Letters to the editor on “I never want to hear the words ‘international law’ again”
[These letters posted on June 27, 2025 are translated from the German on the Internet, https://www.nachdenkseiten.de/?p=135189.]
Jens Berger points out in this commentary the “double standards in their most bizarre form” in dealing with international law when comparing the wars between Russia and Ukraine and Israel and Iran. International law knows no exceptions or special rules, but is very clear on the prohibition of violence. Those who denounce Russia’s violation of international law should not remain silent about Israel’s violation of international law.
At least in the opinion of the German government and the EU, not everyone is equal before international law. However, as long as international law is applied in a “purely instrumental, interest-driven, and selective” manner, it no longer has any meaning. Hence the demand: “But then please, please, finally, keep quiet about international law.” We would like to thank you for the numerous and interesting letters to the editor on this subject. The following selection has been compiled for you by Christian Reimann.
1. Letter to the editor
Thank you, Mr. Berger,
there is really nothing more to add to that… except for one thing: I never want to hear the words “constitutional state” in connection with Germany again.
Because actually, everyone (politicians, media, private individuals) who denies or relativizes Israel’s war of aggression against Iran, which is contrary to international law, should now end up in court under §140, 130, 80 STGB (German Criminal Code). In this case, the public prosecutor’s office must even take action ex officio. A complaint is therefore not necessary. Will anything happen? Of course not!
LG
S. Silber
2nd letter
Dear Mr. Berger,
I fully agree with your comment on the above topic. Once again, our politicians are applying double standards to an issue.
The term “international law” is used as it suits their own political agenda! Some are the good guys, others are the bad guys. Depending on who is which, the use of force and crimes are either praised or condemned. The double standards of our elite are truly shameful!
Have a good day!
From our reader B.-R. R.
3rd letter
Dear Editor
The Nazis already knew that international law and human rights are useless, as exemplified by their most prominent constitutional lawyer:
According to Carl Schmitt, the universal claim to the protection of human rights is a threat to the sovereignty of “people” and “space.”
Source: Volker Weiß: The Authoritarian Revolt. The New Right and the Downfall of the West. Klett-Cotta, Stuttgart 2018, p. 208 f.
Best regards
Harald Artur Irmer
4th letter
Dear Mr. Berger,
I fully share your view that the German political elite “uses international law in a purely instrumental, interest-driven, and selective manner.”
However, your account of the official reason given by Russia for its invasion of Ukraine is incorrect. The prevention of NATO attack missiles on the Russian/Ukrainian border certainly played a role, but the official reason was different. First, Russia recognized the Donetsk and Luhansk republics as independent states, citing the precedent of Kosovo. Donetsk and Luhansk then asked Russia for support in defending themselves against Ukrainian attacks, which they considered a violation of the Minsk agreements, in accordance with Article 51 of the UN Charter.
This formal justification is, of course, also not in accordance with international law, since Russia does not even belong to the small circle of states that have recognized Kosovo.
With kind regards,
Bernd Meyer
5. Letter to the editor
Dear Mr. Berger,
Can Russia’s intervention in the civil war in Ukraine and Israel’s attack on Iran really be compared?
“Russia justified its invasion of Ukraine with a preemptive strike. It saw its own security interests threatened by the deployment of Western weapons systems and Ukraine’s impending NATO membership. This may have been justified from Russia’s point of view, but it was a clear violation of the UN Charter’s prohibition of the use of force.”
That is only part of the story. The other part is an eight-year civil war between Kiev and Donetsk and Luhansk. The ideological backdrop should not be forgotten either, with racist propaganda against everything Russian, including a ban on language and culture. From Russia’s point of view, it would have been necessary to intervene from a moral perspective. However, that was not the reason for the invasion in 2022. Rather, it was the previous declaration of independence by the two regions and their request for support from Russia. That is the legal side of the matter. If you want to compare it to something, it would be better to compare it to the separation of Kosovo from Serbia. And that is celebrated in the West.
“Israel also saw its own security interests threatened by Iran’s nuclear weapons program.”
