In my years of blogging I have had quite a few Koranimals telling me that the cursed Jews have no right to self-defence; that they are by the law of allah condemned to lead a miserable, wretched existence under the dhimma, which is in reality worse than slavery. It is interesting that these Mohammedan mugs are making these Â claims Â in the UN and demand openly that the Jews submit to the sharia….
The idea of Jews defending themselves from jihad is “morally abhorrent” and “legally incorrect” (according to Islamic law).
The very existence of Israel is offensive to the ummah.
“Muslim States Say Israel Has No Right to Self-Defense,”
Israel Today Staff, September 24, 2014
Representatives of Muslim states participating in a session of the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva this weekÂ called into question Israel’s right to militarily defend itself against Palestinian terrorism.
The representative from Pakistan insisted that it was “morally abhorrent” and “legally incorrect” to label Israel’s actions in Gaza this summer as self-defense. The United Arab Emirates agreed, and asserted that as an occupying power, Israel had no right to use military force in self-defense.
In total, 30 nations used the session to bash Israel over Operation Protective Edge. Among them were Venezuela, Ireland, China and the aforementioned Pakistan and United Arab Emirates.
In other news:
- US slams Abbas UN speech as ‘offensive’–– which is an understatement. Abbas’s genocidal psychobabble is obscene and insane.
- Israel says Abbas’s UN ‘genocide’ speech is ‘full of lies’–this Arab babykiller is a vile, demented swine just like Yasser Arafartbastard, who used to be his boss….
- Abbas: Israel waging war of genocide in Gaza— show me a genocide where the genocided have multiplied by a factor of eight…. (and I’ll show you the “Palestinans…”)
Israel and a number of leading Western powers already consider the UN Human Rights Council to be untrustworthy and hypocritical, and pay its statements little heed.
In addition to being filled with nations boasting abysmal human rights records, the council is dominated by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which ensures that every session is disproportionately focused on Israel, while all but ignoring the human rights abuses of other nations, in particular the Palestinian Authority.
‘Are Syria air strikes legal?’ asks the BBC as part of its lead story today. The answer is that nobody is very sure. But personally I do wonder: ‘Why should we even care?’
Is beheading people legal? Is crucifying people illegal? Probably not. But aside from some vague talk last month of international inspectors being sent in to Isis-controlled areas to try to collate evidence of war-crimes I have seen very little written about this.
This debate over the ‘legality’ of hitting Isis reminds me of nothing so much as the conversation after Osama bin Laden was shot in the head. I recall back then being on an edition of Question Time where, rather than expressing relief that a very bad man had been killed, everybody started talking about the legality or otherwise of the operation and then – save us – whether American forces had or had not buried the carcass of the dead terrorist with the proper Islamic funeral rites. Soon the conversation was not about the thousands of victims but about the niceties of Islamic sea-burial, whether they were wholly followed through and so on.
Personally I am not particularly bothered about whether it is ‘legal’ to strike Isis. International law is very far from being the set of Sinai-like tablets which young people in particular now seem to think it is.Â It is a very new, very flexible and completely evolving concept. Besides, lots of good things are not legal under international law.Â The campaign to save thousands of Kosovan Muslims in 1998 was not ‘legal’. In fact it was very much ‘illegal’ under international law. But it was still the right thing to do.