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.
No comments:
Post a Comment