Barth Eide: Det perfekte tidspunkt eksisterer ikke, det er nå - Palestina here we come ...

 Oppdatert 100824:

https://verdinytt.no/tar-kraftig-oppgjor-med-den-internasjonale-domstolen/19.2559

-

Et konsentrat fra Dax 18 i dag:

Utenriksminister Barth Eide, Ap: Det fins ikke noe perfekt tidspunkt for å anerkjenne staten Palestina …

Ine Eriksen Søreide, H : Skal vi anerkjenne en intensjon?

Barth Eide: Det kommer ikke noe perfekt tidspunkt (tidspunkt er derfor nå … ) …

Juristen Hellestveit har vært inne på dette. Hun også mener at tidspunktet ikke er det rette, nå midt inne i en krig … Se om domstolen i en tidligere postering - viktig

Kommentar: Skandinaiver er alltid mer interessert i prosess enn i realiteter, det er min erfaring … spesielt i kristne kretser, dvs spesielt i visse kretser … En kristensionist sier: … at visse kristne ikke ser det, det forstår jeg ikke … (Israelkanalen).

-

Et komprimat fra en annen vinkel:

En Sør-Afrikansk, jødisk, middelaldrende, vakker, hvit kvinne ble forelden intervjuet på BBC’s Hard Talk. Hun er innflytelsesrik, har forfattet mange bøker og filmer. Hun forteller nesten likblek og lik-alvorlig at hun i en kortere periode har vært på Vestbredden i Israel og sett ved selvsyn hva apartheid er for noe. Hun forteller kort om veisperringer og omdirigeringer og spesielt anrettede veier hvor muslimer o a må – eller kanskje ikke må - ferdes. Man spør aldri om hvem som finansieres disse veiene og lånet ingen mulighet for at veier som finansieres av jøder faktisk gir jødene rett til å bruke «disse eiendommene», som jøder, altså. Hadde muslimene bygd egne veier og nektet israelerne å bruke dem – ville noen ha protestert og synes det var toppen av kulde?

Jødinnen sier ingenting om det hun forteller om var utslag av midlertidige «forføyninger» fra israelernes side. Hun nevner ingenting om grunnen til spesialtiltakene. Hun ser en noe uheldig og kanskje litt hardhendt eller politiaktig nedlatende oppførsel fra de israelske myndighetenes side, på grensepostene.  Og dette blir da altså det emosjonelle grunnlag for at hun i gavnet kaller Israel – eller støtter Sør-Arfika i å anmelde Israel til ICJ, en apartheidstat.

Vi finner lignende konklusjoner fra norske deltakere på visse observasjonsreiser (finansiert av hvem?) til Vestbredden (som altså påstås å være okkupert).

Ingen av disse menneskene makter å se Israels overordnede behov for sikkerhet, altså i den større kontekst. De ser og kjenner bare på sine servilt betingede korrekte emosjoner. Og deri ligger vårt lodd.

Men alt dette er for tynt, et er som å spille luftgitar på Nachspiel på et studenthjem. Å anerkjenne en Palestinsk stat – den 28, mai - er også for tynt. Barth Eide viser bla a til at han hovedsakelig retter seg etter Saudi-Arabias’s tilsagn og planskisser. Det er ikke til å tro.

Det er «den geniale» Rawls i praksis, i praksis en helt ubrukelig teori.

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2020/05/politisk-teologi-ragnar-misje-bergem.html

 

Sjefsanklageren I ICC Karim Khan sier pompøst: Nobody is above the law?

https://www.frontpagemag.com/genocide-in-gaza/

You and What Army, ICC?

Is there such a thing as international law 

… Khan says, “Nobody is above the law.” But there is no such thing as international law. The term is a contradiction and a fantasy. Law is a system of rules regulating citizens — in our case, with the consent of the governed — and is overseen with due process and enforced with penalties. Americans do not recognize any international government, so there can’t be “international law.”

