'Strike on Iran legally justified'

[Scurrilous]

Senior jurist Alan Dershowitz says Israeli strike against Iran is 'proactive self defense'

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4188886,00.html

<snip>

"Jurist Alan Dershowitz, who is considered one of the world's foremost Legal experts, believes that an Israeli strike against Iran's nuclear facilities is legally justified, Yedioth Ahronoth reported Monday.

Speaking before a Miami conference, Dershowitz said that Iran has taken enough actions to justify an attack, and that military strike by Israel is "proactive self defense."

Dershowitz, who was joined on stage by Deputy Foreign Minister Daniel Ayalon, also advised Israel "not to rely on her friends," adding that Jerusalem must prepare a sound legal defense prior to any move against the Islamic Republic."

[polly7]

1. Wow.

Is he unaware of Israel's not-so-secret nukes? I think these warmongers might want to come up with a better reason for pre-emptive death and destruction. The hypocrisy would be laughable if it wasn't so sick.

[eyewall]

2. no no no

wouldn't Step 1 be UN inspectors?

aren't IAEA inspectors there now and reporting they find no evidence of bomb development? (I'll try to find a link, read that somewhere.)

[eyewall]

5. Inspections began a couple weeks ago.

I thought there were some last summer also.

IAEA nuclear inspection gets under way in Iran
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9048556/IAEA-nuclear-inspection-gets-under-way-in-Iran.html

Iran nuclear questions to be exposed by inspectors visit
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iran/9043853/Iran-nuclear-questions-to-be-exposed-by-inspectors-visit.html

[oberliner]

9. 'Iran to ban IAEA inspectors if they lie'

An Iranian lawmaker says the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors should be banned from re-entering the country, if they once again publish unreal reports on Tehran's peaceful nuclear program.

Mostafa Kavakebian on Tuesday called on Iran's security officials to exercise vigilance over the IAEA inspectors' conduct in order to prevent them from collecting and leaking confidential information on the country's nuclear facilities.

Kavakebian, a member of the Majlis National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, also stressed that if the UN atomic agency's team would publish “unrealistic report” on Iran's nuclear activities and “mislead the global community” after leaving Iran, they must be denied entry into the country.

http://www.presstv.ir/detail/224181.html

From Iran's Press TV - late January of this year.

[eyewall]

12. oh well, so much for diplomatic solutions.

Iran's rhetoric is always aggressive to the west. They, like Venezuela, feel threatened by the US and so they overplay the defiance. Hard to blame them imho.

My biggest problem with what is going on is that no one seems to be expressing an abhorrence of nuclear weapons. My generation grew up (50's) with the reality of hydrogen bombs and MAD policies. After two atomic weapons were used in Japan we were so horrified that the general consensus was to work to assure that these weapons never get used again.

This is a strange time, when Bush/Cheney could begin their administration with a promise of updating our arsenal and developing tactical nuclear weapons for what they call "an integrated battlefield". I've seen the use of nuclear weapons openly advocated, including in the debate of using tactical nukes to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities.

A showdown between Iran and Israel/USA could be the first use of nukes in warfare since Nagasaki.
I see too much talk about the need to stop Iran from acquiring one and not enough horror at the thought of using one, either against them or anywhere else.

I'm not expressing this well but I think what I'm trying to say is that Israel deserves to be afraid of their sworn enemy acquiring nuclear weapons, and it should be prevented. However, the dialog I've been seeing is focused only on preventing Iran from using one against Israel. The part about Israel, or the US, using one against anyone else is kind of left out of the conversation.

[tk2kewl]

3. Must be hanging out with John Yoo.

Last edited Mon Feb 13, 2012, 01:51 PM - Edit history (1)

nt

[denverbill]

4. Can you justify murder that way?

"I thought my neighbor was going to buy a gun so I shot him."

[think]

6. Alan Dershowitz must have forgotten how that last proactive war thingy worked out

What a friggin war whore.

[AnOhioan]

7. What a moron

[leveymg]

8. "proactive self-defense" is the basis on which Japan bombed Pearl Harbor

and Germany invaded Poland and the Soviet Union.

Dershowitz is like the German jurist Karl Schmidt who similarly justified his country's aggressive wars.

Sorry, Alan. You can plead this in the dock at the Hague when those who do this sort of thing are indicted for war crimes.

[denverbill]

10. Israel has a history of 'proactive self defense'.

The 1967 war where they annexed the West Bank and Gaza, Lebanon x 2?, Iraq's and Syria's alleged nuclear sites. Now Iran.

If Iran had done any one of those things to any of its neighbors, we'd be at war with them in 2 seconds.