Iran has repeatedly asserted that it does not have a nuclear weapons program, as this would contradict the principles of Islam. There was an agreement between the US and Iran on international control of Iran’s nuclear program. This was unilaterally terminated by the US. There are still IAEA representatives in Tehran who have just stated that no radioactivity was released during the Israeli attacks. Who is predictable here and who is the aggressor?
I don’t even want to listen to what the current German government is saying about Israel. It’s as crazy as everything else they do, whether in foreign or domestic policy.
Germany has supported Israel in the past. I can’t judge whether that was all right in the 1970s. In principle, I think it was right. But now we should distinguish between the country and the government. There is now a Zionist regime that is racist and violent, roughly equivalent to that of the former apartheid state of South Africa (to use a comparison that is not controversial in Germany). Israel as a state can only survive if it agrees to a mutually acceptable two-state solution. It has failed to do so for 70 years.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Israel’s attack on Iran are neither legally nor morally comparable. What they do have in common, however, is that the “West” has its dirty fingers in the pie in both cases. In Kosovo, too, for that matter.
Best regards,
Rolf Henze
6. Letter to the editor
A STRONG FORTRESS
Thank Yahweh, Israel is not
in Gaza or now in Iran
as it was in Syria, rejoice, my soul,
always in accordance with international law, completely humane,
never destructive or brutal
until the most just final victory
over the evil ones with a fiery ray
never an attack war!
Always only against criminals and never
as one themselves, and always with good reason,
threatened on all sides by autocracy,
which, in alliance with Moscow and Beijing,
would destroy all values of freedom and justice
if we did not stand so firmly
together in this battle
to save the human race!
Burn them and chase them out of their nest,
the murderers in the Kremlin, in all the palaces
of terror, the enemies of the stock market and the banks
and wealth and prosperity in the golden West.
Shalom, great Yahweh, and thank you!
150625
(rd)
With many thanks for your work,
Rainer Doering
7th letter to the editor
Dear NDS, Jens Berger,
we should not overlook one thing: the first violation of international law was the US regime change against the correctly elected Yanukovych government in Ukraine on the Maidan in 2014. Russia accepted this violation of international law for eight years and tried to resolve the conflict peacefully through MinskI/II. When Zelensky demanded nuclear weapons from the West in 2022 for his war of expulsion in Donbass and an open war against Russia, Russia had to intervene preventively with a special military operation to protect itself and the Russian population in Donbass. Russia’s SMO was therefore not a breach of international law or a war of aggression, but a necessary defensive measure that was only made necessary by breaches of international law and EU fraud – Merkel/Hollande, Minsk I/II – against Russia.
The fact that the Russian population in the Donbass and four oblasts in Ukraine voted in elections and referendums to secede from Ukraine and join the Russian Federation was due to the Selensky regime’s eight-year war against the Donbass and the complete disenfranchisement of these Russians in Ukraine. This too was a violation of international law by Ukraine against a large part of its own population! None of the 18 sanctions imposed by the EU against Russia are covered by international law. None of them were approved by the UN!
In contrast, there is nothing – absolutely nothing – in relation to Israel that can be used to relativize or generalize the Ukraine conflict. Even before October 7, 2023, Israel had violated international law countless times in its treatment of the Palestinian population. The Hamas operation was a desperate escape from the walled “open-air” prison of Gaza. Today, Israel is responsible for the murder of 100,000 Palestinians, mostly women and children, countless maimed children, and genocide against the Palestinian portion of its own population. This genocide and the associated ethnic cleansing to create a “racially pure Jewish state” are the most serious crimes under international law.
Israel’s latest attack on Iran was an aggressive war of aggression and thus a violation of international law that cannot be justified by anything. By supporting Israel, the US and the EU are complicit in this violation of international law and the genocide in Gaza, as well as all of Israel’s related crimes! Iran’s massive operation against Israel is a military defensive measure against the aggression of a criminal regime in Israel – no ifs, ands, or buts!