There is no Palestine. An independent Arab Palestine has never existed. There is no historical precedent for it. It didn’t exist under Ottoman rule or the British Mandate or, in the end, under a United Nations Partition Plan that was rejected by every single Arab state and Palestinian leadership. It didn’t exist when the Palestinians were ruled by governments in Jordan and Egypt (a time when there was virtually no international pressure to create an independent “Palestine”), and it didn’t come into existence when the Arab states rejected Israel’s peace gestures after the 1967 and 1973 wars.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/you-and-what-army-icc/

Kommentar: Hvilken skandinaiv, hvilken nordmann, hvilken europeer eller amerikaner kan være uenig i det sjefsanklageren her sier. Svar: Ingen. Ordene er for lengst internalisert her, hos oss, og anklageren vet det. Han spiller helt perfekt på de perfekte ord, den nobleste ide, som forankrer seg i den judeokristne tradisjon og tro. Bare så trist at så få er klar over dette – så derfor.

På den perfekte retorikk, mannen en selvsagt en formalistisk demagog på islams premisser. Jubelen står høyt i den muslimske verden. Forbrødringen ser ut til å være fullbyrdet? Ordene er velvalgte, suggererende og misledende eller djevelsk forførende. De speiler den universelle rett og rettferighet – overalt. Tilsynelalende.

Men ingen skjønner noe som helst.  

Men hva er innholdet, hva betyr disse ordene? Jo, ordene kan beskrives som prosessuelle; de tilhører og er ment å skulle anvendes i en prosessuell rettsorden, ikke i en «materiell» juridisk forstand. Og prosessretten er alltid underordnet den materielle orden. Den er avledet, ikke norma normans; den er norma normata. Sjefanklageren bryter her et viktig juridisk prinsipp: Han opptrer både in sarx som den materiell og den prosessuelle loven. Han tar med andre ord loven i sin egen hån; i en prosess som kan anses som identisk med selvtekt, (på hvilkes vegne? jo, på den nye globale verdens premisser, kan han mene. Det er skapt en tilsynelatende overgud, en overinstans, som bare islam kan godta, ikke kristentroen. Og på den nye overgudens premisser:

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/06/den-nye-private-overguden-det-har.html).

Loven, den overordnede loven, er materiell. Den bekrefter gjeldende rett, ikke gjeldende politikk.

Sjefsanklagerens utøving eller håndheving av loven, kommer alltid etter selve loven. (Politiet i Vesten står ikke over loven og heller ikke over lovgiveren, men her forsøker håndheveren å overgår loven, en lov som da faktisk ikke eksisterer, den eksisterer kun i anklagerens hode, som, antakelig overstyres av dennes ideologi eller gudstro, ikke av vestlig rettsfølelse og rettsoppfatning og langt fra Kant moralske imperativ, som Vesten bygger på).

Sjefsanklagerens rettsoppfatning legger begrensninger ikke bare på omfanget av retten til å forsvare seg, men også retten til å angripe med militære midler.

Den prosessuelle lovens hovedfunksjon er å virke avskrekkende og gjennomførende, de som håndhever den skal være avskrekkende på den materielle lovens, på bakken, så å si, den loven sjefanklageren viser til, kan derfor sies å være politisk i den forstand at det kan være uenighet om akkurat hvordan denne avskrekkingen skal utføres i praksis.

Bare det at sjefanklageren formulerer seg som han gjør, innebærer et angrep på den loven som hjemler ham her ad hoc: ICC lager loven, ICJ skal håndheve loven. Sjefanklageren plasserer dermed den prosessuelle loven over den materielle. Det er ille, et illegitimt grunnlag. Sjefanklageren overstyret et helt rettssystem, ut fra vestlig juss sett.  

I religiøse termer kan vi si at han selv opphøyer seg selv til potensia absoluta stikk i strid med den finale årsak han er satt – rent prosessuelt - til å realisere i henhold til den materielle loven. Den prosessuelle loven blir gjort til potentia absoluta, men den skulle tilhøre potensia derivata eller potensia ordinata. Der dette skjer, erstattes jussen og håndhevingen av den av politikk og religion, og hvor religion da får all prioritet sett i lys av at ICC’s lovgrunnlag utgjør en «hvilende lov», mens ICJ’s lov er en «aktuell og en aktualiserende lov» og i prisippet intet annet. Sjefsanklagerens posisjon er en tilsnikelse, uten at vi vestlig forstår oe som helst av dette.

