed by the rest of the world. As a matter of fact it is equally important to understand that international law, when filtered by power relations, diplomacy, compromise, greed and bad faith, turns away from his ability to be an instrument of peace, a starting point and a calming element for the prediction of international events, with security and benefits that may ensue.
An illuminating example. The Resolution No. 242 of 22 November 1967 issued by the UN Security Council immediately following the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, East Jerusalem, Gaza Strip, later part of the Resolution n. 338, October 22, 1973, is a compromise on the actual words and his most important pronouncements do contradict with the premises. In this case, also law becomes susceptible of discussion, however outlandish, unfounded or pretentious. It becomes a simulacrum of the rule and instead of providing a fixed point becomes useless. In fact, how many people are willing to defend and assert the principle that a rule of law, that tries to commit suicide with a clear contradiction within it, must be interpreted so that its rulings have a concrete meaning (it is an elementary principle general) rather than no one?
Specifically, precisely talking about what is still a pillar of international law recognized and invoked in order to solve the Israeli-Palestinian problem, the Resolution 242 had confirmed and emphasized “the inadmissibility of acquisition of territory by war”, but the subsequent “withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from [?] territories occupied in the recent conflict,” has annihilated with its ambiguous wording its terse clarity. The diplomatic artifice that suggested the omission of the definite article (territories vs. the territories) in the Resolution – at least, in his official English text, but not in French – has built the reasons of its ineffectiveness, giving inspiration to a discussion never appeased and entirely specious. Forty years after its enactment, no need to point out that Lord Caradon, the chief author of the text, has declared: “It was from occupied territories that the Resolution called for withdrawal. The test was which territories were occupied. That was a test not possibly subject to any doubt. As a matter of plain fact East Jerusalem, the West Bank, Gaza, the Golan and Sinai were occupied in the 1967 conflict. It was on withdrawal from occupied territories that the Resolution insisted” (Lord Caradon et al., U.N. Security Council Resolution 242: A Case Study in Diplomatic Ambiguity (Washington DC 1981.)
The ambiguity was the result of a compromise. But bringing the still point of law, self-sufficient in itself, to its natural utility (which is to be a rule that can not be neglected,) it would have needed at least, as the next event, the good faith of the related players, to derive the consequences and benefits denied from the outset of its wording. Good faith on which even today cannot be counted. It ‘s an example of how, in fact diminishing the effectiveness of international law, namely the ability to be practical source of obligations, a possible instrument of peace is rendered useless.

The information. A great tool for knowledge, communication and peace. But if it’s flawed, like the law, by the power relations, is compromised by bad faith and becomes an instrument of ignorance and death. We’re seeing – in fact, grows in front of us – his umpteenth betrayal in relation to the Iranian nuclear issue, for which there is fatalism (“God forbid”), and powerless, looking at the re-release of the Iraqi situation. The conflict is instigated in the media going crazy over the world, depicting as it were fresh water come to a war, a scenario unbearable and unpredictable. Perhaps in this regard we must wake up and look specifically at what is happening day by day under our eyes. Someone is threatening to wage war on a country consisting of 70 million people, mostly young and well educated, who never moved war, nor threat of war to anyone. And on the same track, some other one is building stories of unlikely alliances, aimed at equally improbable ambition for hegemony in the region.

Similar impulses and similar lies have led to the disastrous situation in Iraq and Aghanistan, still unresolved. But evidently there is no limit to the arrogance and stupidity , and no limit to the myopia of those who favour the seeds of another war in the Middle East, as they could earn some possible contingent advantage. Under this aspect is disastrously suspect the EU intervention in Iran’s nuclear debate. Nor we can trust in the recent attitude assumed by IAEA, though it’s not possible to forget the reserves formulated by the former Director General in view of the aggression on Iraq, unfortunately fallen into the void.

The fact that Iran, attacked by the media for years, does not intend to lower the head, even from the aspect of communication, and asserts the possibility of openly fool the logic of double track, which sees U.S. and the West, uncritically aligned, as bearers of different behaviors in similar situations. So the Islamic Republic has officially asked the United Nations inspection on Israeli nuclear capabilities. And I wonder till what extent the old Europe will be willing to turn a blind eye, fancying as legitimate the official policy of Israel, namely of recognized and institutionalized (nuclear) “ambiguity”, when threatening are the winds of war directed, for the same reason, against another sovereign State. A State that officially – at least in a world governed by law – will not surrender to the medieval rule of the strongest. That criticized by Chomsky, namely the infamous imperial pattern: “what we say goes”.

Written by pipistro

May 21, 2012 at 8:00 pm

Posted in Iran, Israel, Palestine

Tagged with , , ,

%d bloggers like this: