And as it does when I might suggest criticism of any antiwar group, but with a generally one-sided focus on "Biden’s War,” and his crimes under International Law and the Law of War (which I actively denounce as well). But with omission of the “opposing party’s” even more active role in Israeli genocide, the Republicans, as one sees in the rhetoric of Trump, DeSantis, and Ramaswamy especially, one must criticize such omissions. Especially with such closely divided government as the U.S. has, with Republican leaders in Congress like Mike Johnson virtually co-Presidents, especially with so many Goldwater Democrats allied with Republicans. And a POTUS election campaign underway with Republicans ready to pounce on any less than absolute support for Israel’s fascist government, under Ben-Gvir, largely in fact!
Worst of all are those heralded by “New Right Conservative,” so-called “Restrainers,” as “Right-wing Peaceniks,” with Johnson the choice for Speaker by this wing in Congress, like Gaetz. With all on record, along with the equally malignant Heritage Foundation as their representative “Think Tank,” for aggression against China, Iran, and yes, Russia (see Project 2025), constituting “war,” over all the “domains of warfare" defined as such by the USG. To include outright “kinetic war,” by proxies in league with the CIA/USSOCOM. And yet, the “silence” on their war crime of "Incitement of Genocide,” is deafening!
“Of War-Councils and War-Mongering: Considering the Viability of Incitement to Aggression"
Excerpt: "In other words, as elucidated by Glanville Williams, incitement is an inchoate crime:
An inciter is one who counsels, commands or advises the commission of a crime. It will be observed that this definition is much the same as that of an accessory before the fact. What, then, is the difference between the two? It is that in incitement the crime has not (or has not necessarily) been committed, whereas a party cannot be an accessory in crime unless the crime has been committed. An accessory before the fact is party to consummated mischief; an inciter is guilty only of an inchoate crime.45
International law has incorporated these elements into its definition of incitement, which has applied almost exclusively to the offence of direct and public incitement to commit genocide. Arising from cases adjudicating guilt in the planned mass slaughter of the Tutsi in 1994, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda issued a series of groundbreaking judgments defining incitement.46 This jurisprudence broke the offence down into the following elements: (1) public; (2) direct; (3) mens rea; and (4) speech content. In Prosecutor v. Akayesu, the ICTR held that, in the context of the crime of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, speech could be deemed “public” if addressed to “a number of individuals in a public place” or to “members of the general public at large by such means as the mass media, for example, radio or television.”47 And the communication could satisfy the "direct" criterion if, when considering the language “in the light of its cultural and linguistic content . . . the persons for whom the message was intended immediately grasped the implication thereof.”48 The requisite mens rea (element (3) above) bifurcates into a dual intent: (a) to provoke another to commit genocide, and (b) to commit the underlying genocide itself.49 Significantly, given its inchoate nature as discussed above, causation is not a required element -- put another way, to make out a prima facie case, the prosecutor need not prove the incitement resulted in genocide.”
. . .
One other point about the incitement crime in international law bears mention. One of its prominent features is its projection of hatred toward and dehumanization of intended victims to anesthetize would-be perpetrators to extreme and large-scale violence. In the genocide context, the ICTR cases are rife with examples. (TP-Palestinophobia, related to Islamophobia, but even more intense, as Mike Johnson exhibits so well!)
. . .
In light of these considerations, how can one best situate any potential relationship between aggression and incitement? Does it make sense to criminalize incitement to aggression? Given the range of relevant aggression conduct considered above -- planning, preparing, initiating, and executing -- as well as aggression's leadership component, incitement (i.e. advocating illegal conduct) would seem to apply in two key contexts: (1) urging persons within the leadership apparatus to participate in conduct that contributes to the planning, preparation, initiation or execution of acts of aggression; and (2) advocating to lower-level officials or soldiers or to members of the public at large to execute the leaders' plans for aggression.
The first type of urging -- in other words, something that would fit into the definition of "incitement" -- seems to contemplate meetings and/or discussions within the cadre of government or military high-level decision-makers. The International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg explained that this group could be rather large in scope:
Hitler could not make aggressive war by himself. He had to have the cooperation of statesmen, military leaders, diplomats, and businessmen . . . .63
And certainly, any advocacy toward committing acts of aggression in this context could be more pronounced in a leadership framework less dictatorial than Nazi Germany. Such advocacy would take place in councils of government or military within the more sequestered corridors of power.64 It is submitted that this sort of "behind closed door" advocacy for aggression should be referred to as "war-council" incitement.
The second kind of advocacy is directed toward persons outside of the leadership cadre who are nevertheless essential to the prosecution of acts of aggression. At the 1945 negotiations in London for the IMT Charter, Chief U.S. Prosecutor Robert Jackson alluded to this kind of incitement in the following colloquy with British representative Sir David Maxwell Fyfe:
SIR DAVID MAXWELL FYFE: Mr. Justice Jackson, just to clarify the discussion, could your point be fairly put this way: that you want the entering into the plan to be made a substantive crime?