Furthermore, it is irrelevant whether Iran ever produces nuclear weapons or not. Since Israel possesses undeclared nuclear weapons (the Samson option), Iran would never be able to use such weapons. On the other hand, neither Trump nor Israel can prohibit Iran from developing its own complete nuclear fuel cycle and using it for peaceful purposes. That, too, is contrary to international law.
Let us draw a conclusion: All violations of international law have been committed by the West and the EU, including Germany. Russia and Iran, on the other hand, strictly adhere to international law and UN decisions. Let’s not simply sweep international law under the carpet, but let’s do everything in our power to ensure that it is strictly adhered to again and help the UN regain the status it once had. It is the only thing we have globally!
Greetings
from our reader R.O.
8. Letter to the editor
Hello Nachdenkseiten, Jens Berger,
The assessments and the respective expressions of solidarity or condemnation on the part of the Western world are completely coherent and logical. One should just not take international law or the UN Charter as a guideline. Like any law, international law only really comes into its own when it is necessary to claim a breach of it. In other words, a right that is never violated, never questioned, and therefore never *challenged* would be meaningless as such. A right always requires a judiciary and an executive branch—in other words, it ultimately requires *force*. Disregard for international law has existed for as long as international law itself. International law is enforced by condemnation (by UN bodies), the imposition of sanctions, and blue helmet missions. Condemnations are a joke; sanctions are undermined/circumvented; blue helmets do not *end* actions that violate international law, nor do they restore the status quo ante.
That said, all the cries of “breach of international law!!” are, at best, empty rhetoric, a purely declarative recourse to an authority and institution that has been compromised from the outset.
The valid guiding principle of the Western virtual archangels and their armies (look it up in Milton!) is the unshakeable belief in the inalienable human right to free commercial development. The “happiness” in the “pursuit of happiness” in the preamble to the US Constitution means nothing other than GOOD BUSINESS. Anyone, whether a simple consumer or a state constitution, who hinders or even negates this “pursuit of happiness,” who in any way interferes with the market-value-capital wheel, is an enemy, is actually evil. Those who, in pursuing their own path, fall into self-invented abominations that are unusual in the Western world of values, and even dress them up in religious or other mythical garb, have completely screwed up. That is as evil as it gets.
I do not exclude myself; I too have been socialized in the Western Christian values, the whole program. I can now pose critically and sarcastically—but the fact that I can do so without risk to life and limb is something I “owe” to the Western archangel regime. Nevertheless, my “relative gratitude” does not go so far as to hope for a truly definitive final victory of the Western armies. My… let’s put it nicely. My distrust of competition, advantage, value, and performance is simply too great.
Sincerely
Stephan Kendzia
9th letter to the editor
Good afternoon, Mr. Berger,
You are right, this word should actually be removed from the vocabulary. It is somewhat amusing to want to attribute a nuclear bomb to Iran, as has been the case for over 40 years now. But even if they had one, what would happen then?
Apart from rhetoric, the Iranians definitely have better things to do than immediately drop it on Israel. Iran is an emerging country, just as Russia and China are emerging countries. This is not understood in the West, where, based on absolute world domination, they are in decline.
Economically, things may still be going quite well, but market share is being lost and will never be regained. How could it be otherwise when even the economy serves only to make the super-rich even richer? Others, on the other hand, tend to use their profits for real economic development.
So once again, they are “defending” themselves by moving forward. The example of Israel shows perfectly that you can arm yourself, even mentally, as much as you want. This does not make things more relaxed; rather, the opposite is true. Gaza, Lebanon, Syria—there is tension with almost everyone there, and every effort is made to demonstrate maximum superiority. The same is true in the West Bank, which has been occupied for so long that there is a sincere belief that it can be ruled as one pleases. This is a colonial approach by the West that has been tried and tested for centuries. Whether for God, country, or shareholders.
No one knows how things will turn out with Iran. Normally, you fight a few rounds, stop at some point, and declare yourselves the winners on both sides. Otherwise, Iran just has to endure the aggression, which is not exactly a strength of Western thinking. That’s why I find it somewhat incomprehensible that people are now unilaterally pushing for regime change there.
