It seems those who keep track of such things claim that Israel’s recent attacks on Gaza violated International Law. What is interesting or newsworthy about that? Israel has flouted and violated International Law so often it is merely commonplace and makes one wonder if there even is such a thing as International Law. Of course there is somewhere something called International Law, codified and written down, but as it is so rarely enforced it might as well not exist at all. Most everyone violates it at will. If you are a small and not very important country, and the violations are so abominable as to truly shock everyone, you might, just might, find yourself being tried for violating it. If you are a large and more powerful country you can apparently violate International Law whenever you wish, secure in the knowledge that you will never have to face justice.
The most obvious example of this discriminatory malfeasance is, of course, the United States. There is absolutely no doubt that George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice and others violated International Law with respect to our unfortunate “war” against Iraq. Bush and Cheney have even publicly boasted about it. Have they been tried or otherwise held accountable? Of course they have not. It appears that the British, too, have been guilty of violations of International Law in Iraq and Afghanistan, but they, too, have not been held accountable. I have little doubt that many of the most powerful countries have violations that might have been prosecuted, but they never are. Does this not make you wonder if there really is such thing as International Law? If you have laws that are codified and recognized, but are rarely if ever enforced, are they really laws?
There are, I have been told, two kinds of recognized law, the “Written law” and the “Living law.” These concepts exist because of the realization that often written laws, if not enforced, are more properly conceived of, and commonly understood, as living laws. You know, the kind of laws that are more or less just winked at, that everyone understands will not be enforced. This would certainly seem to be the case when it comes to so-called International Law. How long, I wonder, will the international community continue to merely wink at the egregious Israeli and U.S. violations? Here we have an apparent example of that unfortunate reality , “might makes right .”
I didn’t think much of Rubio’s rebuttal last night, he seemed to just reiterate the usual Republican nonsense about government and taxes, but I cannot understand all the fuss about the fact that he had to have a drink of water. This is just another example of the media focusing on trivia rather than substance. What is unusual about a speaker taking a drink of water? In fact, more usually than not speakers are furnished with water and openly use it. Those who are so vitally interested in his water break seem to be basically uninterested in his speech, probably a good defense against having to comment on what was a pretty dismal performance, in fact, all performance and no substance. Anyway I cannot see him as the Republican “savior,” at least not until he grows up. He is certainly no Saint Ronnie.
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.