International injustice and Israel


A group of rabid anti-Semites proposed a to the dutch government to engage Israel to tear down the protective wall built to keep terrorism out. It’s success is very clear, slaughter of innocent civilians by groups of Cisjordanians practically dropped to zero.

According to the initiators, the construction of the wall is in violation of international law. It relies in that regard on the uncritical non-binding opinion on the matter issued by the International Court on 9 July 2004. The opinion needs some critical comments. The advice does not begin to do justice to the complex historical and legal reality that forms the background of the current situation in Israel and the territories in Judea and Samaria, including eastern Jerusalem (in the media often: West Bank, Cisjordania), which lie east of the “green line “.
The green line in 1949 between Israel and Jordan is an agreed ceasefire line after the War of Independence .The International Court wrongly classifies these areas without reserve as “occupied territories”, with all the legal consequences. The court overlooks, however, the central importance of the Palestine Mandate of 24 July 1922. It was adopted by the League of Nations granted as core obligation to the administration of the British Empire Palestine : the establishment of the Jewish national home (art. 2), at least in the area west of the Jordan. The mandate was further provided in the promotion of Jewish immigration and settlement.

The area east of the Green Line to the Jordan, which since 1948 was occupied by Jordan, became under Israeli control in June 1967 after having defeated an unprovoked act of war from amongst many other Jordan. So it is the disputed territories not occupied territory for the purposes of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 which defines territory occupied by another State .The ICJ ignores this and considers the Jewish settlements in the disputed areas without thought in conflict with the prohibition of an occupying power to move parts of its own population to the “occupied territory”. For voluntary settlement by “settlers” who use the mandate given in the right of establishment this is not the case. It is in view of the history is very bitter that Israel is required to make the disputed territories, including East Jerusalem “Jude Rein”.

Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that the court in its opinion hardly gave serious attention to the considerations which have led Israel to establish the security barrier . Its aim was the protection of Israeli civilians which since the start of the second Intifada (September 2000) were plagued by horrible (suicide) attacks, in which 900 civilians were killed and thousands were injured. The safety barrier is a relatively peaceful and nonviolent means to stop terrorists. This is for the people of the disputed territories many times better than an armed action against terrorists. The absolute nadir of the advice is the way the court has denied Israel’s the right to self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter. This would be limited to the case of an armed attack by one State against another State. Because Israel claimed that it was attacking terrorist groups and not other states it could not rely on Article 51.The text of this article limits the right of self-defense but not at all to only an attack by another state. Israel was in other words, denied the right to its most fundamental state task: the defense of its own citizens against violence. The court thus ignored the not only for Israel relevant fact that modern warfare usually does not take place between two or more ‘regular’ states, but nowadays mainly involves conflict between a State and one or more terrorist groups.

(translated from dutch from a piece by an associate professor at the Department of Legal Theory in Utrecht.
http://www.refdag.nl/opinie/juridische_basis_burgerinitiatief_sloop_de_muur_uiterst_zwak_1_708958 )

Why the West is powerless against Islamic violence


Well, that’s simple. You are fighting by the queen’s rules with a bare knuckle fighter. You can’t win from an enemy that commit any atrocity by carefully fighting according to Geneva rules. You’ll need to adapt to their strategies because for sure they aren’t going to do so by yours.
As now in Mali where the famous Surrendermonkeys with a standing army of almost 500.000 highly equipped military try to battle it out with a small group of barely human savages and say they’ll need months to do so. Quite close Algeria shows how to do it. Just go in and destroy as many as you can.

Our civilization, our respect for human rights is our undoing in this global battle. The richly (oildollars) funded fighters for the global caliphate have no such qualms. Slaughter, plunder, slavery, beastly atrocities anything is allowed for their holy fight.

And we have people like Obama, Rompuy having a nice civilized conversation if they don’t mind being nicer if we pay them X amount of money. Billions are now being paid in Jizya (money paid by infidels to moslims to not be murdered) to backward countries like Pakistan,Afghanistan,Egypt with as only result you make yourself look even more weak in the eyes of the jihadists, encouraging further battles.

Chamberlain,Obama have a lot in common.

The disease fat does not exist, part 2


The obesity paradox is no longer.

Conclusions and Relevance Relative to normal weight, both obesity (all grades) and grades 2 and 3 obesity were associated with significantly higher all-cause mortality. Grade 1 obesity overall was not associated with higher mortality, and overweight was associated with significantly lower all-cause mortality.

JAMA can’t deny reality anymore”

As was stated here 3 years ago: The disease FAT does not exist

Obviously anyone who is seriously overweight risks diseases. Bodybuilder or fat couchpotato. There is a margin between which a bodyweight can naturally vary, as it did for eons, there is a lower limit where it gets dangerous for your health and an upper limit. What the current obsession with obesity overlooks is that it’s much much worse to be thin than not.

Only 40 pounds underweight of the average and your life expectancy halves. To reach the same reduction in life expectancy you need to weigh about double the average. And then some since it depends on the way you got overweight. Which daily diet made you overweight. Did it come from greasy fried foods or from a Mediterranean diet?