Should we get you on record right now saying you will absolutely support all charges on either side by the ICC?
Or are you hedging already?
Anti-Zionism Isn't The Same As Anti-semitism. Here's The History
- Thread starter niniveh
- Start date
Or are you hedging already?
and how idiotically hypocritical is to join dark ages team versus western civilization team while living in the west
Wow, you don't get many people using that 'savages vs civilization' language anymore.
Its so archaic and blatantly racist in a colonial way.
Same kind of language by the old school KKK types.
What's also amazing is that not a single Israeli supporter would ever call you out for racist language.
And its very clear why.
is it my fault that you are rooting for middle ages vs civilization?
This is John Cusack the actor, Farfar?
Like wtf does he know about law?!
My neighbour's cat could post shit he knows nothing about as well. You just post anything you find. You have made the last post in 10 or 12 Palestine related threads at the present time. You just sit on the board with about 15 threads going and go ballistic any time anyone posts in one of your threads, saying something you don't like. It's sad.
I didn't start those threads, mandrill, I'm just replying to idiotic posts. And wtf do you know about law, have you read your own posts?
You just liked leimonis's incredibly racist post, using the 'savages vs civilization' language that started with the KKK.
Were you always a white supremacist, or has this really just happened when you decided to support Israel?
I see, the only acceptable way to post here, according to you, is to flood a thread with 15 tweets by the IDF or white supremacists in a row.
TRhere's a real line in the sand now. Down with John Cusack though - always attack bad news messengers!!!
What mandy posts (was it really 15?) pales in comparison to what you flooded this thread with...
Israel didn't deny they were committing genocide, only suggesting that the ICJ didn't stop Bosnia so they shouldn't stop Israel.
Israel’s lawyer makes comparison with Bosnian genocide case
Christopher Staker argued that the court should not grant South Africa’s request for a pause in Israel’s operation because the ICJ did not order an end to military activity during the Bosnian genocide.
Jamie Sarkonak: Rosalie Abella dedicated her career to the ideology used to demonize Israel (msn.com)
Former Supreme Court judge Rosalie Abella is one of Canada’s foremost progressive jurists in Canada, responsible for numerous expansions in rights. Social justice is her wheelhouse. And, perhaps to the ire of some of her fans on the political left, she is an Israel supporter.
Abella made her stance clear Tuesday, with the publication of an op-ed for the Globe and Mail entitled, The Genocide Case Against Israel is an Abuse of the Postwar Legal Order. Her qualm was with South Africa, which brought a case to the International Court of Justice, that was heard Thursday, accusing Israel of working to exterminate Palestinians. South Africa hopes to have the court make Israel cease all military activity in Gaza and desist from any destruction of the Palestinian people. Hearings for the proceeding have begun.
“To me, this case represents an outrageous and cynical abuse of the principles underlying the international legal order that was set up after the Second World War,” Abella wrote.
“It is a legal absurdity to suggest that a country that is defending itself from genocide is thereby guilty of genocide.”
Abella sees the issue quite clearly: Israel experienced a savage terror attack at the hands of Hamas on Oct. 7, and is now preventing this from happening again. Fascinatingly, this puts the ultra-progressive judge on the side held more commonly by conservatives, and has resulted in her name landing in hot water within the left for her “shameful, vibes-based Israel defence” and even among former students.
“Now, we find ourselves in the perverse situation where a genocidal organization such as Hamas is able to escape legal scrutiny or sanction for committing genocidal acts, while the country that is the intended target of its genocidal intentions is being called upon by the International Court of Justice to defend itself from allegations of genocide,” Abella wrote.
She’s clearly frustrated with the international legal order, and that’s understandable. What’s perplexing, though, is the fact that she so valiantly ushered into Canada so many of the principles that are now being used as a springboard for political thrusts against Israel.
Not happy with an international legal order informed by oppressor-versus-oppressed narratives embraced warmly by nations hostile to the West? Perhaps the ideology of equity wasn’t wise to normalize in Canada after all.
Fans and critics alike will remind legal circles of Abella’s many accomplishments. She laid the foundation for the federal affirmative action program, also known as the Employment Equity Act — which is currently being primed for an expansion.
She’s played a role in expanding the notion of Aboriginal rights and the interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution, authoring Supreme Court decisions that expanded Indigenous status to the Métis, and attempted unsuccessfully to expand Aboriginal rights to include a requirement for government to consult Indigenous groups on any piece of legislation (in Australia, a parallel system was left up to democracy through a referendum, which the people rejected ).