Vi kan si at ICH er lovgivende, mens ICJ er håndhevende. Sjefsanklageren setter seg i en posisjon over lovgiveren her; og ja, over internasjonal lov, en lov som bare diffust finnes, men som sjefsanklageren selv opphøyer seg selv til å definere en gang for alle, relatert til krigen i Gaza; han gjør seg – med sine venners hjelp - til en totalitær diktator, en diktator in spe helt under islamsk jurisdiksjon, ikke Vestlig.

Det helt vanvittige i dette er at sjefsanklageren lurer hele Vesten til å trekke en post hoc-konklusjon, en logisk feilslutning eller fallacy: En svart katt løp over veien, bilføreren kjører av veien like etter. Konklusjon: Kattene er årsak til ulykken … Sagt på en annen måte: Israel er årsaken til Gazakrigen og må bære kostnadene, ved at Vi – det store støre Vi – oppretter en ny stat, Palestina, ut fra intensjon, skandinaivens «moralsk overlegne» intensjoner, ikke ut fra realiteter.  Hvilken kollektiv sentimentalisme – på andres vegne.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu warned in a Tuesday interview that International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor Karim Khan was turning the ICC into a “kangaroo court” by requesting arrest warrants for him and for Defense Minister Yoav Gallant, adding that it was Khan, not himself, who should be concerned about his international legitimacy going forward.

Speaking to ABC, Netanyahu dismissed the ICC’s accusation that Israel was deliberately denying Gazans food and water. “This is absurd, it is beyond outrageous,” Netanyahu said, calling the charges a “totally false accusation.”

“We are supplying now nearly half of the water of Gaza, we supplied only 7 percent before the war,” Netanyahu said. “We have supplied over half a million tons of food and medicine with 20,000 trucks.”

Netanyahu slammed Khan, accusing him of being “out to demonize Israel” and adding: “He’s doing a hit job. He’s creating a false symmetry between the democratically elected leaders of Israel and the terrorist chieftains” of Palestinian terror group Hamas, who are also the targets of potential ICC arrest warrants. “That’s like saying after 9/11, well, I’m issuing arrest warrants for George Bush, but also for [Osama] bin Laden.” .. ,

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/05/its-not-netanyahu-on-trial-but-karim-khan

Kommentar: Skandinaiver elsker det Karim Khan gjør, fordi det han gjør, beviser, for dem – jfr «subjektiviteten er sannheten» - at vi, menneskeheten, er i ferd med å realisere den ideelle målsetting: Den allmektige Globale stat, som ser alt og gjør alt, i den tror at alt den gjør, er av det gode uavkortet, og helt uavhengig av Gud, bortsett fra Allah, som nå er selve tronpretendenten i den nye helt uskyldige store og støre naturnødvendige landsbyen.

Det Netanyahu sier faller for døve ører og du vet hvem det er som lukker dem … :

Ireland has now announced their Official Recognition of a Palestinian State, with Spain also said to be following the lead of Ireland and Norway on May 28th. pic.twitter.com/D9wIhaub5c — OSINTdefender (@sentdefender) May 22, 2024 Murder 1,200 Israels, and globalist dhimmi leftist governments in Europe will reward you. Who knows what bounty the “Palestinians” will receive […]

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/05/ireland-and-norway-recognize-palestinian-state-spain-to-follow-next-week

Munich, where Hitler staged his attempted Beer Hall Putsch in November 1923, was his favorite city, filled early on with Nazi true believers. He would have been pleased to see the 4,000 antisemites out in force in mid-May, marching along, baying their hate in front of the city’s main synagogue, scaring the Jews worshipping inside […]

https://www.jihadwatch.org/2024/05/for-hamas-supporters-in-munich-this-may-its-springtime-for-hitler-and-germany

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2010/10/rasismens-mange-forvirrende-ansikter.html

For ikke mange måneder siden sa Støre at Hamas er en terrororganisasjon. Vet noen om han har gått tilbake på dette? Og hvis ikke? Vel. Når Barth Eide og Støre nå anerkjenner et Palestina som stat, anerkjenner de ikke da også at denne staten fullt lovlig, etter internasjonal, ny, folkerett, kan bruke terror? Eller vil det følge logisk og empirisk/positivt at Palestina binder seg til å bruke Hamas charter som bindende konstitusjon?  I så fall vil Palestina bli en terrorstat. Terror anerkjent som en legitim og legal politisk- og militær metode her altå. Hvlken ufattelig ironi.

