About Eleanor Kilroy

Other posts by .


Posted In:

41 Responses

  1. Bumblebye
    June 26, 2012, 1:23 pm

    I have this compulsive urge to scribble out TB.

  2. radii
    June 26, 2012, 1:45 pm

    it would be interesting to know when Tony Blair sold his soul to the zionists – before he ever got close to being prime minister or sometime after – and how did they seal the deal?

    • Eric
      June 26, 2012, 2:59 pm

      He sold his soul well before, otherwise he never would have got the nod. They sealed the deal the old-fashioned way: by offering “power” and money. Not that the Zionist lackeys have any real power, as Obama has noticed in spades, but they’re OK with that. For the ambitious, vile little twits who are willing to sell their souls, politics is a nice gig. And if you’re sufficiently obedient, as most are, the perks keep coming long after you’ve left the chair. In Blair’s case, he’s already amassed a substantial property portfolio, which he didn’t accumulate on a PM’s salary: link to telegraph.co.uk
      And for the patriots and assorted persons of integrity, they rejoice in the nobility of barely getting by…

    • lysias
      June 26, 2012, 10:43 pm

      For Blair’s past, I recommend reading Robert Harris’s roman à clef The Ghost, with a very Blair-like leading character. Harris knew Blair very well from Harris’s years as a Fleet Street political journalist. The Blair-like character in the novel owes his advancement to the CIA.

      Or you can watch Roman Polanski’s film version of the novel, The Ghostwriter, which essentially keeps the plot. I believe the Swiss arrested Polanski to curry favor with the U.S. authorities (who were going after the Swiss banks) because they knew those U.S. authorities were most annoyed that Polanski had filmed that novel. (The arrest happened between the shooting of the movie and its release. Postproduction of the movie took place while Polanski was under house arrest.) Can’t ask for better cred for a movie than that it annoyed the powers that be.

      Blair succeeded to the leadership of the Labour Party because his predecessor, John Smith, died of a most premature heart attack. I’ve always had my suspicions about that heart attack.

    • MRW
      June 29, 2012, 4:52 pm

      “and how did they seal the deal?”

      With a kiss.

  3. yourstruly
    June 26, 2012, 1:57 pm

    if only the photo-op had taken place in a country where a court had declared these three scoundrels to be war criminals. oh that there were such a nation!

    • seafoid
      June 26, 2012, 5:50 pm

      link to guardian.co.uk

      A belief that every Palestinian child is a potential terrorist may be leading to a “spiral of injustice” and breaches of international law in Israel’s treatment of child detainees in military custody, a delegation of eminent British lawyers has concluded in an independent report backed by the Foreign Office.

      The nine-strong delegation, led by the former high court judge Sir Stephen Sedley and including the UK’s former attorney-general Lady Scotland, found that “undisputed facts” pointed to at least six violations of the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which Israel is a signatory. It was also in breach of the fourth Geneva convention in transferring child detainees from the West Bank to Israeli prisons, the delegation said.

    • Eleanor Kilroy
      June 26, 2012, 8:08 pm

      Israel is a fascinating case. Israel voted against the adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, but later signed it for a short period. In 2002, the United States and Israel, “unsigned” the Rome Statute, indicating that they no longer intend to become states parties and, as such, they have no legal obligations arising from their signature of the statute.

      Israel states that it has “deep sympathy” with the goals of the Court. However, it has concerns that political pressure on the Court would lead it to reinterpret international law or to “invent new crimes”. It cites the inclusion of “the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory” as a war crime as an example of this…

      • Fredblogs
        June 27, 2012, 1:12 pm

        Well, do war criminals, POWs, and child soldiers count as “civilian population” for the purposes of the GCs? Those are three separate questions, BTW.

      • straightline
        June 27, 2012, 4:44 pm

        In the case of war criminals they seem to count as part of the civilian population of Israel. And if there are war criminals among the Palestinians then the appropriate action would be to take them to the ICC to be tried as happened in the case of Bosnia.

      • straightline
        June 27, 2012, 5:08 pm
      • Hostage
        June 27, 2012, 6:13 pm

        It cites the inclusion of “the transfer of parts of the civilian population of an occupying power into occupied territory” as a war crime as an example of this…

        The prohibitions against an occupying power colonizing a territory were always part of the travail préparatoire of the 1948 Diplomatic Conference and were mentioned in the official commentary on Article 49, Paragraph 6. link to icrc.org

        More to the point, the prohibition against alien domination and colonization contained in the The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples reflects customary international law. That prohibition is also reflected in Article 85 of the 1st Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, 1977, which has 172 participating states. Customary law and the 1st Additional Protocol made colonization, failure to repatriate refugees, and apartheid grave breaches and war crimes, not the Rome Statute. That’s just another example of Israeli dissimulation on the subject:

        4. In addition to the grave breaches defined in the preceding paragraphs and in the Conventions, the following shall be regarded as grave breaches of this Protocol, when committed wilfully and in violation of the Conventions or the Protocol:

        (a) the transfer by the Occupying Power of parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies, or the deportation or transfer of all or parts of the population of the occupied territory within or outside this territory, in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Convention;

        (b) unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of prisoners of war or civilians;

        (c) practices of ‘ apartheid ‘ and other inhuman and degrading practices involving outrages upon personal dignity, based on racial discrimination;

        5. Without prejudice to the application of the Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes.
        link to icrc.org

  4. justicewillprevail
    June 26, 2012, 2:34 pm

    Maybe, if he had any integrity, Blair would demand a response to the latest report by UK lawyers about the depraved way Israel treats Palestinian children:
    link to guardian.co.uk

    Meticulously documented abuses of children by Israel. Note that they have to demand of Israel that:
    Children should never be blindfolded or hooded.
    Children should not be shackled at any time.
    An end to night-time arrests of children
    Any confession in a language other than the child’s own should not be accepted as evidence.
    Solitary confinement should never be used “as a standard mode of detention or imprisonment”.

    The fact that these measures are routine in Israel, with totally different (apartheid) laws for Israeli and Palestinian children is an indication of how depraved Israel has become, as they make the usual bogus excuses and false statements – they sound barely bothered about being exposed for their inhumane abuse of children. A twisted and perverse society who have no conscience, remorse or the remotest of concern about people who have the wrong parents.
    Blair has such little interest in justice that he pays no attention to such reports from his own country, sitting down with the perpetrators and facilitators of such cruelty.

    • Taxi
      June 26, 2012, 4:42 pm

      Justicewillprevail,
      As usual, you’re passionate and clear and accurate.

    • Fredblogs
      June 27, 2012, 2:24 pm

      LOL. Never be blindfolded or hooded. Why not? What’s the harm?

      Not be shackled. So dangerous 17 year old terrorists shouldn’t be put in shackles? Again, why not, what’s the harm? Especially compared to what the Israelis would do if their unshackled prisoner attacks someone.

      So a kid is gunning down people on the street, but we can’t arrest him because the sun is down?

      Or a suspect’s location during the day is not known, but he is home at night, but we can’t arrest him because the sun is down?

      All of those are incredibly silly restrictions. The only one that makes any sense is that solitary confinement should not be used as a standard mode of detention or imprisonment. It should be reserved for those who can’t behave themselves, even in prison.

  5. DICKERSON3870
    June 26, 2012, 3:12 pm

    RE: “Quick– somebody lock the doors and call the ICC!”

    “YO BLAIR”: UK soldiers beat innocent Iraqi men in ‘black ops’ jails ~ by David Rose, The Daily Mail, 6/24/12

    [EXCERPTS] ‘The Mail on Sunday’ can today reveal devastating new claims of abuse by British soldiers carried out at a secret network of illegal prisons in the Iraqi desert.
    One innocent civilian victim is said to have died after being assaulted aboard an RAF helicopter, while others were hooded, stripped and beaten at a camp set up at a remote phosphate mine deep in the desert.
    The whereabouts of a separate group of 64 Iraqi men who were spirited away on two RAF Chinooks to a ‘black site’ prison, located at an oil pipeline pumping station, remain unknown.

    Perhaps the most shocking aspect of these alleged abuses, which appear to have been flagrant breaches of international law, is that this secret network is claimed to have been sanctioned by senior Ministry of Defence lawyers. . .
    . . . Yet the top British Army lawyer on the ground in Iraq – who was supposed to be responsible for all aspects of prisoner detention – remained completely unaware of it.
    Meanwhile, the Government last week introduced its new secrecy law in Parliament, which, if enacted, would mean details of the emerging scandal would be hidden for ever.
    The role of both the soldiers and the lawyers in the alleged prisoner abuse will come under the spotlight tomorrow, when the first stage of a legal action on behalf of some of the victims is launched.
    If the Justice and Security Bill becomes law, Ministers will be able to demand secret hearings, and to prevent the victims from ever seeing evidence about their claims.
    Last night, Lieutenant Colonel Nicholas Mercer, the chief British Army lawyer in Iraq during the 2003 invasion, said what went on in the secret prison network amounted to ‘war crimes’. . .

    ENTIRE ARTICLE – link to dailymail.co.uk

  6. Blake
    June 26, 2012, 11:26 pm

    “Who Said Israel Has a Right to Exist?” New York attorney Lamis Deek discusses Israel:

    • Fredblogs
      June 27, 2012, 1:13 pm

      The Israelis do. And like any country, that matters as long as they have the military might to back it up. Just like the U.S. has a right to exist as long as we have the military might to back it up.

