Shireen Abu Akleh.  May your soul rest in peace.

Before digging deep into this piece, read lately the UN representative for the Freedom of Expression and Thought (whatever that means) expressed the need to present the case to the International Court of Justice (whatever this body does). (The introduction and all pertinent information have been downgraded to a footnote (*)).

And… from the start...

Since the crime under scrutiny was executed by (the accused) the temporary Israeli entity, we have to clear the way to justice from every and all possible and most probable obstacles, barricades, and hindrances that could, and surely would, hamper the required procedures, especially and namely after:

-        Recognising that the “accused” is “naturally” born a "victim", 

-        Underscoring that any other bodies are naturally born "culprits" vis-à-vis this “accused”,

-        Noting with concern the "accused’s" allies, mainly the USA and its acolytes,

-      Calling on affiliated states, which have issued laws barring taking this very crime to any Court of Justice,

-        Having to consider the “law” on anti-Semite (false definition) basis,

-        Emphasizing the mal effects of the (flagrant) anti-Zionism act,

-        Echoing the “rules” based upon any anti-“Israel” premise,

-        Reiterating the "anti-Jew" cry of war,  

-        Underlining the "Holocaust-denier" act,

-        Deeply concerned with the WMD-denier sanction,

-        Taking into account the eliminatory Dollar-factor sanction,

-        Reaffirming total submission to the world’s rogue military power,

-        Reminding you of all of the above and of any “suitable” forthcoming “legalities”.

-        Knowing that such a list will never end here.

With (undue) respect to the above, and for many other reasons too, an International Court, criminal or otherwise, must have its related law persons: judges, attorneys, lawyers, administrators, etc…professionally, morally, and ethically screened for impartiality, integrity, non-partisanship and similar aspects, through a process much reminiscent of George Orwell’s (1984) Truth Police. They will need to pass tests past devices as quaking or as shaking as the Geiger or Richter counters.

In this respect, candidates to form a jury from countries “affiliated”, allies of, or stakeholders with the “accused” should be eliminated, upfront, and that automatically includes citizens of the USA, Canada, and most of the mini-states sun-bathing all over the beaches of the American continent.

Excluded will also be the EU states, the NatoWhite and its Seven dwarfs (of ex-Yugoslavia), and the multitude of the lessers like: Luxembourg, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and similar so-labeled tax haven countries and their heavenly homologs, with all due regard.

The Not-so-Neutral anymore states of Switzerland, Sweden, Finland, Austria, and Co.

The Non-Aligned countries that have dropped their independent "Non" part to adhere strictly to be Aligned.  

Then the blockade shall apply to citizens of Australia, New Zealand, and … Oceania, Micronesia, which brings you tens of micros. To name the famous few (population according to World Bank, 2020): Nauru (10,834), Tuvalu (11,792), and Kiribati (119,000). 

You haven’t heard of Kiribati? No? What a pity. No.. no, it is not the country that produces the famous soft white cheese, Kiri. No!

Populous Niue (1,620), the Marshall Islands (59,194), you know, those US nuclear test islands where flora was eradicated and fauna annihilated to become a ship graveyard, joined by Vanuatu (307,150), the Solomon Islands (686,878), consisting of 1005 islands, and Palau (18,092).  

Remember Palau? That sovereign state which sent 2 soldiers, yes two were more than enough, to reserve one of the 38 places in Bush’s (the Lesser) Coalition of the Willing illegal war on Iraq in 2003?

… and the list is definitely meant never to end. 

Courts… and Justice? We have long-lived experience with them. Ask Cambodia’s Pol Pot, Europe’s Milosevitch, Sudan’s Bashir. Remember that the International Criminal Court’s attorney was lately sanctioned by the US. Scrutinize the bye-laws (meaning bye-bye to laws) of each and everyone like the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. Investigate why the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, which cost taxpayers some $900 million over 13 years and still going, led exactly to where it was first politically designed to: Nowhere. Then find out why each and every one of these so-called courts have, yet, a different set of rules of the game. Ask Mr. Double-Standard: why is it that there are such courts for the Rest and never for the West? Surely not for the Roguest West and its mini-rogue so-called state.

Finally ask: Can you really reach Justice in a world ruled by one Foreign Policy: WAR, backed by one Economic Policy: SANCTIONS?

And I ponder: how long will this subject be talked about? 

Will it last as long as those stories about the endangered animal species, tales of which usually climb right up to the Top News of the Western media? Remember the plea to save Arturo the polar bear, the lamenting over the Koala Chlamydia saga, Hollywood’s Free Willy, the latest controversy over euthanizing Freya the 94 stone walrus?

And I wonder:

How could this matter anymore when you read that the Biden administration, whatever its values or ethics, expressed concern over the killings in Gaza (2022) but refuses to condemn them? Sounds so reminiscent of the US saying sorry for the Hiroshima-Nagazaki holocide but refusing, till now, to apologize?

Enough … You cannot fool some of the people any of the time anymore !..

Shireen Abu Akleh.  May your soul rest in peace.

Hayyan Salim Haidar                                                           Lebanon, 100 Days Hence     

200 kms north of Jineen.

________________________________________________________________

(*) On May 13, the Security Council called for an “immediate, thorough, transparent, and fair and impartial investigation” into Abu Akleh’s killing and stressed the need to ensure accountability (the magic words appear in bold).

The UN’s Human Rights Office also called for an independent probe and said the killing may constitute a war crime (another magic word).

Under international law, journalists must not be targeted and should be protected as civilians.

The UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres said he was “appalled by the killing," (a very strongly applied sanction).

Ireland’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations said her country will host an informal meeting of the Security Council that will discuss media freedom and shine a light on the killing of Al Jazeera journalist Shireen Abu Akleh  (another important event and sanction appearing in bold).

Geraldine Byrne Nason said on Monday that all 15 members of the Security Council are expected to attend Tuesday’s session that will address media freedom and the safety of journalists – issues that have been highlighted by Abu Akleh’s killing on May 11.  (so, the killing was premeditated to highlight the crime).

Article 10 protects your right to hold your own opinions and to express them freely without government interference.

This includes the right to express your views aloud (for example through public protest and demonstrations) or through:

·    published articles, books, or leaflets

·    television or radio broadcasting

·    works of art

·    the internet and social media

Article 10 of the Human Rights Act: Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television, or cinema enterprises.

2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions, or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary for a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.