Å anerkjenne Palestina er å legitimere terror. Ja, faktisk legalisere Folkemord. Å anerkjenne Palestina er å anerkjenne Allah og Koranen som «konstitusjon» for alle arabere og muslimer, snart 3 milliarder til sammen.

Annniken Huitfeldt må gni se i hendene og gråte sine gledestårer nå, in anguish: Morn’a Jens!

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2011/02/er-gaarder-antisemitt.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/10/jonas-gahr-stres-liv-i-fare-stor-hamas.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/10/terrororganisasjon-ferdig-snakka-punktum.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/10/gud-i-gaza-en-fortsettelse.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/10/gud-pa-gaza-og-var-ofte-sa-store.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2010/11/hvem-ville-ha-turt.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2010/07/de-som-har-substans.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/04/iran-israel-og-oss-og-hva-som-star-pa.html

 

Om Raisi (Iran) og Fareed Zakaria:

http://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/09/de-oikofobe-anakronister-de-som.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/04/iran-israel-og-oss-og-hva-som-star-pa.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/04/apenbaring-over-iran-eskalering.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/04/hvem-kan-tenkes-si-allah-er.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/04/gaza-hva-som-star-pa-spill-om-en.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/03/jihadist-na-forbudt-bruke-islamoamorst.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/03/okkupasjonen-lovlig-og-ikke-ulovlig.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/02/islam-befester-seg-na-over-hele-verden.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/01/vold-er-kanskje-hedning-men-er-preses.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2024/01/venstresidens-nye-ateistiske.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/12/den-som-har-rer-den-som-har-yne-en.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/12/antisemittisme-gaza-og-oss.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/12/gaza-og-gilbert-nok-en-gang.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/12/antisemittisme-gaza-og-oss.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/12/universitetene-som-symptom-pa-samfunns.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/12/why-west-has-got-to-go.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/11/ha-tikvah-hapet-i-deg.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/11/om-bl-trond-giske-galskapen-gaza-og-var.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/10/faren-for-spredning-blir-stadig-mer.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/10/islam-i-full-force-pa-verdidebatt-nrk.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/10/tror-du-pa-hamas-mer-enn-pa-usa-og.html

 

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2023/10/sannheten-fom-forlot-gaza-en-samling.html

 

Krigens akk så tradisjonelt noble regler er dermed undergravet og det er skapt noe nytt, det er destruert noe nytt, den nye – freden – skal oppnås ikke ved rettferdig forsvar, men ved urettferdig terror og hvor terroristen her vil gå straffefri for alltid. En stor seier for alle verdens imamer. At Hamas liksom kan holdes utenfor i dette store, kyniske spillet, er en illusjon, men en illusjon våre myndigheter nå må etablere som sannhet.

Det er ikke til å tro …

For denne nye rettstilstanden, er den nye verdenssituasjonen verdenssamfunnet nå velger å la seg styre og dominere av. Allah er i ferd med å etablere et globalt hegemoni, som ikke kan reverseres, ut fra de hellige islamske skrifter selv. Hvem dikterer nå denne «fred via terror»? Jo, i hvert fall ikke Kristus eller JHWH, men Allah og Koranen.

We are finished.

Men er det fullbrakt?. Nei, intet i dette scenarioet er fullbrakt. Det som er fullbrakt er Kristi verk. Men dette forstår hverken tidligere forsvarsledelse eller bisperåd. Hverken Fykse tveit eller Sverre Diesen.

... «Fortsatt synes likevel noen å falle for israelernes forsøk på å skyve Holocaust foran seg og vise til at Hamas har programfestet at de skal utslette Israel. Det er den ultimate kynisme, så lenge ingen stat i Midtøsten er mindre truet av utslettelse enn Israel, med landets overlegne forsvar, sin amerikanske beskyttelse og i siste instans sine egne atomvåpen. I det perspektivet er de islamske voldsromantikernes trusler ikke annet enn tom retorikk,» mener Diesen. ... 