Abella doesn’t believe in treating people equally. Instead, she favours equity, or “substantive equality” as it’s known in Canadian law. Some people don’t have the same advantages as the rest, goes the thinking, so a little boost here and there is a good thing for society. Most people can agree with this on a small scale — a runt of a litter may need special care to stay healthy, for example. But Abella applied her beliefs at scale, commanding the government to impose hiring preferences for Indigenous people, women, visible minorities and the disabled.
Apply these concepts to Israel, which is exactly what Israel’s critics do, and you get today’s discourse. Israelis have markedly better outcomes in life than their Palestinian neighbours; the Israeli military is performing drastically better than their opponents (as it did in the numerous wars it faced in the last century).
No matter what happened to Jews in the past, Israel has the upper hand today, and this is used to justify a strong barrage of criticism from the international community — particularly Muslim states as well as nations enamoured with anti-colonial identity (Ireland).
The idea that an “occupying” nation, a colonizer, must somehow recognize the “true inhabitants” of the land, the indigenous, with special rights and privileges, was woven into Abella’s work as she sat on various courts.
It’s an idea equally woven into South Africa, a country where mainstream political parties can openly chant, “Kill the Boer” in a clear call for violence against a racial group, and a country where the governing administration has restricted trade, added racial quotas for management jobs, and has sought to seize land and even allocate water rights (a critical component of agriculture) by race. Also, importantly, a country where oppressor-versus-oppressed violence is commonplace.
South African President Cyril Ramphosa governs a hotbed of hate, which his party is willing to institutionalize in law. Ramphosa can do this because his flavour of discrimination is in line with the “equity”-based ways of thought so often found in Abella’s own decisions. It does make sense, though, that his country would be the one to ask an international court to implore “oppressors” to simply shut up and take it.
We’ll have to wait and see what comes of South Africa’s case. Until then, perhaps the progressives fighting for policies of ethnic redistribution at home can reflect on just how toxic their politics become when granted full stage in the international arena.
National Post
Former Supreme Court judge Rosalie Abella is one of Canada’s foremost progressive jurists in Canada, responsible for numerous expansions in rights. Social justice is her wheelhouse. And, perhaps to the ire of some of her fans on the political left, she is an Israel supporter.
Abella made her stance clear Tuesday, with the publication of an op-ed for the Globe and Mail entitled, The Genocide Case Against Israel is an Abuse of the Postwar Legal Order. Her qualm was with South Africa, which brought a case to the International Court of Justice, that was heard Thursday, accusing Israel of working to exterminate Palestinians. South Africa hopes to have the court make Israel cease all military activity in Gaza and desist from any destruction of the Palestinian people. Hearings for the proceeding have begun.
“To me, this case represents an outrageous and cynical abuse of the principles underlying the international legal order that was set up after the Second World War,” Abella wrote.
“It is a legal absurdity to suggest that a country that is defending itself from genocide is thereby guilty of genocide.”
Abella sees the issue quite clearly: Israel experienced a savage terror attack at the hands of Hamas on Oct. 7, and is now preventing this from happening again. Fascinatingly, this puts the ultra-progressive judge on the side held more commonly by conservatives, and has resulted in her name landing in hot water within the left for her “shameful, vibes-based Israel defence” and even among former students.
“Now, we find ourselves in the perverse situation where a genocidal organization such as Hamas is able to escape legal scrutiny or sanction for committing genocidal acts, while the country that is the intended target of its genocidal intentions is being called upon by the International Court of Justice to defend itself from allegations of genocide,” Abella wrote.
She’s clearly frustrated with the international legal order, and that’s understandable. What’s perplexing, though, is the fact that she so valiantly ushered into Canada so many of the principles that are now being used as a springboard for political thrusts against Israel.
Not happy with an international legal order informed by oppressor-versus-oppressed narratives embraced warmly by nations hostile to the West? Perhaps the ideology of equity wasn’t wise to normalize in Canada after all.
Fans and critics alike will remind legal circles of Abella’s many accomplishments. She laid the foundation for the federal affirmative action program, also known as the Employment Equity Act — which is currently being primed for an expansion.
She’s played a role in expanding the notion of Aboriginal rights and the interpretation of section 35 of the Constitution, authoring Supreme Court decisions that expanded Indigenous status to the Métis, and attempted unsuccessfully to expand Aboriginal rights to include a requirement for government to consult Indigenous groups on any piece of legislation (in Australia, a parallel system was left up to democracy through a referendum, which the people rejected ).
Abella doesn’t believe in treating people equally. Instead, she favours equity, or “substantive equality” as it’s known in Canadian law. Some people don’t have the same advantages as the rest, goes the thinking, so a little boost here and there is a good thing for society. Most people can agree with this on a small scale — a runt of a litter may need special care to stay healthy, for example. But Abella applied her beliefs at scale, commanding the government to impose hiring preferences for Indigenous people, women, visible minorities and the disabled.
