From Ian:
PMW: Fatah: Murder of Israeli athletes at Munich Olympics was "heroic operation"
Eugene Kontorovich: New research paper: ‘Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories’
PMW: Fatah: Murder of Israeli athletes at Munich Olympics was "heroic operation"
Mahmoud Abbas' Fatah Movement continues to take pride in the massacre at the 1972 Munich Olympics, when Palestinian terrorists from the Black September terror group murdered 11 Israeli athletes.
On the anniversary of the killings, Fatah's Facebook page called the massacre a "heroic operation", posting photos of the terrorists carrying out the attack and of Black September leader Salah Khalaf. Fatah stated that the attack showed "the courage and power of the Palestinian resistance fighter":
"The 44th anniversary, Sept. 5-6, 1972, the anniversary of carrying out of the heroic Munich operation that was carried out by fighters of the PLO Black September organization. The Munich operation is still remembered and is recorded in history, and it demonstrates the meaning of the courage and power of the Palestinian resistance fighter and his self-sacrifice for the homeland and for the cause."
[Official Fatah Facebook page, Sept. 5, 2016]
Another Fatah Facebook post highlighted Fatah's role in the attack with the phrase "Munich operation, Sept. 5, 1972 - Fatah was here."
Fatah's glorification of the Munich killings and its continued praise of the murderers as heroes comes only two months after the International Olympic Committee finally commemorated the tragedy with an official ceremony at the recent Rio Olympics.
Eugene Kontorovich: New research paper: ‘Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories’
My new working paper, “Unsettled: A Global Study of Settlements in Occupied Territories,” is now available on SSRN.Blood libels thicker than water
Imagine that someone (a scholar or a diplomat) wanted to understand how the general prohibition on aggression in the U.N. Charter was interpreted in international law. What do the general words of Art. 2(4) mean in practice? To figure out what Art. 2(4) means, he studies the Indian invasion and annexation of Portuguese territories in 1961. Examining this one case and the international reaction to it, he would conclude that the use of force and annexation of territory are permissible in international law.
Of course, this understanding would be deeply mistaken, because the Goa incident itself was highly anomalous. Without looking at other cases, from the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait to the Russian takeover of Crimea, one would misunderstand how states really interpret the provision. And that is why international law scholars, like lawyers generally, do not try to tease legal rules out of one particular case, but try to discern the pattern in the entire set of cases. Making law from one case risks serious error.
Yet that is exactly what happens with Art. 49(6) of the Fourth Geneva Convention, the provision that, loosely speaking, restricts settlements in occupied territory. The provision itself is quite obscure and has never been applied in any war crimes case. Thus, looking at state practice would be particularly useful to understand the scope of its meaning.
Yet scholars and humanitarian groups have only sought to understand its meaning through the lens of one case, that of Israel. If there were no other situations to look at, this would be understandable. But, as I show in my new research paper, settlement activity is fairly ubiquitous in occupations of contiguous territory. Yet state practice in these other situations has not been used to inform an understanding of the meaning of Art. 49(6).
As politics goes, it doesn’t get much dirtier than the Palestinian Authority deliberately letting untreated sewage flow into water sources because it is reluctant to cooperate with Israel in building wastewater treatment plants, even though the funds and framework exist. Apparently, the PA considers normalization of relations with Israel more dangerous than any health hazards presented by the pollution and drilling of piratical wells.
In an extensive study published in 2012 by the Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies, hydrologist Prof. Haim Gvirtzman notes that, thanks to Israeli efforts, “In comparison to [their] Arab neighbors, the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria now enjoy much better access to running water.” That was before the civil war in Syria compounded the infrastructure problems there and sent a flow of more than half a million refugees into water-strapped Jordan.
Faced with the latest libel, several friends were reminded of the periodic “dam lies” that one wit termed “a flood libel.” For example, in February, news outlets around the world reported that Israel had deliberately opened the gates to dams bordering Gaza, flooding villages and leaving scores homeless.
Israeli officials swiftly pointed out that there are no dams in the area. Israel’s water company, Mekorot, has in the past answered pleas by the UN to provide Gaza with heavy-duty pumps to help it deal with the flooding. Ironically, the Dutch water company Vitens cut off contacts with Mekorot for alleged violation of international law for operating beyond the 1949 lines.
The Palestinian stories don’t hold water. But Israel is being made to pay hell. Since the Middle Ages, many, many Jewish lives have been lost in pogroms and attacks following false claims of Jews poisoning the wells. The Palestinians will not die of either thirst or poisoned waters. But lives are already being lost by poisoned minds.





