… «De ultraortodokse partiene som holder Netanyahu ved makten er religiøse fanatikere, like hinsides den sekulære politiske virkelighet som prestestyret i Teheran, bare med litt andre bønner og bekjennelser.»… Det er knapt mulig å støtte Israel nå, om man da ikke er «forledet» av et kristent, bibelsk «beundring» …

«Israel er i ferd med å grave sin egen grav på sin selvrettferdige vei mot valget mellom å være enten en jødisk stat eller et liberalt demokrati. Forlenger vi den kursen dagens makthavere følger, styrer landet mot å bli et illiberalt teokrati og en jødisk apartheidstat. Dem om det, men da må vi også innse at vår historiske holdning til Israel må revideres. Den vokste frem av sympati for en stat og et nasjonsprosjekt som ikke lenger eksisterer. Dagens Israel er en luksus Vesten ikke har råd til.»

(Se link til hva Selle og Selbekk sier i linken ):

https://inyheter.no/22/05/2024/sverre-diesen-mener-israel-er-en-luksus-vesten-ikke-har-rad-til/

Kommentar: Diesen forstår ikke dett med Gud alvoret i dette med Gud, dette med Guds vesen og funksjon dette med troen selv. Diesen reduserer alt til nyttefunksjoner, til SAP, til materialisme.

God og oppklarende «positivistisk» info her:

... Unlike the ICC, the ICJ, it does not try individuals and its rulings do not result in criminal convictions or prison sentences.1

The ICJ is the successor of the Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ), which was established in 1920 by the League of Nations. After the Second World War, the League and the PCIJ were replaced by the United Nations and ICJ, respectively.

The International Criminal Court in The Hague prosecutes those accused of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide. In 1998, 60 countries signed the Rome Statute after it was opened for signature by the United Nations.

The ICC is not part of the UN, The Court was established by the Rome Statute. This treaty was negotiated within the UN; it created an independent judicial body distinct from the UN.

-

The Hague has two international courts that deal with genocide, but they have very different remits

By Juliette McIntyre, University of Melbourne and University of South Australia

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) and genocide are once again in the media, with a case brought by South Africa against Israel in December 2023.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) made news in 2023 for issuing an arrest warrant for war crimes against Russian President Vladimir Putin. The ICC Prosecutor also has an open investigation into the situation in Israel and Palestine.

There is quite a lot of confusion and misinformation in the media (and particularly on social media) about the ICJ and the ICC, their powers and jurisdiction, and what they can actually do in circumstances like accusations of genocide.

Let’s clear up these misunderstandings.

A tale of two courts in one city

The ICJ and ICC are often confused with each other, and while both courts sit in The Hague, Netherlands, that is about where the similarities end.

Adjudicating international disputes

The ICJ has been around since 1945 and its primary duty is to resolve disputes between States. For example, much of its work is devoted to settling the boundary lines (maritime or land) between States.

Cases are brought by one State against another, in almost the same way that in a civil court, a plaintiff must sue a defendant to initiate proceedings. The difference is that at the ICJ proceedings can only be brought where both States have consented to the ICJ’s jurisdiction.

This consent can happen in a few different ways, but a common one is called a compromissory clause. There is one in the Genocide Convention – it says that:

Disputes between the Contracting Parties relating to the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility of a State for genocide … shall be submitted to the International Court of Justice at the request of any of the parties to the dispute.

The International Court of Justice adjudicates on disputes between States, but only with the consent of all parties.

This means that where one State believes another to be committing genocide, if both States are parties to the Genocide Convention a case can be brought using this compromissory clause.

However, if a case is brought, it can address only the question of ‘the interpretation, application or fulfilment of the present Convention’ – a very limited question that we will return to shortly.

There are 153 State parties to the Genocide Convention, meaning that many States have the option of bringing a case against another State under the compromissory clause. Russia, Myanmar, and Israel are all parties to the Genocide Convention. 

Compromissory: A compromissory clause reflects the consent of the parties to a treaty to the jurisdiction of the Court. However, it is settled that consent to the jurisdiction of the Court does not have to be expressed in a particular form.

