Dershowitzs radioactive Plume

By Belén Fern ndez

While some friends in the Jewish State is busy with the possibility of sushi shortage in Israel thanks to disaster in Japan, Harvard's law professor Alan m. Dershowitz more important things on his mind.

His last dispatch, with the title "Israel now has the right to attack Iran's nuclear reactors," begins with the assertion that "Iran's recent attempts to supply weapons to Hamas in Gaza is an act of war committed by the Iranian Government against the isrælske Government".

As we know, it is not necessary for Harvard law professors to indicate that Israel only has alleged that Iran attempted to supply arms to Hamas, or the credibility of the isrælske weapons allegations has been questioned, that the photos published by the isrælske Foreign Ministry to "weapons cache", found on board the Mavi Marmara ended last year, consisting of topics as a metal pail and bullets.

In the meantime, it is unclear why Dershowitz has chosen to include the word "Now" in its title, that he immediately Announces: "is also not the first act of war, which would justify a military response from Israel, according to international law." Other acts are said to include the bombing of the isrælske Embassy in Buenos Aires in 1992: "bombardment, which was carried out by Iranian agents, constituted a direct armed attack on the State of Israel, because its Embassy is a part of its sovereign territory."

Persons who must comply with the truth and logic, as investigative historian and journalist Gareth Porter, has noticed that in 1992 the Iranians clearly viewed with optimism about the prospect of the resumption of the transfer of nuclear technology from Argentina to Iran — thus removing the suspected motive for the attack. This suggests that the bombing may have instead been orchestrated by groups opposed to the Iranian acquisition of such technology.

Employ the basic question, Dershowitz on spam prevention early warning system:

"Two other recent events reinforce the Isræls the right to use military means to prevent Iran from continuing to arm Isræls enemies. The recent disaster in Japan has shown the world the extraordinary dangers of nuclear radiation. If anyone ever doubted a dirty bomb power to destroy a nation, both physically and psychologically, are these doubts removed by what is now happening in Japan. If Iran was developing nuclear weapons, the ship's next destined for Gaza can contain a dirty atomic bomb, and Israel could intercept that one. A dirty bomb detonated tiny Isræl would be harmful to unforeseeable civilian life.

"In addition, the recent killings in inspired by a family, including three children, show how the weapons used by the Isræls enemies against civilians in conflict with the law of war. Even babies are targeted the armed by Iran. "

First and foremost, if anyone ever doubted a dirty bomb power to destroy a nation, both physically and psychologically, their doubts would probably removed by the events in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945 rather than current radiation emissions from nuclear power stations. Secondly, apparently, civilian life currently suffer a greater threat incalculable damage not from a hypothetical Iranian dirty bomb, but rather from Isræls measurable nuclear arsenal — not mentioned by Dershowitz — which is in violation of the same nuclear Treaty Review Conferenceinvoked as an excuse to attack Iran. Finally, indicates the fact that Israel slaughtered 300 children in Gaza during Operation Cast lead in the 2008-09, them armed by United States rather than of Iran exceedingly capable of targeting babies.

After stressing Isræls the right to prevent its citizens are murdered, concludes our law guru:

"This is not to say that Israel should attack Iran's nuclear reactors now. That it has the right to do this does not mean that it should not wait for a more convenient time. The law of war does not require an immediate military response to an armed attack. The nation the attack can postpone his counterattack without sacrificing his right. "

That the Palestinians do not enjoy the same right to response to military attacks are obvious. A note to the Chinese, but: remember when NATO mistakenly bombed their Embassy in Belgrade? You can still retaliate!

And as for the United Nations, if you feel like attacking Israel ever, only rely on the 1996 bombing of your compound in Qana or 2006 bombing of your outpost in This.

-Belén Fern ndez is an editor of PULSE Media and author of coffee with Hezbollah, a satirical political travelogue about hitchhiking through Lebanon in the wake of the July war. She contributed this article to PalestineChronicle.com. Contact her at: belengarciabernal@gmail.com.