      • justicewillprevail
        June 27, 2012, 1:51 pm

        Non sequitur and false, irrelevant comparison.

      • Fredblogs
        June 27, 2012, 2:10 pm

        It’s not a non-sequitur. He asked “who said Israel has a right to exist”. I answered. The truth is that all countries exist because the people in them think they have the right to exist and no one who disagrees is strong enough to destroy them. That’s how it works. Southern Sudan exists now, where it didn’t before because the people in it wanted it that way and so far the military of Sudan has been unable to destroy them.

      • American
        June 27, 2012, 2:47 pm

        “The truth is that all countries exist because the people in them think they have the right to exist and no one who disagrees is strong enough to destroy them”….Fred

        The problem there Fred is that Israel isn’t strong enough on it’s own to avoid being destroyed if some other power (s) decided it shouldn’t exist.
        You people way overestimate your military and position.
        What would happen to Israel if the Egyptian military who has 80 million people to call on and also a lot of US supplied training and weapons decided to take on Israel…..you’d no doubt lose.
        Take all outsiders like the US and Russia and etc. out of the equation –and then imagine Egypt, Iran, Turkey, any ME country who objects to outlaw Israel in Palestine, which is most of them,—-and picture what would happen to you if any one of them, much less any together, came after Israel.
        All your bragging and threatening is hanging by it’s fingernails on one rail…the US and it’s military, not yours.

      • Taxi
        June 27, 2012, 3:09 pm

        Thievery, knavery and ethnic-cleansing are NOT legitimate reasons for a country to exist in the 21st century.

      • justicewillprevail
        June 27, 2012, 3:27 pm

        That’s not how it works at all. You just make stuff up to suit your poor arguments. That is a ridiculous statement, countries do not have a ‘right’ to exist, they are formed for all sorts of historical, political and geographical reasons. Few, if any, however exist for mythical and ideological reasons on behalf of a cult whose members originate elsewhere, on top of an already existing country. Your childish reasoning that might is right is woeful, if predictable. And, of course, you ignore the topic.

      • Blake
        June 27, 2012, 2:43 pm

        Fred: Could you disprove anything that lawyer said regarding international law? Did not think so.

        South Sudan and “Israel” were not created in the same way. South Sudanese are not from anywhere than that part of the world. Palestinians never consented to you being on their land, never mind partitioning it up. Mega difference.

      • Fredblogs
        June 27, 2012, 7:10 pm

        I’m not going to put in the effort only to have them censor my response.

      • Annie Robbins
        June 27, 2012, 8:44 pm

        blake, that would be a no. he can’t.

      • Blake
        June 29, 2012, 11:02 am

        Lol. Indeed.They have not censored all the fictional yarns he has spewed so why would they start now!

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2012, 8:12 am

        The Israelis do. And like any country, that matters as long as they have the military might to back it up.

        Not true. States have a legal duty not to interfere with the political independence and territorial integrity of any state, but peoples have the right to determine their own political status through secession, union with another state, or emerging into any other status that they freely choose for themselves.

        See the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations link to law.hku.hk
        and
        Accordance with international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo link to icj-cij.org

        In the 2004 Wall case the Justices noted that Israel was only entitled to live in peace, but that the Palestinians were entitled to their territory and their own state – free from Israeli interference.

      • Fredblogs
        June 28, 2012, 1:41 pm

        @Hostage
        Yeah, that’s what the “Sovereign citizens” of the militia movement in the U.S. think. That’s why they declare themselves their own countries. It doesn’t go over big with the U.S.

        A declaration of independence is what the South did in the U.S. Civil war. That didn’t go over so well either. Same as when the U.S. declared independence from the British Empire. That didn’t go over well either, difference is that time the declarers won.

        Are the Falklands part of Argentina or Great Britain? War was the only way to decide.

        The only difference historically between declarations of independence that resulted in a new country and those that resulted in a metaphorical spanking for the declarers (and generally charges of treason) is how strongly the parent country could and was willing to fight it.

      • Hostage
        June 28, 2012, 5:23 pm

        @Hostage Yeah, that’s what the “Sovereign citizens” of the militia movement in the U.S. think. That’s why they declare themselves their own countries. It doesn’t go over big with the U.S.

        Fred there are no US citizens or US militias whose rights to a state of their own and permanent sovereignty have been formally acknowledged by 169 UN member states, the General Assembly, the Security Council, and the ICJ.

        Here’s your wake-up call: Israel is no one’s “parent country”. The Portuguese, Rhodesian, and South African governments used to talk about the permanence of white minority rule in southern Africa in exactly the same fashion that you talk about Israel. The Soviet Union used to talk about its annexation of the Baltic states with the same degree of hubris. The Indonesian annexation of East Timor and its partnership with Australia to exploit its resources did not prevent East Timor from emerging as an independent state.