A breakthrough for justice and peace

The ICC is a much more recent institution that has only been operating for about 20 years. Rather like a domestic criminal court, it prosecutes individual people for committing crimes.

Once States have ratified the Rome Statute, which sets out the list of crimes that the ICC can prosecute, they have almost no other role. States do not ‘sue’ at the ICC, only the ICC Prosecutor can elect to open an investigation.

Usually, the Prosecutor will investigate a situation in which crimes have likely been committed such as in Darfur, Ukraine, Palestine, or Venezuela to name a few presently on the books.

If the Prosecutor’s team can gather enough evidence of crimes, link those crimes to individuals, and (this is the hardest part) have those people arrested, those individuals can be tried and convicted of a crime, and then imprisoned.

One of these crimes is genocide. The catch is that the Prosecutor is only permitted to open investigations into situations arising in countries that have ratified the Rome Statute. While the Rome Statute has 123 State parties, there are notable absentees including Russia, Israel, Myanmar and even the United States.

The International Criminal Court prosecutes individuals for situations arising in States that have ratified the Rome Convention. Picture: Wikimedia

Genocide at the ICJ versus genocide at the ICC

So, what we have is two Courts that are equipped to address the matter of genocide, but in two different ways.

The ICJ can consider whether a State has committed genocide under the Genocide Convention. Under that Convention, genocide is defined as any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Resolving contract disputes uses principles both ancient and cosmopolitan

The most difficult aspect of this definition is intent. It must be established that the respondent State intended to destroy the group.

The ICJ has applied quite a strict test, it’s not simply a matter of killing enormous numbers of people. There must be an intent to destroy the group entirely in a particular place.

And, if a case is brought under the Genocide Convention, the ICJ cannot consider other questions like the legality of an invasion or whether war crimes and crimes against humanity have been committed.

The ICC, on the other hand, prosecutes genocide as a crime committed by individuals, and it also has jurisdiction over other crimes that the ICJ cannot consider, such as war crimes and crimes against humanity.

While the definition of genocide is the same at both the ICC and ICJ, the difference is that at the ICC an atrocity does not need to meet the threshold of ‘genocide’ to be prosecuted.

 

The ICC can therefore investigate a much wider array of crimes than the ICJ. However, it can only do so in situations arising in States that are party to the Rome Statute.

 

The definition of genocide is the same at both the ICC and ICJ, but there are many differences in how and against whom cases are made. Picture: Getty Images

 

The ICJ has jurisdiction over many more States, but it can only address the very limited question of whether a particular State has committed genocide.

 

So remember, the ICJ resolves disputes between States, while the ICC prosecutes individuals for crimes.

Both the ICJ and the ICC have important roles to play in holding States and people within those States accountable for their actions. However, it is important to understand the limitations of each institution and not to expect more than either can deliver.

https://pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/articles/how-does-the-international-court-of-justice-differ-from-the-international-criminal-court

Hvordan kan dette unngås?

Terror ser nå ut til å være blitt et legitimt virkemiddel for en internasjonalt anerkjent stat. Ingen annen stat i verden nyter godt av å ha anerkjent terror som selve ledestjernen og selve mirakelkuren for å oppnå den fred staten Palestina forsøker å etablere.

Følgende artikkel forteller meg noe veldig viktig, fordi den underbygger mine egne teorier og neologier om emokrati, hypermagi, SAP, den servilt betinget emosjonelle korrekthet og det nye emosjonelle, absoluttistiske credo, som presser seg ned i våre hoder og hjerter, og som forblinder oss, unge som eldre, mer enn de fleste kan forestille seg: :

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/06/det-nye-store-emosjonelt-korrekte-credo.html

https://neitilislam.blogspot.com/2021/06/de-emosjonelt-korrektes-credo-i-praksis.html

 

Student protests are really about the adolescent need for certainty and belonging, Harold Behr:

 

 Having worked most of my life with emotionally disturbed youths, I have come to regard adolescence as an age of extremism. The phase of development that extends from the early teens into the mid-20s is characterised by volatile moods and inner uncertainty.

