Static Pages
LogoPhere Index of topics

Posts and Resources on Syrian Conflict & ISIS

Posts on 2014 Michael Brown killing in Ferguson, Mo.

Chevaline Murders Posts

Yisraeli Acts of Apartheid

Fukushima Resources 

US Military Massacres

News Jews

Sectarian Muslims Table


~Feb ~Mar~ Apr ~May ~JunJul ~Aug ~Sep~Oct ~Nov ~Dec

Jan ~Feb ~Apr May~Jun~Jul
~Sep ~Oct ~ Nov ~Dec 

Jan~Feb~May Jun~Jul ~Aug ~Sep Oct~Nov~Dec

Jan~Feb~Mar~Apr May~Jun~Jul ~ Aug ~ Sep 

LogoPhere Posts 2007- present via WordPress

Road Trips



Artists' Corner

Murder in the SunMorgue
by Denis O'Brien, PhD

Who killed hundreds of Syrian children in Ghouta, Aug21|2013? How, and why?

LogoPhere Home
LogoPhere Blog


--takin' the BS outa' the BlogoSphere (and MSM) one shovel-full at a time




Israel & the Middle East


Jordan Paust: Why the UN Charter allows Israel to shoot first and, basically, not worry about asking questions at all. 

Dan Joyner, a professor of international law at University of Alabama School of Law runs a very interesting website called Arms Control Law. In my experience these nuclear arms control blogs tend to operate at a higher, more academic level than the standard rant-and-rave blogs like, well . . . LogoPhere. For one thing, there’s not as much cussin’ from the academic types.

Today Dan initiated a discussion about an academic piece in Jurist written by one Jordan Paust, who is a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center. Basically, Paust is arguing that under the self-defense provisions of the UN Charter, Israel is justified in preemptively attacking Iran, and that such an attack would be "self-defense." I know exactly what you’re thinking . . . nobody but a rabid Zionist on the IDF payroll would attempt to make such an argument, but there you have it.

Below is an instant-replay of  my response, put up on Dan’s blog, amended here with relevant links.

Having read his Jurist piece, I am incredulous that Prof. Paust would be so bold as to attempt to float his "armed aggression" arguments as to why an Israeli attack on Iran would be "self-defense" under Chapter VII, Article 51 of the UN Charter. Paust’s argument would be laughable if, as Dan points out, it wasn’t potentially so dangerous.

The "Iran problem" is in a quiet phase for the moment, but it won’t be for long. The US elections are over and Obama is choosing his new policy-makers. The Israeli elections will be over in the next few days. More saber rattling – or worse – can’t be far off. Israel has been pushing for a preemptive attack on Iran for years. Last year Iran said publicly that given the constant threats of attack made by Israel that it (Iran) would be justified in making a preemptive attack. [Source ]

The last thing we need in this environment is a "respected" law professor analyzing this dangerous situation in the Middle East on the basis of the script from "High Noon."  Paust (from Texas, no less) applies an illogical cowboy analogy and argues that a person being gunned for ("the good guy" in Paust’s words) has a right to draw first on the person doing the gunning ("the bad guy" in Paust’s words), so long as the person being gunned for knows that the other person is gunning for him. This sounds like some absurdity that could only have come from the pen of some ex-Bush speech-writer now employed by the NRA.


Pardon me, but no objective person can allow Paust’s cowboy analogy to go without the ridicule it deserves. Paust doesn’t say it explicitly, but we all know that to Americans the "good guy" is always the guy with the 6-pointed star pinned to his shirt. If we disabuse ourselves of that universal American misconception that 6-pointed stars indicate who the good guys are, then we are left, as Dan suggests, with an analogy that revolves around the question of precisely who is gunning for whom here? Who is the gunner and who is the gunnee in the Israel/Iran dust-up? With five Iranian scientists lying face down in the dirt and Stuxnet out of the corral, I would hardly consider Israel to be either the good guy or the gunnee.

I think the goose/gander analogy is far more helpful for understanding the "Iran problem" than Paust’s good guy/bad guy analogy. That sort of cowboy thinking is both puerile and dangerous.

A less obviously ludicrous, but by no means less dangerous, argument made by Paust is that the phrase "armed attack" used by Chap VII, Artcle 51 of the UN Charter is translated into French as "armed aggression" and therefore all Israel requires to justify a hair-trigger "self-defense" preemptive attack on Iran is some subjective aggression by Iran, not an actual attack on the territory of Israel. This argument is so disingenuous as to raise serious concerns about Paust’s motives.

The clause at issue is in the first sentence of Article 51. The English version says:

"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, . . ."

The French version says:

"Aucune disposition de la présente Charte ne porte atteinte au droit naturel de légitime défense, individuelle ou collective, dans le cas o un Membre des Nations Unies est l’objet d’une agression armée,. . ."

Paust has lifted the phrase "agression armée" out of the French version and, apparently, run it through Google Translate and come up with "armed aggression," and on that basis he has down-graded the original concept of Article 51 that an "armed attack" is required to justify self-defense to the concept that "armed aggression" is sufficient.

But hold on a sec’ . . . the phrase of the French version that needs to be translated is not "agression armée," it is "l’objet d’une agression armée," which translates to "the object of an armed attack." The problem is the phrase "occurs against." It is nonsense in both English and French to say "if an armed aggression occurs against a Member State." Any armed aggression that "occurs against" someone is an attack. Although the original French version of Article 51 should have said "est l’objet d’une attaque armée," the existing "l’objet d’une agression armée" is properly translated [by Google Translate] to "the object of an armed attack" not "the object of an armed aggression."

This comports with the English translations of the Charter in all five non-English languages [Arabic, Chinese, Russian, French, Spanish] provided on the UN website. I have translated Article 51 of every one of the non-English versions to English via Google Translate and in every case the translation is "armed attack," not "armed aggression."

With all due respect to the professor, I would apply another Texas analogy in characterizing his analysis: Paust is dumping a load of bullshit on us with this "armed aggression" nonsense.


In addition to Dan Joyner’s careful, academic treatment of Paust’s BS, I would recommend Nima Shirazi’s take-down , too – inciteful and insightful, as always.










Copyright, Denis O'Brien, 2005-2016 ~ ~ All rights reserved.