[Shaktimaan]

17. Those aren't great examples.

In 1967 Egypt had already broken the peace treaty by evicting UN troops, massing its army, closing the straits to Israeli traffic and was making statements about invading Israel and crushing the Jews. This was not a manufactured crisis that Israel made up on its own to start a war.

In Lebanon, both times, Israel was not the aggressor. First it was the PLO making cross border raids. In 2006 it was Hezbollah.

Iraq and Syria are the only examples that really support your argument. That said, was the argument supporting Israel's actions invalid? Were they wrong? Would it have been better for them to try diplomacy with the likes of Saddam Hussein? How has that worked out for the west wrt North Korea?

[denverbill]

18. Well, we will never know what Egypt 'would' have done had Israel not launched a preemptive attack.

And in fact, if Israel had waited and let Egypt attack, IMO they would have been perfectly justified in annexing Egyptian territory as part of any peace settlement. Russian mobilization in 1914 provided Germany with an excuse to declare war on Russia, starting WWI. Few people outside of Germany would regard Russia as being responsible for starting WWI.

Regarding Lebanon, if cross-border 'raids' by non-state actors are justification for invasion, Iran is probably justified in declaring war on the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel, since each of these countries has hosted or launched terrorist attacks in Iranian territory.

It's highly debatable whether Israel is safer after blowing up Iraq's nuclear reactor. Most of what I've read of it indicates that it was incapable of being used for military purposes by design.

I guess Iraq better prepare for another war with Israel too.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/oct/27/iraq-nuclear-reactor-programme

Iraq has started lobbying for approval to again become a nuclear player, almost 19 years after British and American war planes destroyed Saddam Hussein's last two reactors, the Guardian has learned.

The Iraqi government has approached the French nuclear industry about rebuilding at least one of the reactors that was bombed at the start of the first Gulf war. The government has also contacted the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and United Nations to seek ways around resolutions that ban Iraq's re-entry into the nuclear field.

Iraq says it envisages that a reactor would be used initially for research purposes. "We are co-operating with the IAEA and expanding and defining areas of research where we can implement nuclear technology for peaceful means," the science and technology minister, Raid Fahmi, told the Guardian.
.....

[Shaktimaan]

19. Of course we'll never know.

Back in 1967 the Israelis could not have known either. Egypt was not merely acting aggressively though. It had already broken their peace treaty, cut off Israeli shipping, massed its troops and was actively saying to the media that their plan was to destroy Israel. Maybe they were lying or just posturing. But that isn't Israel's guess to make. When an enemy swears to their destruction they had no choice but to take it seriously. Anything else would be irresponsible.

Bear in mind that Israel had to mass THEIR army to counter Egypt's, even if neither had yet engaged, For Israel this entails shutting down most of the economy as the army is made up of average citizens. It can't afford to stay mobilized for very long at full strength, the state would go bankrupt.

Regarding Lebanon, if cross-border 'raids' by non-state actors are justification for invasion, Iran is probably justified in declaring war on the US, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Israel, since each of these countries has hosted or launched terrorist attacks in Iranian territory.

What are you talking about? The PLO was carrying out raids over Israel's border with the aim of killing Israeli civilians and Lebanon did nothing to curb it. Of course that is a justification for Israel to take military action. In 2006 Hezbollah crossed the border to kill and kidnap Israelis, again without facing any Lebanese response. Why does it matter if it's a state actor or not? Hezbollah is an illegal paramilitary group that poses a significant threat to both Lebanese democracy and Israeli stability.

When did the US, Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel launch terrorist attacks in Iran?

And in fact, if Israel had waited and let Egypt attack, IMO they would have been perfectly justified in annexing Egyptian territory as part of any peace settlement.

Huh? Why? Does that mean that you think Israel is justified in retaining the West Bank, since Jordan attacked them? How about the Sinai based on Egypt's 1979 attack?

[bowens43]

11. no its not jsutified

I hope that if those idiots attack Iran that the US has the integrity to sever all ties with Israel.

[Scurrilous]

13. Two new videos take on The Dersh and introduce his toughest client yet – Claus Von Bibi!

<snip>

From Omar Baddar's YouTube page:

I've been perplexed by Alan Dershowitz's ability to maintain his respectable status in spite of his extensive record of intellectual dishonesty, so I decided to create this video based on my original research into two of Dershowitz's books to expose him for the dishonest "intellectual" he is. I will add more info to this description later on.

http://mondoweiss.net/2012/02/alan-dershowitz-in-a-nutshell.html

[bemildred]

14. That doesn't make it smart. nt

[Jefferson23]

15. Dershowitz is the world's foremost legal expert on international law...since when?

A preemptive proactive self-defense?? hmm. I wonder, is Alan planning on helping
Israel make their case to the UNSC.

[tabatha]

16. Oh jeeze - not the Bush doctrine in another form.