As a coping strategy, the young mind adopts stances of exaggerated surety in relation to the outside world, fuelling extremes of behaviour and attitude.

The current wave of pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist sentiment engulfing university campuses epitomises the temptation to embrace extremist solutions without having to examine underlying complexities of the situation.

I watch with alarm how passionate feelings aroused by the crisis in the Middle East are exploited by militants, campaigning for the destruction of the state of Israel without any thought for what that entails for the millions of Jews who live there.

Youthful fervour can be a catalyst for constructive social change, but it lends itself to manipulation by ideologues bent on promoting a sinister agenda.

Universities are fertile grounds for radicalisation. Students, a captive population of keen intellectual acumen, are as capable of irrationality as any other group and they yearn to resolve problems by framing them in terms of “good” and “evil”.

The problem is compounded by the emotional thrill of participating in mass action. Whenever a crowd assembles, especially for political purposes, a collective mindset takes over. This is sometimes characterised as a mob, or a kind of mass hysteria, but is best understood as an increased state of suggestibility: the individual’s capacity to think independently is weakened; the proclivity for violence strengthened.

There is something exhilarating about being part of a throng, chanting slogans and listening to fiery speeches. The leaders of protests present themselves as role models and idealists for their cause, while their opponents are represented in the most demonic light.

 

Badges, banners and other paraphernalia strengthen the feeling of unity and belonging. I remember with mixed feelings protests in a previous generation against the Vietnam war, when universities resounded to chants of the name of Ho Chi Min, with starry-eyed students brandishing copies of Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book, showing no insight into the forces they were fuelling.

One of the sorriest aspects of the caravan of protests now taking over faculty sites is the eager participation of some Jewish students. Their presence is triumphantly proclaimed as evidence that calls for the destruction of Israel are not really about hatred of Jews but the righting of a wrong done to the Palestinian people by a distinct and alien group – the Zionists – with no rights of possession to the land.

No matter that this position defies fact and history. No matter that it carries a murderous implication on a horrendous scale. In these situations, the contingent of pacific idealists will tend to be co-opted and drowned out by the loudest, fundamentalist ideologues.

 

The self-reinforcing, radicalising collective merges disparate disaffected youth, with grievances tenuously connected to the Middle East, into active supporters of Hamas. It coalesces to spread a blanket of vilification over Israel, hoping to suffocate it. There are disturbing precedents in the early stages of Fascism and Bolshevism, which were adept at absorbing naive young fellow-travellers into their ranks.

 

Any reasonable observer should be able to see both the tragedy unfolding on the streets of Gaza and the unavoidable Israeli military imperative of eliminating Hamas, a death cult whose openly proclaimed goal is the murder of Jews everywhere. Soldiers are now having to pick up the pieces of a shattered Jewish nation, a democracy painstakingly designed by idealists of an earlier generation, risen from the ashes of previous wars against the Jews.

 

The principle that lasting change for the better is most likely to come about gradually, through dialogue, is itself an idealistic cause – and a more durable one than the thrill of alignment with extremists. That is something universities should cultivate, but they appear to be failing in the task.

 

By sallying forth from their bastions of higher learning draped in Palestinian flags, Jewish students must realise they are giving credence to malevolent elements that exult in an unexpectedly rich source of antisemitism.

 

My one source of hope is that relinquishing simplistic and deluded formulae for remedying complex problems is the most common outcome when radical youths emerge from adolescence. It is part of growing up. My optimism resides in awareness that the individual’s journey from childhood to maturity is paralleled by society’s evolution from a state of barbarism to collective empathy.

But with every shock delivered to a people – and the October 7 massacre are seismic indeed – fresh wounds are inflicted and progress can be retarded, perhaps for generations.

 

If the current wave of student protests teaches us anything, it is that scholarship in itself provides no immunity against the kind of fanaticism that prohibits independent thought. The antidote to adolescent extremism is education that encourages young people to embrace the complexity inherent in the human condition and that empowers them to resist the trap of ‘either/or’ thinking with its inevitable and dangerous decline into the ‘us-or-them’ mentality.

https://www.thejc.com/lets-talk/student-protests-are-really-about-the-adolescent-need-for-certainty-and-belonging-oni3fu0i