There is a lot of talking about democratic structures going on: about THE democratic STATE. The ONLY One in the Middle East
As a far away outcast a lone bystander, I dare say I have some doubts:
Because I do actually remember a LOT of stories that tore apart this kind of presumption.
For instance, the declaration of an emergency state,
the denounciation of the beginning of a theokratic “republic”,so in the German Newspapers https://www.spiegel.de/ausland/justizreform-in-israel-wie-gefaehrdet-ist-die-demokratie-a-80ae04a0-34f4-4fa3-9166-b5979f3bfc8d
the denial of rights, for instance to prisoners, as in https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/crgygdr7vezo
and so on.
Medias and the journalists working there, very often have a very short memory, focussing channeling their attention towards the immediate past or the immediate future and often conveying more incentive information startling arrousing so called evidence as news, sometimes more than eager to trigger attention.
Perhaps I should say I grew up in a journalist’s house. The news started - during the eighties - during those long gone times without internet or social medias - around 6.30 p.m with local news, then, and evry thirty minutes we coudl swap to another news channel - within the range of Swiss and Austrian News, Bavarian and sometimes French news - we had a lot stuff to do until 10.30 pm - every day)
And I learned that sometimes events like the - execution - of Ceauscescu
being suspended to the darkness of a TV screen… could be exhausting for...lets say a young girl or the exhausted patience of an tired observer.
Unfortunately today, this NEW presumption of being directed against any "democratic State" in particular - or THE Democratic State in general - has now been directed against the International COURT of Den Haag and in context for the international community.
For me this is a very concerning situation.
The "League of Nations", The international community, The United Nations are for my research and my family - from the early twenties of the last century on - a very strong topic.
Concerning minorities or religion, tolerance, solidarity or - only - on behalf of philosophy.
The philosophy of right and law and whatever it takes to be an autonomous individuum.
And for some personal reasons the Nurenberg Trials are a very strong point in it -
as to the question - should Dr Hans Globke, be accused of crimes aganist humanity -
or should a secretary who had typed, written or transmitted orders in any other way be accused as well.
But the problem is: when and where had the idea popped up - in a German brain, precisely, please - and if it was so,
there should there could be some implications even ten years BEFORE the Nuremberg Trials had even started.
This is my problem:
The problem is (I hope will be able to express my thoughts correctly), that the idea, a State could be held accountable for non-protection or elimination of a part of it's population
and the idea that the individuals living under the jurisdiction of a State should be protected against the harmful government
and or on the other side that the rights of individuals as belonging to a special group could be threatened - and a state could be held accountable.
The question on who is protected and on what grounds
As Philippe Sands had said
in a Conference
now on Youtube:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YmKQS9mboko
This idea is a new one.
Philippe Sands, Barrrister and One of the co-defendants in the ongoing Den Haag Procedure writer about the "Ratline", for instance, the escape road for German mass murderers helped by the Catholic Church in the end of the Second World War
- which, by the way, has ended -
Is to be considered a PROGRESS after the second world war.
For my research, for instance, before my insignificance could reach out to Gustav Radbruch, Erik Wolf and/ or Martin Heidegger's Philosophy of the - presumably - national-socialist State -
I must take Edith Stein's considerations and observations about a possible conception of STATE seriously - which could be interesting due to her interest in Adolf Reinach.
In one of her earlier writings discussing the relation between a STATE and parts of its population, Edith Stein casts a doubt concerning the question if a State had the right to destroy or to impoverish a part of it's own population.
(She was not mentioning the possibility that a STATE must be held accountable for the destruction of the population of another territory or a possibly existing STATE EVEN IF this STATE was not recognized by the incriminated State-Subject)
If I understood it correctly Edith Stein was not examining the question further, but she said
She had difficulties in imaginaging the SURVIVAL of the State in question.
As if there was a kind of claim or promesse of prosperity as founding necessity on the basic ground of a State as a kind of what means to be a state).
The problem is not alone that of criminal gouvernance , "illegitimate authority" ( Chomsky)
or desobeying brutal orders or the indiscriminate application of a terror regime to a foreign population
the problem is - only - philosophical : where do get people the idea of another possibility of a better law. (No, it is not, wrong faux stupid wrong...Falsch nada rein. nullissime.)
would mean to find a way in a no-man's land to expose the unjust and to bring it forward for a better justice.
To pretend NOW as German Newspapers do, oblivious of their own reporting two years earlier, that there is injustice in the first beginnings, in the earliest stages of the possible Opening of a trial, bringing up charges .... as a step of an evolution of International LAW
and by doing so, to prepare the ground for the more general call of stalling the courts proceedings because of the INEQUALITY in the beginning of the accusation by
That this would constitute an indication Of INJUSTICE
Becaue it is a PROPAGANDA as claims
https://www.juedische-allgemeine.de/meinung/propaganda-krieg-vor-gericht/?q=Propaganda
Rafael Seligman, Jüdische Allgemeine, 05.02.2024
And this puts an end to every research.
No comparison.
No jurisdictional problems.
Only propaganda.
BUT whatever the higher groundings of the foundation of a State might be -
concerning PROPAGANDA - I must say, I have a very little word on my own.
And a hacked one, too. (This devaluation applies to the entire issue).
Picture. Wrinting machine
Would the German Newspaper SPIEGEL be so kind to accept me saying that this person
Siegfried Otto fath, who belonged to the German Occupoation force in Paris, France and in Greece Athens
working for the Auswärtige Amt, under Graevenitz and Rudolf Rahn
Got prisoner of war from march 1945 until Oct 1946 in Russian captivity, which he survived. In Midsth of October 1946 he made it back to Germany and from just around the 14th of November 1946 he served in the American forces.
Ratline IN PUBLIC sight
Which is quite surprising, perhaps du to a lack of consideration by the Allied Forces
Which could mean something else and COULD allow to rise the question:
How did he get there and what had he done to deserve this?
BUT WHAT IF I would today pretend, The Nuremberg Trials were a pure product of PROPAGANDA?
Would it not be a denial of the Nuremberg Trials?
But PROPAGANDA.
And some rotten and vulgar thinking of dead persons…
This rotting into the territorial side of nothingness
Produced by a dead person
a dead person in the making.
Oh shit, I forgot, This is, vulgar but not yet pornographique Heideggerian style.
