The Hague's ridiculous accusations against Israel dismantled piece by piece

What is the value of nothing? Nothing, exactly. The profound nothingness represented by the international bodies, very expensive representation bandwagons which have never served any purpose, after the pronouncement of the prosecutor of International Criminal …

The Hague's ridiculous accusations against Israel dismantled piece by piece

What is the value of nothing? Nothing, exactly. The profound nothingness represented by the international bodies, very expensive representation bandwagons which have never served any purpose, after the pronouncement of the prosecutor of International Criminal Court, it is filled with an obscene value. Dirty. Illogical and profoundly ahistorical. Although the aforementioned Court is not part of the United Nations system, its role in the world of international relations is quite well known by virtue of its “media coverage”; easy illusory mirror for beautiful souls who believe that diplomacy can be replaced with justice and the horrors of the world amended by putting the bad guys of the Earth in some hypothetical prison.

In fact, no one, gods real bad guys, was never actually tried. Those captured were after they had lost all power in their homeland. In the case of Israel Added to the uselessness is the shameful impiety of wanting to try a democratically elected prime minister in a democratic state with its own internal judiciary, comparing him to any Mladic'. The indictment, as well as being quite vague, is full of arrogance.

In the statement (link here) prosecutor Khan says he has “well-founded reasons to believe” that Netanyahu and Gallant committed war crimes and crimes against humanity. Well-founded reasons in international law generally replace evidence, it is good to know this in order to know the real solidity of these mechanisms. In particular, these crimes refer to articles 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute, the legal foundation of the Court. The crimes referred to in Article 7 would be: extermination and deliberate murder of the civilian population as well as “Persecution against a group or community with its own identity, inspired by political, racial, national, ethnic reasons”. In all sincerity, the Inactual he is not aware of any wars in which the civilian population is not involved, nor of bombings against enemy cities in which innocent civilian victims are not caused. By this logic President Truman should consider himself humanity's greatest criminal having ordered the release of two atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, where there were neither high military commands nor centers of political power.

Maybe those were different times… Where one was implemented deliberate extermination of the population, meaning the systematic killing of civilians as happened in the Yugoslav wars, is not very clear. An army warning civilians to evacuate a building that is about to be bombed does not seem so bloodthirsty to us.

What would be the political or even reasons? ethnic that would have led to the massacre of civilians? Is what is underway a war of ethnic extermination? Legitimate to think so, but a bit short for an accusation founded in law.

The violations referred to in Article 8 would consist of: intentionally starving, as a method of warfare, civilians by depriving them of goods indispensable for their survival; voluntarily causing the population great suffering or serious injury to physical integrity or health; acts of violence against the life and integrity of the person, in particular in the forms of murder, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture against those who do not participate in the conflict. Already the words “intentionally starving” sounds ridiculous in a war conflict, not to mention causing physical suffering to people. Sometimes it happens, in war.

But the final straw comes in the prosecutor's next statement: “We believe that the alleged crimes against humanity were committed as part of a widespread and systematic attack against the Palestinian civilian population in accordance with state policy.” So according to the Court it is a typical custom of Israeli politics that of starving, killing, devastating and exterminating Palestinian civilians. It seems to us to be an entirely political and very little juridical judgment.

What is missing here is not only the sense of history, the sense of reality, the sense of opportunity. What is missing here, above all, is decency.

TheVermilion.com is also on Whatsapp. Simply click here to subscribe to the channel and always be updated (free)