WHILE this investigative journalist (living in Israel) gives no quarter to PM Netanyahu when the need arises, the fact remains that he is Israel’s elected leader. As such, the notion that any foreign leader, let alone a POTUS, is brazen enough to bring top guns to Tel Aviv to topple him is the height of foreign machinations. Illegal too.
“Non-interference in a state’s internal affairs used to be a rule of international law: is it still?” was intended to be rhetorical. There is no doubt that the principle of non-intervention remains well-established in contemporary international law. It is part of customary international law, as the International Court of Justice has reaffirmed on a number of occasions. And it is also reflected in many treaties, such as the Charter of the Organization of American States and the Constitutive Act of the African Union. While not expressly set out in the UN Charter, it is generally held to be implicit in various of its provisions, in particular the principle of the sovereign equality of States (Article 2.1). It was of course included in the 1970 Friendly Relations Declaration.
The International Court dealt with intervention in its very first case, Corfu Channel. Twenty years later, as we have already seen, the Court expounded on the principle of non-intervention in its 1986 judgment in the Nicaragua case: “The principle of nonintervention [so said the Court] involves the right of every sovereign State to conduct its affairs without outside interference; though examples of trespass against this principle are not infrequent, the Court considers that it is part and parcel of customary international law. […] international law requires political integrity […] to be respected” (para. 202). The Court went on to say that “the principle forbids all States or groups of States to intervene directly or indirectly in the internal or external affairs of other States” and that “a prohibited intervention must accordingly be one bearing on matters in which each State is permitted, by the principle of State sovereignty, to decide freely. One of these is the choice of a political, economic, social and cultural system, and the formulation of foreign policy. Intervention is wrongful when it uses methods of coercion in regard to such choices, which must remain free ones. […] the element of coercion […] defines, and indeed forms the very essence of, prohibited intervention” (para. 205). The Court also dealt with the principle of non-interference in its judgment of 19.
REGARDLESS, Barack HUSSEIN Obama will not tolerate anyone getting in the way of Iran’s nuclear program, therefore, he is actively seeking to make sure that PM Netanyahu loses the upcoming March election.
In this warning, the Iranian official introduced two new features: Tehran has never before set red lines for Israeli military action; neither have the Iranians ever admitted to relaying a warning to Israel through Washington – at least not in public.
SIMILARLY, his relationship with the Muslim Brotherhood Mafia is set in stone, therefore, he sabotages anyone who points out the obvious – its Islamic terror apparatus! Well, too damn bad.
[E, RALA -- lots of background material and links there...]
Zitat“Non-interference in a state’s internal affairs used to be a rule of international law: is it still?” was intended to be rhetorical.
Lots of good information but the author neglects to mention the role of R2P and the Moslem Brotherhood's infiltration of our goernment prior to Obama.
R2P (responsibility to Protect) is described as an emerging norm under the UN. R2p over rides "Non-interference in a state’s internal affairs" under the following guidelines which can be defined as needed:
A state has a responsibility to protect its population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and ethnic cleansing.
The international community has a responsibility to assist the state to fulfill its primary responsibility.
If the state manifestly fails to protect its citizens from the four above mass atrocities and peaceful measures have failed, the international community has the responsibility to intervene through coercive measures such as economic sanctions. Military intervention is considered the last resort.
Yes, like many others, I have always believed that R2P will ultimately be used to destroy Israel. (If you consider both its content & origin, that's a plausible outcome.)
It couldn’t be more obvious to me that Obama and his Administration are in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood. This past week, they held a confab at the State Department concerning their ongoing efforts to oppose the current government of President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi of Egypt, who rose to power following the overthrow of Mohamed Morsi, an ally of the Brotherhood, in 2013. And that just pissed Obama off to no end. Not hard to tell where his allegiances lie and they certainly aren’t with Israel.
Waleed Sharaby, who is a secretary-general of the Egyptian Revolutionary Council and a spokesman for Judges for Egypt, a group reported to have close ties to the Brotherhood, posed for a selfie in front of the State Department emblem while showcasing the Muslim Brotherhood Rabia four-finger sign. The caption under the pic says, “Now in the U.S. State Department. Your steadfastness impresses everyone.” The sign is named after Rabia Square in Cairo, where a large anti-coup sit-in was held for about forty days before it was dispersed. The sign is meant to express solidarity with the thousands wounded, killed and burnt by the Egyptian army during the dispersal and persistence of the anti-coup movement, whereas pro-coup activists, figures and media consider the sign to be a terrorist sign. Or should that be called an ‘armed insurgent’ sign since we are not allowed to call the Muslim Brotherhood, the Taliban or CAIR the scum bag terrorists they are? Confusing, huh? Only certain terrorists are actually terrorists according to Obama. Only the ones he doesn’t snuggle with. Actually, doing away with the word ‘terrorist’ altogether is straight out of CAIR’s playbook. Radical Islamists of a feather and all that.
The delegation not only included Sharaby, it also had on board Gamal Heshmat, a leading member of the Brotherhood and Abdel Mawgoud al-Dardery, a Brotherhood member who served as a parliamentarian from Luxor as part of its makeup. Maha Azzam, who was also part of the delegation, proclaimed that the talks were ‘fruitful.’ Yeah, I bet they were. Azzam was speaking at the Center for the Study of Islam and Democracy (CSID). This is yet another group accused of having close ties to the Brotherhood. Azzam also declared that the State Department expressed openness to engagement. Quoi? Engage in what precisely? So, does this mean that the Brotherhood is now just another arm of our State Department? It’s sure beginning to look that way.
Any fool can see that Obama is still supporting putting the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt and wants al-Sisi dealt with and gone. State Department officials would not comment on the content of the talks, several of which consisted of public get-togethers (by invitation) in Maryland and Virginia last week. I’m sure they had cocktails, while discussing the ouster of al-Sisi and the destruction of Israel.
From Patrick Poole:
Patrick Poole, a terrorism expert and national security reporter, said the powwow at the State Department could be a sign that the Obama administration still considers the Brotherhood politically viable, despite its ouster from power and a subsequent crackdown on its members by Egyptian authorities.
“What this shows is that the widespread rejection of the Muslim Brotherhood across the Middle East, particularly the largest protests in recorded human history in Egypt on June 30, 2013, that led to Morsi’s ouster, is not recognized by the State Department and the Obama administration,” Poole said.
“This is a direct insult to our Egyptian allies, who are in an existential struggle against the Muslim Brotherhood, all in the pursuit of the mythical ‘moderate Islamists’ who the D.C. foreign policy elite still believe will bring democracy to the Middle East,” Poole said.
Two days after the delegation meeting, the Muslim Brotherhood called for “a long, uncompromising Jihad” in Egypt. They released an official statement calling on their supporters to “prepare” for Jihad, according to an independent translation of the statement first posted on Tuesday.
In typical Muslim Brotherhood fashion, the releases in Arabic and English contradicted each other. Look to the Arabic translation for their true intentions. The English release is propagandic taqiyya for the infidels and nothing but lies: