tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post1355443120910733310..comments2024-01-01T01:47:59.449+02:00Comments on Yaacov Lozowick's Ruminations: The Dead End of LegalismYaacovhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12835192312242961481noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-73681064587841419522009-12-22T16:42:32.240+02:002009-12-22T16:42:32.240+02:00As someone who was present, permit me to add an an...As someone who was present, permit me to add an angle. In the first case, the host of the meeting would not be called true Right-wing but simply was offering those who are fairly (okay, very) political in their bloggering, the resources they have up online. While no Left-wing expressions were voiced, I think the lawfare issue came up mainly because that is what is coming at us and most people respond to a more immediate threat rather than a deeply thought out plan (i.e., the Israeli gov't).<br /><br />And in the true world, lawyers are supposed to, on the one hand, get the best deal for their client while on the other, usually do engage in compromise, quid pro quo, exchanges, etc. So, law isn't all about bludgeoning. If the clients are stubborn, lawyers will fail unless they are incapable of convincing their employers otherwise. And since we know the real confrontation is a matter of terror, which lawfare covers for, in my opinion, - getting Israel into a position where more damage can be made rather than satisfying any Arab demand - then if that is their desired outcome (there's my true Right-wingerism showing), what alternative do we have?<br /><br />And since, in your later "Terms of Compromise", you have at least two issues basically irreconcilable, where do we go if one side says "all resolved or nothing"?YMedadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14333122797414935958noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-42123447583160412912009-12-21T03:52:23.735+02:002009-12-21T03:52:23.735+02:00I assume that your current article is mainly about...I assume that your current article is mainly about the use of "lawfare" in the UK against Israelis. There are a few important points here that should be borne in mind:<br /><br />1) The whole concept of "international law" is totally nebulous and serves the interests of this or that bloc, either by force of arms or by number of countries. Thus, the major powers (the US, UK, EU countries, Russia and China) pretty much establish the boundaries based on their ability to disregard the views of other less powerful countries, some who then counter by establishing laws based on their numeric superiority in various International forums such as the UNHRC, where the Moslem countries are now adept at framing "international laws" that primarily or solely target Israel.<br /><br />2) "Lawfare" in Britain is being lead by a third rate self-hating Jewish lawyer, Daniel Machover, who appears to be the son of another Machover who was a member of Matzpen, the old Israeli Communist party, (in fact, he or his son is probably posting on CIF as "matzpen") and, in a remarkable return to the world of 1930, is pushing his anti-Israeli agenda under the guise of Comintern internationalism<br /><br />3) By allowing Machover and his Palestinian friends and supporters to use Britain's legal system in this way, Britain has actually surrendered control of a part of its foreign policy to what is, in fact, a minority pressure group (who would never admit to being a quasi-secret Palestinian lobby in the UK). Machover and pals are actually driving Britain's foreign policy with respect to Israel. It seems that the British government has belatedly taken notice of this and may now try to close the loophole, or change the legal system, that allows them to do this.<br /><br />4) By permitting Machover and pals to do this, Britain has essentially suffered a partial coup d'etat, where its own legal system has been used against it to create policies that are almost certainly opposed by the majority of British citizens, and definitely by their elected government.<br /><br />5)Machover has stated that "lawfare" is warfare by other means, and therefore, by acceding to his actions, Britain actually would find itself in semi-declared state of war with Israel. Which is clearly not what the British Government wants.<br /><br />6) Finally - although the morons supporting "lawfare" may think they have staged a clever coup, in fact, they have marginalized Britain's already diminished ability to play a role in help the Palestinians, and are therefore acting against the interests of those they claim to support. This because their hatred of Israel and Jews is greater than their love of the Palestinians.AKUSnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-23131639751771924792009-12-21T00:36:03.258+02:002009-12-21T00:36:03.258+02:00In the seminal work, "Unrestricted Warfare&qu...In the seminal work, "Unrestricted Warfare" published by the People's Liberation Army of China, 'Lawfare' is called out explicitly as a weapon of war in the 21st century. Of your enemies view it thus, soshould you.Empress Trudyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06073538968722986065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4008006782907969381.post-19058157280659000282009-12-20T21:49:07.750+02:002009-12-20T21:49:07.750+02:00Assuming Israelis and Palestinians don't find ...Assuming Israelis and Palestinians don't find common ground, however, it wouldn't hurt to bring more awareness to fundamental international law, which supports the Israeli position, instead of allowing the continued demonization of Israel to continue through populist lawfare.Avigdorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05008730229882004376noreply@blogger.com