Category Archives: Political Philosophy

Updated: Israelis To Sue NATO For 1999 Air Strikes On Serbia

Europe, Foreign Policy, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Justice, Political Philosophy, War

What a great move, from the only people to have stood by my homeland, South Africa. The tactic taken by the Israelis is aggressive. It accomplishes two things: It makes it a little harder for the hypocrites who monopolize the discourse on justice to get away with murder. It achieves a measure of justice by calling a crime a crime. An added bonus it that an Israeli outfit here is actually bucking American foreign policy.

I can almost sense the bitterness in this BBC News report (sent by john peter maher):

“The Israeli Almagor Terrorist Victims’ Association is about to file a lawsuit against NATO officials who gave the green light for the bombing of Serbia in 1999.

The association elected to take the move in response to the decision by Judge Fernando Andreu of the Spanish Audencia Nacional (National Court) to launch an investigation into Israel’s bombing of Gaza in 2002, when one Hamas leader was killed and 14 people were wounded.

In the suit, Almagor cites the names of a number of high-profile Spaniards, including EU High Representative for Foreign and Security Policy Javier Solana, who was NATO secretary general from 1995 to 1999, as well as the names of certain officials from other European countries and the United States.

Almagor Director Meir Indor told the media in Israel that the lawsuit would be completed shortly.

He confirmed that the Serbian case might open a Pandora’s Box, which could make certain individuals think twice before deciding to accept any lawsuits that the Palestinians filed against Israel.

‘We see this as a case highlighting the double standards of Europeans who are accusing Israel of war crimes, while at the same time, those very same countries, as part of NATO, committed crimes that were a lot worse,’ Indor said.

He stressed that every European NATO member-state would be mentioned and that the suit would be filed in every country that decided to file similar actions against Israel for war crimes recently committed either in the aforesaid case, or, more recently, during the Israeli offensive in Gaza at the turn of the year.

‘Even now Israeli Army generals cannot travel to the UK for fear of being arrested the moment they set foot in the airport,’ said the Almagor president.

The organization’s delegate in Serbia was, he said, a certain Mr. D., an Israeli businessman who was caught in the crossfire when the air strikes began, and who works in Serbia to this day.

Serbian citizens have welcomed the news that Almagor has launched their case, says Mr. D.

Almagor purports to being a humanitarian organization that represents the victims of global terror, not only in Israel, and is endeavoring to obtain authorization from Serbian victims of the bombing to present their case.”

Update: In response to the comment: Sure, this is a self-serving action on the part of the Israelis. Altruism is overrated–and, at times, wrong-headed. You serve others best by serving yourself first and foremost. Adam Smith’s Invisible Hand and all that stuff. Good stuff.

This is why I love this feisty move.

Updated: Meaningless Musical Chairs

Democrats, Elections 2008, Government, Media, Political Philosophy, Politics, Republicans, Science

The parties are exchanging spit:

MSNBC: “Republican Sen. Arlen Specter disclosed plans Tuesday to switch parties, bringing Democrats closer to the 60-vote supermajority they need to push Barack Obama’s agenda through the Senate.”

The imagery conjured by defections, or ideological spit swapping, between Republicans and Democrats, in my mind, is of two colossal, identical amoebas occasionally allowing their semi-permeable cell walls to open and merge with a biologically compatible, primitive organism. In fact, that’s the perfect, dynamic metaphor for our two-party system.

Although dyed-in-the-wool party parrots will disagree, based on fact, reality, and policy prescriptions, the differences between the parties exist along a continuum; are quantitative, not qualitative.

As I said in “The Commie Who Controls the Economy From the Grave”:

“How much to hand out; who to hand it to; which handout makes the best use of taxpayer money; do the Big Three submit a business plan with their bailout requisitions, or not—that’s the depth of the ‘philosophical’ to-be-or-not-to-be among Republikeynsians.”

Mercer in 2006: “What we have now is a cartel, the traditional ideological differences between the political parties having been permanently blurred.”

The solution?

Mercer in 2006: “Antitrust laws ought to be deployed, not against business, but to bust this two-party monopoly, which subverts competition in government and rewards the colluding quislings with sinecures in perpetuity.”

Update: Look at the bright side. The political developments have steered Commissar Keith of MSNBC away from lamenting, night after night, the damage water boarding has wrought on Abu Zubaydah’s bladder, to speculating how Specter’s defection will help his man Obama’s agenda.

The “Don’t Tread On Me” Tradition Is Back!

Federal Reserve Bank, Liberty, Neoconservatism, Old Right, Political Philosophy, Republicans, Ron Paul, Taxation, Terrorism, War

Or so says Richard Spencer, editor of Taki’s Magazine, in the fabulous article: “Are the Tea Parties Radical and Paranoid Enough?”

In the tea party protest Spencer attended he saw ample signs of the Old Right rising. This recrudescence took the form of fewer “bloviations about the war on terror,” and more “Abolish the Federal Reserve!” and “Republicans + Democrats = National-Socialism” signs. “[O]nly two or three blue-blazer-and-kakis Frumbots” loitered around aimlessly.

Sweet.

Writes Richard: “There’s no question that the Republicans would love to co-opt the Tea Party movement to strengthen their prospects in 2010, but my sense last night was that the ‘Don’t Tread on Me’ crowd might be a bit too radical to be neutralized and Republicanized easily.”

Read the rest on Taki’s.