        The only difference historically between declarations of independence that resulted in a new country and those that resulted in a metaphorical spanking for the declarers .. . . is how strongly the parent country could and was willing to fight it

        Fred some of the states that I mentioned above were emancipated from a nuclear superpower using nothing more than a human rights clause that was considered unimportant when it was included in the Helsinki agreements of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.

        Wikileaks revealed that the members of the P-5, and especially the UK FCO, had used the ICC referral and the Security Council’s potential ability to block genocide charges against Bashir to secure his agreement to implement their plan for the partition and independence of Southern Sudan. If I were Bibi, I’d be wondering why the UK FCO is suddenly bankrolling studies about Israeli war crimes and crimes against humanity perpetrated against Palestinian children, because it probably has very little to do with the kindness of their hearts.

      • Fredblogs
        June 29, 2012, 1:00 pm

        Also Americans used to talk about the permanence of American rule over the southern States. That seems to have happened. Some countries break up, others don’t. I suspect the status quo will continue for at least another generation or two. Then maybe the Palestinians will realize that they can’t win militarily and surrender. After that the Israelis will give them whatever is left of the West Bank and Gaza as a country of their own.

        Oh, and putting shackles on someone who has been arrested isn’t a “crime against humanity”.

      • Hostage
        June 29, 2012, 3:17 pm

        Also Americans used to talk about the permanence of American rule over the southern States. That seems to have happened. Some countries break up, others don’t.

        The US Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 11th Amendment is simply a reflection of the residual sovereignty retained by the individual states and they’ve continued to enjoy many immunities from federal interference in their affairs. From time to time leaders still express an interest in secession. A decade ago several counties in Southwest Kansas considered secession and talked about applying to the UN for membership, e.g.
        *Governor Says Texans May Want to Secede From Union But Probably Won’t
        link to foxnews.com
        *THE 1992 SECESSION MOVEMENT IN SOUTHWEST KANSAS
        link to digitalcommons.unl.edu

        Israel was created by an act of secession and signed armistice agreements, under UN auspices, with both Jordan and Egypt. Israel’s peace treaty with Egypt required it to withdraw from the West Bank and Gaza and grant the Palestinians autonomy or self-rule. The boundaries in the peace treaty with Jordan are without prejudice to the territory that came under Israeli control in 1967. The King of Jordan still insists on the establishment of a Palestinian State in the 1967 borders. The new Egyptian President says his country will revisit the peace treaty with Israel.

        The UN just designated the Church of the Nativity, Palestine as one of its World Heritage sites. It’s doubtful that the status quo will last more than a few months, let alone a few generations.

      • Philip Weiss
        June 29, 2012, 3:20 pm

        thanks Hostage, Im going to mark your words.

      • Shmuel
        June 29, 2012, 3:31 pm

        It’s doubtful that the status quo will last more than a few months, let alone a few generations.

        From your fingertips to God’s eyes (I have no doubt that the Creator reads MW … religiously).

      • Hostage
        June 29, 2012, 3:51 pm

        thanks Hostage, Im going to mark your words.

        I’m no prophet. I have no idea what’s coming next, only that it’s probably coming soon. It’s obvious that all sides have decided to ignore and abandon the Quartet Road Map terms of reference and existing peace treaties in order to pursue other avenues and agendas. No one is actually trying to maintain the status quo anymore – and it certainly can’t be maintained for generations by accident.

      • Avi_G.
        June 29, 2012, 6:13 pm

        The King of Jordan still insists on the establishment of a Palestinian State in the 1967 borders.

        In addition, from a political perspective, that insistence is understandable as the Jordanian monarchy fears that in the event that Israel drives out all Palestinians from the West Bank, Jordan will effectively become a Palestinian state. And those ‘fears’ are valid given that Israel has gotten away with it in the past.

        At the present, Jordan’s population is more than 60% Palestinian.

      • RoHa
        June 29, 2012, 9:40 pm

        “(I have no doubt that the Creator reads MW … religiously)”

        So why doesn’t he start posting?

      • Hostage
        June 29, 2012, 10:47 pm

        So why doesn’t he start posting?

        I think delivery of the Creator’s comments and tweets is restricted to just the followers;-)

      • Shmuel
        June 30, 2012, 4:56 am

        So why doesn’t he start posting?

        To post is human; to comment divine.

  7. mig
    June 27, 2012, 3:20 pm

    In international law there ain’t no article which says that the state/states has a right to exist. Any. State. In the world.

    • MHughes976
      June 27, 2012, 4:07 pm

      The state has a right to exist in the sense that invaders and marauders are wrongdoers.

Leave a Reply