Tag Archives: foreign policy

Terrorists in the Courtroom

Posted on by
Reply

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said late Tuesday that the state of Palestine will join the International Criminal Court on April 1, a high-stakes move that will enable the Palestinians to pursue war-crimes charges against Israel.

That’s what the AP is reporting (I’ll elide the AP’s cynicism in referring to this organization as a “state”).

Keep in mind, which Ban seems to have chosen not to do, that the terrorist gang based in Gaza, Hamas, merged with the Palestinian Authority into a Unity Government to “govern” both Gaza and areas of the West Bank under the PA flag. Shortly after that merger, the PA last summer launched its 50-day terror war against Israel.

Now, courtesy of Ban and the UN, we’ll have terrorists in the ICC, not as the defendants they should be, but as parties whose opinions actually are taken seriously.

It’s one more reason not to take the International Court seriously.

On Empathizing with Enemies

Posted on by
Reply

Thomas Sowell had a Random Thought (not that very many of his thoughts actually are):

Hillary Clinton’s idea that we have to see the world from our adversaries’ point of view—and even “empathize” with it—is not new. Back in 1938, British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain said, “I have realized vividly how Herr Hitler feels.” Ronald Reagan, however, made sure our adversaries understood how we felt. Reagan’s approach turned out a lot better than Chamberlain’s.

But Liberals think we’re insufferably arrogant to defend our own points of view. We always should subordinate ourselves to the other guy.

And this one on a different, yet sadly related, matter:

It tells us a lot about academia that the president of Smith College quickly apologized for saying, “All lives matter,” after being criticized by those who are pushing the slogan, “Black lives matter.” If science could cross breed a jellyfish with a parrot, it could create academic administrators.

Sometimes I think our Liberals are our modern-day Xanthippe, and their usefulness is limited to strengthening our own character.

Hostility

Posted on by
Reply

In an article more centered on relations between Ukraine and Russia and Ukraine’s ending of its “nonaligned” status, Nick Shchetko and Alan Cullison had this remark in noting that Ukraine’s move

drawing a quick rebuke from Moscow, which has accused the West of bringing hostile forces to its borders.

No. Moscow is…not describing accurately…the situation. The only hostile forces on Russia’s borders are Russia’s own, looking out, and Russia’s own on the outside of Russian borders, looking further out.

If Russia doesn’t want hostile forces on its borders, all it has to do is stop behaving hostilely. Full stop.

The PRC’s Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

After too much hemming and hawing, the US finally got around to approving the sale of four, used, Oliver Hazard Perry class guided-missile frigates to the Republic of China. Even used, these combat ships represent a considerable boost to Chinese national security.

Naturally, the People’s Republic of China is…up in arms. The PRC’s Foreign Affairs Minister of objected, asserting that helping arm RoC

blatantly interferes in China’s domestic affairs and undermines China’s sovereignty and security interests[.]

Of course, the sale does no such thing. In fact, it enhances RoC Chinese sovereignty and security interests. It plainly doesn’t represent a threat, or any impediment, to the PRC’s national security, except in the fevered imaginations of PRC President Xi Jinping his Foreign Affairs Minister.

Unless the PRC has designs on the RoC.

Misunderstanding

Posted on by
Reply

…by Howard Kurtz in his recent Fox News piece.

Sony’s unforgivable blunder was in making this misbegotten movie in the first place. I mean, an assassination “comedy” that includes Kim Jong Un’s head being blown up, with an internal debate over how much his hair should be on fire? As Greta Van Susteren tweeted, “Anyone who has been to NK knows how dangerous it is and would not have been so stupid to make that movie.” Sony Pictures and Seth Rogen didn’t even have the wit to make it about a fictional regime with a short leader.

No. Sony and Rogen had plenty of wit—they had the wit to skewer a living, breathing thug who’s starving his own people.

Kurtz misunderstands completely. The quality of the movie, the degree of its comedy, are wholly irrelevant. Folks like Kim “Bébé Doc” Jong-un are exactly the ones who need to be called out, satirized, ridiculed, caviled, and by name.

The point of free speech, the reason it’s at the center of liberty, is to allow men to speak their minds on any subject—especially including calling out, to facilitate their removal, political thugs.

Sony’s unforgivable blunder was not in making a movie but in collapsing into their fetal ball in the face of some threats.