Because—as far as I know—there is nothing in international law that says you can do harm to a non-sovereign state that you cannot do to a sovereign state, I became suspicious when I read the following sentence:
“The Russian invasion of Ukraine is the most brazen illegal
war waged by one sovereign state against another since World War II”.
The sentence spoke of a sovereign state without mentioning
the non-sovereign states, which by implication, excludes the latter.
In all probability—as far as I’m concerned—that is
a false statement, but it was used to open an article that came under the
title: “International Law Goes to War in Ukraine,” and the subtitle: “The Legal
Pushback to Russia’s Invasion.” The article was written by Oona A. Hathaway,
and published on March 15, 2022 in Foreign Affairs.
I read the article, and every paragraph in it reinforced
my suspicion. I concluded that Oona A. Hathaway is not an impartial observer
that happens to be a lawyer writing about a subject of general interest.
Instead, Oona A. Hathaway is working pro bono for the Tel-Aviv/New-York crime
syndicate. The aim of her exercise is clear. It is to use words like these:
“The invasion of Ukraine is an illegal war waged since World War II,” to both
deny the continuing criminal behavior of Israel, and perpetrate the continued denial
of the legitimate rights of Palestinians.
Having done this, Oona Hathaway, went on to celebrate the
“unprecedented” cascade of sanctions that was imposed on Russia by most of the
world, to punish that country and send a message to future would-be violators
that such behavior is unacceptable, outlawed and will be responded to decisively.
But given that humanity chose not to respond to
violations of the law by launching a war against the lawbreakers, a non-lethal
method was formulated to punish the guilty by sanctioning them. This being the
method that the world has used against Israel—calling it Boycott, Divestment
and Sanctions (BDS)—Oona Hathaway consorted with Scott Shapiro to invent
another term, “outcasting” which does not remind the public that before the
punishment of Russia, there was the punishment of Israel.
So, you want to know what exactly does outcasting entail
in the opinion of Oona Hathaway and Scott Shapiro. Well, the following is a
compilation of the passages that describe what she says goes into outcasting.
It is presented here in condensed form:
“Outcasting involves economic sanctions and also barring
Russian athletes from participating in international sporting events, banning
Russian airplanes from European and US airspace, and curtailing Russian media
outlets’ access to European audiences. In addition, normally moribund
international legal institutions have sprung to life in response to the
invasion. Days into the war, the chief prosecutor at the International Criminal
Court (ICC) announced that he was launching an investigation into possible
Russian war crimes and crimes against humanity. Ukraine has also turned to the
International Court of Justice (ICJ) to intervene in the conflict. And, there
are growing calls to create a special tribunal to consider whether there has
been a crime of aggression. Although it’s too soon to know whether any of these
efforts will succeed, the unprecedented response may have the effect of
reviving and reinforcing the international legal order. Ukraine’s decision to
rely on law even as Russia has relied on brute force has raised the stakes of
the confrontation. The conflict is not simply about the future of Ukraine; it
is about the future of the global legal order as we know it”.
If all of this sounds so familiar to you that you can
remove the word “Russia” and replace it with “Israel,” also remove the word “Ukraine”
and replace it with “Palestine,” you will not be shocked to learn that the
parallel between the two situations does not end here. In fact, the
similarities extend all the way to the halls of the United Nations.
In fact, the following is the condensed compilation of
the passages that describe what has been going on inside that international organization:
“The UN Security Council tried to pass a resolution
deploring the Russian invasion and demanding the withdrawal of Russian forces
from Ukraine, but Russia vetoed it. Although Russia is able to exercise its
veto power on the Security Council to prevent it from mandating any punitive
action, the country’s almost complete isolation within the organization has
been thorough. Soon the matter was referred to the General Assembly, which
voted overwhelmingly to demand that Russia immediately, completely and
unconditionally withdraw its forces to within its internationally recognized
borders. Only a small handful of states voted with Russia against the
resolution. The other countries chose to abstain. It is clear that Russia is more
isolated than ever”.
Here too, you can remove the word “Russia” and replace it
with “Israel,” also remove the word “Ukraine” and replace it with “Palestine,”
only to see that the parallel between the two situations is almost perfect.
That prompts us to ask this question: Why is it that in
the presence of two identical situations, we see a complete reversal in the way
they are treated by America, and reluctantly so by some of its allies who are
pressured by the latter to go against their conscience and stand with Israel
instead of condemning it?
The answer is that America itself has been robbed of the
freedom to think and act for itself. Just think about it, if the Palestinians
had a lobby in America that was powerful enough to neutralize the demonic
effect of the Jewish lobby, America would today be earmarking billions of
dollars in cash, and would be setting aside billions more in weaponry to give
to the Palestinians while encouraging them to do what they can to crush the
Jewish invaders.