MR. JUSTICE JACKSON: Yes. The knowing incitementand planning is as criminal as the execution.65
The IMT indictment specified the kind of incitement to which Justice Jackson referred. It "ascribed . . . criminal responsibility to the defendants with regard to . . . propaganda intended to directly incite to specific wars of aggression."66 And responsibility for such propaganda factored into the convictions of crimes against peace for IMT defendants Rudolf Hess, Wilhelm Keitel, and Alfred Rosenberg.67
Here is Mike Johnson’s 4th of 7 Core Principle of Conservatism
4. Peace through Strength
The first obligation of the federal government is to provide for the “common defense” of the United States by securing our borders and protecting our homeland and our strategic interests abroad. We are not “the world’s police force,” but because America serves in a natural role of moral leadership in an increasingly dangerous world, and weakness invites aggression, we must remain the strongest military power on earth—fully prepared and capable of defeating any adversaries, tyrants or terrorists, under any circumstances, at any time.This requires maintaining sufficient investments in our air, land, sea, nuclear, and cyber capabilities to deter foreign aggression, and properly training, equipping, and supporting our troops and their families, as well as our veterans and wounded warriors.
And obviously included under that is our co-belligerent, Israel, and their fascist leadership/think tank partner of National Conservative Yoram Hazony, Kohelet Policy Forum. And their partner exercising so much influence in Texas, the Tikvah Fund. Johnson doesn’t need the intermediary of Yoram Hazony/National Conservatism however for his standing as a Zionist; it's inherent to his Zionist fascist ideology!
BLUF: "Johnson’s first stop on his Abelow-organized visit was to the Kohelet Policy Forum – the conservative think tank that has been an essential partner to the government’s efforts to weaken the judiciary.
The hard-right Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) on Sunday held its annual dinner—and its featured guest was none other than newly minted House Speaker Mike Johnson, who received the organization’s Dr. Miriam and Sheldon G. Adelson Defender of Israel Award.
BLUF: “We should not be dictating to Israel [on] their military strategy. We should be supporting our ally, which is the only stable democracy in the Middle East.”
Johnson and a group of Republican lawmakers traveled to Columbia University to condemn antisemitism and the demonstrations taking place on campus. The group was heckled by protesters during a press conference."
Mike Johnson says he called White House with threat to ‘intervene’ over Israel sanctions
House Speaker Mike Johnsonsaid Wednesday he called White House national security adviser Jake Sullivan and threatened to “intervene” if President Biden slapped sanctions on an Israeli military battalion over its alleged conduct in the West Bank.
“We heard a rumor of this before our [aid] bill was actually brought for a vote in the House [Saturday], I mean, hours before,” Johnson (R-La.) told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt.
“And I’ll tell you what I did, Hugh, and I don’t, I guess I’m breaking news here,” Johnson went on. “No one knows this. But I called the White House immediately and talked with Jake Sullivan, and [Secretary of State] Tony Blinken was overseas at the moment.
4
Speaker Mike Johnson seemed hopeful that the Biden administration wouldn’t deploy those sanctions. REUTERS
“But I made him send me an email where he committed to me in writing that it would not affect any of the funding that we were working on to assist Israel in this critical time, and that they would be very judicious in that.”
Johnson added that the issue “seems to be have been resolved, and I am very hopeful that they won’t try to proceed on that. If they do, we’ll intervene.”
Axios reported Saturday that the Biden administration is expected to announce sanctions on the Israel Defense Forces’ Netzah Yehuda battalion sometime this week.
The unprecedented US rebuke would prevent the battalion, whose membership is largely comprised of ultra-Orthdox nationalist Jews, from receiving US military assistance or training.
US sanctions against a regular Israeli military unit would also be a major public relations black eye to the Jewish state as its war against Hamas terrorists in the Gaza Strip nears the seven-month mark.
The investigation of the Netzah Yehuda battalion stems from a series of incidents prior to Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack against Israel.
4
Jake Sullivan talked with Mike Johnson because Antony Blinken was overseas, according to the speaker. Al Drago/POOL/EPA-EFE/Shutterstock
4
President Biden has come under intense pressure from his progressive base for backing Israel. AP
The most notable of these took place in January 2022, when 78-year-old Palestinian American Omar Assad died of a heart attack after being arrested at an Israeli military checkpoint.
An IDF investigation found that Assad’s death was “a grave and unfortunate event, resulting from a moral failure and poor decision-making on the part of the soldiers” who failed to check Assad’s condition after he lost consciousness.
Blinken said last week that he made “determinations” on sanctions against the battalion and teased an announcement “very soon.”
4
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has faced blowback from top Democrats.
According to Axios, the Israeli wartime government has pressed the State Department to reconsider the sanctions decision, while Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stood by the unit.
“If somebody thinks they can impose sanctions on a unit in the IDF,” Netanyahu said in a statement Sunday, “I will fight this with all my powers.”