It’s interesting what people are selling as defense these days. It’ll probably sound something like this when NATO attacks somewhere in a few years. Simply because the “enemy” is still there or is simply being ruled wrongly.
In terms of war logistics, we are now in the year 1935, to use a piece of tangible history. The roles have been assigned, a war is firmly planned, and the arms race is on, regardless of the consequences. I find it only minimally reassuring that Western politicians will probably botch this “reconstruction effort” as usual. Because then the poor preparation, together with the ever-present lack of planning, will have to be compensated for with a more determined “mindset.”
Before the BT election, I warned that it was the last chance to stop our supposedly democratic parties and those behind them. Now, a few monumental broken promises later, we are finally in the final phase before war. Even manifestos from a few “SPD grandpas” won’t change that.
This war will also be justified with the same “international law” as Israel’s invasion of Iran. As always, they will (have to) rely on regime change. Because the West cannot really defeat Russia or China, this time because of their nuclear weapons.
But the point is: wars are only started when there is no other hope left (i.e., the complete collapse of the enemy in the short term). As can be seen from Israel’s actions, this alone spreads calmness and superiority on all sides.
Only a few people are still capable of thinking; the masses are “voting” themselves into war without a second thought. In quotation marks, because there is practically no choice, nor is one intended. All that remains is to make “international law” credible to all customers, and this has obviously already been achieved to a considerable extent.
With kind regards
Kai P.
10th letter to the editor
Dear Mr. Berger
Here are some thoughts on international law
The term “international law” is somewhat misleading, as it suggests that a legal system exists, which is not the case. A legal system includes legislation, jurisprudence, and the executive branch. The legislation of international law is not created by representatives elected or legitimized by the people, but is a conglomeration of perfectly sensible rules that have developed in the course of peoples living together and have been further developed by “experts.” and recognized by many countries. The International Court of Justice rules according to these principles, which is not entirely unproblematic when one considers the origins of international law and the nomination of judges.
The executive branch of each country implements these rulings if the countries recognize the “international law” system. What is missing from the “international law” system is its own executive branch that is recognized and supported by all states. It would have to be an executive branch that is powerful enough to enforce court decisions against states. We are a long way from this, because the major powers that possess nuclear weapons do not submit to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and protect allied states when they are brought before the court.
In most cases of conflict between states, no court ruling is made; instead, assessments are made by “experts” from the parties to the conflict. This makes international law a politically guided and therefore unsuitable instrument for assessing conflicts.
Current examples include the assessment of the war in Ukraine and the Gaza conflict. The same actions by the parties to the conflict are assessed differently or tolerated depending on which states are judging them. The US even sanctions the judges of the International Court of Justice.
We agree that Putin has violated international law. However, this is only an (probably correct) assessment.
What would be decisive, however, would be a court ruling, which does not exist. In a legal system, it is not the subjective assessment of “experts” that counts, but only the judgment of the court. Before a court passes judgment, it examines all aspects of a case and then passes judgment. This is not the case here. As we all know, our judgments regarding a matter can differ greatly from the court’s judgment.
It is therefore problematic to invoke international law in the war in Ukraine or Gaza or the conflict between Israel and Iran, because this makes one a judge. This is followed by the repeated statement that Putin must not be allowed to get away with violating international law and that the law of the strongest must not defeat the strength of the law. This also means taking the position of the executive branch. This also gives the impression that one is in a position to enforce “international law” by defeating Putin. This statement makes negotiations impossible by obscuring the fact that power interests are at stake on both sides and that only a diplomatic solution can end the war.
The parties to the conflict were well aware of this in the past, because we largely acted according to the motto of change through rapprochement, and the interests of the other side, at that time the Soviet Union, were also recognized and taken into account.
The fear of nuclear war secured our peace. This fear has diminished in recent years with the argument that Putin will not use nuclear weapons.
The war in Ukraine is a consequence of this new confrontational policy, in which Western politicians are actively involved.
The idea of international law is to be welcomed, but at the moment, references to international law only serve to legitimize the interests of the politicians of the countries involved in the eyes of their own voters and to create a climate that justifies war.
With kind regards
Norbert Klose