Apply these concepts to Israel, which is exactly what Israel’s critics do, and you get today’s discourse. Israelis have markedly better outcomes in life than their Palestinian neighbours; the Israeli military is performing drastically better than their opponents (as it did in the numerous wars it faced in the last century).
No matter what happened to Jews in the past, Israel has the upper hand today, and this is used to justify a strong barrage of criticism from the international community — particularly Muslim states as well as nations enamoured with anti-colonial identity (Ireland).
The idea that an “occupying” nation, a colonizer, must somehow recognize the “true inhabitants” of the land, the indigenous, with special rights and privileges, was woven into Abella’s work as she sat on various courts.
It’s an idea equally woven into South Africa, a country where mainstream political parties can openly chant, “Kill the Boer” in a clear call for violence against a racial group, and a country where the governing administration has restricted trade, added racial quotas for management jobs, and has sought to seize land and even allocate water rights (a critical component of agriculture) by race. Also, importantly, a country where oppressor-versus-oppressed violence is commonplace.
South African President Cyril Ramphosa governs a hotbed of hate, which his party is willing to institutionalize in law. Ramphosa can do this because his flavour of discrimination is in line with the “equity”-based ways of thought so often found in Abella’s own decisions. It does make sense, though, that his country would be the one to ask an international court to implore “oppressors” to simply shut up and take it.
We’ll have to wait and see what comes of South Africa’s case. Until then, perhaps the progressives fighting for policies of ethnic redistribution at home can reflect on just how toxic their politics become when granted full stage in the international arena.
National Post
There's a difference between you and me, Frankie.
I dump all the relevant posts that accumulate in my Twitter feed twice a day into the TERB threads. It takes me about 10 minutes each time.
You sit on all of your dozen or so Israel threads all day and guard them like a pit bull guarding its stash of favourite chew toys and you attack anyone that posts in your threads stuff you don't like.
And your dialogue is puerile. You are unable to discuss any of the real issues in the Middle East. Instead, you just repeat slogans about "oppression", "racism", "apartheid" and "colonialism" and you call people you know damn well are left of centre "racists".
It's a waste of time dealing with you. You cannot function at adult level.
She posted an opinion piece based off of her views as a Jew, not as a judge looking at the law.
Were you disbarred or something?
You claim to be a lawyer on this board but your posts have devolved in to a form of white supremacy where you post directly from the IDF and their spokesman as if their word is gospel. I post when I have time or am waiting for something else to happen. It takes hardly any time.
Its at the point where you won't accept reports from Amnesty, HRW, B'tselem, the UN, UNICEF, MSF or any globally respected third party HRO.
You won't accept reports from Al Jazeera or any non right wing source. Your discussion of the issues is filled with Islamaphobic claims about the evils of Palestinians, justifications for killing women and children, incredibly shoddy thinking, ignoring human rights issues and international law and an incredibly misinformed sense of the history.
You can't discuss issues and instead just dismiss them out of hand.
For instance, here's the South African charges for genocide laid out at the ICJ along with 4 HRO incredibly well researched and argued reports on Israeli apartheid.
You will dismiss them and are now totally unable to debate like a lawyer, reading the reports, checking the evidence and using the law.
Instead you will say they are all biased and Israel is within their rights to kill all Palestinians because you think they are evil sub humans or Amalek.
Israel's apartheid against Palestinians
Palestinians are systematically subjected to home demolitions and forced evictions, and live in constant fear of losing their homes. For more than 73 years, Israel has been forcibly displacing entire Palestinian communities. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinians’ homes have been demolished...
www.amnesty.org
A Threshold Crossed
The 213-page report, “A Threshold Crossed: Israeli Authorities and the Crimes of Apartheid and Persecution,” examines Israel’s treatment of Palestinians. It presents the present-day reality of a single authority, the Israeli government, ruling primarily over the area between the Jordan River and...
Apartheid
The Israeli regime enacts in all the territory it controls (Israeli sovereign territory, East Jerusalem, the West Bank, and the Gaza Strip) an apartheid regime. One organizing principle lies at the base of a wide array of Israeli policies: advancing and perpetuating the supremacy of one group –...
Israel’s occupation of Palestinian Territory is ‘apartheid’: UN rights expert
Calling on the international community to accept and adopt the recent findings in his report, an independent human rights expert said on Friday that “apartheid is being practiced by Israel in the occupied Palestinian territory”.
MEMRI intentionally mistranslates videos for hate filled people like you.
Its well known and you know it yourself.
